Hello again,

I think it would be nice if morale also used your universal chart (making it that much more universal). I think someone mentioned this, but when I tried to quote it I couldn't find it.

My proposed system:

After all shooting from 1 unit against another, the unit being attacked must make a role of its leadership (or bravery or whatever its called) against the number of casualties they sustained.

So a leadership 8 unit to suffer 4 casualties from shooting has a 1/6 chance of running. (The 4-8 lookup gives a 2+). If they had suffered 6 casualties they would have a 1/3 chance of running. (6-8 look up gives 3+)

You would probably need to be able to use the remaining number of models in the unit in place of your leadership if you wanted too. (This way hordes of easy to kill models wouldn't run instantly).

This system would make the chances of running increase relatively smoothly with the number of casualties suffered, without any extra modifiers or anything.

Dast

I think it would be nice if morale also used your universal chart (making it that much more universal). I think someone mentioned this, but when I tried to quote it I couldn't find it.

Here I said: It's a universal comparison chart and having morale as the odd one out feels untidy.

After all shooting from 1 unit against another, the unit being attacked must make a role of its leadership (or bravery or whatever its called) against the number of casualties they sustained.

So a leadership 8 unit to suffer 4 casualties from shooting has a 1/6 chance of running. (The 4-8 lookup gives a 2+). If they had suffered 6 casualties they would have a 1/3 chance of running. (6-8 look up gives 3+)

You would probably need to be able to use the remaining number of models in the unit in place of your leadership if you wanted too. (This way hordes of easy to kill models wouldn't run instantly).

This system would make the chances of running increase relatively smoothly with the number of casualties suffered, without any extra modifiers or anything.

This is an interesting idea, my only concern is that wouldn't it further strengthen MSUs?

How about instead of doing it by the model, we do it by the model %, so for every 1/3 of the unit lost, you have to roll off. i.e:

When you lose 1/3 of the unit, you have to roll against 1. Fortitude 4 against 1 is 2+.
When you lose 2/3 of the unit, you have to roll against 2. Fortitude 4 against 2 is 3+.

Hey guys sorry about the delay, busy couple of days.

How about instead of doing it by the model, we do it by the model %, so for every 1/3 of the unit lost, you have to roll off. i.e:

When you lose 1/3 of the unit, you have to roll against 1. Fortitude 4 against 1 is 2+.
When you lose 2/3 of the unit, you have to roll against 2. Fortitude 4 against 2 is 3+.

I like this way of doing things, it makes sense that people are going to react differently to when they lose 1 man from their squad vs a large percentage of them.

I'd like to make it so that fortitude is on the same level as the other stats, i.e. 3-5 average, with necrons/chaos at 7 or so. It's a universal comparison chart and having morale as the odd one out feels untidy.

Idk it feels weird, but thats probably just due to unfamiliarity, the math says this should work approximately as well as 2D6, this might make the increased leadership of sergeants a bit too extreme though.

If you want to go that direction with the FOC then I don't really know what's wrong with the current FOC, btw, what is wrong with it?

Do you mean the current 40K FOC? i dont like that one because it restrict possible army's too much. For example, blood angels have a wide variety of potential army lists available to them that vanilla marines dont, just because they have assault marines as troops. This is the kind of result im looking for in changing the FOC. We need a classification for specialists and support units, as these are obviously not troops, but otherwise players should be free to use whatever more standard units they want. For example, I don't see a point in restricting Space Marine armies to scouts and tactical squads as troops, when assault marines, bikes, and scout bikes would all work just as well as troops, and allow for much more interesting and fun army lists. But i dont want to make people take more of the troops than they want and/or really need, so they can focus on what specialist and support units to get, as this is often where the real flavor of the army is.

Getting dangerous terrain through reserves isn't a bad idea, but what do you say to determining reserves at the start of a match, where you roll a D3+1 (rerollable if you have a dedicated commander). And all of them come in on the same turn, to represent a reinforcing army.

It still has randomness in it though, when it doesn't need it. Reserves, particularly deep strike and outflanking, should be tactics the player can rely on and plan around, not something they hope will work in their favor, because then we end up with the same situation we have right now, where people avoid these options as they can't rely on them. As for it being dangerous terrain tests, maybe not explicitly, but it has to be something similar, so fro every model in the unit, roll a D6, if they roll a 1 they take a strength X hit, where X is a strength that decreases every game turn. So maybe str 4 in turn 2, str in turn 3, str 2 in turn 4, and no danger in turn 5. Vehicles roll on the damage result table on a 1 i guess.

Which reminds me, I am quite liking the idea of Mk and Sk (Marksmanship and Skill) for BS and WS. It sounds better in my head (people can't actually say WS because double-u is annoying) and it's pretty accurate, if not, as accurate as they are at the moment. Skill can have some ambiguity, but it's just as ambiguous as WS and I prefer it.

I still just dont see an advantage for doing this, and it could push people away.

Why has it gone from 40k d10 to "let's write an entirely new ruleset?"

Pretty miss-leading title really.

We just didn't feel like starting a new thread, since we were already pretty deep into this one.

At least change the thread title to "d10 40k ruleset"? The title at the moment makes it sound like a conversation to d10 within the original rules, but it's not.

Do you mean something like...

Commander
Infantry
Vehicles

Very loose, but there is potential.

For reserves, this is the maths concerning probability

Current:
Turn 1: n/a
Turn 2: 6/9
Turn 3: 2/9
Turn 4: 1/9

Suggested:
If you want a specific turn: 5/9
If you want Turn 2 or 3: 8/9
If you want Turn 3 or 4: 8/9
Chances of not getting what you want: 1/9

As you can see, right now you can't even choose when they come on. IRL a decent commander should be able to plan. Right now people basically just use reserves as an invulnerability tactic for 1 or 2 turns, which just seems like a toxic tactic with no depth to it

As for it being dangerous terrain tests, maybe not explicitly, but it has to be something similar, so fro every model in the unit, roll a D6, if they roll a 1 they take a strength X hit, where X is a strength that decreases every game turn. So maybe str 4 in turn 2, str in turn 3, str 2 in turn 4, and no danger in turn 5. Vehicles roll on the damage result table on a 1 i guess.

I was attracted with the realism in representing wounds on the way, but that kind of mechanic feels very "filler" to me.

I still just dont see an advantage for doing this, and it could push people away.

It could just as easily pull them in. It's fresh, anew, it sounds frankly much cooler and people would like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yea Rav1rn change it to something appropriate ^^

As you can see, right now you can't even choose when they come on. IRL a decent commander should be able to plan. Right now people basically just use reserves as an invulnerability tactic for 1 or 2 turns, which just seems like a toxic tactic with no depth to it

?? and yeah people can keep their units off the table with reserves, but thats where limiting units that can enter each game turn comes in, if you try some sort of alpha-strike strategy, and they keep their units off, its still going to be your whole army against a few units of theirs, until the next turn, and then its still not going to be their entire army. Alternatively, they can keep important units off the table, but then theyre not using it, and it still has to come on at some point, presumably without deepstrike, outflank, or anything like that because theyd have used that in the first place.

Yea Rav1rn change it to something appropriate ^^

I didn't know you could alter post titles after the fact

I was attracted with the realism in representing wounds on the way, but that kind of mechanic feels very "filler" to me.

Its trying to approximate something that happened off the table. Obviously it can be buffed in strength or whatever, but doing a realistic damage system for things that take place off the table would be really hard to do.

?? and yeah people can keep their units off the table with reserves, but thats where limiting units that can enter each game turn comes in, if you try some sort of alpha-strike strategy, and they keep their units off, its still going to be your whole army against a few units of theirs, until the next turn, and then its still not going to be their entire army. Alternatively, they can keep important units off the table, but then theyre not using it, and it still has to come on at some point, presumably without deepstrike, outflank, or anything like that because theyd have used that in the first place.

The problem with this argument is that they have a reason to keep it off the board, the fact that they have the opportunity to hold back certain units heavily outweighs the fact that the rest of their army is still there.

Its trying to approximate something that happened off the table. Obviously it can be buffed in strength or whatever, but doing a realistic damage system for things that take place off the table would be really hard to do.

Really rough suggestion: Any unit coming from reserves automatically removes (2D6-6) x 10% of their unit as casualties.

The problem with this argument is that they have a reason to keep it off the board, the fact that they have the opportunity to hold back certain units heavily outweighs the fact that the rest of their army is still there.

i've never even heard of someone using reserves to gain a significant advantage, beyond dodging alpha-strike tactics, like avoiding an all-drop pod list's initial drop, because the units still start on the board where they would have been anyways, and arrive piecemeal. And yes if they have a reason to keep a unit off the board, more power to them, but thats an option with its upsides and downsides just like everything else.

Really rough suggestion: Any unit coming from reserves automatically removes (2D6-6) x 10% of their unit as casualties.

Idk, i dont like the idea of rolling random numbers to see how many of your units died on their way in like this. Plus this has the potential to wipe out over half of many squads before they even entered the table, which is insane. Yes, taking wounds and casualties on the way in is reasonable, but potentially half? It also unfairly favors hordes, as losing 6 members of a 30 man squad is nothing, so we need something that is determined by the number of models in the squad.

Edit: wow sorry didnt see the X10% part...eh im still not sold on it. Losing up to 60% that easily feels a little too extreme.

Cheers for the rename, I look forward to having a look at your ruleset when it's finished

Not to divert from the current discussion topic too much, but here's a really out there idea for how vehicle damage and resolution could work in a more interesting way. A vehicles Hitpoints or wounds or whatever is essentially its crew amount, and when it takes a wound it loses a crew member, taking that position offline. Once all the crew are dead, the tank is killed. Maybe make it a roll off or something to see whether the tank itself took the damage, or if it was just the crewman being hit, as a technician could repair damage to the tank or something.

So losing driver would be immobilized, losing gunner would be weapon destroyed, etc.

So larger tanks would have more crew members (more wounds) and some specialized or super large tanks would have redundant crew members. Maybe even some sort of commander crewman who can replace a fallen crew member at the expense of some element of the tanks effectiveness, maybe letting them ignore the first shaken/stunned result per turn to show the commander keeping his crew under control and focused. Having multiple gunners could allow for cool things like independent targeting, or maybe re rolling failed hits, to show two men are checking firing solutions, ranges, environmental conditions, etc.

So for example, a rhino would have crew: Driver, Gunner. But a land raider would have crew: Commander, Gunner 1, Gunner 2, Driver, etc

List of potential tank crew roles i can think of are Commander, Gunner, Loader, Comms, Technician, Driver, not really sure what half of these would do, but maybe make crew upgrades or additions an option for upgrades, to make it stronger or change how the tank works or something. So for instance, paying for a loader to be added to the crew could let you Double the number of shots fired from one gun a turn, adding a technician grants something like on a 6+ the tank is cleared of one status effect (Immobilized, Weapon Destroyed, etc).

This essentially turns the tank into a unit within the vehicle, though im not sure how it would work for things like dreadnoughts and other walkers. This could also be way too micro, but it could be a cool way of spicing vehicles up a bit, maybe making them feel like they belong and adhere to the game mechanics more than they do now, where theyre kinda just metal boxes with guns. Having a larger, more redundant, crew could also help alleviate some of the problems super expensive tanks suffer from right now, in that they typically don't perform at the level one would expect from their points costs, the most obvious example of which would be the standard land raider.

I you take that basic idea one step further.

And simply allocate Hit Points to Armament or Mobility.

Then some vehicles can have more mobility Hit points than Armament Hit points.

EG an Ork Warbuggy has ONE hit point in Armament .(For its main weapon.)
But has 3 Hit points in Mobility.
EACH hit in mobility reduces the Warbuggy movement value by 4 "

Eg 12" then 8" after one hit, 4" after second hit , and immobile after the 3rd hit.

This way Hit points can be allocated to systems and crew .(To allow a bit more freedom in allocation.)

You could apply this to M/Cs too.
Hit points in Arms (attacks) Legs ( movement.)

Just a thought ...

Glad to see youre still with us Lanrak,

I like the idea of breaking it down that way, feels kinda like the called shot system found in RPGs which is always fun. Maybe adapt that to 40K or something. One thing that might be interesting is creating pseudo anti-tank weapon rules, like penetrating and smashing, to show when one is targeted at the tank (taking Hitpoints) and the other is targeted at the crew (for shaken/stunned). So for instance, a lascannon would be penetrating, while a thunderhammer would be smashing.

A model may make a called shot on a vehicle or monstrous creature for some penalty kind of deal. Obviously we need streamlining of some sort otherwise this could spiral out of control really fast, but it would make shooting these models much more engaging than they are right now. A BS penalty of some sort is the most likely route for this, maybe re rolling successful hits. Combined with the range penalties we've discussed before, i think this would work nicely.

One thing i still dont know about is if we want to make it so old school destroyed results are still possible, or if we want to make it a whittle them down approach. Getting rid of destroyed results could actually make tanks more prevalent on the table, which isn't really want i want, but making that result possible with this direction would be kinda odd, and idk how to work it in.

Concerning reserve casualties, I think a reasonable medium would be: D6-3 x 10%. If you're really unlucky you might lose 3 men from your 10-man squad, but to be honest that's judicious when you think about it; a 10 man strike team could've been ambushed, taking a few casualties, but they still get onto the battlefield relatively unscathed.

As for reserves, I still think it is absolutely necessary that there is that chance, that minute, minute chance that your squad gets delayed. If you only have one or two squads in reserves then it's not too much of a problem if they come in late, now that you can plan ahead for their arrival (because you determine at the START of the game when they will arrive). However, if you exploit reserves too much you might find yourself being punished for it (the uncertainty measure). To fortify my argument, is the reality aspect of it.

Your tank idea is quite intriguing, on one hand it's very idea-stimulating, but on the other there are some flaws to it.

Once again, one of my main objectives is the reality part of it. In a tank there are crew members, but there is also the tank itself. Unless one of the crew members has his head sticking out of the top, or a lucky shot passes through the window, the crew are not going to be injured until the shot penetrates the vehicle's hull. However, it CAN destroy exterior weapons WITHOUT having to penetrate the armour.

If it does penetrate the armour, it can quite possibly ignite the fuel/ammunition inside.

So the question is, how can we represent these scenarios in the game mechanics? Well, snipers would be able to hit exposed weapons and crew MUCH more easily, so that is something we have to incorporate.

We could have the To Hit roll to determine whether any weapons are destroyed or any crew members are killed, while the To Wound roll determines whether the vehicle blows up, or takes critical damage.

I would agree that 30% should be the maximum, i just prefer something less binary than the D6-3 X 10% direction, since that system is going to do nothing half the time, which kinda defeats the purpose of saying they take some fire getting into the battlefield, it also fails to provide incentives to wait until later turns, which should also be present. It also doesn't take into account the strength and durability of the units which is a huge problem, because my terminator squad should take far less damage than an equivalent model count ork boy mob. Id like to see something like for every model in a unit entering from reserves, roll a D6, and on a 1 (maybe a 1 or a 2) they take a strength something hit that can change with each game turn, this way taking a little bit of damage is virtually guaranteed, while massive or no damage is less likely, and the units durability is taken into account, and it provides incentive to wait until later turns.

As for reserves, I still think it is absolutely necessary that there is that chance, that minute, minute chance that your squad gets delayed. If you only have one or two squads in reserves then it's not too much of a problem if they come in late, now that you can plan ahead for their arrival (because you determine at the START of the game when they will arrive).

if its just a minute chance, why even bother with the steps necessary to keep that minute chance in place? And I think having variable str hits depending on which turn you come in on solves the delayed problem quite nicely, because if i order my units to rush to get here by turn 2, theyre not going to get delayed, theyre charging headfirst past enemy fire to reach the battlefield, which is why they would take much more powerful hits than units taking their time. As for determining at the start of the game when i want units to come in, thats frustrating because i have to make decisions with no information, which would be awful for deep striking and outflanking, because i want to call them in as a reactionary attack, to take advantage of a mistake or opening, not just say they come in at some arbitrary point, then hope i can make use of them when they do come in.

Your tank idea is quite intriguing, on one hand it's very idea-stimulating, but on the other there are some flaws to it.

Lol i think most of the ideas on this thread have started as idea-provoking but flawed

Once again, one of my main objectives is the reality part of it. In a tank there are crew members, but there is also the tank itself. Unless one of the crew members has his head sticking out of the top, or a lucky shot passes through the window, the crew are not going to be injured until the shot penetrates the vehicle's hull. However, it CAN destroy exterior weapons WITHOUT having to penetrate the armour.
So the question is, how can we represent these scenarios in the game mechanics? Well, snipers would be able to hit exposed weapons and crew MUCH more easily, so that is something we have to incorporate.

This logic is why I want to break effects into penetration and anti-crew, because the snipers wouldn't try to knock out weapons or pierce armor, they'd aim for view slots, Sensors, and Hatches, so snipers would be anti-crew. Similarly, having thunderhammers annihilate armor has never made much sense to me, but the shockwave they make disrupting the crew made plenty of sense.

If it does penetrate the armour, it can quite possibly ignite the fuel/ammunition inside.
We could have the To Hit roll to determine whether any weapons are destroyed or any crew members are killed, while the To Wound roll determines whether the vehicle blows up, or takes critical damage.

I think we need to seriously consider an overhaul of tank mechanics if we go this direction, because trying to mix and match like this seems to have weird results. I like The idea Lanrak brought up, with varied Hitpoints and pseudo-called shots, so that would make for an interesting core to work off of, but things like glancing hits and penetrating hits should be present, as should potential for explosion, and i don't think any slight alteration of existing rules is going to so this properly.

since that system is going to do nothing half the time, which kinda defeats the purpose of saying they take some fire getting into the battlefield

Of course they're not going to get casualties 100% of the time, that's why it's not just "if you use reserves, you ARE going to lose some of your unit", that would be even more boring.

it also fails to provide incentives to wait until later turns, which should also be present.

I can see what you're trying to say translucently, but it can't be an incentive if it is determined randomly (not randomly, but you can choose which turn you want them on generally) and to be honest the reasoning that "they rush into battle so they take more wounds" is kinda obsolete, being delayed one turn is not so much the "pace" of the unit, but rather them being delayed (or not being able to quite make it when you want them to) and really they would travel hastily anyway, it's just not that big of a deal.

It also doesn't take into account the strength and durability of the units which is a huge problem, because my terminator squad should take far less damage than an equivalent model count ork boy mob

Thank you, you made me realise this problem (but not exactly a "huge" one and certainly not unamendable) so how about instead of automatic casualties it is "D6-3 x 10% of their squad has taken wounds" or something like that.

if its just a minute chance, why even bother with the steps necessary to keep that minute chance in place?

Well no, it's a minute chance that they get delayed completely (until turn 4 that is) but the chances that they get there exactly on time is only 5/9. There is a 1/3 chance that they get their one turn off.

theyre charging headfirst past enemy fire to reach the battlefield, which is why they would take much more powerful hits than units taking their time.

Frankly this wouldn't be a real situation, the unit would always be swift OR cautious, and the mechanic of being delayed is not to represent the fact that they're moving slower, it's to show that there were COMPLICATIONS and they couldn't get their exactly as intended.

I would say that you CAN use deep strike and outflank reactionary, as long as we make it so that you roll D6-3 and you can come on on the turn you rolled OR higher. This way, it shows that they ARRIVE on one turn, ready to be used, but may not be utilised until the time is right.

Actually, yeah, this is a good idea. If you make them come on on the turn they arrive to the outskirts of battle then they may not have got all their kit ready ('specially for deep strike) so maybe some handicaps for the first turn. But if they arrive, and you wait for the right moment, they will be more ready to operate.

This logic is why I want to break effects into penetration and anti-crew, because the snipers wouldn't try to knock out weapons or pierce armor, they'd aim for view slots, Sensors, and Hatches, so snipers would be anti-crew. Similarly, having thunderhammers annihilate armor has never made much sense to me, but the shockwave they make disrupting the crew made plenty of sense.

Partially, but that's not to say that a sniper shot CAN'T penetrate the hull JUST because it's a sniper and he was aiming for the crew. It just means he has a significantly higher chance of knocking of some weapons or what not. Equally, a thunderhammer can STILL completely mangle vehicle flesh, even if its aim is not exactly that.

Partially, but that's not to say that a sniper shot CAN'T penetrate the hull JUST because it's a sniper and he was aiming for the crew. It just means he has a significantly higher chance of knocking of some weapons or what not. Equally, a thunderhammer can STILL completely mangle vehicle flesh, even if its aim is not exactly that.

Sorry if i didn't explain this well, i meant completely separate crew damage and vehicle damage, because of course a thunderhammer space marine is going to hit ridiculously hard (Str 10), but it has the added effect on the crew. The problem with the sniper example is that 40k is fluff wise somewhere between medieval times and pre-world war 2. I dont think anti-material rifles were widespread, if present at all, and the current sniper rules vs vehicles reflect that role in pure anti-personnel. So having them try to take down a weapon system with an anti-personnel rifle would be silly, hence why they would focus on where they can hit the crew. But what I want to see if a separation of attempts and results to destroy a tank, vs attempts to suppress it (anti-crew). So something like lower strength, but high fire rates could affect the crew more, while high strength, low shots focus on damaging the vehicle. So yes, the sniper could try damaging the vehicle itselft, but it would have an extremely low chance of doing damage, while focusing on the crew could be much more likely to cause damage. Maybe take Lanraks idea of mobility and weaponry points, and add in crew points (for anti-crew). Not really sure how the mechanics of this would work though, so work to be done.

I think we've more or less reached an impass about reserves, so im gonna open a thread and let people vote on which system theyd prefer, and well build off whatever comes out of that. We've got other topics to bring up and were circling.

I think we may have to bump up defense by 1 across the board like you suggested a while back, because right now space marines can one hit kill orks and guardsman ( Str 5 vs Def 2), which kinda defeats the purpose of doubling wounds. This would still bring tyranid gaunt only to a 2 though, so they'll still be getting one-shotted, and i don't know what to do about that...maybe it makes sense for that to happen and we bump up SM points slightly to compensate, idk.

Im also thinking about ways to take advantage of the new wound system more, maybe give mostrous creatures a pseudo feel no Pain save kind of deal rather than insane amounts of wounds, to represent their toughness and ability to ignore or shrug off minor wounds, because otherwise were going to have tons of wound slots we don't use. So a really rough rule for this idea would be

This model gains a save of (x) against weapons with strength lower than their defense value..this lets us fine tune models a bit more easily, since we can control how much minor weapons can affect them. So a hive tyrant might have a 4+ for this save, as its a medium sized monstrous creature, but the truly massive Tyrannofex would have a 2+ for this save, as its so large that a Boltgun is barely noticeable. Maybe give it to hero and HQ type characters to keep their wounds under control and let us use all the wound slots. Idk what the realism explanation for this would be beyond describing them as near mythical feats of heroism or something, or sheer hardheaded ness and unwillingness to die and shrug off wounds.
This direction also lets us get past the awkward situation of a 12 wound monstrous creature taking 12 las cannon shots to kill it, which would be a bit too extreme in my opinion, so if it had around 6 wounds with this kind of save, it could survive 6 las cannon shots, while still ignoring the majority of small arms fire, which feels a bit better.

I think we've more or less reached an impass about reserves, so im gonna open a thread and let people vote on which system theyd prefer, and well build off whatever comes out of that. We've got other topics to bring up and were circling.

I feel like you're avoiding this a bit, but whatever.

but high fire rates could affect the crew more, while high strength, low shots focus on damaging the vehicle

This doesn't appeal to me, it's too thick and "heavy-handed". And too simplistic.

I think we may have to bump up defense by 1 across the board like you suggested a while back, because right now space marines can one hit kill orks and guardsman ( Str 5 vs Def 2)

Can you explain to me what you have it mind with that at the moment?!?! Like why should they be one-shotting them? Why are you gonna resort to upping defense but not anything else, haven't we already discussed that? As far as I'm concerned, I am satisfied with the variety we have got at the moment, where 3-5 is the norm and 2 is ONLY for anomalous units? So basically Eldar and IG have R3 (expected), Orks and Tau have R4 (tau with the armour and orks with the muscly swagger) while Necrons and SM have R5.

Now I feel like we shouldn't have Power influencing the number of wounds caused. My argument is that Power already has an oxymoron - Resilience - and if we have the number of wounds depending on it AS WELL, well then slight changes in Power will mean more than they should. Another thing I want to bring forward is that in reality it won't be as simple as one wound two wound three wound things, in 40k it's only simplified like that just to show "HP", so we should leave it be that "one wound" is just a representation, and we can't have Power falsely trying to interact with it.

This model gains a save of (x) against weapons with strength lower than their defense value

Hmph I'm a bit vexed on this one, isn't this just a STEEP defense scaling? i.e. a bit like how AP and armour saves work right now? Because I abhor how that works right now (as in, a 2+ save doesn't care whether it's being hit by AP3 or AP-) if you know what I mean, it's like drawing a line on stat interaction which should be continuous + quantitative.

I feel like you're avoiding this a bit, but whatever.

A little bit, but i'm mostly trying to head off the situation of after 2-3 pages of back and forth, we realize we want fundamentally different things from reserves, and we'd have to go this direction anyways, which is what was begining to become clear.

This doesn't appeal to me, it's too thick and "heavy-handed". And too simplistic.

Again, sorry if this is really misleading, im barely past the concept stage with this idea. I don't mean there is an explicit rule or quality of these weapons that mean that a low strength but high shot weapon is better at suppressing vehicles (Crew Damage), while higher strength weapons (typically low shot number) are better at penetrating and damaging vehicles, but rather that it is more effective to use these weapons this way. For instance, imagine if we had two different firing modes, say theyre called damage and suppression. If i fire in suppression mode, i lose the ability to penetrate the vehicle (or maybe just make it much harder) but i have a much higher chance of distracting or injuring the crew. So low strength weapons (typically higher number of shots) would typically want to fire in this mode, as they dont have much chance of penetrating, but their high number of shots means they can have more/higher effects on the crew. Alternatively, if im shooting at a vehicle with something like a lascannon (high strength, low shots), i dont want to aim for things like view ports, hatches, or general crew compartments to suppress the crew, i want to aim for the places where i can do the most damage to the vehicle itself, like weapon systems, the engine, magazines, reactors, etc.

This isn't really the system i have in mind, but im trying to get the idea across and cleared up somewhat. Ideally, shots meant to damage the vehicle would still affect the crew on a glance at the very least, because on penetrations it not such a big deal, because if you destroy the weapon system that crew member manning it cant do anything regardless, so he might as well die with it, but i want an option for low strength weapons to give up or reduce the likelihood of penetration in exchange for being able to affect the crew more, if that makes any sense.

Can you explain to me what you have it mind with that at the moment?!?! Like why should they be one-shotting them? Why are you gonna resort to upping defense but not anything else, haven't we already discussed that? As far as I'm concerned, I am satisfied with the variety we have got at the moment, where 3-5 is the norm and 2 is ONLY for anomalous units? So basically Eldar and IG have R3 (expected), Orks and Tau have R4 (tau with the armour and orks with the muscly swagger) while Necrons and SM have R5.

I was still working off my really rough conversion where toughness and armor were both taken into account to give a value of 0-5. If we go this direction, which is probably best, i would argue orks should be defense 3 rather than 4, because they compensate for their lack of armor with their toughness, while the imperial guard do the opposite. This direction should negate why i felt toughness should have been bumped up, as this essentially does the same thing. It does still bring to light the question of what to do about tyranid gaunts, as they would have to be lower than orks and imperial guardsmen, and if we are using the doubling strength == doubling wounds, boltguns would be instant killing gaunts.

Another worry is that we dont have a slot for things that are above firewarriors (T3 with a 4+) but below a space marine, like sisters of battle, normal humans in power armor like inquisitors, and scout marines that are tougher but with worse armor. I also remember you saying a while back you didnt want boltguns to be wounding space marines on a 4+, so bringing space marines to defense 6 would do that.

Hmph I'm a bit vexed on this one, isn't this just a STEEP defense scaling? i.e. a bit like how AP and armour saves work right now? Because I abhor how that works right now (as in, a 2+ save doesn't care whether it's being hit by AP3 or AP-) if you know what I mean, it's like drawing a line on stat interaction which should be continuous + quantitative.

If we want strength 5 weapons to be able to affect things like monstrous creatures, their defense can at most be 9, which limits potential defense values, unless we want these weapons to be unable to affect certain models. But at defense 9, 1 in 6 strength 5 shots will still be getting through, which seems like its too many, because there's no longer an armor value to stop those. I think these infantry weapons need a chance to affect monster, to represent hitting things like the eyes, but it shouldn't be that higher of a probability.

It also gives us a means by which to avoid a couple of the problems the new wound system introduces, such as us being unable to use a lot of the non-even numbered slots since we just doubled wounds, particularly at the higher end of the scale, and having models at 12 wounds that would normally be at 6 wounds (like the tyrannofex) would take 12 lascannon shots to kill, which i think we can all agree is a bit excessive. Having this save lets us lower their wound amounts and use more of the possible wound slots, but lets them keep the durability against small arms fire, while being less immortal against weapons meant to kill them.

As for it being such as steep and sudden change, it is just a rough idea so im open to ideas on how to do this, but it'd have to be something like a second defense value against which the owner of the monster has to roll off against, or something along those lines.

Hmph, I don't think that it would be a good idea to be able to focus fire on the crew exactly..nor the vehicle itself. Unless there is a crew member outside the vehicle, the chances of a shot passing through a view slit are negligible. It would also be hard in some cases like war walkers or unarmoured sentinels, the chances of you hitting the driver is pretty high...

So right now what I'm hoping for is to keep the same system as right now, which , just have a special category for weapons/models that actually have the chance to take out a crew member which can potentially inhibit the vehicle's actions some way or another

I feel like gaunts should be at the same level as IG and Eldar, I mean it's only from a 5+ to a 6+, it's not enough difference to warrant R2, plus that would be incredibly annoying.

Like I said, 3-5 is the normal infantry range, it would be insane to put the ordinary marine on an extraordinary level, plus Boltguns are P4, they should be.

For wounds, I'm treading cautiously with how radical we want to make it. In the back of my head I'm tempted to put Attacks (shooting and melee) and wounds to the same scale as the other stats, but I don't see that happening without tons of dice. However at the moment, the gap between a 1 wound model and a 2 wound model is huge. 2 wound models are effectively twice as tough. If we move it to 3-5 like the others, then those kind of differences are more streamline-able and fine.

I feel like gaunts should be at the same level as IG and Eldar, I mean it's only from a 5+ to a 6+, it's not enough difference to warrant R2, plus that would be incredibly annoying.

Like I said, 3-5 is the normal infantry range, it would be insane to put the ordinary marine on an extraordinary level, plus Boltguns are P4, they should be.

on the flip side, its also only from a 5+ to a 4+ from a guardsman to a Firewarrior, and if we want some form of consistency we need to have it be the same step. They are horde units though, and meant to perform a similar function to vehicles in that they help deliver important units unharmed to their goals, and maybe do some damage along the way, so this isn't as big a deal. Id suggest looking at more interesting ways to compensate for this in-codex rather than just bumping them up, maybe bringing back the endless horde special rules from older codexs. Also, whats the point of having a "normal range" if we never move below it?

As for having boltguns as strength 4, do you mean alongside Lasguns within 12", and ork gunz? Because no, that's not going to happen. And as for why they shouldn't be at defense 6, i say why not? Make them like they are in the fluff, super humans covered in near-vehicle level amounts of armor. As long as their points cost is adjusted to properly account for this, i think it would work quite nicely. Players wouldn't be able to spam them as much as is possible right now, and they would have to play a bit smarter to compensate. They're what, 14 points now? I think going back to 16 or even 18 ppm would be worth that increased durability. Plus we need a way to represent the units between space marines and Firewarriors, and this is a pretty solid solution.

Hmph, I don't think that it would be a good idea to be able to focus fire on the crew exactly..nor the vehicle itself. Unless there is a crew member outside the vehicle, the chances of a shot passing through a view slit are negligible. It would also be hard in some cases like war walkers or unarmoured sentinels, the chances of you hitting the driver is pretty high...

So right now what I'm hoping for is to keep the same system as right now, which , just have a special category for weapons/models that actually have the chance to take out a crew member which can potentially inhibit the vehicle's actions some way or another

god i cannot convey this idea well at all. Aiming at view slots was a bad example, but when a tank is taking fire, even if its not strong enough to penetrate, you can hear it in the tank, it still has an effect on the crew, and obviously the more powerful the attack, the larger the sounds and effects inside the tank. For a time, tank rounds were not designed to actually punch through the armor, they focused on turning the armor against the crew, as when hit by enemy fire the inside walls of the tank would shatter a small amount, creating shrapnel clouds inside the tank, which could injure or kill crew members. Also, the sounds of heavy fire can distract crewmen, hits not hard enough to penetrate can rock a tank and cause people to fall out of their station, knock out electronics, hit their head, create micro-shrapnel, etc, so there are numerous ways to affect the crew without penetration.

So one way to do this would be to bring back the vehicle damage charts, but rather than having penetrating and glancing roll on the same table, there would be a glance table with crew results, and a penetration table with vehicle results.

But the point im trying to make is that id like for army's to be playable without taking the large bulky anti-tank weapons in place, as they can instead take lighter, less powerful weapons that can suppress vehicles by interrupting the crews. Many pure or near pure assault army's are considered infeasible, as they have no way to deal with tanks at medium to long range reliably, and their available anti tank weapns are not terribly suited to taking down these targets, and such a system could provide it to them. The higher number of shots typically found on lower strength AP weapons would help them compensate for the lower strength, as they can land more hits to potentially cause these suppression results on the crew.

on the flip side, its also only from a 5+ to a 4+ from a guardsman to a Firewarrior, and if we want some form of consistency we need to have it be the same step

I suppose, but we still have the liberty to change it and I feel Tau should be a *bit* more armoured than Eldar, and to be honest they need it because they come in much shorter numbers than Tyranids, whereas the justification for Eldar being R3 is that they're Eldar.

Also, whats the point of having a "normal range" if we never move below it?

But we would move below it in some cases. But only rare cases. I can see whole armies in R6 working (because then we can actually have P3 weapons wounding on a 6+ for a change) but yes, we totally need to up their cost to compensate. As for bolters, I feel like if we put Lasguns to P3 normal with Assault 2 always (they have double the ammunition of bolters), it's enough to keep them at P4.

I can see this happening, a kind of VEHICLE MORALE (yes?!) where a certain number of hits has some sort of effect on the crew. However we CANNOT make this too OP or anti-vehicle weapons will just die..

I suppose, but we still have the liberty to change it and I feel Tau should be a *bit* more armoured than Eldar, and to be honest they need it because they come in much shorter numbers than Tyranids, whereas the justification for Eldar being R3 is that they're Eldar.

? I meant that gaunts are T3 with a 6+, guardsman and eldar guardians are T3 with a 5+, Firewarriors are T3 with a 4+, sisters of battle are T3 with a 3+, so it would make sense for these units to be defense 2,3,4, and 5 respectively.

To the entire army working with defense 6 comment, the implication is that an entire defense 2 army wouldn't work, and it would but you wouldn't be able to play it the same way, and we'd need more specialized rules to make it work. For instance, doing something like the old endless horde rules, where if a unit with this special rule is wiped out or routed, the entire unit may re-enter from the owning players side of the table, or something along those lines. But yes, space marines would need to cost quite a bit more than they do now to balance that out, which im not opposed to.

As for bolters, I feel like if we put Lasguns to P3 normal with Assault 2 always (they have double the ammunition of bolters), it's enough to keep them at P4.

Firstly Lasguns should not be assault or 2 shots base, because that greatly clashes with the role of a standard guardsman in that they are a largely immobile gun line that depends on orders to reach higher effectiveness. Second, i liked the system of having most guns at strength 4, "good guns" at strength 5, amazing guns at strength 6, it made sense, as it made sure boltguns were the same strength as a space marine in Melee, and showed how much weaker many of the weaker models, like guardsmen and eldar guardians, were in Melee than shooting.

One thing i would actually like to see is something like eldar shuriken weaponry be lower strength, but have something like shred special rule, so while its less likely for them to wound, when they do its devastating, and shuriken weaponry isn't really suited to penetrating vehicles, so the lower strength makes sense.

I can see this happening, a kind of VEHICLE MORALE (yes?!) where a certain number of hits has some sort of effect on the crew. However we CANNOT make this too OP or anti-vehicle weapons will just die..

Vehicle morale isn't really what i meant, but its a step in the right direction. And obviously not OP, thats something we should avoid at all costs in every element of the game. For the certain number of hits having an effect on the crew, that might be a way to do it, I'll think on this.

I meant that gaunts are T3 with a 6+, guardsman and eldar guardians are T3 with a 5+, Firewarriors are T3 with a 4+, sisters of battle are T3 with a 3+, so it would make sense for these units to be defense 2,3,4, and 5 respectively.

I know it would make sense, but remember the jump from 5+ to 6+ is actually much smaller than from 3+ to 4+, so I think that R2 for 'Nids is just slightly too much.

it made sure boltguns were the same strength as a space marine in Melee

I am opposed to this. I know you want to try to show that boltguns are stronger than an SM punch, but that's the thing, weapons and melee strikes are on the same Power scale, to be able to differentiate between the melee power "norm" and the ballistic power "norm" it would either call for a different stat, or a different average. So it would be like shooting attacks with average P4, whereas melee attacks with average P3.

And what's wrong with lasguns being Assault 2? You say you want it to be a fairly immobile defense line. That's what the inherent trait of a laser does!

I know you want to try to show that boltguns are stronger than an SM punch, but that's the thing, weapons and melee strikes are on the same Power scale, to be able to differentiate between the melee power "norm" and the ballistic power "norm" it would either call for a different stat, or a different average. So it would be like shooting attacks with average P4, whereas melee attacks with average P3.

what? I want space marines to be the same strength for both Melee and shooting, they're supposed to be the jack of all trades, master of none army. And having different averages, isn't that what was in place with most weapons being in the 4-5 range, with a few examples of 6s? It has a higher average than the Melee range of 3-5?

I know it would make sense, but remember the jump from 5+ to 6+ is actually much smaller than from 3+ to 4+, so I think that R2 for 'Nids is just slightly too much.

actually the jump from a 5+ to a 6+ is much greater, youre halving the chance of success as opposed to decreasing it by something like a third for moving from a 3+ to a 4+. But tyranid gaunts are THE horde unit of 40k they should drop like flys, having them be as survivable as many other units doesn't make sense. Plus all the fluff has gaunts dying in droves, until the scarier units close in and start taking fire instead, so making use of that idea should be a key component to the army.

And what's wrong with lasguns being Assault 2? You say you want it to be a fairly immobile defense line. That's what the inherent trait of a laser does!

But having them be assault means they can move and fire, and having them be 2 shots means that several imperial guard orders will be invalidated. First rank fire second rank fire is a huge component of the army, and there's an order that lets them move and fire. Having these abilities be traits of the command structure fits better with the army than having it be an individual components.

what? I want space marines to be the same strength for both Melee and shooting, they're supposed to be the jack of all trades, master of none army. And having different averages, isn't that what was in place with most weapons being in the 4-5 range, with a few examples of 6s? It has a higher average than the Melee range of 3-5?

nah there's a misunderstanding. If you take the logic that a bolter round is stronger than an SM punch, then you have to say that for everything else as well, basically meaning that in general melee attacks will be weaker. This means that weapon Power averages would be 1 or 2 higher than model-innate Power averages. And I don't want that.

actually the jump from a 5+ to a 6+ is much greater, youre halving the chance of success as opposed to decreasing it by something like a third for moving from a 3+ to a 4+

Oh yeah, derp, but the point is that 5+ and 6+ armour saves are regarded as close to trash, whereas 4+ and 3+ and 2+ are much more looked upon and sought after. So I don't think Tyranids would deserve that, we have the right to change it if we feel it is seemly and imo gaunts should be on the same level as guardsmen.

But having them be assault means they can move and fire, and having them be 2 shots means that several imperial guard orders will be invalidated. First rank fire second rank fire is a huge component of the army, and there's an order that lets them move and fire.

woah let's not talk about IG orders yet, as of yet we need to block it out right now and come back to it later, I am not ready to talk about IG order reworks. And having them be assault means they can move and fire, isn't that what rapid fire still is anyway? You said you want people to take risks which is why you like the rapid fire rule of 40k at the moment, this is the same kind of thing, if you move closer to them, although you're taking a risk because IG suck at combat, you're getting a stronger shooting facet.

nah there's a misunderstanding. If you take the logic that a bolter round is stronger than an SM punch, then you have to say that for everything else as well, basically meaning that in general melee attacks will be weaker. This means that weapon Power averages would be 1 or 2 higher than model-innate Power averages. And I don't want that.

but i don't want a SM Bolter to be stronger than a SM punch, i. Want them to be equivalent.

Oh yeah, derp, but the point is that 5+ and 6+ armour saves are regarded as close to trash, whereas 4+ and 3+ and 2+ are much more looked upon and sought after. So I don't think Tyranids would deserve that, we have the right to change it if we feel it is seemly and imo gaunts should be on the same level as guardsmen.

yes but people still take gaunts despite their trash survivability, because they perform a function that is not necessarily killing units, theyre mobile cover screens for scary units on top of potentially causing some damage themselves. And I think just having 3 and higher would be boring, itd be like never having a unit stat like BS or WS be less than 3.

You said you want people to take risks which is why you like the rapid fire rule of 40k at the moment, this is the same kind of thing, if you move closer to them, although you're taking a risk because IG suck at combat, you're getting a stronger shooting facet.

yes but assault serves a very different function than rapid fire, assault helps preserve a units mobility, whereas rapid fire is incentive to move forward to gets more shots. But the IG have more incentives to not move (orders, low Melee abilities, etc), so that incentive doesn't really come into play. Not to mention the entire design idea of the guard infantry is a blob of immobile guns, so such a change is literally changing the idea of the army.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just posted the voting thread about reserves systems, let me know if ou want me to change any of the info on it.

For your reserve post I think your doubling wounds comment has skewed the feedback, you might as well just leave it. Could you change option 2 to (also update your option accordingly):

There is an element of uncertainty. At the start of the game, each player (assuming they have reserves) rolls a re-rollable D3+1 to determine when their unit arrives (Turn 2 to 4). Note that you do not have to utilise your unit as soon as they arrive, you just want to get the lowest result possible so they're ready asap. This means that there is 5/9 chance that your unit is ready on turn 2, 3/9 chance that your unit is ready on turn 3, and a 1/9 chance that your unit is ready on turn 4.

Do you want me to leave the damage information on there too? because thats kinda a big part of it

but i don't want a SM Bolter to be stronger than a SM punch, i. Want them to be equivalent.

Yeah, but SM punches are above average, but bolter rounds are average in the 41st millenium with all this exotic weaponry, it's just that marines have incredible strength.

For gaunts, I want them to be in the same category as guardsmen and guardians.

yes but assault serves a very different function than rapid fire, assault helps preserve a units mobility, whereas rapid fire is incentive to move forward to gets more shots. But the IG have more incentives to not move (orders, low Melee abilities, etc), so that incentive doesn't really come into play. Not to mention the entire design idea of the guard infantry is a blob of immobile guns, so such a change is literally changing the idea of the army.

Wait...what's the Rapid Fire rule at the moment? It's just if you're 12" you can always fire 1 more shot regardless of whether you move? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly the same mechanic as with laser. So really there is no difference (only a distinction) between assault 2 with laser, or rapid fire without laser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do you want me to leave the damage information on there too? because thats kinda a big part of it

You can have it for your option but personally I don't want it. The reason being, if you delay your squad it's not because they're moving slower it's because they're tactically biding until the right moment.

Yeah, but SM punches are above average, but bolter rounds are average in the 41st millenium with all this exotic weaponry, it's just that marines have incredible strength.

you're basing this on averages when that doesn't make any sense. I dont care if Melee has an average of 4, while shooting has an average of 1, it doesn't matter, because its the actual strength that matters, not the location relative to the average. If the Melee and shooting strength have the same value, its the same strength in game. And I thought most guns were going to be either strength 4 or 5? Because in that case Bolters should absolutely be in the 5 category, because they have to be stronger than things like Lasguns, ork guns, and the gaunt level bio weapons.

Wait...what's the Rapid Fire rule at the moment? It's just if you're 12" you can always fire 1 more shot regardless of whether you move? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly the same mechanic as with laser. So really there is no difference (only a distinction) between assault 2 with laser, or rapid fire without laser.

the same as it is right now in the rules. May move and fire out to the weapons maximum range once, or 2 shots if within half range, and you may not assault after firing.

I thought laser was a weapon effect that caused weapons to get less powerful the longer range youre shooting, and potentially let you shoot through targets? Why was this changed, it was a cool mechanic.

And no assault 2 does not mean the same things as rapid fire, because assault 2 means you fire 2 shots always. Think about the difference between grey knight shooting vs normal space marine shooting. The only difference is that a grey knight come stock with an assault 2 storm bolter, but their shooting is so incredibly different from one another, just because of this distinction.

For gaunts, I want them to be in the same category as guardsmen and guardians.

why? I dont see this as a good reason to butcher the current logic behind the rules, when there are exciting possibilities in ways to overcome this problem uniquely. And we're going against fluff, the real ruleset, and pretty much everything else that says gaunts die in droves by putting them at defense 3 alongside orks and guardsmen and eldar guardians.

I dont care if Melee has an average of 4, while shooting has an average of 1, it doesn't matter, because its the actual strength that matters, not the location relative to the average. If the Melee and shooting strength have the same value, its the same strength in game.

Are you saying that you want melee attacks and shooting attacks to be on the same Power scale, with different averages? So punches would average 4 but shots would average 5?

And I thought most guns were going to be either strength 4 or 5? Because in that case Bolters should absolutely be in the 5 category, because they have to be stronger than things like Lasguns, ork guns, and the gaunt level bio weapons.

Hell no when did I say that? Guns are going to be exactly the same thing - with the majority of infantry guns at P3-5, where 5 is stronger than average and 3 is below average. 3 is for tyranid guns, long range las, and I guess ork guns (although i have not a clue what they are). Shurikens could fit into P3 too, with a different rule.

And no assault 2 does not mean the same things as rapid fire

I don't think you understood me? When did I say Assault 2 means Rapid Fire? I said lasers have the same mechanics as rapid fire. And they do.

And no assault 2 does not mean the same things as rapid fire

What does the fluff say? I know nothing about nids, but as long as the most basic tyranids have R2, I don't see it being a problem (i.e. all the other tyranid species won't be that squishy)

Are you saying that you want melee attacks and shooting attacks to be on the same Power scale, with different averages? So punches would average 4 but shots would average 5?

yes that's the idea, but not necessarily those values. Its the realistic route, in reality gunshots and punches are still measured and evaluated exactly the same so far as things like momentum and kinetic energy are concerned, it just so happens that bullets have an average far higher than punches in these areas.

Hell no when did I say that? Guns are going to be exactly the same thing - with the majority of infantry guns at P3-5, where 5 is stronger than average and 3 is below average. 3 is for tyranid guns, long range las, and I guess ork guns (although i have not a clue what they are). Shurikens could fit into P3 too, with a different rule.

quite a while ago actually, we discussed this before. And it leads to the awkward situation of space marine punches being stronger than their shooting which doesn't make any sense, as well as the situation of an imperial guardsman hitting as hard with his fists as his Lasgun, which also doesn't make any sense.

I don't think you understood me? When did I say Assault 2 means Rapid Fire? I said lasers have the same mechanics as rapid fire. And they do.

what laser mechanic are you talking about? The one where the shots decrease in strength as range increases? I dont remember any other mechanic for lasers being brought up.

What does the fluff say? I know nothing about nids, but as long as the most basic tyranids have R2, I don't see it being a problem (i.e. all the other tyranid species won't be that squishy)

gaunts are completely cannon fodder, most of them don't even have digestive systems since theyre expected to die so quickly, as making those organs would take time and resources that could be used to make another gaunt, and their express purpose is to die in large enough numbers to deplete the enemy's ammunition supplies. And yes of course the other species would be much more survivable, its just that gaunts are meant to die in ridiculously huge numbers, so lets bring that across in the rules.

quite a while ago actually, we discussed this before. And it leads to the awkward situation of space marine punches being stronger than their shooting which doesn't make any sense, as well as the situation of an imperial guardsman hitting as hard with his fists as his Lasgun, which also doesn't make any sense.

Well firstly, it's not fair to compare a directed energy weapon with a kinetic force. As for SM, I thought you wanted their punches to be the same as their boltgun? You said that earlier and now you're contradicting yourself.

The thing is, if you use the logic that melee strikes are on a different scale (as in average) then you have to apply that to all the armies, and I just don't find it worth it because although yes, it's awkward, but it's just as awkward if not even more awkward that the average is not 4 anymore. For all stats barring Attacks and Wounds, my goal was to stabilise them. Now the average is 4, with 1 either side being most common. But if you decrease the average just for one reason, while creating a whole lot of different problems (one being that things won't die very fast in combat, which leads onto more problems because tarpitting will become utilised by even the slightest of disposable units etc etc)

what laser mechanic are you talking about? The one where the shots decrease in strength as range increases?

Yes, and that is akin to rapid fire. You're within half range? Good, your shooting is augmented.

Well firstly, it's not fair to compare a directed energy weapon with a kinetic force. As for SM, I thought you wanted their punches to be the same as their boltgun? You said that earlier and now you're contradicting yourself.

it doesn't matter though, damage is damage, and saying that a standard humans punch is the same strength as their gun is crazy, it'd be like handing soldiers boxing gloves on the end of a potato launcher. As for contradicting myself, no I'm not, if a space marine is strength 5 in Melee, his gun needs to be strength 5 in shooting, because otherwise his assault rifle that shoots 20mm grenade rounds is insanely underpowered.

But if you decrease the average just for one reason, while creating a whole lot of different problems (one being that things won't die very fast in combat, which leads onto more problems because tarpitting will become utilised by even the slightest of disposable units etc etc)

but I'm not decreasing the average, I'm actually increasing it slightly for shooting. If the average for Melee is a 4, with 1 point on each side being standard ranges, thats fine. But if most guns are strength 4 or 5, with some examples of standard weapons at strength 6, the average is just below a 5. This helps ensure that units weak in Melee are actually shown as being weak in Melee themselves rather than in comparison to other units, and helping provide incentive to keep out of Melee besides the enemy being better at it. As for it being awkward to have the average slightly higher for shooting vs Melee, i don't really see how its awkward if it makes sense both realistically and gameplay wise, because the only way this awkwardness would come into play is if someone collected all the standard weapon and Melee strengths of units and then noticed, that shooting is higher, and even then it's not a problem with the game or the system, just an odd situation with the math.

Yes, and that is akin to rapid fire. You're within half range? Good, your shooting is augmented.

yes but they go about things very differently. Doubling a models number of shots is a vast difference to not applying a negative modifier to their shooting. Just because the situation in which their special cases are triggered is similar does not mean they are in any way performing similar functions.

EDIT: Just had a little idea, do we want to give some sort of bonus to taking dedicated close combat weapons, but not the pistol + CCW combo or the dual weapon combo? Because obviously the space marine hitting someone with the chainsword is going to be better suited to close combat than the one bonking the enemy on the head with the butt of his bolter? Idk just a quick little idea, but i think itd be interesting, maybe have them be +1 strength or something, but it could marginalize power weapons at +2 strength, so wed either have to buff power weapons up some, or slightly change the rules for power weapons or something.

EDIT2: I just had an idea for rending that gets rid of some of the math and weirdness in its current iteration with our system. Kinda take what we have going for lance (Never counts vehicle defense as being higher than 11 or whatever value we put on it). Rending would instead be Never counts infantry defense as being higher than 4. If a enemy units defense value is equal to or lower than 4, the model may reroll wounds. We could even make it rending (4) or whatever if want to allow slight variations in the strength of rending.

An extension / alternative to this that also makes power weapons more interesting would be to make it so that rolling a 6 with a rending weapon would activate these rending effects i said above, and if they rolled above a certain number on a follow-up roll they cause double wounds or something, while a power weapon would always have the armor reducing effect active, without needing to roll for that 6.

but I'm not decreasing the average, I'm actually increasing it slightly for shooting

That's potentially even worse. You're changing an average of 4+ to wound into an average of 3+ to wound. Things will be falling out of the sky. It's not worth just one reason to have to burden ourselves with all the consequences of a different average (on the same stat? wtf) Anyway, I want it consistent. The averages should be the same.

to not applying a negative modifier to their shooting

what are you talking about? The laser effect is exactly the same as rapid fire mechanically, the only difference being a stronger shot instead of two weaker shots.

EDIT: Just had a little idea, do we want to give some sort of bonus to taking dedicated close combat weapons, but not the pistol + CCW combo or the dual weapon combo? Because obviously the space marine hitting someone with the chainsword is going to be better suited to close combat than the one bonking the enemy on the head with the butt of his bolter? Idk just a quick little idea, but i think itd be interesting, maybe have them be +1 strength or something, but it could marginalize power weapons at +2 strength, so wed either have to buff power weapons up some, or slightly change the rules for power weapons or something.

Well dedicated close combat weapons would be better anyway right?

EDIT2: I just had an idea for rending that gets rid of some of the math and weirdness in its current iteration with our system. Kinda take what we have going for lance (Never counts vehicle defense as being higher than 11 or whatever value we put on it). Rending would instead be Never counts infantry defense as being higher than 4. If a enemy units defense value is equal to or lower than 4, the model may reroll wounds. We could even make it rending (4) or whatever if want to allow slight variations in the strength of rending.

Ehh it feels alien to what rending should be. It feels like a substitute for what a special rule is actually trying to represent.

An extension / alternative to this that also makes power weapons more interesting would be to make it so that rolling a 6 with a rending weapon would activate these rending effects i said above, while a power weapon would always have them active, without needing to roll for that 6.

Like I said the "on a roll of 6" rules are really biased and not well made at all, because it ignores the existing chance of hitting (repeating what I said ages ago if you hit on a 6+ anyway...common sense from there on, it's not objective)

what are you talking about? The laser effect is exactly the same as rapid fire mechanically, the only difference being a stronger shot instead of two weaker shots.

Did you even read this statement? Because they are clearly two very different effects being applied here, and at that the 2nd statement doesnt even make sense. 40K is a game of dice and numbers; If you throw enough dice, you will win, and giving a 2 shot weapon, disregarding the pointlessness of giving an assault weapon to a unit that never charges unless absolutely necessary, to a unit that is meant to be spammable is ludicrous. Plus, Rapid fire is the basic firing mechanism of nearly every troops choice in the game that isn't based on mobility (eldar, dark eldar, tyranids, etc), so why break that trend? But lets toss some numbers in here to get things rolling. If i have 2 lasguns, one a strength 3, assault 2 lasgun, and the other a str 4 rapid fire laser lasgun, lets see what they can do at "max" range of 24"

Lasgun 1)
Fire 2 times at 24", wound the average (4) on a 5+, average of 66.66% chance of wounding the target from that gun
can fire and move to maximum effect at any range
can charge into melee after firing

Lasgun 2)
fire once at 24", wound the average (4) on a 4+, average of 50% chance wounding the target
cannot charge after firing
must be within 12" to reach maximum efficiency (both in # of shots, and strength)

So lasgun 1 (the new version) is 33% better than lasgun 2 at wounding the average, can fire for full effect at any range, and can charge into melee after firing, and removes any incentive for them to advance or move at all. This change would probably bump the humble Guardsman platoon into one of the scariest choices in the game, because nothing short of vehicles and monstrous creatures are going to survive 100 lasgun shots, before orders,upgrades, and bonuses no less, from a unit costing less than 300 points.

Like I said the "on a roll of 6" rules are really biased and not well made at all, because it ignores the existing chance of hitting (repeating what I said ages ago if you hit on a 6+ anyway...common sense from there on, it's not objective)

Like i said, just an interesting option to consider for making power weapons more interesting than just a strength bonus.

Ehh it feels alien to what rending should be. It feels like a substitute for what a special rule is actually trying to represent.

Here's the thing though, EVERYTHING we've done thus far for these rules has been a substitute for what they are really supposed to be doing. It's inevitable that its going to feel like that with simplistic methods, because the function they were designed to serve no longer exists. This is the first direction i've seen that could be mechanically interesting while still making them feel sorta right. And so far as it being alien, i think it mechanically represents it quite well, because it makes sure the unit brings down the higher armor values, while making it much more likely to wound the lower armor values.

Well dedicated close combat weapons would be better anyway right?

Not necessarily though, lots of times you have the option to take a close-combat weapon without taking the pistol to compliment it, so as it stands, these choices are just there for modeling purposes. Im not a huge fan of this idea, but it could be a cool way to bring an in-game effect for these choices, so i thought id bring it up.

That's potentially even worse. You're changing an average of 4+ to wound into an average of 3+ to wound. Things will be falling out of the sky. It's not worth just one reason to have to burden ourselves with all the consequences of a different average (on the same stat? wtf) Anyway, I want it consistent. The averages should be the same.

But think about how insane having shooting-focused units be exactly as strong in melee as they are in shooting (Guardsmen would actually be weaker at shooting then in melee beyond 12" due to laser rule, and that fact just boggles my mind). You said one of your most important factors in the game was realism, and id say having guns be equal to or weaker than many units meant to shoot is a pretty stark break in reality. Not to mention most of the units that inhabit Defense 3 are either expendable or glass-cannon units that can be easily wiped out if the player uses them recklessly. And if we get overly worried about these glass-cannon units being too fragile, i have no problem with them getting a 6+ dodge save at the very least, as that would be easily supported by their increased reaction times and agility.

My point is that the laser special rule is akin to rapid fire, so if we give them both rapid fire AND laser then being in 12" will be almost a necessity, since it's around a 270% damage spike, which is too good to miss.

I know you have concerns about them being able to assault if I give them assault weapons, and I agree I overlooked it. Whether we make it so that the default is being able to assault after shooting or NOT, I don't mind, as long as there are rules that oppose it that either let/stop you from assaulting.

For rending, I would argue that there are several ways of interpreting it and that rending is a representation of several different occurences. You said that, along with the fact that it's trying to represent the increased chance of hitting weak spots, it also has an easier time getting through thick armour.

This means that, the special rule that I proposed (with the -3 if it still hits blah blah) is only half the story. The other side, however, you propose the "lance" style rule. The thing with this is that to be honest you can't really draw a line between what it's merely "good" against and what its "effective" against. So I thought of this:

Resolute (X): A model that has a weapon with this special rule treats the target's Resilience as being halved, and the weapons Power is (X).

So it affects all armour as it should, however it has a BIGGER impact on BETTER armour. So it's still going to be good against low armours (your point about "If a enemy units defense value is equal to or lower than 4, the model may reroll wounds." but it's going to be MORE effective against heavy armour. However weapons with this specific rule are NOT going to have Power on their weapon stat, because having them on the same scale of 1-12 probably might not work since the target's Resilience is getting halved anyway. Open to refinement but I think this should work nicely!

Also we have to be careful when using the "reroll" mechanic. Because atm you reroll with the same stats and the same chances, which means that a rerollable 3+ is actually quite a lot better than a rerollable 4+ because your second roll is also a 3+. It's kinda got the same issue with doubling stats, the gap is slightly too wide. But that's just a header, I'm not saying rerolls are bad.


For CCWs, I'd say that having a pistol AND a CCW lowers the user's Sk (Skill) for the CCW attacks only, however the pistol can still shoot normally at the user's Sk. This means that carrying only one CCW is going to be better, and pistols/2nd CCWs won't be mandatory. So:

1 CCW or pistol: No change
2 CCWs: -1 Sk
1 CCW and 1 pistol: -1 Sk for CCW attacks only.

Not finalised, but feel free to let out your opinion (be nice .-.)



For melee being the same Power as shooting, there is a chance for me to say that Power can't just mean brute force but also shredding/piercing/energy too. So yeah, bolters have a decent (at most) penetrating ability, and is quite potent if it does go through, but the kinetic energy in comparison isn't outstanding. So we give it P4. Compare that the Space Marine punch, which, with its momentum, the superhuman strength and the hefty power armour behind, can EASILY cause trauma and hemorrhaging even though it can't penetrate at all.

I know it's just an example. but I wanna get across that it's not COMPLETELY insane, there is some logic to it, and so I feel like it's good as it is

My point is that the laser special rule is akin to rapid fire, so if we give them both rapid fire AND laser then being in 12" will be almost a necessity, since it's around a 270% damage spike, which is too good to miss.

Here's the thing though, imperial guardsman have always been about the weight of fire, not the strength of the individual guns. So having the lasgun be very weak at its maximum range actually makes a lot of sense, as the lasgun doesn't have to be very good at wounding, it just has to capable of wounding the target, the combination of massive numbers and officer orders will buff their shooting just by having them roll a ton of dice. But in the fluff, the really dangerous part of guardsman shooting is when they let them close in on the platoon, then let loose a massive barrage of fire that obliterates enemies getting close. So having their shooting be so much better within that 12" bubble acts as both an offensive and defensive problem, as they shouldn't close for assault, as their absolutely trash in melee, and if they move away, they won't be able to shoot. But the enemy has to think about how they can close that gap without getting hit with a really brutal barrage in close combat, because they have to dodge all the other scary LOS in the army, leman russ and all that, but still somehow close on the squad, while staying beyond 12". And if we want them to be able to shoot and assault, id much rather that be an order rather than a trait of the gun, as that would make more sense within the army's mechanics.

For rending, I would argue that there are several ways of interpreting it and that rending is a representation of several different occurences. You said that, along with the fact that it's trying to represent the increased chance of hitting weak spots, it also has an easier time getting through thick armour.

If i recall correctly, the 3 ways rending was explained was being able to cut through armor, having enough shots to hit a weak point, or being skilled enough to target a weak point, but all 3 of these variations can be explained with the modified lance mechanic. Bringing down the higher level armor shows them being able to target weak points or cleaving through heavier armor, while a re-roll on the lower armor's shows them having no trouble at all breaking through it to wound the model.

And yes, a re-roll is much more powerful than a value increase or decrease, but thats the point of a re-roll besides requiring less math, rending is fairly rare rule and when it is given, it's typically given to a gun that is meant to straddle the line between anti-tank and anti-infantry, while on infantry its typically given to glass cannons, so it needs to be amazing to make up for their high-skill level and fragility.

So it affects all armour as it should, however it has a BIGGER impact on BETTER armour. So it's still going to be good against low armours (your point about "If a enemy units defense value is equal to or lower than 4, the model may reroll wounds." but it's going to be MORE effective against heavy armour. However weapons with this specific rule are NOT going to have Power on their weapon stat, because having them on the same scale of 1-12 probably might not work since the target's Resilience is getting halved anyway. Open to refinement but I think this should work nicely!

My problem with this is that i would argue that higher level armor should be affected less than lower level armor, because if im opening fire on a model with high armor with something like an assault cannon (str 6, 4 shot, rending), sure that model is going to be treated as having lower armor because its likely to hit weak spots, but at least there is significant armor there for all the other shots, whereas a less armored model doesn't have that advantage, so far as those bullets are concerned, everywhere on that model is a weak spot, so its far more likely to be wounded. Similarly, if i have genestealers attack my terminators, sure they're going to be tearing through that armor (they do have diamond tipped claws after all) but there is thick and sturdy armor to be torn through, whereas my guardsman might as well be wearing a wet cardboard box as far as those claws are concerned, so he's gonna be sliced and diced. Plus halving armor means doing some math, which slows things down a bit.

For CCWs, I'd say that having a pistol AND a CCW lowers the user's Sk (Skill) for the CCW attacks only, however the pistol can still shoot normally at the user's Sk. This means that carrying only one CCW is going to be better, and pistols/2nd CCWs won't be mandatory. So:

1 CCW or pistol: No change
2 CCWs: -1 Sk
1 CCW and 1 pistol: -1 Sk for CCW attacks only.

Im still really not on-board with having 2 melee weapons reducing weapon skill, i just dont see a point for it, and if i understand this correctly, is there any advantage to just having a close combat weapon? and idk i was never a huge fan of this direction, i just thought id bring it up.

For melee being the same Power as shooting, there is a chance for me to say that Power can't just mean brute force but also shredding/piercing/energy too. So yeah, bolters have a decent (at most) penetrating ability, and is quite potent if it does go through, but the kinetic energy in comparison isn't outstanding. So we give it P4. Compare that the Space Marine punch, which, with its momentum, the superhuman strength and the hefty power armour behind, can EASILY cause trauma and hemorrhaging even though it can't penetrate at all.

I know it's just an example. but I wanna get across that it's not COMPLETELY insane, there is some logic to it, and so I feel like it's good as it is

I would love for us to make a system involving different damage types and armor types and all that jazz, but we'd be straying painfully close to RPG territory, and thered have to be all these rules about interactions between different types, and we'd probably need some sort of multi-stage resolution system to deal with all this. and the added bloat wouldn't really be worth it. Plus, since we collapsed toughness and armor into defense, we also collapsed weapons strength and AP together, so so trying to use differences in damage types and penetration doesn't really fly. And so far as bolters are concerned, yeah their penetration isn't amazing or anything, it is a big round so there's a lot of friction and resistance, but it has a diamond tip so that definitely helps. The kinetic energy statement is only partially right though; they're a gyro-jet design, so they perform in an opposite manner to bullets, in that they start off slow then speed up the longer they fly, so their kinetic energy close to the model would be fairly low, but far out itd be like being at close range to a normal gun. However, the kinetic energy is not the scary part of the bolter, its the explosive charge in it, so it penetrates in a bit, then blows the target apart from the inside, and explosions are far more powerful in enclosed spaces.

It's this explosion and the accompanying shrapnel which is the scary part of the bolt, not the kinetic energy, and fluff even states that bolts are powerful enough to pick people up and throw them into a wall with the explosion, so i would definitely say they should be at least as powerful as a space marine punching, which fluff says can cave in a mans ribs with a punch. It's just that it wouldn't make sense fluff wise to have these futuristic weapons be exactly as strong as or weaker than the model wielding them, and from a gameplay perspective, it could motivate people to move in for melee instead of shooting, because they're just as good at it. And if we make it so that 3 is a somewhat common weapon strength, we run into the problem of model being able to wield that weapon can't hurt something defense 8 or higher, such as terminators and monstrous creatures, which means that there is potential for entire groups of units to be rendered useless. This situation would make perfect sense for things like shotguns, and potentially shuriken weaponry, since these are weapons are going about damage very differently than is typical, as well as long-range lasguns since theyre supposed to be trash, but having that situation apply to as many units as it would would be frustrating at the very least.

I also like having lasguns at strength 4, because it lets them be low with the laser rule, while setting up a nice and simple bump up to strength 5 for hellguns (upgraded lasguns), which in fluff are capable of seriously damaging and even penetrating power armor, so they would be on par with bolters.

The shotgun thread has a cool idea on it about how to handle damage for shotguns and the like though, and it's basically the opposite of the laser rule, so every 6" you get closer to the target than max range you increase damage by 1, so a strength 3 shotgun would be 3 at 18", 4 at 12", and 5 at 6". Call it Shrapnel or something.

Definitely an interesting topic! I'm surprised with all of the griping and complaining about rules and balance there would be more support for a community driven or “open” set of rules. And with all of the tools these days for online collaboration and communication you figure it would be possible to make it happen too. Have you guys thought of moving on to something more than just a discussion forum?

If I were to take a shot at this I'd probably start fresh and do a lot of groundwork before creating very simple baselines and rules. Then I'd have an easy to use online utility where testers could input their units and they would get a very simple print out of the entire rule system for their entire game (Maybe 1 sheet for the entire rule system with charts and rules etc, and 1 sheet with rules for the units). And then additionally there would be some sort of online form to submit the results. The results could be processed, viewed, discussed, etc.

Of course that’s all easier said than done…

Here's the thing though, imperial guardsman have always been about the weight of fire, not the strength of the individual guns. So having the lasgun be very weak at its maximum range actually makes a lot of sense, as the lasgun doesn't have to be very good at wounding, it just has to capable of wounding the target, the combination of massive numbers and officer orders will buff their shooting just by having them roll a ton of dice. But in the fluff, the really dangerous part of guardsman shooting is when they let them close in on the platoon, then let loose a massive barrage of fire that obliterates enemies getting close. So having their shooting be so much better within that 12" bubble acts as both an offensive and defensive problem, as they shouldn't close for assault, as their absolutely trash in melee, and if they move away, they won't be able to shoot. But the enemy has to think about how they can close that gap without getting hit with a really brutal barrage in close combat, because they have to dodge all the other scary LOS in the army, leman russ and all that, but still somehow close on the squad, while staying beyond 12". And if we want them to be able to shoot and assault, id much rather that be an order rather than a trait of the gun, as that would make more sense within the army's mechanics.

I know but think about it, if your Guardsmen are absolute ravagers within 12", why would you ever stay at 24"? You argued that they need orders to do damage at long range, but couldn't they just use those orders to boost them EVEN more at short range? Geez, they'll have about a 300% damage increase if you factor in laser, rapid fire AND orders. And the thing is that they're so expendable, you would just march them up to 12" and wreak havoc with your 50 point jelly squad... So far, this is where I'm at:

We scrap rapid fire for laser (like a replacement). We give them 2 shots to represent that the barrage of fire from all distances. But we give the P3 base, partly for balancing (their firepower can be augmented with other things) and partly because they're just lasguns.

Bringing down the higher level armor shows them being able to target weak points or cleaving through heavier armor, while a re-roll on the lower armor's shows them having no trouble at all breaking through it to wound the model.

Yeah but I think we need to split these occurences up, otherwise rending is gonna represent all of these, practically making it an all-round cleaver to anything. So one part of rending (as another rule) is going to show that it can hit weak points in armour (this is going to be given to snipers), this is going to be the "imagine -3" rule I'm ranting about (Hey...there could be a specific part of the rulebook which just makes it crystal clear on what these rules are and why they're like that!) Another aspect of rending could be the ease of slicing through particularly heavy armour. Just an idea, maybe for each shot hit the armour is lowered by 1/2 or something?

So for assault cannons I would say that although it doesn't have any specific capabilities to hit weak spots (other than being just a lot of shots in one weapon), it can be represented with the second part of rending.

Im still really not on-board with having 2 melee weapons reducing weapon skill, i just dont see a point for it, and if i understand this correctly, is there any advantage to just having a close combat weapon? and idk i was never a huge fan of this direction, i just thought id bring it up.

Ehh well just to recap (don't want to get into this again) a warrior with two CCWs is going to find it harder to handle both, so they get -1 Sk, but they can block attacks more easily so they get +1 D. Also it softens up the damage brought from a second attack, and also preserves the warrior slightly more.

Thank you for explaining what a bolt round does haha they're more fancy than I thought...But still I stand by the fact that boltguns would be most convenient at P4 and SM punches hurt arguably more ( ) Whatever

The shotgun idea is cool, could we call it "Buckshot"? Since shrapnel confuses with bog-standard blast weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@gravitywell Welcome Thanks for your input, although I don't see it possible in a million universes that we could fit it all on 1 page xD

What do you mean by "more than a discussion forum"? haha

@Gravitywell
Welcome to the thread! As for moving onto something more than a discussion forum, im assuming you mean a website, which while that would be awesome, i lack the know-how, skills, and frankly the money to do this. As for the functionality of setting up something like community and player test accounts and reports, again that would be awesome, but we are FAAAAR from ready to put out a ruleset that's ready for widescale testing. So far as setting up a 1 page rule outline with a 1 page unit spreadsheet, that would be nice for something like testing individual parts and small-medium level testing, but there's a lot more rules and information than we can fit on 1 page for a final release in the game, and we can't fit enough unit changes onto 1 page to really let players push and break the system like we'd want them to. I love the idea of gathering information and feedback like this though, hopefully we'll be able to implement this during testing phases further down the line, so thanks for the idea!

The shotgun idea is cool, could we call it "Buckshot"? Since shrapnel confuses with bog-standard blast weapons.

Much better name, but lets make sure we ask the poster to use that first, and give them credit for it somewhere.

Ehh well just to recap (don't want to get into this again) a warrior with two CCWs is going to find it harder to handle both, so they get -1 Sk, but they can block attacks more easily so they get +1 D. Also it softens up the damage brought from a second attack, and also preserves the warrior slightly more.

Yeah i remember the reasoning, i just disagree with it. I view the stat more as a "proficiency" kind of deal rather than a maximum capability, so they would definitely train to the point of proficiency. Gameplay wise, i just don't see it being powerful enough to warrant adding in a potentially complicating penalty, or a potentially complicating penalty with a corresponding complicating defense bonus.

I know but think about it, if your Guardsmen are absolute ravagers within 12", why would you ever stay at 24"? You argued that they need orders to do damage at long range, but couldn't they just use those orders to boost them EVEN more at short range? Geez, they'll have about a 300% damage increase if you factor in laser, rapid fire AND orders. And the thing is that they're so expendable, you would just march them up to 12" and wreak havoc with your 50 point jelly squad... So far, this is where I'm at:

But that 300% jump takes them from terrible to below average. A guardsman with the lasgun im talking about is hitting the average on a 5+, wounding on a 4+, so something like 1/6 shots are hitting, and they have 2 shots each at that range. If i recall correctly, most guardsman orders require them to be stationary (obviously excepting the one letting them move and still shoot), so using orders on the move is far less of a problem than you think it would be. So that 50 point guardsman squad of 10 guardsman would only be dealing 3.33 wounds against the average within 12 inches, thats only killing 1-2 models, and they had to close in on you to do that, meaning they either walked through your own return fire and assaulting units (likely to do WAY more damage than any lasgun) or had to buy a transport (which could easily double or even triple the cost of the squad), and you can only fit squads of 10 into the chimera, so thats going to push the costs way higher to field and move the same number of models.

So in order to be scary within that 12" they have to have high numbers, and be able to use orders, which means they are on foot and didn't move. Also, they need to be in range of their command squad to make use of their orders, so that's a limit as well. Running the math, they can do something like 2.22 wounds under these conditions against the average within 24" , which is 66% of the damage they could make by closing in, minus the risk of having to get closer, and the risk on getting into melee, whereas within 12", using orders, rapid fire, and laser, they're doing 5 wounds on the average, which is pretty decent for a 50 point unit.

We scrap rapid fire for laser (like a replacement). We give them 2 shots to represent that the barrage of fire from all distances. But we give the P3 base, partly for balancing (their firepower can be augmented with other things) and partly because they're just lasguns.

But the math shows that doubling the shots is actually a buff, not a nerf, before all the other problems with what weapon type it should be is taken into account.

the "imagine -3" rule I'm ranting about (Hey...there could be a specific part of the rulebook which just makes it crystal clear on what these rules are and why they're like that!)

I will be the first one to admit, that this way of resolving things is totally accurate, it perfectly executes what it needs to do, both gameplay wise and according to logic. Unfortunately, it involves a lot of work, because you either have to have memorized the URC, or have to look it up, which is far more time consuming than a reroll or other effect, so I don't see it as a great solution. As for making a page to explain how this would work, that's exactly my problem with this direction, you need that page to explain how it would work rather than just seeing "oh its a reroll" or whatever.

otherwise rending is gonna represent all of these, practically making it an all-round cleaver to anything.

But isnt that exactly what rending is supposed to do? its a rare special rule, the only units and weapons i can think of that use it are genestealers, assault cannons, snipers, and the grey knight psycannon (which is basically an upgraded assault cannon), so i don't think its going to be easy to abuse or broken or anything, plus it makes sense logically for it to affect things this way.

So for assault cannons I would say that although it doesn't have any specific capabilities to hit weak spots (other than being just a lot of shots in one weapon),

The problem is that that ability to fire massive numbers of rounds is one of the core aspects of rending, so just brushing it aside like this doesn't sit well, and if it's ability is to hit weak spots, wouldn't the weak spot on a terminator be considered normal armor for a lot of other units?

Much better name, but lets make sure we ask the poster to use that first, and give them credit for it somewhere.

Sure, but I don't know what you recommended it from

Yeah i remember the reasoning, i just disagree with it. I view the stat more as a "proficiency" kind of deal rather than a maximum capability, so they would definitely train to the point of proficiency. Gameplay wise, i just don't see it being powerful enough to warrant adding in a potentially complicating penalty, or a potentially complicating penalty with a corresponding complicating defense bonus.

Yeah but they would've trained more with one weapon, and their skill stat is supposed to represent their effective skill in normal circumstances. Gameplay wise, it does have an impact since you're changing their stats twice, that's theoretically more than a toughness buff from a bike, plus it's not that complicated, just 1 set of modifiers which will become second nature.

But that 300% jump takes them from terrible to below average.

But we can't make them absolutely terrible just to account for the fact that they're average at close range. We can't make them useless at 24", because otherwise there's almost always more incentive just to charge in and deal thrice the amount of damage.

So a guardsman with a rapid fire laser lasgun would probably be 40% as effective the average shooter at long range, which amplifies to 95% at short range. If we remove rapid fire, we can soften such a large disparity by making long range fire slightly better and toning down short range firepower to suit such cheap units. So from 60% to 80% or something close to that seems good ^^

I will be the first one to admit, that this way of resolving things is totally accurate, it perfectly executes what it needs to do, both gameplay wise and according to logic. Unfortunately, it involves a lot of work, because you either have to have memorized the URC, or have to look it up, which is far more time consuming than a reroll or other effect, so I don't see it as a great solution. As for making a page to explain how this would work, that's exactly my problem with this direction, you need that page to explain how it would work rather than just seeing "oh its a reroll" or whatever.

I'm really happy you theoretically like it, and I know its not as pragmatic as other rules but all it needs is a small paragraph in the corner of the page explaining what and why it is what it is

But isnt that exactly what rending is supposed to do? its a rare special rule, the only units and weapons i can think of that use it are genestealers, assault cannons, snipers, and the grey knight psycannon (which is basically an upgraded assault cannon), so i don't think its going to be easy to abuse or broken or anything, plus it makes sense logically for it to affect things this way.

Ohoho you don't play eldar xD What about all the pseudo rending special rules? They're not called rending but they function almost similarly. Eldar have bladestorm, monofilament, distort, plus sniper from ranger long rifles hahahaha. This is why I kinda wanna split it up since some of these don't really fulfill the complete meaning of rending.

The problem is that that ability to fire massive numbers of rounds is one of the core aspects of rending

But isn't there no difference between 10 shots from a whole unit and 10 shots from one gun?

and if it's ability is to hit weak spots, wouldn't the weak spot on a terminator be considered normal armor for a lot of other units?

Of course it would, which is why if you manage to hit a weak spot of a terminator his armour drops from 8 to 5 or 6.

Yeah but they would've trained more with one weapon, and their skill stat is supposed to represent their effective skill in normal circumstances. Gameplay wise, it does have an impact since you're changing their stats twice, that's theoretically more than a toughness buff from a bike, plus it's not that complicated, just 1 set of modifiers which will become second nature.

Exactly, skill in normal circumstances, they have that much skill in normal circumstances with any weapon they trained with. And yeah it's just one set of modifiers, but its a set of modifiers on top of everything else in a situation that doesn't really require them, and i don't like "its just one set of multipliers" as a justification, since if we did that for everything the game would drag on forever to work out all the numbers.

But we can't make them absolutely terrible just to account for the fact that they're average at close range. We can't make them useless at 24", because otherwise there's almost always more incentive just to charge in and deal thrice the amount of damage.

But they're doing over 2 wounds at 24" under these rules against the average, which isn't amazing, but thats before upgrades like grenade launchers and heavy weapon teams, and honestly, if you're hoping to get most of your wound output from lasgun guardsmen, you'd better be packing A LOT of them, othewise you have artillery, tanks, heavy weapons, special weapons, etc that do most of the damage, with lasgun guardsmen acting as wound shields and adding a bit more into the wound pool. Nothing you or i or any other designer trying to work on guardsmen is going to overcome is the fact that lasguns will never be serious wound dealers, its the special and heavy weapons that will be doing the most reliable damage, with lasguns being icing.

Ohoho you don't play eldar xD What about all the pseudo rending special rules? They're not called rending but they function almost similarly. Eldar have bladestorm, monofilament, distort, plus sniper from ranger long rifles hahahaha. This is why I kinda wanna split it up since some of these don't really fulfill the complete meaning of rending.

Nope, as i've said before, minimal eldar experience over here. Can you give me some examples of these rules? And so far as them being almost the same as rending just with different names...I don't really see why this would work against my version of rending, these units would just have their slightly modified version of it, as stated by their special rule, to where they only do one of the two effects like rerolling wounds against defenses lower than their strength or never treating armor as being above a set value, rather than the full blown rending situation. I actually like this direction as it would help with the eldar's "master of their field" mentality, so for instance (and correct me if im totally wrong on the unit names and uses) but striking scorpions being anti-horde units, they would get re-rolling wounds against models with defense equal to or lower than their strength, whereas howling banshees (anti-heavy infantry) would get the never count defense as being higher than (X), and power weapons to boot.

But isn't there no difference between 10 shots from a whole unit and 10 shots from one gun?

Yes but that's the logic of rending, not the application of it. Logically, they have tons of shots that can find a models weakpoint, but gameplay wise they just have a slightly higher than normal shot count, with rending to demonstrate this trait, as having an assault cannon be heavy 10 would be broken beyond belief and rapidly approaching apocalypse level weaponry.

Of course it would, which is why if you manage to hit a weak spot of a terminator his armour drops from 8 to 5 or 6.

But lets work this through by working with what rending is said to do in the fluff. Say an assault cannon can fire 10 rounds, of which 2 find a terminators weak point and proceed to try to wound him, with the rest being deflected or ignorable, on an equivalent ork model, every part of that ork counts as a weak spot so far as the bullets are concerned, and every one of them can try to wound him. Bringing that into gameplay, rending guns have much lower shot counts than the "filling the air with bullets to find a weak spot" method would really require (since doing so would be very very broken) so rending compensates to show the less armored models being shredded, since they dont have the armor or toughness to shrug off some of the attacks, while still bringing down higher armor to show the hits to weak points.

EDIT: Also, i brought up my concern over players losing units without being able to roll, and thus feeling like they don't have a say in their units deaths. I saw on another post about a different game system a solution thats pretty nice: just let players roll to defend against the attackers strength instead of rolling to wound. It's the exact same probability and chances, the defending player just has a role in their units defense this way, because getting wounded on a 3+ is exactly the same as saving a hit on a 5+.

Exactly, skill in normal circumstances, they have that much skill in normal circumstances with any weapon they trained with. And yeah it's just one set of modifiers, but its a set of modifiers on top of everything else in a situation that doesn't really require them, and i don't like "its just one set of multipliers" as a justification, since if we did that for everything the game would drag on forever to work out all the numbers.

Yeah but you want to show that they're better with one weapon, as they're inevitably had more training with just one weapon. And the modifier has a purpose, equally as much as any other modifier.

But they're doing over 2 wounds at 24" under these rules against the average, which isn't amazing, but thats before upgrades like grenade launchers and heavy weapon teams, and honestly, if you're hoping to get most of your wound output from lasgun guardsmen, you'd better be packing A LOT of them, othewise you have artillery, tanks, heavy weapons, special weapons, etc that do most of the damage, with lasgun guardsmen acting as wound shields and adding a bit more into the wound pool. Nothing you or i or any other designer trying to work on guardsmen is going to overcome is the fact that lasguns will never be serious wound dealers, its the special and heavy weapons that will be doing the most reliable damage, with lasguns being icing.

I acknowledge that, we can tweak the lasgun's overall effectiveness later, it's just I don't want there to be such an amazing gap between uselessness and ravagery.

Yes but that's the logic of rending, not the application of it. Logically, they have tons of shots that can find a models weakpoint, but gameplay wise they just have a slightly higher than normal shot count, with rending to demonstrate this trait, as having an assault cannon be heavy 10 would be broken beyond belief and rapidly approaching apocalypse level weaponry.

Yeah but remember the attacks a weapon gets is just a representation of actually a much larger number of rounds. So an Assault 4 would basically just mean it has a 4 x higher rate of fire than an Assault 1, which sounds good to me.

Also, i brought up my concern over players losing units without being able to roll, and thus feeling like they don't have a say in their units deaths. I saw on another post about a different game system a solution thats pretty nice: just let players roll to defend against the attackers strength instead of rolling to wound. It's the exact same probability and chances, the defending player just has a role in their units defense this way, because getting wounded on a 3+ is exactly the same as saving a hit on a 5+.

I'm impartial on this, I'm happy to let the defender roll as long as there are no downsides.

I'm impartial on this, I'm happy to let the defender roll as long as there are no downsides.

glad to hear so, this was something that was really worrying me.

I acknowledge that, we can tweak the lasgun's overall effectiveness later, it's just I don't want there to be such an amazing gap between uselessness and ravagery.

But having them be assault or 2 shot just flat out doesn't work with the mechanics of the guard. One option that would be a bit fluffy would be to offer an upgrade like "overcharged las-packs" which in fluff is said to increase the power of lasweaponry, at the cost of serious damage to components. I think Hellguns are based off this idea, just made with better components so that they don't break down when using overcharged las-packs. So maybe this upgrade would let the Lasgun act as str 4 out to 24". This way we can have the Lasguns be pretty weak, but a decently costed upgrade ( say 15 or 20 points per squad) would let them be more effective at 24".

Yeah but remember the attacks a weapon gets is just a representation of actually a much larger number of rounds. So an Assault 4 would basically just mean it has a 4 x higher rate of fire than an Assault 1, which sounds good to me.

except that this logic doesn't hold up, because it's also 4 times the fire rate of single shot weaponry, whereas the assault cannon is the 40K equivalent of a mini-gun, which can fire 6000 rounds a minute. Rending is there to show this has a much higher fire rate, and thusly a much higher chance to wound, than an equivalent shot weapon so far as stats are concerned, because doing otherwise wouldn't support how rending works and be incredibly unbalanced.

glad to hear so, this was something that was really worrying me.

then again, we have to be careful we don't run into any issues with this.

But having them be assault or 2 shot just flat out doesn't work with the mechanics of the guard. One option that would be a bit fluffy would be to offer an upgrade like "overcharged las-packs" which in fluff is said to increase the power of lasweaponry, at the cost of serious damage to components. I think Hellguns are based off this idea, just made with better components so that they don't break down when using overcharged las-packs. So maybe this upgrade would let the Lasgun act as str 4 out to 24". This way we can have the Lasguns be pretty weak, but a decently costed upgrade ( say 15 or 20 points per squad) would let them be more effective at 24".

oh sorry if I didn't make it clear, I am fine with it being 1 shots, 2 shots, P3, P4, anything, as long as being 12" away isn't an absolutely HUGE difference compared to being 13" away.

except that this logic doesn't hold up, because it's also 4 times the fire rate of single shot weaponry, whereas the assault cannon is the 40K equivalent of a mini-gun, which can fire 6000 rounds a minute. Rending is there to show this has a much higher fire rate, and thusly a much higher chance to wound, than an equivalent shot weapon so far as stats are concerned, because doing otherwise wouldn't support how rending works and be incredibly unbalanced.

Well, since it's 6 barreled, we'll give it 6 shots. Is this satisfactory?

then again, we have to be careful we don't run into any issues with this.

it's exactly the same math, just done in the opposite direction. The only issue is dice changing hands and that's not an issue at the moment so it shouldn't be under the new system

Well, since it's 6 barreled, we'll give it 6 shots. Is this satisfactory?

I do think assault cannons should be 6 shots, but I'm talking about the rending rule overall, assault cannons are just an easy example gun for me to use with this. Just increasing shots doesn't represent rending effects properly, because it functions the same as a high shot weapon, rather than a rending gun. Yes rending guns should be higher shots than normal, but they need to bring down armor and wound more often instead of being just a ludicrous amount of shots

Also I thought of a problem with using alternating phases over alternating activations, it doesn't prevent alpha strike tactics, so something to think about.

oh sorry if I didn't make it clear, I am fine with it being 1 shots, 2 shots, P3, P4, anything, as long as being 12" away isn't an absolutely HUGE difference compared to being 13" away.

But every rapidfire gun has a huge jump from 13 to 12", it's just the nature of the weapon type. Laser just makes it's a more distinct difference, but offering an upgrade to counteract this difference is a better way, we can show lasguns being weak and underpowered, while allowing them to be more powerful if the player is willing to pay for it. We could even make it an upgrade on their command squads for much more points than it would be on individual squads to show it's an order from the platoons officers, while pushing players to take more than minimum size squads to make the upgrade worthwhile. Maybe make an option for the company command squad that does this for the whole army for a ridiculous amount of points, but proportionally less than having it done on every platoon command squad.

it's exactly the same math, just done in the opposite direction. The only issue is dice changing hands and that's not an issue at the moment so it shouldn't be under the new system

Ok well I've run into one problem, how do we convert special rules that concern the To Wound roll?

I do think assault cannons should be 6 shots, but I'm talking about the rending rule overall, assault cannons are just an easy example gun for me to use with this. Just increasing shots doesn't represent rending effects properly, because it functions the same as a high shot weapon, rather than a rending gun. Yes rending guns should be higher shots than normal, but they need to bring down armor and wound more often instead of being just a ludicrous amount of shots

Well are assault cannons rending though? They've not got special rounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
HEY! I just thought of a way to make re-rolls better. Surely there can't be any argument about this. Instead of making rerolls scale off the existing roll to hit/wound, we just give it its own value to succeed. This means we can define the power of rerolls ourselves; we can include more rerolls because now you can tweak how powerful they are. It also means we can balance out rerolls with special rule modifiers.

So something like the Target Acquired! command won't just be a +1 Mk command, instead it will grant you a 5+ reroll To Hit.

Similarly:

Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule gains a 5+ Attack reroll when shooting.
Sharpshooter - A model with this special rule gains a 4+ Attack reroll when shooting
Nimble Fighter - A model with this special rule gains a 6+ Defense reroll whilst in combat.

Ok well I've run into one problem, how do we convert special rules that concern the To Wound roll?

well if they do something like poison (1) where they get to reroll to-wound rolls of 1, it becomes poison (6) defending player must reroll defense saves of 6.

HEY! I just thought of a way to make re-rolls better. Surely there can't be any argument about this. Instead of making rerolls scale off the existing roll to hit/wound, we just give it its own value to succeed. This means we can define the power of rerolls ourselves; we can include more rerolls because now you can tweak how powerful they are. It also means we can balance out rerolls with special rule modifiers.

So something like the Target Acquired! command won't just be a +1 Mk command, instead it will grant you a 5+ reroll To Hit.

Similarly:

Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule gains a 5+ Attack reroll when shooting.
Sharpshooter - A model with this special rule gains a 4+ Attack reroll when shooting
Nimble Fighter - A model with this special rule gains a 6+ Defense reroll whilst in combat.

very interesting direction, I'm not sure we want this to be the universal law though, because having the reroll be dependent on the model means that it's based on their stats, a reroll for my inquisitorial sniper assassin at BS 8 should be a much higher reroll than a guardsman sniper at BS 3.

That being said, I think there are definitely ways to use this in exciting ways. On things like orders, this would be a godsend, as it gives us much better control over these rerolls and effects.

Well are assault cannons rending though? They've not got special rounds.

yup assault cannon is heavy 4 rending 24", they have the "fill the air with bullets" type of rending. And they kinda do have special rounds, i don't think its ever been fleshed out much, but it's implied they fire diamond bullets.

well if they do something like poison (1) where they get to reroll to-wound rolls of 1, it becomes poison (6) defending player must reroll defense saves of 6.

yup something like that

very interesting direction, I'm not sure we want this to be the universal law though, because having the reroll be dependent on the model means that it's based on their stats, a reroll for my inquisitorial sniper assassin at BS 8 should be a much higher reroll than a guardsman sniper at BS 3.

That being said, I think there are definitely ways to use this in exciting ways. On things like orders, this would be a godsend, as it gives us much better control over these rerolls and effects.

Give your vindicare a special rule which makes him gain a 2+ Attack reroll.

yup assault cannon is heavy 4 rending 24", they have the "fill the air with bullets" type of rending. And they kinda do have special rounds, i don't think its ever been fleshed out much, but it's implied they fire diamond bullets.

No lol, I know they're rending in the game, I just want to ask you if you think they personally should be.

The thing is that your justification for giving assault cannons rending is that you wanna represent their rate of fire. Well, why not just: a) give them more bullets in the first place or b)have a special rule which doubles the number of hits.

I find b) is futile, it would be much more fun just rolling 6 dice.

No lol, I know they're rending in the game, I just want to ask you if you think they personally should be.

The thing is that your justification for giving assault cannons rending is that you wanna represent their rate of fire. Well, why not just: a) give them more bullets in the first place or b)have a special rule which doubles the number of hits.

I'd think they should have rending, it's the entire point off that gun, its not very good otherwise, because other weapons do anything it tries to do better, rending is what makes it a solid jack of all trades gun. And it goes back to the difference between a gun thats meant to have a really high rate of fire, vs one that has more shots than average but is a rending gun. The punisher Gatling cannon on the Leman Russ is meant to have a ridiculously high rate of fire, but the assault cannon isn't meant to be used like that, its a middle of the road compromise on every use, it's ok at killing hordes, heavy infantry, light vehicles, and has a chance to damage heavy vehicles, which just having a high rate of fire doesn't accomplish, it needs rending. And yes just having it double the hits would be silly and weird.

Give your vindicare a special rule which makes him gain a 2+ Attack reroll.

Its just an example, but this situation would happen with all the assassins, not to mention with independant characters who typically have higher stats than rank and file models. My chapter master should not have the same reroll chance as a scout, etc etc. There's just a lot of situations where having it be a flat value wouldn't make sense, it's a similar argument to your opposition to having "on a roll of 6" rules in that they're not accurate.

Do I think there are distinct uses where this would work perfectly? Yes absolutely, and lets look into where this would work best, but having it as the rule of law concerning re-rolls, i dont think its suited to that role.

I'd think they should have rending, it's the entire point off that gun, its not very good otherwise, because other weapons do anything it tries to do better, rending is what makes it a solid jack of all trades gun. And it goes back to the difference between a gun thats meant to have a really high rate of fire, vs one that has more shots than average but is a rending gun. The punisher Gatling cannon on the Leman Russ is meant to have a ridiculously high rate of fire, but the assault cannon isn't meant to be used like that, its a middle of the road compromise on every use, it's ok at killing hordes, heavy infantry, light vehicles, and has a chance to damage heavy vehicles, which just having a high rate of fire doesn't accomplish, it needs rending.

So you're saying you only want to keep rending to make it an all-rounder gun? I see, now how about this which should please both of us. We keep it at a solid power of 5, and we give it 6 rounds. Let's see, it's effective against heavy infantry (not bad), more so with light infantry (very good), and it's pretty good against light vehicles (it's wounding on a 6+, but that's what it should be - a large number of bullets that each have a small chance of penetrating). That eliminates the need for rending, it keeps it a solid weapon, and it feels good, like an Imperial scatter laser.

And yes just having it double the hits would be silly and weird.

It's funny you would say that because that's effectively what you were planning with the "storm" special rule. Storm would work well here, but once again I think having a larger number of shots is just intuitive and easy.

Its just an example, but this situation would happen with all the assassins, not to mention with independant characters who typically have higher stats than rank and file models. My chapter master should not have the same reroll chance as a scout, etc etc. There's just a lot of situations where having it be a flat value wouldn't make sense, it's a similar argument to your opposition to having "on a roll of 6" rules in that they're not accurate.

I thought about this for a second, and then I realised this: The reason why I don't want the reroll to scale off the existing roll is because it makes the existing roll twice as potent, much like a power fist (which is why power fists should not double anymore, instead just give +4 P or something). The reason why it isn't the same as the "on a roll of 6" issue is because you're not disregarding the existing value at all. On the contrary, it isn't the same as power fists either because you're not REGARDING the existing value as much.

Can you see what I'm trying to get here? This reroll mechanic is sort of in between the "on a roll of 6" and power fists:

On a roll of 6: disregards existing value
Power fists: doubles existing value (i.e. scales too much)
My rerolls: DOES NOT disregard existing value, however does not make it too influential either; you're keeping the existing value, but making it laterally stronger (since all units benefit the same way).

It's funny you would say that because that's effectively what you were planning with the "storm" special rule. Storm would work well here, but once again I think having a larger number of shots is just intuitive and easy.

I beg to differ, straight doubling of hits vs rolling for an extra hit are very different, but yeah i havn't been able to get that streamlined, so id say just give weapons that would have gotten Storm (Storm Bolters etc) Suppression (2) instead. It isn't really helping make these weapons more viable choices than any of the others though, so ill keep at it.

I thought about this for a second, and then I realised this: The reason why I don't want the reroll to scale off the existing roll is because it makes the existing roll twice as potent, much like a power fist (which is why power fists should not double anymore, instead just give +4 P or something). The reason why it isn't the same as the "on a roll of 6" issue is because you're not disregarding the existing value at all. On the contrary, it isn't the same as power fists either because you're not REGARDING the existing value as much.
Can you see what I'm trying to get here? This reroll mechanic is sort of in between the "on a roll of 6" and power fists:
On a roll of 6: disregards existing value
Power fists: doubles existing value (i.e. scales too much)
My rerolls: DOES NOT disregard existing value, however does not make it too influential either; you're keeping the existing value, but making it laterally stronger (since all units benefit the same way).

Except that it is exactly the same problem as "on the roll of 6", because you are disregarding the units stats for the reroll. If my chapter master and scout marine can both reroll for a 5+, how is that any different than my gaunt and my tyrannofex both being able to wound anything on a roll of 6? And yes, rerolling is incredibly powerful, but its also quite rare, how many units get rerolls? You typically need a special weapon upgrade, twin-linking, or a special rule / character, all of which are difficult to come by for the majority of units. Also, i don't really see what the problem with doubling strength for powerfists is, it's a nice proportional improvement with appropriate costs, penalties, and bonuses. It also makes sense, my guardsman wielding a powerfist can only have his strength augmented so much, as compared to my space marine wielding one. If you make it a flat +4, it means that it improves every model exactly the same extent, which doesn't make as much sense for a powerfist as it does something like a power weapon, not to mention its kinda abandoning that weapons one interesting trait that sets it apart from other weapons.

If you absolutely want to change the re-roll system, maybe find a way to adapt the old way of rerolling basic stats (if you had BS over 5 for instance) and improve and expand on it, because this way it's still proportional to the units stats, while not being as insane of an improvement.

So you're saying you only want to keep rending to make it an all-rounder gun? I see, now how about this which should please both of us. We keep it at a solid power of 5, and we give it 6 rounds. Let's see, it's effective against heavy infantry (not bad), more so with light infantry (very good), and it's pretty good against light vehicles (it's wounding on a 6+, but that's what it should be - a large number of bullets that each have a small chance of penetrating). That eliminates the need for rending, it keeps it a solid weapon, and it feels good, like an Imperial scatter laser.

I don't really like it under these rules, it's just not what the assault cannon is really trying to be. I don't mind it having less shots as much, so long as it has higher power, so it has a decent chance of damaging light vehicles, and be possible to damage higher armor tanks, and having it be very good against hordes is not the point of it, there are already much better choices for this role. It needs to be decent at everything but hurting high value tanks. Putting higher shots on this (say 6 instead of 4) would mean a fairly high points increase, but as they're typically cheap upgrades at the moment, i don't think thatd be too big a problem, because its competitiors are Heavy Flamer (Pure-anti-infantry/horde), Heavy Bolter (suppression/long range anti-troops/ light anti-tank), Lacannon (Heavy anti-tank), Multi-melta (Short range anti-tank), Plasma-cannon (anti-Heavy Infantry), and autocannon (moderate anti-tank). It can do a bit of everything, but a bit of everything can cost a bit more, versatility is worth it.

Also, ive been thinking this problem over for a while; space marines are Defense 6, which means they can only be double wounded by strength 12 guns...which are rare...so we have to figure out how to handle this. I see 3 options:
1) give them a special rule that says they can be double wounded by strength 10 weapons (bit weird and would flow like a river of bricks)
2) Increase the points cost a ton, so 18ish range for standard troops
3) Keep their points around the 16ish range, and make their upgrades more expensive, an extra 5-10 points here and there will go a long way to bumping up the costs. Get rid of the free special and heavy weapons for tactical squads, which was always a bit dumb.

Except that it is exactly the same problem as "on the roll of 6", because you are disregarding the units stats for the reroll.

Except that it's not. You ARE KEEPING the existing value, you get to use that, it's not gone, it doesn't disappear, all you're doing is adding on something. This is EXACTLY THE SAME effect as a flat modifier, such as +1 or +2. The problem with having it scale off the existing value is that it STRETCHES the whole value line-up, meaning that the variety we worked so hard to achieve becomes blurred and unbalanced.

And yes, rerolling is incredibly powerful, but its also quite rare, how many units get rerolls?

To be honest it isn't "quite rare", I would say it's between uncommon and rare. If we balance rerolls, we can use them much more extensively, almost to the same level as flat modifiers are being used. In my previous previous post, I said "This means we can define the power of rerolls ourselves; we can include more rerolls because now you can tweak how powerful they are. It also means we can balance out rerolls with special rule modifiers." It means we WON'T be seeing as much of the bland maths stuff, which for me is a big win.

Also, ive been thinking this problem over for a while; space marines are Defense 6, which means they can only be double wounded by strength 12 guns...which are rare...so we have to figure out how to handle this. I see 3 options:
1) give them a special rule that says they can be double wounded by strength 10 weapons (bit weird and would flow like a river of bricks)
2) Increase the points cost a ton, so 18ish range for standard troops
3) Keep their points around the 16ish range, and make their upgrades more expensive, an extra 5-10 points here and there will go a long way to bumping up the costs. Get rid of the free special and heavy weapons for tactical squads, which was always a bit dumb.

This irritates me as it shows that we aren't really on the same wavelength. Once again I want to stress that doubling any sort of value is going to have adverse effects. This is why I'm planning on something so that you take one extra wound for every three that the aggressor's Power surpasses the target's Resilience. So in fact Marines will be getting triple wounded by P12; you can't argue with that, and they get double wounded by P9, which is absolutely reasonable, since P9 is getting into melta level.

It can do a bit of everything, but a bit of everything can cost a bit more, versatility is worth it.

So let's see, with 6 shots at P5 you are:

Doing great against hordes (almost as good as a flamer)
Doing a decent job at what a Heavy Bolter would do, at a shorter range with more firepower
Not doing the job of lascannons (that's a good thing)
Kinda doing the job of melta/plasma, but in a different way
Being a "little brother" to the autocannon whose field is more in the anti-medium armour range (this is GOOD).

Once again I want to stress that doubling any sort of value is going to have adverse effects. This is why I'm planning on something so that you take one extra wound for every three that the aggressor's Power surpasses the target's Resilience. So in fact Marines will be getting triple wounded by P12; you can't argue with that, and they get double wounded by P9, which is absolutely reasonable, since P9 is getting into melta level.

I would argue that doubling doesn't necessarily cause adverse effects, but i like this direction for causing additional wounds a lot more than doubling. The way this system works already has some exciting ideas going in my head.

Except that it's not. You ARE KEEPING the existing value, you get to use that, it's not gone, it doesn't disappear, all you're doing is adding on something. This is EXACTLY THE SAME effect as a flat modifier, such as +1 or +2. The problem with having it scale off the existing value is that it STRETCHES the whole value line-up, meaning that the variety we worked so hard to achieve becomes blurred and unbalanced.

But that 5+ doesn't improve things equally, to a guardsman hitting on a 5+, that 5+ re-roll is awesome, to a chapter master that 5+ reroll is garbage. Something that takes a units stats into mind will work better for these rerolls, because twin-linking, master-crafting, etc are not some magical trait where the weapon jumps out of the users hands to go attack the enemy, it complements the wielder. If i gave the same master-crafted relic blade to a guardsman and my chapter master, my chapter-master is going to be able to make better use of that master-crafted trait than a guardsman will, because he is a better combatant. I'm not saying it has to be "I need a 2+ to hit, then my re-roll is 2+" but it cannot be a flat value. Yes, flat values can be used, to great effect even, but they cannot be the rule of law, it just doesn't make sense realistically.

If we balance rerolls, we can use them much more extensively, almost to the same level as flat modifiers are being used. In my previous previous post, I said "This means we can define the power of rerolls ourselves; we can include more rerolls because now you can tweak how powerful they are. It also means we can balance out rerolls with special rule modifiers." It means we WON'T be seeing as much of the bland maths stuff, which for me is a big win.

Exactly, this is a great reason to use flat rerolls, but they have to used sparingly where they make sense. Negative rerolls (rerolling saves and rerolling hits) wouldn't work very well as flat rerolls, because it's still up to the model's skill to deal with hitting targets, and the models armor and toughness to save wounds, throwing a 5+ down for these would be awkward and frustrating for models better than that 5, and could actually be a serious buff to others. Orders are probably the first place to look at putting flat rerolls in, because this is probably where they would mechanically make the most sense to be.

So let's see, with 6 shots at P5 you are:
Doing great against hordes (almost as good as a flamer)
Doing a decent job at what a Heavy Bolter would do, at a shorter range with more firepower
Not doing the job of lascannons (that's a good thing)
Kinda doing the job of melta/plasma, but in a different way
Being a "little brother" to the autocannon whose field is more in the anti-medium armour range (this is GOOD).

Except that being the strength of a bolter cripples it for whatever purpose it was trying to accomplish. It needs to be higher strength, otherwise it will never be able to affect vehicles. Something like strength 7/8, heavy 4, rending 24" would be a direct port from the old stats, id like to see it at heavy 6, but honestly, id rather it have less shots and rending + strength than high # of shots.

But that 5+ doesn't improve things equally, to a guardsman hitting on a 5+, that 5+ re-roll is awesome, to a chapter master that 5+ reroll is garbage. Something that takes a units stats into mind will work better for these rerolls, because twin-linking, master-crafting, etc are not some magical trait where the weapon jumps out of the users hands to go attack the enemy, it complements the wielder. If i gave the same master-crafted relic blade to a guardsman and my chapter master, my chapter-master is going to be able to make better use of that master-crafted trait than a guardsman will, because he is a better combatant. I'm not saying it has to be "I need a 2+ to hit, then my re-roll is 2+" but it cannot be a flat value. Yes, flat values can be used, to great effect even, but they cannot be the rule of law, it just doesn't make sense realistically.

I can see where you're coming from but right now our game is a game of comparison. Well you say, why does this matter? It means that it makes the difference it stats MUCH MORE important, in fact twice as important, as effective. It's extremely hard to explain but the idea is clear in my head:

If it's a 4 against a 4, it's a rerollable 4+.
It it's a 5 against a 4, it's a rerollable 3+.

So you've AMPLIFIED the difference between them, when they should be the same. Once again it's really hard to explain but I hope you understand my argument...

Except that being the strength of a bolter cripples it for whatever purpose it was trying to accomplish. It needs to be higher strength, otherwise it will never be able to affect vehicles. Something like strength 7/8, heavy 4, rending 24" would be a direct port from the old stats, id like to see it at heavy 6, but honestly, id rather it have less shots and rending + strength than high # of shots.

I'm pretty sure I still want bolters to be P4, unless you can find a quote of me saying otherwise...

I've actually been wanting for a long time to further extend the stat range to 15, and make the infantry average 5. Because our new comparison chart leaves room for more variety, I've been trying to use this variety, however the chart is spreading the value combinations too much for the scale of 12 to handle.

In current 40k the average value for infantry lies approximately a third of the way up the whole scale (about 3.3). With the new scale, where 4 is the average, it is still a third of the way up, but the infantry average values are at the moment able to clearly reach what should be basically unreachable values (because of the comparison chart). So I'm trying to make the stat range proportionate to the comparison chart, as right now I'm finding that the stat range is restricting the room that the comparison chart gives us.

There shouldn't be any clear objections, and widening the range means we can broaden the class where vehicles and monstrous creatures lie.

I can see where you're coming from but right now our game is a game of comparison. Well you say, why does this matter? It means that it makes the difference it stats MUCH MORE important, in fact twice as important, as effective. It's extremely hard to explain but the idea is clear in my head:

If it's a 4 against a 4, it's a rerollable 4+.
It it's a 5 against a 4, it's a rerollable 3+.

So you've AMPLIFIED the difference between them, when they should be the same. Once again it's really hard to explain but I hope you understand my argument...

i don't really understand what you mean, can you try to clarify? But even if we'd do something as simple as "you take a reroll on 1 less value than you would have rolled otherwise" so a 3+ becomes a 4+ on a reroll, a 4+ becomes a 5+ on the reroll etc, so the units stats are taken into account for the reroll, but it's still less potent than it would be normally. Re-rolls are for the most part meant to radically change the roll (twin-linked, Mastercrafted, etc), it's the other cases when a radical change is not what we want, but rather a streamlined modifier effect, when we should bring flat rerolls in.

I'm pretty sure I still want bolters to be P4, unless you can find a quote of me saying otherwise...

and I still want them at power 5, with "weaker" guns at power 4, because it doesn't make sense relative to Melee values otherwise.

I've actually been wanting for a long time to further extend the stat range to 15, and make the infantry average 5. Because our new comparison chart leaves room for more variety, I've been trying to use this variety, however the chart is spreading the value combinations too much for the scale of 12 to handle.

In current 40k the average value for infantry lies approximately a third of the way up the whole scale (about 3.3). With the new scale, where 4 is the average, it is still a third of the way up, but the infantry average values are at the moment able to clearly reach what should be basically unreachable values (because of the comparison chart). So I'm trying to make the stat range proportionate to the comparison chart, as right now I'm finding that the stat range is restricting the room that the comparison chart gives us.

I don't really understand where this would take things, or allow improvements. There's always going to be restrictions in the game, if we want to alleviate these restrictions, the best way to do this would be to use larger dice for more variable effects, rather than increasing the value ranges. But I think the current numbers match up very well, the infantry average is 4 (1/3 of the max) while the highest value possible for normal infantry is a 6 (1/2 of the max, comparable to a 5 in the current system).

There shouldn't be any clear objections, and widening the range means we can broaden the class where vehicles and monstrous creatures lie.

but we have plenty of range for mostrous creatures, defense 7 minimum with lots of wounds and maybe the bonus saves against infantry weapons is a pretty solid way to represent monsters. I am concerned about the lack of values we can use for vehicles and still have Bolter level weaponry affect them (9-12 instead of 10-14, so one less value, and ideally I'd like to have 6 values possible for vehicles instead of 5) but I don't think just raising values is going to let us accomplish this, without a pretty serious adjustment of the URC, which I think is pretty perfect as is, I don't think adding more repeated values will improve anything, and will probably make things worse. Absolute worse case scenario is we go back to the old way of resolving vs vehicles, which is inconsistent with everything else, but there are so many different rules concerning tanks that this might be necessary to get them working right.

i don't really understand what you mean, can you try to clarify? But even if we'd do something as simple as "you take a reroll on 1 less value than you would have rolled otherwise" so a 3+ becomes a 4+ on a reroll, a 4+ becomes a 5+ on the reroll etc, so the units stats are taken into account for the reroll, but it's still less potent than it would be normally. Re-rolls are for the most part meant to radically change the roll (twin-linked, Mastercrafted, etc), it's the other cases when a radical change is not what we want, but rather a streamlined modifier effect, when we should bring flat rerolls in.

Ok, how about this. Power 4 is obviously better than P3, but not that much better. If they were to shoot at an R3 target, the P4 weapon would come out on top by a fair amount. However, if they both had rerolls, the P4 weapon comes out on top by an UNfair amount, a sizeable margin, even though it shouldn't be benefitting any more than the P3 one. You could apply this to any situation with the stat comparisons and you'll find that it doesn't work optimally. For example, you said that a commander could bring much more with a strong weapon than a flimsy trooper because he knows how to use it. I completely agree, however what if you compared it to a slightly lower ranking commander? Surely they practically know how to use it similarly, how come the slightly better commander gets double the benefit?

and I still want them at power 5, with "weaker" guns at power 4, because it doesn't make sense relative to Melee values otherwise.

Can you find where we left off? Because now you just went back to the second step of the argument, I don't really wanna repeat myself..

I don't really understand where this would take things, or allow improvements. There's always going to be restrictions in the game, if we want to alleviate these restrictions, the best way to do this would be to use larger dice for more variable effects, rather than increasing the value ranges. But I think the current numbers match up very well, the infantry average is 4 (1/3 of the max) while the highest value possible for normal infantry is a 6 (1/2 of the max, comparable to a 5 in the current system).

Ok, now that I know where you stand I can explain it fully.

Right now the stat range is up to 12. It is broken into thirds. Our comparison chart means that the infantry values are reaching the higher tier values too much, because the thirds are only 4 long. If we make them 5 long, we are making the reach longer, by 1, so that they can't reach as much of the higher tier values, which is where they should be (it needs to be, trust me I have had many circumstances that have been troublesome because the infantry average is too close).

Absolute worse case scenario is we go back to the old way of resolving vs vehicles, which is inconsistent with everything else, but there are so many different rules concerning tanks that this might be necessary to get them working right.

Under my rule this last resort shall be BANISHED! Lol but I am never going to go there. Universal is universal, if it doesn't apply to everything, it isn't living up to its name.

Under my rule this last resort shall be BANISHED! Lol but I am never going to go there. Universal is universal, if it doesn't apply to everything, it isn't living up to its name.

I'm actually swinging towards splitting the Universal Resolution Chart into an Organic Resolution Chart and a Mechanical Resolution Chart. Here's my logic for it; I'd like for there to be 6 armor values for vehicles to take, the old system of rolling a D6, and adding the weapons strength to that lets us have 6 vehicle armor values, while having the lowest be affected by str5 weapons, like bolters. So 11-16 would be the possible armor values, which gives us the right amount of armor values, makes sure that the highest value weapon can glance the highest value armor on a 4+ just like the old system, and sets up a nice break point between organics and mechanical, because organics would have max 10 defense (things like tyrannofex's comes to mind for this value), then vehicles would take over above that. And honestly, im just not impressed with how the URC handles vehicles at the moment, i think there just aren't enough values to be used, and repeating damage values against a vehicle isn't as solid a mechanic as it is on organics.I think the differences between various strength values needs to be more distinct for vehicles than it is against organics, after all, the difference between a heavy bolter at strength 7 and an autocannon at strength 9 should be fairly prominent, its an anti-infantry weapon vs a medium anti-tank gun. Also, the URC doesn't allow for glances and penetrations to be represented correctly, as its not a "meet the AV for a glance, exceed it for a penetration", its just a number to meet to hit. Having the owning player roll for his vehicle to resist the hit would be a bit odd, as that's never been how vehicles have worked.

(it needs to be, trust me I have had many circumstances that have been troublesome because the infantry average is too close).

Can you give me some examples? I've yet to run into any difficulties or problems with this, since we have more room to play with than we used to.

Right now the stat range is up to 12. It is broken into thirds. Our comparison chart means that the infantry values are reaching the higher tier values too much, because the thirds are only 4 long. If we make them 5 long, we are making the reach longer, by 1, so that they can't reach as much of the higher tier values, which is where they should be

I don't really understand how this is a problem, i might just be misunderstanding, but i don't see this as a problem. It's not so much that they can affect the next "tier", when values are all over the place like they are right now, tier's are always going to be overlapping each other. The added variety of 5 would be a bit weird, because its an uneven number, which means that the values are going to be weirdly thought out, because right now we have.
2 == very bad
3 == below average
4 == average
5 == above average
6== very good

Having this be a set of 6 numbers means average is now in between 2 numbers, which means we dont have this nice even spacing of values.

Can you find where we left off? Because now you just went back to the second step of the argument, I don't really wanna repeat myself..

Yes i can, and i'm pretty adamant on bolters and equivalent being strength 5, with most other weapons being strength 4, for all the reasons i've previously brought up.

Ok, how about this. Power 4 is obviously better than P3, but not that much better. If they were to shoot at an R3 target, the P4 weapon would come out on top by a fair amount. However, if they both had rerolls, the P4 weapon comes out on top by an UNfair amount, a sizeable margin, even though it shouldn't be benefitting any more than the P3 one. You could apply this to any situation with the stat comparisons and you'll find that it doesn't work optimally. For example, you said that a commander could bring much more with a strong weapon than a flimsy trooper because he knows how to use it. I completely agree, however what if you compared it to a slightly lower ranking commander? Surely they practically know how to use it similarly, how come the slightly better commander gets double the benefit?

I see what you're saying, but i just don't agree with the logic of it. For instance, lets take a look at twin-linking. It's literally just strapping two weapons side by side, so it makes sense to use the models BS for this reroll, because it's not representative of a second distinct shot, you're just shooting two bullets at the same target, so its all based on the models aim. Yes the power jumps from rerolls are quite intense, but theyre typically like that for a reason, and it doesn't change the fact that they're rare enough for this to not be game-breaking. Besides, how easy is it to get a rerollable weapon? You either have to mastercraft something (upgrade for sergeants, special characters, expensive HQ's, etc) or be using a vehicle, in which case most twin-linked weaponry are expensive upgrades to cheap vehicles, or included in the cost of expensive vehicles. The only unit I can think of that is given twin-linked weapons as standard are chaos space marine terminators, and they're far from broken, and expensive to boot. I feel like trying to change to smooth out something that isn't meant to be smooth is kinda counter-productive, and complicates something that is mechanically very simple.

I'm actually swinging towards splitting the Universal Resolution Chart into an Organic Resolution Chart and a Mechanical Resolution Chart. Here's my logic for it; I'd like for there to be 6 armor values for vehicles to take, the old system of rolling a D6, and adding the weapons strength to that lets us have 6 vehicle armor values, while having the lowest be affected by str5 weapons, like bolters. So 11-16 would be the possible armor values, which gives us the right amount of armor values, makes sure that the highest value weapon can glance the highest value armor on a 4+ just like the old system, and sets up a nice break point between organics and mechanical, because organics would have max 10 defense (things like tyrannofex's comes to mind for this value), then vehicles would take over above that. And honestly, im just not impressed with how the URC handles vehicles at the moment, i think there just aren't enough values to be used, and repeating damage values against a vehicle isn't as solid a mechanic as it is on organics.I think the differences between various strength values needs to be more distinct for vehicles than it is against organics, after all, the difference between a heavy bolter at strength 7 and an autocannon at strength 9 should be fairly prominent, its an anti-infantry weapon vs a medium anti-tank gun. Also, the URC doesn't allow for glances and penetrations to be represented correctly, as its not a "meet the AV for a glance, exceed it for a penetration", its just a number to meet to hit. Having the owning player roll for his vehicle to resist the hit would be a bit odd, as that's never been how vehicles have worked.

Hi Rav1rn, to be honest I don't like the sound of the direction you're investigating, but your argument that you can't represent glances and penetrations on vehicles brings me quite smoothly onto an absolutely wonderful idea (I hope) I just came up with.

This idea addresses the awkwardness of the imagine -3 idea that I've proposed in the past. Basically, after rolling to hit, you take a separate roll to determine whether those hits are rending or not. Even if don't succeed the rending roll, it still counts as a normal shot. So really, for rending weapons to rolls would be:

To Hit (roll all shots fired, discard misses)
To Rend (roll all shots HIT, discard nothing, but the shots that succeed again count as RENDING; put them in a different pile)
To Wound i.e. To Defend (roll non-rending shots, then roll rending shots -or vice versa-)

And for vehicle penetration:

To Hit (roll all shots fired, discard misses)
To Penetrate (roll all shots HIT, discard nothing, but the shots that succeed again count as PENETRATING; put them in a different pile)
For glancing hits, can injure vulnerable crew members and maybe weapons
For penetrating hits, can immobilise or explode

For thunder hammers and the like, it could treat all members as being vulnerable anyway To represent the shockwave.

I don't really understand how this is a problem, i might just be misunderstanding, but i don't see this as a problem. It's not so much that they can affect the next "tier", when values are all over the place like they are right now, tier's are always going to be overlapping each other. The added variety of 5 would be a bit weird, because its an uneven number, which means that the values are going to be weirdly thought out, because right now we have.
2 == very bad
3 == below average
4 == average
5 == above average
6== very good

Having this be a set of 6 numbers means average is now in between 2 numbers, which means we dont have this nice even spacing of values.

So it would be like this:

1 - see below
2 - Stuff like vehicle stealth, lowered morale, any negatively modified stats, breathing space essentially
3 - Terrible (gaunt resilience)
4 - Below average
5 - Average infantry value
6 - Above average
7 - Outstanding (marine armour)
8 - Intermediate
9 - Intermediate
10 - Intermediate
11 - Average vehicle back armour
12 - Average vehicle side armour
13 - Average vehicle front armour
14 - see below
15 - Stuff like warp cannons, Avatar skill, Monolith armour

Very very rough, open to change but you get the idea.

I still just don't see the need for the 3 new values, if you could give me some examples of what specific examples you've run into i could better evaluate the need for these, but I've yet to run into any problems using the 12 value scale, and I've done rudimentary conversions for most of the troops in the game, as well as some elites and HQ's. So with the exception of vehicle armor, I think the 12 point scale offer the right amount of variety, with the exception of vehicles, and I don't think the 15 point scale would help in that regard. Not to mention having a 12 point scale maps nicely with our use of D6, so our scale is up to the maximum of 2D6, 15 would be the max of 2D6 + max of a D3, which feels weird.

This idea addresses the awkwardness of the imagine -3 idea that I've proposed in the past. Basically, after rolling to hit, you take a separate roll to determine whether those hits are rending or not. Even if don't succeed the rending roll, it still counts as a normal shot. So really, for rending weapons to rolls would be:

To Hit (roll all shots fired, discard misses)
To Rend (roll all shots HIT, discard nothing, but the shots that succeed again count as RENDING; put them in a different pile)
To Wound i.e. To Defend (roll non-rending shots, then roll rending shots -or vice versa-)

very interesting way to approach rending, I'm going to let this one rolls round in my head for a while and play with it. My initial concern is that it could cause some issues with bogging down combat, because for instance a pack of Genestealers vs a Tyrannofex would be
Hit
Rend
Save
Monster save
So thats a lot of steps to resolve combat. Not deal breaking, but something to think about.

But I'm actually getting fairly concerned about how to handle vehicles under the URC and some of the other rules, because they're not being represented accurately. The various movement speeds, the shooting rules, damage resolution, armor facings, there are so many differences between a vehicle and an organic unit that trying to fit them all under one heading isn't working properly. We're going to need to set up all these special rules and exceptions to make sure vehicles are represented correctly, it would probably be better to just create their own branch and heading under the rules to set them apart, because that's what they need.

Sofar as bringing back the vehicle damage resolution, i actually like how it works now, for all the reasons stated above. We get the right number of vehicle armor values, it ensures that a distinct difference between organics and vehicles is visible. Most importantly, it makes sure that differences in weapon strengths are more prominent. Because when it comes to infantry, strength vs armor is a bit of an abstraction, the difference between a strength 5 and a strength 6 weapon to the average is not a huge difference, they both are doing massive amounts of damage, so having them both be a 5+ makes sense. Past a certain point, the strength of fire becomes even less relevant, which is where the double and triple wounding comes into play, because the weapon so massively outstrips the models defense, it just vaporizes them. But for vehicles, these differences are critical, we can't have 2 weapons of different strength have the same chance of penetrating a vehicle, because these points are much more relevant to the vehicles armor value, it's much less abstract than it is for infantry and organics.

There's also the odd situation of using the URC to roll for penetration, and having 2 weapons of different strengths both glancing on the same value.

So thats a lot of steps to resolve combat. Not deal breaking, but something to think about.

Oh, well I would say that an extra roll would be quicker than having to work it all out

I still just don't see the need for the 3 new values, if you could give me some examples of what specific examples you've run into i could better evaluate the need for these, but I've yet to run into any problems using the 12 value scale, and I've done rudimentary conversions for most of the troops in the game, as well as some elites and HQ's. So with the exception of vehicle armor, I think the 12 point scale offer the right amount of variety, with the exception of vehicles, and I don't think the 15 point scale would help in that regard. Not to mention having a 12 point scale maps nicely with our use of D6, so our scale is up to the maximum of 2D6, 15 would be the max of 2D6 + max of a D3, which feels weird.

I can't really think of any off the top of my head but it has caused problems several times when I'm designing.

But I'm actually getting fairly concerned about how to handle vehicles under the URC and some of the other rules, because they're not being represented accurately. The various movement speeds, the shooting rules, damage resolution, armor facings, there are so many differences between a vehicle and an organic unit that trying to fit them all under one heading isn't working properly. We're going to need to set up all these special rules and exceptions to make sure vehicles are represented correctly, it would probably be better to just create their own branch and heading under the rules to set them apart, because that's what they need.

I think it is working properly, I actually think it's working beautifully. Now that everything's movement fits snug under the Mobility stat, we can THEN make some distinctions, an obvious one being that vehicles don't run. Similarly, vehicle and infantry "toughness" are both on the same scale, but there's an extra roll for vehicles, and they have different facings.

I want to keep everything close to each other, but not using that as a restriction to make distinctions.

Hmm I'm still thinking about vehicle damage, I don't think we want splitting them into two to be our next option though.

Oh, well I would say that an extra roll would be quicker than having to work it all out

But you'd still have to work it out, this is just adding an extra step before you do the rending effect. Not saying rending shouldn't be activated only some of the time on a roll, but i kinda like the idea of it being always on.

I can't really think of any off the top of my head but it has caused problems several times when I'm designing.

lol thats a problem, because i havnt found any problems yet. The closest thing to a problem that I found was the stormtroopers and sisters of battle had very similar statlines, but even that's accurate, since sisters are basically just well trained veterans in good armor with better guns and faith.

Now that everything's movement fits snug under the Mobility stat, we can THEN make some distinctions, an obvious one being that vehicles don't run. Similarly, vehicle and infantry "toughness" are both on the same scale, but there's an extra roll for vehicles, and they have different facings.

yeah i obviously want to keep mobility in the vehicles statlines, but things like cruising speed, flat-out, and the associated embarking rules and shooting rules means that they're going to be radically different and need a lot of special rules to represent this, unless we just make vehicles their own classification with different rules and sort of side step the awkwardness. Also, what is this extra roll for vehicles? All i saw was hit and save for organic, then hit and penetrate for vehicles, unless I missed something? And vehicle and infantry defenses are still on the same scale, it's just that vehicle armor is waaaaay higher on the scale than infantry armor is, which makes sense.

Hmm I'm still thinking about vehicle damage, I don't think we want splitting them into two to be our next option though.

why not? Its familiar to players, meets the requirements for accurately portraying vehicle armor and damage, and they're just not working too great under the current rules.

But you'd still have to work it out, this is just adding an extra step before you do the rending effect. Not saying rending shouldn't be activated only some of the time on a roll, but i kinda like the idea of it being always on

Oh, well no I was thinking that the rending roll was a flat 5+. It doesn't ignore the stats because when you only have a 6+ to hit, if you hit it can still be rending, but overall it's much harder to get rending (since a 6+ then a 5+ is much smaller than a 3+ then a 5+).

The closest thing to a problem that I found was the stormtroopers and sisters of battle had very similar statlines, but even that's accurate, since sisters are basically just well trained veterans in good armor with better guns and faith.

No no that's not anything to do with that, off the top of my head, some problems I ran into was with weapon Powers, vehicle armour and normal armour, but I can't explain it fully because I can't remember. But vehicle armour has to be very good since they can be hit so easily.

yeah i obviously want to keep mobility in the vehicles statlines, but things like cruising speed, flat-out, and the associated embarking rules and shooting rules means that they're going to be radically different and need a lot of special rules to represent this

Not special rules, just that vehicles will have a section showing how they move differently, and shooting restrictions after moving, stuff like that. But the vehicles' baseline is still standing on the same foundation.

why not? Its familiar to players, meets the requirements for accurately portraying vehicle armor and damage, and they're just not working too great under the current rules.

Well firstly the organic mechanic thing doesn't appeal to me, it is one of my priorities to keep the universal comparison chart because it is at the core of the rules. The problems I'm thinking of right now is not so much the damaging of vehicles, but more of the glancing, penetrating etc.

I'll let you in on what I'm having a bit of trouble with.

To Hit. Obviously the same....
There could be a roll here determining if exposed crew die or weapons get destroyed...
Then the next roll should be determining whether the shot penetrates and to what extent....
The next roll would determine if it gets immobilised or explodes...

And interwoven with all of this is determining how much HP the vehicle suffers from shots that hit and how much those shots penetrate..Plus the fact that if you hit a crew member or a weapon then technically you didn't hit the vehicle? So what would happen then? And what are we comparing in these rolls? Is it going to be a flat 6+ to see if a crew member gets hit or a flat 6+ to see if the vehicle explodes? Or is it going to compare something with something?

Oh, well no I was thinking that the rending roll was a flat 5+. It doesn't ignore the stats because when you only have a 6+ to hit, if you hit it can still be rending, but overall it's much harder to get rending (since a 6+ then a 5+ is much smaller than a 3+ then a 5+).

a 6+ followed by a 5+ means rending might as well not exist, that's happening something like 1/18th of the time, you could go entire games with rending weapons and never activate the effect.

No no that's not anything to do with that, off the top of my head, some problems I ran into was with weapon Powers, vehicle armour and normal armour, but I can't explain it fully because I can't remember. But vehicle armour has to be very good since they can be hit so easily.

yeah I noticed this problem a while ago in that power weapons could let a unit damage vehicles when it shouldn't be able to, but that's a failure of power weapon mechanics not a failure of the value system. I think we need to explore alternative power weapon mechanics more, because just a strength increase, while sort of appropraite, has consequences. Even if we do something as simple as say that the power weapon bonus is only applied to non-vehicle units, that would probably be adequite.

No no that's not anything to do with that, off the top of my head, some problems I ran into was with weapon Powers, vehicle armour and normal armour, but I can't explain it fully because I can't remember. But vehicle armour has to be very good since they can be hit so easily.

these are fairly hefty changes to the existing rules though, making them totally separate would be simpler than trying to explain how theyre different from the norm

Well firstly the organic mechanic thing doesn't appeal to me, it is one of my priorities to keep the universal comparison chart because it is at the core of the rules.

. Poor naming choice, but I wanted to separate vehicles from all other units like monsters, characters, infantry, etc. And the URC would still be the core of the non-vehicle system, just under a different name.

Your new damage system seems interesting, I'm not sure i like it, but let's see

a 6+ followed by a 5+ means rending might as well not exist, that's happening something like 1/18th of the time, you could go entire games with rending weapons and never activate the effect.

You misunderstood me, I was trying to make it clear that the situation is not like "on a 6" or a power fist, but rather in between. I was giving the 6+ example because I wanted to convey that any shots that hit, even if you hit them so luckily on a 6+, they could still even be rending if you were extremely lucky. So the first roll is just a normal to hit, and the second roll splits it into three.

yeah I noticed this problem a while ago in that power weapons could let a unit damage vehicles when it shouldn't be able to, but that's a failure of power weapon mechanics not a failure of the value system. I think we need to explore alternative power weapon mechanics more, because just a strength increase, while sort of appropraite, has consequences. Even if we do something as simple as say that the power weapon bonus is only applied to non-vehicle units, that would probably be adequite.

We could give them strong flat rerolls? To differentiate them from modifiers from things like commands, and the rest of the game lol. Power swords could have a 5+ wound reroll (defend reroll whatever haha) because that way it isnt op (there are a lot of power swords out there) but very noticeable.

And the URC would still be the core of the non-vehicle system, just under a different name.

Well it didn't feel like you were treating the URC as such an important thing, because it is at the heart of every sort of mathematical facade yet you changed it simply because you ran into problems with vehicles. And if you had problems with vehicles and responded by splitting the URC, what's to say you wouldn't have problems with morale and give them a new chart, or anything else for that matter? :(

You misunderstood me, I was trying to make it clear that the situation is not like "on a 6" or a power fist, but rather in between. I was giving the 6+ example because I wanted to convey that any shots that hit, even if you hit them so luckily on a 6+, they could still even be rending if you were extremely lucky. So the first roll is just a normal to hit, and the second roll splits it into three.

Your'e gonna have to clear this idea up for me then, im confused.

We could give them strong flat rerolls? To differentiate them from modifiers from things like commands, and the rest of the game lol. Power swords could have a 5+ wound reroll (defend reroll whatever haha) because that way it isnt op (there are a lot of power swords out there) but very noticeable.

Hmmmmmm... maybe. I don't know how well thatll mesh, because yes a power weapon is a power weapon, so the effect would be similar across all the different types and we can assume the power fields are fairly similar, and it doesnt do the strength increase problems, and doesn't overlap with mastercrafting or anything. But if we go this route, we have 2 problems facing us:

1) This new definition sorta conflicts with posion / rending rules by causing a reroll on the defense save, probably less of an issue than i think it is, but im bringing it up anyways.

2) How effective do we want power weapons to be? Because if we want something like the old efficacy levels, i think it should be a full-reroll rather than a flat-value, because this lets them be slightly more effective against monsters and equivalent (rerollable 6+ to wound), while still being brutal to armored units, because hordes are much more concerned about volume rather than strength. Otherwise we can have power weapons be a flat-reroll with less effect, and lower prices, but im not sure i like the reduced effect for them, it just doesn't feel like a power weapon. For both directions, one concern is that they would either outstrip power fists if we dont give power fists the power weapon rule (which doesnt make a lot of sense) or power fists would have the 2X bonus as well as the power weapon reroll, which is ... extreme to say the least.

If there's concern about the realistic reason why power weapons would scale like they would under the full reroll, something like the power field amplifies the damage dealt would make sense, because if i accidentally drop a power sword on something, that disintegration field will have much less energy to work with, causing less of an effect than if i have a terminator swing it as hard as he can

Well it didn't feel like you were treating the URC as such an important thing, because it is at the heart of every sort of mathematical facade yet you changed it simply because you ran into problems with vehicles. And if you had problems with vehicles and responded by splitting the URC, what's to say you wouldn't have problems with morale and give them a new chart, or anything else for that matter? :(

Yeah i have no plans to seriously alter the URC or whatever it would be called if we changed its name, because its the core for non-vehicle resolution, which is at least 75% of the models in the game, and deciding to change the foundation for 75% of a project halfway through typically isnt a good idea. Im thinking about an alternate table for vehicles because theyre not working well on the URC, not because of change for changes sake. And as for changing morale as well, im really a bigger fan of the older system of morale, the bell-graph 2D6 generates makes results much more reliable, but i dont think therell be too much trouble with using the current URC values for morale, so well see and if worse comes to worse in testing, we come back and change it later.

Well the concept behind the flat rerolls is that you get to keep your existing roll, meaning it doesn't ignore it like "on a roll of 6" does. The flat reroll gives everyone the same changes. It's the equivalent of giving a model a flat modifier such as +2 (which is used extensively in commands), instead of a proportional modifier such as x2.

I want to enforce that now we have the rise of the rerolls (hehe), we should abolish the "can only ever have one reroll" rule. Rerolls are much quicker than other methods, so the argument that it makes things slow is null. And to be honest 5 rolls doesn't have too big of an impact on the game, frankly that's what the game is about ^^

The poison and rending concerns, I wouldn't mind if we changed poison up a bit, but I don't mind having them be flat rerolls too, because our aim is to get a half-half split on modifiers and rerolls to make it less monotonous

If there's concern about the realistic reason why power weapons would scale like they would under the full reroll, something like the power field amplifies the damage dealt would make sense, because if i accidentally drop a power sword on something, that disintegration field will have much less energy to work with, causing less of an effect than if i have a terminator swing it as hard as he can

True, you have a very good point and I agree with it but that's a bit of a double-edged sword because people could say that the power field just has an "atomic chaos" effect so it doesn't matter what the user's strength is. Another argument could be that situation where a P3 model with a power fist only gets P6, whereas a P5 model gets P10? Surely that's a bit unfair, especially since the variety of stats means that P3 is really not as worse compared to P5 as it used to be.

Yeah i have no plans to seriously alter the URC or whatever it would be called if we changed its name, because its the core for non-vehicle resolution, which is at least 75% of the models in the game, and deciding to change the foundation for 75% of a project halfway through typically isnt a good idea. Im thinking about an alternate table for vehicles because theyre not working well on the URC, not because of change for changes sake. And as for changing morale as well, im really a bigger fan of the older system of morale, the bell-graph 2D6 generates makes results much more reliable, but i dont think therell be too much trouble with using the current URC values for morale, so well see and if worse comes to worse in testing, we come back and change it later.

Well let's see how we manage, I am hopeful that we can find a solution because I don't want the universal comparison chart, the centre of the galaxy for this new ruleset, to be overshadowed by a jabbing failure to manage vehicles into it too :(

Well the concept behind the flat rerolls is that you get to keep your existing roll, meaning it doesn't ignore it like "on a roll of 6" does. The flat reroll gives everyone the same changes. It's the equivalent of giving a model a flat modifier such as +2 (which is used extensively in commands), instead of a proportional modifier such as x2.

i understand what the flat rerolls are trying to accomplish, but they're not emulating the old function of power weapons very well, because current power weapons cut out a step in damage resolution, which is what made them incredibly potent against non-horde units. Giving a 5+ reroll isn't really powerful enough to be equivalent to that effect, so we'd either need it to be a very good flat reroll (3+ or so) which would be OP as hell against monsters, or have it scale with the models strength.

I want to enforce that now we have the rise of the rerolls (hehe), we should abolish the "can only ever have one reroll" rule. Rerolls are much quicker than other methods, so the argument that it makes things slow is null. And to be honest 5 rolls doesn't have too big of an impact on the game, frankly that's what the game is about ^^

id say still stick to the only take one reroll, but instead add in a mention that a reroll can be used to counteract a different reroll, so say I have 2 positive to wound rerolls somehow, and the enemy has a rule that requires a negative reroll, you can counter that negative reroll with one positive reroll , and still get a positive reroll, or if its 1 and 1, they just cancel out.

The poison and rending concerns, I wouldn't mind if we changed poison up a bit, but I don't mind having them be flat rerolls too, because our aim is to get a half-half split on modifiers and rerolls to make it less monotonous

the two directions i see poison going without becoming annoying as hell (So a Damage per turn idea, so a model "poisoned" loses a wound each turn) is to cause double wounds, or forcing rerolls on saves, and doubling wounds would overlap with buckshot. Maybe make it so that it causes double wounds on one less tier than normal, so instead of having the targets defense +3 strength, it only needs to match the targets defense to get the double wounds. I think i prefer rerolls over this idea though, so maybe mix the two or something like that.

True, you have a very good point and I agree with it but that's a bit of a double-edged sword because people could say that the power field just has an "atomic chaos" effect so it doesn't matter what the user's strength is. Another argument could be that situation where a P3 model with a power fist only gets P6, whereas a P5 model gets P10? Surely that's a bit unfair, especially since the variety of stats means that P3 is really not as worse compared to P5 as it used to be.

This effect is what the old power weapon mechanics allowed for, our new ones can't explain it as readily, so this is just an attempt to work around that. And so far as power fist effects go, it actually makes a lot of sense, because the stronger models can withstand a greater force exerted on them than a weaker model. I can generate and maintain a much greater force off of a space marines frame than I could have with a guardsman, the difference in physical strength, size, weight, etc allows for it. An easy analogy would be modern day weaponry, I can mount a massive cannon on a main battle tank, because the tanks bulk and strength lets it withstand the recoil and forces applied on it by the weapon, whereas a human trying to manage that gun would be utterly obliterated.

Well let's see how we manage, I am hopeful that we can find a solution because I don't want the universal comparison chart, the centre of the galaxy for this new ruleset, to be overshadowed by a jabbing failure to manage vehicles into it too

well our options are stick with the URC, which we seem to agree doesn't represent vehicles correctly, or explore other options, of which the old system actually works marvelously. I don't know how to get the URC working without so many exceptions and special cases that we might as well break it apart anyways.

i understand what the flat rerolls are trying to accomplish, but they're not emulating the old function of power weapons very well, because current power weapons cut out a step in damage resolution, which is what made them incredibly potent against non-horde units. Giving a 5+ reroll isn't really powerful enough to be equivalent to that effect, so we'd either need it to be a very good flat reroll (3+ or so) which would be OP as hell against monsters, or have it scale with the models strength.

Alright, 4+, but if it becomes OP then we can make balance changes.

id say still stick to the only take one reroll, but instead add in a mention that a reroll can be used to counteract a different reroll, so say I have 2 positive to wound rerolls somehow, and the enemy has a rule that requires a negative reroll, you can counter that negative reroll with one positive reroll , and still get a positive reroll, or if its 1 and 1, they just cancel out.

If I understand you correctly you want to add up flat rerolls so a 5+ and another 5+ would be like a 3+ or something. But that doesn't mathematically work very well.

so instead of having the targets defense +3 strength, it only needs to match the targets defense to get the double wounds.

This is interesting, lowering the scale/crossbar as it were down. I like it, but not completely yet.

This effect is what the old power weapon mechanics allowed for, our new ones can't explain it as readily, so this is just an attempt to work around that. And so far as power fist effects go, it actually makes a lot of sense, because the stronger models can withstand a greater force exerted on them than a weaker model. I can generate and maintain a much greater force off of a space marines frame than I could have with a guardsman, the difference in physical strength, size, weight, etc allows for it. An easy analogy would be modern day weaponry, I can mount a massive cannon on a main battle tank, because the tanks bulk and strength lets it withstand the recoil and forces applied on it by the weapon, whereas a human trying to manage that gun would be utterly obliterated.

This just goes back to the previous argument where I said: "Ok, how about this. Power 4 is obviously better than P3, but not that much better. If they were to shoot at an R3 target, the P4 weapon would come out on top by a fair amount. However, if they both had rerolls, the P4 weapon comes out on top by an UNfair amount, a sizeable margin, even though it shouldn't be benefitting any more than the P3 one. You could apply this to any situation with the stat comparisons and you'll find that it doesn't work optimally. For example, you said that a commander could bring much more with a strong weapon than a flimsy trooper because he knows how to use it. I completely agree, however what if you compared it to a slightly lower ranking commander? Surely they practically know how to use it similarly, how come the slightly better commander gets double the benefit?"

I don't know how to get the URC working without so many exceptions and special cases that we might as well break it apart anyways.

I just want the vehicle to take part in the UCC as that is intuitive. But it's not so much special rules (because that has negative connotations I suppose) but there's gonna be a section on vehicles so...I wouldn't say exceptions either, all I want for vehicles is that fundamentally they aren't miles away from the majority (infantry) in terms of core mechanics, but obviously they're going to have their own way of doing things.

This is interesting, lowering the scale/crossbar as it were down. I like it, but not completely yet.

Yeah literally the first alternative idea that came to mind here, not really sure what to do with this idea, or if its even the best option available for poison.

I just want the vehicle to take part in the UCC as that is intuitive. But it's not so much special rules (because that has negative connotations I suppose) but there's gonna be a section on vehicles so...I wouldn't say exceptions either, all I want for vehicles is that fundamentally they aren't miles away from the majority (infantry) in terms of core mechanics, but obviously they're going to have their own way of doing things.

This whole idea is contradictory though, you cant have them operate under their own rules and mechanics, while keeping them close to infantry mechanics. Theyre different so many ways, they might as well just be completely seperate. Something like half of the infantry stats don't apply, armor facings, the different movement speeds and the associated embarking and shooting systems, there really isn't a way in which they aren't different.

Alright, 4+, but if it becomes OP then we can make balance changes.

But it will be OP, because i can charge a terrible melee unit like a guardsman platoon into a monstrous creature, and let the 2 or 3 power weapons in the unit need a 6+ to wound the target, and if they fail they then get a 4+ reroll, which is brutal for such a cheap and terrible unit, especially since the other models in the squad will just tank the wounds. It needs to scale, otherwise it starts getting into the realm where a power weapon performs just as well as the powerfist for hunting monstrous creatures.

If I understand you correctly you want to add up flat rerolls so a 5+ and another 5+ would be like a 3+ or something. But that doesn't mathematically work very well.

Well ideally we wouldn't have flat rerolls be terribly common for this system to work, but its just an idea.

This just goes back to the previous argument where I said: "Ok, how about this. Power 4 is obviously better than P3, but not that much better. If they were to shoot at an R3 target, the P4 weapon would come out on top by a fair amount. However, if they both had rerolls, the P4 weapon comes out on top by an UNfair amount, a sizeable margin, even though it shouldn't be benefitting any more than the P3 one. You could apply this to any situation with the stat comparisons and you'll find that it doesn't work optimally. For example, you said that a commander could bring much more with a strong weapon than a flimsy trooper because he knows how to use it. I completely agree, however what if you compared it to a slightly lower ranking commander? Surely they practically know how to use it similarly, how come the slightly better commander gets double the benefit?"

Ok i think its time we hit this issue straight on the head. What exactly are your concerns with using doubling effects for powerfists and full rerolls. An itemized list would be appreciated so we can hit them one by one.

This whole idea is contradictory though, you cant have them operate under their own rules and mechanics, while keeping them close to infantry mechanics. Theyre different so many ways, they might as well just be completely seperate. Something like half of the infantry stats don't apply, armor facings, the different movement speeds and the associated embarking and shooting systems, there really isn't a way in which they aren't different.

Yeah but at the fundamental level, the stats are still the same. Different movement speeds is a substitute for things like running, but they still use Mobility. Armour facings are a substitute for Resilience, but it functions the same way in that that is their defending stat, it's on the same scale, all it is is just adding a distinction to it, but it still functions similarly. In shooting, sure they may have restrictions depending on how far they've moved (the same way that Heavy weapons carry restrictions), but in essence it's the same procedure of To Hit, To Wound etc...

But it will be OP, because i can charge a terrible melee unit like a guardsman platoon into a monstrous creature, and let the 2 or 3 power weapons in the unit need a 6+ to wound the target, and if they fail they then get a 4+ reroll, which is brutal for such a cheap and terrible unit, especially since the other models in the squad will just tank the wounds. It needs to scale, otherwise it starts getting into the realm where a power weapon performs just as well as the powerfist for hunting monstrous creatures.

The thing is that this argument entails the 5+ reroll or anything for that matter, so the way we counter that is giving monstrous creatures defense saves too.

Ok i think its time we hit this issue straight on the head. What exactly are your concerns with using doubling effects for powerfists and full rerolls. An itemized list would be appreciated so we can hit them one by one.

We have created a wider range of stats due to our comparison chart. If we duplicate the stats (this includes full rerolls and power fists) we are stretching the stat line-up so that the spaces in between them are doubled, meaning that the variety we have created is actually being unbalanced by the doubling.

Yeah but at the fundamental level, the stats are still the same. Different movement speeds is a substitute for things like running, but they still use Mobility. Armour facings are a substitute for Resilience, but it functions the same way in that that is their defending stat, it's on the same scale, all it is is just adding a distinction to it, but it still functions similarly. In shooting, sure they may have restrictions depending on how far they've moved (the same way that Heavy weapons carry restrictions), but in essence it's the same procedure of To Hit, To Wound etc...

but they're really not, they don't have WS or dexterity, they have different damage effects because of the vehicle damage charts, much higher armor values than standard, etc etc. Are they similar at their core? Probably, but when you're ignoring one of the two kinds of combat, treating armor values differently because of facings, having special conditions for moving, shooting, and interaction with infantry, they're not very similar.

The thing is that this argument entails the 5+ reroll or anything for that matter, so the way we counter that is giving monstrous creatures defense saves too.

what? Monsters have a second save already for dealing with weaker infantry weapons, i dont think we need to give them another. Also, if you have a problem with a weapon being too powerful against a particular group of units, you don't try to change the unit, you change the weapon.

We have created a wider range of stats due to our comparison chart. If we duplicate the stats (this includes full rerolls and power fists) we are stretching the stat line-up so that the spaces in between them are doubled, meaning that the variety we have created is actually being unbalanced by the doubling.

But they're really not unbalanced. Yes doubling opens up more space than it used to, but the overall effect is no different than it used to be. If they weren't unbalanced in the old system, they shouldn't be in this system. This doesn't even address the fact that getting powerfists is expensive and rare, they typically cost more than 20 points, and only a couple of models in an army can even take them. And again, for full rerolls, it's no different than the old system, where they weren't unbalanced, and again, are fairly rare.

So for powerfists, since almost every units is going to be in the 3-5 range for strength, they're going to have doubled values of 6 8 and 10, all of which perform almost exactly as they did in the old system. Strength 3 units who double to 6 will be able to affect up to the highest non-vehicle defense, and be much more effective against anything less than that. Strength 5 units who double to 10 will be very capable of wounding the high defense monsters, just like they used to, and be able to affect up to the highest armor value for vehicles using the old vehicle damage system. Meanwhile, we just created a new slot at 4 which doubles to 8, which is a strong middle ground.

but they're really not, they don't have WS or dexterity, they have different damage effects because of the vehicle damage charts, much higher armor values than standard, etc etc. Are they similar at their core? Probably, but when you're ignoring one of the two kinds of combat, treating armor values differently because of facings, having special conditions for moving, shooting, and interaction with infantry, they're not very similar.

Well, so what? They are half similar yet half different. But we can find a way to make vehicles work with the UNIVERSAL comparison chart, right?

what? Monsters have a second save already for dealing with weaker infantry weapons, i dont think we need to give them another. Also, if you have a problem with a weapon being too powerful against a particular group of units, you don't try to change the unit, you change the weapon.

What? Why didn't you inform me about this new save monstrous creatures get? And no, not necessarily. I think power weapons can have a 4+ reroll but monstrous creatures have a special rule which worsens these flat rerolls by 1 or 2. So a 4+ reroll would turn into a 5+ or a 6+ because massive monsters can take wounds and not feel a thing

Yes doubling opens up more space than it used to. If they weren't unbalanced in the old system, they shouldn't be in this system.

But they are. Because the stats are more varied. The doubling has a much bigger impact since there's more variety for it to spread out. Even in the old system, having any old space marine with a power fist hit with S8 whereas a scorpion exarch hits with S6. That's a large gap isn't it. Twice as much as it should be. And now that the stats are even MORE varied, space marines would be hitting on P10, which is FOUR MORE THAN a P3 model.

This doesn't even address the fact that getting powerfists is expensive and rare

The fact that power fists are expensive IS a reason to justify their strength, however it IS NOT a reason to justify that they're unbalanced. OP =/= unbalanced. Unless a model with a lower strength is going to get a power fist cheaper (which doesn't make any sense), they are injusticed, because models that are only 1 or 2 points above them are getting way more benefit out of it.

Well, so what? They are half similar yet half different. But we can find a way to make vehicles work with the UNIVERSAL comparison chart, right?

half different is incredibly different. And could we find a way to get it work with just the URC? Maybe, i certainly don't have any ideas how to accomplish this, and the old system solves the problems and is right there to be used.

What? Why didn't you inform me about this new save monstrous creatures get? And no, not necessarily. I think power weapons can have a 4+ reroll but monstrous creatures have a special rule which worsens these flat rerolls by 1 or 2. So a 4+ reroll would turn into a 5+ or a 6+ because massive monsters can take wounds and not feel a thing

We brought this up a while ago, where I talked about lowering the wound counts of monsters and supplementing this with whats essentially a second defense value, that was much lower than its actual defense value, so it can have saves against infantry weapons. So for instance, a hive tyrant might have defense 8, with the monster defense value of 5, so it would get whatever save it would normally get against the weapon, then if the weapons strength was low enough, it would get the second monster save. So this hive tyrant hit by a Bolter would have a 2+ save, and if it failed that, it would get a 4+ save.

Giving them a trait to let them lower the power weapon effect seems like a roundabout way to handle it.

But they are. Because the stats are more varied. The doubling has a much bigger impact since there's more variety for it to spread out. Even in the old system, having any old space marine with a power fist hit with S8 whereas a scorpion exarch hits with S6. That's a large gap isn't it. Twice as much as it should be. And now that the stats are even MORE varied, space marines would be hitting on P10, which is FOUR MORE THAN a P3 model.

your example of a space marine vs the scorpion exarch is flawed in that eldar are weaker than space marines, its just a difference in physical traits. And if you want to use a flat value increase like +4, that's not any better, because its disproportionate to the model, a +4 to a strength 3 model is more than doubling. Beyond that, it's not that big of a difference between the two methods, one puts strength 5 at 9 instead of 10, strength 4 at 8 equally, and strength 3 at 7 instead of 6. This doesn't make sense, because how are you improving a weaker frame to a greater degree ( multiple of 2.33) than a stronger frame (multiple of 1.8)? I cannot deliver as much force off of a guardsman as I can a space marine, proportionally or otherwise. Powerfists do not function identically to an upscaled power weapon, i dont think treating them as such does them justice.

The fact that power fists are expensive IS a reason to justify their strength, however it IS NOT a reason to justify that they're unbalanced. OP =/= unbalanced. Unless a model with a lower strength is going to get a power fist cheaper (which doesn't make any sense), they are injusticed, because models that are only 1 or 2 points above them are getting way more benefit out of it.

but they're not OP or out of balance, because they still do what they've always done, let models damage units they normally wouldn't be able to, or improve their existing ability to tackle infantry. And, just like they always have, they have a greater impact on higher strengths than lower strengths. And how many powerfists style effects are there in the game? Actual power fists and thunderhammers for space marines and guardsman, power claws for orks, and the scorpion claw for eldar scorpion exarchs, and to that last example, if you're using a striking scorpion to try to take down a monster or vehicle, your'e using that model wrong, otherwise against more mundane units it works wonderfully.

half different is incredibly different. And could we find a way to get it work with just the URC? Maybe, i certainly don't have any ideas how to accomplish this, and the old system solves the problems and is right there to be used.

Well firstly I just don't want the modifying of the universal comparison chart to be our go-to if we don't have any answers. If you let the idea stick a while, I will be able to give you a proposal that lets vehicles work under the chart.

We brought this up a while ago, where I talked about lowering the wound counts of monsters and supplementing this with whats essentially a second defense value, that was much lower than its actual defense value, so it can have saves against infantry weapons. So for instance, a hive tyrant might have defense 8, with the monster defense value of 5, so it would get whatever save it would normally get against the weapon, then if the weapons strength was low enough, it would get the second monster save. So this hive tyrant hit by a Bolter would have a 2+ save, and if it failed that, it would get a 4+ save.

Giving them a trait to let them lower the power weapon effect seems like a roundabout way to handle it.

Do you plan on giving vehicles this same kind of thing? Because then it conveys that even a bolter round can hit a weak spot of a vehicle with a 6+ and a 6+.

your example of a space marine vs the scorpion exarch is flawed in that eldar are weaker than space marines, its just a difference in physical traits. And if you want to use a flat value increase like +4, that's not any better, because its disproportionate to the model, a +4 to a strength 3 model is more than doubling. Beyond that, it's not that big of a difference between the two methods, one puts strength 5 at 9 instead of 10, strength 4 at 8 equally, and strength 3 at 7 instead of 6. This doesn't make sense, because how are you improving a weaker frame to a greater degree ( multiple of 2.33) than a stronger frame (multiple of 1.8)? I cannot deliver as much force off of a guardsman as I can a space marine, proportionally or otherwise. Powerfists do not function identically to an upscaled power weapon, i dont think treating them as such does them justice.

So you actually think that now, in this system, a scorpion exarch would get P6 whilst a typical marine would get P10? You know that's a jump from heavy bolter to melta.

Do you plan on giving vehicles this same kind of thing? Because then it conveys that even a bolter round can hit a weak spot of a vehicle with a 6+ and a 6+.

I didn't have any plan for that, because vehicles should have far fewer weak points than a monster, the view ports are tiny, plus all the future materials of 40K are stronger than any organic material could match, or supposedly so anyways, the fluff can never really decide on how strong these things should be. From a gameplay perspective, having Bolters be able to do wounds to vehicles is kinda problematic, i dont think its a particularly good match.

So you actually think that now, in this system, a scorpion exarch would get P6 whilst a typical marine would get P10? You know that's a jump from heavy bolter to melta.

i just don't think its anywhere near as big a problem as it seems at first glance, because if it were widespread and prolific it might be a bigger issue, but its rarity means having it be "unbalanced" doesn't really come into play. Strength 10 is roughly equivalent to strength 8 in the old system, so its a fairly accurate port for space marines, the only other powerfists examples i know of are ork power claws, which bring them up to str 8 and power weapon rules, which lets them tackle heavy vehicles as well as pulp infantry with the power weapon rules (whatever that comes out to be), and that scorpion exarch weapon, and as per the eldar design philosophy of being master of your field, if you're using a striking scorpion to attack a vehicle or a monster, you're not using the unit right, and it provides a very nice bonus to regular infantry killing power. And even if you try to attack a vehicle with that striking scorpion, most rear armor would be 11 using the old vehicle damage system, and strength 6 would mean youre glancing on a 5, penetrating on a 6.

As to it being a jump from a heavy Bolter to a Meltagun, you're right but isn't that basically what it was in the old system? Strength 3 were raised to strength 6, just above heavy Bolters, and strength 4 was raised to strength 8, which was the Meltagun strength. I really don't see what the problem on that front is.

Well firstly I just don't want the modifying of the universal comparison chart to be our go-to if we don't have any answers. If you let the idea stick a while, I will be able to give you a proposal that lets vehicles work under the chart.

please, I'd love some more creative solutions, but right now i see a solution that is straightforward and effective, with the downside being we alter the name of the URC.

But it isn't as rare as you say it is. Terminators? Almost every SM army likes that. Terminator armour? Gives them +1 Power. Suddenly, you've got a theoretical P12 unit.

But it isn't as rare as you say it is. Terminators? Almost every SM army likes that. Terminator armour? Gives them +1 Power. Suddenly, you've got a theoretical P12 unit.

Except that terminators, the regular ones anyways, really arnt that good. At 40 points per model, before the almost necessary land raider or Stormraven delivery system, with just high strength on their side, they're not super powerful. They're the tactical marine of higher points cost elites, good at durability, not so great at raw damage output. Last strike and only 2 attacks keeps them from being ridiculous beat sticks, even at strength 6 with powerfists and high WS. At something like 400 points for a unit of 5 terminators plus delivery system, that not amazing. Plus easy counters to terminators outside vehicles is just unload all the anti tank weapons on them, and boom dead terminators.

Now for assault terminators this is a different story, because TH/SS assault terminators would be ridiculous, but that's because of the insanity that is the current stormshield, not so much the thunderhammer. A 3+ invulnerable save on a terminator for free like that is ridiculous. I liked the idea of the older stormshield so where they gave you a 4+ invulnerable in Melee, so maybe make it a 3+ invulnerable in Melee for the modern stormshield, to make sure you don't have that invincible terminator marching across the field, shrugging off las cannons like theyre not a threat, because under the current rules theyre really not to a TH/SS assault terminator.

Except that terminators, the regular ones anyways, really arnt that good. At 40 points per model, before the almost necessary land raider or Stormraven delivery system, with just high strength on their side, they're not super powerful. They're the tactical marine of higher points cost elites, good at durability, not so great at raw damage output. Last strike and only 2 attacks keeps them from being ridiculous beat sticks, even at strength 6 with powerfists and high WS. At something like 400 points for a unit of 5 terminators plus delivery system, that not amazing. Plus easy counters to terminators outside vehicles is just unload all the anti tank weapons on them, and boom dead terminators.

You're saying that 40 points for a P12 R9 A2 plus standard marine stats isn't worth it?

Now for assault terminators this is a different story, because TH/SS assault terminators would be ridiculous, but that's because of the insanity that is the current stormshield, not so much the thunderhammer. A 3+ invulnerable save on a terminator for free like that is ridiculous. I liked the idea of the older stormshield so where they gave you a 4+ invulnerable in Melee, so maybe make it a 3+ invulnerable in Melee for the modern stormshield, to make sure you don't have that invincible terminator marching across the field, shrugging off las cannons like theyre not a threat, because under the current rules theyre really not to a TH/SS assault terminator.

Whatever this situaion may be, I don't know one bit of space marines but all I would say is 4++ in combat whilst the normal 5++ out of combat. And we can make thunder hammers snazzy, I guarantee it you WILL be pleased at how thunder hammers are reworked. Lots of great possibilities here.

Whatever this situaion may be, I don't know one bit of space marines but all I would say is 4++ in combat whilst the normal 5++ out of combat. And we can make thunder hammers snazzy, I guarantee it you WILL be pleased at how thunder hammers are reworked. Lots of great possibilities here.

hope you've got cool ideas for this, I think having a concussive effect like "a model hit by a thunderhammer counts as last strike for their next combat phase" or something would be fun, but most models would be outright annihilated by a thunderhammer so idk.

You're saying that 40 points for a P12 R9 A2 plus standard marine stats isn't worth it?

am I saying theyre not worth it? No of course not, but they're not the most competitive choice for a 40 point model. They're just a veteran in good armor with a powerfist and storm bolter, so they can do a little bit of everything, but they're not amazing at anything. If I wanted a infantry shredder, id use assault terminators, if i wanted a monster killer, id use TH/SS assault terminators. Regular terminators have never really had a place in the space marine army, because they don't fill a niche or a need. And even against other expensive elites choices from other armies, all they have is high strength and high durability, beyond those two areas theyre not amazing.

hope you've got cool ideas for this, I think having a concussive effect like "a model hit by a thunderhammer counts as last strike for their next combat phase" or something would be fun, but most models would be outright annihilated by a thunderhammer so idk.

Yeah I'm bound to bump into something cool. Recently it's been a bit busy but I should be able to get the vehicle damage + thunderhammers and anything else sorted this week..

am I saying theyre not worth it? No of course not, but they're not the most competitive choice for a 40 point model. They're just a veteran in good armor with a powerfist and storm bolter, so they can do a little bit of everything, but they're not amazing at anything. If I wanted a infantry shredder, id use assault terminators, if i wanted a monster killer, id use TH/SS assault terminators. Regular terminators have never really had a place in the space marine army, because they don't fill a niche or a need. And even against other expensive elites choices from other armies, all they have is high strength and high durability, beyond those two areas theyre not amazing.

I agree with everything you said, I'm just saying that those stats are absolutely outrageous tbh. The Resilience 9 is going to be very very good, as well as the invuln, they're going to be ever more invincible. I think that a good point for Terminators to rest would be 1 attack at P10 each.

Yeah I'm bound to bump into something cool. Recently it's been a bit busy but I should be able to get the vehicle damage + thunderhammers and anything else sorted this week..

Looking forward to what you come up with, but for now, im going to go forward assuming we're using the old vehicle damage system. It does what it needs to, and is already familiar. If a better idea comes out, lets be sure to use that instead.

I agree with everything you said, I'm just saying that those stats are absolutely outrageous tbh. The Resilience 9 is going to be very very good, as well as the invuln, they're going to be ever more invincible. I think that a good point for Terminators to rest would be 1 attack at P10 each.

I agree, i think defense 9 is insane, i put them at defense 8, so theyve got a good survivability range against middle strength weapons, leaving a gap open for some interesting wargear or statline at defense 7, and keeping them out of the super high-end range of the non-vehicle values. And yes they are going to be quite difficult to kill under these rules, but dropping them down to 1 attack at P 10 is problematic. For one, theyre the second most elite organization in a chapter, behind only the honor guard, so giving them the same attack values as a rank and file space marine doesn't make a lot of sense. Beyond that, the whole reason why i gave them strength 6 instead of strength 5 was because i could justify it by lowering their dexterity. The low dexterity of 3, plus the low stealth of 3, means they are not at all hard to hit, be it in shooting or melee, but they are incredibly tough and strong to offset this.

Also, ive been thinking about the mobility stat, and having units be lower or higher than the average at certain points. One thing ive noticed thats a problem is that the slower models (necrons, terminators, etc) will take forever to move across the board under these rules, and can essentially be kited by an opponent. So heres my thought, we make them feel slower, without actually impacting their speed to cross the board. So for instance, something like the slow and purposeful rule, where they cannot run or make sweeping advances, but gain relentless or something, and they don't necessarily need the positive aspect of it. This way, they are "slower" in that they lose the ability to do some of the more speed or agility based effects, but are not hindered in moving across the board quite so much.

Alright I don't mind R8. However giving them an extra attack is ok because of the dexterity, but then I would slightly lower it to P9.

Also, ive been thinking about the mobility stat, and having units be lower or higher than the average at certain points. One thing ive noticed thats a problem is that the slower models (necrons, terminators, etc) will take forever to move across the board under these rules, and can essentially be kited by an opponent. So heres my thought, we make them feel slower, without actually impacting their speed to cross the board. So for instance, something like the slow and purposeful rule, where they cannot run or make sweeping advances, but gain relentless or something, and they don't necessarily need the positive aspect of it. This way, they are "slower" in that they lose the ability to do some of the more speed or agility based effects, but are not hindered in moving across the board quite so much.

If we lower their mobility by 1 as well, we can make them a bit slower but not too slow, and on top of that some rules which make it feel slow, they will both BE slow and FEEL slow. But not too much of course.

Alright I don't mind R8. However giving them an extra attack is ok because of the dexterity, but then I would slightly lower it to P9.

but strength 9 means they'll be weaker than a normal space marine with a powerfist, which doesn't make sense, again, the whole point of the drop to stealth and dexterity was to allow that increase in strength. I think you are seriously overestimating the potential damage output of regular terminators. Yeah they'll be hitting at Strength 12 under these rules, but they're not fast, they attract a ton of fire, and most people will be throwing either bubble wrap units at them or elite close combat units. For the former, losing them won't matter, and for the latter, theyll probably land a bunch of hits due to low dexterity and last strike, and most elite close combat units have some sort of way to deal with tough units, be it rending, poison, power weapon, or whatever.

If we lower their mobility by 1 as well, we can make them a bit slower but not too slow, and on top of that some rules which make it feel slow, they will both BE slow and FEEL slow. But not too much of course.

but a change of 1 inch to movement is not enough to have an impact, it's just busywork. And if we actually slow a unit down, players will want to use a transports rather than walking them, which will push vehicles even further into the game, which i really don't want.

but strength 9 means they'll be weaker than a normal space marine with a powerfist, which doesn't make sense, again, the whole point of the drop to stealth and dexterity was to allow that increase in strength. I think you are seriously overestimating the potential damage output of regular terminators. Yeah they'll be hitting at Strength 12 under these rules, but they're not fast, they attract a ton of fire, and most people will be throwing either bubble wrap units at them or elite close combat units. For the former, losing them won't matter, and for the latter, theyll probably land a bunch of hits due to low dexterity and last strike, and most elite close combat units have some sort of way to deal with tough units, be it rending, poison, power weapon, or whatever.

To be honest only experimenting will determine what the best power for terminators will be, however under no circumstances am I going to let them be the strongest weapon in the galaxy available in such large numbers.

but a change of 1 inch to movement is not enough to have an impact, it's just busywork. And if we actually slow a unit down, players will want to use a transports rather than walking them, which will push vehicles even further into the game, which i really don't want.

But there's only so much you can do to make a unit feel slow. Do you want it so that every slow unit has the same special rule?

But there's only so much you can do to make a unit feel slow. Do you want it so that every slow unit has the same special rule?

That same argument applies to faster units though. They're all just going to be something like 3 inches faster than the norm, so having all the slow units have the same effect apply to all of them would make sense alongside that. I don't want too much variety in movement speeds for infantry, because then you have to keep all of them in mind, rather than them just being slow, normal, or fast.

To be honest only experimenting will determine what the best power for terminators will be, however under no circumstances am I going to let them be the strongest weapon in the galaxy available in such large numbers.

Do I think them being strength 12 could turn out to be a problem? Possibly, particularly against non-heavy vehicles, because strength 12 vs rear armor 11 means auto penetrate, though that kinda makes sense. As for them being available in such large numbers, they're really not, particularly under the new FOC system. You can't just buy two 5 man tactical squads then fill up on 3 10 man terminator squads any more, you'd have to have 4 troops choices to get 3 terminator squads. Beyond that 3 squads of 10 terminators will set you back 1200 points, which means your opponent should be fully capable of blasting them off the table, particularly since they're slow infantry and will take forever to get somewhere. The only army who can spam terminators (besides grey knights who don't use thunderhammers or powerfists as much) is Deathwing Dark angels, and you need a special character HQ to use them as troops, and even there he's a 200+ point HQ and Deathwing terminators are more expensive than normal terminators.

Ok so what special rule do you want to give slow/fast units?

I'm not saying that P12 will be OP (although there is a good chance), it's just that you're saying that nothing exceeds the power of a marine in terminator armour with a power fist. Plus there's no way to get to P12 without sticking with the "power fists double strength" logic which is invalid. I'm saying I don't mind if they're P10 or P9 because playtesting will find balance.

Ok so what special rule do you want to give slow/fast units?

I don't necessarily want them to have a special rule, but rather some trait of the unit that makes them "slow", so basically what the terminator armor equipment entry states in the marine codex, where it says they cannot perform sweeping advances and gain relentless, but not locked into the equipment section. So for instance, they could have unit type heavy infantry, and the BRB would state that heavy infantry would not be able to perform sweeping advances or run, and maybe gain relentless. This way we have an easily rememberable quality of that unit that doesn't require a special rule to describe that effect.

I'm not saying that P12 will be OP (although there is a good chance), it's just that you're saying that nothing exceeds the power of a marine in terminator armour with a power fist. Plus there's no way to get to P12 without sticking with the "power fists double strength" logic which is invalid. I'm saying I don't mind if they're P10 or P9 because playtesting will find balance.

For the realism front, I'd say its totally plausible for the strongest Melee weapon mankind has every produced being wielded by the strongest human in the strongest armor mankind has ever produced to be able to do truly massive amounts of damage on a constrained area for a tiny amount of time, which is what a powerfist does in essence, a very brief, but ridiculously powerful hit. Gameplay wise, yeah having it be the highest possible strength is a bit odd, but these values are always abstractions, and most of the weapons up at strength 12 would be tank weaponry, typically with long range and/or blast templates and ordinance rules, so there are ways to differentiate the strength and killing power of a weapon beyond strength, even if its not as immediately apparant as a stat value. For example, look at a dreadnought with a powerfist vs the vindicator tank. Both strike at strength 10 under the current rules and are mounted on vehicles, but one is a melee weapon while the other is a 24" large blast with ordinance special rule, so it hits way harder.

And how is powerfists doubling strength invalid? Its an easy to remember effect, with proper effects and pricing to match. Yes it doesn't improve every unit wielding it equally, but that's not its role. There are already weapons in place to do exactly that, and it's not possible to increase everything equally. Plus it easily sets them apart from other weapon types, that doubling effect is what makes a powerfist a Powerfist

Hey folks.
Have you got the rules written up yet?I would like to have a read through what you have so far..

Nope not yet Maybe if we reach 20 pages we have to stop faffing around and start writing haha

and most of the weapons up at strength 12 would be tank weaponry, typically with long range and/or blast templates and ordinance rules, so there are ways to differentiate the strength and killing power of a weapon beyond strength, even if its not as immediately apparant as a stat value. For example, look at a dreadnought with a powerfist vs the vindicator tank. Both strike at strength 10 under the current rules and are mounted on vehicles, but one is a melee weapon while the other is a 24" large blast with ordinance special rule, so it hits way harder.

The reason why I don't really want P12 was because I was trying to make it a sort of "10.5" where only the COMPLETELY insane and extraordinary or incomprehensibly rare weapons would be. But I'll be happy to compromise this one time with you and call it P10 with two attacks or P11 with one attack, but this could change depending on how strong they are. Would you like them to have more attacks but less strength, or less attacks but more strength? I would opt for the latter since it's more realistic.

Its an easy to remember effect

So will the alternative.

Yes it doesn't improve every unit wielding it equally, but that's not its role

So you're saying that you're going to let the doubling effect slide by making it cost more for stronger-base units? What if you're a scorpion exarch or even an IG commander, you're going to pay significantly less because your power fist doesn't function well enough? What if you were that eldar/IG player that wanted their power fist to do the same job of SM ones? So SMs are going around blowing up tanks with their P10/11 power fists while we're stuck with P6? The range is 6, 8 and 10. Let's make it 7, 8 and 9, no?

Plus it easily sets them apart from other weapon types, that doubling effect is what makes a powerfist a Powerfist

Yes, but we can keep this because alongside a massive +4 Power increase there could be something else that makes it unique, just like how thunderhammers will be unique.

Nope not yet Maybe if we reach 20 pages we have to stop faffing around and start writing haha

Lol even 20 might be a hopeful estimate. Page 17, and were still working out vehicles, and only just starting to discuss certain weapon types/rules and specific examples.

So you're saying that you're going to let the doubling effect slide by making it cost more for stronger-base units? What if you're a scorpion exarch or even an IG commander, you're going to pay significantly less because your power fist doesn't function well enough? What if you were that eldar/IG player that wanted their power fist to do the same job of SM ones? So SMs are going around blowing up tanks with their P10/11 power fists while we're stuck with P6? The range is 6, 8 and 10. Let's make it 7, 8 and 9, no?

I didn't think about changing prices according to this way of going about it, but yeah thats a good way to handle the differences, something along the lines of a 10/20/25 point split would probably be about right for that direction. And as to wanting my imperial guardsman's powerfist to bust, say, a land raider, my comment to that player is that they have already failed if that is their goal. That's like saying i want to be able to send my guardsman up against a hive tyrant with a decent chance of success, its just not going to happen. As for making it 7, 8, 9, my arguments against the +4 system have already been noted, realistically it doesnt make sense, how am i more than doubling a guardsmans strength but less than doubling a space marines strength with a weapon that is specifically built to function off of and improve the wielders strength.

But I'll be happy to compromise this one time with you and call it P10 with two attacks or P11 with one attack, but this could change depending on how strong they are. Would you like them to have more attacks but less strength, or less attacks but more strength? I would opt for the latter since it's more realistic.

Its not a matter of compromise, their statline is fixed beyond the strength element. Terminators are veterans, so they have 2 attacks. Period. If anything, id be willing to bring them back down to strength 5 instead of strength 6, and drop the dexterity and stealth penalites. But ideally, id like to see these monstrous brutes able to automatically double wound defense 3 models no matter what weapon they're wielding, hence the base strength 6 i suggested for them. Plus i didn't want them to be just "space marines in heavy armor" but rather something more befitting their theme and design, so slow, durable, lumbering, and absolutely murderous models, make them the shock troops they've never really managed to be.

Hi guys.
I think you are struggleing because you want to transfer the current 40k stats and profiles into the new game.And as such you sort of missed the point of writing new rules IMO.

IF you assume the new rule are written to cover everything in 40k, (in a slightly different way.)
Then you are free to develop rules that reflect the battles in the 40k background, rather than transfer the arguments from the current 40k table top.

I have a VERY rough draught of my new rules set written as a modern war game that can cover 40k setting.
I can post it up if you like?

Is only 16 pages, I view it as a NEW starting point rather than a finished work though.(It is very basic.)

Hey Lanrak,

I think you are struggleing because you want to transfer the current 40k stats and profiles into the new game.And as such you sort of missed the point of writing new rules IMO.

IF you assume the new rule are written to cover everything in 40k, (in a slightly different way.)
Then you are free to develop rules that reflect the battles in the 40k background, rather than transfer the arguments from the current 40k table top.

personally, I don't want a completely different game, I want to play a fixed version of 40K. Is there room to add variety and take some creative license? Yes totally, but too much deviation means its not really 40K anymore, hence converting old statlines into the new, with some variety added where needed.

I have a VERY rough draught of my new rules set written as a modern war game that can cover 40k setting.
I can post it up if you like?

Is only 16 pages, I view it as a NEW starting point rather than a finished work though.(It is very basic.)

I'd love to see this, though I'd recommend posting it as a new thread to make sure the widest audience possible sees it.

Well in my experience we have used other rule sets with 40k minatures to play games of 40k. these games ended up with all the narrative of 40k without the arguments over the rules.

I personally do not see the need to use rules based on WHFB, to play a game of 40k.(Epic rules give much better game experiance, and they have NO link to WHFB rules!)

Ill leave you to debate your rules in this thread and start another one for my new rules discussion.
I will be interested to see you final rule set when you get it written up.

Ok so I had an idea on how to handle the tyranid gaunts having such a low defense value and getting double wounded all over the place. The math isn't all there, but I think the idea behind it is pretty solid. It's basically an adapted version of the necrons re-animation protocols, meant for larger numbers of models.

Endless Swarm Special Rule:
-- At the end of the player turn, a unit subject to this special rule rolls a D3 for every 10 models the unit started the game with. This many models are added back to the unit. The unit may not exceed the number of models it started with.

I've toyed with some other ways of doing this, from percentages, to mixing D6 and D3, but they're all clunky and require some excess math and rounding. Hopefully this will push people to take larger units, to max out the endless swarm dice they can get. It also makes upgrades more cost efficient and justifiable, because even if you lose models fast, you're getting some of those losses back each turn, essentially getting free models.

This just hit me, but a cool way to mix the Tervigon into this effect would be to remove the Tervigons birthing power,and have it buff the endless swarm dice within a small area, maybe giving a 2X multiplier. Maybe the Tervigon prime could offer an even higher ratio....idk i think it'd be unbalanced, maybe a larger range for the effect...though that doesn't make any sense. Maybe mix the two methods, with one type of Tervigon getting birthing and the other getting the endless swarm multiplayer.

Ok so I had an idea on how to handle the tyranid gaunts having such a low defense value and getting double wounded all over the place. The math isn't all there, but I think the idea behind it is pretty solid. It's basically an adapted version of the necrons re-animation protocols, meant for larger numbers of models.

Wait let me get this clear you're on board with using the +3 power = double wound thing? So they'll only be getting double wounded by P5 and above.

Endless Swarm Special Rule:
-- At the end of the player turn, a unit subject to this special rule rolls a D3 for every 10 models the unit started the game with. This many models are added back to the unit. The unit may not exceed the number of models it started with.

I like the direction you're going but it kinda feels like necrons. I guess what you're trying to achieve is the sense of overwhelming numbers. How about this?

Endless Swarm: A model with this special rule rolls a D6 at the end of the turn. On a 4+, the unit regains a previously lost casualty.

This means that as the unit dies, their "reinforcements" or "rebreeding" whatever you want to call it, gets worse. It means that if you only kill 1 or 2 models, then they can shrug it off easily. But taking out a large portion of their squad means they can't "heal" as quickly. So a 10 man squad that has lost 6 models can regain 2 of those models at the end of the turn. A 20 man squad that has lost 12 models can regain 4 of them! So a squad that is twice as large heals twice as much!

Hopefully this will push people to take larger units, to max out the endless swarm dice they can get.

Umm well even if they take units of 10 they're getting the same amount of regeneration anyway right?

This just hit me, but a cool way to mix the Tervigon into this effect would be to remove the Tervigons birthing power,and have it buff the endless swarm dice within a small area, maybe giving a 2X multiplier. Maybe the Tervigon prime could offer an even higher ratio....idk i think it'd be unbalanced, maybe a larger range for the effect...though that doesn't make any sense. Maybe mix the two methods, with one type of Tervigon getting birthing and the other getting the endless swarm multiplayer.

Erm well I don't know anything about tyranids so ._.

Wait let me get this clear you're on board with using the +3 power = double wound thing? So they'll only be getting double wounded by P5 and above.

Yeah i like the system, its a bit awkward because double wounds start on a save value of 6+, but beyond that i think it works great. And yeah Bolters and Space Marine punches at strength 5 means lots of double wounds, Space Marines are quite prolific. I'd like for double wounds to start at 5 or 6 above the defense value, to show that going into the " --" zone of the URC means taking a TON more damage than normal, but it would take way too much strength to double wound anything, so +3 it is. Maybe make it once youve gone 6 above the defense value it starts causing instant death rather than triple wounds.....not many models are going to care about triple wounds besides things like HQ's, since theyll have more wounds. How this would interact with monsters is a bit concerning.....Because monster's defense values start at 7 and work up to 10, so they could be double wounded by things as low as strength 10....maybe make it a trait of the monster unit type that they cannot be double wounded.....food for thought

I like the direction you're going but it kinda feels like necrons. I guess what you're trying to achieve is the sense of overwhelming numbers. How about this?

Endless Swarm: A model with this special rule rolls a D6 at the end of the turn. On a 4+, the unit regains a previously lost casualty.

This means that as the unit dies, their "reinforcements" or "rebreeding" whatever you want to call it, gets worse. It means that if you only kill 1 or 2 models, then they can shrug it off easily. But taking out a large portion of their squad means they can't "heal" as quickly. So a 10 man squad that has lost 6 models can regain 2 of those models at the end of the turn. A 20 man squad that has lost 12 models can regain 4 of them! So a squad that is twice as large heals twice as much!

It does feel like Necrons, they're the basis of this idea, though im hoping it being a D3 for models to be added to the unit would make it seem a bit more separate from the Necrons where its a 5+ for each model. As for your version, the wording makes it hard to determine what is supposed to be happening. I don't understand how a 4+ for each model lost results in regaining 1-2 models each turn. And again, the actual method by which the unit regains the lost models is still very much up in the air, i just liked the D3 way of doing it better than the other methods i thought up, since it lets them regain at most 30%, an average of 20%, and a minimum of 10% each turn. So they can't regain a ton each turn, but theyre always guaranteed something back, and when some of the upgrades can nearly double the cost of a bug, ensuring that the squad cant just be whittled away into nothingness easily goes a long way towards making them more justifiable.

Umm well even if they take units of 10 they're getting the same amount of regeneration anyway right?

But if they take units of 10, they only get 1D3. If they double the brood size, they get 2D3, which averages more than the maximum of of just 1D3. If they triple the squad size, they average 6 units back per turn, which is double the maximum of just 1D3. So the more you invest in the unit, the more of it you're likely to get back each turn. Its not a massive scaling or anything, that would be incredibly unbalanced, but averaging 20% of a 30 man unit back each turn (6 models) is a pretty hefty advantage. If i could get an average of 20% of my grey knights back each turn for free (minimum 10%), id jump all over it. Plus at the expected value of un-upgraded gaunts (5-8 points) thats an average of 30 points each turn, potentially 72 points per turn on a 30 man squad you get back for free. Opponents are really going to have to focus down these squads to take them out of commission, and fearless granted by synapse just makes it all the scarier.

Well if you split that 30 man squad up into 3 10 man squads you're getting the same amount of regen.

But in those 10 man squads, if i lose 9 models, i can only recover 3 per turn, whereas if i have a 30 man squad, i have a chance to recover all 9 models in one turn. Not an amazing incentive, but its there. This could also be supplemented with more streamlined upgrade costing, such that it is more cost-efficient to buy upgrades for the entire squad rather than individual units.

EX: The squad may take Adrenal glands for 20 points, instead of the current +1 Point per model or whatever the value is. This way, at 10 models, this upgrade is 2 points per model, at 20, its 1 point per model, at 30 its .66 points per model. Players will want to maximize the efficiency of upgrades, which means buying larger squads.

But in those 10 man squads, if i lose 9 models, i can only recover 3 per turn, whereas if i have a 30 man squad, i have a chance to recover all 9 models in one turn. Not an amazing incentive, but its there. This could also be supplemented with more streamlined upgrade costing, such that it is more cost-efficient to buy upgrades for the entire squad rather than individual units.

Yeah so if your enemy focusses one squad of 10 men then you'll only be able to regen from one of them. But then there are the reasons for taking MSUs like any other unit, so people would still go for 3x10 instead of one huge blob of 30.

EX: The squad may take Adrenal glands for 20 points, instead of the current +1 Point per model or whatever the value is. This way, at 10 models, this upgrade is 2 points per model, at 20, its 1 point per model, at 30 its .66 points per model. Players will want to maximize the efficiency of upgrades, which means buying larger squads.

Yes of course there can be upgrades for the whole squad, driving more people into buying the upgrade for max effect (an example would be buying a shimmershield on a 10 man DA squad, not a 5 man one), but that's nothing new.

Yeah so if your enemy focusses one squad of 10 men then you'll only be able to regen from one of them. But then there are the reasons for taking MSUs like any other unit, so people would still go for 3x10 instead of one huge blob of 30.

of course, we're never going to be able to complete erase MSU style units, not while sticking to the current method of list building anyways, so we should focus on making sure that incentives and advantages exist that make MSU less necessary/favorable. Its one of the reasons im a huge fan of flat unit-wide upgrade costs, they push you to take bigger squads and rethink load outs to maximize points efficiency.

Beyond this, I don't think Tyranids bother with MSU as much, because they have a large pool of troops choices and can pick and choose what they want to use and base their army around them, unless they're going full nidzilla, in which case MSU gaunts are abound in order to fulfill the necessary troops choices and save points for the big baddies, but we're never going to be able to stop that.

Yes of course there can be upgrades for the whole squad, driving more people into buying the upgrade for max effect (an example would be buying a shimmershield on a 10 man DA squad, not a 5 man one), but that's nothing new.

Sadly, this isn't true for current Tyranids, as they still use points per model upgrades. Definitely a change that needs to happen ASAP.


Anyways back to the points we were on before, so powerfist mechanics, terminators, and power weapon mechanics.

Other things to bring up:
Cover
Objectives and scoring

For cover, im thinking light (+1), medium (+2), heavy cover (+3), each granting the listed bonus to stealth. Area terrain and ruins stay pretty much the same. I've toyed with having some cover types increase defense instead of granting an additional stealth bonus, I'm not sure they're quite streamlined enough though. I don't want cover to be just a "harder to hit the target" type of cover, because even if you aim directly at the target, a 12" thick concrete wall is a pretty hefty way to disperse damage, but streamlining this could prove difficult.

Objectives and scoring, I'm conflicted on. I'd like for any unit to be able to score, but having only troops (or equivalent term) score helps reduce MSU, so I'm not sure about which direction to go.