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.

Lanrak wrote:

Also 40k has suffered for very 'fudged' development over the years.Cover should adjust the chance to hit not the armour save.

Smoke and long grass etc just make the target harder to see.(We can say hard cover makes the unit harder to see and gives the chance of deflecting some incoming fire,so give +2 to targets Stealth value.)
This applies to all units equally.

I disagree here for one simple reason.
High BS units would therefore just ignore cover which would lead in the end to the same problem we have now

Just for the game mechanics with the different units in game, Cover need to be split into 2 categories, one being a save and the other one being a BS modifier.
If all kind of cover is treated the same, no matter if as a save or as BS modifier, problems we have now will still exists.

And you are right that an opposing value for BS would be good to have to bring all to hit rolls in line (but I am not sure how players would react to that and if it would be good for the game if there are a lot of units which would start hitting on 2+ with their ranged weapons)

 awbbie wrote:
if none of us agree on what the change should look like...

Like with everything in live, discussion and finding a compromise

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 awbbie wrote:
How can we expect GW to change if none of us agree on what the change should look like...

We don't have to agree on what the best solution is.... we just have to mostly agree that what we currently have is terrible. GW could pick one of half a dozen solutions to fix certain rules or certain units, even though it might not be the choice I *personally* would have made, I will accept it as being vastly superior to no solution at all.

This is why GW needs to take community input, but still have a small cohesive team of writers who decide "Ok, these are our options, which one is going to work best and how will we implement it". It's also why community systems rarely get off the ground, you can't usually assemble a small dedicated team to put in the effort and once too much of the community gets involved it turns in to a mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
In 2nd ed, power armor was virtually useless. It's why loyalist marines were unplayable.

Yep, but it was entirely the fault of weapon stats being too powerful, not the modifier system being flawed.

It's similar to why a saves are less important now than they were back in 3rd edition, the core rules haven't changed all that much, but the availability of powerful low AP weapons has increased.

D6 is too small for save modifiers. Even a -4 made the mighty terminator way overcosted.

The real problem with GW balance is that it isn't all done at the same time.

I don't mind a muted power system.

I don't mind a "every unit should be really good so you want to buy everything" system.

What annoys me, and I think the bulk of the players, is the asymmetry of the system. There is no way the same rules that came up with say Orks produces the Eldar codex. Its incredibly obvious and its been GWs weakness for the best part of two decades.

Currently you get a bad codex and your stuffed for the next few years. Worse still GW then go "Oh we made you so crap that no one is buying your models? Well we have no motivation to give you a new codex." As a result you may end up being stuffed for the best part of a decade. Which is a ludicrous situation in the wider miniature war gaming sector.

If GW adopted PP's practices and had new releases for every faction every year it would be something even if it was a naked money grab with these units invariably being better than anything else in their respective lists.

Tyel wrote:
The real problem with GW balance is that it isn't all done at the same time.

If GW adopted PP's practices and had new releases for every faction every year it would be something even if it was a naked money grab with these units invariably being better than anything else in their respective lists.

I figure a "basic" codex released for all groups all within a few months levelling the playing field.
Then a "supplement" can be released with formations for each army that could be considered together for balance.
Everyone needs to buy the supplement and know what is going on, everything gets balanced, win-win.
Heck, every 6th supplement GW can publish the "40k-compendium(tm)" grouping them all together (Or get the yearly subscription with everything being updated live!!! at the Black Library or the extra special iTunes store!).

The above is what I believe-in because about half-way through 6th edition I gave up trying to get everything.
All prior editions I bought ALL the codex's because I would either play those armies or play against them, I like to know my opponent's capabilities rather than take their word for it.
To literally be on "the same page" and to consider formations together can assist in the balance we are looking for.
The document would be good advertising exposing players to other armies they may not have considered playing.
What I propose is pure corporate evil but gaming goodness, tell me I am wrong!

@Kodos.
If cover makes units harder to hit, how would higher BS unit ignore cover

Eg if the model with high BS (5) usually hits on 2+.
But the model they are targeting is in cover means they now need 3+to hit.

Adding ANOTHER saving roll system to the three they already use, is pointless complication, that can easily be avoided.

Lanrak wrote:
@Kodos.
If cover makes units harder to hit, how would higher BS unit ignore cover

If it is a BS modifier, a unit with BS 6 will stil hit on 2+
If it is a flat -1 to hit, it is something different

Adding ANOTHER saving roll system to the three they already use, is pointless complication, that can easily be avoided.

Why should there be another one.

I suggested to merge armour and cover into one save, which will leave the ward save (FnP is not a classic save an I would remove it entirely from the game)

Hi Kodos.
Either cover adds 1 to the targets stealth value if we are using an opposed stat chart for the to hit roll Balistic skill vs Stealth skill.(Like S vs T )

Or a straight -1 to hit target in cover , if we stick with the flat BS system currently used.

Save roll methods currently used.
1)As vs AP

2)Additional invunerable saves

3)Separate vehicle rules AV vs Strength of hit.

I forgot to include the Special rules that add on extra ways to negate wounds! FNP and WBB, etc

So why not just use one chart AV value (1 to 10) vs AP (1 to 10) value to give the save roll required for all units?
Rather than limit the values to the values found in the face if a D6 .
Using values from 1 to 10, allowing auto succeed and auto fail as legitimate results.

Martel732 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 awbbie wrote:
How can we expect GW to change if none of us agree on what the change should look like...

We don't have to agree on what the best solution is.... we just have to mostly agree that what we currently have is terrible. GW could pick one of half a dozen solutions to fix certain rules or certain units, even though it might not be the choice I *personally* would have made, I will accept it as being vastly superior to no solution at all.

This is why GW needs to take community input, but still have a small cohesive team of writers who decide "Ok, these are our options, which one is going to work best and how will we implement it". It's also why community systems rarely get off the ground, you can't usually assemble a small dedicated team to put in the effort and once too much of the community gets involved it turns in to a mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
In 2nd ed, power armor was virtually useless. It's why loyalist marines were unplayable.

Yep, but it was entirely the fault of weapon stats being too powerful, not the modifier system being flawed.

It's similar to why a saves are less important now than they were back in 3rd edition, the core rules haven't changed all that much, but the availability of powerful low AP weapons has increased.

D6 is too small for save modifiers. Even a -4 made the mighty terminator way overcosted.

Well -4 modifier to a Terminator in 2nd would be a 50% chance of surviving, and my suggestion would be that only heavy armour piercing weapons would be -4 or better.

Though I probably wouldn't use the 2nd edition system for Terminators, simply because it's too time consuming. I'd probably do something like halve the modifier for Terminators or stackable saves (so a Terminator would have to fail 2 tests to die).

Change it to a D10 system and fix the power creep.

(It's not power creep that's an inherent problem per se. It's the blatant pandering to certain factions and the (sometimes/sometimes-not) long release times that, combined with power creep, leave entire factions not only outdated, but also barely viable to play with due to said out-datedness.)

Lanrak wrote:


Also 40k has suffered for very 'fudged' development over the years.Cover should adjust the chance to hit not the armour save.

It depends really, if you see cover as 'adding protection' then a positive modifier to armour saves is perfectly acceptable. Starship troopers did it this way.

In infinity, cover modifies both the chance to hit, and the armour save and it works perfectly well.

The trick with modifiers (and the problem with how gw would in all likelihood implement them) is to be conservative. A -1 modifier in a d6 system should be a massive deal, and these things should not be handed out like candy to every gun and trooper. H.bolters? Yeah, maybe. Bolters, pulse rifles and lasguns - nope.

If modifiers would come back, there are 2 simply possible solutions to the "Terminator" problem.

First, adding the Cover Bonus to the armour save and allow negative values (Terminator in 4+ Cover has a -1+ save and with a -4 modifier still has a 3+ save)

Another one would be to get an unmodified armour save for heavy armour (instead of the invulnerable save)
So a Terminator is 2+/4+ and his armour can only be modified to up to 4+.


Another possibility would be to have not the direct save in the profile but an armour value were the save is calculated from.

Penetration VS Armour = Armour Save.
The other 2 solutions are easy and simple because they can be added to the current system and their impact on the game can be tested.

Another comparison chart has a much larger impact on the game and testing is more complicated and to be done mor4e carefully.

Also it removes one of the base mechanics of the game which can be too much for the community.

Hi Kodos.
Either cover adds 1 to the targets stealth value if we are using an opposed stat chart for the to hit roll Balistic skill vs Stealth skill.(Like S vs T )

Or a straight -1 to hit target in cover , if we stick with the flat BS system currently used.

Save roll methods currently used.
1)As vs AP

2)Additional invunerable saves

3)Separate vehicle rules AV vs Strength of hit.

I forgot to include the Special rules that add on extra ways to negate wounds! FNP and WBB, etc

So why not just use one chart AV value (1 to 10) vs AP (1 to 10) value to give the save roll required for all units?
Rather than limit the values to the values found in the face if a D6 .
Using values from 1 to 10, allowing auto succeed and auto fail as legitimate results.

A little bit more text incoming:

We have this discussed and also tested over times ("we" is me and my club and a group of guys that actually have designed their own games now. Some are working on a SciFi RPG Skirmish, others on a Steampunk P&P RPG. From time to time I get in contact and we are discussing ideas, test results, how each others work go on.) and we came always back to the same basic problem.

What is the core of 40k that should stay and what can be removed without offending the gamers.
For Example if I take a similar System like WM/H, the rules will be more like a 40k mod for that game which something different than most players want.

Back to Cover

The current save system with FnP, armour save, AV etc is garbage.
We have 2 complete different kinds of "to wound" mechanics, saves do not stuck except you have a specific one which is limited etc.

So it should be reduced to an armour save, cover bonus and the invulnerable save should be limited again.

A Cover bonus can now be a BS modifier or a bonus to the actual armour save

Both systems have their advantage and for 40k both of them should be in the game.
Why?
Because both have a very different impact on the game it self and a -1 to hit is not comparable to 4+ cover.

Increasing the models save with a cover bonus have an effect that small arms fire (laserguns, puls rifles, shuriken etc) has the possibility to spam wounds and that the opponent will roll enough "1's" to fail some saves.

-1 to hit removes this ability, which can be an advantage and buff some underrated units, but the game balance shifts completely and small arms fire which is already quite useless get nerfed.

So the question is what you want from the game. For a small battle game (5 Marines, 1 Dreadnought, 1 Tank, 1 HQ VS 1 IG Platoon, 1 Sentinel, 1 Tank, 1 HQ unit), a BS modifier is better because it increases the overall survivability

For 40k I would add both.
An armour bonus for 08/15 cover (area terrain, walls etc) and a BS modifier for fast moving skimmer/flyers (jink), smoke (ork bikes) etc.


@Streamlining

Yeah, 40k should use full values from 1-10 and above for large units and a universal chart (so no problem to use the same chart if Titans have toughness 20)

So Strength VS Toughness and Strength VS AV use the same mechanic and the same table.
While AV has no armour save but therefore starts at a higher value.

Same system for ranged to hit and Armour Saves is now difficult because it changes the basic shape of the game.

For the moment I would keep the simple BS mechanic and rather use the same for WS instead of adding BS VS Stealth

WS VS WS has not that bad but a simple to hit value would speed things up.
And before someones argue, we can still add the -X to hit value here as we do it for BS (and -X to hit become a flat modifier for BS and WS at the same time and high agility models like Harlequin, while -X BS for flyers)


Penetration VS Armour = Save, is different (I need to sleep a night over this) and the outcome is more or less the same like adding modifiers.

Give troops a To Hit and a To Save value. All infantry armour saves will be reduced by one, so a Terminator's 2+ becomes 3+, an M's 3+ becomes 4+, and so on.

The To Hit combines their BS and the S of their weapon. There will have to be some compromises in working this out, but winners and losers can be compensated for by adjusting other factors such as points value, range and ROF.

If the target is in cover, -1 DRM to your To HIt rolls. A To Hit of 4+ becomes 5+.

If the target is in hard cover, they get a +1 to their To Save rolls.

This means Terminators can't get a save better than +2 but if in hard cover they are still better off than in soft cover.

I don't think it's possible to make significant changes to the game's rules without quite a bit of compromise and adaptation to a lot of the weapon and unit factors.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 awbbie wrote:
How can we expect GW to change if none of us agree on what the change should look like...

We don't have to agree on what the best solution is.... we just have to mostly agree that what we currently have is terrible. GW could pick one of half a dozen solutions to fix certain rules or certain units, even though it might not be the choice I *personally* would have made, I will accept it as being vastly superior to no solution at all.

This is why GW needs to take community input, but still have a small cohesive team of writers who decide "Ok, these are our options, which one is going to work best and how will we implement it". It's also why community systems rarely get off the ground, you can't usually assemble a small dedicated team to put in the effort and once too much of the community gets involved it turns in to a mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
In 2nd ed, power armor was virtually useless. It's why loyalist marines were unplayable.

Yep, but it was entirely the fault of weapon stats being too powerful, not the modifier system being flawed.

It's similar to why a saves are less important now than they were back in 3rd edition, the core rules haven't changed all that much, but the availability of powerful low AP weapons has increased.

D6 is too small for save modifiers. Even a -4 made the mighty terminator way overcosted.

Well -4 modifier to a Terminator in 2nd would be a 50% chance of surviving, and my suggestion would be that only heavy armour piercing weapons would be -4 or better.

Though I probably wouldn't use the 2nd edition system for Terminators, simply because it's too time consuming. I'd probably do something like halve the modifier for Terminators or stackable saves (so a Terminator would have to fail 2 tests to die).

It was like that in 2nd. Except weapons liked to jump to -6. And there were weapons with -3 like the shuriken cannon that fired a TON of shots.

Yeah as I've said, 2nd edition's problem with regard to armour modifiers wasn't the way it works but the fact modifiers were given out too readily. It should be something special that has -1, not everything has -1, and only heavy weapons specifically designed for armour piercing would be -3 or better.

I personally don't think 40k needs the granularity of a D10 system, but at the moment and really through its history it doesn't even use the the D6 effectively.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah as I've said, 2nd edition's problem with regard to armour modifiers wasn't the way it works but the fact modifiers were given out too readily. It should be something special that has -1, not everything has -1, and only heavy weapons specifically designed for armour piercing would be -3 or better.

I personally don't think 40k needs the granularity of a D10 system, but at the moment and really through its history it doesn't even use the the D6 effectively.

Yeah, it really does. D10 would help bring the fluff to life better I think. Eldar wouldn't be running around with marine saving throws, for example.

How many D10s would people be willing to buy and roll for a single round of firing?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I personally don't think 40k needs the granularity of a D10 system, but at the moment and really through its history it doesn't even use the the D6 effectively.

+1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Yeah, it really does. D10 would help bring the fluff to life better I think. Eldar wouldn't be running around with marine saving throws, for example.

No, D10 would only be an advantage if the direct rolls needed were in the profile.

And for armour, just because now only 2+/3+ matters, doesn't mean D10 make it better. An Edlar 7+ Save on a D10 would still be useless if everyone has hat least AP6 weapons

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How many D10s would people be willing to buy and roll for a single round of firing?

People buy gw's plastic for horrifically underpowered armies, so i'm guessing the answer is as many as they needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I personally don't think 40k needs the granularity of a D10 system, but at the moment and really through its history it doesn't even use the the D6 effectively.

+1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Yeah, it really does. D10 would help bring the fluff to life better I think. Eldar wouldn't be running around with marine saving throws, for example.

No, D10 would only be an advantage if the direct rolls needed were in the profile.

And for armour, just because now only 2+/3+ matters, doesn't mean D10 make it better. An Edlar 7+ Save on a D10 would still be useless if everyone has hat least AP6 weapons

Don't make that the case.

Turn the 40K units into war scrolls (I prefer the term Combat Unit Numeration Texts) and give them a To Hit and a To Save. Drop S T and AP.

Your To Hit and To Save are the target number to roll under on a D10, so the larger they are the better. A 1 is always a hit. a 10 is always a miss.

DRMs can be used for cover and so on, modifying your To Hit stat up or down.

An increase or decrease of 1 in the stat or the DRM translates to an average 5% increase or decrease in the chance of success, considered across the whole possible range.

This system allows units to be created with a stat higher than 10, without them becoming invincible.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Turn the 40K units into war scrolls (I prefer the term Combat Unit Numeration Texts) and give them a To Hit and a To Save. Drop S T and AP.

Your To Hit and To Save are the target number to roll under on a D10, so the larger they are the better. A 1 is always a hit. a 10 is always a miss.

DRMs can be used for cover and so on, modifying your To Hit stat up or down.

