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.

Hey Dast, welcome to the thread.

We've more or less abandoned the ideas of migrating away from D6, and stuck to them since everyone has them, and they're readily available. D12 would have been preferable, but ultimately not worth it in the grand scheme of things. Using playing cards is an interesting idea, not sure how well itd fit into mechanics and stuff like that (People would probably want to check each others decks to make sure theres no cheating which would take a while), but lets see what comes up from it. I don't know if you saw this or not, but there's a pretty solid push for us to make unit cards of some sort, though this is still very much in the conceptual phase, as we didn't put too much thought into it, and haven't really discussed it since.

Glad to hear you like commands. Not really sure how much info you have on them, but feel free to shoot us some questions and we'll try to sum up where they are at the moment. We're pretty excited about where they're going, but getting to that end result is a long road, and its a pretty radical departure from current 40K systems, so i don't really want to rush into conclusions with them, only to scramble once we hit playtesting since they dont work right or are causing problems.

As for it being late in the thread, i'd argue its still early in the thread, we're still not close to an even semi-finalized ruleset (at least thats how i feel), and core mechanics are still being discussed and worked out, never mind getting special rules, unit values, the points formula, and everything else necessary to get a polished product out of the gate, so the more input the better.

The only problem I can see is that if you fire a sizeable number of shots in one go the chance that you get all 1's goes away (their are only 4 aces). This is increasingly an issue when you start to throw a lot of shots in one go. (30 homagaunts on the charge type stuff). Maybe shuffle a few packs together?. Re-set and shuffle again every X cards? I don't know.

This is exactly the kind of thinking i like to see when we're working out rules, so keep it up!

Edit: Holy cow page 14? wow...

Greetings Dast! Feels like a privilege that we got one of the co-writers from Grimdark too!

Frankly playing cards are ambitious but a bit too alien! Plus all the complications

It kinda embarrasses me that Rabid got to get his ruleset finished in 10 pages while we're still babbling away, not even half finished at 14 pages xD That's ok.

Unit cards sound cool, but I wouldn't call it the most original idea (but they're still cool), plus from a design point of view, unless you are competent at graphics and what not, it's gonna be hard to get an up-to-standard one that doesn't look like utter **** haha

Unit cards sound cool, but I wouldn't call it the most original idea (but they're still cool), plus from a design point of view, unless you are competent at graphics and what not, it's gonna be hard to get an up-to-standard one that doesn't look like utter **** haha

I wish i had even a fraction of the skill needed to do the unit card art idea justice, but hey we can just float a template kind of thing out there and let others fill in the art, im sure theres fan artists out there willing to do so. Lots of cool possibilities to do with this idea, but yeah far from critical.

On ze thread we should advertise + ask if anyone wants to help ups make em

Yeah but that's a very late in the process, non-critical factor so lets worry about other things first.

Ok so we were on invulnerable saves? Anything else we want to address right now?

So I have just read almost everything in this thread, and I'm just going to round up some of our thoughts and ideas:

- Model statistic lines have been extended from 9 to 11
- Armour and toughness merged into one Resilience value; strength and AP merged into one Power value
- To accommodate this, average wounds doubled from 1 to 2
- There are now receiving stats for shooting and combat (Stealth and Dexterity, the counterparts being Marksmanship and Skill (?))
- Universal comparison chart (average stat is 4):

..........1.....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7.....8.....9....10...11...12
.....1|4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---...---....---...---....---...---....---
.....2|3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---....---...---....---...---....---
.....3|3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---...---....---...---....---
.....4|2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---....---...---....---
.....5|2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---...---....---
.....6|---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---...---
.....7|---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+...---
.....8|---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+...6+
.....9|---....---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+...6+
...10|---....---....---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+...5+
...11|---....---....---....---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+...5+
...12|---....---....---....---....---....---....---....2+...2+...3+...3+...4+

- To kill a model you have to roll to Hit (Mk vs St, or Sk vs D) then roll to Wound (P vs R)
- (Not finalised/discussed) In combat there are 3 steps. Most strike at Combat Step 2, but some models in some situations can get some of their attacks in at Combat Step 1.
- (Not finalised) Units can get suppressed or neutralised under masses of fire (separate from morale), however if they fail their morale they always fall back
- FOC looking something like this:

...........................................HQ.......................................
.............................................||........................................
===========.......============......==========
||...Specialist...||===||...Core...Core...||===||...Support...||
||...Specialist...||===||...Core...Core...||===||...Support...||
||...Specialist...||===||...Core...Core...||===||...Support...||
||...Specialist...||===||...Core...Core...||===||...Support...||
===========.......============.......==========

Things to discuss:

- TURN SYSTEM
- subsequently, reserves

Units can get suppressed or neutralised under masses of fire (separate from morale)

I don't see why suppression should be completely separate from morale. I think having a suppression check be a morale check that just results in suppressed condition instead of falling back would work really well, as those scaredy cat conscripted guardsman would be easily suppressed at morale 6, but the literally fearless necrons would advance regardless at morale 10 / Fearless. One thing i have been tossing around is beefing up morale checks to 3d6 with a stat change to match, but i dont really think the additional morale slots are necessary.

- FOC looking something like this:
...........................................HQ.......................................
.............................................||........................................
===========.......============......==========
||...Specialist...||===||...Core...Core...||===||...Support...||
||...Specialist...||===||...Core...Core...||===||...Support...||
||...Specialist...||===||...Core...Core...||===||...Support...||
||...Specialist...||===||...Core...Core...||===||...Support...||
===========.......============.......==========

I like the look of the chart. Im not sure restricting additional specialist and support slots to taking 2 more Core/Troops choices is the best direction. I think something like you may take 1 less specialist and support choice than you have troops choices would be more fun, since that's typically where the really fun, flavorful units are, and making them that restricted might be frustrating.
On a similar note, should only Core/Troops be able to capture objectives, or should any non-vehicle unit be able to capture objectives? having anything be able to capture would make more sense realistically, but could have adverse effects on how people view Core/Troops units, leading to minmaxing and other problems.

In combat there are 3 steps. Most strike at Combat Step 2, but some models in some situations can get some of their attacks in at Combat Step 1.

Ok combat steps is starting to make this a more coherent system. So i'm assuming you would start at Combat Step 1, then work your way up to Combat Step 3? How do we want to handle combat in the same Combat Step? Make it a roll off or a simultaneous thing where we pretend every model lands attacks at the same time, and remove wounds after all attacks have been dealt? Im not a huge fan of breaking the number of attacks into "faster strikes" and regular attacks, it just seems like itd feel clunky, despite being a suitable replacement for extra attacks for charging. Maybe have charging grant a strength bonus to represent their extra momentum, though this could either complement or overlap with furious charge, depending on how you look at it. How do we want the special rules to interact with this? Something like everything strikes at Combat Step 2 as normally, and stuff like:

Swift Strike: A model with this special rule strikes at Combat Step 1
Sluggish Strike: A model with this special rule striks at Combat Step 3
First Strike: A model with this special rule strikes before models at Combat Step 1. In the event that two models with this special rule engage each other, they strike simultaneously / roll-off to see who goes first.
Last Strike: A model with this special rule strikes after models at Combat Step 3. In the event that two models with this special rule engage each other, they strike simultaneously / roll-off to see who goes first.

- TURN SYSTEM

Im a big fan of alternating unit actions, and pretty much all of the ideas we put up before on how to run something like that. so minimum 1 unit activation per turn, may roll to activate more, up to 3 activations per turn max, etc. It does require counters unlike alternating phases, which has many points in its favor as well, i just think unit-by-unit would result in more tactically rewarding gameplay, as you really have to think through the rest of the game turn before making a decision.

- subsequently, reserves

Subsequently? And for reserves, id like something that lets players chose when a unit comes in, with restrictions on how many may come in in a game turn. Id prefer to avoid randomness if at all possible, yes i know its not totally realistic, but i think we can do better than random. Maybe make it so units that enter from reserve earlier take something like a dangerous terrain test to represent wounds they received on their way in to the battlefield. Maybe even make the dangerous terrain test more dangerous at earlier turns, and less at later turns, to show units who rushed in vs units that took their time and avoided fire.

I'd like to make it so that fortitude is on the same level as the other stats, i.e. 3-5 average, with necrons/chaos at 7 or so. It's a universal comparison chart and having morale as the odd one out feels untidy.

If you want to go that direction with the FOC then I don't really know what's wrong with the current FOC, btw, what is wrong with it?

At the moment I am not opposed to giving capturing power to other units, as long as we take precautions.

Maybe have charging grant a strength bonus to represent their extra momentum, though this could either complement or overlap with furious charge

I wouldn't mind this, either that or +1 Sk/D.

Which reminds me, I am quite liking the idea of Mk and Sk (Marksmanship and Skill) for BS and WS. It sounds better in my head (people can't actually say WS because double-u is annoying) and it's pretty accurate, if not, as accurate as they are at the moment. Skill can have some ambiguity, but it's just as ambiguous as WS and I prefer it.

The thing is I am trying to avoid having models getting ALL of their attacks off first, or even worse, whole squads getting all their attacks off first.Im a big fan of alternating unit actions, and pretty much all of the ideas we put up before on how to run something like that. so minimum 1 unit activation per turn, may roll to activate more, up to 3 activations per turn max, etc. It does require counters unlike alternating phases, which has many points in its favor as well, i just think unit-by-unit would result in more tactically rewarding gameplay, as you really have to think through the rest of the game turn before making a decision.

Yeah but the fact that if one person has a bigger army, he is gonna get all these almost "alpha strike" things right at the end of the turn, and for me that is a big turn-off. Plus, I am confident we can avoid the burden of counters.

Getting dangerous terrain through reserves isn't a bad idea, but what do you say to determining reserves at the start of a match, where you roll a D3+1 (rerollable if you have a dedicated commander). And all of them come in on the same turn, to represent a reinforcing army.

Hello again,

I think it would be nice if morale also used your universal chart (making it that much more universal). I think someone mentioned this, but when I tried to quote it I couldn't find it.

My proposed system:

After all shooting from 1 unit against another, the unit being attacked must make a role of its leadership (or bravery or whatever its called) against the number of casualties they sustained.

So a leadership 8 unit to suffer 4 casualties from shooting has a 1/6 chance of running. (The 4-8 lookup gives a 2+). If they had suffered 6 casualties they would have a 1/3 chance of running. (6-8 look up gives 3+)

You would probably need to be able to use the remaining number of models in the unit in place of your leadership if you wanted too. (This way hordes of easy to kill models wouldn't run instantly).

This system would make the chances of running increase relatively smoothly with the number of casualties suffered, without any extra modifiers or anything.

Dast

I think it would be nice if morale also used your universal chart (making it that much more universal). I think someone mentioned this, but when I tried to quote it I couldn't find it.

Here I said: It's a universal comparison chart and having morale as the odd one out feels untidy.

After all shooting from 1 unit against another, the unit being attacked must make a role of its leadership (or bravery or whatever its called) against the number of casualties they sustained.

So a leadership 8 unit to suffer 4 casualties from shooting has a 1/6 chance of running. (The 4-8 lookup gives a 2+). If they had suffered 6 casualties they would have a 1/3 chance of running. (6-8 look up gives 3+)

You would probably need to be able to use the remaining number of models in the unit in place of your leadership if you wanted too. (This way hordes of easy to kill models wouldn't run instantly).

This system would make the chances of running increase relatively smoothly with the number of casualties suffered, without any extra modifiers or anything.

This is an interesting idea, my only concern is that wouldn't it further strengthen MSUs?

How about instead of doing it by the model, we do it by the model %, so for every 1/3 of the unit lost, you have to roll off. i.e:

When you lose 1/3 of the unit, you have to roll against 1. Fortitude 4 against 1 is 2+.
When you lose 2/3 of the unit, you have to roll against 2. Fortitude 4 against 2 is 3+.

Hey guys sorry about the delay, busy couple of days.

How about instead of doing it by the model, we do it by the model %, so for every 1/3 of the unit lost, you have to roll off. i.e:

When you lose 1/3 of the unit, you have to roll against 1. Fortitude 4 against 1 is 2+.
When you lose 2/3 of the unit, you have to roll against 2. Fortitude 4 against 2 is 3+.

I like this way of doing things, it makes sense that people are going to react differently to when they lose 1 man from their squad vs a large percentage of them.

I'd like to make it so that fortitude is on the same level as the other stats, i.e. 3-5 average, with necrons/chaos at 7 or so. It's a universal comparison chart and having morale as the odd one out feels untidy.

Idk it feels weird, but thats probably just due to unfamiliarity, the math says this should work approximately as well as 2D6, this might make the increased leadership of sergeants a bit too extreme though.

If you want to go that direction with the FOC then I don't really know what's wrong with the current FOC, btw, what is wrong with it?

Do you mean the current 40K FOC? i dont like that one because it restrict possible army's too much. For example, blood angels have a wide variety of potential army lists available to them that vanilla marines dont, just because they have assault marines as troops. This is the kind of result im looking for in changing the FOC. We need a classification for specialists and support units, as these are obviously not troops, but otherwise players should be free to use whatever more standard units they want. For example, I don't see a point in restricting Space Marine armies to scouts and tactical squads as troops, when assault marines, bikes, and scout bikes would all work just as well as troops, and allow for much more interesting and fun army lists. But i dont want to make people take more of the troops than they want and/or really need, so they can focus on what specialist and support units to get, as this is often where the real flavor of the army is.

Getting dangerous terrain through reserves isn't a bad idea, but what do you say to determining reserves at the start of a match, where you roll a D3+1 (rerollable if you have a dedicated commander). And all of them come in on the same turn, to represent a reinforcing army.

It still has randomness in it though, when it doesn't need it. Reserves, particularly deep strike and outflanking, should be tactics the player can rely on and plan around, not something they hope will work in their favor, because then we end up with the same situation we have right now, where people avoid these options as they can't rely on them. As for it being dangerous terrain tests, maybe not explicitly, but it has to be something similar, so fro every model in the unit, roll a D6, if they roll a 1 they take a strength X hit, where X is a strength that decreases every game turn. So maybe str 4 in turn 2, str in turn 3, str 2 in turn 4, and no danger in turn 5. Vehicles roll on the damage result table on a 1 i guess.

Which reminds me, I am quite liking the idea of Mk and Sk (Marksmanship and Skill) for BS and WS. It sounds better in my head (people can't actually say WS because double-u is annoying) and it's pretty accurate, if not, as accurate as they are at the moment. Skill can have some ambiguity, but it's just as ambiguous as WS and I prefer it.

I still just dont see an advantage for doing this, and it could push people away.

Why has it gone from 40k d10 to "let's write an entirely new ruleset?"

Pretty miss-leading title really.

We just didn't feel like starting a new thread, since we were already pretty deep into this one.

At least change the thread title to "d10 40k ruleset"? The title at the moment makes it sound like a conversation to d10 within the original rules, but it's not.

Do you mean something like...

Commander
Infantry
Vehicles

Very loose, but there is potential.

For reserves, this is the maths concerning probability

Current:
Turn 1: n/a
Turn 2: 6/9
Turn 3: 2/9
Turn 4: 1/9

Suggested:
If you want a specific turn: 5/9
If you want Turn 2 or 3: 8/9
If you want Turn 3 or 4: 8/9
Chances of not getting what you want: 1/9

As you can see, right now you can't even choose when they come on. IRL a decent commander should be able to plan. Right now people basically just use reserves as an invulnerability tactic for 1 or 2 turns, which just seems like a toxic tactic with no depth to it

As for it being dangerous terrain tests, maybe not explicitly, but it has to be something similar, so fro every model in the unit, roll a D6, if they roll a 1 they take a strength X hit, where X is a strength that decreases every game turn. So maybe str 4 in turn 2, str in turn 3, str 2 in turn 4, and no danger in turn 5. Vehicles roll on the damage result table on a 1 i guess.

I was attracted with the realism in representing wounds on the way, but that kind of mechanic feels very "filler" to me.

I still just dont see an advantage for doing this, and it could push people away.

It could just as easily pull them in. It's fresh, anew, it sounds frankly much cooler and people would like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yea Rav1rn change it to something appropriate ^^

As you can see, right now you can't even choose when they come on. IRL a decent commander should be able to plan. Right now people basically just use reserves as an invulnerability tactic for 1 or 2 turns, which just seems like a toxic tactic with no depth to it

?? and yeah people can keep their units off the table with reserves, but thats where limiting units that can enter each game turn comes in, if you try some sort of alpha-strike strategy, and they keep their units off, its still going to be your whole army against a few units of theirs, until the next turn, and then its still not going to be their entire army. Alternatively, they can keep important units off the table, but then theyre not using it, and it still has to come on at some point, presumably without deepstrike, outflank, or anything like that because theyd have used that in the first place.

Yea Rav1rn change it to something appropriate ^^

I didn't know you could alter post titles after the fact

I was attracted with the realism in representing wounds on the way, but that kind of mechanic feels very "filler" to me.

Its trying to approximate something that happened off the table. Obviously it can be buffed in strength or whatever, but doing a realistic damage system for things that take place off the table would be really hard to do.

?? and yeah people can keep their units off the table with reserves, but thats where limiting units that can enter each game turn comes in, if you try some sort of alpha-strike strategy, and they keep their units off, its still going to be your whole army against a few units of theirs, until the next turn, and then its still not going to be their entire army. Alternatively, they can keep important units off the table, but then theyre not using it, and it still has to come on at some point, presumably without deepstrike, outflank, or anything like that because theyd have used that in the first place.

The problem with this argument is that they have a reason to keep it off the board, the fact that they have the opportunity to hold back certain units heavily outweighs the fact that the rest of their army is still there.

Its trying to approximate something that happened off the table. Obviously it can be buffed in strength or whatever, but doing a realistic damage system for things that take place off the table would be really hard to do.

Really rough suggestion: Any unit coming from reserves automatically removes (2D6-6) x 10% of their unit as casualties.

The problem with this argument is that they have a reason to keep it off the board, the fact that they have the opportunity to hold back certain units heavily outweighs the fact that the rest of their army is still there.

i've never even heard of someone using reserves to gain a significant advantage, beyond dodging alpha-strike tactics, like avoiding an all-drop pod list's initial drop, because the units still start on the board where they would have been anyways, and arrive piecemeal. And yes if they have a reason to keep a unit off the board, more power to them, but thats an option with its upsides and downsides just like everything else.

Really rough suggestion: Any unit coming from reserves automatically removes (2D6-6) x 10% of their unit as casualties.

Idk, i dont like the idea of rolling random numbers to see how many of your units died on their way in like this. Plus this has the potential to wipe out over half of many squads before they even entered the table, which is insane. Yes, taking wounds and casualties on the way in is reasonable, but potentially half? It also unfairly favors hordes, as losing 6 members of a 30 man squad is nothing, so we need something that is determined by the number of models in the squad.

Edit: wow sorry didnt see the X10% part...eh im still not sold on it. Losing up to 60% that easily feels a little too extreme.

Cheers for the rename, I look forward to having a look at your ruleset when it's finished

Not to divert from the current discussion topic too much, but here's a really out there idea for how vehicle damage and resolution could work in a more interesting way. A vehicles Hitpoints or wounds or whatever is essentially its crew amount, and when it takes a wound it loses a crew member, taking that position offline. Once all the crew are dead, the tank is killed. Maybe make it a roll off or something to see whether the tank itself took the damage, or if it was just the crewman being hit, as a technician could repair damage to the tank or something.

So losing driver would be immobilized, losing gunner would be weapon destroyed, etc.

So larger tanks would have more crew members (more wounds) and some specialized or super large tanks would have redundant crew members. Maybe even some sort of commander crewman who can replace a fallen crew member at the expense of some element of the tanks effectiveness, maybe letting them ignore the first shaken/stunned result per turn to show the commander keeping his crew under control and focused. Having multiple gunners could allow for cool things like independent targeting, or maybe re rolling failed hits, to show two men are checking firing solutions, ranges, environmental conditions, etc.

So for example, a rhino would have crew: Driver, Gunner. But a land raider would have crew: Commander, Gunner 1, Gunner 2, Driver, etc

List of potential tank crew roles i can think of are Commander, Gunner, Loader, Comms, Technician, Driver, not really sure what half of these would do, but maybe make crew upgrades or additions an option for upgrades, to make it stronger or change how the tank works or something. So for instance, paying for a loader to be added to the crew could let you Double the number of shots fired from one gun a turn, adding a technician grants something like on a 6+ the tank is cleared of one status effect (Immobilized, Weapon Destroyed, etc).

This essentially turns the tank into a unit within the vehicle, though im not sure how it would work for things like dreadnoughts and other walkers. This could also be way too micro, but it could be a cool way of spicing vehicles up a bit, maybe making them feel like they belong and adhere to the game mechanics more than they do now, where theyre kinda just metal boxes with guns. Having a larger, more redundant, crew could also help alleviate some of the problems super expensive tanks suffer from right now, in that they typically don't perform at the level one would expect from their points costs, the most obvious example of which would be the standard land raider.

I you take that basic idea one step further.

And simply allocate Hit Points to Armament or Mobility.

Then some vehicles can have more mobility Hit points than Armament Hit points.

EG an Ork Warbuggy has ONE hit point in Armament .(For its main weapon.)
But has 3 Hit points in Mobility.
EACH hit in mobility reduces the Warbuggy movement value by 4 "

Eg 12" then 8" after one hit, 4" after second hit , and immobile after the 3rd hit.

This way Hit points can be allocated to systems and crew .(To allow a bit more freedom in allocation.)

You could apply this to M/Cs too.
Hit points in Arms (attacks) Legs ( movement.)

Just a thought ...

Glad to see youre still with us Lanrak,

I like the idea of breaking it down that way, feels kinda like the called shot system found in RPGs which is always fun. Maybe adapt that to 40K or something. One thing that might be interesting is creating pseudo anti-tank weapon rules, like penetrating and smashing, to show when one is targeted at the tank (taking Hitpoints) and the other is targeted at the crew (for shaken/stunned). So for instance, a lascannon would be penetrating, while a thunderhammer would be smashing.

A model may make a called shot on a vehicle or monstrous creature for some penalty kind of deal. Obviously we need streamlining of some sort otherwise this could spiral out of control really fast, but it would make shooting these models much more engaging than they are right now. A BS penalty of some sort is the most likely route for this, maybe re rolling successful hits. Combined with the range penalties we've discussed before, i think this would work nicely.

One thing i still dont know about is if we want to make it so old school destroyed results are still possible, or if we want to make it a whittle them down approach. Getting rid of destroyed results could actually make tanks more prevalent on the table, which isn't really want i want, but making that result possible with this direction would be kinda odd, and idk how to work it in.

Concerning reserve casualties, I think a reasonable medium would be: D6-3 x 10%. If you're really unlucky you might lose 3 men from your 10-man squad, but to be honest that's judicious when you think about it; a 10 man strike team could've been ambushed, taking a few casualties, but they still get onto the battlefield relatively unscathed.

As for reserves, I still think it is absolutely necessary that there is that chance, that minute, minute chance that your squad gets delayed. If you only have one or two squads in reserves then it's not too much of a problem if they come in late, now that you can plan ahead for their arrival (because you determine at the START of the game when they will arrive). However, if you exploit reserves too much you might find yourself being punished for it (the uncertainty measure). To fortify my argument, is the reality aspect of it.

Your tank idea is quite intriguing, on one hand it's very idea-stimulating, but on the other there are some flaws to it.

Once again, one of my main objectives is the reality part of it. In a tank there are crew members, but there is also the tank itself. Unless one of the crew members has his head sticking out of the top, or a lucky shot passes through the window, the crew are not going to be injured until the shot penetrates the vehicle's hull. However, it CAN destroy exterior weapons WITHOUT having to penetrate the armour.

If it does penetrate the armour, it can quite possibly ignite the fuel/ammunition inside.

So the question is, how can we represent these scenarios in the game mechanics? Well, snipers would be able to hit exposed weapons and crew MUCH more easily, so that is something we have to incorporate.

We could have the To Hit roll to determine whether any weapons are destroyed or any crew members are killed, while the To Wound roll determines whether the vehicle blows up, or takes critical damage.

I would agree that 30% should be the maximum, i just prefer something less binary than the D6-3 X 10% direction, since that system is going to do nothing half the time, which kinda defeats the purpose of saying they take some fire getting into the battlefield, it also fails to provide incentives to wait until later turns, which should also be present. It also doesn't take into account the strength and durability of the units which is a huge problem, because my terminator squad should take far less damage than an equivalent model count ork boy mob. Id like to see something like for every model in a unit entering from reserves, roll a D6, and on a 1 (maybe a 1 or a 2) they take a strength something hit that can change with each game turn, this way taking a little bit of damage is virtually guaranteed, while massive or no damage is less likely, and the units durability is taken into account, and it provides incentive to wait until later turns.

As for reserves, I still think it is absolutely necessary that there is that chance, that minute, minute chance that your squad gets delayed. If you only have one or two squads in reserves then it's not too much of a problem if they come in late, now that you can plan ahead for their arrival (because you determine at the START of the game when they will arrive).

if its just a minute chance, why even bother with the steps necessary to keep that minute chance in place? And I think having variable str hits depending on which turn you come in on solves the delayed problem quite nicely, because if i order my units to rush to get here by turn 2, theyre not going to get delayed, theyre charging headfirst past enemy fire to reach the battlefield, which is why they would take much more powerful hits than units taking their time. As for determining at the start of the game when i want units to come in, thats frustrating because i have to make decisions with no information, which would be awful for deep striking and outflanking, because i want to call them in as a reactionary attack, to take advantage of a mistake or opening, not just say they come in at some arbitrary point, then hope i can make use of them when they do come in.

Your tank idea is quite intriguing, on one hand it's very idea-stimulating, but on the other there are some flaws to it.

Lol i think most of the ideas on this thread have started as idea-provoking but flawed

Once again, one of my main objectives is the reality part of it. In a tank there are crew members, but there is also the tank itself. Unless one of the crew members has his head sticking out of the top, or a lucky shot passes through the window, the crew are not going to be injured until the shot penetrates the vehicle's hull. However, it CAN destroy exterior weapons WITHOUT having to penetrate the armour.
So the question is, how can we represent these scenarios in the game mechanics? Well, snipers would be able to hit exposed weapons and crew MUCH more easily, so that is something we have to incorporate.

This logic is why I want to break effects into penetration and anti-crew, because the snipers wouldn't try to knock out weapons or pierce armor, they'd aim for view slots, Sensors, and Hatches, so snipers would be anti-crew. Similarly, having thunderhammers annihilate armor has never made much sense to me, but the shockwave they make disrupting the crew made plenty of sense.

If it does penetrate the armour, it can quite possibly ignite the fuel/ammunition inside.
We could have the To Hit roll to determine whether any weapons are destroyed or any crew members are killed, while the To Wound roll determines whether the vehicle blows up, or takes critical damage.

I think we need to seriously consider an overhaul of tank mechanics if we go this direction, because trying to mix and match like this seems to have weird results. I like The idea Lanrak brought up, with varied Hitpoints and pseudo-called shots, so that would make for an interesting core to work off of, but things like glancing hits and penetrating hits should be present, as should potential for explosion, and i don't think any slight alteration of existing rules is going to so this properly.

since that system is going to do nothing half the time, which kinda defeats the purpose of saying they take some fire getting into the battlefield

Of course they're not going to get casualties 100% of the time, that's why it's not just "if you use reserves, you ARE going to lose some of your unit", that would be even more boring.

it also fails to provide incentives to wait until later turns, which should also be present.

I can see what you're trying to say translucently, but it can't be an incentive if it is determined randomly (not randomly, but you can choose which turn you want them on generally) and to be honest the reasoning that "they rush into battle so they take more wounds" is kinda obsolete, being delayed one turn is not so much the "pace" of the unit, but rather them being delayed (or not being able to quite make it when you want them to) and really they would travel hastily anyway, it's just not that big of a deal.

It also doesn't take into account the strength and durability of the units which is a huge problem, because my terminator squad should take far less damage than an equivalent model count ork boy mob

Thank you, you made me realise this problem (but not exactly a "huge" one and certainly not unamendable) so how about instead of automatic casualties it is "D6-3 x 10% of their squad has taken wounds" or something like that.

if its just a minute chance, why even bother with the steps necessary to keep that minute chance in place?

Well no, it's a minute chance that they get delayed completely (until turn 4 that is) but the chances that they get there exactly on time is only 5/9. There is a 1/3 chance that they get their one turn off.

theyre charging headfirst past enemy fire to reach the battlefield, which is why they would take much more powerful hits than units taking their time.

Frankly this wouldn't be a real situation, the unit would always be swift OR cautious, and the mechanic of being delayed is not to represent the fact that they're moving slower, it's to show that there were COMPLICATIONS and they couldn't get their exactly as intended.

I would say that you CAN use deep strike and outflank reactionary, as long as we make it so that you roll D6-3 and you can come on on the turn you rolled OR higher. This way, it shows that they ARRIVE on one turn, ready to be used, but may not be utilised until the time is right.

Actually, yeah, this is a good idea. If you make them come on on the turn they arrive to the outskirts of battle then they may not have got all their kit ready ('specially for deep strike) so maybe some handicaps for the first turn. But if they arrive, and you wait for the right moment, they will be more ready to operate.

This logic is why I want to break effects into penetration and anti-crew, because the snipers wouldn't try to knock out weapons or pierce armor, they'd aim for view slots, Sensors, and Hatches, so snipers would be anti-crew. Similarly, having thunderhammers annihilate armor has never made much sense to me, but the shockwave they make disrupting the crew made plenty of sense.

Partially, but that's not to say that a sniper shot CAN'T penetrate the hull JUST because it's a sniper and he was aiming for the crew. It just means he has a significantly higher chance of knocking of some weapons or what not. Equally, a thunderhammer can STILL completely mangle vehicle flesh, even if its aim is not exactly that.

Partially, but that's not to say that a sniper shot CAN'T penetrate the hull JUST because it's a sniper and he was aiming for the crew. It just means he has a significantly higher chance of knocking of some weapons or what not. Equally, a thunderhammer can STILL completely mangle vehicle flesh, even if its aim is not exactly that.

Sorry if i didn't explain this well, i meant completely separate crew damage and vehicle damage, because of course a thunderhammer space marine is going to hit ridiculously hard (Str 10), but it has the added effect on the crew. The problem with the sniper example is that 40k is fluff wise somewhere between medieval times and pre-world war 2. I dont think anti-material rifles were widespread, if present at all, and the current sniper rules vs vehicles reflect that role in pure anti-personnel. So having them try to take down a weapon system with an anti-personnel rifle would be silly, hence why they would focus on where they can hit the crew. But what I want to see if a separation of attempts and results to destroy a tank, vs attempts to suppress it (anti-crew). So something like lower strength, but high fire rates could affect the crew more, while high strength, low shots focus on damaging the vehicle. So yes, the sniper could try damaging the vehicle itselft, but it would have an extremely low chance of doing damage, while focusing on the crew could be much more likely to cause damage. Maybe take Lanraks idea of mobility and weaponry points, and add in crew points (for anti-crew). Not really sure how the mechanics of this would work though, so work to be done.

I think we've more or less reached an impass about reserves, so im gonna open a thread and let people vote on which system theyd prefer, and well build off whatever comes out of that. We've got other topics to bring up and were circling.

I think we may have to bump up defense by 1 across the board like you suggested a while back, because right now space marines can one hit kill orks and guardsman ( Str 5 vs Def 2), which kinda defeats the purpose of doubling wounds. This would still bring tyranid gaunt only to a 2 though, so they'll still be getting one-shotted, and i don't know what to do about that...maybe it makes sense for that to happen and we bump up SM points slightly to compensate, idk.

Im also thinking about ways to take advantage of the new wound system more, maybe give mostrous creatures a pseudo feel no Pain save kind of deal rather than insane amounts of wounds, to represent their toughness and ability to ignore or shrug off minor wounds, because otherwise were going to have tons of wound slots we don't use. So a really rough rule for this idea would be

This model gains a save of (x) against weapons with strength lower than their defense value..this lets us fine tune models a bit more easily, since we can control how much minor weapons can affect them. So a hive tyrant might have a 4+ for this save, as its a medium sized monstrous creature, but the truly massive Tyrannofex would have a 2+ for this save, as its so large that a Boltgun is barely noticeable. Maybe give it to hero and HQ type characters to keep their wounds under control and let us use all the wound slots. Idk what the realism explanation for this would be beyond describing them as near mythical feats of heroism or something, or sheer hardheaded ness and unwillingness to die and shrug off wounds.
This direction also lets us get past the awkward situation of a 12 wound monstrous creature taking 12 las cannon shots to kill it, which would be a bit too extreme in my opinion, so if it had around 6 wounds with this kind of save, it could survive 6 las cannon shots, while still ignoring the majority of small arms fire, which feels a bit better.

I think we've more or less reached an impass about reserves, so im gonna open a thread and let people vote on which system theyd prefer, and well build off whatever comes out of that. We've got other topics to bring up and were circling.

I feel like you're avoiding this a bit, but whatever.

but high fire rates could affect the crew more, while high strength, low shots focus on damaging the vehicle

This doesn't appeal to me, it's too thick and "heavy-handed". And too simplistic.

I think we may have to bump up defense by 1 across the board like you suggested a while back, because right now space marines can one hit kill orks and guardsman ( Str 5 vs Def 2)

Can you explain to me what you have it mind with that at the moment?!?! Like why should they be one-shotting them? Why are you gonna resort to upping defense but not anything else, haven't we already discussed that? As far as I'm concerned, I am satisfied with the variety we have got at the moment, where 3-5 is the norm and 2 is ONLY for anomalous units? So basically Eldar and IG have R3 (expected), Orks and Tau have R4 (tau with the armour and orks with the muscly swagger) while Necrons and SM have R5.

Now I feel like we shouldn't have Power influencing the number of wounds caused. My argument is that Power already has an oxymoron - Resilience - and if we have the number of wounds depending on it AS WELL, well then slight changes in Power will mean more than they should. Another thing I want to bring forward is that in reality it won't be as simple as one wound two wound three wound things, in 40k it's only simplified like that just to show "HP", so we should leave it be that "one wound" is just a representation, and we can't have Power falsely trying to interact with it.

This model gains a save of (x) against weapons with strength lower than their defense value

Hmph I'm a bit vexed on this one, isn't this just a STEEP defense scaling? i.e. a bit like how AP and armour saves work right now? Because I abhor how that works right now (as in, a 2+ save doesn't care whether it's being hit by AP3 or AP-) if you know what I mean, it's like drawing a line on stat interaction which should be continuous + quantitative.

I feel like you're avoiding this a bit, but whatever.

A little bit, but i'm mostly trying to head off the situation of after 2-3 pages of back and forth, we realize we want fundamentally different things from reserves, and we'd have to go this direction anyways, which is what was begining to become clear.

This doesn't appeal to me, it's too thick and "heavy-handed". And too simplistic.

Again, sorry if this is really misleading, im barely past the concept stage with this idea. I don't mean there is an explicit rule or quality of these weapons that mean that a low strength but high shot weapon is better at suppressing vehicles (Crew Damage), while higher strength weapons (typically low shot number) are better at penetrating and damaging vehicles, but rather that it is more effective to use these weapons this way. For instance, imagine if we had two different firing modes, say theyre called damage and suppression. If i fire in suppression mode, i lose the ability to penetrate the vehicle (or maybe just make it much harder) but i have a much higher chance of distracting or injuring the crew. So low strength weapons (typically higher number of shots) would typically want to fire in this mode, as they dont have much chance of penetrating, but their high number of shots means they can have more/higher effects on the crew. Alternatively, if im shooting at a vehicle with something like a lascannon (high strength, low shots), i dont want to aim for things like view ports, hatches, or general crew compartments to suppress the crew, i want to aim for the places where i can do the most damage to the vehicle itself, like weapon systems, the engine, magazines, reactors, etc.

This isn't really the system i have in mind, but im trying to get the idea across and cleared up somewhat. Ideally, shots meant to damage the vehicle would still affect the crew on a glance at the very least, because on penetrations it not such a big deal, because if you destroy the weapon system that crew member manning it cant do anything regardless, so he might as well die with it, but i want an option for low strength weapons to give up or reduce the likelihood of penetration in exchange for being able to affect the crew more, if that makes any sense.

Can you explain to me what you have it mind with that at the moment?!?! Like why should they be one-shotting them? Why are you gonna resort to upping defense but not anything else, haven't we already discussed that? As far as I'm concerned, I am satisfied with the variety we have got at the moment, where 3-5 is the norm and 2 is ONLY for anomalous units? So basically Eldar and IG have R3 (expected), Orks and Tau have R4 (tau with the armour and orks with the muscly swagger) while Necrons and SM have R5.

I was still working off my really rough conversion where toughness and armor were both taken into account to give a value of 0-5. If we go this direction, which is probably best, i would argue orks should be defense 3 rather than 4, because they compensate for their lack of armor with their toughness, while the imperial guard do the opposite. This direction should negate why i felt toughness should have been bumped up, as this essentially does the same thing. It does still bring to light the question of what to do about tyranid gaunts, as they would have to be lower than orks and imperial guardsmen, and if we are using the doubling strength == doubling wounds, boltguns would be instant killing gaunts.

Another worry is that we dont have a slot for things that are above firewarriors (T3 with a 4+) but below a space marine, like sisters of battle, normal humans in power armor like inquisitors, and scout marines that are tougher but with worse armor. I also remember you saying a while back you didnt want boltguns to be wounding space marines on a 4+, so bringing space marines to defense 6 would do that.

Hmph I'm a bit vexed on this one, isn't this just a STEEP defense scaling? i.e. a bit like how AP and armour saves work right now? Because I abhor how that works right now (as in, a 2+ save doesn't care whether it's being hit by AP3 or AP-) if you know what I mean, it's like drawing a line on stat interaction which should be continuous + quantitative.

If we want strength 5 weapons to be able to affect things like monstrous creatures, their defense can at most be 9, which limits potential defense values, unless we want these weapons to be unable to affect certain models. But at defense 9, 1 in 6 strength 5 shots will still be getting through, which seems like its too many, because there's no longer an armor value to stop those. I think these infantry weapons need a chance to affect monster, to represent hitting things like the eyes, but it shouldn't be that higher of a probability.

It also gives us a means by which to avoid a couple of the problems the new wound system introduces, such as us being unable to use a lot of the non-even numbered slots since we just doubled wounds, particularly at the higher end of the scale, and having models at 12 wounds that would normally be at 6 wounds (like the tyrannofex) would take 12 lascannon shots to kill, which i think we can all agree is a bit excessive. Having this save lets us lower their wound amounts and use more of the possible wound slots, but lets them keep the durability against small arms fire, while being less immortal against weapons meant to kill them.

As for it being such as steep and sudden change, it is just a rough idea so im open to ideas on how to do this, but it'd have to be something like a second defense value against which the owner of the monster has to roll off against, or something along those lines.

Hmph, I don't think that it would be a good idea to be able to focus fire on the crew exactly..nor the vehicle itself. Unless there is a crew member outside the vehicle, the chances of a shot passing through a view slit are negligible. It would also be hard in some cases like war walkers or unarmoured sentinels, the chances of you hitting the driver is pretty high...

So right now what I'm hoping for is to keep the same system as right now, which , just have a special category for weapons/models that actually have the chance to take out a crew member which can potentially inhibit the vehicle's actions some way or another

I feel like gaunts should be at the same level as IG and Eldar, I mean it's only from a 5+ to a 6+, it's not enough difference to warrant R2, plus that would be incredibly annoying.

Like I said, 3-5 is the normal infantry range, it would be insane to put the ordinary marine on an extraordinary level, plus Boltguns are P4, they should be.

For wounds, I'm treading cautiously with how radical we want to make it. In the back of my head I'm tempted to put Attacks (shooting and melee) and wounds to the same scale as the other stats, but I don't see that happening without tons of dice. However at the moment, the gap between a 1 wound model and a 2 wound model is huge. 2 wound models are effectively twice as tough. If we move it to 3-5 like the others, then those kind of differences are more streamline-able and fine.