Streamlining Warhammer (and Mordheim): a heretical thought?

[Hobgoblin]

Playing a couple of games of Mordheim prompted a heretical thought: wouldn't it make more sense in these games to roll the armour save before the to-wound roll? So the sequence would be to-hit roll, (to-parry roll in Mordheim), armour save, to-wound roll (wound roll in Mordheim).

It seems to me that this would speed up the game by eliminating unnecessary rolls and make more narrative sense (a blow lands but is turned by armour OR a blow lands and avoids or pierces the armour, rather than a blow lands, causes a wound and THEN is blocked by armour).

But does anyone do this? And if not, why not? Is it just the power of tradition?

[Belligerentparrot]

I absolutely agree with this! But the one time in the past I suggested it, I ended up in the biggest internet fight I've ever been in.

It was over on an old Necromunda forum, that I can't now remember the name of. In the rules at that time, fighters got experience for a wounding hit though the rules were ambiguous about what this meant.
My casual suggestion that it makes more sense to roll the armour save before the roll-to-wound revealed a massive disagreement as to when experience got counted. Roughly half the board members thought as I did: if a player makes the save, no wound caused and no experience gained. The other half thought that because the roll-to-wound had succeeded, you must have scored a wound and could collect the experience points, regardless of whether the wound was subsequently saved. People got very upset about this, and the thread rumbled on for weeks with both sides getting ever more shrill and insulting.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn it into a Necromunda discussion. My main point, if I have one at all, is just to ask: will your change alter some of the other in-game effects as you understand them? I don't remember how experience is gained in Mordheim, and obviously no one gets it in Warhammer but I'm sure it could impact on someone's special ability to do something somehow 

[voltan]

I assume it'd screw up the over all outcome, statisticians may be required here, changing the order of those two rolls may make sense from a narrative point of view but will affect the effectiveness of armour, not sure how much which way. I've no real proof for this, it just seems that everything is balanced around the order the rolls are in and moving them is going to screw it all up.

If that doesn't make much sense it's because I'm falling asleep, shall read again in morning.

[Hobgoblin]

I absolutely agree with this! But the one time in the past I suggested it, I ended up in the biggest internet fight I've ever been in.

It was over on an old Necromunda forum, that I can't now remember the name of. In the rules at that time, fighters got experience for a wounding hit though the rules were ambiguous about what this meant.
My casual suggestion that it makes more sense to roll the armour save before the roll-to-wound revealed a massive disagreement as to when experience got counted. Roughly half the board members thought as I did: if a player makes the save, no wound caused and no experience gained. The other half thought that because the roll-to-wound had succeeded, you must have scored a wound and could collect the experience points, regardless of whether the wound was subsequently saved. People got very upset about this, and the thread rumbled on for weeks with both sides getting ever more shrill and insulting.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn it into a Necromunda discussion. My main point, if I have one at all, is just to ask: will your change alter some of the other in-game effects as you understand them? I don't remember how experience is gained in Mordheim, and obviously no one gets it in Warhammer but I'm sure it could impact on someone's special ability to do something somehow 

Ha - interesting! In Mordheim, I don't think there's any XP involvement; it seems to be about survival and scenario specifications.

Obviously, the biggest time savings would be in Warhammer. But Mordheim can involve a lot of rolls (to hit/to parry/to wound/critical/damage/save), so there would be potential to cut out three rolls from some combats: nipping them in the bud rather than when in full bloom!

I'm glad I'm not the only person to think of it, though!

[Byrthnoth]

I don't know if it really saves any dice being rolled in warhammer - it mostly just changes who rolls them and when, right? Whether it's slightly more or fewer total dice thrown would depend on the target to-wound roll and the armour save, but on balance I think it ends up pretty much a wash. That said, I feel like having the defender roll armour saves between the attacker's to-hit and to-wound rolls is good because you get a bit more player involvement through back and forth action, even if it is just dice rolling.

[Hobgoblin]

I assume it'd screw up the over all outcome, statisticians may be required here, changing the order of those two rolls may make sense from a narrative point of view but will affect the effectiveness of armour, not sure how much which way. I've no real proof for this, it just seems that everything is balanced around the order the rolls are in and moving them is going to screw it all up.

If that doesn't make much sense it's because I'm falling asleep, shall read again in morning.

I don't think it does change the effectiveness of armour because it's binary: you either make your save or you don't.

Let's take 12 attackers with the standard 4+ chances to hit and wound (both defenders and attackers have WS 3, S3, T3 and W1) and light armour and shields. On average, they achieve six hits and three wounds, one of which is saved - so two kills overall. If we do saves before wounds, we get six hits, two saves and two wounds - so two kills overall.

I don't know if it really saves any dice being rolled in warhammer - it mostly just changes who rolls them and when, right? Whether it's slightly more or fewer total dice thrown would depend on the target to-wound roll and the armour save, but on balance I think it ends up pretty much a wash. That said, I feel like having the defender roll armour saves between the attacker's to-hit and to-wound rolls is good because you get a bit more player involvement through back and forth action, even if it is just dice rolling.

