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.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Jackmojo wrote:



I would love to play 2nd edition. Would be much better than the crap fest that is Warhammer 40k 5th edition. But that's not why I think the boost would be good.

To me variation is great, and the more the better. Currently there is very little variation. I'm not asking for hero hammer but I'm not asking for boring heroes either.

How long have you been playing 40k?

I didn't say that stuff, I pretty much agree with your assessment of 2nd.

Jack

My thing is that eldars designed like tau in that they have powerful weaponry with high str, high AP, so it wounds a lot. If they shot like marines they would dominate at range.

To be unique, Eldars I trumps damn near everything... and due to this, a low Str/WS is needed for balance I think. Getting 4-5 attacks at I6 or 7 with WS 5-6 would be rediculous, doesn't matter if your str 3...

Too many styles of dice is bad, however why a system based on 8, 12 or 16 isn't used is beyond me. 16 is a very very effective way of counting. It divides nicely into 2, 4 and 8. Allowing for multiple synergies in the system and multiple natural "step up" type systems. ie 1-8 simply does an increase in hits etc, 8-16 allows various type of re-roll's with increasing ability to hit or wound on that re-roll...

It also allows for a larger degree in skill while keeping with balance. Ie the Guardsman still can hit the phoenix lord but the Phoenix lord will almost certainly hit the guardsmen due to re-rolling. While against a specialist he will hit the speciallist 50% of the time and maybe his equivalent opponent only 33% of the time...

d6 on a scale of 0-10 is such a slowed way to base a scale...Mathematically speaking you are basing your scale of 11 (0 is actually on the scale I believe) on something with 6 sides or a multiple of 6.... That is just plain.... stupid.... Why not use a scale of 1-10 making use of the whole range and roll using D10's?? Wouldn't that just make more sense?

OT: Is anyone else having a problem seeing the second page of this thread? It won't load for me.

HI all.
All that has happened over sucessive editions of 40k, is the dev have made the core rules easier to explain, but cover less game play than ever before.
So the game requires huge amounts of special rules to make it interesting to play.(Which mean loads more written rules are required to cover 40ks simple game play than are realy necissary.)

It is possible to use D6 in a far more ingenuis way than 40k does.
(Used as a direct determinator dice can only provide results equivelent to the number of sides, or fractions thereof.D6 detrministicaly=6,3or2.)

If we use stats from 1 to 10, AND ALL ARE USED!
And stats are compared directly to each other to get the range -9 through to +9.
This gives us 19 possible results.

If a D6 is added to these stats as a random modifier, this gives us -14 through to +14.
This gives us 29 possible results.

Just rolling for UNITS, as apposed to individial models would let us roll multiple dice for units, 2D6, 3D6, 4D6etc.
We could count number of sucesses like THW system, or compare results like ESM,....etc.
Both methods give a far wider range of results than 'roll a D6, 4+ suceeds.)

ATM all 40k models are are delux wound and attack counters,(and subject to bizare positional requirments with the amount of abstraction of LOS and casualty removal),in the curent 40k game.

2nd ed was a overcomplicated highly detailed skirmish level tactical game.Which could be abused horrendously if self restraint was not used.

3rd to 5th ed 40k is a simple and bland battle game with a heavy strategic emphasis,and compleltey over complicated abstract rules.
(WHFB 3rd ed rules FUBARed to the Nth degree.)
40k has more exceptions than it has rules, this is NOT good for game play.

More diversity in 40k abilities is a good thing.
But using a rule sytem developed for Army level Napoleonics , with a 'company level' scifi (modern)game ,is NEVER going to be a good fit.

TTFN
Lanrak.

