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.

While I do like that vehicles are weaker in 6th edition, there's one thing that strikes me as odd and that's their double-weakness to close combat attacks. In 5th edition, attacking the rear of a vehicles was a mitigating factor for how vehicles were over-all more powerful (leave your Land Raiders at the door) and how it was nearly impossible to assault the rear of a vehicle.

Currently, glancing hits not only are more powerful, but close combat no longer needs the crutch for movement. Assaulting a vehicle means you get a normal 2D6 inches and then another 3" positional movement. Let me tell you, hitting a vehicle's weak spot is no easy thing unless you're a WW1/2 tank with more or less your engine exposed in the back. Did I mention that vehicles are also easier to hit?

Here's my humble suggestion:
* Vehicles are hit on the armour you are in (base) contact with.
* Models not in base contact or who wish to hit a facing other than they are in contact with do so at WS1, provided they are within 2" of a model that is in contact with the desired facing.

I just feel that, over all, (tanks) became too weak against melee attacks - not to mention that I never thought rear armour hits ever made sense.

It's not necessarily that they're actually striking the back of the vehicle - it's that they're shoving grenades and ripping piping out of places that are easy to access while being so close - places that even marksmen would be hard-pressed to hit from any distance.

newsflash: 40K tanks ARE mostly crappy tanks with no angling and most of their important components (Treads and Fueltanks and Engines) ridiculously exposed. The only decently angled tanks are Eldar and Tau designs, and even then, Tau have these huge, easily clogged jet engines just sitting there.

Also, many weaker vehicles were buffed; it's mostly the ridiculously strong tanks that were 'normalized' against DEDICATED ANTITANK WEAPONS that were nerfed, allowing armies to have more points dedicated to other things. Like more models. Because money. But it's also a good gameplay change!

There's no newsflash about it, but the illusion of hitting more vulnerable components is destroyed with vehicles which have no worse rear armour - shouldn't melee troops hit those tanks better as well?
Now, I'm not debating glancing hits, I mean that specifically melee units no longer need the extra crutch. Those 3" movement can get you to the vulnerable part of the tank, and if it can not then you're obviously trying to hit a moving tank in it's front armour - or the tank has been placed in a very defensive and/or cunning manner.

Newflash: even poorly designed world war one tanks had very few piping or vulnerable components in it's front section (I like to call it the "gets shot at section"). Meleing tanks was mostly about climbing on top to kill crew or destroying the engine which actually required you to get near the rear in most cases.

I guess that it itches a bit extra in my eyes that tanks have been normalized to be weak to DEDICATED GARDENING TOOLS. Sorry, couldn't resist. They're really anti-personel weapons. Anti-tank bombs don't have problems with AV12 front armours.

1st thoughts
- Triple the hull points
- you hit on the side you are b2b with, models not in b2b hit the side that the closest model to them which is in b2b with
- consolidation move if the vehicle is still mobile(must have 1" separation again)
- vehicle explosions happen at the VERY last step of assault(after all consolidation moves).

* OR *

Just make all vehicles have toughness/wounds/armor saves

All vehicles would be toughness 10 (open topped=T9)
To convert from current status to Wounds:
(Front Armor -9) + (Side Armor-9) + (Rear Armor -9)

so a LR would be 5+5+5 = 15 wounds
a Rhino would be 2+2+1 = 5 wounds
a Chimera would have 3+1+1 = 5 wounds

Yes they would have eternal warrior, no insta death from force weapons.

For the sake of assaulting move vehicle:
vehicles that did not move are WS0
vehicles that move get 1 point of WS for every 3 inches moved +1
mobile skimmers get +1 WS(even if they did not move)

examples
a tank that moves 6 inches will be considered WS 3
a skimmer that moved 12 inches will be considered WS6



Tank Shock changes:
every model that is tank shocked may attempt to death or glory. The tank uses the WS based on the full distance it will have moved (its intended ending location). Tank shocked models are engaged 1 at a time in order of being struck, resolving a mini assault phase for each one. The tank gets a single S10 AP2 I1 attack. Infantry models not killed by the tank are moved out of the way. Monstrous creatures and tanks which are still alive(if they have taken a wound or not) stop the tank where it is and do not move.

pk1 wrote:1st thoughts
For the sake of assaulting move vehicle:
vehicles that did not move are WS0
vehicles that move get 1 point of WS for every 3 inches moved +1
mobile skimmers get +1 WS(even if they did not move)

examples
a tank that moves 6 inches will be considered WS 3
a skimmer that moved 12 inches will be considered WS6

I like this.

A weapons skill system would be good if high weapon skill wasn't largely meaningless. If weapon skill used the same table as toughness vs strength, for instance.

What I'm looking for is simplicity. Not only would it benefit balance slightly, but also remove an exception in the rules.

Honestly while I like the concept it still doesn't really fix the problem. A DE venom moves 21" so it is now WS 8. A Fire Prism Moves 12" so it is now WS 5. Both get hit on 4s by marines. A raider going 36" at worst gets hit on 5s? Even by a lowly guardsmen with a krak grenade? The problem isn't with your idea its how the to hit in CC is worked out in 40K and fantasy. Personally the 5th ed idea of needing 4s, 6s, or automatically worked the best.