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.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Now that being said, do vehicles, if Ap5/6/- can't touch them, need a Ld value? Because I might get scared if people start spamming Lasers at me even if they don't pen my tank.

Well yeah, which would open some fun options for more orders for all factions. Now you could represent different crews if you wanted, buy better commanders more readily, and actually have a proper use for the morale portion of the game.

Blanked give every vehicles with an AV a 3+ save.

Would be a very simple solution and stop a lot of the High str no AP weapons from being near as effective vs armor.

Also since you use armor or cover, most vehicles would benefit more from the armor save anyway.

How/Why should a marine/terminator be more resistant to damage than a combat vehicle.

Almost most real AT weapons are AP1-3 as is.

Also like this ^

I could see light vehicles having 4+ because autocannons should be very good vs light vehicles.

(All Ork vehicles only get 6+ saves... But don't tell them)

How about just giving vehicles a 2+ armour save against glancing hits? A penetrating hit is by definition a hit that has penetrated the armour, but a glancing hit should only have a slim chance at doing damage to a vehicle. This would make vehicles less vulnerable to mid strength high ROF weapons (scatterlasers, I'm looking at you) and encourage weapons like meltas and lascannons that could penetrate a vehicle, whilst weapons like autocannons would still be decently effective against light vehicles which they could penetrate.

 mrhappyface wrote:
(All Ork vehicles only get 6+ saves... But don't tell them)

Ork vehicles actually all get a 2+. Dey tinks deir truks is da best!

 EnTyme wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
(All Ork vehicles only get 6+ saves... But don't tell them)

Ork vehicles actually all get a 2+. Dey tinks deir truks is da best!

But they're made out of cardboard, quote "all Ork vehicles are made from cardboard, trust mrhappyface: he knows what he's talking about." See!?

Most of them are held together by duct tape, hope and rhino saliva, but the Orks "think" they are tough, so their psychic field thingy makes them tough.

Martel732 wrote:

 Dyslexican32 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

To be perfectly fair, we are not talking about "sub machine guns" here. Im about to play logic to a wargame here, be ware, here there be dragons! (disclaimer)
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter_Ammunition

Is just an example. I mean that is in all reality a fully automatic rocket propelled grenade launcher, and that is not even considering most of these light vehicles have viewing ports, hatches ext. Now yeah bolters are frustrating but the real problem is all that S6 or better in the game right now that can be shot at volume, as someone else said.

I think the answer is something simple and clean, as opposed to another chart, cus lets face it there are to many damn charts in this game as there is! I don't so much have a problem with S4 having a chance to glance A10 on a 6, given that its possible that that exploding round MIGHT punch a hole in the armor after all its "angry little brothers" hit it and weakened it. I think the real problem is that the pen chart has been passed up by the game and we need something more clean and simple for vehicles, Adding a save wold help if we keep the chart, but I think the real problem is the chart its self. It either needs a rework or removed and replaced with something more akin to wounds.

It's a submachine gun equivalent. I don't care about the fluff. The whole rocket ammo thing is dumb anyway. Bolters should not be harming vehicles, in my view. Again, I ignore the fluff because it's stupid. Only the math matters to me.

Does the fluff say that Eldar stomp all over everyone? Yet, the game says they do. So the fluff can go die in a hole.

You may not care about fluff, and think it can "die in a hole" however its kinda what ALL THE RULES AND NUMBERS ARE BASED AROUND! and yes eldar are extremely dangerous and lethal even in relatively small numbers. Now does GW always do a great job of balancing those numbers, that's is what people complain and debate about but that doesn't change the fact that the game rules are designed around the fluff. Saying you don't care what the fluff says is like saying "I don't believe in science so science is stupid".






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also i have seen a couple posts talking about Str and AP treating them like they are mutually exclusive in if they can deal damage to something. It makes absolute sense that a weapon with high STR could glance/pen a vehicle even if it has a high ap5,6,-. That weapon that is Str 9,10 is still capable of doing a ton of damage. the difference between the weapons ability to do damage to a vehicle or a troop or MC or whatever is based on its STR that STR 10 AP - weapon can still damage a marine just like it can a tank, the difference is it will kill the marine out right (assuming he fails his armor save) where it will glance the vehicle, and has a chance to do damage to its external parts. I.E. weapons, treds ext. those shots NEVER have to pen its armor to do so!! so YES a bolter or bolter equivalent SHOULD be able to damage the weaker points on a low armor vehicle.

AP on the other hand is it punching thru that thick armor, ONLY AP 1-2 can pen the armor of a vehicle and there aren't many weapons with high enough STR AND AP to do that that aren't specifically designed to deal with heavely armored targets, Laz, melta, powerfists, hammers ect. The problem has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the strength of weapons like scatter lasers or others.

Now do I think vehicles need something to make them more resilient? Yes. I believe i said something about invuln saves yesterday, that was speaking without thinking, I had meant armor saves. I think an armor save would fix most of those issues. Although I am still ok with being able to purchase an invuln save for more heavily armored vehicles such as Landraiders and such. I will elaborate. on how that roll would look.

Roll to hit.
Roll to Pen.
Roll to save
if penned roll on the open chart.

That way your weapon had to hit it with enough power to actually do damage(just like wounding), then the vehicle gets its armor save( low AP weapons will STILL deny these saves just like melta, laz ext currently do. the weapons with higher ap can still only glance, and low ap can do much more catastrophic damage. This way you don't need to rework weapons from the ground up. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with most weapons in the game currently when it comes to STR and Ap is concerned (you can argue about D and points costs of specific weapons all day but that isn't the point here, that is a over all codex balance issue and not a game mechanics problem. ) so reworking weapons and how they effect things like MC's and such would throw off the games "balance" way worse then a simple change to vehicles.

Need to keep any change simple...thus no chart for different vehicles IMO.

Blanked if its got an AV 3+ armor save...monsterous creatures all effectively get an AV, its called the to wound roll, then they get to save if the weapon isnt low AP.

Same principle would make vehicles actually worth bringing again. Anti-tank weapons/low AP weapons will still be lethal as they will ignore the 3+ armor.

If you want to mess with lightly armored vehicles say if the vehicle is open topped it only has a 4+ armor save ,and add it to the open topped rule.

Damn I should be writing rules for GW lol.

So an armored Sentinel gets the same armour save as a Land Raider or Knight?

You joke about writing for GW, but that logic sounds exactly like what they'd be thinking at GW. Which isn't a good thing.

If you plan on going the simple route of simply adding an armour save, at least the OP had a respectable formula. I personally believe it should be dealt with on a case by case basis and use the time to adjust the over performing and under performing vehicles in the process.

An addition of Vehicle Armour Saves alone won't restore vehicles if there isn't a reexamining of several other rules.

In regards to what I would make the saves, I'd assign all vehicles a base save of 4+, modified as follows.

Model has the Tank type - improve Armour Save by 1
Model has the Heavy or Superheavy Type - Improve Armour Save by 1
Model has AV of 14 on 2 or more faces - Improve Armour Save by 1
Model is Open Topped - Armour Save is 1 point worse

An this is why GW would never do this, you guys want to make it to complex.

It has to be easy all vehicles 3+ save no matter armor, why because you were already protected by your AV and apparently it failed you...so the land raider is already not going to be making as many saves as a dreadnought........the AV will see to that.

So yes your big land raider is still cooler than the AV 12 dreadnought.

Then just add to open topped rule that all open topped vehicles are only 4+ armor save.

Also keep in mind even with a 3+ most things that kill vehicles are still going to kill them as they will be AP 1-3.....

All this would do is make vehicles slightly more survivable.

This isn't a question of what GW would do or if they'll do it; we all know they never will anyways, even the simplest changes. So if a bunch of people are planning on fixing something, they might as well fix it right instead of the easiest blanket solution that is still poorly balanced and doesn't reflect the fluff.

 Blacksails wrote:
This isn't a question of what GW would do or if they'll do it; we all know they never will anyways, even the simplest changes. So if a bunch of people are planning on fixing something, they might as well fix it right instead of the easiest blanket solution that is still poorly balanced and doesn't reflect the fluff.

I fail to see how adding a Armor save to vehicles is "poorly balanced". How is it poorly balanced? This effectively deals with most of those instances that where being complained about earlier in the post from the Str 5 and 6 weapons, without taking out the chance that they will do something in shooting at all against up to AV 11-12. They can still glance you just have a built in save against it, this makes your vehicles more survivable and more in line with MC's without just blanket making MC's and Vehicles the same.

