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.

DEFINITELY the first proposal. The second proposal is just gonna bring back the horrendous stun locking extravaganza that made non-transport vehicles useless in 5th edition.

Hasn't yet in any of my games. It's a 1/6 chance (normally) to get a glancing hit. It really isn't that big a deal.

My vehicle being forced to shoot snapshots as opposed to being destroyed is preferable IMO.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 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.

Vehicles don't need additional defence against anti-tank weapons, they need defence against glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons. Therefore, armour saves work; they are ignored by the AP values present on anti-tank weapons (and Rending), but not ignored by the weapons that are causing the issue (aforementioned high-volume medium-strength weapons). If a vehicle has a 3+ save, it becomes vastly more durable against, for instance, scatter lasers, but it does not change against krak missiles.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what your difficulty is with "defining" a vehicle armour save. Either you are unsure of how this would work (which is very simple - a vehicle's armour save functions exactly like a vehicle's invulnerable save does, except it may be ignored by a weapon of appropriate AP value) or you are unsure as to what saves (3+, 4+, etc) to give what vehicles. That's a balance question that needs worked out on a per-vehicle basis, but largely I'd say most should have 4+ with the occasional 3+, and a 5+ for most skimmer types.

If you give a vehicle a 4+ invulnerable save, all weapons become 50% less effective against it, including lascannons and autocannons. If you give a vehicle a 4+ armour save, only weapons of AP5/6/- become less effective against it. Lascannon type weapons do not need a nerf, glance-spam does. The only logical choice is an armour save.

I don't think their is a difficulty in determining armour saves for vehicles; however it violates the principle of Occam's Razor and necessitates the adding of a new stat to every single vehicle. In terms of gameplay effect there is no difference between rolling a save and rolling this AP check proposed in the OP. It doesn't matter which player rolls the dice. A vehicle armour save of 3+ against a weapon of AP 5 has EXACTLY the same effect as just rolling for a 5+ from that AP value. The difference is that we already have AP values included in this game. We don't have any vehicle armour saves, they would need to be determined and added for each vehicle. That's why I proposed this AP check, so we could make use of a stat that's already there.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Vehicles don't need additional defence against anti-tank weapons, they need defence against glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons. Therefore, armour saves work; they are ignored by the AP values present on anti-tank weapons (and Rending), but not ignored by the weapons that are causing the issue (aforementioned high-volume medium-strength weapons). If a vehicle has a 3+ save, it becomes vastly more durable against, for instance, scatter lasers, but it does not change against krak missiles.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what your difficulty is with "defining" a vehicle armour save. Either you are unsure of how this would work (which is very simple - a vehicle's armour save functions exactly like a vehicle's invulnerable save does, except it may be ignored by a weapon of appropriate AP value) or you are unsure as to what saves (3+, 4+, etc) to give what vehicles. That's a balance question that needs worked out on a per-vehicle basis, but largely I'd say most should have 4+ with the occasional 3+, and a 5+ for most skimmer types.

My difficulty is with defining the value of the Armour Save such that it's not only appropriate for the vehicle and its type (e.g. Open-Topped, Super Heavy, Different Armour Values on different Armour Facings, etc), but also does exactly what I want it to do. As I said, In my experience: I have had trouble with this since defining a generic Vehicle Armour Save usually results in an Armour Save which is under- or over-powered. If you want to show me that it's easy, I invite you to properly and clearly define a Vehicle Armour Save.

And Marksman is right in that the initial proposal makes use of an existing characteristic to do nearly exactly the same thing as the armour save without introducing a new characteristic for all vehicles (which also means that this rule likely will require less balancing).

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Hasn't yet in any of my games. It's a 1/6 chance (normally) to get a glancing hit. It really isn't that big a deal.

My vehicle being forced to shoot snapshots as opposed to being destroyed is preferable IMO.

A glance is a 1 in 6, yes, but you're increasing the frequency of damage chart rolls by 16.66 % which is a substantial increase. The initial proposal is better because it does something to address the fragility of vehicles without going back to stun lock edition.

