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've seen a number of comments in various rules discussions about three stage damage resolution being preferable to two stage, but would like to explore how to attempt to implement a two stage resolution process with home brew rules roughly similar to the 40k rules. So for this discussion three stage resolution is notan option except perhaps as a hybrid 2/3 stage resolution with the norm being two stage. Also, I don't care about being limited by any current stats for models in the game but would rewrite the stats as necessary to make the units interact in a way that feels right.

My first thought is that d6 isn't the right way to go with two stage resolution as there isn't enough variability. I think d10 would be the better option or perhaps d12, but 10 is a nice round number so I prefer that. This gives 100 possible outcomes each time an attempt is made damage.

Right now a bs3 model shooting a s3 ap5 weapon at a t4 model in power armor has a 5.5% chance of wounding the target so how do you get roughly the same odds with a d10 and two stage resolution? First BS needs to be reduced from 50% chance to hit to something lower. Let's give that model a new BS score of 3. Add the result of a d10 and it is a hit if the total is 11 or higher. Now there is a 30% chance of hitting.

With a 20% chance to wound and beat the armor, the shooting will be roughly as deadly as it is now. I propose giving the weapon a combined S/AP value and the defense a combined T/AV value. To make this work the S/AP combined value will be 6 and the combined T/AV value will be 10. Roll a d10 and add the result to the shooter's S/AP score of 6 and if the result equals or exceeds the defender's T/AV +5* the defender is wounded. A roll of 9 or 10 will cause a wound.

This is the starting point but how do you treat things like poison weapons or weapons punching right through armor? Let's look at a weapon that has good enough AP to beat power armor, perhaps a plasma weapon. It will have a S of 6 and an AP of 8 with a combined S/AP score of 14. The model in power armor has T5 and AV5 for a combined score of 10. The stat line will read 14(6/8) for the gun and 10 (5/5) for the marine. Since AP8 is higher than the AV, the armor is useless so in resolving the damage we will only compare S vs. T. Roll a d10 and add the result to your S. If the result equals or exceeds defender's T+5*, the defender is wounded. So the defender is wounded on a 5+ or 60% of the time.

With a poison weapon, toughness has no relevance, if the armor is beat, you will probably suffer a wound. Poison weapons would only have an AP value and only roll to beat armor. Let's give a poison weapon trying to wound a marine an AP3 against the marine's AV5. If 3+d10 equals or exceeds 5+5*, the marine is wounded, so a roll of 7+ is needed to wound and the marine is wounded 40% of the time.

So that's the basic idea. How can it be improved within the basic parameter of using a two roll resolution system?

*The +5 is used to avoid charts when rolling and comparing competing scores such as S vs.T.

**Edited to adjust numbers and make resolution more streamlined.

I really don't like anything larger than a d8. When you're rolling 30 of them at a time the 6s and 9s become an issue, especially for the guy across the table who's gonna have to take your word for it.

Valid point though with the system I'm proposing above 6s and 9s will both usually fail on the to hit roll eliminating most of those 30 dice. On the to wound roll normally there would only be a couple of 9s and 6s. Bigger problem in a competitive environment than in a friendly one. Admittedly it is still an issue.

The problem is not the size of the dice used, but the resolution methods employed in 40k.

Similarly most games that use better resolution methods flow quickly even with 3 stage damage resolution.

Its just 40k uses a horrible combination of resolution methods , that need lots of additional rules to make them work for 40k setting.
And uses them in the most counter intuitive way possible.(Armour sucks out the bullets and heals the wound!)

Most 2 stage damage resolution methods follow the to hit ,(attacker skill vs target skill,) then to damage (Attack power vs defence value of target.)

I have found most 40k player like the difference between armour and toughness values. So say that 2 stage damage resolution in 40k 'does not feel right'.

If you use opposed values , (direct comparison or value and modifier,) you can get just as much variation as you do with larger dice sizes.
(I prefer to keep to D6, as they stack and roll easily for larger units found in 40k.)

With this system (if it requires a 9 or 10 on a d10 to wound meq) a lasgun could never harm a centurion (+1t, 1 better save).