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.

This thread is more of a musing up for discussion as opposed to strict debate over rules or anything. I know i might be taking things too literally.
I've been thinking for a while now that the way saves in 40k work doesn't seem right to me.

Invulnerable saves are meant to represent some forcefield or shield that stops the most the most powerful weapons. Shouldn't this figure always be the highest save the model has?
i cant imagine a shield will suddenly stop working when a bolter hits a space marine. It seems like the mega shield pops up only when they get hit by a lascannon or something as opposed to being persistently there.

Also how can armour of any kind be better than a forcefield that prevents the character being actually hit?

With cover you've got a wall or something in front of you that not only obscures view but can prevent shots at you by blocking them. I can understand items being able to penetrate or go round cover.

Should there be some form of evasion save to better represent movements of fast characters/vehicles as opposed to lumping them together as 'cover'?

I've also been wondering if models should get to take 2 saves. The reasons, models in 40k are supposed to be really good warriors and they die in droves. I find there is too much killing in 40k games which can make games one sided. Like getting the first turn with loads of big guns can wipe out entire sections of the enemy army reducing the game to a one sided affair.
Having 2 saves could be an option. You can only pick a maximum of 2 saves you have available and they could go in the following order: evade or cover then invuln then armour.

This represents better a space marine, for example, in cover. The shot might be saved at cover level which could represent the shots not penetrating the cover or missing the target which they cant see. If they fail this save then they can still attempt an armour save (representing the shot failing to damage the armour) as they have been hit and therefore the armour might save their life.

another example could be a jet bike. It is darting along at high speed, anyone could miss it so it gets an evasion save, if the shot still hits home they get an armour save. Or a Captain that is in the open gets shot, his shield is the first thing hit and might fail to deflect the shot, therefore it strike his armour.

AP and cover ignoring could still work in much the same way but reducing the save down to only one roll.
Anyway just some thoughts. I know the rules themselves represent more than they appear in basic terms.

Increasing the number of dice being rolled increases the complexity and the time for a game. As you note at the end of your post the rules are an abstraction anyway, so why make the basic mechanics too complicated?

i think my view is because i find 40k the 'all dying game.' Quite often your entire army is wiped off the face of the earth or attempting to do the same. It doesn't seem to have as much tactical value, its often just who can kill the other quickest.

Again it was just a musing.
I don't see making the game more complex as a bad thing btw.

That's how things worked in 2nd edition, and how it still works in Fantasy. It's a perfectly good revision, and to be honest it's a little silly that the only time you see Space Marines using cover is when they're being shot at by the big guns.

The idea that Marines might actually be slightly less than suicidal seems foreign to Games Workshop.

The best way to counter the "all dying" effect is to change how the turn order progresses. At present each player moves, shoots, assaults and regroups all in a single block. For a single half of a turn one player is god.


This can make one player get a serious advantage if they get off a really good shooting round against their opponent.

The best way to counter that is to break up the turn sequence - the easier way is to make each unit/group/solo operate one after the other and to alternate sides as you go. So player 1 moves one unit and shoots
Player 2 moves one unit and shoots
etc....

The theory there is that each player is alternating so you've the ability to react to changes in the battle and reduce the chance for one person to dominate a whole turn sequence.

The downside is that it puts a lot more strength on low point high numbers armies who can then out- activate the opponent. It can also be harder to manage larger forces as you have to remember who has moved what where and when (don't want the same unit activating twice).

If you are fixing the save system then you need to fix the wound system as well. For example a Space Marine shouldn't be dead the first time he gets shot by a las pistol unless it is a very lucky shot, however a Grot would have to be very lucky not to be dead from the same shot.

If you want to make the saves system more logical, then why not roll to hit, then roll saving throws, any failed save then roll to see if they wound the model.

Because you can't be wounded if you armour does its job and stops you getting hurt.

To you original question about bolters getting through force shield but las cannons not. If you have ever watched Stargate SG-1, the Gould shields are responsive to only attacks that deal a high amount of force like a gun, but you can throw a knife through them because the knife doesn't hit with a lot if force.

Or they can choose when to activate their shields in 40k

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
If you want to make the saves system more logical, then why not roll to hit, then roll saving throws, any failed save then roll to see if they wound the model.

Because you can't be wounded if you armour does its job and stops you getting hurt.

The point of rolling to would instead of saves is to save time. The dice will stay in attacker's hands first and then in defender's. With saves being thrown after hits would make this into a juggling act.

I only thing that this would change is nerf rending.

I understand the main reason for making the saves last is game play related. It means that the player has the last say (in theory) in what happens to his models.

Mathematically there isn't much difference between "roll to hit, roll to save, roll to wound," and "roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save".

 illuknisaa wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
If you want to make the saves system more logical, then why not roll to hit, then roll saving throws, any failed save then roll to see if they wound the model.

Because you can't be wounded if you armour does its job and stops you getting hurt.

The point of rolling to would instead of saves is to save time. The dice will stay in attacker's hands first and then in defender's. With saves being thrown after hits would make this into a juggling act.

I only thing that this would change is nerf rending.

Change Rending to work on a To-Hit of a 6.

And while you say it saves time, it's the same number of steps as now, but it keeps both players actively engaged the entire time.

There are pros and cons to every way of doing things.

You are looking at the one save wrong.

If you have 3+ armor and a 5+ cover and a 5+ invul, you use the armor save because anything that stops, could have been stopped by everything else. If you roll a 6 on your "armor" save with that, you could imagine it stopped by the inul or the cover, not the armor if you wish.

Given that armor saves don't get worse over time (baring a few exceptional abilities) it doesn't make a difference what actually stopped it. All you know is you rolled well enough that something did.

*edit* That said, I do think saves are broken. 5+ armor saves are worthless in everything except CC. Which kind of goes against body armor design right now. Where they are designed to stop bullets not blades, and certainly not chainsaws.

Multiple saves just leads to annoyance. If you were not around for 2nd edition you missed the joys of the Inquisitor terminator lord or some other terminator character with a displacer field. First the terminator army hit and then a 3+ Displacer field save for any that got through the armor meant that they were near impossble to kill. Too many games I woudl have wiped the opposing army out to a man except for the termie inquisitor with displacer field. Would then charge in as many models as could get into base contact, hit with most of them, not a single hit would get through, inquisitor would displace, next turn charge in and do it all again. Turn after turn same thing. Maybe *1* attack would get through in a couple turns, so with a multi-wound lord model you just couldn't kill them.

I am much happier with the choose the single best save you get and use that on a given hit rule that exists now. Imagine a model making an armor save, a cover save AND an invulnerable save for every hit targeted at them. The game would take forever.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Looky Likey wrote:
If you are fixing the save system then you need to fix the wound system as well. For example a Space Marine shouldn't be dead the first time he gets shot by a las pistol unless it is a very lucky shot, however a Grot would have to be very lucky not to be dead from the same shot.

This is what toughness is for. If it gets past your armor and the wound roll is successful it hits somewhere vital enough that the space marine is dead whether you attribute that to luck or not is up to you. It is already MORE LIKELY that the Grot will be killed by that las pistol shot because its armor is less and its toughness is lower. So there isn't anything to fix here.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JPong wrote:
*edit* That said, I do think saves are broken. 5+ armor saves are worthless in everything except CC. Which kind of goes against body armor design right now. Where they are designed to stop bullets not blades, and certainly not chainsaws.

Current body armor is also not designed to protect against laser weapons, or rounds that are actually small rockets and not just bullets either, so your comparison to current body armor design is not really effective. Also body armor today has threat ratings against different types of weapons. Some are better against projectiles and others offer better protection against blades. So it is a mixed bag.

Skriker

i'd like to see toughness and armour save combined. There's no real need for a distinction between the two.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
If you want to make the saves system more logical, then why not roll to hit, then roll saving throws, any failed save then roll to see if they wound the model.

