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,

We all know weapons with a certain AP automatically pierce the corresponding type of armor and therefore cannot be saved. For instance, AP 3 would automatically pierce a 3+ armor save. The round is so powerful that there is literally no chance that the armor can stop it.

However, what about armor that fails saves against weapons that do not have a sufficient AP value? For instance a model with a 2+ save can fail that save on a round from and AP6 weapon. The AP6 weapon does not have sufficient power to punch through the armor, or else it would be AP2. So what does a failed save represent against this type of round? Am I right in thinking that a failed save would here represent chance, such as the round hitting a soft spot, etc?

Thanks!

It could represent a lot of things. Remember, jut because it doesn't have AP high enough to negate the armor save does not mean it is physically incapable of penetrating the armor...it just means it can't do it reliably. Failing an armor save on a Marine could easily mean the lasgun got a luicky shot through a weak poin in the power armor, or it just went straight through. On a Terminator it could represent the lasgun shot cutting a vital sensor or wire in the armor so the Terminator can't move anymore.

Yea, its pretty much like getting a lucky shot. Analogy time!! Two men go at each other, one being armed with a dagger and no armor, the other a sword and lots of armor. The man with the dagger (AP 6 weapon) gets a lucky shot and hits the Knight in shinning armor (2+ Armor Save) in an unguarded joint, the man falls then dies. I just pulled that out of my butt. hahah

Think of it this way, the odds of having a part vulnerable to the enemies weapon being the part hit by the enemies shot is what the armor save represents. A good lasgun to the face at the right angle can down a terminator anyday.

Then again, without getting into dark heresy and deathwatch mechanics for taking damage, it's a table top game that takes long enough already to play.

Lucky shot, hit a lesser armored spot, hit an already damaged spot, hit him in the face, any number of abstractions.

ChrisWWII wrote:Remember, jut because it doesn't have AP high enough to negate the armor save does not mean it is physically incapable of penetrating the armor...it just means it can't do it reliably. Failing an armor save on a Marine could easily mean the lasgun got a luicky shot through a weak poin in the power armor, or it just went straight through.

I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that an insufficient AP weapon could just go straight through the better armor. A BB gun will not penetrate a modern day bulletproof vest if it hits the center of the vest. If that BB hits a part of the body not covered by the vest, or the vest has a vulnerable or faulty section, then the BB can penetrate. However, this would represent a failing of the armor rather than the actual armor piercing value of the round.

Edit: clarity.

A failed save can be many things. Anything that would require a combatant to no longer play a part in the current battle.

For instance, a Marine gets a save against an Autocannon, but a Scout does not. Now, it's probably not likely the Marine is going to withstand a direct hit from an autocannon shell but a near miss a couple feet away may be mitigated by the armor, while that same near miss tosses tons of shrapnel into the Scout. So I basically see a failed armor save in that situation representing a direct hit on the marine rather than a near miss that would otherwise not inflict harm through the armor.

A save can represent a shot hitting directly as above, it can represent equipment failure (e.g. shot hits power armor power pack, shutting it down or damaging their weapons so they can't fight anymore) it can represent the armor being breached in a weak spot, or simply hitting a spot that isn't covered by armor (e.g. lower belly on a Cadian guardsmen as the flak armor only protects the upper torso). It could be a trooper losing their nerve and no longer fighting (shell shock or some such that may not affect the whole unit), or could be an order to stay behind for some reason. It may represent the need for a member of a unit to fall back to retrieve something (e.g. a medic or additional ammunition) or really anything.

snake wrote:Hi all,

We all know weapons with a certain AP automatically pierce the corresponding type of armor and therefore cannot be saved. For instance, AP 3 would automatically pierce a 3+ armor save. The round is so powerful that there is literally no chance that the armor can stop it.

However, what about armor that fails saves against weapons that do not have a sufficient AP value? For instance a model with a 2+ save can fail that save on a round from and AP6 weapon. The AP6 weapon does not have sufficient power to punch through the armor, or else it would be AP2. So what does a failed save represent against this type of round? Am I right in thinking that a failed save would here represent chance, such as the round hitting a soft spot, etc?

Thanks!

Think Luke Skywalker blowing up the deathstar in star wars! Something like that!

I always tell my terminators to close their eyes when they are getting shot by lasguns

I would agree with your assessment. If you were to wear a flack jacket and get shot in the head the flack jacket wouldn't do anything. Even Termy armor has all the joints where there isn't armor plates and eye lenses. Same in medieval warfare. Full plate was hard to get though but wasn't impenetrable by any means it just increased your chances of surviving a normally fatal blow.

P.S. I think if they wanted to make the game a little more real feeling. You would roll to hit then roll armor saves (if you have any at all) and then roll to wound. Only the rounds or hand to hand attacks that go through your armor give you a chance to wound seriously enough to be fatal. I think they don't do it that way for just a easier for gaming reason. I think it would be more cinematic if done my suggested way.

littleboyblues wrote:I would agree with your assessment. If you were to wear a flack jacket and get shot in the head the flack jacket wouldn't do anything. Even Termy armor has all the joints where there isn't armor plates and eye lenses. Same in medieval warfare. Full plate was hard to get though but wasn't impenetrable by any means it just increased your chances of surviving a normally fatal blow.

P.S. I think if they wanted to make the game a little more real feeling. You would roll to hit then roll armor saves (if you have any at all) and then roll to wound. Only the rounds or hand to hand attacks that go through your armor give you a chance to wound seriously enough to be fatal. I think they don't do it that way for just a easier for gaming reason. I think it would be more cinematic if done my suggested way.

I guess great minds think alike

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/354145.page

Maybe it means that the bullet has a chance of piercing but there is a chance the bullet will block it, let's take an ork shoot a against marine armor, the first shot bounces of the armor, but the second shot pierces the armor, killing marine.

It might be better to consider them "casualties" rather then dead. They may not be killed by a weapon, but they could be injured/damaged enough to be combat-unready.

Theres a few reasons say a solid slug goes through the helmet eye pieces or hits a joint or wire. Or say that hundreds of lasguns shoot the treminator in the end they will find a weak spot or alot just hit one point and breakthrough or hit something important

snake wrote:We all know weapons with a certain AP automatically pierce the corresponding type of armor and therefore cannot be saved. For instance, AP 3 would automatically pierce a 3+ armor save. The round is so powerful that there is literally no chance that the armor can stop it.

However, what about armor that fails saves against weapons that do not have a sufficient AP value? For instance a model with a 2+ save can fail that save on a round from and AP6 weapon. The AP6 weapon does not have sufficient power to punch through the armor, or else it would be AP2. So what does a failed save represent against this type of round? Am I right in thinking that a failed save would here represent chance, such as the round hitting a soft spot, etc?

Ultimately, it's a game mechanic to keep the game from being all about ugly break points where it is truly pointless to shoot most small arms at heavily armored models.

It's abstract, but it presumably represents several things: Hitting a weak spot. (Joints generally can't be armored as well as solid surfaces, after all.) Armor ablation (Sure that lasgun melted a tiny but of armor off... Hopefully fifty other shots land at the same spot, and then we'll have something!) Whatever.

snake wrote:Hi all,Am I right in thinking that a failed save would here represent chance, such as the round hitting a soft spot, etc?

-It represents the character taking a shot to the dome! Your right, it represents a well taken shot finding some vulnerable spot on the model. And remember that unsaved wounds dont always equate to causalties, sometimes, the figure might be to injured to continue in battle (though you still remove him). I like to imagine my marines take a shot right in the flexible joint part of the leg and the bullet stikes their saphenous vein and they bleed out on the battlefield

snake wrote:
I have a hard time agreeing with the idea that an insufficient AP weapon could just go straight through the better armor. A BB gun will not penetrate a modern day bulletproof vest if it hits the center of the vest. If that BB hits a part of the body not covered by the vest, or the vest has a vulnerable or faulty section, then the BB can penetrate. However, this would represent a failing of the armor rather than the actual armor piercing value of the round.