If they want to use the full range of the stats, they would definitely need to rework the to hit/wound rolls as well. If GW really wanted to stick to just the D6 then a decent chart could be as followed:

BS
1 = 6+ (16.67%)
2 = 6+/6+ (30.55%)
3 = 5+ (33.33%)
4 = 5+/6+ (44.44%)
5 = 4+ (50.00%)
6 = 4+/6+ (58.33%)
7 = 3+ (66.67%)
8 = 3+/5+ (77.78%)
9 = 2+ (83.33%)
10 = 2+/4+ (91.67%)

The #/# means that if you miss the first roll you re-roll and attempt to get the second. Compare to the rolls as of 40k now:

BS
1 = 6+ (16.67%)
2 = 5+ (33.33%)
3 = 4+ (50.00%)
4 = 3+ (66.67%)
5 = 2+ (83.33%)
6 = 2+/6+ (86.11%)
7 = 2+/5+ (88.89%)
8 = 2+/4+ (91.67%)
9 = 2+/3+ (94.44%)
10 = 2+/2+ (97.22%)

With the BS as is from BS 5 and up there really isn't too much change in your chance to hit meaning that a unit with BS 10 really isn't that much better than one with BS 6.

While I see what Vlad would like to have happen, and it is not uncalled for, the problem is, that boosting the WS plane still only really helps characters with a high Weapons Skill. Yeah, it will boost everyone, but we will only see more 3+ to hit by high WS models. Tweaked further, and we will only see a handful of circumstances where it will actually be different then how the system currently works.

I would be curious to see some math hammering done on this under a variety of circumstances. Including fiddling with aggregate units (Space Marines, Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Defenders, Aspect Warriors, Termagaunts, Chaos Space Marines, Ork Boyz, Fire Warriors, etc....) and sparing them off against each other and special characters. A variety of scenarios will need to be presented (only using WS) and deciding what units would get what values. I propose an experiment!

I agree they should look over every thing as some of it just dose not make scene, but we should also avoid just scaling every thing up by one or two. No point in speeding up codex creep.

One thing that always got me was a greater daemon of Nurgle is T6 so a wraith lords is +2 T over a god.

I am an Eldar fan. Always have been. Even played 'em in 2nd Ed, which did, as others have said, suck.

However, I've never understood this obsession with the idea that your basic Eldar troops and elites should have improved stats.

The way I see it is this...

Untrained human, gretchin - WS2 and BS2
Highly trained human (IG) and barely trained eldar militia/guardians - WS3 and BS3
Genetically enhanced superhumans with the most advanced and intensive training available to man, and regular genetically, but very intensively-trained eldar - WS4 and BS4. (Not sure why Orks get WS4 though. I suppose a case can be made for experience, but...)
Absolute bite-your-knackers-off obsesses with war Exarchs, the undeniably cool Harlequins and some Space Marine characters - WS5.
Autarchs (still regular, if talented, Eldar) and Space Marine leaders - WS6.
Phoenix , the baddest eldar who ever lived, with countless years to improve, even by eldar standard- WS7 (And if there were Primarchs, maybe them too?)

I could see a possible case for making Phoenix Lords WS8, keeping vanilla autarchs and space marine captains at WS6, but adding special characters of each with WS7, but really, considering the relative non-genetically modified nature of aspect warriors, I am happy with them being the same WS as marines, and considering IG are professional soldiers and guardians aren't I am happy with parity there, too.

I would not be averse to seeing the goalposts for stats move, but it would have to be applied to all races, not just to eldar because of some weird superiority complex that not only are eldar better than regular humans, but also better than genetically-modified superhumans.

I can't read anything on this page.

Can anyone read anything on this page? The last poster said he couldn't and neither can I?

I know as a Chaos player (aren't we so whiny?) it pisses me off that other races get T7 and T8 MCs and I don't when I feel like I really should. I had a 10-man unit of Penal Legion take out my Lord of Change in the first turn. I failed 4 3+ Invuln saves. There's something so wrong about that being able to happen when T7 would have prevented it altogether.

Yeah, I guess the way I look at it is that the rules are too simple and the exceptions to numerous. Something several people have already pointed out I might add?

By making the basic rules work so that only a couple of universal special rules (Scouts etc) work well with the core rule set it would be possible to set up a very varied game relying only on the equipment and statistics of the models.

Reworking the silly force organisation chart to something more capable (perhaps along the lines of Warhammer?) would also benefit the system greatly.

