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.

 vict0988 wrote:
If I recall correctly there is no difference between light and heavy infantry or light and heavy vehicles so a boltgun or a meltagun would be equally strong vs Space Marines/Kabalite Warrior.

Nope. Units had different save values. It wouldn't be represented in the wound roll but it was still represented and a marine unit was still tougher than light infantry.

The anti-tank mechanic does help a tonne, but that's still a lot less deep and thematic than having so many Toughness, Save, S and AP values available.

But you don't need that many values, not in a game at the scale of 40k. A game of whole armies and everything from grots to titans doesn't need to obsess over a 5% difference in kill probability. It's just rules bloat that has no real effect on strategy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
It always blows my mind how 40K players aren't the slightest bit bothered that target size has zero impact on to-hit (Warhound Titan or Grot? Same odds!), and range doesn't make any difference either (Six inches? Two miles? Who cares!), or how aircraft are just flying tanks since the system can't handle any more than a -1 to-hit penalty without imploding, but when you propose a simplified larger-scale wargame that doesn't use three different stats to model the minute nuances of differing durability between Beef Strongman and Strong Beefman, they complain about lack of depth. Maybe the issue is more about what things you put focus on and what things you abstract out.

Exactly. When you actually look at the relevant mechanics and the set of possible mechanics the conclusion is very obvious: people are attached to how 40k does certain things because it's the game they're familiar with and they don't like change, not because those mechanics are the best design choices.

There's a difference between adding, changing and removing things. I think GW should try to add range and size impacts to shooting for 2-3 editions and see if it works, start by implementing it as an errata after 10th has been out for 1 year as part of experimenting with what to change for 11th. Only RF and Melta effectiveness being affected by range is a little light, but might end up being right for 40k because of the thing it's going for even if it's a bit silly. 8th edition would definitely have been the right time to add it in to lessen gun lines which were relatively effective back then, I don't know if gun lines work in 10th, if not then it might be very controversial to add further damage to the scene by making them worse at the end of their range or you could double the max range of some long-range weapons to give them a better band with their max effectiveness range. You have experience with all sorts of other wargames right catbarf? I bet you could write some great rules for range and size impacting shooting, my only experience with shooting impact by such things are WHFB and Mordheim with large targets and long range adding +1 and -1 to hit rolls for shooting respectively, that worked from my memory but it doesn't feel interesting to think about and I have no expertise on the subject so I won't do a thread suggesting it. I can see the issue you presented and thought about it, even if I never posted a thread with a suggested fix.

I'd be okay with getting rid of Toughness, it's modifiable saves that I don't want to let go of. I think Age of Sigmar works despite not having Toughness, the only thing that hurts it (other than double turns and some stuff on the execution side as usual) is wounds rolling over like MW, perhaps there just needs to be more liberal application of weapons that get bonuses vs large things and single wound little critters.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If I recall correctly there is no difference between light and heavy infantry or light and heavy vehicles so a boltgun or a meltagun would be equally strong vs Space Marines/Kabalite Warrior.

Nope. Units had different save values. It wouldn't be represented in the wound roll but it was still represented and a marine unit was still tougher than light infantry.

They're FNPs not armour, you don't modify them. Then there's the nonsensical interaction with D12s/D6s, it's an expensive gimmick that adds and represents nothing. You can't say that having a billion different Sv/Toughness combinations doesn't matter but having more modifier options does. I can say that on the scale of 40k you don't need 8% modifiers as easily as you can say there's no difference between a Kabalite and a Marine because they're both infantry and if they have different amounts of effective wounds (FNP*Wounds) then all is good. 6 Sv values is all that is needed, but they need to be modifiable.

 vict0988 wrote:
it's modifiable saves that I don't want to let go of.

Why? Because it's the comfortable familiar thing in 10th edition 40k?

On a fundamental principles level the purpose of the hit/wound/save mechanic is to generate a probability that an attack results in a model/unit taking damage. GW uses that particular sequence of D6 rolls but there's no reason they have to work in that specific way. Saves could be replaced by a mathematically equivalent roll to defeat armor. AP modifying the save roll could easily be replaced by AP modifying the wound roll in a mathematically equivalent way. Etc.

And generalizing a bit an attack resolution needs to account for three things: the accuracy of the attacker, the power of the attack, and the durability of the target. Apocalypse covers all of those things: a hit roll for accuracy, a wound roll for attack power, and a save roll for durability. The fact that an increase in weapon power is represented by an increase in the wound roll rather than a decrease in the save roll doesn't make it any worse than the way 40k does it.

Then there's the nonsensical interaction with D12s/D6s, it's an expensive gimmick that adds and represents nothing.

It isn't nonsense. As has been explained to you it does two things: it allows some RNG flattening without increasing lethality and it allows various special rules to be consolidated into a single D12 value since the D12 has more increments than a D6.

I can say that on the scale of 40k you don't need 8% modifiers as easily as you can say there's no difference between a Kabalite and a Marine because they're both infantry and if they have different amounts of effective wounds (FNP*Wounds) then all is good.

Well yes, I can say that because it's true. It's also how 40k resolves things. Different units have different effective wounds (save x wounds) to represent their different levels of durability.

Also, you can't really say 40k doesn't need 8% modifiers because 40k clearly uses 8% (or similar level) modifiers. It's why you have all the various "-1 AP on a 6 to wound", "re-roll 1s", etc, abilities: to generate effectively a middle step between zero and a full D6 increment. Moving to a D12 lets you eliminate all that stuff and just use a +/-1 increment.

Finally, save modifiers didn't exist in earlier editions and are not inherently part of the concept of a save. Calling it "FNP" instead of "save" doesn't change how the rule functions.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
And generalizing a bit an attack resolution needs to account for three things: the accuracy of the attacker, the power of the attack, and the durability of the target. Apocalypse covers all of those things: a hit roll for accuracy, a wound roll for attack power, and a save roll for durability. The fact that an increase in weapon power is represented by an increase in the wound roll rather than a decrease in the save roll doesn't make it any worse than the way 40k does it.

Generalising further you don't need any of those 3 things. You could simply say "to kill a grot, you need to roll a 3+", "to do a wound on a knight, you need to roll a 6 and another 6". In this case the fact you "hit" a grot and a Knight on the same dice roll really doesn't mean anything in isolation. Since its just part of determining the odds of doing damage. (I realise this sort of AoS approach might not be liked, as you may want say grots to do less damage to grots than say knights to grots, but this can be determined by number of attacks etc).

To my mind the rules for processing an attack are really there for two functions. Giving some range of probabilities so some decisions should be better than others - and then resolving those decisions once they've been made. They don't really represent anything.

The complaint on 40k is usually how the system applies to the second. Roll a bucket of dice looking for 3s. Then reroll the 1s. Then roll (most of said) bucket again looking for say 4s. Now your opponent picks up and rolls looking for 5s. Oh and they've got a FNP or something, so more rolling.

I mean in this possibly contrived example, lets say you start with 30 dice. Then reroll 5 1s to end up with 24 hits. Now you roll 24 dice looking for 4s to wound. 12 go through. Your oppponent saves 4. Then saves 3. So you've done 5 wounds. But you've collectively rolled 79 dice. Now on to the next unit. Did all this rolling really add much to the game?

If the game just simplified all the above down to "your unit has 10 attacks, a 4+ does a wound" the outcome would be much the same - and far quicker to resolve.

Basically this is the complete opposite of vict0988's point. But still. I feel the issue with 40k is more people get attached to the dice meaning something. So unit X "should hit" more - because its accurate. But the unit Y "should wound easily" because it strong. Its all kind of a bait and switch. The core essense is just having a system so you should shoot your anti-tank guns at tanks and your anti-infantry guns at infantry, to however many degrees you want. Preferably without slowing everything down to a crawl, because a computer could resolve this instantly, but humans have to keep track of everything.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Exactly. When you actually look at the relevant mechanics and the set of possible mechanics the conclusion is very obvious: people are attached to how 40k does certain things because it's the game they're familiar with and they don't like change, not because those mechanics are the best design choices.

I would go a step further and say some are attached to those things because they've made the GW brand the foundation of their personal identity. They'd be perfectly fine with mechanics changing if GW changed it (but anyone else suggesting a change is an attack on GW and therefore a personal attack on them) and the new version would instantly become the new Only Logical Way of doing it.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Exactly. When you actually look at the relevant mechanics and the set of possible mechanics the conclusion is very obvious: people are attached to how 40k does certain things because it's the game they're familiar with and they don't like change, not because those mechanics are the best design choices.

I would go a step further and say some are attached to those things because they've made the GW brand the foundation of their personal identity. They'd be perfectly fine with mechanics changing if GW changed it (but anyone else suggesting a change is an attack on GW and therefore a personal attack on them) and the new version would instantly become the new Only Logical Way of doing it.

I actually agree with Catbarf and ThePaintingOwl on the general premises that people don't like change and they're comfy in their safe zone a lot of the time. For some people it'll come down to a lack of time or investment as well, it's harder to get buy in or feel invested in multiple rulesets or games when you have limited gaming opportunities or limited monetary means. GW then making changes to what they can access and are familiar with is easier to swallow and easier to adjust to because it's less to learn generally.

Edition churn is the topic but general rules churn inside of the edition, with the frequency of changes and fixes applied often mentioned as a detractor for new players and people in general. The constant change and departure from what they've committed to learning is taxing enough for some of the player base, even with it just being points change and some rules errata, so I can understand reluctance to throw it away and start again ground up as it'll feel a bigger mountain to climb.

But that's not the same thing as weird angle you keep pushing where people have some personal attachment issue? It's really starting to come across as a projection at this point. People can like something and dislike the suggestion to change the thing they like, without having a parasitic relationship with a corporate identity that supplants their independent thought.

Tyel wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
And generalizing a bit an attack resolution needs to account for three things: the accuracy of the attacker, the power of the attack, and the durability of the target. Apocalypse covers all of those things: a hit roll for accuracy, a wound roll for attack power, and a save roll for durability. The fact that an increase in weapon power is represented by an increase in the wound roll rather than a decrease in the save roll doesn't make it any worse than the way 40k does it.

To my mind the rules for processing an attack are really there for two functions. Giving some range of probabilities so some decisions should be better than others - and then resolving those decisions once they've been made. They don't really represent anything.

If the game just simplified all the above down to "your unit has 10 attacks, a 4+ does a wound" the outcome would be much the same - and far quicker to resolve.

Basically this is the complete opposite of vict0988's point. But still. I feel the issue with 40k is more people get attached to the dice meaning something. So unit X "should hit" more - because its accurate. But the unit Y "should wound easily" because it strong. Its all kind of a bait and switch. The core essense is just having a system so you should shoot your anti-tank guns at tanks and your anti-infantry guns at infantry, to however many degrees you want. Preferably without slowing everything down to a crawl, because a computer could resolve this instantly, but humans have to keep track of everything.

I've always found 2-roll systems to be preferable than 3-or more-rolls in determining 'attack resolution'. Less is more.

Goes without saying there are variations too. Andy Chambers starship troopers (flawed but brilliant if limited game, ten years ahead of its time in some ways) had a 'firepower' roll in place snd essentially it represented a combined hit-and-wound roll. I like kill team 21s (or similar systems) 'roll-off' ie attack-dice versus-defence dice and whatever gets through is converted into ^some kind of^ damage/status/effect rather than hit/wound/save. Even lotr sbg had a 'fight' roll-off and whoever won rolled damage - still love that game all these years later.

Tyel wrote:
I mean in this possibly contrived example, lets say you start with 30 dice. Then reroll 5 1s to end up with 24 hits. Now you roll 24 dice looking for 4s to wound. 12 go through. Your oppponent saves 4. Then saves 3. So you've done 5 wounds. But you've collectively rolled 79 dice. Now on to the next unit. Did all this rolling really add much to the game?

It's a good point of discussion. In some ways I think it does. It reflects, for example, the process of a terminator being shot by a chain cannon in more detail. A tonne of shots, many of which hit, then tough armour deflecting or withstanding them. From a game result perspective you can achieve a similar probability with less dice of course, but it perhaps doesn't tell such a good story. There's also a lot more tuning you can do in terms of BS, S, T, AP, and Sv to represent the different combinations of attacker, weapon, and defender.

Edition churn is a serious annoyance. It annoyed me enough to make a video about it.




I returned to the hobby in 7th ed for 40k. I rather loved the 7th ed books, nice high quality full colour hardbacks. It was rather shocking to see them go obsolete so fast. I did some research and realised this has been a thing since 5th ed and it is still a thing. Even worse literally every game GW makes seems to be on this brutally short 3 year cycle.

If I had any sense I would play something else.

 dreadblade wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I mean in this possibly contrived example, lets say you start with 30 dice. Then reroll 5 1s to end up with 24 hits. Now you roll 24 dice looking for 4s to wound. 12 go through. Your oppponent saves 4. Then saves 3. So you've done 5 wounds. But you've collectively rolled 79 dice. Now on to the next unit. Did all this rolling really add much to the game?

It's a good point of discussion. In some ways I think it does. It reflects, for example, the process of a terminator being shot by a chain cannon in more detail. A tonne of shots, many of which hit, then tough armour deflecting or withstanding them. From a game result perspective you can achieve a similar probability with less dice of course, but it perhaps doesn't tell such a good story. There's also a lot more tuning you can do in terms of BS, S, T, AP, and Sv to represent the different combinations of attacker, weapon, and defender.

And that is a great story to tell, when you are playing with 20 models. We don't need to tell that much of a story when playing with 50-100+ models. We need to get from one attack to the next without rolling 80 dice to resolve one units attacks.

That is one thing I really like about the current Kill Team. Very fast resolution with enough USRs to keep things interesting.

 alextroy wrote:
And that is a great story to tell, when you are playing with 20 models. We don't need to tell that much of a story when playing with 50-100+ models. We need to get from one attack to the next without rolling 80 dice to resolve one units attacks.

That is one thing I really like about the current Kill Team. Very fast resolution with enough USRs to keep things interesting.

It's a fair point, although I started in 1st edition (!) where every model was treated individually. Later on in that edition, we were rolling on a transparent template over an internal schematic to see exactly where we hit a vehicle too

Tyel wrote:
Generalising further you don't need any of those 3 things.

Yes and no. In isolation any RNG roll will work, but once you have a more complicated game having separate factors is very useful for making the game intuitive. If you have an accuracy stat you can have a "bolter" always have the same stats regardless of user, making it much faster to learn what all your weapon stats are. If you combine it into the base stat line like GW did with melee weapons in 10th you now have a dozen different "bolters" to memorize, which in practice means a lot more time looking up rules you forgot. Same thing with attack strength and durability.

That said, they don't need to be separate rolls. For example, you could combine attack strength and durability into a single roll of strength + 1D6 >= defense to inflict damage. Both are still accounted for even if they don't have individual die rolls.

(I realise this sort of AoS approach might not be liked, as you may want say grots to do less damage to grots than say knights to grots, but this can be determined by number of attacks etc).

This model doesn't work very well. If the only way to make a weapon better at killing knights is to give it more attacks then that weapon also becomes better at killing grots. You lose the ability to have something like a machine gun, a weapon that has a high volume of fire that is great at mowing down hordes of weak enemies but plinks uselessly off the armor of a tank. And because weapons don't have preferred targets you're far more likely to end up with balance problems. Count up the number of attacks, divide by the point cost of the unit, spam whatever thing has the most attacks per point. Your best anti-infantry is also your best anti-tank and a one-dimensional spam list works perfectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dreadblade wrote:
It's a good point of discussion. In some ways I think it does. It reflects, for example, the process of a terminator being shot by a chain cannon in more detail. A tonne of shots, many of which hit, then tough armour deflecting or withstanding them. From a game result perspective you can achieve a similar probability with less dice of course, but it perhaps doesn't tell such a good story. There's also a lot more tuning you can do in terms of BS, S, T, AP, and Sv to represent the different combinations of attacker, weapon, and defender.

