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.

 junk wrote:
I'm a big fan of a d10 40k conversion, but I wouldn't stop there.
I'd also be a fan of removing T and S from a unit statline; strength would be a function of wargear, so ultimately it's not much of a change, but removing T would allow for a predictable curve of To-Wound %.
Treat WS just like BS.
And then make Armor / Defense a modifier rather than a save.
Game play would speed right the hell up, and unit balance can be easier to determine.
D10 would compensate for the simplified gameplay by allowing a finer differentiation between units, without slowing play.

I'm a tad bit curious on what you mean by this. How does removing T allow for a predictable curve to-wound %? Along with that, what would make a Greater daemon any tougher than your grot if you rip away the toughness? I suppose the S would work for most units, just writing in the official rulebook that MC get S6 but you mentioned none at all. How would that work? (tis curious)

I'd also argue that d10s would slow down combat particularly for hoardy armies.

Personally, I'd love to see leaderships and psychological aspects added to it. If this game was a few units (3-4) with 5 in one and 10 in the rest, it wouldn't be that bad. The problem comes when you have mass hordes.

The easier solution is to replace D6's with D12's.
Power Armor would become a 5+ save.
Terminator Armor would become 3+ save.
Toughness 4 becomes 8.
Strength 3 becomes 6.

Equal numbers wound on a 7+

That would open up the in between numbers for more variety. Effectively, you could have strength three and a half.

Making any dice change would result in a major overhaul, but sticking with multiples of 6 (D12 for example) would let you easily set some bench marks pretty easy.

-Matt

 StarTrotter wrote:

 junk wrote:
I'm a big fan of a d10 40k conversion, but I wouldn't stop there.
I'd also be a fan of removing T and S from a unit statline; strength would be a function of wargear, so ultimately it's not much of a change, but removing T would allow for a predictable curve of To-Wound %.
Treat WS just like BS.
And then make Armor / Defense a modifier rather than a save.
Game play would speed right the hell up, and unit balance can be easier to determine.
D10 would compensate for the simplified gameplay by allowing a finer differentiation between units, without slowing play.

I'm a tad bit curious on what you mean by this. How does removing T allow for a predictable curve to-wound %? Along with that, what would make a Greater daemon any tougher than your grot if you rip away the toughness? I suppose the S would work for most units, just writing in the official rulebook that MC get S6 but you mentioned none at all. How would that work? (tis curious)

I'd also argue that d10s would slow down combat particularly for hoardy armies.

Personally, I'd love to see leaderships and psychological aspects added to it. If this game was a few units (3-4) with 5 in one and 10 in the rest, it wouldn't be that bad. The problem comes when you have mass hordes.

The idea I'm kicking around is that all units only really need 1 resistance stat, and that's armor value.
Relative 'toughness' of units comes from their resistance to damage.
If you shoot a professional body builder, a gorilla, and a german shepherd, each in the head with a 45 caliber round, they're all dead, If you put six inches of ballistic-resistant ceramic armor between any of those targets and the bullet, they'll all survive.

Yeah, A daemon prince is 'tougher' than a guardsman. That can simply be illustrated by Damage Resistance, in the form of an armor value. One stat, not two; and no save roll.

Lets just arbitrarily decide, for the sake of argument, that every model that exists has an armor rating.
And every weapon that exists has a strength rating between 2+ and 10, and an armor piercing value.

Let's just say we have a pretty good gun with a S5+ and an AP3.

Our example Daemon Prince analogue has an armor rating of 5.

When we score hits and are ready to determine wounds, we check resistance to find our target number. In this case, we're ignoring 3 points of armor, subtracting the remainder from our weapon strength and we're left with a 7+. We roll wounds, if it's a 7 or better, bam, wound, no save roll, just happens.

To compare to the current system, we're cutting out the Save Roll step without ignoring the significance of armor; we're just combining toughness and armor into a single stat.

Strength is a function of the weapon; not a part of the basic unit statline.
A Space Marine might have:
Chainsword S6+, AP 1
and
Bolt Pistol S7+, AP 2
As CC weapons

Too far?

So essentially something like WM/H's system where the Weapon Skill determines if you get hit and then there's just one thing (ARM in WM) that determines if you take damage?

Lanrak wrote:
You could get finer graduation using D6s by using modifiers and /or different resolution methods.

We had this back in Rogue Trader - for example "Long" and "Short" range, "Hard Cover", Soft Cover, etc. IMO the game is lacking something since their removal
(Image attached for clarification purposes only)

You know what all this makes me think of? Since all this stuff with modifiers and other dice would be much easier on a smaller scale, I'd love to see a new version of Necromunda updated to fit in with the current edition of 40k, or some other skirmish game like it.

 junk wrote:
I'm a big fan of a d10 40k conversion, but I wouldn't stop there.
I'd also be a fan of removing T and S from a unit statline; strength would be a function of wargear, so ultimately it's not much of a change, but removing T would allow for a predictable curve of To-Wound %.
Treat WS just like BS.
And then make Armor / Defense a modifier rather than a save.
Game play would speed right the hell up, and unit balance can be easier to determine.
D10 would compensate for the simplified gameplay by allowing a finer differentiation between units, without slowing play.

That's nearly what I have done in my 40k rewrite!
S can go, because this stat is useless except in CC... and CC weapons now have nearly the same profile as a shooting weapon, so why not include S in the profile, in place of "S:User".

In my version Armor save is gone, and there is a "dodge" stat... (name is not final...) I know a lot of people like the armor save, because they are the ones who save there guys... I prefer a game where interation between players during the same turn is either alternate activation or reactive actions, rather than "here, you have 10 armor saves to roll..."

Having a dodge stat is important, because if you have a Lascannon, it should be easier to hit an immobile land raider in front of you than a grot 48" away in cover...

Changing to D10 is a good idea, and there is a lot of roleplaying people here, so we have a lots of D10....

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
You know what all this makes me think of? Since all this stuff with modifiers and other dice would be much easier on a smaller scale, I'd love to see a new version of Necromunda updated to fit in with the current edition of 40k, or some other skirmish game like it.

Modifiers are not easier on a smaller scale, it just depend how much of them you have to apply... if modifiers can replace the "to hit" and "to wound" charts, the game would be as easy... (but a little longer the first times, because, you would have to "relearn" the modifier and "forget" the tables...)

If the Stats are base 10, the D10 seems to me to be the best choice.

It would take a complete overhaul of they game (every unit needs new stats etc.) but it allows for a much smoother gradiation of Stats, it makes every bump in stat more meaningful.

40k At present:

To hit shooting
BS1 = 6
BS2 = 5+
BS3 = 4+
BS4 = 3+
BS5 = 2+

Then we get into re-rolls. Essentially you get a 17% improvement for each BS improvement up to 5, after that the improvement is much less.. The Difference between BS 5 and 6 is about 3%, and the difference between BS 5 and 10 is only 13.9%

With D10 the diference between BS 5 and 10 would be (assuming you use the roll equal or under with 10 always failing) is 40%. THe only issue is that there would be no difference (without re-rolls) between 9 and 10.

The same holds true with S vs T now. If I am S 4 I wound T1 and 2 the same, and 6 and 7 the same, and 8+ I don't wound at all. Using a D10 Lets say I wound T4 on a 5+, T5 on a 6+, T7 on a 7+, T8 on an 8+, T9 on 9+ and T10 on a 10., and you could do the same with WS Vs WS.

In a nutshell, no.

The D6 system is one of the strengths of this game system. Does a D10 provide a greater range of probability and better granularity- yes. I actually prefer the simplicity of the D6 set up, but I'm going to leave the mathematical argument for later. The D6 is simply a more robust alternative for game play.

Any of you ever even roll more than a dozen D10's at once and quickly pull out say, the 7's or better? Trust me, not everybody is real fast at reading numbers from different angles, much less confusing the 6's with the 9's. Now roll 30 dice, or how about 60? But be careful!! Reaching for those dice to remove you are VERY likely to bump the dice and change the result as D10's aren't very stable at rest. That won't cause any issues, right?

If WH40K's rules were completely overhauled to the point where entire units rolled under 20 dice per combat, D10's could work. Until then, fuhgetaboutit!

I think that is over exagerated, I have rolled large numbers of D10, they don't flip any more than a knocked D6 might. And really people cannot read numbers? But they can read pips which are frequently badly colored? If the D10 was standard we would get quick at reading them.

So not really understanding how a D6 is any more robust. IT is used because it is common, and not odd to people wanting in at the base level. Mechanics wise the use of the D6 is poorly implemented and devalues higher stats.

As you said previously, the entire game would need an overhaul. I think there are far more pressing issues with WH40k's rules than what size of dice is being used.

certainly, and 40k will never (IMO) be moved to D10 because of how much of a revamp would be needed (re-release of all codices with different stats, weapons with updated stats, probably revised point costs etc.). That does not mean that given the 0-10 for stats that a D10 would not be a more natural fit for the statlines. Again, I don't think it will (or even needs to, I love the game as is anyway), nor do I think it is the most important fix the game needs.

 amanita wrote:
In a nutshell, no.

The D6 system is one of the strengths of this game system. Does a D10 provide a greater range of probability and better granularity- yes. I actually prefer the simplicity of the D6 set up, but I'm going to leave the mathematical argument for later. The D6 is simply a more robust alternative for game play.

Any of you ever even roll more than a dozen D10's at once and quickly pull out say, the 7's or better? Trust me, not everybody is real fast at reading numbers from different angles, much less confusing the 6's with the 9's. Now roll 30 dice, or how about 60? But be careful!! Reaching for those dice to remove you are VERY likely to bump the dice and change the result as D10's aren't very stable at rest. That won't cause any issues, right?

If WH40K's rules were completely overhauled to the point where entire units rolled under 20 dice per combat, D10's could work. Until then, fuhgetaboutit!

Well, I don't think that D10 are that hard to read, but I agree with one point : It would be a pain to roll 60D10... But it is already a pain to roll60D6... each time I have to roll more that 10(you can push to 20) dies, I roll in several times, adding the success of each roll... and this is a not a D6 or D10 problem, it's a game system problem.

40k is a game that doesn't know if it want to be a mass battle or a skirmish game, and get the problem of both ruleset : overly complicated when it want to simulate something, and completly abstract on other points... typical example : Shooting and casualty removal :
- Shooting is very abstract, you can't fire you heavy weapon at a different target, because the unit is the smallest part of your army.
- Removing casualties is very simulationist : you have to remove each model in a very specific order, and the placement of each model (especially with focus fire) is very important. the model is the smallest part of your army in that case.

So 40k would work better with D10 if the number of dice rolled at the same time is lower that what we have to roll right now.

Dark Phoenix wrote:

Well, I don't think that D10 are that hard to read, but I agree with one point : It would be a pain to roll 60D10... But it is already a pain to roll60D6... each time I have to roll more that 10(you can push to 20) dies, I roll in several times, adding the success of each roll... and this is a not a D6 or D10 problem, it's a game system problem.

40k is a game that doesn't know if it want to be a mass battle or a skirmish game, and get the problem of both ruleset : overly complicated when it want to simulate something, and completly abstract on other points... typical example : Shooting and casualty removal :
- Shooting is very abstract, you can't fire you heavy weapon at a different target, because the unit is the smallest part of your army.
- Removing casualties is very simulationist : you have to remove each model in a very specific order, and the placement of each model (especially with focus fire) is very important. the model is the smallest part of your army in that case.

So 40k would work better with D10 if the number of dice rolled at the same time is lower that what we have to roll right now.

Agreed. But 40K would also work better with D6's if the number of dice required were lowered. I don't have any problem seeing D10's either. I spend far more game time counting out my dice than rolling them. We agree, it's a game system problem to a degree which is exacerbated by certain armies. I just don't see D10's as an upgrade when more fundamental issues remain. Do I really need to roll 120 times for my large ork unit on the charge? On a side note, we've altered the orks to give them a higher base strength with fewer attacks to slightly alleviate that issue, but that's another discussion.

Except the change to Ork strength is just one reason why D10s would help, because you could raise strength and lower attacks without making orks as strong as Monsterous creatures.

IF you truly went base 10 you could make them S6 when other armies like IG were only S 3 or 4, and not have it be a big deal.

D10 based games work fine:

Wargods,
Judge Dredd

You oculd probably convert WFB to the former and 40K to the latter

Not to further derail the thread, but I'd like to pose the argument that If we are talking about a complete system overhaul, we might as well adjust the rules, the unit costs, and the play mechanics as well.

I've been spending a couple hours a night trying to come up with a measurement system to determine overall effectiveness of a unit and comparing existing point costs; which is primarily what's informing my desire to remove T, make WS and BS operate the same, and move S to a function of wargear rather than basic unit statline. I'm using a d10 system as well, because again, it allows for a finer distinction between units, and it's easier to do the math.


This has led me to realize that what would make it easier would be an overhaul of the convoluted assault system; but that's not the only reason I'd want to do it. The whole idea of being 'locked' in assault, being unable to fire weapons in or into assault, free assault moves, consolodation moves, pile in moves, etc; it's all a lot of unnecessary stuff. If we just treat all CC weapons as Range 0-2" weapons, and got rid of all extra movement, then we speed up game play significantly; and while we're simplifying the game mechanics we're not dumbing down the game .

 junk wrote:
Not to further derail the thread, but I'd like to pose the argument that If we are talking about a complete system overhaul, we might as well adjust the rules, the unit costs, and the play mechanics as well.

I've been spending a couple hours a night trying to come up with a measurement system to determine overall effectiveness of a unit and comparing existing point costs; which is primarily what's informing my desire to remove T, make WS and BS operate the same, and move S to a function of wargear rather than basic unit statline. I'm using a d10 system as well, because again, it allows for a finer distinction between units, and it's easier to do the math.


This has led me to realize that what would make it easier would be an overhaul of the convoluted assault system; but that's not the only reason I'd want to do it. The whole idea of being 'locked' in assault, being unable to fire weapons in or into assault, free assault moves, consolodation moves, pile in moves, etc; it's all a lot of unnecessary stuff. If we just treat all CC weapons as Range 0-2" weapons, and got rid of all extra movement, then we speed up game play significantly; and while we're simplifying the game mechanics we're not dumbing down the game .

Very good ideas here. Allowing Shooting in CC is a great taboo in 40k, but a lot of armies would have reasons to do it... just add something like : shooting in a CC (there is a CC when one squad is in range of an opponent CC weapons...) is a shooting test with a penalty of 2 (or even 3...). If you hit with the penalty, you hit the targeted squad, if you hit but without the penalty, you hit another squad in CC.

I would also remove CC and CT, and translate these in a to hit modifier for wargear. The to hit value is determined by the target unit (like in flames of war). The only problem with this system is that you have to bind weapons to a unit, and no longer use an armory, because the same weapon in a different unit could have different stats (for example, a chainsword could be a +0 weapon for an assault marine, but a +2 weapon to a captain...)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D10 with actual rules could also help to add variation in "to hit" values... because right now you have :
6+ snapshot (one of the most inelegant game mechanics I've seen... like everything with a fixed value when there are stats to govern it, this include poisoned and unwieldy weapons)
5+ orks shooting, very weak CC squad
4+ guard shooting, tau without markerlight shooting, most of CC
3+ marine and eldar shooting, dedicated CC
2+ tau shooting With markerlight, most independant characters...

so :
- 5 values for shooting, 3 of them are really used, with a very good majority of 3+
- 3 values for melee, 2 of them which are used (let face it, when you hit you opponent on 5+, you are already dead)

Dark Phoenix wrote:

 junk wrote:
Not to further derail the thread, but I'd like to pose the argument that If we are talking about a complete system overhaul, we might as well adjust the rules, the unit costs, and the play mechanics as well.

I've been spending a couple hours a night trying to come up with a measurement system to determine overall effectiveness of a unit and comparing existing point costs; which is primarily what's informing my desire to remove T, make WS and BS operate the same, and move S to a function of wargear rather than basic unit statline. I'm using a d10 system as well, because again, it allows for a finer distinction between units, and it's easier to do the math.


This has led me to realize that what would make it easier would be an overhaul of the convoluted assault system; but that's not the only reason I'd want to do it. The whole idea of being 'locked' in assault, being unable to fire weapons in or into assault, free assault moves, consolodation moves, pile in moves, etc; it's all a lot of unnecessary stuff. If we just treat all CC weapons as Range 0-2" weapons, and got rid of all extra movement, then we speed up game play significantly; and while we're simplifying the game mechanics we're not dumbing down the game .

Very good ideas here. Allowing Shooting in CC is a great taboo in 40k, but a lot of armies would have reasons to do it... just add something like : shooting in a CC (there is a CC when one squad is in range of an opponent CC weapons...) is a shooting test with a penalty of 2 (or even 3...). If you hit with the penalty, you hit the targeted squad, if you hit but without the penalty, you hit another squad in CC.

I would also remove CC and CT, and translate these in a to hit modifier for wargear. The to hit value is determined by the target unit (like in flames of war). The only problem with this system is that you have to bind weapons to a unit, and no longer use an armory, because the same weapon in a different unit could have different stats (for example, a chainsword could be a +0 weapon for an assault marine, but a +2 weapon to a captain...)

I'm in agreement with all this, but my concept for codex armory is this:
The tow important determining factors of effectiveness of a unit are Damage Output
and damage resistance, (a combination of Armor Rating, Unit Volume (wounds), and Threshold (leadership in most cases)

An independent armory for each codex can exist, but the point costs of that wargear must be calculated on a unit by unit basis.
The factors that I'm trying to line up in order to create a formula are
Weapon Scarcity (# of available upgrades per Squad), which is a multiplier for Overall change to Damage Output / unit effectiveness.
-So Different units will pay different amounts for their upgrades (which isn't too different from the arbitrary system that GW uses)

What we know is that the higher the BS (or WS) the more opportunity to wound exists - and if our BS can be rated from a 10+ (Worst) to 2+ (best), and a strength rating of 10+ to 2+
then we have a system for determining the effectiveness of a weapon without having to consider toughness

Our average unit, say a GEQ with a Bs 6+
and Average Gun: strength 6+ Rate of Fire 1
will wound 25% per shot against armor 0
and 5% per model against armor 6 or better, with measurable degrees of success in between

But we have lots of degrees of variance if we want... Lets just arbitrarily say that our MEQ with Bolter has the following characteristics
BS 4+
Str 5+ Ap 1 Rate of Fire 2

It will inflict 1 wound
88% of the time vs Armor 1 or Worse
14% of the time Vs armor 7 or better

If we switch guns.
The MeQ is still inflicting 1 wound 35% of the time against Armor 0, compared to the 25% of the GeQ
While the GeQ with a bolter is inflicting 1 wound only 60% of the time compared to the marines 88%

Using D10, we have a Vast array of potential configurations, allowing for very nuanced units, not just the presupposed 4pip difference, and we've also succeeded in speeding up play by getting rid of reactive saves. Additionally, we can easily measure the Damage Output potential of a unit for balancing purposes.

So the idea for an armory is, first we calculate the effectiveness of the units in the codex, then see what change would occur in overall unit damage output per upgrade, and we have the cost of the upgrade for that unit. Certain codices might have cost modifiers or army wide rules that would further differentiate them... Tau for example, have a higher average weapon strength than other codices, so they might be receiving a codex discount on the weapon strength formula. Maybe not. Not sure yet how it's going to work.

RE: shooting into CC -
You can simplify it; if you're shooting into CC, all results of a 1 on your to-hit roll, are resolved as hits on friendly models, wound allocation following normal 'closest first' rules.
Shooting within CC: CC is a chaotic place, but this is what you're trained for; if you're shooting at a model in base contact with you, just use your WS instead of your BS, Pistols have 0 penalty, assault weapons -1 penalty, other -2 penalty, heavy -3 penalty; to represent the 'struggle'; or another option is to just say screw it and say it doesn't make a difference, you can always just shoot something; A third option is to give every weapon a Minimum effective range, like using a LasCannon at point blank range might be a terrible idea.

I agree with lots of the ideas for making the rules less complicated, as it would allow far more complex game play.

Also calculating the unit effectiveness in game as a whole, rather than trying to calculate the individual elements is the best way to arrive at the most accurate costings in a game of unit interaction.

I think there are much better ways to allocate units in game effectiveness than the stats 40k uses.

For example if we base the chance to hit on the targets skill.The targets size and agility .
We could call this Stealth perhaps?

We could use simple modifiers to resolve ranged attacks ...
The stealth value is increased by 1 for
Being in cover/obscured,
Using camo/smoke etc.
Being over 36" away from attacker.

And add1 to the attackers dice roll
If the attacker remained stationary,
If the target is less than 24" away
If the target moved more than 12"

Now this sets the difficulty of hitting any target unit.
We could use the Attackers effective range to determine the attackers skill with ranged weapons.

Eg Units firing assault rifle type weapons with
Poor Shooting skill have an effective range of 18"
Average shooting skill have an effective range of 24 "
Good shooting skill have an effective range of 30"

(We can fine tune each units effective range by 1" increments if necessary.)

This resolution method takes the skill and disposition of the target and attacker into account.
And is quite simple.

Measure distance between units, Determine score needed to hit, and /or any dice modifiers.Roll dice to hit.

I also agree that close combat weapons can have an effective range of 0-2" of 0-4" depending on size, (dagger to halberd), and agility of wielder.
And would assume we resolve weapon attacks from shortest range to longest.
(Eg,Close combat,then small arms, then special, then heavy then ordnance.)

Just put the unit stats , then the weapon stats for each unit.
Sorry, I probably did not explain the ideas that well...

 Endriu Death Coy wrote:
Well, I remember 2nd Edition used various combinations of dice for armor pen etc.

Don't see anything wrong with sticking with things the way they are personally.

This is correct. It was one of the big things people rejoiced and complained about when 3rd came out. The game simplified to just D6's (amongst other things). One nice thing about the simplification is that it took less time to look up in the book what die to roll.

Unholyllama wrote:

 Endriu Death Coy wrote:
Well, I remember 2nd Edition used various combinations of dice for armor pen etc.

Don't see anything wrong with sticking with things the way they are personally.

This is correct. It was one of the big things people rejoiced and complained about when 3rd came out. The game simplified to just D6's (amongst other things). One nice thing about the simplification is that it took less time to look up in the book what die to roll.

Totally, simplification isn't a bad thing.

Right, get rid of all d6, in exchange for d10. Simplify as much as possible, uniform rules for hit and wound, in and out of cc; remove saves, attacker determines everything. Consolidate all movement to one phase. Remove all unnecessary or redundant mechanics. Rebalance all units using a common baseline, and differentiate them using a 10 pip spread rather than 6 for a more nuanced game.

The problem that GW seems to be suffering from is the idea that more conditional rules makes for a better game; this is wrong. Just look at all the movement: regroup, move, run, charge, pile in, consolidate... Never all at once, it always involves walking around the table 4 times... Playing against an assaulty horde, you're just watching the clock. Then, random moment rolls? Really, that's just dumb. All the different USRs that regulate movement are meant to differentiate units, fine, but if the units could just be a little bit more differentiated to start with, you probably wouldn't notice if fleet were gone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
I agree with lots of the ideas for making the rules less complicated, as it would allow far more complex game play.

...
For example if we base the chance to hit on the targets skill.The targets size and agility .
We could call this Stealth perhaps?
...

...

Now this sets the difficulty of hitting any target unit.
We could use the Attackers effective range to determine the attackers skill with ranged weapons.
...


I also agree that close combat weapons can have an effective range of 0-2" of 0-4" depending on size, (dagger to halberd), and agility of wielder.
And would assume we resolve weapon attacks from shortest range to longest.
...

Just put the unit stats , then the weapon stats for each unit.
Sorry, I probably did not explain the ideas that well...

Adding / Subtracting from dice roll for Cover is a good idea, great actually.
Keeping track of whether or not every unit moved or remained stationary however is a bitch.
Giving weapons "range categories / increments" rather than within range yes/no would probably slow things down too much, as it adds two layers of math before the result.
I think that resolving attacks by initiative doesn't really present any speed/complication problems.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

PS. Math Whizzes

Came up with some math to help figure this out, but I need to know how to write this equation (which will help to determine the offensive effectiveness of a unit).


A(b - v)x = e

v = C-D
e in this system will represent the effectiveness of the unit in outputting damage.

If i want to set, clearly that v can never be lower than 0 regardless of the Values of C and D. Like, even if C = 4 and D = 5, you always treat v as if it were 0 instead of -1

Is there a way to denote that?

Hi junk.
I knew i did not ex[plain my ideas that well.

If in the new game turn we use ,action set/order counters, and interleaved activation.Then we know which unit has done what and the state of the unit simply by the counter next to the unit.
And if we use unit cards , with all the in game info on, we do not have to remember anything !(Which is great when you are old and forget stuff after a couple of beers like I do! )

The idea of REPLACING BS with effective range is that units better at shooting hit targets further away!

EG a Laser rifle.
In the hands of conscripted troops it has a range of 20"
(IG White Shields.)
In the hands of average troops it has a range of 24"
(IG Platoon.)
In the hands of veteran troops it has a range of 28"
(IG veterans)

This information is on the UNIT WEAPON PROFILE.
rather than list stock ranges , and modify effects for users.We can simply list the effect for each particular unit type.

The idea is that we can FINE TUNE a units shooting skill by just altering their effective range by 1" increments after play testing will give more degrees of variation than 1/6 chance of hitting 40k uses.

The proposed shooting resolution is.
Declare target in effective range.
Modifiy targets Stealth Value / attackers roll to hit as necessary..
Roll dice to see what attacks hit.

I have a problem with just using a fixed stat for resolving in game actions .It denies the use of tactical skill.And makes everyone focus on strategic list building.
Which is great for selling toy soldiers, but delivers pants game play.

It is fine using a formula to determine in game effectivness AFTER it is verified by actual in game comparisons.
Other wise you can get disproportionate loading.

A units COMPARIBLE mobility , offence and defence capability, make up the units in game effectiveness.

If you have to artificaly restrict ranges of results , you have a flawed equasion.

if a value is 0 then any value multiplied by 0 =0

EG BS x weapon damage x effective range= comparative in game ranged effect of the unit .
If any value is 0 the result is 0.

Hope that helps...

Lanrak wrote:
Hi junk.
I knew i did not ex[plain my ideas that well.

If in the new game turn we use ,action set/order counters, and interleaved activation.Then we know which unit has done what and the state of the unit simply by the counter next to the unit.
And if we use unit cards , with all the in game info on, we do not have to remember anything !(Which is great when you are old and forget stuff after a couple of beers like I do! )

The idea of REPLACING BS with effective range is that units better at shooting hit targets further away!

EG a Laser rifle.
In the hands of conscripted troops it has a range of 20"
(IG White Shields.)
In the hands of average troops it has a range of 24"
(IG Platoon.)
In the hands of veteran troops it has a range of 28"
(IG veterans)

This information is on the UNIT WEAPON PROFILE.
rather than list stock ranges , and modify effects for users.We can simply list the effect for each particular unit type.

The idea is that we can FINE TUNE a units shooting skill by just altering their effective range by 1" increments after play testing will give more degrees of variation than 1/6 chance of hitting 40k uses.

The proposed shooting resolution is.
Declare target in effective range.
Modifiy targets Stealth Value / attackers roll to hit as necessary..
Roll dice to see what attacks hit.

I have a problem with just using a fixed stat for resolving in game actions .It denies the use of tactical skill.And makes everyone focus on strategic list building.
Which is great for selling toy soldiers, but delivers pants game play.

It is fine using a formula to determine in game effectivness AFTER it is verified by actual in game comparisons.
Other wise you can get disproportionate loading.

A units COMPARIBLE mobility , offence and defence capability, make up the units in game effectiveness.

If you have to artificaly restrict ranges of results , you have a flawed equasion.

if a value is 0 then any value multiplied by 0 =0

EG BS x weapon damage x effective range= comparative in game ranged effect of the unit .
If any value is 0 the result is 0.

Hope that helps...

Replacing BS with Range-class: If we do that, say we have two units 18" apart, which is within both units ideal effective range, one unit is a vindicare, the other is an ork boy, they are both shooting at a fixed target, a straw dummy directly between them. You're saying they have an equal chance to hit it?



Regarding the formula... When I plug in all of the numbers; it will tell me overall chance to wound for the given unit, which will help me figure out about half the cost of the unit.
I don't know how to actually write it.
I need to limit one of the elements to represent a game rule (AP can not reduce armor value below a 0)

The formula considers ballistic skill, armor value, ap, and weapon strength, and the result is a %. Because it's a fixed range of numbers (1-10) it's always accurate, except in the case that AP exceeds Armor, that's why I need to set a limit. It's just the first of 4 formulas, that will, in the end, make up the cost of any unit before Special abilities.

Under the current BS system
2 units within weapons range and have the same BS hit on the same dice roll.So what is your argument?

Under the proposed system the TARGET sets the basic score to hit.

The Shooting skill simply determines what range the units can engage targets at.

Sorry I am not too good at explaining this ...

Lanrak wrote:
Under the current BS system
2 units within weapons range and have the same BS hit on the same dice roll.So what is your argument?

Under the proposed system the TARGET sets the basic score to hit.

The Shooting skill simply determines what range the units can engage targets at.

Sorry I am not too good at explaining this ...

Yes, but you're suggesting we remove BS. Aren't you? Which determines our %chance to hit.
Once units are both within their engagement range, how do you suggest we represent their differentiated skill level? What separates a unit that's a good marksman from a unit that's just 'close enough'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's why.

Currently, I'm working on a very simplified D10 system; there's no assault phase, movement only during movement phase, shooting and cc are the same mechanic (differentiated by BS and WS), Strength is a function of wargear, units have no toughness rating.

Using this system, I can factor in effective range as a fixed value that will scale point costs; ballistic skill/weapon skill becomes the primary determinate of cost derived from units offensive effectiveness, and armor the primary determining factor of defensive effectiveness. Combined, those features are pretty much all there is besides wargear and special abilities to differentiate units.

Wow, this has gone on awhile since I last looked.

Out of curiosity, for setting out to make the game simpler you realize you all have taken it to a whole new level of complicated.

Now I see why a certain friend of mine swears changing the die type would give GW a chance to just make the game more complicated LOL

PLEASE tell me we're not considering variable weapon ranges though

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Wow, this has gone on awhile since I last looked.

Out of curiosity, for setting out to make the game simpler you realize you all have taken it to a whole new level of complicated.

Now I see why a certain friend of mine swears changing the die type would give GW a chance to just make the game more complicated LOL

PLEASE tell me we're not considering variable weapon ranges though

I fail to see what you're talking about.

My goal is actually vast simplification, I don't know if that's in line with the OP's suggestion.

I'm in favor of getting rid of all conditional rules, ditching the entire assault phase in order to consolidate all attacks to one phase and all movement to one phase. There are definitely a lot of complications in the conversion process, but the end result should be a much more elegant system.

The acting player moves, then attacks. That's it. Then the next player goes, moves, then attacks. No saves, only a few modifiers. No extra movement, no convoluted assault rules, no locked in combat, etc...

A unit conducts its movement, if any, then checks range, shoots or makes CC attacks, and it's turn is over.

The extra unit variance of base 10 over 6 allows for more nuanced units, so even though dumb stuff like "Roll an extra d6 when determining your charge distance" is gone, there's still plenty of room to define models. Also this simplification of the system allows for objective PV determinations.

Yeah, the construction is complicated, but the end result should be crisp and clean without being sterile.

Hi again.
I do appear to have totally messed up my explanation.

I am NOT proposing variable range effects.


If we break down the chance to hit , ALL the variables are;-
Targets ,size agility, battle field experience, and disposition from the attacker.
Attackers , awareness level and skill with the ranged weapon and their disposition to the target.

Currently 40k JUST uses attacker Ballistic skill, in the to hit process.

If we use the targets skill at avoiding being hit as the BASE SCORE TO HIT, we can take the target size , agility, and battle field experience into account.

We can use A FEW simple modifiers to cover disposition, of attacker and target, eg ,cover, suppression, movement etc. (We can decide on what is important to list as modifiers during the game development.)

This ONLY leave the attackers skill not accounted for.
This is covered by the units Effective Range found on their UNIT profile.(On the unit data card.)

Each different unit type will have its own ER value .This ER value gives finer degrees of seperation than the fixed to hit roll of current 4ok.

Rather than give a fixed range for a weapon.And than give a small degree of variation in the to hit roll.(16.66% jumps.)
We assign the chance to hit to the target.
And the range the UNIT can engage targets effectively denotes their shooting skill.(Assumes units generally do not waste ammunition blasting away at units they are not likely to hit.)

IF the stats are used directly in the resolution we can have more degrees of complexity, without the levels of complication (additional resolution methods and rules.) 40k has.

The effective range of a weapon or unit movement is expressed as a distance,(eg 2-12" 0-2").
A skill is expressed as the minimum BASE value to succeed (2+,3+ 4+ etc.)
Or the number of dice rolled,(for shots/hits,etc.)

is this any clearer?

So we have the attacker with a Ballistic skill, and the defender with an Evasion skill, cross ref the two, thus getting the score to hit?
I like that, no more difficult than SvT.