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.

I just waded through more math than my sophomore year to get here.

Is this system salvageable? Do you think we're getting another overhaul in 11th edition? Or will it just continue as is (flaws and all) until at least 12th edition?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I just waded through more math than my sophomore year to get here.

Is this system salvageable? Do you think we're getting another overhaul in 11th edition? Or will it just continue as is (flaws and all) until at least 12th edition?

It's hard to know, GW has a very opaque process. We know that they like to change things to drive sales, but how much they will change, or in what way is up in the air.

Their current paradigm is very competitive balance orientated, so I would assume they will stick with trying to keep it balanced. As per my previous comments I believe the ASM system is easier to balance than AP, so I would assume they will retain it.

But stranger things have happened, so it's not really a given.


I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to streamline rules further by removing toughness for example and relying on Saves and Wounds. Roll to hit vs roll to save is faster to resolve and can mostly be balanced (ASM generally relates to Strength, wounds often relates to toughness, so they are pretty good proxies).

Heading towards an AoS system?

From the thread? We’ve had a suggestion or two on how to improve it. But the consensus seems to be it’s just a poor substitute for armour save modifiers.

Consider, the difference between S4, AP5 and S4, AP4 is less than S4, -1 and S4 -2 in all anti-infantry spheres.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Heading towards an AoS system?

I suppose they could but that's a weird one I've never liked. Your normal dude wounds everything from a grot to a dragon on a 4+ seems janky.

This would drop it entirely, you just roll to hit and your opponent rolls to save. Saves would increase and ASM would become the main proxy for strength.

The number of attacks a weapon does would also be reduced - currently they offset the extra dice roll for Strength vs Toughnes. The more failure points the more dice you need to balance out success vs failure.

AoS has kinda flipped the system on the head.

Yes, everything has a largely fixed to wound and to hit.

But, as Damage is “splash” damage? Big hitters really do feel like big hitters. And due to typically high wounds and at least a confident save, don’t feel like Glass Cannons.

Not sure what the consensus is, and politely, I don’t care. But it works for me.

I will concede applying that to 40K may, for the community, be a change too far. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad system (I genuinely don’t think it is). But like the change from 2nd Ed Space Marine to Epic 40K? Your player base wants to feel like they’re still playing the same basic system.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
AoS has kinda flipped the system on the head.

Yes, everything has a largely fixed to wound and to hit.

But, as Damage is “splash” damage? Big hitters really do feel like big hitters. And due to typically high wounds and at least a confident save, don’t feel like Glass Cannons.

Not sure what the consensus is, and politely, I don’t care. But it works for me.

I will concede applying that to 40K may, for the community, be a change too far. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad system (I genuinely don’t think it is). But like the change from 2nd Ed Space Marine to Epic 40K? Your player base wants to feel like they’re still playing the same basic system.

It wouldn’t be a big deal to me if the system was more focused. If the biggest target is an ogre and the smallest a Grot, wounding on a fixed number feels more reasonable than when the upper end is a GUO.

As a counter? It helps add risk to every combat.

To continue your example? Mathematically the GUO can, and most likely will, kerbstomp the weedy lirrul Grots. And rightly so.

But. If the dice gods decide it’d be a good laugh? There’s a chance I’ll roll drastically under average for my GUO, and the Grots will just mob me to death.

Now, I get that whether that’s an enjoyable sequence of events is a matter of opinion, and may depend entirely upon who’s on the receiving end of that particular kicking.

And yes, it’s an entirely different Risk and Reward attitude required.

But there’s already a certain form of that in 40K, where a Grot Blaster* could wound a Warlord Titan. It’s incredibly unlikely, sure. But for me? Teensy tiny chance is always going to be more satisfying than “rules say no”.

Now I’m not endorsing the adoption of the AoS approach for 40K. I’m just saying I wouldn’t be entirely mad about it, because AoS works beyond simple roll to hit, roll to wound, to differentiate units.

*you thought I was gonna say Lasgun, didn’t you. But I didn’t. Point to me. Probably.

I am partial to the comparative roll for a range of reasons:

It allows a d6 to function at full range and uses it to compare rather than an absolute value that inevitably leads to minimum values. With comparisons you can't ever run out of room on the dice.

That comparison allows for the roleplay thematics of the units being better and worse than one another, without trying to differentiate between two units with WS2+. In the current paradigm there are basically 4 hit stats, 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+. Using fixed values means all units must differentiate between those 4. With comparison you have a limitless range, because it only matters if your opponent is better, worse or equal to you.


So IMO comparison mechanics supply range, balance and theme making them superior to using static dice rolls for stats.

And that's why I won't ever really like the AoS wound mechanics.

It's also why I would prefer that 40k went back to WS vs WS and even added BS vs I or equivalent.

Your marines can be BS4-8 without it causing any balance issues when it compares to another stat.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
AoS has kinda flipped the system on the head.

Yes, everything has a largely fixed to wound and to hit.

But, as Damage is “splash” damage? Big hitters really do feel like big hitters. And due to typically high wounds and at least a confident save, don’t feel like Glass Cannons.

Not sure what the consensus is, and politely, I don’t care. But it works for me.

I will concede applying that to 40K may, for the community, be a change too far. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad system (I genuinely don’t think it is). But like the change from 2nd Ed Space Marine to Epic 40K? Your player base wants to feel like they’re still playing the same basic system.

There are a couple of key differences that would probably make the AoS approach not work great for 40k. The main one being the amount of shooting. 40k has guns all over the place. Big ones, small ones, high rate of fire and low. Having SvsT comparisons and damage that doesn't carry over between models makes it possible for something like a meltagun or lascannon to be good against something like a tank but inefficient against a horde of termagants. Under the AoS appraoch, meltaguns and lascannons would become anti-horde weapons as well as anti-tank weapons.

If you want to do away with some of the weirdness of AP but make damage dealing a more steady process (rather than a swingy all or nothing one), you could probably get rid of either the save or wound roll and turn high toughness or good saves into a modifier to whichever roll you keep, and then bump up wounds accordingly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
I am partial to the comparative roll for a range of reasons:

It allows a d6 to function at full range and uses it to compare rather than an absolute value that inevitably leads to minimum values. With comparisons you can't ever run out of room on the dice.

That comparison allows for the roleplay thematics of the units being better and worse than one another, without trying to differentiate between two units with WS2+. In the current paradigm there are basically 4 hit stats, 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+. Using fixed values means all units must differentiate between those 4. With comparison you have a limitless range, because it only matters if your opponent is better, worse or equal to you.


So IMO comparison mechanics supply range, balance and theme making them superior to using static dice rolls for stats.

And that's why I won't ever really like the AoS wound mechanics.

It's also why I would prefer that 40k went back to WS vs WS and even added BS vs I or equivalent.

Your marines can be BS4-8 without it causing any balance issues when it compares to another stat.

I like the idea of compared rolls. The tricky part comes when dealing with orks and eldar in the same system. If eldar are so fast that their Init or Evasion or whatever stat is higher than a human's, and if orks are the opposite, then you're basically looking at everyone having +1 or +2 to-hit vs orks compared to most other armies. Which immediately presents some design challenges. How tough or cheap do you have to make an ork boy when guardsmen are hitting them on 3+ and marines are hitting them on 2+?

I also am not a proponent of BS-vs-I type resolutions, unless we go and change everyone's stats en masse to account for such mechanics. Besides, if GW added it, wouldnt take long until they introduced some Stratagems which allows a unit to ignore high I penalties for their shooting.. and we'd be back at square one but now everyone auto-takes such strats.

What I'd like to propose instead, would be something comparable to the conceal/engage mechanics of KillTeam. Give a unit the ability to avoid getting shot altogether, and introduce serious drawbacks to when its used. If implemented elegantly, you could also force a unit to resort to concealment, call it "supression" or whatever (and only give supression ability to specialists etc).. This would give re-emphasis on solid positioning and present new tactical challenges to both players. Everyone shooting everyone off the table is just so boring..

Well, in 2nd Ed unit’s could Hide.

TO THE RULE BOOK BOOK CASE! *Batman noise*

Not saying use that specific rule like. Just sharing as an example.

 tauist wrote:
Give a unit the ability to avoid getting shot altogether, and introduce serious drawbacks to when its used. If implemented elegantly, you could also force a unit to resort to concealment, call it "supression" or whatever (and only give supression ability to specialists etc).. This would give re-emphasis on solid positioning and present new tactical challenges to both players. Everyone shooting everyone off the table is just so boring.

There was the option to go to ground (and pinning, its forced variant).

