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.

Just make it so if the weapon cannot Pen the vehicle it cannot glance it. IE, 10 bolters behind a Rhino won't glance it to death on 20 shots, but 3 lascanons that fail to Pen will still kill it via glances.

So i think they should just either give all glances an armor save or make glances only strip hull points on a 4+ or 5+. also give all walkers the mc's other benefits like smash MTC area cover

Just make vehicles into mc with , immune to poison, eternal warrior.

Haywire and Gauss can go away. Necrons already are impossible to kill. Should balance them with lack of ability to kill. Haywire is so much better and cheaper than melta bombs, why should it be cheaper and better than a melta bomb?

 deviantduck wrote:
Just make it so if the weapon cannot Pen the vehicle it cannot glance it. IE, 10 bolters behind a Rhino won't glance it to death on 20 shots, but 3 lascanons that fail to Pen will still kill it via glances.

Ooo, I like this. It would make anti-tank weapons important again without making vehicles overpowered.

All vehicles get +1 hp and a 3+ save. Keep it simple.

Just get ride of Glance. A hit that does no damage is a glance, after all.

SJ

So read through everything. I don't think walker -> MC is that simple.. I like many comments on "small arms immunity" or something like that, but the issue is.. any change like that is going to have huge outcomes. And the issue is with available high strength weapons.

I 100% agree it is too easy to glance out vehicles right now, and more so it is equally easy to explode them. I don't think MCs need to change.

It is tough to think of 1 rule to fix vehicles/walkers.

Here is what I suggest.. I actually like this a lot..
When you glance or pen, roll on haywire table with modifiers:

ap3/worse -1; ap1 +1

glance -1

pen +1

This change would appear as follows.
s6 ap4 vs AV10 -> glance: -2 mod (1-3 nothing, 4-6 glance). pen: -1 mod (1-2 nothing, 3-6 glance). Negating rolling on damage chart and giving a balanced save to vehicles against "small arms"

s6 ap2 vs AV10 -> glance: -1 mod (1-2 nothing, 3-6 glance). pen: +1 mod (1-4 glance, 5-6 pen). This seems balanced, you cant roll on damage table if you glance, its more armor piercing so you will glance at the least but have a change to "pen" for vehicle damage.

s6 ap1 vs AV10 ->glance: 0 mod (haywire as is). pen: +2 mod (1-3 glance, 4-6 pen). This might seem strong, but most ap1 is already designed for taking out tanks.. Otherwise, this gives a chance that even on a pen, your still only glancing, and limits rolling on the damage table further.


What you do you guys think of this?

*EDIT* Added scatter bike squad numbers vs AV10
12 shots -> 8 hits -> 2 glances, 2 pens -> translates to 2 glances. w/ Jink: translates to 1 glance

Simple solution is to give them an armor save vs glancing hits.

Armor 14: 2+
Armor 13: 3+
Armor 12: 4+
Armor 11: 5+
Armor 10: 6+

This is just vs glancing hits. They would still need cover or an invul vs pens. And can still be brought down with glances, just harder.

Now armies have to take dedicated anti armor.

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:
Simple solution is to give them an armor save vs glancing hits.

Armor 14: 2+
Armor 13: 3+
Armor 12: 4+
Armor 11: 5+
Armor 10: 6+

This is just vs glancing hits. They would still need cover or an invul vs pens. And can still be brought down with glances, just harder.

Now armies have to take dedicated anti armor.

The main issue with this method is. It's already hard to glance high AV and low armor saves on low AV doesn't stop RoF glance problems. Which I think my proposal takes a bit more into account.

I'd wanna give them "rampage". I kind of imagine if a bunch of people were to assault a bulldozer or excavator and it would just start spinning and crushing people.

What about not getting locked in combat?

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:
Simple solution is to give them an armor save vs glancing hits.

Armor 14: 2+
Armor 13: 3+
Armor 12: 4+
Armor 11: 5+
Armor 10: 6+

This is just vs glancing hits. They would still need cover or an invul vs pens. And can still be brought down with glances, just harder.

Now armies have to take dedicated anti armor.

The main issue with this method is. It's already hard to glance high AV and low armor saves on low AV doesn't stop RoF glance problems. Which I think my proposal takes a bit more into account.

This is just simple. No modifiers, no other tables. Keep it in line with MC. Roll to hit, roll pen, roll save. In your example, you would roll to hit, roll pen glance, roll on haywire with modifiers.

MC is hit , wound, save, fnp
Vehicles should follow same rules. They already have then pen table.

Most vehicles are armor 12/11. So 33% - 50% of glances would be ingored. Much better than now.

My 2 teef

I say a flat 3+ to keep AT weapons relevant

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:
Simple solution is to give them an armor save vs glancing hits.

Armor 14: 2+
Armor 13: 3+
Armor 12: 4+
Armor 11: 5+
Armor 10: 6+

This is just vs glancing hits. They would still need cover or an invul vs pens. And can still be brought down with glances, just harder.

Now armies have to take dedicated anti armor.

The main issue with this method is. It's already hard to glance high AV and low armor saves on low AV doesn't stop RoF glance problems. Which I think my proposal takes a bit more into account.

This is just simple. No modifiers, no other tables. Keep it in line with MC. Roll to hit, roll pen, roll save. In your example, you would roll to hit, roll pen glance, roll on haywire with modifiers.

MC is hit , wound, save, fnp
Vehicles should follow same rules. They already have then pen table.

Most vehicles are armor 12/11. So 33% - 50% of glances would be ingored. Much better than now.

My 2 teef

You missed the point of his complaint which is that pretty much all guns shooting at av10-12 are ap4 anyways so would be ignore that save meaning that it is basically pointless for them.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:
Simple solution is to give them an armor save vs glancing hits.

Armor 14: 2+
Armor 13: 3+
Armor 12: 4+
Armor 11: 5+
Armor 10: 6+

This is just vs glancing hits. They would still need cover or an invul vs pens. And can still be brought down with glances, just harder.

Now armies have to take dedicated anti armor.

The main issue with this method is. It's already hard to glance high AV and low armor saves on low AV doesn't stop RoF glance problems. Which I think my proposal takes a bit more into account.

This is just simple. No modifiers, no other tables. Keep it in line with MC. Roll to hit, roll pen, roll save. In your example, you would roll to hit, roll pen glance, roll on haywire with modifiers.

MC is hit , wound, save, fnp
Vehicles should follow same rules. They already have then pen table.

Most vehicles are armor 12/11. So 33% - 50% of glances would be ingored. Much better than now.

My 2 teef

You missed the point of his complaint which is that pretty much all guns shooting at av10-12 are ap4 anyways so would be ignore that save meaning that it is basically pointless for them.

Idea is they get this save vs glances regardless of AP. Call it a vehicle save. AP would only come into play on a pen.

That's my bad, I didn't explain that part lol it was the idea though

I like the glances don't strip HP.

Add in a glance table for when you do match the armour value of:
1-4 nothing
5-6 crew shaken
7+ lose a hull point + crew shaken

Easy table that sort of balances out the issue.

I know many people aren't a fan of additional tables but hey, sometimes it fits.

HP was introduced because it was too easy for an army to be unable to do anything to a given vehicle, which makes for a one sided game. The issue with the current vehicle vulnerability is that glancing hits are too numerous. I think the most straight forward fix would be an armor save or an alteration to the glancing chart that makes it possible that the hit doesn't remove HP, like Konrax said.

I'm just brain storming ways to avoid addition rolls / chart apart from just a save. That's why I like my saves vs all glancing idea based on armor value.

I would like some sentry type rules to where if the didn't move and focused mainly on shooting they get a +1 bs.

Maybe some sort of mini stomp.

For the more fleet footed walkers they get bonus movement/run/charge distances.

When the walker is engaged in CC and the enemy unit has lost some percentage of units it can freely leave cc. Like there isn't enough men to hold it there.

Some Melee centric walkers get sweep attacks with certain weapons.

They can Ram vehicles

Sorry I know it is more that one

Honestly if vehicles had armor saves then everything would be fine

 Dakkafang Dreggrim wrote:
I'm just brain storming ways to avoid addition rolls / chart apart from just a save. That's why I like my saves vs all glancing idea based on armor value.

Altering the glance table so its possible that a glancing hit causes no HP loss is an across the board fix. An armor save is much more involved idea. How much a save? And how about vehicles that already get some sort of save?

I made a separate thread in the proposed rules section dedicated to my haywire modifier concept.

Feel free to comment.

I don't think it adds that much more rolling, as you are greatly limiting rolling on the damage table. As most small arms would only be able to glance or do nothing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Konrax wrote:
I like the glances don't strip HP.

Add in a glance table for when you do match the armour value of:
1-4 nothing
5-6 crew shaken
7+ lose a hull point + crew shaken

Easy table that sort of balances out the issue.

I know many people aren't a fan of additional tables but hey, sometimes it fits.

I agree, sometimes an easy table doesn't really cause much of an issue to are already massive dice rolling. I like your concept and am reworking mine to follow this glance table concept.

My suggestion is just to remove the whole AV system and move vehicles to the toughness system eliminating the arbitrary distinction. You can reverse engineer the AV to T station by starting with AV 14 = to T 10. Thus, AV 13 equal to T 9 and so on through AV 10.

Add a few universal special rules like vehicle means immune to poison and flashbane. And have a new rule called transport which would reference the aldready in place rules. Make some quick updates to existing universal rules such as melts and armorbane and you're set.

This addresses every complaint and just requires GW to make the state changes like they did at the start of 6th with the addition of hull points. Done.

 Konrax wrote:
I like the glances don't strip HP.

Add in a glance table for when you do match the armour value of:
1-4 nothing
5-6 crew shaken
7+ lose a hull point + crew shaken

Easy table that sort of balances out the issue.

I know many people aren't a fan of additional tables but hey, sometimes it fits.

here is my modified table concept. I don't think we should flat out prevent glances, because of extra things like cover/invul saves. So I propose this..

Glance Table:

1-4 no damage occurs

5-6 lose hp

7+ lose hp -> penetrating hit instead (roll on damage table)

AP2 and AP1 will have the same modifiers.

The shooting phase would be as follows:

Target vehicle -> roll to hit -> roll to glance/pen as normal
IF GLANCE -> roll on glance table
IF PEN -> lose hp and roll on vehicle damage table as normal

Much simplified compared to what I initially was doing but does essentially the same thing. Allows "armor piercing" rounds to still have an opportunity to cause vehicle damage, it also adds drastic survability for even av10 with cover/invul saves + a chance to do no damage.

Personally I prefer the idea that glances may not kill a vehicle but at least reduce the usefulness for a round.

Maybe modify the chart to

1-3 no damage
4-5 crewshaken
6+ crew shaken + lose a hullpoint (equivalent of a weak pen hit)

 Konrax wrote:
Personally I prefer the idea that glances may not kill a vehicle but at least reduce the usefulness for a round.

Maybe modify the chart to

1-3 no damage
4-5 crewshaken
6+ crew shaken + lose a hullpoint (equivalent of a weak pen hit)

I would say on a +6 Lose hullpoint

+1 for AP2
+2 for AP1
+? for anything else.

Reworked again to be

1-2 nothing
3-6 hp
7+ pen result instead

if you keep same ap then ap1 always glances and gives low ap a chance to pen.. making single shot weapons like HRR semi useful.

The only issue i see with crew shaken only.. is that bolters can rattle the crew of a vindicator.. idk its all up for debate anyway XD

 Grizzyzz wrote:
Reworked again to be

1-2 nothing
3-6 hp
7+ pen result instead

if you keep same ap then ap1 always glances and gives low ap a chance to pen.. making single shot weapons like HRR semi useful.

The only issue i see with crew shaken only.. is that bolters can rattle the crew of a vindicator.. idk its all up for debate anyway XD

No no no no no no no

You glanced that tank bud, no takesies backsies. Leave it at the rare hull point loss from glancing hits and nothing else

Should we rewind to 5th ed with no hull points and glancing does nothing?

I like the idea of hull points, nothing was more frustrating than scoring 5+ pens on a vehicle with it still kicking around causing damage.

The problem is you can essentially kill a vehicle with hits that should be meant to maybe stun it at best or cause minor damage.

In real tank battle you could sustain many glancing hits and still have taken no real damage.

At least there is a chance to kill a vehicle with glances, but more importantly you can disable a vehicle for a turn instead giving a similar result. Weapons that are ideal for glancing vehicles to death now would instead have to sustain their fire till they kill it or another more powerful weapon can finish it off.

Edit: Gause can work as normal, and haywire should cause a shaken result on a 2-5 and a pen on 6, that way it actually functions more along the lines of its intended use.

I figure we should just remove glancing hits, or go back to the old style in 5E.

The complaint about scoring 5+ pens on a tank and not killing it is silly - it happens sometimes. It means the shot overpenetrated, or expended its energy on a nonvital system. You are still likely to damage the guns or mobility of the tank with 5+ pens, so it isn't going to be like those pens just didn't happen.

Heck, I remember reading about a disabled Abrams the army wanted to kill in Iraq so the fired 4 Hellfire missiles at it - why 4? Because even though each and every one penetrated the armour (because it is a stationary, abandoned vehicle being shot at by its own side), none of the first 3 did enough damage to truly eliminate the tank as a potential threat. The 4th finally touched off the ammunition, of course, which ended the vehicle. But it is an excellent illustration of my point.