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 know this has been done to death but my group have never really found an answer that we all like so here's another go at it form me.

Alot of the vehicle fixes I read add un-needed or wanted complexity to an already bloated system so I'm aiming for a very simple fix.

All I'm proposing is an armour save for vehicles, I know that the penetration roll supposedly covers that as it's a little different to a to-wound roll but vehicles get cover and invulnerable saves all the time and the existing AP system would work perfectly well for vehicles so all that we need to do is give them a save value.

I could go through and assess each vehicle on its merits and assign them all an individually save value representing their particular abilities in the game and the fluff but that would take far to long so a nice easy system for determining their save is needed.

All vehicles have a 4+ save modified by the following.

The vehicle has -1 to its save if it is a Skimmer or a Flyer.
The vehicle has -1 to its save if it is Open Topped.
The vehicle has +1 to its save if it is a Tank or a Walker.
The vehicle has +1 to its save if it has AV:14 on any of its facings.

That's it, nice and simple, no different save for different facings or adding together all AV values. Here are a few examples of vehicle saves under these rules.

6+: This is mainly dark eldar vehicles, not much of a bonus for them but they will be jinking anyway.
5+: Landspeeders, most flyers, Ork Trukks, some necron vehicles.
4+: Guard Sentinels, Warwalkers, Tau and Eldar grav tanks, IG artillary.
3+: Most dreadnoughts and other walkers, Battle wagons, all rhino chassis and most chimera chassis and Imperial Knights.
2+: The toughest vehicles like Landraiders, monoliths and Leman Russ and many super heavy tanks.


What does this do?

It gives all vehicles an added level of survivability against weaker weapons, mainly making it harder for the plethora of mid strength weapons to crack vehicles which is the go to in games at the moment.
The autocannon and similar weapons still do their anti light vehicle and flyer roll well with AP:4
The lighter antitank weapons like the Krak missile have the advantage that they beat standard tank armour.
The real anti-vehicle weapons like Melta, Lascannons, lances and rail weapons still penetrate even the toughest vehicles.

The main losers from this are scatter lasers with their non-existent AP but they will still be good at forcing damage through just like they are against all targets but they will lose some effectiveness. Other weapons to generally become worse are haywire weapons, your thoughts on this will likely be decided by which side of the gun you're facing (I play admech but am ok with it).

My only other quick vehicle thought is to remove the ability of grav to immobilize vehicles and just have them lose the hull point.

Let me know your thoughts and any holes you can spot or problems you can see.

I'd argue that 4+ should be the worst save level for a vehicle.

Mostly agreed; 5+ and 6+ armor saves are negated by almost everything. Even multilasers and scatter lasers have AP6, and everyone's standard infantry weapons except Guard and Tyranids have AP5.

5+ and 6+ invulnerable saves can be useful, but armor? Not so much.

I have personally always viewed a 4+ armor save as being perfect for vehicles, as it represents an effective resistance to weaker, massed low AP weapons.

A 4+ save also makes AP1, 2, and 3 weapons far more appealing for anti-armor roles, such as Battle Cannons and Lascannons.

While I like your current concept, 5+ and 6+ saves just don't seem sufficient.

I like everything about this except the -1 for Skimmer or Flyer types.
Many Skimmers are already Open-topped and Flyers generally do not have better than AV12, many are only 10.
Also considering most weapons have at least AP5, and you create a huge gap between vehicles that have an armour save (any that have 4+) and those that almost never will (any with 5+ or worse)

The only thing that should lower the 4+ vehicle armour should be Open-topped as most of these vehicles can either Jink (see Eldar & DE) have AV12 (drop pods) or are cheap (Ork trukks)

Another downside you might want to consider is Gladius. That many free Rhinos/Razorback is bad enough, now imagine them all having a 3+ sv.
Maybe only Tanks/Walkers with AV12 on at least 1 facing get the +1 save?

And you should never get bonuses to the armour save in the Rear facing.

-

I would just it all 4+ so weapons with poor ap get halved in effectiveness.

What if the damage table became more like a save?
Modifiers as follows:
AP 1 =+2
ÀP 2 =+1
Open topped =+1
Glancing hit =-1
AP 5 and AP 6 =-1
AP - =-2

Then the table becomes something like:
1 or lower = no damage
2 = shaken, no hull damage
3 = stunned, no hull damage
4 = 1 hull point no other effect
5 = 1 hull point and weapon damage
6 = 1 hull point and immobilised
7 and above = 2 hull points

If a vehicle reaches 0 hull points it is wrecked.
If a vehicle reaches a negative number of hull points, it explodes.

Exact numbers and effects to be experimented with until we're happy that it work right.

Thanks for the replies, I can see the point that various people have made about a 6+ save being mainly pointless and I agree.

I think I'll alter how we try these rules by removing the -1 save for being a skimmer or flyer so a 5+ is the worst it can get which is reasonably useful against scatterlasers, multilasers and some haywire weapons.
The only issue with this is that is makes forcing things like Eldar and Tau tanks to jink that much harder if they have a natural 3+, this is one of the main tactics verses them. Do people think that is a problem?

One other thing that has come up in discussion with some friends is the save in close combat, mainly that krak grenades only have AP:4 which wouldn't get through the save of a tank which is kind of their job so I'm adding the following.

All vehicle suffer a -1 to their save in close combat.

This represents that you can find weakspots and such whilst in close with a vehicle, thoughts?

You could base the save on the armour value of the facing.
10/11 = 4+
12/13 = 3+
14/15 = 2+

 WisdomLS wrote:
Thanks for the replies, I can see the point that various people have made about a 6+ save being mainly pointless and I agree.

I think I'll alter how we try these rules by removing the -1 save for being a skimmer or flyer so a 5+ is the worst it can get which is reasonably useful against scatterlasers, multilasers and some haywire weapons.
The only issue with this is that is makes forcing things like Eldar and Tau tanks to jink that much harder if they have a natural 3+, this is one of the main tactics verses them. Do people think that is a problem?

I don't really see why Skimmers have to be targeted like this. Many are already Open-topped and the ones that are Tanks, are...Tanks, so they would be more protected. No one take Tau tanks really so they are not a problem. Eldar tanks are rather good though and already don't Jink often because of Holofields.

 WisdomLS wrote:

One other thing that has come up in discussion with some friends is the save in close combat, mainly that krak grenades only have AP:4 which wouldn't get through the save of a tank which is kind of their job so I'm adding the following.

All vehicle suffer a -1 to their save in close combat.

This represents that you can find weakspots and such whilst in close with a vehicle, thoughts?

This would be solved by saying that shots in Rear armour never benefit from +1 save (but would still get -1 if Open-topped). So you wouldn't need to add yet another modifier for CC as all vehicles would have a 4+ or 5+ save in the rear (even AV14 ones), thus allowing Krak grenades to get around this.


So in general, this is what would be ideal (IMO):
All Vehicles start with a 4+ armour save on all facings
Open-topped = -1 to this save
AV12/13 = +1 to this save of that facing
AV14+ gains +1 to the save of that facing
Rear armour facing never receives bonuses to their armour save (yet Open-topped is still -1)

So with that, a Rhino would just have a 4+ armour, Dreads would have 3+ (4+ in rear), Land Raiders 2+ (4+ in rear)
An Ork Battle Wagon would have 2+ in the front, 4+ in the sides (+1 for AV 12, -1 for Open-topped) and 5+ in the rear
An Eldar Tank would have 3+ (4+ in rear), War Walkers & Vypers would have 5+


-

Flat 4+. Nothing else necessary. This hedges out the weapons that shouldn't be anti-tank weapons.

Martel732 wrote:
Flat 4+. Nothing else necessary. This hedges out the weapons that shouldn't be anti-tank weapons.

Not all vehicles are tanks though.

Martel732 wrote:
Flat 4+. Nothing else necessary. This hedges out the weapons that shouldn't be anti-tank weapons.

Hmm. I could live with this. it would be nice to have for -1/+1 system to note how some vehicles are different, but I guess that is what the AV and number of HPs is for.
The biggest downside to a flat 4+ is that it is a much bigger deal for AV10 than AV12+ vehicles
Once you get to AV12, you really need str7+ weapons to make a difference. Most of those are AP4/3/2/1, the armour save won't matter
Av10 vehicle are still vulnerable to str5 & 6 and with a 4+ armour, they won't need to Jink against small arms at all.

It would certainly be a boost for Orks & Dark Eldar and a blow to Scatter lasers (both good things) but I don't think it's best for the overall balance.
We at least need -1 armour save for Open-topped and +1 for something else (Tanks/Walker with AV12+ for example)

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Flat 4+. Nothing else necessary. This hedges out the weapons that shouldn't be anti-tank weapons.

