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.

Looks like the OP just wants the Eldar book to change lmao

40kmaster1 wrote:
Looks like the OP just wants the Eldar book to change lmao

How does it look like that?

I have Eldar myself, so I thought I'd start by suggesting changes to Eldar. I want all codexes to be able to compete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@Selym.
Just a few points I would like to raise.

If you keep the limited results of the current resolution methods, even using a D10, you will have to use special rules to add variation to represent the variation in targets.

EG if a SM with a Las Cannon hits any thing any where in range on a 4+ on a D10. It still fails to cover the massive variation in target size silhouette and agility found in opposing units in 40k.

Also fast rolling with D6 is MUCH MUCH easier than fast rolling with D10.

If you do not believe me , try fast rolling 30 x D 10 20 times and see how long it takes.
Then do the same with 30 x D 6 20 times and see the time difference!

I would suggest you seriously consider opposed rolls using a D6, for all combat resolution .As this give the variation in the core resolution we need to reduce the need for special rules , while keeping the D6 we are all familiar with.

Things will need to be looked at. Anything I try to change will need some testing before actually being done, ofc. But I don't see how rolling with D10 is slower. It may be that I don't hav any to hand to compare, so could you give me an explanation of why it's slower?

The reason I would like to use a D set other than 6 is that 40k tries to have immensely different units, powers and effects, but only has 6 slots to separate them, with one sixth of those being an automatic failure in most cases. D10 would therefore allow for 9 slots of differentiation, instead of the current effective 5. This would help speed system resolution by removing some or most of the need for re-rolling.
For example, a highly-trained marksman (such as a DA Exarch) in 7E has BS5. This means that he will hit on a 2+, granting a 0.8333 chance of hitting. In order to represent a significantly more skilled marksman, (such as a Vindicare Assassin), a BS of 6 or higher is required. VA's have a BS of 8. This means that if they roll a 1 to hit the first time, they re-roll the result, and now hit on a 4+, granting a 0.9166 chance to hit.
This increases the number of dice rolled for a single resolution. If, however, we were using a D10 system, you could much more easily differentiate between the accuracy levels on a single dice, and thereby increase the speed of play.

EDIT: You can also possibly remove the need for a to-wound table with D10, but I need to write that up and review it.

Also, while I'm here, how do you mean "opposed rolls"?

I would overhaul flyer rules. The way they are portrayed now makes no real sense for super-sonic aircraft. Flyers are no longer units that hang around the board. Instead, the models are used to represent an airstrike coming down. To resolve an airstrike you put the model on the table, declare target, check ranges, cover etc. and then resolve fire. This only happens once per game.

Of course, I would also buff the firepower of fliers and also make them loads cheaper to compensate. Aircraft strikes have traditionally been very devastating against ground forces. That should be represented in the dark millennium.

AA guns would be able to fire against aircraft out of turn sequence but for doing so they may only fire at BS1 next turn. Basically, an adaption of Bolt Action's flyer system which I think works well for representing aircraft on a platoon/company level scale.

The psyker phase. Get rid of it. Bring it back to the way it used to be. In addition get rid of randomly rolled powers. It makes sense for races like Orks to be random but not for the disciplined Eldar. Also the general disciplines in the BRB need to get trimmed down. There are too many powers now. Bring the entire psyker table from 5th back.

1) No D weapons
2) GC/SHV in apocolypse only
3)No stomps
4) Only troops can score
5) Multiple IC's can't join the same unit
6) Remove invisibility or reduce its strength like -5 BS

@Selym.
It is the physical differences between D6 and D10 that make them very different for 'fast stack dice rolling.'

The 6 sided cubes stack easily and so you can physically hold more dice at a time than you can with D10.
(I can hold 3 times as many D6 in my hand as I can D10 for example.Simply because they stack together well and have larger area of contact so you can use this to your advantage. )

Also D6 have fast recognition patterns in the pips.No face looks like any other, no matter what angle they are viewed from.

Now if you look at the numbers on a D10. They are much harder to identify when viewed as a bunch of randomly oriented symbols.

If you intend to keep the rolling one dice per minature, and having to roll 20+ dice per unit in some armies.This makes the issues outlined above really hamper the game play.


I totally agree that the diversity of units in 40k is not represented in the current 40k rule set.
However, its the restrictive and limiting resolution methods that are more to blame than the D6 used.

If we take to hit at range for example.
Hits on a X+, no matter how big or small, fast or slow, agile or clumbersome the target.

The 2nd ed rules had 'to hit modifiers for everything and any thing' and it made the resolution more diverse but more complicated and time consuming.

3rd ed on wards got rid to the proportionality in the to hit at range, (dropped the stupid amount of modifiers.)But used special rules to put the variation back in after the event.

I meant to type opposed values , not opposed rolls , sorry. (I was trying to cook tea and post at the same time... )

If we are happy to used opposed values in a chart for 'to hit in assault', and 'to wound.'(WS vs WS, and S vs T)

Why not use this resolution method for all combat resolution?

Give units a 'how hard to hit at range skill', to oppose BS in a table.
Give all units an armour value and oppose it with an armour piercing value for all weapons.This determines the save value for all units!

And if we use values of 1 to 10, (or 1 to 20?) in a table that out lines the levels of invunerability , and auto success ,We can get proportionality and intuitive results.
Rather than a set of random outcomes that have no relation to the background.

We could get a more tactically focused core rules set .

I can explain this inn more detail if you like?

I've played games that used a lot of D10's before. It's fine. I feel like you are really making excuses.

Maybe you make things work with the D6, but we can keep many mechanics intact and just increase the granularity with D10s.

Most people just like D6s because that's what most people have come to know as "dice". familiarity usually trumps utility.

The increment of 10% is so much more mathematically convenient than 16%.

 Dayknight wrote:
1) No D weapons
2) GC/SHV in apocolypse only
3)No stomps
4) Only troops can score
5) Multiple IC's can't join the same unit
6) Remove invisibility or reduce its strength like -5 BS

1) or just fix the '6' result to D3+2 instead of auto delete
2) Or limit them to 1 per 1000pts
3) agreed, or at least make a Stomp only 1 small blast at the models Str, AP4
4) agreed, or make only Infantry score
5) I see where you are going with this, but I'm 50/50 on it.
6) Invisibility being -3 BS/WS could be cool. Or make it like the GhostKeel and make it a Malediction that only affects a single target enemy.

Martel732 wrote:
The increment of 10% is so much more mathematically convenient than 16%.

Even though I like D6's for their convenience and accessibility, I could see using D10s resulting in less charts. Imagine all "to wounds" need a 6+ on a D10 (the middle result). If your Str is higher than the targets T, add the difference to your roll. If your Str is lower, subtract the difference fro your roll.
In theory this is exactly what we do with a D6 (always wound on 4, adding or subtracting) But a D10 wold create a larger gap, allowing units with Str3 to actually wound T7 or 8,
It would also reduce the chances of not wounding when your Str is much higher. A '1' would still fail, but the chances are lower.

But I still like D6s

-

@Martel732.
When you have play tested 40k hoard infantry armies using a D10.(Ork shoota boys with 3 big shootas rolling over 30 dice per turn , for example.)
Then by all means say that you feel I am making 'excuses'.

Most war games that use D10 do not roll more than a dozen at a time .And rolling 3 times as many D10 as this, does multiply the issues I pointed out to Selym.

I know from experience the issues with D10 I pointed out to Selym.(I was trying to be helpful. )

Also 40k players are much more likely to use a rule set that keeps the D6 , and three stage damage resolution.

And I honestly believe 'just use a bigger dice' approach is simply down to people not wanting to tackle the core issues with WHFB based core rules.

Simply put , ancient warfare based rules do not work well with modern unit types.

If you do not address the core issues with the core rules , you always end up with lots of unnecessary complication and abstraction of results.

Just removed the entirety of the "Psychic Phase" section. And all 6,000 words it uses. My current idea is to revert to something along the lines of 5E psykers - they have neat and synergetic effects and powers, but they don't get to dictate how the game works.

Suggestions for the replacement system?

Install 2nd edition armor rend or adopt AOS version. Bring back the armor save. Get rid of hull points and figure something else out.

Darkmind wrote:
Install 2nd edition armor rend or adopt AOS version. .

What's that?

Double the amount of HPs for most vehicles. The change to HPs was a decent one. Mech infantry is my favorite play style but I'll admit that in 5th it was to hard to destroy even light vehicles but with the level of S6/7 fire power out there today light vehicles get chewed up to quickly.

I'd like to see the rules refined to reduce unnecessary randomness and improve the swiftness of gameplay. Don't see the new edition as a reason to rewrite the book altogether, but to take what exists and make changes to it that you think will improve the game. And make test rulesets available for free online throughout the development process, so players can help test the changes before they're committed to print. Use regular surveys on particular rules and subjects with 1-10 ratings to find out what your players think of the changes being made. The goal should not be only to change, it should be to improve what is flawed while keeping what works. Change for change's sake isn't a good thing.

Stuff like having your psykers generate their powers randomly each game is just bad, as it damages the personal narrative you want to write with that character by treating his sorcerous powers as something they have no control over. They should be able to pick their spells at the army list writing stage. Making all the powers equally enticing is probably too difficult given the different strengths and weaknesses of each army that can take them, so you could make some inherently more powerful but require an additional points cost to select, and maybe even have the more powerful spells be more dangerous to cast to offer a trade-off beyond simply selecting the most powerful stuff.

Definitely clean up the clunky stuff. Multiple barrages in particular. Resolving multiple barrages is lengthy and tedious and should be redesigned almost entirely, as the more realistic depiction here is inconsistent with how other blast and template weapons work. Just scrap that idea altogether and resolve them like normal blast weapons after you determine how many targets were hit. I make a point of not using mortars and I've dismissed the idea of even buying a Wyvern simply because I don't want to deal with that stuff.

If you're going to treat the game in general as a way to sell models, that's fine, GW's primarily a model company and the game is secondary. But trying to milk the "whales" by constantly introducing new, expensive powerful units they have to buy or else be underpowered isn't the way to do it. 40k is a multiplayer game, and like any multiplayer game if most people are simply unwilling to pay the cost to be competitive and the game isn't enjoyable in non-competitive scenes either, then they're going to go elsewhere. And then the whales will have fewer people to play with, which will reduce their enjoyment of the game, and they'll probably turn elsewhere too.

You are called "Games Workshop". Gaming is a principal part of even your company name. It's not some side dish you can use to bolster sales by making things overpowered to make people buy them. That kind of stuff generally repulses gamers because they feel they're being taken advantage of. It's fine to make money, but the best way to make money is to design your games in a way where your players enjoy giving you money, instead of feeling like they have to in order to compete. The latter just leads to resentment and they're not likely to want to play your game again. And you can't just keep marketing your game to new people, as you'll run out of new people to sell your stuff to who actually heard good things about the game in the first place.

I repeat, a good monetization system is one where your players like giving you money, not one where they have to.

Get rid of warp charges and add in casting values. The way fantasy used to be.

 Selym wrote:
After some sleeping, I realised that a 2D6 gas the same result output as a D10.

D10 it is.

Uhh, I have no formal training in statistics or probability, but I can tell you for a fact that 2d6 and 1d10 are NOT the same thing whatsoever.

1d10 has an equal chance for any result, and offers results from 1 to 10.

2d6 offers results from 2 to 12 and the chance for any particular result grows the closer to the average you get.

On 2d6, you're more likely to roll a 7 than a 6, for example. Rolling a 2 is only a 1 in 36 chance.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Selym wrote:
After some sleeping, I realised that a 2D6 gas the same result output as a D10.

D10 it is.

Uhh, I have no formal training in statistics or probability, but I can tell you for a fact that 2d6 and 1d10 are NOT the same thing whatsoever.

1d10 has an equal chance for any result, and offers results from 1 to 10.

2d6 offers results from 2 to 12 and the chance for any particular result grows the closer to the average you get.

On 2d6, you're more likely to roll a 7 than a 6, for example. Rolling a 2 is only a 1 in 36 chance.

That's another point to know that I totally forgot about. I was referring to the slots of results, which is what I had really wanted to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Get rid of warp charges and add in casting values. The way fantasy used to be.

How do casting values work? How is it different to warp charges?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
I

You are called "Games Workshop".

I love your post - I hadn't remembered about barrage resolution bc I avoid it too. But just to clarify, I'm not a GW employee

In WHFB all spells had a casting value that you had to roll greater than or equal to using any number of dice from a pool that was generated at the start of the phase (in WHFB case it was 2D6 + number of successful channels by wizards + other effects to a maximum of 12). Channeling was roll 1 dice for every wizard and on a 6 you get an additional dice in your pool.

For example if a spell had a casting value of 7+, you need to roll a 7 or more on however many dice you want (to a maximum of 6 iirc).

 Pouncey wrote:
I

You are called "Games Workshop".

I love your post - I hadn't remembered about barrage resolution bc I avoid it too. But just to clarify, I'm not a GW employee

@Selym.
I completely agree that we need to increase the variety of results in the interaction.
But why change the dice size when the current rules mainly only use half the results of a D6?

Here is a universal resolution table we were play testing in our re-write.(Still a w,i,p.)

A = Active player ,(rolling the dice) Stat.
O= opposing player. stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

This assumes all stats are opposed, and so all units use the same method of resolution for to hit to save and to wound.
This gives SEVEN proportional results from a humble D6.

I am not saying this is the solution, but an illustration of how much better the D6 could be used in 40k.And I would prefer to look at these options before we increase the dice size.

if you want to clean up the 40k rules into a well defined intuitive rule set, you NEED to re write the rules from the ground up to focus on the current game scale and scope.

The current WHFB backward compatible rules for 40k , make about as much sense as using rules for football that have been made backwards compatible to the rules for golf.

 Selym wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Selym wrote:
After some sleeping, I realised that a 2D6 gas the same result output as a D10.

D10 it is.

Uhh, I have no formal training in statistics or probability, but I can tell you for a fact that 2d6 and 1d10 are NOT the same thing whatsoever.

1d10 has an equal chance for any result, and offers results from 1 to 10.

2d6 offers results from 2 to 12 and the chance for any particular result grows the closer to the average you get.

On 2d6, you're more likely to roll a 7 than a 6, for example. Rolling a 2 is only a 1 in 36 chance.

That's another point to know that I totally forgot about. I was referring to the slots of results, which is what I had really wanted to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Get rid of warp charges and add in casting values. The way fantasy used to be.

How do casting values work? How is it different to warp charges?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
I

You are called "Games Workshop".

I love your post - I hadn't remembered about barrage resolution bc I avoid it too. But just to clarify, I'm not a GW employee

Here is a good example of what a 2d6 result table should look like.

Notice that the best/worst results are on the "2" and "12" since they are the least likely result while the most minor bonuses/penalties are on the "6"-"8" since they are the most likely.

noice

How do casting values work? How is it different to warp charges?

Spells have different values that they are cast on. A low level spell would be like 6+ or 7+ to cast. Where as a high level powerful spell would be 18+ or 21+ to cast. You choose how many power dice you want to throw at the spell in order to cast it. So a higher level spell would require more dice to cast it successfully. Then you add +1 to the casting value for every magic level (psychic mastery level) your wizard is. So if you had a level 3 wizard you add +3 to whatever you rolled to cast the spell. The opponent then gets to attempt to dispel the cast the exact same way but they have to match or beat what you rolled and add their wizard levels too.

I think this style of psychic power casting would be better overall for the game because it promotes more complex game play by needing to properly manage casting and dispelling pool as opposed to throwing a bunch of dice and praying for 4+ or 6+ if you are attempting to stop a spell, which is in my opinion, a gakky, overly simplified way of adding a magic phase. It makes an all or nothing situation for many armies which I hate.

I'm gonna get eaten alive for this buuuuut... I would seriously love it if 40k became like AoS matched play. I genuinely feel it's a much better competitive game than 40k at the moment; it's streamlined, easy to learn, hard to break, great mission design, surprisingly balanced (even though there are some offenders *coughcough*Settra*coughcough*)... Would really like to see those rule applied to the 40k universe.

I will quit this game so fast if it becomes anything like AOS.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I would overhaul flyer rules. The way they are portrayed now makes no real sense for super-sonic aircraft. Flyers are no longer units that hang around the board. Instead, the models are used to represent an airstrike coming down. To resolve an airstrike you put the model on the table, declare target, check ranges, cover etc. and then resolve fire. This only happens once per game.

Of course, I would also buff the firepower of fliers and also make them loads cheaper to compensate. Aircraft strikes have traditionally been very devastating against ground forces. That should be represented in the dark millennium.

AA guns would be able to fire against aircraft out of turn sequence but for doing so they may only fire at BS1 next turn. Basically, an adaption of Bolt Action's flyer system which I think works well for representing aircraft on a platoon/company level scale.

Noone would buy flyers than. So much time and $ to put it on the table somewhere in the corner once and roll a few dice.

@D6 VS D10/2D6

Both are valid and work well.
D10/2D6 is best if you get the values needed directly into the profile and reduce them to the minimum (to hit & to wound) while the profile has a cap from 1-10.

D6 can to the same with less diversity, but they work better if values are compared (S VS T) and you use an open end table.
So don't need extra rules for Titans because S20 Titan-killer VS T20 Titan-armour use the same table like the S3 VS T3 Soldier.
The only thing is that the chart need a hardcap so that is impossible to wound everything on a lucky 6.

40k failes here because they use a to wound table with no cap, and the profiles are all stuck somewhere between 3 and 5.
GW does not use the possibilities a D6 would allow which is not the fault of the dice but the system behind it.

@Psionic
MagicJuggler onece made a nice system for 40k that worked well without giving up the possibilities needed to make it worth
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/666981.page

@changes needed
except from all balancing stuff, there should be a clear line about models and bases
"the current model counts" is not a useful rule and a system with it's core based on Models on their base (LOS, measurement etc) without a guideline for basing cannot be taken serious.

 kodos wrote:

40k failes here because they use a to wound table with no cap

You can't wound a model when it's Toughness >= 2 * Str of the attack

As for me, i'd heavilly rework everything considered psy and limit allies.