How I'd Redo Toughness/Wounds/Strength/Saves

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

Currently, I think too many changes have been made in isolation to infantry units in Warhammer 40,000. To the point that some things are way out of kilter with the lore. I know, I know the TT will never be 1:1 to the lore, but we can certainly do better than what's on offer at the moment.

 

Looking at a few key infantry units for each faction, I've devised a "Defence Value" which is: (Toughness + Wounds + Save (where 3+ = 4) + Invulnerable + Feel No Pain) / 5. Now I know that this means that a units toughness has the same "importance" as their number of wounds, which I'm not 100% sure I agree with but this is the best system I could come up with. Okay so here are the units:

 

	M	T	W	Sv	Invuln	FNP	Def. Val.
Gaunt	7	3	1	2	0	0	1.2
Human in Flak (Astra Militarum)	6	3	1	2	0	0	1.2
Eldar Guardian	8	3	1	3	0	0	1.4
T'au Fire Warrior	6	3	1	3	0	0	1.4
Skitarii	6	3	1	3	1	0	1.6
Necron Warrior	5	4	1	3	0	0	1.6
Human in Power Armour (Sororitas)	6	4	1	4	0	0	1.8
Hearthkyn	5	4	1	4	0	0	1.8
T'au Stealth Suit	8	4	2	3	0	0	1.8
Genestealer	8	4	2	2	1	0	1.8
Phobos Astartes	8	4	2	4	0	0	2
Ork Boy	6	5	2	3	0	0	2
Necron Immortal	5	5	2	4	0	0	2.2
Ork Nob/Git	6	5	3	3	0	0	2.2
Tacticus Astartes/Legionaries	7	5	2	4	0	0	2.2
Tyranid Warrior	7	5	3	3	0	0	2.2
Berzerkers	8	5	2	4	0	0	2.2
T'au XV8	10	5	3	4	0	0	2.4
Rubric Marine	6	5	2	4	1	0	2.4
Plague Marine	5	5	3	4	0	0	2.4
Gravis Astartes	6	6	3	4	0	0	2.6
MegaNob	5	6	4	4	0	0	2.8
Terminator/Chaos Terminator/Scarab Occult	5	6	3	5	3	0	3.4
Blightlord Terminator	4	6	5	5	3	0	3.8
Custodian	8	6	5	5	3	0	3.8
Allarus Terminators	6	7	5	5	3	0	4

 

I've also included Movement. 

 

I've worked on the premise that sooner or later, Firstborn Space Marines will be sunsetted. Therefore, a Tacticus armoured loyalist should be 1:1 to a legionary. I've also tried to offer more distiction to Marine armour marks Tacticus/Phobos/Gravis. In particular, I think Phobos now has a distict feel, faster but lighter armour.

 

This exercise also threw up the question: "What's tougher a Rubricae or a plague marine?" - my conclusion was they were the same but in different ways.

 

I've opened up movement characteristics keeping base humans at 6", to really make you feel like you have different types of things moving around the board.

 

Overall I have also chilled out invulnerable saves, they were too plentiful and too good. I think my buffs elsewhere alleviate this. 

 

What are your thoughts? Next I will do a Range Attack Value for these units base weapons and a Melee Attack Value for these units CCW or default Melee weapons.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25 by Xenith

[Tawnis]

While I do agree conceptually that the system could certainly do with an overhaul, there are a few issues I see with the one that you've proposed. 

The humble Guardsman is Tough 6?! So, other than Gretchin, what's below that? If 1-5 is essentially nothing, then why have it all the way up at 6 at all? Same thing with wounds being so high, you can certainly have an additive system without everything starting well up the line. 

 

That being said, it's pretty confusing how your system would work, running through a combat example would certainly help visualize your idea. 

For me personally, I'm a fan of simply moving to a D12 system over a D6 so that there's more space for granularity between units and that every point will matter on the dice roll as each difference is +/- 1. This would work basically the same as the existing system, but a equal score would be a 7+ to succeed, so a S7 weapon in T4 would be a 4+ on a D12 rather than a 3+ on a D6. This would also enable more use of +/- modifiers which stack as they would only be half as effective, and make room for varying unit accuracy, so you could have Tau shoot better than Guard, but still not as good as Space Marines. 