Yes, in the example above, rolling saves first means that you roll more dice overall, because you're saving against all hits rather than the tapered ones. But that only applies to Warhammer proper and only to certain combats, as you say. If you had heavily armoured knights on barded horses against normal bowmen, you'd roll fewer dice overall by doing saves first (on average). Also, if you're scooping up the successful hit dice to roll saves, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference whether there are four or eight of them (say).

With Mordheim, you've got three and potentially four successive rolls after a successful hit (to wound/critical/damage/save), which so every successful save would reduce the total number of rolls.

I suppose the counter-argument might be that, in Mordheim, the player who makes the save gets the satisfaction of nixing the attack right at the end - for example, when the attacker has rolled a 1 (or 2?) on the critical-hit table, and so there is still a save against two hits. But that's a slightly perverse thrill for the defender and frustrating for the attacker!

You make a great point about player involvement. There's possibly a counter-argument in Mordheim in that sword- and/or buckler-armed characters get a 'save' after the to-hit roll and then (potentially) an armour save at the very end. So in those (fairly rare) circumstances, you actually get more back and forth with the sequence as is. But for dagger-and-club types and the rest, the counter-argument doesn't apply.

There might be a historical point about the evolutions of saving throws. I've little knowledge of the history of war-games in the 60s and 70s, so I'm speculating here, but I suspect that saving throws in earlier games were against 'hits', with Warhammer innovating in splitting out 'to hit' and 'to wound'. I can't recall examples, but I have an inkling that there were earlier games more in line with Saga today, wherein you save against 'hits' rather than 'wounds'.

[Citizen Sade]

If you allow armour save against Mordheim hits, how do you handle critical hits generated on those to wound rolls that ignore them?

You’d also need to think about the order of other saves versus hits. After lucky charms and skills (dodge/step aside) but before parries?

[jon_1066]

Statistically in raw old style Warhammer it makes no difference to the outcome.

It would only save dice rolls if the armour save was lower than the To Wound roll. In my experience it is usually the other way around

Where it would make things slower is you would both either have to roll the same set of dice or count out the number of hits each time.

[Hobgoblin]

If you allow armour save against Mordheim hits, how do you handle critical hits generated on those to wound rolls that ignore them?

Ah - now that is the trump card when it comes to Mordheim! Yes, because the critical comes from the 'to wound' roll, you need the save to come after the wounds. We've only played a couple of games so far, and the first one tended to default to Warhammer as I remembered it (I'm discovering that the Mordheim system is actually much more elegant in many ways).

You’d also need to think about the order of other saves versus hits. After lucky charms and skills (dodge/step aside) but before parries?

Yes: I'd presume before parries on narrative grounds, though. But your point about criticals pretty much scotches the idea for Mordheim, at least.

It would only save dice rolls if the armour save was lower than the To Wound roll. In my experience it is usually the other way around

True: I suppose I'm remembering things like Ruglud's armoured orcs (4+ save with heavy armour and shield; 5+ to wound for the average fighter) or heavy cavalry (2+ save and 4+ to wound). I might be talking myself into this, but I very faintly seem to remember that we might have reversed the rolls in my far-off youth when it came to mounted chaos warriors and the like.

Where it would make things slower is you would both either have to roll the same set of dice or count out the number of hits each time.

You have to do that anyway, no? I mean, you pick up dice equal to the number of wounds (saves last) or the number of hits (saves first).

[Hobgoblin]

Also, in conventional Warhammer, there are often heavily armoured heroes with very high saves (or at least there were - I recall a lot of 2+ mounted characters).

Citizen Sade: I was about to post that the logical thing to do would be to make 6s on 'to hit' rolls critical rather than 'to wound' rolls. That's more in line with many RPGs (RuneQuest, etc.) and initially seems more narratively sound (a well-placed blow bypasses armour and pierces the vitals). But of course it would mean many more criticals because the attacks haven't been put through the 'funnel' of the 'to hits' first of all. Gah - the hidden elegance of Mordheim strikes again!

[Citizen Sade]

Is Killing Blow still a thing in Warhammer? That was based on rolling 6 to wound as well. TBF, it’s much less of a big deal than in Mordheim as so few models were able to do it.

[Hobgoblin]

Is Killing Blow still a thing in Warhammer? That was based on rolling 6 to wound as well. TBF, it’s much less of a big deal than in Mordheim as so few models were able to do it.

I don't think it was yet a thing when I played Warhammer, but I've never played any edition after 3rd!

[jon_1066]

You have to do that anyway, no? I mean, you pick up dice equal to the number of wounds (saves last) or the number of hits (saves first).

The player rolling the dice to save is a different player.  So normally the player making the attack rolls the dice, physically picks out the hits, rolls them again and picks out the wounds then tells the opponent how many armour saves the opponent player has to make.

In the alternative system it would be the player making the attack counts the hits, tells the opponent how many hits, the opponent counts out that many dice, rolls them and counts the failures then tells the first player who then counts out that many dice, rolls them and states how many wounds.  ie there is more counting out of dice and back and forth rather than just putting the actual physical dice to the side. 

[Hobgoblin]

Ah - I kind of see what you mean. I think we often use the same dice, so it's all physical putting to the side.

[jon_1066]

If it's Warhammer you would be on the other side of a 4ft table so could be problematic!