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.

I know this has been discussed quite a bit, but how about this, which doesn't require any revision to any profiles or anything:

If you glance a vehicle, roll a D6 and it only loses a hull point if you roll equal to or greater than the AP value of the weapon.

What do we think? Makes vehicles a bit harder to kill, makes AP have an actual effect on how good the weapon is against vehicles (which seems like it should be the case).

Is this a better idea than something very simple, for example, increasing all vehicles HP by 1 or 2? I tend to think additional mechanics just slow down the game.

You could argue, I guess, that the drawbacks to bumping up the HP of every vehicle are:

1. You have to update every single codex etc.

2. Makes single-shot anti-tank weaponry arguably less effective than massed mid-S weaponry.

I like this change. It's pretty simple, but makes vehicles more durable against high ROF mid-strength weaponry.

This would certainly nerf Scatter lasers, so why not?

My only complaint is that it adds an extra roll. And why does this not do the same for Pens?

So that way APless weapons can still do Hull Points.

For instance, I once had a Heldrake downed by Lasgun fire (Misfortune gave Rending to their shots, and then just a poopload of fire). If this system required you to roll over your AP for Pens too, that can never happen.

Also, that changes the critical threshold of strength to defeat a given AV. S5 becomes fairly useless against AV11. S6 now cannot reliably hurt AV12 even with massed fire, unless it has good AP. S7 is hopeless against AV13, and so on - but those pens are still dangerous.

One last thought here: a slight revision to the serpent shield.
Serpent Shield: When a vehicle equipped with a Serpent Shield suffers a penetrating hit, roll a d6. On a 2+, the vehicle loses a Hull Point but suffers no other ill effect.

Now you don't have to worry about the extra roll and the Serpent Shield no longer makes the Wave Serpent nearly invulnerable (which it kinda would if it degraded pens to glances, which could then fail the AP roll.)

Maybe add a small number of hull points and then make anti-tank weapons cause multiple hull points.

I am not saying this isn't a good fix. I actually quite like it.
But it seems weird to have a roll that interacts with Amour Penetration (AP) when Armour (AV) has NOT been Penetrated (hence Glancing hit)
If we adding this layer, we need to change some names.

Also, how does AP1 work? Does a 1 still auto fail thereby making AP1 & 2 weapons exactly the same for this rule?
Or should AP1 auto pass this roll?
Likewise for AP-? Does it auto fail, or can a 6 still succeed?

In any case, lets hope GW changes something about the AV rules. It seems that 2-3 of these threads pop up each week. Clearly the AV rules don't work.

It's not bad as a quick fix, but the smarter thing to do might be to give vehicles an Armor save. A walker might have a 5+, a transport a 4+, a tank a 3+ And a superheavy a 2+.

That also hurts Necrons, who rely on basic weapons for the most part to do vehicle damage, and that's already unreliable as is.

As Galef said, the OP's case is backwards. It should not be "equal to or greater than", but "equal to or less than".

Even then Necrons will hate it for their Tesla Weapons (But aside from the Barges and Flyers, most Anti-Vehicle is Gauss not Tesla). IG Lasguns largely won't care because most couldn't even scratch a Land Speeder.

Honestly, if a dice roll is going to be added to the situation, then let's just swap the relationship between Hull Point loss and the Vehicle Damage Table in Glancing and Penetrating Hits. In other words, both Glancing Hits and Penetrating Hits roll on the VDT, while only Penetrating Hits provide an automatic Hull Point loss before rolling on the VDT. I would change the top roll to being a Hull Point Loss Glancing Hits, and Explodes for Penetrating Hits.

But that's just my opinion.

 Charistoph wrote:
As Galef said, the OP's case is backwards. It should not be "equal to or greater than", but "equal to or less than".

Wait, what? No, equal to or greater than. So AP2 you have to roll 2+, etc. If it were equal to or less than, weapons with worse AP would be better at causing a glance.

Personally, I quite like the idea that AP1 auto-passes/AP- auto-fails. Keeps melta weapons terrifying against armour.

 Charistoph wrote:

Honestly, if a dice roll is going to be added to the situation, then let's just swap the relationship between Hull Point loss and the Vehicle Damage Table in Glancing and Penetrating Hits. In other words, both Glancing Hits and Penetrating Hits roll on the VDT, while only Penetrating Hits provide an automatic Hull Point loss before rolling on the VDT. I would change the top roll to being a Hull Point Loss Glancing Hits, and Explodes for Penetrating Hits.

But that's just my opinion.

I agree with this. If Glances no longer caused HPs, but instead rolled on the VDT, vehicles would live much longer as the cost of suffering effects through the game
However, it occurs to me that this still would not help vehicles be good, since all you would need to do is get a single shaken or stunned to make a vehicle useless for a turn.

Just to note a side effect of this rule is that Tyranids are mostly fully incapable of damaging vehicles besides 1 psychic power and maybe 2 or 3 guns in the entire dex that are retricted to 1-2 platforms in the entire dex. One of those guns is a template so forget shooting down flyers.

It sounds real neat until your playing the one army with no vehicles and now no way to deal with vehicles.

