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.

This is what would happen to me: Im playin against my friends SM and he has an command squad behind cover with a captain and an apotechary,
1st he takes his cover save (4+) , then he takes his artificer armor save (2+) and finally his FNP (4+)
Pretty unfair huh? As a CSM player i dont get FNP for my lord...

Here's what totally breaks it:

Deathwing Assault Terminators with an apothecary standing in cover.

4+/2+/3+/4+

You need to rapid fire a BS4 boltgun 108 times to kill a single model.

The shooting phase becomes meaningless.

It's honestly because anything that's strong enough to get through the cover isn't going to be slowed down enough to make a difference. With weapons of the magnitude you're talking about, it'll either go through the cover and everything fifty feet behind it, or else not go through the cover.

now what doesn't make sense to me, is that you aren't allowed to take a cover save along with a stronger armour save, like a preemptive FnP. After all, if the cover stops it, they no worries. If it goes through the cover, the armour gets a chance. Lesser armour isn't gonna do much, but greater armour would have a chance, in addition to the cover save.

It falls under why we don't keep track of ammunition in the game, or why we can no longer move are guardsmen becuase they are suffering from exhaustion after running to much.

If you really want it feel free to make it a house rule. But as many peoples said, you might find you have to change a lot more of the game then its worth to use them.

sourclams wrote:Here's what totally breaks it:

Deathwing Assault Terminators with an apothecary standing in cover.

4+/2+/3+/4+

You need to rapid fire a BS4 boltgun 108 times to kill a single model.

The shooting phase becomes meaningless.

I was about to write this.. You want ALL saves? Good luck getting through 2+, 3++, 5++, 4FNP, 4+Cover saves of Blood Angel Terminators..
You forgot 5++. Shield don't overwrite terminators inv.

Macok wrote:
You forgot 5++. Shield don't overwrite terminators inv.

Im pretty sure they are only talking about one of each save SS save and terminator save are invulnerable

Dunno. FNP is one of hte most powerful rules in the game for a reason-- it allows you to take a second save. Letting almost every unit in the game take two, three, or even four saves would completely ruin all shooting in the game.

from an iraqi war vet perspective, what would seem most logical would be to add a modifier to your original armor save, as the terrain/cover effectively becomes your armor too.

however, because of the infamous d6 limitations, it would increase the time immensly. while I never played 2nd ed rules, I have played a ton of necromunda in my time. the ruleset for that seems more practical but there were only 8-10 or so models and those games took nearly as long as 40k games today if not longer.

one way to fix this perhaps would be to have dice sets similar to artilary dice, so you roll a cover save, armour save and invuln save for your specified race, hero etc... but then calculate those percentages off three dice rather than only one n have that correspond to the specified races skill set, equipment etc...

I'm from finland????? news to me

Hi all.
The real problem with the current damage mechanic for 40k is it is so over complicated and abstract!

1) Cover is obscurement and should not be abstracted to the level of an alternative physical protection.(It should modify the chance to see-hit the target.)

2) Restricting the outcome to the results of a D6 is far too limiting.If we deduct the armour value from the weapon damage to arive at the save roll required, we get a simple ,mechanic with scalable results.ALL units can use this , and we dont need suplimentary sytems.(Invunerable saves, AV, special rules...)

2nd ed used napoleonic game mechanics from the late 1970s.5th ed uses most of the same game mechanics but replaced some modifiers with lots of special rules.

IF 40k was wrtten with the current game play in mind using more suitable modern game mechaincs, you could get more detailed interaction with more intuitive rules.
That take up a fraction of the pages of rules 40k currently uses.

TTFN

My biggest problem is that the AP system is ridiculously unbalanced. A single point difference in AP doesn't grant a simple 16% increase in lethality; it can grant an increase in lethality of anywhere from 16% (going from AP- to AP6 on a Sv 6+ model) to 600% (going from AP3 to AP2 on a Sv 2+ model).

The "break it or take it" mechanic means that AP is meaningless for a lot of armies. Marines don't care unless something is AP3 or AP2. Armies with a 5+ or higher save don't really care either, because so many weapons ignore their armor, and when they do get to roll it, well....16% or 33% aren't exactly betting numbers.

I have to get ready for class, but again: Break it or take it is a lazy, unbalanced, and nauseatingly bad system.

Good points, Lanrak. I especially like the idea of Cover being an obscurement, so modifying Thaco. Perhaps, instead of the unit in Cover gaining an armour save, the unit that is shooting at them instead has to roll with an effective Balistic Skill of 3 or 2? Since Cover is a static save, it should give a static skill. That'd also make fluffy sense, since, with Orks for example, they're not really aiming anyways, so they wouldn't be affected too much by firing through cover.


And I definitely agree about the d6s. They're also the reason that there's the 'rule of 10' or whatever it's called, which severely limits, and in a way flattens, the game.

That always annoyed me, as in real life (I know we can't compare 40k to real life but still), if you were hit in cover while wearing armour, the armour wouldn't suddenly do nothing, and it actually makes infantry not get churned up like ground beef in seconds, in cover or not

In 'real life,' if the round hit you, then the cover failed to do anything, and it would all be down to your armor anyways.