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't think their is a difficulty in determining armour saves for vehicles; however it violates the principle of Occam's Razor and necessitates the adding of a new stat to every single vehicle. In terms of gameplay effect there is no difference between rolling a save and rolling this AP check proposed in the OP. It doesn't matter which player rolls the dice. A vehicle armour save of 3+ against a weapon of AP 5 has EXACTLY the same effect as just rolling for a 5+ from that AP value. The difference is that we already have AP values included in this game. We don't have any vehicle armour saves, they would need to be determined and added for each vehicle. That's why I proposed this AP check, so we could make use of a stat that's already there.

Perhaps it's because I'm already rewriting the whole game (as are many of late), but adding a save for each vehicle isn't an issue to me. Really my only opposition to the AP check is that I don't like it; it gives a vehicle a "save" against glancing but not penetrating hits, which I just find odd. It also means that AP1 and 2 can now fail a glance on a further roll of a 1 (unless a 1 is not considered a fail, in which case it only matters to AP2).

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Vehicles don't need additional defence against anti-tank weapons, they need defence against glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons. Therefore, armour saves work; they are ignored by the AP values present on anti-tank weapons (and Rending), but not ignored by the weapons that are causing the issue (aforementioned high-volume medium-strength weapons). If a vehicle has a 3+ save, it becomes vastly more durable against, for instance, scatter lasers, but it does not change against krak missiles.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what your difficulty is with "defining" a vehicle armour save. Either you are unsure of how this would work (which is very simple - a vehicle's armour save functions exactly like a vehicle's invulnerable save does, except it may be ignored by a weapon of appropriate AP value) or you are unsure as to what saves (3+, 4+, etc) to give what vehicles. That's a balance question that needs worked out on a per-vehicle basis, but largely I'd say most should have 4+ with the occasional 3+, and a 5+ for most skimmer types.

My difficulty is with defining the value of the Armour Save such that it's not only appropriate for the vehicle and its type (e.g. Open-Topped, Super Heavy, Different Armour Values on different Armour Facings, etc), but also does exactly what I want it to do. As I said, In my experience: I have had trouble with this since defining a generic Vehicle Armour Save usually results in an Armour Save which is under- or over-powered. If you want to show me that it's easy, I invite you to properly and clearly define a Vehicle Armour Save.

And Marksman is right in that the initial proposal makes use of an existing characteristic to do nearly exactly the same thing as the armour save without introducing a new characteristic for all vehicles (which also means that this rule likely will require less balancing).

I didn't say it was easy, or that Marksman's proposal is "wrong". I brought it up because I didn't understand your stated reasons as to why an armour save system couldn't work (particularly with your reasoning "because AT weapons would ignore the saves and therefore there's no point unless they're invulnerable saves"). It's fine to just prefer a different method, of course.

Currently I'm working with most vehicles having a 4+ save, with Walkers having one that is appropriate to their army and their equivalents (all Dreadnoughts have a 3+, comparative with the similar Wraithlord, while Scout Sentinels have a 5+ and Armoured Sentinels a 4+). Facings don't apply, because that's what AV is for. Lighter vehicles like Land Speeders have a 5+. No vehicle has a 2+ save yet, simply because I can't justify it. The few AP3 weapons that exist don't need to be even less relevant - a krak missile glancing a Land Raider on a 6 is hardly broken, while requiring it to bypass a 2+ save would make it more or less useless. It's a rough work in progress, but so far the general rule of thumb is that most vehicles have a 4+ save unless they have access to Jink. It's intended as a means to even out the issue of skimmers and Monstrous Creatures being objectively better than non-skimmer vehicles and walkers. 4+ being common is also a way to increase the relative usefulness of autocannons; if 3+ was the baseline, they would suffer immensely. So far 4+ feels like a nice balance in that it doesn't render anything totally useless while the things that should be piercing it are doing so.

I didn't say it was easy, or that Marksman's proposal is "wrong". I brought it up because I didn't understand your stated reasons as to why an armour save system couldn't work (particularly with your reasoning "because AT weapons would ignore the saves and therefore there's no point unless they're invulnerable saves"). It's fine to just prefer a different method, of course.

