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 quite honestly don't understand the way they're running saves. So, let's say my Zoanthrope is floating in a forest, alright? Someone in the imperial guard fires a flashlight at it.
It hits a leaf, at 6+ save, and goes on through. Automatically, it passes through a psychic shield and then through all chitinous armor?

Another way: It passes through the branches, hits his psychic shield, and passes through. So we assume that it just flies right through his armor?

What I'm getting at is that it is ridiculous that we can't take multiple saves. Just because someoen shot a bullet and it passed through a fortification doesn't mean it passes through my armor. I should be able to take a Cover save and an Armor OR Invulnerable save. It just doesn't make sense that you only get to rely on one save and one save only.

No, it doesn't make sense. It's a game balance mechanism.

However, your examples are faulty. You HAVE to take the best save. So your Zoanthrope floating in the forest doesn't use his 6+ cover save, he uses his 3+ invulnerable save, and it is simply assumed that anything powerful enough to blow through his force field also was either powerful enough to blow through the cover, or indiscriminate enough to butcher him despite the firer's vision being obscured by leafs.

I realize it's a game balance mechanism, but I don't think it balances it as much as makes everything die a bit faster.

And, I know it was faulty. I was simply saying that's how it would actually work.

Rossebay wrote:I realize it's a game balance mechanism, but I don't think it balances it as much as makes everything die a bit faster.

It does balance.

Take this example of an Ork Boy vs. a Space Marine. Both are fired at by 10 Guardsmen with lasguns while in cover.

Under the current system the Ork Boy suffers 5 hits, takes 1.67 wounds, gets a 4+ cover save and suffers 0.833 unsaved, probably dying. Under your proposed system he gets an extra 6+ save, reducing the unsaved wounds to 0.694, still probably dying.

The Space Marine currently takes 1.67 wounds, gets a 3+ armor save and suffers 0.556 wounds, about even odds of dying. Under your proposed system he would get an extra 4+ save from cover, reducing the unsaved wounds to 0.278, which is a much lower chance of dying.

In short, your proposal (which has been brought up many times before, and refuted for exactly this reason), gives an inordinate benefit to heavily-armored units while absolutely screwing over those units which don't have good armour saves. It would render Guardsmen, Ork Boyz, and Dark Eldar Wyches, to name just a few, relatively even weaker than they already are with no compensation.

Also, by making shooting a little less effective, it would shift the game further towards close-combat. Many people complain that 40k is already too CC-centric; this would make the problem worse.

Also, it would make flamers even MORE prevalent than they already are. And pretty much every army that can take flamers does take flamers at the moment, because they're THAT good.

BeRzErKeR, after seeing the math, I agree. I didn't think about how it would effect the percentages when taking armor save into account.

Think that was bad enough, fire a lasgun at a terminator with a storm shield in cover.

By your example it would be: 2+ save, 3++ save, 4+ cover save.

It would make such models near on impossible to kill, even with low AP weapons.


I think thats why they ended up with the current system.
Otherwise a quick 2,000 point game would last for 5 or so hours, or, you would run out of turns only losing 10% of your army.

I think the system works fine with units that are designed for it. I do think it's silly that some man sized units don't actually gain anything by 'taking cover' though.

This is obviously pertaining to the army that I play and biased but I dislike how the points cost of a Thousand Sons Marine is intended for 4th edition but now cover saves are everywhere (that are equal to his invulnerable save) making going into cover of absolutely no use whatsoever to the entire squad, and incidently give his 4+ invulnerable effectively to every other unit in the game minus flamers, making the Inferno Bolters less useful.

So until a new Chaos Marine codex (lord knows that'll be sometime in 2015 after all the loyalists get their new codexes twice over) the unit is kind of much less useful than intended.

So while I'd love to be able to take a 4+ cover save and then a 4+ invulnerable and I think it's silly a Thousand Sons squad doesn't actually gain anything by going into cover, it wouldn't really work right for the rest of the game.

Give me my two wound marines back.

So make houserules that buff them, assuming you can convince anyone that they actually need it.

Well sure, "So make Houserules that..." is the answer to pretty much every thread in this forum isn't it?

What answer would you prefer?

T_VanderZwaag wrote:What answer would you prefer?

Isn't this forum for discussing the merits of ideas?

Obviously you could go and make houserules of anything here.

Personally it would be better if cover was a Ballistic skill modifier (i.e. -1 for the most part, then -2 for bunkers and the sort) but I suppose that this sort of math is waaaaay too difficult for Jervis' kid.

