Goatboy’s 40k: 8th Edition Dreams

Goatboy here to talk about why vehicle really suck and why I’m excited about what we’re hearing about 8th Edition rules!

Goatboy here on another lovely day and the thought I want to bring onto the table top is the idea of moving away from Armor values on vehicles and finally coming to the conclusion that vehicles, as is, really kinda suck.  I want you to think about the last time you really cared about the “hull points” on a vehicle.  I can bet the last time was when dealing with a Super Heavy of some sort – most likely a flavor of the Knight.  Which of course means you pretty much didn’t really use most of the vehicle rules for damage as the Knight pretty much ignores those.  In a lot of ways the Knight basically just has a very difficult to breach toughness mixed with a circumstantial armor save.  Which brings me to the rumored rule change that vehicles will lose armor values and instead get replaced by an all encompassing Wound pool to use and abuse.

Armor Value Problems

I for one would love this idea as I always found the Armor Value to be a clunky system.  Mix that with a very unforgiving damage table and you end up with an expensive box to try and use.  I won’t go into how many games I have won when 6’s just kept coming on the dice roll and I watch helplessly as my opponents multi hull pointed boxes go up in smoke through one damage roll.  I have also been on the receiving end of many – oops I rolled some 6’s with a few wraith knights on my own sad little Imperial Knights.  Its a bad system and doesn’t make you want to buy an expensive tank or cool looking resin monster from Forge World.  It also doesn’t help that the most common army has the best answer to any known Super Heavy Vehicle – the Grav Gun.

I can almost see the little Space Marines from up here…

Age of Sigmar to the Rescue

With the rumors pointing to a move towards an AOS style system for vehicles with a wound pool, armor save, and some other mix of rules to help keep them from getting poisoned out I have become a very excited Goatboy for the future of my hobby.  Looking at AOS their are a few things that seem to hit both systems and thus could give us an idea on how many wounds we might see on our most common vehicles we have out there.  They all fall into the Daemon category as GW loves the idea of a cross platform army as you can get two games for the price of one set of miniatures.

Some Chaos Examples

Will start with the big baddy in the form of the Soul Grinder.  He is running at 16 wounds off of the website War Scroll which feels about right.  He does get progressively slower as he takes damage and has a stock save of a 4+.  I am not sure if will see some changes to Armor Saves.  AOS seems to have a much different shooting flavor and 40k is home of the shooting gallery.  I mean if you look at the Fluff a bolter should be a murder machine and I suspect the “8th edition” Bolter to be pretty decent.  Still the 16 wounds seems like a good starting point and a way to “figure” out the other options.

Now where this gets weird is that you would think some other things should have more wounds due to their old armor set up.  Look at the Blood Throne from AOS.  It has a small 7 wounds for its stats and no “changes” to how it interacts as it takes wounds.  This is a pretty big difference as while yes it is a “vehicle” in AOS it isn’t on the same scale as the giant monster the Soul Grinder is.  So trying to figure out the “math” to create valid wound pools for vehicles becomes a heck of a lot harder to do.

Looking at the Slaanesh Chariots and you start to see some other differences from the Khorne one.  The Slaanesh one is at Wound Pool 6 and its 40k counterpart has an armor value of 10 all around.  The Tzeentch one, having the same armor value as the Slaanesh one gets a whooping 8 Wound Pool to work with.  From looking at this there is no real reason beyond the current disdain for creepers of the Warhammer Universe – the Slaanesh bad Touch mama jammas.

So what does this mean at all?  Well it means most likely the system to figure out the Wound Pool is probably a heck of a lot more complicated.  Here are the rules I can see that are followed.  First – if it is a big monster with a dial down set of stats as it gets hurt it needs a big fat wound pool.  If its use always stays the same throughout its life its Wound Pool is a lot lower.  With that – lets try to figure out some wound pool ideas for the common vehicles we see day in and day out.

Some Marine Examples

Let’s look at the Drop Pod.  It is supposed to be a single use item with a small set of offensive power.  It does have all sides the same armor so while it isn’t supposed to be living forever it should have a somewhat decent set of starting wounds.  I would suspect it would have a pool of 6 wounds with some kind of armor save of a 4+.  This would help keep it within the old set of rules where if you could get past its armor you had a good chance at popping it due to being Open Top, Immobilized, and usually hard to get some kind of cover for.

Will move along to the next extreme and try to figure out the Land Raider.  I suspect a push to make these guys valid again so I bet their wound pool is pretty high.  Something along the lines of a 12-14 with some kind of diminishing set of return as it gets “hurt”.  Maybe less firepower as its systems are damaged as well as a slower push as it trudges along.  An armor save of a 3+ would seem viable as it should always have a “chance” to ignore wounds to it just like the stories we read about the Land Raider surviving underwater and kicking a$$ for the Emperor!

From there if the mention return of Rhino assaults is true that we will see a bunch get dusted off the shelf.  I bet they run in like the Drop pod at a 6 or 7 on the wound table and no real diminishing returns as it gets damaged.  It would feel to clunky to have those extra rules on a troop transport as it would slow the game down and leave you looking at a chart all the time.  Especially if they come back to being in style again.

Lastly lets think about the Dreadnought.  I don’t know about you – but I love these models.  I hate it so much that they almost never see the table top unless they are abusing a Forge World upgrade or in the spoiler list in a random event.  I want these guys to be good, kick butt, and just show up more often.  I don’t know how many times I have read a story from GW where the Dreadnought is coming in hot, kicking a ton of butt, and making me wish mine didn’t get immobilized when someone shoots a brown noise gun in its nether regions and its stopped dead in its metallic booties.  I would hope they start at 10 Wounds with either a decent “marine” armor save of a 3+ or some other type of save.  Mix that in with a non set of diminishing returns and you have a true vehicular monstrous creature we all would love to play with.

~Do you think this is a valid way of thinking?  Does this make sense to help “fix” the game a bit and make everything a viable option? Is there someone sitting with a ton of Dreadnoughts just waiting for the day to get in and crush those fools who thought dreads were lame?  Can Murderfang get his day in the sun?

  • Angry Panda

    I hoping for a rule set that gives me bonuses to playing naked.

    • Cergorach

      Sweet Christmas! That’s one great motivation to swear off GW games… 😉

    • stinkoman

      Pandas dont wear clothes!

      • Angry Panda

        And we also don’t have nipples

    • Xodis

      Your opponent being too awkward to concentrate on the game isn’t good enough?

      • Angry Panda

        It’s not awkward if it’s arousing 😉 <3

        • Xodis

          I figured they were only feeling awkward BECAUSE they were aroused lol.

  • Walter Vining

    actually the vehicles rules (aside from hull points) are fine. They represent the inherent danger that running a box full of fuel can present, as well as having the weapon systems mounted on the outside of it. the AV system is a little bit easier to use than in other games.
    I think what would “fix” vehicles is to drop hull points and go back to the old charts (glance and pen). Just would need to get rid of the random explodes result if you don’t penetrate the hull

    • Drew_Da_Destroya

      Also, maybe make things that are obviously vehicles (Riptide/Stormsurge) into actual vehicles, and not give them the cheesy GMC rules to push models.

      • Walter Vining

        wouldn’t you then have to give crisis suits an AV?

        • Drew_Da_Destroya

          Not strictly, those are dudes in advanced armor. A Riptide, though, is pretty clearly a giant Mech, and not really the same as a single dude running around in an Iron Man suit.

          • Walter Vining

            playing the devils advocate here, it kinda is. they are both armored in someway with a living pilot in them. in the case of a tide, could be multiple pilots. where the toughness represents how hard it is to get through the armor of the battlesuit and deal damage to the pilots, and the save being the ability of the armor to actually deflect said damage,

          • Walter Vining

            the flip side of that argument is that I don’t disagree with you completely. the SS and anything greater than a ‘tide SHOULD be considered a vehicle.
            this includes WKs. GMCs shouldn’t exist outside of nids.

          • kingcobra668

            Daemon lords?

          • Drew_Da_Destroya

            Taking your argument to its logical end, the same can be said of any vehicle. They’re all just armored things with living pilots inside (I mean, Dreadnought pilots are only kinda living, but still). There’s no difference there, which means everything should be a Toughness value. But the game makes a distinction (at least, until 8th Edition), and if we’re arguing that AV has merit, then it only really has merit if everyone plays along. Giving a unit that, in an earlier edition perhaps, would have been given an AV a T value instead warps the game.

            It’s an inherent admission by GW that GMCs are better than vehicles, basically. At the very least, it’s a pretty baldfaced attempt to sell new Tau armies by making their big unit more powerful and also more difficult to kill.

          • Walter Vining

            where is this admission at?

          • Drew_Da_Destroya

            They aren’t vehicles, right? The design team had to make that decision. Them deciding that the Riptide/Stormsurge should be Creatures, while not being an outright admission, is at least tacitly admitting what we all know already: GMCs are better than Vehicles in the current edition.

          • Walter Vining

            that’s not an official admission, and thusly it is purely speculative and opinion based. vehicles ARE weaker. they are large targets where weapons are specifically designed to defeat them. MCs and GMCs ALSO have the same weaknesses as vehicles do (poison and many AT weapons work equally as well against G/MC as tanks).
            what really should happen is a multiple wound aspect to them to make them MORE effective. This may be the damage value in SW:A. Where if a wound is suffered they take two instead or what not.
            are g/mc really that much better than vehicles? if so its only because of the way that the rules are written, and your salt for tau taken into account as well.

          • Ghorgul

            Well, GMCs have been specifically ruled to be affected by poison only on roll of 6 in To-Wound roll. This does not fit the category of working well by no means. Most poison attacks have no AP value, making poison mostly useless against GMCs when they have 3+ or 4+ save and FnP on top of that.
            So what you claim is incorrect.

          • Carey_Mahoney

            That’s what it is.

          • Nightwalker

            Yeah I have always viewed the Tau rules for those “vehicle’s” to be indicative of their technological superiority. They have redundant systems built into the suits which is why it is more effective against antitank weapons, however the material it is made out of makes it vulnerable to non-antitank weapons as it is not as durable.

          • Brettila

            So is a tank, by your definition…

    • petrow84

      Aww, hell no; you never experienced the pain then to shoot 7 glancing hits onto a Rhino, and it still kept coming.

      • Walter Vining

        Actually i have. And that’s how it should be. The worst result you should be able to get off of a glancing hit should be immobilized. Otherwise it should be stunned or shaken

  • Heinz Fiction

    I personally don’t mind the random nature of damage charts but it would be more elegant to fit vehicle profiles into existing statlines. The less exeptions you need in a rule framework the better.

  • quote- I won’t go into how many games I have won when 6’s just kept coming on the dice roll and I watch helplessly as my opponents multi hull pointed boxes go up in smoke through one damage roll.
    As I watch Helplessly, while I rolled the dice and it gave me a desired number, kersploding an enemy vehicle…
    Helplessly… I don’t believe you lol.

  • Viper666

    IMO, AV should stay because that never was a problem. It’s different from having a T value because it makes the vehicles Invulnerable to low S weapons. The only thing that should be changed is to add an Armour Save on top of that (ex a 2+ save, which will get reduce by save modifiers). The lack of a save is what makes the vehicles weak right now.
    The 10+ wounds mechanic is very clumsy because in 40k, we have a lot of vehicles on the table compared to a few monsters in AOS, this means a lot of wound tokens on the table.
    I would also keep the damage table but make it less brutal, like only slowing the vehicle, affecting only 1 gun at a time and not blowing up in one shot… (something like an AOS wound effect table could work too)

    • Karru

      It’s refreshing to see that there are people who sees the difference between 40k and AoS when it comes to these things.

    • Xodis

      A simple Keyword like “Armored” or “Tank” could be used to prevent weapons without the “Anti-Tank” or “Piercing” Keyword from harming it. It would also work in showing battle damage as after 5-9 wounds or whatever it could lose this keyword and become vulnerable to those weapons imitating holes blow into the hull.

      • Karru

        I can work with the keyword system, but a tank should never lose its “invulnerability” to small arms fire.

        Maybe something like this:

        Most tanks would have less than 10 wounds with only the heaviest having 10, things like Land Raiders and Super Heavies. Smallest number of wounds could be 6 for something like a Trukk and a Raider.

        Vehicles have “Armoured” trait by default. “Open-topped” keyword could have some fun and interesting rules attached to it. Maybe something like if they get shot with small arms fire, there is a chance that they hit the crew, maybe on a roll of a 6 to hit they ignore the “Armoured” Keyword. Normally though, only weapons with the “Piercing” keyword/rule would be able to damage them. Sounds better than “Anti-tank” as that could be saved for weapons that are actually meant to be AT weapons and those could cause D3 wounds for example if they manage to wound the vehicle.

        From there, the average toughness of a vehicle could range from 6-8 for most vehicles. Again, 9 or 10 can be given to the heaviest of tanks and Super Heavies. This would mean that while they have “low toughness” they still need to be hit with the correct weapons. A weapon that can kill a Monstrous Creature might not do as well against a Tank after all. A hide or a Chitin might not be as tough as a sloped armour of a tank.

        As the vehicle takes damage, it could lose Toughness and/or Armour Save, but never the “Armoured” keyword. Also, it would get slower and lose accuracy for example. Some tanks/walkers could lose their firepower as well/instead depending on the weapon(s) they have.

        This would make them different from Monsters while not making them night invincible. I am heavily against the idea of giving tanks and monsters double digit wounds and then compensating on that with giving weapons rules that make them cause extra wounds in spades.

        • Xodis

          See I like all of that, but why never losing the armored keyword? After about 8-9 HP loss you should be able to see the driver of a LandRaider even. Im not saying that it needs to be there, but it seems pretty realistic.

          • Karru

            Because once the tank is so riddled with holes that one can see the driver and/or critical systems, the tank is already dead or abandoned. The whole idea is to make sure that Tanks remain as their own thing.

            The problem with the loss of the “armoured” keyword using the explanation you gave is this; when a hole is made into the tank, it usually means something went through it. That something didn’t magically disappear. It did damage inside the vehicle. It might have blown up the fuel tank or ammo for example or killed a crew member. Also, the holes that are caused through penetration are so small that shooting through it would require a master sniper. Also, as I pointed out, if the hole didn’t stop the tank, it didn’t hit anything “important” so it is a safe bet that the shot someone tries to put through the hole isn’t doing anything either.

          • Xodis

            Im not talking about after a shot or two, taking the War Scroll above in the article for example, Im talking like in the 11-13 and 14+ brackets. At that point the vehicle has broken weapons, Toughness, movement (either tracks or legs), is probably leaking fuel (if thats a thing), exposed armaments, etc…
            There should be a way that small arms can make an impact even if it’s slight (even before death the tank should still have a higher Toughness than a person), and the mid size weapons like Reaper Autocannons or Plasma Cannons can finish it off.

          • Karru

            At that point comes my other problem. I don’t like the idea of double digit wounds on things because it forces the increase of damage output to weapons to compensate. 10 should be the maximum wound value anything can get, normally at least.

            Of course, since I haven’t tested it out nor seen anyone do it, I don’t know how much it would affect and/or how much the Toughness and Save be reduced. Maybe Toughness should drop by 1 at a half-way point while save can drop by 1 for each wound lost. That would mean something like a Land Raider still cannot be taken down with small arms fire.

            It requires some tuning to work properly, but I now have a nice base to maybe pull some tests and ponder how nice the system might actually be.

          • Xodis

            Makes sense, and if HPs are that low I might agree with you that losing its Keyword could be overkill.
            Look at this, and yesterday you were thinking we would never see things eye to eye lol.

          • Karru

            It’s always like that until I start to look for common ground and solutions. While I sound extremely negative and aggressive, I do took notes. I consider them and try to look for a way to work with them or make them work in a way that would work for both sides. My problem with the wound system was always the fact that I wanted Vehicles to differ from Monsters. I also didn’t like the idea of buckets of wounds on vehicles. While on the other hand people like you didn’t like the AV system. So, merge the two into something that combines the benefits of both system and we can get some common ground.

        • Nightwalker

          The thing I dislike about going away from AV and into wounds is it takes the fun out of suicide runs with anti-tank dudes. I love boosting my jetbikes with 2 heat lances up to the opponent’s rear armour. Let my opponent decide if they want to focus on the jetbikes while the rest of my army moves up, or ignore them and lose the vehicle. With wounds, I feel that those units become useless.

          Although on the other hand, I welcome the wound mechanic in theory, because I have so many vehicles in my Dark Eldar army that you’d never be able to take them all down in a single game, especially if small arms cannot hurt them :P. In practice I will probably hate it because that is a S**T TON of things to keep track of. Gladus would probably be the same.

          Overall, I like the vehicle rules as they are. It makes it so my venom and your land raider are clearly separate in turns of what can and cannot hurt them. Anything else will probably just add more complication to the rule set.

          • Andrew Bartha

            I dunno, damage ratings will be on the guns, so say a combi melta’s business end does 1d6 damage….

      • Shawn

        I like this idea best Xodis. Mabye let GW know, to get them thinking about it?

        • Xodis

          Ive posted it before on the FB page, but ultimately Im just another customer trying to design over the paid for design team lol

          • Shawn

            Same here, but perhaps it will put a bug in their air, so to speak, and make them think about doing that, or something similar.

      • ZeeLobby

        That’s pretty elegant imo.

  • Malevengion

    I wouldn’t mind a hull point system if you didn’t have to roll on a table until the last hull point was gone. My biggest gripe with vehicles in 40K is that they can be made ineffective from the first shot (shaken or stunned is pretty easy to do).

    • Walter Vining

      that’s how vehicles really work in combat. you hear a loud thud on the armored skin of your fighting vehicle and you look to your butt to see if you are still there.

      • Malevengion

        You’re right on the reality, of course, I’m just lamenting the cost (both in points and monetarily) of a vehicle that is supposed to be a devastating monstrosity on the battle field spending a good portion of the game under performing in it’s battlefield role.

        • Walter Vining

          which is really why the HP system needs to go away. there have been enough AP 2+ weapons added to the game that you could go back to glance effects and penetration effects and really show how much of a behemoth a vehicle could be.
          even though I really didn’t enjoy the rule set so much the way that 5th handled vehicle damage was probably the best outside of the 3rd/4th damage charts.

        • Carey_Mahoney

          Especially if you consider that a pack of wolves (for example) is in practice a much more efficient unit choice on the tabletop. Kinda ironic.
          As stated above, I’m playing Imperial Guard, so if they’re about to make vehicles become stronger, go ahead – I am ready!

      • The Basement Gamer

        That’s true, but a monstrous creature should be able to be taken out by a lucky lascannon to the brain, but there is no mechanic in the game that accounts for that at the moment.

        • Walter Vining

          and a lucky bolter shot to the head should be able to kill an IC. do you want charts for everything?

        • Carey_Mahoney

          True. At least a guard blob can force several saves on a MC – results may differ if they try that on a vehicle. High-strength low-volume fire doesn’t get better accuracy if fired on a vehicle, after all…

    • Carey_Mahoney

      As an IG player, I can only see one solution here: Take even more vehicles!
      😉

  • Commissar Molotov

    Sure, sure. You want AoS in space, probably because it’s easy to figure out those abusive combos you love for competitive play.

    • Walter Vining

      its not hard to find now

      • Shawn

        Just run dogstar, yeah?

  • Defenestratus

    Unforgiving damage table?

    Vehicles can’t be destroyed in one shot unless you have an AP2 or better weapon and it gets pretty lucky. The 7th edition damage table is TOO forgiving if you ask me.

    I’m generally opposed to making vehicles just MC’s because it basically opens up things like the land raider to being damaged by Str 7 and below weapons whereas now they’re completely impervious to small arms.

    You want your land raider to go down to a sternguard poison weapon volley?

    That doesn’t make sense to me.

    • sjap98

      Units will probably have keywords. Like Keyword “Vehicle” is immune to poison…

      • Karru

        But it still doesn’t change the fact that a Land Raider would be wounded by things like Autocannons and even Assault Cannons, depending on the Toughness value they will assign to each vehicle. Vehicles that are heavier should outright ignore a good chunk of weapons, especially weapons that are meant to be able to shoot large quantities of shots. They should only be able to be damaged by the heaviest of weapons, weapons that were designed to take down heavy tanks. Alas, this system wouldn’t actually encourage that, since less shots means less damage output against armies that don’t use large quantities of vehicles. Then, once you leave those home, you get steamrolled by armies that use large number of vehicles.

    • Xodis

      Keyword “Armor” or “Tank” only affected by weapons with keyword “Anti-Tank” or “Piercing”. Simple fix. Would be awesome if after so many HPs lost the keyword went away simulating battle damage and opening that small arms can take advantage of.

  • sjap98

    Armor was clunky from the get go: Sigmarize it!
    Also let the vehicles (and all units) shoot at what they want (different targets).

    Make Tank shock/ ramming a “charge move”. Make tank shocking count. Infantry has no business standing in front of a big moving metal bawks! Ker-runch! (sound of bones breaking).

    In general (not only vehicle-related).
    40k was about forbidding stuff: (like: “you may only shoot at what you charge” or “if you rapid fire, you can’t charge” or “if you shoot Ordnance, the rest snaps shoots -even the poor Leman Russ).

    AoS is about allowing: (shoot at what you want then charge what you want, etc,).

    I want less rules, less exceptions to rules. moar fun!

    • Viper666

      In 2nd edition, each gun could shoot at a different target (which should have stayed…. Since vehicles often have a mix of anti infantry and anti vehicle weapons…

      Also in 2nd, when moving with vehicle, you always could do it like a tank shock (moving through enemy units) and the thunderblitz rule was automatic (on a failed initiative test)

      #makethevehiclesgreatagain

      • sjap98

        #makethevehiclesgreatagain

      • Shawn

        The Omnissiah approves this message.

      • vlad78

        Do you realize with the end of Armor Value, the return of save modifiers making personal armor almost useless, automatic initiative given to units assaulting, return of Rhino rush, vehicles WILL become staple units again in order to protect fragile troops and to let them assault. Footslogging armies will become a thing of the past until 9th edition.

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      You nailed it, and i’m pretty sure they will follow that path. It’s the path to bringing new players in, and thus the path to cash 🙂

  • King Renegado

    The hull point system isn’t bad, but they need to adjust number of hull points and what constitutes as critical damage.
    Secondly a damage table should only exist for vehicles if and only if there is one for MCs.
    Anyway…
    Crew stunned/shaken is stupid. Are guardsman automatically forced to fire snapshots if one of them dies? No.
    Scrap crew stunned and shaken. Keep immobilized, weapon destroyed, and explodes.
    New chart
    1-4 nothing happens.
    5 immobilized
    6 weapon destroyed
    7 explodes

    A 7 is only rollable IF the vehicle has less than half its original hull points remaining. (This represents armor still doing what it should do.)

    Lastly- give vehicles more HP and a save. A group of bros on bikes shouldn’t ever have better survivability than a main battle tank.

    • Defenestratus

      I generally agree that the damage chart shouldn’t be available to be rolled on until a certain number of HP are removed. Either make it so that the current HP are used and the damage chart cannot be rolled on until HP=0 or double the HP and make it so equal to or under half of HP you can roll on the damage chart.

      Of course with the former you can’t make it so the vehicle is destroyed at HP0.

      • Karru

        I’ve been experimenting with a table looks like the current one but 7 is a Wreck while 8 would be an explode. 1-3 is nothing, 4 is stunned, 5 is Weapon Destroyed and 6 is Immobilised. Every Glancing hit causes a loss of a Hull Point while Penetrating hits gives you a roll on the table but with a -2 and a loss of a Hull Point. You calculate your usual modifiers here as well, AP2 is +1, AP1 is +2, Open-topped is +1.

        Once the vehicle has lost all of its hull points, it suffers an automatic Penetrating hit without any negative modifiers, instead it gets a +1 to the roll. You also get the usual modifiers to this one. This is the point where the tank can be destroyed.

        It’s been working pretty well. Using multiple vehicles has its advantages, but one can still take down or disable those with the right weapons. Lascannons and Missile Launchers are more dominant compared to Autocannons for example. While Massed Fire can be effective, against multiple heavier vehicles it might not be the best option. Taking weapons that are meant primarily as AT weapons, like the Lascannon, Melta and Missile Launchers are very effective in disabling vehicles, but they aren’t guarantees.

        Vehicles have always been in a strange position. In 5th they felt like unkillable gods of war or ants. There was barely any middle ground. They died to the first shot they received, didn’t do anything since they got stunned/shaken every turn, lost their main armament or didn’t care. For example, I played a 5th edition game recently where my Ironclad Dreadnought laughed against 12 Lascannon shots because he couldn’t roll anything but shaken or stunned. Extra Armour and a melee monster doesn’t care about either one. Meanwhile, my Predator died on the first turn to the first Lascannon shot it received.

        It’s hard to make a chart that is balanced out properly. On one hand, making it so that a single penetrating hit, no matter what type of weapon caused it, having the chance to destroy the vehicle is not good. Meanwhile you don’t want the shots of even the heaviest weapons be useless.

  • euansmith

    I’d mentioned in a previous post that I think that giving vehicles really low saves in Age of Emperor could be a good fix. So a Rhino might be Save: 1+ and a Landraider might be Save: -1. This would allow Rending weapons to damage vehicles, while wimpy weapons would just bounce off. If a Lazgun was Rend: 0, it would be unable to do more than scorch the paint on a Rhino, while a Rend: -1 Bolter could stand a slim chance of doing some actual damage. Meanwhile a Rend: -3 Lazcannon could do a real number on a Rhino and poke holes in a Landraider too.

  • AX_472

    Why do people think grav is good against vehicles? every time people go on about how grav wrecks vehicles i go to my core rule book, read the “graviton” rule (looking for something i missed the other 10 times) and end up wondering how anyone relies on rolling 6’s on low fire rate weapons especially against super heavies. It just doesn’t seem reliable enough to me.

    • Karru

      A unit of three Grav Centurions, especially with the help of Divination, can wreck pretty much any tank in the game in a single volley. 15 Shots and you only need 2 6’s to wreck a 3 Hull Point vehicle. Remember, first Immobilise Result counts as one hull point lost while all following results counts as two hull points lost.

      A unit of 5 bikers can shoot 6 shots with a threat range of 30″ with the same potential of killing something with 2 6’s. The problem is that it isn’t a penetrating hit or a glancing hit. It outright ignores any saves one has for making Penetrating hits turn into Glancing this. Also, the automatic Immobilised hurts many vehicles, especially Skimmers and Transports.

      • orionburn

        On of our regular players at our FLGS runs Ultramarines in tourneys. He has something like 80+ rerollable grav shots on turn one. If he wants to take something out he’s going to kill it ten times over.

    • Morollan

      I’m curious as to why you think grav weapons are low rate of fire? Salvo 3/5 and Salvo 2/3 are pretty decent rates of fire, especially given that they often come on relentless/S&P platforms.

    • Drpx

      Ask a Necron player.

  • AX_472

    If GW do this i’ll be really dissapointed. i can accept tau battlesuits are monsterous creatures due to the neural link to the pilot but if they give vehicles “wounds” and basically make them play like big square infantry it will be a sad sad day. Its bad enough that bikes are basically just infantry, great for ease of play but terrible for table top logic. There’s nothing to stop a space marine on a bike climbing a ladder to scale a piece of scenery for instance.

    • Xodis

      Thats where the wonders of the AoS styled Keywords come in handy. A simple keyword like “Vehicle” could prevent all of the shenanigans that crossed your mind.

  • mgdavey

    After months of reading articles that insisted that GW “will NOT turn 40k into AoS” we are now getting articles insisting “AoS will save 40k”.

    • Shawn

      A little over simplified, perhaps, but true none-the-less.

    • ZeeLobby

      Not to mention all the people claiming that 8th edition wouldn’t change anything because 40K is doing so well. When now it’s clear they’re planning some pretty significant changes.

      • thereturnofsuppuppers

        I think my prediction of Blow IT UP was the most apt.

    • Drpx

      And we have always been at war with Eurasia.

  • Kazzigum

    Slaanesh chariots do NOT have 10 AV all around. They are 11/11/10.

  • Deacon Ix

    All 3 Slaanesh Chariots are 11,11,10 – which makes them impervious to bolter fire (apart from the back OC) – which is nice…

  • David

    For me 7th has had a problem of vehicle nteractivity between armies not at competitive because a warcon/ik can toast anything but certainly in casual games.

