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 can hear you groaning through your computer but think about it, all you would be doing is making Meq NOT all powerful, it would mean a bunch of other rules to get everything working just right but the main thing is to make Meq no longer all powerful.

The problem: there's only so far you can modify a result between 1 and 6. In 2nd ed., power armor was a joke, since virtually everything modified it (including lasguns) and made it into carapace, effectively. Let's not even mention what it did to lesser saves. The all-or-nothing AP method is much more in-line with making armor a useful stat.

Now, if saves used a larger die to roll on, I'd be all for it. Shifting 16.5% minimum is a little excessive.

The only way I could see it working would be if it were a -1 modifier maximum; and only if the AP of the weapon is one step away from negating the save (with a - AP being exempt from the rule).

So, power armor would only save you on a 4+ against things like heavy bolters and assault cannons.

Terminator armor would save on a 3+ against things like krak missiles.

The problem is that troops in 4+ armor would need a point break, as bolters would reduce their save to a 5+.

KW

I disagree. A system of Strength based modifiers would work wonders for the game. The key is to only start to apply save modifiers to actual heavier weapons. I proposed a long time ago:

Str<5= No save modifier
S5-6= -1 save modifier
S7-8= -2 save modifier
S9-10= -3 save modifier


Certain weapons can, of course, be given a boost in either direction to represent the armor piercing quality of their shot (for example, plasma weapons would probably get an additional -1 modifier added on), but weapon strength would be the general principal the system would be based on.

It would mean that marines would actually have to fear a bunch of Heavy Bolters, but they would still have a chance to save against a plasma gun or Krak missile.

It would also mean that horde armies would start getting their saving throws against other army's basic weaponry (such as Bolters).

In general I think it would help bring the game back a little more in balance. After many, many games played I do sincerely believe that the game has the MEQ statline under-pointed currently.

Well Yak, maybe you should go work at GW.

Although I think that certain weapons should have no save, but I guess that is what you were alluding to. Probably things like Lance Weapons and I just don't think that there should be a save vs. things like a solid slug Railgun shot, there are probably a bunch more but I don't know about them.

Yeah, well, I could see that working too.

KW

The have a save modifier.... it's called the ork choppa or khornate chainaxe... then there's my favorite.... the power weapon/fist.... get some of those

Oh, and they already have a strength based system.... STR 5 wounds marines on a 3+..... STR 6 on a 2+...... higher STR results in more wounds which causes fewer successful armor saves

Gee Angron. . .I never thought of that. . .thanks for the inisghtful commentary. [/sarcasm]


Seriously though, the current all-or-nothing system of armor saves creates weapons that are only useful against certain armies and it makes the points values for those weapons difficult to price correctly.

More importantly it puts more of the focus of the game on dice rolling. How many 3+ armor save rolls does the MEQ player fail over the course of the game will often decide whether they win or lose. That's just silly and more importantly boring, IMO.

I like your idea Yak, it makes a helluvalot of sense. It was one of my greatest complaints with Orks. A 6+ armor save is no armor save. Seriously what is the point of having a 6+ armor save. Any bolter will negate it, and all Marines come standard with bolters. Just useless nonsense.

At least with a Strength dependent save modifier the 6+ armor save has a chance, not a great one, but at least a chance. Look what GW did for Terminators. When the new Termie was first released (3rd ed), they were never used because the points vs armor save made them useless. Then GW added the 5+ invuln and there you go, a workable unit. I'm not saying give Orks or Nids a 6+ invulnerable, but at least let them HAVE an armor save.

I also have to agree with Yak that taking away this slight complexity to the game has made it way too simple. It's why alot of people prefer WFB to 40K (me included). I enjoy having to think about troop movement, flanking and mass. In 40K there is some of that, but not to the extent of WFB. A strength dependent armor modifier would at least begin making 40K less dicey and more gamey.

-Jmz

I dont know, a 6+ invulnerable save makes floot slogging orks scary. "HOW DID THAT GROT JUST SHAKE OFF A LASCANNON?!?!?"

