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.

Things that bug me:
* My legendary swordsmen get punked weirdly easily by guardsmen.
* My speedy armies feel like they lost their speed when initiative and jink went away.

My proposal:
What if, rather than hitting on a flat number, we switched to hitting based on a comparison between two relevant stats? So for instance, in melee, you would look at the attacker's WS and the defender's WS and use the Strength VS Toughness rules to determine what number you hit on. Example:

A guardsman is WS 3.
A tactical marine is WS 4.
Lucius the Eternal is WS 6.

The guardsman's WS is less than (but not half) that of the marine, so he'd hit the marine on a 5+.
The guardsman's WS is half that of Lucius's, so he'd hit Lucius on a 6+.
Lucius's WS is twice that of the guardsman, so he'd hit the guarsmen on a 2+ but only hit the marine on a 3+.
Two guardsmen slapping each other would hit on a 4+ because their WS stats match.

You could do something similar with ranged attacks by comparing BS to a new stat: Evasion.
An ork boy and chaos marines are Evasion 3.
A tactical marine is BS 4.
An eldar dire avenger is probably Evasion 4.
A harlequin might be Evasion 5.

The tactical marine would hit the ork or chaos marine on a 3+, the dire avenger on a 4+ (BS 4 vs Evasion 4), and the harlequin on a 5+.

IMPACT:
*Units with good WS would become more survivable in close combat. I'm okay with this. Guardsmen should struggle to punch a Solitaire or Calidus to death, and marines should be more likely to hit guardsmen than incubi.

* The above point means that melee lethality would be reduced, but mostly only for melee unit vs melee unit fights; marines would punch guardsmen just as well as they do now. Tau would not suddenly become more survivable (they'd actually get punched to death more easily by guarsmen than they do now).

* Shooting would become less lethal against armies with high Evasion (mostly eldar, some tau units, some bikes, etc.). I'd probably remove the number of to-hit rolls available to factions with lots of high evasion units to compensate. So craftworlders might lose -1 from Alaitoc and -1 from Lightning Fast Reactions, but they'd generally be harder for most units to hit thanks to their statline.

* Shooting against low Evasion armies would become more lethal, and this is the part that I'm most worried about. Granted, if an ork boy can be assumed to have comparable evasion to a marine (they're both big and not especially fast), then there probably wouldn't be a lot of low evasion units out there. Something like terminators or centurions maybe?

Just throwing it out there. Thoughts?

I think anything that improves the proportionality of success beyond in a game that is supposed to span the diversity found in an entire universe is a good thing.

However I would prefer to extend the strength vs toughness table to use all 10 values,and to include auto success and auto failure.(A Grot punching a Landraider, is only going to break his hand.A melta gun to the face of a Gaurdsman is going to kill him. )

And use this as a Universal Resolution table for 'to hit' to 'defeat armour' and 'to wound.' (This would mean giving all weapons a AP value and all unit a an AV value.Similar to Flames of War)

I used this in my 40k re write , so all units used the same resolution methods.(Including vehicles.)

So ALL units used the same 3 stage resolution , and used ONE resolution table.(Which made the game play faster, and reduced the amount of special rules.)
However, it moved away from weird and wacky anything happens every turn 'Yahtzee 40k', to a more tactical war game so some, did not like it.

I believe the problem is 40k has been a complete mess of ideas and counter intuitive rules.simply shoe horned in to promote the rule of ''cool sounding stuff to sell models',for over 2 decades.
So if you fix the problems in the core rules, lots of the players feel it 'isnt 40k ' any more as you get to loose so many poorly written 'special rules'.

I thought about using a wider range of values for WS, BS, and Evasion, but the issue I ran into was that this created more room for the difference in stats to not matter. For instance, let's say we made wyches WS6 and marine captains WS 8. At that point, modifiers to either of those stats aren't likely to make a difference. Wyches with +1 WS drugs (WS7) would still hit the captain on 5+, and the captain would still hit them back on 3+. Similarly, the wyches wouldn't benefit from being WS7 against WS 3 or 4 guardsmen because the number needed to hit wouldn't change.

I'm not a fan of making it impossible for some models to hurt others. If knight armies are a thing, it's not much fun to know before the game even starts that any low strength weapons you invested in are literally incapable of damaging the enemy army. The same issue can manifest to a lesser extent against mechanized armies. I'm not eager to return to 5th edition where taking more tanks than your opponent has meltaguns means you're untouchable by the end of the game.