Having done that you would potentially have a more fun game involving careful tactics than the current rock, paper, scissors that Warhammer 40K envokes.

Most importantly though is to fit the current model stats with a proper sliding scale that lends strength to leaders but enables units of lower scale models to match higher ones in resilience and power! Nothing annoys me more than 40K simply being "This uber unit counters this, then I counter with that, and you counter with this." "oh damn look we don't have an army left at the end!"

Fifty wrote:I am an Eldar fan. Always have been. Even played 'em in 2nd Ed, which did, as others have said, suck.

However, I've never understood this obsession with the idea that your basic Eldar troops and elites should have improved stats.

The way I see it is this...

Untrained human, gretchin - WS2 and BS2
Highly trained human (IG) and barely trained eldar militia/guardians - WS3 and BS3
Genetically enhanced superhumans with the most advanced and intensive training available to man, and regular genetically, but very intensively-trained eldar - WS4 and BS4. (Not sure why Orks get WS4 though. I suppose a case can be made for experience, but...)
Absolute bite-your-knackers-off obsesses with war Exarchs, the undeniably cool Harlequins and some Space Marine characters - WS5.
Autarchs (still regular, if talented, Eldar) and Space Marine leaders - WS6.
Phoenix , the baddest eldar who ever lived, with countless years to improve, even by eldar standard- WS7 (And if there were Primarchs, maybe them too?)

I could see a possible case for making Phoenix Lords WS8, keeping vanilla autarchs and space marine captains at WS6, but adding special characters of each with WS7, but really, considering the relative non-genetically modified nature of aspect warriors, I am happy with them being the same WS as marines, and considering IG are professional soldiers and guardians aren't I am happy with parity there, too.

I would not be averse to seeing the goalposts for stats move, but it would have to be applied to all races, not just to eldar because of some weird superiority complex that not only are eldar better than regular humans, but also better than genetically-modified superhumans.

QFT. Additionally, the lowest ranking GKPA is packing WS5. Of course, at 25 points before options, they better have something up on a regular space marine.

I don't understand this idea that Eldar are so completely underpowered. Dire avengers are the closest thing to IG Vets. At 12 points, they're a little more expensive than Vets with carapace armor, and they'd beat them in even melee every time, not to mention the 20 attacks they'd get at S4 running up to them. You could complain about the lack of anti-tank, but then again, you get 8 meltas at BS 4 with a 4+ save for the same number of points that Vets get 3 and carapace armor. If I add in melta bombs for the Vets, it becomes even cost for 10 fire dragons.

The one thing I will admit is prohibitive for Eldar is the number of Tanks they can field. They're expensive and the lack of squadroning means that you can't bring much to the party. But I thought the Eldar were all about being individual teams of close range specialists, not about having hundreds of tanks. You don't Guard or Tau players complaining about being worthless in melee (though sometimes I do ).

I will concede that Guardians are overpriced for their stats. I don't think the stats should be increased though. Instead, they should reduce cost to maybe 7. They have a stat-line similar to a guardsman, but they still have a better gun, get a better upgrade character than a Commissar (for cheaper too), and can fleet. The only wide-scale change I think that would help Eldar that would make sense would be a point cost reduction on their tanks, and maybe allowing for grouping them 2 to a FOC slot. Either that, or allowing them to take them as fast attack as well as heavy support. I think I prefer the latter of the two options. I think a point cost reduction to about 95-100 points for either chassis, and then bump holo-fields upgrades up to about 50 would be appropriate so that it's still relatively high cost if you want them to be as indestructible as they were before.

It would make sense for armies to have some Uber-powerful guys - WS7, 8, 9, even 10. The points for these things should be through the roof, but it would be great if you could at least get them.

I wouldn't mind an Ork Warboss option for a Boss with a WS8. Even Ghaz, the toughest Ork, doesn't approach this, but wouldn't it make sense that some Ork, somewhere, is just that huge? It still bothers me that it is possible (in the current rules) for my Warboss to be insta-killed - upping him to T6 would go a long way here. I still admit we're better off than the last Dex.

Honestly, I don't see this happening. I think the only solution is for players to come up with their own - then field them in Apoc (where anything goes, anyway).

As for Eldar, I have this idea that their WS shoud be average, not awesome. If one guy in the army had a high WS I could live with it, but I think it is more in keeping with the race to have an Eldar hero with an amazingly high BS. That's my take. Why? Because come on, there isn't any way that Eldar should be beating Orkses in H2H, Orks are PURE W1N, and it is bad enough that now Space Marines krump us ever since they took the Choppa Bonus away - the pointy ears shouldn't suddenly get more awesome than the Orkses, too.



Anyway, in short, nothing stops you from making your own custom rules for a legendary character or unit. Your friends may even let you play it. In the end, I say go for it, but if it was me, I'd hold these sort of legends in reserve for Apoc games.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know as a Chaos player (aren't we so whiny?) it pisses me off that other races get T7 and T8 MCs and I don't when I feel like I really should. I had a 10-man unit of Penal Legion take out my Lord of Change in the first turn. I failed 4 3+ Invuln saves. There's something so wrong about that being able to happen when T7 would have prevented it altogether.

So you're saying you would like an uber-unit that your opponent can't hurt? I guess that seems like a reasonable request if you can't keep your units safe, but it hurts everyone else because they won't be able to hurt you, giving you a massive advantage!

While I agree that sometimes some units that should be able to shrug off minor damage can't because of the rules (should a Leman Russ really be so vulnerable in the rear? Should a dying, hyper advanced race like the Eldar be getting ground out so quickly on the table? What about Chaos Space Marines? With the amount of casualties they're taking and no new recruitment, shouldn't the original legions be wiped out by now?), that doesn't mean I would suggest completely cheesing said units to appease the players. The resulting imbalance would accelerate codex creep and just make the game unplayable with each new codex trying to "balance out" the next. A handful of bad rolls doesn't break a unit in the long run.

Solorg wrote:It would make sense for armies to have some Uber-powerful guys - WS7, 8, 9, even 10. The points for these things should be through the roof, but it would be great if you could at least get them.

Should it? Would that even make a difference? If everyone had something that high, then when they clash against each other, it would be no difference than if they both had a WS of 2.

Solorg wrote:
I wouldn't mind an Ork Warboss option for a Boss with a WS8. Even Ghaz, the toughest Ork, doesn't approach this, but wouldn't it make sense that some Ork, somewhere, is just that huge? It still bothers me that it is possible (in the current rules) for my Warboss to be insta-killed - upping him to T6 would go a long way here. I still admit we're better off than the last Dex.

Ghaz is neigh unstoppable already, especially during a waaagh!. Combine him with a painboy and this becomes doubly so. Sorry to hear he's been instakilled. Mind sharing what actually got the job done?

Solorg wrote:
As for Eldar, I have this idea that their WS shoud be average, not awesome. If one guy in the army had a high WS I could live with it, but I think it is more in keeping with the race to have an Eldar hero with an amazingly high BS. That's my take. Why? Because come on, there isn't any way that Eldar should be beating Orkses in H2H, Orks are PURE W1N, and it is bad enough that now Space Marines krump us ever since they took the Choppa Bonus away - the pointy ears shouldn't suddenly get more awesome than the Orkses, too.

As for Orks and Eldar, I have this idea that Eldar are skilled so they should have really high WS and really low Str, and Orks aren't skillful but are smashy, so they should have WS2 and S5 or 6. Think nimble fencer versus someone swinging a telephone pole.

This whole boosting stat idea for specific races teeters on the edge of falling into Movie Marine category. Unless we're going full kangaroo court mode, in which case I decree that Yarrick should have pre-powerfist at least the stats of an Ork warboss because he killed one and took his claw. Orks should also have to take morale saves when they get close to him because they think he's scary.

Solorg wrote:
As for Eldar, I have this idea that their WS shoud be average, not awesome. If one guy in the army had a high WS I could live with it, but I think it is more in keeping with the race to have an Eldar hero with an amazingly high BS. That's my take. Why? Because come on, there isn't any way that Eldar should be beating Orkses in H2H, Orks are PURE W1N, and it is bad enough that now Space Marines krump us ever since they took the Choppa Bonus away - the pointy ears shouldn't suddenly get more awesome than the Orkses, too..

WS stands for Weapons Skill, that is, skill in hand to hand combat. Orks are about as subtle as an Imperator Titan when it comes to intentions.

Autarchs: WS7 BS7 S3 T3 W3 I7 A3 LD10 would represent this.
Warboss: WS7 BS2 S5 T5 W3 I3 A4 LD10 would definitely represent this. Super CC and survivable, but not too much else.
Captain: WS6 BS6 S4 T4 W3 I6 A3 LD10 also show Space Marines as skilled


@Assertions that 2nd sucked:
In the end, it all comes down to opinion. From what little I played, I really enjoyed it. Sure it's more complicated, sometimes too complicated, but I enjoyed it. So that's just me.

Hi all.
I would question the validity of devoting HALF the characteristics to close combat resolution,(WS,S,I,A) in a game where nearly every unit has ranged weaponry, and only one to characteristic to cover shooting(BS).
(T,W,LD are shared.)

In WHFB where nearly all units are amed with close combat weapons this makes more sense....

Its like GW just mutate the WHFB rules ad nausium because thats all they are allowed to use for 40k.

Even though using alternative game mechanics and resolution methods would get more synergy with the background and extend the actual gameplay with less rules.

I could not see anything being kept from the current rule set if game play was priority, not minature sales.

TTFN
lanrak.

It's because there are more things required in Close Combat?

And no offense but this is kind of off-topic.

I also think that Eldar players (and I am an Eldar player) should stop getting so uppity about humans being as good as Eldar. What gives? I know that I have complained about this in the past so there's no use in spending 30 minutes looking through my posts to prove me wrong, but I think that it's stupid.

Actually not just for Eldar.

"Oh no! Your human commander is as good as a Space Marine! Whut?"

"Oh no! This dude is nearly as good as this dude that I think is cooler! No fair!"

It also bothers me that there is almost nothing with WS6-10, barring Greater Daemons which rightfully deserve it. And even less with BS6-10. What's the point of BS10 if NO ONE has it?

HI.
Sorry for wandering off topic.
The reasom WS and BS is usualy limited to values of 2 to 5, is the poor choice of game mechanics.
BS-7=roll to hit, or the WS comparison that gives just 2 to 5= to hit inCC.
Whats the point in having -3 to to hit rolls, if there are no modifiers to hit?
Whats tha point of having WS 10 if it has no real advantage over WS 8 capped game?

I agree that any game should use the FULL range of characteristic values to maximise varietey .

I prefer the direct comparisons of stats, (EG attackers awarness -targets stealth = roll to spot,attackers weapon damage -targets armour = roll to save, etc.

40k appears to rely on special rules, rather than just use characteristics, (stats,) efficiently.

Why abstract two of the main fuctions of a unit, mobility and firepower to the point where special rules are needed to cover function.
And detail Assaults beyond the level actualy necissary?

The reason 40k is so FUBAR, is that the rules borrowed for WHFB for 40k, just dont work with the players expectaion of the game.
The game is NOT in synergy with the fluff.

And throwing in umpteen special rules to aid marketing every new release is doing NOTHING for actual game play.

Probably going off topic agian.
Using the full range of stats 1-10 with the current game mechanics would not yeild the leap in intuition and efficiency a new set of game mechanics would bring.

TTFN
Lanrak.

The game is NOT in synergy with the fluff.

That, I can 100% agree with.

In my humble opinion, 40k is moving more and more towards meeting their fluff. Not perfectly, of course, and perhaps not in ways the players always appreciate. For me, it was the new Guard Codex that really got my gears turning on the matter and made me look back to more recent codex releases. But the Guard Codex is actually pretty fluffy and has a lot of good variety! Orks seem to as well, as much as people have complained. When you can make a half dozen different kinds of lists from a Codex which are all not only playable, but unique and different, while remaining loyal to the background, then that's a good job!

As much as I begrudge Cuddace for what he did to Ogryns and some of the other units (for lacking good balance), the codex he wrote is actually pretty decent.

Skinnattittar wrote: But the Guard Codex is actually pretty fluffy and has a lot of good variety! .

Yep! Mech horde with or without PBS. With or without Vendettas. There sure is a lot of variety! Oh and there is no soul in the army anymore. You have to be really good (like Gav thorpe good) to rip the soul out of a codex. But again we are getting off-topic.

Here is a proposed WS chart, with the attacker on the Y axis and the defender on the X axis.

WS... 1...... 2...... 3...... 4...... 5...... 6...... 7...... 8...... 9...... 10
1...... 4+... 4+... 5+.. 5+... 5+... 6+... 6+... 6+... 6+... 6+
2...... 3+... 4+... 4+... 5+... 5+... 5+... 6+... 6+... 6+... 6+
3...... 3+... 3+... 4+... 4+... 5+... 5+... 5+... 6+... 6+... 6+
4...... 3+... 3+... 3+... 4+... 4+... 5+... 5+... 5+... 6+... 6+
5...... 2+... 3+... 3+... 3+... 4+... 4+... 5+... 5+... 5+... 6+
6...... 2+... 2+... 3+... 3+... 3+... 4+... 4+... 5+... 5+... 5+
7...... 2+... 2+... 2+... 3+... 3+... 3+... 4+... 4+... 5+... 5+
8...... 2+... 2+... 2+... 2+... 3+... 3+... 3+... 4+... 4+... 5+
9...... 2+... 2+... 2+... 2+... 2+... 3+... 3+... 3+... 4+... 4+
10.... 2+... 2+... 2+... 2+... 2+... 2+... 3+... 3+... 3+... 4+

Axyl wrote:If they want to use the full range of the stats, they would definitely need to rework the to hit/wound rolls as well. If GW really wanted to stick to just the D6 then a decent chart could be as followed:

[Chart]

[Chart]

Another option would be to have the BS modifiable; -1 BS for shooting at long range, -1 BS for shooting into light cover, etc.

Then having a BS of, say, 8 would still be useful because it could be reduced to 5 without hurting the accuracy of the shot by a large amount.

daedalus wrote:As for Orks and Eldar, I have this idea that Eldar are skilled so they should have really high WS and really low Str, and Orks aren't skillful but are smashy, so they should have WS2 and S5 or 6. Think nimble fencer versus someone swinging a telephone pole.

This was somewhat covered in the fluff thread about Space Marines fighting other humanoid opponents, and it was noted that Strength and Dexterity complement each other. There's no "D&D" style tradeoff between the two in real life (at least not for strength gained through fighting).

WS isn't how graceful the model can look while attacking, it's the model's actual ability to hit an opponent and avoid getting hit back. Strength most certainly should contribute to this, because a strong person can block blows that a weak person can't, a strong person can swing an object faster than a weaker person can, a strong person can put too much force behind their blow for it to be blocked easily, etc. Flashy stuff usually isn't what's used in fights; it's what they show in movies to make the fight scenes more exciting.

Additionally, Orks have learned to fight with giant knives since birth (you're not allowed in a Ork bar without having brass knuckles on you at the very least, according to GorkaMorka). While a Close Combat Aspect taking Eldar will probably have been training longer and more intensively than most Orks, a Guardsman won't have (except in rare cases, such as the Karnak Skulltakers), a Guardian won't have (lol bakers), a Sister of Battle won't have (although marksmanship seems to be emphasised quite well), and so forth.

(It's also worth mentioning that aggressiveness contributes to hitting in Close Combat as well. After all, Chaplains don't make their squad better trained.)

Lanrak wrote:I would question the validity of devoting HALF the characteristics to close combat resolution,(WS,S,I,A) in a game where nearly every unit has ranged weaponry, and only one to characteristic to cover shooting(BS).
(T,W,LD are shared.)

Well, that's ignoring the profile for the ranged weapons. If you include the weapon profiles, the model now has a ranged Strength, AP, Range, Number of Shots, and built in special rules (Heavy, Rapid Fire, Blast, etc).

I think they should spread it out. Here's a rough idea.

WS 1-Gretchin, civilians if something like that is ever done.
WS 2- Fire Warriors and Tau Path finders. Maybe Eldar rangers?
WS 3- Conscripts. More advanced tau.
WS 4-GEQ (Nids, scarab swarms). Also lesser daemons from csm dex-kroot maybe?
WS 5-MEQ (Eldar aspects, tau ic's, certain nids)
WS 6-Zerkers, termies, Striking scorpions and howling banshees, nid warriors.
WS 7-Chapter Masters, Chaos Lords, Tyrants, Necron Lords, The deciever, Genestealers.
WS 8- Special Characters-People like Abaddon, Kharn,-maybe Calgar. Broodlord. Autarchs
WS 9- The Phoenix Lords, Lucius.
WS 10- Avatars, Bloodthirster and keeper of secrets.

I know it's far, far from being good. But I reckon it would work as a rough guide.

I think that chart makes the low stats too useless. You really need three separate tiers to distinguish civilians, firewarriors, and conscripts? You yourself were only able to come up with a handful of units to even use them, and these are units that are dead in close combat regardless.

I'd bump everything down one, merge what you put down as 2 and 3, and separate 7 and 8 into three tiers or so (i.e. Captain WS 6, Chapter Master WS 7, Calgar WS 8).

Hi all.
'Vlad's revised WS chart shows the limitation of a mechanic that uses a D6 in a derterministic way.Only 6 pmaximum possible results!
Twice as good as the 3 current results, 3+,4+,5+!

Using stats comparitivley from 1 to 10 gives 19 possible results!

And add D6 as as variable and gets 29 results!
If you add different amount of dice to modify the results 1 D6 to 6D6 gives 95 possibe results.
So whats better to define a vast universe full of creatures , maximum of 6 results or 95 results?
If taken at the UNIT level we can get far more detail without bogging the game down in dice rolling.(Maximum of 6 dice rolled no matter how many models in the unit.)

A detalied UNIT based game is what 40k should be at its current size.(Tacticaly focused version of EA).NOT a simplified skirmish played at an oversized level.IMO.

Rolling for a unit is far more efficient than rolling for each model in a unit,(especialy for hoard armies.)

Orkysaurus.
If we can define ranged weapons seperatley , why not close combat weapons?
Number of attacks , strength, effective range and special rules on all weapon profiles perhaps?

This would reduce the stat line enough to put movement back perhaps?
M/WS/BS/T/W/I/LD/AS?

Now the characteristics are better balanced , with weapon effects delt with seperatley!
Perhaps characteristics could represent UNIT abilities, and special equipment and models give bonuses?

Just some thoughts..

True, the way that to hit only ranges from 3+ to 5+ is bonkers, I mean a Pheonix Lord needs a 5 to hit a grot!!?? surely it should be at least 6. Expanding theese is a good idea.

Back to the general concept, i think its good, often when things get bunched up you have 2 different models with the same WS when clearly one should be better than another. I can think of one example that would benefit from this- both boyz and nobz have WS4 nobz are more experienced so should have WS5. However this clashes with the Warboss, but sinse the 'max' has been raised its fine to put him up to 6.

Also, on a closing note, since we're on the subject of raising ork stats, i would like to preach again of my thought (or demand) to raise big meks BS to 3.

Rather than change all of the to hit scores, I'd rather shift from d6 to d8, d10 or even d12, so that WS and BS can have a wider range. Hell, why not make it d20?!?!

Nah, in all seriousness I think d8 or d10 would be a big improvement.

Too much current stuff is based on d6 and everyone owns d6s though, so it will NEVER happen.