Currently I'm working with most vehicles having a 4+ save, with Walkers having one that is appropriate to their army and their equivalents (all Dreadnoughts have a 3+, comparative with the similar Wraithlord, while Scout Sentinels have a 5+ and Armoured Sentinels a 4+). Facings don't apply, because that's what AV is for. Lighter vehicles like Land Speeders have a 5+. No vehicle has a 2+ save yet, simply because I can't justify it. The few AP3 weapons that exist don't need to be even less relevant - a krak missile glancing a Land Raider on a 6 is hardly broken, while requiring it to bypass a 2+ save would make it more or less useless. It's a rough work in progress, but so far the general rule of thumb is that most vehicles have a 4+ save unless they have access to Jink. It's intended as a means to even out the issue of skimmers and Monstrous Creatures being objectively better than non-skimmer vehicles and walkers. 4+ being common is also a way to increase the relative usefulness of autocannons; if 3+ was the baseline, they would suffer immensely. So far 4+ feels like a nice balance in that it doesn't render anything totally useless while the things that should be piercing it are doing so.

I think this is a bad idea. Your way of doing things makes vehicles even more fragile than before. Your proposed rule makes it so pretty much everyone and everything can wound a vehicle. How is that good?

@Frozen Ocean:

I'm not entirely sure why you don't like my rule. Yes, an armour save may do the job just as well as my rule (or maybe a bit better), but so far you seem to be arguing that your rule is better even though you have a general concept rather than a well laid out, complete rule.

Here's how I'm reading what you've said:

You don't like my rule, presumably because you like the concept of an Armour Save better, but I can't tell.

Now, let's consider my proposal (labelled 'Initial Proposal' in the now updated original post):

-- AP1 gets a free ride (meaning it automatically passes the test and inflicts an HP automatically).
-- Now, AP2 will be affected, but it still has a 5 in 6 chance of Inflicting a Hull Point.

Now, considering a vast number of Anti-Tank Weapons fall in the category of AP1 or AP2, I reckon they're not being treated unfairly by my rule and can still do what they're designed to do with respect to Glancing Hits: Do damage.

Now, with AP3:
-- It still has a decent probability of passing the check (two thirds is a solid probability) and inflicting a HP, so things like Krakk Missiles and Hunter-Killer Missiles still have a decent chance at inflicting a HP on a Glancning Hit.

Now of AP4 - 6, this is where most of the high RoF weapons which can also be AT weapons fall in, and these are the weapons we're trying to stop Glancing Vehicles to death.

Now, take the Assault Cannon for example: Assault 4 AP4. Even if all 4 shots were Glancing Hits, only two of them would actually inflict a HP under my rule (statistically speaking). That is a solid reduction, and that's for AP4. With AP5, the number of Glancing Hits inflicting HP is reduced by 66.67% and that reduction is 83.33% on AP6.

And then you take the bottom of the spectrum: AP-. As I've said before, consider a 10-man Tactical Squad with Chainswords hitting AV10 on a non-Walker Vehicle. Even if they all had a only 1 Attack each (so 10 Attacks total hitting on a 3+ at S4 AP-), they are still statistically going to inflict 1.11111.... ~ 1 Hull Point on the vehicle. Statistics aside, I've seen rolls in situations like this where a Tactical/Crusader Squad is hitting AV10 that have led to the squad comfortably killing the target which has 2 - 3 Hull Points (which have proven to be not uncommon rolls in my experience). And even if you disregard all that because of "That's only 1 HP" or "That's just your experience", consider the fact that if you're charging a vehicle with an infantry squad, you're more than likely going to have some AT (such as Melta Bombs, a Power Fist, Krakk Grenades, etc), so we don't need Chainswords in the works doing spam damage.

The scenario described directly above with the Tactical Squads as well as the weapons we're both trying to target with our rules (e.g. Assault Canons) are comfortably dealt with by my rule while leaving all other Anti-Tank Weapons with a reasonable chance of doing damage with a Glancing Hit (as well as the fact that Anti-Tank Weapons don't rely on Glancing Hits to do damage).

