PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone else think that BS is BS?



jason_sation
02-11-2008, 22:41
What I mean is that for their armor save, my IG have a score of 5, so I need to roll a five or higher to save. However their BS is 3, so I need a ...(inexperienced player looking up table on page 301 in rule book) 4 up to hit?

I realize it's only one table to look at, but doesn't this seem like a silly stat? I'm guessing that it would be to hard to change, due to all the codices needing an update for their units. I also realize it's easy to remember after a while (my IG are all 3 in my list, so I've got it down now!), but still, it is one more thing to remember!

marv335
02-11-2008, 22:44
subtract from seven to find your "to hit" number.

Lord Inquisitor
02-11-2008, 23:00
You're right, these days it might as well be that Space Marines have BS3+ and Orks have BS5+. That's what it is in LotR, I suspect that the only reason it's this way in 40k is simply that this is the way it has always been, and like you say it's hard to change without an overhaul of the codexes.

Stats are just traditionally one a 1-10 scale, and it used to be that working out your "to hit" roll for BS was a bit more complicated (and so a Space Marine might not always hit on a 3+).

MarcoSkoll
02-11-2008, 23:37
No, it seems fine to me.

You need Str/Tgh comparisions for shooting as it is - and that's somewhat more complex.
When you've been playing as long as I have (or for that matter, not very large fractions of that time), you don't even need the tables - any of them: WS, BS, S vs. T.
Most of the guys I know can play entire games without a single look in the Codex or BRB, and often create most of Army Lists the same way.

Usually the only time I have to refer to anything is when there's a new codex I getting used to, or sometimes with Fantasy spells, referring to the exact nature of the spells (as there are 48 different spells in the main rulebook alone and I mix my Lores up every now and again, not that surprising) or Miscast table.

Xenobane
03-11-2008, 00:11
subtract from seven to find your "to hit" number.

Yep, that's how hard it is.

Given how much the game has been dumbed-down *cough* I mean simplified in recent years, do we really need to simplify BS?

At first glance the game might appear confusing and some parts counter-intuitive. Persevere, play lots, and soon you'll be able to draw the ranged "to hit", close combat "to hit" and "to wound" tables from memory. It's really much simpler than it looks.

Lord Inquisitor
03-11-2008, 00:25
I can tell you from teaching innumerable people to play, saying "you've got BS3 so you hit on a 4+, wheras if you have BS4 you hit on a 3+" does tend to make people go cross-eyed. While the system works fine, there's no reason it couldn't be BS3+, which would be vastly more intuitive. Same system, just easier to understand. Dumbing down is one thing (can we please have overwatch back yet?), but making the game accessible and streamlined is quite another.

Yes, with time, it becomes second nature, you'll just know what dice roll you need without needing any tables. Doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon.

Khaine's Messenger
03-11-2008, 00:44
Having played Warmachine and DnD, which don't need many charts at all*, I actually agree that the 40k system comes off as unsatisfying at times. A bit of a kludge. The problem comes with having inverse stats. If BS 5 meant you need to score a 5 or less (essentially the same probabilities as a 2+), then that might make sense--this is how characteristic tests work anyway. Not that there are all that many characteristic tests in the game...the only one that comes to mind is the old "mutation" psychic power from the late-3e Chaos 'dex (and I think Vortex of Doom from 4e SM). The only characteristic test that otherwise dominates the game is Leadership. One could rate armor much the same and alter the AP system to taste...although then AP would probably be an inverse-stat and cause its own doubletakes, since AP 5 (a weapon that defeats someone with the equivalent of a 2+ armor save) would probably be worse than AP 4 (someone with the equivalent of a 3+ save).

However, there's this strange urge to say that rolling high means rolling well, and reducing one's margin for failure (gobbling the lower numbers) is the same as "rolling high." Most wargames I've run into accomodate this urge, and 40k is no exception. If anything, I would think that Leadership is the odd man out in the system (even in Warmachine, with the CMD stat)--it uses two dice (creating a bit of a curve in the probabilities), and it's a roll-under system. In, say, Flames of War, this is handled with rolling a die and scoring a number or higher based on the "confidence" of the unit. So you have to look at it and wonder.

There's a point you have to step in and just say that, yea verily, this is how the system works. It's got roll-under, roll-over, stat comparison charts, flat stat roll charts, roll modifiers, no roll modifiers, distributions both curved and flat, and so on, all worked into seperate systems of how to resolve all the conceivable means of resolving combat. I may not be able to reduce it to a one, true core mechanic, but it still works.

* Well, the players don't. Roleplaying game DMs often need tables to streamline decisionmaking.

Tsear
03-11-2008, 00:51
You're complaining because you can't memorize three numbers?

Victomorga
03-11-2008, 01:06
No, it seems fine to me.

You need Str/Tgh comparisions for shooting as it is - and that's somewhat more complex.


agreed. the S/T chart is the only one you should really need to look up.


You're complaining because you can't memorize three numbers?

no, the complaint is related to subtracting numbers from 7.

sabre4190
03-11-2008, 01:14
Honestly, this never felt like a "hard" stat to learn. The first game, its understandable. After playing two games, almost everyone ive played will have gotten the feel for the stat. If anything, the stat should be be more detailed, not less.

jason_sation
03-11-2008, 01:22
You're right, these days it might as well be that Space Marines have BS3+ and Orks have BS5+. That's what it is in LotR, I suspect that the only reason it's this way in 40k is simply that this is the way it has always been, and like you say it's hard to change without an overhaul of the codexes.

Stats are just traditionally one a 1-10 scale, and it used to be that working out your "to hit" roll for BS was a bit more complicated (and so a Space Marine might not always hit on a 3+).

Now it makes sense to me why the table. I guess at some point they simplified the "to hit" rules, but due to the codexes, couldn't just do away with the table?

Feor
03-11-2008, 01:48
There use to be to-hit modifierts all over the place in the game as I understand it. Instead of cover giving you a save, your oppoent got -x to hit, and so forth. For a taste of what it was like, try out Necromunda sometime. I still have the juve somewhere who tagged that redemptionist at extreme range through 3 bulkheads with a laspistol needing 9+ to hit on 1d6.

So yeah, they simplified it, by just cutting out all the extra modifiers, but leaving the core of the system (Subtract yourt BS from 7) cause that's what everyone was used to.

Bookwrak
03-11-2008, 01:51
In fact, they added the table this edition, IIRC. Apparently, 4th edition players were having too much trouble with simply being told '7-BS gives you the target number' and needed the little table to explain it. It's a case where 'fixing' it would just cause more trouble than it fixed, since old codexes would use BS, and new ones would just list a target number.

Firaxin
03-11-2008, 01:56
I'm pretty sure the table was in 4th ed too...

Sekhmet
03-11-2008, 02:17
You're right, these days it might as well be that Space Marines have BS3+ and Orks have BS5+. That's what it is in LotR, I suspect that the only reason it's this way in 40k is simply that this is the way it has always been, and like you say it's hard to change without an overhaul of the codexes.


What about BS 6+ characters?

What, in your system they'd have BS 2/6, 2/5, 2/4, 2/3, etc?

Chem-Dog
03-11-2008, 02:33
You're complaining because you can't memorize three numbers?


Better not tell him I can write out an army list without the Codex then ;)

Hellebore
03-11-2008, 02:41
I really wish they'd just turn BS into a versus stat like everything else. WS vs WS, S vs T.

Invent a new stat or simply co-opt a preexisting one (say BS vs BS, or BS vs I).

Either way it would be immensely more satisfying than "you hit on a 3+. I don't care if the target is running at 60ks and hour and jumping 15 feet in the air, you still hit on a 3+".

Hellebore

Khaine's Messenger
03-11-2008, 02:50
Sekhmet:
You wouldn't, in my opinion. The stats use a different basis for success. "BS 6" simply wouldn't exist. This might, of course, upset the few people who care about having the BS 6+ re-roll. The real problem with this rule, however, is that since it's been introduced you're going to see more models with BS 6--the special character scout sergeant, for example--to take advantage of it. This could make such a changeover impossible.

