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.

MC are great because they get armor saves and invul saves.

GMC are great because they get Smash, and FNP, make poison 6+

For some reason MC cost less than Walkers. Dread Knight vs Contemptor Dreadnaught.

GC cost evem less than SHV walkers. Imperial Knights vs Wraith Knight

why not just apply a 4+ armor save for all vehicles so that stuff with high Str but ap5 or ap6 are not as good vs vehicles. Stuff like heavy bolters and scat lasers and other small arms guns would not hurt vehicles as often. Missiles and Autocannons will still remain good to hurt light vehicles.

Also if most MC gets invul saves of 5+ why can't vehicles get a 6++ invul?
How about a similar reanimated protocol on a 6+++ called Non Critical Component. The shot penetrated the hull but hit superfluous machinery.

Simple Fix. Remove the concept of glancing hits from the game. Make it so you must exceed the armour value to penetrate and thats it. That would help a lot. A space marine shouldn't be able to tear open a Rhino with his bare hands.

That would take us back to 5th ed where it was impossible to wreck a rhino.

I personally feel that the problem lies in MC being great in this edition (grav aside), not vehicles being bad.

@ Filch:
Yes, but back then you had to hope to roll a lucky wreck or explodes to kill the Rhino.

Now all it will take it 3 pens at most.

That said, could still be a bit powerful.

I know it's been suggest previously (including by me and by kind of by you) in many different threads, but giving all vehicles an armour save that only works against Glancing Hits would really help. Most get a 3+; Heavy and Super Heavies (except SHFs) get a 2+; Open-Topped, Flyers and Skimmers (and maybe non-Tank Fast?) get a 4+. That way only proper Anti-tank weaponry can easily glance vehicles to death, not Autocannons.

Only a 4+ armour save wouldn't help, as most of the problem weapons are AP4. A 3+ or better on sturdier vehicles against Glancing Hits stops that problem while still allowing Autocannons to take out medium-light vehicles with pens.

That, or all vehicles get double (or similar) the number of hullpoints (again, suggested by others previously).

I think that we should just erase AV values altogether and give toughness values and armor saves to vehicles that are dependant on the side you are shooting with wounds. Just a special rule called VEHICLE and specify poison and fleshbane dont work on it, and replace the effects with armorbane and haywire.



Also get rid of that 25% obscuration rule. If some Marines are in front of it go ahead and give it a 5+ cover save.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I personally feel that the problem lies in MC being great in this edition (grav aside), not vehicles being bad.

This.

One of the things I like about AoS (Yeah, I'll say it. I don't play it, but I'll say it) is that a giant "anti-tank" equivalent weapon does multiple wounds worth of damage. The problem with the balance in 40k is that a Lascannon has a chance to outright explode your vehicle, but at the very worst will do a single wound to an MC.

Use a 5th ed rulebook.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I think that we should just erase AV values altogether and give toughness values and armor saves to vehicles that are dependant on the side you are shooting with wounds. Just a special rule called VEHICLE and specify poison and fleshbane dont work on it, and replace the effects with armorbane and haywire.
.

This just seems like a no brainer to me, it doubles as also streamlining the rules.

I recently got a friend into 40k, he chose Tyranids. During our first 3 games I couldn't help but appreciate his "what"? faces when I explained how damage to vehicle works. He didn't get why they made different rules for vehicles. And then I explained how Tau and Eldar walkers aren't really walkers. Was humorous to me.

You could even do a simple USR to make "tanks" etc immune to poison and susceptible to haywire.

EDIT: Sorry you already touched on Haywire and Poison, so ignore my redundancy to that. Good idea.

 Bulldogging wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I think that we should just erase AV values altogether and give toughness values and armor saves to vehicles that are dependant on the side you are shooting with wounds. Just a special rule called VEHICLE and specify poison and fleshbane dont work on it, and replace the effects with armorbane and haywire.
.

This just seems like a no brainer to me, it doubles as also streamlining the rules.

