<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Armour Saves on Vehicles?"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/16.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Armour Saves on Vehicles? AP weapons glancing vehicles to death. Something like the following:

AV 10/11 4+
AV 12/13 3+
AV 14 2+

It wouldn't have an effect on dedicated anti-tank weaponry or MC's etc but would help against higher strength weaponry with an AP of 4 to -. Naturally rules like Rending would still remove the armour save and the vehicle could use either cover saves or the armour save like Infantry. I'd also say Flyers wouldn't get a save on account of the hulls being less robust to enable flight (they don't really need it).

Obviously this would affect things like Krak Missiles and Autocannons (in particular although I'd say these are for medium to light vehicle hunting) but would also help balance Necron glance-doom (for lack of a better term). Haywire attacks would bypass the armour save etc...

It was just a quick thought but what do you think ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5650248.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5650248.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? Besides, most tanks are generally hard enough to kill as it is. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5650771.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5650771.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles?
Oh and multilasers and brainleeches become considerably less useful.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5650821.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5650821.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles?
you want to give AV10 a 4+ armour save?

so a boltgun only glances AV10 1/20 times?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5650958.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5650958.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? WD or the Journal? They came up with armour saves, toughness and wounds for vehicles, an interesting idea I thought.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5656288.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5656288.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles?
Either all have T and W, or all use an alternative AV system.

The second one would probably require an extensive rewrite though.(But probably end up with more intuitive game play.I can detail it if you like?)
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5657909.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5657909.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles?

Waaaghpower wrote:This kills a whole lot of dedicated anti tank that didn't need nerfing anyways. Orks? We're left with, uh... Zzap guns? That's it. And Zzap guns aren't that great. (Oh, and Power Klaws.) Tanks already get their armor plating represented by having Armor values.
Besides, most tanks are generally hard enough to kill as it is.


I know tanks already get their armour plating represented by Armour Values - I just feel they don't do it well enough, but I also feel that a Bolter or any weapon with a Low AP shouldn't be able to take out a vehicle as easily as they can at the moment. This is partially represented by low AP weapons having a minus modifier on the damage table but with Hull Points even a Rhino could be taken out by an Eavy Shoota (regardless of % chance, it's still possible) which doesn't seem right - it's a Tank after all. Orks could get rending whenever a Waaagh! is called (or more shots) as their weapons are meant to be (in a crude way) psychically attuned to them (source: Xenology) which is a concept I've always liked. 'Ard Boys and Nobz could get upgrades similar to Flash Gits etc.

Kain wrote:And now all tyranid shooting anti-vehicle options are useless, deffrollas do nothing, hammer of wrath bounces off vehicles, Gauss does nothing, ramming does nothing, and the Tau rejoice because they have all the AP1 anyway.

Oh and multilasers and brainleeches become considerably less useful.


Ramming vehicles could count as AP2 (with a Deffrolla counting as AP1), as well as a MC's Hammer of Wrath - Gauss weapons could ignore the vehicles Armour Save and reduce a Vehicles AV and/or Armour Save for each successful Glancing Hit, rather than do any direct damage, for example, to represent them stripping away the armour, rather than penetrating it.

Brainleeches are a good example to show my way of thinking. The Brainleech is a weapon designed to take out organic targets by eating their way through the target's nervous system (vehicles have no nervous system and are made of metal). It has no AP - because they can't (or shouldn't be able to) penetrate armour very well, it is after all a grub with little gnashing teeth. It's ability to cause pain is represented by its Strength of 6, however due to the way the rules are made the AP issue is largely ignored, so the little grubs can happily eat through the hull of a Rhino at a 1/3 chance (or even destroy it in a single lucky hit), wreck or blow up the vehicle. When in actuality the bugs should, bar some amazingly lucky hit, hit the Rhino's hull like a bug on a windshield.

I'm not saying that if any rules were to change then there wouldn't be a backlog of updates to make - of course there would! We all know Lascannons should be AP1 anway

For example 'Nids could adapt to have something akin to a Melta-grub in such weapons in order to better take out Marines, 'Crons or Vehicles in general, giving it Rending or an ability similar to Lance weapons etc...it's not my fault the 'Nids AP values are sub-par below their Strength values. A Heavy Venom Cannon should be AP2 under the centre of the Blast template if it's capable of "caving in an enemy tank" yet not doing the same to power armour under a direct hit (f it caves in a tank's armour, think of what the force of the impact would do to Power Armour)? The blast area itself could remain AP4 however...

Scipio Africanus wrote:sorry, what?

you want to give AV10 a 4+ armour save?

so a boltgun only glances AV10 1/20 times?


Yes, you're correct Plasma, melta and Krak grenades (which should be able to be thrown by more than one guy anyway) would ignore AV10's armour save, which is what they're designed to do. I know it would change the "meta" a lot but all it would entail is for player's (and some rules) to adapt their method of play in order to take out vehicles.

obithius wrote:I'm pretty sure this was experimented with just before 3rd edition came out. Either in WD or the Journal? They came up with armour saves, toughness and wounds for vehicles, an interesting idea I thought.


Yeah they did, although I haven't been able to find the rules anywhere. This whole thought came about because of my renewed interest in 2nd Ed - back when vehicles were scary for anyone not equipped to handle them (although perhaps a bit too scary). Interestingly enough (or not) Rogue Trader had a Toughness/Wounds stat for vehicles rather than AV.

Lanrak wrote:I think it would be a good idea to have ONE system to resolve damage for ALL unit types.

Either all have T and W, or all use an alternative AV system.

The second one would probably require an extensive rewrite though.(But probably end up with more intuitive game play.I can detail it if you like?)


Feel free, however I think a T/W & Armour Save stat may be better simply because it can be made to work for both organic and non organic types. My initial thought was how to better represent a Vehicle using the current rules as the AV system (IMHO) doesn't cut it due to some of the issues I've touched upon in my above replies. I would say that some Pts values may need altering (Rhino's back up to 50pts etc) to accomodate such a hypothetical change.

For me the problem with the AV system is that a weapon's Strength may be high, but if it's AP is low (say 4 to -) it should stand less of a chance to take out a vehicle and that the current minus on the damage table doesn't do enough to reflect this, with Hull Points not cutting it either (IMHO YMMV).

I know some abstraction has to be made somewhere along the line for the game to function but I feel that the rules should serve the background more (otherwise what's the point in playing the game?) and as it is they're a bit of a mess in many ways.

This may be all my fault for not being able to abandon all logic when playing a game of 6th
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5660663.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5660663.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5660683.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5660683.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles?

I know a lot needs fixing in the game (especially for the likes of 'Nids & Orks) but my point is that anti-infantry weapons (even those of a high strength) shouldn't be able to take out vehicles as easily as they can at the moment if they aren't able to penetrate armour particularly well. You could help mitigate this by saying that Ordnance weapons or weapons with a Strength of 7 or more are still able to cause a "Crew Shaken" result on a glanicng or penetrating hit even if the armour save is made, due to the force of the weapon hitting the hull. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5660706.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5660706.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? MCs with an armour value, if this idea were (theoretically) to be put into the BRB.. I dunno, it would just completely change the system, and I don't think many people would like that, because it would make certain vehicles (like Dark Eldar Skimmers) far, far more powerful than they used to be..]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5660824.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5660824.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? AV vs. Strength equations - you'd also have to factor in the Vehicle Damage Table (so they could still be wrecked despite wounds, it's just that the more wounds it suffers the easier it would be to destroy). So if such a system were implemented it might look like this:

AV 10 = T6 W2 Sv. 4+
AV 11 = T7 W2 Sv. 4+
AV 12 = T8 W3 Sv. 3+
AV 13 = T9 W3 Sv. 3+
AV 14 = T10 W4 Sv. 2+

Obviously only a single armour save can be taken, so Skimmers/Flyers would either get a Jink Save or Armour save etc.

A Vehicle that is reduced to 0 Wounds would either be automatically Wrecked or else would have to roll on the Damage Table at the start of every turn until it gets a Wrecked result or worse. Obviously some vehicles might have different Wound values but that's just a rough sketch.

You'd take the highest amount of AV to determine the Vehicles Wounds but could still treat its Locations as the corresponding Toughness. If the above guide was used this means most Dreadnoughts would be on par with a Wraithlord, which makes sense to me.

Vehicles could then act as Infantry (although would move as normal) with whatever USR's would be suitable for them. This means they could have a version of Relentless, enabling them to shoot a main weapon or x other weapons etc. Vehicles with Extra-Armour could still ignore Shaken/Stunned results or else count as having an additional Wound.

A Vehicle would count as Penetrated if its Armour Save is beaten or failed or else Glanced if it wasn't, but the shot 'wounded'. You could have a Glancing hit cause a Wound on a Wreck result, but otherwise destroy a weapon, stun or shake it etc. If the modifier would reduce it to '0' then no significant damage is done.

Each time a vehicle is wounded you could roll on the damage table minus its current number of Wounds (+ current AP & Glancing modifiers) to determine what effect a shot has. This way dedicated anti-tank and melta weapons can still take out most Light/Medium vehicles in a single shot (as they're designed to do) but things like Land Raiders become a little more durable (although it could still be taken out on a roll of 6). Armour Bane could be changed to always wound Vehicles on a 2+ instead of rolling 2D6 and Lance could treat all vehicle Toughness values greater than 8 as 8 etc (therefore still needing a 4+ to Pen. vs. most larger vehicles due to their AP1).

Back to Saves along with current AV values though, I'd argue things like Raider's aren't good enough due to them being able to get glanced to death by most basic Infantry weapons which either have Rapid Fire or Assault 2.

I'd say that some Skimmers/Flyers wouldn't receive an armour save (unless they had some kind of field etc) as they already have a Jink save or better yet wouldn't receive a Save vs. a Penetrating hit on account of them having less armour than a main line Tank in order to enable flight. So a Heavy Bolter (for example) would still be able to take down a Land Speeder/Raider etc but the average Bolter/Shoota would struggle a lot more (they're better off shooting at the exposed troops inside). ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661056.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661056.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods in 40k, is that 40k uses 'modern type units' that behave and are equipped.COMPLETELY differently to WHFB type units.

If we look at a simple comparison system as an alternative .

Compare NEW weapon Armour piercing value (AP) to NEW Armour Value to get the save roll.

EG, Boltgun new AP 5 vs Ork Body armour new AV 1. 5-1=4 the save roll has to beat the score of 4 =5+

This makes the armour value the 'save modifier', no EXTRA tables or charts or values needed.

AP-AV= score to beat on a D6.

This makes weapons have scalble effect vs different armour types without any extra complication.AND includes ALL unit types.

The next comparison is target Resilliance vs Damage, is made if the target fails its armour save.

The attacker takes his weapon hit Damage from the targets Resiliance, to give the value to roll over to damage the target.(cause wounds/structural damage.)

Eg in the example above the Boltgun has a Damage value of 1 and the Ork has a resiliance of 4,the ork is wounded on a 4+ (4-1=3.)

(Some weapons have high damage values , (melts plasma etc.)Any roll that doubles the score to damage causes double damage. EG need 2+ to damage and roll 4+ cause double damage 6+ cauases triple damage!)

SO
Attacker rolls to hit,target rolls to save any hits ,attacker rolls to damage (wound) with any failed armour saves.

This seems to be more intuitive to me than the current system.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661120.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661120.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? LRBT (3 HP) from the front it currently takes 27 missiles, for IG shooting the missiles it takes 36 missiles. Toss in a 2+ save and it now takes 162 and 216 missiles for marines and IG respectively. Honestly, considering most weapons in the Imperial arsenal glance the target just below their AP (so MLs glance AV 14 which get a 2+ save and autocannons glance AV 13 which get a 3+ save, while bolters glance AV 10, which get a 4+ save), you might as well get rid of glances completely because you will never glance a vehicle to death.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661427.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661427.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661432.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661432.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? 40k. You'd essentially be forced to rewrite every single codex and redo most rules for anything even remotely related to tanks. Without completely redoing almost every army though, it's a terrible idea. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661816.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5661816.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles?
Buttons wrote:So let me get this straight, you don't like being glanced to death, so you decide to make glancing vehicles nearly impossible. In order for a marine with a missile launcher to kill an LRBT (3 HP) from the front it currently takes 27 missiles, for IG shooting the missiles it takes 36 missiles. Toss in a 2+ save and it now takes 162 and 216 missiles for marines and IG respectively. Honestly, considering most weapons in the Imperial arsenal glance the target just below their AP (so MLs glance AV 14 which get a 2+ save and autocannons glance AV 13 which get a 3+ save, while bolters glance AV 10, which get a 4+ save), you might as well get rid of glances completely because you will never glance a vehicle to death.


AV13 would give a 3+ save, not 2+, so a Krak missile would ignore the Save and work as normal vs. a LRBT. You're right in that Autocannons and Krak Missiles would struggle more against targets with AV13/14 respectively, however the weapons themselves aren't designed for such targets - that's what Lascannons and Melta weapons are for. For me the game is about the background and how best to represent it on the table-top, so that's where this thought stems from (although I concede it's not necessarily a good one for 6th Edition).

I also suggested that a weapon of Strength 7 or more would still cause a Stunned or Shaken result on a Glancing hit, even if it was saved, due to the force of the impact on the vehicle, perhaps on a roll of 4+ for S7, then 3+ for S8 and so on...

It's not that I don't like Glancing hits, it's that I feel a large amount of weapons with little to no AP value (and that's the crucial thing) can take out vehicles when they should have no right to (see the Brainleech example). The fact that Autocannons and Missile Launchers have become regular staples in most Imperial armies just means that perhaps they are over effective, whereas perhaps Melta and Lascannons are a bit rarer, however things like Plasma would be just as effective, if not more so, than Autocannons/Krak missiles against vehicles due to their better AP value.

It's about using the right tools for the job. Autocannons would still be as effective against most Transports/Skimmers and Light walkers, but nowhere near as effective against mainline tanks like the LRBT (although they could still cause a Shaken or Stunned result).

For me it's just the disparity in logic between a weapons Strength and its AP value that means vehicles are less effective than they, perhaps, ought to be against certain weapons although YMMV on this point (and quite clearly does).

In short I feel that Glancing vehicles should be next to impossible for weapons which aren't designed to be anti-tank, although I concede that my need for background representation may be in err.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:This is a horrible idea.


I agree that seems to be a general concensus

Waaaghpower wrote:It's not a bad idea to be implemented in a game, but it's a horrible idea to implement in Warhammer 40k. You'd essentially be forced to rewrite every single codex and redo most rules for anything even remotely related to tanks. Without completely redoing almost every army though, it's a terrible idea.


I don't think EVERYTHING would need to be re-written (far from it), as any weapon with an AP of 2 or 1 and things like Monstrous Creatures would be unaffected by the save values, so that's all melta, plasma, power fists and the like, along with lance weapons unaffected by it. I also suggested that Gauss Weapons could reduce the AV/Sv of their target by 1 with every roll of 6, making it easier to penetrate in the medium to long term, like a longer range form of Entropic Strike. Rending would work as normal, so it would ignore the armour save and add a D3 to the pen roll and Haywire would ignore armour saves as it damages the electronics of a vehicle, rather than causing physical damage.

It's just that weapons with a low AP value will struggle more to hurt a vehicle they aren't designed to hurt (though they could slow it down with Shaken/Stunned results if of high enough Strength, which most current anti-tank choices are). I just believe that in order to hurt a vehicle you should need to Penetrate its armour, rather than causing multiple dents.

I'm not suggesting it'll work as the game stands without ANY changes at all, but I disagree that a large proportion would need to be re-written, except maybe for those Codex's which are already out of date (such as Orks and the sub-par 'Nid dex) and then it would only be some AP tweaks or unit options.

There's no doubt it would change the "meta" but I feel the only weapons that should stand a better than reasonable chance of destroying a vehicle are dedicated anti-tank weapons.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662275.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662275.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? AP values need rewriting, I wouldn't mind seeing 'nids and orks having guns that can punch through power and terminator armor in ample supply. Rupture cannons can blow through a land raider but bounce off a marine. Wut?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662306.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662306.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? ample supply, but I do agree they need tweaking with maybe just a few more options. A Rupture Cannon, for example, should be AP1 or 2 based on its description (or at least counts as AP 1 or 2 vs. Vehicles) nd the Acid Spray could be AP3. Heck even a Pyrovore could have an 'Ignite' rule which forces a re-roll to armour saves. I'm not one of those who feels the 'Nid codex needs a total re-work, just a change in some pts, stats & options here or there. IMHO Orks should have access to gun trukks and should be able to loot any vehicle as a corresponding choice, just that it may be a bit more unreliable for them to use and would be outfitted with Orky weapons (via an army wide rule such as "We'll make it Orky") & Tank Bustas should get Tank Hunters, which could then force a re-roll on vehicle armour saves & some Ork units (like Stormboyz) could have access to melta-stikkbombz etc.

On a side note I think Imperial forces should be able to re-take Melta-missiles as an upgrade (say at +10pts) which could be 24'' S6 AP2 - Armour Bane, for example. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662450.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662450.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662459.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662459.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles?
Vehicle saves are only used against glancing hits, and the basic save is the AV subtracted from 16, expressed as a save. (i.e. 14 - 16 = 2+ save etc) and weapon ap still negates saves as usual, so many high str high ap will still ignore the vehicle save, but a lot of the low ap or auto glancing stuff may have a chance of resisting.

Also the vehicle save ( may call it a rugged or resistant save ) may be taken instead of a jink or cover save, but not in addition.

Will give this a go and let you know how it worked out (providing my buddies want to try it. )]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662540.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662540.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles?
 warspawned wrote:
[
AV13 would give a 3+ save, not 2+, so a Krak missile would ignore the Save and work as normal vs. a LRBT. You're right in that Autocannons and Krak Missiles would struggle more against targets with AV13/14 respectively, however the weapons themselves aren't designed for such targets - that's what Lascannons and Melta weapons are for. For me the game is about the background and how best to represent it on the table-top, so that's where this thought stems from (although I concede it's not necessarily a good one for 6th Edition).

Never said AV 13 got a 2+ save, and none of that had to do with my point, my point was that anything you can glance (at least for the main parts of the Imperial arsenal) gives the enemy a save. A bolter can glance AV 10, unfortunately for anyone shooting that, the target gets an armour save that will approximately double the shots needed to score a single glancing hit. An autocannon, can penetrate AV 12, but unfortunately the AV 12 gets an armour save, but relating to my point, it can only glance AV 13, but the AV 13 gets an armour save. A missile launcher can glance AV 14, unfortunately when the missile launcher does glance AV 14 it has to get past a 2+ armour save.

What this results in is that there is never a good reason for a missile launcher to shoot at a LRBT from the front, there is never a good time for an autocannon to shoot at a hammerhead from the front, and even worse, shoot at a chimera from the front. Being a Guard player, this helps an already top tier army to become even better, now you need a missile launcher or lascannon to reliably kill our transports, and our Vendettas aren't effected by the armour save change, in fact they benefit since the AA autocannons which you can purchase with an Aegis defence line now how to get through a 3+ armour save.

I also suggested that a weapon of Strength 7 or more would still cause a Stunned or Shaken result on a Glancing hit, even if it was saved, due to the force of the impact on the vehicle, perhaps on a roll of 4+ for S7, then 3+ for S8 and so on...

This individually, or with some lighter modifications I don't mind, but with these armour saves it still doesn't come close to balancing out the massive boost this provides for vehicles.

It's not that I don't like Glancing hits, it's that I feel a large amount of weapons with little to no AP value (and that's the crucial thing) can take out vehicles when they should have no right to (see the Brainleech example). The fact that Autocannons and Missile Launchers have become regular staples in most Imperial armies just means that perhaps they are over effective, whereas perhaps Melta and Lascannons are a bit rarer, however things like Plasma would be just as effective, if not more so, than Autocannons/Krak missiles against vehicles due to their better AP value.

Unfortunately fluffwise Plasma guns are not vehicle killers, they are meant for slaying heavy infantry above anything, which they do well on the TT, honestly they are good for hunting vehicles too on the TT because AP 2 now provides +1 on the damage chart. If you want AP to effect armour penetration you should probably rework the whole system, which isn't a bad thing (why can a multi-laser punch through the frontal armour of a Rhino, but can be stopped by simple flak armour?). The issue is that your changes are too heavy handed. So you might decide to rework penetration by changing AV values and making penetration something like Strengthx[insert some number here]/AP or a preferably less complicated system that somehow take AP into account like Strength-AP and changing AVs so that 3 or something is normal for a light vehicle (such a system would at least allow for a wider range of AV values).

My point is that your system simply is too heavy handed and poorly thought out at the moment.

It's about using the right tools for the job. Autocannons would still be as effective against most Transports/Skimmers and Light walkers, but nowhere near as effective against mainline tanks like the LRBT (although they could still cause a Shaken or Stunned result).

They also have their effectiveness against AV 12 vehicles like the Chimera and Vendetta, which they are fairly frequently used against, crippled.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662670.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5662670.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? 40k is slowly moving away from vehicles anyways (and those they've added/continued are tending to get saves of some sort, like DA speeders, disruption pods, flickerfields, etc. etc.)

Vehicles now have wounds, it's a matter of time before they scrap AV all together, and make them like the rest of the MC's they're pushing of late.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5663595.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5663595.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles?

Buttons wrote:
Never said AV 13 got a 2+ save, and none of that had to do with my point, my point was that anything you can glance (at least for the main parts of the Imperial arsenal) gives the enemy a save. A bolter can glance AV 10, unfortunately for anyone shooting that, the target gets an armour save that will approximately double the shots needed to score a single glancing hit. An autocannon, can penetrate AV 12, but unfortunately the AV 12 gets an armour save, but relating to my point, it can only glance AV 13, but the AV 13 gets an armour save. A missile launcher can glance AV 14, unfortunately when the missile launcher does glance AV 14 it has to get past a 2+ armour save.


I agree, but my point is a Bolter shouldn't be able to take out a vehicle like a Raider as easily as it can at the moment, hence the saves, which can still be failed. I understand what you're saying about the scalability of the idea and maybe it would be easier to get rid of Glancing Hits in their current form and have some kind of morale system instead

I also suggested that a weapon of Strength 7 or more would still cause a Stunned or Shaken result on a Glancing hit, even if it was saved, due to the force of the impact on the vehicle, perhaps on a roll of 4+ for S7, then 3+ for S8 and so on...


This individually, or with some lighter modifications I don't mind, but with these armour saves it still doesn't come close to balancing out the massive boost this provides for vehicles


Again I agree. I like the idea and feel that vehicles aren't subject to enough morale on the crew, so maybe vehicles should be subject to Morale checks where they could count as stunned if they fail a LD test on any glaning hit (even if the hull saves it) where there LD would be minus the sum total of glancing hits. If a vehicle is penetrated but survives, then it could have rule such as "Hull Compromised" meaning that it either no longer gets a save on that location and that any weapon on that location (if it's still there) can only Snapfire for the remainder of the game.


My point is that your system simply is too heavy handed and poorly thought out at the moment.

