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.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There are tons of ways to solve the issue better than with regular d6.

There is this tabletop game which simply has d6 with different sides for each type of weapon. An axe would use 1 red, one white and one yellow dice, a bow would use a green, and two white dice, and so on. Red dice would have more damage and power results, yellow dice had all one and two damage results but no misses, white and green dice would have a lot of misses on them put also a lot of power. In the end this made the axe do more damage and the bow miss more often, but the bow could shoot from across the dungeon and use more power skills while the guy with the axe had to stand in front of the dragon and was limited to just dealing a ton of damage.

The elegant part about this was that one roll of dice handled everything was to hit, to wound, AP and damage do for WH40k does. IIRC there were four "special" dice plus the two white dice. Between them two-handed axes, magic swords, short bows, longbows, wands, whips and whatnot could be easily be done.

So, do I want to roll four colored dice for each bolter I shoot?
Feth, no.

However, rolling a few specialized dice could easily have same effect as rolling a 150 attacks for a unit of orks - do we really need to roll an average of 212 dice to find out we did 6 damage to a knight?

Star Wars Legion does a pretty good job with this. They have three colors of attack dice - white, black and red. They are d8s, which allows for more granular results than d6s. Generally speaking, regular troopers roll 1 die each. Special weapon dudes and characters tend to roll 2-3, with rare exceptions for more. I think the largest possible die pool right now is 11 dice. I'm not going to get into the mechanics, but I'd be ecstatic if 40k switched from buckets of d6s to a handful of specialized dice.

I like Legion, but its dice system's only real advantage is being D8s and being able to roll mixed probabilities in one go. In terms of gameplay, models just have a BS stat between 2+ and 7+. Nothing in the game really requires specialty dice. It is kind of convenient to not have to identify pass/fail on the results (though the surge system messes with this) but nothing in the engine couldn't be done with standard D8s.

Having "speciality dice" is a huge turn-off for me, because I like to use dice of my own choosing (design/color wise), and it does nothing except making sure you're using the "Company Dice".

All you do with the three colors in Legion is indicate "this is the plasmagun, and it hits better and harder than the standard gun". You have less room for variety since you're stuck with "this gun has 2 white or 2 red dice", where 40k might have the inferiour D6, but it's two rolls (Hit and Wound) versus the one Legion has, and it has a wider range of options for designing weapons.

Dropfleet Commander even adds a crit component to a simple D6 system by saying "if you beat your target value by two or more, it's a crit", so even that doesn't require switching to speciality dice, although it would benefit from 'larger' dice.
And 40k already HAS critical hit systems such as Tesla. It's just not a) every weapon and b) always the same effect.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Anyway the implementing of any new dices would need a complete revamp of the game's design.

Swapping to a D12 system would not need any revamp to begin with. You can easily port over to D12 with conversion charts (BS4+ becomes BS7+ for example, 3+ save becomes 5+ save, etc. You'd also need to double the -AP values to keep the % the same).

It would help reduce the power of all the negative modifiers that are floating about. You could keep the save system as D6 if you wanted too, no reason we can't mix dice.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Anyway the implementing of any new dices would need a complete revamp of the game's design.

Swapping to a D12 system would not need any revamp to begin with. You can easily port over to D12 with conversion charts (BS4+ becomes BS7+ for example, 3+ save becomes 5+ save, etc. You'd also need to double the -AP values to keep the % the same).

It would help reduce the power of all the negative modifiers that are floating about. You could keep the save system as D6 if you wanted too, no reason we can't mix dice.

The idea would also be that you have more room to accuratly represent different armours: those of space marines could still beat those of necron warriors while the latter could get something way more greater compared to say a Guard.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Anyway the implementing of any new dices would need a complete revamp of the game's design.

Swapping to a D12 system would not need any revamp to begin with. You can easily port over to D12 with conversion charts (BS4+ becomes BS7+ for example, 3+ save becomes 5+ save, etc. You'd also need to double the -AP values to keep the % the same).

It would help reduce the power of all the negative modifiers that are floating about. You could keep the save system as D6 if you wanted too, no reason we can't mix dice.

The idea would also be that you have more room to accuratly represent different armours: those of space marines could still beat those of necron warriors while the latter could get something way more greater compared to say a Guard.