Currently, lasguns can do a couple of wounds to a tank, maybe even the last couple of wounds, but they aren't an inefficient tool for killing tanks in general. That's about where I want it to be.

Out of curiosity, what's the advantage of switching AP and Saves to use a comparative mechanic? I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but it seems like the current system already does a decent job of representing the relationship between AP and armor.

The everything wounding everything as a concept is fine but it now means that for anything 1 in 6 will wound at worst, ie if you throw enough dice at any given model it will die.
Add in GW current can't wound on less than 4+ and high power low shot weapons feel very over costed.
Esentially it makes strength of weapons and Toughness as a stat a lot less valuable than GW point it.

Also makes larger models esentially unviable as volume of fire becomes a jack of all trades tool. Clears hordes, still kills big bad knight's, except hordes decline in power liniarly and have massive board control advantage.

If you want to keep everything can wound it really should come with some sort of save modifier or addtional roll like thet old 7+ roll mechanics, roll a 6 followed by a 3+, 4+, 5+, 6, that gave you 1 to 10 as possibel results. But if we must stick with the doubles etc it needs spread out more like S and T to max out at 15-20 so Sx3 < T +1 to save and vice versa if we are going to keep with GW 1's fail S>Tx3 +1AP.

Comparing the same stat (ws vs ws) and two different stats (bs vs EV) are two different things and there are different consequences to using the same chart for both. Going up by one point of ws gives a double benefit, of offense and defense, but when there are separate stats like bs and EV it’s possible to be good at offense but not defense, defense but not offense, neither, or both.

It’d be possible to have a ws to ws chart that alternates it’s steps, eg a ws advantage of +1 and +3 over a opponent give better to-hit rolls, while disadvantage of -2 and -4 against an opponent hit on rolls of 5+ and 6+. Not necessarily good, but possible.

Then you know there’s other sources effects like this like the leaked drafts for fifth edition where you were going to get EV in-game from moving or model size etc but it wasn’t on the units’ profile block.

I’ve seen you post for years but you can’t perceive basic stuff like this, and you don’t report anything about your games or models or opponents so I don’t really use your posts as a resource.

WS and BS should both be compared to Evasion as it would make things easier and if necessary you could add +/-1 for melee/shooting for special cases

Absolutely! This also adds more decision-making into the game. Do your guardsmen shoot that thing they're unlikely to hit, but really needs to die or be suppressed? Or do they fire on something weaker they can really damage?

Ice_can wrote:The everything wounding everything as a concept is fine but it now means that for anything 1 in 6 will wound at worst, ie if you throw enough dice at any given model it will die.

This might be a topic for another thread, but I think I'm probably allowed to derail my own thread a little. XD I'm not sure I agree with this. I know I've seen people concerned about lasguns killing knights since the start of 8th, but to my knowledge those fears have never really born out. Eventually, lasguns will kill a knight, but they do it so inefficiently that I"m not sure they can really be considered a "jack of all trades." Like, I could probably dig my way out of prison with a metal spoon, but I'd really rather have a shovel.

But I don't have the math in front of me. Maybe small arms fire is more effective against big stuff than I think. I do agree that high-strength-low-shots weapons could stand to be improved a bit. Simply upping the strength of things like lascannons to like... 14 so that they always wound T7 and less on 2s might be enough. To-hit rolls would still be swingy, but at least you'd have a 5/6ths chance of sticking a wound on most things.

pelicaniforce wrote:Comparing the same stat (ws vs ws) and two different stats (bs vs EV) are two different things and there are different consequences to using the same chart for both. Going up by one point of ws gives a double benefit, of offense and defense, but when there are separate stats like bs and EV it’s possible to be good at offense but not defense, defense but not offense, neither, or both.

It’d be possible to have a ws to ws chart that alternates it’s steps, eg a ws advantage of +1 and +3 over a opponent give better to-hit rolls, while disadvantage of -2 and -4 against an opponent hit on rolls of 5+ and 6+. Not necessarily good, but possible.

That is a good point. The old WS chart actually did this pretty well. You were generally hitting on 3+ or 4+ unless the disparity in WS was really large, and you never hit on worse than 5+. The tricky thing there is that the WS chart was hands down the rule that I most frequently saw newbies struggling to remember. Mechanically, I'd probably be okay with a return to that chart, but it would be nice if it could be a little easier for people to learn and remember. We don't want to scare off potential new players, after all.

.

I’ve seen you post for years but you can’t perceive basic stuff like this, and you don’t report anything about your games or models or opponents so I don’t really use your posts as a resource.

That's an uh... weirdly personal attack. Sorry for not showing off my meager painting skills and spending time writing up battle reports, I guess?

kodos wrote:WS and BS should both be compared to Evasion as it would make things easier and if necessary you could add +/-1 for melee/shooting for special cases

That might not be a bad way to go and would address pelicaniforce's point about the double benefit. It kind of makes sense that a unit with good WS is better at not getting stabbed, but you can probably just give those units a good Evasion stat and have it make sense in most situations. A wych has good WS, sure, but she'd also have good Evasion. A crisis suit should have bad WS, but it might actually have decent evasion due to the suit's emphasis on mobility. I think I like this idea.

I did suggest you compare WS and BS to a generic defence previously.


I was making this argument when Initiative was still a thing as it fits the criteria of an opposed value for WS and BS - dodging your opponent's attacks.

You just have to bring back the previous stat profiles are you're good.

Marine captains were WS6 and I5, so they'd hit each other on 3+.

Autarchs were I6 so they'd get hit on 4+ by a captain, thus using their speed as their defence.


EDIT

Doing this solves a lot of issues. Instead of using initiative to determine who strikes first, you use it to determine how hard it is to hit people. Melee can then happen simultaneously.

Overwatch would be a negative to BS, say your BS is at 1/2 rounding down when firing overwatch. Inversely, when an enemy runs away from your unit in melee, you can make attacks at half their initiative as they turn to flee.

I don't really understand why WS or BS vs. defense is better or different than WS or BS vs. evasion.

The best use of a generic defense stat is for wounding. Ditch armor saves entirely.

So:

WS or BS vs. evasion for hitting

STR vs. Toughness

DAM vs. wounds

Single-shot weapons get higher damage, and/or other capacities past shooting and wounding.

As to melee, remove locked-in-combat. It's a terrible mechanic that only exists because of IGOUGO, leading to melee consisting of hours of rolling to hit and to wound, instead of charging, countercharging, repositioning, hit-and-run attacks, and other cool things these units could be doing.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but the important factor here is the mechanic. Terminology is irrelevant. It's just a word to describe a mechanic, in this case an abstract value used to compare against attackers' WS and BS.

Here it is preferred that comparative values are used over the current flat to hit roles.

So WS and BS need something to compare to, in order to generate a dice score needed to hit.

IMO it's not armour that's irrelevant, it's S vs T. Because all guns are lethal if they hit you. Your muscles can't resist bullets.

So if you want to get picky, You should really just be rolling to hit and rolling to see if your armour is penetrated and then subtracting wounds.

Flesh wounds and glancing blows are covered by either missing your shot, or succeeding at an armour save.


My proposal is to go back to 2nd ed stat profile structure and add save:

M WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv

And you use Initiative as the opposing value against both WS and BS.

All High initiative units thus get to use their reflexes as a defence by making it harder to be hit, and BS is treated like WS so it is target dependent rather than a fixed value.

Orks are easier to hit, but tough.
Eldar are harder to high, but squishy.
genestealers are super hard to hit and scare people just like fast alien killing machines should.
Harlequins sprint across the table and are hard to hit

EDIT
It also means you can go back to 2nd ed levels of stats easier - Veteran marines are BS5, so they hit easier. Suddenly you don't need special guns to make veterans special.

BS6-10 become useful and snipers can gun down speeding genestealers. there's a lot of atmospheric value.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Ice_can wrote:The everything wounding everything as a concept is fine but it now means that for anything 1 in 6 will wound at worst, ie if you throw enough dice at any given model it will die.

This might be a topic for another thread, but I think I'm probably allowed to derail my own thread a little. XD I'm not sure I agree with this. I know I've seen people concerned about lasguns killing knights since the start of 8th, but to my knowledge those fears have never really born out. Eventually, lasguns will kill a knight, but they do it so inefficiently that I"m not sure they can really be considered a "jack of all trades." Like, I could probably dig my way out of prison with a metal spoon, but I'd really rather have a shovel.

But I don't have the math in front of me. Maybe small arms fire is more effective against big stuff than I think. I do agree that high-strength-low-shots weapons could stand to be improved a bit. Simply upping the strength of things like lascannons to like... 14 so that they always wound T7 and less on 2s might be enough. To-hit rolls would still be swingy, but at least you'd have a 5/6ths chance of sticking a wound on most things.

Guard lasguns used to be the poster children of this but it's more than that Punisher Gattling cannons are good against chaff but also surprisingly good against vehicals to,
Even intercessors do a shockingly good job against T7 hence why T7 is now more than ever feels like a really overcosted Toughness.

But it's also not just in shooting close combat also often feels janky sometimes that for a number of armies certain buffs just feel mechanicaly odd.
A Blood angles slaping a predator bare handed wounds on 4+, the same as other marines slaping other t4 things and a russ on a 5+. Yet another marines slaps Russes hard enough on a 6+, same as a grot. Add in some of the reroll buffs that GW insisted are fun and that single value shift does a larger than expected swing.
(Just to be clear not saying Blood angles having +1 to wound is a problem as CC still feels like a make the right charges and you win or fail the wrong one and loose plan)

Having the old 7+ rolling system would mean something can have a worse than 1 in 6 sucess rate, unfortunately the best option as GW insist on sticking to D6's

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

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

As previously mentioned (in other threads,) here is the extended table we were play testing.(One table to cover all three stages of damage resolution.)
(Before the garage roof collapse and loss of my gaming space... )

A= the active(rolling) players stat, O=the opposing players stat.

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

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

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


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

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

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

This is just one possible alternative to illustrate new concepts we could use.(I am assuming we are using alternating unit activation of some sort, so roll to hit, roll to beat armour roll to wound, is fine with the more interactive game turn.)

This is the simplest resolution set I can think of that gives a much wider range of proportional results, and only uses one table.

Again this may need more explanation, its just some ideas for discussion.

Okay, I understand now. I was thrown off by the framing of your post.

I do much prefer WS and BS vs. defense.

As is the case with a defense stat, I don't much care what the STR vs. X stat is called, I want armor saves gone. Rolling a save is not a decision, nor does a player have any control over its outcome barring rerolls, aura buffs and the like that need serious reworking our outright removal.

I think evasion is a better name than Initiative for the stat WS and BS are being compared to because it better describes what is happening, and will be easier for new players to understand. Regardless, i agree that this also solves many problems, such as Eldar never playing or feeling close enough to their fluff on the table, and resulting in said army's units dying before that do anything meaningful, being too durable, or abusing JSJ (the latter of which can be dealt with via AA and a better ht-and-run mechanic)
.

My concern with removing either the to-wound roll or the Save roll is its impact on the math. If we make marines a higher toughness but remove their save, then we remove the step that let them ignore 2/3rds of incoming wounds from AP 0 weapons.

It could probably be done, just not without a bunch of additional work. Which is fine.

Something I've pitched before is getting rid of armor saves and increasing Wounds. So a tactical marine might not get an armor save any more, but he'd have like, 3 wounds instead. This would mean that succesful to-wound rolls always have an impact (unless you have FNP or an invul save), but a marine will never die from a single lasgun shot. Of course, one of the criticisms at the time was that it reduced design space by making AP no longer relevant.

Maybe there's an application for something like that here?

Wyldhunt wrote:
My concern with removing either the to-wound roll or the Save roll is its impact on the math. If we make marines a higher toughness but remove their save, then we remove the step that let them ignore 2/3rds of incoming wounds from AP 0 weapons.

It could probably be done, just not without a bunch of additional work. Which is fine.

Something I've pitched before is getting rid of armor saves and increasing Wounds. So a tactical marine might not get an armor save any more, but he'd have like, 3 wounds instead. This would mean that succesful to-wound rolls always have an impact (unless you have FNP or an invul save), but a marine will never die from a single lasgun shot. Of course, one of the criticisms at the time was that it reduced design space by making AP no longer relevant.

Maybe there's an application for something like that here?

I should think so. Why not rely on wounds and toughness for durability? How much does AP contribute to decision-making in 40k? I think the weapons need a bit of rethinking regarding their battlefield role. Rejiggering the traditional morale system into suppression, where "even" marines can be pinned or forced to fall back could be pretty sweet.

Hi folks.
I did use a simple suppression mechanic ,(with my previous resolution set and alternating activation game turn.)

Basically , any hit that is capable of beating the models armour, but fails to do so .(Eg the model make its saving throw.) Suppresses the model.
When over half the remaining models in the unit are suppressed , the unit becomes suppressed.
(Vehicles and monsters use number of wounds or crew , to work out if large models are suppressed.)