Because you can't be wounded if you armour does its job and stops you getting hurt.

The point of rolling to would instead of saves is to save time. The dice will stay in attacker's hands first and then in defender's. With saves being thrown after hits would make this into a juggling act.

I only thing that this would change is nerf rending.

Change Rending to work on a To-Hit of a 6.

And while you say it saves time, it's the same number of steps as now, but it keeps both players actively engaged the entire time.

There are pros and cons to every way of doing things.

Moving dice from one hand to another takes time. Having to take saves before wounds doubles the "moving" -time. If models have feel no pain time is tripled.

And rending would be buffed if you change it to roll to hit.

You create more problems than you solve.

xruslanx wrote:
i'd like to see toughness and armour save combined. There's no real need for a distinction between the two.

There is. Game is designed to be used with d6s. Having saves makes the game more nuanced.

Boniface wrote:
i think my view is because i find 40k the 'all dying game.' Quite often your entire army is wiped off the face of the earth or attempting to do the same. It doesn't seem to have as much tactical value, its often just who can kill the other quickest.

Again it was just a musing.
I don't see making the game more complex as a bad thing btw.

Welcome to GrimDark. All victories are Pyrrhic.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
If you want to make the saves system more logical, then why not roll to hit, then roll saving throws, any failed save then roll to see if they wound the model.

Because you can't be wounded if you armour does its job and stops you getting hurt.

The point of rolling to would instead of saves is to save time. The dice will stay in attacker's hands first and then in defender's. With saves being thrown after hits would make this into a juggling act.

I only thing that this would change is nerf rending.

Change Rending to work on a To-Hit of a 6.

And while you say it saves time, it's the same number of steps as now, but it keeps both players actively engaged the entire time.

There are pros and cons to every way of doing things.

Moving dice from one hand to another takes time. Having to take saves before wounds doubles the "moving" -time. If models have feel no pain time is tripled.

And rending would be buffed if you change it to roll to hit.

You create more problems than you solve.

And that's just how you view it. Really we're not adding any real steps, we're changing the order in which they occur so I don't see it "adding" any time.

And yes, it would "buff" rending, but at the same time only slightly as the order of things would be different.

 Skriker wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JPong wrote:
*edit* That said, I do think saves are broken. 5+ armor saves are worthless in everything except CC. Which kind of goes against body armor design right now. Where they are designed to stop bullets not blades, and certainly not chainsaws.

Current body armor is also not designed to protect against laser weapons, or rounds that are actually small rockets and not just bullets either, so your comparison to current body armor design is not really effective. Also body armor today has threat ratings against different types of weapons. Some are better against projectiles and others offer better protection against blades. So it is a mixed bag.

Skriker

There is body armor to protect against blades. However, you won't find soldiers wearing that. Why? Because blades are not a threat. Guns are. So why do most armies not design armor to stop the threats of the future? Flashlights and grenades. I wasn't talking about armor that stops gun shots today because it makes sense in the future. I was talking about protecting yourself from current day threats. We don't run around in full-plate armor anymore, despite it being awesome at stopping bladed weapons.

I dont think it will ever be possible to accurately portray armor saves in 40kk with a d6... aside from a live fire exercise at some represenative test metal of course. To represent cover I vote we simply put some paper in the way.

Blades are definitely a threat in 40K though. Monoedged, Chainsaw edged, power fielded. All kinds of nasty hand-to-hand weapons in M41 to worry about, and protect oneself against.

Of course, as is the way of warfare, weapons technology has outstripped armor technology to a very great degree, which is why the IG is well-armored against another human foe, but woefully underequipped against anything with better technology.

JPong wrote:
There is body armor to protect against blades. However, you won't find soldiers wearing that. Why? Because blades are not a threat. Guns are. So why do most armies not design armor to stop the threats of the future? Flashlights and grenades. I wasn't talking about armor that stops gun shots today because it makes sense in the future. I was talking about protecting yourself from current day threats. We don't run around in full-plate armor anymore, despite it being awesome at stopping bladed weapons.

The flak vests/jackets that soldiers wear today does not provide any protection against guns. They provide protection from shrapnel, and while they may stop a deflected bullet on a ricochet will not stop a shot aimed specifically at the core of the body. So even the military body armor used today doesn't exactly offer protection for current day threats faced on the battlefield. The biggest factor in battle armor is *cost*. If it was dirt cheap you can expect every modern soldier would have the best armor possible to protect against gun shots, shrapnel and whatever else they could get it to stop. This is also why back in the day not everyone had the ability to run around in full plate armor and most of the every day soldiers had lesser protection, but still faced the same threats and the same weapons on the battlefield. Plate armor and its ilk were phased out because it was too restricitve and making the wearer and easier target. It isn't just about what weapons there are today, or tomorrow on the battlefield that determines what the armor availability is. It is about what can realistically and affordably be provided to a specific army logistically. 1000 space marines in a chapter all with power armor and bolters is one thing, but 3 million guardsmen in an IG regiment get flak armor and lasguns because they are cheaper, easier to produce and provide at least minmal protection. This is also why not every space marine walks around in terminator armor either.

Terminator armor and mega armor are the epitome of armor in 40k and easily fill the role of plate armor in their day. Best protection against the weapons available at the time, but still only present in enough quanities for the elite of the elite to be wearing them in the first place. So armor in 40k actually is more like a medieval approach to armor where the masses of lesser troops have the minimum protection while the elite important folks have the best of the best. Current modern armor is actually more fairly provided across armies with officers and leaders having no better personal armor options than all the other troops.

Skriker

In the eternal war between weapons and armour plate was pretty good. It could be built to stop the bullets of the day, there are still examples of Spanish harness that would, but as said the cost became prohibitive.

Armor saves were so much more nuanced and realistic back in 2nd edition. Used to be that more weapons (generally) imposed higher negative modifiers to your armor save roll as they got more powerful. The equivalent back then of an "invulnerable save" wasn't called that, but it let you always take your full armor save against everything. Also it was quite a lot less prevalent.

Terminator armor was much cooler too, as they rolled 2D6 and added the scores together for the total armor save against an attack (but that was not broken, because things like Lascannons gave a -6 to a model's armor save). But Terminators dying to bolter fire was a rare thing to see, as Bolters had just -1.

Modern 40K has had a much more dumbed-down system of wounds and armor saves since 3rd edition onwards, though things are getting remarkably more complicated with all the different boatloads of "types" of save everything on the board has now.

The change to AP and loss of save modifiers really made it an all or nothing situation.

A terminator has the same chance to fail a save against an autopistol as he has against a krak missile.

Maybe it was in the interest of speed but I think it removed an interesting nuance and a way to balance the codex/power creep. Once you get to a 2+ save they have to stack better and better invulnerable saves to make 'better' units. And then FNP on top, etc..

 Overread wrote:
The best way to counter the "all dying" effect is to change how the turn order progresses. At present each player moves, shoots, assaults and regroups all in a single block. For a single half of a turn one player is god.


This can make one player get a serious advantage if they get off a really good shooting round against their opponent.

The best way to counter that is to break up the turn sequence - the easier way is to make each unit/group/solo operate one after the other and to alternate sides as you go. So player 1 moves one unit and shoots
Player 2 moves one unit and shoots
etc....

The theory there is that each player is alternating so you've the ability to react to changes in the battle and reduce the chance for one person to dominate a whole turn sequence.

The downside is that it puts a lot more strength on low point high numbers armies who can then out- activate the opponent. It can also be harder to manage larger forces as you have to remember who has moved what where and when (don't want the same unit activating twice).

I have often thought this kind of alternating turn sequence. One way to combat the out activate effect would be to give each side a fixed number of activations (3?) per turn. You could even allow the same unit to be activated in a turn more than once, of course at the expense of not being able to activate others in your army.