Taking your best save is what separates fantasy and 40k and Lord of the Rings. As everyone is saying a usual 1'000 point game would turn from an afternoon rumble to a weekend brawl. Think of it fluff wise. If your Terminator is taking a stroll through the woods, looking at the flowers and big human eating insects and his evil twin brother from the Thousand Suns rocks up and shoots one of those AP3 rounds. The Terminator can choose to take it front on and 5/6 chance of deflecting it OR he can jump behind a tree and risk having the bullet pierce his rubbery joint bits as he is doing a BARREL ROLL.

See Beserker you have your head hurting stats and I got my fluff ahahahahaha

enough said

Nitros14 wrote:I think the system works fine with units that are designed for it. I do think it's silly that some man sized units don't actually gain anything by 'taking cover' though.

This is obviously pertaining to the army that I play and biased but I dislike how the points cost of a Thousand Sons Marine is intended for 4th edition but now cover saves are everywhere (that are equal to his invulnerable save) making going into cover of absolutely no use whatsoever to the entire squad, and incidently give his 4+ invulnerable effectively to every other unit in the game minus flamers, making the Inferno Bolters less useful.

So until a new Chaos Marine codex (lord knows that'll be sometime in 2015 after all the loyalists get their new codexes twice over) the unit is kind of much less useful than intended.

So while I'd love to be able to take a 4+ cover save and then a 4+ invulnerable and I think it's silly a Thousand Sons squad doesn't actually gain anything by going into cover, it wouldn't really work right for the rest of the game.

Give me my two wound marines back.

They do if they go to ground. However you're looking at it wrong. It's not that you don't gain a bonus for being in cover: It's that you don't take a penalty for being out of cover. If my Orks get caught with less than 50% of their unit in cover, they pay for it in spades because every shooting wound is a dead Ork. Every imperial army is packed with Flamers. We got your str 4 AP 5 flamers, your Str 5 AP 4 Heavy Flamers, and even your Str 6 AP 3 Flame storm cannon. They all have one thing in common, every wound is a dead Ork, no matter what cover they are in.

Now your guys, you can go sit on an objective in the middle of an open field and you're safer from shooting than my squad of Boyz in the forest.

Nitros14 wrote:
So while I'd love to be able to take a 4+ cover save and then a 4+ invulnerable and I think it's silly a Thousand Sons squad doesn't actually gain anything by going into cover, it wouldn't really work right for the rest of the game.

Marines are sufficiently tough that they only need to take cover from anti-tank weapons.
'Sons are so tough that they don't need to take cover from anything!
Ithink that's pretty characterful.

Incidentally, there were multiple saves back in 1st and 2nd:
To-hit roll modified by cover
Invulnerable save
armour save modified by weapon stat

I'm not sorry to see the back of that. It was a pain even with the much smaller armies that those editions used.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Personally it would be better if cover was a Ballistic skill modifier (i.e. -1 for the most part, then -2 for bunkers and the sort) but I suppose that this sort of math is waaaaay too difficult for Jervis' kid.

More like it's still an issue of Balance. If an Ork is shooting at a Marine with this system, the Ork would be shooting at BS 1 and needing 6's to hit, after which the marine would still get their 3+ save.

The Marine would only need 4's to hit, and the Ork would have no saves.

Fantasy shooting works in that fashion where you get multiple minuses to what you need to hit, but everything else is different too, it doesn't work for 40k.

Back in 2nd ed, characters could take "fields". these gave aditional saves... and it got ridiculous.
Example: Ragnar Blackmane Had an armor save, an invul save (iron halo, iirc), a 'dodge' save, and could take a field. Add in a cover save and thats 5 saves!
Imagine how hard it was to remove him from the table... And I did it twice in the same tourney. Of course it helped that one player put a displacement field on him, but....

Point is multiple saves are ridiculous. Take the best save you have.
A Zoan vs flashlight should NEVER be just a cover save. Its not strong enough to even trigger the Invulnerable save. The Zoan's Armor save (2+) should bounce a lasgun.
So why take the weaker 'cover' save (4+)? and the Invuln is even worse(6+).
Don't know the rule for Psychic shield, just basing this off the main rule book.

helgrenze wrote:Back in 2nd ed, characters could take "fields". these gave aditional saves... and it got ridiculous.
Example: Ragnar Blackmane Had an armor save, an invul save (iron halo, iirc), a 'dodge' save, and could take a field. Add in a cover save and thats 5 saves!
Imagine how hard it was to remove him from the table... And I did it twice in the same tourney. Of course it helped that one player put a displacement field on him, but....

