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.

Howdy. In another thread, i mentioned a different take on what could replace Instant Death in its all-or-nothing form into something more universal and with greater granularity. I am going to be stealing most of my wording from that post, because I'm surprisingly lazy sometimes.

The Issue: Instant Death is a mechanic that ends up being all-or-nothing and subjects lower-toughness models to a great deal more vulnerability than higher toughness models, with certain levels of toughness being effectively immune to all but special cases of Instant Death. It is meant to represent an wound so horrific that nothing could survive it... but even though a Greater Daemon, a Dreadknight, or a Riptide might be tough, they shouldn't necessarily be "shrugs off a lascannon wound like a paper cut" tough.

The Solution: Instead of making attacks deal either 1 wound or infinite wounds, with no space in between, it could instead be based on the difference between the weapon's strength and the target's toughness - effectively, give each point of strength that no longer has the effect of making the attack more likely to wound (i.e. hits that are 2+ to wound against their target) instead make the wound more grievous.

Proposed Rule:

Overkill: For every unsaved wound, subtract the total of Toughness plus 2 from the strength of the attack. If the result is 0 or lower, it has no further effect. If the result is 1 or higher, add the result to the number of wounds suffered by the model that failed its save.

Example: A Space Marine Captain (T4) is hit by a Plasma Gun (S7) and failed his save. He would thus subtract 2+4 (his toughness +2) from 7, with a result of 1. That Captain would thus take 2 wounds, rather than 1 wound, from that plasma shot.

Alternative Example: An Autarch (T3) is hit by the same Plasma Gun (S7) and failed his save. He would thus subtract 2+3 from 7, with a result of 2. That Autarch would thus take 3 wounds, rather than 1 wound.

Big Critter Example: a Riptide (T6) is hit by a Lascannon (S9) and fails his save. He would thus subtract 6+2 from 9, with a result of 1. That Riptide would take 2 wounds, rather than 1 wound.

Complexity:

Though certainly more granular and complex than the all-or-nothing Instant Death rule we have currently, I've tried to make this a fairly simple process.

Simple Addition (T + 2), simple subtraction (S - (T +2)), and a final simple addition (Wounds lost = 1 + result).

Consequences:

It would give a bonus to weapons for using higher strength than absolutely necessary to attain the 2+ wounding.

It might be unbalanced in the face of the omnipresent spammed S7. Not sure how to address that.

S6 becomes less effective against multi-wound T3 models, though (only 2 wounds, not ALL wounds), which is nice for those of us with those sorts of models (Tau, Eldar, AM, GSC).

Not sure exactly how D weapons would work, but I'd guess they could count as Strength 10 but always count as having at least a 2 (maybe 3? Thoughts on balance?) result for the purposes of Overkill (always inflicting at least an extra two wounds on a failed save for T6+ models, but effectivenly inflicting Instant Death against lower-T models - I can't recall a T5 or less model with more than 4 wounds). To make D weapons more reliable in their destructive potential, they could also apply as unsaved wound multipliers, forcing the enemy to make lots of saves - perhaps to distinguish them from ID-from-special-rules.

Weapons that currently have a profile that modifies D (like those Wraithguard flamers or the Hemlock fighter) could instead modify the strength and/or the result by -1 (so each hit would inflict 2 wounds per model instead of 3). This might not be entirely balanced, so it might be worth converting D-1 weapons to only apply to unsaved wounds.

Weapons that are already Instant Death by special rule could potentially work like D weapons, but only with unsaved wounds.

Because double the strength versus toughness was not the only way to get Instant Death effects, you see two things unique to 6+ toughness, multiwound models:

First, those models become significantly more vulnerable to heavy, anti-vehicle weapons that really ought to be able to blow a significant chunk out of Monstrous Creatures and the like. This would be a direct nerf.

Second, those models are no longer instantly removed from the table due to a single lucky roll on weapons with Instant Death special rules, and instead merely suffer horrific damage. This would be a boost in survivability, hopefully overshadowed by the first effect.

Finally, one must consider the consequences to Feel no Pain. I'm personally of the opinion that FnP is a bit too ubiquitous and a bit too potent in its current forms, and I wouldn't mind seeing FnP getting negated entirely on an Overkill result of 1 or more. If that's too drastic a measure, one could instead have the target's FnP roll reduced by the Overkill result (example: Riptide with FnP 5+++ fails its save against a lascannon. The Overkill result is 1, and thus the Riptide is only allowed a 6+++. The Same Riptide is hit by a Hammerhead Railgun. With the Overkill result of 2, the Riptide is not allowed a FnP roll at all).

Edit: Some MCs need to be toned down more than others. I think it would be appropriate for some MCs (Nurgle-aligned daemons and Tyranids come to mind) to be less vulnerable to this effect, but I'm not certain.

Edit 2: I just realized I forgot to address Eternal Warrior. My initial thought is that blanket immunity to the likes of D strength weaponry is a bit much. I'd rather see Eternal Warrior reduce the Overkill result by a certain amount (including D and Instant Death special rule result rolls). Initial thoughts: put a number after the Eternal Warrior granted, like Eternal Warrior (3), which reduces the Overkill result by that number. If a Space Marine Captain had EW(3), for example, it would take the equivalent of a Tau Railgun or a D weapon to result in 2 wounds from a single shot.

Thoughts? Comments? Balance Issues? Complexity issues?

I think it's a little complicated.

The idea could be incredibly simplified by making it work somewhere in between destroyer and aos mortal wounds while gutting the chart rolling.

How about: Overkill: Any successful to wound roll from attacks with this special rule deal 2 wounds instead. Feel No Pain cannot be used to negate wounds from Overkill.

Destroyer: All wounds from a Str D weapon count as Overkill. No saves are possible from a Str D weapon.

To clarify, I intend Overkill to be applied to all weapons at all times. This would, in my proposal, not be a special rule that applies to only certain weapons, but for any attack with sufficient strength (in the same way that Instant Death works currently).

But yeah, I totally understand where you're coming from. Complexity bogs down games... the question becomes whether this slight increase in complexity (which really is fairly basic, do-it-in-your-head adding and subtracting - no charts or random rolls needed) is worth adding to the granularity of devastation from high strength weaponry.

I'd use it. Even if it means my Daemon Princes are inst-gibbed by Lascannons.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd use it. Even if it means my Daemon Princes are inst-gibbed by Lascannons.

That is one of my worries - it might swing the balance against MCs a bit more heavily than necessary.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
To clarify, I intend Overkill to be applied to all weapons at all times. This would, in my proposal, not be a special rule that applies to only certain weapons, but for any attack with sufficient strength (in the same way that Instant Death works currently).

But yeah, I totally understand where you're coming from. Complexity bogs down games... the question becomes whether this slight increase in complexity (which really is fairly basic, do-it-in-your-head adding and subtracting - no charts or random rolls needed) is worth adding to the granularity of devastation from high strength weaponry.

Yeah I figured it would work the same way as Instant Death. Automatically applied to anything of sufficient strength.

I suppose you could apply it to any weapon at least 2 Str higher then T instead of double T.

It is simple math but it is math. The whole actual formula is algebra. W = (S - (2+T)) + 1

That is not just basic arithmetic. It's a semi basic algebraic formula. I do feel like that gets too complicated when it's happening on every single shot fired.

A fair point, Lance845, though it wouldn't actually need to be applied on every shot fired, merely shots fired at multi-wound models (and even then, only after failed saves or with the fairly rare D weapons).

The formula itself is really just a formal way to compare the Strength and Toughness (which ID requires already) through subtraction and addition (W=S-T-1 -Eternal Warrior, minimum 1) rather than division with if/then implications (if S/T <2 or Eternal Warrior, then W=1, if not, then [if GC, then W=1d3, if not, then W=infinity]).

Edit: It does add complexity by having variable results rather than being a threshold test, but the granularity of the results of a threshold test are fairly limited - that's why I felt the increased complexity might be worth it.

 Lance845 wrote:
It is simple math but it is math. The whole actual formula is algebra. W = (S - (2+T)) + 1

That is not just basic arithmetic. It's a semi basic algebraic formula. I do feel like that gets too complicated when it's happening on every single shot fired.

But you're never calculating it, just like you're never calculating To-Hit = 7 - BS once you've learned the basic rules of the game. You just know that once you get a 2+ to wound you add an extra wound for each point of strength after that, and you memorize the most common combinations of S vs. T. And most of the time it won't matter since you're hitting one-wound models.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
A fair point, Lance845, though it wouldn't actually need to be applied on every shot fired, merely shots fired at multi-wound models (and even then, only after failed saves or with the fairly rare D weapons).

The formula itself is really just a formal way to compare the Strength and Toughness (which ID requires already) through subtraction and addition (W=S-T-1 -Eternal Warrior, minimum 1) rather than division with if/then implications (if S/T <2 or Eternal Warrior, then W=1, if not, then [if GC, then W=1d3, if not, then W=infinity]).

Edit: It does add complexity by having variable results rather than being a threshold test, but the granularity of the results of a threshold test are fairly limited - that's why I felt the increased complexity might be worth it.

Also a fair point. Just throwing out my 2 cents on it and proposing a potential simplification.

The granularity of the results could work very well if that is the level of complexity you enjoy. Not a bad idea.

I would say that a mechanic that replaces instant death is most probably needed. Cause of the gross polarization between 1 wound and Infinite wounds)

Wht about making it grievious wounds if double Str or has a rule called Grievious wounds

Grievious wounds basically is this inflicts an additional D3 wounds for each unsaved wound

Let the units keep feel no pain as they would still could be rolling 3+ wounds on FnP rolls

Eternal warrior should just be that grievious wounds only inflict 1 wound instead of D3

I'll have to throw in a little something on top of what's been said-- like that one other thread was starting to mention, though this table would probably work well for the most part, and seems straightforward enough to me, regular MCs are probably going to have a really bad day when they're relatively low T, like Demon Princes, and I believe Carnifexes are also T 5. On the other hand, FMC still have that snap shot & jink thing going for them, so I think may only magnify the competitive edge FMCs have over regular MCs.

Assuming something from that other thread was proposed to appropriately nerf FMCs, I think the broad spectrum of MCs would be relatively balanced with regular infantry and vehicle units.

True, this does nerf MCs to a certain extent, particularly low-T MCs (though Carnifexes are T6 - the only other T5 MC that isn't a FMC I can think of would be the Ghostkeel).

It might be appropriate to give Daemon MCs (and possibly some Tyranid MCs - particularly linebreaker units like the Carnifex is supposed to be) Eternal Warrior to take out some of the sting from this change.

All Tyranid MC are T6. If any model breaks that rule it would be 1 MAYBE 2 exceptions. But I can think of none off the top of my head.

Hive Crones, I think.

However, the issue is that this makes already easy kill HQ's even easier to kill. It is now far too easy to kill an Autarch or a leader of a Command Squad with a bloody S5 weapon.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
However, the issue is that this makes already easy kill HQ's even easier to kill. It is now far too easy to kill an Autarch or a leader of a Command Squad with a bloody S5 weapon.

...Huh?

Per my proposed rule, an Autarch or Command Squad leader (T3) being hit by a S5 weapon wouldn't take any extra wounds at all. You subtract 2 + T, or 5, from the Strength of 5, and the result is 0. You still take the unsaved wound, but you don't add any wounds on top of that, either.

In fact, under my proposed rules, when hit by a S6 weapon (which by the current rules would be an Instant Death, i.e. Infinite wounds), a T3 model would only take 2 wounds for each unsaved wound.

Being hit by a S7 or higher weapon will almost certainly remove all of the target's wounds (3 at S7, 4 at S8, etc.), but that'd happen anyway under the current Instant Death rule.

In short, my proposal is an across-the-board boost in durability for T3 multiwound models.

...Perhaps you responded to the wrong thread?

Really like this idea! Would a way to avoid the maths issue be to just amend the To Wound table?

So, assuming I've understood correctly, it would go like this:



Where the number in brackets after a 2+ is the number of wounds it deals to a single model. Formatting-wise, maybe making it superscript would be less intrusive?

This allows Meganobz to be one shot by plasma

No thanks

When I was working on Forgehammer, I did something a little more variable in its implementation:

"Massive Damage" is an effect that triggers via certain circumstances, and means the target that fails a save (FNP cannot be taken against this) immediately takes D3 additional wounds/HP with no saves/FNP allowed against it.

Rather than Instant Death being "double the target's toughness", you roll to-wound as normal. Normally you wound on 2+ if Strength - 2 = Toughness. Once Strength -3 = Toughness you wound on 2+, but trigger Massive Damage on 6 to-wound. When Strength - 4 = Toughness, you trigger Massive Damage on 5+, etc.

So a Lascannon does Massive Damage to a T6 MC on 6, but a Railgun does it on 5+.

MCs/sergeants gain extra wounds, as appropriate.

Vehicle Destroyed - Explodes is also replaced with Massive Damage; if a vehicle loses all its Hull Points to a Massive Damage Attack, it explodes. Vehicles gain extra HP, but the damage modifier starts at AP 3; Tank Hunters becomes a re-roll for vehicle damage.

"Bane" effects (Fleshbane, Armorbane, etc) effectively add half the to-wound/to-penetrate roll to the attack's strength. (I had a funky chart for that).

I've always thought that Ordinance could fix this problem, just have ordinance weapons deal 1d3 wounds to multiwound models but with only 1 save taken.
like say a battle cannon hits a Carnifex and wounds, it would deal 1d3 wounds but say a venomthrope is near and it gives the Fex shrouded the fex would only throw one die against the hit and If it made the save then no wounds period.

This effect should be part of a group of things that cause multiple wounds. As it stands, having a model six inches away with bs5 firing a bolt pistol at an inquisitor and rolling sixes to hit and wound will never, ever kill that inquisitor on the first shot, and yet this is what the scenario is when a commissar shoots a company command officer. It's one reason why shooting upgrades are irrelevant for most characters, who contribute nothing but a high bs and will never do more than one wound with their round of shooting. It's also true that on the level of characters this isn't really a balance issue, but it also applies to wraith lords and wraith knights vs missiles, lances and lascannons, situations where this overkill rule doesn't apply.

High S is important, and so are the other factors that could change the balance of a strength-based overkill rule.

Nazrak wrote:Really like this idea! Would a way to avoid the maths issue be to just amend the To Wound table?

So, assuming I've understood correctly, it would go like this:



Where the number in brackets after a 2+ is the number of wounds it deals to a single model. Formatting-wise, maybe making it superscript would be less intrusive?

Looks about right for what I put down, and putting it in a table does make it more intuitive. I used math for the description to be clear about my proposed rule's formula, but adding a table to clarify the actual effects when rubber meets the road would be crucial for this rule to be intelligible.

Formatting-wise, I think it'd be fine as is.

Luke_Prowler wrote:This allows Meganobz to be one shot by plasma

No thanks

True, some multi-wound models (Meganobz included, but also including my beloved Crisis Suits) would now be subject to one-shot attacks by S7 instead of S8.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, some units (I called out Tyranid MCs, but they need not benefit exclusively)), particularly somewhat underperforming units, might need something to keep them competitive. Changing rules like this will pretty much always need some adjustment to the units it effects.

I think it would be reasonable to give Meganobz (and honestly, perhaps Orks in general) my modified Eternal Warrior 1 to represent their extraordinary hardiness against exceptionally damaging and otherwise fatal wounds (Perhaps Eternal Warrior 2 when Orks WAAAAGH!). I would propose something similar for Tyranids - perhaps Eternal Warrior 1 baseline for TMCs or Tyranids in general, and +1 to their Eternal Warrior if they're within Synapse range.

That would bring the Meganobz (and Tyranid Warriors, another unit that doesn't need a nerf) back into needing S8 or S9 to one-shot them.

Thoughts?

MagicJuggler wrote:When I was working on Forgehammer, I did something a little more variable in its implementation:

"Massive Damage" is an effect that triggers via certain circumstances, and means the target that fails a save (FNP cannot be taken against this) immediately takes D3 additional wounds/HP with no saves/FNP allowed against it.

Rather than Instant Death being "double the target's toughness", you roll to-wound as normal. Normally you wound on 2+ if Strength - 2 = Toughness. Once Strength -3 = Toughness you wound on 2+, but trigger Massive Damage on 6 to-wound. When Strength - 4 = Toughness, you trigger Massive Damage on 5+, etc.

So a Lascannon does Massive Damage to a T6 MC on 6, but a Railgun does it on 5+.

MCs/sergeants gain extra wounds, as appropriate.

Vehicle Destroyed - Explodes is also replaced with Massive Damage; if a vehicle loses all its Hull Points to a Massive Damage Attack, it explodes. Vehicles gain extra HP, but the damage modifier starts at AP 3; Tank Hunters becomes a re-roll for vehicle damage.

"Bane" effects (Fleshbane, Armorbane, etc) effectively add half the to-wound/to-penetrate roll to the attack's strength. (I had a funky chart for that).

Definitely another viable concept, doing roughly the same thing. It does make the chance for ID scale with the differential between S and T, which parallels my system, and modifying the Vehicle Damage Table to be less painful for vehicles is always a worthy goal (though one that I'd address by removing vehicles as a unit type entirely, but that's a whole different kettle o' fish).

I think, if I had an issue with your system at all, it would be that your system buffs lower T's durability against ID much more significantly than my system (most T3 or T4 multiwound models only have 2 or 3 wounds, so they only need S+3 or S+4 to match existing ID rules, while under your framework, a T3 multi-wound model will avoid being one-shot by S8 half the time).

That said, I do like the concept, and it seems like it would be a viable alternative to my own.

panzerfront14 wrote:I've always thought that Ordinance could fix this problem, just have ordinance weapons deal 1d3 wounds to multiwound models but with only 1 save taken.
like say a battle cannon hits a Carnifex and wounds, it would deal 1d3 wounds but say a venomthrope is near and it gives the Fex shrouded the fex would only throw one die against the hit and If it made the save then no wounds period.

Would you remove ID-by-doubled-Strength-versus-Toughness, or would this work in parallel to the existing ID system?

Does this address the issue of a Tau Railgun or Zoanthrope 10/1 shot or Lascannons never having a chance of causing massive damage to things they really aught to (like Riptides, Dreadknights, etc), given that it is limited to the Ordnance type? Do all armies have access to Ordnance, such that this would address the overarching issue (that T6+ models are too durable against exceptionally High Strength attacks)?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

pelicaniforce wrote:
This effect should be part of a group of things that cause multiple wounds. As it stands, having a model six inches away with bs5 firing a bolt pistol at an inquisitor and rolling sixes to hit and wound will never, ever kill that inquisitor on the first shot, and yet this is what the scenario is when a commissar shoots a company command officer. It's one reason why shooting upgrades are irrelevant for most characters, who contribute nothing but a high bs and will never do more than one wound with their round of shooting. It's also true that on the level of characters this isn't really a balance issue, but it also applies to wraith lords and wraith knights vs missiles, lances and lascannons, situations where this overkill rule doesn't apply.

High S is important, and so are the other factors that could change the balance of a strength-based overkill rule.

In your scenario, I'm inclined to say that I'd rather hand-wave that sort of factor as a necessary abstraction to make the application of that rule manageable.

My proposed house rule is arguably complex enough as is, and adding even more factors might make it too unwieldy.

I never did address Lance (or Melta when firing at half-range, for that matter), but both could easily be noted to add +1 to the Overkill formula (i.e. a Meltagun fired at a Riptide (T6) would normally not cause any extra wounds, but if within half-range, could cause a second wound).

For almost a year now I play with modified I.D. rules:

- I.D. from special rule causes 2 wounds if unsaved;
- I.D. from double strenght causes second wound only on a failed T test;

Eternal Warrior prevents both effects.

This is a straightforward solution that differentiate vulnerability to I.D. without having to remember any new table/equation (I find that predefined dice rolls are faster than any in-game calculations). However, it does not addres the issue of high-strenght weapons vs T6+ models, so is not an equivalent to what OP is proposing. I implemented that in my games, because I don't really like flip-of-a-coin situations in 40K and one-shoting anything.

[sidenote for clarity: this is just one of my many modifications to core mechanics, so while it alone might upset balance, it is a part of a larger rework of rules].

nou wrote:
For almost a year now I play with modified I.D. rules:

- I.D. from special rule causes 2 wounds if unsaved;
- I.D. from double strenght causes second wound only on a failed T test;

Eternal Warrior prevents both effects.

I had been thinking about Sx2 ID vs. Non-EW successful TW roll causing 2 wounds but allowing separate saves against each wound to smooth things out a bit. So (assuming you can take a save) a high-STR hit has a decent chance to inflict at least 1W on your character, but it would be less likely to be all-or-nothing on a 2W character and prevents your 3W boss from getting popped right off the bat.

Thoughts?

A while ago I proposed to replace Instant death, with if you wound on a 2+ you cause D3 wounds. The response was (to paraphrase) 'oh no, a Plasma Gun would be able to one shot my character'.

I thought it was a simple elegant solution, it fits fluff, and the average would be 2. But 'Oh no, my character'.

Sorry I think I am a little bit bitter. But as a Guard player I have no problem with my characters being able to be insta killed by Heavy Bolters. Like anyone would take Heavy Bolters anyway.

It would give plasma a niche over grav.

Too complicated and T4 multiwounds models would be nerfed badly. Mid strenght weapons would become too powerful and I think that overpowered weapons (and units) should be nerfed, not the opposite, with S6-7 even more powerful than now.

Just make riptides AV11 with 4 HP and WK/stormsurges AV13 with 6 HP and no one would complain about MCs that can't be killed by a single shot like vehicles. FNP replaced with It Will Not Die, no invulns better than a 5+ allowed. With a 7+ they would explode, like any walker in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:


I think it would be reasonable to give Meganobz (and honestly, perhaps Orks in general) my modified Eternal Warrior 1 to represent their extraordinary hardiness against exceptionally damaging and otherwise fatal wounds (Perhaps Eternal Warrior 2 when Orks WAAAAGH!). I would propose something similar for Tyranids - perhaps Eternal Warrior 1 baseline for TMCs or Tyranids in general, and +1 to their Eternal Warrior if they're within Synapse range.

That would bring the Meganobz (and Tyranid Warriors, another unit that doesn't need a nerf) back into needing S8 or S9 to one-shot them.

Thoughts?

I don't like it as I think rules like Eternal Warrior should belong only to hero characters, not to standard elite models or even generic HQs. The point is units like meganobz don't need to be improved, but other units need to be nerfed. And nerfed badly. I don't think that improving other weapons/units would make the game more balanced, overpowered things need to be mutilated by increasing their points value and/or changing their stats.

It's not too complicated. The game is already complicated.

Hi folks.
My alternative to Instant Death and Eternal Warrior was simpler.

if you roll 2 more than you need to inflict a wound ,you inflict an extra wound.

EG if you only need a 2+ to wound, and you roll 4+You score an extra wound on the target model.(If you rolled a 6 you would score 2 extra wounds on the target model.)

This simply delivers a proportionally higher chance of causing extra wounds when the strength of the weapon hit is much higher than the toughness of the target.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
My alternative to Instant Death and Eternal Warrior was simpler.

if you roll 2 more than you need to inflict a wound ,you inflict an extra wound.

EG if you only need a 2+ to wound, and you roll 4+You score an extra wound on the target model.(If you rolled a 6 you would score 2 extra wounds on the target model.)

This simply delivers a proportionally higher chance of causing extra wounds when the strength of the weapon hit is much higher than the toughness of the target.

So if my scatbikes wound a 2W SM IC & they blow their save, I actually have a 60% chance of killing them outright (or an 84% chance to kill a 3W model with 2 hits)? I thought Scatterlasers needed a buff. Awesome! (Note: not actually awesome). Or apply to Heavy Bolters vs. most Eldar ICs, etc.

I think my underlying complaint is ID needs a nerf and shouldn't be all-or-nothing, not that it needs a buff.


ETA: Sorry, Lanrak, wasn't trying to pick on you specifically, just that your proposal shares a lot of the "S+2" aspects as other ideas in the thread and being brief, it was easy to comment on.


I did want to ask again, for any type of multi-wound scenario (RAW ID or alternate systems), does anyone else see any value in saves vs. each wound individually? (Assume Eternal Warrior rules just mean a save vs. 1 wound as usual.)

I think additional granularity would be good in that it recognizes that getting hit by an ID-type attack can mess you up badly but smooths out the curve of damage. So, assuming a Sx2>=T ID attack inflicts wounds equal to the model's original W value:
* unwounded 2W/3+ model: a wounding hit means an 11% chance of dying and a 44% chance each of taking 0 wounds or 1 wound (as opposed to a 33% chance of dying and a 67% chance of living unwounded); if the model's already suffered 1 wound, then a 44% chance of death.
* unwounded 3W/3+ model: a wounding hit means 30%: 0 wounds, 44%: 1 wound, 22%: 2 wounds, and 4%: dead (as opposed to a 33% chance of dying and a 67% chance of living unwounded). For model already wounded once/twice, then a 26%/70% chance of death.

One complaint might be that the 2W model only has to save vs. 2 wounds as opposed to the 3W model saving against 3; if we said ID inflicted 3 wounds across the board, the 2W model's wound distribution would be the same as the 3W model, meaning a 26% chance of dying instead of an 11% chance. (Any T3 or T4 models with 4W or more? Maybe they just save against 3 wounds regardless of original W value.)

This calculation ignores S10 vs. T5 because they're rare enough not to consider compared to melta, suncannons, SM powerfists, etc.. It also doesn't effectively address a D-Weapon rolling a 2-5 inflicting 1-3 wounds. (Maybe for a 2-5 D-Weapon result, you roll the d3 for wounds, and regardless of T, the IC has to save against every one or die?)

(edits besides the apology to Lanrak just fixing/clarifying my examples.)