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, this certainly makes a lot of sense, and I'm inclined to agree that the game mechanic needs more work on weapons ranges.

However, I think everyone's decided that the OP's point is pretty much invalid, we could just use a few refinements but rolling "to wound" or eq is pretty vital.

Sam_theRelentless.
The OP point is NOT realy valid in the current 40k rule set.

But within other rule sets, or a complete re-write it IS.

Determining the amount of damage is VITAL to damage resolution.

And a 'to wound roll' is one game mechanic you could use.But you do NOT HAVE to use it.As there alternative used by lots of other games .

(I think I have just posted what you wrote using different words.., )

Sorry, rolling to wound or EQUIVALENT is vital, ie some form of comparison between strength and toughness, or equivalent characteristics.

So, yeah, pretty much!

but within other rule sets, or a complete re-write it IS

Eeeeh, the way the OP made out was that he didn't see a point in S-T comparison.

Just because it hit you doesnt mean its killed you or infact done anything.

Its called armour......

overall i rate warhammer 40k 6 out of 10

which is not good considering its had nearly 20 years of development

...its ok , i suppose , but almost every area i look at it comes up a little weak. The rules in particular just dont have grace.

It kind of reminds me of one of those film remakes , production value is high but lacks substance and depth

While i appreciate for some its collecting , for others its painting or modding and that its not primarily designed as a game it has to be said that the game side of things has suffered from being quartered & unnecessarily so

http://investor.games-workshop.com/about_the_hobby.aspx

I think stronger more iconic plastic/miniature designs would give it better definition. Squint your eyes and most of the units look like clumps of spaghetti or stamped on meat balls.

I thing GW have just bunged in lots of special powers / characters and fudges to enhance play rather than add branches to a mathematically sound trunk of a rule set.

Lord Atlas Grimm wrote:Just because it hit you doesnt mean its killed you or infact done anything.

Its called armour......

I agree there needs to be a woll to wound, but the armor is the armor save roll

to me the need to roll to would falls into a catagory of where you hit/ how hard. for example, you hit somebody in the arm with a .22 long rifle shell it'll hurt and if you hit an artury it'll certainly so some dmg, but if you hit them in the muscle it isn't going to likely do much mroe than hurt them, now hit somebody with something more powerful like a smith and wesson special 500 (biggest hang gun comercially available) it'll do serious damage if you hit them . that is why you roll to wound... sure you hit them but where did you hit them and how much dmg did the shot do ... and are they tough enough to shrug it off . and if not only THEN does the armor come into play. did the armor plates save the shot

the outcome is the same if you roll 2 dice once ( using my system)

or roll a dozens of dice many times ( using gw system)

at the end of the day units do 3 things , they move , they shoot or they die ( or die in step stages)

yes there are a few exceptions to these 3 simple outcomes , but you dont need to roll 30 dice to see if A ,B or C = true ...just 1 is required mathematically

If there is any point im trying to get across its this one

swuk wrote:the outcome is the same if you roll 2 dice once ( using my system)

or roll a dozens of dice many times ( using gw system)

at the end of the day units do 3 things , they move , they shoot or they die ( or die in step stages)

yes there are a few exceptions to these 3 simple outcomes , but you dont need to roll 30 dice to see if A ,B or C = true ...just 1 is required mathematically

If there is any point im trying to get across its this one

Yes, you do indeed have a point there. Mathematically, you don't even need to roll d6s, just bash the numbers into a computer program.

The point is, people like physically rolling, even if it is a bit silly. Improvements should be made to what the rolls signify... We don't want to replace simple dice-rolling and simple tables with one fat-*ss complicated equation-buster and a single dice roll.

The current process (ie rolling lots of dice) is simply more fun, and from the general consensus of the community it seems as though the only thing that actually needs to change is what the rolls represent.

Don't you like rolling dice, and the satisfying feeling it brings?

I totaly agree that dice rolling should be more defined and representative of the in game action.

40k tends to be rolling lots of dice for the sake of it, while you look at cool minatures.
It sort of detracts from the disjionts and abstraction in the game play.

Most rule sets tend to roll dice for a specific purpouse and well defined outcome, that keeps the players engaged with the flow of the game.

The sort of flow well defined and intuitive rules have ,that unfortunaley 40k simply doesnt....

Lanrak wrote:I totaly agree that dice rolling should be more defined and representative of the in game action.

40k tends to be rolling lots of dice for the sake of it, while you look at cool minatures.
It sort of detracts from the disjionts and abstraction in the game play.

Most rule sets tend to roll dice for a specific purpouse and well defined outcome, that keeps the players engaged with the flow of the game.

The sort of flow well defined and intuitive rules have ,that unfortunaley 40k simply doesnt....

If you want to take the game to a more massive scale, the reduction in dice rolling would be nice. Right now you have 3 rolls to determine the outcome - hit, wound, armor save. This is probably 30 seconds per encounter so going with my generic marine army I have about 15 elements so that is 7.5 minutes per turn times 6 turns and two phases that is 1.5 hours of time spent resolving- given tournament ties, 1.5 hours to resolve and .5 hours to move things around. So 1850 is about the limit with the ways the rules work and a two - hour time limit per round.

So the question is do you want more stuff on the board.

Maybe go make a game based on those rules and see how it fares.

Removing str and toughness from the game makes no sense.

no thanks.

I like our new rules, now all models are pushed around the table and shout "bang" to shoot, and "aaaaarrrrrggg" to die, and then you have to throw your model at the nearest wall(or stomp on it, which ever you prefer) and this way we can increase GW profits!

dajobe.
So you are STILL playing 40k, but throwing minatures instead of dice!

daedalus-templarius.
Removing str and Toughness from 40k mkes no sense.
Useing another rule set might!


(I HAVE written a rough outline for a new rule set. )

lol, i guess that is true, very expensive dice, if it explodes =4,5,6 if not then =1,2,3

Hell man, I love rolling dice. Makes me feel like im playing a high stakes poker game with my little plastic men's lives on the line....muhahahaha.

Rolling to wound makes sense, and helps balance the game in the current system.

If anyone wants to propose a system that would be more balanced, with less dice to roll, I would love to hear and perhaps play test it for them if they wanted.

I'm going the other way, less dice, more tactics. There was a game I played a long time ago, can't remember the name. Everything was percentages that you added up, so you just had to role for the left over fractions. It was like mathhammer. If 5 guys shot at 50% each you got 2 instant hits and had to role over 50% only for the last one. All combat worked that way. It was not a random, so the game was more about planning. If I remember correctly it was a d10 not d100 system and had a magazine called red giant.

Hi all.
There is no right and wrong in game development, just the right or wrong type of game for a particular type of gamer!

If you love throwing big handfuls of dice pushing minatures around ,(and arguing about poorly defined rules,) there is a rule set written just for you!

If you like/want a well defined, intuitive and elegant modern wargame rule set to use your sci fi minatures in, 40k is NOT the best rules set for you!

Play the games you want , using the most apropriate rule sets for YOU.It is YOUR hobby after all...

I think we need to because lets say i get punched by a baby, well that baby hit me but it didn't hurt me at all. So things may land a hit but that doesn't mean they hurt.

As everyone has said, we need a to wound roll.

Now, what I WOULD consider is something like Necromunda with its 'to hit' modifiers instead of coversaves, or BFG where toughness and armor saves are combined into one figure.

However, I don't support simply tearing out the whole strength v. toughness. I mean, I for one, LIKE rolling lots of dice. The look on your opponents face when you announce, "Ok. 170 lasgun shots into that dude." (and the subsequent look on your face when that dude paasses all his armor saves )

Having an issues with the basic rules of the system suggest that you have a basic problem with 40k itself, and it's likely not a game you should be playing. It's sad to lose players, but it's the truth. if something so integral to the game system vexes you so, then find a game that fits you better, or make a game that fits you better.

Not to mention, tbh, some of the posts in here have been very troll~ish....

gpfunk wrote:Hell man, I love rolling dice. Makes me feel like im playing a high stakes poker game with my little plastic men's lives on the line....muhahahaha.

Rolling to wound makes sense, and helps balance the game in the current system.

If anyone wants to propose a system that would be more balanced, with less dice to roll, I would love to hear and perhaps play test it for them if they wanted.

Kissing my own ass here...but I find this system works well, is still balanced, and doesn't take away much from the game. It makes games go by twice as fast, so you can play even more games. It can also reduce time spent playing a 2500 to time normally spent playing 1500. Just barely though Test it out, rules might seem confusing at first, but i found 40K rules even more confusing when i just first started
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/376849.page

I could swear several years ago I read something about other war-gaming groups refusing to get into 40k due to the LACK of in depth rules or some such thing...

does anyone else recall that?

Indeed, a lot of the complaints I've heard about 40k is that its rule set is too simplistic. It's been made simpler, and simpler and simpler in an attempt to reach out to a larger audience.

Frankly, I'm wondering what people think its too complicated. WHen I started playing, I didn't think it was complicated...I just needed some time to get the rules in my head.

ChrisWWII wrote:Indeed, a lot of the complaints I've heard about 40k is that its rule set is too simplistic. It's been made simpler, and simpler and simpler in an attempt to reach out to a larger audience.

Frankly, I'm wondering what people think its too complicated. WHen I started playing, I didn't think it was complicated...I just needed some time to get the rules in my head.

Exactly. GW is not marketing to people who like extremely detailed painstakingly painted miniatures, nor is it for people who play with plastic identical Risk-men. It's trying to hit the middle ground and thus attract the greatest crowd. Same with the rules: it's not overly complicated, but it's not too simple. This is the reason why they are hated by everyone, because they can never fully satisfy anyone.

It's like what someone once said about , something about being good at everything but amazing at nothing. Outfight what you can't outlast, outlast what you can't outfight, that sorta thing.

OT: does anyone know where that's gone? I think its a very memorable dakka quote.

Just to be clear.
40k rules deliver very simple game play.
But the 40k rules ARE overcomplicated.(They use multiple game mechanics and resolution methods to achive the simplistic functions.)

I don't know about all of this. The OPs suggestions of a list of "simple" modifiers quickly becomes pretty complicated once you start diversifing unit abilities in a game.

I remember 2nd edition D&D and the thac0 system and the modifiers to that ended up being ridiculous. Give me a simple hit/wound mechanic that a table is referenced any day over a list of situational modifiers.

Lanrak wrote:Just to be clear.
40k rules deliver very simple game play.

I agree with you there. It's why I enjoy things like BFG and Necromunda...more complicated sometimes makes it more fun.

But the 40k rules ARE overcomplicated.(They use multiple game mechanics and resolution methods to achive the simplistic functions.)

I disagree with you there. The rules themselves are overly simple. I mean, what's the most basic function in 40k? Moving and shooting. Moving? You get to move 6" each turn, regardless of who you are. That's far too simple. Certain things should move faster than others. Yes, I know fleet is supposed to represent that, but sometimes fleet just doesn't help.

SHooting? Roll a d6 to hit. (Simple), roll a d6 to wound (simple) and then roll saves. All you need to remember is a couple charts...I don't see how that's 'overlycomplicated'.

I like it the way it is

ChrisWWII.
The 40k CORE rules ARE simple and DO NOT cover the game play of 40k!

This leads to HAVING to use aditional rules that make the rule set over complicated!
So rather than core rules and special abilities , as in other rule sets.
(Most other rule sets cover special abilities with ,allowing to ignore one condition, re roll dice, or modify a dice roll.Not totaly ignoring the structure of the game like some 40K special rules do. )

40k has,
Core rules.
Universal Special rules.
Vehicle rules .
Codex special rules.

Most rule sets have 2 pages of well defined rules to cover movement.

40k uses 14 pages.(Core , USRS,and vehicle rules.)

Most games define units by game play.
In 40k there are 2 types of unit.
Units that remove models to show damage, and units that record damage seperatley.

40k lists 7 seperate unit types , (and sub types in the USRs and vehicle rules.)
Simply beause the core rules exclude the majority of units, that are not standard infantry.
And 40k is written to sell toy soldiers by magnifying the differences between them with exclusive rules.

Lanrak wrote:
=snip=

Even at its most complicated, 40k rules are not overly complicated.

I'm not getting what your incoherent rant was meant to prove, but from what I can tell is that you're complaining about the rule sets having too many exceptions.

Seriously, even at its worst, 40k special rules let a unit do one thing extra, or block of one thing or something. It's not complicated. I seriously do not get your ranting about how 40k is so complicated and ridiculous...

For 75% of things, you'll only need ther core rules (which include the vehicle rules, and the USR. Anything in the BRB is the 'core rules').

And it seems like you're demanding things be overly simplified. Even looking at the 7 unit types, I can see a big difference between calvary, and say...jump infantry. There are not just 2 types of units in 40k. There are 2 types of damage resolution in 40k, but there are way more than 2 types of units.

Besides, all this is irrelevant. Who cares if there's 3 types of units or 21 as long as the rules themselves don't get too crazy.