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.

I think there is a very good reason to make things immune to damage - time.
Is it worth rolling a million dice for a 56% chance to inflict one wound? Probably not.
So cut down on the gameplay friction and just round that down to zero. The reason why I think that's better than just "well don't roll then", I'd be handicapping myself during the game by forgoing that chance. Whereas if the game were balanced around that chance being zero I wouldn't be losing anything.

40k already has a problem with players volume stupendous amounts of dice to inflict only minor damage. I want a wargame not a dice rolling simulator.

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
...If I remember Star Wars correctly, there was this guy who blew up that heavily armored battlestation with a single shot that should never have penetrated the station's armor or shields. ...

Obviously because the dramatic moment happened the one time it needs to happen again in every piece of follow-on media just to make sure we completely deplete the specialness of it happening the first time.

You just described 4 of 9 SW movies.

And the entire EU, yes. Is that...good storytelling?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think there is a very good reason to make things immune to damage - time.

That's a fair point. However, if time spent rolling dice is your major problem with things not being immune to damage I think we'd be much better off reworking the frankly absurd number of dice being rolled in your average game of 40k.

Slipspace wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think there is a very good reason to make things immune to damage - time.

That's a fair point. However, if time spent rolling dice is your major problem with things not being immune to damage I think we'd be much better off reworking the frankly absurd number of dice being rolled in your average game of 40k.

I definitely agree.
IMO there should be only about 2-3 dice rolls in a resolution. So offence+defence, plus occasional extra rolls for FNP or rerolls or something.
I don't even think rolling more dice particularly adds much to the resolution, granularity wise. Sure you have the design space to make all sorts of minute differences, but the statistical differences become so minor it loses all significance.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


And the entire EU, yes. Is that...good storytelling?

Yes. People want to hear the same stories told over and over again. They are okey for the stories to be reskinned, or inconesquential details to be changed, but the very moment you do a big real change they get very angry.

If in ep 6 Luke would kill Vader, became the hand of the Emperor, and lived happily ever after people would have destroyed the cinemas.

Most human stories can boil down to. Hero goes on a trip, things happen to him, he get bigger , he confronts the big bad and wins.

If in ep 6 Luke would kill Vader, became the hand of the Emperor, and lived happily ever after people would have destroyed the cinemas.

Isn't that basically the story of Revenge of the Sith? Minus the happily ever after part and changing the characters around.

Cinemas are still standing where I live, at least.

Slipspace wrote:For balance purposes I think you need to be careful about making things immune to damage. Making something very, very resilient is probably the better approach. I remember the frustration of my Dark Eldar opponent in 5th edition when his squad of Wyches were stuck flailing pointlessly at a Dreadnought because they had no way to hurt it in melee and couldn't fall back voluntarily. In 40k's case, a lot of the problems stem from the scope of the game. It probably would be appropriate, for example, to have lasguns unable to hurt a Titan as is the case in Epic, but 40k is a game that tries to cram far too much into its scale. It's insane to have a game include things like Titans while also worrying about modelling the exact type of power sword a squad sergeant is carrying.

Part of the problem with your comparison is not that Wyches could not damage the Dreadnought, but that they couldn't get away and do something else. There was another rule issue getting in the way.

Part of the problem with Lasguns and even Boltguns not doing any damage to AV was the fact that if the unit had an AT weapon or two, the Lasguns and Bolters were REQUIRED to shoot at the same target instead of focusing fire on something more practical. This is the case of a bad rule causing a frustrating feel.

This isn't a case of the problem with the scope of the game, but how bad rules make for bad interactions, and GW seems to not be able to make a rule change without figuring out how to make it bad in another direction. Now not every model in a unit needs to shoot at the same target, but even a Grot can Wound a Titan. The first point makes sense, but the last is now prompts a head tilt of mild confusion.

Rihgu wrote:

If in ep 6 Luke would kill Vader, became the hand of the Emperor, and lived happily ever after people would have destroyed the cinemas.

Isn't that basically the story of Revenge of the Sith? Minus the happily ever after part and changing the characters around.

Cinemas are still standing where I live, at least.

