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.

Exactly, I see no point in this system. S+D6 vs T can also be modified to match the table. just add 3 to the toughness and the odds come out the same. Assuming you can go past 1+, then you highest strength is 6, after that things will need to get complicated. This system is in no way simpler as you are adding a fixed number (Toughness, where higher is better) to a save type roll (Strength, where lower is better) is both counter intuitive an unlike anything else in warhammer. My suggestion is to copy the system already used by vehicle armor to toughness removing the constraints of a chart and allowing S and T to be as high as needed (and higher is better!)

Also, stop coming up with random names for pre-existing stats, so far we have all agreed on keeping a three roll system which roughly compare pre-existing stats (except evasion). New names like resistance are not needed.

At the core, the current system in warhammer 5 types of rolls for combat, to hit at range, to hit in close combat, to wound, to save, to penetrate armor. Rather than one type of system across all 5 we have 4:
To hit at range is a 1D chart
To hit CC and to wound are 2D charts
To pen armor is "my stat"+D6 vs "your stat" (MSvYS)
To save is a roll above a number (unless ap is low enough in which case dont)

This is the part that annoys me the most as a single system for all rolls would be easier to understand.
Now I prefer MSvYS for all systems. Adding 3 to toughness means we don't even need to do much to get it to work for to wound rolls. In the case of CC, you can just add 3 to the defenders WS and its (roughly) the same.
In the case of shooting, this is a bit more complicated but if you set the average evasion to 6 then the odds stay the same (allowing you to keep old codexes as they are until you fix them).
Finally armor is the most awkward and I don't know how to fix it. The stats for ap and sv will need to be completely rewritten.

I hope that wasn't too confusing. I just cant see a reason to use a Sv type system anywhere, especially to wound, and you just made new strength = 7 - old strength. and new toughness = old toughness -3.

Beautifully concise dissection of what's wrong with the 40K rules, Dragon. I'd not thought it out so clearly myself, but yes, there are five types of action with four types of resolution mechanic. Add stat tests (1d6, low rolls are good) and leadership tests (2d6, low is good), and you actually have seven types of things to roll and six different ways to roll for them.

I left the game five years ago shortly after 5th edition began. Time and $ were tight and I wasn't happy with 5th. Seemed like the armies were losing some of their unique flavor, hated the changes to terrain... I've recently been thinking about coming back, but don't want to be at the mercy of GW frequently changing the game in ways I don't like. So I've been thinking over how to make new rules that are more in line with what I envision is how the armies and game should look, and then I stumble on this thread. I am not alone. Anyway below is one of my ideas.

The shooting phase is gone. There is just movement and assault. Each unit can shoot any time it wants, but only one time per game turn. There can be a glorious, bloody firefight when the game begins.

Game turn divided into 4 parts. Player 1 moves (1A), Player 1 assaults (1B), Player 2 moves (2A), Player 2 assaults (2B). Once all units have been deployed, the initial shooting phase begins (all models count as having moved). All units from both sides may shoot in initiative order, units with the same inititive fire simultaneously. Every unit which fires gets a marker with 1A, and may not fire again until turn 2 part 1A at which time the marker is removed and the unit may fire again.

When all units which wish to fire and are eligible to do so have fired, game turn 1 part 1A begins. Player 1 moves a unit. Any unit from either army which is eligible to fire may do so in initiative order. If it fires place a 1A marker next to the unit. It may not fire again until turn 2 part 1A when its marker is removed. When player1 moves his last unit he declares movement done and any eligible unit may fire.

Player1 then begins his assault phase (part 1B) of turn one. He makes his first assault movement. When done moving any unit from either side which is eligible to fire may do so in initiative order. Place a 1B marker next to any unit that fires. It may not fire again until part 1B of game turn 2. When player1 completes all assault moves he declares he is done and hand to hand combat is resolved.

If unit A charges unit B and gets into base to base contact, unit B still may fire if eligible before the assault is resolved. This represents shooting as the assaulting unit approaches.

When all assault is resolved, player 2 begins his turn. The process is the same. Beginning in game turn 2, markers can be removed. 1A markers are removed in turn part 1A, 1B markers removed in turn part 1B, etc.

This change is designed to balance the advantage of going first and adds an element of strategy in the decision of when to shoot. It also ensures that units always get a chance to fire before being assaulted.

Other rules like units with faster charge speeds reducing the number of shots that can be fired would add an extra dimension to the ranged/assault balance. An additional idea is to allow a rapid fire weapon a single long shot and a shorter ranged burst each turn, but limit mobility when doing this. Assault weapons on the other hand allow full mobility while shooting.

Hi folks.
I do not appear to have explained the concept that well.
The strength and toughness value no longer exist in the new rules.

All weapons have a Damage value , which shows the dice roll the weapon needs to 'wound' the target after the weapon has defeated the armour.
This is the dice roll needed, displayed as a value X+

All models have a Resilience value the modify the damage roll.

EG a Bolt gun has a damage value of 4+.
This will cause a wound on a 4+ if the target has a Resilience of 0.

If the Bolt gun is trying to wound a model with Resilience of 1 , it needs 5+ to wound.(4+1=5+.)

This follows the basic concept , things that make the task harder add to the target score required.

In the resolution of armour and weapon armour penetration there are lots of variables , which need to be represented by a dice roll.

In the resolution of damage there are no modifiers.Its just weapons ability to damage vs the targets resistance to damage.
(As in the old S vs T table.)

I am struggling to find another way to explain this simple concept.

The only reason to use a dice as a modifier , is if there are variables in the resolution.

I am not sure if i can explain this any better,Could some one help me?

