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.

Seriously, it is one of the most simple things when you think about it: saves.

"My space marine captain has power armour and a forcefield. He is shot by a lasgun while in the cover of a ruin. The lasgun, being a weapon of untold fail, automatically bypasses the cover and the forcefield as if it wasn't there. WTF"


This isn't for everybody, so no flame or RAEG please. Constructive critisism and discussion only.

Anyway, onto the actual proposed rules:

take the aforementioned Captain for instance. In his situation, under my rules, he would first take a 4+ cover save, which if failed, he would take his 4+ invulnerable save, which if failed would mean he takes his 3+ save.

So basically, a model gets to take all of these saves in this order if it has them and if it is not prevented from taking them.
Cover save
Invulnerable save
Armour save

This is likely to make Vulcan Terminators rediculous under these rules, but oh well. If it really matters that much, then you could just make them cost more points, or not use these rules.

Also, before anyone starts saying, "it'll overpower certain units and unbalance the game" - as I said before with the Terminators, just add on however many pts you think is fair.

Cover saves work by simply taking the best save. Using every save would make things impossible to kill.

They work fine as they are and are also fairly simple to understand, which is great.

GW will not increase the points costs for their models either, that would mean you can take less models, and since GW exists to sell models to people, that would make no sense to them.

this is how Fantasy works, but there is a catch.

in fantasy there is no AP. the Str of the attack reduces the targets armor save.

the best "invuln" save you can get is about a 4+ normally.

the average models has a 4+ save at best.

many models will be regularly rolling 5s and 6s for their armor. and if they have a "invuln" they can use it.



being able to roll a 5+ cover, a 4+ invuln, AND a 3+ armor vs a single attack would be broken.

the entire Cover save, armor save and AP mechanic would need a complete overhaul.

it makes sense, but there is no way with the current rules to do it.

this has been discussed before BTW.

Well, I was not aware that it had been. But I don't think GW should include it in their rulebook if they make a 6th edition. I agree with everyone, whether you make your argument on the basis of GW making money or it being to overpowered; these are simply rules designed for people playing friendly games.

That would be more annoying than plague marines (and I guess BAs now) and their FNP spam. Too much dice rolling.

I know it's annoying to watch your general take a wound from some weak thing but there's always a gap in the field, a hole in the fence, a kink in the armor...

I know how you feel; I hit something with a railgun, this massively damaging shell launched at supersonic speeds and I do, 1 wound to an MC or Daemon Prince. A round that destroys massive tanks or can even destroy a titan does 1 wound. But hey, it's a game, it's not supposed to make sense.

agnosto wrote: ...But hey, it's a game, it's not supposed to make sense.

Bit like Golf then.

1) It would slow the game down. With the way everything gets cover, you would be rolling 2-3 dice per wound

2) Kills shooty armies, and favors assault armies since you can't get cover saves in close combat. Allows the assualt armies more saves as they are marching up to your fire lines.

3) If you are having to remove units or add on points to units just to get your rule change to be balanced then it's a bad idea.

Darkvoidof40k wrote:

Bit like Golf then.

Yeah, there's no limit to what a bored Scott can come up with while tending his goats.

Basically just everything that Jbunny said.
Every unit, every weapon would have to be redone.

Just think about it.. Let's roll for example:
2+ from term armour, 3++ from shield, 5++ term armour again, 4+cover save, 4+ FNP..

This is one of the reasons why I turned from WFB to WH40k. One general could wreck entire armies without a wound taken.

One way would be to stack saves.

So a Terminator would get a 2+ save normally. He is sitting in hard cover, so he would get an extra 2+ to his save, taking it to 0+.

However, the weapon shooting at him (a bolter say) has an AP of 4, so you add 4 onto that, giving the terminator a save of 4+.

[Not sure how this would work in terms of taking saves over 6, but perhaps we could finally move onto a D10/20 system ]

If the terminator is hit by something that would cause ID, you would use his inv save of 5++ instead.

Anything other than D6's and D3's gets me confused. It's why I can't play Inquisitor, asides from the fact that I cba to learn the rules and stuff. Also, boltgun = ap 5. If we're gonna streamline these rules so that people can use them fairly, we do need to keep it simple.

From a common sens ePOV i actually agree with this. From a gming POV it woudl make a single shootign phase last so much longer.

If it was my choice i would say take the cover save and then EITHER the invul or your armour save.

I actually tried this before and, while it made more sense, it did make things rather hard to kill off. A Dev with a Lascannon and a 2-man Loota squad were shooting it out for at least 4 turns before something happened. In that game, however, we also doubled ranges and made Twin-Linked fire twice the number of rounds than normal, so it was one of *those* games.

Think of failing the best save in terms of all the other forms of protection failing as well.

For example, you may have a wall, a power field, and armour protecting you, and you fail your Sv2+ (ignoring the Cv3+ and Iv4+). If you failed your save, then the attack caught a joint or weakness in your armour. And if a joint in your armour catches a shell, then obviously it wasn't protected by the wall, and your power field synchronizer blinked while you were shooting back. After all, if it didn't hit a joint in your armour, it wouldn't matter whether it hit the wall or the power field, because your armour would prevent damage.

Something interesting with Warhammer 40k is how it folds narrative time back on itself in the Hit-Wound-Save mechanic to allow a more interesting representation of what happened, rather than some dry textbook physics.

Much like common sense, imagination is neither common, nor always obvious.

Nurglitch wrote:
Much like common sense, imagination is neither common, nor always obvious.

Hmmm, deep. I think that's my queue to leave the conversation. lol.

Hell the games I play last ~2 hours with a 1.5k army lists adding additional saves for everything would just bog it down more and it would be even harder to keep track of everything, oh ok so I got shot at so I got to make my cover save, ok did that what else, oh right my invulnerable save, ok now what.. oh right armor save, oh dang one wound still, oh right FnP, alright no wounds at all after getting hit with 30 bolter shots and missiles yet no one died.

Yeah, there was a reason multiple saves got dumped in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition.

Incidentally I think that's why this is one of the recurring topics, with the other dead horses being exchanging the D6 for the D10, (re)introducing individual movement rates, exchanging AP for ASM, and producing home-brew codices that would embarrass the Blood Angels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, the relationship of Feel No Pain to saving throws is interesting because Feel No Pain is a saving throw in all but name and violates the stated design goal of having a single-save. Worse still it's a flate rate for everything, although obviously models with a better saving throw benefit commensurately better (a bit like Fearless, where models with better saving throws do well and models with worse saving throws are murdered wholesale).

I think it would have been better to give models with Feel No Pain a re-roll on their armour saving throw. Obviously I'm not proposing anyone actually try this; I'm just saying that it would have been better (more consistent with the game's design principles) of making it a re-roll rather than the horrific kludge that it currently is.

TBH, when my friends and i started playing (a couple of years ago.....just after the current CSm codex came out) we actually played it that you got cover + another save having nto read the rules properly.......we thought ti made sense as well.

Nurglitch, I actually kind of like your suggestion for FNP, but it woudl make no sence to give it to anything other than Space marines. Since A lot of the weapons firing at them wound negate alot of non-Meq armour.

My group plays with a system whereby if you're stacking up good saves you can support one save with another.
It works like this:

A save that is not being rolled may "support" one that is being rolled. An armor save of 4+ or better can support a cover save, provided the attacking weapon doesn't do better than negating it (i.e. termi armor attacked by meltaguns and power armor attacked by lascannond won't be supported, but scout armor attacked by heavy bolters could support, even though it could not be rolled). A cover save of 3+ or better can support an armor save, provided it is not negated. An invulnerable save of 4+ or better can support a cover or armor save.

What supporting means is this. A save being supported is improved by 1 (i.e. 5+ to 4+) for each supporting save, with a maximum of 3+. A 3+ or 2+ save supported adds on a secondary 6+ save, rolled afterwords in the same manner as the damage negation afforded by the FNP USR. Further support then improves the secondary save (in any case I can think of, to 5+).

It takes some extra math, but it does help with the issue of redundant saves. I find it does a good job of modeling the effects of extra defenses, without going overboard. Obviously, this benefits armies that rely on heavy infantry (they tend to have good saves, so they have lots of chances to support), but we've found it to be a good system.

Nurglitch wrote:Yeah, there was a reason multiple saves got dumped in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition.

Incidentally I think that's why this is one of the recurring topics, with the other dead horses being exchanging the D6 for the D10, (re)introducing individual movement rates, exchanging AP for ASM, and producing home-brew codices that would embarrass the Blood Angels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, the relationship of Feel No Pain to saving throws is interesting because Feel No Pain is a saving throw in all but name and violates the stated design goal of having a single-save. Worse still it's a flate rate for everything, although obviously models with a better saving throw benefit commensurately better (a bit like Fearless, where models with better saving throws do well and models with worse saving throws are murdered wholesale).

I think it would have been better to give models with Feel No Pain a re-roll on their armour saving throw. Obviously I'm not proposing anyone actually try this; I'm just saying that it would have been better (more consistent with the game's design principles) of making it a re-roll rather than the horrific kludge that it currently is.

Seeing as how this threads title is <see title> then I think this should be pointed out. I think FNP is fine as it is. I mean the Necron dex is gonna be mean when it comes out if the rumours are anything to go by, which they usually are. Anyway, rerolling the armour save? That would make BA even worse! Yeah, it is possible with that. You'd have two 10 man terminator squads with some Terminator Priests. Also, back to the common sense part of this little rant, FNP represents the individual creatures' resolve and immunity to injury, not the fact that it's armour can be double as effective half the time. Heck, if my command squad could re-roll armour saves instead of FNP...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MekanobSamael wrote:My group plays with a system whereby if you're stacking up good saves you can support one save with another.
It works like this:

A save that is not being rolled may "support" one that is being rolled. An armor save of 4+ or better can support a cover save, provided the attacking weapon doesn't do better than negating it (i.e. termi armor attacked by meltaguns and power armor attacked by lascannond won't be supported, but scout armor attacked by heavy bolters could support, even though it could not be rolled). A cover save of 3+ or better can support an armor save, provided it is not negated. An invulnerable save of 4+ or better can support a cover or armor save.

What supporting means is this. A save being supported is improved by 1 (i.e. 5+ to 4+) for each supporting save, with a maximum of 3+. A 3+ or 2+ save supported adds on a secondary 6+ save, rolled afterwords in the same manner as the damage negation afforded by the FNP USR. Further support then improves the secondary save (in any case I can think of, to 5+).

It takes some extra math, but it does help with the issue of redundant saves. I find it does a good job of modeling the effects of extra defenses, without going overboard. Obviously, this benefits armies that rely on heavy infantry (they tend to have good saves, so they have lots of chances to support), but we've found it to be a good system.

Too complicated, IMHO. Although it's kinda in a wierd place.... it's imbetween the common sense idea and the current, gaming friendly rules that we all know and love.

jbunny:

Good point. Maybe make it a re-roll to successful wound rolls?

Now that, Nurglitch, I like. Could make things less complicated and easier. GW should consider that in 3 years time.

The problem with being able to take every save you could, is like mentioned before, it would be WAY to hard to kill things. And even though your Captain is a badass, he can STILL take a hit from the random lasgun shot. Thats just the way things work, its rare but it happened. Im sure everyone has seen, or heard of the OMG WTF shots that really do take out Avatars and such.