I recently got a friend into 40k, he choose Tyranids. During our first 3 games I couldn't help but appreciate his "what"? faces when I explained how damage to vehicle works. He didn't get why they made different rules for vehicles. And then I explained how Tau and Eldar walkers aren't really walkers. Was humorous to me.

You could even do a simple USR to make "tanks" etc immune to poison and susceptible to haywire.

EDIT: Sorry you already touched on Haywire and Poison, so ignore my redundancy to that. Good idea.

The absolute best judge of how fethed up a rule is, is a new person learning it for the first time

I personally subscribe to removing about 2/3rds of the AP1-2 and high strength weapons from the game. If you want to field some massively expensive anti tank unit thats fine but you shuold have to pay a lot more points for it. Also Feth fire dragons AP0 is BS

 Dramagod2 wrote:
Simple Fix. Remove the concept of glancing hits from the game. Make it so you must exceed the armour value to penetrate and thats it. That would help a lot. A space marine shouldn't be able to tear open a Rhino with his bare hands.

My Russ Tanks both agree, and disagree.

Glancing is the only real anti-tank power the IG has besides flimsy and costly melta vets.

 Selym wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
Simple Fix. Remove the concept of glancing hits from the game. Make it so you must exceed the armour value to penetrate and thats it. That would help a lot. A space marine shouldn't be able to tear open a Rhino with his bare hands.

My Russ Tanks both agree, and disagree.

Glancing is the only real anti-tank power the IG has besides flimsy and costly melta vets.

my Lootaz with their S7 AP4 weapons agree

 Filch wrote:
That would take us back to 5th ed where it was impossible to wreck a rhino.

The major difference between now and 5th though is that antitank and low AP are everywhere now. They used to be much more limited. If glancing hits were to be eliminated leaving everything else the way it stands in 7th including the crazy amount of anti armor I don't think anyone would have trouble taking out a rhino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
Simple Fix. Remove the concept of glancing hits from the game. Make it so you must exceed the armour value to penetrate and thats it. That would help a lot. A space marine shouldn't be able to tear open a Rhino with his bare hands.

My Russ Tanks both agree, and disagree.

Glancing is the only real anti-tank power the IG has besides flimsy and costly melta vets.

Not true. Those are just the ones you use. IG has lascannon, Autocannons, Melta, Vendettas, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Rending Pask, earthshakers. I think We would just see more of the options that never get used. Also, remember that not all AVs are 14 and most that are are significantly weaker on other sides.

See this is hard to do, because most codex's have SEVERAL ways to kill High AV vehicles. and a few codex's have so many ridiculous ways to kill vehicles that it is almost impossible to field vehicles and have a shot at winning. So the NERF Glances is ok but it doesn't really address the problem directly and it also kills any chance I have with my Orks of destroying vehicles from range. The best anti tank we have is our Lootaz with their S7 AP4 D3 shots at BS2. So we generally glance our targets to death at 48in, beyond that the only reliable anti tank we have is Tank Bustas with Rng 24in rokketz (AP3) and Power Klaws. So in general I agree that vehicles are to flimsy, just my army hasn't benefited from the High Strength Low AP love from the last 2 editions.

Lets take a LR.
AV14
So roll 3D6 for your save, exceed the armour value, you lose a hull point and if you lose 2 in the same phase you roll on Vehicle Damage, but if the weapons S is lower than your AV which it probably will be, you get an auto 4++ to roll.

I agree that the main issue is that MC's and Vehicles work too differently based on some deeply entrenched ideas about vehicles:

Vehicles:
- can fire all their guns; due to use of advanced machinery and multiple gunners
- have different rates of movement; harder for gunners to shoot if it moves more quickly
- have fire arcs; unable to easily pivot on the spot, so guns are limited in direction of fire
- are tougher in some arcs than in others; rather than just having weak points like a creature, vehicles often have a whole facing that's full of weak points, and aren't nimble like creatures are to protect those weak points
- can Tank Shock; so strong and powerful that they can just crush or ram others to destroy them under their treads or with a single solid hit
- often (though not always) lack Weapon Skill; they don't have arms or other appendages, so can't fight in close combat
- often (though not always) can drive away from close combat; the driver is protected enough that they'll risk damaging the vehicle to get away from those strapping bombs to them
- can be taken out by 1 shot; similar to vehicle weak points, they can't move the weak point out of the way, so its easier to hit that crucial weak point hard enough to instantly blow up the tank


