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.

The main contention here has been over the fixed wound rolls, which have not been mentioned in any rumours.

On Thursday, we bring you guests from around Games Workshop HQ. We’ll have Joey Logan from our scenery design team, who will be talking about the new Sector Mechanicus terrain that features in the recent Shadow War: Armageddon set. Then we hear from White Dwarf Editor Matt Keefe, for a behind the scenes discussion of the magazine as it approaches its 40th birthday issue next month.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/11/warhammer-live-april-12th-15th/

Edit: It is actually White Dwarfs birthday

For what it's worth, I read once about a Bren gunner driving off a reasonably large formation - company? - of advancing Panther tanks from an Italian village by accurately pinging repeated shots off the vision blocks and similar items, Of course, the real reason was that the panzers effectively failed their 'Fear' tests at being ordered to attack what they consequently thought was a large formation of dug-in infantry (it wasn't, just this man's section) in a built-up area while unsupported by their own infantry, which is not really a 40k rule - or even a situation that comes up in a typical game - but you could imagine the 'destruction' as more as something like that if you'd prefer.

Simplest way to make that distinction would be two key words: "Small Arms" and "Heavy armour". Make 'Heavy Armour' immune to 'Small Arms', whether 'Small Arms' gets a special rule of its own (perhaps analagous to the current Assault type?) would be another discussion!

 kodos wrote:
I have never seen an army completely out of Land Raiders
so the argument that lasguns are sitting sround useless because they cannot wound them is stupid

and actually they never could wound them and until now I never heard that anyone wants them to.

actually it is the other way around, people want their tanks more though (and that glancing to death need to go) and not more vulnerable against anti-infantry fire

Have you ever seen an army completely out of Imperial Knights? It would be the same thing.

Vorian wrote:
We are discussing how a fixed to wound roll interacts with vehicles compared to how the current system does. The current system uses AV as a seperate system.

Yes, and my post wasn't referring to AV. It was pointing out that a straight S vs T comparison is more straightforward than a system that relies on adding special rules to both weapons and units in order for the core rules to function.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.

This statement is so ridiculous. Your framing the argument in a way that suggests that somehow those special rules aren't a section of the core rules just because they are located on unit cards and not written in to a compendium of a BRB.

No, I'm framing that argument in a way that suggests that unnecessary special rules should be avoided for the sake of simplicity.

I couldn't care less where the rules are located... A system that uses the same rules for everybody is less complicated than a system that relies on some units and weapons having special rules to make them function correctly.

The Blood Ravens in the new Dawn of War 3 trailer look very different to me,sign of things to come?

Youn wrote:

Have you ever seen an army completely out of Imperial Knights? It would be the same thing.

And this, frankly, is the bigger problem.

The need for everybody to be able to hurt everything comes from the current system allowing for this sort of army as a standard part of the game. This should never have been allowed in the first place. If GW had left army building with a sensible structure and not allowed entire armies of vehicles, then we wouldn't need a system where weapons that shouldn't have any effect on vehicles need to be able to hurt them for the sake of game balance.

Knights should only ever have been in a support role, with all-Knight armies left for specific scenarios where the opponent can tailor his army to accommodate it.

 insaniak wrote:

Yes, and my post wasn't referring to AV. It was pointing out that a straight S vs T comparison is more straightforward than a system that relies on adding special rules to both weapons and units in order for the core rules to function.

This. Look at the movement value; it was removed in the third edition to 'streamline' the game, and we ended up with bunch of unit types and special rules to simulate things that should move at different speeds. So now they're finally backing up from that and reintroducing the move value, which is way easier way to do the thing. Fixed wound roll would just lead to similar (albeit probably worse) mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Youn wrote:

Have you ever seen an army completely out of Imperial Knights? It would be the same thing.

And this, frankly, is the bigger problem.

The need for everybody to be able to hurt everything comes from the current system allowing for this sort of army as a standard part of the game. This should never have been allowed in the first place. If GW had left army building with a sensible structure and not allowed entire armies of vehicles, then we wouldn't need a system where weapons that shouldn't have any effect on vehicles need to be able to hurt them for the sake of game balance.

Knights should only ever have been in a support role, with all-Knight armies left for specific scenarios where the opponent can tailor his army to accommodate it.

Agreed again. There should have been just one Ad Mech army, of which Knights should've been a part.

Youn wrote:

Have you ever seen an army completely out of Imperial Knights? It would be the same thing.

not really as Knights have a problem with maelstrom missions
it is more likely to be seen than an all Raider army, but actually I have never ever seen one, neither in the club nor at tournaments

even back in 5th with the IA tank company list I have never seen an all heavy tank list


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

This.. Look at the movement value; it was removed in the third edition to 'streamline' the game, and we ended up with bunch of unit types and special rules to simulate things that should move at different speeds. So now they're finally backing up from that and reintroducing the move value, which is way easier way to do the thing. Fixed wound roll would just lead to similar (albeit probably worse) mess.

100% this

 insaniak wrote:

Vorian wrote:
We are discussing how a fixed to wound roll interacts with vehicles compared to how the current system does. The current system uses AV as a seperate system.

Yes, and my post wasn't referring to AV. It was pointing out that a straight S vs T comparison is more straightforward than a system that relies on adding special rules to both weapons and units in order for the core rules to function.

And as was discussed in that post, adding two simple keywords to add Armour into the game is much more simple than adding the entire AV system into the game.

Vorian wrote:
And as was discussed in that post, adding two simple keywords to add Armour into the game is much more simple than adding the entire AV system into the game.

if you go with S VS T, you don't any of that (neither the AV nor the keywords).

You mean in a hypothetical system, other than the one which is actually used?

Vorian wrote:
You mean in a hypothetical system, other than the one which is actually used?

Wasn't it said that vehicles will get saves, which might imply (I seriously hope that it does) that they will move to use similar Toughness/Save system as other units?

At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.

Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.

 TalonZahn wrote:
Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.

Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....

If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.

Have fun trying to take out abrams with ak74. They might even let you shoot for hours laughing at your pathetic attemp.


No lasgun must not be able to hurt tank. Period


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NivlacSupreme wrote:


You could get really lucky and hit the crew. Leaving it empty is basically the same as killing a tank.

How you plan to kill crew with lasgun from vehicle that's proof aganis' vacuum and radiation? There ain't hole fo# radiation let alone lasbolt!

Vorian wrote:
At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.

Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.

Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.

 kodos wrote:
I have never seen an army completely out of Land Raiders
so the argument that lasguns are sitting sround useless because they cannot wound them is stupid

and actually they never could wound them and until now I never heard that anyone wants them to.

actually it is the other way around, people want their tanks more though (and that glancing to death need to go) and not more vulnerable against anti-infantry fire

I guess you are lucky then, I've played against armies composed of entirely of squads embarked in land raiders, kill the threats to those and drive around unable to be hurt. Also seen all Knights, which is the same deal. As was said elsewhere you can actually make these vehicles tougher while still allowing them to be hurt by all weapons on some level.

I think 40K should just give fixed to hit for units, then weapon strength instead of to wound rolls, and AV for everything. guardsmen can be AV 7 or some such.

Vorian wrote:
You mean in a hypothetical system, other than the one which is actually used?

at the point were rumours said vehicles get more in line with monsters like in AoS, that brought up the idea that a fixe to wound roll will come
while I say I don't see a problem if vehicles get T+save like everyone else

 Crimson wrote:

Vorian wrote:
At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.

Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.

Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.

Sorry, that's just not true.

There are plenty of other levers to provide the granularity.

 kodos wrote:

Vorian wrote:
You mean in a hypothetical system, other than the one which is actually used?

at the point were rumours said vehicles get more in line with monsters like in AoS, that brought up the idea that a fixe to wound roll will come
while I say I don't see a problem if vehicles get T+save like everyone else

Sure, ok. But what you're neglecting to say is that S vs T includes a rule for making it impossible to wound.

So in that case the rule is its impossible to wound when T is 4 over S, the rule in fixed wound would be something like small arms can't harm vehicles - or any multitude of similar simple rules using only core rule concepts

 Crimson wrote:

Vorian wrote:
At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.

Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.

Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.

Your last statement is not true. It is very easy to represent it without tons of special rules, and actually better than our current system.

You have a very fast unit -1 to hit
Very durable unit -2 to wound
Gun that penetrates armor well - 3 to save.

So you basically just end up with different stats for above it could be
Dodge = -1
Toughness = -2
Penetration = -3

The S v toughness chart would be a good idea if we were not using a D6 but with said dice it is not really all that much more granular than would be easily achievable through simple modifers. It also allows for very little true difference because we fail to even use the whole chart. Most units are T3 or 4. Most guns S3-5. Allowing for save modifiers also allows for tons of variety vs the current AP system.

Breng77 wrote:

Very durable unit -2 to wound

This is no longer a fixed wound roll system! You're just writing the wound chart in different format (in worse one, as it can go only in one way, unless you start given squishy things bonuses to wound rolls against them!)

 Crimson wrote:

Vorian wrote:
At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.

Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.

Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.

Its different design that you and some others don't like in the same way as many don;t like the incresingly abused current 40k system

Ironically what you claim to dislike so much in AOS is exactly what happens in 40k in close combat.

Right so I am worse fighter than you - well then pretty much be hitting on a 4+ then only if you are truely awful in close combat do you go to "shock" 5+!

So you hit me on 3+ right - yeah

and get better if you are an awesome fighter and I am not - nope

What do you mean a Bloodthirster of Khorne hits a gretchin on a 3+ - Seriously! Yeah stupid isn't it

Yeah thats wierd - so basically pretty much everyone in the game hits on 3 or 4+ - yep pretty much.

So why is this guy going on about only hitting on 3's and 4's when thats what happens in 40k?

Dunno makes no sense to me eiither, also there are weapon, unit and other modifiers that come into play that effect your to-hit roll in AOS but guess he missed that.

 Crimson wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Very durable unit -2 to wound

This is no longer a fixed wound roll system! You're just writing the wound chart in different format (in worse one, as it can go only in one way, unless you start given squishy things bonuses to wound rolls against them!)

Sure it the model has a fixed wound number. That number is then modified, rather than having a strength that is then compared to a toughness. As for squishy units, you can just give them bad saves/no saves. It makes them more durable in some ways, but allows for high rate of fire to be better at killing infantry, but worse at killing vehicles. Right no high rate of fire is best at both in most cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Vorian wrote:
At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.

Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.

Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.

Its different design that you and some others don't like in the same way as many don;t like the incresingly abused current 40k system

Ironically what you claim to dislike so much in AOS is exactly what happens in 40k in close combat.

Right so I am worse fighter than you - well then pretty much be hitting on a 4+ then only if you are truely awful in close combat do you go to "shock" 5+!

So you hit me on 3+ right - yeah

and get better if you are an awesome fighter and I am not - nope

What do you mean a Bloodthirster of Khorne hits a gretchin on a 3+ - Seriously! Yeah stupid isn't it

Yeah thats wierd - so basically pretty much everyone in the game hits on 3 or 4+ - yep pretty much.

So why is this guy going on about only hitting on 3's and 4's when thats what happens in 40k?

Dunno makes no sense to me eiither, also there are weapon, unit and other modifiers that come into play that effect your to-hit roll in AOS but guess he missed that.

Yup, having modifiers on the hit is a different way to create diversity that we lack right now. There is no real way to show that models are hard to hit. This hurts things like Genestealers, which fluff wise shouldn't be that armored, but they should be harder to hit in shooting than an ork. But right now marines hit them both on a 3+.

 Mr Morden wrote:

What do you mean a Bloodthirster of Khorne hits a gretchin on a 3+ - Seriously! Yeah stupid isn't it

Yeah thats wierd - so basically pretty much everyone in the game hits on 3 or 4+ - yep pretty much.

So why is this guy going on about only hitting on 3's and 4's when thats what happens in 40k?

Dunno makes no sense to me eiither, also there are weapon, unit and other modifiers that come into play that effect your to-hit roll in AOS but guess he missed that.

And with aos everything hits thirster whether they are hitting grot or thirster.

Stupid as hell. Hitting best fighter ever should be harder than worst.

Vorian wrote:

Sure, ok. But what you're neglecting to say is that S vs T includes a rule for making it impossible to wound.

depending on the chart that is used
Warhammer had a table that allowed everything to be wounded on 6+ in its last edition

personally I would prefer a table with a hardcap, as I see only negative impact to the game otherwise (seen what happened in Warhammer as they introduced everything can wound everything system)
if you go +/-2 or +/-3 or +/-4 is than more a balance thing

Breng77 wrote:

Sure it the model has a fixed wound number. That number is then modified, rather than having a strength that is then compared to a toughness.

no you have the same, a "to wound" number that is modified by a special rules to get the final "to wound" roll
it is completely the same like S VS T chart that gives you the "to wound" roll
just that the chart allows more variation than a D6+modifiers

both are not a fixed to wound roll

Weird how everyone's totally fine with fixed To Hit rolls for shooting, even though you can make the exact same arguments that it 'should' involve comparing variables.

Everyone? I'd like modifiers back. But there's no reason BS couldn't be switched to a base To Hit roll instead of the lookup it is now.

Thommy H wrote:
Weird how everyone's totally fine with fixed To Hit rolls for shooting, even though you can make the exact same arguments that it 'should' involve comparing variables.

I am not fine with fixed to hit rolls, the problem is just that the WS chart is so bad that a fixed roll from 2+ to 6+ would be a huge improvement

I would like to see 2 versions of cover, soft cover (smoke, jink) that modify the to hit roll and hard cover (terrain) that adds a bonus to the armour save (for ranged and melee attacks)
than the "to hit" roll for ranged and melee attack should be in the profile (instead of BS and WS) and there should be the special rule "agile X" or "dodge X" that modify the "to hit" roll (which would always effect melee and ranged)

 kodos wrote:

Vorian wrote:

Sure, ok. But what you're neglecting to say is that S vs T includes a rule for making it impossible to wound.

depending on the chart that is used
Warhammer had a table that allowed everything to be wounded on 6+ in its last edition

personally I would prefer a table with a hardcap, as I see only negative impact to the game otherwise (seen what happened in Warhammer as they introduced everything can wound everything system)
if you go +/-2 or +/-3 or +/-4 is than more a balance thing

Breng77 wrote:

Sure it the model has a fixed wound number. That number is then modified, rather than having a strength that is then compared to a toughness.

no you have the same, a "to wound" number that is modified by a special rules to get the final "to wound" roll
it is completely the same like S VS T chart that gives you the "to wound" roll
just that the chart allows more variation than a D6+modifiers

both are not a fixed to wound roll

The point is neither option is inherently better / more complicated (or certainly no S vs T being less so).

The fine details are limitless on both sides, whichever one they choose will be fine so long as the system is designed well