Suppressed units 'go to ground,' until rallied.(+1 evasion, may Move once or Shoot at targets within half range.)

When a unit looses half its starting wounds , it has to pass a Morale test to act normally, otherwise counts as suppressed.

If an already suppressed unit gets another suppressed result, it will fall back.(Move away from all visible enemy.) Units that are falling back will Route and count as destroyed if assaulted .

This means large units like 20 Orc Shootaz, are easy to suppress individual models , but need a lot of firepower to suppress half the unit .
The ork boys rely on weight of numbers to see them through.

Large well armoured units like Landraiders rely on heavy armour to see them though,requiring 3 suppressing hits to suppress the model.(Assuming a crew of 5.)
(I did develop a more complete suppression effect for larger models, loosing weapon attacks and movement etc.)

When you include suppression, you can turn down the lethality of attacks, reduce model count on the table a bit , and get a much more tactical rule set.

Eg 40k war game based on modern warfare, if that is what you want...

I agree with Wyldhunt, that the three stage resolution .To hit, to beat armour, (saveing throw,) and to wound.Are necessary in 40k to get the depth of variance required.

If you are playing a game where the combatants are very similar with similar weapon effects.(Eg based on human Historical Ancient to Napoleonic, or WWII to Modern.)
Then simpler resolutions can be used.(if 40k was just human Imperial Guard vs Human Chaos Cultists , then maybe we could reduce the number of resolution steps.)

But 40ks problem is it is supposed to represent a universe full of wildly different alien life forms with a wildly different array of weapons.
3 stage resolution without proportional results is not giving enough variance.(Hence the need for so many special rules.)

So if we extended the range of results using ''comparative proportionally'' ,(Similar to the table above.)And used comparative results for all stages , we could get a more intuitive rule set perhaps.

40ks rules were originally written using WHFB rules for a skirmish Scifi game to sell GW new scifi minature range.(RT and 2nd ed.)
And since the ''Bland Hammer'' 3rd ed rules.It was apparent the core rules were not good enough to cover the new scale of the intended game play.(Company level.)
(And always ended up with a mess of special rules that often contradicted other rules.)

My vision would be a 40k wargame based on modern warfare.
3 stage damage resolution that uses ONE table. that covers ALL units in 40k .(And uses comparative results in all 3 stages.)
This would increase granularity and remove the need for so many special rules.

I understand some people like the current fudge of game scale,and scope.But they have the rule set they want.
Does any one else want to try to get an intuitive modern rule set for 40k?

Lanrak wrote:

40ks rules were originally written using WHFB rules for a skirmish Scifi game to sell GW new scifi minature range.(RT and 2nd ed.)
And since the ''Bland Hammer'' 3rd ed rules.It was apparent the core rules were not good enough to cover the new scale of the intended game play.(Company level.)
(And always ended up with a mess of special rules that often contradicted other rules.)

3rd Edition 40k is based on a 15mm WW2 game that was in the work and cancelled, that is why it never really worked with exotic factions as everything outside Space Marine VS Space Marine was not covered by the basic design

And the problem is not the number of resolution steps to cover the different Alien Faction, but the number of variation they have.
Everything in the game covers the same range, a Superhuman Soldier is not different from a Human Veteran with good Armour and while the original stats are 1-10, 90% of the units are in the range of 1-5.

You can add 5 more resolution steps, and it won't be much different to 2 just because the profile of most units is in the same range and won't make a difference

Meh, all the EPIC editions except perhaps 3rd were capable of creating distinctly different armies with fewer resolution steps.

It's conventional wisdom that 40k has to be represented this way because it always has (that 3 step process is an original mechanic that has pretty much remained unchange for 33 years)..

It doesn't have to be at all.

I am however happy with the game continuing to use it, my comment above was to say if you DID have to remove a roll, wounding would be the one that made the most sense.

Maybe BS vs Ld?

I struggle to see how you could lose one of the 3 steps without losing a lot of variation. Particularly S vs T. You are much more likely to be incapacitated by a krak missile than a lasgun.

The only thing I could see would be to have an "attack" roll and a "defence" roll, which would be modified by factors. It reduces rolling, but would take longer for referencing!

To hit will be WS/BS against Initiative/evasion, or whatever we call it
Save is modified by:
T over S of incoming attack
being in cover
etc.

The issue here is that it would give any hit from a lasgun a 1/6 chance of dealing a wound, which means things need more wounds, which means more bookkeeping. FRFSRF would obliterate most units. Even worst case - hit on a 6, wound on a failed 2+ save - you get about 1 wound through. Currently, vs T3 (puny) it halves that. with standard rolls (4+ to hit), you get 15 hits, that's 15 2+ saves to make. Essentially, anything weak enough to give you a 2+ save is treating you like a terminator that they auto-wound.

Hit, Wound, Save is just better.

What about a roll off? Where attack and defence are modifiers. For example a weapon might be attack 2 and, so the attacker rolls a d6 and applies a +2 modifier. The target has defence 3 so rolls a d6 +3. If the modified attack value is higher than the modified defence roll the attack succeeds. Seems like there’s a way to apply this to allow a very large variety of results representing all sorts of weapons and durability.

If needed, beating the defence roll by a sufficient margin could have additional effects.

 some bloke wrote:
I struggle to see how you could lose one of the 3 steps without losing a lot of variation. Particularly S vs T. You are much more likely to be incapacitated by a krak missile than a lasgun.

problem is more that the current rules/profile values don't use the possibility given by the 3 steps and could be represented with just 2 rolls

you cannot lose variation that is not there in the firstplace, this is also a reason why we special rules to add more steps for more variation (instead of using full range given by 3 dice rolls, more rolls are added)

 kodos wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I struggle to see how you could lose one of the 3 steps without losing a lot of variation. Particularly S vs T. You are much more likely to be incapacitated by a krak missile than a lasgun.

problem is more that the current rules/profile values don't use the possibility given by the 3 steps and could be represented with just 2 rolls

you cannot lose variation that is not there in the firstplace, this is also a reason why we special rules to add more steps for more variation (instead of using full range given by 3 dice rolls, more rolls are added)

I disagree.

Whether you hit depends on the firing model, a guardsman with a plasmagun won't hit as often as a marine with a plasmagun.

Whether you wound depends on the strength of the weapon and the toughness of the target - a plasmagun will wound more often than a bolter.

Whether it is saved depends on the save of the taret and the AP of the weapon - a meltagun will kill a model more often than a krak missile.

If you were to lump 2 of these together, it would make at least one statistic irrelevant.

If you roll to hit, then roll defence, what affects the defence? is it strength, or AP, or both? If both, what makes a high strength low AP weapon different to a low strength high AP weapon?

you could perhaps make comparing S & T give a modifier, and then AP is a straight modifier, but that will still boil down to more death than the current, excessively killy game - the lowest chance of killing something is needing a 6 to hit and a 1 to save, which is easy with the volume of dice present in the game nowadays.

At the moment, in 40k, S is irrelevant as long as it does not is above a below a specific value.
AP is always there and lower Armour values have always been irrelevant no matter if the old or new system (but you paid points for making)

lets say we have a "to hit" value on your model and a "to wound" value on the target
Add Evasion(X) as -X for "to hit" and AP(X) as +X to the "to wound" roll
No we add Blast(X), successful hits are multiplied with X and AntiTank(X), successful wounds are multiplied by X to some weapons
keeping weapon Damage values and Wounds

if you use the full range of 1-10 (maybe with a roll of 1 always fails) on the models you already more variation than we currently have in game

the difference between a high Strength, low AP weapon and a low Strength, high AP weapons will now be only if one is designed as Anti Tank and the other as Anti Infantry and the universal "good against everything" weapon will be gone

a Plasmagun will have AP1, a Melta will have AP3 and the Anti-Tank rule and just 1 shot (while the Plasmagun has 2 or more)

a Missile Launcher will have 3 missiles to chose from, a Krak missile with AP2 and AT rule, a Frag missile with Blast and an AA missile ignoring Evasion (all just one shot)

this makes the Plasmagun better against heavy armoured units with multiple models, while the Melta is best against heavy armoured single model units and the Missile Launcher is the most flexible one

It is not that adding another step for armour won't add the possibility of more variation
But GW failed 6 editions in a row to make use of it and ended always with at least one of the rolls being unnecessary and the needed variation being done via special rules to compensate for it.

