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.

The boring stuff:


The idea:

Whenever a vehicle is penetrated, reduce the result of the penetration test by the number of hull points the vehicle has after the reduction from taking the penetrating hit. This reduction is made after all other modifiers have been applied, and can not reduce the result to less than 1.

Example:
A Tau Rail Gun (Str. 10, AP 1) is fired at a Space Marine Land Raider (AV 14, HP 4). The Rail Gun successfully hits, and rolls a 5 to penetrate. The Land Raider immediately looses a hull point, assuming it has no cover save to make. The Tau player rolls to determine the result for the penetrating hit on the damage table, and rolls a 4. The 4 is increased to a 6 on the damage table, because the Rail Gun is AP 1, and is then reduced to 3, because the Land Raider still has 3 remaining hull points.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Respond away!

If anyone wants to try this system out, I'd be eternally grateful if you posted how it affected your gaming experience here. (I would suggest not using this rule if either player is using any vehicle that you both agree is already overly potent.)

That actually sounds like a really good way of doing it to me, but why not rather you lose the hull point after you calculate damage so an undamaged land raider would reduce it by 4 on the first penetrating hit, then loses a hull point putting it down to 3 ?
and when a vehicle loses its last HP does it get wrecked or does it then get +1 on damage or something ?

The rule is as I've stated it. Otherwise, the rules are unchanged, so the vehicle is still destroyed when the last hull point goes away.

I didn't want to change the way the system works now Too much, as I'm not exactly against how they nerfed vehicles from fifth. I wanted to increase the survivability of vehicles, without making them overly potent.

I decided to deduct the hull points before making the reduction to the die roll to balance making said reduction After adjusting for AP and the like. It seemed more balanced that way, to me.

That is probably the best balanced way to do it and makes sense still in a way. I will ask people at my local store if they are interested in trying it.

5th edition vehicles were to powerful, 6th majority die to easily or quick, this will have more balance, smart idea dude.

I agree with warp angels.

Well, so far it looks like everyone likes the rule, or wants the same thing but better... anyone against it?

Added a poll.

I was considering changing the rule as, on further thought, I realized that as it sits now, this would prevent any result of a 6 (vehicle destroyed) until the last hull point is removed.

Possible alternatives include:

A.) Having the reduction to the damage roll occur before reduction, with the modifier being the hull points of the vehicle when it's hit.
Ex. as before, with changes: The roll of 4 is reduced to 1, then increased to 3.

B.) Having all modifiers added together, then making the adjustment. The reduction may be calculated before or after the hull point is removed, but leaning towards after.
Ex. as before, with changes: The addition from AP (+2) is added to the reduction from hull points(-3/4) with an end result of a 3/2 on the damage table.

I don't understand why vehicles weren't given armor saves versus glances.

IMO you're addressing the wrong aspect of vehicle durability. The damage table is fine and gives plenty of durability against single shots, the problem is vehicles dying too quickly to HP loss, especially to mid-strength weapons. And the solution there, if you want a simple one, is to increase the HP of most vehicles by 1-2.

 thunderingjove wrote:
I don't understand why vehicles weren't given armor saves versus glances.

Because that would be insane, jink saves are already proving to be extremely effective. Imagine shooting a LR with a 3+ save on all glances.

I like the idea of adding a couple more HP on a vehicle by vehicle basis. Imagine a 4 hp rhino? Really increases durability.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO you're addressing the wrong aspect of vehicle durability. The damage table is fine and gives plenty of durability against single shots, the problem is vehicles dying too quickly to HP loss, especially to mid-strength weapons. And the solution there, if you want a simple one, is to increase the HP of most vehicles by 1-2.

I don't see this is as the issue. If you dedicate a LOT of firepower, you should be able to take down a single vehicle. My issue has always been the one penetrating shot killing a vehicle. Granted, I have been very unlucky my last 3 games where I have lost my Wave Serpent on Turn 1 (the ODDS)!

I think I might try to convince other to use this rule

Has anyone been able to test this in an actual game?

No one I play against is willing to try it.