SisterSydney wrote: Wait, advantage to the person with fewer units or the person with more units?
It probably depends on how you implement unit-by-unit alternation. If we simply go "I move one of mine, you move one of yours, I move one of mine," etc. until both players have moved (or fired or assaulted with) everything, then the person with fewer units gets all his guys done first. Then the person with units left over gets a whole bunch of moves in a row to which the person with fewer units doesn't get to react.
So that seems like a big advantage for the person with MORE units.
If you add a way for the player with fewer units to "pass" -- which lets them choose when the guy with more units gets multiple turns in a row, and how many -- that would balance things better.
But maybe I'm hopelessly deluded? That happens.
Mathwise assuming points are equivalent the guy with fewer units gets to attack with X points in the same amount of time the other guy gets to attack with fewer than X points. It's like the problem of the person having higher Initiative in melee getting to hit with everyone while the other guy gets to hit with some subset of everyone since his guys have been beaten on.
SisterSydney wrote: Wait, advantage to the person with fewer units or the person with more units?
It probably depends on how you implement unit-by-unit alternation. If we simply go "I move one of mine, you move one of yours, I move one of mine," etc. until both players have moved (or fired or assaulted with) everything, then the person with fewer units gets all his guys done first. Then the person with units left over gets a whole bunch of moves in a row to which the person with fewer units doesn't get to react.
So that seems like a big advantage for the person with MORE units.
If you add a way for the player with fewer units to "pass" -- which lets them choose when the guy with more units gets multiple turns in a row, and how many -- that would balance things better.
But maybe I'm hopelessly deluded? That happens.
Mathwise assuming points are equivalent the guy with fewer units gets to attack with X points in the same amount of time the other guy gets to attack with fewer than X points. It's like the problem of the person having higher Initiative in melee getting to hit with everyone while the other guy gets to hit with some subset of everyone since his guys have been beaten on.
This is why I added a method to pass in my proposed turn structure not as much as you want, only so it balances out the number of units (you only get to pass X times, where X is Higher Unit number minus Lower Unit number).
Or is that unfair? As I said I've not done any real maths on the matter.
If I understand Anomander aright, then the player with fewer units doesn't have to pass, they can just shoot unit after unit until they've unleashed 100% of their firepower on the enemy, who hasn't yet had a chance to unleash 100% of his, which means the side with fewer units is more likely to kill targets before they can fire back.
Of course that's still a lot better than the current system, where, if you go first, 100% of my army isn't getting to fire back until you've fired 100% of yours....
SisterSydney wrote: If I understand Anomander aright, then the player with fewer units doesn't have to pass, they can just shoot unit after unit until they've unleashed 100% of their firepower on the enemy, who hasn't yet had a chance to unleash 100% of his, which means the side with fewer units is more likely to kill targets before they can fire back.
Of course that's still a lot better than the current system, where, if you go first, 100% of my army isn't getting to fire back until you've fired 100% of yours....
I feel that's still as unfair as the current system. It would promote a small number of max size units of shooty squads over anything else.
SisterSydney wrote: Wait, advantage to the person with fewer units or the person with more units?
It probably depends on how you implement unit-by-unit alternation. If we simply go "I move one of mine, you move one of yours, I move one of mine," etc. until both players have moved (or fired or assaulted with) everything, then the person with fewer units gets all his guys done first. Then the person with units left over gets a whole bunch of moves in a row to which the person with fewer units doesn't get to react.
So that seems like a big advantage for the person with MORE units.
If you add a way for the player with fewer units to "pass" -- which lets them choose when the guy with more units gets multiple turns in a row, and how many -- that would balance things better.
But maybe I'm hopelessly deluded? That happens.
Obviously this is just a very rough draft and you know throwing things at the wall idea, but I'd just say the following,
Once all models have taken an action in the movement phase, they may move onto the next phase or initiate the firing phase. The player can still move his units and initiate fire.
Player 1 has units ABC
Player 2 has units DEFGHI
Player 1 Moves A
Player 2 Moves D
Player 1 Moves B
Player 2 Moves E
Player 1 Overwatches / interruptable action instead of moving C
Player 2 Moves G
Player 1 since he has used all move actions and move commands this turn initiates fire w/ A
Player 2 Decides to not return fire but instead finish his movement of I
Player 1 Fires B
Player 2 Moves I
Player 1 Fires C
Player 2 Begins Fire with D
Player 1 Declares Assault w/ A
Player 2 Begins Fire w/ E
Player 1 Has no more Movement, Shooting, or Assault
Player 2 still has Shooting but no assaults
End of Turn
It just makes the game more dynamic to split it up that way imo. Also obviously these are just tossed out there, with no addendum to what happens.
It favors small armies and large armies equally though, it plays to the strength of a small army with lighting fast units moving in for the kill and big armies with just mowing into you over and over again.
It's also the same basic sequence just alternating. I move , you move, I shoot , You shoot, I assault, You assault. It's just more dynamic.
I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.
BaconCatBug wrote: I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.
I tried to go a different direction by keeping a turn order not unlike the current one (player A moves/player B makes reaction attacks/player A attacks) but making the combat sequence in each individual fight phase more reactive. No more *roll some dice* "Three of those guys are dead.", dialogue back and forth about what's happening every step of the way.
BaconCatBug wrote: I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.
I tried to go a different direction by keeping a turn order not unlike the current one (player A moves/player B makes reaction attacks/player A attacks) but making the combat sequence in each individual fight phase more reactive. No more *roll some dice* "Three of those guys are dead.", dialogue back and forth about what's happening every step of the way.
I see what you are trying to do and in theory it would be awesome, but players are still only weak 'umies after all!
BaconCatBug wrote: I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.
I tried to go a different direction by keeping a turn order not unlike the current one (player A moves/player B makes reaction attacks/player A attacks) but making the combat sequence in each individual fight phase more reactive. No more *roll some dice* "Three of those guys are dead.", dialogue back and forth about what's happening every step of the way.
Do you mean a turn order where it's
MOVEMENT PHASE
SHOOTING
ASSAULT
Movement Player A moves Player B moves Player A etcc because I really like that system as well. I like the dynamic systems a little more as I get older maybe? I dunno.
Then the following turn it's the same way.
Also, what I wrote out is how it is now currently it's just broken up. As the rules are written now , you still react to your opponents movement. This just makes it more dynamic. Also players with more units currently move more than other armies with less units anyway.
How it is now:
Player 1 10 units
Player 2 5 Units
Player one gets to move more than Player 2 in the current rules and then shoot and assault. Player 2 does not get as many "actions".
In a Reactionary system:
Player 1 Moves
Player 2 Holds
Player 1 Moves
Player 2 Moves
Player 1 Initiates Firing and gets to fire one unit
Player 2 can end his movement phase and move directly into the shooting phase or continue to move his units.
You get the same amount of actions as you would now, what happens in a reactionary system though is you are actually able to actively react to actions immediately.
For example:
Player 1 Moves A
Player 2 Moves B
Player 1 Ends his move starts his firing phase
Also, I think we are honestly talking about a system I played at some point.
BaconCatBug wrote: I agree the turn structure needs to alternate to stay dynamic, but for the sake of both clarity as well has having mental "checkpoints" to keep track of how the turn is progressing, I feel any such turn structure must have each of the three phases independent of each other.
I tried to go a different direction by keeping a turn order not unlike the current one (player A moves/player B makes reaction attacks/player A attacks) but making the combat sequence in each individual fight phase more reactive. No more *roll some dice* "Three of those guys are dead.", dialogue back and forth about what's happening every step of the way.
Do you mean a turn order where it's
MOVEMENT PHASE
SHOOTING
ASSAULT
No. I've set up shooting/assault so that they use the same rules; right now under my rules player A moves all his models, player B makes reaction attacks (as per normal attacks but if you attack in your standard combat phase that unit can't attack in the following reaction phase), and then player A attacks with all his models. I've had a few test games with this now and it keeps things moving quickly while ensuring both players get to be actively doing things during all points in the game.
Lets face it no wargame is ever going to be truly balanced, that said I do feel GW can do better than thier "Beer and Pretzel" / "Forging a Narrative" type attitude. Becuase the wole attitude that your opponent is having fun while you punch his face in, is not work for them in the long run.
Out of your list I think multiple types of fixes are needed.
playtest playtest playtest....every new book needs to play every army multipule times (5-10 times) before it is released....Look for rule breaking army builds and eliminate or restrict them. Look for units cost that are too low or too high.......the list goes on and on
Honestly the whole thing needs to be redone. Massive playtesting needs to be apart of what they do.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: Lets face it no wargame is ever going to be truly balanced, that said I do feel GW can do better than thier "Beer and Pretzel" / "Forging a Narrative" type attitude. Becuase the wole attitude that your opponent is having fun while you punch his face in, is not work for them in the long run.
Out of your list I think multiple types of fixes are needed.
playtest playtest playtest....every new book needs to play every army multipule times (5-10 times) before it is released....Look for rule breaking army builds and eliminate or restrict them. Look for units cost that are too low or too high.......the list goes on and on
Honestly the whole thing needs to be redone. Massive playtesting needs to be apart of what they do.
The only way this can happen is if they allow players to test for them. This means releasing a beta version of the codex for FREE and letting the playerbase go to town. GW are stuck in the past and would never allow this
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: Lets face it no wargame is ever going to be truly balanced, that said I do feel GW can do better than thier "Beer and Pretzel" / "Forging a Narrative" type attitude. Becuase the wole attitude that your opponent is having fun while you punch his face in, is not work for them in the long run.
Out of your list I think multiple types of fixes are needed.
playtest playtest playtest....every new book needs to play every army multipule times (5-10 times) before it is released....Look for rule breaking army builds and eliminate or restrict them. Look for units cost that are too low or too high.......the list goes on and on
Honestly the whole thing needs to be redone. Massive playtesting needs to be apart of what they do.
The only way this can happen is if they allow players to test for them. This means releasing a beta version of the codex for FREE and letting the playerbase go to town. GW are stuck in the past and would never allow this
The bigger problem is their insistence on releasing their rulebook once and not changing anything at all for years at a time. If they patched their rulebooks more often this issue would be less of one.
So, I spent all of today typing up and formatting my thoughts on a D10 overhaul. The Base game itself is pretty good right now, so this is more of a mashup than anything else.
The downside is that this would need a complete rewrite and rebalancing of the codex's, but my vision for it would be a community driven effort where a one codex is given small tweaks/additional units if deemed necessary every month in a continuous rotation.
If you cannot access Google Docs for some reason, the text will be placed below inside a spoiler tag, but you'll be missing out on the nice formatting and tables!
Spoiler:
Important Note: This document will only document instances were rules or dice rolls have changed. Basically, unless I say that something has changed, assume it has not. This not only will cut down on redundant lines saying that “Rule XYZ remains unchanged” but will also skirt any posibility of being accused of trying to copypaste rules wholesale. The main changes from the D6 system to the D10 system are the range of characteristics and the turn structure and thus the bulk of the information will be about them.
This gaming system is intended to be utilised with a complete rewriting of each armies codex’s into rulebooks that will take into account the expanded ranges of characteristics (i.e. actually use the full 0 – 10 range of stats rather than have everything clumped together into an effective 3 – 5 range) as well as transforming them into incrementally updating living documents rather than GW's antiquated method of overhauling them every 4 to 10 years for the sake of overhauling them.
The Rules
Models and Units:
All distances are converted into metric units, Millimetres and Centimetres. For convenience, 1 inch from the original game shall translate as 25mm (2.5cm) in all cases. Yes, there will be corner cases where this can affect something drastically. No, I really don't care.
Distance rolls are translated as follows:
D3” ≈ 2.5cm – 7.5cm > 2D5 cm D6” ≈ 2.5cm – 15cm > D15 cm 2D6” ≈ 5cm – 30cm > 3D10 cm 3D6” ≈ 7.5cm – 45cm > 4D10+D5 cm
To roll a D15, roll a D10 and a D5 and add the two results. While it may seem strange to replace the D6 with 2 dice rolls, there is indeed a logical reason. The first is to ensure that the distance moved is always a minimum of 2cm rather than 1. The second is that it puts a very slight bias against the more extreme edges of the scale, thus still allowing for the occasional flourish of luck while toning down the amount of RandomHammer D40,000.
Unless otherwise stated, distance rolls are unchanged, simply translated. This applies ONLY to distance rolls. Other rolls will be translated individually as needed.
Characteristics have the same 0 to 10 range with the exception of leadership, which is now a 0 to 18 range statistic. Armour Saves also now range from 2+ to 10, along with -.
All non-vehicle models (with the exception of walkers) now have a “Base Size” characteristic defined in their codex entry. Walkers will have a base size. Values are 25mm, 40mm, 60mm, 25×50mm (Bike Base). This is to standardise model base sizes and end the arguments over Old Terminators once and for all.
General Principles:
The One Inch rule is now the 25mm rule.
Dice used will be D5 and D10. D5 is rolled exactly as you would expect, by rolling a D10 and halving the result, rounding up. D6 are still used for Mysterious Terrain, Deep Strike Mishap, Mission Selection and other miscellaneous uses so don't throw them all away just yet!
Esoteric dice such as D4s, D12s and D20s will not be used. D20s will explicitly be noted as usable as D10s by subtracting 10 if the result is 11+ like the D10s of old with different coloured 0-9s.
Due to one inch being translated as 25mm, Blast Markers and the Template will be slightly reduced in size, but by no more than 2.5 millimetres. It will be noted that pre-made templates are provided and to use these wherever possible. However, each Marker will be properly defined both for the purposes of creating custom markers and for clarity.
Small Blast Marker: A circle with a diameter of 7.5cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.
Large Blast Marker: A circle with a diameter of 15cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.
Giant Blast Marker: A circle with a diameter of 17.5cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.
Mega Blast Marker: A circle with a diameter of 25cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.
Apocalyptic Giant Mega Extreme Blast Marker of Crispy Doom and Taco Filled Death: A circle with a diameter of 37.5cm. Centre hole will be in the exact centre with a diameter of 1.5cm.
“Flamer” Template: The narrow end will remain rounded to stop Young Billy from stabbing his eye out. Defined as an isosceles triangle of side lengths Xcm, Xcm and Ycm with a semicircle of Radius X at the end. (I need these numbers!)
Characteristic tests remain the same, but with D10s instead of D6. Leadership uses 2D10 instead.
Line of sight rules remain unchanged with one exception. Rule added that explicitly states that if a player objects to a model that they feel is modelled in such a way that it would give it a significant advantage (explicitly call out crawling Wraithlords or tall bases) then the players will use as best as they can an unmodified place-holder for determining line of sight. Players should be lauded for their modelling skills but in the end, the game needs to be fair!
The Turn
Movement Phase:
This is where the biggest changes to the structure come in.
The Movement Phase is now split into three distinct sub-phases, the “Move Fleeing Units sub-phase”, the “Movement Pass Point Calculation sub-phase” and the “Move Units sub-phase”
Move Fleeing Units sub-phase:
If no player has any units that are falling back, then this sub-phase is skipped entirely.
If one player has units that are falling back, that player resolves each individual unit's Regrouping rolls and subsequent Fall Backs or Consolidations as needed until all fleeing units have been dealt with.
If both players have units that are falling back, select one player at random by dicing off and then alternate resolving the fleeing units as necessary until one player has no more fleeing units, at which point the remaining player will resolve them one by one as normal.
The reasons for resolving Fall Back moves before other movement is threefold. First is to ensure players don't forget (or “forget” as the case may be. You know who you are!) to move a unit that is falling back.
Secondly, it prevents the currently possible tactic of moving your own units to force the fleeing unit to have to go around the now in the way friendly unit, possibly buying an extra attempt to regroup.
Thirdly, with the alternating movement system now used, it is possible for an enemy unit to move into a position where the falling back unit will be destroyed before it gets an attempt to regroup or flee. While this will still be possible, it would be unfair to do so before the enemy gets a chance to regroup or get the hell out of dodge first.
Movement Pass Point Calculation sub-phase:
At the start of each Movement Pass Point Calculation sub-phase, each player counts the number units they own, though certain units are ignored for this calculation. Units that are ignored include:
* Units that are falling back.
* Units who have regrouped this turn (and do not have the ATSKNF special rule).
* Units who are pinned or have gone to ground or are otherwise rendered unable to move.
* Vehicles who are immobile for any reason, whether through damage or inherently immobile.
Units who are inside a transport, dedicated or otherwise, are counted in addition to the transport.
The player with the lower number of applicable units gets a number of “Movement Pass Points” equal to the difference in unit numbers. These Pass Points are used in the Move Units sub-phase in order to choose to not select a unit to move but also not surrender the chance to move later in the movement phase. Basically it is a "free turn" to allow reactionary tactics against an enemy with greater numbers. A player with no Pass Points remaining cannot do this and must select a unit although of course they can elect to not move it that turn.
Example: At the start of the turn, Alice has three units and one transport with a unit inside. Bob has a total of 10 units, one of which is an immobile vehicle and one of which is a unit that is falling back. Alice thus has 3 Pass Points (8 minus 5) that she may use during this turns Move Units sub-phase.
Note that Pass Points are not rolled over between phases or turns and are freshly calculated each turn as needed.
Move Units sub-phase:
Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish to move first or second this turn.
Next, the player who is moving first selects a unit they control to move or may utilize a Pass Point. If that player has no Pass Points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, although they may elect to not move it. However, electing to not move a unit means it will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to move. It has, in effect, "moved zero".
Once this unit has been moved, the opposing player selects a unit they control to move or may utilize a Pass Point. If that player has no Pass Points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, although they may elect to not move it. However, electing to not move a unit means it will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to move. It has, in effect, "moved zero".
This continues with players alternating back and forth until all units have been moved or chosen to not move. If a player finishes moving all their units before the opponent due to not using all of their Pass Points or for any other reason, then the remaining player will simply move (or elect to not move) the rest of their units in any order until they have moved all their units or elect to not move any more units for the turn.
Players may at any time before moving a unit declare that they will elect to move no more units for the turn. If they do, then the remaining player will simply move (or elect to not move) the rest of their units in any order until they have moved all their units or elect to not move any more units for the turn. A player who declares that they will elect to move no more units for the turn cannot then choose to move their remaining units after their enemy has moved, so be absolutely sure when deciding to declare this!
Remember that movement is now in centimetres!
Example of a movement phase:
Alice has 3 units of Space Marine Scouts and a unit of Tactical Marines mounted inside it's Rhino.
Bob has 3 units, 2 mobs of Boyz and 1 immobile Battlewagon.
Thus, Alice has a unit count of 4 and Bob has a unit count of 2
Therefore, Alice has 2 Pass Points she may utilise this Movement Phase.
Alice and Bob dice off and Alice wins the roll. She decides to move first. She selects one of her Scout Marine squads to move, then moves it however she likes, then passes the turn to Bob. Bob selects one of his Boyz mobs and moves it however he likes.
The turn now passes to Alice. She selects her second squad of scouts, but chooses to not move it this turn. Bob then elects to use a Pass Point and doesn't need to select a unit to move.
Alice now selects her Tactical Marine's Rhino as the unit to be moved and moves it into position. She wants to disembark the unit inside but must wait until her next opportunity to select a unit as the Rhino and Tactical Squad are separate units. Bob decides not to use his remaining Pass Point and now selects his second squad of Boyz to move and moves them.
The turn now passes to Alice again and she disembarks her Tactical Squad from her Rhino as per the rules for disembarking etc. Bob has no more units left capable of moving this turn, so instead of passing over to him unnecessarily, Alice moves onto one of her remaining units, in this case her third and final scout squad and moves it.
Neither Bob nor Alice now have any other units left to move, so the game proceeds to the Shooting Phase.
Shooting Phase:
The Shooting Phase is structured similarly to the Movement Phase detailed above.
The Shooting Phase is now split into three distinct sub-phases, the “Shooting Pass Point Calculation sub-phase”, the “Declare Shooting sub-phase” and the “Run sub-phase”.
Shooting Pass Point Calculation sub-phase:
At the start of each Shooting Pass Point Calculation sub-phase, each player counts the number units they own, though certain units are ignored for this calculation. Units that are ignored include:
* Units where no members have any ranged weapons or other abilities that fire as ranged weapons, including but not limited to psychic powers, special wargear and special rules.
* Units where no members have the ability to fire any of their weapons that turn. This includes but is not limited to units that are pinned and units that moved and only have Heavy Weapons that are unable to make Snap Shots.
* Units where no members have weapons that are in range of an enemy unit. If it is unclear if they are in range of an enemy unit or not, simply measure to find out. Note that only range is taken into consideration, a unit that is in range of an enemy that they could not possibly damage is still counted at this stage.
* Units who are embarked upon a transport vehicle where no members are capable of firing from it due to lack of fire points or any other reason.
* Vehicles that have no weapons remaining, whether this is the result of expending all their limited ammunition, through damage results or simply not having any weapons to begin with.
Units who are inside a transport that they can fire from, dedicated or otherwise, are counted in addition to the transport. Don't worry about not being able to count units without ranged weapons that you wish to Run or move Flat out with, this is done in the Run sub-phase. Also keep in mind that, as detailed later, units who could have fired but elect not to can still choose to Run or move Flat out in the Run sub-phase.
The player with the lower number of applicable units gets a number of “Shooting Pass Points” equal to the difference in unit numbers. These Pass Points are used in the Declare Shooting sub-phase in order to choose to not select a unit to shoot but also not surrender the chance to shoot later in the movement phase. Basically it is a "free turn" to allow reactionary tactics against an enemy with greater numbers. A player with no Pass Points remaining cannot do this and must select a unit, although of course they can elect to not shoot with it that turn.
Example: At the start of the turn, Alice has three units and one transport (with no fire points) with a unit inside. Bob has 8 units, one of which is a vehicle with no weapons remaining and one unit that has no ranged weapons. Alice thus has 2 Pass Points (6 minus 4) that she may use during this turns Move Units sub-phase.
Note that Pass Points are not rolled over between phases or turns and are freshly calculated each turn as needed. In particular the Movement Pass Points generated in the Movement Phase are completely separate to the Shooting Pass Points generated in the Shooting phase and in no way roll over or affect the number of Shooting Pass Points generated by a player in any way.
Declare Shooting sub-phase:
Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish to shoot first or second this turn.
Next, the player who is shooting first selects a unit they control to shoot with or may utilize a Pass Point. If that player has no Pass Points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, although they may elect to not shoot with it. However, electing to not shoot with a unit means it will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to shoot. It has given up their chance to shoot this turn. Keep in mind that units selected this way that do not shoot can still elect to run in the Run Sub-Phase, so this is a good method to try and get the enemy to commit more of their shooting before unleashing yours by selecting units you didn't want to shoot anyway!
Once this unit has fired its weapons and resolved it's shooting and any aftermath of it's shooting completely, the opposing player selects a unit they control to shoot with or may utilize a Pass Point. If that player has no Pass Points or does not wish to use one, they must still select a unit, although they may elect to not shoot with it. However, electing to not shoot with a unit means it will not be able to be selected later on in the turn to shoot. It has given up their chance to shoot this turn. Keep in mind that units selected this way that do not shoot can still elect to run in the Run Sub-Phase.
This continues with players alternating back and forth until all units have shot their weapons or chosen to not shoot. If a player finishes shooting with all their units before the opponent due to not using all of their Pass Points, having units destroyed by enemy fire or for any other reason, then the remaining player will simply shoot with (or elect to not shoot with) the rest of their units in any order until they have shot with all their units or elect to not shoot with any more units for the turn.
Players may at any time before shooting with a unit declare that they will elect to shoot with no more units for the turn. If they do, then the remaining player will simply shoot with (or elect to not shoot with) the rest of their units in any order until they have moved all their units or elect to not move any more units for the turn. A player who declares that they will elect to shoot with no more units for the turn cannot then choose to shoot with their remaining units after their enemy has shot their weapons, so be absolutely sure when deciding to declare this!
Remember that weapon ranges are now in centimetres!
Run sub-phase:
After all shooting and any consequences that said shooting may cause has been resolved, the Run sub-phase begins. Pass Points do not roll over and are not utilised in the Run sub-phase.
Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish select a unit first or second this turn.
Next, the player who is running with a unit first selects a unit they control they wish to make a run movement or flat out movement with. These movements are done in the same way as the current game, translating the dice rolls and movement distances as needed. i.e. D15cm and 15cm respectively. Please note that unlike in the Movement or Shooting phases, a selected unit may not opt to not run or move flat out, although they can of course choose to not move anyway (such as if you roll a poor result and decide to not move in order to not trigger dangerous terrain tests for example) but the unit will still count as having run or moved flat out.
Once this unit has been moved, the opposing player selects a unit they control they wish to make a run movement or flat out movement with. These movements are done in the same way as the current game, translating the dice rolls and movement distances as needed. i.e. D15cm and 15cm respectively. Please note that unlike in the Movement or Shooting phases, a selected unit may not opt to not run or move flat out, although they can of course choose to not move anyway (such as if you roll a poor result and decide to not move in order to not trigger dangerous terrain tests for example) but the unit will still count as having run or moved flat out.
This continues with players alternating back and forth until all units able to run or move flat out have been moved or chosen to not move. If a player finishes moving all their units before the opponent due to not using all of their Pass Points or for any other reason, then the remaining player will simply move (or elect to not move) the rest of their units in any order until they have moved all their units or elect to not move any more units for the turn.
Players may at any time before moving a unit declare that they will elect to run or move flat out with no more units for the turn. If they do, then the remaining player will simply run or move flat out the rest of their applicable units in any order until they have run or moved flat with all their applicable units or elect to not move any more units for the turn. A player who declares that they will elect to run or move flat out no more units for the turn cannot then choose to run or move flat out their remaining units after their enemy has moved, so be absolutely sure when deciding to declare this!
Snap Shots remain the same despite the changes to hit determination.
Rolling to Hit utilises the same system currently used but subtracts the Ballistic Skill of the firing model from a value of 11 instead of 7 to determine the value needed to hit. Ballistic Skill 1 thus needs a 10 to hit, Ballistic Skill 5 needs a 6+ to hit and Ballistic Skill 9 needs 2+ to hit and so on and so forth.
A roll of 10 is always a hit and a roll of 1 is always a miss. The rare exemplary models that have Ballistic Skill 10 will thus still miss on a roll of 1 to hit but this means that effects that reduce their Ballistic Skill by 1 for some reason will have no real effect.
BALLISTIC SKILL
Value Needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
to Hit 10 9+ 8+ 7+ 6+ 5+ 5+ 3+ 2+ 2+
Rolling to Wound follows the same method as the original game. 50% chance where the Strength matches the Toughness and moving by 1 notch on the die for each point of difference with low strengths being utterly unable to harm high toughness’s.
Rules regarding Saves all remain unchanged with the exception that the range for saves is now 2+ to 10.
Cover Saves are now the following:
Razor Wire: 9+
Forests and area terrain: 8+
Ruins: 6+
Fortifications: 4+
Example of a Shooting Phase:
SOMEONE ELSE WRITE THIS! o(╥﹏╥)o
Assault Phase:
The Shooting Phase is structured similarly to the Movement and Shooting Phases detailed above. The sub-phases are now the “Select Charging Units sub-phase” and the “Resolve Fights sub-phase.”
Select Charging Units sub-phase:
Unlike the Movement and Shooting phase, the Select Charging Units sub-phase does not use Pass Points. Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish to attempt a charge first or second this turn.
Next, the player who is declaring a charge first selects a unit they control to attempt a charge and declares it in the same way as the original game.
Weapons and Weapon Modes that fire multiple rounds during an Overwatch suffer a -1 shot penalty. Weapons that only fire a single shot to begin with may still fire this shot. e.g. Rapid Fire weapons only fire one shot each, a Heavy 3 weapon will fire only two shots and a Pistol will still fire a single shot.
Charge distance is translated as detailed in the Dice Rules section above. Don't be scared about the huge numbers, remember that it's 2.5cm to the inch. This has the same bell curve as the old value and results in the same distances: http://anydice.com/program/39
Once the charge has been fully resolved, the opposing player now selects a unit they control to attempt a charge and declares it in the same way as the original game.
Players alternate selecting units they wish to attempt a charge in this manner. If a player has no more units left capable of launching a charge they wish to attempt a charge, then the remaining player selects units one by one until they too have no more units left to attempt charges with. Remember that much in the same fashion as the Movement and Shooting phases, if a player declares they have no more units they wish to select they cannot go back later and change their mind!
Resolve Combats sub-phase:
Unlike the Movement and Shooting phase, the Resolve Combats sub-phase does not use Pass Points. Determine a player at random by dicing off. That player decides if they wish to resolve a combat first or second this turn.
Next, the player who is resolving a combat first selects a combat in progress and the combat is resolved. Once the combat is fully resolved, the opposing player selects a different combat to resolve and resolves it. (I know it shouldn't need to be said, but you can't fight the same combat twice in one turn!).
This continues with players alternating back and forth until all combats have been resolved this turn.
The minutiæ of how a Close Combat is fought remains unchanged. What does change is the To Hit table due to the changes in Weapon Skill range and the D10 system. What remains unchanged is the fact that having a higher weapon skill will always result in a better than 50% chance to hit. What has changed is the fact that the To Hit table is no longer dominated by the 3+ result. Under the old system a rampaging Dæmon Prince of Khorne with a Weapon Skill of 9 has the exact same chance of hitting a Space Marine Chapter Master as he does a Ratling. Under this new system, the Chapter Master has a slightly better chance of parrying the rampaging beastie!
There is slightly more variance at the extreme edges of the table, with a maximum chance of hitting of 80% as opposed to 66%, and a minimum chance of 20% as opposed to 33% (WS1 vs. WS10 doesn't count >:3) but this is balanced by the fact that this only occurs at the extreme edge of the scale in addition to the fact that under this system the codex’s will be able to properly utilise the 1-10 scale for Weapon Skill, Strength and Toughness instead of having to effectively clump everything at the 3-5 range.
When rolling for the value of a Sweeping Advance, roll a D10 instead.
Morale Checks continue to work the same way as before, just using 2D10 instead. The same penalties for losing a combat apply to these Morale Checks with an additional -1 modifier simply for losing the combat in addition the normal penalty for suffering more wounds than the enemy due to this penalty having a reduced effectiveness on the percentage chance to fail each point of Leadership lost causes.
Morale:
Morale Checks continue to work the same way as before, just using 2D10 instead. Values for Penalties and Bonuses remain unchanged.
The Insane Heroism rule applies on a result of 2 or 3.
Special Rules
Armourbane: Rolls an additional 2D5 for armour penetration.
Blast and Large Blast: Scatter is now 3D10 cm minus double the firing models Ballistic Skill minus 3. Example: BS3 model rolls 3,6,8. The blast will scatter 8cm (17-6-3= 8). BS4 model rolls 2,2,3. The blast will not scatter. (7-8-3= -4)
Crusader: Rolls a D5 instead.
Feel No Pain: Changed to 7+ on a D10.
Fleshbane: 3+ on a D10.
Deep Strike: Scatter is translated as normal. Deep Strike Mishap table retains the D6.
Gets Hot: Single shot weapons Get Hot on a roll of 1 to hit. Multiple Shot weapons Get Hot on a roll of 1 or 2 to hit. Weapons that do not normally roll to hit Get Hot on a roll of 1 on a D5 per shot, however the shot fires regardless but always scatter and may not take into account the firing models Ballistic Skill. Vehicle mounted weapons that Get Hot cause a glancing hit on a further roll of 1,2,3,4 or 5 on a D10.
HayWire: Same results but rolled on a D10 with the table structured as 1-2/3-8/9-10.
Interceptor: Remove the word “Enemy” from the first line. This is in addition to it's available shooting in the shooting phase.
It Will Not Die: Changed to 7+ on a D10 Jink: Changed to 7+ and 6+ on a D10 Lance: Lowers armour values down to 14.
Melta: Rolls an additional 2D5 for armour penetration when in range.
Move Through Cover: Roll an additional D10. Normally results in 4D10 and add the highest result with half the next highest result.
Outflank: Rolls a D10. 1-3 is left. 4-6 is right, 7-9 is either, 10 is either but can only half the short edge distance from your table edge. In effect 10 lets you deploy into your own half from the short table edge.
Rending: Triggers on a roll of 9 or 10 to wound. Against vehicles, roll an additional 2D5 and pick the highest result.
Sniper: Precision Shots for Sniper Weapons and Characters trigger on a result of 9 or 10 to hit.
Unit Types
Bikes and Jetbikes:
The vague rule regarding how many weapons Bikes and Jetbikes can fire is removed. Instead if a Bike or Jetbike equipped model can fire more than one weapon at a time it will be stated in their codex.
Weapons:
Template:
Template weapons now cause D5 hits when firing an Overwatch.
Power Weapons:
Due to the changes in the range of Armour Values, Power Weapons will need to have their AP values rebalanced. Typically, we will keep anything that is AP1 or 2 as AP1 or 2, AP 3 weapons will move to whatever the standard Power Armour save is, most likely 4+, and AP4 weapons will move to AP 6.
Strength Bonuses will remain unchanged unless play-testing suggests otherwise.
Characters:
Precision Strikes:
These trigger on a roll of 10 to hit.
Psykers:
While I personally disagree with the direction psychic powers have taken in this edition, it is not my place to insert my own petty feelings into this discussion.
Perils of the Warp:
PotW triggers on a roll of double one or double 10 and inflicts two wounds, although the Psyker may attempt to resist the Perils by rolling a 6+ on a D10. If the Psyker does resist the Perils, they suffer only one wound.
Deny the Witch:
Deny the Witch succeeds on a roll of 10+ of a D10.
Vehicles:
Armour Value:
Armour Value now can range from 10 to 18.
Blast Weapons:
Blast weapons that hit a vehicle but have no part of their hull underneath the centre hole of the Blast Marker strike the vehicle with -1 strength. If the centre hole is even partially above the hull the weapon hits at full strength.
Armour Penetration Rolls:
Weapons roll a D10 and add the weapons strength. If the result is equal to the armour facing or one below it, it is a Glancing Hit. If the result is greater than the armour value, then it is a Penetrating hit. Otherwise, no damage is inflicted.
Resolving Damage:
If a mobile vehicle would lose it's final Hull Point due to a Glancing Hit, it instead becomes Immobilised. If the vehicle is already immobilised, it will be wrecked as normal.
Wrecked Vehicles:
Wrecked Vehicles provide an 8+ cover save.
Obscured Vehicles:
Standard cover save for obscuration is now 7+. Heavily Obscured vehicles have a 5+ cover save.
Transport Vehicles:
Embark and Disembark ranges increased to 6cm.
Battlefield Terrain:
Difficult Terrain:
Normal Tests roll 3D10 and add together the highest result and half the next highest result as the maximum distance they may move.
Dangerous Terrain:
Roll a D5 instead.
Ruins:
Ruins provide a 6+ cover save and their bases an 8+ cover save.
The amount of movement required to traverse ruin levels should be determined pre game on a case by case basis.
Barrage Weapons that hit a unit with no models on the absolute highest level of a ruin now hit the uppermost models of the unit. Each level below the uppermost level that these models are on adds +1 to their cover save.
Forests:
Razorwing Nests trigger if a player rolls a 7+.
Battlefield Debris:
Unless otherwise stated, Debris that provided a 4+ cover save now provides a 7+ cover save and debris that provided a 5+ or 6+ cover save now provides a 9+ cover save.
Fuel Reserve: Causes Strength 4 AP 10 hits on detonation.
Archeotech Artefacts:
Virus Outbreak: A roll of 10 is always counted as failing by 1.
Force Dome Generator: Grants a 6+ invulnerable save.
Psychneuein Hive: Causes D5 hits.
Mission Special Rules:
Night Fighting:
As expected, Night Fights occur on a roll of 6+ on a D10. The rules for Turn 5+ Night fighting use 6+ on a D10 as well.
Reserves:
Reserve rolls are now made at the start of the Move Units sub-phase and thus do not count towards Pass Point calculation. After determining which units are to arrive from reserve the phase proceeds as normal, with the players naturally having to select a unit that is arriving from reserve before selecting other units until no more units are arriving from reserve.
Reserve rolls are now made on D10s, with a result of 6+ needed for Turn 2 reserves and a result of 5+ needed for Turn 3 reserves.
Units arriving from Ongoing Reserves do so at the start of the Move Units sub-phase and thus do not count towards Pass Point calculation.
Mysterious Objectives:
Retains the D6 table for effects. Sabotaged also retains the D6 roll to see if it detonates. Detonations remain unchanged. Scatterfield grants a 10+ cover save to units in the open.
@BaconCatBug.
If you need to re write all the codex books just to swap to a d10 and make a few minor changes.
Why not address the core issues to arrive at a cleaner game system while you do it?
My opinion of the current game play is it is good right now.
However, the rule system that delivers the game play is possibly the most over complicated and diffuse rule set to be sold in the world.
(Free to down load rule sets have more intuitive and elegant rules.)
Rather than one unit at a time, there should be a roll off at the start of each turn, and the winner decides which order units will move from the FOC, so the winner of the roll off is player two, so going second and states that the troops are to move first, then elites, then heavy support etc etc, so player one moves all his troops, then player two does, then player one moves elites.... etc etc etc.
Any choice that cannot be taken by your opponent goes last, so say your opponent hasn't got any elites for example, that stops you from moving all your troops, they moves theirs then you move your elits and heavy support straight after.
Shooting and assault would then work in the same way, so shooting would be staggered, and so would assault etc etc.
That seems needlessly complicated for the sake of being complicated. It also punishes players for choices in the opponents army list they have no control over.
If you have a squad of Elites and your opponent doesn't, you're now forced to leave it there for last, allowing your opponent to move their Troops around to surround it rather than being able to react to the first unit move towards them.
Same for shooting, if you have 2 Heavy Support units and they don't, the opponent now has the chance to wipe them out before you get an opportunity to shoot with them just from the fact that the opponent has no HS left.
Here's an alternative to the suppression rules others have suggested.
A unit which has remained completely stationary may lay down suppressive fire against an enemy unit or on a particular spot on the battlefield.
To suppress an enemy unit, nominate a target which is both in range and in cover. Make no shots at this stage. If the suppressed unit breaks out of cover, resolve a normal volley of fire, measured to the starting location of the enemy unit, but ignoring the piece of cover that they were in. Other intervening cover applies as normal.
To suppress a location, place a small blast marker on that location. The first enemy unit to enter that area during the following player turn will be targeted. Resolve a volley of shots measured to the centre of the marker. All rules for shooting apply as normal, including cover.
If desired, it could require a leadership test for enemy units to trigger these shots by performing the suppressed action, but I don't feel that it would improve the rule. As others have pointed out, a single guy with a pistol shouldn't be able to suppress a whole unit and I cannot see a satisfactory way of placing limits on that without making the rules over-complicated.
A lot of the rules suggested by others sound far more like pinning than suppression to me. They'd be represented more easily by having high ROF weapons, like heavy bolters, gain the pinning rule - or by having a morale check exactly equaling Ld to cause pinning rather than actually pass.
Bacon, your rules seem really solid and I am very impressed.
One thing I picked up was the use of rolling to see who goes first every turn. This strikes me as unnecessary as it add extra luck elements and the alternating phases means that there is not much gained/lost in who goes first. You could have one roll at the start of the turn if you really felt that it adds something but I just seems to be more effort.
Another was the keeping of random charge distance. Again I feel that less random would be better (hell, I think pre-measuring should be fine, no guess work).
Finally, I remember some mention of cutting down the shooting to only two rolls (to hit-includes cover modifiers, and to wound-includes armor). Personally I feel that is is a noble goal and would suit a more streamlined game. The main problem is bring the combined factors of BS, cover, toughness, strength, AP and armor in only two rolls. Especially using a chart system like currently used (4D charts!?).
Personally I feel a "I move everything, you move everything" etc. would work better for large numbers of units (which is where things are heading, especially with apoc). Can you imagine trying to coordinate alternating movement across 3 players a side with 15 units each? There is no real ability to move things simultaneously and so everything is moved in sequence, which may take a while. Just something to consider,
maybe you speed it up by saying that for every 4000 pnts on the table, you move that many units per subphase (1 unit a subphase: 0-2000 pnt games, 2 for 2000-4000pnt, etc.) I get this wont do much for most games but for large ones, being able to move more than one unit would really help.
Another option is one unit per player per subphase. This way everyone does something in their teams subphase and it is easier for calculating pass markers as everything is shared. (though you divide the number of units by the number that can be used each sub phase)
Just some ideas. keep up the great work. This heresy will rise yet!
Hi folks.
Just some general comments.
Randomizing who goes first each turn , is a decent way to add tactical depth, as players need to plan for acting first or second.
(If the rest of the game has lost the pointless dice rolling, it is not that much hassle rolling off at the start of the turn.)
The variety of units and equipment in 40k needs a 3 stage damage resolution process .(But a more streamlined resolution with more appropriate methods to speed it up!)
After developing several different damage systems for 40k, all the 2 stage ones iether lost detail or became complicated with additional rules like the current system in GW40k.
A simple 3 stage damage resolution that works both for ranged and close combat , that is quick and simple to use is what I am aiming for.
With unit and weapon stats on a unit card for easy in game reference.(To save looking through books in game!)
Roll to see/hit. (Based on target model skill value.)
Roll to see if hits penetrate the armour of the target.(Models AV + D6 vs Weapons AP value. as vehicles in FoW.)
Roll to damage .(Weapons have a base damage roll, target has a resilience modifier.)
Example.
Roll to hit .
SM fires a boltgun at an ork, in light cover.
Ork has a stealth value of 3, which is incresed to 4 because the ork is in light cover.
SM needs a 4+ to hit!
Roll Armour save. The Ork has a AV of 2, the Bolt gun has a AP of 6.
The Ork needs to roll 5+ for the armour to save .(2+5=7)
If the ork passes the armour save it takes no damage.If the ork fails the armour save it is suppressed.(And may be wounded.)
Roll to damage .(If the Ork fails the armour save roll.)
The SM player has to roll the damage value of the boltgun,(4+) to wound the Ork.
This is modified by the Orks resilience value (+1) to make a damage roll of 5+
if the SM player rolls a 5+ the ork is wounded..
Having base values on the stat line, with limited modifiers , makes for fast intuitive game play.IMO
I approve of the removal of charts, they are a pain in the butt.
However I find the idea that shooting is done based on the target's stat strange. While the accuracy of a space marine and an ork differ wildly, the capacity of them to take cover doesn't. While i can see some use to make larger targets easier to hit I think that sicking to BS makes more sense.
As for a two roll system here is my idea (it's a bit rough and would me all stats need to be re written), also it is done in D10 to work with bacon's rules above:
Roll to hit: Roll under your ballistic skill
For example, normally a marine has a 2/3 chance to hit (3+) so he would have a ballistic skill of 7.
(note: i realize the idea of trying to roll low is strange but otherwise low stats are good, or you use a chart like GW)
Cover saves can now be included as negative modifiers to your BS (-1 to -4) and this opens the door for future abilities to edit the BS of units (a D10 scale makes this less powerful than it currently is).
You could include +1BS for shooting at a target within 15cm or something similar for far away. Also you could include some modifiers to take into account the size of the model you are shooting (based on ratings of bulky, very bulky, etc.)
Roll to wound/includes armor:
use this equation to determine what you need to roll under:
5+Weapon Strength - Target Toughness - (Sv - AP)
(Note: the part (Sv-AP) is at least 0)
I know it seems complicated but it's not, you just take 5, add the weapons strength, subtract the target's toughness, and finally subtract the Sv minus the AP.
This way, much like it is now, a unit being shot by a weapon with the same strength as its toughness has a half chance of being wounded (not including saves)
The idea of including the armor save with the strength test is so that a armor can be beaten by high strength weapons an AP isn't so "save or no save" but rather a gradient)
On both these roll you might want to put in something like 1 always succeeds and a 10 always fails. and all weapon and unit stts will need to be re-calibrated.
Its a bit rough (and I too suck at explaining) but it's only two rolls without any charts needed (just an equation :p)
Actually, the Ork and the Marine may have very different skill levels when it comes to taking cover. One significant factor in the Arab-Israeli wars, I've read, was that Arab tank crews tended to just roll on ahead while Israelis used every slight dip and rise in the terrain to make themselves a smaller target. A "being harder to hit" stat would be a great thing in a tactical game.
I like the direction you are going. Rolls to hit could be affected by cover. BS - 1 (light cover) or 2 (heavy cover) or 3 (airborne) - 1 if suppressed. Can't go below 1 (6+) or above 5 (2+)
Hits auto wound, but Saves are modified: Armor + 1 (if Toughness > Strength or Vehicle armor facing > 2 * Strength) + 1 (If unit type MC or Vehicle type Tank) - 1 (if S>T or 2*S > AF) - 1 (if unit type light Infantry or vehicle type light vehicle) - AP
Max save is a 2+ Min is 6+
If you could get it down to 1 attack and 1 save, It would move faster, but keep each player engaged in the combat. By fixing the stupid AP system, you remove the need for invuls and can simply bump up the Armor value to a high number (say 10), while keeping the AP values 6 or less. Also this would enable GW to incooperate their beloved super heavies without breaking the game. Everyone always has a chance to hurt them.
I would also add that Vehicles could lose a weapon every time they lose 25% of hull points, and become immobilized when they have lost 75% of HP.
@BaconCatBug.
Yes, IG being rather more concerned with self preservation, than heavily armoured super humans and homicidal fungus.Would be harder to hit!(Stealth value 4+).
The ability/desire to use stealth to survive is usually inverse to the amount of resilience/armour the target has
40k has massive variety in unit types and motivation.(Unlike WHFB where most targets are large block of troops in close formation.)
@All.
If we simply use the shooter skill as a base.
Then we need modifiers for,target size /agility/skill .(Stealth, for a general term.)And situation dependent things like range and cover.
However , if we use target skill as the base to hit score, and effective range as an indicator of shooter skill.(Number of attacks for close combat ability.)Values on unit card.
There there is only situation dependent modifiers to take into account.
I was going for the simplest resolution I could think of.(Fewest modifiers and values to get a decent level of interaction and detail.)
If You drop to a 2 stage resolution method.
It leads to the use of more modifiers , range, cover, toughness ,etc.And the position of where these modifiers take effect can be a bit ambiguous.
Does toughness modify the to hit and damage roll or the save roll.Do you need a separate suppression mechanic?
They do work , but tend to get a bit complicated.
A 'cleaner 3 stage system' runs just as fast, and actually faster in some cases.
Player perception is also important.2 stage resolution methods are standard in game with infantry on bases.(6mm to 15mm) .
But players expect more detail in larger scale minature resolution.(20mm and higher.)
I think most people are happy with cover effecting the to hit roll.(To get rid of the additional cover saves.)
However, I prefer to use the system where things that make the action harder increase the target score.(EG 3+ to hit becomes 4+ to hit.)And things that make the action easier adds to the dice roll.
-1 to hit, making the to hit score GO UP by 1 , is a bit counter intuitive for new players.
ADDING 1 to the stealth score of the target is much more intuitive.(That IG unit are 4+ to hit, but they are in cover that is 5+ to hit .)
@Lanrak
I can get behind the idea of a single stat which covers how easy a unit is to hit (Stealth, for a general term) and when rolling to hit you compare BS to stealth (much like WS vs WS in combat). I can also see the idea of increasing stealth (evasion might work better) based on cover and equipment (camo cloaks, etc.)
With respect for two roll systems, I agree that you do end up applying lot's of modifiers (for added detail), however I like the idea that a weapon can be strong enough to blast through your armor and kill you without AP (like an explosion or a big rock falling on you), and the idea of a gradated scale of AP vs Sv rather than "yes or no" makes more sense. Any ideas in how to incorporate this level of interaction between the two stats? I find carrying over details from one step into another is hard.
@all
I also agree that players expect I high level of detail with warhammer so I have to wonder about what level of gaming abstraction we want. Would there be an evasion stat for vehicles or will we work with line of sight and the obscured rule, allowing players to take the roll of the tactical tank crew rather than the dice. Would a unit that is moving get the same evasion stat as a stationary one? Does the range effect the units accuracy? Can you always have a chance of surviving a hit, no matter how strong the weapon? Does your armor have the same chance of stopping a pistol as a rifle (as long as its AP is high enough)? There are many abstractions in warhammer and any re-writing of the rules will need to think about what level they are planing to play at (oh, and keep it balanced too)
Alternatively, if you don't want to restat units, you could make shooting firer's BS versus target's BS on the theory that units better trained in marksmanship are also likely to be better trained in use of cover to avoid other peoples' marksmanship....
I'm not sure why everyone is hung up on a 2 stage combat solution. You lose a LOT of granularity since you go from 5x5x6 (150, since 1s to hit and wound always fail) possible states for any one shot to just 30. I've played 40k since the start of 3rd edition and I've never felt that the Roll to Hit/Wound/Save system was overly complex or taxing.
@BaconCatBug.
I agree.In my experience, most 40k players find 2 stage resolution '..too abstract, and not enough detail..' for 40k.
A three step resolution that applies to all units ,ranged attack and close combat , makes the resolution much easier to learn and quicker to play.
IF it remains straightforward and intuitive .
It is possible to just clean up current 40k rules , (remove all the special rules that are practically the same as USRs .)And use a more interactive game turn.(Alternating phases works well with minimal changes.)
And arrive at a rule set you are happy to play.
However, any major change where you use stats differently , add more or less of them.Causes a major upheaval in how the game plays , and has significant impact on game ballance.
And so the overhaul required is similar to the work needed for a complete re write.
As such I would prefer to just get rid of all the issues 40k has from backward compatibility, with a re write.
I know some people would like to tweek WHFB in space V 3.4, to try to make it fit 40k better.
But I would prefer to try to write 40k modern battle game rules V1.0
Just so we dont talk at cross purposes.
@Dragon_Cultist.
I am not too good at explaining things .(It usually takes me 3 or 4 goes to get an idea across. )
In the damage resolution I proposed there is no cross over.
The units Stealth value/Assault value is the base to hit value .Eg you attack something, to hit it you need to roll over its Stealth value /Assault value, to hit the model at range /in assault.
This base score can be modified , by cover , range ,etc.( shooters skill could be listed as a modifier If you like to instead of an opposed stat.) for ranged attacks.
And modified for charging ,weapon abilities, defended obstacles etc for Assault.
Fail to hit , no further action.
If you hit the target, the target attempts to make an armour save.
All units have Armour Values(1 to 15?).
All weapons have Armour Piercing value .(5 to 20?)
When a model is hit , roll a D6 and ADD the models AV .IF this value is higher than the weapons hits AP value the model makes it Armour Save.(As FoW)
If the value is equal or lower than than the weapon AP the armour save is failed.(Some AV are invunerable to some weapons.And some weapons automatically penetrate some AV.)
If the model fails its armour save it is suppressed.
Suppressed models may ALSO take physical damage from the penetrating hit.
All weapons have a damage value , (1+,2+3+4+5+).
All targets have a resilience value (0,+1,+2,+3.)
The attacker has to roll over the damage value for the weapon to damage the target AFTER the weapon hit beats the armour.
EG an Ork, get a penatrating hit with a Shoota on a SM.
The Ork Shoota has a damage value of 3+
The Sm has a resilience of +1.
The Ork player has to roll 3+,+1=4+ to wound the SM.
All these values would be on a unit card, so there is no need to look up values ...
Lanrak wrote: @BaconCatBug. I agree.In my experience, most 40k players find 2 stage resolution '..too abstract, and not enough detail..' for 40k.
A three step resolution that applies to all units ,ranged attack and close combat , makes the resolution much easier to learn and quicker to play. IF it remains straightforward and intuitive .
Agreed.
It is possible to just clean up current 40k rules , (remove all the special rules that are practically the same as USRs .)And use a more interactive game turn.(Alternating phases works well with minimal changes.) And arrive at a rule set you are happy to play.
However, any major change where you use stats differently , add more or less of them.Causes a major upheaval in how the game plays , and has significant impact on game ballance. And so the overhaul required is similar to the work needed for a complete re write.
As such I would prefer to just get rid of all the issues 40k has from backward compatibility, with a re write.
I know some people would like to tweek WHFB in space V 3.4, to try to make it fit 40k better.
But I would prefer to try to write 40k modern battle game rules V1.0
Just so we dont talk at cross purposes.
I agree completely. The fact that the game has tried for over a decade now to retain backwards compatibility between editions is a Major bugbear in my opinion and one of the reasons i'd love to see a change to the D10 system I proposed. It would need a total rewrite though which might be beyond the scope of either a fan project or GW itself. Remember the army lists in the back of the 3rd edition book? There is a greater chance of the Pope becoming Hindu than of GW rewriting and releasing all current codex's at once.
That being said, I've never had an issue with the Hit Wound Save system. I don't see the need to change to a FOW style AV system.
@Lanrak
I really like the sound of D6+Av vs AP. A simple system with no tables where High rolls are good for the roller and where all needed info is in the unit stats? Sounds good to me. I don't see why you don't take this mentality to shooting: D6+BS (with modifiers) vs evasion(with modifiers).
The way I would do the modifiers is simple:
if it affects the shooter, its applied to the shooter (BS changing special rules, rang modifiers, etc.)
If it is about the target then the modifier is applied to them (cover, how far they moved,etc.)
Note I am merely suggesting possible modifiers, I don't necessarily thing too many modifiers would be good for the game (maybe just cover, range and the odd special rule).
This could also be applied to combat, though the idea of an evasion stat for CC might be a bit much when you could just use their WS (like now, but no tables).
Again you could have one or two modifiers for charging, being in cover or grenades.
I would like to carry the idea further with to wound rolls (after all, having the same core concepts for each of the three rolls in a combat phase would be nice). I could see it done with something like 6D+toughness vs Weapon Strength.
Naturally all of these changes would need rewriting of the stats and the wound roll would mean either large strength or low toughness scores. By using a D10 as suggested (which I do kind of like) you would need to make all the values quite large as if the random roll becomes the majority of you roll then the game is just luck (think toughness 4 vs strength 10 being D10+ with values from 5 to 14). I think the random aspect should be at most half of the value (think average toughness of 11 or so)
@Bacon
Maybe GW could do a clean sweep with 7th edition and slowly rewrite all the codexes to fit with it. They would not release them publicly but you could by into the alpha and offer feedback (playtesters who pay you for the privileged) and they still release the models which would be used with 6th for everyone else. As they get through most of the codexes (the big ones anyway) they could go live and release the rest as they go. That is the only way I can see them doing a rewrite.
I would Kill the Emperor, have him be Reborn without Humanity being destroyed by his death, then Restart the Great Crusade with the Original nine loyalist Primarchs being Reborn.
@Dragon_Cultist.
Using the dice as a modifier ,(to represent ALL variables,) in the 'opposed value comparison' of AV vs AP, makes this the simplest resolution to give detailed proportional results.
This process has no other separate modifiers.
IF there are going to be multiple modifiers in the resolution , then having a fixed value based on skill/ability to succeed,rather than variable base from opposed values is more straight forward.
Eg If you want to have BS as the base value , then let 'evasion/stealth' , be a modifier not a stat to compare BS to .
. Its the same as the to wound roll, where toughness/resilience is a modifier not an opposed stat.
If you use opposed values to determine the base chance of success then add modifiers, it is over complicated.(It does the same job but takes longer.)
I agree that a few modifiers are best.(But more advanced rules can simply add the the modifiers if required, as a simple way of increasing complexity with out adding complication.)
I am happy to switch to a D10 if it is needed.(But if you use better resolution methods, the size of the dice is less important.)
Lanrak wrote: @Dragon_Cultist.
Using the dice as a modifier ,(to represent ALL variables,) in the 'opposed value comparison' of AV vs AP, makes this the simplest resolution to give detailed proportional results.
This process has no other separate modifiers.
IF there are going to be multiple modifiers in the resolution , then having a fixed value based on skill/ability to succeed,rather than variable base from opposed values is more straight forward.
Eg If you want to have BS as the base value , then let 'evasion/stealth' , be a modifier not a stat to compare BS to .
. Its the same as the to wound roll, where toughness/resilience is a modifier not an opposed stat.
If you use opposed values to determine the base chance of success then add modifiers, it is over complicated.(It does the same job but takes longer.)
I agree that a few modifiers are best.(But more advanced rules can simply add the the modifiers if required, as a simple way of increasing complexity with out adding complication.)
I am happy to switch to a D10 if it is needed.(But if you use better resolution methods, the size of the dice is less important.)
The only serious problem I can see with rolling against stat with modifiers is when you've got a stat that is used offensively and defensively (WS, for instance) you need to split it into the offensive WS value and the defensive WS modifier, though that does raise the interesting question of whether you could have melee units who are really good at attacking but crap at defending (e.g. Orks). I've had the chance to test out my system, which is opposed values with modifiers (a limited number of them; if you moved, if the other guy moved, if the other guy's in cover, and if your weapon says something about it), but it actually plays fairly well; I did apply the modifiers to the stats before computing the value to roll as opposed to applying them to the roll itself for the sake of extra flexibility.
@Anomander
I did notice that if for example two units have the same WS (say 4), then it becomes D6+4 vs 4. The easiest way is for the defender to have a +3 modifier so the attacker has to roll 4+ (which is what it is now for equal WS) though the thought of attack and defense in CC makes for interesting possibilities.
How about a stat-line like this:
WS: attack/defense
BS: accuracy/evasion
Toughness
strength
Wounds
save
Ld
E.g. (with made up numbers)
Space Marine:
WSBS T W S SvLd 6/8 8/4 4 1 7 7 9
The reason I wouldn't have the defender as just another modifier is that it gives both players something to do, they each have to calculate their respective stats (with modifiers) then the die are cast and results are tallied. Its the little aspect of having to look at your units stats, cover and movement while the opponent looks at his BS, range and movement before coming together to see the difference and roll the dice. I just think it would keep both players engaged if you have to do something every subphase.
- Codexes and rules as free PDF's and E-books downloadable from the GW homepage.
- They'd just have to edit the rules and upload the new versions to their homepage. No more FAQs and Erratas. Codexes could be living documents where rules could be edited and even new units be added without any real hassle. No amount of GW playtesting can replicate the immense wealth of knowledge that is thousands of people playing the game. Just need some solid system of input and ever better rules would evolve over time.
- They'd lose money on books, I somehow feel they would make up for it in increased miniature sales. Easier to attract new players with an ostensibly lower initial investment when starting an army.
Hi folks.
In terms of close assault , I have split the offencive and defencive aspects of assault into;-
Defencive capability as the models Assault value.(How hard they are to hit in assault.)
And the offencive values as the units weapon stat values.
Eg an Ork has an assault value of 4.(The opponent need to roll 4+ to hit the ork in assault.
Assaults are resolved in assault value order, highest first.
The assault value is modified by charging , defending obstacles/defences , etc
The orks offencive ability in assault is dependent on what weapons they are carrying.
I intend to put the units weapon profile under the unit stats.
Weapon name /effective range/AP /Damage/attacks/notes.
So an ork carrying a..
Choppa 0-2"/6/4+/2/close combat only
Slugga 2-12" /6/4+/1/pistol
Has a base of 4+ to be hit in close combat(Modfied).
Number of attacks , Ap and damage of attacks as weapon profile.
All this info on the unit card.
I hope I explained that well enough?
@Rasclomalum.
If GW plc were interested in game development they would at least release free Beta rules to the player base for play testing .IMO
- Codexes and rules as free PDF's and E-books downloadable from the GW homepage.
- They'd just have to edit the rules and upload the new versions to their homepage. No more FAQs and Erratas. Codexes could be living documents where rules could be edited and even new units be added without any real hassle. No amount of GW playtesting can replicate the immense wealth of knowledge that is thousands of people playing the game. Just need some solid system of input and ever better rules would evolve over time.
- They'd lose money on books, I somehow feel they would make up for it in increased miniature sales. Easier to attract new players with an ostensibly lower initial investment when starting an army.
- Or maybe I'm just an insufferable cheapskate.
GW would as soon shut down WHFB as go free digital living rulebooks for codexes.
All this WS/BS/Evasion talk is sounding a lot like Warmachine.
Warmachine: Models have a melee skill (MAT), ranged skill (RAT), a defence (DEF) which represents a combination of combat prowess/speed, a Strength (STR), and an armour (ARM) which is analogous to Toughness in 40k. Most models don't have a save.
When attacking you roll 2D6+MAT vs DEF. A typical model has MAT6, typical defence is 12-13. Similarly with 2D6+RAT vs DEF, or 2D6+STR vs ARM. Equalling or beating the opponent's value counts as a success.
Now this doesn't translate well to 40k, as 40k simply involves more models on the board and it is impossible to roll 2D6 to hit for 30 attacks simultaneously. WMH uses the 2D6 mechanic to achieve a normal distribution of results whereas 40k uses a large number of single D6 to achieve roughly the same goal.
It would also be difficult to achieve the same distribution as 40k: The 3/4/5+ to hit in combat doesn't work with the D6+WS vs EV. Similarly, you can't represent the 2+ for S10 to wound T1.
Some ways to make it slightly possible are:
Giving each model an evasion value of of 7. That gets the 'usual' 3+/4+ to hit mechanic for 'basic' troops.
Be VERY wary of giving ANYONE more than 8 evasion.
More simple is adding 4 to everyone's toughness. That mostly covers the D6+Str vs T, though it doesn't get the 2+ required or the 6+/6+ at the boundary of the table.
Overall I like the simplicity of that mechanic, and it works for basic troops, but it would require significant retuning for models with stats of 6+.
@Trasvi.
Using stats directly is used in most modern war games.(As they are developed focused on people playing the game , so they need clear concise rules.)
40k has the unique problem of using skirmish sized minatures (28mm), like Infinity and Warmachine etc.
But uses battle game sized forces, similar to FoW, Drop zone Commander etc.
So all the rules that work well with other skirmish games , are too complicated for the size of game 40k wants to be.
I believe if we use unit cards, we can get detailed unit interaction , based on simple resolution of each element/model in that unit.
The play tests I have done separating defencive ability of the units (model stat line), and the offencive capability of the units model/weapon combination .(On the units weapon profile.)
Allow these 2 element to be shown directly and in detail, while allowing quick resolution.
Stat A + dice vs Stat B is a popular resolution method, but it is only suitable in some circumstances.
The art in game design is using the most suitable game mechanic and resolution methods.
- Codexes and rules as free PDF's and E-books downloadable from the GW homepage.
- They'd just have to edit the rules and upload the new versions to their homepage. No more FAQs and Erratas. Codexes could be living documents where rules could be edited and even new units be added without any real hassle. No amount of GW playtesting can replicate the immense wealth of knowledge that is thousands of people playing the game. Just need some solid system of input and ever better rules would evolve over time.
- They'd lose money on books, I somehow feel they would make up for it in increased miniature sales. Easier to attract new players with an ostensibly lower initial investment when starting an army.
- Or maybe I'm just an insufferable cheapskate.
This was my plan, but since I'm not doing it for profit I don't have to worry about the losing money part.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote: @Trasvi.
Using stats directly is used in most modern war games.(As they are developed focused on people playing the game , so they need clear concise rules.)
40k has the unique problem of using skirmish sized minatures (28mm), like Infinity and Warmachine etc.
But uses battle game sized forces, similar to FoW, Drop zone Commander etc.
So all the rules that work well with other skirmish games , are too complicated for the size of game 40k wants to be.
I believe if we use unit cards, we can get detailed unit interaction , based on simple resolution of each element/model in that unit.
The play tests I have done separating defencive ability of the units (model stat line), and the offencive capability of the units model/weapon combination .(On the units weapon profile.)
Allow these 2 element to be shown directly and in detail, while allowing quick resolution.
Stat A + dice vs Stat B is a popular resolution method, but it is only suitable in some circumstances.
The art in game design is using the most suitable game mechanic and resolution methods.
I know I managed to get 40k's opposed-stat tables to work well by chopping down and streamlining them to one table that follows a simple pattern...
Still wondering about melee offense and defense; I'm not sure about adding an extra layer of complexity but I do like being able to get around the issue I've had under my rules of tanks being much harder to actually hit in CC than they should be.
One idea I had was to fix Armour and Armour Saves. While they're very simple right now I think, personally, that it's oversimplified which doesn't leave a lot of elbow room for diversity.
The idea itself was to remove the Save value from a unit's stat line and turn AP into a 0-10 system instead of the system used now.
Armour would be present either in the book's Armoury or in the unit's profile if they have a unique piece of armour. Armour would have two values: Defence and Save.
Save is a static value and represents the save roll the armour provides. Fluff-wise it would represent just how much of the unit the armour covers and how effective the armour would be at stopping damage to any point on the body. While some units may see a Save value change, most would remain pretty much as-is.
Defence is what determines whether a shot penetrates armour or not and works the same way as the current AP system, but both using a ten point system instead of the current 6 point one.
This would open up new opportunities for unit diversity. Not to mention this system would allow units with worse Saves to have high Defence values or vice versa and would prevent some armies from getting boltered to death.
Vehicles could then use Penetration instead of Strength to determine penetration and Strength could be used to determine internal damage, essentially allowing vehicles to have their own Toughness value of sorts.
So a model with really thick armor on only part of its body would have a lousy Save but good Defense? I'm not sure this would come up often enough to make the added complexity worth it....
When it comes to damage resolution, artificial separation of vehicles from other units , leads to pointless complication.
The only difference is multiple ' hit point' models record the damage separately, single' hit point' models are removed to indicate the unit damage.
(Hit points is the common name I for wounds ,structure points etc.Eg the number of un saved hits the model takes before being destroyed/removed from play. )
If we use unit cards, we can record the multiple hit point damage on them,rather than clutter the models with wound markers.
Combining armour and toughness into a 'Defence Value' may be fine in other games , (where infantry is based on stands.)
But 40k players need the detail of roll to hit, roll to for armour save, roll to damage.
(Simply because the difference between a high armour value and low toughness, and a high toughness low armour value is important to them, because of the background.)
This has been my experience over the last 8 or so years of trying to write new rules for 40k. anyway.
'Can you smell that?, CAN YOU SMELL THAT ?Thats the smell of napalm son , nothing else smell like that .God I love the smell of napalm in the morning!'
(Colonel Killgore Apocalypse Now.)
One idea I had was to fix Armour and Armour Saves. While they're very simple right now I think, personally, that it's oversimplified which doesn't leave a lot of elbow room for diversity.
The idea itself was to remove the Save value from a unit's stat line and turn AP into a 0-10 system instead of the system used now.
My problem with this is that you are trading a binary system for a somewhat flawed linear one. I actually like the idea behind the current Armor/AP system, in that so long as your armor is better than the weapons penetrating power, it doesn't affect your save, the problem is that it's too simple.
Otherwise you have to tone down weapon diversity, because you then have to handle how AP (- , 6, 5, 4) weapons interact with something like a space marine, because he shouldnt be invulnerable to weapons with poor AP. Add something like terminators into the mix, and the situation just becomes worse.
Look at how people feel about the 2++ rerollable invulnerable save, where it's at least possible to injure them. What if entire subsets of troops would be functionally immortal to your troops fire? People would lose their minds.
------------------------
On that note, i just finished working out the final issues in my modified Armor/AP system.
Hopefully it'll influence player behavior to be less reliant on AP 3 and 2 weapons, because they no longer need those weapons to affect power armor or better, AP4 weapons can reduce such armor slightly, and the higher rates of fire make them more a more versatile choice.
A model's armor characteristic has 2 components, Armor Class (AC) and Save (Sv)
If AP < AC == Use normal Save
If AP = AC == Reduce save by 1 (4+ become 5+)
If AP is 1 greater than AC == Save becomes a 6+ (unless you have a 5+ or worse save, then its ignored)
If AP is 2 greater or more than AC == No save
AC1 = Imperial Guardsmen
AC2 = Eldar Guardian
AC3 = Tau Firewarrior
AC4 = Space Marine
AC5 =Terminator / Meganob
This leads to the odd situation where AC2 and AP3 are essentially slight upgrades on AC1 and AP2 respectively, but they're mostly there to offer some extra diversity and make the system work.
Models with 6+ saves would fall into the AC1 category, but im looking more at replacing these unit's "Armor" with something more substantial and fluffy, such as Ork boyz's T-shirts being replaced with a FnP save, DE Wyches with a Dodge save, etc.
@Rav1n.
Is the system you propose to be used with current codex books ?
Are you adding in the AC to graduate the effect of AP vs save?(Does this also cover vehicles?)
It just seems a bit too complicated to me.
If we look at what actually happens,there is a base amour value, and a base armour penetration value.And a whole load of things that modify these two values.
In detailed simulation type games , distance to target , ammunition type(sub type of AP profile etc) , angle of incedent to the armour surface,difference in armour thickness dependant on area struck etc.
Are all listed separately and accounted for one by one in the resolution.
However, if we use the dice roll to account for all these variables, we are left with a base armour value, and a base armour penetration value and a dice roll.
We could call the dice roll the 'armour save roll'.
So 'amour value' + 'armour save roll' is compared to the 'armour penetration' of the weapon .
This covers all the factor of the real life interaction , in a simple to use and remember resolution that can be used for all units ans both close combat and ranged attacks.
This also uses the 3 things you proposed in your resolution, armour value (class), save roll , and armour penetration .
I may have missed the reasoning behind your choice of resolution.I apologize if I have.
I would like to discuss these ideas further.
I to feel that a Armour value+D6 vs AP would work. Especially as this would mirror our earlier notes of a "my stat + D6 vs your stat" system for shooting and wounding (it's the system currently used for vehicle, S+D6 vs Armour)
The main problem with this system is that the numbers have to be a bit larger (not all crammed in this 1-6 value like it is now). However people manage with armor values being quite large so I don't see why it wont work. (interesting fact, comparing the to wound chart and how vehicle armor works, I figure that a SM is equivalent to armor 7 by toughness alone.)
This leads me to my other point of how to handle vehicles. Personal the idea that the armor penetration stat had no effect on its ability to penetrate armor annoys me. If we make armor a number rather than what it is now, we could make it so that it is S+AP+D6 vs Armor value. This would make armor values very large (18 to 28) and I don't think that level of variation is needed. Assuming that S and AP range 0-10, then S+AP vs D6+Armor value would work without too much fiddling as then vehicle armor could be in the 10-15 range.
In my mind a large benefit of a "my stat + D6 vs your stat" is that you can always make the number bigger. While current charts mean S and T are 0-10, with this system you can always make them larger (just make sure that there is something to take them out!). No more strength D or having titans with the same armor as a landraider. There is always a bigger number (however this could make power creep a problem, currently there is a roof that GW can't break)
This also plays innto the negative side of it, in that there will be many situations where a unit can't hurt/hit/damage another unit (currently, only really the case with toughness of 8+ or with vehicle armor). Personally I like this as I think some things should always/never succeed in extreme cases.
To address the concerns about how people hate 2++ saves with rerolls. This is because they always get the save and there is a 1/36 chance of getting through. This could be fixed with a no rerolls on inv saves. Also if you can hurt them, at worst your odds are 1/6 (assuming no rerolls,which i don't think will be as needed if armor can vary much more), or not at all so you know where you stand.
@Dragon_Cultist.
If the result is not determined by a D6 result .(EG has to be 1 to 6)
Then we can use what ever value we need to get the interaction we want.
I have been using the armour values of 1 to 15.(Extend the current AV values down to cover other units.)
So all models have an AV, to give the approximate equal, of current save , save +inv saves , or AV.
(Eg Ork Mega Armour = AV5 , Terminator Armour = AV7 , Chaplin Terminator AV 8, Open top buggy trukk AV 9)
Weapons have new AP values of 5 to 20.
Some models are invunerable to some weapons .But that is nothing new.
Also some weapons auto penetrate some armour values.(But melta guns should auto penetrate a flack vest IMO!)
However, that is why I wanted to use a D6 score as the damage roll required dependent on weapon type.
EG 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+ in the weapon stat. with toughness represented as a 0,+1,+2.or +3 resilience value to the damage target score.
(It is similar to strength vs toughness but without the chart.)
Eg a Shoota has a damage value of 3+.
It wounds a IG (Resilience of 0) on a 3+
it wounds a SM (Resilience of 1) on a 3+1=4+
it wounds a Nurgle Marine (resilience of 2) on a 3+2= 5+
It wounds a Greater Deamon (resilience of 3) on a 3+3=6+
@Lanrak
Why use this damage value system?
It is similar to what I suggested but with a much smaller range
e.g.
my system: S+D6 >= T to wound
your system D6 >= S+T to wound
you just made it so that a lower strength is better
Same principals/complexity but with a tiny range. Hell, if a shoota is 3+ whats a lascannon? (-2)+? 1+? All you have done is made it so that there is a limit to what S can be, which was a major benefit of my way. Also in my way higher stats are better and you can have a larger range of values. I see no reason to use your method.
@Dragon_Cultist.
I did not explain my new system that well sorry.
I just replaced the S vs T table with a damage value X+(What the old strength value vs T 3 used to be.)
And then replaced the old T value with a Resilience modifier, (To give the change in dice roll required the old T value did on the chart.)
Eg A weapon that used to have Str 4, would have a Damage value of 3+(Str 4 vs T3 on the old damage table.)
A model that used to have T 5 , now has a resilience of 2.
So rather than consult a table , you just add the Resilience value to to the Damage value.
So the bolt gun Damage value of 3+ , goes up by 2 to 5+, when it is rolling to damage a Resilience 2 model.
It does exactly the same job as the old S vs T .but uses the opposed values directly to give the dice score required.
Eg Damage Value + Resilience value = score needed to damage the target .
it does not use S or T values directly , but the results of the old S vs T chart.
Lanrak wrote: @Dragon_Cultist.
I did not explain my new system that well sorry.
I just replaced the S vs T table with a damage value X+(What the old strength value vs T 3 used to be.)
And then replaced the old T value with a Resilience modifier, (To give the change in dice roll required the old T value did on the chart.)
Eg A weapon that used to have Str 4, would have a Damage value of 3+(Str 4 vs T3 on the old damage table.)
A model that used to have T 5 , now has a resilience of 2.
So rather than consult a table , you just add the Resilience value to to the Damage value.
So the bolt gun Damage value of 3+ , goes up by 2 to 5+, when it is rolling to damage a Resilience 2 model.
It does exactly the same job as the old S vs T .but uses the opposed values directly to give the dice score required.
Eg Damage Value + Resilience value = score needed to damage the target .
it does not use S or T values directly , but the results of the old S vs T chart.
I may need to explain that better?
I'm confused as to how you deal with S8+ (if S3 is 4+ S7 is 0+), are there negative damage values?
@AnomanderRake.
Yes, some higher end strength weapons may need to use Damage rolls of 2+and 1+.
These would need to be play tested to find the right values.The same as current vehicles which do not have a toughness value to base the Resilience values on.
Letting weapons have damage rolls of 1+,2+,3+,4+,5+, 6+ that is modified directly by the targets Resilience, (0,1,2,3) is the simplest way of covering the interaction I could think
of.
Most of the basic ideas for conversion from current rules are just to get an initial starting point to start play testing from
I like simple ideas, as I an rubbish at explaining things .
Lanrak wrote: @AnomanderRake.
Yes, some higher end strength weapons may need to use Damage rolls of 2+and 1+.
These would need to be play tested to find the right values.The same as current vehicles which do not have a toughness value to base the Resilience values on.
Letting weapons have damage rolls of 1+,2+,3+,4+,5+, 6+ that is modified directly by the targets Resilience, (0,1,2,3) is the simplest way of covering the interaction I could think
of.
Most of the basic ideas for conversion from current rules are just to get an initial starting point to start play testing from
I like simple ideas, as I an rubbish at explaining things .
I'm asking if there's a damage roll of -1+, -2+, etc. if you're doing direct mapping from the current rules since otherwise S7 is 0+ and there's nothing past that.
Exactly, I see no point in this system. S+D6 vs T can also be modified to match the table. just add 3 to the toughness and the odds come out the same. Assuming you can go past 1+, then you highest strength is 6, after that things will need to get complicated. This system is in no way simpler as you are adding a fixed number (Toughness, where higher is better) to a save type roll (Strength, where lower is better) is both counter intuitive an unlike anything else in warhammer. My suggestion is to copy the system already used by vehicle armor to toughness removing the constraints of a chart and allowing S and T to be as high as needed (and higher is better!)
Also, stop coming up with random names for pre-existing stats, so far we have all agreed on keeping a three roll system which roughly compare pre-existing stats (except evasion). New names like resistance are not needed.
At the core, the current system in warhammer 5 types of rolls for combat, to hit at range, to hit in close combat, to wound, to save, to penetrate armor. Rather than one type of system across all 5 we have 4:
To hit at range is a 1D chart
To hit CC and to wound are 2D charts
To pen armor is "my stat"+D6 vs "your stat" (MSvYS)
To save is a roll above a number (unless ap is low enough in which case dont)
This is the part that annoys me the most as a single system for all rolls would be easier to understand.
Now I prefer MSvYS for all systems. Adding 3 to toughness means we don't even need to do much to get it to work for to wound rolls. In the case of CC, you can just add 3 to the defenders WS and its (roughly) the same.
In the case of shooting, this is a bit more complicated but if you set the average evasion to 6 then the odds stay the same (allowing you to keep old codexes as they are until you fix them).
Finally armor is the most awkward and I don't know how to fix it. The stats for ap and sv will need to be completely rewritten.
I hope that wasn't too confusing. I just cant see a reason to use a Sv type system anywhere, especially to wound, and you just made new strength = 7 - old strength. and new toughness = old toughness -3.
Beautifully concise dissection of what's wrong with the 40K rules, Dragon. I'd not thought it out so clearly myself, but yes, there are five types of action with four types of resolution mechanic. Add stat tests (1d6, low rolls are good) and leadership tests (2d6, low is good), and you actually have seven types of things to roll and six different ways to roll for them.
I left the game five years ago shortly after 5th edition began. Time and $ were tight and I wasn't happy with 5th. Seemed like the armies were losing some of their unique flavor, hated the changes to terrain... I've recently been thinking about coming back, but don't want to be at the mercy of GW frequently changing the game in ways I don't like. So I've been thinking over how to make new rules that are more in line with what I envision is how the armies and game should look, and then I stumble on this thread. I am not alone. Anyway below is one of my ideas.
The shooting phase is gone. There is just movement and assault. Each unit can shoot any time it wants, but only one time per game turn. There can be a glorious, bloody firefight when the game begins.
Game turn divided into 4 parts. Player 1 moves (1A), Player 1 assaults (1B), Player 2 moves (2A), Player 2 assaults (2B). Once all units have been deployed, the initial shooting phase begins (all models count as having moved). All units from both sides may shoot in initiative order, units with the same inititive fire simultaneously. Every unit which fires gets a marker with 1A, and may not fire again until turn 2 part 1A at which time the marker is removed and the unit may fire again.
When all units which wish to fire and are eligible to do so have fired, game turn 1 part 1A begins. Player 1 moves a unit. Any unit from either army which is eligible to fire may do so in initiative order. If it fires place a 1A marker next to the unit. It may not fire again until turn 2 part 1A when its marker is removed. When player1 moves his last unit he declares movement done and any eligible unit may fire.
Player1 then begins his assault phase (part 1B) of turn one. He makes his first assault movement. When done moving any unit from either side which is eligible to fire may do so in initiative order. Place a 1B marker next to any unit that fires. It may not fire again until part 1B of game turn 2. When player1 completes all assault moves he declares he is done and hand to hand combat is resolved.
If unit A charges unit B and gets into base to base contact, unit B still may fire if eligible before the assault is resolved. This represents shooting as the assaulting unit approaches.
When all assault is resolved, player 2 begins his turn. The process is the same. Beginning in game turn 2, markers can be removed. 1A markers are removed in turn part 1A, 1B markers removed in turn part 1B, etc.
This change is designed to balance the advantage of going first and adds an element of strategy in the decision of when to shoot. It also ensures that units always get a chance to fire before being assaulted.
Other rules like units with faster charge speeds reducing the number of shots that can be fired would add an extra dimension to the ranged/assault balance. An additional idea is to allow a rapid fire weapon a single long shot and a shorter ranged burst each turn, but limit mobility when doing this. Assault weapons on the other hand allow full mobility while shooting.
Hi folks.
I do not appear to have explained the concept that well.
The strength and toughness value no longer exist in the new rules.
All weapons have a Damage value , which shows the dice roll the weapon needs to 'wound' the target after the weapon has defeated the armour.
This is the dice roll needed, displayed as a value X+
All models have a Resilience value the modify the damage roll.
EG a Bolt gun has a damage value of 4+.
This will cause a wound on a 4+ if the target has a Resilience of 0.
If the Bolt gun is trying to wound a model with Resilience of 1 , it needs 5+ to wound.(4+1=5+.)
This follows the basic concept , things that make the task harder add to the target score required.
In the resolution of armour and weapon armour penetration there are lots of variables , which need to be represented by a dice roll.
In the resolution of damage there are no modifiers.Its just weapons ability to damage vs the targets resistance to damage.
(As in the old S vs T table.)
I am struggling to find another way to explain this simple concept.
The only reason to use a dice as a modifier , is if there are variables in the resolution.
I am not sure if i can explain this any better,Could some one help me?
@Lanrak
I understand what you are saying, you have set it up as a save type roll with the base toughness being 3 and the weapon strength is a number you need to roll over to wound a unit with toughness three as per the current rules. Like I said:
Damage Value = 7-S
Resistance = T-3
You have just changed the numbers linearly so that lower damage is better. However, you numbers will end up looking like (-2)+ for higher S values, which is confusing for new players and how will you change the vehicle armor system to work with your new system?
I see no benefit to you system, while it is true that adding a number to a save type roll will tell you specifically what you need to roll, the gains in that regard are not worth the hassle in other areas.
A system of S+D6 vs T, can be edited to give the same results and without negative numbers or any other complexities. Also I think it's more intuitive.
@Sydney
Oh, and don't forget damage at tables (though I will allow those as making sense). Maybe a way to bring AP into vehicles is to make the damage table quite large and use AP+D6 to get a result on it. This can be explained as how strength will get through the armor, AP is how far in it travels and so how much damage.
Hell, the logic could be flipped with an AP test against Armor and a S+D6 roll to see what damage you managed to do.
This is just another thing about warhammer 40k. Who was the genius who decided that a weapons Armor Pen stat should have no effect on it's ability to Pen Armor?
@Dragon-Cultist.
Erm no I do not think you understand what I am saying...I will let friendly Mekboy Gubbibz, have a go...
ALL Gitz are made up of 2 bits.
'Ard bits what stop wepunz 'urtin' the 'Squishy bits.'
And the Squishy bits you have to mash up good an propa' to stop the Gitz from 'ittin you!
Wepuns are different in how they get past the 'Ard bits, and how good they are at mashin ' up the Squishy bits.
The Ard bits are massively different,from piddly little bits of plate the boys hang on their chests, to the front of my best battle Wagon.
Squsihy Gitz grow or wear little bits of Ard bits(personel armour, chitin skin), OR climb in big boxes made up of Ard bits.(Vehicles)
BUT the squishy bits are pretty similar when it come comes down to mashing them up! So wepuns are rated on my squshy bit mashing chart...
1+ uber mashy.
2+ super mashy
3+ very mashy
4.+ quite mashy
5+ meh at mashing
6+ puny masher.(Can only 'urt grotz, 'umies and skinnies!)
But some Squishy Gitz need more mashin up than others.
Orks are harder to mash up than umies and skinnies.( So opponents need to roll 1 higher to wound an ork .)
Our Wundeful Warlord is not very squishy at all (So opponents need to roll 2 higher to wound the Warboss.)
Thanks Gubbinz...
The current strength value used in 40k is no longer used.
It has 2 current uses in the current game .To determine the chance of penetrating armour of vehicles.And the chance of wounding models with a Toughness value.
If we are using a single damage resolution we can not use the same value for 2 separate resolution methods!
So the old strength value now is replaced by AP and Damage value.
How good the weapon is at penetrating the armour is listed under the AP value.
(For small arms this is just the strength value +2 as a starting point.This gives similar results to the current save rolls for infantry -small arms)
We will have to adjust the AP values of anti tank weapon to give similar chances to defeat the armour of higher amoured vehicles.
Eg a Las Cannon has an AP of 16.This means an AV of 14 fails the save on the roll of a 1or 2 .
(Which is the same odds as a S 9 weapon beating AV 14 armour and rolling on the vehicle damage chart in the current rules.)
Eg a bolt gun has a current S value of 4, so has an AP of 6.
When it hits an ork ,(AV 1) the ork needs a 6+ to make its armour save roll.
A las cannon (AP 16) hitting a vehicles front armour AV 13, the vehicle needs to roll 4+ to save (13 +4 =17 which is higher than the weapon AP of 16.)
Now the target behind the armour, the Squshy bitz as Gubbinz calls them.is not that different in comparative composition.
So weapons tend to cause damage in a predicable way.
The Eldar vehicles internal structure and crew may not be as robust/resilient to damage as the Ork Gun Waggon.
So the Eldar units do not modify any weapon Damage values.
The Ork vehicles could be so rough and ready , penetrating weapon hits may be more likely to miss anything important!
So the Ork vehicle could get a Resilience value of 1 or 2?
This makes the ork vehicle crew and internal systems harder to damage.
All values are subject to change during play testing.
The proposed rules cover all unit types, in a similar way.
Lanrak, are you swapping the functions of AP and Strength now? I think Gubbins, while charming, has made me even more confused -- I mean, got me fuddled in me 'ead.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: The shooting phase is gone. There is just movement and assault. Each unit can shoot any time it wants, but only one time per game turn. There can be a glorious, bloody firefight when the game begins.....If unit A charges unit B and gets into base to base contact, unit B still may fire if eligible before the assault is resolved. This represents shooting as the assaulting unit approaches....When all assault is resolved, player 2 begins his turn. The process is the same. Beginning in game turn 2, markers can be removed. 1A markers are removed in turn part 1A, 1B markers removed in turn part 1B, etc.....
I rather like this. Letting both players alpha strike each other could end games in one round of shooting if both players have long-range shooty armies and don't bother with proper covering terrain, but that's better than a shooty army that goes first having a crushing advantage. The only other tricky bit I see is having two kinds of "I already fired" counters that get removed at different times.
I like moving to d10 which seems popular as well as reducing hit/wound/save to just hit wound.
My way of doing it is to have stats be on a scale of 1-10. I guess it could go higher with Apocalypse units, but I hate those and don't care.
To hit you need a 10. You get to add your ballistic skill (normal value is 4) to the d10 to hit. Guardsman bs4 rolls a d10 and gets a 6 so he scores a 10 and hits. (I am playing with bonuses on the next roll for exceeding 10 to represent a mpre deadly well aimed shot, but that can get a bit clunky.) Obscurement lowers your to hit score so if target is in tall grass for example subtract 1 from the result.
Causing damage is a bit more complex. Here there are two scores that go into a combined defensive value (CDV), toughness and armor, and two that go into a combined offensive value (COV), strength and AP. You damage if you get a 10. Formula is D10+4+(COV-CDV). A roll of 1 always fails.
Typical infantry with light armor have a 4 armor value and a 4 toughness for a CDV of 8. A typical light anti infantry weapon has a strength of 4 and AP 4 for a COV of 8. Since COV and CDV are the same, you wound on a 6 or 50% of the time.
A Landraider would have armor 10 and toughness 10 for a CDV of 20. A Rail gun would counter with a 10 strength and 10 AP for a CDV of 20. You can't get a penetrating hit unless AP is equal to or greater than armor value.
If AP is equal to or greater than armor, then only strength and toughness are compared. Example: plasma gun with S7Ap7 against marine with T5AV5. Instead of 14-10=4 bonus on dice roll, it is 7-5=2 bonus on dice roll.
The only other tricky bit I see is having two kinds of "I already fired" counters that get removed at different times.
Are you talking about the rapid fire idea? That would definately need to be fleshed out more in its own separate rule.
Hi Sister Sydney.
There is no strength[/i] equivalent in the new rules.Maybe that is why i am confusing people .they are looking for a thing that is no longer there!
In the new rules I am working on I just use the Net effect of the weapon and the user , on the stat line /weapon profile.
So in the New damage resolution there is just;-
1) Attackers Roll to Hit. Just roll over the new (modified,) Stealth or Assault value of the target.[i][u]
Is everyone ok with this idea?
2)]Defenders Roll to save. Weapon Armour Penetration vs model Armour value.(To arrive at the 'save roll', which covers all the variable in the resolution.)
AV +D6 vs AP.
I think we all agree this is ok?
As old Strength is used to determine if weapons beat Old AV.(For vehicles.)Then using Old strength along with Old AP value to generate a GUIDE starting point for new weapon APvalues.
(This covers the 'power to get through the armour' part of the Old strength and old AP function.)
So we now have ONE scale to measure how ALL weapons get through armour , AP, from 5 to 20.And one scale to measure how well protected ALL the model are .(AV 1 to 15.)
Which lest us have one resolution method for all weapons and units.(Which reduces the complication of the old rules quite a bit.)
3) Attackers Damage roll.
This used to be 'look up score needed to wound on a the Old Strength vs Toughness chart.'
Rather than waste time with a chart.The new rules simply list the basic chance the weapon will cause damage on the weapon profile.(The score needed to damage Old T3.)
2+,3+,4+,5+,6+.
(This replaces the Old damage result function of Old Strength.)
Because we are not using a chart to modify this value , the Replacement for toughness, is a Resilience modifer, which adds to the target score.(making the defending model harder to damage.)
A quick summary of motive.
Current 40k rules list values seperately for weapons and models. These modify each other during the game to arrive at a (sometimes long winded) result.
I would prefer to simply list the net effect of the weapon and model combination on the stat line and weapon profile.(On a unit card.)
So rather than having a strength value. you got rid of that completely and came up with a special number of each weapon which represents how well it hurts people which compares to a stat the defenders have which is how resilient they are? Sounds like weapon strength and unit toughness to me.
You even say how you just took the values from the current chart. I have said it twice and I will say it again. your value for weapon damage is just 7-S.:
e.g.
bolter, S = 4, needs a 3+ to wound against a T = 3 unit. 7 - 4 = 3. Against a T = 4 unit the chart says 4+ 4-3 = 1, 3+1 = 4+. which is what the chart says. You system copies the chart (laudable) but with a smaller range (and more complex).
How about we don't use a system that uses a chart (like we do now) or use a system that limits every weapon in 40k, from the biggest tank gun to the smallest grot pistol, to only 5 different values? How about a system where a higher strength is better? How about a system which doesn't require every S value to be rewritten and which can bring every current toughness value in line by adding 3?
How about S+D6 > T to wound.
I pointed out above that the problem with warhammer is that almost every roll uses a different system, you are simply adding another (more complex) one to the mix. There is no reason to do it like this.
I think the fact that you have spent 5 post trying to explain your method with almost not suggested benefits mentioned, speaks for its self as to how well it works.
tl;dr your system has a tiny range of weapon strength and unit toughness values, is completely new for no reason, is quite complex, needs both T and S to be recalculated and is counter intuitive.
tl;dr2 the chart system is better than what you suggested and S+D6>T is better than both imho.
Lanrak wrote: Hi Sister Sydney.
There is no strength[/i] equivalent in the new rules.Maybe that is why i am confusing people .they are looking for a thing that is no longer there!
In the new rules I am working on I just use the Net effect of the weapon and the user , on the stat line /weapon profile.
So in the New damage resolution there is just;-
1) Attackers Roll to Hit. Just roll over the new (modified,) Stealth or Assault value of the target.[i][u]
Is everyone ok with this idea?
2)]Defenders Roll to save. Weapon Armour Penetration vs model Armour value.(To arrive at the 'save roll', which covers all the variable in the resolution.)
AV +D6 vs AP.
I think we all agree this is ok?
As old Strength is used to determine if weapons beat Old AV.(For vehicles.)Then using Old strength along with Old AP value to generate a GUIDE starting point for new weapon APvalues.
(This covers the 'power to get through the armour' part of the Old strength and old AP function.)
So we now have ONE scale to measure how ALL weapons get through armour , AP, from 5 to 20.And one scale to measure how well protected ALL the model are .(AV 1 to 15.)
Which lest us have one resolution method for all weapons and units.(Which reduces the complication of the old rules quite a bit.)
3) Attackers Damage roll.
This used to be 'look up score needed to wound on a the Old Strength vs Toughness chart.'
Rather than waste time with a chart.The new rules simply list the basic chance the weapon will cause damage on the weapon profile.(The score needed to damage Old T3.)
2+,3+,4+,5+,6+.
(This replaces the Old damage result function of Old Strength.)
Because we are not using a chart to modify this value , the Replacement for toughness, is a Resilience modifer, which adds to the target score.(making the defending model harder to damage.)
A quick summary of motive.
Current 40k rules list values seperately for weapons and models. These modify each other during the game to arrive at a (sometimes long winded) result.
I would prefer to simply list the net effect of the weapon and model combination on the stat line and weapon profile.(On a unit card.)
Is this any clearer?
So you are chopping us down to two-roll combat resolution now?
Actually Lanrak has just made it so that the armor save roll happens before the wound roll. It is a bit confusing because he also includes vehicles. At the core I agree with the idea of AV +D6 vs AP. I am not too sure about the idea of making the new AP a combination of current AP and S stats as I see no reason to dump S like he suggests in the to wound roll. I think we can keep the S stat as it is and simple make AP a 0-10 stat based of our current AP values. As for vehicles, here I feel some sort of combined stat is needed (e.g S+AP+D6 vs AV). While combining S and AP may seem nice, it make things more confusing for the to wound roll. I feel we should leave these things separate (like they currently are)
Here how I would do it:
note: when I say ">" i mean must roll strictly higher than
Roll To Hit - shooting BS+D6 > Evasion
I am all for the idea of a unit having a stat representing how easy it is to hit but I don't think the skill of the shooter can be ignored. Unlike something like flames of war where the range of shooting skill is small, in the 41st millennium there is just to much variety in both shooters skill (Ork to Vindicare Assassin) and evasion (slow and big Carnifex to small and nimble genestealer) for either to be ignored.
Roll To Hit - CC WS+D6 > WS+3
Yes, yes, the adding of 3 is weird but this just means that equal WS has a 50% chance of hitting (like currently). It is a bit messy but I makes the roll the same as shooting and means you dont have to change the WS stat to make it work. Can be explained as a defensive bonus
Roll To Wound S+D6 > T
I see no reason to mix up the order of rolls and I see no reason to change S. This also make it the same type of roll as to hit. It is simple and based of armor pen rolls. All current weapon S values can stay the same and everyone's T value has to be increased by 3 to bring current stats in line.
Roll To Pen (version 1) S+AP+D6 > AV for pen, = to for glance
I haven't given this one as much though but it should work. Personally I approve of this "glance just removes a hull point" idea as it make vehicles more reliable while leaving them vulnerable. This system is a bit more complex with a total of 3 stats used but I don't think it's too bad.
Roll To Pen (version 2) AP+D6 > AV to pen, = to glance.
Vehicle damage is rolled on a table where the hit's S is used as a modifier so high S weapons do more damage. I like this because it means only two stats are used in the roll for Pen (like to hit and to wound) and you can kind of see high S low AP weapons as more likely to glance off but when they do pen they do more damage (or something like that).
Roll To Save AV+D6 > AP Again, the same type of roll as to hit and to wound (starting to see a theme?). The values for these stats would need to be completely recalculated as now AP (0-10) is much more powerful as any AP helps (rather than, is useless unless low enough). I think AV will need to be quite large in general.
Now you will have noticed that I use the same type of roll for every roll (much easier to understand) and many of the current stats wont need to be changed. No charts are needed and your unit having a higher number for a stat is always better. The numbers can be increased as much as you like (with out going negative or being held back by a chart), so very high S weapons (currently strength D for example) can be brought into the current system.
I hope this shows why I think this system is da best!
@ AnomanderRake.
I still use a 3 step process , but it occurs in a more intuitive way.
Roll to hit, if the weapon misses take no further action
Roll for armour save, if the armour saves the model from harm, take no further action.
Roll to damage.
I think 3 stage resolution in 40k is important for several reasons as previously discussed.
I was working on was to make the rules less complicated.So a unified damage resolution was part of that.
@Dragon_Cultist.
Using the same resolution method for all elements of the damage resolution , (Stat +D6 vs Opposed Stat.)when stat line values can be used directly for some elements.Is needless over complication.
You proposed methods would work fine, but I am trying to get maximum game play from the minimum of fuss.This is the ONLY reason I think my proposed method is better.
I understand that 40k players are 'programmed' to think complicated rules are good.But 'old gits' like me prefer straight forward rule and complex game play.
And the only reason to keep WHFB statlines and resolution methods in 40k , is to allow cross over from a more popular and larger player base of WHFB.(This situation has not been the case for about a decade!)
Making 40k backward compatible to WHFB, (1970s Napoleonic rules.) Is the core reason for 40k rules being over complicated and diffuse.
Removing the need to be backward compatible to WHFB, allows a rule set to be written specifically for 40k.
So the game play is arrived at by the shortest route.
By the way as I am using the stat line to show the combined weapon +attacker values.(On the unit cards.)
The Effective range can show the differences between BS.(The better at shooting the user, the longer the effective range.)
The number of attacks can show how good the weapon+attacker is at hitting the enemy.in close combat.(Assault value shows how good they are at defending themselves.)
All attacker + weapons have their ability to penetrate armour, and cause damage in just 2 separate and clearly defined values.
This allows some weapons to be good at penetrating armour , but not so good at causing Damage (Wounds.)
And other weapons to be poor at penetrating armour , but devastating when they do.
There is no fixed formula for this.I am just using current values as a reference for a starting point.(Final value will be arrived at by play testing.)
It may not be apparent how over complicated the current 40k rules are.
Imagine the rules are direction to your LFGS.
Most rules get there in less than an hour , with a short car ride, that leaves you out side the door of the FLGS.
.
40k takes you past the game store to the airport, gives you a 12 hour round trip of planes,trains and busses!And still leaves you at the wrong end of the street!
Your rules proposals are loads better than this! (But it still still is not as direct as it could be.)
PS.
On the stat line values are listed as numbers where the higher number is better.
AV 14 is better than AV 7.AP 12 is better than AP 7
But the base dice score needed to succeed is listed a X+,
Everyone knows a 2+ roll requirement on a D6 succeeds more than a 5+.
@Dabba.
Boil down the essence of the INTENDED game play of 40k , you get an interesting and diverse modern battle game with a inspiring fictional veneer on the top.(IMO.)
Boil down the rules GW plc are writing for 40k you get Rock paper Scissors.
@Lanrak
You say that a "stat"+D6 > "other stat" Is complex? or that using the same method for every roll is too hard?
Your methods also include taking a stat from the opponent but rather than rolling against it (which makes sense). You say stat line values are easier but you still have to apply a modifier so ultimately it is just as complex.
You also say that it is important to use three roll systems an the like to keep the variety of options high (i agree) but you then cut down the range of weapon strengths to 5. Also how does how many attack someone does have a bearing on how good they are in CC. A grot will have 1 attack, but then so does a SM. So would you give better units more attacks? Again you have reduced the number of viable numbers to only a handful because I gets ridiculous after bout 5 attacks each. The idea of making the BS built into the weapon is also ridiculous. This isn't flames of war, the combatants aren't defined by their rifle type. I agree that in real war, how effective you are at range is heavily based on your weapon, but not in warhammer. The range of skill shown by the users is too large to ignore. Also, what happens when two units in the army have the same weapon (say SM vs Scout with bolters). Would you make a special version for the different units, or maybe include a modifier on the unit? In which case, just us BS. In warhammer BS matters more than evasion. Again I agree, in real war you survival is heavily based on how well you use cove, but thats no warhammer. Also, tell me what is simpler, fireing a squad with mixed weapons with all the same rolls, or having to look up each weapon individually?
Honestly I feel much of the complexity in warhammer comes from having lots of different types of dice rolls (which you dont fix) and from constantly needing to check the rule book (see Universal special rules and roll charts). I am trying to fix the rolls.
So far the only criticism I have gotten from you is saying that having the same type of roll for all systems is too complex (?). you say you want minimum fuss but no one gets your rules.
You remove many of the stats currently in use and bring in new ones, you cut down on the range of values which can be used (which is already too short).
You are hard coding the weapons in with the stats of the unit which means its harder because you have to look up the stats on your unit for every guy with a different weapon. This also stops weapon stats being shared between different units (do you have any idea how many different units can get/have heavy bolters in warhammer?)
You set the skill of the attacker to the number of attacks despite the fact that they aren't linked (big, heavy hitting CC vs fast blockable CC)
You idea of unit cards is cool (warmachine) but not really practical in warhammer where units can have many different options and you can have more than 5 units a side.
How are you minimizing fuss? As far as I can tell half your rules don't change the level of complexity, they just move it laterally to imitate other games which have different focuses. You yourself pointed out how warhammer is a unique game using large minis but also large armies. The level of abstraction in FoW don't work here. But then the level of detail and the ways units interact in Warmahoards doesn't work either. The current rules are messy and I feel a simple, one type of roll, system is the easiest to explain. Hell, you do realize that my system for wounds is almost exactly the same as yours right:
You use the column of the chart referring to T3. You realized that rather than a full chart you can simple edit the value based on toughness (makes sense). Here is how you get from your formula to mine:
D = damage (the values you got from the chart)
R = resistance
yours: D6 >= D + R This makes a x+ value
From the chart we see D = 7-S
so D6 >= (7-S) + R
You set R as the modifier with R = 0 as T = 3
so R = T-3
so D6 >= (7-S) + (T-3)
so D6 >= -S + 7 + T - 3
so D6 >= T - S + 4
Add S to both sides:
S + D6 >= T+4
And because this is only with whole numbers be can remove the equals by subtracting 1.
S + D6 > T + 3
Which is my equation. The main difference is that my S can go higher than 6 and it is the same type of roll. I think the x+ system is too restrictive as you only get 5 values (6+,5+,4+,3+,2+). Yes we could turn all of my equations in to a x+ system but then half the stats will look strange.
tl;dr Come up with a reason why my system is worse than yours. As far as I can tell you reduce range of values and make the maths more complex and irregular. Combining stats isn't always more streamlined but it does reduce variation.
It is a small thing but rolling to hit then armor save then wound doesn't flow as smoothly as hit, wound, save. With hit, save, wound you have to count the number of hits, defender counts out that many dice and rolls, then count failed save, then attacker counts that many dice and rolls. Roll pick up hits, roll to wound, count and roll saves is a much more streamlined process. Doesn't make as much sense considering how a wound would actually happen, but works better on the tabletop.
@Gwailhirsbrither.
I disagree.Both flow as smoothly, its just which one is more intuitive for the flow of the game.
Attacker rolls hit dice.(They make the attack first obviously!)
Defender rolls their armour saves.(The weapon projectile hits the armour BEFORE it hits the softer squishy target behind the armour.)
Defender picks up successful hits and rolls armour saves!
Attacker rolls to damage ,(the soft squishy target behind the armour.)
Attacker picks up failed save dice and rolls to damage wound.
The only reason 40k lets the attacker roll saves last is the same reason WHFB does this.
The army level alternating game turn.
The attacker (the player whos turn it is,) does everything in one go.And not to disrupt the attackers 'flow' defender just rolls saves at the end.
If we a re using a more interactive game turn.(I assume we will be.)The having the defender alternate rolls with the attacker fits better .
@Dragon_Cultist.
The least complicated rules simply list stats directly on the stat line.
The maximum distance of movement /shooting in inches/mm The number of dice rolled.
The score needed to succeed.
Most games allow these basic values to be modified , to add depth and detail to the game.
(KoW for example.)
The only reason to move away from this SIMPLEST form of resolution is if the interaction NEEDS to deal with more than 2 elements.
(Base chance of success+modifiers.)
In 40k the ONLY resolution that needs to consider more than 2 elements is weapon and armour interaction.
(Base armour value+ armour variables,base weapon AP+ weapon hit variables.)
I hope this makes my POV clearer.I did not intend to cause offence.
Firstly, on the idea of saves before wounds. Having the rules force you to roll the other persons dice can be a point of contention, also it hardly makes any benefit other than a change for changes sake.
Secondly, are you saying that the only roll that needs both players stats is armor? Because this is wrong, WS, wounding and if evasion is included then that too. I understand that having the X+ system as a stat may seem to make things easier, but I feel that its reduced range of values in both the stat and the one it is compared to is not worth it. You cant ignore the fact that a more accurate shooter will hit more, no matter the weapon. You cant ignore that a more skill swordsman is more likely to be able to hit and block. You cant ignore that a tougher unit is more likely to survive. The idea of a simple x+ roll for everything seems nice, but is sacrifices the depth that the Warhammer universe needs.
Think, by your system weapon to wound values (lets just call it strength for simplicity) can only be 6+, 5+, 4+, 3+, 2+. If you bring the Idea of modifiers then they can only be (-5 to 4). Not only are both these ranges of values smaller but if you model resistance 0 as a human than means everything tougher (damn near everything, from SM to Carnifex and greater deamons) has to be fit in 1 to 3, rather than, say 4-10. This is too smaller a range. Your system would work for units that are closer in stats but that isn't warhammer.
You can say that you can go outside the range of strengths and use something like 1+, (-2+) or 7+ or stronger or weaker weapons but the idea having to roll over a number that is outside you dices' bounds is not simpler.
That is why I think an X+ system with modifiers will not work. I have always though the Sv system is one of the weakest in warhammer. Not only does it force all armor into 5 categories, it also has an illogical non-linear system with AP. I feel that modeling the rest of the stats around this is not a good idea.
Either way with you stats you have to add the modifiers, why don't you like my system which just adds the dice roll to one stat and compares it to another stat. Both use a single basic mathematical operation and a comparison. Remember, the simplicity of just rolling over what it says on the unit stats will be lost the moment you bring in modifiers (which you NEED. You just can work without considering the opponent in you rolls).
I understand you system, I really do, I just feel that it sacrifices range for an attempt at simplicity. My method is also entirely covered in the units stats. All my rolls act the same so there are no exceptions that need to be remembered. Remember that our methods can be converted into each-other's with maths. I am not bringing anything new to the table. You don't need to find anything from the rule book, it's all there, just like yours, but with more range.
Hell, why go for having the X+ on the attackers stat, that makes lower good which automatically installs a ceiling of 0 for you max value (assuming you don't want the hassle of negative numbers). A ceiling is NEVER a good idea in warhammer. There is always something faster, harder, stronger, etc. If you move the x+ to the defender and add the modifier to you dice roll then it becomes "my stat" + D6 against x+ for your stat. Oh wait, that's my system, never mind.
In closing, you speak about how other systems allow these stats to be modified sometimes to add depth. The thing is that warhammer 40k is too broad for a couple of modifiers. Literally nothing is constant. Not the species of the combatants, not the strength of gravity on the battle field, not the chemical makeup of the attmosphere, not the armour they wear, not the type of projectile they fire or the material that makes their blades. Every thing can change in warhammer. This is why the warhammer rules need a three roll system. this is why each unit has so many stats, this is why most of the rolls compare stats. Because a units effectiveness is so heavily dependent on who he is facing.
you can't scrap that. Now things like getting rid of charts is fine, but reducing ranges and comparisons in the name of simplicity is not possible. I want you to consider how you would model a Titan cannon firing at a ork or a genestealer attacking a tau firewarrior. If your system can't handle these in a logical manner then it doesn't work.
As a rolling convention rolling the same number of your own personal dice as successful opponents dice results.
OR just picking up the successful rolls and rolling then as your turn , from common or shared dice with the game box set.
Is just personal choice.
I just posted the rolling convention our club uses(out of habit.).
I do not intend to force anyone to play with other peoples dice if they do not want to!(they may not roll as well as your own lucky dice!)
If we look at 6th ed 40k.
The game currently uses multiple resolution methods, (and lots of special rules) for weapon and armour interaction.
The 2+ to 6+ range of saves modified by AP values.AND extra invunerable saves, AND special rules, AND vehicle Armour Vales And Weapon Strength.
All the other resolution is just covered by one value and simple modifiers.
To hit in close combat attackers WS(base value ) and modified by the opponents WS.(In a chart that only give 3+,4+ and 5+.)
To hit with ranged weapon is just based on the player skill, without modifiers.(Unless you include cover saves?)
To wound is just Attacker S modified by Defenders T(In a chart that gives 2+,3+4+5+6+ no effect results.)
If we want to use a single damage resolution system to cover all units.
So all units follow the procedure of ;-
Roll to hit,
Roll to save,
Roll to damage(wound.)
(Unless the armour sucks out the bullets and repairs the wound and its self afterwards, as it appears to do in current 40k rules. )
Only the 'rolling to save' has to convert several resolution methods ,in to one unified system.And the level of current complication needs to have a slightly more complicated resolution.
Base stat opposed stat and dice roll to represent all the modifiers.
The roll to hit and roll to damage can keep the simple base stat and a modifier resolution IMO.
Unless you want to include much wider ranges of interaction , for the to hit roll and to wound rolls?
Would you extend this 'universal resolution' to cover movement rates, Move +D6 vs terrain value, and effective weapon range, Range +D6 vs interveening elements.
if you want a much higher level of diversity in all resolution methods in a new game , then I can see your point.
But as other games deliver great game play with simple use of direct stats and a few limited modifiers.I would prefer to use this as a 'default' in game development.
And only move away from it when completely necessary.
And the only area that requires this in 40k game play is the weapon and armour interaction.IMO.
I believe in KISS, and only move to using a larger dice, and more complicated resolution methods IF you need to.
Terrain could be divided into two characteristics: obscurement and deflection. Obscurement would change the roll needed to hit. If a marine is trying to hit a target in tall grass (obscurement 1) he hits on a 4+ instead of a 3+.
Deflection would modify the target's armor. Armor saves would need to be modified for this to work. Basically right now you are trying to get to 7. 4+3(the minimum d6 roll that saves)=7. So 3+ armor saves become 4s. AP3 becomes 4 as well. Have AP interact with armor by reducing it. A marine (armor 4) behind a brick wall (armor 2) has a combined armor value of 6. An AP5 weapon hits him reducing his armor to 1. If he rolls a 6 he saves (1+6=7). Seven is needed to save.
Rolls of six to hit could ignore cover's deflection score to represent an accurate head shot that misses the cover entirely. They could also hit a fully obscured target (laying down in thick grass for example) to represent a lucky shot.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Terrain could be divided into two characteristics: obscurement and deflection. Obscurement would change the roll needed to hit. If a marine is trying to hit a target in tall grass (obscurement 1) he hits on a 4+ instead of a 3+.
Deflection would modify the target's armor. Armor saves would need to be modified for this to work. Basically right now you are trying to get to 7. 4+3(the minimum d6 roll that saves)=7. So 3+ armor saves become 4s. AP3 becomes 4 as well. Have AP interact with armor by reducing it. A marine (armor 4) behind a brick wall (armor 2) has a combined armor value of 6. An AP5 weapon hits him reducing his armor to 1. If he rolls a 6 he saves (1+6=7). Seven is needed to save.
Rolls of six to hit could ignore cover's deflection score to represent an accurate head shot that misses the cover entirely. They could also hit a fully obscured target (laying down in thick grass for example) to represent a lucky shot.
This is an unnecessary level of detail for the abstraction; I had terrain modify only the roll to hit, seeing as modifying the armour save from terrain would come from terrain being in the way of the shot and if you're hitting the terrain you're not hitting the person hiding behind it.
Bullets travel right through trees. Projectiles with strong piercing power can punch through steel. You aren't completely safe just because you are standing behind something solid.
No extra rolls are needed with this idea. There does need to be a bit off extra thought before rolling though.
Make elite units (including space marine tactical squads) actually elite. Maybe include a rule that gives units +1 shots and pinning when they come into the LoS of a unit for the first time - to stop a squad going in guns blazing and killing one guardsman. On the flipside of this, make expendable units like cultists be useful (e.g. include worship mechanics like in dawn of war to help boost the power of marine squads and demons).
Random ideas without structure below:
- Guardsmen can choose to have heavy 2 lasguns in cover
- Make fearless units fire overwatch at a higher ballistic skill to represent the fact that they have better clarity in battle.
- Make some units have the ability to gain feel no pain or relentless at the cost of having to roll leadership tests in order to move, shoot or assault with them until the end of the turn (maybe call it Zeal?)
On the topic of cover.
If we can all agree that things that make units harder to see , long grass etc, but are not substantial, can be called 'light cover.'
And this is best served by making the target harder to hit, eg add one to the target score to hit. (A 3+ to hit becomes a 4+ to hit.)
If the cover is substantial enough to deflect or stop weapon hits.it could be called hard cover.
This makes it harder to hit the target behind the 'hard cover'.
So simply increasing the effect of cover to add 2 to the target score to hit .(A 3+ to hit becomes a 5+ to hit.)
This is simple way to represent hard cover.
This is the most effective way to implement the effects of cover, with straightforward rules .(Most games use it.)
It is the method I prefer.
@SilentScreamer.
The reason the 'best of the best' , are not that much better than the 'average' is down to the restrictive way GW plc write rules for 40k.
Eg
The chance of hitting some one of equal skill in melee is 4+.The chance of hitting some one that is over twice as good as you is only 1 better 5+.
All the posts that ask for units to be 'more different' ,are basically saying WHFB core rules do not serve the expected game play of 40k that well.
They are expressing concerns about symptoms , of a very significant problem .
And 40k really needs a new rule set written for the current game play, not ' variations of WHFB in space version 3.x'
This is the part that annoys me the most as a single system for all rolls would be easier to understand. . .
Finally armor is the most awkward and I don't know how to fix it. The stats for ap and sv will need to be completely rewritten.
Having tried 3 times to denounce this idea and write this post, i've kept coming back to it because i like too many parts of it to put it aside, so here we go.
I've given the idea of applying my overall resolution chart to AP and Armor some work this past week, and just kept running into problems with it. Note that i say "Chart", but that really is just how i visually interpret the rules of the resolution system, the chart is only there for convenience referencing.
--A = Attacker
--D = Defender
A = D + 3 or 4 :2+
A = D + 1 or 2 :3+
A = D :4+
A = D - 1 or 2 :5+
A = D - 3 or 4 :6+
The Good --AP and Armor are both single stats without additional stats to modify them, which is nice and simple
--Vehicles don't require additional rules, and can be directly compared to infantry stats. It's interesting to see something like "Terminator armor is just below main battle tank level armor" expressed directly in the rules.
--We can give vehicles an armor save under these rules, that interacts appropriately with AP. More player involvement in their own models is always better.
--Would fit very nicely into a costing equation, whereas the current method is a nightmare to work in.
--Helps promote further diversity in stats
The Bad --Actually using the chart to resolve this is awkward as you are "Attacking" the enemy's AP with your armor. Not a huge problem, but awkward.
--Filling up the new slots is very difficult. I need 12 AP and Armor stats, which is a lot, even if you bring vehicle AV into the system.
--Despite there being too many open slots, there's still not enough empty slots to ensure every armor class interacts with every AP correctly.
--AP values are very unintuitive. AP "0" is AP3 under these rules, and it's not only frustrating to not be able to use AP 1 and 2, but also odd to think about weapons with no penetrating power having penetrating power.
--It's slightly more involved to think "How much does this AP influence my armor" as compared to "is this one of the AP's that affect my armor", this is a problem with any system of non-binary saves, but it's especially prevalent here, since they can not only get worse but get better.
--You need to make all sorts of exceptions to make sure Heavy Infantry don't work too much like vehicles, because otherwise terminators are essentially immune to several basic infantry weapons.
--Heavy infantry seem too vulnerable to some lower AP's (AP4 and 3) and not vulnerable enough to AP2 and 1.
-------------------------------
Do i think this system will work? No, there are just too many problems for this system to account for, at least without completely departing from what current 40K plays like. That being said, there are some solid goals here that i'd like to work towards, namely;
--1 stat for "Armor"
--Infantry and Vehicle Armor on the same scale.
--Higher Diversity of AP and Armor Stats
--Higher AP and "Armor" values meaning higher quality
I'm all but certain that AP and Armor are going to need their own resolution methods that differ from how we treat the other stats, because as irksome as it is to have something sticking out, this is one area where getting it right is really a make or break moment.
@ Rav1n.
''there are some solid goals here that i'd like to work towards, namely;
--1 stat for "Armor"
--Infantry and Vehicle Armor on the same scale.
--Higher Diversity of AP and Armor Stats
--Higher AP and "Armor" values meaning higher quality .
I totally agree with these principals.
The simplest way to achieve these results I can think of is, assigning a range of values to Armour eg 1 to 15 .
And these are used as the modifier to the armour save roll.
So values of 2 to 21 represent the possible save roll results from all possible armour save rolls on a D6 .Range of 19 result values to cover 'flack vest' to 'super heavy armour' saves.
If we assign a value to all weapon armour penetration values ,to give appropriate levels of saves from the armour values.
AP-AV= dice save roll score required.
This leaves the Dice roll to represent ALL variables in the resolution , and AP and AV values can be listed directly .
This is not the only way it can be achieved, but it is the simplest way I can think of doing it.
The main issue I see with ditching the AV system in favor of making vehicles have T values, saves, and wounds is that it changes a lot of assumptions that go into the pricing of weapons.
Weapons like Railguns, Lascannons, and Meltas which rely on a few good shots to kill are now ineffectual against vehicles without being spammed. Plasma and especially Grav weapons become grotesquely good vehicle killers because they have a good enough strength to hurt most proposed toughness values for vehicles, have the AP to push past armor saves, and have the weight of fire to rapidly shave off wounds.
We did try giving vehicles toughness values, and it ended with White Scars grav bikers (and to a lesser extent Dark Angels plasma bikers) effectively rendering vehicles obsolete because they could delete any vehicle in the game the moment they got into firing range with trivial ease. Rhino? Poof. Leman Russ? Poof. Baneblade? Poof.
It also made haywire more or less useless as haywire weapons are all designed under the assumptions that their special rule is going to be doing all the damage (naff strength and ap). It also seriously entropic strike units like scarabs as now the best they can do is strip armor saves instead of outright eating the vehicle all by themselves.
Distort weapons became imbalancing, gauss had to become bladestorm to remain relevant, monstrous creatures that relied on a few really hard hits to crack open vehicles (carnifexes and wraithlords) became much less useful, and the DEldar dominated game after game.
I'd much rather have vehicles remain different, but work to make them more level with monstrous creatures. So we went back to our old homebrew system which worked better.
Interesting results -- always good when people actually play test things! How exactly did you assign vehicle toughness values? Did vehicles also have armour or some other kind of save?
@Kain.
Any re write/significant change would require re costing of all units.
And lets face the current PV and F.O.C are not that good anyway.
Why would weapons like Rail guns , Lascannon and Meltas become ineffectual?
With new values we would simply assign AP , Damage and Attacks with Special abilities, to allow a wide range of weapon function and tactics.
The weapons profiles changed dramatically from 2nd ed to 3rd ed.(When they dropped dice resolution on damage values and penetration values.)
Why are we not allowed to alter new values to get the game play we think is right?
If you give vehicles actual saves and toughness values to fit the current system for infantry M/C.
You would still need saves AND 'invunerable' saves.(And probably all the extra USRs that give extra save rolls, like FNP and WBB etc.)
Which is why I prefer to use the AV+D6 vs AP.
One system to cover all weapons and armour interaction.Which follws my favorite principal of K.I.S.S.
SisterSydney wrote: Interesting results -- always good when people actually play test things! How exactly did you assign vehicle toughness values? Did vehicles also have armour or some other kind of save?
Take the average of all three facings, divide by two and add one (or three for SHVs) as toughness to a maximum of ten, HP is a straight equivalence to wounds.
AV (for the front) 10=4+
AV 11=4+ reroll on ones
AV 12=3+
AV 13=3+ reroll on ones
AV 14=2+
AV 14 on all sides=2+ rerollable.
Lascannons became useless because they couldn't get the weight of fire needed and neither could Meltas. It's the same reason why Lascannons and Meltas are horribly inefficient against monstrous creatures.
So what instead happened was Grav-Bikers annihilating any vehicle they got into shooting range of,
Genestealers could suddenly tear open any tank with ease, the Eldar could bladestorm away any and all vehicles, the Deffrolla became worthless due to not having an AP value, and more such shenanigans.
After a week or so of chaos; it was decided that the old system (AV values, but a bit more liberal in giving out saves to vehicles, balancing FMCs and GCs to FVs and SHVs and Walkers to Monstrous Creatures while keeping them distinct) was superior.
If I may lend a machete to the issue of lacking weight of fire all that's necessary is breaking the one shot-one wound rule. Stick Multiple Wounds on lascannons, that sort of thing. As to giving vehicles T/Sv instead of the current AV that's a change that absolutely can't be done in a vacuum; if you do just that, anything that's spammable and AP2 or Rending becomes even more ridiculous; you have to go back and work on the AP system.
I've been using the exact same statline for vehicles as for infantry with Multiple Wounds on many AT weapons, AP applied as a modifier to Sv instead of flat-out ignoring it at certain levels, 0+/1+ saves on most vehicles (auto-succeed if the other guy can't reduce them to 2+ or worse), and no Rending weapons as they exist in 40k today; I've only had one playtest that actually involved vehicles (Space Wolves versus Dark Angels), the Wolves' Dread went down turn three because the Dark Angels' one lascannon was pounding it the entire game and the Techpriest got killed by reaction fire the turn before so he couldn't patch it up.
Hi folks.
Just to say that the only way to let all models resolve damage in the same way.Would be to play test to arrive at completely new stat lines and PV etc.
We can use current values as a rough guide , for a starting point.
But the idea we can just make ANY significant change to the current 40k rules without significant alteration of stats and PV is underestimating the amount of over complication the current system uses.
Are we still agreed that a 3 stage resolution is the only one that can cover the diversity found in the 40k universe?
If we are then all we have to chose is how we determine the to hit, to save, to damage rolls.
Just remove cover saves entirely and make the save a to hit modifier. So if you are in a ruin with a -2 to hit a bs4 model would hit on a 6. In area terrain a -1 to hit so on a 5.
It makes no sense that you hit, wound and then save it because it hit the wall.
Also markerlights should just give you the ability to reduce to hit penalties as per the above.
@Shingen. I think we more or less agree unanimously that 'cover' as a 'to hit modifier' was the best option.
And a set value to succeed (on the stat line) that is modified by a few specific elements and events,(short list of modifiers.).
Is the simplest and most intuitive way to cover the majority of the game play.(80% +)
And is much more elegant and less complicated than listing a separate rule of exception for every possible specific element and event separately .
SisterSydney wrote: Interesting results -- always good when people actually play test things! How exactly did you assign vehicle toughness values? Did vehicles also have armour or some other kind of save?
Take the average of all three facings, divide by two and add one (or three for SHVs) as toughness to a maximum of ten, HP is a straight equivalence to wounds.
AV (for the front) 10=4+
AV 11=4+ reroll on ones
AV 12=3+
AV 13=3+ reroll on ones
AV 14=2+
AV 14 on all sides=2+ rerollable.
Lascannons became useless because they couldn't get the weight of fire needed and neither could Meltas. It's the same reason why Lascannons and Meltas are horribly inefficient against monstrous creatures.
So what instead happened was Grav-Bikers annihilating any vehicle they got into shooting range of,
Genestealers could suddenly tear open any tank with ease, the Eldar could bladestorm away any and all vehicles, the Deffrolla became worthless due to not having an AP value, and more such shenanigans.
After a week or so of chaos; it was decided that the old system (AV values, but a bit more liberal in giving out saves to vehicles, balancing FMCs and GCs to FVs and SHVs and Walkers to Monstrous Creatures while keeping them distinct) was superior.
I see what you were trying to do there, but I'm also not surprised that giving vehicles both a save and toughness made them ridiculously hard to kill for anything that couldn't ignore the save.
I'd be tempted to convert AV straight to Toughness myself, give vehicles no armor save, and see what happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oops, clarification: new Toughness = old AV would only work if you junk the whole to-wound table and replace it with
IF strength + 1d6 > toughness + 1d6 (or toughness +3), THEN wound.
@Sister Sydney.
The problem is trying to stretch a system developed for 'primitive' weapons to cover the diversity of ability and technology in 40k.
Just using T values for vehicles makes them worse than M/Cs, which fill a similar role in game
(If you let any penetrating hit suppress the model,then if the hit fails to damage , it still has a useful effect
If you suppress a vehicle , it has to choose to stay still and return fire (and counts as moving.)or move .
And if you follow up with a smoke /blind to block the vehicles LOS.
You can effectively keep a vehicle out of the game without causing any damage to it at all.)
I think the problem is 40k has such convoluted rules if you try to re create them , you tie yourself up in knots.
So a complete break from the current rules , allows a clean break from the holistic complication.
And we can tweek the values in the new systems to arrive at results we are comfortable with.
I am sure you could get vehicles with armour saves and toughness to work.
But if other models get saves , inv saves and t values.
Wont it seem odd vehicles not getting the same?
I actually found that trying to recreate the rules from scratch I avoided getting tied up in knots with the simple expedient of looking at the setting and working out the most efficient way to simulate things that would happen in the setting (starting from Dawn of War was actually a great help) instead of trying to take the current (somewhat byzantine) rules and modifying them.
As to vehicles it may not make sense that they can be pinned by small-arms fire but it also doesn't make sense that getting shot with heavier weapons would have no effect pinning-wise; I just ended up giving all vehicles Stubborn (take morale tests on unmodified Ld regardless of the number of pinning markers they've taken) to dodge the issue.
@AnomanderRake.
I totally agree a complete re-write starting from scratch , is a better choice IF you want a clearly defined and intuitive rule set.
(We may have a slight difference of opinion on how the rules are actually written, but that is to be expected as we are influenced by our own personal experiences . )
I thought if we let the AV being beaten by the weapon, resulted in suppression .It allows simple and intuitive scaling of weapon armour effects.
Eg
The weapon AP value determines what targets the weapon can effect, in terms of their AV value.
(Small arms can not beat the AV of heavy armoured vehicles .Therefore there is no need to use an additional rule like 'stubborn' from old 40k.)
The weapon Damage value determines how devastating the weapon is to the soft target behind the armour.
A single projectile , is less comparatively damaging than a blast of thermal /chemical energy.
(Early APFSDS rounds in WWII often passed straight through softer targets,.This is why HEAT(HESH) and HE rounds were added to the munition types used.)
The weapon Attacks determines how many hits the weapon/user can inflict on the target.
The weapon Notes show any special abilities of the weapons/unit.
Ignore cover, reduce AV , (specified target types,)ignore resilience value.(specific target types,), modify assault value, multiply damage effect (specified target types.)etc.
This is the simplest way I could think of to cover the wide diversity of weapon found in current 40k.
The problem is getting the balance right IMO.
If you oversimplify the core rules , you NEED lots of additional systems and rules to cover the game play that fall out side the core rules.
This is 40ks current biggest problem IMO , over complication.(multiple instructions to cover one simple function.)
If you expand the core rules to cover absolutely everything, you can get too complex rules, that they become too difficult to explain and learn.(A single complex system trying to deal with with multiple functions.)
And I am rubbish at explaining stuff,so I want to avoid this like!
So hitting the 'sweet spot' of complexity to complication can be very hard to pin down.
But most other games seem to run at 80%- 90% of game play covered with core rules.
And 10% to 20% covered by special rules /exceptions.
My plan was to have a core system about as complex as the current one and do as much as I possibly could within the core rules instead of requiring ten pages of crap not covered in the main book to actually play each army (looking at you, Ward!Necrons).
@AnomanderRake.
I totally agree with your assessment of the problem with too many special rules in 40k!
But I have a slightly different development target.
I wanted slightly more complex game play,with much less complication in the written rules.
EG On parity with other great battle games currently available.
And also keeping in mind the need to start with skirmish size rules.(To allow easier play testing etc, and give new players an 'easy in')
So skirmish rules use the same resolution methods and game mechanics as the battle game.
But skirmish rules look at using them to resolve detailed model interaction.
And the battle game look at using them to resolve detailed unit interaction.
This could explain the slight differences we have in how we approach re-writing 40k rules.
I'm almost derailing my own thread about changing D6 to D10 by talking about Armour, so I just continue here.
I have some suggestions for rules changes, but I'm probably mostly interested in changing the D6 to D10 and everything that follows. Here I'd like to talk about Armour which I would change to (x / y / z) and be subject to armour save modifiers. Special saves like an Invulnerable save/Ward save would maybe still be there but shouldn't come from physical armour but rather Psychic shields, Daemonic shields etc.
The Armour information should consist of:
x = Armour Save (Rolled equal to or more)
y = How much Armour save modifier which is ignored.
z = Worst armour save Possible
Could those of you who have come up with new rules regarding armour, with whatever dice-system it may be, post an example of something like Boltguns, Autocannons, Missile Launchers versus the most used Armour?
--1 stat for "Armor"
--Infantry and Vehicle Armor on the same scale.
--Higher Diversity of AP and Armor Stats
--Higher AP and "Armor" values meaning higher quality
I've worked up a system that meets these criteria, though there are some odd points about it.
I've attached a picture with some example values and a chart with the values on it. Trying to write all of it out is tiresome.
You'll notice that there are no more 6+ saves, largely because I don't feel there's a reason to keep a save so worthless that people forget about it being there. T-shirt saves would be replaced by things such as invulnerable saves or FnP, anything that means they are minimally affected by AP, and to match, i dropped their possibility from the AP system entirely.
I am worried about this being a touch too complex for something that needs to be determined on the fly and often in large numbers, but after some adjustment it shouldn't be too bad.
There will of course have to be some recostings. Some units are getting significant buffs from these changes, others are having their durability slashed, particularly models in Power Armor, who now get a 4+ save against AP4 weapons, though they are slightly more durable against some AP3 weapons.
I tried to apply some logical guidelines to assigning AP and AC values. For example, IG guardsmen and Eldar Guardians both have 5+ saves currently, however, the eldar use much more advanced technology and materials, and their Mesh Armor covers the whole body, unlike the Guardsmen's Flak Armor, and as such has a slightly higher AC.
Alternatively, Battlecannons and Missile Launchers are both AP3 currently, however, a Battlecannon must sustain its AP over a large blast area instead of penetrating a single target. The Missile launcher is a much more focused penetrating weapon, and as such as a slightly higher AP than the Battlecannon.
Also, vehicles are now being treated as having a toughness value in addition to armor facings, so a shot must first "wound" it to produce minor damage, then roll to penetrate to cause major damage. Many of the AC and AP values for vehicles were built around this idea, as without this first "To-Wound" roll many of them would be far too vulnerable to penetration and damage.
There are still some unwanted interactions however, making sure terminator armor, AP2 and AP3 weapons, and vehicles all behave correctly is proving problematic. What i have now is the best i can do while still staying within the confines of the rest of the stats in my system (no values above 12). I may push armor beyond this boundary, or split AP into Anti-Personnel and Anti-Tank values in order to correct for these problems.
@Rav1n.
I am impressed with the chart and all the work that has gone it to it.
However, I feel it is a tad over complicated,( and still needs to rely on separate Inv saves.)
If you say you have to roll over the weapon hit AP value(5 to 20) to pass an armour save roll.
And you let the models Armour Value(1 to 15.) add to the dice roll .
Then all armour values are useful, just some are more useful than others!
Flack vests (AV 2) are useful against all anti infantry weapons.
But are useless vs heavy anti vehicle weapons.
But vehicle armour AV 11 to 15 are effective vs anti vehicles weapons,and invunerable from some small arms fire.
@AnomanderRake.
That is a well laid out document.
It covers lots of improvements and includes some great ideas!
Only a few minor gripes.
USRs are an 'Oxymoron'.As Universal means it applied to everything .And Special means it only applies to a few cases .
Your rules have core rules and special rules.If you have to classify 'special rules' in to several types, because there are so many.Then some thing has gone a bit 'fuzzy' somewhere!
There are a few things I would change slightly to reduce the complication .But then in doing this the rule set would not have any 'link' to GW version of 40k rules.
An I am assuming you want to keep the rule set 'familiar' with these nods to the current 40k rules?
Lanrak wrote: @AnomanderRake.
That is a well laid out document.
It covers lots of improvements and includes some great ideas!
Only a few minor gripes.
USRs are an 'Oxymoron'.As Universal means it applied to everything .And Special means it only applies to a few cases .
Your rules have core rules and special rules.If you have to classify 'special rules' in to several types, because there are so many.Then some thing has gone a bit 'fuzzy' somewhere!
There are a few things I would change slightly to reduce the complication .But then in doing this the rule set would not have any 'link' to GW version of 40k rules.
An I am assuming you want to keep the rule set 'familiar' with these nods to the current 40k rules?
The big point here is to keep everything tied to the 40k universe without necessarily being stuck with the rules GW went and built, a lot of the things that work like 40k does today are there because I tried something different and it didn't make sense from either a playability or a lore standpoint and iterating on it produced something that looks like 40k. USRs are "universal" in that there are people in a lot of different army books that have them but "special" in that not every model does; I'm not particularly attached to the name, I used it because it's the same set of concepts GW used the term to refer to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Trying to get the Space Marine rules updated to the current version of the core and make sure I can simulate everything you can do with all the current SM books with one set of rules. Any suggestions for Chapters besides the First Founding Chapters and the Black Templars who ought to get their own Chapter Tactics?
Not being that familiar with Space Wolves and Blood Angels, I'm intrigued by the idea that you could reduce their idiosyncracies to a single special rule, let alone one that would apply to other armies. How would "feral" work?
Hi Sister Sydney.
What I meant was the most divergent factions , tend to use different unit types to the rest of the army selections.
If we called these exceptions 'feral' , it would show they are not just slight re organisations of standard units.
But completely different units are used , with a thematic of 'feral organisation '
Not that 'one rule' would explain all the differences.
Eg Squiggoths, Boar boys,Cyboars, Wild boys etc ,are the Feral ork units.
Long fangs, Blood Claws,Rune priests etc are feral space marines.(they follow the feral wolf type pack organisation.)
Trying to cover all of the many factions with just structural changed in F.O.C could get very complicated if you try to cover everything.
Just having a HQ making similar units 'common', and proper 'traits' with bonuses and set backs, covers most factions/themes.
Apart from the few that have been made completely different in the last quarter of a century.
(When I started 40k Blood angels were painted red, and Space Wolves were painted light grey/blue.They did not have different rules to Salmanders and Ultra marines, the green and blue ones!))
Maybe the'Feral trait 'limits the choice of units to the more 'refined theme' in SMs Blood Angels, Space Wolves , Snake bites, etc.
(Maybe some IG regiments that are awesome at close combat?)
Through whatever quirk of fate the current version of my rules has exactly 40 special rules in the core book.
As to Space Marines I've tried to incorporate as many different alternate organizations as I could under the Codex (power-armoured Scouts with close combat weapons and Scout-armoured Marines with the option for Scout gear, that sort of thing), then I gave them a system not unlike the Guard Doctrines system from the 3rd edition book where you've got access to some basic selection of units and a limited number of the restricted units (potentially also Doctrine-like rules to allow for things like Deathwing and Ravenwing getting special rules above and beyond normal Terminators/Bikes, this would take up variant unit selection options). The only thing currently available you can't simulate under this system is Thunderwolves, still working on a general form of them. As to Chapter Tactics right now I've got rules for every one of the nine original Legions plus one for the Black Templars and a transport-focused one approximating the Aurora Chapter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So for instance we might say Assault, BIke, and Devastator Veterans, Hero Dreadnaughts, non-basic Land Raiders, Recon Marines and Bikes, Neophytes, Stormravens, Forlorn Hope Marines (the general form of Death Company, also intended to simulate a place the Space Wolves stick the Wulfen), Hero Predators, and a bunch of character options for command are all on the Restricted list, leaving most everything else available for everyone.
If I were approximating the Ultramarines they have an inflexible command structure but cool Veterans so I'm going to get Assault and Devastator Veterans but leave variant commanders at home, they leave the scouting to the Scouts so no Recon Marines or Neophytes but they do run Stormravens, and they don't have a Forlorn Hope formation but they might have Hero Predators, then I tack on the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics and declare myself done.
If I were approximating the Space Wolves, on the other hand, they've got a much more flexible command structure but their Veterans prefer their own two feet, so I'm going to get only Devastator Veterans but I'm going to get Hero Dreadnaughts and Command Chaplains and Command Librarians. I've got Recon Marines but no Recon Bikes, yes to Neophytes but no Stormravens, no Hero Predators but I've got a Forlorn Hope formation, and then I stick on the Space Wolves Chapter Tactics and I've got that army list.
This system is still a work in progress and the precise numbers need to be worked out.
I've been thinking about how to bring in tactical elements like flanking and surprise attacks on infantry units, maybe even 2nd edition style overwatch, and thought up something i'm calling a "Facing Marker".
So whenever you have finished a units activation, you place one of these markers next to the unit to denote where the unit's attention is focused.
If the unit has shot at an enemy unit or is engaged in an assault, the target unit must be within the facing marker's forward arc, denoted by the sole yellow arrow on the marker.
Overwatch could just be 2nd edition style, where you forfeit the unit's shooting this turn, and may choose to fire if an enemy unit moves within your field of vision, denoted by the "facing Marker's" front arc.
Flanking could do things like allowing re-rolls to hit for both shooting and assault. If this idea is developed further, you could do things like surprising an enemy unit from the rear allowing an automatic sweeping advance (not the auto-destruction version we have now though, that mechanic is silly).
There is the issue that abuse wouldn't be too difficult to figure out, and that you could place the marker closer or further from certain models to maximize the marker's field of vision, so that will have to be dealt with.
Rav1rn wrote: I've been thinking about how to bring in tactical elements like flanking and surprise attacks on infantry units, maybe even 2nd edition style overwatch, and thought up something i'm calling a "Facing Marker".
So whenever you have finished a units activation, you place one of these markers next to the unit to denote where the unit's attention is focused.
If the unit has shot at an enemy unit or is engaged in an assault, the target unit must be within the facing marker's forward arc, denoted by the sole yellow arrow on the marker.
Overwatch could just be 2nd edition style, where you forfeit the unit's shooting this turn, and may choose to fire if an enemy unit moves within your field of vision, denoted by the "facing Marker's" front arc.
Flanking could do things like allowing re-rolls to hit for both shooting and assault. If this idea is developed further, you could do things like surprising an enemy unit from the rear allowing an automatic sweeping advance (not the auto-destruction version we have now though, that mechanic is silly).
There is the issue that abuse wouldn't be too difficult to figure out, and that you could place the marker closer or further from certain models to maximize the marker's field of vision, so that will have to be dealt with.
I ended up doing Overwatch sort of in that fashion, but the geometry of the marker could be hard to figure out and cause arguments (I know I've been having trouble in games with perspective and spatial reasoning causing two people to come up with different answers about where a scattered marker lands). Theoretically if we assume the turns take long enough it's possible the unit could be keeping an eye out all around by having troops on watch in all directions, the penalty to hit for reaction fire I included is then partially because the gunners could need to reorient quickly.
I was going to experiment with suppression only allowing the suppressed unit to return fire .(Eg shoot back at the unit suppressing them.)
Or move to cover.(Or larger models to turn to present their heaviest armour to the inccomming fire?)
This would allow other units to 'out flank the supressed unit, and assault it in relative safety.
Sort of follow 'modern tactics.'
The 4 Fs .
Find then
Fix them,(With suppression fire.)
Flank them ,
Finish them.(In close assault.)
Reducing fire arcs etc seems a bit fiddely for 40ks current size to me.
Hi folks.
The idea I posted above is a slight abstraction of suppression, to allow clear and concise use and play.
Have I over simplified it too much?
Restricting the units shooting ability, either by range and /or target selection seems a logical and simple way to represent suppression effects.
Just making the unit chose between moving and shooting is not enough restriction IMO, from the play tests we have done.
Reducing fire arcs, is fine if all non infantry units are on bases.(6mm to 15mm games.)
However, if infantry models are based individually , working out individual fire arcs in a squad can a bit to much work for the results we need IMO.
Do you agree suppressed units should have restricted targeting?
Would you prefer range restrictions or specific targeting restrictions?(EG closest enemy, or the enemy firing at them)
Been a while since anyone posted, figured i'd share some progress.
I've dropped the idea of using a single resolution chart for stat tests, wounding, and hitting. The To-Hit probabilities worked pretty well for shooting, but close combat became immensely one sided with very little necessary advantage. I've since broken this chart into a "To-Hit" chart and the old chart, which now just determines wounding and stat tests.
The new To-Hit chart looks similar to the current Close-Combat To-Hit chart, just with an extension to include 2+ (maybe 6+ as well, testing underway). Combining this new chart with shooting modifiers has yielded interesting results, the implications of which i'm still working through. At the very least, I have a new "skill" value placed between current values of 2 and 3 that i haven't fully explored yet.
Finally worked out the kinks in my new Armor Save system, by dropping 2+ saves from the possibilities. 2+ saves are now relegated to special rule status, as I couldn't find a way to integrate vehicles, 2+ saves, and normal AP values into one system without at least one of them performing incorrectly. Determining what AP is necessary to negate a 2+ save is still determined by the overall Armor system though.
I've also tentatively split AP into AT (Anti-Tank) and AP (Anti-Personnel) values. This keeps values for vehicle armor from growing too large, and helps ensure both infantry and vehicles behave as intended against all weapons. Assuming this system proves to be worth keeping, i'll probably explore some less traditional examples of AP style (Strong AT, Weak AP or Weak AT, Strong AP).
I've also been working on how I want vehicles and monstrous creatures to play. One of my current issues with the game is that vehicles and monsters don't become less effective as they take damage, purely from a "wounds" perspective. Yes vehicles have the damage table, but having 2 methods with which to kill vehicles seems excessive and bulky, while monsters are as effective at 6 wounds as they are at their last.
So my idea was to give monsters and vehicles a number of "action points" (working title) equal to their number of remaining "wounds" that determine how effective they are for that activation. A monster or vehicle could then spend action points to perform actions, such as
--Designating a target (1 action point)
--Firing a weapon (1 action point for primary and secondary weapons, 0 for defensive weapons, 2 for ordinance weapons)
--Moving (1 action point for each distance of their movement speed they want to move, up to 3 (maybe 4 for some))
--Clearing suppression tokens
As much as i like aspects of a damage table, i don't particularly like having to account for every individual effect, and when considered alongside all the other markers I'm using to detail how a unit is performing, i don't think it's worth it. I do want to explore a way for "explodes!" results to occur on a vehicle or monsters death though.
Monsters and vehicles would receive a suppression token for each saved wound they receive, since this ensures they can ignore large volumes of fire from weaker weapons, and only focus on weapons that have the potential to injure them.
Obviously there will have to be serious recostings of many units, particularly monstrous creatures, as their effectiveness is now degradable. I'm also concerned that linking "wounds" to performance this way could have some harsh unintended consequences, so playtesting will be telling.
I'm also experimenting with some purely fun/interest related alterations to weapons, such as laser weapons cutting through enemies similar to jaws of the world wolf,certain weapons allowing for the generation of additional attacks similar to the blood talons from C:BA, thunderhammers allowing attacks against all enemies in BTB contact, etc.
Of particular note is the return of "parry" from second edition rules, where a model with a sword has an option to deflect enemy attacks, though i'm likely to implement it slightly differently than the original method.
Hi Rav1n.
Sounds like you have had loads of cool ideas.
Have you thought about using a simple damage track to map show loss of effectivness of vehicles and M/Cs?
EG each successful damaging hit. caused the vehicle M/C loose an attack or movement.
Eg vehicles and MCs have so many hit points in mobility/attacks.
For example a land raider has 3 mobility and 3 attack Hit points.
When it suffers a damaging hit , it loses 1 mobility and now only moves 4"
A second hit damaging mobility means it now can only move 2"
The next hit imobilizes the land raider.
A Carniflex has '3 mobility' and '2 attack' hit points.
If it suffers mobility damage , in now only moves 4".
When a model looses an attack hit point it loses one weapon /attack.
