Hit every location under template rolling high amount of dices. Good chance of getting some damage even if not blow out right away when you hit hull, turret, tracks and sponsor at once.
Against single monster high school hit doing multiple wounds was pretty good as well.
That's... absolutely not how templates work.
Yhats of you think 7th ed is only way templates have worked. But you DO know theres bewn more editions of 40k than 7th? Just because templates work like they do now doesnt mean it has slways been so. I can name 3 distinct phases each weakening russ vs tanks and monsters
Mr_Rose wrote: Of course convenience is a matter of opinion but I for one like not having to cross-reference or memorise dozens or hundreds of rules in a given game.
Which is why the glut of formations and alternate methods of army construction in 40K a big problem right now. You've got so many special rules (despite having a massive USR section), and then formation rules on top of them, then army selection rules, warlord traits that impact army special rules, and so on.
Giving every unit its own set of rules AoS-style isn't going to fix that.
And Emperor help us if we get AoS-style weapon profiles. This I dread more than anything. That homebrew one where the weapons had set To Wound values just makes me shiver. Not only is it stupid (so my Boltgun wounds a Grot and a Wraithknight on a 5+ equally?), but it also means you could have Bolters in one army that do something different to Bolters in another, or not even different armies, within the same army, because all their rules are 'bespoke'.
streetsamurai wrote: Agreed, USR are usually much better than a thousands little special snowflakes rules (though some units deserves some snowflakes rules).
It always boggle my mind when AOS fans claims that Bespoke rules are an improvement
Mine too, since everyone I've seen playing chaos or sigmarites or whatever has had identical rules.
That's easy to explain.
Warscrolls contain the unit's rules. My shield does X, your shield does Y. That they're different rules is immaterial, because you simply go with what's on your scroll.
The only issue there would be if a given scroll is updated without one player's knowledge, and you wind up with two players with identical units that don't have the same rule.
Ultimately, it's little different to 8th Edition - if I've Sword and Shield, I get a 5+ save. If I've got Sword and Spear, I've got a 6+. Different situation, different affect.
Main boon of Warscrolls of course is not having to flip between pages - or worse - books (seriously. I played an Apocalypse game and had to pack my Taghmata book, Imperial Knight book, Skitarii book and Cult Mechanicus book, despite I was playing as a single Mechanicus army). That got heavy quick, and meant I was trying to juggle the books when my opponents were shooting at me. If I tried that now, I'd need to add in the book with Cawl (because he's too good not to take!)
Mr_Rose wrote: Of course convenience is a matter of opinion but I for one like not having to cross-reference or memorise dozens or hundreds of rules in a given game.
Which is why the glut of formations and alternate methods of army construction in 40K a big problem right now. You've got so many special rules (despite having a massive USR section), and then formation rules on top of them, then army selection rules, warlord traits that impact army special rules, and so on.
Giving every unit its own set of rules AoS-style isn't going to fix that.
And Emperor help us if we get AoS-style weapon profiles. This I dread more than anything. That homebrew one where the weapons had set To Wound values just makes me shiver. Not only is it stupid (so my Boltgun wounds a Grot and a Wraithknight on a 5+ equally?), but it also means you could have Bolters in one army that do something different to Bolters in another, or not even different armies, within the same army, because all their rules are 'bespoke'.
I think we've argued this long enough a while ago. The difference isn't in the to wound roll but the wound count roll. The grot still has one wound, the wraithknight has, say, twenty now instead of six. And weapons of the same type do the same in other "armies" you're conflating weapon profiles with unit rules.
Actually having looked at some more warscrolls I think the main advantage for GW is disgusing the shallowness of AoS's genepool.
Outside of exotic weapons there is only 1 special rule used but under different names and thats re-roll 1's which accounts for about 80% of special rules.
I guess if you had USR but then only had 4 rules it might look like you were a little lazy with your rules.
Lord Kragan wrote: I think we've argued this long enough a while ago. The difference isn't in the to wound roll but the wound count roll. The grot still has one wound, the wraithknight has, say, twenty now instead of six. And weapons of the same type do the same in other "armies" you're conflating weapon profiles with unit rules.
I don't care that we argued it a while ago, it's still a terrible rule, especially when you bring vehicles into it (better give a Land Raider 30 wounds so it doesn't die to Laspistol fire!).
Lord Kragan wrote: I think we've argued this long enough a while ago. The difference isn't in the to wound roll but the wound count roll. The grot still has one wound, the wraithknight has, say, twenty now instead of six. And weapons of the same type do the same in other "armies" you're conflating weapon profiles with unit rules.
I don't care that we argued it a while ago, it's still a terrible rule, especially when you bring vehicles into it (better give a Land Raider 30 wounds so it doesn't die to Laspistol fire!).
Yeah, better it dies to a stray lascannon that rolled a lucky six while MCs go and work perfectly even when on the verge of death.
For me, the most interesting and potentially 'game changing' thing is letting charging units strike first.
Depending on how terrain may or may not affect that, some units should get a decent boost from that - Orks immediately spring to mind, as they'll get their attacks in before the enemy gets to do them over.
That in turn may make smaller mobs more appealing, as you don't need to shell out points for what'll amount to little more than ablative wounds.
Could also do the same for beasties like the Carnifex - absolute tank, but due to it's low I value, wary of too many other units in combat.
Choice of words was careful here - as without further info we don't really know how it'll play out. Could be so many exceptions to it that it becomes entirely moot.
SeanDrake wrote: Actually having looked at some more warscrolls I think the main advantage for GW is disgusing the shallowness of AoS's genepool.
Outside of exotic weapons there is only 1 special rule used but under different names and thats re-roll 1's which accounts for about 80% of special rules.
I guess if you had USR but then only had 4 rules it might look like you were a little lazy with your rules.
Standard bearer, no models feel on a 1.
+1 to hit if stands still. +1 to hit if there's 20+ models (massed fire is more likely to hit something).
Hornblower: allows for "overwatch" (the only, with archers and crossbowmen, capable in the game).
Freeguild Guard also get lots of + to hit as the unit gets bigger (though thanks to Battleshock, those numbers can be cut down surprisingly quickly with a concerted effort. Unless they roll a '1'!)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Freeguild Guard also get lots of + to hit as the unit gets bigger (though thanks to Battleshock, those numbers can be cut down surprisingly quickly with a concerted effort. Unless they roll a '1'!)
I'd not count too much on that, considering their batallion ups it to 1 and 2 and the order alleigance is almost tailormade for them, re-rolling battleshock if close to heroes.
And btw its bad game design from the get go if every unit breaks basic rules with their own special rules. Thats like first rule of not to do in professional game design
Mr_Rose wrote: Of course convenience is a matter of opinion but I for one like not having to cross-reference or memorise dozens or hundreds of rules in a given game.
Which is why the glut of formations and alternate methods of army construction in 40K a big problem right now. You've got so many special rules (despite having a massive USR section), and then formation rules on top of them, then army selection rules, warlord traits that impact army special rules, and so on.
Giving every unit its own set of rules AoS-style isn't going to fix that.
Maybe not entirely but wouldn't it still be better to cut down on the sources of special rules to just the warscroll/dataslate instead of the mess you describe?
And Emperor help us if we get AoS-style weapon profiles. This I dread more than anything. That homebrew one where the weapons had set To Wound values just makes me shiver. Not only is it stupid (so my Boltgun wounds a Grot and a Wraithknight on a 5+ equally?), but it also means you could have Bolters in one army that do something different to Bolters in another, or not even different armies, within the same army, because all their rules are 'bespoke'.
I also don't like the fixed to wound roll, but I think it could be cool if they had it the way KoW does it where it's flipped around and there's a set roll to wound the model and weapons etc. modify that.
tneva82 wrote: And btw its bad game design from the get go if every unit breaks basic rules with their own special rules. Thats like first rule of not to do in professional game design
Someone better tell nearly every wargames designer ever then.....even Chess, if we assume the majority pieces (Pawns) act in a way every other piece then doesn't.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Someone better tell nearly every wargames designer ever then.....even Chess, if we assume the majority pieces (Pawns) act in a way every other piece then doesn't.
tneva82 wrote: And btw its bad game design from the get go if every unit breaks basic rules with their own special rules. Thats like first rule of not to do in professional game design
Someone better tell nearly every wargames designer ever then.....even Chess, if we assume the majority pieces (Pawns) act in a way every other piece then doesn't.
breaking basic rules in chees would be like
you always alternate your moves, except after moving the white tower which would allow you to place the white king on any white field on the board and than make a single move with it
Or when a Prawn, which can move two squares forward in it's first move, then only one square after that and can only take pieces diagonally makes it across the board, when it becomes a Queen with all the associated benefits?
Every wargame has basic units breaking the basic rules. That's where variety comes from.
A game can consist of a bunch of units each with unique rules quite happily (see chess). Is what he means
The stuff about breaking fundamental rules is a pointless offshoot.
Edit: and the ninja posting on a similar theme demonstrates why it was a pointless offshoot. Thank you
His Master's Voice wrote: The AoS warscrolls posted above do not break the base rules at all, so I'm not sure what the point of this game-design-101 is.
Still doesn't change his original premise was bunkum - very very few wargames don't feature units which have rule exceptions and exemptions.
Therefore, it being 'the first rule of professional game design' (neatly alluding that GW are somehow not professional, but amateur) is clearly wrong, no?
Yes all games have you its that break but bot 100% like amateur ganes like aos have.
If all are special none are.
If you have to desperately find unut that doesnt have unique special rule you know game sucks. Simple as that. Shows designer is amateur that assumes special rules are needed for flavor.
40k has too many rules already. Last thing it needs is aos style bloat with special rules for every unit.
tneva82 wrote: Yes all games have you its that break but bot 100% like amateur ganes like aos have.
If all are special none are.
If you have to desperately find unut that doesnt have unique special rule you know game sucks. Simple as that. Shows designer is amateur that assumes special rules are needed for flavor.
40k has too many rules already. Last thing it needs is aos style bloat with special rules for every unit.
I mean, I don't do psychotropic substances meself, but I'd like to send it for Lab analysis?
Because what you've described applies to pretty much every game I've ever played on the table top? X-Wing? New rules with every new ship. Ditto Armada. Warmahordes? You guessed it!
Also, hands up who's 'desperately' looking for any given unit....right....counts hands.....that's no-one.
It is interesting though. When GW did try streaming rules it was considered a total failure as it had taken the character out of the game and it didn't "feel" like you were using specific units any more.
In my opinion they threw baby out with the bath water on that one.
As for rules bloat?
40k's main problem is how scattered everything is. Formations, items, psychic powers are now scattered over a number of volumes. So far the highest count I can come up with off the top of my head is my mixed Mechanicus with the Ordinatus and Knights at 5 books, 6 if you include the main rules. If they did just a single Mechanicus book, that'd drop down to three/four.
AoS? Not even in the same league for the most part. The Scrolls are downloadable, so I need only really carry my iPad with me - and seeing as that's got all my best music on it (currently enjoying Plasmatics. Anything where a chainsaw is the guitar solo gets my vote) that's no chore at all.
3rd Ed 40k is different though. It wasn't a massive scarring failure.
I think Epic 40k means we will never see an elegant streamlined game from GW - or at least while it's still in the organisational memory.
GW think the bulk of their players like rules differentiating all of their units. They aren't aiming to cater to the people that will argue that streamlined rules make for the best game because they don't believe that's the most profitable way forward.
tneva82 wrote: And btw its bad game design from the get go if every unit breaks basic rules with their own special rules. Thats like first rule of not to do in professional game design
Ever play Heroscape - beautifully simple, inovative, intuiative and highly tactical game system - evey single unit (single chracter or squads) had between 1 and 3 special rules.
Vorian wrote: 3rd Ed 40k is different though. It wasn't a massive scarring failure.
I think Epic 40k means we will never see an elegant streamlined game from GW - or at least while it's still in the organisational memory.
GW think the bulk of their players like rules differentiating all of their units. They aren't aiming to cater to the people that will argue that streamlined rules make for the best game because they don't believe that's the most profitable way forward.
Epic Armageddon was better. AP/AT stats for weapons, showing their effectiveness against infantry and armour respectively. Much better than the 'add up your firepower' malarkey (though that did work beautifully for BFG)
AoS is the closest they've done in some time. No consulting cross reference charts to hit and to wound - you just aim for whatever the Scroll says (with modifiers where appropriate).
Therefore, it being 'the first rule of professional game design' (neatly alluding that GW are somehow not professional, but amateur) is clearly wrong, no?
depends on what your game is
you chose a design world and stick with all your rules inside this world
as long as all your rules are conform with the basic design of the world, everything is ok
if your design world says there are phases and a specific action can only be performed in it's specific phase
all units that can move outside the movement phase or shoot outside the shooting phase, have special rules that are breaking the basic design rules of that created world
a of course you can alter your design to phases that are free and everyone can just change shoot and movement actions
and this makes 40k a mess, there are some left overs from editions that had a different basic design and GW changes the basic design of their world for new codex release
System does need an overhaul. But to reiterate my point from various threads (possibly including this one) I don't think it needs the Ground Up that brought us AoS.
System does need an overhaul. But to reiterate my point from various threads (possibly including this one) I don't think it needs the Ground Up that brought us AoS.
40k needs a re-write from scratch and every faction done in the same time
first to remove those copy&paste left overs that are just there because they were forgotten to remove 2 editions ago
and to have the same basic design all the faction rules
this is why AoS is the better game for now
maybe it is getting worse after GW changes the design again with a new battledome
Vorian wrote: 3rd Ed 40k is different though. It wasn't a massive scarring failure.
I think Epic 40k means we will never see an elegant streamlined game from GW - or at least while it's still in the organisational memory.
GW think the bulk of their players like rules differentiating all of their units. They aren't aiming to cater to the people that will argue that streamlined rules make for the best game because they don't believe that's the most profitable way forward.
Epic Armageddon was better. AP/AT stats for weapons, showing their effectiveness against infantry and armour respectively. Much better than the 'add up your firepower' malarkey (though that did work beautifully for BFG)
AoS is the closest they've done in some time. No consulting cross reference charts to hit and to wound - you just aim for whatever the Scroll says (with modifiers where appropriate).
Meh, from my perspective a lot of nonsense gets talked about core mechanics.
They are generally just a framework to manipulate probability and can generally be made to work.
We'll no doubt get someone posting how horrible fixed to wound rolls are and that a laspistol can kill a land raider. If that's possible / probable then something has gone wrong in the implementation. Though Nothing really makes it superior to the many other ways it can be done.
Having rules all over the place is a pretty terrible thing objectively though
I don't see how having rules on individual sheets per unit would matter in most armies.
For example: Most marines probably can get by with printing a total of 10 pages for their codex. And with the ability to laminate those sheets, it pretty much means you get cards to use for the entire edition.
If you lack a printer, go to Office depot or Staples. Or maybe the public library. At most, it would cost you the fee for using the computer for 1 hour.
It wouldn't matter, I find it hilarious that people are acting like this is some new concept. It just demonstrates how long they have been from ACTUALLY playing the fething game. I have a book case plum full of codexes from multiple editions, a random grab at any one will demonstrate that snowflake rules for each unit isn't really a new concept. Heck, my last game was with admech, from the line troops to the HS they all had unit to unit unique rules and the game played out fine. Seriously, I looked outside this morning and the Sun was still on the rise
As an AoS player, I quite enjoy having special rules on warscrolls and a limited set of main rules. While the entire game has reams of special rules, the actual impact and record-keeping is low because you're only using a few at a time. I think this is a huge benefit to "simple core rules, bloated special/unit rules". So even if my units all override the core rules in some fashion (bespoke everywhere!), it's still easy to play because I know exactly what I need to know.
And regarding the constant value of to-hit rules and whether it doesn't make sense, keep in mind the overall abstraction is different. The full attack requires the hit, wound, and save rolls so altogether I find they make more sense. Otherwise yes, it would be break immersion to be equally likely to hit a sneaky unit vs a giant beast.
Now I don't have experience with 40k except watching people play it, but I'm hopeful they do streamline it as above because it will get me playing it! I have no interest in having to search through piles of books, tables, etc. Unless the goal of 40k is "Excel the Wargame"; in that case it's just not for me. I guess it's a question of balancing speed/accessibility with level of simulation.
Clanan wrote: As an AoS player, I quite enjoy having special rules on warscrolls and a limited set of main rules. While the entire game has reams of special rules, the actual impact and record-keeping is low because you're only using a few at a time. I think this is a huge benefit to "simple core rules, bloated special/unit rules". So even if my units all override the core rules in some fashion (bespoke everywhere!), it's still easy to play because I know exactly what I need to know.
And regarding the constant value of to-hit rules and whether it doesn't make sense, keep in mind the overall abstraction is different. The full attack requires the hit, wound, and save rolls so altogether I find they make more sense. Otherwise yes, it would be break immersion to be equally likely to hit a sneaky unit vs a giant beast.
Now I don't have experience with 40k except watching people play it, but I'm hopeful they do streamline it as above because it will get me playing it! I have no interest in having to search through piles of books, tables, etc. Unless the goal of 40k is "Excel the Wargame"; in that case it's just not for me. I guess it's a question of balancing speed/accessibility with level of simulation.
In 40k you have a glossary of what feels like 50 USR's which have several areas of overlap, for example slow and purposeful and relentless, or ATSKNF and fearless where one iteration is flat out better then the other. Which doesn't matter too much in the end since every faction cooks up their own version anyway. So already players need to reference the BRB for USR's while referencing the rules in their respective codex for their faction AND each unit entry AND formation benefits. No one remembers everything currently anyway and needs to double check, even if they do believe they know it all, it is a common courtesy to make sure. It would be WAY easier if each unit had all it's relevant rules on it's data sheet.
Yhats of you think 7th ed is only way templates have worked. But you DO know theres bewn more editions of 40k than 7th? Just because templates work like they do now doesnt mean it has slways been so. I can name 3 distinct phases each weakening russ vs tanks and monsters
1. I never played second edition, so that rule was not familiar to me.
2. Templates have not worked that way since 3rd edition, which is 40k as it has been recognizable for almost the last 20 years. Obviously anything can work differently, if it's being done in a different system. That's why I used the present tense "work."
3. Countering an argument about how things work now with an argument about how things used to work 20 years ago, without actually stating that you're sending the goalposts onto a Back to the Future-esque adventure, is a good way to confuse people.
SeanDrake wrote: Actually having looked at some more warscrolls I think the main advantage for GW is disgusing the shallowness of AoS's genepool.
Outside of exotic weapons there is only 1 special rule used but under different names and thats re-roll 1's which accounts for about 80% of special rules.
I guess if you had USR but then only had 4 rules it might look like you were a little lazy with your rules.
This I have to agree with it. At least if you gives an unit some kind of special rules, make it original and interesting. In AOS, most of these only consist in re-rolls, or adding +1 to a roll
H.B.M.C. wrote: Once upon a time we had 4 different versions of True Grit in print (Space Wolves, Grey Knight, Death Guard and one other), so yeah, I don't fancy our chances.
Universal Special Rules aren't just there for convenience, there's also there to cut down on mistakes. If most of your rules come from a central source then that cuts down on the chance of making mistakes, and updates can apply to large swathes of units rather than having to update individual units over and over again.
All "bespoke" rules give you is the chance to say "bespoke" in your marketing material as if it were some sort of inherent good.
This I largely agree with, but they confuse things for me by making one rule refer to another.
Take Boneswords: Life Drain or whatever it is... their rule says 6s cause Instant Death. So you look up Boneswords to see what they do, then you have to look up Instant Death.
Gulp! - you look it up - 6s are Precision Shots. So you go look up another thing.
My Hive Tyrant is a Flying Monstrous Creature. I look that up. He gets a bundle of rules to look up.
To be honest I'd much rather have all the relevant stuff spelled out on a unit card and not have to rely on 3rd party summary sheets.
Take Boneswords: Life Drain or whatever it is... their rule says 6s cause Instant Death. So you look up Boneswords to see what they do, then you have to look up Instant Death.
Gulp! - you look it up - 6s are Precision Shots. So you go look up another thing.
My Hive Tyrant is a Flying Monstrous Creature. I look that up. He gets a bundle of rules to look up.
To be honest I'd much rather have all the relevant stuff spelled out on a unit card and not have to rely on 3rd party summary sheets.
You're mixing two different issues here.
Having everything spelt out on unit cards is an awesome idea, and definitely something worth pursuing.
But having unit cards doesn't automatically mean also dispensing with USRs.
Regardless of where they are written down, it makes far more sense and is much easier for players to learn when rules that do the same thing are actually the same rule, rather than having a bunch of differently-named rules that all do the same thing. Or having a bunch of differently-named rules that all do almost the same thing, for no reason other than to have more special rules.
Every single unit doesn't need to have it's own special snowflake rule. That might be ok for a small-scale skirmish game, but when you have as many models on the table as a typical game of 40K, it's really not taking anything away from the game if some of those models just run around and shoot things without having to have a bunch of special rules to remember.
SeanDrake wrote: Actually having looked at some more warscrolls I think the main advantage for GW is disgusing the shallowness of AoS's genepool.
Outside of exotic weapons there is only 1 special rule used but under different names and thats re-roll 1's which accounts for about 80% of special rules.
I guess if you had USR but then only had 4 rules it might look like you were a little lazy with your rules.
This I have to agree with it. At least if you gives an unit some kind of special rules, make it original and interesting. In AOS, most of these only consist in re-rolls, or adding +1 to a roll
Not sure if this is on topic, but this is completely incorrect. I didn't review every warscroll but I did go over the Death Alliance and Sylvaneth faction scrolls. None of the units, including the basic chaff/battleline forces, had special rules as bland as +1 and/or rerolls. Or if they did, they had other, specialer rules. Buffs, synergies, special movement, modifiers, resurrections, etc. I would argue the main advantage of warscrolls is limiting cognitive load at game time, not any sort of shallowness.
But this feels more like a discussion/debate, rather than rumors, so I'll leave it at that.
Lord Kragan wrote: I think we've argued this long enough a while ago. The difference isn't in the to wound roll but the wound count roll. The grot still has one wound, the wraithknight has, say, twenty now instead of six. And weapons of the same type do the same in other "armies" you're conflating weapon profiles with unit rules.
I don't care that we argued it a while ago, it's still a terrible rule, especially when you bring vehicles into it (better give a Land Raider 30 wounds so it doesn't die to Laspistol fire!).
Except there would be a rule on land raiders that allow it to ignore any weapon without a rend of -3 or better, or it causes wounds against it to take a negative 3 to the roll making most weapons unable to hurt it.
The unit having possible defensive bonuses completely​ eliminates the issues you think will happen. Those type of bonuses exist within AOS, they will exist in any game built in the same mentality.
One rumor I heard somewhere (can't remember if it was this thread) was that overwatch will be a thing of the past. This concerns me, as good overwatch is the thing that sets my Dark Angels apart from regular Space Marines. Of course, if they redo the Dark Angels stuff along with everything else to be more like AoS I suppose I can hope they throw the boys in green (and black and tan) a bone.
In general, I just hope I don't have to have a longer beard than my opponent to trigger any abilities. Or anything else of that nature.
And you've just created an exception to a general rule to combat a failing of the general rules. AV didn't have that problem, and required no special rules or exceptions.
And you've just created an exception to a general rule to combat a failing of the general rules. AV didn't have that problem, and required no special rules or exceptions.
Av was already an exception to the general rules, that's why there was a separate section of the rulebook where it described how vehicles were different that anything else in the game.
So, you want an exception to the general rules of the game that you don't think is an exception to the general rules of the game?
