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.

Otherwise, result of a 6 does something else. Like maybe two rolls on the vehicle damage chart.

So outside of ghost arcs, land raiders, and monoliths.. 2 immobilize is still the same thing. Given less often but still can be 1 shot for most vehicles.

What about armorbane? if i roll well and get an 18 to pen, shouldn't it earn the result?

Exloding is no longer the #1 cause of vehicle death. The glancing mechanic needs fixed, not explodes. It's bloody difficult to generate an explodes in 7th. Unless you are a fire dragon. Of course.

Yeah Armorbane would count as well. Good point.

Two thoughts on immobilization. Either:

1. Vehicles vulnerable to it have special rules to mitigate it.
or
2. Immobilized result at first just halves vehicle movement (combat, cruising, and flatout). Then the second time it actually applies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Exloding is no longer the #1 cause of vehicle death. The glancing mechanic needs fixed, not explodes. It's bloody difficult to generate an explodes in 7th. Unless you are a fire dragon. Of course.

Yeah, I hear you. But that's a whole other issue to address. This change is just part of the overall fix they need to make them viable.

Why do Dark Light weapons need nerfing?

Or Lascannons?

If anything, the game needs to give vehicles more HP and make Exploding easier.

Personally, I prefer giving each vehicle an extra HP or two, and making AP 3 weapons do +1 damage, AP 2 do +2, and AP 1 do +3. Explodes becomes massive damage: does an extra D3 HP and if the vehicle loses its last HP to massive damage, then it explodes.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
If anything, the game needs to give vehicles more HP and make Exploding easier.

Personally, I prefer giving each vehicle an extra HP or two, and making AP 3 weapons do +1 damage, AP 2 do +2, and AP 1 do +3. Explodes becomes massive damage: does an extra D3 HP and if the vehicle loses its last HP to massive damage, then it explodes.

I'll agree that if every vehicle got +1 HP they would be noticeably better. But my OCD can't handle 3=1, 2=2. 1=3
I miss the days when AP1 was +1 to the vehicle chart and AP2 was just there to take out 2+ save models. It made the most sense and was the reason AP1 existed (since nothing has a 1+ armour save)

Alternatively, why can't vehicles have Armour saves? GW could easily release an errata similar to the 5th ed BRB that introduces HPs. Just list each vehicle and give it a corresponding armour save.
Most vehicles would have 3+/4+ saves with a few weaker ones only having 5+ and fewer still having 2+ (pretty much only AV14 Tanks.
I don't think you could make a system like AV12 = 3+, AV11 = 4+, since there is just too great a variety of vehicles and each is made of different materials. A Rhino might have a 3+, whereas a Chimera may only have a 4+ for example.

As a start, double the HP of everything and make penetrating hits remove 2HP base (plus d3 more if it's a D-weapon that didn't roll a 6).

Then apply MagicJuggler's massive damage idea.

Then probably give most vehicles an armor save to boot.

That would need some playtesting to ensure that vehicles haven't been overbuffed, but the general idea is this: S6/7 spamcannons are no longer the best way to kill vehicles: you need twice as many glances and odds are they get an armor save anyway. Anti-tank weapons mostly remain as good as they are now, but since their big competition has been nerfed, they come out a lot better in comparison. That autocannon is only taking off 1HP, or maybe 2 if you get a pen, but that Razorback still gets a 3+ armor save. The lascannon, on the other hand, is going right through the save and usually knocking off 2HP, plus the chance for massive damage.

That said, I'd probably change the vehicle damage chart as follows:

1-2: Structural Damage. No effect beyond HP loss.
3: Crew Shaken
4: Crew Stunned
5: Weapon Destroyed
6: Engine Damage. Vehicle halves all movement and must make a Dangerous Terrain test when moving. A vehicle that suffers an Engine Damage result while already suffering from Engine Damage becomes Immobilized. Once Immobilized, further Engine Damage results count as Structural Damage instead. Walkers count Engine Damage results as Crew Shaken on a roll of 4+.
7: Critical Hit. Lose an additional d3 Hull Points and suffer a Crew Stunned result. If all Hull Points are lost, the vehicle explodes.

I really like the Pens remove 2 HPs idea. I don't, however think that all of those changes combined are a good idea. Gladuis is already really good, all of those changes combined would make them god-like. Imagine all those Free 6HP Rhinos with 3+/4+ Armour saves
Would it encourage more anti-tank weapons? sure, but it would also make the rock-paper-scissors worse.

I think another decent idea would be for Glances to no longer cause HPs but rather roll on the chart -1
Combined with making AP1 add only +1 and be the only AP to modify the roll, then change the chart to:

1 - No other effect (because sometimes 1 should do nothing, but Pens will still strip an HP)
2-3 - Crew Shaken
4 - Crew Stunned
5 - Weapon Destroyed (also loses an HP)
6 - Immobilized (also loses an HP)
7 - Explodes

Just as now, further Immobilzed or Weapon Destoyer results (with no other weapons to destroy) will only strip an HP.
So now the only reliable way to kill a vehicle is by Penatrating it, or rolling a 6 from a Glance (5+ if AP1, 4+ if AP1 & Open-topped)
This would kill 2 birds with 1 stone; Glances no longer auto-strip HPs & Single shot High Str weapons can potentially cause 2 HPs (1 for the initial Pen, 1 more if a Weapon Destroyed or Immobilized is rolled)
This solution can also be done just in the BRB, rather than needing to update every unit entry in every other book with more HPs or Armour saves.

-

Hmm, the "free vehicles" issue is a valid point.

What if the chart switched to essentially the 6e one, though with a 1 being "lose HP, but nothing else happens" instead of being Crew Shaken? (while keeping the double-HP, pens remove 2HP bit) Now critical damage is a fair bit more likely, spamguns are less interesting...

In any case, I feel GW should incorporate some of the older charts/ideas, like the 6th ed chart, and AP1 is only +1.
While I like the double HP idea in theory, I don't think it is particularly elegant since it requires erratas.
"My codex says Rhinos only have 3 HPs"
"Well, the errata says it has 6"
"Oh, I didn't know about the errata. What's an errata?"

IMO, the best solution is to avoid having to change existing data sheet entries. By making Glances no longer inflict HPs, you essentially double most vehicles HPs anyway since it may take that much longer to strip them.
Make it possible to strip HPs for armies like Necrons.

My solution also fixes Grav (for vehicles anyway) since a double 6 will only cause 2 HPs rather than 3.

The more I think about it, the more I really, really think this is the best way to help vehicles and make anti-vehicle weapons relevant again.
In fact, I think I'll start a new thread just to discuss this.

-

 Galef wrote:
I really like the Pens remove 2 HPs idea. I don't, however think that all of those changes combined are a good idea. Gladuis is already really good, all of those changes combined would make them god-like. Imagine all those Free 6HP Rhinos with 3+/4+ Armour saves

And then imagine the fact that in order to get those free 6 HP Rhinos you had to bring 6x Tactical Squads, a Chaplain, a Captain, and then whatever Heavy Support or Fast Attack choices you made for those Battle Demi-Companies.

I get it. People think Gladius is amazing because "free Dedicated Transports!" but realistically it's balanced around the fact that you have to take those transports as specifically for the squads within the two mandated Demi Companies. You'll be looking at 6 Rhinos, unless someone fields an Assault Squad with no Jump Packs and a Devastator Squad instead of the Bikes and Centurions that most people trend towards with the Battle.

Regarding Hull Points:
We need a new vehicle classification system. Rhinos and Razorbacks have no business being labeled as "Tanks". I don't know where to put them realistically, but "Tank" should be saved for things like the Chimera and Leman Russ. Hell, even the Battlewagon has more business being called a Tank than a Rhino does.

If I were in charge?
Tanks would have a special rule called "Mobile Behemoth". Reduce the distance they can move but make it so that they can never lose Hull Points to Glances and they can fire all of their weapons while moving.

Another thing to watch out for is that a lot of "glancing to death" is really "death by HP depletion". S6-7 spamguns inflict a lot of penetrating hits that can't cause explosions, too. And back in 6e, when they could cause explosions, that was a pretty common thing to have happen, IIRC.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I really like the Pens remove 2 HPs idea. I don't, however think that all of those changes combined are a good idea. Gladuis is already really good, all of those changes combined would make them god-like. Imagine all those Free 6HP Rhinos with 3+/4+ Armour saves

And then imagine the fact that in order to get those free 6 HP Rhinos you had to bring 6x Tactical Squads, a Chaplain, a Captain, and then whatever Heavy Support or Fast Attack choices you made for those Battle Demi-Companies.

I get it. People think Gladius is amazing because "free Dedicated Transports!" but realistically it's balanced around the fact that you have to take those transports as specifically for the squads within the two mandated Demi Companies. You'll be looking at 6 Rhinos, unless someone fields an Assault Squad with no Jump Packs and a Devastator Squad instead of the Bikes and Centurions that most people trend towards with the Battle.

I agree that Gladius is fairly balanced since it forces you to play, ya know, like the fluff. I was merely making the point that if you make vehicles too tough, Gladius suddenly becomes very unbalanced.

jade_angel wrote:
Another thing to watch out for is that a lot of "glancing to death" is really "death by HP depletion". S6-7 spamguns inflict a lot of penetrating hits that can't cause explosions, too. And back in 6e, when they could cause explosions, that was a pretty common thing to have happen, IIRC.

True.

Lumbering Behemoth
A vehicle classified as a "Tank" can move and fire all of their weapons while in motion. This is to be considered their "Engagement Speed" and tops out at 4" a turn if firing.

Additionally, any Glancing Hits or results on the Vehicle Damage Table below a 5(Weapon Destroyed) do not remove any Hull Points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I really like the Pens remove 2 HPs idea. I don't, however think that all of those changes combined are a good idea. Gladuis is already really good, all of those changes combined would make them god-like. Imagine all those Free 6HP Rhinos with 3+/4+ Armour saves

And then imagine the fact that in order to get those free 6 HP Rhinos you had to bring 6x Tactical Squads, a Chaplain, a Captain, and then whatever Heavy Support or Fast Attack choices you made for those Battle Demi-Companies.

I get it. People think Gladius is amazing because "free Dedicated Transports!" but realistically it's balanced around the fact that you have to take those transports as specifically for the squads within the two mandated Demi Companies. You'll be looking at 6 Rhinos, unless someone fields an Assault Squad with no Jump Packs and a Devastator Squad instead of the Bikes and Centurions that most people trend towards with the Battle.

I agree that Gladius is fairly balanced since it forces you to play, ya know, like the fluff. I was merely making the point that if you make vehicles too tough, Gladius suddenly becomes very unbalanced.

Strictly speaking, I'm not too concerned about Gladius. It literally is one specific Detachment and has a hefty tax associated with it.

I know it's complained about all the time, but people need to get over it. There's a lot of misinformation with the complaints usually("they get a bunch of free transports!" is usually considered to be everything; had someone whining that they get free Land Raiders for the Centurions which isn't true at all) so it's best to just tune them out.

And it's not like Rhinos are scary. They're just Objective Secured in this instance. Am fine with that. It makes others have to consider doing things like a standard CAD in order to get OS.

Like they had a Death From the Sky book, I'd like to see GW make a book that gives alternate and optional rules for those folks that want vehicles to have more "punch" in the game.

Personally, I've been doing my own ruleset where I gave vehicles an Armor save, a few extra HP and had high-Strength weapons do more damage (7-8, D3; 9-10 D6; "D" 2D6). Also dumped the damage chart, as I hate anything in-game where I need to look up a chart or such.

Idk, I think vehicles' HPs are ok. Just put them in cover! It's easier for the to get 4+ cover, they don't need to be in ruins!

I like my proposed change for a short term improvement. Doesn't change much, but is a big boost for vehicles (imo)

If we're talking alternate vehicle tables, what about this?

1-3: Nothing, just the -1 HP
4: Crew Shaken
5: Crew Stunned
6: Weapon Destroyed
7: Explodes! (melta/armorbane/S10/SD) --- if not of those type, then immobilized.

If immobilized again, then the result is downgraded to a 6.

EDIT: jade_angel, I like your table a lot too. It's a little bit tougher on vehicles, but its a step in the right direction.

The only example of vehicles not deserving a buff is the battle company and super heavies... which to me indicates those need to be tweaked and should be disregarded when addressing vehicles generically.

I have proposed before giving them toughness values and armor saves based on their av.

T value is based on the highest AV (the idea being that a tank is a tank).
AV - T
10 - 6
11 - 7
12 - 8
13 - 9
14 - 10

Armor saves are based on the different facings.

14 = 2+
12-13 = 3+
10-11 = 4+

If a attack would wound on a 4+ then a 4 is a glance and a 5+ is a pen.

If you actually compare the str to t chart it actually works out that most rolls haven't actually changed except now there is an armor save to protect the different facings. Hive Tyrants can't just glance everything to death with high rate of fire without the vehicle getting a chance to save.

Special rules all work like they normally would.

Haywire glances on a 2-5 and pens on a 6 except it counts as ap2.

