Le problème de la PA

[Baron Piero]

J'ouvre ce sujet pour vous proposer une règle maison, issue du forum Games Workshop.

C'est très simple et proprement hallucinant: c'est pas du tout ou rien, c'est pas des modificateurs, c'est une table facile à analyser et à retenir.

Reste plus qu'à passer la PA du plasma à 3 comme le suggère l'auteur et ça va faire des heureux!

AP. Funny how two letters can create so much debate. I'm afraid that I'm going to add yet another AP thread to the forum. I feel a bit guilty because I've already started one topic on the subject, but this idea seems interesting enough to warrent it.

I've been wondering if it would be possible to use the existing Save and AP values in a new Armour system, hopefully one which adds a greater level of detail without becoming overly complicated or time consuming.

What I'd like to see in a new system is a way for weapons to effect different armour saves in a variety of ways. At the moment, a weapon either allows a save or it doesn't - there's no middle ground. While this is both fast and simplistic, I think more detail would be beneficial to the game as a whole. For example, why should a krak missile be able to punch through a tank but not affect a Terminators Save in any way?

What I'm wondering is if Armour Saves could be modified in the form of a chart or table, similar to the ones used when rolling to hit or rolling to wound. So, instead of comparing an AP value to a Save value to see whether or not the model gets a save, you would consult a chart in the rulebook (cross referencing those same AP and Save values) to see what you actually need to roll in order to save the model.

If you transfer the existing AP system into such a table, this is what you get:

AP 1 2 3 4 5 6

SV --------------

1 - n 1 1 1 1 1

2 - n n 2 2 2 2

3 - n n n 3 3 3

4 - n n n n 4 4

5 - n n n n n 5

6 - n n n n n n

Hopefully the table is pretty easy to understand, but if not, it works like this. The horizontal axis of the chart contains the range of AP values possible (from one to six), while the vertical axis holds the range of Armour Saves possible (again from one to six). On the table itself, "n" means no save, while a number shows the D6 roll required to save the wound. I've included 1+ Saves in the table just for the sake of completeness, even though they don't currently exist in 40K.

(Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but I don't have much faith in my presentation skills).

As you can see, there's very little variation within the table. This is because the chart (and the AP system it represents) is governed by just two rules:

If AP is less or equal to SV, no save is possible.

If AP is greater than SV, X (the D6 roll required) = SV

However, the 40K armour save system doesn't have to use these rules, and I think the game would be improved if a wider range of possible saves were introduced.

This how I think Armour Saves should work in 4th Edition:

AP 1 2 3 4 5 6

SV --------------

1 - 6 4 2 2 2 2

2 - n 6 4 2 2 2

3 - n n 6 4 3 3

4 - n n n 6 4 4

5 - n n n n 6 5

6 - n n n n n 6

Unlike the existing AP system, this chart is governed by 5 rules, rather than just 2.

1. If AP is less than SV, no save is possible (eg: a 3+ Save model wounded by an AP2 weapon gets no save).

2. X (the D6 roll required) cannot be less than SV (eg: the minimum D6 roll a Space Marine requires to save will always be 3+). In addition, a roll of a 1 always fails (just in case a 1+ Save model is ever introduced).

3. If AP is equal to SV, X = 6 (eg: a Space Marine wounded by a krak missile will save on a 6).

4. If AP is equal to SV+1, X = 4, unless SV is less than 4.

(Examples: A Marine wounded by an AP4 saves on a 4+. A Terminator wounded by an AP3 weapon saves on a 4+. An Eldar Guardian hit by an AP6 weapon saves on a 5+).

5. If AP is greater than SV+1, X = SV (eg: A Marine wounded by a boltgun saves on his normal save value of 3+).

If you had to use all of these rules to work out every single Armour Save in a game of 40K, it would obviously be far too time consuming. But that's why a cross reference chart is such an advantage, because it actually does the work for you. The system can be as complicated and detailed as you want, because all you have to do during a game is to compare the AP and SV values on the table. And cross reference charts are also pretty instinctive and easy to memorise. Once you've been playing 40K for a while, you don't tend to bother looking up (for example) the D6 roll required for a strength 4 boltgun to wound a toughness 4 Ork, because you know it's a 4+. In addition, the AP table I've proposed only has 36 possibile outcomes, rather than 100 (as is the case of the to hit & to wound charts).

Looking at the chart itself, it would obviously affect 40K in a number of ways. For a start, all models would become slightly more resilient, because they can save against weapons whose AP equals their SV on a roll of a 6. This is most beneficial for models with a save of 5+, as they would actually still get a save against AP5 weapons. This was entirely intentional, as at the moment 5+ saves are practically worthless. With rapid fire weapons hopefully getting an increased rate of fire in 4th Edition as well, I think this might be surprisingly balanced.

3+ Saves also benefit, but they also get reduced to a 4+ against AP4 weapons. Again, this was intentional, as I think a wider range of weapons should be effective against Space Marines. At the moment, plasma and other AP2/3 weapons seem to dominate 40K, simply because they ignore power armour. Increasing the effectiveness of weapons like autocannons & heavy bolters against Space Marines would hopefully make all armies a bit more varied and interesting.

Speaking of plasma, I think it would need to be changed to AP3 if this system was introduced. For a start, AP3 weapons are actually very rare in 40K, which is curious considering the number of 3+ save armies. Secondly, I think it would help to balance out the reduced survivability against other weapons, especially for Terminators, who would be reduced to a 4+ save against weapons like Krak Missiles. Other weapons might need to be modified as well, for example the Eldar shuriken cannon should probably be AP4.

As far as other game mechanics are concerned, this system doesn't actually need to affect them at all. For example, cover and invulnerable saves can continue to work exactly as they do now, eg: a fixed D6 roll not modified by AP. Close combat weapons can also continue to use the current system, although giving them AP values instead is obviously an option.

Anyway, I think that's quite enough from me. My thanks to anyone who manages to read all of this rather long and probably rather boring post. Any feedback will be appreciated.

S p a c e d

Source: http://bbs.games-workshop.com/membership/e...D=16&ID=2805296

Modifié le 11 février 2004 par Baron Piero

[Invité Dante]

en gros; le truc c'est:

-si PA<svg alors pas de svg

-si Pa=svg alors svg à 6+

-si PA=svg+1 alors svg à 4+

-si PA>svg+1 alors svg normale.

Ce systeme est pas mal mais il doit quelque peu ralentir le jeu...

[Invité empireen]

Voila une partie de la traduction

je finirais plus tard j'ai du boulot la :

C’est marrant comme 2 lettres peuvent créer un tel débat. J’ai bien peur de devoir ajouter un nouveau Topic AP sur ce forum. J’ai déjà démarré un autre topic sur ce sujet mais l’idée semble suffisamment intéressante pour insister.

J’ai cherché a savoir s’il était possible d’utiliser le système des sauvegarde et des valeur de PA dans un nouveau système, évidemment un système qui ajoute un grand niveau de détail sans devenir super compliqué ou long à utiliser.

Ce que j’aimerais voir dans ce nouveau système c’est une manière de gérer les différentes sauvegardes de différentes façon. Actuellement une arme permet de faire son jet de sauvegarde ou l’interdit, pas de demi mesures. Bien que cela soit rapide et simple je pense qu’un peu plus de détail serait bénéfique au jeu dans son ensemble. Par exemple : Pourquoi un missile Krak serait capable de trouer un char alors qu’il est incapable d’annuler la sauvegarde d’une armure terminator ?

J’ai donc cherché a réaliser un système sous forme de tableau qui gère les jets de sauvegarde, similaire a celui utilisé pour gérer les jets pour toucher ou pour blesser. Donc au lieu de comparer la valeur de PA à la sauvegarde vous regardeez dans le tableau pour voir si vous avez droit à un jet de sauvegarde ou pas.

Voila ce que l’on obtiendrait avec les régles actuelles :

PA 1 2 3 4 5 6

SV --------------

1 - n 1 1 1 1 1

2 - n n 2 2 2 2

3 - n n n 3 3 3

4 - n n n n 4 4

5 - n n n n n 5

6 - n n n n n n

Heureusement la table est facile a comprendre, pour ceux qui ne saisissent pas voila comment elle fonctionne.

L’axe horizontal contient les valeurs possibles (de 1 à 6) tandis que l’axe vertical contient les valeur de sauvegarde. Un « n » sur la table signifie AUCUNE SAUVEGARDE, tandis qu’un chiffre représente la valeur requise sur un d6 pour annuler la blessure. J’ai inclus la valeur 1+ dans la table dans une logique de rigueur bien qu’elle n’existe pas a 40K.

Comme vous pouvez le voir il y a peu de variation dans mon tableau, ceci vient du fait que ce dernier est gouverné par 2 règles :

Si la PA est égale ou inférieur à la sauvegarde, aucun jet n’est possible (pas de sauvegarde)

Si la PA est supérieur à la sauvegarde, alors le jet requis est égal a la sauvegarde.

Par contre le système de sauvegarde de 40K n’a pas a utiliser ces règles, et je pense que le jeu serait amélioré grandement si une plus grande plage de sauvegarde etait utilisée.

C’est ainsi que je gérerais les jets de sauvegarde dans la 4iem édition.

PA 1 2 3 4 5 6

SV --------------

1 - 6 4 2 2 2 2

2 - n 6 4 2 2 2

3 - n n 6 4 3 3

4 - n n n 6 4 4

5 - n n n n 6 5

6 - n n n n n 6

A l’inverse du système de PA cette table est gouvernée par 5 règles plutôt que seulement 2.

1. Si la PA est inférieure à la sauvegarde, aucun jet n’est possible. (Une figurine avec 3+ d’armure blessée par une arme de PA 2 par exemple)

2. X (le jet requis) ne peut pas être inférieure a la sauvegarde (donc le jet minimal permis pour un space marine serait de 3+ tout le temps). En plus un jet de 1 est toujours un échec. (cas des figurines avec 1+ d’armure si jamais cela apparaissais…)

3. Si la PA est égale a l’armure, X = 6 (donc un space marine face un à lance missile PA 3 a droit a un jet de 6 pour annuler se blessure).

4. Si la PA est égale a la sauvegarde +1 alors X = 4 a moins que la sauvegarde soir inférieure a 4.

(Exemple : Un marine blessé par une arme PA 4 sauve sur 4+. Un terminator blessé pas une PA 3 sauvegarderas sur 4+, un gardien eldar touché par une arme PA sauvera sur 5+

5. Si la PA est supérieure à sauvegarde +1 alors X = sauvegarde. Un marine blessé par un boltgun aura donc sa sauvegarde normale de 3+.

Bon la je craque, Empireen

If you had to use all of these rules to work out every single Armour Save in a game of 40K, it would obviously be far too time consuming. But that's why a cross reference chart is such an advantage, because it actually does the work for you. The system can be as complicated and detailed as you want, because all you have to do during a game is to compare the AP and SV values on the table. And cross reference charts are also pretty instinctive and easy to memorise. Once you've been playing 40K for a while, you don't tend to bother looking up (for example) the D6 roll required for a strength 4 boltgun to wound a toughness 4 Ork, because you know it's a 4+. In addition, the AP table I've proposed only has 36 possibile outcomes, rather than 100 (as is the case of the to hit & to wound charts).

Looking at the chart itself, it would obviously affect 40K in a number of ways. For a start, all models would become slightly more resilient, because they can save against weapons whose AP equals their SV on a roll of a 6. This is most beneficial for models with a save of 5+, as they would actually still get a save against AP5 weapons. This was entirely intentional, as at the moment 5+ saves are practically worthless. With rapid fire weapons hopefully getting an increased rate of fire in 4th Edition as well, I think this might be surprisingly balanced.

3+ Saves also benefit, but they also get reduced to a 4+ against AP4 weapons. Again, this was intentional, as I think a wider range of weapons should be effective against Space Marines. At the moment, plasma and other AP2/3 weapons seem to dominate 40K, simply because they ignore power armour. Increasing the effectiveness of weapons like autocannons & heavy bolters against Space Marines would hopefully make all armies a bit more varied and interesting.

Speaking of plasma, I think it would need to be changed to AP3 if this system was introduced. For a start, AP3 weapons are actually very rare in 40K, which is curious considering the number of 3+ save armies. Secondly, I think it would help to balance out the reduced survivability against other weapons, especially for Terminators, who would be reduced to a 4+ save against weapons like Krak Missiles. Other weapons might need to be modified as well, for example the Eldar shuriken cannon should probably be AP4.

As far as other game mechanics are concerned, this system doesn't actually need to affect them at all. For example, cover and invulnerable saves can continue to work exactly as they do now, eg: a fixed D6 roll not modified by AP. Close combat weapons can also continue to use the current system, although giving them AP values instead is obviously an option.

Anyway, I think that's quite enough from me. My thanks to anyone who manages to read all of this rather long and probably rather boring post. Any feedback will be appreciated.

S p a c e d

Modifié le 18 mars 2004 par empireen