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.

Thirdeye wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


If I'm playing 40k under the normal rules I have to roll at absolute maximum three dice to make a single attack. Under your system I've got to roll three to six dice for each attack (from a 3d6 attack).

Explain to me again how this is faster.

OK, if I'm understanding you correctly, the three rolls under the current system are 1. To Hit, 2. To Wound, and 3. To Save. Correct?

In a dice roll-off its just two rolls, or one roll-off. The Attacker rolls his Attack dice (one roll) and the Defender rolls his Defense dice (another roll). That's it, a total of two rolls. If its a 3D6 attack the Attacker would roll three dice but he would roll them only once. Of course it could be a single dice attack. Say the Attacker is attacking with a single basic Marine, so a single Bolter shot (D8). The Attacker would roll one dice (a D8) once. The Defender would then roll his Defense dice. If the Target guy is a basic Marine (Save D8), he would roll he one Defense dice (a D8) once. Two rolls total.

Under a dice-rolloff system each Players makes one roll per attack, so two rolls total.

And if you're trying to preserve granularity by adding more dice each 'roll' under your system is multiple dice. If each roll is always exactly one die you're making us roll two dice per attack instead of the three we'd be rolling under current 40k, but if you're rolling two dice for attacks/defense we're suddenly rolling four dice per attack instead of three.

So either you strip all granularity out of the game by reducing all possible combinations of WS/BS/S/AP/Sv/Invul/Cover/FNP/etc to six possible offense levels and six possible defense levels, or we're rolling a lot more dice.

This proposal is designed to help alleviate the problem of the proliferation of special snowflake weapons and supposedly speed up resolution - a sacrifice of granularity for speed.

However, 40K has a lot of false granularity in those stats. 90% or more of the time you're looking at a 3-4+ to hit, 3-4+ to wound and a 3-4+ to save for common infantry weapons. Vs. AT weapons, it's 3-4+ to hit, 2+ to wound and 5+ (cover/invuln) save - if you get one. Certainly there are outliers, but this dice system - in my opinion - still allows for plenty of design space to make major differentiation between weapons.

I think that the D8 for a marine's standard attack and a D8 for defense would be a good starting point, especially if you use the 4=1 success, 8=2 success, 12=3 success model. That would greatly cut down the dice you need to have a model throw.

Terminators and anything with an invulnerable save gets a little tricker. Vehicles moreso, perhaps they subtract 1 success from each attack, so hurting them with infantry weapons would be extremely unlikely.

 Stormonu wrote:
Sounds good to me for infantry vs. infantry. The big part will be converting all the weapon and unit stats.

However, how about vs. Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles? What would expect a marine squad vs. Carnifex or marine squad vs. Rhino to look like as far dice being thrown by each side (and accounting for the fact the Bolters should mostly bounce off the Rhino).

Before I answer your question, I gotta say I’ve been thinking, again. I’m thinking Saves on a “4” is too easy. Firepower should be more bloody. So I’m thinking Saves should be on a 6+

OK, so Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles are like infantry but they get a pool of dice, and as they take hits they loose dice from their pool. When the pool of dice is gone the creature/ vehicle is dead.

Vehicles are also different in that they can only be attacked by weapons with an AT rating, and it “cost” dice from their pool to move. It cost one dice – of any type -- for a vehicle to move (generally 6 inches or less), and two dice (any type) for a vehicle to Charge or move “Full-Out” (generally between 7 and 12 inches). It also cost dice to roll attacks. So if a vehicle has moved, it would have one less dice from its pool to shoot with. If the vehicle Charged it would have two less dice from its pool to shoot with. If the vehicle didn’t move, it could roll all of its dice in an attack. Likewise, if a vehicle rolled all its dice in attacks it can’t move.

Here are some examples of vehicle dice pools using Marine Vehicles:

Light Vehicles
Land Speeder/ Hvy Bolter - 2D8 (Infantry Attack 2).

Light Tanks
Rhino/Bolters - 3D8, (Infantry Attack 3). Special Rule: "APC": Transport Capacity 5 Marines or 3 Terminators.

Medium Tank
Razorback/Hvy Bolters - 2D10, 2D8 (Infantry Attack 3).
Predator/Autocannon & Hvy Bolters - D12, 2D8 (Infantry Attack 3).

Heavy Tanks
Land Raider - 4D10. (Infantry Attack 4).
Special Rule: "APC": Transport Capacity 10 Marines or 5 Terminators.

Example 1: An undamaged Land Raider (4D10) uses one D10 to move six inches. The Marine Player then declares the Land Raider will attack an Ork Truck within LOS. The Land Raider has three remaining dice: 3D10. The Marine Player decides to use all his dice against the Ork Truck. He rolls 3D10 and scores an 8, a 3, and a 4. Three hits. (Like with infantry, the “4” is a Hit and the “8” is two Hits). The Ork Truck has only two dice in its pool, 2D6. (On the defense it doesn’t matter that the Ork Truck may have moved that turn or not, it can still use all its all its available dice in defense). But the truck was hit three times, so he gets an extra D6. (All hits not covered by available dice are resolved on a D6, just like all hits on infantry not covered by available Save dice are resolved on a D6). The Ork Player rolls 3D6 and scores a 5, a 6, and a 4. The Ork Tank makes one save but takes two hits.(“6” or better to Save). Since the Ork Truck only has 2D6 in its pool, it looses them both and is destroyed.

Example 2: An undamaged Predator is attacked by a unit of Ork Infantry with an AT rated Hvy weapon. The hvy weapon is ATD8. The Ork Player rolls a D8 and scores an 8! (Two Hits). The Marine Player rolls all of his dice in defense, a D12 a D8, and a D6, and scores an 8, a 5, and a 4. The Predator takes two Hits. The Marine Player decides to drop the D8 and the D6 from the Predator’s pool of dice. The Predator has only the D12 left. If it looses that its destroyed.

PLAYING AID: It is highly recommended that Players keep track of hits on their vehicles with some kind of stickers or markers.

Thoughts?

Seems a bit complex.

Personally, I'd leave saves on a "4", no extra D6's.

I do like the idea of having to have AP (AT?, we are talking "Anti-Tank") on a weapon to harm vehicles (or MC's with really high toughness). I also like the idea that vehicles lose defense dice as they take damage.

Not a fan of losing firepower when moving.

I'd rate the vehicles from above as:

Dreadnought/Multimelta & Power Fist + Storm Bolter - Ranged: 2D8 AP + D8 Assault; Melee: D12 AP; Def 3D6
Land Speeder/Hvy Bolter - D8+D4; Def 3D6

Rhino/Storm Bolter - D8 Assault; Def 3D8
Razorback/Hvy Bolter - D8 +D4 twin-linked; Def 3D8
Predator/Autocannon & Hvy Bolters - D10 AP + D8 + D4; Def 3D8
Leman Russ/Battle Cannon & Hvy Bolter - 1D10 AP/6D10* + D8 + D4; Def 3D10
Land Raider/twin Lascannons & Hvy Bolters - 2D10 AP, twin-linked + D8 + D4 twin-linked; Def 3D12

* The Battle Cannon rolls 1D10 vs. vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, but 6D10 vs. infantry; the latter represents Large Blast
On a somewhat related note, how would you handle 5 marines shooting at 10 orcs? In this case, you would only be rolling 5D8 for damage, but the orcs might be rolling 10D4 (or 10D6, if you don't want to go down to D4) for defense. Even worse, 5 Dire Avengers (5D8) shooting at 10 marines (10D8). I bring this scenario up, because if the attackers have a smaller dice pool than the defenders, all hits might be cancelled if the defender's dice pool isn't limited in some way.

Also, why did you drop the transport capacity on Rhinos and Razorbacks?

 Stormonu wrote:
Seems a bit complex.

Yeah, well its harder to explain than it is to do.

Personally, I'd leave saves on a "4", no extra D6's.

At “4” I’m afraid things will be saving too easily. Shooting would be too ineffectual. Nothings more frustrating then getting a bunch of hits only to see them brushed aside like so many pin pricks. Also, understand, models in cover get a step-up in their save dice. So, for example, Orks and IG that normally save on a D6 get to save on D8 if in cover. I like to encourage the use of cover as it adds a tactical element to the game. But hey, nothing is set in stone until there’s some play testing.

As to the extra D6, this is a mechanic used in Prospero and it’s a good one. It represents the effect of being hit with massive firepower while still giving you a change to save. Without the extra dice you would either ignore the extra Hits or take automatic casualties.

I do like the idea of having to have AP (AT?, we are talking "Anti-Tank") on a weapon to harm vehicles (or MC's with really high toughness). I also like the idea that vehicles lose defense dice as they take damage.

Yeah, AT = Anti Tank. It means the weapons is designed to penetrate thick/magic armor or tuff/magic skin. Yeah, you can use AP but, understand, its just a designation. It can’t be a modifier as the game is designed so you can throw all your attack dice at once. If different weapons have different AP modifiers then how do you know what modifier goes to what dice? You’d either have to roll the attacks separately or use different color dice or something dumb like that.

Not a fan of losing firepower when moving.

Vehicles would be too powerful if they could move and shoot without penalty.

I'd rate the vehicles from above as:

Dreadnought/Multimelta & Power Fist + Storm Bolter - Ranged: 2D8 AP + D8 Assault; Melee: D12 AP; Def 3D6
Land Speeder/Hvy Bolter - D8+D4; Def 3D6

Rhino/Storm Bolter - D8 Assault; Def 3D8
Razorback/Hvy Bolter - D8 +D4 twin-linked; Def 3D8
Predator/Autocannon & Hvy Bolters - D10 AP + D8 + D4; Def 3D8
Leman Russ/Battle Cannon & Hvy Bolter - 1D10 AP/6D10* + D8 + D4; Def 3D10
Land Raider/twin Lascannons & Hvy Bolters - 2D10 AP, twin-linked + D8 + D4 twin-linked; Def 3D12.

Yeah, well I’d like to get away from the “twin-linked” thing. That just another one of GW’s silly little rules. I go with the obvious: If the weapon has two barrels it rolls two dice. Also, I use a pool and not separate Def dice as hits can effect weapons and movement as well as reducing armor. Using a flexible pool of dice for all three allows you to represent damage to all three as the vehicle takes damage, without having to use other complex mechanics.

* The Battle Cannon rolls 1D10 vs. vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, but 6D10 vs. infantry; the latter represents Large Blast.

Yeah, that’s kinda the idea I had with the designation: “infantry x dice”. The idea is that anti infantry attacks from vehicles mounted weapons are done with special anti-infantry rounds (HE - High Explosive) or the weapon is being “sprayed” into the infantry, and/or the vehicle mounted weapon is a bigger caliber than the shoulder mounted/hand held infantry version, and/or the vehicle weapon is supported by a vehicle mounted targeting system.

On a somewhat related note, how would you handle 5 marines shooting at 10 orcs? In this case, you would only be rolling 5D8 for damage, but the orcs might be rolling 10D4 (or 10D6, if you don't want to go down to D4) for defense. Even worse, …

Good question. It shows you’re really thinking about this. Yeah, well you don’t save against the entire squad. You only same against the number of models you get hits on. So, in you example, if the Marines rolled five hits then the Ork would roll five saves for the five models closest to the Marines. If one or more of those five models is in cover its defense dice gets a step-up. And, of course, the Ork Player takes his casualties from those five models.

Now, lets say you have the reverse situation, where you got 10 Orks shooting at 5 Marines. And lets say the Orks scored ten Hits. The Marines would have to save against all the Hits. They would roll 5D8’s and 5D6. As I said earlier, all extra Hit are saved against a D6. This is a mechanic used in Prospero and it’s a good one. It represents the effect of being hit with massive firepower while still giving you a change to save. Without the extra dice you would either ignore the extra Hits or take automatic casualties.

Also, you could add a special rule for elite troops, that they get to concentrate their fire against a specific model, forcing it to take some saves on a D6.

Also, why did you drop the transport capacity on Rhinos and Razorbacks?

It just seemed to fit the scale of the models better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


And if you're trying to preserve granularity by adding more dice…

OK, hold it right there. I’m not trying to preserve granularity by adding more dice, I’m adding greater granularity by utilizing different dice-types. So, instead of rolling a D6 three times, and needing six different stats, or more, I’m rolling, for example, a D6 against a D8, and I only need two stats, which are the dice-types.

… each 'roll' under your system is multiple dice.

Well, each ‘roll’ under GW’s rules is multiple dice, right? That’s the easiest way to do it, right. That’s what you want to do. You roll all your attacks, one roll, could be 20 dice, then you roll all your wounds, multiple dice, then you roll your saves, multiple dice. That the ideal, right. And you can do that under the current rules so long as the attacking unit’s weapons types are the same. The problems is if the attacking unit has mixed weapons type, each with their own stats, then you have to roll those attacks separately, which means doing all three rolls for each weapon type. If you’re attacking with a unit with three different weapons you have to roll three times for each weapon, that’s nine rolls. Then, if you have different armor types in the target unit, you have even a bigger mess, or you just ignore the different armor types and test against the majority type, which means you’re paying for stats you’re not using. You don’t have those problems when you substitute dice-types for stats. You just roll the dice. You gather up all your attack dice and you roll them all together in one roll.

So either you strip all granularity out of the game by reducing all possible combinations of WS/BS/S/AP/Sv/Invul/Cover/FNP/etc to six possible offense levels and six possible defense levels, or we're rolling a lot more dice.

