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.

This is an idea I've been pondering for a while. It's probably true to say that no matter how many weapon options are on offer, there will always be one that is hands down the best. And players will always gravitate towards said option. This leads to players spamming the gak out of it in order to maximize its potential, leaving other options stuck on the sprue forever. Also, more weapons means more weapon profiles, which means that it's harder to achieve game balance (if you're into that sort of thing).

So I was thinking. If units in 40k had one, uniform profile regardless of their actual weapons, would this help balance the game? And would it help diversify peoples choices in their miniatures?

Let me give an example; Space Marine Primaris Intercessors. If I remember correctly, Bolt Rifles are their best option overall. Stalkers and Auto Boltguns don't really get a look in. Now imagine they had a profile that looked something like this:

Profile: (Movement, Save, Wounds and Leadership)
Shooting: (Range, Attacks, To Hit, To Wound, AP and Damage)
Combat: (same as above)

And this profile applied to all models in the unit (the sergeant can have some of improvement) regardless of load out. So it doesn't matter what you give them, it's the same in the end. So you could model your squad with what you actually want them to have rather than what's "best". Like a real life fireteam for example; one guy has the stalker (designated marksman), one guy has the auto boltgun (squad automatic weapon), one guy has the auxiliary grenade launcher (grenadier) and so on.

And with one squad profile, would it make it easier to balance things out? Because I'm starting to think that things like strength v toughness and individual weapon profiles are better suited to a small game like Kill Team.

Does this idea have merit or is it a crock?

It's Age of Sigmar.

I like 40k more, so I'm against this idea.

Also, why would SvT have to go away? Why should a Marine wound a Grot at the same rate they wound a Land Raider?

 JNAProductions wrote:
It's Age of Sigmar.

I like 40k more, so I'm against this idea.

Also, why would SvT have to go away? Why should a Marine wound a Grot at the same rate they wound a Land Raider?

S v T doesn't necessarily have to go away. It's just that I've come round to the idea of a simple flat To Wound roll with the targets wounds/save standing in for the toughness because it's a little easier to balance. A 1 wound model with a poor save will still drop dead faster than a multi wound and/or good save model. It's all relative. A Marine's killing power slightly diminishes against grots here, but against other marines it slightly increases.

Stat me a Plaguebearer, a Grot, a Marine, and a Rhino under that system, then.

I specifically chose a Plaguebearer and a Marine, among other things, since they have the same toughness but different saves.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Stat me a Plaguebearer, a Grot, a Marine, and a Rhino under that system, then.

I specifically chose a Plaguebearer and a Marine, among other things, since they have the same toughness but different saves.

Something like this:

Plaguebearer:
Movement:5" Save:5+ Wounds:1 Leadership:10
Combat: Range:1" Attacks:1 To Hit:4+ To Wound:3+ AP:0 Damage:1
Special Rules: Demonic (Save is invulnerable), Disgustingly Resilient (5+ FNP), Cloud Of Flies (-1 to hit if unit is 20+ models)

This is a hybrid of the 40k and AoS stats. They get two 5+ saves, which as past experience has taught me, is irritatingly difficult to get through.

Gretchin:
Movement:5" Save:6+ Wounds:1 Leadership:4
Shooting: Range:12" Attacks:1 To Hit:4+ To Wound:5+ AP:0 Damage:1
Combat: Range:3" Attacks:1 To Hit:5+ To Wound:5+ AP:0 Damage:1

The Combat profile attempts to take into account the fact that grot blastas are pistols.

Marine (assuming a regular non primaris one):
Movement:6" Save:3+ Wounds:1 Leadership:8
Shooting: Range:24" Attacks:1 To Hit:3+ To Wound:3+ AP:0 Damage:1
Combat: Range:3" Attacks:2 To Hit:3+ To Wound:3+ AP:0 Damage:1
Special Rules: ATSKNF (Re roll Battleshock)

Under this system, guns might need tweaking with their range and number of attacks. Again, the Combat profile attempts to take the bolt pistol into account too.

Rhino:
Movement:* Save:3+ Wounds:10 Leadership:8
Shooting: Range:24" Attacks:4 To Hit:* To Wound:3+ AP:0 Damage:1
Combat: Range:1" Attacks:* To Hit:6+ To Wound:2+ AP:-2 Damage3

Damage:
Movement:12"at 6-10 wounds, 6" at 3-5 wounds, 3" at 1-2 wounds.
Shooting To Hit: 3+ at 6-10 wounds, 4+ at 3-5 wounds, 5+ at 1-2 wounds.
Combat Attacks: 3 at 6-10 wounds, D3 at 3-5 wounds, 1 at 1-2 wounds.

Special Rules: Self-Repair (heals a wound per turn on a 6+), Smoke Launchers, Explodes, Hunter Killer Missile (once per game, unit gets a beefed up shooting attack).

I think these can reflect the units pretty well.

I'm going to say that that doesn't satisfy me, but I'm attached to the SvT system.

I really just do NOT like the idea of fixed wounding values, outside of special rules.

But I had a post all typed up that I realized was unneededly harsh, mostly since this is just something I personally dislike. So I'll just leave it at this.

This site was the wrong place to pitch this idea.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This is an idea I've been pondering for a while. It's probably true to say that no matter how many weapon options are on offer, there will always be one that is hands down the best. And players will always gravitate towards said option. This leads to players spamming the gak out of it in order to maximize its potential, leaving other options stuck on the sprue forever. Also, more weapons means more weapon profiles, which means that it's harder to achieve game balance (if you're into that sort of thing).

So I was thinking. If units in 40k had one, uniform profile regardless of their actual weapons, would this help balance the game? And would it help diversify peoples choices in their miniatures?

Let me give an example; Space Marine Primaris Intercessors. If I remember correctly, Bolt Rifles are their best option overall. Stalkers and Auto Boltguns don't really get a look in. Now imagine they had a profile that looked something like this:

Profile: (Movement, Save, Wounds and Leadership)
Shooting: (Range, Attacks, To Hit, To Wound, AP and Damage)
Combat: (same as above)

And this profile applied to all models in the unit (the sergeant can have some of improvement) regardless of load out. So it doesn't matter what you give them, it's the same in the end. So you could model your squad with what you actually want them to have rather than what's "best". Like a real life fireteam for example; one guy has the stalker (designated marksman), one guy has the auto boltgun (squad automatic weapon), one guy has the auxiliary grenade launcher (grenadier) and so on.

And with one squad profile, would it make it easier to balance things out? Because I'm starting to think that things like strength v toughness and individual weapon profiles are better suited to a small game like Kill Team.

Does this idea have merit or is it a crock?

So basically only give units access to a single weapon profile, and say that all weapon bits regardless of appearance use that profile? Well, from a mechanics perspective, you're basically just removing a bunch of options from the game. This reduces complexity thus making it easier to balance the remaining options, but it also reduces a player's decision making process, ability to personalize their force's mechanics, and the design space within which different armies differentiate themselves. For instance, necron units usually have identical loadouts among every member of the squad adding to their robotic feel. Some Tyranid wargear is taken squad-wide rather than on a model-by-model basis so that things like hormagaunts can feel like they're all cells in the same organ. Marines can customize a couple of dudes per squad to make them feel flexible and to give individuals more personality. Death Watch even more so. You'd lose the ability to provide that "feel" to any unit that doesn't use the "one-size fits all" style of equipment allocation.

You also remove a bunch of levers from a unit. A squad of 5 marines including a meltagun and a sergeant with a combi-melta can make for a troop choice with some anti-tank capabilities, though not so much as the squad of combi-melta sternguard ahead of them or the squad of lascannon devastators behind them. If the squad is just a pile of bolters, then they're stuck in the mediocre anti-infantry role rather than being able to specialize a bit more this way or that. And then you have things like wraith guard with d-cannons versus wraithguard with d-scythes. They're the same datasheet, but the former excels at doing lots of damage to high-toughness models even after deepstriking while the other can't shoot after deepstriking but is much better at clearing swarms and punishing chargers with overwatch. Saying that both d-cannosn and d-scythes are mechanically the same would erase that differentiation.

Going the AoS route of having all weapons wound on a fixed number is something that I personally don't care for in the context of 40k. Shooting in Sigmar is a lot less scary, and wounds tend to be higher on average for "durable" units. You can put out dozens or even hundreds of lasgun shots in 40k pretty cheaply. If those lasguns are wounding on anything better than a 6+, then they'll be alphastriking from across the table like mad. And if they do only wound on a 6+, you'll be wasting a significant amount of time accomplishing nothing. Plus, you'd have to rework the wounds on everything to compensate.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This site was the wrong place to pitch this idea.

How so? Before my post, you had exactly one guy say that he wasn't particularly interested in a specific aspect of your pitch mostly as a matter of preference. You're not exactly being tarred and feathered. Welcome to the proposed rules section, friend.

Wyldhunt wrote:
So basically only give units access to a single weapon profile, and say that all weapon bits regardless of appearance use that profile? Well, from a mechanics perspective, you're basically just removing a bunch of options from the game. This reduces complexity thus making it easier to balance the remaining options, but it also reduces a player's decision making process, ability to personalize their force's mechanics, and the design space within which different armies differentiate themselves. For instance, necron units usually have identical loadouts among every member of the squad adding to their robotic feel. Some Tyranid wargear is taken squad-wide rather than on a model-by-model basis so that things like hormagaunts can feel like they're all cells in the same organ. Marines can customize a couple of dudes per squad to make them feel flexible and to give individuals more personality. Death Watch even more so. You'd lose the ability to provide that "feel" to any unit that doesn't use the "one-size fits all" style of equipment allocation.

You also remove a bunch of levers from a unit. A squad of 5 marines including a meltagun and a sergeant with a combi-melta can make for a troop choice with some anti-tank capabilities, though not so much as the squad of combi-melta sternguard ahead of them or the squad of lascannon devastators behind them. If the squad is just a pile of bolters, then they're stuck in the mediocre anti-infantry role rather than being able to specialize a bit more this way or that. And then you have things like wraith guard with d-cannons versus wraithguard with d-scythes. They're the same datasheet, but the former excels at doing lots of damage to high-toughness models even after deepstriking while the other can't shoot after deepstriking but is much better at clearing swarms and punishing chargers with overwatch. Saying that both d-cannosn and d-scythes are mechanically the same would erase that differentiation.

Going the AoS route of having all weapons wound on a fixed number is something that I personally don't care for in the context of 40k. Shooting in Sigmar is a lot less scary, and wounds tend to be higher on average for "durable" units. You can put out dozens or even hundreds of lasgun shots in 40k pretty cheaply. If those lasguns are wounding on anything better than a 6+, then they'll be alphastriking from across the table like mad. And if they do only wound on a 6+, you'll be wasting a significant amount of time accomplishing nothing. Plus, you'd have to rework the wounds on everything to compensate.

OK, these are all very good points. Ironically, I thought that a single weapon profile might help mini customization (take what you want, not what's best) but I guess this just wouldn't work in practice. And yeah, lasguns wounding everything on 4+ would get out of control very fast, even with points adjustments.


What if a third profile (grenade) was added. One model in the unit can use the grenade profile instead of it's shooting or melee profile. And you can play around with this profile a bit (Auxiliary Grenade Launchers increase range, pulse grenades have stunning effects etc.) And what if individual weapon options still remained as special rules rather than a new profile.

Let me demonstrate:

Space Marine Primaris Intercessor Squad (Power Rating 5)

Profile: Movement: 6" Save: 3+ Wounds: 2 Leadership: 8
Shooting: Range: 24" Attacks: 1 To Hit: 3+ To Wound: 3+ Rend:-1 Damage: 1
Grenade: Range: 8" Attacks: 1 To Hit: 3+ To Wound: 3+ Rend: -1 Damage: D3
Combat: Range: 3" Attacks: 3 To Hit: 3+ To Wound: 3+ Rend: 0 Damage: 1

Description: This unit has 5 Intercessors. It can include up to 5 additional Intercessors (Power Rating +5). Each Intercessor is armed with either a bolt rifle, an auto boltgun or a stalker bolt rifle. For every 5 models in the unit, 1 may take an auxiliary grenade launcher.

Sergeant: The leader of this unit is a Sergeant. Add 1 to the Attacks Characteristic of the Sergeant’s Combat.

And They Shall Know No Fear: This unit can reroll Battleshock Tests.

Auxiliary Grenade Launcher: A model with an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher has a Range of 24” when using its Grenade.

Bolt Rifle: A model with a Bolt Rifle can Shoot even if the model Advanced that turn.

Auto Boltgun: A model with an Auto Boltgun makes 2 Attacks when Shooting instead of 1. If the model did not move that turn, it makes 3 Attacks when Shooting instead of 1.

Stalker Bolt Rifle: A model with a Stalker Bolt Rifle cannot Shoot if it moved that turn. A model Shooting with this weapon can target an enemy character even if they are not the closet enemy unit. If you roll a hit roll of 6+ when Shooting with this weapon, it inflicts a mortal wound and the attack sequence ends.

I've played around with the concepts a lot here (making the standard weapon the most mobile, making the auto boltgun into a sort of squad automatic weapon, turning Stalkers into sniper rifles and so on). Does this look better or is this idea dead in the water?

You're not describing "one profile", you're describing "exactly as many profiles as before, only framed slightly differently."

What AnomanderRake said. You seem to be reinventing the wheel. If all you want to do is model your squad with a variety of weapons while using the rules for the most optimal gun, just do that. Unless the players in your area are intense sticklers for WYSIWYG, they're unlikely to care. I mean, obviously they might not like it if you're mixng and matching things like plasma guns and melta guns and calling them "boltguns," but most people probably don't even know the difference between the various types of primaris bolters at a glance. So in your head (or in Kill Team), you can have each guy be a cool specialist with his own weapon, and you don't have to rewrite every unit in 40k to do it.

OK, I take your points. I’ll ditch this idea.

I do think it would be possible to work, but there would have to be a counter-balancing rule to work against it, namely, something that reduced the To-Wound Roll to make it less effective.

For example, if the Lasgun Wounded on a 5+, and then targeted a Rhino which had a rule that did -1 to the To-Wound Rolls, it would make it require a natural 6 in order to accomplish this mission. Then you have harder targets like a Land Raider or maybe even a Carnifex which reduce it even further, requiring the Lasgun to roll a natural 7 or 8 (depending on the target) in order to accomplish this task.

 Charistoph wrote:
I do think it would be possible to work, but there would have to be a counter-balancing rule to work against it, namely, something that reduced the To-Wound Roll to make it less effective.

For example, if the Lasgun Wounded on a 5+, and then targeted a Rhino which had a rule that did -1 to the To-Wound Rolls, it would make it require a natural 6 in order to accomplish this mission. Then you have harder targets like a Land Raider or maybe even a Carnifex which reduce it even further, requiring the Lasgun to roll a natural 7 or 8 (depending on the target) in order to accomplish this task.

And that's basically what 40k's various incarnations of strength versus toughness systems do. Just presented differently.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I do think it would be possible to work, but there would have to be a counter-balancing rule to work against it, namely, something that reduced the To-Wound Roll to make it less effective.

For example, if the Lasgun Wounded on a 5+, and then targeted a Rhino which had a rule that did -1 to the To-Wound Rolls, it would make it require a natural 6 in order to accomplish this mission. Then you have harder targets like a Land Raider or maybe even a Carnifex which reduce it even further, requiring the Lasgun to roll a natural 7 or 8 (depending on the target) in order to accomplish this task.

And that's basically what 40k's various incarnations of strength versus toughness systems do. Just presented differently.

Yes, and no. SvT does make it a quick system, but it can be more difficult to have as the straight stat of the Weapon vs a Special Rule.

Conversely, SvT is a better scaling system since it doesn't depend on the target having to have (another) special rule to balance it for the basic mechanics.

So, while I do like the quick efficiency of AoS (which really doesn't field Super-Heavies), it just doesn't work in 40K unless you're looking to drop a lot of recently released model lines. It's possible, but it can be obnoxious and is redundant with the current scaling system.

I think this idea would work far better in an Epic scale game (6mm or 15mm), or if you where playing at a new Apocalypse level, as a way to help speed it up.