Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I re-did the Marines in a more Prospero style. Check it out.

As I've been going through stats, one thing has come up - how in the world do you handle Sniper weapons and Poison?

 Stormonu wrote:
As I've been going through stats, one thing has come up - how in the world do you handle Sniper weapons and Poison?

Poison weapons: For every three poison weapons in the Attack Pool, add an extra D6.

Sniper Rifle: Sniper weapons attacks are rolled separately. Attacking Player determines how “Hits” are allocated. (Normally the Defending Player determines how “Hits” are allocated).


Thoughts?

Thirdeye wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
As I've been going through stats, one thing has come up - how in the world do you handle Sniper weapons and Poison?

Poison weapons: For every three poison weapons in the Attack Pool, add an extra D6.

Sniper Rifle: Sniper weapons attacks are rolled separately. Attacking Player determines how “Hits” are allocated. (Normally the Defending Player determines how “Hits” are allocated).


Thoughts?

That completely and totally changes how they function.

@Thirdeye - great work on the PDF

After some thinking, I'm thinking that vs. poison, the Defender rolls D6; if a Monstrous Creature, D10.

Poison 6+ would convert to D4
Poison 5+ would convert to D6
Poison 4+ & Sniper would convert to D8
Poison 3+ would convert to D10
Poison 2+ & Hyperspace Interception would convert to D12

 Stormonu wrote:
@Thirdeye - great work on the PDF

Thanks

After some thinking, I'm thinking that vs. poison, the Defender rolls D6; if a Monstrous Creature, D10.

Poison 6+ would convert to D4
Poison 5+ would convert to D6
Poison 4+ & Sniper would convert to D8
Poison 3+ would convert to D10
Poison 2+ & Hyperspace Interception would convert to D12

Not sure how that all works. Please give an example.

Normally, a Marine has D8 defense. Against the equivilant of Poison 4+, the attacker would roll D8, but the marine would defend with D6. If the attack was normally Poison 2+, the attack would be D12, the mareine still defends with D6. A Carnifex, against both cases above, would roll D12 to defend. This all assumes a target number of 4=1 success, 8=2 successes, 12=3 successes.

 Stormonu wrote:
Normally, a Marine has D8 defense. Against the equivilant of Poison 4+, the attacker would roll D8, but the marine would defend with D6. If the attack was normally Poison 2+, the attack would be D12, the mareine still defends with D6. A Carnifex, against both cases above, would roll D12 to defend. This all assumes a target number of 4=1 success, 8=2 successes, 12=3 successes.

I like the conversion of poison to dice-type but don't like changing the Save dice-type. That makes things a bit too complicated for me. I like to keep it simple if I can. Also, I thinking Hits as 4-7=One Hit, 8-11=two Hits, 12-15=three Hits, and 16-19=four Hits, and 20=five Hits. Is that what you're thinking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also thinking about a step-reduction for Infantry. Say you have a Marine Caption who Saves on a D10. First Hit he takes he goes to a D8, second Hit he takes, he goes to a D6, third next Hit to a D4, then another Hit and DEAD. Problem with this is the bookkeeping. How do that? I'm thinking little metal tokens and magnates on the base. What you think?

I did the Ork Infantry States. Check it out:

Thirdeye wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Normally, a Marine has D8 defense. Against the equivilant of Poison 4+, the attacker would roll D8, but the marine would defend with D6. If the attack was normally Poison 2+, the attack would be D12, the mareine still defends with D6. A Carnifex, against both cases above, would roll D12 to defend. This all assumes a target number of 4=1 success, 8=2 successes, 12=3 successes.

I like the conversion of poison to dice-type but don't like changing the Save dice-type. That makes things a bit too complicated for me. I like to keep it simple if I can. Also, I thinking Hits as 4-7=One Hit, 8-11=two Hits, 12-15=three Hits, and 16-19=four Hits, and 20=five Hits. Is that what you're thinking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also thinking about a step-reduction for Infantry. Say you have a Marine Caption who Saves on a D10. First Hit he takes he goes to a D8, second Hit he takes, he goes to a D6, third next Hit to a D4, then another Hit and DEAD. Problem with this is the bookkeeping. How do that? I'm thinking little metal tokens and magnates on the base. What you think?

Yeah, 4-7=1 success, 8-11=2 success, 12+=3 success was what I was thinking.

I don't think that is a good idea to do the degrading die like you proposed, I'd do it more like vehicles if you want to give him more than one "wound".

Also, the thing about poison (and sniper) is that it always wounds on the same number, regardless of the opponent's toughness (though if I remember correctly, you still get armor, and definately get invulnerable saves). Monstrous/Gargantuan creatures are harder to poison. That was why I was thinking of the fixed die for the save.

I'll check out the Orks shortly. Been doing work for my own 40K version, but since its rules are already significantly different, it might not make much sense to regular 40k'ers.

I was working on this table, though:

40K number value -- die conversion
3 -- D6
4 -- D8
5 -- D10
6 -- D12
7 -- D8+D6
8 -- 2D8
9 -- D12+D6
10 -- 2D10
-------
11 -- D12+D10
12 -- 2D12
13 -- 2D10+D6
14 -- D12+D10+D6
-------
15 -- 2D12+D6
16 -- 2D12+D8
17 -- 2D12+D10
18 -- 3D12

I went with a basis that a marine's bolter attack is a D8 due to (BS 4 = average, no mod, STR 4 = base D8, 2 shots = average, no modifier, AP 5 = average no modifier). Each shift in a better WS/BS grants a +1 die step bonus, each increase in STR grants a +1 bonus, each addition shot grants a +1 bonus, and each AP better than AP 5 grants a +1/2 step bonus.

So, the same marine with a meltagun would have D12+D10 (BS 4 = no mod, STR 8 = base 2D8, 1 shot = -1 die penalty, +3 STR for Melta (ave D6)).

I'm a bit ambivalent here. I love multi-dice games and I think it could definitely work in 40K. However with the scale of the game I suspect it may not work nearly as smoothly as it could.

What's wrong with a game being built around six sided dice? I just don't get it. Have you ever played Exalted, or any other game where you're throwing loads of dice at a problem? Having uniformity in your dice pool greatly speeds things up, and less granularity in save/hit/wound options does as well.

EDIT: Sorry I realize this came off as salty. I've played RPGs where you're rolling a crapfest of different dice and it gets so tiresome. I love the simplicity of 6 sided dice. Rerolling doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I certainly don't mind a game that only uses one die type (played plenty of RPG's that just use D10's, for example), but
I think overall it's a fun experiment and might be a fun change of pace for small games. Don't think I'd use with more than say, 30 models to a side.

For me, it also makes me consider what is important about the combat stats in 40K, and ponder if there's a faster way to play out the game (I don't have time for the 4-hour 40K games I seem to get pulled into) - trying to find a way to boil the game down to something playable in 1-1 1/2 hours or so. This was an attempt at a start to that.

What's funny is I notice that it is coming across as very 2E, which I find chuckle-worthy.

 Stormonu wrote:
Yeah, 4-7=1 success, 8-11=2 success, 12+=3 success was what I was thinking.

OK, cool.

I don't think that is a good idea to do the degrading die like you proposed, I'd do it more like vehicles if you want to give him more than one "wound".

Yeah, that's kinda the idea, but with a vehicles you can have a stat card for each one and mark Hits by crossing off dice-types with a grease pencil. Its not practical to have a stat card for every infantry guy, so best to mark it on the base/model somehow. I'm just thinking, maybe. Prospero gives every model at least two wounds... so... maybe.

Also, the thing about poison (and sniper) is that it always wounds on the same number, regardless of the opponent's toughness (though if I remember correctly, you still get armor, and definately get invulnerable saves). Monstrous/Gargantuan creatures are harder to poison. That was why I was thinking of the fixed die for the save.

Yeah, but then you're putting the modifier on both ends, the front end (shooting) and the back end (Save). It makes it complicated and I'm not sure its necessary to show the added bonus. Also, I don't think we need to follow too closely what GW does in the current 40K game. They don't really do that for Prospero so I don't feel we need to either.

I'll check out the Orks shortly. Been doing work for my own 40K version, but since its rules are already significantly different, it might not make much sense to regular 40k'ers.

Yeah, I checked that out. Some good stuff in there but very detailed. I like the names you came up with for the different races. But at what point are IP concerns an issue?

I was working on this table, though: ...

Yeah, well, again, not sure we need to follow too closely what GW does in the current 40K game. They don't really do that for Prospero so I don't feel we need to either. And its not like the stats they came up with for 40K are dictated by the Emperor himself and never subject to change. Sure we want the weapons to be similar in effect, and similar to real world weapons too I would say, when there is a real world equivalent. But such systematic conversion I don't feel is necessary. A Prospero type game has its own internal logic so what works in the current 40K rules might not convert over to these rules.

So, the same marine with a meltagun would have D12+D10 (BS 4 = no mod, STR 8 = base 2D8, 1 shot = -1 die penalty, +3 STR for Melta (ave D6)).

It that D12 for infantry and D10 for vehicles? Or is that D12&D10 for infantry? If the latter then, that's a representation of a conversion from current 40K stats not working so well. Look to see how you conversion table works for what GW did with the Prospero weapon stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I'm a bit ambivalent here. I love multi-dice games and I think it could definitely work in 40K. However with the scale of the game I suspect it may not work nearly as smoothly as it could.

Well, you might be right, but I wouldn't say the current game runs so smoothly at higher point games either. Frankly the game wasn't deigned for big model counts. Yes, they made some adjustments in the rules over the years to accommodate bigger games but its still not a good fit. Personally I never liked the push for bigger and ever bigger games. I'd swear it was a marketing ploy by GW to sell more stuff but I know a lot of fans like the bigger games. Its partly because we all have so much stuff and we feel the need to use it all. But Its never been a good experience for me. It takes so much time, and mostly the models used are not even painted, maybe just base-coated. I think Players would have more fun with smaller, fast games with more tactical options while using their best painted figs. A big part of that is a fast, clean combat resolution system. But the other part is the mission/scenario rules. I never liked the "Easter-egg hut" Objectives stuff GW uses. The best mission/scenario rules are in the old Adeptus Titanicus rules. If you haven't seen them I suggest you check them out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
What's wrong with a game being built around six sided dice?

Well, it depends on the game. A simple game, yeah, D6 is best. But when you try to incorporate more and more moving parts the limitations of the D6 get more and more pronounced. To compensate you need to break things down into smaller parts and make more and more dice rolls. The problem is compounded when you're trying to bring to life a rich universe like 40K.

I just don't get it. Have you ever played Exalted, or any other game where you're throwing loads of dice at a problem? Having uniformity in your dice pool greatly speeds things up, and less granularity in save/hit/wound options does as well.

Well, certainly having only one dice type is less complicated that having, what... six. But there's also all the stats and charts to consider. With different dice-types you can remove all that and replace it with a few stats/dice-types. Also, by using different dice-types you can have the simplicity of using a universal "to Hit" and "to Save" value. The granularity is built into the dice-type.

EDIT: Sorry I realize this came off as salty. I've played RPGs where you're rolling a crapfest of different dice and it gets so tiresome. I love the simplicity of 6 sided dice. Rerolling doesn't bother me in the slightest.

It can get tiresome, but so does re-rolling dice. There is something mindless in the latter but then you also have the burden of looking-up or memorizing a bunch of stats. To get the best out of a multi-dice system you have to put some logic behind it, and have a systematic formula so you're not just looking at a stat card and hunting for various dice-types to roll every time. That's were the idea of models having a "base" dice-types comes in. Also, particular weapons -- like flame weapons or plasma weapons or pistol weapons, etc -- should always follow a certain pattern which is repeated across races and unit types. This way using different dice-types can become as mindless as a single dice-type system over time.

Shifting the game from all D6 to all D10 wouldn't really help eliminate rerolling. For instance, Grav cannons with Amps. You can't just improve the wound roll by X because it's based on the target's armor saves, and 1 always misses. If you really hate rerolling in this instance, you could propose a rule that "50% of failures are automatically turned into successes." I don't think that quite hits the mark but it gets the idea across of removing rerolls.

Rerolling isn't brought on by a lack of discrete possibilities that are created with D6, it's product of the game style and the core rules.

And the second you start adding in more than one type of dice, it really does slow the game down a lot more than just rerolling DX. i've played these games, and it does. knowing what dice to use takes time to reference, and if it starts to vary by unit that's nuts. Because then you're talking about weighing cover saves, are those rerollable, with all this other stuff.

And ultimately you'd still be left with hit-wound-save, which consumes probably 90% of rolling anyway.

it's a neat idea to move the game to a base10 system, but i wouldn't suggest it under the auspices of reducing rerolls, or improving game speed. It might help alter balance, but that remains to be seen, and more discrete possibilities means more memorization or more rules checking, which drastically slows down any game.

Anyway, it's a neat idea, but it wouldn't achieve what you set out to achieve.

 Marmatag wrote:
Shifting the game from all D6 to all D10 wouldn't really help eliminate rerolling.

I'm not suggested we shift from a D6 to a D10.

Rerolling isn't brought on by a lack of discrete possibilities that are created with D6, it's product of the game style and the core rules.

The game style and core rules of the current game are rooted in the history of GW. GW really got going as a distributor of D&D. 40K is based on D&D with some Napoleonics blended in for miniatures wargaming. Originally the game included other dice types, like D&D, then GW tried to simply it by converting it to all D6, but at the same time they keep adding more and more minutia.

And the second you start adding in more than one type of dice, it really does slow the game down a lot more than just rerolling DX. i've played these games, and it does. knowing what dice to use takes time to reference, and if it starts to vary by unit that's nuts.

Well of course with the current game you may be rolling the same dice type every time -- kinda mindless -- but you also have to know what score you're looking for. That's not so mindless. You have to look up several different states, and many times cross-reference them on a chart, to know the result/score you're looking for. Add of course the result/score is always changing. One time you need a "5", then you need a "4", then a "3", etc. Looking up and cross referencing stats on a chart takes time too. I've played these games, and it does. You're discounting all this because you've done it so many times you have much of it memorized, so its second nature to you. The same would happen with rolling different dice-types. After doing it for awhile you would have it memorized and it would be second nature. Of course, as I said before, it helps to have weapons and Troops follow a certain logic. Once you understand the logic behind assigning the different dice types it makes it really easy to remember.

Because then you're talking about weighing cover saves, are those rerollable, with all this other stuff.

No, cove is a step-up in the model's base Save dice-type. For example, a Space Marine is a Save D8. If the model is behind soft cover its Save dice goes to a D10. If the model is behind hard cover its Save dice goes to a D12.

And ultimately you'd still be left with hit-wound-save, which consumes probably 90% of rolling anyway.

No, you're not. There is just an Attack roll and a Defense roll.

it's a neat idea to move the game to a base10 system

Again, I'm not suggestion that. I suggest you re-read the thread. I'm suggesting we use Prospero style rules for combat resolution.

I did the Eldar Infantry. Check it out: