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.

Martel732 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.

"Stupidly broken" might be a little harsh. "Seriously undercosted" would be a better description. Even then, they're only really bad in the Decurion (which is one of the things that I agree needs to be rebalanced).

The amount of damage they sponge puts them into "stupidly broken" territory. There is no assault unit they can't tarpit basically forever. They are a hit and run check.

I'll remember that the next time my 6 Wraiths are getting taken down in two rounds by Wulfen/TWC.

To clarify, Martel, I fully agree the Wraiths are deserving of a nerf, but there are still ways to counter them. Ignore them and kill the Spyder. Now they lack RP and you just have to get through 3+/3++. Still pretty tough, but any dedicated assault unit should be able to hold their own considering Wraith pretty much have to rely on 6s to wound to actually bring most things down. Bump the Wraith up by about 10ppm and they're actually pretty balanced.

@En Tyme
What is wrong with releasing next edition beta for play testing to the community, during the 4 years the current edition runs for?

Most game companies only release the next edition of the game after they have play tested it to death to make sure it is an actual improvement in terms of game play and game balance.

GW are just going to cash grab release* for the length of this edition any way.(Little to no play testing , but a crap ton of special snowflake rules.)

So why not try to fix the core issues before the next edition rolls round?

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldn't be able to use Wraiths as they exist currently anyway. They are stupid broken.

"Stupidly broken" might be a little harsh. "Seriously undercosted" would be a better description. Even then, they're only really bad in the Decurion (which is one of the things that I agree needs to be rebalanced).

The amount of damage they sponge puts them into "stupidly broken" territory. There is no assault unit they can't tarpit basically forever. They are a hit and run check.

I'll remember that the next time my 6 Wraiths are getting taken down in two rounds by Wulfen/TWC.

To clarify, Martel, I fully agree the Wraiths are deserving of a nerf, but there are still ways to counter them. Ignore them and kill the Spyder. Now they lack RP and you just have to get through 3+/3++. Still pretty tough, but any dedicated assault unit should be able to hold their own considering Wraith pretty much have to rely on 6s to wound to actually bring most things down. Bump the Wraith up by about 10ppm and they're actually pretty balanced.

I hate the SW so much. I've got nothing that can touch Wraiths. Nothing.

 EnTyme wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.

Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.

This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.

I fully agree that this would be an extremely effective way to balance a game, but can you imagine the backlash from the community if we were told all but a few of our units are now (temporarily) illegal in the game? You'd basically squatting the entire game for a short time. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but if you told me I couldn't use my Wraiths because they haven't been updated yet, I'll be the first to tell you exactly where you can stick those new rules no matter how balanced they are.

You don't need to "squat" any units. You just stop releasing any new rules/units until the playtesting and balancing is done and then release the new rules as one big release. I agree that it would be pretty awful to just say "we know (unit x) has serious issues so it's removed from the game until the releases" and would not be for that in any way, shape, or form

 Battlesong wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.

Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.

This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.

I fully agree that this would be an extremely effective way to balance a game, but can you imagine the backlash from the community if we were told all but a few of our units are now (temporarily) illegal in the game? You'd basically squatting the entire game for a short time. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but if you told me I couldn't use my Wraiths because they haven't been updated yet, I'll be the first to tell you exactly where you can stick those new rules no matter how balanced they are.

You don't need to "squat" any units. You just stop releasing any new rules/units until the playtesting and balancing is done and then release the new rules as one big release. I agree that it would be pretty awful to just say "we know (unit x) has serious issues so it's removed from the game until the releases" and would not be for that in any way, shape, or form

This would be my approach. A simple point FAQ would tide the game over for a while. Most people would agree that WraithKnights would be more fair at 500 or 600 pts.

Lanrak wrote:

So why not try to fix the core issues before the next edition rolls round?

Because GW is a company that makes models for collectors and write stories about them and not rules for gaming
They just have some books with gaming rules to please those collectors who also want to play with their stuff

Their books are mainly there for story telling and background information and not to actually play a game.

If we want to have something we can call "gaming rules" for the next edition we have to do this on our own

Lanrak wrote:
@En Tyme
What is wrong with releasing next edition beta for play testing to the community, during the 4 years the current edition runs for?

Most game companies only release the next edition of the game after they have play tested it to death to make sure it is an actual improvement in terms of game play and game balance.

GW are just going to cash grab release* for the length of this edition any way.(Little to no play testing , but a crap ton of special snowflake rules.)

So why not try to fix the core issues before the next edition rolls round?

If we're talking about beta testing, that's another thing entirely. I thought you were basically talking about launching 8th edition with only a barebones CAD for each army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I hate the SW so much. I've got nothing that can touch Wraiths. Nothing.

There are now four SW players at my FLGS. Of the last six games I have played, five have been against Team Jacob. It pains my Scandinavian heritage to say this, but I'm starting to legitimately hate them. A lot of it has to do with the fact that as a Necron player, I have to sit and watch people talk gak on my faction day in and day out, yet the equally broken new SW Decurion gets a free pass for some reason. If you don't think it's broken, you obviously haven't played against a competent player running it. I've heard the new Demon formation is even worse, but I haven't seen it yet, so I won't comment. Sorry to sidetrack the thread here.

 EnTyme wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
I believe Breng77 was trying to say start with the few basic HQ unit and core units for all the factions, and get them balanced at the unit level.By heavy and diligent play testing.

Then AFTER the cores of the factions are balanced to the satisfaction of the majority of player,Then add a few more units to each faction.
Balance these new units to each other and the core units to the satisfaction of the majority of players then rinse and repeat.

This is the sensible and practical way to balance a war game, ,and is basically how most game companies balance games.AFAIK.

I fully agree that this would be an extremely effective way to balance a game, but can you imagine the backlash from the community if we were told all but a few of our units are now (temporarily) illegal in the game? You'd basically squatting the entire game for a short time. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but if you told me I couldn't use my Wraiths because they haven't been updated yet, I'll be the first to tell you exactly where you can stick those new rules no matter how balanced they are.

Lanrak had it about right. Malifaux did just what you describe when they released their new edition, ~half of the units in the game did not have an official release until 1 year into the game release. However, the second half was in open beta with free rules online for playtesting. I think the issue would be that GW has too many units and factions. Malifaux released something like 15 units for each of their 7 factions in the original release. The problem GW runs into is they would have to do just about he opposite 7 units for each of their 15ish factions.

Were I to break down the factions into partial playtest I would probably go with.

Generic HQ -2-3 per faction, no psykers to start leave the psyker rules until a later release
Elites - 2 per faction
Troops -2 per faction
Fast- 2 per faction
Heavy- 2 per faction

Probably start with mostly infantry units, then add other types in later releases. SO you put out the first release and the first open beta at edition release. Playtest and release rules every ~6 months.

I agree it would drive people away, but I also think it is the only way for things to end up truly balanced.

Breng77 wrote:
Were I to break down the factions into partial playtest I would probably go with.

Generic HQ -2-3 per faction, no psykers to start leave the psyker rules until a later release
Elites - 2 per faction
Troops -2 per faction
Fast- 2 per faction
Heavy- 2 per faction

Probably start with mostly infantry units, then add other types in later releases. SO you put out the first release and the first open beta at edition release. Playtest and release rules every ~6 months.

I agree it would drive people away, but I also think it is the only way for things to end up truly balanced.

What if this were presented as a Beta, whose rules could be downloaded for free? Players who want to keep using the current rules, but players who want more balanced games download the new rules, and provide their post-playtest feedback on a forum linked to the page. It would start out with a couple basic units of each category as you suggested, and when those are as balanced as they can be they start adding the rest of the units.

They get all of the free beta-testing they want, and players get to play the improving rules for free until the Beta ends, at which point the updated Core Rules and Codexes will all be released simultaneously.

The Codexes and Core Rules would be just the rules, and relevant pictures. All of the extra lore could be sold separately in its own book, so people who want the lore have it all in one place, and the rest of us have cheaper, smaller rulebooks to carry around.

The problem with a beta only situation is that fewer people will participate in it. If it is beta only many people will still only use the current rules. The other issue with releasing core rules and codexes in one big release is that it is a poor buisiness plan as new releases are what keep the player buying things. A beta would be better than nothing, but would have a lot less player buy in than a smaller beta, then a release, then a second beta, then another release, etc.

The other issue is that trying to rewrite and beta test the whole system at one time (for a single release) would take years to achieve.

@Breng77.
Oddly enough lots of the war game companies out there grow their customer base by having good rule sets.
So they are not locked into thinking they have to maximize returns of a shrinking customer base.

It is quite apparent GW plc are just going to sell toy soldiers to their loyal collectors and the rules for 40k are seen as just an additional sales tool.

So any actual attempt at actual game development and game balance has to come from the community.

However as there are lots of people who think 40k is,
a)Great as it is,
b)Just needs a few more special rules ,
c)Can be fixed with a few house rules,
d)A skirmish game,
e)A complete mess that needs complete and total ground up rewrite focusing on detailed unit interaction.
f)Just needs to borrow a few ideas from game X.
And many more....

I think it is important to be absolutely clear what any fan project is going to attempt to do .

I have gone into more detail in the fixing 40k general concepts and ideas thread...

@Lanrak, many try to grow, but they also think about maximizing returns on their existing base. I cannot think of many miniatures games that don't have a consistent flow of new units/rules. Most don't do it like GW where there is a continual shift of balance to drive sales, but instead put out new cool balanced units that people want to have.

Once the game was balanced, they could go back to releasing Codexes one at a time. However, it is vital that new updates improve the game's balance, and don't simply make one faction stronger than the others.

But the initial release needs to be all at once, because balanced Codexes should not be up against the broken nonsense currently in the game.

@Bill1138.
Unfortunately when you rely on all or nothing special rules to do the job of the core rules should do.
Poor game balance and diffuse and confusing rules are pretty much a foregone conclusion.

@Breng77.
When the rules are well written you can grow the game and the players can grow with the game if they want to.

Poor rules like 40k just reset and regurgitate the same broken mess every few years.
So all that can be expanded in the minature range as the game play is restricted by the complete lack of actual game development.

Lanrak wrote:
@Bill1138.
Unfortunately when you rely on all or nothing special rules to do the job of the core rules should do.
Poor game balance and diffuse and confusing rules are pretty much a foregone conclusion.

??? Where did I come across as implying an "all or nothing" approach to special rules? My preference has been a ground-up re-write of everything (core rules and Codexes) since I started this thread, with the majority of the special rules being in the core rulebook, and a smaller number of special rules existing for certain special snowflake units.

 Bill1138 wrote:

My preference has been a ground-up re-write of everything (core rules and Codexes) since I started this thread, with the majority of the special rules being in the core rulebook, and a smaller number of special rules existing for certain special snowflake units.

You should have a look on this
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBXYftgKUUcN6Rleij3cZnoufY1c_xA9nlrJlI0jh7U/edit?usp=sharing

And special rules are a negative term because of GW's bad design.
Because in 40k there are only the weak and old fractions following the core rules while everything new overwrite 90% of those with special rules.

@Bill1138.
Apologies, I was referring to the way GW plc use all or nothing special rules!

I should have posted..
Unfortunately when you rely on all or nothing special rules to do the job of the core rules should do.Like GW does.
Poor game balance and diffuse and confusing rules are pretty much a foregone conclusion.

@Kodos.
I do not think your 'better edited rules with well though out house rules added, ' class as a 'ground up re-write to fix the issues with the core rules'.
Even though they do address some the worst symptoms of GW complete lack of actual game development.

Your comprehensive and extensive intelligently applied set of house rules,is an improvement obviously, but does nothing to address the issues in the core rules .

WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods are not really suitable for a 40k battle game.
(As discussed at length in the Fixing 40k, general concepts and ideas thread.)

As a result any 40k rule set that is based on ancient warfare skirmish rules, is going to need lots of special rules to cover the bits that these inappropriate rules do not cover.Hence the massive over complication due to far too many special rules patching up the game play.

Lots of modern games use straight forward rules to deliver complex tactical, interaction.
I prefer this to the 'Yahtzee meets Top Trumps' rules writing /toy sales promotion style of GW plc.

I could well be in a minority, but GW plc sales volumes seem to tell a different story.

RE: my handicap idea. If I set something up (database) online would people want to help develop it? I estimate its about 2 hours work per codex if you are experienced in it.

But I only play SW and Eldar

I think the start would simply be to look at the Las Vegas Open lists and apply handicap to units and unit set ups that are common.

Then have a way to cut n paste a battlescribe list into the website.

I genuinely think it'll work

Lanrak wrote:

WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods are not really suitable for a 40k battle game.
(As discussed at length in the Fixing 40k, general concepts and ideas thread.)

If you want to get completely away from the original GW design, there is just no reason to not change to Mantics Warpath.
The only reason to stay with GW and re-write the rules for 40k is because you like the "ancient warfare skirmish rules". If you do not, just directly get into Warpath (not that a re-write does not work, but spending a lot of time doing it while someone else already has done it, is not the best idea).

And there are a lot of people who like the ancient core of the rules

you don't need to get away from any GW design you just need a inverse points mechanic. I think I will just go away and make one, it's very easy to do and would cover everything perfectly

@Kodos.
Which original GW 40k design are you referring to?
The RPG/skirmish hybrid WHFB in space game of Rogue trader?Or the Large Skirmish rules for WHFB in space of 2nd ed 40k?

GW plc have moved the game to a large battle game , similar game size to the 6mm Epic games!

But despite this massive shift in game size, scale and scope.
GW plc corporate management have refused to let the game devs change the core rules to suit the new battle game!

Mantics Warpath is a fine game as it follows its design brief.But is simply has not got enough detailed unit interaction ,to cover the wider variety of units found in the 40k game.

Rather than use 80+ special rules to get the character of 40k like GW does.

I think using more suitable core rules with much fewer resolution methods and special rules , would allow more tactically complex game play, and drastically cut the complication.

In all the polls I have seen on why people like 40k , LESS THAN 5% of people voted for the GW rules as the reason they liked playing 40k.

So I would say more people have issues with the rules for 40k than those who do not.

@Conanman.
Please do this , as I would really like to see how it works.

there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced. we have FAR too many armys and rules. this is an example of people who are competitive, have a hobby, and don't understand that it just isn't the kinda game where the better player always wins and everything can be fair.

for starters you have dice. yes you can say "well if i take 6 dice i will be assured to role the number i want cus math" and many times this is true untill its not and it horribly ruins you. whens the last time a tennis player made the correct decision where to place a shot 5 times but 2 of them just didn't work out because "the law of avgs"

then we have no standardized boards. this alone is a massive thing that no one seems to consider. as an avid sc2 player and competitive gamer in general I can assure you that maps DO matter. a very prominent sc2 player geoff "incontrol" robinson who plays tyranids and admech all over the big w40k tournys i'm sure would be happy to cannon rush you and then agree with me. honestly thats all the man ever did pvz and he should be ashamed but i digress....


also to the guy above me. how arbitrary is that 5 percent number. "in all the polls ive seen about what people liked about 40k". so what now you added all those polls up just now in your head and the results came back 5 percent. were all these polls the same exact questions or did we extrapolate this from the tone of the poll. cmon don't make things up

Lanrak wrote:
Which original GW 40k design are you referring to?

The core of the game that never changed.
(stuff like that you have a ranged value with flat to hit, a melee stat vs melee stat table, IGYG with phases etc). You can break down the original design on one page and than turn it into a 10 model skirmish, fantasy unit based or sci fi mass skirmish game)

Lanrak wrote:
Mantics Warpath is a fine game as it follows its design brief.But is simply has not got enough detailed unit interaction ,to cover the wider variety of units found in the 40k game.

You looked into the latest Beta rules?
Warpath 3 allows more variety for units than 40k with all its special rules can. The may look not that different on paper but turn out to play more different than any two 40k armies do.

Lanrak wrote:
In all the polls I have seen on why people like 40k , LESS THAN 5% of people voted for the GW rules as the reason they liked playing 40k.

Yeah, everyone want to have better rules
And still, if you come up with changes or alternative rules, everyone want to stay with the original rules because your suggestions are going to far and the game will not be 40k any more.

eosgreen wrote:
there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced. we have FAR too many armys and rules

Compared to other games, in 40k is no difference between different fractions or armies. they are more or less all the same and what makes them feel different is the imbalance of their special rules.

For an example, Flames of War has much more different units, fractions, armies and rules than 40k (the 3 different possible lists of a single minor fraction play more different than all 40k armies together) and while it is not 100% balanced, compared to 40k it is light years ahead.

@eosgreen.
In all the polls I have seen across the forums.The people who voted for GWs rules as the reason they enjoyed playing 40k.
NEVER went above 5% in ANY of the polls at their end.
The Majority of the people voted for the background/art, or the minatures.etc.

I hope that makes my point it a bit clearer.

@Kodos.
But the core rules for 40k did change ,(for the worse).The removal of the Movement stat, and modifiers from the game left the core rules unable to cover enough of the game play.But rather than replace them with something better, they just put in multiple levels of complication and over eighty special rules!

The core rules now only cover standard infantry.(If that term can still be applied to 40k?)

I agree that the 40k relies heavily on special rules to show the differences between units.

The problem is if the core rules change too much they become too unfamiliar to the 40k players.If the do not change enough they are not worth moving too.

So the idea is to keep enough of the familiar aspects of 40k GAME PLAY.While significantly reducing complication in the rules , and ading more tactical depth.

All the other games I know of cover more variety of units with the core rules than GW 40k rules do,even with 40k ridiculous amount of special rules!
I am familiar with Mantics 3rd try at rules for Warpath, (Battle and skirmish rules.)
However, I am sure it would require more detailed unit interactions than this to do the wide variety of units found in 40k justice.

40k has NEVER had a rule set written specifically for it by GW. I Think a complete re-write from scratch is needed, and about 18 years overdue.

eosgreen wrote:
there will never be balance in this game. its impossible. you can get a "semblance" of balance but there are too many variables. if each army has to be special in its own way, then it can never be balanced.

I would appreciate if comments were kept constructive. We're brainstorming ways to improve the game for everyone, not attempting cold fusion.

Now if we revisit the idea of doing away with the Wound/Hull Point dichotomy, how many unit types does the game need to encompass all of the various units?

@Bill1138.
From a game mechanics point of view 40k only has 2 types of unit.
Units that remove models to show wounds/damage, and those that record wounds/damage separately.

Everything else should be evident from the units stat line.

Lanrak wrote:

But the core rules for 40k did change ,(for the worse).The removal of the Movement stat, and modifiers from the game left the core rules unable to cover enough of the game play.But rather than replace them with something better, they just put in multiple levels of complication and over eighty special rules!

Thats a good example, and why I got back to the roots and brought Movement back to the unit profile.
While the basic idea at first was not that bad, it went bad the time GW added too much special movement rules to bring something similar back to game instead of going the easy why and add the movement stat again (but this would have been shown that removing it was the wrong decision, and GW never make one).

the same for the AP system instead of armour save modification. Not a bad idea at first, after spamming AP2 weapons was no problem, the whole system broke (and was "cured" by GW with an improved Cover Save, FnP, ridiculous ward save).

while other rules were an improvement but not really thought to its end (having fixed size was good, bad to have it capped at size 3 in a game were buildings were used which should have had size 5, or a size 3 vehicle on a size 3 hill was not treated as size 6, was just bad design)

 Bill1138 wrote:

I would appreciate if comments were kept constructive. We're brainstorming ways to improve the game for everyone, not attempting cold fusion.

Now if we revisit the idea of doing away with the Wound/Hull Point dichotomy, how many unit types does the game need to encompass all of the various units?

None
The whole unit type stuff is only there to solve the problem that 40k has no movement value in the unit profile
Add movement to the profile and unit types are obsolete

So vehicles can be treated the same like other models.
They have Tank Armour instead of Toughness and Armour Save, are wounded like everything else in the game and have Wounds instead of Hull Points (eg it would be better to call it always Health Points to avoid confusion).

To roll to wound against tanks would be same like before, Strength + D6 VS Armour, compared with the standard to wound table (S9, D6 shows 4, wound a vehicle with Armour 13 on 4+ and strips 1 Wound)

And a trick to solve the problem with the low strength, high rate of fire, weapons being better against tanks would be: Strength+7-AP = Strength value to wound against Tanks.
eg: S9 DS2 = 9+7-2 = 14 = 4+ to wound a Land Raider (Armour bane than can simply add an additional Strength value)

Lanrak wrote:

@Conanman.
Please do this , as I would really like to see how it works.

Ready started.. registered www.eldararmy.com today .. it'll be a discussion board (ember discourse) plus a place to register and update handicaps. . Basically I'll post more tomorrow when it's nearly done..

All it will be is a parallel points system that can be PLUS (these units are overused over powered) or NEGATIVE (these units can be underused or under powered) .. want to see 4 devastator marines with heavy bolters alongside 4 with grav? CHECK want to see WraithKnights and Storm guardians on foot? CHECK

@Kodos.
In the 'rushed 11th hour scramble' to release a 40k battle game,lots of errors of judgment were evident.*
(After the devs had spent 3 years working on a refined skirmish game, the GW sales department canned it and wanted a battle game with similar amounts of minatures to WHFB, just a few weeks before going to print!!!.)

So it is at the start of 3rd edition where we see the flaws in the core rules for the first time clearly.

I would like to replace the things 40k lost at this time with better alternatives , than the really out dated things from 2nd ed.

If you use alternating phases, there is no need for over watch and the stalemate it can produce.And the over complication of all the extra rules that go with reaction rules in general. This also allows more tactical interaction between players.

If we give models a Mobility value, of a letter to denote how it moves , as well as a distance in inches.We can get more detailed terrain interaction .(This may be more suited to the advanced rules perhaps?)

You posted..
'So vehicles can be treated the same like other models'.
Totally agree with this statement and idea!!!

Then posted..
'They have Tank Armour instead of Toughness and Armour Save, are wounded like everything else in the game and have Wounds instead of Hull Points (eg it would be better to call it always Health Points to avoid confusion). '

And then you go on to use separate system that is quite complicated..

My concept is to give ALL models/units a Armour Value from 1 to 10.
And ALL weapons a Armour Piercing Value from 1 to 10.

Then generate the save on a chart.

Av/Ap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1........,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2.........3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3.........3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4.........2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
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........d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9........d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10......d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

Read off the models AV down the left had side , and compare it to the attacking Waeapons Ap across the top.Where the values cross, this is the save the model gets.

1=Auto save unless special weapons abilities take effect.
7= save on a roll of 6 but discard half successful saves.(Same result as re rolling 4s.but without the extra rolling!)
n= no save possible.
d= deflected hit, no effect, not even weapon special abilities can improve the hit to effect the model.(EG rending etc.)

40k players are used to refering to a chart for the score needed to hit in close combat and to wound.
What is wrong with extending this resolution method to cover all combat resoluiton, and adding more results to get better proportionality?

BS vs Stealth(Size, speed silhuette.)

WS vs Agility. (Agility replaces initiative, which is redundant tin the new game turn.)

Av vs Ap.

Weapon Damage(S) Vs Target Resilience.(T)

Using a chart like this allows quite detailed and proportional results to be arrived at without lots of complicated modifiers or special rules!

Lanrak wrote:

You posted..
'So vehicles can be treated the same like other models'.
Totally agree with this statement and idea!!!

Then posted..
'They have Tank Armour instead of Toughness and Armour Save, are wounded like everything else in the game and have Wounds instead of Hull Points (eg it would be better to call it always Health Points to avoid confusion). '

Because 40k Player want it so.

Tank Armour = T+Armour Save, Strength against Tanks = STR+AP
It comes to the same result as if Tanks would have Toughness and a Save, but players want to have something different for vehicles. While it would not be that big for Dreadnoughts they are not accepting a Rhino with T8 and 4+ save.

Lanrak wrote:
@Kodos.
In the 'rushed 11th hour scramble' to release a 40k battle game,lots of errors of judgment were evident.*
(After the devs had spent 3 years working on a refined skirmish game, the GW sales department canned it and wanted a battle game with similar amounts of minatures to WHFB, just a few weeks before going to print!!!.)

So it is at the start of 3rd edition where we see the flaws in the core rules for the first time clearly.

And the promising could have been 3rd Edition was later known as Starship Troopers