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.

What do you think about removing the "explodes" result from the damage chart...

It would effectively mean that the only way to kill vehicles would be through hull points...just like other models and wounds.

Would it make vehicles or fliers too powerful? Things like land raiders would obviously need an overhaul.

Just asking for your thoughts on how we can make a wound based system work for vehicles...I'm a little tired of the MC only world we live in.

A common idea that shows up on the boards regularly involves moving Explodes to 7, and putting something else at 6. Look down the page a bit for other discussions.

I say remove the table entirely.

It's not like you can blow the weapons arms off a monstrous creature or break it's leg so it can't move. With vehicles now having hull points, it's time to ditch the vehicle damage table.

I think the table should be reworked and expanded beyond D6. You couldn't explode a vehicle outright without AP2 or better weaponry. I also think instead of "weapon destroyed," it could simply be "weapon damaged" which means that particular weapon can only snap fire, loses the ability to ever re-roll hits results and cannot have it's BS modified further in any way (like, by burning marker lights for example.) Still makes the weapon fairly useless without running into situations where a vehicle literally doesn't have a weapon anymore, like the time my Darkshroud's assault cannon blew up leaving it to soar around the map literally weaponless.

i think the vehicle table should be the same, it works.
ur thinking too much in depth

I posted this on the last time this topic came up, but the sentiments still make sense:

I'm going to be unpopular here, but here we go.

A BS4 unit with a strength 9, ap2 weapon i.e. Lascannon against an armour 13 vehicle.

Chance to hit, .66 recurring.
Chance to pen .33 recurring.
Change to explode .33 recurring.

Total possibility of a lascannon 1 shotting it? 7.2%

I don't think those are overly high odds. A 5 man dev squad with 4 lascannons? 28.8% chance?

If you throw your tank into the line of fire, expect to get it killed

The rules are fine as they are.

 Tigurius wrote:
I posted this on the last time this topic came up, but the sentiments still make sense:

I'm going to be unpopular here, but here we go.

A BS4 unit with a strength 9, ap2 weapon i.e. Lascannon against an armour 13 vehicle.

Chance to hit, .66 recurring.
Chance to pen .33 recurring.
Change to explode .33 recurring.

Total possibility of a lascannon 1 shotting it? 7.2%

I don't think those are overly high odds. A 5 man dev squad with 4 lascannons? 28.8% chance?

If you throw your tank into the line of fire, expect to get it killed

The rules are fine as they are.

Now...a single drop podded melta gun against a Land Raider...because I don't know anyone who runs lascannons

Chance to hit, .66 recurring.
Chance to pen .75
Change to explode .5

Total possibility of a meltagun 1 shotting it? 25%

Total possibility of a meltagun 1 shotting a Wraithknight (equal points MC) 0%

 ductvader wrote:
Total possibility of a meltagun 1 shotting it? 25%

Total possibility of a meltagun 1 shotting a Wraithknight (equal points MC) 0%

Chance of a Quad-Gun damaging a Land Raider: 0%
Chance of a Quad-Gun damaging a Wraithknight: 11% per hit

But go ahead and keep talking about the disadvantages tanks have and ignoring the advantages.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
Total possibility of a meltagun 1 shotting it? 25%

Total possibility of a meltagun 1 shotting a Wraithknight (equal points MC) 0%

Chance of a Quad-Gun damaging a Land Raider: 0%
Chance of a Quad-Gun damaging a Wraithknight: 11% per hit

But go ahead and keep talking about the disadvantages tanks have and ignoring the advantages.

Not mentioning the disadvantages does not mean that I am ignoring them....otherwise I would be ignoring the vast majority of every aspect of the game every single time I made a statement.

Please keep your assumptions to yourself.

The comment about a quad gun however, did add to the conversation.

 ductvader wrote:
Not mentioning the disadvantages does not mean that I am ignoring them....otherwise I would be ignoring the vast majority of every aspect of the game every single time I made a statement.

By lobbying to change the vehicle damage table because of the chance of 1 shotting vehicles by meltas you clearly are ignoring the fact that things like meltas are the only chance of one-shotting. Nothing under S8 can even touch a Land Raider. Vehicles have a large advantage MCs don't - being able to ignore small arms fire while MCs have to "worry" about random wounds from any weapon on the table.

I think the damage table is fine. As Rigeld2 was mentioning, there are counters to things. An Anti-tank weapon will be, by it's design, good against tanks. Lascannons aren't even that great against heavier armor, and Melta has to be within very close proximity. MC are good at surviving both of these.

But that's because Anti-tank weapons aren't anti-MC weapons. Poison, Instant Death, Concussive, fleshbane, and shred are things that are more geared towards MC. But they also have no effect on tanks. Saying that Tanks are OP because fleshbane, shred, and poison don't work against them is the same as complaining about lascannons one shot destroying a rhino.

If they give weapons with special rules for cheap that can take out MC's in a hit at the same "rarity" heavy vehicles blow up in a hit, and are still effective at shooting other targets as well, then okay.

However, there's nothing in the shooting phase that's going to kill stuff T6+ short of bringing D weapons "in a hit." Bright Lances can blow up land raiders in a shot, and are what, 10? 15 points? Melta guns are 10 points. Multi-meltas come free on a lot of units that are basically dedicated anti-tank anyway. Every race has reliable ways to hurt and blow up the biggest vehicles, for relatively cheap.

Saying "but they ignore small arms fire!" while comparing it to MCs is kind of funny. Out of the commonly fielded MCs I see, small arms fire is only an issue against Daemon Princes that don't also roll iron arms, and even then it's still a hope you kill it before it murders everything in the universe. Things as huge as Wraithknights do in fact ignore small arms fire. You need S5 to even have a hope to hurt it, and even then you need a 6, and even then you need it to fail it's saves, and even then you need to do that a tremendous amount of times to make any noticable difference. Riptides are "easier" to wound with small arms fire in that S3 can nick it on a roll of 6, but 2+ armor and 5+ FNP (usually) mean again, no, it can shrug off small arms fire.

Meanwhile the AV values that can get glanced to death on similar rolls of to wound don't have built in saves of any kind. It's rare a vehicle has an invulnerable save so you have to have it in cover, which means risking getting it immobilized in most cases.

Also, moving the damage table slightly to the right by making vehicle explodes! the 7 result doesn't suddenly make it go away. It just makes it a less common result when vehicles get penetrated. Statistically, Vehicle Explodes! results are the most common penetration roll, and that's kind of dumb to me. It'd make the rest of the table matter more, and reiterate high strength, low AP weaponry as THE anti-vehicle weapons. Removing the chance of lesser AP weapons from completely removing a big huge unit from the game in a single blow doesn't mean it's still not worth shooting at the vehicle target. That's why there are hull points now, after all. If you want the chance to ID a tank, you should have to pay extra for it, just like when you want the chance to ID infantry/MC targets you have to pay extra to get that special rule.

 SRSFACE wrote:
If they give weapons with special rules for cheap that can take out MC's in a hit at the same "rarity" heavy vehicles blow up in a hit, and are still effective at shooting other targets as well, then okay.

Distort weapons. Force weapons. Pseudo-rending on Eldar.

Saying "but they ignore small arms fire!" while comparing it to MCs is kind of funny. Out of the commonly fielded MCs I see, small arms fire is only an issue against Daemon Princes that don't also roll iron arms, and even then it's still a hope you kill it before it murders everything in the universe. Things as huge as Wraithknights do in fact ignore small arms fire. You need S5 to even have a hope to hurt it, and even then you need a 6, and even then you need it to fail it's saves, and even then you need to do that a tremendous amount of times to make any noticable difference. Riptides are "easier" to wound with small arms fire in that S3 can nick it on a roll of 6, but 2+ armor and 5+ FNP (usually) mean again, no, it can shrug off small arms fire.

I love how you hand wave away the fact that many armies can throw out over 100 S3-5 shots a turn. Not counting the one that can throw out that many poisoned shots.
"Things as huge as Wraithknights" - guess what? He's the only non-LoW over T6. Well, and the nurgle dude who is T7. Everyone else dies to bolter fire. Guess what else dies to bolter fire? DE vehicles - the ones that people say are paper armor.

Meanwhile the AV values that can get glanced to death on similar rolls of to wound don't have built in saves of any kind. It's rare a vehicle has an invulnerable save so you have to have it in cover, which means risking getting it immobilized in most cases.

With a much smaller pool of weapons. And I wasn't aware it was rare to bubble wrap tanks and give them cover. I'll tell my opponents that they should stop doing that.

It'd make the rest of the table matter more, and reiterate high strength, low AP weaponry as THE anti-vehicle weapons. Removing the chance of lesser AP weapons from completely removing a big huge unit from the game in a single blow doesn't mean it's still not worth shooting at the vehicle target. That's why there are hull points now, after all. If you want the chance to ID a tank, you should have to pay extra for it, just like when you want the chance to ID infantry/MC targets you have to pay extra to get that special rule.

They already *are* the anti-vehicle weapons. What you want to do is penalize armies that don't have ready access to high strength, low AP weapons - like Tyranids.
There's literally one thing in the codex that's better than S7 AP2 - a psychic power that only has ~ a 3% chance to roll on the damage table (and only ~ a 1% chance for an explode result)
(math: cast*to-hit*deny*pen*explode =11/12*2/3*1/6*1/3*1/3 please check my work)

Why are all 40K vehicles pintos?

I've always been a fan of creating an adapted table (something like 1-: shaken, 2: stunned, 3: weapon destroyed, 4: immobilized, 5+:explodes).
As usual, there's the standard +1 for AP2 and +2 for AP1, but there's a -1 modifier for every hull point the model had at the time the shot was fired.
For example, when shooting an AP2 weapon at an intact rhino, there's a total -2 modifier to the damage table.

Because it's so hard to glance tanks to death as it is...

rigeld2 wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:
If they give weapons with special rules for cheap that can take out MC's in a hit at the same "rarity" heavy vehicles blow up in a hit, and are still effective at shooting other targets as well, then okay.

Distort weapons. Force weapons. Pseudo-rending on Eldar.

"Hey look at me name a bunch of things from Codex: Eldar and pretend every army in the game has things like that."

Also "psuedo-rending" doesn't kill MCs in a hit.

Force weapons also help against MCs, sure... if the guy wielding it doesn't die first. If you're ramming your librarian into enemy MC's in close combat in the hopes of causing instant death, feel free. If you're using a force staff, only codex you'll ignore the armor save on the guy is against Tyranids who, wouldn't you know it, can field MCs by the truckload anyway. To put it in other terms, I'm fine with force weapons potentially eviscerating a monstrous creature in a hit because it's incredibly risky. Outside of Grey Knights, it means you're risking an HQ unit in a battle he's probably going to lose if it doesn't work, in the incredibly small chance it does work.

Monster Hunter is the only USR that helps against MCs, and it's drastically less numerous than Tank Hunter.

Saying "but they ignore small arms fire!" while comparing it to MCs is kind of funny. Out of the commonly fielded MCs I see, small arms fire is only an issue against Daemon Princes that don't also roll iron arms, and even then it's still a hope you kill it before it murders everything in the universe. Things as huge as Wraithknights do in fact ignore small arms fire. You need S5 to even have a hope to hurt it, and even then you need a 6, and even then you need it to fail it's saves, and even then you need to do that a tremendous amount of times to make any noticable difference. Riptides are "easier" to wound with small arms fire in that S3 can nick it on a roll of 6, but 2+ armor and 5+ FNP (usually) mean again, no, it can shrug off small arms fire.

I love how you hand wave away the fact that many armies can throw out over 100 S3-5 shots a turn. Not counting the one that can throw out that many poisoned shots.
"Things as huge as Wraithknights" - guess what? He's the only non-LoW over T6. Well, and the nurgle dude who is T7. Everyone else dies to bolter fire. Guess what else dies to bolter fire? DE vehicles - the ones that people say are paper armor.

"I love how you wave away the fact many armies can do things. Now watch me go do the exact same thing I'm accusing you of."
-rigeld2

There are not a lot of armies with "tons" of poison weapons. There's one. One army that does that. There are also a lot of armies capable of throwing out absurd amounts of small arms fire. Funny thing is, though, 100 S3 shots at BS3? 50 of them score a hit. Only 8.3 cause a wound on T5 or better. Let's go ahead and round up anyway to say 9. 1.5 of them wound a riptide. It's only 3 wounds against a Sv3 model/models. AND that's 100 freakin' shots into one single entity worth 200ish points. I'm calling that a win on the part of the guy owning the MC if someone wants to dump that much fire and only do that much damage.

I'd also like to know what in the flaming hell Dark Eldar venoms/ravagers have to do with this. I never mentioned them. They are a pretty prime example of how it's fine if the vehicle explodes result straight didn't exist, or was much more rare, though. Removing hull points is easy, a lot easier than removing wounds off MCs which was the entire point of the argument being made in the first place. The argument IS because it's so easy to glance things to death, instant-death on vehicles should be much rarer and relegated to high AP anti-tank weaponry only, rather than simply anything with S7 or better.

Meanwhile the AV values that can get glanced to death on similar rolls of to wound don't have built in saves of any kind. It's rare a vehicle has an invulnerable save so you have to have it in cover, which means risking getting it immobilized in most cases.

With a much smaller pool of weapons. And I wasn't aware it was rare to bubble wrap tanks and give them cover. I'll tell my opponents that they should stop doing that.

Go figure, you are capable of making good points. 1/5 I guess is a start.

It'd make the rest of the table matter more, and reiterate high strength, low AP weaponry as THE anti-vehicle weapons. Removing the chance of lesser AP weapons from completely removing a big huge unit from the game in a single blow doesn't mean it's still not worth shooting at the vehicle target. That's why there are hull points now, after all. If you want the chance to ID a tank, you should have to pay extra for it, just like when you want the chance to ID infantry/MC targets you have to pay extra to get that special rule.

They already *are* the anti-vehicle weapons. What you want to do is penalize armies that don't have ready access to high strength, low AP weapons - like Tyranids.
There's literally one thing in the codex that's better than S7 AP2 - a psychic power that only has ~ a 3% chance to roll on the damage table (and only ~ a 1% chance for an explode result)
(math: cast*to-hit*deny*pen*explode =11/12*2/3*1/6*1/3*1/3 please check my work)

"You know that one army with hordes of monstrous creatures which can smash attack at strength 10 and reroll armor penetration? They are terrible at killing vehicles."

Do you even play the game? I'm just curious. You make a lot of arguments "that things are fine" because of a single application of your point of view, and make sweeping straw-man arguments like "lots of armies" when in reality it's a very specific strategy you're mentioning that a single army or two is capable of doing well enough to be fielded competitively. In an ideal balanced world, if Tyranids were the lone army that struggled against armor in the grand rock-paper-scissors scheme that is toy soldiers, I guess I'm fine with that. I'm more fine with that than I am with my 250+ points vehicles blowing up the first time someone looks at them cross-eyed with a multi-melta and then their 250+ MC obliterates my Warlord and an entire scoring unit or two.

The biggest thing is even if you shifted the table over by one, it does not mitigate the fact penetrating hits are still very crippling to vehicles. If you want to blow it up in a hit, I think you should HAVE to bring something that penetrates armor. Doesn't stop you from blowing up weapons, immobilizing the vehicle, or even simply just shaking the crew so they are forced to snapfire and whiff most their shots the next round. Right now statistically the most likely result of any penetrating hit is "vehicle explodes" which is silly because there's a bunch of other things on the table.

-only Eldred has a force weapon for Eldar.
-as was stated, pseudo-rending doesn't kill an MC in 1 hit.
-Distort is mostly on heavy hits with few shots, making fishing for that ID ineffective. The one exception is the flamer, but that'll only get 1 die against any MC.
-Wraithlord is also T8, but people don't consider him OP. Its more than just toughness that matters.

Eldar are OP, but exaggeration doesn't really help.

I like the idea of 6 on the damage chart inflicting an extra D3 hull points and WHENEVER a vehicle reaches 0 hull points, it explodes on, say, 5+.

It makes 4 HP vehicles feel a like, well... like there's a difference between 4HP and 3HP. Because outside of fighting necrons, its pretty rare that I have a vehicle get glanced to death.

 SRSFACE wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:
If they give weapons with special rules for cheap that can take out MC's in a hit at the same "rarity" heavy vehicles blow up in a hit, and are still effective at shooting other targets as well, then okay.

Distort weapons. Force weapons. Pseudo-rending on Eldar.

"Hey look at me name a bunch of things from Codex: Eldar and pretend every army in the game has things like that."

Also "psuedo-rending" doesn't kill MCs in a hit.

I never said every army in the game has them. Did I? Hmmm... Don't see that.
My point was they exist. So they have given weapons special rules for cheap that can take out MCs in a hit at the same rarity as vehicles, and they're still effective at shooting other targets.

Grav weapons are significantly more effective against MCs than they are against vehicles, to name another weapon that, while not insta kill on its own, will melt MCs quickly - faster than vehicles.

Monster Hunter is the only USR that helps against MCs, and it's drastically less numerous than Tank Hunter.

Buffmander throws it around all the time.

Saying "but they ignore small arms fire!" while comparing it to MCs is kind of funny. Out of the commonly fielded MCs I see, small arms fire is only an issue against Daemon Princes that don't also roll iron arms, and even then it's still a hope you kill it before it murders everything in the universe. Things as huge as Wraithknights do in fact ignore small arms fire. You need S5 to even have a hope to hurt it, and even then you need a 6, and even then you need it to fail it's saves, and even then you need to do that a tremendous amount of times to make any noticable difference. Riptides are "easier" to wound with small arms fire in that S3 can nick it on a roll of 6, but 2+ armor and 5+ FNP (usually) mean again, no, it can shrug off small arms fire.

I love how you hand wave away the fact that many armies can throw out over 100 S3-5 shots a turn. Not counting the one that can throw out that many poisoned shots.
"Things as huge as Wraithknights" - guess what? He's the only non-LoW over T6. Well, and the nurgle dude who is T7. Everyone else dies to bolter fire. Guess what else dies to bolter fire? DE vehicles - the ones that people say are paper armor.

"I love how you wave away the fact many armies can do things. Now watch me go do the exact same thing I'm accusing you of."
-rigeld2

There are not a lot of armies with "tons" of poison weapons. There's one. One army that does that.

How many armies did I say did that?
And I guess Sternpods aren't an army.

There are also a lot of armies capable of throwing out absurd amounts of small arms fire. Funny thing is, though, 100 S3 shots at BS3? 50 of them score a hit. Only 8.3 cause a wound on T5 or better. Let's go ahead and round up anyway to say 9. 1.5 of them wound a riptide. It's only 3 wounds against a Sv3 model/models. AND that's 100 freakin' shots into one single entity worth 200ish points. I'm calling that a win on the part of the guy owning the MC if someone wants to dump that much fire and only do that much damage.

You forgot IG orders. 100 shots, 75 hit, ~12 wound, 2 wound a riptide, 4 wound most other MCs.

I'd also like to know what in the flaming hell Dark Eldar venoms/ravagers have to do with this. I never mentioned them. They are a pretty prime example of how it's fine if the vehicle explodes result straight didn't exist, or was much more rare, though. Removing hull points is easy, a lot easier than removing wounds off MCs which was the entire point of the argument being made in the first place. The argument IS because it's so easy to glance things to death, instant-death on vehicles should be much rarer and relegated to high AP anti-tank weaponry only, rather than simply anything with S7 or better.

The reason I brought the up is that people mock them because they die to bolter fire. As do MCs. But MCs are apparently impossible to kill with small arms?

Meanwhile the AV values that can get glanced to death on similar rolls of to wound don't have built in saves of any kind. It's rare a vehicle has an invulnerable save so you have to have it in cover, which means risking getting it immobilized in most cases.

With a much smaller pool of weapons. And I wasn't aware it was rare to bubble wrap tanks and give them cover. I'll tell my opponents that they should stop doing that.

Go figure, you are capable of making good points. 1/5 I guess is a start.

Could you be a little more polite? I haven't mocked you, though the opportunities have presented themselves.

It'd make the rest of the table matter more, and reiterate high strength, low AP weaponry as THE anti-vehicle weapons. Removing the chance of lesser AP weapons from completely removing a big huge unit from the game in a single blow doesn't mean it's still not worth shooting at the vehicle target. That's why there are hull points now, after all. If you want the chance to ID a tank, you should have to pay extra for it, just like when you want the chance to ID infantry/MC targets you have to pay extra to get that special rule.

They already *are* the anti-vehicle weapons. What you want to do is penalize armies that don't have ready access to high strength, low AP weapons - like Tyranids.
There's literally one thing in the codex that's better than S7 AP2 - a psychic power that only has ~ a 3% chance to roll on the damage table (and only ~ a 1% chance for an explode result)
(math: cast*to-hit*deny*pen*explode =11/12*2/3*1/6*1/3*1/3 please check my work)

"You know that one army with hordes of monstrous creatures which can smash attack at strength 10 and reroll armor penetration? They are terrible at killing vehicles."

Yes, because relying on assault is totes the right way to play the game. Do you even play the game? I'm just curious.

Do you even play the game? I'm just curious. You make a lot of arguments "that things are fine" because of a single application of your point of view, and make sweeping straw-man arguments like "lots of armies" when in reality it's a very specific strategy you're mentioning that a single army or two is capable of doing well enough to be fielded competitively. In an ideal balanced world, if Tyranids were the lone army that struggled against armor in the grand rock-paper-scissors scheme that is toy soldiers, I guess I'm fine with that. I'm more fine with that than I am with my 250+ points vehicles blowing up the first time someone looks at them cross-eyed with a multi-melta and then their 250+ MC obliterates my Warlord and an entire scoring unit or two.

It seems like you're assuming all MCs are created equal. They're not - just FYI.
And I know I've had my warlord vaporized by a sub 200 point vehicle often enough, that then goes on to kill another 200 point MC which kills off 2 scoring units.

The biggest thing is even if you shifted the table over by one, it does not mitigate the fact penetrating hits are still very crippling to vehicles. If you want to blow it up in a hit, I think you should HAVE to bring something that penetrates armor. Doesn't stop you from blowing up weapons, immobilizing the vehicle, or even simply just shaking the crew so they are forced to snapfire and whiff most their shots the next round. Right now statistically the most likely result of any penetrating hit is "vehicle explodes" which is silly because there's a bunch of other things on the table.

Your last sentence is only correct for Anti-tank weapons. For normal weapons no result is more significant than any other.

I say to kill off MC's as they are a bit ridiculous, add multiple wounds D3 to some of the more powerful weapons. Balances against Vehicles A lascannon should cause more damage than a las pistol

masterofthedark wrote:
I say to kill off MC's as they are a bit ridiculous, add multiple wounds D3 to some of the more powerful weapons. Balances against Vehicles A lascannon should cause more damage than a las pistol

A lascannon does cause more statistical damage than a pistol.

D3 wounds on ordnance weapons would be a good start, or something like the cluster fire rule ont he R'varna - every hit on an MC is actually 3 hits at +2 S (on the R'varna)

To me it feels like the MC vs Vehicle ruleswise are not an issue at all. Its a couple specific MCs that make vehicles look like trash comparatively. The issue is that we now have a couple MCs that are as GUO level durable but that are more maneuverable and are devastating gun platforms; for the same points and non-HQ to boot. These are the new models with super powerful rules and the make things like land raiders look bad. Fundamentally the rules are fine imho, just that, as usual, some points balances are out of whack.

I personally just enjoy the "explodes only on a 7" on a chart. Meaning that you either have to wreck a vehicle or us ap2/ap1 to explode it.

Most armies currently try to wreck vehicles anyways..not explode them.

 ductvader wrote:
I personally just enjoy the "explodes only on a 7" on a chart. Meaning that you either have to wreck a vehicle or us ap2/ap1 to explode it.

Most armies currently try to wreck vehicles anyways..not explode them.

Really? I get exploded probably 3 times more often than I get wrecked.

Exxile72 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
I personally just enjoy the "explodes only on a 7" on a chart. Meaning that you either have to wreck a vehicle or us ap2/ap1 to explode it.

Most armies currently try to wreck vehicles anyways..not explode them.

Really? I get exploded probably 3 times more often than I get wrecked.

I'd say that most armies out there are spamming S6 and S7 (or Gauss)...moslty leading to the removal of hull points.

A meta with many melta guns and lances and lascannons would indeed think otherwise

At 1500+, I'm running armies with dozens of melta shots available to them. (Then again, I'm a Salamander player.)

Honestly, the vehicle damage table is groovy like it is. I LOVE the changes that 6th wrought. Both as someone who frequently destroys vehicles (with lots of meltas) and someone who loves to take Drop Pods and Land Raiders. The hull point system made Pods more survivable, at least in my experience, and my Land Raiders more effective (since the most frequent damage the LRs take is glancing hits, and they no longer have the possibility of destroying my weapons and immobilizing me).

I think removing the explodes result would make vehicles too powerful. Widening the chart even more than 6th already did would also make them too powerful. I like vehicles, vehicle damage rules, and hull points just the way they are.

That being said, I have heard an alternate system proposed that wouldn't be too awful. Treat Hull Points like Wounds in almost all regards, except for abilities which make a distinction. (Obviously this requires a complete overhaul of FAQs to alter certain rules so you couldn't use, say, Haemmorage on a tank.) Then give vehicles an armor save. If they did this, however, I'd want them to include some kind of provision for weapons that are high strength/low AP to cause extra wounds to vehicles/MCs.

 Jimsolo wrote:
At 1500+, I'm running armies with dozens of melta shots available to them. (Then again, I'm a Salamander player.)

Honestly, the vehicle damage table is groovy like it is. I LOVE the changes that 6th wrought. Both as someone who frequently destroys vehicles (with lots of meltas) and someone who loves to take Drop Pods and Land Raiders. The hull point system made Pods more survivable, at least in my experience, and my Land Raiders more effective (since the most frequent damage the LRs take is glancing hits, and they no longer have the possibility of destroying my weapons and immobilizing me).

I think removing the explodes result would make vehicles too powerful. Widening the chart even more than 6th already did would also make them too powerful. I like vehicles, vehicle damage rules, and hull points just the way they are.

That being said, I have heard an alternate system proposed that wouldn't be too awful. Treat Hull Points like Wounds in almost all regards, except for abilities which make a distinction. (Obviously this requires a complete overhaul of FAQs to alter certain rules so you couldn't use, say, Haemmorage on a tank.) Then give vehicles an armor save. If they did this, however, I'd want them to include some kind of provision for weapons that are high strength/low AP to cause extra wounds to vehicles/MCs.

This is exactly what moving explodes to a 7 would do...means that the worst you can do is chip a HP or "wound" off unless you blow it with an ap1/2 weapon.

I think that 1-shoting vehicles is fine and logical. But currently, i feel that vehicles must have more HP except for skimmers - they're allready fine with constant jink saves, great speed and terrain ignoring. So what do you think if we had just +1 HP for every vehicle except for skimmers? That'd make High-Ap weapons more appealing like they should be.

Why add HP when my tanks are almost always exploded? Once you go past 3hp, or 2 open topped, explosion becomes quite probable.

And those pens that don't explode still do things, most of the time.

(Also, why specify not skimmers? Some of them shoot too hard, but for defense, why is an av12/12/10 4+ cover considered rediculous where as an av 14/13/11 4+ invuln (da supporting LRBT) too fragile?