Game mechanics order.

[david5th]

I hope i am not going over old ground with this post but a thought came to me.

In 40K and WFB? damge / death / destruction goes as follows-

target with wounds;

See if you have it the target - roll to hit, see if you have wounded / killed target - roll to wound, see if armour has stopped attack - roll to save.

target with AV:

See if you have it the target - roll to hit, see of you have penetrated armour - ap roll, see if you have damaged / destroyed target - damage roll.

Is it just me but against target with wounds and armour it should go:

See if you have it the target - roll to hit, see if armour has stopped attack - roll to save,
see if you have wounded / killed target - roll to wound.

This would to me make more sequential sense. it was like this in 2nd ed 40K. i am just wondering it changed and if people would like it to go back or if they are happy as it is.

[DrLove42]

It makes sense...but then what happens to rending and situational rolls...

Cos with your system you'd roll to hit....armour stops/lets through...then rends so ignores the armour save?

[miteyheroes]

it was like this in 2nd ed 40K.

I don't remember that. As far as I remember it's always been saving throws sense.

The only way it sort-of makes sense is that the attacker gets to do all of theirs rolls before the defender gets to do theirs? But I agree it's crazy logically.

[ElCheezus]

Since odds are all multiplied and are all associative, the order doesn't matter. Let's put that out there just to be sure it's understood.

I think the change stems from ease of rolling. With the current order, the attacking player gets to do all of their rolling, then the defender does theirs. With your proposed order (which, yes, makes sense) the attacking and defending players alternate. If you add in FNP at the end, it would go back and forth twice. This would take more time. Over the course of a game (of if someone is playing a horde army) this can save a decent amount of time.

Plus, who doesn't like picking up the successful hits and rolling again to wound instead of counting them and picking up that many new dice?

DrLove also has a good point. Of course, rending was on the "to hit" rolls pre-5th.

[DaveLL]

Yes, I remember it being that way too.

Mathematically, the two are almost identical. (They would be completely identical except that wound allocation in 5th is slightly wonky and perhaps more balanced than other alternatives.) It is, though, easier to deal with this way in 5th on those occasions when each player has his/her own dice. (This way, you can pick up all your hits, or remove all your misses, and roll to wound without even bothering to count them. Alternating the order with each player having dice means counting out the hits and the appropriate number of dice to roll more times.)

In other words, it would make logical sense to do it the old way, but then it would either take longer or require people touching each other's dice. And you know how gamers can get about their dice...

[chromedog]

Saves before wounds would stop the game when wounds are rending.
GW are English.
This is why they do things bass-ackwards. They've always done it this way and tradition (silly or otherwise) is what binds that place together.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
The reason the resolution method apears to be back to front.
Is because 40k is still using WHFB game mechanics !

The resolution order makes sense when resolving low velocity melee attacks with basic weapons and armour.

The attacker swings a sword/axe/club at the defender ,(roll to hit)

If it hits, it may hit bare flesh and wound the defender(Roll to wound)

The defender moves so his helmet/breastplate/shield deflects the blow , and stops the attack from wounding him.(Roll to save.)

As WHFB is mainly about getting the best close combat match ups , supported by ranged attacks .This makes far more sense.in WHFB.

As 40k uses higher velicity, and higher technological weapons and armour , it seem silly using WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods.

The attacker sprays high velicity projectiles over an area covering the target unit.
40k ...
Track each burst to a target model....(Roll to hit)
See if the projectile wounds the individual model..(roll to wound)
See if the armour sucks out the projectile heals the model and self repairs...(roll to save)

An alternative.
If target aquired (Roll to 'see',based on target Stealth)

(If target in attackers effective weapons range/check range.).

Subtract the armour value from the weapon damage to arrive at a 'save roll'.
All targeted models roll to save.(Remove casualties.)

Attacker rolls to supress enemy infantry unit, or rolls for cumulative damage on MCs and vehicles.

I could ellaborate , but it may not be required.

Most modern wargames use more apropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.
And as a concequence have less pages of rules and far more gameplay than 40k.:eek:
(With more apropriate core rules , USRs and special rules are not required.)

TTFN

[eldargal]

Well, they feel people want to play 40k, not counts-as-40k-with-[insert other game system rules]. Whether this is the right choice is a matter of opinion.

Fact is if something inthe rules really doesn't make sense, change it it, and if you do you will be changing it with GWs sanction, they are all for house rules.

Personally I think most problems people have with GW are those same people being too reliant on GW to tell them what to do.


Saves before wounds would stop the game when wounds are rending.
GW are English.
This is why they do things bass-ackwards. They've always done it this way and tradition (silly or otherwise) is what binds that place together.

[BuFFo]

This has been said before in the past many years ago by GW authors of the rules.

The reason why you take an armor save after a wound is simply because GW wants the owner of the defending model to feel as if he has the last roll/say in the model's demise. To have the attacker roll the last roll before removing the model from the table would be taking away some control away from the owner of the model.

That is the reason why. You can logic yourself as to why the armor save should be before the wound roll until you are blue in the face for fluff reasons, but the game will always allow the defender to feel like he has the last laugh.

I like it as it is now. It gives you some form of power/control in trying to save your models from dying.

[Gotthammer]

it was like this in 2nd ed 40K. i am just wondering it changed and if people would like it to go back or if they are happy as it is.

Might want to check your 2nd ed rulebook again - it's been wound then save since Rogue Trader.

[Xas]

actually if you want to go all "realistic" you would have to incorporate hitting and wounding into one roll.

if a weapon causes a severe wound is based on WHERE it hits and not any arbitrary chance.


the reason why 40k works this reverse order has already been said:
speeding up the process and letting the defendant get the last chance.

[Mauglum.]

Hi Xas,
If you want to go all 'realistic'.
You just have to simulate reality in any degree or way you chose.(Preferably resulting in intuitive game play and scalable results.)

There are wide range of game mechanics and resolution methoods to chose from.

You dont have to model reality in any specific way, or limit yourself to any set game mechanic or resolution method.

Unless you work for GW plc that is... ;)

WHFB uses 30 year old 'Napoleonic' game mechanics, Rick Priestly refered to as 'old fashioned and clunky.'
But they are ok for WHFB.

However, they are probably the WORST chioce for the potential game play of 40k.IMO.

TTFN.

[david5th]

Might want to check your 2nd ed rulebook again - it's been wound then save since Rogue Trader.

I have - 2nd ed shooting order rulebooks pgs 26 - 39 order as follows:
Facing
LOS
Poistion
Cover
Choosing a target
Range
To hit the target
Basic modifers
Weapon modifiers
7+ to hit
Damage
Saving throws
Save modifiers
Taking shots together
Removing Casualties
Hand-to-hand combat
Moving and firing
Blast Markers
Maximum scatter
Throwing grenades
Targeting the ground
Sustained fire
Overwatch

2nd ed Hand-toHand order rulebooks pgs 40 - 43 order as follows:
Attack dice
Determine winner
Combat score modifiers
Throw to damage
Saving throw
Multiple combats
Follow-up
Squad coherency
breaking off

That is a thorough as i can be.

[Mauglum.]

Hi david5th.
'Damage' and 'thow to damage' is basicaly ' rolling to wound'.
So 40k still uses the same WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods, as it did 20+ years ago in Rogue Trader...

Eldargal.
If I am using the background and asthetics of the 40k universe to play a wargame I AM playing '40k'.
(Just my prefered version of the '40k game'.;)
Irrespective of the rules OR minatures I choose to use.
(I got the background and asthtetics in much more detail from RT and 2nd ed supliments.The recent re-hashes /retcons are not important to me.)

The fact it may not be endorsed/produced by a corperation that promotes a corperate marketing scheme called the 'GW hobby (tm)' is of little interest to me.
As I do not wish to play in the GW plc owned and run B&M stores, or tournaments.

GW state quite clearly in thier 40k rule book.
'The most important rule is that the(se) rules aren't all that important!'

If GW game devs hold thier own rules in so little reguard, why should any one feel that using alternative rule sets that deliver the game play they want, is some how 'wrong'?

And why is 'house ruleing' GWs rules to get the game you want any 'better' than using /adapting other rule sets?
(It gets GW more money so its 'better' for GW obviously.:eek:)

Some rule sets say 'these rules are not suitable for competative play' or 'for competative play we suggest the following restrictions are used'.
As this is an exceptable way to alert the gamers to what sort of game play the game is suitable for.

And many state 'if there is a unexpected situation , dice off to determine the outcome, if there are opposing views on the likley outcome'
(I am paraphasing here...)

As 'diceing off' is a good way to resolve unexpected situiations quickly and keep the game flowing.

But I belive GWs dismissing the importance of the entire contents of the rule book is unique.(A blanket excuse for poor rules writing perhaps?)

TTFN

[DrLove42]

I can see the "accurate" system working like...

Roll to to hit on BS (as normal) then...
All succsful hits are rerolled...1-2 hit limbs, 3-5 hit torso, 6 hit head (assuming normal humanoids...hitting other creatures changes this individually)
Once where the hits are hit they roll to wound as normal, keeping different areas seperate with different toughness for differny body parts (easier to fatally wound heads than legs)
Roll armour saves for different areas...head armour is weaker than torso armour for instance

So shooting/wounding/killing now takes a mere 4 dice rolls (instead of 3) but need to be done lots of seperate...and thats not even factoring in chances of damaging equipment

I think i'll stick with our current system

[DaveLL]

I can see the "accurate" system working like...

Roll to to hit on BS (as normal) then...
All succsful hits are rerolled...1-2 hit limbs, 3-5 hit torso, 6 hit head (assuming normal humanoids...hitting other creatures changes this individually)
Once where the hits are hit they roll to wound as normal, keeping different areas seperate with different toughness for differny body parts (easier to fatally wound heads than legs)
Roll armour saves for different areas...head armour is weaker than torso armour for instance

So shooting/wounding/killing now takes a mere 4 dice rolls (instead of 3) but need to be done lots of seperate...and thats not even factoring in chances of damaging equipment

I think i'll stick with our current system
Oh, that's not NEARLY accurate enough. I've seen far, far more intricate systems. Did you solidly hit that person's hand, or did you graze a finger? In fact, to be more accurate, you probably need to rewrite shooting completely to really account for the size of various body parts, the range (which affects the effective size of the target as a whole)... and then, to be more accurate, real cover and concealment need to be done in completely different ways. But wait, we haven't even dealt with things like the size of the target changing when it's turned or crouching, so add that in.

There's a reason games like Aces and Eights never really caught on.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
I agree using a SKIRMISH rule set as used in 40k RT and 2nd ed , is a poor chioce for a BATTLE game based on unit interaction as 40k 3rd to current 40k edition has become.
(But fine for skirmish games like Inquisitor ,Necroundia,CBT, Stargrunt II, Chain reaction II, ect.)

GW wrote a good 40k game based on unit interaction, its called Epic Armageddon.This simulates modern warfare realy well IMO.(Especialy supression.)
Also the fan developed older version of Epic SM is now a realy great game called NET Epic.
(Both are free to down load.)

The rules are more straight forward to allow for the large amount of units to be used in game.
If these rules were used as a basis for a 40k re-write , they could have more detail ADDED , as there are fewer unit to deal with in 40k.
However trying to 'trim down' skirmish rules to fit a battle game leads to abstraction and lots of patches over the gapeing holes...eg current 40k.:eek:

The scale of minatures 40k uses, are traditionaly used in skirmish games, however due to the increasce in the number of units in the game .The 40k is now about UNIT interaction.
This causes the confusion.

A rule set developed for the game play of 40k would focus on detailed UNIT interaction.
And as the rules would be more straight forward, (being developed for the INTENDED game play not borrowed from 30 year old napoeonic rules.)There would be room for far more detail.
So characters not be limited to being close combat oreintated.:eek:

Most modern rule sets use the most apropriate game mechanics to allow the most game play with the minimum of fuss.In fact most only use 2 resolution methods.(40k uses seven!)

Eg 2 common resolution methods .Oposed characteristc and modified characteristic.
Attackers damage value - defenders armour value = save roll.

Moral test , roll over modified Moral value.

The current 40k rule set is the most overcomplicated and counter intuitive rule set I know of.(Compared to the simple game play it results in.)

There are other ineficient and overcomplicated rule sets.But these are the exceptions rather than the norm.

TTFN.