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.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Because it SEVERELY hampers the ability of assault to deal with vehicles, as close combat weapons are AP-, and the stuff that isn't is usually limited to one model in most squads, is expensive, and the stuff that isn't are rarer than big foot sightings. Particularly after GW threw grenades under the bus.

On the flip-side, there's the following scenario:

A 5-Man MEQ unit with Strength 4 and an AP- Weapon charge a vehicle with AV10. Under the current system, it is quite easy for this squad to Glance the vehicle to death (especially given that most vehicles with at least one AV10 side have a maximum of 3 HP). A Tactical Squad punching an Ork Truck to death with Chainswords is a prime example of this (and the sort of scenario I want to avoid).

Stormonu wrote:I think it is a good rule, though I question Rend and Gauss getting a free pass, and AP - should probably score on a 6. I think the only rule that should get a pass on the Penetration roll is an attack that has Armourbane.

-- I question AP- still passing the test on a 6+ because then there's nothing that differentiates AP- from AP6, but there's probably a solution to that.
-- Rending I made an auto-pass because of the way the rule is defined in terms of adding D3 to the Pen result when a 6 is rolled. Maybe this should be the same sort of deal with Glancing Hits - Automatically pass the test if you glance on a 6.
-- Gauss was pretty similar reasoning to Rending. Because Gauss Weapons automatically glance vehicles on a 6, I didn't want to take that away from them by forcing an AP Check on them.
-- I agree: Armourbane should definitely confer and auto-pass.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Because it SEVERELY hampers the ability of assault to deal with vehicles, as close combat weapons are AP-, and the stuff that isn't is usually limited to one model in most squads, is expensive, and the stuff that isn't are rarer than big foot sightings. Particularly after GW threw grenades under the bus.

On the flip-side, there's the following scenario:

A 5-Man MEQ unit with Strength 4 and an AP- Weapon charge a vehicle with AV10. Under the current system, it is quite easy for this squad to Glance the vehicle to death (especially given that most vehicles with at least one AV10 side have a maximum of 3 HP). A Tactical Squad punching an Ork Truck to death with Chainswords is a prime example of this (and the sort of scenario I want to avoid).

Versus, say, the space marines chopping at the exposed driver and gunner? Or maybe using their strength to flip it over, or throwing a spanner in the engine block. I think some people take the whole "armor penetration" a bit too literal (like a lot of the game...). Yes, A knife won't penetrate through tank armor. Anyone with a brain stem can understand that. but vehicles aren't literal block of armor either, and when you have to kill something with terrible tools you just find more creative ways to do it.

Mechanically, the problem is that this decimates the options assault armies have to deal with vehicles. Hordes in particular (all of them sans Gaurd, anyway) are often stuck with half ass ranged anti-tank, so being able to overcome weaksause vehicles with normal troops is needed (I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with requiring melee specialist units to deal with every rhino, chimera, and raider...)

I do not like it over all. It is adding an unnecessary roll to Glancing. If this was replacing the Penetration Roll, it would make more sense.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I like it, but it may slow things down a bit. I have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

This is my preference. I would change option 7 to be just a Hull Point loss, but if the Glancing Hit does not add a modifier this is no longer needed as only a Penetrating Hit can still cause it to Explode!

Hull Point loss is still available to Glancing, but it requires Immobilizing first to get it to happen. And if Immobilizes from the same group of Shots or Blows can be considered "already" to each other, this aspect is well covered.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Because it SEVERELY hampers the ability of assault to deal with vehicles, as close combat weapons are AP-, and the stuff that isn't is usually limited to one model in most squads, is expensive, and the stuff that isn't are rarer than big foot sightings. Particularly after GW threw grenades under the bus.

On the flip-side, there's the following scenario:

A 5-Man MEQ unit with Strength 4 and an AP- Weapon charge a vehicle with AV10. Under the current system, it is quite easy for this squad to Glance the vehicle to death (especially given that most vehicles with at least one AV10 side have a maximum of 3 HP). A Tactical Squad punching an Ork Truck to death with Chainswords is a prime example of this (and the sort of scenario I want to avoid).

