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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.

"I have no imagination and can't come up with a real 2D6 system so I'm just going to assume GW uses a stupid one and declare that 2D6 systems suck."

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.

"I have no imagination and can't come up with a real 2D6 system so I'm just going to assume GW uses a stupid one and declare that 2D6 systems suck."

Okay, I'm not rolling 5 2d6 either for just one shot from each guy. 2d6 doesn't work for squad based games.

1. Keep stratagems but reduce the amount of them. Maybe 5 Core rulebook stratagems and an additional 5 with your codex book. Or some system of choosing your Stratagems before the game starts (much like a psyker chooses their available psychic powers). You have a small list of stratagems you can use, and thats it. No surprises.

2. Fix cover system. Get rid of every rule that "ignores cover" if you want cover to be meaningful. Possibly give an alternative benefit for low save models (cover either +1 to your save or a 6+ INV or something like that), so that low save models actually get some benefit from cover.

3. Reduce the focus on special characters. Look I love Guilliman, the Silent King, Mortarion, Abaddon, etc. as much as the next guy, but frankly I just dont want to see them in 40k all that much. These characters seem like they'd be a better fit on the battlegrounds of Epic, commanding huge armies. If removing them from the game entirely isn't an option, at least put some heavy restrictions on them.

4. A much better Crusade system. Crusade was one of the things I was most excited about from 9e. IMO it didn't live up to the expectation. Despite a lot of people really wanting a great narrative system... I think at this point we can all agree that Crusade failed at that. I like fancy unit upgrades (if they're well balanced; which the crusade ones are not) but what I really want is a How-To guide on actually running a campaign. Somehow that part is missing, unfortunately for all of us.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.

"I have no imagination and can't come up with a real 2D6 system so I'm just going to assume GW uses a stupid one and declare that 2D6 systems suck."

Okay, I'm not rolling 5 2d6 either for just one shot from each guy. 2d6 doesn't work for squad based games.

Exactly, its not about if it is better for math, its not better for player experience. Imagine with Terminators has 2D6 saves again and a BA player jumps in with 40 saves you have to make, nightmare player experience right there.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think we could replace HIGH VOLUME shooting, with HIGH VALUE Shooting. Maybe that squad of 4 Punishers doesn't get 80-160 shots, they get automatic hits on anything over a certain shots? So that way it actually simulates throwing a WALL of lead at your opponent and being guaranteed an actual effect. Obviously this should be tweaked for various targets. 100 infanty attacks shouldn't guarantee 40 wounds to a titan.

stop with suggesting everything gets auto hits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.

"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

This literally happens for a stock five man unit of Terminators. How deliberate do I really need to try?

to be fair, no squad should have that many output IMO.

one or two attacks MAXIMUM per model


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.

"I have no imagination and can't come up with a real 2D6 system so I'm just going to assume GW uses a stupid one and declare that 2D6 systems suck."

ok, provide a good 2d6 system that would fit with 40k in your eyes.


Battletech:destiny uses it in an interesting way but thats because pretty much every gun is only one attack (with some dealing damage in clusters, so a gun might do flat 4 damage but another would do 2+2+2 for example)

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.

You could just roll 2D6 for the entire squad's shooting, like how combined attacks in Warmachine work. Or roll 2D6 against fire factors on a statistical deviation table to determine a number of hits, like how CRTs work in many board games. It kinda sounds like you aren't aware of how other games do this sort of thing, and are assuming that 40K's implementation is the only possibility.

Did you know that if you replaced all the D20s in D&D with D6s without making any other changes, it would screw up the game? Proof positive that D6s suck and 40K shouldn't be using them.

I find the suggestion of 2d6 kind of humorous. Mostly because it implies people do not want to play Warhammer and instead play something completely different. Like Warmachine perhaps?

If GW is going to hard reset 40K, they need to change some basic tenets of the game:

Alternative Activations: To avoid both downtime disinterest and alpha strikes.

Units, not model: Change the rules to be based around units instead of models. You don't have stats for models that then combine to form a unit. You have stats for a unit. This will allow for mass simplification of the rules and reduction of the dice rolling overload we see.

Stratagems redesign: Stratagems and CP should be things used in army construction and battle setup, not unit activation.

 catbarf wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.

You could just roll 2D6 for the entire squad's shooting, like how combined attacks in Warmachine work. Or roll 2D6 against fire factors on a statistical deviation table to determine a number of hits, like how CRTs work in many board games. It kinda sounds like you aren't aware of how other games do this sort of thing, and are assuming that 40K's implementation is the only possibility.

Did you know that if you replaced all the D20s in D&D with D6s without making any other changes, it would screw up the game? Proof positive that D6s suck and 40K shouldn't be using them.

Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.

I want Sly Marbo to be able to remove any model from the table, as long as he can see it, even on another games' table. Once per day.

2D6 systems work fine with a game that has the right scale for it. BattleTech works fine with a 2D6 system as you can have anywhere from 12 units a side to maybe 1 unit per player, so rolling a bunch of 2D6's for all your weapons isn't a big deal.

Now try that on a game the scale of 40k, with units that have multiple attacks. That's why a 2D6 system wouldn't work with 40k unless you heavily simplified how many attacks things get to make.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
2D6 systems work fine with a game that has the right scale for it. BattleTech works fine with a 2D6 system as you can have anywhere from 12 units a side to maybe 1 unit per player, so rolling a bunch of 2D6's for all your weapons isn't a big deal.

Now try that on a game the scale of 40k, with units that have multiple attacks. That's why a 2D6 system wouldn't work with 40k unless you heavily simplified how many attacks things get to make.

battletech also doesnt have guns that shoot 100 shots so thats another reason why 2d6 works there

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 5 2d6 either for just one shot from each guy. 2d6 doesn't work for squad based games.

"I still can't imagine a real 2D6 system but the bad one I came up with is bad."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.

Roll 2D6 per 5 models vs. armor, for each point you beat the armor value by inflict one wound. Done.

Is it a perfect system? Probably not, but it's one I came up with in 30 seconds. 2D6 systems only fail if you assume you're using the current 40k rules and only changing the dice.

2D6 is a terrible idea for 40k. If you want that granularity for a mass squad game its better to go D10/D12.

I'd like to see vehicle facings or crossfire as a general rule. Suppression /better morale rules. I like strays, relics etc, just drastically rdfjce number you can take in a game, it choose beforehand. Relic takes up CP or syptrat slot. Different non standard formations mean less cp/strats. If trying to wound somethkngvreally tough.you need to roll 6+followed by 4/5/6+ etc more than double toughness for example.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 5 2d6 either for just one shot from each guy. 2d6 doesn't work for squad based games.

"I still can't imagine a real 2D6 system but the bad one I came up with is bad."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.

Roll 2D6 per 5 models vs. armor, for each point you beat the armor value by inflict one wound. Done.

Is it a perfect system? Probably not, but it's one I came up with in 30 seconds. 2D6 systems only fail if you assume you're using the current 40k rules and only changing the dice.

So 10 models magically fire two instances of 2d6 but not 9.
Boy I bet you LOVE Power Level.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Okay, I'm not rolling 10 2d6 either for just two shots from each dude.
2D6 sucks, just get over it.

You could just roll 2D6 for the entire squad's shooting, like how combined attacks in Warmachine work. Or roll 2D6 against fire factors on a statistical deviation table to determine a number of hits, like how CRTs work in many board games. It kinda sounds like you aren't aware of how other games do this sort of thing, and are assuming that 40K's implementation is the only possibility.

Did you know that if you replaced all the D20s in D&D with D6s without making any other changes, it would screw up the game? Proof positive that D6s suck and 40K shouldn't be using them.

Fine, come up with a suggestion for a squad of just five Terminators with their Storm Bolters using a 2d6 method.

Okay, here's a basic concept I just made up. I'm sure it could be refined further.

Roll 2D6, add your ballistic skill, add the number of shots being fired. Compare to the target's modified Defense (including cover). If the total equals the target's Defense, inflict a hit, and then an additional hit for every 2 points the target's Defense is exceeded by, up to the number of shots fired.

Your squad of five BS4 Terminators, with two shots apiece, fires on a squad of Ork Boyz in cover with a modified Defense of 12. You roll 2D6 and score a 7, so add it to your combined BS+shots of 14, and total 21. You've beaten the Orks' Defense so score a hit, and beat it by 9, so dividing in half and rounding down gives you an extra 4 hits. 5 hits total and you're done.

So you roll exactly two dice and perform elementary school arithmetic and come out with 5 hits. Is the outcome statistically identical to treating each shot as an isolated process like 40K currently does? No. Is that a requirement for a good game? Also no. Moving on.

