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.

Stumbled across something in another thread conversation. Thought to launch it here before moving it to 'Proposed rules' board. I'm quoting myself here just to be clear. Just jump in guys! the bloo, er, I mean waters fine!

"[I realy] liked the 'Evasion(EV)' stat add in. It's kind of from 'Flames of War' I think. A former military guy I gamed with once explained why 'realistically' it was so important to have a stat represent a soldiers ability to not present himself as a target in the first place. When you consider that with machine guns and their fairly good accuracy these days, they make any soldier able to hit you with a short spray anyway. Point and shoot. It's really not a test of their accuracy anymore, but how good you are at staying low and not giving away your position.

I [think] a BS versus EV chart roll would do something neat for the game. You already oppose weapon skill rolls, right? But [this] change is likely too drastic to implement in the games well established state. Maybe Ballistic Skill could be all encompassing here, representing a models accuracy and understanding and awareness of how to avoid fire? Roll opposed BS?"

IT'S GOING TO GET CRAZY UP IN HERE! KEEP THE DRINKS AND TEMPERS ON ICE Y'ALL

This was in the "pancake edition" of 6th edition that got leaked a while ago. It was a set of rules that were put out as the first draft for 6th, and basically contained everyone's crazy ideas that got boiled down and rolled back into what we have now. That's how the story goes, anyway.

I actually liked the idea, but it's not in the current edition of the game. If they keep borrowing from Flames of War I could see it in a future edition of the game.

Is it cool and realistic? Possibly.
Does it fit in with the existing ruleset? Presumably not, or they would have gone with it.
BS3 needing 2s to hit a stationary vehicle...no. It would have given eldar infantry a boost which is kind of cool, but I think overall it just wouldn't have worked.

Never said they should have gone with it. Let's not really get into that right now. It should be said that all this came about while talking theoretically/hypothetically about making a 'fan made rule book'. Scary. I know. To be clear, No, I will not make one! Just wondering about it.

Let's just focus on the 'rule' and how you would make it work, maybe, possibly, in the magical land of Oz, or whatever. And I'm a big fan of simple. So, any way you could impose a straight line penalty/boost to hit tanks, skimmers, and planes? Maybe they do just run a normal test in BS versus vehicles, or something else equally as one sentence-ish? Just throw down on this people!

Lets do this yo!

Yeah it propably could be done but not with BS vs BS. There should be an actual evasion stat in that case. If it was BS vs BS then it would be a more easy to hit a stationary rhino than it would be to hit a running guardsman.

In my opinnion cover saves have always been kind of a meh thang in 40k but that is propably because before 40k I played WHFB a lot. I liked how shooting worked in it. There were modifiers for your to hit rolls. A target in long range was harder to hit, a lone man was harder to hit than a whole unit, a target in cover was harder to hit (and in fact there was two kinds of cover back then) a large target was easier to hit and so on. Not sure how they work in the current edition.

But if the evasion stat was to be done I think that modifier system from FB could be the base for it. It would need a lot of thinking though. For example those stationary vehicles should propably not have any modifiers for shooting but a vehicle moving flat-out on the other hand ain't as easy to hit. A squad of guardsmen out in the open might be an easy target but put them behind a barricade and hitting them is harder. Yeah sure the cover save might represent that but if that guy with a lascannon knows you are there he might just be able to shoot you through the wall with his little friend.

So as I see it an evasion stat could be implemented but would make things unnecessarily complicated. It would make shooting phases very frustrating for many players. But that is just my opinnion

Thought about it all day today while doing my mostly mindless landscape job. No need to think while running powered hedge shears right?!... What's that lying in the grass? And aren't I supposed to have FOUR fingers?

One idea (to keep it dirt simple as an Ork could understand, if it was a smart Ork) in one permutation was: Roll ballistic skill normally as per traditional rules. If your target has a higher Ballistic skill then you by any margin, you are at a 'disadvantage' in comparison to their better training and all their blinkin' whatevers, and you reduce your BS by one! Which is dumb and frustrating. There was a myriad of versions of this. All playing with numbers and and whether it should be a penalty or a boost, and whether it should be to shooter or target... or both... Insert stream of consciousness here.

Ended up shearing a shrub in to a topiary dreadnought my mind was on this so much. Looked pretty cool I have to say. Then the boss got mad.

One major decision was when firing at vehicles, these rules do not apply. Kind of PERIOD y'know. Everyone was absolutely right. It would make no sense. Totally did not consider vehicles before. Great call team.
You won all the

I like the whole condition thing there gaovinni.

It'd be okay if you had it replace rolling to hit, but giving each model a chance to dodge a shot that already hit would just unnecessarily complicate the game, IMO.

For sure DOOMBREAD. An extra dice roll phase would be dumb. This alternate method would be a replacement system to how you roll to hit in the first place.

What about BS vs I, using the WS chart? Would need some tweaking on certain guns' rate of fire, but could work.

Are you really willing to re-cost every unit in the game?

To DarknessEternals' concern, Nooooo!? Do not want to change the game such that it's point value system would need overhauled. I don't even want to think of that. Nor do I want to go re-figure weapon rules/profiles either. Where do you even begin on those two?

To Squallishs' idea, well, I'll be a son of a grot. Now there's a nifty and original thought. (Hey I rhymed! ) But initiative was designed for melee combat. And I would wager with some units it might just not workout. I don't know the game well enough off hand to think where, or how, or give specific examples though. But an awesome idea. Sensible in what the initiative stat stands for and what we're trying to achieve. Maybe if you were building a game from the ground up entirely you could work that in to the core, but we're a little late for that. If you come up with a tweak like you we're saying definitely bring it here. Even if you we're changing profiles or points. We should see the whole thing to better understand it.

KnuckleWolf wrote: To DarknessEternals' concern, Nooooo!? Do not want to change the game such that it's point value system would need overhauled. I don't even want to think of that. Nor do I want to go re-figure weapon rules/profiles either. Where do you even begin on those two?

Then this whole idea is for naught, since that's what would be retired.

Acknowledged DarknessEternal, it's quite possible. We do agree that this was a 'snowballs chance in hell' kind of thing. This is all very exploratory, and more importantly driven off discussions of non-reals, and what-ifs. If we could come up with a way that did not necessitate the drastic editing we've discussed it would be worth investigating at that point, even as only just houserules. We're not going to give up a chance to intelectually explore an aspect of the game design so quickly though, will we?

Thought of another version that really came from a lot of sources like gaovinni's conditional modifiers and the current games cover system. This is getting completely away from the firers BS and looking at the skill of the target's BS, then impressing that into a cover save modifier. And it's also at the extreme limit of complexity that I would be okay with. Rough as heck draft is:

If your ballistic skill is higher then your opponents, you may increase the cover save of cover you ARE ALREADY CLAIMING, by one step, to a maximum of 4+.

Meaning to get a 3+ or better cover save, you still need fortifications, which once inside you cant use your skill to make much better. Really this makes going to ground a little better, and shows a soldiers superior ability to duck WHEN he has the chance provided by terrain features.

Thoughts, criticisms, pleads for insanity? Anyone?