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.

Lanrak wrote:
These are not my ideas, but have been suggested and used in other games.

1)Opposed values.
Use opposed values in a chart to give the save roll required, similar to the S Vs T type chart.
Have Armour Penetration vs Armour value .

This can be extended to cover vehicle armour with a bit of tweeking. As the relationships do not have to be perfectly linear or regular.

Armour value from 0 to 10. AP value from 0 to 10.(New values would need to be assigned to everything though. )

2)Discard set dice values.
This is an 'old save modifier'/'AP system' hybrid.

The AP value means the defender has to discard armour save dice rolls that are equal or higher than the AP value.

EG a SM with save value 3+ is hit by an AP 6 weapon.
The SM only now saves on a 3,4,or 5.If they roll a 6 it is discarded and not counted!

In the same way a Mega Armoured Nob Save 2+, is hit by an AP 4 weapon.
The Mega Armoured Nob now only save on the roll of a 2 or 3.
Rolls of 4 ,5,and 6 are discarded.

Option 1 can be applied more universally , and allows more incremental changes where needed.
However, some people find looking up results on a chart a bit slow.But as that is already in the current rules for 40k, and you may retain the to wound and to hit charts,it may not be such of a big issue?

Option 2 optimizes fast rolling, but can be seen as a bit counter intuitive having the actual save rolls reduced downwards?

Well the WS chart is already cut from the game. The S/T chart is still in use but mostly because it's very simple to understand and calculate in your head. Could change later if a better more intuitive system is proposed that functions well.

The second option has no statistical difference to just reducing the save. It doesn't matter if you say a AP 6 weapon removes 6s or you say it reduces the save by 1. They function the same with one being a little more confusing up front.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The system in AoS is basically "save minus rending value of attack". Just like warhammer fantasy and 2nd edition 40k were. Most models in AoS have a save of 5+ or 4+. An attack with a rend of -1 would turn a 5+ save into a 6+ save, and completely wipe out a 6+ save. It's very simple and intuitive.

My own conversion rate, if I was creating a system (which I am ) is:

AP6 is nothing. AP5 and AP4 is -1. AP3 and AP2 is -2. AP2 and AP1 is -3.

I went with AP6, AP5, AP4 become nothing (6+ and 5+ are pretty bad anyways, why not let folks actually get to use them?). AP3 is -1, AP2 is -2, AP1 is -4. I also gave Terminators 1+ armor, so it negated the need to give them an Invulnerable save (Even with 1+, the save still fails on a roll of 1)

 Stormonu wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The system in AoS is basically "save minus rending value of attack". Just like warhammer fantasy and 2nd edition 40k were. Most models in AoS have a save of 5+ or 4+. An attack with a rend of -1 would turn a 5+ save into a 6+ save, and completely wipe out a 6+ save. It's very simple and intuitive.

My own conversion rate, if I was creating a system (which I am ) is:

AP6 is nothing. AP5 and AP4 is -1. AP3 and AP2 is -2. AP2 and AP1 is -3.

I went with AP6, AP5, AP4 become nothing (6+ and 5+ are pretty bad anyways, why not let folks actually get to use them?). AP3 is -1, AP2 is -2, AP1 is -4. I also gave Terminators 1+ armor, so it negated the need to give them an Invulnerable save (Even with 1+, the save still fails on a roll of 1)

This one I can get more behind. Instead of loading the penalties towards the lower AP values you stack them on the higher values. Gives the 6+ and 5+ saves a chance to actually happen. I would have to give a look through a few books that tend to have lower AP values to see what effect it would have on them. But I dig it. It keeps most saves happening most of the time with only the highest AP weapons negating saves. Neat.

I'd put most of the AP: 4 Weapons in the same "Rending" slot as AP: 3, but that is more on a case by case basis.

For example, there is a huge difference between a Rupture Cannon, Autocannon, and a Heavy Bolter. All three should be at different levels, but that's just my opinion.

 Charistoph wrote:
I'd put most of the AP: 4 Weapons in the same "Rending" slot as AP: 3, but that is more on a case by case basis.

For example, there is a huge difference between a Rupture Cannon, Autocannon, and a Heavy Bolter. All three should be at different levels, but that's just my opinion.

I dont disagree. Some armys (nids) have almost all ap4 or worse. It would be a huge imbalance to make the entire army have no "rending". Instead the weapons shoukd all get adjusted. I can for sure see nids having a pretty even split between rending - and rending 1 with the ocasional r2. Each weapon will need to be examined.

 Stormonu wrote:
I went with AP6, AP5, AP4 become nothing (6+ and 5+ are pretty bad anyways, why not let folks actually get to use them?). AP3 is -1, AP2 is -2, AP1 is -4. I also gave Terminators 1+ armor, so it negated the need to give them an Invulnerable save (Even with 1+, the save still fails on a roll of 1)

I like this!

Reevaluating my suggestion, as a rule of thumb I'd now make AP:- to AP:5 nothing off the save, AP:4 and AP:3 -1 to the save, and AP:2 and AP:1 are -2, and a few very powerful weapons (strength 9+ ordinance, melta weapons etc) are -3.

Also, just putting this out there, but in AOS cover simply increases your save by +1. It's really easy to deal with.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I went with AP6, AP5, AP4 become nothing (6+ and 5+ are pretty bad anyways, why not let folks actually get to use them?). AP3 is -1, AP2 is -2, AP1 is -4. I also gave Terminators 1+ armor, so it negated the need to give them an Invulnerable save (Even with 1+, the save still fails on a roll of 1)

I like this!

Reevaluating my suggestion, as a rule of thumb I'd now make AP:- to AP:5 nothing off the save, AP:4 and AP:3 -1 to the save, and AP:2 and AP:1 are -2, and a few very powerful weapons (strength 9+ ordinance, melta weapons etc) are -3.

Also, just putting this out there, but in AOS cover simply increases your save by +1. It's really easy to deal with.

I was thinking of cover reducing bs (to a minimum of1) the way i was thinking of ap reducing saves.

So terrain would be cover 1. Ruins cover 2. And very VERY few things would provide cover 3 (reducing bs by whatever the cover value is).

No matter what with max cover people make snap shots still. I can think of a few ways it could get funky. But i will save that testing for after the core game play functions properly.

Is 4 different armour save modifiers really enough for you to represent all type of weapons?
What about Invulnerable saves and Destroyer weapons?

Chaospling wrote:
Is 4 different armour save modifiers really enough for you to represent all type of weapons?
What about Invulnerable saves and Destroyer weapons?

As Charistoph mentioned earlier, Destroyer weapons can be covered by mortal (automatic with no save) wounds. Invulnerable saves can simply be another save on top of it as they currently are. For example, in AoS chaos warriors have runesheilds, which allow you to cancel both normal and mortal wounds on a d6 roll of 5+. Other examples include simply ignoring the AP.

Chaospling wrote:
Is 4 different armour save modifiers really enough for you to represent all type of weapons?
What about Invulnerable saves and Destroyer weapons?

In AoS, Destroyer Weapons would be hard to quantify, as there are protections against even Mortal Wounds, which would be the easy category to place them under, and those same protections against Mortal Wounds are the AoS equivalent of Ward/Invulnerable Saves.

I would half want to just get rid of Destroyer all together, but that wouldn't work unless Super-Heavies of all types were out of the picture. If you make them provide a high Wound/model quantity, that should more than overwhelm any Invulnerable Save protection. The Remove From Play mechanic would still suffice as Saves can only be taken against Wounds.

If I remember correctly, those protections against mortal wounds are pretty rare. Usually limited to high level characters and expensive elite units. There's no reason the same couldn't be applied here.

I also think if you want to really fix 40k you have to think outside the box and be prepared to completely overhaul stats and rules. For example, in my own experiments, I'm using increased wound counts to help make units tougher. I've eliminated toughness from the game and I'm relying solely on a save and wounds.

For example, a guardsman is still a 5+ save, and with the redesigned ap and cover system he gets to use that more often, but he still only has one wound and so dies easily. But an ork; I've given them a 5+ save and two wounds. Before, ten bolt guns wielded by space marines would kill about 3 orks outside of rapid fire range, and 6 within. Now they'd kill 1-2. Suddenly they aren't making such a big dent in that huge mob anymore.

If you give terminators 3 wounds each (assuming normal power armour marines get 2) and redesign the rules so that they can still get a slim save against plasma weapons, they're suddenly viable again.

Eh, I'm getting sidetracked. My point is, AoS has lots of good ideas for simple intuitive gameplay and I recommend trying them out. And if you're redesigning the game, why not use the opportunity to fix the balance too?

True, those Saves which protect against Mortal Wounds are pretty rare, but they are as close to Invulnerable Saves in 40K as we are likely to find, and Destroyer Weapons take out Invulnerable Saves.

Remember the purpose of Destroyer Weapons is to have the raw power to damage a combat Vehicles and Monsters the size of buildings at least as easily as a Plasma Rifle can damage the average HQ. If a person got hit by a 16" shell, it would be a miracle that they weren't turned to pink mist, energy shield or not.

But as you say (and I also referenced), there are ways to deal with it. Like the higher Wound counts on models, Destroyer Weapons could much inflict a much higher number of Wounds per Hit than your average Weapon, if such a mechanic was allowed in this setup of the game.

 Charistoph wrote:
True, those Saves which protect against Mortal Wounds are pretty rare, but they are as close to Invulnerable Saves in 40K as we are likely to find, and Destroyer Weapons take out Invulnerable Saves.

Remember the purpose of Destroyer Weapons is to have the raw power to damage a combat Vehicles and Monsters the size of buildings at least as easily as a Plasma Rifle can damage the average HQ. If a person got hit by a 16" shell, it would be a miracle that they weren't turned to pink mist, energy shield or not.

But as you say (and I also referenced), there are ways to deal with it. Like the higher Wound counts on models, Destroyer Weapons could much inflict a much higher number of Wounds per Hit than your average Weapon, if such a mechanic was allowed in this setup of the game.

I saw Fury again recently...that tank shell through that guy's head.

But yeah you're right. Which is why it should be possible for certain weapons to inflict multiple wounds per unsaved hit. Again, AoS has a system for it that can be easily converted for use in 40k. This would help deal with monstrous creatures too.

As I stated previously :
Invulnerable saves could either be
A minimal guaranteed save (as they are now)
A resistance to AP (like the idea of terminators having one more armour but without the fact they would have another chance to save on 6+)
An additional save.

I think all three choices are viable options. In fact they could each fit different units.
My preference would be the second option though.

I also think that some weaponry should have -4 / -5 AP. There should still be stuff that melts termies into the ground.

I however also think that AP 5-6 weapons should have no AP because of how widespread they currently are.
If bolters suddenly make my carapace veterans save on a 6 only ... there is a problem.

Some weapons that currently are AP 5 could be recosted to fit -1 AP since they are supposed to be good against armour. (dunno remember reading stuff about regular boltgun ammunition that sounded like it could pierce anything)

I kind of like the ide that invulnerable saves resist ap. They would need to be recalculated. Like terminators (and most invul saves) would just be a 1. But i could see some very few things getting a 2 and much rarer a 3. Off the top of my head the only 3 i can think of would be lychguard shields. But i am sure more exist in other armys.

Definitely some stuff to think about and some maths to do.

 Lance845 wrote:
I kind of like the ide that invulnerable saves resist ap. They would need to be recalculated. Like terminators (and most invul saves) would just be a 1. But i could see some very few things getting a 2 and much rarer a 3. Off the top of my head the only 3 i can think of would be lychguard shields. But i am sure more exist in other armys.

Definitely some stuff to think about and some maths to do.

Storm Shields and Dispersion Shields are the same thing in everything but name, army, and bits. Tzeentch Lords can get almost as close, I think.

But yeah, the 3++ is still rather rare, especially on non-HQs.

@ GreedyPizza

You're absolutely right. There's no reason why we should limit ourselves to one mechanic for invulnerable saves. And since AP:5 is pretty much the standard, standard weapons now need to have no effect on saves. Again, a lot of units have poor saves (6+ or 5+) so there's still a good chance to die anyway.

Outside of maybe adding a list or 2 The next major update will be writing out the rules into a Google Doc in an actual rule book format. This should come with changes to the way Cover, AP, and Invul saves work, vehicle Ramming, and maybe a couple adjustments to unit types, and maybe some other changes too. The Test lists will be updated to work with any changes that get made and formats that get adjusted. Still want more lists! Send um to me. Anything, ANYTHING helps.

