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'm sure this has been asked before but why isn't it like this?

I've thought about this before but it seems more interactive if it was ordered different. First player rolls to hit getting X, second player rolls armour saves giving the failed ones to the first to see if they wound. It seems more organized and thematic since the shots that actually get through the armour are the ones capable of actually wounding.

I roll, you roll, I roll again. Instead of I roll twice then you roll in response. There's more back and forth

I don't see anything glaringly different. Is there a major impact in math if any? I would like to know why if there's any reason it's like this other than because it's always been this way. I'd also like to hear what you guys think too

It's an abstraction, one way doesn't necessarily make any more sense than any other way. There is no logic to it. The mathematical effect would be to bork effects that give extra AP depending on the wound roll (shuriken weapons) and to make effects that modify the wound roll slightly worse since they fix fewer dice.

GW has mentioned in the past that it is the way that it is so that the owning player has the final dice roll that determines the fate of the minis in question.

I forgot when damage gets rolled in 8th and 9th but with previous editions the flow for resolving shooting/melee attacks was basically counting how many attacks are being made, roll to hit, remove misses and roll to wound, count the number of wounding and your opponent rolls saves (be it armor, cover invuln, FNP, etc). There is only 1 transferring of dice if sharing dice or if each are rolling their own then your opponent is only having to gather dice once for rolling.

If you went hit, save, wound then your having to gather dice then roll to hit, remove misses and hand/tell your opponent how many saves to make, roll for then remove successful saves and hand/tell your opponent how many wounds to make, roll to wound and remove failed wounds. This way requires more back and forth between the players which adds time (even if your playing fast and it adds only a second or two, it's going to add up over the course of the game). When not sharing dice the opponent is going to have to count out a lot more dice to save vs saving after wounding where the number of saves required is thinned down some.

From a sequencing standpoint, you roll the fewest dice if you do it in order of least likely to succeed -> most likely to succeed. So strictly speaking in a game where the most common army (Marines) is more likely to pass their saves than they are to be wounded, this ordering is a slight advantage in speed.

But if you really wanted to speed it up, get rid of the handoff. Roll to hit, roll to pierce armor, roll to wound, inform your opponent of how many wounds they take. There's no actual interaction or player agency in rolling saves anyways, and I can't recall ever particularly hearing 'I don't get to roll dice to avoid taking damage' to be a complaint about Epic, Aeronautica, BFG, or any of the other wargames on the market where only one player performs attack resolution.

The order never bothered me. I always imagined wound rolls to be asking the player “can this model handle the hit if the following save fails?” or the save roll kinda of being like an “OH BUT WAIT” type of thing.The order is kinda weird but i don’t imagine the rolls being in chronological order but rather just a report of the events that had occurred once a hit was landed

This bothered me for quite a while, until it hit me (so to speak): the wound roll isn't necessarily there to represent whether the shot has actually hurt the target, it's simply whether the placement of the shot would hurt the target. It's only necessary to roll saves against shots that actually matter.

Put another way, think of the roll "to hit" and "to wound" as both determining the aim of your shot. A roll "to hit" determines roughly whether the target has been hit and a roll "to wound" determines specifically where the target has been hit, and therefore whether it's necessary at all to see if the shot has penetrated the armour.

For example, if you were to shoot at an Ork with a lasgun and hit it in the leg, it's pretty safe to say that the shot - at least at this scale - has done nothing to reduce its combat effectiveness, regardless of whether the shot penetrated the armour or not, so making a saving throw would be irrelevant. It would be easier to land an effective shot against a Guardsman (hitting one in the leg could very well take them out of the fight), so the roll to wound is easier and the saving throw more relevant.

 Cheex wrote:
This bothered me for quite a while, until it hit me (so to speak): the wound roll isn't necessarily there to represent whether the shot has actually hurt the target, it's simply whether the placement of the shot would hurt the target. It's only necessary to roll saves against shots that actually matter.

