better armor save, penetration, modifier system for warham?

[OgreBattle]

So damage in Warhammer Fantasy & 40k for a while has been...

Look at Strength vs Toughness, roll a d6 with various odds.

Sometimes it's "If equal you deal damage on a 4+, then move that up and down based on being higher or lower than target's toughness"

Now it's "If equal 4+, if greater 3+, x2 greater 2+, lesser 5+, x2 lesser 6+"

Then an armor save has been "roll over a target number"
- 40k 3rd-7th: armor penetration is all or nothing
- 40k 1st 2nd 8th

From what I remember on here, the AP all or nothing method was better for weapon distinction, while the modifier system made -1 always useful and most things can be plinked away.

What are some other ways Warhams could do armor saves though?

The most obvious to me is "use the wound system, but defender rolls vs a penetration number" this also means a higher number save is better, a higher number penetration value is better, so none of that "AP1 is best but t1 sucks"

This also lets armor be valued by more than 6 results.

Any other ways they could do armor saves in a sane way that stand out?

[Thaluikhain]

Define "Warhammer", though.

I mean, original Necromunda (which used modified 2nd ed rules) works well for Necromunda scale games, 2nd ed 40k works reasonably well for the small games 2nd ed seemed to be intended for, but they had a different vision of 40k for 3rd ed. Bigger games, less overpowered characters. 3rd ed rules worked pretty well for that.

Not too familiar with 8th ed, but it seems an embarrassing mess, at best.

LotR/The Hobbit/Middle-Earth used a similar system, but had one stat (Defence) instead of Toughness and a separate Armour save.

Doctor Who Miniatures Game (2nd Ed) had a similar system (being a fan project based on 2nd ed crossed with LotR), but instead of a table, it was just 4+ to hurt something with the same Strength as your Defence, and each point of difference between Strength and Toughness changed the number you had to roll by one. There was also "Body Armour" as a special ability, which gave you a 5+ save against Str3 or less, or 6+ against Str4. Exactly the same as 5+ same in 2nd ed 40k.

[OgreBattle]

"Define Warhammer..." I'm mentioning different editions to see if there's particular merits to how certain editions did things. Like 3rd edition's AP did speed things up and make a 3+ save valuable vs machine guns.

The main changes in 8e 40k are...

- Strength and Wounds is based on greater or doubling, so s7 sucks and lasguns can still wound titans
- that latter problem is solved with double digit wounds for vehicles so it's not worth pew pewing a tank with lasguns, while bright lances deal d6 damage... so more fiddly things to keep track of in the end

mean, original Necromunda (which used modified 2nd ed rules) works well for Necromunda scale games, 2nd ed 40k works reasonably well for the small games 2nd ed seemed to be intended for, but they had a different vision of 40k for 3rd ed. Bigger games, less overpowered characters. 3rd ed rules worked pretty well for that[/img]

Necromunda trends towards weaker armor saves as the norm, with some characters not having any, so I think that's the situation where the All Or Nothing AP fits best.
With 2nd edition 40k, I think nearly every small arms had at least ap-1, so the 3+ power armor save was usually a 4 or 5+ so marines died pretty fast.

Having the Toughness stat as something that goes up with certain kinds of armor also adds variety. Like chunky ork scrap armor increases toughness due to sheer bulk while Eldar aspect armor increases only armor save with impact hardening deflection

Thinking about this more.... Strength vs Toughness could represent shock, with armor save representing piercing, slicing organ damage. Thus both are rolled to if the ork is stunned but nbot suffering a lasting wound, or skewered but still has a wound left to krump

[deaddmwalking]

So let me take a stab at this...

Mathematically, if your attack's strength is equal to your opponent's toughness, you deal damage 50% of the time (less their soak save like from a force field). (4+ on a d6)

If your attack's strength is +1 versus the defender, you deal damage 2/3 of the time (3+ on a d6).

You could get the same result if you rolled 1d6+Attack Power versus a TN of 3+Toughness.

In this case, a Power 4 weapon versus a Toughness 4 enemy would roll 1d6+4 versus a TN of 7; rolling a 4+ would result in damage

Likewise, a Power 5 weapon versus a Toughness 4 enemy would roll 1d6+5 versus a TN of 7; rolling a +3 would result in damage.

The potential benefit of this is that you could scale weapon power potentially indefinitely on the high end... In fact, you could start weapon power at 0.

Since calculating 3+T would be an extra step, I'd probably eliminate it and just make T equal to (3+original T). That is, a T4 model would now be listed as T7. That would mean that to damage it, you must achieve 7+ on a d6 roll plus weapon power (achievable with a Power 1 weapon, but not a Power 0 weapon).

This can let you add additional features to weapons, where a particularly high roll could do more wounds (like an automatic weapon), while a powerful weapon (like a lasgun) may still only do 1 wound but will easily overcome the target's T without a roll. A lasgun could apply any 'extra' as a penalty on the armor soak.

Is that the kind of stuff you're thinking about?

[OgreBattle]

Yeah, also thinking of how "types of attacks and defenses" fit in.

People are used to D&D being "Attack is a +X, defense is a YZ" so that works.

Like a big slime enemy that has railguns dart right through it but chipped away by anything vs a dog made of diamonds that will shatter with a high enough power.

Having some enemies take damage but "super armor" through the blow to fight at full strength vs other enemies get knocked back but not permanently wounded.

[Thaluikhain]

For 40k, if the target's toughness was 2 more than your strength, you wounded it on a 6+. If it was 3 more, you also wounded it on a 6+. I'm not sure if that's something worth keeping, though.

This can let you add additional features to weapons, where a particularly high roll could do more wounds (like an automatic weapon)

In my skirmish game I'd been considering, with most weapons, if you need 4 to hit, then 5 is 2 hits and 6 is 3, which seems to work. Possibly something similar with at least some weapons in regards to wounding?

[OgreBattle]

I think counting every difference between S & T is better

Then " =, <, x2<" can hang around for a system like "If double their toughness inflicts additional wounds" or something

n my skirmish game I'd been considering, with most weapons, if you need 4 to hit, then 5 is 2 hits and 6 is 3, which seems to work. Possibly something similar with at least some weapons in regards to wounding?

With a system like that it seems like "Subtract Attack roll from TN, that's how many hits you made"

[Thaluikhain]

With a system like that it seems like "Subtract Attack roll from TN, that's how many hits you made"

Well, "Shooting skill + roll - cover = hits", I personally like roll over rather than roll under.

[deaddmwalking]

I think counting every difference between S & T is better

Using the STR+Roll against a target number is the same as counting the difference unless you use something like a 'x2 difference has additional effect. About that..

Then " =, <, x2<" can hang around for a system like "If double their toughness inflicts additional wounds" or something

Keeping in mind that we're talking about weapons designed around a d6, where STR 4/Defense 4 are 'normal' values, a STR 8 or STR 12 weapon is already off the charts. But if you make high strength weapons deal extra wounds, you tend to make powerful 'single shot weapons' like a STR 9 lascannon capable of dealing multiple wounds, while a weaker STR 7 autocannon (minigun) would not.

That said, it might help understand what your objective is. Doing things differently allows you to do other things differently. I'd assume you want to. Making weapons have different properties beyond STR/Rate of Fire (ROF) seems like something you'd want to do.

With a system like that it seems like "Subtract Attack roll from TN, that's how many hits you made"

When we're dealing with numbers that are in the neighborhood of 10, subtracting T from Roll+STR is at least as easy. When you roll over you can let weapons scale up infinitely without having to ever worry about negative numbers. The first step of STR-Toughness+3 equals roll needed isn't intuitive - people who have played Warhmmer grok the mechanic, but making that part easier would be a really good first step.

Personal preference...
I'd probably increase the base number of Wounds of models to 2 (Imperial Guard) or 3 (Space Marines)

Ballistic Skill/Weapon Skill would be d6+ability against a 'dodge attribute' with the balance point around 75% hits. Some armies (like Eldar) would be extra dodgy so against some units the number of hits might be significantly lower.

