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.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

For example, a Rhino is basically toughness 7 (11-4) which means Autocannons "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 2+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Rhino only has 3 hull points ("wounds) and no armour save, so while a Carnifex might get a 3+ against an autocannon, the Rhino gets jack squat. The Carnifex also has more wounds.

Not this conversation again, please. A Rhino costs 35 pts, a Carnifex costs 120 without ranged weapons of any kind. Did you factor this in in your comparison? A Rhino can also carry people inside, move much much faster than a Carnifex (12" move + flat out), costs no slot, can be super scoring, does not care about leadership, doesn't get slowed etc etc etc. A 3 wound T7 no save monster that can carry people and costs 35 pts is a good deal. If I had such a thing in Tyranids I would play it every single time, promise. Do you really want the rhino to get a 4+ save and cost 35 pts? Really?

And this thread has been opened 50 times already. Tanks die easily, we know. It's their turn I guess, like they were unkillable two editions before that. Give all the vehicles and walkers one more hull point base and an option to purchase one more for X points. Problem solved. Your average rhino has 4 hull points and lasts 25% longer, or you can pay an extra X and make it into a 5 hull point powerhouse. Tada.

Shall we compare a Walkrant to a Leman Russ Punisher then?

For example, a Leman Russ Punisher is basically toughness 10 (14-4) which means Manticore Storm Eagle Missiles "wound" it on 4+ and Lascannons on a 5+, both of which are true about the AV.

However, the Leman Russ Punisher only has 3 hull points ("wounds") and no armour save, so while a Walkrant will get a 3+ against a Manticore Storm Eagle missile, the Leman Russ Punisher gets jack squat. The Walkrant also has more wounds.

Other reasons:
The Walkrant can claim a save simply for being in cover - no need for obscurement.

The Walkrant can see through 360 degrees for shooting all of its guns.

The Walkrant can fight back in close combat.

The Walkrant is unaffected by being shot - whereas the Leman Russ could be stunned-immobilized-shaken-whatever, the Walkrant can simply go about its business after being Storm Eagle Missiled in the face. This is in addition to hull points.

Also, walkrants and the Leman Russ Punisher move at the same speed, except that the walkrant can charge and so is arguably faster.

There, happy?

Maybe the obscurement rule should apply to MCs as well as many of them are bulky enough to make cover and going to ground difficult realistically.

I've also found it weird that vehicles can't fight in close combat. To solve it first I would allow all vehicles (except maybe walkers, chariots and flyers) to tank shock and ram, second I would make it so that you can ram not just vehicle units and make a Hammer of Wrath attacks equal to the number of models it is in base contact with and at a strength equal to the same formula as used before. Third based on how the Steam Tank does it in the old fantasy I would allow a vehicle that started the movement phase in close combat to make D3 or D6 (not sure which) S6 AP- attacks against one unit in base contact (this represents the vehicle moving around quickly and grinding enemies under their wheels) and in addition if it is a transport in the shooting phase a unit inside can make snap shots out of the fire points at a unit in base contact with a transport.

Martel732 wrote:It's not more susceptible in a meaningful way. What you say is strictly true, but for all practical statistical purposes, the MC in question is not vulnerable to bolters or lasguns any more than the Leman Russ is. This, by the way, is the problem with MCs in a nutshell. A 5.5% chance of clearing a wound AFTER to hit against a 3+ armor MC is not by any reasonable definition "vulnerable". Nor is it useful on the timescale of a match.

This is just me but maybe the problem isn't that it takes hundreds of shots from bolters of lasguns to kill a high toughness, high armor save MC its that you are shooting a high toughness, high armor save MC with lasguns and bolters. Isn't that what bigger weapons are for.

 KingGarland wrote:
<kersnippity>

Martel732 wrote:It's not more susceptible in a meaningful way. What you say is strictly true, but for all practical statistical purposes, the MC in question is not vulnerable to bolters or lasguns any more than the Leman Russ is. This, by the way, is the problem with MCs in a nutshell. A 5.5% chance of clearing a wound AFTER to hit against a 3+ armor MC is not by any reasonable definition "vulnerable". Nor is it useful on the timescale of a match.

This is just me but maybe the problem isn't that it takes hundreds of shots from bolters of lasguns to kill a high toughness, high armor save MC its that you are shooting a high toughness, high armor save MC with lasguns and bolters. Isn't that what bigger weapons are for.

That's where imbalance among armies comes in: Sure, Guardsmen, (Chaos) Marines and even Necrons are gonna have trouble. But Eldar will chop up that MC pretty reliably (no pesky armor saves against Bladestorm), and Tau will wound it on a 5+, and Dark Eldar do even better than that.

Space Marines have to turn the guns of their Predators, Devastators and Stormravens on that Exocrine, but Dark Eldar can just chew it up with splinter rifles, saving their dark lances for more pressing targets. (Like the Tyranid Warriors that vaporize under dark lance fire, say...)

I know that's all supposed to be part of the tactical rock-paper-scissors game, but it seems like they don't quite get the balance right. Imperials have trouble dropping MCs with their basic guns, so they get grav guns, but those become Just Plain Better than plasma for killing TEQs and so people spam grav, and so on, and so forth. So it goes...

There's a lot - I mean a heck of a lot - of retooling needed to make this all work out really right.

" Isn't that what bigger weapons are for. "

Sure, in theory. But Imperial heavy weapons suffer from being frequently mounted on a poor platform, or just being bad at their job.

Enter the bandaid gun, grav. But only marines get it for some reason. If Imperial heavy weapons weren't dumpster fires to start with, this wouldn't be necessary. Or if MCs cost more pts.

I think this issue is easily solved by doubling every vehicle's current Hull Points.

I don't think comparing vehicles and MCs is a fair comparison. There are similarities (e.g. size, and thus how they get cover), but this discussion is supposed to be about how to make Hull Points work better.

I don't think the rules as they are, are miles off being right. A Rhino is an APC, not a battle tank. It's basically a Humvee. With AV11 you can't damage it with bolters, but you can with heavy bolters. But once you've hit it, you need to roll a 6 to glance it and you need to do that 3 times to wreck it. So that's 18 hits with heavy machine guns to take it down (or 27 shots at BS4). Seems reasonable.

Then the battle tanks (Land Raiders and Russes) are AV14. This means a heavy bolter has no chance. A lascannon has a 1 in 3 chance of glancing, so you need 12 hits to wreck it. That's 12 hits from a massive anti-tank laser cannon (or 18 shots at BS4). Again, doesn't sound too far from correct.

I think the issues are two-fold. Firstly, it's possible to oneshot a Land Raider. You get one lucky shot that penetrates, and then roll well on the damage table and BOOM! Secondly, 3 glancing hits shouldn't really be able to wreck a tank (even an APC).

So how about these changes:
1. The first penetrating hit is treated like a glancing hit. i.e. it removes a hull point, but doesn't roll on the damage table. No more oneshotting vehicles.

2. The final hull point can only be removed by a penetrating hit. No more glancing to death. You can chip away at it, but you'll need something to cause real damage to take that last hull point and wreck a vehicle.

Alternatively, instead of needing a penetrating hit to wreck a vehicle, maybe glancing hits could get a 5+ save. i.e. you've glanced it, but is it enough to do any meaningful damage. That way, 3-4 glancing hits (that haven't been saved) add up to some real damage.

 Happyjew wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Take a look at bolt action's system for vehicle damage. Yours is very similiar but I prefer BA's because it is much simpler.

Upon a successful hit roll a D6 and add the weapons strength. Compare it to the armor of the vehicle. If the result is less than the AV, nothing happens. If it is equal it is a glancing hit. Roll on the chart below with a -3 penalty to a minimum of 1. If the result exceeds the AV the shot is a penetrating hit and thus roll on the chart below with no modifiers.

1: Crew shaken: Can only make snap shots and can not move for one turn.

2: Immobilized: The vehicle can no longer move or make jink saves for the rest of the game.

3: Weapon destroyed: One randomly determined weapon is destroyed and can no longer be used.

4+: Knocked out. The vehicle is destroyed. All passengers if any must make a emergency disembarkation.

