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.

Lanrak wrote:
@Future War Cultist.
Ok just trying to get your proposal straight.(Please correct me if I am wrong.)

You want a 2 stage resolution system where you roll to hit and damage,then the target rolls to save.

This requires separate values , for (artificially ) separated target types.(Anti Infantry/ anti tank/ anti aircraft.)

This in itself can cause complication!Where do you draw the line between heavy infantry and M/C that require anti tank weapons to damage them?
What about an aircraft that has landed to drop of troops?

I can see lots of complicated wordy special rules ahead in this direction.

In WWII game like Bolt Action, there is a clear definition between armoured vehicles and soft targets.In 40k you could argue ALL units have some form of armour.
So where do you draw the line?(Current 40k has some 'randum' decisions on what is a M/C and what is a vehicle IMO.)

Anyhow after this two stage damage resolution is finished you want to roll a D6 vs the units Bravery every time the unit is shot at to see if it is suppressed.

So any shot can suppress any unit?Las gun fire can suppress a Land Raider?

I'd say that any vehicle with an average AV of 11+ and anything Bulky with a save of 2+ would fall under the heavily armored band. But that's a rough guess really. There would be an arbitrary element to it.

And no, lasguns cannot suppress a Land Raider. An LR would have a Bravery stat of at least 7, meaning that the lasguns would need to wound it in order to suppress it, which they can't do.

But, I don't think this system is going to work.

@Future War Cultist.
I did not want to sound overly negative in my last post.

I think you have some very good concepts for developing a streamlined rule set for 40k.

But I think a three stage damage resolution is required for a 40k war game , if you want to keep the current diversity in units types.

Maybe I'm in a minority, but I never found the statline part of the problem with 40k (or WHFB for that matter). Lots of stats doesn't really slow down a game if you have reference sheets (or most people just memorise them after a short while).

I'm happier with more simply written core rules alongside more in depth stats than the other way around.

IMO. The stat line should cover all the intended in game interaction that is expected by the players
40ks current stat line was WHFB stat line with a movement stat taken out.

So there is a need to change the stat line for a streamlined 40k rule set.Unless 'WHFB in space with a stupid amount of special rules' is your design goal.

I think Future War Cultist agreed that modern warfare with equal focus on mobility fire power and assault was a better fit for 40k.Than WHFB focus on mobility and assault.

So the current 0 stat for mobility, 1 stat for shooting and 4 stats for close combat, does not really support a modern land based war game loading.

However, the use of a stat that is straight forward, is preferable to half a dozen to 2 dozen special rules IMO.

After a long hard think I'm back with a new suggestion.

What if we largely keep the system as it and just trim the fat? Like, really trim the fat? So that every model has the following statline:

Movement
Shooting
Melee
Size (how much space it takes up in a transport, if it's too big to receive cover, grav weapon effects etc)
Toughness
Wounds
Save
Leadership

And every weapon has the following profile:

Range
Attacks
Strength
Rend/AP (this is done AoS style because it's superior in every way)
Damage (number of wounds inflicted)
Special (any extra effects)

To hit is done on a basic D6 system. Roll a D6 and add (or subtract!) your appropriate skill. 5+ is a hit. Then roll to wound. 4+ is successful and if your strength is higher than the targets toughness add 1, or if it's lower than their toughness subtract 1. If the targets toughness is double your strength you can't hurt it. They take their save minus the rend, then you apply damage etc.

Here's a Leman Russ for example:

Movement: 6"
Shooting: -
Melee: -1
Size: 8
Toughness: 9
Wounds: 6
Save: 3+
Leadership: 8

And a las cannon:

Range: 48"
Attacks: 1
Strength: 9
Rend: -3
Damage: D3
Special: Inflicts double damage if targets size is 6+ (i.e, it's a large enough vehicle or monsterous creature).

So the lascannon would wound the Russ on a 4+. It would get a 6+ save. And if it fails that it will suffer 2, 4 or 6 wounds. This system would also use AoS's cover system (simple +1 to save) and its damage chart (so the Russ would get worse as it suffers wounds).

Yeah it's rough and it's different to what I had before but what do you think so far?

I think you are moving in the right direction.
A more stable starting point to develop the revised game play,( and your new ideas,) from.

OK good to hear!

Something about rolling to wound I forgot to mention. If your strength is double the targets toughness you add another 1 to wound rolls. So 2+.

Here's a profile for a Tactical Marine:

Movement: 5”
Shooting: +2
Melee: +2
Size: 1
Toughness: 4
Wounds: 2
Save: 3+
Leadership: 9

Boltgun:

Range: 24"
Attacks: 2
Strength: 4
Rend: -1
Damage: 1
Special: +1 attack if model remained still

Just brainstorming to get a feel of the system.

To be a contrarian, one thing I do likey about the idea is the separation of anti-infantry vs. Anti-armor. (Leaving aside anti-air for now.)

One of the biggest complaints about the game right now seems to be the crazy amount of S6-S8 weaponry. To hit the biggest hobgoblin: scatbikes. If Scatterlasers still shredded infantry but couldn't glance light-medium armor to death so easily, that would be a start toward diversifying lists, reducing jetbike spam, etc. Obviously not a solution by itself, but a start.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
To be a contrarian, one thing I do likey about the idea is the separation of anti-infantry vs. Anti-armor. (Leaving aside anti-air for now.)

One of the biggest complaints about the game right now seems to be the crazy amount of S6-S8 weaponry. To hit the biggest hobgoblin: scatbikes. If Scatterlasers still shredded infantry but couldn't glance light-medium armor to death so easily, that would be a start toward diversifying lists, reducing jetbike spam, etc. Obviously not a solution by itself, but a start.

This is a good point. And it has just made me realise that in order to avoid multi lasers from harming a land raider, all those sorts of machine gun type weaponry would have to be capped at around strength 4 (assuming a battle tank is a minimum of toughness 8). Crap, this is a pretty big design flaw.

The only way around it would be to use range, rate of fire, armour penetration and damage to differate between them. Like personally, I'd see a heavy bolter as the exact same stats as a regular bolter, just longer ranged and with at least triple the rate of Fire. An autocannon meanwhile would only fire half the shots of a heavy bolter at the same strength, but would have a longer range and a higher AP to balance it out.

Or change it to +3 or higher toughness over your strength can't be harmed. Toughness 9 battle tanks wouldn't be hurt by strength 6 multi laser.

Eurgh, back to the drawing board.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
To be a contrarian, one thing I do likey about the idea is the separation of anti-infantry vs. Anti-armor. (Leaving aside anti-air for now.)

One of the biggest complaints about the game right now seems to be the crazy amount of S6-S8 weaponry. To hit the biggest hobgoblin: scatbikes. If Scatterlasers still shredded infantry but couldn't glance light-medium armor to death so easily, that would be a start toward diversifying lists, reducing jetbike spam, etc. Obviously not a solution by itself, but a start.

This is a good point. And it has just made me realise that in order to avoid multi lasers from harming a land raider, all those sorts of machine gun type weaponry would have to be capped at around strength 4 (assuming a battle tank is a minimum of toughness 8). Crap, this is a pretty big design flaw.

The only way around it would be to use range, rate of fire, armour penetration and damage to differate between them. Like personally, I'd see a heavy bolter as the exact same stats as a regular bolter, just longer ranged and with at least triple the rate of Fire. An autocannon meanwhile would only fire half the shots of a heavy bolter at the same strength, but would have a longer range and a higher AP to balance it out.

Or change it to +3 or higher toughness over your strength can't be harmed. Toughness 9 battle tanks wouldn't be hurt by strength 6 multi laser.

Eurgh, back to the drawing board.

I was thinking more along the lines of (to use current 40K stats) "Scatterlaser anti-infantry: S6 / anti-armor: S4" So it's still really good at shredding infantry but only glances AV 10 on a 6. I know it would complicate rules slightly but would require more thought in listbuilding if one weapon can't perform well in three out of four main roles (anti-horde, anti-MEQ/TEQ, anti-light armor, anti-heavy armor; you could even say 4 out of 5 if you add anti-air, 4 snap-fired S6 shots isn't bad against a lot of flyers).

Less satisfying: "Scatterlaser: S4/Heavy 4 OR S6/Heavy 2 OR S8/Heavy 1." One weapon fills multiple roles but requires tradeoffs, yet it doesn't get at the problem that (e.g.) ScatBikes are a Swiss Army Knife unit.

@ Eldar Shortseer

I'm still struggling to reconcile that problem myself. I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of high RoF weapons have their strength decreased, if their RoF was increased to compensate. Very few weapons should have a high RoF and a high strength in my opinion, due to how broken they are.

I'd rather a multi-laser had like 6-10 shots with a strength of 4, still with a low AP. Create even more of a distinction between it and the heavy bolter and autocannon.