Switch Theme:

Simple solution to armor saves: make armors "toughness"  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Made in tw
Been Around the Block




The armor save has a number of problems, and they are listed below:

1. Bad saves are useless while high saves are very powerful if not negated. No one cares about 6+ saves of AP6 as it effects only 16.6% of the time, while 2+ is huge, effecting 83.3% of the time. This means armor and AP only has a small range of values where it is important and more is often unimportant characteristic to other models.
2. Weapons AP jump in effect, so S8AP3 bounces off 2+ just as well as S3AP- which makes no intuitive sense.

However we already have a damage-resistance system in the game that works just fine without all those problems, it is the Strength-Toughness system. We can map the current armor system into a to wound table just like the Strength-Toughness system which gives all sorts of options, including:

1. A table system can emulate all the effects of existing armor-ap interactions if desired, or it could be used for something more smoothed out.
2. A table system gives 10 valid values over the 5 values in the old system (only 3 of which has much of an effect)

So we can map values like the following:
6+ => Armor 1
5+ => Armor 3
4+ => Armor 5
3+ => Armor 7
2+ => Armor 9

AP6 => Piecing 2
AP5 => Piecing 4
AP4 => Piecing 6
AP3 => Piecing 8
AP2 => Piecing 10

And the damage table would be like the strength-toughness table, with some changes to reassemble drop offs in armor and weapon effectiveness as desired.

Or something like that.... Or it can be mapped to Armor 1-5 and we could have even stronger armors of armor 6-10 replacing invulnerables and so on. Special rules can also be built on this easier (like instant death in the S-T case) due to the larger range of values. With a table, we can carefully choose which models should saves against what precisely without using cluncky things like modifiers or stacking more things like feel no pain and invulnerables on everything.

This a great chance to make even a guardsman's flak vest matter (say, provide 3+ save against grot's guns) as opposed to a constant irrelevance.
   
Advert


Login or Register to make this and other promotional elements disappear from your dakka browsing.
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone






will cover saves remain unchanged?

Curse you GW! GO Learn ENGLISH. Calling it "permissive" is no excuse for Poorly written Logic. 
   
Made in gb
Major




Hi all.
The other alternative is to lump all the armour and toughness into ONE stat, lets call it AR.

And we could have values AR from 1 to 15.

And we simply deduct this value from the damage rating (str value ) of the attack.
To mimick real life interaction in the simplest way.

Attack value - armour value = damage done to target behind armour.

This means the AR is the direct modifier applied to all attacks.(No requirement for seperate tables or lists of modifiers to determine the effect of the armour on the weapon hit.)

TTFN
Lanrak.
   
Made in au
Killer Klaivex






Forever alone

Remember that AP might not be gauged on sheer power, but also on penetrative ability, which is why bolters, which fire .75 caliber explosive rounds, are only AP5. Compare them to, say, a Reaper Launcher, which also fires small rockets, but is AP3 because they're designed to pierce armour over a distance.

A Battlecannon is only AP3 because it's powerful, but it's focused more on sheer explosive power than penetration, which is why it's primarily an anti-infantry weapon.

People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made. 
   
Made in au
Killer Klaivex






Forever alone

And what's with you people bitching about 40k being unrealistic? This is a game about eight-foot-tall men in inches-thick power armour with .75 caliber explosive machineguns fighting Orcs in Space, Elves with guns that shoot shurikens, and Space Communists.

Just... stop. The armour system isn't complicated, it's fine. Don't forget that it could take into account a soldier's ability to evade attacks or a bullet glancing off from a wonky shot.

People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made. 
   
Made in au
Deadly Dire Avenger






agreed


MarkoftheRings
Soon to be Markofthe40K
Maybe I should just stick to MarkoftheRings.........

Bray Park Alliance- Queensland's Biggest LOTR Club. We play 40K too
PM me for more info 
   
Made in gb
Major




Hi Cheese Elemental.
Which of the 4 seperate armour systems are you talking about ?
The weapon AP value vs Armour Save interaction, the (vunerable ) Invunerable Saves vs special attacks, the AV vs Str, or the exceptions to the previous ones '(Universal)Special Rules' Feel No Pain, eternal warrior. etc.

Currently the 40k rules take SEVENTEEN pages of rules to describe all the weapon armour interaction.Which has little in the way of intuitive results or graduated results.
The CBT starter rules only has 13 pages of rules to cover ALL its game play,( which is far more tactical than 40k,) and covers titans , vehicles , terminators , and standard infantry equivilents.

Rather than use one simple method to cover ALL units, GW uses multiple sets of rules that do not give intiutive or graduated results.
If the rules for 40k were written to cover the game play, (NOT hype the latest minatures,)far fewer rules could cover the entirety of the current game play.

TTFN
Lanrak.
   
Made in au
Killer Klaivex






Forever alone

I don't see why you want to change a system that's so simple. You have a certain save value, and weapons with an equal AP value ignore it. Power weapons and MC attacks ignore armour.

I can't believe you find it this hard to use the system. It's fine.

People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made. 
   
Made in gb
Major




Hi Cheese Elemental.
The point is the AP system only works for a limited number of units in the game of 40k.
An equaly simple system (as proposed by the OP or myself) , covers ALL units in the game of 40k.

AP only covers units with an Armour save of - to 2+. Then we need invunerable saves to cover better than 2+ saves, and Armour value for vehicles , and special rules to add even more diversity to the 3 seperate ,simple but limited systems that 40k uses.

GW write rules exclusivley , so each unit/minature seems different to others , even if its battle field role is identical.(Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures for example.)

The upshot is lots and lots of simple cool sounding rules that do not make for a coherant or intuitive game.

You may like spending time reading loads of superflous rules, but myself and all my gaming friends prefer playing games.
Thefore the fewer rules required to get the most game play gets our vote.

40k has the simplest game play of all the games I currently play, yet it has more rules than any other game I play!

I hope this makes my position a bit clearer.

TTFN
Lanrak.
   
Made in au
Killer Klaivex






Forever alone

Invulnerable saves do not cover saves that are better than 2+. It usually represents moving at incredible speeds (turbo-boosting) or some kind of shielding.

People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made. 
   
Made in us
Ground Crew




USA

Personally, I prefer Necromunda's system, where each weapon alters the armor save, if at all. For example, the melta gun forces your opponent to subtract 4 from his armor save roll, while the bolter only reduces armor saves by 1. In addition, laspistols do not alter armor saves at all. I'm sure this could be adapted for 40k somehow.
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





London (work) / Pompey (live, from time to time)

This is why i prefer 40k armour to WHFB armour.

WHFB only takes into account the strength of a weapon, assuming that the stronger the weapon / model the more it will crush armour.

40K shows a difference in strength and armour pen.
Some weapons are designed for sheer impact rather than something tearing through armour.

the rules for it are great as they are.
Simply, Pretty realistic and effective.

Suffused with the dying memories of Sanguinus, the warriors of the Death Company seek only one thing: death in battle fighting against the enemies of the Emperor.  
   
Made in au
Killer Klaivex






Forever alone

WHFB uses that system. You can have saves better than 2+, but you'll still always fail on a roll of 1. For each point of strength over 3 from the hit you suffer, you get a -1 penalty to your save. For example, if a character with a 0+ save gets hit by an enemy with S6, his save goes down to 3+.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/18 01:17:02


People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made. 
   
Made in ca
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander





(user no longer active)

WHFB is a worse kludge than an automatic transmission: it's not the model anyone should want to use to improve 40k.

JD21290 makes a good point: An Autocannon, for example, is more likely to cause failed saves than a Heavy Bolter despite both having AP4: the Autocannon's higher Strength means more wounding hits. A weapon's ability to defeat armour isn't just AP, it's S, AP, A, and a host of other things (like Rending, for example).

Having the AP/Sv interaction like the S/T interaction would be in line with the 40k system, but it would either require a radical change in the effectiveness of certain weapon/target interactions requiring a re-point, or it would be a pointless cosmetic change.

Bad saves, for example, are useless, but you get what you pay for with armour saves.

The problem of the values of armour saving throws jumping is somewhat dealt with by Strength values as mentioned: A S8 AP4 weapon will cause more unsaved hits than a S3 AP- weapon, all else being equal. I think if you're still unsatisfied with the 'jump' in effect, it little ad hoc change rather than a systematic change is preferable.

[plug]
Basically you can use the following system:
AP > SvSv
AP = Sv+1 ≡ Sv, re-roll successful saves
AP <= Sv, no save
[/plug]
   
Made in tw
Been Around the Block




The problem isn't necessarily useless saves and complex weapon-defense interaction, but they are built into the armor system and one CANNOT be untangled.

With a new mapping, existing weapon/target interaction can remain largely the same but NEW options are opened up without additional special rules. Having a number range between 1-10 is just far more than what D6 can do. One can have armors that is stronger than 2+, and model things like differentiation power-armor-like models and so on.

The chart is just far more powerful in what kind of weapon/model differentiation it can achieve while adding relatively little complexity.

Straight armor save modifier systems lacks this property and is stuck within D6 in possible armor values. All those statlines on every model for so few different interactions is just weak.
---------------
Ideally, a rule should be simple and while allowing a huge number of variety to represent all the fantastic things in the 40k battlefield.
   
Made in us
Impassive Inquisitorial Interrogator




Florida, USA

This sounds an awful lot like the War of the Ring with making tables where armor and shields are already worked into the wounding table. If anyone has ever read the War of the Ring books I believe that this chart works crazy. Namely it's good because all of the work is pretty much already done. You know exactly what you need to roll to kill an enemy unit. You attack, with your weapons skill (Dice count per model) and then your strength goes against the players defense. You roll, if you beat the defense on the table, a model is removed, no armor saves at all! It's already calculated for you.

But maybe I'm interpreting your system incorrectly, if so my mistake. But the LotR's rules seem fairly simple.

You don't see da eyes of da Daemon, till him come callin'
- King Willy - Predator 2 
   
Made in us
Perturbed Blood Angel Tactical Marine





I got an idea for a system that might be more complicated, but is less extreme than the current system.

In my system you compare the armor value to the AP value. If they are equal, take a 5+ save and rerolls successes, if the AP beats it (AP4 vs armor5) then take a 5+ save with 2 successes rerolled (the max is 2 for that). If the armor value is better, take a 5+ save with 1 reroll, if the armor value is better by 2 (space marine vs bolter, for instance), you get 2 rerolls, by 3 you get 3 rerolls. 3 is the max. Also, all AP- and Ap6 weapons are treated as AP5 for these purposes.

Let's say a guardsman gets shot in the face with a bolter. In the current system, he takes a cover save or dies. In my system, he takes a 5+ save, and rerolls successes, making success possible but unlikely. (11% chance)

Let's say a terminator gets shot in the face with that same bolter. In the current system he takes a 2+ armor saves, failure a 1/6 chance. In my system, you compare his armor value (2) with the AP value (5), and subtract them, for a total of 3. He then takes a 5+ save with 3 rerolls.

But that same termie, who thinks he is inuvlnerable, gets hit with an AP1 weapon. He has to take a 5+ save now, rerolling 2 failures. See below:

What about invulnerable and cover saves, you say?
Invulnerable saves, if you have one, allow you to ignore one forced reroll of a success for 5++, or 2 for 4++ or 3++.
Cover saves replace the 4+ save with whatever cover you're in. so a guardsman in 4+ cover that gets shot by a bolter takes a 4+ saves, rerolling 1 success.

Drink deep of victory and remember the fallen.

Gwar! wrote:Sanguine has it spot on.
 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt




In the digesting pools being turned into a nutrient-rich broth... (Buffalo, NY)

You could always go back to 2nd Edition. It was Fantasy rules put into the 40k universe.
But seriously, the current system works better than 2nd edition.

Infection @ Arak'Nius
Cult of the Great Sky Lord
Trod-Gore and Da Burninators
 
   
Made in ca
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander





(user no longer active)

One problem with your proposal is that, as a structural rule in Warhammer 40k, you can never re-roll a roll more than once.
   
Made in us
Perturbed Blood Angel Tactical Marine





Well, you could roll all of them at once, for the terminators vs bolters, roll 3 for each termie, and if any of them succeed you're in the clear. That would produce the exact same effect, without violating the "1 reroll only" cardinal rule, though it would slow the game down some.

Drink deep of victory and remember the fallen.

Gwar! wrote:Sanguine has it spot on.
 
   
Made in gb
Major




Hi all.
Sanguine Sympathy.
I can understand why you proposed the comparison of target armour (armour save)to weapons armour beating ability(AP).
As this is the simplest method of determining scalable results.
However rolling more dice per minature to determine 'saves' is just going to slow down game play even more.
And 40k is more of a 'throwing lots of dice at you opponent' sort of game than alot of players would truely like.

Why not have a simple numerical value for armour , (1 to 15) and a simple numerical value for dammage.Subtract armour value from damage value to get the 'save roll' required?

Eg armour value 4 takes a str 6 hit.6-4=2, roll more than 2 to save.(3+ save)

Armour value 4 taking a str 10 hit, 10-4=6, roll more than 6 to save, the hit cannnot be saved(Auto-wound!)

Armour value 4 taking a str 3 hit , 3-4=less than 0 , roll more than 0, is an automatic save (Invunerable!)

Weapon strs and armour values would need to be altered to fit the new system obviously, but ALL units could use this simple method!

And having 15 values for armour , as opposed to 5 AS, 3IS, and 5 AV values makes life alot easier!(IMO.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/08/23 13:46:29


 
   
Made in us
Superior Stormvermin





The issue with changing the the armor value system is simply the problem of inertia. The current system works fine enough as is, that simply the act of changing it would cause more problems than a better system would fix. It would require a lot of drastic changes to the game, for seemingly minimal gain. Is it perfect? Maybe not, but just because there are simpler systems out there doesn't mean its complicated.

Steve Perry.... STEEEEEEVE PERRY.... I SHOULD'VE BEEN GOOOONE! 
   
Made in gb
Major




Hi JourneyPsycheOut.
The 40k rule set has been subjected to 'it will do ' mentality for so long now , when compared to other rule sets it is shocking how many more pages of rules are needed to play a straight forward game like 40k.

As 40k has become so hollistic and abstract, there is going to be a point in the future where this 'simple game' will have more pages of rules than 'Newbury Rules for Napoleonics' .

As a gamer I like the least amount of rules for the most amount of gameplay.40k seems to have this idea the wrong way round.
EG, Why use ONE simple system to cover ALL units when you can use 3 seperate systems and a bunch of special rules?

After all GW PLC is a minatures company first and foremost.'...the games are just the icing on the cake....'

TTFN
Lanrak.
   
Made in gb
Conniving Informer






you complained that guardsmen get no saves against grot blastas.... yes, true.
someone (can't be bothered to find out who) said that you get what you pay for.... <== listen to that guy

generally speaking, the cheaper the model, the crappier the armour:

hence a grot -(~3pts IIRC) no armour
and
loyalist termie -(~40pts methinks, i don't play marines) 2up save

if you buy cheap, more of your troops will die, but you'll have more troops to replace them.

i also agree that the armour system is fine

Besides, the guys get a chance to let their FABULOUS! side out. - Fafnir, regarding male howling banshees 
   
Made in gb
Major




Hi Lemon detective.
Which of the three seperate armour systems used in 40k do you think is fine?(AS-AP or IS -SR or AV -Str?)
And 'fine' comparered to what exactly?

Can you explain why a 'simple ' game like 40k needs 4 more pages of rules to explain weapon armour interactions than the starter CBT rules do to explian the entire starter game.(Covering the basic interaction of titans , vehicles terminators and standard infantry type units.)

TTFN
lanrak.
   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith





Alabama

I don't see the problem with the current system. Also your big argument is that it takes 17 pages to explain to you how armor in the game works but (at least in my flimsy pocket rule book) it's on 2-3 ,if you count the pictures and fluff, pages for how to use armor saves , cover saves, invulv saves, and the AP values so maybe it just takes me less time to catch on or something? Afterall if you use the say, system listed above, it wouldn't really make sense because how tough some one is doesn't effect whether or not a bullet can pierce their armor. For instance, Eldar have a thoughness three to represent their weaker frames but have an armor save of, it seems to be three on most units compared to an ork in primitive armor saving on usually a six (so almost never) but are much stronger than an eldar and have a higher toughness of four to represent that. Pouring it all together would make the game kinda bland, less creative, and less difference between units. Also, the point of how cheaper models die easily makes sense perfect sense because they have low point cost.

"You're right, we all know you are."

Tomb World Fabulosa 18/2/6 (Supreme conquerors of Dash's dark eldar
   
Made in gb
Major




Hi SamplesoWoopass.
Why does 40k have seperate armour and toughness values,to exentuate fluff diferences , yet doesnt have things like BS mods to make shooting follow expectations?
Oh thats right, 40k uses the army level game turn from WH and most of WH game mechanics.
(With lots of patches to cover up the gaps that WH rules dont cover , like vehicles etc.And as WH has 'nabed' the 'sensible rules options' for many functions 40k has to use the 'nonsensicle' alternatives, aparently. )

So saving throws are put in to give you opponent some for of interaction while you are having 'your go.'

This 'artificial interaction' is explainable if using 'basic weapons and armour', eg sword swing blocked by a shield etc.(eg Warhammer.)
But more modern type weapons tend to 'auto kill' if they defeat targets armour.

So lumping 'armour' and 'resistance to damage' together , makes far more sense than lumping, aquisition and evasion effects in with armour effects.(Cover save replaces armour save B*££*cks).

And my 'big argument' is that ALL the weapons and armour interactions in 40k could be covered by one simple method,(like most other games ,) not 3 seperate methods and a bunch of special rules.

40k is a fun dice rolling game for ages 11 and up.(With far more written rules and exceptions than necissary.)

Some people would like a simple simulation type tactical wargame for the 40k universe.
The current rules do not deliver this, so thats why some folks discuss alternatives, to get the game play they want.
This is best achived by altering several game mechanics , (in fact replacing the whole rule set is often the end result.)

Happy Gaming ,
Lanrak.
   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith





Alabama

Well now that you mention it... I like the "fluff" because it's more fun. With BS I'm not sure what you could lump together besides shooter accuracy and weapon accuracy which is covered by range. Also the above thing wouldn't cover CC unless you assigned AP values to all the combat weapons in the game (at least that's how it seems to me). and I think vehicles should work differently because, afterall, all they have is armor and if you pierce it there's nothing living behind it that can shrug it off. I guess you could assign all vehicles toughness values or something but all these things you would have to add to make this rule work seem to do the opposite of what you want it to and require a lot more change than necessary. That's if I'm understanding everything correctly.

"You're right, we all know you are."

Tomb World Fabulosa 18/2/6 (Supreme conquerors of Dash's dark eldar
   
Made in gb
Major




Hi again.
I think the problem is if you have only played 40k its dificult to understand the alternatives available.(As 40k seems to over emphisise the rule of cool, to the detriment of game play.)

Suggested BS modifiers,(just off the top of my head examples. )
-1 if firing over over half range,-1 if target in light cover , -2 if target in heavy cover, -1 if target moved more than 12",-2 if moved more than 24".
+1if large target, +1 for consecutive firing at same target.
(Some of the Historical rule sets I play have over 20 modifiers on each table to be more historicaly accurate.But about 'half a dozen' is about right for a 'fun' game.IMO.)

If you combine the toughness and armour of a unit to get an 'AR' (armour + resistance to damage )value of 1 to 15.(For example, or 1 to 20, or 100,whatever you feel is necissary.)

If units damage capacity is given as 'hit points' .(Wounds -structure points etc.)
And weapons are given a 'damage rating' , (similar to str as used now.)

Then a units 'AR value' is subtracted from the 'damage value' to get the save roll required.A failed save causes target to lose hit points.Vehicles and M/Cs can have hit points atributed to armament and mobility.This means these type of target have thier effectivness erroded over several hits worth of damage.).

Some weapons cannot hurt higher values of AR. These units are 'invunerable' to these attacks.(Auto save )
Some weapons are too powerful to be dissapated to non lethal levels by some armours.In these cases the target gets 'no save'.

If used with an interactive game turn, and simple supression mechanics, this allows a simple simulation using basic methods that apply to ALL units.

I dont want to go into too much detail.But have I explained this basic concept well enough?
(Damage -Armour =number to roll ' to save'.)

TTFN
Lanrak.




   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: