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.

I have always wondered this question and what others in the community think.

Hull Points are a terrible system which basically turn vehicles into monstrous creatures without saves or attacks and still incredibly vulnerable in melee.

Also the damage system makes no sense. Bring back the 5th edition charts.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hull Points are a terrible system which basically turn vehicles into monstrous creatures without saves or attacks and still incredibly vulnerable in melee.

Also the damage system makes no sense. Bring back the 5th edition charts.

That wasnt much better, i would rather not see the return of the parking lot. Honestly i think Hull Points could work, but their current incarnation is bad.

JinxDragon wrote:
I have always wondered this question and what others in the community think.

I don't believe they're a good mechanic.

They were a response to some issues in 5E, being that vehicle kill was highly variable. The real big issues was cheap transports that ignored 5/6 glancing hits and 1/2 penetrating hits. Nobody really complained about gun-tanks, any glancing or penetrating hit would generally shut them down for at least one full turn.

The problem is twofold. GW gave vehicles "wounds", but not saves which typically accompany wounds. They also retained the damage table, resulting to two overlapping kill mechanics that similar units (i.e. MC's) don't have.

As a result, walkers and non-skimmer tanks are generally rather sub-par units that struggle to be competitive, and the skimmer/non-skimmer divide is back and as strong as it was in 4E.

The other result of HP's and the changing of the damage table is the perverse fact that big heavy anti-tank guns are often amongst the least effective anti-tank weapons. Having to rely on the damage table, even with an AP1 weapon, is usually much less effective than simply spamming lighter weapons to strip those HP's, and the HP stripping weapons can force more failed saves in the case of something like a Jinking skimmer. Volume of fire counts for way more than raw weapon power, and we get things like autocannons and missile pods proving to often be much more valuable anti-vehicle units than their dedicated AT counterparts. Weapons like Railguns and Vanquisher cannons are relatively pathetic in regards to actually destroying enemy armor for their investment. A trio of Lascannon sentinels are going to generally result in kills faster than a heavy dediated anti-tank unit like a Vanquisher through sheer volume of fire.

Likewise, the addition of HP's and changes to vehicle CC make tanks absurdly easy to kill in CC. 10 krak grenades will, even with below average rolling, kill 95% of vehicles in the game in a single round of combat. The vehicle really has no defense, they're hit on 3's no matter how fast they moved or if they jinked or anything else, don't get Overwatch, and are automatically hit on rear armor. Coupled with the HP system means that it's trivially easy for most basic troops to kill any vehicle in one round of combat, be it a heavy battle tank or a weeny transport, and do so largely without any risk to themselves or any sort of defensive measures possible on the part of the vehicle.

Additionally, with HP's, the dramatic expansion in availability and type of weapons that ignore AV (Haywire, Gauss, Grav, etc) make it often trivially easy to strip HP's from even heavily armored vehicles. An AV14 Leman Russ looks tough, but when it's only got 3 "wounds" and a Skitarii unit with 3 rapid-fire Haywire guns is sitting there hitting it on BS7 and "wounding" it on 2's (with no save), their staying power is rather limited.


At this point, the game really needs to either go back to a 5E style damage table and drop HP's altogether, or drop the damage table altogether and either increase the HP count of most vehicles or give them some sort of a save (though I think the latter would still leave the situation that big heavy anti-tank guns like Vanquisher cannons or Railguns are some of the least effective AT weapons).

 Vaktathi wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I have always wondered this question and what others in the community think.

I don't believe they're a good mechanic.

They were a response to some issues in 5E, being that vehicle kill was highly variable. The real big issues was cheap transports that ignored 5/6 glancing hits and 1/2 penetrating hits. Nobody really complained about gun-tanks, any glancing or penetrating hit would generally shut them down for at least one full turn.

The problem is twofold. GW gave vehicles "wounds", but not saves which typically accompany wounds. They also retained the damage table, resulting to two overlapping kill mechanics that similar units (i.e. MC's) don't have.

