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.

I was really just pointing out that all game mechanics are abstractions. Where you draw the line for your own immersion is generally arbitrary - those who are outraged at losing S vs T act like these characteristics represent real, measurable traits and that there aren't already equally bizarre mechanics. Why is BS a flat roll, but WS is always set against an opponent's WS? Aren't the guys you're shooting at dodging? Shouldn't there be a BS vs I chart or something?

Basically, fixed To Wound rolls are no sillier than fixed To Hit rolls which we apparently don't find hard to swallow at all. S vs T isn't that special. Personally I find game mechanics based on a chart pretty inelegant but YMMV.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

No what AOS does is say how likely is it that a given unit can hit something - you know exactly the same as Ballistic Skill in 40k? Then it may look at modifiers - say if there is a huge swarm of them - they might even get effective.

40k - a single Gretchin tries to hit Bloodthirster - still does it on a 5+ - but apparently that's fine.
AOS - Grot tries to hit a Bloodthirster, does it on a 5+ (IIRC, it might be 6+) - so exactly the same but apparently that's wrong.

40K - The Bloodthirster tries to hit the Gretchin - best it can do is 3+ - hmm awesome, a decent fighter means that it only hits on a 4+
AOS -Can't recall but I think the Bloodthirster hits anything on a 2+, that's how good it is.

40k - Shooting already has fixed to hit rolls - Gretchin have BS 3 so hit anything- whether that be a Genestealer hiding in cover or a stationary vehicle on 4+ But apparently that's fine?
AOS - The Gretchin has a set to hit roll - but that's wrong apparently.

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.

considering it is one of the common complain about current 40k, I'm baffled that you you came to such a conclusion


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

yeah, having two fixed rolls is simply useless.

It would be better to just hit the yellow triangle for off topic discussion rather than post Latin, I think.

 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 difference is that I don't need to cross reference a chart to figure out my to wound value. I think many vets that have committed the chart to memory miss how annoying that is for new player.

So if I attack at S7 and you are T4 what does that mean? The answer is without knowledge of the chart it means nothing. So it requires a reference that needs to be looked up. Which is especially annoying for those players when the WS chart is different from the To wound chart, and so is the vehicle damage chart, the BS chart.....

If instead you have a fixed hit value + modifiers. If my guy wounds on a 2+, and your guy puts a -2 on that roll it is easier to figure out for the average person.

Maybe the best result would be a mix of both systems where your stats are things like

WS = 3+ to hit
BS = 4+ to hit
T = -1 to wound

Then have weapons with a to wound roll and an armor penetration value.

Breng77 wrote:

The difference is that I don't need to cross reference a chart to figure out my to wound value. I think many vets that have committed the chart to memory miss how annoying that is for new player.

So if I attack at S7 and you are T4 what does that mean? The answer is without knowledge of the chart it means nothing. So it requires a reference that needs to be looked up. Which is especially annoying for those players when the WS chart is different from the To wound chart, and so is the vehicle damage chart, the BS chart.....

so your problem is just that the WS chart is different
I agree, this chart is stupid and need either be removed or brought in line with the rest.

there should be only one chart for all comparison values

the BS chart is not a chart, it is a fixed roll
so saying it is hard to remember the fixed BS roll because the dice roll is not written directly in the profile

if this is such a big problem, 40k is not the right game, because it relies on remembering what the enemy can do
if your own profile is a problem, and you cannot remember if your Bolter is able to wound a Land Raider because the dice roll needed is not directly written in the profile than you really need a different game

the other argument is not really one
because someone who is not able to remember a simple +/-2 chart will also not remember what roll he needs in the first place and has to look at the targets profile because he won't know if there is a negative modifier

such a person always needs to look at the rules no matter what the system is

T = -1 to wound
Then have weapons with a to wound roll and an armor penetration value.

you can, the downside is that such a system has more limited because "to wound" can only be 2+ to 6+ and T max -4.
gives you less variation than S 1-10 and T 1-10

and you still need to look up the values to get the dice roll

Breng77 wrote:

 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 difference is that I don't need to cross reference a chart to figure out my to wound value. I think many vets that have committed the chart to memory miss how annoying that is for new player.

So if I attack at S7 and you are T4 what does that mean? The answer is without knowledge of the chart it means nothing. So it requires a reference that needs to be looked up. Which is especially annoying for those players when the WS chart is different from the To wound chart, and so is the vehicle damage chart, the BS chart.....

If instead you have a fixed hit value + modifiers. If my guy wounds on a 2+, and your guy puts a -2 on that roll it is easier to figure out for the average person.

Maybe the best result would be a mix of both systems where your stats are things like

WS = 3+ to hit
BS = 4+ to hit
T = -1 to wound

Then have weapons with a to wound roll and an armor penetration value.

If someones has to look up at the chart and is not able to memorize it pretty much instantly, Him and I are probably not looking for the same kind of game

 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.

 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.

Except your ignoring the sheer scale of 40k. Trying to keep it simple for as many unit entries as there are in 40k would make the game boring quite frankly. Half the reason to collect a new army is for the rules variety. Otherwise I'd simply buy a kit or two for a new neat looking faction. Why play army A if if army B functions nearly identically on the table? Or your suggesting that the USR catalog become MASSIVE in order to provide enough variety currently and for future introductions, which I'll reiterate doesn't reduce the snowflake rules but simply changes their location.

 streetsamurai wrote:


If someones has to look up at the chart and is not able to memorize it pretty much instantly, Him and I are probably not looking for the same kind of game

That sounds a bit arrogant. Some people have a harder time learning things than others.

Considering the S/T wound chart follows a straightforward system I wouldnt really call it arrogant. Theres not really much more to memorise than memorising what your to wound roll is in AoS

 Vash108 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


If someones has to look up at the chart and is not able to memorize it pretty much instantly, Him and I are probably not looking for the same kind of game

That sounds a bit arrogant. Some people have a harder time learning things than others.

I'm 62% sure that it was sarcasm.

 streetsamurai wrote:


yeah, having two fixed rolls is simply useless.

Why are two fixed rolls useless, but two non-fixed rolls aren't? Having two fixed rolls means more granularity, you can have things be good at hitting but bad at wounding or the other way around, you can have models resistant to being hit but not being wounded or the other way around.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

 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.

Except your ignoring the sheer scale of 40k. Trying to keep it simple for as many unit entries as there are in 40k would make the game boring quite frankly. Half the reason to collect a new army is for the rules variety. Otherwise I'd simply buy a kit or two for a new neat looking faction. Why play army A if if army B functions nearly identically on the table? Or your suggesting that the USR catalog become MASSIVE in order to provide enough variety currently and for future introductions, which I'll reiterate doesn't reduce the snowflake rules but simply changes their location.

Your missing the pioint - the base system is simple and quick - you add more simple stuf that works within that system to make units intersting, fluffy, unique etc

Currently 40k does exactly what you proclaim to hate - it adds loads of special rules ot indivdual units - sometimes breaking the basic rules and calls them different things,. but to make matter worse - it does this in varied ways and in so many different books that need to cross reference each other.

AOS proves that you have dozens hundred of different units that work within the same system but are still different.

Also still don't understand why you think a fixed target roll system for ballstic skill in 40k is GOOD and one in AOS is BAD - especially since 40k does not bother with modifiers for cover, speed, size or pretty much anything that effect the shooters aim.

Zatsuku wrote:


Why are two fixed rolls useless, but two non-fixed rolls aren't?

Because the odds of the former are always the same. Having two rolls is just a waste of time.

Having two fixed rolls means more granularity, you can have things be good at hitting but bad at wounding or the other way around, you can have models resistant to being hit but not being wounded or the other way around.

If you have the enemies to impose penalties to hit or wound rolls, then it is not fixed roll system!

Or you can do things like reroll to hit??

Vorian wrote:
Or you can do things like reroll to hit??

You can, but i think re-rolling is a tiresome mechanic, and should be used sparingly. If you want to represent it being easier to hit or to wound it is much better to just have a mechanic where the odds of the initial roll are improved, so you don't need to waste time rolling twice.

Zatsuku wrote:

Why are two fixed rolls useless, Having two fixed rolls means more granularity, you can have things be good at hitting but bad at wounding or the other way around, you can have models resistant to being hit but not being wounded or the other way around.

the 2 fixed roll in AoS are not useless, they are there to give a little bit more variation but in fact they are just a to hit roll with 2D6 rolled separately to give the impression that there are 2 independent rolls

yeah the indention was to make the game easier by not forcing you to know the stats of the target while you roll your dice, and a singe 2D6 attack roll was too different from Warhammer even for AoS

but two non-fixed rolls aren't?

rolls that are related to the target add diversity to the game, as something that is hard to hit but easy to wound should be attacked by different units that something that is easy to hit but hard to wound

of course you can make one fixed roll as you always hit with the same roll no matter what target, but a second roll should than depend on what your target is, otherwise you can just roll 2D6 to hit for the same result


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Also still don't understand why you think a fixed target roll system for ballstic skill in 40k is GOOD and one in AOS is BAD - especially since 40k does not bother with modifiers for cover, speed, size or pretty much anything that effect the shooters aim.

the fixed to hit roll in current 40k is not good and removing modifiers was a bad idea in the first place.

and no, the diversity in AoS is on a minimum as you have hundreds of units that are the same and difference is just made up by factions special rules, artefacts etc.

 Crimson wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Or you can do things like reroll to hit??

You can, but i think re-rolling is a tiresome mechanic, and should be used sparingly. If you want to represent it being easier to hit or to wound it is much better to just have a mechanic where the odds of the initial roll are improved, so you don't need to waste time rolling twice.

It was only an example, there are lots of other things.

6s to hit auto wound, 6s to wound ignore saves, ones to hit hit your own forces, etc etc.

So, yeah, two stage fixed rolls aren't pointless.

 Crimson wrote:

Zatsuku wrote:


Why are two fixed rolls useless, but two non-fixed rolls aren't?

Because the odds of the former are always the same. Having two rolls is just a waste of time.

But the odds are also DIFFERENT than just have a 1d6 roll, more granularity in die rolls is good.

If you have the enemies to impose penalties to hit or wound rolls, then it is not fixed roll system!

So I guess AoS isn't a fixed roll system either?

Since there doesn't seem to be any more actual news or rumors in here...

...thanks for all the contributions everyone!

Please feel free to start various game design/wishlisting/etc threads in the appropriate sub-forums.