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.

I think they you should be able to layer saves, any thoughts on that?

No. This would make many units almost impervious to being killed.

coolyo294 wrote:No. This would make many units almost impervious to being killed.

TH/SS termies please.

Deathwing TH/SS Termies with an Apothecary.

Deathwing TH/SS Termies with an Apothecary in a ruined building with bolster defense from a Techmarine.

chaos0xomega wrote:Deathwing TH/SS Termies with an Apothecary in a ruined building with bolster defense from a Techmarine.

And a Libraian's Force Dome.

AND A BOX OF SCRAPS!

Hi all.
Layering saves is perfectly acceptable if the 'saves' are not 'fixed values', and they are taken in order of aquisition, physical protection , moral damage.

EG
Roll to spot /hit target.
Rll over targets stealth value , (if in cover add to the target stealth value).

Roll to damage.
Weapons damage - armour value = save roll required.
Any additional saves for powerfields ,resilience etc.

Roll to supress, compare supression rating of weapon to suppression value of target.

BUT having fixed value that stack , is just silly.

I'd rather play the game without needing a degree in Calculus.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:I'd rather play the game without needing a degree in Calculus.

+1 to this.

I'd like to see something like this, as long as saves are reduced across the board.

So: Cover Save -> Invulnerable Save -> Armour Save.

If they bring back save modifiers that can nullify armor saves then yes, maybe layer it. 2nd ed was basically hero hammer so not sure if it would be a good idea to go back.

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Layering saves is perfectly acceptable if the 'saves' are not 'fixed values', and they are taken in order of aquisition, physical protection , moral damage.

EG
Roll to spot /hit target.
Rll over targets stealth value , (if in cover add to the target stealth value).

Roll to damage.
Weapons damage - armour value = save roll required.
Any additional saves for powerfields ,resilience etc.

Roll to supress, compare supression rating of weapon to suppression value of target.

BUT having fixed value that stack , is just silly.

Go play Infinity

Why i proposed it like this is because you see like SM and that moveing them anywhere for cover for cover is pointless and in my opinion that is kinda unfare

Well, until a guardsman wielding a plasma gun shows his masochistic face.

Nightwalker wrote:Why i proposed it like this is because you see like SM and that moveing them anywhere for cover for cover is pointless and in my opinion that is kinda unfare

It's still helpful because there are weapons that ignore Power Armor. That's what a Marine uses cover for.

Just think about how nastily tough Plague Marines are with Feel No Pain. NOW YOU WANT TO MAKE EVERYONE THAT TOUGH?

*sigh* Layered saves work in Fantasy with modifiers to armor save based on the attack (so you don't actually get your full save unless you're being attacked by something with S 3 and no Armor Piercing rule), but the 40k armor penetration rules are set up in such a way that this would be absurdly overpowered (you've just doubled the toughness of Thousand Sons, for instance), and the fact that most people with multiple saves are heroes means you're making the game much more hero-centric, which may not necessarily be a bad thing but personally if Asdrubael f***** Vect is charging my lines I'd rather it take less than fifty-six boltgun shots to kill him.

Mephiston, Logan, Draigo, all need to die in a fire.

PLEASE no hero hammer, generic SM codex leaves me attempting to kill said hero for 2+ turns with almost everything

layering saves, depending on how its done, might bog down the game, and will make it significantly harder to kill anything with shooting.

if you roll 1 of each type of save available to the unit, thats up to 3 saves, 4 with FNP. rolling the dice 4 times to say nothing gets wounded gets annoying fast.

if you improve the save based on conditions, than you have to figure out which conditions apply each time, which can take quite a bit of time in cover heavy settings.

a tactical squad fires on an 'ard boyz mob, in a ruin, with a KFF mek within 6 inches of most of the boyz.

base save: 4+ KFF improves to 3+ the ruin improves save to 2+. what used to be a decent chance to tear up a mob just became "I might kill 1 or 2" reverse the shots, and unless a caveat is added stating the save cant be improved beyond 2+ the shoota boyz cant do Didley.

Layering saves?You mean an armour save,failed,then get an Invulnerable?


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!


You realise how tough assault terminators,Draigo, and the like will become?

NOOOOOOO!

i say this because it wold make the fluff more normal, like for example they say Abaddon is this leader of chaos with armour blessed by the gods and then when your playing he gets shot the crap out of by some force and dies, then you ask your self how did he survive 10 centuries of battle when he just died from one sqaud fire

Bike seer council in cover: 4+ cover (with re roll), 3+ armor (with re roll), 4+ invulnerable (with re roll).

Chance of a wound removing a model: Slim to none.

I like layered saves for cover. I think roll to hit, roll to see if cover is hit, roll armor or invuln. I also like destructible cover, so as the cover soaks up damage it degrades until it is destroyed. In the case of intervening squads, you hit the intervening squad on successful cover save.

Cover is an additional effect that models do not pay points for, yet it changes their survivability fairly drasticly if available and the player positions his forces well. This should be true equally for any incomming attack, aka if an ork gets a benefit from cover versus a bolter shell, a space marine should also benefit.

The problem I see with layered saves for cover is that it misinterprets cover.

You roll to hit. The unit is either in cover or not in cover. If it isn't, you go to armor. If it is, you roll a cover save. Not taking a cover save implies that your model didn't duck for cover, and rather is trusting his/her armor to deflect the attack.

And there's a logical problem, too. Roll to hit implies that the unit was hit by the projectile (or there spot behind a wall was targeted). You have already taken cover into account in that roll to hit.

Yes, it makes sense that after a cover save an armor save would be made, but in most games I know of, cover is only used when the round would pierce the armor of the target, anyway, or the round has an extremely high chance of ripping through their armor. In this way the current system is more than adequate.

Really if cover was layered over an armor save, shooty armies would disappear. A bolter firing at a space marine from a BS3 unit only has 8.33% chance to kill per shot. Add a 4+ cover save, and that drops to 4.1666%. It would make CC armies op, and shooty armies uncompetitive in any instance.

Hashbeth wrote:You roll to hit. The unit is either in cover or not in cover. If it isn't, you go to armor. If it is, you roll a cover save. Not taking a cover save implies that your model didn't duck for cover, and rather is trusting his/her armor to deflect the attack.

But why should armour suddenly become redundant in the event of a model hiding behind cover? Even Terminators will take cover if it means increasing their survivability... why shouldn't troops that fail a cover save be able to rely on their armour as well?

As DevianID mentioned, cover is too biased as of now against tougher armies. Sure a Marine, Dark Reaper, etc, might wear more resilient and reliable armour than a Guardsman or Ork boy, but they pay for that protection. Why deny them the use of cover simply because they have better armour? Any soldier that can put multiple forms of protection between him and the enemy will.

Hashbeth wrote:And there's a logical problem, too. Roll to hit implies that the unit was hit by the projectile (or there spot behind a wall was targeted). You have already taken cover into account in that roll to hit.

Whilst that's true for a game like Necromunda or LOTR, 40k relies on a non-variable BS value. Cover has no more effect on the accuracy of a model than other saves do.

This can work but the invulnerable and cover save values would need to be reduced. TH/SS termies would need to have invuln dropped to 4+ or even a 5+ (make SS bonus apply only to CC). Cover would need to return to standard 5+ (4+ for fortified buildings) Feel No Pain would be reduced to 5+ or just changed altogether like rerolling successful to wound rolls. Layering saves can work by making invuln saves worse and/or more expensive and reducing cover saves. It would make AP more important again while cover would effect everyone equally. Get rid of 3+ invulns on anything with a good armor save. Get rid of 2+ invulns except for shadowfield. Give 4+ invulns only to very special characters or greater daemons. 5+ invuln will be the best most HQ's can get. With the way the game is now layering saves would be ridiculous, but make some changes to actual save values and bring the importance back to armor and AP. Change vehicle cover saves while we're at it too. Make a successful save drop a pen to a glance and ignore glances. Make a wrecked or exploding transport more damaging to its contents.

If they brought back multiple saves they would also have to bring back to hit modifiers, and save modifiers to make it balanced. So, a STR 8 hit has a -5 to your save, so unless you had a 1+ you cannot save against it. It then makes the system complicated and the more complication you have the more cheese develops from people bending the rules to their own personal advantage. Also, back in that day Terminator armor rolled 2D6 for armor saves.

