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 would like if savingrolls could be addable...like if my space marines are in 4+ cover and you have orks shooting on them they could first throw 4+ and then their 3+ armour...because otherwise i dont see a use in getting space marines in cover when they are not shot at with AP3 weapons

Tell you what; you can take cover AND armor, if I can assault out of a transport that moves Flat Out. Deal?

what?
i dont really get what you are saying??
do you agree with me or do you think what im saying is total bs?

Sorry, but no. That would make MEQ armies infinitely more powerful, and reduce the effectiveness of shooting to the point where you might as well just bring an all assault army.

It would take 18 bolt shots to kill a Space Marine, from a BS4 model. Compare that to the 9 shots it would take normally. By stacking cover saves (and assuming the ever prevalent 4+ cover save), you effectively reduce shooting in half for a lot of weapons.

No.

megaorkwarboss wrote:what?
i dont really get what you are saying??
do you agree with me or do you think what im saying is total bs?

What I'm saying is that it's been suggested many, many times, and it's a bad idea. Allowing the stacking of saves fundamentally unbalances the game in favor of high-save and multiple-save models.

Picture a Space Marine. He gets a 3+ armor, and in addition he can be put in cover for a 4+ cover pretty easily. If you allow saves to stack, that means that you need to put 6 wounds on him before a single one will get through, compared to the 3 that are currently required. His survivability has doubled.

By comparison, picture an Ork. Against anything other than a lasgun, he gets NO armor save, and can be put in cover for a 4+. Regardless of whether you allow saves to stack, therefore, 2 unsaved wounds will kill him in cover. His survivability is entirely unchanged. Do you see the problem?

This change would be acceptable only if you dramatically increased the cost of every model with a high armor save, or dramatically lowered the cost of every model with a low one. You would also have to recost all special and heavy weapons, because this change would make low AP values much more useful. The end result is that you'd need to rewrite the points system entirely. It's such a massive change to game balance that you would basically need to have a totally different game to make it playable.

No more OP than giving BA universal FNP. 3+ then 4+, think about it...

Joey wrote:No more OP than giving BA universal FNP. 3+ then 4+, think about it...

Now picture all Space Marine units getting FNP for free. Because that's what is being discussed, essentially.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:No more OP than giving BA universal FNP. 3+ then 4+, think about it...

Now picture all Space Marine units getting FNP for free. Because that's what is being discussed, essentially.

I honestly can't remember the last time I killed a Space Marine that failed his armour save, so I can safely say it wouldn't affect me.
Granted, not all armies have the AP2 firepower of IG, so I can see where you're coming from.

Joey wrote:No more OP than giving BA universal FNP. 3+ then 4+, think about it...

You can kill the priests and/or target units which are out of priest radius, which is what people do.

I honestly can't remember the last time I killed a Space Marine that failed his armour save, so I can safely say it wouldn't affect me.

I honestly can't remember the last time I paid taxes, so I can safely say that a change in the tax rates wouldn't affect me.

..oh no, wait. Both of those things happen all the time (me paying taxes and your opponents failing armor saves). So both of those statements are incorrect and meaningless.

Gaining a cover save and an armor save makes sense from a logical standpoint, however game wise it would be a breaking mechanic.

However I could see cover adding or manipulating a save, the higher your armor value the more protection you gain from cover, but a low armor could receive a small bonus.

say chance a 6+ save into a 4+ or 3+ and a 4+ save into a 3+ in heavy cover.

Just throwing out an idea.

Mannahnin wrote:

Joey wrote:No more OP than giving BA universal FNP. 3+ then 4+, think about it...

You can kill the priests and/or target units which are out of priest radius, which is what people do.

I honestly can't remember the last time I killed a Space Marine that failed his armour save, so I can safely say it wouldn't affect me.

I honestly can't remember the last time I paid taxes, so I can safely say that a change in the tax rates wouldn't affect me.

..oh no, wait. Both of those things happen all the time (me paying taxes and your opponents failing armor saves). So both of those statements are incorrect and meaningless.

The only weapons in my lists that are not AP1/2/3 are vehicle mounted heavy bolters and lasguns, both of which are disadvantagious to fire if you're also shooting something with a low AP.
Plasmas, Demolishers, Vendettas, Meltaguns. Maybe if a Leman Russ gets a weapon destroyed early on so I just think "to hell" and fire the heavy bolter.
Only way you can kill priests is with a Vindacre. Unless your opponant has only bought one or two priests to the table, in which case he's asking to lose it.

There are a lot more ways to kill priests than just the Vindicare. If that's the only way you can think of, then no wonder you're unhappy about them,

I have BS4 plasma guns with re-rolled cover saves...at what point did I say I was unhappy? I was saying the opposite, I've essentially been fighting 3+/4+ MEQ for months and I've adapted.I'm sure other people would too.

With his proposal, they would become 4+/3+/4+. He could take cover saves, then armour, then FnP. No, its broken, and skews the game in favour of assaulty armies and high save armies.

No again.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:No more OP than giving BA universal FNP. 3+ then 4+, think about it...

Now picture all Space Marine units getting FNP for free. Because that's what is being discussed, essentially.

Not really, what's being discussed is giving them a whole other 4+ that would be on top of their 3+ armor and 4+ FNP. It's even more ludicrous.

And by "discussed" I mean one person doesn't realize what a horrible and terrible idea it is, while everyone else is in agreement about the same.

Blacksails wrote:With his proposal, they would become 4+/3+/4+. He could take cover saves, then armour, then FnP. No, its broken, and skews the game in favour of assaulty armies and high save armies.

No again.

They wouldn't because they'd just get the cover, like they do now.
Do you rely on marines/terminators failing their armour saves? Out of interest, how does this tactic fare in practice?

Joey wrote:

Blacksails wrote:With his proposal, they would become 4+/3+/4+. He could take cover saves, then armour, then FnP. No, its broken, and skews the game in favour of assaulty armies and high save armies.

No again.

They wouldn't because they'd just get the cover, like they do now.
Do you rely on marines/terminators failing their armour saves? Out of interest, how does this tactic fare in practice?

Sorry, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. His proposal would turn your FnP marines that already have 3+/4+, into 4+/3+/4+. Its quite simple really.

I play Guard, so I have a plethora of plasma and melta to negate armour and FnP. However, to kill of those last stragglers, I can shoot mass lasguns, heavy bolters, multi-lasers and other weapons that rely on dealing out wounds. This proposal would render that null and void.

Furthermore, any army that can't bring a plethora of melta/plasma must then turn to being assault dependent to negate the effect of cover as a saving throw.

The point is, the idea is broken, poorly thought out, adds nothing, breaks balance, and favours particular armies. Its not even worth considering. Changing one core game mechanic has profound effects on the rest of the game and the balance that currently exists.

Blacksails wrote:

Joey wrote:

Blacksails wrote:With his proposal, they would become 4+/3+/4+. He could take cover saves, then armour, then FnP. No, its broken, and skews the game in favour of assaulty armies and high save armies.

No again.

They wouldn't because they'd just get the cover, like they do now.
Do you rely on marines/terminators failing their armour saves? Out of interest, how does this tactic fare in practice?

Sorry, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. His proposal would turn your FnP marines that already have 3+/4+, into 4+/3+/4+. Its quite simple really.

I play Guard, so I have a plethora of plasma and melta to negate armour and FnP. However, to kill of those last stragglers, I can shoot mass lasguns, heavy bolters, multi-lasers and other weapons that rely on dealing out wounds. This proposal would render that null and void.

Furthermore, any army that can't bring a plethora of melta/plasma must then turn to being assault dependent to negate the effect of cover as a saving throw.

The point is, the idea is broken, poorly thought out, adds nothing, breaks balance, and favours particular armies. Its not even worth considering. Changing one core game mechanic has profound effects on the rest of the game and the balance that currently exists.

You need 36 lasgun shots to kill an MEQ with FNP or terminator. You need ~15 heavy bolter shots (so 5 heavy bolters) to cause a wound.
I say again, if you're playing like that to begin with, you're not playing properly.
I didn't say I was in favour of the OP's proposal but the state of the meta atm makes power armour pretty much pointless anyway. If I'm relying on my opponant failing armour saves, I'm doing it wrong.

I'm not relying on failed saves. I have enough melta and plasma to deal with entire squads easily. But when there's that one marine left in a squad and I'm out of plasma/melta, then yes, I'll need to shoot those last ditch weapons and go for a failed save. This proposal makes that last marine 50% more durable.

Remember, not all armies have massed plasma and melta or pie plates to deal with 20+ MEQ w/ FnP. Those armies would be greatly hampered by this proposal. A 3+ save is still nothing to sneeze at. Not everyone is packing three plasma guns in a squad.

Joey wrote:
You need 36 lasgun shots to kill an MEQ with FNP or terminator. You need ~15 heavy bolter shots (so 5 heavy bolters) to cause a wound.
I say again, if you're playing like that to begin with, you're not playing properly.
I didn't say I was in favour of the OP's proposal but the state of the meta atm makes power armour pretty much pointless anyway. If I'm relying on my opponant failing armour saves, I'm doing it wrong.

I play Orks. My basic troops units put out 60 shots per turn. I kill Space Marines by making them fail armor saves. The only thing I CAN do to deny their armor saves is to hit them with PKs, or DCCWs. Maybe rokkits, if there don't happen to be any tanks on the field.

The idea of making them twice as resilient against weight of fire is ludicrous.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Joey wrote:
You need 36 lasgun shots to kill an MEQ with FNP or terminator. You need ~15 heavy bolter shots (so 5 heavy bolters) to cause a wound.
I say again, if you're playing like that to begin with, you're not playing properly.
I didn't say I was in favour of the OP's proposal but the state of the meta atm makes power armour pretty much pointless anyway. If I'm relying on my opponant failing armour saves, I'm doing it wrong.

I play Orks. My basic troops units put out 60 shots per turn. I kill Space Marines by making them fail armor saves. The only thing I CAN do to deny their armor saves is to hit them with PKs, or DCCWs. Maybe rokkits, if there don't happen to be any tanks on the field.

The idea of making them twice as resilient against weight of fire is ludicrous.

60 shots @ BS2 S4 (I have no idea of ork stats, please correct me if I'm wrong) gives us 10 wounds, 1.6 dead vs FNP, or 3.2 vs normal MEQ. Roughly equivilent to damage output of two infantry squads FRFSRF.
I may be something of a noob but aren't orks more about...charging stuff?

Orkz shoot, then charge. The difference between 3.2 marines and 1.6 marines is significant for those Orkz. Every marine dead before assaulting is a bonus.

I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make here. The fact is, by adding another save layer, you're nerfing a lot of shooting that armies need for damage. Yes, we understand you should be shooting armour ignoring weapons at the proper squad, and assaulting when good, and so on and so on. The added save layer proposed here is just bad.

I'm genuinely not sure what it is you're trying to prove, and why.

Is this thread suggesting that for 250 points I can get five TH/SS Terminators with a cheapo preist in cover that effectivly makes them 4+/2+/3+/4+?

The squad needs to take 72 wounds for one to get through.

No... Just no

This just shows you havn't played enough 40k mate, otherwise you wouldn't dream of discussing this in dakka dakka, im actualy suprised you havn't been verbally stoned to death and the mod didnt have to close the thread xD

Anyhow, fluff wise it is explained as so :
You are a genetically modified super human in a suit of super advanced armor capable of taking HB shots in da face.... why would I hide behind a tree ?

Joey wrote:
60 shots @ BS2 S4 (I have no idea of ork stats, please correct me if I'm wrong) gives us 10 wounds, 1.6 dead vs FNP, or 3.2 vs normal MEQ. Roughly equivilent to damage output of two infantry squads FRFSRF.
I may be something of a noob but aren't orks more about...charging stuff?

That's correct. And 1-2 dead MEQ per turn is an important difference; for one thing, one forces a morale check and the other doesn't. It's also important if I'm shooting before a charge. It's also important if I happen to be shooting at, say, Vanguard Veterans rather than Tactical Marines, or a Chaplain, or Assault Marines, or. . .

You get my point. This is a pointless change which buffs everyone in proportion to their armor save; it makes MEQ MUCH better, Eldar/DE and Necrons somewhat better, and the improvement to IG, Orks and Tyranids is so small that they end up relatively worse off against nearly everyone. That's a bad change.

I don't like this idea. Sure save staking works in Fantasy maybe, IIRC, but that's because they have negative save modifiers, whereas a 40k save is all or nothing.

Imagine if there was a mission that allowed Elites to be troops or capture objectives.

Now take a 10 man unit of Hammernators with SS and maybe add Lysander and Vulkan. Put them on an objective with cover. They will NOT DIE. Especially if they somehow had stealth and went to ground.

Fantasy cover modifies the To Hit chance, it doesn't grant an actual save.
What you're thinking of is Ward Saves, which are like invulnerable but they can always be taken as well as armour saves.
Difference is in 40k they're pretty rare, your Heroes/Lords don't even get them by default they have to be purchased. Invulnerables in 40k on the other hand are too commonplace. I'd love for them to be taken on top of armour saves but make them more expensive, reserved for leaders. I'd say give Terminators a flat 4+ invulnerable but make them 50 points. Other than that non-hero units shouldn't really get them.

Yeah there is that but I was thinking of the str>Tough then it is -X to your armour.

That would make Space Marines redundant. Or no strength 5, 6, or 7 shooting weapons at all. Lol.

Joey wrote:That would make Space Marines redundant. Or no strength 5, 6, or 7 shooting weapons at all. Lol.

It's a very common mechanic in Fantasy. For every point of Strength above 3 of the attack, your armor save is reduced by -1. That's basically all that makes the stacking saves workable; against high-Strength attacks, armor is useless and only Ward saves do anything.