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

12 minutes ago, Tawnis said:

While I do agree conceptually that the system could certainly do with an overhaul, there are a few issues I see with the one that you've proposed. 

The humble Guardsman is Tough 6?! So, other than Gretchin, what's below that? If 1-5 is essentially nothing, then why have it all the way up at 6 at all? Same thing with wounds being so high, you can certainly have an additive system without everything starting well up the line. 

 

That being said, it's pretty confusing how your system would work, running through a combat example would certainly help visualize your idea. 

For me personally, I'm a fan of simply moving to a D12 system over a D6 so that there's more space for granularity between units and that every point will matter on the dice roll as each difference is +/- 1. This would work basically the same as the existing system, but a equal score would be a 7+ to succeed, so a S7 weapon in T4 would be a 4+ on a D12 rather than a 3+ on a D6. This would also enable more use of +/- modifiers which stack as they would only be half as effective, and make room for varying unit accuracy, so you could have Tau shoot better than Guard, but still not as good as Space Marines. 

Hi mate, thanks for taking the time to reply. I think you’re a victim of the formatting. The first value is movement. A guardsman is still T3, don’t worry!

 

Yes a D12 system could be really cool! I don’t know enough about it though to try a a work it out though. I am all for more granularity though. 

[HeadlessCross]

One thing I think we'll agree on is GW not playing around with stats at all and still trying to keep it too close to 3rd-7th. D6 is still a core problem though. 

 

I'd like Guardsmen to be at T3 still as standard along with basic Humans  Eldar, Gaunts, etc. Humans in power armor, Aspect Warriors, etc. could move to T4. Then basic Marines go to T5.

 

"BuT sTaT iNfLaTiOn"

...is a good thing in this case. If GW won't move to D8, D10, or D12, the least they could do is experiment more with stats. 

[ZeroWolf]

Could it be possible to see a example to fully get my head around your system? 

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

One thing I think we'll agree on is GW not playing around with stats at all and still trying to keep it too close to 3rd-7th. D6 is still a core problem though. 

 

I'd like Guardsmen to be at T3 still as standard along with basic Humans  Eldar, Gaunts, etc. Humans in power armor, Aspect Warriors, etc. could move to T4. Then basic Marines go to T5.

 

"BuT sTaT iNfLaTiOn"

...is a good thing in this case. If GW won't move to D8, D10, or D12, the least they could do is experiment more with stats. 

Sorry just checking you’ve seen past the formatting to see my guardsman are still T3 sorority’s are still T4? I need to reformat clearly when I’m back on laptop

[DemonGSides]

The formating fails hard on mobile.

 

It also feels like a lot of extra busy work without much extra benefit. If you'd like to give an example as to how all this actually works, as has been requested a few times, it might be easier to grok.

[Valkyrion]

The D6 system, especially one that includes 1 always fails, only leaves options 2-6 as granular, so GW decided that multiple dice rolls is the way forward; To Hit > To Wound > Save.

Even if all the rolls are 2+, you have 1 in 6 failing each time; 6 shots hitting on 2+, one fails. 5 shots wounding on 2+, one probably fails. 4 wounds saving on 2+, one might die. 

 

But, as a longbeard and/or grognard, I do have to say that although the GW insistence on D6 is limiting, it is also a massive part of their appeal. 

You roll to hit, you roll to wound, they roll to save. From 1993* to 2024, from fantasy to 40k, from mordheim to necromunda. This IS the game. Things might change around it, but this is their chosen system, just like (I presume) D&D won't  stray overmuch from their D20 system.  Even the GW systems that do stray, like Blood Bowl, do so not for ability checks but rather to better represent 360 degrees or various charts.

2nd Edition was the last time I think a normal ability check (armour save, in this case) was done on 2 dice - terminators saved on 3+ on 2D6, solely I think to prove they could withstand a lascannon to the face, and had variable damage (in a world of 1 wound models, 3 wounds max**) But I can't think of a to hit, wound or save roll since that has allowed anything other than a D6.

*I don't know about early WHFB enough, but certainly from 2nd ed 40k.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tawnis]

4 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

One thing I think we'll agree on is GW not playing around with stats at all and still trying to keep it too close to 3rd-7th. D6 is still a core problem though. 

 

I'd like Guardsmen to be at T3 still as standard along with basic Humans  Eldar, Gaunts, etc. Humans in power armor, Aspect Warriors, etc. could move to T4. Then basic Marines go to T5.

 

"BuT sTaT iNfLaTiOn"

...is a good thing in this case. If GW won't move to D8, D10, or D12, the least they could do is experiment more with stats. 

That's something that I think would go very well with a D12 system, to push marines up to T5 or even 6 as you need the greater range for the larger dice. I was going to put a similar example in mine, but didn't' want to make it too long. 

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, Valkyrion said:

The D6 system, especially one that includes 1 always fails, only leaves options 2-6 as granular, so GW decided that multiple dice rolls is the way forward; To Hit > To Wound > Save.

Even if all the rolls are 2+, you have 1 in 6 failing each time; 6 shots hitting on 2+, one fails. 5 shots wounding on 2+, one probably fails. 4 wounds saving on 2+, one might die. 

 

But, as a longbeard and/or grognard, I do have to say that although the GW insistence on D6 is limiting, it is also a massive part of their appeal. 

You roll to hit, you roll to wound, they roll to save. From 1993* to 2024, from fantasy to 40k, from mordheim to necromunda. This IS the game. Things might change around it, but this is their chosen system, just like (I presume) D&D won't  stray overmuch from their D20 system.  Even the GW systems that do stray, like Blood Bowl, do so not for ability checks but rather to better represent 360 degrees or various charts.

2nd Edition was the last time I think a normal ability check (armour save, in this case) was done on 2 dice - terminators saved on 3+ on 2D6, solely I think to prove they could withstand a lascannon to the face, and had variable damage (in a world of 1 wound models, 3 wounds max**) But I can't think of a to hit, wound or save roll since that has allowed anything other than a D6.

*I don't know about early WHFB enough, but certainly from 2nd ed 40k.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. I think a big part of why 10th (and 9th and 8th, albeit to a lesser degree) aren't going so well is the desire to reinvent the wheel and completely change how the core game plays and feels rather than building on what already exists. It'd be like if a Doom game came out and it was a slow tactical game in 3rd person; Doom's (mechanical) identity is the first-person perspective with fast paced gameplay. There were things from 8th onwards I like, notably the return of Movement as a value, but the slow truncation of the statline over time was a mistake IMO, and judging from GW's handling of the rest of the game there is no doubt in my mind that if they did move away from pure-D6 it would be in the most awkward, ham-fisted and counter-intuitive way possible.

 

Realistically I think there's a few things I'd do with the system that aren't just reverting to the 3rd-7th philosophy (traditional AP, Instant Death/immunity to very low strength weapons, actual rules for vehicles and so on); the core system worked, it's more that unit design and power creep got completely out of hand, but there is some room for improvement. Mainly I'd import the 1+ save from WHFB; effectively a 2+ save that can only be bypassed completely by AP1. It shouldn't be handed out like candy but certain (non-vehicle) units that are meant to require heavy weapons to take down could get them. Terminators, certain Tyranid monsters, Ghaz etc. To avoid plasma losing its niche as an anti-TEQ weapon I'd rework it to be similar to its older form, but with the caveat that it only Gets Hot if fired in "overcharge" which has an AP1 profile, whilst regular AP2 fire is safe.

