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.

Hi folks.
Rather than limit what you would like to change in the 40k rules to 'X changes' in a 40k re write.

If the entire rule set was wiped out and you were writing the rules for the 5th ed size game and all of its units..(With the view of adding 7th ed units as an expansion.)
From a complete blank page.

Looking at the basic game mechanics and resolution methods.(Not additional or special rules.)

What basic things would you keep?If the rules you were writing had the design brief of focus on clarity , brevity and elegance.(From Rick Priestly Head of game development /Creative director.)

Examples of current game mechanics, resolution methods...
3 stage damage resolution,dice size, alternating game turn.(IGO UGO.) stat lines,etc.

Ok, here's what I'd keep:

1) Some kind of alternating phases or turns, rather than per-unit or per-model activation, because unit counts can vary so wildly.

2) 3-stage damage resolution, probably with saves last.

3) Variable hit/damage rolls based on characteristics of both attacker and defender (that is, not flat to-hit/to-wound rolls a la AoS).

4) Single die size. Doesn't have to be a d6, but I'd prefer not to need both handfuls of dice and dice of many different sizes.

the five key points I'd consider essential to 40k are:

1) d6-only dice system
2) BS WS S T W I A Ld Sv characteristic array
3) Move-Shoot-Assault phase sequence
4) Point-based list building
5) unit-based actions

1) Keep the D6. While I think the D8 would be the best choice mechanically, D6 have many advantages that make them an easier choice for a game with lots of dice per roll.

2) Keep the psychic disciplines. While the psychic phase is a mess, having powers split into specializations has some very exciting possibilities.

3) Keep "armor" and "toughness" separate. While it would be much simpler to combine these into a single "defense" stat, having them separate means effects like poison and armor penetration are better defined.

4) Keep the current statline. While how they're used needs improvement, especially how theyre presented to the player, I feel like the current statline is enough to cover just about anything.

It's kind of impossible to answer that question without more information. It really depends on what you're looking to get out of the redesign and what your main focuses are.

Nothing. Complete re-write from scratch, with no concern for the awkward remains of a 1980s fantasy game.

I would keep almost all the actual mechanics, even though a lot of rules should be changed.

Thanks for the replies folks!

As we have what appears to be a wide range of opinion from the few replies so far.I think it would be good to discuss those opinions in a bit more detail.

I will just ask posters some questions based on the order they replied, mainly to get a better understanding of their point of view/clarify anything I might not fully understand.

@Jade Angel.
Do you agree that 5th ed 40k is a game based on detailed unit interaction.But because of the size of the minatures players prefer to roll per minature , rather than roll per unit?

A simple example. in 40k a ten man squad gets to roll 10 D6 for the units attacks.In a 6mm minature game the player might roll a single D10 or D12 for the entire units attacks.(A 'blob squad on a base' does not inspire the amount of expected detail a group of 28mm heroic sized minatures do in my experience. )

@realcitrantHQ.
What do you mean by characteristic array?
Do you want to keep the WHFB stat line that excludes vehicles, over a common stat line that covers both?Would you convert vehicles to use the same stat line and other models and the same damage resolution system ?
Or is it the number of stats you feel is right.(9)?

Army composition is usually structured by theme/history , and comparative point values. 40k has failed miserably on both counts IMO.
A system that delivers more proportional results should be much easier to balance comparatively.But serious play testing is needed to sort out synergistic issues.

I am not clear on what you mean by unit based actions?
Do you want alternating unit activation in each separate action phase?


@Ravern!
I am not sure why you believe the current stat line is enough to cover everything?
It does not cover one of the cornerstones of tactical game play movement .And it does not cover vehicles either.

If you mean the number of stats (9) then I agree.

@Wyldhunt.
Well I think we should be looking at developing a war game.(Simple simulation rather than totally abstract game like'' Yahtzee''/''Snakes and Ladders''.)

From 4th-5th ed 40k game size and units..

Game scale is (re-enforced infantry,) company level.

Game play scope is expected detailed unit interaction.With units closest to modern warfare, skirmishing infantry supported by AFVs, APCs, and artillery.
(Some armies use creatures or monsters in those roles.It is fantastical 40k after all!)

do you agree with these basic assumptions?

@Peregrine.
I agree that 'WHFB in space' failed as a viable game development concept years ago.

However, just because GW plc failed to let the game devs apply good concepts effectively.(Bad implementation rather than bad ideas IMO.)

Are you sure there is nothing, not even rolling D6s in a more effective and meaningful way, is worth keeping?

@The Deer Hunter.
Dont you find the alternating game turn, rather unbalancing and boring?
Dont you find the use of so many different resolution methods and random rolls just slow the game down?

I am just trying to understand different points of view a bit better.Thanks for any feed back you may want to give.

Lanrak wrote:
Thanks for the replies folks!

As we have what appears to be a wide range of opinion from the few replies so far.I think it would be good to discuss those opinions in a bit more detail.

I will just ask posters some questions based on the order they replied, mainly to get a better understanding of their point of view/clarify anything I might not fully understand.

@Jade Angel.
Do you agree that 5th ed 40k is a game based on detailed unit interaction.But because of the size of the minatures players prefer to roll per minature , rather than roll per unit?

A simple example. in 40k a ten man squad gets to roll 10 D6 for the units attacks.In a 6mm minature game the player might roll a single D10 or D12 for the entire units attacks.(A 'blob squad on a base' does not inspire the amount of expected detail a group of 28mm heroic sized minatures do in my experience. )

<snip>

I am just trying to understand different points of view a bit better.Thanks for any feed back you may want to give.

Yes, I would agree with that statement, in general.

In further thinking about my original statements, I'd almost certainly prefer to replace the current alternating turns with alternating phases instead, however. (I move, you move; I psych, you psych, I shoot, you shoot; I charge, you charge; I fight, you fight). I would also add, yes, keep point-based list building. There's too much unit diversity, and too much diversity even within theoretically comparable units, to balance purely by unit count, model count or unit roles.

Lanrak wrote:
Thanks for the replies folks!

...

@Wyldhunt.
Well I think we should be looking at developing a war game.(Simple simulation rather than totally abstract game like'' Yahtzee''/''Snakes and Ladders''.)

From 4th-5th ed 40k game size and units..

Game scale is (re-enforced infantry,) company level.

Game play scope is expected detailed unit interaction.With units closest to modern warfare, skirmishing infantry supported by AFVs, APCs, and artillery.
(Some armies use creatures or monsters in those roles.It is fantastical 40k after all!)

do you agree with these basic assumptions?
...

There are a lot of different directions you could go, but I think that's a reasonable one. So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're going for something larger than a skirmish game along the lines of kill team or combat patrol but smaller than your typical 7th edition 1850 point tournament. Something sort of comparable in size to a 7th edition game at 1,250 or 1,500 points, right? It's difficult to add constructively to the conversation by simply saying "keep this" because that would devolve into me basically rewriting the majority of the 40k rulebook here. So I'll depart from the "what would you keep" format but try to stay on-topic all the same.

So with the game size mentioned above in mind, I think it's safe to drop most of the "smalll-scale" mechanics in the game. Things like Gets Hot! that only affect a single model and usually have limited impact on the overall game can probably be dropped for the sake of streamlinign things. You might also want to remove (or overhaul) challenges, look out sir, digital weapons, and master-crafted. Basically, anything that affects an individual model rather than the unit as a whole should be reviewed for possible removal. Overwatch, which represents a unit panic-firing at an enemy as they charge in in the hopes of removing one or two models, might fall into this category. Random charge distance and difficult terrain tests may not be condusive to games of this size either. The game you're describing is a game about squads rather than individuals (with the possible exception of your HQ-equivalent heroes).

Similarly, you may want to drop anything aimed at a particularly "large-scale" engagement. Do rules for flyers really fit into the game you envision? What about superheavies? Would something like a voidshield be reasonable to include? How about "buildings" (not ruins, but actual AV-having buildings)?

You'd also want to take a hard look at formations/detachments, and not just the "special" ones. Even the humble CAD doesn't necessarily fit especially well into the game you're describing. You say you want to encourage people to focus on infantry with things like vehicles and artillery being there in a supporting role, but what's my motivation to not take a bare-minimum of "troops" and then load up on big guns? What's my incentive as a dark eldar player to take more kabalite warriors instead of more trueborn, reavers, or talos? As a marine, why should I take power armored units instead of bikes, tanks, or something like T-cav? Why should tyranid players take gaunts instead of MCs? The CAD doesn't necessarily encourage "troops" (infantry or otherwise) or fluffy armies for all factions. So I guess what I'm getting at is consider dropping the CAD, consider dropping "troop" roles as they currently exist, but also consider keeping faction-specific detachments that encourage fluffy, flavorful playstyles. Something like the Bladewing Brotherhood is actually a cool way to play a thematic assault company or ravenwing army.


Aside from that, I think a lot of the existing rules in 40k work reasonably well (or better) in the sort of game you're describing. Armor saves and AP values matter a little more when it's harder to spam tons of big guns. Multi-step damage resolution isn't much of a problem when you smooth out some of the fiddly extra bits like challenges and LoSir. Outflanking and infiltrating matter more when the board is less crowded. Getting into melee is more feasible when your opponent doesn't have quite so many shots to throw at you before you get into range.

There's a ton of stuff you could add to the game to reinforce the playstyle you're describing, but a lot of what already exists works pretty well if you trim off the "big stuff" and the "small stuff."

@Wyldhunt.
The only reason I picked 4th-5th ed game size, is because it was the most popular game size across several polls.
Lots of gamers thought that the 'big toys and fliers' could work well in larger games if they were implemented properly.
But 6th ed just crammed them in to a basic game to improve short term sales.And 7th edition just doubled down on this.

I would like all these units from 6th and 7th ed to be covered in an expansion for larger game sizes.(Generally on bigger playing areas for organised games and campaigns. They have such a negative effect on smaller random pick up games. )

This gives us a much clearer view of the basic units that are the core drivers of the game play. (Squads of skirmishing infantry and support vehicles, or fantastical equivalents .)
I would like to set the new game size to be..
An infantry hoard of Orks , Nids IG etc, would be about 100 infantry models.A elite infantry, and support vehicles etc. would reduce this number proportionately.

(I also thing that we should start with the basic IG human units as the yard stick all others are compared to for allocating comparative point values.As this gives us a clearer indication of how scary and wonderful the rest of the 40k universe is. )

I agree that dropping the micro management of detailed model focus is a good idea!
(WHFB skirmish rules made sense in Rogue Trader 40k, RPG /Skirmish game.But 40k has been a battle game since 1998! )

All the good wargame focus on the level of interaction. In 40k this should be at the unit level.

I think the problem with 40ks F.O.C is it was far to restrictive.And rather than use a much better system to allow more narrative and balanced lists to be made.
They just threw more complicated and unbalancing methods over the top. (Formations/Detachments.)

I would much prefer a more simple and flexible system like Epic Space Marine used.(But thats for another thread..)

I am of the opinion that some of the core game mechanics and resolution methods could deliver a very good 40k war game.(Some of them need a few minor changes though.)

Eg keep the 'action phases' but alternate then to improve player interaction, and removes the need for over watch when implemented well.
(This does work really well.And has been used as an alternative in house rules since 4th ed. )

If we used opposed stat values on a chart similar the the to wound chart.
This is a good way of getting a wider range of proportional results in a straight forward way using the humble D6. Compared to a fixed value D6 roll .

Analogy alert.
if you have ever watched Gordon Ramsay sorting out a failing restaurant.
They often try to put out a massive amount of dishes that are all cooked badly , by staff that can not cope , with less than stellar ingredients to keep the cost down.
They simply think more is better.

Gordon looks at what the best local ingredients are.Works out a simple menu that makes the most of this.And just makes a few very good dishes every one enjoys.
And proves quality and value is more important than just quantity.


So in a similar way, I would like to look at getting to the good ingredients of the core 40k rule set.
Then look at the best way to build an appealing 40k war game using them.

Hi folks.
Just a quick post to clarify my motives.

A) You do not make something less complicated by adding pages of explanations to try to decipher why it does not work the way you think it should.

B)A war games has several expectations placed upon it by the players.And the developers should communicate clearly to the player what the war game actually is supposed to be.

C) The core game play of 40k , that is buried under a lots of poorly applied and some times poorly conceived rules, is worth saving, IMO.

So this thread is asking players what do you like about the core game play?

My pick would be..
Rolling D6 suits the nature of 40k players dice rolling preference.(Rolling per mode/weapon in the unit rather than rolling per unit.)

Action phases allow players to formulate and execute tactical plans with their force in a way they are familiar with.And required less book keeping/remembering who activated what and when.(Compared to alternating unit activation.)

Three stage damage resolution allows much more detail between units, and as 40k has the most varied range of units AFAIK this is needed.

Two best resolution methods.Opposed stats on a single chart, and direct stat value representation.
The first one gives a wide variety of proportional results simply , the second is straight foprward for distances moved, effective ranges, dice rolled etc.

Thinking about what you want to keep, makes you focus much more on core game play , IMO.

Lanrak wrote:
Are you sure there is nothing, not even rolling D6s in a more effective and meaningful way, is worth keeping?

Yep, pretty sure. I mean, by coincidence some very basic concepts might be the same in a new game. Models might still be on 28mm bases, weapons might still have a strength value rolled against toughness, etc, but none of the ideas in 40k would be must-keep things. I honestly can't think of a single thing that 7th edition 40k does well, so scrap the entire game and start over with a clean slate.

I think the D6 really has to go. There's too many units to support on a D6 system. You end up with gak like shootas being better than bolters.

@Peregrine.
The game mechanics and resolution methods are the very basic concepts of the game.(How players interact, and how you resolve the in game action.)

For example resolution methods...
Using stat lines directly to show the maximum range of movement or weapons , the number of dice rolled, etc.Are common to most war games.
Also using stats in an opposed table is quite common for resolving more detailed interaction in a proportional way.

Many war game use the same basic concepts used in 40k , to much better effect.

So this thread is looking at what players think would be a good 'fit' for a war game developed specifically for 40k .(4th to 5th ed size game.)
If the rules were written focused on clarity , brevity and intuitive game play.

@Martel732.
I agree that the current rules are very restrictive and do not cover the range of units found in 40k very effectively .

However, I think the biggest problem is with the lack of proportionality , due to not comparing stats for some resolutions.
EG take the to hit roll at range .A flat score to hit is too abstract and limiting for a game like 40k.

If we look at a BS 3 grunt with a heavy bolter.

The chance to hit a large target like a the side of a Trukk 2" away, is exactly the same as hitting a small Grot 36" away.(Both targets in the open.)

Changing dice size does nothing to sort out this issue with the rules.

If we used opposed stat values (1 to 10) in a chart with the full range of results.This gives us over 200 proportional results with a three stage damage resolution.
That is appx triple the amount of non proportional results the current rules deliver.

I think it is important to try to make the most of the humble D6 before we give up on it.
If after making the most of the D6 , it still fails to deliver enough variation , I would be happy to look at using larger dice sizes.

Lanrak wrote:
The chance to hit a large target like a the side of a Trukk 2" away, is exactly the same as hitting a small Grot 36" away.(Both targets in the open.)

Changing dice size does nothing to sort out this issue with the rules.

If we used opposed stat values (1 to 10) in a chart with the full range of results.This gives us over 200 proportional results with a three stage damage resolution.
That is appx triple the amount of non proportional results the current rules deliver.

And with a D10, that number increases significantly. D10s also also allow a greater flexibility in providing that level of proportional response as well.

The only actual problems I have with changing from the D6 to a D10 lies more in the ease of acquisition and the intimidation/stigma to players who are new to tabletop games. In terms of providing a greater capacity for flexibility and unit stats, even with comparisons, having D10s would be better.

We can fix a lot of problems with the AP system by simply going to D10. That's what makes it so attractive. By creating four new mathematical niches for armor, we can create a diverse range of armor, and by extension create a diverse range of weapons without have to write overly complex rules.

Also, a D10 allows for small to-hit modifiers without wrecking the game for some armies.

@Charistoph.
Obviously a D10 has a larger range of results than a D6.But why stop with D10?

Why not use a D20, that has twice as many results as a D10 so must be twice as good.Or even use a D 100 that is ten times better than a D10.

Is it because most players think we need a slight improvement on the range of results the D6 delivers in the 40k game play?
Eg an extra 60% increase in results would be enough.(From 6 to 10).

My point is if the D6 was used more efficiently in the rules you could TRIPLE (300%) the range of results currently found in the 40k rules for combat resolution.And these would be proportional results too!
This may be enough improvement to allow us to keep using the bucket fulls of D6 we have and love rolling.

If it is not , then I would be happy to use a D10 with the more efficient resolution methods.

But fixing the resolution methods to suit the intended game play is the first step IMO.

Eg .Hitting at range 50% of the time irrespective of how big the target is or how far away it is.Is a gross abstraction no matter what dice size you use .

@Martel732.
Why in the name of good game development would you want to keep the horrible AP system?

It abstracts the actual resolution to deliver counter intuitive results.
It only covers a fraction of units.
It generates massive imbalance in the game play.

I would prefer a system that covered all units, and delivers proportional results that help generate enough game balance for enjoyable random pick up games.

Because everyone knows the AP system, and it's much better on a D10. A good reason to stop at D10 is because warhammer stats are 1-10. I've got lots of ideas of how to use that in a revamped system.

Marines with 4+ armor, Riptides/artificer armor at 3+ and terminators at 2+ is already giving us mathematical space to fix a LOT of problems.

Lanrak wrote:@Charistoph.
Obviously a D10 has a larger range of results than a D6.But why stop with D10?

Why not use a D20, that has twice as many results as a D10 so must be twice as good.Or even use a D 100 that is ten times better than a D10.

Is it because most players think we need a slight improvement on the range of results the D6 delivers in the 40k game play?
Eg an extra 60% increase in results would be enough.(From 6 to 10).

As Martel stated, because the current stat system is applied through a 1-10 range. If we wanted to extend the range, we could seek using a larger die. But that complicates things even further for my main concerns regarding ease of access and the stigma/intimidation factor.

Lanrak wrote:My point is if the D6 was used more efficiently in the rules you could TRIPLE (300%) the range of results currently found in the 40k rules for combat resolution.And these would be proportional results too!
This may be enough improvement to allow us to keep using the bucket fulls of D6 we have and love rolling.

If it is not , then I would be happy to use a D10 with the more efficient resolution methods.

But fixing the resolution methods to suit the intended game play is the first step IMO.

Eg .Hitting at range 50% of the time irrespective of how big the target is or how far away it is.Is a gross abstraction no matter what dice size you use .

In that, I cannot disagree, nor was it my point in the response. The point was that as efficient as it would be for the D6 to use this process, it can become even more fine-tuned, such as allowing Lootas and Flash Gitz being just a LITTLE more accurate than the average Boy but still less accurate than a Grot or Guardsman and not relying on rerolls.

I don't actually understand the d10 thing.

Yes, it has a larger range of results which can create a more nuanced response. But that larger range of results also grows the gap between the weak and the powerful. while, for the most part, not really changing most of the results in any meaningful way.

Success roll d10 / % chance of success / d6 / % chance of success

10+ / 10%
9+ / 20% 6+ / 16.7%
8+ / 30% 5+ / 33.3%
7+ / 40%
6+ / 50% 4+ / 50%
5+ / 60%
4+ / 70% 3+ / 66.7%
3+ / 80% 2+ / 83.3%
2+ / 90%


Do you really think a 90% chance for success is a good thing? Or a 10%? Or the gap between 10% chance of success to save vs 90% chance to hit/wound? Or even worse, 10% chance to hit wound vs a 90% chance to save? Could you imagine the frustration that would bring to the game.

And if you think those extremes are too big why not move it down to a d8... at which point the results are even closer.

No. I think the change to a d10 using the mechanics that 40k does are mostly meaningless while actually growing the power gap in 40k.

You can't say that without seeing the final product and how units end up being costed. And terminators should absolutely get 90% vs small arms. And everything else that fails to reach AP 2. I would eliminate the need for the invuln by having weapons that match the armor like AP 2 vs 2+ halve the armor save instead of negating it. So 2+ becomes 7+ or 6+ (I haven't decided yet). AP 1 would be rare and give terminators no save at all.

D10 allows for small to-hit modifiers that don't wreck some armies (Orks). Additionally, increments of 10% are easier to work with than 16.667% I think. We can also get rid of a ton of reroll rules and bake it into the initial roll.

Martel732 wrote:
You can't say that without seeing the final product and how units end up being costed. And terminators should absolutely get 90% vs small arms. And everything else that fails to reach AP 2. I would eliminate the need for the invuln by having weapons that match the armor like AP 2 vs 2+ halve the armor save instead of negating it. So 2+ becomes 7+ or 6+ (I haven't decided yet). AP 1 would be rare and give terminators no save at all.

D10 allows for small to-hit modifiers that don't wreck some armies (Orks). Additionally, increments of 10% are easier to work with than 16.667% I think. We can also get rid of a ton of reroll rules and bake it into the initial roll.

Absolutely not a terminator should have a 90% chance of success to negate wounds. Nothing drags the game down faster then rolling a bunch of dice and having nothing happen at all. Reroll rules have nothing to do with using a d6 vs a d10. Either system could be using +1 bonuses to rolls instead of rerolls. Or scaling the way BS does 3+/2+/2+ 6+/ 2+ 5+ etc etc...

The prevalence of AP2 and it's effect on saves is a different mechanic. Can be changed without changing the die size because the two are unrelated. How about you change ap to a penalty to save and change the values to be closer to -1 to -4ish? D would negate entirely. AP 6 weapons would have no ap (allowing for more actual saves in the game giving orks, nids, and guard a chance to roll some dice) and a -2 ap weapon would make that 2+ save into a 4+. Changing dice size... a nonsensical solution to the problem you are bringing up.

My biggest problem with kill team is taking a single model rolling 1-2 dice and watching nothing happen over and over again. It's dull as dirt. Rolling a 10+ or even a 8+ vs a 2+ save would make the game even slower than it already is. Can you really not see how bad that power gap is for the game as a whole? Increments of 10% are exactly the same in difficulty as working with increments of 16.667%. It amounts to basic arithmetic. Where are you having the trouble?

We can agree to disagree about terminators. It's absolutely appropriate to soak 90% of low penetrating fire. That's a problem they have now; too weak vs small arms for the cost.

You can call it nonsense, but it would work VERY well for giving different weapons niches and giving different armies some flavor. Aspect warriors can have 5+ armor, leaving marines with 4+. Such differentiation is currently impossible, and that's unfortunate.

"Can you really not see how bad that power gap is for the game as a whole?"

Not really. Terminators would be expensive. Except it would justified under my system.

@Charistophe.
If 40k fully utilized the 1 to 10 stat line for opposed values, then we could generate a much wider range of proportional results from a 3 stage damage resolution.
(Especially if we extend the range of results to include auto succeed, and auto fail. 1+ and n=no effect.)

This could cover all units in the 4th-5th ed sized game.(We could extend the range of value to 1 to 20 for the larger range of models in apoc/large 7th ed size games?)

As previously mentioned (in other threads,) here is the extended table we were play testing.(One table to cover all three stages of damage resolution.)
A= the active(rolling) players stat, O=the opposing players stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

As 40k uses opposed rolls to hit in assault, and to wound.
Why not use them to hit at range, (BS vs a new Evasion stat.)and for armour saves.(Amour value vs Armour penetration value.)

So rather than ranged attacks only being resolved based on the attackers skill.It takes the size/skill of the target into account too.(Cover can simply be a bonus to the targets stat.)
This way a BS value of 3 is only slightly better than a BS value of 2.

@Martel732.
Every one knows how limiting and flawed the AP system is.(Compared to other resolution systems in war games.)

Using a new range of armour values from 1 to 10.And a new range of armour penetration values from 1 to 10.With the above chart.

A SM with armour value 4 is hit by a las gun armur penetration 2.(4 down 2 across )=3+ save.
A SM AV 4 hit by a plasma gun AP6 (4 down 6 across)= 5+ save.

A land raider AV 10 is hit by a Las cannon AP 9.(10 down 9 across)= 3+ save
Las gun shots AP 2 just bounce off the Land Raider armour, 1+ auto save.(Need not be rolled.)

This is just one possible alternative to illustrate new concepts we could use.

I'd keep the name.


Beyond that, the D6 is probably sadly here to stay, that to me means keeping the multiple stage damage system - "to hit", "to hurt" "to save" just to get at least 2d6 if not 3d6 into the process to provide the bell curve - if you went to a single step you would need two or three dice in that step anyway so may as well stick with it.

Desire other systems being better I'd also keep the alternating turn system, ditto the basic stat line - even if the stats themselves get re-scaled - simply because this sort of defines what 40k is - moving away from that and may as well play a different game with the models, would suggest some of the history while a pain at times is what makes the game what it is.

I would however go back in time a bit and bring back a few long lost concepts that used to be in 40k.

Like to hit modifiers, weapons doing multiple wounds and save modifiers (which I'd have work with terrain, you're behind a wall, +1 to your save, or whatever)

The game started out as an infantry skirmish system, its actually not too bad at that so thats what I'd keep - and revise how vehicles etc fit in, but the base mechanics work - just need a bit of adjusting on some of the actual numbers.

Bell curves change the math of any given system A LOT.

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistophe.
If 40k fully utilized the 1 to 10 stat line for opposed values, then we could generate a much wider range of proportional results from a 3 stage damage resolution.
(Especially if we extend the range of results to include auto succeed, and auto fail. 1+ and n=no effect.)

This could cover all units in the 4th-5th ed sized game.(We could extend the range of value to 1 to 20 for the larger range of models in apoc/large 7th ed size games?)

As previously mentioned (in other threads,) here is the extended table we were play testing.(One table to cover all three stages of damage resolution.)
A= the active(rolling) players stat, O=the opposing players stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

As 40k uses opposed rolls to hit in assault, and to wound.
Why not use them to hit at range, (BS vs a new Evasion stat.)and for armour saves.(Amour value vs Armour penetration value.)

So rather than ranged attacks only being resolved based on the attackers skill.It takes the size/skill of the target into account too.(Cover can simply be a bonus to the targets stat.)
This way a BS value of 3 is only slightly better than a BS value of 2.

Now imagine the subtle differences you can have with a D10. You could even bring modifiers back in to make those subtleties even stronger.

If I was going to use a comparison system, though, I would not have it be BS v BS. Just because you are a good shot does not necessarily mean you are good at avoiding being shot, but being good in melee is about also avoiding the other's blows. In this case, I do think I would be a better comparison stat with it. This would allow those units which are noted for having quick reactions but null shooting capacity to more sensibly avoid those incoming shots.