Of course you can also fail on to get the 2 rolls count and make one weapon irrelevant because you add a 6 always wounds and the higher rate of fire compensates for its lower AP.

it is not the number of rolls that matters, or how much sides a dice have, but how you balance those among your units and if you use it or not.

 kodos wrote:
At the moment, in 40k, S is irrelevant as long as it does not is above a below a specific value.
AP is always there and lower Armour values have always been irrelevant no matter if the old or new system (but you paid points for making)

lets say we have a "to hit" value on your model and a "to wound" value on the target
Add Evasion(X) as -X for "to hit" and AP(X) as +X to the "to wound" roll
No we add Blast(X), successful hits are multiplied with X and AntiTank(X), successful wounds are multiplied by X to some weapons
keeping weapon Damage values and Wounds

if you use the full range of 1-10 (maybe with a roll of 1 always fails) on the models you already more variation than we currently have in game

the difference between a high Strength, low AP weapon and a low Strength, high AP weapons will now be only if one is designed as Anti Tank and the other as Anti Infantry and the universal "good against everything" weapon will be gone

a Plasmagun will have AP1, a Melta will have AP3 and the Anti-Tank rule and just 1 shot (while the Plasmagun has 2 or more)

a Missile Launcher will have 3 missiles to chose from, a Krak missile with AP2 and AT rule, a Frag missile with Blast and an AA missile ignoring Evasion (all just one shot)

this makes the Plasmagun better against heavy armoured units with multiple models, while the Melta is best against heavy armoured single model units and the Missile Launcher is the most flexible one

It is not that adding another step for armour won't add the possibility of more variation
But GW failed 6 editions in a row to make use of it and ended always with at least one of the rolls being unnecessary and the needed variation being done via special rules to compensate for it.

Of course you can also fail on to get the 2 rolls count and make one weapon irrelevant because you add a 6 always wounds and the higher rate of fire compensates for its lower AP.

it is not the number of rolls that matters, or how much sides a dice have, but how you balance those among your units and if you use it or not.

Ok, so if I'm reading this right then you're suggesting that you:

roll to hit, modified by evasion
Roll to wound, based on a statistic on the unit (EG a space marine requires 4+ to wound), modified by the AP value of the weapon (so AP1 would need a 3+ to wound a space marine)

And there are no saves at all?

This removes a lot of variation from the game, to my eyes. what is the difference between a lasgun and a bolter? both 2 shots, both probably don't have any AP, both 24" range, 1-2 shots. What about the Tau, do they just have longer range? How would hotshot lasguns work, do they become anti-tank by virtue of a high AP?

It also removes a key aspect of the game - opponent agency.

Currently, both players are involved in both player turns - player 1 attacks, player 2 rolls saves, and then player 2 attacks, player 1 rolls saves. I wouldn't enjoy playing if I spent half of every game doing nothing but removing models. I wouldn't feel like I had any say in what was going on - the whole turn will revolve around my opponents dice, my opponents luck.

That's an easily remedied situation, though - make the attack rolled by the attacker, and the defence rolled by the defender.

You also, ultimately, have to consider the increased killiness of resolving things with 2 rolls instead of 3. That's 2 barriers instead of 3. You're going from "does it hit > does it wound > did it die" to "does it hit > did it die", which means you've got 36 possible rolls (rolling 1-6 on 2 dice) instead of 216 possible rolls (rolling 1-6 on 3 dice), so the lowest chance of wounding something is 1 in 36, not 1 in 216, meaning things will die quicker. things dying too fast is already an issue!

 some bloke wrote:

 kodos wrote:
At the moment, in 40k, S is irrelevant as long as it does not is above a below a specific value.
AP is always there and lower Armour values have always been irrelevant no matter if the old or new system (but you paid points for making)

lets say we have a "to hit" value on your model and a "to wound" value on the target
Add Evasion(X) as -X for "to hit" and AP(X) as +X to the "to wound" roll
No we add Blast(X), successful hits are multiplied with X and AntiTank(X), successful wounds are multiplied by X to some weapons
keeping weapon Damage values and Wounds

if you use the full range of 1-10 (maybe with a roll of 1 always fails) on the models you already more variation than we currently have in game

the difference between a high Strength, low AP weapon and a low Strength, high AP weapons will now be only if one is designed as Anti Tank and the other as Anti Infantry and the universal "good against everything" weapon will be gone

a Plasmagun will have AP1, a Melta will have AP3 and the Anti-Tank rule and just 1 shot (while the Plasmagun has 2 or more)

a Missile Launcher will have 3 missiles to chose from, a Krak missile with AP2 and AT rule, a Frag missile with Blast and an AA missile ignoring Evasion (all just one shot)

this makes the Plasmagun better against heavy armoured units with multiple models, while the Melta is best against heavy armoured single model units and the Missile Launcher is the most flexible one

It is not that adding another step for armour won't add the possibility of more variation
But GW failed 6 editions in a row to make use of it and ended always with at least one of the rolls being unnecessary and the needed variation being done via special rules to compensate for it.

