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.

I don't think the game has ever gotten this quite right but I think it's better now.
Would vehicles be better if they had different damage tables?
Say a glancing hit had the following options
1-2 does nothing
3-4 shaken
5-6 hp damage
Penetrating hits could be
1 stunned
2-3 hp damage & stunned
4 weapon destroyed & hp damage
5 immobilised & hp damage
6 wrecked
6+ (ability boosting ie ap1) explodes

This would give them a bit more survivability but still allows them to be 1 shotted.

I might have got shaken and stunned the wrong way round.

What do you guys think?

I think this introduces back the problem hull points were designed to solve - you could hit a vehicle ten times (or what feels like it) and its just shaken.

Vehicles are basically MC's now - you can more reliably kill them (glances and HP) but they operate at fuller effeciency than before.

What vehicles need is a save, like MC's.

Most should be a 4+ with the rare vehicles being a 5+ (a trukk) or a land raider 3+.

Please no more tables. 6th has enough already >.<

It bring it back to "I don't have to Kill the Gryphon, just keep Shaking it into uslessness."

So back to 5th edition basically?

No. However, the problem is that the HP on vehicles is too low. Where tough MCs have 6 wounds (or 7 for demons), tough vehicles have 4. Up the HP of all vehicles by 1 and you got a much better system.

True, but you have a 2/3 chance and a 1/6 chance of No Damage.
Once good/poor set of dice rolling and we get unkillable Vehices again.
Glances would become hext to useless 2/3 times ves some Vehicles.
And on the 2nd Chart there would be no reason not to take AP2/AP1 Weapons making the current Marine Problem even worse.

Hull points are fine. we don need parking lot wars again, my rhinos manage to survive with albeit luck none the less. Being able to one shot a vehicle is great and it may be a bit easier to do so its still lucky if you roll that 6. alot of the time youll get that dreadful shaken or heaven forbid stunned. I could never, Never kill a land raider in 5th, (granted i never had melta weaponry due to being orks.) my powerklawed warboss was the only really contender and he rarely made it explode, immoblized at best. besides assaulting vehicles back that was stupid as hell.
Regardless i quite enjoy blowing up landraiders with my vindicator.

If they're going to keep HP's they need to have Save and to drop the vehicle damage table.

If they're going to keep the vehicle damage table they need to drop HP's.

Trying to stick with 2 overlapping kill systems and hamfisting them together just isn't going to work and is unnecessary.

As is, in most cases you're gaining about a 1/6 decrease in various disabling results, but losing about 1/3rd of expected lifespan over 5E vehicles, and that's not getting into CC.

the 5th edition damage chart with an added "+1 to damage roll for each previous damage roll this turn" By the 4th damage roll a turn the vehicle will be gone; or 6th if it was a glance.

Pass. The vehicle damage table has always been one of their worst rules sets, and the switch to hull points a straight improvement for several reasons, but mostly because it removes the old glancing vehicle damage chart. One-and-done glancing was stupid.

If anything, they should just get rid of their old system altogether and make it so that HP becomes W and that AV-4 becomes T. All the problems solved.

Vehicles do get a save if they're in cover, or their crew believes in the emperor like they should.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Please no more tables. 6th has enough already >.<

What's the problem with tables? Randomness is what makes this game fun!

Actual "armor" saves may give vehicles some oomph back.

Though I'm also a fan of restricting First Blood since I often see this as the common though behind not bringing certain vehicles

Armor saves seem rather pointless for vehicles, as most anti-armor weapons will bypass them anyway. While the same applies to MCs, they are still capable of being hurt my small arms, thus the usefulness of armor saves for MCs.
I do think a better system might be to get rid of the damage table, and just let vehicles keep on trucking until they lose their last hullpoint. Maybe let AP1 or AP2 weapons have a chance at causing two points of damage to a vehicle, to better represent their capabilities. I would prefer to still keep the armor values, though, as that is a way of hard countering certain weapons from being able to harm a vehicle (most MCs should be vulnerable to mass bolter fire, but most vehicles should not).

I see no problems with vehicles or hull points in this edition.

The only vehicle issue that concerns me is walkers Vs. Monstrous creatures.

Biggest problem with the Hull point system is that vehicles have too few HP and generally don't get a save. The point of vehicles is they are suppose to be harder to destroy than a living creature and require big guns to kill and yet most most vehicles can be glanced to death from mid power automatic fire. Either it should take a lot of glances to destroy a vehicle ( more hull points across the board and pens do 2hp so pens are more worthwhile) or vehicles get a feel no pain type save vs glances.

I'm ok with vehicles being easy to kill. Some of my most painful memories of 5th ed come from a certain unsurmountable wall of Chimeras... I don't want to go through that again!

But yes, vehicles need a save. Something that represents their speed, size and manoeuvrability better than the current USR giving a cover save to all skimmers regardless of size (I can't picture a Monolith performing daring aerial stunts, honestly).

Since 6th landed, it has been my belief, as proposed above, that vehicles would be much better if they had one extra hull point each.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
I'm ok with vehicles being easy to kill. Some of my most painful memories of 5th ed come from a certain unsurmountable wall of Chimeras... I don't want to go through that again!

But yes, vehicles need a save. Something that represents their speed, size and manoeuvrability better than the current USR giving a cover save to all skimmers regardless of size (I can't picture a Monolith performing daring aerial stunts, honestly).

If you are referring to jink on Monoliths, they cannot do so. Heavy skimmers were FAQed that way.

Tannhauser42 wrote: (most MCs should be vulnerable to mass bolter fire, but most vehicles should not).

This wouldn't be a problem with a conversion to toughness. If you did new T = old AV - 4, then an AV13 vehicle would become a T9 model. S4 weapons couldn't hurt AV13, and S4 weapons still wouldn't be able to hurt T9. It actually cascades remarkably gracefully. AV10 vehicles could only be glanced by bolters on a 6. The T6 that such a vehicle would become could still likewise only be hurt on a 6.

The only serious problem is that you'd completely botch the point of the melta rule, which would have to be redone. It could easily be swapped out with +2S at half range, or reroll failed wounds at half range, or something like that.

Actually I would say giving most vehicles a 3+ save would actually be for the best! Heres my reasoning; while most anti-tank weapons would bypass it, that wouldnt be a bad thing, they are anti tank, thats what they are for! I think an armor save would be better placed for things like Auto cannons, multilasers, scatter lasers, tesla, etc. That way a non armor piercing weapon will have a helluva lot harder time to bring down a tank! Seeing bolters and pulse rifles take down raiders, chimeras side armor, trukks, and such has always made me a bit sad. Those vehicles should get some sort of resistance to small arms, but not immunity. It seems like theres too many swiss army guns in the S6-7 range that are making anything in the 10-12 armor range completely trash.

 Ailaros wrote:

Tannhauser42 wrote: (most MCs should be vulnerable to mass bolter fire, but most vehicles should not).

This wouldn't be a problem with a conversion to toughness. If you did new T = old AV - 4, then an AV13 vehicle would become a T9 model. S4 weapons couldn't hurt AV13, and S4 weapons still wouldn't be able to hurt T9. It actually cascades remarkably gracefully. AV10 vehicles could only be glanced by bolters on a 6. The T6 that such a vehicle would become could still likewise only be hurt on a 6.

The only serious problem is that you'd completely botch the point of the melta rule, which would have to be redone. It could easily be swapped out with +2S at half range, or reroll failed wounds at half range, or something like that.

This is actually a really good idea, although there are more than a few individual powers, abilities, or items of wargear that would have to be redone.

Sure, but you could imagine pretty straightforward conversions. Extra armor gives +1 armor save (or perhaps you get to reroll 6's to wound, or something), and vehicles become immune to poison, instant death, and fleshbane while rending adds +D3 S to the shot, rather than automatically causing a wound.

No reason this couldn't be handled pretty smoothly.

Actually I would say giving most vehicles a 3+ save would actually be for the best! Heres my reasoning; while most anti-tank weapons would bypass it, that wouldnt be a bad thing, they are anti tank, thats what they are for! I think an armor save would be better placed for things like Auto cannons, multilasers, scatter lasers, tesla, etc. That way a non armor piercing weapon will have a helluva lot harder time to bring down a tank! Seeing bolters and pulse rifles take down raiders, chimeras side armor, trukks, and such has always made me a bit sad. Those vehicles should get some sort of resistance to small arms, but not immunity. It seems like theres too many swiss army guns in the S6-7 range that are making anything in the 10-12 armor range completely trash.

But that would defeat the purpose of many of these weapons. Weapons like autocannons and missile pods are supposed to bring down light vehicles, that is why they are taken. These weapons would cease to be taken if the became unreliable vehicle killers, as they lack the rate of fire and ap to excel in other areas.

I think Ailaros is right, just dump the vehicle damage tables altogether and replace AV with direction dependent toughness. Let the vehicles also fire one weapon at cruising speed and all at combat speed and you have decent and reliable units again.

Zothos wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
I'm ok with vehicles being easy to kill. Some of my most painful memories of 5th ed come from a certain unsurmountable wall of Chimeras... I don't want to go through that again!

But yes, vehicles need a save. Something that represents their speed, size and manoeuvrability better than the current USR giving a cover save to all skimmers regardless of size (I can't picture a Monolith performing daring aerial stunts, honestly).

If you are referring to jink on Monoliths, they cannot do so. Heavy skimmers were FAQed that way.

Ow. Never seen one since the early days of 6th, actually. They have fallen out of favor with most if not all necron players here.

I don't have a solution but it seems out of whack that my land raider can be one shoted but a wraith knight or riptide cannot.

Either make MC work like vehicles, vehicles work like MC or give each race a MC.