Well, again, its not six possible levels. There are six dice types but you can use multiples of each dice type and/or mixtures of dice types to The “levels” are virtually endless. But, I have to admit, that doing it the way I originally had it, yes, you are correct. You were rolling a lot more dice, as you were rolling separately for each save. Mostly you were rolling one dice against another dice but still it was a lot of rolling. But doing it the way Stormonu suggested, its just two rolls. I still like the way I had it for smaller, Kill Team type games. But for 40K size games Stormonu’s way is better, faster. There’s an issue with wound allocation but but still better for 40K.

One thing to mention, I don't think multiple successes on a die and the D6 for spillovers will mesh well. Going back to our running example, if our 5 marines (5D8) got 7 hits there's the question of how many dice is it appropriate for the defenders to roll - would it be 5D8 for the defenders, 7D8 or 5D8 + 2D6? You could make an argument for any of the three combinations above, and it would be related to how deadly you want things to be in the game.

 Stormonu wrote:
One thing to mention, I don't think multiple successes on a die and the D6 for spillovers will mesh well. Going back to our running example, if our 5 marines (5D8) got 7 hits there's the question of how many dice is it appropriate for the defenders to roll - would it be 5D8 for the defenders, 7D8 or 5D8 + 2D6? You could make an argument for any of the three combinations above, and it would be related to how deadly you want things to be in the game.

Yes, I see your point. Prospero uses a D6 for spillover Hits but of course they have Marine armor at D6. If Marines are moved to a D8 then its kinda unfairly to save spillover Hits on a D6. After all, IG armor is D6, so, but they save spillover Hits on a D6. But if Marines are saving spillover Hits on a D6, shouldn’t IG save spillover Hits on a D4? Well, I don’t like that so much. So, yeah, all spillover saves should be on your Save dice. So in your example the correct solution is 7D8. You’re still showing the effects of massive firepower because you have to make the extra saves. But what if you’ve got mixed armor in the Target unit? Save spillover Hits on the majority type?

Thirdeye wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
One thing to mention, I don't think multiple successes on a die and the D6 for spillovers will mesh well. Going back to our running example, if our 5 marines (5D8) got 7 hits there's the question of how many dice is it appropriate for the defenders to roll - would it be 5D8 for the defenders, 7D8 or 5D8 + 2D6? You could make an argument for any of the three combinations above, and it would be related to how deadly you want things to be in the game.

Yes, I see your point. Prospero uses a D6 for spillover Hits but of course they have Marine armor at D6. If Marines are moved to a D8 then its kinda unfairly to save spillover Hits on a D6. After all, IG armor is D6, so, but they save spillover Hits on a D6. But if Marines are saving spillover Hits on a D6, shouldn’t IG save spillover Hits on a D4? Well, I don’t like that so much. So, yeah, all spillover saves should be on your Save dice. So in your example the correct solution is 7D8. You’re still showing the effects of massive firepower because you have to make the extra saves. But what if you’ve got mixed armor in the Target unit? Save spillover Hits on the majority type?

Yeah, spillover on majority save makes sense.

What about multi-wound models, like the vehicles from above - I assume this means they have XDY (say 3D8) to represent endurance, but if they get hit with, say 10 hits, you're just filling in the extra spillover dice, but if 3 hits get through, they're toast...

 Stormonu wrote:


Yeah, spillover on majority save makes sense.

What about multi-wound models, like the vehicles from above - I assume this means they have XDY (say 3D8) to represent endurance, but if they get hit with, say 10 hits, you're just filling in the extra spillover dice, but if 3 hits get through, they're toast...

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: What about multi dice save models, like Termies which I gave a save of 2D8. So, what, they get to roll 2D8 for every spillover hit? And how about models with force fields, they might have a D8 and a D10 save. Do they roll both dice for spillover hits? What if a multi dice same model is mixed in with a unit of single save models, how are spillover hits handled then?

Hummm. I’m thinking multi dice save models save spillover Hits on the lowest of their multi dice types. So Termines would save spillover Hits on a D8. The idea is spillover Hits represent massive firepower against a unit/model so they should be tuff to save.

Thoughts?

The main problem I see with your planning is, that you take the combat resolution, rip it out of the game, and treat as if it's something that stands on its own. It isn't though.
Even though you said "there was no true new edition since 3rd" there is so much to account for.
Yes, streamlining the whole process of combat resolution would go a great deal to raise the appeal of the game, but (hyperbole here) saying you simply need to change from "d6 for everyone" too "every weapon has its own d-something" is a bit easy.
The work you (for those wondering, I'm adressing OP) and Stormonu have done in the last couple of posts is interesting though, but all in all, you'd had to rework THE WHOLE GAME, not just combat die rolls.
It's simply not as easy as that.

And just my personal opinion, but there really was quite a lot of hostility at the start of this thread, but quite a lot of arrogance from OPs side, too. Looked a bit like a typical nerd discussion with the side "Status Quo (the system sucks but woe befalls anyone who thinks of changing it)" and "Old is allways bad (my idea is different, so all your arguments are dumb)"

 Cyprien wrote:
The main problem I see with your planning is, that you take the combat resolution, rip it out of the game, and treat as if it's something that stands on its own. It isn't though…

The work you (for those wondering, I'm adressing OP) and Stormonu have done in the last couple of posts is interesting though, but all in all, you'd had to rework THE WHOLE GAME, not just combat die rolls.

It's simply not as easy as that.

Well, of course you missed the elephant in the room. GW already did a WHOLE GAME that substituted a dice-type roll-off combat resolution system for the D6 stat system. Its called “Burning of Prospero”

The main problem with applying Porspero’s dice rolloff to 40k is widening the range to include all the other armies. Porspero limits the range to Marine vs. Marine. That’s the big issue with adopting Porspero to 40k. So, that’s what this discussion was about.

Now, I have to admit that I haven’t yet read the rules for Prospero so I can’t say for certain that they didn’t make other changes to accommodate the new combat resolution system, but as far as I can tell Porspero is otherwise based on current 40k rules.

I don’t see a big problem with swooping out combat resolution systems, although I would also make other changes in the rules, like adopting a Unit Activation Turn Base system, but that’s only to further improve the game, not to accommodate a new combat resolution system. Perhapses you can be more specific. What other game elements/mechanics do you see that would need to change to accommodate a dice rolloff combat resolution system?

An interesting system of combat resolution. It would certainly need some adaptation to allow for the wider breadth of options 40K compared to just BoP, but I could certainly see things that could be done to assist. Here are a few ideas:

Dice Available: To be a practical system, all rolls need to be limited to a single die. Use of more than 1 die for a single resolution just bogs everything down and leaves the current 3 Rolls to resolve a faster system. This gives us 6 possible values to use (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20).

Attack Value:
Strength: Technically, there are 11 “Strengths in 40K” (1-10 Plus D) which need to be distributed over the 6 available dice. I think this can be done with a minimal loss of granularity giving how much more significantly certain strengths are in 40K. S 1-2 are very rare, S 6-7 are almost interchangeable in many cases as are 9-10 outside of rare special rules interaction (like Instant Death on T5). Still, I would tie the Attack Die to the Strength of the weapon being used.

Accuracy: I noted that The BoP rules have the attacker discard all dice of 3 or less as misses. You could replace BS with a minimum effective dice value for attacks. A model that is now BS 4 needs a 4+ to hit, while BS 5-6 could be 3+ and a BS 1-3 could be 5+. Now you don’t need to change the die of an attack based on the attackers BS.

Weapon AP Value: While there are technically 7 AP values, we know that many are rarely used or generally ignored. When was the last time you fired a AP 6 weapon, yet alone actually negated someone’s armor with it? I think it would be workable to utilize a simpler mechanic. Weapons are either normal [AP -, 6, & 5], Armor Piercing (AP) [AP 4 & 3], or Anti-Tank (AT) [AP 2 & 1]. A normal weapon is resolved with compared rolls, tie to the defender. AP attacks have ties going to the attacker. Hardened targets (Vehicles, Monsters, and 2+ Armor Saves) could ignore AP and only lose ties against AT attacks.

Defense Value:
Armor and Toughness: While there are many less “Armor Values” in 40K (5, but 6+ is a joke and 5+ is ignored by the vast majority of shooting attacks), but we still have 10 Toughness values (even if 1-2 and 9-10 are super rare). This makes assigned a defense value hard, but not impossible. We would just need to build some sort of matrix to assign a die based on the combination of Armor and Toughness. You get less granularity, but for most purposes, there are many values that are effectively the same.

Invulnerable Saves: An Impossible item to convert into a die off value. Have these remain as the only Saves in the system, a roll made after damage has been resolved much like the current Feel No Pain. Values may need to be adjusted, but it would be workable.

Cover: My suggestion would be to move the effects of cover into the accuracy step on the attacker’s side. Increase his minimum value to damage, with the maximum die value always being a viable hit. This has the interesting effect of making a hit that gets past cover being more likely to get past the opponent’s defense since he has to roll higher on his Defence Die for the cover to be effective. Cover is still good for them since they will have less of a need to save as lower rolls are discarded as misses.

Vehicles and Monsters: Some Monsters and most vehicles have strengths that rarely damage them or are just not able to damage them. Give these models a Minimum Defense value that must be achieved or the attack simply fails. For example, if a Lasgun is a d6, then an AV10 vehicles and Toughness 7 Monster have a Minimum Defense of 7. A Lasgun is simply incapable of damaging them.

Just a few thoughts of mine on an interesting system.

Just remember, it doesn't have to just be one die. Particularly powerful or rapid firing weapons may roll multiple dice.

For example, if a Space Marine with a Boltgun rolls 1D8, the Space Marine with the Heavy Bolter could roll 3D8.

If those are different opportunities to wound, then that would work fine.

 alextroy wrote:
An interesting system of combat resolution. It would certainly need some adaptation to allow for the wider breadth of options 40K compared to just BoP, but I could certainly see things that could be done to assist. Here are a few ideas:

Dice Available: To be a practical system, all rolls need to be limited to a single die. Use of more than 1 die for a single resolution just bog everything down and leaves the current 3 Rolls to resolve a faster system. This gives us 6 possible values to use (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20).

Not really following you here. Every model gets an Attack dice, some get more than one, depending on the weapon/model. Jefffar is correct on that. It would be too difficult to condense a squad of models, some with different weapons, down to one dice.

Attack Value:
Strength: Technically, there are 11 “Strengths in 40K” (1-10 Plus D) which need to be distributed over the 6 available dice. I think this can be done with a minimal loss of granularity giving how much more significantly certain strengths are in 40K. S 1-2 are very rare, S 6-7 are almost interchangeable in many cases as are 9-10 outside of rare special rules interaction (like Instant Death on T5). Still, I would tie the Attack Die to the Strength of the weapon being used.

Accuracy: I noted that The BoP rules have the attacker discard all dice of 3 or less as misses. You could replace BS with a minimum effective dice value for attacks. A model that is now BS 4 needs a 4+ to hit, while BS 5-6 could be 3+ and a BS 1-3 could be 5+. Now you don’t need to change the die of an attack based on the attackers BS.

If you’re only rolling one dice, what dice do you use if the attacking unit has models with mixed BS? If you are rolling more that one dice how do you determine which one is for BS4 and which is for BS5?

It really doesn’t work to think of this in terms of a systematic conversion from the current game. This is conceptually very different. In terms of current 40K, a model’s Attack dice/value BS is combined with the weapon’s Strength, AP and Grade. But instead of trying the account for a bunch of different elements -- like BS and WS, and Strength and Toughness, and all that -- this is base on the army or race, and its standard weapon.

Each army/race is assigned a dice type. This represents the general effectiveness of the army/race’s generic trooper and his signature weapon. This dice type is generally the same for both Attack and Defense. This is always so with the amry/race’s must generic trooper. For example, Marines are a D8 army, so a generic Marine’s Attack and Defense dice are both D8; IG and Orks are D6 armies so a generic Imperial trooper or Ork Boy’s Attack and Defense dice are both D6; Eldar Guardians are also D6 so a generic Guardian’s Attack and Defense dice are D6; Eldar Aspects are a D8 so an Aspects’ Attack and Defense are D8. Variation within each army can change the base army dice for Attack and/or Defense, and can add dice, but you’re always working from the army’s generic base.

Weapon AP Value: While there are technically 7 AP values, we know that many are rarely used or generally ignored. When was the last time you fired a AP 6 weapon, yet alone actually negated someone’s armor with it? I think it would be workable to utilize a simpler mechanic. Weapons are either normal [AP -, 6, & 5], Armor Piercing (AP) [AP 4 & 3], or Anti-Tank (AT) [AP 2 & 1]. A normal weapon is resolved with compared rolls, tie to the defender. AP attacks have ties going to the attacker. Hardened targets (Vehicles, Monsters, and 2+ Armor Saves) could ignore AP and only lose ties against AT attacks.

Again, not sure how that all works when you’re only rolling one dice? How do you determine what dice type to roll?

Again, it really doesn’t work to think of this in terms of a systematic conversion from the current game. Under this system weapons characteristics are combined with BS. That gives an Attack value/dice.

Defense Value:
Armor and Toughness: While there are many less “Armor Values” in 40K (5, but 6+ is a joke and 5+ is ignored by the vast majority of shooting attacks), but we still have 10 Toughness values (even if 1-2 and 9-10 are super rare). This makes assigned a defense value hard, but not impossible. We would just need to build some sort of matrix to assign a die based on the combination of Armor and Toughness. You get less granularity, but for most purposes, there are many values that are effectively the same.

That's true. Under current 40K rules variations in Armor and Toughness average out and the distinction is effectively meaningless. Under these rules Armor and Toughness are combined into a Defense value/dice. But again, it really doesn’t work to think in terms of a systematic conversion from the current game because this is conceptually very different. You don’t need a matrix, just a base army/race dice type.

