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.

Not sure if ideas like this has been put forward but i was thinking that changes to saves need to be made with the proliferation of high str, low ap weapons.

My proposal:

Additional saves stack with armor save. But you can only take one added save except for invulnerable saves they can be stacked. For example
- If you are shot at you can take, if possible, an invulnerable or cover save. If you have no invuln save or are not in cover, you all non-vehicles modes can make a dodge save. If it fails you can take the armor save if possible

Invulnerable saves - Stackable with armor saves
-invulnerable saves can never be better than 4+
-Invulnerable saves can only be made against ranged attacks. - Why? - To me it makes sense that it's a bubble around the model, not a layer against their skin/armor. So once someone is within that field, you can't take that save.

Armor Saves -
-Every non-vehicle should have an armor save value of at least 6+
-Shooting weapons can be powerful enough to negate armor saves. - Attacks made by shooting weapons would follow current rules.
-No close combat weapons negate armor. Work out a new system that takes armor value into account as a modifier on the wound table. Improves/decreases chances to wound and or decreases/increases the roll needed to make the save.
-- Example against a powerful weapon you need to make the save twice or they get extra attacks or wounds to save against.

Dodge and Parry saves - Stackable with armor saves
Shooting - Dodge saves can be made instead of cover or armor saves if desired.
Failing a dodge save allows you to make an armor save - but perhaps that armor save is lessened because you missed dodging and are now vulnerable.

Close combat - Stackable with armor saves
Because invulnerable saves are not used in this new format I would introduce Dodge and Parry saves -
Everyone non-vehicle model should have a dodge and parry save that they could choose to make rather than an armor save
These saves would look at model size(bulky etc), model classification(Cavalry, MC), initiative and weapons skill and allow that defender to save hits that their armor would fail against.
Failing a dodge or parry save allows you to make an armor save - but perhaps that armor save is lessened because you missed dodging/parrying and are now vulnerable.

Weapons -
Weapons should not modify str. they should only provide special rules and damage modifiers.

Instant death -
Still applies as per usual rules

D weapons -
Invulnerable, cover, dodge and parry saves can be made.

Remove from table -
Still think these attacks are fine - they test against other stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Updated to include stacking saves on top of armor saves.

I like the idea of changing the saves up, but I think this is over-complicating them.

Cover Saves stack on Armour Saves against Shooting Attacks.

Invulnerable Saves stack on Armour Saves against Attacks that do not ignore the Armour Save. Some units' Invulnerable Saves already have special rules that only allow them to apply to either Close Combat or to Shooting Attacks.

Possibly include a special rule that puts a cap at 2 saves being taken (the current rule having the cap at 1). This would mean at best a unit would have 3 defensive throws (2 saves, and FNP).

This would completely change Armour Saves, and AP and price balancing, and the Special Rules and Wargear that relate to Cover or Invulnerable Saves would have to be re-worked. But I think this would give a broader spectrum of survivability in the game, allowing more expensive units to survive longer to potentially earn their points back.

I think this game has enough dice rolls as it is, especially when it comes to yahtzee'ing for sixes

Do agree with the idea of cover improving armour rather than replacing it or some such. Currently the cover rules are way too simplified

 Dakkamite wrote:
I think this game has enough dice rolls as it is, especially when it comes to yahtzee'ing for sixes

Do agree with the idea of cover improving armour rather than replacing it or some such. Currently the cover rules are way too simplified

The question is how would you do that? Of course it would be better if we could achieve the same effect, but only requiring one die roll, but how? There's only 6 results on it, and a 1 is an auto-fail. If Cover just improves Armor saves, then 2+ armor would still have no benefit for being in cover.

The only two ways I can picture having Cover always improving the target's chances (without making it a second save) are:
1: improving the armor save (doesn't help 2+ Save models)
2: reduces the BS of the shooter (has its own problems with many units that would be reduced to BS0, making them unable to shoot at all, or if they're reduced to a minimum of 1, then cheaper units with worse BS would be better for the cost at shooting into cover than many more expensive units which wouldn't be fair.

I don't mind multiple saves, just not multiple multiple saves at every stage, with parries and dodges and gak added in all saving on 6s.

I also don't think a BS penalty is a bad idea. 40k would benefit greatly from more depth to the shooting rules, which are currently "X+ to hit all the time". Laughable and quote/unquote "unrealistic", with melee being even worse (ever seen a skilled figher vs an unskilled one? 3+ to hit my ass)

Tbh, would love to see crap like feel no pain bugger right on off and allow dudes to get cover *and* armour instead.

