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.

Main issue with the game is that there are 3 different mechanics used to handle the models, 3 different mechanics to determine damage, 2 different reactions mechanics and the AP system
the factions are all the same, there is no real difference in play style just different point balance of units (we have a profile scale from 1-10, while 90% of the units are inside 3-5 and it only matters what ranged weapon you can spam and that you have fast scoring units)

and than there are too many random effects, too many things that need to be done before the game starts but after list building and too much micro management


using a S VS T chart to wound that is caped at +/-2 (so auto wound and not able to wound possible), while to hit is either a chart or a simple dice roll for ranged and melee, split cover to give a save (terrain) or a to hit modifier (jink), skip the whole vehicle and walker rules and let reactions happen after the action is fulfilled or by Ini for ranged and melee.

than you need to go back to the simple wound allocation rules, add warlord traits, psionic powers etc to the army list, remove all the random mission and terrain rules

The D6 stat system is big problem and it needs to go.

I see, thats the reason why the D6 stat system works fine for a lot of other games but just not for 40k and replacing the D6 system with D12 but keep everything else will make it better
make perfect sense

 kodos wrote:
Main issue with the game is that there are 3 different mechanics used to handle the models, 3 different mechanics to determine damage, 2 different reactions mechanics and the AP system

The dice-type rolloff eliminated the AP system. Comparing dice would be the only way to determine damage. The “3 different mechanics used to handle the models” sounds like a turn system issue. I favor a unit activation system. Not sure what you’r referring to with the” 2 different reactions mechanics” comment?

the factions are all the same, there is no real difference in play style just different point balance of units

Yeah, that's outside this discussion but yeah, some work needs to be done there.

(we have a profile scale from 1-10, while 90% of the units are inside 3-5 and it only matters what ranged weapon you can spam

The dice-rolloff eliminates all charts and 1-10 scale.

and that you have fast scoring units)

The importance of fast scoring units is only an issue because GW uses Easteregg Hunt missions. I prefer the hidden mission generation system used in Adeptus Titanicus. It’s the best.

using a S VS T chart to wound that is caped at +/-2 (so auto wound and not able to wound possible), while to hit is either a chart or a simple dice roll for ranged and melee,

The dice-rolloff eliminates all charts and the S and T stats. You can use dice rolloff for melee as well as ranged combat.

split cover to give a save (terrain) or a to hit modifier (jink),

In dice-rolloff cover is simply a modifier to the defense dice roll. Its never a save.

skip the whole vehicle and walker rules and let reactions happen after the action is fulfilled or by Ini for ranged and melee.

You can use dice rolloff for everything, Inf., vehicles, walkers. I’m in favor of actions and reactions but this is game turn stuff.

than you need to go back to the simple wound allocation rules,

Porspero uses a simple wound allocation system but I’m not a fan. I have something better in mind. Just as simple but more intuitive and not so open to abuse.

add warlord traits, psionic powers etc to the army list,

Yeah, outside this discussion but I have ideas. Love to hear your’s.

remove all the random mission

Yeah, I already mentioned the Adeptus Titanicus hidden mission generation system.. It’s the best. It’s what I would use.

and random terrain rules

Yeah, dumb.

I see, thats the reason why the D6 stat system works fine for a lot of other games but just not for 40k and replacing the D6 system with D12 but keep everything else will make it better make perfect sense

Well of course there's nothing inherently wrong with the D6. It’s the system. In most game the system used works fine with a D6. In 40K not so much. The demands of the game are just too high; the variables too large.

I think I’ve shown above how the dice-type rolloff would greatly improve the game.

Thirdeye wrote:
I think I’ve shown above how the dice-type rolloff would greatly improve the game.

Except you really didn't. You said what it would do, not in any way how it's better.

Edit: A big issue I have with this is it makes everything very samey and bland. How do you address that?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except you really didn't. You said what it would do, not in any way how it's better.

Well, I showed how dice rolloff corrected many of the issues kodos has with the game. The other issues he mentioned were outside the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about the combat resolution system used in the game.

Edit: A big issue I have with this is it makes everything very samey and bland. How do you address that?

Well you need to be more specific. I understand you're concernd about some weapons being lumped together but with a range from D4 to D20 there’s sufficient variation for a fun game. Fact is most of those fine distinctions between T, S and AP average out over the course of a game such that they are meaningless. They give only the illusion of uniqueness nothing more. They are not worth the effort. The game need some simplification and substituting dice-types for all the stat minutia does just that.

Thirdeye wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except you really didn't. You said what it would do, not in any way how it's better.

Well, I showed how dice rolloff corrected many of the issues kodos has with the game. The other issues he mentioned were outside the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about the combat resolution system used in the game.

Edit: A big issue I have with this is it makes everything very samey and bland. How do you address that?