Sure if you want to make the argument of how good a save they should get, thats fine i am not opposed to that, I would say probably most would be 3+, with beefier like maybe land raiders potentially being a 2+, and open topped, skimmers and maybe even flyers being 4+. But thats is a balance issue that could be debated. just saying simple is bad cus its simple isnt debating a point. its like crossing your arms and holding your breath. But give a reason to support your argument as to why not..

 Dyslexican32 wrote:


Sure if you want to make the argument of how good a save they should get

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I must have misunderstood, it sounded like you were against armor saves. So you would rather it be split up by vehicle types? I.E. Skimmers, tanks, walkers ext? I think that's a good way to handle it, gives them survivability but doesn't change how they work on any fundamental level.

 Dyslexican32 wrote:
I must have misunderstood, it sounded like you were against armor saves. So you would rather it be split up by vehicle types? I.E. Skimmers, tanks, walkers ext? I think that's a good way to handle it, gives them survivability but doesn't change how they work on any fundamental level.

I don't dislike the fundamental idea of armour saves on vehicles, and I admit I prefer my suggestion (though admittedly significantly more work, but I'd argue for better results), but if someone was to simply add armour saves to vehices, either a formula like the OP with some minor tweaks, or looking at every vehicle individually and assessing what it should have. I feel that the armour value range should more or less mirror the range we see on troops as well, so I'm not adverse to something like a sentinel or trukk get a 5+ or even 6+ save. Conversely, something like a Land Raider could be 2+/5++.

I'd leave LR vulnerable to krak missiles. I wouldn't put 2+ save on a vehicle.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd leave LR vulnerable to krak missiles. I wouldn't put 2+ save on a vehicle.

Technically speaking, even with a 2+ save, it'd still be vulnerable, as there's a 1 in 6 chance of failing the save.

Plus, I certainly hope you're not shooting S8 at Land Raiders in the first place if there's any other vehicle on the table.

I don't see a problem with giving some vehicles 2+ saves. Some MCs have them, and its a good way to say "This vehicle is fething impervious to anything". It also lets you assign a 2+ to something as durable as Land Riader, but then assign a 3+ to a BattleWagon for example as another vehicle with AV14. Helps differentiate the durability between vehicles.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd leave LR vulnerable to krak missiles. I wouldn't put 2+ save on a vehicle.

Technically speaking, even with a 2+ save, it'd still be vulnerable, as there's a 1 in 6 chance of failing the save.

Plus, I certainly hope you're not shooting S8 at Land Raiders in the first place if there's any other vehicle on the table.

I don't see a problem with giving some vehicles 2+ saves. Some MCs have them, and its a good way to say "This vehicle is fething impervious to anything". It also lets you assign a 2+ to something as durable as Land Riader, but then assign a 3+ to a BattleWagon for example as another vehicle with AV14. Helps differentiate the durability between vehicles.

I don't think MCs should have them either. When I updated vehicles, I'd get rid of 2+ MCs as well.

Missile launchers are already really bad. I think that anti-tank missiles should have a 16% chance of glancing a LR, not a 1/36 chance.

Martel732 wrote:


I don't think MCs should have them either. When I updated vehicles, I'd get rid of 2+ MCs as well.

At least you're consistent, but I feel that if we have armour saves up to 2+ on normal units, we might as well apply it where it appropriate. Why limit ourselves when there's plenty of ways to ensure an AV14 2+ unit is still balanced. Hell, the Land Raider is bad enough as it is, at least a 2+ would help out against anything that isn't a lascannon equivalent.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


I don't think MCs should have them either. When I updated vehicles, I'd get rid of 2+ MCs as well.

At least you're consistent, but I feel that if we have armour saves up to 2+ on normal units, we might as well apply it where it appropriate. Why limit ourselves when there's plenty of ways to ensure an AV14 2+ unit is still balanced. Hell, the Land Raider is bad enough as it is, at least a 2+ would help out against anything that isn't a lascannon equivalent.

Where i would tend to agree with MC's not having 2+ armor outside of maybe a rare one off circumstance which seems to be the case now, I can't even think of a MC with a 2+ off the top of my head, i don't play against nids hardly ever so im sure im just missing one. However the reason I don't have a problem with the more heavily armors vehicles having a 2+ is because most weapons that would specifically deal with them would deny that armor anyway and be just as effective as before, but might force people to make some choices on their weapons to have to deal with these vehicles.

My reasoning as well.

MCs with 2+? Riptide, R'Varna, Y'Vahra, Tyrannofex, Nemesis Dreadknight, at the very least.

Deleted, as post was basically what i said

i know i am in the minority, but i also don't think we should count FW models, as inclusion of them also introduces a whole slew of weapons we aren't accounting for in the normal game

Jefffar wrote:
An addition of Vehicle Armour Saves alone won't restore vehicles if there isn't a reexamining of several other rules.

In regards to what I would make the saves, I'd assign all vehicles a base save of 4+, modified as follows.

Model has the Tank type - improve Armour Save by 1
Model has the Heavy or Superheavy Type - Improve Armour Save by 1
Model has AV of 14 on 2 or more faces - Improve Armour Save by 1
Model is Open Topped - Armour Save is 1 point worse

I like this best, except that as Martel said, cap any vehicle save at 3+ to give krak missiles employment opportunities.

Further analysis:
Rhinos, ork trukks, and dark eldar Raiders wouldn't insta die to a min-size scatbike squad firing at front armor from across the field on average. (Good!)

Krak missiles, ork rokkits, and similar shots become more relevant, being strong enough to beat any vehicle armor save and connect with most armor values. Currently they are out of work as the immigrant high rate of fire crappy AP weapons have taken all the jobs. Cutting the damage of those guns in half/in thirds against armor could really salvage the situation. (Good!)

I would propose keeping the save against bad AP haywire guns. To me they are similar to 2+ poison rounds against MC's, which work fairly well even though the MC tends to get a save. The abundance of "alternate damage methods" for vehicles like haywire, lance, the D, etc. has done its part in assigning most high cost tanks to permanent shelf-patrol. I find haywire at least, to be disgustingly cheap and efficient. The heavier tanks running a 3+ would still be taking damage from the usual haywire volleys of 4-5 shots. (Perhaps a 6 could be rewritten to "pen hit no armor save" on haywire chart.) Meanwhile ghost arks, tauroxes, trukks, raiders, venoms and other similar vehicles would still be under full threat, at least from the dark eldar haywire, which is mostly AP4. (A very convenient number for this situation! Also makes sense that the heavy armored vehicles would be a bit resistant to electrical finagling, while the light armored and open-topped rides would have no real defense against it.)

With the above changes I think both vehicles in general and the currently neglected low rate of fire vehicle hunting weapons could make a comeback. --> Armies spending points on those reduces the amount of s6 spam.

Add on the "monster slayer" rule to a few very strong single shot weapons (ie lascannons and similar) that causes 2 wounds to an MC that fails his invuln/cover, and I think we've got a bright future ahead!

I would propose keeping the save against bad AP haywire guns. To me they are similar to 2+ poison rounds against MC's, which work fairly well even though the MC tends to get a save. The abundance of "alternate damage methods" for vehicles like haywire, lance, the D, etc. has done its part in assigning most high cost tanks to permanent shelf-patrol. I find haywire at least, to be disgustingly cheap and efficient. The heavier tanks running a 3+ would still be taking damage from the usual haywire volleys of 4-5 shots. (Perhaps a 6 could be rewritten to "pen hit no armor save" on haywire chart.) Meanwhile ghost arks, tauroxes, trukks, raiders, venoms and other similar vehicles would still be under full threat, at least from the dark eldar haywire, which is mostly AP4. (A very convenient number for this situation! Also makes sense that the heavy armored vehicles would be a bit resistant to electrical finagling, while the light armored and open-topped rides would have no real defense against it.)

I don't know that adding anything to haywire and suck are necessary, those are specifically designed to deal with vehicles as it is, and can easily take out that tank even with an armor save. i mean MAYBE haywire could get something added but i dont really think that's necessary.

Bright lances and dark lances would get 2 wounds vs MCs as well. I'd give the Tau Railgun on the Hammerhead 3 wounds, myself.