The Save System could be turned on its head.

Instead of having to roll the Save value or higher, you roll the save value or lower, and weapons’ Penetration ratings are negative modifiers on the Save.
Ex: A save of 5, being shot at with a weapon having a Penetration stat of 3, would pass the Save on a roll of 1 or 2.

Invulnerable Saves would be removed entirely, becoming modifiers on the unit’s Save.
Ex: if a unit with a Save of 5, has a piece of Wargear that grants a +3, and is being shot at with a weapon having a Penetration stat of 3, then the Save would be passed on a roll from 1 to 5.

If a Save after modifiers is higher than 5, it is then treated like the current version of the Ballistic Skill chart, where a Save of 6, means if you roll a 6 on your save, you may roll again, passing the re-roll on a 1. For a Save of 7, you’d re-roll any 6s and pass the re-rolls on a 1-2. Etc.

Cover Saves would likewise be removed and would be replaced with modifiers. Some would be negative modifiers on the attacker’s Ballistic Skill (if it is something that might cause the shooter to miss). Others would be Positive Modifiers on the target’s Save (a barrier tough/large enough to potentially intercept the shot, saving the target).

This would completely change the balance of survivability in the game, as there would no longer be such a large disparity between 2+ Saves having their full saves against AP3, and no save at all against AP2. Instead, the higher the Ap, the more it hinders a units save.

(S) = Save
(P) = Penetration value

A general concept of how to do this might be…

Save: Source
1 : Flak Armor
3 : Carapace Armor
5 : Power Armor
7 : Terminator Armor
+1: Combat Shield
+2: Iron Halo
+3: Storm Shield

P3 would be something like a Heavy Bolter
P6 would be something like a Lascannon

So to go right to the top, a Chapter Master in Terminator Armor, with an Iron Halo and a Storm Shield (7+2+3) would have a Save of 12 in the open, which means against an attack with P3 would pass his Save on a 1-5, and passing the re-roll on a 1-4. Against something with P6 he’d pass his Save on a 1-5, or a 1 on the re-roll. (This does increase the survivability of HQs with multiple sources for Invulnerable Saves such as an Iron Halo and a Storm Shield, as you can see)

A Terminator with a Storm Shield would have a Save of 10 and would make his Save against P3 on a 1-5, or a 1-2 on the re-roll. Against P6 he would pass his save on a 1-4. It makes him more resilliant to massed fire, but gives him the same odds at surviving against weapons with better AP.

Guardsman in Carapace Armor in cover granting a +2 would have a total Save of 5, allowing him to pass his Save against P3 on a 1-2, but not having a Save against P6.

This gives much more variety to how saves work without increasing the complexity.

Note: Special Rules that say they ignore any of the types of saves would have to be re-written to accommodate the new Save structure.

Naaris wrote:
Not sure if ideas like this has been put forward but i was thinking that changes to saves need to be made with the proliferation of high str, low ap weapons.

My proposal:

Additional saves stack with armor save. But you can only take one added save except for invulnerable saves they can be stacked. For example
- If you are shot at you can take, if possible, an invulnerable or cover save. If you have no invuln save or are not in cover, you all non-vehicles modes can make a dodge save. If it fails you can take the armor save if possible

Invulnerable saves - Stackable with armor saves -invulnerable saves can never be better than 4+ -Invulnerable saves can only be made against ranged attacks. - Why? - To me it makes sense that it's a bubble around the model, not a layer against their skin/armor. So once someone is within that field, you can't take that save.

Armor Saves -
-Every non-vehicle should have an armor save value of at least 6+
-Shooting weapons can be powerful enough to negate armor saves. - Attacks made by shooting weapons would follow current rules.
-No close combat weapons negate armor. Work out a new system that takes armor value into account as a modifier on the wound table. Improves/decreases chances to wound and or decreases/increases the roll needed to make the save.
-- Example against a powerful weapon you need to make the save twice or they get extra attacks or wounds to save against.

Dodge and Parry saves - Stackable with armor saves
Shooting - Dodge saves can be made instead of cover or armor saves if desired.
Failing a dodge save allows you to make an armor save - but perhaps that armor save is lessened because you missed dodging and are now vulnerable.

Close combat - Stackable with armor saves
Because invulnerable saves are not used in this new format I would introduce Dodge and Parry saves -
Everyone non-vehicle model should have a dodge and parry save that they could choose to make rather than an armor save
These saves would look at model size(bulky etc), model classification(Cavalry, MC), initiative and weapons skill and allow that defender to save hits that their armor would fail against.
Failing a dodge or parry save allows you to make an armor save - but perhaps that armor save is lessened because you missed dodging/parrying and are now vulnerable.

I think it could be relatively simple.
Game Changes:
Increase the number of shots for most weapons in the game. - I say this because the reality of adding more save means shooting gets nerfed. Also it's not overly realistic that most models shoot 1 shot at a time. Also the way the game is going it looks like its turning into more of an elite unit skirmish game so those extra dice, I don't believe will add much.
Every unit should have an armor value of at least 6.

New augmented shooting rules:
Shooting weapons AP will still range from 1,2,3,4,5,6, -.

The attacker tells you which unit they are shooting at, They roll to hit. You may then choose to roll to dodge or roll for cover - Dodge role is 6- half your initiative(rounding up). So Space Marines(I4) can dodge on a 4+, Necrons(I2) can dodge on a 5+, Eldar(I5) can dodge on a 3+. You can always dodge on a 6. Fail dodges on a 1. best dodge 2+

Hits that have not been dodged go through and wounds are rolled.
- If the model has an Invulnerable save, roll it as normal, new rules mentioned above state that no invuln can be better than 4. - if failed, roll armor save
- If you just have an Armor save, your armor is now 1pt higher because you failed to dodge and are vulnerable. So SM who have 3+, on a failed dodge are now 4+.
- Failed Dodges are not cumulative. If you failed 3 dodges your armor does not go up by 3. You only ever go down up 1 point.
- Armor save modifiers are only for that phase

Cover saves are similar to dodges now.
Attacker rolls to hit. If cover is available you can choose to take cover saves or take the dodge save mentioned above or you could always choose to just take the hit head on.
Roll for cover save. Going to ground improves cover save as it always has. Hits that are not saved by cover go through and you can take your Invuln if you have it or just Armor. As per the dodge save your failed invuln still allows the armor save. Failed cover saves do not worsen your armor save, unless, you failed cover when going to ground. Then your armor has 2 points added to it (basically you jumped for cover and hit the ground and exposed your weak backside. So failed going to ground Marines go from a 3+ save to a 5+ save. The worst you can get is 6+. Best cover save possible is 2+
- Failed cover saves are not cumulative. If you failed 3 cover saves your armor does not go up by 3. You only ever go down up 1 point.
- Armor save modifiers are only for that phase

Parry Save on shooting (new idea)
Units with WS of 6 or more can parry shooting attacks (like ninjas!) - So WS6 means that on a roll of a 6, you could choose to parry the shooting attacks. Failed results would follow dodge rules for reducing armor saves against wounds.
WS 7 parry on 5+, WS 8 parry on a 4+, WS 9 parry on a 3+, WS 10 parry on a 2+. Roll of 1 is a fail.
- can only parry if they have a close combat weapon

Assault
Increase the base attacks of all models, game wide by 1.
No close combat weapons negate armor. AP value instead increases the armor save required.
No close combat weapons improve strength.
Add Str and WS - that value indicates the maximum toughness of a model you can wound - This would be your models AV(attack value) - So SM can wound up to T8 models
WS chart used as normal
Roll to hit. Defender can roll to dodge or parry. Unsaved hits are then rolled to wound. Failed dodge and parry saves follow same rules from the shooting phase, mentioned above.
Wounds are allocated using AV value. If your AV value is higher than their toughness you wound on a 3+. If its equal, you wound on a 4+. If its lower, you wound on a 5+.
AP 1 weapons add 2 to the armor of the opponent - SM Terminators with 2+ save now have a 4+ save. If that terminator failed to dodge or parry the their armor would be reduced to 5+
AP 2 weapons add 1 to the armor of the opponent - SM Terminators with 2+ save now have a 3+ save. If that terminator failed to dodge or parry the their armor would be reduced to 4+
- can only parry if they have a close combat weapon


Is this too crazy?

It sounds like its the start to a whole new rules set, just using existing stats. I think it'd feel like a completely different game.

Bharring wrote:
It sounds like its the start to a whole new rules set, just using existing stats. I think it'd feel like a completely different game.

Would that be a bad thing? Provided the new rules aren't made in a vaccume an work together as a set, and are worded for precision to remove ambiguity, Starting over could drastically improve the game. That is, if we assume the ones writing the new rules appropriately put thought and effort into them, and they're appropriately playtested before being shoved on unsuspecting masses.