I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with Tyranid weaponry. What's their usual solution to vehicles?

Make Haywire and Gauss strip a Hull Point on 2-5 (Haywire) or 6s (Gauss). So they bypass this.

 Nazrak wrote:
I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with Tyranid weaponry. What's their usual solution to vehicles?

Assault

However, Zoanthropes Warp Lance, Hive Guard & Dakka Flyrants are common shootind options. Of those 3, the Dakka Flyrant is the only one that would really be nerfed by this change, since it currently relies on Glancing rear armour with an AP- gun. On the one hand it would be nerfing a unit considered OP, but on the other hand you would be nerfing the unit keeping Nids competitive.
Incorporating AP is a good idea, but lets just give vehicles armour saves.

 Nazrak wrote:
I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with Tyranid weaponry. What's their usual solution to vehicles?

Glancing things to death. lol

So the exocrine has the bioplasmic cannon. Str 7 ap 2 24" range.

Some units (mostly Hive Tyrants) can take a Electroshock grubs thorax swarm. Template weapon with haywire.

The famous twinlink devourers with brain leach worms can go on HT and carnifex and are str 6 ap- assault 6. (the main way they deal with vehicles)

Warp blast can be a 18" str 10 ap2 lance. But a psychic power that only reliably come on zoanthropes a BS3 platform.

And finally (I think) would be the haywire single shot things that hang off the hive crones wings.

So, 3 weapons that can deal with armor 14 1 is a flame template and 2 are haywire. 1 weapon that can possibly deal with AV 13 with ap 2 and the most reliable weapon can deal with up to av 12 and is ap-.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with Tyranid weaponry. What's their usual solution to vehicles?

Assault

I would not say assault is the regular way they deal with vehicles. Everything nids have to assault with is too slow to catch any vehicle. Especially when you consider that they are shackled by synapse.

Just spit balling what if when shooting a vehicle in order to remove a HP you need to make one of the following

Remove one hull point for every penetration hit, resolve on pen table.

Remove one hull point for every two glancing hits per shooting or assault phase phase.

Example: in the shooting phase of you score 3 glancing hits, on a vehicle, you cause 1 hp of damage.

In that turns assault phase you score another 3, you still only remove 1 hp. Basically you glances don't bleed over

If in a shooting phase you score 1 glance, no HP removed.

Just a quick spit ball, not fully invested in the idea.

 Lance845 wrote:
Just to note a side effect of this rule is that Tyranids are mostly fully incapable of damaging vehicles besides 1 psychic power and maybe 2 or 3 guns in the entire dex that are retricted to 1-2 platforms in the entire dex. One of those guns is a template so forget shooting down flyers.

It sounds real neat until your playing the one army with no vehicles and now no way to deal with vehicles.

Wonder how the dynamic would change if Tyranids were given the ability to purchase a "catalytic blood" upgrade per squad that allowed them to sacrifice a model for a str 4 AP - explosion with the str increasing by 1 and the AP decreasing by 1 per model sacrificed. Like swarm a tank with 10 gaunts, sacrifice 5 in the assault to get a str9 AP2 explosion. Maybe have it target the side armor to balance it?

Banelings ftw. Zerg >> Tyranids because GW is slowed.

deathmagiks wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Just to note a side effect of this rule is that Tyranids are mostly fully incapable of damaging vehicles besides 1 psychic power and maybe 2 or 3 guns in the entire dex that are retricted to 1-2 platforms in the entire dex. One of those guns is a template so forget shooting down flyers.

It sounds real neat until your playing the one army with no vehicles and now no way to deal with vehicles.

Wonder how the dynamic would change if Tyranids were given the ability to purchase a "catalytic blood" upgrade per squad that allowed them to sacrifice a model for a str 4 AP - explosion with the str increasing by 1 and the AP decreasing by 1 per model sacrificed. Like swarm a tank with 10 gaunts, sacrifice 5 in the assault to get a str9 AP2 explosion. Maybe have it target the side armor to balance it?

They kind of have something like this. It's spore mines. Nobody uses them because even for 5 points per model they are garbage. They even get produced for free by sporcysts and biovores and they continue to be garbage.

But if it were an upgrade you could buy for gaunts...

An upgrade you could buy for gaunts so your already fragile blob that is only effective because of numbers and the law of averages suddenly becomes a pile of 1 use only explosives that are more expensive then the guys who can shoot or attack every round until they die?

This sounds like a upgrade people would pay points for?

 Lance845 wrote:
An upgrade you could buy for gaunts so your already fragile blob that is only effective because of numbers and the law of averages suddenly becomes a pile of 1 use only explosives that are more expensive then the guys who can shoot or attack every round until they die?

This sounds like a upgrade people would pay points for?

I'm thinking of the ability to provide it to multiple platforms. consider 50 points to give every thing in the army the ability to do this. Even ripper swarms.

deathmagiks wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
An upgrade you could buy for gaunts so your already fragile blob that is only effective because of numbers and the law of averages suddenly becomes a pile of 1 use only explosives that are more expensive then the guys who can shoot or attack every round until they die?

This sounds like a upgrade people would pay points for?

