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.

Why don't vehicles get armour saves? They should. Vehicle armour is gonna be stronger and thicker than infantry armour in most cases. Let vehicles have a chance to save against glancing hits. Okay, so maybe pen. hits get no save, but the chart could be so simple:

AR:10 = 6+
AR:11 = 5+
AR:12 = 4+
AR:13 = 3+
AR:14 = 2+

Of course a weapon's AP value may still come into effect. What do you think?

There was an extended thread about this some time ago. I'll summarize my thoughts on the matter from there, coupled with thinking since then:

In short, vehicles having armor saves isn't a bad idea, but saves scaling with AV doesn't actually solve the problem. Basically, AV14 rarely gets sanded to death anyway - with a 2+ it never would, essentially, except maybe by lucky Necrons. AV14 dies to one-shots from proper AT weapons - which this would help not one iota against. Contrariwise, AV10 usually dies to hull point depletion from fast-firing, medium-strength, weak-AP weapons like scatter/multi-lasers, heavy bolters, pulse rifles, tesla destructors, autocannons and such, which a 6+ armor save helps barely at all against.

My counterproposal is this: All vehicles get a 4+ armor save, with a special rule called Resilient, that works as such:

Resilient: A model with the Resilient special rule may take armor saves against weapons with an AP value equal to its armor save, though weapons with a lower AP still ignore the armor save as usual.

Therefore, you'd still have your 4+ against autocannons, heavy bolters, gauss blasters, missile pods and assault cannons.

I suggest that instead of just a 3+ save, because the 3+ is simply too likely to succeed, and a 5+ is simply too easy to bypass, even with Resilient. Making this a cover or invulnerable save has problems, too - we really don't want most vehicles that don't have cover or shielding or the like shrugging off a lascannon or a meltagun, do we?

 devinple wrote:
Why don't vehicles get armour saves? They should. Vehicle armour is gonna be stronger and thicker than infantry armour in most cases. Let vehicles have a chance to save against glancing hits. Okay, so maybe pen. hits get no save, but the chart could be so simple:

AR:10 = 6+
AR:11 = 5+
AR:12 = 4+
AR:13 = 3+
AR:14 = 2+

Of course a weapon's AP value may still come into effect. What do you think?

I saw one that went like this:

AV 10-11: 4+
AV 12: 3+
AV 13: 2+
AV 14: 2+ 5++

This way most vehicles lose their Armor Save to guns that should be targeting them. ALso i believe that they also gave Ordinance weapons a +1 on the Damage chart, cuz an Earthshaker round should be able to pop a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jade_angel wrote:
There was an extended thread about this some time ago. I'll summarize my thoughts on the matter from there, coupled with thinking since then:

In short, vehicles having armor saves isn't a bad idea, but saves scaling with AV doesn't actually solve the problem. Basically, AV14 rarely gets sanded to death anyway - with a 2+ it never would, essentially, except maybe by lucky Necrons. AV14 dies to one-shots from proper AT weapons - which this would help not one iota against. Contrariwise, AV10 usually dies to hull point depletion from fast-firing, medium-strength, weak-AP weapons like scatter/multi-lasers, heavy bolters, pulse rifles, tesla destructors, autocannons and such, which a 6+ armor save helps barely at all against.

My counterproposal is this: All vehicles get a 4+ armor save, with a special rule called Resilient, that works as such:

Resilient: A model with the Resilient special rule may take armor saves against weapons with an AP value equal to its armor save, though weapons with a lower AP still ignore the armor save as usual.

Therefore, you'd still have your 4+ against autocannons, heavy bolters, gauss blasters, missile pods and assault cannons.

I suggest that instead of just a 3+ save, because the 3+ is simply too likely to succeed, and a 5+ is simply too easy to bypass, even with Resilient. Making this a cover or invulnerable save has problems, too - we really don't want most vehicles that don't have cover or shielding or the like shrugging off a lascannon or a meltagun, do we?

This...is intriguing. Honestly i have no problem with my Ork Trukk getting wrecked by an Autocannon, i mean thats what its for. the HB and the Bolters where kinda driving me nuts though I may give this rule a shot as it sounds decent.

Personally I think we should just drop HP's all together and go back to the good old Damage Charts system.

Make a Glancing hit unable to do more than immobilise or blow a weapon off and make a penetrating hit almost always fatal (at least 50% of the time).

Make it so glancing can never wreck a vehicle but helps real anti tank weapons destroy a tank by removing all but the last hp.

 Filch wrote:
Make it so glancing can never wreck a vehicle but helps real anti tank weapons destroy a tank by removing all but the last hp.

Its a glancing hit. It is a hit that has bounced off, but unlike all the others which have also bounced off, it has hit something of mild importance. Like a track or a gun. Glancing hits should never be able to destroy a vehicle and should, if this awful HP system is retained, be able to remove HP's.