Point is multiple saves are ridiculous. Take the best save you have.
A Zoan vs flashlight should NEVER be just a cover save. Its not strong enough to even trigger the Invulnerable save. The Zoan's Armor save (2+) should bounce a lasgun.
So why take the weaker 'cover' save (4+)? and the Invuln is even worse(6+).
Don't know the rule for Psychic shield, just basing this off the main rule book.

You're thinking old Codex, Zoans now just have a 3+ Invulnerable save

This has been discussed before. Here you go anyway:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/290577.page

Kroot Loops wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Back in 2nd ed, characters could take "fields". these gave aditional saves... and it got ridiculous.
Example: Ragnar Blackmane Had an armor save, an invul save (iron halo, iirc), a 'dodge' save, and could take a field. Add in a cover save and thats 5 saves!
Imagine how hard it was to remove him from the table... And I did it twice in the same tourney. Of course it helped that one player put a displacement field on him, but....

Point is multiple saves are ridiculous. Take the best save you have.
A Zoan vs flashlight should NEVER be just a cover save. Its not strong enough to even trigger the Invulnerable save. The Zoan's Armor save (2+) should bounce a lasgun.
So why take the weaker 'cover' save (4+)? and the Invuln is even worse(6+).
Don't know the rule for Psychic shield, just basing this off the main rule book.

You're thinking old Codex, Zoans now just have a 3+ Invulnerable save

Which just makes taking the cover save even less appealing.

Unless it's a psycannon shot, but then it's not like 'nids have much of a problem against grey knights most of the time.

The OP specified a Flashlight or Lasgun, Str 3, ap -.

Vs a Zoan's 2+ normal save, 4+ invuln and a 6+ cover....
Which would you take?

Pardon me, I'm not a Tyranid player so I might have the vaiorus editions confused... but I'm fairly certain the most recent codex it is 5+ armor, and 3++ invulnerable save.

They have a 3+ invu save and a 5+ armors save (page 44 of the Tyranid codex).

ugggggh

another multiple save thread.


Multiple saves would upset the game balance. Fantasy has a mechanic that works.

40ks system would need a total revamp.


MEQs would become very OP. so first i get my 4+ cover, then i get my 3+ armor. and if your BAs a 4+ FNP. you would need 6 wounds to kill a marine in cover(12 if a BA with FNP)

Terminators would be even worse. I have a 4+ cover, 2+ armor and a 5+ invuln. you need over 50 wounds to kill a terminator.

Grey Templar wrote:ugggggh

another multiple save thread.


Multiple saves would upset the game balance. Fantasy has a mechanic that works.

40ks system would need a total revamp.


MEQs would become very OP. so first i get my 4+ cover, then i get my 3+ armor. and if your BAs a 4+ FNP. you would need 6 wounds to kill a marine in cover(12 if a BA with FNP)

Terminators would be even worse. I have a 4+ cover, 2+ armor and a 5+ invuln. you need over 50 wounds to kill a terminator.

Just think if the Terminator has feel no pain cause he is a blood angel.

Grey Templar wrote:Fantasy has a mechanic that works.

Yes, it does.

Unfortunately, GW realized this and decided that 40K's system should be in 8th.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Personally it would be better if cover was a Ballistic skill modifier (i.e. -1 for the most part, then -2 for bunkers and the sort) but I suppose that this sort of math is waaaaay too difficult for Jervis' kid.

In 2nd ed, marines were supposed to have this wondrous armour that made them resilient to all but the heaviest of enemy fire. Unfortunately, with lasguns giving a -1 mod, and almost everything else at least that effective, marines died really easily. As a result marines and other heavily armoured units spent games hiding in cover just like everyone else. It was boring, and didn’t make marines look very heroic at all.

Third ed got a lot wrong, but the decision to remove to hit mods and armour mods is the one thing that the game got really right. It works really well to distinguish the way in which lightly armoured units operate compared to heavily armoured ones.

This was explained quite clearly by GW in the move to third ed, and has been explained countless times in the 12 odd years since then. It isn’t to do with Jervis’ kid at all, as that vague design principle came along around 10 years after the removal of save modifiers and introduction of cover saves.

Saving throws are all about making sure the game is not so one-sided there's no point playing beyond the 2nd turn. It gives a player more options cause he/she knows if they charge into combat against a tooled up opponent there's a chance some of the squad surviving due to the saving throws.

Now what I do agree with is the idea that a guy hit by a low strength weapon shouldn't die by it when everything says he should survive. But then again even a Space Marine can die by a single lasgun blast if it hits him in the right place.

Looking at the To Wound chart i'm surprised you should even have to take a save, since low powered weapons against high toughness should have N/A