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.

Here is where I am going to stop talking to you about a lot of this. Your definition of what a rule is is wrong. No design course in history has ever said the more rules you create that make exceptions to a rule the less rules you have. Each exception is itself a rule. A confusing tangle of rules sure. But it is in fact more rules. I will not debate terms with you. Drawing the line there.

There are an infinite number of ways to do anything. If you have an actual suggestion for a alternative system instead of just talking in general about GWs systems then feel free to post them.

The simple point I may have failed to make is .

Good rules do not need exceptions.Exceptions are not good for clarity or brevity.

Rules are definitions, exceptions to definitions diminish the value of the definition.

I believe clarity and brevity in rules is important.

So simply using what rules GW have inflicted on 40k without serious justification from a functional point of view, is a bit short sighted IMO.

TTFN.

Lanrak wrote:
The simple point I may have failed to make is .

Good rules do not need exceptions.Exceptions are not good for clarity or brevity.

Rules are definitions, exceptions to definitions diminish the value of the definition.

I believe clarity and brevity in rules is important.

So simply using what rules GW have inflicted on 40k without serious justification from a functional point of view, is a bit short sighted IMO.

TTFN.

Fair point. Agree. It is something i take into account with my own rules writing. I use brief definitive statements.

Lanrak wrote:
The simple point I may have failed to make is .

Good rules do not need exceptions.Exceptions are not good for clarity or brevity.

Rules are definitions, exceptions to definitions diminish the value of the definition.

I believe clarity and brevity in rules is important.

So simply using what rules GW have inflicted on 40k without serious justification from a functional point of view, is a bit short sighted IMO.

TTFN.

I understand you, but in the case of extremely different races and factions which themselves, through the lore/background, are exceptions to each other, I think it's completely fair to have exceptions to rules; this also make it special for players to play certain factions. 40k is not a game made up of human factions with very similar physiology and technology. You very often seem to forget the actual premises of the subjects, we're discussing - including the premises to contribute to the subject of this thread made by Lance.

Were the durability of Bikes mentioned? Well, back in 2nd edition both the rider and bike could be hit and so when they became one, I think they wanted to make up for it by enhancing the, now, one model. I can come up with reasonable reasons for why the model should be tougher, but they're not important for me - I'm more interested if it's necessary for the model to differentiate enough from other models. When I think about a usual situation: a group of very fast models are send off to take advantage of their speed, they'll surely end in a situation where they're out numbered. We accept the odds but should they really die as fast as others? That'll mean that they should be cheaper and that we have to make those fast groups more numerous in order for them to live through more; do we want that? I don't. I like the idea and look of Bike/Jet Bike squads usually be smaller than normal troop squads (also because they're bigger models). I've not completely decided yet, but this is the incitament for me to be pro a durability buff for Bikes and Jet Bikes.

I'm only skimming because the usual suspect is taking over again, but OP, is there a reason why you've changed WS and Saves to the backwards way BS works, instead of changing WS and BS to the way Saves work? Ie. have BS 3+ instead of BS 4.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm only skimming because the usual suspect is taking over again, but OP, is there a reason why you've changed WS and Saves to the backwards way BS works, instead of changing WS and BS to the way Saves work? Ie. have BS 3+ instead of BS 4.

Initially I liked this idea, but quickly thought of some potential issues: Having BS represented the same way saves are represented would be convenient and easy to use in most situations, but would become a headache when unusual circumstances arise. The new modifier system for things like shooting after running is easy, but looks weird and potentially confusing with this way.
BS 4 - 1 = BS 3
VS
BS (3+) - 1 = BS 4+
The way the modifier system is represented could be changed to flow better with this alternative BS/WS system of course.

Also, how would you show a BS better that 5 with this system? 2+/#+

Lanrak wrote:
Good rules do not need exceptions.Exceptions are not good for clarity or brevity.

Rules are definitions, exceptions to definitions diminish the value of the definition.

I believe clarity and brevity in rules is important.

So simply using what rules GW have inflicted on 40k without serious justification from a functional point of view, is a bit short sighted IMO.

I disagree. Life is full of exceptions. Rules tend to have exceptions in almost every game Both Chess and Checkers have exceptions in their rules.

The exceptions provide many of the characteristics and differences between many things in a game where not everything is not to be the same

They don't necessarily have to go to the extreme that GW does, but WarmaHordes demonstrates that quantity of exceptions are not a bad thing for the game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm only skimming because the usual suspect is taking over again, but OP, is there a reason why you've changed WS and Saves to the backwards way BS works, instead of changing WS and BS to the way Saves work? Ie. have BS 3+ instead of BS 4.

Its not something i am in love with atm either. Currently i am doing it just to get everything onto one page. The reason i choose to follow the bs method was the idea that a +1 to say ws could give you a 6 ws which would result in a 2+/6+ to pass. Same goes with saves. A 5 save would be a 2+. If some buff gave you a 6 you would pass on 2+ rerollable 6+.

I will be taking another crack at a better method for writing it out later. But as stated its currently mostly to get all attributes written the same.

@Charistoph.
I apologize for not being very clear.(Dispraxia is a real git some times when you are trying to communicate in the written format.)

Good rules do not NEED exceptions.But they are always an option if it adds to the quality of the game play.

BAD rules always NEED exceptions.

Hope that is clear enough?

Back to watching this thread with interest.....

I like your perspective Lanrak ; Toughness and armour get mixed up really easily. Monstrous creatures have both sometimes yet on many occasions have no actual protective armour. It is their toughness that protects them.
But mechanically it might be very difficult to give them an appropriate actual 'resistance'. Although it wouldn't be absurd that wounds would come in to compensate that.
I agree that it is more logical for bikes to get a better armour save, than more toughness.
But making a whole army which would rely solely on high toughness on it's big stuff (i.e. tyranids) means that high AP becomes irrelevant against them ; it's not necessarily very bad but just like demonic save make ap irrelevant against demons it could be conceived as : "immunity to a core mechanic" as Lance put it. It means on the counterpart that no army can rely solely on high AP to be good.
It's cause and consequence really but it has to be stated.

I realize my example of tyranids is not very good. Demons fit this better.
I don't have any problem however with todays invulnerable saves being transformed into different mechanics as I previously stated.
I like the idea that being a demon would reduce WS/BS. Although some people would argue that demons don't really phase out constantly with some exceptions. It would be logical for pink horrors ; but not for a great unclean one.

@GreedyPizza.
My argument is not to try to fudge the existing rules in a different way to generate confusion and disconnect in different areas.

But to try to apply constant and logical resolution methods that cover all units in a similar way.
(I think Charistoph was referring to this earlier, when I mistook it for calling for better quality of editing and proof reading? )

Rather than use the limited resolution methods from GW current 40k rules.
Why not look at other possible resolution methods that give wider ranges of results?A slightly more complex set of core rules may serve the game better in the long run?

If the to hit (at range)resolution is separate and includes all units types.
Things like cover, Demonic Instability, Invisibility, Turbo-boost ,Jink etc .Could all be covered with bonuses to not being hit.(Negative to hit modifiers, or positive modifiers if opposed value to hit was used.)

(Maybe Demonic instability effects only applied to ranged attacks?As the Deamon has to stabilize in this reality to fight assaults effectively?)

And armour save roll is kept separate and includes all units types .We can say failed armour saves can be used to determine if a unit becomes suppressed perhaps?
(EG if over half the models in a unit fail their armour saves the unit becomes suppressed.)

And finally the damage roll, to cause physical damage .

Thats it.
No 'take backs' or 'undos' or 'ignore what just happened as it did not actually happen yet'or 'well I know it sounded like it was supposed to mean this, but it did not really'

If you want to use opposed rolls or opposed value in a chart, you can swap the active player around in each stage of the resolution if you want to.

I am trying to zoom out a bit from the minutia of the rules and look at the overview of the game play , to see how best to inclusively frame the game with mechanics and resolution methods.
I understand this may not be every ones priority, but I will try to be brief, and to the point, as not to interfere with other posts discussing other aspects.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I apologize for not being very clear.(Dispraxia is a real git some times when you are trying to communicate in the written format.)

Good rules do not NEED exceptions.But they are always an option if it adds to the quality of the game play.

BAD rules always NEED exceptions.

Hope that is clear enough?

Back to watching this thread with interest.....

But how you are communicating it is, "This game has numerous exceptions so it MUST be Bad Rules." Bad Rules Writing can include no exceptions as much as Good Rules Writing. Indeed, a lack of exceptions can be as much an indication of Bad Rules Writing as it does not allow for individuality and customization to occur. Such individuality and customization is vital in a tabletop game, so a tabletop game without exceptions would be Bad Rules Writing.

Bad Rules Writing is simply Bad Rules Writing. It is not taking in mind the impact the rules will have in conjunction with other rules. It is being incompetent, apathetic, or deliberate focus on power creep to emphasize sales. 40K definitely is guilty of one of the first two in the rulebook alone. The codices are guilty of one of the first two and definitely guilty of the latter.

@Charistoph.
I often feel I have to reduce arguments to simple statements to try to get my point across.

Do you agree pointless complication in a rule set is a bad thing?

Therefore if you have a rule set with lots of pointless complication.To the level where the majority of the players realize something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.

You could argue that trying to find the root cause for this poor game development path might be a valid line of inquiry.And the earlier you correct the course of the rules development, the more effective the changes would be.
And questioning everything in the current 40k rule set to see if it is fit for perpose before just copying it into a new rule set.Could be seen as a valid process.

I understand lots of people are heavily invested in 40k. And want a rule set for 40k they think 40k deserves.
But this investment in the current rules .often means they are too close to what is there, to be objective about what options should be used?

To use Rick Priestley's definition, ''good rules are written with clarity, brevity and wit.''

I believe, bad rules writing ignores the game play requirements and/or the expectations of the players.(Or arrives at them in a over complicated or confusing way.)

I think we are in agreement, on this , but just express it differently in the written format?

If I had written bad rules sets have exceptions , and good rule sets do not have exceptions .

Your response..
''But how you are communicating it is, "This game has numerous exceptions so it MUST be Bad Rules." Bad Rules Writing can include no exceptions as much as Good Rules Writing. Indeed, a lack of exceptions can be as much an indication of Bad Rules Writing as it does not allow for individuality and customization to occur. Such individuality and customization is vital in a tabletop game, so a tabletop game without exceptions would be Bad Rules Writing. ''

Would be valid.

But I was referring to individual rules , found in a rule set.

For example 'A model may move up to its movement stat when taking a movement action.' Is a rule that has no need for exceptions .

'Everything moves 6" in the open, or D6" through terrain.' HAS to use lots of exceptions to cover the wide range of movment rates units in the 40k rules .
It is therefore a bad rule that needs lots of exceptions because it is not fit for perpose.

Yeah I get your point Lanrak.
I don't think anyone here likes things to be unclear or unnecessarily overcomplicated.

I don't think you have to make theoric points here. Just go with concrete proposals that fit how you think the rules should be written.
We're doing it from the ground up anyway.
So our focus should always be not only on the clarity of the rules but always also on their consequences in concrete gameplay.
Because it's good gameplay we want in the end.
I think.

More concretely : I quite like the way Lanrak chose to go in ter;s of normalizing stats, so that you could easily modify them. Even if it means keeping the somewhat counter-intuitive BS resolution method, and the table for BS that are above 5. It might not be the most intuitive, clear or short way of doing things, but it is universal and flexible, and I feel those qualities are essential to the framework of the game.

Lanrak wrote:
Do you agree pointless complication in a rule set is a bad thing?

Yes. But what one person considers pointless may not be agreed upon by others.

Lanrak wrote:
Therefore if you have a rule set with lots of pointless complication.To the level where the majority of the players realize something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.

You could argue that trying to find the root cause for this poor game development path might be a valid line of inquiry.And the earlier you correct the course of the rules development, the more effective the changes would be.
And questioning everything in the current 40k rule set to see if it is fit for perpose before just copying it into a new rule set.Could be seen as a valid process.

I understand lots of people are heavily invested in 40k. And want a rule set for 40k they think 40k deserves.
But this investment in the current rules .often means they are too close to what is there, to be objective about what options should be used?

To use Rick Priestley's definition, ''good rules are written with clarity, brevity and wit.''

I believe, bad rules writing ignores the game play requirements and/or the expectations of the players.(Or arrives at them in a over complicated or confusing way.)

I think we are in agreement, on this , but just express it differently in the written format?

If I had written bad rules sets have exceptions , and good rule sets do not have exceptions .

Your response..
''But how you are communicating it is, "This game has numerous exceptions so it MUST be Bad Rules." Bad Rules Writing can include no exceptions as much as Good Rules Writing. Indeed, a lack of exceptions can be as much an indication of Bad Rules Writing as it does not allow for individuality and customization to occur. Such individuality and customization is vital in a tabletop game, so a tabletop game without exceptions would be Bad Rules Writing. ''

Would be valid.

But I was referring to individual rules , found in a rule set.

As I said, you were communicating otherwise. It does not have to be an entire ruleset, but individual rules. I did not quantify my statement for any level. Bad Rules Writing is simply bad, no matter the level.

Exceptions are needed in a tabletop game to provide characteristics and individuality, at a minimum. Sometimes exceptions are provided to indicate a change in interactions. Let's take your example.

Lanrak wrote:
For example 'A model may move up to its movement stat when taking a movement action.' Is a rule that has no need for exceptions .

'Everything moves 6" in the open, or D6" through terrain.' HAS to use lots of exceptions to cover the wide range of movment rates units in the 40k rules .
It is therefore a bad rule that needs lots of exceptions because it is not fit for perpose.

It actually simplifies things over all, though. Does everyone get to move D6" through Terrain with a Movement Stat? No, they wouldn't. Keeping general movement to 6" allows the difficulty of moving through Terrain to be demonstrated with a randomness of a pure die roll instead of a M-D3. And the actual exceptions to the 6" movement are all based on unit type, still using those 6" as a factor, and can be more easily memorized in place of the many different stats one found in a Fantasy army. And many people like that (possibly because they don't know better, but for some it is actually "simpler"). Usually the ones who don't are those who either fondly remember a Movement stat or are trying to get an extra inch for their Eldar or Tyranids.

Furthermore, many of those "exceptions" are not even directly associated with actual Movement speed, but include other interactions, such as Move Through Cover, how Bikes and Vehicles interact with Terrain, and how some units have other exceptions such as Jump and Jet Pack movement.

Exceptions abound to provide a difference in character. Should there be a Movement stat? I can't really say. I see the advantages of both systems. And even a Movement stat could be considered a list of exceptions if the "standard" is 5" or 6".

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
I often feel I have to reduce arguments to simple statements to try to get my point across.

That's because you believe you are objectively correct and it follows that any disagreement is simply the result of the other party not understanding you well enough. I assure you this is not the case.

@Charistoph.
If a rule adds complication and serves no objective functional perpose. it is objectively 'pointless.'
If a rule covers the majority of the in game interaction without exception or contradiction.
It is objectively better, in terms of clarity and brevity, than a rule that only covers a small fraction of the in game interaction,that needs many more rules to achieve the same end result.

Anyone is capable of adding subjective material to a rule set.(Based on personal opinion.)'House rules' are fine for specific player groups that agree on them.

But the function of the rule set is to define how the game is played with clarity and brevity.
Function is objective, art is subjective .(40k development seems to mix up art and function quite a lot. )

@Lord_Blackfang.
If you understand my point of view clearly , and you have an alternative view based on objective assessment of facts.Then clearly state the reason for your different view based on these facts, so we can have a mature discussion about it.

I am not good at explaining things in the written format and may use/spell some words incorrectly .
So having people make it clear they understand what I am writing but disagree because of X,Y, or Z.Is much more helpful than some other responses I get.

@Greedy Pizza.
Because I am advocating clearly defined three stage combat resolution.Does not mean I necessarily want to use the current resolution methods employed in GW 40k rules.(I would prefer opposed values , either using opposed rolling or opposed values in a table .)

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
If a rule adds complication and serves no objective functional perpose. it is objectively 'pointless.'
If a rule covers the majority of the in game interaction without exception or contradiction.
It is objectively better, in terms of clarity and brevity, than a rule that only covers a small fraction of the in game interaction,that needs many more rules to achieve the same end result.

Anyone is capable of adding subjective material to a rule set.(Based on personal opinion.)'House rules' are fine for specific player groups that agree on them.

But the function of the rule set is to define how the game is played with clarity and brevity.
Function is objective, art is subjective .(40k development seems to mix up art and function quite a lot. )

No. Stop. This right here, again, is the thing I asked you not to do. STOP TALKING ABOUT GW. Remember when I told you it didn't matter where GW went wrong? It's irrelevant. Take it back to your own thread.

@Lord_Blackfang.
If you understand my point of view clearly , and you have an alternative view based on objective assessment of facts.Then clearly state the reason for your different view based on these facts, so we can have a mature discussion about it.

I am not good at explaining things in the written format and may use/spell some words incorrectly .
So having people make it clear they understand what I am writing but disagree because of X,Y, or Z.Is much more helpful than some other responses I get.

No. Don't do that. This is not the subject of the thread. Your conversation on this bull gak is spread all over the forum. Do it over there.

@Greedy Pizza.
Because I am advocating clearly defined three stage combat resolution.Does not mean I necessarily want to use the current resolution methods employed in GW 40k rules.(I would prefer opposed values , either using opposed rolling or opposed values in a table .)

Then state the system you are proposing. Do not mention GWs history. Just say what it is you want and why, mechanically, and why you think it fits the 4 goals of this project better.

That being said, opposed rolls takes longer and a table will involve a lot of time looking up charts. Counter to the projects goals unless you can show me why it would be otherwise.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistoph.
If a rule adds complication and serves no objective functional perpose. it is objectively 'pointless.'
If a rule covers the majority of the in game interaction without exception or contradiction.
It is objectively better, in terms of clarity and brevity, than a rule that only covers a small fraction of the in game interaction,that needs many more rules to achieve the same end result.

Anyone is capable of adding subjective material to a rule set.(Based on personal opinion.)'House rules' are fine for specific player groups that agree on them.

But the function of the rule set is to define how the game is played with clarity and brevity.
Function is objective, art is subjective .(40k development seems to mix up art and function quite a lot. )

That is your goal in rules writing.

Many fantastic and popular systems are built using anything but clarity and brevity. They try to make some of the most complex interactions in combat and reduce it to something you can roll on a die with. Warhammer is one of those systems which is not based on clarity and brevity. The 40K movement system is actually counter to this concept as it limits movement to something that can be changed and randomized with dice rolls. That was a goal in 40K's design scheme. Fantasy had just as many rules tied to movement as 40K does, and is more easily unbalanced. That is not bad rules writing, just something with a different objective. Note the difference.

If Warhammer doesn't scratch your itch for such rules, maybe you should return to something more clear and brief, like Checkers. Either way, do as the OP asks and address the actual subject of the thread or don't post at all. At this point, it could start be considered as spam by some who are less kind.

@Lance 845.
Sorry about that.I will move to PMs now, in responding to other people posts. (I just found it difficult to break the habit of replying to people directly in the thread.)

Ok here are my proposed complex rules for resolving all combat resolution for all 40k units, using a SINGLE resolution chart.

The active player looks up the active stat of their model(s).
And cross references this to the opposing players model(s ) active stat on the resolution chart.
This gives the D6 roll required for the active player to succeed.

Stats may be modified in some situations, but these are listed in more detail in the appropriate section of the rules .


BTW.
The 'Critical hit' rule where you score an extra wound (or damage point) on the targeted model for every 2 higher you roll than the score required to wound.
Does not get more complicated!

As it does not need any additional rules or exceptions or contradictions.As it is dependent on the proportional relationship between attack strength and the toughness of the target.

Rather than false absolutes,(non proportional rules) like '..this will always cause instant death no matter how many wounds the target model has...'

Which unsurprisingly has to have an exception like '..eternal warriors are so cool and awesome , they are not affected by instant death rule. '

So just to make sure I am clear, you propose that we add a Toughness equivalent to counter BS. Continue to have WS counter WS or develop another (or use the same as BS) attribute to act against WS. And continue to use the current S vs T.

So you would need to compare attributes and look up a chart to hit and use compare attributes and look up a chart to wound.

Yeah?

Further, the chart to hit would be different from the chart to wound? Or are you suggesting we use the current to wound chart for everything? Or a different chart for everything?

@Lance845.
Yes, the ideas is all three stages of damage resolution include the active models stat, the opposing models stat and situational modifiers,( where applicable.)

So model stats could be .
How good the model is hitting enemy at range.(BS)

How good the model is at evading enemy attacks at range.(Stealth if you like, how hard the model is to see/hit.)

How good the model is hitting the enemy in assault.(WS)

How good the model is at avoiding the enemy models attacks in close combat.(Dodge?)

How much armor the model has.(AV)

How resistant the model is to (unsaved Damage)(T)

Weapon data could be.
How many attacks the weapon has.(A)

How good the Weapons is at defeating Amour.(AP)

How good the weapon is at causing damage.)(S)

I would like to see if we could use one chart to cover all 3 stages of resolution.Using values from 1 to 10 to start with.
(We could increase the range to 1 to 15 or 1 to 20 if needed though.)

The new table could be something like this.(Just an example for illustration perposes.)

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.
(n= no effect,)

Few Questions.

1) Have you ever play tested this system?

2) I see 1s and 6s in that chart. Does that mean 1 is always a success? i.e. don't bother rolling.

3) Why do you think this fits for 4 goals of this project better then the current BS system?

'Much more simplified game'

Doesn't really seem that way to me. I'd make things a lot different.

Fewer stats, fewer and generic special rules. Simplified war gear and powers as well as a rework of many gameplay elements.

All in all, I'd make it so the rules fit in a small part of every codex so people didn't have to buy seperate rulebooks anymore.

RyanAvx wrote:
'Much more simplified game'

Doesn't really seem that way to me. I'd make things a lot different.

Fewer stats, fewer and generic special rules. Simplified war gear and powers as well as a rework of many gameplay elements.

All in all, I'd make it so the rules fit in a small part of every codex so people didn't have to buy seperate rulebooks anymore.

It is heading in that direction. I have reduced the number of weapon types, simplified the assault portion of the game, and cut many of the unit types from the game. Just a little more play testing and then I am going to go to work on the special rules which will see a great reduction in them.

It's an iterative process. As I test out the core stuff I move on to another part of the game. The replacement of I with M greatly reduces a number of special rules and unit types as is.

Why complicate it by looking up a chart? Why not keep it simple with just a single target roll?

A new stat is not really needed to signify a difficulty in being hit. The Initiative stat could easily fill that role without having to do anything more. If you can twitch faster to hit a target, you can also move quicker to avoid being hit and dodge.

Something to consider.

Well, Lanrak's chart isn't really a chart in the sense that it's a bunch of unconnected results, it's a formula. If you're even or one over, it's a 4+, apart from that you get 1 point of dice modifier for every 2 points of stat difference. You don't need to look that up or memorize the whole table. I use this type of resolution exclusively in games I build from the ground up although I prefer larger dice and just a simple 1 point of mod for each point of stat difference.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Well, Lanrak's chart isn't really a chart in the sense that it's a bunch of unconnected results, it's a formula. If you're even or one over, it's a 4+, apart from that you get 1 point of dice modifier for every 2 points of stat difference. You don't need to look that up or memorize the whole table. I use this type of resolution exclusively in games I build from the ground up although I prefer larger dice and just a simple 1 point of mod for each point of stat difference.

I agree it is formula based and thus much easier to memorize. Still need to know if he intends for the 1s to be auto hit/wound.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Well, Lanrak's chart isn't really a chart in the sense that it's a bunch of unconnected results, it's a formula. If you're even or one over, it's a 4+, apart from that you get 1 point of dice modifier for every 2 points of stat difference. You don't need to look that up or memorize the whole table. I use this type of resolution exclusively in games I build from the ground up although I prefer larger dice and just a simple 1 point of mod for each point of stat difference.

His repeated posts about avoiding complications falls flat when you consider that we are going from a straight die roll that could be just as easily set up a a set number like Dropzone does instead of looking it up on a chart. The chart may follow a formula, but it is still being represented as a chart like the standard BS we have in 40K, and "math is hard" for some people.

If you want it as simplified as you can get, you go with a set To-Hit number for every unit or Weapon. Go with a set To Wound number for each Weapon. That is as simple as you can get with a die roll and is uncomplicated. That is what Age of Sigmar has done. The only things that are variable on the receiving unit at that point are the Save and the number of Wounds the model carries.

Unfortunately, this does not allow for more variability to be set up in the game, which is why 40K is set up to be "complicated". The effectiveness of a Weapon versus a Grot and a Land Raider takes on so much more meaning and recognition if there is more than just a Save and number of Wounds involved. And I like that level of complicated.

Still, going off that, we can go to the next point which is why include separate stat for this when we can use what is already there? Either the BS or I would be sufficient for a comparative stat if we are to continue using them. We already use separate stats for Wounding, so doing that wouldn't be any different from now.

Continuing on, 1's should automatically fail, and 6's should still succeed for Hitting. There should be no way to set it up to be without a need on the chart without the need for a roll.

 Charistoph wrote:


If you want it as simplified as you can get, you go with a set To-Hit number for every unit or Weapon. Go with a set To Wound number for each Weapon. That is as simple as you can get with a die roll and is uncomplicated. That is what Age of Sigmar has done. The only things that are variable on the receiving unit at that point are the Save and the number of Wounds the model carries.

Some food for thought - another game I enjoy called Savage Worlds uses the range of d4 through d12, but everything has a set target number (in this case, 4+). I also have a suspicion "Burning of Prospero" uses something similar, where your To Wound with a bolter you'd use a D6, a Plasma Gun might use a D8, a LasCannon a D10 and a Meltagun might use D12 or 2D6 (and the nightly Lasgun uses a D4...). Regardless, they would all wound on a roll of 4+. You could do the same thing for the defender, with a Guardsman rolling a D6 to save against a wound, a Space Marine uses a D8, and a terminator might use D10 or even D12/2D6.

It would probably only work well in smaller games or where you're only likely to be throwing one oddball die in a group, but I thought the concept might be worth kicking out. I seem to recall 2E 40K did this - I remember Terminators having an armor save of 2D6, for example.