I like this. It means my Fire Dragons can still destroy a vehicle on a glancing hit.

Thats even worse than what we have right now. It'd be easier to flat out destroy a vehicle, not harder. Do you know what we're trying to do in this thread?

Whittlesey40k wrote:
I don't think comparing vehicles and MCs is a fair comparison. There are similarities (e.g. size, and thus how they get cover), but this discussion is supposed to be about how to make Hull Points work better.

I don't think the rules as they are, are miles off being right. A Rhino is an APC, not a battle tank. It's basically a Humvee. With AV11 you can't damage it with bolters, but you can with heavy bolters. But once you've hit it, you need to roll a 6 to glance it and you need to do that 3 times to wreck it. So that's 18 hits with heavy machine guns to take it down (or 27 shots at BS4). Seems reasonable.

Then the battle tanks (Land Raiders and Russes) are AV14. This means a heavy bolter has no chance. A lascannon has a 1 in 3 chance of glancing, so you need 12 hits to wreck it. That's 12 hits from a massive anti-tank laser cannon (or 18 shots at BS4). Again, doesn't sound too far from correct.

I think the issues are two-fold. Firstly, it's possible to oneshot a Land Raider. You get one lucky shot that penetrates, and then roll well on the damage table and BOOM! Secondly, 3 glancing hits shouldn't really be able to wreck a tank (even an APC).

So how about these changes:
1. The first penetrating hit is treated like a glancing hit. i.e. it removes a hull point, but doesn't roll on the damage table. No more oneshotting vehicles.

2. The final hull point can only be removed by a penetrating hit. No more glancing to death. You can chip away at it, but you'll need something to cause real damage to take that last hull point and wreck a vehicle.

Alternatively, instead of needing a penetrating hit to wreck a vehicle, maybe glancing hits could get a 5+ save. i.e. you've glanced it, but is it enough to do any meaningful damage. That way, 3-4 glancing hits (that haven't been saved) add up to some real damage.

Those vehicles that do have a save - consider Eldar holo-fields and Dark Eldar flickerfields - do last significantly longer.

I like that "no losing the last HP to a glance" idea, that's one I hadn't thought of yet.

The ideas I've heard that I like the best so far are:

1) Vehicles have a 4+ armor save. (And it's an armor save - doesn't help you a whit against lascannons!)
2) Most vehicles have +1 hull points, and a 7 on the vehicle damage chart becomes "Critical Hit: Lose 1d3 more hull points. If the vehicle loses its last hull points as a result of this, it Explodes!".
3) Glancing hits cannot remove the last hull point, combined with "the first penetrating hit cannot Crit/Explode".

Instead of glancing hits causing an auto loss of hull points why not making it instead a loss of HP only on a roll of 4-6?

 bomtek80 wrote:
Instead of glancing hits causing an auto loss of hull points why not making it instead a loss of HP only on a roll of 4-6?

Because nobody should have to need 16 heavy bolters (the weapons, not the shots) to open up a Rhino, that's why.

Why would a glancing hit be "opening up" an armored vehicle? Killing a vehicle with tons of glancing hits shouldn't be very easy yet in this game it is.

Plus, who uses heavy bolters anymore?

 bomtek80 wrote:
Why would a glancing hit be "opening up" an armored vehicle? Killing a vehicle with tons of glancing hits shouldn't be very easy yet in this game it is.

Plus, who uses heavy bolters anymore?

SoB?

Still, a glancing hit IS a hit. The tank has taken some damage, even if lesser damage. 3 are too few, 6 would be too much, at least for a 35 pts transport. A Rhino is not a battle tank, it's a glorified Humvee. now Predators and above are another thing altogether, I will agree to that.

Actually it is usually the "Predators and above" that I've had glanced to death by anything that could glance their armor. Same problem with Dreadnoughts too.

As someone who is forced to glance vehicles to death, I'd be a little uncomfortable taking away that ability. Better might be some kind of save against glancing hits.

OR: What if on a glancing hit the vehicle's controller chose whether to lose a hull point OR roll on the vehicle damage chart?

While I like the ideas presented here, and I agree that something needs to be done to make vehicles work, one cannot forget that for some armies (namely Tyranids) our only source of anti-tank is by glancing down hull points. FRom devastating volleys of medium strength no AP fire, NOT from 60 multi-meltas.

The main way I lose vehicles against Nids now is close combat; these rules are -supposed- to make a glancing hit unable to kill a tank. It's -glancing- off of it.

Go punch it with a flyrant if you want to kill it dead! Or carnifex. Or those Heirophants I keep seeing, whose strength 10 guns can get +2 on the damage chart vs AV14 anyways.

Wyldhunt wrote:
This seems like it should work, especially if weapons with AP1 or 2 grant a bonus to the vehicle damage chart. It feels like vehicles will be slightly more durable than they are right now, but not as tough as in 5th edition. Sort of a half step between where they are now and where they were then.

That said, I'm not really clear on what you dislike exactly about hull points. Personally, I rather like them as it's frustrating to have to hit with a shot, then to pen with a shot, then to realize all you've done is inconvenienced the vehicle's shooting for a turn. To me, hull points are a way of saying, "Okay, yes, you've put enough holes in this thing for it to simply not be functional at this point."

What I don't like about hull points is that it makes the combat more about mashing away health points with multiple models rather than getting that important one-hit-kill. Even when I'm benefiting from it as a mechanised player I still don't like them; it takes the incentive away to watch your armour facings and if the tank is in cover etc. As for killing opposing tanks, as a Tau player it doesn't effect me so much with the AP1 weapons, but I'd hate to be a Guard player relying on that Battle Cannon which can't get an 'explodes' even if it penetrates.

The biggest problem with hull points is it make S6/S7 one stop shopping. Scatterbikes are an absolute panacea in 7th ed because they are anti-almost everything.

I think hull points are fine, but vehicles need more of them. If GW just upped each vehicle by one HP, I think the game would be much better.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I think hull points are fine, but vehicles need more of them. If GW just upped each vehicle by one HP, I think the game would be much better.

No, because then S6/7 would still dominate.

Martel732 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I think hull points are fine, but vehicles need more of them. If GW just upped each vehicle by one HP, I think the game would be much better.

No, because then S6/7 would still dominate.

Maybe it's time for Armour Penetration rolls to actually go off Armour Penetration stats, with weapon Strength instead affecting the rolls on the Penetrating Hits table?

It's going to require an overhaul of the AP system when dealing with vehicles, but really? If it gets rid of this whole "glanced to death" nonsense--it's worth it.

It'll require a fairly substantial retool, either way: S6/7 sanding things to death is one side of the problem, while vehicles just rolling over the armies that count on Haywire and massed glances for anti-vehicle is the other. Remove hull points without changing anything else and Tyranids and Harlequins suddenly become almost unable to deal with vehicles at all, but, as it stands, scatterbikes and missilesides counter the majority of vehicles just by fishing for glances.

So far, I like the idea of having some kind of save that sufficiently good AP can bypass (leaving cover/invuln as useful defenses like they are now), or of having glances unable to remove the last hull point. Though the first still suffers from vulnerability to spam (but you'd need twice as much), and the second still has the issue that armies that don't have many ways to get pens have major issues. That said, if removing the last hull point just needs a penetrating hit, not necessarily an Explodes!, that's less of a problem.

IMO there are two problems with your proposal:

1) It doesn't do anything to fix the biggest problem with vehicles in 7th: the best way to kill them is to spam tons of mediocre shots, while single powerful shots (LR Vanquisher, for example) are borderline useless. With the cap of +3 and no AP bonus you're still hoping for a good roll with your one shot, which is worse than just throwing some mid-strength spam at the vehicle and killing it with cumulative damage results or just shaking it into uselessness for a turn.

2) It doesn't do anything to fix the annoying "shake it once and ignore it" problem where a penetrating or glancing hit takes your vehicle out of the fight for a turn pretty much no matter what you roll on the damage table. So yeah, your vehicle is still alive and you have to pretend that the snap fire shots you get actually matter, but it's still frustrating to have it become a useless paperweight as soon as it takes a hit.

