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.

Howdy. In another thread, i mentioned a different take on what could replace Instant Death in its all-or-nothing form into something more universal and with greater granularity. I am going to be stealing most of my wording from that post, because I'm surprisingly lazy sometimes.

The Issue: Instant Death is a mechanic that ends up being all-or-nothing and subjects lower-toughness models to a great deal more vulnerability than higher toughness models, with certain levels of toughness being effectively immune to all but special cases of Instant Death. It is meant to represent an wound so horrific that nothing could survive it... but even though a Greater Daemon, a Dreadknight, or a Riptide might be tough, they shouldn't necessarily be "shrugs off a lascannon wound like a paper cut" tough.

The Solution: Instead of making attacks deal either 1 wound or infinite wounds, with no space in between, it could instead be based on the difference between the weapon's strength and the target's toughness - effectively, give each point of strength that no longer has the effect of making the attack more likely to wound (i.e. hits that are 2+ to wound against their target) instead make the wound more grievous.

Proposed Rule:

Overkill: For every unsaved wound, subtract the total of Toughness plus 2 from the strength of the attack. If the result is 0 or lower, it has no further effect. If the result is 1 or higher, add the result to the number of wounds suffered by the model that failed its save.

Example: A Space Marine Captain (T4) is hit by a Plasma Gun (S7) and failed his save. He would thus subtract 2+4 (his toughness +2) from 7, with a result of 1. That Captain would thus take 2 wounds, rather than 1 wound, from that plasma shot.

Alternative Example: An Autarch (T3) is hit by the same Plasma Gun (S7) and failed his save. He would thus subtract 2+3 from 7, with a result of 2. That Autarch would thus take 3 wounds, rather than 1 wound.

Big Critter Example: a Riptide (T6) is hit by a Lascannon (S9) and fails his save. He would thus subtract 6+2 from 9, with a result of 1. That Riptide would take 2 wounds, rather than 1 wound.

Complexity:

Though certainly more granular and complex than the all-or-nothing Instant Death rule we have currently, I've tried to make this a fairly simple process.

Simple Addition (T + 2), simple subtraction (S - (T +2)), and a final simple addition (Wounds lost = 1 + result).

Consequences:

It would give a bonus to weapons for using higher strength than absolutely necessary to attain the 2+ wounding.

It might be unbalanced in the face of the omnipresent spammed S7. Not sure how to address that.

S6 becomes less effective against multi-wound T3 models, though (only 2 wounds, not ALL wounds), which is nice for those of us with those sorts of models (Tau, Eldar, AM, GSC).

Not sure exactly how D weapons would work, but I'd guess they could count as Strength 10 but always count as having at least a 2 (maybe 3? Thoughts on balance?) result for the purposes of Overkill (always inflicting at least an extra two wounds on a failed save for T6+ models, but effectivenly inflicting Instant Death against lower-T models - I can't recall a T5 or less model with more than 4 wounds). To make D weapons more reliable in their destructive potential, they could also apply as unsaved wound multipliers, forcing the enemy to make lots of saves - perhaps to distinguish them from ID-from-special-rules.

Weapons that currently have a profile that modifies D (like those Wraithguard flamers or the Hemlock fighter) could instead modify the strength and/or the result by -1 (so each hit would inflict 2 wounds per model instead of 3). This might not be entirely balanced, so it might be worth converting D-1 weapons to only apply to unsaved wounds.

Weapons that are already Instant Death by special rule could potentially work like D weapons, but only with unsaved wounds.

Because double the strength versus toughness was not the only way to get Instant Death effects, you see two things unique to 6+ toughness, multiwound models:

First, those models become significantly more vulnerable to heavy, anti-vehicle weapons that really ought to be able to blow a significant chunk out of Monstrous Creatures and the like. This would be a direct nerf.

Second, those models are no longer instantly removed from the table due to a single lucky roll on weapons with Instant Death special rules, and instead merely suffer horrific damage. This would be a boost in survivability, hopefully overshadowed by the first effect.

Finally, one must consider the consequences to Feel no Pain. I'm personally of the opinion that FnP is a bit too ubiquitous and a bit too potent in its current forms, and I wouldn't mind seeing FnP getting negated entirely on an Overkill result of 1 or more. If that's too drastic a measure, one could instead have the target's FnP roll reduced by the Overkill result (example: Riptide with FnP 5+++ fails its save against a lascannon. The Overkill result is 1, and thus the Riptide is only allowed a 6+++. The Same Riptide is hit by a Hammerhead Railgun. With the Overkill result of 2, the Riptide is not allowed a FnP roll at all).

Edit: Some MCs need to be toned down more than others. I think it would be appropriate for some MCs (Nurgle-aligned daemons and Tyranids come to mind) to be less vulnerable to this effect, but I'm not certain.

Edit 2: I just realized I forgot to address Eternal Warrior. My initial thought is that blanket immunity to the likes of D strength weaponry is a bit much. I'd rather see Eternal Warrior reduce the Overkill result by a certain amount (including D and Instant Death special rule result rolls). Initial thoughts: put a number after the Eternal Warrior granted, like Eternal Warrior (3), which reduces the Overkill result by that number. If a Space Marine Captain had EW(3), for example, it would take the equivalent of a Tau Railgun or a D weapon to result in 2 wounds from a single shot.

Thoughts? Comments? Balance Issues? Complexity issues?

To clarify, I intend Overkill to be applied to all weapons at all times. This would, in my proposal, not be a special rule that applies to only certain weapons, but for any attack with sufficient strength (in the same way that Instant Death works currently).

But yeah, I totally understand where you're coming from. Complexity bogs down games... the question becomes whether this slight increase in complexity (which really is fairly basic, do-it-in-your-head adding and subtracting - no charts or random rolls needed) is worth adding to the granularity of devastation from high strength weaponry.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd use it. Even if it means my Daemon Princes are inst-gibbed by Lascannons.

That is one of my worries - it might swing the balance against MCs a bit more heavily than necessary.

A fair point, Lance845, though it wouldn't actually need to be applied on every shot fired, merely shots fired at multi-wound models (and even then, only after failed saves or with the fairly rare D weapons).

The formula itself is really just a formal way to compare the Strength and Toughness (which ID requires already) through subtraction and addition (W=S-T-1 -Eternal Warrior, minimum 1) rather than division with if/then implications (if S/T <2 or Eternal Warrior, then W=1, if not, then [if GC, then W=1d3, if not, then W=infinity]).

Edit: It does add complexity by having variable results rather than being a threshold test, but the granularity of the results of a threshold test are fairly limited - that's why I felt the increased complexity might be worth it.

True, this does nerf MCs to a certain extent, particularly low-T MCs (though Carnifexes are T6 - the only other T5 MC that isn't a FMC I can think of would be the Ghostkeel).

It might be appropriate to give Daemon MCs (and possibly some Tyranid MCs - particularly linebreaker units like the Carnifex is supposed to be) Eternal Warrior to take out some of the sting from this change.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
However, the issue is that this makes already easy kill HQ's even easier to kill. It is now far too easy to kill an Autarch or a leader of a Command Squad with a bloody S5 weapon.

...Huh?

Per my proposed rule, an Autarch or Command Squad leader (T3) being hit by a S5 weapon wouldn't take any extra wounds at all. You subtract 2 + T, or 5, from the Strength of 5, and the result is 0. You still take the unsaved wound, but you don't add any wounds on top of that, either.

In fact, under my proposed rules, when hit by a S6 weapon (which by the current rules would be an Instant Death, i.e. Infinite wounds), a T3 model would only take 2 wounds for each unsaved wound.

Being hit by a S7 or higher weapon will almost certainly remove all of the target's wounds (3 at S7, 4 at S8, etc.), but that'd happen anyway under the current Instant Death rule.

In short, my proposal is an across-the-board boost in durability for T3 multiwound models.

...Perhaps you responded to the wrong thread?

Nazrak wrote:Really like this idea! Would a way to avoid the maths issue be to just amend the To Wound table?

So, assuming I've understood correctly, it would go like this:



Where the number in brackets after a 2+ is the number of wounds it deals to a single model. Formatting-wise, maybe making it superscript would be less intrusive?

Looks about right for what I put down, and putting it in a table does make it more intuitive. I used math for the description to be clear about my proposed rule's formula, but adding a table to clarify the actual effects when rubber meets the road would be crucial for this rule to be intelligible.

Formatting-wise, I think it'd be fine as is.

Luke_Prowler wrote:This allows Meganobz to be one shot by plasma

No thanks

True, some multi-wound models (Meganobz included, but also including my beloved Crisis Suits) would now be subject to one-shot attacks by S7 instead of S8.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, some units (I called out Tyranid MCs, but they need not benefit exclusively)), particularly somewhat underperforming units, might need something to keep them competitive. Changing rules like this will pretty much always need some adjustment to the units it effects.

I think it would be reasonable to give Meganobz (and honestly, perhaps Orks in general) my modified Eternal Warrior 1 to represent their extraordinary hardiness against exceptionally damaging and otherwise fatal wounds (Perhaps Eternal Warrior 2 when Orks WAAAAGH!). I would propose something similar for Tyranids - perhaps Eternal Warrior 1 baseline for TMCs or Tyranids in general, and +1 to their Eternal Warrior if they're within Synapse range.

That would bring the Meganobz (and Tyranid Warriors, another unit that doesn't need a nerf) back into needing S8 or S9 to one-shot them.

Thoughts?

MagicJuggler wrote:When I was working on Forgehammer, I did something a little more variable in its implementation:

"Massive Damage" is an effect that triggers via certain circumstances, and means the target that fails a save (FNP cannot be taken against this) immediately takes D3 additional wounds/HP with no saves/FNP allowed against it.

Rather than Instant Death being "double the target's toughness", you roll to-wound as normal. Normally you wound on 2+ if Strength - 2 = Toughness. Once Strength -3 = Toughness you wound on 2+, but trigger Massive Damage on 6 to-wound. When Strength - 4 = Toughness, you trigger Massive Damage on 5+, etc.

So a Lascannon does Massive Damage to a T6 MC on 6, but a Railgun does it on 5+.

MCs/sergeants gain extra wounds, as appropriate.

Vehicle Destroyed - Explodes is also replaced with Massive Damage; if a vehicle loses all its Hull Points to a Massive Damage Attack, it explodes. Vehicles gain extra HP, but the damage modifier starts at AP 3; Tank Hunters becomes a re-roll for vehicle damage.

"Bane" effects (Fleshbane, Armorbane, etc) effectively add half the to-wound/to-penetrate roll to the attack's strength. (I had a funky chart for that).

Definitely another viable concept, doing roughly the same thing. It does make the chance for ID scale with the differential between S and T, which parallels my system, and modifying the Vehicle Damage Table to be less painful for vehicles is always a worthy goal (though one that I'd address by removing vehicles as a unit type entirely, but that's a whole different kettle o' fish).

I think, if I had an issue with your system at all, it would be that your system buffs lower T's durability against ID much more significantly than my system (most T3 or T4 multiwound models only have 2 or 3 wounds, so they only need S+3 or S+4 to match existing ID rules, while under your framework, a T3 multi-wound model will avoid being one-shot by S8 half the time).

That said, I do like the concept, and it seems like it would be a viable alternative to my own.

panzerfront14 wrote:I've always thought that Ordinance could fix this problem, just have ordinance weapons deal 1d3 wounds to multiwound models but with only 1 save taken.
like say a battle cannon hits a Carnifex and wounds, it would deal 1d3 wounds but say a venomthrope is near and it gives the Fex shrouded the fex would only throw one die against the hit and If it made the save then no wounds period.

Would you remove ID-by-doubled-Strength-versus-Toughness, or would this work in parallel to the existing ID system?

Does this address the issue of a Tau Railgun or Zoanthrope 10/1 shot or Lascannons never having a chance of causing massive damage to things they really aught to (like Riptides, Dreadknights, etc), given that it is limited to the Ordnance type? Do all armies have access to Ordnance, such that this would address the overarching issue (that T6+ models are too durable against exceptionally High Strength attacks)?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

pelicaniforce wrote:
This effect should be part of a group of things that cause multiple wounds. As it stands, having a model six inches away with bs5 firing a bolt pistol at an inquisitor and rolling sixes to hit and wound will never, ever kill that inquisitor on the first shot, and yet this is what the scenario is when a commissar shoots a company command officer. It's one reason why shooting upgrades are irrelevant for most characters, who contribute nothing but a high bs and will never do more than one wound with their round of shooting. It's also true that on the level of characters this isn't really a balance issue, but it also applies to wraith lords and wraith knights vs missiles, lances and lascannons, situations where this overkill rule doesn't apply.

High S is important, and so are the other factors that could change the balance of a strength-based overkill rule.

In your scenario, I'm inclined to say that I'd rather hand-wave that sort of factor as a necessary abstraction to make the application of that rule manageable.

My proposed house rule is arguably complex enough as is, and adding even more factors might make it too unwieldy.

I never did address Lance (or Melta when firing at half-range, for that matter), but both could easily be noted to add +1 to the Overkill formula (i.e. a Meltagun fired at a Riptide (T6) would normally not cause any extra wounds, but if within half-range, could cause a second wound).

Blackie wrote:Too complicated and T4 multiwounds models would be nerfed badly. Mid strenght weapons would become too powerful and I think that overpowered weapons (and units) should be nerfed, not the opposite, with S6-7 even more powerful than now.

Just make riptides AV11 with 4 HP and WK/stormsurges AV13 with 6 HP and no one would complain about MCs that can't be killed by a single shot like vehicles. FNP replaced with It Will Not Die, no invulns better than a 5+ allowed. With a 7+ they would explode, like any walker in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


I think it would be reasonable to give Meganobz (and honestly, perhaps Orks in general) my modified Eternal Warrior 1 to represent their extraordinary hardiness against exceptionally damaging and otherwise fatal wounds (Perhaps Eternal Warrior 2 when Orks WAAAAGH!). I would propose something similar for Tyranids - perhaps Eternal Warrior 1 baseline for TMCs or Tyranids in general, and +1 to their Eternal Warrior if they're within Synapse range.

That would bring the Meganobz (and Tyranid Warriors, another unit that doesn't need a nerf) back into needing S8 or S9 to one-shot them.

Thoughts?

I don't like it as I think rules like Eternal Warrior should belong only to hero characters, not to standard elite models or even generic HQs. The point is units like meganobz don't need to be improved, but other units need to be nerfed. And nerfed badly. I don't think that improving other weapons/units would make the game more balanced, overpowered things need to be mutilated by increasing their points value and/or changing their stats.

We seem to have very different design philosophies, which is perfectly fine. I personally don't associate particular rules with particular types of units - rather, they're bundles of special qualities that should be applied where appropriate, and things like Orks, Tyranids, and Daemons, even when not special characters, seem like an appropriate place for a rule that makes them more resilient against this sort of overwhelming firepower. I would say that Eternal Warrior (2) or (3) would probably be rare to see except on Special Characters and the like.

I simply don't think that Meganobz are the ideal for a middle ground of balance. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Lanrak wrote:Hi folks.
My alternative to Instant Death and Eternal Warrior was simpler.

if you roll 2 more than you need to inflict a wound ,you inflict an extra wound.

EG if you only need a 2+ to wound, and you roll 4+You score an extra wound on the target model.(If you rolled a 6 you would score 2 extra wounds on the target model.)

This simply delivers a proportionally higher chance of causing extra wounds when the strength of the weapon hit is much higher than the toughness of the target.

Lanrak wrote:I was assuming that each wounding hit would get a save roll .

And it is impossible to correct 19 years of sales driven rules writing , with one or 2 fixes.

If this sort of rule was introduced , relative S and T values would have to be adjusted and probably re costed.

An interesting approach, though as stated, one that seems to absolutely require an adjustment of just about all S & T values - worthwhile if you're planning on doing that anyway, but it seems superficially to be more heavy-handed than my approach. Things like Poison and Fleshbane become very potent ID weapons. too.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:


I did want to ask again, for any type of multi-wound scenario (RAW ID or alternate systems), does anyone else see any value in saves vs. each wound individually? (Assume Eternal Warrior rules just mean a save vs. 1 wound as usual.)

I did touch upon that in my OP, in relation to making D weapons more reliable in their ability to inflict at least some damage, even in the face of the likes of good invuln or cover saves.

So long as the Overkill/extra wound mechanic is model-specific, rather than applied to units as a whole, it really is a question of how reliable you want overwhelming attacks to be in getting through defenses. Frankly, I think I prefer that sort of reliability, so if I were to rewrite Overkill today, it would probably use single-model unsaved-wound pools.

This thread is not intended to be a discussion on the merits of Riptides in 40k.

This thread deals with the mechanics of multiple wounds, particularly replacements to ID.

If you want to discuss your own replacements for ID, feel free. If you want to discuss the proposed rule in the OP, feel free. If you want to discuss whether Riptides (or any other particular unit) should exist in WH40k, make your own thread, or find one of the hundreds of others where that is the topic.

Please stay on topic, thanks!

Would your proposal replace the existing ID rules, or be a separate addition?

Would the wounds inflicted be on a per-model basis (akin to D weapons) or apply as part of the normal wound pool (thereby potentially allowing 3 separate models to be killed per Railgun shot, for example)?

An interesting approach.

That would require looking through every single weapon/power/effect in the game to assign appropriate numbers of wounds per shot, which would take a bit of work, but that could have merit.

It would also allow us to replace the one-size-fits-all D weapon effect with more nuanced rolls.

More work than I would prefer to do, assuming my own proposed Overkill rule is actually usable/workable/intelligible.