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.

EDIT: We've moved on far past many of the ideas on these first few pages. I'll keep these here for record keeping though.


After my local group and I got tired of the lack of variety among different models stats, I decided to try to make a D10 conversion for 40K. I know this has been a topic numerous times on many sites, but i've never been terribly impressed on how those systems work. I've changed the stat range so a non-monstrous creature can have value between 2 and 10, the cover system and armor penetration systems have likewise been changed from flat saves to modifiers.

Using Weapon Skill as an example:
Tau Firewarrior WS == 2
Guardsman WS == 4
Space Marine WS == 6
Chaplain WS == 8
Chapter Master WS == 10

Cover saves offer a negative modifier for the shooter when the target is in area terrain, while ruins and solid terrain (like a low wall) give a positive modifier to targets when being shot at.
Armor Penetration gives a modifier rather than the normal ignoring armor up to a certain value, so a Boltgun is Strength 6, AP 2, which would reduce the targets armor save by 2 ( a space marine would go from a 3+ to a 5+).

In addition, i've developed a formula for determining D10 models pricing based on the units D10 stats, and its been accurate within acceptable ranges on 90% of the models i've evaluated with it. The change in armor penetration was partially a result of this formula, as a modifier is much more reliable and easier to account for in a formula than the current armor system.

With these changes in mind, i'm having difficulty in decided how to handle High strength weaponry, vehicle armor, and particularly monstrous creatures.
Option 1)
The obvious solution would be to allow values to go from 1-20, similarly to how currently, nearly no infantry have stats over 6, with values of 7+ reserved for special characters, powerful weapons, and monstrous creatures. The vehicle armor values would likewise have to be adjusted to be brought back into line with the D10 system from the D6 values. While this is by no means terribly difficult (especially after working out a pricing model for D10 units, i'll be having nightmares about those charts for weeks to come), i feel that since i've already created a system that deviates from the 40k norm so much, itd be a shame to not try a more creative solution.

Option 2)
Allowing nothing to exceed a value of 10, and instead adding the weapons strength and AP together, then rolling a D10 to determine penetration rolls, rather than using just the weapons strength on a scale that goes above 10. I actually like how this idea works on paper, as you could have greater differentiation between weapons, such as autocannons and plasma guns having the same strength, but plasma guns having greater AP values, and thus being better at cracking armor than the autocannon. However, this would require a significant change to not only weapon values, but how weapons are used, priced, and whether or not people would even like this system. Most importantly, however, i have literally no idea on how to handle monstrous creatures under this system.

If i get enough community interest in this idea, ill try to provide more information on specific units and statlines that have been more or less finalized.
Please avoid favoring option 1 due to "if it aint broken don't fix it" thinking. It should be clear that logic does not suit the goals of this project.

I'm welcoming any advice, questions, and suggestions on what people think about this D10 conversion and any of the changes i've made to standard 40K rules, how some of these problems might be solved, and especially creative solutions on how to handle monstrous creatures under option 2.

The biggest problem with this proposal is that its based on space marines. A space marine captain or chapter master is no rival for an Autarch or Archon. If you were to re-adjust your values for every codex appropriately, I'd be interested in what you would come up with,

Blacksails, you are 100% correct that this was designed around Space marines. Being the most prolific, and frankly simplistic, army in the game, as well as the army i have the most familiarity with, they were where i began with this project. Interestingly enough, your comment shows two weaknesses im still working out.
First, HQ, and other high cost units, are still being adjusted, as they start pushing the borders of the stat limit, making differentiations between high power units very tricky, and their high cost means the formula for working out prices and stats in the D10 system deviate wildly from the values given to regular troops, so making sure everything translates correctly is more guess and check than anything else, until enough samples are used to stabilize it.
Second, I've run the formula on troops from all but 3 codexs, which i have no access to at this time, which are chaos daemons, dark eldar, and eldar. Ork boys, space marines, scout marines, sisters of battle, imperial guardsman, tau firewarriors, necron warriors, tyranid hormagaunts and termagants, and grey knights, both power armor and terminator armor, fit the formula well, though admittedly necron immortals are under costed for reasons im still trying to work out. I dont have full access to anywhere near as much codex and unit information as id like, and until i can get that sorted out, its not going to be the finished and highly polished system i hope it will become.
However, as to your point on how captains and chapter masters are no rivals for autarchs and archons, considering those units are in some of the most highly player-skill based armies, and have access to wonderful special rules and Wargear, id much rather that be the way in which the skilled player defeats the somewhat mediocre space marine options than a pure statistic competition. Purely a personal view on the matter, but worth mentioning

@Rav1rn.
I can understand why lots of people look to improving the graduation between results in 40k by upping the dice size.(D10 to fit in with the stat values, or D12 to simply double current values.)

However, this still means it is using dice in a deterministic way, so artificialy limits results .
Instead of the WHOLE UNIVERSE being crammed into 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+.it improves the limitation slightly.

So the whole universe of diverse and massively varied creatures have to be covered by 9 values instead of 5.

No wonder 40k has to uses multiple resolution methods and tons of special rules!

Have you thought about simply using different game mechanics and resolution methods?

EG direct stat comparison.

This way you can use stat values range to 10 to give 18 possible results, or to 20 to give 38 possible results, and STILL use a D6.

I agree that using simple modifiers is the way to go to get rid of needless additional rules and resolution methods.

@lanrak can you explain in greater depth how such "direct stat comparison" could be implemented? I dont really understand how such a system would work and how the element of chance (rolling the dice) would be a part of determining the game. Any examples, be it a situation or non 40k game system would be extremely helpful

This has been one of the biggest problems that faces 40k right now, at least from my perspective. Many people have pointed out that the rules of 40k have been problematic for years. They're either too abstract, too open for interpretation, or just dont fit the game that 40k has evolved into over the years, as it changed from a smaller scale skirmish type game to a battle game, as model costs dropped and game point levels rose.
Im worried that any change such as what youre suggesting would mutate something using 40k as a base and trying to improve upon it, into something completely alien. And yes people have brought up the point that adding granularity doesn't really solve anything, but with the current state of 40k, id say that there needs to be a greater variety in ways to differentiate units and models besides special rules and the like, at least to some extent. If we had a binary system, where units could only be represented as strong or weak, i dont think anyone would be opposed to adding more variety than just those 2 classifications, regardless of what the game around those two units played out as. On the other hand, i briefly experimented with a D20 system, and quickly abandoned it, as in order to justify the additional level of detail, minute variations between units had to be represented, such as devastators, assault marines, and tactical marines all having subtly different WS and BS scores. This felt bulky and unnecessary, and took away something from the game, though it would've been great for smaller, squad-level gameplay.

