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.

Table

T1=1+ to wound (autowound)
T2=2+ to wound
T3=3+ to wound
T4=4+ to wound

and so on. It would simplify the whole shooting process and would eliminate a chart, making the game less complicated.

I've also thought about having toughness replace armour saves. An example of this w+ould be that Player A shoots at a unit of Space Marines. He rolls 2 hits. So, since Space Marines are T4, he needs a 4 to wound. He gets one 4, and now he needs to go through the armour. So, a SPace Marine has T4, so he needs a 4+ to penetrate the armour. This is equivalent of an armour save, but done by the attacker.

T1=1+ to penetrate armour
T2=2+ to penetrate armour

and so on.

sounds kinda like what age of sigmar tried to do.

I don't think it's really the best idea as it would involve much more work than there seems to be on the tin. The entire idea of wounding based on the toughness means that the entire weapon system needs to be reworked (otherwise anything that pumps out 3+ shots becomes amazing as wounding is based on a single number, not a comparison), or the entire toughness system needs to change.

the second core problem is that the charts are already fairly simple: to hit (7-BS is what you need at a minimum) to wound (same T and S = 4+, S is 1 better = 3+, S is 1 worse = 5+, etc.), you get one save, if eligeble

I may have misinterpreted things or explained badly, but I'm tired and will have to come back to this one tomorrow morning

It's a terrible oversimplification IMO. This system would mean there's no difference between shooting someone with a Lascannon or a Laspistol.

 Imateria wrote:
It's a terrible oversimplification IMO. This system would mean there's no difference between shooting someone with a Lascannon or a Laspistol.

I would have dressed it up a bit, but I agree.

Mantic has a similar system, but instead of toughness they just give you the value you need to wound. Strong weapons have a rule that modifies this value

In Warpath, for example, something heavy like an autocannon has AP2, which reduces the defense value by 2. So a 5+ to wound becomes a 3+ to wound.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Mantic has a similar system, but instead of toughness they just give you the value you need to wound. Strong weapons have a rule that modifies this value

In Warpath, for example, something heavy like an autocannon has AP2, which reduces the defense value by 2. So a 5+ to wound becomes a 3+ to wound.

Which is basically the same as checking toughness and str.

 Matthew wrote:
Table

T1=1+ to wound (autowound)
T2=2+ to wound
T3=3+ to wound
T4=4+ to wound

and so on. It would simplify the whole shooting process and would eliminate a chart, making the game less complicated.

I've also thought about having toughness replace armour saves. An example of this w+ould be that Player A shoots at a unit of Space Marines. He rolls 2 hits. So, since Space Marines are T4, he needs a 4 to wound. He gets one 4, and now he needs to go through the armour. So, a SPace Marine has T4, so he needs a 4+ to penetrate the armour. This is equivalent of an armour save, but done by the attacker.

T1=1+ to penetrate armour
T2=2+ to penetrate armour

and so on.

Well I don't think this will work becase, as said before, it sounds like an over-simplification because it completely eliminates all consideration of the capabilities of different weapons. For example, a Lascannon is going to have an easier time wounding and killing a target that a Las-Pistol (realistically speaking), but under this system they would have the same chance of wounding.

The second thing I noticed was that you have the following:

T1=1+ to wound (autowound)

This is a slightly fuzzy definition. I mean, I know that you want to say that you automatically wound a target with Toughness 1 if you successfully make the To Hit roll, but you've also listed the roll as a 1+ which is contradictory to the rule which states that a roll of 1 always fails. You did the same thing for the Armour Penetrating Throws. Clear definitions are key.

The third thing I noticed is that this rule would require a D10 rather than a D6 once you get up to T7 through to T10 because they would require a 7+ through to a 10+ (respectively) To Wound. Was the intention to introduce a D10 for this?

The problem with using toughness to decide armor save is that, using your system, an ork and a terminator have the same armor save.

Since when is the to-wound chart "complicated". I honestly haven't had to look at that chart or the WS 'to hit' chart in years. If something is that easy to memorize, it's clearly not complicated. My 9 year old even has the wound chart down and he's played like 3 games.

If anything, the "to hit" "to wound" and "saves" mechanic is one of my favorite things about 40K. It allows for a wide variety of units without a complicated system.

Special rules and those rules with unnecessary charts are what make 40k over complicated, not the BASIC charts.

Just add +4 to the Toughness stat. Now, when you roll to Wound, you just add Str +D6. If you equal or beat Toughness, you cause a wound. It's a tad worse than the chart, but you wouldn't need the chart anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just add +4 to the Toughness stat. Now, when you roll to Wound, you just add Str +D6. If you equal or beat Toughness, you cause a wound. It's a tad worse than the chart, but you wouldn't need the chart anymore.