So Kirby is chained up somewhere being tortured with a 24 hour feed of the Warhammer Community site? Can't believe the complete transformation from draconian customer loathing fools to this new incarnation.
streetsamurai wrote: Are the minis for Shadespire in PVC? They seems to be completely built so I guess they are
Don't think so, it's probably just colored plastic like the models from the Blood Bowl/Space Hulk kits. And the models probably come in 2-4 pieces each, and are push fit. You can tell the bases are seperate from the models feet. The Blood Bowl models were extremely easy to put together so I its understandable they went in that direction for a game like this.
streetsamurai wrote: Are the minis for Shadespire in PVC? They seems to be completely built so I guess they are
Don't think so, it's probably just colored plastic like the models from the Blood Bowl/Space Hulk kits. And the models probably come in 2-4 pieces each, and are push fit. You can tell the bases are seperate from the models feet. The Blood Bowl models were extremely easy to put together so I its understandable they went in that direction for a game like this.
If they are multi pieces models, it's obvious that they are not PVC. My mistake
Shadespire: A tactical small-scale combat game with proprietary dice and cards.
Is GW trying to be FFG? All we need now is more tokens than there are cells in the human body and it might as well be.
Also, didn't GW just announce their own paid army maker for AoS?
Starfarer wrote: Im not sure many people have disputed that 40k rules were likely heading the way of AOS. In fact, I think a lot of people have been actively hoping for it. Not sure why youre trying to conflate the fact they aren't blowing up the setting with rules changes.
Can we not just enjoy the fact GW are previewing new releases without having to invent something to be upset about?
Nah bruv, I'm pretty sure a lot of people said that GW wouldn't AoS40K, which appears to be exactly what they're going. As for the setting, that's End Times. They're End Times-ing 40K and AoS'ing 40K. Two different things.
And yes, I'm very surprised that they're previewing tons of things. For year and years and years and YEARS I've been lambasting GW's insane secrecy, and whilst there were some legitimate reasons behind it (of which I am swan to secrecy due to who at GW told me about them), their inability or just general unwillingness to engage with the hobby at large whilst pretending that they were a HHHobby in and of themselves is one of their greatest failings.
It was made all the more galling when they kept everything hidden whilst BL and FW showed off tons of upcoming stuff. Their refusal to participate in trade shows and conventions was insane, but they have turned that corner and seem to have embraced it in a way that even puts the days prior to the Kirby Kurtain to shame.
Now they've just to to treat their IP licensing as an avenue to enhance their brand (and their sales) and not just a hands-off method of revenue generation. Time releases to go with major licensed products (DoWIII perhaps?) and be a little more discerning with who you throw the latest video game license at and they can really start to grow again. The fact that we never got miniature releases around the DoW games makes no sense to me, especially given how many people DoW brought to GW. They appear to be missing the boat once again with DoWIII and that's sad. They need to capitalise on these things - strike whilst the thunder hammer is hot, so to speak - then they truly will have grown as a company (or at least emerged from hibernation).
In the meantime though, they're AoS'ing 40K. If we see weapon profiles that have set To Wound values regardless of the target type, then I'm done...
Old fantasy had movement characteristics and armor save modifiers. AoS bravery system works more like old fantasy than 40k's morale system. Do we hate old fantasy now all of a sudden or something?
When you use AoS like a verb, what exactly do you mean? It seems to be a catch all for anything people don't like. Change is scary, I get it, but can you slow the hell down and wait for the actual rules to come out before we cry panic in the streets?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Also, didn't GW just announce their own paid army maker for AoS?
I wouldn't worry about that... if GW's previous history with army builder software is any indication, it will be obsolete by the time it is released and never receive any updates anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don Savik wrote: Old fantasy had movement characteristics and armor save modifiers. AoS bravery system works more like old fantasy than 40k's morale system. Do we hate old fantasy now all of a sudden or something?
Old 40K had armour save modifiers and movement characteristics as well... I'm not sure what point you're making here.
When you use AoS like a verb, what exactly do you mean?
It's generally used to mean simplifying the rules to a similar level to that found in AoS.
Whether or not that has negative connotations will obviously depend on your opinion of the AoS rules.
Don Savik wrote: Old fantasy had movement characteristics and armor save modifiers. AoS bravery system works more like old fantasy than 40k's morale system. Do we hate old fantasy now all of a sudden or something?
Old 40K had armour save modifiers and movement characteristics as well... I'm not sure what point you're making here.
.
Even better, we're going back to previous editions of 40k as well. And those are mechanics that are the opposite of simplifying, they're additions to the system. Isn't that in direct contradiction to the whole 'AoSing 40k' thing?
The point I'm making is this stuff that's been around a while and its return shouldn't be seen as the end times for a game system. We should wait and see the full changes first.
Tautastic wrote: Any more concrete rumors on when 8th edition will come out and rule changes?
Not at the presentation, no. The brief summaries like weapons affecting armor saves and assaulters striking first in close combat have already been covered. No dates given, but they said we would be using these rules by the next AdeptiCon. So...this summer is my bet.
Edit: the video 1 post up was at the presentation and funny. The post is a great overview of what we saw.
These new changes are making me super excited. I wonder if the implementation of ASF in 40K will work with unwieldy weapons like PK? Orks finally getting to hit first is going to be a godsend and make us feel like we can actually do something in CC again without losing half of our guys before hitting home.
I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?
Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...
Armour save modifiers. This topic comes up almost as often as Sisters of Battle… so we’re going to bring them back. Every weapon will have its place in your army and better represent how you imagine them working in your head.
I don't know whether this is supposed to be a hint at something a long time coming, or just a really deep twisting of the knife. Damn good troll, even if I wish it didn't hurt so damn much.
Thebiggesthat wrote:Fantastic news, this is what will bring me back into 40k
I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?
...Which is funny, since AoS while in its current state is a much more competitively friendly and viable ruleset than WHFB has been in a very long time (ever?), its original launch was nothing but a playground for the most rancid of cheeses.
I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?
Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...
It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.
It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.
Which is completely different to your initial statement.
Wanting a game with structured army design doesn't automatically mean that someone is only interested in winning at any cost.
It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.
Which is completely different to your initial statement.
Wanting a game with structured army design doesn't automatically mean that someone is only interested in winning at any cost.
It really isn't. Please do not let your opinions on a game twist my words.
AoS dropped. The people that i disliked in the hobby, the WAAC mathhammered MFA guys, couldn't do their thing. Suddenly, a grown up conversation about the game had to happen. This made those people disappear.
This argument is largely pointless. This place is fairly poisonous to AoS, and all that will happen is snark, which i will reply to in kind and get posts deleted. Not from you, this isn't a personal attack. I like the changes, you do not. You have the choice to carry on playing the game as GW want, or go to what I'm almost certain will be a decent sized fan made edition which dumps all AoS mechanic that induces tears.
The salt level around this place is just astonishing. People have the nerve to suggest that rewarding themed armies is a bad thing and make judgements about that, and other game mechanics, that they don't even know the details of yet...
I'm hopeful about every single bit of this. looks like the new morale system is going to make engagements a lot more decisive. This will speed games up, that's for sure. I think it's going to mean that to have a balanced game, you're going to need a lot of LOS blocking terrain. That sounds like fun to me, and it's a great opportunity for GW to make more themed terrain!
It makes combat AND shooting more effective, and I think is going to mean that rather than using assault troops to bog things down, and using the combat itself as a form of cover by drawing it out past your opponent's next shooting phase, the name of the game is going to be hit and run. Wipe out a unit and get out of sight before the enemy's guns can make you pay for it! I'm curious to see if they're going to give consolidation moves a bit of a buff.
If done right I think it could make the game more tactical, and bring maneuvre back into it. the whole Civil War dynamic of the current edition where the armies line up and wipe each other out from their deployment zones sure got stale for me in a hurry.
Saw one post on FB from today about a 40K "General's Handbook" being discussed, although I've been unable to find confirmation elsewhere. This would be a unique opportunity to address a lot of the gross imbalances in the game right now right off the bat.
Also seeing an uncorroborated report of June release! Getting super excited about this.
Well, the more they are willing to blow up the existing 40k rules to pieces and completely start over to make something much, much more simple, the more I'd personally be happy (its likely the only way I'd start playing again).
These rumors kind of sound like that's the direction they might be headed, except there are a few things that concern me:
Movement We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models.
No more unit types? Every unit should have bespoke rules? That doesn't necessarily sound like simplicity, nor does it sound like much fun. Also, why do they think this would mean you only need to learn the rules for your models? Do they not think players like to easily understand what their opponent's units might be able to do?
My other concern is: they've put out so, so many rules books at a huge premium price over the last few years. Are they really going to be able to ditch them all without completely pissing off those players who bought them all? WHFB when it went the way of the dodo didn't have nearly the $ amount associated with owning the full rules set like 40K does. And if they aren't willing to scrap all those codexes and supplements, then the only thing these new rules are going to to do is add even more bloat into the game.
I'm hopeful, given the fact that everything GW does recently seems to be on the right track, but still worried...
I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?
Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...
It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.
Which isn't an excuse for it being ok that AoS was a bad game at release. A game should not REQUIRE that players have a meeting and make concessions on how a game should be played. Especially when it only works if everyone involved actually agrees with what should(n't) be allowed.
A good game wouldn't be so abusable in the first place.
The way most of the last years supplements have been written has been rather future proof in terms of being mosly Formations/Detachments. Assuming those are mechanics making the transition they might be still be good to go.
AoS dropped. The people that i disliked in the hobby, the WAAC mathhammered MFA guys, couldn't do their thing. Suddenly, a grown up conversation about the game had to happen. This made those people disappear. .
I think the bit I'm having trouble with is the assumption that these people wouldn't play AoS because it required a 'grown up' conversation, rather than just because it was, you know, a completely different game.
Eldarain wrote: The way most of the last years supplements have been written has been rather future proof in terms of being mosly Formations/Detachments. Assuming those are mechanics making the transition they might be still be good to go.
Except that formations, as least as far as I'm concerned are the #1 reason that 40K is a bloated mess right now. Any future version of the game that uses essentially the same type of formation mechanic is not something I'd be interested in playing.
Functionally, I don't think you can have two identical models on the table that have two different sets of special rules (because one is part of a formation) that isn't going to be incredibly frustrating for the opponent to keep track of.
That's what the genius of a good miniature game is (IMHO)...the representation of what the model is helps to tell both players what that gaming piece is able to do at a quick glance. As soon as you start adding a second (or third) layer of additional options for models to get through formations, the instant that whole concept implodes. All of a sudden, an ultramarine tactical marine isn't necessarily the same as another ultramarine tactical marine, and that's a problem.
Weboflies wrote: The salt level around this place is just astonishing. People have the nerve to suggest that rewarding themed armies is a bad thing and make judgements about that, and other game mechanics, that they don't even know the details of yet....
That shouldn't really be surprising. in the past few years, GW have taken their flagship game, blown up the setting and replaced it with a completely different game that has significantly split the player base, and took 5th edition 40k and, instead of fixing out, gave us the mess that was 6th edition and then a mere 2 years later doubled down on the stupid with 7th.
So yes, 8th is going top be met with a certain amount of scepticism.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Shadespire: A tactical small-scale combat game with proprietary dice and cards.
Is GW trying to be FFG? All we need now is more tokens than there are cells in the human body and it might as well be.
Also, didn't GW just announce their own paid army maker for AoS?
Starfarer wrote: Im not sure many people have disputed that 40k rules were likely heading the way of AOS. In fact, I think a lot of people have been actively hoping for it. Not sure why youre trying to conflate the fact they aren't blowing up the setting with rules changes.
Can we not just enjoy the fact GW are previewing new releases without having to invent something to be upset about?
Nah bruv, I'm pretty sure a lot of people said that GW wouldn't AoS40K, which appears to be exactly what they're going. As for the setting, that's End Times. They're End Times-ing 40K and AoS'ing 40K. Two different things.
And yes, I'm very surprised that they're previewing tons of things. For year and years and years and YEARS I've been lambasting GW's insane secrecy, and whilst there were some legitimate reasons behind it (of which I am swan to secrecy due to who at GW told me about them), their inability or just general unwillingness to engage with the hobby at large whilst pretending that they were a HHHobby in and of themselves is one of their greatest failings.
It was made all the more galling when they kept everything hidden whilst BL and FW showed off tons of upcoming stuff. Their refusal to participate in trade shows and conventions was insane, but they have turned that corner and seem to have embraced it in a way that even puts the days prior to the Kirby Kurtain to shame.
Now they've just to to treat their IP licensing as an avenue to enhance their brand (and their sales) and not just a hands-off method of revenue generation. Time releases to go with major licensed products (DoWIII perhaps?) and be a little more discerning with who you throw the latest video game license at and they can really start to grow again. The fact that we never got miniature releases around the DoW games makes no sense to me, especially given how many people DoW brought to GW. They appear to be missing the boat once again with DoWIII and that's sad. They need to capitalise on these things - strike whilst the thunder hammer is hot, so to speak - then they truly will have grown as a company (or at least emerged from hibernation).
In the meantime though, they're AoS'ing 40K. If we see weapon profiles that have set To Wound values regardless of the target type, then I'm done...
No AoS40k was originally a lot of crying about removing point values And blowing up the world and removing most factions. Not crying about a few rules that are similar which most people expected as gw tried out different things. Ffs most of the leaks aren't even AoS related and are direct copies of 2nd and 3rd edition rules (movement and ap values). The only thing vaguely AoS related is morale and even that would be almost completely useless with a direct port due to the fact nearly every army has a rule (fearless, atsknf, etc) that basically ignores morale. And 40k 8th ed rules was already rumoured to be streamlined for months to make the game play quicker so how do you determine from 4 rule hints 3 of which are literally just addding even more rules to remember in 40k (movement and ap value lowers saves and command points)that 40k is AoSfied in rules. You really just sound sore about fantasy especially when we already know nearly every major change right now involves heavy community involvement. Hence why the community page is talking about the changes they are testing and people they are working with for the new edition.
Well, the more they are willing to blow up the existing 40k rules to pieces and completely start over to make something much, much more simple, the more I'd personally be happy (its likely the only way I'd start playing again).
These rumors kind of sound like that's the direction they might be headed, except there are a few things that concern me:
Movement We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models.
No more unit types? Every unit should have bespoke rules? That doesn't necessarily sound like simplicity, nor does it sound like much fun. Also, why do they think this would mean you only need to learn the rules for your models? Do they not think players like to easily understand what their opponent's units might be able to do?
My other concern is: they've put out so, so many rules books at a huge premium price over the last few years. Are they really going to be able to ditch them all without completely pissing off those players who bought them all? WHFB when it went the way of the dodo didn't have nearly the $ amount associated with owning the full rules set like 40K does. And if they aren't willing to scrap all those codexes and supplements, then the only thing these new rules are going to to do is add even more bloat into the game.
I'm hopeful, given the fact that everything GW does recently seems to be on the right track, but still worried...
AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.
Well I'm thrilled. I've just recently got back into the hobby after taking a massive hiatus since 2nd edition and these rule changes (on the surface) are exactly what I I think the game needed imho.. I have my fingers crossed that they will help with the rules bloat and bring Tau/Eldar back to the pack a bit, while giving the bottom tier (Tyranids/Orks/BA etc) a boost.
This will get me playing again. If you're listening GW, well done guys
We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models.
No more unit types? Every unit should have bespoke rules? That doesn't necessarily sound like simplicity, nor does it sound like much fun. Also, why do they think this would mean you only need to learn the rules for your models? Do they not think players like to easily understand what their opponent's units might be able to do?
The warscroll system works really well in AoS and I suspect that is what they will be going for (each unit has a dataslate with all its rules on it).
I can honestly say if they make the Codices and the basic ruleset into free e-books, make a BRB that maps out the expanded game rules and continue making campaign books with stuff like new formations for $$ I would be fine. I'd still probably buy a hard copy codex for my IG but having the option to buy would be nice instead of HAVING to for my IW, admech and skitarii (with the later two hopefully getting rolled together)
The big question is what about FW books and units, that's what I'm curious about. but so far 40k: Age of Roundtree looks promising.
The 40k rules changes sound amazing. I can't wait, as a massive massive fan of the AoS ruleset the more they take from it the better in my opinion. The Warscroll system being the main boon. It makes the unit rules fully modular, allows the designers infinite space to develop new and unique rules for units and really promotes the story-driven, top-down rules design that I love.
Vector Strike wrote: Oh my, loved all the changes. Movement stat? AP affecting armour instead of just ignoring it? Rewarding thematic armies? Awesome!
Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.
That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.
Vector Strike wrote: Oh my, loved all the changes. Movement stat? AP affecting armour instead of just ignoring it? Rewarding thematic armies? Awesome!
Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.
That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.
Maybe I read it wrong I just saw it as ap1 and ap2 being a negative modifier to invul saves not a return to 2nd ed.
Maybe that was me mentally hoping for a clean fix to rerollable invul saves and unkillable characters.
Mymearan wrote: AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.
I definitely see the advantages in that method, for sure! With that said, I don't think unit type rules are the issue, really. The issue is keeping things simple. If the unit type rules are simple enough to put onto each unit's warscroll (or whatever the 40K equivalent will be called), then they should be simple enough for players to memorize them. But the reality is that GW used the unit type rules as a crutch (a way to keep those rules someplace else) so that they could pile more and more special rules onto each unit, both by the unit's own special rules, and then later on via formations, warlord bonuses, etc, etc, etc.
So to point the finger and blame the concept of unit type rules as what is the problem is a bit silly. If unit type rules are kept simple enough to fit onto a unit's warscroll, then the vast majority of players would have absolutely no problem memorizing them, IMHO. Getting rid of most of the other special rules that have been heaped on top is much more of what needs to be focused on.
It's interesting how the language they use to describe the changes isn't concrete. It seems they're either doing play testing/theory still or they want everyone to think they are.
Hopefully it's the former and they change their minds about Morale. It's not that AoS's system for it is the worst thing ever produced, but it's overly simplistic.
I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?
Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...
It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.
AoS in it's original form was for people who wanted to stand around a table Dancing, Making loud animal sounds, and acting like a Loon. When then scrubbed that silliness from the rules, it was still unplayable in any sort of competitive sense. This was bad for Store Owners and Organisers who wanted to try and have tournament play for AoS. What you might of put together as a list is "fair" agiest you and your friends with decades old mini collections, might not be the same idea of "fair" ageist little Timmy down the street.
Thus you had people trying to invinte their own "quick and dirty" comp to try and balance lists.
I don't like the idea that all Tournament players are "WAAC donkeys" just because they like to play challenging games.
Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.
That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.
Bolters in 2nd Ed had a -1 modifier. The models that didn't get a save against them are largely the models that don't get a save against them now.
To I fear that GW will mess it up? I do, but for different reasons.
AoS is now an ok game but it took them 3 incarnations until and the question now is how long it will be stable (or do we see a Stormcast V3 next year instead of updating the other factions).
If 40k is doing the same way, I quit because I don't want to see a Nu-Marine book each year (because we get a new edition every year) while I can wait for my factions.
The changes in general are good if done good.
Movement values remove a massive bloated and messy section of the current rules.
Armour Save modification and Command points sounds good.
But if everyone now will affect armour saves, while Cover and FnP stay as they are now, it will get worse instead of better.
And for Command Points, if we see kind of Gladius Bonus VS Berserker, nothing will be changed
Mymearan wrote: AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.
I definitely see the advantages in that method, for sure! With that said, I don't think unit type rules are the issue, really. The issue is keeping things simple. If the unit type rules are simple enough to put onto each unit's warscroll (or whatever the 40K equivalent will be called), then they should be simple enough for players to memorize them. But the reality is that GW used the unit type rules as a crutch (a way to keep those rules someplace else) so that they could pile more and more special rules onto each unit, both by the unit's own special rules, and then later on via formations, warlord bonuses, etc, etc, etc.
So to point the finger and blame the concept of unit type rules as what is the problem is a bit silly. If unit type rules are kept simple enough to fit onto a unit's warscroll, then the vast majority of players would have absolutely no problem memorizing them, IMHO. Getting rid of most of the other special rules that have been heaped on top is much more of what needs to be focused on.
The advantage of universal special rules (USR) rather than bespoke rules for every unit should be that it keeps the game consistent so you don't have to learn the rules for 100 different units, but rather learn a dozen or so USR's.
GW's problems is they've just made the whole thing too complicated. They could use bespoke rules or USR's it makes no difference because there's simply too many rules.
IMO in a game like 40k (specifically, the scale of 40k now with many different armies with many different units and games which consist of so many models on the table at once) having USR's makes more sense than bespoke rules, it's just they need to be massively simplified.
Overall I'm happy to see 40k get a complete overhaul. I wasn't happy to see WHFB get overhauled because I thought the core rules for WHFB were fine, but the core rules for 40k are a mess so hopefully an overhaul improves things. AoS morale rules and bespoke special rules definitely don't sound encouraging, but my fingers are still crossed for the best.
I think people are putting too much stock into this "rewarding thematic armies" thing. Age of Sigmar "rewards thematic armies" by way of the keyword system, but ALSO tossed together loads of factions in a "grand alliance" blender that turned off a lot of WHFB players. You might see lots of lists rewarded for fluffiness. Or you might see Tau and Necrons working seamlessly together. You'll probably see both.
It also broke down what used to be coherent factions into numerous micro-fractions so they could sell books. For example, Orcs and Goblins became Ironjawz, greenskins, bonebreakers, moonclan, forest goblins, and gitmob. Will the Imperial Guard player suddenly find out his army is now four factions big?
I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?
Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...
It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.
Which isn't an excuse for it being ok that AoS was a bad game at release. A game should not REQUIRE that players have a meeting and make concessions on how a game should be played. Especially when it only works if everyone involved actually agrees with what should(n't) be allowed.
A good game wouldn't be so abusable in the first place.
Except AoS wasn't a bad game at release, the General's Handbook only added points (as far as competitive play is concerned) it didn't change any rules. The balance wasn't there, but the core gameplay remains identical.
Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.
That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.
Bolters in 2nd Ed had a -1 modifier. The models that didn't get a save against them are largely the models that don't get a save against them now.
Problem is in 2nd ed pretty much everything had save modifier. Which resulted in...you guess it! Armour being useless unless it was terminator scale.
If space marines could have ran their tactical marines unarmoured saving points they would have taken them. Power armour was liability. Carapace? Forget it. Hell even 5+ and 6+ armours were even more useless than now!
Sure 6+ saves don't care does bolter have -1 modifier or AP5. 3+ does. I'm just pointing out that unless they beef armours a lot or reduce armour save modifiers a lot it will be like 2nd ed where anything short of terminator armour or invulnerable save(or unmodified as it was called) is useless liability.
IMO in a game like 40k (specifically, the scale of 40k now with many different armies with many different units and games which consist of so many models on the table at once) having USR's makes more sense than bespoke rules, it's just they need to be massively simplified.
Of course it would be better, but GW had shown us that they cannot handle something like that.
Remember it was 4th or 5th (not sure, maybe both) with a list of USR in the rulebook and at the end of the edition there was nor army out there using it because they got all their shiny new USR's.
That is the problem with the whole design process.
they write all their ideas into a rulebook, start writing the factions rules, get new ideas which were not covered in the rules and just add them to the faction rules.
No planning ahead or sticking to the original design.
So with each factions book, USR will become more and more obsolete but with similar worded faction based special rules
Don Savik wrote: Old fantasy had movement characteristics and armor save modifiers. AoS bravery system works more like old fantasy than 40k's morale system. Do we hate old fantasy now all of a sudden or something?
Uuuh what FB edition you are comparing to? 4th ed to 8th ed at least had much more 40k style LD than AOS style. No guys dying just like that, units fleeing and regrouping.
Closest in FB to AOS style was undead special thingie. Which was...you know...generally hated on.
Armour save modifiers. This topic comes up almost as often as Sisters of Battle… so we’re going to bring them back. Every weapon will have its place in your army and better represent how you imagine them working in your head.
I don't know whether this is supposed to be a hint at something a long time coming, or just a really deep twisting of the knife. Damn good troll, even if I wish it didn't hurt so damn much
Weboflies wrote: The salt level around this place is just astonishing. People have the nerve to suggest that rewarding themed armies is a bad thing and make judgements about that, and other game mechanics, that they don't even know the details of yet...
Problem is GW doesn't know how to make good system to reward fluffy armies. Just see the chapter tactics of 40k. Those create horribly unfluffy armies like all bike white scars.
Formations? They aren't there for fluff but to sell models.
Weboflies wrote: The salt level around this place is just astonishing. People have the nerve to suggest that rewarding themed armies is a bad thing and make judgements about that, and other game mechanics, that they don't even know the details of yet...
Problem is GW doesn't know how to make good system to reward fluffy armies. Just see the chapter tactics of 40k. Those create horribly unfluffy armies like all bike white scars.
Formations? They aren't there for fluff but to sell models.
How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.
I don't see anything wrong with formations. GW makes money and you get a pretty nice army out of it.
angelofvengeance wrote: How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.
You know what's the REAL core of white scars?
Tactical marines. In rhino's or drop pods. Not bikes.
You can have fast attack without all bikes you know. And fluffwise tactical marines would be the most common white scar you see.
But seen much tactical marines in white scar armies lately? Nope. Cause GW doesn't reward fluffy armies.
And problem with formations is same. They aren't there for fluff. They are there to sell you more models. Buy 3 riptides for big balance! Or take this formation and get lots of free stuff so you need to buy 10 30€ models!
Vector Strike wrote: Oh my, loved all the changes. Movement stat? AP affecting armour instead of just ignoring it? Rewarding thematic armies? Awesome!
Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.
That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.
Well keeping existing stats and just changing AP to do something else would be dumb. I would think they would completely change the characteristics for weapons.
insaniak wrote: I wouldn't worry about that... if GW's previous history with army builder software is any indication, it will be obsolete by the time it is released and never receive any updates anyway.
I was never worried about it. I knew it would be junk, but there are people here who defended it. "This time it'll be different!" "GW have changed so it'll be good!" "He only hits me because I make him so mad!". Y'know, the usual.
Mymearan wrote: AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.
I definitely see the advantages in that method, for sure! With that said, I don't think unit type rules are the issue, really. The issue is keeping things simple. If the unit type rules are simple enough to put onto each unit's warscroll (or whatever the 40K equivalent will be called), then they should be simple enough for players to memorize them. But the reality is that GW used the unit type rules as a crutch (a way to keep those rules someplace else) so that they could pile more and more special rules onto each unit, both by the unit's own special rules, and then later on via formations, warlord bonuses, etc, etc, etc.
So to point the finger and blame the concept of unit type rules as what is the problem is a bit silly. If unit type rules are kept simple enough to fit onto a unit's warscroll, then the vast majority of players would have absolutely no problem memorizing them, IMHO. Getting rid of most of the other special rules that have been heaped on top is much more of what needs to be focused on.
The advantage of universal special rules (USR) rather than bespoke rules for every unit should be that it keeps the game consistent so you don't have to learn the rules for 100 different units, but rather learn a dozen or so USR's.
GW's problems is they've just made the whole thing too complicated. They could use bespoke rules or USR's it makes no difference because there's simply too many rules.
IMO in a game like 40k (specifically, the scale of 40k now with many different armies with many different units and games which consist of so many models on the table at once) having USR's makes more sense than bespoke rules, it's just they need to be massively simplified.
Overall I'm happy to see 40k get a complete overhaul. I wasn't happy to see WHFB get overhauled because I thought the core rules for WHFB were fine, but the core rules for 40k are a mess so hopefully an overhaul improves things. AoS morale rules and bespoke special rules definitely don't sound encouraging, but my fingers are still crossed for the best.
The morale rules actually work very well. It keeps the effects of morale to a single phase, removing the need for bookkeeping. It means that elite, low model count, high Leadership units will almost never lost models to morale, but it might happen if they're facing a very strong enemy and are unlucky with their rolls. Meanwhile, a high model count, low bravery chaff/horde unit will see half the unit turn tail and run away if you start wading through their friends. Works very well both thematically and practically.
insaniak wrote: I wouldn't worry about that... if GW's previous history with army builder software is any indication, it will be obsolete by the time it is released and never receive any updates anyway.
I was never worried about it. I knew it would be junk, but there are people here who defended it. "This time it'll be different!" "GW have changed so it'll be good!" "He only hits me because I make him so mad!". Y'know, the usual.
Don't know exactly what you're talking about here, but scrollbuilder.com, which they just announced has been made official, is excellent and receives constant updates. Their AoS app army builder also saw updates within a day of its release to fix some issues it had. Are you talking about the super old Windows software?
Mymearan wrote: AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.
I definitely see the advantages in that method, for sure! With that said, I don't think unit type rules are the issue, really. The issue is keeping things simple. If the unit type rules are simple enough to put onto each unit's warscroll (or whatever the 40K equivalent will be called), then they should be simple enough for players to memorize them. But the reality is that GW used the unit type rules as a crutch (a way to keep those rules someplace else) so that they could pile more and more special rules onto each unit, both by the unit's own special rules, and then later on via formations, warlord bonuses, etc, etc, etc.
So to point the finger and blame the concept of unit type rules as what is the problem is a bit silly. If unit type rules are kept simple enough to fit onto a unit's warscroll, then the vast majority of players would have absolutely no problem memorizing them, IMHO. Getting rid of most of the other special rules that have been heaped on top is much more of what needs to be focused on.
Well, I agree with basically everything you said. Unit types can work, but they are way too complicated in 40k. I wouldn't have a problem with them keeping unit types but simpifying them greatly, but I also like the AoS approach.
I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?
Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...
It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.
Which isn't an excuse for it being ok that AoS was a bad game at release. A game should not REQUIRE that players have a meeting and make concessions on how a game should be played. Especially when it only works if everyone involved actually agrees with what should(n't) be allowed.
A good game wouldn't be so abusable in the first place.
Except AoS wasn't a bad game at release, the General's Handbook only added points (as far as competitive play is concerned) it didn't change any rules. The balance wasn't there, but the core gameplay remains identical.
That's completely wrong. Not only did they add points, but army building now has structure to it (minimum on core choices, restrictions on monsters and war machines), they added the three rules of one, and and summoning comes from a points allotment spent on at list building. This is a lot more then just adding points
Well, Battle shock and Save Modifiers seem to point to an enormous nerf for the humble Tactical Marine, which happens to be my fav... Maybe some of these "bespoke rules" they're talking about will save them! The Emperor Protects!
I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?
Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...
It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.
Which isn't an excuse for it being ok that AoS was a bad game at release. A game should not REQUIRE that players have a meeting and make concessions on how a game should be played. Especially when it only works if everyone involved actually agrees with what should(n't) be allowed.
A good game wouldn't be so abusable in the first place.
Except AoS wasn't a bad game at release, the General's Handbook only added points (as far as competitive play is concerned) it didn't change any rules. The balance wasn't there, but the core gameplay remains identical.
That's completely wrong. Not only did they add points, but army building now has structure to it (minimum on core choices, restrictions on monsters and war machines), they added the three rules of one, and and summoning comes from a points allotment spent on at list building. This is a lot more then just adding points
The army building is still lumped in with army balancing, not the actual gameplay. I'll give you the rules of 1, but those merely limit what you can do, it doesnt add or remove any mechanics, it limits what was there to start. Summoning is again, points and army building, not the core gameplay based on the 4 page rules that AoS started with, and still uses.
The core gameplay, using movement speed, save, leadership,wounds, magic casting, melee/ranged and rending is EXACTLY the same. The Generals Handbook was a balance patch, not a gameplay overhaul, it changed what you bring to the game, but not how you play the game itself.
I wish they had shown a couple more upcoming releases but the info out of this event all looks very promising. Old GW would have shut scroll builder down. Moving it to the community website, keeping it free and continuing to work with the original creator are all positive steps.
Calling out specific members of the community with whom they are working to improve 40k is great.
I always worried about GW being caught in its own bubble.
Giving info about possible rules some time before release with the option for feedback is a very good step.
The 3 main barriers to entry for GW games are money, time and space. Shadespire seems explicitly designed to combat these things. It is a game I can play on the coffee table in my tiny Japanese house which is great.
It is understandable to be anxious about the future, but there really does seem to be a fundamental change to the way GW is operating. This seminar is just one example of that.
Why are you assuming that they will be suitable for both system ?
Because tzaangor were, and these look to have an identical release structure as tzeentch, albeit with 40k coming first rather than AoS?
The Tzaangors were released for 40k first, followed s few months later for AoS.
Tzaangors were released first for "AoS" as a silver tower enemy. The kit for tzaangors is thought for AoS, since half of its options are unusable for 40k while in AoS barring the extra set of chainswords you can use everything. These cultitsts won't be used in AoS.
You're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but no one thinks of the Silver Tower miniatures as the 'first release' of Tzaangors because you can't just buy them. They come in a giant box with tons of other stuff.
The core gameplay, using movement speed, save, leadership,wounds, magic casting, melee/ranged and rending is EXACTLY the same. The Generals Handbook was a balance patch, not a gameplay overhaul, it changed what you bring to the game, but not how you play the game itself.
Which is bad because it didn't fix the REAL problems with AOS. Points? That wasn't biggest problem with AOS by far. It was from the get go bad rules and total lack of tactical depth.
ingtaer wrote: That new drop pod rule had me cracking up. Oh, how I have been tempted.
For members of the Sad Old Git Society (Soggy Soggy Soggy! OI OI OI!), that's not far from how you deployed Drop Pods in Olden Epic.
Get Blast Marker. Pile up the Drop Pod tokens on it. lift to a set distance off the table (30cm? Might've been more), then flip it. They lands where their token lands.
I am unsure if I should smile or frown with the 8th edition previewed rules.
While I do like the addition of different Movement values and hopefully the a return of the "new old" Armour Save modifier rules - please bring back 3+ 2d6 Saves on Termies so my Deathwing can actually see use - and I am now curious as to how this will affect Vehicle rules... the Battleshock application seems a bit odd. And I am unsure if bespoke rules will make 40k less of a mess or not - remains to be seen.
Also they do need to clarify on what "thematic" armies really stands for.
For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.
But, that's having come out of 8th Ed thoroughly fed up of Steadfast, Ld10 with a BSB re-roll Ld, which prevented proper hammerblow tactics (which I've always enjoyed), not to mention endless bickering over whether you having five blokes in a line with no-one behind them is actually a rank for the purposes of Steadfast.
How well that might translate to 40k, I'm unsure.
A straight port wouldn't quite do the trick - Orks for instance would just be on the receiving end without a further special rule. But I think it could be adapted to 40k.
The core gameplay, using movement speed, save, leadership,wounds, magic casting, melee/ranged and rending is EXACTLY the same. The Generals Handbook was a balance patch, not a gameplay overhaul, it changed what you bring to the game, but not how you play the game itself.
Which is bad because it didn't fix the REAL problems with AOS. Points? That wasn't biggest problem with AOS by far. It was from the get go bad rules and total lack of tactical depth.
Keep banging that 'lack of tactical depth' drum, despite plenty of posters giving you loads of examples of how wrong you are
I like to think that the Death Guard are so mired in Nurgle's corruption that they now see everything as "7". So, despite being the 14th Legion, they think they're the 7th. When they bring their squads to the battlefield, they walk around in squads of 10, and when asked how many of them there are, they respond with "Seven!". After taking casualties someone might ask "How many of you are left?" and they will say "Seven!", even though there's like 3 and a half of them left after the Battlecannon hit them.
Weboflies wrote: Well, Battle shock and Save Modifiers seem to point to an enormous nerf for the humble Tactical Marine, which happens to be my fav... Maybe some of these "bespoke rules" they're talking about will save them! The Emperor Protects!
As a stormcast player, battleshock never really effects me as i have loads of leaders that nullify the roll. If i lose these then it starts being an issue, but seeing your general pulped by a massive walking tree will shake you up
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.
And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: A straight port wouldn't quite do the trick - Orks for instance would just be on the receiving end without a further special rule. But I think it could be adapted to 40k.
Orks were exactly what came to mind the moment I saw this rule change. They really need to be a bit more specific regarding some of the changes.
Also, I'll soon be selling my kidney for a Thunderhawk.
ingtaer wrote: That new drop pod rule had me cracking up. Oh, how I have been tempted.
For members of the Sad Old Git Society (Soggy Soggy Soggy! OI OI OI!), that's not far from how you deployed Drop Pods in Olden Epic.
Get Blast Marker. Pile up the Drop Pod tokens on it. lift to a set distance off the table (30cm? Might've been more), then flip it. They lands where their token lands.
That was a lot more fun when they eventually released lead drop pods ...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.
And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.
They will need to find a compromise - either Battleshock only works in melee, or you get additional modifiers working for you when testing "shooting panic" battleshock or... I dunno.
I like to think that the Death Guard are so mired in Nurgle's corruption that they now see everything as "7". So, despite being the 14th Legion, they think they're the 7th. When they bring their squads to the battlefield, they walk around in squads of 10, and when asked how many of them there are, they respond with "Seven!". After taking casualties someone might ask "How many of you are left?" and they will say "Seven!", even though there's like 3 and a half of them left after the Battlecannon hit them.
Everything is Seven!
Brother Joe: "My lord Mortarion, it's movie night and the brothers want to know what tonight's movie is."
Mortarion: "The same as every movie night, my son."
angelofvengeance wrote: Fairly certain the scythe in the Death Guard video is a Manreaper scythe.. Sooo Calas Typhon
It's almost certainly Daemon Prince Mortarion.
Nope. Because the Mortarion we've seen views of, still has his 30k chainsaw scythe thing.
Spoiler:
If you watch the video, the scythe very clearly widens out towards the point like Mortarion's, rather than tapering. Even the angle and silhouette is almost identical.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.
And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.
That's not how it works usually, the biggest part of the Battleshock roll is in most cases the number of casualties, not the D6. "One bad roll" killing a whole squad that would otherwise be totally fine is very rare. Elite units with high Bravery are often effectively immune to Battleshock because you need to kill nearly the entire unit to have a chance of removing more with Battleshock.
Problem is in 2nd ed pretty much everything had save modifier. Which resulted in...you guess it! Armour being useless unless it was terminator scale..
A -1 modifier doesn't make 3+ armour useless. It makes it save on a 4+. And different weapons having different modifiers make that they affect armour differently. Which, so long as GW persist with having separate rolls for hitting, Wounding and saving, is exactly how it should be.
Modifiers add granularity which is lacking from the current AP system.
But i already have an entire deathguard army with over 40 plague marines... that you don't need the new models but want the new models but dont need the new models dilema
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.
And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.
It's not actually that big a deal. Smaller model count, elite units tend to rarely ever have to worry about battleshock unless they're already getting absolutely trounced in the first place, while larger grunt units tend to have plenty of ways to insulate themselves against battleshock losses. In my experience, battleshock only starts to become a big issue when large multi-front assaults happen where one side is being overrun in the first place, where most non-fearless units would taken off of the table anyway in 40k.
What really makes battleshock an attractive system is that the player is always in control. While the damage you suffer is at the whims of the dice gods, your units will always function as you dictate until they're destroyed. You might lose a chunk of a unit to a bad roll, but your entire unit won't be wiped off the map by a single abnormal roll (and if your losses are significant enough that this happens, your unit was not going to stick around anyway).
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
Movement stats, something we have all wanted back since 3rd edition dropped.
Armour save modifiers, always thought these worked better than the all or nothing AP system, but it depends how common / high they end up being. Most basic guns should NOT have a modifier. (and terminators need their 2D6 roll back)
The AoS morale system, it's basically the crumble rule from WHFB undead. It terrible. By far the worst rule I ever had to deal with in fantasy. It's main point was to counter act the ability to summon troops faster than your opponent could kill them. They should have just tamed down the summoning.
I don't spend so much time painting and modelling just to take models off the table as fast as possible.
Also square bases confirmed! Oh the juicy tears when everyone realises they WEREN'T joking.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.
And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.
Which is entirely fair enough - but less likely to happen in AoS unless you've taken a small unit size - in which case even under 40kLd it'd likely be curtains.
As I said, Battleshock will need to be adapted to 40k, rather than simply imported without change.
But I'm overall looking forward to Ld not being something only a couple of armies ever really worry about, and people having to adapt to attrition.
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
You can retreat from combat in AoS, no problem (and indeed, doing so and having a new unit then charge in is a good tactic).
As for 'I dunno, die of fright', Battleshock represent individuals fleeing.
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle. Individual models who run away are unlikely to have any further effect o the battle, which is exactly what this abstraction represents.
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat,
You can already do that in AoS.
or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
Most armies have some form of synergistic enhancement going on between units within specific ranges. Although having units that benefit not just from being in range, but from coordinated actions would be pretty cool. Still, battleshock itself serves as a solid system of providing synergy in that it allows you to focus down a unit with multiple of your own for extra potential damage compared to attacking separate targets.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
Part of the point of making models move off the table faster (at least, the more tarpitty ones) with less steps is to make the game move faster overall. 4-6 hour long 40k games at 'standard' points values are not ideal by any measure. Combats in AoS generally tend to be more decisive to the outcome of the entire game than in 40k right now, so having them end quickly after their overall direction of the battle has been decided gets rid of a lot of busywork and arbitrary dice rolling.
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle.
No, fleeing is represented in a tabletop game by having the models move away from the enemy.
Unless every model is equipped with a personal teleport solely for use when they get scared, having the models just disappear is a poor way to represent running from the battle.
What really makes battleshock an attractive system is that the player is always in control. .
No, see, that's really not a selling point.
The whole point of the current morale system is that units in the thick of it won't always do what you want them to.
And that, for me, is much more thematic than racing to remove models from the table.
Okay, but at the end of the day, a unit that goes AWOL is for all intents and purposes already off the table anyway. If it's something that really bothers you, I'm sure no one would mind if you placed your fleeing units on the table to show that they were running off into irrelevance anyway. Battleshock is not a model inexplicably dying, it's the model being shaken or damaged in a way that leaves it no longer under your control or relevant to the battle. Which is exactly the same roll that fleeing units fulfill, but now with less book keeping (and now hopefully a factor for armies that aren't just Imperial Guard).
H.B.M.C. wrote:
insaniak wrote: Modifiers add granularity which is lacking from the current AP system.
But watch as they take two giant leaps back with weapon rules that wound on a certain roll because there's no S or T anymore.
If units are given a higher proportion of wounds to compensate for a removed toughness value, the overall resilience of the unit is maintained, but with added consistency of damage delivered. It means that you're less likely to have completely wasted actions, since the damage does become more granular even in how it's counted.
The core gameplay, using movement speed, save, leadership,wounds, magic casting, melee/ranged and rending is EXACTLY the same. The Generals Handbook was a balance patch, not a gameplay overhaul, it changed what you bring to the game, but not how you play the game itself.
Which is bad because it didn't fix the REAL problems with AOS. Points? That wasn't biggest problem with AOS by far. It was from the get go bad rules and total lack of tactical depth.
Keep banging that 'lack of tactical depth' drum, despite plenty of posters giving you loads of examples of how wrong you are
Enjoy your new 40k
Others stating loads of bad examples doesn't make AOS tactically deeper. I have played lots of AOS. It has zero depth.
And if 8th ed sucks as it likely will I ignore it. I play 40k. Not worried about edition per se. Haven't played 7th ed for a long time. Still play 40k. 8th edition is simply more books I can ignore. As it is GW has made it impossible for me to use any of their recent releases anyway. Not even "I don't want" but literally "I CANNOT". Whether fluff or rules.
Problem is in 2nd ed pretty much everything had save modifier. Which resulted in...you guess it! Armour being useless unless it was terminator scale..
A -1 modifier doesn't make 3+ armour useless. It makes it save on a 4+. And different weapons having different modifiers make that they affect armour differently. Which, so long as GW persist with having separate rolls for hitting, Wounding and saving, is exactly how it should be.
Modifiers add granularity which is lacking from the current AP system.
It's not just -1. It's -1, -2, -3 everything so abundant. Which means that you are paying lots for armour you don't really use.
Did you ever play 2nd ed? I still play. I know exactly how useful power armour is in 2nd ed. It's to the level that only reason space marines take it because they HAVE TO. If space marines could ditch all armour and run naked for cheaper price THEY WOULD DO IT! And in a heartbeat. Extra guys are better than armour save which you often can't use or is like 5+ or 6+.
Nevermind something like 5+ save or 6+ save which is even worse than in 7th ed.
Only armour worth paying anything in 2nd ed is terminator armour. Power armour MAYBE if it's 1 pts but if you could run tactical marine naked for 25 pts rather than 30 pts guess what? Naked it is.
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle. Individual models who run away are unlikely to have any further effect o the battle, which is exactly what this abstraction represents.
Funny. In real world at least people have ran from battle and returned rather than vanish into thin air.
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle. Individual models who run away are unlikely to have any further effect o the battle, which is exactly what this abstraction represents.
Funny. In real world at least people have ran from battle and returned rather than vanish into thin air.
You mean like how units can be scattered when fleeing from combat and removed from the board in every edition of 40k and Warhammer up to and including 8th Ed Warhammer and 7th Ed 40k......and how that's described as the unit's cohesion being broken, but not necessarily everyone dead - just too scattered for the scope of a single battle to deal with rectifying?
Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system
S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle.
No, fleeing is represented in a tabletop game by having the models move away from the enemy.
Unless every model is equipped with a personal teleport solely for use when they get scared, having the models just disappear is a poor way to represent running from the battle.
Fleeing is represented in some tabletop games by having the models move away from the enemy. In others, it's represented by removing models that are unlikely to have a further effect on the battle. 40k has both variants, and AoS only the latter. Models who perform an orderly retreat from combat may do so in AoS and will not be removed. As for the "personal teleport" comment, I'm sure you are aware that tabletop games are abstractions and not simulations of reality, and that almost any mechanic in any game could be similarly ridiculed.
insaniak wrote:
And, of course, since it doesn't make sense for a space marine to wet himself and run away, we can probably safely assume that ATSKNF will negate it.
Which leaves us with a mechanic that half the armies in the game ignore, which seems somewhat pointless.
Can we safely assume that? Considering how low bravery Stormcast Eternals (aka Sigmarines) usually have. Why would we assume that? Especially since they say it will affect all armies.
Let's consider a Space Marine squad as they stand. With their Vet Sarge, they're Ld9.
Not allowing for any ATSKNF, because we don't know how/if it might affect things.
In order to lose anyone to Battleshock, as lifted straight from AoS, you need to lose 4 models in combat and then roll a 6....
And, of course, since it doesn't make sense for a space marine to wet himself and run away, we can probably safely assume that ATSKNF will negate it.
Which leaves us with a mechanic that half the armies in the game ignore, which seems somewhat pointless.
Firstly, it is telling that you criticise a concept without having a grasp on how it works in AoS. Secondly, battleshock and being able to retreat from combat using manual movement are not separate concepts - they are one and the same. They are designed to work this way. It is a very elegant and well done combination that removes unnecessary morale rules whilst offering greater tactical options. That doesn't mean the idea of battleshock is brilliant or that morale as it has worked in other gw games is bad. Just that the way it has been integrated in aos is well considered.
There are certainly issues with battleshock in 40k. The amount of long range shooting means that casualties are typically higher than in 40k. Losing an entire unit to shooting is exceptional in aos, but one would expect this to be different in 40k. Therefore I would hope that they adjust with this in mind. Whether that is through all shooting being weakened (which should happen to some extent anyway - there is too much that dies instantly) or by giving overall higher values or scaling with unit size. The key thing to remember is that rules cannot be judged in isolation.
It should also be noted that in aos all generals have an inspiring presence which they can choose to use on a unit which makes it immune to batttleshock. There are ways 40k could work around this to mitigate morale issues. However aos does it well because it gives you the choice of using your general's other command ability or this inspiring presence - a tactical choice rather than a passive action.
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle. Individual models who run away are unlikely to have any further effect o the battle, which is exactly what this abstraction represents.
Funny. In real world at least people have ran from battle and returned rather than vanish into thin air.
I refer to my above comment about all tabletop being abstractions, not simulations. But perhaps you would like rules for soldiers lying down on the ground playing dead in the hopes that the enemy won't notice them? Why, we couldn't just remove the model, they're not really dead!
The thing that fills me with dread the most: talk of bespoke rules for all your units.
Of the many things I dislike about AoS, that one's right up there at the top of the list. It doesn't make it easier to know what rules everyone has, it makes it more difficult because there's no common ground to refer to. Sorting through a bunch of Warscrolls to find the right unit and the correct rule on the page is annoying and needlessly slows things down while adding pointless complexity without adding any depth.
The comment about only needing to know the rules for your own army just goes to show how little GW understands their own system and players. It's kinda important to know how your opponent's army works too and giving them all special snowflake rules really doesn't help with that.
Also, I really hope we get to keep the S/T chart and GW doesn't start breaking up the various armies into the tiny factions like they've done in AoS.
Movement values, save modifiers and morale actually meaning something again all sounds good to me. All depends on the detail of how it's implemented. I think too many people are projecting current 40k rules and principles onto these new rules without realising the specifics will change dramatically. Maybe you just won't have shooting that will remove 10+ models in one go any more since the morale rules also lead to model removal.
commander dante wrote: Well, it looks like 40k will be even MORE if a Shooting game then a Close Combat game
Armour Save Modifiers? (I.E MOST SHOOTING WEAPONS)
An AoS Leadership System? (I.E UNLESS YOUR NECRONS, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE HALF YOUR GUYS)
And what does Close Combat get?
Charging unit attacks first
*Sigh*
Looks like ill have to crack open Rulebooks to create a "Revised" 7th ed (or just call it 7.5 ed)
My orks (an assault army)
- Oh no armour mods, never got much of a save anyway - AS modifiers for ork weps, most ork weapons AP are meh so if they get added armour mods this is great for orks (esp if CC weps get it) as above orks for the most part don't care about armour mods in return - Fighting first on the charge, I2... currently loose loads of boyz before they get to swing - Loose combat models die instead of running away. Mob rule we normally loose boyz instead of running away currently, or worse the nobs been challenged out and we run away and get swept - Command points for playing 'fluffy' armies. Fluffy Ork armies of loads of boyz are also probably the best, whey command points
10 boyz charge 10 marines (ignoring OW)
New rules: orks fight first 40 attacks
3.33 marine dies
8 marines fight back
1.66 orks die
Marines loose combat by 1/2
carries on:
marines fight first 8 attacks (assuming they didnt run away and are immune to the new LD rule)
1.66 orks die
orks fight with 21 attacks
1.1 marines die
orks might loose by 1 say for examples. Roll a dice D6 get a 6(worse result) add 1 = 7... 7-7 = 0 no orks die happy days carry on as normal next turn
Current rules: marines fight first 10 attacks
2 orks die
orks fight back 32 attacks
2.66 marines die
carries on:
marines fight first 8 attacks
1.66 orks die
orks fight with 21 attacks
1.1 marines die
orks might loose for examples. Roll 2 dice you get a 7 (average) + 1 = 8 orks ld 7 so fails. Anything but a 1 on the mob check they run away... lets say they don't roll a 1 the marines can now sweep the orks d6+I (4) vs orks d6+2 good chance all the orks die
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.
And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.
40k vs AOS
40k squad of 10 guys with Ld of 8
they take 3 casualties, roll Ld test and get a nine, they fall back.
This may destroy all 7 of them as they may fall off the table edge in to a dead end, swept or just be so far behind near the end of the game they might as well be dead (even when they regroup they snap shot so are near useless)
AOS squad of 10 guys with bravery of 8
they take 3 casualties, roll bravery test and get a nine, they loose 1 guy.
Nothing more and they had to roll the highest possible fail for that to happen.
Latro_ wrote: Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system
S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh
As you noticed that's not good. Autocannons? -3 modifier. Power armour saves on 6+. Terminators on 5+.
This is precisely the problem you have with ASM. You pay premium for the save, then you barely use. Terminators would be even more ridiculously overpriced when even autocannons would be scything through them.
Plasma weapons would btw come entirely useless in that system. So yeah as you noticed bad idea.
AP to modifier straight works bit better but only marginally. Armour would still be useless but at least plasma etc weapons would be have use. Even if they would still be worthless barely worth extra point as autocannon would be plenty good as it is(actually autocannon would be god weapon of imperials...)
Thunder hawk? No idea. I must have missed something
There's a cardboard box (your normal, brown type products are shipped in) crudely labelled "plastic Thunderhawk" in the background when they talk about Deep Striking.
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle.
No, fleeing is represented in a tabletop game by having the models move away from the enemy.
Unless every model is equipped with a personal teleport solely for use when they get scared, having the models just disappear is a poor way to represent running from the battle.
Fleeing is represented in some tabletop games by having the models move away from the enemy. In others, it's represented by removing models that are unlikely to have a further effect on the battle. 40k has both variants, and AoS only the latter. Models who perform an orderly retreat from combat may do so in AoS and will not be removed. As for the "personal teleport" comment, I'm sure you are aware that tabletop games are abstractions and not simulations of reality, and that almost any mechanic in any game could be similarly ridiculed.
You realize voluntarily retreating from battle is NOT exactly good way to represent guys losing nerve and running away to regroup later? That's player deciding. In other words your troops would only get scared WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO THE PLAYER!
However in reality morale doesn't work only when it's convenient to commander. Troops flee and regroup based on, funny that, emotions which commander can't dictate. Troopers are(in even 9in 40k mostly) not robots.
commander dante wrote: Well, it looks like 40k will be even MORE if a Shooting game then a Close Combat game
Armour Save Modifiers? (I.E MOST SHOOTING WEAPONS)
An AoS Leadership System? (I.E UNLESS YOUR NECRONS, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE HALF YOUR GUYS)
And what does Close Combat get?
Charging unit attacks first
*Sigh*
Looks like ill have to crack open Rulebooks to create a "Revised" 7th ed (or just call it 7.5 ed)
I don't know- CC will benefit from changes to movement, CC weapons can grant ASM as could the strength of the attacker in CC. We'd need to see how it all integrates and how different units benefit. Hopefully Nids and Orks will see a boost to their CC abilities, movement could make Nids very fast again and getting attacks first if charging could be big along with Battleshock meaning they are less likely to get stuck in prolonged combat.
Latro_ wrote: Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system
S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh
As you noticed that's not good. Autocannons? -3 modifier. Power armour saves on 6+. Terminators on 5+.
This is precisely the problem you have with ASM. You pay premium for the save, then you barely use. Terminators would be even more ridiculously overpriced when even autocannons would be scything through them.
Plasma weapons would btw come entirely useless in that system. So yeah as you noticed bad idea.
AP to modifier straight works bit better but only marginally. Armour would still be useless but at least plasma etc weapons would be have use. Even if they would still be worthless barely worth extra point as autocannon would be plenty good as it is(actually autocannon would be god weapon of imperials...)
The Power Klaw in shadow wars is -3, that seems an obvious hint to the levels.
So AP 2 stuff becomes -3, AP3 to -2 and AP 4 to -1 - with some jigging about in specific circumstances?
SickSix wrote: So as opposed to sweeping advance that removes all models, we are upset that you would lose some models?
I didn't know a Bolter round could perform a sweeping advance. That's... uh... news.
And a bolter round isn't going to kill 4 marines in one round either. Which is how many dead marines it would take in one turn (assuming current leadership values and ignoring what ATSKNF could possibly do, although it'll probably just be a reroll on battleshock) for a squad to have a 1/6 chance of losing a single marine.
People are seriously overestimating the effects of battleshock. People just seem to be really scared of AoS. Don't worry guys, the water's warm and actually quite pleasant.
Honestly battleshock and units always hitting first on the charge is trash. Battleshock applies to all wounds taken, not just im combat. You can lose 15 orks in a single shooting phase, and that unit is basically gone. Yeah Orks are gonna get helped by always hitting first, but how exactly do you plan to get there with Sigmar style leadership? Also how do guard plan to stick?
Furthermore, always strikes first on every unit?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Thunder hammers, necron lychguard, powerklaws, chainfists, STOMPAS, KHORNE D THIRSTERS, all hitting first?! How does this not break the game? If my necron warriors can rapid fire you, and then relentless charge you, it practically doubles my killing power for free. Also it makes some units like flayed ones go from crap to horribly OP. 5 attacks with shred on the charge at marine strength and ws. Like honestly, what the hell. There's a reason that initiative exists.
Latro_ wrote: Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system
S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh
As you noticed that's not good. Autocannons? -3 modifier. Power armour saves on 6+. Terminators on 5+.
This is precisely the problem you have with ASM. You pay premium for the save, then you barely use. Terminators would be even more ridiculously overpriced when even autocannons would be scything through them.
Plasma weapons would btw come entirely useless in that system. So yeah as you noticed bad idea.
AP to modifier straight works bit better but only marginally. Armour would still be useless but at least plasma etc weapons would be have use. Even if they would still be worthless barely worth extra point as autocannon would be plenty good as it is(actually autocannon would be god weapon of imperials...)
In the current AOS system they mitigated this by having terminator role units just have multi wounds. All this jumping to conclusions with out the full picture is ridiculous. For all we know invulnerable saves will stack on top of armour saves,most high armour save models will get extra wounds or rules like lizardmen were they ignore anything below -2 rend. So lets not make sweeping judgments without looking at the possibilitys.
Latro_ wrote: Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system
S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh
As you noticed that's not good. Autocannons? -3 modifier. Power armour saves on 6+. Terminators on 5+.
This is precisely the problem you have with ASM. You pay premium for the save, then you barely use. Terminators would be even more ridiculously overpriced when even autocannons would be scything through them.
Plasma weapons would btw come entirely useless in that system. So yeah as you noticed bad idea.
AP to modifier straight works bit better but only marginally. Armour would still be useless but at least plasma etc weapons would be have use. Even if they would still be worthless barely worth extra point as autocannon would be plenty good as it is(actually autocannon would be god weapon of imperials...)
The Power Klaw in shadow wars is -3, that seems an obvious hint to the levels.
So AP 2 stuff becomes -3, AP3 to -2 and AP 4 to -1 - with some jigging about in specific circumstances?
Sounds about right to me if they go for the direct AP value conversion and ignore weapon strength. But we will still need to know what exactly the armour values will morph into.
SickSix wrote: So as opposed to sweeping advance that removes all models, we are upset that you would lose some models?
I didn't know a Bolter round could perform a sweeping advance. That's... uh... news.
And a bolter round isn't going to kill 4 marines in one round either. Which is how many dead marines it would take in one turn (assuming current leadership values and ignoring what ATSKNF could possibly do, although it'll probably just be a reroll on battleshock) for a squad to have a 1/6 chance of losing a single marine.
People are seriously overestimating the effects of battleshock. People just seem to be really scared of AoS. Don't worry guys, the water's warm and actually quite pleasant.
The point is that comparing Battleshock to Sweeping Advance is pointless because they are applied in completely different phases. You can't Sweep advance if you're not in Close Combat, end of.
Also, have you, gosh perhaps considered that not everyone likes those waters?
Now GW is just forcing Formations down our Throat and passing it off as "Fluffy Lists"
Ruined 8th for me now
Movement values im not sure about, will probably stick with normal Movement values (Infantry move 6"...)
Charging units Strike first is big, especially for Necrons (I.E Triarch Praetorians)
Im Excited for the other changes, but not the "Rewarding Themed Armies" Bull GW is spewing
NpSkully wrote: Honestly battleshock and units always hitting first on the charge is trash. Battleshock applies to all wounds taken, not just im combat. You can lose 15 orks in a single shooting phase, and that unit is basically gone. Yeah Orks are gonna get helped by always hitting first, but how exactly do you plan to get there with Sigmar style leadership? Also how do guard plan to stick?
Guard and Orks would have to rely on some sort of way to mitigate battleshock damage. That said, the AoS equivalents tend to be built around using tools for just that. I would imagine Orks and Guard would function similarly, assuming GW doesn't completely screw the pooch.
Furthermore, always strokes first on ever unit?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Thunder hammers, necron lychguard, powerklaws, chainfists, STOMPAS, KHORNE D THIRSTERS, all hitting first?! How does this not break the game? If my necron warriors can rapid fire you, and then relentless charge you, it practically doubles my killing power for free. Also it makes some units like flayed ones go from crap to horribly OP. 5 attacks with shred on the charge at marine strength and ws. Like honestly, what the hell. There's a reason that initiative exists.
You're assuming melee attack profiles are going to be completely unchanged from their current form, when such a shift is likely going to require a complete overhaul of close combat rules.
SickSix wrote: So as opposed to sweeping advance that removes all models, we are upset that you would lose some models?
I didn't know a Bolter round could perform a sweeping advance. That's... uh... news.
But it still can't.
Your bolter round kills 1 model
You roll a 6
You compare it to your low bravery score of 6 for the sake of this example
You lose 1 more model
Perhaps justify it as running away... perhaps imagine that the guy who's best friend just got shot in the intestines stops to help him up but then discovers the horrible, sucking wound and sits in helpless shock while his mate slowly dies.
There's no sweeping advance from a bolter round, just the chance for models with a poor bravery score (who already don't really fancy the fight) to die or flee faster... or models with an average/good bravery score to break when they are reduced to a fraction of their starting force.
Now GW is just forcing Formations down our Throat and passing it off as "Fluffy Lists"
Ruined 8th for me now
Movement values im not sure about, will probably stick with normal Movement values (Infantry move 6"...)
Charging units Strike first is big, especially for Necrons (I.E Triarch Praetorians)
Im Excited for the other changes, but not the "Rewarding Themed Armies" Bull GW is spewing
k bye
So glad you joined, will all your posts be of this quality? You might not agree, but that's no excuse to post like that. Pathetic.
Now GW is just forcing Formations down our Throat and passing it off as "Fluffy Lists"
Ruined 8th for me now
Movement values im not sure about, will probably stick with normal Movement values (Infantry move 6"...)
Charging units Strike first is big, especially for Necrons (I.E Triarch Praetorians)
Im Excited for the other changes, but not the "Rewarding Themed Armies" Bull GW is spewing
k bye
So glad you joined, will all your posts be of this quality? You might not agree, but that's no excuse to post like that. Pathetic.
To be fair, thats all a post that essentially says 'qq the very limited amount of info weve gotten so far has ruined 40k for me, i quit' deserves.
SickSix wrote: So as opposed to sweeping advance that removes all models, we are upset that you would lose some models?
I didn't know a Bolter round could perform a sweeping advance. That's... uh... news.
But it still can't.
Your bolter round kills 1 model
You roll a 6
You compare it to your low bravery score of 6 for the sake of this example
You lose 1 more model
Perhaps justify it as running away... perhaps imagine that the guy who's best friend just got shot in the intestines stops to help him up but then discovers the horrible, sucking wound and sits in helpless shock while his mate slowly dies.
There's no sweeping advance from a bolter round, just the chance for models with a poor bravery score (who already don't really fancy the fight) to die or flee faster... or models with an average/good bravery score to break when they are reduced to a fraction of their starting force.
So if you can't cause a Sweeping Advance with a bolter round, why are we comparing Battleshock to Sweeping Advances?
Wait is that the choir of "Holy GW's defence" I hear? Yep. That it is.
SickSix wrote: So as opposed to sweeping advance that removes all models, we are upset that you would lose some models?
I didn't know a Bolter round could perform a sweeping advance. That's... uh... news.
But it still can't.
Your bolter round kills 1 model
You roll a 6
You compare it to your low bravery score of 6 for the sake of this example
You lose 1 more model
Perhaps justify it as running away... perhaps imagine that the guy who's best friend just got shot in the intestines stops to help him up but then discovers the horrible, sucking wound and sits in helpless shock while his mate slowly dies.
There's no sweeping advance from a bolter round, just the chance for models with a poor bravery score (who already don't really fancy the fight) to die or flee faster... or models with an average/good bravery score to break when they are reduced to a fraction of their starting force.
Which, as has been stated many times in this thread, is still a better alternative to having an entire unit run off the board for a similarly bad roll.
Yes, it means that armies that haven't previously been vulnerable to morale might now be open to that. Which is a good thing, because it's been a completely wasted stat up until now unless you're IG. In which case you were viciously screwed.
It's not just -1. It's -1, -2, -3 everything so abundant. Which means that you are paying lots for armour you don't really use.
Did you ever play 2nd ed? I still play. I know exactly how useful power armour is in 2nd ed. It's to the level that only reason space marines take it because they HAVE TO. If space marines could ditch all armour and run naked for cheaper price THEY WOULD DO IT! And in a heartbeat. Extra guys are better than armour save which you often can't use or is like 5+ or 6+.
Nevermind something like 5+ save or 6+ save which is even worse than in 7th ed.
Only armour worth paying anything in 2nd ed is terminator armour. Power armour MAYBE if it's 1 pts but if you could run tactical marine naked for 25 pts rather than 30 pts guess what? Naked it is.
Yeah, 2E modifiers were way too big. Most weapons should have no modifiers. I hope it is something like: AP- to AP5 -> no modifier; AP4 -> -1 modifier; AP3 or AP2 -> -2 modifier; AP1 -3 modifier.
So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.
'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.
The models are running away, and are thus removed.
abstraction
[ab-strak-shuh n]
noun
1.
an abstract or general idea or term.
2.
the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
So if you can't cause a Sweeping Advance with a bolter round, why are we comparing Battleshock to Sweeping Advances?
Because it fills the roll of sweeping advances in addition to every other form of generalized morale check in the game. Your statement is disingenuous and wilfully ignorant, you know that this is to be the case for the mechanic.
Wait is that the choir of "Holy GW's defence" I hear? Yep. That it is.
I've been as cynical about the state of GW in the past as it gets. 40k as it is is not a fun game, and has not been a fun game for the greater part of a decade now. But it's not a matter of sides, its a matter of acknowledging inklings of competence and what could potentially be very good decisions for the game.
Well, the more they are willing to blow up the existing 40k rules to pieces and completely start over to make something much, much more simple, the more I'd personally be happy (its likely the only way I'd start playing again).
These rumors kind of sound like that's the direction they might be headed, except there are a few things that concern me:
Movement We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models.
No more unit types? Every unit should have bespoke rules? That doesn't necessarily sound like simplicity, nor does it sound like much fun. Also, why do they think this would mean you only need to learn the rules for your models? Do they not think players like to easily understand what their opponent's units might be able to do?
My other concern is: they've put out so, so many rules books at a huge premium price over the last few years. Are they really going to be able to ditch them all without completely pissing off those players who bought them all? WHFB when it went the way of the dodo didn't have nearly the $ amount associated with owning the full rules set like 40K does. And if they aren't willing to scrap all those codexes and supplements, then the only thing these new rules are going to to do is add even more bloat into the game.
I'm hopeful, given the fact that everything GW does recently seems to be on the right track, but still worried...
AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.
Never got that line of thinking, to me having to learn a card for every one of your units is far more cumbersome than having about 8 units types with specific rules (a bit more if you include flying and gargantuan creature, but these shoul only be used by veteran players imo).
As for the new rules preview, I'm not necessarily against them (or for them for that matter) except for battle shock which is a really poor representation of morale imo. Still, they definitively give the vibe that 8th edition will be AoSified, which probably means my day's of 40k are reaching its end :(
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle.
No, fleeing is represented in a tabletop game by having the models move away from the enemy.
Unless every model is equipped with a personal teleport solely for use when they get scared, having the models just disappear is a poor way to represent running from the battle.
Fleeing is represented in some tabletop games by having the models move away from the enemy. In others, it's represented by removing models that are unlikely to have a further effect on the battle. 40k has both variants, and AoS only the latter. Models who perform an orderly retreat from combat may do so in AoS and will not be removed. As for the "personal teleport" comment, I'm sure you are aware that tabletop games are abstractions and not simulations of reality, and that almost any mechanic in any game could be similarly ridiculed.
You realize voluntarily retreating from battle is NOT exactly good way to represent guys losing nerve and running away to regroup later? That's player deciding. In other words your troops would only get scared WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO THE PLAYER!
However in reality morale doesn't work only when it's convenient to commander. Troops flee and regroup based on, funny that, emotions which commander can't dictate. Troopers are(in even 9in 40k mostly) not robots.
You misunderstood my comment. Retreating does not represent running away. It represents retreating. Battleshock represents what you call "emotions which commander can't dictate". Having both things in the game is good.
Firstly, it is telling that you criticise a concept without having a grasp on how it works in AoS.
Well, yes. It should tell you that I don't play AoS, for starters.
I checked out the AoS rules when it was first released. That told me that it wasn't a game that I had any interest in playing, and I moved on.
So yes, I'm somewhat critical of seeing concepts from AoS appearing on 40k. If 8th edition turns out to be fantastic despite heavy cribbing from AoS, I'll be more than happy to accept that I was wrong.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I'm cautiously optimistic about the command points for thematic armies, but it's the kind of thing that could be executed poorly.
We've kind of got that already (and indeed executed poorly). What will be interesting is if GW attempts any kind of balance between them now that they've acknowledged match play is a thing
I hope GW either bins or re-jigs all the existing formations and detachments and gives away the new/modified ones for free with the launch of 8th
NpSkully wrote: Honestly battleshock and units always hitting first on the charge is trash. Battleshock applies to all wounds taken, not just im combat. You can lose 15 orks in a single shooting phase, and that unit is basically gone. Yeah Orks are gonna get helped by always hitting first, but how exactly do you plan to get there with Sigmar style leadership? Also how do guard plan to stick?
Furthermore, always strikes first on every unit?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Thunder hammers, necron lychguard, powerklaws, chainfists, STOMPAS, KHORNE D THIRSTERS, all hitting first?! How does this not break the game? If my necron warriors can rapid fire you, and then relentless charge you, it practically doubles my killing power for free. Also it makes some units like flayed ones go from crap to horribly OP. 5 attacks with shred on the charge at marine strength and ws. Like honestly, what the hell. There's a reason that initiative exists.
So just because they mentioned hitting first after a charge, you asume there won't be an exceptions to the rule. In the old fantasy, the're already was a always strike first when charging rule, but when you had always strike last you would strike on i. So I would wait until we know the full rules with the exceptions
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: In the current AOS system they mitigated this by having terminator role units just have multi wounds. All this jumping to conclusions with out the full picture is ridiculous. For all we know invulnerable saves will stack on top of armour saves,most high armour save models will get extra wounds or rules like lizardmen were they ignore anything below -2 rend. So lets not make sweeping judgments without looking at the possibilitys.
But again that's not solving the issue. As you said they added wounds. but guess what would be even better for terminators then? No armour and lesser price! The armour is so meaningless that they need more wounds to be survivable. But funny thing is they would be even MORE survivable running around but naked as you could have more of them without actually dying any less.
NpSkully wrote: Honestly battleshock and units always hitting first on the charge is trash. Battleshock applies to all wounds taken, not just im combat. You can lose 15 orks in a single shooting phase, and that unit is basically gone. Yeah Orks are gonna get helped by always hitting first, but how exactly do you plan to get there with Sigmar style leadership? Also how do guard plan to stick?
Guard and Orks would have to rely on some sort of way to mitigate battleshock damage. That said, the AoS equivalents tend to be built around using tools for just that. I would imagine Orks and Guard would function similarly, assuming GW doesn't completely screw the pooch.
Furthermore, always strokes first on ever unit?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Thunder hammers, necron lychguard, powerklaws, chainfists, STOMPAS, KHORNE D THIRSTERS, all hitting first?! How does this not break the game? If my necron warriors can rapid fire you, and then relentless charge you, it practically doubles my killing power for free. Also it makes some units like flayed ones go from crap to horribly OP. 5 attacks with shred on the charge at marine strength and ws. Like honestly, what the hell. There's a reason that initiative exists.
You're assuming melee attack profiles are going to be completely unchanged from their current form, when such a shift is likely going to require a complete overhaul of close combat rules.
Which is not something they'll be able to do. Unless they literally Age of Sigmar warscroll the whole thing, we will have to deal with YEARS of codex creep before these issues are resolved. So, either we have rushed army rules, or incompatible gameplay mechanics. You pick
NpSkully wrote: Honestly battleshock and units always hitting first on the charge is trash. Battleshock applies to all wounds taken, not just im combat. You can lose 15 orks in a single shooting phase, and that unit is basically gone. Yeah Orks are gonna get helped by always hitting first, but how exactly do you plan to get there with Sigmar style leadership? Also how do guard plan to stick?
Furthermore, always strikes first on every unit?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Thunder hammers, necron lychguard, powerklaws, chainfists, STOMPAS, KHORNE D THIRSTERS, all hitting first?! How does this not break the game? If my necron warriors can rapid fire you, and then relentless charge you, it practically doubles my killing power for free. Also it makes some units like flayed ones go from crap to horribly OP. 5 attacks with shred on the charge at marine strength and ws. Like honestly, what the hell. There's a reason that initiative exists.
So just because they mentioned hitting first after a charge, you asume there won't be an exceptions to the rule. In the old fantasy, the're already was a always strike first when charging rule, but when you had always strike last you would strike on i. So I would wait until we know the full rules with the exceptions
Always strikes first was a rule that did not apply to all units. As a fantasy player for 3 years, I would know.
It's not just -1. It's -1, -2, -3 everything so abundant. Which means that you are paying lots for armour you don't really use.
Did you ever play 2nd ed? I still play. I know exactly how useful power armour is in 2nd ed. It's to the level that only reason space marines take it because they HAVE TO. If space marines could ditch all armour and run naked for cheaper price THEY WOULD DO IT! And in a heartbeat. Extra guys are better than armour save which you often can't use or is like 5+ or 6+.
Nevermind something like 5+ save or 6+ save which is even worse than in 7th ed.
Only armour worth paying anything in 2nd ed is terminator armour. Power armour MAYBE if it's 1 pts but if you could run tactical marine naked for 25 pts rather than 30 pts guess what? Naked it is.
Yeah, 2E modifiers were way too big. Most weapons should have no modifiers. I hope it is something like: AP- to AP5 -> no modifier; AP4 -> -1 modifier; AP3 or AP2 -> -2 modifier; AP1 -3 modifier.
This is how AoS works. Rend is for very powerful (2-handed/magical etc) weapons only. Conversely, armour saves are usually worse than in 40k. A Chaos Warrior has a 4+ save, and only powerful generals have a 3+. I don't think any model in the game has a 2+.
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle.
No, fleeing is represented in a tabletop game by having the models move away from the enemy.
Unless every model is equipped with a personal teleport solely for use when they get scared, having the models just disappear is a poor way to represent running from the battle.
Fleeing is represented in some tabletop games by having the models move away from the enemy. In others, it's represented by removing models that are unlikely to have a further effect on the battle. 40k has both variants, and AoS only the latter. Models who perform an orderly retreat from combat may do so in AoS and will not be removed. As for the "personal teleport" comment, I'm sure you are aware that tabletop games are abstractions and not simulations of reality, and that almost any mechanic in any game could be similarly ridiculed.
You realize voluntarily retreating from battle is NOT exactly good way to represent guys losing nerve and running away to regroup later? That's player deciding. In other words your troops would only get scared WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO THE PLAYER!
However in reality morale doesn't work only when it's convenient to commander. Troops flee and regroup based on, funny that, emotions which commander can't dictate. Troopers are(in even 9in 40k mostly) not robots.
You misunderstood my comment. Retreating does not represent running away. It represents retreating. Battleshock represents what you call "emotions which commander can't dictate". Having both things in the game is good.
You also don't see American marines running away and deserting one by one the second they get shot at or lose casualties. Under this logic of gameplay, the Normandy beach landing would've been a disaster, with men fleeing machine gun fire left and right. This is a dumb argument to make.
Since forgeworld I belive has said they will adopt any new rules GW puts out how will these rules effect the horus heresy game ? I mean I just spent $140 canadien on inferno and it's going to suck knowing that book will be compleatly useless ...
Now GW is just forcing Formations down our Throat and passing it off as "Fluffy Lists"
Ruined 8th for me now
Movement values im not sure about, will probably stick with normal Movement values (Infantry move 6"...)
Charging units Strike first is big, especially for Necrons (I.E Triarch Praetorians)
Im Excited for the other changes, but not the "Rewarding Themed Armies" Bull GW is spewing
k bye
So glad you joined, will all your posts be of this quality? You might not agree, but that's no excuse to post like that. Pathetic.
To be fair, thats all a post that essentially says 'qq the very limited amount of info weve gotten so far has ruined 40k for me, i quit' deserves.
I never said i would quit
I said it has ruined 8th for me
I completely DESPISE Formations
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle.
No, fleeing is represented in a tabletop game by having the models move away from the enemy.
Unless every model is equipped with a personal teleport solely for use when they get scared, having the models just disappear is a poor way to represent running from the battle.
Fleeing is represented in some tabletop games by having the models move away from the enemy. In others, it's represented by removing models that are unlikely to have a further effect on the battle. 40k has both variants, and AoS only the latter. Models who perform an orderly retreat from combat may do so in AoS and will not be removed. As for the "personal teleport" comment, I'm sure you are aware that tabletop games are abstractions and not simulations of reality, and that almost any mechanic in any game could be similarly ridiculed.
You realize voluntarily retreating from battle is NOT exactly good way to represent guys losing nerve and running away to regroup later? That's player deciding. In other words your troops would only get scared WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO THE PLAYER!
However in reality morale doesn't work only when it's convenient to commander. Troops flee and regroup based on, funny that, emotions which commander can't dictate. Troopers are(in even 9in 40k mostly) not robots.
You misunderstood my comment. Retreating does not represent running away. It represents retreating. Battleshock represents what you call "emotions which commander can't dictate". Having both things in the game is good.
You also don't see American marines running away and deserting one by one the second they get shot at or lose casualties. Under this logic of gameplay, the Normandy beach landing would've been a disaster, with men fleeing machine gun fire left and right. This is a dumb argument to make.
Soldiers don't always run away one by one, but neither do they all magically run away at the exact same time, only to regroup to full fighting capacity minutes later. Both are extreme abstractions. Personally I prefer pinning to fleeing anyway, like in Bolt Action. Reduced fighting capacity while under heavy fire is both thematic and tactically rewarding. Might be hard to fit into 40k though, since this isn't WW2 but instead tank-armoured supermen fighting unfeeling purple horrors from another galaxy or green football hooligans. Although it worked in Epic.
AP is all or nothing. Save Mod is more granular and allows more things to take on armoured targets effectively. They both abstract the same concept in different ways. If Space Marines are hurt the most by a shift to Save Mods I won't be shedding any tears, to be honest. Most armies' Armour is already worth squat, whatever edition you play, and bodies > armour holds true through the ages too. Plus ca change.
You also don't see American marines running away and deserting one by one the second they get shot at or lose casualties. Under this logic of gameplay, the Normandy beach landing would've been a disaster, with men fleeing machine gun fire left and right. This is a dumb argument to make.
Speaking of dumb arguments...
Perhaps American marines have a ld10? or 12? or are immune to battleshock? There's lots of ways to represent and elite fighting force where people don't run off, it's a game after all as rules can be written based on individual units.
So I played 1 round/turn of shadowspire after the event last night. I worked all day, drove through Heavy traffic to get my buddy from O'Hare,, and had not eaten for 10 hours at the point, so I was tired and hungry. I was not terribly focused on the game. Just so you know where I was.
The minis were decent for push pin style minis (starter box minis). They said in the announcement there would be more factions and add-ons; they were not sure about more boards. There were apparently a lot more board options in the box.
You get 4 activations per turn. You drew 5 action/upgrade cards and 3 victory cards. The mechanics were I activate a dude, I can play a card to buff it or weaken yours, and you can retaliate with a card. I can then move, attack something next to me, or charge something (move and attack). If you charge, then that mini is done. If you move or hit, you can keep using that dude. Some have more attacks, some have more health, some do more damage, and some move further. There were other rules that we did 't bother with in the demo, too. There were also victory cards. For example, after the round, if you had a dude stand on an objective, you got a coin. You could use that to buy an upgrade card like +1 defense or heal 3 wounds or something.
There were stat cards for your dudes. Normal mode is how you start. If you "power up" and go "super Scion" or whatever the nerd behind me kept saying, you flipped the card. The other side had more attacks or sounds or some other benefits. I was unclear on that mechanic. Expansions could have more factions, cards, boards, and other stuff.
All in all, it looked like a brutal game. The guys next to us killed at least 2 of each other's dudes. Only 1 of my guys died in the round.
Mymearan wrote: You misunderstood my comment. Retreating does not represent running away. It represents retreating. Battleshock represents what you call "emotions which commander can't dictate". Having both things in the game is good.
But again battleshock does not represents troops getting temporarily scared which is required for morale system to make sense. Troopers don't either operate like robots EXACTLY as commander wants or vanish to thin air.
Just look at real world wars. Guys don't operate as robots or vanish to thin air. Guys get scared and retreat to safer position to regroup.
In AOS that's not what happens. Either troopers vanish to thin air never to be seen again or they operate EXACTLY AS COMMANDER WANTS.
It's not just -1. It's -1, -2, -3 everything so abundant. Which means that you are paying lots for armour you don't really use.
Did you ever play 2nd ed? I still play. I know exactly how useful power armour is in 2nd ed. It's to the level that only reason space marines take it because they HAVE TO. If space marines could ditch all armour and run naked for cheaper price THEY WOULD DO IT! And in a heartbeat. Extra guys are better than armour save which you often can't use or is like 5+ or 6+.
Nevermind something like 5+ save or 6+ save which is even worse than in 7th ed.
Only armour worth paying anything in 2nd ed is terminator armour. Power armour MAYBE if it's 1 pts but if you could run tactical marine naked for 25 pts rather than 30 pts guess what? Naked it is.
Yeah, 2E modifiers were way too big. Most weapons should have no modifiers. I hope it is something like: AP- to AP5 -> no modifier; AP4 -> -1 modifier; AP3 or AP2 -> -2 modifier; AP1 -3 modifier.
AP3 and AP2 being -2 sounds better than current system to me. At least marines would get some kind of save against all the AP2 spam put out by Tau etc this edition (before someone mentions - I know cover saves are a thing)
I wonder if they will do a full 2E and have ranged and cover modifers too?
I wish they would put a "point blank" rule or something in - the number of times I've missed a tank 2" infront of me with a melta is madenning!
Now GW is just forcing Formations down our Throat and passing it off as "Fluffy Lists"
Ruined 8th for me now
Movement values im not sure about, will probably stick with normal Movement values (Infantry move 6"...)
Charging units Strike first is big, especially for Necrons (I.E Triarch Praetorians)
Im Excited for the other changes, but not the "Rewarding Themed Armies" Bull GW is spewing
k bye
So glad you joined, will all your posts be of this quality? You might not agree, but that's no excuse to post like that. Pathetic.
To be fair, thats all a post that essentially says 'qq the very limited amount of info weve gotten so far has ruined 40k for me, i quit' deserves.
I never said i would quit
I said it has ruined 8th for me
I completely DESPISE Formations
AoS batallions are more balanced than 40k's formations: you do need to fit the units of the formations in the force org (though the force org is more flexible than 40k's) and you need to pay points for them.
You also don't see American marines running away and deserting one by one the second they get shot at or lose casualties. Under this logic of gameplay, the Normandy beach landing would've been a disaster, with men fleeing machine gun fire left and right. This is a dumb argument to make.
Speaking of dumb arguments...
Perhaps American marines have a ld10? or 12? or are immune to battleshock? There's lots of ways to represent and elite fighting force where people don't run off, it's a game after all as rules can be written based on individual units.
The official announcement also said it would also affect all armies. We know that there will be leadership, and we know that it will affect everyone, according to the rules. You are hoping for immunities, but the reality is that in Sigmar, there fairly few immunities to battleshock tests, and not many helpful modifiers. Also Bravery 12 isn't even a thing in Sigmar, so I think that's a pretty optimistic standpoint at best.
Mymearan wrote: You misunderstood my comment. Retreating does not represent running away. It represents retreating. Battleshock represents what you call "emotions which commander can't dictate". Having both things in the game is good.
But again battleshock does not represents troops getting temporarily scared which is required for morale system to make sense. Troopers don't either operate like robots EXACTLY as commander wants or vanish to thin air.
Just look at real world wars. Guys don't operate as robots or vanish to thin air. Guys get scared and retreat to safer position to regroup.
In AOS that's not what happens. Either troopers vanish to thin air never to be seen again or they operate EXACTLY AS COMMANDER WANTS.
You also don't see American marines running away and deserting one by one the second they get shot at or lose casualties. Under this logic of gameplay, the Normandy beach landing would've been a disaster, with men fleeing machine gun fire left and right. This is a dumb argument to make.
Speaking of dumb arguments...
Perhaps American marines have a ld10? or 12? or are immune to battleshock? There's lots of ways to represent and elite fighting force where people don't run off, it's a game after all as rules can be written based on individual units.
The official announcement also said it would also affect all armies. We know that there will be leadership, and we know that it will affect everyone, according to the rules. You are hoping for immunities, but the reality is that in Sigmar, there fairly few immunities to battleshock tests, and not many helpful modifiers. Also Bravery 12 isn't even a thing in Sigmar, so I think that's a pretty optimistic standpoint at best.
Bravery 12 IS a thing in Age of Sigmar (in fact, you could reach bravery 14-15 in some cases). It's a thing that belongs to massed units, such as blobs of skelletons or skavens. Something like normandy, big scale fighting units.
As a fan of AOS after 20 years of WHFB and having become thoroughly disgusted with current 40k, I am extremely happy with these changes and look forward to playing the game once again upon their release.
As to the whole battleshock rage, I've played several games that were like the AOS battleshock. In fact, AOS battleshock is not a new thing... it was lifted from other games that implement it.
It is a fast way to resolve morale failures. It represents warriors losing heart and quitting the battlefield. They play no more role in the battle and are thus removed.
Yeah they *could* tell you to just stick the model on the table until it flees off but that takes more time. For me I don't mind the quicker abstract way of just remove those models from play.
Yeah they *could* make it more granular and make you deal with regrouping etc but for the scale they want this is optimal IMO.
I fully expect marines to largely ignore battleshock much like sigmarines do in AOS and considering most people I know play marines, Battleshock will largely be a non-thing anyway because of it.
"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle.
No, fleeing is represented in a tabletop game by having the models move away from the enemy.
Unless every model is equipped with a personal teleport solely for use when they get scared, having the models just disappear is a poor way to represent running from the battle.
Fleeing is represented in some tabletop games by having the models move away from the enemy. In others, it's represented by removing models that are unlikely to have a further effect on the battle. 40k has both variants, and AoS only the latter. Models who perform an orderly retreat from combat may do so in AoS and will not be removed. As for the "personal teleport" comment, I'm sure you are aware that tabletop games are abstractions and not simulations of reality, and that almost any mechanic in any game could be similarly ridiculed.
You realize voluntarily retreating from battle is NOT exactly good way to represent guys losing nerve and running away to regroup later? That's player deciding. In other words your troops would only get scared WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO THE PLAYER!
However in reality morale doesn't work only when it's convenient to commander. Troops flee and regroup based on, funny that, emotions which commander can't dictate. Troopers are(in even 9in 40k mostly) not robots.
You misunderstood my comment. Retreating does not represent running away. It represents retreating. Battleshock represents what you call "emotions which commander can't dictate". Having both things in the game is good.
You also don't see American marines running away and deserting one by one the second they get shot at or lose casualties. Under this logic of gameplay, the Normandy beach landing would've been a disaster, with men fleeing machine gun fire left and right. This is a dumb argument to make.
I'm not an historian of war or anything, but I've alway's heard that fleeing was basically a crowd psychology phenomenon (not sure if it's the good term but you get my drift). As soon as one does, pretty much all the others would follow. That's why (in parts) I much prefer the current 40k system to the (oversimplified) battleshock.
NpSkully wrote: Honestly battleshock and units always hitting first on the charge is trash. Battleshock applies to all wounds taken, not just im combat. You can lose 15 orks in a single shooting phase, and that unit is basically gone. Yeah Orks are gonna get helped by always hitting first, but how exactly do you plan to get there with Sigmar style leadership? Also how do guard plan to stick?
Furthermore, always strikes first on every unit?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Thunder hammers, necron lychguard, powerklaws, chainfists, STOMPAS, KHORNE D THIRSTERS, all hitting first?! How does this not break the game? If my necron warriors can rapid fire you, and then relentless charge you, it practically doubles my killing power for free. Also it makes some units like flayed ones go from crap to horribly OP. 5 attacks with shred on the charge at marine strength and ws. Like honestly, what the hell. There's a reason that initiative exists.
So just because they mentioned hitting first after a charge, you asume there won't be an exceptions to the rule. In the old fantasy, the're already was a always strike first when charging rule, but when you had always strike last you would strike on i. So I would wait until we know the full rules with the exceptions
Always strikes first was a rule that did not apply to all units. As a fantasy player for 3 years, I would know.
I was talking about an earlier edition, I believe 7th still had it
So if you can't cause a Sweeping Advance with a bolter round, why are we comparing Battleshock to Sweeping Advances?
Because it fills the roll of sweeping advances in addition to every other form of generalized morale check in the game. Your statement is disingenuous and wilfully ignorant, you know that this is to be the case for the mechanic.
Wait is that the choir of "Holy GW's defence" I hear? Yep. That it is.
I've been as cynical about the state of GW in the past as it gets. 40k as it is is not a fun game, and has not been a fun game for the greater part of a decade now. But it's not a matter of sides, its a matter of acknowledging inklings of competence and what could potentially be very good decisions for the game.
Are you kidding me? In what circle of Hell can you say that a system that is designed to encompass the Entire Morale section of a game compares to a possible outcome that can only happen during the Close Combat Phase? Who is being willfully ignorant here??
Since Initiative will pretty much become useless with the new ''alway's strike first on the charge'' rule, I'd like it if you could overwatch at your full BS if you pass a Ini. test
kronk wrote: So I played 1 round/turn of shadowspire after the event last night. I worked all day, drove through Heavy traffic to get my buddy from O'Hare,, and had not eaten for 10 hours at the point, so I was tired and hungry. I was not terribly focused on the game. Just so you know where I was.
The minis were decent for push pin style minis (starter box minis). They said in the announcement there would be more factions and add-ons; they were not sure about more boards. There were apparently a lot more board options in the box.
You get 4 activations per turn. You drew 5 action/upgrade cards and 3 victory cards. The mechanics were I activate a dude, I can play a card to buff it or weaken yours, and you can retaliate with a card. I can then move, attack something next to me, or charge something (move and attack). If you charge, then that mini is done. If you move or hit, you can keep using that dude. Some have more attacks, some have more health, some do more damage, and some move further. There were other rules that we did 't bother with in the demo, too. There were also victory cards. For example, after the round, if you had a dude stand on an objective, you got a coin. You could use that to buy an upgrade card like +1 defense or heal 3 wounds or something.
There were stat cards for your dudes. Normal mode is how you start. If you "power up" and go "super Scion" or whatever the nerd behind me kept saying, you flipped the card. The other side had more attacks or sounds or some other benefits. I was unclear on that mechanic. Expansions could have more factions, cards, boards, and other stuff.
All in all, it looked like a brutal game. The guys next to us killed at least 2 of each other's dudes. Only 1 of my guys died in the round.
WHAT IF IT IS A COMBINATION OF 7TH ED FLEEING AND AOS BATTLESHOCK
You take the test, You fail, that many guys Flee the Combat by 2d6" Movement, and take tests to see if they regroup (Obviously if its 2 Models then you're gonna need a Snake Eyes to Regroup) and continue to move 2d6" every turn until they regroup, are killed or go off the table
kronk wrote: So I played 1 round/turn of shadowspire after the event last night. I worked all day, drove through Heavy traffic to get my buddy from O'Hare,, and had not eaten for 10 hours at the point, so I was tired and hungry. I was not terribly focused on the game. Just so you know where I was.
The minis were decent for push pin style minis (starter box minis). They said in the announcement there would be more factions and add-ons; they were not sure about more boards. There were apparently a lot more board options in the box.
You get 4 activations per turn. You drew 5 action/upgrade cards and 3 victory cards. The mechanics were I activate a dude, I can play a card to buff it or weaken yours, and you can retaliate with a card. I can then move, attack something next to me, or charge something (move and attack). If you charge, then that mini is done. If you move or hit, you can keep using that dude. Some have more attacks, some have more health, some do more damage, and some move further. There were other rules that we did 't bother with in the demo, too. There were also victory cards. For example, after the round, if you had a dude stand on an objective, you got a coin. You could use that to buy an upgrade card like +1 defense or heal 3 wounds or something.
There were stat cards for your dudes. Normal mode is how you start. If you "power up" and go "super Scion" or whatever the nerd behind me kept saying, you flipped the card. The other side had more attacks or sounds or some other benefits. I was unclear on that mechanic. Expansions could have more factions, cards, boards, and other stuff.
All in all, it looked like a brutal game. The guys next to us killed at least 2 of each other's dudes. Only 1 of my guys died in the round.
WHAT IF IT IS A COMBINATION OF 7TH ED FLEEING AND AOS BATTLESHOCK
You take the test, You fail, that many guys Flee the Combat by 2d6" Movement, and take tests to see if they regroup (Obviously if its 2 Models then you're gonna need a Snake Eyes to Regroup) and continue to move 2d6" every turn until they regroup, are killed or go off the table
That would actually be a rather acceptable compromise.
kronk wrote: So I played 1 round/turn of shadowspire after the event last night. I worked all day, drove through Heavy traffic to get my buddy from O'Hare,, and had not eaten for 10 hours at the point, so I was tired and hungry. I was not terribly focused on the game. Just so you know where I was.
The minis were decent for push pin style minis (starter box minis). They said in the announcement there would be more factions and add-ons; they were not sure about more boards. There were apparently a lot more board options in the box.
You get 4 activations per turn. You drew 5 action/upgrade cards and 3 victory cards. The mechanics were I activate a dude, I can play a card to buff it or weaken yours, and you can retaliate with a card. I can then move, attack something next to me, or charge something (move and attack). If you charge, then that mini is done. If you move or hit, you can keep using that dude. Some have more attacks, some have more health, some do more damage, and some move further. There were other rules that we did 't bother with in the demo, too. There were also victory cards. For example, after the round, if you had a dude stand on an objective, you got a coin. You could use that to buy an upgrade card like +1 defense or heal 3 wounds or something.
There were stat cards for your dudes. Normal mode is how you start. If you "power up" and go "super Scion" or whatever the nerd behind me kept saying, you flipped the card. The other side had more attacks or sounds or some other benefits. I was unclear on that mechanic. Expansions could have more factions, cards, boards, and other stuff.
All in all, it looked like a brutal game. The guys next to us killed at least 2 of each other's dudes. Only 1 of my guys died in the round.
Also, guess who my instructor was!
Kronk, don't take this the wrong way, as I generally enjoy your posts and we always seem to be on the same wavelength, but if you have actual NEWS and RUMOURS, take it to the appropriate thread in 40K rules discussion forum.
This thread is for debating how changes to morale mechanics have already ruined 8th edition 40K. And Normandy and stuff.
I'm pretty upset that you tried to derail this thread, tbh. Shame, sir. Shame.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Since Initiative will pretty much become useless with the new ''alway's strike first on the charge'' rule, I'd like it if you could overwatch at your full BS if you pass a Ini. test
Oh, I think you're in for some bad news. 40K ain't gonna have an Initiative stat. It's going to be Move, Wounds, Save and Bravery.
And then a big table explaining how your Lasgun can now wound a Wraithknight on a 5+.
Is there a chance that we'll get more images or infos about the Death Guard from this or are they done?
They still have to really show the Dwarfs I guess, but one can hope.
On 8th, eh, I was hoping that all the mechanics they used (tested?) in their board games were considered for the new edition, if they simply go "AoS in Spaaaaaace" that'd be a missed opportunity.
WHAT IF IT IS A COMBINATION OF 7TH ED FLEEING AND AOS BATTLESHOCK
You take the test, You fail, that many guys Flee the Combat by 2d6" Movement, and take tests to see if they regroup (Obviously if its 2 Models then you're gonna need a Snake Eyes to Regroup) and continue to move 2d6" every turn until they regroup, are killed or go off the table
I'd bet my life it's not the case. It would add far too much micromanagement and would result in a obscene number of very small units.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Since Initiative will pretty much become useless with the new ''alway's strike first on the charge'' rule, I'd like it if you could overwatch at your full BS if you pass a Ini. test
Oh, I think you're in for some bad news. 40K ain't gonna have an Initiative stat. It's going to be Move, Wounds, Save and Bravery.
And then a big table explaining how your Lasgun can now wound a Wraithknight on a 5+.
kronk wrote: So I played 1 round/turn of shadowspire after the event last night. I worked all day, drove through Heavy traffic to get my buddy from O'Hare,, and had not eaten for 10 hours at the point, so I was tired and hungry. I was not terribly focused on the game. Just so you know where I was.
The minis were decent for push pin style minis (starter box minis). They said in the announcement there would be more factions and add-ons; they were not sure about more boards. There were apparently a lot more board options in the box.
You get 4 activations per turn. You drew 5 action/upgrade cards and 3 victory cards. The mechanics were I activate a dude, I can play a card to buff it or weaken yours, and you can retaliate with a card. I can then move, attack something next to me, or charge something (move and attack). If you charge, then that mini is done. If you move or hit, you can keep using that dude. Some have more attacks, some have more health, some do more damage, and some move further. There were other rules that we did 't bother with in the demo, too. There were also victory cards. For example, after the round, if you had a dude stand on an objective, you got a coin. You could use that to buy an upgrade card like +1 defense or heal 3 wounds or something.
There were stat cards for your dudes. Normal mode is how you start. If you "power up" and go "super Scion" or whatever the nerd behind me kept saying, you flipped the card. The other side had more attacks or sounds or some other benefits. I was unclear on that mechanic. Expansions could have more factions, cards, boards, and other stuff.
All in all, it looked like a brutal game. The guys next to us killed at least 2 of each other's dudes. Only 1 of my guys died in the round.
Also, guess who my instructor was!
Kronk, don't take this the wrong way, as I generally enjoy your posts and we always seem to be on the same wavelength, but if you have actual NEWS and RUMOURS, take it to the appropriate thread in 40K rules discussion forum.
This thread is for debating how changes to morale mechanics have already ruined 8th edition 40K. And Normandy and stuff.
I'm pretty upset that you tried to derail this thread, tbh. Shame, sir. Shame.
It's not irrational to have a reaction to a complete re-design of a game youve put considerable time, money, and effort in to. If you honestly expect rules reveals to not be followed by discussion about their application, historical/real life comparisons and analysis, you need to think again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Also the concept that anything can kill anything is positive for me.
It lets more into the game than you normally see and gives purpose to things you would never take for fear of being hard countered.
No one wants to take a unit that can't hurt something, so that unit stays on the shelf.
A man with a combat knife is not going to be able to hurt a necron monolith. Neither is a dude with a las pistol, no matter how hard he tries.
WHAT IF IT IS A COMBINATION OF 7TH ED FLEEING AND AOS BATTLESHOCK
You take the test, You fail, that many guys Flee the Combat by 2d6" Movement, and take tests to see if they regroup (Obviously if its 2 Models then you're gonna need a Snake Eyes to Regroup) and continue to move 2d6" every turn until they regroup, are killed or go off the table
Bad. Extra book keeping and you can end up with odd models running here and there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Also the concept that anything can kill anything is positive for me.
It lets more into the game than you normally see and gives purpose to things you would never take for fear of being hard countered.
No one wants to take a unit that can't hurt something, so that unit stays on the shelf.
Funny. You see rifle armed guys in pretty much any wargame despite rifles generally unable to hurt tanks...
Guess it's too much to ask for people to you know...vary their armies and not just spam one thing because it can hurt everything. Nooooo! Taking tank busting weapons to deal with tanks rather than knife is too advanced concept I guess.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Since Initiative will pretty much become useless with the new ''alway's strike first on the charge'' rule, I'd like it if you could overwatch at your full BS if you pass a Ini. test
Oh, I think you're in for some bad news. 40K ain't gonna have an Initiative stat. It's going to be Move, Wounds, Save and Bravery.
And then a big table explaining how your Lasgun can now wound a Wraithknight on a 5+.
In this scenario the Wraithknight would also have, say, 20 wounds and a 3+ save, while the lasguns would have no rend, and assuming the guardsmen hit on a 5+ it would take 540 shots to kill it on average. A player who focused their guardsmen on killing a Wraithknight this inefficiently would probably not last long in a game. And this is assuming the rules would be unchanged from AoS, which they most likely wouldn't since shooting is much more prevalent in 40k (it works better in melee where much fewer guardsmen would be able to physically reach the Wraithknight). It continues to baffle me how so many people fail to see that set To Hit and To Wound, combined with a very high number of wounds and the Rend mechanic, means that the interactions between very strong and very weak units is much the same as in 40k. The "now my goblins can kill your dragon!" argument fails to take any of this into account.
Mymearan wrote: In this scenario the Wraithknight would also have, say, 20 wounds and a 3+ save, while the lasguns would have no rend, so it would take 180 shots to kill it on average. A player who focused their guardsmen on killing a Wraithknight this inefficiently would probably not last long in a game. And this is assuming the rules would be unchanged from AoS, which they most likely wouldn't since shooting is much more prevalent in 40k (it works better in melee where much fewer guardsmen would be able to physically reach the Wraithknight). It continues to baffle me how so many people fail to see that set To Hit and To Wound, combined with a very high number of wounds and the Rend mechanic, means that the interactions between very strong and very weak units is much the same as in 40k. The "now my goblins can kill your dragon!" argument fails to take any of this into account.
You know it's silly and stupid even if you don't kill unwounded target in one go in average?
You DO know you don't need to kill target in one go to kill it right? There's no "if you didnt' kill this in one go it comes back to full wounds" rule in AOS you know...Warmaster yes but not AOS and unlikely 40k 8th ed would have that either so your point is moot.
Stupid and illogical rule is stupid and illogical. Lasgun shouldn't be able to hurt land raider period. Land raiders, monoliths and titans shouldn't have to worry about anything but dedicated anti-tank weapons even to hurt or finish them off. Lasgun should bounce up period. Heavy bolter sound just bling on the armour. If not then the rules are broken.
Binabik15 wrote: Is there a chance that we'll get more images or infos about the Death Guard from this or are they done?
God I hope so. I watched the video a couple more times (they addressed the 7th Legion thing, and the one on YT is different now I believe), and the miniatures look fantastic.
I'm also 100% convinced that that's Mortarion at the end.
kronk wrote: So I played 1 round/turn of shadowspire after the event last night. I worked all day, drove through Heavy traffic to get my buddy from O'Hare,, and had not eaten for 10 hours at the point, so I was tired and hungry. I was not terribly focused on the game. Just so you know where I was.
The minis were decent for push pin style minis (starter box minis). They said in the announcement there would be more factions and add-ons; they were not sure about more boards. There were apparently a lot more board options in the box.
You get 4 activations per turn. You drew 5 action/upgrade cards and 3 victory cards. The mechanics were I activate a dude, I can play a card to buff it or weaken yours, and you can retaliate with a card. I can then move, attack something next to me, or charge something (move and attack). If you charge, then that mini is done. If you move or hit, you can keep using that dude. Some have more attacks, some have more health, some do more damage, and some move further. There were other rules that we did 't bother with in the demo, too. There were also victory cards. For example, after the round, if you had a dude stand on an objective, you got a coin. You could use that to buy an upgrade card like +1 defense or heal 3 wounds or something.
There were stat cards for your dudes. Normal mode is how you start. If you "power up" and go "super Scion" or whatever the nerd behind me kept saying, you flipped the card. The other side had more attacks or sounds or some other benefits. I was unclear on that mechanic. Expansions could have more factions, cards, boards, and other stuff.
All in all, it looked like a brutal game. The guys next to us killed at least 2 of each other's dudes. Only 1 of my guys died in the round.
Also, guess who my instructor was!
Kronk, don't take this the wrong way, as I generally enjoy your posts and we always seem to be on the same wavelength, but if you have actual NEWS and RUMOURS, take it to the appropriate thread in 40K rules discussion forum.
This thread is for debating how changes to morale mechanics have already ruined 8th edition 40K. And Normandy and stuff.
I'm pretty upset that you tried to derail this thread, tbh. Shame, sir. Shame.
It's not irrational to have a reaction to a complete re-design of a game youve put considerable time, money, and effort in to. If you honestly expect rules reveals to not be followed by discussion and historical/real life comparisons and analysis, you need to think again.
Sure, but there ample and designated spaces elsewhere for such a discussion. If I'm only interested in news and rumours, and I come to a news and rumors thread that seems like 3/4ths of it is "debating" a throwaway sentence about 1 change to the rules, its a pain in the ass to find bespoke news and rumors.
Not blaming you or trying to single you out, homeboy. I, and I'm sure a few others of us just want discussions to happen where they belong, is all. Probably a losing endeavour on my part, as there is a mod actively posting about how his 40K is ruined by AoS rules.
Edit: For instance, there is a "40K is getting AoS'd" thread in the 40K forum thats 3 pages at present, whereas this News and Rumours thread has been at least 10 pages of the same thing. Which one is the more appropriate place to have that discussion?
auticus wrote: Also the concept that anything can kill anything is positive for me.
It lets more into the game than you normally see and gives purpose to things you would never take for fear of being hard countered.
No one wants to take a unit that can't hurt something, so that unit stays on the shelf.
Funny. You see rifle armed guys in pretty much any wargame despite rifles generally unable to hurt tanks...
Guess it's too much to ask for people to you know...vary their armies and not just spam one thing because it can hurt everything. Nooooo! Taking tank busting weapons to deal with tanks rather than knife is too advanced concept I guess.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Since Initiative will pretty much become useless with the new ''alway's strike first on the charge'' rule, I'd like it if you could overwatch at your full BS if you pass a Ini. test
Oh, I think you're in for some bad news. 40K ain't gonna have an Initiative stat. It's going to be Move, Wounds, Save and Bravery.
And then a big table explaining how your Lasgun can now wound a Wraithknight on a 5+.
In this scenario the Wraithknight would also have, say, 20 wounds and a 3+ save, while the lasguns would have no rend, so it would take 180 shots to kill it on average. A player who focused their guardsmen on killing a Wraithknight this inefficiently would probably not last long in a game. And this is assuming the rules would be unchanged from AoS, which they most likely wouldn't since shooting is much more prevalent in 40k (it works better in melee where much fewer guardsmen would be able to physically reach the Wraithknight). It continues to baffle me how so many people fail to see that set To Hit and To Wound, combined with a very high number of wounds and the Rend mechanic, means that the interactions between very strong and very weak units is much the same as in 40k. The "now my goblins can kill your dragon!" argument fails to take any of this into account.
No, no, no. Don't you see? Only these specific things will change, everything else will stay -exactly- the same. So, Wraithknights and other MCs/GMCs are basically useless. Better burn them as soon as possible. Also, there's only one possible way to introduce an armor save modifier, and that's guaranteed to make tactical marines garbage. Because if modifiers are introduced, there's no way there's going to be changes to armor too. So, elite units are now trash. Same goes for hordes, btw. They'll just melt to the new morale rules. In fact, every single unit in the game is now trash. Everyone will lose all of their games. Forever.
The game is ruined. And so is my life.
If you'll excuse me, I have to go burn all of my possessions and post a video of it on youtube so those bastards in Nottingham will see how their cruel actions affect lives!
Which is how you get things like the guys taking all flyers or all tanks in the past because they were basically nullifying the entire other player save for their certain weapons.
I agree with the concept of anti-tank options. However in the cherry-picking world of wargames where people can just take an extreme version of an army to bring the rock to someone's scissors I will always support the system that breaks that up a little bit.
And whose to say that tanks won't have a rule that makes them immune to non anti-tank weapons or weapons that have that keyword anyway?
It would take 540 guardsmen shots to kill the Wraithknight in the scenario I posited.
Ah, the simple guardsman, such a Swiss army knife, just bring 500+ of them and you can kill anything! Yes, it would truly break the game. Why would anyone ever take anti-tank weapons again?
Just like no one ever takes anything but 200+ goblins in AoS. So tired of seeing these all-Goblin armies with no variety, no one ever uses elite, high rend units to kill monsters.
I prefer a granular system over save or die. The current leadership all or nothing hits some units really hard. Others have so many ways of reducing/controlling the effects of morale so it's a useless time wasting mechanic currently.
I like the preview, they're dong what I was expecting/ realistically hoping use AoSGHB as a template for 40K.
Unit types dissapearing= good. I mean why have page refferring to a page to another 2-3. page where you find the actual rule. that is for standard jum infantry. Get rid of the USR section in the book. Just pprint all special rules on the actual warscroll and let people learn from there. This also means less accidental interaction and a much clearer view.
Modifiers=great right now it's way too "do or die". I also hope they make cover (and maybe even invul) a positive modifier so we only have one save (sound familliar?).
Thud wrote: No, no, no. Don't you see? Only these specific things will change, everything else will stay -exactly- the same. So, Wraithknights and other MCs/GMCs are basically useless.
You must have strong arms after spending all that time moving big bags of straw everywhere.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Since Initiative will pretty much become useless with the new ''alway's strike first on the charge'' rule, I'd like it if you could overwatch at your full BS if you pass a Ini. test
Oh, I think you're in for some bad news. 40K ain't gonna have an Initiative stat. It's going to be Move, Wounds, Save and Bravery.
And then a big table explaining how your Lasgun can now wound a Wraithknight on a 5+.
In this scenario the Wraithknight would also have, say, 20 wounds and a 3+ save, while the lasguns would have no rend, so it would take 180 shots to kill it on average. A player who focused their guardsmen on killing a Wraithknight this inefficiently would probably not last long in a game. And this is assuming the rules would be unchanged from AoS, which they most likely wouldn't since shooting is much more prevalent in 40k (it works better in melee where much fewer guardsmen would be able to physically reach the Wraithknight). It continues to baffle me how so many people fail to see that set To Hit and To Wound, combined with a very high number of wounds and the Rend mechanic, means that the interactions between very strong and very weak units is much the same as in 40k. The "now my goblins can kill your dragon!" argument fails to take any of this into account.
No, no, no. Don't you see? Only these specific things will change, everything else will stay -exactly- the same. So, Wraithknights and other MCs/GMCs are basically useless. Better burn them as soon as possible. Also, there's only one possible way to introduce an armor save modifier, and that's guaranteed to make tactical marines garbage. Because if modifiers are introduced, there's no way there's going to be changes to armor too. So, elite units are now trash. Same goes for hordes, btw. They'll just melt to the new morale rules. In fact, every single unit in the game is now trash. Everyone will lose all of their games. Forever.
The game is ruined. And so is my life.
If you'll excuse me, I have to go burn all of my possessions and post a video of it on youtube so those bastards in Nottingham will see how their cruel actions affect lives!
kronk wrote: So I played 1 round/turn of shadowspire after the event last night. I worked all day, drove through Heavy traffic to get my buddy from O'Hare,, and had not eaten for 10 hours at the point, so I was tired and hungry. I was not terribly focused on the game. Just so you know where I was.
The minis were decent for push pin style minis (starter box minis). They said in the announcement there would be more factions and add-ons; they were not sure about more boards. There were apparently a lot more board options in the box.
You get 4 activations per turn. You drew 5 action/upgrade cards and 3 victory cards. The mechanics were I activate a dude, I can play a card to buff it or weaken yours, and you can retaliate with a card. I can then move, attack something next to me, or charge something (move and attack). If you charge, then that mini is done. If you move or hit, you can keep using that dude. Some have more attacks, some have more health, some do more damage, and some move further. There were other rules that we did 't bother with in the demo, too. There were also victory cards. For example, after the round, if you had a dude stand on an objective, you got a coin. You could use that to buy an upgrade card like +1 defense or heal 3 wounds or something.
There were stat cards for your dudes. Normal mode is how you start. If you "power up" and go "super Scion" or whatever the nerd behind me kept saying, you flipped the card. The other side had more attacks or sounds or some other benefits. I was unclear on that mechanic. Expansions could have more factions, cards, boards, and other stuff.
All in all, it looked like a brutal game. The guys next to us killed at least 2 of each other's dudes. Only 1 of my guys died in the round.
Also, guess who my instructor was!
Kronk, don't take this the wrong way, as I generally enjoy your posts and we always seem to be on the same wavelength, but if you have actual NEWS and RUMOURS, take it to the appropriate thread in 40K rules discussion forum.
This thread is for debating how changes to morale mechanics have already ruined 8th edition 40K. And Normandy and stuff.
I'm pretty upset that you tried to derail this thread, tbh. Shame, sir. Shame.
It's not irrational to have a reaction to a complete re-design of a game youve put considerable time, money, and effort in to. If you honestly expect rules reveals to not be followed by discussion and historical/real life comparisons and analysis, you need to think again.
Sure, but there ample and designated spaces elsewhere for such a discussion. If I'm only interested in news and rumours, and I come to a news and rumors thread that seems like 3/4ths of it is "debating" a throwaway sentence about 1 change to the rules, its a pain in the ass to find bespoke news and rumors.
Not blaming you or trying to single you out, homeboy. I, and I'm sure a few others of us just want discussions to happen where they belong, is all. Probably a losing endeavour on my part, as there is a mod actively posting about how his 40K is ruined by AoS rules.
Thud wrote: No, no, no. Don't you see? Only these specific things will change, everything else will stay -exactly- the same. So, Wraithknights and other MCs/GMCs are basically useless.
You must have strong arms after spending all that time moving big bags of straw everywhere.
I reckon it's Mortatrion's scythe too.....but I'm not entirely convinced it's the one from the teeny blurred photos.
The spike on the back of it seems different, and possibly not present on the blurred pic. But being blurred, hard to say for sure - and it doesn't mean the blurred pic isn't a Work in Progress snap.
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
Out later this year...hopefully not too far off, they said the same thing about WHQ Shadows Over Hammerhal and it didn't take too long for that to come out. Exciting thing is they hint at small sets of unique push fit models for the game for other factions as well. "including some for factions that have not received any new miniatures since we first ventured into the Age of Sigmar". This is exciting, how about some Seraphon/Skaven/Undead? And it doesn't seem like this game will take too long to play. I loved Blood Bowl, but sometimes I would play a single half instead of a full game because it can take a while so maybe this game will hit the spot.
Pretty sure I'm getting a preview end of the weekend but maybe not. I'll share whatever I'm allowed to on any of these wide ranges of products when I return Sunday night. Off to Adepticon now. No way to keep up with forums. Literally phone buzzed nonstop since 10pm last night CST I turn that ringer off for sleep.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Warhammer TV trolling us back with 40K design video...love it. Great way to handle the bullshittery that is Yeh Inturwebzzz
finally: can't wait to get some Kharadron Overlords and other new models in my hand (doubtful to keep) this weekend. Keep watching, those of you not able to come, twitter and Warhammer-community or Warhammer TV, or other properries Facebook pages I suggest as best direct source. DON'T necessarily take the run-away uncited nonsense (you'll know the difference) to heart. Check for yourselves. Enjoy the weekend evereyone!
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
I guess I have the intellect of a pebble then because I find no lack of depth.
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
It's comments like this that make me hope that 30k takes the rules as well. I get a game I like with rules I like, and you get what you so deserve.
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
It's comments like this that make me hope that 30k takes the rules as well. I get a game I like with rules I like, and you get what you so deserve.
I can't imagine a situation where they allow FW to keep the old rules. It would be a massive commercial conflict and would likely be seen as a threat to sales of 8th edition.
If 40k is changing, 30k probably will be too. They mentioned three ways to play, so I expect a bit of leeway for detail there.
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
I guess I have the intellect of a pebble then because I find no lack of depth.
No offense, but literally every game of Sigmar I've seen has devolved to a big blobbed melee in the middle of the board.
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
I guess I have the intellect of a pebble then because I find no lack of depth.
No offense, but literally every game of Sigmar I've seen has devolved to a big blobbed melee in the middle of the board.
Strange, since objectives rarely are located only in the center.
The New GW is brilliant and dynamic... they understand 40k really, really sucks and needs a total revamp.
They're also business-savvy...
1. 40k is about to get a giant influx of it's old-guard players who left after 4th/5th edition. All the old grognards like myself who started with RT and 2nd are about to invest our late-30's/early-40's income into GW again! I've spent more money on Age of Sigmar in the last 18 months that I had on GW product since 2005, and GW will get a few thousand dollars from me when Age of the Emperor/40k 8th drops.
2. none of the current 40k players will do much other than complain to the internet, but will dutifully buy the next edition just like they did when 7th came out a few minutes after 6th did.
I'm so, so happy to see GW return to the GW I fell in love with in the mid 90's.
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
I guess I have the intellect of a pebble then because I find no lack of depth.
No offense, but literally every game of Sigmar I've seen has devolved to a big blobbed melee in the middle of the board.
This only happens if you play without objectives. The general handbook scenarios are excellent at forcing you to make tough decisions about splitting your force and in different ways too. The exception is take and hold which (like the 40k equivalent mission) is uninteresting.
Plus, the ranged nature of 40k means this is inherently less of an issue.
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
I guess I have the intellect of a pebble then because I find no lack of depth.
No offense, but literally every game of Sigmar I've seen has devolved to a big blobbed melee in the middle of the board.
I have never seen this. For a start, objectives don't force this, in fact, quite the opposite.
kronk wrote: So I played 1 round/turn of shadowspire after the event last night. I worked all day, drove through Heavy traffic to get my buddy from O'Hare,, and had not eaten for 10 hours at the point, so I was tired and hungry. I was not terribly focused on the game. Just so you know where I was.
The minis were decent for push pin style minis (starter box minis). They said in the announcement there would be more factions and add-ons; they were not sure about more boards. There were apparently a lot more board options in the box.
You get 4 activations per turn. You drew 5 action/upgrade cards and 3 victory cards. The mechanics were I activate a dude, I can play a card to buff it or weaken yours, and you can retaliate with a card. I can then move, attack something next to me, or charge something (move and attack). If you charge, then that mini is done. If you move or hit, you can keep using that dude. Some have more attacks, some have more health, some do more damage, and some move further. There were other rules that we did 't bother with in the demo, too. There were also victory cards. For example, after the round, if you had a dude stand on an objective, you got a coin. You could use that to buy an upgrade card like +1 defense or heal 3 wounds or something.
There were stat cards for your dudes. Normal mode is how you start. If you "power up" and go "super Scion" or whatever the nerd behind me kept saying, you flipped the card. The other side had more attacks or sounds or some other benefits. I was unclear on that mechanic. Expansions could have more factions, cards, boards, and other stuff.
All in all, it looked like a brutal game. The guys next to us killed at least 2 of each other's dudes. Only 1 of my guys died in the round.
Also, guess who my instructor was!
Kronk, don't take this the wrong way, as I generally enjoy your posts and we always seem to be on the same wavelength, but if you have actual NEWS and RUMOURS, take it to the appropriate thread in 40K rules discussion forum.
This thread is for debating how changes to morale mechanics have already ruined 8th edition 40K. And Normandy and stuff.
I'm pretty upset that you tried to derail this thread, tbh. Shame, sir. Shame.
The New GW is brilliant and dynamic... they understand 40k really, really sucks and needs a total revamp.
They're also business-savvy...
1. 40k is about to get a giant influx of it's old-guard players who left after 4th/5th edition. All the old grognards like myself who started with RT and 2nd are about to invest our late-30's/early-40's income into GW again! I've spent more money on Age of Sigmar in the last 18 months that I had on GW product since 2005, and GW will get a few thousand dollars from me when Age of the Emperor/40k 8th drops.
2. none of the current 40k players will do much other than complain to the internet, but will dutifully buy the next edition just like they did when 7th came out a few minutes after 6th did.
I'm so, so happy to see GW return to the GW I fell in love with in the mid 90's.
SeanDrake wrote: AoS has all the depth of a puddle, when the AoSing hits 40k I just hope 30K remains a proper wargame as opposed to a dice rolling simulator.
I guess I have the intellect of a pebble then because I find no lack of depth.
No offense, but literally every game of Sigmar I've seen has devolved to a big blobbed melee in the middle of the board.
I have watched dozens of aos games since warhammer live started. I think I have only seen this happen once or twice. For those who are worried about the influence of aos, watch a game or two on warhammer live this week. It may change your opinion.
Too many replies, just skimmed for pics What are the sharespire minis made from? are they pre built PVC? Or just regular colored plastic and you still build them and stuff?
Necros wrote: Too many replies, just skimmed for pics What are the sharespire minis made from? are they pre built PVC? Or just regular colored plastic and you still build them and stuff?
From warhammer-community:
Each of these sets will be composed of a small band of easy-to-assemble, push-fit miniatures in the style of our single-pose heroes to represent a specific band of warriors from that faction. These are provided in coloured plastic, and clip together, so you can quite literally be playing with them within minutes of opening the box with no glue or paint needed! (Though they do look great painted, and your dice will roll better – probably.)
Necros wrote: Too many replies, just skimmed for pics What are the sharespire minis made from? are they pre built PVC? Or just regular colored plastic and you still build them and stuff?
Snap-fit colored plastic seems to be the word on the street
The whole AoS discussion is indeed not adding anything. It will never end, because it just comes down to this :
There are people who like AoS, and there are people who don't like AoS. And neither of those are wrong.
People worried about 8th edition are so because it might very well mean that there is no longer a tabletop wargame that they like to play in the near future. And to the pro-AoS crowd : do you really want those who don't like the same things you like to no longer enjoy playing a game with those fabuleous GW minatures ?
It would be in GW's best interest to have different game systems, where one appeals to one group and the other to the other group.
Loser_command wrote: And to the pro-AoS crowd : do you really want those who don't like the same things you like to no longer enjoy playing a game
Honestly, yes. But only those people that are constantly trying to take a dump on a game I like. It's utterly pathetic, and unfortunately I've got to the point where I will respond in kind
People are all up in arms over something that hasn't been fully fleshed out or announced. We get it, people don't like change, period. It's too early to rant about it though.
They also said they're working with the big 3 tournament organizers (ITC, Adepticon, and Nova). If they're doing that, I find it hard to believe they are not going to be taking long hard looks at everything they do.
Loser_command wrote: The whole AoS discussion is indeed not adding anything. It will never end, because it just comes down to this :
There are people who like AoS, and there are people who don't like AoS. And neither of those are wrong.
People worried about 8th edition are so because it might very well mean that there is no longer a tabletop wargame that they like to play in the near future. And to the pro-AoS crowd : do you really want those who don't like the same things you like to no longer enjoy playing a game with those fabuleous GW minatures ?
It would be in GW's best interest to have different game systems, where one appeals to one group and the other to the other group.
Now back to the rumours please.
My two cents? Go play wannabe couple counsellor to another place and stop guilt-tripping people who are just saying: it's not as bad as you're making out to be.
AoS is superior in every way to 40K. Getting even 20% of it's methodology applied to 40K would do wonders.
There will always be those who don't like changes...but come on, 40K currently is super broken. Love the lore, the gameplay is...not all that fun anymore.
I'm interested to see how this all plays out -- more stuff to play with is always fun.
I've stated, several times, that there is little to nothing GW could do to make me generally consider playing "current" 40K again (I have a huge painted army, etc. but I currently play 2nd ed.).
At a glance (PROS)
+Movement Stat. Great, should never have been removed.
+Armour Save modifiers. Great, far better than all or nothing.
(CONS)
-"Bespoke rules"...eh. Bespoke stat lines are fine, but I don't think we should trade hundreds of special rules for special rules allocated to each unit. The vast majority of infantry units shouldn't have special rules - their abilities should be indicated by their equipment and a stat line. While 2nd had plenty of special rules, the vast majority of your infantry models did not (unless it was wargear related). Keep the genuine special rules to characters and monsters/creatures etc.
-The hinted at Morale stuff = meh.
All in all, two large steps in the right direction and I like the idea of thematic armies (actually don't care for the idea of bonuses though). Will continue to play 2nd until 8th is out --- but it may be the first time since 4th ed. that I take a swing at current 40K.
angelofvengeance wrote: How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.
You know what's the REAL core of white scars?
Tactical marines. In rhino's or drop pods. Not bikes.
You can have fast attack without all bikes you know. And fluffwise tactical marines would be the most common white scar you see.
But seen much tactical marines in white scar armies lately? Nope. Cause GW doesn't reward fluffy armies.
And problem with formations is same. They aren't there for fluff. They are there to sell you more models. Buy 3 riptides for big balance! Or take this formation and get lots of free stuff so you need to buy 10 30€ models!
Tactical Marines are literally all you see because of Gladius. Did you even think before you posted?
I like Battleshock a lot from AoS. You don't have to worry about units retreating, etc, and it more accurately represents a unit crumbling as stragglers and cowards flee, reducing the overall effectiveness. It's infinitely better and often less-punishing than the all-or-nothing Leadership roll.
As my pal pointed out elsewhere, "GW is probably just aiming to move away from the Leadership system they purloined from Squad Leader/Johnny Reb." (for those who didn't know, Leadership stat and rules was lifted wholesale from Avalon Hill games such as Squad Leader, which Priestley played, and just incorporated that mechanic into Rogue Trader)
People said oh they will never AoSify 40k....... it's too profitable to do that. Sounds like the rules are changing... the setting is moving towards the age of Big blue.
While I'm less annoyed regarding AoS because of the Overlords (i like airships ). Turning 40k into age of Gulliman feels very, very silly.
Removing movement was stupid in 3rd... I still feel bringing it back feels well too late.
Me, I'm largely intrigued by the changes mentioned for 40k - but even more intrigued by what hasn't been mentioned.
Funnily enough in the run up to this I've started and participated in numerous threads about the future of 40k - what the general consensus is (rules diet), and which, if any, elements could/should be transferred/adapted from AoS.
A very common one is that people seem to like how AoS deals with big gribbles, in that the more you hurt them, the less killy they get. Another common one, which is somewhat linked to the former, is that MC have too many advantageous over vehicles - and the AoS big gribbly approach could again be the answer (though a straight port wouldn't necessarily work).
I know others will disagree, but AoS is quite the game. The core rules are straight forward, and having all a given unit's special rules on a single sheet means less book keeping. And even though some appear to share certain rules, but with different wording isn't an issue - you simply go with what's on your Warscroll until there's an FAQ or an updated Scroll (which typically happens at the same time if like me you use the App).
Biggest difference there of course is that all but formation scroll for AoS are free, and readily downloaded as and when needed. At present, 40k would require you to carry around every single Codex in order to be able to check your opponent isn't playing shenanigans.
I know others will disagree, but AoS is quite the game. The core rules are straight forward, and having all a given unit's special rules on a single sheet means less book keeping. And even though some appear to share certain rules, but with different wording isn't an issue - you simply go with what's on your Warscroll until there's an FAQ or an updated Scroll (which typically happens at the same time if like me you use the App).
Biggest difference there of course is that all but formation scroll for AoS are free, and readily downloaded as and when needed. At present, 40k would require you to carry around every single Codex in order to be able to check your opponent isn't playing shenanigans.
I agree. So many boons..
* Want that cool formation of units? Pay for it. Love it.
* How far does this thing move? Check the sheet. Shocker...cavalry moves farther than foot troops * Complicated saving throw calculations? feth that gak. Does it rend? Subtract and roll. Done done.
* Units get more badass for having hordes? Makes sense.
* Units bailing when they get knocked in the teeth? Yeppers. Some units immune -- but you take less of them (cost more) and subject to being swarmed to death. Balance baby!
* Unit hits weaker as it gets the gak kicked out of it? Also badass.
* Having to weigh in on what unit should attack at which point (*cough* tactics *cough*) AND risking over extending for the next phase? 40K what?
It just works. It's more tactical than 40K has ever been for me...and I squee to imagine all my 40K pew pew units getting some similar streamlined rules. Hell...we haven't even brought up how badass some of the scenarios are. Holding the gate (300 style) was soooo awesome, as was the "Kill the monster" one.
So didn't they say that new 40k rules might drop in time for Adepticon 2018? Which means that 8th may not be out this year. Also with the way its talked about by GW that they are only kicking around ideas at the moment. To me its possible that 8th edition playtest might be something we see this year. They directly mention the help that the community FAQ provided, so its possible that a free pdf of 8th might show up a little later on for a community effort again. Then if its successful we could see a complete 8th in time for Adepticon 2018.
But still the preview was less of a "this is what is happening" and more like "this is what we have been up to lately".
I'm 100% in agreement with the 2 above, that a simplified AoS style of 40k is better for the hobby. If nothing else, just having all of your rules in one book and being able to play with that one book is amazing.
You know, instead of having a book for your army that has your unit stats, 2 more books that supplement the first book, and a massive book that has the rules for the game itself, and then having to know the rules of your enemies army, and supplements, so you can work out what dice rolls you need to hit them in the first place.
Meanwhile in AOS *flick to unit page* 4+ 3+ done.
As well as that it would give the armies a lot more sense to them. Marines with multiple wounds, guardsmen with one wound no armor save (blood reaver style). In the end it'd make 40k more fluffy, as well as easier to play.
Loser_command wrote: The whole AoS discussion is indeed not adding anything. It will never end, because it just comes down to this :
There are people who like AoS, and there are people who don't like AoS. And neither of those are wrong.
People worried about 8th edition are so because it might very well mean that there is no longer a tabletop wargame that they like to play in the near future. And to the pro-AoS crowd : do you really want those who don't like the same things you like to no longer enjoy playing a game with those fabuleous GW minatures ?
It would be in GW's best interest to have different game systems, where one appeals to one group and the other to the other group.
Now back to the rumours please.
I agree and I think it's sad that many of the immediate replies to this are from people who staunchly think that one system is better than the other. Honestly I think we should just let the two games be, more than anything else. I may not like Sigmar, but I'm not gonna force people to change the game so I can fit my play style and attitude into the game. I just don't want 40k to do the reverse and adhere to the style of Sigmar. Both games should be resolved individually. That's my final say.
Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? If inanely rolling lots and lots of dice hoping for above average rolls of 3 and 4 while putting bigger and bigger models on the table and increasing the random is the way GW is going with 40k, there's no way they'll tempt me back. If they put out a streamlined, solid ruleset that doesn't take hours to set up and is actually fun to play again, then they just might.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.
Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...
Also, quick question: is there any more confirmation on the subject of square bases for 40k? My local GW manager posted through the GW Facebook page that he was excited for the base changes I am wondering if that is something that should have more attention payed to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tyrannosaurus wrote: Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? If inanely rolling lots and lots of dice hoping for above average rolls of 3 and 4 while putting bigger and bigger models on the table and increasing the random is the way GW is going with 40k, there's no way they'll tempt me back. If they put out a streamlined, solid ruleset that doesn't take hours to set up and is actually fun to play again, then they just might.
I once killed the Glottkin with beastmen gors in two rounds of combat.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.
Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...
Theoretically Blood Reavers could reach that.
60 points per 10 models, each model has 1 attack, champion has 2. Take 100 Blood Reavers for 600 points that's instantly 110 attacks if they make it to melee. All 100 can be in 1 unit too.
They have an ability that adds 1 to their attack count if in range of a Bloodsecrator (not cumulative) (120 points)
The Bloodsecrators have an ability that adds 1 attack to all nearby units (cumulative)
100 Blood Reavers - 600
3 Bloodsecrators - 360
1000 points army and giving you an amazing 550 attacks if all the reavers make it into combat and are in range.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.
Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...
tyrannosaurus wrote: Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.
Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...
Theoretically Blood Reavers could reach that.
60 points per 10 models, each model has 1 attack, champion has 2. Take 100 Blood Reavers for 600 points that's instantly 110 attacks if they make it to melee. All 100 can be in 1 unit too.
They have an ability that adds 1 to their attack count if in range of a Bloodsecrator (not cumulative) (120 points)
The Bloodsecrators have an ability that adds 1 attack to all nearby units (cumulative)
100 Blood Reavers - 600
3 Bloodsecrators - 360
1000 points army and giving you an amazing 550 attacks if all the reavers make it into combat and are in range.
They can't.
Each model has a weapon range. You can only pile in so many units onto the base/model contact of another and be within the 1/2" range of most models. Reavers are 1" -- so only as many as you can put into a line. You're looking at 10-15 attacks against a smaller unit of say...stormcast.
You can have tons of attacks that occur *over the course of a fight*, but never all at once. Each "wave" of reavers would get mowed down each cycle - and you would lose a ton to battleshock (double saruian banners are murder on hordes for this reason).
They'd have to be densely packed (not necessarily a bad thing in AoS due to lack of templates of any kind), and likely surrounded, or in a big ol' conga line that's just pulled off a multiple charge right across it's length.
NpSkully wrote: Also, quick question: is there any more confirmation on the subject of square bases for 40k? My local GW manager posted through the GW Facebook page that he was excited for the base changes I am wondering if that is something that should have more attention payed to it.
That was most definitely a joke, along with throwing a drop pod and movement trays with wheels.
They'd have to be densely packed (not necessarily a bad thing in AoS due to lack of templates of any kind), and likely surrounded, or in a big ol' conga line that's just pulled off a multiple charge right across it's length.
I mean, there's no templates but there are still attacks where you target units or points on the board and just lay down Mortal Wounds.
The New GW is brilliant and dynamic... they understand 40k really, really sucks and needs a total revamp.
They're also business-savvy...
1. 40k is about to get a giant influx of it's old-guard players who left after 4th/5th edition. All the old grognards like myself who started with RT and 2nd are about to invest our late-30's/early-40's income into GW again! I've spent more money on Age of Sigmar in the last 18 months that I had on GW product since 2005, and GW will get a few thousand dollars from me when Age of the Emperor/40k 8th drops.
2. none of the current 40k players will do much other than complain to the internet, but will dutifully buy the next edition just like they did when 7th came out a few minutes after 6th did.
I'm so, so happy to see GW return to the GW I fell in love with in the mid 90's.
I've stated, several times, that there is little to nothing GW could do to make me generally consider playing "current" 40K again (I have a huge painted army, etc. but I currently play 2nd ed.).
At a glance (PROS)
+Movement Stat. Great, should never have been removed.
+Armour Save modifiers. Great, far better than all or nothing.
(CONS)
-"Bespoke rules"...eh. Bespoke stat lines are fine, but I don't think we should trade hundreds of special rules for special rules allocated to each unit. The vast majority of infantry units shouldn't have special rules - their abilities should be indicated by their equipment and a stat line. While 2nd had plenty of special rules, the vast majority of your infantry models did not (unless it was wargear related). Keep the genuine special rules to characters and monsters/creatures etc.
-The hinted at Morale stuff = meh.
All in all, two large steps in the right direction and I like the idea of thematic armies (actually don't care for the idea of bonuses though). Will continue to play 2nd until 8th is out --- but it may be the first time since 4th ed. that I take a swing at current 40K.
I have very fond memories of Heroscape which AOS does seem to follow in some regards - that went for very basic rules and special rules for each unit - and I thought it did it brilliantly.
A very underestimated system.
The New GW is brilliant and dynamic... they understand 40k really, really sucks and needs a total revamp.
They're also business-savvy...
1. 40k is about to get a giant influx of it's old-guard players who left after 4th/5th edition. All the old grognards like myself who started with RT and 2nd are about to invest our late-30's/early-40's income into GW again! I've spent more money on Age of Sigmar in the last 18 months that I had on GW product since 2005, and GW will get a few thousand dollars from me when Age of the Emperor/40k 8th drops.
They'd have to be densely packed (not necessarily a bad thing in AoS due to lack of templates of any kind), and likely surrounded, or in a big ol' conga line that's just pulled off a multiple charge right across it's length.
I mean, there's no templates but there are still attacks where you target units or points on the board and just lay down Mortal Wounds.
Sure, but they're typically D3 wounds and in the hero phase. Good at plinking down high value targets, but not unit wipers in their own right.
They'd have to be densely packed (not necessarily a bad thing in AoS due to lack of templates of any kind), and likely surrounded, or in a big ol' conga line that's just pulled off a multiple charge right across it's length.
I mean, there's no templates but there are still attacks where you target units or points on the board and just lay down Mortal Wounds.
Sure, but they're typically D3 wounds and in the hero phase. Good at plinking down high value targets, but not unit wipers in their own right.
Right. Not saying they were. Just commenting that templates don't exist in AoS, but you're still getting some massed Wounds and the like.
That they're announcing these sorts of things, to me would indicate that 8th edition will arrive very soon. News of big changes like these will depress the sales as people are not sure what things are usable/good in the new edition and thus won't buy anything until they know.
Crimson wrote: That they're announcing these sorts of things, to me would indicate that 8th edition will arrive very soon. News of big changes like these will depress the sales as people are not sure what things are usable/good in the new edition and thus won't buy anything until they know.
I doubt it. Considering they're saying they're testing or considering including certain things says to me they're still experimenting. This whole thing seems like a beta test to see what peoples reactions will be. I'd guesstimate another year or so before anything solid is seen.
Crimson wrote: That they're announcing these sorts of things, to me would indicate that 8th edition will arrive very soon. News of big changes like these will depress the sales as people are not sure what things are usable/good in the new edition and thus won't buy anything until they know.
Well they said that these new rules 'might' be out in time for Adepticon next year so to me it says that they haven't decided on this year or not. Or it says that 8th may have a community trial phase before it goes to print.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.
Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...
Just fast forwarded through that video. They were completely ignoring weapon ranges. Any game system can be bad if you leave out fundamental rules. A lot of the hatred of AOS unfortunately comes from ignorance of how the game is played. If you are a 40k player why not try out some of these rules and give feedback to GW before dumping the game entirely?
I'm quite happy with mos tof what they announced for 8th, depending on how it's implemented. The Movement stat returning is huge, so much of what bogs down the unit types and forces masses of units in the game to rely on a ream of special rules to get around the restrictions so they can actually be used in some kind of meaningful way can be done away with. Armour Save modifiers are great in theory, but like I said it'll generally depend on how well it's implemented, too much access to large modifiers makes armour as pointless as it can be in many cases now with the all or nothing system.
Battleshock's the questionable one, it works fine in Sigmar but you have huge squads and ways to boost your Bravery to 12+ quite easily, porting it to 40K with it's MSU style will require some adjustment. Overall it's no better or worse than what we currently have, the biggest problem is having whole swathes of armies that can completely ignore moral, breaking the system.
"We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models."
For me, this on the Community site very strongly suggests that all current codexes are going to be invalidated with 8th. I hope they move to the Sigmar style of free dataslates with army specific books giving out the fluff and paid for formations/relics/psychic powers, but whatever they do I can't see the current codexes and supplements remaining in use, the scale of any errata needed to make them compatible would be so big it makes starting from scratch a better option.
If they went to soft cover and dropped prices by at least 30%, I would be actually happy with free unit rules and paying for fluff and extra extra stuff.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.
Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...
Just fast forwarded through that video. They were completely ignoring weapon ranges. Any game system can be bad if you leave out fundamental rules.
I was about to post the same, thanks for posting your source but your source is awful, they just weren't doing it right lol. If you hate the game thats fine i dislike lots of games ive tried but it needs to be played correctly and importantly with people youd like to play with. Ive gone from playing fantasy and 40k maybe once a month to playing aos couple of times a week, it needs to be played to be enjoyed and to be learned to see its depth and possibility. At the moment all i know for sure is 40k has to change and im trusting in Nu'GW to make that change.
angelofvengeance wrote: How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.
You know what's the REAL core of white scars?
Tactical marines. In rhino's or drop pods. Not bikes.
You can have fast attack without all bikes you know. And fluffwise tactical marines would be the most common white scar you see.
But seen much tactical marines in white scar armies lately? Nope. Cause GW doesn't reward fluffy armies.
And problem with formations is same. They aren't there for fluff. They are there to sell you more models. Buy 3 riptides for big balance! Or take this formation and get lots of free stuff so you need to buy 10 30€ models!
Tactical Marines are literally all you see because of Gladius. Did you even think before you posted?
tyrannosaurus wrote: Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.
Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...
The New GW is brilliant and dynamic... they understand 40k really, really sucks and needs a total revamp.
They're also business-savvy...
1. 40k is about to get a giant influx of it's old-guard players who left after 4th/5th edition. All the old grognards like myself who started with RT and 2nd are about to invest our late-30's/early-40's income into GW again! I've spent more money on Age of Sigmar in the last 18 months that I had on GW product since 2005, and GW will get a few thousand dollars from me when Age of the Emperor/40k 8th drops.
2. none of the current 40k players will do much other than complain to the internet, but will dutifully buy the next edition just like they did when 7th came out a few minutes after 6th did.
I'm so, so happy to see GW return to the GW I fell in love with in the mid 90's.
Amen
1.Hey if you think bringing back a few neckbeards having there midlife crisis will offset people leaving I think your anecdote is extra anacdotal. Besides most people who left after 5th are likely to find AoS a little to simple, streamlined is great so simple that it is barely able to be called a game not so much.
2. Yeah that assumption worked out really well for AoS a game which has took 2 years to get back to the point it's failing predecessor was at when axed. Yeah some lessons have been learned hence 40k will start from the point of the generals handbook but my anacdotal evidence suggests if 40k goes full AoS(Never go full AoS man) then the only GW game played in my area will be 30k.
Unlike a strong, lean game system like 40k, where nothing can even get close to that kind of
wait, how many attacks does an ork green tide get?
You realise that there are other games not produced by GW, right? With much, much better rulesets? In no way was I suggesting 40k should be the benchmark.
The New GW is brilliant and dynamic... they understand 40k really, really sucks and needs a total revamp.
They're also business-savvy...
1. 40k is about to get a giant influx of it's old-guard players who left after 4th/5th edition. All the old grognards like myself who started with RT and 2nd are about to invest our late-30's/early-40's income into GW again! I've spent more money on Age of Sigmar in the last 18 months that I had on GW product since 2005, and GW will get a few thousand dollars from me when Age of the Emperor/40k 8th drops.
2. none of the current 40k players will do much other than complain to the internet, but will dutifully buy the next edition just like they did when 7th came out a few minutes after 6th did.
I'm so, so happy to see GW return to the GW I fell in love with in the mid 90's.
Amen
1.Hey if you think bringing back a few neckbeards having there midlife crisis will offset people leaving I think your anecdote is extra anacdotal. Besides most people who left after 5th are likely to find AoS a little to simple, streamlined is great so simple that it is barely able to be called a game not so much.
2. Yeah that assumption worked out really well for AoS a game which has took 2 years to get back to the point it's failing predecessor was at when axed. Yeah some lessons have been learned hence 40k will start from the point of the generals handbook but my anacdotal evidence suggests if 40k goes full AoS(Never go full AoS man) then the only GW game played in my area will be 30k.
1.You make it sound like 40k is a complex game which it isn't. It's a confusing bloated mess which is entirely different. 40k has never been very deep lol. That fact that you throw around insults and act as though it were is telling.
2. Data required, from everything I have heard AoS is WAY more successful then Fantasy and is only growing.
The New GW is brilliant and dynamic... they understand 40k really, really sucks and needs a total revamp.
They're also business-savvy...
1. 40k is about to get a giant influx of it's old-guard players who left after 4th/5th edition. All the old grognards like myself who started with RT and 2nd are about to invest our late-30's/early-40's income into GW again! I've spent more money on Age of Sigmar in the last 18 months that I had on GW product since 2005, and GW will get a few thousand dollars from me when Age of the Emperor/40k 8th drops.
2. none of the current 40k players will do much other than complain to the internet, but will dutifully buy the next edition just like they did when 7th came out a few minutes after 6th did.
I'm so, so happy to see GW return to the GW I fell in love with in the mid 90's.
Amen
1.Hey if you think bringing back a few neckbeards having there midlife crisis will offset people leaving I think your anecdote is extra anacdotal. Besides most people who left after 5th are likely to find AoS a little to simple, streamlined is great so simple that it is barely able to be called a game not so much.
2. Yeah that assumption worked out really well for AoS a game which has took 2 years to get back to the point it's failing predecessor was at when axed. Yeah some lessons have been learned hence 40k will start from the point of the generals handbook but my anacdotal evidence suggests if 40k goes full AoS(Never go full AoS man) then the only GW game played in my area will be 30k.
Wow master troll here everybody Go do something else if you dislike it that much. Frankly, this is the first time 40k has sounded anything close to playable in years.
2. Yeah that assumption worked out really well for AoS a game which has took 2 years to get back to the point it's failing predecessor was at when axed. Yeah some lessons have been learned hence 40k will start from the point of the generals handbook but my anacdotal evidence suggests if 40k goes full AoS(Never go full AoS man) then the only GW game played in my area will be 30k.
AoS has done better than FB ever did. Even at launch, after the initial wave of salt, I saw more people actually having fun with it than I ever saw in FB. GH came out, and suddenly it was everywhere.. AoS' sales account for more at my location than 40K, and player base.
So yeah, I can't fathom how "going full AoS" is a bad thing, but you are welcome to stick with 30K.
SeanDrake wrote: 1.Hey if you think bringing back a few neckbeards having there midlife crisis will offset people leaving I think your anecdote is extra anacdotal. Besides most people who left after 5th are likely to find AoS a little to simple, streamlined is great so simple that it is barely able to be called a game not so much.
2. Yeah that assumption worked out really well for AoS a game which has took 2 years to get back to the point it's failing predecessor was at when axed. Yeah some lessons have been learned hence 40k will start from the point of the generals handbook but my anacdotal evidence suggests if 40k goes full AoS(Never go full AoS man) then the only GW game played in my area will be 30k.
1. Making 40k, which is an inelegant, horribly broken, poorly written and designed ruleset, actually playable? Sorry, hombre, 40k has never really been a _good_ game, from Rogue Trader on up. Even at it's finest, it was entirely mediocre, still comprised of various cobbled together mechanics stolen from other systems. Cross-referencing charts, sometimes rolling dice higher, sometimes rolling dice under, sometimes rolling multiple dice and adding them together. Terrible. This complete overhaul is 15 years late, but definitely needed.
And no one will "leave". 40k is a bad ruleset. If there was to be a mass exodus, it would have already happened. Nearly anything is an improvement at this point.
2. Yes, you are allowed to play any edition of 40k that you want. Thankfully all new 40k stuff with be in this new, and almost certainly better, ruleset
Unlike a strong, lean game system like 40k, where nothing can even get close to that kind of
wait, how many attacks does an ork green tide get?
You realise that there are other games not produced by GW, right? With much, much better rulesets? In no way was I suggesting 40k should be the benchmark.
I think any chance you had at establishing authority went out the window with this crowd. Better to just let it go.
2. Yeah that assumption worked out really well for AoS a game which has took 2 years to get back to the point it's failing predecessor was at when axed. Yeah some lessons have been learned hence 40k will start from the point of the generals handbook but my anacdotal evidence suggests if 40k goes full AoS(Never go full AoS man) then the only GW game played in my area will be 30k.
AoS has done better than FB ever did. Even at launch, after the initial wave of salt, I saw more people actually having fun with it than I ever saw in FB. GH came out, and suddenly it was everywhere.. AoS' sales account for more at my location than 40K, and player base.
So yeah, I can't fathom how "going full AoS" is a bad thing, but you are welcome to stick with 30K.
My own anecdotal evidence is that no-one plays it at my club, and never would. Very little GW played there at all, actually - a little BloodBowl maybe. Would take a lot to tempt them back to 40k and AoSing it ain't gonna do it.
tneva82 wrote: Did you ever play 2nd ed? I still play. I know exactly how useful power armour is in 2nd ed. It's to the level that only reason space marines take it because they HAVE TO. If space marines could ditch all armour and run naked for cheaper price THEY WOULD DO IT! And in a heartbeat. Extra guys are better than armour save which you often can't use or is like 5+ or 6+.
Nevermind something like 5+ save or 6+ save which is even worse than in 7th ed.
Only armour worth paying anything in 2nd ed is terminator armour. Power armour MAYBE if it's 1 pts but if you could run tactical marine naked for 25 pts rather than 30 pts guess what? Naked it is.
I played 2nd and used virus grenades. If you didn't have enclosed armour, I could wipe your entire army in turn one. It was awful. :/
tneva82 wrote: Did you ever play 2nd ed? I still play. I know exactly how useful power armour is in 2nd ed. It's to the level that only reason space marines take it because they HAVE TO. If space marines could ditch all armour and run naked for cheaper price THEY WOULD DO IT! And in a heartbeat. Extra guys are better than armour save which you often can't use or is like 5+ or 6+.
Nevermind something like 5+ save or 6+ save which is even worse than in 7th ed.
Only armour worth paying anything in 2nd ed is terminator armour. Power armour MAYBE if it's 1 pts but if you could run tactical marine naked for 25 pts rather than 30 pts guess what? Naked it is.
I played 2nd and used virus grenades. If you didn't have enclosed armour, I could wipe your entire army in turn one. It was awful. :/
Plus Power Armor had photochromatic visors! Gosh, space marines were immune to basically all in-game stuff... virus grenades, flash and stun grenades.
Don't forget that if a Conversion field saved a hit, it would blind all models within range, reducing WS to 1!
Space Marines in powered armor with a few well placed characters with conversion fields could pretty much utterly destroy any army that didn't have visors
Ok, So positives regarding rumoured rules changes:
-Movement stat is back. Great, they've needed this for years. Tyranids might be able to see combat.
-Rending System for weapons. We haven't seen exactly how this will be implemented but it has potential. Better than the AP system anyway.
-Rewarding fluffy armies, cool.
I am however concerned about leadership. I like how units break and get run down, this was my favourite part about fantasy. I don't particularly like how AOS deals with bravery, but it's not my biggest gripe regarding the system so I can live with it. I just hope they don't eliminate things like pinning and fear, but instead make pinning and fear better.
I hope they implement the monstrous creature rules from AoS and how they degrade after taking damage.
There are however some big questions regarding the rules that will probably make or break the game for me.
-Attachment of HQ's to units. I don't see them removing this considering you have transports in the game, and things need to get transported. However, if they don't allow attached characters I will not play this game.
-Random Turn Sequence. If they add that stupid fething rule I'm out.
-Shooting into combat...just no
I seriously hope they don't remove all the relics and psychic powers, allow measurements from the model instead of the base, or implement the Psychic system from AoS.
2. Yeah that assumption worked out really well for AoS a game which has took 2 years to get back to the point it's failing predecessor was at when axed. Yeah some lessons have been learned hence 40k will start from the point of the generals handbook but my anacdotal evidence suggests if 40k goes full AoS(Never go full AoS man) then the only GW game played in my area will be 30k.
AoS has done better than FB ever did. Even at launch, after the initial wave of salt, I saw more people actually having fun with it than I ever saw in FB. GH came out, and suddenly it was everywhere.. AoS' sales account for more at my location than 40K, and player base.
So yeah, I can't fathom how "going full AoS" is a bad thing, but you are welcome to stick with 30K.
My own anecdotal evidence is that no-one plays it at my club, and never would. Very little GW played there at all, actually - a little BloodBowl maybe. Would take a lot to tempt them back to 40k and AoSing it ain't gonna do it.
Then in all honesty how can you make an informed opinion about AOS or beggars the question why even take part in a thread about the direction of 40k?
-Movement stat is back. Great, they've needed this for years. Tyranids might be able to see combat. -Rending System for weapons. We haven't seen exactly how this will be implemented but it has potential. Better than the AP system anyway. -Rewarding fluffy armies, cool.
I am however concerned about leadership. I like how units break and get run down, this was my favourite part about fantasy. I don't particularly like how AOS deals with bravery, but it's not my biggest gripe regarding the system so I can live with it. I just hope they don't eliminate things like pinning and fear, but instead make pinning and fear better.
I hope they implement the monstrous creature rules from AoS and how they degrade after taking damage.
There are however some big questions regarding the rules that will probably make or break the game for me.
-Attachment of HQ's to units. I don't see them removing this considering you have transports in the game, and things need to get transported. However, if they don't allow attached characters I will not play this game. -Random Turn Sequence. If they add that stupid fething rule I'm out. -Shooting into combat...just no
I seriously hope they don't remove all the relics and psychic powers, allow measurements from the model instead of the base, or implement the Psychic system from AoS.
If look out sir stays or became stronger shooting at a non attached characters would just be a waste of fire power so it shouldnt be a deal breaker. IMO Ignoring bases was only done due to changing base shape and at some point we will see aos return to measuring base to base. Firing into combat is fine as long as they rule in friendly fire to balance it out. Personally id like to see alt activation to move away from alpha strike issues entirly but you go i go turns vs random turns both stuck a little currently.
Crimson wrote: That they're announcing these sorts of things, to me would indicate that 8th edition will arrive very soon. News of big changes like these will depress the sales as people are not sure what things are usable/good in the new edition and thus won't buy anything until they know.
Well they said that these new rules 'might' be out in time for Adepticon next year so to me it says that they haven't decided on this year or not. Or it says that 8th may have a community trial phase before it goes to print.
Given June/July has been the release date for new editions for quite a while now, it's going to be this year. I recall September/October being an edition release period a while ago though, but would still be this year. I do not remember there ever being an edition release ever being released in winter or spring.
(sisters of battle!)
Go do something else if you dislike it that much. Frankly, this is the first time 
