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.

Many modern games have some kind of "critical hit" mechanic in place, for example Spartan Games exploding 6's mechanic or Infinity's that's based off a D20 system. It gives that little chance that even the smallest unit can hurt a large unit, but it's statistically improbable and doesn't require extra rolling because it's built in to the roll itself.

However it has to really be improbable and the game has to be complex enough that you don't just lose to random chance because of this. Having chance be part of the game means you have to react to a changing tactical landscape where you don't exactly know what will come next, and that can be fun, but losing for no reason other than the dice is not fun. There are plenty of ways for chance to have more subtle impacts on the game without risking that.

Another thing I hate about 40k, is the plague of grounding checks and terrain checks. Especially flying monstrous creatures being shot down by flashlights, landraiders being bogged down by a tree trunk, terminators forgetting how to walk.

Many modern games have some kind of "critical hit" mechanic in place, for example Spartan Games exploding 6's mechanic or Infinity's that's based off a D20 system. It gives that little chance that even the smallest unit can hurt a large unit, but it's statistically improbable and doesn't require extra rolling because it's built in to the roll itself.

What if we combined some of these ideas, such as weapon damage "types" and critical hits, loosely based on the current "on the roll of 6" systems.

Each weapon has one (possibly more) damage types, such as poison, penetrating, explosive, concussive, etc. Upon rolling a "critical hit" (in whatever form this comes from), the weapons damage type's special ability is activated. So penetrating might act like rending, and ignore armor, while explosive might deal double wounds, poison would automatically confirm a wound, etc.

Though it works nice on a d20 system i think it would work fine on a D6 so long as you further roll in an additional chart.

Thinking for MC, it would be like
1: nothing
2-3: Stunned (concussive)
4: Immobilized for the turn
5: Cannot move or shoot
6: Devastating hit d3 wounds

I think for vehicles can do

1: shaken
2-3: stunned
4: weap destroyed
5: immobilized
6: D3 additional HP, if it should wreck explode instead

In infinity you get a critical hit when you roll equal to your ballistic skill, and that works sort of like rending in 40k, you bypass armor save. So it's really 1 in 20 chance of having that success (usually against the odds). That's the beauty of the D20 system. No external rolling, charts, etc.

I hate charts btw, most of the time. I despised the vehicle damage chart in 5th ed. 40k. It was such a PITA and so boring to roll on that chart ALL THE TIME. Hull points sort of fixed that problem because it increased the likelihood of destroying a vehicle without rolling on the damn chart, but of course it was improperly balanced and the system was shot to hell. Charts are interesting because they are a non-quantitative measure of success, making the game far more interesting because not only is your unit damaged, it's leg is hurt or it's weapon is shot off or something or other. But it is simply a pain to roll on a chart.

X-wing game solves this by using mini-damage cards... for every wound you take you draw a card, but face down... only critical hits (more statistically improbable) are face up and you have some kind of detrimental systems damage or something.

X-wing's critical hits are good, but not that good that it wins you the game... most of the time it changes the way you have to play, which is totally cool.

Wait, so what do the face-down cards do?

 SisterSydney wrote:
Wait, so what do the face-down cards do?

Convenient markers for wounds (hull points in x-wing). Another useful side effect of not having more than 10 or so miniatures in the game, so it does double work of being a hit point counter and being a critical damage counter. Some of the cards just count as two hit points instead of one. Also you can usually make a repair by spending an action and turning the card face down, so you still have the damage just not the negative side effects.

It is a good point though. There are numerous bad effects that can happen to you in 40k, like blind, stunned, etc... that really never come up in the game and it would be interesting if there were a possibility that might happen to you just by being wounded.

Of course, the vehicles and creatures of 40k are diverse that it's harder to come up with a set of cards that simulates damage for everything, the way it is to simulate different effects damage might have on a starfighter (for instance- sensors down, engine damage, etc). But I think as a general rule, anything with a set of stats or generic abilities can have particular abilities targeted. One card for BS, one for WS, etc.

My problem with damage cards (or drawing damage tokens from a bag, which is an idea I've tried before) is that the odds of getting certain results change as cards are removed from the deck. That's why I ultimately prefer to roll on a chart.

On an unrelated note, my playtest buddy thinks I'm overdoing it with suppression. He says 40k is about heroic charges into a storm of bullets, not keeping your head down.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
On an unrelated note, my playtest buddy thinks I'm overdoing it with suppression. He says 40k is about heroic charges into a storm of bullets, not keeping your head down.

Listen to that man. (Didn't I already say something about that?...hmmmm :/) But note that not every one wants to fight assaults. Make sure there is room for shooting armies to shine too!

Your other point is also very good. You might be the only other person I know who figured out that the mechanic in question can be gamed. Though I find it to be just another game point that doesn't inherently break itself when it's planned out right. Many hex map paper chit war games use them just fine. As for a 40k use I'd be leery.

Yes, the thing about decks of cards is not only that the probabilities change but that they become less random as you draw from them. A deck at the end of the game is more ordered than a freshly shuffled one at the beginning.

Some game design could use this sorting effect deliberately (though I haven't seen one). But everyone designing games needs to be aware of it. Certainly guys in Vegas are well aware of this effect -- that's why they talk about "counting cards."

@SisterSydney: See any Collectible/Trading Card Game. Including any Deck Building game. Settlers of Catan's Development Card deck to high level players too.

Normally I don't refer players/designers to Mark Rosewater for any reason as I think he's an idiot in many regards who happens to also be very intelligent and in charge of Magic: The Gatherings design department (for better or worse). BUT he is as I said intelligent and he does have a lot of experience as a designer and is able to at the least admit when he's been wrong and kindly shares the things he learns. I therefore begrudgingly to the man but not his work recommend the following podcast on 'Randomness': Randomness Be warned, his voice is a bit...er...annoying. He has 80+ podcasts posted here, some of which you may find interesting.

You might notice he talks about 'hope' in this one too IIRC, of all the irony that is relevant to our thread.

Hi folks.
I think the problem could be that current 40k has been made up of so many layers , with completely different development ideas , and game focus, it is hard to define what the current game is supposed to be.

You can find elements/evidence of all game types and styles in current 40k rules , but it is such a holistic mess of concepts it fails to do any thing clearly.

If you want a skirmish rule set to play games of 40k with , there are plenty about you can convert /use 40k minis in.(Warpath 2.0 is one of many good rule sets currently available.)

The races from WHFB set the basic outline of the motives and fighting styles of the 40k forces.However, after the game moved to the battle game size, the WHFB rules just could not cope.
And so additional rules were added to patch up the holes.

As far as suppression goes,it needs to be in 40k, to stop the imbalance caused by the focus JUST on killing or be killed for in game effect.
Units racing over no mans land unopposed while the enemy just sit and wait to get assaulted for no good reason is counter intuitive.
However, unit being suppressed , before the enemy assaults them makes far more sense and allows actual tactics to be used in game!

If we simply use a value on the stat line that represents the chance the ENEMY will hit the mode/unit.
And allow this value to be modified .

EG
An Ork Grot mob has a WS of 2 , so enemy hit them on a 2+.

A Deamon prince has a WS of 6+ and is only hit on a 6+.

How can the lowly Grot mob possibly survive in assault ?

Well if a unit gets +1 to their assault value on the charge.
And +1 if they out number their opponent in assault.
And +2 to their assault value If the target is suppressed.

The Grot mob outnumber the Deamon Prince, and they could charge..However, if the Big Gunz suppressed the DP before the Grotz assault, it would help the little green ankle biters quite a bit...
Base WS 2+,+1+1+2 =a final WS of 6+
This helps the little dudes survive , and give them a chance to be useful in assault...even if it is just to bog down enemy units for a turn of two...

It also allows the use of in game tactics,rather than remove all tactical options and put all the emphasis on the units you take and which units face off against each other.

Suppression implemented well would open up the tactical options in game.Which would be good.

I agree it would be cool if a natural roll of X scored a critical hit , and unlocked the weapons special abilities .

Armourbane automatically penetrates armour .

Poison, penetrating hit automatically causes a wound on an organic target,

Haywire ,penetrating hit automatically causes damage to a mechanical unit.

Blast, automatically suppresses model.

Fleshbane, double any wounds caused on a organic target.

9Just some examples.)

Criticals are fine as long as they're not coupled with to hit modifiers. Because then you get into this weird situation where you need a 6 to even hit a lot of the time and then all your hits are criticals and you never even see a normal hit.

@lord blackfang.
I agree, I would have these on the armour roll or the damage roll,(for effects that effect armour resolution or damage resolution.)
The possible exception of ' Blast' effects of HE warheads , which could auto suppress a unit on a 6 to hit.Because suppressing 1 in 6 models with HE rounds is not to unrealistic is it?

I've been playing with an idea that would hopefully be a bit of a middle ground solution between Armor Modifiers (2nd Edition) and the current AP system. I'm running a system where a higher AP value indicates better penetration capabilities.

Armor now has 2 components, Save Value and Armor Class (AC), split into 4 (maybe more) categories: Light, Medium, Heavy, and Super-Heavy. Each armor class interacts with AP values differently to change the models Sv value, though AP 6 ignores all armor saves. A standardized formula for each Armor Class's reactions to AP is being worked on, but is still very much TBD.

For example, a guardsman would have Sv (5+) AC(L). Light armor, 5+
Against bolters (AP 2) his armor would be ignored, as 5 + 2 = 7, or higher than can be rolled on D6. but against AP 1 weapons, he would get a 6+, and against AP 0 weapons, a 5+

A space marine, by comparison, would have a Sv (3+) AC (H). Heavy Armor (3+)
Against bolters (AP 2) he would still have his 3+ armor save, but if you go higher, to a heavy bolter (AP 3) his armor is reduced to a 4+. If you go higher, to a battlecannon (AP4) their save now becomes a 6+. Any higher, and his armor will be completely negated

Somewhere in the middle is the tau firewarrior, with Sv (4+) (M). Medium Armor (4+)
Against bolters (AP 2) he would still have his 4+ armor save, but going higher to a Heavy Bolter (AP 3), his save would be reduced to a 6+. Any further, and his armor will be completely negated.

At the extreme end of the scale is Super-Heavy armor, such as a terminator Sv (2+) AC (SH).
Against AP 0-2, his armor save is 2+, against AP 3-4, his armor value is 3+, and against AP 5 weapons like lascannons, his armor save is a 6+.

This change isn't so much about changing the mechanics as it is changing player behavior. If i no longer feel like I need AP 1-3 weapons to do damage to space marines, i can choose a more versatile weapon, which still affects power armor, albeit to a lesser degree. I've found that a straight one-to-one relationship between armor and AP simply does not have the depth necessary to simulate the system in place right now. One of the things i like about this new system is that i can now convey nuances within an armor Sv value that would otherwise be impossible.

---For example, both an Eldar Guardian and an Imperial Guardsman have a 5+ armor save, but Eldar armor should be massively more advanced than the Guard's. As a result, they may both have Sv (5+), but the Eldar's Mesh Armor is considered Medium Armor, while the Guardsman's Flak Jacket is considered light armor. As a result, an Eldar Guardian still gets his 5+ against AP2 (bolter) weapons, but loses it against anything else.

---Similarly, Artificer armor is supposed to be comparable to Terminator Armor in terms of protection, but Terminator armor is still far and away a better defense, so while both might get Sv (2+), Artificer Armor would be Heavy Armor, while terminator armor would be Super-Heavy.

EDIT
---You could probably work the critical hit effects in as well, say penetrating and explosive treat Armor Classes differently, maybe explosive treats the models Armor class as being one "tier" lower (IE Heavy becomes medium, medium becomes light), while penetrating reduces the armor class by 2 "tiers". Rending would of course ignore all armor saves, effectively being AP 6.

Lanrak wrote:
As far as suppression goes,it needs to be in 40k, to stop the imbalance caused by the focus JUST on killing or be killed for in game effect.
Units racing over no mans land unopposed while the enemy just sit and wait to get assaulted for no good reason is counter intuitive.
However, unit being suppressed , before the enemy assaults them makes far more sense and allows actual tactics to be used in game!

Suppression implemented well would open up the tactical options in game.Which would be good.

To the first part suppresion does not need to be in 40k. Period. It may do well for it but likely not. The world of 40k is exactly about the type of combat you mentioned, even in the video games for the universe which attracts many of the players to it nowadays. (Firewarrior, Dawn of War 1+2, Space Marine, Squad Command, etc) Opening that disparity in the themes of combat between the two genres could be jarring to a new player trying to enter. The answer to this awkward combat has generally been overwatch which is, for a game, the best option I've seen. BECAUSE suppression only punishes the defender and rewards the first to charge (who will generally take a lead after that point iregardless) whereas overwatch can be rewarding to the defender, cinematic to the attacker, and give a fighting chance to a player already losing if they are lucky. (There's that hope thing we talked about) Many complain about overwatch being in the game ATM which is interesting as it doesn't completely cover the benefit gap for the most part that a charging unit gets with an extra attack while charging, which up till overwatch's intro was completely one sided.

A 'normal' model gets one attack in CC, a charging gets two. End of day = 2 normal attacks
A defender of a charge gets generally one, while a overwatching one gets an additional BS1 shot. end of day = 2 attacks, one of them is crappy
They actually are just 'balanced' in a minor way when thought of this way with the attacker still maintaining a slight edge.

@Rav1rn: Could you make a chart for it for us? I'm assuming yes? And how does vehicle armor work in this system? I really like where its going with the minor exception that the observation of detail borders "too much detail"

@Rav1rn: Could you make a chart for it for us? I'm assuming yes? And how does vehicle armor work in this system? I really like where its going with the minor exception that the observation of detail borders "too much detail"

I'll attach a picture of a rough chart telling you how much to add to a roll for each AP value. AP 0 is likely going to be treated a slightly special case, so it's not included. And yes the ratio of depth to complexity is a little higher than i'd like it to be, but it's an attempt to take the best of two very divergent systems, one of which is very non-linear, so it is what it is.

I talked about my vehicle damage system a few pages back, its basically a mix of current vehicle rules and monster rules. Roll to wound against a toughness value on a vehicle to glance / suppress a vehicle, then roll penetration against the sides AV like current rules allow for additional damage, using the weapon's AP instead of strength to penetrate the vehicle AV (as it probably should be). It's another reason for having AP increase in the opposite direction they do now, so we don't end up in weird situations where you have to correct for low AP numbers equating to high penetration ability.

To the first part suppresion does not need to be in 40k. Period. It may do well for it but likely not. The world of 40k is exactly about the type of combat you mentioned, even in the video games for the universe which attracts many of the players to it nowadays. (Firewarrior, Dawn of War 1+2, Space Marine, Squad Command, etc) Opening that disparity in the themes of combat between the two genres could be jarring to a new player trying to enter. The answer to this awkward combat has generally been overwatch which is, for a game, the best option I've seen. BECAUSE suppression only punishes the defender and rewards the first to charge (who will generally take a lead after that point iregardless) whereas overwatch can be rewarding to the defender, cinematic to the attacker, and give a fighting chance to a player already losing if they are lucky. (There's that hope thing we talked about) Many complain about overwatch being in the game ATM which is interesting as it doesn't completely cover the benefit gap for the most part that a charging unit gets with an extra attack while charging, which up till overwatch's intro was completely one sided.

A 'normal' model gets one attack in CC, a charging gets two. End of day = 2 normal attacks
A defender of a charge gets generally one, while a overwatching one gets an additional BS1 shot. end of day = 2 attacks, one of them is crappy
They actually are just 'balanced' in a minor way when thought of this way with the attacker still maintaining a slight edge.

I would argue overwatch has done more to work against the elements you listed than just about anything else. To get into assault, you generally have to get across the board (taking fire the whole time), deep strike (very risky), or buy an expensive assault vehicle. You can buy a normal transport and get across the board, but that still means more points spent on something that may or may not survive to get you across, and you still cant assault out of it, not even if it was stationary. For all of that effort, i'd say an extra attack is a fairly decent compensation, because there are very few cases where that bonus attack is what makes the difference. Either the unit hitting you was going to utterly destroy you, so the bonus attack is just icing, or it's a meh combat unit, and ends up doing slightly above average damage.

Overwatch, in its current form anyways, has no downsides. It's a free round of shooting, and for units that are traditionally weak in assault but excel at shooting, its a system that helps them compensate for that weakness rather than augment their strength like the charging bonus for assault units. But even if a penalty for overwatching was added, and the option whether or not to overwatch was made voluntary, odds are you would still want to overwatch almost all the time, because you get to hit with attacks before your opponent, then take some damage minus the damage you stopped by shooting some models, then you get to attack anyways, albeit slightly less effectively. And that's just for units that are so-so at melee, for pure shooting units, it's a no brainer.

