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 skip my FNP on DC quite frequently. I'd rather have the time. I"ll even concede a unit's death so there are no rolls.

Mek Gunz pose a couple of different problems, having up to 18 seperate units slows the game down a lot and makes them very resilient in terms of getting charged and locked in combat because you need to get within 1" of every single one of them. So I want to remove the rule that forces them to split at the start of the game, that introduces the problem of the game breaking if multiple models in a unit are damaged and they take damage, so kustom mega-kannons needed to be changed.

Then there is the case of the Bubblechukka, 45 pts and it requires up to 11 separate rolls to resolve its shooting attack so I found a middle-of-the-road profile for it and introduced a mortal wounds effect which will only slow the game down in the case of units that are partially in cover but should along with D6 damage and D!D!D! keep it as a fun and random weapon.

Lastly, I updated pts costs, nudged Mek Gunz up by 2 pts to make them 35 instead of 33 pts because that's a more pleasing number to me and Mek Gunz are considered to be quite strong, although leaving them as one big blob would make them much weaker in my estimation. Whether that adds up to be too big a nerf I am not sure. Maybe they need to come down to 12 pts to adjust for that change, I'd have to test to be sure. I think Smasha guns are by far the most pts-efficient option so I chose to buff the other choices, the traktor kannon only just enough to make up for the increase in base price, the kustom mega-kannon and bubblechukka by a fair bit more although both of those got overhauled as well.

Heavy Support 2 POWER Mek Gunz
Mek Gun 17 pts M:3” WS:5+ BS:4+ S:2 T:5 W:6 A:6 Ld:4 Sv:5+

This unit contains 1 Mek Gun. It can include up to 5 additional Mek Gunz (Power Rating +2 per Mek Gun). Each Mek Gun is equipped with either a bubblechukka, kustom mega-kannon, smasha gun or traktor kannon and 6 Grot Crew, one manning the weapon and five standing alongside it.

Bubblechukka 23 pts RANGE 36" TYPE Heavy 3 S 5 AP -2 D D6 ABILITIES Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, that hit inflicts a mortal wound in addition to the normal damage.
Kustom mega-kannon 28 pts RANGE 36" TYPE Heavy 3 S 8 AP -3 D D6 ABILITIES The bearer's unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each unmodified hit roll of 1 made with this weapon.
Smasha gun 18 pts RANGE 48" TYPE Heavy D3 S * AP -4 D D6 ABILITIES Instead of making a wound roll for this weapon, roll 2D6. If the result is equal to or greater than the target’s Toughness characteristic, the attack successfully wounds.
Traktor kannon 28 pts RANGE 48" TYPE Heavy 1 S 8 AP -2 D D6 ABILITIES This weapon automatically hits its target. If the target is an enemy VEHICLE unit that can FLY, roll two dice when inflicting damage with this weapon and discard the lowest result. If a VEHICLE unit that can FLY is destroyed by this weapon, the model automatically crashes and burns (or its equivalent) – do not roll a dice.

ABILITIES

Dakka! Dakka! Dakka!

Grot Krew: Each Mek Gun and its grot krew are treated as a single model for all rules purposes. The krew must remain in base contact with their Mek Gun and cannot be targeted or attacked separately. The range and visibility of all shooting attacks made by a Mek Gun are measured from the Mek Gun, not the krew.

I’m glad to see this thread, as it’s a subject matter I’m very interested in.

Just some thoughts:

The Radium ability, what if it was replaced with “each time you make a wound roll of 6+ with this weapon, you inflict 2 wounds on the target instead of 1”. If I’ve got this right (I can be bad at explaining things), it means that you simply pick up an extra dice for saves rather than having to roll the damage 1 and 2 attacks separately...if I’ve got it right.

FNP is also definitely a huge speed bump for the game. What if it was possible to half all the damage the unit suffers, rounding up?

Also, a real peeve of mine, profiles with random numbers of attacks should only be used if they automatically hit. In all other cases, the act of rolling to hit itself should be the random variable.

I think FNP needs something to speed it up but I'm not sure exactly what. At the moment needing to roll individually for every model is laborious and often pointless. Halving damage seems like it would have some unintended consequences but maybe a blanket rule that says multi-model units don't get to take FNP if the weapon's damage is more than their Wounds characteristic? Doesn't feel perfect either, but I feel like something needs to be done and that something needs to be more than just ditching 6+ FNP rolls.

I feel the random attacks issue is actually indicative of a core problem with GW in that they refuse to use the full range of possibilities when it comes to unit stats. If you want a more random unit you probably want to give it a fixed number of attacks but a worse WS, for example.

ROYGBIV dice. You can roll multiple FNP at once.

Martel732 wrote:
ROYGBIV dice. You can roll multiple FNP at once.

This is true, however IMHO this is a workaround necessary because of clunky, time consuming mechanics. While such workarounds certainly do speed up the game, I would prefer that such things weren’t required.

On the issue of speeding up FNP rules, I think a lot of the benefits FNP provides could be incorporated into toughness, wounds or save buffs, especially if the AP modifier rules were changed to the system for 3rd-7th edition.

I'm not sure you can replicate that math any other way, since it is resolved against each wound taken. You cant get close with toughness, that's for sure. lascannons would DE raiders and land raiders on the same number in 8th. There is almost no granularity in toughness now.

Honestly movement phases for congo lines for buffs and measuring to make sure models are within auras and then more measuring for tripointing takes up far more time then FNP rolls. Many BA players skip their shooting phase entirely to get more time to move and assault.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not sure you can replicate that math any other way, since it is resolved against each wound taken. You cant get close with toughness, that's for sure. lascannons would DE raiders and land raiders on the same number in 8th. There is almost no granularity in toughness now.

I expect you’re right that the maths wouldn’t be able to be replicated, but I would think that a reasonable approximation would be possible. In order to incorporate this, there would probably need to be large scale adjustments to most if not all units though.

Yeah, I don't think FNP is really the culprit.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I don't think FNP is really the culprit.

I agree that FNP isn’t the only mechanic that slows down the game, and the issues you mentioned regarding auras etc also slow the game down. I’m in favour of making time saving adjustments throughout the game design. A series of adjustments to numerous mechanics might each individually only contribute a small time saving, but taken together might be very effective.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I don't think FNP is really the culprit.

The way FNP requires you to roll individually for every model is a very clunky way to resolve damage and from experience I can say it slows the game down at least as much as things like re-rolls. The only reason it's not even worse is that it's not as common as re-rolls. FNP is supposed to represent units being more resilient than normal and I think there are better, less clunky ways to represent that. Even just a tweak of the FNP rule somehow would probably help.

You can encode the roll order with ROYGBIV dice. You don't have to roll individually. It would help if FNP were optional so we could skip it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’m glad to see this thread, as it’s a subject matter I’m very interested in.

Just some thoughts:

The Radium ability, what if it was replaced with “each time you make a wound roll of 6+ with this weapon, you inflict 2 wounds on the target instead of 1”. If I’ve got this right (I can be bad at explaining things), it means that you simply pick up an extra dice for saves rather than having to roll the damage 1 and 2 attacks separately...if I’ve got it right.

FNP is also definitely a huge speed bump for the game. What if it was possible to half all the damage the unit suffers, rounding up?

Also, a real peeve of mine, profiles with random numbers of attacks should only be used if they automatically hit. In all other cases, the act of rolling to hit itself should be the random variable.

What does your radium ability represent? Adding 1 to wound rolls does the exact same thing. The thing radium currently does is make radium better against multi-wound models, the more wounds the better, something which my proposed change does as well although it is gamey as heck.

Halving and rounding could be done, but it's irrelevant against D1 and really brutal against D2, great against D3, then brutal again against D4, good but not great against D5 and brutal against D6. -1 damage to a minimum of 1 or 2 is much better IMO, but I'd also question in which situations where this makes sense. I don't think this could ever work against D1 weapons because saves are technically taken one at a time, I guess ignoring the next wound suffered in a phase after losing 1 wound would be a possibility but it seems wonky to me. Just upping the wounds characteristic seems to me to be the right choice whenever possible. Exceptions like Characters that will go from under 10 wounds to over 10 wounds are the exceptions.

I think you're right on random numbers of shots being a bad thing, what it does though is it increases variance and luck factor, the more dice you roll the more luck gets washed out in massive numbers of dice, but if you have some amount of those rolls be massively more important than the rest you can increase the variance in games.

Martel732 wrote:
ROYGBIV dice. You can roll multiple FNP at once.

Seems like a hassle. Do you use this system?

I'm not sure you can replicate that math any other way, since it is resolved against each wound taken. You cant get close with toughness, that's for sure. lascannons would DE raiders and land raiders on the same number in 8th. There is almost no granularity in toughness now.

Honestly movement phases for congo lines for buffs and measuring to make sure models are within auras and then more measuring for tripointing takes up far more time then FNP rolls. Many BA players skip their shooting phase entirely to get more time to move and assault.

6+ FNP multiplies you wounds characteristic by an average of 1,2, 5+ by 1,5. It'd be real easy to calculate those numbers. Instead of giving inured to suffering or whatever it's called, the Black Heart Kabal could just add 1 to the Wounds characteristic of vehicles for every 5 wounds in the model's Wounds characteristic. For Death Guard add 1 for every 2. The only problem is units with a low wounds characteristic and I've already made suggestions, like increasing toughness or Sv characteristic or adding to saving throws (any of these options could be limited to attacks with a damage of 1 or of a low enough Strength or AP)

"Seems like a hassle. Do you use this system?"

It's not a hassle. It's easy. Watching Ork players roll their gak is much worse. Yes, I use it.

The problem with things like FNP or armor saves isn't "How do I generate a bunch of dice rolls in an order?", it's "How do I do that without being able to peek ahead?"


In 8th edition, you can take a handful of dice to roll to hit, and a handful of dice to roll to wound, but from there the game mechanic has a sequence:
* assign hit
* save against hit
* roll for number of wounds hit causes
* roll FNP-equivalent

If you want to speed that up, you have to go back to something like 4th edition where the sequence was:
* bulk roll to hit
* bulk roll to wound (against majority toughness)
* bulk roll saves (using majority saves)
* defender chooses wound allocation
And if you go back to that system, then you may as well also bulk roll FNP-equivlents.

And, honestly, compared to 4th edition, 8th edition has eliminated most of the situations which would require "majority toughness" or "majority armor saves". So you might as well just do it as:
* bulk roll to hit
* bulk roll to wound
* bulk roll saves
* bulk roll damage, if necessary
* bulk roll FNP-equivalents
* defender allocates wounds

Completely eliminates the need to roll dice one-at-a-time.

If you have say 5 identical models that can die you can roll them five at a time.

If I play BA again I'll try out your rainbow thing and see if I can make it work because FNP on Aggressors is a pain to roll.

 solkan wrote:
And, honestly, compared to 4th edition, 8th edition has eliminated most of the situations which would require "majority toughness" or "majority armor saves". So you might as well just do it as:
* bulk roll to hit
* bulk roll to wound
* bulk roll saves
* bulk roll damage, if necessary
* bulk roll FNP-equivalents
* defender allocates wounds

That's already how I do it. The very least you should do is bulk-roll saves, I don't care if you get a tinsy tiny bit of information you shouldn't have and you can use that to decide whether or not to use a CP re-roll or you can change your mind on which models you want to remove, it's just not a big deal and speeds the game up with almost no difference in terms of outcome since both players benefit (admittedly to different degrees). I'd be willing to agree to pre-determine which models are slain before rolling saves and accept that I can't CP re-roll saves if I fast-roll if my opponent asked for it but I believe most people in tournaments and certainly in Youtube battlereports fast roll saves.

The snags that don't let me do the above are #1 cover/storm shields, since sometimes part of a unit has different saves I'll have to slow down. I don't think this is a problem, you can still roll these pretty quickly and often a Sergeant is outside of cover so you'll just forego cover to save a Sergeant or multiple models have storm shields. #2 random damage vs FNP or multi-damage vs multi-wound + FNP. You can speed things up with some tricks that don't change the math, but I would be glad to just see FNP go away entirely. These create actual mathematical differences in terms of how many models are slain which is my cut-off for how much I'm willing to ignore the rules to speed up the game. Making rolling one at a time the standard was a massive mistake IMO and something that should be fixed for 9th.

Martel732 wrote:
If you have say 5 identical models that can die you can roll them five at a time.