Invulnerable Saves: An Impossible item to convert into a die off value. Have these remain as the only Saves in the system, a roll made after damage has been resolved much like the current Feel No Pain. Values may need to be adjusted, but it would be workable.

There is no Invulnerable save here, but you can make a model invulnerable to some weapons by increasing its “to Hit value” to 7+ as you suggest below.

Generally a role of 6+ is a Save; everything else is… not. You can increase your odds of saving by using cover (step-up in Defense dice type) or having special and/or additional equipment (gear). This gives you additional dice to role. For example, Terminator armor gives Defense dice of 2D8, so two chances of scoring a 6+.

Cover: My suggestion would be to move the effects of cover into the accuracy step on the attacker’s side. Increase his minimum value to damage, with the maximum die value always being a viable hit. This has the interesting effect of making a hit that gets past cover being more likely to get past the opponent’s defense since he has to roll higher on his Defence Die for the cover to be effective. Cover is still good for them since they will have less of a need to save as lower rolls are discarded as misses.

Not sure I follow all this, but yeah, you can either put the effects of cover on the attacker (front loaded) or on the defender (back loaded). If you front load it, its hard to deal with a situation where not all the Target unit is in cove. You can do a limited attack, attack only these models in cover, or only those models not in cover, or use different color dice, which is a pain… I back load it. I put it on the Defense role. Then you can just step-up the Defense dice for the model(s) in cover. It’s also easier to step up dice types than to go down. If you front load it, it means that some—all? -- the Attacker’s dice type would go down. If you’re attacking a unit in hard cover you would have to step down several times, but you can’t go lower than a D4. Generally Attack dice are a D6. From there you can only step down once, to a D4. But from a D6 you can step up to a D8, or a D10, or even a D12 or D20. So if your Defense dice is a D6 but you’re in hard cover you get two steps up; you get to role a Defense dice of D10.

I don’t do traditional +1, +2, etc to the attack role because, for speed and simplicity all Attack dice are rolled together, and there is no way to say which gets the modifier unless you use different color dice, which is a pain.

Vehicles and Monsters: Some Monsters and most vehicles have strengths that rarely damage them or are just not able to damage them. Give these models a Minimum Defense value that must be achieved or the attack simply fails. For example, if a Lasgun is a d6, then an AV10 vehicles and Toughness 7 Monster have a Minimum Defense of 7. A Lasgun is simply incapable of damaging them.

Yeah, you can do that, but only for non-mixable units, unless you don’t mind making separate attack roles. Following Stromonu’s suggestion I set a generic hit at 4+, but special units can get a special “to Hit value” of 5 or higher. A “to Hit value” of 7+ would make a model invulnerable to D6 weapons. You can’t get that effect by adding Defense dice. I like this idea for special units, like special vehicles and demons/monsters.

Just a few thoughts of mine on an interesting system.

Keep them coming.

OK, so I've been thinking... and rolling some dice... and I'm thinking its best to go with a 5+ save. I was thinking 6+ before but now I'm thinking 5+ save, with added saves for each multiple of 5. So 5-9 is a save, 10-14 equal two saves, 15-19 is three saves, and 20 is four saves. This compares with Hit value of 4+, with 4-7 being a Hit, 8-11 equals two Hits, 12-15 three Hits, 16-19 is four Hits, and 20 is five Hits.

So, its not really a Role-off system anymore, more of a Multi dice Stat system. But that works better for bigger games, plus, that's what veterans of the game know and expect, rolling against a stat. But I also want it the be as simple as possible, that's why the To Hit stat and the Save stat are all the same, basically 4+ to hit and 5+ to save. Generally its just the two stats across the board. We're letting the dice types do the heavy lifting. But there's still room for some variation here and there, for truly unique units, vehicles, and characters, like Gods and Demons. The good stuff.

Thoughts?

An example of what I mean is this (dice values off the top of my head):

A Bolter (or and of the many S4 AP5 weapons) is a d8 Attack. Doesn’t matter if wielded by an Orc (BS 2) or a Space Marine Captain (BS 5). It is a standard weapon, meaning it loses ties against defense. Target to is based on the model actually firing the “Bolter”. An Orc (BS 2) has target 5+, a Space Marine (BS 4) Target 4+, and a Space Marine Captain target 3+ (BS 5).

A lightly armored target will have a d6 Defense die (say a Orc Boy or a Guardsmen), while a Space Marine Scout has a d8 and a Space Marine a d10.

So if 8 Space Marines fire at a squad or Orc Boys, they would roll 8d8, ignoring all results of 1-3. Then the Orcs roll a d6 for each hit and then compare the results to see how many wounds they take.

Just a few thoughts of mine on an interesting system.

Keep them coming.

 alextroy wrote:
An example of what I mean is this (dice values off the top of my head):

A Bolter (or and of the many S4 AP5 weapons) is a d8 Attack. Doesn’t matter if wielded by an Orc (BS 2) or a Space Marine Captain (BS 5). … Target to is based on the model actually firing the “Bolter”. An Orc (BS 2) has target 5+, a Space Marine (BS 4) Target 4+, and a Space Marine Captain target 3+ (BS 5).

You mean the “to Hit” roll is still based on the old BS stats, but the dice type you roll for the Attack role is based on the dice type assigned to the weapon being used? Yeah, well, then you have the problem of which dice is who’s? Ex: Say you have a squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain. They all have bolters so they are all rolling D8’s. You gather your pool of dice: 5D8’s, and you roll them. You get a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5, and a 6. Now Maines hit on a 4+ but the Captain hits on a 3+. So, the problem is, who rolled the 3? If it was the Captain, it’s a “Hit”. If it was one of the Maines, it’s a miss. So, unless you’re using different colored dice, or you make a separate attack for the Captain, you can’t say. And I really don’t want to have to rely on using different colored dice or make separate attacks.

Instead of using a lower “to Hit” stat to represent better BS and then a dice type for a weapon, I use a step-up in dice type to represent a combination of better BS and a better weapon. For Marines, this means going from a D8 to a D10.

So, using my example from above, the squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain, the Marines roll a D8 in attack. Captains are elite or veteran so they get a step up from the generic Marine, they roll a D10.

I give Captains combi weapons, but not because combi weapons are necessarily D10 weapons, but because elites and veterans get a step-up in dice type over the regular guys and they should have a weapon that kinda reflects that. Now they could all still have bolters, it doesn’t matter. You can think of the Captain’s weapon as mastercrafted, or it uses special rounds, or whatever. The important point is that the Captain is a step up from Marines so he’s rolling a D10. It not the weapon, and then the BS. It’s that elites and veterans get a step-up in dice type, and that’s generally a combination of better BS and a better weapon.

The thing about using a different dice type for the modifier, is that the modified effect is “built-in” to the roll. That way you can use a common “to Hit” and Save stats. Using a common stat is simple and easy to remember. The roll to Hit and Save is always the same. I was using 4+ “to Hit”, and 5+ to Save., with multiple hits for multiples of each. (Prospero uses a similar idea. In Prospero rolls of 6+ are critical hits, cause two Hits).

So, to use my example from above again, the squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain, you gather your pool of attack dice: 4D8’s and a D10, and you roll them. You get a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5, and a 6. That’s three Hits.

It is a standard weapon, meaning it loses ties against defense.

No ties anymore. Its not a true roll-off anymore. 4+ to Hit. 5+ to Save.

A lightly armored target will have a d6 Defense die (say a Orc Boy or a Guardsmen), while a Space Marine Scout has a d8 and a Space Marine a d10.

I give Space Marine Scout a D6 and Space Marines a D8.

So if 8 Space Marines fire at a squad or Orc Boys, they would roll 8d8, ignoring all results of 1-3. Then the Orcs roll a d6 for each hit and then compare the results to see how many wounds they take.

Comparing results, yeah, that’s how I had it at first. That’s also how Prospero does it. But I changed that. Comparing results is OK if you’re only rolling a few dice, no more than four or five. If you’re rolling more then that, comparing results is a pain. Porspero uses several techniques to keep dice numbers down to only three or four per side. But you can’t do that for a viable game of 40K. When rolling more then five dice a side its easier to simply count-out the high dice from a roll. 4+ to Hit. 5+ to Save.

 alextroy wrote:

Instead of using a lower “to Hit” stat to represent better BS and then a dice type for a weapon, I use a step-up in dice type to represent a combination of better BS and a better weapon. For Marines, this means going from a D8 to a D10.

So, using my example from above, the squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain, the Marines roll a D8 in attack. Captains are elite or veteran so they get a step up from the generic Marine, they roll a D10.

I give Captains combi weapons, but not because combi weapons are necessarily D10 weapons, but because elites and veterans get a step-up in dice type over the regular guys and they should have a weapon that kinda reflects that. Now they could all still have bolters, it doesn’t matter. You can think of the Captain’s weapon as mastercrafted, or it uses special rounds, or whatever. The important point is that the Captain is a step up from Marines so he’s rolling a D10. It not the weapon, and then the BS. It’s that elites and veterans get a step-up in dice type, and that’s generally a combination of better BS and a better weapon.

The thing about using a different dice type for the modifier, is that the modified effect is “built-in” to the roll. That way you can use a common “to Hit” and Save stats. Using a common stat is simple and easy to remember. The roll to Hit and Save is always the same. I was using 4+ “to Hit”, and 5+ to Save., with multiple hits for multiples of each. (Prospero uses a similar idea. In Prospero rolls of 6+ are critical hits, cause two Hits).

So, to use my example from above again, the squad of four Marines and a Marine Captain, you gather your pool of attack dice: 4D8’s and a D10, and you roll them. You get a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5, and a 6. That’s three Hits.

It is a standard weapon, meaning it loses ties against defense.

No ties anymore. Its not a true roll-off anymore. 4+ to Hit. 5+ to Save.

A lightly armored target will have a d6 Defense die (say a Orc Boy or a Guardsmen), while a Space Marine Scout has a d8 and a Space Marine a d10.

I give Space Marine Scout a D6 and Space Marines a D8.

So if 8 Space Marines fire at a squad or Orc Boys, they would roll 8d8, ignoring all results of 1-3. Then the Orcs roll a d6 for each hit and then compare the results to see how many wounds they take.

Comparing results, yeah, that’s how I had it at first. That’s also how Prospero does it. But I changed that. Comparing results is OK if you’re only rolling a few dice, no more than four or five. If you’re rolling more then that, comparing results is a pain. Porspero uses several techniques to keep dice numbers down to only three or four per side. But you can’t do that for a viable game of 40K. When rolling more then five dice a side its easier to simply count-out the high dice from a roll. 4+ to Hit. 5+ to Save.

Using different dice for the same weapon reduces the distinct nature of the weapon and makes the user more important. Is a Lasgun wielded by anyone as effective as a Bolter? Better that weapon stay the same die and when it "hits" changes. It's not like 40K players haven't been rolling different attacks separately or with a different color dice since nearly forever.

Giving a Save value rather than comparing isn't a bad speed up mechanism. You just can't make the target so high (5+) if you are going to give a Scout a d6 defense since anything less defended that a Scout ends up unable to save at all. With the dice available, a D4 needs to be able to successfully save and needs to represent the worst defended models in the game that actually have some defense (like T3, 6+ save models or at least T3 5+ Save and T4 6+ Save).

 alextroy wrote:
Using different dice for the same weapon reduces the distinct nature of the weapon and makes the user more important.

True, but I'd rather not get too far into WYSIWYG as far as models/bits go. That stuff is great to a point. But I don't want to make a fetish out of it. After all, its not like we can control how GW – or anyone else – scruples their models. And I don't want players to think they need to re-do/convert their models to play the game. So some looseness is not such a bad thing.

Actually, I think base size is the more important. D6 models on a 25mm base, D8 models on a 30/32mm base, D10 models on a 40mm base, D12 models on a 50mm base. That way you know the model's base dice type right away, then look for bits that add stuff, but keep it simple. Heavy weapons matter a lot but small arms shouldn't matter too much. But I'm not saying you need to re-base your army to play the game.

And, it really isn't too much of a problem as most units have their own unique weapon. The few times they overlap with elite/veteran troops you can signify the difference/up-graded weapon with a unique paint-job, or add a do-dad to the standard weapon. Again, not saying this is necessary, just an option if you want to be anal about it.

Is a Lasgun wielded by anyone as effective as a Bolter?

Yeah, I had this discussion earlier. Yeah, well maybe not a standard lasgun, but a supped-up lasgun in the hands of an expert, yeah, as effective as a Bolter. No need to too over-think it. Its just a game of toy soldiers after all.

Better that weapon stay the same die and when it "hits" changes. It's not like 40K players haven't been rolling different attacks separately or with a different color dice since nearly forever.

Well, you could do that. And without play-testing its just an opinion as to which is best. The thing is, the down-side of this system is gathering your pool of dice before every attack. That can be a real pain, and not something you need to deal with when you're using just D6's. I'm saying the sacrifice is worth it though, as its not that difficult and the benefits far out weigh the hassle. But I certainly don't want the to add to the misery by requiring not only a gathering of dice-types, but also special colored dice, and/or separate dice rolls if I don't have to.

Giving a Save value rather than comparing isn't a bad speed up mechanism. You just can't make the target so high (5+) if you are going to give a Scout a d6 defense since anything less defended that a Scout ends up unable to save at all. With the dice available, a D4 needs to be able to successfully save and needs to represent the worst defended models in the game that actually have some defense (like T3, 6+ save models or at least T3 5+ Save and T4 6+ Save).

Good point. Stormonu suggested a 4+ save right off. I really want to give the edge to fire-power. It's a Sci-Fi game after-all, so fire-power should be Big. So I had Saves at 6+, then I went to 5+. Remember, D4 units can still get to role a D6 or higher if they have cover. Again, without play-testing its hard to say where it should be.

Your earlier system was nearly unworkable for a variety of reasons (quantity of dice needed, limited results available without adding more complexity, amount of time it actually takes to match up dice out of a large roll).

Rolling X dice of Y type and looking for a fixed result is much better for a mass battle game.

You're still going to run into serious problems with differentiating units when you only have 6 dice types to work with. You have to really work out the probabilities for everything in your design space and see if it matches what you want to achieve.

Just throwing more dice at the problem is probably not enough, because in the end you have to weigh whether you're really gaining anything by requiring your player to own and roll large numbers of different dice just because you lack the ability to shift the odds any other way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thirdeye wrote:
The thing is, the down-side of this system is gathering your pool of dice before every attack. That can be a real pain, and not something you need to deal with when you're using just D6's. I'm saying the sacrifice is worth it though, as its not that difficult and the benefits far out weigh the hassle.

I don't think that's true, or at least you're very far from convincing anyone in this thread. It seems like you thought about this a little but never did any legwork to try it. For instance, it was easily disproven that your earlier system saved any time or made anything simpler. Rolling to hit, rolling again to wound, and rolling again to save was several times faster than your method for a simple example.

Thirdeye wrote:
Good point. Stormonu suggested a 4+ save right off. I really want to give the edge to fire-power. It's a Sci-Fi game after-all, so fire-power should be Big. So I had Saves at 6+, then I went to 5+. Remember, D4 units can still get to role a D6 or higher if they have cover. Again, without play-testing its hard to say where it should be.

And again it's apparent you haven't done any of that, or more importantly, done any math. You wouldn't be guessing at dice types or cover effects if you had bothered to calculate odds for all the dice combinations (in fact you probably would have abandoned the effort once you saw the results). Just to cover infantry, you'd already have to start including lots of extra dice. Extending that to vehicles and monstrous creatures would likely be impossible.

So like I was saying, the initial idea is unworkable. The fixed to hit idea will probably also require extensive modifiers or wacky dice combinations too, which might not be bad, but it requires some actual effort to demonstrate that it works. Fortunately you already have extensive playtesting to know what percentages to shoot for - if you can get close to the odds that 40k already generates for different unit matchups, you have done your job. If you can't, it's not going to feel right.

And finally, once you've done that, you haven't really fixed any of the major structural problems in 40k. You've done a ton of work to replace the damage engine without fundamentally fixing any mechanics.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Your earlier system was nearly unworkable for a variety of reasons (quantity of dice needed, limited results available without adding more complexity, amount of time it actually takes to match up dice out of a large roll).

Yeah, it would be a bit tedious for a big game but no worse than the current game. But we fix it.

Rolling X dice of Y type and looking for a fixed result is much better for a mass battle game.

I agree.

You're still going to run into serious problems with differentiating units when you only have 6 dice types to work with.

I disagree. Besides, differentiating units with micro stats is an illusion. It all averages out in the course of the game. Besides, differentiating units and/or weapons isn’t a requirement for a fun, fast game that brings the 40K universe to life.

You have to really work out the probabilities for everything in your design space and see if it matches what you want to achieve.

Its easy to see that the guy rolling the big stones has the edge. That’s all the probabilities I need to know.

Just throwing more dice at the problem is probably not enough, because in the end you have to weigh whether you're really gaining anything by requiring your player to own and roll large numbers of different dice just because you lack the ability to shift the odds any other way.

Well I don’t think you’d be throwing any more dice than we do now, and you’d be throwing them a third less times.

The best way to answer this is for you to check out the rules for Prospero. You can probably get them for free from a friend who bought the game just for the figs. That’s how I got mine. Just look at how they do the combat. And look at the stat cards. I tell ya, its just such a clean, simple, elegant way of doing it. There only a few stats: Combat (CC), Shooting, Armor, and Stamina. That it. And while Prospero uses all the classic Marine weapons, there’s no stat cards for them. Their stats are the dice types on the Marine’s stat cards. Check it out and you too will be a believer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thirdeye wrote:
The thing is, the down-side of this system is gathering your pool of dice before every attack. That can be a real pain, and not something you need to deal with when you're using just D6's. I'm saying the sacrifice is worth it though, as its not that difficult and the benefits far out weigh the hassle.

I don't think that's true, or at least you're very far from convincing anyone in this thread.

You can’t speak for everyone.

It seems like you thought about this a little but never did any legwork to try it. For instance, it was easily disproven that your earlier system saved any time or made anything simpler. Rolling to hit, rolling again to wound, and rolling again to save was several times faster than your method for a simple example.

The example was simple. That’s why its not a good representation of what happens in the game. The current game has serious problems dealing with mixed units. Players are forces to repeat rolls over and over again while juggling a half dozen stats and two charts. Check out Prospero and you too will be a believer.

Thirdeye wrote:
Good point. Stormonu suggested a 4+ save right off. I really want to give the edge to fire-power. It's a Sci-Fi game after-all, so fire-power should be Big. So I had Saves at 6+, then I went to 5+. Remember, D4 units can still get to role a D6 or higher if they have cover. Again, without play-testing its hard to say where it should be.

And again it's apparent you haven't done any of that, or more importantly, done any math. You wouldn't be guessing at dice types or cover effects if you had bothered to calculate odds for all the dice combinations (in fact you probably would have abandoned the effort once you saw the results).

And again, the guy rolling the biggest stones has the edge. That’s all the probabilities I need to know.

Just to cover infantry, you'd already have to start including lots of extra dice.

Not a lot, one or two extra for some races/armies.

Extending that to vehicles and monstrous creatures would likely be impossible.

No, not impossible. In fact I already did it. Check back in the thread.

So like I was saying, the initial idea is unworkable. The fixed to hit idea will probably also require extensive modifiers or wacky dice combinations too, which might not be bad, but it requires some actual effort to demonstrate that it works.

It works. In fact they did it already. You need to make some actual effort. You need to check out the rules for Prospero. You too will be a believer.

Fortunately you already have extensive playtesting to know what percentages to shoot for - if you can get close to the odds that 40k already generates for different unit matchups, you have done your job. If you can't, it's not going to feel right.

I’m not looking for mathematical equivalence to the current game. Nor do I feel that’s a requirement, somehow. I’m just looking for a fun, fast, simple way to play 40K that’s still rich enough to give some emersion into the world we all love. And I think GW has already taken the first step in that direction. See Prospero. We can build on that to make it a reality.

And finally, once you've done that, you haven't really fixed any of the major structural problems in 40k. You've done a ton of work to replace the damage engine without fundamentally fixing any mechanics.

I disagree. The current combat resolution system, the “D6 multi-stat” system, is a big problem. But since you brought it up, what, in your opinion, are the major structural problems in 40k that need(s) to be fixed?

I'm working up some Prospero-ish play stats for Marines, Eldar, Orcs, Necrons and Tau (maybe 'Nids, since their MCs will add some wrinkles). If I ever get them finished (possibly post them by race, but I want to at least get an all-race baseline so I have a good foundation), I'll post what I come up with for some playtesting. I don't expect them to match current 40K performance, but hopefully they'll feel a bit truer to fluff and somewhat more balanced.

 Stormonu wrote:
I'm working up some Prospero-ish play stats for Marines, Eldar, Orcs, Necrons and Tau (maybe 'Nids, since their MCs will add some wrinkles). If I ever get them finished (possibly post them by race, but I want to at least get an all-race baseline so I have a good foundation), I'll post what I come up with for some playtesting. I don't expect them to match current 40K performance, but hopefully they'll feel a bit truer to fluff and somewhat more balanced.

Sounds awesome. Can’t wait to see what you come up with. If you haven’t already, check-out how GW did the Stat cards in Prospero. You should follow that format.

Thirdeye wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I'm working up some Prospero-ish play stats for Marines, Eldar, Orcs, Necrons and Tau (maybe 'Nids, since their MCs will add some wrinkles). If I ever get them finished (possibly post them by race, but I want to at least get an all-race baseline so I have a good foundation), I'll post what I come up with for some playtesting. I don't expect them to match current 40K performance, but hopefully they'll feel a bit truer to fluff and somewhat more balanced.

Sounds awesome. Can’t wait to see what you come up with. If you haven’t already, check-out how GW did the Stat cards in Prospero. You should follow that format.

just got my Prospero boxed set, so I'll certainly take a look

Thirdeye wrote:

 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.

Here is where you lose me. No, they are not petty and silly. They provide diversity between models. Not everyone wants streamlined vanilla rules. As a matter of fact AoS lost me due to doing just this very thing. Not to mention I just think that the change you espouse is just to drastic and changes core fundamentals that not only do not need to be changed, but make 40k , 40k. Remember. Not everyone has your tastes. Some players like stats and deep diversity and will play a slower game because of it. The trick in a new edition of any game is to streamline content without giving up much of the diversity of content. That way you appeal to both camps of people. This solution only appeals to you and people like you. But I give you a good mark for effort and keeping this constructive in face of some pretty harsh feed back.

Table wrote:
Here is where you lose me. No, they are not petty and silly. They provide diversity between models.

Well, they are petty and silly because they try to micro-manage combat. Not only is this unnecessary its inappropriate for a company level -- or higher -- game. All you need is an Attack value and a Defense value, and a way for those stats to interact.

The diversity you speak of is an illusion. Tell me, what’s the difference between having to roll a 5+ followed by a 4+, and having to roll a 4+ followed by a 5+? This notion that a variable dice-type system gives less diversity than a D6 stat system is absurd. Real diversity comes with variable dice types. A model rolling a D6 is different than a model rolling a D8. And understand, its not just six dice-types. You can use multiples and mixed types. So a model rolling a 2D6 and a D8 is different than a model rolling a D8 and a D10.

Not everyone wants streamlined vanilla rules.

These’s nothing “vanilla” about a multi dice-type system, but it is streamlined.

As a matter of fact AoS lost me due to doing just this very thing. Not to mention I just think that the change you espouse is just to drastic and changes core fundamentals that not only do not need to be changed, but make 40k , 40k. Remember. Not everyone has your tastes. Some players like stats and deep diversity and will play a slower game because of it. The trick in a new edition of any game is to streamline content without giving up much of the diversity of content. That way you appeal to both camps of people.

You mean like they did with AoS, which you say lost you because its too vanilla?

It sounds to me like you’re just prejudice to change. I understand, you’ve been doing it so long one way you just can’t see doing it any other way. But of course 40K isn’t a game mechanic. It’s a sci-fi, gothic, horror, superhero, fantasy world of the imagination. And it does’t require a particular game mechanic to enter it. I suggest you open your mind a bit. Find someone with Prospero and give the game a go. See how fast and fun a game of 40K/30K can be without all the silly minutia about Strength, Toughness, Initiative, etc.

Man, tone it down a notch. This system won't be to some people's liking, it doesn't make them or us a villain; we're not nuking the Imperium with this approach.

Personally, I have no love of AoS, but my time available for gaming is limited. If I can reduce the die rolling from 4 actions (to hit, to wound, Armor/Invulnerable save, FNP) down to 2, that hopefully will let me run slightly larger battles with a minimal loss of fidelity. For me, a boon. The mechanics are also a challenge to work with to see how durable of a system you can make (and I do think it's possible to capture most of the BS/Strength/Toughness/AP/Special Rules interplay).

Other may enjoy the interactions and the actual rolling methods in the current system - for them it feels more simulationist as it is. Nothing to stress over, they can keep playing the game they have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

Thirdeye wrote:

 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.

Here is where you lose me. No, they are not petty and silly. They provide diversity between models. Not everyone wants streamlined vanilla rules. As a matter of fact AoS lost me due to doing just this very thing. Not to mention I just think that the change you espouse is just to drastic and changes core fundamentals that not only do not need to be changed, but make 40k , 40k. Remember. Not everyone has your tastes. Some players like stats and deep diversity and will play a slower game because of it. The trick in a new edition of any game is to streamline content without giving up much of the diversity of content. That way you appeal to both camps of people. This solution only appeals to you and people like you. But I give you a good mark for effort and keeping this constructive in face of some pretty harsh feed back.

Table, if the version I'm attempting to tackle should start with trying to match the base reaction of a weapon to hitting/wounding an enemy marine (as a baseline), but were incorporating the three separate rolls (to hit, to wound, save) to two, and then modify the first part (hitting/wounding) based on attacker's stats (BS or WS/Strength), are there specific outliers or effects on the second half that bother you? Most of the model stats and weapons I've looked through in the game tend to follow a pattern of the weapon's Strength and AP, with only a couple oddities - which could possibly be accounted for with special rules for the weapon. There's also some weapons (like Ad Mech Radium) that are overly complicated or add effects that to me just slow the game down and I'd like to streamline them.

There is the possibility in this to bring in modifiers. So if you are a D6 gun attacking a tank, the tank may be D6+6 save, meaning the gun can never hurt it. Other wise you get the thing where a pea shooter that rolls a D3 can beat a d20.

So AP2 would be d6+6 killing anything with a d6 save.
AV14 may be D8+8 save or something.
This could go the other way where guardsmen are D6-2.

There would be a lot of numbers flying around though.
If a marine scout had a D6 save + 3 for cover + 2 from a blessing + 1 for shrouded, and was being shot my a plasma gun next to a reactor D8+2+3, it could just get complicated.

Good point, one of the things we had been mentioning is the "AT"/"AP" qualifier, which would be very similar to giving one automatic success.

Another option rather than adding a bonus/penalty to the roll might be just throwing in another die - cover might add an extra D6 to the defender's pool, for example.