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.

GreedyPizza wrote:

2 : What about ID : There is another thread about how to deal with it, and the issue has been raised here because of characters and EW. But I feel certain units are made too weak in certain matchups because of it. Tyranid warriors can't do gak with their poor saves and get wiped by artillery ... Units that have 2+ saves are rarely unplayable because of this, but some units that combine a low save 3 wounds and T4 just seem to suffer too badly from the rule. I don't think it can be fixed by only tweaking the units that suffer from it. Maybe making high strength high AP weapons more scarce could work. I don't mind some stuff being wiped of the table by a leman russ, but sometimes it makes some units feel bad. I guess if you're not able to spam russes and basilisks and stuff like that anymore, it could be alright.

For the moment the test is using 7th ed ID because I haven't reached the part of the test where I begin taking an axe to special rules yet. I think the Str = T x 2 = ID is quick and simple so I don't have a problem with that. But I also like the idea of "Mortal Wounds" from AoS with some tweaks. If ID goes away but is replaced with Mortal Wounds which deals d3 Wounds instead of instantly killing a person it becomes more interesting. A follow up to that is Destroyer can be replaced with Mortal. Destroyer weapons can have the same effect as a ID weapon. They are both supposed to represent wounds so grievous they just destroy the model so why not implement them that way.

After special rules get a run Codexes will get a light pass followed by a heavy pass. Because of that everything is on the table. Weapon strs can be adjusted if need be, but lets see what tools they have available when special rules get changed first.

3 : Templates : I actually like template rules as they are ; they do feel rather heavy if you have multiple small blasts that are not multiple barrage. Flamer templates are definitely fine. Small blasts are the most questionable ones, since it takes a lot of time to set them up even though sometimes they don't have a very impressive effect (mortars ...) (for d-blasts I think it's fine to need to roll a few more dice). Maybe some of the traditionnal small blast weapons need to go the "roll the number of hits" way, or to be played only as multiple barrage.
It's not the worst issue but hey.

I don't mind templates personally. But I am holding myself to my 4 stated design goals. That means nothing is free from getting axed and in an honest attempt to clean up the game you have to ask, is the game better served by requiring a specialized die, 3-6 special plastic cut outs (3 of which are EXCEEDINGLY rare and expensive to get a hold of (But required to use some rare units in the core codexes - I.E. Necrons Teseract Vault)), and a hand full of unique rules? Or is it better by having a single rules called blast x where x is the dice you roll to determine # of hits. Example: Exocrines Bioplasmic Cannon is a large blast. Instead it's Blast 2d3. You roll to hit. Success! Roll 2d3, you have somewhere between 2 and 6 hits. Roll those to wound.

It's just a idea I have knocking around. Not necessarily the best idea yet. Requires experimentation.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm going to watch this thread with keen interest. I've been trying to fix 40k too, and I definitely think that everyone can agree were it's went wrong, if not necessarily how to make it right!

I can disagree with that. The only thing that everyone will agree on is that the game is broken. How it is broken will vary from person to person, and largely dependent on what they want to get out of it.

For example, Special Rules. Some feel there are too many. Some feel that some have gone too far. While others are just pissed off about how conflicting and contradictory some of them are.

Another concept is, Lance wants to simplify the game while others love this level of complexity that 40K has.

@Charistoph.
The problem is GW has told everyone 40k is exactly the game they want to play, no matter how diametrically opposed their play styles are.
The super competitive battle game player is pushed into the same game as the more narrative focused skirmish game player, for example.
The 40k rules have all 'genres' of rules crammed in to them to cover all game scales scopes and sizes, and are a complete mess as a result.

So its no wonder people have different ideas on how 40k should be fixed.

That is why I think its important to define the game play you are trying to develop the rules for.
Just randomly throwing some ideas around to see what may work, is not considered game design, its just messing about.(Which can be fun. )

If you want to simplify the rules for 40k, you need to identify what elements in the core rules are causing all the complication in the first place.
When you remove this core complication from the core rules, you can add more complexity to the game play if you want to.

If you do not address the core issues with the core rules , you can not add complexity without adding complication to the core rules.
(This is what has caused the problems with 40k for the last 18 years.)

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
The problem is GW has told everyone 40k is exactly the game they want to play, no matter how diametrically opposed their play styles are.
The super competitive battle game player is pushed into the same game as the more narrative focused skirmish game player, for example.
The 40k rules have all 'genres' of rules crammed in to them to cover all game scales scopes and sizes, and are a complete mess as a result.

So its no wonder people have different ideas on how 40k should be fixed.

That is why I think its important to define the game play you are trying to develop the rules for.
Just randomly throwing some ideas around to see what may work, is not considered game design, its just messing about.(Which can be fun. )

If you want to simplify the rules for 40k, you need to identify what elements in the core rules are causing all the complication in the first place.
When you remove this core complication from the core rules, you can add more complexity to the game play if you want to.

If you do not address the core issues with the core rules , you can not add complexity without adding complication to the core rules.
(This is what has caused the problems with 40k for the last 18 years.)

Again, the agreement is that it is broken. Where I disagree is that HOW it is broken will still vary from person to person. What you think is broken is part of where you think it went wrong. Where you think it went wrong will define how you approach fixing the system.

40K can be a complex game that works right now if the developers took the time to map and plan their system and keep the connections in rules in mind when creating new stuff for their codices and rulebooks. This is where Privateer Press shines when compared to Games Workshop.

Some people think where it went wrong is that they started adding too many things to the system too fast, making it "unnecessarily complex". Unfortunately, that ignores the fact that the system was rather broken even in the golden days of their memory of 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, or whenever they started. This is where the simplifiers want to come in and fix the system.

Special Rules are great in differentiating units, and they have exploded in numbers since 4th Edition. Some people place the problems of 40K on this aspect of the game, while forgetting that 40K's biggest competitor for TT money has done exactly that in their dual-aspect game, and no one complains about the proliferation there.

There is nothing wrong with these opinions, and they all have a solid basis in facts. I am not saying people are wrong in trying to change the system in this way. I just disagreed is that not everyone will agree with "where it's went wrong", because not everyone has exactly the same problem with 40K.

The closest I would even consider that people would agree is a good start point of going wrong is the byline that has been used for years is that GW "is not a game company, but a model company". Never mind that Games Workshop as its own company currently does not make models. They have the subsidiaries of Citadel and Forgeworld making models. The only thing that Game Workshop actually does is the marketing, distribution, and the world and rules building. That last part sounds like game-building to me, and they need to own up and care about the game as much as they are concerned with the Intellectual Property.

@Charistoph.
I was simply trying to point out why people think 40k needs to be fixed in so many different ways,is becase GW sell the rules to people with such a wide range of game play expectations.

Back when GW made a wide range of games in the 40k setting,Inquisitor, Necromundia for skirmish games, 40k for large skirmish games, Epic and BFG for battle sized games .
Players had a clear choice between to scales and scope they could engage in the 40k universe.

If I was a 'tread head' and wanted to play a 40k game using tank companies and super heavies, I had a clear choice in Epic being the battle game where the scale of the game matched the scale of the minatures.
In the same way a 'fluff bunny ' had a completely separate game based on narrative driven detailed character interaction, by using Inquisitor.

I am not saying 40k had good rules back then, just a well defined scale and scope.If GW sales department had let the game devs continue to release 40k at the same game size as 2nd ed.
40k rules would have ended up looking like one of the many excellent large skirmish scifi rules sets out there. (BtGoA to Warzone.)

But GW sales department wanted to up the model count, but would not let the GW devs write the rules specifically for the new game play size.
This was an error the game devs tried to correct in every edition of 40k ,(up to 7th ed.) but were not allowed to.
(The leaked 6th ed rules on B.O.W was the last indication of any real attempt to fix core issues .GW devs just gave up after that point.)

The GW corporate management simply failed to understand that 'players want rules written with clarity brevity and wit'.(As Rick Priestly put it.)
And simply chased the customers who do not play or do not care about the rules.

It was simply because it was easier for T.K. to tell share holders 'GW sell toy soldiers to children',Than explain the value good rules add to minatures used in games.

I think you may be mixing up complex with complicated?

Simple examples,
Chess has straight forward rules and complex tactical decision based game play.

Newbury rules for Napoleonics has complicated rules for command and control , as it uses 4 separate charts and 45 modifiers dependent on Nationality and unit type, and multiple threaded result chains!

Using complex to mean lots of results/options.
And complicated to mean more information/processes than is required to obtain a result .

40k has very simple tactical game play.(In game decision making.)
40k has complicated strategic choices,(Army list building.)
40k has complicated rules.(Approximately 5 times more complicated than it needs to be.)

The only way to fix the 40k rules is to pick a game play type and game scale to start with.
Eg
Company level modern warfare ,unit focused game play.(Based on the amount of models in the game.)
Or a skirmish level narrative driven character focused game play.(Based on the scale and detail of the minatures.)
Or what ever you think 40k should end up as.

At least this way people can focus on the type of rules they want.

IMO to represent the 5 rule sets GWs 40k used to have.
40k should have at least 2 game scales, skirmish and battle size.

There should be codex books developed for random pick up games.(And tournaments.)
And campaign supplements for more narrative scenario based games and campaigns.

GWs current 'put every cool sounding idea ever thought of no matter what game scale or scope in one big book and hope the players can sort it out.'
Has lead to the current mess 40k rules are in.

Without a clearly defined focus on the end game play , it is impossible to write a clearly defined and concise rule set.

I have to agree with Lanrak on some points about scope and complexity vs 'complication'.

It seems to me however that the aim of this thread is clear : a scale around 1500-2000 points 7th ed 40k ; but with rules that manage to not be too complicated yet allow for complex gameplay.
Such a rule set would also be playable for lower and higher points games, and because of it's low 'complication' would be flexible enough to make it adaptable for larger and smaller scopes.
To me at least the design aim is quite clear.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I was simply trying to point out why people think 40k needs to be fixed in so many different ways,is becase GW sell the rules to people with such a wide range of game play expectations.

And all you have done is help prove me correct. Not everyone agrees on where things went wrong with GW rules. If you were addressing anything else, and it looks like you were, than you were specifically addressing me for no actual purpose except to be argumentative.

I disagree that the "changing levels" or "selling a diverse game" is the actual problem with 40K. There are ways to address these things that could have been used. What I see as the problem with 40K is that we have people who do not care about games, designing the game. At this point, scale or range of gameplay expectations have little impact on the truly glaring errors of 40K. If these were addressed, I truly wonder how many difficulties "scale" or "gameplay expectations" would come in to play at that point.

@Charistoph.
I was not arguing with your conclusion, just trying to explain why things are the way they are.

If you do not think lack of clear focus on design goals, (scale and scope of game play,) is a problem.
Or the focus on selling new minatures over actual game play function has had not had a serious impact.

What has gone wrong in your opinion?

I am not saying there is a specific fix for 40k. Just there needs to be clear focus on what any new rules we want for 40k are supposed to achieve.

All the best games have a clearly defined game play goal at the start of the development.And most games use the appropriate scale minatures for the size of the game too.

40k rules were compromised by the GW sales department from the start.(Use the WHFB rules to allow WHFB players to cross over easily.)
And it has never had a rule set written specifically for it.(Unlike Epic for example.)

Lanrak, I asked you, REPEATEDLY, NOT to have this damn debate in this damn thread.

Drop it. Now.

The next word you post in here about debating what you think is wrong with 40k or how you think you need to start the design process and I will report you to the mods. This is a broken record of like... 7 other threads you have participated in. Have this discussion elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Question for the thread:

Been knocking around several ideas for how to do Vehicles Ramming. Either charging into enemy units or charging into vehicles.

I want it to be a simple execution that fits in with the basic game systems as much as possible.

One idea I am knocking around right now is You would move vehicle in the most direct path possible towards the target unit and then execute the attacks similar to a hammer a wrath. The strength of the vehicle performing the ram would be based on it's toughness maybe? So AV 10 vehicles would be T6 to STR6 for rams. AV 14 vehicles would be T10 so Str 10 for rams. And then.. I dunno... do d3 hits for every full 6 inches the vehicle moves?

No guns would be able to be fired by a vehicle that chooses to Ram and non-vehicle or walker models could maybe do a Death or Glory to try and take the vehicle out...

Dozer blades could add extra automatic wounds to the hammer of wrath or something.

Right now it seems a little too powerful to me. Like land raiders would just be zipping around smashing into gak instead of firing off their guns since they would be hitting at Str 10. Need some outside input.

Thoughts? Alternative ideas?

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I was not arguing with your conclusion, just trying to explain why things are the way they are.

If you do not think lack of clear focus on design goals, (scale and scope of game play,) is a problem.
Or the focus on selling new minatures over actual game play function has had not had a serious impact.

What has gone wrong in your opinion?

Did you not understand what I have said three times now, or do you deliberately ignore it?

Scale and scope of the game play is not the problem. They can be done well with the models we have. Many of the Proposed Rules and House Rules I have seen demonstrate this capacity, no matter how much you think certain units should not be on the standard "small" field of 40K (as opposed to Apocalypse). The base rules actually cover this scope quite well, as irritating as some of them are. There are quite a few people who like to field big gribblies and some who like to face big gribblies (though by no means most or all). So, you will not find agreement from them.

Focus of the design goals is not the problem. Privateer Press has a focus on selling new miniatures, though maybe not as much as Games Workshop. New miniatures is one of the driving forces of their games and the focus of their developing story-line and game. Wholesale redesigns of Warmachine and Hordes are not being called for every week. If there is any redesigns called for, it is tweaks of this unit or that unit. So the market does not find agreement with this assesment.

The problem, in my view, is that those in GW who are designing the game are lazy about the connections their rules have. This is caused by a certain level of apathy or complete incompetence. They do not care about their game, and this batch of Draft FAQs demonstrates this quite clearly. In modelling terms, they are using Elmer's school paste to connect their rules while many people are wanting super-glue.

And so you continue to demonstrate that "where they went wrong" will not necessarily agreed by everyone.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I was not arguing with your conclusion, just trying to explain why things are the way they are.

If you do not think lack of clear focus on design goals, (scale and scope of game play,) is a problem.
Or the focus on selling new minatures over actual game play function has had not had a serious impact.

What has gone wrong in your opinion?

Did you not understand what I have said three times now, or do you deliberately ignore it?

Scale and scope of the game play is not the problem. They can be done well with the models we have. Many of the Proposed Rules and House Rules I have seen demonstrate this capacity, no matter how much you think certain units should not be on the standard "small" field of 40K (as opposed to Apocalypse). The base rules actually cover this scope quite well, as irritating as some of them are. There are quite a few people who like to field big gribblies and some who like to face big gribblies (though by no means most or all). So, you will not find agreement from them.

Focus of the design goals is not the problem. Privateer Press has a focus on selling new miniatures, though maybe not as much as Games Workshop. New miniatures is one of the driving forces of their games and the focus of their developing story-line and game. Wholesale redesigns of Warmachine and Hordes are not being called for every week. If there is any redesigns called for, it is tweaks of this unit or that unit. So the market does not find agreement with this assesment.

The problem, in my view, is that those in GW who are designing the game are lazy about the connections their rules have. This is caused by a certain level of apathy or complete incompetence. They do not care about their game, and this batch of Draft FAQs demonstrates this quite clearly. In modelling terms, they are using Elmer's school paste to connect their rules while many people are wanting super-glue.

And so you continue to demonstrate that "where they went wrong" will not necessarily agreed by everyone.

This bull crap is exactly why I told him to keep this conversation out of this thread. He does it over and over and over again in every thread he gets involved with. Please, Just ignore him.

I like the idea for ramming vehicles, and for ramming other models as well. I don't think the number of hits should ever be very high unless the vehicle has some sort of special equipment designed to hurt infantry or vehicles by ramming them (that's not a dozer blade's purpose as far as I know). And you should be able to just move out of the way. That way ramming is not so much about hurting the ennemy units (although it may) but about manoeuvering them around at the disadvantage of not shooting. Vehicles would be at risk while ramming because grenades and melta bombs exist. And land raiders are damn expensive so they better be able to do stuff if they choose not to shoot.(maybe they aren't that expensive right know compared to what they do, I have rarely tried them out)

@Lance845.
was just replying to Charistophs post.

Like this...
@Charistoph.
If the only reason 40k is in a mess is just down to incompetent game develpers , why do these same devs create such great games away from GW towers?
I agree that professional levels of editing and proof reading would help with clarity of the 40k rules.But it would not deal with the pointless complication.
Which is what I thought Lance845 wanted to address in some way?


The last time I looked replying to a post was not against forum regulations?

No, you weren't. As we have discussed in private messages and now it's being discussed here, you are saying your opinion as fact about what has happened with GWs design process over the last 3 decades and how you believe it has created the problems 40k faces today. Great. Irrelevant. Not actually on topic with this thread at all.

Surprisingly, I do not give a gak how GW got as messed up as they did and I will not be taking into account their 30 years of poor game design decisions when building this new rule set from scratch except to learn the lesson that I don't need to take into account older editions when building a new one. If the old rules don't work, they are gone.

See this line you wrote?

I agree that professional levels of editing and proof reading would help with clarity of the 40k rules.But it would not deal with the pointless complication.

Off topic. Irrelevant. Exactly the thing I asked you not to bring up here. If you want to start a thread about GWs design process over the last 30 years and how it got bad and how you think it should change you should start your own thread to do so.

Oh wait... you did already...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/679386.page

That is where that discussion belongs.

Lanrak wrote:

@Charistoph.
If the only reason 40k is in a mess is just down to incompetent game develpers , why do these same devs create such great games away from GW towers?
I agree that professional levels of editing and proof reading would help with clarity of the 40k rules.But it would not deal with the pointless complication.
Which is what I thought Lance845 wanted to address in some way?

The last time I looked replying to a post was not against forum regulations?

And your first response to me was in response to a post that not everyone would agree as to what GW's problems are. I think they are because the developers do not care about their game to make a properly competent game. That they can do so elsewhere is irrelevant, as they did not so here. You think that it is because the big wigs are pushing something else and making requirements to suit (never mind that most of those big wigs will never even read them). Thereby, you have demonstrated the concept that not everyone agrees as to where it comes from, even while not listening to what I posted.

And now I am done with this, as I do not want to bother addressing it here.

GreedyPizza wrote:
I like the idea for ramming vehicles, and for ramming other models as well. I don't think the number of hits should ever be very high unless the vehicle has some sort of special equipment designed to hurt infantry or vehicles by ramming them (that's not a dozer blade's purpose as far as I know). And you should be able to just move out of the way. That way ramming is not so much about hurting the ennemy units (although it may) but about manoeuvering them around at the disadvantage of not shooting. Vehicles would be at risk while ramming because grenades and melta bombs exist. And land raiders are damn expensive so they better be able to do stuff if they choose not to shoot.(maybe they aren't that expensive right know compared to what they do, I have rarely tried them out)

Thanks for the feedback!

I was thinking of the moving out of the way. Like maybe making a M test instead of a I (since initiative no longer exists) test. I have to mull over exactly how that would work. I need to calculate out some more vehicles M values to see how they would effect that part of the game.

The cow catchers on vehicles now has 2 effects. They treat their front armor as 1 higher for the purpose of ramming and they get to reroll dangerous terrain tests. Now... Ramming in the current game is a whole other thing that uses a bunch of specialized rules and checks. I want to avoid that. But having that big slab of metal with teeth or coming to a central point to focus the impact on the front of the vehicle should help in some way. I am sure there is a elegant way to have it all fit.

Oh Yeah, teeth should definitely help, but then cow catchers and dozer blades are a quite different thing I suppose. Don't have any experience in cow-catching or dozer-blading though.

Oh and I was thinking about grenades as well ! How have you chosen to treat them ?
I always thought the 7th ed route was silly, having all your models equipped with technically infinite grenades but only being able to throw one.
I was thinking just having a few one use only grenades / melta bombs / etc would be more coherent. But I don't now how that would impact the gameplay.

I'll try to send you two lists soon so that I can try out the current rules with a friend.

Luv Bruhs

This particular question is more for a future update, but what would everyone think of the idea that AP reduces armor instead of canceling it out.

Basically, right now AP is an all or nothing. Either you have equal to or greater than the Sv value and if say an AP4 weapon was shot at a 3+ sv model it has no effect.

This mostly makes AP 6 weapons negligible.

Alternatively, AP could reduce the saves. Means an AP 4 weapon fired at a 3+ model would end up with a 6+ save? Now even a ap 6 weapon has some effect in that it reduces the Sv of a model by 1.

I can think of a few pros an cons. The AP becomes much more meaningful on every level. But models WILL become much easier to kill. Someone with a 2+ save can count right now on always being able to roll 2+ when they roll. But if they get reduced to 4+ or 5+ by some pretty decent AP weapons they would become quite a bit less durable (though still more durable than a lower Sv model).

I feel like AP values would probably need to be adjusted across the board to more accurately reflect the weapons power... but maybe not?

Thoughts?

It's workable if most weapons receive a reduction in general capability. But that's just my opinion on it.

[spoiler]

 Lance845 wrote:
This particular question is more for a future update, but what would everyone think of the idea that AP reduces armor instead of canceling it out.

Basically, right now AP is an all or nothing. Either you have equal to or greater than the Sv value and if say an AP4 weapon was shot at a 3+ sv model it has no effect.

This mostly makes AP 6 weapons negligible.

Alternatively, AP could reduce the saves. Means an AP 4 weapon fired at a 3+ model would end up with a 6+ save? Now even a ap 6 weapon has some effect in that it reduces the Sv of a model by 1.

I can think of a few pros an cons. The AP becomes much more meaningful on every level. But models WILL become much easier to kill. Someone with a 2+ save can count right now on always being able to roll 2+ when they roll. But if they get reduced to 4+ or 5+ by some pretty decent AP weapons they would become quite a bit less durable (though still more durable than a lower Sv model).

I feel like AP values would probably need to be adjusted across the board to more accurately reflect the weapons power... but maybe not?

Thoughts?

I don't know AoS system.

This is what I wrote when thinking about this issue some time ago : AP will no longer work with a threshold system, but reduce your target's armour for a certain amount.
-As a result, invulnerable saves will take two separate forms, one main form will be an anti AP, negating a part of the opponents AP. The other will be as it is now, a minimal guaranteed save.
-As a general rule, weapons that now have AP 5/6 will not have APP (armour penetration points), weapons that have AP 4/3 will have 1APP, though some AP 3 weapons will in very particular cases have 2APP. AP2 weapons will have 2APP and AP1 weapons will have 3APP.

I think this might need to get tweaked a bit, giving higher APP than what I stated here. This would basically make weapons with very high APP less strong against very well armoured models while making all weapons with a lower APP playable in a game where space marines run around in their shiny armours everywhere.

It needs to be tested ; but there is no doubt to me that the current system is bad, both from a design and fluff perspective.

The system in AoS is basically "save minus rending value of attack". Just like warhammer fantasy and 2nd edition 40k were. Most models in AoS have a save of 5+ or 4+. An attack with a rend of -1 would turn a 5+ save into a 6+ save, and completely wipe out a 6+ save. It's very simple and intuitive.

My own conversion rate, if I was creating a system (which I am ) is:

AP6 is nothing. AP5 and AP4 is -1. AP3 and AP2 is -2. AP2 and AP1 is -3.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The system in AoS is basically "save minus rending value of attack". Just like warhammer fantasy and 2nd edition 40k were. Most models in AoS have a save of 5+ or 4+. An attack with a rend of -1 would turn a 5+ save into a 6+ save, and completely wipe out a 6+ save. It's very simple and intuitive.

My own conversion rate, if I was creating a system (which I am ) is:

AP6 is nothing. AP5 and AP4 is -1. AP3 and AP2 is -2. AP2 and AP1 is -3.

There is also "Mortal Wounds" which ignore the standard Save. Some units, usually the heroes, have ways of countering them, though.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The system in AoS is basically "save minus rending value of attack". Just like warhammer fantasy and 2nd edition 40k were. Most models in AoS have a save of 5+ or 4+. An attack with a rend of -1 would turn a 5+ save into a 6+ save, and completely wipe out a 6+ save. It's very simple and intuitive.

My own conversion rate, if I was creating a system (which I am ) is:

AP6 is nothing. AP5 and AP4 is -1. AP3 and AP2 is -2. AP2 and AP1 is -3.

The problem i see with this is that units with a good save will have even more survivability compared to those with bad saves, as their armor can only be reduced instead of completely negated. Those units with bad saves will be able to make those bad saves slightly more often, which is really a very small gain. In order for this system to work there would have to be some significant changes in the AP values of many weapons, the availability of those weapons, and the points costs of those weapons as well as of models with good saves.

I get what you mean, but in that system models with 3+ and 2+ armour saves would actually be reasonable targets for traditional AP 4 weaponry, that used to have no effect at all on them.
There will be tweaks to be made ; without doubt.
And I agree that this system will not offer much to 5+ and 6+ infantry ; but in today's context, there are very few matchups in which they can actually make their saves against shooting. SM have AP 5, Tau have AP 5, Necrons have AP 5 ...
It might be sufficient to just not give "rending value" to traditional infantry weaponry. Bolters might still have. But Pulse rifles don't need it, and gauss stuff is good enough with it's auto-wounding.

I was more thinking of a direct transfer of AP to "rending". You don't need to reduce all the AP values to a -1 -2 and -3 with a -3 being the max. A AP 2 weapon would be a -5 to your save roll negating it completely.

Is there a reason anyone can think of that this would not work?

Anything currently AP 6 would reduce saves by 1
AP 5 by 2
4 by 3
3 by 4
2 by 5

Problems?

Update!

Added a Tau list for testing.

This has a first pass at Supporting Fire rule. It may be a little too powerful. Want some feedback for testing before I make adjustments.

Potential adjustments could be a -2 to BS instead of the current -1 or restricting it to units within 12" of friendly Tau units on overwatch may also activate for Overwatch (essentially allowing one unit on overwatch to make multiple units on overwatch). We'll see how it goes.

In terms of changing AP from an ''all or nothing'' to a ''proportional modifier function.''

The only reason for changing to a proportional system if to provide intuitive proportional results, and as such I agree with Future War Cultist on changing values to reflect the new function.
Any serious change in the way a resolution works requires this sort of adjustment.

I am happy using the range of save modifiers from -1 to -5 ,for example.But What weapons get what new ''save modifier AP'' should be determined by play testing values IMO.

There are two alternative methods that generate proportional saves in the same way as 'save modifiers' without the list of mathematical modifiers.
If you want to investigate these further let me know.

Lanrak wrote:
In terms of changing AP from an ''all or nothing'' to a ''proportional modifier function.''

The only reason for changing to a proportional system if to provide intuitive proportional results, and as such I agree with Future War Cultist on changing values to reflect the new function.
Any serious change in the way a resolution works requires this sort of adjustment.

I am happy using the range of save modifiers from -1 to -5 ,for example.But What weapons get what new ''save modifier AP'' should be determined by play testing values IMO.

There are two alternative methods that generate proportional saves in the same way as 'save modifiers' without the list of mathematical modifiers.
If you want to investigate these further let me know.

Thanks for contributing to the conversation. You are welcome to suggest whatever systems you feel work best. Add ideas to the pot.

These are not my ideas, but have been suggested and used in other games.

1)Opposed values.
Use opposed values in a chart to give the save roll required, similar to the S Vs T type chart.
Have Armour Penetration vs Armour value .

This can be extended to cover vehicle armour with a bit of tweeking. As the relationships do not have to be perfectly linear or regular.

Armour value from 0 to 10. AP value from 0 to 10.(New values would need to be assigned to everything though. )

2)Discard set dice values.
This is an 'old save modifier'/'AP system' hybrid.

The AP value means the defender has to discard armour save dice rolls that are equal or higher than the AP value.

EG a SM with save value 3+ is hit by an AP 6 weapon.
The SM only now saves on a 3,4,or 5.If they roll a 6 it is discarded and not counted!

In the same way a Mega Armoured Nob Save 2+, is hit by an AP 4 weapon.
The Mega Armoured Nob now only save on the roll of a 2 or 3.
Rolls of 4 ,5,and 6 are discarded.

Option 1 can be applied more universally , and allows more incremental changes where needed.
However, some people find looking up results on a chart a bit slow.But as that is already in the current rules for 40k, and you may retain the to wound and to hit charts,it may not be such of a big issue?

Option 2 optimizes fast rolling, but can be seen as a bit counter intuitive having the actual save rolls reduced downwards?