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.

Hey Dakkanauts,

So the ongoing discussion regarding vehicles is the vehicle damage table really putting the plug to vehicles as a whole. What would you think of this minor change to the list itself?

The "Vehicle Explodes" result change to a "Heavily Damaged" result which would 'cause d3+1 HP instead of instant vehicle destruction. Perhaps a "Fuel Line Blowout" addition which would still do the d6 radius damage to other models.

Sure, but this fixes nothing.

That's positive thinking....

Anything you'd add to help?

 IronMaster wrote:
That's positive thinking....

Anything you'd add to help?

Give vehicles 3+ armor perhaps. For a quick fix. Trash the whole rule set and start over for a not quick fix.

"If the vehicle is reduced to 0 or fewer HP, it Explodes!".

 IronMaster wrote:
Hey Dakkanauts,

So the ongoing discussion regarding vehicles is the vehicle damage table really putting the plug to vehicles as a whole. What would you think of this minor change to the list itself?

The "Vehicle Explodes" result change to a "Heavily Damaged" result which would 'cause d3+1 HP instead of instant vehicle destruction. Perhaps a "Fuel Line Blowout" addition which would still do the d6 radius damage to other models.

Because D3+1 HP probably reduces the vehicle to 0 HPs anyway, so the buff is that it doesn't explode. sorry but that isn't worth much as a buff to vehicles in this edition.

i dont mind it just being d3 hull points and IF it dies then it explodes (i love magazine explosions). or otherwise should be on a roll of a 1 its a hp 2-5 2 hull points on a 3 it does the 3 but if it would die then it explodes as to reduce straight kills.

But indeed the issue isnt the explosion. its the over abundance of glancing weapons just wrecking vehicles left and right.

armor saves would help out a lot.
and or glancing will not take away hull points but allow for diminished roll on the table. (to a point where it cannot do permanent damage.)

it forces people to take higher str weapons to reliably pen which should help remove some of the mid-high, rapid rate of fire spam everyone is into these days.

My preference is for the damage table to look like the following, the slashes for HP damage indicate damage for glancing hit/penetrating hit:

1 No additional effect (0/1 HP damage)
2 Crew Shaken (0/1 HP damage)
3 Crew Stunned (0/1 HP damage)
4 Hull Damage (1 HP damage)
5 Weapon Destroyed (1 HP damage)
6 Immobilised (1 HP damage)
7 On Fire (1 HP damage, plus roll a D6 each turn, on a 4+ suffer one more HP damage and repeat, otherwise discard)
8+ Secondary Explosion (D3 HP damage, if reduces to 0 HP vehicle Explodes!)

Glancing and penetrating hits both roll on the same table, but with the following modifiers:

-2 Glancing Hit
-1 AP5 or worse
+1 for exceeding target armour by four or more.
+1 AP2
+2 AP1

In essence, glancing hits are less threatening as only a roll of a 6 inflicts damage, but there's a 1/3 chance of a movement/shooting penalty, but a 1/2 chance of the hit doing nothing, though this can be mitigated by good AP (so a glance with an anti-tank weapon can still be damaging). There's an additional result for getting well above target armour, to emphasise high Strength and things like Armourbane and Melta.

I'd say this should also be alongside Destroyer becoming just Multiple Wounds (D3) with the same idea for Hull Points too (each HP in damage is multiple to D3, so the max damage is D3xD3 which is still potentially 1).

That actually seems pretty good.

Yeah, I like that too. Seems pretty sensible.

Seems pretty good. whats the idea about the extra 4 hp. why that number.