5 identical models doesn’t mean the order doesn’t matter. Bulk rolling gives the defending player an advantage in that they can choose to allocate the wounds after they know how many wounds are suffered. Just because the models are identical doesn’t mean that which one is removed is irrelevant. Breaking unit coherency will have an effect on how the unit is able to move in subsequent turns, and which models are removed could also be relevant for charge ranges, weapon range, if you remain in close combat etc. Basically anything that deals with the physical position of a unit.

You could choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, whereas rolling one at a time takes this control away from you.

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If you have say 5 identical models that can die you can roll them five at a time.

5 identical models doesn’t mean the order doesn’t matter. Bulk rolling gives the defending player an advantage in that they can choose to allocate the wounds after they know how many wounds are suffered. Just because the models are identical doesn’t mean that which one is removed is irrelevant. Breaking unit coherency will have an effect on how the unit is able to move in subsequent turns, and which models are removed could also be relevant for charge ranges, weapon range, if you remain in close combat etc. Basically anything that deals with the physical position of a unit.

You could choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, whereas rolling one at a time takes this control away from you.

You can still choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, it hardly ever matters, either you want to be within range of the objective or you don't.

 vict0988 wrote:

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If you have say 5 identical models that can die you can roll them five at a time.

5 identical models doesn’t mean the order doesn’t matter. Bulk rolling gives the defending player an advantage in that they can choose to allocate the wounds after they know how many wounds are suffered. Just because the models are identical doesn’t mean that which one is removed is irrelevant. Breaking unit coherency will have an effect on how the unit is able to move in subsequent turns, and which models are removed could also be relevant for charge ranges, weapon range, if you remain in close combat etc. Basically anything that deals with the physical position of a unit.

You could choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, whereas rolling one at a time takes this control away from you.

You can still choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, it hardly ever matters, either you want to be within range of the objective or you don't.

There is a material difference if FNP rolls are rolled together, even when colour coded. Especially on units with multi wound models.

Aash wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If you have say 5 identical models that can die you can roll them five at a time.

5 identical models doesn’t mean the order doesn’t matter. Bulk rolling gives the defending player an advantage in that they can choose to allocate the wounds after they know how many wounds are suffered. Just because the models are identical doesn’t mean that which one is removed is irrelevant. Breaking unit coherency will have an effect on how the unit is able to move in subsequent turns, and which models are removed could also be relevant for charge ranges, weapon range, if you remain in close combat etc. Basically anything that deals with the physical position of a unit.

You could choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, whereas rolling one at a time takes this control away from you.

You can still choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, it hardly ever matters, either you want to be within range of the objective or you don't.

There is a material difference if FNP rolls are rolled together, even when colour coded. Especially on units with multi wound models.

I know you have to do FNP rolls in order for multi-wound units, but if a shot does 6 damage you can roll 6 dice together to determine how much damage the model that has been assigned the wound takes, you don't need to roll a dice 6 individual times and tick him down until he goes to 0 wounds and then roll the remaining FNPs because the rules tell you to. As I said if my opponent wants me to enunciate which models I'm going to remove and in what order before I make any save rolls and wants me to say whether I'll use a re-roll before making saves then I'll do that, but usually it's just a waste of time.

You can absolutely make FNP rolls together if you have 1-W models, whether it's 1, 2 or a spread of damage, the rolls can still be resolved simultaneously with no impact on how likely models are to be destroyed. If all the wounds are 1-damage then you can also do FNP simultaneously for multi-wound units, again no difference on the maths.

Let's say you have two wounds with 1 damage, four with 2 damage and three with 3 damage against a unit of Scouts with 5+++.

You roll for the 3 damage wounds first, 3 dice on 5+, let's say 1 is ignored and 2 go through. Now you have 2 dead and 1 3-damage shot that has been reduced to a 2-damage shot. Next you move on to the 2-damage shots, four+one=five. Five FNP rolls, 3 die, 2 are reduced to 1 damage. 4 are dead and you have 4 1-damage FNPs left to make. 3 more die, 1 lives 7 die. Completed in 3 rolls instead of 19 if you're an ultra-stickler or 8 if you're remotely interested in finishing your games before midnight the day after you start them.