Versus, say, the space marines chopping at the exposed driver and gunner? Or maybe using their strength to flip it over, or throwing a spanner in the engine block. I think some people take the whole "armor penetration" a bit too literal (like a lot of the game...). Yes, A knife won't penetrate through tank armor. Anyone with a brain stem can understand that. but vehicles aren't literal block of armor either, and when you have to kill something with terrible tools you just find more creative ways to do it.

I see what you mean. In my mind, it was a way to nerf mechanics where weapons that clearly are not designed with taking out tanks in mind (e.g. Chainswords) can be used to do exactly that - take out tanks. That being said, I'd be willing to say this rule applies to Ballistic Attacks only (I just never thought of it the way you explained it simply because we're talking about dice rolls and miniatures on a tabletop haha).

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Mechanically, the problem is that this decimates the options assault armies have to deal with vehicles. Hordes in particular (all of them sans Gaurd, anyway) are often stuck with half ass ranged anti-tank, so being able to overcome weaksause vehicles with normal troops is needed (I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with requiring melee specialist units to deal with every rhino, chimera, and raider...)

Fair call.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
I do not like it over all. It is adding an unnecessary roll to Glancing. If this was replacing the Penetration Roll, it would make more sense.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I like it, but it may slow things down a bit. I have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

This is my preference. I would change option 7 to be just a Hull Point loss, but if the Glancing Hit does not add a modifier this is no longer needed as only a Penetrating Hit can still cause it to Explode!

Hull Point loss is still available to Glancing, but it requires Immobilizing first to get it to happen. And if Immobilizes from the same group of Shots or Blows can be considered "already" to each other, this aspect is well covered.

This isn't a half-bad idea I'll see if I can write something up to this effect.

If I were building the game from the ground up, vehicles would have an assault value for their armor as well, so it can be lower than the rear.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
II have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

I like this idea a lot. This makes glancing hits work how I think they should. Not getting inside to cause an explosion or kill the crew, but disorienting the occupants, and damaging exterior components like weapons, wheels, tracks, and legs.
It works well with the 7th edition Vehicle Damage Chart.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I like it, but it may slow things down a bit. I have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

This is my preference. I would change option 7 to be just a Hull Point loss, but if the Glancing Hit does not add a modifier this is no longer needed as only a Penetrating Hit can still cause it to Explode!

Hull Point loss is still available to Glancing, but it requires Immobilizing first to get it to happen. And if Immobilizes from the same group of Shots or Blows can be considered "already" to each other, this aspect is well covered.

I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

 IllumiNini wrote:
I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

Not quite. The proposition in the OP would be adding a roll to completely nerf Glancing Hit and not be affecting the Penetrating Hit whatsoever.

While you are correct that there is no difference between the number of dice roll, the option in the OP is almost a second Armour Penetration Roll, for all intents and purposes.

 Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

Not quite. The proposition in the OP would be adding a roll to completely nerf Glancing Hit and not be affecting the Penetrating Hit whatsoever.

While you are correct that there is no difference between the number of dice roll, the option in the OP is almost a second Armour Penetration Roll, for all intents and purposes.

So what are you saying, exactly?

So what are you saying, exactly?

I think he wants penetrating hits to be nerfed as well, or maybe neither nerfed. Hard to tell with some posters what they want or mean.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

Not quite. The proposition in the OP would be adding a roll to completely nerf Glancing Hit and not be affecting the Penetrating Hit whatsoever.

While you are correct that there is no difference between the number of dice roll, the option in the OP is almost a second Armour Penetration Roll, for all intents and purposes.

So what are you saying, exactly?

The proposal in the Original Post is basically the equivalent of adding a second Wound Roll to a Monstrous Creature, but only if you rolled the minimum to Wound. Or maybe another way to put it, Glancing Hits cause you a "reroll" of your Armour Penetration Roll. All that work could end up being nothing unless you have a really good AP weapon.