Well you need to be more specific. I understand you're concernd about some weapons being lumped together but with a range from D4 to D20 there’s sufficient variation for a fun game. Fact is most of those fine distinctions between T, S and AP average out over the course of a game such that they are meaningless. They give only the illusion of uniqueness nothing more. They are not worth the effort. The game need some simplification and substituting dice-types for all the stat minutia does just that.

Between d4 and d20 there are (discounting odd numbers) 9 gradations. In the Necrons Codex, there are S10, S8, S4, S5, S9, S6, S7, and SX guns. IG adds S3 guns, Skitarii add S2, Nurgle Daemons add S1. That's 11 variations in Strength alone. AP has 7 values. In Strength and AP alone, there are 77 different combinations, all of which are easy to understand and intuitive to use. How will you represent them?

You said that Guardsmen are d4s. What does that make Flechette Blasters or Defensive Grenades?

In addition, how do you differentiate Bolters (S4 AP5) from Gauss Flayers (S4 AP5 Gauss) or a Transdimensional Beamer (S4 AP2 Exile Ray)? How do you differentiate Gauss Blasters (S5 AP4 Gauss) from Heavy Bolters (S5 AP4) from Tesla Carbines (S5 AP- Tesla) from a Staff of Light (S5 AP3)? How do you handle Sniper weapons? Poison? Fleshbane?

Point of order on the math here. Assuming you want to keep this playable by physical human beings on a physical table there are six different polyhedral dice. If the entire attack is getting reduced to one roll-off you've got 36 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Age of Sigmar has five possible values for hit/wound/save plus seven possible rend values I've seen, which comes out at 875 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Warhammer 40k has 10 BS values and 100 combinations of offensive and defensive WS, 16+ possible Strength values (1-10, D, Poisoned (2-6)), 16 possible Toughness/AV values (1-10, AV 10-15), five possible saves, seven possible AP values, five possible cover saves, and five possible Invul saves, for a theoretical total of 1.8 million different possible combinations of stats on a ranged attack and 4.5 million different possible combinations of stats on a melee attack.

You'd need 2,000-sided dice to simulate the gradations currently in the game with the system you're proposing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Between d4 and d20 there are (discounting odd numbers) 9 gradations. In the Necrons Codex, there are S10, S8, S4, S5, S9, S6, S7, and SX guns. IG adds S3 guns, Skitarii add S2, Nurgle Daemons add S1. That's 11 variations in Strength alone. AP has 7 values. In Strength and AP alone, there are 77 different combinations, all of which are easy to understand and intuitive to use. How will you represent them?

You forget, You can use multiples and combinations of those nine. So the range of gradation is like a gazillion.

You said that Guardsmen are d4s. What does that make Flechette Blasters or Defensive Grenades?

I said no such thing. I said IG was base D6. As far as those weapons stats go, I don’t know. I’m not that familiar with all the stats weapons. I would have to think on it.

In addition, how do you differentiate Bolters (S4 AP5) from Gauss Flayers (S4 AP5 Gauss) or a Transdimensional Beamer (S4 AP2 Exile Ray)? How do you differentiate Gauss Blasters (S5 AP4 Gauss) from Heavy Bolters (S5 AP4) from Tesla Carbines (S5 AP- Tesla) from a Staff of Light (S5 AP3)? How do you handle Sniper weapons? Poison? Fleshbane?

I’ve already discussed some of that. For the rest, not sure. I’d have to think on it. Understand my purpose with this tread was to gage the support for a dice-type rolloff combat resolution system for 40K. In the process I posted some examples of how I thought it could work. But they were just examples. I did the Marine stats because everyone knows Marines are the standard in 40K and everything is balance against them. (Try to anyway). My purpose wasn’t to write a new rulebook and all the codexes here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Point of order on the math here. Assuming you want to keep this playable by physical human beings on a physical table there are six different polyhedral dice. If the entire attack is getting reduced to one roll-off you've got 36 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Age of Sigmar has five possible values for hit/wound/save plus seven possible rend values I've seen, which comes out at 875 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Warhammer 40k has 10 BS values and 100 combinations of offensive and defensive WS, 16+ possible Strength values (1-10, D, Poisoned (2-6)), 16 possible Toughness/AV values (1-10, AV 10-15), five possible saves, seven possible AP values, five possible cover saves, and five possible Invul saves, for a theoretical total of 1.8 million different possible combinations of stats on a ranged attack and 4.5 million different possible combinations of stats on a melee attack.

You'd need 2,000-sided dice to simulate the gradations currently in the game with the system you're proposing.

You can use multiples and combinations of the nine dice types, so effectively you have a gazillion sided dice.

Using multiples of dice doesn't speed up the game when rolling for multiple models. A squad of 10 guys each rolling 3d6 will take more time than rolling 30 dice as individuals.

Thirdeye wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Point of order on the math here. Assuming you want to keep this playable by physical human beings on a physical table there are six different polyhedral dice. If the entire attack is getting reduced to one roll-off you've got 36 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Age of Sigmar has five possible values for hit/wound/save plus seven possible rend values I've seen, which comes out at 875 possible combinations of offensive and defensive stats.

