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.

What if they separated the armor save you got from some armor and what it could take? This could represent how well the armor covers you and how much the armor could actually handle. I have a working name of 'armor quality' and it would work like it does now with armor saves vs. ap.

For example, you could have full body covering of flak armor which would give you a 2+ save but still be ignored by AP 5 or better weaponry because of its armor quality of 5. While a cuirass of something along the lines of power armor would give something like a 5+ save but only be ignored by things with an AP of 3 or better because of its armor quality of 3.

The problems I see with this is making them game more complicated (maybe more complicated then it needs to be) and balancing issues.

I think it sounds like a great idea on a smaller scale (skirmishing for example) but as you say may get too complex on a larger scale. Still a good idea, opens up a lot of new options which is neat.

An easier method would be to use the 'sealed' and 'open' nomenclature.
As this could apply to vehicles too.

Combined with the armour save roll + armour value vs weapon damage .
You could arrive at a lot of variation with ONE universal system.
Instead of the current multiple systems and special rules ....

Sealed vs. unsealed seems like a good idea that is more practical for 40k.

I think it is a good idea IN THEORY, however, unless you do a mass reboot to 40k's ruleset (like they did with 3rd edition) it would be next to impossible to actually balance it within the current structure of 40k. Just looking at codex space marines, your proposed rules would give your standard power armored marine a 2+ armor save (full body armor) with a 3+ armor quality. While things like battle cannons and plasma guns will kill them as well as anything else, small arms fire, the most common way of dealing with standard marines, becomes significantly less effective against them. Alternatively, Terminators would have a 2+ armor save and an armor quality of 2, changing from being significantly more survivable than marines to marginally so. Yet a single terminator is still more than twice the cost of a standard space marine, and still close to that once you factor in the upgrades (+1 A, a storm bolter and power fist).

So while I like the idea, I feel it would be better suited for if you try to build a new game, or rebuild a game from the ground up, than to try to work it into 40k's existing structure. Just working on your basic framework, you would completely break standard marines while significantly devaluing TEQ.

It's an extra layer of complexity that the game honestly doesn't need; you'd slow down play quite a bit, and it would make very little sense in terms of game balance. You could try implementing this in a skirmish ruleset of some kind, but for mainstream 40k it wouldn't work very well.

I agree that the current 40k rules are already over complicated, for the straightforward game play.
So higher definition of weapon and armour interaction in a re write would be best.

Most 10 to 15mm wargames I play have far more depth of game play than 40k, but the rules are far more straight forward.
(Each resolution has only one method , not multiple methods like 40k uses.)

(Most people play 40k because of the cool minis and background , not for the lackluster rules... )

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's an extra layer of complexity that the game honestly doesn't need; you'd slow down play quite a bit, and it would make very little sense in terms of game balance. You could try implementing this in a skirmish ruleset of some kind, but for mainstream 40k it wouldn't work very well.

This exactly

Honestly I'd just love it if the Dakka community got together and wrote 7th edition. I'd help with that.

I've seen some really nice and balanced fandexes on here, but that would be nothing compared to writing a new rulesbook and adjusting all the codices to that.

'40k in 40 pages' , would any one be interested?

Using modern game mechanics and resolution methods, it would be achiveable.

But some seem unable to move on from the WHFB game mechanics of 1978...(WRG Napoleonics.)

Now here is a question, what would the ideal 40k ruleset look like? I'm guessing it would be a combination of the best elements of 5th and 6th, and written with significantly tighter wording (ie, closer to how Privateer Press or M:tG writes their wording).

@Lanrak I'd be up for helping write it.

Though it'd probably make people angry, one of the biggest things I'd like to see is a swap to a D10 system. The characteristics are out of 10, why don't we use a D10?

There are tons and tons of things I'd like to see with a rewrite, but obviously one random guy's thoughts wouldn't make for a very good rulebook. Making it 40 pages, with a team working their way through characteristics, then movement, then shooting, then assault would be good though.

I really like this idea, I had something a bit like it as a special rule in some 40K lizzardmen rules I made a few years ago.

I think its more feasible in playability than its being given credit for. Knowing, for example, that I have a 4+ save against anything with AP 5 or worse doesn't seem to complex. (I would also like to see AP3 become less of a "magic number).

However, as has been pointed out, the whole game would need rewriting.

I think the real problem with moving away from GWs vision of 40k.
Is people find it difficult to seperate game play from rules.

And so throwing a rule set with 'core rules that cover everything' onto a forum like this causes massive culture shock.

You do not need 'special rules for every unit in every book' if the core game mechanics and resolution methods are picked for the intended game play.
(Rather than borrowed from another game with radicaly different game play requirments.)

My ideal 40k would be Epic (SM/ Armageddon), with more detail added to upscale the game.(Rather than WHFB skirmish with chunks cut out....)


Detailed unit interaction.

Not the current diffuse micro and macro model interaction.

I belive a more interactive game turn is important, as it would increase tactical choices without adding loads of extra conditional rules.(Like overwatch does.).