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.

Recently back to the game, and I can't help but feel that taking the wound roll before the armour save is the wrong way round. If you think about it, you are hit by a weapon and then you have a chance that your armour will stop it hitting your flesh underneith. Then, if the shot does go through your armour you've got a chance of varying degrees of severity in regards to that wound.

The way it is currently it is like you get hit and wounded, and then that model gets involved in some kind of time distortion and you check for whether his armour stopped the shot or not...after it would have done so physically and after you've admitted he has taken a telling wound.

Armour is designed to stop shots, not let you be wounded but miraculously make the wound not as severe surely? At the moment it almost feels like you are rolling against a woundability factor when you roll your armour save, because you have already admitted the model has A) been hit and B) been wounded by it.

Obv as it is I play the way the rules state and it doesn't really bother me - but from a logical standpoint armour save surely should come before the wound roll? Once you think about what being shot is in physical terms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imagine this has been discussed before, but I'd enjoy to see what others think .

Maybe.
But I heard one rationale was that it's just easy to let the opponent finish all of his rolling in one go than to have you guys interupt each other back and forth.

Not sure why this is in YMDC, since it's not really a rules problem. I'll move it over to Proposed Rules.


Meanwhile, GW have said in the past that the rolls are in the order they are for psychological reasons. It gives the owning player the last word on whether or not their model lives, which they feel encourages a little more personal investment in the game.

If it helps, you can look at it not so much as the model being wounded and then the armour reversing it, but rather as the pre-save wound being a 'potential' wound, rather than one that has been actually inflicted... Nobody is actually wounded until the casualty removal step.

Those are two fairly good reasons I guess. It is certainly easier to not swap over who is rolling so much in game, and I imagine it was that which lead to the rules as they are.

I may try it the other way round with a friend anyways - if you both have your own pile of dice it should be less of an issue.

It may also be as insaniak says - and more that it is less believable that a round that punctured futuristic armours would then only go on to cause a minor flesh wound. Certainly, something that went through power armour isn't going to have any trouble 'wounding' someone.

As I said, it doesn't bother me in game but I like to think about stupid things like this :p.

You make a good point. However, changing the rules would make wound rolls basically useless. Keep in mind though that this is 40k; nothing makes sense, nothing is realistic.

Don't get me wrong a system were you just got hit and had an armour save wouldn't be preferable in my eyes. The current system of toughness of model vs toughness of weapon on a graded scale is probably the best thing to do. I can't think up a system that doesn't involve those variables in some way at any rate. Potentially you could just make it complete chance and have that chance based upon another characteristic independent (survivability say) of the weapon that hit you but that isn't as interesting imo. Then rather than having a wound roll, you'd have the attacking player roll to hit and then the defender would roll against both his armour and the survivability of the model (two saves in other words) - but that would probably suck.

I may just start having a house rule were we do it the other way round provided we've enough dice to make it easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only way a system like I've described would be superior to how 40k currently works is that you could better reflect the inherent strength of a model. So whilst marines have a good armour save, their survivability characteristic would be lower than that of say an Ork Nob, or a tyranid warrior (whose armour save wouldn't be as good). Given that is already reflected in the toughness values in actual fact - essentially you'd just swap the 'to wound' roll for the attacker into a 'to survive' roll for the defender. Completely the same but maybe a bit more believable.

I have always thought that it was so the controlling player had a last chance to save themselves, but I think that it would also be rather overpowered in the other direction.

For example, a Space Marine against an Auto-cannon.

He'd make most of his armor saves before it even gets a chance to really do anything.

I also thinks it works better this way in the case of instant death.

Besides, it doesn't exactly make sense in real life.

When you get hit with a bullet, even if it doesn't penetrate the kevlar due to it's side, it may hit you hard enough to cause internal bleeding, and bruising.

And this would pretty much make rending pointless. Wound allocation would essentially be in the opponents hands also.

The way I've always thought it was....

When you roll to hit its if you physically strike the model
When you roll to wound its when the shot has injured the model
When you roll to save its wether the model has been crippled by the shot or it wasn't severe enough and manages to fight on


My thoughts on the matter
Why don't you play test it the way you thought, and see how it affects the game play

You would have to roll a lot more armor saves if you did it the other way around as you propose.

Think about it this way-- if the shot isn't even going to hurt the victim regardless of armor, why make the armor save?

Hi all.
Well the easiest way to get things in a logical order is to subtract the armour value from the strenght of hit,BEFORE you roll to wound.

