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.

A few months ago I put up a post asking people if they could have any rules added for the next edition of 40k what would they be. To my surprise quite a few people said bring back save modifiers instead of blanket AP.

This sounds great at first until you realise that in many, many ways it could break game balance as we have it and doing it based entirely off the strength of the weapon would make the AP stat of weapons pretty useless. This got me thinking about a save modifier system based off the use of AP values they do after all indicate the effectiveness of that weapon to penetrate armour, this would also keep the new system closer to the old so as not to break game balance.

The save modifier is based on the AP of the weapon
SM stands for save modifier

AP 1 2 3 4 5 6
SM -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1

The modifier can simply be calculated by subtracting 7 from the AP value of a weapon.

This system also opens up the opportunity for 1+ or 0+ armour like those in warhammer.

Saves of 7+ or greater are automatically failed.

Notice that if the AP of the weapon is greater or equal to the value of the armour save then the model will not get a save, pretty much exactly as the system we already have.

What do people think?

Great. It means my whole army pretty much gets NO armor saves.

I know this is all a nice way to rush to make life harder for those who field a lot of armor-save heavy armies, but this throws the baby out with the bathwater. You've made anything less than a 3+ armor save essentially nonexistent.

curran12 wrote:>anything less than Power Armor essentially gets shredded by high-tech laserguns and exploding rocketbullets

Sounds about right!

curran12 wrote:Great. It means my whole army pretty much gets NO armor saves.

I know this is all a nice way to rush to make life harder for those who field a lot of armor-save heavy armies, but this throws the baby out with the bathwater. You've made anything less than a 3+ armor save essentially nonexistent.

If you look at the weapons spread of most armies AP 5 is the standard only orks and IG have less than this. There are only a few troop types that have 4+ armour necron warriors being the most prominent and that really is saying something. So in truth this probably doesn't make that much difference in game terms. However those armies that do have low AP guns (5 or 6) i.e. most armies will be able to wound MEQ easier with these changes.

My Eldar definately don't like this.

A bolter would then reduce my 16pt. Howling Banshee to a 6+ save with T3? Or my 22pt. Warp Spider to a 5+ save?

I just think it would heavily hamper MEQ and elite armies and give too much of a boon to horde armies.

Iranna.

Keep in mind that thresholds used at the moment does nothing on armour which isn't affected by current AP, so when you affect across a broad spectrum you effectively make ALL armour less effective, or reversely ALL (non-AP-) shooting better.

Contemplate basing it off AP5 offering a 1 point penalty on the save, and go from there. AP6 would in such case only matter when damaging vehicles.

Actually that is a very good idea Mahtamori. If we didn't want to make a lot of armour considerably less useful it might be a good idea to change the modifiers some so the table would be.

AP 1 2 3 4 5
SM -5 -4 -3 -2 -1

And AP 6 and "-" as having no effect.

To also counter this, and seen as we have got this far changing things i'd also be inclined to change the saves that a lot of units get.

With the exception of flak armour, ork body armour and the wych suit (i.e. t-shirt saves or there abouts) should all be improved by 1.

So terminator armour (and it's equivalents) would be 1+ power armour 2+ etc...

With these changes the game should be pretty much the same game balance wise.

As for close combat i'd be inclined to say anything that currently doesn't allow a save (power weapon, claw + more) is the equivalent of an AP 1 weapon. (Note this would still allow 1+ armour a save of 6+)

Other close combat weapons could add their own modifiers on for example ork choppas or khorn axes could give -1 or whatever.

I think if we were going to go down this road, which I think might be a nice idea I think we should go also the way of fantasy and add positive modifiers aswell. So on a bike or cavalary is +1 being a monstrous creature is +2, being behind a vehicle is +2 and so on.

Why not have a -1 armour save modifier if the AP is one more than the armour save.

For example: AP4 would make MEQ armies have a 4+ save against that kind of weapon arsenal or AP3 would make terminators have a 3+ save against them.

But then, does the AP allow for ignoring that new armour save?

No... We can assume that the AP does not modify the saves twice.
I put that out there because while regular bolters don't go through MEQ armour, but a heavy bolter would atleast weaken it/go through the armour with a better rate.

Armour, AP Values and Taking Saves

At the end of the statline for your model, you will see Sv. This is the abbreviation for that model's Armour Save. You must roll Equal to or Under this number, after modifiers are taken into account, to pass an Armour Save.

A Weapon's AP, or Armour Penetration, statistic is the main modifier of this value. A model with an Armour Save of 6 being shot at by a weapon with an AP value of 3 would need to roll 3 or less in order to pass his Armour Save.

Weapons with AP values equal to or larger than a model's Sv statistic (after other modifiers are accounted for) completely ignore that model's Armour - you do not get to roll an Armour save against them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some Common Values

Terminator - 8
Space Marine - 6
Guardsman - 3
Ork - 0

Lasgun - 1
Bolt Gun - 2
Heavy Bolt Gun - 3
Plasma Gun - 5
Melta Gun - 8
Tau Railgun - 10


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It always bugged me that Characteristics Tests were all willy-nilly.

This is interesting, I might playtest it sometime soon and see how it goes, and explain the result here.

I dont find the AP/Armour save a problem.

I find the generic cover save to be killing it for me.....

A railgun fires into a razorwire and everyone behind it gets a 6+ inv save? From razor wire? From a railgun?

Trees and troops are even worse at 4+


To me you should ALWAYS have a chance to hit and kill a guy in this game...

I believe "TO HIT" modifiers like Fantasy should come into play more so.

IE: Firing into razor wire = -1 Ballistic Skill , Firing into trees -2 Ballistic... Firing into Bunker -3 etc....


To a minimum of BS 1 IE: 6 always hits.

Milisim wrote:I dont find the AP/Armour save a problem.

I find the generic cover save to be killing it for me.....

A railgun fires into a razorwire and everyone behind it gets a 6+ inv save? From razor wire? From a railgun?

Trees and troops are even worse at 4+


To me you should ALWAYS have a chance to hit and kill a guy in this game...

I believe "TO HIT" modifiers like Fantasy should come into play more so.

IE: Firing into razor wire = -1 Ballistic Skill , Firing into trees -2 Ballistic... Firing into Bunker -3 etc....


To a minimum of BS 1 IE: 6 always hits.

Of course AP could also ignore cover the same way it does armour...
a 4+ cover save could be ignored by an AP4 weapon...

Cover Saves (An aside - lowering your BS by 3 from a TL-BS4 Broadside when firing into a bunker is worse for you than simply letting them have their 3+ save - 17% chance to wound compared to 27% if you just let them have their save, but we'll alleviate that with this - )

Use the BRB for figuring out if a unit receives cover, it's solid enough for now. However, we'll be using the Average Cover granted.

However, once in cover...

"Cover saves work much in the same way as Armour Saves, except that they're provided by the environment instead of a model's stat-line; almost anyone can benefit from them!

Let's use a typical Space Marine (not that Space Marines are typical!) for an example. A Space Marine on an open field with no obstructions between himself and the firing unit has a Cover Save of 0. Let's put him against a barrier, however, so he's a bit obscured - Obscured Models have a Cover Save of 7.

Most Cover Saves will be relatively high, in comparison to the average model's Armour Saves - the tradeoff is that they're modified by the Firer's Ballistics Skill, instead of the Weapon's AP value - this means that exceptionally skilled marksmen will have little trouble piercing the cover of an opponent, whereas Orks and your average Guardsman Joe might have a bit more trouble piercing the foliage.

Another modifier is the Strength of the weapon - if a Weapon's Strength is at least 1 higher than the Cover Save of a unit, the Cover Save is decreased by 1 - this represents the powerful shot simply tearing through whatever's intervening!

A list of common Cover Saves
Razorwire, Wire Fences, Wire Mesh - 5
High Grass, Boulders, Crop, Bushes, Hedges, Picket Fences - 6
Firing through units, Trenches, Gun Pits, Tank Traps, Emplacements, Barriers, Obscuration, etc., - 7
Fortifications - 8

Certain special rules can also modify a model's Cover Save. For example, Going to Ground increases a units' Cover Save by +1, wheras a Tau Markerlight might Decrease it - either directly, or by increasing the Firer's Ballistics Skill.


To continue our example, let's say some Traitorous Heretics have stolen a Leman Russ, and leveled their Battle Cannon at our poor Space Marine! The Russ's Ballistics Skill of 3 reduces our Space Marine's Cover Save to 4, and the awesome power of the Battle Cannon reduces it 1 further, to 3! Things are looking grim for our Hero - as the light from the shot reaches his eyes, he Goes to Ground, diving behind the bulk of the barrier and shielding himself from the blast - temporarily increasing his Cover Save to 4 - easily made! As the blast washes over him, his brethrens' Sergeant destroys the barrel of the Traitors' Russ with his Power Fist. Though scathed and covered in rubble, the Emperor's finest quickly rejoins battle!

I'd rather have to hit modifiers back. -2 for hard cover, -1 for soft cover, and +1 to hit on <50% range shots for rapid fire and heavy weapons, and +2 on pistols and assault weapons at <50% range.

<__< You realize that makes BS3 hit 17% of the time, and BS2 invalid, right?

So... While a Vindicare assassin gets a Bs of 9, your average guardsman gets 1

chrisrawr wrote:<__< You realize that makes BS3 hit 17% of the time, and BS2 invalid, right?

Only if their target is behind a wall, or other solid cover. Of course, then they can get within 50% of their weapon range they can get a bonus, which may negate the cover entirely. Of course there are no cover saves. That's been taken care of.

Id like to see the same whfb modifiers in 40k. It makes no sense to me that the same thing that can penetrate a land raider, or a monolith, cant punch through power armor.

To be fair, 365mm of vertical steel plating isn't that hard to punch through #lollandraiders

To be really fair, land raiders are the product of human technology 10000+ years more advanced then us. Its not going to be steel plate.

Read the fluff on em. Its armour is equivalent to 365mm steel plate.

For reference, modern tanks have 12-1400mm steel plating, not to mention ablative plates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, look at its design. Terrible sloping, the tracks are unarmoured, the reactor is on the back and revealed. I could go on and on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For further reference, it's a re-purposed convoy truck. It's terrible - but it's the best they have.

Again 10000+ years. Giving them the benifit of the doubt. Their steel may not be our steel. Or its a stronger steel. Plus its written by civies. They know nothing.

Yeah, GW didn't do any research on armament technology.

They really meant to say a LR armor is equivilant to 10,000mm of steel plating, being made of Adamantium(1mm=500mm steel) reinforced Ceramite(1mm=300mm steel)

The generator is a compact Fusion reactor with a refueling requirement of every 5 years. PA and TDA run off of batteries that store massive amounts of electricity efficiently at the Atomic level as well as a smaller version of the Fusion reactor found on LRs, essentially being a Hybrid energy system. What look like Smoke stacks are simply cooling vents, burnt Sacred Unguents are also vented through these stacks as the engines tend to run very hot.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider#.TwfYrfnCfwM

No seriously, please assume I know what I'm talking about here.

Armour construction
2 layers of ceramite, 1 titanium/plasteel layer, 1 adamantium layer and 1 thermoplas layer, equivalent to 365mm conventional steel armour

Landraiders are STC printouts with lascannons welded on. Their amphibious design, lack of sloping, easily accessible treads and power supply, and light armouring suggests they were most likely supply transports, to be quickly and easily fixed and upkept. The imperium uses them as assault transports because THAT'S THE BEST THEY'VE GOT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, GW didn't do any research on armament technology.

They really meant to say a LR armor is equivilant to 10,000mm of steel plating, being made of Adamantium(1mm=500mm steel) reinforced Ceramite(1mm=300mm steel)

The generator is a compact Fusion reactor with a refueling requirement of every 5 years. PA and TDA run off of batteries that store massive amounts of electricity efficiently at the Atomic level as well as a smaller version of the Fusion reactor found on LRs, essentially being a Hybrid energy system. What look like Smoke stacks are simply cooling vents, burnt Sacred Unguents are also vented through these stacks as the engines tend to run very hot.

They really meant to say that eh? I'm genuinely interested in any official say on this. Where's the stats for adamantium and ceramite coming from?

yes and that is completely implausable when you look at what stuff simply bounces off its hide.

Its canon, but it should be disregarded because it is clearly the result of stupidity by GW and is unreasonable.


I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was saying what GW should have said.

Ah sorry, your wording implied they'd said something about it.

It's not that implausible - what's bouncing off of it? Spun steel, lasers, and meltas. Exactly what it's said to be designed against. I just feel that those should be represented like the stormraven - special rules against melta and las weapons.

HI all.
Save modifiers are an unessisary overcomplication of the rules .The Addition of the AP system was another unessicary complication of the rules.

It would have been better to use one simple resolution method to determine the weapon/armour interaction for ALL units.
EG.
Opposed characteristic comparison.

Using new values , weapon damage,(D) and Armour/resitance to damage(AR) .

Save roll = D-AR.

EG ork boy AR 2 is hit by a bolt from a SM bolt gun D7.

7-2=5 the ork boy needs to roll 5+ to save.

The ork boy shoots his slugga D7 at a SM AR 4.
7-4=3 the marine saves on 3+.

The higher the AR value the better tha save.
The higher the weapon damage the lower the save.

Just one example ....