Switch Theme:

Complete Rules Overhaul: How to make 40k actually playable  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi folks.
Just some quick comments.

@KingmanHighborn.
'...90% of the game's issues can be solved by rolling back and consolidating special rules...'
I am in total agreement with this statement.

However, as urbanknight pointed out, the other 10% of issues you and others seem to want to ignore, are set in the core game mechanics and resolution methods.
And as these core errors were not allowed to be corrected at any point in the following 18 years.They generated the rest of the more obvious issues, that practically everyone is aware of!

@Marksman224.
I absolutely agree that 'tables' and 'fancy resolution methods' should only be used if basic direct resolution methods fail to do the job.
Examples of common direct representation.Distance in inches, number of dice rolled, and score needed to succeed on a dice roll.

Lots of game work well with this simple level of resolution as it is intuitive and easy to learn and use.

BUT the variation in found in larger minatures used in 40k battle games ,means players expect finer increments of difference ,to reflect the observed differences, than most other battle games.
(I would confine more complex resolution methods just to the combat resolution though. )_

@Zustiur.
I admit that after several attempts we could not get a 2 stage damage resolution to work, that gave a wider range of intuitive results as a three stage damage resolution.
We could not get a 2 stage system to work without 'messy maths' and 'special rule fudges', that just were not needed in the three stage system.

Maybe urbanknight has some ideas on how to make 2 stage resolution work as good as three stage damage resolution?

In our many many play tests over the years, limited re rolls for very special,not very often used , rules were ok.
But re -roling dice every combat resolution stage.?Not much fun if you want a more tactical focused game really.
(That is why I am not a fan of incorporating re rolls into the basic combat resolution methods.)

We used stat values with D6 generating the random factor in several ways.
Eg
Attacker stat -defender stat =score to hit.
Attacker stat + D6 vs Defender stat + D6.(Compare highest wins.)
Attacker stat +D6 to beat defender stat.
etc.

And even though some concepts were very simple,The most common feed back was,''.. can you just do a simple table to tell me what I need to succeed, like a S vs T table?''

I am not overly bothered what resolution method we settle on for stat vs stat , using a D6.

But even if there is a simple mathematical function to derive results, tabulating it is always helpful for younger/newer players.

@Arbitorian.
It may not seem like it but the table I posted up earlier started life as the MEdge range you posted.

However, our first modification attempt was to keep the 1 to 10 range of results 40k players are used to .
So we modified the range to

5 or more lower 1+(Auto sucess.)
3 to 4 lower 2+
1 to 2 lower 3+
Equal or 1 higher 4+,
2 to 3 higher 5+
4 to 5 higher 6+
6 or more higher no effect.(auto fail.)

To get the ratios a bit closer than multiples ,to fit within a 1 to 10 value range.
And 10 values fits the 5 +5 value ranges of the two current armour weapon interaction systems.

And you are spot on modifiers to stats in that table have lower impact, and so wider range of modifiers can be used.

However if urbanknight is ok with increasing the range of values to fit the original multipliers, I am on board with that too!
Thanks for the excellent explanation of this system.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/05/13 16:28:23


 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider





 ArbitorIan wrote:


All clear, but why not go with the MEdge style higher/lower mechanic? So, lets say

If EVD is triple, automatic loss
If EVD is double, 6+
If EVD is higher, 5+
If ACC/EVD are equal, 4+
If ACC is higher, 3+
If ACC is double, 2+
If ACC is triple, automatic win

If all the people have stats as above, and we assume the +1 is to the STAT, not the dice roll, we have guardsmen shooting Banshees on a 5+, or 6+ if they're in a crater. Marines are shooting banshees on a 5+ in or out of the crater. Applying the modifier to the stat means that you have a much greater range of terrain available, but sometimes it won't count for much. Applying the modifier to the dice roll means that cover always does something, but the range of values cover can realistically give is lessened.

However, this system becomes more useful if you increase the range of values. Let's say

Guardsman ACC 10 EVD 10
Marine ACC 16 EVD 8
Banshee ACC 12 EVD 18
Rhino ACC 16 EVD 4
Land Speeder ACC 16 EVD 25

Guardsmen are hitting marines on a 3+, but as soon as the Marine is in some +2 cover (say, a wall) it's 4+.
Marines are hitting Guardsmen on a 3+. The guardsmen would need to be in +6 cover to make a dent in this, which just proves how accurate marines are.
Marines are hitting Banshees on a 5+, but the marine only needs a +2 bonus (say, from Focused Fire or a psychic power) to get them on a 4+.
Tanks are always really easy to hit.
Land Speeders are always really hard to hit.

Modifiers could also be to band, or by weapon type, so

Blast weapons -2 to hit
Rapid fire weapons +4 to hit at short range
Artillery weapons -4 to hit
Concentrated fire goes up a band

Now a guardsman firing a rocket launcher (blast) can't ever hit a Land Speeder - he'd need to stand still and use Concentrated Fire. However, a Space Marine can hit a Land Speeder on a 5+, and if he stands still it's a 4+.

The amount of difference between units can be theoretically infinite, with tons of variation between units, and a d6 is still fit for purpose in this system. You're not asking 6 results to represent the entire scale of the game - you're asking 6 results to represent if one specific unit is better or worse than the other.


I'm really happy you posted this. Not only is it the first post that I have seen on the topic that seems fluent, not deranged, and makes talking about iinternetinternet seem something other than futile, but it is very good, too.

I think there are many potential bonuses to ACC like how many and what type of friendly and enemy models are near by, and what kind of leadership is available to the firing model.

A supplementary example of characteristic mods that are not always mods to the roll are just the 0+, 1+, and 2+ saves from warhammer fantasy.

I think in the future I will link the quoted post any time tables and a need for d10 or d12 are discussed. I think that with chracteristic mods like you discuss, a d6 has a luxurious amount of potential results. In the most basic sense, the only die results you need are "less than likely," "even chances," and "fairly likely."
   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Planet of the Ultimate Llama Lords



Are you always this nice, or is today a special day? While this thread may have a ton of waffle in it, none of the people in it are deranged and have some very good ideas. My apologies if this wasn't as easy or as properly formatted as you would have liked, but that's what happens when random people get together with different ideas on how to solve a problem.