However, if Glancing Hits do not remove a Hull Point, but a roll on the Vehicle Damage Table, the Glancing Hit WILL have an effect (although, maybe not so much), but it will be difficult to just "Glance" a Vehicle to death.

While Saves often can remove all the "hard work" of getting a Wound involved, that is dependent on the owning player to do the work, and not attacking player.

I'm happy someone turned up with this idea 'cause I proposed it months ago just on this forum but got unnoticed.

To add to the discussion, think the units with tank hunter should have some bonus too.

 Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

Not quite. The proposition in the OP would be adding a roll to completely nerf Glancing Hit and not be affecting the Penetrating Hit whatsoever.

While you are correct that there is no difference between the number of dice roll, the option in the OP is almost a second Armour Penetration Roll, for all intents and purposes.

So what are you saying, exactly?

The proposal in the Original Post is basically the equivalent of adding a second Wound Roll to a Monstrous Creature, but only if you rolled the minimum to Wound. Or maybe another way to put it, Glancing Hits cause you a "reroll" of your Armour Penetration Roll. All that work could end up being nothing unless you have a really good AP weapon.

However, if Glancing Hits do not remove a Hull Point, but a roll on the Vehicle Damage Table, the Glancing Hit WILL have an effect (although, maybe not so much), but it will be difficult to just "Glance" a Vehicle to death.

While Saves often can remove all the "hard work" of getting a Wound involved, that is dependent on the owning player to do the work, and not attacking player.

After some further thought on it, I'm having a few misgivings about how this would work:

-- Glancing Hits [In the real world] don't always have an effect. They may just bounce of the armour and/or leave a light scratch. In this case, I feel comfortable saying that this concept can be reasonably translated to the tabletop via a rule or instance such as the one I'm proposing.

-- When looking at the results of the VDT, it makes less and less sense to me to say that a Glancing Hit can cause one of these effects without doing damage to the vehicle.
-- -- Take the most extreme example: The Immobilised Result. Logically speaking, how is a Glancing Hit supposed to immobilise a vehicle without actually damaging the vehicle?
-- -- Take another example: Crew Stunned. How is a Glancing Hit supposed to 'hit the vehicle with enough force' to cause this result without damaging it?

I mean, yes - under this new system, you can still glance the vehicle to death (with some luck) and yes - you're not always inflicting Hull Point damage, but this alternative rule seems to give Glancing Hits the ability to do things that they shouldn't be able to do without also inflicting Hull Points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
I'm happy someone turned up with this idea 'cause I proposed it months ago just on this forum but got unnoticed.

To add to the discussion, think the units with tank hunter should have some bonus too.

I'll have to have a read of your thread. Maybe some of it will be relevant to this thread and/or inspire a change in this one.

As for the Tank Hunter Special Rule, I think that's fair.

With the proposed change to glancing hits I use, a glancing hit that tears off a tank tread won't necessarily affect the structural integrity of the whole vehicle. Same with knocking off a sponsor weapon or even blocking up a turret. These thing affect the vehicle but aren't causing the vehicle to be completely wiped out.

Since causing glancing hits is not the easiest way to kill vehicles with this system, single shot high power weapons become a more prevalent option. And since the hullpoint loss doesn't require high ap, the high strength high ap weapons (like heavy venom cannons) can still function as an anti tank weapon.

The reason I thought the proposed change may increase time is you roll all of the damage table rolls together unless the ap value is different. That and the addition of modifiers to the roll could cause confusion.

This system is already in place and is recognised within the game in general, so there's no need to add more rules bonuses to remember.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
With the proposed change to glancing hits I use, a glancing hit that tears off a tank tread won't necessarily affect the structural integrity of the whole vehicle. Same with knocking off a sponsor weapon or even blocking up a turret. These thing affect the vehicle but aren't causing the vehicle to be completely wiped out.

But in the current Hull Points system where we don't necessarily have a way of justifying part of the vehicle being destroyed (e.g. a weapon or the vehicle's tracks) without a HP being inflicted, that still means that your preferred rule has some holes.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Since causing glancing hits is not the easiest way to kill vehicles with this system, single shot high power weapons become a more prevalent option. And since the hullpoint loss doesn't require high ap, the high strength high ap weapons (like heavy venom cannons) can still function as an anti tank weapon.

Well both of our proposed systems make it harder for weapons with lower Strength and/or lower AP to cause Hull Point loss on a Glancing Hit (though your solution makes it significantly harder than mine). So even if (as suggested earlier in the thread) my rule is limited to Glancing Hits caused by Ballistic Attacks, it helps to reduce the AT capabilities if weapons that aren't necessarily designed to be AT guns while only making a minor nerf to existing AT guns (if they're nerfed at all by my rule).

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The reason I thought the proposed change may increase time is you roll all of the damage table rolls together unless the ap value is different. That and the addition of modifiers to the roll could cause confusion.

The added confusion is why I tried to avoid numerical modifiers and instead said "If you fit one of these conditions (which is a list I'm hoping to keep small), then you automatically pass the test. Otherwise you roll."

You guys ever consider 2 damage charts, one for glances and one for pens? Given modifiers for AP it can get complicated but offers more detail. The drawback is it would take more time to resolve.

Modifiers:
No AP: -1
AP6: No modifier
AP5: +1
AP4: +2
AP3: +3
AP2: +4
AP1: +5
Open-topped: +1
Close Combat: +2

Glances:
0-3: Deflection
4-5: Optics hit (Shaken)
6-7: Crew wounded (Stunned)
8-9: Weapon destroyed (Wpn destroyed)
10-11: Track hit (1HP, Immobilized)

Pen:
0-3: Non-critical
4-5: Hull compromised (1HP removed, Shaken)
6-7: Critical penetration (1HP removed, Stunned)
8-9: Mobility kill (2HP, Immobilized)
10-11: Catastrohic kill (Explodes!)

Rending and Gauss incur an automatic 1HP loss.

In terms of simplicity though, the original proposal is pretty solid. Adding up all those modifiers could get really annoying in a bigger game.

Fair enough. We are both solving a problem.

Your solution lowers the amount of times a glancing hit does anything so people won't see it as the "go to" anti vehicle option it is now.

Mine allows glancing hits to modify gameplay without invalidating vehicle survivability. Which, again, makes glancing hits less effective at outright killing vehicles.

Main reason I went the rout I did was because in 5th ed a glance would almost never destroy a vehicle, but would cause other problems due to rolling on the damage chart. I liked that system and when you look at the current damage chart it is very close to the old one with a negative modifier. So I kind of went retro on it.

With my version of the rule, a glance will always matter. With the one in the op there is a chance the glance did nothing.

@Yoyoyo

I'd probably leave the AP bonuses as they are (AP 1 = +2, and AP 2 = +1, with the rest providing no bonuses) and then have a slightly modified version of your Glances Table.

I'd probably leave the current VDT as is with a few minor changes (such as additional HP on Immobilised results being removed).

It would be nice if there was more distinction for weapons like Krak Missiles, Grenades and Autocannons, which are ostensibly AT weapons at AP3/AP4.

Maybe you could roll your original glance save 1st, then roll on a glancing VDC.

Yoyoyo wrote:
It would be nice if there was more distinction for weapons like Krak Missiles, Grenades and Autocannons, which are ostensibly AT weapons at AP3/AP4.

It would be, but a larger scale of numerical values (e.g. Strength and Toughness have a range bigger than 1 - 10 such as 1 - 15 or 1 - 20, and AP values also taking on a larger scale etc etc) would probably do a lot better job or making that distinction than trying to make better distinctions within the current system.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Maybe you could roll your original glance save 1st, then roll on a glancing VDC.

Just as long as that Glancing VDT doesn't contain anything that would normal warrant the infliction of a Hull Point. For example, the Weapon Destroyed and Track Hit results on your Glancing VDT you proposed earlier should not be on that table, especially if we're making a separate roll for whether or not the Glancing Hit inflicts a Hull Point.

I like the idea of an AP-based "save" against glances, should tone them down a bit. To be honest I've been wondering whether we even need glancing hits at all; we could just as easily get away with penetrating hit or nothing, but that would require tweaks to vehicles, would make Land Raiders pretty solid again though.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Armorbane gives +1, Melta gives +1 (so yeah, most melta weapons auto-pass the check), Ordnance re-rolls 1's.

Do Armourbane and Melta especially need bonus treatment? An Eviscerator for example is AP2 already so a +1 would make it an auto-pass, same with Melta weapons which are usually AP1. I think they're already pretty well covered by their good AP and ability to punch through armour due to their bonus armour penetration dice. Likewise with Ordnance being able to re-roll the dice, I think these are all covered pretty well by their ability to penetrate instead of glance in the first place, and usually have solid AP anyway so no need for extra rules at all.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Rending I'm fine with being an auto-pass. It's representing how impossibly sharp the weapon is, allowing one to cut through a material they would otherwise not have the strength to do so.

I'm not sure I agree with this; Assault Cannons are Rending and I wouldn't call them "impossibly sharp", I'd say it's more representative of them getting a lucky hit on a weak spot and just blowing right through, whereas with melee weapons it's more about the weapon's ability to exploit a weak point like the joints in terminator armour or whatever. Rending already has a bonus to armour penetration which makes glances less likely in the first place, so again I'd say they don't need special treatment. Besides, Assault Cannons already inflict all kinds of hurt on light vehicles as it is, I think they'd be fine with a slight reduction, and with AP4 they still inflict 50% glancing damage.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Gauss, however, shouldn't be a free ride. Crons have an easy enough time removing HP.

Agreed here; Gauss weapons already have the advantage of being able to inflict glances even when they shouldn't be able to, and IMO they're a prime example of a weapon that glance protection should be aiming to help against. Not that I'm saying Gauss weapons are an ideal way to take down vehicles, but when they roll well it's frustrating to see a bunch of HP's disappear. The bonus is really that if your warriors have nothing else to shoot at then they can try their luck against a vehicle, as they might help another unit to finish it off faster.
The benefit of glance protection to me is that it makes vehicles tougher to glance to death for everyone, making Necrons an exception would be counter productive IMO.

@Haravikk:

So am I right when I interpret what you're saying as the following?:

Armourbane, Gauss, Melta, and Rending should not be on the list of Special Rules that automatically pass my proposed Armour Glancing Check.

 IllumiNini wrote:
<snippity>
-- Glancing Hits [In the real world] don't always have an effect. They may just bounce of the armour and/or leave a light scratch. In this case, I feel comfortable saying that this concept can be reasonably translated to the tabletop via a rule or instance such as the one I'm proposing.

<snip>

Responding to that, specifically - 40k seems to represent "hits" that don't actually do damage, that just bounce off, as failed armor pen rolls, not as glancing hits. I'm taking a bit of an educated guess, but the "glancing hit" category seems intended to represent attacks that hit hard enough to damage something, but did not actually pierce the armor, specifically excluding shots that just harmlessly donk off, leaving a scratch.

 Haravikk wrote:
I like the idea of an AP-based "save" against glances, should tone them down a bit. To be honest I've been wondering whether we even need glancing hits at all; we could just as easily get away with penetrating hit or nothing, but that would require tweaks to vehicles, would make Land Raiders pretty solid again though.

If the OP was an actual Armour Save for Glancing Hits, it could work, and I could get behind it. It would also allow situations where the auto-Glance from a Gauss Blaster would be more reliable than one from a Gauss Flayer.

From how it was written, it just seemed as if the shooting player had to Reroll a successful Glancing Hit with a different target number. That's not something I'm okay with as a base rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jade_angel wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
<snippity>
-- Glancing Hits [In the real world] don't always have an effect. They may just bounce of the armour and/or leave a light scratch. In this case, I feel comfortable saying that this concept can be reasonably translated to the tabletop via a rule or instance such as the one I'm proposing.

<snip>

Responding to that, specifically - 40k seems to represent "hits" that don't actually do damage, that just bounce off, as failed armor pen rolls, not as glancing hits. I'm taking a bit of an educated guess, but the "glancing hit" category seems intended to represent attacks that hit hard enough to damage something, but did not actually pierce the armor, specifically excluding shots that just harmlessly donk off, leaving a scratch.

Pretty much. There are many cases of World War II tanks which were abandoned because a glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel (or just went through the barrel from the side), with no other damage recorded. Treads were also incredibly vulnerable to hits from the size.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
I like the idea of an AP-based "save" against glances, should tone them down a bit. To be honest I've been wondering whether we even need glancing hits at all; we could just as easily get away with penetrating hit or nothing, but that would require tweaks to vehicles, would make Land Raiders pretty solid again though.

If the OP was an actual Armour Save for Glancing Hits, it could work, and I could get behind it. It would also allow situations where the auto-Glance from a Gauss Blaster would be more reliable than one from a Gauss Flayer.

From how it was written, it just seemed as if the shooting player had to Reroll a successful Glancing Hit with a different target number. That's not something I'm okay with as a base rule.

The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

 Charistoph wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
<snippity>
-- Glancing Hits [In the real world] don't always have an effect. They may just bounce of the armour and/or leave a light scratch. In this case, I feel comfortable saying that this concept can be reasonably translated to the tabletop via a rule or instance such as the one I'm proposing.

<snip>

Responding to that, specifically - 40k seems to represent "hits" that don't actually do damage, that just bounce off, as failed armor pen rolls, not as glancing hits. I'm taking a bit of an educated guess, but the "glancing hit" category seems intended to represent attacks that hit hard enough to damage something, but did not actually pierce the armor, specifically excluding shots that just harmlessly donk off, leaving a scratch.

Pretty much. There are many cases of World War II tanks which were abandoned because a glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel (or just went through the barrel from the side), with no other damage recorded. Treads were also incredibly vulnerable to hits from the size.

At the same time, there were cases where the rounds (even the larger rounds such as High Velocity AT rounds) bouncing off the armour and away without causing any damage. This sort of glance without damage is what I'm trying to immitate with this rule.

As a side note, I would consider the ... glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel... to be a scenario that's represented by the game's Penetrating Hit mechanic.

The ones that bounce off would be the ones that failed to penetrate because they already hit.

A glancing hit that happened to take off a cannon or tread without destroying the structural integrity of the vehicle is actually what my change provides.

 IllumiNini wrote:
The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

It doesn't have to be a literal Armour Save. I was just equating it to one for sake of concept. Considering it is also based on AP of the Weapon, it isn't that far out. Basically, it's the concept that the owning player gets a chance to prevent the damage instead of the shooting player having to do more work to make the damage stick.

As a base mechanic, the Save is a better approach than rerolling a success.

 IllumiNini wrote:
At the same time, there were cases where the rounds (even the larger rounds such as High Velocity AT rounds) bouncing off the armour and away without causing any damage. This sort of glance without damage is what I'm trying to immitate with this rule.

As a side note, I would consider the ... glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel... to be a scenario that's represented by the game's Penetrating Hit mechanic.

But it only penetrated the Weapon, not the Hull.

And to be fair, if a Glancing Hit is a unmodified Roll on the VDT, 5/6 results will do nothing permanent to the Vehicle, and only subsequent Rolls on 6 will cause Hull Point loss.

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Haravikk:

So am I right when I interpret what you're saying as the following?:

Armourbane, Gauss, Melta, and Rending should not be on the list of Special Rules that automatically pass my proposed Armour Glancing Check.

Yeah; all of these already have bonuses so IMO there's no real need to make them pass these glancing checks more easily. In fact all but Gauss have bonuses to make it easier to penetrate in the first place, which I think is plenty, and with good AP most will glance easily enough anyway.
Gauss will be weakened by two-thirds against vehicles, but it's still getting automatic glancing hits on vehicles regardless of armour value, which I think is still sufficient bonus for weapons that are primarily for anti-infantry anyway.

 IllumiNini wrote:
The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

What do you mean by "define it"? Vehicles can already get cover and invulnerable saves, it's not complicated. As for most anti-tank weapons ignoring the armour save, that's the point; the issue is that glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons is the superior method.

Haravikk wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Haravikk:

So am I right when I interpret what you're saying as the following?:

Armourbane, Gauss, Melta, and Rending should not be on the list of Special Rules that automatically pass my proposed Armour Glancing Check.

Yeah; all of these already have bonuses so IMO there's no real need to make them pass these glancing checks more easily. In fact all but Gauss have bonuses to make it easier to penetrate in the first place, which I think is plenty, and with good AP most will glance easily enough anyway.
Gauss will be weakened by two-thirds against vehicles, but it's still getting automatic glancing hits on vehicles regardless of armour value, which I think is still sufficient bonus for weapons that are primarily for anti-infantry anyway.

Fair enough. I can respect that.

Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

It doesn't have to be a literal Armour Save. I was just equating it to one for sake of concept. Considering it is also based on AP of the Weapon, it isn't that far out. Basically, it's the concept that the owning player gets a chance to prevent the damage instead of the shooting player having to do more work to make the damage stick.

As a base mechanic, the Save is a better approach than rerolling a success.

So maybe a baseline Invulnerable Save (or something like that) instead?

I tried to define an Invulnerable Save for Vehicles that would serve as their 'Armour' Save, but it ended up having way too many 'ifs' and 'buts'.

Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
At the same time, there were cases where the rounds (even the larger rounds such as High Velocity AT rounds) bouncing off the armour and away without causing any damage. This sort of glance without damage is what I'm trying to immitate with this rule.

As a side note, I would consider the ... glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel... to be a scenario that's represented by the game's Penetrating Hit mechanic.

But it only penetrated the Weapon, not the Hull.

And to be fair, if a Glancing Hit is a unmodified Roll on the VDT, 5/6 results will do nothing permanent to the Vehicle, and only subsequent Rolls on 6 will cause Hull Point loss.

Fair enough, though it still doesn't sit 100% right with me. I understand that it's not penetrating the Hull with, for example, a Weapon Destroyed result, but it still seems off to me for a Glancing Hit to do this to a Vehicle without also inflicting a Hull Point (since - at least to my mind - the infliction of a Hull Point is supposed to go hand-in-hand with damage to the vehicle).

I will, however, put this "Roll an Unmodified D6 on the VDT for Glancing Hits" in the original post and start a poll. I'd be interested to see which of our rules people would prefer.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

What do you mean by "define it"?

What I mean by 'define it' is how to word a rule that explains what a 'Vehicle Armour Save' is, etc etc etc (much the same way that what's in the quote in the original post defines my proposed rule).

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Vehicles can already get cover and invulnerable saves, it's not complicated.

The complexity isn't derived from the concept of an Armour Save, but more so when it comes to defining it so that it isn't completely useless (because, for example, it's ignored because of a weapin's AP Value) or too overpowered. Again, properly defining a Vehicle Armour Save has been complicated in my experience.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
As for most anti-tank weapons ignoring the armour save, that's the point...

So with regards to AT Weapons and Vehicle Armour Saves, I really don't see the point in having an Armour Save at all on vehicles unless you define it as an Invulnerable Save rather than an Armour Save.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
... the issue is that glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons is the superior method.

This is part of the problem I hope to address with the rule.