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'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

I second this, as it's a much better idea than I though of and the best one I've seen thus far. Some sort of chart instead of a table to calculate how much damage a vahicle has taken and its effect, while keepin some kind of "wounds" mechanic in place.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

As I said, this was balanced out by the fact that any glancing hit would either keep them from shooting (no shapshots back then), or blow off a gun or immobilize them, and things like meltaguns killed on 4's not just 5's. Also, again, nobody ever seemed to have a problem with gun tanks, you never heard about how Hammerheads, Russ tanks, Predators, Hellhounds, Fire Prisms, etc were too hard to deal with (and in fact, . Most of the complaints could be traced to the 35pt Rhino that only cared about Immobilized and Destroyed results and ignored everything else.

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

So I understand that is just an idea about the Ork Trukk....but you literally just made the transport USELESS with 1/2 the rolls.

in hindsight that is basically how it is now anyway. Since everything in this game can pen this vehicle and its open topped....

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

So I understand that is just an idea about the Ork Trukk....but you literally just made the transport USELESS with 1/2 the rolls.

in hindsight that is basically how it is now anyway. Since everything in this game can pen this vehicle and its open topped....

To be fair, it also usually only needs to exist for one turn

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

So I understand that is just an idea about the Ork Trukk....but you literally just made the transport USELESS with 1/2 the rolls.

in hindsight that is basically how it is now anyway. Since everything in this game can pen this vehicle and its open topped....

To be fair, it also usually only needs to exist for one turn

True one of the reasons I hate how the game is set up. If I don't get first turn I tend to lose my trukkz and some of my Multiple threats are now foot sloggin

If transports are an issue, why not just make them have a lot more hull points or armour when compared to weapon based tanks that can't transport? Fluff wise it makes sense as they'd probably fortify transport vehicles more, and the lack of having to have weapon systems means they have more room for plating and such.

Though again, I think it's just better to make vehicles cheaper as a whole than to change what we have exactly. Heck, strip the weapons of transports to a minimum and give them double the hull points, make them mobile fortifications basically that provide people with what's in theory tactical, but destructible terrain.

 Tinkrr wrote:
If transports are an issue, why not just make them have a lot more hull points or armour when compared to weapon based tanks that can't transport? Fluff wise it makes sense as they'd probably fortify transport vehicles more, and the lack of having to have weapon systems means they have more room for plating and such.

Though again, I think it's just better to make vehicles cheaper as a whole than to change what we have exactly. Heck, strip the weapons of transports to a minimum and give them double the hull points, make them mobile fortifications basically that provide people with what's in theory tactical, but destructible terrain.

take 2 seconds and think about what you just said. Which do you think has more armor. An M1A1 main battle tank or a LAV/AMTRACK/Other personnel carrier?

I'll give you a hint, its the one with the 120mm cannon on a turret up top.

 Tinkrr wrote:
If transports are an issue, why not just make them have a lot more hull points or armour when compared to weapon based tanks that can't transport? Fluff wise it makes sense as they'd probably fortify transport vehicles more, and the lack of having to have weapon systems means they have more room for plating and such.

Throughout the history of armoured warfare APC's/Transports have always had considerably less armour than battle tanks. Just look at the weight difference between the US army's Abrams vs the Bradley.

On topic: I play guard so naturally I think HP system is stupid.

Guys, I'm talking about game play, not historical or realistic measures. Sometimes you have to make new fluff for the good of mechanics, as opposed to what makes sense in our historical context.

That being said, what's more likely to be in range of enemy fire, and suffer the most from being blown up, a weapons platform that can sit back and fire, or a transport full of troops which is intended to move them forward onto objectives? So yea, think of it as less of a comparison between tanks, and more of a comparison between a car and an armoured truck, because while that Lascannon is important, that Space Marine Armour costs a lot more probably. Granted, this isn't the case for Orks and Cadians...

 Tinkrr wrote:

That being said, what's more likely to be in range of enemy fire, and suffer the most from being blown up, a weapons platform that can sit back and fire, or a transport full of troops which is intended to move them forward onto objectives?

That would make sense if those are the roles that tanks and APCs are designed for, however they aren't. Tanks are designed to spearhead a breakthrough, APCs were invented when it became apparent that the supporting infantry which is vital to armoured warfare was being left behind by faster tanks, they needed a bulletproof ride to keep up.

MarsNZ wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

That being said, what's more likely to be in range of enemy fire, and suffer the most from being blown up, a weapons platform that can sit back and fire, or a transport full of troops which is intended to move them forward onto objectives?

That would make sense if those are the roles that tanks and APCs are designed for, however they aren't. Tanks are designed to spearhead a breakthrough, APCs were invented when it became apparent that the supporting infantry which is vital to armoured warfare was being left behind by faster tanks, they needed a bulletproof ride to keep up.

And in the future when we have advanced technology the infantry can use some chest high walls to use as cover too, especially when they're built into their transport

the problem your running into is your trying to make sense. In a future where starships have the power to Destroy planets they haven't figured out an accurate way of utilizing planetary bombardment to make having land armies useless. So.......yeah

 Ghazkuul wrote:
the problem your running into is your trying to make sense. In a future where starships have the power to Destroy planets they haven't figured out an accurate way of utilizing planetary bombardment to make having land armies useless. So.......yeah

Well no, I'm not trying to make sense, I'm just saying you could find ways to justify it by fluff.

What I am saying though, is in terms of game mechanics, if it's a problem there's a way to solve it without having to rework the system as a whole. I like the Hull Point system, it gives a lot of certainty to how and when you can kill a tank, compared to when I played back in the day. However, I also understand the faults with it, and would like to a see a solution in the form of reduced tank costs across the board, and giving transports a lot more strength in terms of survival (while nerfing their weapons so they function as tactical and mobile terrain that can be destroyed, while boosting your troop's speed) such that it makes the game more interesting in a none random way.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

So I understand that is just an idea about the Ork Trukk....but you literally just made the transport USELESS with 1/2 the rolls.

in hindsight that is basically how it is now anyway. Since everything in this game can pen this vehicle and its open topped....

To be fair, it also usually only needs to exist for one turn

True one of the reasons I hate how the game is set up. If I don't get first turn I tend to lose my trukkz and some of my Multiple threats are now foot sloggin

Aye, orks tend to be very binary, either they get the first turn and lose all of their transports and get pooched, or they get first turn and have their entire army at the opponent's deployment zone by the end of their first turn and everything gets stuck into everything turn 2.

What about giving weapons a default glance / pen roll e.g. roll to hit, if you hit then an ap1 weapon glances on a 3 and pens on a 4+, ap2 weapon glances on a 5 and pens on a 6?

And don't start screaming that I am trying to AoS the damn game, just a suggestion.

If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

And just how many ID weapons are there in the game? Remind me again, because I can not remember the last time I saw one outside of a Grey Knight army.

Hull points are anything but fine. They essentially take a vehicle and make it into an MC that does not get saves and can still be instagibbed by many weapons in the game (Lascannon, Melta, etc). They render vehicles useless.

Beat me to it

Basically how many "Instant Death" weapons are in the game compared to Lascannons, Melta, Haywire, Gause, Plasma, Melta Bombs, and the plethora of other High strength low AP stuff I didn't bother to mention because to long.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

I could get behind 4 points on a rhino/Dreadnought and 3 on a land speeder. Also, give basic Dreadnoughts a 5++. I'll start taking squads of 3.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Beat me to it

Basically how many "Instant Death" weapons are in the game compared to Lascannons, Melta, Haywire, Gause, Plasma, Melta Bombs, and the plethora of other High strength low AP stuff I didn't bother to mention because to long.

Well, before 7th how many D-Weapons, Superheavies and GMCs were there?

I feel the issue comes from the sales and modeling department pushing out new rules and units, and leaving the game design team to manage the mess.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Beat me to it

Basically how many "Instant Death" weapons are in the game compared to Lascannons, Melta, Haywire, Gause, Plasma, Melta Bombs, and the plethora of other High strength low AP stuff I didn't bother to mention because to long.

Well, before 7th how many D-Weapons, Superheavies and GMCs were there?

I feel the issue comes from the sales and modeling department pushing out new rules and units, and leaving the game design team to manage the mess.

Yeah i agree, except the design team isn't managing they have given up all hope and are going to turn SM Captains into MC next edition and dreads into GC

 master of ordinance wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

And just how many ID weapons are there in the game? Remind me again, because I can not remember the last time I saw one outside of a Grey Knight army.

Hull points are anything but fine. They essentially take a vehicle and make it into an MC that does not get saves and can still be instagibbed by many weapons in the game (Lascannon, Melta, etc). They render vehicles useless.

All force weapons are ID, meaning all psykers can ID. Tyranids have a lot of ID weapons ranging from boneswords to implant attacks. Demons have a couple of different ones. Other armies might also have them, I am not familiar with them. From memory there should be an elder sniper special character with instant death methinks.

Removing the hull points would make vehicles such a powerhouse that it would be stupid. Tyranids for example would have zero ways to actually kill a transport from range, and even at melee it would take a MC and possibly smash which is 1 attack only. A rhino for 35 pts without hull points. Yeah, no. Hell no. Vehicles are not useless. They are way more cheap than MCs, they can shoot multiple weapons, MC's can only shoot 2. They cannot get locked in combat, cannot get cornered (they just tank shock), their armor equivalent is ridiculously high (AV 10 is the equivalent of Toughness 6, av 13 is the equivalent of Toughness 9, this is ridiculous), they can transport troops etc etc. Any direct comparison between MC's and vehicles would be stupid, they are not the same units, they have different roles. Should vehicles have a better damage table? Yes (ie nothing happens in 1-4, 5 is crew stunned, 6 is weapon destroyed, 7 is immobilized, 8 is destroyed). Should they have more hull points? Yes, 1 hull point more base on every vehicle would upgrade their survivability by 25%. Should we remove the hull points altogether? No way.

I have played for many years with both MC's (tyranids) and vehicles (mecha CSM) and in each army I would like to have a little bit of the other as well. CSM do have DP's though, tyranids get screwed

I do like Hull Points as a concept.

However however however, as it's already been pointed out several times already in this very thread, their current implementation leaves a lot to be desired, and blatantly makes non-skimmer vehicles inferior to MCs by default.

I voted yes in the poll but in order to work the HP system would need serious tweaking. I'd go readjusting the HP values of all vehicles in the game, in order to make them much more durable against spammable weapons currently able to glance them to death. Perhaps doubling or even tripling them. Penetrating hits should then be more rewarding though, maybe dropping two HPs automatically.

I like Hull Points. but the system doesn't work well and nothing they have tried has.

I'd keep Hull Points but change the the damage table to allow a 6 result to destroy again. To change the easy wreck in assaults I'd return to the use the AV of the facing not the rear no matter where you assualt from. I'd also bring back defensive weapons and allow snap firing on assaults, as long as they can draw LOS with that weapon.

6th Edition was horrible, but 7th has fixed a lot of my gripes about how Hull Points were implemented. There is still substantial room for improvement.

My ideas along this front are:

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 think these changes would make vehicles more survivable, similar to their MC cousins, while encouraging more heavy weapons like Melta and AP1 to be used against them. It would also even the playing field a bit, since a Melta Gun can kill a tank in one shot, but can't kill a MC in one shot.

At the same time, it doesn't go back completely to the Parking Lot days of 5th Edition, where vehicles could never be destroyed because of unlucky damage chart rolling.

Allowing vehicles to attack multiple units is something I've thought should be in the game for a long time. It just doesn't make sense to me that a gunner in a sponson has to shoot at the same thing as the main turret. Giving vehicles the ability to attack multiple targets would give them an advantage that MC don't have. This is more of a "Wish List" item than a real balance change though. It's probably unrealistic and not plausible though. You'd have to spend too much time in every vehicle's description saying what mounts it had, which upgrades were put in which mounts, etc... even though I think it'd be obvious on most of the models.

Yay but it could be done better.
I would love it if multi wound models got similar rules -> random critical dmg tables modified by wepon type, s or ap + wounds as normal. I want to be able to shoot and hack body parts off heroes and monsters and kill them with a very lucky sniper shot.

The thing that really bothers me is cover saves. It just makes no sense at all that monsters and vehicles have such radical different cover rules and that cover + armour doesn't stack at all. I wish they changed cover back to to hit modifiers with +penalties for HUGE things like monsters vehicles and super heavies / gargantuans.

And the walker / monster thing. If it is a construct -> tau suits, ork can, eldar wratith night etc it should be a vehicle. If it is a monster with organs etc it should be a monster. I

oldzoggy wrote:
Yay but it could be done better.
I would love it if multi wound models got similar rules -> critical dmg tables aside from wounds.
The thing that really bothers me is cover saves. It just makes no sense at all that monsters and vehicles have such radical different cover rules and that cover + armour doesn't stack at all. I wish they changed cover back to to hit modifiers with +penalties for HUGE things like monsters vehicles and super heavies / gargantuans.

The problem with using cover as a hit penalty in the game is the D6 system doesn't have enough variability.

There are effectively 3 ballistic skills in the game... 4, 3, and 2. MOST units are 4 or 3. If you change cover to a penalty system, all your BS4 troops are now shooting at effectively BS3 or BS2 depending on how much the modifier is. Your BS3 troops are shooting at BS2 or BS1. Orks are basically always going to be firing snap-shots.

What you'd end up with would be Warhammer Fantasy. Shooting would be mostly an afterthought except for maybe the Elves. All the action would take place in Assault. That's fine for a game like Warhammer Fantasy, where you WANT the action taking place between your big blocks of troops, but it doesn't really suit 40k very well.

I agree Monstrous Creatures get cover too easily in the game. It especially bugs me that Flying Monstrous Creatures can claim a cover save by having a toe in ruins.