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.

Alternatively, if you don't want to restat units, you could make shooting firer's BS versus target's BS on the theory that units better trained in marksmanship are also likely to be better trained in use of cover to avoid other peoples' marksmanship....

I'm not sure why everyone is hung up on a 2 stage combat solution. You lose a LOT of granularity since you go from 5x5x6 (150, since 1s to hit and wound always fail) possible states for any one shot to just 30. I've played 40k since the start of 3rd edition and I've never felt that the Roll to Hit/Wound/Save system was overly complex or taxing.

@BaconCatBug.
I agree.In my experience, most 40k players find 2 stage resolution '..too abstract, and not enough detail..' for 40k.

A three step resolution that applies to all units ,ranged attack and close combat , makes the resolution much easier to learn and quicker to play.
IF it remains straightforward and intuitive .

It is possible to just clean up current 40k rules , (remove all the special rules that are practically the same as USRs .)And use a more interactive game turn.(Alternating phases works well with minimal changes.)
And arrive at a rule set you are happy to play.

However, any major change where you use stats differently , add more or less of them.Causes a major upheaval in how the game plays , and has significant impact on game ballance.
And so the overhaul required is similar to the work needed for a complete re write.

As such I would prefer to just get rid of all the issues 40k has from backward compatibility, with a re write.

I know some people would like to tweek WHFB in space V 3.4, to try to make it fit 40k better.

But I would prefer to try to write 40k modern battle game rules V1.0

Just so we dont talk at cross purposes.

@Dragon_Cultist.
I am not too good at explaining things .(It usually takes me 3 or 4 goes to get an idea across. )

In the damage resolution I proposed there is no cross over.

The units Stealth value/Assault value is the base to hit value .Eg you attack something, to hit it you need to roll over its Stealth value /Assault value, to hit the model at range /in assault.
This base score can be modified , by cover , range ,etc.( shooters skill could be listed as a modifier If you like to instead of an opposed stat.) for ranged attacks.
And modified for charging ,weapon abilities, defended obstacles etc for Assault.
Fail to hit , no further action.
If you hit the target, the target attempts to make an armour save.

All units have Armour Values(1 to 15?).
All weapons have Armour Piercing value .(5 to 20?)

When a model is hit , roll a D6 and ADD the models AV .IF this value is higher than the weapons hits AP value the model makes it Armour Save.(As FoW)

If the value is equal or lower than than the weapon AP the armour save is failed.(Some AV are invunerable to some weapons.And some weapons automatically penetrate some AV.)

If the model fails its armour save it is suppressed.
Suppressed models may ALSO take physical damage from the penetrating hit.


All weapons have a damage value , (1+,2+3+4+5+).
All targets have a resilience value (0,+1,+2,+3.)

The attacker has to roll over the damage value for the weapon to damage the target AFTER the weapon hit beats the armour.
EG an Ork, get a penatrating hit with a Shoota on a SM.
The Ork Shoota has a damage value of 3+
The Sm has a resilience of +1.
The Ork player has to roll 3+,+1=4+ to wound the SM.

All these values would be on a unit card, so there is no need to look up values ...

I may need to explain that better, sorry.

Lanrak wrote:
@BaconCatBug.
I agree.In my experience, most 40k players find 2 stage resolution '..too abstract, and not enough detail..' for 40k.

A three step resolution that applies to all units ,ranged attack and close combat , makes the resolution much easier to learn and quicker to play.
IF it remains straightforward and intuitive .

Agreed.

It is possible to just clean up current 40k rules , (remove all the special rules that are practically the same as USRs .)And use a more interactive game turn.(Alternating phases works well with minimal changes.)
And arrive at a rule set you are happy to play.

However, any major change where you use stats differently , add more or less of them.Causes a major upheaval in how the game plays , and has significant impact on game ballance.
And so the overhaul required is similar to the work needed for a complete re write.

As such I would prefer to just get rid of all the issues 40k has from backward compatibility, with a re write.

I know some people would like to tweek WHFB in space V 3.4, to try to make it fit 40k better.

But I would prefer to try to write 40k modern battle game rules V1.0

Just so we dont talk at cross purposes.

I agree completely. The fact that the game has tried for over a decade now to retain backwards compatibility between editions is a Major bugbear in my opinion and one of the reasons i'd love to see a change to the D10 system I proposed. It would need a total rewrite though which might be beyond the scope of either a fan project or GW itself. Remember the army lists in the back of the 3rd edition book? There is a greater chance of the Pope becoming Hindu than of GW rewriting and releasing all current codex's at once.

That being said, I've never had an issue with the Hit Wound Save system. I don't see the need to change to a FOW style AV system.

@Lanrak
I really like the sound of D6+Av vs AP. A simple system with no tables where High rolls are good for the roller and where all needed info is in the unit stats? Sounds good to me. I don't see why you don't take this mentality to shooting: D6+BS (with modifiers) vs evasion(with modifiers).
The way I would do the modifiers is simple:
if it affects the shooter, its applied to the shooter (BS changing special rules, rang modifiers, etc.)
If it is about the target then the modifier is applied to them (cover, how far they moved,etc.)

Note I am merely suggesting possible modifiers, I don't necessarily thing too many modifiers would be good for the game (maybe just cover, range and the odd special rule).

This could also be applied to combat, though the idea of an evasion stat for CC might be a bit much when you could just use their WS (like now, but no tables).
Again you could have one or two modifiers for charging, being in cover or grenades.

I would like to carry the idea further with to wound rolls (after all, having the same core concepts for each of the three rolls in a combat phase would be nice). I could see it done with something like 6D+toughness vs Weapon Strength.

Naturally all of these changes would need rewriting of the stats and the wound roll would mean either large strength or low toughness scores. By using a D10 as suggested (which I do kind of like) you would need to make all the values quite large as if the random roll becomes the majority of you roll then the game is just luck (think toughness 4 vs strength 10 being D10+ with values from 5 to 14). I think the random aspect should be at most half of the value (think average toughness of 11 or so)


@Bacon
Maybe GW could do a clean sweep with 7th edition and slowly rewrite all the codexes to fit with it. They would not release them publicly but you could by into the alpha and offer feedback (playtesters who pay you for the privileged) and they still release the models which would be used with 6th for everyone else. As they get through most of the codexes (the big ones anyway) they could go live and release the rest as they go. That is the only way I can see them doing a rewrite.

I would Kill the Emperor, have him be Reborn without Humanity being destroyed by his death, then Restart the Great Crusade with the Original nine loyalist Primarchs being Reborn.

Maybe mess with the Lost Legions.

@Dragon_Cultist.
Using the dice as a modifier ,(to represent ALL variables,) in the 'opposed value comparison' of AV vs AP, makes this the simplest resolution to give detailed proportional results.
This process has no other separate modifiers.

IF there are going to be multiple modifiers in the resolution , then having a fixed value based on skill/ability to succeed,rather than variable base from opposed values is more straight forward.

Eg If you want to have BS as the base value , then let 'evasion/stealth' , be a modifier not a stat to compare BS to .
. Its the same as the to wound roll, where toughness/resilience is a modifier not an opposed stat.

If you use opposed values to determine the base chance of success then add modifiers, it is over complicated.(It does the same job but takes longer.)

I agree that a few modifiers are best.(But more advanced rules can simply add the the modifiers if required, as a simple way of increasing complexity with out adding complication.)

I am happy to switch to a D10 if it is needed.(But if you use better resolution methods, the size of the dice is less important.)

Lanrak wrote:
@Dragon_Cultist.
Using the dice as a modifier ,(to represent ALL variables,) in the 'opposed value comparison' of AV vs AP, makes this the simplest resolution to give detailed proportional results.
This process has no other separate modifiers.

IF there are going to be multiple modifiers in the resolution , then having a fixed value based on skill/ability to succeed,rather than variable base from opposed values is more straight forward.

Eg If you want to have BS as the base value , then let 'evasion/stealth' , be a modifier not a stat to compare BS to .
. Its the same as the to wound roll, where toughness/resilience is a modifier not an opposed stat.

If you use opposed values to determine the base chance of success then add modifiers, it is over complicated.(It does the same job but takes longer.)

I agree that a few modifiers are best.(But more advanced rules can simply add the the modifiers if required, as a simple way of increasing complexity with out adding complication.)

I am happy to switch to a D10 if it is needed.(But if you use better resolution methods, the size of the dice is less important.)

The only serious problem I can see with rolling against stat with modifiers is when you've got a stat that is used offensively and defensively (WS, for instance) you need to split it into the offensive WS value and the defensive WS modifier, though that does raise the interesting question of whether you could have melee units who are really good at attacking but crap at defending (e.g. Orks). I've had the chance to test out my system, which is opposed values with modifiers (a limited number of them; if you moved, if the other guy moved, if the other guy's in cover, and if your weapon says something about it), but it actually plays fairly well; I did apply the modifiers to the stats before computing the value to roll as opposed to applying them to the roll itself for the sake of extra flexibility.

@Anomander
I did notice that if for example two units have the same WS (say 4), then it becomes D6+4 vs 4. The easiest way is for the defender to have a +3 modifier so the attacker has to roll 4+ (which is what it is now for equal WS) though the thought of attack and defense in CC makes for interesting possibilities.
How about a stat-line like this:
WS: attack/defense
BS: accuracy/evasion
Toughness
strength
Wounds
save
Ld

E.g. (with made up numbers)
Space Marine:
WS BS T W S Sv Ld
6/8 8/4 4 1 7 7 9

The reason I wouldn't have the defender as just another modifier is that it gives both players something to do, they each have to calculate their respective stats (with modifiers) then the die are cast and results are tallied. Its the little aspect of having to look at your units stats, cover and movement while the opponent looks at his BS, range and movement before coming together to see the difference and roll the dice. I just think it would keep both players engaged if you have to do something every subphase.

Might be a mad idea, but hear me out:

- Codexes and rules as free PDF's and E-books downloadable from the GW homepage.

- They'd just have to edit the rules and upload the new versions to their homepage. No more FAQs and Erratas. Codexes could be living documents where rules could be edited and even new units be added without any real hassle. No amount of GW playtesting can replicate the immense wealth of knowledge that is thousands of people playing the game. Just need some solid system of input and ever better rules would evolve over time.

- They'd lose money on books, I somehow feel they would make up for it in increased miniature sales. Easier to attract new players with an ostensibly lower initial investment when starting an army.

- Or maybe I'm just an insufferable cheapskate.

Hi folks.
In terms of close assault , I have split the offencive and defencive aspects of assault into;-
Defencive capability as the models Assault value.(How hard they are to hit in assault.)
And the offencive values as the units weapon stat values.

Eg an Ork has an assault value of 4.(The opponent need to roll 4+ to hit the ork in assault.

Assaults are resolved in assault value order, highest first.
The assault value is modified by charging , defending obstacles/defences , etc

The orks offencive ability in assault is dependent on what weapons they are carrying.

I intend to put the units weapon profile under the unit stats.

Weapon name /effective range/AP /Damage/attacks/notes.

So an ork carrying a..
Choppa 0-2"/6/4+/2/close combat only

Slugga 2-12" /6/4+/1/pistol

Has a base of 4+ to be hit in close combat(Modfied).
Number of attacks , Ap and damage of attacks as weapon profile.
All this info on the unit card.

I hope I explained that well enough?

@Rasclomalum.
If GW plc were interested in game development they would at least release free Beta rules to the player base for play testing .IMO

 Rasclomalum wrote:
Might be a mad idea, but hear me out:

- Codexes and rules as free PDF's and E-books downloadable from the GW homepage.

- They'd just have to edit the rules and upload the new versions to their homepage. No more FAQs and Erratas. Codexes could be living documents where rules could be edited and even new units be added without any real hassle. No amount of GW playtesting can replicate the immense wealth of knowledge that is thousands of people playing the game. Just need some solid system of input and ever better rules would evolve over time.

- They'd lose money on books, I somehow feel they would make up for it in increased miniature sales. Easier to attract new players with an ostensibly lower initial investment when starting an army.

- Or maybe I'm just an insufferable cheapskate.

GW would as soon shut down WHFB as go free digital living rulebooks for codexes.

All this WS/BS/Evasion talk is sounding a lot like Warmachine.

Warmachine: Models have a melee skill (MAT), ranged skill (RAT), a defence (DEF) which represents a combination of combat prowess/speed, a Strength (STR), and an armour (ARM) which is analogous to Toughness in 40k. Most models don't have a save.

When attacking you roll 2D6+MAT vs DEF. A typical model has MAT6, typical defence is 12-13. Similarly with 2D6+RAT vs DEF, or 2D6+STR vs ARM. Equalling or beating the opponent's value counts as a success.

Now this doesn't translate well to 40k, as 40k simply involves more models on the board and it is impossible to roll 2D6 to hit for 30 attacks simultaneously. WMH uses the 2D6 mechanic to achieve a normal distribution of results whereas 40k uses a large number of single D6 to achieve roughly the same goal.

It would also be difficult to achieve the same distribution as 40k: The 3/4/5+ to hit in combat doesn't work with the D6+WS vs EV. Similarly, you can't represent the 2+ for S10 to wound T1.

Some ways to make it slightly possible are:
Giving each model an evasion value of of 7. That gets the 'usual' 3+/4+ to hit mechanic for 'basic' troops.
Be VERY wary of giving ANYONE more than 8 evasion.
More simple is adding 4 to everyone's toughness. That mostly covers the D6+Str vs T, though it doesn't get the 2+ required or the 6+/6+ at the boundary of the table.

Overall I like the simplicity of that mechanic, and it works for basic troops, but it would require significant retuning for models with stats of 6+.

@Trasvi.
Using stats directly is used in most modern war games.(As they are developed focused on people playing the game , so they need clear concise rules.)

40k has the unique problem of using skirmish sized minatures (28mm), like Infinity and Warmachine etc.
But uses battle game sized forces, similar to FoW, Drop zone Commander etc.

So all the rules that work well with other skirmish games , are too complicated for the size of game 40k wants to be.

I believe if we use unit cards, we can get detailed unit interaction , based on simple resolution of each element/model in that unit.

The play tests I have done separating defencive ability of the units (model stat line), and the offencive capability of the units model/weapon combination .(On the units weapon profile.)
Allow these 2 element to be shown directly and in detail, while allowing quick resolution.

Stat A + dice vs Stat B is a popular resolution method, but it is only suitable in some circumstances.
The art in game design is using the most suitable game mechanic and resolution methods.

 Rasclomalum wrote:
Might be a mad idea, but hear me out:

- Codexes and rules as free PDF's and E-books downloadable from the GW homepage.

- They'd just have to edit the rules and upload the new versions to their homepage. No more FAQs and Erratas. Codexes could be living documents where rules could be edited and even new units be added without any real hassle. No amount of GW playtesting can replicate the immense wealth of knowledge that is thousands of people playing the game. Just need some solid system of input and ever better rules would evolve over time.

- They'd lose money on books, I somehow feel they would make up for it in increased miniature sales. Easier to attract new players with an ostensibly lower initial investment when starting an army.

- Or maybe I'm just an insufferable cheapskate.

This was my plan, but since I'm not doing it for profit I don't have to worry about the losing money part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@Trasvi.
Using stats directly is used in most modern war games.(As they are developed focused on people playing the game , so they need clear concise rules.)

40k has the unique problem of using skirmish sized minatures (28mm), like Infinity and Warmachine etc.
But uses battle game sized forces, similar to FoW, Drop zone Commander etc.

So all the rules that work well with other skirmish games , are too complicated for the size of game 40k wants to be.

I believe if we use unit cards, we can get detailed unit interaction , based on simple resolution of each element/model in that unit.

The play tests I have done separating defencive ability of the units (model stat line), and the offencive capability of the units model/weapon combination .(On the units weapon profile.)
Allow these 2 element to be shown directly and in detail, while allowing quick resolution.

Stat A + dice vs Stat B is a popular resolution method, but it is only suitable in some circumstances.
The art in game design is using the most suitable game mechanic and resolution methods.

I know I managed to get 40k's opposed-stat tables to work well by chopping down and streamlining them to one table that follows a simple pattern...

Still wondering about melee offense and defense; I'm not sure about adding an extra layer of complexity but I do like being able to get around the issue I've had under my rules of tanks being much harder to actually hit in CC than they should be.

One idea I had was to fix Armour and Armour Saves. While they're very simple right now I think, personally, that it's oversimplified which doesn't leave a lot of elbow room for diversity.

The idea itself was to remove the Save value from a unit's stat line and turn AP into a 0-10 system instead of the system used now.

Armour would be present either in the book's Armoury or in the unit's profile if they have a unique piece of armour. Armour would have two values: Defence and Save.

Save is a static value and represents the save roll the armour provides. Fluff-wise it would represent just how much of the unit the armour covers and how effective the armour would be at stopping damage to any point on the body. While some units may see a Save value change, most would remain pretty much as-is.

Defence is what determines whether a shot penetrates armour or not and works the same way as the current AP system, but both using a ten point system instead of the current 6 point one.

This would open up new opportunities for unit diversity. Not to mention this system would allow units with worse Saves to have high Defence values or vice versa and would prevent some armies from getting boltered to death.

Vehicles could then use Penetration instead of Strength to determine penetration and Strength could be used to determine internal damage, essentially allowing vehicles to have their own Toughness value of sorts.

So a model with really thick armor on only part of its body would have a lousy Save but good Defense? I'm not sure this would come up often enough to make the added complexity worth it....

When it comes to damage resolution, artificial separation of vehicles from other units , leads to pointless complication.

The only difference is multiple ' hit point' models record the damage separately, single' hit point' models are removed to indicate the unit damage.
(Hit points is the common name I for wounds ,structure points etc.Eg the number of un saved hits the model takes before being destroyed/removed from play. )

If we use unit cards, we can record the multiple hit point damage on them,rather than clutter the models with wound markers.

Combining armour and toughness into a 'Defence Value' may be fine in other games , (where infantry is based on stands.)
But 40k players need the detail of roll to hit, roll to for armour save, roll to damage.
(Simply because the difference between a high armour value and low toughness, and a high toughness low armour value is important to them, because of the background.)
This has been my experience over the last 8 or so years of trying to write new rules for 40k. anyway.

I wouldnt change a thing, you filthy Heretics. But, if it must be (Because I cannot stop you from doing this), then let the Galaxy burn.

Burning the galaxy sounds good.

'Can you smell that?, CAN YOU SMELL THAT ?Thats the smell of napalm son , nothing else smell like that .God I love the smell of napalm in the morning!'
(Colonel Killgore Apocalypse Now.)

Just though it was apt for some reason...

One idea I had was to fix Armour and Armour Saves. While they're very simple right now I think, personally, that it's oversimplified which doesn't leave a lot of elbow room for diversity.

The idea itself was to remove the Save value from a unit's stat line and turn AP into a 0-10 system instead of the system used now.

My problem with this is that you are trading a binary system for a somewhat flawed linear one. I actually like the idea behind the current Armor/AP system, in that so long as your armor is better than the weapons penetrating power, it doesn't affect your save, the problem is that it's too simple.

Otherwise you have to tone down weapon diversity, because you then have to handle how AP (- , 6, 5, 4) weapons interact with something like a space marine, because he shouldnt be invulnerable to weapons with poor AP. Add something like terminators into the mix, and the situation just becomes worse.

Look at how people feel about the 2++ rerollable invulnerable save, where it's at least possible to injure them. What if entire subsets of troops would be functionally immortal to your troops fire? People would lose their minds.
------------------------
On that note, i just finished working out the final issues in my modified Armor/AP system.

Hopefully it'll influence player behavior to be less reliant on AP 3 and 2 weapons, because they no longer need those weapons to affect power armor or better, AP4 weapons can reduce such armor slightly, and the higher rates of fire make them more a more versatile choice.

A model's armor characteristic has 2 components, Armor Class (AC) and Save (Sv)

If AP < AC == Use normal Save
If AP = AC == Reduce save by 1 (4+ become 5+)
If AP is 1 greater than AC == Save becomes a 6+ (unless you have a 5+ or worse save, then its ignored)
If AP is 2 greater or more than AC == No save

AC1 = Imperial Guardsmen
AC2 = Eldar Guardian
AC3 = Tau Firewarrior
AC4 = Space Marine
AC5 =Terminator / Meganob

AP0 == Lasgun
AP1 == Ork Shoota
AP2 == Boltgun / Shuriken Catapult
AP3 == Kraken Bolts / Gauss Weaponry?
AP4 == Autocannon
AP5 == Missile Launcher
AP6 == Lascannon

This leads to the odd situation where AC2 and AP3 are essentially slight upgrades on AC1 and AP2 respectively, but they're mostly there to offer some extra diversity and make the system work.

Models with 6+ saves would fall into the AC1 category, but im looking more at replacing these unit's "Armor" with something more substantial and fluffy, such as Ork boyz's T-shirts being replaced with a FnP save, DE Wyches with a Dodge save, etc.

@Rav1n.
Is the system you propose to be used with current codex books ?
Are you adding in the AC to graduate the effect of AP vs save?(Does this also cover vehicles?)

It just seems a bit too complicated to me.

If we look at what actually happens,there is a base amour value, and a base armour penetration value.And a whole load of things that modify these two values.

In detailed simulation type games , distance to target , ammunition type(sub type of AP profile etc) , angle of incedent to the armour surface,difference in armour thickness dependant on area struck etc.
Are all listed separately and accounted for one by one in the resolution.

However, if we use the dice roll to account for all these variables, we are left with a base armour value, and a base armour penetration value and a dice roll.

We could call the dice roll the 'armour save roll'.

So 'amour value' + 'armour save roll' is compared to the 'armour penetration' of the weapon .

This covers all the factor of the real life interaction , in a simple to use and remember resolution that can be used for all units ans both close combat and ranged attacks.

This also uses the 3 things you proposed in your resolution, armour value (class), save roll , and armour penetration .

I may have missed the reasoning behind your choice of resolution.I apologize if I have.
I would like to discuss these ideas further.

@ Lanrak

I to feel that a Armour value+D6 vs AP would work. Especially as this would mirror our earlier notes of a "my stat + D6 vs your stat" system for shooting and wounding (it's the system currently used for vehicle, S+D6 vs Armour)

The main problem with this system is that the numbers have to be a bit larger (not all crammed in this 1-6 value like it is now). However people manage with armor values being quite large so I don't see why it wont work. (interesting fact, comparing the to wound chart and how vehicle armor works, I figure that a SM is equivalent to armor 7 by toughness alone.)

This leads me to my other point of how to handle vehicles. Personal the idea that the armor penetration stat had no effect on its ability to penetrate armor annoys me. If we make armor a number rather than what it is now, we could make it so that it is S+AP+D6 vs Armor value. This would make armor values very large (18 to 28) and I don't think that level of variation is needed. Assuming that S and AP range 0-10, then S+AP vs D6+Armor value would work without too much fiddling as then vehicle armor could be in the 10-15 range.

In my mind a large benefit of a "my stat + D6 vs your stat" is that you can always make the number bigger. While current charts mean S and T are 0-10, with this system you can always make them larger (just make sure that there is something to take them out!). No more strength D or having titans with the same armor as a landraider. There is always a bigger number (however this could make power creep a problem, currently there is a roof that GW can't break)

This also plays innto the negative side of it, in that there will be many situations where a unit can't hurt/hit/damage another unit (currently, only really the case with toughness of 8+ or with vehicle armor). Personally I like this as I think some things should always/never succeed in extreme cases.
To address the concerns about how people hate 2++ saves with rerolls. This is because they always get the save and there is a 1/36 chance of getting through. This could be fixed with a no rerolls on inv saves. Also if you can hurt them, at worst your odds are 1/6 (assuming no rerolls,which i don't think will be as needed if armor can vary much more), or not at all so you know where you stand.

@Dragon_Cultist.
If the result is not determined by a D6 result .(EG has to be 1 to 6)
Then we can use what ever value we need to get the interaction we want.

I have been using the armour values of 1 to 15.(Extend the current AV values down to cover other units.)
So all models have an AV, to give the approximate equal, of current save , save +inv saves , or AV.
(Eg Ork Mega Armour = AV5 , Terminator Armour = AV7 , Chaplin Terminator AV 8, Open top buggy trukk AV 9)

Weapons have new AP values of 5 to 20.

Some models are invunerable to some weapons .But that is nothing new.
Also some weapons auto penetrate some armour values.(But melta guns should auto penetrate a flack vest IMO!)

However, that is why I wanted to use a D6 score as the damage roll required dependent on weapon type.
EG 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+ in the weapon stat. with toughness represented as a 0,+1,+2.or +3 resilience value to the damage target score.
(It is similar to strength vs toughness but without the chart.)

Eg a Shoota has a damage value of 3+.
It wounds a IG (Resilience of 0) on a 3+
it wounds a SM (Resilience of 1) on a 3+1=4+
it wounds a Nurgle Marine (resilience of 2) on a 3+2= 5+
It wounds a Greater Deamon (resilience of 3) on a 3+3=6+

I may need to explain that better...

@Lanrak
Why use this damage value system?
It is similar to what I suggested but with a much smaller range
e.g.
my system: S+D6 >= T to wound
your system D6 >= S+T to wound
you just made it so that a lower strength is better
Same principals/complexity but with a tiny range. Hell, if a shoota is 3+ whats a lascannon? (-2)+? 1+? All you have done is made it so that there is a limit to what S can be, which was a major benefit of my way. Also in my way higher stats are better and you can have a larger range of values. I see no reason to use your method.

@Dragon_Cultist.
I did not explain my new system that well sorry.

I just replaced the S vs T table with a damage value X+(What the old strength value vs T 3 used to be.)
And then replaced the old T value with a Resilience modifier, (To give the change in dice roll required the old T value did on the chart.)

Eg A weapon that used to have Str 4, would have a Damage value of 3+(Str 4 vs T3 on the old damage table.)
A model that used to have T 5 , now has a resilience of 2.

So rather than consult a table , you just add the Resilience value to to the Damage value.
So the bolt gun Damage value of 3+ , goes up by 2 to 5+, when it is rolling to damage a Resilience 2 model.

It does exactly the same job as the old S vs T .but uses the opposed values directly to give the dice score required.
Eg Damage Value + Resilience value = score needed to damage the target .

it does not use S or T values directly , but the results of the old S vs T chart.

I may need to explain that better?

Lanrak wrote:
@Dragon_Cultist.
I did not explain my new system that well sorry.

I just replaced the S vs T table with a damage value X+(What the old strength value vs T 3 used to be.)
And then replaced the old T value with a Resilience modifier, (To give the change in dice roll required the old T value did on the chart.)

Eg A weapon that used to have Str 4, would have a Damage value of 3+(Str 4 vs T3 on the old damage table.)
A model that used to have T 5 , now has a resilience of 2.

So rather than consult a table , you just add the Resilience value to to the Damage value.
So the bolt gun Damage value of 3+ , goes up by 2 to 5+, when it is rolling to damage a Resilience 2 model.

It does exactly the same job as the old S vs T .but uses the opposed values directly to give the dice score required.
Eg Damage Value + Resilience value = score needed to damage the target .

it does not use S or T values directly , but the results of the old S vs T chart.

I may need to explain that better?

I'm confused as to how you deal with S8+ (if S3 is 4+ S7 is 0+), are there negative damage values?

@AnomanderRake.
Yes, some higher end strength weapons may need to use Damage rolls of 2+and 1+.
These would need to be play tested to find the right values.The same as current vehicles which do not have a toughness value to base the Resilience values on.

Letting weapons have damage rolls of 1+,2+,3+,4+,5+, 6+ that is modified directly by the targets Resilience, (0,1,2,3) is the simplest way of covering the interaction I could think
of.

Most of the basic ideas for conversion from current rules are just to get an initial starting point to start play testing from

I like simple ideas, as I an rubbish at explaining things .

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
Yes, some higher end strength weapons may need to use Damage rolls of 2+and 1+.
These would need to be play tested to find the right values.The same as current vehicles which do not have a toughness value to base the Resilience values on.

Letting weapons have damage rolls of 1+,2+,3+,4+,5+, 6+ that is modified directly by the targets Resilience, (0,1,2,3) is the simplest way of covering the interaction I could think
of.

Most of the basic ideas for conversion from current rules are just to get an initial starting point to start play testing from

I like simple ideas, as I an rubbish at explaining things .

I'm asking if there's a damage roll of -1+, -2+, etc. if you're doing direct mapping from the current rules since otherwise S7 is 0+ and there's nothing past that.