True, a BB gun couldn't go through a bullet proof vest, but a lasgun isn't a BB gun. Lasguns, autocannons, all those kinda things that don't have AP3 doesn't mean that it is physically impossible for them to beat the armor...they just can't do it reliably enough for them to have that armor save. I'm not saying that IS what it represents, but the round that does happen to just go through the power armor could be one of the many things that it represents. I personally have a hard time believing that ever failed Marine save against lasguns is just a 'lucky shot' going through a weak point in the armor. It seems much more likely that while it is possible for a lower AP weapon to go through higher armor, it's not possible for them to do it reliably, hence the ability of the enemy to roll an armor save. When he fails it, the failed roll could just as easily be the round going through, or performing one of those lucky shots described.
'

ChrisWWII wrote:
True, a BB gun couldn't go through a bullet proof vest, but a lasgun isn't a BB gun. Lasguns, autocannons, all those kinda things that don't have AP3 doesn't mean that it is physically impossible for them to beat the armor...they just can't do it reliably enough for them to have that armor save. I'm not saying that IS what it represents, but the round that does happen to just go through the power armor could be one of the many things that it represents. I personally have a hard time believing that ever failed Marine save against lasguns is just a 'lucky shot' going through a weak point in the armor. It seems much more likely that while it is possible for a lower AP weapon to go through higher armor, it's not possible for them to do it reliably, hence the ability of the enemy to roll an armor save. When he fails it, the failed roll could just as easily be the round going through, or performing one of those lucky shots described.
'

Something else to consider is that body armor, in the real world, can't magically whisk away the energy of the hit, it just spreads it out. (Which means non of the messy piercing and tearing) Being shot, even with a bullet proof vest, hurts quite a bit and can often cause non-lethal injuries like broken ribs, from what I've heard. It might not kill someone, but theya re rendered combat-ineffective.

snake wrote: However, this would represent a failing of the armor rather than the actual armor piercing value of the round.

I think you just answered your own question as it pertains to, well, armour save fails

It represents the failing of an armor save.

It could be laid out like this.

-To hit = Does the shooter do his job
-Wound= Does the round hit a vulnerable part, or at the right angle to do damage
-Armor Save= Does the hit charachter have enough armor present to stop it.

But that's a load of bollucks.

The truth is that it makes no sense to put armor after the toughness of a charachter, though if you're looking for sense, I suggest you look outside of WH/40k. The reality is that GW systems roll alot of dice, and score alot of hits, and rather than just combining Wound and Save into one mechanic, Armor save is simply the last chance for armored models to stay on the board.

All that said, it is a fairly effective mechanic, if proved only by the fact that so many other systems -many predating warhammer- have also used it.

There's basically no guarantee that an exoskeleton of any sort can reliably stop the transfer of kinetic energy. it's simple physics. A model in power armor might be protected reliably against small arms fire from regular bullets, etc (in the same way a soldier in full kevlar and a riot shield might be protected from rocks or BB guns) but something like a lasgun or bolter is considerably more powerful (imagine that soldier now facing 7.62mm soviet rounds from an AK-47) and his chances of survival go down considerably. Maybe his shield will deflect 3 bullets, 23 will miss, his kevlar vest will absorb two, one cracks off his helmet, but the 30th hits him im the gut or femoral artery and he's out of the game. Without his armor, 6 or 7 rounds would have hit him, and he'd be dead for sure.

Eilif wrote:It could be laid out like this.

-To hit = Does the shooter do his job
-Wound= Does the round hit a vulnerable part, or at the right angle to do damage
-Armor Save= Does the hit charachter have enough armor present to stop it.

But that's a load of bollucks.

The truth is that it makes no sense to put armor after the toughness of a charachter, though if you're looking for sense, I suggest you look outside of WH/40k. The reality is that GW systems roll alot of dice, and score alot of hits, and rather than just combining Wound and Save into one mechanic, Armor save is simply the last chance for armored models to stay on the board.

All that said, it is a fairly effective mechanic, if proved only by the fact that so many other systems -many predating warhammer- have also used it.

GW designers have explicitly stated that armor should really come before wounds, and that the only reason the system works as it does at present is so that the owning player gets to roll the dice that represent the "last chance" for their models, which is more fun for players and thus desirable from a design perspective even if it doesn't seem to make sense.

Also remember that being hit and wounded doesn't mean the target is killed, just incapacitated for the remainder of the combat.

..I usually just assume one of my warriors is coming down and is strung out.

snake wrote:Am I right in thinking that a failed save would here represent chance, such as the round hitting a soft spot, etc?

Yes. For example, in WWII, many US tanks had a difficult time dispatching German Panthers. The armor on a Panther was just too thick (plus being sloped) for the US tank's guns to be able to defeat. However, with the unfortunate gun mantle design flaw, called the shot trap, even a lucky shot from a medium machine gun could ricochet off the bottom and into the tank's innards, killing crew members inside. While it didn't defeat the armor, it did disable the tank.



King Ghidorah