Didn't stop you getting shot, and the 6++ was too weak to use voluntarily out of cover. In cover it could make units incredibly difficult to remove (3+)

It was a little half-baked in 5th as intervening units granted 4+ cover to anyone behind them and there was no target priority so use of it wasn't particularly tactical. Almost every in-use example was either a troops choice bunkering down or a character caught out in the open and crossing their fingers.

I think the issue you have is "verisimilitude rules" and "outcome rules".

I think 40k's issue is partly that it wants to do both. So unit/weapon stats are meant to somehow simulate reality. A boltgun should be S4 to the Lasgun's S3 because this somehow means something in the 40k universe. A Marine should be 4s more or less across the board to a Guardsman's 3s.

But arguably you don't need any of this. The stats are not there to represent power as per an RPG - they are instead just a mechanism for giving varied outputs when units attack each other. So Space Marines shooting into Guardsmen, Marines or a Rhino should do so roughly so much damage - with dice providing a curve.

You might want dimensionality to this - but its only really worth it if the game allows for it.

So you can for example make Eldar "hard to kill" because they have some high dodge stat that effects hitting them. While Orks are "hard to kill" because they are tough so difficult to wound. And Marines are "hard to kill" because they have solid armour saves.

But... so what? I mean unless you are going to have guns which interact with these stat lines - does it matter? If you want the same result of hosing them down with S4 AP- they could all have the same stat line. But now you have weird scaling. Flamers would be good into Eldar because they always hit - ignoring that "dodge stat". Plasma is good into Marines because it penetrates the armour. Assault Cannons or something (idk) would be good into Orks because they have high strength.

If you are worried about "verisimilitude" over all you might like that. I've tuned my army's loadout to destroy yours, so it should destroy yours. (cue the complaints of Marines vs cheap/undercosted AP3 for 20 years). But if you are concerned about outcomes in a game as a game, you might not want that. Because you don't really want it to be reduced down to rock/paper/scissors. Counters, if there are any, should be much softer - or produced by in-game decisions/actions, rather than X counters Y counters Z at the list building stage.

Basically your RPG-head might dislike that a goblin has the same odds of hitting and wounded a Dragon as another goblin. But mechanically it can work fine - and you can potentially produce a "more balanced game", where variable armies can all win games.

 tauist wrote:
I also am not a proponent of BS-vs-I type resolutions, unless we go and change everyone's stats en masse to account for such mechanics. Besides, if GW added it, wouldnt take long until they introduced some Stratagems which allows a unit to ignore high I penalties for their shooting.. and we'd be back at square one but now everyone auto-takes such strats.

Well, you'd obviously have to update everyone's stats given that there is no initiative stat or its equivalent. And generally any kind of sweeping change is going to involve a lot of tweaking and rebalancing. I'm also not sure a hypothetical strat (which would hypothetically only impact a single unit per turn) is really a strong reason to drop an idea. That said...

What I'd like to propose instead, would be something comparable to the conceal/engage mechanics of KillTeam. Give a unit the ability to avoid getting shot altogether, and introduce serious drawbacks to when its used. If implemented elegantly, you could also force a unit to resort to concealment, call it "supression" or whatever (and only give supression ability to specialists etc).. This would give re-emphasis on solid positioning and present new tactical challenges to both players. Everyone shooting everyone off the table is just so boring..

... I agree that some kind of positioning/concealment-related mechanic could be a viable way to go. I think it was earlier in this thread that I pitched leaning into things like minimum distances for long-ranged and artillery weapons, cover that makes you untargetable outside of X", spotters, etc. On a game of 40k's scale, we probably don't want to make a bunch of units straight up untouchable each turn, but some mechanics that break up the threat ranges of various units could be interesting and help the game a lot.

I'm picturing short-ranged units running up on artillery so that the artillery can't shoot at them, instead needing some bodyguards to come save them. Stealth specialists taking the Hide action to be untargetable by distant enemies as they approach. Cover granting something like lone op to distant units, and then other units deploying on top of tall terrain to negate that protection, or spotter units moving close to do the same. Basically just make it so that 2,000 points of army aren't all turning their guns on one or two targets each turn; at least, not without investing in the right positioning and support units to do so.

Tyel wrote:
I think the issue you have is "verisimilitude rules" and "outcome rules".

I would argue that the verisimilitude rules are in fact one of the reasons 40k has maintained its industry position and popularity. The RPG aspects immerse the players in the game, connecting them to it in a way that chess doesn't, or any one of the thousands of abstract historicals out there.

In fact, the current issues with 10th ed are the increasing disconnect between these two factors, leaning more towards the abstract outcome. Which, for a game with rich and storied background, disconnecting that from the game is not a great idea.

The personal connection that people get through this immersion is one of the reasons people stick with the setting. 40k was never a competitive poker game, it was an ecosystem in a rich setting. When GW described 'The HobbyTM' they weren't wrong.

If you turn the game into poker, then you lose the aspects that keep your customers invested. Professional players that buy armies from painters to play games are not a normal GW customer, so making a game that caters to play and forget game players is IMO not a great idea.

^ I've enjoyed playing One Page Rules not-40k-please-don't-sue for a while but it absolutely does start to boil down to this issue. In the name of simplicity and balance all the forces really do feel very samey after you've played for a while. Fine for use as a proxy-game to use with another IP but I think as a brand new TT gamer it'd really hurt the feeling of My Guys being different to Your Guys when the units and rules are almost identical.

The question of how to make different types of defenses feel different comes down to how the ruleset executes those differences. 40K has never really executed all the possibilities very well, generally using only 2 or 3 of them. By them, I mean:

Hit - How hard is it to hit the target

Hurt - How hard is it for that hit to cause significant damage

Resist - Can the target resist your attempt to hurt them

Persevere - Can your target survive the damage delivered

40K has mostly used static Hit values on ranged attacks, abandoned the idea of some targets being harder to Hit in melee (but only because relative skill), and tacked on the occasional negative hit modifier here and there. This is a wasted defense area in 40K.

40K has long used Strength Vs Toughness to reflect how hard it is to Hurt a target.

40K has tried two different methods on Resist, both based around the Armor Save.

40K has always had Wounds on models to reflect their ability to Persevere against damage delivered. They have also used Feel No Pain in this same area.

While it would be harder, it would be ideal to use all these options in a game a varied as 40K. Properly executed, you could have hard to hit Aeldari, hard to wound Orks, and very resistant Space Marines.

As an interesting aside, GW actually abandoned rolling to Hurt in Kill Team. It is Roll to Hit, Target Saves, then Damage is applied (with some FNP and damage reduction/ignoring here and there). Models just have more wounds so that small arms never kill with just one Hit (attacks are always 3 or more dice with Saves being 3 dice barring special rules to reduce that). This actually works very well for gameplay.

Also sort of under the to-hit thing was speed.

Back when initiative was a thing it gave an edge to Eldar and other “fast” units. Survivability by getting your hits in first. IIRC they could also run fast enough for a to-hit penalty for shooting when that was still a thing.

Gave them a lot of flavor. If you could hit them, they crumpled. But landing the shot was not easy.

Design space not used much these days.

2nd Ed Rulebook, Pp 31

Basic Modifiers

- 1, Shooting at a rapid moving target. If the target moved between 10 and 20 inches in its last movement phase.

This was FAQ’s to explain 10-20 inches in a relatively straight line. So no running 5” out of cover 5” back in, you cheeky monkey.

So yes, even the most basic Eldar Infantry, when running, got a -1 to hit modifier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on Alextroy’s post, I kind of like that they’re exploring unit survivabiltiy with armour granting more wounds, higher toughness etc.

Not to say they’ve got the formula right, but it’s a good thing to explore.

 Nevelon wrote:
IIRC they could also run fast enough for a to-hit penalty for shooting when that was still a thing.

It would have made an interesting addition to the old fleet of foot rule that any unit that possesses it gained a 5+ cover save when they run.

My memories of 2nd edition and necromunda were that modifiers were fine until they started stacking up and you had to reach for the 7+ to hit table for your BS4 and 5 models, or on the flip side were ignored due to stacked bonuses and auto-hits. Also why plasma cannons were ultimately the best necromunda weapon for the late game - target the barricade, not the model hidden behind it.

It also made Ravenwing really deadly.

With their then unique and potent loadout of Assault Cannon and Heavy Bolter, they also got an additional -1 to Hit when moving (maxed at -3, which was plenty) and ignored the to Hit penalty for their own speed.

Altogether on a Skimmer, they could zip across the table, fearing little firepower, whilst having the capacity to delete an enemy unit a turn with decent reliability.

Then came the dark times. Then came 3rd Ed. Where everyone else got our unique toys, and we got…..a 6+ invulernable.

 alextroy wrote:
Hit - How hard is it to hit the target
Hurt - How hard is it for that hit to cause significant damage
Resist - Can the target resist your attempt to hurt them
Persevere - Can your target survive the damage delivered

That's just restating how 40K does it, but there's nothing saying those are the only levers you can use. You could just as easily model the engagement process like this:

Spot- How hard is it to see the target
Aim- How hard is it to engage the target with the current weapon
Hit- Can the target evade the attack
Damage- Is the target incapacitated by the hit

Instead of one roll to hit and then three redundant hair-splitting checks for damage, it's the reverse. There's no single objectively correct way to model any of this; as a designer you choose what level of abstraction you need in each mechanic and what design levers you want to model.

In any case, it's worth noting that 40K historically didn't commonly use all these checks anyways, because it followed a general paradigm of humanoid units only having one wound. Toughness was the stat used to determine innate durability, with armor saves reflecting external protection, and the all-or-nothing save system (which could not be combined with cover) meant that these stats functioned very differently. The expansion of defensive profiles making multi-wound infantry commonplace (with a Damage stat in turn) has created a clunky redundancy between Toughness and Wounds as a measure of innate durability, while the save modifier system gives a couple points of AP the same sort of general utility as high S.

To the point of verisimilitude, it's difficult to say what is objectively being modeled with any of these stats anymore. What the hell does it mean when a meltagun only damages a tank on a 5+, but slices right through the armor and does a bunch of damage when it does? What determines whether a piece of armor boosts your T, W, or Sv? A lot of people enjoy rolling dice to 'see what happens', but this isn't a simulation by any means.

Kill Team dumping one of those checks is a nod towards more modern design, paring down the amount of rolling to downselect across broadly redundant attributes. Armor save reflects a dude's armor, number of wounds reflects how hard he is to kill. You still get the fun as the attacker of seeing if your shot hits, and as the defender getting to see if you resist taking damage. You just aren't rolling and rolling and rolling and rolling some more to get there.

The thing that makes OPR repetitive is that it goes so far in the direction of simplification that there isn't much left, not that escaping clunky 1980s wargame design means inevitable blandness.

I still urge caution on a wholesale change to such core mechanics.

Such a change is why Epic 40,000 was poorly received. Whilst BFG showed those mechanics are actually pretty good, It Just Wasn’t Epic Scale. And as such, player numbers dropped, as it didn’t feel like the same game.

For coming up 40 years now? 40K has relied on WS, BS, S, T, W A, and Ld. And for most of it (I think?) M and I.

This has meant someone returning to the game will find the stat lines instantly recognisable.

For instance, I know a 2+ BS is the same as BS5. I know that the higher the T, the more resistant my unit is to small arms, but that I’ll still need to be wary of Heavy Weapons.

AoS did eventually pull it off, despite being a pretty radical departure. But that’s because the same mechanics are largely there - roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save. They just have different names and layout.

If a returning player can handle the replacement of WS charts with a flat roll, the replacement of S-v-T charts with a comparative system, the change from all-or-nothing AP to AP modifiers, the change in cover from a separate save to just a +1, the whole can of worms that is stratagems, the complete removal of the FOC, the addition of a damage stat, the loss of templates, the introduction of subfactions with free bonuses, the removal of costs for wargear, the removal of vehicles rules altogether, and the removal of morale and its replacement with Battleshock...

...I think declaring any part of the game mechanics to be sacrosanct, immutable, written in stone, is just silly.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


AoS did eventually pull it off, despite being a pretty radical departure. But that’s because the same mechanics are largely there - roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save. They just have different names and layout.

AoS is the worst implementation tbh, it requiring 2 rolls is so unneeded IMO. If your unit on average forces 30% of its attacks as saves on any unit in the game, whats the point in splitting it in a two step sequence?

 catbarf wrote:
If a returning player can handle the replacement of WS charts with a flat roll, the replacement of S-v-T charts with a comparative system, the change from all-or-nothing AP to AP modifiers, the change in cover from a separate save to just a +1, the whole can of worms that is stratagems, the complete removal of the FOC, the addition of a damage stat, the loss of templates, the introduction of subfactions with free bonuses, the removal of costs for wargear, the removal of vehicles rules altogether, and the removal of morale and its replacement with Battleshock...

...I think declaring any part of the game mechanics to be sacrosanct, immutable, written in stone, is just silly.

I didn’t say they’re sacrosanct. Indeed in urging caution, I offered an example of when a major, root and branch change failed (Epic 40,000), and when it succeeded (AoS).

 catbarf wrote:
In any case, it's worth noting that 40K historically didn't commonly use all these checks anyways, because it followed a general paradigm of humanoid units only having one wound. Toughness was the stat used to determine innate durability, with armor saves reflecting external protection, and the all-or-nothing save system (which could not be combined with cover) meant that these stats functioned very differently. The expansion of defensive profiles making multi-wound infantry commonplace (with a Damage stat in turn) has created a clunky redundancy between Toughness and Wounds as a measure of innate durability, while the save modifier system gives a couple points of AP the same sort of general utility as high S.

To the point of verisimilitude, it's difficult to say what is objectively being modeled with any of these stats anymore. What the hell does it mean when a meltagun only damages a tank on a 5+, but slices right through the armor and does a bunch of damage when it does? What determines whether a piece of armor boosts your T, W, or Sv? A lot of people enjoy rolling dice to 'see what happens', but this isn't a simulation by any means.

If you hit some Nurgle guy with a missile you need to roll "to wound", then he rolls "to use armor", then you roll the "damage", then he rolls to "not feel pain", and that determines how close he is to being killed which needs to be marked on the model with tokens.

It has gotten pretty absurd there.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


AoS did eventually pull it off, despite being a pretty radical departure. But that’s because the same mechanics are largely there - roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save. They just have different names and layout.

AoS is the worst implementation tbh, it requiring 2 rolls is so unneeded IMO. If your unit on average forces 30% of its attacks as saves on any unit in the game, whats the point in splitting it in a two step sequence?

Not to defend the system, but 2 rolls instead of one allows you to gain more granularity when using a d6. It also allows you multiple levers to adjust that number during play through temporary or status-based effects.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
In any case, it's worth noting that 40K historically didn't commonly use all these checks anyways, because it followed a general paradigm of humanoid units only having one wound. Toughness was the stat used to determine innate durability, with armor saves reflecting external protection, and the all-or-nothing save system (which could not be combined with cover) meant that these stats functioned very differently. The expansion of defensive profiles making multi-wound infantry commonplace (with a Damage stat in turn) has created a clunky redundancy between Toughness and Wounds as a measure of innate durability, while the save modifier system gives a couple points of AP the same sort of general utility as high S.

To the point of verisimilitude, it's difficult to say what is objectively being modeled with any of these stats anymore. What the hell does it mean when a meltagun only damages a tank on a 5+, but slices right through the armor and does a bunch of damage when it does? What determines whether a piece of armor boosts your T, W, or Sv? A lot of people enjoy rolling dice to 'see what happens', but this isn't a simulation by any means.

If you hit some Nurgle guy with a missile you need to roll "to wound", then he rolls "to use armor", then you roll the "damage", then he rolls to "not feel pain", and that determines how close he is to being killed which needs to be marked on the model with tokens.

It has gotten pretty absurd there.

Part of the reason being that each check is a binary pass/fail with no impact on successive checks- which is also why I don't really buy that 40K's approach is particularly good for storytelling/narrative/verisimilitude. Cool, you rolled a 6 to hit, a great shot! Except unless you have a kludged-on special rule, it doesn't mean anything, you just proceed to the next roll in the sequence. How well you shoot does not affect how likely you are to find a weak spot in the armor. How well your attack wounded the target has no bearing on how much damage it actually does. Et cetera.

Meanwhile in, say, Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system, the margin-of-success mechanic means a really skilled sniper is not only more likely to hit, but also if he scores really well on an attack can do a lot of damage (boom, headshot). Or since it's an opposed roll, a unit that relies on speed for defense can get movement bonuses to its defensive roll, making it much more likely to avoid hits or just suffer grazing blows. It's quicker, cleaner, and a heck of a lot more conducive to narrative than running through the full attack resolution sequence only to negate it at the end via a dodge save represented as an invuln.

There are tons of ways that these mechanics have been iterated upon since the 1980s, both for games intended for quick resolution and ones intended for narrative play.