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.

Do we really need a "to wound roll"? I mean the weapons are so powerful if you are hit, you should be dead. There really shouldn't be a reason "to wound". That is why we have armour. If we are hit, then the armour should save us. If it doesn't then we die like we didn't have armour. So what do you think? Get hit, just roll your armour save if you get one. I think it would make the game more fun by less rolling and making the game go faster.

What is your opinion on this?

And instantly, Imperial Guardsmen become the best shooting army in the game.

No.

No. Because of the scale of the creatures in the game.

Do you think a rusty revolver toted by a Grot should be able to hurt a creature that is as big as a city block and has skin thicker than most guardsman's armour?

a lasgun to the head is often lethal. A lasgun to the foot is not. That is why we roll to wound: more than anything to see if the 'hit' was a lethal one.

At this point in the game, no.

Wildly varying strength levels mean that some weapons really shouldn't be causing any damage to tough units.

Infinity follows the same principle as what the OP has, but the weapons have very little variation in strength (and a D20 system to balance it out).

Of course we need a to wound roll. Otherwise there would be nothing to differentiate the power level of the weapons in the game. A Plasma gun instantly becomes as good as a Lascannon.

 General Kroll wrote:
Of course we need a to wound roll. Otherwise there would be nothing to differentiate the power level of the weapons in the game. A Plasma gun instantly becomes as good as a Lascannon.

Sternguard kraken rounds, within rapidfire range, become as good as an autocannon.

I'm not for it in 40K.
In Warzone it worked well enough. that game used D20. Shooter rolls to hit. roll of a 1 was like a crit, no save allowed. Cover modified the to hit roll and Savers were modified by the Strength of the weapon. I think it might have been Strength - Armour Save = roll to save.
I think the D6 system would be an issue for a system like that. So I can't think of a way to make it fit.
(Not saying it can't be done)

I agree with the OP, it's an unnecessary step. Some models may be bigger or tougher, but that's what armour and wounds are for in my opinion.
Bolt Action, Lord of the Rings, Gates of Antares, Epic 40k, In Her Majesty's Name- all do it in 2 rolls.

 obithius wrote:
I agree with the OP, it's an unnecessary step. Some models may be bigger or tougher, but that's what armour and wounds are for in my opinion.
Bolt Action, Lord of the Rings, Gates of Antares, Epic 40k, In Her Majesty's Name- all do it in 2 rolls.

So to you, a Grot is as likely to survive a lasgun round as an unarmoured Space Marine? Even though we have plenty of fluff evidence that Space Marines are completely unfazed by such meagre obstacles? Sure.

curran12 wrote:And instantly, Imperial Guardsmen become the best shooting army in the game.
No.

Nothing wrong with that. Adjust point costs accordingly.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:No. Because of the scale of the creatures in the game.

Do you think a rusty revolver toted by a Grot should be able to hurt a creature that is as big as a city block and has skin thicker than most guardsman's armour?

Depends. I mean, if the creature has an armour save that is so good that the grot shooting would be irrelevant, or else a special rule that makes it immune to shots thst are lower than strX (we're removing the to wound roll, not strength values if I read right?)

Brennonjw wrote:a lasgun to the head is often lethal. A lasgun to the foot is not. That is why we roll to wound: more than anything to see if the 'hit' was a lethal one.

No, that's the purpose of armour saves, to determine whether a shot was lethal or not. The to-wound roll is dead weight, it's simply asking exactly the same question as the armour save. There is a reason a lot of other games stick to a two roll resolution mechanic.

General Kroll wrote:Of course we need a to wound roll. Otherwise there would be nothing to differentiate the power level of the weapons in the game. A Plasma gun instantly becomes as good as a Lascannon.

It depends. Look at infinity which also has an armour save versus-weapon strength roll off (like 40ks weapon skill, or strength/toughness roll off). No 'to wound roll' and yet armour is less effective against more powerful rounds.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 obithius wrote:
I agree with the OP, it's an unnecessary step. Some models may be bigger or tougher, but that's what armour and wounds are for in my opinion.
Bolt Action, Lord of the Rings, Gates of Antares, Epic 40k, In Her Majesty's Name- all do it in 2 rolls.

So to you, a Grot is as likely to survive a lasgun round as an unarmoured Space Marine? Even though we have plenty of fluff evidence that Space Marines are completely unfazed by such meagre obstacles? Sure.

No, but if we are re-designing the game I'd give a Grot 1 wound and a Marine 2 or 3

 curran12 wrote:
And instantly, Imperial Guardsmen become the best shooting army in the game.

No.

You simply reduce their To Hit.

The To Hit/To Wound/To Save sequence merely generates a probability of a weapon scoring a "hit" on a target. If you remove the To Wound modifier you only have to compensate for it by reducing To Hit or increasing To Save.

There are games that use a single roll to wound and pierce armour, if that's what your getting at. (e.g. LOTR strategy battle game). But they still take toughness into account. It's only realistic that they do.

Toughness, Hits (Wounds), Armour Save and so on all can be part of the equation.

The idea that a lasgun and a lascannon are both just as likely to wound a single guy and a giant monstrous creature (with no difference in the requirement to wound either) is rediculous. Sure, you could put in special rules where a weapon needs to meet certain requirments to wound certain types of unit but do we really need a whole mass of extra rules for basic game play? In a game like 40K where we have such a massive amount of variety in weapon and unit types, any attempt to streamline the game by removing mechanics without thoroughly considering it's effects on all aspects and factions of the game will at best break some armies and at worst completely gut the game.

Frankly it's not the to hit/to wound/save mechanic that slows the game down, it's the rules bloat and bad structure.

Anything to get rid of charts..

Seems like a bad idea unless you massively tone down the game. Which isn't happening.

Charts aren't that bad....

 obithius wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 obithius wrote:
I agree with the OP, it's an unnecessary step. Some models may be bigger or tougher, but that's what armour and wounds are for in my opinion.
Bolt Action, Lord of the Rings, Gates of Antares, Epic 40k, In Her Majesty's Name- all do it in 2 rolls.

So to you, a Grot is as likely to survive a lasgun round as an unarmoured Space Marine? Even though we have plenty of fluff evidence that Space Marines are completely unfazed by such meagre obstacles? Sure.

No, but if we are re-designing the game I'd give a Grot 1 wound and a Marine 2 or 3

This would prompt a massive overhaul in game mechanics, for each unit.

You might as well start from the ground up at this point - which might be a good thing.

I think it all comes down to the limited results you can get on a d6 (i.e. literally just a 1-6). That isn't much variation.

Having a to wound roll effectively gives you further variation/randomisation in the output, so for me, it's a 'yes' we do need a to wound with the current d6 system.

 General Kroll wrote:
Of course we need a to wound roll. Otherwise there would be nothing to differentiate the power level of the weapons in the game. A Plasma gun instantly becomes as good as a Lascannon.

Not really. Can be differentiated by this thing called "save".

And before you say both are AP2 and ignore who says saving would work in the same way?

While I'm not in favour of his proposal I'm not assuming nothing else would change. Lasgun wouldn't have to be much if any better against taking out wraithknight than it is now just because to wound roll is removed.

tneva82 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Of course we need a to wound roll. Otherwise there would be nothing to differentiate the power level of the weapons in the game. A Plasma gun instantly becomes as good as a Lascannon.

Not really. Can be differentiated by this thing called "save".

And before you say both are AP2 and ignore who says saving would work in the same way?

While I'm not in favour of his proposal I'm not assuming nothing else would change. Lasgun wouldn't have to be much if any better against taking out wraithknight than it is now just because to wound roll is removed.

So how would you change the armour system to reflect the toughness of models then?

We need TAC0 and Hit points for each model ; )

I will agree there needs to be a new method used to make the game have less rolling of dice and speed up game play. Just removing the to wound roll would not work but if the system was changed enough it could be changed from 3 dice rolls (to hit, to wound, save) down to two dice rolls.

 General Kroll wrote:
Of course we need a to wound roll. Otherwise there would be nothing to differentiate the power level of the weapons in the game. A Plasma gun instantly becomes as good as a Lascannon.

Its possible. Warpath has no strength values, but uses an AP value that lowers the target's defenses, making it easier to damage.

But 40k isn't Warpath, its 40k. It should not copy another company's mechanics.

The order of operation should be different though.
It should be Hit --> Save --> Wound.
If you make the save no wound roll is required.

The game needs multiple rolls to spread the odds out. In a D6 system you limit the possible results too much by having 1 roll. I've always viewed the 3 rolls of hit wound and save as all part of hitting the target.

Why would you want to remove a massive majority of variation from every weapon in the game? Even Age of Sigmar, the shortest ruleset I've ever seen in wargaming uses it for variation because on a d6 system it would be very stale otherwise.

To speed up games? I don't think rules should never be watered down to 'speed up' potential games. In fact the speed of the game usually is determined by how many points you're playing and how well each player knows their list/army.

This is the silliest thing I've heard.

"yea but armor saves"

Congratulations you've just made Tau tier 0.

 Brennonjw wrote:
a lasgun to the head is often lethal. A lasgun to the foot is not. That is why we roll to wound: more than anything to see if the 'hit' was a lethal one.

Unless you are a Space Marine, according to FFG.

 Brennonjw wrote:
a lasgun to the head is often lethal.

Sir I would like to return my lasgun. It seems to be defective, it could not even cut trough the local mawlocks.

The better solution is to remove saves from the game. Get rid of the silly idea that the owner of a model always gets to roll a die to see if they can save it and just have a single roll of strength vs. toughness. The system would have to be re-scaled, of course, but the end result would remove some of the tedious dice rolling.