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.

With AP 1 and AP 2 guns, yes, they penetrate the Armour more effectively and more capable of doing severe damage, but by allowing it to modify the VDT Roll, we would need to alter Result #7 properly so that it's not an instant kill except on a Penetrating Hit (which admittedly IS an option in Proposed Rules).

I know this is bringing Real World concepts in to play, but to me, a Glancing Hit is one which hit at an angle which did not allow it's full energy to be expended on the Vehicle. This could be reflected in a ricochet for hard weapons or just a portion of a beam slicing in to the hull, unable to secure any damage to anything significant to the Vehicle's structure.

Of course, in these cases, I would probably change Gauss and similar to being more like Grav, and just doing a Hull Point of Damage on a Penetration Roll of 6 if it doesn't Penetrate. Of course, this would leave a Gauss's Glance with similar effectiveness to a Penetrating Hit.

I disagree, let 7 kill even on a "new glance"
With glancing to death gone, its that much harder to kill tanks anyway, and low AP guns will really need to step up their game in order to match it. (remember, before the age of glance kills, 6 was enough for insta-kill, and parking lots were viable, and at times dominant.)

And trust me as a mobile artillery soldier-a hit with proper AT weaponry is enough to take out most armored vehicles that are not main battle tanks, even on a less-than-perfect "glancing" hit

And yes, guass will need a change if the glance turns from HP to damage roll.

The only way I want a vehicle to die due to glances is if you get a pile of immobilized results. The bonus from ap and open topped state they apply to penetrating hits.

The additional Hull Points for additional Immobilised results is a bit of an iffy area for me, because if you consider weapons like Grav Cannons w/ Grav-Amps, the additional HP loss is OP. Even with consideration of weapons aside, where's the justification for it?

And Lythrandire BiehrellianMade is right - those bonuses only apply to Penetrating Hits. Plus in the Alternative Proposal, I specifically stated the D6 that you roll is unmodified.

 IllumiNini wrote:
The additional Hull Points for additional Immobilised results is a bit of an iffy area for me, because if you consider weapons like Grav Cannons w/ Grav-Amps, the additional HP loss is OP. Even with consideration of weapons aside, where's the justification for it?

And Lythrandire BiehrellianMade is right - those bonuses only apply to Penetrating Hits. Plus in the Alternative Proposal, I specifically stated the D6 that you roll is unmodified.

Yeah, in that case, I definitely would not be apposed to Graviton losing the Hull Point loss.

Realistically, especially if the ruling on multiple Immobilizes on the same Attack being "already" to each other keeps, I would still prefer this to the current setup.

The first immobilized result wouldn't cause hullpoint loss. So the second would cause two making most vehicles still alive if they take two.

That said, I have a huge chunk of houserules I play under and one is grav only glances on a 6.