do we realy need to roll for wounds ?

I just cant see the point of rolling to hit AND then having to roll for wounds

Of the hundreds of games i have played , board and pc , a hit is a hit is a hit

while i understand why you might want an expensive unit to be damaged in stages i cant realy see the point of rolling for wounds apart from a " dice smoothing , hit reducing effect"
this is achieved in other games by simply making it harder to hit in the first place.

There seems to be a great deal of rolling for nothing in warhammer 40k , A geekoid / Games workshop desire to roll 30 dice in 5 stages when rolling a couple in 2 stages would suffice
AND YIELD THE SAME OUTCOME


someone please explain to me why warhammer 40k finds itself the spot on the domino in a universe where concise & efficient combat systems utterly dominate

rant over , lol

KISS ( keep it simple ) should be the name of the game ,

While sometimes rolling to wound might seem a bit strange, (a lascannon which doesnt kill a gretchin, for example) its mostly made for game balancing/building. Without roll to wound (Which I tried once) the game is much too short and boring. Plus, It makes the game more balanced, for example a heavy weapon being able to hurt a carnifex more easily than a small and sucky lasgun.

Bullets do funny things. Sometimes they zip right through without hitting anything vital. Sometimes they shatter bones and splatter vital organs. Sometimes they ricochet off of bones and hit vital organs. You really never know what's going to happen until you roll the dice.

you can still keep the defender interested and rolling for luck and hapen stance by the following rule

1 All weapons Always hit so long as they are in range of the target. ( No dice required )


2 defender rolls for each unit of his that has been attacked

to live you must roll higher than the weapon attacking you

now we want all sorts of variations on this dont we, or the game would be very flat to play

so depending on your "special" a number is added to the number on the dice thrown

i am a grunt nothing unit at point blank range = add 0
as above under cover add 1
as above leader x is on the board add another 1
as above but my green skin is flame proof and attcking weapon is flamer add another 1

etc etc etc

simple !



Psychology / Fun aspect

the attacker points just , the defenders rolls and prays

this gives the attacker a wonderful and hassle free way to point an shoot , pun intended (physically and mentally uncluttered)

this gives the defender the " bring it on cricket batter stance" rattling the two dice and blowing into his cupped hands..."oh dark lord of dice "

the defender has the joy of letting the attacker linger over the double six thrown ... the attacker gets to see the pain in the defenders eyes as the defender snatches up the snakes eyes in disgust


The system i have described , is mind numbingly simply in comparison to GW horrendous lash up yet it allows infinite complexity...AND ALLDONE with a single throw of a just two 6 sided sided die

ill give one final example to underline my point

an entire army grunts attacking a titan

attacker declares simultaneous attack mode
i have 10 grunts biting his ankles = 10 points
i have 1 super tank attacking at 10 with titan piercing Armour my tank attack now doubled to 20
i have 1 sniper firing through a bush thats partly obscuring the titan , my attack of 4 is halved to 2
i have 1 champion attacking at 5 with a+1 bloodlust bonus which kicks in only during simul attacks
etc etc army 50 attack points

= 10 grunts 20 tank 2 sniper 6 champion 50 etc points
= 88 attack points

the defender rolls 2 die and multiplies that by his Titans defense multiplier eg 10 and then adds a base figure of say 10*
( *immune to all fire from a single unit attack hitting at 10 or ten grunts simul attacking at 1)

so even rolling snakes eyes for your titan = (2 x 10) + 10 = 30 defense points. To avoid the hit in this particular case of attack of 88 dice adding up to 8 would be required. The +10 base topping it up to a 90..thus a save.







NOW just think about this ,.... ive just fairly and engagingly resolved a huge barrage of fire by rolling just two die



above points taken and somewhat agreed upon .......this my 2 bags of gold answer

( add as many fluff and counter fluff rolls as you like to either side , and for whatever reason you like BUT the out come of your system will be near identical to mine in all instances +/- an insignificant % point or two)

can you show me 10 Space Marines with a Missile Launcher firing at 30 Orks in light cover?

I don't quite understand.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Bullets do funny things. Sometimes they zip right through without hitting anything vital. Sometimes they shatter bones and splatter vital organs. Sometimes they ricochet off of bones and hit vital organs. You really never know what's going to happen until you roll the dice.

well put!

I belive the OP is saying the NUMBER of dice rolls is too many.
Because the dice are used in a DETEMINISTIC way.
Eg
The FIXED value X,any dice roll result over value X= pass, any dice roll result under value X =fail.

So a SM has EXCACTLY the same chance to hit ANY type of target ANYWHERE in weapon range.
An SM armed with a Missile launcher has the same chance to hit a Chaos land raider 2" away as he does a single remining grot 42" away.Which is counter intuitive.

The 'to wound' and 'to'save rolls' mechanics are then relied on to try to put the variatiuon back into the results.
Which just abstracts the process and results in detachment from real world tactics, and put the game purley into 'using the rules to your advantage.'

IF we simply copied real world interaction , we could arrive at more detailed interations , with LESS dice rolling and less abstraction.

Stage ONE.
Find them.(Aquisition)
Using a SINGLE dice (D10 or D20) roll over your intended targets Stealth Value to positivley identify them and bring weapons to bear.)

If we use a D20 we can get 5% granulation between a units stealth value.(This gives us a BASIC 4X more detail than the fixed value on a D6 to hit.)

We can then use simple modifiers to cover the other variables .Eg
Add to targets steath value..
Target in cover +1
Target over 36" away +1
Target using stealth equipment.+1

Add to attackers Aquisition roll.
Attacker stationary+1
Attacker within 18" of intended target.+1
Attacker using targeting equipment+1

The attacker makes an Aquisition roll, if they fail to aquire the target the attacking unit take NO further action.
(No 'targeting reastrictions required' as the variance in aquisition values make sense, and players simply decide how mutch risk they wan to take.).

This straightforward mechanic covers all elements of target and attacker disposition (dependant on wht modifiers we use.)
And so thier is a LOT of detail covered with ONE dice roll.

Stage TWO
Fix them.(Open fire and hope to supress-immobilise.)
If we simply determine a units ability to shoot by saying its effective range is the range its members WILL HIT AT.
EG
A poor shot with a lazer rifle will only have an effective range of 18"(Conscript.)
An average shot with a laser rifle may have an effective range of 24"(Guardsman)
An exellent shot may have an effective range of 30" with the same weapon.

We smply list the weapons effects when combined with the users ability.

Weapons are developed to inflict damage .
Armour is developed to prevent -reduce damage.

Weapon damage - armour value = save roll required.

So roll 1 DICE to spot target,(dependant on target size, distanace and disposition).

(Hits AUTOMATICALY determined by weapon and user skill.)

Roll to save based on comparative weapon and armour values.

This simple example showsl far less dice rolling , with FAR more detail achicved in a more intuitive way.
(Which allows room for intergrated supression mechanics and far more morale, command and control detail too!)

I got to go now, Dentists apointment...

I can't really see anything wrong with rolling to wound. I think it makes sense. If you rolling to wound was removed things wouldn't make sense that much. You shoot a guardsman with a bolter and hit so manage to damage it. You shoot a carnifex with a bolter and hit and manage to damage it although the fex way more resistant to a bolter round than a guardsman. Makes more sense to me to compare the strength of the weapon to the toughness of the target.

What are these games in which a hit is a hit? Most combat video games, both FPS and RTS, have health bars and individual weapons do varying amounts of damage. That's your equivalent of the wound roll. And which board games simulate combat? Risk? Most tabletop wargames have a wound roll of some sort.

I like rolling the large numbers of dice, its why i play this game. If i wanted to roll less dice and have faster games Id start playing herclix again. LEAVE MY GAME ALONE!
But seriously, a few of the reasons people I know play this game are: A. It makes for long interesting games that can have some very fun results. EX. a marine runs up and rapid fires a grot and fails to kill him. Next turn the grot shoots him in the face and drops the marine. That just makes for a funny time.
B. The more dice rolls you have in a game the better your chances are for rolling to an average or a statistic. I used to play heroclix and with the low number of dice rolls the average just doesnt play out in a single game.

Short answer to the OPs question.
NO.

Long asnwer.
If you deduct the defence value of the target from the damage value of the weapon, to get the chance of saving the hit.
You replace the UNECISSARY to wound roll with a direct and proportional save roll.(By moving away from using dice in a deterministic way.)

Play the game that makes you happiest.(If you cant find one you like out of the 100s available , modify one or develop your own.)

The man that developed the rules for 40k, Rick Priestly.Called the game mechanics of 40k '...old fashioned and clunky...'
Its like the abstracted minature proportions, you like it or you dont.

Play the game that makes you happiest.(If you cant find one you like out of the 100s available , modify one or develop your own.)

So you suggest we remove the entire concept of strength and toughness from the game?

Melissia wrote:So you suggest we remove the entire concept of strength and toughness from the game?

Yes. They should roll equal or above their initiative or die.

Too much rolling. Let's remove initiative as well.

Hell, let's just have units moving around on the tabletop. If you shout "bang" convincingly enough, your choice of target dies.

Because if your play a large army like orks or nids, then rolling huge handfuls of dice is so awesome!

Indeed it is.

I mean, who doesn't want to roll 60 dice at the same time?

It was a hilarious little event

You could technically get 120 Strength 4 attacks out of a Boyz mob of 30 with extra hand weapons on the charge

Kravox wrote:You could technically get 120 Strength 4 attacks out of a Boyz mob of 30 with extra hand weapons on the charge

Holey Crap! Now what if we didn't roll to wound!?

Nobody would die!

Is this a serious question, lol?

So, you want to eliminate "wounding" from the game and a hit is a hit, eh? So a S3 lasgun is EXACTLY the same as a S10 railgun.

Your position sounds AWESOME and extremely well-analyzed.

Wounding is a necessary part, but if you explained your two step system properly there might be a change of heart

Skarboy wrote:Is this a serious question, lol?

So, you want to eliminate "wounding" from the game and a hit is a hit, eh? So a S3 lasgun is EXACTLY the same as a S10 railgun.

Your position sounds AWESOME and extremely well-analyzed.

Okay, seriously now, the point is that adjusting "to hit" to a greater extent doesn't really make a difference. The way everyone's said it, it seems as though causing wounds is only determined by attacker's stats. Hello, there's a reason that models have a Toughness and Armour Save, and that's to make it a consideration when choosing models and pricing them in terms of points.

Plus, it's very logical, even if not exactly like IRL. It would mean that the game is way too biased toward shooting, and Ork Boyz would never ever assault again.

There isn't enough of a degree of differentiation between the different rolls on a D6, and we DON'T all suddenly want to start playing with D20s.

I think the OP's question is just a lack of experience in game mechanics. Nearly every game out there is geared to having the player control one guy or a unit of guys at most. GW has strayed away from the 150hp character in favor of small armies. So rather than rolling to see how much damage a hit generates it is simplified to whether or not enough damage is generate to outright kill an average soldier. So in short, yes every well thought out game has a way to measure the damage of a hit. GW's version is Boolean vs scaling.

Could you even imagine trying to keep track of the Hp's of a 180 boy ork mob?

And it's far batter than Risk etc. because you can make it look like one Boy represents one Boy, and not an entire battalion.

Thus, unit special rules and in fact the entire gaming system fall into place form there


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CageUF wrote:
Could you even imagine trying to keep track of the Hp's of a 180 boy ork mob?

And max 6 wounds means you can just use a D6 next to the model!

I love how the entire system is based around the D6...

Sam__theRelentless wrote:And it's far batter than Risk etc. because you can make it look like one Boy represents one Boy, and not an entire battalion.

Thus, unit special rules and in fact the entire gaming system fall into place form there


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CageUF wrote:
Could you even imagine trying to keep track of the Hp's of a 180 boy ork mob?

And max 6 wounds means you can just use a D6 next to the model!

I love how the entire system is based around the D6...

Just because it's a D6 system doesn't mean that six is the max number.

Sam__theRelentless wrote:Hell, let's just have units moving around on the tabletop. If you shout "bang" convincingly enough, your choice of target dies.

That would be an awesome way to play if you were drinking!

a 2d6 based table top war game? Oh. you mean Battletech.

I love that game.

The OP's description of shooting sounds more complicated then the current version.

Ill try to explain an alternative method.

A models ability to withstand damage , (armour AND toughness are combined together in to ONE value).Armour/Resistance to damage.(A.R.)
ALL models are given an apropriate AR value, from 1(wet vest save), to 20 (Warlord Titan front armour).

All weapon have a Damage Value.(DV)From 5 to 15.(An alternative name for the strenght characteristic.)

Simply deduct the AR value from the DV to determine the save roll required.

EG Ork Boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolt gun DV 7.
7-2=5 therfore the Ork boy saves on a 5+

A CSM AR 4 is hit by a bolt gun DV7.
7-4=3. therfore the CSM saves on a 3+

This gives natural invunerability to some units vs some weapons , and auto wound to some models from some weapons.

ONLY specialist 'Anti tank' weapons get a bonus to Armour penetration ,(similar to the penetration bonus as currently used in 40k)
Specialised anti Infantry weapons get a bonus to supression .
Other specialised weapons can have area of effect-ignore cover ,(similar to current 40k rules.)


So rather than having to use 3 seperate sytems ,AP vs SV, Inv vs special rules and AV vs S.
We could use just ONE system for all unit types.
(Damage tables for vehicles and MCs , supression for other units.)

Melissia wrote:

Sam__theRelentless wrote:And it's far batter than Risk etc. because you can make it look like one Boy represents one Boy, and not an entire battalion.

Thus, unit special rules and in fact the entire gaming system fall into place form there


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CageUF wrote:
Could you even imagine trying to keep track of the Hp's of a 180 boy ork mob?

And max 6 wounds means you can just use a D6 next to the model!

I love how the entire system is based around the D6...

Just because it's a D6 system doesn't mean that six is the max number.

Yes I know. I thought a Trygon had the most wounds.... I do know that, but still, what I meant was the whole way it's done with 50-50 on a 4+ and being able to bring chances down to 1/6 or 1/36.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And etc. etc.

It's a good system!

Lanrak wrote:Ill try to explain an alternative method.

A models ability to withstand damage , (armour AND toughness are combined together in to ONE value).Armour/Resistance to damage.(A.R.)
ALL models are given an apropriate AR value, from 1(wet vest save), to 20 (Warlord Titan front armour).

All weapon have a Damage Value.(DV)From 5 to 15.(An alternative name for the strenght characteristic.)

Simply deduct the AR value from the DV to determine the save roll required.

EG Ork Boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolt gun DV 7.
7-2=5 therfore the Ork boy saves on a 5+

A CSM AR 4 is hit by a bolt gun DV7.
7-4=3. therfore the CSM saves on a 3+

This gives natural invunerability to some units vs some weapons , and auto wound to some models from some weapons.

ONLY specialist 'Anti tank' weapons get a bonus to Armour penetration ,(similar to the penetration bonus as currently used in 40k)
Specialised anti Infantry weapons get a bonus to supression .
Other specialised weapons can have area of effect-ignore cover ,(similar to current 40k rules.)


So rather than having to use 3 seperate sytems ,AP vs SV, Inv vs special rules and AV vs S.
We could use just ONE system for all unit types.
(Damage tables for vehicles and MCs , supression for other units.)

Ummm I actually like this...

Is there enough variability in this system to keep it exciting though? Maybe a roll of a 1 should *always fail* even in those cases where the Resistance Value is incredibly high. This would represent that lucky shot to an eyeball or graze of a nutsack... i'm serious

The game would be more random if you had less dice rolls to make because it would skew the deviation of results even if the odds were the same. Throwing 30 dice and needing 4+ would result in roughly 15 successes, maybe 13-17, but it would be pretty close to 15. Throwing 3 dice and needing 4+s will result in probably 1 or 2 successes, a much larger difference in results relative to the value range, and there would be a 1/8 chance of a perfect 3/3 or 0/3 result, compared to the almost impossible chance of rolling 30/30 in the former example. This game is random enough already, and rolling dice is half the fun anyways! the suspense as you count the number of successes/failures after throwing a huge handful of dice is awesome.

swuk wrote:do we realy need to roll for wounds ?

Yes.

swuk wrote:I just cant see the point of rolling to hit AND then having to roll for wounds

Then stop playing 40k. You seem to have a major impairment.

swuk wrote:Of the hundreds of games i have played , board and pc , a hit is a hit is a hit

And a wound is a wound is a wound.

swuk wrote:while i understand why you might want an expensive unit to be damaged in stages i cant realy see the point of rolling for wounds apart from a " dice smoothing , hit reducing effect"

No, if this was the case, the game would take 20 minutes i.e; boring.

swuk wrote:this is achieved in other games by simply making it harder to hit in the first place.

A carnifex is as hard to see as a guardsmen? I think not.
Also, most games, PC or no have some form of D-rolling.
DOW for example, the combat damage is expressed as something like 10~30 right? That's the same as 10D3 [10 three-sided dice.]

swuk wrote:There seems to be a great deal of rolling for nothing in warhammer 40k , A geekoid / Games workshop desire to roll 30 dice in 5 stages when rolling a couple in 2 stages would suffice

The basis of all wargames, of all RPGs is rolling dice. if you want efficiency and fewer dice rolls, go play PC games or FPS. You are noob.

swuk wrote: AND YIELD THE SAME OUTCOME

No they don't. there's less potential for a carnifex being brought low by a simple lasgun being so awesome.

if It wasn't 4+ 6+ 3+, it'd be rather boring.

swuk wrote:someone please explain to me why warhammer 40k finds itself the spot on the domino in a universe where concise & efficient combat systems utterly dominate

Uhhh.... what? Your system leaves many grey areas where things aren't explained. okay, so the monster is wounded! how was he wounded? how did that fething flashlight manage to do a killing blow to such a gargant?

swuk wrote:rant over , lol

No, it wasn't a rant. it was a waste of keystrokes.

swuk wrote:KISS ( keep it simple stupid what does KIS mean?) should be the name of the game ,

Your method is confusing as well.

I for one love rolling dice. it's the best part of the game, the whole reason your average gamer games. seeing all those sixes makes us smile. it gives us a chance to see our games come to life.

if you don't like rolling dice, seriously, find a new hobby. to me, you're the worst kind of gamer.

Someone who looks for efficiency in a Pass-time isn't going to pass the time particularly well, is he now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:Ill try to explain an alternative method.

A models ability to withstand damage , (armour AND toughness are combined together in to ONE value).Armour/Resistance to damage.(A.R.)
ALL models are given an apropriate AR value, from 1(wet vest save), to 20 (Warlord Titan front armour).

All weapon have a Damage Value.(DV)From 5 to 15.(An alternative name for the strenght characteristic.)

Simply deduct the AR value from the DV to determine the save roll required.

EG Ork Boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolt gun DV 7.
7-2=5 therfore the Ork boy saves on a 5+

A CSM AR 4 is hit by a bolt gun DV7.
7-4=3. therfore the CSM saves on a 3+

This gives natural invunerability to some units vs some weapons , and auto wound to some models from some weapons.

ONLY specialist 'Anti tank' weapons get a bonus to Armour penetration ,(similar to the penetration bonus as currently used in 40k)
Specialised anti Infantry weapons get a bonus to supression .
Other specialised weapons can have area of effect-ignore cover ,(similar to current 40k rules.)


So rather than having to use 3 seperate sytems ,AP vs SV, Inv vs special rules and AV vs S.
We could use just ONE system for all unit types.
(Damage tables for vehicles and MCs , supression for other units.)

This could work. But I'm not looking to remove my damage roll.

I was simply showing a more straight forward alternative, to the current damage resolution methods used in 40k,5th ed.

40k is written with the 'rule of cool' and throwing lots of dice, in mind.(And with a heavier strategic loading than most other games.)

It is written for a specific demoghraphic.If you are that demoghraphic you will not see anything much wrong with the rule set.

However, if you are NOT the demoghraphic GW plc target, you may find the 40k rule sets and game play , not ...'realistic'....'intuitive'...'elegant'....'tactical'...enough for your tastes.

So simply play an alternative rule set that is closer to your preferences. (However, if you are limiting yourself to playing in GW stores, you would have to set up an altrnative venue.)

Do NOT belive that 40k is a simple rule set.Just because it delivers simple gameplay.(40k has complicated rules, with lots of unecissary resolution systems , caused by using inapropriate game mechanics.)
Most other rule sets deliver far more gameplay, with far fewer pages of rules.

@Deuce11.
If the rest of the rules follow this level of clarity and brevity.You have plenty of room for more detailed effects on units, and the ability to increase unit interaction by using a more interactive game turn.

Most of the games I play give the players a wide amount of in game chioce, which add to the amount of enjoyment for gamers that like tacticaly rich rules, written with clarity and brevity.

Which are NOT the demoghraphic GW plc are targeting.

Take it from someone who has been shot in the leg with a rifle - I don't care if it's more complex, I'm just glad he had the extra opportunity to fail to kill me.

Incidentally it was an accident and no one was trying to kill anyone.

Think of it in terms of template weapons. You 'hit' an area but may not kill everyone in that area. A single shot is just a smaller scale of the same thing.

I was actually thinking of this too....

But yes, we do. They're separate things. A hit wound is "hey, did this guy royally fail to shoot his gun?" and a wound roll is "oh hey, did that actually hit him or not?". Then you get into saves, which are like "Oh hey, did this guy's loincloth protect him from my lasgun?"

Samus_aran115 wrote:I was actually thinking of this too....

But yes, we do. They're separate things. A hit wound is "hey, did this guy royally fail to shoot his gun?" and a wound roll is "oh hey, did that actually hit him or not?". Then you get into saves, which are like "Oh hey, did this guy's loincloth protect him from my lasgun?"

Too many here are trying to justify rules as interpretations of real life when in the end the rules are abstract interpretation of real life. Hitting could mean hitting with a degree of lethality, ignoring other "hits" that can be shaken off. Justifications can be made.

Scenario: "I'm firing my machine gun with exploding rounds at you! OK roll two di for a bolter. I hit with one. The exploding shells didn't wound you. Don't even worry about armor..." Kinda dumb when you think of the fluff that rules or supposed to be representing now doesn't it?

I like thinking about game mechanics and how they can represent the 'reality' as much as possible. Sometimes though I get too caught up in making it realistic and the rules get a little complicated, so I scrap the idea. I can appreciate that people have brought this "do we really need to roll for wounds" up, because all of the rules are worth thinking about. Just reading through the rules then though I did feel a little bit like the dice rolls were just being replaced by maths, so dice rolling was taking up by tallying up the values of various stuff.

I dont mind maths myself but a think a lot of people would be put off by all those numbers being the largest determining factor. Dice rolls make things more random. I think thats what a lot of people like. Also, you can lose someone in the numbers (much like looking up the rules in the middle of a tense combat) where as they can see progress with each stage of dice rolling and it keeps people interrested. You can start off rolling 100 dice and through hits, wounds, armour and special rules, it could all come down to 1 roll, by that point people are screaming with dismay or joy at the result on that tiny, numbered cube.

I quite like rollinga a bunch of dice, but I understand that some poeple just dont really want the bother of them flying all over the room, is that one cocked? etc. Thanks for suggesting an alternative though.

typical video gamers mindset.

Multiple rolling of dice is the cornerstone of GW rules systems. Obviously you could reduce everything to say a 20 sided dice or percentiles. You could build in the average and reduce a squad firing to a single dice.

e.g. BS 4 = 67% chance to hit. S4 vs T4 = 50% chance to wound. AC3 vs AP5 33% to effect. So approximately 11% chance of a kill per shot = 1 or 2 on d20 = dead target.

Abstraction has been mentioned.
A good rule set abstracts the process of determining results ,to speed up resolution.It does NOT abstract the results themselves.

Thefore using numerical values to define abilities , and using direct comparison of these value to determine results.(% chance of sucess.)
Abstracts the complex data involved in real world interaction , into a simple format , that can be resolved quickly.

The best games,IMO.Use a mix of single high value dice,(to detrermine a units behaviour,) and multiple D6 to resolve damage.

Eg
Attacker Roll to spot target.(Single D10)
If sucessful.
Target rolls to save attacks in range.(Multiple D6)

Attacker rolls for supression/damage table on vehicles &MCs.

Counterintuitive and abstract resolution methods have a good home in 40k.Any modern intuitive and elegant resolution looks far out of place in 40k.

Cover altering the chance to see/hit the target?
Not in 40k, lets give them a SEPERATE FIXED save value , thats ONLY ignored by weapons with a special rule...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:typical video gamers mindset.

typical wargamer snobbery.

Deuce11 wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:typical video gamers mindset.

typical wargamer snobbery.

This person, if he/she played D&D would also question the need to roll damage for an attack. "I rolled above my number, why don't I just automatically kill the dragon?"

Game mechanics survive for a reason, and that reason is that they are working.

Also, because they make sense.

Strength vs toughness is a perfectly reasonable roll to determine the outcome of a weapon/assault's effect against a victim.

It's like if you attacked a person with high defense in an RPG... your attack does less damage to them than the one with low defense. The wound represents them having taken enough damage that they were no longer able to function as soldiers.

Hang on a sec, what is the purpose of this thread? I'm not even sure anymore... Obviously a question was asked, an lots of people have their own answers and opinions which they are entitled to...

...but isnt the simple answer if you like one perticular style of gameplay resolution you should stick to that game, unless you feel so strongly about it, I guess the next step would be to start a petition and go to the games compony that you disagree with to get them to change their rules.

I dont know, things just seem to have got a bit intense. Cant we all just have a big cuddle or something?

I think wh40k would have a lot more players if it didn't have such a complex game mechanics system

I agree with Lanrak that using just 1 main system , ( + a little fudge here) and there would be the way to go

If you want my truly honest opinion , it seems like the wh40k system is designed for " a class of human being " who hold superstitious beliefs that if they roll enough dice for enough different reasons then this gives them some kind of psychological crutch or table advantage. ( high complexity does allow for excess bottom feeding , aka noob bashing , nothing new here. Its common in computer games )

Units , move , shoot , die or run away...in general that is all they ever do. One does not need a wall of obfuscation to resolve this.



I think all these dice & rules just give some peeps a nerdgasm ....it makes naff all difference to the out come...any one with the maths gene as it where knows this
Ive never seen the value in having two opposing sides throw exceptions to the rules at each other , only to be met by a " counter to the exceptions of the rules "






well its GW losing the pounds ( lost sales ) not me , GWs output is just another example of glossy hype over substance....i just never realized just how bad this aspect was till i picked up the plastic. This has exaggerated my disappointment. As a lifelong war-gamer i was expecting something a lot more polished after 20 years of development



>>>>>>>>>>> In a nutshell warhmmer is just bloatware on a sprue <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< that much is plain to see

An exercise in how much bs can be squeezed into a tiny playing area and a couple of fistfuls of units....im not exactly impressed...nor should i have any reason to be



yes the plastic is of decent grade & detail , yes they look pwetty when painted , yes there is enough of fluff and variety

But..and there are a lot of buts ! Its Expensive , Styling of the miniatures is overly ornamental and weak ( Not Iconic , bordering on bland ) ...& dont mention the game mechanics ! , they fail even casual inspection.



warhammer lies in the same basket/corner as Risk , an attractive box of bits foisted upon the ignorant who know no better and have little competition to choose from . After a while the words war hammer and Risk come to represent their ilk, but they are the backward children of the family nonetheless. Mildly entertaining yes , but deeply flawed. ( That's a pragmatist viewpoint not an elitist )

COULD DO BETTER.....SO MUCH BETTER

one day the world will see , and the SO MUCH BETTER will stick. It will take a big wave to knock the giants of their rusty pedestals. The world that created risk and wh has long since ceased to exist. Computerland & the internet became the new frontier...and this is why the reason these plastic dinosaurs still roam the earth. But there's a couple of comets out there with their name on....its just a matter of time.

Man... relax, its just a game.

swuk wrote:I think wh40k would have a lot more players if it didn't have such a complex game mechanics system

Wait, wait, wait... so the price HAS NOTHING to do with it? People are willing to learn, they're just not willing to fork out lots of money to get into it.

that's another story.

swuk wrote:If you want my truly honest opinion , it seems like the wh40k system is designed for " a class of human being " who hold superstitious beliefs that if they roll enough dice for enough different reasons then this gives them some kind of psychological crutch or table advantage. ( high complexity does allow for excess bottom feeding , aka noob bashing , nothing new here. Its common in computer games )

I thought computer games were more simple? make up your mind, man!

swuk wrote:Units , move , shoot , die or run away...in general that is all they ever do. One does not need a wall of obfuscation to resolve this.

I think you need to learn not to obfuscate yourself before you use it in sentences.

Also, squads act GRIMDARK.

swuk wrote:I think all these dice & rules just give some peeps a nerdgasm ....it makes naff all difference to the out come... any one with the maths gene as it where knows this

Why would you bring up the 'math gene' as it were If, what you mean is the end result is the same, sure, you could be right. But, I think any one with half a brain would realise that a 4+4+4+ is different to a 4+4+.
in fact, it'd make a 50% difference to the end result, if we remove all 4's.

1d6; a 4+ = Suc. = 50% chance
1D6; a 4+/4+ = Suc. = 25% chance
1D6; a 4+/4+/4+ = Suc = 12.5% chance

So, yeah it doe make a difference.

swuk wrote:Ive never seen the value in having two opposing sides throw exceptions to the rules at each other , only to be met by a " counter to the exceptions of the rules "

You've been playing yu-gi-oh again, haven't you? Who doesn't remember those trap chains in sixth grade

swuk wrote:well its GW losing the pounds ( lost sales ) not me , GWs output is just another example of glossy hype over substance....i just never realized just how bad this aspect was till i picked up the plastic. This has exaggerated my disappointment. As a lifelong war-gamer i was expecting something a lot more polished after 20 years of development

As I'm unable to say I'm a lifelong wargamer, as my mind for math and logic would suggest that's impossible [oh, are we gonna go figurative now?]

Again, GW is loosing 'the pounds' [y'know, you could've just said money. it would've taken you 19 less characters to do that!] because it is so expensive.

swuk wrote:In a nutshell warhmmer is just bloatware on a sprue that much is plain to see

Bloatware? I'm sorry hon, I think you'd find 120- pages of rules isn't massively oversized you'd find its barely 10 meg. 40k doesn't really suffer from featureitus; rather, it suffers from a lack of features leading it to be rather bland in places. I for one would love to see more damage tables for tanks, to suggest more kinds of damage. I want tanks to have living crew, who could matter after the tank is destroyed.

swuk wrote:An exercise in how much bs can be squeezed into a tiny playing area and a couple of fistfuls of units....im not exactly impressed...nor should i have any reason to be

again, if you're so upset about 40k as it is, stop crying about it and go and play another game.

swuk wrote:yes the plastic is of decent grade & detail , yes they look pwetty when painted , yes there is enough of fluff and variety But..and there are a lot of buts ! Its Expensive , Styling of the miniatures is overly ornamental and weak ( Not Iconic , bordering on bland ) ...& dont mention the game mechanics ! , they fail even casual inspection.warhammer lies in the same basket/corner as Risk , an attractive box of bits foisted upon the ignorant who know no better and have little competition to choose from . After a while the words war hammer and Risk come to represent their ilk, but they are the backward children of the family nonetheless. Mildly entertaining yes , but deeply flawed. ( That's a pragmatist viewpoint not an elitist )COULD DO BETTER.....SO MUCH BETTER one day the world will see , and the SO MUCH BETTER will stick. It will take a big wave to knock the giants of their rusty pedestals. The world that created risk and wh has long since ceased to exist. Computerland & the internet became the new frontier...and this is why the reason these plastic dinosaurs still roam the earth. But there's a couple of comets out there with their name on....its just a matter of time.

WHOA WHOA WHOA. You're a wargamer of 20 years and you DON'T like wargaming models? Well, shove me over and figuratively screw me sideways, WOTC isn't wargames. RISK isn't a wargame. TF2, MOH, Company of heroes, Crysis.

all those games? Their concepts came from the humble wargame. they rely on dice rolls. Have you ever noticed sometimes a simple sniper rifle in the head WON'T kill your target, but sometimes, a derringer in the leg will? Dice rolls, baby. games are full of them.

seriously, if you have this deep seated anger against warhammer, I think you need to rethink your hobbies.

You sir, are hurting yourself.

Magic cards are calling.

Sounds like you wanna turn 40k more into hordes or something -_- I don't mind the current system; rolling dice is fun. Plus, its always interesting when it comes down to 1 dice roll!

I kinda wish I could just offer everyone a tea/coffee/hot chocolate.... and some cookies. Isnt everyone at least in agreement that everyone has their own prefrence and that its ok to not all like the same thing?

I was intregued by the title of the thread, but unaware at how much chaos those simple words were going to catalyse.

swuk wrote:I think wh40k would have a lot more players if it didn't have such a complex game mechanics system

COMPLEX!? A 120-page rulebook. Max 3 layers of d6 rolls. less than ten of each: weapons classes, unit types, model characteristics, etc. Two tables to remember, both of which are just equations. Please explain to me how exactly 40k's rules system is complex. I know there are a lot of grey areas which are discussed on YMDC but that would happen with any ruleset.

The OP required a consensual justification about why we actually need to roll for wounds, and most of the responses thus far have been constructive to that extent. Nevertheless, this really shouldn't be getting heated, as Azwaz suggests. Negativity is acceptable, we know GW is not perfect, but please justify it appropriately.

Rolling to wound, aside from really balancing the game and removing a lot of the luck, is a representation of a model's ability to withstand physical damage. Just because you can hit a Carnifex doesn't mean you're going to hurt it. For instance, if I fire a lasgun at it...it might leave a little scorch mark on the thing's hide and just piss it off. Now, if I fire a lascannon the chance that I will hurt the thing has increased extremely.

Also, if we just start rolling to hit and then removing models without checking to wound, i'll sell all my orks.

Everything in Warhammer 40K is supposed to be a simulation of real time events.

Rolling to hit, wound, save are happening in real time. You are rolling dice to factor in the event in three stages.

A bolter round hits a Dire Avenger(hit), he gets knocked flat on his back (the round wounds) Since the round hit a strong point on his body armor, the shaken Dire Avenger gets back up and keeps shooting (armor save).

This is rolling to hit/wound/save at work.


Plus, if you took wounding out, Guard Platoons would be wrecking everything with 100 shots and 150 at 12 inches.

Deuce11 wrote:

Lanrak wrote:Ill try to explain an alternative method.

A models ability to withstand damage , (armour AND toughness are combined together in to ONE value).Armour/Resistance to damage.(A.R.)
ALL models are given an apropriate AR value, from 1(wet vest save), to 20 (Warlord Titan front armour).

All weapon have a Damage Value.(DV)From 5 to 15.(An alternative name for the strenght characteristic.)

Simply deduct the AR value from the DV to determine the save roll required.

EG Ork Boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolt gun DV 7.
7-2=5 therfore the Ork boy saves on a 5+

A CSM AR 4 is hit by a bolt gun DV7.
7-4=3. therfore the CSM saves on a 3+

This gives natural invunerability to some units vs some weapons , and auto wound to some models from some weapons.

ONLY specialist 'Anti tank' weapons get a bonus to Armour penetration ,(similar to the penetration bonus as currently used in 40k)
Specialised anti Infantry weapons get a bonus to supression .
Other specialised weapons can have area of effect-ignore cover ,(similar to current 40k rules.)


So rather than having to use 3 seperate sytems ,AP vs SV, Inv vs special rules and AV vs S.
We could use just ONE system for all unit types.
(Damage tables for vehicles and MCs , supression for other units.)

Ummm I actually like this...

Is there enough variability in this system to keep it exciting though? Maybe a roll of a 1 should *always fail* even in those cases where the Resistance Value is incredibly high. This would represent that lucky shot to an eyeball or graze of a nutsack... i'm serious

This is how warzone did it. It worked pretty well actually. Armor basically made you tougher, there was no separate armor save. To wound and armor were the same roll. If you rolled a perfect to hit you got a bonus to wound also. It was quicker, I did feel a little helpless at first because I was use to getting to have an armor save. I got over it and it actually seamed more real eventually.

Everything in Warhammer 40K is supposed to be a simulation of real time events.

Chortle! That made me laugh! As I have been told many times when I complain about reality on this site, 40k and reality are not meant to be the same.

You know, if you want, you can just use the Dark Heresy combat system, and accomplish the same thing with d100s and d10s.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:You know, if you want, you can just use the Dark Heresy combat system, and accomplish the same thing with d100s and d10s.

I don't know about that. There's a certain fun to be had rolling 100 d6s, as opposed to six d100s. Ask any Ork or Nid player: this is why they play!

Sam theRelentless.
Thats why its good to roll saves on D6s !

The method I proposed simply combines the toughness and armour together to remove one unesicary dice roll.(The roll to wound.)

And then allows for another stage later in the process , detailed damage on vehicles -MCs, supresion on other unit types.

Its is dificult to justify removing 'to wound' rollls out of the current 40k game.
As the level of abstraction is so high , all discussions are subjective personal opinion.

Lanrak wrote:Sam theRelentless.
Thats why its good to roll saves on D6s !

The method I proposed simply combines the toughness and armour together to remove one unesicary dice roll.(The roll to wound.)

And then allows for another stage later in the process , detailed damage on vehicles -MCs, supresion on other unit types.

Its is dificult to justify removing 'to wound' rollls out of the current 40k game.
As the level of abstraction is so high , all discussions are subjective personal opinion.

No, I like your idea... But I just think it's not that big an issue, you only have to roll the dice 3 times anyway. Nevertheless, I think the Acquisition stage is unnecessary, instead what you said in your general suggestion was something along the lines of range impacting BS. This could fly somewhere given refinement.

Much unlike a Land Raider. They cannot fly no matter how much refinement they are given.

Sam_the Relentless.
There are lots of game mechanics used to resolve units attacking at range.
They ALL use some, or all , of the following to determine sucess.

Roll to see, roll to hit, roll to damage ,roll to save.

If the units ranged weapon ability is defined by thier 'effectve range' with that weapon.
Eg the range they WILL hit a target.(Better shots hit things further away.)

Then rolling to hit is unecissary as it is determined by a fixed value.

Therfore rolling to 'spot' a target before you shoot at it is the logical method to use .(Roll to see then apply hits in range.)

As the hitting is 'automatic'.Then rolling saves proportional to the damage inflicted -AR , is also a logical step.

And then determining detailed damage results after the armour has hopfuly reduced the damage inflicted.

EG
Rather than ;-
Assuming a fixed chance to hit anything anywhere in range.(Counter intuitive.)
Then rolling to cause damage.
Then rolling to prevent damage .(The armour sucks out the bullet heals the target and self repairs!Counter intuitive.)

Roll to spot a target.(Roll over the targets [modified] stealth value.)
Roll to save hits on the target from weapons within effective range.
Determine the effects of the damage in a more detailed way.(Supression & loosing movement or weapons on vehicles ).

We still have a 3 stage process , but it follows the natural progression of RL interaction, so it is NOT counter intuitive.

I am NOT suggesting this should be used in 40k.
But for a straightforward tactical action, combat simulation of modern-sci fi warfare.
It would be far more prferable than the Napoleonic game mechanics borrowed form WHFB that 40k still uses...

Well, this certainly makes a lot of sense, and I'm inclined to agree that the game mechanic needs more work on weapons ranges.

However, I think everyone's decided that the OP's point is pretty much invalid, we could just use a few refinements but rolling "to wound" or eq is pretty vital.

Sam_theRelentless.
The OP point is NOT realy valid in the current 40k rule set.

But within other rule sets, or a complete re-write it IS.

Determining the amount of damage is VITAL to damage resolution.

And a 'to wound roll' is one game mechanic you could use.But you do NOT HAVE to use it.As there alternative used by lots of other games .

(I think I have just posted what you wrote using different words.., )

Sorry, rolling to wound or EQUIVALENT is vital, ie some form of comparison between strength and toughness, or equivalent characteristics.

So, yeah, pretty much!

but within other rule sets, or a complete re-write it IS

Eeeeh, the way the OP made out was that he didn't see a point in S-T comparison.

Just because it hit you doesnt mean its killed you or infact done anything.

Its called armour......

overall i rate warhammer 40k 6 out of 10

which is not good considering its had nearly 20 years of development

...its ok , i suppose , but almost every area i look at it comes up a little weak. The rules in particular just dont have grace.

It kind of reminds me of one of those film remakes , production value is high but lacks substance and depth

While i appreciate for some its collecting , for others its painting or modding and that its not primarily designed as a game it has to be said that the game side of things has suffered from being quartered & unnecessarily so

http://investor.games-workshop.com/about_the_hobby.aspx

I think stronger more iconic plastic/miniature designs would give it better definition. Squint your eyes and most of the units look like clumps of spaghetti or stamped on meat balls.

I thing GW have just bunged in lots of special powers / characters and fudges to enhance play rather than add branches to a mathematically sound trunk of a rule set.

Lord Atlas Grimm wrote:Just because it hit you doesnt mean its killed you or infact done anything.

Its called armour......

I agree there needs to be a woll to wound, but the armor is the armor save roll

to me the need to roll to would falls into a catagory of where you hit/ how hard. for example, you hit somebody in the arm with a .22 long rifle shell it'll hurt and if you hit an artury it'll certainly so some dmg, but if you hit them in the muscle it isn't going to likely do much mroe than hurt them, now hit somebody with something more powerful like a smith and wesson special 500 (biggest hang gun comercially available) it'll do serious damage if you hit them . that is why you roll to wound... sure you hit them but where did you hit them and how much dmg did the shot do ... and are they tough enough to shrug it off . and if not only THEN does the armor come into play. did the armor plates save the shot

the outcome is the same if you roll 2 dice once ( using my system)

or roll a dozens of dice many times ( using gw system)

at the end of the day units do 3 things , they move , they shoot or they die ( or die in step stages)

yes there are a few exceptions to these 3 simple outcomes , but you dont need to roll 30 dice to see if A ,B or C = true ...just 1 is required mathematically

If there is any point im trying to get across its this one

swuk wrote:the outcome is the same if you roll 2 dice once ( using my system)

or roll a dozens of dice many times ( using gw system)

at the end of the day units do 3 things , they move , they shoot or they die ( or die in step stages)

yes there are a few exceptions to these 3 simple outcomes , but you dont need to roll 30 dice to see if A ,B or C = true ...just 1 is required mathematically

If there is any point im trying to get across its this one

Yes, you do indeed have a point there. Mathematically, you don't even need to roll d6s, just bash the numbers into a computer program.

The point is, people like physically rolling, even if it is a bit silly. Improvements should be made to what the rolls signify... We don't want to replace simple dice-rolling and simple tables with one fat-*ss complicated equation-buster and a single dice roll.

The current process (ie rolling lots of dice) is simply more fun, and from the general consensus of the community it seems as though the only thing that actually needs to change is what the rolls represent.

Don't you like rolling dice, and the satisfying feeling it brings?

I totaly agree that dice rolling should be more defined and representative of the in game action.

40k tends to be rolling lots of dice for the sake of it, while you look at cool minatures.
It sort of detracts from the disjionts and abstraction in the game play.

Most rule sets tend to roll dice for a specific purpouse and well defined outcome, that keeps the players engaged with the flow of the game.

The sort of flow well defined and intuitive rules have ,that unfortunaley 40k simply doesnt....

Lanrak wrote:I totaly agree that dice rolling should be more defined and representative of the in game action.

40k tends to be rolling lots of dice for the sake of it, while you look at cool minatures.
It sort of detracts from the disjionts and abstraction in the game play.

Most rule sets tend to roll dice for a specific purpouse and well defined outcome, that keeps the players engaged with the flow of the game.

The sort of flow well defined and intuitive rules have ,that unfortunaley 40k simply doesnt....

If you want to take the game to a more massive scale, the reduction in dice rolling would be nice. Right now you have 3 rolls to determine the outcome - hit, wound, armor save. This is probably 30 seconds per encounter so going with my generic marine army I have about 15 elements so that is 7.5 minutes per turn times 6 turns and two phases that is 1.5 hours of time spent resolving- given tournament ties, 1.5 hours to resolve and .5 hours to move things around. So 1850 is about the limit with the ways the rules work and a two - hour time limit per round.

So the question is do you want more stuff on the board.

Maybe go make a game based on those rules and see how it fares.

Removing str and toughness from the game makes no sense.

no thanks.

I like our new rules, now all models are pushed around the table and shout "bang" to shoot, and "aaaaarrrrrggg" to die, and then you have to throw your model at the nearest wall(or stomp on it, which ever you prefer) and this way we can increase GW profits!

dajobe.
So you are STILL playing 40k, but throwing minatures instead of dice!

daedalus-templarius.
Removing str and Toughness from 40k mkes no sense.
Useing another rule set might!


(I HAVE written a rough outline for a new rule set. )

lol, i guess that is true, very expensive dice, if it explodes =4,5,6 if not then =1,2,3

Hell man, I love rolling dice. Makes me feel like im playing a high stakes poker game with my little plastic men's lives on the line....muhahahaha.

Rolling to wound makes sense, and helps balance the game in the current system.

If anyone wants to propose a system that would be more balanced, with less dice to roll, I would love to hear and perhaps play test it for them if they wanted.

I'm going the other way, less dice, more tactics. There was a game I played a long time ago, can't remember the name. Everything was percentages that you added up, so you just had to role for the left over fractions. It was like mathhammer. If 5 guys shot at 50% each you got 2 instant hits and had to role over 50% only for the last one. All combat worked that way. It was not a random, so the game was more about planning. If I remember correctly it was a d10 not d100 system and had a magazine called red giant.

Hi all.
There is no right and wrong in game development, just the right or wrong type of game for a particular type of gamer!

If you love throwing big handfuls of dice pushing minatures around ,(and arguing about poorly defined rules,) there is a rule set written just for you!

If you like/want a well defined, intuitive and elegant modern wargame rule set to use your sci fi minatures in, 40k is NOT the best rules set for you!

Play the games you want , using the most apropriate rule sets for YOU.It is YOUR hobby after all...

I think we need to because lets say i get punched by a baby, well that baby hit me but it didn't hurt me at all. So things may land a hit but that doesn't mean they hurt.

As everyone has said, we need a to wound roll.

Now, what I WOULD consider is something like Necromunda with its 'to hit' modifiers instead of coversaves, or BFG where toughness and armor saves are combined into one figure.

However, I don't support simply tearing out the whole strength v. toughness. I mean, I for one, LIKE rolling lots of dice. The look on your opponents face when you announce, "Ok. 170 lasgun shots into that dude." (and the subsequent look on your face when that dude paasses all his armor saves )

Having an issues with the basic rules of the system suggest that you have a basic problem with 40k itself, and it's likely not a game you should be playing. It's sad to lose players, but it's the truth. if something so integral to the game system vexes you so, then find a game that fits you better, or make a game that fits you better.

Not to mention, tbh, some of the posts in here have been very troll~ish....

gpfunk wrote:Hell man, I love rolling dice. Makes me feel like im playing a high stakes poker game with my little plastic men's lives on the line....muhahahaha.

Rolling to wound makes sense, and helps balance the game in the current system.

If anyone wants to propose a system that would be more balanced, with less dice to roll, I would love to hear and perhaps play test it for them if they wanted.

Kissing my own ass here...but I find this system works well, is still balanced, and doesn't take away much from the game. It makes games go by twice as fast, so you can play even more games. It can also reduce time spent playing a 2500 to time normally spent playing 1500. Just barely though Test it out, rules might seem confusing at first, but i found 40K rules even more confusing when i just first started
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/376849.page

I could swear several years ago I read something about other war-gaming groups refusing to get into 40k due to the LACK of in depth rules or some such thing...

does anyone else recall that?

Indeed, a lot of the complaints I've heard about 40k is that its rule set is too simplistic. It's been made simpler, and simpler and simpler in an attempt to reach out to a larger audience.

Frankly, I'm wondering what people think its too complicated. WHen I started playing, I didn't think it was complicated...I just needed some time to get the rules in my head.

ChrisWWII wrote:Indeed, a lot of the complaints I've heard about 40k is that its rule set is too simplistic. It's been made simpler, and simpler and simpler in an attempt to reach out to a larger audience.

Frankly, I'm wondering what people think its too complicated. WHen I started playing, I didn't think it was complicated...I just needed some time to get the rules in my head.

Exactly. GW is not marketing to people who like extremely detailed painstakingly painted miniatures, nor is it for people who play with plastic identical Risk-men. It's trying to hit the middle ground and thus attract the greatest crowd. Same with the rules: it's not overly complicated, but it's not too simple. This is the reason why they are hated by everyone, because they can never fully satisfy anyone.

It's like what someone once said about , something about being good at everything but amazing at nothing. Outfight what you can't outlast, outlast what you can't outfight, that sorta thing.

OT: does anyone know where that's gone? I think its a very memorable dakka quote.

Just to be clear.
40k rules deliver very simple game play.
But the 40k rules ARE overcomplicated.(They use multiple game mechanics and resolution methods to achive the simplistic functions.)

I don't know about all of this. The OPs suggestions of a list of "simple" modifiers quickly becomes pretty complicated once you start diversifing unit abilities in a game.

I remember 2nd edition D&D and the thac0 system and the modifiers to that ended up being ridiculous. Give me a simple hit/wound mechanic that a table is referenced any day over a list of situational modifiers.

Lanrak wrote:Just to be clear.
40k rules deliver very simple game play.

I agree with you there. It's why I enjoy things like BFG and Necromunda...more complicated sometimes makes it more fun.

But the 40k rules ARE overcomplicated.(They use multiple game mechanics and resolution methods to achive the simplistic functions.)

I disagree with you there. The rules themselves are overly simple. I mean, what's the most basic function in 40k? Moving and shooting. Moving? You get to move 6" each turn, regardless of who you are. That's far too simple. Certain things should move faster than others. Yes, I know fleet is supposed to represent that, but sometimes fleet just doesn't help.

SHooting? Roll a d6 to hit. (Simple), roll a d6 to wound (simple) and then roll saves. All you need to remember is a couple charts...I don't see how that's 'overlycomplicated'.

I like it the way it is

ChrisWWII.
The 40k CORE rules ARE simple and DO NOT cover the game play of 40k!

This leads to HAVING to use aditional rules that make the rule set over complicated!
So rather than core rules and special abilities , as in other rule sets.
(Most other rule sets cover special abilities with ,allowing to ignore one condition, re roll dice, or modify a dice roll.Not totaly ignoring the structure of the game like some 40K special rules do. )

40k has,
Core rules.
Universal Special rules.
Vehicle rules .
Codex special rules.

Most rule sets have 2 pages of well defined rules to cover movement.

40k uses 14 pages.(Core , USRS,and vehicle rules.)

Most games define units by game play.
In 40k there are 2 types of unit.
Units that remove models to show damage, and units that record damage seperatley.

40k lists 7 seperate unit types , (and sub types in the USRs and vehicle rules.)
Simply beause the core rules exclude the majority of units, that are not standard infantry.
And 40k is written to sell toy soldiers by magnifying the differences between them with exclusive rules.

Lanrak wrote:
=snip=

Even at its most complicated, 40k rules are not overly complicated.

I'm not getting what your incoherent rant was meant to prove, but from what I can tell is that you're complaining about the rule sets having too many exceptions.

Seriously, even at its worst, 40k special rules let a unit do one thing extra, or block of one thing or something. It's not complicated. I seriously do not get your ranting about how 40k is so complicated and ridiculous...

For 75% of things, you'll only need ther core rules (which include the vehicle rules, and the USR. Anything in the BRB is the 'core rules').

And it seems like you're demanding things be overly simplified. Even looking at the 7 unit types, I can see a big difference between calvary, and say...jump infantry. There are not just 2 types of units in 40k. There are 2 types of damage resolution in 40k, but there are way more than 2 types of units.

Besides, all this is irrelevant. Who cares if there's 3 types of units or 21 as long as the rules themselves don't get too crazy.

ChrisWWII.
OK then,
If it takes 40k 95 pages of rules to cover , what everyone agrees is a simple game.(40k)

Why is it that Firefly can cover ALL land warfare of WWII in historical detail , including air support and enginnering , counter battery fire and radio range finding, all theatres of war and weather conditions .
Offer over 600 detailed unit entries and 45 army lists .
ALL contaned in a 100 page rule book.(Including a solid PV allocation method too!)

Complication does not mean they are hard to understand , but there is a lot of seperate elements to achive the simple result.

Complex means there is ALOT of results/posibilities.

I am proposing the rules SHOULD BE simple and the game play SHOULD BE complex.(Like chess.)

Where as 40k the game play is simple ,(Little options in game.)
And it uses far too many rules to achive it.(Complicated rules.)

Why use AS vs AP, AND AV vs str AND Inv vs special ,AND FNP,Instant death , Eternal Warrior, etc.

When you could use one simple damage resolution to cover ALL unit interaction?

40k is not hard to play.
It just wastes far too many pages on unecissary rules that stop the game play from reaching its full potential.

This isn't exactly hard to learn though ... the interaction of ap and armor saves, feel no pain and its exclusions, etc. are so elementary to struggle with it suggests you should ebay your army and get on with your life. 'One chart to rule them all' would be a giant pain in the ass, its far easier to remember the few rules you need at that very moment then reference an almanac anytime anything happens.

Many rules issues occur from ...

A) Players trying to damn hard too squeeze every ounce of advantage out of a game
B) Codex vs. Rulebook issues where the guy who doesn't have the codex feels boned, but really - every codex 'cheats within the rules' and complaining about it is a waste of time
C) Players who are convinced they are correct and make you show page number and sentence to get something done your way.

B (and most basic rules questions) is just part of the game. A and C are social issues and a sign of bad sportsmanship, not bad rule design - these same guys would try to work the system in any environment.

My name for the A+C people is D****BAGS

A good example of how someone could get hit but not wounded is a soldier being shot in the foot.

They're probably not going to die.

I have never said the rules of 40k were difficult to understand.

Just that because they use the least apropriate game mechnaics there are too many rules , compared to the SIMPLE game play.

GOOD rules have complex gameplay and straightforward rules.(Chess)

BAD rules have complicated rules (lots of them) and simple game play.(40k)

Why not simply use ONE method of resolution for each element of game play?

Less rules to learn= more time to play = good!

Lanrak wrote:I have never said the rules of 40k were difficult to understand.

Just that because they use the least apropriate game mechnaics there are too many rules , compared to the SIMPLE game play.

GOOD rules have complex gameplay and straightforward rules.(Chess)

BAD rules have complicated rules (lots of them) and simple game play.(40k)

Why not simply use ONE method of resolution for each element of game play?

Less rules to learn= more time to play = good!

Eeeh, the problem is that the 40k rules ARE easy to learn.

Movement = 6". Unless you are a vehicle, or a bike, or you are Fast.

Done!

etc. etc. There are many exceptions which people do bang their heads over, and I'm assuming that's what your biggest problem is with.

It seems OP has not played WHFB, play it and learn the rules. After that you wont complain about 40k's rules...

In realistic terms i agree with you but in game terms, it keeps things balanced, like a mega long range squad with a BS of 5 would be massacering left and right. So its a sacrifice for relisticness for balence....ness. Oh and btw dont you find it weird that if you roll to would and acomplish it, how come they get a armor save if i just blew a hole through his chest?

The point is that the events of "shooting dood x" do not happen in the order that the dice are rolled. It should be like that, oh it should, but it isn't. Damn.

You do realize it doesn't in any way affect the chances if you swop your rolls for wounds and saves around. However, this is near impossible in the current ruleset because of the numerous ways in which the base rule has been modified, especially with regards to re-rolls and special power weapons.

Hi Sam_theRelentless.

As you used movement as an example.

Using a movement value, most good rule sets cover ALL unit movement with 2 pages of clear concise rules.
That are just as easy to learn.

Currrently 40k uses 14 pages of rules spread over several sections of the rule book to cover movement.

Thefore 40k uses between 3 and 7 times as many pages of written rules to explain each element of gameplay!

Great games use the most apropriate game mechanics , that allow ONE resolution methos to cover ALL units.

This delivers maximum gameplay , with the minimum amount of rules .

Using the most apropriater game mechnaics 40k could have far more complex game play , with FEWER rules !

Who wouldnt want that?

We do. It's just not possible to change it a little bit at a time like everyone else wants to. To do it effectively, one has to overhaul the entire thing, which is why I think your approach is goping in the right direction. As opposed to "do we really need to roll for wounds?" and suchlike.

I recently played a couple of starter games of Infinity and found their shooting stage to be quite good but I don't think it would en masse ala 30 unit of Orkz.