Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Walkers and Rhinos need it more. Dreadnoughts and Rhinos are terribly fragile, especially the Rhino giving up easy First Blood. The Defiler is massively overcosted and needs its 2+, otherwise it just falls over to things that it is too expensive to fall over to.

The Leman Russ can just park itself 72" from the enemy, rear to the table edge, making getting to its rear armour a difficult prospect. It does not need a 2+

So you're giving vehicles saves based on what they "need" to be competitive?

Are Leman Russes so much more common than Land Raiders that they need a worse save to make the Land Raider a better tank?

I am trying to piece fluff and value together as best I can.

Why does a LR 'need' a 2+?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Walkers and Rhinos need it more. Dreadnoughts and Rhinos are terribly fragile, especially the Rhino giving up easy First Blood. The Defiler is massively overcosted and needs its 2+, otherwise it just falls over to things that it is too expensive to fall over to.

The Leman Russ can just park itself 72" from the enemy, rear to the table edge, making getting to its rear armour a difficult prospect. It does not need a 2+

So you're giving vehicles saves based on what they "need" to be competitive?

Are Leman Russes so much more common than Land Raiders that they need a worse save to make the Land Raider a better tank?

I am trying to piece fluff and value together as best I can.

Why does a LR 'need' a 2+?

Because it's the toughest mass-produced vehicle in the Imperium of Man? Not as well armored as a Land Raider, perhaps, but certainly much much tougher than a dreadnought.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Walkers and Rhinos need it more. Dreadnoughts and Rhinos are terribly fragile, especially the Rhino giving up easy First Blood. The Defiler is massively overcosted and needs its 2+, otherwise it just falls over to things that it is too expensive to fall over to.

The Leman Russ can just park itself 72" from the enemy, rear to the table edge, making getting to its rear armour a difficult prospect. It does not need a 2+

So you're giving vehicles saves based on what they "need" to be competitive?

Are Leman Russes so much more common than Land Raiders that they need a worse save to make the Land Raider a better tank?

I am trying to piece fluff and value together as best I can.

Why does a LR 'need' a 2+?

Because it's the toughest mass-produced vehicle in the Imperium of Man? Not as well armored as a Land Raider, perhaps, but certainly much much tougher than a dreadnought.

If shot at with something that tries to pierce the armour then yes, a Leman Russ is tougher than a Dreadnought. Dreadnoughts, on the other hand, don't have to worry as much about having the pilot reduced to red paste by concussive trauma. A rocket blast that hit a Dreadnought might not do any damage (blocked by 2+ armour), while that same rocket might bounce off the armour of a Leman Russ and still shock the crew (Krak missile glancing AV14). Similarly, if shot at by a Battle Cannon, a Leman Russ tank's armour might well be harder to penetrate (represented by higher AV), but the crew could be making it more vulnerable to glances (represented by lower armour save). Simply put, see the AV as a means of preventing direct penetration, and the armour save as a measure of how well-protected the crew inside is.

Personally I think this wouldn't work with the one exception of Walkers, making them crazy-survivable in melee vs the standard Krak Grenades. Although that could have further reaching problems.

Plus, Dreads getting a 2+ but Deff Dreads getting a 3+? But Deff Dreads are just really killy Dreads!

It should come down to reasonable protection of the materials actually being used. as AV which now basically becomes T is represented by how well these materials are put together as it must resist the Strength of the weapon.

For the most part asides from the most well built venerable type objects most ceramic laminate armor seems to be 3+ and as such the majority of equipment around at least for SM should be a 3+. while just plain think steel armored chimera (is it?) should be some shade of 4+.

Dreads honestly should be 3+ even though TDA is a 2+ as i can imagine regular dreads arnt built as tough compared to say a venerable or ironcald.

even then a 3+ dread is still ballen and should actually survive a broadside intercept.

we could add varying saves such as 3+ 3+ 4+ for rear armor. making auto cannons (mostly anti tank weapons) effective in the back.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Walkers and Rhinos need it more. Dreadnoughts and Rhinos are terribly fragile, especially the Rhino giving up easy First Blood. The Defiler is massively overcosted and needs its 2+, otherwise it just falls over to things that it is too expensive to fall over to.

The Leman Russ can just park itself 72" from the enemy, rear to the table edge, making getting to its rear armour a difficult prospect. It does not need a 2+

So you're giving vehicles saves based on what they "need" to be competitive?

Are Leman Russes so much more common than Land Raiders that they need a worse save to make the Land Raider a better tank?

EDIT:
Basically, my problem is this: You're rendering armor value practically irrelevant. A dreadnought with a 2+ save is almost as survivable as a Leman Russ with a 3+ save, which is not how it should be - the Leman Russ has more armor and is a tougher vehicle. It should not be roughly equal in toughness to a dreadnought.

Just a heads up, armor values are not practically irrelevant. There definitely irrelevant just replace with toughness e.g Warbuggies T7 W1 Sv 7+

Why not forget the saves idea & just make all vehicles have 4 HP. I don't fell this would be OP as Looted Wagon,
Trukk & Warbuggies will still be made out of paper mache

I think adding armor values to vehicles is totally reasonable, logically. AV is equivalent to toughness, how hard is it to damage this vehicle, while an armor save would give you a chance to stop a shot before it damages you (like everything else in the game gets).

Vehicles would still be saddled with a damage table, and most dedicated anti-tank weapons are ignoring your armor anyway. The main benefit is in mitigating the weakness introduced by Hull Points. You probably wouldn't even need to adjust point values for most things, as GW seems to still be pricing vehicles as though hull points never happened.

The answer to the bickering over things like Land Raider vs. Leman Russ might be to make the armor save entirely dependent on a formula and leave it at that. This would be determined per vehicle facing:

Basic save = 4+

Heavy or AV14: +1
Tank or walker: +1
Rear facing: -1
Open-topped: -1
Flyer: -1

Now Land Raiders enjoy a 2+ on front/side and 3+ on the rear, while Leman Russes get a 2+ front, 3+ side, 4+ rear. Hopefully that ends up being a good compromise for everyone.

Skimmers are generally rocking a 4+ and Flyers a 5+, which most things will ignore anyway (this is partly fluff and partly my intent - I feel neither of these vehicle types is suffering for durability).

Trukks are also looking at a 5+ front and sides/6+ rear (works for me) while battlewagons are either 3+/4+/5+ or 4+/5+/6+ depending on open topped.

Dark Eldar are pretty well hosed by this, but I don't think anyone expected AV10 open topped skimmers to benefit.

Finally, dreadnoughts are getting the 3+ save everyone wanted, but with a 4+ save on the rear. Scout sentinels get a mild boost with a 4+/5+ while armored sentinels are looking much better at 3+/4+.

Thoughts?

Dreadnoughts look much heavier than Armoured Sentinels. I think they deserve a better save.

But otherwise, I like your idea.

Perhaps instead of armor saves that are negated by the most likely low AP shots they're taking, how about adjust the chart for Invul saves?

I like this train of thought.

I have definitely noticed a heavy reliance on a mass of autocannon-strength shots rather than anyone actually running dedicated anti-tank. This is most noticeable to me in a few farsight enclaves that I've seen that spam missile pods for many of their crisis teams, and ork lootaz, who can, on a decent d3 roll, obliterate anything that isn't AV 14 just through glances...even if they snap shot.

BrotherHaraldus wrote:Dreadnoughts look much heavier than Armoured Sentinels. I think they deserve a better save.

But otherwise, I like your idea.

Thanks! Armoured Sentinels are something of a weird outcome, but I wanted to stick with the formulaic approach. Once you start making a lot of exceptions it gets harder to remember AND more contentious because everyone's vehicle is a special snowflake in their eyes. As their points are now, this change would at least make sentinels worth taking, even if it ends up being a little tougher than reason would dictate.

WrentheFaceless wrote:Perhaps instead of armor saves that are negated by the most likely low AP shots they're taking, how about adjust the chart for Invul saves?

Well the idea is mostly to balance out the negative impact of hull points. I don't really care if dedicated anti-tank weapons with low AP are killing tanks like they used to. That's their job.

I do care when medium strength, weak AP weapons are glancing tanks to death with high rate of fire. It's something vehicles didn't used to worry about and point values have not really been adjusted to compensate. Dreadnoughts are the poster children for this - same price they used to be, but so much easier to kill they almost aren't worth taking. This is a pretty direct nerf to things like autocannons and Serpent Shields, and a buff to tracked vehicles and walkers. In my opinion that would only help the game.

You're giving a Wave Serpent a 3+ armour save. Are you sure it needs that?

Maybe a -1 for skimmers?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
You're giving a Wave Serpent a 3+ armour save. Are you sure it needs that?

Maybe a -1 for skimmers?

But what about things like the hammerhead and the sky-ray, which are powerful, well armoured battle-tanks. They are the tau equivalent to the leman russ.

I assumed the "squishyness" was to force players to play tactically with them. Stay in cover, constant checking LoS, exc

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
You're giving a Wave Serpent a 3+ armour save. Are you sure it needs that?

Maybe a -1 for skimmers?

But what about things like the hammerhead and the sky-ray, which are powerful, well armoured battle-tanks. They are the tau equivalent to the leman russ.

Difficult. Abstain from buffing what could use a buff, or buff something that is overpowered already?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
You're giving a Wave Serpent a 3+ armour save. Are you sure it needs that?

Maybe a -1 for skimmers?

You're right, I didn't think of the overlap between skimmer and tank types. The intent was that skimmers wouldn't get a +1 for anything and would mostly stay at a 4+. You could say "Flyer or Skimmer: -1" which would fix it I think. Screws Dark Eldar even further but with Jink and Flickerfields they won't be relying on armor saves anyway.

As pointed out in another thread, 2+ saves on vehicles is probably excessive, so leave in the various +1 modifiers but cap it at a 3+ save. Trying to mitigate the impact of hull points, not make tanks nearly-invincible vs. rupture cannons.

why not just allow regular tanks to take cover saves for moving like skimmers do, and justify it as missing a moving target, and make smoke launchers work in a similar way to Tau disruption pods, then increase all vehicles hull points by +1 unless they area flier, because I'm biased and hate stormravens.

Personally a simple fix id like is making smokes not a 1 time only war gear. Though i could see a rhino behind a bolstered ruin popping smoke every turn till 5 being a bit annoying. perhaps every other turn.

I think vehicles in general are oki. Though, low armored vehicles that lack good saves and run-shoot-run are rather fragile. But the problem lies not entirely within vehicles
but within anti-tank weapons. They're too cheap if you ask me. It's pretty logical that a lazcannon 1-shots a tank. Or that mass autocannon fire demolishes light vehicles. The problem is there are too many of those cheap high-str ranged weapons. Also, i liked a previous edition glance-system more than today's. It actually made vehicles more durable but it was fun to assault a tank with a band of boyz and start taking it apart bit by bit. Though, if that system returns - tanks will need some other nerf.
And what about vehicles, some of them deserve nerfing or point-increase like wave serpents and barges. Some deserve buffing like dreadnaughts, kanz, trucks. But the current AV and HP system is quite nice. At least it's way better than additional saves u're proposing.

Another tack for a vehicle fix. Maybe allow them to move 6 in the Movement phase (12 if they are fast) then fire some or all of their weapons in the Shooting Phase. If they only fired some of their weapons and didnt shoot any Ordnance type weapons they then get to move another 6 (or 12) in the Assault phase.

This has to me been the big issue with vehicles this edition, they seem to be unable to use all that firepower you pay for properly. I don't generally lose vehicles any faster than I used to back before hull points.

If durability is an issue, at 0 Hull Points, the vehicle isn't automatically wrecked, but glances get a roll on the damage table. The vehicle gets wrecked at -1 Hull Points. This effectively adds a bonus hull point to all vehicles.

Another one, instead of armour saves, why not a very low end invul save, 6+ for light vehicles, 5+ for tanks and topping out at 4+ for Heavy/Superheavy. Not a huge durability increase, but it works against most real anti-tank weapons.