Warhammer 40k has 10 BS values and 100 combinations of offensive and defensive WS, 16+ possible Strength values (1-10, D, Poisoned (2-6)), 16 possible Toughness/AV values (1-10, AV 10-15), five possible saves, seven possible AP values, five possible cover saves, and five possible Invul saves, for a theoretical total of 1.8 million different possible combinations of stats on a ranged attack and 4.5 million different possible combinations of stats on a melee attack.

You'd need 2,000-sided dice to simulate the gradations currently in the game with the system you're proposing.

You can use multiples and combinations of the nine dice types, so effectively you have a gazillion sided dice.

So to produce sufficient permutations of the six dice you're suggesting making players roll 4-5 dice and add them together every time you make an attack?

How long do your 40k games usually take? I suspect playing an entire game under the current system is faster for most of us than making a single shooting attack with a single Conscript mob if we had to roll and sum five dice for every Conscript would be.

 HANZERtank wrote:
Using multiples of dice doesn't speed up the game when rolling for multiple models. A squad of 10 guys each rolling 3d6 will take more time than rolling 30 dice as individuals.

How do you figure that? You throw all your Attack dice at once, so if you had a squad of 10 guys each rolling 3D6 Attack dice you would roll all 30 at once. You would do this even if the squad of 10 guy has mixed weapons.

Say it’s a squad of Marines, three had Bolters, one has a Flamer, one a Plasma Gun, another a Melta Gun, another a Hvy Bolter, another a Missile Launcher, another a Las Cannon, and another a Bolt Pistol, you would just add-up all your Attack dice and roll them all at once. Lets say it worked out that your Attack dice are sixteen D8’s, ten D10’s, and four D12 you would gather-up 16D8, 10D10, and 4D12 and you would roll them all at once.

Now the Defense dice are rolled separately for each model. This might seem to bog things down a bit but not so much really. This is because there’s no silly wound allocation mechanic and besides, if had mixed armor in the Target unit you would have to roll separately for that anyway.

So, continuing with our example from above, the Attacker rolled 30 Attack dice, a mixture of D8’s, D10, and some D12’s. Form the results he eliminate all “3” and lower (2’s, & 1’s). Then he calls-out he’s highest result. Lets say it’s a 12. “Beat a 12!” he announces in a loud, boastful voice. The model in the Target unit closest to the Attacking unit (measured from the command model in the Attacking unit), has to “beat” a 12. Lets say that model is a Terminator with a Grade IV Power Field, so his Defense dice are 2D8’s and a D12. (Instead of 2D8 he can roll a D10. Terminator armor gives him that option, but in this case its not going to help. There’s no way to beat a 12 on a D10 or a D8). His only hope is his D12 Power Field. He rolls that and gets an “11”! Oh, so close… but wait! He’s got some cover. He’s partially obscured by some rocks. The Players agree he should get a +1 cover save. So he survives! (Ties go to the Defender).

Now, lets say instead of the “11” he rolled a “6”. He could either be immediately removed from play or you can do a step reduction where he would lose his Power Field but survive that round of shooting.

Anyway, having dealt with the closest model the Players move on to the next closest model. That model has to beat the next highest score from the pool of Attack dice. And so on until there was a roll-off with every Attack dice of “4” or grater. If you go through all the models in the Target unit and there are still Attack dice left in the pool, then you start again with the closest model and you work your way through until the Defender rolls-off against all the remaining attack dice.

Your using 3d6 in the wrong context then. Rolling 3d6 gives a value between 3 and 18. What you're talking about is just giving more chances of gaining a higher roll but still no greater than a 6. You're talking about rolling 3 dice per guy each as an individual value right? In wich case it's not really increasing the power of a gun, just giving that model a better chance of getting its maximum value.

Thirdeye wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:
Using multiples of dice doesn't speed up the game when rolling for multiple models. A squad of 10 guys each rolling 3d6 will take more time than rolling 30 dice as individuals.

How do you figure that? You throw all your Attack dice at once, so if you had a squad of 10 guys each rolling 3D6 Attack dice you would roll all 30 at once. You would do this even if the squad of 10 guy has mixed weapons.

Say it’s a squad of Marines, three had Bolters, one has a Flamer, one a Plasma Gun, another a Melta Gun, another a Hvy Bolter, another a Missile Launcher, another a Las Cannon, and another a Bolt Pistol, you would just add-up all your Attack dice and roll them all at once. Lets say it worked out that your Attack dice are sixteen D8’s, ten D10’s, and four D12 you would gather-up 16D8, 10D10, and 4D12 and you would roll them all at once.

Now the Defense dice are rolled separately for each model. This might seem to bog things down a bit but not so much really. This is because there’s no silly wound allocation mechanic and besides, if had mixed armor in the Target unit you would have to roll separately for that anyway.

So, continuing with our example from above, the Attacker rolled 30 Attack dice, a mixture of D8’s, D10, and some D12’s. Form the results he eliminate all “3” and lower (2’s, & 1’s). Then he calls-out he’s highest result. Lets say it’s a 12. “Beat a 12!” he announces in a loud, boastful voice. The model in the Target unit closest to the Attacking unit (measured from the command model in the Attacking unit), has to “beat” a 12. Lets say that model is a Terminator with a Grade IV Power Field, so his Defense dice are 2D8’s and a D12. (Instead of 2D8 he can roll a D10. Terminator armor gives him that option, but in this case its not going to help. There’s no way to beat a 12 on a D10 or a D8). His only hope is his D12 Power Field. He rolls that and gets an “11”! Oh, so close… but wait! He’s got some cover. He’s partially obscured by some rocks. The Players agree he should get a +1 cover save. So he survives! (Ties go to the Defender).

Now, lets say instead of the “11” he rolled a “6”. He could either be immediately removed from play or you can do a step reduction where he would lose his Power Field but survive that round of shooting.

Anyway, having dealt with the closest model the Players move on to the next closest model. That model has to beat the next highest score from the pool of Attack dice. And so on until there was a roll-off with every Attack dice of “4” or grater. If you go through all the models in the Target unit and there are still Attack dice left in the pool, then you start again with the closest model and you work your way through until the Defender rolls-off against all the remaining attack dice.

...So you want us to roll more dice, spend more time counting them, and spend a lot more money getting more dice?

I fail to see how your system would simplify or speed up the game.

This multi-sided-Dice idea is becoming more convoluted as it goes on. You seem to be failing to understand that the roll-off system works in Burning of Prospero because the entire game takes place in a vacuum between 2 identical forces of Space Marines with an extremely slim range of weapons available to them.

I said in a previous post that there are 75 weapons available to the IoM alone. Are you willing to assign a D-whatever to -every-last-one- of those weapons? Say nothing of the other factions in the game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...So you want us to roll more dice, spend more time counting them, and spend a lot more money getting more dice?

Well, you might be rolling more dice but you would be rolling them about a third as often. In the course of a game you'd be throwing a lot less dice and getting a result a lot quicker. You spend no more time counting dice than you do now. And as far as money goes, well if that's much of a concern perhaps you picked the wrong hobby.

I know the current system works real good if the attacking unit has all the same weapons and the Defending unit has all the same armor, and you have memorized all the relevant stats and charts. But this isn't always the case, and I wouldn't want to play a game that requires such for a clean quick game. And what I'm suggesting works good for non-mixed units too, but where it really shines is when you have mixed units. Try doing a mixed unit combat with the current rules. Use the weapons mix I used in the example above with the current rules. Try shooting all those different weapons into a unit with mixed armor types. See how long that takes ya. See how many little tedious mechanics you have to work though. See how boring and monotonous it is.

I fail to see how your system would simplify or speed up the game.

Do the experiment: try that example above like I said. Do that with the current rules and tell me how simple and fast it went.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Izural wrote:
This multi-sided-Dice idea is becoming more convoluted as it goes on. You seem to be failing to understand that the roll-off system works in Burning of Prospero because the entire game takes place in a vacuum between 2 identical forces of Space Marines with an extremely slim range of weapons available to them.

No, I understand Prospero. I said from the start it wasn't the best example because its so dumb-ed down. But it would work in 40K with some modifications. That's what I've been on about.

I said in a previous post that there are 75 weapons available to the IoM alone. Are you willing to assign a D-whatever to -every-last-one- of those weapons? Say nothing of the other factions in the game.

And I also said there would have to be some simplification in the weapons. Right now the designer struggle to come up with a stat mix that makes everything its own little special snow flake. That's just silly and has no place in a company size game like 40K. So, for example I make all power weapons the same. They give a D8 in CC. Doesn’t matter what kind, a D8. You can still call them by different names but in the game they are the same. But you can stack them. For example Lighting Claws are a stacked power weapon. It's a Power Fist with integrated Power blades. Its gets a step-up. It gets a D10 in CC.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...So you want us to roll more dice, spend more time counting them, and spend a lot more money getting more dice?

Well, you might be rolling more dice but you would be rolling them about a third as often. In the course of a game you'd be throwing a lot less dice and getting a result a lot quicker. You spend no more time counting dice than you do now. And as far as money goes, well if that's much of a concern perhaps you picked the wrong hobby.

I know the current system works real good if the attacking unit has all the same weapons and the Defending unit has all the same armor, and you have memorized all the relevant stats and charts. But this isn't always the case, and I wouldn't want to play a game that requires such for a clean quick game. And what I'm suggesting works good for non-mixed units too, but where it really shines is when you have mixed units. Try doing a mixed unit combat with the current rules. Use the weapons mix I used in the example above with the current rules. Try shooting all those different weapons into a unit with mixed armor types. See how long that takes ya. See how many little tedious mechanics you have to work though. See how boring and monotonous it is.

I fail to see how your system would simplify or speed up the game.

Do the experiment: try that example above like I said. Do that with the current rules and tell me how simple and fast it went.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Izural wrote:
This multi-sided-Dice idea is becoming more convoluted as it goes on. You seem to be failing to understand that the roll-off system works in Burning of Prospero because the entire game takes place in a vacuum between 2 identical forces of Space Marines with an extremely slim range of weapons available to them.

No, I understand Prospero. I said from the start it wasn't the best example because its so dumb-ed down. But it would work in 40K with some modifications. That's what I've been on about.

I said in a previous post that there are 75 weapons available to the IoM alone. Are you willing to assign a D-whatever to -every-last-one- of those weapons? Say nothing of the other factions in the game.

And I also said there would have to be some simplification in the weapons. Right now the designer struggle to come up with a stat mix that makes everything its own little special snow flake. That's just silly and has no place in a company size game like 40K. So, for example I make all power weapons the same. They give a D8 in CC. Doesn’t matter what kind, a D8. You can still call them by different names but in the game they are the same. But you can stack them. For example Lighting Claws are a stacked power weapon. It's a Power Fist with integrated Power blades. Its gets a step-up. It gets a D10 in CC.

Power weapons are different for a very specific reason, an Axe is not the same as a Sword or Halberd (Power or otherwise), and you want to strip away the only true purpose of lightning claws (IE Shred) and make them homogeneous? These weapons are not the same, in any way shape or form; and a powerfist and lightning claw are so wildly different it's not even funny.

You also never answered my question about BS.

What you are doing is promoting homogeneity in 40K. Why bother thinking, creating and giving meaningful stats and differentiation in a game when you can sandblast everything away until it's a pallid, anemic husk. 40K has not been a "company" based game in decades, and if you need evidence of that, I encourage you to look at the Knights (of either flavor).

 Izural wrote:
Power weapons are different for a very specific reason, an Axe is not the same as a Sword or Halberd (Power or otherwise), and you want to strip away the only true purpose of lightning claws (IE Shred) and make them homogeneous? These weapons are not the same, in any way shape or form; and a powerfist and lightning claw are so wildly different it's not even funny.

Sure they're different. That's not really the issue. The issue is how much detail is appropriate for the game? I mean, you could say every soldier is different too. Some are bigger, stronger, some more cunning, more clever. Every weapon is unique too. Even if superficially they are the same they are really all different. Take an AK, some are new, some are old and worn-out, some receive the best serviced and some are left to fall apart. So, what, you have separate stats for each and every model and every piece of gear!? That's just ridicules. Particularly for a company level game, or bigger. So you make compromises and deal with abstractions. The question is, where do ya drawl the line. Where I draw it is far more appropriate than where GW current draws the line. Understand, GW line was originally draw for a must smaller game. They have redrawn it for some things but its still, mostly, a squad game masquerading as a company game, and ever larger.

You also never answered my question about BS.

I'm sorry. I thought I addressed that but maybe I missed it. Could you say again please?

What you are doing is promoting homogeneity in 40K. Why bother thinking, creating and giving meaningful stats and differentiation in a game when you can sandblast everything away until it's a pallid, anemic husk. 40K has not been a "company" based game in decades, and if you need evidence of that, I encourage you to look at the Knights (of either flavor).

Well, this is mostly hyperbole. Like I said its about drawing lines. Right now 40K uses stats and mechanics designed for squad level game and they shoe-horned that into a company level game, and ever larger.

Quick check-OP, maybe you can add this to a poll at the first post.

Who thinks this is:

1) A good idea as-is?
2) A good idea, but the way the OP is implementing it needs work?
3) A bad idea?

I'm personally leaning between 2 and 3. It could be done well, but I don't think the OP is going about it in a good way, and honestly, some of the stuff he has here makes me think it might not be such a good idea after all.

Edit: Also, you just futzed with the math BIG TIME. A Terminator normally is T4 5++ against a Lascannon. Meaning that, assuming BS 4, a Lascannon has a 66.67% chance of hitting, a 55.56% chance of wounding, and a 37.04% chance of killing them past the Invuln save.

Under your system, that increases to a 45.83% chance of killing them. Why do you hate Terminators? They aren't that good. They don't need to be EASIER to kill.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...So you want us to roll more dice, spend more time counting them, and spend a lot more money getting more dice?

Well, you might be rolling more dice but you would be rolling them about a third as often. In the course of a game you'd be throwing a lot less dice and getting a result a lot quicker. You spend no more time counting dice than you do now. And as far as money goes, well if that's much of a concern perhaps you picked the wrong hobby.

I know the current system works real good if the attacking unit has all the same weapons and the Defending unit has all the same armor, and you have memorized all the relevant stats and charts. But this isn't always the case, and I wouldn't want to play a game that requires such for a clean quick game. And what I'm suggesting works good for non-mixed units too, but where it really shines is when you have mixed units. Try doing a mixed unit combat with the current rules. Use the weapons mix I used in the example above with the current rules. Try shooting all those different weapons into a unit with mixed armor types. See how long that takes ya. See how many little tedious mechanics you have to work though. See how boring and monotonous it is.

I fail to see how your system would simplify or speed up the game.

Do the experiment: try that example above like I said. Do that with the current rules and tell me how simple and fast it went.

If I'm playing 40k under the normal rules I have to roll at absolute maximum three dice to make a single attack. Under your system I've got to roll three to six dice for each attack (from a 3d6 attack).

Explain to me again how this is faster.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


If I'm playing 40k under the normal rules I have to roll at absolute maximum three dice to make a single attack. Under your system I've got to roll three to six dice for each attack (from a 3d6 attack).

Explain to me again how this is faster.

OK, if I'm understanding you correctly, the three rolls under the current system are 1. To Hit, 2. To Wound, and 3. To Save. Correct?

In a dice roll-off its just two rolls, or one roll-off. The Attacker rolls his Attack dice (one roll) and the Defender rolls his Defense dice (another roll). That's it, a total of two rolls. If its a 3D6 attack the Attacker would roll three dice but he would roll them only once. Of course it could be a single dice attack. Say the Attacker is attacking with a single basic Marine, so a single Bolter shot (D8). The Attacker would roll one dice (a D8) once. The Defender would then roll his Defense dice. If the Target guy is a basic Marine (Save D8), he would roll he one Defense dice (a D8) once. Two rolls total.

Under a dice-rolloff system each Players makes one roll per attack, so two rolls total.

Wait-so you're saying a Marine with a Bolter attacks with a d8, and another Marine defends with a d8? So a bolter shot-ONE BOLTER SHOT-has a 43.75% chance of killing a Marine? Compare that to the current system, where a Marine is only killed 11.11% of the time. You just made Tacticals 4X easier to kill with a bolter!

You are completely and utterly changing the math of the game, and you don't even seem to realize it.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Edit: Also, you just futzed with the math BIG TIME. A Terminator normally is T4 5++ against a Lascannon. Meaning that, assuming BS 4, a Lascannon has a 66.67% chance of hitting, a 55.56% chance of wounding, and a 37.04% chance of killing them past the Invuln save.

Under your system, that increases to a 45.83% chance of killing them. Why do you hate Terminators? They aren't that good. They don't need to be EASIER to kill.

You need to drop that way of thinking. It doesn't work for dice-rolloff. Targets are not being “Hit/Wounded” by any particular weapon. They are being subjected to an onslaught of firepower. This is represented by a score on a single dice-type.

Most of the dice-types used are D6 and D8, so the highest score that a Termi will generally have to roll against is an “8”. Now the Termi gets 2D8's as his Defense dice. So he gets two changes to beat that “8”. Basic Marine armor is a single D8, so he only gets one chance to beat that “8”. Now the average score is probably a “5” or “6”. So for most attacks the Termi would have two chances to beat a “5” or “6” on a 2D8's. Also, if you did the step-reduction thing, if a Termi failed a roll-off he would not be eliminated. He would simple lose one of his D8's. He would continue in the game but his Defense dice would now be a single D8. Also, for higher “Hits” (Attack dice results of 9 and 10), the Termi can roll a D10 as his Defense dice. So he would still have a chance at life. Of course if he failed that roll he would be eliminated. There's no step reduction from a failed D10 roll for Termi's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Wait-so you're saying a Marine with a Bolter attacks with a d8, and another Marine defends with a d8? So a bolter shot-ONE BOLTER SHOT-has a 43.75% chance of killing a Marine? Compare that to the current system, where a Marine is only killed 11.11% of the time. You just made Tacticals 4X easier to kill with a bolter!

You are completely and utterly changing the math of the game, and you don't even seem to realize it.

Oh I realize it. Do you realize just how important cover is with this system? No more striding around the battlefield with you dick out.

You know, I read through one of your earlier threads. The one where you repeatedly said that you liked the Burning of Prospero system for for smaller, kill team like games. Not big games.

What changed?

And okay, let me run the numbers. 10 Tactical Marines against 5 Terminators. Each Terminator has, with 2d8 (pick the highest) a 27.34% chance of being killed per shot. Two shots per Tactical Marine. That's 20 shots, or around 5 dead Terminators. Do you intend for a single round of Rapid Fire Bolters to kill off a Squad of Terminators?

Also, this would slow down the game. A ton. Don't see how? I do. I roll for my Space Marines, 14d8 (I'm assuming 3 died, since I only have 14 d8s), and get . Easy enough, nice and fast. Took me, from the time I picked up my dice to rolling them, literally 4 seconds. (I timed it.)

Then I need to find the highest. 3.1 seconds, and it was a 6. (I got two 6s.) Then the next highest, and the next, and the next. 2 5s (6.48 seconds) and I found a 7-missed that earlier because it's hard to find. 3 4s (4.2 seconds). 1 3 (1.39 seconds). 3 2s (1.54 seconds). 2 1s (.61 seconds).

Rolled 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1.

Then I roll my Terminator saves. 2d8b1. I will roll all 14 of them and time that total.

7-7
6-8
6-7
5-7
5-4
4-5
4-8
4-6
3-5
2-5
2-6
2-3
1-8
1-8

Guess how long that took? 36.96 seconds.

Total time? 52.89 seconds.

Now, let me do the same thing, for 7 tacticals firing on a terminator squad using the current system.

To-hit: 7.47 seconds, 8 hits.
To-wound: 4.31 seconds, 3 wounds.
To-save: 1.51 seconds, all saved.

13.29 seconds.

So in other words, I just tested your system. I actually rolled the dice.

And your system takes nearly 4 times longer.

Thirdeye wrote:


Oh I realize it. Do you realize just how important cover is with this system? No more striding around the battlefield with you dick out.

Well, I suppose Sisters ought to be safe...

Anyways, this would be best if you can limit the ratios to 1 die vs. 1 die*. It will most likely be a much bloodier game, so I wouldn't recommend the IGOUGO alpha strike system 40K currently has.

* You could go with multiple dice being thrown together, but that could get as bad as the current system now. For example, a rapid firing bolter might roll 2d8 (they're not added). A marine's armor might provide 3d8 Defense, with a minimum of 4 to wound. So 10 marines rapid-firing bolters would make a 20d8 attack. Attacker tosses out all dice that roll less than 4. Ten defending marines would roll 30d8, compare and cancel; all the Attacker's 8's are cancelled by defenders 8's (and removed), All Defender's 7's are cancelled by the Defender's 7's, and any remaining 8's (then removed), all the Attacker's 6's are cancelled by the Defender's 6's or remaining 7's and 8's (and then removed) and so on. Anything lower than a 4, ignore. If the Attacker has any hit remaining, the Defender loses that many marines.

You could cut the dice rolling down a die or three if you consolidate the current attacks models get - most models get at least two attacks already, so you could simplify the dice rolling from above if the attacker rolls 1D8 and the Defender rolls 2D8, for example.

The trick would be retweaking weapon 'To Hit', 'To Wound' and AP values into one roll, and the Defender's Toughness and Armor into the defending roll. It'd require a hefty rethink/rework of the game but the end result *could* be a lot faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, you could make things go a little faster if you had a target number, and just was worrying about successes - in the case above, it would Target Number 4. Roll 20D8 for attack, look for 4+. Roll 30D8 for defense, look for 4+. Defender cancels successes on a 1:1 ratio, if the Attacker has any successes left, they become wounds.

 JNAProductions wrote:


You know, I read through one of your earlier threads. The one where you repeatedly said that you liked the Burning of Prospero system for for smaller, kill team like games. Not big games.

What changed?

Actually I think it would work great for both, and for Apocalypse too, but you get less acrimony when you say “just Kill Team guys, honest”. Sometimes you’re up for a fight, sometimes not.

And okay, let me run the numbers…

To-hit: 7.47 seconds, 8 hits.
To-wound: 4.31 seconds, 3 wounds.
To-save: 1.51 seconds, all saved.

13.29 seconds.

So in other words, I just tested your system. I actually rolled the dice.

And your system takes nearly 4 times longer.

Well, ya did it wrong, but I must say, really appreciate the effort.

Yeah, you forgot to eliminate the 1’s, 2’s & 3’s. Those are auto-fails. You wasted time picking them out and rolling against them. Its also easier to see the important ones when you ignore the 3’s and less. You just push them to the side.

Also, you tested the current system against non-mixed units. I already said the current system works really well with non-mixed units. The really time killer for the current system is when you get mixed units, i.e two or more weapons types in the attacking unit and/or two or more armor types in the defending unit. Dice rolloff its, mix, not mixed, it doesn’t matter, both clean and smooth. Also, you forgot to factor in all the time you spent reading through the minutia and memorizing all the stats and charts needed to play. In reality that 13.29 seconds took you about twenty minutes.

Also, dice-rolloff is just more fun. You and your opponent are engaged at a much higher level. You miss that when you do it solitaire. Try it with a friend.

Okay, let's assume that halves the time. It's still twice as long.

 Stormonu wrote:




Anyways, this would be best if you can limit the ratios to 1 die vs. 1 die*. It will most likely be a much bloodier game, so I wouldn't recommend the IGOUGO alpha strike system 40K currently has.

Well, it is 1die vs 1die for the most part. The Attack dice are applied through-out the unit one dice per model. The Defender rolls against that one dice. Generally the Defender only has one Defense dice.

And Yeah, I like unit activation.

You could cut the dice rolling down a die or three if you consolidate the current attacks models get - most models get at least two attacks already, so you could simplify the dice rolling from above if the attacker rolls 1D8 and the Defender rolls 2D8, for example.

Well, actually, in the system I’m talking about most models get only one attack dice.

The trick would be retweaking weapon 'To Hit', 'To Wound' and AP values into one roll, and the Defender's Toughness and Armor into the defending roll. It'd require a hefty rethink/rework of the game but the end result *could* be a lot faster.

Yeah, that’s basically what’s goin on, your combining those stat into a dice-type and then rolling those dice against each other.

Actually, you could make things go a little faster if you had a target number, and just was worrying about successes - in the case above, it would Target Number 4. Roll 20D8 for attack, look for 4+. Roll 30D8 for defense, look for 4+. Defender cancels successes on a 1:1 ratio, if the Attacker has any successes left, they become wounds.

Some games use that kinda system. Alessio’s Terminator Genesis game is like that. But I would rather not roll against a stat. Just another thing to look-up and memorize. Besides, rolling against your opponent is more engaging, more fun.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay, let's assume that halves the time. It's still twice as long.

Not when you factor in the time you need to look-up or memorize stats to play the current game.

Thirdeye wrote:

Some games use that kinda system. Alessio’s Terminator Genesis game is like that. But I would rather not roll against a stat. Just another thing to look-up and memorize. Besides, rolling against your opponent is more engaging, more fun.

Doesn't necessarily need to be a stat. Savage Worlds (which was based off the Rail Wars tabletop wargame) uses a static target number of 4. A four or better is a success, regardless of the die you roll, it's just easier to succeed with a larger die. (In SW, "heroes" get to throw a D6 in addition to their normal die to make them hardier. Also, each additional +4 on a die is an extra success. So if you roll an 8 on a D8 a D10 or D12, that's two successes. If you roll a 12 on a D12, that's three successes - you're only looking for three numbers; 4, 8, & 12).

 Stormonu wrote:


Doesn't necessarily need to be a stat. Savage Worlds (which was based off the Rail Wars tabletop wargame) uses a static target number of 4. A four or better is a success, regardless of the die you roll, it's just easier to succeed with a larger die. (In SW, "heroes" get to throw a D6 in addition to their normal die to make them hardier. Also, each additional +4 on a die is an extra success. So if you roll an 8 on a D8 a D10 or D12, that's two successes. If you roll a 12 on a D12, that's three successes - you're only looking for three numbers; 4, 8, & 12).

Hmmm, interesting. Yeah, there's a lot of cool game mechanics out there. I'm glad to see GW testing the waters too by using different stuff in their Box Games. Like I said, I hope some of that stuff will make it into a new edition of 40K. Still, I have to agree with AnomanderRake too, its probably just a pipe dream. But, it could be a fan project... If anyone's interested...?

 Stormonu wrote:


Doesn't necessarily need to be a stat. Savage Worlds (which was based off the Rail Wars tabletop wargame) uses a static target number of 4. A four or better is a success, regardless of the die you roll, it's just easier to succeed with a larger die. (In SW, "heroes" get to throw a D6 in addition to their normal die to make them hardier. Also, each additional +4 on a die is an extra success. So if you roll an 8 on a D8 a D10 or D12, that's two successes. If you roll a 12 on a D12, that's three successes - you're only looking for three numbers; 4, 8, & 12).

I've been thinking about this. I think this might be the way to go. I'm think'in keep the army dice-type idea, then set successful rolls at 4+. On the attack, a roll of 4-7 is one Hit, a roll of 8-11 is two Hits, and a roll of 12 is three Hits. Defenders get a "set-up" in dice type for cover. Any model obscured 50% or more rolls the next high dice-type. So for Marines, (Defense dice of D8), for each model being attacked that's obscured by cover, its Defense dice would go to a D10. So, instead of rolling a D8 it would roll a D10 as its Defense dice. All Attack dice and Defense dice are rolled together, so just two rolls: an Attack roll and a Defense roll.

EX: Squad of five Marines with Bolters attacks squad of three Terminators. Marines roll 5D8's, (Scores of 4-7 are a Hit. A roll of 8 is two Hits). Marines rolls 2,5,4,3,8: four Hits. The Termies have a Defense dice of 2D8. One of the Termies is in cover so one of his dice goes to a D10. They roll 5D8 & D10, and score: 4,2,5,6,3,8, four saves. The Termies take no casualties on that attack.

I like it because its fast, real fast, yet still has detail because of the dice-types. It also uses a static number (4+), a mechanics that 40K players are familiar with and like.

Any thoughts?

Sounds good to me for infantry vs. infantry. The big part will be converting all the weapon and unit stats.

However, how about vs. Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles? What would expect a marine squad vs. Carnifex or marine squad vs. Rhino to look like as far dice being thrown by each side (and accounting for the fact the Bolters should mostly bounce off the Rhino).