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.

Counters are the only way i can think of how to determine which units have been activated and which havn't but im open to other suggestions.

Looking at other rule sets for influence it seems much easier to cover all the intended game play of 40k +extra game play , without the 'fussiness' of current 40k rules writing.

Glad to hear from you again Lanrak, can you give us some examples? And a lot of the things we've talked about like psychic duels, orders, and some others could be easily pushed to the side as "variant" rules or something that add flavor but arn't mandatory elements to play the game.

Undoubtedly there has to be some sort of turn aspect to it, but how can we entangle it so much (without losing control) so that it feels like you're in a battle, a real battle, with as close to real space and time interactions as possible

i really have no idea. I think just letting players have that much more control over the game, plus keeping them engaged in the action will do that more than anything else. As for ideas to make it feel seamless.....i got nothing. Because if players have uneven numbers of units, or fails their activation rolls horribly, someone is going to have to finish up activating their units at the end, just getting a few out of the way so the next game turn can begin.

Could we just start at the beginning , with basic game turn structure and mechanic.
Then cover basic damage resolution .
Then basic morale effects.
Then see if we can include a suitable command mechanic into the morale and or game turn structure.

basic turn structure isn't nearly as important in a unit by unit activation system, since the only thing that the end of a game turn signals is resetting every units activation counters, or whatever we end up using. Basic damage resolution in all forms has been more more or less talked out, since its BS and WS vs Stealth and Dexterity respectively to hit, the strength or damage or whatever its going to be called vs defense for wounds, with this system applied to every units in the game, and the Universal Resolution Chart (URC) being used to determine rolls necessary for all situations. Basic morale effects were just brought up, and are maybe 75% done.

Hi folks.
The basic turn structure and mechanic sets the level of player and unit interaction.

If you want to have alternating unit activation for example.

How many actions per activation, how many activations per player?
How do you structure the actions sequentially or allocated by the player?
How do you structure the activations randomized or fixed?

If the basic damage resolution is just comparing opposed values, why do you need a resolution table?

I am simply asking why use a resolution table , what reason do you have?
Do you need to restrict the possible results , or manipulate the sweet spot for efficiency of effect?

As reguards to basic morale effects what have you defined ?

Eg what restrictions do morale states impose on the units.(Reduced actions or reduced effect of actions?)

How many states of effect do you want?

If you want to have alternating unit activation for example.

The problem with this is what happens if someone has activated all their units but the opponent still has, say, 5 left? Does he not get to use them, simply because he failed his activation rolls or does he get them, potentially blowing up everything we've put so delicately in place?

I am simply asking why use a resolution table , what reason do you have?
Do you need to restrict the possible results , or manipulate the sweet spot for efficiency of effect?

Both. Without a resolution chart it's like using crude oil as petrol. You've got the honest results of a terrible D6.

As reguards to basic morale effects what have you defined ? Eg what restrictions do morale states impose on the units.(Reduced actions or reduced effect of actions?) How many states of effect do you want?

Suppressed means they cannot move, with a potential BS modifier. Neutralised means they cannot do anything. Routed is just falling back.

The problem with this is what happens if someone has activated all their units but the opponent still has, say, 5 left? Does he not get to use them, simply because he failed his activation rolls or does he get them, potentially blowing up everything we've put so delicately in place?

I'm actually very excited about this idea, because players now have to think not only about which units to use, and when, but how to use these units in the overall scheme of a turn. Sure i could rush through my turn, activating as many units as fast as possible, but then my opponent may have free reign with several units at the end of the game turn. So the smart player would minimize reckless activations, as additional activation rolls arnt mandatory, and only try to activate as many as possible when it is most advantageous, such as repositioning when a new threat appears, or to maximize damage against an enemy units when the other player made a mistake. This, combined with orders, will benefit people who really think things through and reward insight and planning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok I may have found the first major problem with combining Armor and Toughness into Defense, and its that things are dying ludicrously fast, in both shooting and Melee. For example, in a typical space marine vs space marine combat, shooting wise, theyre hitting on 3s and wounding on 4s, which is right, which for the number of shots isn't bad. In Melee theyre hitting on 3s wounding on 4s again, not bad. But for things like a tactical squad vs a 20 man ork boy mob, who gets the first turn basically decides the winner. Space marine shooting basic Bolters annihilates the orks, and when the remaining orks close for melee, the space marines hit first and finish them off. When the orks go first, they close to Melee without awful casualties, and proceed to inflict many more wounds than models in the enemy squad. No matter who gets the first turn, its all over by the second turn these 2 face off against each other.

The problem is that large volumes of attacks or shots can get through much more easily now. For example, a Space Marine Bolter hits an ork boy on a 3+ just like the old system, but wounds them on a 2+ instead of a 4+, which means that many more models are going down each turn, since they wouldn't get an armor save anyways.

I don't really want to go back to the old system of toughness and armor, but i don't think there's any way for us to solve a problem this huge through minor tweaks or simple systems.

Hi folks.
If you want to artificially restrict the stats from 1 to 10 ,and then massage the results to reduce effectiveness of some units to make allocating PV and game ballance harder .
Can you explain why you prefer this , other than familiarity of the system.(Only used in 40k and WHFB out of the 20 odd games I have played.)

If you do not like using direct comparison with 'restrictive D6'.Why not use an exploding dice mechanic?
EG
After rolling a natural 6, re roll.
On a 1 to 3 result stays at 6.
On a 4+ =7
On a 5+= 8
On a 6+=9
On the second natural roll of a 6.
Re roll
On a 1 to 3 the result stays at 9
On a 4+ =10
On a 5+=11
On a 6+ =12.

These allow the 'one in a million shot' to be included 'one in 216 times,' rather than just '1 in 6 times',that 40k uses.

Alternating activation makes MSU fragile but more flexible than larger units.Some see this as a more realistic presentation of warfare.Where as other want the game to be more 'even'.
You can get a more even game with alternating phases OR adding tactical twists to the structure of the game turn....

If you use a tactical gamble like allowing additional unit activation possible with the roll of a 3+ then 5+.BUT then change following activations from automatic to 3+ or 5+.
(Like Mantics Warpath.)
This can add more flexibility and makes the combat ebb and flow more naturally.
(Compared to fixed alternating activation (Epic SM), but more with more player control than completely random activation( Bolt Action.)


Are you happy with 4 morale states?

OK
Suppressed.(Move OR Shoot.)
Neutralized(Unable to move or shoot.)
Routed.(Run away!)

I think we can add some racial difference in the suppression reactions.(EG so Orks , Eldar, Nids,IG , SM etc all act slightly differently...)
Eg
Some units will automaticaly move to cover .(Grots etc.)
Others will turn to face attacker to return fire.
Others will move towards the closest enemy !(Orks Khorne Bezerkers etc.)

If units re dying to fast with a single defence value.How do you feel about the 2 stage resolution using ONE attack value.And AV and Resistance.
If you beat the models AV you auto suppress the model. But you need to beat the resilliance value with the excees you beat the AV by , to cause wounds/physical damage.

I don't really want to go back to the old system of toughness and armor, but i don't think there's any way for us to solve a problem this huge through minor tweaks or simple systems.

I saw this coming. There are a few things I suggest. Either a previously suggested idea, which is just to make the receiving values higher than the attacking values (which neither of us like) OR...double the wounds on normal models. Don't panic! Don't be hostile to this idea.

- Concerning wound allocation, if it's take from the front/btb, then the "putting dice to show how many wounds left" process isn't going to be as bad as you think.
- If we have double wounds, it means that some things like thunder hammers can just instagib things as they should be, without having to give them so much Strength to compensate for the AP removal.
- There could be something like, if someone takes a wound they receive -1 to all other stats (down to a minimum of 1) to make things more DYNAMIC!

These allow the 'one in a million shot' to be included 'one in 216 times,' rather than just '1 in 6 times',that 40k uses

Ey, not only that, it also comes with a free double reroll! Aka...rerolling dice is not the solution, because it will make things much more slower, and combining toughness and armour was to make it faster...

Suppressed.(Move OR Shoot.)
Neutralized(Unable to move or shoot.)
Routed.(Run away!)

I think suppressed should be unable to move with a BS modifier, because that's how it is realistically, if you've got a hundred and one bullets flying over your head you aren't going to think about moving, but you may point your gun over the barrier and take a few blind shots.

double the wounds on normal models. Don't panic! Don't be hostile to this idea.
- Concerning wound allocation, if it's take from the front/btb, then the "putting dice to show how many wounds left" process isn't going to be as bad as you think.
- If we have double wounds, it means that some things like thunder hammers can just instagib things as they should be, without having to give them so much Strength to compensate for the AP removal.
- There could be something like, if someone takes a wound they receive -1 to all other stats (down to a minimum of 1) to make things more DYNAMIC!

Way too micro for 40K. Keeping track of wounds on multiwound units is tough enough as is, ask any ork or grey knight player using nob squads and paladin squads respectively, we don't need to take that and apply it to every unit in the game. Beyond that, having many models of the squad having different stats due to losing wounds would be a nightmare to work out for rolling. I don't want to just crush this idea right out of the gate, but its just not a wise course of action.

I think suppressed should be unable to move with a BS modifier, because that's how it is realistically, if you've got a hundred and one bullets flying over your head you aren't going to think about moving, but you may point your gun over the barrier and take a few blind shots.

This example actually supports the argument for moving OR shooting, since you're either gonna sprint through the fire to get to new cover, or you're going to duck down and fire as much as possible back. I also like it as it lets players choose, rather than just one inopportune condition that is mandatory.

These allow the 'one in a million shot' to be included 'one in 216 times,' rather than just '1 in 6 times',that 40k uses.

I don't really see why this would be a worthwhile direction to go, sure it'd be great for more rare shots to be possible, but players will want to take every chance to wound possible, no matter how slim, which means a lot of sitting around through reroll after reroll, which for a 1/216 chance of an actual result, which might happen once, maybe twice a game, doesn't seem wise.

Are you happy with 4 morale states?
OK
Suppressed.(Move OR Shoot.)
Neutralized(Unable to move or shoot.)
Routed.(Run away!)

I really like these, since they're simple, distinct, and easily applicable.

I think we can add some racial difference in the suppression reactions.(EG so Orks , Eldar, Nids,IG , SM etc all act slightly differently...)
Eg
Some units will automaticaly move to cover .(Grots etc.)
Others will turn to face attacker to return fire.
Others will move towards the closest enemy !(Orks Khorne Bezerkers etc.)

Isn't this what morale, and rules like fearless and stubborn are meant to achieve? I'm all for finding a new way to do the same thing, but the current morale system is pretty nice, and people are familiar with it. Throw out some great ideas though, and lets see where we can take it.

If units re dying to fast with a single defence value.How do you feel about the 2 stage resolution using ONE attack value.And AV and Resistance.
If you beat the models AV you auto suppress the model. But you need to beat the resilliance value with the excees you beat the AV by , to cause wounds/physical damage.

I'd much rather suppression have to do with the number of rounds being fired at the unit, it just makes more sense, because if someone breaks through the next guy over's armor, its no different to me than if he was killed on the spot. But if theres hundreds of rounds whizzing by, im gonna drop to the dirt unless a commissar threatens to kill me if it do. Beyond this, it just seems like a slight reversal and modification of the current armor and toughness system, and in a unique direction which im a huge fan of. If we had to bring back the 2 value defense system, i'd rather just stick to what's in place to keep players familiar to the current system interested, with a revision to the AP system to make it more dynamic, but lets get some new ideas on this front flowing and see what happens.

If you use a tactical gamble like allowing additional unit activation possible with the roll of a 3+ then 5+.BUT then change following activations from automatic to 3+ or 5+.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

This example actually supports the argument for moving OR shooting, since you're either gonna sprint through the fire to get to new cover, or you're going to duck down and fire as much as possible back. I also like it as it lets players choose, rather than just one inopportune condition that is mandatory.

So how are you gonna fit it with something like Heavy weapons and the Let's Roll! command? The only movement with BS modifier idea tesselates with other BS reducing special rules.

Way too micro for 40K. Keeping track of wounds on multiwound units is tough enough as is, ask any ork or grey knight player using nob squads and paladin squads respectively, we don't need to take that and apply it to every unit in the game. Beyond that, having many models of the squad having different stats due to losing wounds would be a nightmare to work out for rolling. I don't want to just crush this idea right out of the gate, but its just not a wise course of action.

Like I said it's not going to be as bad as you think with wound allocation being from front. Even more wound allocation manipulations will allow this idea to eaaaasily settle. It's not even that hard to keep track of them right now, look you just allocate from the front, and if you have an odd number of wounds, one model gets a die. Never will EVERY model in the squad have its own wound die.

HI folks.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes a bit.
I may not be explaining my ideas too well.

Anyhow.
The tactical gamble for alternating unit activation.

A player can activate one unit as a matter of course.
THEN they may decide to gamble to try to activate another unit on D6 roll of a 3+
If they fail this roll the unit does not activate!(For the rest of the game turn.)
If successful in activating a second unit Player A my try to activate a 3rd unit on a D6 roll of 5+.
If they fail this roll the unit does not activate!And all other unit need to roll a 3+ to activate.(For the rest of the game turn.)


The exploding dice mechanic only works on natural roll of 6s .
ONLY NATURAL ROLLS OF 6 are ever re rolled.
it was just an idea to extend the range of interaction .if its not suitable fair enough.

I would be happy to use multiple overlapping zones of interaction, as it maps to modern warfare quite well.But some seem opposed to using different number ranges?

Multiple wounds can be handled with the unit card perhaps?
I would suggest models are removes as soon a one models worth of wounds are lost.(Rather than having lots of models on varying wound amounts.)

I only mentioned various suppression effects as an option .As it may be an easy way to model units psychology traits rather than lots of wordy special rules ?

The reason I mentioned the 2 stage armour /suppression mechanic is that we can get ;-
Suppression in a unit by more than 25% models suppressed/wounded.
Neutralization in a unit by more then 50% models suppressed /wounded.
Over 50% wounded , take morale test each turn, if failed route.

You can use fire power values vs unit confidence to determine suppression if you prefer?

A unit confidence is simply highest AV + wounds/SP left in unit.

Fire power = number of shots on target + weapons suppression bonus(If applicable)

This determines suppression, the units morale value determines how fast they recover from suppression.

I would suggest models are removes as soon a one models worth of wounds are lost.(Rather than having lots of models on varying wound amounts.)

Great idea! It's sort of passively implemented already because if a model is in the front, it won't just take one wound it'll take as many as possible before moving onto the next model.

I would suggest models are removes as soon a one models worth of wounds are lost.(Rather than having lots of models on varying wound amounts.)

this would bring the idea of doubling wounds from nightmarish to smooth quite nicely, since you'll almost never have more than 1 or 2 wound dies on a normal unit, and kills off a lot of the wound allocation problems in normal 40K. Im sure someone will find some minor allocation shenanigans to take advantage of this, but it shouldn't be too bad. This would also let us bring Lanraks really old idea of doubling and tripling the units defense value for double and triple wounds back with a vengeance.. Combined with the new laser rules, such as passing through targets to hit more at weakened strength, i think this could be really cool. Im still opposed to losing wounds lowering stats though, i just find it irksome, even under these new rules.

Id like to see something like if a unit has a shots fired at them equal to the number of models in the squad, they must take a suppression test. For every integer multiple of the number of models in the squad of rounds fired at that unit, they add a -1 penalty to their suppression test.

Obviously needs work on wording and some balance work, but it lets low power but high shot weapons actually be worth something. No serious Grey Knight player has ever taken the godawful Psilencer, but it would now be invaluable under these rules, as it would help with suppressing enemy units, as the grey knights are a very low model count army. Foot Guard would become much more viable, and actually compete for attention with mech guard under these rules as well, because of all the Lasgun shots they can crank out and suppress the enemy with.

I agree with the idea of risking a units activation to activate it right now, but i don't want that randomness in the core of the activation system. Players will never risk a units activation on a 5+, ever, its too risky for too little reward, since they can just wait for their next activation turn, and get it risk free. Im not sure how to work some more uncertainty into the activation system, but saying they risk not getting to activate their unit at all shouldn't be on the table, since its too large a risk for any reasonable reward to compensate for.

I would be happy to use multiple overlapping zones of interaction, as it maps to modern warfare quite well.But some seem opposed to using different number ranges?

id like to see a way to pull this in smoothly, but any way i look at it, it seems too fiddly for too little reward. There's probably some exceptional way of doing this that i dont see, but we need concrete examples if we want to experiment with this.

this would bring the idea of doubling wounds from nightmarish to smooth quite nicely, since you'll almost never have more than 1 or 2 wound dies on a normal unit, and kills off a lot of the wound allocation problems in normal 40K

totally with you, exactly.

So are you for or against doubling model wounds then? Lasers are going to be working great for this

Im still opposed to losing wounds lowering stats though, i just find it irksome, even under these new rules.

Why do you find it irksome? Don't you think that it would represent the tire of a battle, as two heroes fight it out, they become slower, weaker, less skilled? It would also mean that high-wound models battling it out won't die in 1 or 2 turns, to represent the skilfulness of both sides.

Instead of latching onto this alternating unit mechanic we could discuss some other possible ideas? I feel like it would be a shame if we cut it short to just a "you go I go" situation without considering other aspects we haven't explored yet.

I would be happy to use multiple overlapping zones of interaction, as it maps to modern warfare quite well.

What does this mean?

So are you for or against doubling model wounds then? Lasers are going to be working great for this

Im mostly on board with it, my only issue is that i feel like if were increasing the number of wounds possible from 1-6 to 2-12, i feel like we need to take advantage of the increased diversity, know what i mean? It feels kinda weird to not use the extra possibilities of this system, and i think itd be strange to players as well. Not to say that it couldn't be exciting to do something in this direction, but one option is a ton of work, and the other feels odd. Im also afraid many players wont think through how doubling the wounds works, and either forget that that rule is in place, or get turned off because they think its too different to what theyre used to at first glance.

Beyond that, i still think there's some better solution out there than just doubling wounds, maybe say its our fall back option. I think a clever reimagining of a toughness and armor system would be one direction to, though it is a major backwards step, and doesn't streamline things, but it would be familiar to players and there are many directions to take it that would improve it. Maybe see where Lanrak's idea of beating armor then rolling to wound goes too.

Why do you find it irksome? Don't you think that it would represent the tire of a battle, as two heroes fight it out, they become slower, weaker, less skilled? It would also mean that high-wound models battling it out won't die in 1 or 2 turns, to represent the skillfulness of both sides.

Do i think it would be realistic and interesting? Yes, definitely. Unfortunately, it also means a lot of math, a lot of remembering to change things, and a lot of micromanagement. It'd be interesting to do, but I think it would be too slow, especially when there's already weapon modifiers, range modifiers, etc flying around, and its just one thing too many to reliably keep track of.

Instead of latching onto this alternating unit mechanic we could discuss some other possible ideas? I feel like it would be a shame if we cut it short to just a "you go I go" situation without considering other aspects we haven't explored yet.

im not aware of any other way of doing things unless you want to do some strange simultaneous system, where you both do things at the same time, but i have no idea how this would work.

Im mostly on board with it, my only issue is that i feel like if were increasing the number of wounds possible from 1-6 to 2-12, i feel like we need to take advantage of the increased diversity, know what i mean? It feels kinda weird to not use the extra possibilities of this system, and i think itd be strange to players as well. Not to say that it couldn't be exciting to do something in this direction, but one option is a ton of work, and the other feels odd.

Ohoho, not just 2-12, maybe some can even have just one wound. Perhaps for high-wound models they can receive some sort of "On The Brink" special rule which empowers them when they are on their last wound.

Im also afraid many players wont think through how doubling the wounds works, and either forget that that rule is in place, or get turned off because they think its too different to what theyre used to at first glance.

Well honestly there won't be too many players that just skim through the rules; unless they know they won't read all the rules, they're going to understand why there are two wounds. We'll just give an example like:

An Eldar Guardian declares to shoot at a squad of Space Marines. His Ballistic Skill is 4, so against a Stealth value of 4, he needs a 4+ To Hit. If he hits, his Strength 4 weapon, the shuriken catapult, needs a 5+ To Wound. If it wounds, the Space Marine loses one wound.

Would you like "Wounds" or "Vitality"?

Do i think it would be realistic and interesting? Yes, definitely. Unfortunately, it also means a lot of math, a lot of remembering to change things, and a lot of micromanagement. It'd be interesting to do, but I think it would be too slow, especially when there's already weapon modifiers, range modifiers, etc flying around, and its just one thing too many to reliably keep track of.

Alright, that's true.

im not aware of any other way of doing things unless you want to do some strange simultaneous system, where you both do things at the same time, but i have no idea how this would work.

That is an option, I'd just like us to brainstorm a bit to see if we can find a really really cool system with high potential.

Ohoho, not just 2-12, maybe some can even have just one wound. Perhaps for high-wound models they can receive some sort of "On The Brink" special rule which empowers them when they are on their last wound.

i guess grots would get 1? And id like to find some way to give uneven number of wounds to models, it could help differentiate xenos from imperial quite nicely if done right. On the brink sounds cool, but it feels more like a character specific special rule kinda deal. Maybe have it play a role in units with rage Special Rule, thatd be cool.

Well honestly there won't be too many players that just skim through the rules; unless they know they won't read all the rules, they're going to understand why there are two wounds. We'll just give an example like:
An Eldar Guardian declares to shoot at a squad of Space Marines. His Ballistic Skill is 4, so against a Stealth value of 4, he needs a 4+ To Hit. If he hits, his Strength 4 weapon, the shuriken catapult, needs a 5+ To Wound. If it wounds, the Space Marine loses one wound.

True, but we need to be aware of things like this, since we're going to be competing with the real ruleset for players. Its also why I'm in favor of not changing the name of stats. If we lose even one player because he gets turned off because he thinks the ruleset is more different than it really is, its one player too many. Its for this reason that im also in favor of bringing back two defensive values, despite it not being as fast, because it will be familiar to players. Doubling wounds is a great option, but i don't think its the best route to go, and we should look for something better, then fall back on double wounds if we need to.

True, but we need to be aware of things like this, since we're going to be competing with the real ruleset for players. Its also why I'm in favor of not changing the name of stats. If we lose even one player because he gets turned off because he thinks the ruleset is more different than it really is, its one player too many. Its for this reason that im also in favor of bringing back two defensive values, despite it not being as fast, because it will be familiar to players. Doubling wounds is a great option, but i don't think its the best route to go, and we should look for something better, then fall back on double wounds if we need to.

I can't help but just say...you need to get past this excuse for sticking to the 40k everything. Players aren't gonna play a sub-game with minimal change and little flavour. You are in favour of bring armour and toughness back PURELY because it will be familiar to players? What happened to speeding things up, making things simple but realistic, engaging, tactical, and removing the stupid clutter 40k brought upon itself?

I really do like the double wounds ideas because it opens a new gate to the incorporation of Vitality (yes it isn't -familiar- but the majority of players will like the freshness of the refined 40k they were looking for) into the 1-12 range of other stats. We can try and rescue Attacks too from this imprisonment of monotone.

Sorry if I sound a bit angry in this post -_-'

Its not really an excuse. I see two directions and each has its strengths and weaknesses. The problem i have with doubling wounds and one universal defense stat is that while its much faster, we're going to have a hard time making the most of the new variety it offers, because i for one dont like the feeling of ignoring almost half the options of the new wound slots, and its going to be a bit alien to people used to the old system. Using a 2 stage system solves the same problem doubling wounds does and is easier to assign values for and balance, is familiar to old players, as well being easier design systems and rules for, since we'd have a starting point to work off of, but is significantly slower. Neither option is particularly great, its just which one is better?

My typical reaction when a system is in place, and a new one is implemented to replace it, but other radical changes have to be made in order to allow this new system to function properly, is to take a step back and ask what could they have done differently to require less changes? Is the new system valuable enough to justify the other changes necessary to make it work? And this is where im at right now about doubling wounds, i see it works and has advantages, but im also looking around to see what else could be done for the same effect with less collateral damage. I can be completely in favor of changes to a system, things like dexterity and stealth are wonderful additions, and hopefully the game will be much better for it, but i need to see a distinct advantage that im not sure we can achieve with just doubling wounds. Its just that for such a radical shift, we need to work out about how we can take advantage of all of the systems strengths before deciding that this is the direction to go, since we kinda went "things are dying too fast, does doubling the wounds fix this? Yes? Ok we're good then"

People don't care whether it's alien or familiar. They just want a mechanically less crowded and tactically more engaging game, so "how much it fits 40k" doesn't really concern them. They searched for a better game, and I think we've agreed that one defense value is ultimately better. As for doubling wounds, it's a very good option with no consequences yet identified. If you can find a mechanic with absolutely no cons and many pros that fits this spec then sure I'll throw this idea out asap.

Hey guys sorry for the delay, its been a nightmarish couple of days over here.

People don't care whether it's alien or familiar. They just want a mechanically less crowded and tactically more engaging game, so "how much it fits 40k" doesn't really concern them. They searched for a better game, and I think we've agreed that one defense value is ultimately better.

These two goals are not mutually exclusive, we can make the system 40k already uses much better with some effort and new ideas, while keeping it familiar to players. And if players wanted something totally different, they wouldn't be looking at a 40k reworking, they'd go look at one of the other game systems that have been chipping away at 40K's market share over the past years. That being said, I think having one defense value is the fastest way to resolve damage, but i want to go into more detail than just doubling wounds, because while thats a great direction to go, if we don't know how to take advantage of everything about this new system, we shouldnt jump on it. For instance, do we want to keep everthing flat doubled? How about making tougher units wounds 3 to represent that different between the old systems 1 wound and 2 wound models. Do we want the scale to go to 12, or will dropping the wound amounts of the higher wound models let us lower their prices? Which units could have prices adjusted to justify their new wound amounts? will making wounds a bigger part of the overall game affect how people see units and play them? Which examples of common units would get each wound amount? While it seems like an easy change, there are many ways changing this could radically alter gameplay, and we need to be mindful of this and plan for it from the get-go.

The biggest worry i have is that many people would be irritated by the fact that they have no role in damage resolution, as the opponent rolls for hits and wounds, without an armor save, as the defending player is used to getting one. It's not a problem of mechanics or numbers, but of players perception of their role in the game, similar to how watching your opponent go through a turn where he moves, shoots, and assaults with his units with no input on your part is frustrating.

And if players wanted something totally different, they wouldn't be looking at a 40k reworking, they'd go look at one of the other game systems that have been chipping away at 40K's market share over the past years.

Obviously we don't want to make it totally different. We need something fresh. We can keep it familiar enough (of course playing with 40k models is a point by itself) if we keep the 40k feel to it, but with fun, engaging, fresh, logical, fair mechanics.

The biggest worry i have is that many people would be irritated by the fact that they have no role in damage resolution, as the opponent rolls for hits and wounds, without an armor save, as the defending player is used to getting one. It's not a problem of mechanics or numbers, but of players perception of their role in the game, similar to how watching your opponent go through a turn where he moves, shoots, and assaults with his units with no input on your part is frustrating.

Maybe frustrating...but to be honest the target shouldn't take a part in determining how they die. And the frustrating problem should be easily solved when we get a more interactive turn system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to make wounds more 'colourful' but this system kinda means that 2 wound people are twice as hard to kill as 1 wound people, so the difference between them is...colossal. Unless we make it so that differences in wounds aren't as disparate, wounds will have to stay quite cramped and unvaried, kinda like the problem with the other stats.

I would like to address it somehow though...If we make the average guy have 4 Wounds, there must be a way we can have Strength interact with the number of wounds it causes...

Maybe frustrating...but to be honest the target shouldn't take a part in determining how they die. And the frustrating problem should be easily solved when we get a more interactive turn system.

its just that a comparison between the problems with the old turn system can be made with the new wound system. Hopefully it won't be a problem, but if we start opening this ruleset up so we can get a larger test audience, we should be aware that things like this might come up.

The good news about making wounds more colorful is that since its such a radical departure from the norm, we have somewhat free reign with this element. If something feels overcosted, or too fragile, we can toss in another wound and see how that affects things. For example, many marine players would argue that terminators are slightly overcosted in the current game. If we made them 3 wounds rather than the standard 2 wounds, we could actually increase their price, and people would say they are worth it.

The big problem is that we now have to think about how instant death will be available and how to do multiple wounds, not to mention poison. This is where Lanraks double/ triple idea really shines, as we can tailor Wargear to allow these effects. It even opens up the possibility of something like a shred special rule, where its weaker but deals double wounds, to make frag type shots and things like shotguns actually competitive.

Does that mean you would like to try and get Wounds into the same state as other stats?

Imagine a world with 4 Wounds on an average guy. And each weapon would do, on average, 2 wounds. So is there any way we can make Strength interact with the number of wounds caused? Snipers would double their wounds, while Instant Death weapons have to be toned down a lot.

And could we also get Attacks in the same state as well? I'm not sure if this is inherently flawed because if we start upping the rate of fire and number of attacks the dice will pile up and that is not what we want. And something to think about...do we really want Wounds to be on the same level as other stats? I think 2 Wounds is still safe, it's not in that zone. But getting into 4 Wounds we will create a lot of problems for ourselves...my most feared ones being more dice, slower play, unnecessary complications...

What's Lanraks double triple idea?

Getting average wounds up to 4? No i dont think thats a good direction to go, its just a bit too high. Doubling the wounds was meant to reduce the number of models dying each turn,so lets not take it too far beyond that goal.

Lanrak's double/triple idea was that if you double the models defense wth your strength/damage, you deal double wounds. If you triple it, you deal triple wounds. So for example, a guardsman at Defense 2 is going to have double wounds dealt to him by a Space Marinetti strength 5, but give that space marine a power sword ( +1 WS, +1 STR), and he can be dealing triple wounds to a guardsman. Giving terminators thunderhammers (Double the models STR) means they will be hitting at STR 12, enough to do double wounds on a space marine, or triple wounds on defense 4 models. Etc etc

The problem with increasing the number of attacks/shots is that it means more dice, and more time, which defeats the purpose of using one defense value to speed things up, as well as meaning we'd have to rework how the new wound system would work as well.

The problem with increasing the number of attacks/shots is that it means more dice, and more time, which defeats the purpose of using one defense value to speed things up, as well as meaning we'd have to rework how the new wound system would work as well.

I know that, that was the thing I was acknowledging before we tread further.

Are you seriously sure about giving Guardsmen Defense 2? Because with the normal range of infantry stats being 3-5 (average 4), a normal Guardsman, the basis of IG armies, are going to be falling out of the sky. Guardsmen shouldn't be that exceptionally squishy. So maybe something like this?

.............................................M..Mk...S..Sk...D...P...R....A....V....F...C
Space Marine.......................5....5....4....5....4....5....5....1....2....5....4
Imperial Guardsman............5....4....4....4....4....3....3....1....2....4....4
Tau Fire Warrior..................5....4....4....3....3....3....4....1....2....3....4
Eldar Guardian....................6....5....4....4....5....3....3....1....2....4....4
Ork Boy...............................5....2....4....5....3....4....4....2....2....3....4

(tell me if the formatting is messed up)

As for the doubling/tripling idea, I am...slightly opposed to it. It means that differences of 1 are going to be enlarged at a factor of 2, which makes the gap between values twice as big. This is not what we want. I would just have it as a flat value, something like this:

For every multiple of 3 that a hit's Power surpasses the target's Resilience, it causes an extra wound.

Hi folks.
My idea was that if the attack was DOUBLE the targets Defence value it DOUBLED up the wounds on THAT SINGLE MODEL'
The wounds do not carry over onto other models in the unit.

This is so multiple wound models can be taken down in one shot with very powerful weapons.

Rather than increase the wounds per model, why not just increase the Defence values?

If we can not get the granulation required, how about attackers Damage - targets AV, compared to Targets Resistance.

Rather than increase the wounds per model, why not just increase the Defence values?

Defence values should optimally follow the same template of other stats, so if the receiving stats were higher than the attacking stats, it would make the statline look messy. Also, because we combined Armour+Toughness, To Wound and armour saves that are 4+ then 5+ (Bolter vs SM) would have to translated to a 6+ (4+ times 5+ equals 6+). This makes people feel bad.

Are you seriously sure about giving Guardsmen Defense 2? Because with the normal range of infantry stats being 3-5 (average 4), a normal Guardsman, the basis of IG armies, are going to be falling out of the sky. Guardsmen shouldn't be that exceptionally squishy. So maybe something like this?

i converted the old toughness and armor combinations into a new defense value, i wrote the system down a few pages back, but it was based on the idea of a Boltgun wounding a space marine on a 4+ so a str 5 Boltgun would wound defense 5 on a 4+.
So a T3 model with no armor would have defense 0, T3 with 6+ would be defense 1, T3 with a 5+ or T4 with a 6+ would be defense 2, and so on and so forth. Far from a perfect system, but it works fairly well. We can obviously move things around to fix things, but it was a starting point. And I don't really see why this system causes problems? Guardsman drop like flies to just about anything. And I don't think having a sergeant marine with a power sword triple wounding a guardsman as a problem since that sergeant is about 40 points with a power sword, and thats 8 times the cost of a guardsman. It also sets up a nice incentive to take stormtroopers, since they would be at Defense 3 due to their improved armor, and then you need that power weapon sergeant to even be able to cause double wounds.

My idea was that if the attack was DOUBLE the targets Defence value it DOUBLED up the wounds on THAT SINGLE MODEL' The wounds do not carry over onto other models in the unit.

Ah sorry for misunderstanding then, the problem i have with this direction is that its probably going to slow things down, especially since the new allocation system you suggested is so fast paced by comparison, because instead of just adding more wounds to the wound pool, you have to determine who this shot hits.

For every multiple of 3 that a hit's Power surpasses the target's Resilience, it causes an extra wound.

cool idea, the problem is double wounding a space marine would be impossible, since at defense 5 you wound need Str 15 to double wound. As much as this might be sorta fluffy it would be way out of balance. Doubling might work, but itd be hard, especially since low defense models would be double or triple wounded almost automatically.

i converted the old toughness and armor combinations into a new defense value, i wrote the system down a few pages back, but it was based on the idea of a Boltgun wounding a space marine on a 4+ so a str 5 Boltgun would wound defense 5 on a 4+.

I don't want Marines to be getting wounded on a 4+. Their armour is above average, definitely, but what leads you to believe that their gun is too? Boltguns are supposed to be average.

cool idea, the problem is double wounding a space marine would be impossible, since at defense 5 you wound need Str 15 to double wound. As much as this might be sorta fluffy it would be way out of balance. Doubling might work, but itd be hard, especially since low defense models would be double or triple wounded almost automatically.

Oh hell no! T.T Sorry about "multiple", what I meant was that Marines would be getting double wounded on an 8, IG on a 6 etc. You completely saw through my reasoning! When you double a stat you're increasing (doubling!) the gap between the other stats, making variety extremely dangerous. Having it flat means it has the same effect no matter how low or high it is on the scale

I don't want Marines to be getting wounded on a 4+. Their armour is above average, definitely, but what leads you to believe that their gun is too? Boltguns are supposed to be average.

there's a couple of reasons why i chose that system. Firstly, its what was already in place, as str 4 vs t 4 means a 4+, but also because since most guns besides a couple examples would be str 4, they'll be wounding on 5's against them. Also, the very impressive standard guns, gauss and pulse rifles, would be wounding them on a 3+ which seems right. If we made it that much harder to kill a space marine, we would have to adjust their price accordingly.

Having it flat means it has the same effect no matter how low or high it is on the scale

the problem is that doing something like this makes little sense realistically. Sure a guardsman being hit by a Boltgun (which currently would cause this extra wound) would be blown to bits, but if i hit something at Defense 9 with a strength 12 gun itll give that extra wound, but a monster at defense 9 wouldn't care if you hit it with an auto cannon or a Lasgun, its still just a minor wound to it. Also, it means that space marines could be double wounded by the equivalent of a str 6 gun in our new system, which feels weird.

there's a couple of reasons why i chose that system. Firstly, its what was already in place, as str 4 vs t 4 means a 4+, but also because since most guns besides a couple examples would be str 4, they'll be wounding on 5's against them.

Are you taking into account that we merged armour saves and toughness? The 3+ save and the decent toughness is what makes them R5.

Also, the very impressive standard guns, gauss and pulse rifles, would be wounding them on a 3+ which seems right.

Imho I think you are only saying it "seems" about right because you have preconceptions that pulse rifles wound on a 3+. Remember, Space Marines have top-of-the-spectrum power armour, and that Tau pulse rifles do not harness plasma fully.

Also, it means that space marines could be double wounded by the equivalent of a str 6 gun in our new system, which feels weird.

I don't understand you. Marines still only get double-wounded by P8 and above which is quite strong, into plasma/melta damage.