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.

Melissia wrote:

Sam__theRelentless wrote:And it's far batter than Risk etc. because you can make it look like one Boy represents one Boy, and not an entire battalion.

Thus, unit special rules and in fact the entire gaming system fall into place form there


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CageUF wrote:
Could you even imagine trying to keep track of the Hp's of a 180 boy ork mob?

And max 6 wounds means you can just use a D6 next to the model!

I love how the entire system is based around the D6...

Just because it's a D6 system doesn't mean that six is the max number.

Yes I know. I thought a Trygon had the most wounds.... I do know that, but still, what I meant was the whole way it's done with 50-50 on a 4+ and being able to bring chances down to 1/6 or 1/36.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And etc. etc.

It's a good system!

Lanrak wrote:Ill try to explain an alternative method.

A models ability to withstand damage , (armour AND toughness are combined together in to ONE value).Armour/Resistance to damage.(A.R.)
ALL models are given an apropriate AR value, from 1(wet vest save), to 20 (Warlord Titan front armour).

All weapon have a Damage Value.(DV)From 5 to 15.(An alternative name for the strenght characteristic.)

Simply deduct the AR value from the DV to determine the save roll required.

EG Ork Boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolt gun DV 7.
7-2=5 therfore the Ork boy saves on a 5+

A CSM AR 4 is hit by a bolt gun DV7.
7-4=3. therfore the CSM saves on a 3+

This gives natural invunerability to some units vs some weapons , and auto wound to some models from some weapons.

ONLY specialist 'Anti tank' weapons get a bonus to Armour penetration ,(similar to the penetration bonus as currently used in 40k)
Specialised anti Infantry weapons get a bonus to supression .
Other specialised weapons can have area of effect-ignore cover ,(similar to current 40k rules.)


So rather than having to use 3 seperate sytems ,AP vs SV, Inv vs special rules and AV vs S.
We could use just ONE system for all unit types.
(Damage tables for vehicles and MCs , supression for other units.)

Ummm I actually like this...

Is there enough variability in this system to keep it exciting though? Maybe a roll of a 1 should *always fail* even in those cases where the Resistance Value is incredibly high. This would represent that lucky shot to an eyeball or graze of a nutsack... i'm serious

The game would be more random if you had less dice rolls to make because it would skew the deviation of results even if the odds were the same. Throwing 30 dice and needing 4+ would result in roughly 15 successes, maybe 13-17, but it would be pretty close to 15. Throwing 3 dice and needing 4+s will result in probably 1 or 2 successes, a much larger difference in results relative to the value range, and there would be a 1/8 chance of a perfect 3/3 or 0/3 result, compared to the almost impossible chance of rolling 30/30 in the former example. This game is random enough already, and rolling dice is half the fun anyways! the suspense as you count the number of successes/failures after throwing a huge handful of dice is awesome.

swuk wrote:do we realy need to roll for wounds ?

Yes.

swuk wrote:I just cant see the point of rolling to hit AND then having to roll for wounds

Then stop playing 40k. You seem to have a major impairment.

swuk wrote:Of the hundreds of games i have played , board and pc , a hit is a hit is a hit

And a wound is a wound is a wound.

swuk wrote:while i understand why you might want an expensive unit to be damaged in stages i cant realy see the point of rolling for wounds apart from a " dice smoothing , hit reducing effect"

No, if this was the case, the game would take 20 minutes i.e; boring.

swuk wrote:this is achieved in other games by simply making it harder to hit in the first place.

A carnifex is as hard to see as a guardsmen? I think not.
Also, most games, PC or no have some form of D-rolling.
DOW for example, the combat damage is expressed as something like 10~30 right? That's the same as 10D3 [10 three-sided dice.]

swuk wrote:There seems to be a great deal of rolling for nothing in warhammer 40k , A geekoid / Games workshop desire to roll 30 dice in 5 stages when rolling a couple in 2 stages would suffice

The basis of all wargames, of all RPGs is rolling dice. if you want efficiency and fewer dice rolls, go play PC games or FPS. You are noob.

swuk wrote: AND YIELD THE SAME OUTCOME

No they don't. there's less potential for a carnifex being brought low by a simple lasgun being so awesome.

if It wasn't 4+ 6+ 3+, it'd be rather boring.

swuk wrote:someone please explain to me why warhammer 40k finds itself the spot on the domino in a universe where concise & efficient combat systems utterly dominate

Uhhh.... what? Your system leaves many grey areas where things aren't explained. okay, so the monster is wounded! how was he wounded? how did that fething flashlight manage to do a killing blow to such a gargant?

swuk wrote:rant over , lol

No, it wasn't a rant. it was a waste of keystrokes.

swuk wrote:KISS ( keep it simple stupid what does KIS mean?) should be the name of the game ,

Your method is confusing as well.

I for one love rolling dice. it's the best part of the game, the whole reason your average gamer games. seeing all those sixes makes us smile. it gives us a chance to see our games come to life.

if you don't like rolling dice, seriously, find a new hobby. to me, you're the worst kind of gamer.

Someone who looks for efficiency in a Pass-time isn't going to pass the time particularly well, is he now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:Ill try to explain an alternative method.

A models ability to withstand damage , (armour AND toughness are combined together in to ONE value).Armour/Resistance to damage.(A.R.)
ALL models are given an apropriate AR value, from 1(wet vest save), to 20 (Warlord Titan front armour).

All weapon have a Damage Value.(DV)From 5 to 15.(An alternative name for the strenght characteristic.)

Simply deduct the AR value from the DV to determine the save roll required.

EG Ork Boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolt gun DV 7.
7-2=5 therfore the Ork boy saves on a 5+

A CSM AR 4 is hit by a bolt gun DV7.
7-4=3. therfore the CSM saves on a 3+

This gives natural invunerability to some units vs some weapons , and auto wound to some models from some weapons.

ONLY specialist 'Anti tank' weapons get a bonus to Armour penetration ,(similar to the penetration bonus as currently used in 40k)
Specialised anti Infantry weapons get a bonus to supression .
Other specialised weapons can have area of effect-ignore cover ,(similar to current 40k rules.)


So rather than having to use 3 seperate sytems ,AP vs SV, Inv vs special rules and AV vs S.
We could use just ONE system for all unit types.
(Damage tables for vehicles and MCs , supression for other units.)

This could work. But I'm not looking to remove my damage roll.

I was simply showing a more straight forward alternative, to the current damage resolution methods used in 40k,5th ed.

40k is written with the 'rule of cool' and throwing lots of dice, in mind.(And with a heavier strategic loading than most other games.)

It is written for a specific demoghraphic.If you are that demoghraphic you will not see anything much wrong with the rule set.

However, if you are NOT the demoghraphic GW plc target, you may find the 40k rule sets and game play , not ...'realistic'....'intuitive'...'elegant'....'tactical'...enough for your tastes.

So simply play an alternative rule set that is closer to your preferences. (However, if you are limiting yourself to playing in GW stores, you would have to set up an altrnative venue.)

Do NOT belive that 40k is a simple rule set.Just because it delivers simple gameplay.(40k has complicated rules, with lots of unecissary resolution systems , caused by using inapropriate game mechanics.)
Most other rule sets deliver far more gameplay, with far fewer pages of rules.

@Deuce11.
If the rest of the rules follow this level of clarity and brevity.You have plenty of room for more detailed effects on units, and the ability to increase unit interaction by using a more interactive game turn.

Most of the games I play give the players a wide amount of in game chioce, which add to the amount of enjoyment for gamers that like tacticaly rich rules, written with clarity and brevity.

Which are NOT the demoghraphic GW plc are targeting.

Take it from someone who has been shot in the leg with a rifle - I don't care if it's more complex, I'm just glad he had the extra opportunity to fail to kill me.

Incidentally it was an accident and no one was trying to kill anyone.

Think of it in terms of template weapons. You 'hit' an area but may not kill everyone in that area. A single shot is just a smaller scale of the same thing.

I was actually thinking of this too....

But yes, we do. They're separate things. A hit wound is "hey, did this guy royally fail to shoot his gun?" and a wound roll is "oh hey, did that actually hit him or not?". Then you get into saves, which are like "Oh hey, did this guy's loincloth protect him from my lasgun?"

Samus_aran115 wrote:I was actually thinking of this too....

But yes, we do. They're separate things. A hit wound is "hey, did this guy royally fail to shoot his gun?" and a wound roll is "oh hey, did that actually hit him or not?". Then you get into saves, which are like "Oh hey, did this guy's loincloth protect him from my lasgun?"

Too many here are trying to justify rules as interpretations of real life when in the end the rules are abstract interpretation of real life. Hitting could mean hitting with a degree of lethality, ignoring other "hits" that can be shaken off. Justifications can be made.

Scenario: "I'm firing my machine gun with exploding rounds at you! OK roll two di for a bolter. I hit with one. The exploding shells didn't wound you. Don't even worry about armor..." Kinda dumb when you think of the fluff that rules or supposed to be representing now doesn't it?

I like thinking about game mechanics and how they can represent the 'reality' as much as possible. Sometimes though I get too caught up in making it realistic and the rules get a little complicated, so I scrap the idea. I can appreciate that people have brought this "do we really need to roll for wounds" up, because all of the rules are worth thinking about. Just reading through the rules then though I did feel a little bit like the dice rolls were just being replaced by maths, so dice rolling was taking up by tallying up the values of various stuff.

I dont mind maths myself but a think a lot of people would be put off by all those numbers being the largest determining factor. Dice rolls make things more random. I think thats what a lot of people like. Also, you can lose someone in the numbers (much like looking up the rules in the middle of a tense combat) where as they can see progress with each stage of dice rolling and it keeps people interrested. You can start off rolling 100 dice and through hits, wounds, armour and special rules, it could all come down to 1 roll, by that point people are screaming with dismay or joy at the result on that tiny, numbered cube.

I quite like rollinga a bunch of dice, but I understand that some poeple just dont really want the bother of them flying all over the room, is that one cocked? etc. Thanks for suggesting an alternative though.

typical video gamers mindset.

Multiple rolling of dice is the cornerstone of GW rules systems. Obviously you could reduce everything to say a 20 sided dice or percentiles. You could build in the average and reduce a squad firing to a single dice.

e.g. BS 4 = 67% chance to hit. S4 vs T4 = 50% chance to wound. AC3 vs AP5 33% to effect. So approximately 11% chance of a kill per shot = 1 or 2 on d20 = dead target.

Abstraction has been mentioned.
A good rule set abstracts the process of determining results ,to speed up resolution.It does NOT abstract the results themselves.

Thefore using numerical values to define abilities , and using direct comparison of these value to determine results.(% chance of sucess.)
Abstracts the complex data involved in real world interaction , into a simple format , that can be resolved quickly.

The best games,IMO.Use a mix of single high value dice,(to detrermine a units behaviour,) and multiple D6 to resolve damage.

Eg
Attacker Roll to spot target.(Single D10)
If sucessful.
Target rolls to save attacks in range.(Multiple D6)

Attacker rolls for supression/damage table on vehicles &MCs.

Counterintuitive and abstract resolution methods have a good home in 40k.Any modern intuitive and elegant resolution looks far out of place in 40k.

Cover altering the chance to see/hit the target?
Not in 40k, lets give them a SEPERATE FIXED save value , thats ONLY ignored by weapons with a special rule...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:typical video gamers mindset.

typical wargamer snobbery.

Deuce11 wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:typical video gamers mindset.

typical wargamer snobbery.

This person, if he/she played D&D would also question the need to roll damage for an attack. "I rolled above my number, why don't I just automatically kill the dragon?"

Game mechanics survive for a reason, and that reason is that they are working.

Also, because they make sense.

Strength vs toughness is a perfectly reasonable roll to determine the outcome of a weapon/assault's effect against a victim.

It's like if you attacked a person with high defense in an RPG... your attack does less damage to them than the one with low defense. The wound represents them having taken enough damage that they were no longer able to function as soldiers.

Hang on a sec, what is the purpose of this thread? I'm not even sure anymore... Obviously a question was asked, an lots of people have their own answers and opinions which they are entitled to...

...but isnt the simple answer if you like one perticular style of gameplay resolution you should stick to that game, unless you feel so strongly about it, I guess the next step would be to start a petition and go to the games compony that you disagree with to get them to change their rules.

I dont know, things just seem to have got a bit intense. Cant we all just have a big cuddle or something?

I think wh40k would have a lot more players if it didn't have such a complex game mechanics system

I agree with Lanrak that using just 1 main system , ( + a little fudge here) and there would be the way to go

If you want my truly honest opinion , it seems like the wh40k system is designed for " a class of human being " who hold superstitious beliefs that if they roll enough dice for enough different reasons then this gives them some kind of psychological crutch or table advantage. ( high complexity does allow for excess bottom feeding , aka noob bashing , nothing new here. Its common in computer games )

Units , move , shoot , die or run away...in general that is all they ever do. One does not need a wall of obfuscation to resolve this.



I think all these dice & rules just give some peeps a nerdgasm ....it makes naff all difference to the out come...any one with the maths gene as it where knows this
Ive never seen the value in having two opposing sides throw exceptions to the rules at each other , only to be met by a " counter to the exceptions of the rules "






well its GW losing the pounds ( lost sales ) not me , GWs output is just another example of glossy hype over substance....i just never realized just how bad this aspect was till i picked up the plastic. This has exaggerated my disappointment. As a lifelong war-gamer i was expecting something a lot more polished after 20 years of development



>>>>>>>>>>> In a nutshell warhmmer is just bloatware on a sprue <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< that much is plain to see

An exercise in how much bs can be squeezed into a tiny playing area and a couple of fistfuls of units....im not exactly impressed...nor should i have any reason to be



yes the plastic is of decent grade & detail , yes they look pwetty when painted , yes there is enough of fluff and variety

But..and there are a lot of buts ! Its Expensive , Styling of the miniatures is overly ornamental and weak ( Not Iconic , bordering on bland ) ...& dont mention the game mechanics ! , they fail even casual inspection.



warhammer lies in the same basket/corner as Risk , an attractive box of bits foisted upon the ignorant who know no better and have little competition to choose from . After a while the words war hammer and Risk come to represent their ilk, but they are the backward children of the family nonetheless. Mildly entertaining yes , but deeply flawed. ( That's a pragmatist viewpoint not an elitist )

COULD DO BETTER.....SO MUCH BETTER

one day the world will see , and the SO MUCH BETTER will stick. It will take a big wave to knock the giants of their rusty pedestals. The world that created risk and wh has long since ceased to exist. Computerland & the internet became the new frontier...and this is why the reason these plastic dinosaurs still roam the earth. But there's a couple of comets out there with their name on....its just a matter of time.

Man... relax, its just a game.

swuk wrote:I think wh40k would have a lot more players if it didn't have such a complex game mechanics system

Wait, wait, wait... so the price HAS NOTHING to do with it? People are willing to learn, they're just not willing to fork out lots of money to get into it.

that's another story.

swuk wrote:If you want my truly honest opinion , it seems like the wh40k system is designed for " a class of human being " who hold superstitious beliefs that if they roll enough dice for enough different reasons then this gives them some kind of psychological crutch or table advantage. ( high complexity does allow for excess bottom feeding , aka noob bashing , nothing new here. Its common in computer games )

I thought computer games were more simple? make up your mind, man!

swuk wrote:Units , move , shoot , die or run away...in general that is all they ever do. One does not need a wall of obfuscation to resolve this.

I think you need to learn not to obfuscate yourself before you use it in sentences.

Also, squads act GRIMDARK.

swuk wrote:I think all these dice & rules just give some peeps a nerdgasm ....it makes naff all difference to the out come... any one with the maths gene as it where knows this

Why would you bring up the 'math gene' as it were If, what you mean is the end result is the same, sure, you could be right. But, I think any one with half a brain would realise that a 4+4+4+ is different to a 4+4+.
in fact, it'd make a 50% difference to the end result, if we remove all 4's.

1d6; a 4+ = Suc. = 50% chance
1D6; a 4+/4+ = Suc. = 25% chance
1D6; a 4+/4+/4+ = Suc = 12.5% chance

So, yeah it doe make a difference.

swuk wrote:Ive never seen the value in having two opposing sides throw exceptions to the rules at each other , only to be met by a " counter to the exceptions of the rules "

You've been playing yu-gi-oh again, haven't you? Who doesn't remember those trap chains in sixth grade

swuk wrote:well its GW losing the pounds ( lost sales ) not me , GWs output is just another example of glossy hype over substance....i just never realized just how bad this aspect was till i picked up the plastic. This has exaggerated my disappointment. As a lifelong war-gamer i was expecting something a lot more polished after 20 years of development

As I'm unable to say I'm a lifelong wargamer, as my mind for math and logic would suggest that's impossible [oh, are we gonna go figurative now?]

Again, GW is loosing 'the pounds' [y'know, you could've just said money. it would've taken you 19 less characters to do that!] because it is so expensive.

swuk wrote:In a nutshell warhmmer is just bloatware on a sprue that much is plain to see

Bloatware? I'm sorry hon, I think you'd find 120- pages of rules isn't massively oversized you'd find its barely 10 meg. 40k doesn't really suffer from featureitus; rather, it suffers from a lack of features leading it to be rather bland in places. I for one would love to see more damage tables for tanks, to suggest more kinds of damage. I want tanks to have living crew, who could matter after the tank is destroyed.

swuk wrote:An exercise in how much bs can be squeezed into a tiny playing area and a couple of fistfuls of units....im not exactly impressed...nor should i have any reason to be

again, if you're so upset about 40k as it is, stop crying about it and go and play another game.

swuk wrote:yes the plastic is of decent grade & detail , yes they look pwetty when painted , yes there is enough of fluff and variety But..and there are a lot of buts ! Its Expensive , Styling of the miniatures is overly ornamental and weak ( Not Iconic , bordering on bland ) ...& dont mention the game mechanics ! , they fail even casual inspection.warhammer lies in the same basket/corner as Risk , an attractive box of bits foisted upon the ignorant who know no better and have little competition to choose from . After a while the words war hammer and Risk come to represent their ilk, but they are the backward children of the family nonetheless. Mildly entertaining yes , but deeply flawed. ( That's a pragmatist viewpoint not an elitist )COULD DO BETTER.....SO MUCH BETTER one day the world will see , and the SO MUCH BETTER will stick. It will take a big wave to knock the giants of their rusty pedestals. The world that created risk and wh has long since ceased to exist. Computerland & the internet became the new frontier...and this is why the reason these plastic dinosaurs still roam the earth. But there's a couple of comets out there with their name on....its just a matter of time.

WHOA WHOA WHOA. You're a wargamer of 20 years and you DON'T like wargaming models? Well, shove me over and figuratively screw me sideways, WOTC isn't wargames. RISK isn't a wargame. TF2, MOH, Company of heroes, Crysis.

all those games? Their concepts came from the humble wargame. they rely on dice rolls. Have you ever noticed sometimes a simple sniper rifle in the head WON'T kill your target, but sometimes, a derringer in the leg will? Dice rolls, baby. games are full of them.

seriously, if you have this deep seated anger against warhammer, I think you need to rethink your hobbies.

You sir, are hurting yourself.

Magic cards are calling.

Sounds like you wanna turn 40k more into hordes or something -_- I don't mind the current system; rolling dice is fun. Plus, its always interesting when it comes down to 1 dice roll!

I kinda wish I could just offer everyone a tea/coffee/hot chocolate.... and some cookies. Isnt everyone at least in agreement that everyone has their own prefrence and that its ok to not all like the same thing?

I was intregued by the title of the thread, but unaware at how much chaos those simple words were going to catalyse.

swuk wrote:I think wh40k would have a lot more players if it didn't have such a complex game mechanics system

COMPLEX!? A 120-page rulebook. Max 3 layers of d6 rolls. less than ten of each: weapons classes, unit types, model characteristics, etc. Two tables to remember, both of which are just equations. Please explain to me how exactly 40k's rules system is complex. I know there are a lot of grey areas which are discussed on YMDC but that would happen with any ruleset.

The OP required a consensual justification about why we actually need to roll for wounds, and most of the responses thus far have been constructive to that extent. Nevertheless, this really shouldn't be getting heated, as Azwaz suggests. Negativity is acceptable, we know GW is not perfect, but please justify it appropriately.

Rolling to wound, aside from really balancing the game and removing a lot of the luck, is a representation of a model's ability to withstand physical damage. Just because you can hit a Carnifex doesn't mean you're going to hurt it. For instance, if I fire a lasgun at it...it might leave a little scorch mark on the thing's hide and just piss it off. Now, if I fire a lascannon the chance that I will hurt the thing has increased extremely.

Also, if we just start rolling to hit and then removing models without checking to wound, i'll sell all my orks.

Everything in Warhammer 40K is supposed to be a simulation of real time events.

Rolling to hit, wound, save are happening in real time. You are rolling dice to factor in the event in three stages.

A bolter round hits a Dire Avenger(hit), he gets knocked flat on his back (the round wounds) Since the round hit a strong point on his body armor, the shaken Dire Avenger gets back up and keeps shooting (armor save).

This is rolling to hit/wound/save at work.


Plus, if you took wounding out, Guard Platoons would be wrecking everything with 100 shots and 150 at 12 inches.

Deuce11 wrote:

Lanrak wrote:Ill try to explain an alternative method.

A models ability to withstand damage , (armour AND toughness are combined together in to ONE value).Armour/Resistance to damage.(A.R.)
ALL models are given an apropriate AR value, from 1(wet vest save), to 20 (Warlord Titan front armour).

All weapon have a Damage Value.(DV)From 5 to 15.(An alternative name for the strenght characteristic.)

Simply deduct the AR value from the DV to determine the save roll required.

EG Ork Boy AR 2 is hit by a Bolt gun DV 7.
7-2=5 therfore the Ork boy saves on a 5+

A CSM AR 4 is hit by a bolt gun DV7.
7-4=3. therfore the CSM saves on a 3+

This gives natural invunerability to some units vs some weapons , and auto wound to some models from some weapons.

ONLY specialist 'Anti tank' weapons get a bonus to Armour penetration ,(similar to the penetration bonus as currently used in 40k)
Specialised anti Infantry weapons get a bonus to supression .
Other specialised weapons can have area of effect-ignore cover ,(similar to current 40k rules.)


So rather than having to use 3 seperate sytems ,AP vs SV, Inv vs special rules and AV vs S.
We could use just ONE system for all unit types.
(Damage tables for vehicles and MCs , supression for other units.)

Ummm I actually like this...

Is there enough variability in this system to keep it exciting though? Maybe a roll of a 1 should *always fail* even in those cases where the Resistance Value is incredibly high. This would represent that lucky shot to an eyeball or graze of a nutsack... i'm serious

This is how warzone did it. It worked pretty well actually. Armor basically made you tougher, there was no separate armor save. To wound and armor were the same roll. If you rolled a perfect to hit you got a bonus to wound also. It was quicker, I did feel a little helpless at first because I was use to getting to have an armor save. I got over it and it actually seamed more real eventually.

Everything in Warhammer 40K is supposed to be a simulation of real time events.

Chortle! That made me laugh! As I have been told many times when I complain about reality on this site, 40k and reality are not meant to be the same.

You know, if you want, you can just use the Dark Heresy combat system, and accomplish the same thing with d100s and d10s.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:You know, if you want, you can just use the Dark Heresy combat system, and accomplish the same thing with d100s and d10s.

I don't know about that. There's a certain fun to be had rolling 100 d6s, as opposed to six d100s. Ask any Ork or Nid player: this is why they play!

Sam theRelentless.
Thats why its good to roll saves on D6s !

The method I proposed simply combines the toughness and armour together to remove one unesicary dice roll.(The roll to wound.)

And then allows for another stage later in the process , detailed damage on vehicles -MCs, supresion on other unit types.

Its is dificult to justify removing 'to wound' rollls out of the current 40k game.
As the level of abstraction is so high , all discussions are subjective personal opinion.

Lanrak wrote:Sam theRelentless.
Thats why its good to roll saves on D6s !

The method I proposed simply combines the toughness and armour together to remove one unesicary dice roll.(The roll to wound.)

And then allows for another stage later in the process , detailed damage on vehicles -MCs, supresion on other unit types.

Its is dificult to justify removing 'to wound' rollls out of the current 40k game.
As the level of abstraction is so high , all discussions are subjective personal opinion.

No, I like your idea... But I just think it's not that big an issue, you only have to roll the dice 3 times anyway. Nevertheless, I think the Acquisition stage is unnecessary, instead what you said in your general suggestion was something along the lines of range impacting BS. This could fly somewhere given refinement.

Much unlike a Land Raider. They cannot fly no matter how much refinement they are given.

Sam_the Relentless.
There are lots of game mechanics used to resolve units attacking at range.
They ALL use some, or all , of the following to determine sucess.

Roll to see, roll to hit, roll to damage ,roll to save.

If the units ranged weapon ability is defined by thier 'effectve range' with that weapon.
Eg the range they WILL hit a target.(Better shots hit things further away.)

Then rolling to hit is unecissary as it is determined by a fixed value.

Therfore rolling to 'spot' a target before you shoot at it is the logical method to use .(Roll to see then apply hits in range.)

As the hitting is 'automatic'.Then rolling saves proportional to the damage inflicted -AR , is also a logical step.

And then determining detailed damage results after the armour has hopfuly reduced the damage inflicted.

EG
Rather than ;-
Assuming a fixed chance to hit anything anywhere in range.(Counter intuitive.)
Then rolling to cause damage.
Then rolling to prevent damage .(The armour sucks out the bullet heals the target and self repairs!Counter intuitive.)

Roll to spot a target.(Roll over the targets [modified] stealth value.)
Roll to save hits on the target from weapons within effective range.
Determine the effects of the damage in a more detailed way.(Supression & loosing movement or weapons on vehicles ).

We still have a 3 stage process , but it follows the natural progression of RL interaction, so it is NOT counter intuitive.

I am NOT suggesting this should be used in 40k.
But for a straightforward tactical action, combat simulation of modern-sci fi warfare.
It would be far more prferable than the Napoleonic game mechanics borrowed form WHFB that 40k still uses...