If your problem with my rule is that it doesn't address Penetrating Hits, it should be noted that I never said that this rule was meant to address Penetrating Hits, and nor did I say that Penetrating Hits should be exempt from a rule like this (meaning that if you think Penetrating Hits should be harder to make, you're more than welcome to come up with a method of making that happen and I will probably agree with the premise (if nothing else)).

I think its a bit silly as you've already failed to penetrate so why do you get another chance to do so!
If you are going to implement it then be fair... say if you penetrate then theres a chance that its might be a glancing hit!!!!!!
I just leave out glancing hits altogether.

licclerich wrote:
I think its a bit silly as you've already failed to penetrate so why do you get another chance to do so!

I'm not giving them another chance to cause a Penetrating Hit - that's not what this rule is doing.

licclerich wrote:
If you are going to implement it then be fair... say if you penetrate then theres a chance that its might be a glancing hit!!!!!!

I'll direct you to something I said in the post directly above yours:

If your problem with my rule is that it doesn't address Penetrating Hits, it should be noted that I never said that this rule was meant to address Penetrating Hits, and nor did I say that Penetrating Hits should be exempt from a rule like this (meaning that if you think Penetrating Hits should be harder to make, you're more than welcome to come up with a method of making that happen and I will probably agree with the premise (if nothing else)).

licclerich wrote:
I just leave out glancing hits altogether.

Why?

 NorseSig wrote:
I think this is a bad idea. Your way of doing things makes vehicles even more fragile than before. Your proposed rule makes it so pretty much everyone and everything can wound a vehicle. How is that good?

Where are you getting that from? The armour save is meant to work like any other, in that's rolled for "wounds" (or in this case, glancing and penetrating hits). Exactly the same as cover and invulnerable saves work for vehicles in the vanilla game, except they can be ignored by AP.

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Frozen Ocean:

I'm not entirely sure why you don't like my rule. Yes, an armour save may do the job just as well as my rule (or maybe a bit better), but so far you seem to be arguing that your rule is better even though you have a general concept rather than a well laid out, complete rule.

Here's how I'm reading what you've said:

You don't like my rule, presumably because you like the concept of an Armour Save better, but I can't tell.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-mathhammer snip-.

I didn't say that your rule didn't function. I also didn't say those things you put in quotes ("That's only 1 HP" and "That's just your experience"). I'm not arguing against your rule or for my own. It's just not my preference. It just doesn't "feel" right to me, that's all. I'm not saying it's objectively inferior to mine or any other method, or that it doesn't work. I was trying to refute the statements earlier in the thread about how an armour save could not work at all, because there were a couple of statements regarding the matter that I disagreed with. I apologise if I came across as trying to supplant/discredit your proposal.

EDIT: I brought up the lack of penetrating hit protection as part of the reason why it doesn't feel quite right, not that there should or shouldn't be any.

Fair enough, and I'm sorry: I just slightly misinterpreted what you were trying to say. My bad.

With the "That's only 1 HP" quotes, I wasn't trying to mean that you said them, but more of a generic statement to say that I've considered other (albeit slightly different) standpoints on this.

As for the Penetrating Hit stuff, I am considering doing another rule for them but didn't include them in this rule since they are two quite separate things. Then this new rule surounding Penetrating Hits would be paired and thus form a new basis for the restructure of the results for the To Penetrate rolls.

While I like the idea, and I think it has some merit to it, I honestly think glancing hits should incur no HP loss, but get to roll on the damage chart (with some negatives).

 War Kitten wrote:
While I like the idea, and I think it has some merit to it, I honestly think glancing hits should incur no HP loss, but get to roll on the damage chart (with some negatives).

Fair enough. We might have to agree to disagree, then! haha

Just so it doesn't look like I'm dismissing this VDT with no HP Loss idea out of hand because I proposed a rule I like, here's what's irking me about the VDT idea and why I think it makes no sense:

Crew Shaken - I can see how this may work, but unless you can come up with a new VDT that has some similarly 'harmless' results, I'm not seeing this particular result working on its own.

