Switch Theme:

So I played a game of 4th ed with a friend  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
Author Message

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.

Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you wanted to tie to-hit to initiative you'd need to significantly revamp initiative. Initiative in general is a poorly implemented stat even for the purpose it was designed. It would be a lot more interesting if for example Devastators were slower than Tacticals to represent heavy equipment.

I do definitely agree on armour save modifiers though. The all or nothing system is quite unsatisfactory to me. Modifiers are much better, you just need to not hand out AP2 to standard fething small arms!
It does somewhat devalue invulns though. If the highest AP you'll ever get hit by is -3 then a 5+ invuln is never useful to 2+ armour (see: Terminators).

Back in 2nd you got to roll both.

I don't see why you couldn't do it here. Invulnerable saves become effectively a failed save reroll. So a Terminator gets a 5+, fails then gets to roll their 5+ invuln.
Made in gb
Ship's Officer

Bristol (UK)

Rolling both would make sense, but you'd need to significantly reduce the number of rolls needed in a normal roll.
Even just the standard 3 (hit/wound/save) is on the higher end of what I'd like for a normal sequence, when you throw in 'explosions', rerolls, and FNPs there's waay too much as it is.
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form

I too think 4th was the best edition.

Regarding AP, it was just a mistake to give small arms AP5, leaving practically everything outside MEQ without a save at all against shooting.

Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Regarding AP, it was just a mistake to give small arms AP5, leaving practically everything outside MEQ without a save at all against shooting.
It made hordes less clunky. Similar to power weapons, a general lack of invulnerable saves combat wipeouts and unrecoverable moral failures at lot of stuff in the 3e re-write was there to streamline things by making outcomes more immediately decisive when the correct hammer was applied to the correct nail.
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull


I think the 3e family of editions would have worked better with negative to hit penalties from cover and negative penalties to armour from AP rather than the all or nothing systems. You'd have had to toughen up some of the elite units to do so, but that would have been easily done.

Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut

I think 3rd pattern 40k had the right damage and stat scale, I'd just change instant death to be 2 wounds rather than 1 or something similar. ie if the strength of the attack is 2x the toughness of the target, it takes 2 wounds for each failed save instead of 1.

I'd probably still shift stats to be the same rather than using AV, but I'd probably redo the way it works.

ie, if a monster or vehicle is wounded compare it to this table:

wound roll = minimum, glancing hit
wound roll = higher than minimum, penetrating hit.

ie T6 vs S7, glance on a 3 to wound, penetrate on a 4+.

This is mechanically identical to roll 1D6 and add to strength (as T6 is basically AV10).

You'd then roll on a table to see what effect you've caused:

Glancing hits

1-2 shaken (-1 to WS/BS)
3-4 stunned (can't move, -1 to WS/BS)
5-6 Damaged (-1 wound)


1-2 Stunned
3-4 Damaged (1 wound)
5-6 Massive damage (2 wounds)*
*if the target is reduced to 0 wounds from massive damage and is a vehicle, all models within 1D6" are hit with a a strength equal to the exploding unit's Toughness)

Rear arcs
Any attack that originates in the rear arc of a monster or vehicle gains +1 Strength.

This is pretty similar 3rd ed, but standardises monsters and vehicles.

Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: