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.

 Filch wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Murrdox wrote:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I will agree on this if the Rhino goes to 90 pts, naked Predators go to 160 and Land raiders go to 320 points. Otherwise, no freaking way. People always forget that Vehicles are waaaaaay cheaper than MC's. And you want to have a 35 pt Rhino have the same survivability as a 190 pt Tervigon (6 wounds/hull points, 3+ armor, T6/AV10). Seriously? Do people even think before they post?

And a Wraith Knight cost only 295 with 2 wraith cannons and can swap for melee for free. While an Imperial Knight costs 325 with no guns.

MC cost more because they cant explode.

Then why does the fully upgraded Wraith Knight cost 30 points less than the basic, unupgraded, Imperial Knight, the Wraith Knight being superior in every way to an Imperial Knight even when it is stock?

The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

Yep. 5th edition is at LEAST equally bad for a rule-set as what we have now except in the opposite direction as vehicles were too strong.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

I honestly don't think Hull points are what's wrong with vehicles. But I personally like the idea of Hull points. Wearing away the outer armor, treads, general wear and tear on the vehicle. Yeah, after enough damage, a vehicle should just stop working. Hence Hull points.

Vehicles have too many liabilities on top of hull points.

Martel732 wrote:
Vehicles have too many liabilities on top of hull points.

Exactly this. As I said before the number of weapons that can one shot kill an MC are limited to a handful per army and usually only in very expensive HQ choices. The obvious exception being Grey Knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:


Okay, how many psykers do you actually see in the game? Not many outside of GK and the occasional Eldar spam.

I apologize for any earlier comments I've made to you, MOO. I had not realized that you were a very young and inexperienced player with a similar local group. That was my oversight, and I was wrong.

2/3rds of all 6th and 7th edition games that I have played with friends, at game stores, and at tournaments have included Psychers including almost every Eldar, Daemons, Chaos Space Marines, IG, and Space Marine list I've faced.

However strong force weapons are, though, that's not what my Black Templar fear. What they fear are Prescience shooty squads, like Grav Cannon Centurions podding in with a cheap librarian (or Grav bikes with a biker librarian). My Templars are challenged against flying daemon prince lists with Invisibility and Iron Arm or Warp Speed. I haven't even gotten to Seer Councils and they're shenanigans.

But we carry on and carry a big stick. That's what we do. That's what we're here for!

Not young and inexperienced - I have been playing for many a year now

My point however though may be biased - outside of my usual SM player and the local GK and Eldar players I do not usually see more than a few (0 - 4) psykers being fielded per game. This may just be a thing with my club but when you have players with entire knight households and titan legions little things like psykers tend to take the bck bench of the notice route.
To tell you the truth though I find that IG psykers are currently overpriced - hence my only psyker being my Demon Blade wielding Inquisitor

That said and done I whole heartedly agree with you on the Invisible and Prescience shenanigans of which almost every army has within its inventory these days. Psykers and psychic powers in general need toning down to a more reasonable level and flyers need removing or utterly re-writing all together.

Do not worry about my big stick - as I type this I can see my staff over in the corner. It just needs shodding now

Martel732 wrote:
Vehicles have too many liabilities on top of hull points.

Absolutely true.

Vehicles if given toughness and hitpoints and a 4+ save would be so much better. Instead of AV14, just T10

Model type "vehicle"

Only AP1 removes armor save, AP 2 forces successful saves to reroll

Eternal warrior

Just give it all the crazy rules we already have...
-relentless
-can shoot all weapons if not moving
-can shoot 1 weapon and snapfire rest if moving 6"
-can snapfire all weapons and move 12"
-can embark as per capacity
etc.

Ignore...
-fleshbane
-poison
-etc

Reword a few rules in minor ways
-haywire 1-nothing, 2-5 1hp, 6 2hp
-melta counts as +3 str against vehicles at half range
-armourbane counts as +3 str against vehicles
-etc

Give them and walkers a facing rule, and assign lesser toughness for facings

or

make a special "flanking" rule that firing into a side facing lowers the T by 1 and rear is T6 but certain vehicles (Land Raider) are immune to flanking changes to their T

there. done. no more AV

And truthfully, the edition after the change we'd find ourselves eliminating so many superfluous vehicle rules that it'd streamline real soon.

 Lobukia wrote:
Eternal warrior

So take vehicles back to 5th were they were un-kill-able?

Just give it all the crazy rules we already have...
-relentless
-can shoot all weapons if not moving
-can shoot 1 weapon and snapfire rest if moving 6"
-can snapfire all weapons and move 12"
-can embark as per capacity

Ok with that

Ignore...
-fleshbane
-poison
-etc

Ok with that

Reword a few rules in minor ways
-haywire 1-nothing, 2-5 1hp, 6 2hp
-melta counts as +3 str against vehicles at half range
-armourbane counts as +3 str against vehicles
-etc

Why not just make Armorbane work like Fleshbane?