I'm reading everyone's posts and thinking about the best way to turn them into solutions to our problems. Right now, on the topic with our agenda (resolution methods), I see two possible mechanics for resolving dice rolls: The method I described above:

Player1 stat - Player 2 stat = roll modifier. This roll modifier is applied to the die roll and dictates success. Let's say for example that stat 1 is 5 and stat 2 is 3. 5-3= 2, which means a +2 mod to the roll, meaning that Player 1 has to roll only a 2+ to win this die roll.
I call this method the Stat Comparison method since it directly compares the stats and the discrepancy supplies a die modifier. The problem with this method is the large amount of auto-wins. Again, this could be good since it means that some obvious matchups like a Terminator and a Gretchin wont have to be rolled since it'd waste time, but it does reduce the chances of a weaker army fighting back effectively against a stronger foe.

The second method is the one that Arbitorlan produced. I'm not sure what to think about it, but it does sound like it can work. I have yet to examine it completely, but what does everyone think? Is it easy to understand? Can it be learned easily? Does it provide balance and variety? One doubt I have about it is that regardless of how high a stat is, as long as it doesn't double the opposing stat, the dice roll will be 5+. The likelihood of a roll being neutral is very low since most rolls will either be 5+ or 3+ with our 1-10 scale. Raising the scale to higher ranges is not something advisable because then we reach a point where we have far too many numbers and a conversion from vanilla 40k will be hard. Again, not saying anything about the method yet, but keep this in mind. Predominantly 5+ and 3+ rolls could be good tactically since they clearly delineate who is superior in a fight.
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 urbanknight4 wrote:

The second method is the one that Arbitorlan produced. I'm not sure what to think about it, but it does sound like it can work. I have yet to examine it completely, but what does everyone think? Is it easy to understand? Can it be learned easily? Does it provide balance and variety? One doubt I have about it is that regardless of how high a stat is, as long as it doesn't double the opposing stat, the dice roll will be 5+. The likelihood of a roll being neutral is very low since most rolls will either be 5+ or 3+ with our 1-10 scale. Raising the scale to higher ranges is not something advisable because then we reach a point where we have far too many numbers and a conversion from vanilla 40k will be hard. Again, not saying anything about the method yet, but keep this in mind. Predominantly 5+ and 3+ rolls could be good tactically since they clearly delineate who is superior in a fight.


The MEdge method is simpler than my xd6 and quicker than Lanrak's chart (because it doesn't need a chart) so far so good. However it still looks a bit like squeezing a fat man into size 6 lycra, all stretched out. And I think it would build a seriously exploitable flaw into the core system that WAAC types will sniff out and game to its fullest extent. This is because just being slightly better than slightly better is effectively the same thing as just being slightly better but will still necessarily cost more than just slightly better, anything which is a slight buff becomes a point sink against opponents that max out on slightly worse. WAAC guys will realise that most points efficeint armies are the ones in which as near to all of the army is made up of slightly worse than mediocre chumps. If someone brings an army of regular chumps with some veterans then WAAC will bring an army maxed out on chumpier chumps than the other guys chumps. There will be in the 40k scene a race to the bottom to field the next most slightly chumpier than the other guys army of chumps. The meta will drift from herohammer to horde spam, and Lanrak will rage. In the end the WAAC guy that auto wins tournaments will be the guy that had the nutbuggery to field over 1000 grots and nothing else against all the other lesser WAACs that only fielded armies of guard penal types, hormagaunts. Eldar, Space Marines and Tau will be for losers who like sinking points into elites that are no better on the table than regulars.

In the end a d6 is a d6 any trickery to make it more than it is will result in either complication, weirdness or exploits and possibly all three. A d6 is a d6, use it if you need a d6. Use a d8 if you need a d8. Use a d10 if you need a d10. It is better always to use the right tool for the right job rather than bodge the wrong tool for a purpose it is not suited for. Just my opinion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 21:37:39


 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@urbanknight.
I prefer the concept of the MEdge system.However using the double /triple factors for change of the native system that Arbitorian posted.
Would need to use wider value of ranges than 1 to 10,IMO.

If you want to use the current range of values 1 to 10, the double/triple factors for change give some 'wonky results'.
(A point of change to the stst value has exponentially greater effect at the extremities of the range.)

Eg here are the values of auto loose if opponents stat is triple yours.
Your stat/ opponent 'inv' stat.
1/3 or above.
2/6 or above
3/9 or 10

your stat/ opponents stat forcing 6+ to succeed(Instead of 5+)
1 /2
2/4 and 5
3/6 ,7 and 8
4/8 to 10
5/10

If we use the double /triple factors for change , with the fixed range of 1 to 10. I think there will by quite a few issues to address,(and complicated calculation of scaling factors,for accurate PV calculation.)As SolarCross expressed so 'colourfully'.

That is why I experimented with a 'factor range band of 2'.As it keeps the incremental changes more linear.

Here is the auto loose values using my range band modification.(From proof of concept table.)
your stat/ opponents 'inv' stat.
1/7
2/8
3/9
4/10

your stat/opponents stat forcing a 6+ to succeed.
1/5
2/6
3/7
4/8
5/9
6/10

This is a half way between direct stat comparison, which limits the usable range of modifiers .
And the MEdge multiplier factors that give 'wonky' results when used with the 1 to 10 value range.

One of the current problems with 40k resolution is that the range of results is restricted to just 3+4+5+ to hit in nearly all cases.
Artificially restricting results like this ,limits the range of results.This forces the need to use additional systems and special rules, to add granularity /range of effect back into the system.

Do you really want to repeat this flaw with a replacement resolution system?

PS.
What I do not understand is some posters apparent negative attitude towards using a single simple table?
When the current 40k rules use 3 different tables, with at best only mediocre results.

Do they not see the benefit if tabulating the results to help illustrate the resolution method to new players? (Until they learn the 'simple maths behind the table' .)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 22:53:00


 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

Just a thought on 3 rather than 2 stage resolutions. Assuming 50/50 odds on each stage then each attempt to wound (or HP whatever you are calling it) will only produce a wound 12.5% of the time because each stage requires the previous stage to pass before resolving. 2 stage will produce a wound 25% of the time in contrast. For reference a 1 stage is a straight 50/50 of course. Add in a fourth stage (like "invulnerable" saves or "ward" saves as they are called in WHFB) and again assuming 50/50 odds of passing it your chance to wound drops to 6.25%. All else being equal every stage to a resolution cumulatively reduces the overall chance of a wound happening. So not only does each stage add extra dice rolls to the process they cause the need to make even more attacks to get the job done which means even more dice rolls. This the key reason that 40k (and also WHFB) take so long to play and require bucket loads of dice to get anything killed.

There is also a bias in importance for first stages over succeeding stages since a second or third stage can't happen without a success in the previous stage. Thus if your stage order is: To-Hit, then To-Hurt, then Armour Save then a +1 buff to-hit is much more powerful than a +1 buff to Hurt which in turn is more powerful than a +1 buff to bypass armour.

Producing faster play means making faster kills with fewer dice. If that is desired then 1 stage is better than 2 stages and 2 stages are better than 3 and so on. Alternatively stages can be stacked in favour of the attacker. Or the probabilities can be stacked for a decent chance of a stage being skipped through auto-results.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/14 00:51:43


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Let me just point out that I was assuming the following for evade:
Infantry have 3.
Infantry with stealth have 4
Infantry with shroud have 5
Infantry with stealth and shroud have 6, but should probably be reduced to 5.
Most vehicles and monstrous creatures have 2
Tanks have 1.
Cover improves Evade by 1.

UrbanKnight wrote:At this point I'm wondering exactly who would have 10 Evade, or 10 Melee. It seems like it would be good to lower the scale, right?
Just because the scale allows for 10, doesn't mean that this value actually has to be assigned to any units. To keep the game on an even keel, the rule of thumb for unit design should be that no unit has evade higher than 5 naturally. In fact 4 is probably the best you'll see on a unit which is not supported and is in full view. i.e. the best you'll see on its stat line. Numbers higher than 4 should only happen through in game effects such as cover, invisibility, being shrouded by allied units, going to ground and so on.

On the other side of the table, there is of course going to be modifiers in favour of success. Such as, firing from short range, taking time to aim, having lots of shots, twin linked weapons, guided weapons etc but again, the rule of thumb is that the least accurate unit should be able to hit the higher than average evade unit standing in the open. It'll be a hard shot, but possible.

Using my rule from the last post, Accuracy 1 vs Evade 4 is a modifier of 3, meaning you only hit on 7s. i.e. never. This is okay IF there is an 'easily obtainable' bonus to hit from something like close range or from having a rapid firing weapon (see final paragraph of my last post).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SolarCross wrote:
There is also a bias in importance for first stages over succeeding stages since a second or third stage can't happen without a success in the previous stage. Thus if your stage order is: To-Hit, then To-Hurt, then Armour Save then a +1 buff to-hit is much more powerful than a +1 buff to Hurt which in turn is more powerful than a +1 buff to bypass armour.

No, that's not how mathematics works.
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 is 1/8 as you pointed out (12.5%)
2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 is 1/6
1/2 * 2/3 * 1/2 is 1/6
1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 is 1/6

It doesn't matter which one you improve. As long as the value of the improvement is the same (+1 on a d6) then the final chance is the same.

However, what I suspect you were trying to say is that increased chance of failure in the earlier stages leads to quicker resolution (because subsequent rolls are skipped). THAT is true.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/14 01:15:06


 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

Zustiur wrote:

No, that's not how mathematics works.
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 is 1/8 as you pointed out (12.5%)
2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 is 1/6
1/2 * 2/3 * 1/2 is 1/6
1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 is 1/6

It doesn't matter which one you improve. As long as the value of the improvement is the same (+1 on a d6) then the final chance is the same.

However, what I suspect you were trying to say is that increased chance of failure in the earlier stages leads to quicker resolution (because subsequent rolls are skipped). THAT is true.

Oops. Lazily I was using "intuitive" math on that not actual math. Thanks for such a gentlemanly correction!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/14 01:37:52


 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi folks.
I would just like to congratulate everyone for actually discussing ideas for game mechanics and resolution methods we could use in a 40k re write .
It is nice to see lots of ideas from other people being discussed in an open and mature way.

@Zustiur.
In most other games the direct stat comparison method you proposed would work exceptionally well.
Unfortunately, I believe the 'differential' of results required for a 40k battle game exceeds the granularity of this system.


The problem with this system (and others that use D6 directly,) is the scope for change is fixed to 16.667% increments .So a +1 modifier/change is a bonus.A +2 modifier/ change is a huge bonus.And a +3 modifier /change is half the range!(Cumulative modifiers of +/- 3 are bordering on game breaking!I think you realized this in your post.)

Anyhow.Here is the table that conforms to the 'change at range band 2' modification example.I was trying to extend the range of effects, but not as much as multiplier factors do.

A = Active player ,(rolling the dice) Stat.
O= opposing player stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

If we use BS +1 = New Shooting skill as a start to convert units over.
This gives Shooting skill (down the left hand column,) range of 3 to 8, before modifiers are applied.

If we use 5 as the Evasion stat for 'average infantry unit' in the game.Then the Evasion stats can use the same 3 to 8 range .This range then allows more native variation in the units. So abilities and equipment bonuses can be expressed better.

As these values are towards the middle of the table, there is still room for the 'external' modifiers of, cover+1. gone to ground +1 dug in +2. long range +1 etc.

The same table can be used for the save roll.Armour value(active player) vs Weapons hits Armour Penetration value.(As previously posted.)
No modifiers used here just straight comparison of stat values 1 to 10 to give dice roll needed.

And finally the same table can be used to determine if damage is caused.(Sort of extended 'to wound chart,' that covers vehicles too.)

Damage value (strength) is compared against Resilience(toughness) to determine the dice roll you need to cause physical damage to the target.

This is just trying to illustrate a simple 3 stage damage resolution, using the same simple table to extend the variance of unit interaction.

SolarCross.
Would you be kind enough to do a table of results for MEdge, the direct comparison methods Zustiur outlined, and my table in this post. In the standard 40k 1 to 10 value range.

The tables you posted look awesome!It would greatly help me ,(and maybe others who like to see results in a table) compare the systems.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/14 08:09:14


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




I quite like that table actually... if I'm reading it correctly.
When you first mentioned the 'change at range band 2' I imagined it to be a little different to what you've just shown.

Just to clarify, that's Attacker running down the table vs Opponent across the top, right? I hope so.
So if the attacker's skill beats the opponent's skill by 1 they succeed on a roll of 3, but they need to exceed by 3 to succeed on a 2? The improvements occur on the odd numbered differentials.

I was previously imagining it would be increased on the even numbered differentials like this;
A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....4,4,4,5,5,6,6,n.n,n
3.....3.4.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n
4.....3.3.4.4.4.5.5.6.6.n
5.....2.3.3.4.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....2.2.3.3.4.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.
I don't like this table at all.
   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Planet of the Ultimate Llama Lords

Zustiur wrote:
I quite like that table actually... if I'm reading it correctly.
When you first mentioned the 'change at range band 2' I imagined it to be a little different to what you've just shown.

Just to clarify, that's Attacker running down the table vs Opponent across the top, right? I hope so.
So if the attacker's skill beats the opponent's skill by 1 they succeed on a roll of 3, but they need to exceed by 3 to succeed on a 2? The improvements occur on the odd numbered differentials.

I was previously imagining it would be increased on the even numbered differentials like this;
A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....4,4,4,5,5,6,6,n.n,n
3.....3.4.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n
4.....3.3.4.4.4.5.5.6.6.n
5.....2.3.3.4.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....2.2.3.3.4.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.
I don't like this table at all.


I'm going to be straight with you guys: None of you are paying attention to what I'm writing. Some of you are considering a three-step resolution and that's just not happening here. I've said it over and over, we have a simple two-step resolution system in these new rules: To hit, and To wound. Period. I don't think it's necessary to add invulnerability saves since we can just give Termies higher armor and Daemons higher Health Points, but we'll see. For now, there are only two steps to this resolution, meaning that Solar's "average chance to succeed math" would yield a straight 25% per attack to succeed. I believe that this will make games go faster since, like Solar said, it will require less attacks for a unit to die.

As for the resolution system itself, I don't think I'll be using the second system I described, the MEdge system. It can be easily exploited and it makes buffs irrelevant unless they're substantial enough to double the stat, and we're not even considering what it would take to triple it. Right now I'm proposing buffs of +1 since +2 would be too much, but I don't think +1 modifiers will be enough to grant you an edge with this system. Then again, I'm considering this fact when only looking at two average units with similar stats. If we consider a unit that only needs one more point to have a doubled stat over its target, this system would be very useful since it would mean the difference between a 3+ roll and a 2+ roll. Again, this method is called the MEdge system. Let's use the method names so that nobody gets confused.

The method I prefer for now is the Subtractive system. This is the one Solar proposed in where we take the two opposing stats, subtract them, and their difference acts as a modifier to the player making a roll. This system is actually used by 40k right now. The only problem is that the system is absolutely butchered and wrong in 40k. Observe: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/k/b/kbh5094/wondchrt.jpg

Do you all see something wrong with the chart? I sure do. It's the sheer amount of 2+ and the repeating nature of 6+ rolls. I frankly think its stupid to seriously propose that a Strength 10 weapon will have a possibility to fail against a unit with an Armor Rating of 1. That's absurd. There should be automatic wins and losses- we can't entertain the ridiculous idea of a Grot blaster gibbing a Terminator under any circumstance. Allow me to trim the table so that it has these auto win/fail scenarios: http://imgur.com/1N8bNRB

Here we see a large amount of auto wins/fails, represented by the S and N, respectively. And here is where 40k will distinguish itself from other games. Epic Armageddon is everything 40k should be, but its battle sizes are very big. Killteam and Space Hulk happen inside buildings, so vehicles and large battles can't take place in those games. While EA will represent large scale battles with Titans and all that junk, and Killteam/Space Hulk will represent individual squads taking out mooks in buildings, 40k will be more like a small sector battle. More personalized that Epic but still big enough for large battles and all sorts of vehicles. The big difference from any other game will be the manipulation of stats. Buffs and penalties will be use heavily here so that the chart I showed above won't have to always be true. Want to hit a unit with AR4 if your weapon is only WD1? Either change your weapon for something stronger (upgrades), gain a damage boost from a Commissar (+1 to WD), etc etc. Point is, now you have a chance to damage that AR4 guy. It may only damage on a 6, but if you buff yourself more (Concentrated fire adds a +2 buff) you can make a weak unit really shine when you need it to. Therefore, we will have a very customizable army here in 40k: You will have rules and skills and even promotions for your units that will allow you to tailor them to how you want them to be, and then take them to the battlefield and see how they perform. For example, a Guardsman may purchase the Sapper promotion and get a +1 to Weapon Damage and Accuracy whenever he uses Blast weapons. A Tyrannid Warrior can purchase the Primal Hunter skill and gain a +2 to Accuracy to symbolize its heightened senses. Modifying stats will be a viable way to make weaker units able to stand up to stronger units, and will make stronger units able to specialize in a certain skill/damage type. Your Space Marine Bikes could either be ranged guerilla fighters or you could trick them out to make them into shock cavalry- weak ranged but strong front armor and a charge bonus to melee damage. Of course, these skills and promotions will only get you so far. You still won't be able to see a Grot kill a Terminator- he'll just get a better roll against normal Tacs and the like.

I don't know what this will do to the game's balance. I also don't know if you guys think this will work or if its better than the current system. It does make for more interesting games and will make your units become more personalized, but I don't know what this will do for the game as a whole, I'm only looking at resolution methods. What do you guys think?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/14 15:29:29


 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Here we see a large amount of auto wins/fails, represented by the S and N, respectively. And here is where 40k will distinguish itself from other games. Epic Armageddon is everything 40k should be, but its battle sizes are very big. Killteam and Space Hulk happen inside buildings, so vehicles and large battles can't take place in those games. While EA will represent large scale battles with Titans and all that junk, and Killteam/Space Hulk will represent individual squads taking out mooks in buildings, 40k will be more like a small sector battle. More personalized that Epic but still big enough for large battles and all sorts of vehicles. The big difference from any other game will be the manipulation of stats. Buffs and penalties will be use heavily here so that the chart I showed above won't have to always be true. Want to hit a unit with AR4 if your weapon is only WD1? Either change your weapon for something stronger (upgrades), gain a damage boost from a Commissar (+1 to WD), etc etc. Point is, now you have a chance to damage that AR4 guy. It may only damage on a 6, but if you buff yourself more (Concentrated fire adds a +2 buff) you can make a weak unit really shine when you need it to. Therefore, we will have a very customizable army here in 40k: You will have rules and skills and even promotions for your units that will allow you to tailor them to how you want them to be, and then take them to the battlefield and see how they perform. For example, a Guardsman may purchase the Sapper promotion and get a +1 to Weapon Damage and Accuracy whenever he uses Blast weapons. A Tyrannid Warrior can purchase the Primal Hunter skill and gain a +2 to Accuracy to symbolize its heightened senses. Modifying stats will be a viable way to make weaker units able to stand up to stronger units, and will make stronger units able to specialize in a certain skill/damage type. Your Space Marine Bikes could either be ranged guerilla fighters or you could trick them out to make them into shock cavalry- weak ranged but strong front armor and a charge bonus to melee damage. Of course, these skills and promotions will only get you so far. You still won't be able to see a Grot kill a Terminator- he'll just get a better roll against normal Tacs and the like.

I don't know what this will do to the game's balance. I also don't know if you guys think this will work or if its better than the current system. It does make for more interesting games and will make your units become more personalized, but I don't know what this will do for the game as a whole, I'm only looking at resolution methods. What do you guys think?

That was bit rambling but yeah good stuff. Sid Meyer said that the essence of a strategy game is a series of interesting choices. For 40k as it is the choices are mostly in the army composition stage after that it gets a bit flat, just rolling dice to see what happens. Having interesting choices in army composition is important for a wargame but there needs to be even more room for interesting choices at the play stage. That's why I really like your combined fire concept, it gives the player an interesting choice where otherwise it would just be dice rolling hoping for the improbable to happen. 40k does have one or two things like that, like some units can choose to trade a bit of shooting prowess for a better cover save such as by jinking or going to ground, but not nearly enough.
   
Made in nz
Been Around the Block




 urbanknight4 wrote:

Do you all see something wrong with the chart? I sure do. It's the sheer amount of 2+ and the repeating nature of 6+ rolls. I frankly think its stupid to seriously propose that a Strength 10 weapon will have a possibility to fail against a unit with an Armor Rating of 1. That's absurd. There should be automatic wins and losses- we can't entertain the ridiculous idea of a Grot blaster gibbing a Terminator under any circumstance. Allow me to trim the table so that it has these auto win/fail scenarios: http://imgur.com/1N8bNRB


I really like this amended chart. This is exactly what I was leaning towards when I suggested that this game needs to just say "yes" and "no". Automatic passes and more automatic failures could help this game quite a bit. I never quite understood what was happening when an Imperial Guardsman was "hit" by lascannon but wasn't killed.
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@Zustiur,
Yes , that is how I Intended it to works for the to hit roll.
(I used the term Active player, over the terms 'Attacking player'.Because my group is trying to use the same table for armour save rolls.These are currently rolled by the 'defender' in the combat resolution ).

@urbanknight.
When people post up ideas worth discussing , I will discuss them with the posters. (I am interested in game development, it is part of the hobby I enjoy more than painting ,I am weird like that. )

You wrote..
''I don't know what this will do to the game's balance. I also don't know if you guys think this will work or if its better than the current system. It does make for more interesting games and will make your units become more personalized, but I don't know what this will do for the game as a whole, I'm only looking at resolution methods. What do you guys think?''

Because making decisions early on in the development process, without looking at alternatives and the knock on effects , is what messed up more rule sets than any thing else in my experience.I would like you to just go over the basics with me and see where our P.O.V may differ.

You rightly point out that Epic Armageddon is a massive battle game , and the scale of the minatures allows for the abstraction required for 'streamlined unit interaction' to resolve these massive battles quickly and efficiently.
And at the other end of the scale , Kill Team/Space Hulk etc, use 28mm minatures in a skirmish game , with 'detailed model interaction.'

And so obviously 40k battle games are in the middle of these two extremes. I would logically assume 'detailed unit interaction' would be the middle ground 40k game play should sit on.You appeared to agree with this?

You have rightly pointed out not having auto fail and auto win options on the resolution tables for 40k has lead to compromised resolution, which has added on lots of special rules fudges.

I totally agree with tables that have auto fail auto succeed results ,( at the extremities.) that allow a range of stat modifiers.As this would negate the need for lots of special rules fudges. (Even with simple maths determining results, a table is helpful for new players.)

However, as previously posted every time we tried to use a 2 stage damage resolution , we had issues with the following.
Reduced resolution results .
A range of 36 results from rolling D6 twice., instead of 216 results from 3 stage D6 damage resolution.)

The compromise of rolling armour peircing and damage values combined , vs armour and toughness combined.
In Epic there is a clearly defined 'soft target' and 'hard target'.And a 'soft target attack' and a 'hard target attack'.(AP AT).
Because of the scale of the minatures in 40k, players want far more definition between units, than the very generic definition used with 6mm minatures,

Because of these two issues we found we had to use 'creative maths' and quite a few special rules to put back the missing definition/resolution.(Eg rules bloat and special rules that were never needed with a 'clean 3 stage' combat resolution.)

I am also rather inclined to try to develop a system we can convert current the current 40k units over to with a minimum of issues.
Using a 3 stage resolution process means we can asses units 'worth' at each stage, and incorporate any current special rules at the appropriate stage.

If you have a clear idea how to overcome these issues , I would like you to post them so we can discuss it further.(I may have genuinely missed something?)

If you dictate the game play from the rules, you have to make the scale of the minatures fit it.(This is the normal process.)
However, we are starting with the minatures of 40k, at a specific game size , so we need to take the scale and detail of them into account when writing rules for them.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/15 08:31:41


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Sorry about that. I swear there was a post where you were asked if 3 stage resolution was okay and had answered yes. That's what I get for reading this thread on my phone at work but not replying until I get home!!

Given 2 stage resolution and your other points, I'll return to a part of my earlier post that I deleted because I thought I was going off target.

I see three ways of going from the existing 3 stage resolution system to a new 2 stage resolution:
Method 1) Gut Feeling
Throw out all existing stats and just write new ones based upon what feels right. This leaves a lot of room for unintended effects and requires extra testing.
Method 2) Additive
Combine two existing pieces into a single stat by adding them together. Particularly Toughness and Saves. Combining # of shots with BS might work too.
The trouble with this is that you end up with very high numbers. Typical Armour Values will be in the 7-9 region, just for infantry. That might be good, it might be bad, but it certainly creates an issue if you still want to stick to a range of 1-10.
Method 3) Mean/Average
Combine two existing stats and then divide by 2. Deciding to round up or round down will have a crucial impact.
If you round up:
Guardsman T3+Sv2=5/2. round up = 3 round down = 2
Marine T4+Sv4 = 8/2 = 4 regardless
Terminator T4+Sv5 = 9/2. Round up = 5 round down = 4.
Fire Warrior T3+Sv4 = 7/2. round up = 4 round down = 3
SM Bike T5+Sv3 = 9/2. Round up = 5 round down = 4.
I haven't run additional cases but it looks like rounding up is the better solution.

I can't offer advice on Method1. Method 2 means ditching the 1-10 limit. Method 3 means accepting that some of the existing differentiation between units is going to vanish. That much is clear just from examining Toughness and Armour Saves combined to create Armour Value.

Do the other stats work out the same way? Let's look at Damage.
Lasgun S3 AP- Additive = 3. Mean Up = 2. Mean Down = 1
Bolter S4 AP5 Additive = 6, Mean = 3
Pusle Rifle S5 AP5. Additive 7. Mean Up 4, Mean Down 3
Krak Missile S8 AP3 Additive 12. Mean 6
Lascannon S9 AP2. Additive 14. Mean 7
Heavy Bolter S5 AP4 Additive 8, Mean Up 4
Scatter Laser S6 AP- Additive 6. Mean 3
Autocannon S7 AP4 Additive 10. Mean 5
Demolisher Cannon S10 AP2. Additive 15. Mean Up 8. Mean Down 7.

I don't know about you but these numbers give me a bad feeling. I can't put it into words. If I figure it out I'll let you know.
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

Lanrak wrote:

However, as previously posted every time we tried to use a 2 stage damage resolution , we had issues with the following.
Reduced resolution results .
A range of 36 results from rolling D6 twice., instead of 216 results from 3 stage D6 damage resolution.)

Yet in the end both a two stage and a three stage (or indeed any stage) ultimately resolve down to just two results: success or fail... So if the random factor we introduce to scramble the power of the inputs still only spits out a crude success or fail at the end how much does it really matter if the random factor has a granularity of 1/36 or 1/216?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/15 21:32:47


 
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







Well, that's a slippery slope if I ever saw one.

The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins. 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@Lord_blackfang.
You are the master of the understatement.

Just to review the evidence,
Currently GWs 40k rules limit the interaction in the combat resolutions to just 90 results appx.
So they NEED extra 'inv save' systems for those units that need better than 2+ save.(The 'inv saves' have migrated obviously, due to marketing influence.)

And they need a separate resolution system for vehicles .(Because even with the 'inv save system fudges' they can not cover vehicles.)

And even with these extra fudges and separate systems they NEED to add on additional/substitution resolution methods like FNP and Haywire.

So moving to a resolution method that will reduce the results to about a third of the current system used in GWs 40k rules.

Is deemed to be just as good as a 3 stage resolution method fully utilizing the D6 range to give over double the results in GW system?

Because some posters do not understand how important the granularity of results are in a game like 40k.(Apparently?)

Unless I am missing something?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 19:53:16


 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

Lanrak wrote:
@Lord_blackfang.
You are the master of the understatement.

Just to review the evidence,
Currently GWs 40k rules limit the interaction in the combat resolutions to just 90 results appx.
So they NEED extra 'inv save' systems for those units that need better than 2+ save.(The 'inv saves' have migrated obviously, due to marketing influence.)

And they need a separate resolution system for vehicles .(Because even with the 'inv save system fudges' they can not cover vehicles.)

And even with these extra fudges and separate systems they NEED to add on additional/substitution resolution methods like FNP and Haywire.

So moving to a resolution method that will reduce the results to about a third of the current system used in GWs 40k rules.

Is deemed to be just as good as a 3 stage resolution method fully utilizing the D6 range to give over double the results in GW system?

Because some posters do not understand how important the granularity of results are in a game like 40k.(Apparently?)

Unless I am missing something?


I think you are missing a few things. GW's system is a 3 stage system with purchasable 4th and even 5th stages (inv, & FNP) because they generally want models to survive a lot of dice rolling and want especially for certain special snowflake models to be almost unkillable (every stage reduces the chances of an attack becoming a wound), whilst simultaneously wanting the random factor to always have some influence; they are allergic to auto-results within the context of being adamantly bound to sticking with the d6 (they want granular inputs but don't want strong mismatches to be auto-results).

The granularity of random factor is not the main thing here. What this rewrite seems to be going for is a faster play with more tactics and less dice rolling. In that context the granularity of inputs matter but not so much the granularity of the random factor, thus we are relatively happy with auto-results. Incidentally this is where your chart is not suitable because it smudges the granularity of inputs whatever it preserves in randomness.

Oh and there is no granularity of results in any system that, regardless of the granularity of the imputs or random factor, only outputs success or fail.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/15 21:01:34


 
   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Planet of the Ultimate Llama Lords

Lanrak wrote:
@Lord_blackfang.
You are the master of the understatement.

Just to review the evidence,
Currently GWs 40k rules limit the interaction in the combat resolutions to just 90 results appx.
So they NEED extra 'inv save' systems for those units that need better than 2+ save.(The 'inv saves' have migrated obviously, due to marketing influence.)

And they need a separate resolution system for vehicles .(Because even with the 'inv save system fudges' they can not cover vehicles.)

And even with these extra fudges and separate systems they NEED to add on additional/substitution resolution methods like FNP and Haywire.

So moving to a resolution method that will reduce the results to about a third of the current system used in GWs 40k rules.

Is deemed to be just as good as a 3 stage resolution method fully utilizing the D6 range to give over double the results in GW system?

Because some posters do not understand how important the granularity of results are in a game like 40k.(Apparently?)

Unless I am missing something?



The thing you're missing is that granularity does not equal playability when it comes to tabletop games. Sure, having ten million items in an RPG is the best, but that's because all the buffs and options and separate additives and resolutions and being handled by a computer. I want to pile as many things on my character and have super intricate things happen because my PC can handle it. But when I'm rolling the dice, feth that. I don't want to do the math for all of this stuff, nor do I want to remember all those special rules. The system is overly complex in the first place but now you're making it worse by having special rules.

