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.

[Movie Trailer Voice]In a 40k game where the rules are streamlined, vehicles have toughness values, and everyone keeps being unable to reference anything from a GW book, one man needs some opinions![/Movie Trailer Voice]
Okay, so there's a thread discussing how people would reboot the WH40k ruleset, and it reminded me of my intention to start writing a new ruleset in the xmas hols.
One idea that I came across was to eliminate the current system for vehicles, and replace it with something more streamlined. Currently this idea is still brewing, but so far I have this:

 Selym wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
4) Stream line unit types. make vehicles into high T models with addition rules.

I would agree, but there's something tactical about having armour values on vehicles - you have to learn how to position them.
You could give them multiple toughness values though.

On a related note, I've been thinking about ditching the current movement system for vehicles, and replacing it with a movement value. They'll have two values: the first is lower, and allows you to fire everything normally, the second is higher, and causes you to only make snap shots.

Ex:

Rhino:

M: 6/12
Bs: 4
T: (F)8, (S)7, (R)7
Type: Tank, Transport (10)

And yes, the number next to "Transport" is it's capacity.

The basic idea is that rather than having ball-tons of exceptions to rules (Everything moves 6", except for several vehicle types and anything with a jump pack, or cavalry, or beasts or MC's...), units will get strippped down to their basic components, and then pretty much list how they work in one profile.

This means that everything would get a movement value (with Jump Pack upgrades granting +6" movement and a special rule to "jump around", rather than having a list of exceptions that you have to constantly refer to), and that Vehicles would end up with toughness values (So that all "to-wound" type scenarios always refer to the same method, rather than changing between methods).

Anyone got some opinions for me?

Lets do some maths on this, Looks like there would be two ways to convert AV into T. The first would be to use the minimum strength of weaponry that can damage the tank such that is the same as it was before (Option 1). But that will make it so that tanks are harder to kill and we would end up with T11 Land Raiders (and T12 Apocalypse Fortifications). The other approach (Option 2) is to ensure that the chance to glance should remain the same but this makes lower strength weapons capable of damaging vehicles.

Option 1 - use weapon effectiveness to determine T (a bolter can't damage a rhino)
MinS = minimum strength to damage vehicle
LCB = Lascannon chance to glance before (change to T from AV)
LCA = Lascannon chance to glance after

AV10 = T7 (MinS = 4 LCB=Auto LCA=2+)
AV11 = T8 (MinS = 5 LCB=2+ LCA =3+)
AV12 = T9 (MinS=6 LCB=3+ LCA=4+)
AV13 = T10 (MinS=7 LCB=4+ LCA=5+)
AV14 = T11 (MinS=8 LCB=5+ LCA=6+)

Option 2 - use current weapon glance chance to determine T
MinS = minimum strength to damage vehicle
LCB = Lascannon chance to glance before (change to T from AV)
LCA = Lascannon chance to glance after
MGB = Meltagun chance to glance before
MGA = Meltagun chance to glance after

AV10 = T6 (MinS = 3 LCB=Auto LCA=2+ MGB=2+ MGA = 2+)
AV11 = T7 (MinS = 4 LCB=2+ LCA =2+ MGB=3+ MGA = 3+)
AV12 = T8 (MinS=5 LCB=3+ LCA=3+ MGB=4+ MGA = 4+)
AV13 = T9 (MinS=6 LCB=4+ LCA=4+ MGB=5+ MGA = 5+)
AV14 = T10 (MinS=7 LCB=5+ LCA=5+ MGB=6+ MGA = 6+)

Summary
Because of the additional 6+ to wound (when your weapons strength is 3 below T) it is impossible to replicate current weapon's effectiveness against vehicles. The options are to make all guns less effective by 1 (possibly compensate this by giving them 1 less Wound than they have Hull Points) or to make it that some weapons which previously could not damage a vehicle can damage it on 6s (Bolters can wound AV11, lasguns can wound AV10, melee attacks from guardsmen can wound AV10).

wtnind wrote:
Lets do some maths on this, Looks like there would be two ways to convert AV into T. The first would be to use the minimum strength of weaponry that can damage the tank such that is the same as it was before (Option 1). But that will make it so that tanks are harder to kill and we would end up with T11 Land Raiders (and T12 Apocalypse Fortifications). The other approach (Option 2) is to ensure that the chance to glance should remain the same but this makes lower strength weapons capable of damaging vehicles.

Option 1 - use weapon effectiveness to determine T (a bolter can't damage a rhino)
MinS = minimum strength to damage vehicle
LCB = Lascannon chance to glance before (change to T from AV)
LCA = Lascannon chance to glance after

AV10 = T7 (MinS = 4 LCB=Auto LCA=2+)
AV11 = T8 (MinS = 5 LCB=2+ LCA =3+)
AV12 = T9 (MinS=6 LCB=3+ LCA=4+)
AV13 = T10 (MinS=7 LCB=4+ LCA=5+)
AV14 = T11 (MinS=8 LCB=5+ LCA=6+)

Option 2 - use current weapon glance chance to determine T
MinS = minimum strength to damage vehicle
LCB = Lascannon chance to glance before (change to T from AV)
LCA = Lascannon chance to glance after
MGB = Meltagun chance to glance before
MGA = Meltagun chance to glance after

AV10 = T6 (MinS = 3 LCB=Auto LCA=2+ MGB=2+ MGA = 2+)
AV11 = T7 (MinS = 4 LCB=2+ LCA =2+ MGB=3+ MGA = 3+)
AV12 = T8 (MinS=5 LCB=3+ LCA=3+ MGB=4+ MGA = 4+)
AV13 = T9 (MinS=6 LCB=4+ LCA=4+ MGB=5+ MGA = 5+)
AV14 = T10 (MinS=7 LCB=5+ LCA=5+ MGB=6+ MGA = 6+)

Summary
Because of the additional 6+ to wound (when your weapons strength is 3 below T) it is impossible to replicate current weapon's effectiveness against vehicles. The options are to make all guns less effective by 1 (possibly compensate this by giving them 1 less Wound than they have Hull Points) or to make it that some weapons which previously could not damage a vehicle can damage it on 6s (Bolters can wound AV11, lasguns can wound AV10, melee attacks from guardsmen can wound AV10).

You're going about it the wrong way, besides these vehicles would also need wounds/Hull Points. Also, too much math.

So you have a Land Speeder. T6, by your scale. How would you work out glances and penetrating hits? I say give vehicles an armor save as well. A Land Speeder would have a 4+. If the weapon removes the ability to take the save (an AP4 weapon like an Ion rifle or Gauss Blaster), then the weapon can cause penetrating hits. If it doesn't, such as a bolter, it can only cause glances.

So it would be like this:
AV10 - T6 - 4+ armor save
AV11 - T7 - 4+
AV12 - T8 - 3+
AV13 - T9 - 3+
AV14 - T10 - 3+

It's not great, but it works for now.

wtnind wrote:
Lets do some maths on this, Looks like there would be two ways to convert AV into T. The first would be to use the minimum strength of weaponry that can damage the tank such that is the same as it was before (Option 1). But that will make it so that tanks are harder to kill and we would end up with T11 Land Raiders (and T12 Apocalypse Fortifications). The other approach (Option 2) is to ensure that the chance to glance should remain the same but this makes lower strength weapons capable of damaging vehicles.