It would also allow for things like Crisis suits to have a middle BS between a Marine and a Guardsman

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Anyway the implementing of any new dices would need a complete revamp of the game's design.

Swapping to a D12 system would not need any revamp to begin with. You can easily port over to D12 with conversion charts (BS4+ becomes BS7+ for example, 3+ save becomes 5+ save, etc. You'd also need to double the -AP values to keep the % the same).

It would help reduce the power of all the negative modifiers that are floating about. You could keep the save system as D6 if you wanted too, no reason we can't mix dice.

The idea would also be that you have more room to accuratly represent different armours: those of space marines could still beat those of necron warriors while the latter could get something way more greater compared to say a Guard.

It would also allow for things like Crisis suits to have a middle BS between a Marine and a Guardsman

Well that's sad that they'll prolly never do such a thing, because regarding the diversity in units, it would be quite clever. In Bolt action modifiers are not a probleme and d6 either, but the game is not nearly as diverse in term of unit nor of lethality.

A D10 or D12 would help a game with this much model diversity immensely.

And like I said you can get rid of str and toughness.
They are useless stats since rolling to wound is useless.
Roll to hit.
Roll to save.
Remove wounds/casualties.

You don't shoot somebody and hope the bullet wounds them before they touch them.
And you can make it so lasguns cannot kill tanks and titans.
Give pretty much all vehicles are 1+ save and lasguns AP0 and they can never kill a titan.

Then the AP system and cover actually become useful. And with a D10/12 you can have a wide range of AP.

And you've reduced rolling dice from 4 times for every gun to 2

I think the S and T part of the rolling process adds a lot of depth to the units and weapons of the game. Removing it would make weapons and things much more one dimensional.

S/T is probably the engine's most important decision element for target selection. I think its mechanically more important than BS.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Anyway the implementing of any new dices would need a complete revamp of the game's design.

Swapping to a D12 system would not need any revamp to begin with. You can easily port over to D12 with conversion charts (BS4+ becomes BS7+ for example, 3+ save becomes 5+ save, etc. You'd also need to double the -AP values to keep the % the same).

It would help reduce the power of all the negative modifiers that are floating about. You could keep the save system as D6 if you wanted too, no reason we can't mix dice.

Negative modifiers are hardly the issue here. The issue is that the D6 isn't appropriate for a game like this in the first place.

jcd386 wrote:
I think the S and T part of the rolling process adds a lot of depth to the units and weapons of the game. Removing it would make weapons and things much more one dimensional.

S/T is probably the engine's most important decision element for target selection. I think its mechanically more important than BS.

It's not.

Right now, the stronger the weapon/model, the higher (S/AP)//(T/W) the model will have - period. The only thing that might change is range (which, while important, is usually 72" vs 96" or something; not enough to matter - unlike the Meltagun's 12" range, but high S+AP).

If there were more variety in statlines, then I would agree with you. But there aren't high S, no AP weapons [great against models that rely on wounds, not armor, to survive]; there aren't models with high W, no SV models [tankier, but dies easily to high powered weaponry]; or vice-versa. -- What about weapons with a high rate of fire, but super low strength (say 2S) and no AP? Great for clearing chaff, but quickly loses effectiveness against even normal/medium infantry and above. The damage a weapon causes is also a factor in statlines as well, and can be used to differentiate two weapons that may be otherwise similar in statline.

Or maybe a high S, low AP weapon; or this, or that, or... and so on.

There simply isn't any statline variety.

jcd386 wrote:I think the S and T part of the rolling process adds a lot of depth to the units and weapons of the game. Removing it would make weapons and things much more one dimensional.

LunarSol wrote:S/T is probably the engine's most important decision element for target selection. I think its mechanically more important than BS.

Agreed with both. The point of S and T in this game is that in the vast pool of fictional creatures you can select from, they help define them and represent them. No T especially is ok for all human or all ork or all something games, but 40k is not.

What would probably work better in the current system with the least changes is to redo the AP and armor save system, leaving the S and T relationship as is.

Something like:

Everything has an armor value of 10 to 0:

10 saves on a 2+ (land raiders are here)
9 saves on a 2+ (terminators, articifer armor, etc)
8 saves on a 3+ (Marines)
7 saves on a 3+
6 saves on a 4+ (eldar troops)
5 saves on a 4+ (Tau fire warriors)
4 saves on a 5+
3 saves on a 5+ (guardsmen)
2 saves on a 6+ (orks)
1 saves on a 6+
0 doesn't get a save

Then have AP be 0 to 10, where it lowers your AP by it's value, and then you roll to save based on that.

That way the even numbers of saves effectively ignore 1 point of AP when it comes to rolling worse, and the odd one don't, meaning there are better and worse versions of each save, creating more variance.

Weapons also get to be more varied and effect different troops in different ways. A bolter at AP1 would effect some units saves but not all, while a heavy bolter at AP2 would always lower a save by 1, and so on.

I just made that up so I imagine it's flawed, but you get the idea.

It's probably easier to just give certain models a rule that ignores the first -1 AP from a weapon.

 LunarSol wrote:
It's probably easier to just give certain models a rule that ignores the first -1 AP from a weapon.

Yeah it would, though it's a bit more varied than that would be.

jcd386 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's probably easier to just give certain models a rule that ignores the first -1 AP from a weapon.

Yeah it would, though it's a bit more varied than that would be.

Not sure how. Landraiders, Space Marines, Eldar, Orks ignoring the first -1 AP has the same effect as your chart without needing to look it up on a chart. I quite like the idea, I'd just rather not see it implemented as a lookup requirement.

fe40k wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I think the S and T part of the rolling process adds a lot of depth to the units and weapons of the game. Removing it would make weapons and things much more one dimensional.

S/T is probably the engine's most important decision element for target selection. I think its mechanically more important than BS.

It's not.

Right now, the stronger the weapon/model, the higher (S/AP)//(T/W) the model will have - period. The only thing that might change is range (which, while important, is usually 72" vs 96" or something; not enough to matter - unlike the Meltagun's 12" range, but high S+AP).

If there were more variety in statlines, then I would agree with you. But there aren't high S, no AP weapons [great against models that rely on wounds, not armor, to survive]; there aren't models with high W, no SV models [tankier, but dies easily to high powered weaponry]; or vice-versa. -- What about weapons with a high rate of fire, but super low strength (say 2S) and no AP? Great for clearing chaff, but quickly loses effectiveness against even normal/medium infantry and above. The damage a weapon causes is also a factor in statlines as well, and can be used to differentiate two weapons that may be otherwise similar in statline.

Or maybe a high S, low AP weapon; or this, or that, or... and so on.

There simply isn't any statline variety.

I can't tell if this is a joke, or...

What is a Terminator? (T4 Sv2+) What is a Great Unclean One (T7, Sv-, 18W)? What is a Razorwing Flock or any other swarm (low T, low Sv, high W)? a Harlequin Solitaire? (T3, Sv3++)

What about a Storm Eagle rocket (S10 AP-2 DD3) vs a Heat Lance (S6 AP-5 DD6)? Hotshot Lasgun (S3 AP-2)?

"what about a low S low AP weapon" almost makes me think this is just trolling.

One Page 40k tried that system, it doesn't work.

ValentineGames wrote:
And like I said you can get rid of str and toughness.
They are useless stats since rolling to wound is useless.

It absolutely isn't. Rolling to wound is useful because you need to distinguish between an unarmored cultist and a titan. Armor save alone can't do it because you need to have anti-infantry guns with save modifiers that don't also become effective anti-tank weapons (the problem with plasma in 8th). So you either have some kind of strength vs. toughness roll or you pile on a bunch of awkward special rules to duplicate its effect.

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
And like I said you can get rid of str and toughness.
They are useless stats since rolling to wound is useless.

It absolutely isn't. Rolling to wound is useful because you need to distinguish between an unarmored cultist and a titan. Armor save alone can't do it because you need to have anti-infantry guns with save modifiers that don't also become effective anti-tank weapons (the problem with plasma in 8th). So you either have some kind of strength vs. toughness roll or you pile on a bunch of awkward special rules to duplicate its effect.

Not really. Plenty of systems don't use str and toughness. And they have no issue or additional special rules.
If you get shot by a bolt gun and your armour fails why do I need to roll to wound you?
You just got hit by an explosive .75 round.
You're dead or missing a limb/head

ValentineGames wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
And like I said you can get rid of str and toughness.
They are useless stats since rolling to wound is useless.

It absolutely isn't. Rolling to wound is useful because you need to distinguish between an unarmored cultist and a titan. Armor save alone can't do it because you need to have anti-infantry guns with save modifiers that don't also become effective anti-tank weapons (the problem with plasma in 8th). So you either have some kind of strength vs. toughness roll or you pile on a bunch of awkward special rules to duplicate its effect.

Not really. Plenty of systems don't use str and toughness. And they have no issue or additional special rules.
If you get shot by a bolt gun and your armour fails why do I need to roll to wound you?
You just got hit by an explosive .75 round.
You're dead or missing a limb/head

Never thought I'd say this but...Peregrine is right.
Disclaimer: I'm quite sleep deprived.

There's a difference between an Imperial Guardsman being hit by a boltgun and a carnifex. A carni can shrug it off or ignore it, guardsman can't. The wound roll represents doing enough damage to a model that it actually cares about it. Failures to wound represent maybe flesh wounds or hitting non-vital areas or hitting decorative bits of the model. Armour saves represent wether or not the area hit and effected can withstand the impact. Both are different things that are there for different reasons.

Just like attacking a guardsman doesn't feel like attacking a carnifex, a carnifex feels different to attack from a terminator with a stormshield and a lot of those differences come from the differences in armour and toughness. Stormshields are easy to wound but tough to get through the save. Fexes are tough to wound but easy to get through the armour.

I feel like I'm rambling now so I'll be quiet.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
And like I said you can get rid of str and toughness.
They are useless stats since rolling to wound is useless.

It absolutely isn't. Rolling to wound is useful because you need to distinguish between an unarmored cultist and a titan. Armor save alone can't do it because you need to have anti-infantry guns with save modifiers that don't also become effective anti-tank weapons (the problem with plasma in 8th). So you either have some kind of strength vs. toughness roll or you pile on a bunch of awkward special rules to duplicate its effect.

Not really. Plenty of systems don't use str and toughness. And they have no issue or additional special rules.
If you get shot by a bolt gun and your armour fails why do I need to roll to wound you?
You just got hit by an explosive .75 round.
You're dead or missing a limb/head

How many systems have such a variety of models and factions to represent in rules? It's fine to have only a few stats if your entire model line has as much variety as ONE faction in 40k, but that's an entirely different game.

ValentineGames wrote:
Not really. Plenty of systems don't use str and toughness. And they have no issue or additional special rules.

But do those systems have a range of units from an unarmored cultist to a massive titan, using the same attack resolution for all cases? You can reduce the number of rolls as long as you reduce the range of potential units involved, but only by that reduction. If you assume that every unit in the game is a human armed with a sword then yes, the only things that matter are hitting and armor quality and you can remove the to-wound roll because all hits that penetrate armor are equally likely to wound (or at least close enough to equal to not be worth representing in the rules). If you assume that every unit in the game has equal skill at shooting you can remove the to-hit roll. But once you start having differences in those things you have to have different rules to represent them. If you have weapons with a different chance of wounding (say, a .22 pistol and a boltgun) you need a to-wound roll. If you have targets with different ability to resist a hit (humans and titans) you need a to-wound roll. If you have units with different shooting skills you need a to-hit roll.

If you get shot by a bolt gun and your armour fails why do I need to roll to wound you?
You just got hit by an explosive .75 round.
You're dead or missing a limb/head

You need a to-wound roll because the game also includes weapons that are not boltguns. If you get shot by a laspistol and your armor fails you might survive. If you get shot by a titan's primary weapon you are vaporized even if you're a huge monster that could shrug off boltgun shells. What you are actually objecting to here is that the to-wound roll in this specific situation has too high of a chance of failure, not that a to-wound roll exists at all. The solution you are looking for is for the to-wound roll to be a 1+ instead of a 4+, not for it to be removed from the game entirely.

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Not really. Plenty of systems don't use str and toughness. And they have no issue or additional special rules.

If you get shot by a bolt gun and your armour fails why do I need to roll to wound you?
You just got hit by an explosive .75 round.
You're dead or missing a limb/head

You need a to-wound roll because the game also includes weapons that are not boltguns. If you get shot by a laspistol and your armor fails you might survive. If you get shot by a titan's primary weapon you are vaporized even if you're a huge monster that could shrug off boltgun shells. What you are actually objecting to here is that the to-wound roll in this specific situation has too high of a chance of failure, not that a to-wound roll exists at all. The solution you are looking for is for the to-wound roll to be a 1+ instead of a 4+, not for it to be removed from the game entirely.

I think you could do all that without wound rolls. For example make boltguns dmg2 and lasguns dmg1. Then keep guardsmen at 1w and move marines to 2w. That way superhumans shrug at lone lasguns but can still die by massed volley while reglar dudes die 1-1 unless they armour save. I mean even if a standard dude would survive a las shot to the foot or arm they would be out of The combat fluffwise.

And increase vehicle wounds and armour saves. Maybe make it a d20 thing. Imagine if bolters vad 0ap against a leman russ 2+ on d20 with 10 wounds. Small arms would not be optimal. But a lascannon with like -10ap and d6 dmg would be more relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if we had no wound rolls we could reduce all rate of fire and amount of attacks. This would mean less dice. Now the amount of dice needed is unwieldy.

Gitdakka wrote:
I think you could do all that without wound rolls. For example make boltguns dmg2 and lasguns dmg1. Then keep guardsmen at 1w and move marines to 2w. That way superhumans shrug at lone lasguns but can still die by massed volley while reglar dudes die 1-1 unless they armour save. I mean even if a standard dude would survive a las shot to the foot or arm they would be out of The combat fluffwise.

That arguably fixes lasguns vs. bolters, but it doesn't fix bolters vs. lascannons.

And increase vehicle wounds and armour saves. Maybe make it a d20 thing. Imagine if bolters vad 0ap against a leman russ 2+ on d20 with 10 wounds. Small arms would not be optimal. But a lascannon with like -10ap and d6 dmg would be more relevant.

This is what I mean about having to add awkward special rules. Now you need D20s for certain units, and an anti-MEQ/TEQ weapon that is good at getting through armor saves and inflicting multiple wounds (remember, now all elite infantry have multiple wounds) becomes too effective against vehicles because it bypasses their only defenses. So you need some kind of anti-save-modifer rule that doesn't hinder anti-tank weapons. Is the end result of new dice and new rules really going to be simpler than just having a to-wound roll?

 Peregrine wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
I think you could do all that without wound rolls. For example make boltguns dmg2 and lasguns dmg1. Then keep guardsmen at 1w and move marines to 2w. That way superhumans shrug at lone lasguns but can still die by massed volley while reglar dudes die 1-1 unless they armour save. I mean even if a standard dude would survive a las shot to the foot or arm they would be out of The combat fluffwise.

That arguably fixes lasguns vs. bolters, but it doesn't fix bolters vs. lascannons.

And increase vehicle wounds and armour saves. Maybe make it a d20 thing. Imagine if bolters vad 0ap against a leman russ 2+ on d20 with 10 wounds. Small arms would not be optimal. But a lascannon with like -10ap and d6 dmg would be more relevant.

This is what I mean about having to add awkward special rules. Now you need D20s for certain units, and an anti-MEQ/TEQ weapon that is good at getting through armor saves and inflicting multiple wounds (remember, now all elite infantry have multiple wounds) becomes too effective against vehicles because it bypasses their only defenses. So you need some kind of anti-save-modifer rule that doesn't hinder anti-tank weapons. Is the end result of new dice and new rules really going to be simpler than just having a to-wound roll?

true maybe d20 is too awkward. How about we just increase wounds for big stuff and increase damage with AT. That way the gap between small arms and AT would increase. For example if a leman russ had 40 wounds and 3+. It would require 60 bolter shots with dmg2 to sink one tank. but a lascannon could have 10dmg and AP -2. this would mean marines require somewhere of 4-9 lascannon shots to kill a tank (and less to cripple it). And I still think reduced RoF would be nice a part of a simpler system, so 60 bolter shots would not be as easy to get as now.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Not really. Plenty of systems don't use str and toughness. And they have no issue or additional special rules.

If you get shot by a bolt gun and your armour fails why do I need to roll to wound you?
You just got hit by an explosive .75 round.
You're dead or missing a limb/head

You need a to-wound roll because the game also includes weapons that are not boltguns. If you get shot by a laspistol and your armor fails you might survive. If you get shot by a titan's primary weapon you are vaporized even if you're a huge monster that could shrug off boltgun shells. What you are actually objecting to here is that the to-wound roll in this specific situation has too high of a chance of failure, not that a to-wound roll exists at all. The solution you are looking for is for the to-wound roll to be a 1+ instead of a 4+, not for it to be removed from the game entirely.

I think you could do all that without wound rolls. For example make boltguns dmg2 and lasguns dmg1. Then keep guardsmen at 1w and move marines to 2w. That way superhumans shrug at lone lasguns but can still die by massed volley while reglar dudes die 1-1 unless they armour save. I mean even if a standard dude would survive a las shot to the foot or arm they would be out of The combat fluffwise.

And increase vehicle wounds and armour saves. Maybe make it a d20 thing. Imagine if bolters vad 0ap against a leman russ 2+ on d20 with 10 wounds. Small arms would not be optimal. But a lascannon with like -10ap and d6 dmg would be more relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if we had no wound rolls we could reduce all rate of fire and amount of attacks. This would mean less dice. Now the amount of dice needed is unwieldy.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
And like I said you can get rid of str and toughness.
They are useless stats since rolling to wound is useless.

It absolutely isn't. Rolling to wound is useful because you need to distinguish between an unarmored cultist and a titan. Armor save alone can't do it because you need to have anti-infantry guns with save modifiers that don't also become effective anti-tank weapons (the problem with plasma in 8th). So you either have some kind of strength vs. toughness roll or you pile on a bunch of awkward special rules to duplicate its effect.

Not really. Plenty of systems don't use str and toughness. And they have no issue or additional special rules.
If you get shot by a bolt gun and your armour fails why do I need to roll to wound you?
You just got hit by an explosive .75 round.
You're dead or missing a limb/head

1: echoing previous posts, no wounds or no armour is only possible if the game involves little diversity. Toughness and armour are the characteristcs that define the model's physical resilience and it's ability to survive and said resilience is not dictated by one but by both woring together.

2: replacing a simple roll to wound by a whole range of special rules has got severel risks: those rules are sure to get broken at one point, because the more rules you create, the mor einteractions you create, the riskier it gets. They will be even less specific and efficient at representing the model's fictionnal capabilities. they will be a real pain to learn.

3: the wound thing could make tanks unkillable trhough dedicated weaponry if you keep them as you propose, infantry would get even more slaughtered while heavy would get some many wounds they would fall into a stupid system we're you literally need 30 shoot to kill a 30 man squad assuming they went through and the game as a whole would be a game of two opposites btween cardboard stuff and unkillable monsters, or creeps vesus heroes almost. Futhermore it keeps the stupid bolters can finish a leman russ off thing.

Really, the only issue I have with 8th is balance (again), some of the traits/stratagems are just obviously better than others, not to mention internal and external codex balance issues (but greatly improved from 7th and fixable with CA points adjustments)

I think the terrain rules need work, and I miss vehicle facings/weapon arcs but I can see why you might remove them (they are a bit subjective).

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


(.....)
1: echoing previous posts, no wounds or no armour is only possible if the game involves little diversity. Toughness and armour are the characteristcs that define the model's physical resilience and it's ability to survive and said resilience is not dictated by one but by both woring together.

2: replacing a simple roll to wound by a whole range of special rules has got severel risks: those rules are sure to get broken at one point, because the more rules you create, the mor einteractions you create, the riskier it gets. They will be even less specific and efficient at representing the model's fictionnal capabilities. they will be a real pain to learn.

3: the wound thing could make tanks unkillable trhough dedicated weaponry if you keep them as you propose, infantry would get even more slaughtered while heavy would get some many wounds they would fall into a stupid system we're you literally need 30 shoot to kill a 30 man squad assuming they went through and the game as a whole would be a game of two opposites btween cardboard stuff and unkillable monsters, or creeps vesus heroes almost. Futhermore it keeps the stupid bolters can finish a leman russ off thing.

on your point 1. actually we have 3 stats to denote durability; toughness, save and wounds. If I would design 40k again from scratch I'm sure this could be made easier. in fact vehicles used to have armour value instead of armour save and toughness, and damage chart instead of wounds. so they had 3 stats reduced to two while still remaining differentiable in the game. you could for example now combine toughness and wounds into one stat. t1-3=1w t4=2w, t8=20w or something like that and just skip the wound roll. I dont see why it's important to have W and T seperate as the extreme values are not even used. ever seen a model with t8 and 1W? or how about T2 and 6W? No because those two stats are already combined to some extent. So why do we need them both?