Not the best example as Revenge of the Sith is a Prequel. We already know the overall results going in as Episode 3 is not intended to be the finality of the overall story while Return of the Jedi was at the time of its filming.

 Charistoph wrote:

Part of the problem with Lasguns and even Boltguns not doing any damage to AV was the fact that if the unit had an AT weapon or two, the Lasguns and Bolters were REQUIRED to shoot at the same target instead of focusing fire on something more practical. This is the case of a bad rule causing a frustrating feel.
.

Thats easy to solve.Allow units to split fire. I never understood why most restrictions on split fire even exist.

terror51247 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Part of the problem with Lasguns and even Boltguns not doing any damage to AV was the fact that if the unit had an AT weapon or two, the Lasguns and Bolters were REQUIRED to shoot at the same target instead of focusing fire on something more practical. This is the case of a bad rule causing a frustrating feel.
.

Thats easy to solve.Allow units to split fire. I never understood why most restrictions on split fire even exist.

That's probably one of the changes I'd make for the 3-7 paradigm, going back.

It did make for some critically important decision making though, especially for units like Tactical Squads. If you moved, you couldn't shoot your Heavy. If you fired your Rapid Fire guns, you couldn't charge. If you fired your Heavy at a vehicle, your bolters are wasted. You had to be on point with your priorities for the turn. I enjoyed those harsh tradeoffs, but it's understandably frustrating to many. I think being able to naturally split fire is better, and it creates areas for other decision making. It was especially harsh for new players, too. Probably not the thing you wanted for your basic troops of your flagship faction.

terror51247 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Part of the problem with Lasguns and even Boltguns not doing any damage to AV was the fact that if the unit had an AT weapon or two, the Lasguns and Bolters were REQUIRED to shoot at the same target instead of focusing fire on something more practical. This is the case of a bad rule causing a frustrating feel.
.

Thats easy to solve.Allow units to split fire. I never understood why most restrictions on split fire even exist.

Considering the rule came out of the switch between the more skirmish crunchy rules of 2nd to more of an army battle game of 3rd the most obvious was speed of play and balance issues. like Insectum7 said, it forced you to make tactical choices.

Slipspace wrote:

Spoiler:

 jeff white wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
I am all for introducing modifiers for Shooting rolls based on range.

Me too, and others...

As for WS comparisons a la 2nd Ed, with Initiative yes, I would be all for that too.
I never understood though why a guardsman should ever be a threat to an avatar, at all, without a special weapon like a power sword for example, so pure WS might not be enough...

This is a bit like the "lasguns can kill a titan" argument though. Back when there was a WS chart a Guardsman hit the Avatar on 5+ and wounded on 6+ and the Avatar got a save (can't remember if they had their 3+ save back then or if it was just the 5++). So a single Guardsman wasn't a threat to an Avatar. An entire squad...still wasn't. I think it worked quite well. It allowed for those one-in-a-million moments when a Guardsman killed an Avatar (likely after the Leman Russ had blasted most of its wounds off from long range) but in practical terms the Avatar was pretty much invulnerable, as it should be.

For balance purposes I think you need to be careful about making things immune to damage. Making something very, very resilient is probably the better approach.

Spoiler:

I remember the frustration of my Dark Eldar opponent in 5th edition when his squad of Wyches were stuck flailing pointlessly at a Dreadnought because they had no way to hurt it in melee and couldn't fall back voluntarily. In 40k's case, a lot of the problems stem from the scope of the game. It probably would be appropriate, for example, to have lasguns unable to hurt a Titan as is the case in Epic, but 40k is a game that tries to cram far too much into its scale. It's insane to have a game include things like Titans while also worrying about modelling the exact type of power sword a squad sergeant is carrying.

How is a guardsman gonna hurt an avatar? Laser rifle is not strong enough. Bullets melt. Knife will melt. Arm will probably melt. Psychology used to do more in the game, and this would be a good use of it. As for being* frustrated when combat knives can’t wound a dreadnought, good. You took the wrong unit. If the models and dice are wiser than the player, those dudes will run. Completely off the table.

 Insectum7 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Part of the problem with Lasguns and even Boltguns not doing any damage to AV was the fact that if the unit had an AT weapon or two, the Lasguns and Bolters were REQUIRED to shoot at the same target instead of focusing fire on something more practical. This is the case of a bad rule causing a frustrating feel.
.

Thats easy to solve.Allow units to split fire. I never understood why most restrictions on split fire even exist.

That's probably one of the changes I'd make for the 3-7 paradigm, going back.

It did make for some critically important decision making though, especially for units like Tactical Squads. If you moved, you couldn't shoot your Heavy. If you fired your Rapid Fire guns, you couldn't charge. If you fired your Heavy at a vehicle, your bolters are wasted. You had to be on point with your priorities for the turn. I enjoyed those harsh tradeoffs, but it's understandably frustrating to many. I think being able to naturally split fire is better, and it creates areas for other decision making. It was especially harsh for new players, too. Probably not the thing you wanted for your basic troops of your flagship faction.

While it is a hard tradeoff forcing decision making as far back as list creation, it is an artificial one that brought no distinct advantages other than possibly speed of game play by basically taking one or more guns out of the decision making process. Unfortunately, all or nothing for no more reason than, "those are the rules," can come across as both sloppy and frustrating.

The sad fact is that there are a lot of rules in GW games that seem to be answering problems created by the rule writers themselves that only need simple answers. There is a lot of things where a rule piece from each edition is good, but then was stomped on by the next edition, or were answers due to the IGOUGO nature of the game's baseline. Then the really sad part is when people complain about one thing, they are actually whining about another thing, as the case of Wyches and Lasguns not doing anything to a Dreadnought demonstrates.

ProHammer adds split fire after making a leadership test, limited to splitting fire once. Leadership isn't an issue much of the time, but it adds a little drama and tension. Once passed, with only splitting fire once you gotta make a hard choice and commit to it. We also play with declared fire, so you need to declare all your targets first.

 Mezmorki wrote:
ProHammer adds split fire after making a leadership test, limited to splitting fire once. Leadership isn't an issue much of the time, but it adds a little drama and tension. Once passed, with only splitting fire once you gotta make a hard choice and commit to it. We also play with declared fire, so you need to declare all your targets first.

But...why can you only split fire once?

The sad fact is that there are a lot of rules in GW games that seem to be answering problems created by the rule writers themselves that only need simple answers. There is a lot of things where a rule piece from each edition is good, but then was stomped on by the next edition

This is entirely the point that led my group and Mezmorkis group to do what we did to improve the game play.

We generally liked the core rules of 5th best, but the vehicle defensive weapon rules and vehicle assault rules were better in 4th so we subbed them into 5th. snap fire, grenade throwing and overwatch were really good ideas that work well in 5th but they didn't implement them till 6th&7th so we retro-ed them into 5th and so on.

To add insult to injury some of the reasons given by members of the rules design team as to why they changed good rules for bad ones from one edition to the next were head scratchers. the pendulum swing always seems to be taken to extremes with GW.

Mezmorki wrote:ProHammer adds split fire after making a leadership test, limited to splitting fire once. Leadership isn't an issue much of the time, but it adds a little drama and tension. Once passed, with only splitting fire once you gotta make a hard choice and commit to it. We also play with declared fire, so you need to declare all your targets first.

What do you mean by splitting fire once? One model per unit? One unit per turn could? One unit per game could? The whole army once per game?

Honestly, what do you gain by this method over just letting them choose the targets of their weapons by the number of guns that they have? At worst, I might concede only allowing two targets per unit for this procedure for anything with a gun count smaller than a Baneblade.

To anyone in general: But when implementing any rule, the question should always be: What problem are you trying to solve with this setup and why this implementation?

If we're talking "all models in a unit with the same gun can Split Fire on Ld test", that'd be interesting. Otherwise, I just don't see a reason to justify having restrictions on Split Fire - my Guardsmen aren't going to plink at a fething Gargant with their lasguns regardless of what the Lascannon team does (comments upthread notwithstanding), and if adding in special/heavy weapons comes at the cost of being forced to waste the shooting of the special/heavy wep or the rest of the unit, well...why give us special/heavy weps as an option in base squads, then?

edit:forgot which thread the Titans vs Lasguns argument was in

They changed it to even further dumb down an already played out rules set.

 Mezmorki wrote:
ProHammer adds split fire after making a leadership test, limited to splitting fire once. Leadership isn't an issue much of the time, but it adds a little drama and tension. Once passed, with only splitting fire once you gotta make a hard choice and commit to it. We also play with declared fire, so you need to declare all your targets first.

Love it. Declaring targets before slitting fire and before measuring ranges would be best imho. Leadership test ok... splitting once makes sense so one unit can target 2 different units but no more.

 jeff white wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
ProHammer adds split fire after making a leadership test, limited to splitting fire once. Leadership isn't an issue much of the time, but it adds a little drama and tension. Once passed, with only splitting fire once you gotta make a hard choice and commit to it. We also play with declared fire, so you need to declare all your targets first.

Love it. Declaring targets before slitting fire and before measuring ranges would be best imho. Leadership test ok... splitting once makes sense so one unit can target 2 different units but no more.

ProHammer also includes optional rules for no pre-measuring, which is what we mostly use.

I'm sometimes on the fence about the leadership test - but I kind of like the slight uncertainty about whether you'll be able to bank on split firing or not. You often need to commit to a movement plan for it. I like the hard decision.

Really don't like it. I much prefer fewer dice rolls that mean more than more rolls that mean less. I don't think a 2k point game of 40k should need any more than 20 dice to play.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
ProHammer adds split fire after making a leadership test, limited to splitting fire once. Leadership isn't an issue much of the time, but it adds a little drama and tension. Once passed, with only splitting fire once you gotta make a hard choice and commit to it. We also play with declared fire, so you need to declare all your targets first.

Love it. Declaring targets before slitting fire and before measuring ranges would be best imho. Leadership test ok... splitting once makes sense so one unit can target 2 different units but no more.

ProHammer also includes optional rules for no pre-measuring, which is what we mostly use.

I'm sometimes on the fence about the leadership test - but I kind of like the slight uncertainty about whether you'll be able to bank on split firing or not. You often need to commit to a movement plan for it. I like the hard decision.

Prohammer is the future. I like the optional rules. Indeed, this is what GW should be doing with effectively tiers of rule complexity. Don’t want the added step of leadership tests for splitting fire? Fine, don’t use them. Game is simpler. Do enjoy the added uncertainty and drama? Use the leadership tests. This home brew convert to suit play styles attitude is what this hobby is all about, or was, until IP CCG corporate capitalism sucked all the creative spirit from the activity.

Actually, Prohammer has finally pushed me over the edge. I no longer wait for GW to fix their terrible game system with 10th Ed. And I am increasingly open to 3rd party models.

The only issue is convincing your local groups to play such an extensive custom ruleset.

9th Age only worked in our local group because Age of Sigmar was such an unmitigated mess. As soon as the GHB came out, 9th Age slowly dropped off the radar.

 Charistoph wrote:
The only issue is convincing your local groups to play such an extensive custom ruleset.

9th Age only worked in our local group because Age of Sigmar was such an unmitigated mess. As soon as the GHB came out, 9th Age slowly dropped off the radar.

Well at least we can agree there's a problem with trying to house rule everything and why GW needs to be held to a higher standard for rules writing.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Part of the problem with Lasguns and even Boltguns not doing any damage to AV was the fact that if the unit had an AT weapon or two, the Lasguns and Bolters were REQUIRED to shoot at the same target instead of focusing fire on something more practical. This is the case of a bad rule causing a frustrating feel.
.

Thats easy to solve.Allow units to split fire. I never understood why most restrictions on split fire even exist.

That's probably one of the changes I'd make for the 3-7 paradigm, going back.

It did make for some critically important decision making though, especially for units like Tactical Squads. If you moved, you couldn't shoot your Heavy. If you fired your Rapid Fire guns, you couldn't charge. If you fired your Heavy at a vehicle, your bolters are wasted. You had to be on point with your priorities for the turn. I enjoyed those harsh tradeoffs, but it's understandably frustrating to many. I think being able to naturally split fire is better, and it creates areas for other decision making. It was especially harsh for new players, too. Probably not the thing you wanted for your basic troops of your flagship faction.

While it is a hard tradeoff forcing decision making as far back as list creation, it is an artificial one that brought no distinct advantages other than possibly speed of game play by basically taking one or more guns out of the decision making process. Unfortunately, all or nothing for no more reason than, "those are the rules," can come across as both sloppy and frustrating.

I found it very clean from a design perspective, and I think it cane from a good place, but ultimately I don't think it's right for 40K. It's not very good from an accessibility standpoint.

The sad fact is that there are a lot of rules in GW games that seem to be answering problems created by the rule writers themselves that only need simple answers. There is a lot of things where a rule piece from each edition is good, but then was stomped on by the next edition, or were answers due to the IGOUGO nature of the game's baseline.

Yes. There are many instances of "Two steps forward, one step back" as well as two and sometimes three steps back. :/

Then the really sad part is when people complain about one thing, they are actually whining about another thing, as the case of Wyches and Lasguns not doing anything to a Dreadnought demonstrates.

That's hugely common in game feedback. People treat symptoms and not causes. Happens all the time in game dev.

 jeff white wrote:
How is a guardsman gonna hurt an avatar?

Grenades? You know, these things they have loads of on their belts and ammo bags?

It can even try melting one, hot high explosives on fire just produce bigger boom

 waefre_1 wrote:
Otherwise, I just don't see a reason to justify having restrictions on Split Fire - my Guardsmen aren't going to plink at a fething Gargant with their lasguns regardless of what the Lascannon team does (comments upthread notwithstanding), and if adding in special/heavy weapons comes at the cost of being forced to waste the shooting of the special/heavy wep or the rest of the unit, well...why give us special/heavy weps as an option in base squads, then?

Why not?

I like how people here debate computer games grade strategy, not real life ones. In RL, the whole squad would absolutely fire on the gargant, because lasguns would be doing critical job of suppressing all the defensive emplacements and gun holes it has so the lascannon can shoot unhindered. If they shoot a weak point, or explode ammo belt or something (represented by rolling 6 well enough) they absolutely should do some damage. Armored vehicles and monsters even in real life aren't monolithic blocks of steel, you can absolutely mission kill even Abrams with 'weak' machine gun if you destroy its sensors, communication equipment and machine guns on top, they all have tons of weak spots. There is a lot that can be said about badly thought out mechanics of 8th/9th, but rolling 6 to wound is not one of these things.

I also agree with some points above, IMO unlimited split fire slows down game too much if someone tries to abuse it and I wouldn't mind it being limited to two targets per unit. Army units in real life don't minmax by having every member shoot a different target, never mind in abstract game.

Yeah, there are a lot of reason's why in ProHammer we limit it just one split (two targets):

* Keeps game from getting too bogged down.
* Forces players still make some judgement calls about how to allocate their shooting attacks
* Leaves room for certain units with split fire special rules to still be special (i.e. units with spit fire rule automatically pass the leadership test and can fire at up to three different targets)).

The attack process in ProHammer is designed so that ALL models in a unit shooting at a given target ALWAYS speed roll all of their shots. The system is designed to accommodate mixed weapons (including blast) and mixed target armor/cover/invul. saves. That also really helps speed up the play - and once you get used to it it's a lot more intuitive than GW's own system, and much better than having to roll single model attacks one a time. The same general attack process works for close combat engagement too.

 Irbis wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:
Otherwise, I just don't see a reason to justify having restrictions on Split Fire - my Guardsmen aren't going to plink at a fething Gargant with their lasguns regardless of what the Lascannon team does (comments upthread notwithstanding), and if adding in special/heavy weapons comes at the cost of being forced to waste the shooting of the special/heavy wep or the rest of the unit, well...why give us special/heavy weps as an option in base squads, then?

Why not?

I like how people here debate computer games grade strategy, not real life ones. In RL, the whole squad would absolutely fire on the gargant, because lasguns would be doing critical job of suppressing all the defensive emplacements and gun holes it has so the lascannon can shoot unhindered. If they shoot a weak point, or explode ammo belt or something (represented by rolling 6 well enough) they absolutely should do some damage. Armored vehicles and monsters even in real life aren't monolithic blocks of steel, you can absolutely mission kill even Abrams with 'weak' machine gun if you destroy its sensors, communication equipment and machine guns on top, they all have tons of weak spots. There is a lot that can be said about badly thought out mechanics of 8th/9th, but rolling 6 to wound is not one of these things.

I also agree with some points above, IMO unlimited split fire slows down game too much if someone tries to abuse it and I wouldn't mind it being limited to two targets per unit. Army units in real life don't minmax by having every member shoot a different target, never mind in abstract game.

OK, first off: We are talking about a ruleset based on 5th ed, where a lasgun was literally incapable of damaging a Gargant. No, you couldn't fish for crits, and no, you can't accumulate points of damage and count it as a Blind effect. You roll to hit, and then you do nothing because it is mathematically impossible to roll 1d6+3 and get better than a 9, and the absolute lowest you could roll and still do damage to any vehicle is 10 (and a Gargant would be muchharder to damage - AV 10 was for things like Trukks and Sentinels). I'll admit, I haven't read the ProHammer rules. Maybe Mezmorki did something to the AV rules to allow for a lasgun to do chip damage to vehicles - I'd be OK with it if they did. I'd still want to houserule the houserule so that units needed to have some Mindless USR to need the Ld test to do Split Fire, rather than needing some other USR to ignore the Ld test.

Second: Lasguns aren't doing a damn thing to "suppress defensive emplacements and gun holes" on a Gargant. Even if they did, that job would undoubtedly be given to something with a higher rate of fire and more punch, like a Heavy Bolter or a Multilaser. The lasguns, if they are suppressing anything, would be targeting the Ork infantry that are running around looking for fights. Which is precisely what 5e Split Fire prevented you from doing.

That said, I should have been clearer in my speech there - when I said "restrictions", I had the old "only Special Boys get to Split Fire" paradigm in mind, not "I should be able to individually target every single shot each of my units makes". I agree, that would be absurdly time consuming and far too prone to abuse.

Third: This is a tabletop game by Games Workshop. "Video game" strategies are more appropriate to use than RL strategies, because GW is not about milsim, it is about laser rifles and chainsaw swords and rough abstractions. If I wanted to worry about windage and range modifiers for shooting and pinning fire and ammunition logistics, I would play a different game entirely, because 40k has not been and (likely) will never be that sort of game.

Fourth: You are going to have to give me one hell of a source for me to believe that a modern army would tell their troops to waste small arms ammo on an MBT unless they had literally nothing else to do (and even then, I'd suspect the order would be "observe and report the MBT's position so that other elements can engage it" rather than "tickle the optics until the nice tanky mans get hopping mad and pop the hatch to yell at you"). If we were talking about a lighter piece of armor, I might believe you, but we are not.

One of these days I'm going to make a post with this much bolding and not miss a close tag somewhere

 waefre_1 wrote:
The lasguns, if they are suppressing anything, would be targeting the Ork infantry that are running around looking for fights. Which is precisely what 5e Split Fire prevented you from doing.

Technically speaking Split Fire came in to being with 6th Edition, and did not exist as a rule itself before then. There was an army or two who had a way around it, namely the Tau and their Target Locks (but those were model specific).

 waefre_1 wrote:
Fourth: You are going to have to give me one hell of a source for me to believe that a modern army would tell their troops to waste small arms ammo on an MBT unless they had literally nothing else to do (and even then, I'd suspect the order would be "observe and report the MBT's position so that other elements can engage it" rather than "tickle the optics until the nice tanky mans get hopping mad and pop the hatch to yell at you"). If we were talking about a lighter piece of armor, I might believe you, but we are not.

The only reason I can think of is this: Pepper the tank with small arms to get its attention directed at you so the real AT weapon can be set up and fired from another position. Shooting it with small arms just screams, "Blow my a** to kingdom come for the temerity of annoying you with our gnats."

Though, as a side note, lasguns do have some superior capabilities over ballistic or energy packet weapons in that if you hit a periscope, one's shot could hit whoever is looking in to it due to reflection. Still, not something I'd rely on to disable armor.

Lasguns in ProHammer are S3, and as such cannot damage AV10 (or higher) - so they cannot damage vehicles at all.