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.

A follow-up alternative to this thread. This revised wound/damage system would see players:
1. Roll hits as normal.
2. Take saves (bringing this step forward in the roll order).
3. Roll wounds. A failed wound roll would deal half-damage (rounding down), rather than zero damage.

Example: a Leman Russ Exterminator inflicts three unsaved Autocannon hits (Strength 9, Damage 3) on a unit of Genestealers (Toughness 4, Wounds 2). Two of the three wound rolls succeed, inflicting 3 damage apiece and killing two Genestealers. The third roll fails, dealing 1 damage (3 halved, rounding down) and reducing a third Genestealer to 1 wound.

Such a change would simultaneously make higher-damage weapons more consistent (in terms of their ability to poke damage through) and dynamic (in terms of the variety of outcomes they could have; a weapon's Damage characteristic would become its maximum value, not its only value).
· E.g., at the moment, a Damage 2 Heavy Bolter cannot partially wound MEQs. It can only (a) instakill them or (b) fail to do any damage entirely… 0 OR 2 damage per hit – no in-between.
· With the new system, Heavy Bolter hits would be able to inflict 1 wound as an intermediate outcome (dynamicism), and nil damage would become less likely (consistency).

This change would also make higher-damage weapons more deadly against lower-Toughness/Wounds models (as they should be IMO), by mitigating the 'wound bottleneck' on such weapons.
· E.g., at the moment, I could literally fire a Strength 24, Damage 12 Volcano Cannon at a Toughness 2 Gretchin... and upon hitting, still do absolutely nothing 16.67% of the time.
· This bottlenecking might make sense with saves, which represent a fairly binary outcome (the model either successfully blocks/evades an attack… or it doesn’t) but not really with wounds.
· With the new system, that Volcano Cannon would deal 6 damage on a failed Wound roll. Anything with less than 7 wounds that fails a save against it is vapour.

All this would occur without the addition of any extra steps during combat resolution.

Noting:
· This would obviously make multi-Damage weapons more powerful, especially against high-Toughness targets – more so than the idea in the previous thread would. However it's much simpler mechanically.
· Reordering save and wound rolls could impact some current rules, like 'lethal hits'. In playtesting we haven't found it too unmanageable though – just split the dice pool for saves (lethal hits vs other hits). Any of the former that get through deal full damage without the need for wound rolls.
I picture any major revisions to damage mechanics being made in the context of a larger rules overhaul anyway.

This would also work well with the sub-idea of making any D3 and D6 value in a weapon's Damage attribute a 2 or 4 respectively (or other appropriate values). In tandem with the above, this would further reduce weapon swinginess while keeping some degree of damage randomisation. It would also enable more tailored weapons (D3s and D6s aren’t exactly great for fine-tuning things) and make combat resolution simpler (no need to roll separately for damage).

Example: a Meltagun is currently Damage D6/D6+2 and needs a 5+ to wound most of its typical targets. As a result, it’s very hit-and-miss with its 1 attack.
· With this change, the Meltagun's Damage D6/D6+2 would instead become Damage 4/6.
· It would do a minimum of 2 damage (4 if within half-range) per unsaved hit (as opposed to now, when all damage is contingent on it passing that single improbable wound roll).
· Same story with something like the Rupture Cannon (aka the 'casino gun') and its extremely swingy Damage 2D6, which would instead become Damage 8 and do a minimum of 4 damage per unsaved hit.

Note that this would also reduce maximum damage. So while it would result in fewer ‘feels bad’ moments where your Damage 2D6 Rupture Cannon successfully hits, penetrates, and then rolls snake eyes… if that Rupture Cannon became Damage 8, you’d also lose that remote chance of one-shotting an enemy vehicle with 9-12 wounds. Whether or not this change seems worth it probably comes down to personal preference.

Any feedback or better ideas?

The issue is Heavy Bolters and other medium weapons with D2 against high Toughness models.

Currently, to take down a T12 3+ W16 Repulsor, you'd need to score 96 Heavy Bolter hits.
Under your change, you'd need less than 30.

With or without the changes from the other thread, this would result in the game being a lot more lethal, right? Something like a heavy bolter or splinter cannon would functionally never fail to wound, and W1 models exist. So for every 3 (unsaved) hits in your system, such a weapon would go from killing 2 guardsmen/gaunts/guardians to killing 3 instead; a 50% increase in lethality. And this is in the context of weapons that (in 10th) wound on a 3+; not a 2+.

Is increased lethality one of your design goals? In the context of 40k, I believe lethality is generally considered to be higher than ideal already.

Yeah, um, like, no way, man. The game is ridiculously lethal and borderline unfun now. And you want to make it more deadly? We’re lucky if we go 3-4 turns without someone being tabled, and you want to make it one or two? No thanks.