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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
All I think about is DE.

Dis Cannon is 3 shot ap2

I can put in 37 Dis Cannons into a 1850 list

Thats 111 AP2 36" shots all on vehicles that can move 12" and fire with 14 ObjSec units as well.

If I go 1st you better have a Tank Army.

With no 'to wound' roll there would presumably also not be a 'to pen' roll so even tanks wouldn't help when every single shot that hits is doing damage.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

machineuk wrote:
From a gameplay perspective, the 3 rolls are there to help differentiate between outcomes, for example the probability of rolling 3 6s in a row is 1/216, to get the same probability with 2 dice, those dice would need at least 30 sides between them (ie D20 + D10 gives 1/200)

That is correct, however does the game need to differentiate between outcomes whose difference in probability is under 0.5%?

If the game was made slicker and faster, it would be easier to play more matches in a given time, or else play larger matches. Either option gives you a bigger range of possible outcomes with more opportunities to affect them by tactics of actually playing the game rather than selecting a particular unit type to gain a 0.46% advantage.

It does not. Especially when we look at 40k HtH only using 3+, 4+ and 5+. That right there cuts the potential 216 down to something well under 72.

AP weapons mean the design space is less than 36, which might as well be opposed d6 vs d6.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It should still be rolling a save to negate a hit. It makes more sense that way.
If an hit is blocked by armor, then that hit cannot wound, no? It doesn't seem logical that an injury is magically cancelled out by armor.
I get that its potential wounds; that the wound could have happened, but it was negated. But that just adds padding, doesn't it? If the wound didn't happen due to armor, then why bother rolling for it?

The system should really be hit --> save --> Wound

I'd argue that since you don't always need/get a save, adding the non essential roll last (remember this system pre dates cover saves) is more streamlined if cinematically odd. The other thing to consider would be mixed save units, where you'd need to assign wounds before you'd know who was making what saves.

I grant you it seems odd from a visual perspective, but the dice represent a step by step resolution mechanic, not a step by step descriptive guide to 'actual events'.

Either way there's no need for both armour and saves.

So the reason I think this is getting as much back and forth as it is is because the OP misrepresented the question.

The statement in the post was 'remove the wound roll' which is said in such a way that it suggests a simple, lightweight mechanical improvement, 'just cut out this one thing and the system will be faster right?' without acknowledging that the system as ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES the to wound roll to work, things would go f***nuts without it, as many posters have stated.

What the OP and later posters are actually suggesting is a complete overhall of the damage application system of 40k, which is not unreasonable. If we can find a way to represent the same actions quicker (while hopefully still using D6s, remember that you do need to be able to bring and roll 50+dice at tournaments routinely) then we should absolutely do that for the health of the game. I just think that making it seem as easy as removing 1 roll is a tad disingenuous.

ERJAK wrote:
So the reason I think this is getting as much back and forth as it is is because the OP misrepresented the question.

No I didn't. I can see how some people feel it's needed. Everyone is bringing up great points.