When you say 'second save', do you mean the re-roll or save vs MW?

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

both

Adam, one large area you don't seem to be considering is the inbalance it would create within certain lists. Take heavily armored formations like Leman Russ. Their value would be greatly diminished by this change, as would anyone fielding IG SHTs. Over time those units would be considered overpriced and need to be re-costed. Entire lists that rely heavily on RA units could need adjustments (take the Minervans or AMTL for such examples).

This simple little streamline would, if broadly applied, mean changing point values for most of the lists. I think most veteran players intuitively know this which is why they are cool to the idea.

But look on the bright side: this isn't a dig on you, just the idea. Hershey failed in his business a half dozen times before he finally was successful. Chock it up to a learning experience and keep the ideas rolling (no pun intended). Speaking of rolling, the simultaneous rolling of two dice for RA is something I never considered but I may have to start doing; great idea!

Whereas switching to d12 gives you
6+ 11+
6+RA 8+ (gets slightly better, probably better to make it worse and have it at 9+)
5+ 8+
5+RA 7+ (gets slightly worse)
4+ 7+
4+RA 4+
3+ 5+
3+RA 3+ (gets worse - actually is a 1 1/3 chance out of 12 of failing the save)
2+ 3+

Trouble is then MW would change to an armour modifier, probably -6 for MW, but now 5+ and 6+ RA is worse.

In general I would have prefered from the outset armour saves to be written in two parts, e.g. 4+/4+ or 3+/5+ or 4+/- or even -/4+, to allow greater differtiation and weapon effects interaction. Could extend it to x+/y+/z+ to include variable invulnerable saves as well. However is the additional complexity worth the differences? Would certainly allow Land Raiders and Leman Russ to be a bit different.

IMHO no, its not worth the effort now, 8 years ago maybe!

This is the overwhelming number of hits in most cases. In an assault where the majority of hits are non-MW, every save is essentially doubled or more. It saves the unit and it affects the resolution modifier, which either saves another unit or kills an enemy unit.

Saying it "only" affects non-MW is a loaded statement.


First, turning from a save to a fail doubles the difference so this masks the amount it really shifts. Second, as far as judging game effect goes, it's the change in the chance-to-fail that matters rather than the . Therefore, this statement is very misleading from a statistical standpoint.

As Mosc tried to point out, dropping from 4 shots per kill on average to 3 shots per kill on average is huge. That's a 25% decrease in survivability (25% less firepower needed for one kill). That is easily worth a 10% point reduction even taking into account that it makes much less difference on MW and TK hits.


Also, it devalues maneuver against heavy units. -1 on RA saves due to Crossfire effectively reduces two saving throws. Going from 4+RA to 5+RA almost doubles the effectiveness of firepower. Going from 3+ to 4+ is only x1.5.

My objection on armour saves is the way that the power of RA increases almost exponentially. However I'm with TRC on this one - this is the basis of the 'variable armour' suggestion that would have given a far greater spread of armour variables, typically in increments of ~10%. But you are right Meph, it is very unlikely to change now.

Still it is nice to see other ideas on the subject.

There are enough mechanisms in the game to mitigate RA (Crossfire, MW & TK). Simple rules for a simple bear I say

Hmm, seems like I underestimated the impact on list balance

However, going off on a side tangent, I'm interested in that definition of survivability...



Avg-shots-per-kill is non-linear with respect to probability-of-kill (i.e. armour value). That's how 9% (increase in avg-kills-per-shot) turned into 25% (reduction in avg-shots-per-kill).

Isn't the linear scale more useful for intuitive comparisons of armour?

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Either way, it's a significant percentage change which would require reballancing the points of many units in many lists, while not actually solving a major issue with the rules.

It's just not going to happen.

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

No. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" as Mark Twain put it. Intuitive doesn't make it right. The in-game effect of saving throws is, in fact, non-linear.

How much fire a unit can shrug off is not a function of the 100% scale that covers all possible results. It is a function of the inverse of the chance of a failed save. As the chance to fail drops, changing the overall average by the same amount cuts the chance to fail in a greater proportion - you're taking the same amount out of a smaller pie - and the inverse obviously changes by greater proportions as well.

6+ versus no save is a 16.67% difference in average kills per shot, but it takes 20% more firepower for the same number of kills.

5+ versus 6+ is 16.67%, but it takes 25% more firepower.
4+ versus 5+ is 16.67%, but it takes 33% more firepower.
3+ versus 4+ is 16.67%, but it takes 50% more firepower.
2+ versus 3+ is 16.67%, but it takes 100% more firepower.
1+ versus 2+ is 16.67%, but even an infinite amount of firepower cannot produce a kill.

If you are facing an enemy with 3+ versus 4+ in an actual game what's more important? Do you care about the 16.67% or the fact that you have to put 50% more fire on the target to kill it? Obviously, the 50% more firepower is the important point - the only point, really.

Statistics are anything but intuitive.

I still get people who don't believe me that the odds of rolling at least one 6 on two dice isn't 1/3.

Hang on, surely its 11/36's? Or even 5/18's if its just one 6 on 2d6?

I always thought that was Benjamin Disraeli, but a wikipedia search tells me that although Twain attributed it to Disraeli there's no proof that he actually said it.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter