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.

 Desubot wrote:
Lets think about it this way.

With your chart.
A melta only has a 1/6 chance of killing a rhino.

ONLY.

You would need at least 9-10 Marines with Melta guns just to kill 1 rhino. assuming they dont roll double one on pen and are close enough.
edit: SCratch that i just saw the wrecked options.

1 Melta @ BS4, 2/3 hit, Melta range so 2D6 pen - 3 to glance 4+ to pen, 10/11 damage, pen result on 9/11, D6+1 on the result = 3+ to destroy the Rhino. Not that difficult to achieve, but I see where you are coming from.

and at that you would need to mulch through multiple weapons AND get immobilized results. Maybe if the Weapons and immoblized results stacked on each other in which if there are no avalible weapons then it becomes immobilized and vice versa.

Good idea, how does this sound:

If a vehicle is already immobilised then count this roll as a 'Weapon Destroyed' result instead
If a vehicle has no weapons then count this roll as a 'Immobilised' result instead

I dont want vehicles to be massively overpowered but I dont want them to be as weak as they currently are either.

 Dramagod2 wrote:
I don't see how replacing a mechanic that we are already used to with three different tables is simple. I think you guys are going in circles. If the rules discuss at the gw design table go anything like they do in here, it's not wonder everything is so crappy

Hardly. GW doesn't have rules discussions. Individuals just write stuff down, and hope its legible enough to print.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
The least problematic solutions so far seem to be


A: Change all AV values to Toughness values and assign armor values FNP, etc as appropriate.

B. Assign armor, and invul traits to vehicles across the board.

For instance the lowly rhino would get a 4+ armor save, light skimmer would get a 5+, and the Land Raider would have a 3+ armor save, and a 4+ invul.

On a side note, cover should be easier to attain for vehicles no matter what is done, and that will at least give some vehicles a little more survivability.

That's the simplest route, and simple and advantages. But it is nothing like how vehicles and biological organisms work; and it destroys the separate roles they play on the battlefield. I'd house rule it away if it was an official rule.

What vehicles need is to be closer to 5th edition survivability but with added weaknesses to keep them from dominating the field like they did.

Apart from the hull point fix I suggested earlier (hull points remain but their only effect is to "block" glances until the HP are stripped, and then glances become penetrating hits) I would do something to punish transported units more than they were in 5th edition - maybe as simple as making wrecked/exploded vehicles dangerous terrain... And then bring back the -1S to open topped explosions.

You could also always do damage markers that give bonus to the damage chart roll if you ever pen.

Say take a rhino.

You glance it 3 times.

Next time you pen you get a +3 to wreck or explode it.

maybe make it a 5+ to explode off a wreck.

I think a simple fix is to have a new special rule... (hear me out)

This special rule would be "anti tank X" and having this special rule means your weapon is capable of penetration Armour or glancing it.

The X will be the strength of the weapon when attacking Armour. This means the amount of weapons that can actually shoot at tanks becomes far more limited and requires real anti tank capability in order to destroy them.

 master of ordinance wrote:
You are all missing the simple solution:

>Drop the HP mechanic. Its useless, pointless and hurts more than it helps.

>replace it with:

Glancing hits
1-3 no effect
3-4 crew stunned
5 weapon destroyed
6 immobilised

Penetrating hits
1 crew shaken
2 weapon destroyed
3 immobilised
4-6 wrecked
7+ explodes

modifiers:
AP --6 can only cause glancing hits. -2 on the damage charts
AP 5-4 -1 on the penetrating chart
AP 3-2 roll as normal
AP 1 +1 on the damage charts
Strength 4 or less cant damage a vehicle (no more rapid firing IG tanks to death Marine players )
Strength 5-6 get a -1 on the damage charts
Strength 7+ rolls as normal
Strength D gets a +2 on the damage charts and automatically penetrates

This simulates how vehicles act in real life whilst removing the stupid threat of low strength low AP non dedicated AT weapons. Now if you want to kill a tank you have to bring weapons that are actually intended to fight and kill tanks rather than just spamming autocannons and the like.

Good for you. Now play tyranids and go against tanks. I dare you. I double dare you.

Any 6 to hit has access to explodes and immobilized results. This to me is the easiest approach, no modifying units or guns, just make it slightly more dependant on chance, reducing effectiveness of tank killing units and weapons by a small yet npticeable margin.

AP1 and 2 are still more likely to give you a juicy "weapon destroyed" or the shaken/stunned results even if they dont immobilize or explode the vehicle.

It has the added bonus of not needing to rely on different myriad chances of units and guns interacting with various armour saves and invuln saves or increased hullpoint stats.

I haven't had a chance to try it and probably won't as it's harvest time here in saskatchewan and i'll be busy for months. No one likes this change? It requires two sixes or at least a six and then a 5 to be rolled for the vehicle to be immobilized or destroyed. I havent done any math, but it seems balanced, if only perhaps better for the bs of orks and their ROF compensation. But orks already are struggling, are they not?

Wish i had the time to run it through a quick 1850 to see if it's stupid or if it produces a desireable outcome.

I suppose perhaps characters like fuegan might suffer too much from it and need points adjustment slightly.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
You are all missing the simple solution:

>Drop the HP mechanic. Its useless, pointless and hurts more than it helps.

>replace it with:

Glancing hits
1-3 no effect
3-4 crew stunned
5 weapon destroyed
6 immobilised

Penetrating hits
1 crew shaken
2 weapon destroyed
3 immobilised
4-6 wrecked
7+ explodes

modifiers:
AP --6 can only cause glancing hits. -2 on the damage charts
AP 5-4 -1 on the penetrating chart
AP 3-2 roll as normal
AP 1 +1 on the damage charts
Strength 4 or less cant damage a vehicle (no more rapid firing IG tanks to death Marine players )
Strength 5-6 get a -1 on the damage charts
Strength 7+ rolls as normal
Strength D gets a +2 on the damage charts and automatically penetrates

This simulates how vehicles act in real life whilst removing the stupid threat of low strength low AP non dedicated AT weapons. Now if you want to kill a tank you have to bring weapons that are actually intended to fight and kill tanks rather than just spamming autocannons and the like.

Good for you. Now play tyranids and go against tanks. I dare you. I double dare you.

Imperial Guard tankline? I would love too - there is almost nothing we have that can reliably deal with MC's and GMC's.

On a serious note though, I can see the issues with my set. But then again armies are not meant to be good at everything. There are meant to be downsides and weaknesses which you have to play around to win. Still, getting rid of the HP mechanic would be a step in the right direction IMHO

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
I don't see how replacing a mechanic that we are already used to with three different tables is simple. I think you guys are going in circles. If the rules discuss at the gw design table go anything like they do in here, it's not wonder everything is so crappy

Hardly. GW doesn't have rules discussions. Individuals just write stuff down, and hope its legible enough to print.

And even if it isn't, they print it anyway

 Selym wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
I don't see how replacing a mechanic that we are already used to with three different tables is simple. I think you guys are going in circles. If the rules discuss at the gw design table go anything like they do in here, it's not wonder everything is so crappy

Hardly. GW doesn't have rules discussions. Individuals just write stuff down, and hope its legible enough to print.

And even if it isn't, they print it anyway

"Playtest our rules?" "Why would we ever waste money on that" ~GW design team.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
I don't see how replacing a mechanic that we are already used to with three different tables is simple. I think you guys are going in circles. If the rules discuss at the gw design table go anything like they do in here, it's not wonder everything is so crappy

Hardly. GW doesn't have rules discussions. Individuals just write stuff down, and hope its legible enough to print.

And even if it isn't, they print it anyway

"Playtest our rules?" "Why would we ever waste money on that" ~GW design team.

"Professional game designers? Why would we pay for those nerds, when we can get some nice cheap interns?" - GW Execs