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 propose stacking saves.

To make that work, other changes are needed. Reductions to Cover and Armor Save Modifiers are necessary, or killing things would be nigh impossible.

Yes, it'll slow down the game. But it'll make things better! I feel that a 1500pt game this way would be more interesting than a 2k game stock.

Specific rules:
Saves are taken in series. First Cover, then Armor, then Invuln.

Rerolls:
-Any rerolls that specify a save type only affect that save type. Any save that doesn't may only affect one save type.
-Any reroll of a 2+ is rerolled as a 4+.

Cover Rules:
-Base cover is all reduced by one. Thus, ruins are a base 5+, debris/woods are 6+.
-Jink is now a 5+ base
-Shrouding is now just a +1 cover save (still stacks with Stealth)

Stacking Cover buffs is already insane. With stacked saves, armored targets would be impossible to kill in cover. Without stacked saves, armored targets get no bonus from cover unless the weapon outright ignores their armor. I think these reductions would make sense.

Armor Saves:
-1+ Armor Saves are possible. Note that a '1' still fails any save.
AP values are replaced with Armor Save Modifiers (ASMs).
AP/ASM
- / 0
6 / 0
5. / 1
4. / 2
3. / 3
2. / 4
1. / 5

This will make an Autocannon more deadly to Marines than a Scatter Laser, but not as deadly as a Krak missile. And a Krak missile does something more to Termies than an Autocannon, but not as deadly as a Melta Gun. All that AP4 will matter so very much more.

Also, with modifiers, perhaps some things should have the option of a 1+. What gets it would be a different balancing task.

Invulns:
-Cannot be *modified* into a 2++. Anything better is modified to a 3++.

Wargear that is specifically a 2++ is supposed to be freaking awesome and quite costly. Modifiers creating a 2++ is generally a rules oversight.

With the above changes, there would be some balance concerns, but I think play would be a lot more dynamic and interesting. Much of it would need to be iterated on, and some units would need changes to fit properly. But I think it'd be worth it.

Last thought -
If we went this route, we could rework the Pen effects in an interesting manner. What if:
For all pens:
Roll d6 + the ASM - remaining HP. Anything 0 or less is just a HP. Otherwise, consult the (6E) pen effect table.

That'd make Pen effects scale more smoothly with both weapon AP and how damaged the vehicle is already. And Superheavies would no longer need to use different Pen rules (Go ahead, try to Explodes! a Titan...).

Its interesting, reminded me of something I was tossing around a long time ago.... I'll see if I can dig that thread up for you....

Biggest problem is that a lot of things will need to be recosted or have special rules adjusted, so implementing a system like this would take some major work and it wouldn't be a smooth process.

Here you go

Same general concept.

I do love the idea of cover affecting BS, but there are a lot of complexities ("That one guy in the back is behind a fortified age is! You hit on 6s for the whole unit", majority-saves, blasts not caring much about BS, etc). I don't see that as being a near-term solution.

The above isn't intended to be part of Zagman's Erratta. That is an awesome project attempting good balance via minimalistic codified changes. I hope it does well.

This is more something to toy around with. If it gathered steam, some rebalancing would be needed. But I think if you took two "regular" lists (not specifically chosen for this rulesset) and set them head-to-head, it'd usually be a fun, and rather balanced, game.

This looks like an early version of what I've been testing for my own ruleset for a while now, so i figured i'd post about some of the problems i ran into using this.
--------------------------------
1) Making AP(5) into a -1 modifier brings back the problems I heard 2nd edition had, in that armor is a lot less useful. Marines would be getting a 4+ against almost every weapon in the game, making almost any model that pays for a save feel like wasted effort.

Instead, I made AP(5) have no modifier value, adjusted the scale down accordingly, and made almost anything worse than AP(5) treat any model with an armor value as having a save 1 higher, to a maximum of a 4+. This helps make 6+ and 5+ saves worthwhile against the weapons they're meant to protect against, such as IG flak armor vs frag missiles.
---------------------------------
2) Having all AP(4) weapons be a -2 modifier is absolutely lethal, since so many weapons with AP(4) are easily available and typically have a high RoF. Heavy Bolters, one of the most ubiquitous heavy weapons in the game, would cut a Marine's survivability in half, and triple the chance of a wound against a 2+ save model under these rules, which seems extreme for an anti-infantry weapon designed for hordes.

I split AP(4) into two categories, with weapons of Strength 7 or above getting the -2 modifier, and weapons with Strength 6 or below getting a -1 modifier. This keeps the weapons with higher RoF from being too deadly against well armored models, while letting the more anti-armor weapons like autocannons still pack a punch. This does make 4+ armor far more survivable against " Light AP(4)" weapons than it currently is, and I'm still deciding what to do about that.
---------------------------------
3) Letting models stack all their saves makes killing models nearly impossible. I can give an Assault Terminator squad an Apothecary and put them in cover, and they'll get a 2+ armor save, followed by a 3+ Invulnerable save, followed by a 5+ cover save, followed by a 5+ FnP. You would need 40 wounds to kill one of those terminators, and even with armor modifiers, that's still at best 6.75 wounds per kill.

Instead, let any model make only 2 saves from a selection of Armor, FnP, Invulnerable, and Cover. This helps to keep models from being nearly invulnerable, and also to keep models from hugging cover too much. For example, Necrons have good armor saves as well as FnP, so cover doesn't do much for them. This means they can march across the battlefield the way they do in the fluff without experiencing the massive losses an IG or Ork player would have attempting the same tactic.

I think the easiest fix is to make cover -1 to BS. Everyone benefits from cover this way without adding more rolling. I do like the Ap modified system you propose.

To the second poster's point, literally every proposed rule change would alter the points balance, I think that goes without saying in this forum.

I have mentioned this before.It really is easy to do, but hard to explain.

1)Cover makes the target harder to hit.(-1 BS.)Is such a good Idea why GW do not use it is beyond my comprehension.

2) This next idea would need AP values to be re adjusted , along with PV.

The AP value of the weapon ignores the save rolls of that value or higher,

EG an AP 6 Weapon ignores all save rolls of 6.
AP 4 weapon ignores all save rolls of 4,5 or 6,

Invun saves ignore the effect of weapon AP equal or higher to the Inv save number.

Eg a Termi save 2+ 5++.
Is hit by an AP 3 weapon.
It has normal save of roll 2,(rolls of 3 ,4,5,6,are ignored by AP 3)
And a inv save of 5 or 6.
So saves on the roll of 2,5,or 6.

Just roll saves as normal and discard save dice equal or higher than weapon AP value,(ignore weapon AP equal or higher than inv save.)

No adding or subtracting just using the stat values directly.
I may need to explain that better?

Lanark,
That solution would be quite interesting and would math out similarly. Unfortunately, it has a few difficult points (reroll Armor Saves of 6 becomes a good thing!). At the forefront, of does seem simpler, but in implementation, I think you lose about as much as you gained. So I roll my save, pick up all 2s and lower. And 5s and higher. Thinking about guiding a new player through it seems simple at first glance, but less so the more I think of it.

And we lose the "Boyah! Six!" feel we currently have watching the dice come up on a critical save.

It'd work. I don't think it'd work as well as armor save modifiers, though. Good idea, I think, but not as good as modifiers all told.

Ravern,
I could see that the table could possibly be off. And the idea of *positive* modifiers feels... right. A little rough around the edges (if you have no armor save, dk you now get a 6+? I could see that going either way), but certainly worth considering. Possibly doing.

As for the scale needing to split the modifiers for the same weapons, that could be done in any further balancing (much like assigning a 1+ save). Handling it with a blanket rule right now seems... overly broad.

As for the twin problems of ASMs making things too squishy and stacked saves making things too tough, I'm thinking they'll help balance eachother out. A THSS Termie squad in ruins should be hard to kill with Lasguns (5+/2+/5+ under these suggestions).

Not perfect, certainly. But interesting and, I think, fun.

Rav1rn wrote:
This looks like an early version of what I've been testing for my own ruleset for a while now, so i figured i'd post about some of the problems i ran into using this.
--------------------------------
1) Making AP(5) into a -1 modifier brings back the problems I heard 2nd edition had, in that armor is a lot less useful. Marines would be getting a 4+ against almost every weapon in the game, making almost any model that pays for a save feel like wasted effort.

Instead, I made AP(5) have no modifier value, adjusted the scale down accordingly, and made almost anything worse than AP(5) treat any model with an armor value as having a save 1 higher, to a maximum of a 4+. This helps make 6+ and 5+ saves worthwhile against the weapons they're meant to protect against, such as IG flak armor vs frag missiles.
---------------------------------
2) Having all AP(4) weapons be a -2 modifier is absolutely lethal, since so many weapons with AP(4) are easily available and typically have a high RoF. Heavy Bolters, one of the most ubiquitous heavy weapons in the game, would cut a Marine's survivability in half, and triple the chance of a wound against a 2+ save model under these rules, which seems extreme for an anti-infantry weapon designed for hordes.

I split AP(4) into two categories, with weapons of Strength 7 or above getting the -2 modifier, and weapons with Strength 6 or below getting a -1 modifier. This keeps the weapons with higher RoF from being too deadly against well armored models, while letting the more anti-armor weapons like autocannons still pack a punch. This does make 4+ armor far more survivable against " Light AP(4)" weapons than it currently is, and I'm still deciding what to do about that.
---------------------------------
3) Letting models stack all their saves makes killing models nearly impossible. I can give an Assault Terminator squad an Apothecary and put them in cover, and they'll get a 2+ armor save, followed by a 3+ Invulnerable save, followed by a 5+ cover save, followed by a 5+ FnP. You would need 40 wounds to kill one of those terminators, and even with armor modifiers, that's still at best 6.75 wounds per kill.

Instead, let any model make only 2 saves from a selection of Armor, FnP, Invulnerable, and Cover. This helps to keep models from being nearly invulnerable, and also to keep models from hugging cover too much. For example, Necrons have good armor saves as well as FnP, so cover doesn't do much for them. This means they can march across the battlefield the way they do in the fluff without experiencing the massive losses an IG or Ork player would have attempting the same tactic.

I think the Ap modifiers would have to be a bit more conservative, eg:

Ap -/6/5 have no effect, and ultimately just become Ap -
Ap 4 becomes -1
Ap 3 becomes -2
Ap 2 becomes -3
Ap 1 becomes -4

So you're not really penetrating any armor until you get to Ap 4, and even then it's only reducing saves by 1. Marines would still get 5+ saves against Ap 3 and even 6+ saves against Ap 2. This makes armor less of an all-or-nothing situation. In some cases this is very detrimental, in others it's very beneficial. Some weapons would have to get an upgrade, e.g. bolters and pulse rifles would likely get the -1 modifiers, splinter rifles and shurieken catapults wouldn't.

An additional fix for vehicles, you flip the sign on the modifier and change the vehicle damage table to be 1-8, where 1 is just a glancing hit. So Ap -/6/5 are unable to penetrate vehicles, Ap 4 can't explode vehicles, and Ap 3/2/1 all get a buff to vehicle penetration.

I like the idea of +1 for AP6, that fixes the issue I had when trying to develop similar rules.

Something else basic that I thought of, which might remove the need for *extensive* rebalancing for armour was for APX to force re-rolls of armour saves of X. AP3 means that 4+/5+/6+ are straight up negated, 3+ is rerolled if successful.

Cuz a lot of the issues I see with saves was to do with blasts and high RoF that matched the armour save of the target. 4+ dying to RoF, 3+ dying to heldrakes, 2+ dying to countless AP2 blasts etc. In contrast nobody minded that marines died to plasma blasts, terminators to melta shots, or 4+ saves to heldrakes

TheSilo,
Power Armor shouldn't get a 5+ against AP3 weapons, such as Krak missiles. A 6+ is OK, I think, but AP4/5 should matter.

Dakkamite,
Doing that just moves the goalpost, and makes armor much, much stronger. Rerolling 3+'s against Krak missiles? Rerolling Riptide's 2+ against Plasma? I think it would just move the goalpost.

If you want o use save modifiers tied to AP values.
Use No AP value no modifier,AP6 -1,AP5-.2.AP4-3,AP3-4,AP3-5, AP2-6.

AND THEN CHANGE THE AP VALUES ACCORDINGLY.
Any different system to the current one will need values and PV changing anyway!.

An idea I've been throwing around as an overhaul for Saves is to combine the saves into one. The new system would start at 1 and go up, and the number value for the save would instead be the maximum number you could roll to make the save, and AP would provide negative modifiers. 6 would be the auto-fail instead of 1.

Sv = Save
Pen = Penetration

6+ Armor Saves would not be a thing. If it's less than Flak Armor in the 40k universe, can you really call it armor?
5+ saves would become Sv1. (Flak)
4+ saves would become Sv3. (Carapace, Scout)
3+ saves would become Sv5. (Power)
2+ saves would become Sv7. (Artificer)

6++ Invulnerable Save would become a +1 modifier on the Sv.
5++ Invulnerable Save would become a +2 modifier on the Sv.
4++ Invulnerable Save would become a +3 modifier on the Sv.
3++ Invulnerable Save would become a +4 modifier on the Sv.

5-6+ Cover Saves would become a +1 modifier on the Sv.
3-4+ Cover Saves would become a +2 modifier on the Sv.
2+ Cover Saves would become a +3 modifier on the Sv.

Weapons Penetration values would have to be tweaked. Here's a general idea of how it could be structured. Some weapons would be a point higher or lower (the even values) to further differentiate the effectiveness of different weapons.
AP6 would be Pen 1
AP5 would be Pen 3
AP4 would be Pen 5
AP3 would be Pen 7
AP2 would be Pen 9
AP1 would be Pen 11

Some rules like weapons that "Ignore Armor saves" or "Ignores Cover" would have to be tweaked due to Invulnerable and Cover Saves being incorporated into the Armor Saves.

The Concept weakens armor saves across the game, but compensates units with Invulnerable Saves by giving them an extra benefit to counter balance their loss.

Ex:
A model in Power Armor would have Sv5. If he's standing in Ruins that would be +2 for Cover (Sv7), which means if an enemy shooting attack doesn't have an AP, then he'd pass his save on a 1-5, with a re-roll passing on a 1-2. If the shooting attack has a Pen4 then that same unit in cover passes a save on a 1-3.

A model in Terminator Armor with a Storm Shield has Sv7 +2 for the Terminator Armor's Invulnerable Save, +4 for the Storm Shield for a total of Sv13. If he's being shot at with a weapon without AP, he passes on a 1-5, with a re-roll passing on a 1-5. If he's shot at with a weapon with a Pen9 (like a Lascannon), he passes his save on a 1-4 (equivalent odds to a 3++).

@Bill1138.
If we develop you idea to the next step.
And convert all armour saves to Armour values.
AV 1 to AV 14.
(Av 1 =6+ save, add 1 to Av for each pip of save, or each pip of inv save..)

Ap values start at 5 and go up to 20.

To pass your armour save roll a D6 and add the models AV.
If this total is higher than the weapon AP it makes its save roll and takes no damage.
(Similar system to F.O.W /)

EG las gun AP 5 hits an ork Boy AV 1. The Ork boy needs to roll a 5 to pass his armour save.
A SM (AV 4)is hit by a las gun .The SM needs to roll a 2+ to pass his armour save.

Or you could just put AV from 1 to 10 into a chart next to weapon AP values from 1 to 10.
And show the save roll required where the values cross?