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.

If you could fix one thing in the rules what would it be?
I think I would pick giving vehicles an armour save of some kind.
Currently your rolling to hit then rolling to penetrate (which is like wounding), so why no save?
It could be based on your current AV say 16 - Av.
Therefore landraiders get a 2+ and predators get a 3+ on the front but a 6+ on the back.
On a side note why do they make tanks with such poor rear armour? You'd think they'd have learned by now.

What do you think would be a good rule?

Switch from D6 to D10 with the wider range in saves, to hit, to wound, etc. that would allow.

Vehicles need a total overhaul. They were too powerful in 5th, and too weak in 6th

All I would do to change them though to make them instantly better... Glancing hits remove no hull points, and instead inflict crew shaken results. Penetrating hits inflict a hull point and roll on the table

This way it makes vehicles more survivable against lower str weapons and makes anti tank weapons a better option.

Edit: I do like your save idea though. I toyed with the idea of making dholes have toughness instead of an armour vale using armour 12 as the base and missile launchers as the base weapon

Av 10 = t6 & 6+ save
Av 11 = t7 & 5+ save
Av 12 = t8 & 4+ save
Av 13 = t9 & 3+ save
Av 14 = t10 & 2+ save

The problem is, it makes armour weaker because you need str 6 to glance av12
But only str 5 to wound t8. So you need to have armour saves as well,
But then most of the stuff you shoot at av 10 or 11 would ignore 5+ anyways, and 2+
On a t10 model (land raider) is not nice ( most weapons that can hurt t10 probably
Ignore 2+ anyways)

Increased variety in unit statlines and/or more tactical options for controlling your units in game

Balance.

Th0rh4mm3r wrote:
Vehicles need a total overhaul. They were too powerful in 5th, and too weak in 6th

All I would do to change them though to make them instantly better... Glancing hits remove no hull points, and instead inflict crew shaken results. Penetrating hits inflict a hull point and roll on the table

This way it makes vehicles more survivable against lower str weapons and makes anti tank weapons a better option.

No. Straight up no. I play Eldar. My Wave Serpents would be unstoppable. Downgrade Pen to Glance on a 2+, Ignore Crew Shaken on a 2+. And that is if I fail the 4+ Jink save.

Grats happy Jew, you names the one unit that breaks the rules. All we need to do to fix that in my revised vehicle rules is change the shield back to limiting str to 12 and ignoring additional dice. Just like it was in the 4th Ed codex except you can still fire it. Problem solved

For some random things [i.e physcic powers] you roll 2d6 and pick either number.

A whole lot less randomness somehow done through a D10 system to allow less "nah that lasgun aint gonna hurt my Trygon.... it did....what?"

Making the focus of the GW game developers game play, not supporting the latest minature release sales.

Two words. Sweeping. Advance.

It needs to be toned down, as its the entire reason CC is so ridiculously powerful and why it has to be severely limited in order to not essentially control the entire game. (See 5th Ed.)

Change it to a free round of shooting or close combat if they fail their initiative test instead of insta-gib. That way, it would still be somewhat effective at destroying units, but you won't have anything absolutely pants on head stupid like a Bloodthirster walking up, killing a single Guardsman, and making the other 49 vanish like magic.

 NydusTemplar wrote:
Two words. Sweeping. Advance.

It needs to be toned down, as its the entire reason CC is so ridiculously powerful and why it has to be severely limited in order to not essentially control the entire game. (See 5th Ed.)

Change it to a free round of shooting or close combat if they fail their initiative test instead of insta-gib. That way, it would still be somewhat effective at destroying units, but you won't have anything absolutely pants on head stupid like a Bloodthirster walking up, killing a single Guardsman, and making the other 49 vanish like magic.

That would be rather interesting to be honest. Your Tac Marines win an assault and instead of Sweeping Advance, they get a free round of Boltgun fire at the losers, who retreat safely. Would work similar to Overwatch I'd imagine, maybe at full BS.

Returning 5e transport system or some amalgamation of 5 and 6, so you can disembark 2" on cruising speed but cannot charge even from assault vehicle, and can disembark normally (6") from standing vehicle and able to charge.

Th0rh4mm3r wrote:
Grats happy Jew, you names the one unit that breaks the rules. All we need to do to fix that in my revised vehicle rules is change the shield back to limiting str to 12 and ignoring additional dice. Just like it was in the 4th Ed codex except you can still fire it. Problem solved

Ah, but now we are changing two things, not one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmerro wrote:
Returning 5e transport system or some amalgamation of 5 and 6, so you can disembark 2" on cruising speed but cannot charge even from assault vehicle, and can disembark normally (6" from standing vehicle and able to charge.

I was about to ask what benefit Assault vehicle would give but then I re-read. So if I'm understanding correctly:
Stationary: normal disembark and can charge
Move ≤6": normal disembark and cannot charge unless the vehicle is an Assault Vehicle (or open-topped)
Move >6": 2" disembark and cannot charge at all

 iGuy91 wrote:
Balance.

This.

Oh, and proofreading.