Of course you can also fail on to get the 2 rolls count and make one weapon irrelevant because you add a 6 always wounds and the higher rate of fire compensates for its lower AP.

it is not the number of rolls that matters, or how much sides a dice have, but how you balance those among your units and if you use it or not.

Ok, so if I'm reading this right then you're suggesting that you:

roll to hit, modified by evasion
Roll to wound, based on a statistic on the unit (EG a space marine requires 4+ to wound), modified by the AP value of the weapon (so AP1 would need a 3+ to wound a space marine)

And there are no saves at all?

This removes a lot of variation from the game, to my eyes. what is the difference between a lasgun and a bolter? both 2 shots, both probably don't have any AP, both 24" range, 1-2 shots. What about the Tau, do they just have longer range? How would hotshot lasguns work, do they become anti-tank by virtue of a high AP?

It also removes a key aspect of the game - opponent agency.

Currently, both players are involved in both player turns - player 1 attacks, player 2 rolls saves, and then player 2 attacks, player 1 rolls saves. I wouldn't enjoy playing if I spent half of every game doing nothing but removing models. I wouldn't feel like I had any say in what was going on - the whole turn will revolve around my opponents dice, my opponents luck.

That's an easily remedied situation, though - make the attack rolled by the attacker, and the defence rolled by the defender.

You also, ultimately, have to consider the increased killiness of resolving things with 2 rolls instead of 3. That's 2 barriers instead of 3. You're going from "does it hit > does it wound > did it die" to "does it hit > did it die", which means you've got 36 possible rolls (rolling 1-6 on 2 dice) instead of 216 possible rolls (rolling 1-6 on 3 dice), so the lowest chance of wounding something is 1 in 36, not 1 in 216, meaning things will die quicker. things dying too fast is already an issue!

If I understand correctly, the space marine is more likely to have a much higher requirement than 4+ to wound it in this system. Possibly a 6+. This way a lasgun might apply no modifier, a bolter +1, all the way up to a multi melta at half range which could have +8 as a modifier. Or am I misunderstanding?

Also does a 1always fail, and does a 6 always pass? As this would have a major effect too.

yeah, if you change the system, going with existing profiles and you and up with the same problem we have now

Marines could be 3+/5+ 2 Wounds, and Bolter AP1
IG Soldier 4+/4+, 1 Wound, AP-

Also does a 1always fail, and does a 6 always pass? As this would have a major effect too.

6 always pass is a no go no matter what system is used as it kills all variation because a high rate of fire will always be better than a better wound or hit roll, specially if re-rolls are a thing

Ice_can wrote:
The everything wounding everything as a concept is fine but it now means that for anything 1 in 6 will wound at worst, ie if you throw enough dice at any given model it will die.
Add in GW current can't wound on less than 4+ and high power low shot weapons feel very over costed.
Esentially it makes strength of weapons and Toughness as a stat a lot less valuable than GW point it.

Also makes larger models esentially unviable as volume of fire becomes a jack of all trades tool. Clears hordes, still kills big bad knight's, except hordes decline in power liniarly and have massive board control advantage.

If you want to keep everything can wound it really should come with some sort of save modifier or addtional roll like thet old 7+ roll mechanics, roll a 6 followed by a 3+, 4+, 5+, 6, that gave you 1 to 10 as possibel results. But if we must stick with the doubles etc it needs spread out more like S and T to max out at 15-20 so Sx3 < T +1 to save and vice versa if we are going to keep with GW 1's fail S>Tx3 +1AP.

The reason that the 6s always wound doesn't work is because GW didn't do a good job with the wounding chart (Lascannons wound Plague Marines at the same rate as Whirlwinds, or Grots wound Rhinos the same as Imperial Knight) and sticking with the D6 system, where modifiers have too much impact. Either one (or both) being fixed solves the problem of Lasguns blowing up Baneblades too often (but let's be honest anyone really making the complaint doesn't have a leg to stand on as it doesn't really happen)