Spoiler:

Option 1 - use weapon effectiveness to determine T (a bolter can't damage a rhino)
MinS = minimum strength to damage vehicle
LCB = Lascannon chance to glance before (change to T from AV)
LCA = Lascannon chance to glance after

AV10 = T7 (MinS = 4 LCB=Auto LCA=2+)
AV11 = T8 (MinS = 5 LCB=2+ LCA =3+)
AV12 = T9 (MinS=6 LCB=3+ LCA=4+)
AV13 = T10 (MinS=7 LCB=4+ LCA=5+)
AV14 = T11 (MinS=8 LCB=5+ LCA=6+)

Option 2 - use current weapon glance chance to determine T
MinS = minimum strength to damage vehicle
LCB = Lascannon chance to glance before (change to T from AV)
LCA = Lascannon chance to glance after
MGB = Meltagun chance to glance before
MGA = Meltagun chance to glance after

AV10 = T6 (MinS = 3 LCB=Auto LCA=2+ MGB=2+ MGA = 2+)
AV11 = T7 (MinS = 4 LCB=2+ LCA =2+ MGB=3+ MGA = 3+)
AV12 = T8 (MinS=5 LCB=3+ LCA=3+ MGB=4+ MGA = 4+)
AV13 = T9 (MinS=6 LCB=4+ LCA=4+ MGB=5+ MGA = 5+)
AV14 = T10 (MinS=7 LCB=5+ LCA=5+ MGB=6+ MGA = 6+)

Summary
Because of the additional 6+ to wound (when your weapons strength is 3 below T) it is impossible to replicate current weapon's effectiveness against vehicles. The options are to make all guns less effective by 1 (possibly compensate this by giving them 1 less Wound than they have Hull Points) or to make it that some weapons which previously could not damage a vehicle can damage it on 6s (Bolters can wound AV11, lasguns can wound AV10, melee attacks from guardsmen can wound AV10).

I see what you're saying, and I'd forgotten about meltaguns...

While switching from Av to T will change how easy it is to damage vehicles, and thus change the balance of the game, is it really necessary to try to keep it on par with the current system?

I'd prefer to go by the first method of changing Av to T, personally, but I don't think I'd be happy with dropping a Vehicle's Hp by one for it. The second metod seems a little silly to me, Imo, as it ends up with IG lasguns taking out light vehicles, something they aren't really meant to do, and means that the average SM will be able to pop what would otherwise be an Av 11 vehicle.

Across 6th ed so far, there've been numerous complaints that vehicles aren't tough enough, so I don't think there would be too many complaints about taking the first method without any Hp reduction. However, changing Av to T does bring up the question of "what's the point of a meltagun anymore?".
I suppose an answer to that could be to change the "Melta" rule to something else that fits this new mechanic better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McNinja wrote:

Spoiler:

wtnind wrote:
Lets do some maths on this, Looks like there would be two ways to convert AV into T. The first would be to use the minimum strength of weaponry that can damage the tank such that is the same as it was before (Option 1). But that will make it so that tanks are harder to kill and we would end up with T11 Land Raiders (and T12 Apocalypse Fortifications). The other approach (Option 2) is to ensure that the chance to glance should remain the same but this makes lower strength weapons capable of damaging vehicles.

Option 1 - use weapon effectiveness to determine T (a bolter can't damage a rhino)
MinS = minimum strength to damage vehicle
LCB = Lascannon chance to glance before (change to T from AV)
LCA = Lascannon chance to glance after

AV10 = T7 (MinS = 4 LCB=Auto LCA=2+)
AV11 = T8 (MinS = 5 LCB=2+ LCA =3+)
AV12 = T9 (MinS=6 LCB=3+ LCA=4+)
AV13 = T10 (MinS=7 LCB=4+ LCA=5+)
AV14 = T11 (MinS=8 LCB=5+ LCA=6+)

Option 2 - use current weapon glance chance to determine T
MinS = minimum strength to damage vehicle
LCB = Lascannon chance to glance before (change to T from AV)
LCA = Lascannon chance to glance after
MGB = Meltagun chance to glance before
MGA = Meltagun chance to glance after

AV10 = T6 (MinS = 3 LCB=Auto LCA=2+ MGB=2+ MGA = 2+)
AV11 = T7 (MinS = 4 LCB=2+ LCA =2+ MGB=3+ MGA = 3+)
AV12 = T8 (MinS=5 LCB=3+ LCA=3+ MGB=4+ MGA = 4+)
AV13 = T9 (MinS=6 LCB=4+ LCA=4+ MGB=5+ MGA = 5+)
AV14 = T10 (MinS=7 LCB=5+ LCA=5+ MGB=6+ MGA = 6+)

Summary
Because of the additional 6+ to wound (when your weapons strength is 3 below T) it is impossible to replicate current weapon's effectiveness against vehicles. The options are to make all guns less effective by 1 (possibly compensate this by giving them 1 less Wound than they have Hull Points) or to make it that some weapons which previously could not damage a vehicle can damage it on 6s (Bolters can wound AV11, lasguns can wound AV10, melee attacks from guardsmen can wound AV10).

You're going about it the wrong way, besides these vehicles would also need wounds/Hull Points. Also, too much math.

So you have a Land Speeder. T6, by your scale. How would you work out glances and penetrating hits? I say give vehicles an armor save as well. A Land Speeder would have a 4+. If the weapon removes the ability to take the save (an AP4 weapon like an Ion rifle or Gauss Blaster), then the weapon can cause penetrating hits. If it doesn't, such as a bolter, it can only cause glances.

So it would be like this:
AV10 - T6 - 4+ armor save
AV11 - T7 - 4+
AV12 - T8 - 3+
AV13 - T9 - 3+
AV14 - T10 - 3+

It's not great, but it works for now.

I quite like that. Though it does still leave a lasgun capable of (admittedly, very rarely) damaging a vehicle, which is something I'm apprehensive about.

Well, dreadknights, wraithlords, wraithknights, riptides etc all have toughness values and armour saves. And those toughness values doesnt really correspond to regular walker(vehicles) av values.
A dreadknight would have had around 12 in front armour, if it was a real walker(vehicle). But I suppose the majority would agree on, that it is rather durable with its "low" toughness value, instead of an AV of 12.
I believe going into thoughness 9 and 10 would be too much. Add wounds and better saves instead.

I would suppose "primitive" vehicles like ork constructs would have a poor armour save mid toughness and many wounds.
Whereas imperial would have a better armour save, but less wounds and good toughness values.

Britneyfan12 wrote:
Well, dreadknights, wraithlords, wraithknights, riptides etc all have toughness values and armour saves. And those toughness values doesnt really correspond to regular walker(vehicles) av values.
A dreadknight would have had around 12 in front armour, if it was a real walker(vehicle). But I suppose the majority would agree on, that it is rather durable with its "low" toughness value, instead of an AV of 12.
I believe going into thoughness 9 and 10 would be too much. Add wounds and better saves instead.

I would suppose "primitive" vehicles like ork constructs would have a poor armour save mid toughness and many wounds.
Whereas imperial would have a better armour save, but less wounds and good toughness values.

Hmm....
I see where you're going with this, but the dreadknights durability is largely to do with the fact that it's more of a battlemech rather than a walker - it's got a 2+ save, a 5++ save, 4 wounds and has melee capacity.

Giving vehicles a T value does not necessarily mean that they're also going to get good saves, just that we'll be having to rethink the whole glancing thing.

Well, its true that all vehicles wont need to work exactly like those walker/monstrous creatures.
I suppose tankhunter would just count as having 1 strength higher?
Fleshbane shouldnt work, nor should poison work as effective against vehicles.
Armourbane, maybe work like poison (a fixed number to wound) or ignoring/vastly reducing armour effectiveness, and thereby causing more penetrating hits.
lance might work like poison vs vehicles (unless that USR is chosen for armourbane)
melta might gain strength bonus or reroll successful saves/failed to wound, when within ½ distance

That sounds feasible.

This does also, ofc, allow us the option of more readily adapting the durability of vehicles where needed, and allowing more personalised vehicles (like in when making your own datasheet for a vehicle).

It also means that we lose the vehicle damage table. No more immobilizations, stuns or weapons destroyed. The vehicle is either all there or it's not.

Need to think about how Instant Death would interact and other things that don't work against vehicles now but would because of T.

I think we could still have the damage table, just not in its current form.

All we've really done is swap out the statline and lose the ability to make glances.

It's still quite easy to apply the current damage results to these vehicles (they can still be immobilised, lose guns and explode), but we may have to rethink the modifiers.

EDIT: Immobilisation just means no movement ever again, loss of guns means you act like it cannot be used (as we already do), and exploding can still be an AoE attack.

I see nothing in this thread that does not nerf av 14, and therefore my russes. Lascannons shouldn't be stripping a hull point 1/3 of the time, and imperial guard definitely shouldn't be able to melee anything with back armour 10 to death.

xruslanx wrote:
I see nothing in this thread that does not nerf av 14, and therefore my russes. Lascannons shouldn't be stripping a hull point 1/3 of the time, and imperial guard definitely shouldn't be able to melee anything with back armour 10 to death.

I'm not sure how you mean that Av 14 is nerfed here...

Okay, at my rate of conversion:

Av 10 = 7
Av 11 = 8
Av 12 = 9
Av 13 = 10
Av 14 = 11

Av 14 (Toughness 11) would get wounded by a Lascannon (Str 9) on a 6+, going by how the table scales up, so that's better than now with Av, as a LC will take a hull point from Av 14 on a 5+.

My conversion would mean that the to-wound table has to be extended, but that shouldn't be too difficult, considering the pattern it follows.

Other rates do, however mean that an IG can damage Av 10, and a LC would damage Av 14 on a 5+, the same as now.

So, it's not really much of a nerf.

Fair point about the toughness 11 i must have missed that. But letting strength 4 glance av 11 is a huge game changer that makes rhinos basically useless, and av 10 even weaker. Given that these lower strength weapons can usually spit out a hell of a lot of shots i think this is pretty game breaking, a punisher with heavy bolter sponsons gets 29 strength 5 shots in a turn for example.

I think what you are going to find here is taht a straight conversion is not going to work. If we are going to treat vehicles differently I think you need to do it from the ground up.

If you want them to have toughness I think what needs to happen is basically you need to assess how tough you want a vehicle to be and design the rules around it.

I also think you end up with needing to change lots of rules to make it work.

Take lance for example, if you reduce the toughness of something the effect is quite different in some cases.

I think you go toughness + saves, and let Low AP value weapons punch through... I also think you need T 11 which makes it less viable.

The issue also exists with how tougness works.

Right now against AV 10

S4 glances on a 6
S5 damages on 5-6
S6 On a 4
S7 on a 3
S8 needs a 2
S9 + needs a 1

If we make AV 11= T7

S4 needs a 6
S5 needs a 6
S6 needs a 5
S7 Needs a 4
S8 Needs a 3
S9+ needs a 2.

So we have reduced the effectiveness of every weapon in the game against that target except for S4.

If you try for the T + armor save route above, then you boost some weapons (S7 cannot hurt AV 14 right now, but if it becomes T10 3+ it now can.)

So what I think you need to do is go with T + armor save + wounds and determine how durable you want things to be from the bottom up.

I also actually think if you want to do this you need to write a statline full for the vehicle (maybe have smaller faster vehicles with higher weaponskill etc.) You could even you strength for ram/ tank shock attacks if you wanted.

For example

Land Speeder

WS 4
BS 4
S 0
T 6
I 0
A 0
W 3
Sv 4+

And has Jink

Sure lasguns can kill it now, but not easily. It also is more durable in combat getting hit on 4s by most things, and damaged on 6s with a save.


Land Raider

WS 1
BS 4
S 0
T 10
I 0
A 0
W 6
Save 2+

This is where I struggle, it is now more durable against non-AP2 weapons, but Plasma can hurt it. Lascannons are reasonably good against etc.

xruslanx wrote:
Fair point about the toughness 11 i must have missed that. But letting strength 4 glance av 11 is a huge game changer that makes rhinos basically useless, and av 10 even weaker. Given that these lower strength weapons can usually spit out a hell of a lot of shots i think this is pretty game breaking, a punisher with heavy bolter sponsons gets 29 strength 5 shots in a turn for example.

I agree. And such is the importance of this thread.

Breng77 wrote:
I think what you are going to find here is taht a straight conversion is not going to work. If we are going to treat vehicles differently I think you need to do it from the ground up.

Good thing I'm working on a new rulebook for Wh40k

A conversion form Av to T is probably going to always end up balancing differently to the Av rules, and in some ways it may actually make more sense than Av.

While Av is balanced to sit on a nice set of Av 10-14 and be damageable by Str + D6, a T ruleset allows for much smoother scaling.

For example:

If we take a look at the current issue of transport vehicles tending to be (even now) slightly too weak for their purposes, we can fix that with this:

Current Rhino:
Bs: 4
Av: (F)11 (S)11 (R)10
Hp: 3
Movement: [Obscure rules]


New Rhino:
Bs: 4
T: (F)8 (S)8 (R)8
Hp: 3
Movement: 6/12
Sv: 4+

This results in a few points (before we go into the damage table):
1) Weapons of Str 4 now cannot hurt it (Wonderful bonus for running around on the front line).
2) Movement distances are clearly displayed. The first number is the maximum distance you can move and make full shooting, the second is the maximum movement distance, resulting in snap shots.
3) Note the lack of the other stats - Vehicles are still not affected by Ld or Ws stats, resulting not overcomplicating things.
4) The 4+ save increases durability to low-grade weaponry (as you'd expect on an APC), and makes Ap continuously useful against vehicles.
5) Hp value still intact - able to sustain levels of damage.

I don't really see that as any more streamlined though, I think everything having the same basic statline would be better in general, then just decide on how durable you want a specific unit and create said statline

Your Rhino as listed above is significanly tougher than the current rhino as S4 cannot hurt it ever.

Lets just look at Close combat (assuming the vehicle did not move because it does not matter)...I have a unit of 10 Marines assault a Rhino

Currently with 10 Krak Grenades if you don't move they average 5 hull points of damage

With your change they average 0.8 Hull points. So the rhino is 5 times more durable.

Lets look at the same with 30 Ork boyz= they should remove 20 hull points, against your rhino they do nothing....so....your rhino is infinitely more durable.

Also just a thought Rending units now own vehicles....20 seekers hitting any vehicle in your system that has not moved auto kill the vehicle. Where as currently they cannot hurt above AV12.

Personally if you are going with Toughness, I would prefer trying to do so withing the current statline (perhaps + a movement value because that I agree with.)

Why are we still doing front side and rear armor?

 McNinja wrote:
Why are we still doing front side and rear armor?

It's because one of the few tactical elements of the game is vehicle positioning.

IRL, tanks have better armour in some places than others. If we gave vehicles a single toughness value, we'd just do what we do with LR's and Monoliths - move up, shoot, turn, move, shoot.

With a weaker rear armour (Ik, my new Rhino example has all 8's), you have to think about positioning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I don't really see that as any more streamlined though,

It's part of my plan to make a better rulebook for 40k, this is only a small part of the thinking. I'm hoping we'll be able to refine the ideas here.

Breng77 wrote:

I think everything having the same basic statline would be better in general, then just decide on how durable you want a specific unit and create said statline

Your Rhino as listed above is significanly tougher than the current rhino as S4 cannot hurt it ever.

Indeed, go on.

Breng77 wrote:

Lets just look at Close combat (assuming the vehicle did not move because it does not matter)...I have a unit of 10 Marines assault a Rhino

Currently with 10 Krak Grenades if you don't move they average 5 hull points of damage

With your change they average 0.8 Hull points. So the rhino is 5 times more durable.

Not in all circumstances, but I see what you mean. While I do want to rewrite the whole book, we don't want to have to make everything utterly different.

Breng77 wrote:

Lets look at the same with 30 Ork boyz= they should remove 20 hull points, against your rhino they do nothing....so....your rhino is infinitely more durable.

A worrying thought, and a fact I had missed. :/

Breng77 wrote:

Also just a thought Rending units now own vehicles....20 seekers hitting any vehicle in your system that has not moved auto kill the vehicle. Where as currently they cannot hurt above AV12.

Rending is another thing I hadn't fully considered. Though, looking at the wording of rending, it says to inflict "a wound". If we keep Hp values, the vehicle is immune to rending as it technically has no wounds.

Breng77 wrote:

Personally if you are going with Toughness, I would prefer trying to do so withing the current statline (perhaps + a movement value because that I agree with.)

Thank you


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Righty....

It looks like we can't have immunity to Str 4, I hadn't quite realised how game changing/breaking that could be.

What if:

From another thread, but fitting the conversation...

While working with another forum member briefly on an alternate rule set, and playing lots of World of Tanks, I dreamed up a similar mechanic. My thought was that they had a Toughness score like every other model rated 1 to 10 per front/side/rear, and an armor save relative to the construction of the tanks sloped armor and drivers skill. I never did anything with it as far as testing but it seemed sound in theory. I also thought there wouldnt have to be much stat changing on weapons.

So a Space Marine Predator would have like Toughness 9/8/6 and Armor 4+/5+/- or Hull Down 5+ Cover and a Tau Devilfish would be Toughness 8/7/6 and Armor 3+/4+/- or Jink 4+ Cover. A Land Raider could be Toughness 10/10/10 and Armor 5+/-/- Hull Down 6+ Cover as only its front has any real angles to it and its hard to hide.

Wow, this is a lot of math.

I agree that you can't just do an easy conversion from AV to Toughness without changing a lot of other rules, which means at some point the only way to streamline is to junk the basic rule book and start over.

My primary ideas in the original 100 Heresies thread were
(1) get rid of the current to-hit and to-wound tables
(2) eliminate saves as a separate step and incorporate armor and cover into to-hit and to-wound rolls respectively
(3) and turn the entire system into
IF (BS+1d6) > target difficulty (a sum of range, cover, & other modifiers), THEN a hit
IF a hit and (Strength+1d6) > (Toughness + Armor), THEN a wound
(But IF (armor penetration) > armor, then treat armor as zero).

So the math would be very different but this thread makes clear the need to do a lot of it, carefully, so the game neither breaks not becomes unrecognizable.

Have AP1 Weapons cause D3 wounds to Vehicles/MCs.

Have Melta allow you to roll 2d6 to determine the requirement to wound, with double 1s being a failure no matter what.

But do we want another special rule?

The artificial ceilings on various ratings -- saves can't go lower than 2+, AP can't go lower than one, AV can't go over 14, most stats can't go over 10 -- is one of the major problems that makes it awkward to scale up the same rules from infantry to vehicles to Titans.

 SisterSydney wrote:
But do we want another special rule?

The artificial ceilings on various ratings -- saves can't go lower than 2+, AP can't go lower than one, AV can't go over 14, most stats can't go over 10 -- is one of the major problems that makes it awkward to scale up the same rules from infantry to vehicles to Titans.

In a new ruleset, it'd be possible to tell the limits to fk off, and remake them.

So we'd be able to have Av 15. Can't go too high on that though, Av 16 would see Str 10 only glancing on a 6, and it'd be immune to everything else...

AV15 already exists. One of the new fortifications that came out in Stronghold Assault has it.