Seriously though, I have thought about that so it would fit the fluffy insanity that is ork. If you hit an Ork hard enough to blow off its arm, you will only piss it off.

why not, instead of giving an AP value to a weapon, give it an equivalent save modifier? Make it subtract what the weapon penetrates (AP 5 would become a -2 modifier, AP 4 would be a -3 modifier. This would mean an AP 5 weapon would force a 3+ MEQ to save on a 5+ instead, and on a 6+ against a heavy bolter)

CK

See my above post. In fact, I'll quote the relevant portion.

In 2nd ed., power armor was a joke, since virtually everything modified it (including lasguns) and made it into carapace, effectively. Let's not even mention what it did to lesser saves.

In degrading Space Marine saves, you degrade every other army even worse. Orks are already FUBAR, but do Eldar Aspect Warriors and Tau Firewarriors deserve to fall into the same category? The current system, through 3rd and 4th, has made the save actually worth something; while some modification, a la Yakface's method, wouldn't be that bad, your simplistic "solution" ruins saves as a stat.

I think that Yak is on the right track, although I do think that some weapons should have a better modifier than what Yak noted and some would have less, ex: melta weapons would be good at -3 but things like the autocannon would probably be better at -1. Pulse Rifles can be a 0 modifier even through they are S5 and save the -1 for burst cannons sort of deal.

Trading AP for Modifier would definately NOT work well and is pretty much how 2nd ed worked.

Yeah, 3rd and 4th made the armor save mean something... to people with 4+ or better saves.
Under the old modifier system, 5+ or worse saves rarely got to be used. But then again, they aren't used much in the new system either.  The only difference is now low armor save armies don't get a save, but high armor save armies do.  And since it's an all-or-nothing proposition, as a result you have people who tool their armies to break 3+ saves.   It discourages flexibility.  Why take an autocannon?  If you want to beat marines you take a lascannon.  If you want to beat hordes you take a heavy bolter.  The autocannon becomes a nigh-useless weapon.

To be honest I am kind of surprised that they didn't bring back the save modifier for V4, maybe in 5 or 6 years we will see it in V5

Get rid of normal saving throws altogether. Combine S and AP into one stat. Make armour something that upgrades your toughness (like Marine bikes).

One roll to hit, one roll to affect. Cover saves and invulnerable saves work the same as now, all other armour effects become part of the wounding process.

Simplify the process and get rid of breakpoints in one swell foop. How does that sound? (Damn, I'm in the wrong job.)

Andrew.

Bad...sorry, but i'm being honest.

If you look at modern weapons you can see that some have a high rate of armor penetration but not a big destructive energy. (so high AP, low S)
So a AP system kind of makes sense. But it would be nice if there was a save modfier on top of the normal AP throw.
An Autocannon had something like
S7
AP4
Armor modifier (-1)

A Heavy Bolter on the other hand
S5
AP4
Armor modifier 0

So the Autocannon would be a more viable and flexible weapon like it should be.

Just my thoughts...i like modifiers overall.

Greets
Schepp himself

Another option would be to use the existing AP system as the basis for the save mods but make the lhigher APs have no save mod, i.e

AP - to 5 = 0
AP 4 = -1
AP 3 = -2
AP 2 = -3
AP 1 = -4

Quite similar to Yaks system, but solves the problem of both high strength, high AP weapons (like the pulse rifle or multilaser) and low strength, low AP weapons (like the Vespyid gun).

I actually think that is probably a more reasonble solution actually, very little work would have to be done for weapons like the plasma or melta gun and no standard weapons (including Pulse Rifles) would take out anyone's armor.

Yup, that looks perfect. Terminators would still get a 6+ save vs meltas, and a 5+ vs plasma. Maybe the whole 'invulnerable save' thing could be done away with...or at least restricted more than it is currently.

Yeah, I dig it. That would actually give my little Termies a save against bolters

I think i prefer their new system; save mods were always so fiddly...

Bolters/ Shurikens should get through Flak and orc armour (thats what they're for)

If you change back to Minus mods you have to change other things too

What if they had different points costs against different enemies
A guardsman v orks 6pts, against Marines 5 etc (where needed) [or forget points and make a good old honest scenario where one side is bound to lose! like i do]
The thing is space marines are supposed to wander about soaking up fire and be few in number thats their forte!
I know some weapons become less effective than their points cost would suggest against such foes; but then if all your models had lascannon it would get frightfully dull, annoyingly quickly.

And you think a save modifier is fiddly? :p

different points for different armies? And you want to manage an tournament...how?

I stick to the combined system: doesn't make a joke out of heavy armor and further differenciates weapon systems. Some direly need it.

Greets
Schepp himself

Qoute: More importantly it puts more of the focus of the game on dice rolling. How many 3+ armor save rolls does the MEQ player fail over the course of the game will often decide whether they win or lose. That's just silly and more importantly boring, IMO



I agree. Especially when I play my Grey Knights saves are crucial because of the high points. Bad day when I fail las gun shots.

But then you have the Tau getting nailed in a department they were originally okay in. Burst cannons and smart missiles are tank weapons for them. Stealth suits also depend on them. Stealths pay 30pts a model for a marine that burst cannon to even up the odds, and if it can't be used to take out hordes, the suits lose their effectiveness and role. They are short ranged enough that losing out on the ability to cut down horde units means they are going to die before they ever see a decent exchange. Some weapons really got hosed in the first place. Multilaser anyone?

I'd argue that burst cannons, multilasers, scatterlasers, smart missiles, and any nid guns on a carnifex or tyrant get a -1 (unless better on the 'fex already). Basically anything used on what could be a tank that can't be used by basic troopers should be able to kill troopers more easily.

I'd also add that if it didn't have a save modifier it could not penetrate a tank (like ap- nowadays). This helps tanks a bit, but not much. Necrons still get to glance a tank to heck, but a pulse rifle to AV 10 is no longer as dangerous, though burst cannons and other guns are. Multilasers can still kill tanks and are now at least somewhat scary to troops compared to a heavy bolter. (since they have same modifier and it has a beter strength)


As a marine player I would not mind the save modifier as shown by Yakface or Adeon. I would add this to Adeon's to give a tanks a bit more punch. (Hammerhead would be hurt a lot by this, as would the Chimera) I play Tau, Guard, nids, chaos and marines. Seeing this I can tell you the nids would love to have their main guys get the save modifier as it makes sense to have the higher strength weapons do it. Some vehicle weapons should get the save modifier as well.
I don't know the AP on big shootas and other Orky weapons but I would suggest if they were not eligible to get the modifier that they do so on the vehicles. Pretty much every race should have it that if the gun is on a vehicle and is not a basic gun for troops, it would get at least a -1 if it was not eligble normally. SOrry if I rambled.

Horde armies armor themselves in the bodies of their dead comrades, that's why you have the horde. Close quickly and overwhelm the more expensive army with numbers.

These threads always amuse me in the way folks try to 'democratically' adjust the entire system, while making sure to try and grease the system so that Marines lose their armor save while everyone else keeps theirs. I would think that more obvious solution would be to propose that Power Armor confer only a 4+ or 5+ save rather than trying to rework the entire system and bring in modifiers for everything. But then if you reduced Power Armor saves....you'd have to reduce other saves too I guess, and that would violate the IWMCAEIT (I want my cake and eat it too) rule.

I'm glad I could help amuse you!


Personally, I'm never bashful about how I feel 40K is weighted. I've said it before and I'll say it again: In my opinion the MEQ statline is undercosted for it's ability. Adding back saving throw modifiers would be one way to adjust this issue without changing the points costs of the basic trooper.

But more importantly, the all-or-nothing armor save concept helps keep the rock-paper-scissors concept alive and well. If you like that method of army balance then I can understand why you wouldn't want anything to change.

How can a weapon like a Heavy Bolter be properly point-costed when it tears through non-MEQ troops but does next to nothing against a MEQ? It can't, and that is the main reason that players basically have to make a choice when making their armies whether or not they want to tailor their force to fight MEQs or non-MEQs.


Either that or just raise the points cost of a MEQ statline up to a proper level (around 18 points for basic marines).

Posted By yakface on 07/21/2006 7:36 PM

... ... ...


Either that or just raise the points cost of a MEQ statline up to a proper level (around 18 points for basic marines).

That would be much simpler to do, but it would probably cause a riot among SM players.