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.

Not to be straight up negative but rolling d10 would be a pain; it’s easy enough to spin a die over when picking out the failed rolls. Try 30 boys on the charge, and then tell me you wouldn’t accidently change like half the dice trying to pick out the ones you want or just take ages to work through them.

So I'm clear here.

You're suggesting that, for example, Steve the Space Marine has a Ballistic Skill of 6, which means he would hit on a 4+ normally on a d10, is shooting at Timmy the Termagant, who has an evasion rating of 2. So now he needs a 6+ to hit. Only, Timmy is less than 12" from Steve, so steve can now hit him on a 5+, but Timmy is a small sized unit, so Steve actually needs a 6+ to hit him.

So first Steve has his base BS, then he compares it to Timmy's evasion, and gets a result, which is modified by all battlefield conditions, then finally rolls to hit.

Here are the problems; any persistent modifiers, like unit size, should just be factored into an Ev rating. Range should not be a factor at all, because too much measuring; range should remain a threshold; either you're within the effective range of the weapon or not.

Cover is a conditional modifier, which can be represented as a +/- to hit.

So I'm all for units having an Ev to modify BS, but it should just be inherent in the unit, not calculated during each circumstance.

I'll do the brute force math on it; but immediately I'm going to say this, any time you're comparing two values, and one value is greater than the other, you have the possibility of a 0 or a negative result...

SO what happens when Ballistic Skill 6
Shoots at Evasion 7
He can't roll an 11+ on a d10
Are we adding a:
He needs to roll a 10, and then at least a 2?

Or are we saying that a Natural 10 always hits.
If that's the case, then a unit with the WORST possible ballistic skill has the same chance to hit a space marine as he does a vindicare assassin (or some equally stealthy unit), which is 10%.

It's fine either way, but which is the best representation of the system, a Magic 10 or a 10+/3+ scenario?

HI all,
Here I go again, I may get it right one day ,lol.

1)Are we happy with the units Stealth value determining how hard they are to target?

2)Are we happy for using modifiers (+1 to stealth/+1 to dice score.)For range and cover etc?

This just leave how we determine the attackers shooting skill as a stat.

If we use another value Shooting skill which is compared to Stealth skill AND BOTH are modified, it becomes more complicated than necessary.IMO.

This happens if we fix the range of a weapon no matter who is using it.
EG A Bolt gun has an effective range of 24 ".Then we need to ADD another stat to determine the effectiveness within this range.

However ,if we say the unit will not shoot until it WILL effect the target.(Like real soldiers do.So they do not waste ammo/ give their position away.)

We can simply use effective range to show how good the unit is a shooting.(Combine the effect of the weapon and user.)

EG better shots hits targets further away.


Imagine we are at the rifle range with a standard target set up.(Where the target moves up and down the range.)
We line up ALL the units of 40k ,and measure when they concistantly score a hit on the target with thier range of weapons.
And this is the effective range of that particular unit with that particular weapon .

So the chance to hit is covered by target stealth.
The units skill with ranged attacks is listed as their effective range.

Current shooting resolution only covers ONE aspect of the process.(how good the attackers shooting is.)
And achives this by subtracting the firers BS from 7 to determine the score to hit.

The new proposed method uses the skill and size of the target to give the base score to hit.
Then we use a FEW simple modifiers to take disposition of target/attacker into account.

Still uses ONE base value and ONE simple calculation.

The difference is weapons do not have an innate range .

But the unit using them determines it.

Simple illustration.
Take current weapon RANGE FROM 40k.
If the unit is
BS 2 =-4"
BS 3=+0"
BS 4=+4
BS 5=+6
BS 6 =+8
These are for 2 handed weapons .Pistols HALVE the modifiers.

(Note ORKS shootas are boltguns in this example. GW already reduced the ranges and called them shootas!)

Whats the point? there's nothing wrong with using D6.

There is nothing wrong with D6s,but there is a load wrong with the current 40k rules IMO.

You could do the weapon range varies based on the firing units BS, but that seems too minute of an observation for a battle game. That level of detail belongs more in a skirmish type setting I believe. Just let it be understood that 'accuracy at range' is loosely accounted for in firers BS. That's the way I would do it. If you felt the need just give certain units an ability keyword like 'Long Range' and it gives them a range multiplier of 1.5.

Peeps keep complaining about the d10's for strange reasons that are seemingly, well, no offense, petty. like bumping, slow stopping speed, difficulty reading, etc. Valid concerns, but maybe blown a bit out of proportion in the scheme of things. I'd like to go back and look at the d8 some more and see if that helps.

Dang all of you, getting me brewing rules again! Do you know how much of my time I'm going to waste on this now? LOL

KnuckleWolf wrote:
You could do the weapon range varies based on the firing units BS, but that seems too minute of an observation for a battle game. That level of detail belongs more in a skirmish type setting I believe. Just let it be understood that 'accuracy at range' is loosely accounted for in firers BS. That's the way I would do it. If you felt the need just give certain units an ability keyword like 'Long Range' and it gives them a range multiplier of 1.5.

Peeps keep complaining about the d10's for strange reasons that are seemingly, well, no offense, petty. like bumping, slow stopping speed, difficulty reading, etc. Valid concerns, but maybe blown a bit out of proportion in the scheme of things. I'd like to go back and look at the d8 some more and see if that helps.

Dang all of you, getting me brewing rules again! Do you know how much of my time I'm going to waste on this now? LOL

Agreed.

Let's leave range alone, as a quality of wargear. The suggestion of "long range", though, would be a good usr. Marksman:bolter, might increase the effective range of a bolter by 6". It's great because we can actually objectively determine the cost. That brings me back into the idea that range is already a fundamental concern for unit effectiveness.

A units predicted damage output, multiplied by its effective range, per turn, gives us a way to measure half the units base value. Defense, including evasion, armor, and leadership, gives us the other half. Special rules are a multiplier or a modifier of one or more of those factors, so they have a calculable cost as well. Some USRs are negligible, or bear a minute tactical impact, which would end up being either army wide features or racial effects, that can be factored into each codex's cost algorithm.

And just to once again defend the d10 is better position, the additional degree of unit variance will allow us to simplify the game mechanics without dumbing down the game.

Now new suggestion: combat actions-

I've always been pissed off by the idea that my tactical options were limited to move and attack- what about suppression, defensive movement, focused fire... Things that have general, balanced rules which don't give any particular edge other than a strategic one? Any unit should have the option to move slowly and carefully in exchange for an increased evasion value, and so on. If the rules are universal, all they do is add another level of tactical play without hurting game balance. If we're talking about an overhaul, we should consider these kinds of changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and wolf, if you want to collaborate, pm me, I've got a ton of brute force math on documents building up to a 40kd10 system that will ultimately generate objectively balanced unit costs.

Oh man.

Okay so I took the initiative here and made a tentative 40kD10 system.
I started from the bottom, with unit point cost valuation, and came up with a system I believe will generate balanced units, along with a simple set of rules.
So far, the system does not include vehicle costs yet, but it will. Suffice it to say, for now, vehicles will be better in some ways, worse in others.
The upshot, it's way faster than 6e. The downside, It will take me a long time to finish.

Here are the basic rules, a full rulebook will come eventually, once the math is all finished...
There are no Saving throws.
The game uses D10.
All dice activity is kept to the Active player only, barring special circumstances.
These rules may seem complicated at first, but the system is incredibly simple.


There are 2 Main Phases per Turn.
Movement
Attack
All movement is conducted in the movement phase. There is no assault move, no pile in, no consolodation move, no Locked in CC, No initiative, no assault phase at all.
An attacking unit may choose to use it's Ranged Profile or its Close Combat profile to attack.
Some situations will force one profile to be used over another.

Close Combat Rules:

Being IN CC with a unit means that your model is within 2" of an enemy model, this may or may not be literal "base contact".
Some close combat weapons or models have "reach" which extends the range of CC to 3" or 4".
If a model is IN CC with another unit, he uses his Weapon Skill in place of his Ballistic Skill to determine Hits. If he has a ranged weapon with the Pistol characteristic, he may use this (still weapon skill) in place of a Close combat only weapon. The same may be done with weapons with the assault characteristic but at a -1 penalty, heavy with a -3 penalty.
Shooting at a unit that is IN CC with a friendly unit is legal, but any roll to hit of a 1 automatically hits a friendly model.
Shooting from a unit that is IN CC with an enemy unit other than a unit you are IN CC with, grants any targets a +2 evasion, shooting at a unit you are IN CC with grants that unit a +1 evasion (more on this in a moment).
The active player is the only one who attacks (with one exception, the Counter Attack USR)


The Statline:
All units have Ballistic Skill, Weapon Skill, Movement Speed, Evasion Skill, Armor Rating, Invulnerable Rating, Leadership, CC Attacks, and Wounds
All weapons - regardless of natural weapons or wargear, have a profile with these stats:
Strength, Armor Piercing, Targeting, and Range (reach in the case of CC), along with a type (Assault, Rapid, Heavy, Etc...)

There is a limited list of USRs available at the moment
(super limited actually, i've only figured out fleet, rending, and stealth so far, more to come)


All conflicts are determined comparatively, and settled with d10.
To Hit: Target Unit's evasion is subtracted from attackers ballistic skill. The Resulting number is the basis for the success threshold. (The target's evasion can be reduced by a weapon's targeting ability, both these stats are uncommon)
To keep in line with what we're used to, the results are inverted. To illustrate.

Space Marine with BS 7 shoots at Eldar Guardian with Evasion 1. His BS becomes a 6, which means he hits on a 5+. A 1 is always a failure, so 90% is the best available accuracy.

To wound: The attacker's strength is reduced by the target's armor rating. The target's armor rating is reduced by the attacker's ap. The Attacker's ap is reduced by the targets invulnerable save. The end result follows the same system as attack.

Space marine with S6, AP 1 storm bolter, scored a hit on Eldar Guardian with Armor 5. The ap reduces the effectiveness of the armor to 4, leaving the space marine with an effective str of 2. He must roll a 9+ to inflict a wound. If he wounds, there is no save.


Ah, but what happens in the event that the defensive value is higher than the attacking value? Magic 10 you say? I say eh, kind of but not really.

Same space marine is shooting at a terminator, let's say he scores 1 hit.

In this example the terminator has an armor 8 and an invulnerable rating of 1.

The AP of the bolter is negated by the terminator's invulnerable rating, leaving the space marine at a 2 strength deficit.

In order to wound, the Marine would have to roll a 10, then pick up the 10, roll again, and roll a 3+. (8% chance to wound)

A 10 followed by a 10 is always a success, giving the lowliest unit the opportunity (1% of the time) to get lucky.


-----------


So, super simple right? Yeah, totally, but does it work?

So far, I've only tested with a few kill teams. But statistically it works out reasonably well... once the point costs are balanced.
In order to balance out the point costs, it took me about 2 weeks and a lot of excel spreadsheets to come up with a formula that both worked and fell kind of in line with our expected point costs in 40k; the system, as it operates currently is weighted like this:

WS and BS provide the base cost for any unit. Everything else is a multiplier, to some degree, of that cost.
The absolute allowable minimum is that a unit must have at least 1 rank in one of those skills for the system to function.
Evasion (base rank of 0-5) is a multiplier that generates an additive cost
Armor (base rank 0-10) is a multiplier that generates an additive cost
Invulnerable (base rank 0-5) is multiplier of the armor's additive cost
Wound cost (weighted so that all models are assumed to start with one wound) is a multiplier of the sum of these costs
Movement Range (weighted so that 6" is a zero change) is a multiplier of the sum of these costs
Leadership (weighted so that all models are assumed to start at six) is a percentage increase or decrease in the sum total of these base costs.

Offensive wargear is priced as a fractional cost of the unit's base cost, which is incrementally increased by the following factors-
Strength, Evasion Reduction (targetting), and AP are independently, incrementally calculated and totaled
Weapon range, or reach, is a %, based on the principle that the maximum effective range of a weapon is 86.5" on a 6x4 table (corner to corner) and the subtotal of the weapon's cost is reduced to represent that percentage, I also took into account that 25% of the board will be cover or LoS blocking terrain, but my math isn't square there yet.

Rending, for the sake of completeness, adds 3 AP to the weapon if a natural 10 is rolled To Hit (and affects the price of the weapon to represent this)
Close combat weapon is a mandatory upgrade, all units have a CC profile, but a stock cc weapon has a typically negligible cost.

Squad Leaders cost are factored into the cost of a unit, but units with variable sizes only pay for that squad leader in their minimum unit size.


I tried to limit arbitrary decisions to an absolute minimum, here are the concessions I had to make:
Currently, Rate of Fire is a multiplier (statline attacks or number of shots) to the cost of the weapon, but determining to what degree type: Assault, rapid fire, pistol, heavy, etc... was still beyond me. I settled on the arbitrary decision that Rapid Fire and Assault 1 are weighted equally, though they probably shouldn't be I have to do more there, heavy 1 for an infantry model is a 25% cost reduction in the cost of the gun, while heavy 2 is a 125% increase; whereas Assault 2 is a 150% increase. Guns with very high rate of fire sacrifice some shots in this system for increased evasion reduction; for example, a Gatling Psilencer is 6 shots with an evasion reduction of a 2 or 3 (i don't remember exactly). I still have to make determinations regarding template and blast weapons, but that's coming soon. One Shot weapons are weighted against the average (6 turn) length of a game.

USR's like Ordinance and Ignores Cover will require a bit more work, but I'm confident that I can objectively determine the value.

Many wargear options are pretty easy to translate, because the system is simple enough to allow it, but the ones that provide USRs or create risks for the unit (Gets hot) are a little harder to figure out.

What I'm working on now:
Force Org modifiers - Each section of the Force Org Chart will have an effect on the cost calculator, but haven't made any tests yet.
Vehicles - Right now, I'm tempted to leave Armor Ratings of vehicles at 10-14, and working out rules for Melta, Smash, etc... Hull points make for easy math, but I'm not sure about weighing the armor value of facings; I'm pretty sure they should be weighted equally. Transport capacity is another tricky thing to put a cost to, but so far I've figured out tougher stuff, so I'm sure I'll get there.
Monstrous Creatures - So far, MCs can use the cost calculator I built, but I'm leaving stuff out that I'll have to go back in and account for.
USRs - In the cost calculator, USRs will eventually be a long ass Yes/No checklist, I'm going through them doing all the easy ones first.

more to come









Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm noticing a few discrepancies between my cost calculator and Games Workshop's point values, but more often than not, my costs are right in line (give or take a few points following special abilities)

I'm using the discrepancies to come up with modifier values for army wide abilities, special rules like independent character and area effect bubbles, but I'm basing those values on whatever measurable statistics I can infer.

Some things to consider. Leadership tests are taken on a single d10 now, so 9 is really the max leadership. All leadership values from converted unit statlines are based on a % to pass rather than a literal translation. 1 is always a success, 10 is always a failure. Certain abilities will provide a leadership reroll for morale checks. So anything that modifies a unit's leadership is a significant increase.

Some of the big discrepencies I've noticed...
1. Ogryns, adjusted for their relative survivability, are an attractive unit at 22 points per model, though they suffer from a low leadership, attaching them to an IC makes them an incredibly effective unit. While space marines have come out to cost around 14-16 points depending on how ASTKNF calcualates as an army-wide ability.
2. Sternguard, armed with bolters and their special ammunition, are only 20 points (before Combat squads and ATSKNF, but they pay more for wargear upgrades).
3. Terminators with thunderhammer/storm shield only cost around 33 points, again before the army wides.
4. Hormagaunts are around 4ppm (before synapse) and upgrades are less than 1ppm.
5. Strangely, Dreadknights are almost spot on, with terminator armor, 4 wounds, dynamite statlines... but according to my wargear costs, their ranged weapon upgrades are almost prohibitively expensive.

Since wargear cost is a function of unit cost, a big statline like a multiwound model with good armor has a much harder time equipping ranged weapons. There is an effectiveness/cost threshold, and I'm trying to find what it is exactly - right now I have the arbitrary threshold of a 50 point base cost, after that regardless of the unit's statline, wargear doesn't multiply in cost based on the unit, so Lysander, the Swarmlord, and a dreadknight would all pretty much pay the same price for a lascannon or thunder hammer.

It's just a temporary measure because the formula works perfectly for infantry; it's just Uber-models that meet a threshold problem.

In the hands of a space marine, a gattling psilencer would be 26 points, but for a terminator it would cost closer to 60, and for a dreadknight, closer to 150.

Rate of Fire is a big modifier. For comparison:
A lascannon is about 21 points in the hands of SM, about 33 in the hands of a terminator, and about 65 in the hands of a dreadknight, and just for completion, about 10 in the hands of a single guardsman (a heavy weapons team would pay closer to 17, but realistically 15).

Now statistically, these costs make sense, as the survivability of the units, in turn, mean that overall these weapons will be capable of inflicting dramatically more wounds over the course of a 6 turn game given (in a normal distribution). But practically and tactically it makes less sense, because you'd rather have a full squad of space marines than a 150 point gun on your dreadknight.

I think the element I may not be considering is the MAX UNIT SIZE and weapon scarcity.


Thoughts anyone?

To address why units use their ws when shooting at cc range, it's a representation of the inherently chaotic nature of melee. When you are within reach of someone's melee attacks, bringing a gun to bear accurately is a tougher practice, you are dodging, deflecting; they are moving at greater relative angles to your arc of fire, etc... A pistol is easier to handle at point blank range than a rifle, and far easier than a heavy weapon, hence the penalties. Assault weapons are relatively easy because they've been designed ostensibly for this purpose, but still carry a point blank penalty.

Tentative Rules for Cover:
Partial Cover - At least 25% of the unit is behind cover, relative to the position of the attacker. This unit gains +1 Evasion
Full cover - at least 50% of the unit is behind cover, relative to the position of the attacker. +2 Evasion
Stealth - A unit with stealth adds +1 to the Evasion they receive from cover
Shrouded - Increases the base evasion of the unit by 1

Stealth, Shrouded, and Cover can stack, potentially giving a unit a +4 evasion; reducing the effective Ballistic skill of the shooter by 4, unless their wargear utilizes a targeting upgrade (evasion reduction).

Example.
A Tau Stealth team (Armor 5) has both stealth and shrouding, and they have partial cover from an intervening piece of terrain.
The Space marine (bs 6) is armed with a storm bolter (S6, AP1, EVR 1, R24")

The space marine squad, say 5 grey knight strike squad dudes, open fire on the stealth team.
BS 6 - (Ev 3 - EvR 1) = BS 4
Of the 10 shots, 4 hit, probably resulting in 1 dead stealth suit (20% per hit with the relative s, ap, and armor)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trying to come up with a metric for the impact of Psykers and the various powers, I'm personally opposed to random powers as per 6e, and curious, should I balance for random generation or just assign fixed costs based on their actual effectiveness?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I'm just talking to myself now...

Yeah junk, you kind of hijacked the thread,

I think D10 would work much better with some simple changes to statlines

Junk, I like the sound of an evasion modifier but your example stealthsuits are a bit off the mark
Your rewritten rules are not simpler
And lastly, if I put a .45 round in a gorilla I would be locked up and if I tried to do the same to an unarmoured demon prince it would probably not even flinch because I just used a handgun on a 20 foot monster, toughness is also needed for instant death

Also we may need to find a new polyhedron because D10's roll as well as... well... nothing. they're really awkward for polyhedra, I would actually prefer D20's /2 rounded up to 1 decimal

Bwahahahaha.....Dont mind me just felt like laughing

Brewed up a core combat mechanic based on 40k. Don't like it much, feels too skirmish-y. I like the interpretation, not the play. mostly cause it ended up with an extra Dice roll in combat. Going to tinker around with it, but it probably will never fly. Mostly just popped a reply up to ask junk:

DAAAANNGG! Get carried away much? lol Have you given any thought yet as to how your going to unbalance your algorithms to create interesting game play? Y'know 'Perfect Imbalance' and all that? You haven't gotten into that yet so was curious. Thanks!

Ha! Carried away for sure, I'm on vacation, so i'm indulging.

KW; I was thinking about that.

The trick to differentiation is giving each codex an 'army wide' modifier. Like Tau get a discount on weapon strength, and eldar get a discount on evasion, tyranid get a discount on unit speed, etc... The problem is balancing the value of the discount. The bitch is going back to my probability tables and brute forcing all the combinations again using the new costs. I'm already doing it for force org slots, and thats already causing some valuation problems. (Attack bikes for example are massively expensive in this system, but a marine can upgrade to a melta gun practically free)

The basic formula for determining point cost that I came up with is based entirely on overall unit effectiveness, essentially potential damage output over the course of a 6 turn game. So screwing with the costs creates some weird imbalances.

The truth is, that the balance/imbalance you're talking about is going to come from arbitrary decisions regarding wargear scarcity and the selection of units available. So everything will be a conversion, rather than an invention, in the end; I'm just bringing the point costs to parity.

DunX, Toughness is kind of rolled into Armor for this, because I wanted to eliminate the idea of an armor save. I also haven't figured out the value of ID and EW yet, it's pretty tricky stuff. USRs are a pain in the ass, some of them are important and should be included, others just unnecessarily complicate the game. I like ID and EW, but I had to sacrifice double-strength ID in order to preserve the actual value of wounds, and as a concession for removing toughness.

Is toughness really that important, the way that it's employed? Literally translating the d6 system into a d10 system is easy enough, but there's no point if you're not going to use the overhaul for anything. I'm using it as an opportunity to make sense of the imbalances and trim a lot of crap from the system. Toughness could still be a resistance stat to weapon strength, but you can serve the same function just by adding the expected unit toughness as a function of the overall armor value.

Playing with my new core, thinking it may not be so good for ground battle games but might have a use in like a starship battle game or some other game type. For awhile it appeared to be developing characteristics of a universal type rule set, not sure if it will maintain that as it evolves though. Thought I'd share it now. Might move this to another thread to tinker with if you guys have a thought as to where it ought go. I've removed some of the super technical stuff I don't think you'll need, you all ought be able to follow the flow without too much difficulty. This is just framework, no skin or polish or clarification. I guess its OGL now lol

Unit Stats(Loosely, just for direction purposes atm, conceptual, not definitive)
Tactical skill - Units technical skills, from its leaders battlefield awareness to the soldiers ability to keep his head down and run with gear. Soldiering Knowledge essentially.
Weapon Skill - Units skill with Firearms and explosives. Ability to man a gun emplacement. Effective bomb placement. (Not melee stuff)
Fighting Skill - Units ability to deal in close quarters and hand to hand.
Endurance - What the unit can take in punishment
Hits - How much the unit can take in punishment
Morale - How much it's willing to take in punishment

Object Stats(Again, conceptual atm, but probably not changing much)
Effectiveness - Weapon strength, 40k steal and rename lol
Deniability - Armor piercing, same as above
Shielding - A primary defensive 'object' save value
Armor - A secondary defensive 'object' save value

Other
Cover - A primary defensive situational boost, from hunkerin' down to bunkerin' up

Combat Core (Mostly definitive, lovingly called the Fire!-Duck!-Augh!-Bleh! system)
Activation of unit -> Target(s) selection -> Stats Lock-in for resolution -> Roll sequence(See below) -> Report -> Clean up step
1.] Offensive Roll for Attacking player - (Roll to hit basically) This is a threshold roll, using the die, plus skill, plus situational modifiers to meet or exceed a set value. (That value find is not yet determined, it might be set by an in game statistic or just be an arbitrary value set by the core and whatever die I decide to settle on)
2.] Defensive Roll for Defending player(s) - (The new addition) This is a threshold/range roll, using the die to roll within a range value from zero, to zero plus primary defensive object modifiers, plus primary defensive situational modifiers.
3.] Effectiveness Roll for Attacking player -(Roll to wound basically) This is a comparison roll, using the attacking models Effectiveness stat versus the affected models Endurance. Will have a chart based on the die type and weighting.
4.] Saving Roll for defending player - (Armor saves, duh) This is a comparison roll, using the affeted models armor versus attacking weapons deniability. Again chart to be created

So that's about the sum of the concept. An extra roll for the defender, a new type assignment to some modifiers (object and situational). Yada yada yada... Going to keep tuning it see if it will ever get off the ground. Proceed to be awesome

Look, I like your ideas, but you can't be a better warhammer than warhammer. Rewrite all of this in a vacuum. Make a different game to warhammer. Use warhammer minis and fluff and what have you, but do something largely different. Also if you need to make more than 3 rolls for anything, you're making me do TOO much.

IKR!? I've been growing more disenchanted with the 40k universe since I got into the game. I don't think I knew enough about the term 'Grimdark' back then lol . This core was going to probably first be used in a d20 Future game I was going to do eventually. Because I do like the concepts and ground work.

And please note that this was written in a vacuum. The only things in the core that refer to 40k were comparisons to 40k to relate similarities, this is afterall a '40k proposed rule thread', not 'general discussion' thread. Everything about the framework was trope or mechanic based. Shields, armor, skill etc. I could even show you the notebook I've been writing in where the only 'name' or header prescribed to any of this was 'd8/d10 Battle'. It should also be noted that there is the potential that in this frame, you only roll twice, or three times. Armor might not be present, Primary defense objects and situations might not be present, and the potential for rule breaks to ignore or deny rolls is yet unexplored. And if that wasn't enough, I already mentioned that I didn't like the fourth roll either.

I mean seriously bro, intro paragraph and one post before, give me my due credit:
" ...thinking it may not be so good for ground battle games but might have a use in like a starship battle game or some other game type."
"...characteristics of a universal type rule set..."
"... just framework, no skin..."
"I like the interpretation, not the play. mostly cause it ended up with an extra Dice roll in combat."

Dont just Knock me bro, Rock with me.

KW,

What do the defensive rolls represent? In a translation to the battlefield, why do the reacting objects add a secondary random chance to avoid getting hit or wounded?

The illusion of randomness is pervasive in conflict, but all confrontations really come down to the skill of the attacker versus the awareness, relative skill, and preparedness of the defender. I can see a random roll being used to determine the awareness of the defender, but relative skill and preparedness are pretty fixed characteristics.

Games, regardless of the level of realism, provide us with a number of ways to interpret conflict numerically, and in most cases, a threshold pass/fail or degree of success system is used to determine attacker's success relative to defender. The 'burden of proof' per say, is on the attacker, his base skill, his 'random' modifier, representing the correct execution of the attack, against a target. Adding random results to both sides lessens the value of skill significantly, unless the chasm between values is so wide that it ceases to matter, in which case, success or failure is a foregone conclusion.

I like multiple tests for success, as they can be used to illustrate a range of possible results, but adding too much fluctuation to a system puts more importance on the abstract determinate of dice and less on a unit's relative competence.

Good Question junk. Here's the explanation in a nutshell. There's the 'Active' skill of the attacker and the defender and the 'Static' variables of the gear and environment. This system will be an attempt at giving a threshold test to either side for the 'Active' portion, which could be enhanced through good strategy, and a comparison test for the 'Static' portion which is set from the beginning of the game. So the defensive roll is Cover and Shields lifted out of the save category and compounded in an 'active' threshold test.

I was also hoping to get the defender to have more to do on their inactive turn then roll armor, and hoped the 'Active' defense roll would have a margin of additional excitement to see their units duck and cover or bounce swords off shields.

The attacker will get his full skill set at his disposal and his fancy gadgets and 'magic' boosts to hit. But the defender is not a stationary target nor strictly protected by armor and flesh(or metal, ooze, scales etc) so the chance to see if their additional preparations of being next to a wall when the shot comes in, or if the shield generator is working right, seems only fair. It never made much sense that in 40k a shield generator only activated for certain incoming fire and was strangely silent the rest of the time, or that the wall the archer was ducking behind didn't slow down the arrow. If I'm ducking in a bush but my armor is better, that doesn't mean I'm going to stand there and let you test against the armor when I'd much rather you not be able to see me in the first place. At some point you got to find me first. I'm aiming and hoping to get that.

The reasons you list for the math of it are all well understood, many were reasons I didn't like the addition, albeit phrased more on intuitive understanding of gameplay that we develop overtime, then sweeping vernacular, haha To be honest, I could care less about the numbers at this point in development, it has to be fun first or numbers won't count for And at the end of the day this skeleton could prove inadequate to either task

Are they equally weighted?
If you have an attacker hitting x% of the time, and the defender has an equal chance of avoiding the attack, then the attacker wounding x% of that, and the defender resisting has an equal chance, then wounds are going to be exceptionally rare.

In the system I laid out; the probability of a wound is dependent on the attackers skill vs defenders skill, with a predictable Chance to wound between 81% and .5% depending on the match up. So the only probability calculation I need to determine a units value is the attack die spread. So I know how likely two units are to damage each other, and controlling the weights of those stats allows control over flow.

 junk wrote:
Are they equally weighted?

Good question again, but... NO! That would be non-functional, nothing would die, the game would gum up like an engine with sugar in the gas tank. This ain't my first rodeo bro haha Love how you seem to keep thinking that it is, but you can relax . They're 'tilted' all over the place, or should be once I get to value assignment. For your relief however...

Super Roughly - Goal Success rate:
Offensive roll - 40 to 90%, 70% common, flat chance, thats leaving room for chance of auto success/fail mechanic.
Defensive roll - 40% or less averaging 20%, presence commonality variable so assuming the average. flat chance, possibility of altering mechanics yet unexplored.
Effectiveness Roll - ranges from 30 to 90%, 70% common, possibility of auto success/fail mechanic.
Saving roll - range 0% to 30%, 20% common

Those are just the numbers I expected to have to use, and after all that I still came up with a common kill count out of ten shots=3.136 completely dudes, I don't know if I want that higher or lower yet. Haven't decided how many dice I want the average unit to be rolling per turn. All that stuff I would worry about down the road when I start working out the pacing, figuring how many turns I want, yadayadayada. If I go with my gut and say 20 dice out of a ten piece unit per turn right off the bat, this would be too high for my taste. Notably, if that unit had better cover they lose one less hit out of the same ten.

Running a minimal units stats against max stats with an awesome defensive roll we get a .504 kill count out of ten dice, That would acceptable to me. For the moment. Lastly I should point out that while melee combat will use the same engine those values will be far different. Again I don't know yet if I want to make CC fast and bloody (as it ought be) or more cinematic and prolonged. Heck I haven't even picked a scale yet hehe .

40k with d10s?

Wouldn't that just make it warzone?

Or was that Urban War metropolis?

I get them mixed up.

I think it would be a much better game with d10's...cover saves alone would make me want to change to a d10 system

It would still be an over complicated holistic mess of a game, but with slightly better spread of potential results by using a higher value dice.

So it would move from 3.2 out of 10 to 3.5 out of 10 on my rating system.

Using a more interactive game turn, direct representation on the stat lines and a single damage resolution method , would reduce the over complication in the rules and jump it up to a 8.2!
(Similar to WHFB mapped to KOW.)

But then I am more interested in playing games, than arguing about poorly defined and implemented rules...

More interactive? What do you mean by that?

For me the measure of a good strategy game is how much of a role strategy actually plays. The plight of 40k, besides the messy nonsensical rules, is the fact that the combination of poor balance and hamhanded approach to unit design creates a proclivity towards railroaded playstyles. A new ruleset, starting from a unit-balance approach, while expanding the nuances of unit differentiation, would improve the game substantially.

To answer the OP's topical question, in my opinion, which i have (unfortunately, inelegantly) explored in the previous posts: Yes, 40k could be better with a base10 system, but that alone is not going to fix any of the actual problems with the game. A simple d10 conversion would only add yet another layer of complication to the system. A total overhaul of the ruleset and unit valuation, along with a simplification of the rules is necessary. If the core system is improved, the degree of probability represented by the dice will be less important. I'll refrain from further posting my speculation as to a superior system, and will eventually post a homebrew ruleset with my findings.

Hi Junk.
Just a quick reply.
If you alter the game turn mechanic you can improve the level of interaction of the units and players.(Less boring as time waiting for the opposing player is reduced .)
Most modern rules use interleaved phases/action sets,or alternating/random activation '
(I dont think 40k suits variable bound game turn.)

So units and players act and react within the basic structure of the game turn.(And there is no need for additional conditional reaction rules to be added.)
(Also suppression and morale is incorperated in the basic damage resolution in most good war games.)