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.

Hi all, I've read in the past the suggestion that vehicles should have armour saves but haven't actually seen some written out rules that could be tried so I thought I'd give it a go.

I think the general consensus is that vehicles just aren't as survivable as they should be especially in comparison with monstrous creatures. This is down to a number of factors including low number of hull points compared to wounds for similar sized/costed models, complete lack of armour saves, possibility of being one shot killed (although this is mitigated by the 7th ed damage chart) and the general proliferation of med-high strength multishot weaponry.
The last point I think is the main problem, noone really minds when a lascannon or multimelta damages their tank, thats what they do, it's there job, it's why the opponent paid points for them. But when the opponent turns his multishot anti-infantry weapon on your tanks and just glances them to death through weight of dice it just doesn't feel right to me.

When the AV system was introduced it worked because most anti-infantry firepower was in the S4-5 range which AV made most vehicles functionally immune to but in 7th edition we are increasingly seeing basic anti-infantry weapons in the S6-7 range with multiple shots but vehicles have no increased protection against such weapons that aren't really designed to hurt them.

Introducing a simple way to assign an armour save to all vehicles in the game will hopefully up their survivability against general weight of fire whilst still making them vulnerable to weapons designed to hurt them.

As I said this has likely been done before and I maybe borrowing ideas from previous posters, if so thankyou for the help.

Work out the combined total armour value of the vehicle by adding together it's front, side and rear AV values then adding an addition +2 if the vehicle is a tank (or +1 if it is a walker) and then consult the chart below:
AV: 30 = 6+ armour save
AV: 31-33 = 5+ armour save
AV: 34-36 = 4+ armour save
AV: 37-41 = 3+ armour save
AV: 42+ = 2+ armour save

Vehicle armour saves cannot be taken against hits inflicted from the haywire special rule.

I've tried to make it so most main battle tanks have a 3+ meaning that actual antitank weapons are needed, only the most heavily armoured vehicles should have a 2+.
The main things that miss out are eldar grav tanks and the lighter marine tanks like predators and vindicators who only get a 4+, changing 36 AV to give a 3+ would fix this but also remove the main targets of things like autocannon which are actually anti light tank guns.

What do people think, does this make vehicles too powerful, does it help them much, would you change the save bands? Please let me know what you think.

Looks fine to me, honestly it wouldn't really change much for me and I can't think of anyone who has complained about such things.

This is a fairly popular debate, and I think that basically it's a good idea. Unfortunately, scaling the save based on the armor value doesn't really address most of the current problems. Light (AV10-11) vehicles still die to massed fire, and usually just as easily as they do now, since most spammable guns are AP5, with a few AP4 and AP6 examples. AV14 vehicles still mostly don't die except to Haywire and heavy anti-tank weapons (railguns, lascannons, bright/dark lances, meltas, etc).

I propose that all vehicles get a roll to discount hull point losses, that occurs after any saves they're permitted otherwise (so, it works like Feel No Pain). It would work on a 5+, 4+ for some really resilient vehicles, and be bypassed by any AP3 or better weapon and by Destroyer weapons (Even if worse than AP3). Penetrating hits still cause their damage chart results even if this roll is passed, but the vehicle doesn't lose any hull points as a result.

What if vehicle armor saves were made using 3d6, roll under AV? AP only affects the results of a penetrating hit.

The lowest armor save should be 4+. That way, weapons like autocannons and heavy burst cannons are effective, and things like scatterlasers and multilasers less so. Weapons with poor AP should really be completely useless vs vehicles, but that's a different can of worms. How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

Martel732 wrote:
The lowest armor save should be 4+. That way, weapons like autocannons and heavy burst cannons are effective, and things like scatterlasers and multilasers less so. Weapons with poor AP should really be completely useless vs vehicles, but that's a different can of worms. How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

I would assume we could exclude Haywire from the "things with Ap5 and below can't touch vehicles"

I think I would be better to replace the weapon armour interaction with one single method.
This would make balancing the game much easier.

If all models have an AV from 1 to 10.
And all weapons have an AP from 1 to 10.
We just compare the AV to the AP value to find out the save roll for the model.(Similat to how the WS vs WS chart works.)

Av/Ap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1........,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2.........3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3.........3,3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4.........2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
5.........2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.........1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.........1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.........d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.........d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10.......d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

Stat values run 1 to 10 to give a decent basic range.All results are a D6 roll you need to succeed.

d results means 'Deflected,' you auto succeed and ignore effects that cause special damage.

7 result means you half the number of 6s rolled rounding down to count as sucesses.(Quicker than re rolling 6+ followed by 4+ for 7+ to hit .)

n means Not able to save.

So If we say a current vehicle with AV 14 has new AV 10.And a Las cannon has new AP 8.That means the vehicle saves on a 3+ vs a las cannon hit.
New AV 6 (old AV 10 and Terminator armour.) only get a 5+ save vs the same las cannon.

This idea give all models proportional saves vs all weapon attacks without using additional systems or modifiers.
But would require a complete re-write of the rules ...

I would say that having a Chart for the save might be over complicating things, I think its probably a lot more simple to have an equipment option to give vehicles a Invuln save, that way you have to pay for it, or take the "cheep" baseline version. Maybe even one or two levels of it, I.E. a 5+ and a 4+ version. That way its not "standard" on everything. Maybe the "beefier" vehicles like land raiders or other armys equivalents with it coming standard? Keep in mind some rare ones can take items already I.E. space wolves Dreds can take blizzard shields. this way that is still an improvement, and doesn't just negate their upgrade all together. This way the lighter ones can buy a options that make them survivable and beefy ones beefy.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The lowest armor save should be 4+. That way, weapons like autocannons and heavy burst cannons are effective, and things like scatterlasers and multilasers less so. Weapons with poor AP should really be completely useless vs vehicles, but that's a different can of worms. How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

I would assume we could exclude Haywire from the "things with Ap5 and below can't touch vehicles"

Of course.

Y'know, I'm usually not a huge fan of blanket bans, but OTOH, that's not utterly unreasonable. Weapons with AP5 or worse cannot damage vehicles, unless they have the Haywire, Armourbane, Rending, Lance or Melta special rules? Maybe only in shooting, possibly, to give armies with a fair bit of high-strength, but weak-AP, melee some kind of option?

jade_angel wrote:
Y'know, I'm usually not a huge fan of blanket bans, but OTOH, that's not utterly unreasonable. Weapons with AP5 or worse cannot damage vehicles, unless they have the Haywire, Armourbane, Rending, Lance or Melta special rules? Maybe only in shooting, possibly, to give armies with a fair bit of high-strength, but weak-AP, melee some kind of option?

Yes, only shooting, because in assault you can cut wires and jam wheels, etc.

But this gives real incentive to bring true anti-vehicle weapons. Now we just need to add multiple wounds to MCs from very nasty guns like lances, lascannons, melta, and heavy tank rounds.

Maybe "Heavy, Ordnance and Primary Weapons with S8 or greater inflict two wounds for each successful to-wound roll (saves taken separately) against models with Toughness less than their Strength, unless they have the Eternal Warrior special rule"?

That also makes weapons with moderate ROF but high strength (Typhoon/Cyclone missile launchers, Devastators with lascannons, Kabalite Trueborn with blasters, etc) do more against MCs or multi-wound characters with strong saves.

jade_angel wrote:
Maybe "Heavy, Ordnance and Primary Weapons with S8 or greater inflict two wounds for each successful to-wound roll (saves taken separately) against models with Toughness less than their Strength, unless they have the Eternal Warrior special rule"?

That also makes weapons with moderate ROF but high strength (Typhoon/Cyclone missile launchers, Devastators with lascannons, Kabalite Trueborn with blasters, etc) do more against MCs or multi-wound characters with strong saves.

Anything along those lines is fine. It's just a complete joke that a lascannon can potentially trash a land raider, but can only ever do one wound to T5 or higher.

I don't really agree on weapons with higher ap not being able to pen/glance vehicles. I think that is a little rough, I don't think its healthy fro the game to just say "any weapon below X ap can't hurt a vehicle". I stil;l say being able to take some sort of upgrade to geta invuln save or some sort of similar save is the way to go. Maybe have a specific low Ap (1-2) deny that save is the way to go.