Blanket statements about what dice types work for what scale of game are silly- it's all about implementation. You can use D20s in a mass battle game (Starship Troopers) or D6s in a crunchy simulationist wargame (anything by Avalon Hill) or mixed dice pools of different types and colors (Fireball Forward) or even D3s for everything (Dust). Mechanics matter, not how many faces are on the polyhedral shapes you're throwing or how many are used at once.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So 10 models magically fire two instances of 2d6 but not 9.
Boy I bet you LOVE Power Level.

Seen the Blast rule recently?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So 10 models magically fire two instances of 2d6 but not 9.

Yes, you found a potential flaw in my quick 30 second idea to use the system from Apocalypse with 2D6. Unfortunately you missed the point about not being tied to specific 40k mechanics and decided to nitpick the details instead.

Boy I bet you LOVE Power Level.

PL would be fine if it didn't have obvious balance problems and strictly better/worse choices. PL works fine if you build the game around design rules like "every unit has a heavy weapon, you just choose which one from a list of equally powerful options" or "unit sizes are always in increments of 5". The reason PL sucks is that GW is trying to apply it to a system designed to use the conventional point system and ignoring the places where it doesn't fit.

apogats wrote:


I think at this point we can all agree that Crusade failed at that.

No, we can't. I'm not going to get into this again- because just like last time, neither of us is ever going to change the other's mind.

But I can say for certain, that no, we don't ALL agree.

apogats wrote:

I really want is a How-To guide on actually running a campaign. Somehow that part is missing, unfortunately for all of us.

If you have ever run a or participated in any 40k narrative tree campaign in any edition, the rules/ guidelines you used there would still work with crusade games. In fact, the Urban Conquest rules from 8th, are fully compatible with 9th. Also, GW did publish rules for running tree campaigns, they just messed up and put it in the Octarius campaign book instead of putting it in the core rule book; the truth is that there's no reason to connect campaign rules to a specific way to play- they're just as viable with matched or open as they are for Crusade. In fact, I believe that's how the rules are presented in Octarius.

Personally, I think that tree campaigns, as presented in Octarius and even in previous editions of 40k fall a bit short- especially in the era of Agendas. I can have a typical tree campaign with branches based on win/loss as usual, but then have particular agendas trigger/ unlock side battles that either run in parallel with the main tree games (which would mean splitting your force into two separate detachments and sending one to each battle) or between main tree games (in which case your full roster is at your disposal). This is also a fun way to tie in other games like KT/AI/ AT if your players are into that.

I agree 100% with you though that campaign rules should have been in the BRB, and that they should be included in the BRB for 10th.

A great alternative if they decide to keep Crusade or something like it would be to release a Big Book of Narrative Play along side the BRB. This would contain all the bespoke content (assuming they keep that), as well as a sizable section on campaign formats, including but not limited to Map Based, Tree and Ladder, and also a selection of pre-made Warzones, as well as build-your-own warzone rules. If they release a book like this alongside the BRB, so that everyone has everything they need to get Crusading (or whatever they decide to call it) on day one, that would certainly be an improvement upon how they approached it in 9th.

I love Crusade, but that does not mean it can't be improved. My fear is that they'll oversimplify it when they streamline it and end up ruining the things it got right.

PenitentJake wrote:
No, we can't. I'm not going to get into this again- because just like last time, neither of us is ever going to change the other's mind.

Because, just like last time, you'll declare that since Crusade works well for telling the one very specific story that you want to tell all of its many flaws can be handwaved away and no other system that doesn't function exactly like Crusade will ever be acceptable.

But sure, I'll modify that statement a bit: we can all agree that Crusade is an utter failure if you evaluate it as a general narrative system for telling a broad range of stories, not just PenitentJake's SoB force in games of tournament 40k with a buff table.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:


But sure, I'll modify that statement a bit: we can all agree that Crusade is an utter failure if you evaluate it as a general narrative system for telling a broad range of stories, not just PenitentJake's SoB force in games of tournament 40k with a buff table.

Okay Bob.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:


But sure, I'll modify that statement a bit: we can all agree that Crusade is an utter failure if you evaluate it as a general narrative system for telling a broad range of stories, not just PenitentJake's SoB force in games of tournament 40k with a buff table.

Okay Bob.

Thank you! Someone else calls it like it is. This is silly at this point. Just go back to being Bob. I defended Bob's antics in several posts. But this is just sad.

...Did I have this discussion with PenitentJake before? Because I have no memory of it. Anyway, I'm not saying there isn't anything to like about Crusade, and I'm glad PenitentJake finds it works for him.

The fact of the matter remains that very few people feel the same. Try looking up Crusade stuff on youtube and you will get a sense of how popular it is. A small handful of crusade games which pale in comparison to the absolute wealth of matched play battle reports. And the "Crusade" games that you do find are often heavily modified/house ruled which indicates pretty well that the system isnt functioning as intended.

I *wanted* to love the crusade system. I still do. I consider myself much more of a narrative player than a matched play enthusiast. So when 10e comes around I want a robust crusade system, with guidelines on how to run a narrative campaign, and I want it to be *in the rulebook*. And if there are unit upgrades I'd like them to be a lot more balanced and less exploitable. I know you might say that if balance is your thing you should play matched play; but some of it is just absolutely unforgivable.

apogats wrote:
...Did I have this discussion with PenitentJake before?

You personally, no. But it's something that comes up often, where he feels compelled to defend Crusade as his perfect narrative system. He has a really obnoxious "I've got mine, screw you" attitude about it, and now he's apparently decided to fall back on "agree to disagree" rather than answer any of the valid criticism that several of us have posted. Because it works for his pet SoB army nothing you can say to him will ever convince him that Crusade should be changed.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

apogats wrote:
...Did I have this discussion with PenitentJake before?

You personally, no. But it's something that comes up often, where he feels compelled to defend Crusade as his perfect narrative system. He has a really obnoxious "I've got mine, screw you" attitude about it, and now he's apparently decided to fall back on "agree to disagree" rather than answer any of the valid criticism that several of us have posted. Because it works for his pet SoB army nothing you can say to him will ever convince him that Crusade should be changed.

You're really being aggressive.
Knock it off with the attacks.

@apogats

I was pretty sure I hadn't seen your handle before, and your post count is low- it's one of the reasons I responded to you, because I wasn't sure you were aware of some of the recent threads here where this has come up.

What's happened here with Shaso is exactly what I was hoping to prevent by answering the first part of your post as I did.

I have very reasonably and diplomatically engaged in dozens of discussions on this forum about Crusade. I've never once denied that it could be improved. I often post agreeing with other people who suggest improvements.- as I did in the very post Shaso is responding to- agreeing both that campaign rules should have been included in 9th's BRB and that they should be included in 10's BRB.

If you'd like to talk more about campaign systems, ways of linking games either as part of Crusade or not, by all means, lets started another thread about that.

This gak with Shaso isn't going anywhere good, but you seem like someone I could have decent conversations with.

PenitentJake wrote:
I've never once denied that it could be improved.

Sure, but only in minor and irrelevant ways that don't address the fundamental problem with Crusade: that it's tournament 40k with a bolted-on D6 table of buffs to roll on and some off-table solitaire bookkeeping stuff that adds nothing to the story, not a genuine story-focused narrative system.

Please don't let it be a reset.
The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

A 10th edition should just adjust a bit the terrain rules and reshape (again) morale rules. That's it, don't touch anything else please.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'm not rolling 20 separate 2d6s. So no, even designing with the bell curve doesn't work.

"I deliberately came up with a bad rule, see, the rule doesn't work."

40k 2nd ed model count less, dice rolls less(lasgun 1 shot period), rolling 2d6 per every fricking save still sucked.

You need to either make model count smaller than 2nd ed or put entire unit shooting to 1 dice roll. But then basically individual models don't matter. Different scale game more suited for 6mm models.

Compared to d10/d12 not worth it. And gw isn't turning 40k into game where squad is basically abstract 1 model with rest at most taking space.

Spoletta wrote:

The game is in the better state it has ever been since I started playing in 5th.

Woah woah woah what?? 5th ed was miles better, it’s one of the editions people look back on with most fondness.

Didn’t have stupid stratagem spam, didn’t have hyper-lethality, didn’t have constant subfaction/rules bloat (had USRs), didn’t have reroll spam on everything etc.

There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

nemesis464 wrote:
There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

Because we know they can be implemented. The people that dislike USR have also been quiet for this thread, but they do exist. I also haven't mentioned how the current morale rules are my favourite of any edition I have played because they allow my Necrons to play how I want them to. Units run away when you lock them in combat, I don't need the game to handle that, my opponent will do it because of the incentives in the game. I do think it could be appropriate for there to be covering fire and a bigger morale impact, but I don't want Necrons to seek shelter or run away. Taking extra casualties I can pretty easily ignore, running away I cannot. Some people are just built for 9th, they either don't care about gotchas or they are really good at not getting got.