I think the current system can be redone to make it way better and in fact in my opinion GW needs to drop the whole phase system, and rebuild the game with action points and strategy points. Then use a damage versus armor ratio to determine your saving throw. Since some weapons will be better and armor piercing. Of course some restructure would have to be done across the board, and some people would fear/hate the change immediately with out giving it a chance, but I think action point based game play for skirmish sci fi gaming is the best and most balanced method for a gaming system. That way, going first doesn't give you a major advantage.

Crom wrote:If they brought back multiple saves they would also have to bring back to hit modifiers, and save modifiers to make it balanced. So, a STR 8 hit has a -5 to your save, so unless you had a 1+ you cannot save against it. It then makes the system complicated and the more complication you have the more cheese develops from people bending the rules to their own personal advantage. Also, back in that day Terminator armor rolled 2D6 for armor saves.

I think the current system can be redone to make it way better and in fact in my opinion GW needs to drop the whole phase system, and rebuild the game with action points and strategy points. Then use a damage versus armor ratio to determine your saving throw. Since some weapons will be better and armor piercing. Of course some restructure would have to be done across the board, and some people would fear/hate the change immediately with out giving it a chance, but I think action point based game play for skirmish sci fi gaming is the best and most balanced method for a gaming system. That way, going first doesn't give you a major advantage.

What your "proposeing" will cost them alot of money and not garuateen them alot of money back

This could work, but I think you will have to retool a good portion of the game (weapon stats, cover, models with multiple saves, point costs) to make it happen.

If you layer saves, you add complexity. How much complexity can be added before the average player says, "I'm done with this, let's go play something else."

How many younger players will join if there's a complex cover save/BS/wound/etc. modifying system?

Based on what they're trying to accomplish, I can't think of many other ways GW could use cover saves without adding ungodly amounts of complexity.

And remember, the more cover effects the game, the weaker shooty-armies get. So that must also be balanced, which would require massive changes beyond a mere "roll cover, too".

Nightwalker wrote:

Crom wrote:If they brought back multiple saves they would also have to bring back to hit modifiers, and save modifiers to make it balanced. So, a STR 8 hit has a -5 to your save, so unless you had a 1+ you cannot save against it. It then makes the system complicated and the more complication you have the more cheese develops from people bending the rules to their own personal advantage. Also, back in that day Terminator armor rolled 2D6 for armor saves.

I think the current system can be redone to make it way better and in fact in my opinion GW needs to drop the whole phase system, and rebuild the game with action points and strategy points. Then use a damage versus armor ratio to determine your saving throw. Since some weapons will be better and armor piercing. Of course some restructure would have to be done across the board, and some people would fear/hate the change immediately with out giving it a chance, but I think action point based game play for skirmish sci fi gaming is the best and most balanced method for a gaming system. That way, going first doesn't give you a major advantage.

What your "proposeing" will cost them alot of money and not garuateen them alot of money back

They are already losing money. They raise their prices to cover the cost of non expanding sales. Plus with the used market the way it is, a ton of gamers don't buy from GW as is. I just bought an Ogre Kingdoms army, all used and second hand, saved me $200 and the models came to me near mint condition and with more than enough extra bits to fix anything that is not pristine.

There is no guarantee with anything retail at all. What I am saying, as a veteran war gamer, is that there are tons of better systems out there. GW may have some of the best fluff and background stories and some of the prettiest models, but I have played far better games. The problem is, GW got a hold of the market first. You can sort of in an off the wall sense compare them to Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't really make a superior product on paper compared to other OS/Software, they just cornered the market first.

What are some of the biggest gripes in 40K in 5th edition?

1 - player who goes first has advantage usually
2 - 2+ and 3+ saves are pretty much over powered. I cannot tell you how many times my Marines will withstand over 40 wounds and only fail to save a few times in a turn
3 - cover saves are way over powered
4 - vehicle damage needs to be expanded, and vehicle rules need to be revamped. 2D6 damage table, and better engineering and repair options
5 - assaults are off balance. You get to shoot then assault, with little to no counter from the other player


You change it to an action point system and you can fix a lot of this. I have played several systems based on action points and have been playing around with my own system, but like you said, the change would be one that a lot of people would be afraid of. Personally, I would welcome the change.