Page 1 of 1

Barahammer: 40k Vehicles with Toughness

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:51 am
by Baragash
So we discussed this at the meet, but a few people had trouble visualising the method with a verbal explanation and I said I'd write it down :)

Basically I dislike the fact that you spend £20+ and painting time on a model and it gets nuked pretty easily, and the general superiority of MCs at similar costs. This is why the Dreadknight was made IMO, because a Dread just gets hopelessly battered by an MC in CC (unless I'm rolling the Armour Pen :oops: )

Tenuously Related Rule Adjustment

My houserules includes a condition that applies to all models:

Line of Sight - All models have 360 degree Line of Sight

Arc of Fire - Vehicles have arcs of fire as dictated in the BRB. Non-vehicles essentially replace all the use of visible and LoS in the what they can shoot rules with Arc of Fire.

I appreciate the above verbage is not rule lawyer proof as it's not amazingly relevant to this (if at all) ;)

Wounding Vehicles

Vehicles convert armour to T on the following scale
AV:T
14:10
13:9
12:8
etc

Roll to hit and wound from shooting like any other model, vehicles T depends on the firing arc so there's still tactical advantage to be gained by flanking or getting behind a vehicle. Roll to hit in CC per the normal WS/no-WS methods.

Vehicle Saves

The major change.

Let's assume a LR has a 6+ Vehicle Save (because I have made a temporary, arbitrary decision to give it a 5+ Vehicle Save vs Meltaguns).

It would roll it's Vehicle Save as:
D6 + the AP of the weapon it is saving against

So vs a Meltagun it rolls a D6 and adds 1, so it will pass it's Vehicle Save on a 5+ and fail on a 1-4.

This means the lower (and therefore better) AP a weapon has, the harder it is for a Vehicle to make it's save. At this point needing a 7+ = autofail.

Cover Saves/Invulnerable Saves remain unchanged, Vehicles take only 1 Save like any other model.

Wounds & Destruction

A Vehicle has a number of wounds like any other model. When it loses it's last wound, roll on the Vehicle destruction table:
1-2: Immobilised and all Weapons Destroyed (results can be repaired)
3-4: Wreck per BRB
5-6: Explodes per BRB

How does this affect Special Rules

Well a lot need to change obviously, here's some brainstorming:

Melta: Wounds on a 2+ vs Vehicles within half range. Meltabombs are Melta that are always within half range.

Lance: Vs Vehicles where it needs greater than a 4+, it needs a 4+.

Ordnance: re-roll failed to wound rolls vs Vehicles. +1 on the Vehicle Destroyed chart.

Thunder Hammer: Can inflict Crew Stunned results.

AP1: +1 on the Vehicle Destroyed chart.

AP-: -1 on the Vehicle Destroyed chart.

Rending: 6 to wound causes an AP1 wound.

Haywire Grenades:
1 - no effect
2 - AP- wound
6 - AP1 wound

Re: Barahammer: 40k Vehicles with Toughness

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:55 am
by lostandthedamned
Not sure this works too well except to make vehicle much, much tougher and making some tank heavy lists unkillable.
I would assume that AP- also adds 6 to the Vehicle save, otherwise they become better than melta guns.

All vehicles have full effectiveness until you kill them, but every attack can now hurt 1 higher armour than before.
Guard/Orks/Nids can assault any non-walker/raider/demolisher vehicle to death in combat with great ease as they are not limited to 1 attack by grenades and there is no protection from death by only being able to glance.
Compare glancing hits needing 5 or 6 for each weapon +1 for immobilise +1 for death: therefore to make vehicles at least as difficult to destroy they need at least that many wounds (eg 5 for a predator). This makes them much harder to destroy from shooting. You either make them easier to kill in combat and multiple times harder from shooting. Or just as hard and even harder from shooting.
To me this makes little sense especially without anyway to reduce the fighting effectiveness until it's dead.

In response i've been fiddling for a while with another system for vehicles based around how much the armour value is beaten by rather than straight rolls. Give me a few hours to write it up and i'll post it as an alternative.

Non melta c/c attacks will always give vehicles a 2+ save

Re: Barahammer: 40k Vehicles with Toughness

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:09 am
by Baragash
lostandthedamned wrote:Not sure this works too well except to make vehicle much, much tougher and making some tank heavy lists unkillable.


That's not true. I can't remember what save I gave a LR in my draft, but statistically it still averaged 27 lascannons to kill it. The range of results might have changed, but the average did not.

If Zilla lists are beatable (and I see no crying on the internet about them), then vehicle heavy lists should not be a problem.

lostandthedamned wrote:I would assume that AP- also adds 6 to the Vehicle save, otherwise they become better than melta guns.


Probably. This is a brainstorm so I haven't covered everything.

lostandthedamned wrote:All vehicles have full effectiveness until you kill them,


Yes. This is intended. Alternatively the WotR rules for hurting MC creatures should be included for MCs.

lostandthedamned wrote:but every attack can now hurt 1 higher armour than before.


Not really true. A Lascannon needs a 5+ to glance or pen Av14, now it needs a 5+ to wound against the same. An Autocannon needs a 5+ to glance or pen Av12, now it needs a 5+ to wound the same.

lostandthedamned wrote:Guard/Orks/Nids can assault any non-walker/raider/demolisher vehicle to death in combat with great ease as they are not limited to 1 attack by grenades and there is no protection from death by only being able to glance.


I said CC rules stay the same.

lostandthedamned wrote:Compare glancing hits needing 5 or 6 for each weapon +1 for immobilise +1 for death: therefore to make vehicles at least as difficult to destroy they need at least that many wounds (eg 5 for a predator). This makes them much harder to destroy from shooting. You either make them easier to kill in combat and multiple times harder from shooting. Or just as hard and even harder from shooting.


So they are basically the same as an MC, except the MC is better in CC and the vehicle is better at range. Currently an MC is better in CC and in plenty of cases arguably better at shooting as it doesn't get stunned or shaken.

lostandthedamned wrote:To me this makes little sense especially without anyway to reduce the fighting effectiveness until it's dead.


*shrugs* Matter of preference. Whilst MCs can run around to their hearts content I find it very dissatisfactory the way vehicles are handled.

lostandthedamned wrote:Non melta c/c attacks will always give vehicles a 2+ save


I haven't decided how Vehicle Saves work in CC yet.

Re: Barahammer: 40k Vehicles with Toughness

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:25 am
by lostandthedamned
Baragash wrote:
lostandthedamned wrote:but every attack can now hurt 1 higher armour than before.


Not really true. A Lascannon needs a 5+ to glance or pen Av14, now it needs a 5+ to wound against the same. An Autocannon needs a 5+ to glance or pen Av12, now it needs a 5+ to wound the same.



Talking about the effect of lower strength weapons.

S3 can now hurt Armour 10 (T6)
S4 can now hurt Armour 11 (T7)
S5 can now hurt Armour 12 (T8)
S6 can now hurt Armour 13 (T9)
S7 can now hurt Armour 14 (T10)

Re: Barahammer: 40k Vehicles with Toughness

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:36 am
by mattjgilbert
I think I must be really really thick. I still don't get this at all :( And I've read it twice!

Stunned and Shaken are now not possible I take it?

You can repair results but still be on zero wounds?

Re: Barahammer: 40k Vehicles with Toughness

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:50 am
by Baragash
lostandthedamned wrote:
Baragash wrote:
lostandthedamned wrote:but every attack can now hurt 1 higher armour than before.


Not really true. A Lascannon needs a 5+ to glance or pen Av14, now it needs a 5+ to wound against the same. An Autocannon needs a 5+ to glance or pen Av12, now it needs a 5+ to wound the same.



Talking about the effect of lower strength weapons.

S3 can now hurt Armour 10 (T6)
S4 can now hurt Armour 11 (T7)
S5 can now hurt Armour 12 (T8)
S6 can now hurt Armour 13 (T9)
S7 can now hurt Armour 14 (T10)


My bad for misunderstanding :oops:

Well that's good, it acts as a balance to the claim that vehicles are much tougher now than before ;)

mattjgilbert wrote:I think I must be really really thick. I still don't get this at all :( And I've read it twice!


This help?

Example 1:
Autocannon (S7, AP4) vs Predator front (T9, VS 7+)
Wounds on 6
Predator Saves on a 3+ (AP4 of Autocannon + D6 roll >= 7)

Example 2:
Autocannon (S7, AP4) vs Landspeeder front (T6, VS 9+)
Wounds on 3+
Landspeeder Saves on a 5+ (AP4 of Autocannon + D6 roll >= 9)

Example 3:
Blastmaster (S8, AP3) vs Rhino front (T7, VS 9+)
Wounds on 3+
Rhino Saves on a 6 (AP3 of Blastmaster + D6 roll >= 9)

mattjgilbert wrote:Stunned and Shaken are now not possible I take it?


Only by exotic means.

mattjgilbert wrote:You can repair results but still be on zero wounds?


I have mentioned that it's part brainstorm on a couple of occasions ;)

So it could take it to one wound and repair one result.....

Side Note

Vehicles would still be bound by the rules for speed vs number of weapons that can be fired.

Re: Barahammer: 40k Vehicles with Toughness

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:05 pm
by mattjgilbert
Yes those helped. My brain want to work it out a different way though (same result)

Vehicle Save minus AP of weapon = result you need to equal or beat. More then 7+ (now I get that comment) means auto fail.

So your same examples are
7 - 4 = 3+ needed
9 - 4 = 5+ needed
9 - 3 = 6+ needed

So a landspeeder hit (and wounded) by a lascannon cannot save
9 - 1 = 8+ needed on a D6