Switch Theme:

40K - Alternative Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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 us
Dakka Veteran






 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious when you read this discussion and then flip back to the first pages of this thread where people tried to tell everyone that there would be no issues creating such an edition


We haven’t even started talking about sweeping advances yet!

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Mezmorki wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's hilarious when you read this discussion and then flip back to the first pages of this thread where people tried to tell everyone that there would be no issues creating such an edition


We haven’t even started talking about sweeping advances yet!




Threads like this make it pretty clear to me why I enjoy 9th a lot more than 5th while at the same time showing why others don't - they are just different games for different kinds of players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 12:21:39


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






^^^^^ Yes - I totally agree with that perspective (although our preferences are probably flipped!).

I said early on in the thread that it's important to establish one's design goals and guiding principles up front, so that one can connect with like others that want to head in the same direction. It's pretty important IMHO.

FWIW, there was talk early about making to all a D12 system. At that point, I would say one should just start over completely, since writing then new core rules is the least of the challenge at that point when you have all new codexes to write. And if starting over, there are many, many other game systems to look to for inspiration and ideas.


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in pt
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

I never understand why d12 instead of 2d6 I mean, there is precedence for 2d6 and there are different ways to use results, e.g. doubles, indexed options, odds v evens, etc…

   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 jeff white wrote:
I never understand why d12 instead of 2d6 I mean, there is precedence for 2d6 and there are different ways to use results, e.g. doubles, indexed options, odds v evens, etc…


The difference is how likely results are to occur:

Spoiler:


Essentially for 2d6 you always have to balance everything around the assumption that results close to 7 are more likely to occur than those further away from it. A 12 is a lot more likely to be rolled on a d12 than with 2d6.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Not to mention that it's quicker to roll and resolve, say, 6d12 compared to 6x2d6, even if you have enough different colours of dice with you to do the latter as one roll.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

2D6 works on a small scale where the bell curve is built into the probability of the game (BattleTech being a good example - you roll each weapon individually, and your required score goes up and down each turn based on numerous modifiers that all stack). 2D6 in 40k would take forever, and introduce a bell curve to everything.

A D12 is a big D6, where its results are flat (ie. none more likely to appear than any other) but it offers a greater range of possible results, allowing for more granularity and variance in stats. You don't have this "squishing everything to the middle" issue that you have with a D6 system (or, at least, it's not as pronounced, as you have 12 steps to work with rather than 6).

Again, the actual choice of die (D10, D12, D20, D1000) doesn't matter as it's the same flat return (unlike 2D6 or 2D10 or whatever). It's just the level of detail you want to include determines what dice makes the most sense.

D6s are the most common, and most people aren't even aware that die with other faces even exist. This is why GW chose them, as it's a simple concept that requires virtually no explanation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 13:52:09


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

well, GW used D6 because they are common, but also because 3 D6 (to hit, to wound, save) equal a D20

currently 40k (or AoS) does not even use the possibility those 3 rolls offer

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Just to chime in on the 40k targeting thing:

I agree with Catbarf (as I often do) that the thing that's actually the problem with 40k's targeting is that the administrative division of the enemy's force affects your targeting.

This is true (and worse) in 9th AND in 4th.

You're not shooting at 3 hormagaunts screening 20, or 20 screening 3. You're shooting at 23 hormagaunts (from your/your trooper's in-universe perspective).

Similarly, you're not shooting at 3 squads of 10 guardsmen vice one squad of 30 guardsmen, you're simply shooting at 30 guardsmen regardless of their organization.

Chain of Command (again, as Catbarf mentions) handles this "screening" effect by dividing hits up between units within 4" of each other - this is before saves/determining if people survive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 14:29:07


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.


H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't see it that way.

You should be able to direct your firepower where you need it, and no have units frantically firing at things they either can't hurt or are grossly overqualified to kill just because of a couple of inches distance here and there.


How's that any different from having a unit in difficult terrain, flubbing the movement roll, being unable to get into a position to shoot as a result, and then complaining that it's not fun when you're not allowed to move where you want? Or rolling a 1 to Advance and not being able to get on the objective? Or rolling snake eyes on your charge and standing around while you get shot? All of these involve you setting up a situation where you need to make a certain roll to do what you want.

I mean, if you'd prefer more deterministic implementations of all these mechanics then I totally understand that. But discussions on target priority always seem to hyper-focus on the randomness of it, as if the game isn't already chock-full of places where you can flub a roll and have a unit be useless (or grossly suboptimal) for the turn.

You could even level the exact same complaint against using Ld checks to mediate split fire: Why shouldn't each model be able to direct its fire against the optimal target? Does it feel fun when a unit of 3 Aggressors fails a check and can't split its fire between three small units of Gaunts, and has to overkill one of them?

Part of good generalship is making sure you're not relying on a 4+ to score an objective or a 9+ to make your charge out of deep strike. Mitigating odds, rather than taking for granted a check that you might actually fail, and having contingencies. The important thing is that target priority was always a mechanic you could mitigate with good positioning and sequencing your fire to eliminate screening units as needed. To me, that's what it adds- increased importance of positioning and battlefield state, with a risk of failure if you don't plan movement and fire well, plus better distinction between the C&C capabilities of elite armies and chaff hordes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 15:08:57


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





In our ruleset we grant a 5+ cover save when shooting through an enemy unit, but if the enemy wants they can say the closer unit is 'shielding' the targeted unit. Then the cover save becomes +2 (usually to 3+) for the targeted unit, but any successful cover save by the targeted unit becomes an automatic wound to the shielding unit, with the assumption it is deliberately trying to block incoming fire.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 jeff white wrote:
I never understand why d12 instead of 2d6 I mean, there is precedence for 2d6 and there are different ways to use results, e.g. doubles, indexed options, odds v evens, etc…


Others have pointed out why 2D6 is impractical for the scale of the game, but D12s can also interact with D6s in interesting ways.

Apocalypse basically uses D12s for individual saves, but every two wounds consolidates into a single save on a D6 instead. So if you take five hits, you roll two saves on D6s and one on a D12. Mathematically, this works out to the same average result as rolling 5D12 (the distribution is different though), but it cuts down significantly on the amount of rolling you need to do. Apocalypse also uses D12 rolls to wound, based on the profile of the firing weapon, to add a little more granularity to a system that involves far fewer rolls than 40K.

I'll always contend that switching from D6s to D12s for 40K is barking up the wrong tree; it's increasing the amount of fiddly stats minutiae to differentiate units rather than addressing the shallowness of the core rules that makes everything feel the same. Increments of 8.33% will not be as impactful as, say, actually representing that target size and range matter for hit probability, or mechanics that show that Marines are more coordinated and quicker to react than Guard.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
you must target the closest unit with the most models in it first (clear and present danger).
There's a unit of Cultists nearer to me than a unit of Chaos Terminators. The Cultists have 11 models. The Terminators have 10. I'm a Fire Dragon.

Which one should I be shooting at?


Depends on the threat level for the fire dragons:

A) Cultists and terminators can attack the fire dragons during their next activation.

B) Only the Cultists can attack the fire dragons during their next activation.

In case A) the fire dragons open up fire against the terminators because their unit is designed to combat heavy units (tanks & tactical dreadnought armour (and any derivatives of that such as orkish mega armour). To make things even more clear the fire dragons would have the perk Tank Hunter granting them more freedom for target selection and a bonus to destroy their preferred targets. This would also apply to other units such as devastators with AT weapons, tankbustas, etc. If they get wasted by the cultists in return then so be it. They knew this could happen when they signed up for the job.

That was at least the philosophy of the Bundeswehr when I served for my country:

- Wirkung geht vor Deckung -

Translation: Emphasis is on the offensive output of your unit. Their survival is secondary. So if you have the means to destroy a major/valuable unit of your enemy you go for it and don´t hesitate.

If such a mindset would be suitable for a dying race such as the Eldar is another discussion. The Dark Eldar use at least a lot of clones for their common soldiers so they would have no qualms adopting the above portrayed philosophy.


In case B the fire dragons waste the cultists. There is no Geneva convention in 40K.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 16:45:05


 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






2d6 only works if you are resolving a single attack at a time.

When a single unit can shoot 90 times, 180 with a strat, it is impractical to roll 2d6 for shoot, wound, save 180 times before moving on to the next unit.

It will never work for 40k to have more than a single dice for a single resolution.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Andy Chamber's Starship Troopers had a neat little mechanism by which you define an area or kill-box from which casualties of your squad's attacks would be drawn.

Personally I rather like the idea that because you didn't wipe out the unit of 30 hormagaunts and there's still 3 left that you can't immediately start shooting at the unit they were screening. It's like 'hey, that screen actually worked.' It's very nice for the Tyranid player.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






There might be a different sort of screening mechanic to be made where you could declare fire at both units, and if you don't wipe out the front unit then firing at the rear unit incurs a -1 to hit penalty.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in pt
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Thanks for the education hbmc and jidmah. I guess I had been remembering terminator saves and sometimes we want that fat middle. So sure, 2d6 might not work for everything, shooting etc, but might work for some things. But I do appreciate your points. You guys are right.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 catbarf wrote:
How's that any different from having a unit in difficult terrain, flubbing the movement roll, being unable to get into a position to shoot as a result, and then complaining that it's not fun when you're not allowed to move where you want? Or rolling a 1 to Advance and not being able to get on the objective? Or rolling snake eyes on your charge and standing around while you get shot? All of these involve you setting up a situation where you need to make a certain roll to do what you want.
It's not. That's not really all that fun either. So why would we want to add more un-fun things like that to the game?

 catbarf wrote:
I mean, if you'd prefer more deterministic implementations of all these mechanics then I totally understand that. But discussions on target priority always seem to hyper-focus on the randomness of it, as if the game isn't already chock-full of places where you can flub a roll and have a unit be useless (or grossly suboptimal) for the turn.
Exactly! There are already plenty of places that include randomisation and areas where you can flub rolls. Why would we want to add to that?

 catbarf wrote:
You could even level the exact same complaint against using Ld checks to mediate split fire: Why shouldn't each model be able to direct its fire against the optimal target? Does it feel fun when a unit of 3 Aggressors fails a check and can't split its fire between three small units of Gaunts, and has to overkill one of them?
Because it's an unusual action outside of the standard abilities or methods. The idea of splitting fire is my unit taking a non-standard shooting action. I want to shoot, but I want to try to do more than I usually can. So there's a test involved. Simply being able to shoot at something shouldn't be something I can fail at when I can already also fail to hit it and wound it.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
You could even level the exact same complaint against using Ld checks to mediate split fire: Why shouldn't each model be able to direct its fire against the optimal target? Does it feel fun when a unit of 3 Aggressors fails a check and can't split its fire between three small units of Gaunts, and has to overkill one of them?
Because it's an unusual action outside of the standard abilities or methods. The idea of splitting fire is my unit taking a non-standard shooting action. I want to shoot, but I want to try to do more than I usually can. So there's a test involved. Simply being able to shoot at something shouldn't be something I can fail at when I can already also fail to hit it and wound it.
??
"Take a test to perform a non-standard option."
Mechanically speaking that seems no different from choosing not-the-closest if shooting the closest is standard.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

A roll to see if you can roll is just tedious game design, full stop. It adds nothing.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 JohnnyHell wrote:
A roll to see if you can roll is just tedious game design, full stop. It adds nothing.
Oh great, I'll just declare I'm hitting and wounding my opponents models then, and I'll just leave it up to them to make save rolls.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Firstly, Insectum, I don't know why you're acting like this is personal, but please ease down. You'll blow your transaxle if you keep this up.

Secondly, Jonny is talking about superfluous rolls, like if a psychic power has a To Hit roll after the psychic test; all you're doing is adding a step for no actual gain. Rolling to see if you get to roll To Hit is superfluous.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 23:57:10


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

H.B.M.C. wrote:Because it's an unusual action outside of the standard abilities or methods. The idea of splitting fire is my unit taking a non-standard shooting action. I want to shoot, but I want to try to do more than I usually can. So there's a test involved. Simply being able to shoot at something shouldn't be something I can fail at when I can already also fail to hit it and wound it.


If shooting the closest target is the default, then checking to see if you can target something else is a non-standard shooting action. You want to shoot, but want to try to do more than you usually can.

By the same token, you can still always fail to hit and wound when you split fire, so why are you okay with taking a test first? Given how 8th/9th allows freely splitting fire, that also seems like a pretty heavy restriction on targeting that you are taking a Ld check to ignore.

JohnnyHell wrote:A roll to see if you can roll is just tedious game design, full stop. It adds nothing.


Good thing target priority isn't 'a roll to see if you can roll', then.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 catbarf wrote:
If shooting the closest target is the default, then checking to see if you can target something else is a non-standard shooting action. You want to shoot, but want to try to do more than you usually can.
Imagine if you had to roll to see if you get to charge what you want in the assault phase, then rolled your charge distance.

 catbarf wrote:
... so why are you okay with taking a test first?
Because splitting fire always felt like something that was very powerful - it extends the threat potential of any unit you have - plus its an interesting way of having troops with better leadership show that leadership in the way they direct their firepower. Clearly GW doesn't feel that way, as now you can split however you like, but then again 8th/9th isn't the best benchmark for these sorts of things, as in 9th you can fire at this Hive Tyrant but not this Hive Tyrant.

Target Priority though? It's just not the same. That's just the basic function of selecting a single target, and a rule that essentially denies that for no gain. It doesn't add anything fun to the game. It's just something you can do to stop you from doing a basic function of the game: Selecting a target for a unit to shoot at. Sorry, you don't get to do the thing you like this turn. feelsbadman.jpg

 catbarf wrote:
Good thing target priority isn't 'a roll to see if you can roll', then.
Sure feels like one...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/07 00:53:39


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






To be fair and having played a lot of 4th back in the day, the times where not shooting the closest unit wasn’t something that I recall coming up all that often. Usually if a unit was baring down towards another unit, it was a threat and shooting it was a no brainer. Things got a little more confounding when you’d have two nearly equally close units that were further away. E.G., you had some devastators in the back line forced to shoot unit A that was 30” away instead of the more dangerous unit B that was only 36” away or whatever.

I could see having a rule for “threat range” or something, where if an enemy unit was within 12”, you had to shoot at that unit or take a leadership test to shoot something else.

This close proximity requirement would better reflect the imminent threat faced by an opposing unit that’s closing range. It also provides some counter play opportunity, as you could tactically withdraw to create more space and free up your targeting abilities (which again could mean moving off objectives, so it has a nice in-built trade off). If all enemy units were further than 12” away, then the unit can choose a target freely.

Combine the above with some basic screening rules that would work on the defensive side, and you could get nice synergies and gameplay dynamics starting to evolve.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/07 01:07:57


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







People don't like leaving anything to chance?

Wait until they find out about REAL LIFE!!
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People don't like leaving anything to chance?

Wait until they find out about REAL LIFE!!
Don't misrepresent what I'm saying.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Firstly, Insectum, I don't know why you're acting like this is personal, but please ease down. You'll blow your transaxle if you keep this up.
Not sure where you're getting that impression.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Secondly, Jonny is talking about superfluous rolls, like if a psychic power has a To Hit roll after the psychic test; all you're doing is adding a step for no actual gain. Rolling to see if you get to roll To Hit is superfluous.
In the case of terget choice it isn't shperfluous though? It serves to separate disciplined troops from less disciplined ones, as well as provides a bit of fog-of-war simulation.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






But that can be as simple as a -1 to hit instead of a full test with the potential to fail.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in pl
Screaming Shining Spear





 Mezmorki wrote:
To be fair and having played a lot of 4th back in the day, the times where not shooting the closest unit wasn’t something that I recall coming up all that often. Usually if a unit was baring down towards another unit, it was a threat and shooting it was a no brainer. Things got a little more confounding when you’d have two nearly equally close units that were further away. E.G., you had some devastators in the back line forced to shoot unit A that was 30” away instead of the more dangerous unit B that was only 36” away or whatever.

I could see having a rule for “threat range” or something, where if an enemy unit was within 12”, you had to shoot at that unit or take a leadership test to shoot something else.

This close proximity requirement would better reflect the imminent threat faced by an opposing unit that’s closing range. It also provides some counter play opportunity, as you could tactically withdraw to create more space and free up your targeting abilities (which again could mean moving off objectives, so it has a nice in-built trade off). If all enemy units were further than 12” away, then the unit can choose a target freely.

Combine the above with some basic screening rules that would work on the defensive side, and you could get nice synergies and gameplay dynamics starting to evolve.


That is something I have in my system - weapons have short/long range and you have to test if you have a target in short range but you want to shoot something at long range. Target selection within the same range class is unrestricted. The same applies for charge actions - you have to test if you want to charge with double action when you have a target for single action. Works well and creates much more interesting dynamics than 5th+ ed 40K.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: