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.

well if they do something like poison (1) where they get to reroll to-wound rolls of 1, it becomes poison (6) defending player must reroll defense saves of 6.

yup something like that

very interesting direction, I'm not sure we want this to be the universal law though, because having the reroll be dependent on the model means that it's based on their stats, a reroll for my inquisitorial sniper assassin at BS 8 should be a much higher reroll than a guardsman sniper at BS 3.

That being said, I think there are definitely ways to use this in exciting ways. On things like orders, this would be a godsend, as it gives us much better control over these rerolls and effects.

Give your vindicare a special rule which makes him gain a 2+ Attack reroll.

yup assault cannon is heavy 4 rending 24", they have the "fill the air with bullets" type of rending. And they kinda do have special rounds, i don't think its ever been fleshed out much, but it's implied they fire diamond bullets.

No lol, I know they're rending in the game, I just want to ask you if you think they personally should be.

The thing is that your justification for giving assault cannons rending is that you wanna represent their rate of fire. Well, why not just: a) give them more bullets in the first place or b)have a special rule which doubles the number of hits.

I find b) is futile, it would be much more fun just rolling 6 dice.

No lol, I know they're rending in the game, I just want to ask you if you think they personally should be.

The thing is that your justification for giving assault cannons rending is that you wanna represent their rate of fire. Well, why not just: a) give them more bullets in the first place or b)have a special rule which doubles the number of hits.

I'd think they should have rending, it's the entire point off that gun, its not very good otherwise, because other weapons do anything it tries to do better, rending is what makes it a solid jack of all trades gun. And it goes back to the difference between a gun thats meant to have a really high rate of fire, vs one that has more shots than average but is a rending gun. The punisher Gatling cannon on the Leman Russ is meant to have a ridiculously high rate of fire, but the assault cannon isn't meant to be used like that, its a middle of the road compromise on every use, it's ok at killing hordes, heavy infantry, light vehicles, and has a chance to damage heavy vehicles, which just having a high rate of fire doesn't accomplish, it needs rending. And yes just having it double the hits would be silly and weird.

Give your vindicare a special rule which makes him gain a 2+ Attack reroll.

Its just an example, but this situation would happen with all the assassins, not to mention with independant characters who typically have higher stats than rank and file models. My chapter master should not have the same reroll chance as a scout, etc etc. There's just a lot of situations where having it be a flat value wouldn't make sense, it's a similar argument to your opposition to having "on a roll of 6" rules in that they're not accurate.

Do I think there are distinct uses where this would work perfectly? Yes absolutely, and lets look into where this would work best, but having it as the rule of law concerning re-rolls, i dont think its suited to that role.

I'd think they should have rending, it's the entire point off that gun, its not very good otherwise, because other weapons do anything it tries to do better, rending is what makes it a solid jack of all trades gun. And it goes back to the difference between a gun thats meant to have a really high rate of fire, vs one that has more shots than average but is a rending gun. The punisher Gatling cannon on the Leman Russ is meant to have a ridiculously high rate of fire, but the assault cannon isn't meant to be used like that, its a middle of the road compromise on every use, it's ok at killing hordes, heavy infantry, light vehicles, and has a chance to damage heavy vehicles, which just having a high rate of fire doesn't accomplish, it needs rending.

So you're saying you only want to keep rending to make it an all-rounder gun? I see, now how about this which should please both of us. We keep it at a solid power of 5, and we give it 6 rounds. Let's see, it's effective against heavy infantry (not bad), more so with light infantry (very good), and it's pretty good against light vehicles (it's wounding on a 6+, but that's what it should be - a large number of bullets that each have a small chance of penetrating). That eliminates the need for rending, it keeps it a solid weapon, and it feels good, like an Imperial scatter laser.

And yes just having it double the hits would be silly and weird.

It's funny you would say that because that's effectively what you were planning with the "storm" special rule. Storm would work well here, but once again I think having a larger number of shots is just intuitive and easy.

Its just an example, but this situation would happen with all the assassins, not to mention with independant characters who typically have higher stats than rank and file models. My chapter master should not have the same reroll chance as a scout, etc etc. There's just a lot of situations where having it be a flat value wouldn't make sense, it's a similar argument to your opposition to having "on a roll of 6" rules in that they're not accurate.

I thought about this for a second, and then I realised this: The reason why I don't want the reroll to scale off the existing roll is because it makes the existing roll twice as potent, much like a power fist (which is why power fists should not double anymore, instead just give +4 P or something). The reason why it isn't the same as the "on a roll of 6" issue is because you're not disregarding the existing value at all. On the contrary, it isn't the same as power fists either because you're not REGARDING the existing value as much.

Can you see what I'm trying to get here? This reroll mechanic is sort of in between the "on a roll of 6" and power fists:

On a roll of 6: disregards existing value
Power fists: doubles existing value (i.e. scales too much)
My rerolls: DOES NOT disregard existing value, however does not make it too influential either; you're keeping the existing value, but making it laterally stronger (since all units benefit the same way).

It's funny you would say that because that's effectively what you were planning with the "storm" special rule. Storm would work well here, but once again I think having a larger number of shots is just intuitive and easy.

I beg to differ, straight doubling of hits vs rolling for an extra hit are very different, but yeah i havn't been able to get that streamlined, so id say just give weapons that would have gotten Storm (Storm Bolters etc) Suppression (2) instead. It isn't really helping make these weapons more viable choices than any of the others though, so ill keep at it.

I thought about this for a second, and then I realised this: The reason why I don't want the reroll to scale off the existing roll is because it makes the existing roll twice as potent, much like a power fist (which is why power fists should not double anymore, instead just give +4 P or something). The reason why it isn't the same as the "on a roll of 6" issue is because you're not disregarding the existing value at all. On the contrary, it isn't the same as power fists either because you're not REGARDING the existing value as much.
Can you see what I'm trying to get here? This reroll mechanic is sort of in between the "on a roll of 6" and power fists:
On a roll of 6: disregards existing value
Power fists: doubles existing value (i.e. scales too much)
My rerolls: DOES NOT disregard existing value, however does not make it too influential either; you're keeping the existing value, but making it laterally stronger (since all units benefit the same way).

Except that it is exactly the same problem as "on the roll of 6", because you are disregarding the units stats for the reroll. If my chapter master and scout marine can both reroll for a 5+, how is that any different than my gaunt and my tyrannofex both being able to wound anything on a roll of 6? And yes, rerolling is incredibly powerful, but its also quite rare, how many units get rerolls? You typically need a special weapon upgrade, twin-linking, or a special rule / character, all of which are difficult to come by for the majority of units. Also, i don't really see what the problem with doubling strength for powerfists is, it's a nice proportional improvement with appropriate costs, penalties, and bonuses. It also makes sense, my guardsman wielding a powerfist can only have his strength augmented so much, as compared to my space marine wielding one. If you make it a flat +4, it means that it improves every model exactly the same extent, which doesn't make as much sense for a powerfist as it does something like a power weapon, not to mention its kinda abandoning that weapons one interesting trait that sets it apart from other weapons.

If you absolutely want to change the re-roll system, maybe find a way to adapt the old way of rerolling basic stats (if you had BS over 5 for instance) and improve and expand on it, because this way it's still proportional to the units stats, while not being as insane of an improvement.

So you're saying you only want to keep rending to make it an all-rounder gun? I see, now how about this which should please both of us. We keep it at a solid power of 5, and we give it 6 rounds. Let's see, it's effective against heavy infantry (not bad), more so with light infantry (very good), and it's pretty good against light vehicles (it's wounding on a 6+, but that's what it should be - a large number of bullets that each have a small chance of penetrating). That eliminates the need for rending, it keeps it a solid weapon, and it feels good, like an Imperial scatter laser.

I don't really like it under these rules, it's just not what the assault cannon is really trying to be. I don't mind it having less shots as much, so long as it has higher power, so it has a decent chance of damaging light vehicles, and be possible to damage higher armor tanks, and having it be very good against hordes is not the point of it, there are already much better choices for this role. It needs to be decent at everything but hurting high value tanks. Putting higher shots on this (say 6 instead of 4) would mean a fairly high points increase, but as they're typically cheap upgrades at the moment, i don't think thatd be too big a problem, because its competitiors are Heavy Flamer (Pure-anti-infantry/horde), Heavy Bolter (suppression/long range anti-troops/ light anti-tank), Lacannon (Heavy anti-tank), Multi-melta (Short range anti-tank), Plasma-cannon (anti-Heavy Infantry), and autocannon (moderate anti-tank). It can do a bit of everything, but a bit of everything can cost a bit more, versatility is worth it.

Also, ive been thinking this problem over for a while; space marines are Defense 6, which means they can only be double wounded by strength 12 guns...which are rare...so we have to figure out how to handle this. I see 3 options:
1) give them a special rule that says they can be double wounded by strength 10 weapons (bit weird and would flow like a river of bricks)
2) Increase the points cost a ton, so 18ish range for standard troops
3) Keep their points around the 16ish range, and make their upgrades more expensive, an extra 5-10 points here and there will go a long way to bumping up the costs. Get rid of the free special and heavy weapons for tactical squads, which was always a bit dumb.

Except that it is exactly the same problem as "on the roll of 6", because you are disregarding the units stats for the reroll.

Except that it's not. You ARE KEEPING the existing value, you get to use that, it's not gone, it doesn't disappear, all you're doing is adding on something. This is EXACTLY THE SAME effect as a flat modifier, such as +1 or +2. The problem with having it scale off the existing value is that it STRETCHES the whole value line-up, meaning that the variety we worked so hard to achieve becomes blurred and unbalanced.

And yes, rerolling is incredibly powerful, but its also quite rare, how many units get rerolls?

To be honest it isn't "quite rare", I would say it's between uncommon and rare. If we balance rerolls, we can use them much more extensively, almost to the same level as flat modifiers are being used. In my previous previous post, I said "This means we can define the power of rerolls ourselves; we can include more rerolls because now you can tweak how powerful they are. It also means we can balance out rerolls with special rule modifiers." It means we WON'T be seeing as much of the bland maths stuff, which for me is a big win.

Also, ive been thinking this problem over for a while; space marines are Defense 6, which means they can only be double wounded by strength 12 guns...which are rare...so we have to figure out how to handle this. I see 3 options:
1) give them a special rule that says they can be double wounded by strength 10 weapons (bit weird and would flow like a river of bricks)
2) Increase the points cost a ton, so 18ish range for standard troops
3) Keep their points around the 16ish range, and make their upgrades more expensive, an extra 5-10 points here and there will go a long way to bumping up the costs. Get rid of the free special and heavy weapons for tactical squads, which was always a bit dumb.

This irritates me as it shows that we aren't really on the same wavelength. Once again I want to stress that doubling any sort of value is going to have adverse effects. This is why I'm planning on something so that you take one extra wound for every three that the aggressor's Power surpasses the target's Resilience. So in fact Marines will be getting triple wounded by P12; you can't argue with that, and they get double wounded by P9, which is absolutely reasonable, since P9 is getting into melta level.

It can do a bit of everything, but a bit of everything can cost a bit more, versatility is worth it.

So let's see, with 6 shots at P5 you are:

Doing great against hordes (almost as good as a flamer)
Doing a decent job at what a Heavy Bolter would do, at a shorter range with more firepower
Not doing the job of lascannons (that's a good thing)
Kinda doing the job of melta/plasma, but in a different way
Being a "little brother" to the autocannon whose field is more in the anti-medium armour range (this is GOOD).

Once again I want to stress that doubling any sort of value is going to have adverse effects. This is why I'm planning on something so that you take one extra wound for every three that the aggressor's Power surpasses the target's Resilience. So in fact Marines will be getting triple wounded by P12; you can't argue with that, and they get double wounded by P9, which is absolutely reasonable, since P9 is getting into melta level.

I would argue that doubling doesn't necessarily cause adverse effects, but i like this direction for causing additional wounds a lot more than doubling. The way this system works already has some exciting ideas going in my head.

Except that it's not. You ARE KEEPING the existing value, you get to use that, it's not gone, it doesn't disappear, all you're doing is adding on something. This is EXACTLY THE SAME effect as a flat modifier, such as +1 or +2. The problem with having it scale off the existing value is that it STRETCHES the whole value line-up, meaning that the variety we worked so hard to achieve becomes blurred and unbalanced.

But that 5+ doesn't improve things equally, to a guardsman hitting on a 5+, that 5+ re-roll is awesome, to a chapter master that 5+ reroll is garbage. Something that takes a units stats into mind will work better for these rerolls, because twin-linking, master-crafting, etc are not some magical trait where the weapon jumps out of the users hands to go attack the enemy, it complements the wielder. If i gave the same master-crafted relic blade to a guardsman and my chapter master, my chapter-master is going to be able to make better use of that master-crafted trait than a guardsman will, because he is a better combatant. I'm not saying it has to be "I need a 2+ to hit, then my re-roll is 2+" but it cannot be a flat value. Yes, flat values can be used, to great effect even, but they cannot be the rule of law, it just doesn't make sense realistically.

If we balance rerolls, we can use them much more extensively, almost to the same level as flat modifiers are being used. In my previous previous post, I said "This means we can define the power of rerolls ourselves; we can include more rerolls because now you can tweak how powerful they are. It also means we can balance out rerolls with special rule modifiers." It means we WON'T be seeing as much of the bland maths stuff, which for me is a big win.

Exactly, this is a great reason to use flat rerolls, but they have to used sparingly where they make sense. Negative rerolls (rerolling saves and rerolling hits) wouldn't work very well as flat rerolls, because it's still up to the model's skill to deal with hitting targets, and the models armor and toughness to save wounds, throwing a 5+ down for these would be awkward and frustrating for models better than that 5, and could actually be a serious buff to others. Orders are probably the first place to look at putting flat rerolls in, because this is probably where they would mechanically make the most sense to be.

So let's see, with 6 shots at P5 you are:
Doing great against hordes (almost as good as a flamer)
Doing a decent job at what a Heavy Bolter would do, at a shorter range with more firepower
Not doing the job of lascannons (that's a good thing)
Kinda doing the job of melta/plasma, but in a different way
Being a "little brother" to the autocannon whose field is more in the anti-medium armour range (this is GOOD).

Except that being the strength of a bolter cripples it for whatever purpose it was trying to accomplish. It needs to be higher strength, otherwise it will never be able to affect vehicles. Something like strength 7/8, heavy 4, rending 24" would be a direct port from the old stats, id like to see it at heavy 6, but honestly, id rather it have less shots and rending + strength than high # of shots.

But that 5+ doesn't improve things equally, to a guardsman hitting on a 5+, that 5+ re-roll is awesome, to a chapter master that 5+ reroll is garbage. Something that takes a units stats into mind will work better for these rerolls, because twin-linking, master-crafting, etc are not some magical trait where the weapon jumps out of the users hands to go attack the enemy, it complements the wielder. If i gave the same master-crafted relic blade to a guardsman and my chapter master, my chapter-master is going to be able to make better use of that master-crafted trait than a guardsman will, because he is a better combatant. I'm not saying it has to be "I need a 2+ to hit, then my re-roll is 2+" but it cannot be a flat value. Yes, flat values can be used, to great effect even, but they cannot be the rule of law, it just doesn't make sense realistically.

I can see where you're coming from but right now our game is a game of comparison. Well you say, why does this matter? It means that it makes the difference it stats MUCH MORE important, in fact twice as important, as effective. It's extremely hard to explain but the idea is clear in my head:

If it's a 4 against a 4, it's a rerollable 4+.
It it's a 5 against a 4, it's a rerollable 3+.

So you've AMPLIFIED the difference between them, when they should be the same. Once again it's really hard to explain but I hope you understand my argument...

Except that being the strength of a bolter cripples it for whatever purpose it was trying to accomplish. It needs to be higher strength, otherwise it will never be able to affect vehicles. Something like strength 7/8, heavy 4, rending 24" would be a direct port from the old stats, id like to see it at heavy 6, but honestly, id rather it have less shots and rending + strength than high # of shots.

I'm pretty sure I still want bolters to be P4, unless you can find a quote of me saying otherwise...

I've actually been wanting for a long time to further extend the stat range to 15, and make the infantry average 5. Because our new comparison chart leaves room for more variety, I've been trying to use this variety, however the chart is spreading the value combinations too much for the scale of 12 to handle.

In current 40k the average value for infantry lies approximately a third of the way up the whole scale (about 3.3). With the new scale, where 4 is the average, it is still a third of the way up, but the infantry average values are at the moment able to clearly reach what should be basically unreachable values (because of the comparison chart). So I'm trying to make the stat range proportionate to the comparison chart, as right now I'm finding that the stat range is restricting the room that the comparison chart gives us.

There shouldn't be any clear objections, and widening the range means we can broaden the class where vehicles and monstrous creatures lie.

I can see where you're coming from but right now our game is a game of comparison. Well you say, why does this matter? It means that it makes the difference it stats MUCH MORE important, in fact twice as important, as effective. It's extremely hard to explain but the idea is clear in my head:

If it's a 4 against a 4, it's a rerollable 4+.
It it's a 5 against a 4, it's a rerollable 3+.

So you've AMPLIFIED the difference between them, when they should be the same. Once again it's really hard to explain but I hope you understand my argument...

i don't really understand what you mean, can you try to clarify? But even if we'd do something as simple as "you take a reroll on 1 less value than you would have rolled otherwise" so a 3+ becomes a 4+ on a reroll, a 4+ becomes a 5+ on the reroll etc, so the units stats are taken into account for the reroll, but it's still less potent than it would be normally. Re-rolls are for the most part meant to radically change the roll (twin-linked, Mastercrafted, etc), it's the other cases when a radical change is not what we want, but rather a streamlined modifier effect, when we should bring flat rerolls in.

I'm pretty sure I still want bolters to be P4, unless you can find a quote of me saying otherwise...

and I still want them at power 5, with "weaker" guns at power 4, because it doesn't make sense relative to Melee values otherwise.

I've actually been wanting for a long time to further extend the stat range to 15, and make the infantry average 5. Because our new comparison chart leaves room for more variety, I've been trying to use this variety, however the chart is spreading the value combinations too much for the scale of 12 to handle.

In current 40k the average value for infantry lies approximately a third of the way up the whole scale (about 3.3). With the new scale, where 4 is the average, it is still a third of the way up, but the infantry average values are at the moment able to clearly reach what should be basically unreachable values (because of the comparison chart). So I'm trying to make the stat range proportionate to the comparison chart, as right now I'm finding that the stat range is restricting the room that the comparison chart gives us.

I don't really understand where this would take things, or allow improvements. There's always going to be restrictions in the game, if we want to alleviate these restrictions, the best way to do this would be to use larger dice for more variable effects, rather than increasing the value ranges. But I think the current numbers match up very well, the infantry average is 4 (1/3 of the max) while the highest value possible for normal infantry is a 6 (1/2 of the max, comparable to a 5 in the current system).

There shouldn't be any clear objections, and widening the range means we can broaden the class where vehicles and monstrous creatures lie.

but we have plenty of range for mostrous creatures, defense 7 minimum with lots of wounds and maybe the bonus saves against infantry weapons is a pretty solid way to represent monsters. I am concerned about the lack of values we can use for vehicles and still have Bolter level weaponry affect them (9-12 instead of 10-14, so one less value, and ideally I'd like to have 6 values possible for vehicles instead of 5) but I don't think just raising values is going to let us accomplish this, without a pretty serious adjustment of the URC, which I think is pretty perfect as is, I don't think adding more repeated values will improve anything, and will probably make things worse. Absolute worse case scenario is we go back to the old way of resolving vs vehicles, which is inconsistent with everything else, but there are so many different rules concerning tanks that this might be necessary to get them working right.

i don't really understand what you mean, can you try to clarify? But even if we'd do something as simple as "you take a reroll on 1 less value than you would have rolled otherwise" so a 3+ becomes a 4+ on a reroll, a 4+ becomes a 5+ on the reroll etc, so the units stats are taken into account for the reroll, but it's still less potent than it would be normally. Re-rolls are for the most part meant to radically change the roll (twin-linked, Mastercrafted, etc), it's the other cases when a radical change is not what we want, but rather a streamlined modifier effect, when we should bring flat rerolls in.

Ok, how about this. Power 4 is obviously better than P3, but not that much better. If they were to shoot at an R3 target, the P4 weapon would come out on top by a fair amount. However, if they both had rerolls, the P4 weapon comes out on top by an UNfair amount, a sizeable margin, even though it shouldn't be benefitting any more than the P3 one. You could apply this to any situation with the stat comparisons and you'll find that it doesn't work optimally. For example, you said that a commander could bring much more with a strong weapon than a flimsy trooper because he knows how to use it. I completely agree, however what if you compared it to a slightly lower ranking commander? Surely they practically know how to use it similarly, how come the slightly better commander gets double the benefit?

and I still want them at power 5, with "weaker" guns at power 4, because it doesn't make sense relative to Melee values otherwise.

Can you find where we left off? Because now you just went back to the second step of the argument, I don't really wanna repeat myself..

I don't really understand where this would take things, or allow improvements. There's always going to be restrictions in the game, if we want to alleviate these restrictions, the best way to do this would be to use larger dice for more variable effects, rather than increasing the value ranges. But I think the current numbers match up very well, the infantry average is 4 (1/3 of the max) while the highest value possible for normal infantry is a 6 (1/2 of the max, comparable to a 5 in the current system).

Ok, now that I know where you stand I can explain it fully.

Right now the stat range is up to 12. It is broken into thirds. Our comparison chart means that the infantry values are reaching the higher tier values too much, because the thirds are only 4 long. If we make them 5 long, we are making the reach longer, by 1, so that they can't reach as much of the higher tier values, which is where they should be (it needs to be, trust me I have had many circumstances that have been troublesome because the infantry average is too close).

Absolute worse case scenario is we go back to the old way of resolving vs vehicles, which is inconsistent with everything else, but there are so many different rules concerning tanks that this might be necessary to get them working right.

Under my rule this last resort shall be BANISHED! Lol but I am never going to go there. Universal is universal, if it doesn't apply to everything, it isn't living up to its name.

Under my rule this last resort shall be BANISHED! Lol but I am never going to go there. Universal is universal, if it doesn't apply to everything, it isn't living up to its name.

I'm actually swinging towards splitting the Universal Resolution Chart into an Organic Resolution Chart and a Mechanical Resolution Chart. Here's my logic for it; I'd like for there to be 6 armor values for vehicles to take, the old system of rolling a D6, and adding the weapons strength to that lets us have 6 vehicle armor values, while having the lowest be affected by str5 weapons, like bolters. So 11-16 would be the possible armor values, which gives us the right amount of armor values, makes sure that the highest value weapon can glance the highest value armor on a 4+ just like the old system, and sets up a nice break point between organics and mechanical, because organics would have max 10 defense (things like tyrannofex's comes to mind for this value), then vehicles would take over above that. And honestly, im just not impressed with how the URC handles vehicles at the moment, i think there just aren't enough values to be used, and repeating damage values against a vehicle isn't as solid a mechanic as it is on organics.I think the differences between various strength values needs to be more distinct for vehicles than it is against organics, after all, the difference between a heavy bolter at strength 7 and an autocannon at strength 9 should be fairly prominent, its an anti-infantry weapon vs a medium anti-tank gun. Also, the URC doesn't allow for glances and penetrations to be represented correctly, as its not a "meet the AV for a glance, exceed it for a penetration", its just a number to meet to hit. Having the owning player roll for his vehicle to resist the hit would be a bit odd, as that's never been how vehicles have worked.

(it needs to be, trust me I have had many circumstances that have been troublesome because the infantry average is too close).

Can you give me some examples? I've yet to run into any difficulties or problems with this, since we have more room to play with than we used to.

Right now the stat range is up to 12. It is broken into thirds. Our comparison chart means that the infantry values are reaching the higher tier values too much, because the thirds are only 4 long. If we make them 5 long, we are making the reach longer, by 1, so that they can't reach as much of the higher tier values, which is where they should be

I don't really understand how this is a problem, i might just be misunderstanding, but i don't see this as a problem. It's not so much that they can affect the next "tier", when values are all over the place like they are right now, tier's are always going to be overlapping each other. The added variety of 5 would be a bit weird, because its an uneven number, which means that the values are going to be weirdly thought out, because right now we have.
2 == very bad
3 == below average
4 == average
5 == above average
6== very good

Having this be a set of 6 numbers means average is now in between 2 numbers, which means we dont have this nice even spacing of values.

Can you find where we left off? Because now you just went back to the second step of the argument, I don't really wanna repeat myself..

Yes i can, and i'm pretty adamant on bolters and equivalent being strength 5, with most other weapons being strength 4, for all the reasons i've previously brought up.

Ok, how about this. Power 4 is obviously better than P3, but not that much better. If they were to shoot at an R3 target, the P4 weapon would come out on top by a fair amount. However, if they both had rerolls, the P4 weapon comes out on top by an UNfair amount, a sizeable margin, even though it shouldn't be benefitting any more than the P3 one. You could apply this to any situation with the stat comparisons and you'll find that it doesn't work optimally. For example, you said that a commander could bring much more with a strong weapon than a flimsy trooper because he knows how to use it. I completely agree, however what if you compared it to a slightly lower ranking commander? Surely they practically know how to use it similarly, how come the slightly better commander gets double the benefit?

I see what you're saying, but i just don't agree with the logic of it. For instance, lets take a look at twin-linking. It's literally just strapping two weapons side by side, so it makes sense to use the models BS for this reroll, because it's not representative of a second distinct shot, you're just shooting two bullets at the same target, so its all based on the models aim. Yes the power jumps from rerolls are quite intense, but theyre typically like that for a reason, and it doesn't change the fact that they're rare enough for this to not be game-breaking. Besides, how easy is it to get a rerollable weapon? You either have to mastercraft something (upgrade for sergeants, special characters, expensive HQ's, etc) or be using a vehicle, in which case most twin-linked weaponry are expensive upgrades to cheap vehicles, or included in the cost of expensive vehicles. The only unit I can think of that is given twin-linked weapons as standard are chaos space marine terminators, and they're far from broken, and expensive to boot. I feel like trying to change to smooth out something that isn't meant to be smooth is kinda counter-productive, and complicates something that is mechanically very simple.

I'm actually swinging towards splitting the Universal Resolution Chart into an Organic Resolution Chart and a Mechanical Resolution Chart. Here's my logic for it; I'd like for there to be 6 armor values for vehicles to take, the old system of rolling a D6, and adding the weapons strength to that lets us have 6 vehicle armor values, while having the lowest be affected by str5 weapons, like bolters. So 11-16 would be the possible armor values, which gives us the right amount of armor values, makes sure that the highest value weapon can glance the highest value armor on a 4+ just like the old system, and sets up a nice break point between organics and mechanical, because organics would have max 10 defense (things like tyrannofex's comes to mind for this value), then vehicles would take over above that. And honestly, im just not impressed with how the URC handles vehicles at the moment, i think there just aren't enough values to be used, and repeating damage values against a vehicle isn't as solid a mechanic as it is on organics.I think the differences between various strength values needs to be more distinct for vehicles than it is against organics, after all, the difference between a heavy bolter at strength 7 and an autocannon at strength 9 should be fairly prominent, its an anti-infantry weapon vs a medium anti-tank gun. Also, the URC doesn't allow for glances and penetrations to be represented correctly, as its not a "meet the AV for a glance, exceed it for a penetration", its just a number to meet to hit. Having the owning player roll for his vehicle to resist the hit would be a bit odd, as that's never been how vehicles have worked.

Hi Rav1rn, to be honest I don't like the sound of the direction you're investigating, but your argument that you can't represent glances and penetrations on vehicles brings me quite smoothly onto an absolutely wonderful idea (I hope) I just came up with.

This idea addresses the awkwardness of the imagine -3 idea that I've proposed in the past. Basically, after rolling to hit, you take a separate roll to determine whether those hits are rending or not. Even if don't succeed the rending roll, it still counts as a normal shot. So really, for rending weapons to rolls would be:

To Hit (roll all shots fired, discard misses)
To Rend (roll all shots HIT, discard nothing, but the shots that succeed again count as RENDING; put them in a different pile)
To Wound i.e. To Defend (roll non-rending shots, then roll rending shots -or vice versa-)

And for vehicle penetration:

To Hit (roll all shots fired, discard misses)
To Penetrate (roll all shots HIT, discard nothing, but the shots that succeed again count as PENETRATING; put them in a different pile)
For glancing hits, can injure vulnerable crew members and maybe weapons
For penetrating hits, can immobilise or explode

For thunder hammers and the like, it could treat all members as being vulnerable anyway To represent the shockwave.

I don't really understand how this is a problem, i might just be misunderstanding, but i don't see this as a problem. It's not so much that they can affect the next "tier", when values are all over the place like they are right now, tier's are always going to be overlapping each other. The added variety of 5 would be a bit weird, because its an uneven number, which means that the values are going to be weirdly thought out, because right now we have.
2 == very bad
3 == below average
4 == average
5 == above average
6== very good

Having this be a set of 6 numbers means average is now in between 2 numbers, which means we dont have this nice even spacing of values.

So it would be like this:

1 - see below
2 - Stuff like vehicle stealth, lowered morale, any negatively modified stats, breathing space essentially
3 - Terrible (gaunt resilience)
4 - Below average
5 - Average infantry value
6 - Above average
7 - Outstanding (marine armour)
8 - Intermediate
9 - Intermediate
10 - Intermediate
11 - Average vehicle back armour
12 - Average vehicle side armour
13 - Average vehicle front armour
14 - see below
15 - Stuff like warp cannons, Avatar skill, Monolith armour

Very very rough, open to change but you get the idea.

I still just don't see the need for the 3 new values, if you could give me some examples of what specific examples you've run into i could better evaluate the need for these, but I've yet to run into any problems using the 12 value scale, and I've done rudimentary conversions for most of the troops in the game, as well as some elites and HQ's. So with the exception of vehicle armor, I think the 12 point scale offer the right amount of variety, with the exception of vehicles, and I don't think the 15 point scale would help in that regard. Not to mention having a 12 point scale maps nicely with our use of D6, so our scale is up to the maximum of 2D6, 15 would be the max of 2D6 + max of a D3, which feels weird.

This idea addresses the awkwardness of the imagine -3 idea that I've proposed in the past. Basically, after rolling to hit, you take a separate roll to determine whether those hits are rending or not. Even if don't succeed the rending roll, it still counts as a normal shot. So really, for rending weapons to rolls would be:

To Hit (roll all shots fired, discard misses)
To Rend (roll all shots HIT, discard nothing, but the shots that succeed again count as RENDING; put them in a different pile)
To Wound i.e. To Defend (roll non-rending shots, then roll rending shots -or vice versa-)

very interesting way to approach rending, I'm going to let this one rolls round in my head for a while and play with it. My initial concern is that it could cause some issues with bogging down combat, because for instance a pack of Genestealers vs a Tyrannofex would be
Hit
Rend
Save
Monster save
So thats a lot of steps to resolve combat. Not deal breaking, but something to think about.

But I'm actually getting fairly concerned about how to handle vehicles under the URC and some of the other rules, because they're not being represented accurately. The various movement speeds, the shooting rules, damage resolution, armor facings, there are so many differences between a vehicle and an organic unit that trying to fit them all under one heading isn't working properly. We're going to need to set up all these special rules and exceptions to make sure vehicles are represented correctly, it would probably be better to just create their own branch and heading under the rules to set them apart, because that's what they need.

Sofar as bringing back the vehicle damage resolution, i actually like how it works now, for all the reasons stated above. We get the right number of vehicle armor values, it ensures that a distinct difference between organics and vehicles is visible. Most importantly, it makes sure that differences in weapon strengths are more prominent. Because when it comes to infantry, strength vs armor is a bit of an abstraction, the difference between a strength 5 and a strength 6 weapon to the average is not a huge difference, they both are doing massive amounts of damage, so having them both be a 5+ makes sense. Past a certain point, the strength of fire becomes even less relevant, which is where the double and triple wounding comes into play, because the weapon so massively outstrips the models defense, it just vaporizes them. But for vehicles, these differences are critical, we can't have 2 weapons of different strength have the same chance of penetrating a vehicle, because these points are much more relevant to the vehicles armor value, it's much less abstract than it is for infantry and organics.

There's also the odd situation of using the URC to roll for penetration, and having 2 weapons of different strengths both glancing on the same value.

So thats a lot of steps to resolve combat. Not deal breaking, but something to think about.

Oh, well I would say that an extra roll would be quicker than having to work it all out

I still just don't see the need for the 3 new values, if you could give me some examples of what specific examples you've run into i could better evaluate the need for these, but I've yet to run into any problems using the 12 value scale, and I've done rudimentary conversions for most of the troops in the game, as well as some elites and HQ's. So with the exception of vehicle armor, I think the 12 point scale offer the right amount of variety, with the exception of vehicles, and I don't think the 15 point scale would help in that regard. Not to mention having a 12 point scale maps nicely with our use of D6, so our scale is up to the maximum of 2D6, 15 would be the max of 2D6 + max of a D3, which feels weird.

I can't really think of any off the top of my head but it has caused problems several times when I'm designing.

But I'm actually getting fairly concerned about how to handle vehicles under the URC and some of the other rules, because they're not being represented accurately. The various movement speeds, the shooting rules, damage resolution, armor facings, there are so many differences between a vehicle and an organic unit that trying to fit them all under one heading isn't working properly. We're going to need to set up all these special rules and exceptions to make sure vehicles are represented correctly, it would probably be better to just create their own branch and heading under the rules to set them apart, because that's what they need.

I think it is working properly, I actually think it's working beautifully. Now that everything's movement fits snug under the Mobility stat, we can THEN make some distinctions, an obvious one being that vehicles don't run. Similarly, vehicle and infantry "toughness" are both on the same scale, but there's an extra roll for vehicles, and they have different facings.

I want to keep everything close to each other, but not using that as a restriction to make distinctions.

Hmm I'm still thinking about vehicle damage, I don't think we want splitting them into two to be our next option though.

Oh, well I would say that an extra roll would be quicker than having to work it all out

But you'd still have to work it out, this is just adding an extra step before you do the rending effect. Not saying rending shouldn't be activated only some of the time on a roll, but i kinda like the idea of it being always on.

I can't really think of any off the top of my head but it has caused problems several times when I'm designing.

lol thats a problem, because i havnt found any problems yet. The closest thing to a problem that I found was the stormtroopers and sisters of battle had very similar statlines, but even that's accurate, since sisters are basically just well trained veterans in good armor with better guns and faith.

Now that everything's movement fits snug under the Mobility stat, we can THEN make some distinctions, an obvious one being that vehicles don't run. Similarly, vehicle and infantry "toughness" are both on the same scale, but there's an extra roll for vehicles, and they have different facings.

yeah i obviously want to keep mobility in the vehicles statlines, but things like cruising speed, flat-out, and the associated embarking rules and shooting rules means that they're going to be radically different and need a lot of special rules to represent this, unless we just make vehicles their own classification with different rules and sort of side step the awkwardness. Also, what is this extra roll for vehicles? All i saw was hit and save for organic, then hit and penetrate for vehicles, unless I missed something? And vehicle and infantry defenses are still on the same scale, it's just that vehicle armor is waaaaay higher on the scale than infantry armor is, which makes sense.

Hmm I'm still thinking about vehicle damage, I don't think we want splitting them into two to be our next option though.

why not? Its familiar to players, meets the requirements for accurately portraying vehicle armor and damage, and they're just not working too great under the current rules.

But you'd still have to work it out, this is just adding an extra step before you do the rending effect. Not saying rending shouldn't be activated only some of the time on a roll, but i kinda like the idea of it being always on

Oh, well no I was thinking that the rending roll was a flat 5+. It doesn't ignore the stats because when you only have a 6+ to hit, if you hit it can still be rending, but overall it's much harder to get rending (since a 6+ then a 5+ is much smaller than a 3+ then a 5+).

The closest thing to a problem that I found was the stormtroopers and sisters of battle had very similar statlines, but even that's accurate, since sisters are basically just well trained veterans in good armor with better guns and faith.

No no that's not anything to do with that, off the top of my head, some problems I ran into was with weapon Powers, vehicle armour and normal armour, but I can't explain it fully because I can't remember. But vehicle armour has to be very good since they can be hit so easily.

yeah i obviously want to keep mobility in the vehicles statlines, but things like cruising speed, flat-out, and the associated embarking rules and shooting rules means that they're going to be radically different and need a lot of special rules to represent this

Not special rules, just that vehicles will have a section showing how they move differently, and shooting restrictions after moving, stuff like that. But the vehicles' baseline is still standing on the same foundation.

why not? Its familiar to players, meets the requirements for accurately portraying vehicle armor and damage, and they're just not working too great under the current rules.

Well firstly the organic mechanic thing doesn't appeal to me, it is one of my priorities to keep the universal comparison chart because it is at the core of the rules. The problems I'm thinking of right now is not so much the damaging of vehicles, but more of the glancing, penetrating etc.

I'll let you in on what I'm having a bit of trouble with.

To Hit. Obviously the same....
There could be a roll here determining if exposed crew die or weapons get destroyed...
Then the next roll should be determining whether the shot penetrates and to what extent....
The next roll would determine if it gets immobilised or explodes...

And interwoven with all of this is determining how much HP the vehicle suffers from shots that hit and how much those shots penetrate..Plus the fact that if you hit a crew member or a weapon then technically you didn't hit the vehicle? So what would happen then? And what are we comparing in these rolls? Is it going to be a flat 6+ to see if a crew member gets hit or a flat 6+ to see if the vehicle explodes? Or is it going to compare something with something?

Oh, well no I was thinking that the rending roll was a flat 5+. It doesn't ignore the stats because when you only have a 6+ to hit, if you hit it can still be rending, but overall it's much harder to get rending (since a 6+ then a 5+ is much smaller than a 3+ then a 5+).

a 6+ followed by a 5+ means rending might as well not exist, that's happening something like 1/18th of the time, you could go entire games with rending weapons and never activate the effect.

No no that's not anything to do with that, off the top of my head, some problems I ran into was with weapon Powers, vehicle armour and normal armour, but I can't explain it fully because I can't remember. But vehicle armour has to be very good since they can be hit so easily.

yeah I noticed this problem a while ago in that power weapons could let a unit damage vehicles when it shouldn't be able to, but that's a failure of power weapon mechanics not a failure of the value system. I think we need to explore alternative power weapon mechanics more, because just a strength increase, while sort of appropraite, has consequences. Even if we do something as simple as say that the power weapon bonus is only applied to non-vehicle units, that would probably be adequite.

No no that's not anything to do with that, off the top of my head, some problems I ran into was with weapon Powers, vehicle armour and normal armour, but I can't explain it fully because I can't remember. But vehicle armour has to be very good since they can be hit so easily.

these are fairly hefty changes to the existing rules though, making them totally separate would be simpler than trying to explain how theyre different from the norm

Well firstly the organic mechanic thing doesn't appeal to me, it is one of my priorities to keep the universal comparison chart because it is at the core of the rules.

. Poor naming choice, but I wanted to separate vehicles from all other units like monsters, characters, infantry, etc. And the URC would still be the core of the non-vehicle system, just under a different name.

Your new damage system seems interesting, I'm not sure i like it, but let's see

a 6+ followed by a 5+ means rending might as well not exist, that's happening something like 1/18th of the time, you could go entire games with rending weapons and never activate the effect.

You misunderstood me, I was trying to make it clear that the situation is not like "on a 6" or a power fist, but rather in between. I was giving the 6+ example because I wanted to convey that any shots that hit, even if you hit them so luckily on a 6+, they could still even be rending if you were extremely lucky. So the first roll is just a normal to hit, and the second roll splits it into three.

yeah I noticed this problem a while ago in that power weapons could let a unit damage vehicles when it shouldn't be able to, but that's a failure of power weapon mechanics not a failure of the value system. I think we need to explore alternative power weapon mechanics more, because just a strength increase, while sort of appropraite, has consequences. Even if we do something as simple as say that the power weapon bonus is only applied to non-vehicle units, that would probably be adequite.

We could give them strong flat rerolls? To differentiate them from modifiers from things like commands, and the rest of the game lol. Power swords could have a 5+ wound reroll (defend reroll whatever haha) because that way it isnt op (there are a lot of power swords out there) but very noticeable.

And the URC would still be the core of the non-vehicle system, just under a different name.

Well it didn't feel like you were treating the URC as such an important thing, because it is at the heart of every sort of mathematical facade yet you changed it simply because you ran into problems with vehicles. And if you had problems with vehicles and responded by splitting the URC, what's to say you wouldn't have problems with morale and give them a new chart, or anything else for that matter? :(

You misunderstood me, I was trying to make it clear that the situation is not like "on a 6" or a power fist, but rather in between. I was giving the 6+ example because I wanted to convey that any shots that hit, even if you hit them so luckily on a 6+, they could still even be rending if you were extremely lucky. So the first roll is just a normal to hit, and the second roll splits it into three.

Your'e gonna have to clear this idea up for me then, im confused.

We could give them strong flat rerolls? To differentiate them from modifiers from things like commands, and the rest of the game lol. Power swords could have a 5+ wound reroll (defend reroll whatever haha) because that way it isnt op (there are a lot of power swords out there) but very noticeable.

Hmmmmmm... maybe. I don't know how well thatll mesh, because yes a power weapon is a power weapon, so the effect would be similar across all the different types and we can assume the power fields are fairly similar, and it doesnt do the strength increase problems, and doesn't overlap with mastercrafting or anything. But if we go this route, we have 2 problems facing us:

1) This new definition sorta conflicts with posion / rending rules by causing a reroll on the defense save, probably less of an issue than i think it is, but im bringing it up anyways.

2) How effective do we want power weapons to be? Because if we want something like the old efficacy levels, i think it should be a full-reroll rather than a flat-value, because this lets them be slightly more effective against monsters and equivalent (rerollable 6+ to wound), while still being brutal to armored units, because hordes are much more concerned about volume rather than strength. Otherwise we can have power weapons be a flat-reroll with less effect, and lower prices, but im not sure i like the reduced effect for them, it just doesn't feel like a power weapon. For both directions, one concern is that they would either outstrip power fists if we dont give power fists the power weapon rule (which doesnt make a lot of sense) or power fists would have the 2X bonus as well as the power weapon reroll, which is ... extreme to say the least.

If there's concern about the realistic reason why power weapons would scale like they would under the full reroll, something like the power field amplifies the damage dealt would make sense, because if i accidentally drop a power sword on something, that disintegration field will have much less energy to work with, causing less of an effect than if i have a terminator swing it as hard as he can

Well it didn't feel like you were treating the URC as such an important thing, because it is at the heart of every sort of mathematical facade yet you changed it simply because you ran into problems with vehicles. And if you had problems with vehicles and responded by splitting the URC, what's to say you wouldn't have problems with morale and give them a new chart, or anything else for that matter? :(

Yeah i have no plans to seriously alter the URC or whatever it would be called if we changed its name, because its the core for non-vehicle resolution, which is at least 75% of the models in the game, and deciding to change the foundation for 75% of a project halfway through typically isnt a good idea. Im thinking about an alternate table for vehicles because theyre not working well on the URC, not because of change for changes sake. And as for changing morale as well, im really a bigger fan of the older system of morale, the bell-graph 2D6 generates makes results much more reliable, but i dont think therell be too much trouble with using the current URC values for morale, so well see and if worse comes to worse in testing, we come back and change it later.

Well the concept behind the flat rerolls is that you get to keep your existing roll, meaning it doesn't ignore it like "on a roll of 6" does. The flat reroll gives everyone the same changes. It's the equivalent of giving a model a flat modifier such as +2 (which is used extensively in commands), instead of a proportional modifier such as x2.

I want to enforce that now we have the rise of the rerolls (hehe), we should abolish the "can only ever have one reroll" rule. Rerolls are much quicker than other methods, so the argument that it makes things slow is null. And to be honest 5 rolls doesn't have too big of an impact on the game, frankly that's what the game is about ^^

The poison and rending concerns, I wouldn't mind if we changed poison up a bit, but I don't mind having them be flat rerolls too, because our aim is to get a half-half split on modifiers and rerolls to make it less monotonous

If there's concern about the realistic reason why power weapons would scale like they would under the full reroll, something like the power field amplifies the damage dealt would make sense, because if i accidentally drop a power sword on something, that disintegration field will have much less energy to work with, causing less of an effect than if i have a terminator swing it as hard as he can

True, you have a very good point and I agree with it but that's a bit of a double-edged sword because people could say that the power field just has an "atomic chaos" effect so it doesn't matter what the user's strength is. Another argument could be that situation where a P3 model with a power fist only gets P6, whereas a P5 model gets P10? Surely that's a bit unfair, especially since the variety of stats means that P3 is really not as worse compared to P5 as it used to be.

Yeah i have no plans to seriously alter the URC or whatever it would be called if we changed its name, because its the core for non-vehicle resolution, which is at least 75% of the models in the game, and deciding to change the foundation for 75% of a project halfway through typically isnt a good idea. Im thinking about an alternate table for vehicles because theyre not working well on the URC, not because of change for changes sake. And as for changing morale as well, im really a bigger fan of the older system of morale, the bell-graph 2D6 generates makes results much more reliable, but i dont think therell be too much trouble with using the current URC values for morale, so well see and if worse comes to worse in testing, we come back and change it later.

Well let's see how we manage, I am hopeful that we can find a solution because I don't want the universal comparison chart, the centre of the galaxy for this new ruleset, to be overshadowed by a jabbing failure to manage vehicles into it too :(

Well the concept behind the flat rerolls is that you get to keep your existing roll, meaning it doesn't ignore it like "on a roll of 6" does. The flat reroll gives everyone the same changes. It's the equivalent of giving a model a flat modifier such as +2 (which is used extensively in commands), instead of a proportional modifier such as x2.

i understand what the flat rerolls are trying to accomplish, but they're not emulating the old function of power weapons very well, because current power weapons cut out a step in damage resolution, which is what made them incredibly potent against non-horde units. Giving a 5+ reroll isn't really powerful enough to be equivalent to that effect, so we'd either need it to be a very good flat reroll (3+ or so) which would be OP as hell against monsters, or have it scale with the models strength.

I want to enforce that now we have the rise of the rerolls (hehe), we should abolish the "can only ever have one reroll" rule. Rerolls are much quicker than other methods, so the argument that it makes things slow is null. And to be honest 5 rolls doesn't have too big of an impact on the game, frankly that's what the game is about ^^

id say still stick to the only take one reroll, but instead add in a mention that a reroll can be used to counteract a different reroll, so say I have 2 positive to wound rerolls somehow, and the enemy has a rule that requires a negative reroll, you can counter that negative reroll with one positive reroll , and still get a positive reroll, or if its 1 and 1, they just cancel out.

The poison and rending concerns, I wouldn't mind if we changed poison up a bit, but I don't mind having them be flat rerolls too, because our aim is to get a half-half split on modifiers and rerolls to make it less monotonous

the two directions i see poison going without becoming annoying as hell (So a Damage per turn idea, so a model "poisoned" loses a wound each turn) is to cause double wounds, or forcing rerolls on saves, and doubling wounds would overlap with buckshot. Maybe make it so that it causes double wounds on one less tier than normal, so instead of having the targets defense +3 strength, it only needs to match the targets defense to get the double wounds. I think i prefer rerolls over this idea though, so maybe mix the two or something like that.

True, you have a very good point and I agree with it but that's a bit of a double-edged sword because people could say that the power field just has an "atomic chaos" effect so it doesn't matter what the user's strength is. Another argument could be that situation where a P3 model with a power fist only gets P6, whereas a P5 model gets P10? Surely that's a bit unfair, especially since the variety of stats means that P3 is really not as worse compared to P5 as it used to be.

This effect is what the old power weapon mechanics allowed for, our new ones can't explain it as readily, so this is just an attempt to work around that. And so far as power fist effects go, it actually makes a lot of sense, because the stronger models can withstand a greater force exerted on them than a weaker model. I can generate and maintain a much greater force off of a space marines frame than I could have with a guardsman, the difference in physical strength, size, weight, etc allows for it. An easy analogy would be modern day weaponry, I can mount a massive cannon on a main battle tank, because the tanks bulk and strength lets it withstand the recoil and forces applied on it by the weapon, whereas a human trying to manage that gun would be utterly obliterated.

Well let's see how we manage, I am hopeful that we can find a solution because I don't want the universal comparison chart, the centre of the galaxy for this new ruleset, to be overshadowed by a jabbing failure to manage vehicles into it too

well our options are stick with the URC, which we seem to agree doesn't represent vehicles correctly, or explore other options, of which the old system actually works marvelously. I don't know how to get the URC working without so many exceptions and special cases that we might as well break it apart anyways.

i understand what the flat rerolls are trying to accomplish, but they're not emulating the old function of power weapons very well, because current power weapons cut out a step in damage resolution, which is what made them incredibly potent against non-horde units. Giving a 5+ reroll isn't really powerful enough to be equivalent to that effect, so we'd either need it to be a very good flat reroll (3+ or so) which would be OP as hell against monsters, or have it scale with the models strength.

Alright, 4+, but if it becomes OP then we can make balance changes.

id say still stick to the only take one reroll, but instead add in a mention that a reroll can be used to counteract a different reroll, so say I have 2 positive to wound rerolls somehow, and the enemy has a rule that requires a negative reroll, you can counter that negative reroll with one positive reroll , and still get a positive reroll, or if its 1 and 1, they just cancel out.

If I understand you correctly you want to add up flat rerolls so a 5+ and another 5+ would be like a 3+ or something. But that doesn't mathematically work very well.

so instead of having the targets defense +3 strength, it only needs to match the targets defense to get the double wounds.

This is interesting, lowering the scale/crossbar as it were down. I like it, but not completely yet.

This effect is what the old power weapon mechanics allowed for, our new ones can't explain it as readily, so this is just an attempt to work around that. And so far as power fist effects go, it actually makes a lot of sense, because the stronger models can withstand a greater force exerted on them than a weaker model. I can generate and maintain a much greater force off of a space marines frame than I could have with a guardsman, the difference in physical strength, size, weight, etc allows for it. An easy analogy would be modern day weaponry, I can mount a massive cannon on a main battle tank, because the tanks bulk and strength lets it withstand the recoil and forces applied on it by the weapon, whereas a human trying to manage that gun would be utterly obliterated.

This just goes back to the previous argument where I said: "Ok, how about this. Power 4 is obviously better than P3, but not that much better. If they were to shoot at an R3 target, the P4 weapon would come out on top by a fair amount. However, if they both had rerolls, the P4 weapon comes out on top by an UNfair amount, a sizeable margin, even though it shouldn't be benefitting any more than the P3 one. You could apply this to any situation with the stat comparisons and you'll find that it doesn't work optimally. For example, you said that a commander could bring much more with a strong weapon than a flimsy trooper because he knows how to use it. I completely agree, however what if you compared it to a slightly lower ranking commander? Surely they practically know how to use it similarly, how come the slightly better commander gets double the benefit?"

I don't know how to get the URC working without so many exceptions and special cases that we might as well break it apart anyways.

I just want the vehicle to take part in the UCC as that is intuitive. But it's not so much special rules (because that has negative connotations I suppose) but there's gonna be a section on vehicles so...I wouldn't say exceptions either, all I want for vehicles is that fundamentally they aren't miles away from the majority (infantry) in terms of core mechanics, but obviously they're going to have their own way of doing things.

This is interesting, lowering the scale/crossbar as it were down. I like it, but not completely yet.

Yeah literally the first alternative idea that came to mind here, not really sure what to do with this idea, or if its even the best option available for poison.

I just want the vehicle to take part in the UCC as that is intuitive. But it's not so much special rules (because that has negative connotations I suppose) but there's gonna be a section on vehicles so...I wouldn't say exceptions either, all I want for vehicles is that fundamentally they aren't miles away from the majority (infantry) in terms of core mechanics, but obviously they're going to have their own way of doing things.

This whole idea is contradictory though, you cant have them operate under their own rules and mechanics, while keeping them close to infantry mechanics. Theyre different so many ways, they might as well just be completely seperate. Something like half of the infantry stats don't apply, armor facings, the different movement speeds and the associated embarking and shooting systems, there really isn't a way in which they aren't different.

Alright, 4+, but if it becomes OP then we can make balance changes.

But it will be OP, because i can charge a terrible melee unit like a guardsman platoon into a monstrous creature, and let the 2 or 3 power weapons in the unit need a 6+ to wound the target, and if they fail they then get a 4+ reroll, which is brutal for such a cheap and terrible unit, especially since the other models in the squad will just tank the wounds. It needs to scale, otherwise it starts getting into the realm where a power weapon performs just as well as the powerfist for hunting monstrous creatures.

If I understand you correctly you want to add up flat rerolls so a 5+ and another 5+ would be like a 3+ or something. But that doesn't mathematically work very well.

Well ideally we wouldn't have flat rerolls be terribly common for this system to work, but its just an idea.

This just goes back to the previous argument where I said: "Ok, how about this. Power 4 is obviously better than P3, but not that much better. If they were to shoot at an R3 target, the P4 weapon would come out on top by a fair amount. However, if they both had rerolls, the P4 weapon comes out on top by an UNfair amount, a sizeable margin, even though it shouldn't be benefitting any more than the P3 one. You could apply this to any situation with the stat comparisons and you'll find that it doesn't work optimally. For example, you said that a commander could bring much more with a strong weapon than a flimsy trooper because he knows how to use it. I completely agree, however what if you compared it to a slightly lower ranking commander? Surely they practically know how to use it similarly, how come the slightly better commander gets double the benefit?"

Ok i think its time we hit this issue straight on the head. What exactly are your concerns with using doubling effects for powerfists and full rerolls. An itemized list would be appreciated so we can hit them one by one.

This whole idea is contradictory though, you cant have them operate under their own rules and mechanics, while keeping them close to infantry mechanics. Theyre different so many ways, they might as well just be completely seperate. Something like half of the infantry stats don't apply, armor facings, the different movement speeds and the associated embarking and shooting systems, there really isn't a way in which they aren't different.

Yeah but at the fundamental level, the stats are still the same. Different movement speeds is a substitute for things like running, but they still use Mobility. Armour facings are a substitute for Resilience, but it functions the same way in that that is their defending stat, it's on the same scale, all it is is just adding a distinction to it, but it still functions similarly. In shooting, sure they may have restrictions depending on how far they've moved (the same way that Heavy weapons carry restrictions), but in essence it's the same procedure of To Hit, To Wound etc...

But it will be OP, because i can charge a terrible melee unit like a guardsman platoon into a monstrous creature, and let the 2 or 3 power weapons in the unit need a 6+ to wound the target, and if they fail they then get a 4+ reroll, which is brutal for such a cheap and terrible unit, especially since the other models in the squad will just tank the wounds. It needs to scale, otherwise it starts getting into the realm where a power weapon performs just as well as the powerfist for hunting monstrous creatures.

The thing is that this argument entails the 5+ reroll or anything for that matter, so the way we counter that is giving monstrous creatures defense saves too.

Ok i think its time we hit this issue straight on the head. What exactly are your concerns with using doubling effects for powerfists and full rerolls. An itemized list would be appreciated so we can hit them one by one.

We have created a wider range of stats due to our comparison chart. If we duplicate the stats (this includes full rerolls and power fists) we are stretching the stat line-up so that the spaces in between them are doubled, meaning that the variety we have created is actually being unbalanced by the doubling.

Yeah but at the fundamental level, the stats are still the same. Different movement speeds is a substitute for things like running, but they still use Mobility. Armour facings are a substitute for Resilience, but it functions the same way in that that is their defending stat, it's on the same scale, all it is is just adding a distinction to it, but it still functions similarly. In shooting, sure they may have restrictions depending on how far they've moved (the same way that Heavy weapons carry restrictions), but in essence it's the same procedure of To Hit, To Wound etc...

but they're really not, they don't have WS or dexterity, they have different damage effects because of the vehicle damage charts, much higher armor values than standard, etc etc. Are they similar at their core? Probably, but when you're ignoring one of the two kinds of combat, treating armor values differently because of facings, having special conditions for moving, shooting, and interaction with infantry, they're not very similar.

The thing is that this argument entails the 5+ reroll or anything for that matter, so the way we counter that is giving monstrous creatures defense saves too.

what? Monsters have a second save already for dealing with weaker infantry weapons, i dont think we need to give them another. Also, if you have a problem with a weapon being too powerful against a particular group of units, you don't try to change the unit, you change the weapon.

We have created a wider range of stats due to our comparison chart. If we duplicate the stats (this includes full rerolls and power fists) we are stretching the stat line-up so that the spaces in between them are doubled, meaning that the variety we have created is actually being unbalanced by the doubling.

But they're really not unbalanced. Yes doubling opens up more space than it used to, but the overall effect is no different than it used to be. If they weren't unbalanced in the old system, they shouldn't be in this system. This doesn't even address the fact that getting powerfists is expensive and rare, they typically cost more than 20 points, and only a couple of models in an army can even take them. And again, for full rerolls, it's no different than the old system, where they weren't unbalanced, and again, are fairly rare.

So for powerfists, since almost every units is going to be in the 3-5 range for strength, they're going to have doubled values of 6 8 and 10, all of which perform almost exactly as they did in the old system. Strength 3 units who double to 6 will be able to affect up to the highest non-vehicle defense, and be much more effective against anything less than that. Strength 5 units who double to 10 will be very capable of wounding the high defense monsters, just like they used to, and be able to affect up to the highest armor value for vehicles using the old vehicle damage system. Meanwhile, we just created a new slot at 4 which doubles to 8, which is a strong middle ground.

but they're really not, they don't have WS or dexterity, they have different damage effects because of the vehicle damage charts, much higher armor values than standard, etc etc. Are they similar at their core? Probably, but when you're ignoring one of the two kinds of combat, treating armor values differently because of facings, having special conditions for moving, shooting, and interaction with infantry, they're not very similar.

Well, so what? They are half similar yet half different. But we can find a way to make vehicles work with the UNIVERSAL comparison chart, right?

what? Monsters have a second save already for dealing with weaker infantry weapons, i dont think we need to give them another. Also, if you have a problem with a weapon being too powerful against a particular group of units, you don't try to change the unit, you change the weapon.

What? Why didn't you inform me about this new save monstrous creatures get? And no, not necessarily. I think power weapons can have a 4+ reroll but monstrous creatures have a special rule which worsens these flat rerolls by 1 or 2. So a 4+ reroll would turn into a 5+ or a 6+ because massive monsters can take wounds and not feel a thing

Yes doubling opens up more space than it used to. If they weren't unbalanced in the old system, they shouldn't be in this system.

But they are. Because the stats are more varied. The doubling has a much bigger impact since there's more variety for it to spread out. Even in the old system, having any old space marine with a power fist hit with S8 whereas a scorpion exarch hits with S6. That's a large gap isn't it. Twice as much as it should be. And now that the stats are even MORE varied, space marines would be hitting on P10, which is FOUR MORE THAN a P3 model.

This doesn't even address the fact that getting powerfists is expensive and rare

The fact that power fists are expensive IS a reason to justify their strength, however it IS NOT a reason to justify that they're unbalanced. OP =/= unbalanced. Unless a model with a lower strength is going to get a power fist cheaper (which doesn't make any sense), they are injusticed, because models that are only 1 or 2 points above them are getting way more benefit out of it.

Well, so what? They are half similar yet half different. But we can find a way to make vehicles work with the UNIVERSAL comparison chart, right?

half different is incredibly different. And could we find a way to get it work with just the URC? Maybe, i certainly don't have any ideas how to accomplish this, and the old system solves the problems and is right there to be used.

What? Why didn't you inform me about this new save monstrous creatures get? And no, not necessarily. I think power weapons can have a 4+ reroll but monstrous creatures have a special rule which worsens these flat rerolls by 1 or 2. So a 4+ reroll would turn into a 5+ or a 6+ because massive monsters can take wounds and not feel a thing

We brought this up a while ago, where I talked about lowering the wound counts of monsters and supplementing this with whats essentially a second defense value, that was much lower than its actual defense value, so it can have saves against infantry weapons. So for instance, a hive tyrant might have defense 8, with the monster defense value of 5, so it would get whatever save it would normally get against the weapon, then if the weapons strength was low enough, it would get the second monster save. So this hive tyrant hit by a Bolter would have a 2+ save, and if it failed that, it would get a 4+ save.

Giving them a trait to let them lower the power weapon effect seems like a roundabout way to handle it.

But they are. Because the stats are more varied. The doubling has a much bigger impact since there's more variety for it to spread out. Even in the old system, having any old space marine with a power fist hit with S8 whereas a scorpion exarch hits with S6. That's a large gap isn't it. Twice as much as it should be. And now that the stats are even MORE varied, space marines would be hitting on P10, which is FOUR MORE THAN a P3 model.

your example of a space marine vs the scorpion exarch is flawed in that eldar are weaker than space marines, its just a difference in physical traits. And if you want to use a flat value increase like +4, that's not any better, because its disproportionate to the model, a +4 to a strength 3 model is more than doubling. Beyond that, it's not that big of a difference between the two methods, one puts strength 5 at 9 instead of 10, strength 4 at 8 equally, and strength 3 at 7 instead of 6. This doesn't make sense, because how are you improving a weaker frame to a greater degree ( multiple of 2.33) than a stronger frame (multiple of 1.8)? I cannot deliver as much force off of a guardsman as I can a space marine, proportionally or otherwise. Powerfists do not function identically to an upscaled power weapon, i dont think treating them as such does them justice.

The fact that power fists are expensive IS a reason to justify their strength, however it IS NOT a reason to justify that they're unbalanced. OP =/= unbalanced. Unless a model with a lower strength is going to get a power fist cheaper (which doesn't make any sense), they are injusticed, because models that are only 1 or 2 points above them are getting way more benefit out of it.

but they're not OP or out of balance, because they still do what they've always done, let models damage units they normally wouldn't be able to, or improve their existing ability to tackle infantry. And, just like they always have, they have a greater impact on higher strengths than lower strengths. And how many powerfists style effects are there in the game? Actual power fists and thunderhammers for space marines and guardsman, power claws for orks, and the scorpion claw for eldar scorpion exarchs, and to that last example, if you're using a striking scorpion to try to take down a monster or vehicle, your'e using that model wrong, otherwise against more mundane units it works wonderfully.

half different is incredibly different. And could we find a way to get it work with just the URC? Maybe, i certainly don't have any ideas how to accomplish this, and the old system solves the problems and is right there to be used.

Well firstly I just don't want the modifying of the universal comparison chart to be our go-to if we don't have any answers. If you let the idea stick a while, I will be able to give you a proposal that lets vehicles work under the chart.

We brought this up a while ago, where I talked about lowering the wound counts of monsters and supplementing this with whats essentially a second defense value, that was much lower than its actual defense value, so it can have saves against infantry weapons. So for instance, a hive tyrant might have defense 8, with the monster defense value of 5, so it would get whatever save it would normally get against the weapon, then if the weapons strength was low enough, it would get the second monster save. So this hive tyrant hit by a Bolter would have a 2+ save, and if it failed that, it would get a 4+ save.

Giving them a trait to let them lower the power weapon effect seems like a roundabout way to handle it.

Do you plan on giving vehicles this same kind of thing? Because then it conveys that even a bolter round can hit a weak spot of a vehicle with a 6+ and a 6+.

your example of a space marine vs the scorpion exarch is flawed in that eldar are weaker than space marines, its just a difference in physical traits. And if you want to use a flat value increase like +4, that's not any better, because its disproportionate to the model, a +4 to a strength 3 model is more than doubling. Beyond that, it's not that big of a difference between the two methods, one puts strength 5 at 9 instead of 10, strength 4 at 8 equally, and strength 3 at 7 instead of 6. This doesn't make sense, because how are you improving a weaker frame to a greater degree ( multiple of 2.33) than a stronger frame (multiple of 1.8)? I cannot deliver as much force off of a guardsman as I can a space marine, proportionally or otherwise. Powerfists do not function identically to an upscaled power weapon, i dont think treating them as such does them justice.

So you actually think that now, in this system, a scorpion exarch would get P6 whilst a typical marine would get P10? You know that's a jump from heavy bolter to melta.

Do you plan on giving vehicles this same kind of thing? Because then it conveys that even a bolter round can hit a weak spot of a vehicle with a 6+ and a 6+.

I didn't have any plan for that, because vehicles should have far fewer weak points than a monster, the view ports are tiny, plus all the future materials of 40K are stronger than any organic material could match, or supposedly so anyways, the fluff can never really decide on how strong these things should be. From a gameplay perspective, having Bolters be able to do wounds to vehicles is kinda problematic, i dont think its a particularly good match.

So you actually think that now, in this system, a scorpion exarch would get P6 whilst a typical marine would get P10? You know that's a jump from heavy bolter to melta.

i just don't think its anywhere near as big a problem as it seems at first glance, because if it were widespread and prolific it might be a bigger issue, but its rarity means having it be "unbalanced" doesn't really come into play. Strength 10 is roughly equivalent to strength 8 in the old system, so its a fairly accurate port for space marines, the only other powerfists examples i know of are ork power claws, which bring them up to str 8 and power weapon rules, which lets them tackle heavy vehicles as well as pulp infantry with the power weapon rules (whatever that comes out to be), and that scorpion exarch weapon, and as per the eldar design philosophy of being master of your field, if you're using a striking scorpion to attack a vehicle or a monster, you're not using the unit right, and it provides a very nice bonus to regular infantry killing power. And even if you try to attack a vehicle with that striking scorpion, most rear armor would be 11 using the old vehicle damage system, and strength 6 would mean youre glancing on a 5, penetrating on a 6.

As to it being a jump from a heavy Bolter to a Meltagun, you're right but isn't that basically what it was in the old system? Strength 3 were raised to strength 6, just above heavy Bolters, and strength 4 was raised to strength 8, which was the Meltagun strength. I really don't see what the problem on that front is.

Well firstly I just don't want the modifying of the universal comparison chart to be our go-to if we don't have any answers. If you let the idea stick a while, I will be able to give you a proposal that lets vehicles work under the chart.

please, I'd love some more creative solutions, but right now i see a solution that is straightforward and effective, with the downside being we alter the name of the URC.

But it isn't as rare as you say it is. Terminators? Almost every SM army likes that. Terminator armour? Gives them +1 Power. Suddenly, you've got a theoretical P12 unit.

But it isn't as rare as you say it is. Terminators? Almost every SM army likes that. Terminator armour? Gives them +1 Power. Suddenly, you've got a theoretical P12 unit.

Except that terminators, the regular ones anyways, really arnt that good. At 40 points per model, before the almost necessary land raider or Stormraven delivery system, with just high strength on their side, they're not super powerful. They're the tactical marine of higher points cost elites, good at durability, not so great at raw damage output. Last strike and only 2 attacks keeps them from being ridiculous beat sticks, even at strength 6 with powerfists and high WS. At something like 400 points for a unit of 5 terminators plus delivery system, that not amazing. Plus easy counters to terminators outside vehicles is just unload all the anti tank weapons on them, and boom dead terminators.

Now for assault terminators this is a different story, because TH/SS assault terminators would be ridiculous, but that's because of the insanity that is the current stormshield, not so much the thunderhammer. A 3+ invulnerable save on a terminator for free like that is ridiculous. I liked the idea of the older stormshield so where they gave you a 4+ invulnerable in Melee, so maybe make it a 3+ invulnerable in Melee for the modern stormshield, to make sure you don't have that invincible terminator marching across the field, shrugging off las cannons like theyre not a threat, because under the current rules theyre really not to a TH/SS assault terminator.