While i love the idea of a squad shooting desperately at a charging unit before getting assaulted (and the awesome cinematics of it), it's current implementation is garbage, and having every unit doing it all the time, usually for minimal to no effect isn't cinematic, its busy-work. No serious penalty can be directly attached to it, as that will only polarize it further, with pure shooting units always taking it and decent to good melee-capable units avoiding it like the plague, so an indirect penalty, likely involving a hefty opportunity cost, is needed. Working it into some sort of command system as an improved system would be one way of doing it, but that only further handicaps melee focused units, since they now have the risk of facing units that can decimate them before they even get to strike, when they've already charged. I'd love to see 2nd edition overwatch, where a unit sacrificed it's shooting to fire at units moving into its field of fire, but that system is really complex and requires micromanaging models to the point where i'm not sure it's worth it...

EDIT hmmm some sort of facing counter could help with that goal though...consider that as an entry to your thought-experiement thread knucklewolf.

As for suppression, I would argue that done right suppression would do more to promote that sense of ridiculous, over-the-top bravado than avoiding it would, so long as you made sure there was an option to ignore the effects of suppression at the penalty of taking additional damage. And not some insignificant amount. It has to have some real weight, and here is where some random chance would really be advantageous for cinematic moments, as that feeling of figuring out whether your serious risk was worth the reward, and what kind of damage your'e going to take as a result. Is avoiding a system that allows for thoughts of "Is my stupid and daring choice to stand up when bullets are all around me going to pay off? Or did i just tell my men to kill themselves in the most foolish way possible?" somehow more fitting of the setting than allowing it? That's without even getting into whether or not suppression would make gameplay more interesting or more tactical.

@KnuckleWolf.
If you only have binary conditions in a system like 40k does.Then you have very limited in game interaction.

I would say DoW & DoW II has a better synergy to 40k as it is not a FPS, but a small sized modern battle game.And has suppression included in the game play .

The lack of tactical options for unit interaction in the game play of current 40k, also leads to the need to take special units for specific tasks (Which is great for selling GW product , but not that good for game balance.)

I am not advocating all units cowering behind cover and creeping about.

BUT making it actually worth while giving covering fire to assist charging units, and being able to reduce the enemy units in game effect without killing /physically being able to damage them.To introduce shades of grey into 40ks current black or white resolution.

Any game that uses a more interactive game turn removes the need for the clumsy 'over watch' found in 40k.And I think most on this thread would prefer alternating unit activation or interleaved action phases for the new rules.

All good modern battle games that I know of all incorporate a suppression mechanic.
40k has not got one because WHFB does not need one .(As suppression is not apart of ancient massed battle games. )
I agree with you , if you want to continue with the heavy strategy , light tactical focus of current 40k, then 40k does not need a suppression mechanic.

However if you want a well defined intuitive rule set with more tactical focus then a suppression mechanic of some sort is needed. (Even if it is just to get rid of the need for ridiculous rules that ignore massive shooting casualties.)

I also agree with Rav1n , that the option to ignore suppression should carry a significant penalty.
EG
Frenzy the unit may ignore the effects of suppression for one game turn.They press on in the face of overwhelming weight of fire.The unit automatically looses 2xD3 wounds /structure next game turn.

@Rav1n.
1)Higher AP beats more armour= intuitive.
2)All units using the same damage resolution = sensible .

However, why do you need to have 4 classes of armour for infantry, and more classes for vehicles and M/Cs ?

I know lots of people do not like to 'use numbers', but they are the best way of quantifying comparative values .
Simply using free values in comparison to get the score required for success delivers 1 & 2.

Armour value + Dice roll , compared to Armour Penetration value.
AV +D6 >AP no effect.
AV +D6 = AP = suppressed only.
AV +D6< AP= Suppressed +roll to damage .

Critical hits.
Concussive(X) , on a natural 6 to hit the weapon automatically suppresses the target.(X determines the highest AV the weapon effects in this way.)

Armour bane , on a targeted enemies natural 1 to save , the weapon automatically penetrates the armour and allows +2 to the damage roll..

Poison , on a natural roll of 6 to damage ,target organic units automatically loose one wound.(In addition to any wounds caused in normal damage resolution.)

EMP, on a natural roll of 6 to damage ,target mechanical unit automatically looses one structure(In addition to any structure loss caused in normal damage resolution.)

Flesh bane,on a natural roll of 6 to damage ,targeted organic model receives 2 wounds.

Just examples to show how the system could work.

I'm with Lanrak on the "no, we don't need four classes of armor" thing. And I think suppression would mainly benefit charging units rather than hurt them.

Yeah I'm not even gonna read that, two pages to explain AP = no thanks.

Meanwhile I'm (at least temporarily) dialing back the changes in my system and taking a more gradual approach. I have all the rulebooks from 2nd through 6th edition sitting on my lap and I'm making a combination that I think will play best but still be familiar to everyone.

That's a heck of a collection. Remember that most people will have largely forgotten the earlier editions, if they even played them, so "familiar to everyone" would be a weighted average that's a lot closer to 6th than 2nd.

@Rav1n.
1)Higher AP beats more armour= intuitive.
2)All units using the same damage resolution = sensible .

However, why do you need to have 4 classes of armour for infantry, and more classes for vehicles and M/Cs ?

I know lots of people do not like to 'use numbers', but they are the best way of quantifying comparative values .
Simply using free values in comparison to get the score required for success delivers 1 & 2.

Armour value + Dice roll , compared to Armour Penetration value.
AV +D6 >AP no effect.
AV =D6 = AP = suppressed only.
AV +D6< AP= Suppressed +roll to damage .

Monstrous creatures conform to the same armor classes as infantry, vehicles are the only exception, because I'd like to keep them feeling and playing different. Plus having each side have its own armor class and armor save would be a nightmare.

As I said before, doing the 1 point of AP means reducing the save by one results in weird situations, where units that should be durable aren't (This is the main problem i'd heard about 2nd edition's modifier system) or units become immune to damage, which would be frustrating to play against.

I have not found a way to only use the 1-to-1 method that accurately approximates current save results. There needs to be a second element in place to correct for the inaccuracies. I guess you could do something like having cover reduce incoming attacks AP, but thats a bit odd. Another AP/AV system I'm thinking of has armor class allow you to ignore a certain number of the AP values before they start to modify your armor using the 1-to-1 method, though this route probably needs the range of AP values to expand beyond 0-6.

@ Lord Blackfang.
if you want to write a cleaned up version of 40k 2nd ed, as a large skirmish game, that is a decent way to arrive at a cool skirmish rule set , like No Limits.

But if you want a battle game rules set for 40k, (3rd ed on wards, ) I would strongly suggest using Epic rules (Space Marine, and Armageddon,) as a starting point.
As the core rules cover all the basic interaction, and you can just add more detail to the resolution.

Trying to force backwards compatibility to WHFB , with modern type units, it always going to compromise the game development.

Because Land Raiders are not really chariots,Bolt guns are not bows, and swinging swords against shields is not the same as HMG type weight of fire vs flack vests.
(Skirmish games sort of work because there are larger spaces between units to manouver in.Ancient war is all about manouvering to get the best close combat match ups with ranged attacks in support.)

I can totally understand the resistance to change .It takes ages to learn to over complicated 40k rules!

The core of the 40k game should remain unchanged!
Units still spend time in game moving shooting and assaulting ,and players still will roll to hit , roll to save and roll to wound/damage.
But how this is explained in the rules should be more defined because the rules should be in synergy with the 40k background, not WHFB background!

Using WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods for 3rd ed 40k battle game to the present day , has always been about maximizing short term sales, and nothing to do with improving the game play.(The corporate management over rule the game developers every edition!)

I agree that the rules should be remade from the ground up, but I'm not going to commit to a project that would require rewriting all the Codexes. I already know how that ends.

Hi lord_ blackfang.
The current codex books are hardly a shining example of good internal and external balance. And most players have to fix the imbalance in agreed ways!

So re-writing the codex books with clearly defined rules , and more direct stats, would be a lot easier to actually improve the level of balance across all lists.IMO.

For example if all units have the same stat line , direct comparison is much easier.

How do you compare AS 4+ to AV 12?

What about a weapon that has AP 4 to a weapon with AP 2?(There is no difference if you are facing IG , but a huge difference if you are facing SM.)

However.
AV 12 is exactly 9 better than AV 3.

And AP 6 has exactly the same value against AV 2 as it has vs AV 4.(AV 2 needs to roll 5+, and AV 4 only needs to roll 3+ to save.)

If you just clean up 2nd ed , you will need to re -write all the codex books .In fact any significant changes to the game will need changes to the PV , and so need agreement among players.

A clean well defined rule set is so much easier to balance.(Most other game manage it with a couple of years of open beta.)
Also if you use direct comparative values, it makes PV calculation a lot more accurate than a ton of exceptional conditional exceptions.(Special rules.)

I also think units should be costed at the unit level, as this removes any synergistic anomalies in the elements in the unit.

Mind you I am looking at this as a long term game development project.I am no too bothered how long it takes to get it 'right.'
(Its just a part of my hobby I enjoy.)

You're preaching to the choir, but this choir would prefer to have a working set of rules this week.

Direct comparison of armor values and penetration=Binary system you just berated? Yes? o_O

There is in fact, contrary to the assumption of what has been said in a previous post(s) a 'Suppression' mechanic in place as it stands, it's called 'Assault grenades'. It just doesn't feel like what you all seem to want. So go rewrite that idea into your new rules. It already sits at the right timing anyway.

Rav1rn is onto something though it just needs some refinement. I wouldn't dismiss it right away.

@Lord blackfang.
No worries, do what you want to get the results you are after.

@KnuckleWolf.
A direct comparison to give a proportional interaction of 2 variables is not a binary system is it?
As this takes the difference in both values to give proportional results.
So a AV of 4 saves on a 2+, 3+,4+,5+ , 6+ ,etc depending on the AP of the weapon hit.

Just saying that armour stops ANY hit on a 'X'+, or it does not work at all if the weapon has an AP of' 'Y'.
Is the sort of 'binary system'I was referring to. A Fixed value for pass or fail.
(I may have used the wrong terminology sorry. )

Suppression exists in current 40k in the form of 'bolt on rules and limited effects.'Simply because suppression is not part of the ancient warfare found in WHFB and by extension it is not part of the core rules for 40k.
Where as a new rule set which allows suppression to be a natural part of the basic damage resolution would be more intuitive IMO.

In fact that sort of sums up the problem with 40k rules, IMO the game play wants to reflect the modern tactical battle , but it can only achieve this by tacking on extra rules to get there.

@Rav1n.
Why do you want to keep vehicles separate?

If you think of armour value simply as the equivilent thickness of armour plating.Then we can simply map them to numerical values.
And then we can simply say AP is the amount of armour thickness the weapon would penetrate.
This allows us to use the same resolution for a very wide range of units .
Because an IG tank has much thicker armour than an IG flack vest.Does not mean we have to resolve damage against it differently does it?

I understand this is not 'super accurate ' but it a simple method to recreate the natural resolution in a simple way.

Rather than the AP modify the AS,
Why not simply let the AV modify the AP?
Eg
If a weapon has AP 5, the model has an AV 2.
Now the weapon has an AP of 3,(5-2=3) roll over 3 to save.

Yes this means you let the numbers get as big a range as needed.(They are not tied to a dice roll score.But generate the dice roll score in opposed comparison.)
I may not have explained that too well sorry.

Hi Rav1n.
I am just writing this to try to clarify the idea I proposed in the last post.
You wrote.
'I have not found a way to only use the 1-to-1 method that accurately approximates current save results. There needs to be a second element in place to correct for the inaccuracies. I guess you could do something like having cover reduce incoming attacks AP, but thats a bit odd. Another AP/AV system I'm thinking of has armor class allow you to ignore a certain number of the AP values before they start to modify your armor using the 1-to-1 method, though this route probably needs the range of AP values to expand beyond 0-6.'

So to respond to what you posted directly.

1) I think most people would prefer cover to modify the chance to see/hit the target. Making cover a separate or additional armour save is not as intuitive.(I agree with you. )

2) The idea to have armour class ignore a certain number of AP values before the AP starts to takes effect is a good idea.(It replicates the actual physical interactions of the weapon hit on armour.Armour modifies the weapon hit power, not the other way around! I totally agree with this concept! )

3) You are right that to include the diverse and varied weapon and armour interaction found in 40k , with one system.Requires us to use a range of values beyond 0 to 6.(Again I am in agreement. )

I can understand that it may look weird to some people to have values on the stat line that are not 1 to 10 or 1 to 6.
But AV of vehicles go up to 14 do they not?
So if we extend these armour values down to cover all units , we get the 'armour thickness rating of all models' , from 1 to 14.(Or higher if we include super heavies.)

This allows us to define in more detail how well protected each model in 40k is in a simple and easily compared way.
(An AV of 4 is 2 less than and AV of 6.And it is 6 less than an AV of 10. Whats the difference between AS 5+ and 5+ Inv, and AS of 3+ a 6+ inv, and a AV of 10?)

And now we can work out what comparative Armour penetration value weapons should have.And we can give these values of what ever is necessary to get the resulting save roll we want.

In this way the D6 roll for armour save represents the variables in the interaction, the angle of impact, the weaker spots in the armour etc.
(It does not define the artificially fixed value that may need to be modified by an opposing value.)

In short you have to roll over the difference between AP and AV to make your save.
I can understand the concern over having 'odd' values on a stat line .but if we are happy with AV 12 , why not stretch to AP 17?
And some weapons would auto penetrate some armour, and some armour would be naturally invunerable to some weapons.

However, I prefer natural scaling , to additional fixed values (inv saves.)

I believe if we use a simple and intuitive weapon and armour interaction like this one for the new 40k rules.It opens up the space for more tactical options like suppression.(And in advance rules different weapon and armour types, Ablative, Reactive, and Reflective, vs Kinetic, Energy and Chemical.).

Please post and concerns or questions you may have.I know I am not to good at explaining things...

Personally I love a system that is not just numerical, but has weapons classes and each unit has resistances based on the different weapons. Of course, this would require a game that is a little less complex in terms of the numbers of miniatures and vehicles that are running around, but more complex in terms of what the miniatures are capable of and their stats/abilities. (or a real battle game where each squad is treated like a unit) And why shouldn't they? As hobbyists, wouldn't we rather do more with less?

Anyway like in Infinity, you have face to face rolls... you essentially are making two rolls a roll for the gunfight itself (both mini's shooting at each other) and a roll for the armor. If weapons are divided by class, then you would add or subtract to the miniature's armor save roll. For instance you would add + 3 for bulletproof cover. You could even have a convenient little card for each unit's stats... resistances are shown by the symbol for the weapon type next to either a green or a red number that shows their resistances.

Lets say they are hitting you with an energy weapon and you have 'reactive' armor, well reactive armor is not useful against this kind of weapon so you subtract -3 to your roll.

Lets say you a a space demon and you are being hit with an energy weapon. Well, you are already made of energy so this might have very little effect, lets say +6 to your armor save rolls. Conversely, you might get a -6 if you are being hit with a blade weapon!

I'll say it again, this will FORCE people not to spam and to play to the fluff, and to play tactically because every unit will be weak against something, if you build your army out of one kind of unit you are screwed.

This way you can represent heavy armor (resistant to more weapon types) and light armor (only resistant to some weapon types) unit by unit. And you can really build a unit that looks exactly like what it is supposed to be, using the rules. And you can build certain weaknesses into every kind of unit, to make the game more tactical, not just a 'beatstick' game. In other words, winning the game is entirely dependent on having certain units attack other certain units and being in the right place at the right time to provide suppression fire or support and so on.

Ok, so as a revision to the proposed two-component armor system.

Reduce the armor save by 1 for every point of AP (EX: AP 2 reduces a 4+ to a 6+)

Light = No reduction to AP
Medium = Ignores 1 point of AP
Heavy = Ignores 2 points of AP
Superheavy = Ignores 3 points of AP

Has some problems, specifically for 4+ save models, where against AP 2 weapons (Boltguns, Shuriken Catapults, etc) they get a 5+ instead of a 4+, but they also get a 6+ against what were previously AP4 weapons now, not an equal tradeoff but it's something. Much simpler now, but that simplicity has repercussions that make it much less accurate to current save rules.

There are one or two other directions in the works, but this is looking the most likely. Thoughts?