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.

Well I completely disagree Lanrak, I don't think this game needs to be changed to having opposed checks for everything. I think this game could be improved with having more checks that are rolled against a single stat. That is the idea that Future War Cultist is aiming for so I think we should stick to talking about that.

Earlier we couldn't work out whether to use a To-Wound attribute or roll against toughness to resolve wounds. I have had an idea, maybe you should use both? Every model would have an inherent To-Hit attribute that's used for close combat, but for shooting make it an attribute of the weapon in question.
So to make an attack, roll to hit against the weapon's To-Hit attribute, then roll To-Wound against the target's Toughness value, then the target can make a save if it has one.
You might be able to account for differing skills with weapons in others ways; perhaps with bonuses or penalties to hit. Examples: Untrained (-1), Veteran (+1), Elite (+2)

@Marksman224.
But to represent both attacker and attacked skills abilities fully , that would mean 6 separate rolls wouldn't it?

Attacker...............Defender
To hit roll..... ........roll to dodge/evade.
To beat armour...armour roll to save
Damage roll........to resist damage roll.

To include these elements in opposed stats on a single chart would only need 3 rolls.

Otherwise you are removing some elements from the interaction, which may require additional systems and special rules to add back in? Which is my concern.

You have misunderstood me. I never said that every single skill and attribute needs to be rolled for. I was not talking about your system, with evasion ratings and such, I was talking about Future War Cultist's proposed rules.

So it's only three rolls I am proposing:
Roll to Hit (attacker's/weapon's attribute)
Roll to Wound (defender's attribute)
Roll to Save (defender's attribute modified by attacker's attribute)

I know that you don't like this style and that you think that every check should be based on the opposition of the attacker's and defender's attributes. However I have already discussed my position on your proposals and I want to move back to discussing the original topic.

Hi guys! Sorry for the late reply. I've been enjoying the sun, which is a rarity in Ireland.

I wish it was possible to simply use AoS's to hit and to wound system, but we can't have a lasgun damaging a Land Raider. It just feels wrong!

I wanted to try a fixed to wound result for models but it was basically the same thing with the same problems.

I just feel like using the strength + D6 versus armor stat system is the easiest way to go. It eliminates the comparison charts and can be explain in one paragraph which keeps the rules nice and simple. I think however that strength values would need to be reevaluated, but since we're remaking the game that's OK.

Here's what I came up with:

Weapons that were formerly strength 3-4 with AP - to AP 6 are now Strength 1 (is there a better word than Strength ) Weapons that were either strength 3 with decent AP or strength 4 with average AP (boltguns, hot-shot lasguns, radium carbines etc) are now Strength 2. Pulse weapons, grenade launchers etc are strength 3, and so on and so forth.

A guardsman can be defense 4. You need the Strength + D6 to beat that to score a wound. So a strength 1 weapon like a lasgun needs a 4+ to wound. Same as what things currently are. Guardsmen can then have a rule in their Warscroll (need a 40k name for these!) called 'Flak Armor', which says that when a guardsman suffers a wound from a strength 1 attack, they can ignore it on a D6 roll of a 5 or a 6. Things are the same, but simplified.

An Ork can be defense 5. That lasgun will now need a 5+ to wound them. Again, Orks can then have a rule in their warscroll saying that they get a 5+ save against strength 1 attacks. Call it Dead Ard or something.

Or...armor saves can stay in it as they are, and it's only the strength v toughness thing that is replaced. Thoughts?

While there is nothing wrong with this method of S+D6 vs T, I don't think there will be any advantage to it other than disposing of the table. When you go to roll for whole lot of attacks at once you will either need to mentally add the strength to each dice to check them, which would actually be time-consuming, or calculate what score you need on the dice before you check them. The latter case is the same as having a table when you think about it, you calculate the score you need, you roll the dice, then count the ones that meet it.

I dont understand the problem in the actual shooting/attacking resolution system.
Do you really think the problems of the actual game lay there?
I dont think.
Too powerful units is the problem, not the game base mechanism.

Marksman224 wrote:
While there is nothing wrong with this method of S+D6 vs T, I don't think there will be any advantage to it other than disposing of the table. When you go to roll for whole lot of attacks at once you will either need to mentally add the strength to each dice to check them, which would actually be time-consuming, or calculate what score you need on the dice before you check them. The latter case is the same as having a table when you think about it, you calculate the score you need, you roll the dice, then count the ones that meet it.

But it's only simple arithmetic. If I have strength 1 attacks and the target is defense 6 then I know that I'll need a score of 7 to beat it, so I have to roll 6s. It only takes me half a second to do the sum in my head.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
I dont understand the problem in the actual shooting/attacking resolution system.
Do you really think the problems of the actual game lay there?
I dont think.
Too powerful units is the problem, not the game base mechanism.

There's nothing wrong with the current system per say, but if you want the rules reduced to a simple four to six page set up expanded with warscrolls then it'll need a rethink.

Unless...if we're prepared for small arms to be able to damage a tank, the tank will need a huge amount of wounds and a crazy armor save. Like, 16 wounds and a 1+ armor save for a Land Raider.

I didn't see any change aimed to reduced the rules to few pages, only changes with no real improvement of the game.

@Future War Cultist
Yeah, I know that the arithmetic in question isn't difficult. I never said that it was, it just won't make a difference other than getting rid of the table. Which may in fact be a substantial improvement, but it's hard to tell without play-testing it.

@ The Deer Hunter

The main thing we're trying to do here is to reduce the rules down to two sources at best. If we can improve them then that's a bonus.

@ Marksman224

Sorry if that came off as hostile. It wasn't my intent.

If it gets rid of the table then I'm happy. But you're right. Only play testing will tell us if it works or not.

@Future War Cultist

I know you're not being hostile. I was just clarifying my point before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's usually me who is just being defensive actually.

Over the next few days I'm going to try to make a sample rule set using what we discussed here. I hope to play test it soon as well. Fingers crossed.

There's something else as well. What about physic powers? I like the way 7th edition handles powers (except for the random selecting of powers). But maybe that needs reduced too.

On the subject to psychic powers.
Do you think there is a need for a separate psychic phase?Or could psychic abilities simply be activated along with the appropriate units action?

Lanrak wrote:
On the subject to psychic powers.
Do you think there is a need for a separate psychic phase?Or could psychic abilities simply be activated along with the appropriate units action?

Very good question (sorry for the late reply).

I'm starting to think that the second option is the most viable, if only for ease of play. This is how things used to be pre 6th edition. But I remember that sometimes people forgot to use their powers.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

But I remember that sometimes people forgot to use their powers.

Only a problem if you are the one who forgets to do so.

 the_kraken wrote:
Only a problem if you are the one who forgets to do so.

That is true!

I still don't know what to do with regards to physic powers though.

I'm worried that this project might be stagnating too. I definitely think that the strength plus d6 versus armour system is the best way to go so far, but I am open to ideas.