Cover

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.

**mew28**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
What benefit is a space marine getting from a wall if the armor he's wearing is tougher then the wall? The wall should be getting a cover save from the space marine

The bullet would still need to go though the armor if it hit the wall. It is a cumulative effect shoting thought gak 1cm of wood would not stop most bullets but 1m would.

**pelicaniforce**

CrownAxe wrote:
.

2)Execution
So as the concept is 'false' lets see what this does to the proportional saves when it is applied.
We start with a range of armour saves that are proportionally better by the same amount.2+3+4+5+6+(1/6 or 16.6667)
There is nothing wrong with D6 armour saves they have been used for years and work well in most games.

Except that not how you analyze the value of the range of saves. You don't simply add 1/6 every time. You are suppose to compare the chance of failure for saves.

So 5+ has a 66.7% failure rate (20% better than 6+, which is 25% worse, for a 22.2% difference in failure from 6+)
4+ has a 50% failure rate (25% better than 5+, which is 33% worse, for a 29% difference in failure from 5+)
3+ has a 33.3% failure rate (33% better than 4+, which is 50% worse, for a 40% difference in failure from 4+
and 2+ as a 16.7% failure rate (50% better than 3+, which is 100% better, for a 75% difference in failure from 3+)

This shows that the difference between saves is not linear. Its skewed. They don't get proportionally better by the same amount. This is also why simple modifiers are so terrible because they have such huge differences in values at different ends of the save. A -1 to a 2+ save is a 100% increase in the failure rate (16.67% to 33.3%) but that same -1 to a 6+ save is only a 20% increase to the failure rate.
ratio and the "all or nothing AP" is not the deciding factor on which guns are better.

...

Again its another baseless assumption.

Seriously most of your "supporting claims" are baseless and have no proof or have faulty leaps in logic or understanding in how the saves actually work.

(Math modified)

It's so good when someone bothers to think of this. Lanrak, it seems like you don't bother to know the basic math you are talking about. AFAIK, 2+ is much less different from 3+ than 3+ is from 4+.

**Wyldhunt**

pelicaniforce wrote:
CrownAxe wrote:
.

2)Execution
So as the concept is 'false' lets see what this does to the proportional saves when it is applied.
We start with a range of armour saves that are proportionally better by the same amount.2+3+4+5+6+(1/6 or 16.6667)
There is nothing wrong with D6 armour saves they have been used for years and work well in most games.

Except that not how you analyze the value of the range of saves. You don't simply add 1/6 every time. You are suppose to compare the chance of failure for saves.

So 5+ has a 66.7% failure rate (20% better than 6+, which is 25% worse, for a 22.2% difference in failure from 6+)
4+ has a 50% failure rate (25% better than 5+, which is 33% worse, for a 29% difference in failure from 5+)
3+ has a 33.3% failure rate (33% better than 4+, which is 50% worse, for a 40% difference in failure from 4+
and 2+ as a 16.7% failure rate (50% better than 3+, which is 100% better, for a 75% difference in failure from 3+)

This shows that the difference between saves is not linear. Its skewed. They don't get proportionally better by the same amount. This is also why simple modifiers are so terrible because they have such huge differences in values at different ends of the save. A -1 to a 2+ save is a 100% increase in the failure rate (16.67% to 33.3%) but that same -1 to a 6+ save is only a 20% increase to the failure rate.
ratio and the "all or nothing AP" is not the deciding factor on which guns are better.

...

Again its another baseless assumption.

Seriously most of your "supporting claims" are baseless and have no proof or have faulty leaps in logic or understanding in how the saves actually work.

(Math modified)

It's so good when someone bothers to think of this. Lanrak, it seems like you don't bother to know the basic math you are talking about. AFAIK, 2+ is much less different from 3+ than 3+ is from 4+.

To be fair, they're propportionately the same from a certain perspective. A 6+ save will stop 1 out of 6 Ap- wounds. A 5+ will stop 2 out of 6 Ap- wounds, etc.

Like cover modifiers, I like the idea of armor modifiers. The thing is that you have to either be very limited in how you apply them (even mighty power armor becomes pretty meh after a simple -2 penalty to it) or else at a stat to the armor that reduces armor penetration. So a bolter might might have AP -2 that reduces armor by 2 steps, but power armor might have "Fortitude 1" or what have you that ignores the first -1 from the AP.

**pelicaniforce**

Two out of 6 is double 1 out of 6. Three out of 6 is not double 2 out of 6.

...

?

Haravikk wrote:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.

Yeah like this.

**Lanrak**

@pelicanforce.
Just because there are proportional differences between values in a system, does not mean the system has non proportional results.Unless you factor the values and the proportional differences to find any systematic imbalance.

As 16.666666rec% is not an easy number to work with.Lets just simplify to the number of faces on the D6 that result in a successful save.

6+=1
5+=2
4+=3
3+=4
2+=5

Each save is better exactly by one face of the dice.(Or 1/6 or 16.6666r %)

But what about the proportional differences between each save values?
Here is what happens when you finish doing the maths.Using the simple number of faces of the D6 that result in a successful save.

Proportional differences displayed as (%) and then as fractions.

The proportional difference between 1 and 2 is (100%) 1. 1 x 1 = 1.

The proportional difference between 2 and 3 is (50%) 1/2. 1/2 X 2 = 1

The proportional difference between 3 and 4 is (33.33r%) 1/3. 1/3 x 3= 1

The proportional difference between 4 and 5 is (25%)1/4. 1/4 x 4 =1

This proves the proportional increase in save % in the D6 save system is exactly 1 face of the D6, or 1/6 , (16.6666r%) increments.

**pelicaniforce**

Lanrak wrote:
@pelicanforce.

But what about the proportional differences between each save values?
Here is what happens when you finish doing the maths.Using the simple number of faces of the D6 that result in a successful save.

Proportional differences displayed as (%) and then as fractions.

The proportional difference between 1 and 2 is (100%) 1. 1 x 1 = 1.

The proportional difference between 2 and 3 is (50%) 1/2. 1/2 X 2 = 1

The proportional difference between 3 and 4 is (33.33r%) 1/3. 1/3 x 3= 1

The proportional difference between 4 and 5 is (25%)1/4. 1/4 x 4 =1

This proves the proportional increase in save % in the D6 save system is exactly 1 face of the D6, or 1/6 , (16.6666r%) increments. :

Well, I'd like to know.

When you are multiplying the proportional difference, where does that integer come
From? Why is 1/2 multiplied by 2, what is the two?

**Lanrak**

I thought it would be self evident from my post , the integer is the primary value that the differential increase is based on.

Lets count from 1 to 101.Each time the value increases by 1.This is constant and proportional.

However,
2 is 100% bigger than 1.And 101 is only 1% bigger than 100.

Your argument appeared to be because the relative differences in values decreases, (the higher the number), from one value to the next.The increase was not proportional .

However, 1 x 100% = a difference of 1
And 100 x 1% = a difference of 1.

The increase is proportional when viewed as a complete system.And as the proportional increases are reflected when the differential increases is factored to the base values.Both of these prove that the increases are in fact proportional.

This proves that just looking at relative values in 'isolation', and not in 'context', does not give you a good overall understanding of the complete system.

**Chaospling**

@Lanrak:
You're right about that, but that's not what's being discussed and that's pretty clear, so I don't know why pelicaniforce and CrownAxe haven't responded yet - I guess they're busy pulling their hair out.

@Those who say the AP system is easier to balance:
What I can't see is the circumstance where it's easier to balance (point-wise) the AP system than an Armour save modifier system.
If you've got two models which cost the same but one has a 3+ armour save and the other has a 4+ armour, how can these be balanced against an AP4 weapon? That's either a 0 % change or 100 % change to their saves.

If you on the other hand have a -2 modifier, the changes to success are 50 % and 33 %, respectively; that's not perfect but it's better than 0 % and 100 %.

Edit: Grammar.

**Lanrak**

@Choaspling.
Sorry about going off topic like that, but I felt it was important to champion the use of rules that deliver proportional results.
As these sorts of rules are easier to balance, and deliver more intuitive game play.

Using direct modifiers with a limited dice size like D6, does mean that the range of modifiers is quite limited too.(That is why ASM are better than AP system but not the best solution for 40k IMO.)

However in most war games, the type of target tends to be more limited than the range of units found in 40k.

If we use opposed stat values of 1 to 10 in a chart , that delivers the chance of success on a D 6.(Values from 1 to 7 , auto success through to to auto fail.)

And we apply modifiers (to hit, to penetrate, to damage,) to the stat ,(range of 1 to 10)Rather than the dice score required.

And if this is used for all 3 stages of damage resolution.We end up with a much wider range of proportional results that delivers intuitive game play, and far fewer special rules.

So cover would simply adds to the Evasion stat of the target in this new system.(Making them harder to see and hit.)