Damage would be d6+Power against Toughness (using existing T values +3 as a default) with weapons potentially having different effects.

• General Rule - exploding damage on a 'six'. It probably won't usually matter, but there's a small chance of a photon torpedo destroying a Death Star. If I don't like the results, I might restrict that to certain weapons.
  
  I'd have weapons that make multiple attack rolls (multilasers) against a single target, with the potential to hit 0-3 times; I'd roll 1 attack and then on a hit roll 1d3). This would give me 3 chances to roll damage.
  
  I'd have some weapons that roll damage after an attack roll, with each point over the target inflicting damage (automatic weapons like machine guns). The power of these weapons might vary from 2 (Uzi) to 12 (A-10 mounted 30mm Gatling Gun)

There are some other things I'd do, but that's sort of the gist.

Where I'm coming from is that the models in Warhammer feel very samey to me; giving a few different ways to differentiate them better would help. Likewise, I'd like to make a chainaxe and a chainsword feel different.

[Thaluikhain]

Personal preference...
I'd probably increase the base number of Wounds of models to 2 (Imperial Guard) or 3 (Space Marines)

You'd need counters (or need to remember) which models aren't on full wounds, though, easier to just take one model off for each wound.

OTOH, if you are thinking of small games, fiddly rules aren't such an issue.

Ballistic Skill/Weapon Skill would be d6+ability against a 'dodge attribute' with the balance point around 75% hits. Some armies (like Eldar) would be extra dodgy so against some units the number of hits might be significantly lower.

Would you have cover modifiers on top of that, or cover saves?

[deaddmwalking]

Personal preference...
I'd probably increase the base number of Wounds of models to 2 (Imperial Guard) or 3 (Space Marines)

You'd need counters (or need to remember) which models aren't on full wounds, though, easier to just take one model off for each wound.

The 3rd edition 40k army I had had a bunch of counters, including a wounded one, I think. Since they have heroes with 3+ wounds, it was something you'd have to track. I think stacking 1 or 2 wounded counters under a model wouldn't be that big a deal.

Ballistic Skill/Weapon Skill would be d6+ability against a 'dodge attribute' with the balance point around 75% hits. Some armies (like Eldar) would be extra dodgy so against some units the number of hits might be significantly lower.

Would you have cover modifiers on top of that, or cover saves?

That's a good question. I'm almost tempted to get rid of it completely. With each 'bullet' being a semi-guided missile (bolter) shooting around cover should be easier than any edition I've played makes it... While some missiles and artillery allow indirect fire, it's been fiddly and doesn't fit my aesthetic. On the other hand, not having cover would eliminate a whole bunch of tactical considerations and special moves like 'hit the dirt' that let a squad get a defense bonus in exchange for penalties to BS/movement.

I think that I'd give cover a bonus to avoiding being hit, and concealment a smaller bonus. Once models are on the table, metagaming their location is impossible, but I think I can reconcile it that even nearly invisible units are possible to locate general position on a battlefield of the future.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Someone needs to fix their tags...

[Foxwarrior]

The all-or-nothing AP system gives you hard counters, which can be a good quick way to give people the instant feedback of having made a great or terrible tactical decision... however, in Warhammer 40k specifically, the factions are barely designed with any sort of balance of counters in mind. Like, Space Marines were clearly totally forgotten about when they decided on a hard countering AP mechanic: the units they can field that have only 4+ armor saves are presented as a fringe thing you probably won't even use, so if you expect to fight Space Marines you want all of your units to have good AP. I think soon after I stopped playing WH40k, Terminators were given 4+ invulnerable saves on top of their 2+ saves so that they'd get to actually make an armor save at least some of the time.

Modifier-based AP is less dramatic, but it still makes AP weapons more better against hard targets. A modifier of 1 doubles your DPS against Terminators but only increases it by 20% against people with 6+ saves.

[Thaluikhain]

I think soon after I stopped playing WH40k, Terminators were given 4+ invulnerable saves on top of their 2+ saves so that they'd get to actually make an armor save at least some of the time.