I did some maths to calculate out a few different methods and I think I got some numbers that SHOULD work. Looking forward to the next round of play tests.

I'd like to help out with play testing too.

 Lance845 wrote:
I kind of like the ide that invulnerable saves resist ap. They would need to be recalculated. Like terminators (and most invul saves) would just be a 1. But i could see some very few things getting a 2 and much rarer a 3. Off the top of my head the only 3 i can think of would be lychguard shields. But i am sure more exist in other armys.

Definitely some stuff to think about and some maths to do.

Daemons will need to get an actual armor save then, as almost all of them only have a 5++ right now, with some khorne units having a 6+ armor save for some obscure reason.

The 5++ isnt a strong save, but having a save that can be taken against almost any weapon is a unique feature of the army that i think should be preserved in some way. I know you are a ways away from converting daemons to this system, just something to keep in mind.

True. In AoS, Horrors have a 6+ Save, Flamers have a 5+ Save, Heralds have a 5+ Save, and the Lords of Change have a 4+ Save.

Demons can keep their special flavour. Just state in their rules that their saves cannot be diminished.

Under a demon units profile: Demonic: Ignore the enemy's AP characteristic when making save rolls for [insert demon unit name here].

Actually, what's the rule for a demons invulnerable save called? Call it that and give that wording. Personally I'm in favour of following the AoS profiles for demon units but that's not my call.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'd like to help out with play testing too.

Build a 800 Point list, get a friend or so to do the same, submit them. I will convert them to the new stat lines so you can play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Colonel17 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I kind of like the ide that invulnerable saves resist ap. They would need to be recalculated. Like terminators (and most invul saves) would just be a 1. But i could see some very few things getting a 2 and much rarer a 3. Off the top of my head the only 3 i can think of would be lychguard shields. But i am sure more exist in other armys.

Definitely some stuff to think about and some maths to do.

Daemons will need to get an actual armor save then, as almost all of them only have a 5++ right now, with some khorne units having a 6+ armor save for some obscure reason.

The 5++ isnt a strong save, but having a save that can be taken against almost any weapon is a unique feature of the army that i think should be preserved in some way. I know you are a ways away from converting daemons to this system, just something to keep in mind.

Excellent point! I will take that into consideration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Under a demon units profile: Demonic: Ignore the enemy's AP characteristic when making save rolls for [insert demon unit name here].

Actually, what's the rule for a demons invulnerable save called? Call it that and give that wording. Personally I'm in favour of following the AoS profiles for demon units but that's not my call.

When I get to codexes it's going to come in 2 waves. First I am going to just convert stat lines so the army is playable at all. Then a second pass (which I am going to ask for a lot of help from the community for) is going to be a rebalancing in which I am going to try to fix the problems of the codexes and rebalance the costs to fix any issues that might come about when converted to the new system along with a few cost trends I like from 30k that I want to see.

I may be missing something?

As far as I can tell, the only reason 40k used additional rules for things like inv saves , Instant death,and Eternal warrior,etc.Was because the core resolution did not give a wide enough range of proportional results.

So why are you just transposing them into the new rules without looking at alternative options?

Have you considered the following points?

1)Proper proportionality in the resolution results should allow instant success and automatic failure to occur as a natural part of the resolution.
For example at the ends of the Armour /AP resolution spectrum, some armour will be invulnerable to some attacks, and some armour will be automatically penetrated by some attacks.
Why do you have to add on extra rules if the core resolution methods are doing their job properly?


2)Proper proportionality in the resolution also allows for graded success.
For example when rolling to wound, score an extra wound on the target model, for every '2 pips' higher you roll over the target score.

EG if the base score to wound is 4+, then you score 2 wounds on a roll of 6+.(Base 1 wound for beating the 4+ and an additional wound for beating the target score by 2)

This gives proportional chance of bonus success on the to wound resolution without having to add on ID and EW additional rules.

Have you a link to the latest revision of these rules, I have sort of lost track of where you are up to...

P.S.
I also can help but notice you have not noticed or commented on the way the current rules confuse/mix up the 3 clearly separate stages of resolution of an attack.
(Apart from to comment on the old system of hit mods instead of cover saves?)

Deamonic instability should just make the target harder to actually hit, as is phases between realities.In the same way cover makes a target harder to hit.IMO.

I can quote about half a dozen poplular game that abstract combat resolution as much or more than 40k does.
But NO game I know of abstract the results of the resolution as much as 40k does.

Lanrak wrote:
I may be missing something?

As far as I can tell, the only reason 40k used additional rules for things like inv saves , Instant death,and Eternal warrior,etc.Was because the core resolution did not give a wide enough range of proportional results.

So why are you just transposing them into the new rules without looking at alternative options?

This is being done in this discussion specifically so alternative options I may not have thought of can be tossed out.

Have you considered the following points?

1)Proper proportionality in the resolution results should allow instant success and automatic failure to occur as a natural part of the resolution.
For example at the ends of the Armour /AP resolution spectrum, some armour will be invulnerable to some attacks, and some armour will be automatically penetrated by some attacks.
Why do you have to add on extra rules if the core resolution methods are doing their job properly?

Str Vs T does this currently in a very limited fashion. I would very much prefer to keep it limited. When a gun is automatically incapable of doing anything the player is doing nothing. Doing nothing is counter to gameplay. When the other guy cannot roll a save he looses a model while doing nothing, I would prefer as many options as possible for players to actually do stuff.

2)Proper proportionality in the resolution also allows for graded success.
For example when rolling to wound, score an extra wound on the target model, for every '2 pips' higher you roll over the target score.

EG if the base score to wound is 4+, then you score 2 wounds on a roll of 6+.(Base 1 wound for beating the 4+ and an additional wound for beating the target score by 2)

This gives proportional chance of bonus success on the to wound resolution without having to add on ID and EW additional rules.

Interesting mechanically but gets more and more complex the more of this you add in. Could be counter to the flow of the game.

Have you a link to the latest revision of these rules, I have sort of lost track of where you are up to...

The current version of the rule is the first post. I update it every time I make an update. The change log at the top says what has changed and when.

P.S.
I also can help but notice you have not noticed or commented on the way the current rules confuse/mix up the 3 clearly separate stages of resolution of an attack.
(Apart from to comment on the old system of hit mods instead of cover saves?)

What are you talking about? The current version of the rule use normal 40k cover/armor/ and invulnerable saves. Shooting and wounding and save resolution works exactly like 40k right now. The rules have not been updated to reflect any changes yet.

Deamonic instability should just make the target harder to actually hit, as is phases between realities.In the same way cover makes a target harder to hit.IMO.

Noted.

Lance845.
I meant the GW written 40k rules confuse/mix up the three basic stages of damage resolution.(I was not referring to anything you,had proposed.)

(As war game rules are more complex than abstract game rules , they have to follow clearly understood principals to result in intuitive and straight forward rules. )

The natural order of damage resolution is,
Accuracy of attack.(To hit.)

Weapon and armour interaction.(To save.)

Resolution of actual damage.(To wound.)

This was switched around to to hit, to wound ,to save ,for WHFB, to abstract the order of resolution to better fit the game play derived from its its game turn mechanic and unit types.

It stuck with GW s 40k because the game turn stuck with 40k from WHFB 3rd ed .(RT )

I think its better not to abstract the natural order of damage resolution without a really good reason.

1)So anything in the game that effects the chance to hit should be included in the to hit part of the damage resolution.
(GW added extra saves to the game to cover things that should alter the chance to hit. )

2)Weapon and armour interaction should include ALL units types and be resolved in a similar way.

2+ 3+4+5+6+- do not cover a wide enough range of results to cover the diversity in the 40k units.
Some models got unmodified saves,(inv).(Which ignored the core mechanic of the AP system)And for a time some special rules ignored the effects of some invulnerable saves.(Not sure if they still exist?)

Some models got a completely different damage resolution system, (causing imbalance in the game.)

Some models got extra wounds, or a special rule (EW )to ignore another special rule (ID).

3)Actual damage to units should be the final stage of the resolution .(Physical or psychological damage.)

When a game has to add on extra save rolls like FNP/WBB you know its development has run out of control.(IMO)

Really, invulnerable saves in 40K are there to keep heroic characters/leaders around, and keep the opponent from easily bumping them off in the 1st turn.

If we could find a better way of keeping HQ's and characters around, a lot of - if not all - Invulnable saves could be eliminated (and the extra wounds human-sized characters get).

Lanrak wrote:
Lance845.
I meant the GW written 40k rules confuse/mix up the three basic stages of damage resolution.(I was not referring to anything you,had proposed.)

(As war game rules are more complex than abstract game rules , they have to follow clearly understood principals to result in intuitive and straight forward rules. )

The natural order of damage resolution is,
Accuracy of attack.(To hit.)

Weapon and armour interaction.(To save.)

Resolution of actual damage.(To wound.)

I think you are caught up in the specific wording they use as opposed to the actual mechanics.

The roll to wound is not actually wounding. The roll to wound is to see if the strength of the weapon penetrates the targets inherent durability. That is why a roll "to wound" is str vs T.

Now, arguably, this could be enough. The targets T is all you need to penetrate to deal your damage. But to make the target a more active participant in the game they get to roll a save. It represents a number of different mitigating factors but the point is that there is a second mitigating element besides the targets inherent toughness. Both saves and T are based on different factors in regular 40k. T values are generally based around a baseline for the race. Marines being t4, bikes (light vehicles) increasing it by 1. While saves are based on the individuals equipment. A marine in Terminator armor is the same T as a marine in power armor. Meaning anti tank weaponry would have the same chance of injury if the armor itself was not in the way.

Point being, just because they call it "to wound" does not mean it's the roll that results in actual wounds. I don't think it's particularly mixed up. It follows it's own logical progression regardless of what they call it.

@Stormonu.
I agree that invulnerable saves were added to 40k as a blanket 'quick fix' without actually looking at the real issues .(Inv save represent , better armour, being harder to hit, having more skill/able to avoid deadly situations etc. )

And this sort of ''short sighted knee jerk quick fix mentality'' has been the halmark of published 40k rules since 1998.
I understand lots of people who have only experienced 40k rules after this point in time , may think 'its the only way of doing things to make a 40k game.'

And just copy huge amounts of resolution methods mechanics and rules from GWs 40k without any sort of objective critique ,or functional justification for doing so.

I get accused of asking the same questions of everyone wanting to write new rules for 40k.
I do not want to enforce my personal opinion on anyone, just ask people to look critically at what the 40k rules contain.And be clear about the sort of game they want to end up with. As this will help them get rid of all the 'dead wood'* from the GW rules.
(*This varies depending on what game you want to end up with obviously. )

@Lance 845.
War game rules are called rules for a reason.
They are rules, that follow well understood process of communicating information.

Here is an example of an actual rule.
The movement phase,In the movement phase all movement of units /models takes place.

Can you see how straight forward and simple this instruction of the rule is.

Every exception you add to this rule makes the information more complicated.
EG Running in the shooting phase, moving into assault in the assault phase, push backs, sweeping advances ,compulsory movement at the start of turn.Etc.

The more exceptions you add the less actual rules there are, and it becomes a confused mess.(GWs development of 40k rules is a prime example of this as you know.)

(The rule sets I enjoy have straight forward rules and complex game play. Because the rules are written with clear communication of function in mind.And all the inspiring background narrative and art work, is kept separate.)

I have no objection to using opposed values to determine if an attack causes physical damage.(S vs T for example)
But the damage roll is used to determine the damage,( if any,) that is inflicted.And therefore these values should be used JUST for that purpose.

Thank you for reminding me of another 'mix up of functions' GW have committed.

When infantry is mounted on bikes it improves their basic speed.This in itself could be seen as a big enough bonus.
(They spend much less time subjected to enemy fire.)
If the bikes are armoured , eg have heavy fairings then adding +1 to the riders armour save from the front could also be seen as a logical bonus.

But how in the name of all sanity does riding a motorbike make you physically more resilient to damage.Do you grow extra internal organs or scaly skin?

My point is'artistic woolly thinking' and not caring about structure of the rules,has lead to a lot of confusion about how the rules for 40k actually are supposed to function.

I am happy to use 'fluff explanations' to make concessions to game play requirements.(Speed up resolution with out abstracting them too much.)

But using 'fluff explanations' to excuse poor game development and shoddy rules writing I can not support.

Basically rules are a set of instructions to play the game , the words used, and how they are used in the instruction set are VERY important.

P.S.
Can you justify altering the 'natural order' of combat resolution, when you have removed the only reason for doing so?(The alternating game turn.)