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.

As above, I think it would go a long way to making vehicles tougher if glancing hits were no longer a thing and it was only the penetrating hits that stripped a hull point off and gave a chance of extra damage. 

No, because some lists completely rely upon them. Make heavy anti-tank weapons cause multiple wounds to MCs, and make vehicles shoot a bit better on the move. 40K claims that if I were to shoot a Tyrannosaur with an M1 Abrams, it would just shrug off the first three direct hits from a 120 mm cannon.

Other than Haywire and Gauss, most "glancing to death" that people complain about also includes a lot of non-exploding penetrating hits. It wouldn't change too much - except for those who rely on Haywire and Gauss. It's mostly Skitarii, Dark Eldar and Tyranids that rely on Haywire, and Necrons have surprisingly few anti-tank options if you remove the utility of Gauss.

There have been a lot of ideas bandied about for this. My favorites are either giving vehicles an armor save (4+, +1 for Tank, +1 for Heavy/Superheavy, max 2+), or doubling HP and making pens remove 2 HP (and Explodes! is another d3, boom if you run out).

Ok, actually, my favorite is giving vehicles Toughness and a save, plus "Wounds". You could still call them Hull Points if you'd rather. Yes, the "you're fine until you die" thing is unrealistic, but I think realism takes a back seat to the combination of balanced play that we want and the unit diversity that 40k has.

jade_angel wrote:
Other than Haywire and Gauss, most "glancing to death" that people complain about also includes a lot of non-exploding penetrating hits. It wouldn't change too much - except for those who rely on Haywire and Gauss. It's mostly Skitarii, Dark Eldar and Tyranids that rely on Haywire, and Necrons have surprisingly few anti-tank options if you remove the utility of Gauss.

There have been a lot of ideas bandied about for this. My favorites are either giving vehicles an armor save (4+, +1 for Tank, +1 for Heavy/Superheavy, max 2+), or doubling HP and making pens remove 2 HP (and Explodes! is another d3, boom if you run out).

Ok, actually, my favorite is giving vehicles Toughness and a save, plus "Wounds". You could still call them Hull Points if you'd rather. Yes, the "you're fine until you die" thing is unrealistic, but I think realism takes a back seat to the combination of balanced play that we want and the unit diversity that 40k has.

I'm with this guy. Streamlining the game by making vehicles more like creatures would be for the best. My personal favourite is having Armour Value work exactly like Toughness, Hull Points work exactly like Wounds, give the vehicles an armour save (4+, +1 for tank, +1 for super heavy, -1 on rear armour for most things, works really really well). Only caveat; a "critical hit" occurs when the weapon has a high enough AP to ignore the armour save.

No because i dont want parking lots again.

Glancing Hits:
If a vehicle is struck by a Glancing Hit, they receive a chance to save the Glancing Hit.
If the AP of a weapon causing a Glancing Hit is a 4, 5, 6, o - then the vehicle receives a 3+ Save.
If the AP of a weapon causing a Glancing Hit is a 1, 2, or 3 then the vehicle receives a 5+ Save.

Boom. Glancing Hits fixed. It's a bit messy right now, but it's the best I can do without overhauling the core rules for vehicles period.

A) Vehicles need armour saves ranging from 5+ (AV10 open-topped) to 3+ (AV12+ tanks) with very rare cases of 2+ (Land Raiders, Monoliths, etc). No Walker should have a 2+ due to the exposed moving parts.

B) Glancing hits are fine, but need to not strip HPs. Maybe use a modified version of an older edition in which Glances rolled on the damage chart -2. Meaning most of the time, glancing hits cause vehicles to be Shaken, with the best case scenario being an immobilized result, even with AP1

C) Make AP1 only have +1 to the chart. The AP1 is +2 and AP2 is +1 messes with my OCD! The advantage of AP2 is that nothing can take an armour save, therefore AP1 should be the only one of the pair that gets a bonus against AV. That is what should set them apart.

-

I think Orks and Nids need glances to strip HPs. And Necrons, for that matter.

Honestly a quicker and simpler fix would be to just give out a couple more hull points per model. You'd still have to consider armies that can't reliably penetrate vehicles (give out some kind of Orky meltagun-equivalent?) but it'd be a cleaner change without adding too much bloat.

I like pretty much all of the ideas presented so far. I think a simple-but-effective set of changes would be something like...

*Let vehicles benefit from toe in cover.
*Replace explodes results with "remove d3 hull points." Optionally, have the vehicle explode if this result removes the vehicle's last hull point.
*Give some weapons (anything strength 8 or higher, maybe?) a rule that causes them to do 2 or d3 hull points instead of 1 naturally.

End result: vehicles can get (cover) saves pretty easily. Quality of fire (krak missiles, lascannons, bright lances) get much better at their intended jobs. Vehicles are simultaneously more resilliant against ranged attacks in general and more vulnerable to dedicated anti-vehicle fire.

Now if we were to do a more in-depth overhaul, I'd probably just replace armor value with a Toughness score and give vehicles an armor save (varying from unit to unit rather than following a strict formula). Hull points would become wounds, and the vehicle damage table would basically go away entirely. Units of the vehicle type would have the "mechanical" special rule that would make them susceptible to haywire, armorbane (which would basically be flesh bane), melta (fleshbane when within half range), and so forth. You could even slap the mechanical rule on things like dreadknights, riptides, and necrons.

My reasoning here being this: Armor facing doesn't really add all that much of a tactical element in my experience. Either your list already has a way of going after rear armor or it doesn't; armies that aren't already highly mobile rarely have a way to go after rear armor. Rules regarding vehicles are greatly simplified. The vehicle damage table is interesting for games where a bit of bookkeeping and minutia add flavor, but I find it's mostly an annoyance to keep track of in 40k. If you want to keep the vehicle damage rules, I'd actually kind of like something akin to Sigmar's rules for MCs that have taken damage. Basically, just lower the unit's statline or movement speed if it's at half wounds (rounding down).

Maybe I'm an odd duck here. Does anyone feel that having AV really contributes much to the game?

Honestly, not anymore. There's way too many edge cases, so it just feels weird, and you end up with annoying things where, say, AV14 is unstoppable without the right tools, and dies in a flash with them (neither of which is much fun for anyone).

jade_angel wrote:
Honestly, not anymore. There's way too many edge cases, so it just feels weird, and you end up with annoying things where, say, AV14 is unstoppable without the right tools, and dies in a flash with them (neither of which is much fun for anyone).

I concur. As a Necron player, my "tough" vehicles do nothing but weigh me down, since my infantry are tougher.

I think for having vehicle saves it should be something like Av 14 gets a 2+, 13 gets a 3+, 12 gets a 4+, 11 a 5+ and 10 a 6+ save.

UrsoerTheSquid wrote:
I think for having vehicle saves it should be something like Av 14 gets a 2+, 13 gets a 3+, 12 gets a 4+, 11 a 5+ and 10 a 6+ save.

Except then Bolters and the like are penetrating the armour of vehicles. Also, I strongly feel like Space Marine vehicles should often have a 3+ save to maintain the "3+ across the board" vibe that they Space Marines often have. Even though a Rhino is AV11/11/10, I feel like its armour should be 3+/3+/4+ makes sense. A Chimera should be 3+/4+/5+. A Dreadnaught 2+/3+/4+ (there's a reason Terminator armour is Tactical Dreadnaught Armour, so why shouldn't a Dread be just as armoured?), an Eldar Falcon 4+/4+/4+, etc. Only thing that should be 2+ all around are Land Raiders and Monoliths.

However, l do feel that penetrating hits should be deadlier in this system too. So that it's possible to glance something out, but you want to get a critical hit to have a good shot at taking it down. Maybe make penetrating hits inflict 2 hull points damage instead of 1.

I like vehicles having saves; I do not like them having saves based on AV. The reason is that it makes the save nearly useless for AV10/11 vehicles (which already die to a stiff breeze and really need it) and mostly makes AV14 at once virtually invulnerable to most anything that doesn't have AP1/2 and defenseless against anything that does.

Almost nobody is killing Land Raiders by six-fishing now, and those few that are stuck with Haywire and Gauss will be screwed. OTOH, pulse rifles still sand Rhinos to pieces with no save (since they're AP5, like, oh, most infantry guns).

I'd rather have a 4+ across the board with a few exceptions for particularly tough stuff: 3+ for most Imperials/Chaos (with facing issues as Yarium mentions), 2+ for Land Raiders, Monoliths, maybe the front of Baneblades and Russes, maybe the front of Dreads, Knights and Titans.

May I add destroyed weapon and immobilized results into this discussion?

Are these ever a problem for you guys to remember, when there are many vehicles on the table?

They are a bit of a problem to track, though I find I have enough of my weapons loose or magnetized that I can just pop them off. For immobilized, I mark them with a die.

Shaken/Stunned are always the ones I forget. (Especially I tend to accidentally move stunned stuff, or think shaken stuff is stunned)

Chaospling wrote:
May I add destroyed weapon and immobilized results into this discussion?

Are these ever a problem for you guys to remember, when there are many vehicles on the table?

It's usually the stunned/shaken results that I have trouble remembering. For destroyed weapons, I'm often able to simply remove the turrets or what have you.

Chaospling wrote:
May I add destroyed weapon and immobilized results into this discussion?

Are these ever a problem for you guys to remember, when there are many vehicles on the table?

Nope. My vehicles are almost always either undamaged or dead.