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.

(1a) Here's an idea that I had about something to replace Instant Death: On any natural roll to wound of 6 the attacker gets to roll an extra to wound die at the previous wound threshold +1. So say a Lascannon hit a Carnifex with a roll of 6, it could roll to wound again at 3+, for a third time at 4+, a fourth at 5+, and a fifth at 6+. That's instead of Instant Death.

Edit: Had some other ideas. Idea are labeled (1a), (1b), and (2) so far.

It's a good rule if you want everyone playing with burst cannons and heavy bolters.

I had a similar idea I posted long, long ago but mine was a bit different (and didn't replace instant death).

Mine was:

Any unsaved attack whose strength is equal to or greater than the model's toughness (but not double or more) that rolls a '6' to cause the wound inflicts a "head shot" and inflicts D3 wounds to the model instead of the normal 1 wound.

My proposed rule doesn't do away with Instant Death simply because of how entrenched the rule is across the game system. That said, if we were starting from scratch I would definitely want to dump the ID rule too, as I hate it (and apparently GW does too from the frequency they create units that ignore it).


I'm totally okay with your rule to, although it tends to vide against the current trend to shy away from rules with modifiers (although my rule doesn't really vibe either as it uses a D3, something GW doesn't use very often either anymore).

Although, I would say that if you're getting rid of Instant Death you should probably add something extra to the rule if the weapon's Strength is double or more the target's Toughness, like the headshot is triggered on a roll of '5' or '6' instead.

stonefox: That's why there's a ceiling. A Burst Cannon, or Heavy Bolter, for example, has no particular advantage over a Fusion Gun against a single target and retains its advantage against more than one target. That natural advantage is reliability and greater number of potential wounds. But because these weapons have relatively low Strength compared to things like Melta weapons and Lascannons, the extra number of possible wounds such a weapon could cause by comparison evened out the difference that more than one attack makes.

Against a T4 Sv3+ target a Heavy Bolter shot would be able to cause four wounds with saves if and only if the player rolled three consecutive natural 6. More likely than doing so with a Lascannon, but the Lascannon would ignore saving throws.

Now that I think about it, (1b) it might be something to give a the model's Toughness a +1 bonus per extra roll.

Alternately (2) a natural roll to wound of 6 would allow a weapon to roll to wound again, but if it failed to wound then none of the wounds were caused (sort of double or nothing).

yakface: Part of the reason why I figured it should replace Instant Death is so that all the stuff that would apply to Instant Death would apply to it as well.

Originally I wanted to do the extra wound dice threshold as a function of the weapon's S v target's T. But that was too complicated and made Monstrous Creatures really vulnerable to high strength low armour piercing weapons.

By the sounds of it, I appreciate Yakface's suggestion more then I do Nurglitch's. As simple as it sounds, in practice, someone who is either not familiar with the game or is just very busy with what they have, can become confused and disorientated, thus lowing their appreciation for the game. Yakface's suggestion is pretty streamlined and basic, keeping things simple and clear, not throwing in modifiers and exceptions.

One thing I would like to see addressed with Instant Death and its relation to units who are granted exclusions to it, are ordinance and flame-type weapons. Ordinance is supposed to be something exceedingly destructive (hence the better damage table) and flame-type weapons would naturally be extremely harsh to their targets. Not saying what this should be, but just something to keep in mind if we're going to be considering changing instant death rules.

My biggest suggestion of all is to keep things simple and easy to understand. If it interupts the flow of the game, it will become a hinderance rather then a welcome addition.

Okay. How is Yakface's suggest simpler than my original one? As Yakface suggests his uses an unusual die. In addition there is a condition on when that 6 applies, whereas a roll of 6 applies universally in mine, meaning the player doesn't have to remember two relations (S v T, and S >= T) and whether they obtain on the role of a 6. On the face of it just rolling to wound again on a roll of 6 is simpler, although closer examination suggests that's made up by the complex and confusing business of calculating the new wound threshold.

I'm more inclined to go for my 2nd proposal. Weapons that wound can roll to wound again, so long as it's +1 wound or nothing.

Yakface's suggestion can be simplified as such:

If the roll to wound is 4+ or better and negates the armor, then it inflicts D3 wounds. I do not find D3 as an "odd" dice roll. I actually prefer it for several things compared to D6, like that ordinance "bounce" when you have line of sight, rather then D6, which just seems silly for such a dedicated weapons system to miss by (tanks are designed around their guns, not vice-versa).

I believe Yakface said "unsaved attack" rather than an attack that negates armour. Maybe they're the same thing. I'll wait for him.

By comparison to Yakface's simplified suggestion my proposal is simpler still: you just roll an extra 1D6 to wound for each natural 6 and a failure to wound negates all wounds caused by a hit.

No extra worries about armour because it gets rolled after all wounds are caused. No mucking around with S and T beyond the usual to wound threshold. And stronger weapons are more likely to cause more wounds.

And the problem of weak weapons with multiple attacks is muted because the chance of losing wounds increases proportionately.

But didn't you say your rule had modifiers and such?

My first one (1a), yes, but I was talking about my second one (2). I should have said: "By comparison to Yakface's simplified suggestion my second proposal is simpler still". My mistake.

For your rules, I'm guessing the weapon strength has to be double the toughness to apply? In that case, your (2) is actually the worst deal of all. Unless you could explain it again/differently.

Skinnattittar: No, part of the motivation for my proposals is to get away from Instant Death and the Sx2 >= T rule. That's why I mentioned no such restriction in my proposals.

Still, let me try to explain both again.

Proposal 1
Instead of Instant Death, instead of worrying whether Strength equal to or greater than double the model's basic Toughness, any roll to wound with a natural 6 allows an additional roll to wound with either (a) a -1 for each additional roll to wound, or (b) a +1T for each additional roll to wound. If a model in unaffected by Instant Death then it is unaffected by "Boom! Head Shot!"

Examples:
(1a) A Heavy Bolter hits a Carnifex (T6, AP3) twice. Two dice are rolled to wound, for a 5+ to wound, 5 and 6. Because a 6 was rolled to wound, another die is rolled to wound, for a 6 to wound, a 6. Because an additional die would have to roll a 7 no more additional wound dice can be rolled. The Carnifex suffers three wounds, and must roll three saving throws.

(1a) A Heavy Bolter hits a Carnifex (T6, AP3) twice. Two dice are rolled to wound, for a 5+ to wound, 5 and 6. Because a 6 was rolled to wound, another die is rolled to wound, for a 6 to wound, a 6. Another die is rolled to wound, for another 6 to wound, a 4. No fourth additional die could have been rolled to wound because S5 v T9 cannot wound. The Carnifex suffers three wounds, and must roll three saving throws.

Proposal 2
Instead of Instant Death, instead of worrying whether Strength equal to or greater than double the model's basic Toughness, any roll to wound with a natural 6 allows an additional roll to wound. However, if the second or subsequent additional rolls to wound fail to cause a wound, then no wounds are caused by that hit. The attacking player does not have to roll an additional die to wound if they do not wish to. If a model in unaffected by Instant Death then it is unaffected by "Boom! Head Shot!"

Examples
(2i) A Heavy Bolter hits a Carnifex (T6, AP3) three times. Three dice are rolled to wound, for a 5+ to wound, 3, 5, and 6. Because a 6 was rolled to wound, another die is rolled to wound, for a 5+ to wound, a 6. If a third die was rolled and it rolled 1-4, then the Carnifex will not suffer only 1 wound since the first two wounds will be negated by the third roll. Depending on the player's choice, the Carnifex suffers either one wound or three or more wounds, and must roll one or three or more saving throws.

(2ii) A Lascannon hits a Carnifex (T6, AP3). One die is rolled to wound, for a 2+ to wound, a 6. Because a 6 was rolled to wound, another die is rolled to wound, for a 2+ to wound, a 3. Had the second roll been a 6 then a third roll at 2+ to wound would have been allowed, but if that third roll was a 1 then the Carnifex would not suffer any wounds since the first two wounds will be negated by the third roll. Depending on the player's choice, the Carnifex suffers either no wounds or three or more wounds, with no saving throw.

Now I'm thoroughly confused.

What's confusing you?

I gotta agree with the rest of the poster. Yakface's idea is much better sounding to me. Even with your explaination.

And you did say that your rule replaced Instant death. Quote: Here's an idea that I had about something to replace Instant Death...

StoneFoxx

Fair enough. I don't suppose you could explain why Yakface's idea is "much better sounding" to you?

I think the fact that it needs this much clarification is proof that its not simple.

I don't like ID, but I don't think this is a good way to get rid of it.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I don't think either proposal needs much clarification. Even if it did, clarification is not proof of complexity. That would be a fallacy. One can, after all, require clarification on the simplest of subjects if one does not understand them to be simple (incidentally why I never made much money tutoring in symbolic logic - no one lasted more than an hour before uttering the same phrase incredulously "That's it?" - it was so damned simple it just looked complicated because people had the idea that there must be more to it).

If you don't think either of my proposals is a good alternative, could you please explain why you think this?

Nurglitch wrote:What's confusing you?

I think what confused me is your first two examples are labeled (1a) and I'm pretty certain that the second one should be (1b).



Overall, and this just may be personal taste I think your rules seem more complex because they utilize multiple sequential rolls with the successful outcome changing with each roll. That, in and of itself (IMHO) makes it a little harder for people to wrap their head around.

I had to read your examples several times to understand exactly what you were getting at, and (again IMHO) that is never the sign of a good rule.

Nurglitch, while your rule is interesting, it isn't convenient. It's neater conceptually, but in practice it requires just as much rolling and will slow down the game while indecisive people debate with themselves whether or not they ought to go for the bonus wound. yak's idea, on the other hand, requires the same two rolls, is automatic, and uses a mechanic already familiar to players from certain special weapons already in the game.

tegeus-Cromis: Which proposal, specifically, are you referring to? The first proposal requires no decision as to whether that extra roll is made. The second proposal requires a decision that can be neatly encapsulated by a chart of expected values (# wounds vs % of those wounds). Moreover it's more powerful than Yakface's proposal, which caps single hit kills at W3- models.

Nevermind Nurglitch, your rule is perfect, I love it. It's not more complicated at all.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

So why is it "not more complicated at all"?

I actually like your first proposal pretty well (though saying it as "Each extra roll is against a cumlative +1 to the target's toughness" works better for me). I think that it is slicker than ID, as well as dealing with the jump of resistance to ID a small increase in T gives.

Then again, I am used to 2nd Ed AD&D, so piles of modifiers and rerolls don't bother me as much. It might not be so pleasant in a wargame like 40k.

Wehrkind: It would be easy enough to represent a cumulative modifier using a simple chart, but I'm more inclined to the second proposal because it uses a mechanic familiar to users of the Rending - stuff happens onna 6 - and Twin Linked weapons rules - roll extra dice. I think the likelihood of causing multiple wounds with a hit from high strength weapons is more likely with the first than the second though. I should run the numbers.

Nurglitch, #2, of course (didn't my reference to making a decision tip you off?). Yes, I know the information involved in making the decision is simple, but it still means you'll have opponents scratching their heads and wondering whether to take the risk every single time they wound a multiwound model on a 6, and again for each consecutive successful "bonus" wound. No thanks.

Aside from being more powerful (Is that even an issue? I don't recall you or yak stating just how powerful the new ID should be in the first place), is there any other reason why yours is preferable to yak's?

No, your reference didn't tip me off. It'd help me to refer to them explicitly, if you don't mind.

I've played games with slow players before. Usually I don't play them twice, because they're the sort to find any sort of decision making a terrifying life-struggle. I don't worry about this sort of gamer because worrying about whether they find mechanics difficult is like worrying whether fish find bicycles confusing.

'Power', in this context, refers to what a rule covers. My proposals are all more powerful than Yakface's proposal because his limits single-hit kills to W3- models, whereas my proposals (moreso the second rather than the first) allows models with W3+ wounds to be killed by single hits. One motivation for my proposals is to expand the application of Instant Death so that Monstrous Creatures and Characters can be killed by single hits like regular W1 models and vehicle models. Obviously some people won't like this: they won't want their Monstrous Creatures of T6 or higher killed by single hits.

That's why my proposals both contain a break on the number of possible wounds that a weapon can cause, besides limiting it to natural 6 results. The first proposal has a ceiling for low strength weapons - you won't see a S3 killing any T6 W2+ model. This ceiling expands, and the floor drops, as the weapon's Strength increases. In both versions of the first proposal, a Lascannon hit on a Carnifex could cause up to five wounds (1st:2+, 2nd:3+, 3rd:4+...5th:6, 6th:N/A) or (1st:2+, 2nd:2+, 3rd:3+, 4th:4+, 5th:5+, 6th:N/A).

The second proposal has no ceiling, but the risk associated with causing additional wounds is balanced by the risk of causing no wounds at all. This gives more higher incentive to roll for extra wounds with high Strength weapons while disincentivizing extra rolls with low Strength weapons, and allowing some pay-back for high-risk dash on the part of a player. One could stop a Rampaging Carnifex (T6 Sv3+, yes, we all know *everyone* takes Sv2+) with a single flashlight, but it'd be so unlikely that you'd deserve it (a Carnifex with epilepsy, who knew?).

My apologies.

Can you explain why you think it is desirable that for any given model, a weapon exists that can OHKO it? I do not see why this needs to be a priority.

What does OHKO mean? One Hit Kill O...?

One Hit Knock Out I'm assuming.