An increase or decrease of 1 in the stat or the DRM translates to an average 5% increase or decrease in the chance of success, considered across the whole possible range.

This system allows units to be created with a stat higher than 10, without them becoming invincible.

I think this is an interesting concept (And I do enjoy AoS). My question is, then how would you figure in vehicles? I'd be interested to see.

I've only thought a bit about that.

I think I would create different key words, such as infantry, lo-power, hi-power, vehicle, monstrous creature. I would cross-grid these to show relationships of what weapons can attack what targets. Essentially I would make an infantry weapon like a bolt gun lo-power, therefore give a +1 DRM to the save of a monstrous creature, and ineffective against a vehicle. However, anti-tank weapons like a railgun, plasma gun and so on, could be hi-power, gridded for a negative To Hit modifier against infantry targets.

Bear in mind that with the War Scrool system each different type of weapon in a squad can have its own stat line.

The armour facings of vehicles could be expressed as DRMs to its basic save, or the scrool of a vehicle could just show it's saves depending on facing.

These are rough ideas I haven't thought through completely. My basic assumptions are that the game needs to be streamlined while preserving as much granularity as possible, with minimum variety of exceptions, special rules and non-intuitive rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've only thought a bit about that.

I think I would create different key words, such as infantry, lo-power, hi-power, vehicle, monstrous creature. I would cross-grid these to show relationships of what weapons can attack what targets. Essentially I would make an infantry weapon like a bolt gun lo-power, therefore give a +1 DRM to the save of a monstrous creature, and ineffective against a vehicle. However, anti-tank weapons like a railgun, plasma gun and so on, could be hi-power, gridded for a negative To Hit modifier against infantry targets.

Bear in mind that with the War Scrool system each different type of weapon in a squad can have its own stat line.

The armour facings of vehicles could be expressed as DRMs to its basic save, or the scrool of a vehicle could just show it's saves depending on facing.

These are rough ideas I haven't thought through completely. My basic assumptions are that the game needs to be streamlined while preserving as much granularity as possible, with minimum variety of exceptions, special rules and non-intuitive rules.

Just a question: I see alot in both videogames and table-top games that higher powered weapons, such as lascannons and railguns, are "harder to hit infantry with" than low-powered weapons. I have always wondered why that is the case - surely a person effectively trained in the use of such a weapon could hit infantry targets as readily as someone effectively trained in the use of, say, a sniper's rifle or bolt-action rifle at least?

Probably the targeting system is not optimized for small targets.

Higher power weapons in that circumstance might have more of a rev time which would make it more difficult to hit a quick small moving target at an effective range.

Could be just an attempt at balancing mechanics too, since then there'd be no reason to not take high power weapons all the time.

Before we delve too far in to relative worth of different game mechanics and resolution methods 40k could use.

I think we can all agree that the core rules from WHFB are no longer good enough to cover the scale and scope of the current game play.

Just to recap quickly on what 40k current core rules are.

Everything moves the same,( 6"/D6")

Everything hits everything else in close combat on a roll of 3+, 4+ or 5+.

Practically every units hits every other units at range on the roll of 3+ 4+or 5+.(Comparatively few units have BS 5, or over or BS 1.)

All units have a save value of 2+ to 6+ or no save.(Totally negated by weapons with AP values of equal or lower.)

Models in units are wounded on the roll of 2+ to 6+ or are unable to be wounded.

Not very expansive or inclusive are they.

As someone pointed out 40k does not use the D6 effectively .So it may be worth looking at using the D6 in more effective ways before swapping to a D10.

WHFB rules were fine for WHFB, but they were never a good fit for a 40k battle game.

WHFB WAS all about maneuvering large blocks of troops in close formation in to the best close combat match ups.With ranged attacks only used in a supporting role.

The last time I looked 40k units were very varied in shape and size.And the majority of them have ranged attacks.Making ranged attacks far more prominent in the game play, and units much more varied targets at range than the 'massed ranks' in WHFB.

I may start a thread in the Game Design forum , discussing why WHFB based rules are so unsuitable for a 40k Battle game.(This is a sort of tangent topic to this thread perhaps?)

So for GW to actually fix the game of 40k, they need to address the issues with the WHFB based core rules.
EG perform a complete re-write focusing on the intended game play of 40k.(What ever GW decide that should be. )