Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, so you're essentially looking in a lot of ways at how the Dark Heresy and Deathwatch games took with their d100 system and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. Being able to leap out of the way of gunfire. Use combat actions like concentrated fire, kill fields, and cover to your advantage. As well as taking actions in the order you choose based off of a number of actions you get per turn.

Questions:
With this simultaneous resolve, how are we resolving turn order for conflicting unit actions. Is Phase 1 done 1 unit at a time? Eg:
Squad 1 Shoots
Opponent Squad 1 Moves

or is it done one army at a time?

Squad 1 shoots, squad 2-3 move, squad 4 assaults
opponent squad 1 moves, 2-3 shoot

In either case, does assault happen in both phases as it does now? With 2 combat phases per turn for those locked, or do you only attack on your turn while the other defends? Is there an initiative characteristic or way of determining fast weapons over slow and heavy ones?

SplinteredShield wrote:
Ok, so you're essentially looking in a lot of ways at how the Dark Heresy and Deathwatch games took with their d100 system and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. Being able to leap out of the way of gunfire. Use combat actions like concentrated fire, kill fields, and cover to your advantage. As well as taking actions in the order you choose based off of a number of actions you get per turn.

Questions:
With this simultaneous resolve, how are we resolving turn order for conflicting unit actions. Is Phase 1 done 1 unit at a time? Eg:
Squad 1 Shoots
Opponent Squad 1 Moves

or is it done one army at a time?

Squad 1 shoots, squad 2-3 move, squad 4 assaults
opponent squad 1 moves, 2-3 shoot

In either case, does assault happen in both phases as it does now? With 2 combat phases per turn for those locked, or do you only attack on your turn while the other defends? Is there an initiative characteristic or way of determining fast weapons over slow and heavy ones?

Right now I think an army at a time per phase is good, but maybe we could test out unit per unit.

Assault happens whenever you choose. If your unit is 2 inches away from an enemy unit, you can choose to assault if you haven't used your action that phase. Your opponent can do the same. And fast weapons will fire normally. Super fast weapons will fire multiple shots per ranged action. Heavy and salvo weapons will need to be set up before shooting: use an action to set up the shot in Action Phase 1 or 2, and the next phase you can shoot. You can continue to shoot until your unit either dies or does another action.

Rock on, have you playtested the turn order with traditional 40k just to get a feel for the flow?


Are you looking to compare stats or have individual checks? Eg:
Compare:

I shoot with an accuracy of 5, does that compare to an evade of 4, giving a comparison table?

In this instance a single roll is used, since my accuracy is better than your evade, I'd probably need a 3 or something greater than 50% to hit, then we compare weapon power to armor to determine how badly it hurts you.

Or are you looking for an individual table?

I shoot with an an accuracy of 5, I need a 3+ to hit
They evade at a 4, needing a 4+ to dodge the shot?

In this case 2 rolls are needed, and we're looking a lot like 40k now but with different names for stats. Not a problem as there are some good things about the system as it is, but will need further refinement.

Or are we looking at an individual table with competing modifiers? Which I kind of like.

In this case, an Accuracy of 5 is 50%, meaning I would need to roll a 4,5,or 6 to hit. If my evade is a 6, that means I bump your stats making it harder to hit,
Now I need a 5 or 6 to hit because your evade is higher than my accuracy.

As for a stat table, one universal table would hopefully work for the entire line of stats as opposed to the Shooting and Assault table we have now. Keeping D6s but using a 1-10 stat as we have in 40k, we would want to look at % to create a viable table.
If we extrapolated stats 1-10 to 10-100, we have a good % hit dynamic already, with 1=10% hit chance- 10= 100% hit chance. So we break down on a d6 what those equivalent %'s are to determine what you need to hit with an action.

@urbanknight.
Just a quick point.
Currently SOME vehicles , like dreadnoughts have close combat attacks and are vehicles.And M/Cs take the role of vehicles in SOME armies.

You appear to want a separate stat line JUST for vehicles that can not fight in close combat , rather than put a '-' in the close combat skill stat for vehicles not armed with a close combat weapon?

What about if we want to allow vehicles the ability to ram /run over other units when they loose their range weapons ?

Giving all units the same stat line, also avoids the difficulty of balancing units with completely different profiles that the current 40k rules have.(Vehicles vs M/C debate on walkers has caused huge amounts of issues .)


Maybe this is why I think its important to focus on game function first, and not let game story corrupt the development at this early stage.
(''Cook the meat and veg of the game play to perfection, then sprinkle the spice of special rules lightly on the top.''A.C.)

You posted earlier in the thread how you were having issues with the game turn you made up, and asked for input/ideas.

If you look higher up the thread I tried to do a simple assessment of PROVEN game turn mechanics that people have used in 40k rules re writes for years.
(I also posted the game turn my group came up with , which can be used on the army level or unit level , which ever players prefer.If you are interested?)

@SplinteredShield.

I am not sure if urbanknight has play tested 'opposed rolls' or not.As outlined in your post.

Eg Attacker rolls dice to hit, and defender rolls dice to avoid attack .

We found with the larger number and wider variety of units/models in a 40k game.Even with just 2 sets of opposed rolls,(to hit, to damage.) took longer to resolve than, attacker rolls to hit, defender rolls to save , attacker rolls to wound/damage.

I suggested, and I think urbanknight agreed that we should use one resolution table for all combat resolution?

Lanrak wrote:
@urbanknight.
Just a quick point.
Currently SOME vehicles , like dreadnoughts have close combat attacks and are vehicles.And M/Cs take the role of vehicles in SOME armies.

You appear to want a separate stat line JUST for vehicles that can not fight in close combat , rather than put a '-' in the close combat skill stat for vehicles not armed with a close combat weapon?

What about if we want to allow vehicles the ability to ram /run over other units when they loose their range weapons ?

Giving all units the same stat line, also avoids the difficulty of balancing units with completely different profiles that the current 40k rules have.(Vehicles vs M/C debate on walkers has caused huge amounts of issues .)

Giving all units the same stat line has its own difficulties, everything is a trade off. The toughness + wounds + armour save system doesn't work well for vehicles the main issue being with armour save. Very heavy armoured infantry like terminators already get a 2+, vehicles need to have more than that really, especially the large ones, but you can't really give them 1+ or -2 or more to save. Also infantry are small enough that we can safely imagine that their armour save is "all round" but that is not so plausible an abstraction for vehicles which are large enough to warrant having different armour values on different facings. Partly this is for "realism" because it is common enough in real warfare for tanks to have stronger forward facing armour than rear facing and partly because it adds tactical depth in that out manoeuvring a tank to hit its weaker rear facing becomes a tactical choice. Hence why GW went with a different armour system for vehicles.

You might say we could just come up with a better mechanic that can be safely generalised for everything from grots to baneblades but well what is it? Whatever it is it will still carry with it the limitations and constraints imposed by the random number generator chosen. Given it looks like the d6 will be that generator and you will still want to have fast dicing for some resolutions (model by model shooting) whilst not needing it for other resolutions (like unit by unit leadership tests), in the end you will probably just end up re-inventing GWs patchwork of fudges and compromises.

Ideas are flowing and I need to write them. This is a (very) rough draft incorporating my own ideas and what I've seen discussed in this thread:

For deployment, players roll-off to see who deploys first, highest wins.

Each player takes turns deploying, one unit at a time, until both sides are deployed completely with Reserves left off the table to come into play later. (This way the first guy to deploy isn't totally counter-played by the opponent's deployment.)

Then roll for "Seize the Initiative." Players roll-off to see who begins the Action Phases, highest wins. Player whose Warlord has the higher Leadership value adds +1 to their result, no modifiers if they are tied.

Player A moves a single unit
Player B moves a single unit
-continues until all desired units have been moved
-If, say, Player B decides to move half his units and let the rest stay put, Player A can move the rest of his units without waiting for him
Player A declares which units are shooting what
Player B declares which units are shooting what
Shooting for both sides is resolved simultaneously
Remove casualties
Roll-off again for "Seize the Initiative" as the gunfire dies down. Identical to the above. (Change up the play order to add depth and prevent "whoever goes first wins.")

The flow of ideas slows down here. The Assault phase has me a bit stumped, but I don't think there should be an sequenced Attack Order. Whatever models are faster or slower on the attack should be assumed to be incorporated into the mass melee overall (i.e. warriors with heavier/slower weapons are assumed to be well-trained with their chosen weapon and know how to fight faster enemies with them). I suppose wounds from "slow" weapons could be resolved last, but...I dunno.

If Riptides can have wounds and armor, so can Land Raiders.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If Riptides can have wounds and armor, so can Land Raiders.

Or alternatively maybe Riptides would be better treated as Walker vehicles, with AV and HP. Aren't they just the Tau equivalent to a Gorkanaut or Dreadnought? Except they have jump packs so if GW classed them as vehicles instead of monstrous creatures they would have to have what: the skimmer rule, hover, zooming flyer?

Without the AV system and keeping a d6 armour save, you either end up with 2+ armour saves on almost everything which is kind of flat or tons of rerolls to represent harder armour than a 2+ save. Then again having AV means a fair number of entities could plausibly be classed as vehicles with AV & HP or just as plausibly as Monsterous Creatures with Armour Save, Toughness and Wounds. At exactly what point does a powered armoured battlesuit become a walking vehicle? For the Space Marines the line seems to be somewhere between Terminator and Dreadnought and for Orks somewhere between Meganob and KillaKan. Strangely for the Tau their powered armoured battlesuits never become vehicles no matter how big they get, like the Stormsurge.

It is fair to look all that and see a messy patchwork of fudges and compromises but I don't think the fix will be as easy as just reducing it all to a one size fits all system which will probably just spawn more fudges and compromises.

So with the alternating turn scheme it is not a bad way of doing things, but its not the best either for shooting/CC units. Its the exact way the turn order is/was done in the LOTR game. With the addition of a battle phase working left to right. However, that doesnt really work well for non-established battle lines and the skirmisher style system that is 40k because they have units that shoot and assault. An alternating move/shoot method would be perfect for a non CC game but unfortunately leaves a lot of gaps for 40k. I do, however love the alternating deployment which makes much more sense than the current counter deploy method. But that being said I think we need to work on turn structure and infantry stats first so we can fill in the rest later

@Lord_blackfang.
''If Riptides can have wounds and armor, so can Land Raiders.'' Excellent point, well made.

@SolarCross.
If you only use the dice result as a fixed value to save.You only have 5 results you can use.2+,3+,4+,5+,6+.Just like you said.
If you are only representing very basic armour ,(like in WHFB), light armour,(6+) heavy armour,(5+) shield(+1)mount(+1) , mount barding(+1).It is good enough.

But if you need to cover a wider range of tech, you might decide to add on a completely different system say Armour Value 10,11,12,13,14.vs weapon Strength.To get 5 more results.

For a total of 10 results....(If you do not want to use 'magic saves' that work a set amount of the time, irrespective of any other factors .)

If there was only a way to present 10 values , that gave results dependent on the opposing weapon armour penetration value.But how could we possibly achieve this?A table with opposing values of 1 to 10 perhaps?

If we look at the armour as it is used in 40k.
We have standard infantry wearing personal armour .This gives a moderate of protection without compromising the soldiers mobility /agility/ability to evade in coming fire.(Current saves 6+ to 4+).
Then the armour gets so heavy it needs a powered exoskeleton to allow the soldiers mobility to remain at reasonable level.(Eg Power Armour 3+Ork Mega Armour 2+)
Dreadnoughts and Terminators. have even more effective armour. Both have to use separate power sources ,to drive the 'armoured suit' that protects the ' squishy biological bits' inside.These are both closer to 'personal vehicles' than 'body armour' ,IMO.

If we look at vehicles as a squad (crew) inside a large separately powered armoured shell.(Rather than having individual body armour. they share the armoured shell of the vehicle around them).
Then the soldiers wearing individual body armour is just the bottom end of the same armour scale , as crew inside vehicles at the opposite higher armour end of the scale .(And as the armour improves, the evasion ability, due to increased bulk, diminishes.)

And just because some creatures have biologically engineered scales , instead of manufactured plates covering the 'squishy biological bits', does not mean they need separate rules either.
(Slightly revised table to remove the 7 and d result, to avoid confusion.Just an example to prove concept. )

Av/Ap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1........,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,n.n,n
2.........3.4.4.5.5.6.6.6.n.n.
3.........3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.6.n.
4.........2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.6.
5........2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6........1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7........1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8........1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9........1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10......1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

n=no save possible

Current alpha play test values.(You have to start some where. )

lasgun Ap 2
Bolt gun Ap 3
heavy Bolter Ap 4
Plasma Ap 5
Krak Ap 6
Melta Ap 8
Rail gun Ap 10

Infantry 6+ to 2+ saves transfer to Av 1 to Av 5.
Terminators have Av 6 to Av 7.(Count as light vehicles)
Vehicles get AV 6 to Av 10.(Current Av values Av 10 to Av 14.light to heavy vehicles.)

Special rule ('fudge') that probably will be required.

Armour buster. Only weapons with this ability can cause physical damage to 'AV 6' and above targets.
Weapons without this ability can only suppress targets with 'AV 6' or above, even if the target fails their save roll.

Weapons with Armour buster ability can only be used on targets with a natural Evasion value of 3 or lower.

(This will probably be needed to stop players sniping human size targets with 'anti tank' weapons, and 'anti infantry' weapons destroying armoured vehicles. in way that is not very intuitive /expected/wanted.)

Note:The values of Av 6 and Evasion 3 are just examples, to show concept.

One chart and one 'fudge'.Looking better so far.

P.S.
I do not have a problem with a reasonable amount of special rules.(half a dozen to two dozen as found in other war games.)
Eg Chemical weapons, Poisoned weapons, Haywire/EMP type weapons would have special abilities and special rules in the new rules.
(As they do not rely on kinetic energy to cause damage.)

@Grimgrub Dreddakka.
Alternating unit deployment is a great idea.

Please post up or do a link to the rules when you have them written up.(Leave out the assault resolution for now if you like.Sorting out assaults in a game like 40k is going to be harder than resolving moving and shooting issues.IMO.)

@SplinteredShield.
I am not saying that alternating phases is the perfect game turn for a 40k re-write.
But I am not sure why you think it does not work that well with shooting /CC units?

If you give the players the same 6 tactical options as you would with order counters in the alternating unit activation type game turn.It works fine.
(Players just make the tactical decisions in the movement phase, rather than the Command phase.)

If you are worried about close combat units getting destroyed by shooting on the way into assault.That is what the opposed table is for,to make hitting the target at range slightly less predictable, and the addition of suppression means we can loose 'dustpan style casualty removal' .

Lanrak wrote:

@SolarCross.
If you only use the dice result as a fixed value to save.You only have 5 results you can use.2+,3+,4+,5+,6+.Just like you said.
If you are only representing very basic armour ,(like in WHFB), light armour,(6+) heavy armour,(5+) shield(+1)mount(+1) , mount barding(+1).It is good enough.

But if you need to cover a wider range of tech, you might decide to add on a completely different system say Armour Value 10,11,12,13,14.vs weapon Strength.To get 5 more results.

For a total of 10 results....(If you do not want to use 'magic saves' that work a set amount of the time, irrespective of any other factors .)

If there was only a way to present 10 values , that gave results dependent on the opposing weapon armour penetration value.But how could we possibly achieve this?A table with opposing values of 1 to 10 perhaps?

If we look at the armour as it is used in 40k.
We have standard infantry wearing personal armour .This gives a moderate of protection without compromising the soldiers mobility /agility/ability to evade in coming fire.(Current saves 6+ to 4+).
Then the armour gets so heavy it needs a powered exoskeleton to allow the soldiers mobility to remain at reasonable level.(Eg Power Armour 3+Ork Mega Armour 2+)
Dreadnoughts and Terminators. have even more effective armour. Both have to use separate power sources ,to drive the 'armoured suit' that protects the ' squishy biological bits' inside.These are both closer to 'personal vehicles' than 'body armour' ,IMO.

If we look at vehicles as a squad (crew) inside a large separately powered armoured shell.(Rather than having individual body armour. they share the armoured shell of the vehicle around them).
Then the soldiers wearing individual body armour is just the bottom end of the same armour scale , as crew inside vehicles at the opposite higher armour end of the scale .(And as the armour improves, the evasion ability, due to increased bulk, diminishes.)

And just because some creatures have biologically engineered scales , instead of manufactured plates covering the 'squishy biological bits', does not mean they need separate rules either.
(Slightly revised table to remove the 7 and d result, to avoid confusion.Just an example to prove concept. )

Av/Ap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1........,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,n.n,n
2.........3.4.4.5.5.6.6.6.n.n.
3.........3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.6.n.
4.........2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.6.
5........2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6........1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7........1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8........1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9........1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10......1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

n=no save possible

Current alpha play test values.(You have to start some where. )

lasgun Ap 2
Bolt gun Ap 3
heavy Bolter Ap 4
Plasma Ap 5
Krak Ap 6
Melta Ap 8
Rail gun Ap 10

Infantry 6+ to 2+ saves transfer to Av 1 to Av 5.
Terminators have Av 6 to Av 7.(Count as light vehicles)
Vehicles get AV 6 to Av 10.(Current Av values Av 10 to Av 14.light to heavy vehicles.)

Special rule ('fudge') that probably will be required.

Armour buster. Only weapons with this ability can cause physical damage to 'AV 6' and above targets.
Weapons without this ability can only suppress targets with 'AV 6' or above, even if the target fails their save roll.

Weapons with Armour buster ability can only be used on targets with a natural Evasion value of 3 or lower.

(This will probably be needed to stop players sniping human size targets with 'anti tank' weapons, and 'anti infantry' weapons destroying armoured vehicles. in way that is not very intuitive /expected/wanted.)

Note:The values of Av 6 and Evasion 3 are just examples, to show concept.

One chart and one 'fudge'.Looking better so far.

P.S.
I do not have a problem with a reasonable amount of special rules.(half a dozen to two dozen as found in other war games.)
Eg Chemical weapons, Poisoned weapons, Haywire/EMP type weapons would have special abilities and special rules in the new rules.
(As they do not rely on kinetic energy to cause damage.)

Ok I don't want to sound like I am defending GW double system but it does have the advantage of being simple rule based systems that do not require result look ups on a chart (except for the vehicle damage table which produces qualitive rather than quantitive outputs). If your armour is 3+ and AP isnt low enough to ignore it then roll 3+ to win, so no need to read of a chart for your result, just roll and go. If your armour is AV then you opponent makes a roll adds the result to his weapon damage and if the result is less fail, equal glance and over penetration. It might be two different systems but both are very simple and require no look ups in addition to stat look ups (which is usually not necessary as it doesn't take long for people remember that power armour is 3+ for example or that Ork trucks are AV10 all round).

So the procedure for GWs system will generally go: step 1 - roll d6, step 2 - apply result.
Yours will go: step 1 - roll d6, step 2 - look up chart, step 3 - apply result.

See GW's system might be a bit schizophrenic but it is very quick and simple. I wouldn't underestimate the time it takes to look up a chart, it is okay for special results for things that aren't going to happen often but not bread and butter resolutions that in a wargame you will doing hundreds or even thousands of times every game like armour saves.

Of course it might be we could have a procedure that spits out a bigger range of values than a d6 can, as I explored with the xd6 and others, that would save chart look ups but if they still rely on a singular die roll of a d6 they will have a complexity cost so instead of wasting minutes looking up a chart the players are wasting minutes figuring out a multi-step procedure.

Quick and simple probably should trump any aesthetic preference for a one size fits all system.

Using a d10 is probably going to be the closest thing matching GWs system for speed and simplicity whilst also allowing a one size fits all system. My 2 cents.

I agree wholeheartedly with Solar Cross. As flawed as this game is I think having the separate method for vehicles is far better than having more occasions to look things up on a table. The current system distinguishes things quite well.
For that same reason I would avoid using a Ballistic vs. Evasion Table, the fewer times a table used, the better; without exception in my opinion. Thought I do agree that effects of cover are poorly incorporated into this game and Ballistic Skill is weird in that it's a stat that sits on its own unlike any other.

Hi folks.
Just checking the title of this thread.Complete rules overhaul. Not 'house rules' 'tweeks to' or 'tournament restrictions to improve balance' then.

But a complete rules overhaul , for the following reason.The 40k rules GW plc sell you are unplayable as written.

You have to agree on a set of house rules to 'fix the broken bits', or as GW plc put it '..forge the narrative...' Or have to agree to a set of self enforced limitations in a '40k tournament pack' for example.

So as the OP puts it,'.How to make 40k actually playable'.I assumed the OP meant ,you read the rules then agree a points value and a mission, then play the game as written, and have fun.(Like all the other games from other companies.)

IF you are happy to house rule/forge the narrative,the 40k rules , to get a game you are happy with.
Great news!You do not need to post in this thread, you have the rule set you want already!

If you are happy to follow a particular '40k tournament pack,' to play in a more competitive environment.
Great news!You do not need to post in this thread because what you want already exists!

However, the horrible mess that is currently sold by GW plc ,as rules for 40k is viewed as;-

A complete waste of money by its most adamant critics.(The ex 40k customers who quit and play something else.)

A messy bloated rule set, by most of the the people who actually play it.(And want it to get better to allow more people to enjoy actually playing the game. )

And even SolarCross, who is being as positive as humanly possible about the 40k rules , admits...
''It is fair to look all that and see a messy patchwork of fudges and compromises..''

@SolarCross.
Your original objection seemed to be..
''I don't think the fix will be as easy as just reducing it all to a one size fits all system which will probably just spawn more fudges and compromises.''
I can understand how that could be a concern.

However, I showed a simple 'proof concept' table we are using in our alpha testing of ideas for a complete rules overhaul of 40k.
(This allows us to use the same table to cover all combat resolution using the same method.)

Obviously slight variances between discrete and indiscrete units will be accomodated.
Eg,Vehicle and M/Cs can have different Av facings if we want them to.(As they are generally larger than other disrete units.).
And Vehicles and M/Cs track damage separately, rather than showing it discretely by removing models like infantry units do.
If a vehicle or M/C model looses 'mobility hit points' it slows down, if it looses 'attack hit points' it looses a weapon/attack.
(So you can generate the same results as the current vehicle damage table , but in a proportional way without having to use another table. I explain that in more detail later...)

Now in terms of weapon and armour interaction you appear to want to defend the current methods used.Using the argument ,'... it does have the advantage of being simple rule based systems... '

Ok so lets do a comparison between the two methods for weapon and armour interaction.

40K s Save Vs AP 'all or nothing method'.Compared to new method

A) In both methods you need to know the targets basic Stat, Either the 'Armour Save value' or' New Armour Value'.

B) In both methods you need to know the AP value of the weapon hit, to find out what the final save roll will be.

In the current method you get the save or you do not.In the new method you have to read the result on a single chart.

At this point the new method is slightly more complicated.(Looking up results on a chart.)

But as 40k players already have to look up to hit in close combat on one chart, to wound on another chart , and vehicle damage on a third chart.
You can not argue that looking results up on a chart is too complicated for 40k players.(As I am actually reducing the number of charts used! )

Next the 'fudges.'
In the new method we have one special rule to define the difference in effect between anti- tank weapons and anti- infantry weapons.('Armour Buster'.)
That is just one . thing you might call a fudge?

In the current 40k rules, to help off set the all or nothing nature of the current AP system.(And the fixed to hit ranged resolution.)
1a)Cover has mutated from a modifier to hit, into an invunerable save.(So players chose between the physical armour save and cover save! )

1b)'Invunerable saves are used' , to give models a chance when hit by AP weapons that totally ignore their saves.
(Many explanations of these types of rules that always work on a 'X+' is the the model Jinked/Dodged out of the way.Or the weapon jammed.
But as you just rolled to see if the weapon actually fired and the shot actually hit, it is massively counter intuitive!

2a)Additional rules tacked on to the end of the combat resolution to reduce the amount of casualties with more even special rules ,Eg FNP.

2b)Adittional rules that replace the normal resolution method completely , eg Haywire.

And the next apparently 'simple' but completely different system for vehicles.
Use a completely different stat 'Strength' of weapon hit, and add on a '*dice roll'.If the total is higher than the AV of the vehicle facing , the armour is penetrated and the vehicle takes damage .

3a)*Various dice rolled dependent on some special rules.)
3b)'7 notes' to denote various times the effects are different to the table results.

Note I have had to summarize all the current 40k ' fudges and compromises' under 6 general headings .To list them all individually would take too long!

@Marksman224.
If you agree the rules for 40k are flawed.
The effects of cover is poorly applied.And the way Ballistic skill is used is 'weird'.

Why dont you want to look at actually addressing the core issues with the 40krules?

It may be some people are just blind to how over complicated the 40k rules have become?
Here is a link to the best 7th ed 40k reference sheets I have come across.(Awesome job by Arbitorian.IMO)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4104995/Games/7edRef_V7.pdf
That is 16 sides of A4 packed with as much information , and making as much sense out of the 40k rules as written as humanly possible.(IMO.)

Remember 40k is a game that is meant to be easy for younger/newer players to learn.As GW plc canned the 'advanced war game' that was too difficult for new player to learn, apparently.(Epic Armageddon .)

Here are the reference sheets for(NET) Epic Armageddon.The rules reference sheet is ONE side of A4,( with page 192 at the bottom.)
(The army list data on the other 4 sheets, were the ones included with the Epic rule book.)

http://www.net-armageddon.org/sites/default/files/gw/m1320005_EPIC_updated_rulebook-ref_Oct09.pdf

@ Lanrak

Alright, I am by no means trying to suggest that 40k is anything other than a mess or that it shouldn't be overhauled and rebuilt from scratch just I am suggesting that it isn't going to be as easy as just plugging in a funky chart that "fixes" a d6 by stretching it like size 6 lycra on a fat man.

The problems with 40k is really due to some massive contradictions in the constraints it is saddled with regarding the use of a single d6 as the pivot upon which all the games mechanics must turn on one hand and on the other hand the totally bonkers dialed up to 11, full bore fantasy on a super turbo charger, vision of piling 28mm scale tanks, super tanks, fliers and titans alongside grots and guardsman by the hundred all on puny 6' by 4' table where really 40k the game on a 28mm scale needs to be played on football pitch with game mechanics pivoting around a d20... if not a d100.

It's a game that needs to played on 6mm scale or less to be even remotely feasible whilst also being a craft hobby that must please painters and modellers who want at least 28mm scale. That is the nature of the circle that can never be squared. And really straight fantasy is, as in WHFB, is only marginally more reasonable on a 28mm scale. 10mm or less is best for massed Fantasy Battles but again the craft hobby demands 28mm. Warmaster working on 10mm scale was the right game for Fantasy (though I'd have written it much differently) but the wrong scale for the hobby. Epic Armageddon working with a 6mm scale was the right game for 40k but the wrong scale for the hobby. WHFB & 40k are for the hobbyists and let the gamers burn. It makes sense for GW pile on the love for 28mm and crap all over 6mm because models are their bread and butter much more so than games.

If anyone doubts that 28mm scale isn't the right scale for 40k consider this: A space elf is supposed to be around 2m tall in "real life" and his 28mm model is 1" tall. That implies that 1" in game is around 2m in real life so the average space age assault rifle type small arm with a game range of 24" has a real life range of 48 m. Space age rifles with a range of 48m. If that means nothing to you consider this: back in 19th century Brits dropped Zulus like flies with breech loading rifles like the Martini-Henry Mark 4.



Nowadays a rifle like this is an obsolete antique more valuable as an ornament than a weapon, but none the less it has an maximum firing range of 1700m and an effective firing range of 370m... in 28mm scale game terms that is an effective firing range of 185" or just over 15 feet...

Oh it gets worse go back to the 14th century and English peasants were putting holes into Frenchmen with pointy sticks twanged from a piece of wood strung with animal sinew, the longbow.... For a strong and skilled user the English Longbow had an effective range of 320 metres. So nearly 7 times further than the Spess Mureen Bolter, whoops. Only the Basilisk, a very heavy artillery piece, and I think the rangiest weapon in the game, has a range comparable to a longbow. lol. Oh and since we are talking artillery the heavier artillery in WW1 had a range around 100km or 100,000m or 50,000 inches in 40k.

Alright no one plays a fantasy game for realism, so I'll just get off that.

So we could probably just turn a blind eye to the warped beyond sense scale of the game but yet somehow we have to use a d6 both for grots and gargants. hmm. Which brings me back to your chart. I know what you tried to do there stretch out that d6 and make it do double even triple duty but it is still a d6 and all that chart does is render meaningless one step increments of your primary values with needless complication at that. If you want d6 and you want everything from light personal armour to superheavy armour in one system then this is your chart cleaned up and rationalised:



All small arms are AP1 (lasguns, bolters, shootas)
Man portable heavy weapons are AP2 (heavy bolters, autocannons, lascannons)
Vehicle mounted heavy weapons are AP3
Ordnance Weapons are AP4 (leman russ battle cannon)
D-weapons are AP5.

And in opposition:

Light personal armour is AR 1 (ork t-shirt save to stormtrooper carapace)
Heavy personal armour is AR 2 (spess muhreen power armour, termies, meganobs)
Light vehicle armour is AR 3 (most walkers and APCs)
Medium heavy vehicle armour is AR4 (leman russ, landraider)
Superheavy vehicle armour is AR5 (baneblades, knight titans)

Works for me.



Imperator Class Titan made to a 28mm "gaming" scale. lol.

Lanrak wrote:

@Marksman224.
If you agree the rules for 40k are flawed.
The effects of cover is poorly applied.And the way Ballistic skill is used is 'weird'.

Why dont you want to look at actually addressing the core issues with the 40krules?

I do want to look at addressing the core issues. I have been sharing my proposals in my own threads because I don't want to hijack this thread and make it all about my rule-set. My ideas are often different to others so I'm just trying to be diplomatic. I am trying to be constructive though I can certainly understand that I might just appear to be saying to "no" to other people's ideas. I am more than happy to share my different ideas here, but I am still developing them.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
Just checking the title of this thread.Complete rules overhaul. Not 'house rules' 'tweeks to' or 'tournament restrictions to improve balance' then.

Yes... but by the same token, when you 'overhaul' a car, you pull it to bits and repaint, repair or replace each bit as needs dictate. You don't throw away the entire car and design a new one from scratch.
Now that we've established that the exact wording of the title of this thread is not particularly relevant to what we're doing... can we please try to stick to one topic at a time, and let UrbanKnight control which topics he wants to focus on? Also can we please stop re-iterating 'how bad 40k is' or what other games have done and just focus on what UrbanKnight has actually proposed?

@UrbanKnight, Putting all the suggestions aside for a moment, what degree of sensitivity do you want to have in your resolution mechanic?
I mean; on a single D6, a +1 equates to an 17% increase in the chance of success
On a two stage roll (hit then wound for example) a +1 on one roll equates to 3%
On a three stage roll (hit, wound, defeat armour) a +1 on one roll equates to 0.5%

To ask it another way, how many 'chances' do you want in a typical resolution? 6? 36? 216? How finely do you want to be able to tune resolution of an action?

Zustiur wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
Just checking the title of this thread.Complete rules overhaul. Not 'house rules' 'tweeks to' or 'tournament restrictions to improve balance' then.

Yes... but by the same token, when you 'overhaul' a car, you pull it to bits and repaint, repair or replace each bit as needs dictate. You don't throw away the entire car and design a new one from scratch.
Now that we've established that the exact wording of the title of this thread is not particularly relevant to what we're doing... can we please try to stick to one topic at a time, and let UrbanKnight control which topics he wants to focus on? Also can we please stop re-iterating 'how bad 40k is' or what other games have done and just focus on what UrbanKnight has actually proposed?

@UrbanKnight, Putting all the suggestions aside for a moment, what degree of sensitivity do you want to have in your resolution mechanic?
I mean; on a single D6, a +1 equates to an 17% increase in the chance of success
On a two stage roll (hit then wound for example) a +1 on one roll equates to 3%
On a three stage roll (hit, wound, defeat armour) a +1 on one roll equates to 0.5%

To ask it another way, how many 'chances' do you want in a typical resolution? 6? 36? 216? How finely do you want to be able to tune resolution of an action?

Thank you for focusing the discussion. I'll be honest with Lanrak, his reiterating of our mission is getting a bit annoying. 40k is broken, hence the reason for this thread. Now, one topic at a time, according to the agenda I put forward: resolution, turn structure, and unit stats.

I have an issue with Solar's proposal, but not with the mechanic. He gave us a chart that included D weapons. I'm just gonna say this outright: D weapons do not exist anymore. Period. It's silly that 40k has an arms race when it shouldn't and has no need for one. At this point, new units are making old ones irrelevant, like the Centurion to the Terminator. 40k is going the Yugioh way, introducing a super broken unit/mechanic one day, out of the blue, and letting the fans figure out how to deal with the fallout. D weapons are unfair and they're not even fun to play against.

Anyways (rant over) I'll answer your question. I'm not entirely sure about the chances for resolution or how many there should be. I recognize that there is merit to a d6, but there are a lot of limitations to the humble d6 when you're considering that we're using a 10-point scale. I, for one, did not understand very well Solar's method of stretching the d6 so that it could cover a wider range of results. While it offered less auto-wins/fails than Lanrak's table, I still haven't understood it (I'll go back and thoroughly read his posts again, but has anyone understood his method?

Here's what I think. Some rolls shouldn't have to be made, like gauging if a lasgun damaged a Land Raider. That's an auto-fail. Too many rolls are also annoying. However, I'm not making the resolution method simpler by getting rid of the two step process for combat resolution. That's dumbing it down and it honestly messes with game balance. This two stage process (to hit, to wound) dilutes buffs and penalties, but that's ok. It makes everything relatively accurate and makes players feel like that bit of cover they used really helped them. With that in mind, the dice rolls and the chances should be as small as possible so that things can be more expedient and fluid. While we could theoretically have a d100 and have a plethora of choices and possibility, that just makes it very tedious for fast dicers. Like Lanrak said, spotting a d10's results is a bit tougher to do at a glance when fast dicing than a d6's, and we want players to be able to resolve stuff fast so that most of their time isn't spent calculating and counting.

However, dice rolls shouldn't be small enough that (like Solar said) bolters and lasguns are in the same category. I recognize that I'm talking like a madman here (d6's are good, but they're bad!) but that's how this feels right now. Either we have tactical depth with a variety of values assigned to weapons (lasguns=1, bolters=2), or we sacrifice that depth for expedience and fast games.

On another note...

I was thinking that this game needs something... special. I was reading the rules for Epic Armageddon and I honestly like that system a lot. It's insane how GW gives one game an awesome rule-making process that is vetted and carefully tested before a single rule becomes official, but 40k's rules are written by baboons with suits. However, as Solar said, we can't just give 40k the same rules as EA since they work in very different scales. 40k is, I repeat, an individual squad game. It's not supposed to be a game with ten million Guardsmen or 60 Leman Russes or whatever. Game sizes are still big, but not huge. I'm not sure if that's a great thing or not since weapon ranges do indeed cover a lot of the game table. Unless you're playing on a huge table, your units will be able to set up shooting zones and those kill zones will make it hard for anyone to approach you. In EA, the units are small enough that the same table seems a lot bigger, meaning that you can just go around kill zones or whatever.

40k should be more personal than EA. Right now, we treat 40k as if it were EA, but it's not in the slightest. Perhaps we should assign more value to each individual squad or make them stronger or something. I want every squad to feel personal to the player since this game will be smaller in size. The models are bigger, so you see a higher amount of detail, but the table size hasn't changed so the battles are more cramped and have less room for maneuvering.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

I have an issue with Solar's proposal, but not with the mechanic. He gave us a chart that included D weapons. I'm just gonna say this outright: D weapons do not exist anymore. Period. It's silly that 40k has an arms race when it shouldn't and has no need for one. At this point, new units are making old ones irrelevant, like the Centurion to the Terminator. 40k is going the Yugioh way, introducing a super broken unit/mechanic one day, out of the blue, and letting the fans figure out how to deal with the fallout. D weapons are unfair and they're not even fun to play against.

Okay, I can get why you would want the super weapons off the table, strictly speaking they belong in a different scaled game but then really all 40k units belong in a different scaled game. Before we jump to hasty limitations on army composition, remember the punters have already thrown down time and money on their 28mm scale knight titans and baneblades, if we can find a way to squeeze them onto the table without too much silliness or auto-winning then i think we should try to accomadate them.

I have one or two creative suggestions for turning the humble squadie into a plausible hard counter to the superweapons. First off D-weapons are meant to be mega weapons that titans and the like use to blow away other titans and maybe vaporise the odd landraider on the way. Why would such a weapon even be able to target infantry? Like AA guns are for countering aircraft and so can't target tanks, D-weapons can't target infantry, probably they should still be able to insta-kill them by accident through scatter, but not target them directly. Another thing is D-weapon platforms are like buildings on tracks or legs. What is the one thing infantry are actually naturally good at in modern warfare? Taking and infiltrating buildings. So in addition to D-weapons being incapable of targeting infantry their platforms are vulnerable to ant-like infantry crawling up their armoured pant-leg and biting them on their xxxx. Maybe tech troops like meks and techmarines could do more than blow them up from inside but actually take them over... Suddenly a flock of squaddies becomes as much a nightmare to the super-weapons as a black widow spider is to you. Think X-wings vs the Deathstar. You want hard counters, that's a hard counter.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Anyways (rant over) I'll answer your question. I'm not entirely sure about the chances for resolution or how many there should be. I recognize that there is merit to a d6, but there are a lot of limitations to the humble d6 when you're considering that we're using a 10-point scale. I, for one, did not understand very well Solar's method of stretching the d6 so that it could cover a wider range of results. While it offered less auto-wins/fails than Lanrak's table, I still haven't understood it (I'll go back and thoroughly read his posts again, but has anyone understood his method?

If you didn't get it then the method is no good. The first rule for picking a resolution method is that quick and simple should trump all other considerations. Whatever the technical merits of the xd6 or xxd6 if it hurts the punters' brains they won't enjoy using it, and that is an auto-fail for the method.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Here's what I think. Some rolls shouldn't have to be made, like gauging if a lasgun damaged a Land Raider. That's an auto-fail. Too many rolls are also annoying. However, I'm not making the resolution method simpler by getting rid of the two step process for combat resolution. That's dumbing it down and it honestly messes with game balance. This two stage process (to hit, to wound) dilutes buffs and penalties, but that's ok. It makes everything relatively accurate and makes players feel like that bit of cover they used really helped them. With that in mind, the dice rolls and the chances should be as small as possible so that things can be more expedient and fluid. While we could theoretically have a d100 and have a plethora of choices and possibility, that just makes it very tedious for fast dicers. Like Lanrak said, spotting a d10's results is a bit tougher to do at a glance when fast dicing than a d6's, and we want players to be able to resolve stuff fast so that most of their time isn't spent calculating and counting.

If you are comfortable with some things being auto-win/lose then the poor range of the d6 stops being a problem. The game becomes less random but also quicker and with the right rules and balance of counters tactically richer for it. Not fully deterministic but a nudge in that direction. Let the d6 decide the edge cases, where it go either way, like small arm vs personal armour but not small arm vs leman russ front armour. That would make for a good game.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

However, dice rolls shouldn't be small enough that (like Solar said) bolters and lasguns are in the same category. I recognize that I'm talking like a madman here (d6's are good, but they're bad!) but that's how this feels right now. Either we have tactical depth with a variety of values assigned to weapons (lasguns=1, bolters=2), or we sacrifice that depth for expedience and fast games.

I think we have the chart for that already.


See once we are willing to accept auto-win/lose for wildly unmatched cases then not only do we no longer need to stretch our d6 we don't need to constrain the range of primary values, like stats & modifiers either.
Games will can have tactical depth and be fast. Just accept that a relative increase in determinism gives both.

 urbanknight4 wrote:

On another note...

I was thinking that this game needs something... special. I was reading the rules for Epic Armageddon and I honestly like that system a lot. It's insane how GW gives one game an awesome rule-making process that is vetted and carefully tested before a single rule becomes official, but 40k's rules are written by baboons with suits. However, as Solar said, we can't just give 40k the same rules as EA since they work in very different scales. 40k is, I repeat, an individual squad game. It's not supposed to be a game with ten million Guardsmen or 60 Leman Russes or whatever. Game sizes are still big, but not huge. I'm not sure if that's a great thing or not since weapon ranges do indeed cover a lot of the game table. Unless you're playing on a huge table, your units will be able to set up shooting zones and those kill zones will make it hard for anyone to approach you. In EA, the units are small enough that the same table seems a lot bigger, meaning that you can just go around kill zones or whatever.

40k should be more personal than EA. Right now, we treat 40k as if it were EA, but it's not in the slightest. Perhaps we should assign more value to each individual squad or make them stronger or something. I want every squad to feel personal to the player since this game will be smaller in size. The models are bigger, so you see a higher amount of detail, but the table size hasn't changed so the battles are more cramped and have less room for maneuvering.

Honestly I think table size vs model scale is the number one problem and the hardest to fix. I have two suggestions to mitigate the issue:

1) Seriously think about nerfing ranges even more and reducing movement ranges too. I know the ranges at least are already ridiculously small considering the model scale but the table.. the table. We can just imagine that our 1" tall space elf is really only 1mm tall or something and the model is actually a supersized icon or something that marks his position on 3-d tactical display. The 6' by 4' table top is not really representing an area 144 meters by 96 meters (about the same size as a football/soccar pitch .. lol) but more like 6 km by 4 km or even 60 km by 40km. Like epic scale but with 28mm models. Of course the game turns should play faster too, or that will slow the game.

2) lol, actually 2 is too good to share.. commercially sensitive.

@SolarCross.
You wrote..'.. I am suggesting that it isn't going to be as easy as just plugging in a funky chart that "fixes" a d6 by stretching it like size 6 lycra on a fat man. '.
Well if I was proposing that, you would have a point.

However, I have argued for a complete ground up re-write to get the frame work of the rules,(game mechanics and resolution methods,) to fit the expected game play of 40k better. And after this is done it makes the job of developing the rest of the rules much easier.

I agree that Epic Armageddon has two major advantages over 40k. The minatures fit the scale of the game. And the rules are written focusing on game play.
I agree that 40ks appeal is basically down to the scale of the minatures.I do not want to change that.

But dialing the game size down from 11, to 9 ,(Back 5th ed game size.)Would give us a size we can deal with and still keep fudges and comprimizes to a minimum.IMO.
(And players can still add on the awesome big stuff in an expansion like Apoc rules used to if they want ).


@Marksman224.
I have tried to explain my reasons for abandoning the current game mechanics and resolution methods.Objective analysis of the rules, by comparing them to other war games.(Basic concepts and system functions not rules as written verbatim.)
And based on information from the people in the GW studio who admitted where the rules lost their way.
(I assumed the GW Creative Director, and 40k Lead Game Developer during the transition from skirmish rules to battle game .Would have more insight into any errors of judgment than the rest of us?)

People did not seem to understand what I was proposing.(Which is understandable as we all have different frames of reference to draw on.)

So I tried to focus on some simple examples, using some things we used as basic proof of concept for the new ideas.

As some posters appeared still to be confused/ not convinced the current mechanics and resolution methods used in 7th ed 40k ,could be improved on.

I then did a more detailed example to try to show how a new system could cut through the 'fudges and compromises' as SolarCross called them.

By using a more detailed proof of concept and objective comparison the the current rules.
I am NOT pushing my rules.I do not have any rules to sell you.(Thats GW plcs job. )

But how am I supposed to explain ideas that are radically different to the 40k rules ,so people can consider their merits, to people who may not understand without using some sort of example?

Lots of people have posted cool ideas on this thread , please do not feel you have to wait to post yours.

@Zustiur.
To use your car analogy.How far have you pulled the car apart?Have you had it up on the ramp to run full diagnostics?

If you took the car into the garage, and found out you cool looking Ferrari, was powered by a steam engine!
And that was why it was so slow and had such poor handling when compared to every other super car.

Would you waste time beefing up the suspension, and adding 100s of things that might make it slightly faster or handle slightly better?
Leading to a confused mess...https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4104995/Games/7edRef_V7.pdf

Or just replace the power plant and drive train with a custom made one to fit the body work of your car and gain massive performance and handling benefits?

@Urbanknight.
Sorry dude.I was trying to explain stuff I thought was important.

Just to point out on my example table the auto pass /auto fail results , do not have to actually be rolled.(Which sort of ties in to what you suggested.)
It is just a simple way to show how a Land Raider is actually invulnerable to las gun fire.
(Without having to resort to 'wordy' special rules, or another separate system to resolve weapon and armour interaction.. )

I think we are on the same page more or less.But we express ideas in a different way perhaps ?

Just an idea on Concentrated fire.
If infantry units halve their number of 'small arms' shots they gain a bonus to weapon AP.
(Eg rather than spraying the general area with projectiles they focus the shots on a smaller area, but increase the volume of fire on that area increasing the threat level)

Example for illustration purposes.Using the example table posted higher up.
8 Guardsmen firing las guns (Ap2) at Chaos Terminators(AV7) .Normally unable to do anything using the new example AV/AP chart.

However using Concentrated fire they get 4 shots (half) at Ap 4 (+2Ap) .Allowing the humble las gun to effect the Chaos Termies(If they are lucky. )

Special and heavy weapons could have two fire modes, (where applicable)In a simular way to how frag and frag missiles are presented separately on the weapon stat line.
EG
Heavy bolter,;-
Standard fire. Range 36"/Attacks 3/Ap 4/Damage 5/ Move or fire.
Concentrated -Range 36"/Attacks 1/Ap 6/Damage 7/Move or fire.

What do you think?

I had this idea knocking around for the last few days and I thought I'd put here to see what you guys think.

I was thinking of replacing the strength v toughness system with one similar to what AoS does. However, I was also going to make a special rule for certain weapons called anti-personal. This rule doesn't do anything by itself, but units will have special rules relating to it.

One example: weapons with the anti personal rule suffer penalties when trying to attack vehicles. And some units (tanks, monstrous creatures, terminators etc) are immune to anti personal weapons. Call the rule 'Behemoth' or something. Models with the Behemoth special rule cannot be harmed by weapons with the anti personal special rule. Any hits they score automatically fail to wound.

So a las gun for example would be:

Range: 24" Shots: 1 Wound: 5+ Traits: Anti-Personal, Rapid Fire.

So, same range, similar to wound rolls as they have now, fires an extra shot at half range, and things like Carnifexes, Land Raiders and Terminators are immune to it.

A hot shot las gun however would be:

Range: 18" Shots: 2 Wound: 5+ Traits: Hot Shot, Rapid Fire.

So, shorter range but more shots (suits the fluff), and can fire an extra shot at half range. But, it doesn't have the anti personal rule so it can try to hurt the bigger stuff that a lasgun can't. Also, the hot shot rule means that units without the Behemoth special rule suffer -2 to their armour saves.

I know this looks like a lot of special rules but I am looking to stream line it and eliminating the charts.

Thoughts?

@Lanrak
I actually do appreciate what you are trying to do and what you think this game needs. I myself am taking cues for improvements from other games. Particularly Flames of War. I actually agree with quite a few proposals I have heard from you before. Especially the return of a movement stat to replace all dice-happy movement special rules.

Where I do disagree is with the idea of using tables more often. It was said that even if we didn't have to look up a table we would still have to look up a stat. However with tables one has to look up a stat, then another stat, then look at the table. So there is, in my opinion, a measurable disadvantage in using a table. Even if there is only one table, the more often it's used, the more it can slow things down. Like I said before, I am a fan of Flames of War. Apart from a seldom used one for artillery, that game uses no tables at all, and it's amazing.

On the other hand, the strength vs toughness table is so central to this game I don't think it can be removed. I think there should be types of attacks that don't use it though. I saw earlier a table that had 1+ on it and I think that is exactly what is needed. I also wonder if the table should be changed to " 5+, 6+, -" instead of "5+, 6+, 6+". That would eliminate some ineffectual rolling and make a difference between between T=S +2 and T=S+3, when there isn't one now. Though perhaps this would be an unwelcome buff to MCs.

On the other side we could have more weapons that don't roll to hit, but just go straight to wounding. I recommended this in another thread for rapid-fire weapons, that they go straight to wounding when within half range instead of getting an extra shot. Of course I am aware that there are issues with this as well, but I like this idea and think it's worth exploring. The skill with which basic grunts can fire their assault rifles should seldom be relevant. This is a wargame, not an RPG.

In any case, I think the biggest problems is this game refuses to just "yes" or "no" to it's players. Instead it says "roll a dice and ask me again". "Am I close enough to charge that unit?... Can I make it through the woods?... Can I hit that fighter jet with a bolter even though it's flying at 850 km/h?"

Generally I would purge most "roll a D6" rules. Running, charging, moving through cover. Snap-firing - all of it - should go back to the Eye of Terror from whence it came and never return. I think D6s work fine as they are, there is plenty of granularity, and granularity doesn't make the game better anyway. I don't think we need completely new tables either.

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Now, one topic at a time, according to the agenda I put forward: resolution, turn structure, and unit stats.

Focusing on resolutions first is good. If we are certain that the simple d6 is good enough for our random number generator, we will have oppositional rolls as standard and want a simple rules based process that does not require a chart look up (though still can be represented on a chart) then it seems we are quite settled on method 2 using a plain d6.

The simple rule is this: Active stat - Reactive stat (or game constant) +/- modifiers = Overall Modifier
Overall modifier + d6 = result, if result is 4 or more success, if result is 3 or less fail.

Or d6 roll required = 4 - Overall modifier (don't forget -(-x) = +x!)

The simplest most scalable way to represent this on a chart is this:



This shows what needs to be rolled equal to or over in order to get a success for a given overall modifier (and also the probabilities expressed a percentage)

You can make place you "average" stat anything but because of the limited range of a d6 "high" and "low" stats can't be more than 2 steps from average before "average" auto-loses against "high" and auto-wins against "low".

Modifiers allow use to bring in factors that will enable "low" to have a chance to beat "high" and "high" to have a chance to lose against "low". The more these modifiers can be brought in by active player choice the more the game is enriched tactically.

Of course we do want some some auto-results to happen because that decreases dice-rolls (speeding play), adds realism and with player driven modifiers also some tactical depth, therefore we can also allow some stats to be very low and very high which would be more than 4 steps from average.

We can then say our very low stat will be 1, our average stat will be 5 and our very high stat will be 9.

For a broad range of unit classes Accuracy vs Evade might be something like this.



Figuring in our resolution mechanism this means infantry can pretty much auto-hit medium vehicles and heavier (though not fliers) though of course unless they have some anti-tank type weapons that doesn't mean that they have any chance of damaging them...

@Marksman224.
Sorry I read your post as you were inferring I was trying to 'push my particular rule set.'I apologize for that misunderstanding.

Because F.O.W. has massive advantages over 40k, the rules can be more 'abstracted' and still remain very simple and straight forward while delivering the expected game play.

F.O.W has the following advantages over 40k.
1)In F.o.W. all the combatants are the same species, and all have the same tec level of weapons/equipment .
2)And there is a clear distinction between armoured and non armoured targets.

1)So direct representation of skill 3+4+5+ and morale 3+4+5+ can cover the slight differences across all units.
2)The two simple damage resolution systems can sit side by side as there is no overlap/grey area, between armoured and non armoured units.

With F.O.W limited range of results simple limited modifiers of '+1 'work well .And as you roll for unit bases, not for every model on the unit base.So re rolls are a more practical option than with 40k.

In fact this is how Epic Armageddon gets away with its levels of abstraction , the size of the models are such that an infantry platoon is just 'blob squads on a base'.
So the players see the AP(Anti-Personnel)rating and AT(Anti Tank) rating as 'good enough ' definition for this 6mm scale of minatures/models.

(I think this simple classification of anti tank/anti infantry is the sort of thing Future War Cultist, was exploring the concept of in the post above?)

With that level of abstraction a to hit (and damage) roll, followed by a save roll to prevent damage(armour/toughness) works fine.

However, with the minature/model scale that is so important to the 40k players, as Solar Cross rightly pointed out.

Would a las gun having the same chance to wound as a heavy bolter be accepted as an abstraction with 28mm minatures in a game where the slightest differences in weapons load out are represented on the model.(WYSIWYG.)
Would a Railgun and a Krak grenade having the same 'anti tank effect' be accepted by the 40k players?Or would we end up adding lots of 'special rules fudges' to patch over the 'compromised resolution?'

I may be wrong on this, but most gamers who play games regularly, tend to memorize any tables for the game , after a while.(Every WHFB/40k player I know does any way.) If there is just one resolution table for all combat.(To hit, to wound ,and to damage.)That is on the 'ONE side of A4 new rules quick reference sheet.'

If the table can conform to simple defined mathematical limits for those that want that sort of thing.(A good point raised by SolarCross earlier I think. )

Simple example for illustration purposes
D 6 roll required if Opponents stat is;-
5 or more lower 1+(Auto sucess.)
3 to 4 lower 2+
1 to 2 lower 3+
Equal or 1 higher 4+,
2 to 3 higher 5+
4 to 5 higher 6+
6 or more higher no effect.(auto fail.)

Is it still 'too fussy/ much effort' to look up results on a table for combat resolution ?(If you can not remember the maths behind it.)
When the benefits are , clearly defined rules, intuitive game play, and a fraction of the special rules and load more tactics instead, so all units can be viable?

I experimented using one table , to cover all the current units in 40k, with a 1 to 10 stat line as it is familiar to 40 players.(As previously posted.)
(I do not think using D6 just in a direct representation way can give enough granularity for the 40k games combat resolution.)

I am aware some people see the three stage damage resolution in 40k as too slow.And would like to drop to a 2 stage resolution process.

But as Zustiur pointed out a D6 based 2 stage resolution process only has 36 generated results.A three stage resolution system has 216 results.
(A two stage D10 resolution process only gives 100 results.So using a D6 3 times is over twice as effective as using a D10 twice! And the read speed of 10 D6 is quite a lot faster than the read speed of 10 D10 .So the time taken for 3 stage D6 resolution is faster in actual practice )

If we are trying to represent an entire galaxy of weird and wonderful species and a massive range of technology levels.The more results derived from the core rules resolution the fewer special rules 'fudges' we need to use.

Now the reason the current 40k 3 stage damage resolution is slow, has been attributed too ;-
1)Rolling too many dice.
2)Too many special rules .
3 )Too many added on resolution loops/decisions.

We can address these issues in the following ways.

1)Suppression allows non lethal shooting to be effective, so 'hoard units' can be reduced to 15- 20 model units from 30 model units.
Chance to hit is now widened , so no need to roll more dice to add extra chances to hit.
(Concentration fire reduces the number of shots, but increases the effect also reducing dice rolled in some situation if we use it.)

2)Wider range of results allow more detail at each stage of the interaction, removing the need for so many special rules interjections,or replacement of core resolution.

3) Wider range of results removes the need for added on resolutions like,FNP.

Currently 40k players use tables with stats of 1 to 10, in a three stage damage resolution.
I believe the basic concept of this is sound and could work brilliantly.IF it was applied and developed properly(Eg Outside the influence of the GW sales department. )

I would like to explore this simple and intuitive resolution method first, before we look at more complicated ones.
But that is up to urbanknight to decide.

@urbanknight,
I would say the 40k battle game is unique.(And believe me the mis match in game scale and minature size makes it a unique experience to develop rules for.)
You can take inspiration and basic concepts from other games.But the rules as written have to be tailored to suit the uniqueness of 40k.
(As mentioned in more detail earlier in the thread.)

Okay, so here's what you do, get a kickstarter going, and create a better product than 40k so you can rake in the millions of pounds of profit that would otherwise go to 40k.

Nomeny wrote:
Okay, so here's what you do, get a kickstarter going, and create a better product than 40k so you can rake in the millions of pounds of profit that would otherwise go to 40k.

A brilliant idea that I will tirelessly pursue once we actually have a decent product to offer my millions of fans on kickstarter

To Solar and Lanrak, I read your posts and I'm leafing over them. I'll reply soon!

@ Lanrak
I know you aren't trying to push your own rule-set. My last post may have been poorly formatted, and looked like it was entirely directed at you.

Lanrak wrote:
@Marksman224.
Sorry I read your post as you were inferring I was trying to 'push my particular rule set.'I apologize for that misunderstanding.

Because F.O.W. has massive advantages over 40k, the rules can be more 'abstracted' and still remain very simple and straight forward while delivering the expected game play.

F.O.W has the following advantages over 40k.
1)In F.o.W. all the combatants are the same species, and all have the same tec level of weapons/equipment .
2)And there is a clear distinction between armoured and non armoured targets.

You are exactly right, I understand these differences in the subject matter of each game very well. Which is why I know transplanting 40k into Flames of War rules would be impossible. Thought there are some lessons that can be learned from it.

Now with respect to a universal resolution table. I wouldn't say that it is too fussy to use a table, I simply believe there is a definite advantage to not using one wherever possible. This why I like the vehicle armour system, and would like to keep it. It's also why I would hate to add another opposed check for shooting. Even though I did say that "BS is a weird stat" I only meant that in the context of this game; that it doesn't interact with other stats or have different applications. I think more stats should work like BS, or Sv as it is implemented now. I would also find using the same table for every variety of check to be very boring. Like there was only one way in which all of these stats mattered, and I had to look at this thing (or recall the pattern of it) three times whenever I made an attack. It's a shame because I was quite impressed with the Armour vs. AP chart. I may yet be convinced I suppose.

With respect expanding the D6, or moving to D100s, I simply don't think that is necessary. Having 100 possibilities rather than 36 would not make things fundamentally better or easier. As a slightly unrelated example from RPGs; Dark Heresy uses a D100 roll for skill checks and the like, whereas Traveler uses 2D6 rolls. Traveler is a vastly superior game in my opinion, the lack of variation of probabilities in the dice takes nothing away from it at all. The proposal to have the opposed roll table work in steps of two rather than one also concerns me very much, i.e. "2+,2+,3+,3+" over "2+,3+,4+,5+". It makes increments of 1 to any stat completely worthless half of the time. I believe this game can be saved without ditching the D6, or having to spread out its range.

One other point which sort of stands on its own: Whatever the solution for this game, I think if it requires the stat line to be converted in some way then it is less likely to be adopted by players. If the conversion can follow a simple a linear mapping it might no be so bad, but it means people can't just take their codices along with this rule-set and use them together. I think it would be ideal if players could do that, and this would have serious promise to catch on better than GW's model adverti- I mean rules.

You don't need to reinvent the wheel, 90% of the game's issues can be solved by rolling back and consolidating special rules, make flyers count as skimmers in non-Apoc games, outlaw or restrict special characters to 'X' points and above and only with opponent permission, etc. etc. And the game is fixed overnight.

Also give assault back some teeth. So limit or do away with BS like Overwatch, and let people assault out of transports again.

Basically roll the game back to the best edition (3rd.) and streamline all the new stuff into it.

Given that UrbanKnight is okay with 3 stage shooting resolution and okay with auto pass/auto fail, Let's look at the existing system and close variations.
First a quick history lesson in case readers haven't been around as long as I have:
Editions 5-7 use the same Ballistic Skill mechanic where BS 6 and above allow a limited reroll (which incidentally is pretty much what SolarCross was suggesting a while ago)
Editions 3 and 4 used the same mechanic but without the extension for BS 6+. That is, a roll of 1 was always a fail even it you happen to have BS 10, there was no reroll. This meant that BS 6 was useless, and indeed they removed higher BS from everyone in the game.
Editions 1(Rogue Trader) and 2 still used roughly the same idea, but had modifiers.
So in all cases it has been Stat+D6 >= 7 is a success. With the variations being having modifiers (1-2), and having a fudge (4-7) to handle the lack of modifiers.

Incidentally, if I had come up with the same idea as SolarCross I would have referenced the BS6+ mechanic from 7th ed. SolarCross's new feature is that the dice is extended in the same fashion in the opposite direction also. That is, if you have BS 7 you get to reroll 1s and hope for a 5+. If you have BS0, you roll hoping for a 6, then roll again hoping for a 2+

So that covers hitting, but there are other mechanics in shooting. The second mechanic being the wound roll. That is a stat vs stat comparison. Hopefully I don't need to explain that one since we've been using the same chart for 7 editions.
UrbanKnight's rough outline includes both Accuracy and Evade, so our traditional Stat+d6 vs 7 mechanic won't work. What if we merge the two concepts?
D6+MyStat-YourStat, with success being measured against 4.
With Accuracy3 vs Evade 3, you have a modifier of 0. To hit you need to roll 4+.
With Accuracy5 vs Evade 3, you have a positive modifier of 2, so to hit you only need to roll 2+ because 2+2=4
With Accuracy3 vs Evade 5, you have a negative modifier of -2, so to hit you need to roll a 6 on the die

Now here's the fun bit. If you have Accuracy 6 vs Evade 3 you have a positive modifier of +3. 3+1 is 4, so even if you roll a 1 you succeed. That means you don't need to roll, so the game gets quicker in this situation. Vice versa, if you get a point where you need to roll 7 on a d6, don't roll, you auto fail.

But what if we like rolling? Well I have a solution to that also.
Taking the same mechanic above, we tack on 'extra success' as a possibility. This could start as low as 5, or as high as you feel is appropriate. I think 7 will work in our favour so I'll use that for my example. Remember, 4 is a success. 7 is the first 'extra' success.
Ignore the values of the stats for a moment, just assume that whatever then stats, the modifier became +3. Now, if I roll a 1 2 or 3, I score 4 5 and 6 respectively. Those are all successes. But if I roll a score of 7 the extra success rule kicks in. That is, if I roll a 4 + my modifier of 3, I've matched 7, and that counts as TWO successes. If I instead rolled 5 (still +3) I have THREE successes and so on.
Now lets take some numbers we're familiar with and see how that works in practice.
Space Marine (Accuracy 4) with Lascannon Weapon Damage 9 vs Guardsman with Evade 3 and Armour Rating 3.
The Space Marine will hit on a roll of 3+ thanks to his modifier of +1 (4-3=1).
He will then wound the guardsman automatically (9-3=6) and in fact even a roll of 1 will cause two wounds to the poor guardsman. If the Space Marine player happens to roll a 6, the guardsman suffers 7 wounds and is absolutely obliterated, as he should be when hit by such a powerful weapon.
The numbers can be tweaked. You might for example choose 6 as the second success, 8 as the third, 10 as the fourth and so on.
...
annnnd that's where the example falls apart - UrbanKnight said OK to 3 stage resolution, but the stats he presented don't allow for it. There is no Toughness and no Save Modifier/AP. It's Weapon Damage vs Armour Rating only. I wrote a long peice explaining how you can combine 2 stats into 1 but it was ugly. Let's not go there. If 2 stage resolution is desirable we'll have to address how to merge the stats, I can't see a straight forward mathematical solution to it right now.

If we do go down that path, it might make sense to also merge firing rate into Accuracy. Then it will tie in with the chance of getting more than one success in order to generate multiple hits without messing around with rolling as many dice.
I haven't put any numbers or examples together for that yet. I'll need to think about it.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
You don't need to reinvent the wheel, 90% of the game's issues can be solved by rolling back and consolidating special rules, make flyers count as skimmers in non-Apoc games, outlaw or restrict special characters to 'X' points and above and only with opponent permission, etc. etc. And the game is fixed overnight.

Also give assault back some teeth. So limit or do away with BS like Overwatch, and let people assault out of transports again.

Basically roll the game back to the best edition (3rd.) and streamline all the new stuff into it.

Its not that simple. I'll be borrowing from other editions, yes, but its not just rolling back and adjusting. I'm going to implement different mechanics and make sure that the game is interesting and tactical in its own right, not just 2nd edition with 7th edition units.

Now, for the resolution methods. I have two steps as far as I know. There's the roll to hit, and the roll to damage. The first is shown by the Ballistics/Evade and Melee/Dexterity skills and shows if your attack landed or was evaded/defended against. The second step is how much damage your attack made, shown by the Weapon Damage/Armor Rating stats. A Guardsman should have no problem shooting a Land Raider. His training allows him to be fairly accurate in his shots. But his piss-poor lasgun wont do much against the gargantuan armor of the Land Raider, so here is where the second step kinda negates the entire attack. If a unit that is being attacked fails both rolls, it gets one (1) wound unless the weapon they are hit with says otherwise. This wound is allocated immediately. The reason for this being only 1 wound per attack is because if we do multiple wounds per attack, high HP units like Ogryns become irrelevant. We want a player to feel like his bullet sponge units can indeed withstand a few volleys of fire, not crumple at the first sight of a bolter.

There are only two steps to resolution. Only two times when you should be rolling dice in the game. Everything else will either be covered with rules, or maybe with a dice roll. But I don't want players to have to roll dice for everything, it makes the game too long. No more rolling for running (just move again on your next turn), no more rolling for dangerous terrain (units get movement penalties and even HP damage for moving in these places instead of rolling), and no more rolling for anything else. Its annoying and makes things too random, which is the antithesis to tactical games. A certain degree of randomness is good but not when it dictates if your men cross a swamp unharmed or dead.

On another note, I have found the two most important problems that we need to address before we move on to other topics. Resolution is tied to one of them: the d6. I love the d6 but its basic and only has so many sides. What Lanrak was saying with the high amount of chance a d100 has is that high amounts of chance leaves us with a nice range of values in order to have diverse units. As it is right now though, we're using the limited d6 and it shows on our resolution. There is only a small window of possibility for low accuracy units to hit high evade units. And while you all may be thinking that that's the point, it undermines tactics in a nasty way. Let's say your opponent has a Banshee horde with Evade 5, and your guys have Accuracy 3. Let's put this in perspective: Space Marines should have accuracy 4. Does that make sense? And they should have Evade 3 since they have power armor. Guardsmen should have Acc 3 and Ev 3. Orks have Acc 2 and Ev 2. Grots have Acc 3 and Ev 2. Servitors have Acc 3 and Ev 1. Is this alright with you guys? These stats are only here to illustrate this point.

With this in mind, the Banshees that have Evade 5 will now hide in a crater, giving them a +1 to Evade. They now have 6 Ev, and your guys still have 3 Acc. At this point, you will autofail if you shoot at them. This will be incredibly frustrating for people and, if the Eldar player is smart, he will use buffs to maintain his Evade high so that he's essentially untouchable.

Now, fluff-wise it may make sense that we give Banshees such a high Evade with a possibility to be untouchable. But is it good for the game? According to Zustiur, it only takes one or two points of difference in between stats to completely flip a battle or dictate whether or not a unit is one-shotted automatically or untouchable. Now, that could be solved with Suppressive fire since your men get a +1 to Accuracy since they're shooting wildly, but still... those Banshees are only getting suppressed on a 5+ and that's without the crater.

My point here is that our die resolution system with the d6 forces us to have close stats, and even encourages us to use a small table, preferably one with only 5 ranks for stats instead of 10. At this point I'm wondering exactly who would have 10 Evade, or 10 Melee. It seems like it would be good to lower the scale, right?

Wrong. Like Solar said, it would involve squashing unit stats together to the point where a Space Marine bolter and a Guardsman lasgun make the same damage. That's ridiculous, but if we bump up the bolter, we need to bump up the more powerful weapons and eventually we'll run out of numbers since we're using such a limited scale. But again, by using a wide 1-10 scale our dice rolls include a lot of auto-losses...

I'm ok with automatic results as long as they don't limit the game too much. Perhaps it would make more sense to just lower the Banshee's Evade down to 4. It would make sense fluff-wise, since a 50% chance to shoot one of those buggers is still pretty risky.


So (Rant over). All of this I've been writing as I'm thinking, so sorry for the data dump. Maybe this system of stat-stat=modifier to roll where roll>3=win is good, we just need to tinker with the unit stats so that we dont have untouchable units where they shouldnt be. In this sense, I don't know if GW's current stats support our system. Orks do indeed have 2 BS, which is good, but then I don't know much about say, Space Marines or Eldar. What's the highest BS skill count? We have to think about these things before we decide if we'll just graft GW's stats onto our own and save ourselves from making them up from scratch, or actually realize that they don't work with our system and we have to make our own stats. I like the idea that we can graft since it means that people can continue to use the same stats they've memorized and are familiar with, but we have to examine if they're fair under this system.

To that end, I want someone to test out this system. Play a couple of games or run some mathhammer and figure out if Guardsmen are hitting as much as they should be, and if Banshees are evading as much as they should be. If this system works, then we move on to a different topic (turn order) and then we come back to make the stats for units to complete our mechanics. How does that sound to you all?

PS: The second problem I forgot to mention above (I lost track of what I was saying lol) is the table size. You only have so much table, and 40k games can be pretty big. I have Tabletop Simulator, so its easy for me to just scale my units down virtually, but you cant do that in real life. Bigger tables? Shorter movement? Buildings you can enter and have rules for different elevation, Necromunda-style? I want to hear your solutions for this problem, because cramped games are a huge detriment to strategy. Its hard to formulate a battle plan when half your army is already within range of the enemy as soon as your start.

 urbanknight4 wrote:
On another note, I have found the two most important problems that we need to address before we move on to other topics. Resolution is tied to one of them: the d6. I love the d6 but its basic and only has so many sides. What Lanrak was saying with the high amount of chance a d100 has is that high amounts of chance leaves us with a nice range of values in order to have diverse units. As it is right now though, we're using the limited d6 and it shows on our resolution. There is only a small window of possibility for low accuracy units to hit high evade units. And while you all may be thinking that that's the point, it undermines tactics in a nasty way. Let's say your opponent has a Banshee horde with Evade 5, and your guys have Accuracy 3. Let's put this in perspective: Space Marines should have accuracy 4. Does that make sense? And they should have Evade 3 since they have power armor. Guardsmen should have Acc 3 and Ev 3. Orks have Acc 2 and Ev 2. Grots have Acc 3 and Ev 2. Servitors have Acc 3 and Ev 1. Is this alright with you guys? These stats are only here to illustrate this point.

With this in mind, the Banshees that have Evade 5 will now hide in a crater, giving them a +1 to Evade. They now have 6 Ev, and your guys still have 3 Acc. At this point, you will autofail if you shoot at them. This will be incredibly frustrating for people and, if the Eldar player is smart, he will use buffs to maintain his Evade high so that he's essentially untouchable.

Now, fluff-wise it may make sense that we give Banshees such a high Evade with a possibility to be untouchable. But is it good for the game? According to Zustiur, it only takes one or two points of difference in between stats to completely flip a battle or dictate whether or not a unit is one-shotted automatically or untouchable. Now, that could be solved with Suppressive fire since your men get a +1 to Accuracy since they're shooting wildly, but still... those Banshees are only getting suppressed on a 5+ and that's without the crater.

My point here is that our die resolution system with the d6 forces us to have close stats, and even encourages us to use a small table, preferably one with only 5 ranks for stats instead of 10. At this point I'm wondering exactly who would have 10 Evade, or 10 Melee. It seems like it would be good to lower the scale, right?

All clear, but why not go with the MEdge style higher/lower mechanic? So, lets say

If EVD is triple, automatic loss
If EVD is double, 6+
If EVD is higher, 5+
If ACC/EVD are equal, 4+
If ACC is higher, 3+
If ACC is double, 2+
If ACC is triple, automatic win

If all the people have stats as above, and we assume the +1 is to the STAT, not the dice roll, we have guardsmen shooting Banshees on a 5+, or 6+ if they're in a crater. Marines are shooting banshees on a 5+ in or out of the crater. Applying the modifier to the stat means that you have a much greater range of terrain available, but sometimes it won't count for much. Applying the modifier to the dice roll means that cover always does something, but the range of values cover can realistically give is lessened.

However, this system becomes more useful if you increase the range of values. Let's say

Guardsman ACC 10 EVD 10
Marine ACC 16 EVD 8
Banshee ACC 12 EVD 18
Rhino ACC 16 EVD 4
Land Speeder ACC 16 EVD 25

Guardsmen are hitting marines on a 3+, but as soon as the Marine is in some +2 cover (say, a wall) it's 4+.
Marines are hitting Guardsmen on a 3+. The guardsmen would need to be in +6 cover to make a dent in this, which just proves how accurate marines are.
Marines are hitting Banshees on a 5+, but the marine only needs a +2 bonus (say, from Focused Fire or a psychic power) to get them on a 4+.
Tanks are always really easy to hit.
Land Speeders are always really hard to hit.

Modifiers could also be to band, or by weapon type, so

Blast weapons -2 to hit
Rapid fire weapons +4 to hit at short range
Artillery weapons -4 to hit
Concentrated fire goes up a band

Now a guardsman firing a rocket launcher (blast) can't ever hit a Land Speeder - he'd need to stand still and use Concentrated Fire. However, a Space Marine can hit a Land Speeder on a 5+, and if he stands still it's a 4+.

The amount of difference between units can be theoretically infinite, with tons of variation between units, and a d6 is still fit for purpose in this system. You're not asking 6 results to represent the entire scale of the game - you're asking 6 results to represent if one specific unit is better or worse than the other.