Eg
AS6+=AV1.
AS 3+=AV4

Str 7 hit -AV 1 =Str v6 hit vs targets toughness.
Str 7 hit -AV4 =Str 3 hit vs targets toughness.

This way ALL armour has an effect on all weapon hits , and gives proporional results.

Roll to hit.
Strenght -AV=Str applied to Targets Toughness.
Roll to wound.

ALL units get an AV ,and T value.No seperate rules for some units.

YES , values would have to be adjusted after an apropriate amount of playtesting .

BUT the basic method is simple and make more sense than the current resolution method.

I probably have not explained it too well,but I hope you get the idea.

TTFN
lanrak.

A little mathhammer on that system then...

Scout fires his bolt pistol at Chaos space marine.

Roll to hit = 4+
Weapon Str (4) - AV (4) = 0
Cannot wound

Guardsman fire his lascannon at a Wraithlord

Roll to hit = 4+
Weapon Str (9) - AV (4) = 5
Wounds roll required = 6+

----------

However if AP became a save modifier it could work a bit better....

Back to exapmle 1
Scout fires his bolt pistol at Chaos space marine.

Roll to hit = 4+
Weapon Str (4) - AV (4) + AP (2) = 2
wound roll required = 6+ (17%)
The current percentage to wound a marine and it fails its save is 17% (ignoring hit chance)

Guardsman fire his lascannon at a Wraithlord

Roll to hit = 4+
Weapon Str (9) - AV (4) + AP (5) = 10
Wounds roll required = 2+ (83%) current = 67%

so thats a little better, one example came out the same as before, another the firer has an advantage.
I don't want to work how it would work for other scenarios but in my honest opinion the way we do it now seems to work 99% of the time and is pretty fast, easy and requres little calcucation.

Lanrak, Don't like your idea. You have just made High Str, Good Armour Save models almost impossible to kill. Take Wraithlords. T8 with AV3+. Str 8 weapons can no longer kill them.

Armour Save of 3 lowers Str by 4. Str 8 Shoots gets lowered to Str4 which can not wound a T8 Model.

Also what about AP? Does AP 1 and 2 no longer apply?

dayve110: Your suggestion still makes it impossible for a lasgun to harm anyone in power armor, so it doesn't work.

No (infantry) unit should get complete immunity to basic weapons...

Melissia wrote:dayve110: Your suggestion still makes it impossible for a lasgun to harm anyone in power armor, so it doesn't work.

No (infantry) unit should get complete immunity to basic weapons...

dayve110 wrote:
but in my honest opinion the way we do it now seems to work 99% of the time and is pretty fast, easy and requres little calcucation.

Well... that was the point, sticking to the way we do it now is proberly the best solution.

Melissia wrote:Think about it this way-- if the shot isn't even going to hurt the victim regardless of armor, why make the armor save?

This is my thinking too. The rolls are first to see if the shot hit, then second to see if that hit would strike something vital, then third to see if the models armor thwarts the vital shot. If you want to justify the roll order you could say that the "wound" roll is actually just rolling to see where the hit landed, not whether damage was inflicted.

If you want to fix a lot of the problems with game balance (1/6 chance of a guardsman getting hit by a lascannon and walking it off), then make it so that a shot that APs you by one degree higher than your armor does not require a roll to wound.

IE: a Space Marine hit by a Battle Cannon (armor 3+, AP3) would require a roll to wound, but if he's hit by a lascannon (armor 3+, AP2), no roll to wound is required.

A roll of 1 represents a lascannon only scoring a glancing "hit"-- imagine it misses by a few inches, and it singes your face and temporarily bilnds you but you're alive and able to fight after recovering for a few seconds.

Melissia wrote:A roll of 1 represents a lascannon only scoring a glancing "hit"-- imagine it misses by a few inches, and it singes your face and temporarily bilnds you but you're alive and able to fight after recovering for a few seconds.

I don't see that happening 1/6th of the time.

Tehjonny wrote:Armour is designed to stop shots, not let you be wounded but miraculously make the wound not as severe surely? At the moment it almost feels like you are rolling against a woundability factor when you roll your armour save, because you have already admitted the model has A) been hit and B) been wounded by it.

That’s an interesting use of the word ‘realistic’ in your thread title, because outside of special rules like wound allocation and rending*, the sequence of the dice rolls doesn’t matter. To wound a terminator with a lasgun you roll to hit, to wound and to beat armour, for .5 * .33 * .17, for a 3% chance. Shift it around to roll to beat armour before you see if it wounds, and you’re looking at the exact same rolls for the exact same probability of inflicting a wound. The realism of the end result is unchanged.

