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.

Well, I'm glad you like the damage allocation idea.

I like to think that it's nice and simple to explain and enact, and makes snipers completely worth it.

Personally, I'd rather Marines didn't have two wounds.

One of 40K's issues is the number of shots weapons get in the game now. We're rolling buckets of dice, and to compensate for survivability, units have to have increased durability in extra HP, invulnerable saves, rerolls and the like.

Really, each unit/model should be backed down to one shot where possible, but can strike multiple targets (only once, though) - maybe using Warmachine's rule where every +1 over hitting the target does an extra wound - this would have to be done to melee and ranged attacks, though. You could replicate the "hose 'em with bullets" of those attacks that make like 20 attacks by giving a hit bonus to the attack - maybe a +1 to hit for every 2-3 shots/attacks the weapon would make. Natural 1 would still be an utter miss.

@AnomanderRake.
I have only played the basic rules rules of X-wing with my kids.(There is no 'cover' in deep space in our house. )

The point I was trying to make was each game makes its own reductive abstractions on these three basic sections of damage resolution.(I should have used a better set of examples in hind sight.)

The point is each reductive abstraction to the combat resolution, has to be proven to just remove complication from the over all rule set. While not removing the complexity of the interaction to the point the players feel disconnect to the intended game play.

In a game as with as many complex interactions as 40k should have, it is wise to remove the weapon armour interaction as a independent part of the resolution?

If you are having the combined defense stat, (armour+toughness) compared to a combined attack value ,(AP +Strength.)

This means you are abstracting the resolution to the point where the number of wounds becomes the only separate factor to show difference in resilience. But would this be granular enough?
Some (completely made up off the top of my head, )examples to illustrate..

Toughness 3 and armour 3 =Defense 6,(Space Marine)
Toughness 1 and armour 5 = Defense 6(Killa Kan)
Toughness 5 and Armour 1 = Defense 6(Ork War boss.)
In the new system they are all equal,(Combined Defense value 6) only the difference in stat line would be the number of wounds 1,2 or 3.

(Combined Attack value 7) AP 3 and Damage 4(Frag round) Should only be effective against the Warboss. Not likely to wound him,but quite capable of beating his armour and suppressing him.And the superior armour of the Space Marine and the killa kan should make them invulnerable to this weapon.

(Combined Attack value 8) AP 5 Damage 3 (Auto cannon round.)Should easily beat the armour of the Warboss, slight chance of wounding him, reasonable chance of beating the Space Marines armour,and a reasonabe chance of wounding him. Low chance of beating the Killa Kan armour , but would probably wound the grot inside it, if it did.

(Combined Attack value 10) AP 8 damage 2 , would easily beat the armour of all units , but would only be likely to wound the Killa Kan grot.

Using your proposed system all these weapons effect the target based on on comparing a single value (6) vs a value of 7,8, or 10.
This abstracts the resolution to the point where the relationship between target types and weapon types may be seen as not intuitive enough.

I think the detail that treating armour as a separate resolution stage brings, is important to maintain the expectations of the 40k players.

P.S.: 40K's resolution system boils down to adding an extra step that gives the opponent something to do during the active player's turn. Attacker sees if they hit, Attacker sees if they wound, Defender sees if they can do anything about it.

The game would really go faster if the 3rd part was already calculated into the 2nd step, but that may be too much to resolve with a single D6, and might turn off some players with the apparent lost of (false) Defender agency.

@Stormonu.
If we use a simple supression mechanic. (Failed armour roll,for example).It removes the need to kill lots of stuff to have an effect on the enemy unit.

In our play tests we could reduce hoard units sizes, and reduce the amount of attacks.The result was fewer dice rolled, quicker over all game speed, and much more tactical depth.(Which compensated for the slightly more complex three stage damage resolution. )

Lanrak wrote:
...as 40k should have,...

This seems to be the heart of the disagreement. 'Should have' based on what? The rules don't support it. The lore doesn't support it. Why, exactly, must 40k have armour saves?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This seems to be the heart of the disagreement. 'Should have' based on what? The rules don't support it. The lore doesn't support it. Why, exactly, must 40k have armour saves?

I guess one reason might be to give the player who would be taking them something to do in the other players turn. Not essential, just a style choice I guess. But I can get around that by letting them shoot back. A sort of I go you go within the shooting phase. That way both players are playing.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This seems to be the heart of the disagreement. 'Should have' based on what? The rules don't support it. The lore doesn't support it. Why, exactly, must 40k have armour saves?

I guess one reason might be to give the player who would be taking them something to do in the other players turn. Not essential, just a style choice I guess. But I can get around that by letting them shoot back. A sort of I go you go within the shooting phase. That way both players are playing.

LotR-style turns? Player 1 movement, player 2 movement, player 1 shooting, player 2 shooting?

Or use Bolt Action's method - draw a die to activate a unit (or alternating activation)?

@AnomanderRake.
You posted..

The rules don't support it. The lore doesn't support it.

This may be your opinion, but can you back up this statement with actual references to editions of the 40k rules and codex books?It is obviuos we have different points of reference, (Mine start in 1989, and stop around 2012.)

Every edition of the 40k rules has ALWAYS resolved damage using a three stage resolution system.(To hit , to wound, to save..)

The fact the last five editions of the game have two separate resolution methods to deal with armour, separately to toughness.
This shows me the game developers do not just support the difference between armour and toughness, but actively promote it!

Because they think it is that important to make sure armour is different to toughness,to allow for the diversity of units in the 40k game.
(My interpretation of this was re enforced when chatting to ex GW game devs. The changes the GW devs wanted to make seemed to be mainly to the game turn, bringing back movement stats, and limited modifiers.If you saw the 'leaked 6th ed ' rules on B.O.W the things they did not change, or have ever talked about changing was the armour being separate to toughness in the damage resolution.)

(However I do not think we need 2 separate resolution systems for vehicles and non vehicles.)

Can you show me example in the background section of a Xenos codex where its states , this race is exactly the same as every other race in the universe. The only difference is how much better their guns are or how much armour they wear?

Imperial guard are standard humans.
Space marines are genetically modified humans.
Orks are a life form based on fungus that gets stronger and bigger the harsher it is treated.
Tyranids are bio-engineered life forms that are completely alien to out comprehension .

Added to this the psychic abilities , and things like warp technology, having 216 available results to cover these variations makes me more confident we can avoid having to add pointless complication to the rules after play testing.
Compared to limiting the results to just 36 and hoping we can cull enough units to make it work, without causing disconnect with the current player base.


And over the last decade , every time I have tried to re write 40k, the players have generally accepted changes to the rules with the exception of 3 key stones they felt made 40k feel and play like 40k.
1)A three stage damage resolution.
2) Taking player turns
3)Rolling D6 to determine results.

I am sure you can develop a 'sci fi game ' that is better than GW 40k rules.
But as I could name 10 great games that are already published you would have to compete with, would this be a worthwhile venture?

It is much easier to just use your 40k minatures in a current popular skirmish rule set.
(Beyond The Gate Of Antares, Chain Reaction, Fast and Dirty, No Limits, One Page 40k, Stargrunt II ,Tomorrows War, Urban War,Warpath, Warzone. etc)

These are all fun games , with clearly defined intuitive rules.But they are not 40k.

I interpreted the title of this thread to mean develop more intuitive and straight forward rules for the game 40k *should be.(*What players expect the game play to be, not what GW sales department dictate .)I may be wrong in this assumption.

@Future War Cultinst.
I thought we agreed we were going to use interleaved/alternating phases anyway.(I move, you move, I shoot , you shoot.I assault ,you assault.Either with alternating units, or players .)

Out of all the different game turn mechanic options, alternating phases seems to be the best fit with 40k,and is more readily accepted by current 40k players than other game turn types.(In my experience any way. )

Abstracting the armour save roll and the wound roll into one , is not a player interaction issue.

But a definition of resolution issue in the model weapon interaction, which may cause cognitive disconnect, in the players.(WTF moments.)


@Stormonu.
B.A. blind draw unit activation method , tends to emphasis any balance issues between units.(B.A. has excellent levels of balance compared to current 40k. )

 AnomanderRake wrote:
LotR-style turns? Player 1 movement, player 2 movement, player 1 shooting, player 2 shooting?

My idea was "player who's turn it is moves a unit, then other player moves a unit and so on and so forth. Then player who's turn it is shoots a unit, and then other player shoots a unit". But the LotR system is probably better. In truth, I don't mind what we do so long as we find a way to let a player do more during their opponents turn, to keep them interested the game.

Oh hey, can I put forward this suggestion? What if shooting attacks were resolved like this:

Roll to hit targets, with modifiers for cover etc.

Roll to damage target.

Take the number of casualties and roll a d6. For each point this exceeds their leadership they gain a pin marker. Then removed the casualties. Or remove them first. I'm not sure.

I'm just throwing all my ideas out there and seeing what sticks.

With 40K's current volume of fire, that might get a little rough for pinning, but then again with a high casualty rate, that may also mean the squad's dead.

BA invokes pins on a hit, regardless whether a casualty is caused, which I like better - it's a case of keeping the enemy's head down for fear it might get shot off, not so much for it actually being shot off (besides, there's already morale checks for 25%+ losses).

I'd propose one pin marker per unit attack (or 1 + 1 / 5 hits), weapons with the pinning trait add an extra pin. The attack has to have had a STR high enough it could have caused a wound (no pinning Dreadnoughts with lasguns...) Pin checks are made at the end of a turn?

I certainly think the current game of 40k could do with a simple suppression mechanic to shift the focus of the game from killing stuff in droves to a more tactically deep footing.

Are we still agreed 40k should follow modern warfare tactical loading?
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.

The issue is how do we drive the suppression mechanic.

If we use use the number of casualties it is too severe,(IMO,) but using number of hits does not distinguish between hits that are a threat to the unit, or hits that should be ignored by the unit.
Eg should a Monolith be suppressed simply because it received lots of lasgun shots, that have no hope of penetrating its armour?

Is there any strong objection to the following suppression mechanic used with a three stage damage resolution?

When a model fails its armour save, it becomes suppressed.
When over half the models in a unit fail their armour save in a shooting phase,the unit becomes suppressed.


Anyhow....

I have been trying to find a compromise between separate values for armour and toughness, and using only 2 rolls for damage resolution.

The only option I can think of is having 2 defense values.One is the roll needed to suppress the target, the other is the value needed to destroy the target.

Eg the first value is the 'armour' value the second is the 'armour and toughness combined.'

The attack value is just the weapon damage value +D6.

This way a low armour high toughness model, 2/6, is easy to suppress but harder to kill.
Where as a High armour low toughness model 6/8, needs high value attack to suppress and kill.

I am not sure if this is robust enough to cover all the variety of units in 40k. But it does appear cover all the bases on initial inspection. (It was used in a game I played a while back, was it SST?)

I am happy to discuss suppression, (pinning) ideas in more detail, as I think it is important part of the puzzle to sort out 40ks game play.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
LotR-style turns? Player 1 movement, player 2 movement, player 1 shooting, player 2 shooting?

My idea was "player who's turn it is moves a unit, then other player moves a unit and so on and so forth. Then player who's turn it is shoots a unit, and then other player shoots a unit". But the LotR system is probably better. In truth, I don't mind what we do so long as we find a way to let a player do more during their opponents turn, to keep them interested the game.

Oh hey, can I put forward this suggestion? What if shooting attacks were resolved like this:

Roll to hit targets, with modifiers for cover etc.

Roll to damage target.

Take the number of casualties and roll a d6. For each point this exceeds their leadership they gain a pin marker. Then removed the casualties. Or remove them first. I'm not sure.

I'm just throwing all my ideas out there and seeing what sticks.

Strictly alternating activation has a tendency to make rules fuzzier without really adding much in games where the number of units on a side can vary as widely as it does in 40k, I'd prefer to start from a simpler turn structure until we've got a better picture of the terrain.

Pins in Bolt Action are one per attack (more from high-explosive ('pinning') weapons). Not sure if doing it that way would make more sense, I'll rattle it around for a while and see if anything comes of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
I certainly think the current game of 40k could do with a simple suppression mechanic to shift the focus of the game from killing stuff in droves to a more tactically deep footing.

Are we still agreed 40k should follow modern warfare tactical loading?
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.

The issue is how do we drive the suppression mechanic.

If we use use the number of casualties it is too severe,(IMO,) but using number of hits does not distinguish between hits that are a threat to the unit, or hits that should be ignored by the unit.
Eg should a Monolith be suppressed simply because it received lots of lasgun shots, that have no hope of penetrating its armour?

It's a one-sentence fix. If a model/unit is hit by an attack that doesn't auto-fail its to-wound roll it takes a pin. Not sure why it needs to be more complicated?

Is there any strong objection to the following suppression mechanic used with a three stage damage resolution?

When a model fails its armour save, it becomes suppressed.
When over half the models in a unit fail their armour save in a shooting phase,the unit becomes suppressed.

I'd stop objecting to three-stage damage resolution if you could explain why it was necessary.

Anyhow....

I have been trying to find a compromise between separate values for armour and toughness, and using only 2 rolls for damage resolution.

The only option I can think of is having 2 defense values.One is the roll needed to suppress the target, the other is the value needed to destroy the target.

Eg the first value is the 'armour' value the second is the 'armour and toughness combined.'

The attack value is just the weapon damage value +D6.

This way a low armour high toughness model, 2/6, is easy to suppress but harder to kill.
Where as a High armour low toughness model 6/8, needs high value attack to suppress and kill.

I am not sure if this is robust enough to cover all the variety of units in 40k. But it does appear cover all the bases on initial inspection. (It was used in a game I played a while back, was it SST?)

I am happy to discuss suppression, (pinning) ideas in more detail, as I think it is important part of the puzzle to sort out 40ks game play.

Why should suppression be attached to armour rather than Leadership?

Yeah, I feel that attaching it to armor is the wrong way to go - it's a bravery thing. Who wants to stick their head out to risk it being shot off? That armor may protect, it may not - do you want to risk taking the chance?

Suppression is something of a fear tactic - you don't have to really aim at the target, but just put shots near enough to them that they won't risk moving into the open or returning fire in case the attacker is accurate enough.

Also, I too mentioned that suppression shouldn't work against a target that can't be hurt. As AnomanderRake stated, a simple sentence will cover that in the suppression/pinning rules.

Changing the current 3 rolls in 40K to 2 rolls will take a lot of work if you want to get it to be close to the old values. As it is STR vs. TOU is a ratio, then Armor negates a percentage of the hits that get through. So, in Bolter (S4) vs. Marine (T4), you have a 50% wound ratio, but marine's armor negates 66% of those hits, so about 17% chance to wound - akin to a 6 TOU (if my math is right). Upsize to a Krak Missile shot (S8), you have a 84% chance to wound due to AP - akin to 6 TOU again, but without that AP, the whole ratio would come crashing down.

@AnomanderRake.

You Posted..

It's a one-sentence fix. If a model/unit is hit by an attack that doesn't auto-fail its to-wound roll it takes a pin. Not sure why it needs to be more complicated?

So if an attack is strong enough to cause damage on the target the target suffers from suppression?
As already noted the lack of distinction in the target and weapon type relationship may cause counter intuitive results.

You also posted..

I'd stop objecting to three-stage damage resolution if you could explain why it was necessary.

I believe having armour separate to toughness in 40k is important, based on...
A) My understanding of real world weapon and armour interaction, to generate intuitive results.

B) The generally accepted good principals of game design and development.

C)Over 20 years of 40k background material.

D)The contents of SEVEN consecutive 40k rule sets .

E)The intent and ideas of GW game developers that created and developed 40k, from conversations and published material from interview, etc,collected over a coupe of decades.

F)The feed back of 40k players when trialing new rules over the last ten years or so.

If you would be kind enough to explain why you think removing this difference to simplify the rules.And in doing so reduce the amount of scope for unit differences and weapon and unit interaction .Is anything other than your personal preference, I would appreciate it.

And finally..

Why should suppression be attached to armour rather than Leadership?

Because suppression is all about threat level, and so the easiest indicator of this is how much external protection the unit has.
Eg , The crew of a tank would ignore light machine gun fire that has not chance of penetrating the tank armour. But the infantry squad near the tank would dive for cover.

Leadership determines how quickly the unit recovers from suppression.
(If you want to reduce suppression to its simplest intuitive form, by abstracting resolution not results.)

If we are to convert current 40k units to the new format, the current armour value would be used to determine the starting point of the suppression rating, and the combined amour and toughness value the starting point for the new kill rating.

@Stormonu.
If its a bravery thing, how brave do you feel facing heavy machine gun fire in a cotton uniform, compared to being behind 120mm of advanced armour plate?

I agree that reducing 40k damage resolution method from 3 rolls to 2 rolls , needs a lot of serious consideration.
What do you think of the split stat defense idea.(Suppression value/Kill value)?

Hi folks.
I thought I would just share my thoughts on suppression, and how implementing it to 40k battle game rules , needs some serious consideration.

In a WWII game , suppression usually refers to the unit being threatened by a volume of fire that could kill them if they do not take action.
This ranges from hearing artillery shells approaching, and infantry hitting the dirt, to the crew of a tank panicking after the tank takes a hit that could result in the tank exploding or catching fire.
This is referred to by different names across different games, 'Pinning' infantry,crew 'Bailed out',unit 'Shaken' or 'Suppressed.'

WWII games generally make the simple distinction between units that rely on armour for protection ,hard targets, (tanks) and group units that rely on numbers,speed of stealth for survival as 'soft targets.'(Weapons that spray an area with small projectiles /shock waves/chemicals are effective vs all these target types.)

This makes it easy to define weapons with high impact single shot as 'anti tank', and so a hit from an anti tank round has to 'penetrate' the armour to suppress an armoured vehicle.(Usually the rules factor in the chance of anti tank round doing non lethal damage to armoured vehicles, by increasing armour rating slightly then rolling for damage afterwards.To cover hits that do not fully penetrate but would result in internal damage to the tank from spalling and shock waves.)

As the majority of WWII games will have infantry, (with no armour), as the most common unit.Supported by mainly more soft targets, transport, artillery, and air support.(Without armour either.)The only unit in the game that needs to be treated differently in this type of game is amoured units.

So the majority of unit in the game have no armour worth mentioning, so the game developers do not mention it, and makes the few armoured targets the single exception, and due to the limited numbers of armoured vehicles compared to infantry on the WWII games table it works.

In this case the only difference between the 'soft targets' is their level of training,combat experience, and morale level.
And as armoured vehicles only role for damage or suppression, (KOed or Bailed.) after they have their amour defeated,This same resolution based on level of experience and morale can be used for them too.

And this is why most scifi games that draw inspiration from modern /WWII war games appear to model suppression on troop quality , not armour. Simply because the game designers make the clear distinction between hard and soft targets, to factor out armour from the resolution before suppression is resolved.The rules are written to generate a WWII /Modern warfare type game play, and the minatures are made to populate this specific game play type.

In the case of 40k,the rules started as detailed skirmish RPG, then moved to a skirmish game completely lost all sense of scale and scope, as GW sales department pushed the widest range of minature at their customers that they could manage.Little to no thought was given to game play issues.

The result is practically every model in 40k has armour value or an armour save.
So the clear distinction between hard and soft target can not be made.In fact if we were to do it, the 'soft'( armourless) units would be in the small minority!
Because of this wide range of armour levels and unit sizes, the weapons needed to be effective against this wider range of armour and across all unit sizes is more diverse than anti-tank,or anti infantry .

So armour level in the 40k game is more important than any other war game I can think of!
As as the level of armour a unit has tends to be in proportion to their elite status in the force.It is a simple primary indicator of the units confidence.
EG the basic measure if an attack would suppress the model, and if enough models are suppressed , the unit be comes suppressed.

Also as some units are 'fearless; in 40k they would be immune to morale based suppression .
However, if we say the penetrating hit rendered the Khorne Bezerker unconscious, the players would accept it as a reason why the fearless model would be 'suppressed,' yet not actualy dead.

My pet hate in the 40k rules is the implementation of a concept , then simply ignore the effects en mass with stupidly applied exceptions.

Anyhow, I hope that explains my ideas on suppression in 40k a bit better...

That's a good angle to explain why fearless units could be surpressed (being knocked senseless), but part of me thinks that that is better represented by simply removing the model as a casualty.

Also, in a two teir resolution system a lot of different units are becoming identical in stats. I've done some tinkering and space marines, sisters of battle and skitarii all pretty much have to be defence 6. You lose the superhuman toughness of the marine, the mystic shield of faith of the sister and the cybernetic augmentation of the skitarii. Are you guys ok with that? If it helps...the numbers are pretty much as they were before, but more to the point.

For suppression consider, suppression occurs because the weight of fire is such that careless movement will land you a bullet in a vital organ.

So instead of being suppressed, give shooting effects a positive modifier when shooting at fearless units, and bring back the old 'lose combat when fearless? take damage' effect though i'd suggest a leadership + losses + d6 dice off instead of just straight wounds.

@Lanrak. All right. I'm getting tired of arguing back and forth over the same ground. You don't like my reasons for cutting armour saves. I don't like your reasons for keeping them. Repeating ourselves is clogging the thread without getting anywhere.

I don't have the time or mental energy to spare right now to develop my approach in more detail so I'm going to shelve it for now. I'll try to provide constructive commentary on your approach without picking fights over first principles here.

@Future War Cultist.
I prefer to use rules that have the fewest exceptions to them.(Currently GWs 40k rule set has more exceptions to rules, than actual rules. )
I could be so concerned about loosing the focus on game play by including so many exceptions like GW have, I am biased against using them, unless proven to be the best option for the game play.

The GW devs are under pressure to get stuff done within limited time scales and with the emphasis on making sure the new releases sell,Thankfully we are not under such pressures , so we can take time and discuss things and arrive at more considered solutions.

I agree that morale and experience,(represented by Ld value in 40k,) are an important part of resolving suppression. But I would prefer them not to be used to render some units artificially immune to suppression.That was why I thought if we use threat level , to determine if units become suppressed, and a morale test to determine when they recover.It would give the best compromise between simple rules and intuitive results.

EG if we change the LD roll from rolling under 2 D6.To a morale test where you simply roll equal or over the units Morale grade on a D6.(To conform to 'roll a single D6 rolling high is good', resolution convention of the rest of the rules.)And use a few simple modifiers to cover situational factors.

Current 'Fearless' units could have a morale grade of 1, which means they normally automatically recover from suppression when they test for morale.(At the end of the game turn?)
But if we give modifiers for negative effects , that add to the target score .For example.
Unit surrounded by enemy +1,
Unit under half starting strength +2
(The units leaders/characters could give them a bonus to their dice roll, to represent the current Ld bonus perhaps?)

Even a unit of super elite troops might start thinking about self preservation when they are surrounded by enemy , and they have lost over half their fighting effectiveness.This means we could use one rule to cover all units in exactly the same way to give proportional and intuitive results.

I think you are completely right to be concerned about loosing the differences between the factions that are a focus of the narrative and currently represented ,(in a far to complicated way,) in the 40k rules GW sell.

Every time we tried to move to a 2 stage damage resolution, players complained about units loosing their 'uniqueness' or 'fluff in game'.
I think the problem as many have said, if you abstract the resolution to the point where 40k units become too similar, it does not feel like 40k any more.
Eg the players suffer from a cognitive disconnect to the game play they expected.

I can understand some people wanting to reduce the combat resolution to 2 rolls to speed up game play.

So I have come up with an idea that may let us keep the differences between weapons and units a three stage damage resolution has, but presents the data do we can use it in a 2 stage damage resolution.

All weapons have a split Attack profile , a Suppression rating and a Kill rating, to show the damage types .
All targets have a split Defense stat Suppression value and a Kill value , to show how they are effected,(or not) by weapon types.

When an attack is made, the attacking player rolls a D6.
Then adds the weapons Suppression rating to the D6 result to see if the target model(s) are Suppressed.(The total suppression rating has to be over the targets suppression value.)

If the target model is suppressed,by the attack , the attacker adds the kill rating to the D6 roll to see if the model(s) are killed .(The total kill rating has to be over the targets Kill value.)

EG a Heavy Bolter 2/1.(It gets +2 to its suppression rating, and +1 to its kill rating.)

So vs Orks defense 2/4,so any heavy bolter hits will automatically suppress any Orks, but it need to have rolled a 4 or more to kill them.

A heavy bolter therefore can not effect any target with a Defense value that starts 8/_.(EG heavily armoured targets, as they get higher primary defense values for obvious reasons. )

I may need to explain this better?

You could call it 'shaken' or 'pin' instead of 'suppression' if you think its more 40k friendly terminology.

Hi folks.
Perhaps it maybe a good time to sort out exactly what 'simplified 40k' means to us?

Currently the 40k core rules have been oversimplified to appeal to younger, or new customers.(T.Ks ''..we sell toy soldiers to children..'' directive.)
Unfortunately the intended game play of 40k is too complex for these simplified core rules, and so GW dev's had to add on loads of special rules ,and alternative resolution methods.

So the basic options are,
A) Remove the special rules , and have simplified rules and simplified game play.
Or .
B)Change the core rules to be slightly more complex, and have complex game play without the complication of pointless special rules and additional systems.

My opinion is its is the random rolling and umpteen special rules that slow the game play down, rather than a three roll damage resolution system.

As many games that use a three stage damage resolution do not suffer from players moaning about slow play.(Some moan about players taking an age to do anything, but that is different entirely. .)

I suppose its how you define simplified?