Lance treats the facing as tav12 (i.e. t8 3+ save)

I agree with most things here. Mainly that we need more HP and to make explosions a bit more common. Brute force approach with non-antitank weaponry should be more like a last resort, not the to-go approach. Plus we need to make krak misiles useful again. I mean they are supposed to be the stock anti-tank weapon, plus it is cinematic as **** to blow up at tank with a lucky missile shot.

However I would actually remove the HP striping from glancing hits and make them only roll on the damage chart, without an explosion possibility. I can get that a glancing blow damages a a weapon or the treads of a tank, they are weak points anyway. But it feels a bit odd to me that a tank suffer critical existence failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure) in a system that has a vehicle damage table.

I'm a fan of the following tweaks to adjust the game slightly in favor of high-strength AT versus HP scrubbers.

1) Every vehicle gets an extra HP for every 3 HP base it has (round down). Thus a Gorkanaut would have 7 HP, a Knight would have 8, a Landspeeder would get 3, etc.

2) Adjust the vehicle damage chart so that damage modifiers start at AP 3. +1 for AP 3 weapons, +2 for AP 2 weapons, +3 for AP 1 weapons. Thus, Meltaguns can do Explodes results on 4+.

3) Explodes doesn't automatically destroy a vehicle, but does an extra D3 HP in one go. If a vehicle is destroyed by a shooting attack (ex: Multiple meltas) that causes an Explodes Results, it explodes as normal. Otherwise, it Wrecks.

This is a "relative" nerf to mid-strength stuff like Scatter Lasers/HYMP versus vehicles, and a relative buff to things like Lances/Lascannons.

Beyond the fact that my Ork Codex doesn't have Strength 10 or D weapons really or Melta or Armorbane except on really really good rolls or an over priced flyer (S7 Armorbane) I like the idea

It would make my Trukkz/Wagonz slightly less prone to exploding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm a fan of the following tweaks to adjust the game slightly in favor of high-strength AT versus HP scrubbers.

1) Every vehicle gets an extra HP for every 3 HP base it has (round down). Thus a Gorkanaut would have 7 HP, a Knight would have 8, a Landspeeder would get 3, etc.

2) Adjust the vehicle damage chart so that damage modifiers start at AP 3. +1 for AP 3 weapons, +2 for AP 2 weapons, +3 for AP 1 weapons. Thus, Meltaguns can do Explodes results on 4+.

3) Explodes doesn't automatically destroy a vehicle, but does an extra D3 HP in one go. If a vehicle is destroyed by a shooting attack (ex: Multiple meltas) that causes an Explodes Results, it explodes as normal. Otherwise, it Wrecks.

This is a "relative" nerf to mid-strength stuff like Scatter Lasers/HYMP versus vehicles, and a relative buff to things like Lances/Lascannons.

No, no and NO.

First off we need MORE durability on vehicles, not less. This is a minor MINOR nerf to Scatter lasers and HYMPs, not much of one but a tiny one and a HUGE NERF to Vehicles. You are forgetting that Open topped is a thing, so against Melta an OT vehicle would be exploding on a 3+ or against Fire Dragon a 2+.

OT vehicles are already horribly vulnerable to AP1-2 weapons we don't need to make them into even bigger death traps. If anything I would say Take away the +1 for AP2 EXCEPT in CC and make it so that AP1 is only +1 on the chart.

I'm aware Open-Topped is a thing. I've yet to see Fire Dragons in a really long time as well, what with Warp Hunters and other D-weapons being a thing. Yes, a pen hit could explode on a 4+ instead of a 5+, but that explode is D3 HP (on a 6-HP transport) instead of deleting you outright.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm aware Open-Topped is a thing. I've yet to see Fire Dragons in a really long time as well, what with Warp Hunters and other D-weapons being a thing. Yes, a pen hit could explode on a 4+ instead of a 5+, but that explode is D3 HP (on a 6-HP transport) instead of deleting you outright.

Last time I checked a Trukk was 3HP and with that formula above it would become 4HP. Which mean that it would still die to a unit of Firedragons in glorious fashion

Horrible idea. There should be a scaling down of such weapons not making them more integral to the composition of a competitive army's design.

SemperMortis wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm aware Open-Topped is a thing. I've yet to see Fire Dragons in a really long time as well, what with Warp Hunters and other D-weapons being a thing. Yes, a pen hit could explode on a 4+ instead of a 5+, but that explode is D3 HP (on a 6-HP transport) instead of deleting you outright.

Last time I checked a Trukk was 3HP and with that formula above it would become 4HP. Which mean that it would still die to a unit of Firedragons in glorious fashion

... Because a unit of dragons shouldn't be able to kill an ork trukk? XD

I like MJ's suggestion. It mitigates the usefulness of mid-strength weapons (like scatter lasers) while simultaneously rewarding high-strength-low-volume weapons like krak missiles, dark lances, bright lances, lascannons, etc. Single-shot weapons have been pretty lackluster lately. Heck, when was the last time you saw a railgun hammerhead on the table? A system like this makes the guns that are meant to be good against vehicles actually good against vehicles!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Regarding Hull Points:
We need a new vehicle classification system. Rhinos and Razorbacks have no business being labeled as "Tanks". I don't know where to put them realistically, but "Tank" should be saved for things like the Chimera and Leman Russ. Hell, even the Battlewagon has more business being called a Tank than a Rhino does.

If I were in charge?
Tanks would have a special rule called "Mobile Behemoth". Reduce the distance they can move but make it so that they can never lose Hull Points to Glances and they can fire all of their weapons while moving.

We pretty much have that rule. The "heavy vehicle" rule prevents you from moving especially fast, lets you shoot all your guns, and generally goes on vehicles that also have the "tank" rule.

I'm curious as to why you don't think things like rhinos should be "tanks." In 40k terms, a "tank" is simply a vehicle that is bulky enough to make people move out of its way or slam into another vehicle relatively safely (tank shock and ram respectively). That's really all the "tank" rule does. A rhino has the same overall AV points as a chimera and is roughly the same size. Both are certainly large enough to squash any adult human that attempts a death or glory. So the main difference between them seems to be that the rhino is slightly less shooty (the rhino is probably more shooty) than the chimera. No criticism here. I'm just curious as to why you don't think of a rhino or razorback as a "tank."

Wyldhunt wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm aware Open-Topped is a thing. I've yet to see Fire Dragons in a really long time as well, what with Warp Hunters and other D-weapons being a thing. Yes, a pen hit could explode on a 4+ instead of a 5+, but that explode is D3 HP (on a 6-HP transport) instead of deleting you outright.

Last time I checked a Trukk was 3HP and with that formula above it would become 4HP. Which mean that it would still die to a unit of Firedragons in glorious fashion

... Because a unit of dragons shouldn't be able to kill an ork trukk? XD

I like MJ's suggestion. It mitigates the usefulness of mid-strength weapons (like scatter lasers) while simultaneously rewarding high-strength-low-volume weapons like krak missiles, dark lances, bright lances, lascannons, etc. Single-shot weapons have been pretty lackluster lately. Heck, when was the last time you saw a railgun hammerhead on the table? A system like this makes the guns that are meant to be good against vehicles actually good against vehicles!

I a not saying Trukkz shouldn't die to dedicated anti-tank weapons, but at the moment they are a HUGE liability. giving them less of a chance to explode would be better.

To be honest I think vehicles need more hull points but explodes results need to be easier to come by, perhaps make explodes a 6 on the chart instead of a 7?. lascannons, HRR's, railguns, dark lances etc are AT weapons and should have a change at knocking out vehicles whereas high volume S6/7 should be damaging but not more effective than dedicated high impact AT. "light AT" Weapons like krak missiles and the like should be effective at disabling vehicles but have a low change of knocking them out in one shot

Playing tau with HRR broadsides or railheads is frustrating when you know that cost effectively spamming HYMP broadsides is better simply due to weight of fire. S6 and S7 weapons should be effective at popping transports and damaging tanks but not more effective than dedicated AT

What about
- doubling all vehicles hull points
- Making explodes a 6 on the chart and moving all other results down by 1
- Making AP 1, 2, and 3 weapons remove 2 hull points on a penetrating hit instead of one.

This means that weapons like krak missiles or hive guard weapons while unlikely to explode a vehicle in one hit will do some noticeable damage, while dedicated AT will do lasting damage and have a high change of exploding or disabling the vehicle, Str5-7 mid/low AP weapons will still be effective against light armour but will have a low chance of causing serious damage to MBTs moving 6 down by one also means that getting the rear armour on tanks with lower strength mid AP weapons will still be viable as althugh youre unlikely to kill it via hull point removal you hope for an explodes result

Bobug wrote:
To be honest I think vehicles need more hull points but explodes results need to be easier to come by, perhaps make explodes a 6 on the chart instead of a 7?. lascannons, HRR's, railguns, dark lances etc are AT weapons and should have a change at knocking out vehicles whereas high volume S6/7 should be damaging but not more effective than dedicated high impact AT. "light AT" Weapons like krak missiles and the like should be effective at disabling vehicles but have a low change of knocking them out in one shot

Playing tau with HRR broadsides or railheads is frustrating when you know that cost effectively spamming HYMP broadsides is better simply due to weight of fire. S6 and S7 weapons should be effective at popping transports and damaging tanks but not more effective than dedicated AT

What about
- doubling all vehicles hull points
- Making explodes a 6 on the chart and moving all other results down by 1
- Making AP 1, 2, and 3 weapons remove 2 hull points on a penetrating hit instead of one.

This means that weapons like krak missiles or hive guard weapons while unlikely to explode a vehicle in one hit will do some noticeable damage, while dedicated AT will do lasting damage and have a high change of exploding or disabling the vehicle, Str5-7 mid/low AP weapons will still be effective against light armour but will have a low chance of causing serious damage to MBTs moving 6 down by one also means that getting the rear armour on tanks with lower strength mid AP weapons will still be viable as althugh youre unlikely to kill it via hull point removal you hope for an explodes result

Terrible Idea, Vehicles are already to fragile as they are. Making a vehicle explode on a 6 means that EVERY WEAPON can destroy a vehicle which means that those S6 and S7 weapons your trying to nerf versus vehicles just became that much better. 5 Scat bikes shooting at a AV11 vehicle will get 20 shots 15ish hits and 2.3 Pens. That means that on average they have a better then 1/3rd chance to explode the vehicle, if its open topped? Make that a better then 2/3rds chance.

No, if anything the explode result should go away entirely. TO many AP1-2 weapons in the game.

SemperMortis wrote:

Bobug wrote:
To be honest I think vehicles need more hull points but explodes results need to be easier to come by, perhaps make explodes a 6 on the chart instead of a 7?. lascannons, HRR's, railguns, dark lances etc are AT weapons and should have a change at knocking out vehicles whereas high volume S6/7 should be damaging but not more effective than dedicated high impact AT. "light AT" Weapons like krak missiles and the like should be effective at disabling vehicles but have a low change of knocking them out in one shot

Playing tau with HRR broadsides or railheads is frustrating when you know that cost effectively spamming HYMP broadsides is better simply due to weight of fire. S6 and S7 weapons should be effective at popping transports and damaging tanks but not more effective than dedicated AT

What about
- doubling all vehicles hull points
- Making explodes a 6 on the chart and moving all other results down by 1
- Making AP 1, 2, and 3 weapons remove 2 hull points on a penetrating hit instead of one.

This means that weapons like krak missiles or hive guard weapons while unlikely to explode a vehicle in one hit will do some noticeable damage, while dedicated AT will do lasting damage and have a high change of exploding or disabling the vehicle, Str5-7 mid/low AP weapons will still be effective against light armour but will have a low chance of causing serious damage to MBTs moving 6 down by one also means that getting the rear armour on tanks with lower strength mid AP weapons will still be viable as althugh youre unlikely to kill it via hull point removal you hope for an explodes result

Terrible Idea, Vehicles are already to fragile as they are. Making a vehicle explode on a 6 means that EVERY WEAPON can destroy a vehicle which means that those S6 and S7 weapons your trying to nerf versus vehicles just became that much better. 5 Scat bikes shooting at a AV11 vehicle will get 20 shots 15ish hits and 2.3 Pens. That means that on average they have a better then 1/3rd chance to explode the vehicle, if its open topped? Make that a better then 2/3rds chance.

No, if anything the explode result should go away entirely. TO many AP1-2 weapons in the game.

Is there really a high proportion of AP1-2 weapons in the game right now? I feel like I see a lot of scatter lasers, assault cannons, battle cannons, etc. Lascannons, and railrifles and starcannons aren't as common a sight in my neck of the woods. Eldar have a lot of pseudo rending, but that doesn't affect vehicles. Other armies have a lot of actual rending, but that doesn't make a weapon AP2 against vehicles any more.

Agreed about explodes on 6 not being ideal though. Restricting explodes results to dedicated AT weapons is probably the way to go. I do like the suggestions of increasing HP and having dedicated AT weapons do more damage to vehicles though.