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.

ChrisWWII wrote:Indeed, this rule would be ok if it had something like Necromunda's armor save modifiers. In Necromunda, even someone with a 2+ armor save isn't as scary, since weapons will reduce their armor saves a decent amount.

Multiple wounds from shooting would be good...but then Tyranids get even worse, and we have to redesgign the whole damn game.

Not to mention how much more time all this will take.

That's exactly what happened - Necromunda is basically the 2ed Rules, and you used to have to do the To Hit modifiers and Save Modifiers with every model in your 40k army.

It took AGES. A game was a standard four turns - I can't remember finishing a whole game very often...

Well, it would have done, but in 2ed you only bothered taking the bare minimum numbers of troops so you could load up on massively powerful heroes anyway...

This sounds fairly ridiculous. I think that the basic rule set is fine. Of course their are balance issues but I consider that more in terms of individual codecies than the core rules.

Melissia wrote:

terranarc wrote:Chaos lords dying to bolter/las/ fire or just a ton of bayonettes is the lamest thing ever.

No it's not, it's the most AWESOME thing ever!

Still, the problem is that the rule really, REALLY favors Marine armies. Guard, Orks, and Tyranids would seriously suffer for this.

Haha ok that's fair enough. I haven't really thought about the non-human races too much. Tau suits just came to mind though, the ones with the shield generators.

Hm.. I guess it might screw over certain armies that solely rely on either armor or invul save since they wouldn't get a boost at all. It just annoys the crap out of me that if I'm hiding behind a sandbag, my armor suddenly disappears until a flamer comes my way. Or that if I'm getting shot at, I have to either turn off my bubble shield or strip naked and rely on my bubble shield.

In so many ways, I wish 40k would adopt some rules from fantasy.

I'm rather glad they didn't. Armor in fantasy is basically irrelevant in many cases.

IMO, it would be better if the game mechanic used for damage resolution was the same SINGLE process for all units.

Multiple saves are just a side effects of poor choice in game mechanics.(Napoleonic mass battles game mechanics in a sci fi large skirmish game. In Ricks own words 40k has ...old fashioned and clunky game mechanics...' )
If you use a D6 in a deterministic way, the most variation you get is 6 possile results.(16.667 % increments.)This often is NOT a wide enough span to cover the vast differences in a fictional universe. So you may have to resort to additional systems with more dice rolling....

However, using values of 1 to 20 in a comparative way there is 39 possible results.(-19 through 0 to + 19.)This would give the spread of results required in a 'simple game' only using the one system of resolution...


But 40k is written for those that like rolling buckets of dice and looking at the kewl minatures.
Other gamers often prefer intuitive, elegant rules, that provide balanced, tactical gameplay.So they use other rule sets...

Lanrak wrote:
Other gamers often prefer intuitive, elegant rules, that provide balanced, tactical gameplay.So they use other rule sets...

Ho hum. Intuitive, maybe not. Elegant, maybe in a very specific way. Balanced, very much so. Tactical, yes please, I spend my free time thinking abut how best to use unit x in situation y.

Not the best rule sets in the world, of course, but good enough for us who roll the dice and look at the minis.

I agree this would make the game more realistic, but, as above posters have said, some units would just become nigh unkillable.

Melissia wrote:

terranarc wrote:Chaos lords dying to bolter/las/ fire or just a ton of bayonettes is the lamest thing ever.

No it's not, it's the most AWESOME thing ever!!!

Yeah!!!

Lanrak wrote:IMO, it would be better if the game mechanic used for damage resolution was the same SINGLE process for all units.

Multiple saves are just a side effects of poor choice in game mechanics.(Napoleonic mass battles game mechanics in a sci fi large skirmish game. In Ricks own words 40k has ...old fashioned and clunky game mechanics...' )
If you use a D6 in a deterministic way, the most variation you get is 6 possile results.(16.667 % increments.)This often is NOT a wide enough span to cover the vast differences in a fictional universe. So you may have to resort to additional systems with more dice rolling....

However, using values of 1 to 20 in a comparative way there is 39 possible results.(-19 through 0 to + 19.)This would give the spread of results required in a 'simple game' only using the one system of resolution...


But 40k is written for those that like rolling buckets of dice and looking at the kewl minatures.
Other gamers often prefer intuitive, elegant rules, that provide balanced, tactical gameplay.So they use other rule sets...

Yo man, I do not want to roll 80d20s every time my boyz get into an assault.

terranarc wrote:

Lanrak wrote:IMO, it would be better if the game mechanic used for damage resolution was the same SINGLE process for all units.

Multiple saves are just a side effects of poor choice in game mechanics.(Napoleonic mass battles game mechanics in a sci fi large skirmish game. In Ricks own words 40k has ...old fashioned and clunky game mechanics...' )
If you use a D6 in a deterministic way, the most variation you get is 6 possile results.(16.667 % increments.)This often is NOT a wide enough span to cover the vast differences in a fictional universe. So you may have to resort to additional systems with more dice rolling....

However, using values of 1 to 20 in a comparative way there is 39 possible results.(-19 through 0 to + 19.)This would give the spread of results required in a 'simple game' only using the one system of resolution...


But 40k is written for those that like rolling buckets of dice and looking at the kewl minatures.
Other gamers often prefer intuitive, elegant rules, that provide balanced, tactical gameplay.So they use other rule sets...

Yo man, I do not want to roll 80d20s every time my boyz get into an assault.

Instead rolling around 80 d6s.... satisfies the people who like to chuck the bucketloads of dice, but yet is grounded in reality...

yeah but 2d6s slow the game down a lot, because you can only throw them 1 at a time (well 1 pair) or at most one pair per color dice you have.

Sam__theRelentless wrote:

terranarc wrote:
Yo man, I do not want to roll 80d20s every time my boyz get into an assault.

Instead rolling around 80 d6s.... satisfies the people who like to chuck the bucketloads of dice, but yet is grounded in reality...

D6's are simple and easier to carry, D20s are almost circular and ugh... it'd be wayy too much of a PITA to roll that.

Plus I get annoyed every time I have to roll 20+ dice. IMO 10-20ish dice per roll is a good quantity. 20 for the most extreme quantity like orks, 5-10 for standard stuff.

I'd like to see wargear give a 6+ or a 5+ secondary save, a la FNP, for a few more of the high-powered characters, to represent heroic abilities and all that jazz.

Miraclefish wrote:I'd like to see wargear give a 6+ or a 5+ secondary save, a la FNP, for a few more of the high-powered characters, to represent heroic abilities and all that jazz.

I actually like this idea.

HI folks.
I did say compare values ,(as in characteristic values.)
NOT use dice in a deterministic way.

Throwing a D 20 will only give you 20 possible results.

If we give units characteristic values that can be compared to give the dice roll required , we can arrive at a wider range of proportional results.

EG if the value to represent how hard the unit is to damage(AR) , is subtracted from the value representing the weapon damage.(AP), to give a relative chance of saving the hit.
AP-AR= save roll required.

This gives ALL elements a value on the same range ,using the same game mechanic .

Because 40k uses dice in a deterministic way, it HAS to resort to multiple resolution methods to get the range of results required.
AS vs AP.
Inv vs Special.
AV vs Str.
And a whole host of extra 'Special rules ' like instant death eternal warrior FNP, etc.

Where as more suitable game mechanics , allow ALL elements to be included .
This reduces complication in the written rules and increases the complexity ion the game play.

TTFN

Lanrak wrote:HI folks.
I did say compare values ,(as in characteristic values.)
NOT use dice in a deterministic way.

Throwing a D 20 will only give you 20 possible results.

If we give units characteristic values that can be compared to give the dice roll required , we can arrive at a wider range of proportional results.

EG if the value to represent how hard the unit is to damage(AR) , is subtracted from the value representing the weapon damage.(AP), to give a relative chance of saving the hit.
AP-AR= save roll required.

This gives ALL elements a value on the same range ,using the same game mechanic .

Because 40k uses dice in a deterministic way, it HAS to resort to multiple resolution methods to get the range of results required.
AS vs AP.
Inv vs Special.
AV vs Str.
And a whole host of extra 'Special rules ' like instant death eternal warrior FNP, etc.

Where as more suitable game mechanics , allow ALL elements to be included .
This reduces complication in the written rules and increases the complexity ion the game play.

TTFN

Aha! It haz been explain'dz!

Okay, that is a pretty good "alternative take".

I also like the idea of having weak FNPs for more units than at present.

units do three things (in the main)

move, fight n die

if you look way back i pointed out that one player rolling just two dice once is gives sufficient spread of outcomes from grunts to super heroes...

while this may seem too simple at first glance, it is not, buckets of die are just waste of time regarding actual spread of outcomes , always have been , always will be

maybe more than 2 die could be used to give the other player a feel of counter rolling. My MAIN GRIPE is the over obfuscation and tedium , it bogs the game down , causes rules arguments and in general causes the player to focus on non essential trivial detail. ( and not the battle ) This has a knock on effect of constraining armies fielded , game play , game length and their are all sort of pleasurable goodies that could be substituted into the game mechanics that are far more rewarding , intuitive and satisfying than rolling buckets of dice , again & again & again zzzz , lol

My point is " that even a very simple system could be both enjoyable & engaging and allow more interesting rather than more tedious elements to be brought to the experience "

In 20 odd years GW seems to have learned very little

I dont want to sound over negative here , GW is still selling plastic, but at every approach to their universe the words "sadly lacking " & " could do much much better " slap me in the face.

Maybe you have to be around a while before you can distinguish genuine fine wine from soda pop. GW universe is full of froth n bubbles, but lacks substance, body and depth
....the result is a decimation in the both the reach and quality of products and experience that they could be putting out.



Think about this

There is a good reason that GW is now selling LOTR , and that reason is that GW despite being in the trade for gawd knows how long , simply doesn't know how to build a universe that people can relate to. LOTR was just a book , it became a series of smash hit films & now a table top game.....it did all these all reluctantly and without trying ....because it had the IT Factor , a something the GW universe cannot seem to give birth to. World of war craft online is another big trick GW missed. GW didn't create Dungeons and dragons or magic the gathering either. It did create a high st presence..but that's just about it as far as i can see....perhaps it should be renamed ,l MW ...Mediocre Workshop

Dont get me wrong , I would love to be sucked in ( insert cheezy remark ) , but i feel like im stumbling up a long gravel driveway in the dark and blinding rain only to be greeted by a halogen flood lamp and one of those stupid press button door locks.

swuk.
What if units could, scout out targets for other units,give supressive fire to cover another units advance,call in an atrillery bombardment/air strike, act as a screen for units behind, or as a destraction to take the heat of the main advance, etc.
In short act with the same diverse range of actions a real force could .

And if players took altenate actions,player A takes an action, then player B takes an action.There would not be the need to abstract the sequence of events as one player would not be able to 'steam roller' thier oponent like they can in the alternating turn game mechanic.

And players could weave a complex battle plan from the simple threads of a elegant efficient rule set.

Having played lots of great games with straight forward rules .
40k apears to be the complete opposite of what gamers want.

40k has complicated rules and simple gameplay.

Most gamers want simple rules and complex gameplay.

Is this what you were saying ?

Lanrak wrote:
40k has complicated rules and simple gameplay.

Most gamers want simple rules and complex gameplay.

Is this what you were saying ?

You're absolutely right. +1 to this then.

My personal veiw of a good rule set.

It is like a set of easily identifiable building blocks.
It takes no time to familiarise your self with the blocks , but you can build anything out of your imagination with them!

40k seems to have so many special shaped blocks , it takes an absolute age to familiarise your self with them all, and because they are so specialised they only seem to fit in set ways.

If you start with a simple game mechanic.
Weapon damage - Armour rating= Save roll required.

How simple is this to remember?
VERY SIMPLE.

So we can add in modifiers for weapon /armour types.
EG Kinetic-Chemical and Energy weapons ,VS Ablative ,Reflective and Ceramic armour types.

And add in a simple supression mechanic.
If Supression value of attacker ,(No of shots + weapon modifier If aplicable.) is greater than supression value of target.(Armour rating + wounds left.).
The target is supressed.(Shaken)

If the SV of attacker is over DOUBLE the SV of target the target is neutralised.(Stunned).

Thats simple game mechanics that are easy to remember.Because they are intuitive.

It seems like I'm the only person who likes the current 40k ruleset.

coolyo294.
Have you played any other rule sets?
If you have only played 40k, you wont have anything to make objective comparisions too.

I never said 40k could not be a fun game.

Its just strategicaly heavily loaded and has over complicated rule set ,for what is very simple game play.

And gamers that prefer a more tactical focus , with well defined elegant and intuitive rules would be better served by using a different rule set perhaps?

At my FLGS, nobody plays games other then 40k so I don't get a chance to play other rulesets.

coolyo294 wrote:At my FLGS, nobody plays games other then 40k so I don't get a chance to play other rulesets.

case with most.

Hi guys.
Thats a shame you dont get to try out other rules with your 40k minatures.
I am not saying you would like them better than current 40k, but at least you would have some alternatives to pick from if you get bored of playing 40k every so often.

Some rule sets are free to down load...
No Limits, Stargrunt II, Fast and Dirty, are quite good sci fi skirmish games .(IMO.)

Happy gameing.

Eldar Own wrote:I agree this would make the game more realistic, but, as above posters have said, some units would just become nigh unkillable.

Which is what those units were intended to be , Terminators were never ment to die

gardeth wrote:They tried all these ideas before....it was called 2nd edition...

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

This reminds me of 2nd edition. Let me just give you guys an inside on how unbalanced it was. Marneus Calgar in 2nd edition had super awesome armor, then could be given war gear, and was pretty much unbeatable in hand to hand combat. Even tyranids had a hard time killing him in hand to hand. You give him a powerfiled, 2+ fixed saving throw against all shooting attacks. So that gives him a 2+ fixed saving throw. Then since no one ever beat him in hand to hand combat no one would charge him. Plus he could parry your hand to hand attacks, and if all else failed he had like terminator armor or something ridiculous.

So, to kill him you had to use a vortex grenade, if you didn't have that in your war gear you ran from him.

The game shouldn't be hero-hammer. It should be about armies as a whole, tactics, strategy and then the randomness of the dice roll.

Hi Crom.
''The game shouldn't be hero-hammer. It should be about armies as a whole, tactics, strategy and then the randomness of the dice roll.''

I totaly agree.
Armies are made up of units, so the rules should focus on UNIT interaction.(With characters giving bonuses to the units as apropriate.)
NOT focus on individual models.

Tactics are what the rules should focus on.
(What players /units can do in game.)

Strategy is what army lists and deployment restrictions /senarios are for.

And the dice rolls should be used to determine the relevant chance of sucess of the actions.

2nd ed was over complicated , unballanced but gave more proportional results and intuitive gameplay.
(No Limits is the game 2nd ed might have become if develped .IMO.)

5th ed is over complicated that delivers abstract counter intuitive gameplay.

Has anyone else seen any modern wargames rules?
They generaly have simpler rules and deeper tatical focus than current 40k.
Because they are written with GAME PLAY in mind.Not minature sales...

Lanrak wrote:Hi Crom.
''The game shouldn't be hero-hammer. It should be about armies as a whole, tactics, strategy and then the randomness of the dice roll.''

I totaly agree.
Armies are made up of units, so the rules should focus on UNIT interaction.(With characters giving bonuses to the units as apropriate.)
NOT focus on individual models.

Tactics are what the rules should focus on.
(What players /units can do in game.)

Strategy is what army lists and deployment restrictions /senarios are for.

And the dice rolls should be used to determine the relevant chance of sucess of the actions.

2nd ed was over complicated , unballanced but gave more proportional results and intuitive gameplay.
(No Limits is the game 2nd ed might have become if develped .IMO.)

5th ed is over complicated that delivers abstract counter intuitive gameplay.

Has anyone else seen any modern wargames rules?
They generaly have simpler rules and deeper tatical focus than current 40k.
Because they are written with GAME PLAY in mind.Not minature sales...

Eh. IMHO, (not barring the fact that miniature sales do mean a lot to GW) I think that the rules are not just designed to be played by epic'lly eccentric realism-based wargamers living in underground bunkers. They are also designed to appeal to other people. Hence this discrepancy between multiple saves (which is what this thread is about) is caused by the fact that this specific rule is gameplay/tactics orientated, NOT realism orientated. Whether it's done in a good way is subjective.

Hi Sam-theRelentless.
Rules should be written with the end game play in mind.(With clarity brevity and wit.)
And of course the target demoghraphic can vary from company to company.

Privateer Press have a detailed skirmish game , which has completley different rules to Mantic Games Massed Battle game KoW.

However , unlike 'narrative and art', which is completley subjective.(You like it or you dont , no right or wrong.)
Rule sets are written instructions on how to play the game.
And therfore can be objectivley assesed, on how effectively the perform the function of informing the reader how to play the game.

Most gamers look at the amount of rules and compare it to the amount of game play.
If there are 14 pages of rules to cover ONE simple emlement of the game , that other rule set cover in 2 pages of rules .
It is obvious something has gone horribly wrong somewhere....

ALL the most popular games with gamers fall into 2 catagories.

Abstract games with simple rules that deliver maximum gameply. (Pass the pigs to Chess.)Because the abstract rules have NO relationship to real world events , clarity and brevity are of paramount importance.

Or simulations , that use the gamers real world knowledge of events to base the game on, requiring less explanation in the rules making them intuitive.
(Kreigspiel 1860(ish) to Dust Tactics.2011)

The ONLY game produced by GW plc that is NOT a simulation is 40k.
Thats why its rules are so overly complicated,(useing lots of systems to cover one interaction, ) compared the the very simple gameplay.

Have a look on 'freewargamerules ' for some examples of alternative rule sets if you like.

The current mess that is 40k current damage resolution mechanic, is completley unsuiatble for the gameplay of 40k.
It worked fine in WHFB , using simple weapons and armour mainly defiuned by user strenght.

Dev 1'Hey guys I have had abrilliant idea for WHFB. Every unit gets at least one artillerypiece/ wizzard/ monster with a breath weapon.All units can skirmish. and we let most armies have steam tank variants!'

Studio Staff .'That would just totaly F"^& up the game entirely , what are you thinking...'

Dev 1'Sorry its 40k I was thinking of...'

Studio Staff .'Oh yeah go for it , the kiddies will love it!'