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,
looking through the 2nd ed rules, I wondered if using a revised version of the old damage values, (number of wounds per hit)might be a viable alternative to the AP system?

If we change the weapon profile to this.

Range/str /type/no of shots /no of wounds.

The number of wounds per hit , means the target model has to save against this many wounds PER HIT.
(When the target model is reduced to zero wounds they are removed as a casualty , left over wounds are NOT transfered to other models , they just mangle the lifless corpse !)

Anti tank weapons that put a lot of damage into one shot like melta weapons could cause 4 wounds per hit.

Anti personell weapons that fire a lot of less powerful rounds like a heavy stubba fire three shots that cause only one wound each.

So rather than totaly ignoring armour saves like the AP system ,the multiple wound system make the target model take more saves , therfore increses the chance of failuire.

Rough guestimate of multiple wounds to AP value,(to be revised by playtesting...)
AP1= 4 wounds per hit.
Ap 2= 3 wounds per hit.
AP 3 = 2 wounds per hit
AP 4 and above 1 wound per hit.

To represent the extra damage done to vehicles simply add the wounds per hit over one to the armour penetration +D6 .(Take one off the number of wounds per hit and add it to the penetration value.)
Eg
Melta gun becomes str 8 +3+D6
Lascannon becomes str9+2+D6
Krack missile becomes str 8 +1+D6

This seems to balance out armour, as ALL saves are ALWAYS taken, but some weapons inflict more damage so cause more saves to be taken...rather than invalidating most saves most of the time!

This removes the need for some of the current special rules,(Instant Death, Eternal Warrior, Melta, etc,) while keping the concept and execuition easy .

Can anyone see any problems with this method?
Has it got potential to be developed into a viable replacent for the AP system?

TTFN
Lanrak.

I dunno. I think it helps out high armor armies too much.

Right now I hit a termie with an AP2 weapon I will do 1 wound with math.

In your rules the same gun will inflict 0 wounds. 3 wounds with a 2 plus save would average all saved wounds.

It would also be a lot more complicated and take more time I think.

Interesting. My concern would be making special/heavy weapons even more powerful than they already are. Further, what does this system do for "invulnerable" saves, since essentially all saves become "invulnerable" without AP?

I agree with Skarboy, nothing would beable to survive a railgun. I think a better system would be if the weapons AP minus its value
AP1 -5
AP2 -4
and so on, so a terminator hit by an AP4 weapon would take a 4+ armour save. I think it would also help balance out the game a bit.

in terms of armoru you have lowere to potential power of meltas but boosted the power fo lascannons (to a possible damage roll of 16.

This would make tanks a lot more easy to kill. A Pen hit with a Lascannon, under these rules, woudl only need a 4+ to pen a LR.

Hi all.
The values I posted were just examples , they would have to be revised through playtesting.

I would make invunerable saves negate ALL wounds from one hit.(A power field deflects ALL the energy of the hit.)

Obviously this method would only be able to be used with a rules re-write, as lots of things would need recosting.

If it doesnt need any modifiers or reams of special rules, it's a more efficient option to develop than the current AP system.

Rather than write 'special rules' at every opportinity to boost or nerf individual elements,why not simply cost the graduated -scaleable in game effects acuratley?
Because as soon as you put isolated exceptions in place you loose the ability to graduate effects , to the detriment of the game .(IMO)
Every exceptions add to the abstraction, needeing more exceptions to artificialy put back the expectations.(Try saving that after 8 pints... )

But the best thing about this system is all values are independantly finite.
With the AP system the in game value of armour and weapons depend on what the oppponent brings to the table .

Thanks for the comments so far...

TTFN
lanrak.