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.

On another note, but running in the theme of this thread I think (which is crazy bananas but I like it) is why doesn't the community use a system, that is not meant to patch up 40k, but rather an uber generic system that sort of operates like an open source rules design?

I was in a conversation with a dude at the game club the other day and he was actually complaining that all these companies that come out with rules often change the rules in negative ways later on... on purpose because that's what they do to sell models.... make some models good and others suck (the new edition of FOW was brought up)... and it got me thinking, could companies like GW even survive without writing rules?

I'll compare rules to language.... when rules are successful, you don't think about them at all. They are merely the vocabulary you use to express yourself in a game, and invisible unless you start to think about them, just like you never think about the words and grammar you are speaking with, just what you are speaking about. Rules also are best when they are universal, just like the language that everyone knows is better just because everyone knows it. By far the most useful trait of a language is the number of speakers, the same way that 40k is a useful ruleset to know merely because there are so many players (that is changing because the rules are so shoddy).

So that is my theory. Miniatures games are a special kind of game, not like a computer game or a chess game because the physical components of the game are so resource-intensive. Therefore it's in all of our best interest to have rules that allow us to use our miniatures in the most efficient way possible, and serve our needs first! Rules are far better off being something the community owns, open-source style, so that they can be generic, universal and leave the companies free just to create awesome miniatures and background IP material like they should! If their miniatures are great and they manage the company responsibly and price them accordingly there is no reason they wouldn't stay in business, and probably be better off since more people would be enjoying their miniatures in games and the market would grow. If such a system grew large enough, there would be no going back and companies would be forced (or glad to, in the case of smaller ones that just want to make cool models) work with the open-source ruleset.

And furthermore I'll bring up the problems the community is having with the ruleset... we are unable to play armies that fit the background fluff, and unable to play balanced games without spamming or ignoring whole classes of unit such as vehicles, and any fixes we can try are quickly made obsolete due to the way GW is pooping out rules and rulesets, which also tend to invalidate the armies we've lovingly collected. Any homebrew fixes or band-aids need to be balanced against the rest of the game, and unless they are incredibly simple, need to be massively playtested against the rest of the game the 12 or w/e how many codices there are in order to gain acceptance with the community, and the rest of the game is constantly changing in the time it takes to do that playtesting. That is what I've observed with the homebrew efforts on 40k... they just can't keep up. But again, if people just worked on a ruleset that you could literally play anything with because it is so generic but customizable (with a unit-building function perhaps) then adapting to new releases would simply be a matter of calculating out the points for it according to the open-source rules, depending on whatever you think it's representation in the game should be! As a community any efforts we make are far better served towards something that belongs to the community and is completely independent of miniatures companies and therefore stable enough to be playtested, the game aids sold, and the system gains acceptance in the community as a balanced and fun game... to play with any miniature!

@Rav1rn: Really smooth but as you pointed out its lost something. I like the first version better but still think its too wordy. Could you cut down the number of classes? I pointed out earlier how well StarCraft II did with only three. I might go so far as to try two (Light Armor/Heavy armor) And then three weapon types (Energy, Ballistic, Explosive). I don't know, the first drafts outputs just sounded so right on :(

@Meade: I'm a staunch supporter of open source games and your right it would do well if only it came to pass. Shortly after sixth ed 40k came out and the clamor for change really kicked into high gear I like so many started working on my own system as a experiment and something to do to fiddle with as I was laid up with broken foot and couldn't do my other hobbies. I started it in a notebook as "d10 Battle: the WarGame Companion to d20 the Roleplaying Game". But as you point out in a roundabout way, the community is its own worst enemy here as it can't decide on any thing and everyone thinks their way is best and so on and so on. See above thread as evidence. One solution that I've tried to get momentum behind is the creation of modular cores of game mechanics that can be stuck together. 40k does this already as do many tabletop games. To that end I've made a rough draft core for units statistics, combat, terrain, and turn structure. But no one will ever get behind mine or anyone else's particularly on the net where we can't meet and actually test. Cheers! And they said the Internet would change the world for the better hahahahaha

Hi again.
@Meade/KnuckleWolf. I think the core problems with developing a generic rule set to cover games similar to 40k, are these.

1) Because GW will not define 40k clearly , (so they sell it to a wider audience.)Some players want a more detailed skirmish game, (Skirmish sized minatures,)some want a larger battle game(huge model collections, ), some want more narrative synergy, some want more utility in units etc.
So if you picked 100 gaming groups they would all probably want 100 different versions of 40k.(GW plc version of 40k is poor because it is driven by compromises to try to appeal to everyone.)

2) When people sit down to write a new rule set, they often let their favorite game influence their decisions.If they have only played 40k for example they try to see how to fit the current unit roles and special abilities into the new rules.(Loads of great ideas are discarded due to 'I do not see how that would work with 40k ', argument.'

3)Younger folks soak up data like sponges, and prefer to learn rules , than learn in game tactics.(This is a proven medical fact ,peoples brain functions change as they get older. I am not trying to be offensive.)
So to appeal to older gamers a straightforward rule set focused on tactical interaction, is preferable.But younger gamers see this as too 'simple to be fun'.Younger folks need a level of 'chrome' the older folks do not.

So to get anywhere we need to agree on what we a re trying to achieve.A clear design brief.
That way if we want multiple rule set we can develop them , in tandem and everyone know what the objective of each rule set is.

Also it is very important to get the core game mechanics and resolution methods refined before we even look at the level of 'chrome' we may want to add later.

My own preference for a generic rule set it to define detailed element interaction.Then you can determine the element as a single model for skirmish games, or a unit for larger battle games.
Same rules just substitute models for units , or units for models .
So new players can learn to play the game with 12 minatures a side, and then when they get a bigger collection and more experience they can play 12 units a side , with the same rule set!
(If they want to..)

@Rav!n.
How about we restrict what weapons can be fired at what types of unit to limit the need for lots of classes?
So weapons get a target class, Light and Heavy.As well as units getting a Light and Heavy armour classification too.

This way light armoured units get saves from 6+ down to 2+,only l being effected by weapons with the light armour target class.(Small arms anti personnel support weapons.)

And heavy units get saves from 6+ down to 2+ ,(Super heavy infantry , vehicle & Mcs.)only being effected by weapons with the heavy armour target class.(Anti tank type weapons.)

Epic Armageddon uses this simple distinction between Anti Personnel and Anti Tank.(AP and AT)

We could just list the weapons armour save modifiers as AP and AT.

Eg
Bolt gun AP 2 AT -(No effect vs heavy targets )
Lascannon AP - (no effect vs light targets , too agile to target effectively)AT 5.
Missile launcher AP 1(Frag) AT 4(Krak)

This would allow the same rules for all units,(Armour save vs modifier, .then strength vs toughness.) but use 2 tiers to keep weapon and armour interaction more intuitive.

This is the best I can do....

KnuckleWolf wrote:

@Meade: I'm a staunch supporter of open source games and your right it would do well if only it came to pass. Shortly after sixth ed 40k came out and the clamor for change really kicked into high gear I like so many started working on my own system as a experiment and something to do to fiddle with as I was laid up with broken foot and couldn't do my other hobbies. I started it in a notebook as "d10 Battle: the WarGame Companion to d20 the Roleplaying Game". But as you point out in a roundabout way, the community is its own worst enemy here as it can't decide on any thing and everyone thinks their way is best and so on and so on. See above thread as evidence. One solution that I've tried to get momentum behind is the creation of modular cores of game mechanics that can be stuck together. 40k does this already as do many tabletop games. To that end I've made a rough draft core for units statistics, combat, terrain, and turn structure. But no one will ever get behind mine or anyone else's particularly on the net where we can't meet and actually test. Cheers! And they said the Internet would change the world for the better hahahahaha

That's interesting and it confirms my own experience. As for myself I am just nerdy with rules writing, it's something I enjoy thinking about and I think every game I ever played I enjoyed making my own contribution to it. Even if nobody gets behind our rules it is still a useful exercise to think them up.

I think the net is the place to BS about this stuff because only here will you find other crazy people that are into it! I think the game club is the place to actually attempt it however. Only a real life community of gamers can support such a thing and they really take a lot of convincing, the first step is for the group to move on from religiously playing one kind of game. Goaded by the recent year of GW rules fail, which at this point makes the game near unplayable, we've done GW scenarios and gotten into x-wing. Recently i've done a few scenarios that worked out well. My goal for the moment is to learn as many different games as I can, it really helps become familiar with the different ways rules can work especially when you are talking about more than 2 or 3 games.... actually I'd consider myself a collector of rulesets now (I think I have about 10 or so on my shelf)!

The people in my club are nuts about the 40k universe and all have 40k models, so it makes sense for me to experiment with skirmish and conversions from other systems (got my eyes on deadzone) to convince them that 40k can be played better in other rules systems.

I just thought, why not make personal armor and vehicle armor the same as toughness, going from 0 to 10 and working in the same table?

Say marines have T4 and armor 4 (just an example). They are shot by a weapon with S5 and AP 3. The number to penetrate armor would be 5+, and would need a 3+ to wound.

Vehicles would have armor from 6 to 10 and no toughness. Poisoned weapons would have high Str and low AP; haywire weapons on th eother hand would have very low Strenght and very high AP,

This system doesn't increase the number of rolls, allows for a more nuanced variety of different armor, and doesn't have the weird situation where a weapon could be extremely good at blowing up tanks but would do nothing to personal protection.

Lanrak wrote:

So to get anywhere we need to agree on what we a re trying to achieve.A clear design brief.
That way if we want multiple rule set we can develop them , in tandem and everyone know what the objective of each rule set is.

Also it is very important to get the core game mechanics and resolution methods refined before we even look at the level of 'chrome' we may want to add later.

My own preference for a generic rule set it to define detailed element interaction.Then you can determine the element as a single model for skirmish games, or a unit for larger battle games.
Same rules just substitute models for units , or units for models .
So new players can learn to play the game with 12 minatures a side, and then when they get a bigger collection and more experience they can play 12 units a side , with the same rule set!
(If they want to..)

Yes! That I can get behind. Design the game around the 'elements' keeping them to around 12 or so. There is no reason a single element can't function in a skirmish game, then be scaled up to battle game, or used in a different scale battle game like 15mm (in my opinion 28mm is not proper for battle games).

There also is no reason that a generic system can't work for both a fantasy and sci-fi setting (steampunk too). Especially fantasy sci fi... many similar themes are just ported over. This is another reason why I don't understand the fixation on armor saves. IMO units shouldn't have armor/invul/blah blah saves (and toughness is just another save, the most important one), just ONE SAVE TO RULE THEM ALL and various modifiers for resistances, cover. All of the various conversions they use like toughness, invul, armor, are all various roundabout ways of deciding, is this miniature hurt or not, does it have natural defenses to negate this kind of attack or not. And it forces everything else like psychic/magical warfare, poisons, differences in weapon types like fire vs. energy vs. ballistic, all to be tacked on in awkward ways. For example, why should the system have so much detail when it comes to different types of bullets, but offer nothing when considering a flame attack, or a disintegrator beam, or an energy blade? And how is a layer of plate armor differing from an extremely tough layer of skin?

Armor/invul saves are something I'd like to point out a general concept with; when trying to refine a generic ruleset, you really have to make the mental distinction between game mechanics, and 'fluff elements tacked onto the game'.

GW is the worst offender when you consider the problem of fluff elements tacked onto a game. They introduce things because 'wouldn't it be cool if this guy could do this stuff and that". In order to make a generic system, you need to refine things to the ultimate basics: number of rolls, types of rolls, types of moves/orders. You need to have a very refined idea of 'this is where the core mechanics go' and 'this is where the unit's character/fluff etc' goes. I dream of playing these games with units that have more character, but that does not necessarily mean more rules! Thinking about how the same rules can apply across genre boundaries and scale boundaries is a great way to start.

@Rav1rn: Really smooth but as you pointed out its lost something. I like the first version better but still think its too wordy. Could you cut down the number of classes? I pointed out earlier how well StarCraft II did with only three. I might go so far as to try two (Light Armor/Heavy armor) And then three weapon types (Energy, Ballistic, Explosive). I don't know, the first drafts outputs just sounded so right on :(

We can't really cut down the number of classes using only this system, the 5+ and 6+, 4+, 3+, and 2+ armor types all play so differently from each other with the AP system. So far as using weapon types to differentiate effects of different armor types, it'd be amazing on a smaller scale skirmish game, but i feel that the scale 40K is running at would play too slowly and not be able to use that system to full effect, there's just too much to do to work through all of those different reactions in one turn. That being said, the critical results system talked about for the past few pages is very exciting, and would be a great place to bring these weapon-type-effects into play.

Another idea i'm working with is each armor interacts with AP a bit differently.
Light: Each point of AP reduces armor by 1
Medium: Ignores the first 2 points of AP
Heavy: Ignores the first 2 points of AP, takes a change of 2 AP points to reduce save (AP 3 and 4 both reduce the 3+ to a 4+, AP5 and 6 reduce it to a 5+)
Superheavy: Ignores the first 3 or 4 points of AP, takes a change of 2 AP points to reduce save

I don't like this one as much, it's got a bit too much going on and only fits the current results a little better than the simple version.

Say marines have T4 and armor 4 (just an example). They are shot by a weapon with S5 and AP 3. The number to penetrate armor would be 5+, and would need a 3+ to wound.

Vehicles would have armor from 6 to 10 and no toughness. Poisoned weapons would have high Str and low AP; haywire weapons on th eother hand would have very low Strenght and very high AP,

I like the idea of poison and haywire replacing their special rules with in-game mechanics, definitely need to try to work these in.

@Rav!n.
How about we restrict what weapons can be fired at what types of unit to limit the need for lots of classes?
So weapons get a target class, Light and Heavy.As well as units getting a Light and Heavy armour classification too.

This way light armoured units get saves from 6+ down to 2+,only l being effected by weapons with the light armour target class.(Small arms anti personnel support weapons.)

And heavy units get saves from 6+ down to 2+ ,(Super heavy infantry , vehicle & Mcs.)only being effected by weapons with the heavy armour target class.(Anti tank type weapons.)

Epic Armageddon uses this simple distinction between Anti Personnel and Anti Tank.(AP and AT)

We could just list the weapons armour save modifiers as AP and AT.

Eg
Bolt gun AP 2 AT -(No effect vs heavy targets )
Lascannon AP - (no effect vs light targets , too agile to target effectively)AT 5.
Missile launcher AP 1(Frag) AT 4(Krak)

This would allow the same rules for all units,(Armour save vs modifier, .then strength vs toughness.) but use 2 tiers to keep weapon and armour interaction more intuitive.

This is the best I can do....

My concern with this system is exactly the example you gave for the lascannon, as you're trying to justify the system by replacing what should be one system's domain with another's. If the lascannon is too unwieldy to effectivly target smaller targets, shouldn't that be the concern of the "to Hit" system rather than the AP system? And if it does hit, if it can blast through tank armor shouldn't it annihilate a guardsman armor?

Also, restricting what can be shot at what is a blow that will only polarize units further, and make generalist units less effective than they are now. Why would i ever take a lascannon on my tactical marines if i could never fire it at the models the rest of my unit is shooting? Sure you could put some other systems in place to make this issue less of a problem (like your proposed "Target Zone" rule) but its still something that seems to get in the way.

It also removes an element of control from the player, as the system is now dictating what the "correct" use of weaponry is instead of the player deciding. I have a similar problem with the old "Target Priority" rules or whatever they were called where you could only shoot at the nearest unit unless you passed a test. Cool idea, not the greatest implementation, and i'm not entirely convinced there is a way to do it well.

That being said, i really love the idea of seperating AP and AT values, and am going to have to play around with it for a while to see if i can get it can shine. I already see tons of potential for "In-AP differences". For example, AP4 has basically been the catchall AP value for a while, with everything not amazing at penetrating, but not bad at it getting lumped in there. Now we can break those weapons up a bit more. If a Heavy Bolter, Autocannon, and Assault Cannon are all AP4, but have varying AT scores (say 2, 3, and 4 respectively) then that opens up a lot more options.

Unfortunately it still suffers the problems of using only the 1-to-1 method without a second system in play, and if we add Armor Class in, at that point we have 4-5 different components of the AP/Save system, which may be getting a bit too high. I do like the idea of the "Superheavy" armor class using the AT values instead of AP values though, done wrong it could lead to a lot of abuse, but i want to work with this idea.

rowenstin wrote:
I just thought, why not make personal armor and vehicle armor the same as toughness, going from 0 to 10 and working in the same table?

Say marines have T4 and armor 4 (just an example). They are shot by a weapon with S5 and AP 3. The number to penetrate armor would be 5+, and would need a 3+ to wound.

Vehicles would have armor from 6 to 10 and no toughness. Poisoned weapons would have high Str and low AP; haywire weapons on th eother hand would have very low Strenght and very high AP,

This system doesn't increase the number of rolls, allows for a more nuanced variety of different armor, and doesn't have the weird situation where a weapon could be extremely good at blowing up tanks but would do nothing to personal protection.

The better question is, why do you need to separate toughness, armor saves, and 'armor penetration' (wtf) in the first place? Why roll the same conversion twice? If I told you my fancy new game required you to roll to hit, then to roll to hit again, would you be excited about it? This is why GW rules are so twisted they get confused between their rules for MC's and for vehicles.

Vehicles, infantry, creatures, they are all machines of one kind or another. basic human beings, the standard for any game, usually go down with the swing of an axe or being hit by a bullet or w/e. certain armored beings are immune to other kinds of weaponry. It all can be represented by one roll, all you need to do is determine by a unit's stats what class of weapon they have and what they are vulnerable to.

I don't think there's much wrong with the sequence of hitting, penetrating armour, resolving damage.

In case of infantry I always found it odd that you determined a wound BEFORE penetrating its armour.

It also gives you 3 ways of differing units:
* making them harder to hit (how fast/hidden it is, maybe?)
* making them tougher to penetrate (how armoured it is)
* making them more resistant to wounds (how tough it is)

 Shandara wrote:
I don't think there's much wrong with the sequence of hitting, penetrating armour, resolving damage.

In case of infantry I always found it odd that you determined a wound BEFORE penetrating its armour.

It also gives you 3 ways of differing units:
* making them harder to hit (how fast/hidden it is, maybe?)
* making them tougher to penetrate (how armoured it is)
* making them more resistant to wounds (how tough it is)

I don't have a problem with to hit rolls, just separating toughness/armor/armor penetration into three classes.

Wouldn't a unit that has thick hide or thick armor be more resistant to being wounded automatically? What is the difference between a guy in a robot suit with an armored shell, and a guy driving a tank with wheels? Essentially none. Some units might take more punishment before going down (wounds, hit points).

If we've already determined through dice rolling that a unit is 'hit', then why are we giving them a 'cover save' which if you pass it, means that you like hit a rock instead? Uh, isn't that just another way of saying, you didn't hit? Now you see the logic in having cover be a modifier to hit, not to wound.

All of these problems can be solved simply by giving weapons a class (which you limit to like 6 or 8, and combine different classes), and a damage value (the number to roll dice by) then unit by unit, modelling them according to what different types of weapons they are resistant to. You have a (pierce) class of weapon, for example. the weapon hits everyone with the same DMG, but certain units have either weakness to pierce or resistance to pierce, and they modify the roll accordingly.

Look at it in terms of math. take a D10. lets say you are firing on a model with an armor sv, versus one without. In this system, lets say the strength of the weapon is 5 (we already determined it hit) so the victim needs to pass or fail (do they take a wound). Say you are using an armor save system. First you roll to wound, in this case we are using a toughness stat lets say it's 5 and you get a 50/50 chance to wound, without the armor save. Lets say you then add a 5+ armor save, that would make the chances of you saving the wound is 75%.

Well I could do a very similar thing with a modifier. Lets say I wanted to build a unit that was well armored, I would give it a +2 resistance in this system (since the math prevents me from giving +2.5) to normal weapons... lets say impact, blade, energy. But it would have zero resistance to (pierce) weapons. So when I'm rolling a normal wound save, I'd add 2 to my save for a 3+ save, it comes out to roughly the same odds: 70% success rate compared to 75%. The only real difference here is that in one system, I would be checking a stat, then rolling two dice. In my system, I'd be checking a stat, and rolling one die. The math is the same. The work is 50% less. I will say it again, toughness is just another save. Don't even get me started on 'feel no pain' rolls, oh my god. Now if you use a D20 system, then it's even easier to create detail in terms of how certain weapons affect certain units without piling on the saves.

So what makes my system better or worse? Well it's worse because you have to put more information into the statline, specifically a small table where you list (hopefully in a visually friendly way using symbols) the various resistances to different weapon types. It's also worse because you may need to do math in your head adding up modifiers (this can be a little annoying at first in infinity but you get used to it). But keep in mind you are usually just adding or subtracting one modifier.

OTOH It's better because, you encode a vast order of magnitude more information and possibilities into your units, you explore different kinds of weaknesses and resistances that have themes in 40k using one system (such as weakness to purifying flame) and once you are familiar with the rules and the units, the game speeds up because you are making less die rolls.

@Meade and Shandara

The saves are done the way they are for speed. If i have to hand dice back and forth to do the rolls and saves in the "correct" order, it would take much much longer than me doing all of my rolls, then you doing all of your rolls, and there's no reason to when the math is the same. This is an issue that could be easily solved by having GW put "Designer's Notes" here and there explaining why some things are what they are.

"We know it doesn't make sense to roll cover saves with armor saves instead of right after the "To Hit" rolls, or to roll FnP after armor saves instead of right after wounding, but it means less dice are changing hands, which means a faster game!"

@Meade

A lot of the systems GW put into place make sense when you consider they are limited to a D6. You don't have the resolution necessary to use a whole bunch of modifiers, so splitting toughness and armor makes a lot of sense in that context. Not to mention it means that players play a role in their models death, instead of just sitting there removing models, which is what happens if you collapse armor and toughness into one value (unless you are letting player roll to beat the weapon's strength but lets not get into that).

Yes you can move to a D10 or D12 system, but you're going to run into the problem that people have D6's, and don't want to buy a whole bunch of new dice just to playtest a game. I was planning on running D12's, and despite the freedom the larger dice offered, i'm probably moving back to the D6 with heavily modified comparisons instead of the larger dice, because the audience you're aiming for is likely not going to spend money on dice when they could spend it on models.

Otherwise, many of the rules are done for the purpose of speed. Now, this is debatable, but i think going "I have a 5+ Feel no Pain save" would be faster than applying a FnP modifier and then rolling against that. It would be fairly easy to make Fnp just do something like (+1) toughness, but if the alternative is faster and has more player involvement, at the expense of it being less "streamlined", then i think it's a fair trade-off.

Now, having spent this entire post defending GW (ugh never thought i'd have to do that), there are a ton of problems, namely their need to have "as few dice rolls as possible" in all the wrong places. Why am i rolling for warlord traits and psychic powers, but cover is something that is almost worthless if you have a decent armor save? I'm slowly coming around to leaving Cover as distinct save, so long as everyone gets it, because it means that low armor models will actually get some sort of save to roll for, rather than just pulling models.

 Meade wrote:

The better question is, why do you need to separate toughness, armor saves, and 'armor penetration' (wtf) in the first place? Why roll the same conversion twice? If I told you my fancy new game required you to roll to hit, then to roll to hit again, would you be excited about it? This is why GW rules are so twisted they get confused between their rules for MC's and for vehicles. .

Don't think I don't agree, I'd like a more streamlined system. Some of my favourite wargames are the DBA variants, where units aren't even classified strictly on what equipment they have, but how they behave and what battlefield tactics they follow. Also, a wargame where you can easily field 50 or more individual models need simple mechanics, unless you want to play for days.

That said, 40k evolved from antiquated, roleplaying like mechanics to what's today. Making a streamlined, "sensible" version would basically make it a completely ifferent wargame that happens to have space marines. In that case we can save a lot of effort: there are tons of sci-fi games out there, we just have to write the army lists for them, so I'm in favor of at least keeping the basic attack resolution.

Also, I'm in favor of keeping the d6 intead of d10 or d20, and there's so much variation within a d6. Using two rolls allows for a wider amount of possible results.

@Rav1n.
There is a natural gradation in weapon effects across a range of targets in the real world.

Weapons developed to be effective vs lots of small agile targets , spread out their effect/energy across a wide area.(A hail of machine gun bullets, HE fragmentation, chemical flame sprayers etc.)

Weapons developed to be effective vs large heavily armoured targets , put all their energy/effect onto a single point of contact.(AT rounds, APFSDS, HEAT , HESH etc.)

And there are weapons that bridge both types of target, but are less effective against each class than weapons designed specifically as 'anti personnel' or 'anti tank.'

A machine gun is light and can be brought into action quickly, (Quick to load, light enough to track fast targets.)
A large ordnance weapon takes a long time to re load, re charge.It is too clumbersome to track small agile targets that can be dealt with by lighter weaponry.

That is why real world tanks have main armament with AT /HE rounds for large high value targets, and machine guns to deal with infantry /light vehicles close in .
Also the ammunition for ordnance is usually limited , when compared to small arms.

So using a split weapon effect class AP/AT , is intuitive .(And can be explained to the player if needed.)
Allowing all weapons to be effective vs all targets , then having to add in additional rules and systems to artificially restrict the interaction after the event is just over complication for the sake of it.

Splitting the armour and armour save modifiers into 2 classes AP and AT is the simplest way to cover 40k 'saves on a d6' system elegantly.(Thats why Epic Armageddon used it!)

Using stats to clearly define the abilities of units and weapons in game is not restricting the player, it is informing them.So they can make their own choices.

I hope that explains my reasons with more clarity.(P.S what other game systems are you familiar with ?)

@All.
The systems GW use make sense when you look at the restrictions the game devs are put under.
Make it look and sound inspirational to drive sales. Everything has to be backward compatible, so do not change any thing too much..

Tons of other games allow , fast to learn tacticaly complex games only using a D6. (Practically every other game than 40k/WHFB !)So I would prefer to try our basic new system with D6 first , and upgrade the dice to D10 etc if needed.

For damage resolution it is important to keep 3 stage resolution .

To hit ,(Base score required to hit set by target/size skill, modified by cover ,etc.)
To save ,(Compare potential damage to armour protection to get chance(dice score) to save against damage.)
To damage.(penetrating weapon damage modified by targets resilience /toughness)

Mainly because of the wide variety of weapon functions and target types that can be covered in detail with a 3 stage resolution.
(EG simple incorporation of suppression for failed armour saves that do not take any other damage.)
(We use this convention;- attacker rolls to hit, defender picks up successful to hit dice and rolls saves with them, attacker pick up failed saves and rolls to damage, to speed up dice rolling.)

AFAIK, there are lots of good rule sets for modern-scifi skirmish games already in print.And there are lots of good modern battle games for 20mm to 6mm minatures.

But there are not any good modern battle games for 28mm heroic minatures. This is the type of rule set I would like to develop.

Here is the list of core game mechanics and resolution methods I think would be best fit.

Interactive game turn, alternating player activation , (units or phases.)

Direct representation stats for resolution methods.(Distance in inches, dice score required for success( or dice modifier) or number of dice rolled.
(I would prefer to use direct comparison of higher numerical value stats to widen scope of interaction if needed.).

Mobility is modified by terrain and suppression.(Expressed as how and how far the element may move.)

Universal 3 stage damage resolution.(Covers all weapon and target interaction.Applied to close combat and ranged.)

3 state morale system, OK suppressed , routed.

Set up and organisation ...
Force selection based on element availability set by theme of force./Game objectives to be covered by randomly drawn mission cards.

Can we agree on this basic outline ?
Are you ok with the ideas for set up and organisation in principle?

rowenstin wrote:

 Meade wrote:

The better question is, why do you need to separate toughness, armor saves, and 'armor penetration' (wtf) in the first place? Why roll the same conversion twice? If I told you my fancy new game required you to roll to hit, then to roll to hit again, would you be excited about it? This is why GW rules are so twisted they get confused between their rules for MC's and for vehicles. .

Don't think I don't agree, I'd like a more streamlined system. Some of my favourite wargames are the DBA variants, where units aren't even classified strictly on what equipment they have, but how they behave and what battlefield tactics they follow. Also, a wargame where you can easily field 50 or more individual models need simple mechanics, unless you want to play for days.

That said, 40k evolved from antiquated, roleplaying like mechanics to what's today. Making a streamlined, "sensible" version would basically make it a completely ifferent wargame that happens to have space marines. In that case we can save a lot of effort: there are tons of sci-fi games out there, we just have to write the army lists for them, so I'm in favor of at least keeping the basic attack resolution.

Also, I'm in favor of keeping the d6 intead of d10 or d20, and there's so much variation within a d6. Using two rolls allows for a wider amount of possible results.

Agreed, there are more streamlined versions of sci-fi. Those versions however, translate nothing of the character of 40k and in most cases it is merely a more efficient (but probably more fun) way of pushing around a pile of marines and tanks for a couple hours.

That's why I think, if you are going to bother to rewrite rules at all, they need to offer something totally different and new, but something that is far more capable of expressing that flavor we know and love... at least one version of it. That's why I'd like to see a modern, skirmish based ruleset that has plenty of variation in terms of statlines and abilities built into the rules themselves. And, something more friendly to the 'fantasy sci-fi' genre but still maintaining a modern warfare feeling.

Lanrak wrote:

So using a split weapon effect class AP/AT , is intuitive .(And can be explained to the player if needed.)
...
For damage resolution it is important to keep 3 stage resolution .

To hit ,(Base score required to hit set by target/size skill, modified by cover ,etc.)
To save ,(Compare potential damage to armour protection to get chance(dice score) to save against damage.)
To damage.(penetrating weapon damage modified by targets resilience /toughness)

Mainly because of the wide variety of weapon functions and target types that can be covered in detail with a 3 stage resolution.
(EG simple incorporation of suppression for failed armour saves that do not take any other damage.)
(We use this convention;- attacker rolls to hit, defender picks up successful to hit dice and rolls saves with them, attacker pick up failed saves and rolls to damage, to speed up dice rolling.)
....

Certainly three stages are baked into the core of 40K.... How does AP vs AT work in your system of armor saves, though? I'd love to see an outline.

For my next playtest I've come up with a mechanic that adds a bit of risk management to both sides and makes Leadership scores a bit more prominent.

Instead of taking pinning tests and the like while taking fire, you accumulate suppression dice. Speaking in classic 40k terms, every time a unit would normally be called upon to take a pinning test, just put 2 dice next to it. Every subsequent time it is called upon to take a pinning test, add 1 more die.

A unit with any pinning dice on it at the start of its own turn takes a single Pinning check using ALL the dice. This determines whether the unit can act that turn or not.

Under this system, the attacker doesn't get "real-time updates" on whether the enemy is already pinned or not, so he has to decide whether to pour more firepower into the same target to improve his odds, or risk spreading out the pinning dice to other targets. The problem is, of course, that the odds of failing jump pretty rapidly. 3d6 is fair enough, giving even odds to Ld10, but anything above that makes a pass highly unlikely.

Addendum: Fearless units accumulate pinning dice as normal, but do not take the test. Instead, they remove all the dice but suffer one AP - wound per die.

A player could also "pay" for certain abilities, such as reactions during the enemy turn, by placing suppression dice on his own units.

Thoughts?

Interesting, but the math gets one-sided as the number of dice increases, as you say.... unless you make it something besides a regular Ld test. "Roll all the dice and take the best two"? I dunno...

Worth considering. I'll do some math tomorrow. It's midnight here as I type, so good night!

@SisterSydney.
I suggested the AP/AT system as an alternative to the AV vs AP system I previously discussed.It was my attempt to simplify Rav1ns multiple armour class & modifers system.

The idea of classing targets armour saves, and weapons armour modifiers was inspired by Epic Armageddons damage system.
(I tend to look a good battle game rules for ideas.)

Because a D6 only delivers a short range of possible results.IF you want to list armour save as a a nominal value 'X+' in a game setting as wide and as varied as 40k..
You have to either extend the range with additional rolls to save, and or supplimentary systems.(40k used inv saves and vehicle rules.)

OR simply divide the armour saves and effects into 2 overlapping groups.(Like Epic Armageddon does with AP and AT.)

If we say light armour saves 1+ to 6+, for all target with saves currently 6+ to 2+, (with inv saves going onto basic save to reach a minimum of 1+ save.)
And heavy armour saves 2+ to 6+ , for all targets with 2+ save and inv saves of 5+ or better,to AV 14.

Here is an example range of saves.
Light armour or 'Armour - Personal'(AP)
AP 6+ (Ork boy.)
AP 5+(IG Trooper.
AP 4+(Dire Avenger)
AP 3+ (Space Marine.)
AP 2+ (Ork Mega Nob)
AP 1+ (Chaos Lord, 3+ save 5 + inv.)

Heavy armour or 'Armour - Tactical assault .(AT)
AT 6+ Terminator Armour (2 + save and 5+ inv)and AV 10
AT 5+ Terminator Chaplin (2+ save and 4+ inv.) and AV 11
AT 4+ AV 12
AT 3+ AV 13
AT 2+ AV 14

So small arms only have an AP rating, and do not effect AT saves.
Support weapons can effect both types of target and have an AP and a AT modifier.(Often using a different projectile/fire mode.)
A fewsupport weapons are too large/clumbersome and or slow to load/recharge.And so are not really any use vs small agile targets and so only have an AT value .

Boltgun, AP 1/ AT -
Missile launcher AP1 (Frag) /AT 2 (Krak)
Rail Gun AP -/ AT 3

These values are open to adjustment obviuosly.And vehicles would need to be given toughness and wound equivalents.

It is the simplest way to use armour saves and modifiers across all units .

Ah, so AP and AT are two different scales, each rated 1-6. As long as you're committed to using d6s and stats that directly say "roll over/under this number on the die to succeed," yes, that sounds like the most elegant solution. That said, my preference is still for an open-ended scale from 0 to infinity, where you roll 1d6 (or whatever) and add it to your stat, then see if you beat the target difficulty. More complex but not, I think, unmanageably so and worth it for the open-endedness it provides.

lord_blackfang wrote:Instead of taking pinning tests and the like while taking fire, you accumulate suppression dice. ....A unit with any pinning dice on it at the start of its own turn takes a single Pinning check using ALL the dice. .... The problem is, of course, that the odds of failing jump pretty rapidly. 3d6 is fair enough, giving even odds to Ld10, but anything above that makes a pass highly unlikely.

SisterSydney wrote:Interesting, but the math gets one-sided as the number of dice increases, as you say.... unless you make it something besides a regular Ld test. "Roll all the dice and take the best two"? I dunno...

"Best of two"? That would mean the more suppression dice you take, the better your chances would be of passing the Leadership test! Surely you mean "worst of two," you mathematical illiterate. What kind of ignoramus could possibly have posted such an oh wait that was me.

I was about to say

I'll do it your way in the first playtest, so Xd6 pick two highest.

Also working out a patch for fliers to make a clear cut distinction between gunships and interceptors, because the Vendetta has absolutely no business winning dogfights.

@lord_blackfang.
In reguard to fliers, how would you feel about using mission types for fliers?

Lots of war games split air support into;-
A) Combat Air patrol, (fighters shooting up enemy aircraft.)

B) Ground attack , (fighters/light bombers making straffeing and bombing runs.)

C) Transport, Air lifting troops into drop zones.

CAP missions ONLY intercept enemy Aircraft.

Ground attack and transport missions can be attacked by enemy CAP.The enemy CAP attacks first.

Unless the Ground Attack /Transport mission has a Friendly CAP.In which case the aircraft on CAP mission fiight and the Ground attack /Transport air craft make it through without being attacked by the enemy CAP.

Would you like to make air units a little bit more realistic?
(EG they take a flight path across the table and attack/deploy troops in one place along the flight path.)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll throw some of my ideas out.

1) Armor value for vehicles is an issue that overly complicates the game. You end up with anti-tank weapons that turn a Land Raider inside out and merely punch a whole in a Carnifex, who keeps coming unhindered. AV should go away and all models based on wounds, armor save and toughness. Want to make something immune to bolters, give it toughness 8 and move on. Want to allow something to be whittled down by heavy bolters, make it toughness 6 with more wounds and 4+ save. A Land Raiders should be toughness 9 with 4 wounds, 2+ save. Couple railguns take it out fairly easily, while it basically ignores autocannons. Some anti-tank weapons need to do multiple wounds if people insist on being able to one shot certain vehicles.

2) Any rule that says "roll to determine" should be changed to be a fixed number, a points per ability bought or "choose one of the following".

3) Wargear bought non-character models in the squad should be picked up by other squad members if the model carrying it dies. Basically, pull wargear models last. Sergeants and similar should get a "look out" sir, meaning their buddy could jump in front of the bullet. It boils down to certain armies get more screwed by current wound allocation rules than others because of the number of unique configurations in the squad (hormaguants vs SM tactical, 0 v 3).

4) Force org chart needs to be similar to Fantasy, minimum 50% core, max 25% characters, rest however you want. Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy becomes non-core and we move on.

@Lanrak, sounds like another load of rules and exceptions to bolt onto a medieval battle game! How would you go about that without making it another mini-game unto itself?

@lord _blackfang.
Most other war games use aircraft as off table support, along with artillery and reserves.And I would prefer to include flier units in this way.

So they are not in the core game as such.But are added in with the other supporting elements to expand the depth and detail of the game play.

And I would rather let aircraft adopt natural supporting roles , along with other units in supporting roles.Than try to shoehorn them into the core game of ground war infantry and vehicles.

If the core game is well defined and elegantly written , additional systems can be easily incorporated without the level of confusion and complication found in 40k 6th ed.

I would simply have a option to request off table support in the initial command phase of the game turn.

All off table support units have their entry /aim point marked with a counter.(One real counter 3 dummy counters.)
Only one unit type of off table support may enter the table per turn. Reserve ground units,or artillery strike,or air support.

At the end of the game turn , in the resolution phase , the dummy markers are removed, and the actual entry/ Aim point is scattered if required.
Then the off table support arrives and is resolved , before any morale tests are made.(So everything is sorted out for the beginning of the next game turns Command phase.)

So fliers on ground attack and transport missions are covered in a similar way.
Entry points are placed in the Command Phase as normal .In the resolution phase the exit point /LZ point is placed by the owning player and scatters if required.
The ground attack fliers can attack one enemy unit along this flight path,(entry to exit point ) and transport units may land as near to the LZ as possible.(Transport fliers leave the table next turn by the shortest possible route.)

There are several ways to include CAP, and the way they attack other fliers.But Ill not go any further , in case you are not interested in this direction..

Anyone have any ideas on a actually balanced point system without getting heckled to death?

As it is now the only way i can think of setting it up is by multiplying the statistic by the number of times used in the general game to get the points.

Its starting to get very wonky with grenades and weapons added to the initial stats. as well very strange with things like terminators compared to sm and scouts. (68 scout, 74 for marines, 81 for terminators before weapons and wargear only base stats and armor)

any of you mathamations out there have any ideas?

Anyone have any ideas on a actually balanced point system without getting heckled to death?

As it is now the only way i can think of setting it up is by multiplying the statistic by the number of times used in the general game to get the points.

Its starting to get very wonky with grenades and weapons added to the initial stats. as well very strange with things like terminators compared to sm and scouts. (68 scout, 74 for marines, 81 for terminators before weapons and wargear only base stats and armor)

any of you mathamations out there have any ideas?

Yup, prepare for this to get very ugly very, very fast.

The way i've always run my experiments in this is by separating all the main elements of the model into 4 groups, melee offensive and defensive, and ranged offensive and defensive. All the individual elements of the category get plugged into some sort of formula, then the composite score of each category is added together for a final composite value, which is used to calculate the final cost.

Of course other miscellaneous factors such as grenades, movement speeds, special rules, and leadership must be accounted for after the fact, as none of these really apply to any of these 4 categories.

The things that are and aren't important get kind of weird though. The really counter-intuitive element is that the actual formulas you use aren't terribly important, there is no "correct" method. I've personally run 4 or 5 different formulas in an attempt to get everything right, all of them "valid" but of varying accuracy. My favorite (though probably least accurate) method was normalizing each composite score vs a standard value, then squaring each composite before adding them all together (was a breeze to calculate costs).

I tested the formulas against almost all the troops in the game, and I usually got within about 1 - 1.5 points of the models expected cost, except for eldar and dark eldar, they came out wrong no matter what formula i worked with, much to my dismay. There were always exceptions though, and often times points were waaaaay out of sync. Typically, the higher the models cost, the less accurate your formula is. I typically found that if the models expected cost is above 20 or so, you need to start rounding to the nearest five.

What is important though is making sure that "effectiveness" vs cost is not a linear relationship, it needs to be logarithmic. That is, the higher you increase the models "effectiveness", the more it costs to increase it further. Look at a tactical marine vs a terminator. A terminator is in no way almost 3 times as "effective" as a tactical marine, but the pricing isn't wildly off, though they are underpowered due to the meta.

This logarithmic relationship means that you cannot just buy the most expensive, most powerful model imaginable and have it perform just like an equivalent number of weaker, cheaper models. You have to leverage the strengths of the unit to make up for the increased cost.

This does have the risk of going horribly wrong if the formula is too harsh on higher cost models, which is arguably what has happened to 40K. I think we can agree that weight of dice has outstripped the strengths of the more "elite" armies somewhat, though its far from the level of game-breaking.

As far as costing units accurately as possible .There are a few factors that need to be taken into account.IMO.

1)As the most accurate costing is arrived at by comparative assessment.(To define the relationship and formula required.)
Then the system has to be written with this in mind, so using the same resolution methods across all elements makes this job much easier.(So the way units behave and interact are covered in the same way to make direct comparison easier.)

2) It is important to cover synergistic effects within a unit by costing the net effect of the unit.

3) After the unit have been costed accurately , then extensive play testing is needed to find the synergistic bonuses and penalties in different army composition .

However, if you are trying to cost a game like 40k accurately , then I have no idea where to start.As the units are randomly made up of randomly costed elements.And they have random bonuses and penalties applied randomly throughout the game.

When GW game devs realized some fans could actually cost units more accurately using objective comparison and reasonable level of maths.They panicked and chucked loads more 'random stuff' into the game to invalidate any attempt to improve balance through more accurate costing.
So now the best we can do is agree to a subjective assessment of the general comparison in 'normal play'.But that has to be imposed by a TO, or agreed by a small group.You can not apply these subjective improvements on everyone.(Even GW tell you you can make stuff up because they can not be bothered to 'develop a game properly'.)

That is is another reason why a re write may arrive at a balanced system faster then a '40k 6th ed fix.' because players have been trying to fix and balance 40k since 4th ed.

And having witnessed over a decade of good intentions and huge amounts of effort, only manage to achieve very little improvements.
I have not seen anything to make me believe the Warhammer Fantasy Battle Game in Space can be salvaged with out a major re-write.

I am sure that Rav1n and others would be very capable of accurately costing units if they were given a reasonable chance of success.
But WHFB in space version 3.0 to 3.6 does not give them any chance at all.

Wow this thread certainly got interesting

Is it still about a "6.5 edition" type thing or are people set on a major rewrite?

For damage resolution it is important to keep 3 stage resolution .

Why exactly? I'd be interested to hear what you think, because to me it looks like you could just roll toughness and armour into "defense" and speed things up a bit

Hi Dakkamite.
Well myself and others are looking at a 'complete re-write', and others are looking at 'major changes'.

But its all good extended hobby fun for me!And there have been loads of great ideas and discussions so far!

As far as the 3 stage damage resolution goes, it down to 2 reasons, scale and detail.

If its lots of 2mm to 15mm minis on a unit base, then they are seen as a 'blob' units .So the players are not that bothered about super detail. And a single attack /defence roll is fine.

BUT if a player has taken hours and hour lavishing time and effort to make a 28mm minature look as good as possible.They want the level of detail to be higher to represent their level of investment.
And the 3 stage process allows complex results to be built in simply on a stage by stage resolution .
it is possible to let the armuor value represent unit confidence , and weapon armour penetration represent threat level, to get a simple simulation of suppression built into the core damage resolution .

I have tried using 2 stage damage resolution in 40k re write before ,(2008 to 2010).
When we used Epic units in play test the players were happy enough, but it just 'felt wrong' when using 28mm minis. (We play a wide range of games , so I tend to look at good battle games for first play test /inspiration.)

So 2 stage resolution looks great on paper , and should work great in game, but it fails to clear a psychological hurdle in 40k players concept I did not expect!
But that could just be my group?

Also allowing the defender a save roll keeps the level of interaction higher ,than just the attacker rolling dice .
(Attacker rolls to hit, defender picks up successful hits and rolls saves, attacker picks up failed saves and rolls for damage.)