<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Armour saves for Vehicles"]]>

<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Armour saves for Vehicles"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/16.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Armour saves for Vehicles AVs having specific armour saves, it feels off. The idea behind adding armour saves is to cut down on "glance it to death" tactics and encourage more actual anti-tank weapons.

For example:
AV10 = 5+
AV11 = 4+
AV12 = 3+
AV13/14 = 2+

While that looks good on paper, it makes some units field weird. It obviously makes IKs god-like, while doing practically nothing for AV10, since 99% of shots taken at AV10 will ignore the 5+
So my proposal is to give ALL vehicles a 4+ armour with modifications. +1 armour for Tanks (so 3+ on average) and -1 armour when attacking Rear Armour.
I thought about having -1 to Open-topped, but again that makes most AV10 never have a save, so I'm not sure about that idea.

Alternately, all AV could have a 3+ armour, -1 in Rear, -1 for Open-topped, -1 for Flyers (since they need to be 'lighter')

Any thoughts?

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814600.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814600.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814641.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814641.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814643.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814643.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles AV gets 4+, -1 to rear armour (normally 5+).
What about the +1 for Tank (normally 3+)? Tanks really should be "harder" than other vehicles, don't you think?
Oh, and with this, I would also make AP1 have +1 to the damage chart. The current +2 for AP1, +1 for AP2 just enflames my OCD.

I'm hoping that this would enourage more Vehicle usage and make anti-tank weapons more useful (since most are AP 3,2, or 1). I really don't see any downsides to this proposal, or any units that can overly abuse this. The biggest upside is to decrease the effectiveness of anti-infantry weapons on vehicles.
As much as I love my Scatter lasers, they really shouldn't be the "go-to" answer for Rhino Spam.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814673.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814673.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles
For example; Rhinos. Rhinos are weird little vehicles because they're supposed to be better than Chimeras... yet also worse? Doesn't really seem to make sense on the table top right now, as currently Rhinos are definitely the worse of the two. But if we assume that Rhinos have Armour Saves like Space Marines, then even a Rhino that isn't as "tough" will still be "resilient".

(FYI, the values below assume that the Armour Value works like Toughness)

Rhino:
FA 6 (3+ save)
SA 6 (3+ save)
RA 5 (4+ save)

Chimera:
FA 7 (3+ save)
SA 5 (4+ save)
RA 5 (4+ save)

This makes the Chimera "tougher" on the front armour than a Rhino, but more vulnerable on side and rear. Meanwhile, the Rhino still feels very "Space Marine-y" because it's mostly 3+ armour saves, which is a Space Marine staple.

Not all very heavy tanks should be 2+ armour either, only those portrayed as being almost completely impregnable. Even a Leman Russ Battle Tank should only be a 3+ armour save, but a Land Raider and a Monolith should be 2+.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814725.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814725.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles
If possibly, I'd really, really like to avoid that again. Keeping AV values, but adding armour saves seems the simplest.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814741.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814741.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles
Treat each vehicle on a case by case basis. A vehicle might be "tough" but poorly protected, while another might be easily harmed, but is well shielded.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814785.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814785.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles AV starts at 4+, with a +1 for being a Tank, then yes, Rhinos will be 3+, as will Land Raiders. Dreadnaughts would still only be 4+, but that represents the exposed moving parts.
If you want to compare the "toughness" of them, AV12 is still much harder then T4, yet something being bigger allows you to exploit weak spots easier.

Honestly, doing this very simple change AND making wounded MCs roll on a damage chart is pretty much the solution to MANY of the current 40K problems. Sure some things will still have issues, but there will never be a "perfect" game]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814842.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8814842.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8815274.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8815274.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles AV.
So if we do a case-by-case, How to we determine what vehicles get what? Just guess?
So a LR would have 3+ on all sides (maybe 4+ in the Rear)
A Rhino would have 3+ on Front & Sides, 4+ in Rear
A Chimera would have 3+ on Front, 4+ on sides & rear

--What about Eldar? A Serpent has higher AV than a Rhino.
Is 3+ Front & Sides, 4+ R on a AV12 Skimmer too powerful?, or should it have 4+ Front & Sides, 5+ R.
Vypers and War Walkers (being open-topped) could easily be said to only have 5+ on all sides

--What about Soulgrinders and Defilers. I don't think Walkers should have 3+ armour since there are more exposed moving parts than a Tank. I feel the Daemon Walkers would be fine with 4+ Front & Sides, 5+ R (especially since they has a 5++ anyway).
--Dreadnaughts would be an interesting case. My first instinct would be to make then 4+ Front & Sides, 5+ R, but then what about the Ironclad? Surely it should have a 3+ on at least the Front, as should an IK.

I guess my point is that doing it case-by case gets tricky and we might not all agree on which gets what kind on save. Since we only want the 'spread' of saves to be 3+, 4+, 5+, is there a pattern we see forming, or is this all arbitrary?

I feel that in each case above, a simple "catch-all" that would only require a few sentences added (rather than pages of unit stats) would be to start all AVs as 4+, modifying +1 for Tank, -1 for Rear AV. That should cover 90% of all vehicles adequately with as few "head-scratchers" as possible (like the Ironclad).
Maybe all Walkers could get +1 armour to the Front only? That would cover Dreads, but would be too good for Eldar WarWlakers and Ork Killa Kans
I was going to make Open-topped another -1, but that would mean most Ork & Dark Eldar vehicle would pretty much never get a save (since 90% of weapons in the game are AP5). So I'll leave Open-topped as just +1 to damage rolls.

-]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816149.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816149.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles
I also think that 5+ should be saved for the rear armour of only the flimsiest vehicles. Remember, even a Bolter ignores 5+ armour.

Probably best to look at it one faction at a time. Here's my thoughts on Space Marines & Orks:

(Name: Front Armour / Side Armour / Rear Armour)

Space Marines
Rhino/Razorback: 3+/3+/4+
Whirlwind: 4+/4+/4+
Land Speeder (all variants): 4+/4+/5+
Dreadnaught: 3+/3+/4+
*Ironclad Dreadnaught: 3+/3+/4+
Drop Pod: 4+/4+/4+
Predator/Vindicator: 3+/3+/4+
Land Raider (all variants): 2+/2+/2+
Storm Talon: 4+/4+/5+
**Storm Raven: 4+/4+/4+

*note: Personally, I feel making the Ironclad Dreadnaught have the same armour value as a regular dreadnaught, but with a 2+ front armour, would be better than the current mix.

**another note: Again, I feel like the Storm Raven, given this method, should have a lower Armour Value than 12 all around, but actually should be a 3+ armour save all around instead.

Orks
Trukk: 4+/4+/5+
Warbuggy/Wartrakk: 4+/4+/5+
Dakkajet (all variants): 4+/4+/5+
Battlewagon: 3+/4+/4+
Killa Kanz: 4+/4+/4+
Deff Dread: 3+/4+/4+
Gorkanaught/Morkanaught: 2+/3+/4+
Stompa: 3+/3+/4+
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816268.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816268.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles

Yarium wrote:
Can't say I agree that 3+ should be the best. 2+ should be the best, but should also be very, very, rare. I can only think of Land Raiders and Monoliths. Land Raiders are specifically meant to shake off hits from even anti-tank rounds. It takes wicked future-tech to bust through them. Besides, at AV14, it's not like an AP3 Missile Launcher is going to do much anyways. Same goes for the Monolith.

Spoiler:

I complete agree with your assessment. As much as I would prefer a "blanket" rule for all AVs/vehicle types so that we didn't need specific unit entries, It may be the best way.
So following your example, here is what I propose for Eldar, Dark Eldar, Daemons & Necrons:

All Eldar Grav Tanks: 3+/3+/5+ (making the rear only 5+ for Eldar makes sense for some reason, maybe due to Skimmers needing to be lighter?)
Vypers and WarWalkers: 4+/4+/5+
Crimson Hunter/ Hemlock: 4+/4+/5+

DE Venoms and Raiders: 4+/4+/5+
Ravagers: 3+/4+/5+
Razorwing/ Voidraven: 4+/4+/5+

SoulGrinder: 3+/3+/4+
Khorne chariot: 4+/4+/5+
Tz & Slaanesh chariots: 5+/5+/5+ (so basically just the Daemon save)

Necrons would be simple:
Monolith: 2+/2+/2+
Everything else 4+/4+/4+ (we can let Quantum Sheilding be what makes them special)

Bonus for Imperial (and Renegade) Knights: 2+/3+/4+

-]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816349.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816349.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles

Galef wrote:

Yarium wrote:
Can't say I agree that 3+ should be the best. 2+ should be the best, but should also be very, very, rare. I can only think of Land Raiders and Monoliths. Land Raiders are specifically meant to shake off hits from even anti-tank rounds. It takes wicked future-tech to bust through them. Besides, at AV14, it's not like an AP3 Missile Launcher is going to do much anyways. Same goes for the Monolith.

Spoiler:

I also think that 5+ should be saved for the rear armour of only the flimsiest vehicles. Remember, even a Bolter ignores 5+ armour.

Probably best to look at it one faction at a time. Here's my thoughts on Space Marines & Orks:

(Name: Front Armour / Side Armour / Rear Armour)

Space Marines
Rhino/Razorback: 3+/3+/4+
Whirlwind: 4+/4+/4+
Land Speeder (all variants): 4+/4+/5+
Dreadnaught: 3+/3+/4+
*Ironclad Dreadnaught: 3+/3+/4+
Drop Pod: 4+/4+/4+
Predator/Vindicator: 3+/3+/4+
Land Raider (all variants): 2+/2+/2+
Storm Talon: 4+/4+/5+
**Storm Raven: 4+/4+/4+

*note: Personally, I feel making the Ironclad Dreadnaught have the same armour value as a regular dreadnaught, but with a 2+ front armour, would be better than the current mix.

**another note: Again, I feel like the Storm Raven, given this method, should have a lower Armour Value than 12 all around, but actually should be a 3+ armour save all around instead.

Orks
Trukk: 4+/4+/5+
Warbuggy/Wartrakk: 4+/4+/5+
Dakkajet (all variants): 4+/4+/5+
Battlewagon: 3+/4+/4+
Killa Kanz: 4+/4+/4+
Deff Dread: 3+/4+/4+
Gorkanaught/Morkanaught: 2+/3+/4+
Stompa: 3+/3+/4+

Not bad, all in all, especially on the Necron vehicles I think - since other than the Monolith, they can all Jink anyway.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816383.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816383.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles
Agreed on Dark Eldar vehicles.

Really not familiar with Daemons, so can't say on that. I'll toss on another two factions - Harlequins & Chaos Space Marines.

Harlequins
(all 5+, but that's because they already have a 5+ Inv save)

Chaos Space Marines

Helbrute/Defiler/Forgefiend/Maulerfiend: 3+/3+/4+
Heldrake: 3+/4+/5+
Chaos Predator/Vindicator/Rhino: 3+/3+/4+
Chaos Land Raider: 2+/2+/2+
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816404.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816404.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles However cover saves, void shields, refractor fields, and to a degree invul saves should be used depending on the army codex and type of vehicles.

In other words large slow vehicles with 13+AV should not have cover saves since the should be to slow to jink or to large to hide. They can in appropriate instances have void shields on extremely large vehicles (read superheavies) or invul saves (however I prefer the limited invul saves like the Ork flinga which only works on the first pen or glance, however flat invuls like vs all shooting but not CC are good too) this is good for non superheavy AV 12/13 vehicles.
Av 10 and 11 (or open topped 12 or less) are the paperweight problem area of vehicles. This is the area that needs solid cover saves like jink, refractor fields for the slower units(lowers the str on hits), and/or of the above abilities.
You basically need protection to marginalized but not eliminate the current str5-7 shooting spam in the game that makes hull points a problem. The immobilise on grav also needs to go away but that's a different issue entirely. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816423.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816423.page GMT Re:Armour saves for Vehicles PCs system in favor to a system inspired from 5th edition.

That should solve the problem for all what's a normal vehicule. If the aim is not to get rid of this issue, then the system being on proposal has basicly no reason to be anyway in my opinion.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816437.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816437.page GMT Re:Armour saves for Vehicles

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
i feel it's not at all representative of anything being even lightly armored. If you want to solve the boltercreshunigrearchimera problem, just say weapons Under the strengh of 5 are light weaponry and enable to damage a vehicule. And remove the PCs system in favor to a system inspired from 5th edition.

That should solve the problem for all what's a normal vehicule. If the aim is not to get rid of this issue, then the system being on proposal has basicly no reason to be anyway in my opinion.

I don't think the problem is about Bolters killing Chimeras, but about the following:

#1 - "Anti Tank" weapons, are poor at doing their job. This is because High Rate of Fire weapons are far superior due to the nature of getting an opponent to be "hulled out".
#2 - Only vehicles with saves are considered survivable at all. A vehicle that Jinks for a 4+ save is vastly more survivable than a vehicle that can't jink at all. This is because something that Jinks can seriously hamper both High Rate of Fire weapons, and the traditional Anti Tank weapons.
#3 - Monstrous Creatures get armour saves, so why not vehicles? This may sound like an oversimplification, but think on it, and it's really not. A Rhino, right now, is pretty akin to a T7 Monstrous Creature with no armour save and 3 wounds, with a caveat that you need to be better than S4 to hurt it. Except worse in some situations because there's a chance for a single wound to also instantly destroy it and/or neutralize it.

By giving vehicles armour saves you make high rate of fire weapons that have poor AP, like the Scatter Laser, less effective. An Autocannon is still marginally effective when you hit the target's 4+ save side. A Lascannon is very reliable in this case now, because it can't be saved against. A vehicle that can Jink now only has an advantage against Anti Tank Weapons, making the High Rate of Fire weapons still the best way to deal with them. And it shrinks the gap between useless Vehicles and Useful Vehicles, and between Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816472.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816472.page GMT Armour saves for Vehicles

Yarium wrote:
Actually, I'd make all Grav Tanks be 4+ all around. In my head, Eldar aren't supposed to be well armoured, using their cunning and manoeuvrability to avoid damage instead.

While I agree in concept, the outside of a Grav tank is made of Wraithbone, which is the exact material the WraithGuard/Lords/Knights are made of. So fluff-wise it should be the same (3+), but gameplay-wise, I'll agree that 4+ would be fine, espeacially since Fast Skimmers have so many advantages already.
If we do change the Grav tanks, then ALL Eldar vehicles (and Dark Eldar ones) might as well just be 4+/4+/5+ and call it a day.
At that rate, one could condense all the Factions like so:

All Space Marines vehicles: 3+/3+/4+
Land Raiders: 2+/2+/2+

All Eldar (inc/ Dark Eldar & Harlies): 4+/4+/5+

All Necron Vehicles: 4+/4+/4+
Monolith: 2+/2+/2+

All Orks: 4+/4+/5+
Battle Wagon: 2+/4+/5+
Gorkanaught/Morkanaught/Stompas: 3+/3+/4+

Bascially you give a general stat to apply to all the vehicles of that Faction (same tech afterall) and single out particular ones like the LR and Monolith. AV stats and Special shielding, etc would remain the characteristics that separate the vehicles within each faction. For Example, even though a Wave Serpent and Vyper hav ethe same 4+ armour, the Serpent is still much better due to being AV12 and having the Shield. Both would still have to Jink against Autocannons and better

-]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816503.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816503.page GMT Re:Armour saves for Vehicles
I conceed that weapons meant to serv as AT guns are a bit weak. There are ways to make them matching lighter rapid fire ones, ways it'd be interesting to dig into, but they do not abide in here.

Why not improve vehicules' gameplay, i totally agree with this objective, but this system is a wrong leap and it'd be better to tackle other tries that may really, truly bring somthing.

That's my opinion on that matter]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816508.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816508.page GMT Re:Armour saves for Vehicles

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
See your point, but still, i believe that if you want you're vehicle to survive, then you manage to get it a cover of anykind. If you can't you got either outsmarted or made a mistake. If you manage to get it, you then did fine and will heavil increase it's life expectancy.

I conceed that weapons meant to serv as AT guns are a bit weak. There are ways to make them matching lighter rapid fire ones, ways it'd be interesting to dig into, but they do not abide in here.

Why not improve vehicules' gameplay, i totally agree with this objective, but this system is a wrong leap and it'd be better to tackle other tries that may really, truly bring somthing.

That's my opinion on that matter

Well, and major contention with this is how MCs don't have to "scramble for cover" just to get a save of some kind. I really like how currently things have T, while vehicles have AV. But GW somehow considers AV to be equal to T + armour save. AV should really just be the "T" of a vehicle. Vehicles not only don't get armour saves, but you then roll additional damage against them. That's why MCs are consider OP right now compared to them. It's also why High-rate of fire weapons are way better than anit-tank weapons. If AP doesn't mater vs AV, just take Scatter lasers.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816616.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/698391/8816616.page GMT