So I'm getting rid of some special rules, adapting the rest, and introducing my two-step method. This method is far better than the 40k method for a simple reason: It won't cause you to grit your teeth the next time you fight a swarmy opponent like nids or guard. Instead of having to roll three times to hit that Termie, you only roll twice. No more invulnerability saves, and maybe no FNP. Those are really gimmicky and sometimes don't even make sense. Why not just give Terminators higher armor and one or two more HP? That will make them hard to kill in a logical fashion and it wont cause more rolling to have to come into play.

I'm not going to have a mathematical formula to transform existing stats and values into the new system. I apologize to the existing users, but I'm going to make a new system of stats for 40k since the buff mechanic I'm going to implement will dictate balance. With that in mind, I can hardly keep the existing system, even less so when that system has three and even four steps to resolution when mine has a strict 2, maybe three if I feel there is no way to assimilate FNP/Invuln saves in the current system. With the new stat balance, Termies will feel like Termies. Tacs will feel like Tacs. And Guardsmen will feel like cannon fodder unless you upgrade them, which I am now allowing you to. Concentrated fire, Commissars, weapon upgrades, promotions, etc. It'll all be here.

Now, my question to you all is what you feel about the resolution system, the buff mechanic, and if the chart I posted here: http://imgur.com/1N8bNRB is good. I need this feedback in order to move on to the next hurdle, which is turn structure. Once we agree that the resolution system is good and the only problems are balance and stat problems, we'll move on since balance and stat problems can be fixed when we get to modifying the actual stats. This will come after the turn structure.
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 urbanknight4 wrote:

Now, my question to you all is what you feel about the resolution system, the buff mechanic, and if the chart I posted here: http://imgur.com/1N8bNRB is good. I need this feedback in order to move on to the next hurdle, which is turn structure. Once we agree that the resolution system is good and the only problems are balance and stat problems, we'll move on since balance and stat problems can be fixed when we get to modifying the actual stats. This will come after the turn structure.

Resolution system: I like. Fast & dirty as war should be. It is logical also: what we want to know is "did I hit?" and "did I kill?". GW system is jammed with excess redundant duplication: it goes "did I hit?" then "did I kill?" oh but wait "did I really, really kill?" and then even "did i really, really, really kill?"...

Buff mechanic: still pretty much conceptual rather than concrete but we can fill that out later, and crystallising that probably should be done after turn structure is solved anyway.

Chart: Yes, again fast and dirty, I like. I have a tip on an alternative way to present it to the punters that will make reading off what is needed for the win even faster. Build your roll to win for a given attacking stat against an average opposing stat into its stat line and present your opposing stats as a modifer to the roll. So like this:



So instead of punter 1 saying "oh my accuracy is 5 and your evasion is 7, so that is an overall modifier of -2. So 4 -(-2) = 4+2 = 6 means I have to roll 6 or more to hit", he can just look at his stat and say "alright I'm hitting on a 4+" and punter 2 then can say "oh no you're not my evasion mod is +2, so I'm tipping your roll to 6+ to hit". Under the hood it is the same math just presented to the punter with some of the work already built into the stat.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/16 16:21:46


 
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

 urbanknight4 wrote:
Now, my question to you all is what you feel about the resolution system, the buff mechanic, and if the chart I posted here: http://imgur.com/1N8bNRB is good.
......
Once we agree that the resolution system is good


I'm not sure it's good, which is why I proposed an alternative, which is what people have been talking about. and developing.

I'm not sure your turn structure is good, but if our only options in the thread are 'discuss why urbanknight4's proposal is good' then I can't see it really moving on much!

   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Planet of the Ultimate Llama Lords

 ArbitorIan wrote:
 urbanknight4 wrote:
Now, my question to you all is what you feel about the resolution system, the buff mechanic, and if the chart I posted here: http://imgur.com/1N8bNRB is good.
......
Once we agree that the resolution system is good


I'm not sure it's good, which is why I proposed an alternative, which is what people have been talking about. and developing.

I'm not sure your turn structure is good, but if our only options in the thread are 'discuss why urbanknight4's proposal is good' then I can't see it really moving on much!


We're not talking about the turn structure yet. Your alternative resolution method doesn't really match up with what I'm trying to do here and it requires the 1-10 scale for stats to be expanded to higher numbers. I explained that this would be a problem because, as it was earlier in the thread, why ever get units that double/triple the stat required to beat them if they're gonna be more expensive? If it were up to me, I would just get as many cheap units as possible and play swarm armies because sooner or later I'll land a successful roll and kill your men before I run out of units. If you decide to get really good units to counter that, you've probably sunk a lot of points into something that can still get beaten with attrition. It removes granularity because it doesn't accurately represent values with a 1-10 scale, or any scale at all since exponential numbers get in the way. Allow me to demonstrate.

Here is the Subtractive method resolution chart: http://imgur.com/1N8bNRB

And here is the MEdge system chart: http://imgur.com/flFQikJ

Sorry about the quality, I had to hand draw it since I don't know how Solar does his charts, but hopefully you guys see the glaring difference.

Here's what's not going to change: the 1-10 stat scale. Any more and it will be a far too jarring change for existing players and will introduce far too much granularity to the game when we want it to be resolved quickly. If the stat change I'm doing is gonna change the stats of all units, meaning you'll have to relearn them, imagine what will happen if now I say "Oh yeah, and the scale will be from 1-30 now". With this in mind, I hope you see the problem with the MEdge system. While it is indeed faster and more intuitive than mine, it is far too basic to truly represent values as we want them. For example, let's say that a Space Marine has an Accuracy of 4. Likewise, a Techmarine or an Eldar Ranger or whatever, someone with a higher Accuracy than him will have an Accuracy of 5. They both shoot at some loser with 3 Evade, let's say a Guardsman. Even though the Techmarine/Eldar Ranger have higher Accuracy stats, they'll hit the Guardsman bloke on the same roll as if they were regular Space Marines, a 3+. This discrepancy becomes even more glaring when we consider the exponential numbers I mentioned above. While the smaller numbers seem to make sense (An Accuracy of 1 can't hit jack), the farther you go you'll start seeing problems. Take into account the values for Evade 6. As soon as someone gets Accuracy 7 or higher, they get to hit on a 3+. But... that's it. A 3+ is literally the best you will be able to get in this entire game against Evade 6 even if you have an amazing targeting relay with an Accuracy value of 10.

As a matter of fact, that amazing targeting relay that you paid an eye and an arm for isn't really that worth it. It has auto-wins against Evades with values of 1, 2, and 3, but an Accuracy of 6 has auto-wins against Evade 1 and 2 as well, and Evade 3 requires only a measly 2+ to be hit. Assuming that the average stat value for anything in this game will be a 4 (4 Evade, 4 Accuracy, 4 Melee, etc), you'll have to spend a crazy amount of points to get a 2+ roll against level 4 Evade units since most Accuracy values are only higher, not double. As such they will get a 3+. So. Your average 4+ Accuracy will hit on a 4+, which makes sense. So you get a buff or a better unit for one more point, giving you a 5 in Accuracy. Now you hit on a 3+. Great! But then, you realize that in order to get a better roll (a 2+) you have to spend enough points/buffs to give you 3 more Accuracy points. That's definitely not worth it, so you decide to stay at Accuracy 5.

Those are the two problems I have with this system. Sorry for the super long post, but I needed to show you my thinking behind it. It makes higher stat values worthless and too expensive for what they provide. In the Subtractive method, an Accuracy of 10 decimates anything under 8, and the 8 is killed on an 2+. On the MEdge system, an Accuracy of 10 decimates anything under 4, and gibs 4 and 5 on a 2+. But anything above is 3+ or higher. With this in mind, I would just buy as many average units as possible, give them a one point buff, and have them roll 3+ rolls against other regular units, and still have a chance to hit everything else. Even a unit with Evade 10 isn't completely safe from my men because I hit on a 6+. Like I said earlier, the points I save from not buying elite units gives me enough to make a swarm. I'll eventually hit that lucky 6 or 5 that I need to kill your elites, but you'll need a ton of time to kill the hundreds of guys I brought on the table.

The second problem is that it makes cumulative buffs worthless. Like my Space marine/Ranger example above, its not worth it sometimes to buff yourself. That's silly and makes zero sense when you think about it: literally when in the history of the world has it not been better to... be better?. Not only that, but it gives less importance to the buff system I'm trying to implement since you could go through three different buffs and upgrades and your roll will still be the same.

I didn't say that we had to consider only my proposal. You can propose your own, which you did, and then it was refuted. I have turned it down yet again. This is for everyone else: Tell me what's wrong with the Subtractive method that we're going with now, or propose a better system.

PS: I've been using the 40K 7th Ed Reference Sheets for these rule changes. They were written by an ArbitorIan. If that's you, thank you so much! They've certainly helped a lot and I can only imagine how much time it took to make them.

Edit: It was you! Thanks again

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/16 14:49:11


 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

@urbanknight. I do up charts on a spreadsheet program (although using wordprocessor's table function works just as well if you are imputing the numbers manually). Then I copy the selected table into gimp and export it as an image ready for easy display on the interwebz.
   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Planet of the Ultimate Llama Lords

 SolarCross wrote:
@urbanknight. I do up charts on a spreadsheet program (although using wordprocessor's table function works just as well if you are imputing the numbers manually). Then I copy the selected table into gimp and export it as an image ready for easy display on the interwebz.


But how do you place in in a forum post? The best I could do was use imgur and provide a link :/
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 urbanknight4 wrote:
 SolarCross wrote:
@urbanknight. I do up charts on a spreadsheet program (although using wordprocessor's table function works just as well if you are imputing the numbers manually). Then I copy the selected table into gimp and export it as an image ready for easy display on the interwebz.


But how do you place in in a forum post? The best I could do was use imgur and provide a link :/

Wrap the link in image tags instead of link tags.
   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Planet of the Ultimate Llama Lords

Madness.

Thanks for telling me, mate. Things will go a lot smoother now
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@urbanknight.
You seem to have made your mind up on how you are going to approach this re write.And so any discussion of other ideas would probably be better off in a separate thread.
So for that reason I will start a new thread , so those interested in 3 stage combat resolution, and alternating phases(or alternating action) game turn,etc, can discuss them without getting in the way of your development ideas.

That way folks can post in the re write thread that most interests them, as I am sure some ideas are a better fit in some game structures than others.

   
Made in us
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun




Planet of the Ultimate Llama Lords

Lanrak wrote:
@urbanknight.
You seem to have made your mind up on how you are going to approach this re write.And so any discussion of other ideas would probably be better off in a separate thread.
So for that reason I will start a new thread , so those interested in 3 stage combat resolution, and alternating phases(or alternating action) game turn,etc, can discuss them without getting in the way of your development ideas.

That way folks can post in the re write thread that most interests them, as I am sure some ideas are a better fit in some game structures than others.



You're free to do so, but the only place where our opinions differ is in the resolution. You can stick around since, if nobody else suggests anything, we'll be moving on to discuss turn structure.
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

If we are ready to go on to turn structure..

What we have now is this, right?

Command Phase: Psychic powers that affect unit movement or deployment happen here. Reinforcement happens here. Suppression and leadership morale tests happen here. I know it doesn't make much sense and its ambiguous, but we need this phase. Ignore it for now, but keep in mind its here.

Action Phase 1: Here you get to do anything you want, but only one action per phase. Player 1 goes through AP1 first, and then Player 2 goes through AP1.

Phase Resolution 1:[/b] All the actions you took during AP1 are resolved here. Did you shoot someone? Move somewhere? Did you call an Ork Warboss' mother dirty in a challenge? All the dice rolls and resolution stuff will be here in order to emulate things happening simultaneously. Two squads line up in their respective AP1 and shoot, and during this phase their combat plays out. That way nobody complains about how "he went first, of course he won" or "my units would have trounced yours if you hadn't gotten lucky and gone first". Enough of that. Actions get resolved [b]simultaneously.

Action Phase 2: Same as AP1.

Phase Resolution 2: Same as PR1.

End of Turn: Everyone take a breath, because now it's time to do this alllll over again.


I have a question. Why have two action phases per turn if they are functionally identical? How is that different from having 1 Action phase per turn and just having more turns?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: