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.

In another one of those threads about scaling back AP2/1 shooting, someone ( a number of someones) brought up changing AP to a save modifier so that everyone is still afforded a save most of the time, just a weaker one. The simplest application of this is where the modifier is equal to "6- AP" and that modifier is added to the save you are going to take. My problem with that is that you still end up with a lot of situations where saves would be cancelled completely because the save being taken is greater than 6+. Some would want to cap saves at 6+ but then that invalidates a lot of 2+ armor which would be special in this system mostly because they would be the only units that still get a 6+ vs plasma.

So what I propose is making the modifiers better than the above system while taking saves on a d8. So the modifier from a weapon with an AP characteristic is equal to "8-AP" with no upper limit, so if a save is made to be greater than 8+ it is cancelled. Now, there is no need to rework terminators because on a d8, a 2+ is godly and they would always get at the very least, a 5+, which is half decent. But a melta gun would still totally cancel out the armor save. I also have thought about making basic CCW AP 6, but i don't know if that would have any very sweeping affect on anything.

I would love feedback since the only thing preventing me from trying this is the fact that I own exactly one d8 and would have to go to the store, but its -10 degrees outside, so that's not happening.

Moving away from d6 would be troublesome. That's a *lot* of dice to carry around. At least d6s are plentiful, and stack really well. Nice square cube.

A larger side count die would allow a lot more variability, but I don't see that change happening. Why go d8 when you can go d10 or d20? There are certainly systems that use those.

The main drawbacks of a modifier is that they make anything with a decent armor save much easier to torch, and they slow down gameplay.

For slower gameplay, I think the extra time is worth the depth. As I've said before, I think I'd rather a 1500pt game that took longer but had the depth to a 2000pt game that didn't.

For survivability, rebalancing would be necessary. I think the take-all-saves idea that would make things too survivable on its own would be the perfect answer.

Further, with modifiers, there are other things we could do. In that thread you mentioned, I had suggested pen effects be d6 on the table + modifier - remaining HP. I think that'd make a lot of things better.

So I like armor.save modifier ideas, but don't think a different die is necessary/good.

Save modifiers without changing the die will not work. I've lived it in this game. It doesn't work.

Martel732 wrote:
Save modifiers without changing the die will not work. I've lived it in this game. It doesn't work.

Changing the die doesn't help much either.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Save modifiers without changing the die will not work. I've lived it in this game. It doesn't work.

Changing the die doesn't help much either.

Changing the die makes me too cheap/lazy to buy and carry around a handful of extra dice specifically for armor. FNP or allowing invuln and armor to be taken would increase them to failing 1/9 or the time, not far off from what you already have with the 1/8.

Bharring wrote:
Moving away from d6 would be troublesome. That's a *lot* of dice to carry around. At least d6s are plentiful, and stack really well. Nice square cube.

A larger side count die would allow a lot more variability, but I don't see that change happening. Why go d8 when you can go d10 or d20? There are certainly systems that use those.

The main drawbacks of a modifier is that they make anything with a decent armor save much easier to torch, and they slow down gameplay.

For slower gameplay, I think the extra time is worth the depth. As I've said before, I think I'd rather a 1500pt game that took longer but had the depth to a 2000pt game that didn't.

For survivability, rebalancing would be necessary. I think the take-all-saves idea that would make things too survivable on its own would be the perfect answer.

Further, with modifiers, there are other things we could do. In that thread you mentioned, I had suggested pen effects be d6 on the table + modifier - remaining HP. I think that'd make a lot of things better.

So I like armor.save modifier ideas, but don't think a different die is necessary/good.

I don't like d10 or d20 for war gaming. It would be really easy for some people to "confuse" those 9s for 6s. I also don't think having to carry some extra d8s with me to the LGS sounds too troublesome. We are talking about a hobby involving a congregation of neckbeards moving hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars of plastic minis to their local hoby store every week.

HI folks.
There is an alternative system , but it uses new values for Armour and Armour penetration.
These are given to ALL units and weapons. Same system for all units!

All units get an armour value of 0 (no armour) to 10(Best armour.) .
All weapons get an armour penetration value of 0 to 10.

These are put in a table similar to the S vs T table.
But the values run from 1+ to no effect.
Like this..

An AV that is 3 or more lower than the weapons AP value has no save .
An AV that is 2 lower than the weapon AP value saves on a 6+
An AV that is 1 lower than the weapon AP value saves on a 5+
AN AV that is equal to the weapon AP has a save of 4+
An AV that is 1 higher than the weapons AP saves on a 3
An AV that is 2 higher than the weapons AP saves on a 2+
An AV that is 3 or higher than the weapons AP value saves on a 1+(Automatic save.)

So rather than a flat save /no save. Or a separate list of modifiers to work out.
You just use the chart to show the save the model gets.

I may need to explain that better?

Lanrak wrote:
HI folks.
There is an alternative system , but it uses new values for Armour and Armour penetration.
These are given to ALL units and weapons. Same system for all units!

Spoiler:

All units get an armour value of 0 (no armour) to 10(Best armour.) .
All weapons get an armour penetration value of 0 to 10.

These are put in a table similar to the S vs T table.
But the values run from 1+ to no effect.
Like this..

An AV that is 3 or more lower than the weapons AP value has no save .
An AV that is 2 lower than the weapon AP value saves on a 6+
An AV that is 1 lower than the weapon AP value saves on a 5+
AN AV that is equal to the weapon AP has a save of 4+
An AV that is 1 higher than the weapons AP saves on a 3
An AV that is 2 higher than the weapons AP saves on a 2+
An AV that is 3 or higher than the weapons AP value saves on a 1+(Automatic save.)

So rather than a flat save /no save. Or a separate list of modifiers to work out.
You just use the chart to show the save the model gets.

I may need to explain that better?

On a scale of 0 to 10, don't you think that a difference of 3 points is a bit too small? Just consider first how you'd have to organize the weapons and armor on that chart. Here are some examples for imperial weapons:

And then, armors of the different units/factions

And thus the problems become apparent. If you want a scale with 11 ranks (0-10), a max difference of 3 is much too small. Standard marines are immune to anything weaker than a bolter, and if terminators have the "best armor" ranking of 10 they're immune to anything that isn't a missile.

Neat idea, Lanrak, but Bobbito poked some pretty significant holes in it.

I've tried using the "simple" armor reduction system wherein AP1 is a -6, AP2 is a -5, etc. That style of system works poorly because it turns marines into paper mache while leaving squishy options the same (as they were already lacking a save).

I'm generally not a fan of any system that call for rolling d8s, d10s, etc. en masse for a game of 40k's scale. It sounds silly to complain of not being able to store or read such dice as easily, but it's a genuine concern. d6s are simple to store and read. You could pull it off with an automated dice roller though.

I think making an armor reduction system work in 40k would require a complete rework of weapon profiles to go with it. There just aren't many intuitive systems that get proposed that also work out mathematically.

to me it looks like what you talking about how they do fantasy,bigger the gun worse you save

Why not allow saves to stack? For example, if you have a model with Power Armour , Invulnerable Shield and are sat behind a Wall, you get to roll on your Cover save, then Invulnerable save, then Armour save. This would make it more 'realistic' in terms of how the saves should work, but would also mean you have some saves against low AP / ignores cover / etc.

The only way this would work though would be if saves of any kind were rarely better than 4+, otherwise no one would be removing models anytime soon.

It also means rolling a lot more dice, but hey that's what we live for, right?

AP less than armour ignores the armour, AP the same allows a save but forces you to reroll successes?

So you get more saves, but with poor odds?

Emphasises the difference between AP 1 and 2 on infantry, not just vehicles!

Maybe my thought process is off here, but I feel like possibly the simplest way to handle the problem with low AP spam right now would simply be to make it that the AP has to be lower than the AV, rather than lower than or equal to. Simple change, requires no changes to any other rules, but every model gets just a little more resilient.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Maybe my thought process is off here, but I feel like possibly the simplest way to handle the problem with low AP spam right now would simply be to make it that the AP has to be lower than the AV, rather than lower than or equal to. Simple change, requires no changes to any other rules, but every model gets just a little more resilient.

The problem with that is that it makes everything uniformly more durable against shooting, which might sound good but can be pretty bad in some cases. Suddenly guardsmen, who are dirt cheap for a reason, get armor saves where almost none existed before. Marines are suddenly immune to missiles and swords, and battle tank shots! Heavy bolters and autocannons suddenly lose a lot of their effectiveness vs medium infantry. Rending (AP2) doesn't ignore AV2 anymore.

I want to say that this would make melee a lot more effective, but now that marines get saves against swords and there are no melee weapons that can hurt AV2, so combats will just drag on too. Everything will get too durable, when the issue is more that high armor units die too easily than that armor is too weak in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, unless you want to massively buff marines. I'd be fine with nigh-immortal super soldiers.

