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.

Two words, "Failsafe Detonator", but that's from the Tau and they're crazy.

Any thoughts on a hybrid approach (with a call-back to older editions where vehicles were more potent) where both glancing and penetrating hits roll on the Vehicle Damage Table, but glancing hits have a penalty on the roll and rolls of 0 or under have no effect at all (including HP loss)?

Let's say the glancing penalty is -4 (meaning not even a Fire Dragon firing at Open-Topped vehicles could get an Explodes result).

Example: A Marine fires a Lascannon at the front AV of a Hammerhead, and rolls a 4 to get a glancing hit. The marine rolls on the damage table and subtracts 3 from the result (-4 for the glance, +1 for the AP 2), with a 1, 2, or 3 having no result, and a 4, 5, or 6 removing a HP and Shaking the Hammerhead.

Another Example: An eldar jetbike with a Scatterlaser shoots at the side AV of a Hammerhead, and rolls a single 6 to get a glancing hit. The jetbike rolls on the damage table and subtracts 4, with a 1, 2, 3, or 4 having no result, and a 5 or 6 removing an HP and Shaking the Hammerhead.

Final Example: A Sister of Battle fires a meltagun at an enemy Piranha's front AV (11, Open-topped vehicle), scoring a glancing hit. The Sister rolls on the damage table and subtracts 1 (-4 for glancing, +2 for AP1, +1 for Open-topped), with a 1 having no result, a 2+ removing an HP and either Shaking (2, 3, or 4), Stunning (5), or Destroying a Weapon of (6) the Piranha.



On the one hand, more rolls (which is bad - bogs down the game).

On the other hand, AP matters much more than previously. Lower AP weapons are significantly reduced in effectiveness, while Higher AP weapons can make even glancing hits dangerous to the target.

Weapons without AP 1 are incapable of doing more than forcing the Vehicle to Snap Shot (unless the vehicle is Open-Topped, and even that requires AP 2), and it is impossible (to my knowledge) to ever cause an Explodes result on a Glancing hit.

Glancing hits become less reliable in taking away HP (generally requiring a 5+ to get the HP in) but are also slightly more punishing when that HP gets through (by throwing in the Shaken/Stunned and rare Weapon Destroyed).

Special rules that allow vehicles to force a reroll on the Vehicle Damage Table could potentially be modified to include glancing hits (Hello, Venerable Dreadnought), and certain rules would need to be modified as discussed above (Hello, Serpent Shield).

Well, if nothing else, this proves that 40K has problems so deep that there are no "quick fix" to any of the game's problems.

Make glance and shaken not lose a hull point?

Above you lose a hull point so lost weapon. Lost drive or boom.

That's simple?

 jhe90 wrote:
Make glance and shaken not lose a hull point?

Above you lose a hull point so lost weapon. Lost drive or boom.

That's simple?

So what do Glances do now? Under your revision... Nothing.

This has to be the most pathetic topic on gaming ever!!!!!!!!!
NO GLANCING HITS....there done.

I'd prefer to eliminate glances altogether. Anything that currently automatically causes a glance (is Haywire, Guass) instead removes a hull point.

Vehicles become notibly tougher, especially to mid strength shooting.

Removing Glancing hits is an interesting idea (as long as we fix Haywire, Gauss, etc as noted above) and it would certainly encourage the use of actual anti-tank weapons more
However it would make certain lists god-like. Necron Ghost-Ark/Triark Stalker spam & Gladius Rhino/Razorback spam would be almost unkillable by the current meta standard (which would have to change obviously)

In order to rebalance that, you need to make Penetrating hits more lethal. For example, the VDT could be this instead:

1-2 - Shaken
3 - Stunned
4 - Weapon Destroyed
5 - Immobilized
6 - Critical damage (vehicle losses an additional HP and counts a Stunned)
7 - Explodes

-

Don't forget the fact that a lot of "glancing to death" is actually HP loss from penetrating hits that don't cause explosions. Mid-strength spam can still mostly do that, just with somewhat more difficulty.

Why not just make two charts for glancing and penetrating

Glancing - 1-3 No affect, 4- Crew Shaken, 5-Crew Stunned 6-Hullpoint Lost 7-Hullpoint Lost and Stunned

Penetrating- 1-Shaken 2-Stunned 3-Weapon Destroyed 4-Immobilized 5-Additional Hullpoint 6-Destroyed 7-Explodes

Make Penetrating hits also lose a hullpoint no matter the result, then apply result from roll
With AP- and AP1 being -1 or +1 adding to roll, same for open topped +1.'
Makes AP1 useful for glancing/Pens

jade_angel wrote:
Don't forget the fact that a lot of "glancing to death" is actually HP loss from penetrating hits that don't cause explosions. Mid-strength spam can still mostly do that, just with somewhat more difficulty.