So yes, I think there will always be abstraction within 40k, and its not necessarily a bad thing, but the game's been suffering from the limitations of diversity that earlier versions of the game set in place, and our only options to change those are increasingly ridiculous exceptions and special rules, an overhaul of the systems core, or increasing granularity. Increasing granularity, be it through a D8, D10, or D12 lets us add variety without excessive amounts of work or overtly changing the feel of the game.

Personally, im all in favor of changing the games core to be more streamlined and better suited to its new form, but i havnt the foggiest idea of how to even begin that, never mind making it as interesting as 40k is now.

Hi Rav1rn.
If i was going to write rules for 40k i would start with deciding on the type of warfare 40k is supposed to be.
If its mainly small groups of skirmishing infantry mainly armed with ranged weapons, supported with artillery /air strikes and armoured vehicles(or monster equivelants.)

Then modern warfare seems like a good starting point.
Modern warfare is an EQUAL blend of Mobility to take objectives, Firepower to control enemy movement, and Assault to contest objectives.

Modern warfare is fast and fluid, squads dont hang around waiting for the enemy units to run up and punch them in the face...

So an interactive game turn is step one.
(Alternating phases, or alternating activation.)

Step 2 is determining the unit charactersistcs and stat values.

Step 3 is determining the resolution methods.
EG
Direct representation. and opposed stats, for example.

Anyhow.
Here is a simple alternative to 40ks damage resolution, (AP armour saves , AV, etc.)

All weapons have an ARMOUR PENETRATION (AP) value from 5 to 20.(Replaces current str/AP.)
All units have an ARMOUR VALUE(AV) from 1 to 15.(Extend vehicle AV down to cover all units.)

When a model is hit , roll a D6.
Add this dice roll to the units AV value.(THE ARMOUR SAVE)
If the total is higher than the weapon AP, the armour makes its save.
If the value is equal or lower the model takes damage

EG an IG trooper with AV 2, is hit by a bolt gun , AP value 6.
The IG trooper saves on a 5+.

This gives proportional saves without additional modifiers.(its just the difference in the stats.)

This covers ALL weapon and armour interaction for ALL units.

The next thing is a universal damage resolution.
(If the armour is beaten, the weapon does damage to the soft target behind.)

All units have a Resilience value .(3 to 10)(How hard they are to damage, toughness replacement that covers mechanical and organic units.)
All weapons have a Damage value.(1 to 8)

If a model fails its Armour Save, the attacker rolls to wound/damage the model.
The attacker rolls a D3 or D6 (dependant on weapon target types.) and adds it to the weapon DAMAGE value .
If this is more than the models Resilience it looses a Hit point.(Wound/Hull point replacement.)
If it is more than DOUBLE the models Resilience it looses 2 hit points .
if it is more than TRIPLE the models Resilience it looses 3 hit points.

EG a SM captain fails an armour save(he has Resiliance 5) , is hit by a Meltagun Damage 5.

If the attacker rolls 1 to 4 the SM captain loses 1 hit point (Wound.)
If the attacker rolls 5 or 6 , the SM captain looses 2 hit points .(the damage is double the Sm Captains Resilience.)

Sorry if I did not explain things that well.
(I can go over it a gain if you like?)

@ lanark, that may be one of the best alternatives to the current system that i've ever run across.

Assuming i understand your system right, i love the combination of consistency and simplicity that the system provides for, so that its not arbitrary differences between organics and vehicles that mean that low strength weapons cannot hurt vehicles. It also allows for fine tuning of monstrous creatures to decide what can and cannot affect them, which could prove to be interesting.

The change to how multiple wounds are inflicted seems like a great idea, though it's so far from anything i've ever experienced, i'd have to experiment with it to see how it plays out.

The biggest concern i see is that the values used to describe each stat are all over the place. Theres a set of 5-20, 1-15, 1-8, and 3-10. While i'm sure this wouldn't be a problem for anyone used to this system, it is a serious change from the current 40k system of everything being on a scale of 1-10, except vehicle armor.

I love the core of this new system, and am looking forward to tinkering with it to see how to take advantage of it. Since you've set up the "firepower" of your take on modern combat, any ideas on how to implement the "mobility" and "assault" aspects?

Hi Rav1rn.
The only reason I used the odd ranges of stats was to fit the current/previous 40k D6 results reasonably closely.
(Eg simple 40k stat conversion to the new system .)
With compared stats one range is usually higher then the other .(To give positive results , and clean maths.)

But as the number ranges can be altered during play testing as necessary.
But reading a number is easy, and gives a better idea of the unit capability.

Put the following in order of magnitude...
Average, Good, Elite ,Excellent Awesome, Super , Super Duper,etc.And how much better is one to the other?

Where as , 4,5,8,9,12,16,20.Is easy to understand the order and magnitude of values.

For Mobility simply list the units speed, (a distance in inches.) and mobility type.
Mobility type , Legs, Wheels, Tracks ,Hover.

EG
4" L , infantry that walk.
12" W infantry on bikes,
12 " L beasts or cavalry mounted on beasts.
6" T tank.
12" H jetbike
(The movement speed can be based on 2nd ed if you like?)
This way the stat line tells you how the unit moves , and how far the unit may move each turn.

And a simple terrain chart listing Terrain type , vs Movement type , can show -1,-2,0+1,+2 inch modifiers for each movement type per terrain type.

EG
Roads,L +1, W +2, T+1 ,H +1
Rubble, L 0, W-2,T+0, H,0.
etc etc.

This covers unit mobility and terrain interaction in a simple and easy way.(Nothing blows up!)

There are lots of ways to cover the roll to hit part of the unit interaction, (Shooting and Assault..)
If we assume shooting can be done this way.

The TARGET Stealth value is the BASE score to hit .
(the stealth stat takes unit size , agility etc into account.)

This is modified by some simple modifiers EG
Target over 30" away +1 to Stealth value.
Target in cover +1 to Stealth value
Target using Stealth equipment (camo /holo/smoke,)+1 to Stealth value.

Target under 12" away +1 to hit roll.
Target moved towards Attacker +1 to hit roll
Attacker remained stationary /has Scout skill +1 to hit roll.
(Units with 'Scout rule' count as stationary for to hit rolls even if they move!)

(PS , hard cover simply adds +1 to the AV of the target behind it.)

This makes rolling to hit simple as looking at the targets stealth value and applying modifiers.

EG SM land raider Sth 2+, over 30" away , in cover =4+ to hit

A single SM character Sth 4+ at short range ,being shot at by Scouts is hit on 2+.

This covers size ability and disposition of target, and attacker!
Where as current 40k to hit just takes attacker skill into account...

I planned to use universal weapon profile , and a Universal Unit profile .(So we can use unit reference cards ...)

Ill cover assault a bit later.(Got to go now ..)

Hey I'd just like to budge in here, Lanrak, firstly you are a boss, secondly:

All weapons have an ARMOUR PENETRATION (AP) value from 5 to 20.(Replaces current str/AP.)
All units have an ARMOUR VALUE(AV) from 1 to 15.(Extend vehicle AV down to cover all units.)

When a model is hit , roll a D6.
Add this dice roll to the units AV value.(THE ARMOUR SAVE)
If the total is higher than the weapon AP, the armour makes its save.
If the value is equal or lower the model takes damage

EG an IG trooper with AV 2, is hit by a bolt gun , AP value 6.
The IG trooper saves on a 5+.

This gives proportional saves without additional modifiers.(its just the difference in the stats.)

1. How can we regulate all these numbers all over the place like Rav1rn said? Although it might be easy and a straight-forward alternative, HOW can we make it not look messy and how can we make it modulated?

2. The system you put in place is much like the current Strength vs AV of a vehicle. This may be one of the reasons the numbers are all over the place, however why does this system work better than a comparison chart system, where the numbers are on the same scale? I have yet to think about it thoroughly, but I don't know how bypassing a chart system and instead directly comparing two stats along with a D6 affects the mechanics.

3. For the current Weapon Skill, how do you plan to change it since they ARE on the same scale, which means they cannot use the same method of "add D6 to your stat and if you're higher than their stat then proceed".

4. Rav1rn, I have had a few ideas on my thread too, check my signature. Maybe we can share ideas? Maybe even all three of us can come forth?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After thinking for a bit, I came to the conclusion that using direct comparison is no different from using a typical strength vs toughness chart. Think about it.

A Bolter hurts AV10 on a 6+. It also hurts T6 on a 6+. So all you are doing to change it from a S/T chart to a direct comparison is adding 4. Now:

- A chart you have to remember, whether it be as simple as an S/T chart or a more complicated one like the one on my thread or the way BS works (rerolls after BS5)
- Direct comparison needs no chart - however the receiving end's value is 4 above the roller's value; also there is a problem like I said before with something like weapon skill where the values should be the same; chart comparison doesn't have this issue

Both of these mechanics have mutual problems - they aren't versatile enough. Each point difference is 1/6 chance, which, frankly, can't fit much variety into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, on a different note, making 40k a D10 conversion is not only hard to moderate but, D10s are really weird. I googled them and they aren't regular polyhedrons like cubes. I say D10 is completely out of the question, but we can still make it work with D6s by using clever and effective mechanics.

Welcome to the thread IcyFireKnight, im a big fan of the ideas in your "A new way to play 40k" Thread.

You brought up a good point about managing Weapon Skill in this direct comparison system. While it works well so long as the attacker has a lower WS than the defender, it doesnt work at all for the opposite situation, so if were going to use direct comparison, we need to think of a solution to this problem.
As to your other thread, i really like ideas like the cover system, the idea of using stealth as a ranged to-hit value, and especially to change to how blast weapons work. All good, interesting ideas, all of which should be explored. As to the talk on Snap-Shots, i really dont like the snap-shot system. The idea of being able to shoot a heavy weapon without being stationary is a great idea, that should make the game less about stationary encampments of troops with heavy weapons, as troops that want to move can do so. But i think something like halving range would be a better alternative.
As to your comments about 1 point in difference being too large a distance between two stats, i totally agree. That's one of the reasons that unit statlines feel so samey, because the designers simply couldnt make different without making them ridiculously powerful. This mostly applies to regular infantry (Guardsman, Space Marine, Necron Warrior, etc), as thats where the majority of units will be, and i feel that HQ's stats are more just representatives than anything else, so they need big differences between models.

Work update, Having explored my problems with eldar/dark eldar, the best solution ive found is actually making the general stat range 2-12, which gives me two extra values while still allowing a representative of 10 in the old system. Gonna have to rework things to better suit this new system, but i like it better. Also, if we can get Lanrak's direct comparison system using a D6 worked out, i'd definitely like to keep that dice in use, as D10 are rather odd dice.

@Lanrak
Im not sure there's much reason to change the current movement system, its easy to remember and plan around, and is robust enough to handle a variety of unit types. As to the modifiers used to adjust movement based on terrain, i feel thats getting slightly to Micro for just the movement system.
Your modifiers for shooting such as range and movement seem like a good idea, but without testing im not sure howd they play out. Again, it just feels a bit too micro for my tastes.

And YES!!! UNIT REFERENCE CARDS! Ive always loved the idea of using cards as well as units on the board. My first experience with that type of gameplay was an old Star-Wars squad-level tabletop game, and i loved it. It made keeping track of units stats and status easy and interesting. I've been thinking about trying something similar with 40k, but i never came to a solution that satisifed me, the best idea i came up with was having a unit card, such as Tactical Squad, and being able to put counters on it for how many marines are in it, then adding heavy and special weapon cards, as well as a sergeant card. Far from a perfect system, but its the best i got.

And yeah i think a collaboration would be amazing, but rather than it just being the three of us, i think getting the entire community involved would be best way to go about this, it only takes one persons good idea to change everything, and who knows where that could come from.

Hi guys .
The ideas are just basic outlines on how the resolution could be done.

My favorite games make the stat line do all the work.(Eg no added complication from charts and tables to look through.)

And in this, they make all resolution UNIVERSAL.So the same straight forward process is used to cover ALL units.

So we can use the information on one side of the 'unit card' to resolve ALL in game interaction.
(And the other side of the card outlines the strategic structure of the army and the units place within it.)

I know this may seem a radical change from 40k's heavy reliance on wordy special rules.
And the modifiers may seem a bit like micro managing.(But we can use them as place markers, and add or remove them as we get further into development.)

if we give each unit card the unit stats .
EG,
Mobility(How and how far the unit moves.)
Stealth(How hard the unit is to hit at range.)
Armour Value(How well protected the unit is.)
Resilience (How hard the unit is to damage.)
Hit points (How much damage the unit can take )
Assault(How good the unit is in assault.)
Morale (How willing the unit is to fight.)
Command.(How well led the unit is.)

And weapon profile.
Name/Effective range/Armour Piercing /Damage/Effect/Notes

The weapon profile is UNIQUE to that unit.
The NET effect of user and weapon is displayed.

The effective range is dependent on user skill firing ranged weapons .(Better shots hit target further away.)

The damage is dependent on user strenght for Close Combat weapons

We can cover everything but special abilities with core rules /stat interaction.
(I like keeping special abilities simple like allows re roll failure, or forces enemy to re roll success.)

Here is a simple alternative for Assault.
Both players roll a D6 and add their units Assault value.
The highest score strikes first.
(In the event of a tie the highest assault value goes first.If both scores are tied, and both Assault values are the same alternate hits between the models in Assault,.)
To score a successful hit simply roll over you opponents Assault value.(Some weapons close combat weapons modify Assault values.)
(Resolve damage in a similar way to shooting.)

I have lots of ideas we can review.
(Do you like the turn structure of Grimdark?)

I very much like the direction this is going in.

I reckon Assault should always be attacker first, or at least have some heavy bonuses for the attacker, because we want to reward the player who takes the fight to the enemy and charges into combat - not the guy whose on the recieving end.

However, I gotta ask, is there really a need for both AP vs AV and damage vs resiliance? Its two sets of stats and two rolls for what is essentially the same effect - seeing if you damage a target. But I reckon we could make it more straightforward by removing DvsR and making it To-Hit (which is good because of all the modifiers etc) followed by just a single AP vs AV roll, though applying that doubling/tripling effect to potentially cause extra damage. Particularly accurate or inaccurate shots might strike with modified attack strength against the opponents defense.

Different elements, such as Strength, AP, Armour Save, Toughness as we see in 40k just seem to lend themselves to adding layers of paper scissors rock to the game IMO. And the less dice rolls, the faster everything goes!

@Lanrak
I'm having mixed feelings about the new statline basics youve laid out.Stealth and Assault are definitely worth pursuing, though ive no idea how to go about redesigning things with these in mind. Armor Value, Resilience, and Hit Points are basically standard 40k stats with different names, so i don't see much point renaming them, as it would be possible to retain an element of familiarity with 40k players, even with the changed rules. I don't really understand how Morale and Command would differ from one another gameplay wise, as the current leadership system seems to provide for these elements already, though knowing Lanrak hes got some crazy, interesting mechanic in mind for that.

Making the Effective Range of a weapon dependant on the user would be a really cool idea, but i worry that it'd just add levels of complexity that wouldn't justify the reward. Plus, such a system would drastically alter how we look at shooting, even making some factors really strange. For example, would the lasgun have to have longer range than a bolter, that way the space marine ballistic skill brings it up to 24", while the guardsman brings it down to 24"? Because otherwise your going to have Space marine players just sitting and shooting outside the guardsman's range.
A cool thing to do would include such a system for firing rapid-fire and heavy weapons on the move, so the higher the models Ballistic Skill, the closer to its stationary range it can achieve. Perhaps make moving with a rapid-fire weapon reduce BS by 1, and heavy weapons by 3 or 4, then use the remaining BS to determine what range the model may shoot at. This is equally complex, but seems like an interesting alternative to snap-shooting.

I noticed there's a lack of attack and initiative characteristics in your suggested statline. Any idea how to include those elements without them being in the statline? Also, loving how you handled ties with your assault system, that's a really great, elegant solution.

I havn't looked at grimdark yet, but i think either alternating-phases, or unit by unit type systems could work well. As a matter of preference, i like unit-by-unit systems, as alternating phases still means that leaf-blower situations can occur. I saw a thread recently talking about warpaths unit activation system. Essentially every turn the players would roll for initiative. Player who won would activate one unit, and go through all 4 phases with them (Movement, Shooting, Assault, Resolution), then roll again, and on a 3+ they could activate a second unit, taking it through its phases, then on a 5+, they could do the same with a 3rd. If they fail an activation check, or activate 3 units, it becomes the next players turn, where they do the same. Obviously this system has its problems, but its interesting, and helps to avoid or minimize leafblower situations.

@Dakkamite
I agree that there should be some bonus for assaulting units, and i think the current bonus attack and furious charge ideas works pretty well. As to getting rid of Armor Penetration, Armor Value, Damage, and Resilience, in favor of a set of offensive and defensive parameters that encompass both of these traits, i like the idea, but the execution could be difficult. Sure models with higher toughness are typically accompanied by higher Armor Saves, but the new unified statistics would have to be fairly granular to allow for situations such as the difference between an Eldar Fire Dragon (T3, 3+ Sv) and a Space Marine (T4, 3+ Sv). Not to mention that Toughness and Armor Saves are already somewhat unified, as they affect both shooting and melee, its just the offensive stats that are so complex. But if we go the route of unifying those, how would we represent the difference between a low skill, high strength Carnifex and a low strength, high skill Eldar Autarch? Not impossible goals, but i just don't have an elegant solution that suits such a goal, though i'm all in favor for shortening the statline.

Also feel free to continue complementing that doubling/tripling idea, seriously, its genius.


Not to stop the flow we've got going on here, but with all these recommendations and ideas, i think we need to better organize these to get a good feel for how this new system would work out. So lets start by saying which parts of the game we're talking about, (Statlines, special rules, movement, shooting, assault, etc), which parts of this system we more or less plan to keep from 40K, then outline the changes or alternatives being introduced. Hopefully we can get all these elements a bit more coherent and formalized this way.

@Rav1rn, concerning your first post replying to mine, I think that Weapon Skill would not work in a direct comparison, and if we were to use direct comparison for everything, we'd have to split weapon skill into two, something like Combat Skill and Dexterity. I'm changing the names because the familiarity wholly stays, it's just a name change. And why not, might as well make things sound fresh.

I think a cover system would work, HOWEVER, the reason why modifiers are so sparsely used is DIRECTLY CORRELATED to the flawed system of 1 point difference = 1/6. If 1 point difference was something like 1/12 then our ability to add a variety of modifiers and stalines is DOUBLED. I am on the verge of considering D12, because the die looks nice and the problem of carrying it is countered by using a bag. Unless the tesselate. Do they tesselate?

Not only cover, but all these things like snap shots, firing from half range (Just had an idea, if you are firing through your own troops your total number of shots is halved, as one of your own men prevent you from getting a clear shot), ignoring specific cover (idea of heavy cover increasing armour) and gradients of cover (Reveal 2).

@Lanrak, I like your idea, but I think some things are missing. I totally approve of leadership being divided, because that allows for more fruitfulness and oppurtunities for cool things. Where is BS? I think the first and easiest step is to figure out all the statistics.

Mobility (M) How fast the model moves across the battlefield.
Marksmanship (Mk) How good the model is at shooting.
Stealth (S) How difficult the model is to be shot at.
Power (P) How powerful the model's attacks are.
Resilience (R) How good the model is at taking wounds and shaking them off.
Dexterity (D) How agile and skilful the model is in combat.
Fortitude (F) How strong the model's mind is and how willing the model is to fight.
Vitality (V) How long the model can survive after taking wounds.
Armour (Ar) How strong the model's armour is.
Influence (I) How much the model affects his friends and foes on the battlefield.

This is the best I've got. I think, at first glance D12s look really tasty, so I would give it a go. D12s are tasty because it not only allows for variety in close numbers but also allows for a larger scale; so that Avatars and Ork Boys AREN'T just 3 points from each other :')

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

........................................M.Mk.St...P..R...D...F...V...I...Ar...Type
Space Marine...................6...6...5...5...5...5...5...1...5...5...Infantry
Imperial Guardsman..........6...4...5...3...3...4...3...1...5...3...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior...............6...7...5...3...3...2...2...1...5...4...Infantry
Eldar Guardian..................7...6...5...3...3...5...5...1...5...3...Infantry
Ork Boy.............................6...2...5...5...5...4...2...1...5...2...Infantry
Necron Warrior..................5...5...5...5...5...4...3...1...5...5...Infantry
Tyranid Hormagaunt...........6...2...5...4...3...5...7...1...5...2...Infantry
Plaguebearer of Nurgle.......6...0...5...5...6...3...7...1...5...3...Infantry

I want to be scraping the lowest stats with normal infantry, so that there is more space for stronger characters. And I'm looking for an average stat value of 5, so that if one's stat was lowered to 1, it would succeed vs. 5s on a 10+ (6+).

@Dakkamite, Assault is still an issue. I don't think it should be attacker first, if eldar were being attacked by orks they would dodge out of the way and stab them in the head with the daggers on their backs in half a second. I say charger gets +1 Dexterity. However I don't like how Initiative works right now; not all the time the Eldar will strike first, maybe two Orks gang up on an Eldar so although he deflects one attack another Ork strikes first. How about:

Roll-off D3, whoever has the highest Dexterity has +1 to their roll. Whoever scores higher goes first. If it's a tie, strike at the same time.

This has a big problem: what about multi-dexterity squads e.g. sergeant with power fist?

I think we need strength and toughness as a mechanic both to make things harder to kill and simply because it's necessary (not necessarily). The former can be eliminated by making the other rolls harder to achieve, and the latter, I'm taking about the things that have no armour but are tough as rock (Wraithlords maybe).

However, if we can eliminate all this, we will only have to roll two times to kill! One to hit, one to penetrate. Everything as modifiers? I'm in.

@Rav1rn again, like I said, I'm changing the names because the familiarity wholly stays, it's just a name change. And why not, might as well make things sound fresh.

I think the ranges of guns should be a bit more varied instead of 99% of the time in a multiple of 6. I think something like this would work tremendously:

+2 Mk for under 1/3 range
+1 Mk for under 2/3 range
-1 Mk for in light cover
-5 Mk (minimum of 1) for moving and firing heavy weapons (this makes a marine heavy bolter hit a stealth value of 5 on a 10+)

Alternating phases is a BIG contender, and it works well with the current assault situation where both sides play.

I havn't looked at grimdark yet, but i think either alternating-phases, or unit by unit type systems could work well. As a matter of preference, i like unit-by-unit systems, as alternating phases still means that leaf-blower situations can occur. I saw a thread recently talking about warpaths unit activation system. Essentially every turn the players would roll for initiative. Player who won would activate one unit, and go through all 4 phases with them (Movement, Shooting, Assault, Resolution), then roll again, and on a 3+ they could activate a second unit, taking it through its phases, then on a 5+, they could do the same with a 3rd. If they fail an activation check, or activate 3 units, it becomes the next players turn, where they do the same. Obviously this system has its problems, but its interesting, and helps to avoid or minimize leafblower situations.

This. Looks. Interesting.

Also feel free to continue complementing that doubling/tripling idea, seriously, its genius.

I agree.

I imagine Command will have something to do with controlling the unit. Theres heaps of games out there where you get like, limited Orders to give, or units only follow your commands some of the time. Could be interesting here.

Eldar Fire Dragon (T3, 3+ Sv) and a Space Marine (T4, 3+ Sv). Not to mention that Toughness and Armor Saves are already somewhat unified, as they affect both shooting and melee, its just the offensive stats that are so complex. But if we go the route of unifying those, how would we represent the difference between a low skill, high strength Carnifex and a low strength, high skill Eldar Autarch? Not impossible goals, but i just don't have an elegant solution that suits such a goal, though i'm all in favor for shortening the statline.

Essentially my whole point was that we don't need to have several stats to show that difference.

Is there really anything gained by having a Fire Dragon have T3 3+ and a Space Marine T4 3+, when we could simply say one is "Defense 5" and the other "Defense 6"?

Since the AP rules are being ditched (AP2 penetrates 2+, etc) theres now very little to differentiate the two stats. All that remains really is a paper scissors rock element, such as "Poison weapons beat tough guys but lose to armoured guys", which in turn leads to paper scissors rock list construction, and players forgoing tactics in favour of "whose list beats the other by default" in extreme cases

Likewise a slow, strong melee attack and a faster weaker one... does it matter? Or having units that are INT 5 vs those that are INT 4 and INT 1 - it gets the same benefit against both, so you could say that INT 5 counters INT 4 by spending the minimum number of points needed to get the first strike bonus, while the INT 1 units 'counter' INT 5 by not having wasted points on more INT value that wouldn't give any bonus. Do these RPS elements add anything of value that simply saying a unit is "Assault 5" or "Assault 10" or even "Really Good in Assault" doesn't achieve much more simply? Even the 40k rules as is back that up - a unit hitting on 5+ wounding on 3+ is exactly the same as a unit hitting on 3+ wounding on 5+.

Edit; Ok, IcyFireKnight posted while I was writing mine up. Will reply in a sec

Edit #2;

Roll-off D3, whoever has the highest Dexterity has +1 to their roll. Whoever scores higher goes first. If it's a tie, strike at the same time.

Not a big fan of this idea, for the same reason allowing first turn alpha strike auto-win to the guy who rolls the highest d6 in vanilla 40k is a poor idea as well. Who goes first is really important to the outcome of the combat. Leaving it to pure chance is a bad idea. If INT was even going to be used, and not just folded into ASSAULT or whatever (which I highly recommend, but thats just me) I'd say give it modifiers the same way you'd apply modifiers to shooting. Or of course, just let the attacker strike first.

However, if we can eliminate all this, we will only have to roll two times to kill! One to hit, one to penetrate. Everything as modifiers? I'm in.

Sounds like you and I are on the same page. I want to see how far the stats can be amalgamated. INT could go into Assault, but it could also come under some other stat such as mobility or stealth and be involved in things other than "who is striking first".

Lol

I was gonna edit this in but might as well make it another post.

If First Strike is to be determined by something other than ASSAULT or ATTACKING UNIT, I'd say have it be determined by the same stat that represents the COMMAND or LEADERSHIP or w/e of a unit The one that represents not bravery/morale, but the effectiveness of the chain of command, and the ability of units to act effectively on their own initiative (not the 40k one =/).

It's almost the INTELLIGENCE of a unit to be honest.

Units that score highly here (Eldar, Space Marines) will always follow your commands and such, and be more likely to strike first. Units that do poorly here (ie Orks, Imperial Guard) are more inclined to hunker down at the first opportunity rather than take the fight to the enemy - or the opposite, to blindly WAAAAAAAGH straight into the nearest foe if a Boss aint about to smack sum 'eads togevva and keep da boyz in line

Also good god we gotta use an Alternative Activation rule of some kind, IGOUGO is pure gak in a game with so much crazy ranged firepower. Was Grimdark the one with the 'traffic light' system of Green/Yellow/Red orders? That'd work well either as is or as a base to modify to whatever works best for this

Personally I don't like the traffic light system, but the one Rav1rn mentioned, I like a lot.

Why can't first strike be determined by Assault/Dexterity? The model that is the most skilled in combat should be able to either dodge incoming attacks or simply strike a fast blow.

To be honest first strike being determined by a command stat is farfetched. It's not like we are the commanders and they don't have to listen to us, we ARE the unit and we choose to charge/defend. Then, it is up to the skilfulness of the unit to strike as many blows as fast as possible.

If you look closely at my posts you'll see I *want* it to be determined by Assault. Or by a stat (such as Dexterity) which would cover several elements as opposed to just being a stat for 'first strike'

All it takes is one game of paintball to see how farfetched the idea of 'every solder in every unit working with perfect harmony' is - ergo why some games use a command stat.

Ok, so having taken some time to think through some examples, i'm starting to agree with dakkamite.

First off, yes we can probably consolidate armor and toughness into one "Defense" stat, i was stuck thinking like standard 40k, so i never really considered how the change to the AP system would let us treat toughness differently, good call there.

So we seem to be agreed on the goal of getting the statline as low as possible...

1) Basing "Initiative" off of an "Assault" stat would probably be the best idea, done as lanrak suggested.

Here is a simple alternative for Assault.
Both players roll a D6 and add their units Assault value.
The highest score strikes first.
(In the event of a tie the highest assault value goes first.If both scores are tied, and both Assault values are the same alternate hits between the models in Assault,.)

While this is a pretty substantial change from the set initiative of standard 40k, its the only way i can think of doing it without adding a dedicated stat, besides Dakkamite's idea of using leadershit to determine initiative, which, while i am against as the general rule, i think it would be an interesting special rule for the likes of Orks, Imperial Guard, or Tyranids.

However, doing this would remove some of the flavor of 40k, such as Space Marines being a better combatant than a Hormagaunt (being WS 4 Str 4 vs WS 3 Str 3), but the Hormagaunt is faster and has more attacks. How could we represent this type of situation using just the assault stat?

2) One critical factor i'm noticing that is being ignored is multiple attacks. If we want to remove the attack stat from the unit, wed have to represent it another way, such as the standard 40K's having a pistol and close-combat weapon / two close-combat weapons, and then special rules to describe other situations, (such as old-school grey knights True-Grit special rule). But the problems with this are that then how would we represent the additional attack profiles of the likes of Sergeants, would we just slightly buff their combat abilities instead? That would require a pretty sbstantial recalculation on pricing and stats.
And to Dakkamite

a unit hitting on 5+ wounding on 3+ is exactly the same as a unit hitting on 3+ wounding on 5+

This is true for all cases, except for multiple attacks. The difference between these two situations is HUGE when multiple attacks are involved, especially if you multiply that difference by 30 Hormagaunts.

3) Using a mobility/agility/dexterity stat to describe movement and initiative.
Well, if you look at the chart IcyFireKnight provided (looks good btw), mobility only varies by 1 point at most from 6, so trying to make standard move distance a variable stat just wouldnt feel right, hence why i like the idea of special rule alternatives that build off of a standard move distance, such as having a 6" move as standard for infantry, but Necrons get slow and purposeful, Eldar get their new move-shoot-move special rule, and Slaanesh Daemons get an additional D3 movement range.

Lets look at dexterity then. If we use dexterity in combat, such as the value to beat for assault value or however it'd be implemented, we again have the problem of low skill but fast units such as a hormagaunt, not being represented properly, as theyd be the correct speed, but be far too hard to hit.

So, assuming we need an Initiative stat, the absolute smallest unit statline i think we can have is:
Defense
Marksmenship
Assault
Morale
Hit Points
Attacks (Maybe)
Initiative

With weapons having stats such as:
Damage
Penetration
Range
Type

This is definitely a much simpler statline to keep track of, and would probably look good on a reference card, having 5 combat stats, 4 weapon stats, as well as attacks and wounds. Some cool card designs leap to mind for this idea.

Now lets delve into some other topics. Assuming we transition to the "Defense" consolidated stat, and with the changes to the AP system, how do we want to go about representing Invulnverable Saves and Power Weapons?

Power Weapon Ideas: Let them have a set AP value which the normal weapons AP would be added onto, for example, as close combat weapon should probably have better AP than hitting someone on the head with a bolter, let them be AP 1 or whatever value we assign. Power Swords, being an improved version of a standard CCW, could instead have AP 6, which is CCW AP with a power weapon bonus of +5 added, staying true to the idea of modifiers, while not being as schizophrenic about AP3 and AP2 as 6th editions system is. Not really a solution for stuff like powerfists, but maybe a jumping off point.

Invulnerable Saves: Have them be "Anti-AP", so an invulnerable value of 2 would reduce the incoming weapons penetration by 2?
Not really sure about this idea, i think it would make shooting more realistic towards units such as terminators, as normal weapons don't have much of an effect on the model, but a Lascannon would still be a huge threat. It could also represent agility or insubstantiality , so units with only Invulnerable saves under standard 40k (Harlequins, certain daemons, etc) are affected less, while again, using only modifiers over rules and special situations.

Also, would you guys like to see stealth as a stat used for shooting to beat? or just as a cover system using modifiers on shooting and defense? Personally, i prefer the latter, especially since it keeps the statline as low as possible.

Sorry for rambling on and making this a long post, but might as well get this all out in one go.

Here is a simple alternative for Assault.
Both players roll a D6 and add their units Assault value.
The highest score strikes first.
(In the event of a tie the highest assault value goes first.If both scores are tied, and both Assault values are the same alternate hits between the models in Assault,.)

This also has the problem of units with multiple Initiative/Assault/Dexterity/Agility values.

I don't know how we can merge strength and AP, and toughness and armour together, then yay-ok, but until someone finds a solid idea I'm sticking to keeping them seperate.

Let's see how we can shorten the statline.

We don't need Mobility; all infantry move 6 unless a rule.
We don't need Vitality; all infantry have 1 wound unless a rule.
We don't need Attacks; all infantry have 1 attack unless a rule.
So, most of these stats come under the words under Type.

We can try to merge Initiative and Dexterity.
I don't want to do this but if you want the shortest possible statline then you can remove stealth and rules that "decrease stealth" like a Tank rule instead "increase aggressors Marksmanship."

Marksmanship (Mk) How good the model is at shooting.
Power (P) How powerful the model's attacks are.
Resilience (R) How strong the model's armour is and how tenacious the model is.
Dexterity (D) How agile and skilful the model is in combat.
Fortitude (F) How strong the model's mind is and how willing the model is to fight.
Influence (I) How much the model affects his friends and foes on the battlefield.
Type (T) Type of model.

Range (Rg) How far the weapon can shoot.
Power (P) How powerful the weapon's projectiles are.
Attacks (A) How many strikes the weapon does.
Type (T) Type of weapon.

.......................................Mk..P..R...D...F...I...Type
Space Marine...................5...5...5...5...5...5...Infantry, Legged, Biological

.......................................Rg...P...A..Type
Boltgun............................24...5...1...Small Arms, Rapid Fire

I think low skill but fast units can be dealt with simply. Some sort of special rule for high initiative low weapon skill models like hormagaunts; Swift Attack: "A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity for To Strike First rolls only."
Or indeed low initiative high weapon skill: Sluggish Strike: "A model with this special rule has its Dexterity reduced by 1 for To Strike First rolls only."

One thing to point out with regards to my interpretation of Command - its the same thing as what 40k does with Leadership. The bravery of a unit doesn't determine it's ability to cast psychic powers - in this case Leadership is giving us a value for the mental fortitude of a model. Same deal here - Command, if its used (which I'm not necessarily saying it should) would be both ability to Command a unit and the Initiative (40k stat *and* dictionary definition) of the troops

Rav1rn wrote:

However, doing this would remove some of the flavor of 40k, such as Space Marines being a better combatant than a Hormagaunt (being WS 4 Str 4 vs WS 3 Str 3), but the Hormagaunt is faster and has more attacks. How could we represent this type of situation using just the assault stat?

Is it flavour though? Does it really add anything meaningful to the game? If your ok with folding toughness and armour into defense, you shouldn't have any issue with folding WS and S into one stat too because its the exact same thing. Two 'defense' stats become one, their 'offense' counterparts do the same, forming the MELEE stat or some such thing.

I do understand what your getting at though. The penalty to abstraction is that you *can* potentially lose flavour. I suggest you take ten minutes and look up Mantic's Kings of War rules - see how they've managed to reconcile flavour and abstraction to get a fast game that retains differences between strong and weak characters, better or worse skill, etc.

2) One critical factor i'm noticing that is being ignored is multiple attacks. If we want to remove the attack stat from the unit, wed have to represent it another way, such as the standard 40K's having a pistol and close-combat weapon / two close-combat weapons, and then special rules to describe other situations, (such as old-school grey knights True-Grit special rule). But the problems with this are that then how would we represent the additional attack profiles of the likes of Sergeants, would we just slightly buff their combat abilities instead? That would require a pretty sbstantial recalculation on pricing and stats.
And to Dakkamite

a unit hitting on 5+ wounding on 3+ is exactly the same as a unit hitting on 3+ wounding on 5+

This is true for all cases, except for multiple attacks. The difference between these two situations is HUGE when multiple attacks are involved, especially if you multiply that difference by 30 Hormagaunts.

Good point on the multiple attacks thing. Its very important that certain units, namely Dreads, Heroes, and Monsters, get more than one hit. However, its not necessarily something that needs to be handed out to rank and file or even elite troops. If it was kept to just independent models such as those, it could be represented with whats essentially the 'universal special rule' of Multiple Attacks(x)

I stand by my 5+/3+ statement though, and the math does as well. If two units attack one another with thirty attacks...
~the 5+/3+ will get 10 hits, 6.66 wounds
~the 3+/5+ will get 20 hits, 6.66 wounds

In all standard combat situations its the same. Basic maths tells us that the order in which you multiply or divide stuff doesn't matter - 100 x 5 x 3 is the same as 3 x 100 x 5 or 5 x 100 x 3. Same applys to this.

It matters only if one unit had a power like "always wound on 2+", in which case the 3+/5+ is way better off, or an opponent had "all opponents always hit on a 6+" in which case the 5+/3+ is better off. Some people might like that, because of the possibilities it gives for list building combos ("I know, I'll take Poison man with the 5+ to-hit dudes.... wow, this list is unstoppable now!") - but those are the sorts of effects I'm looking to avoid when I propose ideas for this.

Also, would you guys like to see stealth as a stat used for shooting to beat? or just as a cover system using modifiers on shooting and defense? Personally, i prefer the latter, especially since it keeps the statline as low as possible.

What I suggest is that certain units recieve Stealth (x) and if needed something like Blundering (x). These are simply universal special rules that apply a negative or positive modifier to incoming shooting.

With weapons having stats such as:
Damage
Penetration
Range
Type

I thought we'd decided to fold damage and penetration into one stat now? That was the whole "ditch power vs resiliance and just apply the doubling/tripling thing to the anti AP roll" IIRC

Now lets delve into some other topics. Assuming we transition to the "Defense" consolidated stat, and with the changes to the AP system, how do we want to go about representing Invulnverable Saves and Power Weapons?

Power Weapon Ideas: Let them have a set AP value which the normal weapons AP would be added onto, for example, as close combat weapon should probably have better AP than hitting someone on the head with a bolter, let them be AP 1 or whatever value we assign. Power Swords, being an improved version of a standard CCW, could instead have AP 6, which is CCW AP with a power weapon bonus of +5 added, staying true to the idea of modifiers, while not being as schizophrenic about AP3 and AP2 as 6th editions system is. Not really a solution for stuff like powerfists, but maybe a jumping off point.

Invulnerable Saves: Have them be "Anti-AP", so an invulnerable value of 2 would reduce the incoming weapons penetration by 2?
Not really sure about this idea, i think it would make shooting more realistic towards units such as terminators, as normal weapons don't have much of an effect on the model, but a Lascannon would still be a huge threat. It could also represent agility or insubstantiality , so units with only Invulnerable saves under standard 40k (Harlequins, certain daemons, etc) are affected less, while again, using only modifiers over rules and special situations.

If we have merged damage and AP then power weapons just have more damage. Just think, a glowing death sword is certainly gonna cut through somebody easier than a regular old metal one. The S/AP stats from 40k are very... to use the term sparingly... 'unrealistic'.

Invulnerable Saves could really just be better defense. I know, I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but its really that simple because ask yourself this; what should a forcefield *actually* do? Is it a magic barrier that randomly deflects 33% of incoming projectiles? Or more of a wall of force to be overcome by incoming shooting - something that simply makes someone 'harder to damage', just like armour or an Orky physique or anything else

Edit; beaten to the punch, again!

Good point on the multiple attacks thing. Its very important that certain units, namely Dreads, Heroes, and Monsters, get more than one hit. However, its not necessarily something that needs to be handed out to rank and file or even elite troops. If it was kept to just independent models such as those, it could be represented with whats essentially the 'universal special rule' of Multiple Attacks(x)

Very good idea. No really, very good idea. There could also be, for fortifications, "Stealth 1, Fortify 1" Fortify (x) being +(x) Resilience.

What I suggest is that certain units recieve Stealth (x)

Also, very good idea, there could also be Reveal (x), negating up to that much Stealth.

Edit: LOL, 25 seconds out son, get on my level.

I don't know how we can merge strength and AP, and toughness and armour together, then yay-ok, but until someone finds a solid idea I'm sticking to keeping them seperate.

This line really confused me. On the one hand, your absolutely 100% right about Strength needing to be seperate from Assault (or Dexterity, or whatever determines melee hit chance), I just totally had a brain-fart there with regards to that.

On the other, your saying you don't want to merge toughness and armour... but then thats exactly what you went and did with the resilience stat. Under the stats you've posted, to shoot a dude you would
~roll to hit the dude (marksmanship vs modifiers)
~roll to see if you killed them (weapon power vs armour)

Melee I imagine is;
~Roll to hit the dude (Dex/Assault vs same stat on opponent)
~Roll to see if you killed them (model strength vs armour)

If thats correct, then its exactly what I was wanting, I just stuffed up with the strength thing.

We don't need Mobility; all infantry move 6 unless a rule.
We don't need Vitality; all infantry have 1 wound unless a rule.
We don't need Attacks; all infantry have 1 attack unless a rule.
So, most of these stats come under the words under Type.

+1. This is the sort of shortening I can fully support, as I mentioned pre-edit with stuff like Stealth (x) instead of a Stealth stat and as you've mentioned below. It appears we're on the same track here.

We can try to merge Initiative and Dexterity.
I don't want to do this but if you want the shortest possible statline then you can remove stealth and rules that "decrease stealth" like a Tank rule instead "increase aggressors Marksmanship."

What I want to avoid is a stat that is nothing more than "what order the models will strike in in hand to hand". Thats a waste of a stat. I have an idea to get around this though, to put it as elegantly as you did earlier; "We don't need Initiative; all units strike simultaneously unless a rule"

Very good idea. No really, very good idea. There could also be, for fortifications, "Stealth 1, Fortify 1" Fortify (x) being +(x) Resilience.

Again, +1 to that. We're definitely on the same wavelength here.

Dude, yes. Yes. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEES.

Yeah my vocabulary went cucumber just then. That's what I meant, roll to hit then roll to wound.

What I want to avoid is a stat that is nothing more than "what order the models will strike in in hand to hand"

I agree. Having a whole squad hit before the other squad has even noticed is stupid. Either find a way to make it varied, or have them hit at the same time. If this is the case then weapons with the Cumbersome special rule go after everyone else, and have their Dexterity reduced by 3.

Could be worth having Cumbersome (3) to denote that it both strikes at -3 DEX and goes last even after Cumbersome (2) etc.

Brings back a little flavour. Or could really just be a waste of time, not my place to say

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

.....................................Mk..P..R...D...F...I....Type
Space Marine.................5...5...5...5...5...5....Infantry
Imperial Guardsman........4...3...3...4...4...5...Infantry
Tau Fire Warrior.............6...3...3...3...4...5...Infantry
Eldar Guardian................5...3...3...5...5...5...Infantry (SR: Battle Focus, Swift Attack)
Ork Boy..........................2...5...4...4...3...5...Infantry
Necron Warrior...............5...5...5...4...6...5...Infantry (SR: Slow and Purposeful)
Tyranid Hormagaunt........2...4...3...4...3...5...Infantry (SR: Swift Attack)
Plaguebearer of Nurgle....0...5...6...3...6...5...Infantry

I have adapted the guns so that weapons with AP1/2 have +1P and weapons with AP5/6/- have -1S.

.................................Rg...P...A...Type
Boltgun......................24...4...1...Rapid Fire
Lasgun......................24...3...1...Rapid Fire
Pulse rifle..................30...5...1...Rapid Fire
Shuriken catapult.......12...4...2...Assault
Gauss flayer..............24...4...1...Rapid Fire, Gauss
Ranger long rifle.........36...5...1...Heavy, Sniper
Scatter laser..............36...5...4...Heavy, Laser Lock
Starcannon................36...7...2...Heavy
Plasma gun................12...7...1...Assault, Gets Hot
Melta gun...................12...8...1...Assault, Melta
Bright lance................36...9...1...Heavy, Lance
Lascannon.................48...9...1...Heavy
Wraithcannon.............12..10..1...Assault, Distort

I want to expand this later, guys help me by giving the current weapon profiles for other weapons....

Area terrain: Stealth 2
Smoke: Stealth 2
Ruins: Stealth 2 Fortify 2
Fortification: Stealth 2 Fortify 3

Are we doing D12s then, or no?

Edit; stupid thing posted before the stats were ready.

Edit #2; I'm keen for D12.

Very good. However this means that although I have more room now, I am obliged to use that room, otherwise 1/12 gradations is too small.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I need more Imperial guns for the weapon profiles. Can you give me some of their stats so I can convert them?

Quick and dirty Ork stats. Its hard to do this without more of an idea of what, say, DEFENSE 8 would be. Where is a vehicle, a dreadnaught or monstrous creature on these rankings? Because of that I imagine I put them too high for stuff like the Warboss.

As I said before the edit, I'm not sure what exactly we are doing here. Are we simply adapting 40k as is with new stats? Or are we fully embracing what was said earlier (turn it into a small scale skirmish game, modern tactics style) in which case we're essentially making stripped down fandexes?

I assumed the latter when I slapped this together. As for Imperial Guns, I've misplaced my BRB atm but I'll find it in the morning and send you whats in there