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.

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
(I will not use any of my definitions and just talk about war games in general terms so we do not get stuck debating names rather than issues. )

I was under the impression people were thinking that you would not need separate rolls for 'to beat armour' and 'to 'damage' in 40k.
As lots of games do not bother with this distinction to speed up play.

However, lots of the other games only include a tiny range of units types , some only have slight variations of one type!
Those games that have slightly more units types have clear distinctions between 'not armoured models' like infantry , that are assumed to be 'out of action ' when they suffer a penetrating hit.
And armoured models like tanks,where these simpler games just add on an additional resolution method,to determine damage after suffering a penetrating hit.

In these games the resolution methods can be simplified, and some stages could be dropped without impacting the game play.

Okay. My confusion is growing. What other wargames have you played?

The only way to make 40k fit this type of set up would be the heavily cut back on units diversity , and its the diversity of units in 40k that makes it so appealing to so many players.

Bolded for emphasis. 'The only way'. WHY is it the only way? Have you tried?

You posted examples , of WTF moments, and I would like to try to give my take on them..

''It makes me ask 'wait, why can my hotshot lasgun punch straight through power armour but can't scratch a mound of flesh?', or 'why doesn't getting shot in the face by an autocannon actually do anything to a Terminator?'.''

The ability to punch through armour is not the same as the ability to cause damage to softer material .
Most anti armour rounds only punch a small hole through low resistance material.Without a substantial amount of impedance that thick armour gives, the energy of the anti-armour round can not be transferred to cause the optimum amount of damage .

If a hot lasgun can burn a small diameter hole through power armour ,which would probably generate enough heat to melt the armour, thus spraying a small amount of molten armour into the area directly behind the penetrated power armour.

Does not mean a hot las gun does not burn, (then probably cauterize,) a small hole across the surface or though not vital parts of a large mound of flesh type target.

This is the sort of difference in weapon effect I want to define more clearly.

You seem to have a very skewed understanding of what 'armour' is and how it works. Can you think of a weapon that isn't in a game of 40k that can burn straight through armoured plate and doesn't do proportionally greater damage to organic matter?


Now I'd really, really like you to answer my question. To reiterate. I tried to propose a two-step resolution system. You told me any two-step system would, by necessity, produce inadequate stat granularity and a three-roll system was absolutely necessary. I pointed out that most games use two-roll systems. You laughed. I gave some examples. You pointed out that Bolt Action uses a third die for damage results on armoured targets. I asked why damage resolution is 'another step' in Bolt Action and in my system, but isn't 'another step' in 40k or in your system.

What, exactly, are you proposing as a common attack resolution system? Are you suggesting that everything should have one wound/no subsystem damage and there should be hit/wound/save rolls? Are you proposing a four-roll system?

Can you please stop telling me I'm trying to overcomplicate the game by making it too simple and then hopping to another topic when I ask what you mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AnomanderRake

Psychic Powers, massively powerful weapons like a deathstrike missile, tank shock, things like that.

My plan was to take Arcane Bolt and Mystic Shield and rename them Smite and Ward respectively. Smite is D3 mortal wounds against a target within 18", Ward is now +1 to the units defense stat (was originally +1 to save).

...Why, exactly, should offensive psychic powers not just be resolved the same way shooting attacks are? For that matter why is 'let's reduce all of magic to two spells! Nothing else is necessary!' a desirable thing to copy from Age of Sigmar? (I'd really rather avoid getting off-topic into an argument about Age of Sigmar, so I'm going to briefly summarize that I like the design goals and don't like the implementation, so if you want to suggest converting over a component you do like we'll get a lot further if you ask 'can we make some baseline standard powers all psykers have?' instead of 'can I copy-paste this bit of the AoS rulebook?')

I'm going to have to go back and do some looking over D-strength weapons but I'd really rather avoid having an extra type of damage at the top end for units that are out of scale and really shouldn't have been put into 40k in the first place.

I think we're really starting to make progress towards a working system.

I think I mentioned ages ago that my idea for pyschic powers was to simply take the system from AoS and tweak it? Manifesting the powers is the same (roll 2D6, if it equals or beats the powers manifestation value it is manifested). There is no unbinding of powers (unless you have a pyschic hood) but some people will resist them better (-1 to manifestation roll against units like battle sisters, grey Knights, vehicles with relic plating etc.). However, a double 1 or double 6 will cause a mortal wound to the pysker.

And like I said, I'd take arcane bolt and mystic shield and rename them smite and ward respectively. This is simple and straightforward enough right?

Edit: I see your reply AnomanderRake.

It's all for simplicity's sake. Individual pyskers can have extra powers on their dataslates in addition to the two standard ones. I figured for smite for example, it doesn't matter if they're using warp fire, bio lighting or telekinesis to throw a boulder at you; the end result is the same.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I think we're really starting to make progress towards a working system.

I think I mentioned ages ago that my idea for pyschic powers was to simply take the system from AoS and tweak it? Manifesting the powers is the same (roll 2D6, if it equals or beats the powers manifestation value it is manifested). There is no unbinding of powers (unless you have a pyschic hood) but some people will resist them better (-1 to manifestation roll against units like battle sisters, grey Knights, vehicles with relic plating etc.). However, a double 1 or double 6 will cause a mortal wound to the pysker.

And like I said, I'd take arcane bolt and mystic shield and rename them smite and ward respectively. This is simple and straightforward enough right?

Edit: I see your reply AnomanderRake.

It's all for simplicity's sake. Individual pyskers can have extra powers on their dataslates in addition to the two standard ones. I figured for smite for example, it doesn't matter if they're using warp fire, bio lighting or telekinesis to throw a boulder at you; the end result is the same.

I'm in favour of some standardized powers, but copying what they do and how from AoS is setting me a bit on edge.

The pre-6e 40k system was a simple Ld test (Perils on double 1s/double 6s) with psychic hoods implemented as an opposed Ld roll to negate a power. I like the play-counterplay of WHFB/current 40k, I do acknowledge it may be unnecessarily complex. We do also see a problem in 40k right now (and a problem in WHFB that led to it being killed off) that an army with psykers in nontraditional slots can just utterly dominate the phase and make the play-counterplay irrelevant, and the way 8e's psychic phase ended up balanced in an average psychic phase nothing happened. Brainstorming out loud here in pre-6e 40k a lot of things that are 'psykers' in lore had passive effects rather than what we think of today as psykers, Pink Horrors (for instance) just had a shooting attack and Grey Knights just had S6 all the time.

So we're looking for a straightforward, consistent system, that doesn't give psyker-heavy Pink Horror/GK sort of armies the ability to completely black out the other guy's psychic phase, has standardized baseline powers, and is built assuming psykers will get to cast powers. 2d6 vs. difficulty the way AoS and Mordheim handle it you end up with really random high-end powers.

Thinking as I go here. Each psyker generates a fixed amount of Warp Charge per turn. Warp Charge can be spent to cast powers, sustain powers that have been cast already, attempt to deny enemy powers, or activate risk-free items/effects. Minor powers and items (the basic low-power psychic shooting attack, force weapons, that sort of thing) are low cost, can't be halted, and have limited effects, normal powers require a Ld test that risks Perils to activate, powers that remain in play can be sustained from turn to turn without a roll, and attempts to deny or remove from play powers are resolved based on an opposed Ld roll from a psyker who's near enough.

Hopefully we'd end up with a relatively simple system that rewards having a lot of psykers without punishing the other guy for having fewer, keeps everything 'psychic' in a constant frame of reference, and makes psychic powers less swingy than they are in other Warhammer-setting games without eliminating the risk out of all of this.

@AnomanderRake.
You posted..
''Okay. My confusion is growing. What other wargames have you played? ''
The ones I can remember....(Ignoring 'boxed'games,GWs specialist games, and full on RPGs)

Ancient/Napoleonic land Battles.
(Men on foot, or men on horses, or men in carts pulled by horses, or men stood by a machine that chucks heavy things.Infantry cavalry ,charriots and artillery.)

Armies Of Arcana, DBS, DBM, Hordes of the thing, Shako, To The sound Of The Guns.Several WGRG rules covering different periods in history .And 'Newbury Rules for Napoleonics' once.(Far too much of a detailed simulation for my liking.)

Fantasy versions of the above.
WHFB, Kings Of War..)

Modern land Warfare.
(Men on foot, men with transport, men inside armoured vehicles ,with artillery and air support.)
Bolt Action , Body count, Battlegroup,Blitzkrieg Commander, Challenger II, Flames Of War,Firefly,Micro Armour.

Scifi versions of the above.
Battletech, Chain Reaction, Dirtside, Fast and Dirty, Epic Space Marine , and Armageddon.(Epic 40k was too bland for my taste.)Stargrunt,Starship Troopers, Urban War, Warzone. 40k .(1st to 5th edition.3rd to 5 ed very occasionally mainly at lower P.V. )

I have not listed naval .air. or space focused games ,as they may not be considered relevant ?

You posted.
'''The only way'. WHY is it the only way? Have you tried? ''

Yes , as I have mentioned several times in this thread, I have been actively involved in tying to write rules specifically for the 40k battle game using 28mm minature for over 10 years.(I mainly post in the Proposed Rules forums, and GW General Discussion forums. )

If you scale the game back to reduce the amount of unit types on the table to 2nd ed level, BtGoA type rules work fine.

If you reduce the scale of the minatures to 15mm or less, the players are not bothered about the unit detail , and so the rules can be simplified in to broader categories.(Like Epic does.

You posted.
''You seem to have a very skewed understanding of what 'armour' is and how it works,''

Working at the Royal Ordinance Factory Nottingham for 12 year on advance weapon systems will do that to you.

''Can you think of a weapon that isn't in a game of 40k that can burn straight through armoured plate and doesn't do proportionally greater damage to organic matter? ''

Low velocity HEAT rounds,(Panzerfaust for example.)

Even if we look at the typical high velocity penetrator type anti armour weapons, ( HVAP.)When they hit thick armour plate the energy of the impact causes the metal of the armour to fragment inside the crew compartment causing the majority of the damage.

(Modern High velocity weapons have so much kinetic energy they turn the projectile and armour at point of impact into plasma.(The state between liquid and Gas,which usually incinerates everything inside the crew compartment, that is not shredded by the supersonic fragmentation of the 'internal spalling' of the armour.)

There have been several cases where a high velocity round has gone clean through a soft skinned vehicle only leaving a small hole in either side.


Since WWI weapons are designed to be effective vs armour focus more energy on one point of contact.
And weapons designed to be effective vs 'soft targets' spread the energy over wider areas.(Spray of projectiles/flames from machine guns/flame throwers,, high explosive shock wave, and fragmentation type, munitions.)

So lots of games simply divide the munition types into AP/HE or Anti tank/ Anti personnel ,(AT/AP.)

I have been trying to point out that in 40k, there is not the clear definition between armoured and not armoured units like there is in other games.And so we can not simply divide the weapon effects into anti tank or anti infantry either, without getting counter intuitive results, found in GW current 40k rules.

In rule sets where armoured targets are easily identified and separated, they may be the only unit that needs the damage resolution to determine the effects of the penetrating hit.(All other models mainly infantry are assumed a penetrating hit 'put them out of action' in game terms , automatically to speed up play.)

I was advocating that everything gets a stat to determine the combat interaction to cover the variety in the 40k game play.I thought I posted this earlier in the thread?

Anyhow a recap if ideas so far discussed .

Movement values,instead of special rules .

To hit , we compare the attackers skill at hitting vs the targets ability to avoid being hit.(Cover can simply add the the targets not being hit at range skill.'Evasion/Agilty ' or what ever we decide to cal it.)

(This covers the wide and diverse unit abilities in 40k much better than the current rules .I think we more or less of agree on this so far. )

The armour save,
I would like to compare the weapon hits ability to beat armour ,(The AP value on the weapon data .) with the amount of armour the target has.
This gives a proportional saves across the range of interaction.

(Again I think we all sort of agree on this.)

However, as some models in 40k are much more resilient to penetrating hits than others. Because 40k has a much wider range of weapons and combatant types than other games.
I think it is important to apply the third stage 'to damage' roll to all units in 40k.

Similar set up , we use weapon Damage (based on old Strength value.) vs the target Resilience value ,(based on old toughness value.)To determine the proportional chance of the penetrating hit causing damage.

If a models takes damage it loosed 'hit points'.(Wounds for organic, and Structure for mechanical,units perhaps?) When a model has lost all its hit points it is removed from play as a casualty.
Most models only have 1 hit point, and so the level of damage a light infantry unit made up of 10 x 1 hit point models takes is shown directly buy the number of models left in the unit.

Multiple hit point models , usually vehicles and monsters simply have their hit points recorded on their unit card.

Example, a Land Raider has three 'attack hit points' and 'two move hit points.'
Three spaces next to the attack hit point stat on the unit card,(to represent each of its three main weapons.)
And two blank spaces next to the move hit point stat on the unit card.

When the Land raider suffers a penetrating hit that causes damage.A hit point is lost.(Noted on the unit card.)

For each mobility point lost the model looses a proportion of its movement speed.
For each armament point lost the models looses the attack of one main weapon.(Monsters just loose an attack for each armamant hit point lost.)

Failed saves that do not physical damage simply suppress the model.
If more than half the models in the unit failed their armour saves,( and became suppressed,) the unit counts as suppressed.

This gives proportional loss of effectiveness across all units , in a similar way.
And covers the morale effects of ranged weapons as an intergrated part of the ranged weapon resolution.(We do not need separate damage tables for vehicles etc.)

I may need to explain that better?

Sounds somewhat like a mix of the Firepower rule from Flames of War (seeing if the attack is damaging), the Cortex damage rules from Warmachine (unit gets less effective as systems are knocked out due to HP loss) and the Pinning rules used by Bolt Action (each hit places a Pin on the unit, making it harder for them to do anything but seek cover so they don't get hit by fire).

@Stormonu.
That is exactly what I was trying to achieve.

40k is a similar sort of game scale as Flames of war.(Company level modern battle game.)
40k minatures are of a similar scale as Bolt Action minatures.(28mm).

So in my opinion, it is best to be inspired by these games, to find a hybrid system that uses the great concepts from these games, but applies them in a straightforward way to fit the unique game play the diversity of units in 40k generate.

With the incremental range of armour , and weapon types in 40k background.A proportional system seemed a sensible starting point.
With the wide range of life forms in 40k , and weapon abilities to damage them, A proportional system seemed a sensible starting point.

if we use a clear distinction between armour penetration and physical damage, with separate resolution for each across all units in 40k.
This also allows a simple way to arrive at proportional levels for suppression across all unit types.

Lanrak wrote:
You posted.
'''The only way'. WHY is it the only way? Have you tried? ''

Yes , as I have mentioned several times in this thread, I have been actively involved in tying to write rules specifically for the 40k battle game using 28mm minature for over 10 years.(I mainly post in the Proposed Rules forums, and GW General Discussion forums. )

If you scale the game back to reduce the amount of unit types on the table to 2nd ed level, BtGoA type rules work fine.

If you reduce the scale of the minatures to 15mm or less, the players are not bothered about the unit detail , and so the rules can be simplified in to broader categories.(Like Epic does.

Telling me 'Oh, I've tried it and it doesn't work' without telling me what you tried and why it didn't work isn't any more helpful than telling me 'it doesn't work'.

You posted.
''You seem to have a very skewed understanding of what 'armour' is and how it works,''

Working at the Royal Ordinance Factory Nottingham for 12 year on advance weapon systems will do that to you.

''Can you think of a weapon that isn't in a game of 40k that can burn straight through armoured plate and doesn't do proportionally greater damage to organic matter? ''

Low velocity HEAT rounds,(Panzerfaust for example.)

Even if we look at the typical high velocity penetrator type anti armour weapons, ( HVAP.)When they hit thick armour plate the energy of the impact causes the metal of the armour to fragment inside the crew compartment causing the majority of the damage.

(Modern High velocity weapons have so much kinetic energy they turn the projectile and armour at point of impact into plasma.(The state between liquid and Gas,which usually incinerates everything inside the crew compartment, that is not shredded by the supersonic fragmentation of the 'internal spalling' of the armour.)

There have been several cases where a high velocity round has gone clean through a soft skinned vehicle only leaving a small hole in either side.


Since WWI weapons are designed to be effective vs armour focus more energy on one point of contact.
And weapons designed to be effective vs 'soft targets' spread the energy over wider areas.(Spray of projectiles/flames from machine guns/flame throwers,, high explosive shock wave, and fragmentation type, munitions.)

So lots of games simply divide the munition types into AP/HE or Anti tank/ Anti personnel ,(AT/AP.)

I have been trying to point out that in 40k, there is not the clear definition between armoured and not armoured units like there is in other games.And so we can not simply divide the weapon effects into anti tank or anti infantry either, without getting counter intuitive results, found in GW current 40k rules.

In rule sets where armoured targets are easily identified and separated, they may be the only unit that needs the damage resolution to determine the effects of the penetrating hit.(All other models mainly infantry are assumed a penetrating hit 'put them out of action' in game terms , automatically to speed up play.)

Forgive me for misunderstanding here, my knowledge of weaponry and the physics thereof is mostly theoretical, but are you telling me that in your experience at the Royal Ordnance Factory you've found a weapon that can burn through steel plate and is less effective against organic matter? I'm not asking about the theory of how antipersonnel and anti-armour weapons are designed, I'm asking about the physical effect of shooting a human (or human-analogue) with an anti-armour round.

I was advocating that everything gets a stat to determine the combat interaction to cover the variety in the 40k game play.I thought I posted this earlier in the thread?

Anyhow a recap if ideas so far discussed .

Movement values,instead of special rules .

To hit , we compare the attackers skill at hitting vs the targets ability to avoid being hit.(Cover can simply add the the targets not being hit at range skill.'Evasion/Agilty ' or what ever we decide to cal it.)

(This covers the wide and diverse unit abilities in 40k much better than the current rules .I think we more or less of agree on this so far. )

Thus far, yes.

The armour save,
I would like to compare the weapon hits ability to beat armour ,(The AP value on the weapon data .) with the amount of armour the target has.
This gives a proportional saves across the range of interaction.

(Again I think we all sort of agree on this.)

However, as some models in 40k are much more resilient to penetrating hits than others. Because 40k has a much wider range of weapons and combatant types than other games.
I think it is important to apply the third stage 'to damage' roll to all units in 40k.

Similar set up , we use weapon Damage (based on old Strength value.) vs the target Resilience value ,(based on old toughness value.)To determine the proportional chance of the penetrating hit causing damage.

If a models takes damage it loosed 'hit points'.(Wounds for organic, and Structure for mechanical,units perhaps?) When a model has lost all its hit points it is removed from play as a casualty.
Most models only have 1 hit point, and so the level of damage a light infantry unit made up of 10 x 1 hit point models takes is shown directly buy the number of models left in the unit.

Multiple hit point models , usually vehicles and monsters simply have their hit points recorded on their unit card.

Example, a Land Raider has three 'attack hit points' and 'two move hit points.'
Three spaces next to the attack hit point stat on the unit card,(to represent each of its three main weapons.)
And two blank spaces next to the move hit point stat on the unit card.

When the Land raider suffers a penetrating hit that causes damage.A hit point is lost.(Noted on the unit card.)

For each mobility point lost the model looses a proportion of its movement speed.
For each armament point lost the models looses the attack of one main weapon.(Monsters just loose an attack for each armamant hit point lost.)

Failed saves that do not physical damage simply suppress the model.
If more than half the models in the unit failed their armour saves,( and became suppressed,) the unit counts as suppressed.

This gives proportional loss of effectiveness across all units , in a similar way.
And covers the morale effects of ranged weapons as an intergrated part of the ranged weapon resolution.(We do not need separate damage tables for vehicles etc.)

I may need to explain that better?

Okay. For the FOURTH TIME. I'd love it if you'd ANSWER MY QUESTION. Why are you getting on my case about three-stage damage resolution being superior to two-stage damage resolution, and then turning around and posting a four-stage process without batting an eyelash?

For that matter why are we 'all agreed' on needing an armour save when I've just spent the past two days telling you that I think it could be cut and asking you to EXPLAIN why you're insisting it's absolutely essential?

So, these stats:

Movement: How far the model moves.
Evasion: How good the model is at avoiding damage.
Bulk: How 'big' and heavy the model is.
Resistance: How good the model is at dealing with damage struck.
Endurance: How much damage the model can withstand before it is removed.
Ranged: How good the model is with ranged weapons.
Melee: How good the model is with melee weapons.
Leadership: How brave and disciplined the model is.

How do they look?

(Edited a couple of times)

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So, these stats:

Movement: How far the model moves.
Evasion: How good the model is at avoiding damage.
Bulk: How 'big' and heavy the model is.
Resistance: How good the model is at dealing with damage struck.
Endurance: How much damage the model can withstand before it is removed.
Ranged: How good the model is with ranged weapons.
Melee: How good the model is with melee weapons.
Leadership: How brave and disciplined the model is.

How do they look?

(Edited a couple of times)

Mostly what I was thinking. I'd like to keep the stats in a more standard order for now, I don't know if I look for certain things on the left end of the statline because I've been trained to or if there's a better reason (stats you use more on the left?) but I'd go Move/MAT/RAT/Evade/Resistance/Endurance/Bullk/Leadership. Also I'd like to avoid the D&D pit trap of using the same word to mean half a dozen different things at different spots in the rules, I've written MAT/RAT into the statline as placeholders for now but I know 'ranged' and 'melee' shouldn't be the final names.

Also the weapon statline is Range/Power/Rate of Fire (shots?).

Will come back and write down some tentative statline guides later today, I'm having an argument with my Internet connection right now.

@AnomanderRake.
I have tried repeatedly to explain why the current game play of 40k needs to have a three stage damage resolution.(If we want to cover the depth of the intended game play of the current 40k game in the least complicated way possible.)

You argued that a two stage damage resolution was sufficient , then proceeded to quote games that used a three stage damage resolution for armoured targets.

I pointed out that that basically ALL units on 40k have varied and proportional levels of armour, and variable and proportional levels of resistance to damage.
And 40k game play is unique on the variety of units used, which players want to have brought to life on the game table.

I explained that a straight forward three stage damage resolution , using opposed values.(To hit , To save, To damage.)
Also allows a simple suppression resolution,as part of the normal shooting resolution.

A result of the normal resolution process is not considered a separate resolution, and neither is recording damage AFAIK.

Roll to hit.
Hit or miss.

Roll to save.
Pass or fail

Roll to damage
Caused damage or not caused damage.
(Record damage by removing models or marking hit points off unit card.)

If more than half of the models in a unit fail their armour save , the unit becomes suppressed.
This is just one simple rule that works for all units in 40k.(Yes, I have play tested it with a wide range of 40k units to make sure .)

If you are so sure you proposed system is better, please post it up.If it delivers the detail required to cover all current 40k units in less complicated way.
I will quite happily admit you have devised a better option than I have been able too.

The difference between anti tank weapons, and anti infantry weapons is not just about the theoretical point of contact on the target.
(Which you seem to focus on.Even though I have explained how anti tank type weapons are most effective against thick armour plate )

But includes the accuracy of the delivery system, and cost effectiveness/limitations of the munition types .

Normally armoured targets are much larger and less agile.So they are easier to hit than smaller more agile infantry.

Also units have limited amounts of ammunition in a battle, so they tend to use target appropriate munitions.No gun/tank crew would dream of wasting anti-armour rounds on soft targets!

@Future War Cultist.
The 'Bulk' of a unit could be considered as one of the factors that determines its 'Evasion' stat.So I can not really see the need to list it separately?

I think the order of the stats should follow the order of resolution.(It is intuitive and follows the layout in other games.)
Example ..

Movement ,
Ranged Attack.
Melee Attack.
Evade,
(*Agility,)
(*Armour,)
Resistance,
Endurance ,(Wounds or Structure if you still want to separate organic and mechanical type targets?)
Morale.

If you want to cover ALL weapon stats , (including melee weapons.)
I would suggest.
Range, Attacks, (*Armour Penetration) Damage .

Attacks, shows the number of dice rolled, or the area of effect in inches.

(*These stats may be needed?)

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
I have tried repeatedly to explain why the current game play of 40k needs to have a three stage damage resolution.(If we want to cover the depth of the intended game play of the current 40k game in the least complicated way possible.)

You argued that a two stage damage resolution was sufficient , then proceeded to quote games that used a three stage damage resolution for armoured targets.

I pointed out that that basically ALL units on 40k have varied and proportional levels of armour, and variable and proportional levels of resistance to damage.
And 40k game play is unique on the variety of units used, which players want to have brought to life on the game table.

I explained that a straight forward three stage damage resolution , using opposed values.(To hit , To save, To damage.)
Also allows a simple suppression resolution,as part of the normal shooting resolution.

WHY, exactly, is the vehicle damage table a 'step' in Bolt Action and NOT a 'step' in 40k?

If you are so sure you proposed system is better, please post it up.If it delivers the detail required to cover all current 40k units in less complicated way.
I will quite happily admit you have devised a better option than I have been able too.

I DID. Have you read anything I've posted in this thread?

The difference between anti tank weapons, and anti infantry weapons is not just about the theoretical point of contact on the target.
(Which you seem to focus on.Even though I have explained how anti tank type weapons are most effective against thick armour plate )

But includes the accuracy of the delivery system, and cost effectiveness/limitations of the munition types .

Normally armoured targets are much larger and less agile.So they are easier to hit than smaller more agile infantry.

Also units have limited amounts of ammunition in a battle, so they tend to use target appropriate munitions.No gun/tank crew would dream of wasting anti-armour rounds on soft targets!

And...the accuracy of the delivery system...and the cost effectiveness/limitations of munitions....are better represented by a save roll as opposed to...say...a to-hit roll...the rate of fire...and...oh...say...points costs....WHY?

You might want to cluster the stats in Active/Reactive order. Active being a decision decided by the player (Moving, Shooting, Melee, etc.), and Reactive being consulted when something happens to the player (being shot, checking morale, ect.)

Also, if Psychic ability is to be included in the game, shouldn't there be an Active/Reactive trait for its use? Yes, most units won't have an Active trait, but certainly we should have a Reactive resistance ability of some sort...

 Stormonu wrote:
You might want to cluster the stats in Active/Reactive order. Active being a decision decided by the player (Moving, Shooting, Melee, etc.), and Reactive being consulted when something happens to the player (being shot, checking morale, ect.)

Also, if Psychic ability is to be included in the game, shouldn't there be an Active/Reactive trait for its use? Yes, most units won't have an Active trait, but certainly we should have a Reactive resistance ability of some sort...

I'd rather have it as a subscript on the Psyker keyword (Psyker (Mastery 1), Psyker (Mastery 2), etc.) than as an element of the core statline. Having to write 'Psychic Mastery: 0' on Necron Warriors' statline is a textbook example of what shouldn't be on the core statline.

I'd also rather keep psychic cast/resist dependent on Leadership rather than make a whole other stat for it; they'd be pretty closely linked if we did, and it'd be a statline entry that wasn't used in a reasonable portion of games.

In the current 40K statline, you don't write out a Strength stat for a Land Raider either, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have thought of where you would indicate it if needed.

Right now, the 40K psychic system is like a mini-game and it isn't truly integrated into the whole system. If you have psychic abilities, there's this whole extra phase/portion of the game where a player gets to do stuff while the opponent mostly twiddles his thumbs. The concepts for how psyckers will be handled should be treated with the same thought put forward for, say vehicles - not as an afterthought.

That said, in the revised rules I have been working on, using psychic abiities has (so far) been tied to leadership. I think it would be a mistake, however, not to consider how it will be integrated into the system at this point. But you do seem to have considered where it will go .

@Stormonu.
I agree that the psychic phase feels like a complete after thought , (like so many elements in the GW 40k rules.)
I would prefer to activate psychic powers in the relevant action phase , similar to 3rd to 5th ed.

@AnomanderRake.
You wrote

WHY, exactly, is the vehicle damage table a 'step' in Bolt Action and NOT a 'step' in 40k?

The vehicle damage table in Bolt Action adds the ONLY 'dedicated damage roll' in the B.A rules , making it a three stage damage resolution system.

40k has a 'primary' roll to damage system in place the 'Strength vs Toughness' roll.The vehicle damage table is an alternative resolution method, not an additional 'step. '(To determine damage after the armour is penetrated, you use SvT for one set of models, and a damage resolution table for the other set of models.),

Have you read anything I've posted in this thread?

Yes I have.You started by posting ...

My point here is that good AP/poor Strength versus good Strength/poor AP aren't mathematically distinct in enough cases to actually matter to the game. Almost all of 40k is "I have AP2, therefore you die, Strength be damned" or "I wound on 2s and have a bazillion shots, 2+ armour won't save you".

This is an argument against the poor way the three stage damage resolution is used in 40k, and GWs poor rules writing in general.That leads to 'bland' game play.And far to many exceptions that complicate the rules and detract form the game play.Not an argument against a three stage damage resolution.

High Armour low toughness SHOULD be different to low Armour and high Toughness , to represent the diverse 40k units in the inspiring 40k background.

I don't want to artificially separate vehicles from other units. I want a straightforward set of non-random subsystem damage rules that apply equally to anything with enough wounds (things that 40k today calls Monstrous/Gargantuan Creatures and Vehicles) (I'm still working on how to implement it)

So this was an idea you were working on that you had not refined yet.
It sounded like you just wanted to use hit points (wounds or structure) to represent how hard units were to kill , rather than a separate damage roll.(Could be book keeping heavy without unit cards?)But then you appeared to want to use damage tables for some units and not others?

Then you went on to post...

'Armour' and 'Toughness' is an arbitrary division that I've never seen any game in any genre make, it's not more intuitive or more granular. GW uses a tiny fragment of the range of stats and makes a fairly granular game with three rolls, a two-roll system that made use of the available range of stats could easily make a similarly granular game much more simply.

Your argument appears to return to , because 40k completely under utilizes a three stage damage resolution method to arrive at a 'fairly granular*' game.(*Bland and tactically shallow IMO.)You could write a rule set using just two resolution methods to arrive at a similar level of granularity.
No argument from me here.You could do that but WHY?

My argument is...
You could make a 'fairly granular' game with simpler rules.But I would rather make a diverse, tactically deeper, and more inspiring game with a fraction more effort, and slightly more complex rules.

it is probably best that we agree to disagree.
You appear to want simple rules to cover the simple game play the incompetence of GW rules writing delivers.

I would prefer to develop a slightly more complex rule set that delivers the inspiring and diverse interactions shown in the 40k background.

Lanrak wrote:
...You appear to want simple rules to cover the simple game play the incompetence of GW rules writing delivers.

I would prefer to develop a slightly more complex rule set that delivers the inspiring and diverse interactions shown in the 40k background.

...Okay. You've been telling me 'You're wrong' and responding to every request for an explanation with 'you're wrong'. You change the subject every time I ask a question and casually throw around accusations that I find incredibly insulting.

I don't want to delve into the terrain of mudslinging but I'm having a harder and harder time believing you're not mocking me. I'd like to ask if English is your first language, and what, exactly, you think the word 'why' means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
You wrote

WHY, exactly, is the vehicle damage table a 'step' in Bolt Action and NOT a 'step' in 40k?

The vehicle damage table in Bolt Action adds the ONLY 'dedicated damage roll' in the B.A rules , making it a three stage damage resolution system.

40k has a 'primary' roll to damage system in place the 'Strength vs Toughness' roll.The vehicle damage table is an alternative resolution method, not an additional 'step. '(To determine damage after the armour is penetrated, you use SvT for one set of models, and a damage resolution table for the other set of models.),

So. I ask AGAIN. Are you proposing deleting the damage resolution step, or are you applying inconsistent standards of what a 'step' is to 40k and Bolt Action?

Have you read anything I've posted in this thread?

Yes I have.You started by posting ...

My point here is that good AP/poor Strength versus good Strength/poor AP aren't mathematically distinct in enough cases to actually matter to the game. Almost all of 40k is "I have AP2, therefore you die, Strength be damned" or "I wound on 2s and have a bazillion shots, 2+ armour won't save you".

This is an argument against the poor way the three stage damage resolution is used in 40k, and GWs poor rules writing in general.That leads to 'bland' game play.And far to many exceptions that complicate the rules and detract form the game play.Not an argument against a three stage damage resolution.

High Armour low toughness SHOULD be different to low Armour and high Toughness , to represent the diverse 40k units in the inspiring 40k background.

PLEASE stop repeating yourself and EXPLAIN. Describe some cases where the Armour/Toughness divide is RELEVANT.

And WILL YOU STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT EVERY POST and tell me WHY the 'accuracy of the delivery system' and 'the cost effectiveness/limited munitions' are better represented by a save roll as opposed to the to-hit roll and the rate of fire of the weapon?

So cover...plus 1 to the models evasion stat right?

 Stormonu wrote:
That said, in the revised rules I have been working on, using psychic abiities has (so far) been tied to leadership. I think it would be a mistake, however, not to consider how it will be integrated into the system at this point. But you do seem to have considered where it will go .

I agree that core stats should be used wherever possible.
Leadership is indicative of "willpower" and would make sense for how strong the model is to influence or to influence others.

I like the Bolt Action method of keeping a consistent "toughness" stat which would deal with the monstrous creature vs walker issues we have in 40k. Do note however that weapons designed to deal with armor in BA have bonuses not unlike "melta" in 40k which would need to be added if that route is explored.

Anything that can render many "special rules" obsolete especially codex based ones is ideal.

I am not fully supportive of this thread since I have seen this play-out a few times and I do not find the rules all that complicated.
Plus it IS a great exercise but you would be hard pressed to actually have it adopted for general use.

People are looking for that unicorn called "game balance" and much of that is in the application of points cost vs capability.
What the game is sorely lacking is the ability to have a "fair" pickup game and I am unsure we can get there from here.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So cover...plus 1 to the models evasion stat right?

Most likely. +1 soft/+2 hard if necessary, as defined by the terrain peice.

Personally, I like removing the vehicle damage table from 40K and replacing Vehicle F/S/R "armor" values with a Toughness/Resistance vlaue and an actual Armor value. (I've used it in the PDF I enclosed earlier). This brings some parity between Monstrous Creatures and vehicles. Also, all vehicles won't necessarily have 2+ Armor. Soft-skins (like Sentinels) might have a 5+, Transports a 4+, most Tanks a 3+ and only something really tough like a Land Raider might have a 2+. It might help in fixing the "glance-to-death with STR 6 weapons" issue be mitigated. It also does a lot to streamline the game if you change from an Armor value to a "Toughness" value for vehicles.

And lets face it - GW has thrown in more abilities into the game to negate "Crew Shaken/Stunned" results that about the only thing you're looking for is a Destroyed/Explode result on the Vehicle Damage table anyways - so a 1 in 3 chance th vehicle goes boom with one hit.

As an aside, I went so far as assigning a STR and Attack value to vehicles (and a Melee/Weapon skill of 1-2), so you don't have to have a whole section on vehicle rams/tank overrun. I've half a mind to give vehicles a form of Fear to handle tank shocks easily.

 Talizvar wrote:
Convert everything over to "Bolt Action"?

I owe you an apology for being so dismissive earlier.

I just got a look at the rules for bolt action and they're really good. We could definitely use some of them for inspiration.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Convert everything over to "Bolt Action"?

I owe you an apology for being so dismissive earlier.

I just got a look at the rules for bolt action and they're really good. We could definitely use some of them for inspiration.

That was the inspiration for the attack structure I've been talking about.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Convert everything over to "Bolt Action"?

I owe you an apology for being so dismissive earlier.

I just got a look at the rules for bolt action and they're really good. We could definitely use some of them for inspiration.

That was the inspiration for the attack structure I've been talking about.

I finally understand what you are aiming for. I mean I had an idea of course but now it's much clearer.

But just to be clear; would it be something like this:

A model has a number that is needed to wound them. Say, 5, 6, 7 etc. the player rolls a dice and if they equal or beat the number they wound them. But as some models are 7+, they can't be hurt by most weapons. Only weapons with a penetration bonus (+1, +3 etc) could hurt such models. Case in point, a landraider has a resilience of 14, so only a weapon with a penetration value of +8 could damage them.

So a weapons stats would look something like:

range/attacks/penetration/notes

Lasgun: range: 24"/attacks: 2/penetration: 0
Boltgun: range: 24"/attacks: 2/penetration: +1
Splinter Rifle: range: 24"/attacks: 2/penetration: 0/notes:reroll damage rolls against targets with the biological keyword

Don't take those weapon stats too seriously. They're just brainstorming.

But I really like this. It's simple and intuitive. Sorry if I seemed slow to grasp this idea though. I miss stuff easily on forums like this.

@AnomanderRake.

..Okay. You've been telling me 'You're wrong' and responding to every request for an explanation with 'you're wrong'. You change the subject every time I ask a question and casually throw around accusations that I find incredibly insulting.

I have never posted '..you are wrong..'.
I thought we established early on we had a difference of opinion on how detailed the resolution of combat should be in the 'new 40 rules' this thread is developing.

You asked me questions, I answered then to the best of my ability.(I already said I was not that good at explaining things in the written format.)

You appeared not to understand my answers.So I tried to explain my ideas in more detail, and the reasons behind my ideas.

You still do not appear to understand my answers, despite my best efforts.And now you think I am 'throwing around accusations to insult you.'?

If I am understanding what you have posted so far,

You want to use a 2 stage resolution system for combat.You stated you thought 25 to 36 results would be adequate to cover all the units in 40k universe.You stated you were happy to reduce the units and weapon options in 40k to fit this revised system.
In addition you appeared to want to use a damage table for 'armoured vehicles' and 'Monstrous creatures'?

This would result in the following...
Roll to hit ,roll to 'penetrate armour and automatically damage'.For every thing but Vehicles and M/Cs who roll on a damage table, after rolling to penetrate armour?

If this summary is wrong just tell me what I got wrong.

I'd like to ask if English is your first language, and what, exactly, you think the word 'why' means.

Yes, English is my first language.
I believe 'Why', is a word used to question the intent, action, or state, of a subject, object or person.

So. I ask AGAIN. Are you proposing deleting the damage resolution step, or are you applying inconsistent standards of what a 'step' is to 40k and Bolt Action?

The last time I looked , I am the one proposing a three stage resolution system to cover combat interaction for all units.
Roll to hit,(BS/WS vs Evasion/Dodge), roll to save,(AV vs AP), roll to damage.(Damage vs Resilience. )

The only difference in my proposed system is discreet and indiscreet units record damage slightly differently.('Infantry' removes models from the unit to show damage, 'vehicles and monsters' record damage on their unit card .)

PLEASE stop repeating yourself and EXPLAIN. Describe some cases where the Armour/Toughness divide is RELEVANT.

If all the units in 40k had the same physical traits, like all being standard humans.
Then the chance of a hit being converted to damage would only depend on the armour worn and/or ability to use cover better to avoid being hit.
As all penetrating hits are damaging exactly the same biological target type.The 'to damage' part of the resolution is a constant, so can be factored out of the resolution system.

However , armoured vehicles have far more varied construction , and so this variation has to be taken into account, a penetrating hit may only cause minor internal damage if it hits a thicker part of the tank armour ,etc).

And WILL YOU STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT EVERY POST and tell me WHY the 'accuracy of the delivery system' and 'the cost effectiveness/limited munitions' are better represented by a save roll as opposed to the to-hit roll and the rate of fire of the weapon?

Putting a high energy single point of contact round on a target, is much harder than firing area effect munition , or spraying an area with projectiles /chemicals , to cover the general area the target is in.
(120mm HE fragmentation round has a lethal area of effect vs soft targets of 200 meters diameter. 120mm APFSDS round has a 25mm diameter penetrator, that is only effective when hitting at least 20mm of armour plate , otherwise it just goes through and through. )

In practice this means 'anti tank weapons' are only used on large heavily armoured targets,as it is difficult to hit smaller more agile targets, that may not be put out if action even if hit by a high velocity anti tank round (As previously discussed.)

So if games are only dealing with easily definable soft and hard target types , and weapons that are effective vs soft or hard targets.Much simpler rules can be used.

This is the basic game play frame work B.A. and F.O.W are written for.As the scope of the games are to cover all human combatants with 1940s technology.

In 40k we have targets with completely alien biology.(Literally)
And players are familiar with having a separate value for armour and toughness to show this difference in the alien life forms.And how weapons act differently on these different target types.

If you have a model that is supposed to be very hard to damage(High toughness) , with very little armour.(6+ save.) EG an Ork Warboss, with Orky plate armour.
To get the 'resistance to damage', the high separate toughness value would show in a three stage resolution system.
The Ork warboss has to be given a high ' combined armour and toughness' value.That makes him immune to all but anti tank type weapons.

Anti tank weapons (if they managed to hit 'tough infantry') in practice could punch a small hole right through a non critical part of the Warboss and not cause the War boss any serious damage.(Xenos life forms are quite odd compared to human physiology according to the back ground of 40k.)

So players could assume anti tank weapons should not be as effective vs 'tough infantry', as anti infantry type weapons should be , which 'tough infantry' are now immune to!

The 'heavy anti infantry weapons' (Heavy bolter,) should be able to cause damage to the lightly armoured Warboss, if subjected to high quantities of heavy anti infantry fire.

