Welcome to Librarium Online!
There has been one thing that has always bothered me ever since 3rd edition. The one die limit to saves. Whether it's an ork with its nearly absent save of X+, or a terminator captain armed with a stormshield inside a bunker, they both get one die.
The idea that one die increases the speed of the game (it does), and that multiple saves increase surviveability by large %'s, need to find a balance.
In second edition this was solved by decreasing the chance to hit on the first roll (soft and hard cover) and having armor save modifiers, unique for each weapon.(there were also modifiers to hit, for enemies being in close and far range)
The modifiers have all but disappeared due to the amount of time it took for calculation of the entire force and the general reduction in BS of elite units. The result of this was the implementation of cover saves.
To increase play speed the AP system was introduced. No more to hit or save modifiers, a simple (yes i get my save or no I don't) system. Compared to the old system of modifiers, good armor saves became better, due to the lack of modifiers in reducing its chance, while poor armor remained poor because most the time it never got a save in either system.
Cover saves appeared allowing a model a save regardless of the AP of the weapon. Depending the type of cover the save could allow a high % rate of survival. Models with little armor benefit most due to the fact that they now get an extra die to reduce losses.
This is where the systems gets a little weird. Lasgun A shoots at model X. X gets a cover save. Lasgun A shoots at model Y. Y does not receive a cover save. Why does model X receive a cover save and model Y does not? Cover provides no benefit vs the lasgun if your armor has a better save. Should it? Common sense says you are much safer from bullets (in this case lasers), when behind a brick wall. Start talking lascannon and the story changes a bit, everyone benefits from ye old brick wall. But I think everyone can agree that there are many more small arms than lascannons, in a given game.
Should the advantage near armorless guys be converted into additional point costs? Should the heavily armored receive (in the current system) a bonus for being in cover? Should the armored men receive price discounts because they spend less time in cover?It's all very hard to say. How much time does the near armorless spend in cover compared to those in heavy. An overall average would likely suggest that the near armorless would spend more time.
Overall I find that many pieces of terrain often go unused and that the focus, if at all, it usually only a few pieces at most. On the other hand one piece of terrain can make or break a game.
I would like to suggest a comprimising system that has potential to benefit everyone, but is slightly in more favor of the more armored.
Any save that a model has that is not bypassed or ignored, adds a +1 to your best save.
20 necron rapid fire 40 shots into a 10 man squad of marines in cover. In the current rules marines would receive their normal save. Suggestions of the +1 they would now receive a 2+ armor save. (crons now very mad)
20 guardsman rapid fire 40 shots into a mob of 20 orks in a ruined building(4+). The lasguns do not bypass the cover save, nor the armor save of the orks, allowing the orks to add +1 to their highest save making it a total of 3+.
150 guardsman rapid fire 300 shots at a terminator captain in a bunker. The lasguns don't ignore jack so the captain would still enjoy his 2+ but adding the +1 for his invul and +1 for cover, he gets to reroll any 1's and a 5 or 6 would equal a save. (he's not getting the full benefit of everything but a small benefit due to the fact he's surrounded by protection)
A chaplain is in a patch of woods and hit by 4 krak missles. His armor is ignored, his 4+ invuln +1 for woods cover is a 3+ save total.
I would love to hear some feedback about this idea, and if anyone wants to try it, I would love to hear the effect on balance. It doesn't affect CC too much as most characters with invulns are the target of armor ignoring weapons. I plan on testing this heavily in my group. I would especially like to hear about how it affects each army individuallys.
Well, for one thing I believe the Black Templars have a vow that gives them a 6+ invul. They would have a 2+ against most attacks, so that would be a problem.
It seems like the rule could be game breaking for gunline marines, since it gives them 2+ saves against small arms fire. Also, my biker warboss would get a 2+ cover save when turbo-boosting. The icon of Tzeetnch would hugely overpowered. There's probably a lot of things like that you would have to consider.