In effect, you’re talking about the realism of the process, even though the realism of the end result is unchanged. It’s an interesting thing – how much should a process of resolution feel realistic, even if the end result is the same.


*And these rules could always be adjusted to work within a new system anyway.

insaniak wrote:Meanwhile, GW have said in the past that the rolls are in the order they are for psychological reasons. It gives the owning player the last word on whether or not their model lives, which they feel encourages a little more personal investment in the game.

This assumes that the only thing that can be considered a ‘save’ is the armour roll. It’s entirely feasible to have a system where the attacker rolls to hit and then to penetrate armour, and then the owning player makes his ‘toughness save’ to see if his model is tough enough to shrug off the wounding hit.

Melissia wrote:Think about it this way-- if the shot isn't even going to hurt the victim regardless of armor, why make the armor save?

That doesn’t mean anything as the exact opposite could be proposed. If the shot isn’t going to penetrate armour, why make the toughness roll?

Lanrak wrote:This way ALL armour has an effect on all weapon hits , and gives proporional results.

You’re assuming that proportional and linear effects of weapon attacks on all kinds of armour is a desired thing.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:If you want to fix a lot of the problems with game balance (1/6 chance of a guardsman getting hit by a lascannon and walking it off), then make it so that a shot that APs you by one degree higher than your armor does not require a roll to wound.

IE: a Space Marine hit by a Battle Cannon (armor 3+, AP3) would require a roll to wound, but if he's hit by a lascannon (armor 3+, AP2), no roll to wound is required.

Bolter rounds would be instant wounds to orks. There are fundamental game design reasons that the wound roll and the armour roll are separated and resolved with different mechanics.

sebster wrote:That’s an interesting use of the word ‘realistic’ in your thread title, because outside of special rules like wound allocation and rending*, the sequence of the dice rolls doesn’t matter. To wound a terminator with a lasgun you roll to hit, to wound and to beat armour, for .5 * .33 * .17, for a 3% chance. Shift it around to roll to beat armour before you see if it wounds, and you’re looking at the exact same rolls for the exact same probability of inflicting a wound. The realism of the end result is unchanged.

I disagree with this simply because even though you are rolling the same chance to wound and save, look at this way...10 guys rapid fire 20 shots into a squad of 10 guys...they get 15 hits on a 3+ to hit...that is 15 armour saves to make instead of 7 if the wound roll was made before hand. (obviously just pulling numbers out, not doing any actual math here) I do understand what you're saying about the odds being the same but I'd personally much rather have as few chances for failure as possible.

I don't really think the order should change, as it is now it works perfectly fine and even though the odds are the same, there is more opportunity here for horrid rolling.

Hi all.
I do want to make it clear values would have to be adjusted for my proposed system to work.(I did say this.)
(Eg basic str values incresed by 2 or 3, lots of playtesting required. )

As weapon damage /armour resolution becomes more straight forward, a simple supression mechanic could be added.

And armour weapon type modifiers could be implemented. (Eg reflectice /reactive /composite armour vs kinetic energy and chemical weapons.)

Sebster , why is it more desirable to have results totaly devoid of situational variances and basic physical aspects.

'just roll a dice , roll over fixed value X =one result.
Irrespective of and disposition or equipment variances.

If its just a abstract game ,then the rules should be as uncomplicated and straightforward as possible, to facilitate ease of understanding.

If its a complex simulation , then the rules should be as intuitive and logical as possible, to allow more detailed interactions.

WHY is 40k STILL using WHFB game mechanics?
They are no longer suitable or desirable for 40k, when compared to more moden game mechanics and resolution methods.

TTFN

If it supposed to be uncomplicated and straightforward then why propose a change that would require rolling between two players to happen back and forth? As I'm sure it's been said it would make wound allocation difficult as well because at that point you're having the shooter roll all his hits, then the defender has to roll separately for every differently equipped guy (for some armies this could be a lot of rolling) and then you have the shooter having to roll separately again for each guy that failed his save. It's more to keep track of and the back and forth rolling complicates it.

the "just roll a dice and roll over fixed value" sounds similar to flames of war.


At the end of the day, the game is supposed to be fun, not realistic.

sebster wrote:That doesn’t mean anything as the exact opposite could be proposed. If the shot isn’t going to penetrate armour, why make the toughness roll?

And you don't make a "toughness" roll. In fact, if a weapon cannot harm an enemy, you don't even bother doing the to-wound roll at all (lasguns against a high T monstrous creature for instance).