Hmm. I could live with this. it would be nice to have for -1/+1 system to note how some vehicles are different, but I guess that is what the AV and number of HPs is for.

You could do a faster HP-based estimate. 4+ for most vehicles, 3+ for vehicles with 4+ HP, 5+ for vehicles with 2HP.

 Galef wrote:


but I don't think it's best for the overall balance.

Anything that makes gladius stronger can't be good for the overall balance. The save for vehicles could be nice but as long as SM can field 300 points of free vehicles (and have new immortal superheroes) any proposed rule that goes in that direction would only increase the number of SM list in tournaments, which is extremely high yet, and IMHO the most effective army at the moment.

 Blackie wrote:

 Galef wrote:


but I don't think it's best for the overall balance.

Anything that makes gladius stronger can't be good for the overall balance. The save for vehicles could be nice but as long as SM can field 300 points of free vehicles (and have new immortal superheroes) any proposed rule that goes in that direction would only increase the number of SM list in tournaments, which is extremely high yet, and IMHO the most effective army at the moment.

And this is the problem I have with the proposed rule forum. There are too many people who insist on reading each thread in a vacuum as though the fixes proposed within must exclude all other fixes to the game.

Yet when discussions try to encompass the whole game in a rewrite or as a series of FAQ style patches there is very little interest, or worse there is interest from the same group of people as in every other rewrite thread so we just end up repeating ourselves.

a bit late, but I figure all vehicles should get a flat 3+ armour save. this mitigates being glanced to death, but still leaves dedicated AT weapons as the "best option" and it doesn;t complicate the game more at all.

I like 4+ better, because autocannons should be able to kill Rhinos and Chimeras no problem. 4+ hedges out everything that is absolutely not an anti-tank weapon.

Hmm, how would the notion of armor saves on a vehicle affect grav weaponry? That could be problematic if it ignores armor and causes damage on a 4+ rather than a 6+.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Hmm, how would the notion of armor saves on a vehicle affect grav weaponry? That could be problematic if it ignores armor and causes damage on a 4+ rather than a 6+.

Well Grav weapons in general need to be introduced to the proverbial "nerf bat"

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Hmm, how would the notion of armor saves on a vehicle affect grav weaponry? That could be problematic if it ignores armor and causes damage on a 4+ rather than a 6+.

It would remain a "6" vs vehicles, regardless of vehicle armor save.

Martel732 wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Hmm, how would the notion of armor saves on a vehicle affect grav weaponry? That could be problematic if it ignores armor and causes damage on a 4+ rather than a 6+.

It would remain a "6" vs vehicles, regardless of vehicle armor save.

To clarify this, Grav currently "wounds" models on Armour Save, but still need a '6' against vehicles. Give all vehicles 4+ armour would mean nothing to Grav because it still needs to roll Armour penetration, not "to wound".

I am in favor of Martel's suggestion that all vehicles gain 4+ amour, although I would also say that Open-topped vehicles get -1 to that and any Tank/Walker with AV13+ gets +1 to that facing.

So a Rhino would still be 4+ all around, Land Raiderss would be 3+ on all sides, Imperial Knights would have 3+ in their Front armour, but 4+ on all other sides.
A Wave Serpent would be 4+ all around, Vypers/Venoms/Raider/War Walkers would be 5+ (but these all can Jink and'or get an Invul save)
And OrK Battle Wagon would have 4+ in the front (+1 for AV14, but -1 for Open-topped, so it washes) and 5+ on all other sides.

-

Martel732 wrote:
I like 4+ better, because autocannons should be able to kill Rhinos and Chimeras no problem. 4+ hedges out everything that is absolutely not an anti-tank weapon.

While that would work for a global 4+, it won't work for the modified one above, as both Rhinos and Chimeras are Tanks, so start with 3+.

Still, it is a good starting point, and then modify from there. After all, do we really think that an Ork Trukk should have the same Save (or better) as a Dark Elf Raider?

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I like 4+ better, because autocannons should be able to kill Rhinos and Chimeras no problem. 4+ hedges out everything that is absolutely not an anti-tank weapon.

While that would work for a global 4+, it won't work for the modified one above, as both Rhinos and Chimeras are Tanks, so start with 3+.

That is why if you are going to add the possibility of 3+ for vehicle, it needs to be rare. Re-read my post above, I suggested only Tanks/Walkers with AV13+ get +1 save on that facing only.
So a Rhinos & Chimera would still be 4+ all around, but a Land Raider would be 3+
IKs would have 3+ on their AV13 facing, but only 4+ on their AV12 facings.

Ork trukks and DE Raiders would both have 5+ armour in my system. Raiders can still Jink and Ork trukks are....Ork trukks.

-

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I like 4+ better, because autocannons should be able to kill Rhinos and Chimeras no problem. 4+ hedges out everything that is absolutely not an anti-tank weapon.

While that would work for a global 4+, it won't work for the modified one above, as both Rhinos and Chimeras are Tanks, so start with 3+.

Still, it is a good starting point, and then modify from there. After all, do we really think that an Ork Trukk should have the same Save (or better) as a Dark Elf Raider?

Trukks and raiders seem to have the same toughness to me, they should have the same save. They both are 3 HP vehicles, AV10-10-10, fast, open topped and with almost the same capacity. Why shouldn't be treated differently? Raiders are paper things, just like trukks.

I think the eventual armour save shouldn't be added based on the vehicle's type but on its AV. Rhinos should have the same save as trukks. Give a 5+ for AV10-11, a 4+ for 12-13 and a 3+ for AV14. Seems fair.

 Blackie wrote:
Trukks and raiders seem to have the same toughness to me, they should have the same save. They both are 3 HP vehicles, AV10-10-10, fast, open topped and with almost the same capacity. Why shouldn't be treated differently? Raiders are paper things, just like trukks.

I think the eventual armour save shouldn't be added based on the vehicle's type but on its AV. Rhinos should have the same save as trukks. Give a 5+ for AV10-11, a 4+ for 12-13 and a 3+ for AV14. Seems fair.

Because Trukks are ramshackle and Raiders are precision engineered. One is built light because it's "good enough" while the other is built light because they want it to be fast and agile.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I like 4+ better, because autocannons should be able to kill Rhinos and Chimeras no problem. 4+ hedges out everything that is absolutely not an anti-tank weapon.

While that would work for a global 4+, it won't work for the modified one above, as both Rhinos and Chimeras are Tanks, so start with 3+.

Still, it is a good starting point, and then modify from there. After all, do we really think that an Ork Trukk should have the same Save (or better) as a Dark Elf Raider?

Probably not, but it's just there to fix the hull point scrubbing from weapons that are clearly not intended to be anti-tank.

Honestly how strong should 35pts be?

Rhinos are 35pts, do you really want 35pts to stay alive for many turns?

And many armies can ONLY glance down vehicles if it take that away or make it harder those armies will suffer.

Currently Glance/Pen system isnt that bad, it is just the Power creep has caught up to them, MC are stronger unless someone has Plasma or Grav, that rips them apart and most MC cant have the good/amount of guns as Vehicles, Look at Vemons for an example, 36" 12 shot guns for 65pts, or Ghost Arcs 110pts for 4 HP av11/13 with 10 guns each side, Hornets, 80pts for 4 S8/AP2 shots at 48". The MC's that are a problem are Tau and Flying MC's. How many MC do you fear? a Few Tau, Nids and some Daemons. Those are only strong b.c Nids/Daemons fly and Tau b.c it is WAY undercost (75pts base undercost) Otherwise 90% of MC are weak AF
.


The Problem IMO is that many vehicles for SM, IG and mostly Imperial are over costed.

Not saying something doesnt need to be done, but its a hard thing to balance. If you make universal rulles that give Rhinos/Razorbacks a edge, those 350 (free) points for SM, SoB etc.. are not extremely strong and will run amuk.

Think about SoB with IA book, they all take now you have 12 Immolators with TL HF or MM with a 4+ and a 4+ come back, not counting you are not killing he 65 Battle Sister int hose vehicles that WANTS to wait till late turn to get out.

Or White Scars JSJ in and out of Rhinos..... imagine that with 4+ saves.
.


How is IG, BA, Orcs, DE, Harlequins, GK, going to deal with that?

The Meta would completely change to break Vehicles as fast as it can with As much s8/ap2 and s9/ap1, Metla and Armorbane.

And we are back to the problem again b.c now they are exploding instead of glancing, and exploding is MUCH worst.


Edit: English is hard for me, sorry for grammar and spelling.

4+ armor rhinos would mean nothing to how I usually dispatch them.

Martel732 wrote:
4+ armor rhinos would mean nothing to how I usually dispatch them.

But would be pretty harsh for Scatter lasers to deal with (which is a good thing).