How often are you really imagining that whole story? And, more importantly, how often do you remember that story? A turn later do you remember whether the terminator survived because of poor luck on the wound dice or good luck on the save dice? You almost certainly don't remember a week later. Unless some exceptional outlier RNG luck happens on a particular roll you're moving through the process as quickly as possible so you can finish the game within five hours. Even in a typical RPG with no more than 5-10 characters on the table most people don't pay all that much attention to where in the resolution sequence an attack failed, outside of trying to figure out what the target number was so they can make a better decision next round. Whether a swing of the sword glanced off armor or missed entirely is rarely something anyone cares about a minute later.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
it's modifiable saves that I don't want to let go of.

Why? Because it's the comfortable familiar thing in 10th edition 40k?

You were quick to mention that it's very important that actually Carnifexes aren't just a bag of wounds like Genestealers like I misremembered because weapons are better against one or the other, why isn't it important for Space Marines vs Kabalites to be qualitatively different and not just one having a bigger bag of wounds than the other?

 vict0988 wrote:
You were quick to mention that it's very important that actually Carnifexes aren't just a bag of wounds like Genestealers like I misremembered because weapons are better against one or the other, why isn't it important for Space Marines vs Kabalites to be qualitatively different and not just one having a bigger bag of wounds than the other?

You're still claiming something that isn't true. In Apocalypse marines had a better save value than the kabalites, just like they do in 40k. And if you want to argue "that's just a bag of wounds" then the same is true in 40k, all the 40k stats can be reduced to an effective wound total where the marines have a better number than the kabalites.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 dreadblade wrote:
It's a good point of discussion. In some ways I think it does. It reflects, for example, the process of a terminator being shot by a chain cannon in more detail. A tonne of shots, many of which hit, then tough armour deflecting or withstanding them. From a game result perspective you can achieve a similar probability with less dice of course, but it perhaps doesn't tell such a good story. There's also a lot more tuning you can do in terms of BS, S, T, AP, and Sv to represent the different combinations of attacker, weapon, and defender.

How often are you really imagining that whole story? And, more importantly, how often do you remember that story? A turn later do you remember whether the terminator survived because of poor luck on the wound dice or good luck on the save dice? You almost certainly don't remember a week later. Unless some exceptional outlier RNG luck happens on a particular roll you're moving through the process as quickly as possible so you can finish the game within five hours. Even in a typical RPG with no more than 5-10 characters on the table most people don't pay all that much attention to where in the resolution sequence an attack failed, outside of trying to figure out what the target number was so they can make a better decision next round. Whether a swing of the sword glanced off armor or missed entirely is rarely something anyone cares about a minute later.

Agreed. Although it is quite fun in the moment.

I don't disagree that the game could do with further simplification, but for me that would be ditching stratagems alltogether, not changing the dice mechanics.

I've had some great experiences come from Grimdark Future, Starship Troopers, Dust Warfare, or any of the other wargames I've played that do 40K-scale gameplay with about a fifth as much rolling. The stories are just things that actually happened on the tabletop, not the minutiae of a tedious attack resolution process.

When I played SST I never lamented that to-hit and to-wound had been consolidated into a single roll. It was awesome that I could have moments like having a squad of Cap Troopers pass all their saves, immediately perform a reaction to return fire and drive the bugs back through the flinch mechanic, clearing enough space to employ a mini-nuke.

It beats the hell out of remembering that time I rolled a bunch of 1s to hit in 40K but then I got to re-roll them and then they hit, but then it didn't matter anyways because we still had to roll to wound and for saves- a basic process that in total takes about as long to resolve as that entire above sequence in SST did.

A good game has you spend more time making decisions than resolving them. Some tension in that resolution is fine, but play time is a finite resource and we're here to command armies, not play Yahtzee. Rolling dice is a means to an end, not the end itself.

 dreadblade wrote:
I don't disagree that the game could do with further simplification, but for me that would be ditching stratagems alltogether, not changing the dice mechanics.

Cut the rules bloat in the dice mechanics and also get rid of stratagems and enhancements.

I never looked into Apocalypse because I mistakenly thought you had to use Epic-scale minis. I might give it a chance since I also think that alternating activations or at least a simultaneous/delayed casualty phase would make 40k a better game.
I also also think the wound and save rolls should be consolidated. Do we really need that third level of granularity just to be able to say "it was only a flesh wound"?

I like that this thread evolved from "is edition churn good or bad or real at all" to "if GW would just churn it one more time..."
Curse you 10th ed for getting my hopes up. I won't complain about free rules and indexes though.

 vict0988 wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
it's modifiable saves that I don't want to let go of.

Why? Because it's the comfortable familiar thing in 10th edition 40k?

You were quick to mention that it's very important that actually Carnifexes aren't just a bag of wounds like Genestealers like I misremembered because weapons are better against one or the other, why isn't it important for Space Marines vs Kabalites to be qualitatively different and not just one having a bigger bag of wounds than the other?

For the record should this manage to come around again, in the latest edition of Apocaplyse:

Tactical Squad (5 Models): Wounds 1, Save 6+

Kabalite Warriors (5 Models): Wounds 1, Save 10+

Damage is inflicted in Blast markers (Save on d12) or Large Blast markers (Save on d6). So a Blast marker has a 41.6% chance of killing the Tactical Squad and a 75% chance of killing the Kabalite Warriors. The Large Blast marker had a 87.5% chance of killing the Tactical and a 100% chance of killing the Kabalite Warriors. This becomes more important when you get larger squads with multiple wounds or tougher units with better Saves (Terminators have Save 4+).

It's hard to keep track of who is on what team, but OP already had the controversial opinion that churn is good, I think it's an important discussion for the community to have once in a while and I think that does happen, mostly because things were too fast in 9th.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You were quick to mention that it's very important that actually Carnifexes aren't just a bag of wounds like Genestealers like I misremembered because weapons are better against one or the other, why isn't it important for Space Marines vs Kabalites to be qualitatively different and not just one having a bigger bag of wounds than the other?

You're still claiming something that isn't true. In Apocalypse marines had a better save value than the kabalites, just like they do in 40k. And if you want to argue "that's just a bag of wounds" then the same is true in 40k, all the 40k stats can be reduced to an effective wound total where the marines have a better number than the kabalites.

It's not a save, it's a FNP that multiplies the size of their bag of wounds. Whether a unit has 2 wounds with one save 4 wounds with half the save changes how it interacts with the D6 vs D12 save but D6s and D12s don't represent anything, you just get more of the latter with more focussed fire. Stray plasma goes into Kabalites and inflicts a small blast, focussed bolter fire goes into Marines and inflicts a large blast, garbage design. Sv and AP makes more sense.

The D12 mechanics in Apocalypse is pure churny bloat.

 vict0988 wrote:
It's not a save, it's a FNP that multiplies the size of their bag of wounds.

That's nitpicking over arbitrary word use. "FNP" is only not a save because of the "can't use two saves on the same wound" rule, it functions as a save otherwise. A 4++ gives you a 50% chance to negate a wound and increases your bag of wounds, a 4+++ gives you a 50% chance to negate a wound and increases your bag of wounds.

Whether a unit has 2 wounds with one save 4 wounds with half the save changes how it interacts with the D6 vs D12 save but D6s and D12s don't represent anything, you just get more of the latter with more focussed fire.

As has already been mentioned the kabalites and marines have the same number of wounds. It is not W2 and Sv 3+ vs. W4 and Sv 5+ it's W1 SV 6+ vs. W1 Sv 10+. They are not two ways of representing the same effective wound total, the marines are simply more durable than the kabalites. And that is the goal of the system: to represent the relative durability of each unit, not to precisely mirror the quirks of a particular edition of 40k.

Sv and AP makes more sense.

Which version? AP as an all-or-nothing check as in 3rd through 7th, or AP as a modifier as in 8th through 10th?

The D12 mechanics in Apocalypse is pure churny bloat.

It is neither. It is not churn as it is a completely new game not a new edition every 3 years with change for the sake of change. And it is not bloat because its purpose is to remove bloat by replacing a bunch of special rules with a simple base stat line for the weapon. Using a D12 allows you to throw out all the various "extra AP on 6s to hit" and such that exists just to give a step size smaller than a whole +/-1 on the D6. You just incorporate all that into the base stat line of the weapon and move on.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Using a D12 allows you to throw out all the various "extra AP on 6s to hit" and such that exists just to give a step size smaller than a whole +/-1 on the D6. You just incorporate all that into the base stat line of the weapon and move on.

Do they use the full value of it, though? GW uses a D6 but then uses them in such a way that the range of results exists between 40 and 60 percent. Way back in the day when building out Conqueror, I noticed that all of GW's re-rolls, save, modifers, etc. really gave you extreme granularity in a narrow range.

Going out to d12 only makes sense if it's being fully used. I think d12s are generally a poor choice for dice. They are larger, more expensive, more prone to rolling under something and easier to be cocked and require re-rolling.

Since I don't play the game, I don't know, so these are honest questions.

If desired, GW could do all the fires on a table, aggregating the weapons of squads on a matrix. Roll a die, apply the result.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Do they use the full value of it, though?

Yep. I'm pretty sure there were wound values everywhere from 2+ to 12+, and definitely at least 3+ to 11+. IIRC saves used less of the range because they needed to work with the D6/D12 mechanic and a 2+ save would probably be too strong.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Do they use the full value of it, though?

Yep. I'm pretty sure there were wound values everywhere from 2+ to 12+, and definitely at least 3+ to 11+. IIRC saves used less of the range because they needed to work with the D6/D12 mechanic and a 2+ save would probably be too strong.

Ghazghkull Thraka has a 3+ Save while Grots have an 11+ Save. Attack Strengths run all the way from 2+ to 12+.

 vict0988 wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
it's modifiable saves that I don't want to let go of.

Why? Because it's the comfortable familiar thing in 10th edition 40k?

You were quick to mention that it's very important that actually Carnifexes aren't just a bag of wounds like Genestealers like I misremembered because weapons are better against one or the other, why isn't it important for Space Marines vs Kabalites to be qualitatively different and not just one having a bigger bag of wounds than the other?

Your running commentary on apocalypse in this thread makes it seem like you've never read the rules. You're basically getting the rules replied back at you to counter your incorrect perspective.

How about you actually read and comprehend them first so we can bypass this farcical conversation.


The apocalypse rules are very streamlined and effective. None of your issues actually exist in the rules so I'm not sure what your points are.

Apoc is one of the most fun and balanced GW games in a while. Games were "quick"(given 49k pts values) and well paced.

Too bad many were quick to dismiss out of hand since stuff isn't instantly deleted without the ability respond.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Apoc is one of the most fun and balanced GW games in a while. Games were "quick"(given 49k pts values) and well paced.

Too bad many were quick to dismiss out of hand since stuff isn't instantly deleted without the ability respond.

That isn't the problem with new Apocalypse, the problem is that when you're trying to play what is essentially Epic rules but with 40k-scale models the setup/teardown takes longer than playing the game does.

I'm OK with that. Cinematic wins every time. If a lil more effort is rrequired initially, fine.

I'll eagerly believe that in a game of such variety as 40k, having D12 for granularity sounds good to me. Too bad I didn't heard about these rules before!

Was it good for more standard point size too?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I'll eagerly believe that in a game of such variety as 40k, having D12 for granularity sounds good to me. Too bad I didn't heard about these rules before!

Was it good for more standard point size too?

It was based off detachment activations, so if you're 2k army could be split into multiple detachments you're fine, might be a bit weird if not.