Crew Stunned - Assuming a solid vehicle (not Open-Topped), then to my mind it makes absolutely no sense that the projectile of the weapon (whatever it is) can shake the vehicle enough to stun the crew without doing damage of some sort. Assuming an Open-Topped vehicle, how will you differentiate what happens to a vehicle that is Open-Topped vs a vehicle that's not?

Weapon Destroyed - Now, I know it doesn't technically penetrate the hull, but you are doing damage to the structure of the vehicle. Take, for example, the destruction of a sponson weapon. Said destruction may mean that the structural integrity of the armour the sponson was attached to is compromised, or there's a thinner layer of armour because the weapon isn't there. These aforementioned downfalls of the weapon being destroyed aren't things the game system in its current state can account for, plus (as I said) you're doing damage to the structure of the vehicle (even if it isn't the hull); hence HP loss is required here.

Immobilised - Same sort of deal as the Weapon Destroyed result. Plus there's more than one way to immoblised a vehicle apart from knocking out its tracks. Destroying the engine without exploding it is one, which would definitely cause HP loss (and not just on additional immobilised results).

 IllumiNini wrote:
Crew Stunned - Assuming a solid vehicle (not Open-Topped), then to my mind it makes absolutely no sense that the projectile of the weapon (whatever it is) can shake the vehicle enough to stun the crew without doing damage of some sort. Assuming an Open-Topped vehicle, how will you differentiate what happens to a vehicle that is Open-Topped vs a vehicle that's not?

Simple, it shakes all the crew so their driver and shooters aren't able to work their systems properly. It happens just driving down the road for a regular driver without causing undue strain on the vehicle, why cannot a round that bounced off do the same? The shocking sound of the ricochet could also cause the crew to loose their hand positions thinking that they actually were Penetrated, or to go through measures in case they were..

 IllumiNini wrote:
Weapon Destroyed - Now, I know it doesn't technically penetrate the hull, but you are doing damage to the structure of the vehicle. Take, for example, the destruction of a sponson weapon. Said destruction may mean that the structural integrity of the armour the sponson was attached to is compromised, or there's a thinner layer of armour because the weapon isn't there. These aforementioned downfalls of the weapon being destroyed aren't things the game system in its current state can account for, plus (as I said) you're doing damage to the structure of the vehicle (even if it isn't the hull); hence HP loss is required here.

Sponsons are easily justified. They aren't part of the incorporated structure of the Vehicle. They don't hold up the ceiling of the Vehicle or keep the Engine or Motive systems in place.

In addition, as I pointed out earlier, the barrels themselves are exposed. We could be looking at the barrel being sheared in half from a ricochet or some circuits being misaligned such that they need shopwork to be repaired.

But remember, Penetrating Hits would not be loosing access to the VDT, either. So while a Glancing Weapon Destroyed may result in an easy repair on the Weapon, a Penetrating Hit would be damaging whole feeds as well as the structure of the Vehicle.

 IllumiNini wrote:
Immobilised - Same sort of deal as the Weapon Destroyed result. Plus there's more than one way to immoblised a vehicle apart from knocking out its tracks. Destroying the engine without exploding it is one, which would definitely cause HP loss (and not just on additional immobilised results).

True. But accessing the VDT would not be exclusive to the Glancing Hit, remember. A Glancing Hit may take out a Human Track, an Ork Wheel, or a Tau/Eldar/Necron exhaust Vent, while the Penetrating Hit would be digging deep to damage the engine itself inside the armoured plates and warping the holding structure surrounding it.

And let's face it, for most AT Weapons in the game, gaining a Penetrating Hit is actually EASIER than getting a Glancing Hit. A Lascannon hitting a Predator has a 1/3 chance to Penetrate versus a 1/6 Chance to Glance. Melta Weapons are even more likely to Penetrate due to their capacity to reach up to a total of 20 for the roll. Where this doesn't qualify is for those Weapons that are less-capable such as Tau Pulse Weapons or an IG Power Fist. Autocannons and most Plasma Weapons are in a grey area where they are good at taking out light Armour but are almost hopeless versus the heaviest AVs.

You make good and fair points, but the concept still doesn't sit well with me. It's not that it doesn't function well as a rule; it's more a conceptual thing that my mind is just not liking. So yeah, agree to disagree haha.

 Charistoph wrote:
And let's face it, for most AT Weapons in the game, gaining a Penetrating Hit is actually EASIER than getting a Glancing Hit. A Lascannon hitting a Predator has a 1/3 chance to Penetrate versus a 1/6 Chance to Glance. Melta Weapons are even more likely to Penetrate due to their capacity to reach up to a total of 20 for the roll. Where this doesn't qualify is for those Weapons that are less-capable such as Tau Pulse Weapons or an IG Power Fist. Autocannons and most Plasma Weapons are in a grey area where they are good at taking out light Armour but are almost hopeless versus the heaviest AVs.

I think this sums up a solid reason why both my proposal and the VDT proposal would work.

Agreed. Both your idea and the VDT proposal would work imo

 IllumiNini wrote:
You make good and fair points, but the concept still doesn't sit well with me. It's not that it doesn't function well as a rule; it's more a conceptual thing that my mind is just not liking. So yeah, agree to disagree haha.

As I said, my biggest problem with the original post is that it is tantamount to a reroll a successful Armour Penetration Roll. If we were looking at a Save function, like the owning player rolling UNDER the AP value, that would be a consideration. You are not punishing the shooter for not rolling well (even if only a Glance was possible), but giving an opportunity for the owner to save their Vehicle from being punished.

After all, should we have Successfull To Wound Rolls be rerolled if the the results are the minimum required to Wound?

But this would be adding a mechanic to the game while the VDT option just swaps two results, which is why I find it better.

I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.
On the other hand I still actually favour the second proposal.

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.

Because the shooting player is rolling to make sure the success stays a success, and is still based on meeting only the minimum requirements of "damaging" a Vehicle.

Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.

Because the shooting player is rolling to make sure the success stays a success, and is still based on meeting only the minimum requirements of "damaging" a Vehicle.

Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

Roll to wound.

Marksman224 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.

Because the shooting player is rolling to make sure the success stays a success, and is still based on meeting only the minimum requirements of "damaging" a Vehicle.

Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

Roll to wound.

Invalid. You only roll once for each To Wound attempt, barring Special Rules which allow for a reroll. The To Wound Roll does follow the To Hit Roll, and while the To Wound Roll is applied to make sure the Attack is a success, we do not ever reroll the To Wound or To Hit rolls themselves in the basic rules. (Yes, yes, Advanced and Codex rules will alter this affair, but this is a basic rule change we're talking about.)

 Charistoph wrote:

Invalid. You only roll once for each To Wound attempt, barring Special Rules which allow for a reroll. The To Wound Roll does follow the To Hit Roll, and while the To Wound Roll is applied to make sure the Attack is a success, we do not ever reroll the To Wound or To Hit rolls themselves in the basic rules. (Yes, yes, Advanced and Codex rules will alter this affair, but this is a basic rule change we're talking about.)

Just because you disagree with me that doesn't mean that my point is invalid. My point is valid.
If I conduct an attack I must roll to see if it's successful in one sense, then I have to roll to maintain that success. If I attack a vehicle I have to roll to hit, roll to penetrate, then roll to damage, it's the same thing.
So we're constantly making additional rolls in this game, which if failed will mean the previous result achieved nothing. The AP roll is NOT a re-roll of the penetration roll. It's no different to any of the others, it's just that it is the third roll instead of the second roll like the roll to wound is. If you want to argue this rule is bad because it adds more dice rolling, that's fine, just say so. I generally lean towards changes that reduce the number rolls that players need to make.

But, the vehicle may have already ALSO had to roll a save. Either rule is causing an additional die roll, both will add somewhat to vehicle survivability. With option two your glance will do SOMETHING no matter what. Will it mean the vehicle is probably not going to be as effective next turn? Probably. But there are wargear options for most factions to limit the penalties for crew shaken/stunned.

With the initial proposal the attacking unit that caused the glance may succeed on the die roll to make the glance do damage, and may then lose the damage anyway because of cover or invul saves. It is basically giving a fluctuating feel no pain against glancing hits.

One causes glancing hits to be less effective period. The other causes glancing hits to not be able to kill outright. Obviously, I am biased towards the second proposal. But it is how I've been playing glancing hits for months now and it has been a lot of fun!

(Caveat, I have a huge pile of houserules to go along with this one. So my games are pretty different from the norm)

 Charistoph wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.

Because the shooting player is rolling to make sure the success stays a success, and is still based on meeting only the minimum requirements of "damaging" a Vehicle.

Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

Soul Blaze?

Marksman224 wrote:Just because you disagree with me that doesn't mean that my point is invalid. My point is valid.
If I conduct an attack I must roll to see if it's successful in one sense, then I have to roll to maintain that success. If I attack a vehicle I have to roll to hit, roll to penetrate, then roll to damage, it's the same thing.
So we're constantly making additional rolls in this game, which if failed will mean the previous result achieved nothing. The AP roll is NOT a re-roll of the penetration roll. It's no different to any of the others, it's just that it is the third roll instead of the second roll like the roll to wound is. If you want to argue this rule is bad because it adds more dice rolling, that's fine, just say so. I generally lean towards changes that reduce the number rolls that players need to make.

You left it at "To Wound", though, and did not include it as part of the Attack profile set when you stated it. And even then, the To Wound process isn't completely set up to maintain the success of the To Hit process, but to determine a different level of success, not to maintain the same level of success already achieved.

If I was worried about rolling more Dice, I would have left the VDT concept out.

pm713 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

Soul Blaze?

Invalid. That is an Advanced Rule.

I'm not sure if this has been said yet (didn't read beyond OP), but I see one very big problem with this proposal.

It is obscenely punishing to melee armies and horde armies, both of which need no additional help when it comes to being bad.

I recognize that the rule is supposed to make things like auto cannons less lethal against vehicles, but right now it needs an addendum to only apply to ranged attacks. While it's somewhat silly to have small / middling ranged weapons be super effective against tanks, this does not carry over to melee attacks. The lethality of melee against most things with an AV is supposed to represent the vehicle being swarmed and guns being fired through the windows / sluts, grenades being tossed down the hatches, even crew being actively pulled out of the vehicle and such. As it stands the rules do a fair job of representing this, but with this suggested change you'd be almost completely gutting Orks and CSM against vehicles and vehicle spam.

You'd also be crippling tyranids, and they'd have to rely on extraordinarily slow monstrous creatures, Zoanthrope powers, or some middling / awful (and awfully specialized) weapons to take out armor.

Monstrous Creatures have Smash, which would make the Glancing Hit succeed on the roll of "anything but a". In this case, their Melee is largely fine. The same thing applies to most Dedicated AT Melee Weapons, namely Fists, Klaws, Meltabombs, and Hammers.

Where Tyranids are hurt is the same place that they've always been hurt and that is their Ranged AT weapons have the same AP as the Autocannon, for the most part. Again, there are some exceptions, but with Tyranid BS, they usually do not have the BS to take advantage of it, even with increased RoF.

I love the alternate proposal, so simple, yet so elegant.

But I would do it so the glance damage roll is still done with modifiers as normal, bringing value to low AP guns even on a "mere glace" compared to spam shots.

I mean, AP1 guns are intended to wreck tanks, so I'd rather see the S8AP1 shot be more destructive than the S8AP3 shot when a glance is hit.

This will turn low AP to be true tank killer guns, as even a "simple glance" is just as dangerous, but will keep the HP mechanic as a "clock" of sorts to assure you can't luck your way out of too many penetrating results with repeat stunned/shaken effects.


Really like the mindset behind it though. keeping things simple is a highly valuable design mechanic and the simple shift in though that "pen is HP and roll, glance is just HP" to "pen is HP and roll, glance is just roll" is truly something you headdesk after hearing and tell yourself "why did I not think of something this simple myself?"