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.

PLEASE READ:
Obviously many people will disagree with these rules but please only comment constructivly. If you think the rules are totaly stupid and you do not wish to use them, don't comment, they are not being forced on you, i am mearly asking for advice on refining them.



I have been playing 40k since early 5th ed and I have always wished for a better saving system, mainly the realism of it in that if i take my armour save then my cover or invun has no effect even though it is still there. While i understand the reasons behind this as it would make armies like Tau unstopable if the could have a 4+ cover then a 4+ invun then a 3+ invun on a battlesuit if you could take all your saves. However, i also sugest a change to regular saves in regards to their interaction with AP. To make it more fair, change it up so that AP reduces your armour save by the number it is below 7.

I.E: a bolter (AP 5) has an AP 2 lower that 7, therefor it would reduce your armour save by 2.

This way AP is not as extreme. For example, a chain axe (AP 4) will shred a space marine scout with ease and completely deny them a save, but get slightly better armour with a tactical marine and it pings off without affecting the armour whatsoever? This brings the focus away from "i can easily kill power armour by spamming AP - shots at them" and brings it to, cover is useful, AP 5 weapons actauly have a point now other than killing horde armies. It also makes invun's far more useful as they will not be affected by AP and will be taken in addition to you're normal save. however, it balances out units like terminators by reducing their normal save but allowing them to take their invun in addition to their reduced armour.

I like the idea, but I think the biggest issue when it comes right down to is is complexity. You're essentially proposing ANOTHER chart that must be remembered when there's two whole pages of charts to remember in the BRB and then several my charts for each race.

It's complex, but more "realistic", and I like it or that "realism".

I would rather see an additive system where cover + armor combine together then is subtracted by ap/special effects to make a save.

but i feel that would work a lot better with a d10+ then make invuls a ward save.

and would take a bit of work to calculate which a lot of players tend not to have the patience for (at least the ones where i usually play)

that actaully sounds like a really cool idea, using a D10 instead. I am pretty good at metal math so it doesn't tend to be a problem for me but i see where you are coming from that people may not like it. It would just be a thing where at the start of a game i would say "do you want to use alternate cover systems?" and just go on that.

I would think that the advantage of MEQ armies is that they don't necessarily have to hug covers as much as us GEQ armies have to, with this alternate saving system, even a TEQ will be a joke against AP4 weapons, upping their 2+ save to a 5+, remember you don't have to completely remove a save to weaken an unit beyond reparation, let's say a terminator standing behind a 4+ cover, he'd get 4+/5+/5++ from an AP4 weapon in this setting(Am I correct?), which, as an army player who does get to roll 4++/5+(wyches with FNP) in combat, I can tell you that it's gonna be hell for terminators, especially since AP4 weapons tend to be able to come in larger volumes, the game is balanced on the idea that AP4 will not have an effect on MEQ or higher.

So in order for this to work, there'd probably need an overhaul in a lot of things, from unit's cost to almost everything. I mean, necron destroyers will give termies hell, and they're meant to be the toughest infantry out there!

That's actually how 40K used to work way back when, when terminators had a flat out 2+ save on 2D6 but weapons would have various armor modifiers..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Carnifexes were T8 10 wounds with a 3+ on 2D6 saving throw

I thought about a less drastic armor save reduction.
If the AP and Sv difference is 1 or 2 than reduce the Sv by 1.

"Table:"
AP3: 2+ to 3+
AP4: 2+ to 3+, 3+ to 4+
AP5: 4+ to 5+, 3+ to 4+, no effect on 2+
AP6: 5+ to 6+, 4+ to 5+, no effect on 3+, 2+

AP7: 5+ to 6+, make lasguns more powerfull than a rock

It would not make termies easy kill, but an AP3 power sword would have more chance than an AP- knife, as it should be.

Baktru wrote:
That's actually how 40K used to work way back when, when terminators had a flat out 2+ save on 2D6 but weapons would have various armor modifiers..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Carnifexes were T8 10 wounds with a 3+ on 2D6 saving throw

TDA was also 3+ on 2D6.

We actually went back and played 2nd for a few years. It's a really fun ruleset if you don't get too abusive with the wargear and free form army creation.

It's actually pretty funny how overpowered we thought MCs were going to be on our first readthrough. That Carnifex's statline looks a lot less threatening when you realize that guns with 2D6 and 2D12 wounds per hit were the norm. The Assault Cannon had the potential to kick out 9 Str8 hits that did D10 wounds each