Kevin949 wrote:I disagree with this simply because even though you are rolling the same chance to wound and save, look at this way...10 guys rapid fire 20 shots into a squad of 10 guys...they get 15 hits on a 3+ to hit...that is 15 armour saves to make instead of 7 if the wound roll was made before hand.

The order of rolls is purely mechanistic and doesn’t affect the odds of more or less casualties.

I don't really think the order should change, as it is now it works perfectly fine and even though the odds are the same, there is more opportunity here for horrid rolling.

No, there isn’t more opportunity for horrid rolling. The odds are exactly the same.

Lanrak wrote:Sebster , why is it more desirable to have results totaly devoid of situational variances and basic physical aspects.

It is more interesting and can help produce a strong tactical game when you have significant points of difference between different weapons. The difference in penetration values for a weapon with AP4 and one with AP3 can potentially be negligible, but can potentially be huge. While a linear, scaled system the points of difference from one step to the next is gradual, which is not a feature when you want different weapons to have entirely different levels of effect on targets.

The current implementation of armour is not great, but that doesn’t mean to solution is a linear scale.

Melissia wrote:And you don't make a "toughness" roll.

Oh look, inane pedantry. On the internet. Wow.

In fact, if a weapon cannot harm an enemy, you don't even bother doing the to-wound roll at all (lasguns against a high T monstrous creature for instance).

That’s complete nonsense. No-one is talking about weapons that cannot wound. Why would we be talking about that? Where did you get that from?

Look, it isn’t complex. Your reasoning is that right now the armour save is made last, because there’s no point rolling any dice for shots that penetrated armour if they wouldn’t have wounded anyway. This is a nonsense, because if the rolls were swapped to acknowledge the actual sequence of events and the roll to penetrate armour was made before the roll to wound, then it could equally be said that there is also no point in rolling to wound for any shots that wouldn’t have penetrated armour anyway.

Hell, you could make the roll to hit last, with the explanation that there’s no point rolling to hit for any shots that wouldn’t have wounded and beaten armour anyway.

Hi Sebster.
I understand the random nature of the interaction in 40k.(And as an abstract game this is ok, if it is clearly defined, which it isnt. )

But rather than use multiple resolution methods with exceptions that are counterintuitive.

Wouldnt it be better to use more straightforward logical systems that allow more definition due to ACTUAL differences covered in the rules.

I suppose I am used to more detail with less rules than 40k uses.

(WHFB game mechanics are only used in 40k due to legacy issues.And the game devs have asked to change them for something more suitable several times ,apparently.)

I am not saying linear propportional results is the only option.
But to use these as a basic resolution method allows for more detail to be layered on top without reaching the level of overcomplication 40k currently has.

If a provable level of balance is important ,proportional linear results allow the level of ballance to be determined far easier than random conditional loading.

But if game ballance and clarity and brevity of rules are not important than 40k is fine as it is.

TTFN

Lanrak wrote:(WHFB game mechanics are only used in 40k due to legacy issues.And the game devs have asked to change them for something more suitable several times ,apparently.)

Oh, I agree absolutely.

I am not saying linear propportional results is the only option.

Sure, and note what I'm saying is not that a new system wouldn't be better, I'm just saying that your proposed system included a linear armour/toughness scale which doesn't fit with 40K.

If a provable level of balance is important ,proportional linear results allow the level of ballance to be determined far easier than random conditional loading.

Not if the system is structured properly. Indeed, given the very small number of interactions in 40K, a coded resolution system would be very simple.

Hi Sebster.
We appear to have been talking at cross purpouses again.(Sorry.)

I agree to arrive at the same level of limited interaction in the current game of 40k, a 'well defined and apropritate ' coded resolution system could work very well.

However , this tends to arrive at an insular system that can not be expanded to cover interactions outside the original definitions.
And this can lead to having to resort to multiple systems to cover a simple interaction , (as has been the result with current 40k.)

Given the nature of 40k and 40k gamers , the ability to expand with minimum of fuss, is quite important.
So even a comprehensive range of coded resolutions , that encompass the current game size, might not cover the next level of 40k development, perhaps?

I am biased towards progressive linear results as they are common in many wargames I play and enjoy.And allow for far more detail and divergance with a minimum of fuss.

IMO, as long as the rules allow the game play to have synergy with the game background the rules do thier job.
If the rules DEFINE the maximum amount of game play with the minumum amount of written rules, it is a good rule set.

I think pre desposing 40k game development, to a particular type of resolution method is unecissary restriction.

I may have mis understood the point you were trying to make ...

TTFN

Well yes it should come first and you should also get cover saves as well as armour saves.
but if there were to many rules to make it realistic then it would just get to over complicated and less fun.