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.

kirotheavenger wrote:I agree it does increase variability, but not satisfactorily so.

"Satisfactorily" is a personal thing. Some find it irritating, and a lot can depend on your army, such as the Guardsmen you mentioned, while some do not.

kirotheavenger wrote:There's many ways to do it. What Canadian suggests with firepower pools is a common and effective way of doing things. I don't think 40k's method is fundementally flawed at all, I just think it's too many rolls in the sequence. Especially if you throw in 'blasts', rerolls, variable damage, and special saves it just gets ridiculous (not to mention some of those can mean fast-rolling becomes impossible so you're rolling 15 dice one-by-one).

And I know of a game where both hitting and wounding are done on the same roll. How it manages it is an exploding dice mechanic where 6s can add more dice to the overall pool while 4,5, both count for a hit. The number of hits is compared against the durability of the target and if you beat the number, you do damage, and if you double it, you crit adding special effects. Of course, that was a starship game, not an infantry game.

Considering the scale 40K operates, I think the current Hit, Wound, Save system is about right. The added mechanics are questionable, to say nothing about the phrasing in which those added mechanics are used, but the base system is sound.

Internet double post.

Maybe we can bring back Parry rolls as well

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe we can bring back Parry rolls as well

Maybe as a Melee-only Invul-type save? The alternative would be a Defense boost in melee. I could see some models like Wyches and the Emperor's Champion having such a skill.

@ OP - Yeah I also think tis a bad change along with initiative being gone completely. High intitiative along with high weapon skill marked you out as being good at combat vs other people/ things of differing level/skill.

Now its just Number of attacks, AP and how many rerolls you can get. And it doesn't matter if you are hitting a stationary rhino or a lightning quick assasin... (despite people insiting this is an abstraction and the rhino is actually moving.. *honest guvna*).

Alas. More accessible. Easier. Quicker.. yadaa yadaa yadda..

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe we can bring back Parry rolls as well

Ugh. I know you're poking fun, but this thread keeps reminding me of the nightmare of resolving 2nd edition combat, one pair of combatants at a time.

Voss wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe we can bring back Parry rolls as well

Ugh. I know you're poking fun, but this thread keeps reminding me of the nightmare of resolving 2nd edition combat, one pair of combatants at a time.

It was a pain. But it also made it more likely for some single, high-skill models to take on a crowd. A Banshee taking out 3-4 Marines by herself, for example. Fun rolls counting up fumbles, criticals and parries

 Charistoph wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe we can bring back Parry rolls as well

Maybe as a Melee-only Invul-type save? The alternative would be a Defense boost in melee. I could see some models like Wyches and the Emperor's Champion having such a skill.

But melee doesn't need to be toned down. Definitely not if also shooting doesn't get an equivalent type of save/evasion.

Evasion as a game mechanic could be interesting, adding layers of saves against melee is not.

 Blackie wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe we can bring back Parry rolls as well

Maybe as a Melee-only Invul-type save? The alternative would be a Defense boost in melee. I could see some models like Wyches and the Emperor's Champion having such a skill.

But melee doesn't need to be toned down. Definitely not if also shooting doesn't get an equivalent type of save/evasion.

Evasion as a game mechanic could be interesting, adding layers of saves against melee is not.

Shooting gets modifications from Cover, and such things as game balance isn't a priority for Games Workshop as much as characterful rules.

I'm not totally disagreeing in terms of game balance, but such things can be addressed by point value and provide some flavor to units where it might otherwise be rather bland and boring.

Spoletta wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Dude, I know you dislike marines, but don't call them a one army. Because there is a difference betwee a under 40% win rate DA army, pre codex, and a WS one which is only worse then harlis and co.

Plus all those armies get a ton of buffs and stacking rules on top of each other. And it can't even be said that those are 9th ed changes, because marines actually got worse comparing how they were at the end of 8th, and Custodes and harlis run on old books.

Only DG and necron have good 9th ed rules, but I have no idea what that has to do with being elite. One army spams super efficient termininators and a big monster like Mortarion, or even more termintors, and the other spams warriors and a Ctan. Is the elite thing related to the lore or number of units being taken in your argument, because I don;t think I understand you here.

The difference between DA and WS is the same as Farsight Enclaves and Bork'an Sept.

One army. Different sub factions.

Call me when Bork'an gets a book. Until then, they are not the same in the least.

Call me back when DA have their own codex again. While they are a add on to the codex SM they are just that. Codex SM.

SM is a superfaction now, like Chaos. Sorry if you can't see things like they are.
No reason to hijack this thread either though, so I'll not try to convince you.

LOL you serious? They share most of the unit entries. Don't pretend they're a different army just because they can mix their Terminators hahahahaha.

Bolt Action moves the difficulty to hit be based on the defender’s skill (green 3+, experienced 4+, veteran 5+).

As far as 40K goes, giving a elite unit a -1 to be hit in melee should cover the current system.

Elite: when this unit is attacked in hand to hand, the attacker suffers a -1 penalty to hit.

the_scotsman wrote:
Infinity, Battlegroup, Flames of War, and Heroscape to my memory have some kind of die roll the defending player commonly makes.

