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.

 alextroy wrote:
Not to defend the system, but 2 rolls instead of one allows you to gain more granularity when using a d6. It also allows you multiple levers to adjust that number during play through temporary or status-based effects.

It comes down to whether you want all these levers - and to a degree whether 40k is a game where rolling dice "is" the fun of it.

As catbarf has said - the whole process of "I shoot that unit", now lets roll to hit - picking out 6s because they explode but rerolling 1s, and then lets roll to wound, idk, rerolling everything, and then my opponent rolls to save, and maybe they'll burn a Command reroll on that, and then maybe they get FNPs... feels a bit redundant when we only want to determine damage.
Do you find fun in that, or do you want to go "I have my Marines shoot those Orks. Now get on with it dice randomizer AI, tell me how many models are removed so we can get onto my next decision"?

There are potentially neater ways of getting to the same conclusion of "A unit of Marines should inflict +/- so many wounds when shooting into unit X, Y or Z".

Imagine say a squad-based game where Marines inflict "D3+3 wounds" on whatever they shoot modified by a single save roll. It would probably be a bit too simplistic (and maybe abstract). But it could be made to work.

Whether it would be as memorable/grabbing... I can't say. I feel 40k's "fluff/lore" is kind of independent of the game itself. This and the success in video games is why you have plenty of people who'll watch videos on the setting/story but have never rolled a dice in anger.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
From the thread? We’ve had a suggestion or two on how to improve it. But the consensus seems to be it’s just a poor substitute for armour save modifiers.

Consider, the difference between S4, AP5 and S4, AP4 is less than S4, -1 and S4 -2 in all anti-infantry spheres.

I'd be curious what a hybrid system looks like. Say AP5 is -2 ASM - so the hybrid system would be AP5 and anything that has better than a 5+ gets -1ASM AP4 (equivalent to -3 divided in half to 1.5) would give power armor a -1 or -2 depending on if its a strong AP4 or a Squeaker AP4 that kind of thing.

Tyel wrote:
As catbarf has said - the whole process of "I shoot that unit", now lets roll to hit - picking out 6s because they explode but rerolling 1s, and then lets roll to wound, idk, rerolling everything, and then my opponent rolls to save, and maybe they'll burn a Command reroll on that, and then maybe they get FNPs... feels a bit redundant when we only want to determine damage.
Do you find fun in that, or do you want to go "I have my Marines shoot those Orks. Now get on with it dice randomizer AI, tell me how many models are removed so we can get onto my next decision"?

I think that's a false dichotomy. I enjoy the process of rolling dice with my buddies; if I didn't want that we'd be playing a PC game. But I don't want to roll dice for its own sake, I want the rolls to matter, to be individually significant, to tell us the results of our decisions- that's what makes it fun.

When my basic Guardsmen shooting at my buddy's basic Marines has me rolling an average of sixty god damn dice for each model removed from the table, I'm not having fun. When I throw dozens of dice to painstakingly determine whether I hit the target and then whether I damaged the target only for it to be negated by a dodge invuln (turns out I never hit to begin with!), I'm not having fun. When I'm considering skipping shooting with entire units because the effects aren't worth the time it takes to resolve, I'm not having fun.

A game can have you roll dice to determine outcomes, with just enough spice and chrome to forge an emergent narrative from the dice, without descending into this Yahtzee bs hell.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

 Orkeosaurus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
In any case, it's worth noting that 40K historically didn't commonly use all these checks anyways, because it followed a general paradigm of humanoid units only having one wound. Toughness was the stat used to determine innate durability, with armor saves reflecting external protection, and the all-or-nothing save system (which could not be combined with cover) meant that these stats functioned very differently. The expansion of defensive profiles making multi-wound infantry commonplace (with a Damage stat in turn) has created a clunky redundancy between Toughness and Wounds as a measure of innate durability, while the save modifier system gives a couple points of AP the same sort of general utility as high S.

To the point of verisimilitude, it's difficult to say what is objectively being modeled with any of these stats anymore. What the hell does it mean when a meltagun only damages a tank on a 5+, but slices right through the armor and does a bunch of damage when it does? What determines whether a piece of armor boosts your T, W, or Sv? A lot of people enjoy rolling dice to 'see what happens', but this isn't a simulation by any means.

If you hit some Nurgle guy with a missile you need to roll "to wound", then he rolls "to use armor", then you roll the "damage", then he rolls to "not feel pain", and that determines how close he is to being killed which needs to be marked on the model with tokens.

It has gotten pretty absurd there.

Part of the reason being that each check is a binary pass/fail with no impact on successive checks- which is also why I don't really buy that 40K's approach is particularly good for storytelling/narrative/verisimilitude. Cool, you rolled a 6 to hit, a great shot! Except unless you have a kludged-on special rule, it doesn't mean anything, you just proceed to the next roll in the sequence. How well you shoot does not affect how likely you are to find a weak spot in the armor. How well your attack wounded the target has no bearing on how much damage it actually does. Et cetera.

Meanwhile in, say, Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system, the margin-of-success mechanic means a really skilled sniper is not only more likely to hit, but also if he scores really well on an attack can do a lot of damage (boom, headshot). Or since it's an opposed roll, a unit that relies on speed for defense can get movement bonuses to its defensive roll, making it much more likely to avoid hits or just suffer grazing blows. It's quicker, cleaner, and a heck of a lot more conducive to narrative than running through the full attack resolution sequence only to negate it at the end via a dodge save represented as an invuln.

There are tons of ways that these mechanics have been iterated upon since the 1980s, both for games intended for quick resolution and ones intended for narrative play.

While I love the idea, my immediate thought is that having the dice roll effect further rolls is that it would make rolling for large units pretty cumbersome, which is something that 40k should try to avoid.

When 40k has gone that route it usually negated a further roll, removing dice from the following dice pool. Like autowound on 6s or AP-4 on 6s (which removes a save roll in most cases).

Tyel wrote:
Now get on with it dice randomizer AI, tell me how many models are removed so we can get onto my next decision"?

When you both know the approximate odds the dice can be fun - seeing the improbable come up as the bloodthirster fumbles all of its rolls against the last standing grot, etc.

Auto-rollers and too many levels of rerolls and bonuses start to move away from that IMHO. The more layers the less invested you are going to be in any one of them unless there is some form of choice (the wound allocation minigame in 5th was terribly balanced but did allow a limited kind of model wagering for example).

Definitely a no to computerised dice from me as well.

I like rolling dice. I like bucking the odds. Me getting risky by shooting bolt pistols from a knackered Assault Squad up the arse of a tank, and taking it out has won me more games than it’s lost. Especially if I match that initial “well, you’ve a single hull point, so it’s not an impossible task” with “and my two Lascannons are quite nicely placed to shoot something else suitable for their attentions”.

When you play that way against a habitual number cruncher*, you can really upset their predictions. Because they just don’t think you’ll take that literal long shot. And they really don’t expect it to work. But as Wizards have calculated, one in a million chances crop up nine out of ten times.

*This is not a slight against that approach to the game. Certainly that can really help in the modern game where you’ve buffs, re-rolls and tweaks to apply.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I like rolling dice. I like bucking the odds. Me getting risky by shooting bolt pistols from a knackered Assault Squad up the arse of a tank, and taking it out has won me more games than it’s lost. Especially if I match that initial “well, you’ve a single hull point, so it’s not an impossible task” with “and my two Lascannons are quite nicely placed to shoot something else suitable for their attentions”.

This is a side effect of GW's focus on the game as one of individual models instead of units. There is no reason why a unit of 20 Guardsmen needs to roll 60+ dice when attacking. That is caused by each model needing to have individual dice assigned to it because a Lasgun is Rapid Fire 1 with an additional attack from an order which then have to be saved by individual models to determine who lives and dies.

You could easily replace this model focus with a unit focus that could answer multiple variables by instead saying this unit has X attacks while that unit has Y attacks. All attacks Hit on a 3+, then do a S vs T Wound roll that causes 1 Damage to the unit. There could be attacks that cause multiple damage, but only to "large" models (much bigger than Human, Vehicles and Monsters) since those are overkill when used on today's 1 Wound models.

 Insectum7 wrote:
While I love the idea, my immediate thought is that having the dice roll effect further rolls is that it would make rolling for large units pretty cumbersome, which is something that 40k should try to avoid.

When 40k has gone that route it usually negated a further roll, removing dice from the following dice pool. Like autowound on 6s or AP-4 on 6s (which removes a save roll in most cases).

Margin of success is a concept that can be implemented a variety of ways. In the Silhouette system, there aren't further rolls. You roll a number of dice depending on your shooter's skill and take the highest. The target rolls to dodge, and also takes the highest. If your score is higher, you take the amount you hit by (say, you rolled a 6 and they rolled a 2, so your margin of success is 4) and multiply it by your weapon's damage value. Compare the result to the target's armor, and the degree to which your damage exceeds their armor determines the outcome. The way it works as an opposed roll makes it unsuitable to a unit-vs-unit buckets-of-dice approach, but it resolves the attack with just one roll from each player with intuitive narrative and a bunch of levers for the designer to adjust outcomes.

A more 40K-esque example is the Starship Troopers system that Andy Chambers developed after leaving GW, and it's more similar to the examples you gave. You roll firepower dice determined by your weapon(s), and any that meet the target's Hit value force them to take an armor save, but if you score the Kill value they're eliminated outright. So an attack for an entire squad might be that I throw nine D6s for assault rifles and a D10+2 for a grenade launcher or whatever, we count up the number of Hits and Kills, he takes a save for each Hit, and then removes a model for each failure and 'flinches' a model back an inch for each successful save. The entire shooting attack only requires one roll from the attacker and one from the defender. Essentially, it's just changing the binary failure/success into a trinary failure/success/super-success, expanding the range of outcomes.

There are plenty of other ways to do it, those are just a few examples off the top of my head. The point is that making a sequence of independent binary checks (with a gakload of special rules tacked on when the binary checks prove insufficient) isn't the only way to do things, even if it is the corner that GW has backed themselves into.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
While I love the idea, my immediate thought is that having the dice roll effect further rolls is that it would make rolling for large units pretty cumbersome, which is something that 40k should try to avoid.

When 40k has gone that route it usually negated a further roll, removing dice from the following dice pool. Like autowound on 6s or AP-4 on 6s (which removes a save roll in most cases).

Margin of success is a concept that can be implemented a variety of ways. In the Silhouette system, there aren't further rolls. You roll a number of dice depending on your shooter's skill and take the highest. The target rolls to dodge, and also takes the highest. If your score is higher, you take the amount you hit by (say, you rolled a 6 and they rolled a 2, so your margin of success is 4) and multiply it by your weapon's damage value. Compare the result to the target's armor, and the degree to which your damage exceeds their armor determines the outcome. The way it works as an opposed roll makes it unsuitable to a unit-vs-unit buckets-of-dice approach, but it resolves the attack with just one roll from each player with intuitive narrative and a bunch of levers for the designer to adjust outcomes.

A more 40K-esque example is the Starship Troopers system that Andy Chambers developed after leaving GW, and it's more similar to the examples you gave. You roll firepower dice determined by your weapon(s), and any that meet the target's Hit value force them to take an armor save, but if you score the Kill value they're eliminated outright. So an attack for an entire squad might be that I throw nine D6s for assault rifles and a D10+2 for a grenade launcher or whatever, we count up the number of Hits and Kills, he takes a save for each Hit, and then removes a model for each failure and 'flinches' a model back an inch for each successful save. The entire shooting attack only requires one roll from the attacker and one from the defender. Essentially, it's just changing the binary failure/success into a trinary failure/success/super-success, expanding the range of outcomes.

There are plenty of other ways to do it, those are just a few examples off the top of my head. The point is that making a sequence of independent binary checks (with a gakload of special rules tacked on when the binary checks prove insufficient) isn't the only way to do things, even if it is the corner that GW has backed themselves into.

Good examples, and I agree with your general sentiment, catbarf. Currently, the attack resolution mechanics don't really work as a tool for telling a story or creating cinematic moments. Or rather, they only do that in the abstract. I can sort of abstractly say, "these guys get an order from their boss telling them to pull off a special tactical maneuver. When the dust clears, they took out half the enemy squad in a single volley." But everything that happens between declaring the shooting and the last save being rolled is kind of just an abstract blur. Sometimes things feel more cinematic when I'm down to like, the last couple models in a squad or I'm seeing how long an archon's shadow field holds out before being overloaded, but mostly it's just the dice rollign equivalent of anime action lines; yelling > dramatic close-ups of something implying fighting happened > camera pans out to show the result of the fighting.

So with all that in mind, I'm definitely open to an alternative attack resolution mechanic, and I'd love to see some pitches to that effect in the Proposed Rules section. I think people have a hard time with that sort of thing though because
A.) It's such a major change that you basically have to be doing an edition change/system overhaul's worth of work to pull it off.
B.) You have to decide how abstract you're going to be. If you don't care to represent the individual impact of having a lone plasma gun in a tactical squad or the difference that having a meltagun instead of a plasma gun makes, you can make some very simple, very abstract mechanics for resolving the whole squad's attacks at once. If you want to represent those special weapons a bit more, you can still probably come up with something faster, cleaner and more interesting than what we have now, but it's tempting to just kind of shuffle existing mechanics without making a significant difference.
C.) It's easy to end up changing the game's lethality level by messing with the attack resolution process, and that comes with its own complications.

 alextroy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I like rolling dice. I like bucking the odds. Me getting risky by shooting bolt pistols from a knackered Assault Squad up the arse of a tank, and taking it out has won me more games than it’s lost. Especially if I match that initial “well, you’ve a single hull point, so it’s not an impossible task” with “and my two Lascannons are quite nicely placed to shoot something else suitable for their attentions”.

This is a side effect of GW's focus on the game as one of individual models instead of units. There is no reason why a unit of 20 Guardsmen needs to roll 60+ dice when attacking. That is caused by each model needing to have individual dice assigned to it because a Lasgun is Rapid Fire 1 with an additional attack from an order which then have to be saved by individual models to determine who lives and dies.

You could easily replace this model focus with a unit focus that could answer multiple variables by instead saying this unit has X attacks while that unit has Y attacks. All attacks Hit on a 3+, then do a S vs T Wound roll that causes 1 Damage to the unit. There could be attacks that cause multiple damage, but only to "large" models (much bigger than Human, Vehicles and Monsters) since those are overkill when used on today's 1 Wound models.

Trouble there, is you get WHFB Syndrome.

There, you fought in blocks of infantry and cavalry. Of those, only the front rank fought for the most part. So, if I’ve a 6 wide, 4 deep block? Only six of 24 models are taking direct part in the battle. The others provided a combat resolution bonus for each rank, up to 3.

Now that’s a time honoured system, but was born in a far smaller scale, where outside of grubby little Gobbos, having maximum rank bonus and beyond was really rare. But as time went on and the scale of the battles and its constituent units increased? It meant spending ever more money and time on models which, more than ever, were Just Fancy Markers. And it got so extreme, it hacked folk off that so little of their army really did anything beyond look nice.

It’s also why Epic 40,000 didn’t appeal to me at all. 1st and 2nd Ed Space Marine? Every unit in my army had its own shots, and from its stats, slightly different reliable applications. Epic 40,000? Oh well you add up all the firepower, consult the chart and roll that many dice, less each blast marker you’re carrying around on that unit. The target for a success was defined by the target. Infantry might need a 4+, Light/Medium tanks a 5+, and chunky boys a 6+

Now, Epic 40,000 wasn’t an inherently bad system. It worked really well in BFG after all. But, and crucially? It Wasn’t Epic. At all. The experience was too far removed from what made Epic Scale popular in the first place.

So, whilst I see where you’re coming from, and my argument isn’t “what an ‘orrible system”? It’s not 40K. And you need to be careful making that significant a change. After all, that lone Guardsman, the sole survivor of their Platoon, putting a lasbolt through the eye of an already mauled Abaddon The Despoiler, and plinking off his last wound? That’s the 40K experience, at least for me. Every model can be the hero, when every model plays its own role in resolving the battle.

I agree. Playing 5th with mates and having one last Tau drone survive and kill a Terminator in close combat, have the Guardsman sgt pistol you nearly forgot about do the final wound on an enemy big bad... that's the fun pointy end of the dice-bucket system.

I'm about to start learning 10th and wylds comment voices my concerns - all the minor +/-/rerolls from a myriad of different sources that is trying to make units feel unique just looks naff. Even things like tyranid hormogaunts being able to r,eact-move, I understand it makes for a varied unit but it doesn't really make too much sense in the grand scheme of things, same as Guard and their blanket bonus when firing at the same type of unit they are. It's the sort or special rule that used to be on only really elite or unique models.

 alextroy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


AoS did eventually pull it off, despite being a pretty radical departure. But that’s because the same mechanics are largely there - roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save. They just have different names and layout.

AoS is the worst implementation tbh, it requiring 2 rolls is so unneeded IMO. If your unit on average forces 30% of its attacks as saves on any unit in the game, whats the point in splitting it in a two step sequence?

Not to defend the system, but 2 rolls instead of one allows you to gain more granularity when using a d6. It also allows you multiple levers to adjust that number during play through temporary or status-based effects.

The last bit sounds like using special rules to emulate what was done previously with just comparing stats.

What I don't get is why Andy Chambers didn't go for something like WS vs WS or S vs T, so it was AP vs AV.

Nomeny wrote:
What I don't get is why Andy Chambers didn't go for something like WS vs WS or S vs T, so it was AP vs AV.

I would imagine trying to find a balance between legacy rules and trimmed down 'quick' rules.


Over time his preference has moved towards dice pools with fixed targets rather than varying targets (https://youtu.be/rkM9Y3agV_I?feature=shared&t=1160)

Raises the design path of having penetration 0-4 (etc) weapons and armour 0-4 - where in order to inflict a wound to your target you either allocate a single sufficiently high penetration wound or a number of lesser penetration wounds equal to the targets armour... but you lose the other players interaction in the phase by doing so.

To be fair? Much as I loved, and still love, 2nd Edition? It was exceptionally clunky once you got above say 1,500-2,000 points. And so the slimming down of 3rd Ed was required. I just think they went much too far. And AP is my main bugbear.

Not having to use turning templates for vehicles? Better. Not having three speeds, and only being able to shift up or down one? Fine. Losing the vehicle location based damage? I’d prefer to have kept it, but then 3rd Edition did see a distinct increase in the number of tanks, so probably fair enough.

But AP just removed a lot of subtlety and design wiggle room.

I really like 3e-5e but I think the AP system was a poor solution to the problems they were trying to solve and really obviously showed the game was designed with Marines in mind and the rest as an afterthought.

I think some sort of one roll defense system works better - whether it's rolling to save after kills like on One Page Rules or rolling to kill after modifying defense with armour like in LOTR SBG. The hit, wound, save sequence is kinda clunky and I'm not convinced it's adding much.

Basically we are comparing 10th Edition 40k to 2nd Edition Horus Heresy...

I think both systems have their place, and change the dynamic of what weapons to take.

 Da Boss wrote:
... and really obviously showed the game was designed with Marines in mind and the rest as an afterthought.

Why?

Units like orks and guardsmen got to make saving throws in 3e sometimes, unlike 2e. And many weapons that previously allowed power armour saves now ignored it entirely.

What did go in favour of the marines is that power armour actually granted a 3+ save whereas in 2nd it was 4+ or 5+ against anti-chaff weapons like lasguns, flamethrowers, frag grenades, and even civilians with clubs.

Things like Choppas reducing 3+ and 2+ saves but doing nothing to any other kind of save is the sort of thing I'm thinking of when I say the edition was designed with marines in mind as the default.

I don’t know I agree it was designed with Marines in mind as such. Rather I think the AP system just so naturally favoured any army with good saves due to its over simplicity, it required pretty unsubtle adjustment, like the aforementioned Choppa rule.

Which as said, was great and kinda background cool (Orks may not be ninjas, but they really know how to fight and where your weak points are entirely by instinct), but still felt wonky.

Choppas reducing saves to 4+ wasn't a 3rd-ed-on-release thing. That was either the '3.5ed' trial assault rules, or 4th ed, I forget which. I do think it was kind of a clunky solution to the problem- just as HH2.0's various ways that weapons interact with the AP system via special rules are clunky and kludgy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Rather I think the AP system just so naturally favoured any army with good saves due to its over simplicity

Honestly, I don't think that's the case. Sure, you didn't have heavy bolters or autocannons reducing that 3+ at all, but 8th/9th allowing Marines to bump up to 2+ in cover, or still get saves against things like plasma guns, was pretty forgiving to high-save armies. Low-save armies could get cover bonuses that could not be negated, while heavily armored armies only received cover benefits against heavy weapons. It was a very different paradigm, but I wouldn't say it favored armies with good saves.

I still maintain that the all-or-nothing AP system would have worked well if this wasn't a MEQ-dominated game ecosystem. The prevalence of 3+ instead created an obvious and necessary breakpoint to meet, and is why we ended up with stuff like the choppa rule.

I think it would have worked better if there was an intermediate weapon class between basic CCWs and power weapons that instead forced re-rolls of successful armor saves. Reducing a 3+ save's chance of success from 67% to 44% is broadly in line with the choppa rule, without having disproportionate effect on 2+ saves and no effect on 5+ or worse.

 Da Boss wrote:
Things like Choppas reducing 3+ and 2+ saves but doing nothing to any other kind of save is the sort of thing I'm thinking of when I say the edition was designed with marines in mind as the default.

Choppas were just mundane close combat weapons when 3rd was launched (ah - ninjaed)

Without modifiers in the game options for a 'minor' power weapon that sat between full save and no save were limited but not marine specific - there were CSM, necrons, sisters, eldar, tyranid MCs after their codex, the incoming tau, the orks themselves, and even dark eldar in spots.

The got replaced in later editions for orks and khorne with furious charge, as well as various +1/+2 strength melee weapons. Increased lethality for all... if perhaps a little too much at times due to instant death.

I think it was in the 3rd edition Ork Codex.

Pretty sure GW said in a White Dwarf outlining their thinking that Ork players had complained (not unreasonably) that it felt bad they spent all game jogging across the table being shot, only to get into combat and typically strike second due to crap initiative - and then so often basic boyz did almost nothing to 3+ save Marines anyway. So they brought in rules to ameliorate these problems.

I'm sort of happy with the idea that 40k is designed for Marines - or rather GW can never make up their mine how Marines are meant to work. Because they can either be very lethal (for the points) - but in that case they have to be fragile (for the points). Or they can be disproportionately tough - but then they need to be relatively pillowfisted. GW (and Marine players) have never quite been happy with this dilemma - and as a result the rules have pivoted this way and that, making Marines obviously OP or a bit rubbish.

They didn't really know how to do that in the first place...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
What I don't get is why Andy Chambers didn't go for something like WS vs WS or S vs T, so it was AP vs AV.

I would imagine trying to find a balance between legacy rules and trimmed down 'quick' rules.


Over time his preference has moved towards dice pools with fixed targets rather than varying targets (https://youtu.be/rkM9Y3agV_I?feature=shared&t=1160)

Raises the design path of having penetration 0-4 (etc) weapons and armour 0-4 - where in order to inflict a wound to your target you either allocate a single sufficiently high penetration wound or a number of lesser penetration wounds equal to the targets armour... but you lose the other players interaction in the phase by doing so.

Cool, always interesting to hear what designers are thinking. I once got to ask him about Starship Troopers 1st edition and he couldn't remember the shooting rules for that...

Tyel wrote:
I think it was in the 3rd edition Ork Codex.

Codex Orks 3rd edition said:

Choppa

Beloved of Ork Nobz in particular, choppas are usually immense axe-like weapons or brutal cleavers. Choppas frequently have a chainsaw edge to make them extra rippy when it comes to chopping through armour. In close combat choppas limit the saving throw of an enemy model can have to 4+ at best. So, for example, if a Space Marine in power armour or Terminator armour were hit and wounded by and Ork with a choppa they would have to roll a 4 or more to make their saving throw.

The save remains as a feature that rick Priestley preferred where the owner got to try and save his own dudes.

It makes the opponent more of a participant in the game rather than observing their opponent removing their guys.

This is especially true in igougo 40k where an entire turn of your opponent doing nothing while you wipe out models would be very boring.

But there is merit in your game involving both sides throughout, regardless of the mechanism. Efficient rules are just one part of the over all experience

 Hellebore wrote:
The save remains as a feature that rick Priestley preferred where the owner got to try and save his own dudes.

Found this out with Lion/Dragon Rampant - it's just unsatisfying plucking your dudes off the board.

 Hellebore wrote:
It makes the opponent more of a participant in the game rather than observing their opponent removing their guys.

I wonder if changing rolls to wound (attacking player) into rolls to resist (defending player) would improve that.

Same S vs T roll, same odds but it feels like a saving throw.

On the one hand good for guard who at least get to do something when shot, on the other hand potential for 'feels bad' on the attacker as they watch round after round of stacked saves from toughness, armour, feel no pain, and wound allocation whittle down their shooting attack from 20 hits to half a wound.

A.T. wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
It makes the opponent more of a participant in the game rather than observing their opponent removing their guys.

I wonder if changing rolls to wound (attacking player) into rolls to resist (defending player) would improve that.

Same S vs T roll, same odds but it feels like a saving throw.

On the one hand good for guard who at least get to do something when shot, on the other hand potential for 'feels bad' on the attacker as they watch round after round of stacked saves from toughness, armour, feel no pain, and wound allocation whittle down their shooting attack from 20 hits to half a wound.

Interesting thought. Only problem I see is that, assuming not much else changes, being the ones to roll the to-wound/resist roll means that now it's your own dice rolls that causes something like dev wounds to trigger.

Which, obviously you'd need to make sure your opponent knows when they need to set aside specific dice in that case, and also it might feel worse to be "responsible" for rolling a bunch of "crit fails" than just having your opponent's crit successes happen to you?

I would prefer to see actual interactivity in the game mechanics, rather than wallpaper over 30+ minute stretches of non-interaction by forcing the inactive player to mechanically resolve an outcome with no input of their own.