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.

So, I've been thinking about how to make vehicles more survivable with Hull Points easily stripped nowadays. Obviously, outside of just giving vehicles more HP's or revamping the entire vehicle damage sysyem there very little that could help. I wanted to run an idea past you all and then discuss your ideas. My idea is, what if Glance HP removal could be mitigated by the owning player with a 5+ roll? Yes, this sounds like Jinking but it only applies to Glancing hits. Thoughts?

So, basically all Vehicles get a 5++ against Glancing Hits?

Ask Gun Terminators how much they enjoy it.

This would then create the issue with alot of armies that armour goes from hard to pop to just plain annoying.

Mainly in regards to AV14, but Orks struggle with this.
Now add in that 1/3 glances will now do nothing, it makes it a nightmare for them to kill tanks.

I do agree that armour is currently weak at the moment, but it's a fine line between making armour better and causing a headache for some armies which struggle already.

We need a rewrite to address this. I'd make Orks less reliant on glances any way.

I'm with you on that Martel.
I feel Orks of all armies should have no issues with armour due to their never ending arsenal of weapons.

While I'm not an Ork player, I do feel they should be better against it.



On a random note, atleast we aren't going back a few editions to the unkillable monolith's.

I like the gun that picks up vehicles and smashes them to the ground. Smasha gun? That thing should be very potent anti-tank/anti-MC.

On a vehicle damage overhaul in general I've been wondering about the monster mechanic in War of the Ring (and on a semi-related note the way FFG's RPGs handle injury and death). Basically there wouldn't be hull points, the 'explodes' and 'wrecked' results would be further down past 7 on the damage table, and every time you got a penetrating hit you'd get a 'damage' counter that adds to subsequent rolls on the table.

If balanced right (and I need to do more math on the subject) this could combine pre-6e tougher vehicles with the current system's concrete progress towards destroying vehicles with every attack.

What if the rule was made so that vehicles couldn't be blown up or immobilised until their last hp or 2? I don't know how well this would work though

Give vehicles what are effectively the rules for the Tidewall Shieldline's "Tidewall Field" in regards to the Glancing Hits(reflected shots) and an armor save that scales.

Start it off at a 2+ save, with each point of Armor Penetration removing a point of save.

What if the Extra Armour upgrade gave vehicles a 5+ save against Glancing hits? I liked what a guy said on BoLS the other day about removing the damage table from Pen's and simply giving AP2 weapons a 6+ to see if it Explodes and AP1 a 5+ to get Explodes. This would mean that Extra Armour would need to change. I like the idea of it giving a save against Glances.

Ask how much defilers/maulerfiends/forgefiends care about their 5++.

My ongoing thought is to change it to a hybrid of 5e and 7e. Glancing hits become -2 on damage chart, and you need to get at least a weapon destroyed to cause a HP. Yeah necrons will complain they can ONLY kill anything with a T value with their troop guns, but now they have a reason to take heavy destroyers, stalkers, their not-demolisher.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
What if the rule was made so that vehicles couldn't be blown up or immobilised until their last hp or 2? I don't know how well this would work though

I've suggested something similar in the past.

Two of the biggest complaints are: "why can vehicles be one-shotted with a lucky roll?", and "glancing to death by mid-strength weapons is bad".

To counter these:
a) if the first HP lost is a penetrating hit, treat it as a glancing hit (i.e. no rolling on the damage chart for the first hit).
b) the final HP can only be stripped by a penetrating hit (i.e. no more glancing to death)

Minor, uncomplicated rules that will help two of the current issues.

 Whittlesey40k wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
What if the rule was made so that vehicles couldn't be blown up or immobilised until their last hp or 2? I don't know how well this would work though

I've suggested something similar in the past.

Two of the biggest complaints are: "why can vehicles be one-shotted with a lucky roll?", and "glancing to death by mid-strength weapons is bad".

To counter these:
a) if the first HP lost is a penetrating hit, treat it as a glancing hit (i.e. no rolling on the damage chart for the first hit).
b) the final HP can only be stripped by a penetrating hit (i.e. no more glancing to death)

Minor, uncomplicated rules that will help two of the current issues.

I would add one more rule to this-if there is a glancing hit against a Vehicle with one HP left, it rolls on the damage table. On a 1-6, the normal result happens, on a 7+, the vehicle is merely wrecked.

This means AP 2 and 1 weapons can reliably kill vehicles even with glances, and lets you actually stop vehicles (but not destroy them) with massed glances, such as from Gauss.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Ask how much defilers/maulerfiends/forgefiends care about their 5++.

My ongoing thought is to change it to a hybrid of 5e and 7e. Glancing hits become -2 on damage chart, and you need to get at least a weapon destroyed to cause a HP. Yeah necrons will complain they can ONLY kill anything with a T value with their troop guns, but now they have a reason to take heavy destroyers, stalkers, their not-demolisher.

I'm thankful for it on my Maulerfiends thank you very much. Defilers are just bad for the price anyway and Forgefiends have garbage damage output on top of being slow.

i prefer the 5th edition as all weapons can destroy vehicles but i would change it a little.
Lose hull point for penetrations and take out vehicle does not fire result and put in 7th edition snap fire rules

Suggested something similar a while back, but with the "save" against a glance stripping a hill point based on the AP of the weapon, i.e. a glance from an AP2 weapon strips an HP on a 2+, but AP4 only glances on a 4+, etc.

 Nazrak wrote:
Suggested something similar a while back, but with the "save" against a glance stripping a hill point based on the AP of the weapon, i.e. a glance from an AP2 weapon strips an HP on a 2+, but AP4 only glances on a 4+, etc.

It seems like it would be much simpler to add something like an armour save. I don't see why that system is better.

pm713 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Suggested something similar a while back, but with the "save" against a glance stripping a hill point based on the AP of the weapon, i.e. a glance from an AP2 weapon strips an HP on a 2+, but AP4 only glances on a 4+, etc.

It seems like it would be much simpler to add something like an armour save. I don't see why that system is better.

My reasoning was that because this way, low-AP weapons are better at piercing armour, which makes sense. "Roll the AP value or higher" isn't exactly a complicated mechanic for anyone who can cope with 40K. As with the initial suggestion on this thread, saves needing to update all vehicle profiles to give them a save too, just makes things a bit more varied.

 Nazrak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Suggested something similar a while back, but with the "save" against a glance stripping a hill point based on the AP of the weapon, i.e. a glance from an AP2 weapon strips an HP on a 2+, but AP4 only glances on a 4+, etc.

It seems like it would be much simpler to add something like an armour save. I don't see why that system is better.

My reasoning was that because this way, low-AP weapons are better at piercing armour, which makes sense. "Roll the AP value or higher" isn't exactly a complicated mechanic for anyone who can cope with 40K. As with the initial suggestion on this thread, saves needing to update all vehicle profiles to give them a save too, just makes things a bit more varied.

It does bloat things even more though. If you add an armour save you get a better AP = better armour piercing without adding an extra roll to everything along with another new mechanic.

pm713 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Suggested something similar a while back, but with the "save" against a glance stripping a hill point based on the AP of the weapon, i.e. a glance from an AP2 weapon strips an HP on a 2+, but AP4 only glances on a 4+, etc.

It seems like it would be much simpler to add something like an armour save. I don't see why that system is better.

My reasoning was that because this way, low-AP weapons are better at piercing armour, which makes sense. "Roll the AP value or higher" isn't exactly a complicated mechanic for anyone who can cope with 40K. As with the initial suggestion on this thread, saves needing to update all vehicle profiles to give them a save too, just makes things a bit more varied.

It does bloat things even more though. If you add an armour save you get a better AP = better armour piercing without adding an extra roll to everything along with another new mechanic.

It's one roll either way. So not sure why one counts as bloat and the other doesn't.

 Nazrak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Suggested something similar a while back, but with the "save" against a glance stripping a hill point based on the AP of the weapon, i.e. a glance from an AP2 weapon strips an HP on a 2+, but AP4 only glances on a 4+, etc.

It seems like it would be much simpler to add something like an armour save. I don't see why that system is better.

My reasoning was that because this way, low-AP weapons are better at piercing armour, which makes sense. "Roll the AP value or higher" isn't exactly a complicated mechanic for anyone who can cope with 40K. As with the initial suggestion on this thread, saves needing to update all vehicle profiles to give them a save too, just makes things a bit more varied.

It does bloat things even more though. If you add an armour save you get a better AP = better armour piercing without adding an extra roll to everything along with another new mechanic.

It's one roll either way. So not sure why one counts as bloat and the other doesn't.

One is a new mechanic you do all the time. The other is an existing mechanic you may or may not do.

 Nazrak wrote:
Suggested something similar a while back, but with the "save" against a glance stripping a hill point based on the AP of the weapon, i.e. a glance from an AP2 weapon strips an HP on a 2+, but AP4 only glances on a 4+, etc.

I think this could be a great improvement too. Rules should reflect the fact that for destroying a vehicle I need an anti-tank weapon, and vice versa for infantry.

Nowadays this is not true, too many weapons are the best choice against both infantry and tanks.

How about a total restructuring of the way HPs and vehicle damage works?

The damage chart would stay exactly how it is now, except that a result of 0 or less results in no damage beyond the Hull Point lost. (And probably that a 1-2 result is Crew Shaken instead of a 1-3, with the other results adjusted accordingly. It'd take some playtesting to hone it in.)
However many Hull Points a vehicle has, it imposes a negative penalty on damage rolls. So, if you have a 3 HP vehicle that hasn't been damaged yet, then any damage rolls would have a -3. (And, to be clear, damage rolls would happen BEFORE the hull point is lost, on a hit-by-hit basis. If three Lascannons hit, then the first Damage roll would be at -3, then -2, then -1.) An AP1 weapon is therefore still more likely to get a useful damage result, but isn't going to get an explodes result on the first hit unless it is attacking a 2hp open-topped vehicle.

Glancing Hits still reduce the number of Hull Points, as usual. Once a vehicle has lost all of its hull points, then all damage results from Penetrating hits get +3, and Glancing Hits can roll on the chart, though without any benefits besides any AP bonuses they already had.

(Super-heavy vehicles function normally, since they don't lose anything on the damage chart normally, and goodness knows we don't need to make it harder to kill super-heavy vehicles.)


In my opinion, this creates a nice compromise between rulesets. You aren't going to pop a vehicle on the first attack, and in fact it can potentially weather shots indefinitely if a player keeps whiffing their damage rolls. However, an AP1 weapon that gets a penetrating hit against a vehicle with 0 hull points will always kill it, since they get a +5, and you only need a 6 to kill your target. It also gives a better sense of progression as you weaken a vehicle - Rather than either getting cut down to 0 HPs and dying, or suffering an unlucky roll from a Meltagun, you now get slowly beaten down and weakened as you're pelted with gunfire. It's comparable to the 5th edition 'Batter them down with Glancing Hits' style, too, except that you still can't ignore them forever if you're a Monolith.