Also, this exception to the general rules can also be used to increase the toughness of monstrous creatures as well. Vehicles could give a blanket protection against things with low rend values while monsters could lower the chance to wound. It would do the same thing without needing separate mechanics for each a d also not needing to consult a chart.
Clanan wrote: As an AoS player, I quite enjoy having special rules on warscrolls and a limited set of main rules. While the entire game has reams of special rules, the actual impact and record-keeping is low because you're only using a few at a time. I think this is a huge benefit to "simple core rules, bloated special/unit rules". So even if my units all override the core rules in some fashion (bespoke everywhere!), it's still easy to play because I know exactly what I need to know.
And regarding the constant value of to-hit rules and whether it doesn't make sense, keep in mind the overall abstraction is different. The full attack requires the hit, wound, and save rolls so altogether I find they make more sense. Otherwise yes, it would be break immersion to be equally likely to hit a sneaky unit vs a giant beast.
Now I don't have experience with 40k except watching people play it, but I'm hopeful they do streamline it as above because it will get me playing it! I have no interest in having to search through piles of books, tables, etc. Unless the goal of 40k is "Excel the Wargame"; in that case it's just not for me. I guess it's a question of balancing speed/accessibility with level of simulation.
you should go take a look at Khorne bloodbound and sigmarines
But just looked at the sylvaneth, and they are indeed much more interesting
And you've just created an exception to a general rule to combat a failing of the general rules. AV didn't have that problem, and required no special rules or exceptions.
AV would be also an exception
but for general rules going with a fixed "to wound" value on the weapon (instead of strength) an special rules (-X to wound) on the target (instead of toughness) would be needed anyway
if it is not there the general core rules are already missing something important to handle stuff that should not be wounded by small arms
Red Corsair wrote: It wouldn't matter, I find it hilarious that people are acting like this is some new concept. It just demonstrates how long they have been from ACTUALLY playing the fething game. I have a book case plum full of codexes from multiple editions, a random grab at any one will demonstrate that snowflake rules for each unit isn't really a new concept. Heck, my last game was with admech, from the line troops to the HS they all had unit to unit unique rules and the game played out fine. Seriously, I looked outside this morning and the Sun was still on the rise
You're right, it's not a new thing. It IS something that people have been complaining about for several editions now. It's the root cause of the rules bloat the we're all going the new edition will fix.
Replacing rules-bloated codexes with rules-bloated warscrolls doesn't really achieve anything worthwhile, other than to potentially make said rules slightly more accessible.
I actually think vehicles might be a point where an exception to the general to hit, wound and save system through a single defensive rule on their warscroll will be ideal.
They should have exceptional resistance or even immunity to small arms fire. This seems like an ideal point to call out an exception.
Sorry, the tank has Blessed Adamantium and is immune to those weapons!
That's going to feel way more awesome than "what's the AV on that? 11? So I'd need to roll a 7. Oh well."
I think a rule that specifically calls out the immunity to small arms as an exception will be far more evocative and clear to new players than a AV system where they are immune as an implication of the arithmetic.
frozenwastes wrote: I actually think vehicles might be a point where an exception to the general to hit, wound and save system through a single defensive rule on their warscroll will be ideal.
That sounds like a Universal Special Rule, rather than something you repeat on every single warscroll.
And if you're going to have USRs like that, well, firstly you should find an organic way to not need the rule in the first place, but putting that aside you should perhaps not go the 'bespoke' route and just make a solid base ruleset that is broad, granular and flexible enough to not require endless special rules, exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, or for every unit to have its own set of rules.
I largely agree, but people seem to really like it in AoS. It seems to be working. But maybe that's in comparison to the current state of 40k? "Working" being a relative term.
Either way, it seems like what is ahead. I've just been looking at some AoS game play and what people think about it to see how it might actually pan out. Not sure I'd call it a failure or an idea that's going to ruin things necessarily.
Just give certain vehicles immunity to anything below -1 or -2 rend. Done, fixed To Hit and To Wound rolls now work perfectly against vehicles. All these systems are simply different ways to manipulate probability of damaging Unit X with Weapon Y. The base system isn't a problem, the implementation is what matters. T vs S or fixed to hit/wound with more wounds, both can be equally good or bad depending on implementation.
Take Boneswords: Life Drain or whatever it is... their rule says 6s cause Instant Death. So you look up Boneswords to see what they do, then you have to look up Instant Death.
Gulp! - you look it up - 6s are Precision Shots. So you go look up another thing.
My Hive Tyrant is a Flying Monstrous Creature. I look that up. He gets a bundle of rules to look up.
To be honest I'd much rather have all the relevant stuff spelled out on a unit card and not have to rely on 3rd party summary sheets.
You're mixing two different issues here.
Having everything spelt out on unit cards is an awesome idea, and definitely something worth pursuing.
But having unit cards doesn't automatically mean also dispensing with USRs.
Regardless of where they are written down, it makes far more sense and is much easier for players to learn when rules that do the same thing are actually the same rule, rather than having a bunch of differently-named rules that all do the same thing. Or having a bunch of differently-named rules that all do almost the same thing, for no reason other than to have more special rules.
Every single unit doesn't need to have it's own special snowflake rule. That might be ok for a small-scale skirmish game, but when you have as many models on the table as a typical game of 40K, it's really not taking anything away from the game if some of those models just run around and shoot things without having to have a bunch of special rules to remember.
I get you, but Geedubs did the mixing. If you follow my logic through, and add yours, you could make a version of Instant Death rule that adds in 'Some weapons cause Instant Death on a roll - this is usually shown as Instant Death (6+)' etc. like Feel No Pain. So Tyranid Bonesword and Lashwhio could be simplified from:
Swiftstrike, Life Drain
To just:
+3 Initiative (Assault Phase only), Instant Death (6+)
Now THAT would be a good use of USRs. If you wanna go the other way and mix flavour text with rules, please gimme unit cards! Until then homemade cheat sheets and BattleScribe summaries are the order of the day.
Deep Strike is the best USR example I can think of that says 'this covers a multitude of ways of getting to the battlefield and sums them all up nice and easily'. THIS. I subscribe to this as it works. Terminators don't say 'Teleporter Assault' and Scions 'Valkyrie Insertion' - just 'Deep Strike. The flavour text is dealt with elsewhere. If it all worked this way, fine!
Mymearan wrote: Just give certain vehicles immunity to anything below -1 or -2 rend. Done, fixed To Hit and To Wound rolls now work perfectly against vehicles.
so changing 40k from "high Strength" weapon killing vehicles to "high AP" weapon killing vehicles
HotShot Lasguns with now S3 AP3 (wound 5+, rend -2) are killing Land Raiders better than S10 AP- (wound 2+, rend -), in that new system
this is ok, I just don't think it as an solution to the original problem, but more changing the whole system up completely from the ground.
likely how GW would do it anyway, instead of solving the problem just changing the system so that the problem get replaced by a different one and everyone believes it is solved....
The base system isn't a problem, the implementation is what matters. T vs S or fixed to hit/wound with more wounds, both can be equally good or bad depending on implementation
right, and you did it wrong
as you set the armour save modification/AP (rend) as counter to strength (to wound) and removed toughness completely
a fixed to wound roll will always need an opposing modifier to convert the existing 40k system
it doesn't matter it you roll against a fixed toughness (5+) and modify with your strength (+1) or roll a fixed strength (5+) and modify with toughness (-1), but you need it to convert the current system.
otherwise it would be a completely different thing were nothing from previous editions would be the same, and not just a more streamlined version of the rules
and your high rate of fire hot-shot lasguns are better at killing tanks than your high strength one shot low AP weapons
frozenwastes wrote: I actually think vehicles might be a point where an exception to the general to hit, wound and save system through a single defensive rule on their warscroll will be ideal.
That sounds like a Universal Special Rule, rather than something you repeat on every single warscroll.
And if you're going to have USRs like that, well, firstly you should find an organic way to not need the rule in the first place, but putting that aside you should perhaps not go the 'bespoke' route and just make a solid base ruleset that is broad, granular and flexible enough to not require endless special rules, exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, or for every unit to have its own set of rules.
It wouldn't be repeated on every scroll in the exact same way, there would be different levels of it and different reasons for it.
They could even implement a system like I have in my personal wargame where the units have a category that make it immune to certain levels of weaponry. The rules could be something like...
Behemoth 1: weapons take a -1 penalty to wound and rend against this unit.
Heavy armor 2: weapons with a rend value of 2 or less may not damage this unit.
Hardened 1: this unit rerolls any failed saves of 1
All of these rules would be able to lower the efficacy of weapons with low to wound rolls and/or low rend characteristics without necessitating a large number of universal rules. And if the rules are already on the dataslate, they don't need to be in the core rules because you need the stats available for any units you bring anyway.
To can make a clean and solid ruleset where the different parts of the game are exceptions to the core rules.
When you play an RPG they don't list every option available in the game in one place and then tell you what options your class gets access to, your class will tell you how you change the game itself. Same methodology here. If the game is a simple baseline to learn, then any exceptions presented will.be readily understood because of easily people grasp the rule itself.
I've never understood how a hotshot laser can be amazing at penetrating armour and somehow not any better at hurting the thing inside it. Or something be twice as killy as a lasgun (S6) yet your tshirt gives you a save against it. Categories of weapons doing differing damage against armour would be nice (say Flak actually doing its job vs blasts, and getting a positive modifier like it used to) but the different guns doing different things seems like a way to play game mechanics off against each other and differentiate weapons, but isn't really simulating much anymore.
Mymearan wrote: Just give certain vehicles immunity to anything below -1 or -2 rend. Done, fixed To Hit and To Wound rolls now work perfectly against vehicles.
so changing 40k from "high Strength" weapon killing vehicles to "high AP" weapon killing vehicles
HotShot Lasguns with now S3 AP3 (wound 5+, rend -2) are killing Land Raiders better than S10 AP- (wound 2+, rend -), in that new system
this is ok, I just don't think it as an solution to the original problem, but more changing the whole system up completely from the ground.
likely how GW would do it anyway, instead of solving the problem just changing the system so that the problem get replaced by a different one and everyone believes it is solved....
The base system isn't a problem, the implementation is what matters. T vs S or fixed to hit/wound with more wounds, both can be equally good or bad depending on implementation
right, and you did it wrong
as you set the armour save modification/AP (rend) as counter to strength (to wound) and removed toughness completely
a fixed to wound roll will always need an opposing modifier to convert the existing 40k system
it doesn't matter it you roll against a fixed toughness (5+) and modify with your strength (+1) or roll a fixed strength (5+) and modify with toughness (-1), but you need it to convert the current system.
otherwise it would be a completely different thing were nothing from previous editions would be the same, and not just a more streamlined version of the rules
and your high rate of fire hot-shot lasguns are better at killing tanks than your high strength one shot low AP weapons
Making up stats for weapons isn't a great way to argue your point. -2 rend is extremely unusual and if you want to compare it would probably be given to things like las cannons, not hot shot lasguns. Weapons would obviously be tailored to the system. A strength 10, AP- weapon in 40k (do they even exist) would not become a 2+ to wound, 0 Rend weapon in AOS, because as you noted, that would be absurd. You wouldn't convert weapons using some kind of table, you would adapt each weapon so that it had the intended effect in the new system.
Although this whole conversation is hypothetical as I don't think there's any way they'll be going to fixed To hit and To wound.
Mymearan wrote: Just give certain vehicles immunity to anything below -1 or -2 rend. Done, fixed To Hit and To Wound rolls now work perfectly against vehicles.
so changing 40k from "high Strength" weapon killing vehicles to "high AP" weapon killing vehicles
HotShot Lasguns with now S3 AP3 (wound 5+, rend -2) are killing Land Raiders better than S10 AP- (wound 2+, rend -), in that new system
this is ok, I just don't think it as an solution to the original problem, but more changing the whole system up completely from the ground.
likely how GW would do it anyway, instead of solving the problem just changing the system so that the problem get replaced by a different one and everyone believes it is solved....
The base system isn't a problem, the implementation is what matters. T vs S or fixed to hit/wound with more wounds, both can be equally good or bad depending on implementation
right, and you did it wrong
as you set the armour save modification/AP (rend) as counter to strength (to wound) and removed toughness completely
a fixed to wound roll will always need an opposing modifier to convert the existing 40k system
it doesn't matter it you roll against a fixed toughness (5+) and modify with your strength (+1) or roll a fixed strength (5+) and modify with toughness (-1), but you need it to convert the current system.
otherwise it would be a completely different thing were nothing from previous editions would be the same, and not just a more streamlined version of the rules
and your high rate of fire hot-shot lasguns are better at killing tanks than your high strength one shot low AP weapons
The easiest way is to have the keywords "tank" and "anti tank". You can't wound the former unless you have the latter
The easiest way is to have the keywords "tank" and "anti tank". You can't wound the former unless you have the latter
Easiest in that system, perhaps. I'm still not convinced that it's easier than 'compare S vs T, and you can't wound anything more than three points higher' which doesn't require any special rules at all.
They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.
And I'm not convinced at all that AoS' system is all that compatible with 40k.
Fantasy never really had the breadth of weapons that 40k does. A Halberd was a standardised item - +1 S, Requires Two Hands. Spears? Fight in Ranks, or +1S on the charge if mounted.
Sure, the odd unit here and there had a more unique item (Chaos Knight Ensorcelled Weapons spring to mind) but those were the exception rather than the rule.
40k? Well, blimey. Many weapons, each with their own niche (whilst both ostensibly anti-infantry, a Lasgun is remarkably different to a Shuriken Catapult).
Likewise the diversity of units. Warhammer never had Tanks in the way 40k does - the only exception was the 'headache' version of Steam Tank rules, which were eventually ditched in favour of just making it a well tough monster.
In 40k, there's all sorts of different tanks. Skimmer for instance are different target to Battle Tanks - they can jink for one.
AoS does have sort-of tanks now with the sky ships, and they have wounds and work like any other model. Same with weapons, we now have wooden bows in the same game as highly advanced Dwarven handheld guns.
Vorian wrote: They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.
Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.
JohnnyHell wrote: I've never understood how a hotshot laser can be amazing at penetrating armour and somehow not any better at hurting the thing inside it. Or something be twice as killy as a lasgun (S6) yet your tshirt gives you a save against it.
and we are missing that S10 AP- would auto kill Terminators without any save
because the impact of the force is high enough to smash anything without penetration the armour
but lets just look at real armour and ammo
for example you have HESH, build so that it is never penetration tank armour but kills everything living inside because of the force of the explosion on the outside while the armour is still intact.
APCR, sub-calibre ammo, will penetrate any kind of armour easily, but if it does not hit a vital system inside, nothing happen
(of course there is damage done by the force)
HEAT, a mix as the explosion on the outside creates the AP bolt that penetrates the armour and damage is done because of the high temperature and pressure
in 40k HESH = S10 AP- (with special rule auto kill everything without save were strength doubles toughness)
APCR = S6 AP1
HEAT = S8 AP3
the system works fine and brings in the reality quite well
the problem is, AP is hard to balance regarding points because it is not a linear factor that can be calculated and change a lot with the opponents units
while an armour save modification is less realistic for future war, but scales linear and therefore balanced point cost can be calculated much easier
best way would be of course to have a strength related armour modifier (to demonstrate that pure force can kill stuff without penetration) and the AP value that is not related to strength but show that some weapons just ignore some kind of armour
You wouldn't convert weapons using some kind of table, you would adapt each weapon so that it had the intended effect in the new system.
that is the point
adding fixed to wound roll is not streamlining the current system to make it faster
but killing 40k and making a complete new game that has nothing to do with the existing one
this worked for Warhammer Fantasy just because armour penetration was related to strength and not it's own stat
The easiest way is to have the keywords "tank" and "anti tank". You can't wound the former unless you have the latter
I see now a lot of people arguing about why a Carnifex or Demon Prince has the "tank" keyword
They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.
true, you are just doomed to it if it is done just the same way as in AoS
in 40k HESH = S10 AP- (with special rule auto kill everything without save were strength doubles toughness)
APCR = S6 AP1
HEAT = S8 AP3
the system works fine and brings in the reality quite well
This work with special rules involved... Otherwise it doens't! and it's even worse with "extreme" values :
a S10 AP- against infantry is something extremely deadly, that kill even T5 without problem... but bounce on every armor, even an ork wet T-Shirt.
Thus, this weapon should do nothing against vehicles, which are mostly armored... well that's not the case, S10 kill even the most resilient vehicles...
on the other hand a S1 AP1 weapon is capable to punch through any infantry armor, even terminator, but struggle to kill what's inside the armor.
against a vehicle, this could make it explode... if it could penetrate the armor!
In fact, the "to wound" and "armor penetration" concepts are reversed between infantry and vehicles, leading to either :
* Stupid weapons, like the example above
* Linking more or less S and AP, a more powerful weapon got more S and less AP, and the dual stat is not really needed...
On the 8th edition rules?
I really hope GW will not follow AoS rules...
Aos rules are IMHO a pool of good ideas that doen't mesh together well :
4 pages ruleset, but with unessential ruling (like bonus depending who won last game), and lacking basic thing like terrain (yes, I know, warscrolls, but terrain should not be on unit scroll...)
Alternating player role is a good way to keep players involved in the game, except when you do it with full turn.
Get rid of some unit stats to make the game "easier" but get those stats back on weapons, with useless ones (to wound roll is just there to keep the three roll resolution dear to GW...)
No need to look in the book for special rules, but everyone is special, even squad leaders that get different bonuses and make everything complicated for no good reasons...
Can they do better? I don't know... Part of me want to play again, but not at any cost, and not with rules for rules sake!
a S10 AP- against infantry is something extremely deadly, that kill even T5 without problem... but bounce on every armor, even an ork wet T-Shirt.
Thus, this weapon should do nothing against vehicles, which are mostly armored
wrong, as it shows that the weapon was able to kill the crew or systems inside without penetrating the armour
and such weapons exists since medieval times in warfare as penetrating the armour is not necessary to "kill" a tank/armoured soldier
saying that weapons that cannot penetrate armour should not kill tanks or armoured infantry just show that you don't know how some Anti-Tank weapons work
(ever read about stories that as most M4 survived the battle fully operational while the crew was killed inside)
This work with special rules involved... Otherwise it doens't!
don't ask me why GW removed that part from the general rules that instant death ignores armour and S double T always count as ID.
In fact, the "to wound" and "armor penetration" concepts are reversed between infantry and vehicles,
No, they are not
the problem in 40k is that AP is not taken into account for vehicles which is a general problem of the AV system (as AV = T+Armour) that could have been easily solved right from the start either with having an armour save or if don't want vehicles to have an armour save with the following
S + 6 - AP VS AV = penetration
(now it is S+D6 VS AV = glancing hit, S+D6 VS AV+1 = penetration)
Vorian wrote: They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.
Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.
So a tank and anti tank keyword is more complex than AV, different rules for armour penetration dice, different tables for damage, hull points? Or in other words a completely separate and additional system.
So a tank and anti tank keyword is more complex than AV, different rules for armour penetration dice, different tables for damage, hull points? Or in other words a completely separate and additional system.
right, and there is no reason to change the current system for an equal complicated system
this would be just changing stuff for the sake of change and not changing the rules to make them faster and more streamlined
Armour piercing - ignores 4+ to 6+ saves
Anti Tank - something something vehicle armour effect
Blast - Flak armour gets better save vs it
High Explosive - ignores cover, ignores 4+ to 6+ saves
Flamer - ignores cover
That kind of thing.
Edit: see, done it myself! High Explosive - ignores cover, ignores 4+ to 6+ saves - just make that "Blast, Armour Piercing" - done! No internal-referencing Hi-Ex keyword needed!
There's one system, there's no looking up comparison tables, etc.
You might not like it, which is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but inventing nonsense scenarios to say "I prefer the other system" is just silly.
There is nothing inherently wrong in the simpler system.
So a tank and anti tank keyword is more complex than AV, different rules for armour penetration dice, different tables for damage, hull points? Or in other words a completely separate and additional system.
Sure. Ok.
I never mentioned AV, so I have no idea where you got the idea that's what I was suggesting.
We are discussing how a fixed to wound roll interacts with vehicles compared to how the current system does. The current system uses AV as a seperate system.
wrong, as it shows that the weapon was able to kill the crew or systems inside without penetrating the armour
and such weapons exists since medieval times in warfare as penetrating the armour is not necessary to "kill" a tank/armoured soldier
saying that weapons that cannot penetrate armour should not kill tanks or armoured infantry just show that you don't know how some Anti-Tank weapons work
(ever read about stories that as most M4 survived the battle fully operational while the crew was killed inside)
In that case, the weapon effectively ignore the armor... and it not AP - in that case!
A S10 AP- is very effective against light infantry (Depending on RoF...) but nearly ineffective against heavy armored infantry, yet very effective against tanks... something doesn't add up...
No, they are not
the problem in 40k is that AP is not taken into account for vehicles which is a general problem of the AV system (as AV = T+Armour) that could have been easily solved right from the start either with having an armour save or if don't want vehicles to have an armour save with the following
S + 6 - AP VS AV = penetration
(now it is S+D6 VS AV = glancing hit, S+D6 VS AV+1 = penetration)
I said "reversed" because you wound against infantry using S, and mitigate armor with AP.
Against a vehicle, you "wound" using AP (modifier on the damage table) and mitigate armor with S.
You solution is something I'd like if every damage was done in one roll! (I'm an heretic who think that "to would" and "to save" is the same concept of "resilience", and one of them should go...)
Armour piercing - ignores 4+ to 6+ saves
Anti Tank - something something vehicle armour effect
Blast - Flak armour gets better save vs it
High Explosive - ignores cover, ignores 4+ to 6+ saves
Flamer - ignores cover
That kind of thing.
I'd call those Special Rules (universal or not) rather than keywords.
Current AV -- New Save
14 - 0+
13 - 1+
12 - 2+
11 - 3 +
10 - 4+
Saves below 2+ always save...
And make some weapons that say:
Meltagun Rend -2 double damage vs vehicles
Plasma Rend -2 (Causes Mortal wound on 1 to firer, on 6 causes Mortal wound to target)
Lascannon Rend -3
Distortion Cannon (Causes mortal wounds)
Bolter Rend -1
Lasgun Rend 0
Autogun Rend 0
Shuriken Catapult Rend -1
See pretty simple once you make a landraider something like 16 wounds. It will make it very sturdy. And you will need quite a few shots to kill it.
I meant as in the number would be different, hence my examples of various methods to mitigate low strength weapons effectiveness against what should be harder targets.
Age of sigmar has a single universal rule. There is no reason to think the new game wouldn't at least include one or two more (specifically the transport rule HAS to be in there) so making a "hardened (_+)" rule where it says specifically what weapons would either be weakened or ignored depending on the route taken mechanically is not outside the realm of possibility. We don't need an extensive special rules list, having most special rules be on the sheet instead is perfectly fine.
Again, most players I know memorise their rules for the units they play quickly, but may need to reference enemy rules often. Having those rules on the sheets needed to play the unit quickens look up time if someone needs it and saves on the extra paper needed to carry around because you aren't lugging pages of information that will never come up in your game. Everything at your finger tips, and nothing on the table that is the being used for that game. Win win.
Red Corsair wrote: It wouldn't matter, I find it hilarious that people are acting like this is some new concept. It just demonstrates how long they have been from ACTUALLY playing the fething game. I have a book case plum full of codexes from multiple editions, a random grab at any one will demonstrate that snowflake rules for each unit isn't really a new concept. Heck, my last game was with admech, from the line troops to the HS they all had unit to unit unique rules and the game played out fine. Seriously, I looked outside this morning and the Sun was still on the rise
You're right, it's not a new thing. It IS something that people have been complaining about for several editions now. It's the root cause of the rules bloat the we're all going the new edition will fix.
Replacing rules-bloated codexes with rules-bloated warscrolls doesn't really achieve anything worthwhile, other than to potentially make said rules slightly more accessible.
Rules bloat has been a problem for a while, but your making several assumptions already.
A. You are assuming there will be the same or more bloat before seeing the rules (head scratch)
B. You are assuming the rules will remain stagnant and that the problem you assumed from A will get worse over time.
In your defense this is how things panned out in the past with codexes, but with free to download warscrolls for individual units GW has a MUCH easier time updating rules on scrolls that are redundant or no longer work. So yes, it does achieve more but your willfully ignoring the potential in order to bang on that same drum. Again, I understand why given GW's high tower approach in the past but if you aren't willing to move forward and give it a chance before it's released then I have no idea what your looking for here.
I feel like some people are taking one sentence and running away with it in one direction lol. I mean unless you have proof that these scrolls would create more bloat? Because right now AoS is actually disproving that claim, it's remarkably elegant in it's simplicity and it isn't difficult to track a units rules on its scroll.
Leggy wrote: If a lasgun was 5+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no rend, 1 damage
And a Land raider had 16 wounds and a 2+ save
Then it would take 864 lasgun shots to take down the Land Raider. No game bending rules, no special exceptions, just perfectly reasonable statlines.
except that lasguns should not be able to kill a Land Raider and that it feels just stupid that the difference between a Raider Terminator and Wrath Knight is just the number of health points
for a complete new game this is ok, for a streamlined 40k it is garbage
Leggy wrote: If a lasgun was 5+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no rend, 1 damage
And a Land raider had 16 wounds and a 2+ save
Then it would take 864 lasgun shots to take down the Land Raider. No game bending rules, no special exceptions, just perfectly reasonable statlines.
except that lasguns should not be able to kill a Land Raider and that it feels just stupid that the difference between a Raider Terminator and Wrath Knight is just the number of health points
for a complete new game this is ok, for a streamlined 40k it is garbage
Hardly an intelligent counter point - The difference in these units can largely be referred to as a size difference, and it is reasonably assumable that they should be similar if not equal in terms of armor quality.
So then, how do we distinguish those differences? Variation in Health is the quickest, most effective method. This would A - Streamline the damage process and the required learning of it, and B - give players a clearer idea of how durable their units are.
Vorian wrote: They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.
Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.
This statement is so ridiculous. Your framing the argument in a way that suggests that somehow those special rules aren't a section of the core rules just because they are located on unit cards and not written in to a compendium of a BRB.
TalonZahn wrote: Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.
Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....
If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.
Agreed. Lasguns are actually scary - they just get gakked on by the fact that everything else is scarier. It doesn't mean that 900 of them can't kill something.
I wonder if they'll switch twin linked back to how it was in second edition. You hit once, but get twice as many shots to resolve if you do hit. It would do a lot for the likes of twin linked lascannons in the game if it was bought back.
So then, how do we distinguish those differences? Variation in Health is the quickest, most effective method. This would A - Streamline the damage process and the required learning of it, and B - give players a clearer idea of how durable their units are.
of course, if every hit strips 1 Healthpoint is clear and stremalined
to give more variation on the hit rolls to have more difference between units, we roll 2 D6 instead of one and keep it streamlined
so unit A roll 4+, 4+ to hit with 10 shots and takes 3 HP on average and the target makes 3 saves
it is simple as you don't need care about anything than the save of the target as this is the only difference
it is just not 40k, as we have now Toughness 1-10 and 2+ - 6+ save, gives about 50 possible variations that are cut down to simply 5.
of course you can make the handling of those 50 possibilities easier by removing 45 of them, but this is not what I would call streamlining the rules
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TalonZahn wrote: Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.
from a realistic point of view, no
small calibre fire never ever kills heavy armour,
from a gameplay point of view, the "everything should be able to kill everything" it only makes sence of you want cut down the variation and make a very simple game were everything is similar
So then, how do we distinguish those differences? Variation in Health is the quickest, most effective method. This would A - Streamline the damage process and the required learning of it, and B - give players a clearer idea of how durable their units are.
of course, if every hit strips 1 Healthpoint is clear and stremalined
to give more variation on the hit rolls to have more difference between units, we roll 2 D6 instead of one and keep it streamlined
so unit A roll 4+, 4+ to hit with 10 shots and takes 3 HP on average and the target makes 3 saves
it is simple as you don't need care about anything than the save of the target as this is the only difference
it is just not 40k, as we have now Toughness 1-10 and 2+ - 6+ save, gives about 50 possible variations that are cut down to simply 5.
of course you can make the handling of those 50 possibilities easier by removing 45 of them, but this is not what I would call streamlining the rules
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TalonZahn wrote: Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.
from a realistic point of view, no
small calibre fire never ever kills heavy armour,
from a gameplay point of view, the "everything should be able to kill everything" it only makes sence of you want cut down the variation and make a very simple game were everything is similar
You could get really lucky and hit the crew. Leaving it empty is basically the same as killing a tank.
Youn wrote: Easiest way to make vehicles work is as follows:
Current AV -- New Save
14 - 0+
13 - 1+
12 - 2+
11 - 3 +
10 - 4+
Saves below 2+ always save...
And make some weapons that say:
Meltagun Rend -2 double damage vs vehicles
Plasma Rend -2 (Causes Mortal wound on 1 to firer, on 6 causes Mortal wound to target)
Lascannon Rend -3
Distortion Cannon (Causes mortal wounds)
Bolter Rend -1
Lasgun Rend 0
Autogun Rend 0
Shuriken Catapult Rend -1
See pretty simple once you make a landraider something like 16 wounds. It will make it very sturdy. And you will need quite a few shots to kill it.
If we go by Youn's example (we are, aren't we?) A Land Raider has a 0+ armor save (av 14 -> 0+) and 16 wounds. So a Lasgun with "5+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no rend, 1 damage", can't kill a Land Raider, not after 900 shots and not after 9 000 000.
I don't think this discussion is getting anywhere, if we are not being honest with the suggestions, we so strongly oppose.
ZergSmasher wrote: One rumor I heard somewhere (can't remember if it was this thread) was that overwatch will be a thing of the past. This concerns me, as good overwatch is the thing that sets my Dark Angels apart from regular Space Marines. Of course, if they redo the Dark Angels stuff along with everything else to be more like AoS I suppose I can hope they throw the boys in green (and black and tan) a bone.
In general, I just hope I don't have to have a longer beard than my opponent to trigger any abilities. Or anything else of that nature.
I feel like over-watch should be a thing that a unit needs to setup to do (declared during your own turn). Its also why I'm fond of attackers going first in assaults.
AS it stands, units can be running through the battlefield, laying fire at one unit, be attacked by another and are somehow ready not only to lay fire into the attacking unit, but also receive the melee and strike first if they have better initiative. Id much rather if a unit had to choose in their turn that they were gonna prepare to be assaulted; it would make for more meaningful placement of bubble wrap models.
Although, there is no way you will ever convince me in the history of armored warfare that a tank wasn't stopped because someone got lucky and shot the driver through his viewport.
Hell, just the other day there was news story of a pistol being jammed by a bullet from another pistol shot down the barrel.
Things happen, this is not outside the realm of possibilities.
If we moved to a fixed to hit and wound system AND vehicles were given a normal unit profile instead of the AV system I would imagine that the rules would be balanced for that.
Save modifiers could potentially mean that tougher vehicles can still be immune, or nearly immune to small arms fire. We could also go with an idea like Youn's. Weapons like meltaguns could be made to do more wounds than 1 to keep them as powerful anti-tank weapons, but also make them more useful versus monsters. This would also prevent attacking tanks as being based soley on AP, so you can have some granularity in the weaponry used for anti-tank.
Thinking about it, I think it would be a more enjoyable model for vehicles than the current system, but that's just me.
TalonZahn wrote: Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.
Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....
If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.
That is nigh impossible I'm afraid.
A 5.56x45 caliber round (Standard modern day battle rifle caliber) or even a 7.62x39 caliber round (AK-47 caliber) will never, ever, ever realistically hurt a modern day main battle tank.
You can fire thousands.. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands... of rounds at a tank and you're going to mess up the paint. That's it. You may ding an optic, but that's about all.
A lasrifle or laspistol, even a hellgun or hellpistol, are not going to do anything meaningful to an armored vehicle.
A few machine gun rounds in the same place could penetrate a world war 1 tank however.
And 40k tanks looks like ww1 tanks. So i dont see how any viewpoint is wrong.
A 30mm round is no longer effective at destroying modern MBT's. If a lucky shot hits top armor or possibly a weak spot in rear armor it could get through, but it likely wouldn't make it into the crew compartment from a rear shot. You could still disable the tank by hitting its track though.
This is why they considered retiring the A-10 (even though it could carry modern missiles which are more than up to the job). This is against only the most modern of tanks and up so Russian T-90 models and their worldwide equivalents and up. So anything older than the absolute newest of the new is more vulnerable.
If you go with the rules, I suggested. It pretty much makes vehicles able to stand up against things they are supposed to and die to thing that their also supposed to die to.
For those players that don't understand Normal vs Mortal wounds in AoS. A normal wound requires a save, a Mortal wound you get no save at all.
Therefore, my example of the d-cannon would just do a 1d3 or 1d6 wounds off a vehicle, with no saves. It would do the same to a squad.
The plasma gun/cannon is pretty much a deadly variant of a weapon. That might make Tau actually too powerful as their rifles don't get hot.
TalonZahn wrote: Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.
Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....
If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.
That is nigh impossible I'm afraid.
A 5.56x45 caliber round (Standard modern day battle rifle caliber) or even a 7.62x39 caliber round (AK-47 caliber) will never, ever, ever realistically hurt a modern day main battle tank.
You can fire thousands.. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands... of rounds at a tank and you're going to mess up the paint. That's it. You may ding an optic, but that's about all.
A lasrifle or laspistol, even a hellgun or hellpistol, are not going to do anything meaningful to an armored vehicle.
Just clarifying that. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
You realize that wind and water can both destroy pretty much anything given enough time? if you build a machine that fired bullets at a tank forever, eventually you would punch a hole through it.
My GK army has two items in it that have very different power levels for the same points. If you compare my Dreadnought to my Dreadknight. You have AV vs MC. The MC wins out every single time for pretty much the same points.
I want my Dreadnoughts to have meaning in my army also.
TalonZahn wrote: Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.
Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....
If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.
That is nigh impossible I'm afraid.
A 5.56x45 caliber round (Standard modern day battle rifle caliber) or even a 7.62x39 caliber round (AK-47 caliber) will never, ever, ever realistically hurt a modern day main battle tank.
You can fire thousands.. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands... of rounds at a tank and you're going to mess up the paint. That's it. You may ding an optic, but that's about all.
A lasrifle or laspistol, even a hellgun or hellpistol, are not going to do anything meaningful to an armored vehicle.
Just clarifying that. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
You realize that wind and water can both destroy pretty much anything given enough time? if you build a machine that fired bullets at a tank forever, eventually you would punch a hole through it.
yes, but that would be much longer than the timeframe that a game takes place in.
You realize that wind and water can both destroy pretty much anything given enough time? if you build a machine that fired bullets at a tank forever, eventually you would punch a hole through it.
yes, but that would be much longer than the timeframe that a game takes place in.
I for one refuse to play any wargame that doesn't model the eventual dissolution of all matter by the thermodynamic heat death of the universe.
TalonZahn wrote: Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.
Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....
If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.
That is nigh impossible I'm afraid.
A 5.56x45 caliber round (Standard modern day battle rifle caliber) or even a 7.62x39 caliber round (AK-47 caliber) will never, ever, ever realistically hurt a modern day main battle tank.
You can fire thousands.. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands... of rounds at a tank and you're going to mess up the paint. That's it. You may ding an optic, but that's about all.
A lasrifle or laspistol, even a hellgun or hellpistol, are not going to do anything meaningful to an armored vehicle.
Just clarifying that. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
You realize that wind and water can both destroy pretty much anything given enough time? if you build a machine that fired bullets at a tank forever, eventually you would punch a hole through it.
Ah, so you know my Tyranid tactics... heck... <packs Tyranids away>
You realize that wind and water can both destroy pretty much anything given enough time? if you build a machine that fired bullets at a tank forever, eventually you would punch a hole through it.
yes, but that would be much longer than the timeframe that a game takes place in.
I for one refuse to play any wargame that doesn't model the eventual dissolution of all matter by the thermodynamic heat death of the universe.
This is why I insist on informing my regular opponents that they have never won a battle against me. They have simply forced me into a temporary retreat while I prepare for the next skirmish in the ongoing war. 0-16 record, my ass!
TalonZahn wrote: Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.
Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....
If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.
That is nigh impossible I'm afraid.
A 5.56x45 caliber round (Standard modern day battle rifle caliber) or even a 7.62x39 caliber round (AK-47 caliber) will never, ever, ever realistically hurt a modern day main battle tank.
You can fire thousands.. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands... of rounds at a tank and you're going to mess up the paint. That's it. You may ding an optic, but that's about all.
A lasrifle or laspistol, even a hellgun or hellpistol, are not going to do anything meaningful to an armored vehicle.
Just clarifying that. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
You realize that wind and water can both destroy pretty much anything given enough time? if you build a machine that fired bullets at a tank forever, eventually you would punch a hole through it.
yes, but that would be much longer than the timeframe that a game takes place in.
yes, and wind/water are also orders of magnitute less destrutive than bullets or military lazers.
in gaunts ghosts a lasgun set on high punches through a chaos marines armor. So we can assume safely that its at least strong enough to burn through ceramics (since there's no kinetic energy involved that simplifies things alot).
Hiqh quality modern ceramics can withstand firing upto 3000 degress over hours for setting them; but for the sake of argument lets assume that space marines are using really gakky ceramite that fails at around 1000 degrees.
My Skutt 1027 (7 cubic feet) is 11520 Watts. Divide by 1000 to get kiloWatts. 11520/1000=11.52 kW
found this person who descrieb the energy consumption of his kiln used to fire ceramics. He mentioned needing to run that thing for upwards of 8 hours to set ceramics, but we assumed that this was cheap crap for the sake of argument, so lets say its running for 1 hour only to achieve a temperature high enough to cause the ceramic to fail to the point where it can be burned though, or at least looses integrity enough to fall apart.
lets also be more generous, and round that number down to 10KW. So for the sake of our argument, one lasgun, set on high should be able to at least deliver as much energy as 10kw in order to punch through just the ceramic on power armor. (ignoring the fact that it also has to then go through adamantium and whatever else power armor is made of, plus the biomass of the marine inside). And all that assumes that this ceramite is made of dollar store crap porcelain, not high grade military ceramics.
Heres a video of a single 10kw lazer.
The thing with a rain of bullets, is that two of them can't hit one spot at one time owing to the fact that they cannot occupy the same space at the same time. One has to hit, plink off and then the next has to hit the space thats been cleared out.
50, 100 or 500 lasers can focus all at the same spot, because they can occupy the same space; even if by some fluke some photons bump others out of the way (and im pretty sure that they can't owing to having no mass) the ammount of them that don't get plinged off course is immense. BUT lets for the sake of argument assume that a full 10th of all the photons in this barrage are defelcted en route by dust, or bump off course some how. So suddenly those 50 lasguns are equivalent to 45.
if you managed to put all those beams on the same spot, you'd have about 450kw lazer effect(provided of course some magic 1 to 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 fluke didn't happen and the lazers were all in phase cancelling each other out.
Thats a video of a 150kw laser shooting at a mockup of a weapon.... It heated the steel of the weapon so quickly that it caused an explosion.... It literally gasified steel so fast that the steel around it needed to explode out of the way so that the super heated steel gas could escape as it expanded. and its only 33% as strong as our array of 50 lasguns would be (even accounting for the fact that we have been downplaying the strength of the lasgun at every estimate we made)
AND THEN there's the fact that this is a game.... All the math in the world does not matter if the end result is rules that amount to a problem from a junior physics textbook and are no fun. The fact is, having a very slim chance of causing something big and scary to go up in smoke by firing at it with a weak piddly unit is fun. No it should not happen often, but if it can happen, and someone skews the odds by doing it 400 times, then it's perfectly fine that it works out.
Having indestructible units is not good for the game. It wasn't good with biker-nobs, it wasn't good with draigo-wing, it wasn't good with screamer stars, it isn't good with tau superheavies. If people want to play a game where their units literally can't be hurt, then they should pickup lego star wars. Having every unit be able to hurt every other unit not only makes sense in the real world, but it makes for a game that's interesting rather than a tedious arms race.
Having indestructible units is not good for the game
who was talking about that?
there is a wide gab between "every weapon can kill everything on 6+" and "units can't be hurt at all"
you don't need top go from one extreme to the other.
Having every unit be able to hurt every other unit not only makes sense in the real world, but it makes for a game that's interesting rather than a tedious arms race
no it has nothing to do with real world and it makes a game not interesting if the answer to everything is "spam the cheapest unit you have"
Loving all the 8E news & rumour discussion going on here folks. It's nice checking back into this thread for new developments, only to find several pages of amateur game design theory. If only there were a place to discuss that.
xttz wrote: Loving all the 8E news & rumour discussion going on here folks. It's nice checking back into this thread for new developments, only to find several pages of amateur game design theory. If only there were a place to discuss that.
Yeah...That's what I love to read about.... I don't even want to comb through everything to find the rumors anymore. So much speculation not enough rumoring.
Youn wrote: If you go with the rules, I suggested. It pretty much makes vehicles able to stand up against things they are supposed to and die to thing that their also supposed to die to.
For those players that don't understand Normal vs Mortal wounds in AoS. A normal wound requires a save, a Mortal wound you get no save at all.
Therefore, my example of the d-cannon would just do a 1d3 or 1d6 wounds off a vehicle, with no saves. It would do the same to a squad.
The plasma gun/cannon is pretty much a deadly variant of a weapon. That might make Tau actually too powerful as their rifles don't get hot.
Disclaimer : I hate game design where you have a lot of stats, but some mechanics make them meaningless.
Following this, I think mortal wound is a bad thing, because you have stats, and even the most damaging weapon should use them.
Otherwise, It's a scale problem, and either this weapon don't belong tothis game, or you stats should accomodate for it.
Note : I think that D-Weapons are equally stupid, even with the classical GW design of 1 = nothing happens!
Having indestructible units is not good for the game
who was talking about that?
there is a wide gab between "every weapon can kill everything on 6+" and "units can't be hurt at all"
you don't need top go from one extreme to the other.
Having every unit be able to hurt every other unit not only makes sense in the real world, but it makes for a game that's interesting rather than a tedious arms race
no it has nothing to do with real world and it makes a game not interesting if the answer to everything is "spam the cheapest unit you have"
Except that is not how the reality of such a system should (and I stress should) work. If a squad with melta guns can down a land raider in say an average of 12 Shots, but lasguns take 250 shots, then spamming cheap lasgun models only works if the melta gun models/units, cost 22 times as much. Otherwise if still makes sense to take the specialized unit.
The point is that you don't want games where you can do absolutely nothing with some of your units. In some ways I wish there were more things for units to do than just sit on objectives, or kill things. But in the case where these are what things generally do it makes more sense for all units to be able to do them, just not equally. In this case melta guns might only kill 4 infantry models with their 12 shots, but be able to kill a land raider. Vs those lasguns might kill more infantry due to having more shots, but are effectively useless against the land raider.
I have never seen an army completely out of Land Raiders
so the argument that lasguns are sitting sround useless because they cannot wound them is stupid
and actually they never could wound them and until now I never heard that anyone wants them to.
actually it is the other way around, people want their tanks more though (and that glancing to death need to go) and not more vulnerable against anti-infantry fire
kodos wrote: I have never seen an army completely out of Land Raiders
so the argument that lasguns are sitting sround useless because they cannot wound them is stupid
and actually they never could wound them and until now I never heard that anyone wants them to.
actually it is the other way around, people want their tanks more though (and that glancing to death need to go) and not more vulnerable against anti-infantry fire
Tanks can be both more resilient over all and still be somewhat vulnerable to infantry fire; a riptide is way more resiliant than a land raider as the rules stand, but can be wounded by a lasgun. No one is trying to argue that a single lucky lasgun shot should cause the hardest tanks to explode; but a single lucky lasgun shot after a whole games worth of lascannon and melta shots just might.
There may have been rumors about 8th and sisters, but TBH, I wouldn't count on them to be worth anything Rumors involving sisters have a history of being disagreeable.
Also, I dont think that this discussion is too off topic, considering that one of the rumors presented has been that vehicles will be changed, and that the game will move towards AOS style cards... We're just runing with whether or not that's a good or bad change.
On Thursday, we bring you guests from around Games Workshop HQ. We’ll have Joey Logan from our scenery design team, who will be talking about the new Sector Mechanicus terrain that features in the recent Shadow War: Armageddon set. Then we hear from White Dwarf Editor Matt Keefe, for a behind the scenes discussion of the magazine as it approaches its 40th birthday issue next month.
For what it's worth, I read once about a Bren gunner driving off a reasonably large formation - company? - of advancing Panther tanks from an Italian village by accurately pinging repeated shots off the vision blocks and similar items, Of course, the real reason was that the panzers effectively failed their 'Fear' tests at being ordered to attack what they consequently thought was a large formation of dug-in infantry (it wasn't, just this man's section) in a built-up area while unsupported by their own infantry, which is not really a 40k rule - or even a situation that comes up in a typical game - but you could imagine the 'destruction' as more as something like that if you'd prefer.
Simplest way to make that distinction would be two key words: "Small Arms" and "Heavy armour". Make 'Heavy Armour' immune to 'Small Arms', whether 'Small Arms' gets a special rule of its own (perhaps analagous to the current Assault type?) would be another discussion!
kodos wrote: I have never seen an army completely out of Land Raiders
so the argument that lasguns are sitting sround useless because they cannot wound them is stupid
and actually they never could wound them and until now I never heard that anyone wants them to.
actually it is the other way around, people want their tanks more though (and that glancing to death need to go) and not more vulnerable against anti-infantry fire
Have you ever seen an army completely out of Imperial Knights? It would be the same thing.
Vorian wrote: We are discussing how a fixed to wound roll interacts with vehicles compared to how the current system does. The current system uses AV as a seperate system.
Yes, and my post wasn't referring to AV. It was pointing out that a straight S vs T comparison is more straightforward than a system that relies on adding special rules to both weapons and units in order for the core rules to function.
insaniak wrote: Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.
This statement is so ridiculous. Your framing the argument in a way that suggests that somehow those special rules aren't a section of the core rules just because they are located on unit cards and not written in to a compendium of a BRB.
No, I'm framing that argument in a way that suggests that unnecessary special rules should be avoided for the sake of simplicity.
I couldn't care less where the rules are located... A system that uses the same rules for everybody is less complicated than a system that relies on some units and weapons having special rules to make them function correctly.
Have you ever seen an army completely out of Imperial Knights? It would be the same thing.
And this, frankly, is the bigger problem.
The need for everybody to be able to hurt everything comes from the current system allowing for this sort of army as a standard part of the game. This should never have been allowed in the first place. If GW had left army building with a sensible structure and not allowed entire armies of vehicles, then we wouldn't need a system where weapons that shouldn't have any effect on vehicles need to be able to hurt them for the sake of game balance.
Knights should only ever have been in a support role, with all-Knight armies left for specific scenarios where the opponent can tailor his army to accommodate it.
Yes, and my post wasn't referring to AV. It was pointing out that a straight S vs T comparison is more straightforward than a system that relies on adding special rules to both weapons and units in order for the core rules to function.
This. Look at the movement value; it was removed in the third edition to 'streamline' the game, and we ended up with bunch of unit types and special rules to simulate things that should move at different speeds. So now they're finally backing up from that and reintroducing the move value, which is way easier way to do the thing. Fixed wound roll would just lead to similar (albeit probably worse) mess.
Have you ever seen an army completely out of Imperial Knights? It would be the same thing.
And this, frankly, is the bigger problem.
The need for everybody to be able to hurt everything comes from the current system allowing for this sort of army as a standard part of the game. This should never have been allowed in the first place. If GW had left army building with a sensible structure and not allowed entire armies of vehicles, then we wouldn't need a system where weapons that shouldn't have any effect on vehicles need to be able to hurt them for the sake of game balance.
Knights should only ever have been in a support role, with all-Knight armies left for specific scenarios where the opponent can tailor his army to accommodate it.
Agreed again. There should have been just one Ad Mech army, of which Knights should've been a part.
Have you ever seen an army completely out of Imperial Knights? It would be the same thing.
not really as Knights have a problem with maelstrom missions
it is more likely to be seen than an all Raider army, but actually I have never ever seen one, neither in the club nor at tournaments
even back in 5th with the IA tank company list I have never seen an all heavy tank list
This.. Look at the movement value; it was removed in the third edition to 'streamline' the game, and we ended up with bunch of unit types and special rules to simulate things that should move at different speeds. So now they're finally backing up from that and reintroducing the move value, which is way easier way to do the thing. Fixed wound roll would just lead to similar (albeit probably worse) mess.
Vorian wrote: We are discussing how a fixed to wound roll interacts with vehicles compared to how the current system does. The current system uses AV as a seperate system.
Yes, and my post wasn't referring to AV. It was pointing out that a straight S vs T comparison is more straightforward than a system that relies on adding special rules to both weapons and units in order for the core rules to function.
And as was discussed in that post, adding two simple keywords to add Armour into the game is much more simple than adding the entire AV system into the game.
Vorian wrote: And as was discussed in that post, adding two simple keywords to add Armour into the game is much more simple than adding the entire AV system into the game.
if you go with S VS T, you don't any of that (neither the AV nor the keywords).
Vorian wrote: You mean in a hypothetical system, other than the one which is actually used?
Wasn't it said that vehicles will get saves, which might imply (I seriously hope that it does) that they will move to use similar Toughness/Save system as other units?
At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.
Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.
Vorian wrote: At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.
Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.
Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.
kodos wrote: I have never seen an army completely out of Land Raiders
so the argument that lasguns are sitting sround useless because they cannot wound them is stupid
and actually they never could wound them and until now I never heard that anyone wants them to.
actually it is the other way around, people want their tanks more though (and that glancing to death need to go) and not more vulnerable against anti-infantry fire
I guess you are lucky then, I've played against armies composed of entirely of squads embarked in land raiders, kill the threats to those and drive around unable to be hurt. Also seen all Knights, which is the same deal. As was said elsewhere you can actually make these vehicles tougher while still allowing them to be hurt by all weapons on some level.
I think 40K should just give fixed to hit for units, then weapon strength instead of to wound rolls, and AV for everything. guardsmen can be AV 7 or some such.
Vorian wrote: You mean in a hypothetical system, other than the one which is actually used?
at the point were rumours said vehicles get more in line with monsters like in AoS, that brought up the idea that a fixe to wound roll will come
while I say I don't see a problem if vehicles get T+save like everyone else
Vorian wrote: At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.
Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.
Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.
Sorry, that's just not true.
There are plenty of other levers to provide the granularity.
Vorian wrote: You mean in a hypothetical system, other than the one which is actually used?
at the point were rumours said vehicles get more in line with monsters like in AoS, that brought up the idea that a fixe to wound roll will come
while I say I don't see a problem if vehicles get T+save like everyone else
Sure, ok. But what you're neglecting to say is that S vs T includes a rule for making it impossible to wound.
So in that case the rule is its impossible to wound when T is 4 over S, the rule in fixed wound would be something like small arms can't harm vehicles - or any multitude of similar simple rules using only core rule concepts
Vorian wrote: At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.
Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.
Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.
Your last statement is not true. It is very easy to represent it without tons of special rules, and actually better than our current system.
You have a very fast unit -1 to hit
Very durable unit -2 to wound
Gun that penetrates armor well - 3 to save.
So you basically just end up with different stats for above it could be
Dodge = -1
Toughness = -2
Penetration = -3
The S v toughness chart would be a good idea if we were not using a D6 but with said dice it is not really all that much more granular than would be easily achievable through simple modifers. It also allows for very little true difference because we fail to even use the whole chart. Most units are T3 or 4. Most guns S3-5. Allowing for save modifiers also allows for tons of variety vs the current AP system.
This is no longer a fixed wound roll system! You're just writing the wound chart in different format (in worse one, as it can go only in one way, unless you start given squishy things bonuses to wound rolls against them!)
Vorian wrote: At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.
Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.
Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.
Its different design that you and some others don't like in the same way as many don;t like the incresingly abused current 40k system
Ironically what you claim to dislike so much in AOS is exactly what happens in 40k in close combat.
Right so I am worse fighter than you - well then pretty much be hitting on a 4+ then only if you are truely awful in close combat do you go to "shock" 5+!
So you hit me on 3+ right - yeah
and get better if you are an awesome fighter and I am not - nope
What do you mean a Bloodthirster of Khorne hits a gretchin on a 3+ - Seriously! Yeah stupid isn't it
Yeah thats wierd - so basically pretty much everyone in the game hits on 3 or 4+ - yep pretty much.
So why is this guy going on about only hitting on 3's and 4's when thats what happens in 40k?
Dunno makes no sense to me eiither, also there are weapon, unit and other modifiers that come into play that effect your to-hit roll in AOS but guess he missed that.
This is no longer a fixed wound roll system! You're just writing the wound chart in different format (in worse one, as it can go only in one way, unless you start given squishy things bonuses to wound rolls against them!)
Sure it the model has a fixed wound number. That number is then modified, rather than having a strength that is then compared to a toughness. As for squishy units, you can just give them bad saves/no saves. It makes them more durable in some ways, but allows for high rate of fire to be better at killing infantry, but worse at killing vehicles. Right no high rate of fire is best at both in most cases.
Vorian wrote: At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.
Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.
Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.
Its different design that you and some others don't like in the same way as many don;t like the incresingly abused current 40k system
Ironically what you claim to dislike so much in AOS is exactly what happens in 40k in close combat.
Right so I am worse fighter than you - well then pretty much be hitting on a 4+ then only if you are truely awful in close combat do you go to "shock" 5+!
So you hit me on 3+ right - yeah
and get better if you are an awesome fighter and I am not - nope
What do you mean a Bloodthirster of Khorne hits a gretchin on a 3+ - Seriously! Yeah stupid isn't it
Yeah thats wierd - so basically pretty much everyone in the game hits on 3 or 4+ - yep pretty much.
So why is this guy going on about only hitting on 3's and 4's when thats what happens in 40k?
Dunno makes no sense to me eiither, also there are weapon, unit and other modifiers that come into play that effect your to-hit roll in AOS but guess he missed that.
Yup, having modifiers on the hit is a different way to create diversity that we lack right now. There is no real way to show that models are hard to hit. This hurts things like Genestealers, which fluff wise shouldn't be that armored, but they should be harder to hit in shooting than an ork. But right now marines hit them both on a 3+.
What do you mean a Bloodthirster of Khorne hits a gretchin on a 3+ - Seriously! Yeah stupid isn't it
Yeah thats wierd - so basically pretty much everyone in the game hits on 3 or 4+ - yep pretty much.
So why is this guy going on about only hitting on 3's and 4's when thats what happens in 40k?
Dunno makes no sense to me eiither, also there are weapon, unit and other modifiers that come into play that effect your to-hit roll in AOS but guess he missed that.
And with aos everything hits thirster whether they are hitting grot or thirster.
Stupid as hell. Hitting best fighter ever should be harder than worst.
Sure, ok. But what you're neglecting to say is that S vs T includes a rule for making it impossible to wound.
depending on the chart that is used
Warhammer had a table that allowed everything to be wounded on 6+ in its last edition
personally I would prefer a table with a hardcap, as I see only negative impact to the game otherwise (seen what happened in Warhammer as they introduced everything can wound everything system)
if you go +/-2 or +/-3 or +/-4 is than more a balance thing
Sure it the model has a fixed wound number. That number is then modified, rather than having a strength that is then compared to a toughness.
no you have the same, a "to wound" number that is modified by a special rules to get the final "to wound" roll
it is completely the same like S VS T chart that gives you the "to wound" roll
just that the chart allows more variation than a D6+modifiers
Weird how everyone's totally fine with fixed To Hit rolls for shooting, even though you can make the exact same arguments that it 'should' involve comparing variables.
Thommy H wrote: Weird how everyone's totally fine with fixed To Hit rolls for shooting, even though you can make the exact same arguments that it 'should' involve comparing variables.
I am not fine with fixed to hit rolls, the problem is just that the WS chart is so bad that a fixed roll from 2+ to 6+ would be a huge improvement
I would like to see 2 versions of cover, soft cover (smoke, jink) that modify the to hit roll and hard cover (terrain) that adds a bonus to the armour save (for ranged and melee attacks)
than the "to hit" roll for ranged and melee attack should be in the profile (instead of BS and WS) and there should be the special rule "agile X" or "dodge X" that modify the "to hit" roll (which would always effect melee and ranged)
Sure, ok. But what you're neglecting to say is that S vs T includes a rule for making it impossible to wound.
depending on the chart that is used
Warhammer had a table that allowed everything to be wounded on 6+ in its last edition
personally I would prefer a table with a hardcap, as I see only negative impact to the game otherwise (seen what happened in Warhammer as they introduced everything can wound everything system)
if you go +/-2 or +/-3 or +/-4 is than more a balance thing
Sure it the model has a fixed wound number. That number is then modified, rather than having a strength that is then compared to a toughness.
no you have the same, a "to wound" number that is modified by a special rules to get the final "to wound" roll
it is completely the same like S VS T chart that gives you the "to wound" roll
just that the chart allows more variation than a D6+modifiers
both are not a fixed to wound roll
The point is neither option is inherently better / more complicated (or certainly no S vs T being less so).
The fine details are limitless on both sides, whichever one they choose will be fine so long as the system is designed well
I was really just pointing out that all game mechanics are abstractions. Where you draw the line for your own immersion is generally arbitrary - those who are outraged at losing S vs T act like these characteristics represent real, measurable traits and that there aren't already equally bizarre mechanics. Why is BS a flat roll, but WS is always set against an opponent's WS? Aren't the guys you're shooting at dodging? Shouldn't there be a BS vs I chart or something?
Basically, fixed To Wound rolls are no sillier than fixed To Hit rolls which we apparently don't find hard to swallow at all. S vs T isn't that special. Personally I find game mechanics based on a chart pretty inelegant but YMMV.
What do you mean a Bloodthirster of Khorne hits a gretchin on a 3+ - Seriously! Yeah stupid isn't it
Yeah thats wierd - so basically pretty much everyone in the game hits on 3 or 4+ - yep pretty much.
So why is this guy going on about only hitting on 3's and 4's when thats what happens in 40k?
Dunno makes no sense to me eiither, also there are weapon, unit and other modifiers that come into play that effect your to-hit roll in AOS but guess he missed that.
And with aos everything hits thirster whether they are hitting grot or thirster.
Stupid as hell. Hitting best fighter ever should be harder than worst.
No what AOS does is say how likely is it that a given unit can hit something - you know exactly the same as Ballistic Skill in 40k? Then it may look at modifiers - say if there is a huge swarm of them - they might even get effective.
40k - a single Gretchin tries to hit Bloodthirster - still does it on a 5+ - but apparently that's fine.
AOS - Grot tries to hit a Bloodthirster, does it on a 5+ (IIRC, it might be 6+) - so exactly the same but apparently that's wrong.
40K - The Bloodthirster tries to hit the Gretchin - best it can do is 3+ - hmm awesome, a decent fighter means that it only hits on a 4+
AOS -Can't recall but I think the Bloodthirster hits anything on a 2+, that's how good it is.
40k - Shooting already has fixed to hit rolls - Gretchin have BS 3 so hit anything- whether that be a Genestealer hiding in cover or a stationary vehicle on 4+ But apparently that's fine?
AOS - The Gretchin has a set to hit roll - but that's wrong apparently.
Thommy H wrote: Weird how everyone's totally fine with fixed To Hit rolls for shooting, even though you can make the exact same arguments that it 'should' involve comparing variables.
considering it is one of the common complain about current 40k, I'm baffled that you you came to such a conclusion
Vorian wrote: At the moment I think we're in a complete guess work situation based upon AoS.
Some people are trying to intimate that a fixed roll wound is somehow more complex than an S vs T comparison and some (including me) are pointing out that's false.
Fixed wound roll is just bad design. It is bad in AoS and would be even worse in 40K, where there is supposed to be huge variety of different weapons and units of varying power level. In AoS you get interesting weapon choices such as choosing between hitting on 4+ and wounding on 3+ or hitting on 3+ and wounding on 4+. Whoop-de-doo! In system this simplistic it is pointless to even have separate hit and wound, as the models do not interact with the enemy any way; it would work just as well and be even simpler to have just one attack roll. 40K needs granularity the toughness/strength interactions provide to reasonably represent strengths and weakness of different units and weapons without seven thousand special rules.
Sure, ok. But what you're neglecting to say is that S vs T includes a rule for making it impossible to wound.
depending on the chart that is used
Warhammer had a table that allowed everything to be wounded on 6+ in its last edition
personally I would prefer a table with a hardcap, as I see only negative impact to the game otherwise (seen what happened in Warhammer as they introduced everything can wound everything system)
if you go +/-2 or +/-3 or +/-4 is than more a balance thing
Sure it the model has a fixed wound number. That number is then modified, rather than having a strength that is then compared to a toughness.
no you have the same, a "to wound" number that is modified by a special rules to get the final "to wound" roll
it is completely the same like S VS T chart that gives you the "to wound" roll
just that the chart allows more variation than a D6+modifiers
both are not a fixed to wound roll
The difference is that I don't need to cross reference a chart to figure out my to wound value. I think many vets that have committed the chart to memory miss how annoying that is for new player.
So if I attack at S7 and you are T4 what does that mean? The answer is without knowledge of the chart it means nothing. So it requires a reference that needs to be looked up. Which is especially annoying for those players when the WS chart is different from the To wound chart, and so is the vehicle damage chart, the BS chart.....
If instead you have a fixed hit value + modifiers. If my guy wounds on a 2+, and your guy puts a -2 on that roll it is easier to figure out for the average person.
Maybe the best result would be a mix of both systems where your stats are things like
WS = 3+ to hit
BS = 4+ to hit
T = -1 to wound
Then have weapons with a to wound roll and an armor penetration value.
The difference is that I don't need to cross reference a chart to figure out my to wound value. I think many vets that have committed the chart to memory miss how annoying that is for new player.
So if I attack at S7 and you are T4 what does that mean? The answer is without knowledge of the chart it means nothing. So it requires a reference that needs to be looked up. Which is especially annoying for those players when the WS chart is different from the To wound chart, and so is the vehicle damage chart, the BS chart.....
so your problem is just that the WS chart is different
I agree, this chart is stupid and need either be removed or brought in line with the rest.
there should be only one chart for all comparison values
the BS chart is not a chart, it is a fixed roll
so saying it is hard to remember the fixed BS roll because the dice roll is not written directly in the profile
if this is such a big problem, 40k is not the right game, because it relies on remembering what the enemy can do
if your own profile is a problem, and you cannot remember if your Bolter is able to wound a Land Raider because the dice roll needed is not directly written in the profile than you really need a different game
the other argument is not really one
because someone who is not able to remember a simple +/-2 chart will also not remember what roll he needs in the first place and has to look at the targets profile because he won't know if there is a negative modifier
such a person always needs to look at the rules no matter what the system is
T = -1 to wound
Then have weapons with a to wound roll and an armor penetration value.
you can, the downside is that such a system has more limited because "to wound" can only be 2+ to 6+ and T max -4.
gives you less variation than S 1-10 and T 1-10
and you still need to look up the values to get the dice roll
Sure, ok. But what you're neglecting to say is that S vs T includes a rule for making it impossible to wound.
depending on the chart that is used
Warhammer had a table that allowed everything to be wounded on 6+ in its last edition
personally I would prefer a table with a hardcap, as I see only negative impact to the game otherwise (seen what happened in Warhammer as they introduced everything can wound everything system)
if you go +/-2 or +/-3 or +/-4 is than more a balance thing
Sure it the model has a fixed wound number. That number is then modified, rather than having a strength that is then compared to a toughness.
no you have the same, a "to wound" number that is modified by a special rules to get the final "to wound" roll
it is completely the same like S VS T chart that gives you the "to wound" roll
just that the chart allows more variation than a D6+modifiers
both are not a fixed to wound roll
The difference is that I don't need to cross reference a chart to figure out my to wound value. I think many vets that have committed the chart to memory miss how annoying that is for new player.
So if I attack at S7 and you are T4 what does that mean? The answer is without knowledge of the chart it means nothing. So it requires a reference that needs to be looked up. Which is especially annoying for those players when the WS chart is different from the To wound chart, and so is the vehicle damage chart, the BS chart.....
If instead you have a fixed hit value + modifiers. If my guy wounds on a 2+, and your guy puts a -2 on that roll it is easier to figure out for the average person.
Maybe the best result would be a mix of both systems where your stats are things like
WS = 3+ to hit
BS = 4+ to hit
T = -1 to wound
Then have weapons with a to wound roll and an armor penetration value.
If someones has to look up at the chart and is not able to memorize it pretty much instantly, Him and I are probably not looking for the same kind of game
Vorian wrote: We are discussing how a fixed to wound roll interacts with vehicles compared to how the current system does. The current system uses AV as a seperate system.
Yes, and my post wasn't referring to AV. It was pointing out that a straight S vs T comparison is more straightforward than a system that relies on adding special rules to both weapons and units in order for the core rules to function.
insaniak wrote: Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.
This statement is so ridiculous. Your framing the argument in a way that suggests that somehow those special rules aren't a section of the core rules just because they are located on unit cards and not written in to a compendium of a BRB.
No, I'm framing that argument in a way that suggests that unnecessary special rules should be avoided for the sake of simplicity.
I couldn't care less where the rules are located... A system that uses the same rules for everybody is less complicated than a system that relies on some units and weapons having special rules to make them function correctly.
Except your ignoring the sheer scale of 40k. Trying to keep it simple for as many unit entries as there are in 40k would make the game boring quite frankly. Half the reason to collect a new army is for the rules variety. Otherwise I'd simply buy a kit or two for a new neat looking faction. Why play army A if if army B functions nearly identically on the table? Or your suggesting that the USR catalog become MASSIVE in order to provide enough variety currently and for future introductions, which I'll reiterate doesn't reduce the snowflake rules but simply changes their location.
If someones has to look up at the chart and is not able to memorize it pretty much instantly, Him and I are probably not looking for the same kind of game
That sounds a bit arrogant. Some people have a harder time learning things than others.
Considering the S/T wound chart follows a straightforward system I wouldnt really call it arrogant. Theres not really much more to memorise than memorising what your to wound roll is in AoS
If someones has to look up at the chart and is not able to memorize it pretty much instantly, Him and I are probably not looking for the same kind of game
That sounds a bit arrogant. Some people have a harder time learning things than others.
Why are two fixed rolls useless, but two non-fixed rolls aren't? Having two fixed rolls means more granularity, you can have things be good at hitting but bad at wounding or the other way around, you can have models resistant to being hit but not being wounded or the other way around.
Vorian wrote: We are discussing how a fixed to wound roll interacts with vehicles compared to how the current system does. The current system uses AV as a seperate system.
Yes, and my post wasn't referring to AV. It was pointing out that a straight S vs T comparison is more straightforward than a system that relies on adding special rules to both weapons and units in order for the core rules to function.
insaniak wrote: Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.
This statement is so ridiculous. Your framing the argument in a way that suggests that somehow those special rules aren't a section of the core rules just because they are located on unit cards and not written in to a compendium of a BRB.
No, I'm framing that argument in a way that suggests that unnecessary special rules should be avoided for the sake of simplicity.
I couldn't care less where the rules are located... A system that uses the same rules for everybody is less complicated than a system that relies on some units and weapons having special rules to make them function correctly.
Except your ignoring the sheer scale of 40k. Trying to keep it simple for as many unit entries as there are in 40k would make the game boring quite frankly. Half the reason to collect a new army is for the rules variety. Otherwise I'd simply buy a kit or two for a new neat looking faction. Why play army A if if army B functions nearly identically on the table? Or your suggesting that the USR catalog become MASSIVE in order to provide enough variety currently and for future introductions, which I'll reiterate doesn't reduce the snowflake rules but simply changes their location.
Your missing the pioint - the base system is simple and quick - you add more simple stuf that works within that system to make units intersting, fluffy, unique etc
Currently 40k does exactly what you proclaim to hate - it adds loads of special rules ot indivdual units - sometimes breaking the basic rules and calls them different things,. but to make matter worse - it does this in varied ways and in so many different books that need to cross reference each other.
AOS proves that you have dozens hundred of different units that work within the same system but are still different.
Also still don't understand why you think a fixed target roll system for ballstic skill in 40k is GOOD and one in AOS is BAD - especially since 40k does not bother with modifiers for cover, speed, size or pretty much anything that effect the shooters aim.
Why are two fixed rolls useless, but two non-fixed rolls aren't?
Because the odds of the former are always the same. Having two rolls is just a waste of time.
Having two fixed rolls means more granularity, you can have things be good at hitting but bad at wounding or the other way around, you can have models resistant to being hit but not being wounded or the other way around.
If you have the enemies to impose penalties to hit or wound rolls, then it is not fixed roll system!
Vorian wrote: Or you can do things like reroll to hit??
You can, but i think re-rolling is a tiresome mechanic, and should be used sparingly. If you want to represent it being easier to hit or to wound it is much better to just have a mechanic where the odds of the initial roll are improved, so you don't need to waste time rolling twice.
Why are two fixed rolls useless, Having two fixed rolls means more granularity, you can have things be good at hitting but bad at wounding or the other way around, you can have models resistant to being hit but not being wounded or the other way around.
the 2 fixed roll in AoS are not useless, they are there to give a little bit more variation but in fact they are just a to hit roll with 2D6 rolled separately to give the impression that there are 2 independent rolls
yeah the indention was to make the game easier by not forcing you to know the stats of the target while you roll your dice, and a singe 2D6 attack roll was too different from Warhammer even for AoS
but two non-fixed rolls aren't?
rolls that are related to the target add diversity to the game, as something that is hard to hit but easy to wound should be attacked by different units that something that is easy to hit but hard to wound
of course you can make one fixed roll as you always hit with the same roll no matter what target, but a second roll should than depend on what your target is, otherwise you can just roll 2D6 to hit for the same result
Also still don't understand why you think a fixed target roll system for ballstic skill in 40k is GOOD and one in AOS is BAD - especially since 40k does not bother with modifiers for cover, speed, size or pretty much anything that effect the shooters aim.
the fixed to hit roll in current 40k is not good and removing modifiers was a bad idea in the first place.
and no, the diversity in AoS is on a minimum as you have hundreds of units that are the same and difference is just made up by factions special rules, artefacts etc.
Vorian wrote: Or you can do things like reroll to hit??
You can, but i think re-rolling is a tiresome mechanic, and should be used sparingly. If you want to represent it being easier to hit or to wound it is much better to just have a mechanic where the odds of the initial roll are improved, so you don't need to waste time rolling twice.
It was only an example, there are lots of other things.
6s to hit auto wound, 6s to wound ignore saves, ones to hit hit your own forces, etc etc.
