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.

I have been playing fantaasy for a while but only recently have i actually started getting a bit serious (I read the rulebook) and i realised just how much more sense the rules fo fantasy make (especially shooting

For example in 40k that gretchin on marneus calgars foot can save him from a Vanquisher shell in the face. And it can save him on a 4+

Or a hegde saves him on a 6+ from the baneblade cannon with the leaves magically deflecting the explosive power around him.

In FANTASY the Arrow/Bolt/Bullet has a +1 to hit marneus calgar if he is behind a hedge.

And a Gretchin Most definently does not help against a Great Cannon.

Also the whole business of strength giving a negative on an Armour save makes a lot more sense.

Also magic, In 40k if my necron warrior doesnt run away from lasgun fire he has the will power to control the warp.

In Fantasy certain spells are harder to cast and it isnt just a bloody leadership test.

Overall, a lot of the core Fantasy rules make more sense than their 40K counter-part. Stand and shoot, reacting to charges, more randomised magic, the armour save mechanic, multiple saves...there's a lot to like about it.

But it's not 40K. If you like the Fantasy rule-set, just play Fantasy.

Edit: This doesn't really belong in Proposed Rules either, as you're just complaining, not proposing anything.

40k rules are mostly designed more with making the game run smoothly and fairly than being realistic.

^Yes true but its king of silly how a lascannon touching a tank has the same chance to hit as a lascannon firing from behind a hill at a gretchin who is behind a hill.
And no bonus for Shooting at a baneblade or stopma compared to shooting a snotling

@Unbeliver87-Well i Propose 40k ditches cover saves and just uses to hit modifiers instead

Also i propose bonuses for range and shooting tanks as well

ChocolateGork wrote:^Yes true but its king of silly how a lascannon touching a tank has the same chance to hit as a lascannon firing from behind a hill at a gretchin who is behind a hill.
And no bonus for Shooting at a baneblade or stopma compared to shooting a snotling

@Unbeliver87-Well i Propose 40k ditches cover saves and just uses to hit modifiers instead

Also i propose bonuses for range and shooting tanks as well

The same to hit represents the fact that hitting any part of the Gretchin's body will annihilate it whereas you have to hit a very specific part of a tank to damage it.

It's kind of funny, what you are proposing is actually going back to a form of shooting that was in the 2nd edition of 40k. Each gun had a short and long range value in inches and you could get a bonus to hit based on being at short range and a negative to hit modifier for being at long range. I believe cover modified the to hit roll as well. For 3rd and 4th editions they started streamlining those rules so games would take less time and be smoother.

I guess in Fantasy the time concerns are not a factor since there is, in general, less shooting to resolve.

Tychron wrote:I believe cover modified the to hit roll as well. For 3rd and 4th editions they started streamlining those rules so games would take less time and be smoother.

True towards your first statement. Want to know something REALLY funny? A to-hit modifier is MORE simple, because there is LESS die rolling.

Player 1:"Okay, my Imperial Marines are going to fire on your Space Orcs."
Player 2: "Okay, they're behind cover so you get a -1 to hit"
Player 1: Rolls 10 dice, hits with 5. Proceeds to roll to wound and causes 3 wounds. The Orcs don't get saves and die.

Currently, it's like this:

Player 1:"Okay, my Imperial Marines are going to fire on your Space Orcs."
Player 2: "Okay, they're behind cover so I get a 4+ cover save"
Player 1: Rolls 10 dice, hits with 7. Proceeds to roll to wound and causes 4 wounds.
Player 2: Takes 4 cover saves, and saves with 2. Two Orks die.

See, you actually have MORE dice rolling.

Strength giving an armor save mod also makes a lot more sense also. Of course, so did a movement stat. Of course now you have a bunch of exceptions. Beasts, Fleet of Foot, Slow and Purposeful, and so on. Really? If they're beasts, they have a higher M stat. If they're fleet, a higher M stat. If S+P, a lower move stat.

Removing the cover save and adding a hit modifier would also require extensive rebalancing of armies that have terrible armour saves and rely on cover and units that basically don't gain benefit from cover at all (Looking at you Thousand Sons).

I.E. Fire a Bolter at a Guardsman in cover.

Under current rules, 3+ to hit, 3+ wound, 4+ to save.

Under proposed rules, 5+ to hit, 3+ to wound, no save.

Or Fire a Plasma Gun at a Thousand Son in cover (which currently makes no difference).

Under current rules, 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 4+ invulnerable

Under proposed rules, 5+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 4+ invulnerable

The value of units shifts a lot.

Who cares? If you want to play fantasy play fantasy. I like the 40k shooting system, and support sticking with it over the fantasy one. Besides, this would mean every army will need to be rebalanced. What a bunch of crap.

People keep assuming to hit modifiers make for a more sophisticated tactical game. They're wrong. Having any experience with 2nd ed will demonstrate this, while 2nd was a fun game there was no great strategic depth produced from to hit mods. In fact, given the high level of armour modifiers throughout armour was generally quite useless, forcing everything that wasn't a terminator or multi-wound monster to hide in cover just to survive a turn. Every troop type felt largely the same.

In recent editions, by setting up the 'no mods' system as they have, it's allowed them to create two unique infantry types - low armoured troops such as guardsmen and ork, who stick to cover wherever possible as outside of cover they'll suffer heavy casualties, and heavily armoured troops like marines who gain no benefit from cover against small arms, and are able to advance over open terrain. It's a noted distinction that actually comes out in regular play.

At the same time the to-hit modifiers in WHFB don't produce a more tactical game, they're minor balance on the power of shooting for one turn. The game still resolves around flanking where you can, whittling away the enemy's rank bonus where you can't. A to hit modifier changes none of that, that game would be largely the same without it.


Meanwhile, I expect this topic will come up again in five days. Perhaps we should start a betting pool?

but fantasy is more taktikul!

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:but fantasy is more taktikul you n00b!

Finally you understand...

Nitros14 wrote:Removing the cover save and adding a hit modifier would also require extensive rebalancing of armies that have terrible armour saves and rely on cover and units that basically don't gain benefit from cover at all (Looking at you Thousand Sons).

I.E. Fire a Bolter at a Guardsman in cover.

Under current rules, 3+ to hit, 3+ wound, 4+ to save.

Under proposed rules, 5+ to hit, 3+ to wound, no save.

Or Fire a Plasma Gun at a Thousand Son in cover (which currently makes no difference).

Under current rules, 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 4+ invulnerable

Under proposed rules, 5+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 4+ invulnerable

The value of units shifts a lot.

In your first example its actually the same chance to kill a guardsman, 0.22 per shot.

It is also widely accepted that 1Ksons are rediculously overcosted for their abilities at the moment. This rule will bring them up to the power level of the rest of the CSM troops choices and make them a reasonable choice without needing to be recosted.

Regwon wrote:

In your first example its actually the same chance to kill a guardsman, 0.22 per shot.

It is also widely accepted that 1Ksons are rediculously overcosted for their abilities at the moment. This rule will bring them up to the power level of the rest of the CSM troops choices and make them a reasonable choice without needing to be recosted.

I actually meant to write 4+ to hit not 5+, since that's what the original poster said. Brain on fire :(

Anyway, if you have +2 to hit for hard cover like in fantasy which is what I was thinking of, then you have the silly situation with Orks and their having to roll a 6 then a 2-3-4-5-6 to satisfy the 5+ to hit +2 requirement. Which is more dice rolling.

Nitros14 wrote:

Regwon wrote:

In your first example its actually the same chance to kill a guardsman, 0.22 per shot.

It is also widely accepted that 1Ksons are rediculously overcosted for their abilities at the moment. This rule will bring them up to the power level of the rest of the CSM troops choices and make them a reasonable choice without needing to be recosted.

I actually meant to write 4+ to hit not 5+, since that's what the original poster said. Brain on fire :(

Anyway, if you have +2 to hit for hard cover like in fantasy which is what I was thinking of, then you have the silly situation with Orks and their having to roll a 6 then a 2-3-4-5-6 to satisfy the 5+ to hit +2 requirement. Which is more dice rolling.

Just a small point: this would only be specific cases of BS2 shooting, and it's not certain it'd be more dice-rolling anyway since the weapons may very well penetrate armour and not allow a save.

However, I do believe that in Fantasy there's more room for higher BS armies, and BS2 units tend not to have shooting weapons.

As someone posted, if you want shooting rules like this, play 2nd Edition 40k


However, that adds a whole lot of weird stuff, like Multiple wound weapons, and Greater Deamons having 10 wounds, and really complex armor penetration.

Also armor modifiers

IE Terms had a 3+ save on 2D6... weapons modified that number, IE, lascannon gave it a -6, so a 9+ on 2D6

you could also take multiple saves armor then field save.

models had different movement stats.. there wasn't an assault phase... blah blah blah

I think the foci are different. The vast majority of work in fantasy IIRC goes on during close combat, and the rules are written to keep that gory, up close and personal, medieval warfare feel. I haven't played fantasy for a long time, so correct me if I'm wrong, but in fantasy, there isn't a single army that could really be called a "shooting army." But in a game where there are armies designed to end battles without fighting any sort of assault, shooting has to be a) more effective, and b) more streamined.

As it pertains to shooting, I think we can all agree with sebster that is was designed to provide tactical options. I can't for the life of me figure out how it is that a manticore rocket will crack open most tanks, yet let a gang of marines take only one casualty either, but I recognize the game value of different types of units that can be taken out with different types of weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as strength and armor penetration goes, S reducing saves works fine in a fantasy setting with primitive armor, but I think the point of power armor is that unless you're a huge monster, no amound of brute force is going to defeat high-tech power armor. That has to be done with special weaponry.

Grahh, you beat me too it... He's right you know!

You are comparing fantasy, which is supposed to represent large armies, to 40k, which is a squad based game.
Cover/shooting modifiers- fantasy units represent large blocks of infantry where the individuals do not leave formation, even when marching through woods and over barricades. 40K units represent individual soldiers, who are believed to hug cover at every oportunity. a squad if IG will not move through woods the way an empire regiment would. the Rules relect that.

Regarding strengh/armour- In 40k, some weapons could not be represented using fantasy mechanics. Tyranid hive guard guns (forgot the name) and melta weapons have the same strength, yet the nid weapons have an Ap of 4, while meltas have an Ap of 1. Hotshot lasguns and Sm vengance rounds have a strengh of 3 and 4 respectively, yet both have an Ap of 3. The current 40k rules allow for a more varied degree of ranged attacks than a fantasy ruleset.

2nd ed 40k played like fantasy. Back then they were basically the same game. The problem with 40k playing like fantasy is every unit in 40k shoots, and every unit in 40k is a skirmisher. I played back in 2nd edition and there are some definite pros and cons. The pros were that the game was more complicated, and there was more depth to the complexity of units. The con was the equivalent of a 1,000 point game back then would end up taking longer than a 2,500 point game does now. I say equivalent because most units had their point costs cut in half going from 2nd to 3rd so the 1,000 point game I was talking about would be 2,000 2nd edition points, and it would take about 4 hours.

Hi all.
As 40k is supposed to be massivley differnt to WHFB.
Why is 40k still using the same WHFB game mechanics with very abstract rules?

In WHFB 4 out of the 9 characteristics are directly responcible for close assaults.
And mobility and shooting get one each.
And the other 3 are for damage resolution.
As WHFB is primarily a close combat focused game this makes sense.(Most units are armed with close combat weapons, ranged attacks are used in supporting roles.)

However, 40k units are mainly armed with ranged weapons.
So having 4 chacteristics for close combat and only 1 for shooting is a bit odd isnt it?

It is possible to write rules in a straight forwads way that give propotional results without boging the game down in abstraction, or multiple layered resolutions.

All weapons cause damage to the target.(D)

ALL armour reduces the damage delt to the target,(A)

D-A = saving roll.

40k has unecisarily complicated rules for the low complexity of the game play.

TTFN
Lanrak.

That's cause they want to simulate armour piercing bullets to some extent (bullets that are better at penetrating armour but worse at damaging naked flesh). It adds variety, which is also important.

Also, whilst there isn't any particular evidence for it, I feel different levels of armour represent different orders of magnitude of armour - so whatever armour is equivalent to a 6+ save might have a certain stopping power, then 5+ has five times the stopping power, 4+ has five times that, and so forth, but the save also represents to number and size of weak points where even low-powered shots will do noticable damage.

Therefore each shot has the same chance of finding a weak spot as any other shot, but each notch of save easily shrugs off shots which the notch before would be destroyed by.

Under this interpretation:

- A lasgun bolt will find a weak point in Power Armour about twice as often as it will find one in Terminator armour

- krak missile will easily blast the Power Armour apart but won't make a noticable dent in the Terminator armour (unless it hits one of those weak points)

- A railgun will vaporize both types of armour with ease - assuming, of course, that it doesn't disperse against the forcefield surrounding the Terminators.

It's called Necromunda. It's better than both 40k and Fantasy. It's just a shame no one ever cares about it.

Fafnir wrote:It's called Necromunda. It's better than both 40k and Fantasy. It's just a shame no one ever cares about it.

Isn't that the one where you have to play as a hive game and can't play as the different armies?

Hey, this topic's about rules, not fluff.

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:It's called Necromunda. It's better than both 40k and Fantasy. It's just a shame no one ever cares about it.

Isn't that the one where you have to play as a hive game and can't play as the different armies?

Yes, sort of. There were rules for the six main gangs in the hive (without a great deal of difference between them) but there are also rules for natives, mutants, cultists and aristrocrats journeying down into the hive to hunt men for sport. They were all human, though.

A whole lot of fan sites produced rules for various xenos forces, and given the minimal level of support for the game these days you'll typically find any group that's willing to play is happy to use decent fan made rules.

I would dispute the 'is better than than 40K or fantasy' though. It's a skirmish game, and has rules built for that level of detail, and really can't be compared to 40K and Fantasy, which resolve games on a much bigger scale. It also has more than it's own share of issues, from junk weapons, wildly differing levels of skill quality, to the campaign system that will give a huge advantage to the lower ranked gang regardless of the size of the difference in gang ratings, to the injury system that doesn't factor in the nature of the injury at all and therefore makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.

And bare in mind I say that as a huge fan of the game.

Hi again.

That's cause they want to simulate armour piercing bullets to some extent (bullets that are better at penetrating armour but worse at damaging naked flesh). It adds variety, which is also important.

I am at a loss to understand how a target behind armour is totaly impervious to all weapon effects up to a point when the armour just 'fails.'
It goes against all real world balistic evidence.

Eg H.E.S.H rounds NEVER penetrate the outer skin of the armoured vehicle , but the concussive shock wave causes 'critical organ failure' on all occupants.And the spinters of armour shattered from the internal face of the armour (spalling) make a real mess of the whats behind the armour...

Even the bullet proof vest (flack armour) has a sliding scale of impact effect. no damage, minor bruising, major bruising,bone fractureing-concussive shock, organ faliure,death through critical organ faluire.At no point has the bullet proof vest let the bullet pass through it!

Any projectile that can make it through the advanced armour of the 41st milenium WOULD have caused serious amount of concussive -spall damage before it actualy broke through...and this is totaly ignored in 40k.

If ALL units get an armour value between 1 and 15.
All weapons get a damage rating between 5 and 15.

One simple method, damage -armour value = save roll required.
This gives results that are proportional and follow real world interactions , so they are intuitive .

Eg
H Bolter Damage 7.
IG AR 2 save = 5+
SM AR 4 save =3+
Ork Mega armour AR 5 =2+ save.

Melta gun Damage 9
IG AR 2 =auto wound.(7 + save required.)
SM AR 4= 5+ save.
Ork Mega armour AR 5=4+ save.

The units armour simply modifies the damage taken, to result in a saveing throw that is proportional.

NO extra aditional modifiers or multiple systems.

I hope that helps explain the idea better.

TTFN
Lanrak.

I *kind of* agree in the sense that Fantasy is more complex. However don't forget that 40k (Rogue Trader, and 2nd edition) worked more or less like Fantasy. Only in 3rd edition did they bring in assault/rapid fire/heavy etc., and cover became more important from there. You used to have "hard cover" and "heavy cover", and were able to take multiple saves. Some weapons inflicted multiple wounds with a single shot, not just instadeath.

The problem is that the game unbalances itself incredibly fast. Why would anybody ever want Power Armor if EVERY weapon in the game inflicts a -1 save modifier? You've now got a 4+ save.

The psychic phase was like a separate game, and it wasn't really possible to use your psychic powers *tactically*.

In RT, shooting at vehicles was incredibly complex, almost like shooting at Titans in Titan Legions. However it took forever, and the game is now designed to be played with much larger armies.

Lanrak, you're both exaggerating the examples in your post and ignoring the most important part of my post.

Scale it down. Which bullet will do most damage to an unarmoured human being: full metal jacket or hollow point? Both are fired from the same gun, with the same caliber, etc. The strengths are the same. Now, dress that person up in light armour, say some sort of medieval body-covering stuff.
And keep in mind we don't get H.E.S.H. rounds, we get molten molecules fired in concentrated blasts as well as finger-slim mono-chromatic and high energy light beams. We also have mono-molecular thin discs fired at a rate of several thousand per minute, self-propelled metal slugs, and small packets of highly acidic alien venom. I'm not pulling a "it's fantasy and you're riding a pink unicorn" argument, but I am putting it into perspective that far from all "bullets" in this game are of the metal kinetic type.

As for my other, more important, argument. It adds very important variety. Since I play Eldar and Eldar only, I'll use them as example.
Currently, the Eldar (S6) heavy weapons are:
Shuriken Cannon - close range anti-GEQ infantry
Star Cannon - medium range anti-MEQ infantry (although 4:th edition sort of killed it by reducing shots without reducing cost enough)
Scatter Laser - medium range anti-horde
If we were to introduce the rules where strength translated to AP as well, we'd have:
Star Cannon - 2 shots
Shuriken Cannon - 3 shots
Scatter Laser - 4 shots
In other words, straight upgrades to number of shots instead of adding a further element as to what you are supposed to use them as. (Let's ignore the fact that all are used to take down transports, Shuriken Cannon if you are too cheap to pay for a Scatter Laser and Star Cannon only if your local 15-year olds like to foot-slog their marines out of cover)