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.

@AnomanderRake.
A very rough general overview of war games .
(War games are based on a particular scale and scope of real war, as opposed to purely abstract games like Chess,Backgammon , Snakes and Ladders and card games for example.)

Skirmish war games focus on model interaction, Battle war games focus on unit interaction.

Most land based skirmish war game forces are comprised mainly of infantry , and so have infantry centric rules.And the VERY FEW units in skirmish forces that are not infantry, often have separate rules.(Transport vehicles, Tanks and Artillery for example in modern warfare type games, characters, monsters and war machines in ancient warfare type games.)

Skirmish rules sets can have detailed model interaction if the model count is low enough.However, when the model count rises the amount of detail has to be sacrificed to speed up play.

If this is combined with adding more unit types and larger amounts on non-infantry models.
It turns into a rule set written for one unit type, that has had to be reduced in detail, and lots of additional systems and rules to cover unit types not originally catered for .(EG non infantry models fall outside the core rules, and the detail of the core rules has to be stripped back! ).

This often leads to extreme exclusive rule writing, leading to pointless complication and a complete mess in terms of written rules and game play.(Like 40k 7th ed. )

Most 'modern type battle ' war game rules focus on unit interaction and cover multiple unit types in the same way.
As at the larger scale and scope , an Armoured Company may be just as common as an Armoured Infantry Company, or an Infantry Company,or an Airborne Company, and a Recce Company, for example.

So there is no predominance of a particular type of model/unit in a modern type battle game, and as a result the rules tend to be written more inclusively.

As side note games companies that sell cards or minatures specifically for their games tend to use more special rules than generic games that have no dedicated minatures/cards.

So if we start with skirmish rules focusing on model interaction and mainly dealing with infantry.
When we significantly increase the model count and diversity of units in the game, the scale and scope of the game play changes.(Eg 2nd ed to 7th ed 40k)

And the infantry centric,model interaction focused rules are generally inadequate to cope with the more diverse and expansive game play .
(You tend to chop lumps out to speed up play , and bolt bits on to try to cover non infantry units .And eventually you get the square peg of a rule set to fit the round hole of the new game play. )

However, if we start with modern type battle game rules that cover all the diverse units in a similar and straight forward way.It is easy to add detail to the interaction incrementally , until it meets the expectation of the developers /players.

It would be helpful if we stuck to referencing games of similar genre and scale and scope.IMO.(Current 40k is not a skirmish game or a card game or a ancient type warfare game. )

I have a clear definition of what I think special rules are.(And this is what most games appear to agree that special rules[i] are )
I also have a clear definition of what separate resolution systems are.

EG if units that take damage without removing models simply loose mobility or (weapon)attacks for every hit point lost.Recorded on thier unit card.
This is not really a separate resolution method.(Just a different recording method.)

If a M/C or Vehicle has to roll damage results on a separate chart, with a separate list of modifiers , it is a completely different resolution system.

The example using different mobility types was just to show how basic modes of movement are easily understood, and therefore a general guide of how different terrain types could be used to give players more detailed terrain interaction if they wanted .
Was not really in the realms of special rules , but more in the realms of easily understood more detailed rues.

However, Amphibious, Buldozer and Jump are all special rules as they ignore the core rules for movement .(However complex you decide they need to be. )

From all the evidence I can find ,40k 4th to 5th ed was the most popular editions of the game .And so I would like to focus the rules on this scale and scope of game play first.
And after this is sorted out, add in the Super Heavies and Flyers in a more sympathetic way to the game play requirements.

I am not saying Super Heavies and Flyers need different rules , just they need to be added to a well defined and balanced rule set with care and consideration for the game play requirements.

If you are only using a 'to hit' /'to damage' resolution system , now can you simply model suppression effects across all units, other than making it about casualties/physical damage?
If you make it purely about hits, then light infantry weapons can suppress Super Heavy vehicles !

Failed armour saves is the simplest way to implement proportional suppression effects across all current units in 40k that I have found over the last decade or so.

I may have missed something though?

I don't know what point you're tying to get across by explaining first-principles like you don't think I understand them?

Lanrak wrote:
If you are only using a 'to hit' /'to damage' resolution system , now can you simply model suppression effects across all units, other than making it about casualties/physical damage?
If you make it purely about hits, then light infantry weapons can suppress Super Heavy vehicles !

Failed armour saves is the simplest way to implement proportional suppression effects across all current units in 40k that I have found over the last decade or so.

I may have missed something though?

If by 'suppression system' you mean something along the lines of the Bolt Action/Gates of Antares pinning system you add a single clause to the rules. Instead of "a unit takes a pin when it is hit" you write "a unit takes a pin when it is hit by a weapon that could damage it".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
However, if we start with modern type battle game rules that cover all the diverse units in a similar and straight forward way.It is easy to add detail to the interaction incrementally , until it meets the expectation of the developers /players.

I'm proposing a set of unit-type-independent core rules that apply to everything across the board, with a subsystem damage effect for vehicles to help apply a more consistent standard. A squad loses effectiveness as it loses models. A vehicle or an MC ought to lose effectiveness as it loses wounds, without abstracting to the scale of Epic Armageddon.

It would be helpful if we stuck to referencing games of similar genre and scale and scope.IMO.(Current 40k is not a skirmish game or a card game or a ancient type warfare game. )

I'm bringing up Warmachine and MTG to make a point about how rules are written across all games, not about genre-dependent principles. They're probably as different from each other as either is from 40k, yet they share a property about how the rules are written that I'd like to try and use to make a point here.

40k is not very good about applying consistent rules and language across different parts of the rulebook. Consider the example of Psychic Shriek. It's listed as a Witchfire power, which according to the psychic phase rules makes it a shooting attack that must roll to hit. The text of the power, however, says to roll to wound immediately, skipping over the to-hit roll; this is a contradictory point. The FAQs then came along and clarified that Psychic Shriek does not have to roll to hit, and moreover can auto-hit flying targets, despite the segment of the rules that say that auto-hitting shooting attacks can't hit flying targets.

This is a power that has a number of mutually contradictory references in the core rulebook because the rules aren't well-organized.

By comparison Warmachine doesn't define spell types, or list spells with text that contradict other parts of the rules, it defines clearly and consistently a set of rules that apply across a number of applications. The part of the rules that defines what 'soul tokens' are and the fundamentals for their use in the game is about a paragraph long, yet that text enables ten different iterations of the Soul Taker rule depending on how a given model gains and uses souls, plus any number of additional special rules and spells that interact with the gaining or use of souls in some way.

Magic: The Gathering has similar properties; a card may say something like 'As long as you control five or more enchantments, each other non-aura enchantment you control is a creature in addition to its other types and has base power and base toughness equal to its converted mana cost'. It's unique in producing that effect amongst all the fifteen thousand cards in the game, but it is easily and quickly understood once you know the core rule elements defining how card types, passive effects, and converted mana cost work.

By the definition you seem to be running off of Warmachine and MTG have zero 'special rules' because everything plugs so neatly into the core rules. I'd like to aim for that as the ideal of any game, regardless of format; I'm not suggesting taking any other lessons from either game.

@AnomanderRake.
You posted ....
''I don't know what point you're tying to get across by explaining first-principles like you don't think I understand them? ''

Well I was in part replying to your previous post...

''I think you've gotten this a bit backwards. A skirmish game has room for much more complicated rules because there are fewer models on the table to keep track of, a larger-scale game has to be simpler if it's going to track 100+ models on the table at once in any kind of reasonable timeframe. ''

The game scale simply determines the most appropriate level of interaction.The scope of the game determines the complexity of the game play and the amount of detail in the rules.

You can have very simple skirmish games with focus on simple model interaction, like Battle For Vedross.
And you can also have complex unit interaction in more complex battle games like Firefly II.

I also realized ,(a bit later ,) you may have been using Warmachine and MTG as examples of better quality rules writing and editing.
Well you could pick ANY commercially available game made by any other manufacturer than GW to show that 40k rules writing and editing is sub par!

And I wanted to make it clear that just improving the quality of the writing and the editing of 40k rules would not be enough.
(Just in case you were arguing better writing and editing would allow the use of lots of 40k type special rules. )

The 40k core rules are based on the wrong type of warfare and are at the completely wrong scale and scope for the current intended game play.

So better rules writing and editing would allow more complex rules and game play to be achieved with much more clarity and brevity.
But it would not fix the fundamental flaws of the rules NOT covering the correct game scale, scope, or type of warfare, the amount and type of units in 40k need.

It looked important to define clearly what the difference was between 'special rules' and more 'complex rules' was.So I tried to do this.

Anyhow..
If you simply use the "a unit takes a pin when it is hit by a weapon that could damage it".type method.
(Though I would use the rule ..'A unit is pinned when over half the models in the unit are hit by weapons that could damage them'.As this covers the difference in unit composition . )

However, this falls down at the hurdle of proportionality of function vs different target types.

For example a heavy bolter AP may mean it COULD damage a Rhino 1 in 6 times when it beats its current armour value.
However a Rail Gun AP is much higher AP value so would be much more likely to damage the Rhino, 4 out of 6 times.
So one weapon should be much more effective vs an armoured target than another , but under your system they have the same ability.

So a High AP low damage weapon *APFSDS' would have the same effect vs a tank as a low AP high damage weapon.'HE /Frag.'

And in 40k there is no clear division between soft target and hard targets as there are in many other games.
(Look at how the armour values for 40k infantry go from 'tee shirt save' all the way up to 'better than light vehicles'.)

If you follow this two stage damage resolution to its full conclusion , you end up using multiple classes of Anti Tank values for light medium and heavy vehicles.
And also multiple levels of Anti infantry weapons light ,medium and heavy.

Which are not as straight forward or proportional as just using the three stage damage resolution in the first place.
And you also have the added bonus the thee stage damage resolution gives you ten times the amount of variation in results if you want/need to use them.

You posted.
''I'm proposing a set of unit-type-independent core rules that apply to everything across the board, with a subsystem damage effect for vehicles to help apply a more consistent standard. A squad loses effectiveness as it loses models. A vehicle or an MC ought to lose effectiveness as it loses wounds, without abstracting to the scale of Epic Armageddon. ''

I thought that was what I was proposing , apart from M/C vehicle damage would be' recorded slightly differently', rather than use a 'separate sub system'.(We may actually be referring the the same thing but calling it different names?)

I agree that all units should loose effectiveness proportionally as they take hits.
Using a three stage opposed value resolution system is as far from Epic's abstract straight roll ' to hit' then 'to save', as you can get without over complication or over complexity.IMO.

Even when using opposed values for the 2 stage damage resolution you propose , you are artificially limiting results to the point it becomes too abstract.(As I have tried to point out .)

You posted.
'By the definition you seem to be running off of Warmachine and MTG have zero 'special rules' because everything plugs so neatly into the core rules. I'd like to aim for that as the ideal of any game, regardless of format; I'm not suggesting taking any other lessons from either game.'

If you are suggesting writing well defined intuitive but slightly more complex rules for 40k,then we are in total agreement!

@Lanrak:

Every time you use the phrase 'special rules' it seems to mean something different. I'm getting increasingly confused.

When I use the phrase it means "any rule that applies to some models but not others". When you use the phrase it seems to mean "any rule printed in the USR section at the end of the rulebook" without seeming to apply a consistent standard of what the rule is. I could write down Adamantium Will in the Psychic phase rules and it would have the same impact on the game, but you seem to ascribe different value to it depending on where in the rulebook it's printed?

Could you explain in a single sentence without referencing other games what you're using 'special rules' to mean?

Similarly I've got no idea what you mean by 'scope' and 'scale'. You're defining them in terms of jargon that seems to mean something to you that I've never heard, could you clarify it some? As far as I can tell 'appropriate level of interaction' and 'level of detail in the rules' mean the same thing.

I was trying to use MTG and Warmachine to illustrate a specific point about the quality of rules writing/editing that you seem to have missed? My point is that if the rules give a clear framework for how all 'special rules' (in the sense of 'rules that apply to some models but not others') might work you don't have to constrain how many you're going to have, because you don't need to work out how each one interacts with the core rules separately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
Anyhow..
If you simply use the "a unit takes a pin when it is hit by a weapon that could damage it".type method.
(Though I would use the rule ..'A unit is pinned when over half the models in the unit are hit by weapons that could damage them'.As this covers the difference in unit composition . )

However, this falls down at the hurdle of proportionality of function vs different target types.

For example a heavy bolter AP may mean it COULD damage a Rhino 1 in 6 times when it beats its current armour value.
However a Rail Gun AP is much higher AP value so would be much more likely to damage the Rhino, 4 out of 6 times.
So one weapon should be much more effective vs an armoured target than another , but under your system they have the same ability.

So a High AP low damage weapon *APFSDS' would have the same effect vs a tank as a low AP high damage weapon.'HE /Frag.'

And in 40k there is no clear division between soft target and hard targets as there are in many other games.
(Look at how the armour values for 40k infantry go from 'tee shirt save' all the way up to 'better than light vehicles'.)

If you follow this two stage damage resolution to its full conclusion , you end up using multiple classes of Anti Tank values for light medium and heavy vehicles.
And also multiple levels of Anti infantry weapons light ,medium and heavy.

Which are not as straight forward or proportional as just using the three stage damage resolution in the first place.
And you also have the added bonus the thee stage damage resolution gives you ten times the amount of variation in results if you want/need to use them.

I'm sorry, but this is completely and totally wrong.

According to the system I've outlined a Hammerhaed railgun using solid shot has a +8 penetration value. This means that a hit from it is going to damage a Chimera, any lighter vehicles, and any infantry on a 2+, most battle tanks on a 3+, Land Raiders and similar on a 4+, and superheavies on a 5+; it has one shot, however, and takes a tank to haul around, which means you can't have a lot of them and using them to blow up Grots is a waste of time and space.

By comparison a Heavy Bolter has a +3 penetration value. This means that a hit from it is going to damage most infantry on a 2+, heavy infantry on a 3+, Terminator-equivalents and scout vehicles on a 4+, light transports on a 5+, and light tanks on a 6. It has multiple shots, however, and it's available as a secondary weapon and an infantry heavy weapon, which makes it an effective weapon against a range of infantry targets and can crack light vehicles in a pinch, but can't engage heavier tanks.

'Armour' and 'Toughness' is an arbitrary division that I've never seen any game in any genre make, it's not more intuitive or more granular. GW uses a tiny fragment of the range of stats and makes a fairly granular game with three rolls, a two-roll system that made use of the available range of stats could easily make a similarly granular game much more simply.

Yes, theoretically a three-roll system offers more granularity. A four-roll system would offer yet more. A five-roll system would offer even more. Using d%s would offer yet more. More is not better, especially when you're asking people to make gameplay decisions based on your numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
You posted.
'By the definition you seem to be running off of Warmachine and MTG have zero 'special rules' because everything plugs so neatly into the core rules. I'd like to aim for that as the ideal of any game, regardless of format; I'm not suggesting taking any other lessons from either game.'

If you are suggesting writing well defined intuitive but slightly more complex rules for 40k,then we are in total agreement!

So if we're in total agreement you could stop trying to argue with me about first principles and try to figure out how to implement more intuitive rules?

@AnomaderRake.
I have been war gaming for over 30 years , and have played far to many different rule sets to try to remember.
So my gaming group has got used to defining things in the same way, so we can talk about the merits of lots of different types of game and development styles.
(I am aware that you are not familiar with our terms so I tried to explain them to you to clarify what I was trying to discuss.)

I am aware I am not the best at explaining things in the written format, although I have done my best to try to explain my reasons for approaching a 40k re-write in the way I outlined.

By your definition any element in the rules that is different to the first element you define has to be a 'special rule.'
Any weapon that is not direct fire single point contact projectile has 'special rules' by your definition.

Where as 'indirect fire' and 'area effect' weapons are common enough concepts in the real world , and are treated as core rules in a slightly more more complex rule set.

I define special rules in the following way.. 'special rules' are rules that replace or ignore the core rules.
(Only 40k has that many special rules they have to devise different sets of them! Universal ones , general ones , codex specific ones, and special snowflake ones.. )

The Scale of the war game defines the level of interaction.

A Squad sized skirmish game ,(single minature vs single minature), Company level battle game,(Unit vs Unit,) Army level campaign, (Corps or Divisions vs Corps or Divisions.)
And the scale of the game determines the logical/ practical scale of the minatures, or what counters represent in larger games..

The scope of the game determines how many different types of elements are in the game and how detailed the interaction is.

If everything in the game is human infantry with low tech weapons , the initial scope of the game is quite limited, compared to a sci fi game with lots of different alien life forms, tech levels, and unit types.

Now even if the initial scope of the game is limited you can add more detail to the interaction if you want to.The amount of complexity and detail you add is up to personal preference. (Some folks want super accurate simulations , others want 'beer and pizza ' games. )

If the quality of the rules writing and editing clearly define the game play , exceptions to the core rules the 'special rules' ,(my definition,)can be kept to a minimum.

I have no problem with complex rules .(Eg the core rules cover lots of things.)

I have issues with complicated rules , that use lots of different resolution methods and exceptions to core rules' (special rules').

I was under the impression you were proposing a two stage damage resolution,and you were going to use opposed values to generate 'to hit' and 'to save.'
Using BS or WS vs Evade 'to hit,'And Attack value vs Defense value 'to save'(or to damage depending which way round you resolve it.)

You implicitly stated you were going to roll armour and toughness into one stat for 'defense' as you could not see the need for separate values.
And armour piercing and strength would be combined to make the 'attack' value, by logical extension of this principal..

Now you have introduced a 'penetration value', and have not explained how this works with the Defense value to determine damage .
As penetration value implies it is used vs armour, what is used to describe HE type weapons?

You posted..
''Armour' and 'Toughness' is an arbitrary division that I've never seen any game in any genre make..''Seriously?

''GW uses a tiny fragment of the range of stats and makes a fairly granular game with three rolls, a two-roll system that made use of the available range of stats could easily make a similarly granular game much more simply. ''

So GW under uses a three roll resolution system to deliver a limited and boring game play,(padded out with pointless complication,) , with as much tactical depth as a shallow puddle.

But rather than fully utilize the three roll damage resolution to cover the wide and inspiring diversity the 40k background offers.

You want to recreate the limited and boring game play of the current 40k rules, with simpler rules?

Most (detailed) battle games use three roll damage resolution 'to hit', 'to beat armour',' and 'to damage squishier stuff behind the armour'.
AFAIK this covers the three basic stages of an attack, does it hit?If it hits does the targets armour work?,if the attack beats the armour does it cause damage.

If the scale of the game is larger, and the minature size is smaller, (like Epic Armageddon .) Players are happier with more abstraction to speed up play , and so a two stage damage resolution is acceptable.

What in the name of sanity would you have more than three dice rolls for?What would a fourth or fifth dice roll determine ?

Lanrak wrote:
By your definition any element in the rules that is different to the first element you define has to be a 'special rule.'
Any weapon that is not direct fire single point contact projectile has 'special rules' by your definition.

Where as 'indirect fire' and 'area effect' weapons are common enough concepts in the real world , and are treated as core rules in a slightly more more complex rule set.

I define special rules in the following way.. 'special rules' are rules that replace or ignore the core rules.
(Only 40k has that many special rules they have to devise different sets of them! Universal ones , general ones , codex specific ones, and special snowflake ones.. )

The problem with how you're applying the definition is that you aren't giving me a clear line on what is a 'core rule' or a 'special rule'. You're trying to give hard limits on how many 'special rules' should be in the game, and trying to call me on using too many 'special rules', when I don't know what you think a 'special rule' is.

The Scale of the war game defines the level of interaction.

A Squad sized skirmish game ,(single minature vs single minature), Company level battle game,(Unit vs Unit,) Army level campaign, (Corps or Divisions vs Corps or Divisions.)
And the scale of the game determines the logical/ practical scale of the minatures, or what counters represent in larger games..

The scope of the game determines how many different types of elements are in the game and how detailed the interaction is.

If everything in the game is human infantry with low tech weapons , the initial scope of the game is quite limited, compared to a sci fi game with lots of different alien life forms, tech levels, and unit types.

The question I'm trying to ask and don't seem to be getting across is HOW you expect the scale to effect the game. It looks to me like you're listing off genres without telling me anything I can get any information out of.

I was under the impression you were proposing a two stage damage resolution,and you were going to use opposed values to generate 'to hit' and 'to save.'
Using BS or WS vs Evade 'to hit,'And Attack value vs Defense value 'to save'(or to damage depending which way round you resolve it.)

You implicitly stated you were going to roll armour and toughness into one stat for 'defense' as you could not see the need for separate values.
And armour piercing and strength would be combined to make the 'attack' value, by logical extension of this principal..

Now you have introduced a 'penetration value', and have not explained how this works with the Defense value to determine damage .
As penetration value implies it is used vs armour, what is used to describe HE type weapons?

'Penetration' is the name Bolt Action gives to the 'attack' value. That's it. I thought I'd been using it since I started explaining the concept, but if I haven't, I'll set a bit of consistent terminology. WS/BS for the to-hit values in melee/at range, for convenience. Agility for the defensive to-hit stat. Penetration for the offensive damage stat. Durability for the defensive damage stat.

You posted..
''Armour' and 'Toughness' is an arbitrary division that I've never seen any game in any genre make..''Seriously?

If you're going to 'Seriously? Wow!' me you're going to need to give me some counterexamples. Bolt Action/GoA, Infinity, LotR/WotR, Black Powder, Warmachine, D&D, White Wolf's game systems, and Shadowrun all implement armour as either a modifier to the to-hit roll or a modifier to the damage roll without introducing an extra roll for it.

''GW uses a tiny fragment of the range of stats and makes a fairly granular game with three rolls, a two-roll system that made use of the available range of stats could easily make a similarly granular game much more simply. ''

So GW under uses a three roll resolution system to deliver a limited and boring game play,(padded out with pointless complication,) , with as much tactical depth as a shallow puddle.

But rather than fully utilize the three roll damage resolution to cover the wide and inspiring diversity the 40k background offers.

You want to recreate the limited and boring game play of the current 40k rules, with simpler rules?

What? You've made at least one leap I'm having a hard time following in this one.

You seem to be asserting that a system that's simpler than 40k is by necessity more boring, which contradicts the point of this discussion. You seem to be asserting that a three-roll damage resolution system is totally and absolutely necessary to simulate the 40k universe, without any semblance of an explanation WHY. And you see to be asserting that I'm trying to recreate 40k as it currently exists, which I'm not following at all.

Most (detailed) battle games use three roll damage resolution 'to hit', 'to beat armour',' and 'to damage squishier stuff behind the armour'.
AFAIK this covers the three basic stages of an attack, does it hit?If it hits does the targets armour work?,if the attack beats the armour does it cause damage.

If the scale of the game is larger, and the minature size is smaller, (like Epic Armageddon .) Players are happier with more abstraction to speed up play , and so a two stage damage resolution is acceptable.

What in the name of sanity would you have more than three dice rolls for?What would a fourth or fifth dice roll determine ?

Again. WHAT GAMES. Repeating yourself really isn't helping.

And it'd also help if you'd read what I type. I can add [/hyperbole] or [/sarcasm] tags if you really need me to, but when I'm exaggerating to try and get across the point 'more is not better in this case' asking me why I'd seriously suggest adding a fourth or fifth step to the process is just going to get us sidetracked.

If I've been reading right (sorry for my absence), there's confusion over what constitutes special rules. I've always seen special rules as something not covered by the core mechanics, which is why 40k has gone off the rails a bit. But I accept that this might not be right.

Also, I had this little thought; what if all units within the game where divided into two types; mechanical and biological. Most models are biological. Others, like Rhinos and all Necrons, are mechanical. And some, mostly bikes, are both.

This by itself does nothing. But it does affect how certain weapons affect them. For example, poisonous weapons can have rules that affect biological units, whilst a medic type model can have a rule that lets them heal biological units. And likewise, haywire weapons can have rules that affect mechanical units, whilst a mechanic type model can have a rule that lets them heal machines. And yes, this means that a bike type unit can be healed by both medics and mechanics. These 'special' rules can be litsted in the units dataslates. For example; a tech marine can have an entry under abilities called 'blessing of the ommissah' which says that in a certain phase, they can heal d3 wounds on a friendly mechanical unit within 3" if they pass a skill test. So that's rhinos, landraiders, Dreadnaughts and bikes. This is useful if we're going down a route of making models worse as they take wounds.

This is simple enough right?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If I've been reading right (sorry for my absence), there's confusion over what constitutes special rules. I've always seen special rules as something not covered by the core mechanics, which is why 40k has gone off the rails a bit. But I accept that this might not be right.

It's perfectly correct. The problem is that we're all defining 'special rules' and 'core rules' as 'not the other one', and applying the definition inconsistently. I'm trying to push 'rules that apply to some models but not others' as a clear and consistent definition, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Also, I had this little thought; what if all units within the game where divided into two types; mechanical and biological. Most models are biological. Others, like Rhinos and all Necrons, are mechanical. And some, mostly bikes, are both.

This by itself does nothing. But it does affect how certain weapons affect them. For example, poisonous weapons can have rules that affect biological units, whilst a medic type model can have a rule that lets them heal biological units. And likewise, haywire weapons can have rules that affect mechanical units, whilst a mechanic type model can have a rule that lets them heal machines. And yes, this means that a bike type unit can be healed by both medics and mechanics. These 'special' rules can be litsted in the units dataslates. For example; a tech marine can have an entry under abilities called 'blessing of the ommissah' which says that in a certain phase, they can heal d3 wounds on a friendly mechanical unit within 3" if they pass a skill test. So that's rhinos, landraiders, Dreadnaughts and bikes. This is useful if we're going down a route of making models worse as they take wounds.

This is simple enough right?

The concept of a typeline is simple enough, but I'm not convinced it's that necessary. The current 40k rules barely make the distinction, and when they do they end up making the skew problem worse. If a weapon's really good against organic targets but ineffective against mechanical targets its effectiveness in the game is largely dependent on what my opponent is bringing. It's an expensive waste of time if I'm playing against a Necron army and an invaluable staple if I'm playing against a Tyranid army; if its points cost reflects how much of a waste it is against Necrons then it's way too good against lists with organic models, if its points cost reflects how powerful it is against Tyranids then it's useless against lists with mechanical models.

If it isn't used on offensive abilities, or if its effect on offensive abilities is fairly minor, I don't see an issue with it but at that point it's just a restriction on who can heal whom. It may be worth asking what kind of support abilities could be restricted by mechanical/organic typing?

@ AnomanderRake

I can get behind that definition. To use an example, to me the rules for blast and template weapons are not special rules because they apply to many units in the same way.

As for the mech/bio divide, my idea would be something like this:

Dark eldar splinter weapons reduce the save of bio units by 1. And that's it. So they're slightly better at taking out nids than they are at taking out Necrons but they don't suffer penalties for shooting at Necrons. Likewise, their haywire grenades can ignore or reduce the saves of mechanical units, so if the dark eldar charge the Necrons they can inflict more damage.

This is just a bit of a brainstorm if I'm honest. If you guys think this has merit we can explore it more, but if it's unnecessary I'll leave it.

Convert everything over to "Bolt Action"?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AnomanderRake

I can get behind that definition. To use an example, to me the rules for blast and template weapons are not special rules because they apply to many units in the same way.

The problem with this is where the line gets drawn. If blast and template weapons aren't special rules because they apply to many units the same way, then there shouldn't be any special rules because all rules should be applied consistently and rules that apply only to one model are too specific and shouldn't be there.

At the end of the day the precise definition of special rules doesn't matter. Lanrak keeps accusing me of trying to use too many without telling me how or why he thinks I am and what he thinks is and isn't a special rule, and I've got no idea what he means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Convert everything over to "Bolt Action"?

...No?

 Talizvar wrote:
Convert everything over to "Bolt Action"?

Can you be a little bit more constructive than that?

@Talizvar.
Beyond the Gates of Antares, is more or less a scifi version of the WWII skirmish game Bolt Action.
And if you wanted to convert/port 40k stuff over to BtGoA, there is nothing stopping you.

However, I assumed this thread was about devising a rule set to cover the current 40k battle game?

@Future War Cultist.
I would agree with your definition of special rules if you extended it to cover resolution methods.

Eg Special Rules are those not covered by 'core game mechanics' and 'core resolution methods' that define the 'core rules'.
(EG simplest definition Special rules ignore or replace 'core rules'.)

Example,if a special ability allows something to automatically hit, rather than rolling to hit as defined in the core rules it is a special rule.Because it ignores the core mechanics and resolution methods that define 'how to hit' in the core rules.

Is everyone happy with that definition?

However,if the core rules make the distinction between direct fire and indirect fire weapons, and munition with point contact and those with area effect.
As these weapons are common across all factions in the 40k universe.(And many modern war games.)
Simply putting the area of effect instead of the number of hits ,under the Attack value.And defining how indirect fire can 'scatter'.Does not constitute Special rules.IMO.
Do you all agree with this?

So if the rules for 40k are written inclusively they would cover as much of the game play as possible with intuitive game mechanics and as few as possible straight forward resolution methods.

Which would keep exceptions (special rules) and additional complication, (multiple resolution methods ) to a minimum.
Do we all agree with this development principal?


@AnomanderRake.
I have been trying to explain my concern in the clearest way possible.

If we simplify the core rules too much, we run the risk of relying on more special rules and additional resolution methods, that could add more complication than complexity, as is the case in GWs current 40k rules development.

Just to cover my definitions ,(obviously please feel free to state if your definitions are radically are different).
Genre is the war game setting.

EG Ancient land battles, Napoleonic Naval warfare,Modern Air War, Scifi Space Warfare.These are all generic genres.

You could be more specific with genre descriptions historical settings, and specific fictional game worlds/universes obviously .

The scale of the game, determines the size of the engagement, and the level of the interaction.
(Simply put, how big the battles are , and now small the playing pieces need to be. )

You asked how does scale effect the game?
The answer is it defines the level of interaction in the game.

Skirmish games are model vs model interaction.

Battle games are unit vs unit interaction.

Larger battle games are unit group vs unit group interaction.

Is this any clearer?,this is a very important concept, that needs to be understood IMO.

if you decided to fight the entire battle of Waterloo with 1/72 scale skirmish rules , rather than large battle game rules.
Here is the space JUST THE BRITISH INFANTRY AND ARTILLERY takes up BEFORE DEPLOYMENT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqLoLKlbVuU
You would need another 2 tables to hold the British cavalry,the Allied contingent, and the Prussian Army.
The French Armies would take up about 4 tables too!

(Thankfully Alessio knows about game scale and used 'Division scale ' counters in 'Quelle Affair'. )

The scope of the game, defines how many different types of playing piece (models/units) are in the game and the level of detail the interaction between them has.
(Simply put, how much different stuff is covered by the game and how detailed the way things in the game act and react.)

You Wrote..
''If you're going to 'Seriously? Wow!' me you're going to need to give me some counterexamples. Bolt Action/GoA, Infinity, LotR/WotR, Black Powder, Warmachine, D&D, White Wolf's game systems, and Shadowrun all implement armour as either a modifier to the to-hit roll or a modifier to the damage roll without introducing an extra roll for it.''
'
I was genuinely amazed at the statement you made .Why focus on the word 'Toughness', when I have been referring to'three stage damage resolution', 'rolling to hit , 'rolling to beat armour',and 'rolling to damage'?P.S I did not mean to offend you .

It is almost like you wanted to ignore the games that have three stage damage resolution in them , but refer to it by another name?Look at what you actually wrote .
''Armour' and 'Toughness' is an arbitrary division that I've never seen any game in any genre make.''

Now look at the very first rule set that apparently proves your point.Bolt Action.
In B.A. when you fire an 'anti tank' weapon at a 'Tank', do you roll to hit, roll to penetrate the amour , then roll to see if you damage the tank after penetrating the armour?On an Armour(ed target) Damage table?

So in B.A you 1)roll to hit ,then 2) roll to penetrate armour, and then 3) roll to damage armoured targets.

That is three rolls , a three stage damage resolution!

Some games like F.O.W might call it a 'fire power test', other games might attribute multiple hit points to show the difference in resilience vs hits that beat the armour.
(This is mainly confined to smaller skirmish games and RPGS.Tracking individual hit points in battle games with units with 20 troops each, is a book keeping nightmare!That is why to damage rolls were devised to speed up play for larger games. )

So in games that have more 'complex scope', where armoured vehicles , (tanks and anti- tank weapons,) are included.(So its not just human(oid) combatants fighting with similar tech weapons)
Most of the ones I can think of use a three stage damage resolution of some sort, in the rules somewhere.

Now in some of the skirmish games there is a clear distinction between the majority of units effected by very common infantry weapons , and stuff with enough armour (tanks ) to make them impervious to anti infantry weapons, so they need anti tank weapons.

But the 40k background has no such distinction, the line between infantry and armoured vehicle,It is a grey scale with no real clear distinction where one unit type stops and the other starts.
In a similar way , there is not really a clear distinction between where normal infantry stops and monstrous creatures start either.

The variety of units in the 40k background , means the subtle differences that should be represented in the core but are not, need the finer 'granularity' that a fuly utilized three stage damage resolution delivers. I believe if we start by using opposed rolls for each stage, we cover the widest possible range of results we may need to define 40k game play fully.

I am happy to reduce/refine this to simpler methods where we can IF play testing shows we do not need this level of complexity.
I want to start with complex rules we can streamline if we want to.

Which is a better position to find yourself in that starting with too simple core rules that fail to cover all the intended game play half way through play testing.
As you start on the slippery slope of adding complication to gain complexity , and end up adding far more complication than is good for the game in most cases.
I am speaking from experience here, my gaming group and I have messed up more 40k re writes that most other people over the last decade or so.

Lanrak wrote:
@Future War Cultist.
I would agree with your definition of special rules if you extended it to cover resolution methods.

Eg Special Rules are those not covered by 'core game mechanics' and 'core resolution methods' that define the 'core rules'.
(EG simplest definition Special rules ignore or replace 'core rules'.)

Example,if a special ability allows something to automatically hit, rather than rolling to hit as defined in the core rules it is a special rule.Because it ignores the core mechanics and resolution methods that define 'how to hit' in the core rules.

Is everyone happy with that definition?

However,if the core rules make the distinction between direct fire and indirect fire weapons, and munition with point contact and those with area effect.
As these weapons are common across all factions in the 40k universe.(And many modern war games.)
Simply putting the area of effect instead of the number of hits ,under the Attack value.And defining how indirect fire can 'scatter'.Does not constitute Special rules.IMO.
Do you all agree with this?

So if the rules for 40k are written inclusively they would cover as much of the game play as possible with intuitive game mechanics and as few as possible straight forward resolution methods.

Which would keep exceptions (special rules) and additional complication, (multiple resolution methods ) to a minimum.
Do we all agree with this development principal?

Thank you, that's much clearer. If we're defining 'special rule' as 'an alternate mode of resolution' I'd think we'd be aiming for zero 'special rules'.

@AnomanderRake.
I have been trying to explain my concern in the clearest way possible.

If we simplify the core rules too much, we run the risk of relying on more special rules and additional resolution methods, that could add more complication than complexity, as is the case in GWs current 40k rules development.

Just to cover my definitions ,(obviously please feel free to state if your definitions are radically are different).
Genre is the war game setting.

EG Ancient land battles, Napoleonic Naval warfare,Modern Air War, Scifi Space Warfare.These are all generic genres.

You could be more specific with genre descriptions historical settings, and specific fictional game worlds/universes obviously .

The scale of the game, determines the size of the engagement, and the level of the interaction.
(Simply put, how big the battles are , and now small the playing pieces need to be. )

You asked how does scale effect the game?
The answer is it defines the level of interaction in the game.

Skirmish games are model vs model interaction.

Battle games are unit vs unit interaction.

Larger battle games are unit group vs unit group interaction.

Is this any clearer?,this is a very important concept, that needs to be understood IMO.

if you decided to fight the entire battle of Waterloo with 1/72 scale skirmish rules , rather than large battle game rules.
Here is the space JUST THE BRITISH INFANTRY AND ARTILLERY takes up BEFORE DEPLOYMENT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqLoLKlbVuU
You would need another 2 tables to hold the British cavalry,the Allied contingent, and the Prussian Army.
The French Armies would take up about 4 tables too!

(Thankfully Alessio knows about game scale and used 'Division scale ' counters in 'Quelle Affair'. )

The scope of the game, defines how many different types of playing piece (models/units) are in the game and the level of detail the interaction between them has.
(Simply put, how much different stuff is covered by the game and how detailed the way things in the game act and react.)

You're repeating yourself instead of explaining yourself here. 40k is a company-scale game focused on unit-versus unit interaction, I don't know what point you're trying to make by describing different scales.

You Wrote..
''If you're going to 'Seriously? Wow!' me you're going to need to give me some counterexamples. Bolt Action/GoA, Infinity, LotR/WotR, Black Powder, Warmachine, D&D, White Wolf's game systems, and Shadowrun all implement armour as either a modifier to the to-hit roll or a modifier to the damage roll without introducing an extra roll for it.''
'
I was genuinely amazed at the statement you made .Why focus on the word 'Toughness', when I have been referring to'three stage damage resolution', 'rolling to hit , 'rolling to beat armour',and 'rolling to damage'?P.S I did not mean to offend you .

It is almost like you wanted to ignore the games that have three stage damage resolution in them , but refer to it by another name?Look at what you actually wrote .
''Armour' and 'Toughness' is an arbitrary division that I've never seen any game in any genre make.''

Now look at the very first rule set that apparently proves your point.Bolt Action.
In B.A. when you fire an 'anti tank' weapon at a 'Tank', do you roll to hit, roll to penetrate the amour , then roll to see if you damage the tank after penetrating the armour?On an Armour(ed target) Damage table?

So in B.A you 1)roll to hit ,then 2) roll to penetrate armour, and then 3) roll to damage armoured targets.

That is three rolls , a three stage damage resolution!

Some games like F.O.W might call it a 'fire power test', other games might attribute multiple hit points to show the difference in resilience vs hits that beat the armour.
(This is mainly confined to smaller skirmish games and RPGS.Tracking individual hit points in battle games with units with 20 troops each, is a book keeping nightmare!That is why to damage rolls were devised to speed up play for larger games. )

Back up for a moment. You seem to be using the same term to refer to different things? The situation as I understand it from this post:

In 40k an attack may consist of a to-hit roll, a to-wound roll, a save roll, an extra save roll, and damage allocation or vehicle damage. That's a five-step process.

I'm suggesting deleting save rolls to chop it back to a three-step process: a to-hit roll, a to-wound roll, and damage allocation or vehicle damage.

You're insisting that a save roll is necessary to the game. Are you suggesting deleting damage allocation/vehicle damage to keep a three-step process, or are you actually insisting on a four-step process?

@AnomanderRake.
It may seem like I have repeated things you understood from my original 'pitch' for how I thought 40k rules re write should be approached.
But my problem was I was not sure which part of the objective over view of the current rules I had not explained sufficiently well.
(If we were in the same room having a normal conversation It would have been clear after about 1 minute!)

You were referring to skirmish games like B,A, where there is a clear distinction between unit types , eg infantry,transport, tanks , artillery.
And as the majority of units are infantry, (as they are in many war games.)The core rules are written focusing just on infantry.
And the few unit types that are not infantry , are covered with extra rules.

This approach works well in many games, so it is a common starting point when trying to re write rule for 40k.
IF we re scaled the game size to suit the minatures , so we would have mainly infantry and 1 or two vehicles tops.(2nd ed size games.)It would work.
If we reduce the size of the minature to 6-10 mm so every thing could be generalized into broad catagories, it would work.

But using the varitey and diversity of units in the current game , at the current scale , players expect a finer graduation between the many different unit types.(In my experience.)

If we look at the current 40k game, the level of armour is not so clearly defined as it is in other games.
Armour save, inv saves,re- rollable inv saves, separate Armour values for vehicles.And the added on saves in USRs like FNP .

And the distinction between a man in armour and a man in a vehicle and a monster is not as clear as in any other game I know of.

A Terminator has armour thicker than light vehicles but is infantry.(A driver in a Ork Truckk has much less protection but is classed as a vehicle.)

A dreadnought is classed as a vehicle, and a other units that look the same and are similar in the background get classed as a monstrous creatures.

In short trying to 'artificially separate units' in to types does not work in 40k.(Neither does classing units by type in a F.O.C , but that a topic for another day.)

I was proposing all units get a armour value.All weapons get an AP value.We compare these 2 values to determine the save value.
So all units roll to hit , all units roll to save and all units roll to damage. Using the same resolution method.(Opposed values.)

This way a vehicle with a higher armour and low resilience to damage , (a killa can with a grot in it.)
Can use the same straight forward resolution method as a monster with no armour and a high resilience to damage.( Greater Deamon of Nurgle.)
And both get intuitive and proportional results from the resolution.
(I agree that all units should lose effectiveness over time gradually as they take damaging hits.Rather than a separate table , I would like M/Cs and vehicles to have hit points on their unit card.So they both lose attacks as they take damage and lose hit points.)

This covers the wide range and diversity of unit type in 40k, in the simplest way possible, that I can think of.

Summary of what I was not explaining well enough?
I was not proposing replacing the five different types of saves used in the current game, with 5 separate rolls.

Just increasing the 'granularity 'of the three stage damage resolution to cover all units in the same way.(The armour save roll is targets Av vs weapon hit AP.)

IMO, the biggest mistake GW 40k rules development made was trying to make the complex 40k game play fit into the 'simplest explanations they could think of' , to try to make it 'child friendly'.
As a result the complex game play spilled out all over the place, and so GW ended up having to massively complicate the rules with stupidly large amounts of additions and exceptions.

So rather than simplify the game play, to allow the use of simple rules.

I would like to streamline the rules , using straightforward options that cover the complex game play with slightly more complex rules.

Throwing this out here... this is the stream-lined/revised version of 40K I have been working on. Some of it is based on comments here and in other threads. It's not complete yet (need to work on the "game setup" section and probably turn the Vehicles into USR rules). Haven't had a chance to playtest yet as I'm still going through the codexes to "fix" them.

Comments would be appreciated

@ Stormonu

I'm taking a look through that now and I'll get back to you when I'm done.

@ AnomanderRake

Get rid of saves altogether? It's bold. I think the war of the ring game didn't use saves didn't it?

I'm open the idea, because the way I was planning to structure the phases was similar to how aos resolves the fight phase. The player who's turn it is picks a unit to fight with in both the shooting pause and assault phase, then the other player picks a unit and so on and so forth. So they're still getting to participate in the game during their opponents phase.

Let me try to work out how this might look, since it would require some tweaking:

10 Guardsmen shooting at chaos marines:

They have 20 attacks. They need 5s to hit. Then they need 6s to wound. So that's 6.67 hits, that become 1.11 wounds. One dead chaos marine.

10 Guardsmen shooting at 10 orks:

20 attacks. 5s to hit. 5s to wound. So that's 6.67 hits, that become 2.22 wounds. 2 dead orks.

This might work.

Lanrak wrote:
...skirmish games like B,A...

This is what's confusing me. Every time I think I understand what you're talking about you use a term to apply to something completely different. You defined 'skirmish game' earlier as a game centered on model-on-model interaction, Bolt Action is a company-scale game centered on unit-on-unit interaction. Calling it a 'skirmish game' isn't making sense to me and is just going to make us wander off into the weeds on another argument of semantics.

...clear distinction between unit types , eg infantry,transport, tanks , artillery.
And as the majority of units are infantry, (as they are in many war games.)The core rules are written focusing just on infantry.
And the few unit types that are not infantry , are covered with extra rules.

This approach works well in many games, so it is a common starting point when trying to re write rule for 40k.
IF we re scaled the game size to suit the minatures , so we would have mainly infantry and 1 or two vehicles tops.(2nd ed size games.)It would work.
If we reduce the size of the minature to 6-10 mm so every thing could be generalized into broad catagories, it would work.

But using the varitey and diversity of units in the current game , at the current scale , players expect a finer graduation between the many different unit types.(In my experience.)

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I thought I'd written a pitch for a game that didn't include 'unit types' because the distinctions are fairly meaningless. Are you trying to tell me that I should go back and include them because the game wouldn't be granular enough, or that I shouldn't go back and include them because I will inevitably tack them on with 'special rules' later?

Taking a detour into the actual unit types for a moment the typeline in 40k could contain the words Infantry (no extra rules), Bike (faster movement, HoW, jinks instead of going to ground, difficult terrain is instead dangerous), Jetbike (bike that flies), Artillery (moronic pile of rules), Jump (faster movement, HoW, flies, difficult terrain is instead dangerous), Jet Pack (move-shoot-move, relentless, flies), Beasts/Cavalry (faster movement), Monstrous Creatures (small pile of special rules), FMC (MC plus flying), GC (bigger MC), FGC (guess), Vehicle (with ten different subtypes), and Super-Heavy Vehicle (with four different subtypes).

I don't think either of us thinks 40k actually needs 25 different unit types. If Jink and Go To Ground are written into the core rules as the same mechanic, the move and agility stats are added, and close combat and damage resolution are streamlined that entire chapter can be replaced with the Flying and Relentless keywords.

If we look at the current 40k game, the level of armour is not so clearly defined as it is in other games.
Armour save, inv saves,re- rollable inv saves, separate Armour values for vehicles.And the added on saves in USRs like FNP .

And the distinction between a man in armour and a man in a vehicle and a monster is not as clear as in any other game I know of.

A Terminator has armour thicker than light vehicles but is infantry.(A driver in a Ork Truckk has much less protection but is classed as a vehicle.)