As a result, walkers and non-skimmer tanks are generally rather sub-par units that struggle to be competitive, and the skimmer/non-skimmer divide is back and as strong as it was in 4E.

The other result of HP's and the changing of the damage table is the perverse fact that big heavy anti-tank guns are often amongst the least effective anti-tank weapons. Having to rely on the damage table, even with an AP1 weapon, is usually much less effective than simply spamming lighter weapons to strip those HP's, and the HP stripping weapons can force more failed saves in the case of something like a Jinking skimmer. Volume of fire counts for way more than raw weapon power, and we get things like autocannons and missile pods proving to often be much more valuable anti-vehicle units than their dedicated AT counterparts. Weapons like Railguns and Vanquisher cannons are relatively pathetic in regards to actually destroying enemy armor for their investment. A trio of Lascannon sentinels are going to generally result in kills faster than a heavy dediated anti-tank unit like a Vanquisher through sheer volume of fire.

Likewise, the addition of HP's and changes to vehicle CC make tanks absurdly easy to kill in CC. 10 krak grenades will, even with below average rolling, kill 95% of vehicles in the game in a single round of combat. The vehicle really has no defense, they're hit on 3's no matter how fast they moved or if they jinked or anything else, don't get Overwatch, and are automatically hit on rear armor. Coupled with the HP system means that it's trivially easy for most basic troops to kill any vehicle in one round of combat, be it a heavy battle tank or a weeny transport, and do so largely without any risk to themselves or any sort of defensive measures possible on the part of the vehicle.

Additionally, with HP's, the dramatic expansion in availability and type of weapons that ignore AV (Haywire, Gauss, Grav, etc) make it often trivially easy to strip HP's from even heavily armored vehicles. An AV14 Leman Russ looks tough, but when it's only got 3 "wounds" and a Skitarii unit with 3 rapid-fire Haywire guns is sitting there hitting it on BS7 and "wounding" it on 2's (with no save), their staying power is rather limited.


At this point, the game really needs to either go back to a 5E style damage table and drop HP's altogether, or drop the damage table altogether and either increase the HP count of most vehicles or give them some sort of a save (though I think the latter would still leave the situation that big heavy anti-tank guns like Vanquisher cannons or Railguns are some of the least effective AT weapons).

I dont disagree with this, hell we could go back to 4es damage chart and i would be happy, the SKimmer non Skimmer divide wouldnt be as bad anymore as Skimmers have Jink.

On the other side of thing you could keep HP but increase them on AV 14 vehicles and add some form of save. Generally vehicles do need a buff, Tanks needing to Snap Shoot after cruising is dumb, average Ordinance weapons not being able to pop vehicles is another problem. HPs are fixable, just the current set up is ridiculous.

God yes. The pre-5th edition Monoliths that couldn't be glanced to death still give me nightmares.

Without the HP, many vehicles were too damn ripped.

 Jimsolo wrote:
God yes. The pre-5th edition Monoliths that couldn't be glanced to death still give me nightmares.

Without the HP, many vehicles were too damn ripped.

And with them they are too damn weak.

I vote that we go back to 5th edition charts. Damn it but vehicles need to be able to survive something.

Like most everything else in the game. Good idea, poor implementation and synergy with the other rules of the game.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
God yes. The pre-5th edition Monoliths that couldn't be glanced to death still give me nightmares.

Without the HP, many vehicles were too damn ripped.

And with them they are too damn weak.

I vote that we go back to 5th edition charts. Damn it but vehicles need to be able to survive something.

The problem is is that in 5e they where too durable. My Orks could only kill AV 14 with a PK Warboss, a lucky roll with a Warphead (unlikely), Tankbustas in melee (they would never make it), or with a Deff Dredd (which would die horribly and was overcosted). The Monolith was unkillable for an Ork, as where several other vehicles. No, i dont want the Parking Lot back, i still have nightmares about that.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Like most everything else in the game. Good idea, poor implementation and synergy with the other rules of the game.

Exalted for truth

Fourth ed damage charts.

