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.

Like all GW resets it started out well, but whether through ego, money or both, it devolved.

8th ed is closest to a 2nd ed refresh, but has a few issues I don't like. Put Initiative back in, keep M and Sv. So what if its slightly longer. That's not a big deal.

It's a hobby horse, but I'd go back to WS vs WS, and add BS vs I.

I'd use a combination of the 3rd ed WS vs WS table and the 8th ed s vs t table:

Default hit 4+
If WS/BS > 3+
If WS/BS 1/2 5+
If WS/BS 2x 2+

But I'd also have the following weapon rule modifications:

3 types of Penetration - AP (penetration), AT (tank), AS (superheavy)

4 standard Pen values; 0, -1, -2, -3
3 standard Dam values; 1. 1D3, 1D6. AS weapons apply multipliers to the value (ie 3x1D3)

AP only works against infantry/cavalry/bikers etc
AT works against the above AND vehicles/monsters
AS works against the above AND superheavies

Ie
Boltgun RF2 24" S4 AP-1 D1
Missile launcher L H1 48" S8 AT-2 D1D6
volcano cannon 120" Heavy1 S12 AS-3 D1D6x3 Blast

Chainsword melee S AP-1 D1
Power sword melee S+1 AT-2 D1
Thunder hammer melee Sx2 AS-2 D1D3

I'd go back to the 2nd ed S vs T table for wounding. With the following 2 exceptions:

S = 2x target T = Auto Wound. no roll needed.
Strength = 1/2 target T = can't wound at all unless it would normally be able to roll a number on the table (ie 1 vs 2 = 5+, 2 vs 4 =6+).


Vehicles still use 8th profiles, except there is a new rule:

Flanking: gain +1S against attacks to the side or rear of a vehicle/monster.

Vehicle/Monster Damage: No degradation. Each time a vehicle/monster loses damage from an attack that you rolled a 1 to save against, it receives a critical token. When you activate the v/m, you choose what each critical token does, either affecting movement, or weapons. Choose what they affect each turn.

Vehicles/monster effects
Movement: 1 token 1/2 move. 2 tokens 0 move
Guns: 1 token gun 1/2 BS, 2 tokens gun 0 BS
Melee: 1 token 1/2 attacks. 2 tokens 0 attacks



Character profiles go to 4W and 4A as the baseline.
A base vehicle profile would have 6W. A superheavy would have 2x or more. So an armiger might have 12 wounds, but a warlord would have 36


Move = M"
Advance = M" x1.5
Charge = M"+2D6 choose highest (some armies might get higher 3D6 (harlequins) or less 1D6 (Votann).




The AP rework creates the effect of both 3rd all or nothing with modifiers. It means that you can still have an AP-3 weapon, but it won't work on a tank, or it won't work on a terminator whose armour is treated as a tank. Thus you must deploy anti tank guns to take out these units, rather than using massed infantry guns.



EDIT: see hit and wound tables attached and profiles that are effectively 2nd ed with modifications.

One thing I agree with is certain non-vehicles could use facings. For example my Stormsurge is a Gargantuan Monster and can anchor in place for better shooting. Models like that you could draw a 90° arc from the back that for a weak spot of -1 Toughness, which I think is more intuitive than giving bonus strength to the shooter.

I'm not sure if multiple sets of AP are needed because isn't it strength vs toughness that protects vehicles and super heavies from infantry weapons?

Lastly as far as comparing the shooter's BS with the target's initiative, I think it's easier to just say "if the target moved / is moving, subtract 1 from to-hit rolls."
Even in the 41st millenium I don't think anyone's actually dodging bullets and certainly not lasbeams.

 kingpbjames wrote:
One thing I agree with is certain non-vehicles could use facings. For example my Stormsurge is a Gargantuan Monster and can anchor in place for better shooting. Models like that you could draw a 90° arc from the back that for a weak spot of -1 Toughness, which I think is more intuitive than giving bonus strength to the shooter.

I'm not sure if multiple sets of AP are needed because isn't it strength vs toughness that protects vehicles and super heavies from infantry weapons?

Lastly as far as comparing the shooter's BS with the target's initiative, I think it's easier to just say "if the target moved / is moving, subtract 1 from to-hit rolls."
Even in the 41st millenium I don't think anyone's actually dodging bullets and certainly not lasbeams.

One of the biggest issues in 40k at the moment is the proliferation of AP and rules ignoring it in order to keep some semblance of saves.

If marine power armour ignores AP modifiers and is only affected by AT modifiers, then it solves that issue quite well.


as for BS, it's a comparative test to reflect that all tests are opposed, not just WS. BS isn't purely down to the shooter.

My point was that BS is almost entirely up to the shooter. No matter how fast anyone is they are not dodging bullets.
Yes, creepy crawly tyranids running up the walls are hard to shoot, but that would be in the charge phase when you have to snap shoot or fire overwatch. I'm sure dark eldar and daemons have some trickery to dodge bullets but it would be baked into their rules.

Hi, Hellebore. Always fun to read your pitches. Please know that my following nitpicks are intended to be in good faith and good fun.

 Hellebore wrote:

It's a hobby horse, but I'd go back to WS vs WS, and add BS vs I.

Definitely a fan of bringing back WS vs WS. The problem with BS vs I, at least with the stats as you've proposed them, is that it quickly becomes very rough for low initiative armies like orks and 'crons. For isntance, you'd have sisters/marines/eldar hitting orks/crons on a 2+ and fire warriors hitting them on a 3+ before whatever benefits markerlights offer. Which means that low initiative armies are suddenly functionally much less durable against shooting which quickly cascades into a bunch of new balance challenges. It's not a deal breaker. You could theoretically still make orks and 'crons feel tough despite this disadvantage, but I feel like you'd be creating a lot of extra work for yourself.

Piggybacking off of kingpbjames, maybe it would be better to have a flat to-hit roll but then also introduce more modifiers? Probably not a to-hit penalty just for moving, but maybe a penalty if the target advanced, arrived from deepstrike, used a reaction to jink, etc.

But I'd also have the following weapon rule modifications:

3 types of Penetration - AP (penetration), AT (tank), AS (superheavy)

4 standard Pen values; 0, -1, -2, -3
3 standard Dam values; 1. 1D3, 1D6. AS weapons apply multipliers to the value (ie 3x1D3)

AP only works against infantry/cavalry/bikers etc
AT works against the above AND vehicles/monsters
AS works against the above AND superheavies

Ie
Boltgun RF2 24" S4 AP-1 D1
Missile launcher L H1 48" S8 AT-2 D1D6
volcano cannon 120" Heavy1 S12 AS-3 D1D6x3 Blast

Chainsword melee S AP-1 D1
Power sword melee S+1 AT-2 D1
Thunder hammer melee Sx2 AS-2 D1D3

This part doesn't really sing to me. Having a limited number of AP and Damage values seems like it's just homogenizing statlines and taking away levers you can pull to balance things and give them character.

I sort of see what you're going for with different APs for different weight classes of targets, but surely a meltagun that can burn through a tank is better at burning through the ankle of a knight than a lasgun. Seems like what you might be looking for here is a special rule that you slap on especially bad-vs-tanks weapons. So a bolt rifle might have the "Small Arms" rule that causes it to be considered AP 0 and D1 vs monsters and vehicles.

Alternatively, I think there's merit in reworking the whole attack process and the stats involved from the ground up, but I'd probably remove or change a bunch of stats in that case. Adding the "weight class" thing while keeping S, T, AP, and Sv as stats feels redundant.

I'd go back to the 2nd ed S vs T table for wounding. With the following 2 exceptions:

S = 2x target T = Auto Wound. no roll needed.
Strength = 1/2 target T = can't wound at all unless it would normally be able to roll a number on the table (ie 1 vs 2 = 5+, 2 vs 4 =6+).

I was with you until the last bit, but I like being able to have small arms fire contribute against parking lots full of vehicles. Granted, the flanking rule would make it so that most guns would be able to wound most tanks on 6s. But then again, I don't love unit facing due to how ambiguous it tends to be. Insert my usual canned suggestion here of just putting a straight line along one side of the vehicle to determine its "rear" as that's easier than trying to reach consensus on where the "center" of a heavily-converted asymmetrical battle wagon is.

Vehicle/Monster Damage: No degradation. Each time a vehicle/monster loses damage from an attack that you rolled a 1 to save against, it receives a critical token. When you activate the v/m, you choose what each critical token does, either affecting movement, or weapons. Choose what they affect each turn.

Vehicles/monster effects
Movement: 1 token 1/2 move. 2 tokens 0 move
Guns: 1 token gun 1/2 BS, 2 tokens gun 0 BS
Melee: 1 token 1/2 attacks. 2 tokens 0 attacks

"You" as in the controlling player, or "you" as in your opponent? Because a leman russ will usually be fine holding still in the middle of your gunline, and he probably doesn't mind having 0 attacks either. Also, what do you mean when you say "activate"? Does that mean I can "activate" my russ in the shooting phase and get rid of 2 critical tokens by giving it 0 Movement for the remainder of the turn? Or conversely, can I spend tokens on your dreadnaught in both the movement and the shooting phase to reduce its speed (keeping it out of charge range) and then making it unable to shoot? It also seems weird that this means the damage inflicted on the vehicle is sort of "moving around" from turn to turn based on the situation. One moment, it might be perfectly mobile but have a clunky turret. The next, its legs are completely locked up, but the turret is working smoothly?

Also, this makes high RoF weapons better at inflicting critical damage than low RoF-high-strength weapons, and that seems odd. I picture a lascannon or bright lance being much better at landing system-wrecking hits than heavy bolters and scatter lasers.

An alternative I often pitch (that no one ever seems to like):
When a monster or vehicle with at least 10 starting Wounds is reduced to half its starting wounds or less, its controlling player chooses one of the following once the attacking unit has finished attacking:
* Stunned: The unit halves its Movement and may not shoot or charge until the end of its owner's player turn.
* Immobilized: The unit's Movement becomes 0" for the remainder of the game.
* Weapon Destroyed: Your opponent picks a weapon on the unit. That weapon may not be used for the remainder of the game.

So the damage doesn't "move around," and the controlling player can pick the result that screws him over the least (but will still probably get at least a little screwed over).

Move = M"
Advance = M" x1.5
Charge = M"+2D6 choose highest (some armies might get higher 3D6 (harlequins) or less 1D6 (Votann).

Generally like the thrust of this. Despite using random charges for multiple editions now, I'm still not sure non-random charge distances would be that bad an idea. But that's probably a tangent. This seems better than the current advance and charge rules.

The AP rework creates the effect of both 3rd all or nothing with modifiers. It means that you can still have an AP-3 weapon, but it won't work on a tank, or it won't work on a terminator whose armour is treated as a tank. Thus you must deploy anti tank guns to take out these units, rather than using massed infantry guns.

Counterpoint: If my howling banshees can chop through a Sv2+ terminator, they can probably chop through a Sv3+ chimera. The chimera having thick armor or simply being so large/having redundant systems seems like it might be better represented by having more Wounds. A power sword is presumably shaving through the armor at a decent rate. It's just that there's a lot of shaving to be done. My hobby knife is meant to cut through small things, but it will slice my fingers without difficulty if I'm not careful. However, I'm not likely to die from a hobby knife accident because I'm big with redundant blood vessels and my important bits tucked safely away inside my meat armor. My hobby knife has good AP that works against big things and little things, but it's only Damage 1, and I have lots of Wounds. (For the sake of this analogy.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:
When a monster or vehicle with at least 10 starting Wounds is reduced to half its starting wounds or less, its controlling player chooses one of the following once the attacking unit has finished attacking:
* Stunned: The unit halves its Movement and may not shoot or charge until the end of its owner's player turn.
* Immobilized: The unit's Movement becomes 0" for the remainder of the game.
* Weapon Destroyed: Your opponent picks a weapon on the unit. That weapon may not be used for the remainder of the game.

I'm curious why not just use the the vehicle damage tables of 3rd-7th if not the degrading statlines of 8th?
Is the point that it's just a simplified system of the vehicle damage table?

 kingpbjames wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
When a monster or vehicle with at least 10 starting Wounds is reduced to half its starting wounds or less, its controlling player chooses one of the following once the attacking unit has finished attacking:
* Stunned: The unit halves its Movement and may not shoot or charge until the end of its owner's player turn.
* Immobilized: The unit's Movement becomes 0" for the remainder of the game.
* Weapon Destroyed: Your opponent picks a weapon on the unit. That weapon may not be used for the remainder of the game.

I'm curious why not just use the the vehicle damage tables of 3rd-7th if not the degrading statlines of 8th?
Is the point that it's just a simplified system of the vehicle damage table?

Simplification is a big part of it. But also, the damage tables of previous editions were designed assuming that vehicles were potentially rolling on the table multiple times per phase. In my proposal, you roll once (maybe twice if you want to have vehicle damage happen where the damage brackets are now). So getting a result of Shaken, for instance, is quite the anti-climax, and jumping straight to wrecked would create swingy survivability issues.

My hope was to create a system where vehicle damage exists, and you get those cinematic oh crud moments of becoming unable to run from the approaching foe or losing one of your weapons or being left vulnerable for a turn. But I also wanted it to be light on the book-keeping. No tracking shaken vs stunned or keeping a list of which weapons have been destroyed. It's just either immobile, down a single weapon, or out of luck for one turn.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Hi, Hellebore. Always fun to read your pitches. Please know that my following nitpicks are intended to be in good faith and good fun.

 Hellebore wrote:

It's a hobby horse, but I'd go back to WS vs WS, and add BS vs I.

Definitely a fan of bringing back WS vs WS. The problem with BS vs I, at least with the stats as you've proposed them, is that it quickly becomes very rough for low initiative armies like orks and 'crons. For isntance, you'd have sisters/marines/eldar hitting orks/crons on a 2+ and fire warriors hitting them on a 3+ before whatever benefits markerlights offer. Which means that low initiative armies are suddenly functionally much less durable against shooting which quickly cascades into a bunch of new balance challenges. It's not a deal breaker. You could theoretically still make orks and 'crons feel tough despite this disadvantage, but I feel like you'd be creating a lot of extra work for yourself.

Piggybacking off of kingpbjames, maybe it would be better to have a flat to-hit roll but then also introduce more modifiers? Probably not a to-hit penalty just for moving, but maybe a penalty if the target advanced, arrived from deepstrike, used a reaction to jink, etc.

But I'd also have the following weapon rule modifications:

3 types of Penetration - AP (penetration), AT (tank), AS (superheavy)

4 standard Pen values; 0, -1, -2, -3
3 standard Dam values; 1. 1D3, 1D6. AS weapons apply multipliers to the value (ie 3x1D3)

AP only works against infantry/cavalry/bikers etc
AT works against the above AND vehicles/monsters
AS works against the above AND superheavies

Ie
Boltgun RF2 24" S4 AP-1 D1
Missile launcher L H1 48" S8 AT-2 D1D6
volcano cannon 120" Heavy1 S12 AS-3 D1D6x3 Blast

Chainsword melee S AP-1 D1
Power sword melee S+1 AT-2 D1
Thunder hammer melee Sx2 AS-2 D1D3

This part doesn't really sing to me. Having a limited number of AP and Damage values seems like it's just homogenizing statlines and taking away levers you can pull to balance things and give them character.

I sort of see what you're going for with different APs for different weight classes of targets, but surely a meltagun that can burn through a tank is better at burning through the ankle of a knight than a lasgun. Seems like what you might be looking for here is a special rule that you slap on especially bad-vs-tanks weapons. So a bolt rifle might have the "Small Arms" rule that causes it to be considered AP 0 and D1 vs monsters and vehicles.

Alternatively, I think there's merit in reworking the whole attack process and the stats involved from the ground up, but I'd probably remove or change a bunch of stats in that case. Adding the "weight class" thing while keeping S, T, AP, and Sv as stats feels redundant.

I'd go back to the 2nd ed S vs T table for wounding. With the following 2 exceptions:

S = 2x target T = Auto Wound. no roll needed.
Strength = 1/2 target T = can't wound at all unless it would normally be able to roll a number on the table (ie 1 vs 2 = 5+, 2 vs 4 =6+).

I was with you until the last bit, but I like being able to have small arms fire contribute against parking lots full of vehicles. Granted, the flanking rule would make it so that most guns would be able to wound most tanks on 6s. But then again, I don't love unit facing due to how ambiguous it tends to be. Insert my usual canned suggestion here of just putting a straight line along one side of the vehicle to determine its "rear" as that's easier than trying to reach consensus on where the "center" of a heavily-converted asymmetrical battle wagon is.

Vehicle/Monster Damage: No degradation. Each time a vehicle/monster loses damage from an attack that you rolled a 1 to save against, it receives a critical token. When you activate the v/m, you choose what each critical token does, either affecting movement, or weapons. Choose what they affect each turn.

Vehicles/monster effects
Movement: 1 token 1/2 move. 2 tokens 0 move
Guns: 1 token gun 1/2 BS, 2 tokens gun 0 BS
Melee: 1 token 1/2 attacks. 2 tokens 0 attacks

"You" as in the controlling player, or "you" as in your opponent? Because a leman russ will usually be fine holding still in the middle of your gunline, and he probably doesn't mind having 0 attacks either. Also, what do you mean when you say "activate"? Does that mean I can "activate" my russ in the shooting phase and get rid of 2 critical tokens by giving it 0 Movement for the remainder of the turn? Or conversely, can I spend tokens on your dreadnaught in both the movement and the shooting phase to reduce its speed (keeping it out of charge range) and then making it unable to shoot? It also seems weird that this means the damage inflicted on the vehicle is sort of "moving around" from turn to turn based on the situation. One moment, it might be perfectly mobile but have a clunky turret. The next, its legs are completely locked up, but the turret is working smoothly?

Also, this makes high RoF weapons better at inflicting critical damage than low RoF-high-strength weapons, and that seems odd. I picture a lascannon or bright lance being much better at landing system-wrecking hits than heavy bolters and scatter lasers.

An alternative I often pitch (that no one ever seems to like):
When a monster or vehicle with at least 10 starting Wounds is reduced to half its starting wounds or less, its controlling player chooses one of the following once the attacking unit has finished attacking:
* Stunned: The unit halves its Movement and may not shoot or charge until the end of its owner's player turn.
* Immobilized: The unit's Movement becomes 0" for the remainder of the game.
* Weapon Destroyed: Your opponent picks a weapon on the unit. That weapon may not be used for the remainder of the game.

So the damage doesn't "move around," and the controlling player can pick the result that screws him over the least (but will still probably get at least a little screwed over).

Move = M"
Advance = M" x1.5
Charge = M"+2D6 choose highest (some armies might get higher 3D6 (harlequins) or less 1D6 (Votann).

Generally like the thrust of this. Despite using random charges for multiple editions now, I'm still not sure non-random charge distances would be that bad an idea. But that's probably a tangent. This seems better than the current advance and charge rules.

The AP rework creates the effect of both 3rd all or nothing with modifiers. It means that you can still have an AP-3 weapon, but it won't work on a tank, or it won't work on a terminator whose armour is treated as a tank. Thus you must deploy anti tank guns to take out these units, rather than using massed infantry guns.

Counterpoint: If my howling banshees can chop through a Sv2+ terminator, they can probably chop through a Sv3+ chimera. The chimera having thick armor or simply being so large/having redundant systems seems like it might be better represented by having more Wounds. A power sword is presumably shaving through the armor at a decent rate. It's just that there's a lot of shaving to be done. My hobby knife is meant to cut through small things, but it will slice my fingers without difficulty if I'm not careful. However, I'm not likely to die from a hobby knife accident because I'm big with redundant blood vessels and my important bits tucked safely away inside my meat armor. My hobby knife has good AP that works against big things and little things, but it's only Damage 1, and I have lots of Wounds. (For the sake of this analogy.)

you'll see that the example I gave has a powersword as Anti-Tank, but a Chainsword as Antipersonnel. So that's not really an issue.


The scaling thing is to create more design space without having weapons pulling triple duty. It's conceptually similar to EPIC armageddon's AT and AP profiles for their weapons.

And while a powersword can go through tank armour, superheavy armour is so much thicker and larger than going through it won't do much. Wounds are find, but not when you're tracking 100+ of them. With this you can keep SH to lower wound levels.

I'm not fussed on vehicle damage tables.

I think I previously suggested something like:

Every time a a vehicle rolls a 1 to save against a weapon (in this case I'd say something that penetrates its armour - so AP can't cause a crit on a tank), it must roll on the following crit table. What this means is that even an AT0 heavy weapon (like a multi laser) can by dint of scale and power still cause a crit if the target is hit in an armour chink (represented by a 1 to save).

1-2 - shaken - -1D6" move next turn
3 - Stunned - 1/2 BS/WS next round
4 - Damaged - one weapon can't be used next round
5 - propulsion damage - 1/2 move for the rest of the game
6 - lose 1D3 additional wounds and permanently lose a weapon


Vehicles and monsters would roll on this.




As for BS vs I it's a personal preference that in a game using opposing rolls that this is also opposing. The fact that some units get invulnerables due to 'dodging' and things like genestealers and DE wyches are supposedly unnaturally fast and the game always says that these unit types use their speed to protect themselves, then it's clear the setting of 40k has reflexes as a legitimate defence against being shot.


Given that the game has used Initiative to represent this since 1987, I don't see a lot of issues with incorporating it into the game.

The issue you've got is the 'BS double I' effect, which is a rule application, not the underlying concept. There are many ways to play around with this.

ONe of them is that cover provides +1 to units, making them harder to hit. Or Advancing adds +1 initiative.

Or simply that the lowest normal I becomes 3, so orks are 3, humans are 4, marines are 5, eldar are 6 and so on. That keeps the existing mechanics and just shifts 2+s to hit up to WS6 and higher.

Plenty of options. My design ethos is that as many things as possible should be represented by the core mechanics, rather than additional exceptions tacked on to help support an inadequate supporting structure. Current 40k is an absolute joke mess of exceptions and add ons to make up for the fact that the core rules can't cover all the things they want them to.

9th ed's addition of dice roll mods, ignoring dice roll mods, ignoring AP mods, ignoring rerolls etc are all poor patches on a basic bare system. At this point the game factions don't really use the core rules anymore...