If you haven't heard, the Horus Heresy game, “Burning of Prospero”, uses a combat resolution system based on a dice-type roll-off. The Attacker rolls a dice-type based for each weapon in the attacking unit: a D6 for bolters, a D8 for Plasma guns, a D10 for melta guns and heavy bolters, etc. Then the defender rolls a dice-for the armor rating of the target model. In the game Marine's armor rating is a D6, Terminator armor is a D10, and Characters are D12. Players compare the high dice result on each side. If the Attacker has the high dice the Defendant takes a hit. Then Players compare their next highest dice, etc. Defender wins ties.

Ambush Ally's Force-on-Force and Tomorrow's Wars uses a similar system.

I think its a good system. Its clean and quick. The current 40K combat resolution system requires three roles and six different stats to determine a hit. This system used two stats (dice-types) and a role-off. That’s it. This system eliminates the need for the S and T stats, and perhaps others. And, unlike the current system, both players are involved throughout. Also, using different dice-types is the best and easiest way to represent the rich universe that is 40k.

Dice-type roll-off is just a better mousetrap, and I think 8th Ed. should use this system for 40K.

Thoughts?

No. It works because Prospero is a small game where both players will have less than 20 models each and everybody is a Space Marine. Try doing that with a 30 Boyz and a 100 dice, then try factoring in the mass variety of different units that 40K has. It's a non-starter for a game like 40K.

 Imateria wrote:
No. It works because Prospero is a small game where both players will have less than 20 models each and everybody is a Space Marine. Try doing that with a 30 Boyz and a 100 dice, then try factoring in the mass variety of different units that 40K has. It's a non-starter for a game like 40K.

This is the first criticism I hear whenever I suggest the dice-type roll-off system for 40K: “OK for small games but wont work for bigger games like 40K”. I almost put a preemptive reply to this criticism in my initial post as I knew it was coming soon. And I was right; didn't take long.

Yeah, well, first, understand, with this system 30 Boys would be rolling no more than 30 dice, assuming they all had Shootas, and assuming they all had LOS to the target unit. I don't see how picking out the high dice from a bunch of D6's with some D8's and a few D10 and an occasional D12 thrown-in would be any harder than picking out all the 4+ from, for example, a 100 D6's.

Of course Prospero is not the best example for how it should work in 40K. Prospero is just such a basic game. In theory it would work like in Prospero but in practice there would be a lot more to it. For one thing, there would be a cover mod and a range mod. Also, as in Force-on-force, you would ignore all results of 3 or less. Those are considered misses or clearly ineffectual hits.

Actually, since its quicker and cleaner, and uses fewer stats, the benefits of the system only multiply with bigger game.

The other criticism, that the dice-type roll-off doesn't work with “the mass variety of different units that 40K has” is utter nonsense. In fact using multiple dice-types to represent different units and weapon abilities is easier, cleaner, and far superior than the current system that forces designers to use a string of stats, special rules, exceptions to rules, exceptions to exceptions to rules, and a bunch of re-rolls to do the same thing.

Thirdeye wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
No. It works because Prospero is a small game where both players will have less than 20 models each and everybody is a Space Marine. Try doing that with a 30 Boyz and a 100 dice, then try factoring in the mass variety of different units that 40K has. It's a non-starter for a game like 40K.

This is the first criticism I hear whenever I suggest the dice-type roll-off system for 40K: “OK for small games but wont work for bigger games like 40K”. I almost put a preemptive reply to this criticism in my initial post as I knew it was coming soon. And I was right; didn't take long.

Yeah, well, first, understand, with this system 30 Boys would be rolling no more than 30 dice, assuming they all had Shootas, and assuming they all had LOS to the target unit. I don't see how picking out the high dice from a bunch of D6's with some D8's and a few D10 and an occasional D12 thrown-in would be any harder than picking out all the 4+ from, for example, a 100 D6's.

Of course Prospero is not the best example for how it should work in 40K. Prospero is just such a basic game. In theory it would work like in Prospero but in practice there would be a lot more to it. For one thing, there would be a cover mod and a range mod. Also, as in Force-on-force, you would ignore all results of 3 or less. Those are considered misses or clearly ineffectual hits.

Actually, since its quicker and cleaner, and uses fewer stats, the benefits of the system only multiply with bigger game.

The other criticism, that the dice-type roll-off doesn't work with “the mass variety of different units that 40K has” is utter nonsense. In fact using multiple dice-types to represent different units and weapon abilities is easier, cleaner, and far superior than the current system that forces designers to use a string of stats, special rules, exceptions to rules, exceptions to exceptions to rules, and a bunch of re-rolls to do the same thing.

the dice roll off does not work for the different weapons in 40K. For example, you gave me a D6 for a Bolter, an average strength weapon. So a Lasgun is what? D5? D3!?
What about Heavy bolter? Not nearly as strong as a Plasmagun, but moreso then a bolter, what Dice do we assign the HB?
Or a scatterlaser? Or a Lascannon? Or a D-Strength weapon? Or an Earthshaker cannon? And how does it take into account the AP value of those weapon? Not every has the luxury of 3+ saves. So Guardsmen T-shirts are what, D3 again? What about the 6+? or the 4+?
You see where this is going?
The Imperium of Man ALONE have 75 different weapons across all IoM factions. Each with different S/AP profiles and USRs. That's a fraction of the total arms and armaments in the 41st millennium. A board game system is not fit for a tabletop wargame that has more than one faction available to it.

Edit: Also, I do not see how the Prospero type-rules are any better than: "Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Take Armour save". The roll-off concept completely negates the (implied) physical characteristics of each race; not everyone in the galaxy is a Space Marine.

Any time anyone comes along and says "Wouldn't 40k be better if we (make some drastic change to how the dice work)?" the answer is always 'no'. It's 'no' today, it was 'no' yesterday, it will be 'no' tomorrow.

Making proposals like this requires falling into the exact same pitfall that made 40k so convoluted in the first place: the assumption that broad sweeping changes to the core rules are the start and end of design. You can propose d10s, you can propose a dice-size system, but if you can't follow up on that with vast amounts of work tweaking, testing, nudging, and revising the entire rest of the game your result is going to be at least as bad, if not worse.

The issue with 40k is the design team's lack of interest in finishing their projects. They like to shove cool-sounding ideas (wounds for vehicles! Psychic units! Airplanes!) into the game without considering the consequences and without doing the groundwork to make sure they fit and function well.

You, and everyone who's ever tried to throw an alternate dice system up as a proposal, are a product of the exact same mindset. The dice system is completely and utterly irrelevant at a very fundamental level. If GW's design team spent the time doing the basic testing, had a set of core assumptions that they stuck with, and intentionally designed to the middle of the power curve instead of throwing wacky ideas at the wall to see what'd stick it wouldn't matter if they were using d6s, d10s, d20s, d%s, masses of graduated dice, the game would work. As is they don't spend the time and the game doesn't work. It wouldn't work with any dice mechanic if they didn't do the legwork.

So before you come in dancing about with "what if we used different dice!?" like it's the cleverest and most original idea in the godd**ned world I suggest you sit down, work out how combat resolution would work, what the statline would be, and how you're going to apply it to a significant portion of the 1,000+ model profiles and 1,000+ weapon profiles floating around in the game right now. Once you've got an actual concrete system try playing it, and try writing up a proof of why it's an improvement on GW's d6s.

If you're not prepared to do that you're asking other people to do an incredible amount of work to no purpose because you happen to like your buzzwords, and you should go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

(/rant)

(No, this rant isn't copy-pasted from the last time someone made a suggestion like this, but they're made frequently enough and I have to explain the exact same things enough that it probably should be.)

I have an alternative argument for not changing the dice system (I agree with Izural and Rake anyway, but just in case you need further convincing...)

The current system - D6s, BS, WS, S, T etc - are Warhammer 40k. If you want to play a D10 game, go and play one. If you want to play a game that uses Prospero's dice mechanics, play Prospero. The base mechanics of 40k haven't changed since Rogue Trader almost 30 years ago. It's part of the DNA of the game. Yeah, some things have changed - vehicles, AP, cover etc - and it's grown, but the core principles haven't. If you don't like how the game is played, that's fine, but don't try to change it just because you don't like it.

I don't like tomatoes or lettuce. That doesn't mean I want to change the BLT. I just eat different sandwiches instead. Go play Prospero. Have fun.

 Izural wrote:
the dice roll off does not work for the different weapons in 40K. For example, you gave me a D6 for a Bolter, an average strength weapon. So a Lasgun is what? D5? D3!?
What about Heavy bolter? Not nearly as strong as a Plasmagun, but moreso then a bolter, what Dice do we assign the HB?
Or a scatterlaser? Or a Lascannon? Or a D-Strength weapon? Or an Earthshaker cannon?

Well, understand, I didn’t give you anything, at least not yet. The D6 Bolter comes from Prospero, which is to say GW gave that to ya. But, as you know, Porspero is a cute little game with a very limited scope. Its Marine-on-Marine, so D6 Bolter works. But, as you suggest, when ya move into Table-top 40K, then… well it doesn’t work. But I’ll tella what does, a D8. So in 40K Bolters would be D8. A Lasgun would be a D6, a scatterlaser 4D6, a Lascannon a D12, a Earthshaker cannon, mmmm, 4D12 Burst? D-Strength weapons, depends, but some combination of D10’s and/or D12’s, some with burst, some not.

Its not rocket science. You just have to get a feel for how a dice-type roll-off 40K game would work. I know its hard when your mind is so wrapped-up in the current mindset. You just need to take a set back from that and imagine how it would work with another meta.

 Izural wrote:

And how does it take into account the AP value of those weapon? Not every has the luxury of 3+ saves. So Guardsmen T-shirts are what, D3 again? What about the 6+? or the 4+?
You see where this is going?

LOL, Yeah, well clearly you’re the one who doesn’t see. But that’s OK, I’m sure you’re not the only one. This gives me a chance to give more explanations. A weapon’s AP is its dice-type. Most basic weapons only have one dice-type, it’s the same for ranged combat and CC. Some weapons, like pistols have two, one for ranged combat and one for CC. Heavy weapons and some special weapons have three dice-types, two for ranged combat – one for infantry targets and one for armoured targets, and another for CC. And of course CC weapons have only one type and that’s used only in CC.

 Izural wrote:

The Imperium of Man ALONE have 75 different weapons across all IoM factions. Each with different S/AP profiles and USRs. That's a fraction of the total arms and armaments in the 41st millennium. A board game system is not fit for a tabletop wargame that has more than one faction available to it.

Frankly a lot of that detail is not appropriate for a company level game like 40K. Some streamlining is desperately needed. Attached is an out line of how the stats could work in 40K with Marine weapons. This is all ya need. It gives sufficient diversity without getting bogged down in a lot of unnecessary detail.

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Space%20Marines%20%284-15-16%29.pdf?token=AWyyGGM5V1v_uC2gpxQx-LZFCC4u_ashwjVZdyj6EcO-12E84mmxIqbyMgzrKC5_fZgkoKOaMvLT3fx8Vd15PF0aedDysKzKGGhyxPARl9f0hC1nsQM94MyOcHz2Z9hfCCzk-H42f7CO4GlaqQG4UOUbQ3-XizoFqIev7h92zlfDeg

 Izural wrote:

Edit: Also, I do not see how the Prospero type-rules are any better than: "Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Take Armour save".

Prospero is quicker, cleaner, and a lot more fun. Try this experiment: Sit down with a friend. Roll a D6. If you score a 4+ roll again. If you roll a 4+ again then your friend has to roll a D6. If he scores a 4+ he gets a point. If not not, you get a point. Also, if you fail to score a 4+ on your either of your first two rolls your friend gets a point. Do that for ten times. Then you and friend each roll a D6 and compare the results. If your score is higher you get a point. If your friend’s rolls is higher he gets a point. If you score the same roll again. Do that for ten times. Then discuss which method took longer and which was more fun.

 Izural wrote:

The roll-off concept completely negates the (implied) physical characteristics of each race; not everyone in the galaxy is a Space Marine.

As I said, its hard to see how it would work when your mind is so wrapped-up in the current mindset. Take a look at the Marine stats I made-up and just imagine how it would work with other races. As I said its not rocket science, and its not your father’s 40K. It a lot better, and a lot more fun. And isn’t that what this is all about?

Thirdeye wrote:
...Take a look at the Marine stats I made-up and just imagine how it would work with other races...

Oh, so the game should replace rulebooks with "just imagine what's in your rules!" now?

AnomanderRake put it better then I could of in his first post.

What you are describing is a totally different game. Your solution to "streamline" 40K is to what, throw MORE complexity in the form of different dice into it while stripping out flavour.
Also, you're not accounting for BS. Lasguns may be D6 in your example, but what if it's fired by a IG Vet or Stormtrooper as opposed to the rank and file, is that D6+1? D6+D3? Does everyone get a base D6 roll and then modified but how good a shot they should be? How would scatter weapons work? Is that a D6/10/56 for EACH model hit?
What about charge ranges? Ld tests? Reserve rolls? Running? Flat-outing? Warp Charge harnessing? Toughness tests? Strength tests? How do you determine flamer hits? Barrage hits? Warlord traits?generating psychic powers?

In other words, your solution to "simplicity" is to throw more bloody dice, of differing values. Regardless that a Guardsman, Space Marine, Eldar, Termagant and Skitarii are WILDLY different in stats and ability. Just homogenise everything based only on "Weapons".

We can just model a single lasgun on a base! There. That's what you're proposing. Its just sentient guns shooting.

The current D6 system is as streamlined as you can get as a "core" set of values to build around. The problems most people (at least, in my experience) have with 40K is not the D6, but the plethora of USRs GW has made in the past few years.

Also, that "Detail" you seemingly complain about, is possibly a great selling point for alot of people who play the game/collect/paint/whatever. It certainly is for me, I love that level of complexity and detail in the fluff and the crunch. I love that the weapons of 40K are as identifiable and iconic as any individual model holding them.

Edit: With regards to the re-stat part of the post. You know what almost as iconic as a bolter but just as recognisable? 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8 3

 Imateria wrote:
No. It works because Prospero is a small game where both players will have less than 20 models each and everybody is a Space Marine.

the same with the current rules that were designed for small SM vs SM games
so it is perfect for next edition

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Any time anyone comes along and says "Wouldn't 40k be better if we (make some drastic change to how the dice work)?" the answer is always 'no'. It's 'no' today, it was 'no' yesterday, it will be 'no' tomorrow.

My, such hostility. Perhaps you should be a little more open minded. Going on rants with knee-jerk reactions and screaming NO! makes Rake a dull boy indeed.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Making proposals like this requires falling into the exact same pitfall that made 40k so convoluted in the first place: the assumption that broad sweeping changes to the core rules are the start and end of design. You can propose d10s, you can propose a dice-size system, but if you can't follow up on that with vast amounts of work tweaking, testing, nudging, and revising the entire rest of the game your result is going to be at least as bad, if not worse.

Sure, there’s going to need to be work done. Yeah, I know, for GW a new edition means the same-old convolutions with some things fixed but more broken stuff added in. But GW HASN’t done a truly new edition since third. The others have been more like 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. I’m talking about a true new edition, so yeah, that means work.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The issue with 40k is the design team's lack of interest in finishing their projects. They like to shove cool-sounding ideas (wounds for vehicles! Psychic units! Airplanes!) into the game without considering the consequences and without doing the groundwork to make sure they fit and function well.

I agree, but I disagree with the notion that the game would be better if GW would just “finish their projects”. The game is based on old mechanics that worked well enough as a skirmish game but has been stretched at the seams to accommodate bigger armies, new units, and more exotic weapons. The hope with Prospero is that they see the potential of doing combat resolution in a new and better way, a way that can better handle the rich complexity of 40K as a company level game, have some fun, and get it done in a reasonable amount of time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

You, and everyone who's ever tried to throw an alternate dice system up as a proposal, are a product of the exact same mindset. The dice system is completely and utterly irrelevant at a very fundamental level. If GW's design team spent the time doing the basic testing, had a set of core assumptions that they stuck with, and intentionally designed to the middle of the power curve instead of throwing wacky ideas at the wall to see what'd stick it wouldn't matter if they were using d6s, d10s, d20s, d%s, masses of graduated dice, the game would work. As is they don't spend the time and the game doesn't work. It wouldn't work with any dice mechanic if they didn't do the legwork.

I respectfully disagree. Game mechanics are not irrelevant. Like most things you can do them many different ways but some ways are just better. For example, we don’t generally cook on an open flame because using a stove is just better. In game design, the mechanic that’s quicker, cleaner, more intuitive, and that involves both players at each stage is better than a mechanic that’s slow, convoluted, unintuitive, and involves only one player at each stage.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So before you come in dancing about with "what if we used different dice!?" like it's the cleverest and most original idea in the godd**ned world I suggest you sit down, work out how combat resolution would work, what the statline would be, and how you're going to apply it to a significant portion of the 1,000+ model profiles and 1,000+ weapon profiles floating around in the game right now. Once you've got an actual concrete system try playing it, and try writing up a proof of why it's an improvement on GW's d6s.

If you're not prepared to do that you're asking other people to do an incredible amount of work to no purpose because you happen to like your buzzwords, and you should go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

Well, of course, this tread was about GW doing the work, you known, as their 8th Ed. (see OP). I was just commenting on how I thought that would be a good thing and suggesting some ways it could be done. No need for all the hostility.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

(No, this rant isn't copy-pasted from the last time someone made a suggestion like this, but they're made frequently enough and I have to explain the exact same things enough that it probably should be.)

Sorry but you have explained very little. You have shown your obstinance and hostility to new ideas. Perhaps the “Proposed Rules” forum is not for you.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Any time anyone comes along and says "Wouldn't 40k be better if we (make some drastic change to how the dice work)?" the answer is always 'no'. It's 'no' today, it was 'no' yesterday, it will be 'no' tomorrow.

My, such hostility. Perhaps you should be a little more open minded. Going on rants with knee-jerk reactions and screaming NO! makes Rake a dull boy indeed.

I'm keeping a tally. This is the thirty-fifth time I've had to explain these things. My optimistic 'open-minded' belief that this time it'll be different died around the fifth time I had this argument.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Making proposals like this requires falling into the exact same pitfall that made 40k so convoluted in the first place: the assumption that broad sweeping changes to the core rules are the start and end of design. You can propose d10s, you can propose a dice-size system, but if you can't follow up on that with vast amounts of work tweaking, testing, nudging, and revising the entire rest of the game your result is going to be at least as bad, if not worse.

Sure, there’s going to need to be work done. Yeah, I know, for GW a new edition means the same-old convolutions with some things fixed but more broken stuff added in. But GW HASN’t done a truly new edition since third. The others have been more like 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. I’m talking about a true new edition, so yeah, that means work.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The issue with 40k is the design team's lack of interest in finishing their projects. They like to shove cool-sounding ideas (wounds for vehicles! Psychic units! Airplanes!) into the game without considering the consequences and without doing the groundwork to make sure they fit and function well.

I agree, but I disagree with the notion that the game would be better if GW would just “finish their projects”. The game is based on old mechanics that worked well enough as a skirmish game but has been stretched at the seams to accommodate bigger armies, new units, and more exotic weapons. The hope with Prospero is that they see the potential of doing combat resolution in a new and better way, a way that can better handle the rich complexity of 40K as a company level game, have some fun, and get it done in a reasonable amount of time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

You, and everyone who's ever tried to throw an alternate dice system up as a proposal, are a product of the exact same mindset. The dice system is completely and utterly irrelevant at a very fundamental level. If GW's design team spent the time doing the basic testing, had a set of core assumptions that they stuck with, and intentionally designed to the middle of the power curve instead of throwing wacky ideas at the wall to see what'd stick it wouldn't matter if they were using d6s, d10s, d20s, d%s, masses of graduated dice, the game would work. As is they don't spend the time and the game doesn't work. It wouldn't work with any dice mechanic if they didn't do the legwork.

I respectfully disagree. Game mechanics are not irrelevant. Like most things you can do them many different ways but some ways are just better. For example, we don’t generally cook on an open flame because using a stove is just better. In game design, the mechanic that’s quicker, cleaner, more intuitive, and that involves both players at each stage is better than a mechanic that’s slow, convoluted, unintuitive, and involves only one player at each stage.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So before you come in dancing about with "what if we used different dice!?" like it's the cleverest and most original idea in the godd**ned world I suggest you sit down, work out how combat resolution would work, what the statline would be, and how you're going to apply it to a significant portion of the 1,000+ model profiles and 1,000+ weapon profiles floating around in the game right now. Once you've got an actual concrete system try playing it, and try writing up a proof of why it's an improvement on GW's d6s.

If you're not prepared to do that you're asking other people to do an incredible amount of work to no purpose because you happen to like your buzzwords, and you should go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

Well, of course, this tread was about GW doing the work, you known, as their 8th Ed. (see OP). I was just commenting on how I thought that would be a good thing and suggesting some ways it could be done. No need for all the hostility.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

(No, this rant isn't copy-pasted from the last time someone made a suggestion like this, but they're made frequently enough and I have to explain the exact same things enough that it probably should be.)

Sorry but you have explained very little. You have shown your obstinance and hostility to new ideas. Perhaps the “Proposed Rules” forum is not for you.

This isn't a 'new idea'. This isn't an 'idea'. This is barely a pipe dream.

I'm in Proposed Rules to provide commentary and constructive feedback on concrete proposals. I get annoyed when people show up, spout off an idea I've dissected repeatedly like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, claim it's the solution to all our ills, and we've got to 'imagine' how it'd be implemented in practice.

If you'd like to try and defend your idea by trying to implement it and posting some sort of concrete system for me to look at I'd be ecstatic. If you're going to sit back and spout off buzzwords about how there's a magic solution if we could only free our minds from the establishment my skepticism isn't related to a 'hostility to new ideas'.

I love new ideas. Tell me when you find some.

 Izural wrote:


What you are describing is a totally different game. Your solution to "streamline" 40K is to what, throw MORE complexity in the form of different dice into it while stripping out flavour.

A system that need less stats and less steps to get a result is objectively less complex that a system that requires more stats and more steps to get the result. As to flavor, that’s a matter of opinion. In my opinion you can get as much flavor with multiple dice-types as you can with a long string of stats.

 Izural wrote:

Also, you're not accounting for BS. Lasguns may be D6 in your example, but what if it's fired by a IG Vet or Stormtrooper as opposed to the rank and file, is that D6+1? D6+D3? Does everyone get a base D6 roll and then modified but how good a shot they should be? How would scatter weapons work? Is that a D6/10/56 for EACH model hit?

Generally BS and weapons effectiveness is represented by a single stat, or in this case a dice-type. This isn’t really that much of a problem as most armies use army specific weapons. Vet and elite troopers generally use an up-graded weapon so they get a step-up in dice type. So, where you basic IG trooper gets a D6 Lasgun, the vet or Stormtrooper gets a D8 Lasgun. This represents not only the fact that the vet/elite guy is a better shot but also the fact that he has better equipment. You can also add dice to represent elite guys and/or hi-tech units/armies. So, for example, to represent the Eldar as a hi-tech army, for every five Eldar they get to roll an extra dice. This is a mechanic that “Tomorrow’s War”uses to represent hi-tech armies.

 Izural wrote:

What about charge ranges? Ld tests? Reserve rolls? Running? Flat-outing? Warp Charge harnessing? Toughness tests? Strength tests? How do you determine flamer hits? Barrage hits? Warlord traits?generating psychic powers?

Check the OP. This discussion is limited to the combat resolution mechanic. Much of what you’re listing here goes beyond that. As for Toughness tests and Strength tests, you wouldn’t need them. Flamer hits could still be by template and ignore cover but I would reserve that for the advance version of the game. In the basic game Flamers would be just 3D6 for IG, Orks, and other low-tech armies and 3D8 for Marine and other hi-tech armies. Again, this isn’t rocket science. Don’t make it harder than it is.

 Izural wrote:

In other words, your solution to "simplicity" is to throw more bloody dice, of differing values. Regardless that a Guardsman, Space Marine, Eldar, Termagant and Skitarii are WILDLY different in stats and ability. Just homogenise everything based only on "Weapons".

Actually you would be throwing less dice. Instead of rolling an average of three time for every ranged combat you would make just one roll-off. The WILDLY different units would be represented by dice-type instead of a bunch of stats. The result is the same you just get there a lot easier and more efficiently.

 Izural wrote:

The current D6 system is as streamlined as you can get as a "core" set of values to build around. The problems most people (at least, in my experience) have with 40K is not the D6, but the plethora of USRs GW has made in the past few years.

Sorry, no. The problem with using a single dice type, particularly a D6, in a complex universe like 40K is that you have to have a lot of stats and a lot of dice rolls to get your gradation. By switching to a multiple dice-type system you free yourself from that restraint. So you can have a quick, clean, elegant game and still have a lot of gradation.

 Izural wrote:

Also, that "Detail" you seemingly complain about, is possibly a great selling point for alot of people who play the game/collect/paint/whatever. It certainly is for me, I love that level of complexity and detail in the fluff and the crunch. I love that the weapons of 40K are as identifiable and iconic as any individual model holding them.

Well, the fluff is the same. But there really is no need for some of that detail in the rules. I mean, why roll to hit and to wound? A hit that fails to wound is effectively the same as a miss, right? So why roll for every scratch and chipped fingernail? The only reason they do it that way is because they use a D6. It’s the only way to get gradation with a D6.

 Izural wrote:

Edit: With regards to the re-stat part of the post. You know what almost as iconic as a bolter but just as recognisable? 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8 3

You do realize how convoluted that is, right? It doesn’t have to be like that. There is a better way.

OP, fancy countering my point - that if you massively change the mechanics then it's no longer Warhammer 40k?

Feel free to make a new game using your mechanics. Or just play Prospero, but don't change the fundamental DNA of a game because you don't like it. Play something else instead.

You mentioned a Vet gets a d8. So does a Marine. Sorry, but that makes Lasguns equal to Bolters.

 Whittlesey40k wrote:
OP, fancy countering my point - that if you massively change the mechanics then it's no longer Warhammer 40k?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore you, its just that you seem pretty set against the idea and I’m sure there’s not much I can say to change your position. But since you asked:

 Whittlesey40k wrote:

The base mechanics of 40k haven't changed since Rogue Trader almost 30 years ago. It's part of the DNA of the game.

By that logic we should all still be commuting by horse and buggy. I mean, that didn’t change for like a thousand years. You could even say horse gak on the roads was part of the DNA of civilization. But then it wasn’t. It changed. It changed because we came up with something better. Likewise, if there is a better way of resolving combat in a game of toy soldiers, it why not use it? If they can make a better game by changing a core mechanic then they should do it. Its not about “DNA”, or being wedded to this or that mechanic simply because, “that’s the way it’s always been done.” Its about having a better gaming/hobby experience. 40K is about re-creating this cool fantasy/Sci-Fi/Gothic/horror/SuperHero world which Gw created for use with their lovely miniatures and models. Is not about a game mechanic.

 Whittlesey40k wrote:
Feel free to make a new game using your mechanics. Or just play Prospero, but don't change the fundamental DNA of a game because you don't like it. Play something else instead.

All I want is a better 40K; I think the game would improve by changing the way GW does the combat resolution. You object because you’re against the very notion of any fundamental change. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But, in my opinion change is needed to make the game better and I’m going to continue to advocate for change.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You mentioned a Vet gets a d8. So does a Marine. Sorry, but that makes Lasguns equal to Bolters.

Well, a supped-up Lasgun in the hands of an expert is, for the purposes of a game of Sci-Fi toy soldiers, equal to a Bolter. I know many would disagree but its not a requirement to have fun with 40K that very little do-dad or unit have unique rules that reflect their special snow flake. If that’s the goal then the game is always going to be bogged-down with a lot of silly rules, superfluous stats, and Rube Goldberg mechanics.

So you're saying a veteran-an experienced but human fighter, with a lasgun-a weapon definitively weaker than a Boltgun-does the exact same damage?

Could replace the number needed to hit with a die roll. Each extra die you would roll increased the die by one grade. If you want to get more granular, you could average together BS + Strength / 2, or for assault WS/2 + Strength / 2. It would be the start of an interesting system, but it would take a lot of work to iron out.

Strength/Toughness

1 - D4-2
2 - D4-1
3 - D4
4 - D6
5 - D8
6 - D10
7 - D12
8 - D12+1
9 - D12+D4
10 - D12 +D6

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you're saying a veteran-an experienced but human fighter, with a lasgun-a weapon definitively weaker than a Boltgun-does the exact same damage?

Yes. A Vet or elite human soldier with a supped-up Lasgun is the same as a Bolter. Of course a Vet or elite Marine (bio-genetic superhuman soldier) with a supped-up Bolter (master crafted or Combi-weapon) is a D10. Check-out the stats I made.

So then what's the difference between a HotShot Lasgun and a regular Lasgun?

 Stormonu wrote:
Could replace the number needed to hit with a die roll. Each extra die you would roll increased the die by one grade. If you want to get more granular, you could average together BS + Strength / 2, or for assault WS/2 + Strength / 2. It would be the start of an interesting system, but it would take a lot of work to iron out.

Strength/Toughness

1 - D4-2
2 - D4-1
3 - D4
4 - D6
5 - D8
6 - D10
7 - D12
8 - D12+1
9 - D12+D4
10 - D12 +D6

Yeah, you could do that, if your concern is with direct conversion from the current stats. While I would want to keep the current stats in mind my big concern with a multi dice-type game is dice management. Izural’s comment about dice-type adding complexity isn’t far off. Managing dice-types can be a real pain. What kills this system is having too much trouble searching for the right dice type every round. So I would go with a base dice-type for each army, then step-up from their for vet/elites and characters. For example, Orks would be a base D6 army. Boys and their weapons would be mostly D6 and multiples of D6’s. Nobs and their weapons would be mostly D8 and multiples of D8’s. Bosses and their weapons would be mostly D10 and multiples of D10’s. Warlords and their weapons would be mostly D12 and multiples of D12’s.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So then what's the difference between a HotShot Lasgun and a regular Lasgun?

D8, D6

So a S3 AP3, a S4 AP5, and a S3 AP- weapon all become the same under your system?

Yes, I see why this is a brilliant idea! /sarcasm

Edit: Oh, what about Flechette Blasters? Or Macrostubbers? Radium Carbines?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a S3 AP3, a S4 AP5, and a S3 AP- weapon all become the same under your system?

Yes, I see why this is a brilliant idea! /sarcasm

In my opinion those differences are petty and silly for a game like 40K. Maybe they would be appropriate for a squad size game but not a company size game like 40K. Even then that level of detail is not worth the time and effort required to manage all those extra stats and mechanics. As I said, having fun with 40K doesn’t require that every little do-dad or unit have unique rules that reflect their special snow flake. Really, it doesn’t.

With the current system, the difference between the different factions is already at the minimum
gameplay wise it makes no difference what you play

negating that difference at making everything the same and just give different factions different re-rolls won't help 40k much

changing the dice system without adressing the core problems

your suggestion say the maximum is a D12, so Marines would be D6 to D8, Imperial Guard a D3 with veterans having D4, Orks a D4 (boys) to D8 (warlord), Eldar D4 to D6 etc.

Thirdeye wrote:

 Whittlesey40k wrote:

The base mechanics of 40k haven't changed since Rogue Trader almost 30 years ago. It's part of the DNA of the game.

By that logic we should all still be commuting by horse and buggy. I mean, that didn’t change for like a thousand years. You could even say horse gak on the roads was part of the DNA of civilization. But then it wasn’t. It changed. It changed because we came up with something better. Likewise, if there is a better way of resolving combat in a game of toy soldiers, it why not use it? If they can make a better game by changing a core mechanic then they should do it. Its not about “DNA”, or being wedded to this or that mechanic simply because, “that’s the way it’s always been done.” Its about having a better gaming/hobby experience. 40K is about re-creating this cool fantasy/Sci-Fi/Gothic/horror/SuperHero world which Gw created for use with their lovely miniatures and models. Is not about a game mechanic.

 Whittlesey40k wrote:
Feel free to make a new game using your mechanics. Or just play Prospero, but don't change the fundamental DNA of a game because you don't like it. Play something else instead.

All I want is a better 40K; I think the game would improve by changing the way GW does the combat resolution. You object because you’re against the very notion of any fundamental change. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But, in my opinion change is needed to make the game better and I’m going to continue to advocate for change.

I don't agree with your comparison between cars and horse & cart. Comparing transport in the real world to toy soldiers is comparing two very, very different things. I could even argue that we're still moving about by getting into some form of wheeled carriage. The only thing that's changed is swapping the horse for an internal combustion engine (so the core basics are the same, there's just been a tweak). Also, we didn't go from horse and cart to C-class Merc overnight! It was small changes over years. Like the small changes we've seen over 7 editions of 40k.

But ultimately, I think you're right - we have different opinions, and opinions aren't right or wrong. In this case, I guess we need to agree to disagree (and with that, I think we're probably Internetting incorrectly! )

 kodos wrote:
With the current system, the difference between the different factions is already at the minimum
gameplay wise it makes no difference what you play

negating that difference at making everything the same and just give different factions different re-rolls won't help 40k much

changing the dice system without adressing the core problems

your suggestion say the maximum is a D12, so Marines would be D6 to D8, Imperial Guard a D3 with veterans having D4, Orks a D4 (boys) to D8 (warlord), Eldar D4 to D6 etc.

Not sure where you’re getting this. I would use a range of dice from D4 to D20. I would assign a base dice-type to each army which would be the most common dice-type used in that army. This is so Players aren’t forced to constantly switch-out and hunt-down dice-types from their bag of dice. Mostly the range would be D6-D12. The most common armies would be a base D6 with a set-up in dice-type for commanders and their war gear. Marines and Eldar Aspectsry would be a base D8 army. Grots/Gretchins would be a base D4 army. All would have a step-up in dice types for commanders. Some armies would be deviate from this. For example Tau would be a D6 base army but their base/basic weapon would be a D8. Necrons would be a base D6 army but their base/basic weapon would be a D10 ignores cover. Eldar and Cult Mechanicus/Skitarii would get an extra attack dice for every five guys in their attacking unit. This is to represent their hi-tech weapons. Dark Eldar would get would get an extra attack dice for every three guys in their attacking unit with poison weapons. This is to represent their hi-tech poison weapons.

I see the combat resolution system used in the current 40K game as a core problem. It bogs the game down with needless dice-rolls. It requires several charts and a plethora of stats and its rather boring as only one player is engaged at a time. Worst yet, its breeds an obsession with minutia that’s completely misplaced for a company level game. The dice-type roll-off system eliminates all these issues and gives a clean, quick, fun gaming experience.

If you are going up to D20, Marines are D10, Guard D6 and the rest somewhere around taht.

using up to D20 but forcing the factions into the range of D6-D12 will not improve the game in any way
it is just the same stupid mechanics with different dies


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I see the combat resolution system used in the current 40K game as a core problem. It bogs the game down with needless dice-rolls.

this is true, butr it is not the problem of the game

you can streamline the D6 X VS Y system or replace itz with direct to roll values or a D12 system, it won't change anything because the main problem why this game is so slow is still there

The dice-type roll-off system eliminates all these issues and gives a clean, quick, fun gaming experience.

it will, for a complete new game written from scratch that copy nothing from 40k

 kodos wrote:
If you are going up to D20, Marines are D10, Guard D6 and the rest somewhere around taht. using up to D20 but forcing the factions into the range of D6-D12.

Yeah, not sure what calculation your doing but that’s about where I’m at. I put base Marines at D8 but, yeah. Understand, D20’s are rare. A few Mek Boy Guns, some Mechanicus and Eldar weapons, named characters, Demons, etc. Actually Orks use them the most to represent their… Orkiness.

 kodos wrote:
[this] will not improve the game in any way
it is just the same stupid mechanics with different dies

No, there's a significant difference. With dice-type roll-off its always high dice vs. high dice. With a D6 it’s a number on a chart. With dice-type roll-off its Attack dice vs. Defense dice. With D6 its roll to Hit, roll to Wound, then, depending on a cross-referenced between AP stats the defender may or may not get a save roll. With dice-type roll-off there's no separate roll for “to Hit”, “to Wound”, and “to Save”. There is only one roll-off. The Attacker rolls his Attack dice and the Defender rolls his Defense dice and you compare results. With dice-type roll-off there is no need for stats for BS, WS, ST, T, Sv., or AP. There's just Attack dice and Defense dice. The dice do all minutia for you. Its built in. The result is a quick, clean, fun gaming experience. The D6 stat system is big problem and it needs to go.

 kodos wrote:
this is not the problem of the game.

you can streamline the D6 X VS Y system or replace itz with direct to roll values or a D12 system, it won't change anything because the main problem why this game is so slow is still there

So tell us, what is the main problem why the game is so slow. What do you see as the main problem with the game? If you say the special rules I say that’s directly related to the D6 combat resolution system.

Why is Necron shooting better than everybody else's? D10 ignores cover (when Marines and Tau are only d8)? On basic guns? Are you insane?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is Necron shooting better than everybody else's? D10 ignores cover (when Marines and Tau are only d8)? On basic guns? Are you insane?

Gauss weapons are bad-ass. They would also be heavy weapons so they couldn’t move and shoot in the same turn.

I’m also thinking, maybe, to set Marines at a base D10. What ya think?

Main issue with the game is that there are 3 different mechanics used to handle the models, 3 different mechanics to determine damage, 2 different reactions mechanics and the AP system
the factions are all the same, there is no real difference in play style just different point balance of units (we have a profile scale from 1-10, while 90% of the units are inside 3-5 and it only matters what ranged weapon you can spam and that you have fast scoring units)

and than there are too many random effects, too many things that need to be done before the game starts but after list building and too much micro management


using a S VS T chart to wound that is caped at +/-2 (so auto wound and not able to wound possible), while to hit is either a chart or a simple dice roll for ranged and melee, split cover to give a save (terrain) or a to hit modifier (jink), skip the whole vehicle and walker rules and let reactions happen after the action is fulfilled or by Ini for ranged and melee.

than you need to go back to the simple wound allocation rules, add warlord traits, psionic powers etc to the army list, remove all the random mission and terrain rules

The D6 stat system is big problem and it needs to go.

I see, thats the reason why the D6 stat system works fine for a lot of other games but just not for 40k and replacing the D6 system with D12 but keep everything else will make it better
make perfect sense

 kodos wrote:
Main issue with the game is that there are 3 different mechanics used to handle the models, 3 different mechanics to determine damage, 2 different reactions mechanics and the AP system

The dice-type rolloff eliminated the AP system. Comparing dice would be the only way to determine damage. The “3 different mechanics used to handle the models” sounds like a turn system issue. I favor a unit activation system. Not sure what you’r referring to with the” 2 different reactions mechanics” comment?

the factions are all the same, there is no real difference in play style just different point balance of units

Yeah, that's outside this discussion but yeah, some work needs to be done there.

(we have a profile scale from 1-10, while 90% of the units are inside 3-5 and it only matters what ranged weapon you can spam

The dice-rolloff eliminates all charts and 1-10 scale.

and that you have fast scoring units)

The importance of fast scoring units is only an issue because GW uses Easteregg Hunt missions. I prefer the hidden mission generation system used in Adeptus Titanicus. It’s the best.

using a S VS T chart to wound that is caped at +/-2 (so auto wound and not able to wound possible), while to hit is either a chart or a simple dice roll for ranged and melee,

The dice-rolloff eliminates all charts and the S and T stats. You can use dice rolloff for melee as well as ranged combat.

split cover to give a save (terrain) or a to hit modifier (jink),

In dice-rolloff cover is simply a modifier to the defense dice roll. Its never a save.

skip the whole vehicle and walker rules and let reactions happen after the action is fulfilled or by Ini for ranged and melee.

You can use dice rolloff for everything, Inf., vehicles, walkers. I’m in favor of actions and reactions but this is game turn stuff.

than you need to go back to the simple wound allocation rules,

Porspero uses a simple wound allocation system but I’m not a fan. I have something better in mind. Just as simple but more intuitive and not so open to abuse.

add warlord traits, psionic powers etc to the army list,

Yeah, outside this discussion but I have ideas. Love to hear your’s.

remove all the random mission

Yeah, I already mentioned the Adeptus Titanicus hidden mission generation system.. It’s the best. It’s what I would use.

and random terrain rules

Yeah, dumb.

I see, thats the reason why the D6 stat system works fine for a lot of other games but just not for 40k and replacing the D6 system with D12 but keep everything else will make it better make perfect sense

Well of course there's nothing inherently wrong with the D6. It’s the system. In most game the system used works fine with a D6. In 40K not so much. The demands of the game are just too high; the variables too large.

I think I’ve shown above how the dice-type rolloff would greatly improve the game.

Thirdeye wrote:
I think I’ve shown above how the dice-type rolloff would greatly improve the game.

Except you really didn't. You said what it would do, not in any way how it's better.

Edit: A big issue I have with this is it makes everything very samey and bland. How do you address that?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except you really didn't. You said what it would do, not in any way how it's better.

Well, I showed how dice rolloff corrected many of the issues kodos has with the game. The other issues he mentioned were outside the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about the combat resolution system used in the game.

Edit: A big issue I have with this is it makes everything very samey and bland. How do you address that?

Well you need to be more specific. I understand you're concernd about some weapons being lumped together but with a range from D4 to D20 there’s sufficient variation for a fun game. Fact is most of those fine distinctions between T, S and AP average out over the course of a game such that they are meaningless. They give only the illusion of uniqueness nothing more. They are not worth the effort. The game need some simplification and substituting dice-types for all the stat minutia does just that.

Thirdeye wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except you really didn't. You said what it would do, not in any way how it's better.

Well, I showed how dice rolloff corrected many of the issues kodos has with the game. The other issues he mentioned were outside the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about the combat resolution system used in the game.

Edit: A big issue I have with this is it makes everything very samey and bland. How do you address that?

Well you need to be more specific. I understand you're concernd about some weapons being lumped together but with a range from D4 to D20 there’s sufficient variation for a fun game. Fact is most of those fine distinctions between T, S and AP average out over the course of a game such that they are meaningless. They give only the illusion of uniqueness nothing more. They are not worth the effort. The game need some simplification and substituting dice-types for all the stat minutia does just that.

Between d4 and d20 there are (discounting odd numbers) 9 gradations. In the Necrons Codex, there are S10, S8, S4, S5, S9, S6, S7, and SX guns. IG adds S3 guns, Skitarii add S2, Nurgle Daemons add S1. That's 11 variations in Strength alone. AP has 7 values. In Strength and AP alone, there are 77 different combinations, all of which are easy to understand and intuitive to use. How will you represent them?

You said that Guardsmen are d4s. What does that make Flechette Blasters or Defensive Grenades?

In addition, how do you differentiate Bolters (S4 AP5) from Gauss Flayers (S4 AP5 Gauss) or a Transdimensional Beamer (S4 AP2 Exile Ray)? How do you differentiate Gauss Blasters (S5 AP4 Gauss) from Heavy Bolters (S5 AP4) from Tesla Carbines (S5 AP- Tesla) from a Staff of Light (S5 AP3)? How do you handle Sniper weapons? Poison? Fleshbane?

Point of order on the math here. Assuming you want to keep this playable by physical human beings on a physical table there are six different polyhedral dice. If the entire attack is getting reduced to one roll-off you've got 36 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Age of Sigmar has five possible values for hit/wound/save plus seven possible rend values I've seen, which comes out at 875 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Warhammer 40k has 10 BS values and 100 combinations of offensive and defensive WS, 16+ possible Strength values (1-10, D, Poisoned (2-6)), 16 possible Toughness/AV values (1-10, AV 10-15), five possible saves, seven possible AP values, five possible cover saves, and five possible Invul saves, for a theoretical total of 1.8 million different possible combinations of stats on a ranged attack and 4.5 million different possible combinations of stats on a melee attack.

You'd need 2,000-sided dice to simulate the gradations currently in the game with the system you're proposing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Between d4 and d20 there are (discounting odd numbers) 9 gradations. In the Necrons Codex, there are S10, S8, S4, S5, S9, S6, S7, and SX guns. IG adds S3 guns, Skitarii add S2, Nurgle Daemons add S1. That's 11 variations in Strength alone. AP has 7 values. In Strength and AP alone, there are 77 different combinations, all of which are easy to understand and intuitive to use. How will you represent them?

You forget, You can use multiples and combinations of those nine. So the range of gradation is like a gazillion.

You said that Guardsmen are d4s. What does that make Flechette Blasters or Defensive Grenades?

I said no such thing. I said IG was base D6. As far as those weapons stats go, I don’t know. I’m not that familiar with all the stats weapons. I would have to think on it.

In addition, how do you differentiate Bolters (S4 AP5) from Gauss Flayers (S4 AP5 Gauss) or a Transdimensional Beamer (S4 AP2 Exile Ray)? How do you differentiate Gauss Blasters (S5 AP4 Gauss) from Heavy Bolters (S5 AP4) from Tesla Carbines (S5 AP- Tesla) from a Staff of Light (S5 AP3)? How do you handle Sniper weapons? Poison? Fleshbane?

I’ve already discussed some of that. For the rest, not sure. I’d have to think on it. Understand my purpose with this tread was to gage the support for a dice-type rolloff combat resolution system for 40K. In the process I posted some examples of how I thought it could work. But they were just examples. I did the Marine stats because everyone knows Marines are the standard in 40K and everything is balance against them. (Try to anyway). My purpose wasn’t to write a new rulebook and all the codexes here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Point of order on the math here. Assuming you want to keep this playable by physical human beings on a physical table there are six different polyhedral dice. If the entire attack is getting reduced to one roll-off you've got 36 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Age of Sigmar has five possible values for hit/wound/save plus seven possible rend values I've seen, which comes out at 875 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Warhammer 40k has 10 BS values and 100 combinations of offensive and defensive WS, 16+ possible Strength values (1-10, D, Poisoned (2-6)), 16 possible Toughness/AV values (1-10, AV 10-15), five possible saves, seven possible AP values, five possible cover saves, and five possible Invul saves, for a theoretical total of 1.8 million different possible combinations of stats on a ranged attack and 4.5 million different possible combinations of stats on a melee attack.

You'd need 2,000-sided dice to simulate the gradations currently in the game with the system you're proposing.

You can use multiples and combinations of the nine dice types, so effectively you have a gazillion sided dice.

Using multiples of dice doesn't speed up the game when rolling for multiple models. A squad of 10 guys each rolling 3d6 will take more time than rolling 30 dice as individuals.

Thirdeye wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Point of order on the math here. Assuming you want to keep this playable by physical human beings on a physical table there are six different polyhedral dice. If the entire attack is getting reduced to one roll-off you've got 36 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Age of Sigmar has five possible values for hit/wound/save plus seven possible rend values I've seen, which comes out at 875 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Warhammer 40k has 10 BS values and 100 combinations of offensive and defensive WS, 16+ possible Strength values (1-10, D, Poisoned (2-6)), 16 possible Toughness/AV values (1-10, AV 10-15), five possible saves, seven possible AP values, five possible cover saves, and five possible Invul saves, for a theoretical total of 1.8 million different possible combinations of stats on a ranged attack and 4.5 million different possible combinations of stats on a melee attack.

You'd need 2,000-sided dice to simulate the gradations currently in the game with the system you're proposing.

You can use multiples and combinations of the nine dice types, so effectively you have a gazillion sided dice.

So to produce sufficient permutations of the six dice you're suggesting making players roll 4-5 dice and add them together every time you make an attack?

How long do your 40k games usually take? I suspect playing an entire game under the current system is faster for most of us than making a single shooting attack with a single Conscript mob if we had to roll and sum five dice for every Conscript would be.

 HANZERtank wrote:
Using multiples of dice doesn't speed up the game when rolling for multiple models. A squad of 10 guys each rolling 3d6 will take more time than rolling 30 dice as individuals.

How do you figure that? You throw all your Attack dice at once, so if you had a squad of 10 guys each rolling 3D6 Attack dice you would roll all 30 at once. You would do this even if the squad of 10 guy has mixed weapons.

Say it’s a squad of Marines, three had Bolters, one has a Flamer, one a Plasma Gun, another a Melta Gun, another a Hvy Bolter, another a Missile Launcher, another a Las Cannon, and another a Bolt Pistol, you would just add-up all your Attack dice and roll them all at once. Lets say it worked out that your Attack dice are sixteen D8’s, ten D10’s, and four D12 you would gather-up 16D8, 10D10, and 4D12 and you would roll them all at once.

Now the Defense dice are rolled separately for each model. This might seem to bog things down a bit but not so much really. This is because there’s no silly wound allocation mechanic and besides, if had mixed armor in the Target unit you would have to roll separately for that anyway.

So, continuing with our example from above, the Attacker rolled 30 Attack dice, a mixture of D8’s, D10, and some D12’s. Form the results he eliminate all “3” and lower (2’s, & 1’s). Then he calls-out he’s highest result. Lets say it’s a 12. “Beat a 12!” he announces in a loud, boastful voice. The model in the Target unit closest to the Attacking unit (measured from the command model in the Attacking unit), has to “beat” a 12. Lets say that model is a Terminator with a Grade IV Power Field, so his Defense dice are 2D8’s and a D12. (Instead of 2D8 he can roll a D10. Terminator armor gives him that option, but in this case its not going to help. There’s no way to beat a 12 on a D10 or a D8). His only hope is his D12 Power Field. He rolls that and gets an “11”! Oh, so close… but wait! He’s got some cover. He’s partially obscured by some rocks. The Players agree he should get a +1 cover save. So he survives! (Ties go to the Defender).

Now, lets say instead of the “11” he rolled a “6”. He could either be immediately removed from play or you can do a step reduction where he would lose his Power Field but survive that round of shooting.

Anyway, having dealt with the closest model the Players move on to the next closest model. That model has to beat the next highest score from the pool of Attack dice. And so on until there was a roll-off with every Attack dice of “4” or grater. If you go through all the models in the Target unit and there are still Attack dice left in the pool, then you start again with the closest model and you work your way through until the Defender rolls-off against all the remaining attack dice.

Your using 3d6 in the wrong context then. Rolling 3d6 gives a value between 3 and 18. What you're talking about is just giving more chances of gaining a higher roll but still no greater than a 6. You're talking about rolling 3 dice per guy each as an individual value right? In wich case it's not really increasing the power of a gun, just giving that model a better chance of getting its maximum value.

Thirdeye wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:
Using multiples of dice doesn't speed up the game when rolling for multiple models. A squad of 10 guys each rolling 3d6 will take more time than rolling 30 dice as individuals.

How do you figure that? You throw all your Attack dice at once, so if you had a squad of 10 guys each rolling 3D6 Attack dice you would roll all 30 at once. You would do this even if the squad of 10 guy has mixed weapons.

Say it’s a squad of Marines, three had Bolters, one has a Flamer, one a Plasma Gun, another a Melta Gun, another a Hvy Bolter, another a Missile Launcher, another a Las Cannon, and another a Bolt Pistol, you would just add-up all your Attack dice and roll them all at once. Lets say it worked out that your Attack dice are sixteen D8’s, ten D10’s, and four D12 you would gather-up 16D8, 10D10, and 4D12 and you would roll them all at once.

Now the Defense dice are rolled separately for each model. This might seem to bog things down a bit but not so much really. This is because there’s no silly wound allocation mechanic and besides, if had mixed armor in the Target unit you would have to roll separately for that anyway.

So, continuing with our example from above, the Attacker rolled 30 Attack dice, a mixture of D8’s, D10, and some D12’s. Form the results he eliminate all “3” and lower (2’s, & 1’s). Then he calls-out he’s highest result. Lets say it’s a 12. “Beat a 12!” he announces in a loud, boastful voice. The model in the Target unit closest to the Attacking unit (measured from the command model in the Attacking unit), has to “beat” a 12. Lets say that model is a Terminator with a Grade IV Power Field, so his Defense dice are 2D8’s and a D12. (Instead of 2D8 he can roll a D10. Terminator armor gives him that option, but in this case its not going to help. There’s no way to beat a 12 on a D10 or a D8). His only hope is his D12 Power Field. He rolls that and gets an “11”! Oh, so close… but wait! He’s got some cover. He’s partially obscured by some rocks. The Players agree he should get a +1 cover save. So he survives! (Ties go to the Defender).

Now, lets say instead of the “11” he rolled a “6”. He could either be immediately removed from play or you can do a step reduction where he would lose his Power Field but survive that round of shooting.

Anyway, having dealt with the closest model the Players move on to the next closest model. That model has to beat the next highest score from the pool of Attack dice. And so on until there was a roll-off with every Attack dice of “4” or grater. If you go through all the models in the Target unit and there are still Attack dice left in the pool, then you start again with the closest model and you work your way through until the Defender rolls-off against all the remaining attack dice.

...So you want us to roll more dice, spend more time counting them, and spend a lot more money getting more dice?

I fail to see how your system would simplify or speed up the game.

This multi-sided-Dice idea is becoming more convoluted as it goes on. You seem to be failing to understand that the roll-off system works in Burning of Prospero because the entire game takes place in a vacuum between 2 identical forces of Space Marines with an extremely slim range of weapons available to them.

I said in a previous post that there are 75 weapons available to the IoM alone. Are you willing to assign a D-whatever to -every-last-one- of those weapons? Say nothing of the other factions in the game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...So you want us to roll more dice, spend more time counting them, and spend a lot more money getting more dice?

Well, you might be rolling more dice but you would be rolling them about a third as often. In the course of a game you'd be throwing a lot less dice and getting a result a lot quicker. You spend no more time counting dice than you do now. And as far as money goes, well if that's much of a concern perhaps you picked the wrong hobby.

I know the current system works real good if the attacking unit has all the same weapons and the Defending unit has all the same armor, and you have memorized all the relevant stats and charts. But this isn't always the case, and I wouldn't want to play a game that requires such for a clean quick game. And what I'm suggesting works good for non-mixed units too, but where it really shines is when you have mixed units. Try doing a mixed unit combat with the current rules. Use the weapons mix I used in the example above with the current rules. Try shooting all those different weapons into a unit with mixed armor types. See how long that takes ya. See how many little tedious mechanics you have to work though. See how boring and monotonous it is.

I fail to see how your system would simplify or speed up the game.

Do the experiment: try that example above like I said. Do that with the current rules and tell me how simple and fast it went.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Izural wrote:
This multi-sided-Dice idea is becoming more convoluted as it goes on. You seem to be failing to understand that the roll-off system works in Burning of Prospero because the entire game takes place in a vacuum between 2 identical forces of Space Marines with an extremely slim range of weapons available to them.

No, I understand Prospero. I said from the start it wasn't the best example because its so dumb-ed down. But it would work in 40K with some modifications. That's what I've been on about.

I said in a previous post that there are 75 weapons available to the IoM alone. Are you willing to assign a D-whatever to -every-last-one- of those weapons? Say nothing of the other factions in the game.

And I also said there would have to be some simplification in the weapons. Right now the designer struggle to come up with a stat mix that makes everything its own little special snow flake. That's just silly and has no place in a company size game like 40K. So, for example I make all power weapons the same. They give a D8 in CC. Doesn’t matter what kind, a D8. You can still call them by different names but in the game they are the same. But you can stack them. For example Lighting Claws are a stacked power weapon. It's a Power Fist with integrated Power blades. Its gets a step-up. It gets a D10 in CC.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...So you want us to roll more dice, spend more time counting them, and spend a lot more money getting more dice?

Well, you might be rolling more dice but you would be rolling them about a third as often. In the course of a game you'd be throwing a lot less dice and getting a result a lot quicker. You spend no more time counting dice than you do now. And as far as money goes, well if that's much of a concern perhaps you picked the wrong hobby.

I know the current system works real good if the attacking unit has all the same weapons and the Defending unit has all the same armor, and you have memorized all the relevant stats and charts. But this isn't always the case, and I wouldn't want to play a game that requires such for a clean quick game. And what I'm suggesting works good for non-mixed units too, but where it really shines is when you have mixed units. Try doing a mixed unit combat with the current rules. Use the weapons mix I used in the example above with the current rules. Try shooting all those different weapons into a unit with mixed armor types. See how long that takes ya. See how many little tedious mechanics you have to work though. See how boring and monotonous it is.

I fail to see how your system would simplify or speed up the game.

Do the experiment: try that example above like I said. Do that with the current rules and tell me how simple and fast it went.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Izural wrote:
This multi-sided-Dice idea is becoming more convoluted as it goes on. You seem to be failing to understand that the roll-off system works in Burning of Prospero because the entire game takes place in a vacuum between 2 identical forces of Space Marines with an extremely slim range of weapons available to them.

No, I understand Prospero. I said from the start it wasn't the best example because its so dumb-ed down. But it would work in 40K with some modifications. That's what I've been on about.

I said in a previous post that there are 75 weapons available to the IoM alone. Are you willing to assign a D-whatever to -every-last-one- of those weapons? Say nothing of the other factions in the game.

And I also said there would have to be some simplification in the weapons. Right now the designer struggle to come up with a stat mix that makes everything its own little special snow flake. That's just silly and has no place in a company size game like 40K. So, for example I make all power weapons the same. They give a D8 in CC. Doesn’t matter what kind, a D8. You can still call them by different names but in the game they are the same. But you can stack them. For example Lighting Claws are a stacked power weapon. It's a Power Fist with integrated Power blades. Its gets a step-up. It gets a D10 in CC.

Power weapons are different for a very specific reason, an Axe is not the same as a Sword or Halberd (Power or otherwise), and you want to strip away the only true purpose of lightning claws (IE Shred) and make them homogeneous? These weapons are not the same, in any way shape or form; and a powerfist and lightning claw are so wildly different it's not even funny.

You also never answered my question about BS.

What you are doing is promoting homogeneity in 40K. Why bother thinking, creating and giving meaningful stats and differentiation in a game when you can sandblast everything away until it's a pallid, anemic husk. 40K has not been a "company" based game in decades, and if you need evidence of that, I encourage you to look at the Knights (of either flavor).

 Izural wrote:
Power weapons are different for a very specific reason, an Axe is not the same as a Sword or Halberd (Power or otherwise), and you want to strip away the only true purpose of lightning claws (IE Shred) and make them homogeneous? These weapons are not the same, in any way shape or form; and a powerfist and lightning claw are so wildly different it's not even funny.

Sure they're different. That's not really the issue. The issue is how much detail is appropriate for the game? I mean, you could say every soldier is different too. Some are bigger, stronger, some more cunning, more clever. Every weapon is unique too. Even if superficially they are the same they are really all different. Take an AK, some are new, some are old and worn-out, some receive the best serviced and some are left to fall apart. So, what, you have separate stats for each and every model and every piece of gear!? That's just ridicules. Particularly for a company level game, or bigger. So you make compromises and deal with abstractions. The question is, where do ya drawl the line. Where I draw it is far more appropriate than where GW current draws the line. Understand, GW line was originally draw for a must smaller game. They have redrawn it for some things but its still, mostly, a squad game masquerading as a company game, and ever larger.

You also never answered my question about BS.

I'm sorry. I thought I addressed that but maybe I missed it. Could you say again please?

What you are doing is promoting homogeneity in 40K. Why bother thinking, creating and giving meaningful stats and differentiation in a game when you can sandblast everything away until it's a pallid, anemic husk. 40K has not been a "company" based game in decades, and if you need evidence of that, I encourage you to look at the Knights (of either flavor).

Well, this is mostly hyperbole. Like I said its about drawing lines. Right now 40K uses stats and mechanics designed for squad level game and they shoe-horned that into a company level game, and ever larger.

Quick check-OP, maybe you can add this to a poll at the first post.

Who thinks this is:

1) A good idea as-is?
2) A good idea, but the way the OP is implementing it needs work?
3) A bad idea?

I'm personally leaning between 2 and 3. It could be done well, but I don't think the OP is going about it in a good way, and honestly, some of the stuff he has here makes me think it might not be such a good idea after all.

Edit: Also, you just futzed with the math BIG TIME. A Terminator normally is T4 5++ against a Lascannon. Meaning that, assuming BS 4, a Lascannon has a 66.67% chance of hitting, a 55.56% chance of wounding, and a 37.04% chance of killing them past the Invuln save.

Under your system, that increases to a 45.83% chance of killing them. Why do you hate Terminators? They aren't that good. They don't need to be EASIER to kill.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...So you want us to roll more dice, spend more time counting them, and spend a lot more money getting more dice?

Well, you might be rolling more dice but you would be rolling them about a third as often. In the course of a game you'd be throwing a lot less dice and getting a result a lot quicker. You spend no more time counting dice than you do now. And as far as money goes, well if that's much of a concern perhaps you picked the wrong hobby.

I know the current system works real good if the attacking unit has all the same weapons and the Defending unit has all the same armor, and you have memorized all the relevant stats and charts. But this isn't always the case, and I wouldn't want to play a game that requires such for a clean quick game. And what I'm suggesting works good for non-mixed units too, but where it really shines is when you have mixed units. Try doing a mixed unit combat with the current rules. Use the weapons mix I used in the example above with the current rules. Try shooting all those different weapons into a unit with mixed armor types. See how long that takes ya. See how many little tedious mechanics you have to work though. See how boring and monotonous it is.

I fail to see how your system would simplify or speed up the game.

Do the experiment: try that example above like I said. Do that with the current rules and tell me how simple and fast it went.

If I'm playing 40k under the normal rules I have to roll at absolute maximum three dice to make a single attack. Under your system I've got to roll three to six dice for each attack (from a 3d6 attack).

Explain to me again how this is faster.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


If I'm playing 40k under the normal rules I have to roll at absolute maximum three dice to make a single attack. Under your system I've got to roll three to six dice for each attack (from a 3d6 attack).

Explain to me again how this is faster.

OK, if I'm understanding you correctly, the three rolls under the current system are 1. To Hit, 2. To Wound, and 3. To Save. Correct?

In a dice roll-off its just two rolls, or one roll-off. The Attacker rolls his Attack dice (one roll) and the Defender rolls his Defense dice (another roll). That's it, a total of two rolls. If its a 3D6 attack the Attacker would roll three dice but he would roll them only once. Of course it could be a single dice attack. Say the Attacker is attacking with a single basic Marine, so a single Bolter shot (D8). The Attacker would roll one dice (a D8) once. The Defender would then roll his Defense dice. If the Target guy is a basic Marine (Save D8), he would roll he one Defense dice (a D8) once. Two rolls total.

Under a dice-rolloff system each Players makes one roll per attack, so two rolls total.

Wait-so you're saying a Marine with a Bolter attacks with a d8, and another Marine defends with a d8? So a bolter shot-ONE BOLTER SHOT-has a 43.75% chance of killing a Marine? Compare that to the current system, where a Marine is only killed 11.11% of the time. You just made Tacticals 4X easier to kill with a bolter!

You are completely and utterly changing the math of the game, and you don't even seem to realize it.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Edit: Also, you just futzed with the math BIG TIME. A Terminator normally is T4 5++ against a Lascannon. Meaning that, assuming BS 4, a Lascannon has a 66.67% chance of hitting, a 55.56% chance of wounding, and a 37.04% chance of killing them past the Invuln save.

Under your system, that increases to a 45.83% chance of killing them. Why do you hate Terminators? They aren't that good. They don't need to be EASIER to kill.

You need to drop that way of thinking. It doesn't work for dice-rolloff. Targets are not being “Hit/Wounded” by any particular weapon. They are being subjected to an onslaught of firepower. This is represented by a score on a single dice-type.

Most of the dice-types used are D6 and D8, so the highest score that a Termi will generally have to roll against is an “8”. Now the Termi gets 2D8's as his Defense dice. So he gets two changes to beat that “8”. Basic Marine armor is a single D8, so he only gets one chance to beat that “8”. Now the average score is probably a “5” or “6”. So for most attacks the Termi would have two chances to beat a “5” or “6” on a 2D8's. Also, if you did the step-reduction thing, if a Termi failed a roll-off he would not be eliminated. He would simple lose one of his D8's. He would continue in the game but his Defense dice would now be a single D8. Also, for higher “Hits” (Attack dice results of 9 and 10), the Termi can roll a D10 as his Defense dice. So he would still have a chance at life. Of course if he failed that roll he would be eliminated. There's no step reduction from a failed D10 roll for Termi's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Wait-so you're saying a Marine with a Bolter attacks with a d8, and another Marine defends with a d8? So a bolter shot-ONE BOLTER SHOT-has a 43.75% chance of killing a Marine? Compare that to the current system, where a Marine is only killed 11.11% of the time. You just made Tacticals 4X easier to kill with a bolter!

You are completely and utterly changing the math of the game, and you don't even seem to realize it.

Oh I realize it. Do you realize just how important cover is with this system? No more striding around the battlefield with you dick out.

You know, I read through one of your earlier threads. The one where you repeatedly said that you liked the Burning of Prospero system for for smaller, kill team like games. Not big games.

What changed?

And okay, let me run the numbers. 10 Tactical Marines against 5 Terminators. Each Terminator has, with 2d8 (pick the highest) a 27.34% chance of being killed per shot. Two shots per Tactical Marine. That's 20 shots, or around 5 dead Terminators. Do you intend for a single round of Rapid Fire Bolters to kill off a Squad of Terminators?

Also, this would slow down the game. A ton. Don't see how? I do. I roll for my Space Marines, 14d8 (I'm assuming 3 died, since I only have 14 d8s), and get . Easy enough, nice and fast. Took me, from the time I picked up my dice to rolling them, literally 4 seconds. (I timed it.)

Then I need to find the highest. 3.1 seconds, and it was a 6. (I got two 6s.) Then the next highest, and the next, and the next. 2 5s (6.48 seconds) and I found a 7-missed that earlier because it's hard to find. 3 4s (4.2 seconds). 1 3 (1.39 seconds). 3 2s (1.54 seconds). 2 1s (.61 seconds).

Rolled 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1.

Then I roll my Terminator saves. 2d8b1. I will roll all 14 of them and time that total.

7-7
6-8
6-7
5-7
5-4
4-5
4-8
4-6
3-5
2-5
2-6
2-3
1-8
1-8

Guess how long that took? 36.96 seconds.

Total time? 52.89 seconds.

Now, let me do the same thing, for 7 tacticals firing on a terminator squad using the current system.

To-hit: 7.47 seconds, 8 hits.
To-wound: 4.31 seconds, 3 wounds.
To-save: 1.51 seconds, all saved.

13.29 seconds.

So in other words, I just tested your system. I actually rolled the dice.

And your system takes nearly 4 times longer.

Thirdeye wrote:


Oh I realize it. Do you realize just how important cover is with this system? No more striding around the battlefield with you dick out.

Well, I suppose Sisters ought to be safe...

Anyways, this would be best if you can limit the ratios to 1 die vs. 1 die*. It will most likely be a much bloodier game, so I wouldn't recommend the IGOUGO alpha strike system 40K currently has.

* You could go with multiple dice being thrown together, but that could get as bad as the current system now. For example, a rapid firing bolter might roll 2d8 (they're not added). A marine's armor might provide 3d8 Defense, with a minimum of 4 to wound. So 10 marines rapid-firing bolters would make a 20d8 attack. Attacker tosses out all dice that roll less than 4. Ten defending marines would roll 30d8, compare and cancel; all the Attacker's 8's are cancelled by defenders 8's (and removed), All Defender's 7's are cancelled by the Defender's 7's, and any remaining 8's (then removed), all the Attacker's 6's are cancelled by the Defender's 6's or remaining 7's and 8's (and then removed) and so on. Anything lower than a 4, ignore. If the Attacker has any hit remaining, the Defender loses that many marines.

You could cut the dice rolling down a die or three if you consolidate the current attacks models get - most models get at least two attacks already, so you could simplify the dice rolling from above if the attacker rolls 1D8 and the Defender rolls 2D8, for example.

The trick would be retweaking weapon 'To Hit', 'To Wound' and AP values into one roll, and the Defender's Toughness and Armor into the defending roll. It'd require a hefty rethink/rework of the game but the end result *could* be a lot faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, you could make things go a little faster if you had a target number, and just was worrying about successes - in the case above, it would Target Number 4. Roll 20D8 for attack, look for 4+. Roll 30D8 for defense, look for 4+. Defender cancels successes on a 1:1 ratio, if the Attacker has any successes left, they become wounds.

 JNAProductions wrote:


You know, I read through one of your earlier threads. The one where you repeatedly said that you liked the Burning of Prospero system for for smaller, kill team like games. Not big games.

What changed?

Actually I think it would work great for both, and for Apocalypse too, but you get less acrimony when you say “just Kill Team guys, honest”. Sometimes you’re up for a fight, sometimes not.

And okay, let me run the numbers…

To-hit: 7.47 seconds, 8 hits.
To-wound: 4.31 seconds, 3 wounds.
To-save: 1.51 seconds, all saved.

13.29 seconds.

So in other words, I just tested your system. I actually rolled the dice.

And your system takes nearly 4 times longer.

Well, ya did it wrong, but I must say, really appreciate the effort.

Yeah, you forgot to eliminate the 1’s, 2’s & 3’s. Those are auto-fails. You wasted time picking them out and rolling against them. Its also easier to see the important ones when you ignore the 3’s and less. You just push them to the side.

Also, you tested the current system against non-mixed units. I already said the current system works really well with non-mixed units. The really time killer for the current system is when you get mixed units, i.e two or more weapons types in the attacking unit and/or two or more armor types in the defending unit. Dice rolloff its, mix, not mixed, it doesn’t matter, both clean and smooth. Also, you forgot to factor in all the time you spent reading through the minutia and memorizing all the stats and charts needed to play. In reality that 13.29 seconds took you about twenty minutes.

Also, dice-rolloff is just more fun. You and your opponent are engaged at a much higher level. You miss that when you do it solitaire. Try it with a friend.

Okay, let's assume that halves the time. It's still twice as long.

 Stormonu wrote:




Anyways, this would be best if you can limit the ratios to 1 die vs. 1 die*. It will most likely be a much bloodier game, so I wouldn't recommend the IGOUGO alpha strike system 40K currently has.

Well, it is 1die vs 1die for the most part. The Attack dice are applied through-out the unit one dice per model. The Defender rolls against that one dice. Generally the Defender only has one Defense dice.

And Yeah, I like unit activation.

You could cut the dice rolling down a die or three if you consolidate the current attacks models get - most models get at least two attacks already, so you could simplify the dice rolling from above if the attacker rolls 1D8 and the Defender rolls 2D8, for example.

Well, actually, in the system I’m talking about most models get only one attack dice.

The trick would be retweaking weapon 'To Hit', 'To Wound' and AP values into one roll, and the Defender's Toughness and Armor into the defending roll. It'd require a hefty rethink/rework of the game but the end result *could* be a lot faster.

Yeah, that’s basically what’s goin on, your combining those stat into a dice-type and then rolling those dice against each other.

Actually, you could make things go a little faster if you had a target number, and just was worrying about successes - in the case above, it would Target Number 4. Roll 20D8 for attack, look for 4+. Roll 30D8 for defense, look for 4+. Defender cancels successes on a 1:1 ratio, if the Attacker has any successes left, they become wounds.

Some games use that kinda system. Alessio’s Terminator Genesis game is like that. But I would rather not roll against a stat. Just another thing to look-up and memorize. Besides, rolling against your opponent is more engaging, more fun.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay, let's assume that halves the time. It's still twice as long.

Not when you factor in the time you need to look-up or memorize stats to play the current game.

Thirdeye wrote:

Some games use that kinda system. Alessio’s Terminator Genesis game is like that. But I would rather not roll against a stat. Just another thing to look-up and memorize. Besides, rolling against your opponent is more engaging, more fun.

Doesn't necessarily need to be a stat. Savage Worlds (which was based off the Rail Wars tabletop wargame) uses a static target number of 4. A four or better is a success, regardless of the die you roll, it's just easier to succeed with a larger die. (In SW, "heroes" get to throw a D6 in addition to their normal die to make them hardier. Also, each additional +4 on a die is an extra success. So if you roll an 8 on a D8 a D10 or D12, that's two successes. If you roll a 12 on a D12, that's three successes - you're only looking for three numbers; 4, 8, & 12).