Yeah, a 5+ invulnerable for Terminators, they introduced that fairly early on in as people plasma spammed Terminators to death under the new system.

By comparison, ork choppas (and sometimes Khorne chainaxes, IIRC) didn't let you have a save of better than 4+ solely because they gave marines 3+ saves and orks fought them in HtH and wanted to not lose all the time.

[OgreBattle]

"1d6+3 vs Toughness TN7" is something I wrote down for some unfinished skirmish heartbreaker too, so I'll stick with it. Looking through that document...

I also went with "Shooting is vs a target number modified by conditions of the shooter and conditoins of the target, including distance"

So Short Range is "TN7", then shooting a fast target or shooting while dazzled will inflict modifiers.

I figure cover and concealment can be two different things
Cover: Defender gains toughness bonus
Concealment: Attacker has penalty to hit

A d6 to hit though can only take so many modifiers, so when penalties to hit are handed out has to be carefully controlled.

Now on armor saves... instead of the "2+ 4+ 6+" method it can use the strength vs toughness "modifier + d6 vs target number". So now a higher armor number is better, and it scales.

---

Been thinking of having the armor save roll be combined with an injury-or-KO'd type roll. Like the Injury Roll in kill team, but with more results and modifiers.

So the steps would be attacker rolls to hit, attacker rolls to wound, defender rolls injury/armor save.

[Thaluikhain]

I figure cover and concealment can be two different things
Cover: Defender gains toughness bonus
Concealment: Attacker has penalty to hit

Ok, this might just be me, but ever since 2nd ed I'd been a little pedantically unhappy with their cover vs concealment (or soft cover and hard cover), in that cover is either one or the other, regardless of what weapon is being used, and there are lots of things which would provide cover from a lasgun, but only concealment from a lascannon.

Can't think of a good way to solve that without it being really fiddly. Which can work if you are into that, especially for really small games, but I prefer 3rd ed streamlinedness to 2nd ed detail (excepting Necromunda scale stuff)

[OgreBattle]

I figure cover and concealment can be two different things
Cover: Defender gains toughness bonus
Concealment: Attacker has penalty to hit

Ok, this might just be me, but ever since 2nd ed I'd been a little pedantically unhappy with their cover vs concealment (or soft cover and hard cover), in that cover is either one or the other, regardless of what weapon is being used, and there are lots of things which would provide cover from a lasgun, but only concealment from a lascannon.

Can't think of a good way to solve that without it being really fiddly. Which can work if you are into that, especially for really small games, but I prefer 3rd ed streamlinedness to 2nd ed detail (excepting Necromunda scale stuff)

Could define ratings for cover like...

Soft Cover: Doesn't boost defenses
Hard Cover: Give's +1 toughness

Both provide -1 to hit (with some wargear or trait to bypass). So if the ork sniper is now toughness X+1, the laser cannon is still of a way higher strength to not be affected.


Necromunda scale is more what I'm thinking as... really what's standard 40k should be a card game or Epic teeny scale... though they've made a good business decision by having Apocalypse turn 40k into Epic with 28mm models on trays.

So for a 28mm skirmish 3-20 models per side game cover and concealment... true LoS needs to go, modeling to advantage or being punished for a cool jumping pose is dumb.

Everything's on a base, so use the base as measurement of size and what gets cover behind what.

I forget if there was an edition of Warhams that didn't use true LoS rules for deciding cover. Difficult Terrrain's already in zones so could do that for cover zones.

[Thaluikhain]

Could define ratings for cover like...

Soft Cover: Doesn't boost defenses
Hard Cover: Give's +1 toughness

Both provide -1 to hit (with some wargear or trait to bypass). So if the ork sniper is now toughness X+1, the laser cannon is still of a way higher strength to not be affected.

Huh, I like that idea.

So for a 28mm skirmish 3-20 models per side game cover and concealment... true LoS needs to go, modeling to advantage or being punished for a cool jumping pose is dumb.

Everything's on a base, so use the base as measurement of size and what gets cover behind what.

I forget if there was an edition of Warhams that didn't use true LoS rules for deciding cover. Difficult Terrrain's already in zones so could do that for cover zones.

