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.

If you haven't heard, the Horus Heresy game, “Burning of Prospero”, uses a combat resolution system based on a dice-type roll-off. The Attacker rolls a dice-type based for each weapon in the attacking unit: a D6 for bolters, a D8 for Plasma guns, a D10 for melta guns and heavy bolters, etc. Then the defender rolls a dice-for the armor rating of the target model. In the game Marine's armor rating is a D6, Terminator armor is a D10, and Characters are D12. Players compare the high dice result on each side. If the Attacker has the high dice the Defendant takes a hit. Then Players compare their next highest dice, etc. Defender wins ties.

Ambush Ally's Force-on-Force and Tomorrow's Wars uses a similar system.

I think its a good system. Its clean and quick. The current 40K combat resolution system requires three roles and six different stats to determine a hit. This system used two stats (dice-types) and a role-off. That’s it. This system eliminates the need for the S and T stats, and perhaps others. And, unlike the current system, both players are involved throughout. Also, using different dice-types is the best and easiest way to represent the rich universe that is 40k.

Dice-type roll-off is just a better mousetrap, and I think 8th Ed. should use this system for 40K.

Thoughts?

No. It works because Prospero is a small game where both players will have less than 20 models each and everybody is a Space Marine. Try doing that with a 30 Boyz and a 100 dice, then try factoring in the mass variety of different units that 40K has. It's a non-starter for a game like 40K.

 Imateria wrote:
No. It works because Prospero is a small game where both players will have less than 20 models each and everybody is a Space Marine. Try doing that with a 30 Boyz and a 100 dice, then try factoring in the mass variety of different units that 40K has. It's a non-starter for a game like 40K.

This is the first criticism I hear whenever I suggest the dice-type roll-off system for 40K: “OK for small games but wont work for bigger games like 40K”. I almost put a preemptive reply to this criticism in my initial post as I knew it was coming soon. And I was right; didn't take long.

Yeah, well, first, understand, with this system 30 Boys would be rolling no more than 30 dice, assuming they all had Shootas, and assuming they all had LOS to the target unit. I don't see how picking out the high dice from a bunch of D6's with some D8's and a few D10 and an occasional D12 thrown-in would be any harder than picking out all the 4+ from, for example, a 100 D6's.

Of course Prospero is not the best example for how it should work in 40K. Prospero is just such a basic game. In theory it would work like in Prospero but in practice there would be a lot more to it. For one thing, there would be a cover mod and a range mod. Also, as in Force-on-force, you would ignore all results of 3 or less. Those are considered misses or clearly ineffectual hits.

Actually, since its quicker and cleaner, and uses fewer stats, the benefits of the system only multiply with bigger game.

The other criticism, that the dice-type roll-off doesn't work with “the mass variety of different units that 40K has” is utter nonsense. In fact using multiple dice-types to represent different units and weapon abilities is easier, cleaner, and far superior than the current system that forces designers to use a string of stats, special rules, exceptions to rules, exceptions to exceptions to rules, and a bunch of re-rolls to do the same thing.

Thirdeye wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
No. It works because Prospero is a small game where both players will have less than 20 models each and everybody is a Space Marine. Try doing that with a 30 Boyz and a 100 dice, then try factoring in the mass variety of different units that 40K has. It's a non-starter for a game like 40K.

This is the first criticism I hear whenever I suggest the dice-type roll-off system for 40K: “OK for small games but wont work for bigger games like 40K”. I almost put a preemptive reply to this criticism in my initial post as I knew it was coming soon. And I was right; didn't take long.

Yeah, well, first, understand, with this system 30 Boys would be rolling no more than 30 dice, assuming they all had Shootas, and assuming they all had LOS to the target unit. I don't see how picking out the high dice from a bunch of D6's with some D8's and a few D10 and an occasional D12 thrown-in would be any harder than picking out all the 4+ from, for example, a 100 D6's.

Of course Prospero is not the best example for how it should work in 40K. Prospero is just such a basic game. In theory it would work like in Prospero but in practice there would be a lot more to it. For one thing, there would be a cover mod and a range mod. Also, as in Force-on-force, you would ignore all results of 3 or less. Those are considered misses or clearly ineffectual hits.

Actually, since its quicker and cleaner, and uses fewer stats, the benefits of the system only multiply with bigger game.

The other criticism, that the dice-type roll-off doesn't work with “the mass variety of different units that 40K has” is utter nonsense. In fact using multiple dice-types to represent different units and weapon abilities is easier, cleaner, and far superior than the current system that forces designers to use a string of stats, special rules, exceptions to rules, exceptions to exceptions to rules, and a bunch of re-rolls to do the same thing.

the dice roll off does not work for the different weapons in 40K. For example, you gave me a D6 for a Bolter, an average strength weapon. So a Lasgun is what? D5? D3!?
What about Heavy bolter? Not nearly as strong as a Plasmagun, but moreso then a bolter, what Dice do we assign the HB?
Or a scatterlaser? Or a Lascannon? Or a D-Strength weapon? Or an Earthshaker cannon? And how does it take into account the AP value of those weapon? Not every has the luxury of 3+ saves. So Guardsmen T-shirts are what, D3 again? What about the 6+? or the 4+?
You see where this is going?
The Imperium of Man ALONE have 75 different weapons across all IoM factions. Each with different S/AP profiles and USRs. That's a fraction of the total arms and armaments in the 41st millennium. A board game system is not fit for a tabletop wargame that has more than one faction available to it.

Edit: Also, I do not see how the Prospero type-rules are any better than: "Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Take Armour save". The roll-off concept completely negates the (implied) physical characteristics of each race; not everyone in the galaxy is a Space Marine.

Any time anyone comes along and says "Wouldn't 40k be better if we (make some drastic change to how the dice work)?" the answer is always 'no'. It's 'no' today, it was 'no' yesterday, it will be 'no' tomorrow.

Making proposals like this requires falling into the exact same pitfall that made 40k so convoluted in the first place: the assumption that broad sweeping changes to the core rules are the start and end of design. You can propose d10s, you can propose a dice-size system, but if you can't follow up on that with vast amounts of work tweaking, testing, nudging, and revising the entire rest of the game your result is going to be at least as bad, if not worse.

The issue with 40k is the design team's lack of interest in finishing their projects. They like to shove cool-sounding ideas (wounds for vehicles! Psychic units! Airplanes!) into the game without considering the consequences and without doing the groundwork to make sure they fit and function well.

You, and everyone who's ever tried to throw an alternate dice system up as a proposal, are a product of the exact same mindset. The dice system is completely and utterly irrelevant at a very fundamental level. If GW's design team spent the time doing the basic testing, had a set of core assumptions that they stuck with, and intentionally designed to the middle of the power curve instead of throwing wacky ideas at the wall to see what'd stick it wouldn't matter if they were using d6s, d10s, d20s, d%s, masses of graduated dice, the game would work. As is they don't spend the time and the game doesn't work. It wouldn't work with any dice mechanic if they didn't do the legwork.

So before you come in dancing about with "what if we used different dice!?" like it's the cleverest and most original idea in the godd**ned world I suggest you sit down, work out how combat resolution would work, what the statline would be, and how you're going to apply it to a significant portion of the 1,000+ model profiles and 1,000+ weapon profiles floating around in the game right now. Once you've got an actual concrete system try playing it, and try writing up a proof of why it's an improvement on GW's d6s.

If you're not prepared to do that you're asking other people to do an incredible amount of work to no purpose because you happen to like your buzzwords, and you should go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

(/rant)

(No, this rant isn't copy-pasted from the last time someone made a suggestion like this, but they're made frequently enough and I have to explain the exact same things enough that it probably should be.)

I have an alternative argument for not changing the dice system (I agree with Izural and Rake anyway, but just in case you need further convincing...)

The current system - D6s, BS, WS, S, T etc - are Warhammer 40k. If you want to play a D10 game, go and play one. If you want to play a game that uses Prospero's dice mechanics, play Prospero. The base mechanics of 40k haven't changed since Rogue Trader almost 30 years ago. It's part of the DNA of the game. Yeah, some things have changed - vehicles, AP, cover etc - and it's grown, but the core principles haven't. If you don't like how the game is played, that's fine, but don't try to change it just because you don't like it.

I don't like tomatoes or lettuce. That doesn't mean I want to change the BLT. I just eat different sandwiches instead. Go play Prospero. Have fun.

 Izural wrote:
the dice roll off does not work for the different weapons in 40K. For example, you gave me a D6 for a Bolter, an average strength weapon. So a Lasgun is what? D5? D3!?
What about Heavy bolter? Not nearly as strong as a Plasmagun, but moreso then a bolter, what Dice do we assign the HB?
Or a scatterlaser? Or a Lascannon? Or a D-Strength weapon? Or an Earthshaker cannon?

Well, understand, I didn’t give you anything, at least not yet. The D6 Bolter comes from Prospero, which is to say GW gave that to ya. But, as you know, Porspero is a cute little game with a very limited scope. Its Marine-on-Marine, so D6 Bolter works. But, as you suggest, when ya move into Table-top 40K, then… well it doesn’t work. But I’ll tella what does, a D8. So in 40K Bolters would be D8. A Lasgun would be a D6, a scatterlaser 4D6, a Lascannon a D12, a Earthshaker cannon, mmmm, 4D12 Burst? D-Strength weapons, depends, but some combination of D10’s and/or D12’s, some with burst, some not.

Its not rocket science. You just have to get a feel for how a dice-type roll-off 40K game would work. I know its hard when your mind is so wrapped-up in the current mindset. You just need to take a set back from that and imagine how it would work with another meta.

 Izural wrote:

And how does it take into account the AP value of those weapon? Not every has the luxury of 3+ saves. So Guardsmen T-shirts are what, D3 again? What about the 6+? or the 4+?
You see where this is going?

LOL, Yeah, well clearly you’re the one who doesn’t see. But that’s OK, I’m sure you’re not the only one. This gives me a chance to give more explanations. A weapon’s AP is its dice-type. Most basic weapons only have one dice-type, it’s the same for ranged combat and CC. Some weapons, like pistols have two, one for ranged combat and one for CC. Heavy weapons and some special weapons have three dice-types, two for ranged combat – one for infantry targets and one for armoured targets, and another for CC. And of course CC weapons have only one type and that’s used only in CC.

 Izural wrote:

The Imperium of Man ALONE have 75 different weapons across all IoM factions. Each with different S/AP profiles and USRs. That's a fraction of the total arms and armaments in the 41st millennium. A board game system is not fit for a tabletop wargame that has more than one faction available to it.

Frankly a lot of that detail is not appropriate for a company level game like 40K. Some streamlining is desperately needed. Attached is an out line of how the stats could work in 40K with Marine weapons. This is all ya need. It gives sufficient diversity without getting bogged down in a lot of unnecessary detail.

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Space%20Marines%20%284-15-16%29.pdf?token=AWyyGGM5V1v_uC2gpxQx-LZFCC4u_ashwjVZdyj6EcO-12E84mmxIqbyMgzrKC5_fZgkoKOaMvLT3fx8Vd15PF0aedDysKzKGGhyxPARl9f0hC1nsQM94MyOcHz2Z9hfCCzk-H42f7CO4GlaqQG4UOUbQ3-XizoFqIev7h92zlfDeg

 Izural wrote:

Edit: Also, I do not see how the Prospero type-rules are any better than: "Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Take Armour save".

Prospero is quicker, cleaner, and a lot more fun. Try this experiment: Sit down with a friend. Roll a D6. If you score a 4+ roll again. If you roll a 4+ again then your friend has to roll a D6. If he scores a 4+ he gets a point. If not not, you get a point. Also, if you fail to score a 4+ on your either of your first two rolls your friend gets a point. Do that for ten times. Then you and friend each roll a D6 and compare the results. If your score is higher you get a point. If your friend’s rolls is higher he gets a point. If you score the same roll again. Do that for ten times. Then discuss which method took longer and which was more fun.

 Izural wrote:

The roll-off concept completely negates the (implied) physical characteristics of each race; not everyone in the galaxy is a Space Marine.

As I said, its hard to see how it would work when your mind is so wrapped-up in the current mindset. Take a look at the Marine stats I made-up and just imagine how it would work with other races. As I said its not rocket science, and its not your father’s 40K. It a lot better, and a lot more fun. And isn’t that what this is all about?

Thirdeye wrote:
...Take a look at the Marine stats I made-up and just imagine how it would work with other races...

Oh, so the game should replace rulebooks with "just imagine what's in your rules!" now?

AnomanderRake put it better then I could of in his first post.

What you are describing is a totally different game. Your solution to "streamline" 40K is to what, throw MORE complexity in the form of different dice into it while stripping out flavour.
Also, you're not accounting for BS. Lasguns may be D6 in your example, but what if it's fired by a IG Vet or Stormtrooper as opposed to the rank and file, is that D6+1? D6+D3? Does everyone get a base D6 roll and then modified but how good a shot they should be? How would scatter weapons work? Is that a D6/10/56 for EACH model hit?
What about charge ranges? Ld tests? Reserve rolls? Running? Flat-outing? Warp Charge harnessing? Toughness tests? Strength tests? How do you determine flamer hits? Barrage hits? Warlord traits?generating psychic powers?

In other words, your solution to "simplicity" is to throw more bloody dice, of differing values. Regardless that a Guardsman, Space Marine, Eldar, Termagant and Skitarii are WILDLY different in stats and ability. Just homogenise everything based only on "Weapons".

We can just model a single lasgun on a base! There. That's what you're proposing. Its just sentient guns shooting.

The current D6 system is as streamlined as you can get as a "core" set of values to build around. The problems most people (at least, in my experience) have with 40K is not the D6, but the plethora of USRs GW has made in the past few years.

Also, that "Detail" you seemingly complain about, is possibly a great selling point for alot of people who play the game/collect/paint/whatever. It certainly is for me, I love that level of complexity and detail in the fluff and the crunch. I love that the weapons of 40K are as identifiable and iconic as any individual model holding them.

Edit: With regards to the re-stat part of the post. You know what almost as iconic as a bolter but just as recognisable? 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8 3

 Imateria wrote:
No. It works because Prospero is a small game where both players will have less than 20 models each and everybody is a Space Marine.

the same with the current rules that were designed for small SM vs SM games
so it is perfect for next edition

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Any time anyone comes along and says "Wouldn't 40k be better if we (make some drastic change to how the dice work)?" the answer is always 'no'. It's 'no' today, it was 'no' yesterday, it will be 'no' tomorrow.

My, such hostility. Perhaps you should be a little more open minded. Going on rants with knee-jerk reactions and screaming NO! makes Rake a dull boy indeed.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Making proposals like this requires falling into the exact same pitfall that made 40k so convoluted in the first place: the assumption that broad sweeping changes to the core rules are the start and end of design. You can propose d10s, you can propose a dice-size system, but if you can't follow up on that with vast amounts of work tweaking, testing, nudging, and revising the entire rest of the game your result is going to be at least as bad, if not worse.

Sure, there’s going to need to be work done. Yeah, I know, for GW a new edition means the same-old convolutions with some things fixed but more broken stuff added in. But GW HASN’t done a truly new edition since third. The others have been more like 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. I’m talking about a true new edition, so yeah, that means work.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The issue with 40k is the design team's lack of interest in finishing their projects. They like to shove cool-sounding ideas (wounds for vehicles! Psychic units! Airplanes!) into the game without considering the consequences and without doing the groundwork to make sure they fit and function well.

I agree, but I disagree with the notion that the game would be better if GW would just “finish their projects”. The game is based on old mechanics that worked well enough as a skirmish game but has been stretched at the seams to accommodate bigger armies, new units, and more exotic weapons. The hope with Prospero is that they see the potential of doing combat resolution in a new and better way, a way that can better handle the rich complexity of 40K as a company level game, have some fun, and get it done in a reasonable amount of time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

You, and everyone who's ever tried to throw an alternate dice system up as a proposal, are a product of the exact same mindset. The dice system is completely and utterly irrelevant at a very fundamental level. If GW's design team spent the time doing the basic testing, had a set of core assumptions that they stuck with, and intentionally designed to the middle of the power curve instead of throwing wacky ideas at the wall to see what'd stick it wouldn't matter if they were using d6s, d10s, d20s, d%s, masses of graduated dice, the game would work. As is they don't spend the time and the game doesn't work. It wouldn't work with any dice mechanic if they didn't do the legwork.

I respectfully disagree. Game mechanics are not irrelevant. Like most things you can do them many different ways but some ways are just better. For example, we don’t generally cook on an open flame because using a stove is just better. In game design, the mechanic that’s quicker, cleaner, more intuitive, and that involves both players at each stage is better than a mechanic that’s slow, convoluted, unintuitive, and involves only one player at each stage.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So before you come in dancing about with "what if we used different dice!?" like it's the cleverest and most original idea in the godd**ned world I suggest you sit down, work out how combat resolution would work, what the statline would be, and how you're going to apply it to a significant portion of the 1,000+ model profiles and 1,000+ weapon profiles floating around in the game right now. Once you've got an actual concrete system try playing it, and try writing up a proof of why it's an improvement on GW's d6s.

If you're not prepared to do that you're asking other people to do an incredible amount of work to no purpose because you happen to like your buzzwords, and you should go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

Well, of course, this tread was about GW doing the work, you known, as their 8th Ed. (see OP). I was just commenting on how I thought that would be a good thing and suggesting some ways it could be done. No need for all the hostility.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

(No, this rant isn't copy-pasted from the last time someone made a suggestion like this, but they're made frequently enough and I have to explain the exact same things enough that it probably should be.)

Sorry but you have explained very little. You have shown your obstinance and hostility to new ideas. Perhaps the “Proposed Rules” forum is not for you.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Any time anyone comes along and says "Wouldn't 40k be better if we (make some drastic change to how the dice work)?" the answer is always 'no'. It's 'no' today, it was 'no' yesterday, it will be 'no' tomorrow.

My, such hostility. Perhaps you should be a little more open minded. Going on rants with knee-jerk reactions and screaming NO! makes Rake a dull boy indeed.

I'm keeping a tally. This is the thirty-fifth time I've had to explain these things. My optimistic 'open-minded' belief that this time it'll be different died around the fifth time I had this argument.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Making proposals like this requires falling into the exact same pitfall that made 40k so convoluted in the first place: the assumption that broad sweeping changes to the core rules are the start and end of design. You can propose d10s, you can propose a dice-size system, but if you can't follow up on that with vast amounts of work tweaking, testing, nudging, and revising the entire rest of the game your result is going to be at least as bad, if not worse.

Sure, there’s going to need to be work done. Yeah, I know, for GW a new edition means the same-old convolutions with some things fixed but more broken stuff added in. But GW HASN’t done a truly new edition since third. The others have been more like 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. I’m talking about a true new edition, so yeah, that means work.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The issue with 40k is the design team's lack of interest in finishing their projects. They like to shove cool-sounding ideas (wounds for vehicles! Psychic units! Airplanes!) into the game without considering the consequences and without doing the groundwork to make sure they fit and function well.

I agree, but I disagree with the notion that the game would be better if GW would just “finish their projects”. The game is based on old mechanics that worked well enough as a skirmish game but has been stretched at the seams to accommodate bigger armies, new units, and more exotic weapons. The hope with Prospero is that they see the potential of doing combat resolution in a new and better way, a way that can better handle the rich complexity of 40K as a company level game, have some fun, and get it done in a reasonable amount of time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

You, and everyone who's ever tried to throw an alternate dice system up as a proposal, are a product of the exact same mindset. The dice system is completely and utterly irrelevant at a very fundamental level. If GW's design team spent the time doing the basic testing, had a set of core assumptions that they stuck with, and intentionally designed to the middle of the power curve instead of throwing wacky ideas at the wall to see what'd stick it wouldn't matter if they were using d6s, d10s, d20s, d%s, masses of graduated dice, the game would work. As is they don't spend the time and the game doesn't work. It wouldn't work with any dice mechanic if they didn't do the legwork.

I respectfully disagree. Game mechanics are not irrelevant. Like most things you can do them many different ways but some ways are just better. For example, we don’t generally cook on an open flame because using a stove is just better. In game design, the mechanic that’s quicker, cleaner, more intuitive, and that involves both players at each stage is better than a mechanic that’s slow, convoluted, unintuitive, and involves only one player at each stage.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So before you come in dancing about with "what if we used different dice!?" like it's the cleverest and most original idea in the godd**ned world I suggest you sit down, work out how combat resolution would work, what the statline would be, and how you're going to apply it to a significant portion of the 1,000+ model profiles and 1,000+ weapon profiles floating around in the game right now. Once you've got an actual concrete system try playing it, and try writing up a proof of why it's an improvement on GW's d6s.

If you're not prepared to do that you're asking other people to do an incredible amount of work to no purpose because you happen to like your buzzwords, and you should go away and stop wasting everyone's time.

Well, of course, this tread was about GW doing the work, you known, as their 8th Ed. (see OP). I was just commenting on how I thought that would be a good thing and suggesting some ways it could be done. No need for all the hostility.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

(No, this rant isn't copy-pasted from the last time someone made a suggestion like this, but they're made frequently enough and I have to explain the exact same things enough that it probably should be.)

Sorry but you have explained very little. You have shown your obstinance and hostility to new ideas. Perhaps the “Proposed Rules” forum is not for you.

This isn't a 'new idea'. This isn't an 'idea'. This is barely a pipe dream.

I'm in Proposed Rules to provide commentary and constructive feedback on concrete proposals. I get annoyed when people show up, spout off an idea I've dissected repeatedly like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, claim it's the solution to all our ills, and we've got to 'imagine' how it'd be implemented in practice.

If you'd like to try and defend your idea by trying to implement it and posting some sort of concrete system for me to look at I'd be ecstatic. If you're going to sit back and spout off buzzwords about how there's a magic solution if we could only free our minds from the establishment my skepticism isn't related to a 'hostility to new ideas'.

I love new ideas. Tell me when you find some.

 Izural wrote:


What you are describing is a totally different game. Your solution to "streamline" 40K is to what, throw MORE complexity in the form of different dice into it while stripping out flavour.

A system that need less stats and less steps to get a result is objectively less complex that a system that requires more stats and more steps to get the result. As to flavor, that’s a matter of opinion. In my opinion you can get as much flavor with multiple dice-types as you can with a long string of stats.

 Izural wrote:

Also, you're not accounting for BS. Lasguns may be D6 in your example, but what if it's fired by a IG Vet or Stormtrooper as opposed to the rank and file, is that D6+1? D6+D3? Does everyone get a base D6 roll and then modified but how good a shot they should be? How would scatter weapons work? Is that a D6/10/56 for EACH model hit?

Generally BS and weapons effectiveness is represented by a single stat, or in this case a dice-type. This isn’t really that much of a problem as most armies use army specific weapons. Vet and elite troopers generally use an up-graded weapon so they get a step-up in dice type. So, where you basic IG trooper gets a D6 Lasgun, the vet or Stormtrooper gets a D8 Lasgun. This represents not only the fact that the vet/elite guy is a better shot but also the fact that he has better equipment. You can also add dice to represent elite guys and/or hi-tech units/armies. So, for example, to represent the Eldar as a hi-tech army, for every five Eldar they get to roll an extra dice. This is a mechanic that “Tomorrow’s War”uses to represent hi-tech armies.

 Izural wrote:

What about charge ranges? Ld tests? Reserve rolls? Running? Flat-outing? Warp Charge harnessing? Toughness tests? Strength tests? How do you determine flamer hits? Barrage hits? Warlord traits?generating psychic powers?

Check the OP. This discussion is limited to the combat resolution mechanic. Much of what you’re listing here goes beyond that. As for Toughness tests and Strength tests, you wouldn’t need them. Flamer hits could still be by template and ignore cover but I would reserve that for the advance version of the game. In the basic game Flamers would be just 3D6 for IG, Orks, and other low-tech armies and 3D8 for Marine and other hi-tech armies. Again, this isn’t rocket science. Don’t make it harder than it is.

 Izural wrote:

In other words, your solution to "simplicity" is to throw more bloody dice, of differing values. Regardless that a Guardsman, Space Marine, Eldar, Termagant and Skitarii are WILDLY different in stats and ability. Just homogenise everything based only on "Weapons".

Actually you would be throwing less dice. Instead of rolling an average of three time for every ranged combat you would make just one roll-off. The WILDLY different units would be represented by dice-type instead of a bunch of stats. The result is the same you just get there a lot easier and more efficiently.

 Izural wrote:

The current D6 system is as streamlined as you can get as a "core" set of values to build around. The problems most people (at least, in my experience) have with 40K is not the D6, but the plethora of USRs GW has made in the past few years.

Sorry, no. The problem with using a single dice type, particularly a D6, in a complex universe like 40K is that you have to have a lot of stats and a lot of dice rolls to get your gradation. By switching to a multiple dice-type system you free yourself from that restraint. So you can have a quick, clean, elegant game and still have a lot of gradation.

 Izural wrote:

Also, that "Detail" you seemingly complain about, is possibly a great selling point for alot of people who play the game/collect/paint/whatever. It certainly is for me, I love that level of complexity and detail in the fluff and the crunch. I love that the weapons of 40K are as identifiable and iconic as any individual model holding them.

Well, the fluff is the same. But there really is no need for some of that detail in the rules. I mean, why roll to hit and to wound? A hit that fails to wound is effectively the same as a miss, right? So why roll for every scratch and chipped fingernail? The only reason they do it that way is because they use a D6. It’s the only way to get gradation with a D6.

 Izural wrote:

Edit: With regards to the re-stat part of the post. You know what almost as iconic as a bolter but just as recognisable? 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8 3

You do realize how convoluted that is, right? It doesn’t have to be like that. There is a better way.

OP, fancy countering my point - that if you massively change the mechanics then it's no longer Warhammer 40k?

Feel free to make a new game using your mechanics. Or just play Prospero, but don't change the fundamental DNA of a game because you don't like it. Play something else instead.

You mentioned a Vet gets a d8. So does a Marine. Sorry, but that makes Lasguns equal to Bolters.

 Whittlesey40k wrote:
OP, fancy countering my point - that if you massively change the mechanics then it's no longer Warhammer 40k?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore you, its just that you seem pretty set against the idea and I’m sure there’s not much I can say to change your position. But since you asked:

 Whittlesey40k wrote:

The base mechanics of 40k haven't changed since Rogue Trader almost 30 years ago. It's part of the DNA of the game.

By that logic we should all still be commuting by horse and buggy. I mean, that didn’t change for like a thousand years. You could even say horse gak on the roads was part of the DNA of civilization. But then it wasn’t. It changed. It changed because we came up with something better. Likewise, if there is a better way of resolving combat in a game of toy soldiers, it why not use it? If they can make a better game by changing a core mechanic then they should do it. Its not about “DNA”, or being wedded to this or that mechanic simply because, “that’s the way it’s always been done.” Its about having a better gaming/hobby experience. 40K is about re-creating this cool fantasy/Sci-Fi/Gothic/horror/SuperHero world which Gw created for use with their lovely miniatures and models. Is not about a game mechanic.

 Whittlesey40k wrote:
Feel free to make a new game using your mechanics. Or just play Prospero, but don't change the fundamental DNA of a game because you don't like it. Play something else instead.

All I want is a better 40K; I think the game would improve by changing the way GW does the combat resolution. You object because you’re against the very notion of any fundamental change. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But, in my opinion change is needed to make the game better and I’m going to continue to advocate for change.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You mentioned a Vet gets a d8. So does a Marine. Sorry, but that makes Lasguns equal to Bolters.

Well, a supped-up Lasgun in the hands of an expert is, for the purposes of a game of Sci-Fi toy soldiers, equal to a Bolter. I know many would disagree but its not a requirement to have fun with 40K that very little do-dad or unit have unique rules that reflect their special snow flake. If that’s the goal then the game is always going to be bogged-down with a lot of silly rules, superfluous stats, and Rube Goldberg mechanics.

So you're saying a veteran-an experienced but human fighter, with a lasgun-a weapon definitively weaker than a Boltgun-does the exact same damage?

Could replace the number needed to hit with a die roll. Each extra die you would roll increased the die by one grade. If you want to get more granular, you could average together BS + Strength / 2, or for assault WS/2 + Strength / 2. It would be the start of an interesting system, but it would take a lot of work to iron out.

Strength/Toughness

1 - D4-2
2 - D4-1
3 - D4
4 - D6
5 - D8
6 - D10
7 - D12
8 - D12+1
9 - D12+D4
10 - D12 +D6

 JNAProductions wrote:
So you're saying a veteran-an experienced but human fighter, with a lasgun-a weapon definitively weaker than a Boltgun-does the exact same damage?

Yes. A Vet or elite human soldier with a supped-up Lasgun is the same as a Bolter. Of course a Vet or elite Marine (bio-genetic superhuman soldier) with a supped-up Bolter (master crafted or Combi-weapon) is a D10. Check-out the stats I made.

So then what's the difference between a HotShot Lasgun and a regular Lasgun?

 Stormonu wrote:
Could replace the number needed to hit with a die roll. Each extra die you would roll increased the die by one grade. If you want to get more granular, you could average together BS + Strength / 2, or for assault WS/2 + Strength / 2. It would be the start of an interesting system, but it would take a lot of work to iron out.

Strength/Toughness

1 - D4-2
2 - D4-1
3 - D4
4 - D6
5 - D8
6 - D10
7 - D12
8 - D12+1
9 - D12+D4
10 - D12 +D6

Yeah, you could do that, if your concern is with direct conversion from the current stats. While I would want to keep the current stats in mind my big concern with a multi dice-type game is dice management. Izural’s comment about dice-type adding complexity isn’t far off. Managing dice-types can be a real pain. What kills this system is having too much trouble searching for the right dice type every round. So I would go with a base dice-type for each army, then step-up from their for vet/elites and characters. For example, Orks would be a base D6 army. Boys and their weapons would be mostly D6 and multiples of D6’s. Nobs and their weapons would be mostly D8 and multiples of D8’s. Bosses and their weapons would be mostly D10 and multiples of D10’s. Warlords and their weapons would be mostly D12 and multiples of D12’s.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So then what's the difference between a HotShot Lasgun and a regular Lasgun?

D8, D6

So a S3 AP3, a S4 AP5, and a S3 AP- weapon all become the same under your system?

Yes, I see why this is a brilliant idea! /sarcasm

Edit: Oh, what about Flechette Blasters? Or Macrostubbers? Radium Carbines?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a S3 AP3, a S4 AP5, and a S3 AP- weapon all become the same under your system?

Yes, I see why this is a brilliant idea! /sarcasm

In my opinion those differences are petty and silly for a game like 40K. Maybe they would be appropriate for a squad size game but not a company size game like 40K. Even then that level of detail is not worth the time and effort required to manage all those extra stats and mechanics. As I said, having fun with 40K doesn’t require that every little do-dad or unit have unique rules that reflect their special snow flake. Really, it doesn’t.

With the current system, the difference between the different factions is already at the minimum
gameplay wise it makes no difference what you play

negating that difference at making everything the same and just give different factions different re-rolls won't help 40k much

changing the dice system without adressing the core problems

your suggestion say the maximum is a D12, so Marines would be D6 to D8, Imperial Guard a D3 with veterans having D4, Orks a D4 (boys) to D8 (warlord), Eldar D4 to D6 etc.

Thirdeye wrote:

 Whittlesey40k wrote:

The base mechanics of 40k haven't changed since Rogue Trader almost 30 years ago. It's part of the DNA of the game.

By that logic we should all still be commuting by horse and buggy. I mean, that didn’t change for like a thousand years. You could even say horse gak on the roads was part of the DNA of civilization. But then it wasn’t. It changed. It changed because we came up with something better. Likewise, if there is a better way of resolving combat in a game of toy soldiers, it why not use it? If they can make a better game by changing a core mechanic then they should do it. Its not about “DNA”, or being wedded to this or that mechanic simply because, “that’s the way it’s always been done.” Its about having a better gaming/hobby experience. 40K is about re-creating this cool fantasy/Sci-Fi/Gothic/horror/SuperHero world which Gw created for use with their lovely miniatures and models. Is not about a game mechanic.

 Whittlesey40k wrote:
Feel free to make a new game using your mechanics. Or just play Prospero, but don't change the fundamental DNA of a game because you don't like it. Play something else instead.

All I want is a better 40K; I think the game would improve by changing the way GW does the combat resolution. You object because you’re against the very notion of any fundamental change. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But, in my opinion change is needed to make the game better and I’m going to continue to advocate for change.

I don't agree with your comparison between cars and horse & cart. Comparing transport in the real world to toy soldiers is comparing two very, very different things. I could even argue that we're still moving about by getting into some form of wheeled carriage. The only thing that's changed is swapping the horse for an internal combustion engine (so the core basics are the same, there's just been a tweak). Also, we didn't go from horse and cart to C-class Merc overnight! It was small changes over years. Like the small changes we've seen over 7 editions of 40k.

But ultimately, I think you're right - we have different opinions, and opinions aren't right or wrong. In this case, I guess we need to agree to disagree (and with that, I think we're probably Internetting incorrectly! )

 kodos wrote:
With the current system, the difference between the different factions is already at the minimum
gameplay wise it makes no difference what you play

negating that difference at making everything the same and just give different factions different re-rolls won't help 40k much

changing the dice system without adressing the core problems

your suggestion say the maximum is a D12, so Marines would be D6 to D8, Imperial Guard a D3 with veterans having D4, Orks a D4 (boys) to D8 (warlord), Eldar D4 to D6 etc.

Not sure where you’re getting this. I would use a range of dice from D4 to D20. I would assign a base dice-type to each army which would be the most common dice-type used in that army. This is so Players aren’t forced to constantly switch-out and hunt-down dice-types from their bag of dice. Mostly the range would be D6-D12. The most common armies would be a base D6 with a set-up in dice-type for commanders and their war gear. Marines and Eldar Aspectsry would be a base D8 army. Grots/Gretchins would be a base D4 army. All would have a step-up in dice types for commanders. Some armies would be deviate from this. For example Tau would be a D6 base army but their base/basic weapon would be a D8. Necrons would be a base D6 army but their base/basic weapon would be a D10 ignores cover. Eldar and Cult Mechanicus/Skitarii would get an extra attack dice for every five guys in their attacking unit. This is to represent their hi-tech weapons. Dark Eldar would get would get an extra attack dice for every three guys in their attacking unit with poison weapons. This is to represent their hi-tech poison weapons.

I see the combat resolution system used in the current 40K game as a core problem. It bogs the game down with needless dice-rolls. It requires several charts and a plethora of stats and its rather boring as only one player is engaged at a time. Worst yet, its breeds an obsession with minutia that’s completely misplaced for a company level game. The dice-type roll-off system eliminates all these issues and gives a clean, quick, fun gaming experience.

If you are going up to D20, Marines are D10, Guard D6 and the rest somewhere around taht.

using up to D20 but forcing the factions into the range of D6-D12 will not improve the game in any way
it is just the same stupid mechanics with different dies


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I see the combat resolution system used in the current 40K game as a core problem. It bogs the game down with needless dice-rolls.

this is true, butr it is not the problem of the game

you can streamline the D6 X VS Y system or replace itz with direct to roll values or a D12 system, it won't change anything because the main problem why this game is so slow is still there

The dice-type roll-off system eliminates all these issues and gives a clean, quick, fun gaming experience.

it will, for a complete new game written from scratch that copy nothing from 40k

 kodos wrote:
If you are going up to D20, Marines are D10, Guard D6 and the rest somewhere around taht. using up to D20 but forcing the factions into the range of D6-D12.

Yeah, not sure what calculation your doing but that’s about where I’m at. I put base Marines at D8 but, yeah. Understand, D20’s are rare. A few Mek Boy Guns, some Mechanicus and Eldar weapons, named characters, Demons, etc. Actually Orks use them the most to represent their… Orkiness.

 kodos wrote:
[this] will not improve the game in any way
it is just the same stupid mechanics with different dies

No, there's a significant difference. With dice-type roll-off its always high dice vs. high dice. With a D6 it’s a number on a chart. With dice-type roll-off its Attack dice vs. Defense dice. With D6 its roll to Hit, roll to Wound, then, depending on a cross-referenced between AP stats the defender may or may not get a save roll. With dice-type roll-off there's no separate roll for “to Hit”, “to Wound”, and “to Save”. There is only one roll-off. The Attacker rolls his Attack dice and the Defender rolls his Defense dice and you compare results. With dice-type roll-off there is no need for stats for BS, WS, ST, T, Sv., or AP. There's just Attack dice and Defense dice. The dice do all minutia for you. Its built in. The result is a quick, clean, fun gaming experience. The D6 stat system is big problem and it needs to go.

 kodos wrote:
this is not the problem of the game.

you can streamline the D6 X VS Y system or replace itz with direct to roll values or a D12 system, it won't change anything because the main problem why this game is so slow is still there

So tell us, what is the main problem why the game is so slow. What do you see as the main problem with the game? If you say the special rules I say that’s directly related to the D6 combat resolution system.

Why is Necron shooting better than everybody else's? D10 ignores cover (when Marines and Tau are only d8)? On basic guns? Are you insane?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is Necron shooting better than everybody else's? D10 ignores cover (when Marines and Tau are only d8)? On basic guns? Are you insane?

Gauss weapons are bad-ass. They would also be heavy weapons so they couldn’t move and shoot in the same turn.

I’m also thinking, maybe, to set Marines at a base D10. What ya think?