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.

Hi all.

Just a quick post to get you opinions on a simpler method of resolving weapon armour interactions , while maintaining proportional results.

The basic idea.

Armour reduces the amount of damage delt to a target.Why not just give all units an armour value , 1 to 20, and deduct this value from the strenght of hit.

Obviusly all weapon strenghts would be adjusted (appx +3 to current weapon str to maintain current basic save rolls.)

EG bolter shot strenght 7 hits a AV 2 IG trooper.

7-2=5, the IG trooper need to roll a 5+ to save.

A bolter shot hits a AV 4 Space Marine .

7 -4= 3+ the marine needs to roll a 3+ to save.

Any result of 1 or less has no effect on the target.The target is invunerable to the attack.
Any result of 7 or more automaticaly damages the target.

EG space marine AV 4.
Invunrable to strenght 5 or less hits.
Str 6 hit ,save on 2+,
Str 7 hit ,save on a 3+,
Str 8 hit ,save on a 4+,
Str 9 hit save on a 5+,
Str 10 hit save on a 6+,
Str 11 or higher, auto wounds.

Just an idea, what do you folks think?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Not bad.

Far removed from the current system, maybe, but it doesn't sound bad overall.

Too radical of a change to be honest. GW likes their 1 to 10 stat system. Also how would wounding work? It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that some weapons can be strong, yet poor at penetrating armor, while others are much better at piercing armor, yet not as likely to do a lot of damage. The AP system isn't the best from a realism standpoint, but it does make it much easier to balance weaponry.

Two problems:

1. You reduce the number of possible combinations in Toughness, Armour, and Saving throw that gives Warhammer great potential, if not the actuality, of diversity. This means you'll either have to accept the extra abstraction that gives different troops the same armour value, and different weapons the same strength, or slap on a thick coating of special rules to maintain the system's chrome. I mean, look at the system now, with a potential three different dice rolls involving potentially 8 different values (BS/WS, S, T, AP, armour Save, cover Save, invulnerable save, Feel No Pain). So no, the results are not proportional.

2. It's simple but not elegant.

The current business is, somewhat simplified:

i. Roll to hit (flat number)
ii. Roll to wound (compare S to T)
iii. Roll to save (either invulnerable, cover, or armour if not equal or greater than AP)
iiii. Roll Feel No Pain (if not instant death, AP1v2, or ignores armour saves).

You propose:

j. Roll to hit (presumably the same as above)
jj. Roll for damage (S-Ar=Sv)

It seems simpler, as in fewer operations, but:

Are there any saves? Any saves? Cover/Invulnerability/Multiple wounds, etc. How is Feel No Pain treated? Is there a difference between vehicles and other troops? How do wounds figure into this?

The simplicity you propose has no context, as the operations it streamlines may require more work elsewhere in the system, and due to its inelegance in using arithmetic progressions will require more work elsewhere in the system to match the potential variety of the existing system.

I'd be all up for a combined toughness/armour stat and roll, each model in 40k has three attributes to determine how hard he is to damage which is too much IMO especially as vehicles have a completely different set of rules.

If wounding/saves were simplified there would be more 'room' in the game mechanics for fleshed out movement and accuracy rules, both these mechainics are at an all time low (and about to get lower if the Leman Russ rumours are true) in 40k.

I always thought there should be some rule that could reduce a target's armor save if the weapon's AP value was close enough to penetrating it.
As is a terminator survives auto cannon fire as easily as krak missiles. Meanwhile MEQs go poof when hit by krak missiles but shrug off auto cannon fire 2/3.
What if there was an AP rule that said "if a weapon's AP value is 1 point from ignoring a target's armor save, the target's armor save is reduced by 1 point vs this weapon"
In other words, krak missiles would punch through enough of a terminator's armor to only allow a 3+ save.