In 40k there is not clear distinction between soft and hard targets like there is in B.A. and F.O.W.And it is this range of units between infantry and armoured vehicles ,that needs more definition than a two stage resolution system can provide IMO.

Lots of people have suggested giving vehicles 'saves 'and 'toughness' so all units resolve damage in a similar way.
I just wanted to take this idea one stage further by generating proportional saves , based on comparing new Armour values to new Armour piercing values.
(To get rid of the counter intuitive results 'inv saves' often cause. )

I agree that cover should give,
+1 to Evasion stat of units in cover.
+2 to the Evasion stat of units in heavy cover.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Convert everything over to "Bolt Action"?

I owe you an apology for being so dismissive earlier.
I just got a look at the rules for bolt action and they're really good. We could definitely use some of them for inspiration.

As was pointed out, it appeared as a rather "glib" response on my part, so some backlash was expected.
BA has most of the structure of 40k, two of the authors were responsible for many of the present day 40k rules: Rick Priestly and Alessio Cavatore.
I honestly thought BA was what 40k was supposed to be if those two were allowed to write it.
I have not had a chance to check out "Beyond the Gates of Anteras" which may shoe-horn things in a bit better.
Thanks for the apology, not many people can do that...

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.

..Okay. You've been telling me 'You're wrong' and responding to every request for an explanation with 'you're wrong'. You change the subject every time I ask a question and casually throw around accusations that I find incredibly insulting.

I have never posted '..you are wrong..'.
I thought we established early on we had a difference of opinion on how detailed the resolution of combat should be in the 'new 40 rules' this thread is developing.

You asked me questions, I answered then to the best of my ability.(I already said I was not that good at explaining things in the written format.)

You appeared not to understand my answers.So I tried to explain my ideas in more detail, and the reasons behind my ideas.

You still do not appear to understand my answers, despite my best efforts.And now you think I am 'throwing around accusations to insult you.'?

If I am understanding what you have posted so far,

You want to use a 2 stage resolution system for combat.You stated you thought 25 to 36 results would be adequate to cover all the units in 40k universe.You stated you were happy to reduce the units and weapon options in 40k to fit this revised system.
In addition you appeared to want to use a damage table for 'armoured vehicles' and 'Monstrous creatures'?

This would result in the following...
Roll to hit ,roll to 'penetrate armour and automatically damage'.For every thing but Vehicles and M/Cs who roll on a damage table, after rolling to penetrate armour?

If this summary is wrong just tell me what I got wrong.

Back up a step again. I know we're wandering into the realm of semantics here, but I'm going to try.

In 40k there are (depending on the game state) between one and four die roll gates (typically three) that have to be passed to do any damage at all to a target. If you fail at any stage along that path your attack stops. Once you have successfully damaged the target damage resolution takes place, during which either vehicle damage is rolled or wounds are allocated to models in units.

I find this approach leads to highly random and frustrating gameplay. It heavily constrains the amount of Wounds/Hull Points a single model can have, because you may only be getting damage through a tiny percentage of the time. It makes firing low-quality weapons extremely frustrating, because the line between 'full health' and 'gone' for high-quality units is so slim that dice spikes have too great an impact on the game. And it makes effects that skip a step too good, because it produces weapons that are way too effective in some situations and are by necessity overpriced in others.

In Bolt Action there are two die roll gates that have to be passed to do any damage at all to a target. If you fail at any stage along that path your attack stops. Once you have successfully damaged the target damage resolution takes place, during which either vehicle damage is is rolled or wounds are allocated to models in units.

I find that this approach to be similarly frustrating because the designers maintained the same one-wound-per-model across-the-board assumption that most of 40k runs on. It simplifies bookkeeping, yes, but it also means that some weapons are by necessity very limited in their to-hit rolls, and the line between a squad being fine and the same squad being wiped is quite often a single roll of a '6'.

You are proposing a system where every attack takes three rolls to do any damage. If there are no effects that skip steps of the process my experience has led me to believe this will lead to a stagnant game where attacks have a very high chance of doing absolutely nothing. If you've ever tried to play Space Marine versus Space Marine kill-team with the 40k rules, where bolter fire is pretty much ineffective, that's where I think you're going to end up.

I am proposing a system where every attack takes two rolls to do any damage and (this is key) models have a wider range of wound values. I would like a game in which models don't live or die based on single bad die rolls and where there's a concrete sense of progress to play rather than vast quantities of dice thrown back and forth that do absolutely nothing, interspersed with a few spikes that make a Terminator disappear without a trace.

I'd like to ask if English is your first language, and what, exactly, you think the word 'why' means.

Yes, English is my first language.
I believe 'Why', is a word used to question the intent, action, or state, of a subject, object or person.

This was a counterproductive question to ask, I'm sorry for losing my temper.

So. I ask AGAIN. Are you proposing deleting the damage resolution step, or are you applying inconsistent standards of what a 'step' is to 40k and Bolt Action?

The last time I looked , I am the one proposing a three stage resolution system to cover combat interaction for all units.
Roll to hit,(BS/WS vs Evasion/Dodge), roll to save,(AV vs AP), roll to damage.(Damage vs Resilience. )

The only difference in my proposed system is discreet and indiscreet units record damage slightly differently.('Infantry' removes models from the unit to show damage, 'vehicles and monsters' record damage on their unit card .)

It sounds to me like 'recording damage on the unit card' is being defined as a 'step' in other games and not in your game, I'm not entirely sure why.

PLEASE stop repeating yourself and EXPLAIN. Describe some cases where the Armour/Toughness divide is RELEVANT.

If all the units in 40k had the same physical traits, like all being standard humans.
Then the chance of a hit being converted to damage would only depend on the armour worn and/or ability to use cover better to avoid being hit.
As all penetrating hits are damaging exactly the same biological target type.The 'to damage' part of the resolution is a constant, so can be factored out of the resolution system.

However , armoured vehicles have far more varied construction , and so this variation has to be taken into account, a penetrating hit may only cause minor internal damage if it hits a thicker part of the tank armour ,etc).

I'm still not following. Are you telling me that in real life there are weapons that can punch through a tank with ease but would bounce off an elephant? What defines the divide between 'armour' and 'toughness'? Can you give me an example from 40k that doesn't reference the game rules?

And WILL YOU STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT EVERY POST and tell me WHY the 'accuracy of the delivery system' and 'the cost effectiveness/limited munitions' are better represented by a save roll as opposed to the to-hit roll and the rate of fire of the weapon?

Putting a high energy single point of contact round on a target, is much harder than firing area effect munition , or spraying an area with projectiles /chemicals , to cover the general area the target is in.
(120mm HE fragmentation round has a lethal area of effect vs soft targets of 200 meters diameter. 120mm APFSDS round has a 25mm diameter penetrator, that is only effective when hitting at least 20mm of armour plate , otherwise it just goes through and through. )

In practice this means 'anti tank weapons' are only used on large heavily armoured targets,as it is difficult to hit smaller more agile targets, that may not be put out if action even if hit by a high velocity anti tank round (As previously discussed.)

And, as previously discussed, it sounds to me like you're explaining the difference between anti-tank and anti-armour weapons in terms of a to-hit roll and a rate of fire. The suggestion of the toughness versus armour save divide isn't there.

So if games are only dealing with easily definable soft and hard target types , and weapons that are effective vs soft or hard targets.Much simpler rules can be used.

This is the basic game play frame work B.A. and F.O.W are written for.As the scope of the games are to cover all human combatants with 1940s technology.

In 40k we have targets with completely alien biology.(Literally)
And players are familiar with having a separate value for armour and toughness to show this difference in the alien life forms.And how weapons act differently on these different target types.

If you have a model that is supposed to be very hard to damage(High toughness) , with very little armour.(6+ save.) EG an Ork Warboss, with Orky plate armour.
To get the 'resistance to damage', the high separate toughness value would show in a three stage resolution system.
The Ork warboss has to be given a high ' combined armour and toughness' value.That makes him immune to all but anti tank type weapons.

Anti tank weapons (if they managed to hit 'tough infantry') in practice could punch a small hole right through a non critical part of the Warboss and not cause the War boss any serious damage.(Xenos life forms are quite odd compared to human physiology according to the back ground of 40k.)

So players could assume anti tank weapons should not be as effective vs 'tough infantry', as anti infantry type weapons should be , which 'tough infantry' are now immune to!

What, exactly, would lead players to make that assumption? And why are you defining 'effectiveness' solely in terms of T/Sv as opposed to to-hit rolls, rate of fire, range?

The 'heavy anti infantry weapons' (Heavy bolter,) should be able to cause damage to the lightly armoured Warboss, if subjected to high quantities of heavy anti infantry fire.

In 40k there is not clear distinction between soft and hard targets like there is in B.A. and F.O.W.And it is this range of units between infantry and armoured vehicles ,that needs more definition than a two stage resolution system can provide IMO.

Lots of people have suggested giving vehicles 'saves 'and 'toughness' so all units resolve damage in a similar way.
I just wanted to take this idea one stage further by generating proportional saves , based on comparing new Armour values to new Armour piercing values.
(To get rid of the counter intuitive results 'inv saves' often cause. )

I agree that cover should give,
+1 to Evasion stat of units in cover.
+2 to the Evasion stat of units in heavy cover.

Neither of us is disputing that 40k handles damage counterintuitively. Could you move on to why a consistent across-the-board damage resolution system with an armour save is more intuitive than one without?

@AnomanderRake.
If we could take a step back and define what makes a good war game from a development point of view?

My definition of what makes a good war game, is..
The abstraction in the war game rules allows the interaction in the real world counter part to be brought to the players, in the most elegant and intuitive way.
In a way that brings the intellectual challenges defined by the intended game play to the players in tact.

Without abstracting the results to the point the players become disconnected with the subject matter.
Or arrived at in a way that is too complicated for the players to deal with , in comparison with the intended game play focus.

Would you agree with that statement in general?

IMO 40k fails on both accounts!
GW have over simplified the core rules , (to try to make them easy to explain to children),to the point where there is complete disconnect with player expectations.
And the lack of complexity in the core rules leads to the need to use additional systems and exceptions that add pointless complication to the rules!

In my opinion the most important part of a war game to get right is the damage resolution.
Players can forgive 'slightly wonky' game turn mechanics and command and control systems, if the 'combat action' in the game is intelligent and intuitive.(In my experience. )

And so from what I can gather from most game designers I have talked to.They try to get the combat resolution sorted out as a priority in a war game .After this is resolved they can flesh out the rest of the rules around the 'core action.'

From a game design point of view you can break combat resolution into 3 stages.

Attack accuracy.(To hit.)
List all the factors that are relevant to the to hit chance of the attack.(Skill of attacker , weapon Range, cover, etc.)

Targets defensive capability .(To save)
List all the factors that make the target likely to survive the attack.(Stealth ,movement speed, armour etc.)

Damage resolution on target after defensive capability of target is defeated.(To wound/damage.)
List all the differences that make the target less prone to be damaged by a weapon hit that defeats the targets defensive capability. (Type of target compared to type of weapon hit,complexity of target ,etc.)

The list of what is relevant at each of these stages will change from war game to war game.

For example in X -wing there is no cover , and the target size is assumed to be so similar as not to matter.(All units are Space ship fighter craft.).
So the only factors in the to hit resolution in this game are L.O.S and range.
(Lose a damage dice at long range , gain a damage dice as short range.)

In these 40k revised rules we all seem to agree we should compare the attackers 'to hit skill' , vs the defenders 'Evade skill'.(Based on size shape and agility?)
And cover can be included as a simple bonus to the target Evade Skill.

This is slightly more complex than 40ks , subtract BS value from 7 to arrive at score to hit.

However,our proposed new method does include the resolution of cover in the core rules to prevent the counter intuitive and pointless complication of 'roll to hit', then the opponent rolls to find out you actually missed ,(cover save roll.)
And the inclusion of the Evasion skill removes the need for special rules that do a similar job but in a more complicated way.

So we have used slightly more complex resolution method that has arrived at intuitive results, with far less complication than 40ks 'simpler' to hit rules.
We appear to agreed to cover all the elements that are relevant to the to hit part of the damage resolution in the new rules.

Now if we move on to the next two stages of combat resolution.
Does 40k have a clear definition between 'tanks' and 'not tank' units, like many other war games do?

How do you decide what is a' walking vehicle', a 'monstrous creature', or 'heavily armoured infantry' in the 40k universe?

I think it is foolish to try to artificially divide 40k units into 'types' beyond those defined by simple game mechanics.(Discrete and non discrete units)

Why not simply let the stat line tell you how much armour the unit has, how hard they are to damage with penetrating hits, and how much damage they can take before they are out of action in game terms?

My concern is if you roll armour and toughness into one stat, you will lose the detail of the resolution to the point players may become disconnected from the intended game play.

EG just using anti tank type weapons with high penetration bonuses because they are better vs all targets,is one obvious abuse .

You are not writing rules in a vacuum here.There is nearly 30 years of history and 'custom and practice' in the way 40k is played and resolved.IMO you need to respect the intended game play 40k has promised but GW never delivered.(And players like to have some level familiarity in a rule set. )

I have never inferred or implied anti tank rounds 'bounce off' soft targets.

I have stated quite often high velocity projectiles go 'through and though' soft targets , like thin skinned transports without causing any significant internal damage if they do not hit any high resistance along their trajectory.And even high velocity' anti tank rifle rounds' have only scored 'slight flesh wounds' on infantry.

IMO Toughness/Resilience value can represent several things.
The chance of hitting a vital organ or important component, now much energy it needs to damage these vital organs or important components, etc.

Armour value does not just represents how hard the 'outer skin' of the target is.
It is an important factor in determining weapon and target interaction in the tactically complex war game 40k should be.IMO.

And with 40ks diverse range of units ,(all the weird and wacky wonderful stuff that inspires us.) I think we need both these values to define the combat resolution in an intuitive way.

Also the use of failed armour saves as the simple mechanic to determine suppression, allows attacks to be effective without having to cause physical damage.
(And removes the need for 'extra ablative wound models' in hoard infantry units. )

Lanrak wrote:
@AnomanderRake.
If we could take a step back and define what makes a good war game from a development point of view?

My definition of what makes a good war game, is..
The abstraction in the war game rules allows the interaction in the real world counter part to be brought to the players, in the most elegant and intuitive way.
In a way that brings the intellectual challenges defined by the intended game play to the players in tact.

Without abstracting the results to the point the players become disconnected with the subject matter.
Or arrived at in a way that is too complicated for the players to deal with , in comparison with the intended game play focus.

Would you agree with that statement in general?

IMO 40k fails on both accounts!
GW have over simplified the core rules , (to try to make them easy to explain to children),to the point where there is complete disconnect with player expectations.
And the lack of complexity in the core rules leads to the need to use additional systems and exceptions that add pointless complication to the rules!

We're not talking about 40k. And general principles aren't in question.

In my opinion the most important part of a war game to get right is the damage resolution.
Players can forgive 'slightly wonky' game turn mechanics and command and control systems, if the 'combat action' in the game is intelligent and intuitive.(In my experience. )

And so from what I can gather from most game designers I have talked to.They try to get the combat resolution sorted out as a priority in a war game .After this is resolved they can flesh out the rest of the rules around the 'core action.'

From a game design point of view you can break combat resolution into 3 stages.

Attack accuracy.(To hit.)
List all the factors that are relevant to the to hit chance of the attack.(Skill of attacker , weapon Range, cover, etc.)

Targets defensive capability .(To save)
List all the factors that make the target likely to survive the attack.(Stealth ,movement speed, armour etc.)

Damage resolution on target after defensive capability of target is defeated.(To wound/damage.)
List all the differences that make the target less prone to be damaged by a weapon hit that defeats the targets defensive capability. (Type of target compared to type of weapon hit,complexity of target ,etc.)

The list of what is relevant at each of these stages will change from war game to war game.

For example in X -wing there is no cover , and the target size is assumed to be so similar as not to matter.(All units are Space ship fighter craft.).
So the only factors in the to hit resolution in this game are L.O.S and range.
(Lose a damage dice at long range , gain a damage dice as short range.)

In these 40k revised rules we all seem to agree we should compare the attackers 'to hit skill' , vs the defenders 'Evade skill'.(Based on size shape and agility?)
And cover can be included as a simple bonus to the target Evade Skill.

This is slightly more complex than 40ks , subtract BS value from 7 to arrive at score to hit.

However,our proposed new method does include the resolution of cover in the core rules to prevent the counter intuitive and pointless complication of 'roll to hit', then the opponent rolls to find out you actually missed ,(cover save roll.)
And the inclusion of the Evasion skill removes the need for special rules that do a similar job but in a more complicated way.

So we have used slightly more complex resolution method that has arrived at intuitive results, with far less complication than 40ks 'simpler' to hit rules.
We appear to agreed to cover all the elements that are relevant to the to hit part of the damage resolution in the new rules.

Now if we move on to the next two stages of combat resolution.
Does 40k have a clear definition between 'tanks' and 'not tank' units, like many other war games do?

How do you decide what is a' walking vehicle', a 'monstrous creature', or 'heavily armoured infantry' in the 40k universe?

I think it is foolish to try to artificially divide 40k units into 'types' beyond those defined by simple game mechanics.(Discrete and non discrete units)

Why not simply let the stat line tell you how much armour the unit has, how hard they are to damage with penetrating hits, and how much damage they can take before they are out of action in game terms?

None of this is in dispute, last I'd checked.

My concern is if you roll armour and toughness into one stat, you will lose the detail of the resolution to the point players may become disconnected from the intended game play.

EG just using anti tank type weapons with high penetration bonuses because they are better vs all targets,is one obvious abuse .

See, now we're getting somewhere.

Now. High penetration bonus weapons would be 'better vs all targets' if penetration was the only stat on the weapon. A high-penetration weapon is still subject to the restriction that it can only kill a model a turn; pointing a lascannon at a Guardsman is a waste of valuable resources when your Devastator could be pointing a cheaper heavy bolter or a frag missile at them and have good odds of killing more than one.

You are not writing rules in a vacuum here.There is nearly 30 years of history and 'custom and practice' in the way 40k is played and resolved.IMO you need to respect the intended game play 40k has promised but GW never delivered.(And players like to have some level familiarity in a rule set. )

I'm not sure that sweeping changes of one sort or another are better or worse than each other, honestly. And gamers are more flexible than you seem to think. I've never seen a 40k player look at Warmachine, complain that there are no armour saves, and discard it because of that.

I have never inferred or implied anti tank rounds 'bounce off' soft targets.

I have stated quite often high velocity projectiles go 'through and though' soft targets , like thin skinned transports without causing any significant internal damage if they do not hit any high resistance along their trajectory.And even high velocity' anti tank rifle rounds' have only scored 'slight flesh wounds' on infantry.

IMO Toughness/Resilience value can represent several things.
The chance of hitting a vital organ or important component, now much energy it needs to damage these vital organs or important components, etc.

Armour value does not just represents how hard the 'outer skin' of the target is.
It is an important factor in determining weapon and target interaction in the tactically complex war game 40k should be.IMO.

And with 40ks diverse range of units ,(all the weird and wacky wonderful stuff that inspires us.) I think we need both these values to define the combat resolution in an intuitive way.

Also the use of failed armour saves as the simple mechanic to determine suppression, allows attacks to be effective without having to cause physical damage.
(And removes the need for 'extra ablative wound models' in hoard infantry units. )

Last I checked a large part of the danger of a round delivered to a soft target was hydrostatic shock. The bullet doesn't need to physically penetrate any vital organs for the shockwave to turn said vital organs into soup.

Gamist concerns aside can you describe to me what the difference between effects that add to armour and effects that add to toughness should be? Is it a metal v. flesh question? Do Necrons have no toughness but massive armour? Is it the thickness of the shell versus the composition of the interior question? Are there models that don't have a 'shell' that suddenly have to be terrible on the table because everyone else gets a save and takes half the damage they do?

To my mind there's a level of detail we could go into in what type of physical effect works on what type of target that would be completely and utterly unacceptable in a company-scale game. I don't want to have to look up laser-damage-type effectiveness against lightly-built Wraithbone models not anchored to the ground any more than you do. A single abstract 'durability' value rather than separate 'toughness'/'armour' is neater, cleaner, and requires dramatically fewer arbitrary decisions on what effects provide what kind of bonus (and hence fewer special rules).

Did I read right? Do you guys think that the way damage allocation is currently worked out in 40k needs serious work?

I was thinking that the units controlling player can allocate the damage, but in rare circumstances (snipers for example) the attacker can allocate the damage instead. But I'm open to suggestions.

EDIT: At the moment I favour a combined armour/toughness concept as well. It's just easier. I'd consider an ordinary ork to be as tough as a human in carapace. Both can have a resilience of 5, one above ordinary guardsmen, guardians, gaunts etc, but one below a space marine, sister of battle etc.

To get this to work though, I think ordinary marines need 2 wounds, like Stormcast Elementals.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

In my opinion the most important part of a war game to get right is the damage resolution.
Players can forgive 'slightly wonky' game turn mechanics and command and control systems, if the 'combat action' in the game is intelligent and intuitive.(In my experience. )

And so from what I can gather from most game designers I have talked to.They try to get the combat resolution sorted out as a priority in a war game .After this is resolved they can flesh out the rest of the rules around the 'core action.'

From a game design point of view you can break combat resolution into 3 stages.

Attack accuracy.(To hit.)
List all the factors that are relevant to the to hit chance of the attack.(Skill of attacker , weapon Range, cover, etc.)

Targets defensive capability .(To save)
List all the factors that make the target likely to survive the attack.(Stealth ,movement speed, armour etc.)

Damage resolution on target after defensive capability of target is defeated.(To wound/damage.)
List all the differences that make the target less prone to be damaged by a weapon hit that defeats the targets defensive capability. (Type of target compared to type of weapon hit,complexity of target ,etc.)

The list of what is relevant at each of these stages will change from war game to war game.

For example in X -wing there is no cover , and the target size is assumed to be so similar as not to matter.(All units are Space ship fighter craft.).
So the only factors in the to hit resolution in this game are L.O.S and range.
(Lose a damage dice at long range , gain a damage dice as short range.)

In these 40k revised rules we all seem to agree we should compare the attackers 'to hit skill' , vs the defenders 'Evade skill'.(Based on size shape and agility?)
And cover can be included as a simple bonus to the target Evade Skill.

This is slightly more complex than 40ks , subtract BS value from 7 to arrive at score to hit.

However,our proposed new method does include the resolution of cover in the core rules to prevent the counter intuitive and pointless complication of 'roll to hit', then the opponent rolls to find out you actually missed ,(cover save roll.)
And the inclusion of the Evasion skill removes the need for special rules that do a similar job but in a more complicated way.

So we have used slightly more complex resolution method that has arrived at intuitive results, with far less complication than 40ks 'simpler' to hit rules.
We appear to agreed to cover all the elements that are relevant to the to hit part of the damage resolution in the new rules.

Now if we move on to the next two stages of combat resolution.
Does 40k have a clear definition between 'tanks' and 'not tank' units, like many other war games do?

How do you decide what is a' walking vehicle', a 'monstrous creature', or 'heavily armoured infantry' in the 40k universe?

I think it is foolish to try to artificially divide 40k units into 'types' beyond those defined by simple game mechanics.(Discrete and non discrete units)

Why not simply let the stat line tell you how much armour the unit has, how hard they are to damage with penetrating hits, and how much damage they can take before they are out of action in game terms?

None of this is in dispute, last I'd checked.

Correction, some of this is in dispute.

First off the bits that aren't. Neither of us is proposing a heavily typed game where different methods are used to damage different types of targets. Neither of us is suggesting that 'cover' is well-applied in 40k.

But I do have to question your research. X-Wing does, in fact, include cover as a modifier to the attack roll.

And I do have to question your rather arbitrary division of 'factors that affect an attack' into said three categories. You seem to have come back down on my side here? Your 'three categories' are 'to-hit modifiers applied to the attacker', 'to-hit modifiers applied to the defender', and 'damage modifiers', I'm suggesting a game in which there are two major steps in resolving an attack. A to-hit roll (described by attacker's skill and cover, range, stealth, movement, as necessary) and a to-damage roll (described by attacker's weapon power and defender's size, sturdiness, armour plating, energy shields, as necessary). The same effects and modifiers are used, they're just applied to two categories instead of three.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did I read right? Do you guys think that the way damage allocation is currently worked out in 40k needs serious work?

I was thinking that the units controlling player can allocate the damage, but in rare circumstances (snipers for example) the attacker can allocate the damage instead. But I'm open to suggestions.

We're having a long, long argument on whether an armour save is necessary using fluidly defined and imprecise terms, as far as I can tell. Sometimes I'm not sure what Lanrak is arguing beyond that he really wants an armour save.

I'd like wound allocation to work as you describe, since it's an easy, straightforward one-sentence rule that makes sniper rifles more relevant than they've ever been to 40k.