<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "saves"]]>

<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "saves"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/16.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net saves http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2429888.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2429888.page GMT saves http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2429907.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2429907.page GMT saves
But if you had to make all the saves that made sense (cover, fail....invul, fail.....armour, saved!) each turn woudl take forever to do.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2430087.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2430087.page GMT saves

Praxiss wrote:I thought this was weird when i first started playing, you woudl think yoiu'd get the cover, then you armour if the cover didnt help.

But if you had to make all the saves that made sense (cover, fail....invul, fail.....armour, saved!) each turn woudl take forever to do.

However, it is weird. I do hope they fix it in the next edition.
Just to propose something: cover save as a negative modifier for the BS. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2430189.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2430189.page GMT saves

da001 wrote:

Praxiss wrote:I thought this was weird when i first started playing, you woudl think yoiu'd get the cover, then you armour if the cover didnt help.

But if you had to make all the saves that made sense (cover, fail....invul, fail.....armour, saved!) each turn woudl take forever to do.

However, it is weird. I do hope they fix it in the next edition.
Just to propose something: cover save as a negative modifier for the WS.

Yeah I personally think you should have to go through all your saves (even though it would take a while), I mean if you have a 2+ armor or invoulnerable covers not going to help at all, they could make it where you just choose two of your saves or something like that. Yeah I'm new to wargaming too, and after thourghly reading all the rules, I found some of them to be quite weird, for example I think that turns should be structred like this: player 1's movment, player 2's movment, player 1's shooting, player 2's shooting, player 1's assault, player 2's assault. I think that would be more realistic, though it would take the advantage away from some units.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432118.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432118.page GMT saves 40k (you actually roll to see who goes first at the beggining of every turn), but only for friendly games of course]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432334.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432334.page GMT saves

da001 wrote:
However, it is weird. I do hope they fix it in the next edition.
Just to propose something: cover save as a negative modifier for the WS.

Do you mean BS? They used to do that but they changed it to save in 3rd edition if memory serves. Apparantly it was slowing down the game.

Also if you got all your save's you'd be such a pain to kill!! Imagine you trying to shoot a space marine captain in power armor. First a cover save, which is 4+, then another 4++ for his shield, then a 3+ for the power armor!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432408.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432408.page GMT saves SS.

They need to be more than 40 points for that deal.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432419.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432419.page GMT saves 40K also has units with good armor as opposed to just a few models on the table.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432422.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432422.page GMT saves http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432428.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432428.page GMT saves

nathan2195 wrote:Me and my always to every save possible and it really does not make much of a difference to how long the game takes. Yes, it makes certain units hard to kill but it is not that bad.

A beautiful example of "The most important rule" of any game. I dislike it for some reasons, and my friends and I generally play by the rules (though one player in my ground stretches it, I feel), but if it works for you and yours, by all means. One of my friends (the same one) take Vindicare and Eversor assassins in his DE list sometimes. Not legal at all by the rules - but no-one minds, and it's fun!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432449.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432449.page GMT Re:saves 40k is just not balanced to allow for it.

For Instance:

Space Marine TH/SS Terminator takes a non AP hit.
Armor/Cover/Invul.
2+/5+(minimal)/3+ = 95% of saving at some point. (Currently they would only take the 2+ to grant a 83% chance to save.) Δ 12%

Space Marine takes a non AP hit.
Armor/Cover/Invul.
3+/4+(good)/NA = 83% of saving at some point. (Currently they would only take the 3+ to grant a 66% chance to save.) Δ 17%

Ork Boy takes the same non AP hit.
Armor/Cover/Invul.
6+/4+(good)/NA = 58% of saving at some point. (Currently they would only take the 4+ to grant a 50% chance to save.) Δ 8%

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432491.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432491.page GMT Re:saves

CageUF wrote:You only ever get 1 save. So pick the best out of your Armor, Invul. or Cover. Multiple saves would be nice but it would severely change the game and 40k is just not balanced to allow for it.

For Instance:

Space Marine TH/SS Terminator takes a non AP hit.
Armor/Cover/Invul.
2+/5+(minimal)/3+ = 95% of saving at some point. (Currently they would only take the 2+ to grant a 83% chance to save.) Δ 12%

Space Marine takes a non AP hit.
Armor/Cover/Invul.
3+/4+(good)/NA = 83% of saving at some point. (Currently they would only take the 3+ to grant a 66% chance to save.) Δ 17%

Ork Boy takes the same non AP hit.
Armor/Cover/Invul.
6+/4+(good)/NA = 58% of saving at some point. (Currently they would only take the 4+ to grant a 50% chance to save.) Δ 8%

Well another thing that I think might work OK is if your cover is below a 4+ you could add to your armor save down to a 2+ or if your armor/invulnerable is a 4+ or better you can add one to your cover save, I think something like that might work. Though I still do maintain that turns should be structured diffrently (look at my earlier comment). That's just my opinion, though they probably aren't going to make any major changes to the rules of 40k anytime soon. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432558.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2432558.page GMT saves

Lizar7 wrote:

da001 wrote:
However, it is weird. I do hope they fix it in the next edition.
Just to propose something: cover save as a negative modifier for the WS.

Yep, a mistake. Editing now.
By merging the roll To Hit with the Cover Save you skip a roll. So there will be only two saves to roll, and Invulnerable Saves are infrequent. As a side note, I would first roll the Armor Save, taking the I Save as a "last chance".
This will totally break the game, unbalancing all armies.

It is really hard to balance the game if you change a key rule. But this is the way the game improves. As graidstin said, some rules look weird.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2433333.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/345824/2433333.page GMT