Bharring wrote:
It sounds like its the start to a whole new rules set, just using existing stats. I think it'd feel like a completely different game.

Every attempt to amend 40K seems to end up here.

It could be a good thing, but it will take a lot of work.

Naaris wrote:

I think it could be relatively simple.
Game Changes:
Increase the number of shots for most weapons in the game. - I say this because the reality of adding more save means shooting gets nerfed. Also it's not overly realistic that most models shoot 1 shot at a time. Also the way the game is going it looks like its turning into more of an elite unit skirmish game so those extra dice, I don't believe will add much.
Every unit should have an armor value of at least 6.

New augmented shooting rules:
Shooting weapons AP will still range from 1,2,3,4,5,6, -.

The attacker tells you which unit they are shooting at, They roll to hit. You may then choose to roll to dodge or roll for cover - Dodge role is 6- half your initiative(rounding up). So Space Marines(I4) can dodge on a 4+, Necrons(I2) can dodge on a 5+, Eldar(I5) can dodge on a 3+. You can always dodge on a 6. Fail dodges on a 1. best dodge 2+

Hits that have not been dodged go through and wounds are rolled.
- If the model has an Invulnerable save, roll it as normal, new rules mentioned above state that no invuln can be better than 4. - if failed, roll armor save
- If you just have an Armor save, your armor is now 1pt higher because you failed to dodge and are vulnerable. So SM who have 3+, on a failed dodge are now 4+.
- Failed Dodges are not cumulative. If you failed 3 dodges your armor does not go up by 3. You only ever go down up 1 point.
- Armor save modifiers are only for that phase

Cover saves are similar to dodges now.
Attacker rolls to hit. If cover is available you can choose to take cover saves or take the dodge save mentioned above or you could always choose to just take the hit head on.
Roll for cover save. Going to ground improves cover save as it always has. Hits that are not saved by cover go through and you can take your Invuln if you have it or just Armor. As per the dodge save your failed invuln still allows the armor save. Failed cover saves do not worsen your armor save, unless, you failed cover when going to ground. Then your armor has 2 points added to it (basically you jumped for cover and hit the ground and exposed your weak backside. So failed going to ground Marines go from a 3+ save to a 5+ save. The worst you can get is 6+. Best cover save possible is 2+
- Failed cover saves are not cumulative. If you failed 3 cover saves your armor does not go up by 3. You only ever go down up 1 point.
- Armor save modifiers are only for that phase

Parry Save on shooting (new idea)
Units with WS of 6 or more can parry shooting attacks (like ninjas!) - So WS6 means that on a roll of a 6, you could choose to parry the shooting attacks. Failed results would follow dodge rules for reducing armor saves against wounds.
WS 7 parry on 5+, WS 8 parry on a 4+, WS 9 parry on a 3+, WS 10 parry on a 2+. Roll of 1 is a fail.
- can only parry if they have a close combat weapon

Assault
Increase the base attacks of all models, game wide by 1.
No close combat weapons negate armor. AP value instead increases the armor save required.
No close combat weapons improve strength.
Add Str and WS - that value indicates the maximum toughness of a model you can wound - This would be your models AV(attack value) - So SM can wound up to T8 models
WS chart used as normal
Roll to hit. Defender can roll to dodge or parry. Unsaved hits are then rolled to wound. Failed dodge and parry saves follow same rules from the shooting phase, mentioned above.
Wounds are allocated using AV value. If your AV value is higher than their toughness you wound on a 3+. If its equal, you wound on a 4+. If its lower, you wound on a 5+.
AP 1 weapons add 2 to the armor of the opponent - SM Terminators with 2+ save now have a 4+ save. If that terminator failed to dodge or parry the their armor would be reduced to 5+
AP 2 weapons add 1 to the armor of the opponent - SM Terminators with 2+ save now have a 3+ save. If that terminator failed to dodge or parry the their armor would be reduced to 4+
- can only parry if they have a close combat weapon

Is this too crazy?

My main reason for the suggested changes comes from the increased fire power out there and the dominance of the shooting phase.

I think my changes make units like terminators more viable and keep units in the game longer. It also gives you some save mechanics that give nimble and deadly but poorly armored units a chance to do something (looking at dark eldar)

Also it serves to lessen the confusion around strength modifying weapons and damage but still gives those powerful weapons an edge.

What I haven't accounted for is how this system would be used on vehicles...