 Stormonu wrote:


Doesn't necessarily need to be a stat. Savage Worlds (which was based off the Rail Wars tabletop wargame) uses a static target number of 4. A four or better is a success, regardless of the die you roll, it's just easier to succeed with a larger die. (In SW, "heroes" get to throw a D6 in addition to their normal die to make them hardier. Also, each additional +4 on a die is an extra success. So if you roll an 8 on a D8 a D10 or D12, that's two successes. If you roll a 12 on a D12, that's three successes - you're only looking for three numbers; 4, 8, & 12).

Hmmm, interesting. Yeah, there's a lot of cool game mechanics out there. I'm glad to see GW testing the waters too by using different stuff in their Box Games. Like I said, I hope some of that stuff will make it into a new edition of 40K. Still, I have to agree with AnomanderRake too, its probably just a pipe dream. But, it could be a fan project... If anyone's interested...?

 Stormonu wrote:


Doesn't necessarily need to be a stat. Savage Worlds (which was based off the Rail Wars tabletop wargame) uses a static target number of 4. A four or better is a success, regardless of the die you roll, it's just easier to succeed with a larger die. (In SW, "heroes" get to throw a D6 in addition to their normal die to make them hardier. Also, each additional +4 on a die is an extra success. So if you roll an 8 on a D8 a D10 or D12, that's two successes. If you roll a 12 on a D12, that's three successes - you're only looking for three numbers; 4, 8, & 12).

I've been thinking about this. I think this might be the way to go. I'm think'in keep the army dice-type idea, then set successful rolls at 4+. On the attack, a roll of 4-7 is one Hit, a roll of 8-11 is two Hits, and a roll of 12 is three Hits. Defenders get a "set-up" in dice type for cover. Any model obscured 50% or more rolls the next high dice-type. So for Marines, (Defense dice of D8), for each model being attacked that's obscured by cover, its Defense dice would go to a D10. So, instead of rolling a D8 it would roll a D10 as its Defense dice. All Attack dice and Defense dice are rolled together, so just two rolls: an Attack roll and a Defense roll.

EX: Squad of five Marines with Bolters attacks squad of three Terminators. Marines roll 5D8's, (Scores of 4-7 are a Hit. A roll of 8 is two Hits). Marines rolls 2,5,4,3,8: four Hits. The Termies have a Defense dice of 2D8. One of the Termies is in cover so one of his dice goes to a D10. They roll 5D8 & D10, and score: 4,2,5,6,3,8, four saves. The Termies take no casualties on that attack.

I like it because its fast, real fast, yet still has detail because of the dice-types. It also uses a static number (4+), a mechanics that 40K players are familiar with and like.

Any thoughts?

Sounds good to me for infantry vs. infantry. The big part will be converting all the weapon and unit stats.

However, how about vs. Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles? What would expect a marine squad vs. Carnifex or marine squad vs. Rhino to look like as far dice being thrown by each side (and accounting for the fact the Bolters should mostly bounce off the Rhino).

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


If I'm playing 40k under the normal rules I have to roll at absolute maximum three dice to make a single attack. Under your system I've got to roll three to six dice for each attack (from a 3d6 attack).

Explain to me again how this is faster.

OK, if I'm understanding you correctly, the three rolls under the current system are 1. To Hit, 2. To Wound, and 3. To Save. Correct?

In a dice roll-off its just two rolls, or one roll-off. The Attacker rolls his Attack dice (one roll) and the Defender rolls his Defense dice (another roll). That's it, a total of two rolls. If its a 3D6 attack the Attacker would roll three dice but he would roll them only once. Of course it could be a single dice attack. Say the Attacker is attacking with a single basic Marine, so a single Bolter shot (D8). The Attacker would roll one dice (a D8) once. The Defender would then roll his Defense dice. If the Target guy is a basic Marine (Save D8), he would roll he one Defense dice (a D8) once. Two rolls total.

Under a dice-rolloff system each Players makes one roll per attack, so two rolls total.

And if you're trying to preserve granularity by adding more dice each 'roll' under your system is multiple dice. If each roll is always exactly one die you're making us roll two dice per attack instead of the three we'd be rolling under current 40k, but if you're rolling two dice for attacks/defense we're suddenly rolling four dice per attack instead of three.

So either you strip all granularity out of the game by reducing all possible combinations of WS/BS/S/AP/Sv/Invul/Cover/FNP/etc to six possible offense levels and six possible defense levels, or we're rolling a lot more dice.

This proposal is designed to help alleviate the problem of the proliferation of special snowflake weapons and supposedly speed up resolution - a sacrifice of granularity for speed.

However, 40K has a lot of false granularity in those stats. 90% or more of the time you're looking at a 3-4+ to hit, 3-4+ to wound and a 3-4+ to save for common infantry weapons. Vs. AT weapons, it's 3-4+ to hit, 2+ to wound and 5+ (cover/invuln) save - if you get one. Certainly there are outliers, but this dice system - in my opinion - still allows for plenty of design space to make major differentiation between weapons.

I think that the D8 for a marine's standard attack and a D8 for defense would be a good starting point, especially if you use the 4=1 success, 8=2 success, 12=3 success model. That would greatly cut down the dice you need to have a model throw.

Terminators and anything with an invulnerable save gets a little tricker. Vehicles moreso, perhaps they subtract 1 success from each attack, so hurting them with infantry weapons would be extremely unlikely.

 Stormonu wrote:
Sounds good to me for infantry vs. infantry. The big part will be converting all the weapon and unit stats.

However, how about vs. Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles? What would expect a marine squad vs. Carnifex or marine squad vs. Rhino to look like as far dice being thrown by each side (and accounting for the fact the Bolters should mostly bounce off the Rhino).

Before I answer your question, I gotta say I’ve been thinking, again. I’m thinking Saves on a “4” is too easy. Firepower should be more bloody. So I’m thinking Saves should be on a 6+

OK, so Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles are like infantry but they get a pool of dice, and as they take hits they loose dice from their pool. When the pool of dice is gone the creature/ vehicle is dead.

Vehicles are also different in that they can only be attacked by weapons with an AT rating, and it “cost” dice from their pool to move. It cost one dice – of any type -- for a vehicle to move (generally 6 inches or less), and two dice (any type) for a vehicle to Charge or move “Full-Out” (generally between 7 and 12 inches). It also cost dice to roll attacks. So if a vehicle has moved, it would have one less dice from its pool to shoot with. If the vehicle Charged it would have two less dice from its pool to shoot with. If the vehicle didn’t move, it could roll all of its dice in an attack. Likewise, if a vehicle rolled all its dice in attacks it can’t move.

Here are some examples of vehicle dice pools using Marine Vehicles:

Light Vehicles
Land Speeder/ Hvy Bolter - 2D8 (Infantry Attack 2).

Light Tanks
Rhino/Bolters - 3D8, (Infantry Attack 3). Special Rule: "APC": Transport Capacity 5 Marines or 3 Terminators.

Medium Tank
Razorback/Hvy Bolters - 2D10, 2D8 (Infantry Attack 3).
Predator/Autocannon & Hvy Bolters - D12, 2D8 (Infantry Attack 3).

Heavy Tanks
Land Raider - 4D10. (Infantry Attack 4).
Special Rule: "APC": Transport Capacity 10 Marines or 5 Terminators.

Example 1: An undamaged Land Raider (4D10) uses one D10 to move six inches. The Marine Player then declares the Land Raider will attack an Ork Truck within LOS. The Land Raider has three remaining dice: 3D10. The Marine Player decides to use all his dice against the Ork Truck. He rolls 3D10 and scores an 8, a 3, and a 4. Three hits. (Like with infantry, the “4” is a Hit and the “8” is two Hits). The Ork Truck has only two dice in its pool, 2D6. (On the defense it doesn’t matter that the Ork Truck may have moved that turn or not, it can still use all its all its available dice in defense). But the truck was hit three times, so he gets an extra D6. (All hits not covered by available dice are resolved on a D6, just like all hits on infantry not covered by available Save dice are resolved on a D6). The Ork Player rolls 3D6 and scores a 5, a 6, and a 4. The Ork Tank makes one save but takes two hits.(“6” or better to Save). Since the Ork Truck only has 2D6 in its pool, it looses them both and is destroyed.

Example 2: An undamaged Predator is attacked by a unit of Ork Infantry with an AT rated Hvy weapon. The hvy weapon is ATD8. The Ork Player rolls a D8 and scores an 8! (Two Hits). The Marine Player rolls all of his dice in defense, a D12 a D8, and a D6, and scores an 8, a 5, and a 4. The Predator takes two Hits. The Marine Player decides to drop the D8 and the D6 from the Predator’s pool of dice. The Predator has only the D12 left. If it looses that its destroyed.

PLAYING AID: It is highly recommended that Players keep track of hits on their vehicles with some kind of stickers or markers.

Thoughts?

Seems a bit complex.

Personally, I'd leave saves on a "4", no extra D6's.

I do like the idea of having to have AP (AT?, we are talking "Anti-Tank") on a weapon to harm vehicles (or MC's with really high toughness). I also like the idea that vehicles lose defense dice as they take damage.

Not a fan of losing firepower when moving.

I'd rate the vehicles from above as:

Dreadnought/Multimelta & Power Fist + Storm Bolter - Ranged: 2D8 AP + D8 Assault; Melee: D12 AP; Def 3D6
Land Speeder/Hvy Bolter - D8+D4; Def 3D6

Rhino/Storm Bolter - D8 Assault; Def 3D8
Razorback/Hvy Bolter - D8 +D4 twin-linked; Def 3D8
Predator/Autocannon & Hvy Bolters - D10 AP + D8 + D4; Def 3D8
Leman Russ/Battle Cannon & Hvy Bolter - 1D10 AP/6D10* + D8 + D4; Def 3D10
Land Raider/twin Lascannons & Hvy Bolters - 2D10 AP, twin-linked + D8 + D4 twin-linked; Def 3D12

* The Battle Cannon rolls 1D10 vs. vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, but 6D10 vs. infantry; the latter represents Large Blast
On a somewhat related note, how would you handle 5 marines shooting at 10 orcs? In this case, you would only be rolling 5D8 for damage, but the orcs might be rolling 10D4 (or 10D6, if you don't want to go down to D4) for defense. Even worse, 5 Dire Avengers (5D8) shooting at 10 marines (10D8). I bring this scenario up, because if the attackers have a smaller dice pool than the defenders, all hits might be cancelled if the defender's dice pool isn't limited in some way.

Also, why did you drop the transport capacity on Rhinos and Razorbacks?

 Stormonu wrote:
Seems a bit complex.

Yeah, well its harder to explain than it is to do.

Personally, I'd leave saves on a "4", no extra D6's.

At “4” I’m afraid things will be saving too easily. Shooting would be too ineffectual. Nothings more frustrating then getting a bunch of hits only to see them brushed aside like so many pin pricks. Also, understand, models in cover get a step-up in their save dice. So, for example, Orks and IG that normally save on a D6 get to save on D8 if in cover. I like to encourage the use of cover as it adds a tactical element to the game. But hey, nothing is set in stone until there’s some play testing.

As to the extra D6, this is a mechanic used in Prospero and it’s a good one. It represents the effect of being hit with massive firepower while still giving you a change to save. Without the extra dice you would either ignore the extra Hits or take automatic casualties.

I do like the idea of having to have AP (AT?, we are talking "Anti-Tank") on a weapon to harm vehicles (or MC's with really high toughness). I also like the idea that vehicles lose defense dice as they take damage.

Yeah, AT = Anti Tank. It means the weapons is designed to penetrate thick/magic armor or tuff/magic skin. Yeah, you can use AP but, understand, its just a designation. It can’t be a modifier as the game is designed so you can throw all your attack dice at once. If different weapons have different AP modifiers then how do you know what modifier goes to what dice? You’d either have to roll the attacks separately or use different color dice or something dumb like that.

Not a fan of losing firepower when moving.

Vehicles would be too powerful if they could move and shoot without penalty.

I'd rate the vehicles from above as:

Dreadnought/Multimelta & Power Fist + Storm Bolter - Ranged: 2D8 AP + D8 Assault; Melee: D12 AP; Def 3D6
Land Speeder/Hvy Bolter - D8+D4; Def 3D6

Rhino/Storm Bolter - D8 Assault; Def 3D8
Razorback/Hvy Bolter - D8 +D4 twin-linked; Def 3D8
Predator/Autocannon & Hvy Bolters - D10 AP + D8 + D4; Def 3D8
Leman Russ/Battle Cannon & Hvy Bolter - 1D10 AP/6D10* + D8 + D4; Def 3D10
Land Raider/twin Lascannons & Hvy Bolters - 2D10 AP, twin-linked + D8 + D4 twin-linked; Def 3D12.

Yeah, well I’d like to get away from the “twin-linked” thing. That just another one of GW’s silly little rules. I go with the obvious: If the weapon has two barrels it rolls two dice. Also, I use a pool and not separate Def dice as hits can effect weapons and movement as well as reducing armor. Using a flexible pool of dice for all three allows you to represent damage to all three as the vehicle takes damage, without having to use other complex mechanics.

* The Battle Cannon rolls 1D10 vs. vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, but 6D10 vs. infantry; the latter represents Large Blast.

Yeah, that’s kinda the idea I had with the designation: “infantry x dice”. The idea is that anti infantry attacks from vehicles mounted weapons are done with special anti-infantry rounds (HE - High Explosive) or the weapon is being “sprayed” into the infantry, and/or the vehicle mounted weapon is a bigger caliber than the shoulder mounted/hand held infantry version, and/or the vehicle weapon is supported by a vehicle mounted targeting system.

On a somewhat related note, how would you handle 5 marines shooting at 10 orcs? In this case, you would only be rolling 5D8 for damage, but the orcs might be rolling 10D4 (or 10D6, if you don't want to go down to D4) for defense. Even worse, …

Good question. It shows you’re really thinking about this. Yeah, well you don’t save against the entire squad. You only same against the number of models you get hits on. So, in you example, if the Marines rolled five hits then the Ork would roll five saves for the five models closest to the Marines. If one or more of those five models is in cover its defense dice gets a step-up. And, of course, the Ork Player takes his casualties from those five models.

Now, lets say you have the reverse situation, where you got 10 Orks shooting at 5 Marines. And lets say the Orks scored ten Hits. The Marines would have to save against all the Hits. They would roll 5D8’s and 5D6. As I said earlier, all extra Hit are saved against a D6. This is a mechanic used in Prospero and it’s a good one. It represents the effect of being hit with massive firepower while still giving you a change to save. Without the extra dice you would either ignore the extra Hits or take automatic casualties.

Also, you could add a special rule for elite troops, that they get to concentrate their fire against a specific model, forcing it to take some saves on a D6.

Also, why did you drop the transport capacity on Rhinos and Razorbacks?

It just seemed to fit the scale of the models better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


And if you're trying to preserve granularity by adding more dice…

OK, hold it right there. I’m not trying to preserve granularity by adding more dice, I’m adding greater granularity by utilizing different dice-types. So, instead of rolling a D6 three times, and needing six different stats, or more, I’m rolling, for example, a D6 against a D8, and I only need two stats, which are the dice-types.

… each 'roll' under your system is multiple dice.

Well, each ‘roll’ under GW’s rules is multiple dice, right? That’s the easiest way to do it, right. That’s what you want to do. You roll all your attacks, one roll, could be 20 dice, then you roll all your wounds, multiple dice, then you roll your saves, multiple dice. That the ideal, right. And you can do that under the current rules so long as the attacking unit’s weapons types are the same. The problems is if the attacking unit has mixed weapons type, each with their own stats, then you have to roll those attacks separately, which means doing all three rolls for each weapon type. If you’re attacking with a unit with three different weapons you have to roll three times for each weapon, that’s nine rolls. Then, if you have different armor types in the target unit, you have even a bigger mess, or you just ignore the different armor types and test against the majority type, which means you’re paying for stats you’re not using. You don’t have those problems when you substitute dice-types for stats. You just roll the dice. You gather up all your attack dice and you roll them all together in one roll.

So either you strip all granularity out of the game by reducing all possible combinations of WS/BS/S/AP/Sv/Invul/Cover/FNP/etc to six possible offense levels and six possible defense levels, or we're rolling a lot more dice.

Well, again, its not six possible levels. There are six dice types but you can use multiples of each dice type and/or mixtures of dice types to The “levels” are virtually endless. But, I have to admit, that doing it the way I originally had it, yes, you are correct. You were rolling a lot more dice, as you were rolling separately for each save. Mostly you were rolling one dice against another dice but still it was a lot of rolling. But doing it the way Stormonu suggested, its just two rolls. I still like the way I had it for smaller, Kill Team type games. But for 40K size games Stormonu’s way is better, faster. There’s an issue with wound allocation but but still better for 40K.

One thing to mention, I don't think multiple successes on a die and the D6 for spillovers will mesh well. Going back to our running example, if our 5 marines (5D8) got 7 hits there's the question of how many dice is it appropriate for the defenders to roll - would it be 5D8 for the defenders, 7D8 or 5D8 + 2D6? You could make an argument for any of the three combinations above, and it would be related to how deadly you want things to be in the game.

 Stormonu wrote:
One thing to mention, I don't think multiple successes on a die and the D6 for spillovers will mesh well. Going back to our running example, if our 5 marines (5D8) got 7 hits there's the question of how many dice is it appropriate for the defenders to roll - would it be 5D8 for the defenders, 7D8 or 5D8 + 2D6? You could make an argument for any of the three combinations above, and it would be related to how deadly you want things to be in the game.

Yes, I see your point. Prospero uses a D6 for spillover Hits but of course they have Marine armor at D6. If Marines are moved to a D8 then its kinda unfairly to save spillover Hits on a D6. After all, IG armor is D6, so, but they save spillover Hits on a D6. But if Marines are saving spillover Hits on a D6, shouldn’t IG save spillover Hits on a D4? Well, I don’t like that so much. So, yeah, all spillover saves should be on your Save dice. So in your example the correct solution is 7D8. You’re still showing the effects of massive firepower because you have to make the extra saves. But what if you’ve got mixed armor in the Target unit? Save spillover Hits on the majority type?

Thirdeye wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
One thing to mention, I don't think multiple successes on a die and the D6 for spillovers will mesh well. Going back to our running example, if our 5 marines (5D8) got 7 hits there's the question of how many dice is it appropriate for the defenders to roll - would it be 5D8 for the defenders, 7D8 or 5D8 + 2D6? You could make an argument for any of the three combinations above, and it would be related to how deadly you want things to be in the game.

Yes, I see your point. Prospero uses a D6 for spillover Hits but of course they have Marine armor at D6. If Marines are moved to a D8 then its kinda unfairly to save spillover Hits on a D6. After all, IG armor is D6, so, but they save spillover Hits on a D6. But if Marines are saving spillover Hits on a D6, shouldn’t IG save spillover Hits on a D4? Well, I don’t like that so much. So, yeah, all spillover saves should be on your Save dice. So in your example the correct solution is 7D8. You’re still showing the effects of massive firepower because you have to make the extra saves. But what if you’ve got mixed armor in the Target unit? Save spillover Hits on the majority type?

Yeah, spillover on majority save makes sense.

What about multi-wound models, like the vehicles from above - I assume this means they have XDY (say 3D8) to represent endurance, but if they get hit with, say 10 hits, you're just filling in the extra spillover dice, but if 3 hits get through, they're toast...

 Stormonu wrote:


Yeah, spillover on majority save makes sense.

What about multi-wound models, like the vehicles from above - I assume this means they have XDY (say 3D8) to represent endurance, but if they get hit with, say 10 hits, you're just filling in the extra spillover dice, but if 3 hits get through, they're toast...

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: What about multi dice save models, like Termies which I gave a save of 2D8. So, what, they get to roll 2D8 for every spillover hit? And how about models with force fields, they might have a D8 and a D10 save. Do they roll both dice for spillover hits? What if a multi dice same model is mixed in with a unit of single save models, how are spillover hits handled then?

Hummm. I’m thinking multi dice save models save spillover Hits on the lowest of their multi dice types. So Termines would save spillover Hits on a D8. The idea is spillover Hits represent massive firepower against a unit/model so they should be tuff to save.

Thoughts?

The main problem I see with your planning is, that you take the combat resolution, rip it out of the game, and treat as if it's something that stands on its own. It isn't though.
Even though you said "there was no true new edition since 3rd" there is so much to account for.
Yes, streamlining the whole process of combat resolution would go a great deal to raise the appeal of the game, but (hyperbole here) saying you simply need to change from "d6 for everyone" too "every weapon has its own d-something" is a bit easy.
The work you (for those wondering, I'm adressing OP) and Stormonu have done in the last couple of posts is interesting though, but all in all, you'd had to rework THE WHOLE GAME, not just combat die rolls.
It's simply not as easy as that.

And just my personal opinion, but there really was quite a lot of hostility at the start of this thread, but quite a lot of arrogance from OPs side, too. Looked a bit like a typical nerd discussion with the side "Status Quo (the system sucks but woe befalls anyone who thinks of changing it)" and "Old is allways bad (my idea is different, so all your arguments are dumb)"

 Cyprien wrote:
The main problem I see with your planning is, that you take the combat resolution, rip it out of the game, and treat as if it's something that stands on its own. It isn't though…

The work you (for those wondering, I'm adressing OP) and Stormonu have done in the last couple of posts is interesting though, but all in all, you'd had to rework THE WHOLE GAME, not just combat die rolls.

It's simply not as easy as that.

Well, of course you missed the elephant in the room. GW already did a WHOLE GAME that substituted a dice-type roll-off combat resolution system for the D6 stat system. Its called “Burning of Prospero”

The main problem with applying Porspero’s dice rolloff to 40k is widening the range to include all the other armies. Porspero limits the range to Marine vs. Marine. That’s the big issue with adopting Porspero to 40k. So, that’s what this discussion was about.

Now, I have to admit that I haven’t yet read the rules for Prospero so I can’t say for certain that they didn’t make other changes to accommodate the new combat resolution system, but as far as I can tell Porspero is otherwise based on current 40k rules.

I don’t see a big problem with swooping out combat resolution systems, although I would also make other changes in the rules, like adopting a Unit Activation Turn Base system, but that’s only to further improve the game, not to accommodate a new combat resolution system. Perhapses you can be more specific. What other game elements/mechanics do you see that would need to change to accommodate a dice rolloff combat resolution system?

An interesting system of combat resolution. It would certainly need some adaptation to allow for the wider breadth of options 40K compared to just BoP, but I could certainly see things that could be done to assist. Here are a few ideas:

Dice Available: To be a practical system, all rolls need to be limited to a single die. Use of more than 1 die for a single resolution just bogs everything down and leaves the current 3 Rolls to resolve a faster system. This gives us 6 possible values to use (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20).

Attack Value:
Strength: Technically, there are 11 “Strengths in 40K” (1-10 Plus D) which need to be distributed over the 6 available dice. I think this can be done with a minimal loss of granularity giving how much more significantly certain strengths are in 40K. S 1-2 are very rare, S 6-7 are almost interchangeable in many cases as are 9-10 outside of rare special rules interaction (like Instant Death on T5). Still, I would tie the Attack Die to the Strength of the weapon being used.

Accuracy: I noted that The BoP rules have the attacker discard all dice of 3 or less as misses. You could replace BS with a minimum effective dice value for attacks. A model that is now BS 4 needs a 4+ to hit, while BS 5-6 could be 3+ and a BS 1-3 could be 5+. Now you don’t need to change the die of an attack based on the attackers BS.

Weapon AP Value: While there are technically 7 AP values, we know that many are rarely used or generally ignored. When was the last time you fired a AP 6 weapon, yet alone actually negated someone’s armor with it? I think it would be workable to utilize a simpler mechanic. Weapons are either normal [AP -, 6, & 5], Armor Piercing (AP) [AP 4 & 3], or Anti-Tank (AT) [AP 2 & 1]. A normal weapon is resolved with compared rolls, tie to the defender. AP attacks have ties going to the attacker. Hardened targets (Vehicles, Monsters, and 2+ Armor Saves) could ignore AP and only lose ties against AT attacks.

Defense Value:
Armor and Toughness: While there are many less “Armor Values” in 40K (5, but 6+ is a joke and 5+ is ignored by the vast majority of shooting attacks), but we still have 10 Toughness values (even if 1-2 and 9-10 are super rare). This makes assigned a defense value hard, but not impossible. We would just need to build some sort of matrix to assign a die based on the combination of Armor and Toughness. You get less granularity, but for most purposes, there are many values that are effectively the same.

Invulnerable Saves: An Impossible item to convert into a die off value. Have these remain as the only Saves in the system, a roll made after damage has been resolved much like the current Feel No Pain. Values may need to be adjusted, but it would be workable.

Cover: My suggestion would be to move the effects of cover into the accuracy step on the attacker’s side. Increase his minimum value to damage, with the maximum die value always being a viable hit. This has the interesting effect of making a hit that gets past cover being more likely to get past the opponent’s defense since he has to roll higher on his Defence Die for the cover to be effective. Cover is still good for them since they will have less of a need to save as lower rolls are discarded as misses.

Vehicles and Monsters: Some Monsters and most vehicles have strengths that rarely damage them or are just not able to damage them. Give these models a Minimum Defense value that must be achieved or the attack simply fails. For example, if a Lasgun is a d6, then an AV10 vehicles and Toughness 7 Monster have a Minimum Defense of 7. A Lasgun is simply incapable of damaging them.

Just a few thoughts of mine on an interesting system.

Just remember, it doesn't have to just be one die. Particularly powerful or rapid firing weapons may roll multiple dice.

For example, if a Space Marine with a Boltgun rolls 1D8, the Space Marine with the Heavy Bolter could roll 3D8.

If those are different opportunities to wound, then that would work fine.

 alextroy wrote:
An interesting system of combat resolution. It would certainly need some adaptation to allow for the wider breadth of options 40K compared to just BoP, but I could certainly see things that could be done to assist. Here are a few ideas:

Dice Available: To be a practical system, all rolls need to be limited to a single die. Use of more than 1 die for a single resolution just bog everything down and leaves the current 3 Rolls to resolve a faster system. This gives us 6 possible values to use (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20).

Not really following you here. Every model gets an Attack dice, some get more than one, depending on the weapon/model. Jefffar is correct on that. It would be too difficult to condense a squad of models, some with different weapons, down to one dice.

Attack Value:
Strength: Technically, there are 11 “Strengths in 40K” (1-10 Plus D) which need to be distributed over the 6 available dice. I think this can be done with a minimal loss of granularity giving how much more significantly certain strengths are in 40K. S 1-2 are very rare, S 6-7 are almost interchangeable in many cases as are 9-10 outside of rare special rules interaction (like Instant Death on T5). Still, I would tie the Attack Die to the Strength of the weapon being used.

Accuracy: I noted that The BoP rules have the attacker discard all dice of 3 or less as misses. You could replace BS with a minimum effective dice value for attacks. A model that is now BS 4 needs a 4+ to hit, while BS 5-6 could be 3+ and a BS 1-3 could be 5+. Now you don’t need to change the die of an attack based on the attackers BS.

If you’re only rolling one dice, what dice do you use if the attacking unit has models with mixed BS? If you are rolling more that one dice how do you determine which one is for BS4 and which is for BS5?

It really doesn’t work to think of this in terms of a systematic conversion from the current game. This is conceptually very different. In terms of current 40K, a model’s Attack dice/value BS is combined with the weapon’s Strength, AP and Grade. But instead of trying the account for a bunch of different elements -- like BS and WS, and Strength and Toughness, and all that -- this is base on the army or race, and its standard weapon.

Each army/race is assigned a dice type. This represents the general effectiveness of the army/race’s generic trooper and his signature weapon. This dice type is generally the same for both Attack and Defense. This is always so with the amry/race’s must generic trooper. For example, Marines are a D8 army, so a generic Marine’s Attack and Defense dice are both D8; IG and Orks are D6 armies so a generic Imperial trooper or Ork Boy’s Attack and Defense dice are both D6; Eldar Guardians are also D6 so a generic Guardian’s Attack and Defense dice are D6; Eldar Aspects are a D8 so an Aspects’ Attack and Defense are D8. Variation within each army can change the base army dice for Attack and/or Defense, and can add dice, but you’re always working from the army’s generic base.

Weapon AP Value: While there are technically 7 AP values, we know that many are rarely used or generally ignored. When was the last time you fired a AP 6 weapon, yet alone actually negated someone’s armor with it? I think it would be workable to utilize a simpler mechanic. Weapons are either normal [AP -, 6, & 5], Armor Piercing (AP) [AP 4 & 3], or Anti-Tank (AT) [AP 2 & 1]. A normal weapon is resolved with compared rolls, tie to the defender. AP attacks have ties going to the attacker. Hardened targets (Vehicles, Monsters, and 2+ Armor Saves) could ignore AP and only lose ties against AT attacks.

Again, not sure how that all works when you’re only rolling one dice? How do you determine what dice type to roll?

Again, it really doesn’t work to think of this in terms of a systematic conversion from the current game. Under this system weapons characteristics are combined with BS. That gives an Attack value/dice.

Defense Value:
Armor and Toughness: While there are many less “Armor Values” in 40K (5, but 6+ is a joke and 5+ is ignored by the vast majority of shooting attacks), but we still have 10 Toughness values (even if 1-2 and 9-10 are super rare). This makes assigned a defense value hard, but not impossible. We would just need to build some sort of matrix to assign a die based on the combination of Armor and Toughness. You get less granularity, but for most purposes, there are many values that are effectively the same.

That's true. Under current 40K rules variations in Armor and Toughness average out and the distinction is effectively meaningless. Under these rules Armor and Toughness are combined into a Defense value/dice. But again, it really doesn’t work to think in terms of a systematic conversion from the current game because this is conceptually very different. You don’t need a matrix, just a base army/race dice type.

Invulnerable Saves: An Impossible item to convert into a die off value. Have these remain as the only Saves in the system, a roll made after damage has been resolved much like the current Feel No Pain. Values may need to be adjusted, but it would be workable.

There is no Invulnerable save here, but you can make a model invulnerable to some weapons by increasing its “to Hit value” to 7+ as you suggest below.

Generally a role of 6+ is a Save; everything else is… not. You can increase your odds of saving by using cover (step-up in Defense dice type) or having special and/or additional equipment (gear). This gives you additional dice to role. For example, Terminator armor gives Defense dice of 2D8, so two chances of scoring a 6+.

Cover: My suggestion would be to move the effects of cover into the accuracy step on the attacker’s side. Increase his minimum value to damage, with the maximum die value always being a viable hit. This has the interesting effect of making a hit that gets past cover being more likely to get past the opponent’s defense since he has to roll higher on his Defence Die for the cover to be effective. Cover is still good for them since they will have less of a need to save as lower rolls are discarded as misses.

Not sure I follow all this, but yeah, you can either put the effects of cover on the attacker (front loaded) or on the defender (back loaded). If you front load it, its hard to deal with a situation where not all the Target unit is in cove. You can do a limited attack, attack only these models in cover, or only those models not in cover, or use different color dice, which is a pain… I back load it. I put it on the Defense role. Then you can just step-up the Defense dice for the model(s) in cover. It’s also easier to step up dice types than to go down. If you front load it, it means that some—all? -- the Attacker’s dice type would go down. If you’re attacking a unit in hard cover you would have to step down several times, but you can’t go lower than a D4. Generally Attack dice are a D6. From there you can only step down once, to a D4. But from a D6 you can step up to a D8, or a D10, or even a D12 or D20. So if your Defense dice is a D6 but you’re in hard cover you get two steps up; you get to role a Defense dice of D10.

I don’t do traditional +1, +2, etc to the attack role because, for speed and simplicity all Attack dice are rolled together, and there is no way to say which gets the modifier unless you use different color dice, which is a pain.

Vehicles and Monsters: Some Monsters and most vehicles have strengths that rarely damage them or are just not able to damage them. Give these models a Minimum Defense value that must be achieved or the attack simply fails. For example, if a Lasgun is a d6, then an AV10 vehicles and Toughness 7 Monster have a Minimum Defense of 7. A Lasgun is simply incapable of damaging them.

Yeah, you can do that, but only for non-mixable units, unless you don’t mind making separate attack roles. Following Stromonu’s suggestion I set a generic hit at 4+, but special units can get a special “to Hit value” of 5 or higher. A “to Hit value” of 7+ would make a model invulnerable to D6 weapons. You can’t get that effect by adding Defense dice. I like this idea for special units, like special vehicles and demons/monsters.

Just a few thoughts of mine on an interesting system.

Keep them coming.

OK, so I've been thinking... and rolling some dice... and I'm thinking its best to go with a 5+ save. I was thinking 6+ before but now I'm thinking 5+ save, with added saves for each multiple of 5. So 5-9 is a save, 10-14 equal two saves, 15-19 is three saves, and 20 is four saves. This compares with Hit value of 4+, with 4-7 being a Hit, 8-11 equals two Hits, 12-15 three Hits, 16-19 is four Hits, and 20 is five Hits.

So, its not really a Role-off system anymore, more of a Multi dice Stat system. But that works better for bigger games, plus, that's what veterans of the game know and expect, rolling against a stat. But I also want it the be as simple as possible, that's why the To Hit stat and the Save stat are all the same, basically 4+ to hit and 5+ to save. Generally its just the two stats across the board. We're letting the dice types do the heavy lifting. But there's still room for some variation here and there, for truly unique units, vehicles, and characters, like Gods and Demons. The good stuff.

Thoughts?

An example of what I mean is this (dice values off the top of my head):

A Bolter (or and of the many S4 AP5 weapons) is a d8 Attack. Doesn’t matter if wielded by an Orc (BS 2) or a Space Marine Captain (BS 5). It is a standard weapon, meaning it loses ties against defense. Target to is based on the model actually firing the “Bolter”. An Orc (BS 2) has target 5+, a Space Marine (BS 4) Target 4+, and a Space Marine Captain target 3+ (BS 5).

A lightly armored target will have a d6 Defense die (say a Orc Boy or a Guardsmen), while a Space Marine Scout has a d8 and a Space Marine a d10.

So if 8 Space Marines fire at a squad or Orc Boys, they would roll 8d8, ignoring all results of 1-3. Then the Orcs roll a d6 for each hit and then compare the results to see how many wounds they take.

Just a few thoughts of mine on an interesting system.

Keep them coming.

 alextroy wrote:
An example of what I mean is this (dice values off the top of my head):

A Bolter (or and of the many S4 AP5 weapons) is a d8 Attack. Doesn’t matter if wielded by an Orc (BS 2) or a Space Marine Captain (BS 5). … Target to is based on the model actually firing the “Bolter”. An Orc (BS 2) has target 5+, a Space Marine (BS 4) Target 4+, and a Space Marine Captain target 3+ (BS 5).

You mean the “to Hit” roll is still based on the old BS stats, but the dice type you roll for the Attack role is based on the dice type assigned to the weapon being used? Yeah, well, then you have the problem of which dice is who’s? Ex: Say you have a squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain. They all have bolters so they are all rolling D8’s. You gather your pool of dice: 5D8’s, and you roll them. You get a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5, and a 6. Now Maines hit on a 4+ but the Captain hits on a 3+. So, the problem is, who rolled the 3? If it was the Captain, it’s a “Hit”. If it was one of the Maines, it’s a miss. So, unless you’re using different colored dice, or you make a separate attack for the Captain, you can’t say. And I really don’t want to have to rely on using different colored dice or make separate attacks.

Instead of using a lower “to Hit” stat to represent better BS and then a dice type for a weapon, I use a step-up in dice type to represent a combination of better BS and a better weapon. For Marines, this means going from a D8 to a D10.

So, using my example from above, the squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain, the Marines roll a D8 in attack. Captains are elite or veteran so they get a step up from the generic Marine, they roll a D10.

I give Captains combi weapons, but not because combi weapons are necessarily D10 weapons, but because elites and veterans get a step-up in dice type over the regular guys and they should have a weapon that kinda reflects that. Now they could all still have bolters, it doesn’t matter. You can think of the Captain’s weapon as mastercrafted, or it uses special rounds, or whatever. The important point is that the Captain is a step up from Marines so he’s rolling a D10. It not the weapon, and then the BS. It’s that elites and veterans get a step-up in dice type, and that’s generally a combination of better BS and a better weapon.

