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.

As I said in this thread I've created a sort of AoS inspired profile for 40k. It gives the model the same stats as found in AoS but to get around the wider range of wargear found in 40k I've basically replace the separate individual ranged and melee weapon profiles with one catch all profile for shooting attacks and one catch all profile for melee attacks. Here's a sample profile:

Imperial Guardsman with Lasgun:

Movement: 5" Save: 5+ Wounds: 1 Bravery: 5

Shooting: Range: 24" Attacks: 1 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: - Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: - Damage: 1

Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: 1 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 6+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: - Damage: 1

Basically, for both you roll one D6 for each attack you have, and if this score meets your required result for your target type your attack is successfully struck. Infantry and light vehicles use anti infantry, heavy vehicles and the biggest MCs use anti tank and aircraft and flying monsters are anti-aircraft. Your opponent then takes a save minus the rend (cover is +1 to save) for each successful attack, and each failed save inflicts the profiles damage. A '-' indicates that the model can't attack that type of unit with that profile.

It's really crude and WIP at the moment, and it's also just my first step in making a new system for 40k. What do you guys think?

So Toughness is being thrown out? That alone makes me dislike it.

Also, it seems like basically AoS. Which is fine-but not what I play.

If you are combining armour and toughness, this may lead to a level of abstraction current players might not want.

I have found a three stage damage resolution is suited to the wide variety of units found in 40k.(2 stage damage resolution needs lots of extra rules to stop it being bland.)

EG I would suggest...
Speed 5", Armour 5+ Tough 5+,Wounds 1, Morale 5,

Weapons could be.
Range, Attacks, Armour Pen , Damage.(Notes)

I am not sure why you need different target types?

Tanks should have armour that infantry weapons can not penetrate.And aircraft are too high for most weapon ranges.(''AA'' in notes to show weapons that can hit aircraft perhaps?)..

 JNAProductions wrote:
So Toughness is being thrown out? That alone makes me dislike it.

Also, it seems like basically AoS. Which is fine-but not what I play.

OK, fair enough. Thanks for responding anyway.

Lanrak wrote:
I am not sure why you need different target types?

Tanks should have armour that infantry weapons can not penetrate.And aircraft are too high for most weapon ranges.(''AA'' in notes to show weapons that can hit aircraft perhaps?)..

The former is why I created the latter. A guardsman with a lasgun can only damage an armoured target in close combat (a risky endeavor) and will never harm a flying target ever.

But I think I'll have to go back to the drawing board, again.

I like it. If you’re going to stick to a D6 then this is all you need. Of course, when you streamline things like this you’re going to have a lot of the same profile for stuff. That’s not a problem for me but a lot of Players think every weapon and troop has to be its own little special snowflake. Funny, If GW did this there would be a lot of grumbling at first but eventually most Players would come around. But as a Fan project its going to be a struggle. I for one support it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
I am not sure why you need different target types?

Tanks should have armour that infantry weapons can not penetrate.And aircraft are too high for most weapon ranges.(''AA'' in notes to show weapons that can hit aircraft perhaps?)..

The former is why I created the latter. A guardsman with a lasgun can only damage an armoured target in close combat (a risky endeavor) and will never harm a flying target ever.

But I think I'll have to go back to the drawing board, again.

The thing about target types is that they're the exact kind of thing the Strength v. Toughness/AV mechanic exists to simulate in the first place. Dump that and you've got to either find something to replace it with or give up and resign yourself to massed lasguns being able to take on tanks.

Comparing stats is actually a relatively elegant solution to the problem, though I do sympathize with AoS players complaining about the lookup tables (on the principle that there should be as little hidden information as possible). Personally I think a system where you have offensive and defensive stats for all rolls (WS/BS v. Defense to hit, S v. T to wound, AP v. armour to save) and rolls are based on a straightforward stat-plus-roll-versus-stat mechanism (e.g. WS 4 hits Defense 7 on a 3+ because 4+3 = 7; make sure all the necessary numbers are in front of you all the time) is probably the best answer, but I haven't sat down to do the numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thirdeye wrote:
...Funny, If GW did this there would be a lot of grumbling at first but eventually most Players would come around...

After watching WHFB die and AoS fail utterly to get off the ground I suspect there would be a lot of grumbling, and then a lot of silence as most players sold off all their stuff and left for games run by people who pay attention to how the game works.

Thirdeye wrote:
I like it. If you’re going to stick to a D6 then this is all you need. Of course, when you streamline things like this you’re going to have a lot of the same profile for stuff. That’s not a problem for me but a lot of Players think every weapon and troop has to be its own little special snowflake. Funny, If GW did this there would be a lot of grumbling at first but eventually most Players would come around. But as a Fan project its going to be a struggle. I for one support it.

Thanks Thirdeye, that means a lot to me.

Yes it's true that a lot of things will now have the same profile but honestly I can work with that. Special rules in the units "warscroll" can help with that. For example; Skitarri Vanguard can have the "rad poisoning" rule, which lets them inflict 2 damage under certain conditions. It will be a big task but I'm sure this whole thing could be made to work.

@ AnomanderRake

I don't want to get into a "how well AoS is doing" debate. I'm tried of having to do it every time it's mentioned.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AnomanderRake

I don't want to get into a "how well AoS is doing" debate. I'm tried of having to do it every time it's mentioned.

Personally I'm with you, I'd rather skip the whole discussion. I do, however, get twitchy when AoS fans hold it up as the perfect example of a wargame and/or casually dismiss people not liking it without paying any attention to why.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


The thing about target types is that they're the exact kind of thing the Strength v. Toughness/AV mechanic exists to simulate in the first place. Dump that and you've got to either find something to replace it with or give up and resign yourself to massed lasguns being able to take on tanks.

Comparing stats is actually a relatively elegant solution to the problem, …

I disagree. Its certainly a more detailed way of doing it, but by going to Target types you do away with two extra stats and a chart. Also, comparing stats means every attack has to be three rolls; or every attack requires a computation. Target types lets you get by with two rolls and no computation. Comparing stats is good for a Kill Team game but for 40K its just extra minutia you don’t need to have fun with your toys.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Personally I'm with you, I'd rather skip the whole discussion. I do, however, get twitchy when AoS fans hold it up as the perfect example of a wargame and/or casually dismiss people not liking it without paying any attention to why.

Yes it's not perfect and I get that not everyone likes it. That's another discussion for another thread though.

Anyway, here's another example statline to show how I'd handle heavy weapons:

Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon Team With Missile Launcher:

Movement: 3" Wounds: 2 Save: 5+ Bravery: 5

Shooting: Range: 40" Attacks: 1 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 5+ Anti-Aircraft: 5+ Rend: -1 Damage: D6

Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 5+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: - Damage: 1

If I've done this right, that profile can happily represent all three kinds of missile attack, and it also gets around the move or fire thing with heavy weapons. They can move and fire but their movement rate is so slow it won't make much of a difference, or they can run at double their movement without shooting at all. Yes, I'm looking at bolt action for inspiration too.

@ Thirdeye

That's what I said in that other thread. Strength v thoughness is great for kill team as its a model v model game. In 40k it just gets in the way.

Incidentally, I also said that they should bring back apocalypse, with it being organised at a unit level rather than a individual model level.

 Future War Cultist wrote:


Thanks Thirdeye, that means a lot to me.

Yes it's true that a lot of things will now have the same profile but honestly I can work with that. Special rules in the units "warscroll" can help with that. For example; Skitarri Vanguard can have the "rad poisoning" rule, which lets them inflict 2 damage under certain conditions. It will be a big task but I'm sure this whole thing could be made to work.

Yeah, while I do feel the “Rend” and “Damage” mechanics are a bit clunky, and this system requires separate rolls for mixed units, I do think its an improvement over the current game.

Why don’t you work on some basic Marine stats. I’m interested to see what you come up with.

@ Third Eye

Sure thing!

Tactical Marine with Boltgun:

Movement: 5" Wounds: 2 Save: 4+ Bravery: 7

Shooting: Range: 24" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 4+ Anti-Tank: - Anti-Aircaft: - Rend: - Damage: 1

Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 4+ Anti-Tank: 4+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: - Damage: 1

Assault Marine with bolt pistol and chainsword:

Movement: 7" Wounds: 2 Save: 4+ Bravery: 7

Shooting: Range: 12" Attacks: 1 AI: 4+ AT: - AA: - Rend: - Damage: 1

Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: 3 Anti-Infantry: 4+ Anti-Tank: 4+ Anti-Aircraft: 4+ Rend: - Damage: 1

Obviously I've used the stormcast as inspiration for them, just as I used the freeguild soldiers for the guard. And I'm not sure about the movement rate for the assault marine. But I did give them an AA profile for melee because I figured that they could fly up and physically attack the aircraft like that mission in Space Marine on board the Valkyrie.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


The thing about target types is that they're the exact kind of thing the Strength v. Toughness/AV mechanic exists to simulate in the first place. Dump that and you've got to either find something to replace it with or give up and resign yourself to massed lasguns being able to take on tanks.

Comparing stats is actually a relatively elegant solution to the problem, …

I disagree. Its certainly a more detailed way of doing it, but by going to Target types you do away with two extra stats and a chart. Also, comparing stats means every attack has to be three rolls; or every attack requires a computation. Target types lets you get by with two rolls and no computation. Comparing stats is good for a Kill Team game but for 40K its just extra minutia you don’t need to have fun with your toys.

You do away with one stat per weapon (Strength) and one stat per model (T/AV), but you're adding three stats per weapon (Anti-infantry to-wound, anti-tank to-wound, and anti-aircraft to-wound) to replace them. And that's only if you want the to-wound roll to be the same for all vehicles, all non-vehicle units, and all flyers. You might want a Thallax (T5) to be harder to wound than a Grot (T2), or a Land Raider (AV14) to be harder to wound than a Trukk (AV10).

This is the bit that never made much sense to me about AoS (sorry to drag it back there for a moment, but I do really want to make a point about characteristics here). People insist that it's simpler because it's got smaller statlines, yet they took the WHFB nine-value statline (plus armour save) with mostly generic weapons and replaced it with four numbers per model and six numbers per weapon. Merging S/T into one stat and then having two different versions for different target types gives you exactly the same number of stats sitting around in the game, so it looks to me like you'd be sacrificing granularity for no gain, and then introducing a battery of special rules that wouldn't have been necessary if you hadn't gotten rid of the S/T stat comparison in the first place.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


You do away with one stat per weapon (Strength) and one stat per model (T/AV), but you're adding three stats per weapon (Anti-infantry to-wound, anti-tank to-wound, and anti-aircraft to-wound) to replace them.

Well you’re doing away with two stats and a chart and replacing them with Target specific stats. That’s the difference. When you compare stats you have to use two extra stats and a chart every roll. With Target types use only one stat, the target specific stat, for that roll. The other stats are not relevant and are ignored.

And that's only if you want the to-wound roll to be the same for all vehicles, all non-vehicle units, and all flyers. You might want a Thallax (T5) to be harder to wound than a Grot (T2), or a Land Raider (AV14) to be harder to wound than a Trukk (AV10).

That’s where the save roll comes in. The Save for a Trukk isn’t the same as the Save for a Land Raider, and each has their own unique wounds/hit points.

This is the bit that never made much sense to me about AoS (sorry to drag it back there for a moment, but I do really want to make a point about characteristics here). People insist that it's simpler because it's got smaller statlines, yet they took the WHFB nine-value statline (plus armour save) with mostly generic weapons and replaced it with four numbers per model and six numbers per weapon. Merging S/T into one stat and then having two different versions for different target types gives you exactly the same number of stats sitting around in the game, so it looks to me like you'd be sacrificing granularity for no gain, and then introducing a battery of special rules that wouldn't have been necessary if you hadn't gotten rid of the S/T stat comparison in the first place.

Again, you might have the same or similar number of stats sitting around but you’re only using the relative ones for each roll. It mean your juggling less stats and making less rolls every attack. Your way you have to use all the stats and charts for every roll. It means juggling more stats and making more dice rolls every attack.

Thirdeye wrote:
...Again, you might have the same or similar number of stats sitting around but you’re only using the relative ones for each roll. It mean your juggling less stats and making less rolls every attack. Your way you have to use all the stats and charts for every roll. It means juggling more stats and making more dice rolls every attack.

This isn't 'the same or similar number of stats'. This is replacing a fairly straightforward computation by which you can derive your to-hit/to-wound roll with a massive pile of extra numbers to learn.

Looking at the statlines Future War Cultist has posted we've replaced a ten-number model statline and a four-number weapon statline with a four-number model statline and two seven-number weapon statlines. If you were to memorize the to-hit/to-wound tables instead of learning the straightforward rules (memorize two hundred specific stat/stat comparison values) you'd need all of fifty distinct model/loadout combinations (which you end up with about three squads into the Space Marine Codex) in the game before you erase any advantage getting rid of the tables gives you.

And that's assuming you go and memorize the stat comparison tables instead of memorizing the quick rules (to-hit, melee: if your WS is higher you hit on a 3+, if theirs is 2x yours plus one you hit on a 5+, otherwise you hit on a 4+. To-wound: If your S equals their T you wound on a 4+, if yours is one higher you wound on a 3+, if yours is two or more higher you wound on a 2+. If their Toughness is one point higher you wound on a 5+, if it's two or three points higher you wound on a 6, if it's four or more points higher you can't wound them.). If you can learn the nine possible cases that exist in the game suddenly you have to learn more numbers in this AoS-stat system if there are six different model/loadout combinations in the game.

If the game consisted only of Space Marine Tactical Squads the AoS stat system would learning more arbitrary numbers than the stat comparison tables would.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Third Eye

Sure thing!

Tactical Marine with Boltgun:…

Assault Marine with bolt pistol and chainsword:

I would give Marines a Movement: 6", with jet packs giving Movement 12”.

I would also give Bolters one attack in CC and pistol/ chainweapon 2 attacks in CC with Rend -1 for the Chainweapon. Power Weapons getting a Rend -2 or -3?

I did give them an AA profile for melee because I figured that they could fly up and physically attack the aircraft like that mission in Space Marine on board the Valkyrie.

I would restrict AA to dedicated AA weapon systems. What you described sounds more like a Hero type attack for special assault units.

@ Thirdeye

Thanks for the feedback!

Also, I was worried about vehicles in this system so I through up a rough profile for a Predator:

Predator Tank:

Movement: 9" Wounds: ? Save: 3+ Bravery: 9

Shooting (Annihilator Lascannon): Range: 40" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 3+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: -2 Damage: D3

Shooting (Lascannon Sponsons): Range: 40" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 3+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: -2 Damage: D3

Shooting (Destructor Autocannon): Range: 40" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 3+ Anti-Tank: - Anti-Aircraft: 5+ Rend: -2 Damage: D3

Shooting (Heavy Bolter Sponsons): Range: 30" Attacks: 6 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: - Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: -1 Damage: 1

Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: D6 AI: 5+ AT: 3+ AA: - Rend: -1 Damage: 2

The numbers are rough but this the main layout OK? Separate profiles for the weapons?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This isn't 'the same or similar number of stats'. This is replacing a fairly straightforward computation by which you can derive your to-hit/to-wound roll with a massive pile of extra numbers to learn.

Gee, earlier you said it was the “same number of stats sitting around in the game”. Now you’re saying its not the same, that there’s “a massive pile of extra numbers to learn. Well, a simple count says you were right the first time. The number of stats are about the same but the stats you use for each attack is less. You’re dealing with less stats for an attack and you’re making less rolls for each attack.

And that's assuming you go and memorize the stat comparison tables instead of memorizing the quick rules (to-hit, melee: if your WS is higher you hit on a 3+, if theirs is 2x yours plus one you hit on a 5+, otherwise you hit on a 4+. …

You can’t use the “quick rules” unless you also know the underlining stats. The “quick rules” lets you by-pass the chart but you still need to memorize the stats or look them up. No difference here, except here you only need to look-up one stat, not two and a chart, or two stats and know the “quick rules”.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Thirdeye

Thanks for the feedback!

Also, I was worried about vehicles in this system so I through up a rough profile for a Predator:

Predator Tank:

Movement: 9" Wounds: ? Save: 3+ Bravery: 9

Shooting (Annihilator Lascannon): Range: 40" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 3+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: -2 Damage: D3

Shooting (Lascannon Sponsons): Range: 40" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: 3+ Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: -2 Damage: D3

Shooting (Destructor Autocannon): Range: 40" Attacks: 2 Anti-Infantry: 3+ Anti-Tank: - Anti-Aircraft: 5+ Rend: -2 Damage: D3

Shooting (Heavy Bolter Sponsons): Range: 30" Attacks: 6 Anti-Infantry: 5+ Anti-Tank: - Anti-Aircraft: - Rend: -1 Damage: 1

Melee: Range: 1" Attacks: D6 AI: 5+ AT: 3+ AA: - Rend: -1 Damage: 2

The numbers are rough but this the main layout OK? Separate profiles for the weapons?

I seem to remember that AOS had a kinda cool step reduction for Monstrous creatures. Sorry, I'm not that familiar with the game but I remember reading that. If you could incorporate that for vehicles, that would be cool.

I seem to remember that AOS had a kinda cool step reduction for Monstrous creatures. Sorry, I'm not that familiar with the game but I remember reading that. If you could incorporate that for vehicles, that would be cool.

Oh yeah, the damage tables! Let me try it:

Wounds suffered: Lascannon Sponsons: Heavy Bolter Sponsons: Main Weapon:

0-3: 2 6 Yes
4-6: 1 3 Yes
7-9: 1 3 Yes
10+: 0 0 No

The two middle numbers are the number of attacks. This also assumes that the predator has 12 wounds to begin with.

How's it look?

Hey, pocking around I found this:
http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.com/2016/03/age-of-sigmar-40k-space-marine.html

Thirdeye wrote:
Hey, pocking around I found this:
http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.com/2016/03/age-of-sigmar-40k-space-marine.html

Oh hey, great find! Although I think some of the stats would need adjusting it's definitely going to be a big help.

And at this point I need to ask, it's important to great a system whereby tanks can't be taken out by massed small arms fire right?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Thirdeye wrote:
Hey, pocking around I found this:
http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.com/2016/03/age-of-sigmar-40k-space-marine.html

Oh hey, great find! Although I think some of the stats would need adjusting it's definitely going to be a big help.

And at this point I need to ask, it's important to great a system whereby tanks can't be taken out by massed small arms fire right?

Yeah, small arms from generic troops shouldn’t be able to take-down a Tank. But a big Hero gun can have a AT stat.

Hi folks.
What made 40k rules such a mess in the first place?Do you know the core reasons?

GW plc never wrote rules specifically for the game play of 40k. They always converted their 'WHFB' rules.
GW plc never wrote new rules focusing on the game play , just to inspire the sales of models.

If you examine the errors GW plc made, It may help you get a better result.

Good rule set write rules to cover the entire system in an inclusive way as possible.While keeping the level of complication in the rules to a minimum.

You appear to be focusing on the latter, and not paying enough attention to the former.

Analogy Alert.

The steam engine was the best system for railway locomotives.Then someone invented deisel engines which were much more user friendly and replaced steam power.

The steam engine is not the most suitable power plant choice for aircraft.The diesel engine is better and can power Zeppelin type air craft.

However, for a fighter aircraft, jet engines are much better.

@ Thirdeye

You're right. It's OK for massed arrows to hurt a dragon but having massed assault rifles damage a tank is...weird.

@ Lanrak

I'm working to that principle as best as I can.

I just want to talk about mechanics for a moment. In AoS, it's possible for models to attack different targets to the rest of their unit and even split their attacks among different targets. It's all included in the core rules. We should bring this in to 40k as well. One thing new players notice about 40k is how rigid it is. It's embarrassing trying to explain why the guy with the lascannon isn't allowed to shoot at the tank and has to shoot at the infantry with the rest of his squad. Split fire can be standard issue!

Also, I'm looking at bolt action for inspiration too, in how units act and especially for assaulting. Shooting can inflict casualties and pin units but assaulting should be swift, brutal and leave one side completely wiped out. Handy for taking objectives.

Also, I think that controlling an objective should be down to purely the amount of models you have around it. This way hoard armies can gain an advantage.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This isn't 'the same or similar number of stats'. This is replacing a fairly straightforward computation by which you can derive your to-hit/to-wound roll with a massive pile of extra numbers to learn.

Gee, earlier you said it was the “same number of stats sitting around in the game”. Now you’re saying its not the same, that there’s “a massive pile of extra numbers to learn. Well, a simple count says you were right the first time. The number of stats are about the same but the stats you use for each attack is less. You’re dealing with less stats for an attack and you’re making less rolls for each attack.

And that's assuming you go and memorize the stat comparison tables instead of memorizing the quick rules (to-hit, melee: if your WS is higher you hit on a 3+, if theirs is 2x yours plus one you hit on a 5+, otherwise you hit on a 4+. …

You can’t use the “quick rules” unless you also know the underlining stats. The “quick rules” lets you by-pass the chart but you still need to memorize the stats or look them up. No difference here, except here you only need to look-up one stat, not two and a chart, or two stats and know the “quick rules”.

I suppose the ease-of-use question comes down to whether you're designing for people who are going to expect to learn/memorize tables or not. If you're assuming that asking players to remember any numbers at all is an unreasonable burden the AoS system is a bit easier to use, since you're only looking up one number. If you're assuming that players would rather play a game in which they don't have to look up reference charts every time they make an attack the system with a smaller quantity of stats distributed more predictably is going to be easier to learn.

That said I fall into the second category, and I'm going to guess you fall into the first, and we're both pushing systems that are easier for us to use than the other rather than taking on the longer and more complicated question of which one is easier to use in the abstract/for all players.

I was looking for 40k profiles to use with AoS.
This fella (is it you, OP?) has a neat site with his fan generated data scrolls.

They're not perfect but they're a good start IMO.
http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.bg/

 privateer4hire wrote:
I was looking for 40k profiles to use with AoS.
This fella (is it you, OP?) has a neat site with his fan generated data scrolls.

They're not perfect but they're a good start IMO.
http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.bg/

That's not me but it is very useful none the less.

One thing I do want to do is to make moral far more important to the outcome of game too.

@Future War Cultist.
You are on the right lines with these IMO. .
''Also, I'm looking at bolt action for inspiration too, in how units act and especially for assaulting. Shooting can inflict casualties and pin units but assaulting should be swift, brutal and leave one side completely wiped out. Handy for taking objectives.

Also, I think that controlling an objective should be down to purely the amount of models you have around it. This way hoard armies can gain an advantage. ''

''One thing I do want to do is to make moral far more important to the outcome of game too.''

A simple suppression mechanic to 'pin' units seems to be important here.
How are you going to implement a simple proportional suppression mechanic with a 2 stage damage resolution?

Lanrak wrote:
@Future War Cultist.
You are on the right lines with these IMO. .
''Also, I'm looking at bolt action for inspiration too, in how units act and especially for assaulting. Shooting can inflict casualties and pin units but assaulting should be swift, brutal and leave one side completely wiped out. Handy for taking objectives.

Also, I think that controlling an objective should be down to purely the amount of models you have around it. This way hoard armies can gain an advantage. ''

''One thing I do want to do is to make moral far more important to the outcome of game too.''

A simple suppression mechanic to 'pin' units seems to be important here.
How are you going to implement a simple proportional suppression mechanic with a 2 stage damage resolution?

Thanks!

I was trying to see if it was possible for the suppression mechanic to be the third stage of damage resolution. And it has to be tested every time a unit is shot at, even if they didn't suffer any casualties. So it's possible to pin a unit by just shooting at it.

How about, after resolving the damage from a shooting attack, you roll a D6, adding 1 if you inflicted any casualties and subtracting one if the target is in cover. Some other weapons (ones that traditionally caused pinning for example) also add to the result. If the result equals or beats the units bravery stat they become pinned. Do this every time a unit is shot at.

I can see guard level troops being Bravery 5, elite type troops being Bravery 6, and Marines and other such units being 7. Banners can add to bravery.

Thoughts?

@Future War Cultist.
Ok just trying to get your proposal straight.(Please correct me if I am wrong.)

You want a 2 stage resolution system where you roll to hit and damage,then the target rolls to save.

This requires separate values , for (artificially ) separated target types.(Anti Infantry/ anti tank/ anti aircraft.)

This in itself can cause complication!Where do you draw the line between heavy infantry and M/C that require anti tank weapons to damage them?
What about an aircraft that has landed to drop of troops?

I can see lots of complicated wordy special rules ahead in this direction.

In WWII game like Bolt Action, there is a clear definition between armoured vehicles and soft targets.In 40k you could argue ALL units have some form of armour.
So where do you draw the line?(Current 40k has some 'randum' decisions on what is a M/C and what is a vehicle IMO.)

Anyhow after this two stage damage resolution is finished you want to roll a D6 vs the units Bravery every time the unit is shot at to see if it is suppressed.

So any shot can suppress any unit?Las gun fire can suppress a Land Raider?

Again I can see lots of compliocated explanation and special rules ahead in this direction.

I would suggest that a three stage damage resolution where failed armour saves, (irrespective of it they cause physical damage) would be a better way to arrive at a proportional suppression mechanic simply.

Also a three stage damage resolution supports the wider range of unit type found in 40k.