Can we fix saving throws by changing dice, not rules? Maybe we should use d12 dice with values 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6 (values between 1 - 6). Probability to get 1 would be 1/12 and to get 1-2 would be 1/4.

Unfortunately I did not found this kind of dice, but you can buy blank dices. Or you can use following rule: values 1-6 as is it, values 7-10 subtract 5, values 11 - 12 subtract 8.

What is yours opinion for this?

How about this for save modifiers:

AP = AV then -1 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -2 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -3 save
and so on...

if that isn't strong enough then maybe:

AP = AV then -2 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -4 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -6 save


mapped out on a chart would make it easier

rhinosaur wrote:
How about this for save modifiers:

AP = AV then -1 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -2 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -3 save
and so on...

if that isn't strong enough then maybe:

AP = AV then -2 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -4 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -6 save


mapped out on a chart would make it easier

The first one sounds good, but the second idea sounds too strong, IMO.
Perhaps a merge of the two, such as:

If AP = AV then save = -2
If AP 1 lower then save = -3
If AP 2 lower then save = -4

Or start at -1 for equal, then jump to -3.

 Ond Angel wrote:

rhinosaur wrote:
How about this for save modifiers:

AP = AV then -1 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -2 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -3 save
and so on...

if that isn't strong enough then maybe:

AP = AV then -2 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -4 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -6 save


mapped out on a chart would make it easier

The first one sounds good, but the second idea sounds too strong, IMO.
Perhaps a merge of the two, such as:

If AP = AV then save = -2
If AP 1 lower then save = -3
If AP 2 lower then save = -4

Or start at -1 for equal, then jump to -3.

agreed
Maybe something not linear
possibly roughly halving the AV for matching AP

ap5 is -1 to AV5 and cancels AV6

ap4 is -1 to AV4, -1 to AV5 and cancels AV6

ap3 is -2 to AV3, -2 to AV4 and cancels AV5,6

ap2 is -2 to AV2, -3 to AV3 and cancels AV 4,5,6

ap1 is -3 to AV2, -3 to AV3 and cancels AV 4,5,6

A chart like the "to wound" chart wouldn't be so hard to follow.

 Ond Angel wrote:

rhinosaur wrote:
How about this for save modifiers:

AP = AV then -1 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -2 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -3 save
and so on...

if that isn't strong enough then maybe:

AP = AV then -2 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -4 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -6 save


mapped out on a chart would make it easier

The first one sounds good, but the second idea sounds too strong, IMO.
Perhaps a merge of the two, such as:

If AP = AV then save = -2
If AP 1 lower then save = -3
If AP 2 lower then save = -4

Or start at -1 for equal, then jump to -3.

I like it. My only issue is that that formula doesn't really matter for anything with a 5+ save because AP 5 would ignore their armor entirely, barely matters for 4+ saves (who would be getting either a 6+ or nothing at all against AP4 or better), and only really starts to be meaningfully different from the current system for marines. Which might not be a bad thing. It keeps squishy stuff squishy, but makes 3+ and 2+ saves more durable.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:

rhinosaur wrote:
How about this for save modifiers:

AP = AV then -1 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -2 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -3 save
and so on...

if that isn't strong enough then maybe:

AP = AV then -2 save
AP 1 lower than AV then -4 save
AP 2 lower than AV then -6 save


mapped out on a chart would make it easier

The first one sounds good, but the second idea sounds too strong, IMO.
Perhaps a merge of the two, such as:

If AP = AV then save = -2
If AP 1 lower then save = -3
If AP 2 lower then save = -4

Or start at -1 for equal, then jump to -3.

I like it. My only issue is that that formula doesn't really matter for anything with a 5+ save because AP 5 would ignore their armor entirely, barely matters for 4+ saves (who would be getting either a 6+ or nothing at all against AP4 or better), and only really starts to be meaningfully different from the current system for marines. Which might not be a bad thing. It keeps squishy stuff squishy, but makes 3+ and 2+ saves more durable.

That's why I also suggested starting at -1, then going -3, -4, etc.
5+ becomes a 6+ to AP5, so it's not completely negated by bolters or equivalent.
6+ saves are still going to be useless against anything with an AP value.
4+ becomes a 5+ to AP4, and is ignored by AP3 or better.
MEQ has a 4+ against AP3, a 6+ against AP2, and no save against AP1.
And so on.

squishy stuff should still be squishy like that, too.

Well, someone said it would be easier to work out with charts, so I went and made one.

I like the way this works out because under this system, AP 3/4 are relevant, which makes the berzerkers I modeled with chain axes happy.

For the sake of being thorough, the dashes mean there is no save modifier and the Xs mean the save is totally cancelled.

HI Folks.
I think using a table is a good idea,
However in my first example I did not use the main feature of a table that is to load results how you want to.

Here is another table that gives new values for Armour A vs new values for Armour Penetration P to arrive at a range of varialble saves. (EG 4 =4+ save, 1= invunerable 1+ save,and 7 =auto pen, can not roll 7 on a D 6.)

P\A.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
0 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
3 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
4 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
5 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1
6 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2
7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2
8 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 3
9 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3
10 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 4

Note this would be used for ALL models and weapons and incorperate all three save resolution methods from the current game.(Armour saves, inv saves and vehicle AV.)
Rather than being restricted to fixed values of 2 to 6.Then having to add extra systems on ,(Inv saves and vehicles AV.)

Having a range of 0 to 10 allows ALL the variation in armour and AP values found in 40k to be used on one table to generate a range of variable saves quickly and easily. IMO.

Having Termies be unlikely to drop from a lasgun, but a Landspeeder invulnerable, whereas an Autocannon being a real threat to a Landspeader, but not a huge danger to a Termie is something I like.

The separation between S and AP (or ASM) feels like it has a lot of meaning.

And Invulns should be something completely different too, IMO. If you're looking for something like 1-page 40k, it makes sense. But I'd rather more specificity in this area, not less.

(Implementing ASMs without doing something for survivability will destroy Power Armor armies. And make shooting too good. Stacking saves without dropping survivability elsewhere would make Power Armor armies OP, and make shooting much weaker. Both would help negate eachother's downsides, but probably would make CC a bit more important)

(Also, ASMs at (6-AP) is probably going to be more fair than (7-AP) )

I like save modifiers. They make AP differences matter. I also think linear save modifiers are probably easiest to balance and still comprehend.

The balance is key though. If you swing too far in one direction all saves are worse than they currently are. However if you go in the other direction invulnerable saves/ cover saves are much less valuable and thus become overcosted. So termies would be even less point efficient.

In the first case we'd have to make infantry more survivable. I'd suggest altering the S vs T table and make S=T a 5+. This would make all low S weapons worse and high S weapons would be about the same except against some MCs.

In the second case (devaluation of the n++ saves) we'd have to buff those n++ saves. While separate rolls would work, it would be more elegant to treat cover/invulnerable saves as rerolls of failed armor saves in addition to how they already work. This eliminates the need to say you can only roll a maximum of two saves as you can't reroll a reroll already and honestly three saves is too much for every unit to take advantage of.

That could work. 'Any failed save may be rerolled using another save' would be halfway between take-all-saves and not.

It would relatively nerf reroll-saves things, but most probably don't consider that a bad thing.

I don't like changing the to-wound table, though. It could happen, but I like equal stats causing a 50/50.

The idea of devauling n++ saves is mostly to try to balance the tske-all-saves approach. Without it - even with the reroll-another-save rule - I don't think they need devaluing.

I'm starting to really love the idea of Termies getting their 2+ and their 3/5++, even if it were a 4/6++. Or Tacs using cover to get a 5+/3+. Even with modifiers reducing the armor saves. Itll never happen though.

Why not make the system where a SV reduces the attack strength by its value, and the AP reduces the Value of the SV for that attack. Use the actual toughness value as the required roll plus attack strength to wound the model.

Say a terminator has a Save of 8 (leave 9 and 10 for heavy vehicles) still T4, is hit by a bolter Strength 4 ap 5 the roll to wound would be a 3. The AP does not further increase the strength of the attack, so once the armor is gone the AP no longer matters a Lascannon AP 9 would not make the attack suddenly be S10.

Save 8-5=3
Strength 4-3=1
Toughness 4-1=3
So a 3 on the die would result in a wound.

Sure the numbers need fleshed out more, but it would work.

I also think cover should reduce the BS of a model, not make another save.

Invulnerable saves, and FnP would be dice rolls to prevent a wound like they are currently.

I had thought of giving hits (shooting and CC) where the AP = the Armor Save, 'Shred'--allowing a re-roll to wound but still giving the model an Armor Save. Hits where the AP is BETTER than the Armor save would give Shred and no Armor Save.

I didn't get any further than that.