In response to "But that gives the defender an advantage" in response to doing all the rolling as bulk... Everything you're worried about you can do with "one at a time" rolls. If you're worried about spreading single wounds around on multiple wound models, then just add the other left out 4th edition rule: Once you've allocated wounds to a model, you continue until it's dead.

Because you're choosing between:
* Point at dude in the back. "He'll take the hit". Roll. Roll. Roll. Remove dude.
* Point at next dude in the back. "He'll take the hit". Roll. Roll. Roll. Roll. Roll. Remove dude.
* Point at a dude in the front. "He'll take the hit." Roll. Remove dude.
* "And now back to the back", ...
vs.
* Roll a bunch of dice. "Okay, I'm removing these dudes in the front, and those dudes in the back."

You're just skipping past the waiting, and not giving anyone the opportunity to waste time trying to push their luck throwing hits on models they're hoping are going to pass their saves.

Disclaimer: Any proposal to just play with the expected result (replace a 4+ FNP with "half damage", etc.) simply isn't going to fly. You might as well propose to "fix" 40k by abandoning the WWII tank designs.

Aash wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If you have say 5 identical models that can die you can roll them five at a time.

5 identical models doesn’t mean the order doesn’t matter. Bulk rolling gives the defending player an advantage in that they can choose to allocate the wounds after they know how many wounds are suffered. Just because the models are identical doesn’t mean that which one is removed is irrelevant. Breaking unit coherency will have an effect on how the unit is able to move in subsequent turns, and which models are removed could also be relevant for charge ranges, weapon range, if you remain in close combat etc. Basically anything that deals with the physical position of a unit.

You could choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, whereas rolling one at a time takes this control away from you.

You can still choose to remove models in such a way that you remain within range of an objective, it hardly ever matters, either you want to be within range of the objective or you don't.

There is a material difference if FNP rolls are rolled together, even when colour coded. Especially on units with multi wound models.

No there isn't if you declare which models are taking the wounds first. Or units where everything is the same.

Martel732 wrote:
No there isn't if you declare which models are taking the wounds first. Or units where everything is the same.

So, I have a squad of Wardens. (Custodes unit with a 6+ FNP and 3 Wounds each.)

My Thunder Hammer dudes smack 'em around a bit, dealing 6 unsaved wounds. That's 18 points of damage, meaning that (if I make 3 FNP rolls) they'd take 15 points of damage and five would die. But that's not how it'd actually work. Unless three FNP are rolled successfully IN A ROW, they'd take less damage.

If I make FNP rolls 6, 12, and 18, then I'd lose only 11 wounds.

It would go like this:



So instead of losing 5 wardens, I lose 3 and have one wounded.

That's why there's an order encoded in the dice. ROY dice go with the first three damage.

I think if speeding up the game is the core objective you need to decide how much abstraction you're willing to accept as the current rules bog down because they're trying to model a 1-to-1 relationship between damage dealt (which could be different damage per model) and the model that takes the damage. Previous editions have been fine with abstracting that and just favouring either the defender or attacker when assigning damage, depending on the edition.

If you're going to keep FNP mechanics as they are now the only way to really speed things up is to allow damage to spill over between models, but I don't think that's desirable because it makes FNP a disadvantage, rather than an advantage in some cases. So I think you need to change the FNP mechanics if speeding up the game is your primary goal.

You could have FNP reduce damage taken at a flat rate and provide a FNP-type roll when a model would lose its last wound, for example. So, say, FNP reduces damage taken by 1 and, if the model would still die as a result of that you get a FNP save to prevent it. That would obviously make FNP much more powerful, so probably wouldn't work so well. In fact, the more I think about FNP as related to game speed the more I think it's just not a system that works very well at all. Maybe we just need to embrace more wounds or higher T for things that currently have a FNP of at least 5+? 6+ FNP is basically pointless and could easily be removed, probably without having to adjust points.

If I could wave my magic wand I’d get rid of FNP altogether and increase survivability in other ways if necessary. The best approach in my opinion would be to completely rework the mechanics for causing damage, reducing the overall killieness of the game.

For starters, go back to the AP system from 3rd-7th, to make small arms far less effective against armour saves, and make invulnerable saves far less common. There might also need to be changes to wound allocation rules, mortal wounds, multi damage weapons etc. Have a look at the strength/toughness and the WS and BS systems and tweak as necessary. There might be edge cases where a FNP would still be appropriate, but I’d prefer to rework the whole system so that it was unnecessary.

I’m no game designer, so maybe this is unrealistic, but it’s the direction I’d hope for.

What if FNP was replaced with;

A model with this rules adds one to its armour saves, and always succeeds on an unmodified roll of six. If a model with this rule has its armour reduced to the extent that it would normally not be able to make an armour save, or suffers a mortal wound, it can still make an armour save, succeeding on an unmodified roll of six. A model with this rule reduces the Damage characteristic of received damage by one, to a minimum of one.

So it's consistently a bit more more powerful against multi damage weapons, but potentially less so because you can't save all the damage from a lascannom for example.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
What if FNP was replaced with;

A model with this rules adds one to its armour saves, and always succeeds on an unmodified roll of six. If a model with this rule has its armour reduced to the extent that it would normally not be able to make an armour save, or suffers a mortal wound, it can still make an armour save, succeeding on an unmodified roll of six. A model with this rule reduces the Damage characteristic of received damage by one, to a minimum of one.

So it's consistently a bit more more powerful against multi damage weapons, but potentially less so because you can't save all the damage from a lascannom for example.

The -1 damage part makes it too good +1 Sv alone is good enough in most cases. There is a big difference between 7+/5+++ vs 3+/5+++ vs 3+/6+++ vs 5+/6+++. But it's also a question of what is this intended to do? Make you more resilient overall? The Sv protects you from small-arms and the dmg reduction protects you from larger weapons? Why not just increase the wounds characteristic? Nurgle Daemon Princes are AFAIK the only unit where you can't just give them extra wounds because that would put them at 10+ wounds. So in that one edge case you could give it this special rule or some other special rule or just change the toughness or let it be one of the 3 datasheets that actually needs to have FNP unlike all the units that could just get more wounds.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
What if FNP was replaced with;

A model with this rules adds one to its armour saves, and always succeeds on an unmodified roll of six. If a model with this rule has its armour reduced to the extent that it would normally not be able to make an armour save, or suffers a mortal wound, it can still make an armour save, succeeding on an unmodified roll of six. A model with this rule reduces the Damage characteristic of received damage by one, to a minimum of one.

So it's consistently a bit more more powerful against multi damage weapons, but potentially less so because you can't save all the damage from a lascannom for example.

The -1 damage part makes it too good +1 Sv alone is good enough in most cases. There is a big difference between 7+/5+++ vs 3+/5+++ vs 3+/6+++ vs 5+/6+++. But it's also a question of what is this intended to do? Make you more resilient overall? The Sv protects you from small-arms and the dmg reduction protects you from larger weapons? Why not just increase the wounds characteristic? Nurgle Daemon Princes are AFAIK the only unit where you can't just give them extra wounds because that would put them at 10+ wounds. So in that one edge case you could give it this special rule or some other special rule or just change the toughness or let it be one of the 3 datasheets that actually needs to have FNP unlike all the units that could just get more wounds.

The intent was to speed FNP up by removing an extra step in the damage process, but by still keeping it as a "this unit can still shrug off wounds on a dice roll" mechanic rather than just adding wounds or toughness. In theory a model with FNP can shrug off an infinite number of wounds through saves, whereas a model with more wounds just gets X amount of more wounds, and adding a point of toughness in a lot of cases doesn't actually make a unit any more survivable (The better changes being T3 to T4 and T7 to T8). I wanted to keep the "it just won't die" feel.

For multi damage weapons, I couldn't figure out a way of changing it without it being more dice rolls after damage is rolled, or without it being a swingy save-or-suck. So I settled on it being a swingy save-or-suck. Obviously now it is potentially very powerful, but the damage is rolled after the save, so you may have passed one save, but you've still taken a multi-damage hit from the one that you didn't. I figured that one save against six damage (either saving all the damage, or taking five damage because of the -1) was more streamlined than six saves against six damage (where you could take six damage, zero damage or anywhere in between).

It obviously needs work, as FNP in its current state isn't easy to replicate without it slowing down the game or needing to rework how dealing wounds work. There are certainly going to be cases where this is better and some where it's worse.