True. But removing Glancing hits would raise the threshold at which mid-str weapons could do this.
Lets look at one of the most egregious examples: Scatter lasers, which can Glance AV 12. Buy removing "glance=HP lost" Scatter lasers can no longer hurt Dreads and half the damage possible against Rhinos. Overall, I see this as a good thing, but you would need to make Pens mean more, since other armies like DE now have almost 1/3 of their ability to cause HPs removed and they weren't that good at it before.

If you remove Glancing hits, you need to make Pens do slightly more damage (see my suggested chart above)

Removing Glancing hits would make DE playable

AV10-12 would get a buff, but then AV13+ would be extremely strong. EDIT: At that point some armies would basically be beaten by AV 13-14 spam.

I don't know if I like the idea of a 35pt rhino giggling at a majority of incoming fire.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it feels like removing Glances is like giving every vehicle +1 AV.
We need Glances to do something, but stripping HPs is possible too much

Maybe have an expensive upgrade for tanks to become immune to glancing hits?

35-50 points per model?

That way fast things and non-tanks can take hits but they're not built for punishment so over time the glances wear them down and have a cumulative effect. A tank though can be retrofitted with a bracing harness or increased resilience and so weather non-critical hits easier.

Makes sense if you think about it. Most things without this would have the option to jink anyways, giving them mobility over defense. Tanks then can take defense over mobility for increased cost in list building but no loss of effectiveness on the field. It's kind of like the anti-jink. Especially if, in Eldar's case for example, the upgrade removes or lessens the save on a jink roll.

Or.... Make Vehicles have Toughness and with a better Toughness chart for all around use might be good.

Why not just let vehicles have an armor save?

AV 10;4+
AV 11~13: 3+
AV 14: 2+

AV 10 get a 4+ armor getting shot with an assault cannon, roll for hit, say 3 hit, roll to wound, 2 wounds one is a 5 to wound, another is a 6.

Both are pens, but the 5 gets to go against an armor save, the 6 since its rending ignores it.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Why not just let vehicles have an armor save?

AV 10;4+
AV 11~13: 3+
AV 14: 2+

AV 10 get a 4+ armor getting shot with an assault cannon, roll for hit, say 3 hit, roll to wound, 2 wounds one is a 5 to wound, another is a 6.

Both are pens, but the 5 gets to go against an armor save, the 6 since its rending ignores it.

Erm... Assault Cannons are AP 4.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Why not just let vehicles have an armor save?

AV 10;4+
AV 11~13: 3+
AV 14: 2+

AV 10 get a 4+ armor getting shot with an assault cannon, roll for hit, say 3 hit, roll to wound, 2 wounds one is a 5 to wound, another is a 6.

Both are pens, but the 5 gets to go against an armor save, the 6 since its rending ignores it.

Erm... Assault Cannons are AP 4.

wopes sorry though they were ap 5 for some reason lol, but still same concept.

In my fan 8th edition of 40k I am giving vehicles a T value based on their highest armor and saves based on facing and armor value very similar to what backspacehacker has proposed.

Av / T / Sv
10 / 6 / 4+
11 / 7 / 4+
12 / 8 / 3+
13 / 9 / 3+
14 / 10 / 2+

I also changed it so glances/pen works differently. If a vehicle takes more than 1 wound in a shooting attack then it has to roll on vehicle dmg chart

1-3 nothing happens
4 shaken
5 weapon destroyed
6 immobilized
7 explodes.

If vehicle is already shaken and you roll a 4 move to 5. If all weapons are destroyed and you roll a 5 move to 6. If vehicle is already immobilized move to 7.

Vehicles have become tough as feth using this system. Just saying.

There are a few threads about saves for vehicles, my personal thought on that is give base save for all vehicles of 4+ and Tanks getting a 3+.

Vehicles with the heavy or super heavy rule improve the save by 1, those with open top reduce it by 1.

Jefffar wrote:
There are a few threads about saves for vehicles, my personal thought on that is give base save for all vehicles of 4+ and Tanks getting a 3+.

Vehicles with the heavy or super heavy rule improve the save by 1, those with open top reduce it by 1.

It's a good starting point, but some would have to be adjusted for certain things. Like the Land Speeder Storm and Land Speeder having the same Save, but a Trukk's Save would have to start out as rather pitiful, if at all, with options to improve it, due to their ramshackle nature.

Well there would be some specific exceptions of course, Ramshackle may be represented in part by a reduced save.

i'd all be for getting rid of glancing hits , but how about a glance ( once per turn ) removes a armor from that facing ?

kambien wrote:
i'd all be for getting rid of glancing hits , but how about a glance ( once per turn ) removes a armor from that facing ?

While getting rid of Glancing Hits would be of questionable, but enticing, use, this would be the same as reducing the T of a Monstrous Creature for every successful Wound. If Hull Points did not exist, this would be a viable option (AV being the "Wounds/Hull Points" of the Vehicle at that point), but Hull Points do exist, and I don't see them going anywhere. As it is, even if Glancing and Penetrating Hits were removed and Armour Penetration was successful on the "equal to Armour Facing", Hull Points really should be increased by one or two in most cases to be closer to what the average Monstrous Creature has.

kambien wrote:
i'd all be for getting rid of glancing hits , but how about a glance ( once per turn ) removes a armor from that facing ?

You dont think that requires WAY too much book keeping?

 Lance845 wrote:

kambien wrote:
i'd all be for getting rid of glancing hits , but how about a glance ( once per turn ) removes a armor from that facing ?

You dont think that requires WAY too much book keeping?

oh it does


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

kambien wrote:
i'd all be for getting rid of glancing hits , but how about a glance ( once per turn ) removes a armor from that facing ?

While getting rid of Glancing Hits would be of questionable, but enticing, use, this would be the same as reducing the T of a Monstrous Creature for every successful Wound. If Hull Points did not exist, this would be a viable option (AV being the "Wounds/Hull Points" of the Vehicle at that point), but Hull Points do exist, and I don't see them going anywhere. As it is, even if Glancing and Penetrating Hits were removed and Armour Penetration was successful on the "equal to Armour Facing", Hull Points really should be increased by one or two in most cases to be closer to what the average Monstrous Creature has.

Except i'm not talking about the entire AV being reduced, just the side hit . So no it would not be like MC's. Yes is bad for bookkeeping. I never mentioned getting rid of hullpoints either.

 Lance845 wrote:

kambien wrote:
i'd all be for getting rid of glancing hits , but how about a glance ( once per turn ) removes a armor from that facing ?

You dont think that requires WAY too much book keeping?

Something that Necrons had to deal with from the end of 5th Edition through all of 6th and the first six months of 7th Edition. This is one thing that made Scarabs really really mean and scary.

kambien wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

kambien wrote:
i'd all be for getting rid of glancing hits , but how about a glance ( once per turn ) removes a armor from that facing ?

While getting rid of Glancing Hits would be of questionable, but enticing, use, this would be the same as reducing the T of a Monstrous Creature for every successful Wound. If Hull Points did not exist, this would be a viable option (AV being the "Wounds/Hull Points" of the Vehicle at that point), but Hull Points do exist, and I don't see them going anywhere. As it is, even if Glancing and Penetrating Hits were removed and Armour Penetration was successful on the "equal to Armour Facing", Hull Points really should be increased by one or two in most cases to be closer to what the average Monstrous Creature has.

Except i'm not talking about the entire AV being reduced, just the side hit . So no it would not be like MC's. Yes is bad for bookkeeping. I never mentioned getting rid of hullpoints either.

Usually, if one side is hit, it will continue to be hit on that side, if because the Shooter is always trying to keep up the pressure on that side. Even with that, I am just suggesting how it would feel to the player who is getting hit by it.

I know you didn't suggest getting rid of Hull Points, I was saying that this would be good if there weren't any Hull Points. In other words, this would have been a good suggestion for a change in 5th Edition before Hull Points were introduced. This then leads to the downside of the situation that Hull Points do exist and are not likely to be going anywhere.

Why couldn't you have what is effectively an 'armor save' but call it a vehicle save or damage save.

Where AP doesn't affect the save.
Hence you always get to take your vehicle save, no matter AP.

AP1 would have to be important in some other way, like maybe make your check for armor pen D6+1 instead of the current D6, Open topped would do the same.

So a meltagun shooting a trukk would do D6+2 and if within melta range then it'd be 2D6+2. Where the trukk still gets it armor save.

You can make a variety of saves too, things like trukks/drop pods get a 6+

Chimera/Rhino/Predators get 5+

Leman Russ/Land Raiders/Defiler(if they are still AV) get 4+.

Baneblades/Super Heavys get 3+

If you are in the open its your standard save given in profile.
If you have a 50%+ you improve your save by +1.

Then bring back then old vehicle dmg chart, get rid of HPs

The Tyranid antitank weapons are the Rupture Cannon (S10) and Heavy Venom Cannon (S9).

Both of these have AP of 4, and the point of both, from a design perspective, seems to be not to destroy vehicles, but to immobilize, shake, and stun them, so as to allow assault critters to catch vehicles.

A lot of the Tyranid codex seems to me to be designed around this kind of thing -- keeping the enemy pinned, keeping it from moving -- but since I seem to the only person who thinks he's noticed this, maybe I'm nuts.