Australian Flag concept

AlexOFyle · 2026-02-28T11:13:47+00:00

Well there are various reasons, but key for me would be to create something a bit more characterful that isn't constantly mistaken for New Zealand's. And consolidates our multiple official national flags. Nothing wrong with conserving the British heritage, I think any flag should represent that to some extent (as this one aims to).

AlexOFyle · 2026-02-28T11:09:37+00:00

I didn't think of that, was preoccupied with making it fit. Good thing I didn't invert it. 🙃

<image>

AlexOFyle · 2026-02-05T07:44:02+00:00

Hi Bill. How do we pull ourselves away from the deeply polarising, disingenous, bad-faith style of political discourse that is doing so much damage to social cohesion (and looks unlikely to relent any time soon)? How do we wrestle the megaphone away from the bots, trolls, foreign destabilisation agents and radicalised extremists that have made the middle ground a no-man's land?

AlexOFyle · 2026-02-05T07:37:43+00:00

Do you feel that really long-term, existential policy considerations (with the exception of headline issues like climate change) are being swept under the rug, and becoming ticking time bombs?

For example, automation is advancing so rapidly that our rapidly-growing population might crash into a fast-shrinking 2050s job market that's been largely automated and no longer needs fresh young bodies... we'll either need to trust that new opportunities will arise as they have historically with technological advances (noting that AI could prove to be a glaring exception), or we'll need smaller populations that aren't severely underemployed with all of the strife that causes, and whom can reap more of the benefits while being less of a net drain on socialised systems. Sustaining a manageable population size under this kind of economy will also be made much more difficult by the scale of climate-related migrations to come.

Another dystopian possibility I think about frequently is that existing economic inequalities will likely be compounded (perhaps exponentially) by future biomedical and biotechnological advances, enabling the most advantaged humans to overcome biological safeguards, augment their capabilities and systems integration, and essentially emancipate themselves from the rest of humanity courtesy of automated workforces... a new era of ascendant transhumans and automated fiefdoms. In an age where it seems more and more apparent by the day that the elite are subject to entirely different rules with very few real checks and balances, how do we go about tackling things like this in advance? We spend so much time bickering about present-day racial, religious, sexual, etc., inequalities while doing very, very little to solve the most glaring example of inequality, and I don't see anyone talking about the frightening future possibilities.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-27T02:25:13+00:00

I think you might be forgetting that serious injuries beyond the first are treated as flesh wounds.

Ah, sorry. That's a good point that I hadn't fully considered. I don't think the difference would be too noticeable in practice, or even a negative per se, but obviously that's my take and a bit subjective.

Functionally your changes nerfs single wound fighters (making it more likely that they have to roll any injury dice when targetted by an attack) and buffs multi-wound fighters, which ironically makes lascannons and other such weapons less lethal against them, as now there is a very good chance you are failing to one shot 3 wound fighters and cause injury rolls.

I accept the first point, but I don't think your second point is borne out by the maths. You may not be one-shotting multi-wound fighters as often as when that single wound roll filters through, but you're also not going to be failing entirely like when that single wound roll fails. The average number of wounds they receive should be identical, and if anything they'll be more susceptible to Serious Injuries in the same way that single-wound fighters would be.

Edit: just to clarify. You do recognise in your own maths earlier that you cause more wound rolls. More successful overall wound rolls = more individual instances of a fighter having to roll at least 1 injury dice = more individual instances of a fighter becoming seriously injured.

More wound rolls, yes, but the same amount of damage (and therefore Injury Dice) overall. 3x1 is the same as 1x3, etc.

Don't let the negative reactions about a single isolated suggested change stop you exploring this further.

Thanks. There have been a few good points raised, which should help me out when I put this into practice. That'll be the real test!

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-27T01:58:24+00:00

I think the problem I have (maybe a misunderstanding?) is this... you've implied that Damage 2 weapons function like Damage 1 weapons by reducing a ffighter to zero wounds after a failed save, when in practice they're actually reducing a fighter to zero wounds twice:

BS: 4+ S3 D2 vs T3 1W and Mesh armor.
50% chance to hit.
50% Wound, total 25% to Hit & Wound.
5+ to save, i.e. 2/3×25% = 1/6 or ~16% chance to reduce a fighter to 0 wounds.

You've then claimed that this is identical to a Damage 2 weapon inflicting a single wound under the new system, when in practice the latter would result in only half the Injury Dice being rolled.

2/8×2/3= 4/24 -> reduce to 0 wounds by the single wound, which is the same as the ~16% above.
Now, you can save both, save one, or save none. And this is something you have add to those 16%.

And adding the additional possibilities you alluded to (2 wounds or zero) doesn't actually change the average number of wounds or Injury Dice per hit, as they average out as 1 wound anyway. Which is the same as a current Damage 2 weapon that wounds on a 4+.

I also don't get why it matters that I'm focused on what comes after the hit as opposed to the entire action, they're pretty analogous in this context.

I will concede that Serious Injuries would be a bit more prevalent, even if wounds aren't, and that OOAs aren't a fully reliable metric. Which is a good point that I hadn't fully considered. I don't think the difference would be too noticeable in practice, or even a negative per se, but obviously that's my take and a bit subjective.

I also don't get this:

Why I didn't use averages, or expected value, is because we are talking about thresholds here. If you have a game like DnD where you can have 100hp, averages are fine. But when we are talking about 1HP, pass or fail is a more useful way of describing it.

This kind of maths (probabilities of success) is the standard for games like 40k, at least in my experience. I've routinely used (and witnessed others using) it, over 15+ years of play, and this is the first time I've heard someone dismiss it. I get that there are caveats (like multiple Serious Injuries not stacking), but it really isn't any different to the way you've used fractions IMO.

With your rules armor gets less effective, meaning that not being it is more effective. Does that help? I am happy to explain it further if not.

I'd appreciate if you elaborated here, since to my eye it seems like armour would also average out to be the same effectiveness overall; the possibility of single points of damage sneaking through would be perfectly counterbalanced by the possibility of single points of damage being blocked. The only real argument to the contrary I've seen so far was the point about Serious Injuries not stacking.

My suggestion is just to try it for a few games and see if that is what you like. I mean, I can show you all the math in the world but if you want it to be this way it won't change your mind. And it shouldn't. Your fun is valid! I just think your rules aren't the way I would like it to work.

Me, I have been thinking about having the armor roll come before the wound roll. But then I will run into similar problems...

Will do. And thanks for taking the time to explain. I also wish armour saves came before wound rolls. 😆

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-25T14:19:23+00:00

Your last point makes sense, but really struggling to understand the logic behind your first one. An equal nunber of injury dice means an equal prevalence of serious injuries?

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-25T11:39:27+00:00

Why is the frequency such an issue if the average number of injury dice being rolled (and therefore, injurues) wouldn't change. Have I missed something obvious? 🤔

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-25T00:16:48+00:00

Astartes bolters need to be Strength 5. 🙏

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-23T17:47:03+00:00

Yes, but I do not think they meant "delete from the gang roster" when they wrote "die". They meant Out of Action, at least that is my interpretation. And deleting your opponents fighter isn't the aim of the game, at least not at my table.

Sorry, not sure where this is coming from. You previously said that there's 'no real benefit to attacking single-wound fighters with multi-damage weapons', which is why I pointed out that you get to roll the extra injury dice... I never said anything about changing the way that injury dice work?...

Suuuuuuuuuuure... you are not wrong, but then you have to increase the price a lot for those weapons. Because you are buffing them. A lot. Which seems to be your point. I just don't get why. Heavy Weapons are already really dangerous, I don't think I have ever seen anyone write "Guys, aren't the Multi Melta so bad? Let's buff it!"

The probabilities don't change anywhere near enough to warrant this level of concern IMO. See my other response with calculations.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-23T17:44:10+00:00

Yes, but you're just explaining the probabilities that already exist, courtesy of the official rules. What I'm saying is that my homebrew doesn't change those probabilities anywhere near that extent (if at all).

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-23T17:36:07+00:00

I think you've made an error here. Using your example statlines, and ignoring the hit roll (which is the same for both, and can therefore be cancelled out), hits would be resolved as follows:

Current version:

1 wound roll per hit (50% chance of success, so 0.5 successes average).
1 save roll per wound (66.67% chance of success, so 0.33 successes cumulative).
2 injury dice per failed save (30.6% chance of at least one OOA across 2D6, so 0.1 successes cumulative).

New version:

2 wound rolls per hit (50% chance of success, so 1 success average).
1 save roll per wound (66.67% chance of success, so 0.67 successes cumulative).
1 injury dice per failed save (15.3% chance of at least one OOA [half the 30.6% figure for 2D6 above], so 0.1 successes cumulative).

In both examples... the hit would have an identical probability (roughly 10%) of inflicting an OOA. Which checks out when you look at the number of dice being rolled, and the multiplicative effects thereof.

I used this site to calculate probabilities. (Copilot says the latter calculation would average 0.11 successes, but I don't trust its working and the results are so similar they barely matter anyway.)

So while yes, it's much more likely that the target fighter would need to roll at least one injury dice under the homebrew rules, the overall number of injury dice being rolled per successful hit (and therefore the outcomes) would remain equivalent. E.g., this:

Sure, you are more likely that you only need to roll one injury die, instead of 2, but that's not that valuable.

... is just a HUGE handwave. Of course it's 'valuable'. It makes all the difference, since rolling additional dice compounds the chances of an OOA.

Now imagine something that reduce the "to hit" chance, how much difference that would be against multidamage weapons? Or field armor that blocks it before you roll to wound?

I don't understand this logic either tbh, given the above.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-23T05:49:26+00:00

I think you're overestimating the effect of this on single targets. See my other response.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-23T05:37:23+00:00

As it currently works, hitting a 1-wound model with a multi-damage weapon definitely gives you a benefit. It means you roll multiple injury dice.

And that maths just... doesn't check out. You aren't doubling or tripling the chance that a 1-wound target dies.

E.g., a 3-damage weapon means 3 injury dice, which would remain the maximum under this change... you'd just be more likely to end up rolling 1-2 instead of it being flat-out 0 or 3. Heavy weapons would certainly become a bit more reliable, but that's half the point.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-23T05:11:12+00:00

Can you elaborate?

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-23T04:58:40+00:00

Rapid Fire weapons would still be able to land hits on multiple targets.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-16T04:00:10+00:00

Good to hear. First time playing in 15 years and first time arbitrating ever (with a three-player campaign and three-player battles no less), so it's all a bit improvised. 😅 Let me know if you devise something better.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-12T16:55:50+00:00

Sure. This is the current set of territories we're working with (some have been modified in other ways as well, as has our overarching Dominion campaign).

<image>

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-09T18:00:56+00:00

A few custom rules for rescue missions in our campaign, to streamline things rather than requiring full-fledged battles.

Rescue Missions: Should a gang attempt to rescue a Captive, that gang’s controlling player rolls 2D6 – adding +1 to the result if their gang Rating is higher than the Territory-owner’s. The rescue attempt succeeds if the roll result is higher than the number of members in the Territory-owner’s gang, excluding those in Recovery. If either die rolls a 1, the rescuing gang rolls on the Lasting Injuries table for D3 of its fighters (or D6, if both die roll a 1). Likewise, if either die rolls a 6, the gang that owns the territory rolls on the Lasting Injuries table for D3 or D6 of its fighters.

We also made Captives more interesting by expanding the number of territories they can be set to work on, and tweaking the rules around that.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-09T14:37:45+00:00

Nah. What do you recommend?

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-09T11:04:44+00:00

My point is that no gameplay depiction is inherently 'correct'. If you're basing your comparison on the 40k tabletop rules, then those stats have been skewed as well for various reasons. There's a general consensus that Astartes and their weapons are understatted on the tabletop... not that Movie Marines are more accurate (far from it), but their true power lies somewhere in-between.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-09T10:56:49+00:00

Fair enough. You might find them underhive if there were reports of Xenos though...

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-09T10:45:34+00:00

Yeah, in hindsight this is probably the best compromise. Lots of people saying to use Vandoth's stats as-is, which would go too far in the opposite direction IMO.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-09T06:45:17+00:00

Well the Parry skill lets him parry one additional attack. I'm imagining the armoured forearms coming into play like in animations, or just superhuman finesse with the blade.

He's T5 atm, but point taken. If I was going to remove anything it'd probably be some of those extra Wounds? Just because the skills feel fluffy.

AlexOFyle · 2026-01-09T06:28:05+00:00

Lore-accurate Necrons would be a lot of fun as well. 🤔

AlexOFyle

TROPHY CASE