I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

I second this

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

To be perfectly fair, we are not talking about "sub machine guns" here. Im about to play logic to a wargame here, be ware, here there be dragons! (disclaimer)
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter_Ammunition

Is just an example. I mean that is in all reality a fully automatic rocket propelled grenade launcher, and that is not even considering most of these light vehicles have viewing ports, hatches ext. Now yeah bolters are frustrating but the real problem is all that S6 or better in the game right now that can be shot at volume, as someone else said.

I think the answer is something simple and clean, as opposed to another chart, cus lets face it there are to many damn charts in this game as there is! I don't so much have a problem with S4 having a chance to glance A10 on a 6, given that its possible that that exploding round MIGHT punch a hole in the armor after all its "angry little brothers" hit it and weakened it. I think the real problem is that the pen chart has been passed up by the game and we need something more clean and simple for vehicles, Adding a save wold help if we keep the chart, but I think the real problem is the chart its self. It either needs a rework or removed and replaced with something more akin to wounds.

I know some might think this is too powerful, but make glancing hits only cause results of "crew shaken" instead of stripping a hull point. One, this mitigates the problem a bit of simply stripping hull points to easily kill vehicles. Two, this might encourage the use of actual anti-tank weaponry to make a comeback instead of mid-strength high rof guns that seems to be the current meta. Three, might help to redress some of the balance issues between monstrous creatures and vehicles.

*cough* dreadnoughts suck *cough*

 Dyslexican32 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

To be perfectly fair, we are not talking about "sub machine guns" here. Im about to play logic to a wargame here, be ware, here there be dragons! (disclaimer)
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter_Ammunition

Is just an example. I mean that is in all reality a fully automatic rocket propelled grenade launcher, and that is not even considering most of these light vehicles have viewing ports, hatches ext. Now yeah bolters are frustrating but the real problem is all that S6 or better in the game right now that can be shot at volume, as someone else said.

I think the answer is something simple and clean, as opposed to another chart, cus lets face it there are to many damn charts in this game as there is! I don't so much have a problem with S4 having a chance to glance A10 on a 6, given that its possible that that exploding round MIGHT punch a hole in the armor after all its "angry little brothers" hit it and weakened it. I think the real problem is that the pen chart has been passed up by the game and we need something more clean and simple for vehicles, Adding a save wold help if we keep the chart, but I think the real problem is the chart its self. It either needs a rework or removed and replaced with something more akin to wounds.

It's a submachine gun equivalent. I don't care about the fluff. The whole rocket ammo thing is dumb anyway. Bolters should not be harming vehicles, in my view. Again, I ignore the fluff because it's stupid. Only the math matters to me.

Does the fluff say that Eldar stomp all over everyone? Yet, the game says they do. So the fluff can go die in a hole.

Martel732 wrote:
How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

RIP Tyranids. Our best guns are AP-, there's very little AP4, and the only AP2 iirc is the Rupture Cannon, which is terrible. The only way to kill vehicles would be to march MCs into melee or run up some Rending Claws.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

RIP Tyranids. Our best guns are AP-, there's very little AP4, and the only AP2 iirc is the Rupture Cannon, which is terrible. The only way to kill vehicles would be to march MCs into melee or run up some Rending Claws.

That's a problem then. Well, back to plan A, which is rewrite the whole game from the ground up. You can best believe that scatterlasers will a) be neutered compared to their current form or b) cost at least as much as an assault cannon.

A marines bolter is almost strictly anti-infantry. I have never read in the fluff where it has blow holes in tanks.

Yeah, but we can't throw the Nids under the bus totally.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, but we can't throw the Nids under the bus totally.

Edit their shooting attacks so they have an AP? Why don't they have any AP?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, but we can't throw the Nids under the bus totally.

Edit their shooting attacks so they have an AP? Why don't they have any AP?

12 twin-linked S6 shots at BS4 is pretty good as it is, making it AP5 or so would be pretty brutal. Not that things like scatterlasers aren't already, but we don't really need to continue that power creep.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, but we can't throw the Nids under the bus totally.

Edit their shooting attacks so they have an AP? Why don't they have any AP?

12 twin-linked S6 shots at BS4 is pretty good as it is, making it AP5 or so would be pretty brutal. Not that things like scatterlasers aren't already, but we don't really need to continue that power creep.

Make it AP4... Tada. It now can touch vehicles...

Here is another idea I mentioned in a similar thread some time back:

Instead of figuring out how to translate vehicle armor values into saves, why not eliminate the ability for glancing hits to strip hull points and create a new special rule called Glancing that can be applied to models and weapons?

Glancing - if a model with this special rule, or using a weapon with this special rule, matches the armor value of a vehicle on a armor penetration roll, a "Glancing Hit" is scored. The vehicle loses a hull point, but no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage Chart.

MCs/GMCs/Walkers automatically get the Glancing special rule, as do heavy and ordinance weapons. Glancing can also be applied to weapons like Gauss that fit the fluff.

 EnTyme wrote:
Here is another idea I mentioned in a similar thread some time back:

Instead of figuring out how to translate vehicle armor values into saves, why not eliminate the ability for glancing hits to strip hull points and create a new special rule called Glancing that can be applied to models and weapons?

Glancing - if a model with this special rule, or using a weapon with this special rule, matches the armor value of a vehicle on a armor penetration roll, a "Glancing Hit" is scored. The vehicle loses a hull point, but no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage Chart.

MCs/GMCs/Walkers automatically get the Glancing special rule, as do heavy and ordinance weapons. Glancing can also be applied to weapons like Gauss that fit the fluff.

No no no no no no no no. Scatter lasers are even better if you do that.

This is how you fix vehicles. Quoted from another thread just like this one.

In detail, you remove the unit type MC and Vehicle, replaced by some other word...lets call it a Construct. Now you add two additional USRs; Mechanical and Biological. You assign those to each Construct based on what they are; Nids and other creatures like the DE monstrosities become Biological, while Riptides, DreadKnights, and tanks all become Mechanical.

Both of the USRs simply denote what weapon types affect them more. Poison, for example, would only have an effect on Biological Constructs, while Armourbane and Melta would only affect those with the Mechanical USR.

The advantages of turning all vehicles into MCs are many. Its easier to balance using one mechanic, its easier to remember and learn, its fluffier (why is poison hurting a Riptide?) and offers more options for vehicles. Now when you design a vehicle, its durability can be determined by a combination of T, Sv, and W, instead of just AV and HP. A Leman Russ can now be something like T9/3+/5W...or whatever. Point is, you have tonnes of options for making a vehicle the exact kind of durable you want it to be.

The details can be ironed out on a unit by unit basis, and point costs will shift, maybe dramatically, but it pretty much solves all the issues with vehicles and MCs. You can even incorporate facings by having multiple T values, just like AV.

 Blacksails wrote:
This is how you fix vehicles. Quoted from another thread just like this one.

In detail, you remove the unit type MC and Vehicle, replaced by some other word...lets call it a Construct. Now you add two additional USRs; Mechanical and Biological. You assign those to each Construct based on what they are; Nids and other creatures like the DE monstrosities become Biological, while Riptides, DreadKnights, and tanks all become Mechanical.

Both of the USRs simply denote what weapon types affect them more. Poison, for example, would only have an effect on Biological Constructs, while Armourbane and Melta would only affect those with the Mechanical USR.

The advantages of turning all vehicles into MCs are many. Its easier to balance using one mechanic, its easier to remember and learn, its fluffier (why is poison hurting a Riptide?) and offers more options for vehicles. Now when you design a vehicle, its durability can be determined by a combination of T, Sv, and W, instead of just AV and HP. A Leman Russ can now be something like T9/3+/5W...or whatever. Point is, you have tonnes of options for making a vehicle the exact kind of durable you want it to be.

The details can be ironed out on a unit by unit basis, and point costs will shift, maybe dramatically, but it pretty much solves all the issues with vehicles and MCs. You can even incorporate facings by having multiple T values, just like AV.

That leaves more questions than it answers