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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If it's a problem, give the gauss special rule a penalty to the glancing save or eliminate it altogether. The 4+ vs glances is there to kneecap scatpacks and HYMPs.

Then maybe those weapons need to be priced appropriately. Scatterlasers should be 15 on the Bikes for example.

20, really. But we've been over that. It's every bit as good as an assault cannon. Better, really. 15 is still too cheap and they'd still be mindlessly spammed. S6, 4 shots, 36" is insane in 7th ed. Are we going to price bump autocannons because they are better anti-tank than lascannons atm?

 Marmatag wrote:
How about:

Take the lowest armor value on the vehicle.

AV10 - No saves of any kind allowed against glancing
AV11 - Saves on 6+ against glance
AV12 - Saves on 5+ against glance
AV13 - Saves on 4+ against glance
AV14+ - Saves on 3+ against glance

Glance, cover save (also, Jink), invlun saves, etc, all would be in the same slot. So you wouldn't get a cover save and a glance save, or Bjorn the Fell handed wouldn't get his invuln and the glance save.

This only applies to vehicles, no toughness based units, etc.

That doesn't really solve the issue of AV10 being glanced to death by bolter spam, and it completely invalidates armies that can only glance AV 14. Giving monoliths and land raiders a 3+ save pretty much guarantees a good number of armies won't be able to get a single HP off it at range.

I've seen a sort of "movement" save being taken. If a vehicle is stationary, no save, combat speed, 5+, cruising speed, 4+, flat out, 3+. This would simulate how hard these vehicles are to hit. However, I'm not sure what kind of save to make this. Making it a cover save would just make the hell that is 2+ rerollable jink saves even more prevalent, but anything else just wouldn't make sense. It also heavily favors fast vehicles over heavy ones, as the fast vehicles are going to be used more.

In the end, I don't think giving vehicles a save is the solution to this issue.

High AV vehicles aren't a problem at all at the moment, In fact, they're a complete joke between lance, haywire, D, assault, self-immobilization, grav, and melta. But a save breaks them. Okay.

I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

 Charistoph wrote:


Dark Eldar, their ranged Weapons that are used to Wreck Vehicles still tend to have good AP as well. Only the Grenades would suffer. To be fair here, all Grenades took a massive hit with the concept that one "throws" a Grenade in Melee already.

Dark eldar extremely struggle in wrecking vehilcles at range, if you take 3 ravager with 3 dark lances each and a unit of scourges with 4 haywire blasters you have the average to destroy 4 HP but with 500 points of units that are also very very fragile. AV12 is tough as AV14 as their anti tank weapons are all haywire or S8 lance. Typically there are high chances to fail wrecking a rhino in the shooting phase in turn 1 as the scourges start in reserve, and you won't never wreck more than a single vehicle by shooting.

People that complains about their fragile vehicles consider only the most overpowered armies as possible opponent. Only 4 armies can evaporate vehicles very easily, all the remaining ones can do it only in close combat or with more than a round of shooting.

Why giving a save only against glances? Orks don't have a single S9-10 weapon in their codex, only the stompa with its blast which costs 770 points. Dark eldar mostly rely on glancings with haywire weapons. Tyranids?

IMHO the only issue in 40k is the wrong cost of some units, there are some of them that are awfully undercosted and consequently overpowered. Fix them and the entire game would be fixed. Or play with friends and arrange balanced games.

"Why giving a save only against glances?"

Being the whole "glancing out" mechanic is what overpowers high ROF mid-STR weapons.

" consider only the most overpowered armies as possible opponent"

That's typically what I'm up against.

Martel732 wrote:


That's typically what I'm up against.

That's not what the majority of the players are up against. You can also see in the poll "what armies do you play" how many orks, chaos, AM, BA and tyranids are there. Ask your friends to balance your games, it's a game afterall.

About glancings I think their concept is balanced, I mean with a glance you only take a single HP, with a pen you take a HP and also get another bonus. Many vehicles can be wrecked or completely ruined by a single penetrating hit. I may even agree about giving some sort of save against glances but only if the armies that can actually only relying on glancing vehicles could receive some high strenght ranged weapons that are currently lacking.

It seems realistic to me that a high rate of fire with mid strenght weapons can cause more damages than a few high strenght shots.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


That's typically what I'm up against.

That's not what the majority of the players are up against. You can also see in the poll "what armies do you play" how many orks, chaos, AM, BA and tyranids are there. Ask your friends to balance your games, it's a game afterall.

About glancings I think their concept is balanced, I mean with a glance you only take a single HP, with a pen you take a HP and also get another bonus. Many vehicles can be wrecked or completely ruined by a single penetrating hit. I may even agree about giving some sort of save against glances but only if the armies that can actually only relying on glancing vehicles could receive some high strenght ranged weapons that are currently lacking.

It seems realistic to me that a high rate of fire with mid strenght weapons can cause more damages than a few high strenght shots.

That's not typically how anti-armor weapon work, unless you get to the extreme like a GAU-30.

At any rate, if you keep that mechanic, some weapons need a very substantial price increase.

"Ask your friends to balance your games, it's a game afterall."

They like tournament prep games.

Martel732 wrote:


At any rate, if you keep that mechanic, some weapons need a very substantial price increase.

I 100% agree with that, even with some bonus to make vehicles tougher some units and/or wargear would still remain awfully undercosted and supercheesy and need to receive a raise in their points value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:


They like tournament prep games.

I understand your complains, I would hate playing in a group like yours. But if you run BA in a super competitive environment you can't expect to compete, even if you get some rules fixed, you can only change army or change group of players.

I think every army should get to compete, having been on both ends of this.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

Hull points are good, In previous editions vehicles could literally have every shot penetrate their armour and still survive
It's the fact glances remove Hull points that causes problems that renders the actual anti-tank weapons relatively useless when throwing enough St6/7 will kill a vehicle faster.

I don't see the problem.

Nothing in the game at all actually replicates real life. So "real life" is not an excuse for how things should work on the table.

Vehicles need to suffer damage like everything else. So "glances" or just barely doing enough to wound, is going to be a factor no mater where you set the bar. Even if you took every vehicle and increased each AV by 1 so that the bar was raised to Str 7/8 glancing things to death then vehicles will still get glanced to death. As they should.

Players will always take the path of least resistance to accomplish the broadest effect. In fact, that is more or less always the case with everything. If people are going to bring vehicles then players will bring something to kill them. If the tools to kill vehicles are also useful for killing other things, then they will bring that.

You COULD specialize the weapons farther with special rule stipulations about what can hurt vehicles and what cannot, with anti vehicle weapons being less effective against non vehicles. But then you segregate the units into anti vehicle/anti infantry to the point where you start to attack their anti vehicle units with infantry until he has no way to deal with your vehicles. Versatility is more important in the game play.

It doesn't matter what you change it to. If players have a viable tool to kill them they will get killed. You make them tougher? they become a higher priority target, or they become not worth the investment and get ignored. Models you bring that get ignored means the game design failed someplace.

The problem is that armour value is very analogous to toughness in terms of wounding/penetrating.
However the fact that it's called an 'armour value' instead of 'toughness' procludes vehicles from an inbuilt save, gives them a chance to be crippled or outright killed (with consequences for those around them) in a single hit, and they tend to have fewer hull points (pretty much vehicle wounds) than units of equivalent toughness have wounds.

I don't see why vehicles shouldn't get some kind of save. However I feel it is somewhat flogging a dead horse since this is mentioned in every thread pertaining to vehicles.

Jbz` wrote:

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

Hull points are good, In previous editions vehicles could literally have every shot penetrate their armour and still survive
It's the fact glances remove Hull points that causes problems that renders the actual anti-tank weapons relatively useless when throwing enough St6/7 will kill a vehicle faster.

No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

Martel732 wrote:

 amanita wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of S6/7 being the panacea. It's how Tau and Eldar are face raping everything in the game like it's made of cardboard.

It's because hull points are really stupid.

On a side note, the GAU-30 isn't very good against MBT's either.

It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

Well the Gau-8 is having to penetrate the top armour of the tank which is no where near as thick as the front of the tank.

Personally I am, half-heartily, considering if glancing should be removed (I know. I know. Implications this will cause). Isn't a 'real' glancing hit a hit that does not penetrate.

The problem is that even a higher velocity depleted uranium 30mm munition is still trying to penetrate the armor of a vehicle designed to stop 120mm shells. Not very effective, hence the USAF wanting to replace the system. Top armor shots still hit at such an extreme angle they aren't particularly effective either.

Death by a thousand cuts just doesn't work on vehicles.

4th Ed problem: vehicle damage table makes them death traps.
5th Ed problem: radical change to same table makes them too strong.
Proper solution: change table to be a good balance between the two.
GW's solution: give vehicles 'wounds' making vehicles too weak again.
Standard proposed solution: give vehicles more wounds.
Amanita's new solution: bang head against wall.

amanita wrote:No, they're stupid. Just because GW changed the vehicle damage table to make them too resilient doesn't mean more bloat and record keeping was needed to rectify the original problem.

Why does everyone fall into the same trap when GW makes a dumb rule? Instead of fixing or modifying the original better rule people tend to try to fix the stupid new rule that never addressed the problem in the first place?

Hull Points are as stupid as Wounds on a Monstrous Creature, and that is the standard that Vehicles should be held to. Right now, Hull Points are lower than a Monstrous Creature's, and that is partly why Glancing is so effective on Vehicles, but considered, 'meh" on a MC. What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6? What is the highest on a Vehicle? 4, with an average of 3?

Think about this, or even try it. Every 2 HP Vehicle now has 4 Wounds, while every 3 HP now has 6 Wounds, and the 4 HP has 7 Wounds.

Now, trade the MCs down to being 2-4 Wounds and and ID chance on a die roll when hit by AP:1 or 2 Weapons.

Now how much fun are MCs?

Martel732 wrote:It is because it kills the crew inside even if it doesn't penetrate. Sorry, meant the GAU-8, which is a 30mm weapon.

How can a weapon that does not penetrate kill crew inside a Vehicle it needs to penetrate to reach? Something had to penetrate as a result of that weapon.

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC?

Three (Talos/Cronos/Wraithlord/Canoptek Spyder/Kastellan Robot)

"How can a weapon that does not penetrate kill crew inside a Vehicle it needs to penetrate to reach? Something had to penetrate as a result of that weapon."

Think about it. I'll post the answer tomorrow.

 Charistoph wrote:
What is the lowest number of Wounds on an MC? 4, with an average of 6?

Average of 6?
What are all of these 7 or 8+ wound MCs that are pulling the average up that high?

You people when talking about MC and vehicles only consider your own one and your typical opponent not the real average of them.

Vehicles with 3 HP are usually transports, is it fair to compare a trukk, a rhino or a raider to a monstrous creature?

An average of 6 wounds on a monstrous creatures? That's not true, the toughest ones have an average of 6, in the entire game only 4-5 monstrous creatures are really powerful. And that's not because of their MCs status but due to their wargear or psychic powers.

Again MCs are not a problem, overpowered units that cost only 180 or 295 points are. The new celestine and cawl are ten times tougher the nastiest MCs and cost only 200 points, are they ok only because they're part of the imperium? The should cost 400 points each at least.

Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

 Blackie wrote:


Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

No. It doesn't.

Why do people think this? The poison rule very specifically says it does not work against vehicles. Not AV. Vehicles. Vehicle is a unit type with a bunch of subtypes. If the vehicle type is changed from AV to T the unit type Vehicle still exists and poisoned weapons still don't hurt them.

Read the rules please.

Vehicles with 3 HP are usually transports, is it fair to compare a trukk, a rhino or a raider to a monstrous creature?

Like the Leman Russ, the Hammerhead, the Predator, the Doomsday Ark, and pretty much every other MBT for pretty much ever army that isn't a Land Raider.

Seriously, without 30k, I can't even recall a single non-Super-Heavy vehicle that isn't a Land Raider.

Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

Almost every version I've seen of a proposed rule that gives vehicles T instead of AV also gives them immunity to Poison and Fleshbane.

Beating up a strawman isn't nearly as impressive as you'd think.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

No. It doesn't.

Why do people think this? The poison rule very specifically says it does not work against vehicles. Not AV. Vehicles. Vehicle is a unit type with a bunch of subtypes. If the vehicle type is changed from AV to T the unit type Vehicle still exists and poisoned weapons still don't hurt them.

Read the rules please.

OK, that's because you're also assuming that the "vehicle" category still remains even abandoning the AV mechanics. I was thinking about wraitknights, riptides and stormsurges which have their T value while being not that different to walkers with AV in their concept, seems like big robots to me, but still affected by poisoned shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Vehicles with 3 HP are usually transports, is it fair to compare a trukk, a rhino or a raider to a monstrous creature?

Like the Leman Russ, the Hammerhead, the Predator, the Doomsday Ark, and pretty much every other MBT for pretty much ever army that isn't a Land Raider.

These vehicles, which are certainly more armoured than transports, don't seem as tough as any monstrous creature that has more than 3 wounds actually. The higher AV compared to fragile transports is there for a reason.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Giving T to vehicles instead of AV means that S1 poisoned weapons could hurt them. Imagine the typical dark eldar list with 80+ poisoned shots and BS4. Seems to me a way to create another gauss equivalent.

No. It doesn't.

Why do people think this? The poison rule very specifically says it does not work against vehicles. Not AV. Vehicles. Vehicle is a unit type with a bunch of subtypes. If the vehicle type is changed from AV to T the unit type Vehicle still exists and poisoned weapons still don't hurt them.

Read the rules please.

OK, that's because you're also assuming that the "vehicle" category still remains even abandoning the AV mechanics. I was thinking about wraitknights, riptides and stormsurges which have their T value while being not that different to walkers with AV in their concept, seems like big robots to me, but still affected by poisoned shots.

At no point in any thread where anyone has proposed changes to vehicles has anyone proposed the removal of the vehicle unit type. I have never seen it. If anyone does going forward that suggestion should be ignored. It's a dumb suggestion.

Wraithknight, riptides, and stormsurges are not vehicle walkers or super heavy vehicle walkers (Like a dreadnaught or a imperial knight). Their unit type is MC or GMC. They SHOULD be vehicle walkers. But they are not. Posion works against them because they are not vehicles.

 Lance845 wrote:


Wraithknight, riptides, and stormsurges are not vehicle walkers or super heavy vehicle walkers (Like a dreadnaught or a imperial knight). Their unit type is MC or GMC. They SHOULD be vehicle walkers. But they are not. Posion works against them because they are not vehicles.

That's exactly what I'm saying, it doesn't seem fair to hurt those nasty units with S1 poisoned, while dreadnoughts are unaffected, but since I don't have many other ways to deal with them I'll take it.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Wraithknight, riptides, and stormsurges are not vehicle walkers or super heavy vehicle walkers (Like a dreadnaught or a imperial knight). Their unit type is MC or GMC. They SHOULD be vehicle walkers. But they are not. Posion works against them because they are not vehicles.

That's exactly what I'm saying, it doesn't seem fair to hurt those nasty units with S1 poisoned, while dreadnoughts are unaffected, but since I don't have many other ways to deal with them I'll take it.

My proposed changes from the MC thread. Change those units to vehicle walkers. They should be vehicle walkers. I can see the argument for wraith constructs not being vehicles because they are not piloted. They are the actual living wraithbone bodies animated by the souls of dead eldar. I can see why that would be a MC or GMC. But not the Tau suits. Those are mechs with pilots in them. Not being vehicle walkers is ridiculous.

What if; glancing hits can do any number of hull points per turn, BUT cannot remove the final hull point. i.e. cannot wreck the vehicle completely.

Any idea how difficult it is for some armies to cause penetrating hits against av 12+