@Lanrak
I understand what you are saying, you have set it up as a save type roll with the base toughness being 3 and the weapon strength is a number you need to roll over to wound a unit with toughness three as per the current rules. Like I said:
Damage Value = 7-S
Resistance = T-3
You have just changed the numbers linearly so that lower damage is better. However, you numbers will end up looking like (-2)+ for higher S values, which is confusing for new players and how will you change the vehicle armor system to work with your new system?
I see no benefit to you system, while it is true that adding a number to a save type roll will tell you specifically what you need to roll, the gains in that regard are not worth the hassle in other areas.
A system of S+D6 vs T, can be edited to give the same results and without negative numbers or any other complexities. Also I think it's more intuitive.

@Sydney
Oh, and don't forget damage at tables (though I will allow those as making sense). Maybe a way to bring AP into vehicles is to make the damage table quite large and use AP+D6 to get a result on it. This can be explained as how strength will get through the armor, AP is how far in it travels and so how much damage.
Hell, the logic could be flipped with an AP test against Armor and a S+D6 roll to see what damage you managed to do.
This is just another thing about warhammer 40k. Who was the genius who decided that a weapons Armor Pen stat should have no effect on it's ability to Pen Armor?

@Dragon-Cultist.
Erm no I do not think you understand what I am saying...I will let friendly Mekboy Gubbibz, have a go...

ALL Gitz are made up of 2 bits.

'Ard bits what stop wepunz 'urtin' the 'Squishy bits.'

And the Squishy bits you have to mash up good an propa' to stop the Gitz from 'ittin you!

Wepuns are different in how they get past the 'Ard bits, and how good they are at mashin ' up the Squishy bits.

The Ard bits are massively different,from piddly little bits of plate the boys hang on their chests, to the front of my best battle Wagon.

Squsihy Gitz grow or wear little bits of Ard bits(personel armour, chitin skin), OR climb in big boxes made up of Ard bits.(Vehicles)

BUT the squishy bits are pretty similar when it come comes down to mashing them up! So wepuns are rated on my squshy bit mashing chart...
1+ uber mashy.
2+ super mashy
3+ very mashy
4.+ quite mashy
5+ meh at mashing
6+ puny masher.(Can only 'urt grotz, 'umies and skinnies!)

But some Squishy Gitz need more mashin up than others.
Orks are harder to mash up than umies and skinnies.( So opponents need to roll 1 higher to wound an ork .)
Our Wundeful Warlord is not very squishy at all (So opponents need to roll 2 higher to wound the Warboss.)

Thanks Gubbinz...

The current strength value used in 40k is no longer used.
It has 2 current uses in the current game .To determine the chance of penetrating armour of vehicles.And the chance of wounding models with a Toughness value.

If we are using a single damage resolution we can not use the same value for 2 separate resolution methods!

So the old strength value now is replaced by AP and Damage value.

How good the weapon is at penetrating the armour is listed under the AP value.
(For small arms this is just the strength value +2 as a starting point.This gives similar results to the current save rolls for infantry -small arms)

We will have to adjust the AP values of anti tank weapon to give similar chances to defeat the armour of higher amoured vehicles.
Eg a Las Cannon has an AP of 16.This means an AV of 14 fails the save on the roll of a 1or 2 .
(Which is the same odds as a S 9 weapon beating AV 14 armour and rolling on the vehicle damage chart in the current rules.)

Eg a bolt gun has a current S value of 4, so has an AP of 6.
When it hits an ork ,(AV 1) the ork needs a 6+ to make its armour save roll.

A las cannon (AP 16) hitting a vehicles front armour AV 13, the vehicle needs to roll 4+ to save (13 +4 =17 which is higher than the weapon AP of 16.)

Now the target behind the armour, the Squshy bitz as Gubbinz calls them.is not that different in comparative composition.
So weapons tend to cause damage in a predicable way.

The Eldar vehicles internal structure and crew may not be as robust/resilient to damage as the Ork Gun Waggon.
So the Eldar units do not modify any weapon Damage values.

The Ork vehicles could be so rough and ready , penetrating weapon hits may be more likely to miss anything important!
So the Ork vehicle could get a Resilience value of 1 or 2?
This makes the ork vehicle crew and internal systems harder to damage.

All values are subject to change during play testing.
The proposed rules cover all unit types, in a similar way.

Lanrak, are you swapping the functions of AP and Strength now? I think Gubbins, while charming, has made me even more confused -- I mean, got me fuddled in me 'ead.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
The shooting phase is gone. There is just movement and assault. Each unit can shoot any time it wants, but only one time per game turn. There can be a glorious, bloody firefight when the game begins.....If unit A charges unit B and gets into base to base contact, unit B still may fire if eligible before the assault is resolved. This represents shooting as the assaulting unit approaches....When all assault is resolved, player 2 begins his turn. The process is the same. Beginning in game turn 2, markers can be removed. 1A markers are removed in turn part 1A, 1B markers removed in turn part 1B, etc.....

I rather like this. Letting both players alpha strike each other could end games in one round of shooting if both players have long-range shooty armies and don't bother with proper covering terrain, but that's better than a shooty army that goes first having a crushing advantage. The only other tricky bit I see is having two kinds of "I already fired" counters that get removed at different times.

I like moving to d10 which seems popular as well as reducing hit/wound/save to just hit wound.
My way of doing it is to have stats be on a scale of 1-10. I guess it could go higher with Apocalypse units, but I hate those and don't care.

To hit you need a 10. You get to add your ballistic skill (normal value is 4) to the d10 to hit. Guardsman bs4 rolls a d10 and gets a 6 so he scores a 10 and hits. (I am playing with bonuses on the next roll for exceeding 10 to represent a mpre deadly well aimed shot, but that can get a bit clunky.) Obscurement lowers your to hit score so if target is in tall grass for example subtract 1 from the result.

Causing damage is a bit more complex. Here there are two scores that go into a combined defensive value (CDV), toughness and armor, and two that go into a combined offensive value (COV), strength and AP. You damage if you get a 10. Formula is D10+4+(COV-CDV). A roll of 1 always fails.

Typical infantry with light armor have a 4 armor value and a 4 toughness for a CDV of 8. A typical light anti infantry weapon has a strength of 4 and AP 4 for a COV of 8. Since COV and CDV are the same, you wound on a 6 or 50% of the time.

A Landraider would have armor 10 and toughness 10 for a CDV of 20. A Rail gun would counter with a 10 strength and 10 AP for a CDV of 20. You can't get a penetrating hit unless AP is equal to or greater than armor value.

If AP is equal to or greater than armor, then only strength and toughness are compared. Example: plasma gun with S7Ap7 against marine with T5AV5. Instead of 14-10=4 bonus on dice roll, it is 7-5=2 bonus on dice roll.

The only other tricky bit I see is having two kinds of "I already fired" counters that get removed at different times.

Are you talking about the rapid fire idea? That would definately need to be fleshed out more in its own separate rule.

Hi Sister Sydney.
There is no strength[/i] equivalent in the new rules.Maybe that is why i am confusing people .they are looking for a thing that is no longer there!

In the new rules I am working on I just use the Net effect of the weapon and the user , on the stat line /weapon profile.

So in the New damage resolution there is just;-
1) Attackers Roll to Hit.
Just roll over the new (modified,) Stealth or Assault value of the target.[i][u]

Is everyone ok with this idea?

2)]Defenders Roll to save.
Weapon Armour Penetration vs model Armour value.(To arrive at the 'save roll', which covers all the variable in the resolution.)
AV +D6 vs AP.

I think we all agree this is ok?

As old Strength is used to determine if weapons beat Old AV.(For vehicles.)Then using Old strength along with Old AP value to generate a GUIDE starting point for new weapon AP values.
(This covers the 'power to get through the armour' part of the Old strength and old AP function.)


So we now have ONE scale to measure how ALL weapons get through armour , AP, from 5 to 20.And one scale to measure how well protected ALL the model are .(AV 1 to 15.)

Which lest us have one resolution method for all weapons and units.(Which reduces the complication of the old rules quite a bit.)

3) Attackers Damage roll.
This used to be 'look up score needed to wound on a the Old Strength vs Toughness chart.'

Rather than waste time with a chart.The new rules simply list the basic chance the weapon will cause damage on the weapon profile.(The score needed to damage Old T3.)
2+,3+,4+,5+,6+.
(This replaces the Old damage result function of Old Strength.)

Because we are not using a chart to modify this value , the Replacement for toughness, is a Resilience modifer, which adds to the target score.(making the defending model harder to damage.)

A quick summary of motive.
Current 40k rules list values seperately for weapons and models. These modify each other during the game to arrive at a (sometimes long winded) result.

I would prefer to simply list the net effect of the weapon and model combination on the stat line and weapon profile.(On a unit card.)

Is this any clearer?

So rather than having a strength value. you got rid of that completely and came up with a special number of each weapon which represents how well it hurts people which compares to a stat the defenders have which is how resilient they are? Sounds like weapon strength and unit toughness to me.

You even say how you just took the values from the current chart. I have said it twice and I will say it again. your value for weapon damage is just 7-S.:
e.g.
bolter, S = 4, needs a 3+ to wound against a T = 3 unit. 7 - 4 = 3. Against a T = 4 unit the chart says 4+ 4-3 = 1, 3+1 = 4+. which is what the chart says. You system copies the chart (laudable) but with a smaller range (and more complex).

How about we don't use a system that uses a chart (like we do now) or use a system that limits every weapon in 40k, from the biggest tank gun to the smallest grot pistol, to only 5 different values? How about a system where a higher strength is better? How about a system which doesn't require every S value to be rewritten and which can bring every current toughness value in line by adding 3?
How about S+D6 > T to wound.

I pointed out above that the problem with warhammer is that almost every roll uses a different system, you are simply adding another (more complex) one to the mix. There is no reason to do it like this.
I think the fact that you have spent 5 post trying to explain your method with almost not suggested benefits mentioned, speaks for its self as to how well it works.

tl;dr your system has a tiny range of weapon strength and unit toughness values, is completely new for no reason, is quite complex, needs both T and S to be recalculated and is counter intuitive.

tl;dr2 the chart system is better than what you suggested and S+D6>T is better than both imho.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi Sister Sydney.
There is no strength[/i] equivalent in the new rules.Maybe that is why i am confusing people .they are looking for a thing that is no longer there!

In the new rules I am working on I just use the Net effect of the weapon and the user , on the stat line /weapon profile.

So in the New damage resolution there is just;-
1) Attackers Roll to Hit.
Just roll over the new (modified,) Stealth or Assault value of the target.[i][u]

Is everyone ok with this idea?

2)]Defenders Roll to save.
Weapon Armour Penetration vs model Armour value.(To arrive at the 'save roll', which covers all the variable in the resolution.)
AV +D6 vs AP.

I think we all agree this is ok?

As old Strength is used to determine if weapons beat Old AV.(For vehicles.)Then using Old strength along with Old AP value to generate a GUIDE starting point for new weapon AP values.
(This covers the 'power to get through the armour' part of the Old strength and old AP function.)


So we now have ONE scale to measure how ALL weapons get through armour , AP, from 5 to 20.And one scale to measure how well protected ALL the model are .(AV 1 to 15.)

Which lest us have one resolution method for all weapons and units.(Which reduces the complication of the old rules quite a bit.)

3) Attackers Damage roll.
This used to be 'look up score needed to wound on a the Old Strength vs Toughness chart.'

Rather than waste time with a chart.The new rules simply list the basic chance the weapon will cause damage on the weapon profile.(The score needed to damage Old T3.)
2+,3+,4+,5+,6+.
(This replaces the Old damage result function of Old Strength.)

Because we are not using a chart to modify this value , the Replacement for toughness, is a Resilience modifer, which adds to the target score.(making the defending model harder to damage.)

A quick summary of motive.
Current 40k rules list values seperately for weapons and models. These modify each other during the game to arrive at a (sometimes long winded) result.

I would prefer to simply list the net effect of the weapon and model combination on the stat line and weapon profile.(On a unit card.)

Is this any clearer?

So you are chopping us down to two-roll combat resolution now?

Actually Lanrak has just made it so that the armor save roll happens before the wound roll. It is a bit confusing because he also includes vehicles. At the core I agree with the idea of AV +D6 vs AP. I am not too sure about the idea of making the new AP a combination of current AP and S stats as I see no reason to dump S like he suggests in the to wound roll. I think we can keep the S stat as it is and simple make AP a 0-10 stat based of our current AP values. As for vehicles, here I feel some sort of combined stat is needed (e.g S+AP+D6 vs AV). While combining S and AP may seem nice, it make things more confusing for the to wound roll. I feel we should leave these things separate (like they currently are)

Here how I would do it:
note: when I say ">" i mean must roll strictly higher than

Roll To Hit - shooting
BS+D6 > Evasion
I am all for the idea of a unit having a stat representing how easy it is to hit but I don't think the skill of the shooter can be ignored. Unlike something like flames of war where the range of shooting skill is small, in the 41st millennium there is just to much variety in both shooters skill (Ork to Vindicare Assassin) and evasion (slow and big Carnifex to small and nimble genestealer) for either to be ignored.

Roll To Hit - CC
WS+D6 > WS+3
Yes, yes, the adding of 3 is weird but this just means that equal WS has a 50% chance of hitting (like currently). It is a bit messy but I makes the roll the same as shooting and means you dont have to change the WS stat to make it work. Can be explained as a defensive bonus

Roll To Wound
S+D6 > T
I see no reason to mix up the order of rolls and I see no reason to change S. This also make it the same type of roll as to hit. It is simple and based of armor pen rolls. All current weapon S values can stay the same and everyone's T value has to be increased by 3 to bring current stats in line.

Roll To Pen (version 1)
S+AP+D6 > AV for pen, = to for glance
I haven't given this one as much though but it should work. Personally I approve of this "glance just removes a hull point" idea as it make vehicles more reliable while leaving them vulnerable. This system is a bit more complex with a total of 3 stats used but I don't think it's too bad.

Roll To Pen (version 2)
AP+D6 > AV to pen, = to glance.
Vehicle damage is rolled on a table where the hit's S is used as a modifier so high S weapons do more damage. I like this because it means only two stats are used in the roll for Pen (like to hit and to wound) and you can kind of see high S low AP weapons as more likely to glance off but when they do pen they do more damage (or something like that).

Roll To Save
AV+D6 > AP
Again, the same type of roll as to hit and to wound (starting to see a theme?). The values for these stats would need to be completely recalculated as now AP (0-10) is much more powerful as any AP helps (rather than, is useless unless low enough). I think AV will need to be quite large in general.


Now you will have noticed that I use the same type of roll for every roll (much easier to understand) and many of the current stats wont need to be changed. No charts are needed and your unit having a higher number for a stat is always better. The numbers can be increased as much as you like (with out going negative or being held back by a chart), so very high S weapons (currently strength D for example) can be brought into the current system.

I hope this shows why I think this system is da best!

@ AnomanderRake.
I still use a 3 step process , but it occurs in a more intuitive way.

Roll to hit, if the weapon misses take no further action

Roll for armour save, if the armour saves the model from harm, take no further action.

Roll to damage.

I think 3 stage resolution in 40k is important for several reasons as previously discussed.

I was working on was to make the rules less complicated.So a unified damage resolution was part of that.

@Dragon_Cultist.
Using the same resolution method for all elements of the damage resolution , (Stat +D6 vs Opposed Stat.)when stat line values can be used directly for some elements.Is needless over complication.

You proposed methods would work fine, but I am trying to get maximum game play from the minimum of fuss.This is the ONLY reason I think my proposed method is better.

I understand that 40k players are 'programmed' to think complicated rules are good.But 'old gits' like me prefer straight forward rule and complex game play.

And the only reason to keep WHFB statlines and resolution methods in 40k , is to allow cross over from a more popular and larger player base of WHFB.(This situation has not been the case for about a decade!)

Making 40k backward compatible to WHFB, (1970s Napoleonic rules.) Is the core reason for 40k rules being over complicated and diffuse.

Removing the need to be backward compatible to WHFB, allows a rule set to be written specifically for 40k.

So the game play is arrived at by the shortest route.

By the way as I am using the stat line to show the combined weapon +attacker values.(On the unit cards.)

The Effective range can show the differences between BS.(The better at shooting the user, the longer the effective range.)
The number of attacks can show how good the weapon+attacker is at hitting the enemy.in close combat.(Assault value shows how good they are at defending themselves.)

All attacker + weapons have their ability to penetrate armour, and cause damage in just 2 separate and clearly defined values.

This allows some weapons to be good at penetrating armour , but not so good at causing Damage (Wounds.)
And other weapons to be poor at penetrating armour , but devastating when they do.

There is no fixed formula for this.I am just using current values as a reference for a starting point.(Final value will be arrived at by play testing.)

It may not be apparent how over complicated the current 40k rules are.

Imagine the rules are direction to your LFGS.
Most rules get there in less than an hour , with a short car ride, that leaves you out side the door of the FLGS.
.

40k takes you past the game store to the airport, gives you a 12 hour round trip of planes,trains and busses!And still leaves you at the wrong end of the street!

Your rules proposals are loads better than this! (But it still still is not as direct as it could be.)

PS.
On the stat line values are listed as numbers where the higher number is better.
AV 14 is better than AV 7.AP 12 is better than AP 7

But the base dice score needed to succeed is listed a X+,
Everyone knows a 2+ roll requirement on a D6 succeeds more than a 5+.

I thought this was quite intuitive?

Boil down to the essence of the game, and cut out most of the time taken.

Each player now just takes a sheet of paper to the game, with one of these three written on it:

Air
Superheavy Walker
Defence Line

Air beats Superheavy Walker, which beats Defence Line which beats Air.

After both players reveal, resolve using the above. If they are the same, the game is a draw.

@Dabba.
Boil down the essence of the INTENDED game play of 40k , you get an interesting and diverse modern battle game with a inspiring fictional veneer on the top.(IMO.)

Boil down the rules GW plc are writing for 40k you get Rock paper Scissors.

@Lanrak
You say that a "stat"+D6 > "other stat" Is complex? or that using the same method for every roll is too hard?
Your methods also include taking a stat from the opponent but rather than rolling against it (which makes sense). You say stat line values are easier but you still have to apply a modifier so ultimately it is just as complex.

You also say that it is important to use three roll systems an the like to keep the variety of options high (i agree) but you then cut down the range of weapon strengths to 5. Also how does how many attack someone does have a bearing on how good they are in CC. A grot will have 1 attack, but then so does a SM. So would you give better units more attacks? Again you have reduced the number of viable numbers to only a handful because I gets ridiculous after bout 5 attacks each. The idea of making the BS built into the weapon is also ridiculous. This isn't flames of war, the combatants aren't defined by their rifle type. I agree that in real war, how effective you are at range is heavily based on your weapon, but not in warhammer. The range of skill shown by the users is too large to ignore. Also, what happens when two units in the army have the same weapon (say SM vs Scout with bolters). Would you make a special version for the different units, or maybe include a modifier on the unit? In which case, just us BS. In warhammer BS matters more than evasion. Again I agree, in real war you survival is heavily based on how well you use cove, but thats no warhammer. Also, tell me what is simpler, fireing a squad with mixed weapons with all the same rolls, or having to look up each weapon individually?

Honestly I feel much of the complexity in warhammer comes from having lots of different types of dice rolls (which you dont fix) and from constantly needing to check the rule book (see Universal special rules and roll charts). I am trying to fix the rolls.

So far the only criticism I have gotten from you is saying that having the same type of roll for all systems is too complex (?). you say you want minimum fuss but no one gets your rules.
You remove many of the stats currently in use and bring in new ones, you cut down on the range of values which can be used (which is already too short).
You are hard coding the weapons in with the stats of the unit which means its harder because you have to look up the stats on your unit for every guy with a different weapon. This also stops weapon stats being shared between different units (do you have any idea how many different units can get/have heavy bolters in warhammer?)
You set the skill of the attacker to the number of attacks despite the fact that they aren't linked (big, heavy hitting CC vs fast blockable CC)
You idea of unit cards is cool (warmachine) but not really practical in warhammer where units can have many different options and you can have more than 5 units a side.

How are you minimizing fuss? As far as I can tell half your rules don't change the level of complexity, they just move it laterally to imitate other games which have different focuses. You yourself pointed out how warhammer is a unique game using large minis but also large armies. The level of abstraction in FoW don't work here. But then the level of detail and the ways units interact in Warmahoards doesn't work either. The current rules are messy and I feel a simple, one type of roll, system is the easiest to explain. Hell, you do realize that my system for wounds is almost exactly the same as yours right:

You use the column of the chart referring to T3. You realized that rather than a full chart you can simple edit the value based on toughness (makes sense). Here is how you get from your formula to mine:
D = damage (the values you got from the chart)
R = resistance
yours: D6 >= D + R This makes a x+ value
From the chart we see D = 7-S
so D6 >= (7-S) + R
You set R as the modifier with R = 0 as T = 3
so R = T-3
so D6 >= (7-S) + (T-3)
so D6 >= -S + 7 + T - 3
so D6 >= T - S + 4
Add S to both sides:
S + D6 >= T+4
And because this is only with whole numbers be can remove the equals by subtracting 1.
S + D6 > T + 3
Which is my equation. The main difference is that my S can go higher than 6 and it is the same type of roll. I think the x+ system is too restrictive as you only get 5 values (6+,5+,4+,3+,2+). Yes we could turn all of my equations in to a x+ system but then half the stats will look strange.

tl;dr Come up with a reason why my system is worse than yours. As far as I can tell you reduce range of values and make the maths more complex and irregular. Combining stats isn't always more streamlined but it does reduce variation.

It is a small thing but rolling to hit then armor save then wound doesn't flow as smoothly as hit, wound, save. With hit, save, wound you have to count the number of hits, defender counts out that many dice and rolls, then count failed save, then attacker counts that many dice and rolls. Roll pick up hits, roll to wound, count and roll saves is a much more streamlined process. Doesn't make as much sense considering how a wound would actually happen, but works better on the tabletop.

@Gwailhirsbrither.
I disagree.Both flow as smoothly, its just which one is more intuitive for the flow of the game.

Attacker rolls hit dice.(They make the attack first obviously!)

Defender rolls their armour saves.(The weapon projectile hits the armour BEFORE it hits the softer squishy target behind the armour.)
Defender picks up successful hits and rolls armour saves!

Attacker rolls to damage ,(the soft squishy target behind the armour.)
Attacker picks up failed save dice and rolls to damage wound.

The only reason 40k lets the attacker roll saves last is the same reason WHFB does this.
The army level alternating game turn.
The attacker (the player whos turn it is,) does everything in one go.And not to disrupt the attackers 'flow' defender just rolls saves at the end.

If we a re using a more interactive game turn.(I assume we will be.)The having the defender alternate rolls with the attacker fits better .

@Dragon_Cultist.
The least complicated rules simply list stats directly on the stat line.

The maximum distance of movement /shooting in inches/mm
The number of dice rolled.
The score needed to succeed.

Most games allow these basic values to be modified , to add depth and detail to the game.
(KoW for example.)

The only reason to move away from this SIMPLEST form of resolution is if the interaction NEEDS to deal with more than 2 elements.
(Base chance of success+modifiers.)

In 40k the ONLY resolution that needs to consider more than 2 elements is weapon and armour interaction.
(Base armour value+ armour variables,base weapon AP+ weapon hit variables.)

I hope this makes my POV clearer.I did not intend to cause offence.

Firstly, on the idea of saves before wounds. Having the rules force you to roll the other persons dice can be a point of contention, also it hardly makes any benefit other than a change for changes sake.

Secondly, are you saying that the only roll that needs both players stats is armor? Because this is wrong, WS, wounding and if evasion is included then that too. I understand that having the X+ system as a stat may seem to make things easier, but I feel that its reduced range of values in both the stat and the one it is compared to is not worth it. You cant ignore the fact that a more accurate shooter will hit more, no matter the weapon. You cant ignore that a more skill swordsman is more likely to be able to hit and block. You cant ignore that a tougher unit is more likely to survive. The idea of a simple x+ roll for everything seems nice, but is sacrifices the depth that the Warhammer universe needs.

Think, by your system weapon to wound values (lets just call it strength for simplicity) can only be 6+, 5+, 4+, 3+, 2+. If you bring the Idea of modifiers then they can only be (-5 to 4). Not only are both these ranges of values smaller but if you model resistance 0 as a human than means everything tougher (damn near everything, from SM to Carnifex and greater deamons) has to be fit in 1 to 3, rather than, say 4-10. This is too smaller a range. Your system would work for units that are closer in stats but that isn't warhammer.
You can say that you can go outside the range of strengths and use something like 1+, (-2+) or 7+ or stronger or weaker weapons but the idea having to roll over a number that is outside you dices' bounds is not simpler.

That is why I think an X+ system with modifiers will not work. I have always though the Sv system is one of the weakest in warhammer. Not only does it force all armor into 5 categories, it also has an illogical non-linear system with AP. I feel that modeling the rest of the stats around this is not a good idea.

Either way with you stats you have to add the modifiers, why don't you like my system which just adds the dice roll to one stat and compares it to another stat. Both use a single basic mathematical operation and a comparison. Remember, the simplicity of just rolling over what it says on the unit stats will be lost the moment you bring in modifiers (which you NEED. You just can work without considering the opponent in you rolls).

I understand you system, I really do, I just feel that it sacrifices range for an attempt at simplicity. My method is also entirely covered in the units stats. All my rolls act the same so there are no exceptions that need to be remembered. Remember that our methods can be converted into each-other's with maths. I am not bringing anything new to the table. You don't need to find anything from the rule book, it's all there, just like yours, but with more range.

Hell, why go for having the X+ on the attackers stat, that makes lower good which automatically installs a ceiling of 0 for you max value (assuming you don't want the hassle of negative numbers). A ceiling is NEVER a good idea in warhammer. There is always something faster, harder, stronger, etc. If you move the x+ to the defender and add the modifier to you dice roll then it becomes "my stat" + D6 against x+ for your stat. Oh wait, that's my system, never mind.

In closing, you speak about how other systems allow these stats to be modified sometimes to add depth. The thing is that warhammer 40k is too broad for a couple of modifiers. Literally nothing is constant. Not the species of the combatants, not the strength of gravity on the battle field, not the chemical makeup of the attmosphere, not the armour they wear, not the type of projectile they fire or the material that makes their blades. Every thing can change in warhammer. This is why the warhammer rules need a three roll system. this is why each unit has so many stats, this is why most of the rolls compare stats. Because a units effectiveness is so heavily dependent on who he is facing.
you can't scrap that. Now things like getting rid of charts is fine, but reducing ranges and comparisons in the name of simplicity is not possible. I want you to consider how you would model a Titan cannon firing at a ork or a genestealer attacking a tau firewarrior. If your system can't handle these in a logical manner then it doesn't work.

As a rolling convention rolling the same number of your own personal dice as successful opponents dice results.
OR just picking up the successful rolls and rolling then as your turn , from common or shared dice with the game box set.
Is just personal choice.

I just posted the rolling convention our club uses(out of habit.).
I do not intend to force anyone to play with other peoples dice if they do not want to!(they may not roll as well as your own lucky dice!)

If we look at 6th ed 40k.
The game currently uses multiple resolution methods, (and lots of special rules) for weapon and armour interaction.
The 2+ to 6+ range of saves modified by AP values.AND extra invunerable saves, AND special rules, AND vehicle Armour Vales And Weapon Strength.

All the other resolution is just covered by one value and simple modifiers.
To hit in close combat attackers WS(base value ) and modified by the opponents WS.(In a chart that only give 3+,4+ and 5+.)

To hit with ranged weapon is just based on the player skill, without modifiers.(Unless you include cover saves?)

To wound is just Attacker S modified by Defenders T(In a chart that gives 2+,3+4+5+6+ no effect results.)

If we want to use a single damage resolution system to cover all units.
So all units follow the procedure of ;-
Roll to hit,
Roll to save,
Roll to damage(wound.)
(Unless the armour sucks out the bullets and repairs the wound and its self afterwards, as it appears to do in current 40k rules. )

Only the 'rolling to save' has to convert several resolution methods ,in to one unified system.And the level of current complication needs to have a slightly more complicated resolution.
Base stat opposed stat and dice roll to represent all the modifiers.

The roll to hit and roll to damage can keep the simple base stat and a modifier resolution IMO.

Unless you want to include much wider ranges of interaction , for the to hit roll and to wound rolls?
Would you extend this 'universal resolution' to cover movement rates, Move +D6 vs terrain value, and effective weapon range, Range +D6 vs interveening elements.

if you want a much higher level of diversity in all resolution methods in a new game , then I can see your point.

But as other games deliver great game play with simple use of direct stats and a few limited modifiers.I would prefer to use this as a 'default' in game development.
And only move away from it when completely necessary.

And the only area that requires this in 40k game play is the weapon and armour interaction.IMO.

I believe in KISS, and only move to using a larger dice, and more complicated resolution methods IF you need to.

Terrain could be divided into two characteristics: obscurement and deflection. Obscurement would change the roll needed to hit. If a marine is trying to hit a target in tall grass (obscurement 1) he hits on a 4+ instead of a 3+.

Deflection would modify the target's armor. Armor saves would need to be modified for this to work. Basically right now you are trying to get to 7. 4+3(the minimum d6 roll that saves)=7. So 3+ armor saves become 4s. AP3 becomes 4 as well. Have AP interact with armor by reducing it. A marine (armor 4) behind a brick wall (armor 2) has a combined armor value of 6. An AP5 weapon hits him reducing his armor to 1. If he rolls a 6 he saves (1+6=7). Seven is needed to save.

Rolls of six to hit could ignore cover's deflection score to represent an accurate head shot that misses the cover entirely. They could also hit a fully obscured target (laying down in thick grass for example) to represent a lucky shot.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Terrain could be divided into two characteristics: obscurement and deflection. Obscurement would change the roll needed to hit. If a marine is trying to hit a target in tall grass (obscurement 1) he hits on a 4+ instead of a 3+.

Deflection would modify the target's armor. Armor saves would need to be modified for this to work. Basically right now you are trying to get to 7. 4+3(the minimum d6 roll that saves)=7. So 3+ armor saves become 4s. AP3 becomes 4 as well. Have AP interact with armor by reducing it. A marine (armor 4) behind a brick wall (armor 2) has a combined armor value of 6. An AP5 weapon hits him reducing his armor to 1. If he rolls a 6 he saves (1+6=7). Seven is needed to save.

Rolls of six to hit could ignore cover's deflection score to represent an accurate head shot that misses the cover entirely. They could also hit a fully obscured target (laying down in thick grass for example) to represent a lucky shot.

This is an unnecessary level of detail for the abstraction; I had terrain modify only the roll to hit, seeing as modifying the armour save from terrain would come from terrain being in the way of the shot and if you're hitting the terrain you're not hitting the person hiding behind it.

Bullets travel right through trees. Projectiles with strong piercing power can punch through steel. You aren't completely safe just because you are standing behind something solid.

No extra rolls are needed with this idea. There does need to be a bit off extra thought before rolling though.

Make elite units (including space marine tactical squads) actually elite. Maybe include a rule that gives units +1 shots and pinning when they come into the LoS of a unit for the first time - to stop a squad going in guns blazing and killing one guardsman. On the flipside of this, make expendable units like cultists be useful (e.g. include worship mechanics like in dawn of war to help boost the power of marine squads and demons).

Random ideas without structure below:
- Guardsmen can choose to have heavy 2 lasguns in cover
- Make fearless units fire overwatch at a higher ballistic skill to represent the fact that they have better clarity in battle.
- Make some units have the ability to gain feel no pain or relentless at the cost of having to roll leadership tests in order to move, shoot or assault with them until the end of the turn (maybe call it Zeal?)

On the topic of cover.
If we can all agree that things that make units harder to see , long grass etc, but are not substantial, can be called 'light cover.'

And this is best served by making the target harder to hit, eg add one to the target score to hit. (A 3+ to hit becomes a 4+ to hit.)

If the cover is substantial enough to deflect or stop weapon hits.it could be called hard cover.
This makes it harder to hit the target behind the 'hard cover'.
So simply increasing the effect of cover to add 2 to the target score to hit .(A 3+ to hit becomes a 5+ to hit.)
This is simple way to represent hard cover.

This is the most effective way to implement the effects of cover, with straightforward rules .(Most games use it.)

It is the method I prefer.

@SilentScreamer.
The reason the 'best of the best' , are not that much better than the 'average' is down to the restrictive way GW plc write rules for 40k.
Eg
The chance of hitting some one of equal skill in melee is 4+.The chance of hitting some one that is over twice as good as you is only 1 better 5+.

All the posts that ask for units to be 'more different' ,are basically saying WHFB core rules do not serve the expected game play of 40k that well.
They are expressing concerns about symptoms , of a very significant problem .

And 40k really needs a new rule set written for the current game play, not ' variations of WHFB in space version 3.x'

This is the part that annoys me the most as a single system for all rolls would be easier to understand. . .
Finally armor is the most awkward and I don't know how to fix it. The stats for ap and sv will need to be completely rewritten.

Having tried 3 times to denounce this idea and write this post, i've kept coming back to it because i like too many parts of it to put it aside, so here we go.

I've given the idea of applying my overall resolution chart to AP and Armor some work this past week, and just kept running into problems with it. Note that i say "Chart", but that really is just how i visually interpret the rules of the resolution system, the chart is only there for convenience referencing.
--A = Attacker
--D = Defender
A = D + 3 or 4 :2+
A = D + 1 or 2 :3+
A = D :4+
A = D - 1 or 2 :5+
A = D - 3 or 4 :6+

The Good
--AP and Armor are both single stats without additional stats to modify them, which is nice and simple

--Vehicles don't require additional rules, and can be directly compared to infantry stats. It's interesting to see something like "Terminator armor is just below main battle tank level armor" expressed directly in the rules.

--We can give vehicles an armor save under these rules, that interacts appropriately with AP. More player involvement in their own models is always better.

--Would fit very nicely into a costing equation, whereas the current method is a nightmare to work in.

--Helps promote further diversity in stats

The Bad
--Actually using the chart to resolve this is awkward as you are "Attacking" the enemy's AP with your armor. Not a huge problem, but awkward.

--Filling up the new slots is very difficult. I need 12 AP and Armor stats, which is a lot, even if you bring vehicle AV into the system.

--Despite there being too many open slots, there's still not enough empty slots to ensure every armor class interacts with every AP correctly.

--AP values are very unintuitive. AP "0" is AP3 under these rules, and it's not only frustrating to not be able to use AP 1 and 2, but also odd to think about weapons with no penetrating power having penetrating power.

--It's slightly more involved to think "How much does this AP influence my armor" as compared to "is this one of the AP's that affect my armor", this is a problem with any system of non-binary saves, but it's especially prevalent here, since they can not only get worse but get better.

--You need to make all sorts of exceptions to make sure Heavy Infantry don't work too much like vehicles, because otherwise terminators are essentially immune to several basic infantry weapons.

--Heavy infantry seem too vulnerable to some lower AP's (AP4 and 3) and not vulnerable enough to AP2 and 1.
-------------------------------
Do i think this system will work? No, there are just too many problems for this system to account for, at least without completely departing from what current 40K plays like. That being said, there are some solid goals here that i'd like to work towards, namely;
--1 stat for "Armor"
--Infantry and Vehicle Armor on the same scale.
--Higher Diversity of AP and Armor Stats
--Higher AP and "Armor" values meaning higher quality

I'm all but certain that AP and Armor are going to need their own resolution methods that differ from how we treat the other stats, because as irksome as it is to have something sticking out, this is one area where getting it right is really a make or break moment.

@ Rav1n.
''there are some solid goals here that i'd like to work towards, namely;
--1 stat for "Armor"
--Infantry and Vehicle Armor on the same scale.
--Higher Diversity of AP and Armor Stats
--Higher AP and "Armor" values meaning higher quality .

I totally agree with these principals.
The simplest way to achieve these results I can think of is, assigning a range of values to Armour eg 1 to 15 .

And these are used as the modifier to the armour save roll.
So values of 2 to 21 represent the possible save roll results from all possible armour save rolls on a D6 .Range of 19 result values to cover 'flack vest' to 'super heavy armour' saves.

If we assign a value to all weapon armour penetration values ,to give appropriate levels of saves from the armour values.
AP-AV= dice save roll score required.

This leaves the Dice roll to represent ALL variables in the resolution , and AP and AV values can be listed directly .

This is not the only way it can be achieved, but it is the simplest way I can think of doing it.

The main issue I see with ditching the AV system in favor of making vehicles have T values, saves, and wounds is that it changes a lot of assumptions that go into the pricing of weapons.

Weapons like Railguns, Lascannons, and Meltas which rely on a few good shots to kill are now ineffectual against vehicles without being spammed. Plasma and especially Grav weapons become grotesquely good vehicle killers because they have a good enough strength to hurt most proposed toughness values for vehicles, have the AP to push past armor saves, and have the weight of fire to rapidly shave off wounds.

We did try giving vehicles toughness values, and it ended with White Scars grav bikers (and to a lesser extent Dark Angels plasma bikers) effectively rendering vehicles obsolete because they could delete any vehicle in the game the moment they got into firing range with trivial ease. Rhino? Poof. Leman Russ? Poof. Baneblade? Poof.

It also made haywire more or less useless as haywire weapons are all designed under the assumptions that their special rule is going to be doing all the damage (naff strength and ap). It also seriously entropic strike units like scarabs as now the best they can do is strip armor saves instead of outright eating the vehicle all by themselves.

Distort weapons became imbalancing, gauss had to become bladestorm to remain relevant, monstrous creatures that relied on a few really hard hits to crack open vehicles (carnifexes and wraithlords) became much less useful, and the DEldar dominated game after game.

I'd much rather have vehicles remain different, but work to make them more level with monstrous creatures. So we went back to our old homebrew system which worked better.

Interesting results -- always good when people actually play test things! How exactly did you assign vehicle toughness values? Did vehicles also have armour or some other kind of save?

@Kain.
Any re write/significant change would require re costing of all units.
And lets face the current PV and F.O.C are not that good anyway.

Why would weapons like Rail guns , Lascannon and Meltas become ineffectual?
With new values we would simply assign AP , Damage and Attacks with Special abilities, to allow a wide range of weapon function and tactics.

The weapons profiles changed dramatically from 2nd ed to 3rd ed.(When they dropped dice resolution on damage values and penetration values.)
Why are we not allowed to alter new values to get the game play we think is right?

If you give vehicles actual saves and toughness values to fit the current system for infantry M/C.
You would still need saves AND 'invunerable' saves.(And probably all the extra USRs that give extra save rolls, like FNP and WBB etc.)

Which is why I prefer to use the AV+D6 vs AP.

One system to cover all weapons and armour interaction.Which follws my favorite principal of K.I.S.S.