Glancing hits needed a 6 to kill the tank. AP- could only glance, AP1 treated any damage roll that meet or beat the AV value as a penitrating hit.
Penitrating hits - 4+ kills the tank where a 6+ explodes the tank.

Yes, I had rhinos live all game long because my opponent couldnt roll over a 3 to save their life. Then again, I cant count the number of Landraiders one shotted by Tau Rail guns and melta weaponry.

I don't really think vehicles in 5E were too durable, I mean, even with a tank-horde IG list 15-18 tanks, I had games against relatively common armies where I'd lose nearly all of them. The tank killing power was definitely there (especially as *any* penetrating hit had a 1/3 kill chance). Running my CSM's, I could never count on my rhino's living past turn 2.

I think with toning down more of the cover to 5+ instead of 4+ the way we have now, and including some of the passneger effects (so that transports have to pay some sort of attention to non-kill/immobilize results), that'd fix most of 5E's issues.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Fourth ed damage charts.

Glancing hits needed a 6 to kill the tank. AP- could only glance, AP1 treated any damage roll that meet or beat the AV value as a penitrating hit.
Penitrating hits - 4+ kills the tank where a 6+ explodes the tank.

Yes, I had rhinos live all game long because my opponent couldnt roll over a 3 to save their life. Then again, I cant count the number of Landraiders one shotted by Tau Rail guns and melta weaponry.

The 4E chart made it wayyyy too easy to kill non-skimmer vehicles. Non-skimmer tanks were not particularly popular units.

I remember the first game I ever played with a Chimera, it died to infiltrating Alpha Legion bolter fire on the first turn of the game

 Grimmor wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
God yes. The pre-5th edition Monoliths that couldn't be glanced to death still give me nightmares.

Without the HP, many vehicles were too damn ripped.

And with them they are too damn weak.

I vote that we go back to 5th edition charts. Damn it but vehicles need to be able to survive something.

The problem is is that in 5e they where too durable. My Orks could only kill AV 14 with a PK Warboss, a lucky roll with a Warphead (unlikely), Tankbustas in melee (they would never make it), or with a Deff Dredd (which would die horribly and was overcosted). The Monolith was unkillable for an Ork, as where several other vehicles. No, i dont want the Parking Lot back, i still have nightmares about that.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Like most everything else in the game. Good idea, poor implementation and synergy with the other rules of the game.

Exalted for truth

But will the parking lot return? The game has become far more mobile in the days since then and even the traditionally static armies have been forced to become mobile.

Also AV14 all round vehicles are like the boogeyman - yes they are insanely hard to kill and all struggle with them but there are only two in the entire game. All the others are more than vulnerable to assault.

Parking lot = table full of tanks.

Martel732 wrote:
Parking lot = table full of tanks.

= Awesome to look at.


But seriously, the problem is not just hull points. Its how they work with the current rules for vehicle damage and vehicles in assault. If you change one thing, you need to change them all to make it work. The idea that a single gun can remove two hull points in a single shot doesn't help the situation.

Martel732 wrote:
Parking lot = table full of tanks.

This, my Orks have fought Mechanized SM and Armored Fist Guard. I could beat the guard because it was Chimeras and a Loota can reasonably wreck those, the Leman Russ' where the main issue, however he only had 2 at the time. The SM didnt care about their Rhinos and the Vindies he spammed where a pain, as he could 1 shot my Warboss, then add the SM that where inside and it was a nightmare. Stupid Scout Rhinos....

I don't like hull points as a mechanic, but 40K is so bloated right now, there's no easy fix. There's too many high Strength, low AP weapons; too many haywire plaforms; too many units with krak grenades hitting rear armor; too many flying MCs; the list goes on and on. Start fixing one thing, you bork something else in the process.

So yeah, hull points are dumb, but it's on a long list of dumb stuff in 40K right now.

Poll needs a 'Yes... ish' option.

Hull points would have been fine, if they had come hand-in-hand with saving throws.

At which point, there seems little point in maintaining a separate damage system for vehicles... better to just make them MCs and move on, in my book.

I'm fine with them in theory but vehicles need more of them to make up for the lack of save and melee ability compared to MC. Lighter Vehicles such as a Truck, Rhino or Raider are ok at three. But Predators, LR, HammerHeads, etc should have 5 to 7.

Saving throws WOULD be delightful for vehicles. I'd like to see the system be something other than giving all vehicles 3+ saves (otherwise what's the point of Jink?) but some kind of save system would be well within reason.

The problem with the Monoliths wasn't omni-14. It was being immune to being glanced to death, having Ceramite Plating on steroids, AND omni-14.

I have only picked up Dark Eldar since Hull Points became a thing, and I shudder to think about how awful it would be to play them if you couldn't plink a vehicle to death. They struggle enough as it is.

I like them because when I played way back when in 3rd or 4th (The Eye of Terror and War Machine were just coming out towards the tail end of my time in the game) it always felt like vehicles were massively variable in how good they were. By which I mean sometimes they just exploded to easily, or just couldn't be killed but immobilized so many times it wasn't even funny. So for me the fact that hull points give some consistency to the game is a pretty cool thing, as you can better figure out when you'll kill a tank as opposed to how many times can you shake, stun, or whatever it before you simply stop caring.

That being said, I do understand the concerns some people have, and I can see giving them saves as one solution, but what about just making them cheaper now that they're weaker? I mean wouldn't that encourage people to take more of them as they have strong weapons, and it would sell more models, while also giving you games where you get to see more tanks and troops chilling on the table. Also, isn't that what they kind of did with Space Marines where you can get free tanks in some situations, or am I making that up?

But yea, it would be cool to see them stay as sort of fragile gun platforms, but also giving them a point reduction while also maybe tweaking the power of grenades and such so they aren't quite as effective. After all, if they made the Hammer Head a 95 point model, I'd play it a hell of a lot more.

 Jimsolo wrote:


I have only picked up Dark Eldar since Hull Points became a thing, and I shudder to think about how awful it would be to play them if you couldn't plink a vehicle to death. They struggle enough as it is.

DE wouldnt (and in fact didn't) have issues with vehicles against the older damage charts. 4+ to destroy on penitrating hits 6+ on glances. DE have always had tons of S8 and haywire shooting to get the anti-tank job done.

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:


I have only picked up Dark Eldar since Hull Points became a thing, and I shudder to think about how awful it would be to play them if you couldn't plink a vehicle to death. They struggle enough as it is.

DE wouldnt (and in fact didn't) have issues with vehicles against the older damage charts. 4+ to destroy on penitrating hits 6+ on glances. DE have always had tons of S8 and haywire shooting to get the anti-tank job done.

Oh yeah...'cuz of the extinct 'Wrecked' result. Very well...statement of shudderage withdrawn.

lol in 5th DE lances made my heavier tanks cry. My big issue is that vehicles are much more fragile than MC, but the cost isn't always adjusted to account for that

I agree with the yes-ish. 5th edition parking lots and castles was one of the most boring incarnations of 40k, imo. Melta and ap 1 is too strong, perhaps. The real problem is that they started handing out haywire/grav weaponry like it was candy. Even high str and low ap wouldn't be so bad if not for the disgusting amount of haywire/grav weaponry/melta/ap1. Also, they could balance it a bit further by making close combat attacks striking from the front of the vehicle target the side, those striking at the side target the rear or something. Automatically striking rear armor is also a bit silly.

So, hull points in theory, but, yes, we all know it could use some balancing.

I'd just go all the way and take away front, side and rear facings. Give them a toughness and wounds with a save and maybe a 3d6 attacks or over watch to represent them trying to run over the horde of ork's trying to chop them to death. Make them type vehicle and give AP 1 a re-roll to wound against them.

Believe it or not, I feel that Hull Points are a good thing. Previously, any tank could be one-shotted through glancing hits. Now you need an AP2 or better weapon. I feel it has only made vehicles more durable than previously (disclaimer: I came in with 6th edition and haven't played anything previous)

The problem is that the Hull Point system has shifted the emphasis to medium-strength high rof weapons to glance vehicles to death. The solution is not to make vehicles cheaper, as most are already significantly cheaper than an MC. Giving vehicles saves wouldn't work either, as it would turn them into undercosted MCs. The solution would be to reform the damage tables instead.

Glances should not remove Hull Points but force the enemy to fire snap shots. Penetrating Hits remove Hull Points and roll on the damage table, with an Explodes! being on a six or higher. AP2 and AP1 modifiers remain the same.

I am also going with yes-ish. Good(ish) idea, terrible execution.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Believe it or not, I feel that Hull Points are a good thing. Previously, any tank could be one-shotted through glancing hits. Now you need an AP2 or better weapon. I feel it has only made vehicles more durable than previously (disclaimer: I came in with 6th edition and haven't played anything previous)

Basically, in 5E, before hull points, you just had the vehicle damage table. Basically the same as it is now except you rolled on it on glances and all penetrating hits got shifted up by 2 (so 5+ killed much like AP1 does now) and AP1 gave a +1 (but not AP2) as did being Open Topped.

TL;DR instead of HP's you rolled on the damage chart for glances, and all pen's were like AP1 is now.

So, you could stunlock a tank with glancing hits and prevent it from doing anything, but couldn't kill it (without stripping off all its guns and immobilizing it), you needed penetrating hits to kill the thing, sometimes just one would do and other times you needed a lot, but the *average* number of shots you needed to kill a tank was about twice what it is now, but any glance would also prevent them from firing.

Hull points are terrible. IMO what they should do is similar to space combat games with vectors of attack. IE within a certain angle of the front, anything that penns hits a certain critical system. If enough critical systems are destroyed, the vehicle is removed from play.

Vaktathi wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Believe it or not, I feel that Hull Points are a good thing. Previously, any tank could be one-shotted through glancing hits. Now you need an AP2 or better weapon. I feel it has only made vehicles more durable than previously (disclaimer: I came in with 6th edition and haven't played anything previous)

Basically, in 5E, before hull points, you just had the vehicle damage table. Basically the same as it is now except you rolled on it on glances and all penetrating hits got shifted up by 2 (so 5+ killed much like AP1 does now) and AP1 gave a +1 (but not AP2) as did being Open Topped.

TL;DR instead of HP's you rolled on the damage chart for glances, and all pen's were like AP1 is now.

So, you could stunlock a tank with glancing hits and prevent it from doing anything, but couldn't kill it (without stripping off all its guns and immobilizing it), you needed penetrating hits to kill the thing, sometimes just one would do and other times you needed a lot, but the *average* number of shots you needed to kill a tank was about twice what it is now, but any glance would also prevent them from firing.

Okay, now I understand. It's not just the glancing mechanic, it's the terrible damage chart. Vehicles being twice as durable? No thank you. I wondered why 5th was sometimes call parking lot edition, and I can see why. There needs to be some sort of happy medium between MCs being better than vehicles and the game turning into nothing but vehicles.

Wyzilla wrote:Hull points are terrible. IMO what they should do is similar to space combat games with vectors of attack. IE within a certain angle of the front, anything that penns hits a certain critical system. If enough critical systems are destroyed, the vehicle is removed from play.

The problem comes in when you compare vehicles to MCs. Do MCs get weaker as they take wounds? No, they keep fighting until they're dead, which is how it should be. There needs to be some sort of "wounds" mechanic for vehicles, as 40k is based around dealing wounds.

I do agree that penetrating hits should be reworked to make them more lethal vs. chipping away hull points. You should still be able to disable a vehicle by immobilizing it, as well as a chance to instakill, but it needs to reward high-strength low-AP weapons. If you nullify glances with the current system, vehicles suddenly needs too much firepower to take them out effectively. I would rework the damage table to only allow penetrating hits to roll on it, with the following changes: 1=Crew Stunned, 2-3=Weapon Destroyed 4-5=Immobilized 6=Explodes, and keep the current AP1 and AP2 modifiers.