    Most commonly in four scenarios

    1 multiple SHV -few armies especially casual list pack the fire power to deal and even a dedicated av unit or two and even when they do its going first

    2 land raider strength armour too few guns damage it in casual try playing a khorne only list cc list or a ba death company decurion against this and you’ll soon realise you just pretend it isn’t there meanwhile the cost is prohibitive in competitive lists

    3 flyers few guns can really deal and most of the decent av either lacks sky fire or is single shot so I’ve lost 1 storm raven in 8 games cos everyone ignores it (the one that died was the magic 666 lascannon

    4 dreadnaught/predator outside a casual list why would you too slow for melee lacking firepower for ranged compared to other options add a major vulnerability if the enemy can get behind you say if you were a CC dreadnaught advancing so they are not taken
    + random sudden death always bad in expensive models

    Wounds could fix this but it’s about getting values right too few and no one takes vehicles too many and no one takes troops

  • Sz

    I hope the vehicle armor saves vary by the angle the shooting comes from. I think there should be a reward for getting your guns behind the vehicle and blasting it. I don’t know if we need to mess with side armor, but I still think rear armor should be a thing. Probably not going to happen, but still I can wish.

    • Keith Wilson

      additonal save modifier based on facing would be the easiest way

      • EnTyme

        Indeed. I’d like to see something like 3+ save, +1 on front armor, -1 on back armor.

  • Witch Beatrice

    But if a 35 point or free even gladius rhino has like six wounds and your opponent rushes six of them straight into your lines and the rumor that assault from rhinos is back how does anyone even a lascannon spamming guard leafblower or Tau missile-sides tau stop such 5th edition spam nonsense? Ita back to extremes again.

    Some say just use grav. Okay half the armies dont have grav and some dont even have melta equivalents.

    • Deathwing

      lascanons , krak missiles, rail cannons, etc. do multiple wounds. problem solved.

  • Andrew Bartha

    I just hope Grav is nerfed to do something else, like reduce movement rather than would on armour save. Too damn powerful.

  • Carey_Mahoney

    I think vehicle rules in their current state are just right. No trolling.

    It was all that haywire and grav flying madly about throughout the meta these days that f***ed it up.

  • mgdavey

    Judging by the discussion, vehicles in 40k are both too powerful and too vulnerable.

    • Drpx

      No they’re bipolar. Either you didn’t bring enough AV and get ROFL-stomped, or you did and the other guy gets to watch his tank-themed army get smashed in one or two turns.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Vehicle having a separate damage system was a contrivance to diverge from Fantasy. Now that there’s some genre-bending, we don’t have to commit to being different anymore.

  • Marco Marantz

    The armor saves for vehicles seem too low. 4+ for a soul grinder, 3+ for a land raider….Even without rend its not a great save for an armored behemoth…even a -1 rend is going to inflict a stack of ‘wounds’. I suspect armor saves to be one better then AoS but there will be alot more rending weapons.

  • Deathwing

    If they are bringing back armor modifiers we should see land raiders and terminators with 2D6 armor saves again. except that doesn’t jive with the idea of making the game go faster having to roll 1 save at a time… so saves on a D10? That would shake things up a lot.

  • John Barber

    Personally, my main vehicle beef is that you can glance them to death. Vehicles blowing up in a single hit isn’t so different compared to Instant Death’ing a model imo. Vehicles also have the benefit of being immune to small arms fire (usually S4 or below) whereas MC’s… aren’t. There are very few MC’s that are T8 and above.

  • Kyle Johnstone

    My feeling is that having wounds for an armoured vehicle is kinda lame, I don’t really like the idea at all. I do think that the diminishing effectiveness table will do wonders for balancing MC and GC, which would help bring them down a peg or 2. The new table for 7th ed helped vehicles alot with only AP popping them off now, and a slight tweak to that could work. Having vehicles laugh off small arms (most of the time) but detonating with a super-heated blast of anti-tank goodness is what makes them feel like vehicles, and I’d hate to lose that.

  • Anggul

    This would work if strength and toughness get higher ceilings. They would have to be at least T8 to be immune to bolters, and a lot of vehicles should be immune to S6 and S7 too.

    I guess adding armour saves could account for that though.

    Another thing is anti-tank weapons. As it is you need melta or weight of fire to reliably take out a vehicle. Long range single-shot weapons like lascannons, bright lances, missile launchers,heavy gauss cannons, pulse lasers, prism cannons, zzap guns, and so on are all meant to be good against vehicles but are actually really crappy against them. Bring on damage values like 2nd ed and AoS! It would also make a lot more sense than all-or-nothing instant death. It’s silly that a plasma cannon blast still only inflicts one wound/hull point when a plasma pistol does the same with a tiny little shot.