What you propose would vastly unbalance the game, and honestly, I believe the 'tough' questions you pose are actually quite easy to answer.Absolutely not. I'm not even sure how to emphasize just how absolutely not. I'll use a battle between SM and Orks as an example. Cheaper SM would mean more SM, more expensive Orks would mean fewer Orks. The SM player does not NEED to seek cover, as they are effectively walking bunkers anyways. Now the Ork player would need to seek cover more than ever. I don't see how this could ever be justified.Should the advantage near armorless guys be converted into additional point costs? Should the heavily armored receive (in the current system) a bonus for being in cover? Should the armored men receive price discounts because they spend less time in cover?Every piece of terrain is used whether you realize it or not. They block line of sight, create fire alleys and strategical holding points, cut off easy access to portions of the battle field, as well as provide a place to bunker down for a classic shoot out.Overall I find that many pieces of terrain often go unused and that the focus, if at all, it usually only a few pieces at most. On the other hand one piece of terrain can make or break a game.This would give a far greater advantage to more heavily armored troops, and would skew the game into their favor as much as the hypothetical points change. The entire process you propose increases the survivability to those who are already more survivable, and does nothing for the guys who drop by the dozen every turn.Any save that a model has that is not bypassed or ignored, adds a +1 to your best save.
It is very difficult to evaluate the probability that a model given an X+ armor save would benefit from this rule, given the great variety of AP in different weapons. So for now assume that all weapon APs are evenly distributed (you have an equal probability to be fired at by an AP 1 weapon as you do an AP 5 weapon)
P(X) = Probability that an armor save of X will benefit from this rule
P(6+)=0.14; P(5+)=0.28; P(4+)=0.42; P(3+)=0.57; P(2+)=0.71
Interpretation: A Guardsmen in cover would gain a bonus to their cover save for every 28 out of 100 shots fired, whereas a Terminator would NOT receive bonus to their cover save for only 29 out of every 100 shots fired.
This is actually highly skewed in the favor of 2+ and 3+ armor save models, as weapon APs are not evenly distributed. There are a great more AP4 or higher weapons than there are AP 1 - 3 weapons, so I assume the actual probability would be much higher for models with 2+ armor saves, and much lower for models with 6+ armor saves.
In conclusion, you are only making SM and CSM armies more annoying, while making Orks and Guardsmen die all the faster.
Last edited by BossGorestompa; November 23rd, 2008 at 15:50.
If you wanted to replace the rather counter intuitive AP+AV+inv+cover save debarcle with something simple and proportional...
Give all units a AR value that represents ALL its armour /resistance to dammage in ONE stat.(T+SV+Inv/AV etc.)
Ork Boys, AR 2
IG storm troopers AR 3
SoB AR 4
SM AR 5
Mega Armour AR 6
Terminators AR 7
All weapons are given damage value( similar to str value).
Eg a Heavy bolter Damage Value 8.
Orks AR 2 save on a 6+(8-2=6)
SMs save on a 3+(8-5=3)
Terminators are invunerable to the Heavy bolter shots, (save on a 1+ 8-7 =1)
Damage value - AR value = save roll.
Soft cover help conceal the target unit.(Simple FoW mechanic.)
Hard cover ADDS to the AR value of the unit.
A dammage table for vehicles based on how much you beat the armour by.
And a simple supression mechanic coupled with alternating unit activation mechanics completes this re write of 40k.....
Lets play with some numbers and see how feasible that is. I realize you're joking, but I don't have anything better to do.
We will use eight Space Marines firing at thirty Orks at 24". Neither squad has any special equipment, and are equal points (Not that it really matters in this circumstance.
8(2/3) = 5.3 Hits. 5.3(1/2) = 2.6 Wounds.
By your proposition (I'm assuming you still have to roll to hit)
Damage Value - Armour Rating = Saving Throw (DV-AR=ST)
5.3(1/6) = 0.8 Saves = 4.5 Wounds.
Granted, I know those numbers you came up with are arbitrary, so lets play around with model stat lines and see if we can find something that yields approximately 2.6 wounds.
DV = BS + Str + (7-AP)
AR = T + (7-Sv) + ((7-Cover) / 2) + 1
Space Marine bolters would have a DV of 9
Orks would have an AR of 6
ST is 3+.
Since BS is already involved in the equation there is no roll to hit; Str and T are in the equation, no roll to wound; AP and Sv are in the equation, no armour save. Only the Saving Throw.
8(2/3) = 5.3 Saves = 2.7 Wounds.
New test: 30 Guardsmen vs. 30 Orks at 24"
30(1/2) = 15 Hits. 15(1/3) = 5 Wounds. 5(1/6) = 0.83 Saves = 4.17 Wounds.
DV = 6
AR = 6
ST = 0+ (never better than 2+ unless AR is double DV)
30(5/6) = 25 Saves = 5 Wounds.
Damn I'm good. Now you can go play three games in the time it would take you to play one.
In conclusion it works. I'm going to try it out so my Orks get a 6+ armour save versus Heavy Bolters!
I was being a bit lighthearted ,with my reply.(But serious in my intent.)
It IS actualy easy to replace most of the current 40k game mechanics with much more efficient ones.(All game mechnics mentioned are used to great effect in other games.)
As there are lots of alternatives that work much better than the current 40k game mechanics.
(40k is the ONLY table top game I know of that had the rules written by /for the minature marketing requirment.)
Unfortunatley GW will contunue to use a mutated WH clone rule set for 40k because people keep buying it!
I am not very good at thrashing out the detail,( basic concepts /systems anallasis and implementation is my thing.)
Let me know how you get on!
I was actually being a bit serious in my post too, until I realized it wouldn't work. and realized how tired I was. And how little I felt like thinking.
It is actually not possible to combine the combat system in 40k to one dice roll. As it is, you are able to make a total of three dice rolls per shot / attack (to hit, to wound, and armour save), leading to a total of 216 different outcomes per attack. You would only have six different outcomes with a single dice per attack.
Granted, there are usually only ten or so outcomes in any given situations. Example would be a Space Marine shooting an Ork. Four different outcomes will successfully hit, three different outcomes would successfully wound. The rest of those 216 possible outcomes allow a much greater variation between stat lines.
The probability of a Space Marine wounding an Ork per shot would be 3+ to hit * 4+ to wound, or (2/3)*(1/2)=(1/3), or 33.3% chance to wound per shot. This can be simplified to a single dice, as it is the same as rolling a 5+.
Now, take that Space Marine and fire at a vanilla Carnifex.
3+ to hit * 6's to wound * 2- to bypass armour, or (2/3)*(1/6)*(1/3)=(1/27), or 3.7% chance to wound per shot. This cannot be represented by making a single dice roll.
As far as the 40k mechanics being inefficient, thats just a matter of preference. I rather like the way 40k plays, hence why I am a hobbyist. The rest of the negativity towards GW, I don't buy into. The truth is, no matter what game you play, you have to buy something. So in the end it is all the same, you are nothing but a consumer. If people weren't consumers, we wouldn't have a game to play. Simple fact of economics. Then again, if people weren't consumers, we'd live in a more perfect world... but thats beside the point.
To Lanrak specifically- check your inbox
On the other hand, combining dice to achieve a similar probability could be possible.
Ten Space Marines rapid firing into a vanilla Carnifex. They have a (1/27) chance of wounding the Carnifex per shot.
Simplify that to one dice per attack.
Roll 20d6, for every three sets of 5+ you inflict one wound. (1/3)*(1/3)*(1/3)=(1/27).
Or, according to the DV-SV=ST idea I played around with last night.
Roll 20d6, for every three sets of 2- the Carnifex loses a wound.
The tricky thing is to translate the stat line of any given model into DV and SV values accurately represent the probability of wounding as it is now, such that the probability would be similar in any given circumstance.
Inefficient IS not a subjective term but a comparative one.
EG In my proposed system EVERY unit has the SAME stats.
(Not seperate stats for vehicles....)
(Symbol)Type of movement.(Walker , tracked, wheeled, hover, flyer,)
CS Combat Speed.(Maxiumum distance moved per action.)
Defencive capability .
AR.Armour/ resitance to damage.
HP. Hit points.
SZ unit size.
Offencive capability .
Weapon type.Symbol (Assault /Small arms /Support/ Fire support .)
D Damage (of each type )
E Effect ,symbol (of each type.)
R Range (of each type.)
AW Awarness range.
Command And control.
MG Moral grade.(1 to 4 , roll over MG to pass.)
CV Command value/Range (Effect on own-near by units/ range of effect.)
All this information could be represented easily on a UNIT DATA card similar to the ones used in AT 43.(No messing about looking in Codexes mid game ....)
IF you start from scratch . you can develop a game system to GET A SPECIFIC TYPE OF GAMEPLAY that has simple effective efficient rules.
Its a bit difficult to explain a totaly new concept in a few lines .
But I will happily go through my development notes-ideas with you if you like.
Fee free to ask questions , I shall answer them the best I can.
I prefer measuring , (with limited modifiers,) to throwing bucket fulls of dice, but thats just me , maybe?
Its time consume, I'll admit, but I rather enjoy throwing buckets of dice. It just adds a bit of.. I dunno, some kind of element to the game. Especially when I throw 120 dice on the table for one units attack. There is an immense sense of satisfaction. On the flip side, when the opponent throws a comparable number of dice, it adds a bit of suspense. Albeit at the expense of time, but we're talking about a game, which can quite literally be defined as "a fun way to waste your time," so the point seems moot to me.