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.

I'm working on a project, for funsies and I need some help.
I want to rework the 40k system a bit and am struggling to work out the best way of doing comparative values.
I want to run either D10 or D12 and am trying to figure out how to resolve WS vs WS, S vs T and the like.

I was thinking for WS vs WS to do a system where your modified according to difference something like 5 vs 3 so a 5 would hit on 1-5 and 3 would hit on 1-3 with some modification.

Would anyone be able to give me some pointers?

Easiest way would be to require the roll needing to exceed the WS of the target, if this is intended to be in a melee/CQC scenarion. That way, a single die-roll can account for dodging, blocking, parrying, all that kind of thing.

So the guy with the 3 WS needs to roll 6+ to hit, the guy with the 5 WS needs to roll a 4+ to hit.

IMO, award ties to the defender, so you always need to beat the target's score by at least 1.

The current HtH system is if you have a higher WS then your foe, you hit 2/3s of the time.
If you have equal WS, or lower, but your foe does not have over twice your WS, you hit 1/2 the time.
If you are facing someone with greater then twice your WS, you hit 1/3 of the time.

Right now, even if you are out-classed, you still get half you hits in unless you are way over your head. If you switch to a more direct system (like plus/minus 1 per difference) elite troops are going to have a major edge over basic ones.

This might be something you want, but keep it in mind.

Yeah, unless you want a dynasty warriors situation, there has to be a bone thrown to horde armies. Either a more generous curve (like the way it is right now), or have some stop-gap (like a die roll of at least X always hits).

Personally, I think I'd make it so that you always have a certain roll to hit, but you get to add to the die roll an amount equal to how many more points of WS you have than your opponent. That way weak units would still be guaranteed the base rate, while there would also still be some purpose to having more than just +1 of your opponent's WS.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, unless you want a dynasty warriors situation, there has to be a bone thrown to horde armies. Either a more generous curve (like the way it is right now), or have some stop-gap (like a die roll of at least X always hits).

Personally, I think I'd make it so that you always have a certain roll to hit, but you get to add to the die roll an amount equal to how many more points of WS you have than your opponent. That way weak units would still be guaranteed the base rate, while there would also still be some purpose to having more than just +1 of your opponent's WS.

Well, at the very least meleenids and Orks tend to have good WS values, shame about the Guard and Cultists though.

Your method works great though.

It's funny current system we as in real life people who are out of shape and are not very physical would be able to hit 50% of the time against a martial arts expert.

We should never even be able to land a hit on a martial arts expert at all. But GW needs to make shooty armies have a chance in CC, so that is why what we have. It's a shooty edition to make it easier for shooty armies.

I don't recall the Assault chart the same in previous editions. I thought a WS 10 would crush WS 3 or 4 but not now.

I personally like difference added to 50%.

At one point a slug shouldn't be able to land a killing blow against a martial arts robot master with spinning deathblade hands.

Desubot wrote:At one point a slug shouldn't be able to land a killing blow against a martial arts robot master with spinning deathblade hands.

That's the dynasty warriors way, though. Where weapon skill reduces your opponent's ability to hit you, rather than increasing your chances to hit your opponent.

Kain wrote:Well, at the very least meleenids and Orks tend to have good WS values, shame about the Guard and Cultists though.

The interesting thing, though, is that it also makes it a little kinder to them. At the moment, WS4 gives the striker +16% chance to hit, over WS3, while in my system, it would be only 10%. That's because small changes in weapon skill would actually mean a small change in the chance to hit stuff. Meanwhile, it unlocks higher-WS models to have their WS actually mean something. The only reason this doesn't go dynasty warriors is because the goobers still have that base rate.

So, in my mind, you have to roll a 5+ (in a D10 system) to hit, unless you're, say, Abaddon fighting conscripts, in which case you need to only roll a 1. It doesn't seem that unreasonable that abaddon would be able to just hit a swarm of conscripts, throwing them around like sauron flinging all the little goobers into the air. On the other hand, the guard army isn't just screwed, because with enough attacks and enough time, they'd be able to slowly grind abaddon down with their decent chance to hit.

Both sides get more of what they're looking for. Everyone wins.

I like all concepts that have been put forward. I'm thinking the first suggestion with roll over the enemy skill is good because it makes it harder for a rubbish fighter to hit but not impossible. Although it does make it easier to save over all.
Would a good base be 33% to hit?
Trying to figure out the best ways for things and I think I'm over complicating things.

Boniface wrote:Would a good base be 33% to hit?

It depends on how long you want close combats to take.

Personally, I already think that close combats aren't decisive enough as it is. You're usually not getting into close combat until turn 3 or 4, and if the game ends as early as turn 5, you're pretty much guaranteed to only get one assault in before the game ends. If that close combat takes 2 game turns to resolve (which they sometimes do), then it's possible they might not even have that one assault resolved by the time it's over.

I'd rather see a 66% base hit chance, but this might wind up cropping super-high weapon skill models again.

I've been having a fiddle around based on D12.
How about these stats?

It does make a high WS less good and is very GW in nature, attackers on left defenders on top.

Shooting
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
n/a 11+ 10+ 9+ 8+ 7+ 6+ 5+ 4+ 3+ 2+

Assault Defender
WS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+
2 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+
3 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+
4 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 9+ 9+ 9+
5 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 9+ 9+
6 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 9+
7 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+
8 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+
9 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+
10 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+

Looks like a only slightly finer resolution of what we have right now. Except with more cumbersome D12's

I know its very similar, it's tough because i dont want to make high WS impossible to beat just harder to hit and better at hitting.
How would you modify it further?