I'm always confused why people want 40k to be so realistic. 5th edition is supposed to be a strategical/tactical duel between two players. Not an ultra-realistic game.

Yeah. There are other ways to play in ultra-realistic battles besides warhammer. Joining the army jumps to mind.

I dunno. There's a fine line between realism and playability. Warhammer is WAY on the side of playability. Other games are WAY on the side of realism (such as Microsoft Flight Simulator, though it's still very playable). Other games find a good balance.

Lordraymond wrote:The only thing I have a problem with is just not taking a save in general after being in cover. I mean, does being in cover remove your armor or something? If I fired a lasgun at a space marine, and I went through his cover, does that mean that his power armor is now suddenly worthless?

Im wondering why you didnt just roll for his armor then? That save is better after all!
The assumption is if it busts thru your best save then it obviously busted thru your worse saves!

These cover rules would just make cover WAAAY too strong...SM would be almost impossible to kill in cover...shooting would become worthless...

EDIT:removed snark...i see this one was started by a tau player...

TheRedArmy wrote:Yeah. There are other ways to play in ultra-realistic battles besides warhammer. Joining the army jumps to mind.

I dunno. There's a fine line between realism and playability. Warhammer is WAY on the side of playability. Other games are WAY on the side of realism (such as Microsoft Flight Simulator, though it's still very playable). Other games find a good balance.

Thats a good idea, there always was a higher death rate amoung hobbyists, the army should be much safer. If a game is tactical, then it needs to be fairly 'realistic', for example, you woulndt let and infantry model move 24" in one turn, because really, they couldn't do that, Basalisks have long range because they are artillery pieces, adn larger weapons with high cal. are better at penetrating armour, all of that is realism. I know 40k can't really be compared, but some aspects of the game need to be made realistic, although as you say there is a very fine line between realism and playability. That is the reason many new wargames fail, they try to be realistic, get massively over complecated, and the game tries to kill himself with his minis in frustration.

Hi all.
Just to point out playability is USUALY down to how INTUITVE the rules are.
If the game plays out how you expect, you dont get many WTF moments, or need a ton of added on rules ,(USRs, Vehicle , Special) to arrive at the game paly you expect to be coverd by the core rules.

And the most detailed simulation I play (Historical WWII armoured game) has 10 times the detail of 40k, but a fraction of the pages of rules!
(The 100 page rulebook includes 45 army lists,unit data for over 600 units and a PV allocation method... )

SIMPLE simulations generaly result in the most playable rule sets.

Eg
Weapons are develped to inflict damage on a target unit.
Armour is developed to dissapate -prevent damage to the the unit using it!

Therfore a simple simulation would be to deduct the armour value from the strenght of hit to arrive at the save roll required.

If we extend 'AV' down to cover other units in the game of 40k, we get values of 1 to 14.

And we could use damage values of 5 to 12 for weapon strenght.(Weapons specialised for Anti armour get abonus dice to penetration as now.)

EG IG trooper has AV 2, and is hit by a boltgun 6 damage, so gets a 4+ save.(6 -2=4)
(This is assuming that Toughness is included in the AV calculation- to simplify the process to allow for a simple supression mechanic.)

This simple rule could apply to ALL units including vehicles.
And vehciles and MCs could have a damage table to make these unit types loose abilites gradualy.
And add a simple supresion mechanics for the other unit types..

In my re-write using modern game mechanics a straightforward tactical combat simulation,I only used 3 pages of rules to cover ALL unit damage resolution.
But this is assuming the end game play is a 'modern tactical wargame.'(My rough outline is only 14 pages total!)

Good game developemnt may simplify the process by abstracting the process, NOT the results.

And 40k abstracts so much in the name of simplicity , it ends up with lots more rules than necissary IMO.

TTFN

Lanrak, well said.

The problem with 40k is that tactics are almost meaningless.

Before you get all huffy about that statement, consider. If there are two enemy squads to your one squad, which is the worst (for you) positioning they can be in:
A.) Both enemy squads to your squad's front.
B.) One enemy squad to your front, another to your side.
C.) Both enemy squads ringing the edge of a crater which your squad is in, firing down into it.
D.) All of these are equal, according to the 40k ruleset.

Now, to play both sides of the game, in assault, is it better if:
A.) The enemy is directly ahead of your unit.
B.) The enemy is attacking from the front and one flank.
C.) The enemy has your squad totally encircled.
D.) All of these are equal, according to the 40k ruleset.

Furthermore, the lack of a suppression mechanic makes the game even more foolish. Rather than having to coordinate units, it is a perfectly viable "tactic" to run straight ahead, get into close combat, and then play Yatzee. I mean, heaven forbid the player have to actually *use* tactics, have one unit offer suppression fire so another unit could assault....

Whatever. Fantasy actually has tactics. In fact, it never ceases to amaze me how GW could get things so *right* with Fantasy, and so *wrong* with 40k.

sourclams wrote:Here's what totally breaks it:

Deathwing Assault Terminators with an apothecary standing in cover.

4+/2+/3+/4+

You need to rapid fire a BS4 boltgun 108 times to kill a single model.

The shooting phase becomes meaningless.

True. But lets be honest, if you had heavily armored superhumans in a hulled down position, would you fire at them with machine guns? Or might you call in the big guns? This is where my str 6 rule comes in, or simply no cover saves allowed weapons.

You're approaching that problem from the wrong angle. It's a Deathwing army--every model is a Terminator. Sure, you can call in the big guns to shoot at the one squad with FNP, but ultimately you have to try firing small arms at Terminators with multiple saves. You cannot get enough heavy guns cheaply enough to knock down 40 pt Terminators.

The game devolves into who has the most badass CC unit because the shooting phase is meaningless.

Hi folks.
Sourclaims , when you realise how much shooting has been abstracted , to focus on close assault , you arrive at the core problem lots of gamers have with the current 40k rules.
So the current game is very close to your prognosis.'The game devolves into who has the most badass CC unit because the shooting phase is meaningless.'

In a modern wargame ,(which 40k looks like it might be,) Mobility ,Firepower and Close assault are ALL vitaly important.

Mobility to take objectives, Firepower to control Enemy Mobility, (supression and destroying armoured support ,) and Close Assault to contest objectives.

If 40k is viewed as '...the icing on the cake for minature collectors...' or '.. a fun dice rolling game for ages 10 years and over...' there is absolutley nothing wrong with the current 5th ed rule set.

However , if players want a intuitve fast paced modern wargame , they may be disapointed.

Rather than replace the WHFB game mechanics , GW just adds more layers of rules on top, adding to the restriction , and abstraction each time.

It amazes me how the GW game developers can bless the world with a great rule set for large battles (using 10m minis,) in the 41 milenium,(Epic Armageddon,) with probably the most intuitive and straight forward supression mechainc ever used!

Yet when writing a rule set for battles in the 41 millenium using 28mm minis , they use WHFB rules to base thier rule set on.

TTFN

I agree with your point, it's more realistic to be able to take all your saves, however as some other posters have pointed out, if this were the case then some models would be ridiculously hard to kill.

What i think should happen is you can only take one save unless one is a cover save. So if you're in cover and have an inv. and normal save you may only take one of the inv or normal saves but then may take the cover save on top of that.

Hear hear! That sounds like it makes sense. And gives something of an advantage to all those squishy shooty units that hide in cover (I'm looking at you, Tau!). Granted, there's going to be some folks who play Deathwing that way (though I don't see why you'd bother), but most of the time, the units that have high Armor saves are also the ones that Terrain can inconvenience the most, since they're looking for line of sight, movement and assaulting.

Avrik_Shasla wrote:I feel that the save system is completely screwed up, and I am going to explain why.

A Predator fires it's destructive lascannon at a squad of Fire warriors, to harry them. The powerful shot slams into the dirt trench that the Firewarriors are hiding behind, turning the dirt and sand into glass, but at the cost of the weapon itself losing strength. But what's this? The Fire-warrior squad finds themselves naked! it seems the evil trench smurfs has stolen their protective armor! The less powerful laser now slams into Shas'la Bob, who melts to a goo. If only those damn dirty smurfs didn't take his armor, if only the shield drones did not randomly shut down.

Now tell me my fellow Dakkaiets....

Why doesn't saves work like this? If you have more than one save possible, why can you not use them all? What happens to the armor when the shot hits the terrain, but keeps going. I mean, the shot would obviously lose power slamming through matter.

Why not use all saves possible?

I dont know why you dont get cover saves and armor saves. I suppose its for marines, it leads to SM going out and marching across the battlefield only dropping for cover against heavy(AP3) weapons. It makes no sense, but thats the way the SM fluff is written.

Heck I'd love that. My Bloodcrushers and Bloodthirster could get their cover saves, armor and invul saves. Hardly anything would get through that. I love the idea.

But the game would become much longer, models would become much more durable, meaning that 5 turns probably wouldn't be enough to indicate a clearcut winner. Double or triple the saves every model gets, and they last that much longer.

Don't get me wrong, realistically all should count. But you have to consider game elements.

Sure, sounds great, now I'll stick three lines of grotsin front of my army, and get three 4+ saves in a row.

I say we sacrifice realism for fun.

Mustela wrote:Sure, sounds great, now I'll stick three lines of grotsin front of my army, and get three 4+ saves in a row.

And there's the #1 reason this idea for multiple saves is wrong! (I laughed outloud at that, nice one Mustela.)

Although oen problem is, ALL games would devolve into trench warfare, with people not moving from cover, and whoever has the best power to shell the enemy for like 7 turns wins

winnertakesall wrote:That always annoyed me, as in real life (I know we can't compare 40k to real life but still), if you were hit in cover while wearing armour, the armour wouldn't suddenly do nothing, and it actually makes infantry not get churned up like ground beef in seconds, in cover or not

If your armor's better than the cover you're in, you use the armor save. Duh? Having cover saves improve a 3+ to a 2+ would be ridiculous, a few inches of tree isn't going to stop something if the most advanced armor in the galaxy can't stop it.