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.

 SisterSydney wrote:
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?

Take the average of all three facings, divide by two and add one (or three for SHVs) as toughness to a maximum of ten, HP is a straight equivalence to wounds.

AV (for the front) 10=4+
AV 11=4+ reroll on ones
AV 12=3+
AV 13=3+ reroll on ones
AV 14=2+
AV 14 on all sides=2+ rerollable.

Lascannons became useless because they couldn't get the weight of fire needed and neither could Meltas. It's the same reason why Lascannons and Meltas are horribly inefficient against monstrous creatures.

So what instead happened was Grav-Bikers annihilating any vehicle they got into shooting range of,

Genestealers could suddenly tear open any tank with ease, the Eldar could bladestorm away any and all vehicles, the Deffrolla became worthless due to not having an AP value, and more such shenanigans.

After a week or so of chaos; it was decided that the old system (AV values, but a bit more liberal in giving out saves to vehicles, balancing FMCs and GCs to FVs and SHVs and Walkers to Monstrous Creatures while keeping them distinct) was superior.

If I may lend a machete to the issue of lacking weight of fire all that's necessary is breaking the one shot-one wound rule. Stick Multiple Wounds on lascannons, that sort of thing. As to giving vehicles T/Sv instead of the current AV that's a change that absolutely can't be done in a vacuum; if you do just that, anything that's spammable and AP2 or Rending becomes even more ridiculous; you have to go back and work on the AP system.

I've been using the exact same statline for vehicles as for infantry with Multiple Wounds on many AT weapons, AP applied as a modifier to Sv instead of flat-out ignoring it at certain levels, 0+/1+ saves on most vehicles (auto-succeed if the other guy can't reduce them to 2+ or worse), and no Rending weapons as they exist in 40k today; I've only had one playtest that actually involved vehicles (Space Wolves versus Dark Angels), the Wolves' Dread went down turn three because the Dark Angels' one lascannon was pounding it the entire game and the Techpriest got killed by reaction fire the turn before so he couldn't patch it up.

Hi folks.
Just to say that the only way to let all models resolve damage in the same way.Would be to play test to arrive at completely new stat lines and PV etc.

We can use current values as a rough guide , for a starting point.

But the idea we can just make ANY significant change to the current 40k rules without significant alteration of stats and PV is underestimating the amount of over complication the current system uses.

Are we still agreed that a 3 stage resolution is the only one that can cover the diversity found in the 40k universe?

If we are then all we have to chose is how we determine the to hit, to save, to damage rolls.

Just remove cover saves entirely and make the save a to hit modifier. So if you are in a ruin with a -2 to hit a bs4 model would hit on a 6. In area terrain a -1 to hit so on a 5.

It makes no sense that you hit, wound and then save it because it hit the wall.

Also markerlights should just give you the ability to reduce to hit penalties as per the above.

@Shingen. I think we more or less agree unanimously that 'cover' as a 'to hit modifier' was the best option.

And a set value to succeed (on the stat line) that is modified by a few specific elements and events,(short list of modifiers.).
Is the simplest and most intuitive way to cover the majority of the game play.(80% +)

And is much more elegant and less complicated than listing a separate rule of exception for every possible specific element and event separately .

 Kain wrote:

 SisterSydney wrote:
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?

Take the average of all three facings, divide by two and add one (or three for SHVs) as toughness to a maximum of ten, HP is a straight equivalence to wounds.

AV (for the front) 10=4+
AV 11=4+ reroll on ones
AV 12=3+
AV 13=3+ reroll on ones
AV 14=2+
AV 14 on all sides=2+ rerollable.

Lascannons became useless because they couldn't get the weight of fire needed and neither could Meltas. It's the same reason why Lascannons and Meltas are horribly inefficient against monstrous creatures.

So what instead happened was Grav-Bikers annihilating any vehicle they got into shooting range of,

Genestealers could suddenly tear open any tank with ease, the Eldar could bladestorm away any and all vehicles, the Deffrolla became worthless due to not having an AP value, and more such shenanigans.

After a week or so of chaos; it was decided that the old system (AV values, but a bit more liberal in giving out saves to vehicles, balancing FMCs and GCs to FVs and SHVs and Walkers to Monstrous Creatures while keeping them distinct) was superior.

I see what you were trying to do there, but I'm also not surprised that giving vehicles both a save and toughness made them ridiculously hard to kill for anything that couldn't ignore the save.

I'd be tempted to convert AV straight to Toughness myself, give vehicles no armor save, and see what happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, clarification: new Toughness = old AV would only work if you junk the whole to-wound table and replace it with

IF strength + 1d6 > toughness + 1d6 (or toughness +3), THEN wound.

@Sister Sydney.
The problem is trying to stretch a system developed for 'primitive' weapons to cover the diversity of ability and technology in 40k.

Just using T values for vehicles makes them worse than M/Cs, which fill a similar role in game

(If you let any penetrating hit suppress the model,then if the hit fails to damage , it still has a useful effect
If you suppress a vehicle , it has to choose to stay still and return fire (and counts as moving.)or move .
And if you follow up with a smoke /blind to block the vehicles LOS.
You can effectively keep a vehicle out of the game without causing any damage to it at all.)

I think the problem is 40k has such convoluted rules if you try to re create them , you tie yourself up in knots.

So a complete break from the current rules , allows a clean break from the holistic complication.
And we can tweek the values in the new systems to arrive at results we are comfortable with.

I am sure you could get vehicles with armour saves and toughness to work.
But if other models get saves , inv saves and t values.
Wont it seem odd vehicles not getting the same?

I actually found that trying to recreate the rules from scratch I avoided getting tied up in knots with the simple expedient of looking at the setting and working out the most efficient way to simulate things that would happen in the setting (starting from Dawn of War was actually a great help) instead of trying to take the current (somewhat byzantine) rules and modifying them.

As to vehicles it may not make sense that they can be pinned by small-arms fire but it also doesn't make sense that getting shot with heavier weapons would have no effect pinning-wise; I just ended up giving all vehicles Stubborn (take morale tests on unmodified Ld regardless of the number of pinning markers they've taken) to dodge the issue.

@AnomanderRake.
I totally agree a complete re-write starting from scratch , is a better choice IF you want a clearly defined and intuitive rule set.
(We may have a slight difference of opinion on how the rules are actually written, but that is to be expected as we are influenced by our own personal experiences . )

I thought if we let the AV being beaten by the weapon, resulted in suppression .It allows simple and intuitive scaling of weapon armour effects.
Eg
The weapon AP value determines what targets the weapon can effect, in terms of their AV value.
(Small arms can not beat the AV of heavy armoured vehicles .Therefore there is no need to use an additional rule like 'stubborn' from old 40k.)

The weapon Damage value determines how devastating the weapon is to the soft target behind the armour.
A single projectile , is less comparatively damaging than a blast of thermal /chemical energy.
(Early APFSDS rounds in WWII often passed straight through softer targets,.This is why HEAT(HESH) and HE rounds were added to the munition types used.)

The weapon Attacks determines how many hits the weapon/user can inflict on the target.

The weapon Notes show any special abilities of the weapons/unit.
Ignore cover, reduce AV , (specified target types,)ignore resilience value.(specific target types,), modify assault value, multiply damage effect (specified target types.)etc.

This is the simplest way I could think of to cover the wide diversity of weapon found in current 40k.

The problem is getting the balance right IMO.
If you oversimplify the core rules , you NEED lots of additional systems and rules to cover the game play that fall out side the core rules.
This is 40ks current biggest problem IMO , over complication.(multiple instructions to cover one simple function.)

If you expand the core rules to cover absolutely everything, you can get too complex rules, that they become too difficult to explain and learn.(A single complex system trying to deal with with multiple functions.)
And I am rubbish at explaining stuff,so I want to avoid this like!

So hitting the 'sweet spot' of complexity to complication can be very hard to pin down.

But most other games seem to run at 80%- 90% of game play covered with core rules.
And 10% to 20% covered by special rules /exceptions.

Current 40k is closer to 50-50 split .

My plan was to have a core system about as complex as the current one and do as much as I possibly could within the core rules instead of requiring ten pages of crap not covered in the main book to actually play each army (looking at you, Ward!Necrons).

@AnomanderRake.
I totally agree with your assessment of the problem with too many special rules in 40k!

But I have a slightly different development target.
I wanted slightly more complex game play,with much less complication in the written rules.

EG On parity with other great battle games currently available.
And also keeping in mind the need to start with skirmish size rules.(To allow easier play testing etc, and give new players an 'easy in')

So skirmish rules use the same resolution methods and game mechanics as the battle game.
But skirmish rules look at using them to resolve detailed model interaction.
And the battle game look at using them to resolve detailed unit interaction.

This could explain the slight differences we have in how we approach re-writing 40k rules.

I'm almost derailing my own thread about changing D6 to D10 by talking about Armour, so I just continue here.

I have some suggestions for rules changes, but I'm probably mostly interested in changing the D6 to D10 and everything that follows. Here I'd like to talk about Armour which I would change to (x / y / z) and be subject to armour save modifiers. Special saves like an Invulnerable save/Ward save would maybe still be there but shouldn't come from physical armour but rather Psychic shields, Daemonic shields etc.

The Armour information should consist of:

x = Armour Save (Rolled equal to or more)
y = How much Armour save modifier which is ignored.
z = Worst armour save Possible

Some examples and suggestions:

Armour:

Terminator Armour (2 / 3 / 7)
Power Armour (4 / 2 / 9)
Flak Armour (8 / - / -)
Aspect Armour ( 5 / 1 / -)
Heavy Aspect Armour ( 4 / 1 / -)

Weapons:

Boltgun Armour Save Modifier: 2
Autocannon ASM: 3
Missile Launcher ASM: 5


Could those of you who have come up with new rules regarding armour, with whatever dice-system it may be, post an example of something like Boltguns, Autocannons, Missile Launchers versus the most used Armour?

--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've worked up a system that meets these criteria, though there are some odd points about it.

I've attached a picture with some example values and a chart with the values on it. Trying to write all of it out is tiresome.

You'll notice that there are no more 6+ saves, largely because I don't feel there's a reason to keep a save so worthless that people forget about it being there. T-shirt saves would be replaced by things such as invulnerable saves or FnP, anything that means they are minimally affected by AP, and to match, i dropped their possibility from the AP system entirely.

I am worried about this being a touch too complex for something that needs to be determined on the fly and often in large numbers, but after some adjustment it shouldn't be too bad.

There will of course have to be some recostings. Some units are getting significant buffs from these changes, others are having their durability slashed, particularly models in Power Armor, who now get a 4+ save against AP4 weapons, though they are slightly more durable against some AP3 weapons.

I tried to apply some logical guidelines to assigning AP and AC values. For example, IG guardsmen and Eldar Guardians both have 5+ saves currently, however, the eldar use much more advanced technology and materials, and their Mesh Armor covers the whole body, unlike the Guardsmen's Flak Armor, and as such has a slightly higher AC.

Alternatively, Battlecannons and Missile Launchers are both AP3 currently, however, a Battlecannon must sustain its AP over a large blast area instead of penetrating a single target. The Missile launcher is a much more focused penetrating weapon, and as such as a slightly higher AP than the Battlecannon.

Also, vehicles are now being treated as having a toughness value in addition to armor facings, so a shot must first "wound" it to produce minor damage, then roll to penetrate to cause major damage. Many of the AC and AP values for vehicles were built around this idea, as without this first "To-Wound" roll many of them would be far too vulnerable to penetration and damage.

There are still some unwanted interactions however, making sure terminator armor, AP2 and AP3 weapons, and vehicles all behave correctly is proving problematic. What i have now is the best i can do while still staying within the confines of the rest of the stats in my system (no values above 12). I may push armor beyond this boundary, or split AP into Anti-Personnel and Anti-Tank values in order to correct for these problems.

@Rav1n.
I am impressed with the chart and all the work that has gone it to it.

However, I feel it is a tad over complicated,( and still needs to rely on separate Inv saves.)

If you say you have to roll over the weapon hit AP value(5 to 20) to pass an armour save roll.
And you let the models Armour Value(1 to 15.) add to the dice roll .

Then all armour values are useful, just some are more useful than others!

Flack vests (AV 2) are useful against all anti infantry weapons.
But are useless vs heavy anti vehicle weapons.
But vehicle armour AV 11 to 15 are effective vs anti vehicles weapons,and invunerable from some small arms fire.

I've got a presentable copy of my core rules up at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gVCOcSUQz15oDa0Vqnm8FBjJW6iVx91-Ixxy5toQxCI if people are interested in taking a peek and commenting.

@AnomanderRake.
That is a well laid out document.
It covers lots of improvements and includes some great ideas!

Only a few minor gripes.
USRs are an 'Oxymoron'.As Universal means it applied to everything .And Special means it only applies to a few cases .

Your rules have core rules and special rules.If you have to classify 'special rules' in to several types, because there are so many.Then some thing has gone a bit 'fuzzy' somewhere!

There are a few things I would change slightly to reduce the complication .But then in doing this the rule set would not have any 'link' to GW version of 40k rules.

An I am assuming you want to keep the rule set 'familiar' with these nods to the current 40k rules?

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
That is a well laid out document.
It covers lots of improvements and includes some great ideas!

Only a few minor gripes.
USRs are an 'Oxymoron'.As Universal means it applied to everything .And Special means it only applies to a few cases .

Your rules have core rules and special rules.If you have to classify 'special rules' in to several types, because there are so many.Then some thing has gone a bit 'fuzzy' somewhere!

There are a few things I would change slightly to reduce the complication .But then in doing this the rule set would not have any 'link' to GW version of 40k rules.

An I am assuming you want to keep the rule set 'familiar' with these nods to the current 40k rules?

The big point here is to keep everything tied to the 40k universe without necessarily being stuck with the rules GW went and built, a lot of the things that work like 40k does today are there because I tried something different and it didn't make sense from either a playability or a lore standpoint and iterating on it produced something that looks like 40k. USRs are "universal" in that there are people in a lot of different army books that have them but "special" in that not every model does; I'm not particularly attached to the name, I used it because it's the same set of concepts GW used the term to refer to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trying to get the Space Marine rules updated to the current version of the core and make sure I can simulate everything you can do with all the current SM books with one set of rules. Any suggestions for Chapters besides the First Founding Chapters and the Black Templars who ought to get their own Chapter Tactics?

Hi AnomanderRake.
If you call the special rules that apply a cross all armies Special rules.(About a dozen.)

And the special rules that only apply to a race/army in particular 'Army Special rules.(One or two per army.)

This is a bit more intuitive IMO.

If you need more than 30 -40 special rules in total .Then the core rules need tweeking to cover more IMO.

To cover different factions in a army.(Chapters, Klans, Craftworlds, Regiments etc.)

I think the best option is to use the F.O.C. as much as possible.(To allow lots of themes.)

The only real divergent chapters are the 'space werewolves' and the 'space vampires.'

Maybe we could cover these divergent themes under the 'feral ' banner? (This could apply across several armies!)

Not being that familiar with Space Wolves and Blood Angels, I'm intrigued by the idea that you could reduce their idiosyncracies to a single special rule, let alone one that would apply to other armies. How would "feral" work?

Hi Sister Sydney.
What I meant was the most divergent factions , tend to use different unit types to the rest of the army selections.
If we called these exceptions 'feral' , it would show they are not just slight re organisations of standard units.
But completely different units are used , with a thematic of 'feral organisation '

Not that 'one rule' would explain all the differences.

Eg Squiggoths, Boar boys,Cyboars, Wild boys etc ,are the Feral ork units.

Long fangs, Blood Claws,Rune priests etc are feral space marines.(they follow the feral wolf type pack organisation.)

Trying to cover all of the many factions with just structural changed in F.O.C could get very complicated if you try to cover everything.

Just having a HQ making similar units 'common', and proper 'traits' with bonuses and set backs, covers most factions/themes.

Apart from the few that have been made completely different in the last quarter of a century.

(When I started 40k Blood angels were painted red, and Space Wolves were painted light grey/blue.They did not have different rules to Salmanders and Ultra marines, the green and blue ones!))

Maybe the'Feral trait 'limits the choice of units to the more 'refined theme' in SMs Blood Angels, Space Wolves , Snake bites, etc.
(Maybe some IG regiments that are awesome at close combat?)

Just an idea...

Through whatever quirk of fate the current version of my rules has exactly 40 special rules in the core book.

As to Space Marines I've tried to incorporate as many different alternate organizations as I could under the Codex (power-armoured Scouts with close combat weapons and Scout-armoured Marines with the option for Scout gear, that sort of thing), then I gave them a system not unlike the Guard Doctrines system from the 3rd edition book where you've got access to some basic selection of units and a limited number of the restricted units (potentially also Doctrine-like rules to allow for things like Deathwing and Ravenwing getting special rules above and beyond normal Terminators/Bikes, this would take up variant unit selection options). The only thing currently available you can't simulate under this system is Thunderwolves, still working on a general form of them. As to Chapter Tactics right now I've got rules for every one of the nine original Legions plus one for the Black Templars and a transport-focused one approximating the Aurora Chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So for instance we might say Assault, BIke, and Devastator Veterans, Hero Dreadnaughts, non-basic Land Raiders, Recon Marines and Bikes, Neophytes, Stormravens, Forlorn Hope Marines (the general form of Death Company, also intended to simulate a place the Space Wolves stick the Wulfen), Hero Predators, and a bunch of character options for command are all on the Restricted list, leaving most everything else available for everyone.

If I were approximating the Ultramarines they have an inflexible command structure but cool Veterans so I'm going to get Assault and Devastator Veterans but leave variant commanders at home, they leave the scouting to the Scouts so no Recon Marines or Neophytes but they do run Stormravens, and they don't have a Forlorn Hope formation but they might have Hero Predators, then I tack on the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics and declare myself done.

If I were approximating the Space Wolves, on the other hand, they've got a much more flexible command structure but their Veterans prefer their own two feet, so I'm going to get only Devastator Veterans but I'm going to get Hero Dreadnaughts and Command Chaplains and Command Librarians. I've got Recon Marines but no Recon Bikes, yes to Neophytes but no Stormravens, no Hero Predators but I've got a Forlorn Hope formation, and then I stick on the Space Wolves Chapter Tactics and I've got that army list.

This system is still a work in progress and the precise numbers need to be worked out.

Interesting.

And I mean that in the American sense of "your ideas are of serious interest" rather than in the British sense of "I hate you."

I've been thinking about how to bring in tactical elements like flanking and surprise attacks on infantry units, maybe even 2nd edition style overwatch, and thought up something i'm calling a "Facing Marker".

So whenever you have finished a units activation, you place one of these markers next to the unit to denote where the unit's attention is focused.

If the unit has shot at an enemy unit or is engaged in an assault, the target unit must be within the facing marker's forward arc, denoted by the sole yellow arrow on the marker.

Overwatch could just be 2nd edition style, where you forfeit the unit's shooting this turn, and may choose to fire if an enemy unit moves within your field of vision, denoted by the "facing Marker's" front arc.

Flanking could do things like allowing re-rolls to hit for both shooting and assault. If this idea is developed further, you could do things like surprising an enemy unit from the rear allowing an automatic sweeping advance (not the auto-destruction version we have now though, that mechanic is silly).

There is the issue that abuse wouldn't be too difficult to figure out, and that you could place the marker closer or further from certain models to maximize the marker's field of vision, so that will have to be dealt with.

Rav1rn wrote:
I've been thinking about how to bring in tactical elements like flanking and surprise attacks on infantry units, maybe even 2nd edition style overwatch, and thought up something i'm calling a "Facing Marker".

So whenever you have finished a units activation, you place one of these markers next to the unit to denote where the unit's attention is focused.

If the unit has shot at an enemy unit or is engaged in an assault, the target unit must be within the facing marker's forward arc, denoted by the sole yellow arrow on the marker.

Overwatch could just be 2nd edition style, where you forfeit the unit's shooting this turn, and may choose to fire if an enemy unit moves within your field of vision, denoted by the "facing Marker's" front arc.

Flanking could do things like allowing re-rolls to hit for both shooting and assault. If this idea is developed further, you could do things like surprising an enemy unit from the rear allowing an automatic sweeping advance (not the auto-destruction version we have now though, that mechanic is silly).

There is the issue that abuse wouldn't be too difficult to figure out, and that you could place the marker closer or further from certain models to maximize the marker's field of vision, so that will have to be dealt with.

I ended up doing Overwatch sort of in that fashion, but the geometry of the marker could be hard to figure out and cause arguments (I know I've been having trouble in games with perspective and spatial reasoning causing two people to come up with different answers about where a scattered marker lands). Theoretically if we assume the turns take long enough it's possible the unit could be keeping an eye out all around by having troops on watch in all directions, the penalty to hit for reaction fire I included is then partially because the gunners could need to reorient quickly.

Yeah, I'd be leery of trying to do facing with multi-model infantry units.... it's hard enough with single vehicles....

I was going to experiment with suppression only allowing the suppressed unit to return fire .(Eg shoot back at the unit suppressing them.)
Or move to cover.(Or larger models to turn to present their heaviest armour to the inccomming fire?)

This would allow other units to 'out flank the supressed unit, and assault it in relative safety.
Sort of follow 'modern tactics.'
The 4 Fs .
Find then
Fix them,(With suppression fire.)
Flank them ,
Finish them.(In close assault.)

Reducing fire arcs etc seems a bit fiddely for 40ks current size to me.

Hi folks.
The idea I posted above is a slight abstraction of suppression, to allow clear and concise use and play.
Have I over simplified it too much?

Restricting the units shooting ability, either by range and /or target selection seems a logical and simple way to represent suppression effects.
Just making the unit chose between moving and shooting is not enough restriction IMO, from the play tests we have done.

Reducing fire arcs, is fine if all non infantry units are on bases.(6mm to 15mm games.)

However, if infantry models are based individually , working out individual fire arcs in a squad can a bit to much work for the results we need IMO.

Do you agree suppressed units should have restricted targeting?
Would you prefer range restrictions or specific targeting restrictions?(EG closest enemy, or the enemy firing at them)

Separate comment thread for the Aegis Project is up at http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/592293.page (as is the Space Marine rulebook).

Been a while since anyone posted, figured i'd share some progress.

I've dropped the idea of using a single resolution chart for stat tests, wounding, and hitting. The To-Hit probabilities worked pretty well for shooting, but close combat became immensely one sided with very little necessary advantage. I've since broken this chart into a "To-Hit" chart and the old chart, which now just determines wounding and stat tests.

The new To-Hit chart looks similar to the current Close-Combat To-Hit chart, just with an extension to include 2+ (maybe 6+ as well, testing underway). Combining this new chart with shooting modifiers has yielded interesting results, the implications of which i'm still working through. At the very least, I have a new "skill" value placed between current values of 2 and 3 that i haven't fully explored yet.

Finally worked out the kinks in my new Armor Save system, by dropping 2+ saves from the possibilities. 2+ saves are now relegated to special rule status, as I couldn't find a way to integrate vehicles, 2+ saves, and normal AP values into one system without at least one of them performing incorrectly. Determining what AP is necessary to negate a 2+ save is still determined by the overall Armor system though.

I've also tentatively split AP into AT (Anti-Tank) and AP (Anti-Personnel) values. This keeps values for vehicle armor from growing too large, and helps ensure both infantry and vehicles behave as intended against all weapons. Assuming this system proves to be worth keeping, i'll probably explore some less traditional examples of AP style (Strong AT, Weak AP or Weak AT, Strong AP).

I've also been working on how I want vehicles and monstrous creatures to play. One of my current issues with the game is that vehicles and monsters don't become less effective as they take damage, purely from a "wounds" perspective. Yes vehicles have the damage table, but having 2 methods with which to kill vehicles seems excessive and bulky, while monsters are as effective at 6 wounds as they are at their last.

So my idea was to give monsters and vehicles a number of "action points" (working title) equal to their number of remaining "wounds" that determine how effective they are for that activation. A monster or vehicle could then spend action points to perform actions, such as
--Designating a target (1 action point)
--Firing a weapon (1 action point for primary and secondary weapons, 0 for defensive weapons, 2 for ordinance weapons)
--Moving (1 action point for each distance of their movement speed they want to move, up to 3 (maybe 4 for some))
--Clearing suppression tokens

As much as i like aspects of a damage table, i don't particularly like having to account for every individual effect, and when considered alongside all the other markers I'm using to detail how a unit is performing, i don't think it's worth it. I do want to explore a way for "explodes!" results to occur on a vehicle or monsters death though.

Monsters and vehicles would receive a suppression token for each saved wound they receive, since this ensures they can ignore large volumes of fire from weaker weapons, and only focus on weapons that have the potential to injure them.

Obviously there will have to be serious recostings of many units, particularly monstrous creatures, as their effectiveness is now degradable. I'm also concerned that linking "wounds" to performance this way could have some harsh unintended consequences, so playtesting will be telling.

I'm also experimenting with some purely fun/interest related alterations to weapons, such as laser weapons cutting through enemies similar to jaws of the world wolf,certain weapons allowing for the generation of additional attacks similar to the blood talons from C:BA, thunderhammers allowing attacks against all enemies in BTB contact, etc.

Of particular note is the return of "parry" from second edition rules, where a model with a sword has an option to deflect enemy attacks, though i'm likely to implement it slightly differently than the original method.

Hi Rav1n.
Sounds like you have had loads of cool ideas.

Have you thought about using a simple damage track to map show loss of effectivness of vehicles and M/Cs?

EG each successful damaging hit. caused the vehicle M/C loose an attack or movement.

Eg vehicles and MCs have so many hit points in mobility/attacks.
For example a land raider has 3 mobility and 3 attack Hit points.

When it suffers a damaging hit , it loses 1 mobility and now only moves 4"
A second hit damaging mobility means it now can only move 2"
The next hit imobilizes the land raider.

A Carniflex has '3 mobility' and '2 attack' hit points.
If it suffers mobility damage , in now only moves 4".

When a model looses an attack hit point it loses one weapon /attack.

Just a thought...