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.

One 40k problem is Mass S6 and S7. Vehicles are glanced down really quickly.

We dont want to give to strong of a universal save b.c it would make weaker vehicles to strong and stronger vehicles unkillable, it is hard to balanced.

Rule
All "Glances" have a 4+ chance to not take a Hull Point

This would give S6 a small hit, give S7-10 better results and Wouldnt buff cheap vehicles to much at all.


Just an Idea, what do you think?

It barely does anything. The scourge of glances on vehicles is all hyperbole. Look at how the damage is reduced

Glance on 6+ = 50% damage reduction
Glance on 5+ = 25% damage ruedction
Glance on 4+ + 16.6% damage reduction

Its only noticeable for guns that could only glance on 6s but since most vehicles are AV11 front or side the S6/7 guns are glancing on 5s or 4s so the damage reduction is very minimal and is generally worse then if you had just given vehicles +1HP.

Just remove glancing if this is the route you want to take.

 CrownAxe wrote:
It barely does anything. The scourge of glances on vehicles is all hyperbole. Look at how the damage is reduced

Glance on 6+ = 50% damage reduction
Glance on 5+ = 25% damage ruedction
Glance on 4+ + 16.6% damage reduction

Its only noticeable for guns that could only glance on 6s but since most vehicles are AV11 front or side the S6/7 guns are glancing on 5s or 4s so the damage reduction is very minimal and is generally worse then if you had just given vehicles +1HP.

Just remove glancing if this is the route you want to take.

You remove glancing then vehicles become really strong again like in 5th, and everyone would just take weapons to make sure they die with 1 shot instead of a healthy balance.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
It barely does anything. The scourge of glances on vehicles is all hyperbole. Look at how the damage is reduced

Glance on 6+ = 50% damage reduction
Glance on 5+ = 25% damage ruedction
Glance on 4+ + 16.6% damage reduction

Its only noticeable for guns that could only glance on 6s but since most vehicles are AV11 front or side the S6/7 guns are glancing on 5s or 4s so the damage reduction is very minimal and is generally worse then if you had just given vehicles +1HP.

Just remove glancing if this is the route you want to take.

You remove glancing then vehicles become really strong again like in 5th, and everyone would just take weapons to make sure they die with 1 shot instead of a healthy balance.

You clearly don't understand why vehicles were problem in 5ed because the problem was that transports effectively didn't care about any result that wasn't Immobilized, Wrecked, or Explode so were basically immune to damage that wasn't an ap1-2 penetrating hit. Thus roughly ignoring more then 50% of potential damage. Remove glancings would only average to about 33% damage reduction.

Vehicles right now are terrible. The only vehicles you see right now are the ones you get for free or are SHWs which are ignoreing most the the negatives that vehicles have (daamage table and lack of save)

 Amishprn86 wrote:

One 40k problem is Mass S6 and S7.

If the problem is a huge amount of S6-7 shots just reduce those numbers by increasing the cost of the units that spam mid strenght shots.

The glancing mechanic is ok IMHO, what is not ok is the presence of units that can spam too many shots because their cost is not appropriate and you can field too many of them. The main problem with the 7th edition is in fact that this is a shooty oriented edition. Some nasty gimmicks and formations came out later but since 7th edition was released warhammer 40k turned into a game that is basically oriented into spamming MSU or mid strenght shots. That's the issue, I don't think making vehicles more resilient can solve anything.

Just make scatter bikes fast attack units with S5 assault 3 like orks bikers, make grav completely ineffective against vehicles like poisoned shots, and fix all the other units that contribute to the problem.

An easier fix for Glances to not always cause lost HPs would be to roll on the damage table instead.
Maybe change the damage table to something like this:

1 - no damage caused (other than a lost HP if it was a Penetrating hit)
2-3 Shaken
4 Stunned
5 Weapon Destroyed (also loses 1 HP)
6 Immobilized (also loses 1 HP)
7 Explodes (Glances count this result as only losing 1 HP instead)

This way, a Pen always causes an HP and a roll on the table (possibly resulting in another lost HP), while Glances only do HPs if a 5-7 is rolled
Return AP1 to being the only AP to add +1 (so AP2 no longer adds any bonus) and now it will be harder to strip HPs and players are much more encouraged to take higher strength weapons to get Pens

-

 Galef wrote:
An easier fix for Glances to not always cause lost HPs would be to roll on the damage table instead.
Maybe change the damage table to something like this:

1 - no damage caused (other than a lost HP if it was a Penetrating hit)
2-3 Shaken
4 Stunned
5 Weapon Destroyed (also loses 1 HP)
6 Immobilized (also loses 1 HP)
7 Explodes (Glances count this result as only losing 1 HP instead)

This way, a Pen always causes an HP and a roll on the table (possibly resulting in another lost HP), while Glances only do HPs if a 5-7 is rolled
Return AP1 to being the only AP to add +1 (so AP2 no longer adds any bonus) and now it will be harder to strip HPs and players are much more encouraged to take higher strength weapons to get Pens

-

So on a glance.. my leman russ would have a 50% chance of not only losing a hull point, but some other disastrous effect, and if they don't lose a hull point, they'll probably be snap firing and/or not moving next turn. No thanks? I'd rather just take the 1 HP loss from a glance than deal with any of the nonsense from the table.

Here's a better idea, to perhaps differentiate between heavy tanks and transports, and keep transports from getting out of hand again. Add an additional piece to the already existing "heavy" vehicle rule that states that glancing hits are flat out ignored, due to these vehicles' thick layers of armor.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:
An easier fix for Glances to not always cause lost HPs would be to roll on the damage table instead.
Maybe change the damage table to something like this:

1 - no damage caused (other than a lost HP if it was a Penetrating hit)
2-3 Shaken
4 Stunned
5 Weapon Destroyed (also loses 1 HP)
6 Immobilized (also loses 1 HP)
7 Explodes (Glances count this result as only losing 1 HP instead)

This way, a Pen always causes an HP and a roll on the table (possibly resulting in another lost HP), while Glances only do HPs if a 5-7 is rolled
Return AP1 to being the only AP to add +1 (so AP2 no longer adds any bonus) and now it will be harder to strip HPs and players are much more encouraged to take higher strength weapons to get Pens

-

So on a glance.. my leman russ would have a 50% chance of not only losing a hull point, but some other disastrous effect, and if they don't lose a hull point, they'll probably be snap firing and/or not moving next turn. No thanks? I'd rather just take the 1 HP loss from a glance than deal with any of the nonsense from the table.

Here's a better idea, to perhaps differentiate between heavy tanks and transports, and keep transports from getting out of hand again. Add an additional piece to the already existing "heavy" vehicle rule that states that glancing hits are flat out ignored, due to these vehicles' thick layers of armor.

Actually it would be a 33% chance to take an HP unless the weapon is AP1, with a 16% chance that NOTHING HAPPENS AT ALL.
And last I checked, most AP1 weapon are taken in an amount that just kills that tank anyway (i.e. units with multiple Meltas), so bumping it to a 50% is negligible.

And if Snap-fires are BS modifiers in 8th (so blasts will still work, just with a higher Scatter) I think the Leman Russ will be fine.
Besides, LR tanks can only be glanced to death by Necrons anyway. No other army can strip AV13 with glances en mass.

My biggest issue with Glances is that they should not strip HPs at all. It would be better if the first Glance per phase was ignored the second cause Shaken and the third caused Stunned, however that would make Necrons horrible against tank heavy armies (which is very contrary to their fluff)

-

^ As Chrispy said that would be a bit too easy to prevent proper firing
Maybe this instead, Glance or Pen rolls on damage table, Pens cause 1 HP damage, Glances don't
1 - no damage caused (other than a lost HP if it was a Penetrating hit)
2-3 Gun crew shaken - ONE weapon can only fire snap shots next turn
4 Stunned (As now)
5 Weapon Destroyed
6 Track/Engine damage- Vehicle cut's all speeds by 1/3 (3 results of this would immobilize, any after that would be critical hit instead)
7 Critical hit - 1 HP damage.
8+ Catastrophic hit, D3 HP Damage

Then any Vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hp may explode
roll a d6:
1-2 Vehicle is simply wrecked (flyers crash and burn)
3-4 Minor explosion -Scatter Large blast at Str 3 Ap - (Passengers suffer str 3 hits too. Open topped vehicle passengers can avoid the hit if they pass an I test)
5-6 Major explosion- as above but stronger Str 4/5 ?)

 Amishprn86 wrote:
One 40k problem is Mass S6 and S7. Vehicles are glanced down really quickly.

We dont want to give to strong of a universal save b.c it would make weaker vehicles to strong and stronger vehicles unkillable, it is hard to balanced.

Rule
All "Glances" have a 4+ chance to not take a Hull Point

This would give S6 a small hit, give S7-10 better results and Wouldnt buff cheap vehicles to much at all.


Just an Idea, what do you think?

I think that's a perfectly fine idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

One 40k problem is Mass S6 and S7.

If the problem is a huge amount of S6-7 shots just reduce those numbers by increasing the cost of the units that spam mid strenght shots.

The glancing mechanic is ok IMHO, what is not ok is the presence of units that can spam too many shots because their cost is not appropriate and you can field too many of them. The main problem with the 7th edition is in fact that this is a shooty oriented edition. Some nasty gimmicks and formations came out later but since 7th edition was released warhammer 40k turned into a game that is basically oriented into spamming MSU or mid strenght shots. That's the issue, I don't think making vehicles more resilient can solve anything.

Just make scatter bikes fast attack units with S5 assault 3 like orks bikers, make grav completely ineffective against vehicles like poisoned shots, and fix all the other units that contribute to the problem.

Autocannons would still be too good. There's too many weapons and units to fix. Fix glances instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:
An easier fix for Glances to not always cause lost HPs would be to roll on the damage table instead.
Maybe change the damage table to something like this:

1 - no damage caused (other than a lost HP if it was a Penetrating hit)
2-3 Shaken
4 Stunned
5 Weapon Destroyed (also loses 1 HP)
6 Immobilized (also loses 1 HP)
7 Explodes (Glances count this result as only losing 1 HP instead)

This way, a Pen always causes an HP and a roll on the table (possibly resulting in another lost HP), while Glances only do HPs if a 5-7 is rolled
Return AP1 to being the only AP to add +1 (so AP2 no longer adds any bonus) and now it will be harder to strip HPs and players are much more encouraged to take higher strength weapons to get Pens

-

So on a glance.. my leman russ would have a 50% chance of not only losing a hull point, but some other disastrous effect, and if they don't lose a hull point, they'll probably be snap firing and/or not moving next turn. No thanks? I'd rather just take the 1 HP loss from a glance than deal with any of the nonsense from the table.

Here's a better idea, to perhaps differentiate between heavy tanks and transports, and keep transports from getting out of hand again. Add an additional piece to the already existing "heavy" vehicle rule that states that glancing hits are flat out ignored, due to these vehicles' thick layers of armor.

Actually it would be a 33% chance to take an HP unless the weapon is AP1, with a 16% chance that NOTHING HAPPENS AT ALL.
And last I checked, most AP1 weapon are taken in an amount that just kills that tank anyway (i.e. units with multiple Meltas), so bumping it to a 50% is negligible.

And if Snap-fires are BS modifiers in 8th (so blasts will still work, just with a higher Scatter) I think the Leman Russ will be fine.
Besides, LR tanks can only be glanced to death by Necrons anyway. No other army can strip AV13 with glances en mass.

My biggest issue with Glances is that they should not strip HPs at all. It would be better if the first Glance per phase was ignored the second cause Shaken and the third caused Stunned, however that would make Necrons horrible against tank heavy armies (which is very contrary to their fluff)

-

Strippings hps is fine. They do it TOO quickly. There's no point in bringing melta quite frequently.

There are some good ideas here, but are the damage results never an issue for you guys to remember?

No, I have table memorized at this point. My rhinos are always getting penned The key point is that AP 3 and worse and NEVER explode you.

Do you think that it would be too much if there were damage charts for each vehicle "type"? By "type" I mean all Land Raiders have their own damage chart, Rhinos/Razorbacks have their own, Predator variants have their own, Leman Russ varians have their etc.