A dreadnought is classed as a vehicle, and a other units that look the same and are similar in the background get classed as a monstrous creatures.

In short trying to 'artificially separate units' in to types does not work in 40k.(Neither does classing units by type in a F.O.C , but that a topic for another day.)

I was proposing all units get a armour value.All weapons get an AP value.We compare these 2 values to determine the save value.
So all units roll to hit , all units roll to save and all units roll to damage. Using the same resolution method.(Opposed values.)

This way a vehicle with a higher armour and low resilience to damage , (a killa can with a grot in it.)
Can use the same straight forward resolution method as a monster with no armour and a high resilience to damage.( Greater Deamon of Nurgle.)
And both get intuitive and proportional results from the resolution.
(I agree that all units should lose effectiveness over time gradually as they take damaging hits.Rather than a separate table , I would like M/Cs and vehicles to have hit points on their unit card.So they both lose attacks as they take damage and lose hit points.)

This covers the wide range and diversity of unit type in 40k, in the simplest way possible, that I can think of.

Summary of what I was not explaining well enough?
I was not proposing replacing the five different types of saves used in the current game, with 5 separate rolls.

Just increasing the 'granularity 'of the three stage damage resolution to cover all units in the same way.(The armour save roll is targets Av vs weapon hit AP.)

IMO, the biggest mistake GW 40k rules development made was trying to make the complex 40k game play fit into the 'simplest explanations they could think of' , to try to make it 'child friendly'.
As a result the complex game play spilled out all over the place, and so GW ended up having to massively complicate the rules with stupidly large amounts of additions and exceptions.

So rather than simplify the game play, to allow the use of simple rules.

I would like to streamline the rules , using straightforward options that cover the complex game play with slightly more complex rules.

Okay. You've now sidestepped from the question I was asking into yet another discussion.

I proposed an attack resolution system that proceeded through three steps (to-hit, to-wound, allocate damage) on small targets and three steps (to-hit, to-wound, subsystem damage) on large targets. You called me on calling Bolt Action a two-roll system because it uses the same three steps to resolve damage on vehicles. Fine. You've been trying to tell me that a three-step attack system is absolutely necessary to make the granularity in 40k work. Okay. Now explain to me why allocating damage is a step in my rules and it isn't a step in your rules.

I'm going to separate out a bit of this and deal with it separately because I'm not sure you've understood what I'm talking about:

This way a vehicle with a higher armour and low resilience to damage , (a killa can with a grot in it.)
Can use the same straight forward resolution method as a monster with no armour and a high resilience to damage.( Greater Deamon of Nurgle.)
And both get intuitive and proportional results from the resolution.

The armour save roll is an arbitrary distinction made by Warhammer. It doesn't make things any more intuitive.

It makes me ask 'wait, why can my hotshot lasgun punch straight through power armour but can't scratch a mound of flesh?', or 'why doesn't getting shot in the face by an autocannon actually do anything to a Terminator?'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AnomanderRake

Get rid of saves altogether? It's bold. I think the war of the ring game didn't use saves didn't it?

I'm open the idea, because the way I was planning to structure the phases was similar to how aos resolves the fight phase. The player who's turn it is picks a unit to fight with in both the shooting pause and assault phase, then the other player picks a unit and so on and so forth. So they're still getting to participate in the game during their opponents phase.

LotR skipped the save roll and just did to-hit/to-wound, WotR went a step further and worked WS/BS into the number of attacks a unit got and made a single roll for each attack.

I've done some of the preliminary math and it seems to work, it shunts more of the burden of stat granularity over into the to-hit roll and the number of attacks per model may need to be adjusted.

@ AnomanderRake

If we went down this route, can we retain saves for special occasions? For things like force shields and cover etc.

If models are in cover they add 1 to any save they have, or gain a 6+ save if they don't have one. Could this be done or is it a bad idea?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AnomanderRake

If we went down this route, can we retain saves for special occasions? For things like force shields and cover etc.

If models are in cover they add 1 to any save they have, or gain a 6+ save if they don't have one. Could this be done or is it a bad idea?

It seems unnecessary to me. If armour and toughness are getting rolled into one 'durability' stat force shields would improve that, and I'd like to implement cover as a to-hit modifier rather than add an extra roll just for it.

@ AnomanderRake

I guess so. A battle sister with their shield of faith could be just as tough as a super human space marine.

Here's what I've been working on in the meantime. Model stats:

Movement:
Ranged:
Melee:
Defensive:
Wounds:
Leadership:

Weapon stats (both ranged and melee):

Range:
Attacks:
Offensive:

I'm not so sure about the names but they'll do for now.

Here's a space marine in this system:

Movement: 6"
Ranged: 4+
Melee: 4+
Defensive: 7
Wounds: 1
Leadership: 8

Bolt gun:

Range: 24" Attacks: 2 Offensive: 2

Under this system, a space marine scores a hit on a D6 roll of 4, 5 or 6 with both ranged and melee attacks. Their bolt gun has an offensive value of 2. Roll a D6 and add the result to its offensive value. If this equals or beats the targets defensive stat they wound it.

So if the space marine was shooting at another space marine, he'd hit them on a 4, 5 or 6. He then needs to roll a 5 or 6 to wound them. A 0.33% of scoring a wound. Under the current system, they'd have a 0.22% of scoring a wound. So it's nearly the same, but there's no charts. And everything comes from an understanding of the core mechanics and what is on the marines card. Does this seem ok?

Also, I've been toying with the idea of 'reversing' things. Like instead of saying 4+, writing 3 instead, and the model needs a 1, 2 or 3 to pass. So that on the card, higher numbers are better. But that's probably pedantic of me.

Thoughts?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AnomanderRake

I guess so. A battle sister with their shield of faith could be just as tough as a super human space marine.

Here's what I've been working on in the meantime. Model stats:

Movement:
Ranged:
Melee:
Defensive:
Wounds:
Leadership:

Weapon stats (both ranged and melee):

Range:
Attacks:
Offensive:

I'm not so sure about the names but they'll do for now.

Here's a space marine in this system:

Movement: 6"
Ranged: 4+
Melee: 4+
Defensive: 7
Wounds: 1
Leadership: 8

Bolt gun:

Range: 24" Attacks: 2 Offensive: 2

Under this system, a space marine scores a hit on a D6 roll of 4, 5 or 6 with both ranged and melee attacks. Their bolt gun has an offensive value of 2. Roll a D6 and add the result to its offensive value. If this equals or beats the targets defensive stat they wound it.

So if the space marine was shooting at another space marine, he'd hit them on a 4, 5 or 6. He then needs to roll a 5 or 6 to wound them. A 0.33% of scoring a wound. Under the current system, they'd have a 0.22% of scoring a wound. So it's nearly the same, but there's no charts. And everything comes from an understanding of the core mechanics and what is on the marines card. Does this seem ok?

Also, I've been toying with the idea of 'reversing' things. Like instead of saying 4+, writing 3 instead, and the model needs a 1, 2 or 3 to pass. So that on the card, higher numbers are better. But that's probably pedantic of me.

Thoughts?

That's a little too far on the Age of Sigmar side of things. I've been running with the assumption there was an 'agility' stat distinct from the 'durability' stat, where the to-hit roll was d6+WS or d6+BS compared to the target's agility.

So a Space Marine might have a statline consisting of:
Move 6, WS 3, BS 3, Agi 6, Dur 6, Wounds 1, Leadership 8

And carry a bolter with a statline consisting of:
Range 24", Power +1, Shots 2

So he hits another Space Marine on a 3+ and wounds on a 5+, but if the other Space Marine were in light cover he might hit on 4+ instead, and if he were shooting at a Guardian in cover he might only be hitting on a 6, though he would wound on a 3+.

This has the extra benefit of stats as direct representational values, you have all the information on the statline without needing to reference tables to figure out what you need to roll.

Oh I see now. That's similar to what Lanrak was suggesting.

Ok, how's this:

Movement: 6
Ranged: 3
Melee: 3
Agility: 7
Resilience: 7
Endurance: 1
Leadership: 8

The marine can move six inches a turn. They roll ranged/melee plus D6 against targets agility to hit and weapons power plus D6 against resilience to wound. So again:

A marine shooting at another (chaos?) marine needs to roll a 4 to hit and 5 to wound.

I think we're getting there.

Also, can we put a clause in the rules for 'stat' tests? Roll 2D6, if this equals or is below the stat in question the test is passd. Leadership tests are of course the most common stat test, but there can be agility and resilience tests too.

Here's an example: skitarrii vangaurd shoot at a squad of chaos marines. They have a rule in their dataslate saying that any biological unit targeted by them with either shooting or melee attacks with the rad poisoning rule must take a resilience test immediately afterwards. If they fail it, they suffer a mortal wound(s) (see AoS) as the radiation kicks in. To balance it out, radium weapons are now pretty much las guns in all other respects.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Also, can we put a clause in the rules for 'stat' tests? Roll 2D6, if this equals or is below the stat in question the test is passd. Leadership tests are of course the most common stat test, but there can be agility and resilience tests too.

Here's an example: skitarrii vangaurd shoot at a squad of chaos marines. They have a rule in their dataslate saying that any biological unit targeted by them with either shooting or melee attacks with the rad poisoning rule must take a resilience test immediately afterwards. If they fail it, they suffer a mortal wound(s) (see AoS) as the radiation kicks in. To balance it out, radium weapons are now pretty much las guns in all other respects.

I'd rather not. 'Stat test or take a single wound after taking shots from a unit' are just the kind of statistically insignificant rule that takes up text to write and has a negligible to nonexistent effect on the game that Lanrak and I actually agree are unnecessary. It's the moral equivalent of the unnecessariness of Soul Blaze in 40k today.

From the general principles we've been arguing about that one rule introduces two extra methods of resolving attacks; you need stat tests and mortal wounds written into the rules just to do a single extra wound sometimes?

In terms of trying to figure out how various subtle distinctions between small arms would work under this system Skitarii are pretty annoying, they have plenty of odd rules.

Given a list of small arms containing autoguns, lasguns, hotshot lasguns, shotguns, bolters, special-ammo bolters, Inferno bolters, sonic blasters, radium carbines, galvanic rifles, storm bolters, combi-bolters, pulse rifles, pulse carbines, splinter rifles, shardcarbines, Gauss flayers/blasters, Tesla carbines, shootas, and fleshborers, the only keywords across all armies I'd expect to need would be poison (+1 power against living targets, mostly for splinter weapons), close quarters (no long-range to-hit modifier, for shotguns and shuriken weapons), and critical hit/rending (on a 6 to hit resolve hits at +1 power, mostly for Gauss weapons). Radium weapons could create a similar effect by just having the poison rule without needing to write a unique rule just for them.

(Sidenote: I've started to try and use 'keyword' in place of 'special rule' where a quick-and-dirty rule that plugs straight in to a segment of the core rules to let me distinguish things like 'blast' that other people aren't defining as 'special rules' from the rules that apply to all models)

Low on the priority list, but you might want to also consider a "Size" stat; Bulky, Very Bulky, et. al. come up quite frequently in the game and while it doesn't often have a direct result on combat, using a size stat helps when quickly figuring out LOS cases and Transport capacities without having to do page flipping to remember how many models Very Bulky equals. Also, if you have a size stat, you can use it for certain tests (such as vs. gravity weapons, tank shock attacks, rams and the like)

 Stormonu wrote:
Low on the priority list, but you might want to also consider a "Size" stat; Bulky, Very Bulky, et. al. come up quite frequently in the game and while it doesn't often have a direct result on combat, using a size stat helps when quickly figuring out LOS cases and Transport capacities without having to do page flipping to remember how many models Very Bulky equals. Also, if you have a size stat, you can use it for certain tests (such as vs. gravity weapons, tank shock attacks, rams and the like)

Now that I'm thinking about this one a 'size' stat may have to be the answer. I was wondering if it could be tied to Wounds, but small character models trip that up some.

A bulk stat would be a good idea. It's good for transport vehicles and it can be used for grav weapons. The power of their attack can be determined by this stat.

Also, did you guys want to rule out mortal wounds? I would like to keep those myself, for a few specific things.

And the rad poisoning thing, or poisoning in general; just a reroll to wound against bio targets?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
A bulk stat would be a good idea. It's good for transport vehicles and it can be used for grav weapons. The power of their attack can be determined by this stat.

Also, did you guys want to rule out mortal wounds? I would like to keep those myself, for a few specific things.

And the rad poisoning thing, or poisoning in general; just a reroll to wound against bio targets?

I don't like the concept of Mortal Wounds. What did you want to keep them for?

I have '+1 POW against living targets' in my notes for the 'poisoned' keyword.

@ AnomanderRake

Psychic Powers, massively powerful weapons like a deathstrike missile, tank shock, things like that.

My plan was to take Arcane Bolt and Mystic Shield and rename them Smite and Ward respectively. Smite is D3 mortal wounds against a target within 18", Ward is now +1 to the units defense stat (was originally +1 to save).

@AnomanderRake.
(I will not use any of my definitions and just talk about war games in general terms so we do not get stuck debating names rather than issues. )

I was under the impression people were thinking that you would not need separate rolls for 'to beat armour' and 'to 'damage' in 40k.
As lots of games do not bother with this distinction to speed up play.

However, lots of the other games only include a tiny range of units types , some only have slight variations of one type!
Those games that have slightly more units types have clear distinctions between 'not armoured models' like infantry , that are assumed to be 'out of action ' when they suffer a penetrating hit.
And armoured models like tanks,where these simpler games just add on an additional resolution method,to determine damage after suffering a penetrating hit.

In these games the resolution methods can be simplified, and some stages could be dropped without impacting the game play.

The only way to make 40k fit this type of set up would be the heavily cut back on units diversity , and its the diversity of units in 40k that makes it so appealing to so many players.

The 40k current rules make a horrible mess of the in game interaction, because they did not allow the slight differences between units to be covered in a straight forward proportional way. But used lots of different simple to explain systems, that ended up detracting or countering each other , making the rules more and more complicated, while making the game play simpler and more restricted..

This is why you get all the WTF moments in 40k, not because 40k rules differentiate between armour and toughness.It just 40k rules do it in the most counter intuitive and restrictive way I have ever seen!

You posted examples , of WTF moments, and I would like to try to give my take on them..

''It makes me ask 'wait, why can my hotshot lasgun punch straight through power armour but can't scratch a mound of flesh?', or 'why doesn't getting shot in the face by an autocannon actually do anything to a Terminator?'.''

The ability to punch through armour is not the same as the ability to cause damage to softer material .
Most anti armour rounds only punch a small hole through low resistance material.Without a substantial amount of impedance that thick armour gives, the energy of the anti-armour round can not be transferred to cause the optimum amount of damage .

If a hot lasgun can burn a small diameter hole through power armour ,which would probably generate enough heat to melt the armour, thus spraying a small amount of molten armour into the area directly behind the penetrated power armour.

Does not mean a hot las gun does not burn, (then probably cauterize,) a small hole across the surface or though not vital parts of a large mound of flesh type target.

This is the sort of difference in weapon effect I want to define more clearly.

Because of the limitations the 'direct roll armour save ' 40k was stuck with, When you get down to 2+ save you 'run out of room.'
So rather than look at alternative solutions , GW just added an extra special save the ''invunerable save.''

This means that no matter how devastating the hit , the model with an invunerable save gets a fixed chance of survival against any thing.
This is the sort of lunacy I want to get rid of completely.