They also have their effectiveness against AV 12 vehicles like the Chimera and Vendetta, which they are fairly frequently used against, crippled.


I agree none of this is exactly perfect, it's just tossing around ideas. I did suggest that vehicles would count the saves following the standard Infantry rules, so you could either get a cover save a Hull save or a Jink save etc, but no more than one. As it crudely stands a Missile Launcher would ignore AV13's armour save, so be just as effective as it is now against a LRBT.

I agree that if a vehicle receives a penetrating hit then it's armour save should be ignored (which I did mention for Skimmers/Flyers), perhaps on that location for the rest of the game. However maybe I approached the initial problem from the wrong angle and looked to the vehicles as the culprit instead of the weapons

It may be enough to have Anti-Infantry & Anti-Tank designations for weapons, so for example something like:

All Vehicles have a Hull Value to represent the AP needed to damage them sufficiently (which equates to the armour saves as in OP, though technically wouldn't be a save).

Flyers would have different Hull Values at -1. So AV10/11 would be a Hull Value of 5, AV 12/13 a Hull Value of 4.

Any weapon that causes a Penetrating hit, counts its AP as 1 higher for the purposes of Hull Values only (to a minimum of 1).

Anti-Infantry weapons would only ever roll a D3 on the Damage Table & could only take a Hull Point off if their AP was good enough to beat the Hull Value. Any damage result of '0', after modifiers, would mean that insufficient damage was caused to concern the crew.

Anti-Tank weapons would roll a D6 on the Damage Table and can still take off a Hull Point on a Glancing hit. However if they aren't able to beat the Hull Value they roll a D3 on the damage table, with any result of '0' not causing it to lose a Hull Point.

Then it's just a matter of common sense as to what is Anti-Infantry (most standard Infantry weapons, Plasmaguns, Power weapons etc) and what is Anti-tank (Autocannons, Krak Missiles, Power fists etc)...

This way things like Bolters and Brainleeches couldn't take out vehicles, but may still cause the crew to be shaken or stunned, whilst weapons like the Auto-cannon would work as they do currently for the most part, but would be just a little less effective vs. mainline tanks.

What do you think ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5663811.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5663811.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? DE, it's rare that they can get a glance on my vehicle from single tap range. And remember, although GW is doing a piss poor job at conveying it, S4 is actually super-human strong.

I've always imagined that AV10 represents the armour equivalent of a modern day civilian vehicle, like those that you (may be) drive everyday, and AV14 is something like a heavy armoured modern day military vehicle. Bolters are probably closer to LMG than SMG -with my limited gun/military knowledge-, and you can totally wreck a car with one if you unloaded enough bullets into one.

May be the solution to make vehicles a little tougher is to simply raise the HP some? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5665827.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5665827.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? should they be able to do so, as effectively, in the first place

I guess my thought comes from 2nd Edition, where weapons like a Bolter couldn't even damage a vehicle unless they hit the pilot/driver of something like a Sentinel/War Walker. I don't see why an APC like a Rhino would have armour on the rear they know everthing from Shuriken Catapults to Shootas to Bolters could damage enough to actually stop or wreck the vehicle, despite not physically penetrating the armour. The disparity between weapons of a high Strength and low AP really is the issue for me, like the Brainleech and Multi Laser - if these weapons can't auto-penetrate even Flak Armour then they have no right to damage a vehicle unless with a really lucky shot IMHO.

Strength 4 may be really strong, but if the AP is low enough that even Carapace armour has a 50% chance of stopping the shot, then vehicles should stand less of a risk at being 'hurt' by it.

I suppose another solution would be a negative modifier on the damage chart for low AP weapons, should they penetrate, with a result of '0' counting as superficial damage, therefore not removing a Hull Point, but still causing a Crew Shaken result. Something like AP- at -3, AP6 at -2 and AP5 at -1. This would mirror the positive modifiers for AP1 & 2 weapons. A vehicle could then receive a special Hull Save for glancing hits only, to the tune of:

AV10/11 5+
AV12/13 4+
AV 14 3+

If the AP is BETTER than the Hull Save then the vehicle cannot make the Hull Save. As usual a vehicle could only receive one kind of save (Hull Down or Jink or its Hull Save etc). If a weapon is Strength 7 or more then any shots that are saved in this way count as a Crew Stunned result. (though no Hull Points are removed).

It's simple and perhaps more efficient at doing what I propose than anything I've come up with so far - maybe

I agree raising some Hull Points might also be a solution, but I don't necessarily think vehicles should be tougher in that way, only that it should be harder for weapons of a low AP to hurt them. I don't see why a vehicle should stop working if its hull hasn't physically been penetrated by anything (bar Haywire attacks).

I'd also suggest that instead of being destroyed totally a Vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points by a Glancing Hit (a Penetrating hit would Wreck it as normal) has its AV reduced by 2 (all round) and loses its Hull Save for the remainder of the game. A vehicle with 0 Hull Points must pass a Crew LD test at the start of every turn or else be abandoned by its Crew/stop working. Should it suffer an additional Glancing hit then the crew must take a LD test (as above). Should it suffer a Penetrating Hit then it becomes Wrecked.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5667306.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5667306.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5667316.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5667316.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? 40k IMO.
WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods are ok for WHFB though.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5667435.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5667435.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles?
 Kain wrote:
What about haywire/EMP grenades where the glances represent the sudden release of Emag energy fething up the vehicle's systems?


They'd ignore any Hull Saves and would work as they do now (as the EMP bypasses the hull), however if a vehicle were Penetrated or lost its last Hull Point to a Haywire attack then it would simply be Wrecked at and would not Explode on account of the attacks shorting out all the vehicles systems and not doing any real 'physical' damage to the vehicle.

As a point I don't think a Vehicle should always explode on a Penetrating hit roll of 4-6 (depending on what weapon is used) unless said vehicle was carrying enough ammunition (say 2 Heavy Weapons and/or an Ordnance weapon) - they should simply become Wrecked instead.

My issue isn't with weapons like Haywire grenades, just with weapons of a low AP doing what they clearly aren't designed to do or are logically capable of doing. Something like our friend the Brainleech Worm is perhaps better represented by being Poisoned (2/3+) - this way it would only count as Strength 1 vs. Vehicles.

@Lanrak - I think it worked better in 2nd Edition, as you had to hit modifiers, armour save modifiers and a different armour penetration stat for weapons, which made more sense than what 3rd Edition + has had since (at least to me).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5668134.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5668134.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? BL devourers can carry a similar upgrade for deathspitters? For one thing deathspitters on TMC s are already useless and are in sore need of some reason to take them, secondly the precedent for the TMC version of a gun being better than what warriors get is well set by HVC s, Stranglethorns, and BL devourers, the Deathspitter just seems left out in the cold.

The great irony of the Tyranid arsenal is that most weapons billed as anti-armor weapons range from mediocre (rupture cannons) to unreasonably terrible (venom cannons of all shapes and sizes) at their purported jobs while things not described as such fluff wise like Impaler cannons and devourers are the premier armor killers at range anyway.

Zoanthropes are the exception, but the Zoanthropes are borderline anomalous in their ability to kill vehicles. AP1, S10, and lance fired at Bs4 from an affordable, multiwound psychic platform with a 3++ is *damn* good.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5668354.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5668354.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles?
So a Space Marine Predator would have like Toughness 9/8/6 and Armor 4+/5+/- or Hull Down 5+ Cover and a Tau Devilfish would be Toughness 8/7/6 and Armor 3+/4+/- or Jink 4+ Cover. A Land Raider could be Toughness 10/10/10 and Armor 5+/-/- Hull Down 6+ Cover as only its front has any real angles to it and its hard to hide.

Was a thought in my head, now its in your heads. Do with it as you will.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5670950.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5670950.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? MC's in functionality if not name, except that any to-wound roll exceeding the minimum required to hurt them can inflict ID or cripple them in some other way and they lack any saves, are unable to interact with objectives in any way, and are hilariously easy to kill in CC.

Really, at this point, they either need to scrap AV altogether and just make vehicles T units with saves, or roll them back to the previous editions stance, because 6E's method of dealing with vehicles is quickly resulting in them being left off the table entirely unless they're of fairly high AV, are flyers, or are 35pt utterly expendable Rhinos. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5671087.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5671087.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles?
KnuckleWolf wrote:While working with another forum member briefly on an alternate rule set, and playing lots of World of Tanks, I dreamed up a similar mechanic. My thought was that they had a Toughness score like every other model rated 1 to 10 per front/side/rear, and an armor save relative to the construction of the tanks sloped armor and drivers skill. I never did anything with it as far as testing but it seemed sound in theory. I also thought there wouldnt have to be much stat changing on weapons.

So a Space Marine Predator would have like Toughness 9/8/6 and Armor 4+/5+/- or Hull Down 5+ Cover and a Tau Devilfish would be Toughness 8/7/6 and Armor 3+/4+/- or Jink 4+ Cover. A Land Raider could be Toughness 10/10/10 and Armor 5+/-/- Hull Down 6+ Cover as only its front has any real angles to it and its hard to hide.

Was a thought in my head, now its in your heads. Do with it as you will.


I agree something like that would work equally as well as it combines MC's with Vehicles and perhaps makes better sense for using Toughnss values (instead of a blanket Toughness value like a Monstrous Creature), although I'd add 'wounds' (so anything but a Explodes result will cripple it but it would still function, then for every wound it suffers you could add +1 to the damage table) etc...

Vaktathi wrote:In all honesty, vehicles as they are now are already MC's in functionality if not name, except that any to-wound roll exceeding the minimum required to hurt them can inflict ID or cripple them in some other way and they lack any saves, are unable to interact with objectives in any way, and are hilariously easy to kill in CC.

Really, at this point, they either need to scrap AV altogether and just make vehicles T units with saves, or roll them back to the previous editions stance, because 6E's method of dealing with vehicles is quickly resulting in them being left off the table entirely unless they're of fairly high AV, are flyers, or are 35pt utterly expendable Rhinos.


That's pretty much how I feel when playing 6th, even the Defiler I ran with AV13, a 5++ save, the ability to Ignore Shaken and Stunned results and 'It will Not Die' died in combat to 3 Necron Wraiths, despite never having its hull penetrated once - with some good rolling I kept it alive for longer than it deserved, but I still only managed to kill 1 Wraith in return. That's almost as tough as a vehicle can be in 6th and it still didn't quite cut it due to the way the HP system works.

I think (along with others) a MC mechanic to represent them may be better than what they have currently. I don't have so much of an issue with them dying quicker in combat, unless it's due to attacks with a low AP (as Infantry can attack precise and vital areas more so than a ranged weapon), it's just that Vehicles don't play how I'd imagine them to, in part due to the AP system having no effect bar adding bonuses to damage for AP1 & 2.

Players ay my club still use ground vehicles, even though they rarely do much, though this is more out of defiance than actual effectiveness. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5671492.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5671492.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? AP 2+ add one and AP 1+ add two to the chart and all, those results ARE possible. This way if you want to take a tank out in one shot you HAD to bring anti armor weaponry. Their would be a fair amount of tweaking I'm sure.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5675094.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5675094.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? av into toughness.
Av 10 T6
Av 11 T7
Etc.
Then give the vehicle an armor save based on its new toughness.
Then rework 40k similar to fantasy where strength lowers armor saves.
I hate how str 10 tyranid cannonballs have a chance to be stopped by 6+ armor saves.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5677271.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5677271.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? Its much simpler to deduct AV from AP, and damage from resiliance to get save and damage rolls required.
(Eg how a lot of modern rule sets do it.)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5677856.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5677856.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? IMHO glances should be a 4+ and pens just are cover/invul dependant. Of course some races will have modifiers to this.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5677905.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5677905.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles? AP etc

Thunderwolf39 wrote:Just turn av into toughness.
Av 10 T6
Av 11 T7
Etc.
Then give the vehicle an armor save based on its new toughness.
Then rework 40k similar to fantasy where strength lowers armor saves.
I hate how str 10 tyranid cannonballs have a chance to be stopped by 6+ armor saves.


You mean kinda like back in 2nd Edition I'm all for that but I don't think it's reasonable with the game as it stands, although a MC mechanic may work better.

Goat wrote:Wrecking to glances in 6th is so anticlimactic. It's a glance... I think glance and I think minimum damage done. IMHO glances should be a 4+ and pens just are cover/invul dependant. Of course some races will have modifiers to this.


Yeah that's how I see it - a vehicles taken a few dents and is wrecked all of a sudden I still think a morale system may be better, so the crew of a vehicle reduced to 0 Hull Points by a glancing hit must roll a LD test to continue to use the vehicle, even if it's only capable of snap-firing or at a reduced movement - or else they can choose to abandon it and get in the action! I think a vehicle should only be removed once it takes a penetrating hit (if it suffers a pen hit on '0' Hull Points then it becomes wrecked). For each Hull Point lost you could reduce its speed by an inch or two or something similar, but I don't think it should simply become Wrecked. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5680078.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5680078.page GMT Armour Saves on Vehicles? 40k, as far as I know, are fires and bailing out as was just mentioned above. In 'Flames of War' a crew can be forced to bail out as a result of being hit. But that was modeled after WWII combat far more so than 40k. In game the bail out result just meant the tank was not going to act on its turn barring some further dice rolls. Hull points are fine for keeping the game moving and all, but the glance equals hull point thing is just, ugh. If you added fires as a result on the damage chart...something to consider yes?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5682699.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5682699.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles?
Glancing hit strips a hull point, penetrating hit takes a hull point and lets you roll on the "penetrating hit table" which can do many many horrible things to your vehicle...

That way a vehicle can not be destroyed in one hit, but a penetrating hit can seriously ruin a vehicle's day. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5683269.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5683269.page GMT Re:Armour Saves on Vehicles?
BUT with the current model count , 2nd ed rules would take far to long to play IMO.

A system that is similar to other modern war games like FoW would be preferable IMO.

But again this is re-write territory not adding even more rules to an over complicated rule set.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5687862.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/528768/5687862.page GMT