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?

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?