 

Personally I wouldn't agree with buffing Marines to T5; putting aside Firstborn v Primaris arguments (quite aside from anything else, at 40K "game scale" I think the difference in physiology between a Primaris and a regular Marine would be minimal enough to make little difference and not be worth representing at the stat level; a special rule at most, maybe?) I think you run the risk of major scope creep, stat inflation and the system breaking down completely. If a regular Marine is T5, then Plague Marines become T6, which means stuff like the Carnifex has to go to at least T8, the Wraithlord has to go to T10(!) and so on and so forth. Which is kind of what they've done, with stats ballooning well past 10. I feel there could be a place for such things with extreme examples like Gargantuan Creatures and Titan weaponry, but then we circle back to the problem of writing the game around units that really only belong in massive-scale mega-battles and how it badly impacts middleweight units. As an example, the Carnifex in 4th had an option to upgrade its toughness to 7, which was a big deal back then and would make it extremely difficult to kill. Now of course, only T7 is rather pathetic. Of course this also goes back to the issue of scale creep turning the Carnifex from a terrifying monster that would delete anything it came into melee with into a "yeah, it's alright" middle-of-the-road creature dwarfed by most of the heavy hitters in the army.

 

Regarding Rubricae, I'd give them the regular T4 and 2 wounds of a standard Marine (I do think 2 wounds is fair for Marines) but give them the following rule (inspired by the 3.5E Dark Eldar Grotesques):
"All Is Dust...": The Rubricae have long since lost their tangible bodies, and any blow that does not outright destroy them has little hope of causing lasting damage. To represent this, a Rubricae will only be removed from play if it loses both its wounds in one phase. If only one unsaved wound is dealt, then it regains that wound at the end of the phase. Note that this does not affect wounds that cause Instant Death.
For example, a unit of Rubricae is shot at and 5 wounds are scored, 3 of which are unsaved. One Rubricae is removed as a casualty, but the other regains the wound lost back to its starting total of 2 wounds.

[HeadlessCross]

11 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Agreed. I think a big part of why 10th (and 9th and 8th, albeit to a lesser degree) aren't going so well is the desire to reinvent the wheel and completely change how the core game plays and feels rather than building on what already exists. It'd be like if a Doom game came out and it was a slow tactical game in 3rd person; Doom's (mechanical) identity is the first-person perspective with fast paced gameplay. There were things from 8th onwards I like, notably the return of Movement as a value, but the slow truncation of the statline over time was a mistake IMO, and judging from GW's handling of the rest of the game there is no doubt in my mind that if they did move away from pure-D6 it would be in the most awkward, ham-fisted and counter-intuitive way possible.

 

Realistically I think there's a few things I'd do with the system that aren't just reverting to the 3rd-7th philosophy (traditional AP, Instant Death/immunity to very low strength weapons, actual rules for vehicles and so on); the core system worked, it's more that unit design and power creep got completely out of hand, but there is some room for improvement. Mainly I'd import the 1+ save from WHFB; effectively a 2+ save that can only be bypassed completely by AP1. It shouldn't be handed out like candy but certain (non-vehicle) units that are meant to require heavy weapons to take down could get them. Terminators, certain Tyranid monsters, Ghaz etc. To avoid plasma losing its niche as an anti-TEQ weapon I'd rework it to be similar to its older form, but with the caveat that it only Gets Hot if fired in "overcharge" which has an AP1 profile, whilst regular AP2 fire is safe.

 

Personally I wouldn't agree with buffing Marines to T5; putting aside Firstborn v Primaris arguments (quite aside from anything else, at 40K "game scale" I think the difference in physiology between a Primaris and a regular Marine would be minimal enough to make little difference and not be worth representing at the stat level; a special rule at most, maybe?) I think you run the risk of major scope creep, stat inflation and the system breaking down completely. If a regular Marine is T5, then Plague Marines become T6, which means stuff like the Carnifex has to go to at least T8, the Wraithlord has to go to T10(!) and so on and so forth. Which is kind of what they've done, with stats ballooning well past 10. I feel there could be a place for such things with extreme examples like Gargantuan Creatures and Titan weaponry, but then we circle back to the problem of writing the game around units that really only belong in massive-scale mega-battles and how it badly impacts middleweight units. As an example, the Carnifex in 4th had an option to upgrade its toughness to 7, which was a big deal back then and would make it extremely difficult to kill. Now of course, only T7 is rather pathetic. Of course this also goes back to the issue of scale creep turning the Carnifex from a terrifying monster that would delete anything it came into melee with into a "yeah, it's alright" middle-of-the-road creature dwarfed by most of the heavy hitters in the army.

 

Regarding Rubricae, I'd give them the regular T4 and 2 wounds of a standard Marine (I do think 2 wounds is fair for Marines) but give them the following rule (inspired by the 3.5E Dark Eldar Grotesques):
"All Is Dust...": The Rubricae have long since lost their tangible bodies, and any blow that does not outright destroy them has little hope of causing lasting damage. To represent this, a Rubricae will only be removed from play if it loses both its wounds in one phase. If only one unsaved wound is dealt, then it regains that wound at the end of the phase. Note that this does not affect wounds that cause Instant Death.
For example, a unit of Rubricae is shot at and 5 wounds are scored, 3 of which are unsaved. One Rubricae is removed as a casualty, but the other regains the wound lost back to its starting total of 2 wounds.

You're talking about Stat Inflation, which is something I support to begin with. The more you increase those stats, the more nuance you can add. 

[HeadlessCross]

6 hours ago, Tawnis said:

While I do agree conceptually that the system could certainly do with an overhaul, there are a few issues I see with the one that you've proposed. 

The humble Guardsman is Tough 6?! So, other than Gretchin, what's below that? If 1-5 is essentially nothing, then why have it all the way up at 6 at all? Same thing with wounds being so high, you can certainly have an additive system without everything starting well up the line. 

 

That being said, it's pretty confusing how your system would work, running through a combat example would certainly help visualize your idea. 

For me personally, I'm a fan of simply moving to a D12 system over a D6 so that there's more space for granularity between units and that every point will matter on the dice roll as each difference is +/- 1. This would work basically the same as the existing system, but a equal score would be a 7+ to succeed, so a S7 weapon in T4 would be a 4+ on a D12 rather than a 3+ on a D6. This would also enable more use of +/- modifiers which stack as they would only be half as effective, and make room for varying unit accuracy, so you could have Tau shoot better than Guard, but still not as good as Space Marines. 

I thought stacking modifiers was actually healthy as long as there were enough positive ones to combat the negative ones. That's the fault of GW though. 

[Evil Eye]

8 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

You're talking about Stat Inflation, which is something I support to begin with. The more you increase those stats, the more nuance you can add. 

You can, but at a medium-to-large sized game of 40K too much nuance/granularity makes things slow, overcomplicated and clunky. Especially if it's in the wrong places. Having unique stats for every single hand weapon in the game at the expense of having proper rules for representing vehicles, for example, is...not a great tradeoff. With regards to stats, a lot of the things that have excessively high toughness are vehicles, which should ideally have armour values rather than T/W/Sv anyway.

[HeadlessCross]

18 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

You can, but at a medium-to-large sized game of 40K too much nuance/granularity makes things slow, overcomplicated and clunky. Especially if it's in the wrong places. Having unique stats for every single hand weapon in the game at the expense of having proper rules for representing vehicles, for example, is...not a great tradeoff. With regards to stats, a lot of the things that have excessively high toughness are vehicles, which should ideally have armour values rather than T/W/Sv anyway.

The game is already 3 hours, and players get familiar with what rolls they need vs specific targets. That type of granularity is not the opposite of combining all the Combi-Weapons into one profile. 

 

In regards to overcomplication, I really don't buy that because we've seen what Cruddace does with his simplification. 

[Emperor Ming]

15 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

The game is already 3 hours, and players get familiar with what rolls they need vs specific targets. That type of granularity is not the opposite of combining all the Combi-Weapons into one profile. 

 

In regards to overcomplication, I really don't buy that because we've seen what Cruddace does with his simplification. 

Indeed, that's why things like d12s and alternate turns or anything else that will add game complication/time will prob never happen thankfully

 

Applause for the effort thou ChapterMasterGodfrey

[HeadlessCross]

3 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Indeed, that's why things like d12s and alternate turns or anything else that will add game complication/time will prob never happen thankfully

 

Applause for the effort thou ChapterMasterGodfrey

If you can count a D6, you can count a D12. This is not an argument in your favor. 

[ZeroWolf]

4 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

If you can count a D6, you can count a D12. This is not an argument in your favor. 

GW does like the common D6 though because of simplicity. I heard long, long, ago that the reason most warhammer games (think Blood Bowl might be the exception?) uses D6 instead of the specialised D12/D20 is because D6s come in kids board games so were easily recognisable by everyone at the time.

 

I also suspect there was a cost involved at some point but obviously can't verify that or the paragraph above. As much as it would help, I don't think they're going to change things that much, if at all. 

[Xenith]

I left aligned the data in your table so it aligns better! 

Edited October 25 by Xenith

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

8 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Indeed, that's why things like d12s and alternate turns or anything else that will add game complication/time will prob never happen thankfully

 

Applause for the effort thou ChapterMasterGodfrey

Thank you! Yes, I agree there's lot sof MAJOR changes that could help make 40K a better game. This was merely my attempt to add some granularity while still "playing in the same sandbox" that currently exists.

35 minutes ago, Xenith said:

I left justified the data in your table so it aligns better! 

Thank you! I am back on laptop now (at work shh) and was going to do it but was pleasantly surprised! 

[Xenith]

I'm still not sure overall what the plan for tis is? Just to categorise/classify how defensive some units are, or to totally rework things? Or is the defence value to tweak things to hit a certain number for balance?

[Tawnis]

To what a few people have said earlier in the thread. While some of those choices for D6 were relevant in the past, I think we're long past most of that now.

 

The main hurdle I see for changing to a D12 system is how many people have invested in large bespoke dice collections of D6 for their use in the hobby. How upset are people going to get if they are suddenly told that all those super expensive promo D6 dice that GW releases for every faction are now all out of date, but hey you can now buy new fancy expensive GW D12 dice for those same factions. I think the gameplay improvement would be undeniable, but will the inevitable backlash on what I'm sure many people would consider a money grab be worth it? 

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Tawnis said:

To what a few people have said earlier in the thread. While some of those choices for D6 were relevant in the past, I think we're long past most of that now.

 

The main hurdle I see for changing to a D12 system is how many people have invested in large bespoke dice collections of D6 for their use in the hobby. How upset are people going to get if they are suddenly told that all those super expensive promo D6 dice that GW releases for every faction are now all out of date, but hey you can now buy new fancy expensive GW D12 dice for those same factions. I think the gameplay improvement would be undeniable, but will the inevitable backlash on what I'm sure many people would consider a money grab be worth it? 

 

I think that's a huge hurdle.  I have on interest in going to a D12 system for pretty much that reason; I know the gameplay benefits are possible, but I don't think it ultimately adds much while it's going to cost me a ton; I've got SO MANY D6 and I also have tools for organizing and using those D6's that just won't work with d12.

[HeadlessCross]

25 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I think that's a huge hurdle.  I have on interest in going to a D12 system for pretty much that reason; I know the gameplay benefits are possible, but I don't think it ultimately adds much while it's going to cost me a ton; I've got SO MANY D6 and I also have tools for organizing and using those D6's that just won't work with d12.

You can use your D6 for other games then. Saying the D12 "doesn't add much" is a ludicrous statement: it literally doubles the numbers that can be used for unit design.

[Antarius]

It’s not a huge deal, but dice size might be an issue as well (at least for some people, some of whom might be the designers). I mean, you can roll 20d6 in one go, but not 20d12.

[HeadlessCross]

8 minutes ago, Antarius said:

It’s not a huge deal, but dice size might be an issue as well (at least for some people, some of whom might be the designers). I mean, you can roll 20d6 in one go, but not 20d12.

You'd have a point if this were still the 90s. There are entire companies that just sell different kinds of dice in various sizes. Hell, Dice Depot has nice D12s that are 10mm. Here's an example of one from Chessex, which is significantly smaller than a popcorn kernel:

Spoiler