The thing about using a different dice type for the modifier, is that the modified effect is “built-in” to the roll. That way you can use a common “to Hit” and Save stats. Using a common stat is simple and easy to remember. The roll to Hit and Save is always the same. I was using 4+ “to Hit”, and 5+ to Save., with multiple hits for multiples of each. (Prospero uses a similar idea. In Prospero rolls of 6+ are critical hits, cause two Hits).

So, to use my example from above again, the squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain, you gather your pool of attack dice: 4D8’s and a D10, and you roll them. You get a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5, and a 6. That’s three Hits.

It is a standard weapon, meaning it loses ties against defense.

No ties anymore. Its not a true roll-off anymore. 4+ to Hit. 5+ to Save.

A lightly armored target will have a d6 Defense die (say a Orc Boy or a Guardsmen), while a Space Marine Scout has a d8 and a Space Marine a d10.

I give Space Marine Scout a D6 and Space Marines a D8.

So if 8 Space Marines fire at a squad or Orc Boys, they would roll 8d8, ignoring all results of 1-3. Then the Orcs roll a d6 for each hit and then compare the results to see how many wounds they take.

Comparing results, yeah, that’s how I had it at first. That’s also how Prospero does it. But I changed that. Comparing results is OK if you’re only rolling a few dice, no more than four or five. If you’re rolling more then that, comparing results is a pain. Porspero uses several techniques to keep dice numbers down to only three or four per side. But you can’t do that for a viable game of 40K. When rolling more then five dice a side its easier to simply count-out the high dice from a roll. 4+ to Hit. 5+ to Save.

 alextroy wrote:

Instead of using a lower “to Hit” stat to represent better BS and then a dice type for a weapon, I use a step-up in dice type to represent a combination of better BS and a better weapon. For Marines, this means going from a D8 to a D10.

So, using my example from above, the squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain, the Marines roll a D8 in attack. Captains are elite or veteran so they get a step up from the generic Marine, they roll a D10.

I give Captains combi weapons, but not because combi weapons are necessarily D10 weapons, but because elites and veterans get a step-up in dice type over the regular guys and they should have a weapon that kinda reflects that. Now they could all still have bolters, it doesn’t matter. You can think of the Captain’s weapon as mastercrafted, or it uses special rounds, or whatever. The important point is that the Captain is a step up from Marines so he’s rolling a D10. It not the weapon, and then the BS. It’s that elites and veterans get a step-up in dice type, and that’s generally a combination of better BS and a better weapon.

The thing about using a different dice type for the modifier, is that the modified effect is “built-in” to the roll. That way you can use a common “to Hit” and Save stats. Using a common stat is simple and easy to remember. The roll to Hit and Save is always the same. I was using 4+ “to Hit”, and 5+ to Save., with multiple hits for multiples of each. (Prospero uses a similar idea. In Prospero rolls of 6+ are critical hits, cause two Hits).

So, to use my example from above again, the squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain, you gather your pool of attack dice: 4D8’s and a D10, and you roll them. You get a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5, and a 6. That’s three Hits.

It is a standard weapon, meaning it loses ties against defense.

No ties anymore. Its not a true roll-off anymore. 4+ to Hit. 5+ to Save.

A lightly armored target will have a d6 Defense die (say a Orc Boy or a Guardsmen), while a Space Marine Scout has a d8 and a Space Marine a d10.

I give Space Marine Scout a D6 and Space Marines a D8.

So if 8 Space Marines fire at a squad or Orc Boys, they would roll 8d8, ignoring all results of 1-3. Then the Orcs roll a d6 for each hit and then compare the results to see how many wounds they take.

Comparing results, yeah, that’s how I had it at first. That’s also how Prospero does it. But I changed that. Comparing results is OK if you’re only rolling a few dice, no more than four or five. If you’re rolling more then that, comparing results is a pain. Porspero uses several techniques to keep dice numbers down to only three or four per side. But you can’t do that for a viable game of 40K. When rolling more then five dice a side its easier to simply count-out the high dice from a roll. 4+ to Hit. 5+ to Save.

Using different dice for the same weapon reduces the distinct nature of the weapon and makes the user more important. Is a Lasgun wielded by anyone as effective as a Bolter? Better that weapon stay the same die and when it "hits" changes. It's not like 40K players haven't been rolling different attacks separately or with a different color dice since nearly forever.

Giving a Save value rather than comparing isn't a bad speed up mechanism. You just can't make the target so high (5+) if you are going to give a Scout a d6 defense since anything less defended that a Scout ends up unable to save at all. With the dice available, a D4 needs to be able to successfully save and needs to represent the worst defended models in the game that actually have some defense (like T3, 6+ save models or at least T3 5+ Save and T4 6+ Save).

 alextroy wrote:
Using different dice for the same weapon reduces the distinct nature of the weapon and makes the user more important.

True, but I'd rather not get too far into WYSIWYG as far as models/bits go. That stuff is great to a point. But I don't want to make a fetish out of it. After all, its not like we can control how GW – or anyone else – scruples their models. And I don't want players to think they need to re-do/convert their models to play the game. So some looseness is not such a bad thing.

Actually, I think base size is the more important. D6 models on a 25mm base, D8 models on a 30/32mm base, D10 models on a 40mm base, D12 models on a 50mm base. That way you know the model's base dice type right away, then look for bits that add stuff, but keep it simple. Heavy weapons matter a lot but small arms shouldn't matter too much. But I'm not saying you need to re-base your army to play the game.

And, it really isn't too much of a problem as most units have their own unique weapon. The few times they overlap with elite/veteran troops you can signify the difference/up-graded weapon with a unique paint-job, or add a do-dad to the standard weapon. Again, not saying this is necessary, just an option if you want to be anal about it.

Is a Lasgun wielded by anyone as effective as a Bolter?

Yeah, I had this discussion earlier. Yeah, well maybe not a standard lasgun, but a supped-up lasgun in the hands of an expert, yeah, as effective as a Bolter. No need to too over-think it. Its just a game of toy soldiers after all.

Better that weapon stay the same die and when it "hits" changes. It's not like 40K players haven't been rolling different attacks separately or with a different color dice since nearly forever.

Well, you could do that. And without play-testing its just an opinion as to which is best. The thing is, the down-side of this system is gathering your pool of dice before every attack. That can be a real pain, and not something you need to deal with when you're using just D6's. I'm saying the sacrifice is worth it though, as its not that difficult and the benefits far out weigh the hassle. But I certainly don't want the to add to the misery by requiring not only a gathering of dice-types, but also special colored dice, and/or separate dice rolls if I don't have to.

Giving a Save value rather than comparing isn't a bad speed up mechanism. You just can't make the target so high (5+) if you are going to give a Scout a d6 defense since anything less defended that a Scout ends up unable to save at all. With the dice available, a D4 needs to be able to successfully save and needs to represent the worst defended models in the game that actually have some defense (like T3, 6+ save models or at least T3 5+ Save and T4 6+ Save).

Good point. Stormonu suggested a 4+ save right off. I really want to give the edge to fire-power. It's a Sci-Fi game after-all, so fire-power should be Big. So I had Saves at 6+, then I went to 5+. Remember, D4 units can still get to role a D6 or higher if they have cover. Again, without play-testing its hard to say where it should be.

Your earlier system was nearly unworkable for a variety of reasons (quantity of dice needed, limited results available without adding more complexity, amount of time it actually takes to match up dice out of a large roll).

Rolling X dice of Y type and looking for a fixed result is much better for a mass battle game.

You're still going to run into serious problems with differentiating units when you only have 6 dice types to work with. You have to really work out the probabilities for everything in your design space and see if it matches what you want to achieve.

Just throwing more dice at the problem is probably not enough, because in the end you have to weigh whether you're really gaining anything by requiring your player to own and roll large numbers of different dice just because you lack the ability to shift the odds any other way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thirdeye wrote:
The thing is, the down-side of this system is gathering your pool of dice before every attack. That can be a real pain, and not something you need to deal with when you're using just D6's. I'm saying the sacrifice is worth it though, as its not that difficult and the benefits far out weigh the hassle.

I don't think that's true, or at least you're very far from convincing anyone in this thread. It seems like you thought about this a little but never did any legwork to try it. For instance, it was easily disproven that your earlier system saved any time or made anything simpler. Rolling to hit, rolling again to wound, and rolling again to save was several times faster than your method for a simple example.

Thirdeye wrote:
Good point. Stormonu suggested a 4+ save right off. I really want to give the edge to fire-power. It's a Sci-Fi game after-all, so fire-power should be Big. So I had Saves at 6+, then I went to 5+. Remember, D4 units can still get to role a D6 or higher if they have cover. Again, without play-testing its hard to say where it should be.

And again it's apparent you haven't done any of that, or more importantly, done any math. You wouldn't be guessing at dice types or cover effects if you had bothered to calculate odds for all the dice combinations (in fact you probably would have abandoned the effort once you saw the results). Just to cover infantry, you'd already have to start including lots of extra dice. Extending that to vehicles and monstrous creatures would likely be impossible.

So like I was saying, the initial idea is unworkable. The fixed to hit idea will probably also require extensive modifiers or wacky dice combinations too, which might not be bad, but it requires some actual effort to demonstrate that it works. Fortunately you already have extensive playtesting to know what percentages to shoot for - if you can get close to the odds that 40k already generates for different unit matchups, you have done your job. If you can't, it's not going to feel right.

And finally, once you've done that, you haven't really fixed any of the major structural problems in 40k. You've done a ton of work to replace the damage engine without fundamentally fixing any mechanics.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Your earlier system was nearly unworkable for a variety of reasons (quantity of dice needed, limited results available without adding more complexity, amount of time it actually takes to match up dice out of a large roll).

Yeah, it would be a bit tedious for a big game but no worse than the current game. But we fix it.

Rolling X dice of Y type and looking for a fixed result is much better for a mass battle game.

I agree.

You're still going to run into serious problems with differentiating units when you only have 6 dice types to work with.

I disagree. Besides, differentiating units with micro stats is an illusion. It all averages out in the course of the game. Besides, differentiating units and/or weapons isn’t a requirement for a fun, fast game that brings the 40K universe to life.

You have to really work out the probabilities for everything in your design space and see if it matches what you want to achieve.

Its easy to see that the guy rolling the big stones has the edge. That’s all the probabilities I need to know.

Just throwing more dice at the problem is probably not enough, because in the end you have to weigh whether you're really gaining anything by requiring your player to own and roll large numbers of different dice just because you lack the ability to shift the odds any other way.

Well I don’t think you’d be throwing any more dice than we do now, and you’d be throwing them a third less times.

The best way to answer this is for you to check out the rules for Prospero. You can probably get them for free from a friend who bought the game just for the figs. That’s how I got mine. Just look at how they do the combat. And look at the stat cards. I tell ya, its just such a clean, simple, elegant way of doing it. There only a few stats: Combat (CC), Shooting, Armor, and Stamina. That it. And while Prospero uses all the classic Marine weapons, there’s no stat cards for them. Their stats are the dice types on the Marine’s stat cards. Check it out and you too will be a believer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thirdeye wrote:
The thing is, the down-side of this system is gathering your pool of dice before every attack. That can be a real pain, and not something you need to deal with when you're using just D6's. I'm saying the sacrifice is worth it though, as its not that difficult and the benefits far out weigh the hassle.

I don't think that's true, or at least you're very far from convincing anyone in this thread.

You can’t speak for everyone.

It seems like you thought about this a little but never did any legwork to try it. For instance, it was easily disproven that your earlier system saved any time or made anything simpler. Rolling to hit, rolling again to wound, and rolling again to save was several times faster than your method for a simple example.

The example was simple. That’s why its not a good representation of what happens in the game. The current game has serious problems dealing with mixed units. Players are forces to repeat rolls over and over again while juggling a half dozen stats and two charts. Check out Prospero and you too will be a believer.

Thirdeye wrote:
Good point. Stormonu suggested a 4+ save right off. I really want to give the edge to fire-power. It's a Sci-Fi game after-all, so fire-power should be Big. So I had Saves at 6+, then I went to 5+. Remember, D4 units can still get to role a D6 or higher if they have cover. Again, without play-testing its hard to say where it should be.

And again it's apparent you haven't done any of that, or more importantly, done any math. You wouldn't be guessing at dice types or cover effects if you had bothered to calculate odds for all the dice combinations (in fact you probably would have abandoned the effort once you saw the results).

And again, the guy rolling the biggest stones has the edge. That’s all the probabilities I need to know.

Just to cover infantry, you'd already have to start including lots of extra dice.

Not a lot, one or two extra for some races/armies.

Extending that to vehicles and monstrous creatures would likely be impossible.

No, not impossible. In fact I already did it. Check back in the thread.

So like I was saying, the initial idea is unworkable. The fixed to hit idea will probably also require extensive modifiers or wacky dice combinations too, which might not be bad, but it requires some actual effort to demonstrate that it works.

It works. In fact they did it already. You need to make some actual effort. You need to check out the rules for Prospero. You too will be a believer.

Fortunately you already have extensive playtesting to know what percentages to shoot for - if you can get close to the odds that 40k already generates for different unit matchups, you have done your job. If you can't, it's not going to feel right.

I’m not looking for mathematical equivalence to the current game. Nor do I feel that’s a requirement, somehow. I’m just looking for a fun, fast, simple way to play 40K that’s still rich enough to give some emersion into the world we all love. And I think GW has already taken the first step in that direction. See Prospero. We can build on that to make it a reality.

And finally, once you've done that, you haven't really fixed any of the major structural problems in 40k. You've done a ton of work to replace the damage engine without fundamentally fixing any mechanics.

I disagree. The current combat resolution system, the “D6 multi-stat” system, is a big problem. But since you brought it up, what, in your opinion, are the major structural problems in 40k that need(s) to be fixed?

I'm working up some Prospero-ish play stats for Marines, Eldar, Orcs, Necrons and Tau (maybe 'Nids, since their MCs will add some wrinkles). If I ever get them finished (possibly post them by race, but I want to at least get an all-race baseline so I have a good foundation), I'll post what I come up with for some playtesting. I don't expect them to match current 40K performance, but hopefully they'll feel a bit truer to fluff and somewhat more balanced.

 Stormonu wrote:
I'm working up some Prospero-ish play stats for Marines, Eldar, Orcs, Necrons and Tau (maybe 'Nids, since their MCs will add some wrinkles). If I ever get them finished (possibly post them by race, but I want to at least get an all-race baseline so I have a good foundation), I'll post what I come up with for some playtesting. I don't expect them to match current 40K performance, but hopefully they'll feel a bit truer to fluff and somewhat more balanced.

Sounds awesome. Can’t wait to see what you come up with. If you haven’t already, check-out how GW did the Stat cards in Prospero. You should follow that format.

Thirdeye wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I'm working up some Prospero-ish play stats for Marines, Eldar, Orcs, Necrons and Tau (maybe 'Nids, since their MCs will add some wrinkles). If I ever get them finished (possibly post them by race, but I want to at least get an all-race baseline so I have a good foundation), I'll post what I come up with for some playtesting. I don't expect them to match current 40K performance, but hopefully they'll feel a bit truer to fluff and somewhat more balanced.

Sounds awesome. Can’t wait to see what you come up with. If you haven’t already, check-out how GW did the Stat cards in Prospero. You should follow that format.

just got my Prospero boxed set, so I'll certainly take a look

Thirdeye wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a S3 AP3, a S4 AP5, and a S3 AP- weapon all become the same under your system?

Yes, I see why this is a brilliant idea! /sarcasm

In my opinion those differences are petty and silly for a game like 40K. Maybe they would be appropriate for a squad size game but not a company size game like 40K. Even then that level of detail is not worth the time and effort required to manage all those extra stats and mechanics. As I said, having fun with 40K doesn’t require that every little do-dad or unit have unique rules that reflect their special snow flake. Really, it doesn’t.

Here is where you lose me. No, they are not petty and silly. They provide diversity between models. Not everyone wants streamlined vanilla rules. As a matter of fact AoS lost me due to doing just this very thing. Not to mention I just think that the change you espouse is just to drastic and changes core fundamentals that not only do not need to be changed, but make 40k , 40k. Remember. Not everyone has your tastes. Some players like stats and deep diversity and will play a slower game because of it. The trick in a new edition of any game is to streamline content without giving up much of the diversity of content. That way you appeal to both camps of people. This solution only appeals to you and people like you. But I give you a good mark for effort and keeping this constructive in face of some pretty harsh feed back.

Table wrote:
Here is where you lose me. No, they are not petty and silly. They provide diversity between models.

Well, they are petty and silly because they try to micro-manage combat. Not only is this unnecessary its inappropriate for a company level -- or higher -- game. All you need is an Attack value and a Defense value, and a way for those stats to interact.

The diversity you speak of is an illusion. Tell me, what’s the difference between having to roll a 5+ followed by a 4+, and having to roll a 4+ followed by a 5+? This notion that a variable dice-type system gives less diversity than a D6 stat system is absurd. Real diversity comes with variable dice types. A model rolling a D6 is different than a model rolling a D8. And understand, its not just six dice-types. You can use multiples and mixed types. So a model rolling a 2D6 and a D8 is different than a model rolling a D8 and a D10.

Not everyone wants streamlined vanilla rules.

These’s nothing “vanilla” about a multi dice-type system, but it is streamlined.

As a matter of fact AoS lost me due to doing just this very thing. Not to mention I just think that the change you espouse is just to drastic and changes core fundamentals that not only do not need to be changed, but make 40k , 40k. Remember. Not everyone has your tastes. Some players like stats and deep diversity and will play a slower game because of it. The trick in a new edition of any game is to streamline content without giving up much of the diversity of content. That way you appeal to both camps of people.

You mean like they did with AoS, which you say lost you because its too vanilla?

It sounds to me like you’re just prejudice to change. I understand, you’ve been doing it so long one way you just can’t see doing it any other way. But of course 40K isn’t a game mechanic. It’s a sci-fi, gothic, horror, superhero, fantasy world of the imagination. And it does’t require a particular game mechanic to enter it. I suggest you open your mind a bit. Find someone with Prospero and give the game a go. See how fast and fun a game of 40K/30K can be without all the silly minutia about Strength, Toughness, Initiative, etc.