IMO a better system would be to have a damage table like this:

0 or less: No effect.
1: Gunner shaken: one weapon (randomly chosen) can not fire next turn.
2: Driver stunned: may not move at cruising speed or move flat out. If rolled a second time, may not move at all.
3: Weapon destroyed: one weapon (randomly chosen) is permanently destroyed.
4: Immobilized: can not move for the rest of the game.
5: Wrecked: destroyed and all passengers must disembark.
6: Explodes: destroyed and all passengers are killed. Models within 6" suffer a STR 10 AP 1 hit, with the strength and AP reduced by 1 for each full 1" away from the vehicle.

Glancing hit: roll on the table with a -4 penalty.
Penetrating hit: roll on the table, and the armor facing hit is permanently reduced by 1 (the vehicle is wrecked if any facing is zero). Alternatively, reduced by 1 on a roll of X+, if automatic is too much.
AP 3 or worse: additional -1 penalty on the table.
AP 1: +1 bonus on the table.
Open-topped: +1 bonus on the table.

Superheavy vehicle: additional -X penalty, and each wrecked/explodes result instead removes one size point (the old structure point system, essentially). 2 HP for "small" superheavies (Malcador, knights, etc). 3 for "normal" superheavies (Baneblade size). Anything bigger is Apocalypse-only. Also counts "immobilized" as "lose half movement speed" and "main" weapons gain some kind of protection from the damage table so you don't have one lucky hit turn a 500 point unit into a paperweight.

Flyer: count "driver stunned" as "must leave the table and go into ongoing reserve or enter hover mode". Count "immobilized" as "destroyed and removed from the table, all passengers are killed". Weapons without skyfire must fire snap shots at flyers and must re-roll successful hits.

End result: spamming low-strength weapons that can barely glance a target is unlikely to accomplish anything, and high-strength tank killers are terrifying for vehicles. A penetrating hit from a railgun has a 50% chance to kill a vehicle in one shot and is almost guaranteed to inflict permanent damage. An autocannon, on the other hand, only has a 16% chance of killing it, if it even gets a penetrating hit, and has a 50% chance of inflicting no permanent damage (other than the AV reduction). And if the autocannon only glances (as it often does) it has an 83% chance of doing nothing at all and can only temporarily annoy the vehicle a bit with a 6. However, vehicles aren't completely immune to spam shots since eventually the AV reduction will add up to enough that even guardsmen running up and punching it to death is a serious threat. It just won't kill a vehicle quickly, giving a strong incentive to bring the big guns.

I think your Explodes result is massively too strong: you've clearly never played Orks or Dark Eldar, I think. A 16% chance of the vehicle going up, auto-killing (no saves, no to-wound rolls!) the entire unit inside AND the potential for this to cascade on other AV10 vehicles up to 5" away? Yikes. That's quite possibly reasonable for a Trukk being hit by a Titan-class D weapon, say, but that can happen from a pulse rifle. Spam weapons just became utterly terrifying to AV10 and AV11 vehicles, especially open-topped ones. I won't be spam-tapping Wave Serpents to death under this system, of course, but open-topped squishies are absolutely hosed. And, at this point, I don't think Trukks, Raiders and Venoms really need to be nerfed...

(Oh, and while that's only a 16% chance of the full enchilada, it's still a 33% chance of the vehicle being destroyed by one pulse rifle that rolled a 6.)

Also, under that system, nobody would ever run a flying transport: a successful punch from an AP2 weapon means a 50% chance that the entire vehicle and whatever is inside is just gone. For reference, that's a Stormraven loaded with Assault Terminators, led by a Captain, say, gone in one shot to a single guardsman with a plasma gun. Not great odds of that with how hard it is to hit, granted, but heavy rail rifle Broadsides with Velocity Trackers just became absolutely terrifying, even without markerlights. Crimson Hunters are brutal, while Night Scythes are still scary.

It's the instant loss of the transported unit that makes this way too much, by the way. We're not talking about having a 90-point MSU Tactical squad iced when their Rhino eats a lascannon shot, we're talking about 400 points of Meganobz and their Battlewagon getting annihilated by a single Fire Warrior with a pulse rifle, or a lone Sister with a heavy bolter, and then having that cascade on to blow up the Trukks on either side and their entire payloads.

No one ever uses Stormravens for transport anyway even as it is. Way too risky.

Well, that doesn't invalidate my criticism, does it? If they're already too risky to use, then that's doubly true if a penetrating hit means no less than a 33% (and up to a 66% chance, if the weapon is AP1) chance that the Stormraven and everything in it just evaporates. (Instead of only exploding on a 7, folks inside still maybe surviving even if it does, and only a 33% chance of dying on an Immobilized result) Also, Necrons get to just ignore that effect, like they do already for Night Scythes.

Point is, it makes several classes of balance issue worse instead of better. True, it does mean you aren't going to lose a Predator to massed autocannon fire, but it also means that Orks and Dark Eldar pretty much have to go on foot, because it's a lot safer than being in a transport. At least on foot you get armor/cover saves, FNP, and a chance that the giant blast might fail to wound, say...

ETA: Didn't think of this, but any way to give Skyfire to large-volume S7 or S6 Rending shooting is terrifying to flying transports too: even with -1 on the chart, you still wreck on a 6, immobilize on a 5, and per the suggestion, either one means poof, no more flying transport and its passengers are auto-dead too. HYMP Broadsides are a holy terror, HBC Riptides are super-nasty, and so on. Don't count on flyers being much of a thing at all under this system, though FMCs remain as strong as ever. (There are very few AV13 flyers and no AV14 ones outside of some huge Forge World formerly Apoc-only units, that I'm aware of.)

Yeah, the explodes result there is definitely over-the-top. Especially if you consider that often tanks in reality have a few seconds to a few minutes before the tank cooks off after a successful hit, which can be enough time for the crew/passengers to escape immolation, coupled with the fact that a petrol explosion probably wouldn't even hurt a powered armoured Space Marine most of the time (and Imperial vehicles generally run off any combustible fuel, which cannot be that different to oil based fuels).

I do like the last HP requiring a penetrating hit idea. Not even an Explodes! result, just the last HP can only be removed by penetrating. Still makes Scatterlasers, Autocannons, Multilasers useful, as they can still penetrate most light vehicles, just makes them take a bit longer over mowing down Trukks etc.

I also think that Ordnance/Primary weapons should get a +1 on the damage table- an Earthshaker round being incapable of destroying a vehicle with a penetrating hit is stupid, and Demolisher cannons would be more worth it too.

Flyers currently have the chance of crashing on a 4+ when Immobilised, I don't think they need an increased chance of being destroyed over and above other vehicles, especially with their general cap at AV12 (except the AV13 Caestus, with it's very specific role of ramming things).

Or you could just give them a save when they take a hullppint.

ffs how hard is it. A rhino transports 10 marines at 14ppm, then you have a storm bolter, add up the toughness and movement costs and you have....

35 points. Not hard you guys.

rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote:
Or you could just give them a save when they take a hullppint.

ffs how hard is it. A rhino transports 10 marines at 14ppm, then you have a storm bolter, add up the toughness and movement costs and you have....

35 points. Not hard you guys.

I think we were trying to differentiate them from MCs, not bring them closer together.

Maybe... Seems to me that half the issue is that the differentiation that exists between vehicles and MCs doesn't work especially well. It winds up making MCs much more consistent, while vehicles tend to be wildly swingy. And, to boot, if you bring lots of medium-strength spamcannons, most vehicles wind up dying like MCs with high Toughness, but low Wounds and crappy saves. The vehicles that don't are either flat-out immune (AV14, say) or have good saves.

So, right now, bringing them closer together would almost certainly be a good thing for balance. It might feel a little unfluffy, but keep this in mind: a hit that fails to wound, or a hit where you make the armor save, both pretty much represent the same thing fluffwise - a shot that hit but pinged off.

freaking 4+ armor save across the board with a 5++ invul. toss in a 5+ fnp. Bam! Just as good as a MC with a 3+/5++ and 5fnp.

autocannons with s7 ap4 are still good and scat laser s6 ap- not so good for stripping hp.