Of course, each and every single one of these points is kind of silly in the grand scheme of things. Either they just aren't that true (all creatures should be able to try and disengage from combat, and a vehicle should be even more susceptible to this - not less!), or the arguments for or against can easily be refitted for use by monstrous creatures or vice-versa (Tau have advanced tech too in their suits, Tyranid guns have individual brains, etc; or a number of vehicles in 40k have crew-mates hanging from them which should be able to make attacks or defend against attacks in close combat).

Ultimately, I agree that making the two more similar to each other would be a good thing, and there's many ways to go about doing that:

#1 - Monstrous Creature & Bike Facings:
They're huge, unlike the small nimble infantry. These units should only be able to fire in a 90° arc from whichever direction the model is facing (in most situations this is apparent. In situations where it's not, declare which point of the model is the forward facing when deploying it and use this point through the rest of the game).

#2 - Everything Shoots 2 at Full, Rest as Snap Fire for moving 0" to 6":
Exception is Super Heavies. Additionally, Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures can choose to fire everything as Snap Shots and then immediately make a 6" Flat Out move in the direction they are facing, or can make a 6" Flat Out move in the direction they are facing then fire everything as Snap Shots. Skimmers and Fast vehicles add 6" to Flat Out, and these bonuses stack.

#3 - Vehicles & Monstrous Creatures can leave combat by moving in the movement phase:
Though any enemy models in base contact make a single attack as you do so.

#4 - Crush Move:
Both Vehicles & Monstrous Creatures that move through a point occupied by another model make a Crush attack against that model. This model must succeed at an Initiative Test or else they are hit by a S6 AP3 attack that ignores cover (bigger vehicles could get a Special Rule that increases the strength or AP of this attack, such as the DeffRolla, or a Land Raider Crusader's Frag Pack). That unit must then make a Leadership test. If they pass, they may choose to become locked in close combat, or else move the minimum distance to become 1" away from the model making the Crush attack and the path it travelled. If they fail they Fall Back.

#5 - Remove Armour Value and replace with Toughness:
Stated a bunch of times. AV10 is nearly equivalent to Toughness 6 in that you need a Strength 6 gun to hurt it half the time. AV11-14 is like Toughness 7 through 10 for the same reason. Haywire can be changed to wound vehicles on a 2+, and Melta can work by giving a reroll to-wound rolls against vehicles.

#6 - Replace Glancing & Penetrating hits with Critical Hits:
A Critical Hit is achieved whenever you score a wound against a Vehicle or Monstrous Creature without rolling a 6. If you do, then you roll on a Critical Hit table to see what extra damage occurs.
1-3 is Stunned (Snap Shots Only next turn, can't Flat Out)
4 is Stalled (Snap Shots Only next turn, can't move at all)
5 is Weapon Destroyed
6 is Immobilized (becomes Weapon Destroyed if already immobilized)
and 7 is "Choose one, then score an additional Critical Hit with an AP of -"

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 Filch wrote:
That would take us back to 5th ed where it was impossible to wreck a rhino.

The major difference between now and 5th though is that antitank and low AP are everywhere now. They used to be much more limited. If glancing hits were to be eliminated leaving everything else the way it stands in 7th including the crazy amount of anti armor I don't think anyone would have trouble taking out a rhino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
Simple Fix. Remove the concept of glancing hits from the game. Make it so you must exceed the armour value to penetrate and thats it. That would help a lot. A space marine shouldn't be able to tear open a Rhino with his bare hands.

My Russ Tanks both agree, and disagree.

Glancing is the only real anti-tank power the IG has besides flimsy and costly melta vets.

Not true. Those are just the ones you use. IG has lascannon, Autocannons, Melta, Vendettas, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Rending Pask, earthshakers. I think We would just see more of the options that never get used. Also, remember that not all AVs are 14 and most that are are significantly weaker on other sides.

And the efficiency of those options gives the IG a hard time against armour without the aforementioned Melta Vets.

Who just love to get themselves killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote:
Lets take a LR.
AV14
So roll 3D6 for your save, exceed the armour value, you lose a hull point and if you lose 2 in the same phase you roll on Vehicle Damage, but if the weapons S is lower than your AV which it probably will be, you get an auto 4++ to roll.

Huh?

That's more obscure than the current model...

And what do you do if a SH loses 4+? One roll or two?

As said before, the vehicle mechanic needs to be more straightforward.

Super Heavies would probably get two.

Simplifying vehicles is pointless, making them more durable, yes.

Why is it pointless?

Removing glances alone would make them simpler and tougher.

Games outside of 40k have been making simple and durable vehicles.

 Selym wrote:
Why is it pointless?

Removing glances alone would make them simpler and tougher.

Games outside of 40k have been making simple and durable vehicles.

But then what would Gauss do?

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Why is it pointless?

Removing glances alone would make them simpler and tougher.

Games outside of 40k have been making simple and durable vehicles.

But then what would Gauss do?

Give pens with no result roll. Which is all a glance is now.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Why is it pointless?

Removing glances alone would make them simpler and tougher.

Games outside of 40k have been making simple and durable vehicles.

But then what would Gauss do?

Strip a hull point, but not get called a glance?

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Why is it pointless?

Removing glances alone would make them simpler and tougher.

Games outside of 40k have been making simple and durable vehicles.

But then what would Gauss do?

Strip a hull point, but not get called a glance?

Then it has my seal of approval!

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Why is it pointless?

Removing glances alone would make them simpler and tougher.

Games outside of 40k have been making simple and durable vehicles.

But then what would Gauss do?

I never said it was a good idea - just that it would work.

It's not like the crons couldn't do with the nerf though.

I could go with that, with one change: Alter the damage chart as follows:

1: Lose a hull point, no other effect.
2-3: Crew Shaken
4: Crew Stunned
5: Weapon Destroyed (if no weapons remain, Crew Stunned)
6: Immobilized (if already immobilized, Critical Hit!)
7: Critical Hit! - Lose 1d3 Hull Points in addition to the Hull Point lost for a penetrating hit. If this depletes all Hull Points, the vehicle explodes (as the current Explodes! result) rather than being wrecked.

Then make AP3 give +1 to the damage chart just like AP2 does, so that Krak Missiles and Rokkits are dangerous again.

 Selym wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Why is it pointless?

Removing glances alone would make them simpler and tougher.

Games outside of 40k have been making simple and durable vehicles.

But then what would Gauss do?

I never said it was a good idea - just that it would work.

It's not like the crons couldn't do with the nerf though.

Wait, how would you be nerfing them? Making Gauss not do anything? Hypothetically you did that, you know you just removed them as a playable faction, right?

How? It's not like they cannot harm tanks any other way.

Is gauss really the only thing that makes necrons any good?

That's not a nerf the Necrons really need, though.

Martel732 wrote:
That's not a nerf the Necrons really need, though.

Agreed. Gauss is not an issue. Its some of the RPing formations in the Decurion that are too strong.

 Selym wrote:
How? It's not like they cannot harm tanks any other way.

Is gauss really the only thing that makes necrons any good?

Makes them good as an army? Oh heck no. Makes them able to kill vehicles? Yes.

Necrons don't have spammable (if any, in some cases) Melta, Lascannons, plasma guns, lances, or D-weapons.

We have the Doom Scythe, which is really expensive for a single small blast. Heavy Destroyers, so for 150 points we get 3 lascannons. A Triarch Stalker, which has a Multimelta or a twin-linked lascannon, on an expensive open-topped walker.

Gauss is really what allows Necrons to kill vehicles. We thrive on Glances.