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.

Should it be possible for vehicles to have Armour saves?

AV14 = 2+
AV13 = 3+
AV12 = 4+
AV11 = 4+
AV10 =5+

Personally I want to try running a few games with vehicles having 4+ armor except for walkers and non skimmer ground vehicles having 3+ armor. Idea being that most of the true anti vehicle weapons are AP3 and up so it has zero effect on them while making non skimmers more resilient to the "auto cannon class" of weapons like Deffguns, HYMP, Auto Cannons, etc. Would also tone down gauss flayer and scatter laser spam (and make the immortal gauss weapon be slightly more desirable than warriors with flyers).

I'll second Vankraken's idea here. I hadn't thought of segregating it like that, but it makes sense.

The one tweak I'd add to that is to clarify that to-pen rolls of 6 from Rending weapons are resolved at AP2 for the purposes of bypassing armor saves but not for the damage chart.

I'm not sure if that should apply to Bladestorm or not. I think for shuriken cannons it wouldn't be too bad except that shuricannon bikers are a thing, and shuricats can come in large enough numbers that being able to save against glances could be relevant.

you'd have to be AV10 for shuricats to glance you anyways

Well, yes, but AV10 is everywhere, and the armies that rely on AV10 vehicles are often the ones complaining about being glanced to pieces.

jade_angel wrote:
Well, yes, but AV10 is everywhere, and the armies that rely on AV10 vehicles are often the ones complaining about being glanced to pieces.

Follow through with the simplification and give them Toughness Values..

Not a bad idea, and probably what should be done.

Folks will argue that it's less realistic; while I sympathize, "realism" hasn't been a particularly good excuse for bad crunch in 40k for a while.

jade_angel wrote:
Not a bad idea, and probably what should be done..

I have a nagging feeling that this is what will be done in the near future.

Giving vehicles Saves and Toughness also makes it easier to control their vulnerabilities by keeping a close watch on all those AP and S values out there.
You hit a vehicle from behind? it has -1 T, or Armour Save, or both! (not sure which would be the most appropriate penalty, tbh)

And you could still use/abuse the cover/Invulnerable save shenanigans to your heart's content.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Should it be possible for vehicles to have Armour saves?

AV14 = 2+
AV13 = 3+
AV12 = 4+
AV11 = 4+
AV10 =5+

Vehicles should have a save, but not one that is negated by all weapons fired against them. One of the major issues with vehicles is from Autocannon-equivalents being spammed, resulting in a vehicle's 4+ armour save being useless. 2+ or 3+ would be very handy at eliminating non-dedicated weapons, however. But they would still often be ignored.

My problem with a 2+/3+ is that they'd be too effective against weapons that are meant as light anti-tank like Imperial autocannons, Eldar shuriken cannons or Tau missile pods. The fact that they're negated by lascannons and meltaguns really isn't a problem at all: both are weapons specifically designed to drill through heavy armor. Defenses intended to be able to stop a lascannon already exist; they're modeled as invulnerable saves, cover saves, void shields or something similar.

That's why I cooked up the idea of Resilient armor - it's only negated by AP better than its save. So, 4+ Resilient armor still gets a save against autocannons and heavy bolters, but krak missiles and neutron blasters beat it.

All told, though, I think vehicles having toughness and armor just like Monstrous Creatures do is probably fair. The big distinction might be that vehicles are better at shooting (all guns, not just two) while all MCs can fight in assault even if they suck at it. (MC versus walker would become mostly a matter of fluff at this point, of course, which is as it should be IMHO.)

If we could have an invulnerable save that was in between a 4++ and a 5++, that would be perfect.

 Selym wrote:
If we could have an invulnerable save that was in between a 4++ and a 5++, that would be perfect.

You could turn it into a specific Vehicle Armour Save to ignore AP values, and then give Specialist Anti-Tank weaponry Vehicle AP?

Hrmm. Possibly.

For example purposes:

Rhino APC: T8 3W Vehicle AS3+

Bolter S4 AP5 VAP "-"
Missile Launcher (krak) S8 AP3 VAP3
Lascannon S9 AP2 VAP2

Which would rather quickly distinguish between weapons designed to knock holes in vehicles and those only incidentally capable of it, wouldn't it?

I'd imagine autocannons or missile pods would probably still have VAP4, but I doubt heavy bolters or gauss blasters would. Plasma guns are kind of an open question - I like the idea that they're also reasonable anti-tank weapons in a pinch but I can see why folks wouldn't want them to do that job well if it makes meltas irrelevant. (IMHO that problem doesn't currently exist, since meltas are cheaper, Assault vs Rapid-Fire and don't Get Hot, but I've heard the case made.)

jade_angel wrote:
Which would rather quickly distinguish between weapons designed to knock holes in vehicles and those only incidentally capable of it, wouldn't it?

I'd imagine autocannons or missile pods would probably still have VAP4, but I doubt heavy bolters or gauss blasters would. Plasma guns are kind of an open question - I like the idea that they're also reasonable anti-tank weapons in a pinch but I can see why folks wouldn't want them to do that job well if it makes meltas irrelevant. (IMHO that problem doesn't currently exist, since meltas are cheaper, Assault vs Rapid-Fire and don't Get Hot, but I've heard the case made.)

Giving Meltas AP and VAP2 and keeping Plasmas at VAP3/4 would be enough to ensure that, I think. A weapon like a HB would have VAP5, perhaps.

But these VAP values would need to be structured to consider the average Vehicle T and Save, which would then have to be (mostly) standardized.

What would the stats for a SM LS be, for example?
T6 5+? 2W?
Would these stats be acceptable for a Piranha?

 Selym wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Should it be possible for vehicles to have Armour saves?

AV14 = 2+
AV13 = 3+
AV12 = 4+
AV11 = 4+
AV10 =5+

Vehicles should have a save, but not one that is negated by all weapons fired against them. One of the major issues with vehicles is from Autocannon-equivalents being spammed, resulting in a vehicle's 4+ armour save being useless. 2+ or 3+ would be very handy at eliminating non-dedicated weapons, however. But they would still often be ignored.

Ignore AP on glancing hits. Done.

Huh. Sounds better