If I have damage resiliant, and soft cover, do I get to roll twice for hit saves?

Yes, you get to roll twice.

This isn't 40K. If you have Damage Resilient giving you improved armor protection compared to the enemy next to you, your armor does not suddenly become less effective if you enter terrain that gives you cover. The cover would still protect you by making you harder to see, and your armor would still have improved protection, as well.

The idea of only taking one level of protection, cover or armor, makes little sense if you think about it. Cover makes you harder to see and hit, while armor makes you harder to kill if you are hit. The first will not negate the second. Your armor will be just as solid with cover between you and the enemy, or not.

Using only one roll can speed game play, but DUST is fast enough it can handle the better realism.

By the way, if you are not in cover, on the open field, Damage Resilient it can't be used, no? Because in original Core said yes, but in revised I think said the opposite.

Of course it can be used. Damage Resilient is ALWAYS in effect. The rules just said that if you have cover, you roll for that before rolling your DR.

bigoc said:

As I noted, it would be ludicrous to suggest armor was only improved in limited circumstances, so Damage Resilient always works. It is worded that way, just not worded as clearly as might be nice for some readers.

Try and picture how armor could be more effective in the open, but not when the added benefit of being harder to hit came into play... There is no logical explanation for how that could happen, other than the wearer getting incredibly stupid, and opening up their armor for some odd reason simply because they're in cover while still being shot at. 40K does that, but 40K is not a game I recommend people read for sensible rules structure.

I can't picture a soldier other than a complete moron that would open their armor while under fire just because they were in an area that partially blocked line of sight to their position. You fight while you're in a firefight, and don't relax and stand down until the fighting stops . A medic opening up an already wounded soldier's armor for treatment, yes, but even then only as much as needed to keep the soldier alive.

Thanks! Yes, and it was strange for de zombies no to have some tipe of save, they har hard to kill!

You lot do know that zombies don't benefit from Soft Cover, don't you?

And their Hard Cover save is hits on the dice (what is Soft Cover for most other units).

Just checking as the topic makes it look like everybody is giving their zombies saves in Soft Cover.

Nobody brought up the zombies until that last post. The axis has plenty of other heavy units with Damage Resilient (**** them).

FlorisH said:

Zombies get Damage Resilient in soft cover, and both Damage Resilient and a 1/3rd cover save in hard cover.

Most Damage Resilient models would get a cover save to go with their Damage Resilient in either type of cover.

Damage Resilient has the same chance of negating a hit as a soft cover save for most units, but the point of the thread is that it is separate, and different in concept, from any cover save.

Damage Resilient works because the unit is harder to damage when they have been hit.

Cover works because it reduces the chance of an effective hit against the unit.

Both roll dice to reduce the number of hits on a unit, but they do it for very different reasons.

Gimp said:

Yes, your point being?

You are just repeating what has already been said in the topic.
My point was that it looked like people where giving zombies Soft Cover. I never implied zombies don't benefit from Damage Res. at any point.

FlorisH said:

Simply clarifying what had been said, as there was apparent confusion about what was meant.

You said it appeared everybody was saying zombies got a soft cover save, so I was reiterating what had been said through previous posts.

Nobody ever said zombies got a soft cover save.

It was questioned whether there was any Damage Resilient roll if a unit were not in cover, someone was happy to hear the zombies always get their Damage Resilient roll, and is was acknowledged that Damage Resilient, while working like most soft cover mechanically (1/3rd chance to begate a hit), was a completely different operation.

Thanks to Gimp we now have the answer to the original question yet again.

I feel it is time to either close this topic or move on further by bringing up something new.

Seeing that Dam. Res. works on a HIT symbol, I wonder if we will ever see a bigger version of this where you need the BLANK side of the die.

That's quite possible, and VERY powerful. A normal attack would have just a 1/10 chance of hitting.

FlorisH said:

What can I say; I'll never be fond of someone saying I said something that I didn't say, especially when nobody else said what you said they were saying, either. It would serve better if you read what was said before complaining abut it. That was the apparently less than obvious point to my last post. Sorry if it was too subtle.

As for having an improved Damage Resilient, it could happen, but I doubt it. Reducing the possibility of all normal damaging attacks from 33% to 22% is a huge statistical change from normal Damage Resilience, but reducing it to 11% with an inverted roll for Damage Resilient would be something that would really slow game play and cause more frustration than add anything to the game.

It might happen, but if it does, I hope it's for a very limited set of units, with a very good explanation of why they are so improved. It would make more sense to simply change the Armor value of the proposed unit, or it would make a lower Armor value unit more survivable than heavier Armor value units.

While there are weapons that can hurt Armor 3, but not Armor 4, normal Damage Resilient makes a 4 dice attack against an Armor 3 target no better than a 3 dice attack against an Armor 4 target. Inverting the roll for Damage Resilient would mean it would take a 10 dice attack against the Improved Damage Resilient Armor 3 unit to equal the effect of a 3 dice attack against an Armor 4 unit. Armor 4 is supposed to be better than Armor 3.

Gimp said:

Sorry I left the room to make a cup of tea while you where still talking so I missed all of that but I'm sure you will repeat yourself at least once more so I will try and listen to all of it that time.

I agree that Super Dam. Res. would be strong and perhaps to strong. Another route could be that instead of units having the special rule it is actually given to a weapon to indicate its weakness. Not saying it will happen just trying to keep this topic going now that we have been given the answer to the original question

FlorisH said:

No need. I repeat things for clarity on a point. When it's shown to be due to someone not reading, they can go look it up for themselves.

Adding a saving roll for a weapon would cause equal problems to improving Damage Resilient. A 4 dice attack facing Damage Resilient is slightly less effective than a 3 dice attack not facing Damage Resilient. Improved Damage Resilient would require a 10 dice attack to equal the effectiveness of that 3 dice attack. That's a bit much for logical consideration on game effects.

If the added protection were due to the weapon, it would mean a unit with Damage Resilient would have their Damage Resilient roll and the weapon's weakened damage roll to both make the weapon far less capable, and add the possibility of requiring three defense rolls against each attack (cover, weak damage, and Damage Resilient) that would slow game play for no real benefit.

Suggesting Damage Resilient did not gain the benefit, but other units would gain Damage Resilient against a specific weapon would make no sense, as improved protection would work against a weak weapon at least as much as it would work against a normal weapon.

Gimp said:

I agree with all of that. Just coming up with random ways to introduce new units to the game without simply having weapons with more or less dice.
There are a lot of ways to introduce new rules but for this topic we can have a think about Dam. Res. variants.

Oh and Gimp, that was fun and a big thumbs up to you for not losing your cool.

FlorisH said:

There's rarely a reason to get upset over an internet discussion, and ribbing fellow players is a time honored tradition for gaming. No blood, no foul, and no hard feelings.

A better idea for improving Damage Resilient would be to allow an extra dice for the DR roll. Rolling damage + 1 dice to offset the damage (without allowing a unit to regain previous damage, obviously) would improve Damage Resilient without breaking the system.

Gimp said:

Heh, it comes from having to fight between a miniatures making division that must sell these new and fancy minis they thought up and the fiction writing division who makes all the interesting fluff. Then the guys writing the actual game rules have to at least attempt to balance the game.

40k is in need of a massive top to bottom overhaul as far as a game system goes if you want to work on it. OTOH, it actually does flow fairly well once you get going and forget about the fluff. If you want fluff battles, buy FFG's Dark Heresy line and play a skirmish game with those rules. It will take longer, but it will be a lot more fluffy.

The biggest problem IMO are the idiots who play 40k who think they can understand the English language and prove it by directly quoting 4th Edition rules to support their interpretation of the 5th Edition combined with GW apparently not being able to appoint a rules guru who can look over the list of recurring rules questions and alter the FAQ PDFs in a timely manner.

I went to GW's website to find a rule clarification (not for 40k, but for Dreadfleet) - their site says, "Don't call us about rules, email us." So I emailed them, and got an automated response saying, "Don't email us about rules, call us."

I'm pretty sure they do not like to answer rules questions.

Well its no good phoning as you will only get through to a saleman who will or will not know the answer. I've called before and received an answer according to WH rules even though it was a LOTR question. I've also mailed the US and UK with the same question and got completely different answers. Probably why nobody is answering