Put another way, think of the roll "to hit" and "to wound" as both determining the aim of your shot. A roll "to hit" determines roughly whether the target has been hit and a roll "to wound" determines specifically where the target has been hit, and therefore whether it's necessary at all to see if the shot has penetrated the armour.

For example, if you were to shoot at an Ork with a lasgun and hit it in the leg, it's pretty safe to say that the shot - at least at this scale - has done nothing to reduce its combat effectiveness, regardless of whether the shot penetrated the armour or not, so making a saving throw would be irrelevant. It would be easier to land an effective shot against a Guardsman (hitting one in the leg could very well take them out of the fight), so the roll to wound is easier and the saving throw more relevant.

Sort of my headcanon as well. A successful to-hit roll means you hit the area covered by the base, which may mean you might have hit the model itself. A failed to-hit is a clean miss. The to-wound roll covers whether it was a solid enough hit to cause a wound serious enough to remove a Wound, or enough to incapacitate 1 Wound models. A failed to-wound roll means a glancing hit like a grazing lasgun wound or minor non-incapacitating flesh wound, or for more lethal weapons, maybe that lascannon shot zapped the ground next to its foot or that krak missile zipped past its head.

Of course that is my rationalization. Back in 2nd edition, I had the same thoughts of why not do the order of saves "moving inward" so things like dodge saves, then field saves, then armor saves, then finally to-wound roll. In 2nd edition it was possible to stack saves, and things like conversion fields could have other triggered effects if they made the save.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm sure this has been asked before but why isn't it like this?

I've thought about this before but it seems more interactive if it was ordered different. First player rolls to hit getting X, second player rolls armour saves giving the failed ones to the first to see if they wound. It seems more organized and thematic since the shots that actually get through the armour are the ones capable of actually wounding.

I roll, you roll, I roll again. Instead of I roll twice then you roll in response. There's more back and forth

I don't see anything glaringly different. Is there a major impact in math if any? I would like to know why if there's any reason it's like this other than because it's always been this way. I'd also like to hear what you guys think too

This gets pitched in the Proposed Rules section from time to time. I'm personally not a fan mostly because there's a tiny amount of extra effort/time that goes into having players build fresh dice pools from a pile rather than scooping up the "keepers" from the pool you just rolled. Basically, it's slightly faster and easier for the attacker to roll to-hit and then immediately scoop up and roll successes than for him to wait for his opponent to build a dice pool containing the number of successes he verbally indicates and then building his own pool of dice based on his opponent's verbally indicated number of successful save rolls.

Also, you have rules like shuriken weapons and blade artists that currently modify the number of successful saves the defender rolls, so you'd have to make changes to accommodate a seemingly simple change to the order of operations. At which point you're creating work for yourself just to end up back where you started. (Or slightly worse off for the reasons mentioned above.)

But you're definitely not alone in finding the current order of operations weird. As Rake said, it's an abstraction. My assault 2 weapon is firing hundreds of projectiles; not just two. Marines don't always die after exactly two lasgun shots get through their armor. Failing morale tests doesn't necessarily mean your dudes freaked out and ran away screaming. Just one of those little things to make the game run smoother.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm sure this has been asked before but why isn't it like this?

It has zero impact on result but slows game down. You think games going too fast?

It's easier to roll successes and then count how many opponent needs to roll than roll, count, roll, count, roll.

Unless one player rolls all rolls it's faster this way

 catbarf wrote:
There's no actual interaction or player agency in rolling saves anyways, and I can't recall ever particularly hearing 'I don't get to roll dice to avoid taking damage' to be a complaint about Epic, Aeronautica, BFG, or any of the other wargames on the market where only one player performs attack resolution.

What?

Epic has saves aplenty as a key part of the game (setting up crossfires, maneuvering Titankiller weapons to ignore reinforced armour, digging the infantry in to reliable cover) and those saves are rolled in normal GW fashion. There isn't much agency in the roll itself, but setting it up by favorable maneuver has. In Armageddon, one could argue that there is some agency in aircraft jinking, because the player often has to decide do they jink for a better save but abort the ground attack run as their planes are facing flak fire.

In BFG there absolutely is agency in declaring Brace for Impact, which allows the controller to roll avoiding damage at the cost of half-strength weapons and no special orders next turn. You don't always want to do it, sometimes it's critical to do so, but it's always a meaningful player choice.

Its this way because you always get a wound roll, but frequently dont get an armor roll. Also yes I know in previous additions you could fail to wound even on a 6.

Makes sense for speeding up the game, instead of bouncing back and forth which each set of dice rolls. Also, it's nice for the owning player to control the fait of their models with the final roll.

 Sherrypie wrote:
What?

Epic has saves aplenty as a key part of the game (setting up crossfires, maneuvering Titankiller weapons to ignore reinforced armour, digging the infantry in to reliable cover) and those saves are rolled in normal GW fashion. There isn't much agency in the roll itself, but setting it up by favorable maneuver has. In Armageddon, one could argue that there is some agency in aircraft jinking, because the player often has to decide do they jink for a better save but abort the ground attack run as their planes are facing flak fire.

Sorry, crossed a wire, wrong game.

 Sherrypie wrote:
In BFG there absolutely is agency in declaring Brace for Impact, which allows the controller to roll avoiding damage at the cost of half-strength weapons and no special orders next turn. You don't always want to do it, sometimes it's critical to do so, but it's always a meaningful player choice.

That's the perfect example of doing a 'save' mechanic right, but it's not like 40K's saves, which is what I'm talking about.

40K has you mindlessly roll saves against every bit of incoming damage. The extent of your agency is being allowed to burn a CP to re-roll a die. That's it. Otherwise you're just the person assigned to roll the dice, and it could just as easily be done by the attacker.

BFG gives you the option to Brace For Impact, providing a substantial defensive bonus at the cost of later actions. That's a much more involved bit of decision-making, since you choose to do so before the results of the attack are known. If you don't BFI, you don't get special saves. Your ships get blown up without you having the 'final say', as they put it. And it's really not a big deal at all.

If 40K were to roll armor penetration into the 'active player' attack resolution sequence and implement reactive decision-making besides stratagems, both reducing the number of dice handoffs and increasing player agency within the IGOUGO structure, I'd call that a big win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jaredb wrote:
Makes sense for speeding up the game, instead of bouncing back and forth which each set of dice rolls. Also, it's nice for the owning player to control the fait of their models with the final roll.

If you really want the owning player to control the fate of their models, have them do the wound roll. I don't get to control anything when Sv5+ Guardsmen are hit by AP-2 Bolt Rifles.

(I don't actually control anything even when I do get the roll, either, but at least this would be more frequent, if that's your goal)

It might be better to talk about engagement or participation rather than agency with most mechanics like this, if there are no decisions to be made after a sequence starts. I'd wager most players in the GW sphere enjoy the tactile act of rolling some dice even if the act itself makes zero mathematical difference to the outcome with respect to who does it.

Agency tends to come through better if there's something you can do before the sequence starts. If you made a decision to stand in cover or in the open, if you had resources to allocate and decided to prioritize one unit over the one now being shot at or if there was sufficient maneuvering to try and mitigate what's going to be attacked by the other guy. 40k as written suffers in all of these regards. The current stratagem system kind of allows one to have decision points along the way, should their force have tricks like Transhuman Physiology and such to play, but in a rather bolted-on manner that fails to reach deep in the pool of interesting gameplay.

Edit: thinking about it, the new Mechanicus book has the option for Skitarii to cut down their movement but increase their saves. Using such "stance" mechanics in general could be one way to inject more player choice in 40k over the reactive "you activated my trap card" style the stratagems provide.

 Sherrypie wrote:
It might be better to talk about engagement or participation rather than agency with most mechanics like this, if there are no decisions to be made after a sequence starts.

That's exactly it. The current save system doesn't afford any player agency; it's just some degree of participation- which is a big red flag for the system having serious interactivity issues. You don't need bare-bones roll-the-dice participation in a game where you either have major decisions to make during your opponent's turn (eg Infinity's reaction system, or BFG's Brace For Impact + strike craft moving in both turns) or if the impulses are short enough that it'll be your turn again shortly (eg anything with alternating activation).

Stance mechanics provide greater interaction with the battlefield, but are still decisions made in your own turn, rather than reactions made to evolving circumstances during your opponent's turn. The elegance of BFG's brace for impact (or similar 'go to ground' mechanics in other games) is that you are able to make an immediate response at the cost of significant activity later- ceding initiative to mitigate immediate damage. There's a trade-off there that wouldn't exist if you were making the decision during your prior turn. I'd love to see a reaction system in which units can take immediate actions now in exchange for loss of actions later. Something like make an immediate move (maybe to break LOS or get out of range), or return fire (simultaneously with the attacking unit), or go to ground (significantly increased durability), all in exchange for doing nothing in your next turn.

Point being that participation for participation's sake is bad design, especially when it slows down the game. Decisions from player agency should provide sufficient player participation, and if those don't exist, that should be rectified. Give the player at least the option to do something meaningful when they're getting shot, and then it's really not a problem if the active player is the one doing all the rolling.

Agreed, the ability to do something right now with a price of doing dramatically less later on is a great decision point in games.

The point in stance mechanics is that they would design philosophically fit in with the IGOUGO structure, if changing that isn't in the cards. The agency comes from setting up a game state, posing dramatically and letting the opponent deal with it while a full blown reactionary system is already so much closer to AA you might just make the switch to save yourself the trouble. A well made IGOUGO game is setting up a puzzle for the opponent, mitigating your losses and setting traps. 40k... is not that.

 catbarf wrote:
From a sequencing standpoint, you roll the fewest dice if you do it in order of least likely to succeed -> most likely to succeed. So strictly speaking in a game where the most common army (Marines) is more likely to pass their saves than they are to be wounded, this ordering is a slight advantage in speed.

But if you really wanted to speed it up, get rid of the handoff. Roll to hit, roll to pierce armor, roll to wound, inform your opponent of how many wounds they take. There's no actual interaction or player agency in rolling saves anyways, and I can't recall ever particularly hearing 'I don't get to roll dice to avoid taking damage' to be a complaint about Epic, Aeronautica, BFG, or any of the other wargames on the market where only one player performs attack resolution.

True. Game would need to move to d10 to get rid of saves though. Rolling 2-6 as successes doesn'' get enough granalirity. Same reason you have separate to hit and to wound rolls as well.

tneva82 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
From a sequencing standpoint, you roll the fewest dice if you do it in order of least likely to succeed -> most likely to succeed. So strictly speaking in a game where the most common army (Marines) is more likely to pass their saves than they are to be wounded, this ordering is a slight advantage in speed.

But if you really wanted to speed it up, get rid of the handoff. Roll to hit, roll to pierce armor, roll to wound, inform your opponent of how many wounds they take. There's no actual interaction or player agency in rolling saves anyways, and I can't recall ever particularly hearing 'I don't get to roll dice to avoid taking damage' to be a complaint about Epic, Aeronautica, BFG, or any of the other wargames on the market where only one player performs attack resolution.

True. Game would need to move to d10 to get rid of saves though. Rolling 2-6 as successes doesn'' get enough granalirity. Same reason you have separate to hit and to wound rolls as well.

This is why I want to see attacker stat vs. defender stat to determine the minimum number for success. With allowance for for impossible success if the difference between the two is great enough.

tneva82 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
From a sequencing standpoint, you roll the fewest dice if you do it in order of least likely to succeed -> most likely to succeed. So strictly speaking in a game where the most common army (Marines) is more likely to pass their saves than they are to be wounded, this ordering is a slight advantage in speed.

But if you really wanted to speed it up, get rid of the handoff. Roll to hit, roll to pierce armor, roll to wound, inform your opponent of how many wounds they take. There's no actual interaction or player agency in rolling saves anyways, and I can't recall ever particularly hearing 'I don't get to roll dice to avoid taking damage' to be a complaint about Epic, Aeronautica, BFG, or any of the other wargames on the market where only one player performs attack resolution.

True. Game would need to move to d10 to get rid of saves though. Rolling 2-6 as successes doesn'' get enough granalirity. Same reason you have separate to hit and to wound rolls as well.

Compared to the current system it would be faster to just have the attacker roll armor penetration, since picking up successes and then rolling to wound is faster than counting successes and passing off to the opponent, while keeping the mechanics the same. Just replace a 3+ save with a 5+ to penetrate armor and so on.

But if we're talking radical overhauls, moving to a D12 as Apocalypse did would facilitate rolling armor into wounding.

Chain of Command bundles armor and "to wound" into a single roll, done by the defender.

Attacker: "I have X hits."
Defender: *Rolls X saves, which are influenced by the durability of the unit AND the armor of the unit*
Defender: *Allocates casualties and incurred Shock based on the results - or rolls on a vehicle damage table if it's a tank depending on how badly they failed*

I think that's a better system.

The line between "toughness" and "armour" is blurred to non-existent in 40k.
Why is a Terminator T4/2+ when Gravis is T5/3+? I can't think of any thematic justification behind those stats, only creating arbitrary gameplay variation.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think that's a better system.

The line between "toughness" and "armour" is blurred to non-existent in 40k.
Why is a Terminator T4/2+ when Gravis is T5/3+? I can't think of any thematic justification behind those stats, only creating arbitrary gameplay variation.

To be fair, CoC is a World War 2 game, so the "degrees of difference" are much smaller than in 40k, and the "durability" of a unit comes mostly from terrain modifiers rather than armor protection (unless it's a tank, though the system for tanks is similar but not identical).

That said, sometimes I think that (as you point out) a lot of 40k units are a distinction without a difference (or with such a tiny difference that we shouldn't probably be worrying about it).

The fewer Hand-offs the better. It's a core function of the game that you will be doing multiple times. CP Rerolls also inject player agency (although in an obtrusive and inelegant manner) into the Hits/Saves/Wounds for both players.

Vilehydra wrote:
CP Rerolls also inject player agency (although in an obtrusive and inelegant manner) into the Hits/Saves/Wounds for both players.

In an inconsistent and unintuitive way, I'd point out. I can burn CP to re-roll a failed armor save, but not to force a re-roll of a successful wound. It's essentially arbitrary who has the power to re-roll which tests.

On the topic of active defensive decisions, anyone else kind of miss the old Go to Ground and Jink mechanics?

For those not in the know, you basically had the option, when your opponent declared a ranged attack against you, to improve your save (GtGround) or give your vehicles a 4+ save that ignored AP (Jink; this was back when vehicles didn't have armor saves). But the downside was that GtG units couldn't move or declare charges on their next turn, and both GtG and Jinking units were basically treated as BS 6+ on the following turn.

Both were pretty satisfying mechanics. Some units were unlikely to utilize GtG because taking away movement and shooting was too high a price for the protection it offered, but units like guardsmen whose job is just to score objectives got a lot out of it.

I wonder if reintroducing one or both of these would be game breaking. Jink seems like it has actually lost some value now that vehicles have armor saves, though you could maybe translate it into an invul save or a to-hit modifier. GtG may be a bit too good on units that already have ways of stacking up save bonuses. Both seem like they could probably replace stratagems in certain books. (Jink replacing Lightning Fast Reactions, for instance.)