Give them and walkers a facing rule, and assign lesser toughness for facings

or

make a special "flanking" rule that firing into a side facing lowers the T by 1 and rear is T6 but certain vehicles (Land Raider) are immune to flanking changes to their T

I would rather not add stuff like that, just adds to rules. RT/!st did not have facings and it worked fine.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

I honestly don't think Hull points are what's wrong with vehicles. But I personally like the idea of Hull points. Wearing away the outer armor, treads, general wear and tear on the vehicle. Yeah, after enough damage, a vehicle should just stop working. Hence Hull points.

That's really not how they work though, at least not armored vehicles. Armored vehicles typically don't care until something penetrates the armor and something very bad happens. I mean, there are examples of tanks with dozens of hits and all sorts of external damage that were able to survive engagements because nothing penetrated through to the inside to hit anything critical or explode. About the only way external damage causes a tank to become a casualty is if it's immobilized and the crew abandon it, aside from that, something must penetrate the armor and do something bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

I honestly don't think Hull points are what's wrong with vehicles. But I personally like the idea of Hull points. Wearing away the outer armor, treads, general wear and tear on the vehicle. Yeah, after enough damage, a vehicle should just stop working. Hence Hull points.

That's really not how they work though, at least not armored vehicles. Armored vehicles typically don't care until something penetrates the armor and something very bad happens. I mean, there are examples of tanks with dozens of hits and all sorts of external damage that were able to survive engagements because nothing penetrated through to the inside to hit anything critical or explode. About the only way external damage causes a tank to become a casualty is if it's immobilized and the crew abandon it, aside from that, something must penetrate the armor and do something bad.

I agree that a Penetration system would be more 'realistic'. But as the system currently works 8.8cm Guns [Las-Cannons] should not bounce off M3 Half-Tracks [Rhinos] 1/6th of the time. At least with Hull Points you can kill off any vehicle even on a bod day.

I would say that Glancing Blows making Crew Shaken/Crew Stunned would be better than a Hull Point.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

I honestly don't think Hull points are what's wrong with vehicles. But I personally like the idea of Hull points. Wearing away the outer armor, treads, general wear and tear on the vehicle. Yeah, after enough damage, a vehicle should just stop working. Hence Hull points.

That's really not how they work though, at least not armored vehicles. Armored vehicles typically don't care until something penetrates the armor and something very bad happens. I mean, there are examples of tanks with dozens of hits and all sorts of external damage that were able to survive engagements because nothing penetrated through to the inside to hit anything critical or explode. About the only way external damage causes a tank to become a casualty is if it's immobilized and the crew abandon it, aside from that, something must penetrate the armor and do something bad.

There are recorded accounts of tanks literally taking hundreds of hits and continuing to function. I remember the story of a Tiger that took close to two hundred hits including one from a 6PDR, the shell of which stuck in the glacis plate, and survived with nothing more than some chipped paint.
The current HP system does not make any sense - an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit do not miraculously knock out a tank. They might knock a track off or damage a weapon or stun the crew but that is just about it.
A penetrating hit on the other hand will usually destroy the vehicle.

 Anpu42 wrote:

So take vehicles back to 5th were they were un-kill-able?

EW just keeps them from being one shotted

I would rather not add stuff like that, just adds to rules. RT/!st did not have facings and it worked fine.

I agree that stuff should go... I just can't see facing go soon

One shot takes out treads, another disables main gun/turret. You have a useless box for the rest of the battle without penetrating the hull right? I don't claim much about tanks IRL so mean this workout snark. Just in theory I would guess glances could render the vehicle useless though probably not nearly as easily as they do currently.

--

Another thread suggested "glance" really means "minor damage" in game terms and is a misnomer. If you look at it that way it gets around the concept of "a glance can't do that".

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
One shot takes out treads, another disables main gun/turret. You have a useless box for the rest of the battle without penetrating the hull right? I don't claim much about tanks IRL so mean this workout snark. Just in theory I would guess glances could render the vehicle useless though probably not nearly as easily as they do currently.

--

Another thread suggested "glance" really means "minor damage" in game terms and is a misnomer. If you look at it that way it gets around the concept of "a glance can't do that".

You would be surprised how easily a turret ring can be freed up after being jammed. I mean sure, it still will nit rotate as well but it will still be able to rotate.

The perceived problems with the current rules for vehicles is that vehicles die too easily in 7th while the opposite was true in 5th. Right? So obviously we just need to find a middle ground.

Changing to using a Toughness may be a solution but one that brings more complication when you consider facings.

Also, in the current iteration of the rules, jinking vehicles such as skimmers are actually considered to be fairly durable and usable, right?

So how about just a simple 4+ invulnerable save against HP loss? So Penetrating Hits still roll on the chart but might not remove a HP. And glancing hits are half as effective. This represents the odds of a glancing blow being ineffective or a penetrating shot not reducing the overall structure of the vehicle.

You could even go as far as to say that Heavy vehicles instead get a 3+ save. And skimmers can opt to Jink to reroll the save (though that does nothing if you penetrate and roll an explodes.)

It's a simple change that makes things like haywire and strength 6 spam not so effective while not changing the fundamentals of facings or AV.

Minor damage does not disable a tank. If the hit disables a critical component or ability, it is major damage.

 Psienesis wrote:
Minor damage does not disable a tank. If the hit disables a critical component or ability, it is major damage.

Exactly

Honestly AV system is fine.

as is the concept of having Hull points.

Iv said it before in IIRC a different thread but I feel the primary issue against vehicles is the high amount of upper mid str weapons with high ap that can glance anything to death with no repercussion.

cover saves help but its much harder for vehicles with there own special cover rules.

I think the best and simplest fix is to just give vehicles an armor save. probably around a 3+. it hurts the spam tactics in a way that you can play vehicles aggressively again, while low ap actual anti tank weapons have an actual use and forces you to use cover if they are present.

at least i feel its the quickest fix with minimum effort to playtest.

If it becomes an issue then maybe no armor saves in CC since its mostly people jamming potatos down tail pipes and stuff.

Though on that though i wish vehicles was able to overwatch. makes sense with such defensive weapons like the heavy flamers and bolters strapped up top.

 Anpu42 wrote:

I agree that a Penetration system would be more 'realistic'. But as the system currently works 8.8cm Guns [Las-Cannons] should not bounce off M3 Half-Tracks [Rhinos] 1/6th of the time. At least with Hull Points you can kill off any vehicle even on a bod day.

Well, lets be honest, in real life, an 88 vs an M3 with a sub 800 meter shot would be like a BS10 Destroyer weapon

That said,the hull points have numerous issues. This whole double-overlapping kill system and being treated as T based units in some ways but still having the drawbacks of vehicles from older editions just isn't working well. If we're going to give models wounds, we should just make them T/Sv units and do away with the damage chart. If we want them to function as close to real armored vehicles as possible within the realm of a D6 based system on a 1-10 sliding scale of weapon strength, going back to system more akin to 5E wound probably be best.

Vehicles weren't unkillable in 5E, in fact, they were easier to kill with dedicated anti-tank guns like meltas, vanquisher cannons, and railguns, it was just more variable and you couldn't plink them to death. Even running a 15 tank army in 5E, I had games where they all died, and would routinely lose double-digits worth of vehicles even in relatively casual games.

As I said earlier, it was the transports that didn't care about most damage results and the fact that 4+ cover was really abundant that made problems.

 master of ordinance wrote:


There are recorded accounts of tanks literally taking hundreds of hits and continuing to function. I remember the story of a Tiger that took close to two hundred hits including one from a 6PDR, the shell of which stuck in the glacis plate, and survived with nothing more than some chipped paint.
The current HP system does not make any sense - an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit do not miraculously knock out a tank. They might knock a track off or damage a weapon or stun the crew but that is just about it.
A penetrating hit on the other hand will usually destroy the vehicle.

Indeed, and that's the way many other games play them.

In fact, another option might be to ditch HP's for armored vehicles (keep them for relatively unarmored things like Trukks or Raiders where they make a bit more sense), up the AV on everything, and make penetrating hits extremely lethal. Flames of War works off of what's called "firepower", every weapon has Firepower rating that's used to determine how well they kill something once they breach defenses in addition to a strength value. Against infantry, you roll your firepower to break through things like trench lines and other entrenchments after you've hit. Against something like a tank, they have a Strength vs Armor roll just like 40k does (but a wider array of Strength and Armor values), and once penetrated, you roll your firepower to see if you kill the tank. If you fail, the tank is disabled for a turn (e.g a through and through shot or it just didn't hit something immediately vital), if you succeed, the tank is destroyed. Firepower on most tank guns is a 3+, while some go right up to 1+. This makes penetrating the armor extremely deadly, but otherwise the tank isn't going to care.

So if we get something like a Chimera is AV13/12/12, but a Lascannon that penetrates is killing it on a 4+, or a railgun on a penetrating 3+, vehicles are entirely killable, but require actual dedicated AT guns to kill, not just spamming multi-role mid-strength weapons to strip HP's. That might require a bit more reworking of weapons and vehicles, but might be a much better method overall.

So, kind of like Bolt Action's vehicle damage system?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, kind of like Bolt Action's vehicle damage system?

Now that is a really good suggestion. Bolt Actions vehicle system works really, really, well and feels right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:


There are recorded accounts of tanks literally taking hundreds of hits and continuing to function. I remember the story of a Tiger that took close to two hundred hits including one from a 6PDR, the shell of which stuck in the glacis plate, and survived with nothing more than some chipped paint.
The current HP system does not make any sense - an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit do not miraculously knock out a tank. They might knock a track off or damage a weapon or stun the crew but that is just about it.
A penetrating hit on the other hand will usually destroy the vehicle.

Indeed, and that's the way many other games play them.

In fact, another option might be to ditch HP's for armored vehicles (keep them for relatively unarmored things like Trukks or Raiders where they make a bit more sense), up the AV on everything, and make penetrating hits extremely lethal. Flames of War works off of what's called "firepower", every weapon has Firepower rating that's used to determine how well they kill something once they breach defenses in addition to a strength value. Against infantry, you roll your firepower to break through things like trench lines and other entrenchments after you've hit. Against something like a tank, they have a Strength vs Armor roll just like 40k does (but a wider array of Strength and Armor values), and once penetrated, you roll your firepower to see if you kill the tank. If you fail, the tank is disabled for a turn (e.g a through and through shot or it just didn't hit something immediately vital), if you succeed, the tank is destroyed. Firepower on most tank guns is a 3+, while some go right up to 1+. This makes penetrating the armor extremely deadly, but otherwise the tank isn't going to care.

So if we get something like a Chimera is AV13/12/12, but a Lascannon that penetrates is killing it on a 4+, or a railgun on a penetrating 3+, vehicles are entirely killable, but require actual dedicated AT guns to kill, not just spamming multi-role mid-strength weapons to strip HP's. That might require a bit more reworking of weapons and vehicles, but might be a much better method overall.

I like this. It would make tanks feel like tanks once again whilst at the same time bringing back the relevance of high strength low AP single shot dedicated AT guns.

Bolt Action's system does work well at somewhat capturing the realities of modern warfare. The problem is that with all of the firepower going around these days it'd be too easy to glance/penetrate armor. To integrate a system like that you'd need to redesign 40k from the ground up.

Not that it doesn't need it, of course. 40K really needs some kind of reboot.

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly AV system is fine.

as is the concept of having Hull points.

Iv said it before in IIRC a different thread but I feel the primary issue against vehicles is the high amount of upper mid str weapons with high ap that can glance anything to death with no repercussion.

cover saves help but its much harder for vehicles with there own special cover rules.

I think the best and simplest fix is to just give vehicles an armor save. probably around a 3+. it hurts the spam tactics in a way that you can play vehicles aggressively again, while low ap actual anti tank weapons have an actual use and forces you to use cover if they are present.

at least i feel its the quickest fix with minimum effort to playtest.

If it becomes an issue then maybe no armor saves in CC since its mostly people jamming potatos down tail pipes and stuff.

Though on that though i wish vehicles was able to overwatch. makes sense with such defensive weapons like the heavy flamers and bolters strapped up top.

I agree with this. The issue is not with hull points, it's with the increased popularity of high strength weapons.

An armor save would be the simplest route to sort the issue, but adding more saving throws to the game makes dice rolling just a bit more tedious.

There should be some mechanic that determines whether or not a glance takes off a hull point that does not involve another dice roll. Maybe just a -1 modifier to rolls would do it.

I think with the state of the 40k each vehicle should get a +1 to HP value, and that would make the game a bit funner, and vehicles more worth their points, at least Space Marine and Necron-wise.

In other words, I don't mind the HP system, and prefer it to the prior 40k rules for vehicles, I just think vehicles go down too easy with the baseline Rhino HP 3 stat.

+1? I'd say double or nothing.

Ineffective hit + ineffective hit + ineffective hit = target eliminated is...

How a wounds/hit points system, which is very unrealistic, works. If you don't like it on vehicles for reasons of realism, take it off of living things too, where the same objections apply.

Or get rid of human-sized multi-wound models, and write up a damage chart for monsters like in AoS.

I think people need to stop seeing glancing hits simply as ineffective hit. Those that hit and don't even pen would be ineffective realistically. Then again glancing armour isn't really a real thing.

I honesty think like others said the whole vehicle damage thing should be redone. However if you took it along logical lines of how it works IRL, you would completely have to redo all the vehicle and weapon stats. Pretty much requiring a complete reboot, and do you think GW is going to do that with the uproar around AoS?