And infinity doesnt shy away with modifiers. Anyone can melee but if you bring a martial arts expert, be prepared to have a harder time hitting them and they'll have an easier time critting you.

Thats why i mostly play infinity nowadays, i feel like i can actually defend myself.

I think an evasion stat would definitely help.

As it stands, 40k is really struggling to give fast, lightly-armoured units appropriate defences without just resorting to 'moar armour' (see the new Kabalite Warriors).

There's also the other aspect, in that units have just as much difficulty hitting a Land Raider or Imperial Knight from 10ft away as they do hitting a turbo-boosting Reaver on the other side of the table.

There could also be modifiers to the Evasion stat. e.g. models could get +1 Evasion if the attacker isn't within half range with a non-Pistol weapon. Maybe +1 evasion when in cover, instead of the current bonus to armour save?

Could help make the game less lethal (especially at range).

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe we can bring back Parry rolls as well

Ugh. I know you're poking fun, but this thread keeps reminding me of the nightmare of resolving 2nd edition combat, one pair of combatants at a time.

It was a pain. But it also made it more likely for some single, high-skill models to take on a crowd. A Banshee taking out 3-4 Marines by herself, for example. Fun rolls counting up fumbles, criticals and parries

I ran some small scale skirmish games of 40 using a mixture of 2nd ed and Necromunda rules - quite good fun esp when it was Deathwatch vs Aliens Vs Predators

Slayer-Fan123 796575 11070833 wrote:
LOL you serious? They share most of the unit entries. Don't pretend they're a different army just because they can mix their Terminators hahahahaha.

WS do not have DA unique speeders, unique RW and DW units, interogator chaplains , biker apothecaries etc. And this is before any actual relic, warlord traits, psychic powers or rules differences.

Karol wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 796575 11070833 wrote:
LOL you serious? They share most of the unit entries. Don't pretend they're a different army just because they can mix their Terminators hahahahaha.

WS do not have DA unique speeders, unique RW and DW units, interogator chaplains , biker apothecaries etc. And this is before any actual relic, warlord traits, psychic powers or rules differences.

Basically Bork'an isn't a codex because there aren't 6 Bork'an warlord traits, relics and stratagems. There is only one.
Which I guess means FSE is now half a separate faction.

I like how you ignore the DA flyers, 2 speeders, the speeder HQ, special termintors, knights, unique to DA characters that aren't special characters etc. But even if it was the case. DA would be a faction and not a bunch of traits, because they exist for over twice as long as I live and have a history of multiple books behind them. Just because this edition GW decied to force DA players to buy two books, and not name the second one a codex does not matter a thing.

Karol wrote:
I like how you ignore the DA flyers, 2 speeders, the speeder HQ, special termintors, knights, unique to DA characters that aren't special characters etc. But even if it was the case. DA would be a faction and not a bunch of traits, because they exist for over twice as long as I live and have a history of multiple books behind them. Just because this edition GW decied to force DA players to buy two books, and not name the second one a codex does not matter a thing.

Well, you're correct in that regard. The book aspect doesn't matter at all.

Karol wrote:
I like how you ignore the DA flyers, 2 speeders, the speeder HQ, special termintors, knights, unique to DA characters that aren't special characters etc. But even if it was the case. DA would be a faction and not a bunch of traits, because they exist for over twice as long as I live and have a history of multiple books behind them. Just because this edition GW decied to force DA players to buy two books, and not name the second one a codex does not matter a thing.

Dark Angels are a subfaction of the Adeptus Asartes which is a subfaction of the Imperium

Look at the keywords.

Speaking as someone who has had Dark Angels Marines and books for decades

You are just playing with words here. DA are a separate faction. When adeptus mechanicus get an update, then it does not mean that automaticaly DA got updated too. Or when SW get primaris TWC and wulfen, IF just got a new set of models and rules too.

Armies like DA or BA or SW are separate factions, just as much as eldar or tau are. And claiming that they are the same as some sub faction of tau is not true. The number of models, different rules and history is just different.

And saying that they stopped to be a codex faction, because GW decided to be donkey-caves and split marine books in half, is a weak argument too.

Karol wrote:
You are just playing with words here. DA are a separate faction. When adeptus mechanicus get an update, then it does not mean that automaticaly DA got updated too. Or when SW get primaris TWC and wulfen, IF just got a new set of models and rules too.

Armies like DA or BA or SW are separate factions, just as much as eldar or tau are. And claiming that they are the same as some sub faction of tau is not true. The number of models, different rules and history is just different.

And saying that they stopped to be a codex faction, because GW decided to be donkey-caves and split marine books in half, is a weak argument too.

Not according to GW. They were once just another chapter, then they had a Codex, now they (quite rightly) don't.

Same as Black Templars had a Codex - now they don't.

Eldar are a Race and a true Faction - Craftworld Eldar are a sub faction, Ulthwe is a sub faction of the Craftworlds - equivalent to the Wolves or the Angels.
Orks are a Race, Bad Moons are a sub faction with indivdual tribes equivalent to the Wolves of the Angels

Dark Angels are a subfaction of the Adeptus Astartes which is a subfaction of the Imperium

Look at the keywords.

Speaking as someone who has had Dark Angels Marines and books for decades

How do you not know this?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Not according to GW. They were once just another chapter, then they had a Codex, now they (quite rightly) don't.

Same as Black Templars had a Codex - now they don't.

Eldar are a Race and a true Faction - Craftworld Eldar are a sub faction, Ulthwe is a sub faction of the Craftworlds - equivalent to the Wolves or the Angels.
Orks are a Race, Bad Moons are a sub faction with indivdual tribes equivalent to the Wolves of the Angels

Dark Angels are a subfaction of the Adeptus Astartes which is a subfaction of the Imperium

Look at the keywords.

Speaking as someone who has had Dark Angels Marines and books for decades

How do you not know this?

Does it matter what GW says when DAs alone have more unique unit entries than some stand-alone factions have unit entries period?

They share 90% of their Dex with other marines.

Over 100 data sheets. Dozens of warlord traits, powers, relics, and other miscellaneous.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Does it matter what GW says when DAs alone have more unique unit entries than some stand-alone factions have unit entries period?

Well, when it was GW who dropped the DA codex in favor of a supplement, I think it does matter. It's even funnier when Dark Angels are considered a codex-adherent chapter of Astartes while Black Templar aren't, but BT were folded in first.

I don't know what this has to do with addressing the Weapon Skill system, though. If any of you all want to continue this type of discussion, please open up a new thread.

You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.

What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?

 Mezmorki wrote:
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.

What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?

+1, from someone that played back during 2nd edition and on and off through 8th and has been keeping up with 9th. Somewhere between 3rd and 5th is the better median in my opinion.

IMO they could fix a lot of issues with the game regarding fast light units and relative power if they did the following:

Reintroduce Initiative.

Make WS and BS comparative rolls AGAINST Initiative.

you don't need Initiative to determine who strikes first if it reflects the unit's speed by how EASILY it can be hit.


You collapse all the complexity of speed, agility and striking into a single stat and comparison mechanic.


It also gives you the opportunity to reduce the lethality of the game based on difficulty to hit.

It also means modifiers can be to WS and BS, rather than to the dice roll (which has very little movement in it).



you do this and you solve a lot of design space issues in the game.

BS 4 marine vs I4 eldar - 4+ to hit.

BS 8 vs I4 2+ to hit.

WS7 Phoenix lord vs I5 marine, 3+ to hit.
WS 6 marine captain vs I8 Solitaire, 5+ to hit.

You very easily create that 'speed is defence' aspect of the game, without having to create special rules to reflect it.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.

What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?

+1, from someone that played back during 2nd edition and on and off through 8th and has been keeping up with 9th. Somewhere between 3rd and 5th is the better median in my opinion.

Seconded. Imo 4th was peak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
IMO they could fix a lot of issues with the game regarding fast light units and relative power if they did the following:

Reintroduce Initiative.

Make WS and BS comparative rolls AGAINST Initiative.

you don't need Initiative to determine who strikes first if it reflects the unit's speed by how EASILY it can be hit.


You collapse all the complexity of speed, agility and striking into a single stat and comparison mechanic.


It also gives you the opportunity to reduce the lethality of the game based on difficulty to hit.

It also means modifiers can be to WS and BS, rather than to the dice roll (which has very little movement in it).



you do this and you solve a lot of design space issues in the game.

BS 4 marine vs I4 eldar - 4+ to hit.

BS 8 vs I4 2+ to hit.

WS7 Phoenix lord vs I5 marine, 3+ to hit.
WS 6 marine captain vs I8 Solitaire, 5+ to hit.

You very easily create that 'speed is defence' aspect of the game, without having to create special rules to reflect it.

Interesting.

That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.

Vehicle initiative could also be reflected by how fast they went.

ie, a stationary vehicle might have an Initiative of 1 (making everyone hit them on 2).

But a vehicle that moved 20" might be I5 and air craft might always be I10 regardless etc.

In terms of hitting weak points etc, you could say that 6s to hit vehicles gain +1 to strength, and give them all higher T values than normal.

Something like this means you could also go back to the old T vs S table where T8 can't be wounded by S4 - but on 6s to hit against a vehicle you could get a +1 strength and thereby wound on 6s.



Another advantage of going back to opposed WS and BS is that the values can be stretched out far more than they currently are.

ie, a marine is 4/4, a veteran is 5/5 etc.

You can actually reflect experience and skill in the stats, rather than having to invent new weapons in order to show why sternguard are better than normal tacticals.


You can effectively use the 2nd ed profiles of units, just comparing their WS and BS to I.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.

What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?

+1, from someone that played back during 2nd edition and on and off through 8th and has been keeping up with 9th. Somewhere between 3rd and 5th is the better median in my opinion.

I feel like this point just seems to have been forgotten.. It used to be brought up all the time when 8th was young. Boy how we have come full circle..

This needs to be brought up again and again IMO.. Maybe we can go back to WS v WS and initiative.

Lack of templates and firing arcs I can live with.. But the cc aspect is a whole other kettle of what the fudgery...