Man, tone it down a notch. This system won't be to some people's liking, it doesn't make them or us a villain; we're not nuking the Imperium with this approach.

Personally, I have no love of AoS, but my time available for gaming is limited. If I can reduce the die rolling from 4 actions (to hit, to wound, Armor/Invulnerable save, FNP) down to 2, that hopefully will let me run slightly larger battles with a minimal loss of fidelity. For me, a boon. The mechanics are also a challenge to work with to see how durable of a system you can make (and I do think it's possible to capture most of the BS/Strength/Toughness/AP/Special Rules interplay).

Other may enjoy the interactions and the actual rolling methods in the current system - for them it feels more simulationist as it is. Nothing to stress over, they can keep playing the game they have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

Thirdeye wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a S3 AP3, a S4 AP5, and a S3 AP- weapon all become the same under your system?

Yes, I see why this is a brilliant idea! /sarcasm

In my opinion those differences are petty and silly for a game like 40K. Maybe they would be appropriate for a squad size game but not a company size game like 40K. Even then that level of detail is not worth the time and effort required to manage all those extra stats and mechanics. As I said, having fun with 40K doesn’t require that every little do-dad or unit have unique rules that reflect their special snow flake. Really, it doesn’t.

Here is where you lose me. No, they are not petty and silly. They provide diversity between models. Not everyone wants streamlined vanilla rules. As a matter of fact AoS lost me due to doing just this very thing. Not to mention I just think that the change you espouse is just to drastic and changes core fundamentals that not only do not need to be changed, but make 40k , 40k. Remember. Not everyone has your tastes. Some players like stats and deep diversity and will play a slower game because of it. The trick in a new edition of any game is to streamline content without giving up much of the diversity of content. That way you appeal to both camps of people. This solution only appeals to you and people like you. But I give you a good mark for effort and keeping this constructive in face of some pretty harsh feed back.

Table, if the version I'm attempting to tackle should start with trying to match the base reaction of a weapon to hitting/wounding an enemy marine (as a baseline), but were incorporating the three separate rolls (to hit, to wound, save) to two, and then modify the first part (hitting/wounding) based on attacker's stats (BS or WS/Strength), are there specific outliers or effects on the second half that bother you? Most of the model stats and weapons I've looked through in the game tend to follow a pattern of the weapon's Strength and AP, with only a couple oddities - which could possibly be accounted for with special rules for the weapon. There's also some weapons (like Ad Mech Radium) that are overly complicated or add effects that to me just slow the game down and I'd like to streamline them.

There is the possibility in this to bring in modifiers. So if you are a D6 gun attacking a tank, the tank may be D6+6 save, meaning the gun can never hurt it. Other wise you get the thing where a pea shooter that rolls a D3 can beat a d20.

So AP2 would be d6+6 killing anything with a d6 save.
AV14 may be D8+8 save or something.
This could go the other way where guardsmen are D6-2.

There would be a lot of numbers flying around though.
If a marine scout had a D6 save + 3 for cover + 2 from a blessing + 1 for shrouded, and was being shot my a plasma gun next to a reactor D8+2+3, it could just get complicated.

Good point, one of the things we had been mentioning is the "AT"/"AP" qualifier, which would be very similar to giving one automatic success.

Another option rather than adding a bonus/penalty to the roll might be just throwing in another die - cover might add an extra D6 to the defender's pool, for example.

I re-did the Marines in a more Prospero style. Check it out.

As I've been going through stats, one thing has come up - how in the world do you handle Sniper weapons and Poison?

 Stormonu wrote:
As I've been going through stats, one thing has come up - how in the world do you handle Sniper weapons and Poison?

Poison weapons: For every three poison weapons in the Attack Pool, add an extra D6.

Sniper Rifle: Sniper weapons attacks are rolled separately. Attacking Player determines how “Hits” are allocated. (Normally the Defending Player determines how “Hits” are allocated).


Thoughts?

Thirdeye wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
As I've been going through stats, one thing has come up - how in the world do you handle Sniper weapons and Poison?

Poison weapons: For every three poison weapons in the Attack Pool, add an extra D6.

Sniper Rifle: Sniper weapons attacks are rolled separately. Attacking Player determines how “Hits” are allocated. (Normally the Defending Player determines how “Hits” are allocated).


Thoughts?

That completely and totally changes how they function.

@Thirdeye - great work on the PDF

After some thinking, I'm thinking that vs. poison, the Defender rolls D6; if a Monstrous Creature, D10.

Poison 6+ would convert to D4
Poison 5+ would convert to D6
Poison 4+ & Sniper would convert to D8
Poison 3+ would convert to D10
Poison 2+ & Hyperspace Interception would convert to D12

 Stormonu wrote:
@Thirdeye - great work on the PDF

Thanks

After some thinking, I'm thinking that vs. poison, the Defender rolls D6; if a Monstrous Creature, D10.

Poison 6+ would convert to D4
Poison 5+ would convert to D6
Poison 4+ & Sniper would convert to D8
Poison 3+ would convert to D10
Poison 2+ & Hyperspace Interception would convert to D12

Not sure how that all works. Please give an example.

Normally, a Marine has D8 defense. Against the equivilant of Poison 4+, the attacker would roll D8, but the marine would defend with D6. If the attack was normally Poison 2+, the attack would be D12, the mareine still defends with D6. A Carnifex, against both cases above, would roll D12 to defend. This all assumes a target number of 4=1 success, 8=2 successes, 12=3 successes.

 Stormonu wrote:
Normally, a Marine has D8 defense. Against the equivilant of Poison 4+, the attacker would roll D8, but the marine would defend with D6. If the attack was normally Poison 2+, the attack would be D12, the mareine still defends with D6. A Carnifex, against both cases above, would roll D12 to defend. This all assumes a target number of 4=1 success, 8=2 successes, 12=3 successes.

I like the conversion of poison to dice-type but don't like changing the Save dice-type. That makes things a bit too complicated for me. I like to keep it simple if I can. Also, I thinking Hits as 4-7=One Hit, 8-11=two Hits, 12-15=three Hits, and 16-19=four Hits, and 20=five Hits. Is that what you're thinking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also thinking about a step-reduction for Infantry. Say you have a Marine Caption who Saves on a D10. First Hit he takes he goes to a D8, second Hit he takes, he goes to a D6, third next Hit to a D4, then another Hit and DEAD. Problem with this is the bookkeeping. How do that? I'm thinking little metal tokens and magnates on the base. What you think?

I did the Ork Infantry States. Check it out:

Thirdeye wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Normally, a Marine has D8 defense. Against the equivilant of Poison 4+, the attacker would roll D8, but the marine would defend with D6. If the attack was normally Poison 2+, the attack would be D12, the mareine still defends with D6. A Carnifex, against both cases above, would roll D12 to defend. This all assumes a target number of 4=1 success, 8=2 successes, 12=3 successes.

I like the conversion of poison to dice-type but don't like changing the Save dice-type. That makes things a bit too complicated for me. I like to keep it simple if I can. Also, I thinking Hits as 4-7=One Hit, 8-11=two Hits, 12-15=three Hits, and 16-19=four Hits, and 20=five Hits. Is that what you're thinking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also thinking about a step-reduction for Infantry. Say you have a Marine Caption who Saves on a D10. First Hit he takes he goes to a D8, second Hit he takes, he goes to a D6, third next Hit to a D4, then another Hit and DEAD. Problem with this is the bookkeeping. How do that? I'm thinking little metal tokens and magnates on the base. What you think?

Yeah, 4-7=1 success, 8-11=2 success, 12+=3 success was what I was thinking.

I don't think that is a good idea to do the degrading die like you proposed, I'd do it more like vehicles if you want to give him more than one "wound".

Also, the thing about poison (and sniper) is that it always wounds on the same number, regardless of the opponent's toughness (though if I remember correctly, you still get armor, and definately get invulnerable saves). Monstrous/Gargantuan creatures are harder to poison. That was why I was thinking of the fixed die for the save.

I'll check out the Orks shortly. Been doing work for my own 40K version, but since its rules are already significantly different, it might not make much sense to regular 40k'ers.

I was working on this table, though:

40K number value -- die conversion
3 -- D6
4 -- D8
5 -- D10
6 -- D12
7 -- D8+D6
8 -- 2D8
9 -- D12+D6
10 -- 2D10
-------
11 -- D12+D10
12 -- 2D12
13 -- 2D10+D6
14 -- D12+D10+D6
-------
15 -- 2D12+D6
16 -- 2D12+D8
17 -- 2D12+D10
18 -- 3D12

I went with a basis that a marine's bolter attack is a D8 due to (BS 4 = average, no mod, STR 4 = base D8, 2 shots = average, no modifier, AP 5 = average no modifier). Each shift in a better WS/BS grants a +1 die step bonus, each increase in STR grants a +1 bonus, each addition shot grants a +1 bonus, and each AP better than AP 5 grants a +1/2 step bonus.

So, the same marine with a meltagun would have D12+D10 (BS 4 = no mod, STR 8 = base 2D8, 1 shot = -1 die penalty, +3 STR for Melta (ave D6)).

I'm a bit ambivalent here. I love multi-dice games and I think it could definitely work in 40K. However with the scale of the game I suspect it may not work nearly as smoothly as it could.

What's wrong with a game being built around six sided dice? I just don't get it. Have you ever played Exalted, or any other game where you're throwing loads of dice at a problem? Having uniformity in your dice pool greatly speeds things up, and less granularity in save/hit/wound options does as well.

EDIT: Sorry I realize this came off as salty. I've played RPGs where you're rolling a crapfest of different dice and it gets so tiresome. I love the simplicity of 6 sided dice. Rerolling doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I certainly don't mind a game that only uses one die type (played plenty of RPG's that just use D10's, for example), but
I think overall it's a fun experiment and might be a fun change of pace for small games. Don't think I'd use with more than say, 30 models to a side.

For me, it also makes me consider what is important about the combat stats in 40K, and ponder if there's a faster way to play out the game (I don't have time for the 4-hour 40K games I seem to get pulled into) - trying to find a way to boil the game down to something playable in 1-1 1/2 hours or so. This was an attempt at a start to that.

What's funny is I notice that it is coming across as very 2E, which I find chuckle-worthy.

 Stormonu wrote:
Yeah, 4-7=1 success, 8-11=2 success, 12+=3 success was what I was thinking.

OK, cool.

I don't think that is a good idea to do the degrading die like you proposed, I'd do it more like vehicles if you want to give him more than one "wound".

Yeah, that's kinda the idea, but with a vehicles you can have a stat card for each one and mark Hits by crossing off dice-types with a grease pencil. Its not practical to have a stat card for every infantry guy, so best to mark it on the base/model somehow. I'm just thinking, maybe. Prospero gives every model at least two wounds... so... maybe.

Also, the thing about poison (and sniper) is that it always wounds on the same number, regardless of the opponent's toughness (though if I remember correctly, you still get armor, and definately get invulnerable saves). Monstrous/Gargantuan creatures are harder to poison. That was why I was thinking of the fixed die for the save.

Yeah, but then you're putting the modifier on both ends, the front end (shooting) and the back end (Save). It makes it complicated and I'm not sure its necessary to show the added bonus. Also, I don't think we need to follow too closely what GW does in the current 40K game. They don't really do that for Prospero so I don't feel we need to either.

I'll check out the Orks shortly. Been doing work for my own 40K version, but since its rules are already significantly different, it might not make much sense to regular 40k'ers.

Yeah, I checked that out. Some good stuff in there but very detailed. I like the names you came up with for the different races. But at what point are IP concerns an issue?

I was working on this table, though: ...

Yeah, well, again, not sure we need to follow too closely what GW does in the current 40K game. They don't really do that for Prospero so I don't feel we need to either. And its not like the stats they came up with for 40K are dictated by the Emperor himself and never subject to change. Sure we want the weapons to be similar in effect, and similar to real world weapons too I would say, when there is a real world equivalent. But such systematic conversion I don't feel is necessary. A Prospero type game has its own internal logic so what works in the current 40K rules might not convert over to these rules.

So, the same marine with a meltagun would have D12+D10 (BS 4 = no mod, STR 8 = base 2D8, 1 shot = -1 die penalty, +3 STR for Melta (ave D6)).

It that D12 for infantry and D10 for vehicles? Or is that D12&D10 for infantry? If the latter then, that's a representation of a conversion from current 40K stats not working so well. Look to see how you conversion table works for what GW did with the Prospero weapon stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I'm a bit ambivalent here. I love multi-dice games and I think it could definitely work in 40K. However with the scale of the game I suspect it may not work nearly as smoothly as it could.

Well, you might be right, but I wouldn't say the current game runs so smoothly at higher point games either. Frankly the game wasn't deigned for big model counts. Yes, they made some adjustments in the rules over the years to accommodate bigger games but its still not a good fit. Personally I never liked the push for bigger and ever bigger games. I'd swear it was a marketing ploy by GW to sell more stuff but I know a lot of fans like the bigger games. Its partly because we all have so much stuff and we feel the need to use it all. But Its never been a good experience for me. It takes so much time, and mostly the models used are not even painted, maybe just base-coated. I think Players would have more fun with smaller, fast games with more tactical options while using their best painted figs. A big part of that is a fast, clean combat resolution system. But the other part is the mission/scenario rules. I never liked the "Easter-egg hut" Objectives stuff GW uses. The best mission/scenario rules are in the old Adeptus Titanicus rules. If you haven't seen them I suggest you check them out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
What's wrong with a game being built around six sided dice?

Well, it depends on the game. A simple game, yeah, D6 is best. But when you try to incorporate more and more moving parts the limitations of the D6 get more and more pronounced. To compensate you need to break things down into smaller parts and make more and more dice rolls. The problem is compounded when you're trying to bring to life a rich universe like 40K.

I just don't get it. Have you ever played Exalted, or any other game where you're throwing loads of dice at a problem? Having uniformity in your dice pool greatly speeds things up, and less granularity in save/hit/wound options does as well.

Well, certainly having only one dice type is less complicated that having, what... six. But there's also all the stats and charts to consider. With different dice-types you can remove all that and replace it with a few stats/dice-types. Also, by using different dice-types you can have the simplicity of using a universal "to Hit" and "to Save" value. The granularity is built into the dice-type.

EDIT: Sorry I realize this came off as salty. I've played RPGs where you're rolling a crapfest of different dice and it gets so tiresome. I love the simplicity of 6 sided dice. Rerolling doesn't bother me in the slightest.

It can get tiresome, but so does re-rolling dice. There is something mindless in the latter but then you also have the burden of looking-up or memorizing a bunch of stats. To get the best out of a multi-dice system you have to put some logic behind it, and have a systematic formula so you're not just looking at a stat card and hunting for various dice-types to roll every time. That's were the idea of models having a "base" dice-types comes in. Also, particular weapons -- like flame weapons or plasma weapons or pistol weapons, etc -- should always follow a certain pattern which is repeated across races and unit types. This way using different dice-types can become as mindless as a single dice-type system over time.

Shifting the game from all D6 to all D10 wouldn't really help eliminate rerolling. For instance, Grav cannons with Amps. You can't just improve the wound roll by X because it's based on the target's armor saves, and 1 always misses. If you really hate rerolling in this instance, you could propose a rule that "50% of failures are automatically turned into successes." I don't think that quite hits the mark but it gets the idea across of removing rerolls.

Rerolling isn't brought on by a lack of discrete possibilities that are created with D6, it's product of the game style and the core rules.

And the second you start adding in more than one type of dice, it really does slow the game down a lot more than just rerolling DX. i've played these games, and it does. knowing what dice to use takes time to reference, and if it starts to vary by unit that's nuts. Because then you're talking about weighing cover saves, are those rerollable, with all this other stuff.

And ultimately you'd still be left with hit-wound-save, which consumes probably 90% of rolling anyway.

it's a neat idea to move the game to a base10 system, but i wouldn't suggest it under the auspices of reducing rerolls, or improving game speed. It might help alter balance, but that remains to be seen, and more discrete possibilities means more memorization or more rules checking, which drastically slows down any game.

Anyway, it's a neat idea, but it wouldn't achieve what you set out to achieve.

 Marmatag wrote:
Shifting the game from all D6 to all D10 wouldn't really help eliminate rerolling.

I'm not suggested we shift from a D6 to a D10.

Rerolling isn't brought on by a lack of discrete possibilities that are created with D6, it's product of the game style and the core rules.

The game style and core rules of the current game are rooted in the history of GW. GW really got going as a distributor of D&D. 40K is based on D&D with some Napoleonics blended in for miniatures wargaming. Originally the game included other dice types, like D&D, then GW tried to simply it by converting it to all D6, but at the same time they keep adding more and more minutia.

And the second you start adding in more than one type of dice, it really does slow the game down a lot more than just rerolling DX. i've played these games, and it does. knowing what dice to use takes time to reference, and if it starts to vary by unit that's nuts.

Well of course with the current game you may be rolling the same dice type every time -- kinda mindless -- but you also have to know what score you're looking for. That's not so mindless. You have to look up several different states, and many times cross-reference them on a chart, to know the result/score you're looking for. Add of course the result/score is always changing. One time you need a "5", then you need a "4", then a "3", etc. Looking up and cross referencing stats on a chart takes time too. I've played these games, and it does. You're discounting all this because you've done it so many times you have much of it memorized, so its second nature to you. The same would happen with rolling different dice-types. After doing it for awhile you would have it memorized and it would be second nature. Of course, as I said before, it helps to have weapons and Troops follow a certain logic. Once you understand the logic behind assigning the different dice types it makes it really easy to remember.

Because then you're talking about weighing cover saves, are those rerollable, with all this other stuff.

No, cove is a step-up in the model's base Save dice-type. For example, a Space Marine is a Save D8. If the model is behind soft cover its Save dice goes to a D10. If the model is behind hard cover its Save dice goes to a D12.

And ultimately you'd still be left with hit-wound-save, which consumes probably 90% of rolling anyway.

No, you're not. There is just an Attack roll and a Defense roll.

it's a neat idea to move the game to a base10 system

Again, I'm not suggestion that. I suggest you re-read the thread. I'm suggesting we use Prospero style rules for combat resolution.

I did the Eldar Infantry. Check it out: