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.

It seems unfair that almost every other unit in the game gets some kind of save against shooting attacks except for vehicles. And vehicles are even more vulnerable against shooting attacks than monstrous creatures of equal durability. For example, a monstrous creature that is T6 will only ever lose one wound to a Lascannon and can take FNP/Invuln saves against it. AV 11, which is also wounded on a 2+, can be destroyed with a single blow and suffer further ill effects.

Here is my proposal: Give vehicles an armor save. It makes dedicated AT weaponry more relevant, it brings vehicle durability in line with their cost and it closes the gap between monstrous creatures and vehicles. It works exactly the same as regular armor saves but it scales based on AV like so.

AV14: 2+
AV13: 3+
AV:12: 4+
AV: 11: 5+
AV: 10: 6+

But, TheCustomLime, won't skimmers just get more powerful from such a change? To you, my imaginary audience, I would say by and large no. Most skimmers are no more than AV12 and the range of weaponry that would normally force them to jink would deny them their armor save anyway. I would suggest that no points cost be taken into account as most if not all AV14 vehicles are overcosted for their durability and on the lighter ones their armor saves won't matter much to justify a price hike.

This belongs in Proposed rules http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/16.page

Do'h, how could I make such a rookie mistake?

Aye, moved it over for you.

Another way would be to give all vehicles the "invincible behemoth" special rule that superheavys have. IMO, the biggest weakness vehicles have is the damage table.

So, would haywire and grav be even more rediculously good?

Vehicles have Armour Pen. A shot that hits but doesn't pen the armour has bounced off the vehicles "armour save"

If you like, we can remove Armour Pen and vehicles instead make a save like a normal trooper. Failed saves roll on the damage table instead of wounds. However I don't think they should be entitled to both

I agree, this would help vehicles a lot.

Dakkamite, regular troops roll against their toughness to see if they are hurt, why should they get a save from something that effectively makes them tougher.

Of course this brings us closer to just giving vehicles toughness values.

I disagree. Them some armies having Sv with vehicle would loose all benefits out of it (i.e SoB) and jink saves would be useless.

@SD

They don't make a damage table result roll though. For me thats the 'toughness' of the vehicle. Seems dumb to roll to pen armour, and then roll to pen armour again.

Yeah, I like vehicle armour saves a lot, albeit I top them at 3+ (a krak missile is anti-tank, so it should crack tank armour).

I've been working a few different ideas for vehicle saves, the one I keep coming back to woks out to most vehicles getting a 3+ to 5+ save depending on their AV. Then it improves by 1 for Heavy and Super Heavy vehicles and gets worse by one for being open topped.

It's a bit unnecessary, if you are trying to take down a landraider or baneblade, most weapons that can reasonably be expected to penetrate are ap1 or 2. It might help out weaker vehicles, but I think that having front armour av11 as a minimum would make many weaker vehicles more viable.

 Dakkamite wrote:
@SD

They don't make a damage table result roll though. For me thats the 'toughness' of the vehicle. Seems dumb to roll to pen armour, and then roll to pen armour again.

I can see what you mean. But then you have Hull Points/Wounds. Which means that the "toughness test" makes the model less useful over time, which the normal toughness test doesn't.

To me, the issue is that models with a toughness value are easier to hurt (a bolter can still hurt a Carnifex, although it bounces off a Rhino), but it's harder to make those wounds stick, while vehicles are harder to damage in the first place, but those "wounds" pretty much always stick barring things like Jink, Shield of Faith, smoke, etc.

Vehicles, however, are vulnerable to both one-shot kills (all weapons with AP1/2 have a chance of Instant Death, basically) *and* hull point depletion, while they don't usually have as many hull points as an equivalent infantry/MC model would have wounds. So, I propose instead the following:

Almost all vehicles get +1 hull points. Exceptions might be things like the Ghost Ark, that are probably right where they're intended at 4HP. Second, walkers take damage as if they were superheavies, ignoring everything but "Explodes". Third, the "Explodes" result instead causes you to lose 1d3 additional hull points. If that takes your last hull point, the vehicle still explodes as usual. This makes it both slightly harder to get sanded to death and also harder to get one-shotted, while making it fairly unlikely for a vehicle to just wade through a storm of potentially-damaging shots completely unscathed.

Under the current system, it takes an average of 14 shuriken cannon shots at BS4 to wreck a Rhino (assuming you don't get a lucky double-immobilize, which is unlikely). Under my system, it would take 18. Under TheCustomLime's system, it would still take 14. But, if we change the shuriken cannon to a scatter laser (AP6), it would take 21 shots.

Now, that's a Rhino. What about a Predator, on front armor? Well, we can't compare shuricannons and scatter lasers anymore, those both bounce off. For the purposes of this, I'll assume that it's not Night Fighting (or that our shooter ignores it). Again, 14 krak missiles at BS4 on average, assuming no lucky shots, and 18 under my system. 14 under TCL's system, but 41(!) shots from some hypothetical S8 AP4 weapon. If we make those autocannon shots - glancing on a 6 at AP4 - the Predator under TCL's system needs 81 shots to die, on average. It can essentially ignore autocannons outright. Under my system, that drops to a more reasonable 36, and now S7 weapons are actually a threat, albeit a small one. (Under the current system, it takes an average of 27 autocannon shots to drop a Predator)

The effects of the Explodes change are a little harder to calculate, but in general, little squishy open-topped stuff is just as dead when you pop off a meltagun into it, while you're less likely to suffer the embarrassment of having a lone Wave Serpent pop your Land Raider with a brightlance before it gets a chance to even move.

TL;DR - Basically, I think armor saves on tanks will be irrelevant most of the time, and overpowered in those cases where they apply - but I agree that vehicles are at least somewhat too squishy. More hull points and a somewhat less deadly damage table will probably help.

I don't really get the point, pretty much all anti tank weapons are ap4 or better. So unless you're an autocannon shooting the front of a predator, it won't make a difference. Unless these are more like invul saves and the tank always gets them. In which case, no.

It's gotten reasonably better only being able to destroy on 7, so you have to have ap1or2. Maybe just make extra armour actually do something. Like -1 on the damage table, then only ap1 can instant kill. Probably would be worth a bit more then.

Depends on how you define "anti-tank weapons" - there's a ton of S5/S6 with lousy AP. Most notoriously right now, scatter lasers, though Tau pulse rifles come to mind too (who hasn't lost a Razorback or two to those?). Eldar also have Singing Spears - S9, AP -. Those become almost entirely worthless against AV12 or better.

Wouldnt it be a better idea just to get rid of the ridiculous HP system? After all, it pretty much makes tanks MC's but with less health.
A glancing hit should do very little, destroying a gun or immobilising at the most whilst a penetrating hit should almost always be an instant kill.

I would disagree - you end up with a situation like in 5th ed, where if you don't have proper anti-tank weapons, you simply can't get rid of that tank. On the flipside, the recent profusion of Destroyer weapons would be even deadlier, if pen == kill.

I think this would make tanks either nearly invincible or else excessively squishy, and it would make Jink far more valuable than it currently is. The main armies seriously hurt by such a change would be Chaos and Imperials, who are already the ones with "squishy vehicle" problems.

But it would lead to change from the current situation where a squad of Marines of Fire Warriors can get within rapid fire range of the rear armour of a Battletank and literally blast it to death with small arms fire.
Hell, it would lead to people actually having to bring dedicated AT weapons again and stop relying on Krak Grenades and their ilk or things such as Multilasers and Autocannons and Heavy Bolters to glance lighter (Or heavier if they can get the flank/rear shots in) vehicles to death.

Which is all well and good, for Land Raiders and Leman Russes and the like. It does serve to make Raiders, Venoms, Rhinos and such even easier to kill, though, if they pop the first time they take a pen, as opposed to being able to soak up two or three.

Also, this might just be a difference of style and opinion, but I feel a lot more annoyed when a big, heavy vehicle gets lucky-shotted off the table before it can do anything, than I do when it gets sanded to death on Turn 4 after achieving most of what I brought it to do. Your proposal makes big vehicles less vulnerable to sanding (almost invulnerable to it, in fact, unless getting immobilized while already immobilized causes a wreck) while, if anything, being more vulnerable to getting one-shotted. That Wraithknight just went from dangerous to terrifying, for example.

Where I do agree with you, though, is that vehicles die too easily. Heavy (AV13-14) vehicles, especially, feel weird: they're immune to almost everything, except for what kills them instantly. Now, from a realism perspective, that makes sense - real-world tanks pretty much ignore anything that doesn't blow them up outright - but in a game, that translates to a rather unsatisfying experience, in my opinion. That's why I favor keeping hull points, but getting more of them, plus a less deadly damage chart.

A possible idea might be to rework glancing hits so that they usually inflict Crew Shaken or Crew Stunned, but have a chance to do something more, and only if they do something more do you lose a hull point. I haven't thought enough about that one.

But remember that we are paying through the noses for that Av 13/14 and only the LR gets it on more than one facing.

My problem with the HP system is that a squad of Marines can get on the flank of an APC or the rear of a battletank (can happen) and quite literally shoot it to death with small arms. No way in hell should an armoured vehicle be vulnerable to death by small arms fire from the rear. Not even heavy weapons, SMALL ARMS fire.
It is wrong. Sure, they may be able to damage the running gear of the final drive but sandblasting it to oblivion? That should be impossible.

 master of ordinance wrote:
But remember that we are paying through the noses for that Av 13/14 and only the LR gets it on more than one facing.

My problem with the HP system is that a squad of Marines can get on the flank of an APC or the rear of a battletank (can happen) and quite literally shoot it to death with small arms. No way in hell should an armoured vehicle be vulnerable to death by small arms fire from the rear. Not even heavy weapons, SMALL ARMS fire.
It is wrong. Sure, they may be able to damage the running gear of the final drive but sandblasting it to oblivion? That should be impossible.

Hm, I see your point there. I mean, AV10 is immune to the Imperial "standard infantry weapon", that is, the lasgun, but it's vulnerable to practically everyone else's light guns. Gauss flayers, shuriken catapults, pulse rifles, bolters, fleshborers, devourers... yeah, that is a bit much. AV12 is really the point at which a vehicle can ignore most infantry small arms.

So, here's a variant proposal: The penetrating hit vehicle damage chart stays right where it is, as do hull points - but glancing hits are handled differently. On a glance, roll on the "glancing hit damage chart", which is as follows.

1. No effect
2-3. Crew Shaken, no hull points lost.
4. Crew Stunned, no hull points lost.
5-6. Crew Stunned, lose a hull point.
7. Weapon Destroyed, lose a hull point
8. Immobilized, lose a hull point

Rolls on this chart are affected by AP as follows: AP-: -2. AP6 or AP5: -1. AP4 or AP3: +0, AP2: +1, AP1: +2. Open-topped grants +1 on the chart. Gauss weapons roll on the chart at +1 and ignore any penalties due to their AP value (but still add any bonuses).

Now it's impossible for a Leman Russ to get shot to death with bolters from the rear, but, for example, a meltagun from the front at 10" (too far for the Melta rule) could still be dangerous. Pulse rifles will still strip hull points if they get pens, but then, those are supposed to be very powerful guns - S5 makes them the equivalent of light cannon. (If a heavy stubber is a .50, and it's S4, then S5 seems like it ought to represent a 20mm or 25mm autocannon, while the 40k "autocannon" is something a lot bigger or hotter, like a 57mm.)

Due to the AP and Open-Topped interactions, bolters could possibly still sand a Venom to death, but it'd take a lot of concentrated bolt fire to do the job; on the other hand a heavy bolter could possibly be a one-shot still.

I'd drop glancing and bring back the 6th Ed damage table.

Anything that causes an automatic glance now would just peel off a hull point instead.

Now bolters can't kill tanks just by a rear shot, but that heavy bolter in the squad might get lucky and the squads krak missiles and grenades can still do serious damage.

That's pretty much how things work now - run out of hull points and croak. Only difference between 6e and 7e damage tables is that you only Explode! on a 7 in 7th.

IMHO, that's a good change - you now probably *won't* insta-die to a krak grenade, but they can still hurt against AV10/11. Trouble is, it's slightly too easy to sand off hull points, and you don't have *quite* enough of them.

 master of ordinance wrote:
But remember that we are paying through the noses for that Av 13/14 and only the LR gets it on more than one facing.

My problem with the HP system is that a squad of Marines can get on the flank of an APC or the rear of a battletank (can happen) and quite literally shoot it to death with small arms. No way in hell should an armoured vehicle be vulnerable to death by small arms fire from the rear. Not even heavy weapons, SMALL ARMS fire.
It is wrong. Sure, they may be able to damage the running gear of the final drive but sandblasting it to oblivion? That should be impossible.

Sounds kinda tactical to me - remove it at once

I'd replace the current system of some units having Wounds and Toughnesses, and others having Hull Points and Armor Values with a single system.

example 1: A Rhino is majority AV11, which means it can only be harmed by S5+, so if it were replaced with a Toughness value it would be T8 for similar durability.

example 2: A Land Raider is AV14, which means it can only be harmed by S8+, so if it were a Toughness it would be T11 for similar durability.

They could have a save as well if needed for balancing, but it would be a lesser save, since the Toughness is the primary defense.

I think it would be good to have one system to cover all units.

Either use an armour value vs armour penetration value for all units.
Armour value + D6 compared to Armour penetration value of weapon.
Eg AV 2 models rolls a 4,this gives a save roll of 6.This beats the attacking weapon of AP5.So the model passes its save.

Or compare armour value to amour penetration value on a chart to give the save roll required.
EG an AV 2 model is hit by an AP 6 weapon, this is cross referenced on the chart to give the save roll required.

Both new methods give a proportional result, because they compare opposed values.(Which is better than either of the current systems.)

If we call weapon effect 'damage' and resistance to damage 'resilience'.It can cover organic and mechanical units.
(Where as strength and toughness only applies to organic units.)

I may need to explain this better?

Lanrak wrote:
I think it would be good to have one system to cover all units.

Either use an armour value vs armour penetration value for all units.
Armour value + D6 compared to Armour penetration value of weapon.
Eg AV 2 models rolls a 4,this gives a save roll of 6.This beats the attacking weapon of AP5.So the model passes its save.

Or compare armour value to amour penetration value on a chart to give the save roll required.
EG an AV 2 model is hit by an AP 6 weapon, this is cross referenced on the chart to give the save roll required.

Both new methods give a proportional result, because they compare opposed values.(Which is better than either of the current systems.)

If we call weapon effect 'damage' and resistance to damage 'resilience'.It can cover organic and mechanical units.
(Where as strength and toughness only applies to organic units.)

I may need to explain this better?

I think I get what you're driving at, here, and it makes a degree of sense. It seems kinda similar to what Bolt Action does for wound rolls (which is, admittedly, not quite directly adaptable to 40k, since Bolt Action's system assumes all infantry are human and doesn't have saves).

I've thought about variations like "high strength weapon deals multiple wounds", and such, but haven't cooked up anything coherent yet.

When you consider that bolters represent miniature hand-held grenade launchers it doesn't some implausible that every once in a while they can glance an enemy vehicle's weakest armor if they got into position beforehand.