I'm thinking of the ability to provide it to multiple platforms. consider 50 points to give every thing in the army the ability to do this. Even ripper swarms.

What if we turned it around. Would you pay points for space marines to be upgraded into suicide bombers that could blow themselves up to get higher and higher str with better and better AP depending on how many they blow up at a time. Everything can do it. Tanks loaded with dynamite. Bikes just covered in satchels full of c4. The works. Would you pay to loose models to make a 1 shot attack?

 Nazrak wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
As Galef said, the OP's case is backwards. It should not be "equal to or greater than", but "equal to or less than".

Wait, what? No, equal to or greater than. So AP2 you have to roll 2+, etc. If it were equal to or less than, weapons with worse AP would be better at causing a glance.

Personally, I quite like the idea that AP1 auto-passes/AP- auto-fails. Keeps melta weapons terrifying against armour.

Ah, I see now. I was looking at it from the defender's perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Honestly, if a dice roll is going to be added to the situation, then let's just swap the relationship between Hull Point loss and the Vehicle Damage Table in Glancing and Penetrating Hits. In other words, both Glancing Hits and Penetrating Hits roll on the VDT, while only Penetrating Hits provide an automatic Hull Point loss before rolling on the VDT. I would change the top roll to being a Hull Point Loss Glancing Hits, and Explodes for Penetrating Hits.

But that's just my opinion.

I agree with this. If Glances no longer caused HPs, but instead rolled on the VDT, vehicles would live much longer as the cost of suffering effects through the game
However, it occurs to me that this still would not help vehicles be good, since all you would need to do is get a single shaken or stunned to make a vehicle useless for a turn.

Not necessarily, Shaken and Stunned aren't quite as powerful as they were before the inclusion of Snap Shot.

Still, Shaken takes up a lot of room on the table right now, some modification on that might be desirable. But I suppose a lot determines on how far in changes we want to go with them. And if we factor in the fact that in most cases, if you hit the base target number on an "organic" target, it just starts dying.

More Hull Points would work with the current system, as I think the low Hull Points do not match how reliant these vehicles are compared to how much damage Monstrous Creatures absorb, but I also think "Glancing" is a poor name for such an occurrence.

 Lance845 wrote:

deathmagiks wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
An upgrade you could buy for gaunts so your already fragile blob that is only effective because of numbers and the law of averages suddenly becomes a pile of 1 use only explosives that are more expensive then the guys who can shoot or attack every round until they die?

This sounds like a upgrade people would pay points for?

I'm thinking of the ability to provide it to multiple platforms. consider 50 points to give every thing in the army the ability to do this. Even ripper swarms.

What if we turned it around. Would you pay points for space marines to be upgraded into suicide bombers that could blow themselves up to get higher and higher str with better and better AP depending on how many they blow up at a time. Everything can do it. Tanks loaded with dynamite. Bikes just covered in satchels full of c4. The works. Would you pay to loose models to make a 1 shot attack?

Space marines? No. Orks? Absolutely. I don't think space marines would have the bodies to pull something like this off. However, they are consistently used in practice for something like this. The Suicide Melta Marine Drop-pod comes to mind.

If you go from nearly nothing in your army being able to hurt armor to the entire army having easy access to becoming a significant threat to armor I think it changes a few things. Gives you strategic options. Think of it this way. You take gaunts. He has tanks in range of your gaunts. Your gaunts aren't going to do anything but camp an objective, run around, or get shot. This, however, gives you another option to utilize those points you spent on those gaunts to take away one of his options. I think it's a fair opportunity given Tyranids proclivity for numbers saturation.

Hell, imagine it on Gargoyles.

I spend point on my Eldar all the time for options. Giving guardians a weapons platform for a single shot that in my experience whiffs most of the time still serves a purpose. It changes an 80 point 10 man T3 5+ save Ld8 squad into a 100 point squad with the potential to pin an enemy, take a hull point off a flyer, bright lance something with a lucky hit, etc.

One squad won't do much and will pretty much spend the entire game eating dirt (go to ground), missing their shots, or dying. 3 squads? That's a threat that changes how your opponent plays.

I don't think you are considering the detriment that loosing your own models is.

I would rather imagine gargoyles having rules that made them worth taking to begin with. Maybe a gun option that was worth a damn. Or the ability to actually get crap done in combat. Really, anything besides their mobility.

I don't want troops that die in droves on the enemies turn so that I can kill them off in droves in my own. That increases the rate at which Tyranids fall apart in prolonged encounters. I want tyranids units that can actually do their job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deathmagiks wrote:


I spend point on my Eldar all the time for options. Giving guardians a weapons platform for a single shot that in my experience whiffs most of the time still serves a purpose. It changes an 80 point 10 man T3 5+ save Ld8 squad into a 100 point squad with the potential to pin an enemy, take a hull point off a flyer, bright lance something with a lucky hit, etc.

One squad won't do much and will pretty much spend the entire game eating dirt (go to ground), missing their shots, or dying. 3 squads? That's a threat that changes how your opponent plays.

And this eldar squad, does it loose models when you fire off that single shot? Does the unit itself become exponentially less effective because of it?