They did do area terrain a few times (especially in supplements like Codex:Deathworld and at least one of the Cityfights, IIRC). You still got problems when half your squad was in the area and the otehr half wasn't, or LoS was totally blocked on some models but not others (say, the squad is partially behind a tank).

[OgreBattle]

My opinion is that warham's 1500+ point scale is better handled by Epic type rules, so in this thread I'll focus on Necromunda/Mordheim/Kill Team scale.

I like Mordheim's Injury roll, when a model's at 0 wounds you roll a d6 to see if they're temporarly knocked down (need to take a turn to get up, but can be taken out of action by next melee attack), stunned (lose actions) or taken out of action.

Kill Team's "Flesh wound, -1 to all rolls henceforth, 4th one is auto KO" is also straightforward to understand and instead of removing actions penalizes them.

FrankTrollman's Warp Cult using hit boxes got me thinking that... the wounds stat could be removed and everyone has X amount of hitboxes.

[DrPraetor]

Even on the Necromunda scale, you don't want ten hitboxes per dude, that's too much paperwork.

I'm sure I'm rehashing points from Frank's weapon differentiation post, but these are truisms, and most of what looks clever is not an improvement.

Let's suppose that you have a roll to hit, penetrate and damage.
[*] Each of these rolls that you have to take is costly. If you're going to make a 4th roll beyond these, you'd better have a good reason.

[*] Obscurantism is bad - so don't do exploding dice or rerolls or special things that happen on 1s or 6s unless you have very good reason. All these things just mean you need more systems mastery to figure out what's a good deal and what isn't.

[*] Each of these rolls that you have to modify, or look up on a table, is also costly.

[*] Each of these rolls that is handled the same way reduces your space for weapon differentiation. So consider two alternatives:
A) The WH40K route, you roll to hit (never modified), you roll to wound (modified), you roll to penetrate (sometimes skipped.)
Those three are quite different, so two shots off of an autocannon are quite different from one shot off a missile launcher.

B) The all-rolls-similar route, you roll accuracy vs. dodge, then strength vs. toughness, then penetration vs. armor. Older versions of WH effectively have this, especially in melee.
Well, the problem is, +1 to any of these is just +1/6 chance of passing. You're generally better off with +1 on any of the rolls you're likely to fail - so a "balanced" attack is generally superior - but that's it. There is a difference between a dodgy foe (+1 accuracy, you hit twice as often, say) r a tough foe (+1 strength, you wound twice as often), but it's less pronounced.
This is also more work, because you're making three modified dice rolls instead of 1 modified and 1-2 unmodified.

Or, to put things succinctly, I don't think you're going to improve on WH40K 3rd edition's system of weapon differentiation, and I think games like Necromunda should have used it, maybe with the addition of to-hit penalties for cover since the battles are small enough.

[OgreBattle]

Yeah going with 4 wounds, like Kill team’s fleshwound limit. The number 4 also a soundalike in kanji languages for death ‘shi’

That’s a good point and will consider how to make toughness and saves differenter. Maybe shooting can use a = < > x2 system so really high shooting skill doesn’t change shooting a barn but does change shooting a barn at longboard range in heavy concealment

*thinking about this more, the warhams 8e and AoS “hit on a 4+ 5+ etc” also works because ranged attacks are a pretty human training specific thing where even having an automatic rifle is low accuracy with low training

I figure the basics system should not have rerolls
Rerolls should instead be a specific mechanic like advantage/disadvantage that’s situational and not always on.

I figure there’s a space for 1 fumbles 6 criticals that can be specific to weapons or character skills, but not a sword a universal mechanic.

Having more weapons vary by range adds to variety, like high strength short range shotgun blasts vs a high caliber railgun

[OgreBattle]

On ranges... "Basic small arms fires 24 inches" is actually pretty 'realistic' for the 28mm scale

This article's on Bolt Action, a WW2 game with warhammer type movement of 6" for infantry and 24" rifles:
https://www.warlordgames.com/ranges-in-bolt-action/

So at 28mm scale, 24" is roughly 50 yards, which is around the average firefight range from WWI to today's US middle east conflicts.

That's effective aimed fire range, suppressive and (un)lucky shots extend way further. I've seen some games where beyond effective range fire can be done and it just does morale damage.

Looking at charging range data... late 1800's battles expected bayonet charges to happen around 140 meters (200 paces), but 1900's Russo Japan war machine guns and artillery made that too crazy.

This book has Russo Japan war charge range data. I think that war's a good model for warhams 40k 'cause there's sword fights and machine guns.
https://books.google.co.th/books?id=WL1 ... es&f=false

The Japanese units that figured out small unit skirmish tactics rushed 40-90 meters, dug trenches, and rushed further in. They did this under cover from artillery and other units firing. Observers noted most casualties were suffered at the trenchlines, not at the rushes.

There's mention of Russian bayonet charges as close as 20 meters, so they were able to crawl up that close, and cover that distance without getting blasted.

So this googling I did comes to the conclusion that warhams 24" (around 50 meters) small arms aimed fire, 6" movement, 12" (about 25 meters) charges are actually pretty 'realistic' while still being good distances for fun coffee table terrain.

[Zaranthan]

The Japanese units that figured out small unit skirmish tactics rushed 40-90 meters, dug trenches, and rushed further in. They did this under cover from artillery and other units firing. Observers noted most casualties were suffered at the trenchlines, not at the rushes.

Love the hard data on charge ranges, but I just wanted to snip this out as interesting. The morale/breaking thing where units rout not because they've lost too many men but because too many of their men lost their nerve (and consequently, get killed as they abandon their carefully crafted ability to cover each other and turn into a hundred one-man-units) has been true since we've started writing down the outcome of battles. The machine gun was decried as this horrific death-dealing device, and much ado has been made of things like the crossfire at D-Day slaughtering entire platoons. Curious that the rifle butt and trench shovel still claimed more kills.

[zeruslord]

I assume that's a reference to the 1904/1905 Russo-Japanese War, not the Soviet land grab in 1945. That means both older weaponry and fewer machine guns than in WWI.

[OgreBattle]

There's some books covering WWII and Korean War bayonet charges, but don't give hard numbers: https://books.google.co.th/books?id=RUZ ... ar&f=false

Australians have a history of running into Viet Cong machine gun fire

Here's Bush's forces vs Afghanistan, an 80 meter bayonet charge: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bayo ... emy-ambush

But it's vague how many people were involved. A US Iraq report though says 6 soldiers did a bayonet charge in urban fighting: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-mos ... ct-2012-10

---------


So on Injury rolls, I've got two ideas in mind

A) Combined Armor Save and injury roll
So after the attacker rolls to hit, rolls strength vs toughness...

The defender rolls a saving throw, 1d6+ Armor modifier, then subtract attacker's Damage/AP modifier. If it's a positive number you made the save, if it's negative you divide that number by 2 and suffer that many wounds, at 4 the unit is out of action.

So if it's a Damage 6 weapon and the target has no number, a defender with no armor modifier and just a d6 roll results in...

6: 0 wounds suffered
5: 1 wound suffered
4: 1
3: 2
2: 2
1: 3

B) The regular 40k armor save and modifiers, but...
When you make an armor save great nothing bad happens.
When you fail an armor save, you get a "Hit" or "Blast" marker, like in Apocalypse 40k or Epic 40k. Every two markers causes a -1 penalty to rolls, so it's a suppression effect.

At the end of the round, units roll on an injury table to see if the Hit markers become permanent wounds that cause permanent injury modifiers and 4 means KO. Hit markers don't carry over.

So with this system the immediate dice rolling math is much simpler, and it adds an "overkill"/"Heroic" mechanic where someone can take a whole squad's worth of automatic fire but still run up close enough to toss a grenade before expiring. Accumulation of Hit markers during shooting also drastically reduces enemy accuracy to ward off a close combat charge.

"Sniper" "Overwhelming Power" or "Critical Hit" special rules can allow damage to be rolled immediately, adding to further weapon differentiation.