In a system that used modifiers, you could keep going down, with the understanding that 1's always fail. Rerolls wouldn't be necessary to make models in the current system with BS 6 or higher more awesome. WHFB armor save used to do this...I haven't played in a while, though.

EmperorEternalXIX
03-11-2008, 02:54
What I mean is that for their armor save, my IG have a score of 5, so I need to roll a five or higher to save. However their BS is 3, so I need a ...(inexperienced player looking up table on page 301 in rule book) 4 up to hit?

I realize it's only one table to look at, but doesn't this seem like a silly stat? I'm guessing that it would be to hard to change, due to all the codices needing an update for their units. I also realize it's easy to remember after a while (my IG are all 3 in my list, so I've got it down now!), but still, it is one more thing to remember! I myself am an amateur game designer and I can explain why it is like this.

Basically it amounts to looking better in comparison. I.e., it's better to build your game around a "higher" number meaning the guy is "better" as that is the way we are used to seeing things.

When I built my game I tried to make the stats indicative of what you had to roll. The result was that the entire game was turned inside out, and every player who beta tested it was confused. Granted, not for long -- but still, starting off confused about why the guy with a 2 is better than the guy with a 5 befuddled 100% of people who played it. Once I changed it, oddly, people picked it up much more quickly.

And a good amount of those people weren't warhammer people, either.

The other reason is of course, psychologically, you want some guys to just look awesome on paper (Sergeant Telion jumps to mind...his BS is double the other scouts, makes you go WHOA!). It is also good for making certain people better than others despite having equally easy rolls -- if you go the way you say, you get no one better than a 2+ in the galaxy. That makes a lot more sense for something as broad as the classes of armor then it does for the myriad races and the models of each army. Sergeant Telion is the best shot humanity has to offer, but there may be an Eldar who is even better, etc.

Hellebore
03-11-2008, 03:13
I don't that with a game with a stat range of 1-10 BS is pretty much a 1-5 system (the new rules are the minimum required to actually make BS in the same scale as everything else).

Hellebore

Chem-Dog
03-11-2008, 03:14
I really wish they'd just turn BS into a versus stat like everything else. WS vs WS, S vs T.

Invent a new stat or simply co-opt a preexisting one (say BS vs BS, or BS vs I).


How about Bs Vs Speed or Bs Vs Cover?

Warforger
03-11-2008, 03:18
BS is one of the easiest thing to figure out in the game, 1-6 2-5+ 3-4+ 4-3+ 5-2+

at the BS 3/BS 4 line it gets easier to remember these things.

Hellebore
03-11-2008, 03:20
How about Bs Vs Speed or Bs Vs Cover?

Sure, I think though that you'd need a base cover value (at the least a 1) even out in the open.

With this sort of system you don't get modifiers per se, but you could increase the opposing value.

EG:

Model moved: S1 (speed 1)
Intervening cover: C2 (equivalent to the 5+ cover save now)

Total difficulty to hit: 3

BS 4 compared to difficulty 3 gives chance to hit.

Or you could simplify it even more and say choose the highest out of speed and cover rather than adding them (because that's too complicated:rolleyes:).

The to hit table could look like the WS table or the SvT table, it all depends on what kind of spread you want (i've always been really annoyed that a dark reaper exarch can hit someone 48" with a missile 84% of the time but only 67% when trying to punch them).

Hellebore

Lord Inquisitor
03-11-2008, 03:28
What about BS 6+ characters?

What, in your system they'd have BS 2/6, 2/5, 2/4, 2/3, etc?
Well, you could have BS6=BS1+ or BS7=BS0+. Is there anything BS8 or higher as it stands?

Frankly, BS6+ is somewhat pointless anyway. The new sniper character, perhaps, but other than that it's really not worth the hassle. Hitting on a 2+ is usually sufficient!

Bookwrak
03-11-2008, 03:37
I myself am an amateur game designer and I can explain why it is like this.

That's a good point. Every other stat value is on a rising scale, so having one in which the lower the value is better is a bit counter-intuitive.

Lord Inquisitor
03-11-2008, 03:42
That's a good point. Every other stat value is on a rising scale, so having one in which the lower the value is better is a bit counter-intuitive.
Armour save? ;)

Gutlord Grom
03-11-2008, 04:01
I don't think it's a difficult thing to do, workable but not satisfying all the time. I like the BS versus INT idea, but you know hot it is. Huse rule it if you want to.

Sekhmet
03-11-2008, 04:23
The discussion is moving from how to write the BS value to how the BS value (regardless of how it's shown) should work in actual game play.

Lord Cook
03-11-2008, 05:07
I fail to see the problem. Ballistic skill is laid out as higher numbers being better because that maintains consistency with the rest of the stat line, in that higher Toughness is better, or higher Leadership is better. The only exception is armour, and in that case it makes sense anyway.

Whilst it takes a while before you can write out army lists and play entire games without ever looking at a rulebook or codex, working out ballistic skill is hardly onerous.

Lisiecki
03-11-2008, 05:15
I'm pretty sure the table was in 4th ed too...

i dont know about 4th but 3rd had exactly the same chart in it

Hellebore
03-11-2008, 06:27
If I'm ever explaining it to someone I tell them that they've taken the numbers 1-6 and assigned the reverse to each one:

BS 1-2-3-4-5-6
Hit 6-5-4-3-2-1

With 1s always failing. Two rows of numbers going in opposite directions.

People seem to grasp it pretty fast.

Hellebore

TheMav80
03-11-2008, 08:07
Never have a problem with BS, but I always have to look up the WS chart.

I learned WH with the Tau...so it never mattered. Now I'm playing Orcs and playing various Fantasy armies who actually HAVE a WS and I always need to look at the chart.

Khaine's Messenger
03-11-2008, 08:18
working out ballistic skill is hardly onerous.

It doesn't interfere with play, no--heck, you hardly need to even remember the math since there's a table in the quick summary.

But it can be unsatisfying when you take a broad view of the game, at home, snuggled up in your favorite armchair general chair, reading your core rulebook by the fire, bubble-pipe in hand. Not always, but sometimes. At least it seems that way to me. That's when the gremlins come out. :D

WLBjork
03-11-2008, 08:31
Tables? Who needs them?

To hit (shooting): 7-BS

To hit combat:
Your WS higher than opponents - 3+
Opponents WS > 2*your WS -5+
Otherwise - 4+


Strength/Toughness:

S 2 or more higher than T - 2+
S 1 higher than T - 3+
S=T - 4+
S 1 lower than T - 5+
S 2 or 3 lower than T - 6+
S 4 or more lower than T - cannot wound

Xenobane
03-11-2008, 10:52
i dont know about 4th but 3rd had exactly the same chart in it

4th, 3rd, and 2nd too (with the additional complication of modifiers). It's been around for more than a decade, I'm pretty sure it's going nowhere.

Lanparth
03-11-2008, 11:04
Honestly? I've got the Strength, BS, and WS charts so down in my mind it takes me only at most a second to understand what rolls are required for anything, really. Its no real problem for me. >.>

MarcoSkoll
03-11-2008, 11:48
agreed. the S/T chart is the only one you should really need to look up.
WLBjork has pointed out what I was going to. All the Tables are simple rules, remembering that 1s always fail.

Your WS is more than your opponent, hit on a 3+; Less than half, hit on 5+ (Although personally I think it should be Half or less, 5+ to hit almost never comes up, making it fairly moot - about the only example I've ever seen come up can think of is Tau against WS 5 Characters); Any other time, 4+.
Shooting hits are (7-BS)+
The wound table is essentially (4+T-S)+, remembering that a result of 7+ is swapped with 6+.

Of course, with time you don't even need to think of the equations.
I'm reaching the sad point in my life that I barely need to refer to the Inquisitor range tables any longer.


Either way it would be immensely more satisfying than "you hit on a 3+. I don't care if the target is running at 60ks and hour and jumping 15 feet in the air, you still hit on a 3+".
Faffing with target speed and stuff is the realm of Inquisitor, not 40K. However, Personally, I think Fantasy's system is pretty decent one.

Does anyone remember the promises of "Hyper Detailed 40K rules" that were tied up with 4th edition? Obviously, they never materialised.
Given this, I wrote a set myself, a bit like a cross between all of GW's three main systems with a dash of some of the "detailed" specialist games, like Necromunda and Inquisitor.

They were mostly designed for games of between 500 and 1000 points, and were actually pretty fun - because it made each model seem that much more special in the big scheme of things.
Seriously, even if you're not using hyper detailed rules, one of the best games I ever had was a 500 point one - I suggest everyone does it occasionally. Me and my brother have started playing smaller games - simply because we have to be more selective and tactical with your list.

Anyway, if people are even vaguely interested, I could bring this set of "Hyper detailed rules" into line with 5th edition, and post them on here for your playtesting pleasure.

Latro_
03-11-2008, 11:50
Whats more funny is that if you'v played so long you dont see bs5 you see 2 to hit, like as you actually read it.

Lisiecki
04-11-2008, 01:23
4th, 3rd, and 2nd too (with the additional complication of modifiers). It's been around for more than a decade, I'm pretty sure it's going nowhere.

Ahhhh ok its comments like
In fact, they added the table this edition, IIRC. Apparently, 4th edition players were having too much trouble with simply being told '7-BS gives you the target number' and needed the little table to explain it.

Caus you know the old days were always better and shiner.
You know back when Ultramarines weren't the flagship army of 40k...
I assume that was at the beginning of RT days, as the 2nd ed Space Marine Codex was, quite literally Codex: Ultramarines.

RexTalon
04-11-2008, 03:59
Thinking like this drives me crazy. Yes, the BS system has always been this way. Yes, it's not THAT hard. The question was never, "is it workable the way it is?" It's "Can we make it a little better?"

Everyone just pretend with me a moment. Let's just say that new rule books started being printed with BS 2+ instead of BS 5... Yea, lets just image that... And lets imagine that in the new main rulebook it says that for this edition only, a model will have 7-BS unless it has a + then you just have to roll higher than that number... Now lets imagine a future, where a new edition is released and everyone now just has the BS #+... Is it a little better now? Has it made the game system more intuitive for the beginner? Can't you still use modifiers to raise or lower that number should you ever wish to do so?

Alright now come back to reality. Sure, we could go on existing without changing anything, but it's really not that big a deal to tweak something small in order to make it better for the future.

Now everyone get in a circle and sing... "koom by ya, my lord, koom by ya..."

Ronin_eX
04-11-2008, 11:26
Thinking like this drives me crazy. Yes, the BS system has always been this way. Yes, it's not THAT hard. The question was never, "is it workable the way it is?" It's "Can we make it a little better?"

Everyone just pretend with me a moment. Let's just say that new rule books started being printed with BS 2+ instead of BS 5... Yea, lets just image that... And lets imagine that in the new main rulebook it says that for this edition only, a model will have 7-BS unless it has a + then you just have to roll higher than that number... Now lets imagine a future, where a new edition is released and everyone now just has the BS #+... Is it a little better now? Has it made the game system more intuitive for the beginner? Can't you still use modifiers to raise or lower that number should you ever wish to do so?

Alright now come back to reality. Sure, we could go on existing without changing anything, but it's really not that big a deal to tweak something small in order to make it better for the future.

Now everyone get in a circle and sing... "koom by ya, my lord, koom by ya..."

This right here, the current system works, no argument. But I can't believe people honestly think that their isn't a way to improve a system that has a half-dozen resolution mechanics when most games today have two (unopposed and opposed respectively).

40k and Fantasy have BS tests, opposed WS tests, roll under stat checks using a 1D6, roll under leadership using 2D6, opposed toughness/strength tests, vehicle damage checks (constant + dice roll over target number) and likely at least one more I'm forgetting (roll over armour checks!).

This just seems a little clunky for my taste, especially for a system they have spent the last decade "streamlining" for quicker play. The game needs to unify its resolution system and get rid of redundant stats (why do we need toughness and armour? Both resist damage so why not roll them together?).

Agree with Rex above in any case, just because it isn't broken doesn't mean we can't think of a more efficient way of doing it (or maybe people like a "Rhube Goldberg" for a system :p). If GW actually wanted to streamline things I can think of better ways than stripping out everything that made it interesting (i.e. try and make the system efficient in the first place).

Xenobane
04-11-2008, 11:41
The game needs to unify its resolution system and get rid of redundant stats (why do we need toughness and armour? Both resist damage so why not roll them together?).


Seriously? Because then the system can differentiate between weapons that can easily wound unarmoured targets and those that can also break through armour. What you're suggesting would massively simplify the game to the point where a weapon's effectiveness was one-dimensional.

Does anyone actually find all these tests difficult to negotiate? If it were a real impediment to playing the game I would agree with you, but I'd really rather not lose what nuance the game still has in favour of a standardised system just because it's less "clunky."

FWIW, I have never been slowed down by having to perform different mechanics in BS tests and S/T tests, etc.

RexTalon
04-11-2008, 20:23
Oh my gawd, it's the end times! Any moment the universe is going to collapse! Someone agreed with me! ;)

stroller
04-11-2008, 21:52
Answering the original question - nope I think its fine.

Lord Inquisitor
04-11-2008, 22:39
This just seems a little clunky for my taste, especially for a system they have spent the last decade "streamlining" for quicker play. The game needs to unify its resolution system and get rid of redundant stats (why do we need toughness and armour? Both resist damage so why not roll them together?).
Well, once again, you can look to LotR. It is a brand new system GW made without needing to consider anything but making a good game. And, indeed, BS is listed as the number needed (e.g. 4+). Also, as you say, toughness and armour are the same thing. So clearly the designers of LotR agree with you! Epic also has a two-roll system (to-hit, and save, no wound), which works fine.

There are reasons you might want to consider keeping toughness and armour distinct, however. Firstly, there's "feel." Might sound silly, but you know what's tough and what's armoured just from the statline. Secondly, the more dice rolls you add in, the more fire-tuning you can make. A D6 system is fairly limited - if you only have one dice roll you can only have a distribution of 6. Now, move to a D10, D20 or D100 system and you can have a reasonably spread even from a single dice roll. But with the D6 it's rather limited. By making a wound roll AND an armour roll it actually spreads out "hardness" out so you can have more distinction between a T6 4+ monster and a T6 3+ monster, where both might be Defence 9, for example.


Does anyone actually find all these tests difficult to negotiate? If it were a real impediment to playing the game I would agree with you, but I'd really rather not lose what nuance the game still has in favour of a standardised system just because it's less "clunky."
I've taught more people to play the game than I could shake a stick at, and yeah, making BS4 BS3+ would actually make it easier to learn the game. The point is that it wouldn't in any way change the nuances of the game, just make it more accessible and straightforward.

Now, me, I have the sort of mind that I can see patterns very quickly - I don't reckon I've ever used any table, even when starting - but other people need to check the table every time. It's not impossible to use, far from it - it wouldn't have survived this long if it were. But it isn't necessary in a game with no hit-modifiers.

Ronin_eX
05-11-2008, 17:27
Seriously? Because then the system can differentiate between weapons that can easily wound unarmoured targets and those that can also break through armour. What you're suggesting would massively simplify the game to the point where a weapon's effectiveness was one-dimensional.

Does anyone actually find all these tests difficult to negotiate? If it were a real impediment to playing the game I would agree with you, but I'd really rather not lose what nuance the game still has in favour of a standardised system just because it's less "clunky."

FWIW, I have never been slowed down by having to perform different mechanics in BS tests and S/T tests, etc.

The only reason the armour save exists is to expand the number of possibilities in the poor little D6. Move up to a D10 and this is less of a problem. For targets which are sufficiently armoured to need special equipment to pierce there is a simple universal rule to apply (sparingly if possible). Mark them as "armoured" and pump up their toughness naturally (i.e. it wouldn't give a bonus, it would just be a marker). Then mark some weapons as armour-piercing and have them give a toughness penalty to "armoured" units. There nuanced and simple.

It isn't that the system is "hard" but that the natural bottleneck in game speed doesn't come from simple things like modifiers that were removed but from things like dice rolling. 40k is one of the few systems I've seen that requires so many steps to resolve an action while being so abstracted.

Most games do great with a to-hit/to-damage roll (usually using some system to represent truly heavy armour for things like vehicles) without weapons becoming one dimensional (the simplification can allow for nuances in range bands or other things).

Bringing the basic shooting/close combat resolution to two rolls would really improve the speed of the game and allow them to maybe build in some more complex interactions because as it is right now they simplified in the wrong places and kept a clunky system while taking away a lot of choice from the player.

But don't take my word for it try out other systems like Warzone, Infinity, Heavy Gear, Warmachine/Hordes, etc. who all manage to have characterful rules without the clunk we find in GW's pet system (hint: it's probably because most of those have been well designed with a purpose in mind rather than just being the remnants of a full wargaming system hacked up and patched so many times it is nearly unrecognizable).

It's playable but it is neither elegant nor interesting in its implementation and in a lot of cases reads like a "how not to design a game" kind of book. ;)


Well, once again, you can look to LotR. It is a brand new system GW made without needing to consider anything but making a good game. And, indeed, BS is listed as the number needed (e.g. 4+). Also, as you say, toughness and armour are the same thing. So clearly the designers of LotR agree with you! Epic also has a two-roll system (to-hit, and save, no wound), which works fine.

There are reasons you might want to consider keeping toughness and armour distinct, however. Firstly, there's "feel." Might sound silly, but you know what's tough and what's armoured just from the statline. Secondly, the more dice rolls you add in, the more fire-tuning you can make. A D6 system is fairly limited - if you only have one dice roll you can only have a distribution of 6. Now, move to a D10, D20 or D100 system and you can have a reasonably spread even from a single dice roll. But with the D6 it's rather limited. By making a wound roll AND an armour roll it actually spreads out "hardness" out so you can have more distinction between a T6 4+ monster and a T6 3+ monster, where both might be Defence 9, for example.

Indeed and it is why I've always loved the Epic system (simple rules with complex interactions and a deep system) and why I've always been interested in LotR (I here they also change up the phase system to something a little more involving which is another plus in my books). Makes me wonder why the saddle their main games with the crap rules though. o_O

And I can identify with wanting to keep the "feel" of the armour save, I mean I've been a 40k player for 12 years and in that time I've gotten used to it. But playing with new systems I've come to realize that in the end its only real purpose is the one you've stated, the D6 is fairly limited. I really, honestly think that GW should have moved to a D10 years ago (I mean they have a 1-10 range in stats so it just makes sense). So I agree that keeping the D6 makes the armour save more attractive as a mechanic but for me, when it comes to a linear single-die system for most games I've never really found a situation where a D6 works that a D10 couldn't do better (except Epic where the narrow range is never a huge issue due to the massive scale, but for skirmishes like 40k the D10 is a better choice in most cases).

It just gets me that the company who is always on about "streamlining" and making the game quicker haven't picked up on the fact that their game takes more time to resolve most combat situations than many more detailed systems. Instead they gut many other systems just to get the time savings they could easily acquire by making their resolution path shorter instead (an extra round of die rolling may not seem like much but the amount you roll throughout a game of 40k sees that extra step adding a good chunk of time on, and it doesn't help that that only exacerbates the problems with their IGOUGO system).

More than anything though I'd like to see vehicles use the same damage system as every other model and have a critical system like Epic's used to represent damage to large units (both MC's and vehicles). Two seperate damage systems is one of the big reasons why MC's have out shined vehicles since 3rd edition and it is just another one of those systems that adds time/complexity without being inherently interesting or useful on its own.

I dunno, it might just be me, but after so many years of playing a lot of different games it's just become so easy to pick out things the 40k system could be doing better that it makes me want to scream. I've loved the setting since I started but the clunky system and poor handling of streamlining the rules has turned me off of playing the game. If they could just put some thought into designing the game (like they did with Epic: Armageddon or LotR) then things would be better in my mind but each edition since 3rd hasn't really done much to clean things up, they've only puttered around changing sub-systems here and there with little rhyme or reason while avoiding larger problems like the unintuitive cover system or the disparity between vehicles and monstrous creatures. Just doesn't sit right with me I suppose.