40K Guest Editorial: Vehicles in 6th ed.

This is a guest article by Black Blow Fly’s friend Dave Boucher who is a fellow 40k Wrecking Crew member.

We have all heard the Internet clamoring that vehicles have been hit by the NERF bat in 40k6. This is both true and false for more reasons than I will describe here. Today I will describe cover and what it means for vehicles in 40k6 as it has changed in many different ways.

First let’s look at the cover rules on pages 74 and 75, most importantly the first bullet:

At least 25 percent of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (it’s front, side, or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover.

Let’s take a few looks at what constitutes 25 percent being in cover:

We see that the Aegis defense line can easily hide 25 percent of a rhino and it provides a 4+ cover save to boot. So a 50 point investment gets your vehicles good cover.

Now lets look at my favorite part of the text I referenced above – At least 25 percent of the facing of the vehicle that is targeted (its front, side, or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover.

Let’s explore this now…

The Interceptor has a clear view of the side armor in this picture. In 40k5 this would mean that the tank had no cover, however this is 40k6. All we can consider now is the facing being shot.

In this second picture the side armor is is blocked out in blue, giving us a visual aid to show us only the front armor which is clearly 25 percent obscured.

Next we need to take a look at how Armor Facings works in 40k6 compared to 40k5. Let’s start with the 40k5 Armor Facing Diagram.

40k5 Vehicle Facing Diagram

In 40k5 we drew lines from one corner to next, or as the INAT ruled, we make a cross at the center and have 90 degree facings from the center point. If you notice parts of the top of the vehicle are included in each facing.

40k6 Vehicle Facing Diagram

Now if we look at the 40k6 diagram we notice one big change other than the fact that it is in color. The lines do not intersect in the middle of the vehicle. Page 73, where the diagram is in the book, does clarify the issue on how to determine which facing it is by drawing the lines through the corners. However in the this diagram the top of the vehicle is not included in any of the facings. The reason for this change I can only guess is to prevent flyers from completely dominating other vehicles.

Let’s take a look at fliers shooting at vehicles:

At first glance it would appear that the Aegis defense line is not big enough to give the razorback any cover.

From the view of the Stormraven itself it again looks like no cover is provided, but that is because we still see things from a 40k5 point of view:

When we block the top part of the razorback out, like in the the other picture, we now see that the Aegis defense line does in fact still provide 25 percent cover. So obviously the cover rules have changed. Vehicles now almost always get a cover save. Cover may only be 5+ most of the time, but getting it always gives vehicles back some survivability that was lost from losing 4+ cover and gaining Hull Points.

I hope I enlightened some of you on these rules.

A big thanks to Dave for a great article !!


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

20 Responses to “40K Guest Editorial: Vehicles in 6th ed.”

  1. Amberclad87 July 25, 2012 4:37 am #


    • Reecius July 25, 2012 11:12 am #

      Right? I had not considered that, and I think this bears careful consideration.

  2. Shinkaze July 25, 2012 5:58 am #

    Very nice!

  3. benji July 25, 2012 6:10 am #

    Been doing this with camo netting for 3+ russes.

  4. ScouseMatt July 25, 2012 8:40 am #

    This is great, cheers!

  5. edwin July 25, 2012 10:19 am #

    I am confused. How would the razorback get the cover save since at that angle, only the treads down are obscured. 75% of the model is top view just because barely half of the front view is covered, doesn’t mean 25% of the model is obscured.

    • Reecius July 25, 2012 11:15 am #

      I think the point he is making is that the top of the vehicles doesn’t count for a facing, the only facings that count are Front, Rear and Sides.

      So, this means you can ONLY count those facings of the vehicle, and not the top. The top doesn’t affect the cover a vehicle is in for the purposes of saves.

      • Chris July 25, 2012 11:52 am #

        even with that being the case I still think the razorback isnt getting the cover save from the stormraven. Its v close tho

        • Reecius July 25, 2012 2:03 pm #

          Perhaps that exact picture isn’t the best representation of the concept. But the theory is sound it seems to me.

      • edwin July 25, 2012 1:40 pm #

        But isn’t ordance barrage count as hitting top armor which is gas the same value as sides ?

        • Reecius July 25, 2012 2:04 pm #

          Barrage weapons ignore intervening cover and as such I don’t think that is a particularly good line of argument.

          • edwin July 25, 2012 10:44 pm

            Idk, it just feels sketch. I would feel like I was cheating someone if I pulled this. It is technically sound, just not my cup of tea.

          • Reecius July 26, 2012 12:07 pm

            Hey, to each their own. I think this is sound via RAW, but it is a little abstract.

        • Dusk July 25, 2012 8:19 pm #

          when using barrage and any other type of template weapon, you’re to go against the armour value of the side facing the shooter. which also means having to look at the % of cover the model gets from the shooter’s perspective.

          remember also that most of these measurements are done from the centre of a base or the barrel of a weapon. since flyers use a base, you should look from the perspective of the flyer’s base to determine % of cover the target has.

  6. Son Of Dorn July 25, 2012 4:58 pm #

    Sweet. I’m totally using this! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  7. Kynth July 26, 2012 2:36 am #

    Also bear in mind this is still an abstract system. You can assume that your shooters may also be hitting the side/top of the vehicle which is more exposed.

    When there is a greater angle of slope, in addition to any deflections to the projectile itself, there’s more material for a shot to have to penetrate when compared to a shot at 90 degrees to the armour.

    In reality, for the best chance at penetrating armour, you want to hit perpendicularly to minimise deflection and cut down on the amount of armour your shot has to pass through to get to the innards of the vehicle.

    Hope these simple diagrams help illustrate the concept:

    | |<——— (Less armour between point of impact and internal space)

    \ \<——— (More armour between point of impact and internal space)

    You can draw a pair of parallel lines on a piece of paper to represent your armour and use a ruler to measure how much armour a shot would have to penetrate when coming from different angles.

    • benji July 26, 2012 4:22 am #

      Not that it’s really relevant to the actual rules but I believe the first 20 seconds or so of this explains what kynth was trying to say.


      • Kynth July 26, 2012 4:54 am #

        Spot on, thanks.

    • Reecius July 26, 2012 12:04 pm #

      Good point. I think that will help people to visualize some of this stuff and for it to make a little more sense.

Leave a Reply