Personally loving all of the changes, I swore blind I would not buy any models untill 8th dropped, the last couple articles made me buy some more I bought the let's start ork box now that deff dreds have a purpose, and I will be buying a morka/gorka naut after this update.
If I only new how many points nobs cost and what wounds they have I would buy another let's start ork box on top of that aswell, from what I have read the game is going to be so much more balanced,faster it's going to be great.
My only issue is retreating units in mele, but hey guess what we are hitting first now sonthey have compensated me I also think this has added more depth to the game "stream line" depth that is.
This fuss about vehicle sides is no issue for me you say it takes away tactical depth I say it adds to it, rather then trying to get a flank shot on a tank you now MUST take anti tank weaponry, so what have we lost, simple manuverability, what have we gained in depth, more precise lists you are going to have to actually think about what units your taking instead of spamming S6, on top of that vehicles are more survivable so you will have to pick which vehicles are the biggest threat and get rid of those first, we are gaining "stream lined" depth in my eyes and getting rid of uneccasary arguments in the process whilest getting to bring more varied lists.
Some people just can't handle change.
I used to play Fantasy before I took a break from the hobby, I used to check in on new models every now and again and I saw it change to AOS, I hated the game despite never playing it, i based my opinion on what other people wrote about it on forums, I actually played a game of it on TTS yesterday and despite me getting mauled I really enjoyed it, more then I did fantasy.
The moral of the story is try it before you bash it we know nothing about it we have micro snippets of rules and stat lines there is no space for math hammer here.
Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.
That's kind of the point, though... They've stripped out a bunch of stuff to make the game faster, and then chosen to add unneccessary processes elsewhere.
Yes, checking the unit card isn't particularly time-consuming as a one-off. That doesn't change the fact that not needing to check the unit card is faster.
Yunno what would also be faster? Flat to wound rolls.
ClockworkZion wrote: While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?
If similiar unit types (grouped into something like: walkers, tanks, skimmers, flyers, big bugs, chariots ect) come apart like each other that's fine, but I feel like there should be some difference between different kinds of models. A tank should lose shooting attacks instead of a walker's melee attacks for example. A Helbrute could gain attacks as its wounds drop as it becomes more crazed while losing WS to represent it going nuts.
There is a lot of flavor that could be mixed into the game this way and frankly I look forward to what they do with it.
Worst case scenario we can petition changes as this IS a living ruleset.
Agreed.
While I dont like the linear degradation, I think it is much better to have bespoken rules for every unit on this, rather than a simple universal rule
ERJAK wrote: Having monsters degrade in different ways is better for balance, it's a better design space, it's fluffier, and most importantly it's not that big of a deal to learn I mean the Sigmar players handle it just fine and they're...whatever nasty name you apply to sigmar players.
I think it might depend on how many models will use this mechanic. Personally I don't really want to deal with 5 or six models in a normal force that behave like this. If it's just the bigger stuff, then sure, it won't be that bad.
Lascannons run 20 points on a Devastator and upwards to twice that for some other armies while being able to actually do a single wound around 50% of the time or less due of it's low shot output. Variable damage makes them more threatening in average, takes the game from "spam melta for your tank needs" and generally makes the weapon better without breaking the game or needing to make it cheaper..
Yes, I get that lascannons needed a boost. My point was that they went with D3 instead of just making it a 2 or a 3, when there is no particular reason fluffwise for the weapon's output to be variable. Which suggests that their intention is for heavy weapons to do a variable amount of damage to represent glancing vs full-on wounds.
It's supposition based on a pool of 1 for the moment, but it seems likely.
I can fluff the variable damage: a shot against a walker's arm (1 wound) vs the power source/motive engine/warp battery (6 wounds). It'd be less the weapon being variable but how lucky the shot was.
They went down 2 pegs in the table system you designed less than 5 minutes ago.
It's your system man.
They only go down 1 peg in 'my' system. Only Movement goes lower.
That heavily favors shooty monsters over melee ones. And for the record you said all their stats would drop.
Trying to apply a uniform solution to everything doesn't work and degredation tables are a good system that help make larger models unique and interesting without forcing things like the GMC rules and again is fluffy as all hell.
Plenty of things in 40k are silly and would make the game faster if they got removed, like close combat in general, but that's still here.
Megaknob wrote: Personally loving all of the changes, I swore blind I would not buy any models untill 8th dropped, the last couple articles made me buy some more I bought the let's start ork box now that deff dreds have a purpose, and I will be buying a morka/gorka naut after this update.
If I only new how many points nobs cost and what wounds they have I would buy another let's start ork box on top of that aswell, from what I have read the game is going to be so much more balanced,faster it's going to be great.
My only issue is retreating units in mele, but hey guess what we are hitting first now sonthey have compensated me I also think this has added more depth to the game "stream line" depth that is.
This fuss about vehicle sides is no issue for me you say it takes away tactical depth I say it adds to it, rather then trying to get a flank shot on a tank you now MUST take anti tank weaponry, so what have we lost, simple manuverability, what have we gained in depth, more precise lists you are going to have to actually think about what units your taking instead of spamming S6, on top of that vehicles are more survivable so you will have to pick which vehicles are the biggest threat and get rid of those first, we are gaining "stream lined" depth in my eyes and getting rid of uneccasary arguments in the process whilest getting to bring more varied lists.
Some people just can't handle change.
I used to play Fantasy before I took a break from the hobby, I used to check in on new models every now and again and I saw it change to AOS, I hated the game despite never playing it, i based my opinion on what other people wrote about it on forums, I actually played a game of it on TTS yesterday and despite me getting mauled I really enjoyed it, more then I did fantasy.
The moral of the story is try it before you bash it we know nothing about it we have micro snippets of rules and stat lines there is no space for math hammer here.
Facings and the viability of Anti tank weapons are two completely unrelated questions. Let's be serious fors a second, removing facings does not make the game more tactical
In age of Sigmar "many" weapons have 2 or 3 as damage, but I haven't see one that does a flat 6 in damage. Normally the ones that can do so much damage are always a d6.
I have seen some that do 1d3 in damage, but I think 2 and 3 as flat damage are more common.
ERJAK wrote: Having monsters degrade in different ways is better for balance, it's a better design space, it's fluffier, and most importantly it's not that big of a deal to learn I mean the Sigmar players handle it just fine and they're...whatever nasty name you apply to sigmar players.
I think it might depend on how many models will use this mechanic. Personally I don't really want to deal with 5 or six models in a normal force that behave like this. If it's just the bigger stuff, then sure, it won't be that bad.
And fair enough, in Sigmar the most tables you even CAN deal with is 4. You literally cannot take more than that.
Tyranids are really the only army I'd be worrying about having too many tables, but their monsters are so similar to each other you could get away with a somewhat unified table. Just not cross faction.
I'm curious how largest model is going to affect the Stompa and Deff Dreds. If Deff Dreds will actually get "Largest Model" status since they are quite large, and if this will indeed impact my dusty old Kan Wall like I hope it will.
I love that damn army, and am dying to see it anywhere near viable on the field again.
Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.
That's kind of the point, though... They've stripped out a bunch of stuff to make the game faster, and then chosen to add unneccessary processes elsewhere.
Yes, checking the unit card isn't particularly time-consuming as a one-off. That doesn't change the fact that not needing to check the unit card is faster.
I have a feeling six months from now everyone will be used to checking and not care. It's not really a time sink to have the book open to that page before grabbing your tape measure to move the model or before you make an attack in assault.
I'm going to make a strange claim here on why it's actually a good idea to have in the game: it makes the big models more balanced. Currently models like Knights are good because you deploy them and until they run out of HP they don't lose any functionality. This is also one of the reasons the Riptide was such a pain. By making it so they can get weaker as they take wounds it presents the controlling player with a choice: do you run this up to smash your opponent's gob in, or play it more defensively to ensure it stays at full power longer? Likewise for the opponent it gives them the ability to potentially weaken a model that is a huge threat instead of being forced solely to kill it to make it less dangerous, meaning you can split your target piority more than before. Especially since you can easilly know how many wounds you need to do to weaken the model. A great thing when some of these models now have over twenty wounds.
One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
I think 40K players are going to need to get in the habit of game aids, something that it was reasonably light on before but are common in a lot of other systems. A token set for a WMH army or Guild Ball Team, camo markers for Infinity etc, are all just part of the toolkit.
JimOnMars wrote: One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
Forced to memorize something you can just have the book open to?
Those sorts of players wo "forget" things will always exist. I wouldn't pass or fail a game mechanic on their ability to forget to apply rules aainst their armies correctly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: I think 40K players are going to need to get in the habit of game aids, something that it was reliably light in before but are common in a lot of other systems.
I forsee people making cards for their derading units and tracking them Warmahordes style. Though I expect the cards will be MtG style for no reason.
Megaknob wrote: Personally loving all of the changes, I swore blind I would not buy any models untill 8th dropped, the last couple articles made me buy some more I bought the let's start ork box now that deff dreds have a purpose, and I will be buying a morka/gorka naut after this update.
If I only new how many points nobs cost and what wounds they have I would buy another let's start ork box on top of that aswell, from what I have read the game is going to be so much more balanced,faster it's going to be great.
My only issue is retreating units in mele, but hey guess what we are hitting first now sonthey have compensated me I also think this has added more depth to the game "stream line" depth that is.
This fuss about vehicle sides is no issue for me you say it takes away tactical depth I say it adds to it, rather then trying to get a flank shot on a tank you now MUST take anti tank weaponry, so what have we lost, simple manuverability, what have we gained in depth, more precise lists you are going to have to actually think about what units your taking instead of spamming S6, on top of that vehicles are more survivable so you will have to pick which vehicles are the biggest threat and get rid of those first, we are gaining "stream lined" depth in my eyes and getting rid of uneccasary arguments in the process whilest getting to bring more varied lists.
Some people just can't handle change.
I used to play Fantasy before I took a break from the hobby, I used to check in on new models every now and again and I saw it change to AOS, I hated the game despite never playing it, i based my opinion on what other people wrote about it on forums, I actually played a game of it on TTS yesterday and despite me getting mauled I really enjoyed it, more then I did fantasy.
The moral of the story is try it before you bash it we know nothing about it we have micro snippets of rules and stat lines there is no space for math hammer here.
Facings and the viability of Anti tank weapons are two completely unrelated questions. Let's be serious fors a second, removing facings does not make the game more tactical
Your completely right sir it's more bloated rules the game does not need, so it's been cut.
ClockworkZion wrote: While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?
If similiar unit types (grouped into something like: walkers, tanks, skimmers, flyers, big bugs, chariots ect) come apart like each other that's fine, but I feel like there should be some difference between different kinds of models. A tank should lose shooting attacks instead of a walker's melee attacks for example. A Helbrute could gain attacks as its wounds drop as it becomes more crazed while losing WS to represent it going nuts.
There is a lot of flavor that could be mixed into the game this way and frankly I look forward to what they do with it.
Worst case scenario we can petition changes as this IS a living ruleset.
I see your point about different unit types having different ways of degradation, but I also agree with Insaniak that a more universal method makes sense, especially if the whole idea is to reduce unnecessary complexity. So I would propose a separate table for main unit types: walkers, tanks, skimmers/flyers, and critters. That way you can use the same rule of thumb for each type yet have various and more appropriate results that fit each class. Fair enough?
EDIT: On a side note, the debate on simplicity for it's own sake routinely takes a beating around here. Simple does not equal better or worse, it just means simple. So when someone says 'hey this is simpler so it's better' you have to be careful. Chutes & Ladders is a simpler game but isn't 'better' unless that is exactly the game you want to play. By the same token, more complex rules aren't 'worse' just because they are less simple. It's always a give and take for the overall effect you want to have on the game being played. I find the lack of armor facings a great oversimplification which in this scale of game absolutely belong, but by the same token I am loathe to have different (degradation) rules for each vehicle in the game because to me personally that is unnecessary complication.
Different strokes for different folks and all that! As long as everybody finds a way to enjoy their own gaming experience it's all good!
Megaknob wrote: Personally loving all of the changes, I swore blind I would not buy any models untill 8th dropped, the last couple articles made me buy some more I bought the let's start ork box now that deff dreds have a purpose, and I will be buying a morka/gorka naut after this update. If I only new how many points nobs cost and what wounds they have I would buy another let's start ork box on top of that aswell, from what I have read the game is going to be so much more balanced,faster it's going to be great. My only issue is retreating units in mele, but hey guess what we are hitting first now sonthey have compensated me I also think this has added more depth to the game "stream line" depth that is. This fuss about vehicle sides is no issue for me you say it takes away tactical depth I say it adds to it, rather then trying to get a flank shot on a tank you now MUST take anti tank weaponry, so what have we lost, simple manuverability, what have we gained in depth, more precise lists you are going to have to actually think about what units your taking instead of spamming S6, on top of that vehicles are more survivable so you will have to pick which vehicles are the biggest threat and get rid of those first, we are gaining "stream lined" depth in my eyes and getting rid of uneccasary arguments in the process whilest getting to bring more varied lists.
Some people just can't handle change.
I used to play Fantasy before I took a break from the hobby, I used to check in on new models every now and again and I saw it change to AOS, I hated the game despite never playing it, i based my opinion on what other people wrote about it on forums, I actually played a game of it on TTS yesterday and despite me getting mauled I really enjoyed it, more then I did fantasy.
The moral of the story is try it before you bash it we know nothing about it we have micro snippets of rules and stat lines there is no space for math hammer here.
Facings and the viability of Anti tank weapons are two completely unrelated questions. Let's be serious fors a second, removing facings does not make the game more tactical
Your completely right sir it's more bloated rules the game does not need, so it's been cut.
If a rule add tactical depth to a game it is not really bloating. Unless you want the game winner to only be determinate by a single dice roll off .
Tyranids are really the only army I'd be worrying about having too many tables, but their monsters are so similar to each other you could get away with a somewhat unified table. Just not cross faction.
AoS doesn't give tables to things in the 8-10 wounds range so that would solve a lot of 'nids.
If 40k was a Warmachine sized skirmish game I'd be down for more facing rules, but in a game that focuses more on company (military not corporate) level instead of squad level engagements it's too fussy for a game without movement trays. Ridding of something that spawns arguements due to wonky model shape, that doesn't have the support of the bases the models are supplied with and was a part of a poorly balanced vehicle system that is being replaced with something that is more balanced for everyone.
Could we have a more tactical game with facings? Yes. But the game needs to be designed for it from the bases the models use on up. That and every large would need a clear diagram on it's facings if we want anything more than a "front and rear" acing system.
Also all the fire arc tracking and arguments I"m sure we'd enjoy would be worth it on a game that needed streamlining instead of increased rules complexity that prevented faster game play with less bored waiting for opposing players.
The problem with a universal degradation rule, even separated in types (Tanks, walkers, etc...) is that even if you distribute the degradation evenly in all of the stats, meele units will suffer more than shooting ones? Why?
Because to a meele walker/vehicle/monster, etc... the loss of movement will hurt much more than a shooting one. And boom, you began with meele being more weak than shooting.
Degradation-tables by unit is more hard to memorice, but leads to a more fine tunning and balance. And as others have said, to some fluffy things like the Hellbrute gaining attacks etc...
ClockworkZion wrote: While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?
If similiar unit types (grouped into something like: walkers, tanks, skimmers, flyers, big bugs, chariots ect) come apart like each other that's fine, but I feel like there should be some difference between different kinds of models. A tank should lose shooting attacks instead of a walker's melee attacks for example. A Helbrute could gain attacks as its wounds drop as it becomes more crazed while losing WS to represent it going nuts.
There is a lot of flavor that could be mixed into the game this way and frankly I look forward to what they do with it.
Worst case scenario we can petition changes as this IS a living ruleset.
I see your point about different unit types having different ways of degradation, but I also agree with Insaniak that a more universal method makes sense, especially if the whole idea is to reduce unnecessary complexity. So I would propose a separate table for main unit types: walkers, tanks, skimmers/flyers, and critters. That way you can use the same rule of thumb for each type yet have various and more appropriate results that fit each class. Fair enough?
Not every model inside of those types would start with the same stats so even if they follow the same rules you'd still need to check their profiles to get an idea of what their weakened stats would look like.
Basically it leaves us where we started: if models can get weaker, even if they follow a specific rule for type or the same rule for every model, you'd still need to look at their stats due to the differences in stats that every different model has.
Galas wrote: The problem with a universal degradation rule, even separated in types (Tanks, walkers, etc...) is that even if you distribute the degradation evenly in all of the stats, meele units will suffer more than shooting ones? Why?
Because to a meele walker/vehicle/monster, etc... the loss of movement will hurt much more than a shooting one. And boom, you began with meele being more weak than shooting.
Degradation-tables by unit is more hard to memorice, but leads to a more fine tunning and balance. And as others have said, to some fluffy things like the Hellbrute gaining attacks etc...
I cold see Ork vehicles lose toughness as some of their scrap armour falls off before anything important starts taking damage too....
But yes, basically any kind of system based around models getting weaker has some bookeeping involved reagardless of how it's done.
Galas wrote: In age of Sigmar "many" weapons have 2 or 3 as damage, but I haven't see one that does a flat 6 in damage. Normally the ones that can do so much damage are always a d6.
I have seen some that do 1d3 in damage, but I think 2 and 3 as flat damage are more common.
The sword wielded by a Spirit of Durthu and the flail used by a Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster both deal 6 Damage if either model is at full health, and I think there are a few others. Not really related but the Glottkin have a ranged attack that deals 2D6 Damage!
I would expect if a Lascannon - i.e. what is currently a 20 point heavy weapon that is widely available to Imperial armies - does D6 Damage, things like Volcano Cannons will probably deal 2D6 or even 3D6 Damage (or maybe just lots of mortal wounds)
JimOnMars wrote: One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.
Galas wrote: In age of Sigmar "many" weapons have 2 or 3 as damage, but I haven't see one that does a flat 6 in damage. Normally the ones that can do so much damage are always a d6.
I have seen some that do 1d3 in damage, but I think 2 and 3 as flat damage are more common.
The sword wielded by a Spirit of Durthu and the flail used by a Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster both deal 6 Damage if either model is at full health, and I think there are a few others. Not really related but the Glottkin have a ranged attack that deals 2D6 Damage!
I would expect if a Lascannon - i.e. what is currently a 20 point heavy weapon that is widely available to Imperial armies - does D6 Damage, things like Volcano Cannons will probably deal 2D6 or even 3D6 Damage (or maybe just lots of mortal wounds)
I can totally see something like a Bloodthirsters cutting in half in one single blow a Dreadnought or the cannon of a Baneblade bringing utter destruction to the enemies of the empire. But thats why you pay so many points for them!
JimOnMars wrote: One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.
If he isn't marking the unit's wounds, we'll know. If it had 8 wounds, I take one off, but he refuses to change it to 7, we'll know, because it's marked.
If he "forgets" his ballistic skill goes down at 7, we better be prepared to remind him.
ClockworkZion wrote:I think 40K players are going to need to get in the habit of game aids, something that it was reliably light in before but are common in a lot of other systems.
I forsee people making cards for their derading units and tracking them Warmahordes style. Though I expect the cards will be MtG style for no reason.
I've been hoping for 40K unit cards for years. When they first started coming out with the Tactical Cards in 6th, I initially thought (and hoped) they'd include unit cards. My hope is they'll be 3X5 or slightly larger, playing card size is too small for my tired old eyes.
Aren't they doing unit cards for at least Stormcasts now in AoS?
JimOnMars wrote: One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.
While I tend to agree with you on this, how do you know it hasn't been an issue in AOS ?
JimOnMars wrote: One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.
While I tend to agree with you on this, how do you know it hasn't been an issue in AOS ?
Cheaters always exist. You can't judge a system based in that people will cheat with it. (Only if the system is specially easy to cheat with it, maybe?) Personally I have never seen anyone forgot to degrade their Gargantuant Creatures. We always keep a D20 at the side of the model. Obviously, YMMV, IMO, ATSKNF, etc...
Galas wrote: The problem with a universal degradation rule, even separated in types (Tanks, walkers, etc...) is that even if you distribute the degradation evenly in all of the stats, meele units will suffer more than shooting ones? Why?
Because to a meele walker/vehicle/monster, etc... the loss of movement will hurt much more than a shooting one. And boom, you began with meele being more weak than shooting.
Which can be accounted for in the various units' points costs.
There's no particular reason that two similar models shouldn't be affected the same by damage just because one of them has a melee weapon and the other doesn't, other than for artificial game balance.
Not every model inside of those types would start with the same stats so even if they follow the same rules you'd still need to check their profiles to get an idea of what their weakened stats would look like.
That really depends on how complicated the applied system is. If results are applied consistently in a standard, simple manner, then so long as you know the unit's starting profile there is no need to refer back to their card to figure out what it should be at any given time.
JimOnMars wrote: One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
That's not really applicable. What about the guy who conveniently forgets to reduce hull points? Or Warp Charge dice?
Just saying, I think you are looking for an issue where it doesn't exist in a considerable fashion. No offense.
Source; hasn't been an issue in AoS.
While I tend to agree with you on this, how do you know it hasn't been an issue in AOS ?
Cheaters always exist. You can't judge a system based in that people will cheat with it. (Only if the system is specially easy to cheat with it, maybe?) Personally I have never seen anyone forgot to degrade their Gargantuant Creatures. We always keep a D20 at the side of the model. Obviously, YMMV, IMO, ATSKNF, etc...
insaniak wrote: I would have gone with something more like 'Below half Wounds, drop all stats by one. Below a quarter wounds, halve remaining Movement value.' Applies to everyone evenly, and is one single formula to remember, regardless of what you're using that day.
That sounds dangerously like a universal rule that might govern more than one unit! We cannot have that.
All must be bespoke. All will be bespoke. We will be bespoke!!!
insaniak wrote: I would have gone with something more like 'Below half Wounds, drop all stats by one. Below a quarter wounds, halve remaining Movement value.' Applies to everyone evenly, and is one single formula to remember, regardless of what you're using that day.
That sounds dangerously like a universal rule that might govern more than one unit! We cannot have that.
All must be bespoke. All will be bespoke. We will be bespoke!!!
Well, you heard it. He has bespoken... *badumm tssss*
Having a different chart for every single big creature is just artificial game balance and there is no reason why a decent hit from a Lascannon somehow has a completely different effect on two units just because one is good at shooting (and doesn't care about HTH) and one is the opposite.
A far simpler and elegant solution would have simply been something along the lines of:
25%-50% wounds = -1 To Hit with HTH and Shooting, halve movement, halve attacks (round up for both) 25% or lower wounds = -2 To Hit with HTH and Shooting, halve movement again, halve attacks (round up for both).
And that's it. For all my bespoke jokes (that ryhmes! HA!), this is a simpler method that would require far less back and forth. As was said earlier, as long as you know the profile of the unit you are using then the above makes things easier.
SickSix wrote: My dream of a defiler heavy CSM army may come true! Woot!
The coming of the Defiler Kingdoms has long been prophetic. Let it happen!!!
Ssgt Carl wrote: Well, you heard it. He has bespoken... *badumm tssss*
Galas wrote: The problem with a universal degradation rule, even separated in types (Tanks, walkers, etc...) is that even if you distribute the degradation evenly in all of the stats, meele units will suffer more than shooting ones? Why?
Because to a meele walker/vehicle/monster, etc... the loss of movement will hurt much more than a shooting one. And boom, you began with meele being more weak than shooting.
Which can be accounted for in the various units' points costs.
There's no particular reason that two similar models shouldn't be affected the same by damage just because one of them has a melee weapon and the other doesn't, other than for artificial game balance.
Not every model inside of those types would start with the same stats so even if they follow the same rules you'd still need to check their profiles to get an idea of what their weakened stats would look like.
That really depends on how complicated the applied system is. If results are applied consistently in a standard, simple manner, then so long as you know the unit's starting profile there is no need to refer back to their card to figure out what it should be at any given time.
Comsidering players can often fail to properly do basic addition when building an army (not maliciously, just basic errors) expecting them to mentally adjust a statline based on the number of wounds alone is silly. The charts are going to be here for those who need them, and for those who don't they'll memorize the units they need anyways even if it's not a "standard, simple manner".
Comsidering players can often fail to properly do basic addition when building an army (not maliciously, just basic errors) expecting them to mentally adjust a statline based on the number of wounds alone is silly. The charts are going to be here for those who need them, and for those who don't they'll memorize the units they need anyways even if it's not a "standard, simple manner".
I'm not saying 'Don't have charts'. I'm saying 'Don't make the system so complicated that charts are required to play the game.'
Having every vehicle with its own chart goes into the latter category. It's edging (for me) too far into 'too little return for the effort required' territory.
I'd really love for this thread to go one page without someone deliberately misrepresenting what insaniak has been saying. Guy's been like an immovable island of calm in a sea of bespoke madness, and no one has shown him any respect for his well-reasoned and well-thought out answers.
Jjohnso11 wrote: Because the current edition doesn't require you to ever check rules. Everyone has them memorized.
Even being in favour of unique-unit degradation charts, this is a strawman.
They aren't saying that. Their point is actually very reasonable and to a more streamlined and competitive game version of 40k, it will work better.
But as I'm a filthy narrative guy, personally I prefer my units to be special snowflakes. For all the hate H.B.M.C has for bespoken rules I love them all!
H.B.M.C. wrote: there is no reason why a decent hit from a Lascannon somehow has a completely different effect on two units just because one is good at shooting
Hows about the fact that the thing that's good at shooting is likely to have alot of fiddly bits dedicated to shooting? a machine designed to swing a hammer is not likely to have lots of targeting computers or distance calculating optics that can be mashed up by a penetrating anti tank hit.
Similarly, a good penetrating hit on a motorcycle is likely to have a bigger effect on its ability to drive really fast than it would reduce the ability of a building to drive really fast.
Now we aren't throwing around 4 books per army I don't see the problem with opening the units page to see what it degrades to, having a standard across the board for all large models probably wouldn't be as balanced as giving each unit it's own unique treatment and it'll get to the point where everyone ends up knowing them by heart any way.
I've been hoping for 40K unit cards for years. When they first started coming out with the Tactical Cards in 6th, I initially thought (and hoped) they'd include unit cards. My hope is they'll be 3X5 or slightly larger, playing card size is too small for my tired old eyes.
Aren't they doing unit cards for at least Stormcasts now in AoS?
One of the two guys who taught me how to play 40k way back in 3rd edition (Chris, I'm talking about you!) used unit cards all the time. They've always been an option that almost everyone just never chose to use.
Jjohnso11 wrote: Because the current edition doesn't require you to ever check rules. Everyone has them memorized.
Even being in favour of unique-unit degradation charts, this is a strawman. They aren't saying that. Their point is actually very reasonable and to a more streamlined and competitive game version of 40k, it will work better.
But as I'm a filthy narrative guy, personally I prefer my units to be special snowflakes. For all the hate H.B.M.C has for bespoken rules I love them all!
This goes without saying. But then, Strawmens are pretty much a dakka speciality
Comsidering players can often fail to properly do basic addition when building an army (not maliciously, just basic errors) expecting them to mentally adjust a statline based on the number of wounds alone is silly. The charts are going to be here for those who need them, and for those who don't they'll memorize the units they need anyways even if it's not a "standard, simple manner".
I'm not saying 'Don't have charts'. I'm saying 'Don't make the system so complicated that charts are required to play the game.'
Having every vehicle with its own chart goes into the latter category. It's edging (for me) too far into 'too little return for the effort required' territory.
It's not a matter of complexity as much it is a matter of memorization, retention and generally not goofing things up by accident. No matter what you do if there is a statline problems can occur and requiring you to look at changing stats is no more difficult than looking up stats normally when you forget something.
You're basically complaining about needing to do something most players do all the time out of habit. And whilenat is your right to dislike something, it seems rather silly to complain about it when it's no different than checking statlines and unit information in a codex normally. And if you use an army builder (or make one in like Excel) like most players (especially tournament players) you can easilly have all your stats one 1-2 pages negating needingnan entire book just to check them making this "looking up stuff" complaint rather pointless, wouldn't you agree?
So is the game being shorter to play purely going to be because of positioning due to removal of templates, and trimming down the rules, or do you think they are going to make the process of shooting stuff off the table quicker too? That would suck for an army that needs to get close to do anything.
I'd really love for this thread to go one page without someone deliberately misrepresenting what insaniak has been saying. Guy's been like an immovable island of calm in a see of bespoke madness, and no one has shown him any respect for his well-reasoned and well-thought out answers.
Stating no one has been respectful is rather dishonest.
Just because we don't see eye to eye on a concept or believe that there is even an issue doesn't automatically mean we're disrespectuf to the person with the idea. Now if we start attacking the person in question over their ideas (through name callng, attacking heir credibility or generally claiming they aren't respectful of us) then we have a problem.
The fact is that many of us rather feel that the degrading units stuff works just fine as presented and that a "simple system" could actually cause imbalances in the rules by favoring certain units over others (shooting over melee), not actually solve anything (player informtion retention skills when required to adjust statlines even in a singular manner) and lose flavor (neglecting how some its may react to being hurt differently than others, like a Helbrute attacking more but at a lower WS to represent it's crazed fury for being hurt).
Could the game water it down to a single method for all models that degrade or do degrade models in a specific manner b type? Yes. Sould it? Depends on what you want the system to do and represent. I feel that such a forced change wouldn't improve the system in any meaningful way and only cause us to lose more flavorful aspects of the various units, but that's just my take on it.
At the end of the day I will say what I've been saying: if something doesn't work right, or suffers from being too complex or unwieldly we have the advantage of finally having a living ruleset. It can be fixed after launch so if something doesn't sound right now and turns out to be broken after we get some game time in then we can petition changes instead of just sucking it up and dealing with it. As it stands without games these things may look scary or disappointing but with the whole game in hand and some play time we'll be able to form true objective opinions aout everything instead of being limited to snippets of rules and the occasional statline peek.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
macluvin wrote: So is the game being shorter to play purely going to be because of positioning due to removal of templates, and trimming down the rules, or do you think they are going to make the process of shooting stuff off the table quicker too? That would suck for an army that needs to get close to do anything.
Basic weapons seem to be a bit weaker, at least to horde units like Guard and Orks who generally have 5+ or worse saves. So shooting from the generic weapons will likely not be the tool to remove models in large numbers. Special weapons may not even be the best tool as the flamer has a high potential for damage output but still doesn't have a rend value (maybe if it can light a unit on fire and turn failed saves into more wounds, but as is I'm not holding out for it to be a horde killer). Basically as it stands right now it looks like the best weapons for just straight removinng models with little to no saves are going to be in melee or be heavy weapons that can do large nmbers of wounds and have a signifigant rend value.
Only time will tell for sure but I feel like we may see basic shooting be reduced to a way to soften a unit or finish a heavilly wounded unit off rather than be the only tool used to remove a unit from the table (bar any extreme cases of high numbers of hits and wounds and no passed saves of course).
It's hyperbole, not dishonesty. Learn the difference.
ClockworkZion wrote: Just because we don't see eye to eye on a concept or believe that there is even an issue doesn't automatically mean we're disrespectuf to the person with the idea. Now if we start attacking the person in question over their ideas (through name callng, attacking heir credibility or generally claiming they aren't respectful of us) then we have a problem.
Cute.
ClockworkZion wrote: The fact is that many of us rather feel that the degrading units stuff works just fine as presented and that a "simple system" could actually cause imbalances in the rules by favoring certain units over others (shooting over melee), not actually solve anything (player informtion retention skills when required to adjust statlines even in a singular manner) and lose flavor (neglecting how some its may react to being hurt differently than others, like a Helbrute attacking more but at a lower WS to represent it's crazed fury for being hurt).
I can see how a flat chart that has negatives to HTH would be imbalanced for shooty units that don't care (ie. big Tau things) just as how a flat chart that has negatives to shooting would be imbalanced for HTH units that don't care about shooting (Dinobots), but how would a system such as the one I suggested be imbalanced? You're worried about problems between HTH and shooting, but if you're reducing everyone's HTH and shooting by the same amount, what difference would it make? Why would that be imbalanced?
ClockworkZion wrote: Could the game water it down to a single method for all models that degrade or do degrade models in a specific manner b type? Yes. Sould it? Depends on what you want the system to do and represent. I feel that such a forced change wouldn't improve the system in any meaningful way and only cause us to lose more flavorful aspects of the various units, but that's just my take on it.
My biggest fear when GW started going on and on about how great everything will be when it's bespoke was that we'd get a lot of similar rules that use the same basic mechanics but are all just slight variations on the same thing. This fear has been realised with the degradation table. Rather than a simple rule that governs all big/massive creatures/vehicles, every single one will have their own 'bespoke' table. This isn't a good way to right rules. It is inelegant.
Yes, you can memorise it. Yes it won't matter if you've only bought 1 or 2 of them to a game. But it is still bad rules design, and given the far better option is a straight degradation table that affects everyone equally, favouring neither HTH or shooting, and acting at percentage of wounds rather than specific wound amounts per unit, I don't know why they wouldn't do that.
ClockworkZion wrote: At the end of the day I will say what I've been saying: if something doesn't work right, or suffers from being too complex or unwieldly we have the advantage of finally having a living ruleset. It can be fixed after launch so if something doesn't sound right now and turns out to be broken after we get some game time in then we can petition changes instead of just sucking it up and dealing with it. As it stands without games these things may look scary or disappointing but with the whole game in hand and some play time we'll be able to form true objective opinions aout everything instead of being limited to snippets of rules and the occasional statline peek.
I'd love to share your optimism, but right now "Living Rulebook" is naught but a cool buzzword to put in your marketing material. They have to show they're willing to fix things that are broken.
ClockworkZion wrote:...
Aren't they doing unit cards for at least Stormcasts now in AoS?
Even better, for the new units at least, the rules:
1. Are included in the assembly instructions for the box set.
2. Can be downloaded as one-page quick summary (same info) for free from the order page of the box set for the model(s).
Hopefully, they'll do the same thing for the 40k stuff in 8th.
On the memorizing charts thing, I only ever got to play 40k every couple of weeks at my most playing-est time.
I never did memorize the Strength v. Toughness or WS v. WS charts.
I had enough hard core players "remember" them often enough that I took to checking them just about every time we rolled.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Also having seen a lot of tanks in person, the ones made to take a hit have fat armour all over, fair enough not the same all over but none of this no armour on back rubbish, but almost all have very little on the top yet in game top hits counted as side hits, so it was never 'realistic' or tactical. It's not like by angling your facing you could bounce another tanks shots. It was just a needless abstraction for scale and setting.
Such as? Guess M1A2 Abrams is not tank made to take a hit then. After all it's easier to knock out that one from side or rear than from front...
There's actually reason why people try to shoot those from side/rear and why tanks generally point forward. Toughest armour lies funnily enough in the front. And there's logical REASON why that's so and not same elsewhere. If Abrams tried to have same armour everywhere it would be frigging heavy and lot slower(assuming it could move to begin with). That or they would have to sacrifice front armour.
And lol at hard to determine shapes...Really? Takes like few microseconds. In corner cases maybe few seconds. Lol.
Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.
That's kind of the point, though... They've stripped out a bunch of stuff to make the game faster, and then chosen to add unneccessary processes elsewhere.
Yes, checking the unit card isn't particularly time-consuming as a one-off. That doesn't change the fact that not needing to check the unit card is faster.
Yunno what would also be faster? Flat to wound rolls.
How's so? Whether you roll 3+ or 4+ doesn't change the speed.
It takes less than a fraction of a second to know the number you need to roll. No different to looking at number in card.
Might just as well go roll a dice to see who won game if you are so obsessed with speed...
I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
JimOnMars wrote: One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
Forced to memorize something you can just have the book open to?
Of course that means having book open all the time and flipping through it. Dunno about you but I find books on table to be annoying looking distraction. Plus more book flipping in 8th ed than in 7th ed...Blergh.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Also having seen a lot of tanks in person, the ones made to take a hit have fat armour all over, fair enough not the same all over but none of this no armour on back rubbish, but almost all have very little on the top yet in game top hits counted as side hits, so it was never 'realistic' or tactical. It's not like by angling your facing you could bounce another tanks shots. It was just a needless abstraction for scale and setting.
Such as? Guess M1A2 Abrams is not tank made to take a hit then. After all it's easier to knock out that one from side or rear than from front...
There's actually reason why people try to shoot those from side/rear and why tanks generally point forward. Toughest armour lies funnily enough in the front. And there's logical REASON why that's so and not same elsewhere. If Abrams tried to have same armour everywhere it would be frigging heavy and lot slower(assuming it could move to begin with). That or they would have to sacrifice front armour.
And lol at hard to determine shapes...Really? Takes like few microseconds. In corner cases maybe few seconds. Lol.
Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.
That's kind of the point, though... They've stripped out a bunch of stuff to make the game faster, and then chosen to add unneccessary processes elsewhere.
Yes, checking the unit card isn't particularly time-consuming as a one-off. That doesn't change the fact that not needing to check the unit card is faster.
Yunno what would also be faster? Flat to wound rolls.
How's so? Whether you roll 3+ or 4+ doesn't change the speed.
It takes less than a fraction of a second to know the number you need to roll. No different to looking at number in card.
Might just as well go roll a dice to see who won game if you are so obsessed with speed...
It seems that for some the little calculation that you need to do with a S and T system to determinate the to wound roll is a terribly complex task that requires a lot of time
JimOnMars wrote: One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.
How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?
Forced to memorize something you can just have the book open to?
Of course that means having book open all the time and flipping through it. Dunno about you but I find books on table to be annoying looking distraction. Plus more book flipping in 8th ed than in 7th ed...Blergh.
There won't be anywhere near the same amount of book flipping in 8th. You'll use the app on your phone or tablet to look up your warscrolls, and that's basically it. You won't have to look in your codex, your campaign book, your supplement, and the main rule book for special rules, unit type rules, or weapon profiles. I play both AoS and 40k and can categorically state that AoS plays smooth as butter in comparison.
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
I like it, but I'd like it even better if Wounds were standardized at 1/2/3/6/12 rather than the varying Wounds in AoS.
doktor_g wrote: Looks like theyll be note cards to me.... not books (whatever those are).
Still extra clutter I didn't need before. Not nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: There won't be anywhere near the same amount of book flipping in 8th. You'll use the app on your phone or tablet to look up your warscrolls, and that's basically it. You won't have to look in your codex, your campaign book, your supplement, and the main rule book for special rules, unit type rules, or weapon profiles. I play both AoS and 40k and can categorically state that AoS plays smooth as butter in comparison.
Ah right like more phone flipping(which is btw more annoying than book).
So from virtually zero book reading to lots of app reading. Yeah that's obviously improvement...NOT!
The reason there can't be, and shouldn't be universal degradation charts is due to how some units perform when compared to others, and also due to how players choose to outfit some units.
Why have a chart for walkers, when some walkers are shooty, some are CC and some do both? You will hurt one and not dent another.
Also, a universal chart to effect tyrannies. Yeah, that's cool, totally reduce their MC's CC ability across the board, Flyrants will really care about that.
doktor_g wrote: Looks like theyll be note cards to me.... not books (whatever those are).
Still extra clutter I didn't need before. Not nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: There won't be anywhere near the same amount of book flipping in 8th. You'll use the app on your phone or tablet to look up your warscrolls, and that's basically it. You won't have to look in your codex, your campaign book, your supplement, and the main rule book for special rules, unit type rules, or weapon profiles. I play both AoS and 40k and can categorically state that AoS plays smooth as butter in comparison.
Ah right like more phone flipping(which is btw more annoying than book).
So from virtually zero book reading to lots of app reading. Yeah that's obviously improvement...NOT!
I'll just rephrase myself to avoid more semantic arguments: AoS has a lot less to look up and a lot less places to do so. And if you want physical warscrolls just buy the physical codex. So if you have the memory capacity to play 7th ed 40k with "virtually zero" book reading, then you will have actually zero book reading in 8th.
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
I like it, but I'd like it even better if Wounds were standardized at 1/2/3/6/12 rather than the varying Wounds in AoS.
My phone can't keep a charge more than an hour if i'm constantly poking at it so I hope they do this AoS style so I can print a stack to keep off to the side. I can't stand using digitial stuff during a physical game. I never needed it with X wing and don't want to be bothered with it now. If I wanted to do things on a phone or computer i'd play video games instead. IMO the point of tabletop gaming is to have the physical components.
I don't mind flipping through a codex, if it's organized properly. I like having all the rules at the back, so I don't have to flip through fluff to get any important details.
Mymearan wrote: There won't be anywhere near the same amount of book flipping in 8th. You'll use the app on your phone or tablet to look up your warscrolls, and that's basically it. You won't have to look in your codex, your campaign book, your supplement, and the main rule book for special rules, unit type rules, or weapon profiles. I play both AoS and 40k and can categorically state that AoS plays smooth as butter in comparison.
Ah right like more phone flipping(which is btw more annoying than book).
So from virtually zero book reading to lots of app reading. Yeah that's obviously improvement...NOT!
If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.
If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.
The simpler system where each unit uses unique special rules rather than having standardised universal rules? Yeah, that'll be no problem to memorise...
If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.
The simpler system where each unit uses unique special rules rather than having standardised universal rules? Yeah, that'll be no problem to memorise...
If AoS is anything to go by, then no, it won't, and will require both less memorization and less bookflipping. Again, from someone who has played both for several years.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The reason there can't be, and shouldn't be universal degradation charts is due to how some units perform when compared to others, and also due to how players choose to outfit some units.
Why have a chart for walkers, when some walkers are shooty, some are CC and some do both? You will hurt one and not dent another.
Also, a universal chart to effect tyrannies. Yeah, that's cool, totally reduce their MC's CC ability across the board, Flyrants will really care about that.
That's of course something that can be reflected in points...I mean imagine such a novel concept that better units cost more.
Mymearan wrote: There won't be anywhere near the same amount of book flipping in 8th. You'll use the app on your phone or tablet to look up your warscrolls, and that's basically it. You won't have to look in your codex, your campaign book, your supplement, and the main rule book for special rules, unit type rules, or weapon profiles. I play both AoS and 40k and can categorically state that AoS plays smooth as butter in comparison.
Ah right like more phone flipping(which is btw more annoying than book).
So from virtually zero book reading to lots of app reading. Yeah that's obviously improvement...NOT!
If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.
Difference is 7th ed(or rather 2nd ed that I mostly play except for HH) things are shared much more than age of bespoken.
If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.
The simpler system where each unit uses unique special rules rather than having standardised universal rules? Yeah, that'll be no problem to memorise...
Except it doesn't work now. Each codex presently and most of the units therein have either bespoke rules at present or contradict/supersede the main rule book.
Example: infantry moves 6, and runs d6. Fleet allows rerolls then Hormagaunts, banshees and skitarii all have different named rules with different circumstances that all break those core rules to alter movement values.
There's a 40k equivalent to the AoS app coming out, although if memory serves not on initial release.
The AoS app is a godsend. All the unit rules are available through it, so no need to carry books around.
As others have said, people really are just looking for something, anything to complain about.
So apart from app being more annoying to read than book(maybe I'm getting old but phone screen is tad too small. Plus battery...How many gaming tables generally have power socket right next to it? I can forget going to tournament if I need app to play as the phone WILL run out of battery) there's also that I go from not having to check books for rules to having to flip app on that small phone screen. Not exactly an improvement...
There's a 40k equivalent to the AoS app coming out, although if memory serves not on initial release.
The AoS app is a godsend. All the unit rules are available through it, so no need to carry books around.
As others have said, people really are just looking for something, anything to complain about.
So apart from app being more annoying to read than book(maybe I'm getting old but phone screen is tad too small. Plus battery...How many gaming tables generally have power socket right next to it? I can forget going to tournament if I need app to play as the phone WILL run out of battery) there's also that I go from not having to check books for rules to having to flip app on that small phone screen. Not exactly an improvement...
So your phone being old and decrepit is now GW's failing? If so, stick to the books. Easy peasy, no different to now. And if your screen is too small, why not invest in a cheap tablet? I've got an iPad, which admittedly is a bit excessive cost wise, but I got it through work. Any Android based tablet will do exactly the same for you.
Now, I was saying about people desperately looking for something, anything to complain about?
There's a 40k equivalent to the AoS app coming out, although if memory serves not on initial release.
The AoS app is a godsend. All the unit rules are available through it, so no need to carry books around.
As others have said, people really are just looking for something, anything to complain about.
Apps are fine for checking stuff between games. They are beyond irritating at the table.
The fact is, some players are happy to spend the whole game flicking through rules. Some learn the rules for the one army they use all the time and trust their opponent to have the rest. And some prefer to know all the rules so that they know what to expect at the table, and so there's less book flicking. Or app scrolling.
Two of those approaches are harder when a game uses less standardised rules.
But, sure, let's just dismiss others' opinions as complaining for the sake of it...
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
It's not so much that it's a problem, it's that it could be better.
A single rule that covers every unit that would be subject to it is far better than every unit subject to degradation having their own unique table.
The fact is, some players are happy to spend the whole game flicking through rules. Some learn the rules for the one army they use all the time and trust their opponent to have the rest. And some prefer to know all the rules so that they know what to expect at the table, and so there's less book flicking. Or app scrolling.
Two of those approaches are harder when a game uses less standardised rules.
That might have been true in any other game. In 40k, it's not. That's because 7th had
1) A truckload of "standardized rules" spread across different sections of the rule book, making bookflipping a huge timesink.
2) A truckload of bespoke rules for most units, some of them written next to the unit, some of them in other sections of the codex
3) Formations that add even more special rules, and even more books you have to flip through
So while the 8th edition approach might require more memorizing or looking up stuff than, say, Bolt Action, it's infinitely more convenient and less time-consuming than 7th edition.
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
It's not so much that it's a problem, it's that it could be better.
A single rule that covers every unit that would be subject to it is far better than every unit subject to degradation having their own unique table.
When it comes to some rules, like say +1 to hit, I agree that USRs would work fine, as long as they were also written out on the scrolls. When it comes to degradation, I strongly disagree based on my experience with AoS. The small amount of time it takes to look at the table, when I already have all the warscrolls in front of me in the app (or in the physcial codex if you prefer), is very much worth it thanks to the amount of flavour it adds to each unit. Some units lose attacks on certain weapons (most big monsters have 3-4 weapons), some lose movement, some lose entire abilities, some lose spell effectiveness, and some (like Skarbrand) even become more powerful the more damage they take. Having a unified table would either remove all that or necessitate exceptions, which would make things even more complicated.
doktor_g wrote: Looks like theyll be note cards to me.... not books (whatever those are).
Still extra clutter I didn't need before. Not nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: There won't be anywhere near the same amount of book flipping in 8th. You'll use the app on your phone or tablet to look up your warscrolls, and that's basically it. You won't have to look in your codex, your campaign book, your supplement, and the main rule book for special rules, unit type rules, or weapon profiles. I play both AoS and 40k and can categorically state that AoS plays smooth as butter in comparison.
Ah right like more phone flipping(which is btw more annoying than book).
So from virtually zero book reading to lots of app reading. Yeah that's obviously improvement...NOT!
Wait, all tabletop games have either book or app reading. Many of them use cards as well so I don't get your problem unless you're new to tabletop wargaming.
There's a 40k equivalent to the AoS app coming out, although if memory serves not on initial release.
The AoS app is a godsend. All the unit rules are available through it, so no need to carry books around.
As others have said, people really are just looking for something, anything to complain about.
Apps are fine for checking stuff between games. They are beyond irritating at the table.
The fact is, some players are happy to spend the whole game flicking through rules. Some learn the rules for the one army they use all the time and trust their opponent to have the rest. And some prefer to know all the rules so that they know what to expect at the table, and so there's less book flicking. Or app scrolling.
Two of those approaches are harder when a game uses less standardised rules.
But, sure, let's just dismiss others' opinions as complaining for the sake of it...
The AoS app is brilliantly useful in game, much more so than physical books. It's not like having to flick through a PDF or anything like that. There is no need to spend lots of time flicking/scrolling through stuff. It allows you to have the exact rules for your game in one place for absolutely minimal flicking, like having a custom codex specifically for your game. The AoS app is a solution to mass flicking and scrolling!
I don't know why people assume you need to flip through your phone or a massive rulebook just to play AoS.
At 2000 points, I can run my entire army off of two sheets of paper. Left to the side of the table, it makes it very easy to note down wound counts, or let my opponent pick them up at any time to figure out every rule in my army.
Love how people are complaining about 8th being too difficult to learn/remember.
These same people must not realize that they play a game where their space marine has 2-3 rules for their unit type, 2-3 for the color they are painted, 1 for being battlefirged, 2-3 for the formation they are in, 2-3 for the formation that formation is in, and the relics they use, psychic power's each different psyker..
I'm gonna preface this by saying I am looking forward to 8th and I think it's going to be great.
That said there is a reason not everyone plays AoS. I see a lot of AoS players saying 'it's great in AoS, there is no problem' whenever someone dislikes a change.
There is a fair argument to be made that people who didn't want to play AoS and chose to play 40k now don't have much of a choice, and that would be very frustrating to me.
Another fair point is why we need two game systems that are virtually identical? I know even during WHFB they weren't exactly dissimilar, but never before have the rules been this samey.
I mean when describing the difference between the games to a new comer am I really going to say 'well if you like rolling against toughness pick 40k, otherwise pick AoS'?
Mymearan wrote: Why would an app be more irritating than a book?
Slower, generally.
You should download the AoS app and try it, it's free. It's certainly no wonder of interface design, in fact it's a bit ugly, but it's fast and allows you to pin warscrolls in one section (called "My Battle") where you can quickly access them during the game. It's no slower than a book and arguably faster depending on how well you know your book. It's certainly faster than 7th edition codices where army wide special rules, unit special rules, and weapon profiles were all on different pages (not to mention USRs and many of the weapons had to be looked up in the main rule book).
Mymearan wrote: Why would an app be more irritating than a book?
It depends on how efficient the app is made and how well the phone/tablet/electronic device can load files. Personally, I can flick through a book to look up a rule faster than I can on any of my devices.
When we do look up rules, it's usually for some obscure interaction that comes up so rarely in the game, we just can't remember it. There's a difference between that and consistently checking a unique degradation table to find out how many attacks a creature has with each of its different weapons from constant wound loss.
Mind, our group doesn't play with formations and we incorporate all rules for each army into a single doc file so our version of 7th is bloat-light compared to average standards.
I would def agree that phones and the like are a right pain and slow the game down. I print out any stats/army cards etc I need - also much easier to hand over a sheet and let my opponent read it.
BUT
Having played both AOS and 7th ed - the way that the rules for individual units are handled in AOS is significantly easier to understand, remember and reference.
Now that GW have finally managed to start producing card packs for their armies - this should become even easier.
Neronoxx wrote: Love how people are complaining about 8th being too difficult to learn/remember.
Except that's not what people are saying. They're saying that every unit having bespoke rules males a game harder to learn than one that uses universal rules. It's comparative, not an absolute statement.
These same people must not realize that they play a game where their space marine has 2-3 rules for their unit type, 2-3 for the color they are painted, 1 for being battlefirged, 2-3 for the formation they are in, 2-3 for the formation that formation is in, and the relics they use, psychic power's each different psyker..
No, some of us realise that just fine, and it's one of the reasons that some of us didn't play 7th ed.
Grinshanks wrote: I'm gonna preface this by saying I am looking forward to 8th and I think it's going to be great.
That said there is a reason not everyone plays AoS. I see a lot of AoS players saying 'it's great in AoS, there is no problem' whenever someone dislikes a change.
There is a fair argument to be made that people who didn't want to play AoS and chose to play 40k now don't have much of a choice, and that would be very frustrating to me.
Another fair point is why we need two game systems that are virtually identical? I know even during WHFB they weren't exactly dissimilar, but never before have the rules been this samey.
I mean when describing the difference between the games to a new comer am I really going to say 'well if you like rolling against toughness pick 40k, otherwise pick AoS'?
That's a valid point. However, if someone says "this new rule is probably going to mean this, this and this" we can point to AoS and say "actually, that rule is also in AoS, and it resulted in that, that and that".
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.
The way the AoS app works, you are always 2 taps away from accessing the rules of any unit in your army. I use an iPad mini for it and it is great in my opinion.
I understand the points people are making, but you need to understand there are 2 different ways to build a streamlined game and they are at opposite ends of a spectrum.
One is to build it bottom-up, with a tight set list of USRs that all units in the game can draw from. In these sorts of games balance can easier as there are less variables, there is also less to remember overall. The downside is the lack of flavour. KoW is a prime example of this. Some players love the simple ruleset that all units draw from, others think it is bland compared to traditional WHFB or AoS.
On the other side of the spectrum you have games that are streamlined top-down. AoS and 40k 8th have a simple core set of rules and all the special rules are devolved to the unit as bespoke rules. This means you have a bit more to remember than a game focused around USRs but the advantage is all the design-space the game opens up. When creating new units for USR based games you have a limited set of tools, when creating units for a bespoke unit game you can really let the story and lore of the miniatures dictate the rules.
And that's what has always been at the core of GW games, recreating the background and lore on the table top. The approach they are taking gives them unlimited potential for new unit rules without clogging up the main system (i.e. if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
Both are streamlined, both have pros and cons. It sucks if you wanted a tight USR led game, because that's not what 40k is going to be. On the other hand there are lots of people who prefer to have bespoke unit rules that allow for greater variety and flavour that sits on top of the simple core mechanics in a modular nature.
Except that's not what people are saying. They're saying that every unit having bespoke rules males a game harder to learn than one that uses universal rules. It's comparative, not an absolute statement.
If they follow the AOS style then it will usually be a few rules per unit and they are mostly dice modifiers. Having all the information in once place as a electronic or (preferably) physical data card has, in my experience made things much simpler in both AOSand other systems.
One of the other complaints previously has been that all units are the same - again the ability to make minor (or indeed major) adjustments using each units data card means that the flavour and uniqueness of various units can be maintained but in a (IMO) easily accessed and intuitive way.
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.
Well, it's you so it's obvious you'll go for the bile.
If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.
The simpler system where each unit uses unique special rules rather than having standardised universal rules? Yeah, that'll be no problem to memorise...
Yeah, where every unit also had special rules specific for their faction and universal special rules some of which gave other special rules.
Gonna be seriously harder to keep track of when every piece of information will be found in the unit description.
Bottle wrote: The way the AoS app works, you are always 2 taps away from accessing the rules of any unit in your army. I use an iPad mini for it and it is great in my opinion.
I understand the points people are making, but you need to understand there are 2 different ways to build a streamlined game and they are at opposite ends of a spectrum.
One is to build it bottom-up, with a tight set list of USRs that all units in the game can draw from. In these sorts of games balance can easier as there are less variables, there is also less to remember overall. The downside is the lack of flavour. KoW is a prime example of this. Some players love the simple ruleset that all units draw from, others think it is bland compared to traditional WHFB or AoS.
On the other side of the spectrum you have games that are streamlined top-down. AoS and 40k 8th have a simple core set of rules and all the special rules are devolved to the unit as bespoke rules. This means you have a bit more to remember than a game focused around USRs but the advantage is all the design-space the game opens up. When creating new units for USR based games you have a limited set of tools, when creating units for a bespoke unit game you can really let the story and lore of the miniatures dictate the rules.
And that's what has always been at the core of GW games, recreating the background and lore on the table top. The approach they are taking gives them unlimited potential for new unit rules without clogging up the main system (i.e. if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
Both are streamlined, both have pros and cons. It sucks if you wanted a tight USR led game, because that's not what 40k is going to be. On the other hand there are lots of people who prefer to have bespoke unit rules that allow for greater variety and flavour that sits on top of the simple core mechanics in a modular nature.
Exactly. There's a third way also: You put in such a huge amount of USRs that you can still get that flavour of using bespoke rules. Song of Blade and Heroes does this, but only because you can create your own units and USRs are integral to that system. It is pretty cumbersome and leads to a lot of bookflipping since there's no way you can remember all those rules. 40k 7th does this PLUS it uses a ton of bespoke rules, so it's really the worst of both worlds. 40k 8th takes my prefered approach, which is the flavourful one with all bespoke rules that are all in one place which minimizes bookflipping (dakka word of the month?) 40k has such a huge spectrum of units, from Grots to Warlord Titans, that a USR system will most likely become unbearably bloated... which is exactly what happened to 7th.
All the unit cards are bundled together toward the back of the book, and you usually see two or three to a page - it's only the biggest and spangliest of units that need a page to themselves.
Already, that's much easier to navigate mid-game than current 40k layout, where the units are spread out to a page each in the middle of the book, the armoury is it's own section, and formations also on different pages.
Trust us. Those who play AoS have been playing this way for a while now, and it's a doddle compared to 40k!
Neronoxx wrote: Love how people are complaining about 8th being too difficult to learn/remember.
Except that's not what people are saying. They're saying that every unit having bespoke rules males a game harder to learn than one that uses universal rules. It's comparative, not an absolute statement.
It also depends on the quantity of rules to remember. Let's take 2 examples, 40k with users USR's, and X-Wing where every named model has bespoke rules:
6 USR's, 3 bespoke rules on the models themselves, plus a full table to remember, plus whatever USR's and special rules on the weaponry/transport. And those rules are in 3 different books.
1 bespoke rule.
X-Wing is not harder to learn than 7th due to it's use of bespoke rules.
In 8th tho, half of the Wulfen special rules could be factored into it's stat line, a couple binned as they're generally unneeded, leaving say 3 on the unit card itself, plus still maybe the table to represent their unpredictability. All bespoke rules yes but all presented in the same place, on the same small card (or app if you're that way inclined). Far better than currently, despite not using USR's.
To show how useful the AoS app is in game, here's a quick example where I've got my scenario rules, army special rules, and unit rules (taken from multiple books) specifically tailored to my army all in one place. Tapping on any of these will show their rules in full, and the app also ties them together like a custom made book for scrolling too, with the core AoS rules tagged on the end (which are also directly accessible via one tap on the rules button in the footer). You could even add your opponent's units in there too if you wanted.
It's so much faster and handier than having multiple physical books, filled with content irrelevant to your game, and handier than printing it all out too. Here's hoping the 40K app is as good!
For me, the only failing of the AoS App is that, at least currently, there's no way to tell it that I own the physical copy of each book (and I do own all of them. Even the Dreadfort one) - so short of repurchasing via the App, I have no access to the premium content.
Which is a pain.
But, it's something I and I'm sure others regularly hassle GW on. I'm far from IT literate, but it strikes me that the programming side of that may be quite easy, but the trick is how to distribute the codes. I'm not even asking for a free digital copy, just that the premium content is unlocked.
I get people preferring physical cards or books rather than a phone or tablet, and that's fine. But 7th's abomination of rules for an army being in 4 books and 27 diffferent places had to go. Unit cards, whether physical or on an app is so much better, i cannot understand any argument that prefers the current way that 7th does it in comparison.
Bottle wrote: if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
.
I don't understand how you would put together an effective army using this approach, frankly. Knowing what other armies are capable of is kind of integral to forming strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MaxT wrote: I get people preferring physical cards or books rather than a phone or tablet, and that's fine. But 7th's abomination of rules for an army being in 4 books and 27 diffferent places had to go. Unit cards, whether physical or on an app is so much better, i cannot understand any argument that prefers the current way that 7th does it in comparison.
I don't think anyone is holding 7th ed up as a paragon of spectacular games design.
There's nothing about having individual unit cards with all of a units rules on them that intrinsically requires bespoke rules rather than USRs, though. WotC's Star Wars Miniatures game, for example, had unit cards with full rules, and must of those rules were specifically written to be generic, so that they could be reused for other units where appropriate. They also included a Glossary of every special rule in the rulebook, which was updated periodically to catch new releases.
If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.
The simpler system where each unit uses unique special rules rather than having standardised universal rules? Yeah, that'll be no problem to memorise...
Yeah, where every unit also had special rules specific for their faction and universal special rules some of which gave other special rules.
Gonna be seriously harder to keep track of when every piece of information will be found in the unit description.
With USRs you have to remember every rule, with bespoke you only have to remember the one you're using.
Plenty of people have used both systems, even plenty of people here and the vast majority think that the unit card system is easier to digest.
This is something that is hard to understand until you experience because yes, it SEEMS like it SHOULD be more complex but actually ends up quite a bit simpler. Most sigmar players can sit down to a game with an entirely new army and have a pretty solid understanding about how everything works by top of turn two; and no it's not because it lacks options.
Bottle wrote: if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
.
I don't understand how you would put together an effective army using this approach, frankly. Knowing what other armies are capable of is kind of integral to forming strategy.
You're right that you might want to know them. And this is again supported by GWs model in AoS of making all warscrolls available for free.
It isn't a necessity to learn the unit rules however, or any USRs that might not impact your game.
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.
Well, it's you so it's obvious you'll go for the bile.
What's that I cannot hear you over the sound of hooves.
Ok let me.round up the issues and opinons I have regarding why AoS provides no benefits to 40k.
People have an issue with USR'S being to complicated or being superseded by codexs and some units having similar rules with different names - AoS' s solution is to give every unit similar rules with different names and Basic stuff with similar names and different rules. So no actual benefit there and with them going to 40k style codexs I would guess it will get worse.
40k had a fully functioning morale and pinning system that actually works fine as anyone who plays 30k can confirm the issues we're down to GW making over half the armies completely immune to it. - AoS you have nothing but a dice roll and remove models.
Sorry 19mth old son wants to play(we tried AoS was to simple for him ;p)
So when they talked about chaos there was no mention of possessed... but GW has been struggling to find a way to move those crappy models every way they could short of giving them decent rules. You guys think they finally gave up on them or you think they are going to make them overpowered?
Bottle wrote: if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
.
I don't understand how you would put together an effective army using this approach, frankly. Knowing what other armies are capable of is kind of integral to forming strategy.
You're right that you might want to know them. And this is again supported by GWs model in AoS of making all warscrolls available for free.
It isn't a necessity to learn the unit rules however, or any USRs that might not impact your game.
Also, because the rules don't interact with other rules, other than deliberate and specific buffs, you only have to learn that one scroll, which means you can focus more on getting an idea of what the unit does rather than having to pick apart the wording for every possible crazy combo.
Bottle wrote: The way the AoS app works, you are always 2 taps away from accessing the rules of any unit in your army. I use an iPad mini for it and it is great in my opinion.
I understand the points people are making, but you need to understand there are 2 different ways to build a streamlined game and they are at opposite ends of a spectrum.
One is to build it bottom-up, with a tight set list of USRs that all units in the game can draw from. In these sorts of games balance can easier as there are less variables, there is also less to remember overall. The downside is the lack of flavour. KoW is a prime example of this. Some players love the simple ruleset that all units draw from, others think it is bland compared to traditional WHFB or AoS.
On the other side of the spectrum you have games that are streamlined top-down. AoS and 40k 8th have a simple core set of rules and all the special rules are devolved to the unit as bespoke rules. This means you have a bit more to remember than a game focused around USRs but the advantage is all the design-space the game opens up. When creating new units for USR based games you have a limited set of tools, when creating units for a bespoke unit game you can really let the story and lore of the miniatures dictate the rules.
And that's what has always been at the core of GW games, recreating the background and lore on the table top. The approach they are taking gives them unlimited potential for new unit rules without clogging up the main system (i.e. if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
Both are streamlined, both have pros and cons. It sucks if you wanted a tight USR led game, because that's not what 40k is going to be. On the other hand there are lots of people who prefer to have bespoke unit rules that allow for greater variety and flavour that sits on top of the simple core mechanics in a modular nature.
Exactly. There's a third way also: You put in such a huge amount of USRs that you can still get that flavour of using bespoke rules. Song of Blade and Heroes does this, but only because you can create your own units and USRs are integral to that system. It is pretty cumbersome and leads to a lot of bookflipping since there's no way you can remember all those rules. 40k 7th does this PLUS it uses a ton of bespoke rules, so it's really the worst of both worlds. 40k 8th takes my prefered approach, which is the flavourful one with all bespoke rules that are all in one place which minimizes bookflipping (dakka word of the month?) 40k has such a huge spectrum of units, from Grots to Warlord Titans, that a USR system will most likely become unbearably bloated... which is exactly what happened to 7th.
Batman Miniature Game is also a horrible example of making bespoke rules as usr:s. You have card for every model, but then have to search every rule from two books. In addition some of them are weapon abilities, some attacks, some skills, etc. which are all in their separate sections in the books (that naturally don't have an index). Infinity is as bad, but it also has fair share of usr's that give out other usr's, and in addition different levels of these usr's that stack, except some rules that don't stack. In addition the (2ed book) book was edited quite interestingly. It was quite a feat to learn to play the game from the book without anyone to teach the rules. And I would say that 6/7th edition 40k is even worse, except at least the rulebooks were indexed.
macluvin wrote: So when they talked about chaos there was no mention of possessed... but GW has been struggling to find a way to move those crappy models every way they could short of giving them decent rules. You guys think they finally gave up on them or you think they are going to make them overpowered?
Mymearan wrote: Why would an app be more irritating than a book?
Slower, generally.
You should download the AoS app and try it, it's free.
Can't, I don't have any device which could use it.
7th edition Codices were badly laid out, yes, even when compared to previous ones. Feels like building an army takes 2 times longer than in 5th edition.
macluvin wrote: So when they talked about chaos there was no mention of possessed... but GW has been struggling to find a way to move those crappy models every way they could short of giving them decent rules. You guys think they finally gave up on them or you think they are going to make them overpowered?
To be fair, it wasn't GW talking about Chaos.
GW published it on their community page, selected by them and edited by them. The specific author is irrelevant. It was a fluff piece without a single mention of anything specific for 8th, which would be fine if these blog posts are aimed at new players of the game, but they're not, they're aimed at existing players who want to know what 8th is about. If all the faction "previews" have zero actual information, then i vote to replace them all with this, as at least then we can sing along !
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.
Well, it's you so it's obvious you'll go for the bile.
What's that I cannot hear you over the sound of hooves.
Ok let me.round up the issues and opinons I have regarding why AoS provides no benefits to 40k.
People have an issue with USR'S being to complicated or being superseded by codexs and some units having similar rules with different names - AoS' s solution is to give every unit similar rules with different names and Basic stuff with similar names and different rules. So no actual benefit there and with them going to 40k style codexs I would guess it will get worse.
40k had a fully functioning morale and pinning system that actually works fine as anyone who plays 30k can confirm the issues we're down to GW making over half the armies completely immune to it. - AoS you have nothing but a dice roll and remove models.
Sorry 19mth old son wants to play(we tried AoS was to simple for him ;p)
Yes and no - AOS and it seems 8th Ed 40k works in a similar way to an number of other successful games.
The basic rules are relatively simple and can be quickly grasped, then each individual unit can make tweeks (large or small) to this and/or have synergies with other units enabling tactical activity and decisions base don the units chosen for the battle.
A single warscroll/datacard etc should have all the rules required to operate that unit in conjunction with the base rule set rather than the 7th Ed - here's the rules in 5 different places - a single point of reference is I feel a great help. GW have been slow to produce a physical version beyond the books and so many rely on the App - which is fine for them - however with fanmade and now official datacard army packs it is extremely simple to look at any given unit that your opponent has and understand what it can do.
40k morale system was ok - nothing special and was ignored by half the armies in the game.
Mymearan wrote: Why would an app be more irritating than a book?
Slower, generally.
You should download the AoS app and try it, it's free.
Can't, I don't have any device which could use it.
7th edition Codices were badly laid out, yes, even when compared to previous ones. Feels like building an army takes 2 times longer than in 5th edition.
Widows phone eh ? My phone doesn't have an app available.
So far we've had a lot of "This meal is going to be great". With no meat on the table. More relevant information is needed, before any rational judgements can be made.
Every since AoS introduced debilitating damage, I've had a hankering for the same thing in 40k.
Likewise, but for even longerer, I've wanted the clear disparity between Walkers and Monstrous Creatures attended to - MC were (are, depending on when you read this) objectively better - an Autocannon was a threat to a Dreadnought, but laughed at by the majority of MC who'd just take their save.
Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!
Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!
That's actually one of the things I'm really liking the sound of. It's been endlessly frustrating getting off a charge and then having to wait while your models get hacked to pieces before being allowed to get some stab on.
But it's the after that I want to know more about. I enjoy AoS' method, and hope it's much the same. But with various units having ways round it, I just want to know more.
Every since AoS introduced debilitating damage, I've had a hankering for the same thing in 40k.
Likewise, but for even longerer, I've wanted the clear disparity between Walkers and Monstrous Creatures attended to - MC were (are, depending on when you read this) objectively better - an Autocannon was a threat to a Dreadnought, but laughed at by the majority of MC who'd just take their save.
Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!
Didn't we have that before, with weapon destroyed weapon destroyed, immobilized results. It's GW's fault, not the basic rules. That for marketing purposes they chose to sell models that ignored them rules.
But it's the after that I want to know more about. I enjoy AoS' method, and hope it's much the same. But with various units having ways round it, I just want to know more.
I think they said it would be like that, but with chargers striking first as you say. So it's chargers attack, then AoS style unit selection after that.
If you were lucky, a Dreadnought might only be repeatedly stunned or shaken - none of which lead to it's destruction. But equally, a single Lascannon could blow it apart.
Debilitating Damage is, for my money, a better way to do it. As an opponent, you might choose to do just enough damage to cripple the thing. As an owning player, your decisions based on that model will be affected by how much damage you're now willing to risk, because it's far more quantifiable.
Likewise, stuff like Landraider need no longer live in tedium at the threat of a five man combi-melta veteran team drop podding in and evaporating it in double quick time. Sure, that's still going to be a threat, but not the no-brainer it currently is, because the damage itself is random.
I'm excited for this new take, as are my local group But everyone is different and absolutely entitled to their views. I can only speak for myself.
But it's the after that I want to know more about. I enjoy AoS' method, and hope it's much the same. But with various units having ways round it, I just want to know more.
I think they said it would be like that, but with chargers striking first as you say. So it's chargers attack, then AoS style unit selection after that.
Certainly hope so Good combat selection is the key to victory. Or a crushing defeat if you pick poorly!
Every since AoS introduced debilitating damage, I've had a hankering for the same thing in 40k.
Likewise, but for even longerer, I've wanted the clear disparity between Walkers and Monstrous Creatures attended to - MC were (are, depending on when you read this) objectively better - an Autocannon was a threat to a Dreadnought, but laughed at by the majority of MC who'd just take their save.
Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!
Didn't we have that before, with weapon destroyed weapon destroyed, immobilized results. It's GW's fault, not the basic rules. That for marketing purposes they chose to sell models that ignored them rules.
Yeah, there was no real reason for a damage table for vehicles and yet not have one for MC's - the AOS system is a very nice way of doing it and enables you to tailor it to different things /units.
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.
Well, it's you so it's obvious you'll go for the bile.
What's that I cannot hear you over the sound of hooves.
Ok let me.round up the issues and opinons I have regarding why AoS provides no benefits to 40k.
People have an issue with USR'S being to complicated or being superseded by codexs and some units having similar rules with different names - AoS' s solution is to give every unit similar rules with different names and Basic stuff with similar names and different rules. So no actual benefit there and with them going to 40k style codexs I would guess it will get worse.
40k had a fully functioning morale and pinning system that actually works fine as anyone who plays 30k can confirm the issues we're down to GW making over half the armies completely immune to it. - AoS you have nothing but a dice roll and remove models.
Sorry 19mth old son wants to play(we tried AoS was to simple for him ;p)
The actual benefit of every unit having their own but similar rules is that, in that case, you have the whole rule in one place instead of having to look up the USR and then apply the exception to that. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
I also fail to see how bringing up moral and pinning adds anything to this discussion about the format of rules.
And lastly, if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, do you really think comparing AoS players to "19 mth old" babies, even in jest, is going to help? Or wouldn't you say it adds to the impression that you don't really know what you are talking about?
I'm directly replying to you here, but this holds true for lots of people here. You are calling this a discussion, when you are in fact trying your hardest to drive the actual discussion into a wall of sarcastic comments and insults.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Likewise, stuff like Landraider need no longer live in tedium at the threat of a five man combi-melta veteran team drop podding in and evaporating it in double quick time. Sure, that's still going to be a threat, but not the no-brainer it currently is, because the damage itself is random.
It might just be me, but I for one am REALLY hoping meltas and armourbane weapons get an effective nerf if they lose their 2D6 penetration. For me, it made meltaguns THE tool to deal with vehicles, and basically made anything AV13/14 feel completely pointless - the same tools dealt with armour either way. I'm hoping that they're just similar to lascannons instead - lots of damage, but still have to roll to penetrate the same way (maybe rerolling failures at half range). It would be a better way of doing it IMO - plasma could do 1 damage per shot, but from a larger range and rapid fire; melta could do D6 damage from close range but be very limited range; lascannons could do more from greater range, but be much more expensive+heavy. I feel like that's a good balance. It also leave room for heavy bolters, which could have -1 rend but be cheaper - after all, as much as people are worrying about hordes vs morale, their main enemy in AP5 bolters just got removed, as did flamers; there's nothing we know of which actually makes up that gap yet.
Regardless of anyone's personal opinion on any given game of toy soldiers, there's is no room in this thread did insults, whether direct or implied. Different people like different things. Get over it.
The actual benefit of every unit having their own but similar rules is that, in that case, you have the whole rule in one place instead of having to look up the USR and then apply the exception to that. I fail to see how that is a bad thing..
That's not a benefit of bespoke rules, it's a benefit of having rules printed on the card. They could do the same thing (as some other games have done) with USRs.
Mymearan wrote: I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.
It's not so much that it's a problem, it's that it could be better.
A single rule that covers every unit that would be subject to it is far better than every unit subject to degradation having their own unique table.
Why? As weird as it nobody has been talking about the fact that it is far easier to balance a model when it's not being barraged by a number of USR's. Just having a general degradation means that some will either have troubles either adjusting or some will end up not affected at all because their design means that it does jack to it.
A unique system allows for better individual unit balancing because they don't have to beholden to something previous. Such as the former editions inability to balance out BS2-BS4 shooting with various weapons like Mega Blasters on Orks being the same cost as Space Marines Plasma Guns despite a wildly weaker profile for shooting.
The actual benefit of every unit having their own but similar rules is that, in that case, you have the whole rule in one place instead of having to look up the USR and then apply the exception to that. I fail to see how that is a bad thing..
That's not a benefit of bespoke rules, it's a benefit of having rules printed on the card. They could do the same thing (as some other games have done) with USRs.
Yeah, but they're not going to. They've had USR's for years now and have increasingly ignored them in favor of giving units their own unique rules and mechanics, even when a USR would've worked. And at this point I think we should probably just accept that.
Besides, if all they did were use existing USR's for everything then people would probably call it boring.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Likewise, stuff like Landraider need no longer live in tedium at the threat of a five man combi-melta veteran team drop podding in and evaporating it in double quick time. Sure, that's still going to be a threat, but not the no-brainer it currently is, because the damage itself is random.
It might just be me, but I for one am REALLY hoping meltas and armourbane weapons get an effective nerf if they lose their 2D6 penetration. For me, it made meltaguns THE tool to deal with vehicles, and basically made anything AV13/14 feel completely pointless - the same tools dealt with armour either way. I'm hoping that they're just similar to lascannons instead - lots of damage, but still have to roll to penetrate the same way (maybe rerolling failures at half range). It would be a better way of doing it IMO - plasma could do 1 damage per shot, but from a larger range and rapid fire; melta could do D6 damage from close range but be very limited range; lascannons could do more from greater range, but be much more expensive+heavy. I feel like that's a good balance. It also leave room for heavy bolters, which could have -1 rend but be cheaper - after all, as much as people are worrying about hordes vs morale, their main enemy in AP5 bolters just got removed, as did flamers; there's nothing we know of which actually makes up that gap yet.
For me, it was more the ways players had to mitigate Melta's ridiculous short range. Too many units could deepstrike right in - and often (but not always) without scattering. And as the traditional thing was Combi-Meltas, that unit could still be used to tackle infantry, compared to say Fire Dragons (a unit we didn't often see, as there was no reliable way to get them close enough, and they were largely ponk against more other targets)
lliu wrote:
When will we get the free copy of rules and bare-bones "Codexes"? Like June?
Best guess looks to be 17th June (based on the rumour that GW holidays have been cancelled for the week beforehand and the fact that June's White Dwarf will not be out until the 16th, 2 weeks later than normal)
My question would be - if an update is going to be posted every day until release that's another 40 updates! What are they going to talk about
lliu wrote:
When will we get the free copy of rules and bare-bones "Codexes"? Like June?
Best guess looks to be 17th June (based on the rumour that GW holidays have been cancelled for the week beforehand and the fact that June's White Dwarf will not be out until the 16th, 2 weeks later than normal)
My question would be - if an update is going to be posted every day until release that's another 40 updates! What are they going to talk about
Yeah I'm not so sure myself, 2 months seems a very long time from announcement to release.
Do we know what GW has in the pipeline from next week? I thought the May WD only previewed up to last weekend and we don't know what's coming on preorder next. Seems very strange to me that they would change the normal date of WD too. Could we ligitimately have the new rules dropped on us early and then new models, starter set etc released at the start of June to coincide with the mid June white dwarf?
If you were lucky, a Dreadnought might only be repeatedly stunned or shaken - none of which lead to it's destruction. But equally, a single Lascannon could blow it apart.
Debilitating Damage is, for my money, a better way to do it. As an opponent, you might choose to do just enough damage to cripple the thing. As an owning player, your decisions based on that model will be affected by how much damage you're now willing to risk, because it's far more quantifiable.
Likewise, stuff like Landraider need no longer live in tedium at the threat of a five man combi-melta veteran team drop podding in and evaporating it in double quick time. Sure, that's still going to be a threat, but not the no-brainer it currently is, because the damage itself is random.
Well, the damage is still random. We don't know how much Meltaguns do damage, but if it's say 2d6 within 6" (which would be consistent with how it is modelled now), then four Meltaguns are still like to cripple or kill any vehicle smaller than a superheavy.
They'll probably have at least 5 days just showing of a given unit and talking about it's special rules. Ork Boyz, Tactical Marines, Eldar Guardians, Imperial Guardsman, Bloodletters - they would each be interesting, they could show the profile, weapon profile, and talk about the special rules.
But I also expect that we'll see full battle reports appear before the launch.
Having a different chart for every single big creature is just artificial game balance and there is no reason why a decent hit from a Lascannon somehow has a completely different effect on two units just because one is good at shooting (and doesn't care about HTH) and one is the opposite.
A far simpler and elegant solution would have simply been something along the lines of:
25%-50% wounds = -1 To Hit with HTH and Shooting, halve movement, halve attacks (round up for both)
25% or lower wounds = -2 To Hit with HTH and Shooting, halve movement again, halve attacks (round up for both).
And that's it. For all my bespoke jokes (that ryhmes! HA!), this is a simpler method that would require far less back and forth. As was said earlier, as long as you know the profile of the unit you are using then the above makes things easier.
SickSix wrote: My dream of a defiler heavy CSM army may come true! Woot!
The coming of the Defiler Kingdoms has long been prophetic. Let it happen!!!
Ssgt Carl wrote: Well, you heard it. He has bespoken... *badumm tssss*
That actually made me grin. Thank you.
Since you asked (and I didn't see an actual response), why what you suggest is bad compared to bespoke charts.
It horribly favors shooting models. a Melee model cares about 3 of the 4 characteristics you quote (WS, Attacks, movement), a shooting might only care about 2 of them (BS and maybe movement) possibly only 1. SO if I have a mostly stationary shooting unit it doesn't care about a bunch of this stuff, so unless melee models are going to be costed a lot cheaper than shooting ones (and OP if not weakend prior to melee) this doesn't work. Further things like halving attacks have a much greater effect on models with more attacks. If you are a shooting unit and start with 2 attacks, and you go down to 1 attack, and remain there it is not as big a deal as being a model with say 8 attacks that goes to 4 and then 2. Same is true for movement, units that rely on fast movement are unduly hurt by this chart. It is much more difficult to balance a single chart across all models than it is to have bespoke charts. So sure it is easier it just isn't better, similar to how the current chart is bad because it effects all models in different ways. Are you a tank with 1 big gun, oh well weapon destroyed and now you are relatively useless. A close combat walker, sorry you got immobilized might as well be dead.
What I would prefer is if the effects all happened at regular intervals, so half wounds and 25% wounds (which so far they are in 40k). That way you always know when they will happen (without having to check), and can prompt opponents to check to see.
Is it possible that many of the bespoke rules will just be USRs, but printed out on the actual unit entry rather than in the main book? Like if a unit has Furious Charge, it has what Furious Charge does on its card. But Khorne Berserkers and Death Company or whatever both have the same bespoke rule.
I never wanted to label anyone as a negative complainer. However, this current "The rules will be too hard to remember" line of attack is utterly, utterly ridiculous.
Another fair point is why we need two game systems that are virtually identical? I know even during WHFB they weren't exactly dissimilar, but never before have the rules been this samey.
AoS may yet merge into a 40K model. Having similar systems means you can play either and not feel lost. Good for the company and good for the health of gaming groups.
So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.
blood reaper wrote: So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.
blood reaper wrote: So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.
I'm not sure in this instance AoS is relivant the legacy armies for whfb were indeed stripped down with some models becoming others. Special items like artefacts scrolls etc were all lost and have just started to be replaced with newer battle tombs. If it's on a sprue as a thing then it will have rules, if it's on a list as a thing probably not.
I still expect to see melta suicide squads being super effective at nuking vehicles, rather than nerf them though I'm hoping the new rules give valid alternatives, such as the humble predator annihilator or the lascannon dev squad.
Sure, the drop pod sternguard/command squad will still wreck vehicles face, but the downside of having the unit be wiped the next turn most likely could be a huge limitation factor now that other options don't suffer from and can equally pump out devastating fire power from a safer position. Also, the possibility that your one shot meltas don't do the job should be a real concern to players who don't bring enough alternative anti armour.
blood reaper wrote: So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.
Weapon options for individual troopers never really existed in the same degree as they do in 40K. Regiments could have several weapons options (Orcs with Choppas, Choppas and Shields, Spears, Spears and Shields, or two Choppas) - and those all got carried over.
Things like a Pistolier Sergeant having a Repeater Pistol also got included.
However, in WFB the rules said it was fine to vary the weaponry within a unit for looks as long as it was clear what the predominant weapon in the unit was. AoS adopts a stricter WYSIWYG system. I pretty just ignore that change though.
In AoS they basically have rules for all the weapons options etc that the models come with in the kits, including having rules for visually different standard tops.
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
Not information yet to know if this is true or false.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Is it possible that many of the bespoke rules will just be USRs, but printed out on the actual unit entry rather than in the main book? Like if a unit has Furious Charge, it has what Furious Charge does on its card. But Khorne Berserkers and Death Company or whatever both have the same bespoke rule.
Not likely.
In the community spotlight for the KO the creative process was outlined:
Basically they don't let anything get in the way of the creative process at any step. We'll see some units with identical rules, but titled for that unit as well as lots of similar rules with tweaks befitting the unit in question.
I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
Hmm not sure that's healthy now it is? We are told that the new rules are more balanced so now a duel between a Dreadnought (or maybe even a Penitent Engine!!) and Wraith Lord may go either way - assuming they are about the same points.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing
As a player of the most broken Codex I hope you are not suggesting that this continue - personally I don't want to field my Eldar is such an unbalanced match up - I am sure you feel the same?
Unless of course Eldar Wraith units suddenly become much more expensive to be
vastly superior to other walkers
cos that would be ok too....
Hoepfully all (or at least most) units will be viable and none broken.....
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?
Lobukia wrote: Have we had confirmation as to how easy it is to put similar faction allies on the field together? (ie: CSM and Daeomons or SM and IG)
No, but found the sounds of it there will be "grand factions" like AoS. Since Imperium is one expect to be able to take any adeptus, AM, and their ilk in an army, however they will be restricted by keywords so you won't see a sister of battle buffing a space marine necessarily. I do believe Chaos is another so daemons and CSM in an army will be a given. Orks will not have a shared keyword with, say Eldar, so they won't be directly allied in the Xenos group.
Which says to me that it'll probably be easy enough to do that with the armies in the Imperium and Chaos books, but the various races in the Xenos book won't be a 'Grand Alliance' for obvious reasons.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
Is there some reason I'm missing that the wraithlord should be so much better than the dreadnought to never lose the matchup? This kind of comes off as a player saying "my stuff has been op and I want it to continue to be so".
En Excelsis wrote: As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
Sure that was good for you, but maybe not so much for the other poor bastard?
Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?
Are Wraithlords somehow broken? They have 3+ save and 3 wounds and no Inv Save. I've always thought they are easy to drop with heavy weapons, unlike Dreadknight/Riptide etc.
ClockworkZion wrote: On a different note I'm wonderign if the Hull Point to Wounds conversion was "x2+2" as they did with the Dreadnought. If so 8 wound vehicles would be pretty common.
Alternatively 6 wound Rhinos might be the baseline. Dunno yet. I have a feeling a formula was likely employed and then testing adjusted things up or down, but that's speculation.
Does armor rating transfer linearly to toughness? I haven't check/done the math. I'd expect some sort of modifier for open topped vehicles, tanks, etc compared with their equal hull point brethren for instance if they're not taking into account armor values.
IIRC someone had brought up that the new Dread is technically weaker as AV12 was roughly the same as T8 in terms of wounding. I haven't verified the accuracy of thst but the idea seems plausible. That said it could be the toughness was traded for those extra two wounds.
Actually since I'm speculating I'm starting to wonder if ramming might turn into a melee attack. Hit on profile, wound based on strength and a bonus to your rend value if you have dozer blades or a Deff Rolla. Definitely be more cinematic to have tour tank respond to a bunch of EMP carrying Tau y driving right over them instead of sitting still.
And if this isn't a thing I'm going to start a petition to make it a thing in the new editon at launch.
Predition for the Rhino is T6, W6. That seems about "right" in my head for it's durability.
Not information yet to know if this is true or false.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
So you're concerned that your special thing is no longer straight up better than other peoples things? What you wrote is basically "I like wraithlords, because they don't have the disadvantage of having armor facings, but instead have high toughness which makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I don't like that other walkers will now also be good."
We have no idea the value of a wraithlord until we see its stats and points cost.
If it is Ws3+, BS 3+, S10, T8, A 5, W10, Sv 3+. And costed reasonably it will still be favorable to a dread based on stats, but the dread won't be trash for this to happen. Basically it devalues the wraithlord because it is no longer 10 times better than the dread, now it is just 1.5 times better and maybe costed to reflect that.
Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?
Are Wraithlords somehow broken? They have 3+ save and 3 wounds and no Inv Save. I've always thought they are easy to drop with heavy weapons, unlike Dreadknight/Riptide etc.
I think you're missing that he's comparing to walkers, not MC's. I agree that I think the Dreadknight and RIptide are even better still but the statement was that he didn't like the idea of his wraithlord doing worse against dreadnoughts and AV models.
I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
Hmm not sure that's healthy now it is? We are told that the new rules are more balanced so now a duel between a Dreadnought (or maybe even a Penitent Engine!!) and Wraith Lord may go either way - assuming they are about the same points.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing
As a player of the most broken Codex I hope you are not suggesting that this continue - personally I don't want to field my Eldar is such an unbalanced match up - I am sure you feel the same?
Unless of course Eldar Wraith units suddenly become much more expensive to be
vastly superior to other walkers
cos that would be ok too....
Hoepfully all (or at least most) units will be viable and none broken.....
Oh indeed, if Dreads are 100 pts and Wrathlords are 300 pts i'd have no issues with them being superior !
so far I'm cautiously optimistic about the shown changes, but reserving judgement for the actual game.
One thing that does puzzle me a bit though is that GW had an opportunity here to create two very distinct games to try and corner as much of the market as possible. 40K could've been a very distinct flavor, with a streamlined yet still technically challenging rule set, something that falls into the 'easy to learn, extremely difficult to master' category. This would've allowed people that want a fast playing, beer and pretzels game to play AoS while those seeking a more tactically deep challenge could've gravitated to 40K, plus you then get the added benefit of being able to cross over to either one if you fancied a walk in the mortal realms or a galaxy torn asunder by war.
But it seems that rather than go that route they've chosen to go to Sigmar in Space. To me, there isn't a real reason to play both (although I know plenty of people will). They're such similar rule sets (based on the leaks we've seen so far) that it's like playing the same game with different skins. Are they exactly the same? No, of course not, but they're similar enough that I don't feel like I'm missing out on AoS since I'm playing 40K.
Maybe I'm wrong and the rest of the changes I'll make it feel different enough to easily be distinguished as its own unique game. I suppose we'll know soon enough.
Remember to allow for Dreadnoughts now having a save, even against Lascannons. With one of the pokiest portable weapons in the game only having -3, that 3+ save could be making one hell of a difference to survivability.
Autocannon can currently plink off HP with relative ease. Under 8th Ed, likely not so much as they've never been noted for their armour penetration - just for a decent Strength.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?
Wraithlords are not nearly as powerful as he was making them out to be. Lack of invuln save, meta of grav weapons, costing 55+ more points than a dread with half the attacks.... etc etc etc
blood reaper wrote: So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.
They generally have the same options as previously available and at the end of the warscroll section you end up with items like:
Spoiler:
High elves wrote: SUBSTITUTE WARSCROLLS The following do not have warscrolls. Instead, use the substitute warscrolls listed below: Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Warscroll Anointed of Asuryan on Flamespyre/Frostheart Phoenix .............Flamespyre/Frostheart Phoenix Archmage ................................High Elf Mage Archmage on Great Eagle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Glade Lord on Great Eagle (see compendium Wood Elves) Caradryan on Ashtari ......................Frostheart Phoenix Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower ...................Repeater Bolt Thrower Eltharion on foot ..........................High Elf Prince Korhil on Lion Chariot .....................White Lion Chariot Lion Chariot of Chrace ....................White Lion Chariot Mage on Great Eagle ......................Glade Lord on Great Eagle(see compendium Wood Elves) Mage on Tiranoc Chariot ..................Tiranoc Chariot Noble ....................................High Elf Prince Prince on Tiranoc Chariot .................Tiranoc Chariot Prince on Great Eagle ......................Glade Lord on Great Eagle(see compendium Wood Elves
For me that meant my two Archmages on Great Eagles actually ended up becoming Wood elf lords on Great eagles.
It was posted.. There just isn't anything to really talk about in that article. It basically says Chaos space marines will have units that they have had for many editions and the rules changes might make units you use more effective.
Every since AoS introduced debilitating damage, I've had a hankering for the same thing in 40k.
Likewise, but for even longerer, I've wanted the clear disparity between Walkers and Monstrous Creatures attended to - MC were (are, depending on when you read this) objectively better - an Autocannon was a threat to a Dreadnought, but laughed at by the majority of MC who'd just take their save.
Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!
After all chargers go then each player takes turns activating the engaged units that are left to fit. On the first charge this means all of the defending player's units, on turns afterwards this means each player taking turns to choose who fights next.
Seems to me you're objecting to Wraithlords being made fair in comparison to other walkers?
Are Wraithlords somehow broken? They have 3+ save and 3 wounds and no Inv Save. I've always thought they are easy to drop with heavy weapons, unlike Dreadknight/Riptide etc.
I think you're missing that he's comparing to walkers, not MC's. I agree that I think the Dreadknight and RIptide are even better still but the statement was that he didn't like the idea of his wraithlord doing worse against dreadnoughts and AV models.
In 5th edition I remember how Wraithlords would make short work of Dreads. That's when Dreads had only 2 Attacks base and MC's got 2d6 Armour penetration in EVERY hit. Haven't run the math but gut feeling is now that the matchup is more even, even if in other respects Dread have got more fragile than they were in 5th.
Wasn't Wraithlord originally called "Eldar Dreadnought" and its large head was explained by pilot sitting inside it? I've never had qualms with Wraithlord, if one wants to represent super-hi-tech walker as an MC, Wraithlord is how to do it: High T makes it immune to most small arms and resistant to medium strength weapons, but with just 3 wounds and no Inv save it is not really harder to kill with heavy weapons than a Dread.
It's stuff like Wraithknight which is infuriating to play against - shoot one with everything, and you get 1 wound past its high Toughness, Inv save andFNP. "OK, my Farseer heals that one wound, it's back to full strength again". Le Sigh.
blood reaper wrote: So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.
I meesaged GW on Facebook a week ago when I started buiding Black Templars and they said any wargear options that are legal will stay legal.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
I think it'll be good. If a dreadnought and a wraithlord are equally matched (and if their new point cost reflects this) then it'll be good for the game. Also war-walkers might be more fun in the new system.
At the same time, I dont want to see all units become too similar and universal rules take over too much.
One of the reasons I stopped playing warmachine was because I feel they did that too much and it sucked the flavour out of everything.
Not a problem though, because in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!
En Excelsis wrote:As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
As a player who has had to face Eldar repeatedly, who have been the most broken faction for 5 of the past 6 editions, who's tactics have mostly relied on stopping other people actually playing the game, I would like nothing more than Eldar to get smacked with the nerf bat so hard that only legend will tell of the time they last saw a Wraith-anything on the table. It would bring tears of sheer joy to my face not to have to read things like "my walkers should be innately superior because they're Eldar", or have people complaining that they might actually lose a unit in a fair fight.
And then I'm reminded that such players are a minority and that it's not the fault of the reasonable that their faction has been poorly balanced, so calm down again. What a silly post though, I mean, come on now, not wanting a rule to change because it stops you being strictly better than equivalent units is ridiculous.
godswildcard wrote:One thing that does puzzle me a bit though is that GW had an opportunity here to create two very distinct games to try and corner as much of the market as possible. 40K could've been a very distinct flavor, with a streamlined yet still technically challenging rule set, something that falls into the 'easy to learn, extremely difficult to master' category. This would've allowed people that want a fast playing, beer and pretzels game to play AoS while those seeking a more tactically deep challenge could've gravitated to 40K, plus you then get the added benefit of being able to cross over to either one if you fancied a walk in the mortal realms or a galaxy torn asunder by war.
With respect, 40k has never once had a great deal of tactical depth. There's a reason that people focus more on lists than tactics. That's not to say it's devoid of tactics either, as better players with the same list still usually win, but the only "technically challenging" things about the rules as written is trying to remember the thousands of corner cases from the hundreds of pages of (largely redundant) rules. We'll need to wait and see if depth has been added, but they'll struggle to take more away.
Which says to me that it'll probably be easy enough to do that with the armies in the Imperium and Chaos books, but the various races in the Xenos book won't be a 'Grand Alliance' for obvious reasons.
I absolutely agree with you on the underlined part. Makes sense. Chaos Marines and Daemons should mix, as should the imperium armies. Dark Eldar and Tau? Not so much.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Where is this 'bespoke' term coming from, I talk pretty good English and I had to look it up.
Are we being deliberately pretentious or something?
I noticed that, too! I will grant that Unit Specific Rules or similar doesn't sound as fancy, but this (and the previous) thread has increased the world wide use of the word by 735%.
Not a problem though, because in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!
Certainly gives the like of Tactical Squads and their various equivalences more of a role beyond 'sit there, don't die, duck if you have to'.
Though purely from the example above, there's at least the question of whether it weapons that can split, rather than models (so all Bolters have to fire at the same target). Only a question, not a suggestion that is so.
It also makes tanks and Big Bugs far more scary, no?
Not a problem though, because in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!
I actually really really like this.
No more sacrificing my tactical's bolter fire because I need the heavy weapons guy shooting at some vehicle.
Just like the article says, gives a lot more utility to your basic infantry, especially tactical squads.
That update sounded pretty good for my IG. Along with the lesser penalty for moving Heavy weapons, every unit gets auto Split Fire, so Heavy Weapon Teams in platoon blobs (assuming they're still organized the same way).
Also there's a lot more room for 3s and 5s and less for 2s and 6s than I anticipated. This means Lascannons only wound T5, 6, and 7 on 3s rather than 2s, and things like lasguns wound T5 on 5s, bolters can wound T7 on 5s, and so on. It's a much simpler chart, yes, but the balance implications will certainly be interesting.
Certainly gives the like of Tactical Squads and their various equivalences more of a role beyond 'sit there, don't die, duck if you have to'.
Though purely from the example above, there's at least the question of whether it weapons that can split, rather than models (so all Bolters have to fire at the same target). Only a question, not a suggestion that is so.
It also makes tanks and Big Bugs far more scary, no?
Ooh yeah if tanks can fire at multiple targets that really going to deepen the strategic choices you need to make.
So it IS different. This means some of the calculations were bit out of whack - Lascannons wound Vehicles and MC's only on 3+, but Boltguns wound most things on 5+.
I wonder if that sort of Split Fire applies to multiple weapons on the same model (Vehicles, for instance, with both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry on the same chassis - Tau Hammerheads with SMS and a Railgun, for example).
As for the to-wound roll... An interesting system.
Loses a bit of granularity, but it also allows for theoretically unlimited stats without having a theoretically infinite table, so it makes a great deal of sense.
Certainly gives the like of Tactical Squads and their various equivalences more of a role beyond 'sit there, don't die, duck if you have to'.
Though purely from the example above, there's at least the question of whether it weapons that can split, rather than models (so all Bolters have to fire at the same target). Only a question, not a suggestion that is so.
It also makes tanks and Big Bugs far more scary, no?
That' was my first thought. Heavy weapons in tactical squads will be good again
Huh everyone has split fire now.
I wonder what Longfangs will get then.
The change to the damage table is pretty significant. It's a lot harder to get that 2+ now, as you really have to nuke the target.
The new wound table is a big change that touches a lot of units and changes the statistics of wounding with tons of units. Bolters wound Dreadnaughts on 5+ now and strenght 3 hurts toughness 5 on 5+ too. Plaguemarines and bikes will be less ressistant too. I just hope they will actually give units like Land raider toughness 10 so that the table will come to bear.
If Vehicles can split fire, and I see no real reason they won't be able to*, Predators just got really quite spanky for Maureens. They're often fairly cheap, change to W, and able to dakka up multiple targets a turn....
And potentially come in squadrons still...
Certainly gives them an edge against Vindicators and Whirlwinds.
Oh baby. Salamanders are looking better and better. For sure, every squad will have a Multi-Melta now. Only thing left is to confirm if Vulkan master crafts your Meltas still.
Space Maureen and Chaos Maureen bikers also get a decent boost out of that. Can potentially drive-by Melta a tank or two, whilst the rest of the squad gives some infantry a bit of dakka.
I wonder if that sort of Split Fire applies to multiple weapons on the same model (Vehicles, for instance, with both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry on the same chassis - Tau Hammerheads with SMS and a Railgun, for example).
One hopes so, as the current Hammerhead setup is idiotic. They could split fire in the old edition if they bought Target Lock, but in their infinite wisdom such abilities were removed in current Codex. I guess they needed to nerf tanks to sell Riptides.
On the other hand, this leaves open the question, what will then separate high-tech or "elite" units from regular line schmocks? Split-fire was one of the rules which allowed to instill 'hi-tech' feel to some armies.
I wonder if that sort of Split Fire applies to multiple weapons on the same model (Vehicles, for instance, with both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry on the same chassis - Tau Hammerheads with SMS and a Railgun, for example).
One hopes so, as the current Hammerhead setup is idiotic. They could split fire in the old edition if they bought Target Lock, but in their infinite wisdom such abilities were removed in current Codex. I guess they needed to nerf tanks to sell Riptides.
On the other hand, this leaves open the question, what will then separate high-tech or "elite" units from regular line schmocks? Split-fire was one of the rules which allowed to instill 'hi-tech' feel to some armies.
Yeah my Deathwing just lost some of it's snowflake status, but I'm sure they'll come up with something to compensate, too many units got their unique capabilities from that rule to be ignored.
En Excelsis wrote: One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
In 7th wraithlords are not valuable at all. There is such a gap between GMCs and MCs that there is no logical reason to bring a WL over a WK.
I wonder if that sort of Split Fire applies to multiple weapons on the same model (Vehicles, for instance, with both anti-infantry and anti-tank weaponry on the same chassis - Tau Hammerheads with SMS and a Railgun, for example).
One hopes so, as the current Hammerhead setup is idiotic. They could split fire in the old edition if they bought Target Lock, but in their infinite wisdom such abilities were removed in current Codex. I guess they needed to nerf tanks to sell Riptides.
On the other hand, this leaves open the question, what will then separate high-tech or "elite" units from regular line schmocks? Split-fire was one of the rules which allowed to instill 'hi-tech' feel to some armies.
Yeah, maybe they could say weapons can fire at another target again at BS6 or something
Oh good lord. command squad of 10 marines, all with combi-meltas, drop pod. Come down, possibly combat squad them, light up that whole parking lot with split fire. Assuming you don't have to choose your targets ahead of time.....
so a heavy bolter (assuming s5) still wounds an ork on a 3 but now a guardsman on a 3 also not a 2
plasma guns (assuming s7) now wound a marine on a 3!
lascannons wound a plague marine on a 3! (assuming t5)
for funs it will take 288 shots from guardsmen firing at a dreanought to stand a statistical chance of killing it in one shooting phase with lasguns XD
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
I really think they will, I can't see a scenario where they wouldn't.
As you said, it would be far too clumsy a process.
I can totally see a scenario where they wouldnt.. Its called "Games Workshop" :p It's only happened dozens of times already where a bonehead rule makes it through.
The article on the small guys didn't really cover the small guys at all, but at least gave us the to wound table, and confirmed that evrry unit will have split fire. Thats a great improvement, since one of the main problems of devastators and hw weapons guys was that you were wasting so many shots
so Toughness and Strength is the new WeaponSkill, as unless you you have a very high or low value it doesn't matter
S7 is equal S6, as you will wound your standard targets on 3+ or 5+
and I guess you will have to pay more points for T7 than T6 or 5,but it makes no difference as you get wounded by 3+ or 5+ anyway
Somehow, they could have just used fixed to wound rolls, would have made no difference
nintura wrote: Oh good lord. command squad of 10 marines, all with combi-meltas, drop pod. Come down, possibly combat squad them, light up that whole parking lot with split fire. Assuming you don't have to choose your targets ahead of time.....
Command squads can only have 5 dudes.
Sternguard, however, can take 10. We'll have to see if you split by weapon type, though. If they all have to shoot combi-melta and one thing, then it isn't quite as bad.
xerxeshavelock wrote: Gosh - does that mean a Pulse Rifle is twice as likely to wound Toughness 8 as a bolter? Or will the gun go down in str to compensate?
Yes, we don't know yet.
Before anyone gets too excited about Boltguns wounding MC's and Vehicles at 5+, remember that in 8th edition MC's have lot more wounds.
so a heavy bolter (assuming s5) still wounds an ork on a 3 but now a guardsman on a 3 also not a 2
plasma guns (assuming s7) now wound a marine on a 3!
lascannons wound a plague marine on a 3! (assuming t5)
As an Ork player, I take a little offense at it since the only thing separating Orks and humans is the slightly improved toughness. That said, a regular bolter and most other small arms still gives Orks the advantage of wound on 4 and guardsmen on 3, so we've got that going for us, which is nice.
xerxeshavelock wrote: Gosh - does that mean a Pulse Rifle is twice as likely to wound Toughness 8 as a bolter? Or will the gun go down in str to compensate?
Yes, we don't know yet.
Before anyone gets too excited about Boltguns wounding MC's and Vehicles at 5+, remember that in 8th edition MC's have lot more wounds.
Also if they stay the same Pulse Rifles only wound Sisters and Guard on a 3+ so that's nice.
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
Agreed, it should be declared first hopefully, 2 lascannons at that, rest of the bolters at that, then roll.
At least you should have to declare all targets, even if bolters can fire differently. That would still slow things down, but if you don't pre-declare every shooting phase against small units will take forever.
nintura wrote: Oh good lord. command squad of 10 marines, all with combi-meltas, drop pod. Come down, possibly combat squad them, light up that whole parking lot with split fire. Assuming you don't have to choose your targets ahead of time.....
Command squads can only have 5 dudes.
Sternguard, however, can take 10. We'll have to see if you split by weapon type, though. If they all have to shoot combi-melta and one thing, then it isn't quite as bad.
THATS the unit I was trying to remember. I actually dont have any in my salamanders army so I never got to use them. Would have, but building and painting that leviathan dread was so much more fun (and I'd argue 10x more effective, that things a freaking beast)
xerxeshavelock wrote: Gosh - does that mean a Pulse Rifle is twice as likely to wound Toughness 8 as a bolter? Or will the gun go down in str to compensate?
Yes, we don't know yet.
Before anyone gets too excited about Boltguns wounding MC's and Vehicles at 5+, remember that in 8th edition MC's have lot more wounds.
Also, you'd have to imagine that most MCs would have an 8+ toughness, right?
S7 is equal S6, as you will wound your standard targets on 3+ or 5+
and I guess you will have to pay more points for T7 than T6 or 5,but it makes no difference as you get wounded by 3+ or 5+ anyway
Somehow, they could have just used fixed to wound rolls, would have made no difference
S7 and S6 are not equal as S6 would would something like a carnefix T6 (current stat as reference) on a 4+ whereas S7 would wound on a 3+
nintura wrote: Oh good lord. command squad of 10 marines, all with combi-meltas, drop pod. Come down, possibly combat squad them, light up that whole parking lot with split fire. Assuming you don't have to choose your targets ahead of time.....
Command squads can only have 5 dudes.
Sternguard, however, can take 10. We'll have to see if you split by weapon type, though. If they all have to shoot combi-melta and one thing, then it isn't quite as bad.
THATS the unit I was trying to remember. I actually dont have any in my salamanders army so I never got to use them. Would have, but building and painting that leviathan dread was so much more fun (and I'd argue 10x more effective, that things a freaking beast)
I figured that's the unit you meant.
Again, if you declare targets by weapon type, it's not so bad. If every swinging maynard in one squad gets to shoot a bolt gun at a different unit, that would suck.
Wow.
This means that unless your T hits even targets, your unit will be wounded on a 3+. These T values are 6, 8, 10, 12, etc...
For example, if marine Bikes stay at T5, both bolters and lasguns will wound them on a 5+. This is a boost to low STR attacks.
Going from a T7 to T8 is the difference from bolters wounding on a 6+ vs a 5+. This means that if the Tallos pain engine stays at T7, it's going to be much weaker vs bolters. If a LoC clocks in at T7, and the BT is T8, the BT will be twice as durable to small arms fire.
Likewise, there is not as much of a punishment for having a lower toughness. T3 units will no longer be wounded by heavy bolters on a 2+. Marines will now be wounded by tesla weapons on a 3+.
xerxeshavelock wrote: Gosh - does that mean a Pulse Rifle is twice as likely to wound Toughness 8 as a bolter? Or will the gun go down in str to compensate?
Yes, we don't know yet.
Before anyone gets too excited about Boltguns wounding MC's and Vehicles at 5+, remember that in 8th edition MC's have lot more wounds.
Also, you'd have to imagine that most MCs would have an 8+ toughness, right?
Given that Dreads are only T7 and that most MCs in 40k currently are T6 or less... probably not.
I feel like unless we some pretty dramatic shifts to the tougher units this is a pretty huge buff to small arms. Suddenly Shoota boyz seem more badass.
Based on the new To Wound system my guess is that, while yes plasma and other mid-strength guns will wound T4 now on 3+, their true lethality will be exposed in their rend and damage characteristic now.
xerxeshavelock wrote: Gosh - does that mean a Pulse Rifle is twice as likely to wound Toughness 8 as a bolter? Or will the gun go down in str to compensate?
Yes, we don't know yet.
Before anyone gets too excited about Boltguns wounding MC's and Vehicles at 5+, remember that in 8th edition MC's have lot more wounds.
Yeah... they said the largest Tyranid critters (I'm assuming excluding FW stuff) has around 18 wounds.
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
I really think they will, I can't see a scenario where they wouldn't.
As you said, it would be far too clumsy a process.
In Age of Sigmar you can split your fire per model. 3 bows here, 2 bows there, 1 axe there, 16 axes there... I've never had it slow down a game of AoS, usually you want to shoot at a maximum of two targets and in close combat you're limited by your weapon range.
7th codices are just a mess.
"Time to see what my librarian can have."
*Flicks to codex entry.*
"Ok so he can take..."
*Flicks to wargear.*
"A combi weapon. What's his points cost again?"
*Flicks back.*
In the 30k books there's just a list of things the unit can take. It takes more space but less flicking.
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
I hope so too. Would be very frustrating to wait for an opponent to roll for each Bolter one by one.
For AoS, it's not by weapon type.
Realistically, you're very rarely going to run into a situation where someone will actually want to split their fire out like the silly example given here.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
If there ever was a reason for removing armor facings, AV and hull points, there it is.
Selective "realism" is great when only one punching bag unit type suffers from all the resulting drawbacks, I guess.
It's particularly amazing when Dreadknights and Riptides are somehow MCs and not vehicles when the Penitent Engine and the Dreadnought are.
Odd toughness is very similar to the even toughness below (so 7 vs 6, 9 vs 8) - the only real difference is weapons of exactly the same strength to toughness. Makes very high powered guns worse, but also makes weaker shooting better. Must be an attempt to give something to hordes - the mass of low powered shooting, which always used to be scary, is now incredibly dangerous. The new dreadnought profile is as easy to "wound" with bolters and heavy bolters as the current one is to autocannons - quite a seismic shift. Likewise, the good old heavy bolter is now slightly weaker against hordes (boohoo) and daft amounts better versus vehicles - that T8 Gorkanaut is now getting wounded on 5+, which was akin to missile launchers before! We are definitely going to see that damage stat come into play if they're aiming to differentiate weapons.
Split fire is another benefit for hordes; now you can equip them with any mismash of stuff and they'll remain effective. In fact, it might be better to mix and match things like devastators now - if you have to declare all targets at the same time for a unit, mixing and matching the guns in each squad will mean you can see the damage done by one group before deciding to repeat that with another group; not mixing might mean wasting shots. Again, that's a huge shift from taking 4x of the current best heavy weapon - though you might still do that anyway if all your squads are equipped the same. It might mean that you don't have to buy random bits off ebay at least, which is nice. Plus, as said, drop podding meltas will potentially melt multiple things now, which is pretty scary.
So, vehicles got a bit weaker, infantry got a bit tougher and special weapons got much better. I like it, definitely seems like they recognise infantry is bad in 40k and has been for a while now (barring the ridiculous fearless guardsman blobs of 6e). The vehicle thing is a little scary, but I'll mathhammer it out when we see more vehicle profiles to see how much weaker they are. More game changing updates like this on the blog please GW!
Not a problem though, because in the new Warhammer 40,000, models in a squad can fire at different targets. So, this means your Tactical Squad can have your boys with bolters deal with that onrushing Hormagaunt horde, while the flamer bathes a nearby Lictor in prometheum fire, and the squad’s krak missile takes an opportunistic pop-shot at that onrushing Carnifex – just as you always imagined they should!
I actually really really like this.
No more sacrificing my tactical's bolter fire because I need the heavy weapons guy shooting at some vehicle.
Just like the article says, gives a lot more utility to your basic infantry, especially tactical squads.
Another effect. You have 2 devastator squad, pldan to have 4 lascannon and 4 heavy bolter. Now odds are good you want to split them
I noticed that, too! I will grant that Unit Specific Rules or similar doesn't sound as fancy, but this (and the previous) thread has increased the world wide use of the word by 735%.
Spoiler:
To be fair, that last spike is probably in no small part due to HBMC's posts in this thread and the subsequent quoting of them.
xerxeshavelock wrote: Gosh - does that mean a Pulse Rifle is twice as likely to wound Toughness 8 as a bolter? Or will the gun go down in str to compensate?
Yes, we don't know yet.
Before anyone gets too excited about Boltguns wounding MC's and Vehicles at 5+, remember that in 8th edition MC's have lot more wounds.
Also if they stay the same Pulse Rifles only wound Sisters and Guard on a 3+ so that's nice.
Interesting - so making infantry fights closer, but them better against some large targets.
I haven't played regularly since 5th, but this could persuade me to dust the Tau off. And buy all the big gribblies everyone's been spamming...
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
Not really as you don't want to cause 1-2 casualties to 3 units but 3 to 6 to 1 unit
It's no different to some goon choosing to roll all his to-hit dice or saves one at a time for reasons best known to himself. If someone is determined to slowplay, they'll slowplay.
Sure, there may be times when the game turns on it (two squads reduced to one man each which could do with killing), but I expect that to be very much the exception rather than the rule.
I also suspect you'll have to call your shots before anything is rolled too. Stops plinking.
En Excelsis wrote: As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
It doesn't devalue wraith(lords/knights) but rather puts other things on even keel with them. Put bluntly wraith units been variably broken since 3rd edition especially the wraithlord compared with other monstrous creatures that were usually T6. There is a reason why wraithlord costs went up from the ridiculously cheap 3rd edition codex cost to something still too powerful at t8 in the old rules but at least adequately costed by 7th compared with the rest of similar offerings in other armies (t6 MC's gaining extra wounds and dreads gaining invuls in the same 4 editions since)... just in time for them to return right back where they started with the broken wraithknight that all but replaced the finally somewhat balanced wraithlord in most lists.
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
Not really as you don't want to cause 1-2 casualties to 3 units but 3 to 6 to 1 unit
It can get annoying in the latter stages of a game when you are facing a number of units that are down to 1-2 models each. Shooting each bolter/lasgun at a time so as to not overkill a target will be a thing. That is annoying, but i guess a rare enough occurrence in a game as to not be completely painful. I'd rather it not be there tho, allocating the unit's shooting before rolling any dice i'd much prefer.
nintura wrote: Pfffft, had my Tau Firewarrior knock the last wound off of Kharandras. In melee.
Something similar here in that I had a firewarrior take out a demon prince (admittedly at 1 wound when he charged the squad) in close combat. I had to promote and convert him to a fireblade in honor of his achievement.
While I support the idea of adding split fire to the rules, I can't help but think that it will slow down the game which seems like it is the exact opposite point that the new rules are trying to make. It's a great rule for mid-model count battles (so roughly 1000-1200pt battles in 3rd-7th ed 40k) but I'm not sure it won't be a step back in turns of play length for typical 8th ed fights.
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
Not really as you don't want to cause 1-2 casualties to 3 units but 3 to 6 to 1 unit
It can get annoying in the latter stages of a game when you are facing a number of units that are down to 1-2 models each. Shooting each bolter/lasgun at a time so as to not overkill a target will be a thing. That is annoying, but i guess a rare enough occurrence in a game as to not be completely painful. I'd rather it not be there tho, allocating the unit's shooting before rolling any dice i'd much prefer.
If allocating all shooting at the same time isn't a thing I'd argue it will quickly be pushed to be a thing just to prevent slow play much less oher nonsense.
obsidianaura wrote: It will be my goal to kill a land raider with a las-pistol this edition
Pffrt. NooB :p
20 odd years ago, perhaps more, single stand of Gretchin took out an Imperator Titan in Epic :p
Pfffft, had my Tau Firewarrior knock the last wound off of Kharandras. In melee.
Shield Drone nutted the Emperor's Champion and killed him.
Psssssh, he's merely a man. Kharandras is immortal. Sort of.
The Emperor's Champion is more than a man, he's an ideal manifest through the Emperor's Will. You can kill the man, but you can't kill what made him who he is.
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
Not really as you don't want to cause 1-2 casualties to 3 units but 3 to 6 to 1 unit
It's no different to some goon choosing to roll all his to-hit dice or saves one at a time for reasons best known to himself. If someone is determined to slowplay, they'll slowplay.
Sure, there may be times when the game turns on it (two squads reduced to one man each which could do with killing), but I expect that to be very much the exception rather than the rule.
I also suspect you'll have to call your shots before anything is rolled too. Stops plinking.
Umm it is different. By splitting fire like hell you weaken yourself. How many handicap themselves just to shoot every model at different target for fun of it? You want to concentrate casualties to one target
Splitfire is great IMO and also a really, REALLY good change for two reasons IMO:
1) You no longer suffer for not overspecializing a squad, but giving them a more balanced loadout. Now you can put 1-2 Heavy Bolters in a Devastator,Havok, Heavy Weapons or Long Fang squad and it will still be a good choice because you won't have to waste shots but it also promotes all-comers diversity in weapon loadouts. The same for heavy weapons: Now mixing a plasma gun and a melta, or a grenade launcher and a flamer is actually a good choice rather than turning the squad in question into an unoptimized mess.
2) This is BIG for people that can't afford to or don't have the time to go bits hunting for rarer special weapons. You all know the pain of having e.g. one Plasma gun, one melta, one flamer and one grenade launcher in a IG command squad? Or having a grenade launcher and a flamer? Or even worse having a resin/metal/finecost squad where you can't change the special weapons without heavy remodelling (that also massively drops the re-sell value) and the box comes with two special weapons with entirely different roles? Now you can just use those units out of the box and they will actually work rather decent than you wasting half their special weapons slots in almost every situation.
I remember playing lots of Long Fangs back in 5th edition and thinking that Splitfire is an ability that all those expensive, vulnerable and immobile infantry heavy weapons squads and teams should have, from a promoting varied loadouts perspective alone (both for versatility as well as increasing the survivability per points by mixing in cheaper weapons).
Also means that lone heavy bolter Space Wolf I have somewhere and who had been gathering dust on a shelf even back when I was still active 5 years ago, will finally see some use, especially if he turns out to have AP -1 and possibly even deal more than 1 damage per wound. Same for all those flamer equipped guardsmen.
If the same also applies for vehicles... means that heavy bolter sponsons or stormbolters on AT vehicles finally serve a purpose. Also massive buff for vehicle squadrons for obvious reasons (always disliked how they all had to target the same unit).
Huh, yeah, it seems there's a lot more variation with the new table.
It never occurred to me how narrow the old version was.
Well it wasn't really that narrow. It looks narrow because all combinations seem equally common, but they are not. its a much smaller sub-box around S3-S6 and T3-T5 where most of the action happens. If you narrow the view down to that area the difference is much less striking.
As an Eldar player I am deeply concerned by the whole shift from Armor Facing. One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
This change makes all other walkers in wraithlords, which hugely devalues the wraithlords themselves. I have my doubts that this shortcoming can be overcome with a special rules but I will reserve judgement until my fears are realized in writing.
If there ever was a reason for removing armor facings, AV and hull points, there it is.
Selective "realism" is great when only one punching bag unit type suffers from all the resulting drawbacks, I guess.
It's particularly amazing when Dreadknights and Riptides are somehow MCs and not vehicles when the Penitent Engine and the Dreadnought are.
Yeah, this is the best argument I've seen yet for removing facings.
My intention was not to gripe about how awesome my Wraithlords were and how much it sucks to be me now they the playing field is level.
The fact of the matter is that the playing field was never level. Wraithlords (WL) and Dreadnaughts have never made for a solid apples-to-apples comparison since they are totally different. For starters, they have extremely different point values to reflect their disparate performance, and the fill different roles on the table. My WLs have always been great at grabbing enemy attention. They are big and scary-looking and can take some punishment, but they don't lay down the hurt like some of the other choices. What makes them unique IMO is that unlike traditional tarpit units that can lock up enemy squads (any dreadnaught, most MCs, and a handful of ICs) WLs can tarpit larger, more dangerous enemies. I am not limited to keeping one of my enemies squads occupied - instead I could keep his HQ busy for a few turns, or his larger, heavier MCs. This role just isn't filled by other models. With the new changes it is filled by almost all walkers.
Dreadnaughts are, by comparison, more specialized. They can be dedicated for melee with various close combat weapons, or they can be kitted for dakka and sport autocannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, and so on. The WLs are less performant in either area but are competent at both. Sort of 'jack of all trades but master of none'.
Now, don't get me wrong. I still think this is a loss more than a victory for a few reasons. The most selfish reason is that I am an Eldar player of many years and as any Eldar player knows, there is already a huge problem with the FOC. Specifically the Heavy Support section and how saturated it is for my faction. Heavy support is already contentious and any time you chose to field a WL you're doing so knowing that you gave up a squad of War Walkers, a Fire Prism, or something else that would be super valuable - this is good, it means that each unit has a value. By removing the value of one unit you are giving it de-facto to another. If WLs become undesirable as I fear they will, all Eldar players will ultimately field less diverse forces. It hurts the game as a whole when fewer models are played. Perhaps a better way to say it - when more battlefield roles are performed by dedicated units.
It may be an extreme example, but think about what SM forces would play like if they just removed Dreadnaughts from the army list. How would you compensate for such a thing.
This all causes me to worry that GW may actually be telling the truth - they may actually be reducing the entire game to quick, more homogeneous matches. If 'everything can hurt everything' than the difference in value for any given part of that 'everything' is markedly reduced. the games will be shorter not because the rules were simplified, but because so much less of what you can do as a player matters. I am honestly worried that all units are just being reduced to 'versions' of their Space Marine counterparts. If Dire Avengers just become elfy-themed version of Space Marines, and WLs are just colorful iterations of dreadnaughts, what's to stop the same from happening to Chaos units, the Tau, or the Tyranids? What's the value in playing those forces?
Sorry - it's all pretty meta at this point since nothing is official until the rules are printed a published, but I think my worries are at the very least well founded.
Kirasu wrote: I hope the split fire is by weapon type and all shots happen at same time or 40k is about to get a whole lot slower rather than faster.
or It'll be "I'm going to fire this marine at that marine, this guy at that other unit, my 9th guy is going to fire 24" away at a 5th unit.. etc."
Not really as you don't want to cause 1-2 casualties to 3 units but 3 to 6 to 1 unit
It can get annoying in the latter stages of a game when you are facing a number of units that are down to 1-2 models each. Shooting each bolter/lasgun at a time so as to not overkill a target will be a thing. That is annoying, but i guess a rare enough occurrence in a game as to not be completely painful. I'd rather it not be there tho, allocating the unit's shooting before rolling any dice i'd much prefer.
I'm assuming you'll have to allocate the whole unit beforehand like in AoS.
obsidianaura wrote: It will be my goal to kill a land raider with a las-pistol this edition
Pffrt. NooB :p
20 odd years ago, perhaps more, single stand of Gretchin took out an Imperator Titan in Epic :p
Pfffft, had my Tau Firewarrior knock the last wound off of Kharandras. In melee.
Shield Drone nutted the Emperor's Champion and killed him.
Psssssh, he's merely a man. Kharandras is immortal. Sort of.
The Emperor's Champion is more than a man, he's an ideal manifest through the Emperor's Will. You can kill the man, but you can't kill what made him who he is.
But you can by action make The Emperor look like a sizeable lady's chemise!
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Splitfire is great IMO and also a really, REALLY good change for two reasons IMO:
1) You no longer suffer for not overspecializing a squad, but giving them a more balanced loadout. Now you can put 1-2 Heavy Bolters in a Devastator,Havok, Heavy Weapons or Long Fang squad and it will still be a good choice because you won't have to waste shots but also promote all-comers diversity in weapon loadouts. The same for heavy weapons: Now mixing a plasma gun and a melta, or a grenade launcher and a flamer is actually a good choice rather than turning the squad in question into an unoptimized mess.
.
With caveat you likely still want ranges to rougly match. Especially with heavy weapons that want to stay still when possible.
Daedalus81 wrote: Split fire gives more credence to the possibility that scrolls aren't going to let you have 4 lascannons in a devastator squad.
Not so fast...
Grundstok Thunderers Warscroll wrote:DESCRIPTION
A unit of Grundstok Thunderers has 5 or more
models. Each Grundstok Thunderer is armed with
an aethermatic weapon, whether the signature
Aethershot Rifle, an Aetheric Fumigator, a
Decksweeper, an Aethercannon or a Grundstok
Mortar.
There's only one of each special(Aetheric Fumigator, Decksweeper, Aethercannon, Grundstok Mortar) but enough Aethershot Rifles to outfit the whole squad.
obsidianaura wrote: It will be my goal to kill a land raider with a las-pistol this edition
Pffrt. NooB :p
20 odd years ago, perhaps more, single stand of Gretchin took out an Imperator Titan in Epic :p
Pfffft, had my Tau Firewarrior knock the last wound off of Kharandras. In melee.
Shield Drone nutted the Emperor's Champion and killed him.
The weakness of the man is not the same as the weakness of his idea. ;P
Back on topic, since someone mentioned AoS has you allocate all shooting at the same time, I feel that the shooting phase won't get much longer, just more tactical since you'll have to judge if splitting versus focusing gives you the result you want before shooting, ect.
Plus easier TAC armies since you could run a mix of weapons in a squad without fear of not being optimized enough.
Psssssh, he's merely a man. Kharandras is immortal. Sort of.
The Emperor's Champion is more than a man, he's an ideal manifest through the Emperor's Will. You can kill the man, but you can't kill what made him who he is.
But you can by action make The Emperor look like a sizeable lady's chemise!
Somehow it lost my part of this. basically the weakness of a man isn't the weakness of an idea.
And on topic: if you have to allocae shooting all at once like AoS then it makes people judge if focusing or splitting their shots will matter more ahead of time. Another change I'd say is more tactical.
Daedalus81 wrote: Split fire gives more credence to the possibility that scrolls aren't going to let you have 4 lascannons in a devastator squad.
If the Kharadron Overlords Thunderers is any indication, I'm pretty sure that the heavy weapon squads like Devastators are gonna be totally free to have all the same special weapon.
Just to clarify, from those who play/know AoS, the universal Split Fire requires allocating attacks before rolls start, correct?
If so, that'll remove a vast majority of the potential for slowed-down games... something that seems reasonable to presume, given that one of the main goals of the 8th edition redesign was to reduce game time, and something like "firing every bolter, one at a time, picking and choosing targets every time" seems like it would immediately violate the above.
My intention was not to gripe about how awesome my Wraithlords were and how much it sucks to be me now they the playing field is level.
The fact of the matter is that the playing field was never level. Wraithlords (WL) and Dreadnaughts have never made for a solid apples-to-apples comparison since they are totally different. For starters, they have extremely different point values to reflect their disparate performance, and the fill different roles on the table. My WLs have always been great at grabbing enemy attention. They are big and scary-looking and can take some punishment, and they don't lay down the hurt like some of the other choices. What makes them unique IMO is that unlike tradition tarpit units that can lock up enemy squads (any dreadnaught, most MCs, and a handful of ICs) WLs can tarpit larger, more dangerous enemies. I am not limited to keeping one of my enemies squads occupied - instead I could keep his HQ busy for a few turns, or his larger, heavier MCs. This role just isn't filled by other models. With the new changes it is filled by almost all walkers.
Dreadnaughts are, by comparison, more specialized. They can be dedicate for melee with various close combat weapons, or they can be kitted for dakka and sport autocannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, and so on. The WLs are sort less performant in either area but are competent at both. Sort of 'jack of all trades but master of none'.
Now, don't get me wrong. I still think this is a loss more than a victory for a few reasons. The most selfish reason is that I am an Eldar player of many years and as any Eldar player knows, there is already a huge problem with the FOC. Specifically the Heavy Support section and how saturated it is for my faction. Heavy support is already contentious and any time you chose to field a WL you're doing so knowing that you gave up a squad of War Walkers, a Fire Prism, or something else that would be super valuable - this is good, it means that each unit has a value. By removing the value of one unit you are giving it de-facto to another. If WLs become undesirable as I fear they will, all Eldar players will ultimately field less diverse forces. It hurts the game as a whole when fewer models are played. Perhaps a better way to say it - when more battlefield roles are performed by dedicated units.
It may be an extreme example, but think about what SM forces would play like if they just removed Dreadnaughts from the army list. How would you compensate for such a thing.
This all causes me to worry that GW may actually be telling the truth - they may actually be reducing the entire game to quick, more homogeneous matches. If 'everything can hurt everything' than the difference in value for any given part of that 'everything' is markedly reduced. the games will be shorter not because the rules were simplified, but because so much less of what you can do as a player matters. I am honestly worried that all units are just being reduced to 'versions' of their Space Marine counterparts. If Dire Avengers just become elfy-themed version of Space Marines, and WLs are just colorful iterations of dreadnaughts, what's to stop the same from happening to Chaos units, the Tau, or the Tyranids? What's the value in playing those forces?
Sorry - it's all pretty meta at this point since nothing is official until the rules are printed a published, but I think my worries are at the very least well founded.
Ahh but that's not what you said - at all. You most recently said:
Dreadnaughts are, by comparison, more specialized. They can be dedicate for melee with various close combat weapons, or they can be kitted for dakka and sport autocannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, and so on. The WLs are sort less performant in either area but are competent at both. Sort of 'jack of all trades but master of none'
So then previously you said:
One of the primary reasons that Wraithlords (wraith-anything FTM) are so attractive in the current game is that by not having Armor Facing and instead having a very high toughness and a decent W count makes them vastly superior to other walkers. I'd had my Wraithlords go head-to-head with dreads & venerable dreads more times than I can count and I've never once come out on the losing side of that.
See the problem there?
Apparently the jack of all trades unit always wins against the specialist. So that can't be right?
makes them vastly superior to other walkers
Again - your words and one of the problems with 7th ed and 7.5 edition power dexes like Eldar
On the other concern - AOS units are all pretty different.....I am not that worried about that aspect
Unusual Suspect wrote: Just to clarify, from those who play/know AoS, the universal Split Fire requires allocating attacks before rolls start, correct?
If so, that'll remove a vast majority of the potential for slowed-down games... something that seems reasonable to presume, given that one of the main goals of the 8th edition redesign was to reduce game time, and something like "firing every bolter, one at a time, picking and choosing targets every time" seems like it would immediately violate the above.
I think that's given for 40k too. No bloody way even gw can be stupid enough to make game with goal of quickening it and then make virtually mandatory to shoot model at a time
Wonder what Necrons will get to compensate for gauss now being everywhere. Shred would be nice, Tank Hunter perhaps more fluffy (ie reroll to wounds against vehicles, if there is such a distinction)
Unusual Suspect wrote: Just to clarify, from those who play/know AoS, the universal Split Fire requires allocating attacks before rolls start, correct?
If so, that'll remove a vast majority of the potential for slowed-down games... something that seems reasonable to presume, given that one of the main goals of the 8th edition redesign was to reduce game time, and something like "firing every bolter, one at a time, picking and choosing targets every time" seems like it would immediately violate the above.
I think that's given for 40k too. No bloody way even gw can be stupid enough to make game with goal of quickening it and then make virtually mandatory to shoot model at a time
Yep. All it will be is "lascannon at that tank; 10 bolter shots at unit A and 5 bolter shots at unit B". Done.
torblind wrote: Wonder what Necrons will get to compensate for gauss now being everywhere. Shred would be nice, Tank Hunter perhaps more fluffy (ie reroll to wounds against vehicles, if there is such a distinction)
I am hoping you have to declare all your firing before you actually fire anything. It would be silly to allow a devastator squad to pick targets individually one weapon at a time unitl they kill things. Otherwise this seriously slows up a units firing.
Example: Player 1: My first lascannon devastator will target that vehicle. Rolls dice, hits does 4 of the 6 wounds. Player 1: My second lascannon devastator will target that vehicle again. Rolls dice misses. Player 1: My third lascannon devastator will target that vehicle again. Rolls dice, Hits does 2 wounds, kills vehicle. Player 1: My fourth lascannon devastator will target that character over there. Rolls to hit.... Player 1: The bolter sergeant will target that squad over there....
Youn wrote: I am hoping you have to declare all your firing before you actually fire anything. It would be silly to allow a devastator squad to pick targets individually one weapon at a time unitl they kill things. Otherwise this seriously slows up a units firing.
Example:
Player 1: My first lascannon devastator will target that vehicle. Rolls dice, hits does 4 of the 6 wounds.
Player 1: My second lascannon devastator will target that vehicle again. Rolls dice misses.
Player 1: My third lascannon devastator will target that vehicle again. Rolls dice, Hits does 2 wounds, kills vehicle.
Player 1: My fourth lascannon devastator will target that character over there. Rolls to hit....
Player 1: The bolter sergeant will target that squad over there....
Yeah, that would be annoying.
Can't do that in the AoS rules. You pick targets, resolve against one target unit fully, and then move to the next.
new wound "table" is nice and easy to remember - personally I would have liked a "7+/2+ with a reroll" band for things that absolutely should/shouldn't wound but in the interests of keeping things simple I see why they did it
Split Fire is going to be amazing - I imagine it'll be one target per weapon profile from the description, to stop units splitting fire too much, but it will make ML/Flamer squads viable again and give a reason to mix weapons in a unit
50 guard in a blob with the following configuration
- 10 flamers
- 4 lascannons
- 4 MLs - 2 HBs - 30 lasguns
That squad is extremely terrifying. Up close it throws out 60 STR 3 shots and 10d6 STR 4 flamer hits.
It has a variety of heavy weapons it can use to target different targets.
At first I was thinking about how much better Chimera's got due to the AV10 side armor no longer being a huge issue, but now I'm looking at blob squads as downright scary.
