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.

Pretty simple: Add the following to the wound chart:

Strength is three times (or more) the Toughness-Automatic Wound
Strength is twice (or more) the Toughness-2+
Strength is greater than Toughness-3+
Strength is equal to Toughness-4+
Strength is less than Toughness, but more than half-5+
Strength is half the Toughness, but more than one third-6+
Strength is one third (or less) Toughness-Cannot Wound

So, what does this affect?

Nurglings, Ratlings, Grots, and any other S2 models now cannot wound T6+. Not a huge issue, since they're not meant to do damage in CC anyway (the latter two have more powerful guns, and the first might be given a minor points drop, but is honstly really good even without doing damage).
Nugrlings, Ratlings, Grots, and any other T2 models are now wounded automatically by S6+. Minor buff when you shoot your big guns at little targets.
Guardsmen, Eldar, and any other S3 models now cannot wound T9+. Not a huge issue, since that's pretty much only Might Of Heroes buffed Land Raiders and Ironclads. In which case, kill the psyker, and then the dread or Land Raider.
Guardsmen, Eldar, and any other T3 models are now wounded automatically by S9+. Again, minor buff when shooting big guns (like Lascannons) at infantry.
Marines, Orks, and other T4 models are now wounded automatically by S12+. Which is pretty much exclusively big honking melee weapons, which seems okay. (The ranged exceptions are stuff like Volcano weapons and Thundercoil Harpoons.)

I'm very much NOT concerned by making high-Strength weapons wound automatically. Given that a lot of people can get reroll 1s to-wound, 35/36 ain't that far from 36/36. (The difference is less than 3%.)
I'm much MORE concerned about making high-Toughness models immune to weaker models.

Not thats its of any real consequence, but Brayarth Ashmantle buffed by MoH would be autowounding T6- under these rules.

Vilehydra wrote:
Not thats its of any real consequence, but Brayarth Ashmantle buffed by MoH would be autowounding T6- under these rules.

Not a big deal.

What's a bigger deal is that he's T9, ain't he, meaning he's immune to Lasgun fire and similar even WITHOUT a buff.

I'm kind of iffy about making especially tough things immune to especially shrimpy things. If a horde of termagaunts wants to drag a buffed up T9 monstrosity down with weight of numbers, I say let them. It won't be efficient, but it will be cool if it works.

I'm on board with auto-wounding squishy things with strong things on the grounds that it...
A.) Reduces dice rolling a bit.
B.) Means I wouldn't have to explain all these "near miss" and "flesh wound" lascannon shots that come up 1s against my eldar.

I'd even be okay with saying you autowound if your strength is simply more than double the target's toughness, though that makes strength 7 somewhat better against T3 infantry.

I would rather make it re-roll failed wounds rather than automatic wound and re-roll successful wounds rather than automatic fail.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I would rather make it re-roll failed wounds rather than automatic wound and re-roll successful wounds rather than automatic fail.

But that will only matter 1 out of 36 times (rolling a 1 twice in a row or a 6 twice in a row). Doesn't seem worth the extra rolling to me.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I would rather make it re-roll failed wounds rather than automatic wound and re-roll successful wounds rather than automatic fail.

But that will only matter 1 out of 36 times (rolling a 1 twice in a row or a 6 twice in a row). Doesn't seem worth the extra rolling to me.

As anyone who has ever rolled a snake eyes for a 3" charge, 1/36 is enough. Nothing should automatically happen there should always be a small chance of failure or success.

Rolling snake eyes on a 3" charge is actually a great example of randomness being frustrating and creating failure where it feels undeserved. If you maneuvered a unit into position to attempt a 3" charge, you should probably make the charge. A similar argument could be made for shooting a lascannon at a toughness 3 model.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm kind of iffy about making especially tough things immune to especially shrimpy things. If a horde of termagaunts wants to drag a buffed up T9 monstrosity down with weight of numbers, I say let them. It won't be efficient, but it will be cool if it works.

Honestly, I feel the opposite way; I don't particularly care for the fact that a squad of 10 guardsmen with lasguns are, with FRFSRF, just as effective at taking wounds off a Rhino as the lascannon heavy weapons team in their midst. The entire reasons tanks are effective in warfare is that they're largely impervious to small arms fire, and removing that distinction has contributed to the general homogenization of all weapons.

I'd actually prefer to give most vehicles a general rule of "subtract 1 from rolls to wound this unit using a weapon with a Damage characteristic of 1" specifically to draw a sharper line between anti-vehicle and anti-infantry armaments.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Nothing should automatically happen there should always be a small chance of failure or success.

This is game design. If something is so close to automatic then the only people who care about the small chance of failure/success are people who are bad at math, and the rest of us shouldn't be required to spend more time rolling dice to pander to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm kind of iffy about making especially tough things immune to especially shrimpy things.

Why? Fluff-wise those weak things should be doing absolutely nothing, and "everything can wound everything" is just GW pandering to people who are bad at math and strategy by letting them pretend that they have a chance of winning.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I would rather make it re-roll failed wounds rather than automatic wound and re-roll successful wounds rather than automatic fail.

But that will only matter 1 out of 36 times (rolling a 1 twice in a row or a 6 twice in a row). Doesn't seem worth the extra rolling to me.

As anyone who has ever rolled a snake eyes for a 3" charge, 1/36 is enough. Nothing should automatically happen there should always be a small chance of failure or success.

I agree and disagree with you.

I think 90% of the game should have a roll happening. But I think there are things that should work on AUTO. This is actually one of them, I like the suggested additions to the chart, be interested to play a couple of test games with these rules and see how they work on the table.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Nothing should automatically happen there should always be a small chance of failure or success.

This is game design. If something is so close to automatic then the only people who care about the small chance of failure/success are people who are bad at math, and the rest of us shouldn't be required to spend more time rolling dice to pander to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm kind of iffy about making especially tough things immune to especially shrimpy things.

Why? Fluff-wise those weak things should be doing absolutely nothing, and "everything can wound everything" is just GW pandering to people who are bad at math and strategy by letting them pretend that they have a chance of winning.

Fluff-wise, those weak things should be scrabbling up on top of the tank, shooting through fire points or into holes in the armor left by more powerful weapons. They might even be shooting/tearing one of the hatches open to attack the crew directly. Or heck, they might just be gumming up the works by shoving stuff into treads and engines and so forth. Looking at an ork truk, a dark eldar raider, or even a wave serpent with its engine... things exposed all over the place, it seems like you should be able to pop tires, attack crew, or otherwise mess with some of the exposed bits. Such an approach should be waaaay less efficient than using anti-tank weaponry. And it is.

Mechanically, it's not about punching 10 wounds off of a rhino with gretchin. It's about letting the gretching take the first couple or last couple of wounds off of the rhino. If a large portion of your army is small arms fire, then you probably have enough shots/attacks to contribute meaningfully to the death of an enemy vehicles. I definitely don't expect my splinter and shuriken weapons to take down a tank on their own, but they might take the last wound or two that a flubbed bright lance damage roll couldn't.

Or just add +1 or take -1 from the save for the third S/triple S attacks. Wound roll is the same as before. Not automatic, but drops the odds further each way.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Pretty simple: Add the following to the wound chart:

Strength is three times (or more) the Toughness-Automatic Wound
Strength is twice (or more) the Toughness-2+
Strength is greater than Toughness-3+
Strength is equal to Toughness-4+
Strength is less than Toughness, but more than half-5+
Strength is half the Toughness, but more than one third-6+
Strength is one third (or less) Toughness-Cannot Wound

I approve.
The only ...."complaint" I have with it is that, as you said, it only applies is such rare situations that it kinda seems pointless

And for those griping about the "automatic wounding", I mean come on. If a Lascannon hits a Guardman, that should be a DEAD Guardsman. And it's still FAR from "automatic" since you would still have to hit and the might be cover or Invuls available (even a model with 4+ armour in cover gets a 6+ save against a Lascannon)
But since the point is this change is more to prevent small things harming big things, we could drop the "Str = 3x or more = Auto wound" part of this proposal and ONLY add the following:

"If the Toughness of the target is 3x or more the Strength of the Attacker's weapon(s), the attack cannot wound despite the chart" or something like that

-

Well, I agree with JNA.

But I have questions - What about FnP and Invuln saves? Can my Company Commander still shrug off getting punched by a Gallant?

Can those plague zombie things still shrug off hits from the battle cannon?

I personally think this is a great idea, and would love to house rule this in future games. It would really speed up stupid things.

FNP and Invulns are not affected by this change.

 JNAProductions wrote:
FNP and Invulns are not affected by this change.

Exactly why even "automatic" wounds are not "automatic". Most still have to hit and FNP and Invuls will still work

-

Ok, so the Lascannon hitting the GEQ should be a dead GEQ argument is gone, because a (?) Plague bearer(?) is basically a GEQ, and would be able to shrug off this lascannon hit. Which doesn't make any sense.

Whether or not he feels it, the GEQ with FNP getting hit in the face point blank by the multi-melta shouldn't matter when his shadow gets burned into the ground.

FNP is a dumb mechanic meant to prop up weak and chaff units.

Plague Bearers are T4 with a Daemon save.

And they have less than 1/50 chance of surviving an unsaved wound from a lascannon

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, so the Lascannon hitting the GEQ should be a dead GEQ argument is gone, because a (?) Plague bearer(?) is basically a GEQ, and would be able to shrug off this lascannon hit. Which doesn't make any sense.

Whether or not he feels it, the GEQ with FNP getting hit in the face point blank by the multi-melta shouldn't matter when his shadow gets burned into the ground.

FNP is a dumb mechanic meant to prop up weak and chaff units.

Politely disagree. That plague bearer is a daemon. The lascannon being powerful doesn't mean a lot if its beam transforms into snowflakes on contact with the plague bearer. A daemon save isn't a force field or a measure of supernatural toughness. It's the laws of physics simply not working consistently. Sure, you blasted the plague bearer's head off, but that only matters if the daemon and his ectoplasm remember that having a head is important to being able to move around for some reason. You're shooting at something that operates on metaphor more than on physics and biology.

As for being meant to prop up chaff units, well, yes. The durability buff is meant to buff durability. I'd argue it's pretty decent at that job though. Because FNP is typically only a 6+ or, more rarely, a 5+, it's unlikely that a single wound model will survive a failed save attached to multiple points of damage. So having FNP 6+ will matter for every 6 models you'd normally lose to bolters, but it will only matter to 1 in 36 models that you lose to a 2 damage weapon. Which makes it pretty OK against small armies fire and pretty bad against things like multi meltas and battle cannons. Seems reasonable to me on paper.