@Leopard.
As mentioned previosly lots of war games use the D6 to great effect.And the three stage damage resolution works fine in war games too.

What slows 40k game play down is the 'less than optimal' resolution methods that need all the extra rules and dice rolls.

EG.
I successfully roll to hit.Then because the opponent makes a 'cover save' I did not actually hit, after all!

Even if I did actually hit and then actually cause a wound,I actually did not if they make a extra FNP roll!

This is just 2 examples of poor rules writing that leads to over complicated and counter intuitive game play.

The only game play the alternating game turn and current stat line support well,(If you add the movement stat back).From a game play point of view is WHFB,As this is what these rules were written for!

A bolt gun is not the same as a bow and arrow, and a Chimera APC is not the same as a charriot.40k units are not mainly made up of large close formation blocks of troops armed with hand weapons.

Using opposed stats on a table , allows modifier to be applied to the appropriate stat which is more intuitive.
Eg
-1 to hit,actually increases the dice score needed to succeed.
Or.
Add one to your Evasion stat makes you harder to hit.
The second option to new players is much more logical.

I agree that scaling back the game size to 4th 5th ed would get rid of the worst excesses of 6th and 7th ed.

@Charistope.
If we have a stat range of 1 to 10 or 1 to 15 or 1 to 20.(Which ever we think is most suitable after play testing.)
We can apply modifiers to the stats directly to get the finer increments required.

I am reserved about just swapping to a D10,without giving the D6 a 'fair trial'.(Decent amount of play testing with new methods.)
As Hoard army players need to roll 60+ on occasion.And rolling 60+D10 is a pain in practice, and quite expensive.

I do not intend or suggest using a BS vs BS system
But to give the units a new stat 'Evasion' .This is based on the models size , agility and stealth abilities.

BS vs a new Evasion stat.

So models with jink saves, invisibility, camo cloaks , holo fields etc.Could all show these effects in the new Evasion Stat rather than having to use special rule , and additional rolls.

I was thinking of using WS vs opponents Initiative,If we wanted to model simultaneous resolution with alternating phases. (But that is for another thread perhaps?)

Lanrak wrote:
@Charistope.
If we have a stat range of 1 to 10 or 1 to 15 or 1 to 20.(Which ever we think is most suitable after play testing.)
We can apply modifiers to the stats directly to get the finer increments required.

I am reserved about just swapping to a D10,without giving the D6 a 'fair trial'.(Decent amount of play testing with new methods.)
As Hoard army players need to roll 60+ on occasion.And rolling 60+D10 is a pain in practice, and quite expensive.

Indeed. Which is why I brought up the concepts in which I did. D10s and D20s do offer a greater range of fine increments are used.

I have no problem with using D6s, personally, I am just stating that the higher numbers provide for a greater degree of flexibility, even if they do provide problems in other areas.

And I have also noted twice before that my greatest problem with changing from D6s is accessibility and intimidation. Accessibility does include costs (which really isn't that large between D6s and D10s in many areas). I had not thought about using 60 D10s (which could actually worse for an IG bloat Squad under Front Rank Fire), but that is a good point, but no more than using the mini-dice that 40K uses versus the larger dice that come in Starter Set or any other Board Game.

Lanrak wrote:
I do not intend or suggest using a BS vs BS system
But to give the units a new stat 'Evasion' .This is based on the models size , agility and stealth abilities.

BS vs a new Evasion stat.

So models with jink saves, invisibility, camo cloaks , holo fields etc.Could all show these effects in the new Evasion Stat rather than having to use special rule , and additional rolls.

I was thinking of using WS vs opponents Initiative,If we wanted to model simultaneous resolution with alternating phases. (But that is for another thread perhaps?)

It was used in what I quoted, so that is why I addressed it. I do not think a new stat should be used or needed, largely because the stat list is large enough as it is and Ini works better for this concept as any.