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.

Would you all be down for a combat system in 40k like in AoS?

Not trying to make a thread of it needs to happen, or will it happen, or should it happen, just wonder?

IE going from the system now to

Your weapon hits on a x, dont matter the targets skill, just hits on x.

You would still get armor saves, but depending on the weapon would modify it.

IE if you had a laz cannon - 3 from your armor save or 4 or what ever, so if you shot a termie with a las canon, he would need to save of a 6+ or take his invul save.

I think it would be nice change to do away with the constant, whats your toughness? ok, whats your WS? strength? ect ect ect.

Yay or nay? lets keep it civil if we can i know this can be a touchy thing for some people.

I cannot properly answer this until I've seen the more expanded General's Rulebook (or whatever) edition as I heard much changes happened.

If there were no changes, then god no. I don't want my nid monsters dying to guard disco light shows just as easy as nurglings.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I cannot properly answer this until I've seen the more expanded General's Rulebook (or whatever) edition as I heard much changes happened.

If there were no changes, then god no. I don't want my nid monsters dying to guard disco light shows just as easy as nurglings.

I would agree with you on that, i dont wanna see that happen at all, potentially even keep shooting as is, but make melee AoS style.

Barring possible "reform" of the cover system as a penalty to hit, and modifier for size, I see no problems with the current system.

The same to wound, I find it elegant.

For melee, my hope would be grant a 2+ to hit of the attacker for WS more that twice the WS of the defender.

I am ambivalent on armour saves, modifier would not be so bad perhaps. But a weapon sould not have more than -3. With these designers, we would have in an edition half of the weapons inflicting a -3 penalty on the save and power creep with FnP and whatnot restarting all over again.

Anyway, is not this stuff that can drive away a kid. Me and my friends memorised the tables at 12.

Clunkiness, imbalances, army concept good on fluff but frustrating on the battlefield, randumb. Fix this before changing what needs no fixing.

Overall, with some chance given, NO. NO THANKS.

Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope.

Nope.

I would not like that at all. It makes all the units far too samey, and doesn't really model what's actually going on.

I would like it to be changed to the old Warhammer Fantasy system though:

1.) Cover is a modifier To Hit rather than another save
2.) Your strength modified the opponent's armor save, rather than having an AP
3.) Invuls come before Armor Saves (technically Fantasy Ward saves came after but it seems kinda weird that the magic field is in your armor rather than outside it, so it would make more logical sense that the Invul comes first).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
3.) Invuls come before Armor Saves (technically Fantasy Ward saves came after but it seems kinda weird that the magic field is in your armor rather than outside it, so it would make more logical sense that the Invul comes first).

You mean you could have both at the same time? Not sure we need IC's etc being buffed even more...And if you roll both it doesn't really matter order so if you really would want doubt anybody would object you rolling them in different order anyway.

As for question...Nope. Not at all. Sorry but no matter how you look at it lasgun shouldn't be able to destroy land raider never mind emperor class titan like they could in AOS styled system. Doubt you are going to stop M1A2 abrams with '44 colt either!

The proliferation of easy 4++ and 3++ is another issue completely. But this makes those people with a tacked on 5++ a lot better.

WHFB, for all its faults, did do standard shooting pretty spot on. However, I've always enjoyed the idea of rolling to hit, and then if you happen to be in cover, rolling again to see what was hit, so well armoured units can still receive a proper benefit from cover.

As an example, 10 shots at some standard space marines in the woods (5+ cover save) that hit on 3's. Lets say 8 of them "hit", roll those 8 again and see what you hit, with 1-4 hitting a space marine and 5-6 hitting the cover. Cover hits are discarded (or in the case of more fun terrain, like fuel dumps, cause some nasty surprises), and the space marine hits are resolved as normal.

Adds very little in terms of extra steps or effort, and yet provides an entirely new depth of strategy to terrain use (and a more accurate representation of what terrain as cover actually does too).

As far as modifying all of shooting to AoS style, definitely a vote of no. For combat, given the relatively small amount of time most unit spend in combat at all, I feel like an old-style Necromunda combat would be more entertaining, but is a tad more cumbersome and time consuming.

 Aipoch wrote:
(or in the case of more fun terrain, like fuel dumps, cause some nasty surprises)

This actually reminds me of an incident where I was playing Payday 2 and one of the enemies took cover behind an exploding barrel.

I didn't even need to fire a bullet, I just had to walk into view. Then it was Victoria Day in December.

 Aipoch wrote:
As far as modifying all of shooting to AoS style, definitely a vote of no. For combat, given the relatively small amount of time most unit spend in combat at all, I feel like an old-style Necromunda combat would be more entertaining, but is a tad more cumbersome and time consuming.

Dear god no. That works okay in necromunda scale but in 7th ed army scales? Oh boy that would take ages. I play 2nd ed and even on that scale we use tad simplified(which involes to 1d6 for both sides+modifiers) to fasten it up.

Not to mention it would mean redoing every single codex from the get-go---

I would prefer a system similar to KoW, but with saves worked in. Set to hit (modified by cover or charge conditions), with a set to wound roll that is a characteristic of the target (potentially modified, then having a modifier to saves).
You would have to also introduce a save or not use D6's (unless you want a nerve test-like system)

I really like the idea of making cover a lot more "realistic" to say when it comes to shooty, idea being you hit the area, then on a 1-4 you hit a target 5-6 cover, which would change on type of cover behind.

also the idea of strenth effecting armor saves rather then AP also seems really nifty.

tneva82 wrote:
Not to mention it would mean redoing every single codex from the get-go---

You speak as though every single codex doesn't need redoing...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
also the idea of strenth effecting armor saves rather then AP also seems really nifty.

The only problem I've ever had with the strength modifier to armour saves in 40K is that it never really made sense to me in the grand context of the myriad weapons available. The AP system, while not perfect, does provide a useful method for creating those varied weapons.

High strength weapons with weak AP give the impression of massive explosive force, the kind which might not penetrate your armour, but sure as hell will knock a space marine clear across a battlefield. Sure, his armour is intact, but that doesn't mean the body inside survived the force of the blast.

Likewise, low strength weapons with strong AP suggests neurotoxins, acids, poisons, and other such weapons which armor might yield little (or no) resistance to, but struggle to cause harm against particularly tough individuals (and have no possible chance of getting through vehicle armor).

And then you have everything in the middle. Easy to wound vs easy to kill if wounded.

If I were to do it all over again, though, I would use the AP system for armour modification, not the strength of the weapon.

Now this would be a stretch, but using the same mentality of what I mentioned previously for cover saves, you could apply it to armor saves. Roll to hit as you normally do, and add a round of seeing if you hit a piece of armour, or if you bypassed the armour and hit your target in a soft spot. It just seems that whenever I come across a model with a 6+ armour save, it's scantily clad in barely anything. 3+ peeps are still mobile, but heavily armoured, and 2+ beasts are akin to walking tanks. I can't recall seeing anything in a bikini that had a 2+ armour save, or something that looked like a walking tank with a 6+ armour save.

As an example, take 10 shots at AP5, your standard 5 man bolter barrage. Let's say 7 of which hit the target model, which has an armor save of 4+, because guardsmen be damned. Roll the 7 dice that hit, 1-3 hit a soft spot, 4-6 hit the armour. Roll your armour save for the guardsman, with a -2 modifier for the AP of the weapon.

Now AP matters to all weapons, and you better represent the chance of hitting soft spots on your target.

Strenght and armor penetration should never, ever be directly related in 40k. It subtracts the designer of "design space". Think about, as an example, the IG Manticore.

Partially. I'd like some simplified rules, but AoS almost makes it super simplified. The trade off would be: AoS-ing of 40k hits and wounds, but things like Tactical Marines get 3 wounds, Daemon Princes get 7-8 wounds, etc.

No, but Big Nasties that diminish with wounds taken would be great.

tneva82 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
3.) Invuls come before Armor Saves (technically Fantasy Ward saves came after but it seems kinda weird that the magic field is in your armor rather than outside it, so it would make more logical sense that the Invul comes first).

You mean you could have both at the same time? Not sure we need IC's etc being buffed even more...And if you roll both it doesn't really matter order so if you really would want doubt anybody would object you rolling them in different order anyway.

As for question...Nope. Not at all. Sorry but no matter how you look at it lasgun shouldn't be able to destroy land raider never mind emperor class titan like they could in AOS styled system. Doubt you are going to stop M1A2 abrams with '44 colt either!

Fun fact:
AoS actually has rules in place to better represent small arms v. tanks than 40k does with Armor Penetration.

Many monsters have rules that allow them to effectively ignore or reduce to the point of ignoring items with certain Rend characteristics.

The fixed to wound and to hit values on eaxh model/weapon are so far the only thing I dislike about the game. It's such a huge problem for me that it has kept me from actually playing it. I really think the game has potential otherwise but I just can't get over how stupid it is that standard infantry can can just as easily wound a Giant dragon as it could a grot.

I'd rather remove some of the rolls entirely and adapt a new, ideally single roll with modifiers.

It may be because I'm on a BFG binge lately, but its pretty nice throwing lances at someone and just saying '4s' hit, or looking at a chart for for my batteries and rolling against an armour value. Saves are a lot less common, so a lot of dice rolls are simply roll=damage dealt, with modifiers affecting the number of dice rolled.

Putting that into 40k wouldn't work on a one for one basis, but moving to a system of resolving with a single roll and modifiers like range, facing/orientation, cover, and other fantasy stuff would do a lot to speed up the game and make it more tactically involved.

A set value for all weapons to hit and roll doesn't add the depth I'd like to see.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Partially. I'd like some simplified rules, but AoS almost makes it super simplified. The trade off would be: AoS-ing of 40k hits and wounds, but things like Tactical Marines get 3 wounds, Daemon Princes get 7-8 wounds, etc.

JA i really do like how easy it is to get into. but it does seem too simple.

can i meet me somewhere in the middle from AOS grade school and 40ks Harvard law school level rules lawyering?

Not sure, in some ways it makes infantry more relevant in the case of stuff like lasguns vs extremely tough things; which got more wounds to make them tougher to balance out the ease they could be wounded now. So stuff like a wraithknight, sure it could be wounded on 4s like a marine, but while the marine would likely go up to 2 wounds, the wraithknight would probably go up to 16.

I'd definitely like to see the rending system though, it's pretty nice.

I would love for that change! The people who believe a unit has a good a chance at wounding a big monster as they would a grot are missing the fact that there is no limiting of bonuses and penalties in AoS.

So, if big monster causes a -3 to wound, then units that wound on a 4+ can never wound the monster. A unit that wounds on 3+ will wound on a 6. Then there is the ability to lower the rending level of weapons, so the monster will not only have a much better save, but may negate the ability to lower it as well.

Combine that with the weakening of big models due to damage and the disparities between vehicles and monsters diminish while increasing interactivity in the game.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Strenght and armor penetration should never, ever be directly related in 40k. It subtracts the designer of "design space". Think about, as an example, the IG Manticore.

Exactly. The 40k AP system exists the way it does so that anti-tank weapons can have a high enough strength to roll against AV without necessarily ignoring all infantry saves. If you want to make strength reduce/ignore armor saves then you have to completely change the vehicle rules so that autocannons and similar weapons don't become marine-slaughtering gods of everything. And if you change the vehicle rules so that anti-tank weapons can damage them without having high strength values then you probably also create a problem where low-strength weapons like lasguns can now attempt to damage tanks.

I would prefer a 40k system without invisibility.

No. Keep AoS far from 40K. It's already bad enough as it is.

DaPino wrote:
The fixed to wound and to hit values on eaxh model/weapon are so far the only thing I dislike about the game. It's such a huge problem for me that it has kept me from actually playing it. I really think the game has potential otherwise but I just can't get over how stupid it is that standard infantry can can just as easily wound a Giant dragon as it could a grot.

The significance of the wound is entirely different though, a dragon has a much better chance of ignoring (saving) the wound and if a dragon takes a wound it still has 10 or more spare as opposed to dying, like a grot would.

I would prefer that the second roll be affected by a characteristic belonging to the target though.

I really think the game has potential otherwise but I just can't get over how stupid it is that standard infantry can can just as easily wound a Giant dragon as it could a grot.

But the fact that I can hit a Warlord Titan with the same roll to hit as a Grot doesn't irk in the slightest?

I don't mind the idea in theory. The key problem is figuring out how to differentiate things which should be differentiated. As noted, the issue is that there are some units which logically should not care, at all, how much lasgun and autogun fire you put into them. A dragon or manticore should take a - largely irrelevant - flesh wound from a handgun. A main battle tank literally shouldn't even have to roll dice for damage.

A fixed to wound/save can get round this. Battle for Vedros, for example, essentially has a single trait of "able to hurt the dreadnought" which applies to the warboss' power klaw and the deth kopta's rokkits. Everything else (shootas, choppas) simply doesn't get to roll due to this prohibition.

Granted, that's a massive simplification, but for a simplified version of the 40k rules, it's one that works well.

 Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
3.) Invuls come before Armor Saves (technically Fantasy Ward saves came after but it seems kinda weird that the magic field is in your armor rather than outside it, so it would make more logical sense that the Invul comes first).

You mean you could have both at the same time? Not sure we need IC's etc being buffed even more...And if you roll both it doesn't really matter order so if you really would want doubt anybody would object you rolling them in different order anyway.

As for question...Nope. Not at all. Sorry but no matter how you look at it lasgun shouldn't be able to destroy land raider never mind emperor class titan like they could in AOS styled system. Doubt you are going to stop M1A2 abrams with '44 colt either!

Fun fact:
AoS actually has rules in place to better represent small arms v. tanks than 40k does with Armor Penetration.

Many monsters have rules that allow them to effectively ignore or reduce to the point of ignoring items with certain Rend characteristics.

With AOS rules you could kill emperor class titan(you know? The one land raider would be no match even on a lucky day...) be killed by hordes of lasguns and nothing else.

No it doesn't.

Yes and no.

Do away with the ballistic skill system and replace it with a to hit system, same with to hit in combat.

Leave toughness and strength as is.