Do you mean easy to understand ?
EG 100 simple rules.(5 simple core rules, 5 alternative simple core rules, and 90 simple exceptions, to both the first 5 core rules and the 5 alternative core rules(special rules.)

Or do you mean less complicated ?
EG 20 well defined but slightly more complex rules.

Sorry for the lack of activity from me guys. It's work again.

Using your own example, to me simplified is option A. Trimming back all the fat so that the core rules are listed on a four page booklet and the units unique abilities are listed on a single entry card, and the whole thing can be picked up and learned in an afternoon. There is the danger that this will destroy a lot of the fluff in the gameplay but I think with clever writing we can overcome that.

Having said this, I'd also like to try and make a game that isn't just about killing the enemy. It should reward you for clever tactics. That's why I'd like moral and such to play a bigger part.

@Future War Cultist.
The focus of this rewrite is quite important to sort out.
So when you post..

There is the danger that this will destroy a lot of the fluff in the gameplay but I think with clever writing we can overcome that.

This is a real danger, and in the last ten years or so, feed back from players was very critical of any rule set that did not reflect the diversity of the 40k background.
If you were confident that you had fully worked out how to over come this issue, then I would not feel compelled to argue for slightly more complex rules that deal with the complexity of the intended game play. (EG bring the fluff to life with slightly more complex core rules, that do not rely on extra added complication later.)

And later in your post you recognize the need for more complexity in the game play ,than the simplistic and restricted game play 40k currently delivers.

Having said this, I'd also like to try and make a game that isn't just about killing the enemy. It should reward you for clever tactics. That's why I'd like moral and such to play a bigger part.

My concern is in the rush to get simple rules, you will follow the path GW has.

@ Lanrak

Those are good points. It's why we will have to be extra careful.

But I really think it can be done, I really do. Let's take a space marine tactical squad as an example. I've got an incomplete example of what their entry like look like:

Tactical Marines:

Movement: 6" Evasion: 6 Resistance: 6 Bulk: 2 Endurance: 2 Ranged: +3 Melee: +3 Leadership: 9

Description: A unit of tactical marines has between 5 and 10 models. They are armed with bolt guns (and other weapons we see fit to give them). One model may replace their bolt gun with a special weapon, whilst another may replace their boltgun with a heavy weapon.

Sergeant: The leader of this unit is the Sergeant. The sergeant can...do something better than the rank and file troops.

Abilities:

And They Shall Know No Fear: Not sure what this is yet but it'll be leadership based for sure.

Combat Doctrines: This unit may reroll to hit rolls of 1 with both shooting and melee attacks.

Key words: Imperium Of Man, Adeptus Astrates, Chapter Tactics etc. etc.

How would this work? Well, to hit the target, for each attack roll a D6 and add the models skill (either ranged or melee). If this equals or beats the targets evasion skill they hit the target. Then for each hit roll a D6 and add the weapons penetration stat. If this equals or beats the targets resistance stat they wound it. Endurance is how many wounds the target can take before it's slain.

Bolt guns would be something like:

Range: 24" Attacks: 1 Penetration: +1

So a space marine shooting at another space marine would hit them on 3+, and wound them on a 5+, with a marine being able to take two wounds before dying.

Being in cover can reduce the to hit rolls as can other factors.

So we have a really simple and easy to play with system that still retains the feel of the fluff (combat doctrines, weaponry etc). Supplements can have rules for chapter tactics.

This is really plimerary of course and those numbers and stats are definitely not final but it does give an idea of how we can do this.

@Future War Cultist.

OK lets look at the stat line you have picked as a starting point.(I am going to guess at how you intend to use them, please correct me if I am wrong.)

Movement .How far the model moves when taking a movement action across open ground.(I assume difficult terrain will reduce this value?)
Comments, sensible and part of 90% of the rewritten 40k rule ideas since 1998.

Evasion.How hard it is to hit the model.
Comments..
This abstract the abilities of not being hit at range with not being hit in close combat.
As previously stated this will mean additional special rules to cover models that are easier or harder to hit in close combat compared to ranged attacks.(Minimum of 4 special rules, to represent the significant differences found in 40k.)

Resistance.The value the attacks penetration value is compared to define if damage is cause to the model.
Comments..
This abstracts the resolution to the point where armour and toughness are lumped together and have equal value .Even though different weapon types should effect targets differently in the minds of 40k players.

Bulk.My guess is How big the units is , eg how many fit in a transport?I am not sure why you think this deserves its own stat if my interpretation is correct?

Endurance , number of hits the model may take before being removed as a casualty?
The comparative values of S vs T gives efficiency jumps of 16.667% or less.Simply using wounds to reflect 'toughness' gives efficiency jumps of 100%.How do you decide which models get extra wounds over improved Resistance values?Or is this just down to personal opinion?

Ranged, and Melee, the D6 modifier to hit with ranged attacks and close combat attacks respectively.(Roll over the targets Evasion stat to hit?)
Comments ..
I am fine with this basic concept .However, some players may be happier with the' compare values in a table to find the D6 roll required' rather than using modifiers.
Its just a preference on the way things are presented.

Leadership, the roll a model needs to recover from adverse morale states.
Comments ..
I am happy with this basic concept.

If you are happy with 8 stats and a 2 stage damage resolution, here is my attempt to improve your starting point.

Mobility.(*Movement type) ,Speed.

Ranged Attack

Evasion

Melee Attack

Agility.

Defense Suppress/Damage.

Hit Points No of Models /Damage per Model

Morale

Weapons data.
Efective range ,Attacks, Attack value , bonus to suppress/bonus to damage.

The option to include mobility type for advanced rules, means that walkers, wheeled , tracked and skimmer units react differently to different types of terrain to make tactical mobility more important.

Having separate values to represent how good models are at hitting , and avoiding being hit, with ranged weapons and close combat weapons, allow the battle field skill of each model to be represented without the need for 4 + special rules.

We can use the 'Evasion value'as a base line for how big the models are, (Eg Models with Evasion value below 4 are 'bulky' and so take up 2 spaces in transport .)

Splitting the defense value between Suppression and Damage values, allows us to model different weapon effect on different model types, with more granularity than just adding 'wounds' to tougher models.

EG Flamer attack value 0/2.
This has no bonus to suppress models , but is more likely to damage targets by burning them .
Frag Missile.2/0.
This has a bonus to suppress models , but no bonus to any damage caused.

Martel732 wrote:We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

 Limeblossom wrote:

Martel732 wrote:We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

There's a concensus among many players (myself included) that 40k has become much of a bloated mess of a game with a far too high entry level and we're trying to scale that back.

@ Lanrak

Those are excellent points! Sorry I can't reply better. I'm typing these messages when possible at work. But you do think we're on to something here yes?

@Future War Cultist.
Everyone appears to agree that the current 40k rule set is a bloated mess, with a far to high entry level.

Now it appears GW are putting out a '40k skirmish starter game' with very simple rules 'Battle For Vedross'.I think this sort of game would be GWs own entry level type of game for new/younger players.

The limited amount of models needed to get into playing simple skirmish games makes for a much lower barrier of entry.

And as GW are rumored to be doing 'A.O.S type' rules for 40k next edition apparently.This covers the newer /young players who just want to throw some dice and push minatures around.

However, what about the veteran players with large collections of minatures sat on the shelf collecting dust?
The actual gamers who want a game with a rule set worthy of the inspiring 40k background?

The complex game play 40k should have , in the opinion of these players, is not best covered with simple core rules that only cover standard infantry, and that uses poorly defined special rules for everything else.(That is how we got to the abomination that is 7th ed 40k! )

I agree with players wanting more complex,(not complicated ) rules to cover the complex game play the 40k background infers the game play should have.

As a few people wanted to use just a two stage damage resolution, I have tried to arrive at one that does not abstract the weapon and target interaction too much.
But I really would like to start by using the 3 stage damage resolution players are used to.And only move to a 2 stage variation IF the game play is too slow.

The reduction of resolution methods used, the drastic reduction in number of special rules , the reduction in model count of hoard armies, and the simple practice of having all movement in the movement phase, (And NO RANDUM MOVEMENT!)
Makes the game play so much faster , I am not sure people understand how much faster, it is until they give it a try.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Limeblossom wrote:

Martel732 wrote:We don't need simplified. For the number of unique models in the game, we need more complex.

There's a concensus among many players (myself included) that 40k has become much of a bloated mess of a game with a far too high entry level and we're trying to scale that back.

@ Lanrak

Those are excellent points! Sorry I can't reply better. I'm typing these messages when possible at work. But you do think we're on to something here yes?

Then you have to chop out models, which doesn't seem good for a model company.

The current system needs reworked with a D10. That alone would fix a lot of problems and eliminate the need for a lot of rules.