On the return of Armour modifier:
I believe if Space Marine in tactical armour still roll on 3+, modifier should be -1 quite rare, -2 very rare, -3 maximum and extremly rare or even absent. Or they should propose more sophisticated mechanics. Or Space Marine tactical armour should be 2+ and terminator 1+ (still makes sense if 1 is always failed). My point is that 1D6 is not flexible enough for armour modifier mechanics as in 2nd edition. Thus 1D10 could be more useful. As it was said, 5+ or 6+ is not a relevant save throw on a D6.
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.
I hope you're right. I don't want to wait another year. The current rules are such a mess that I just can't get excited about the game anymore.
To be honest, there's nothing to suggest that they are simplifying 40k. In fact, bringing back armour modifier nstead of AP is making the game more complex.
What's worrying me is that most of the changes introduced are taken from AOS (even though I like these changes), but that doesn't necessarly means that they will bring the other rules which makes AOS a dumpster fire of a game.
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.
Seems like another one that doesn't know the difference between an anecdotal evidence and aggregate data
Part of me is excited (save mods, hit first on the charge) and makes me remember my fond days of 2nd. It would be nice if terminators got their 2D6 save back.
However if they do fixed to hit and to wound rolls I will just go back to oldhammer or stick my stuff in the loft and play Infinity and Flames of War.
The problem is, by the time you've apologised 14 times to Canadian Google for bothering it, done your search and then thanked it for taking the time, it's just easier to expect some schmuck on a forum to answer elementary questions instead.
The movement stat is fine as long as it doesnt vaccinate wildly from unit to unit. I don't really want to see "fast" marines and so on. But like we saw with mechanicus and t heir dune strider 9 inch move stuff.
Armour save modifier, I'd probably leave that at the door. The problem with the game is too many units have access to insane firepower, we can all agree that the game went from like 1 special 1 heavy per unit to like everyone gets whatever they want pretty fast. See eldar jetbikes or dev centurons. Some units just have way too much damn firepower. The other reality is, sci fi or not, ballistic weaponry without even getting into the sci fi realm are pretty deadly things. I think if anything the game struggles more on representing mutiple wounding weaponry, gw's gotten better at adding some of that with mechanicus but unless mc's change, we need more of that, It's silly that a vindicator can remove whole single wound units but barely scratch mc's, this is a problem and has been fore a while.
Getting rid of initiative, or at least that seems to be what was communicated. Gettin ride of that in favour of charging unit striking first shows gw doesn't understand the problem with assault. It's getting one off in the first place, it's actually getting there that's the problem. And that;s not JUST a random charge problem, its a terrain problem, it's a no assault from reserve or outflank problem. In 5th you could assault from reserve and outflank and the game was better for it. I wouldn't got as far as assault from deep strike, but even then I'm open to some specialist units doing that too provided we're talkin a handful of units across all codex's (if those are even going to be a thing).
As for the leadership stat to matter, well, best of luck with that. Sounds good in theory but the leadership start already basically assumes all leadership is is yetliing "hey guys, don't flee". I'm not sure how you'd introduce complexity there. The other problem is a great majority of armies barely interact with the stat, and they shall know no fear it would seem.
The biggest problem 7th ed has beyond the bloat is the army construction. The actual core game just needs a cleanup. Walkers need to have a reason to exist, so either immune to immobilized or only halves their movement. You wouldn't have everyone reaching for the super heavies if cool looking walkers were actually allowed to not suck compared to mc's. And that's the next problem, mc's need to be addressed. Anything that is 100% effective until dead and isn't some cool character seems to be a bit much. So either a mechanic in which they lose combat effectiveness as their wounds decrease or more usr's that could slow or limit them. More multiwound weapons ala mechanicus maybe. They may also want to think about maybe having some terrain rules.
As someone who spent about 18 months on 3rd ed before deciding 2nd ed was for me this is generally good news. Especially since 2nd was not perfect as a base game, it also needed some more extreme wargear and strategy card removing and loads of modern units are missing. I shall definitely look at what they come out with.
I was working on a way to convert the existing 40k into an AoS/2nd ed style system for ages, and the key was to be stingy with the Rend. My idea was Strength 8/AP 3 is -1, Strength 9/AP 2 is -2, and Strength 10/AP 1 was -3. So a plasma gun would be -2, because it reached AP 2, and a power sword wielded by an IG officer is -1. So only big guns and real melee weapons will affect saves. This was just a rough guide too. But if the new 40k is coming out, I can stop with all of this.
Rule - Death From Above! - Causes D3 damage on succesful charge.
Rule - Flanking - Can start in Reserve and deploy within 12" of any board edge at the start of your turn when declared.
Rule - Inspired - When joined by a character that's not a Commissar, has a 5+ armour save.
Rule - No Retreat - Can't flee from battle when joined by a Commissar.
About armor modifier:
another viable option would be to mix current system with modifier.
Let say we still conider tactical armour with 3+ save.
A weapon with AP 6, 5 or 4 would not affect it
AP 2 or 1 will make the armour totally uneffective
but AP 3 would change the armour value with a -1 modifier (so save on 4+)
Sorry for theory crafting I cannot avoid it. Anyway I promise it is my last post on the subject.
out
Crablezworth wrote: The movement stat is fine as long as it doesnt vaccinate wildly from unit to unit. I don't really want to see "fast" marines and so on. But like we saw with mechanicus and t heir dune strider 9 inch move stuff.
Armour save modifier, I'd probably leave that at the door. The problem with the game is too many units have access to insane firepower, we can all agree that the game went from like 1 special 1 heavy per unit to like everyone gets whatever they want pretty fast. See eldar jetbikes or dev centurons. Some units just have way too much damn firepower. The other reality is, sci fi or not, ballistic weaponry without even getting into the sci fi realm are pretty deadly things. I think if anything the game struggles more on representing mutiple wounding weaponry, gw's gotten better at adding some of that with mechanicus but unless mc's change, we need more of that, It's silly that a vindicator can remove whole single wound units but barely scratch mc's, this is a problem and has been fore a while.
Getting rid of initiative, or at least that seems to be what was communicated. Gettin ride of that in favour of charging unit striking first shows gw doesn't understand the problem with assault. It's getting one off in the first place, it's actually getting there that's the problem. And that;s not JUST a random charge problem, its a terrain problem, it's a no assault from reserve or outflank problem. In 5th you could assault from reserve and outflank and the game was better for it. I wouldn't got as far as assault from deep strike, but even then I'm open to some specialist units doing that too provided we're talkin a handful of units across all codex's (if those are even going to be a thing).
As for the leadership stat to matter, well, best of luck with that. Sounds good in theory but the leadership start already basically assumes all leadership is is yetliing "hey guys, don't flee". I'm not sure how you'd introduce complexity there. The other problem is a great majority of armies barely interact with the stat, and they shall know no fear it would seem.
The biggest problem 7th ed has beyond the bloat is the army construction. The actual core game just needs a cleanup. Walkers need to have a reason to exist, so either immune to immobilized or only halves their movement. You wouldn't have everyone reaching for the super heavies if cool looking walkers were actually allowed to not suck compared to mc's. And that's the next problem, mc's need to be addressed. Anything that is 100% effective until dead and isn't some cool character seems to be a bit much. So either a mechanic in which they lose combat effectiveness as their wounds decrease or more usr's that could slow or limit them. More multiwound weapons ala mechanicus maybe. They may also want to think about maybe having some terrain rules.
Marines are fast. Very fast. And their reactions are better. And they should have more wounds than a guardsman.
reluxor wrote: About armor modifier:
another viable option would be to mix current system with modifier.
Let say we still conider tactical armour with 3+ save.
A weapon with AP 6, 5 or 4 would not affect it
AP 2 or 1 will make the armour totally uneffective
but AP 3 would change the armour value with a -1 modifier (so save on 4+)
Sorry for theory crafting I cannot avoid it. Anyway I promise it is my last post on the subject.
out
Armour modifier is basically AoS Rend, AP and STR will probably be going out the window and replaced with Rend. I think at the minute people are trying to fit the new rule rumours to existing statlines but everyone is probably getting an AoS style revamp.
I can't believe people will actually refuse to play the game if it has "fixed" hit and would rolls like Age of Sigmar. First of all, you pretty much already have fixed hit rolls. For shooting the roll is fixed, and in combat it's almost always either 4+ or 3+. "Fixed" to hit rolls would actually give more granularity in combat.
Fixed wound rolls just mean that how "tough" a model is to kill is instead represented by it's save and number of wounds.
I thought people mostly liked 40K for the setting and models, but apparently some people are really married to some of the specific mechanics of the game.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I can't believe people will actually refuse to play the game if it has "fixed" hit and would rolls like Age of Sigmar. First of all, you pretty much already have fixed hit rolls. For shooting the roll is fixed, and in combat it's almost always either 4+ or 3+. "Fixed" to hit rolls would actually give more granularity in combat.
Fixed wound rolls just mean that how "tough" a model is to kill is instead represented by it's save and number of wounds.
I thought people mostly liked 40K for the setting and models, but apparently some people are really married to some of the specific mechanics of the game.
Just a quick note on Toughness, it's not a fun mechanic to interrupt the game to ask your opponent the Toughness of his unit so you know what will hit and wound. AoS just streamlines it, I don't know why people are complaining about that.
I actually missed this tidbit from the WarCom post:
I think it’s really great that we’re now developing rules by engaging the community and working with people like Frankie and Reece from LVO, Mike from Nova and Hank, Greg, Chris and the rest of the AdeptiCon team.
So this isn't GW developing rules in a vacuum, they're actively involving tournament organisers in their rules writing. I don't think we have to be overly worried.
Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game. Having fixed to wound roll is simply idiotic and is not a good abstraction. But I'm pretty sure it will not be included in 8th edition, since I think they would have mentionned it otherwise.
I thought people mostly liked 40K for the setting and models, but apparently some people are really married to some of the specific mechanics of the game.
A shiny setting and models only gets you so far. A game is only playable for a fairly limited time if you don't actually enjoy playing it...
Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game. Having fixed to wound roll is simply idiotic and is not a good abstraction. But I'm pretty sure it will not be included in 8th edition, since I think they would have mentionned it otherwise.
Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.
Vorian wrote: Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.
Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid because it's idiotic and bad").
Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game. Having fixed to wound roll is simply idiotic and is not a good abstraction. But I'm pretty sure it will not be included in 8th edition, since I think they would have mentionned it otherwise.
Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.
It completely changes the dynamic of the game, since it make all weapon able to wound anything (which doesn't make any sense, A human with a knife should never be able to damage a tank)
Vorian wrote: Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.
Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid").
Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game. Having fixed to wound roll is simply idiotic and is not a good abstraction. But I'm pretty sure it will not be included in 8th edition, since I think they would have mentionned it otherwise.
Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.
It completely changes the dynamic of the game, since it make all weapon able to wound anything (which doesn't make any sense, A human with a knife should never be able to damage a tank)
We have no idea if tanks are going to have wounds and toughness or armour values... or anything at all to do with how they'll treat armour.
Vorian wrote: Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.
Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid because it's idiotic and bad").
Well, that only means that you have a selective percetion, since it have been pointed numerous times why it's bad
Vorian wrote: Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.
Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid").
Vorian wrote: Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.
Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid").
I say this as a huge fan of AoS, but there is one legitimate criticism of flat stats for 40k. In theory it would let a lasgun stand a chance of damaging a landraider. But, there's bound to be ways around it.
And if you want to keep the complexity and the tactical aspects of the game with fixed to hit rolls, you have to introduce weapons that do multiple wounds, so you're not simplifying anything at the end of the day
streetsamurai wrote: And if you want to keep the complexity and the tactical aspects of the game with fixed to hit rolls, you have to introduce weapons that do multiple wounds, so you're not simplifying anything at the end of the day
yeah, but it is not simpler that having variable to wound rolls, and variable to wound rolls has the advantage of making some weapon completely useless against some type of units (which is a plus imo). So it's only a detrimental change.
Given that none of the rumours so far have actually suggested fixed hit rolls are being introduced to 40k, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere, at least until there is more information released on the rules changes that make it an actual likelihood.
There's nothing tactical about asking your opponent for his Toughness though
No, but there is about different weapons being effective versus different targets.
But that would still be true whether you cross reference two different stats on a table or use the Age of Sigmar "fixed" values. You're saying that the specific dice mechanic that is used to make different weapons more effective versus different targets is reason enough to stop playing the game.
That's actually a good point, since there's thankfully absolutely no indication that they are bringing this absurdity in 40k
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vorian wrote: There's absolutely nothing more tactical. That's a nonsense.
Replacing compared strength and toughness with a flat to wound roll and more wounds and damaged caused is equally (or more) tactical.
What you're conflating is the idea that they abandon the parallel Armour/penetrating/glancing system. Which they've said nothing about.
If you're (obviously self evident) criticism is that if that's done badly it'll be bad.. then... yeah? Sure. Bit why Paine this with no evidence?
No, A monstrous creature like a wraitknight should not be able to get wounded by a human with a knife. So even if they let the AV system in place, it still would be bad. And also, fixed to wound rolls are never more tacticals than variable ones, or at least, I'd like to see an arguement why they are.
Eldarain wrote: Grav D and Str 6-7 with a million shots already buried that element.
Grav rules are horrible and should be fixed. Other two are problem with proliferation, not the rules themselves. Though vehicle rules are also horrible and a part of reason why mid-strength high rate of fire weapons are ludicrously effective.
There's nothing tactical about asking your opponent for his Toughness though
No, but there is about different weapons being effective versus different targets.
And trust me, a weapong with rend - and damage one will be far mor effective if it has, say, a 50% of killing a one-wound model than trying to get a 13% of doing 1 wound of out 15.
Armour modifier is basically AoS Rend, AP and STR will probably be going out the window and replaced with Rend. I think at the minute people are trying to fit the new rule rumours to existing statlines but everyone is probably getting an AoS style revamp.
Latro_ wrote: Hang on if the attackers fight first, perhaps this might be a new lease of life for power fists!
Unwieldy weapons will probably still go last, but making chargers go first is definitely a step towards making Assault armies better. And that Powerfist might live to hit as a few enemy models don't get to attack (cuz the rest of the unit killed a few first)
Wounds on x is a really good mechanic in AoS, but i don't think we will see it in 40K. Too many weapons, if you put bolters at 4+ you have only 2 levels for all the stuff from heavy bolter to a deathstrike missile. Weapon strength is there to stay.
It completely changes the dynamic of the game, since it make all weapon able to wound anything (which doesn't make any sense, A human with a knife should never be able to damage a tank)
You don't hurt a tank with a knife - you stab the feth out of the driver after infiltrating through the unsecured hatch.
But sure, poisoning a tank to death, or shooting a jet out of the sky with a single bolter round (while it's moving at mach3...) makes sooooo much more sense
There are lots of ways to roll AoS style mechanics into a 40K setting. As it stands now, it's garbage...I just want to see where they go to fix it.
Latro_ wrote: Hang on if the attackers fight first, perhaps this might be a new lease of life for power fists!
Unwieldy weapons will probably still go last, but making chargers go first is definitely a step towards making Assault armies better. And that Powerfist might live to hit as a few enemy models don't get to attack (cuz the rest of the unit killed a few first)
Seriously, folks... Take the fixed hitting discussion elsewhere.
insaniak wrote: Given that none of the rumours so far have actually suggested fixed hit rolls are being introduced to 40k, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere, at least until there is more information released on the rules changes that make it an actual likelihood.
"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.
Giving every model "cool bespoke rules" is how we got into this problem of 40k being a bloated mess. If this is the design philosophy for 8th then it's going to be a disaster.
It completely changes the dynamic of the game, since it make all weapon able to wound anything (which doesn't make any sense, A human with a knife should never be able to damage a tank)
You don't hurt a tank with a knife - you stab the feth out of the driver after infiltrating through the unsecured hatch.
But sure, poisoning a tank to death, or shooting a jet out of the sky with a single bolter round (while it's moving at mach3...) makes sooooo much more sense
There are lots of ways to roll AoS style mechanics into a 40K setting. As it stands now, it's garbage...I just want to see where they go to fix it.
And what about the vehicules or monstrous creatures which have no rider (Monolith). How come a guard with a knife should be able to hurt them.
Also, you need to have a basic grasp on the rules of a game if you want to complain about them. You can't poison a tank in 40k since vehicules are immune to that rule.
finally, is it possible to have a discussion without building some strawmans?. I never said anything about the flyers rules being good or realistics, nor did I say that 40k rules were perfect, so I don't know why you went there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Seriously, folks... Take the fixed hitting discussion elsewhere.
insaniak wrote: Given that none of the rumours so far have actually suggested fixed hit rolls are being introduced to 40k, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere, at least until there is more information released on the rules changes that make it an actual likelihood.
The take away I have had for all of this news is that ithe really seems like 8th is not ready in any way shape or form to go to print, let alone hit the shelves. They are talking about things they WANT to do, not things to expect. And it does seem like they want to take the best aspects of AoS and apply them to 40K. So what they are talking about is a bit of a plus, but it still seems like 8th is pretty far off.
Giving every model "cool bespoke rules" is how we got into this problem of 40k being a bloated mess. If this is the design philosophy for 8th then it's going to be a disaster.
ONLY a problem if they let problem armies sit too long without a fix.
Rules have been borked plenty of times, and despite being very bad at it, it seems like they're usually interested in trying to fix things when new codexes came out, or new rules launched. sure sometimes they are a bit too heavy handed, and other times they are a bit slow on the uptake, but they seem to not want to let the fires they set burn uncontrollably.
If they release updated rules for every unit in the game at once, available online... it means that when something is broken they can spend an afternoon hashing the fix out in the office. They can check online for people discussing whats wrong with it, and potential fixes, update the source for the rules and send out a tweet saying that the document is changed and in what way.
as it stands, when something is broken (say massively under-costed) they have to wait for the codex to have its turn. They've gotta collect every problem that they can find for that codex and try to resolve them all. Then they've gotta get the sculptors to design something new to go along with the release (and make rules for that, hoping its not unintentionally broken). Things are even worse if you're not dealing with a problem that originates in a codex, but rather one that comes from the BRB. In order to fix walkers, they've gotta wait for the edition to switch. They've gotta consider every walker in the game, how they're all costed and in what ways they interact with the fix. ALL of them at the same time.
if unit types go away, and say, eldar jetbikes end up broken as gak... you can just update their card. If space marine dreads are working fine, but massively over costed - Card update. Harlequins never make it into assault; boom their card now says they roll 3d6 for assault and keep the highest two. Terminators always die? For every five in the squad you get a re-roll on a failed save, or two.. Two was too much, go back to one next week.
This has the potential to be a fantastic change, especially combined with the fact that they seem to want community input on rulings/faq/etc. In a few months I will be able to post on the gw community site an explain to them why a s4 exploding trukk is bonkers.
davou wrote: ONLY a problem if they let problem armies sit too long without a fix.
No, it's a problem, period. Updating all armies fast enough fixes the balance issues but it doesn't fix the complexity issues. 40k has major problems with the rules being a bloated mess of special rules, exceptions to the special rules, exceptions to the exceptions, etc. And now GW is promising to make sure that each model has its "cool bespoke rules" instead of simplifying things into core rules for classes of units.
if unit types go away, and say, eldar jetbikes end up broken as gak... you can just update their card. If space marine dreads are working fine, but massively over costed - Card update. Harlequins never make it into assault; boom their card now says they roll 3d6 for assault and keep the highest two. Terminators always die? For every five in the squad you get a re-roll on a failed save, or two.. Two was too much, go back to one next week.
This is terrible design. Frequent major changes like that means that the game designer is doing a job of developing the product before publication, and it imposes a huge burden on the players to keep track of all the weekly changes. And when you're making major changes like that (as opposed to minor point cost adjustments) you're almost guaranteeing that you will create things that don't work well and have to keep making major changes. The correct way to do it is to do proper design and playtesting so that the final product is finished, and needs minor adjustments at most once it is published.
Just going to add one bit of info: In an interview with Jervis Johnson (HeelanHammer last December), Jervis mentioned the hardest part in developing the AoS rules was the commandment from on high to fit the rules on four A4 sheets. That was likely a Kirby Co. dictate and might not be present in 40K. So we might get a bit more crunch in the 40K rules then was allowed in AoS originally.
Other big question is if the rules will be free or not? That is another point that was not mentioned in the seminar. 40k 8th may suffer if they force another $80 book on us. The easy accessibility of the rules and units helps AoS a lot.
davou wrote: . Things are even worse if you're not dealing with a problem that originates in a codex, but rather one that comes from the BRB. In order to fix walkers, they've gotta wait for the edition to switch..
No, they don't.
They didn't wait for a new edition to fix vehicles and the assault rules in 3rd edition... And getting revised rules out to players is even easier now than it was then.
Having said that, I agree in principle that having warscroll-style rules rather than codexes would be a good step... Just not at the expense of consistent, universal rules.
This is terrible design. Frequent major changes like that means that the game designer is doing a job of developing the product before publication, and it imposes a huge burden on the players to keep track of all the weekly changes.
I certainly expect any competent designer to be able to product the game without just vomiting words into some rule-set, but the reality is no amount of planning or prep can account for the ways nerds at large will find to break things. Breaking the rules up into unit specific things allows them to fix broken elements without Rube Goldberging some other part of the game into a new worse problem.
and really? A huge burden? Free rules updates that address something broken, dysfunctional are a burden? C'mon man, people devour FAQ when they leak and it generates a huge amount of excitement. Updates addressing problems will be a treat to everyone, and they will become less and less frequent as time passes because the problems will have been addressed without needing to knock some other working part of the game out of place just because they were tangentially related though the rules.
Not once have I EVER seen someone not know about some rule or an faq be presented with it and exclaim "God this is such a burden!"
Ok setting aside my opinion on AoS I just don't really get why they would AoS40k.
Why have 2 effectively identical games just 1 fantasy and 1 sci-fi'ish.
I get why marines were ported over to fantasy and why AoS is a thing.
I mean yes it makes it easier to sell to little timmy with his sigmarine army that the rules are the same and he just needs to spend another £500+ and he can jump right in.(Oh theres a thought maybe the new bigger marines are so little timmy does not get sigmarine envy when his new 40k marines are tiny)
But even with GW's new sunny financials I cannot see the risk v reward being great enough to warrent for that reason alone.
I know some people think that it is because they see the issues with 40k rules, but again rowntree or not GW do not care about the rules they are still the last thing produced in GW's workflow. Ok well they do care but only that they are bringing in revenue not if there gak or not.
I mean I would not rule out laziness/cheapness 1 rules system needs a lot less man power to maintain as all future updates can be done in parallel. Combine that with no codex cycle and player created and managed faq's and there could be a spike in unemployment in nottingham.
The other thing is what happens with exisiting armies so far in 2 years aos has had 2 full armies, 1 half army and a few scraps produced with a 3rd full army being released soon.
So assuming they don't squat any armies and that gullimarines are real any issues with existing armies ported over might get looked at by 2021.
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'm really looking forward to all these changes and new things, I'm feeling enthusiastic about my hobby again!
Just a thought on save modifiers and not sure if anything has mentioned/suggested it (there's a lot of pages, I was at work when this thread got going and you all keep increasing the page count and I'm too hungry to finish reading ) but what if GW took a leaf from Battle of Prospero and used larger sided dice (D8, D10, D12 etc) for saves? You've got your usual save modifiers but the bigger/better your armour the better the dice you roll? Orks and Guard get a D6 for their flak armour, maybe Space Marines in Power Armour get a boost and get a 3+ save on a D8 or even a D10? Get hit by a lascannon and an impressive -6 modifier, there's still a tiny chance it could just wing the target (well, maim)? Terminators and equivalent walk around with a D12 save and so on.
davou wrote: ON an unrelated note; does anyone here from the old-school recall what movement looked like for iconic units?
How fast were marine bikes and ork bikes? How fast were rhinos compared to IG tanks? How far could a marine walk vs an gaunt?
Bikes were vehicles, and vehicles had speed bands which dictated min and max move, number and degree of turns. You could change speed band once each turn, and I don't recall overwhelming differences between vehicles of similar types.
M was largely faction related, 4" was normal, with 5 or 6" used for some faster races or unit types.
You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm a big AoS fan but. Where its everybody getting those ultra precise revenues and economicals reports of GW?
Last I saw, they never put clearly how many money X game give them.
I remember Hasting (If I'm not remembering wrong) saying that in the beginning AoS was a fail but after the General Handbook droped, the sales have growing exponentially and now its surpases Warhammer Fantasy many times.
I don't think AoS its outselling Fantasy in his golden years but I don't know.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm pretty sure that "40%" thing has been discredited?
Either way, one doesn't express sales in term of profit, it would be 40% of revenue, but considering the number of kits, probably also represents a significant expenditure too.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm a big AoS fan but. Where its everybody getting those ultra precise revenues and economicals reports of GW?
Last I saw, they never put clearly how many money X game give them.
I remember Hasting (If I'm not remembering wrong) saying that in the beginning AoS was a fail but after the General Handbook droped, the sales have growing exponentially and now its surpases Warhammer Fantasy many times.
I don't think AoS its outselling Fantasy in his golden years but I don't know.
I say that, because a buddy of mine is a manager at a local GW store.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm pretty sure that "40%" thing has been discredited?
Either way, one doesn't express sales in term of profit, it would be 40% of revenue, but considering the number of kits, probably also represents a significant expenditure too.
Why have 2 effectively identical games just 1 fantasy and 1 sci-fi'ish..
It worked in the '90s...
Up until 3rd edition 40K/6th edition Fantasy, they were functionally the same game with just some minor differences to account for things like Fantasy revolving around ranked units. You could fight 40K armies up against Fantasy armies with very minor tweaking of the base rules. Even the Magic/Psychic systems were the same, just with different names on the 'power' cards.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea to go back to that, of course... Just that it's not necessarily a bad idea to double down on a system that is popular.
davou wrote: ON an unrelated note; does anyone here from the old-school recall what movement looked like for iconic units?
How fast were marine bikes and ork bikes? How fast were rhinos compared to IG tanks? How far could a marine walk vs an gaunt?
Bikes were vehicles, and vehicles had speed bands which dictated min and max move, number and degree of turns. You could change speed band once each turn, and I don't recall overwhelming differences between vehicles of similar types.
M was largely faction related, 4" was normal, with 5 or 6" used for some faster races or unit types.
Squats might have been 3"?
Yeah, Humans (including Marines) were 4", Squats were 3", Eldar varied between 4 and 6 (maybe 7?) depending on unit type. Vehicles were fast.
I would quite like it to be a quick change, easily worked out in game.
So AP1 is minus 6 to your save, AP2 is minus 5 to your save, AP3 is minus 4, etc.
That way a marine is not getting a save from a lascannon, is getting hurt but not auto kiled by a heavy bolter and small arms fire can negate light armour still.
At the higher armour level it works well and most armour in the game in the 5+ or 6+ variety doesn't save you most of the time any way so it should work out.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
Any citation for any of the financial part of that? because I still sometimes at night hear my local GW store manager crying over his AoS sales targets when I go to sleep. No man should be made to cry over toy soldiers. Actually 3 managers really although the Hobbit was partly responsible for the 1st.
As for the other bits let's say I agree that it's insanely easy to get into(so are prison,debt and drugs still not a good idea) and leave it at that.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
Any citation for any of the financial part of that? because I still sometimes at night hear my local GW store manager crying over his AoS sales targets when I go to sleep. No man should be made to cry over toy soldiers. Actually 3 managers really although the Hobbit was partly responsible for the 1st.
As for the other bits let's say I agree that it's insanely easy to get into(so are prison,debt and drugs still not a good idea) and leave it at that.
Kijamon wrote: I would quite like it to be a quick change, easily worked out in game.
So AP1 is minus 6 to your save, AP2 is minus 5 to your save, AP3 is minus 4, etc.
That way a marine is not getting a save from a lascannon, is getting hurt but not auto kiled by a heavy bolter and small arms fire can negate light armour still.
At the higher armour level it works well and most armour in the game in the 5+ or 6+ variety doesn't save you most of the time any way so it should work out.
that would just leave the problem we have now or massed small arms fire being the best way to kill armored units like terminators.
Honestly?
I would far rather see:
AP1: -3 to your save
AP2-3: -2 to your Save
AP 4-5: -1 to your Save
AP 6 or "-": -0 to your Save.
A Marine getting hit by a Lascannon, now, is just dead as long as it wounds and he has no Cover Save and the Lascannon was probably considered a waste of points anyway--especially since if that one Lascannon fired at its max range the rest of the unit it was in is likely doing nothing but still "shot".
A 48" Attack 1 Hits on 3+, Wounds on 2+ Rend -2 with Damage 3 Lascannon? That's a totally different beast.
Especially if it gets something like "To Wound rolls of 6 cause unsaveable Wounds"--which are a thing in AoS.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'd ask you for a source but it's rather obvious you're inventing 'facts'
davou wrote: I certainly expect any competent designer to be able to product the game without just vomiting words into some rule-set, but the reality is no amount of planning or prep can account for the ways nerds at large will find to break things. Breaking the rules up into unit specific things allows them to fix broken elements without Rube Goldberging some other part of the game into a new worse problem.
Nope. X-Wing, MTG, etc, function with very limited errata after publication. And a big part of that is the fact that they build consistent core rules that everything can reference instead of making each unit have its own special snowflake rules.
and really? A huge burden? Free rules updates that address something broken, dysfunctional are a burden?
No, frequent major updates are a problem. Having a "terminators are -5 points per model" kind of update once every few months for a handful of units is ok, and how it works in other games. Having your example of "terminators get two re-rolls" followed by "no, now they get one re-roll" a week later is not. Players have to change their armies and strategies, people forget that a rule just changed, etc. People still get confused over things like blast weapons hitting every level in a ruin in 7th because the concept of "levels" in a ruin in previous editions no longer exists, and they expect it to still work the same way. And you're talking about having that kind of confusion introduced weekly, across the entire game.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm a big AoS fan but. Where its everybody getting those ultra precise revenues and economicals reports of GW?
Last I saw, they never put clearly how many money X game give them.
I remember Hasting (If I'm not remembering wrong) saying that in the beginning AoS was a fail but after the General Handbook droped, the sales have growing exponentially and now its surpases Warhammer Fantasy many times.
I don't think AoS its outselling Fantasy in his golden years but I don't know.
I say that, because a buddy of mine is a manager at a local GW store.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm pretty sure that "40%" thing has been discredited?
Either way, one doesn't express sales in term of profit, it would be 40% of revenue, but considering the number of kits, probably also represents a significant expenditure too.
Yeah you right. Revenue mb
ho, so your frien that is a local manager at a GW store has access to the sales charts of GW as a whole !!!!????
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'd ask you for a source but it's rather obvious you're inventing 'facts'
Balloons. First it was 30, then 35, then 40. I expect AOS to be 90% of income by the end of the year.
I think NOW AoS may be around 30-35. But have doubts it was so much back then and if so it was mainly due to the lack of new releases. for 40k decreasing its incomes.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm a big AoS fan but. Where its everybody getting those ultra precise revenues and economicals reports of GW?
Last I saw, they never put clearly how many money X game give them.
I remember Hasting (If I'm not remembering wrong) saying that in the beginning AoS was a fail but after the General Handbook droped, the sales have growing exponentially and now its surpases Warhammer Fantasy many times.
I don't think AoS its outselling Fantasy in his golden years but I don't know.
I say that, because a buddy of mine is a manager at a local GW store.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm pretty sure that "40%" thing has been discredited?
Either way, one doesn't express sales in term of profit, it would be 40% of revenue, but considering the number of kits, probably also represents a significant expenditure too.
Yeah you right. Revenue mb
ho, so your frien that is a local manager at a GW store has access to the sales charts of GW as a whole !!!!????
Kids nowadays, so naive
Lol stay mad, but honestly it doesn't matter I just wanna have some fun with the new edition. I notice you're sweating a bit wipe some of that off the brow
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'd ask you for a source but it's rather obvious you're inventing 'facts'
Balloons. First it was 30, then 35, then 40. I expect AOS to be 90% of income by the end of the year.
I think NOW AoS may be around 30-35. But have doubts it was so much back then and if so it was mainly due to the lack of new releases. for 40k decreasing its incomes.
I sincerly doubt it is that high. At best, they probably are a bit above 20%, since iirc according to Hasting, WHFB was around 15% when it was 4th in the ICV2 rating (which is the rank of AOS). And ICV2 is also saying that the growth of GW recently is mostly due to 40k, so it is improbable that AOS made up so much ground.
In terms of movement in 2nd ed it varied within factions- I have my eldar codex here - Guardians, Dire avengers have movement 5", Banshees and harlequins are 6", heavily armoured Dark Reapers are 4". So this might be part of how unit specific data cards work.
silent25 wrote: Just going to add one bit of info: In an interview with Jervis Johnson (HeelanHammer last December), Jervis mentioned the hardest part in developing the AoS rules was the commandment from on high to fit the rules on four A4 sheets. That was likely a Kirby Co. dictate and might not be present in 40K. So we might get a bit more crunch in the 40K rules then was allowed in AoS originally.
Other big question is if the rules will be free or not? That is another point that was not mentioned in the seminar. 40k 8th may suffer if they force another $80 book on us. The easy accessibility of the rules and units helps AoS a lot.
It could be they wanted rules that were essentially part of an MVP for AoS, which is what you want when launching a completely new product anyway. The whole initial release certainly seems like an MVP looking back on it now.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm a big AoS fan but. Where its everybody getting those ultra precise revenues and economicals reports of GW?
Last I saw, they never put clearly how many money X game give them.
I remember Hasting (If I'm not remembering wrong) saying that in the beginning AoS was a fail but after the General Handbook droped, the sales have growing exponentially and now its surpases Warhammer Fantasy many times.
I don't think AoS its outselling Fantasy in his golden years but I don't know.
I say that, because a buddy of mine is a manager at a local GW store.
stewe128 wrote: You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
I'm pretty sure that "40%" thing has been discredited?
Either way, one doesn't express sales in term of profit, it would be 40% of revenue, but considering the number of kits, probably also represents a significant expenditure too.
Yeah you right. Revenue mb
ho, so your frien that is a local manager at a GW store has access to the sales charts of GW as a whole !!!!????
Kids nowadays, so naive
Lol stay mad, but honestly it doesn't matter I just wanna have some fun with the new edition. I notice you're sweating a bit wipe some of that off the brow
I'm not mad. I just find it pathetic when someone invent facts on the internet to get some attention
Wasn't Alarielle the fastest sell single-model unit GW has ever sell? (I'm sure I have wrote that wrong, sorry)
I read that in the internet but actually I never see the original source.
Don't saying that to point like "AoS its selling like hot baguettes in Paris!" but I think it is doing better than more people will like to admit.
And if its selling bad, NP for me, for now they are launching extra content
Instead of going back to 2Ed for insight into movement values, I think it would be more fruitful to look at what comparable units move in Age of Sigmar. What is the move of Flying Monsters / Daemon Princes, etc? Infantry? Sigmarines? Fast units like cav or Elves?
Galas wrote: Wasn't Alarielle the fastest sell single-model unit GW has ever sell? (I'm sure I have wrote that wrong, sorry)
I read that in the internet but actually I never see the original source.
Don't saying that to point like "AoS its selling like hot baguettes in Paris!" but I think it is doing better than more people will like to admit.
And if its selling bad, NP for me, for now they are launching extra content
Never heard about that. It would be really surprising though
rollawaythestone wrote: Instead of going back to 2Ed for insight into movement values, I think it would be more fruitful to look at what comparable units move in Age of Sigmar. What is the move of Flying Monsters / Daemon Princes, etc? Infantry? Sigmarines? Fast units like cav or Elves?
Varies.
Most "human" models move around 4'' to 6'' with destruction models moving d6'' additionally if close to heroes.
Cavalry usually have normally 8'' to 12'' inches of movement, with some outliers reaching the 14-16,
Flying models usually have around 10-14 inches of movement.
I've heard AoS is about 30-35% of GW sales. I know that in my neck of the woods it's completely taken over.
Also, in answer to your question rollawaythestone, 5" seems to be the 'standard' move rate for AoS, with a lot of infantry having that. But elves and unarmored humans like Bloodreavers move 6". Cavalry is around 10" give or take.
rollawaythestone wrote: Instead of going back to 2Ed for insight into movement values, I think it would be more fruitful to look at what comparable units move in Age of Sigmar. What is the move of Flying Monsters / Daemon Princes, etc? Infantry? Sigmarines? Fast units like cav or Elves?
From Grand Alliance Order; the Movement varies.
12" tends towards "fast cavalry". 10" for "heavy cavalry". 12" for "character heavy cavalry". 14" for Ripperdactyls.
Freeguild General on Griffon is * for Move; the more Wounds it takes the slower it moves. Starts at 15" and ends at 7".
Infantry--tends towards 5" across the Humans, 8" is an outlier on Kroxigors, 6" on Elves, 7" for Dryads, 6 and 5 for the Treeman variants.
stewe128 wrote:You know why they're sigmarizing 40k. Just in the past couple years AoS is 40% of GW's profit. It's relaxed, fun, and insanely easy to get into. It's also deceptively in-depth as well. 40k sigmarized will bring more of the dough a business wants IMO, and more people into the hobby as well.
While I doubt the 40%, they did just say General's Handbook has been one of their most popular rulebooks ever. So I believe it's been a big success.
As well, pretty much everything they mention in the presentation and the article on thier community site sounds very familiar to anyone playing Age of Sigmar.
Bonuses for playing thematic armies are like battalion bonuses. Save modifiers are like rend. AoS has individual movement values.
And this whole thing of bespoke rules? Age of Sigmar already has that with their line by line weapon entries and the special rules right in each stat block.
Galas wrote: Wasn't Alarielle the fastest sell single-model unit GW has ever sell? (I'm sure I have wrote that wrong, sorry)
I read that in the internet but actually I never see the original source.
Don't saying that to point like "AoS its selling like hot baguettes in Paris!" but I think it is doing better than more people will like to admit.
And if its selling bad, NP for me, for now they are launching extra content
I think it was on facebook, there was a post about how she and the sylvaneth were blasted off of the shelves and they had to make more. Also she was out of stock for like several weeks straight along with some of the units in multiple territories, also the new DOT book went into softback in like the first to second week of pre order. Considering they have just recently said the general handbook is one of their most highest selling supplements I think AOS is doing well.
No one has the numbers, but if it was truly doing poorly they would not incorporate some of the rules into 40k or note that the general handbook is one of their highest selling books during their seminar.
edit: Also with the warscroll builder coming out soon for free there is literally no barrier of entry into the hobby now via AOS.
Why is everyone so angry about unreleased rules? It's up to gw what they do and if change no good use previous edition..
They will do what they want to do. Money and sales talk that is what they care about.
If it heavily reduces income it will soon change.
While I have no idea the sales percentage that AOS makes up, anecdotally around here it seems to be doing pretty well. 40k seems to sell more models talking to my LGS, but I never see anyone playing it when I'm in the three game stores in my town. Heck, when you look at their schedules two of them have one 40k night a month and the other does not host it at all. AOS on the other hand has weekly play groups at two of three and the other store (which primarily does MTG) has people playing it there somewhat regularly.
In general though, I mostly see people around here playing X-Wing, Infinity, Blood Bowl and occasionally older specialist games (Necromunda/Mordheim) or Warmahordes.
I think a lot of the move to change the rules with some AOS is because the currently 40k rules are a bloated, horrid mess. All of my friends who do miniature gaming own 40k models, and occasionally buy 40k models to build and paint. But none of them (myself included) play 40k because it's a real bore to get through a game and a convoluted mess. I don't play AOS, but I have the General's handbook, and I think the rules make for a game that is very playable.
I imagine a lot of people that buy 40k models are buying an occasional box to build/kitbash/paint or use for another game. I think GW would like to get those people playing their flagship game and buying more models, and this move towards cleaning up the rules is likely an attempt to do so.
With the new attitude GW has taken towards their customer base I imagine the new rules will please at least a good portion of their clientele.
With the new attitude GW has taken towards their customer base I imagine the new rules will please at least a good portion of their clientele.
That's certainly the hope. What concerns me is that while corporate policy might have changed, rules-wise these are the same guys who thought in 6th edition that Psykers needed a boost because the studio guys were all using Captains and Chaplains instead of Librarians. While out in the real world, the Librarian was widely regarded as the best choice and already slightly overpowered.
So yes, it's likely that the new rules will be intended to please at least a good portion of their clientele. It's whether or not GW actually has any idea of how to do that, that remains in doubt.
That's certainly the hope. What concerns me is that while corporate policy might have changed, rules-wise these are the same guys who thought in 6th edition that Psykers needed a boost because the studio guys were all using Captains and Chaplains instead of Librarians. While out in the real world, the Librarian was widely regarded as the best choice and already slightly overpowered.
So yes, it's likely that the new rules will be intended to please at least a good portion of their clientele. It's whether or not GW actually has any idea of how to do that, that remains in doubt.
That's a very fair point, I'm hoping taking feedback into account from the community and seemingly being more open about accepting said feedback (particularly from TOs and people that play a lot) they can curtail some of their odd "GWisms" for lack of a better term. Hopefully if they do blunder something too badly they will actually FAQ it (the previous FAQ in my opinion is a good sign for the company).
Why have 2 effectively identical games just 1 fantasy and 1 sci-fi'ish..
It worked in the '90s...
Up until 3rd edition 40K/6th edition Fantasy, they were functionally the same game with just some minor differences to account for things like Fantasy revolving around ranked units. You could fight 40K armies up against Fantasy armies with very minor tweaking of the base rules. Even the Magic/Psychic systems were the same, just with different names on the 'power' cards.
The difference between ranked units and loose units made the games play completely different though, where as if you port AoS rules over to 40k the two games are going to end up playing very similar to each other.
I always felt that was the advantage of having 40k and WHFB, they appealed to rather different segments of the wargaming community. Where as AoS vs 40k I think have larger overlap in their appeal.
With rules changes as huge as suggested they will surely have to do as they did with AOS and warscroll everything out there, simply to avoid a decade before everyone gets a new codex with relevant stat lines. They can then move on and do whatever they like as everything is technically supported. Minifactions can come and go. They can regularly hop onto the nostalgia train (a la Mechanicus, GS Cult), or make Ubermarines, whatever takes their fancy that particular day. Badly-worded unit cards can be rewritten and reissued instead of FAQ'd. Should be pretty liberating for the Studio, creatively.
That's certainly the hope. What concerns me is that while corporate policy might have changed, rules-wise these are the same guys who thought in 6th edition that Psykers needed a boost because the studio guys were all using Captains and Chaplains instead of Librarians. While out in the real world, the Librarian was widely regarded as the best choice and already slightly overpowered.
So yes, it's likely that the new rules will be intended to please at least a good portion of their clientele. It's whether or not GW actually has any idea of how to do that, that remains in doubt.
That's a very fair point, I'm hoping taking feedback into account from the community and seemingly being more open about accepting said feedback (particularly from TOs and people that play a lot) they can curtail some of their odd "GWisms" for lack of a better term. Hopefully if they do blunder something too badly they will actually FAQ it (the previous FAQ in my opinion is a good sign for the company).
The most encouraging part of this news is that they are not just taking feedback but actively working with specific members of the community on the new rules.
I am very curious about when the new rules will drop. The post on the community website makes it sound like it is not soon.
Things like 'we are thinking of doing this' and 'you will be able to play this at next year's Adepticon.' It is starting to sound like an autumn or winter release.
When they are mentioning the 'new movement bases', behind the white coat fellow there's a box full of sprues. What are those sprues!? They look like a vehicle of some sort.
Yeah I can't find any times either. I'm est in Canada. Also I did google it earlier and it said 23rd, but the thread here said only 22nd. So I wanted to double check with people to make sure it was a multiday thing.
When they are mentioning the 'new movement bases', behind the white coat fellow there's a box full of sprues. What are those sprues!? They look like a vehicle of some sort.
If you're looking for any serious clues in that video...well... ;-)
As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A few things from 2nd ed are comming back: save modifiers, movement stat.
A few things from AoS are being ported, namely battleshock.
Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone.
So that maybe means no more ATSKNF?
I really dislike the idea of morale = more casualties. 40k morale sucks so they're just moving to a different sucky system.
I reckon they need to consider morale as more than just "how many models do I remove from the table?", I'd like to see morale actually affect how a unit behaves, and I think forcing units to fall back is an important aspect of morale for the sake of shifting models out of cover or away from objectives without having to wipe them.
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
...or our Nids could end up moving faster, hitting first and causing extra casualties. And getting new fluffy rules to boot. Ya know, we just don't know...
Morale in AoS seems fine to me. Tough durable elite units will lose few models - and will thus rarely fail morale tests, just like they should. Shoddy troops will lose more models and thus be more susceptible to being thinned out. However, if an elite unit does fail, you have to pull pricey elite models from the table. No more shielding your deathstar with a billion dogs, etc. Its an interesting counter to deathstars - give that you have to pull full models off the table - as well as a way to thin down big units. I'm hopeful that it works nicely in 40K. Also keep in mind that in AoS, there are a billion ways to mitigate morale checks with leaders and so on. Expect similar powers in 40k.
-Loki- wrote: Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
Tbh.. I am thinking Tyranids are likely to benefit from the rules changes..
I am looking forward to when these rules drop and getting my old horde army back out there
Future War Cultist wrote: Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.
I am also thinking Synapse will make it an non issue as well
JohnnyHell wrote: ...or our Nids could end up moving faster, hitting first and causing extra casualties. And getting new fluffy rules to boot. Ya know, we just don't know...
Years and years of GW treating nids like crap makes me automatically assume any changes are going to screw with them even worse
I'm betting on nids having rules that give them terrible leadership or remove even more than the usual number of models due to morale because GW seems to think the fun aspect of Tyranids is taking models off the table and putting them back in my carrying case.
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
While the morale thing sucks for the little bugs, it's actually better than running off the board or eating yourself because you are out of Synapse. Instead, movement stats (which Tyranids are assuredly getting buffs - Hormagants, Raveners, a 10 inch move Trygon!... i'm salivating at being able to move my bugs up the table for once) and even the new morale mechanics could really benefit the tyranids.
Future War Cultist wrote: Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.
Provided link does not mention Bravery is coming to 40k.
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
While the morale thing sucks for the little bugs, it's actually better than running off the board or eating yourself because you are out of Synapse. Instead, movement stats (which Tyranids are assuredly getting buffs - Hormagants, Raveners, a 10 inch move Trygon!... i'm salivating at being able to move my bugs up the table for once) and even the new morale mechanics could really benefit the tyranids.
The way I read the Morale rule sounds awful, unless they explain it more elsewhere. Taking additional casualties because to suffered some casualties sounds awful for a unit that's going to, by game design, take a lot of casualties.
Future War Cultist wrote: Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.
I am also thinking Synapse will make it an non issue as well
Well they've said "morale... affects everyone", so I wouldn't count on Synapse negating it.
Future War Cultist wrote: Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.
I am also thinking Synapse will make it an non issue as well
Well they've said "morale... affects everyone", so I wouldn't count on Synapse negating it.
Right, but you have to roll really bad - and if your leadership is high enough it doesn't effect you much. You can lose a lot of models before you start taking casualties.
I also think the new armor save modifiers will really benefit the Tyranids. Whereas we have very little Ap 2 or 3 (other than monsters), i'm sure we will have plenty of models with -1 or -2 to armor save (rending claws for instance).
-Loki- wrote: I haven't seen a Tyranid release since 4th that gives me faith Tyranids won't be fethed over by such a rule, however.
That's basically the position I'm in at the moment I just get this annoying feeling like GW will find a way to make us remove as many models as possible because they think that's what's fun Something like "within synapse range remove normal number of models and outside of it remove twice as many models".
Or what if they just binned Synapse as a terribad execution of the concept and made the army, composed as it is Of creatures bred to throw themselves at the enemy and die, largely immune to standard psychology? We do not know anything about their plans. Honestly, doomsaying and overspeculating off these few tidbits is fairly pointless. Fun, but pointless.
davou wrote: ONLY a problem if they let problem armies sit too long without a fix.
No, it's a problem, period. Updating all armies fast enough fixes the balance issues but it doesn't fix the complexity issues. 40k has major problems with the rules being a bloated mess of special rules, exceptions to the special rules, exceptions to the exceptions, etc. And now GW is promising to make sure that each model has its "cool bespoke rules" instead of simplifying things into core rules for classes of units.
if unit types go away, and say, eldar jetbikes end up broken as gak... you can just update their card. If space marine dreads are working fine, but massively over costed - Card update. Harlequins never make it into assault; boom their card now says they roll 3d6 for assault and keep the highest two. Terminators always die? For every five in the squad you get a re-roll on a failed save, or two.. Two was too much, go back to one next week.
This is terrible design. Frequent major changes like that means that the game designer is doing a job of developing the product before publication, and it imposes a huge burden on the players to keep track of all the weekly changes. And when you're making major changes like that (as opposed to minor point cost adjustments) you're almost guaranteeing that you will create things that don't work well and have to keep making major changes. The correct way to do it is to do proper design and playtesting so that the final product is finished, and needs minor adjustments at most once it is published.
5th Ed Fearless was the WORST, it literally was the worst rules in 40k, it made me HATE 40k until I stopped playing Hoard Nids.
Now everyone gets that rule :(
Holy God Emperor, guys! healthy discussion is great and all but for some of you best not blow your top until you know more. At the very least wait until Adepticon is over.
I have news! ( not about 40k though).
From the official Facebook page. 'Warhammer Underworlds is the game. Shadespire is the setting for the first season.'
I wonder if shadow war will also follow this format.
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
Actually it's quite good for swarm and horde armies. For the sake of the argument let's say GW decides bravery works just like AOS, units with larger numbers get bonuses and some ( clan rats ) have higher bravery due to taking more than 10-20 in a unit. Honestly you can't really judge this if you don't play much AOS because it's very different than anything WHFB and 40K have had in the past
I hope the next edition is a major reboot and not just one where you use the same codex books (or data slates or whatever) from previous editions but everyone gets new army lists to start fresh with.
Part of me wants this because the idea of some of the more detestable locals having their armies invalidated would bring me some measure of mirth. I don't know how it happened, but all the good natured and friendly opponents switched to Age of Sigmar (and Flames of War, Infinity and Bolt Action) while all the rules lawyers and rude people stuck with 40k.(and WM/H).
If Age of the Emperor can do for 40k around here what AoS did for fantasy, I'll give it a serious look. The general positivity of people who actually play AoS would be a nice thing to see in 40k, both in person and online.
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
Actually it's quite good for swarm and horde armies. For the sake of the argument let's say GW decides bravery works just like AOS, units with larger numbers get bonuses and some ( clan rats ) have higher bravery due to taking more than 10-20 in a unit. Honestly you can't really judge this if you don't play much AOS because it's very different than anything WHFB and 40K have had in the past
Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
Actually it's quite good for swarm and horde armies. For the sake of the argument let's say GW decides bravery works just like AOS, units with larger numbers get bonuses and some ( clan rats ) have higher bravery due to taking more than 10-20 in a unit. Honestly you can't really judge this if you don't play much AOS because it's very different than anything WHFB and 40K have had in the past
Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
Single models don't take morale tests in AoS.. and it's based on units losing models (not necessarily wounds), and not winning / losing combat. Presumably, even if you won combat, but lost models that turn, you might have to take a morale test.
Amishprn86 wrote: Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
That is NOT how Bravery works in Age of Sigmar, it is absolutely nothing like you describe. This is how it actually works;
If a unit suffered any casualties during a turn, roll a D6 at the end of the turn for that specific unit; you then add that D6 roll to the number of casualties that unit suffered in that turn. You then compare the total score to the units' Bravery characteristic, and for each point the total result exceeds the units' Bravery characteristic, one model in the unit dies/flees.
Ergo....SOLO MODELS CAN NEVER TAKE BATTLESHOCK TESTS as a solo model would be dead before it would have to test for Battleshock. Regardless of how many units you have fighting next to each other, the losses of one unit do not in any way affect the losses of another unit when it comes time to take Battleshock tests. You could have two Hormagaunt units fighting a single Terminator squad; one Hormagaunt unit suffered 10 casualties and so would have to take a Battleshock test of D6+10, but the other Hormagaunt unit only suffered 2 casualties and so would instead take a Battleshock test of D6+2. Capiche?
Besides, for those complaining that it will screw over horde armies, here's the thing; Age of Sigmar has a core rule that gives units +1 Bravery for every 10 models in the unit, and there are abilities and equipment that increase units' Bravery. On top of that, characters often confer abilities that either ignore or mitigate Battleshock losses, with every General/Warlord having a Command Ability/Warlord Trait that lets them freely make any single unit within 12" completely immune to Battleshock for a turn. Properly designed horde armies are absolutely terrifying in Age of Sigmar, so if anything, Tyranid players should be *excited* that the core rules may actually favour them for the first time since...how many editions ago? Tyranid units having their own (probably high) movement values instead of conforming to core-rule standards that other armies follow, Tyranid units striking first on the turn they charge into combat (who needs assault grenades now?), armour save modifiers potentially making weapons like Rupture Cannons actually useful against enemies like Dreadknights, and the overall rules revamp will probably give every army some new strategies and tactics to try out which, given how long it has been since Tyranids got an update, should be very exciting.
I'm so glad the AP system is gone, that might be the biggest thing for me. Rubric Marines cutting right through Power Armour like butter but being nigh on useless against Terminator Armour made little sense, actual armour save modifiers will represent proper armour degradation rather than "AP1/2 or nothing at all".
Amishprn86 wrote: Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
That is NOT how Bravery works in Age of Sigmar, it is absolutely nothing like you describe. This is how it actually works;
If a unit suffered any casualties during a turn, roll a D6 at the end of the turn for that specific unit; you then add that D6 roll to the number of casualties that unit suffered in that turn. You then compare the total score to the units' Bravery characteristic, and for each point the total result exceeds the units' Bravery characteristic, one model in the unit dies/flees.
Ergo....SOLO MODELS CAN NEVER TAKE BATTLESHOCK TESTS as a solo model would be dead before it would have to test for Battleshock. Regardless of how many units you have fighting next to each other, the losses of one unit do not in any way affect the losses of another unit when it comes time to take Battleshock tests. You could have two Hormagaunt units fighting a single Terminator squad; one Hormagaunt unit suffered 10 casualties and so would have to take a Battleshock test of D6+10, but the other Hormagaunt unit only suffered 2 casualties and so would instead take a Battleshock test of D6+2. Capiche?
Besides, for those complaining that it will screw over horde armies, here's the thing; Age of Sigmar has a core rule that gives units +1 Bravery for every 10 models in the unit, and there are abilities and equipment that increase units' Bravery. On top of that, characters often confer abilities that either ignore or mitigate Battleshock losses, with every General/Warlord having a Command Ability/Warlord Trait that lets them freely make any single unit within 12" completely immune to Battleshock for a turn.
How do we know? I say "IF" it is like.... I didnt see any GW posts that said it worked like Bravery
Edit: I understant we are assuming it is working like AoS, but again I was just saying "I hope it wont work like 5ed th fearless' Remember this is GW, they can f' it up easily.
How do we know? I say "IF" it is like.... I didnt see any GW posts that said it worked like Bravery
"Morale works like Battleshock from AoS"
What does that tell you?
The GW post I saw didnt have this wording.
It says
Morale
Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties.
Morale
Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties.
Which spells out exactly that single models can never fail the test...
It is literally the *exact* same rule as in Age of Sigmar. AoS is; roll a D6 if the unit has suffered casualties this turn, and add the number of casualties suffered to that roll. Subtract your Bravery and take that many additional casualties.
Literally. The. Exact. Same. Thing.
Morale
Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties.
Which spells out exactly that single models can never fail the test...
It is literally the *exact* same rule as in Age of Sigmar. AoS is; roll a D6 if the unit has suffered casualties this turn, and add the number of casualties suffered to that roll. Subtract your Bravery and take that many additional casualties.
Literally. The. Exact. Same. Thing.
It doesnt matter if it is worded the same if we dont know the other 99% of the rules tho. They didnt say it works like AoS, they just had the same wording.
There is nothing wrong is saying "Given we dont know the other 90%+ rules for 8th ed, I would like to remind GW and say that I hope it wont work like 5th ed Fearless"
Why are you so argumentative about me making that statement? And we DONT know if it will stay like they are sainyg b.c they quote
It doesnt matter if it is worded the same if we dont know the other 99% of the rules tho. They didnt say it works like AoS, they just had the same wording.
There is nothing wrong is saying "Given we dont know the other 90%+ rules for 8th ed, I would like to remind GW and say that I hope it wont work like 5th ed Fearless"
Why are you so argumentative about me making that statement? And we DONT know if it will stay like they are sainyg b.c they quote
We’re thinking of replacing break tests
means it is still in testing anyways.
If the rule has the exact same wording, the rule works like Age of Sigmar. That's fairly self explanatory.
Nothing we have seen indicates it will function in any way like 5th Edition Fearless per the example you provided.
5th Ed Fearless was the WORST, it literally was the worst rules in 40k, it made me HATE 40k until I stopped playing Hoard Nids.
Now everyone gets that rule :(
I'm merely pointing out that you're jumping to conclusions. I also explained how Bravery works in AoS and what that, based on the identical tentative rule they want to use for 40K, means for 40K armies such as Tyranids.
Sorry if I come off as brash but I'm getting really tired of people (not specifically you) crapping on the (AoS) system when they either a) haven't played it or b) are skipping logic in favour of sweeping statements.
As this seems to be the thread for the discussion of the new 8th ed leaked rumours, I thought I would just perhaps leave this here. This is one of my good friends opinions and I wanted to see what you thought of it as I think he makes some very valid points:
"1. t looks like they want to have their cake AND eat it. Going more simple BUT more complex. I mean you want me to take it on faith that that model does that? At least with classification of troops I can broadly estimate that somebody is cheating. With EVERY unit having a separate warscr... I mean dataslate I will have to put complete trust and faith into my opponent
2. They can stick the morale concept. Are you seriously going to tell me bog standard infantry will take additional casualties because they're not astartes?! Grow up. So I have lost 4 boys to shooting (on a good day) I roll a 6, minus my ldr 7 and I get 3 more casualties?! Marines will take 0 in the same scenario! By that logic Nids never take any additional because fearless...
3. Charging units strike first. So you're expensive aspect warriors are going to get butchered by terminators with power fists?
4. Armour modifiers. Well nobody is getting an armour save in the current meta then
5. So you're rewarding me for being fluffy? I mean I respect the intent, but formations haven't balanced the game have they? NO, they made it worse.
Basically i'm dubious at best. Sound like armies are going to get WAAAY more complex at the cost of the game getting more simple.
No need for 3 levels of play. Just have Sandpit, an actual game and APOC,(APOC is just a bigger version of sandpit)
Actually the '3 ways to play' just sounds more insane the more I think about it. You need a single mode of play with slight alterations. I mean if you want to play magic then you follow the rules. Could you imagine being able to pick your hand from your entire deck turn after turn? No. Who says I have to play games on my xbox 1, personally I'd like use it as a chalk board. How about that monopoly board? I've got an idea, instead of playing monopoly i'm going to buy a copy and flip the board and print scrabble on the back instead of buying scrabble. If people want to do something badly enough they will do it, they don't need to be told to."
In case you didn't pick it up, he's an ork player!
Personally, I have very mixed feelings, I have played Age of Sigmar and I think they made it worse, so I'm worried about 40k. Anyone thought about what might happen to the imperial armour books and forgeworld rules with this ruling? Does the 'three ways to play' mean they're removing the FOC?
Someone reassure me
DaemonColin wrote: As this seems to be the thread for the discussion of the new 8th ed leaked rumours, I thought I would just perhaps leave this here. This is one of my good friends opinions and I wanted to see what you thought of it as I think he makes some very valid points:
"1. t looks like they want to have their cake AND eat it. Going more simple BUT more complex. I mean you want me to take it on faith that that model does that? At least with classification of troops I can broadly estimate that somebody is cheating. With EVERY unit having a separate warscr... I mean dataslate I will have to put complete trust and faith into my opponent
2. They can stick the morale concept. Are you seriously going to tell me bog standard infantry will take additional casualties because they're not astartes?! Grow up. So I have lost 4 boys to shooting (on a good day) I roll a 6, minus my ldr 7 and I get 3 more casualties?! Marines will take 0 in the same scenario! By that logic Nids never take any additional because fearless...
3. Charging units strike first. So you're expensive aspect warriors are going to get butchered by terminators with power fists?
4. Armour modifiers. Well nobody is getting an armour save in the current meta then
5. So you're rewarding me for being fluffy? I mean I respect the intent, but formations haven't balanced the game have they? NO, they made it worse.
Basically i'm dubious at best. Sound like armies are going to get WAAAY more complex at the cost of the game getting more simple.
No need for 3 levels of play. Just have Sandpit, an actual game and APOC,(APOC is just a bigger version of sandpit)
Actually the '3 ways to play' just sounds more insane the more I think about it. You need a single mode of play with slight alterations. I mean if you want to play magic then you follow the rules. Could you imagine being able to pick your hand from your entire deck turn after turn? No. Who says I have to play games on my xbox 1, personally I'd like use it as a chalk board. How about that monopoly board? I've got an idea, instead of playing monopoly i'm going to buy a copy and flip the board and print scrabble on the back instead of buying scrabble. If people want to do something badly enough they will do it, they don't need to be told to."
1. No worse than it is currently with formation and army wide special rules...
2. You don't know the buffs that might be in play and i already proved 2 or 3 pages ago in a mathhammer example 10 orks v10 marines would be better off with this rule in assault
3. Terminators which cost more than those aspect warriors and if you let foot slogging termintors (who will now prob be moving slower than eldar) into HTH before you then ye a pretty poor eldar player
4. Who does already? + for armies like orks this is a huge benefit they already get little in the way of armour saves but are likely to gain armour mods to THEIR weapons... good times if you ask me for orks
5. Most formations are not necessarily fluffy to a faction as a whole they represent subsets of special types of army
6. There are already two ways to play unbound and battleforged. If they split this out to unbound, set armies on a narrative and competitive where they actually add useful guidelines for tournaments etc then it might be a very good thing
DaemonColin wrote:As this seems to be the thread for the discussion of the new 8th ed leaked rumours, I thought I would just perhaps leave this here. This is one of my good friends opinions and I wanted to see what you thought of it as I think he makes some very valid points:
"1. t looks like they want to have their cake AND eat it. Going more simple BUT more complex. I mean you want me to take it on faith that that model does that? At least with classification of troops I can broadly estimate that somebody is cheating. With EVERY unit having a separate warscr... I mean dataslate I will have to put complete trust and faith into my opponent
2. They can stick the morale concept. Are you seriously going to tell me bog standard infantry will take additional casualties because they're not astartes?! Grow up. So I have lost 4 boys to shooting (on a good day) I roll a 6, minus my ldr 7 and I get 3 more casualties?! Marines will take 0 in the same scenario! By that logic Nids never take any additional because fearless...
3. Charging units strike first. So you're expensive aspect warriors are going to get butchered by terminators with power fists?
4. Armour modifiers. Well nobody is getting an armour save in the current meta then
5. So you're rewarding me for being fluffy? I mean I respect the intent, but formations haven't balanced the game have they? NO, they made it worse.
Basically i'm dubious at best. Sound like armies are going to get WAAAY more complex at the cost of the game getting more simple.
No need for 3 levels of play. Just have Sandpit, an actual game and APOC,(APOC is just a bigger version of sandpit)
Actually the '3 ways to play' just sounds more insane the more I think about it. You need a single mode of play with slight alterations. I mean if you want to play magic then you follow the rules. Could you imagine being able to pick your hand from your entire deck turn after turn? No. Who says I have to play games on my xbox 1, personally I'd like use it as a chalk board. How about that monopoly board? I've got an idea, instead of playing monopoly i'm going to buy a copy and flip the board and print scrabble on the back instead of buying scrabble. If people want to do something badly enough they will do it, they don't need to be told to."
In case you didn't pick it up, he's an ork player!
Personally, I have very mixed feelings, I have played Age of Sigmar and I think they made it worse, so I'm worried about 40k. Anyone thought about what might happen to the imperial armour books and forgeworld rules with this ruling? Does the 'three ways to play' mean they're removing the FOC?
Someone reassure me
1: just ask to glance over the dataslates if you dont trust your opponent, snd if something seems fishy just ask.
2: actually, an average marine unit with that rolled a 6 in that situation would lose 2 models. Of course, for all we know, ATSKNF could change to effect 40k battleshock somehow, but we dont know anything so far.
3: Terminators are hot garbage, but they will already demolish any aspect warriors they charge. You know, since Aspect Warriors dont have any AP2, for the most part.
4: except the modifiers wont be like fantasy, it will most likely be like rend. So there will be more armour saves then before.
5: the three ways of play re already in AoS, and in 40k would be unbound, narrative (where army lists/what units in each army would be provided and you recreate a battle) and what we have now. Typically, that means you play the matched/points games with pick ups and in tournaments, so nothing would change.
Formations are already the way they reward 'fluffy lists', so if they removed formation bonuses and gave you command points for taking formations instead to use to build your bonuses, it would provide more depth than formations do now.
Why are you telling us? We aren't developing the next 40k edition.
Give your feedback to GW.
But we are buying it, they dont want to bring out rules that will burn many bridges. This is a good thing they are showing us up front. You think walmart and Krogers makes a need product out of the top of there heads? No they do loads of research and testing with consumers first.
I keep seeing people applying 7th edition logic to 8th edition proposed changes. Just because marines have ATSKNF in its current form now, when marines are totally redesigned from the ground up for the new edition (same as everyone else), it will likely do something else.
Amishprn86 wrote: Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
That is NOT how Bravery works in Age of Sigmar, it is absolutely nothing like you describe. This is how it actually works;
If a unit suffered any casualties during a turn, roll a D6 at the end of the turn for that specific unit; you then add that D6 roll to the number of casualties that unit suffered in that turn. You then compare the total score to the units' Bravery characteristic, and for each point the total result exceeds the units' Bravery characteristic, one model in the unit dies/flees.
Ergo....SOLO MODELS CAN NEVER TAKE BATTLESHOCK TESTS as a solo model would be dead before it would have to test for Battleshock. Regardless of how many units you have fighting next to each other, the losses of one unit do not in any way affect the losses of another unit when it comes time to take Battleshock tests. You could have two Hormagaunt units fighting a single Terminator squad; one Hormagaunt unit suffered 10 casualties and so would have to take a Battleshock test of D6+10, but the other Hormagaunt unit only suffered 2 casualties and so would instead take a Battleshock test of D6+2. Capiche?
Besides, for those complaining that it will screw over horde armies, here's the thing; Age of Sigmar has a core rule that gives units +1 Bravery for every 10 models in the unit, and there are abilities and equipment that increase units' Bravery. On top of that, characters often confer abilities that either ignore or mitigate Battleshock losses, with every General/Warlord having a Command Ability/Warlord Trait that lets them freely make any single unit within 12" completely immune to Battleshock for a turn. Properly designed horde armies are absolutely terrifying in Age of Sigmar, so if anything, Tyranid players should be *excited* that the core rules may actually favour them for the first time since...how many editions ago? Tyranid units having their own (probably high) movement values instead of conforming to core-rule standards that other armies follow, Tyranid units striking first on the turn they charge into combat (who needs assault grenades now?), armour save modifiers potentially making weapons like Rupture Cannons actually useful against enemies like Dreadknights, and the overall rules revamp will probably give every army some new strategies and tactics to try out which, given how long it has been since Tyranids got an update, should be very exciting.
I'm so glad the AP system is gone, that might be the biggest thing for me. Rubric Marines cutting right through Power Armour like butter but being nigh on useless against Terminator Armour made little sense, actual armour save modifiers will represent proper armour degradation rather than "AP1/2 or nothing at all".
Re: Nids, you make valid points, but all are contingent on the Nids actually getting some decent rules. And for the past several years, it has seemed that noone on GW staff really cares for them - the current dex is exceedingly bland. So whilst there is the possibility that Nids get some awesome new flavourful rules, I am not holding my breath and won't believe it until I see them :p
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?
Tactical Marines are literally all you see because of Gladius.
Implying this only happens because of a specific formation and hinting that the real core of a White Scar "fluffy" army isn't tactical marines.
We aren't talking about stereotypes, we are talking about the CORE of a chapter's strength in the fluff - you know, what you need to take into consideration if you want truly want to build a thematic army.
If you're going to push stereotypes as the core of a Chapter, then the Unforgiven don't use tactical squads, right? I mean all they use is Ravenwing and Deathwing - because that's the stereotype of the DA army right?
And regarding the little attempt at devaluing of the info I just gave you to look at and learn about just because "ahmagad lexi is soooo much better", please find the sources of the info that wikia page uses:
Spoiler:
Codex: Armageddon (3rd Edition), pg. 32
Codex: Blood Angels (5th Edition), pg. 15
Codex: Necrons (5th Edition), pg. 25
Codex: Chaos Space Marines (3rd Edition, 2nd Codex), pg. 7
Codex: Space Marines (6th Edition), pp. 8, 19, 34-39, 64, 73, 77, 111, 142-143
Codex: Space Marines (5th Edition), pp. 8, 28, 30, 42-43, 47, 49, 94
Codex: Space Marines (4th Edition)
Codex: Space Marines (3rd Edition)
Deathwatch: First Founding (RPG), pp. 27-34
Flames of Damnation (Comic Anthology), "The Pilgrim" by James Peaty & artwork by Shaun Thomas
Horus Heresy: Collected Visions (Artbook Series), pp. 344-345
Imperial Armour Volume Two - Forces of the Inquisition & the Space Marines
Imperial Armour Volume Two, Second Edition - War Machines of the Adeptus Astartes, pg. 51
Imperial Armour Volume Nine - The Badab War - Part One, pp. 17, 108
Imperial Armour Volume Ten - The Badab War - Part Two, pg. 64
Index Astartes I, "Lightning Attack - The White Scars Space Marines Chapter," pp. 40-47
Rogue Trader Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook (1st Edition), pp. 156, 168
The Sabbat Worlds Crusade (Background Book)
Warhammer 40,000 Compendium (1st Edition), pp. 31, 79
White Scars 390 (US), "Army Project: White Scars vs. Orks", Steve Bowman and Duncan Rhodes, pg. 52-57
White Dwarf 312 (US), "Silent Menace: Space Marine Scouts"
White Dwarf 311 (US), "Index Astartes: Silent Menace" & "Behind Enemy Lines", pp. 84-88
White Dwarf 300 (US), "Legends of the Space Marines", p. 118
White Dwarf 286 (US), "The Eye of the Storm: Space Marine Chapters fighting in the Eye of Terror"
White Dwarf 283 (US), "Eye of Terror Campaign"
White Dwarf 257 (UK), "Index Astartes I: Index Astartes - Lightning Attack - The White Scars Space Marine Chapter"
White Dwarf 256 (US), "Index Astartes I: Index Astartes - Lightning Attack - The White Scars Space Marine Chapter"
White Dwarf 251 (US), "The Final Days of Armageddon", pp. 6-27
White Dwarf 249 (US), "Emperor's Shield: Space Marine Chapters of the Armageddon War"
White Dwarf 248 (US), "The Third War for Armageddon"
White Dwarf 93 (UK), "Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader Edition Preview", pp. 33-44
Fulgrim (Novel) by Graham McNeill
Age of Darkness (Anthology) edited by Christian Dunn, "Little Horus" by Dan Abnett
Brotherhood of the Storm (Audio Drama) by Chris Wraight
Descent of Angels (Novel) by Mitchel Scanlon
Scars (Collector's Edition Novel) by Chris Wraight
The Path of Heaven (Novel) by Chris Wraight
Brotherhood of the Moon (Novella) by Chris Wraight
Grey Hunt (Audio) by Chris Wraight
Hunt for Voldorius (Novel) by Andy Hoare
Legends of the Space Marines (Anthology), "Cover of Darkness" by Mitchel Scanlon pg. 77
Let the Galaxy Burn (Compilation), "Into the Maelstrom" by Chris Pramas
Rogue Star (Rogue Trader Novel Series) by Andy Hoare
Salvation's Reach (Novel) by Dan Abnett
Savage Scars (Novel) by Andy Hoare
Star of Damocles (Rogue Trader Novel Series) by Andy Hoare
The Saint (Omnibus) by Dan Abnett
Warriors of Ultramar (Ultramarines Novel Series) by Graham McNeill
Epic Armageddon Resources, "Epic White Scars", Games Workshop Website
Third War for Armageddon Worldwide Campaign - Forces Disposition, Imperial Forces: White Scars
gungo wrote: "I hope all the rules stay almost exactly the same because 6th/7th ed is awesome"- said no one ever
White scars aren't the most played chapter that's ultramarines with thier 100 free character upgrades and free rules.
Me, 7th is the most fun I've had, 5th was terrible IMO.
The problem to me ISNT the 7th ed BRB its the power creep. if codex's and formations were ore balanced I feel more would like it. With that said i still highly enjoy the insane combinations we can do i just wish some wasone OPAF.
gungo wrote: "I hope all the rules stay almost exactly the same because 6th/7th ed is awesome"- said no one ever
White scars aren't the most played chapter that's ultramarines with thier 100 free character upgrades and free rules.
Me, 7th is the most fun I've had, 5th was terrible IMO.
The problem to me ISNT the 7th ed BRB its the power creep. if codex's and formations were ore balanced I feel more would like it. With that said i still highly enjoy the insane combinations we can do i just wish some wasone OPAF.
Even the base rules are responsible of the unbalance.
Dudeface wrote: ...when marines are totally redesigned from the ground up for the new edition (same as everyone else), it will likely do something else..
That's not helping your case.
7th edition has some pretty major issues, but the prospect of the game being turned into something completely different rather than fixing the issues is no more appealing for 40k than it was for Fantasy.
From the link:
“Armour save modifiers. This topic comes up almost as often as Sisters of Battle… so we’re going to bring them back. ”
WHY IS IT NOT THE SISTERS THAT YOU ARE BRINGING BACK IF THE TOPICS COME EVEN MORE OFTEN?
Dudeface wrote: ...when marines are totally redesigned from the ground up for the new edition (same as everyone else), it will likely do something else..
That's not helping your case.
7th edition has some pretty major issues, but the prospect of the game being turned into something completely different rather than fixing the issues is no more appealing for 40k than it was for Fantasy.
We still have no idea what 8th Ed is going to look like.
All we know is a handful of things they'd like to include, and they hope it'll all be done and ready for release around Adepticon next year.
That's it.
If you're concerned that they're going in the wrong direction - tell GW.
If you're concerned the proposals, even if somehow fitted into the existing rules framework don't actually address the issues you have with 7th Ed - tell GW.
Come on folks. GW are listening to us these days. Time to raise your voice in their direction.
gungo wrote: "I hope all the rules stay almost exactly the same because 6th/7th ed is awesome"- said no one ever
White scars aren't the most played chapter that's ultramarines with thier 100 free character upgrades and free rules.
Me, 7th is the most fun I've had, 5th was terrible IMO.
The problem to me ISNT the 7th ed BRB its the power creep. if codex's and formations were ore balanced I feel more would like it. With that said i still highly enjoy the insane combinations we can do i just wish some wasone OPAF.
Even the base rules are responsible of the unbalance.
Every rule set had this tho, remember needing 6's to hit a moved skimmers? Or on roll of a 1 your bike died on terrain no saves? Or Fearless mobs taking wounds for each lost wound? Orc and Nids whre so happy back then. How about "guess" measuring? remember that crap.
There has always been a few extremely unbalanced factors in each rules set, but it comes down to "FUN" and 7th for me is A LOT more fun than other editions. What I dont enjoy is some armies getting special treatment.
Edit: Are there things i feel needs to change? yes, but honestly i'd rather see balance between armies and points cost before a new rule set, a new rule set with just as poorly balanced armies wont change the game much at all.
Can a new rule set lessen the gap? I dont think so, just read and compare Nids to Daemons, or DE to Eldar. The DE codex is literally just worst in everyway.
Despite what they say, 8th edition must be outlined enough by now that wishlisting of inclusions is relatively meaningless.
By that, I mean that if there really is a year to release, then they are not just starting design, they are finishing, prepping for a launch that big would require at least an 8 month lead time with printers for instance.
If the rumour of a release this summer is true, 8th is done already, and has been so for a while. Either way, input is a feel good thing, not an actual thing.
Amishprn86 wrote:
Every rule set had this tho, remember needing 6's to hit a moved skimmers? Or on roll of a 1 your bike died on terrain no saves? Or Fearless mobs taking wounds for each lost wound? Orc and Nids whre so happy back then. How about "guess" measuring? remember that crap.
There has always been a few extremely unbalanced factors in each rules set, but it comes down to "FUN" and 7th for me is A LOT more fun than other editions. What I dont enjoy is some armies getting special treatment.
Edit: Are there things i feel needs to change? yes, but honestly i'd rather see balance between armies and points cost before a new rule set, a new rule set with just as poorly balanced armies wont change the game much at all.
Can a new rule set lessen the gap? I dont think so, just read and compare Nids to Daemons, or DE to Eldar. The DE codex is literally just worst in everyway.
I think a rules set can introduce better balance than you're giving it credit for.
Consider this one very small, very simply change - remove Tabling as a method of victory.
Suddenly, beardy cheese armies lose much of their appeal - because you won't be able to simply ROFLstomp your opponent - that default 'win button' is gone.
Instead, you need to look to capturing objectives and fulfilling other mission parameters and victory conditions.
Put in enough variety to said conditions, and you start to skew the 'meta' back toward more balanced armies - as in a greater range of units and unit types, simply because you never know what you'll need to do to score your VPs and actually win the game.
I appreciate that I sound like a broken record, but AoS has this down far better than 40k does at present - indeed you can utterly wipe me out, but still suffer a catastrophic loss, all because I bagged way more VPs by playing the game, rather than just going for the kill.
I know there's peeps on here not keen on AoS as a ruleset, but I do encourage you to at least try a 40k game using AoS victory conditions (some adaptation will of course be needed) to see the difference it can make.
But otherwise yes - sorting out points and codex internal balance is absolutely required - nobody likes having completely duff units in their book, let alone in their personal collection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NoggintheNog wrote: Despite what they say, 8th edition must be outlined enough by now that wishlisting of inclusions is relatively meaningless.
By that, I mean that if there really is a year to release, then they are not just starting design, they are finishing, prepping for a launch that big would require at least an 8 month lead time with printers for instance.
If the rumour of a release this summer is true, 8th is done already, and has been so for a while. Either way, input is a feel good thing, not an actual thing.
Rumour seemingly isn't true though - given GW themselves have said around this time next year.
Amishprn86 wrote:
Every rule set had this tho, remember needing 6's to hit a moved skimmers? Or on roll of a 1 your bike died on terrain no saves? Or Fearless mobs taking wounds for each lost wound? Orc and Nids whre so happy back then. How about "guess" measuring? remember that crap.
There has always been a few extremely unbalanced factors in each rules set, but it comes down to "FUN" and 7th for me is A LOT more fun than other editions. What I dont enjoy is some armies getting special treatment.
Edit: Are there things i feel needs to change? yes, but honestly i'd rather see balance between armies and points cost before a new rule set, a new rule set with just as poorly balanced armies wont change the game much at all.
Can a new rule set lessen the gap? I dont think so, just read and compare Nids to Daemons, or DE to Eldar. The DE codex is literally just worst in everyway.
I think a rules set can introduce better balance than you're giving it credit for.
Consider this one very small, very simply change - remove Tabling as a method of victory.
Suddenly, beardy cheese armies lose much of their appeal - because you won't be able to simply ROFLstomp your opponent - that default 'win button' is gone.
Instead, you need to look to capturing objectives and fulfilling other mission parameters and victory conditions.
Put in enough variety to said conditions, and you start to skew the 'meta' back toward more balanced armies - as in a greater range of units and unit types, simply because you never know what you'll need to do to score your VPs and actually win the game.
I appreciate that I sound like a broken record, but AoS has this down far better than 40k does at present - indeed you can utterly wipe me out, but still suffer a catastrophic loss, all because I bagged way more VPs by playing the game, rather than just going for the kill.
I know there's peeps on here not keen on AoS as a ruleset, but I do encourage you to at least try a 40k game using AoS victory conditions (some adaptation will of course be needed) to see the difference it can make.
But otherwise yes - sorting out points and codex internal balance is absolutely required - nobody likes having completely duff units in their book, let alone in their personal collection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NoggintheNog wrote: Despite what they say, 8th edition must be outlined enough by now that wishlisting of inclusions is relatively meaningless.
By that, I mean that if there really is a year to release, then they are not just starting design, they are finishing, prepping for a launch that big would require at least an 8 month lead time with printers for instance.
If the rumour of a release this summer is true, 8th is done already, and has been so for a while. Either way, input is a feel good thing, not an actual thing.
Rumour seemingly isn't true though - given GW themselves have said around this time next year.
Input is always a good thing.
You can do that now with the current rules, Changing and adding missions is easier than a full rewrite given your example.
But again from my point, some armies are just so bad you can just kill enough and not be threaten. You dont need to table, but if my army can kill yours 2 times faster than you can kill mine, there is a problem and IMO the 1st main problem is unbalanced with armies.
Just an example: If you buff Tanks for hopes that IG, DE, and Orks, then Eldar/SM tanks inadvertently get better too, and leads us to the same spot.
Edit: I'm not saying a new rule set isnt needed or want, but its not the core problem with 40katm, Power creep and Formations with killer combos and DS's using OP codex's thats been favor over 4-5 Armies that literally got nerf and stupified down to nothing b.c of Lawsuits are the 1st problems that should be fixed.
Im fine with a new edition, I just feel the game was at the point that we can FINALLY balance the game better, make some modifications to the BRB to make the best 40k rules to date.
Getting a completely different rules set means we have to work from the ground up again.
Rumour seemingly isn't true though - given GW themselves have said around this time next year.
Did they? Didn't they say that this time next year people might be using these rules, which certainly is the case even if the rules are released before that.
I just don't believe they would be hinting at such big changes if the release wasn't imminent. It would be really bad for the sales.
Really, to me all this discussion about broad ideas that are not definitive and how they will affect being literally aplicated how it was mentioned in 2 lines of text with all the actual rules of 7th edition its so pointless.
Like, discussing about the concept its right, but things like "marines will be OP because ATSKNF blablabla" or "nobody will have armours because its obvius that all weapons will have -6 armour modifiers blablabla!" its like... alarmism.
(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.
Bespoke rules are a huge plus for 40K. Most models come with some damn new thing anyway. Why flip through tons of pages in a huge book when you forget a rule when you can just have the scroll for your unit handy?
I do think people need to get ready for AoS weapon stat lines. Why? It's easier to balance something when you can measure it's effectiveness regardless of the opponent.
A bolter might be something like 3+/4+ rend 1 and 2 damage. That way it's potentially killing two models per wound (abstracting exploding bullets or a hail of fire), which maintains the strength of marines over hordes.
It might be shocking to lots of you, but eventually you'll come to see that it's not bad at all....or quit the game.
But again from my point, some armies are just so bad you can just kill enough and not be threaten. You dont need to table, but if my army can kill yours 2 times faster than you can kill mine, there is a problem and IMO the 1st main problem is unbalanced with armies.
Just an example: If you buff Tanks for hopes that IG, DE, and Orks, then Eldar/SM tanks inadvertently get better too, and leads us to the same spot.
Edit: I'm not saying a new rule set isnt needed or want, but its not the core problem with 40katm, Power creep and Formations with killer combos and DS's using OP codex's thats been favor over 4-5 Armies that literally got nerf and stupified down to nothing b.c of Lawsuits are the 1st problems that should be fixed.
Im fine with a new edition, I just feel the game was at the point that we can FINALLY balance the game better, make some modifications to the BRB to make the best 40k rules to date.
Getting a completely different rules set means we have to work from the ground up again.
Just my 0.2c
But wouldn't the balancing need in any case complete rewriting of everything to make it happen? Trying to fix the things you mentioned one book at a time, while also doing some modifications to the BRB, just leads to new problems eventually.
I'm also one of those who has lost all interest in GW after 6th ed 40k and 8th FB, but found out AoS to be an excellent game that has surpassed almost all other gaming (mainly Infinity, BtGoA, Batman, Saga, etc.) for me. It feels very much like 40k, but without many of the stupid and convoluted rules (like all sorts of complicated wound allocation, charging through the shortest route, shooting at one unit, the ap and cover save mechanics, deathstars, psychic phase, challenges, snapshots, the either/or mechanic in charging in cover, etc. etc.). But on the other hand I don't think the system supports shooting, very well but on the other hand neither does 40k. With the experience of other sci-fi games (Dropzone commander, Infinity, Beyond th Gates of Antares, Tomorrow's war to name a few), I have come to conclusion that there needs to be some sort of reaction mechanism to keep the game interesting. Straight I go U go leads very easily to a competition who shoots the other army from the table fastest or who can buff their units to fast or durable enough to prevent that. Also different ranges with limited effective range increases the depth of the gameplay very much.
On AP vs Save Modifiers....are the two really mutually exclusive?
Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.
But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.
What if.....
Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.
Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.
Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.
Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.
But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.
What if.....
Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.
Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.
Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.
The main problem (at least in my mind) is the ap mechanic is impossible to give a cost so that it would be balanced, as the opponent can be whatever and depending on that, the effectiveness of the weapon can shift 100% whereas rend -1 will have the same effect in every time, of course with larger rend there can be situations where you'll have excess, but that's a smaller issue. Add to this the cover save mechanic, which makes the ap values from 4 to 6 and armour saves of 4+ or worse meaningless most of the time. Especially in smal groups where there are just few armies you face, the points can be way off, as due to lack of suitable opponents, some weapons don't work the way they are designed (e.g. dark reapers in meta consisting mostly of light armoured armies or the more likely case of heavy bolters in marine meta).
From this fundamental design flaw, originates a lot of inbalance in the system as stuff tends to be either too cheap leading to auto inclusion or too expensive leading to stuff gathering dust on shelf.
Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.
But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.
What if.....
Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.
Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.
Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.
Well, the other thing you're ignoring is that if you were to do things the AoS way...
So that Autocannon would be:
R-48" Hits on 4+, Wounds on 3+. 2 attacks(possibly with rules in place where the owning unit can make additional shots if it remained stationary) Rend -1 and Damage 2 or 3.
The Heavy Bolter might be:
36" Hits on 4+ Wounds on 4+ 3 Attacks with Rend -1 and Damage 1. Maybe a special rule called "Mass Reactive" where you get to reroll failed To Wound rolls or where a "To Hit" roll of a 6 causes 2 Wounds rather than 1.
Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.
But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.
Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.
Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.
What if.....
Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.
Well, the other thing you're ignoring is that if you were to do things the AoS way...
So that Autocannon would be:
R-48" Hits on 4+, Wounds on 3+. 2 attacks(possibly with rules in place where the owning unit can make additional shots if it remained stationary) Rend -1 and Damage 2 or 3.
The Heavy Bolter might be:
36" Hits on 4+ Wounds on 4+ 3 Attacks with Rend -1 and Damage 1. Maybe a special rule called "Mass Reactive" where you get to reroll failed To Wound rolls or where a "To Hit" roll of a 6 causes 2 Wounds rather than 1.
Not sure I'm ignoring anything - just exploring the concept that bringing back Save Modifiers doesn't necessarily mean the end of AP?
I've seen lots of people bringing up that they think the 8th edition stuff mentioned is going to turn out to be an elaborate April Fool's joke. You do not start an April Fool's joke a week early, that would be insane. I personally would lose some of the good will I've had toward GW lately over them doing something stupid like that.
Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.
But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.
Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.
Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.
What if.....
Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.
Well, the other thing you're ignoring is that if you were to do things the AoS way...
So that Autocannon would be:
R-48" Hits on 4+, Wounds on 3+. 2 attacks(possibly with rules in place where the owning unit can make additional shots if it remained stationary) Rend -1 and Damage 2 or 3.
The Heavy Bolter might be:
36" Hits on 4+ Wounds on 4+ 3 Attacks with Rend -1 and Damage 1. Maybe a special rule called "Mass Reactive" where you get to reroll failed To Wound rolls or where a "To Hit" roll of a 6 causes 2 Wounds rather than 1.
Not sure I'm ignoring anything - just exploring the concept that bringing back Save Modifiers doesn't necessarily mean the end of AP?
Oh yeah. It absolutely does.
AP is an all or nothing system. You don't add modifiers to an all or nothing system.
Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.
But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.
What if.....
Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.
Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.
Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.
The main problem (at least in my mind) is the ap mechanic is impossible to give a cost so that it would be balanced, as the opponent can be whatever and depending on that, the effectiveness of the weapon can shift 100% whereas rend -1 will have the same effect in every time, of course with larger rend there can be situations where you'll have excess, but that's a smaller issue. Add to this the cover save mechanic, which makes the ap values from 4 to 6 and armour saves of 4+ or worse meaningless most of the time. Especially in smal groups where there are just few armies you face, the points can be way off, as due to lack of suitable opponents, some weapons don't work the way they are designed (e.g. dark reapers in meta consisting mostly of light armoured armies or the more likely case of heavy bolters in marine meta). From this fundamental design flaw, originates a lot of inbalance in the system as stuff tends to be either too cheap leading to auto inclusion or too expensive leading to stuff gathering dust on shelf.
I agree completely.
At least some of the reason certain weapons become either junk or auto-takes in the current meta is not because the weapons are good or bad per say, but because they are good or bad against specific armies. You aren't going to take a Heavy Bolter because you have a huge chance of playing against a Marine army and with their 3+ save, paying for AP4 on a Heavy Bolter is a waste of points.
It biases the game such that "good" weapons are the ones that are good against a large variety of units, typically the ones that are either high S low AP (thus good against Space Marines and tanks) or simply high rate of fire (thus being good against hordes but also forcing lots of saves to be effective against Marines). Everything in between is just kind of, meh, unless it has some other rules to make it stand out (ignores cover or something like that).
The tricky thing is you don't want all guns to be equally good at all things, because half of the (very limited) tactics involved in 40k is choosing the right weapon to shoot at the right target. But at the moment it just swings waaaay too far given that we have entire armies made up of nothing but 3+ saves, it makes pricing AP3 and AP4 weapons pretty much impossible. What is only 1 point of difference on the AP chart is a huge difference.... when fighting against marines, but not a difference at all when fighting an army that is made up of 4+ or worse saves. So there's just no way of pricing it fairly because the fair price depends on your opponent.
I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
Then perhaps D and Grav could be -6 effectively making all normal armour completely useless, except terminators/centurions/obliterators equivalents who get to roll on the old 3+ 2d6 rule. This would give them an ok chance of saving a D or Grav shot (9+ on 2D6).
(I know Grav is in theory supposed to be more effective in relation to how good the armour is but I'm not sure anyone would mind if Grav was given a small nerf vs terminators?)
I maybe oversimplifying it and overlooking how Strength in the current game doesn't equal a consistent AP value, but it's just a thought. Perhaps those examples like Thousand Sons AP3 bolters could be reflected on the dataslates/scrolls bespoke rules?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Until you do? Then it ceases to be 'all or nothing', as per my example?
Your example implies the all or nothing system. Heavy bolters would get nothing against MEQ. The autocannon reduces save by 1 and thus may as well be Ap3 because it just turned power armor from 3+ to 4+ and now the autocannon penetrates the armor.
-Loki- wrote:not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
GW announced the sigmarizing of 40k
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:We still have no idea what 8th Ed is going to look like.
That's a really strange thing to say given we know the direction the GW design team is going by looking at Age of Sigmar, reading their statements about the success of the General's handbook and how everything they're talking about on their own community site and at their own presentation is pretty much stuff Age of Sigmar players find instantly recognizable. If you replaced every reference to 40k with a reference to fantasy this presentation could be about Age of Sigmar and be 100% accurate.
Some times extreme skepticism is just a form of denial. "We still have no idea!" yeah, right...
All we know is a handful of things they'd like to include, and they hope it'll all be done and ready for release around Adepticon next year.
Large productions can't turn on a dime. If GW wants the new 40k in people's hand a year from now, most of the design and development work needs to be pretty much done. Things are likely already locked in place. If they say "we'd like to include" they mean they are going to include. You need to get things to printers, get them back to your distribution channel and do all the promotional material work. If it's a year out, then GW has already got this settled.
Souljet wrote: I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
This is actually how it used to work in 2ed but it was -3 across the board (in general).
e.g. s5 was -2 s4 was -1
edit: actually thats not correct i just checked my old rule book! the above was more of a guideline it varied quite a bit e.g. a plasma pistol was s6 but -1! Multi melta was s8 but -4
lol lasguns were -1... marines needed a 4+ save vs lasguns oh guard... those were the days
The best thing i could come up with without adding a new stat to every weapons was to take the weapon's AP off 6 for the modifier
e.g. boltgun -1, meltagun -5, lascannon -4 etc etc
The problem is anything with a good armour save e.g. marines is going to suffer from all but the mildest armour mod rules and owing to the number of weapons you cannot be mild as its kinda pointless. e,g, as it stands marines are 3+ golden against all stuff until its ap3 when you add in armour mods then it'll have to be a wide spectrum of minuses assigned to weapons to feel like it means anything so marines are only going to get worse with such as system.... unless said system incorporated the target's armour into the modifier 'somehow'
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Until you do? Then it ceases to be 'all or nothing', as per my example?
Your example was, to put it gently, not great.
You use the example of an Autocannon and a Heavy Bolter, both of which are still going to allow those Sisters to have a save.
Try the same math against a Scion or Skitarii. It doesn't matter then, because they get no save.
That is the crux of the whole issue with a lot of the lower tier armies right now. AP, as a system, means you're not rolling saves. You're just losing models--and it isn't fun.
Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
Do i shoot a meltagun at you -4 armour save
You need to roll 6 on 2 dice (added togther!)
as i remember double 1's always failed though so it was techincally a 3+ if there wasnt an armour mode e.g. someone fired a auto pistol at you XD
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
Do i shoot a meltagun at you -4 armour save
You need to roll 6 on 2 dice (added togther!)
terminators used to be scary.
Wasn't it 3+ on 2 dice? If memory serves me, I thought a double one would still fail?
Edit: I just saw your edit to reflect this on your post
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
Do i shoot a meltagun at you -4 armour save
You need to roll 6 on 2 dice (added togther!)
as i remember double 1's always failed though so it was techincally a 3+ if there wasnt an armour mode e.g. someone fired a auto pistol at you XD
terminators used to be scary.
It was 3+ on 2d6 not 2+. Hearthguard for squats had a 4+ on 2d6 in the black book. I think Carnifex may have also had 3+ on 2d6.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
Do i shoot a meltagun at you -4 armour save
You need to roll 6 on 2 dice (added togther!)
as i remember double 1's always failed though so it was techincally a 3+ if there wasnt an armour mode e.g. someone fired a auto pistol at you XD
terminators used to be scary.
It was 3+ on 2d6 not 2+. Hearthguard for squats had a 4+ on 2d6 in the black book. I think Carnifex may have also had 3+ on 2d6.
Thats right. You could also get a save on 2d6 for tyranids with the psychic power catalyst if I remember correctly. 5+ save on 2d6 for genestealers ......
Souljet wrote: I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
You could do that, but I think the advantage of having a separate armour modifier stat is that you get more variety in weapons. You can have high strength weapons that aren't great at piercing armour, or low strength weapons that are awesome at piercing armour (maybe something corrosive).
Then perhaps D and Grav could be -6 effectively making all normal armour completely useless, except terminators/centurions/obliterators equivalents who get to roll on the old 3+ 2d6 rule. This would give them an ok chance of saving a D or Grav shot (9+ on 2D6).
I don't think we want to bring back the 2D6 rule, it was kind of fun and characterful, but when you have 10 heavy bolters shooting at a unit of Terminators do you really want to be resolving each hit separately?
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
I really think people need to calm down with all the 'sigmarizing of 40K' rhetoric going on. Of all the changes they mentioned they were working on in terms of game mechanics, only the Battleshock/morale one is taken directly from AoS and even then we don't know how that will interact with the rest of the 8th edition rules. Pretty much everything else was either a throw back to second edition 40K or older editions of WHFB (armour save modifiers, chargers going first) or extensions of things like formations and decurions (rules/benefits for fluffy armies) that we have already been seeing for years.
OK, so they are looking at doing the '3 ways to play' thing for 40K too well guess what? That is a good thing, as the GHB is a fantastic resource for anyone who plays AoS in terms of giving you lots of cool ideas HOWEVER you like to play and in terms of AoS it actually moves it closer to 40K by introducing things like command benefits for having armies of only one type (similar to warlord traits) and of course introducing points. The removal of unit types and a move towards each unit having their own individual rules is very reminiscent of AoS warscrolls but again, this is actually something that we should embrace. How can anyone find it appealing that, in order to find out what just ONE of their units does, you might have to look:
1) At its dataslate
2) At the army special rules section of your Codex
3) At the unit types section of the BRB 4) The special rules section of the BRB
All just to establish what the unit can do? If a unit can deepstrike because it has a jetpack pack, then it should say on the special rules section of the dataslate that the unit can deepstrike and it should explain what that means. I shouldn't have to remember oh actually it has deepstrike as well because it is jetpack infantry or whatever, even though it doesn't say anywhere on the dataslate that it has deepstrike, I'm just expected to remember it. By the time you have done this for each different unit in your army it is exhausting and massively slows the game down.
Souljet wrote: I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
You could do that, but I think the advantage of having a separate armour modifier stat is that you get more variety in weapons. You can have high strength weapons that aren't great at piercing armour, or low strength weapons that are awesome at piercing armour (maybe something corrosive).
Then perhaps D and Grav could be -6 effectively making all normal armour completely useless, except terminators/centurions/obliterators equivalents who get to roll on the old 3+ 2d6 rule. This would give them an ok chance of saving a D or Grav shot (9+ on 2D6).
I don't think we want to bring back the 2D6 rule, it was kind of fun and characterful, but when you have 10 heavy bolters shooting at a unit of Terminators do you really want to be resolving each hit separately?
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Buts that what they already have right now and it sucks.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: All just to establish what the unit can do? If a unit can deepstrike because it has a jetpack pack, then it should say on the special rules section of the dataslate that the unit can deepstrike and it should explain what that means. I shouldn't have to remember oh actually it has deepstrike as well because it is jetpack infantry or whatever, even though it doesn't say anywhere on the dataslate that it has deepstrike, I'm just expected to remember it. By the time you have done this for each different unit in your army it is exhausting and massively slows the game down.
The other advantage of this system: because "deep strike" isn't a defined thing, different units can do it in different ways. A unit that uses jetpacks to enter the battlefield can have a different method of doing so than one that teleports in through the warp, without having to define deep strike rules PLUS all the ways they change it.
To see what I mean, check out some of the warscrolls for basic units in AoS. Many can have extra hand weapons or shields, but the bonuses they get for that are all different depending on the flavor/balance of the unit.
Souljet wrote: I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
This is actually how it used to work in 2ed but it was -3 across the board (in general).
e.g. s5 was -2 s4 was -1
edit: actually thats not correct i just checked my old rule book! the above was more of a guideline it varied quite a bit e.g. a plasma pistol was s6 but -1! Multi melta was s8 but -4
lol lasguns were -1... marines needed a 4+ save vs lasguns oh guard... those were the days
The best thing i could come up with without adding a new stat to every weapons was to take the weapon's AP off 6 for the modifier
e.g. boltgun -1, meltagun -5, lascannon -4 etc etc
The problem is anything with a good armour save e.g. marines is going to suffer from all but the mildest armour mod rules and owing to the number of weapons you cannot be mild as its kinda pointless. e,g, as it stands marines are 3+ golden against all stuff until its ap3 when you add in armour mods then it'll have to be a wide spectrum of minuses assigned to weapons to feel like it means anything so marines are only going to get worse with such as system.... unless said system incorporated the target's armour into the modifier 'somehow'
Why assume that Space Marines have a 3+ save in such a system? If Space Marines had a 2+ base save, that would all work better.
Give Terminators a 0+ or 1+ save like Empire Knights and Heroes in Fantasy used to get (a 1 always fails, of course).
My preference would be for a complete rebuild of the rules along a gritty, "tactical" line. I'll settle for AOSIzing 40K if it does away with the current billion expensive supplements rules lawyer paradise. Probably I'd play anything that came with it's own army building rules and played faster and cleaner than the current game with fewer deathstars.
One battletome/Codex/Army book to play my army. Thats all what I want :(
Warscroll its the best form of presenting new units that GW has ever done, period. I'm not talking about the rules , but the fact that in a card you have all the rules to use a model, for free, in the website.
Wait is age getting to me, or didn't a six always count as a save back then, pretty sure a six is always a pass was in 2nd.
If I recall correctly wasn't it noted as the wild luck of a shot ricocheting at the last second etc.. pretty sure as a Ork player I went from pretty much always having the chance of a six save from incoming fire to none pretty much with AP?
If 40K is going full AoS for the rules, then we have the stats for Space Marines. Just look at the Stormcast. Most are 4+ armor and normally have either hit/wound of 3+/4+ or 4+/3+.
Still I don't think it will be a full conversion just based off the comment of chargers get to attack first in close combat. AoS works on alternating units between players in combat. I would prefer that to a chargers go first because it forces you to pick your combats and not just pile everything in.
Daedalus81 wrote: Bespoke rules are a huge plus for 40K. Most models come with some damn new thing anyway. Why flip through tons of pages in a huge book when you forget a rule when you can just have the scroll for your unit handy?
That's a reason for having unit cards with the unit's rules on them. It's not a reason for having bespoke rules.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Can someone explain how this whole 2D6 for Termie armor worked in 2E? Did it mean you got two chances to roll a 3+, or did both dice have to add up to 3+ for you to pass the armor save?
You had a 2+ save on 2 dice!
No
Powered Armor was a 3+ save.
Carapace Armor was a 4+ save.
Terminator Armor gave you an extra dice when you made your save. So 3+ on 2d6.
Hearth Guard armor gave you an extra dice when you made your save. So 4+ on 2d6.
Other units had a similar +d6 bonus. Carnifex, some psychic powers granted it, etc. So if you hada 6+ save guy, and had a +d6 psychic power bonus, your save was 6+ on 2d6.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Wait is age getting to me, or didn't a six always count as a save back then, pretty sure a six is always a pass was in 2nd.
If I recall correctly wasn't it noted as the wild luck of a shot ricocheting at the last second etc.. pretty sure as a Ork player I went from pretty much always having the chance of a six save from incoming fire to none pretty much with AP?
davou wrote: so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?
sounds pretty easy to do.
if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out
No, you rolled them all in pairs. That was a long way from being the most painful part of 2nd edition, though... You also resolved close combat one pair of models at a time...
silent25 wrote: If 40K is going full AoS for the rules, then we have the stats for Space Marines. Just look at the Stormcast. Most are 4+ armor and normally have either hit/wound of 3+/4+ or 4+/3+.
Still I don't think it will be a full conversion just based off the comment of chargers get to attack first in close combat. AoS works on alternating units between players in combat. I would prefer that to a chargers go first because it forces you to pick your combats and not just pile everything in.
To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.
To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.
When AoS was originally announced I theorised that it was the first step in merging the core rules of 40K and Warhammer into one set that was fundamentally the same (so people could easily cross over between systems). The differences would then be the setting/rules around that setting and the units/factions themselves. None of what I have heard dissuades me from this argument, with effectively the same break rules and game set up rules, formations and so on.
I think this has been the gameplan for a long time (it makes sense financially as you don't have to keep two rulesets up to date).
To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.
It's also how it used to work in 40k,so not indicatve in itself.
True, but only in Rogue Trader. Second edition had that weird system where only one side could strike at all. I hope I never have to deal with that monster again. Parry, parry, parry.
silent25 wrote: If 40K is going full AoS for the rules, then we have the stats for Space Marines. Just look at the Stormcast. Most are 4+ armor and normally have either hit/wound of 3+/4+ or 4+/3+.
Still I don't think it will be a full conversion just based off the comment of chargers get to attack first in close combat. AoS works on alternating units between players in combat. I would prefer that to a chargers go first because it forces you to pick your combats and not just pile everything in.
To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.
No it's not. The active player chooses to activate a unit to attack. The receiving unit does not strike back. It then goes to the other player and he chooses one of his unit to activate to attack. It doesn't need to be the unit that was attacked previously. So if the active player charges two units in to engage two units, there are 4 combat combat rounds. Active player chooses one of their units to attack, other player chooses one of theirs to attack, active player chooses their second unit, and other player chooses their other unit.
Also, AoS has it that any unit that is within 3" of an enemy unit can be chosen to activate. When a unit activates, you can pile your unit in 3" towards the closest enemy model, this can result in getting within 3" of another unit you didn't originally charge. It adds a nice element of area control where a player might end up charging one unit and inadvertently pull in another. It all adds a element of risk in engaging multiple combats and to be aware of area control.
davou wrote: so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?
sounds pretty easy to do.
if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out
No, you rolled them all in pairs. That was a long way from being the most painful part of 2nd edition, though... You also resolved close combat one pair of models at a time...
I feel so many of these problems would be solved if GW just moved to to a D10 (or even better, D12) system.
Before anyone gets too excited about the rules team, just remember that they just released a supplement that made one of the most mobile and shooty armies able to move and shoot twice per turn, along with an end times no one really wanted. It could be good...but it could also be really terrible.
Souljet wrote: I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,
strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: You could do that, but I think the advantage of having a separate armour modifier stat is that you get more variety in weapons. You can have high strength weapons that aren't great at piercing armour, or low strength weapons that are awesome at piercing armour (maybe something corrosive).
Agreed, weapon variety is important. As I mentioned though, you could have those special armour piercing weapons reflected on the dataslate/scroll. The S = specific armour modifier doesn't have to be an absolute no comprimises rule.
Souljet wrote: Then perhaps D and Grav could be -6 effectively making all normal armour completely useless, except terminators/centurions/obliterators equivalents who get to roll on the old 3+ 2d6 rule. This would give them an ok chance of saving a D or Grav shot (9+ on 2D6).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I don't think we want to bring back the 2D6 rule, it was kind of fun and characterful, but when you have 10 heavy bolters shooting at a unit of Terminators do you really want to be resolving each hit separately?
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Someone else said it, but that's how it works now and Terminators still are weak compared to how most people think they should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
davou wrote: so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?
sounds pretty easy to do.
if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out
You would quit having terminators in your army if you had to roll 2 dice armour saves? Even though it would go someway to reflecting how good their armour is supposed to be?
Rolling 2D6 for each wound on a TDA squad wouldn't be too much of a pain. It would only be if you had a whole army in the armour would it get a little annoying and time consuming imo.
To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.
It's also how it used to work in 40k,so not indicatve in itself.
True, but only in Rogue Trader. Second edition had that weird system where only one side could strike at all. I hope I never have to deal with that monster again. Parry, parry, parry.
I could be misremembering, but I'm fairly sure 3rd had charger strike first, with it changing to initiative for 4th.
Just to weigh in, the save more will probably fall in line like this
Ap- to ap6 would be no more
Ap5 would be -1
Ap3-4 would be -2
Ap1-2 would be -3
Save would be the same. Invulnerable saves would have different effects based on theme
Energy shields would negate a certain level of modifier. So terminators would ignore the first point of armor mod, for example. The hologram based invul saves would allow rerolls of a certain number for saves, or be a smaller save number that ignored armor mods (think harlequins)
With vehicles, you will probably see a situation with the "vehicle" special rule allowing for a certain level of armor mod to not be able to hurt them period (also running on the assumption of units having set wound rolls and different units lowering them to create the breadth of damage capability you see today.)
Just my thoughts here
To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.
When AoS was originally announced I theorised that it was the first step in merging the core rules of 40K and Warhammer into one set that was fundamentally the same (so people could easily cross over between systems). The differences would then be the setting/rules around that setting and the units/factions themselves. None of what I have heard dissuades me from this argument, with effectively the same break rules and game set up rules, formations and so on.
I think this has been the gameplan for a long time (it makes sense financially as you don't have to keep two rulesets up to date).
To be brutally honest, it was you and about 2000 people that theorised that, so please don't be too put out if people
Ignore your post and theory
insaniak wrote: I could be misremembering, but I'm fairly sure 3rd had charger strike first, with it changing to initiative for 4th.
3rd was all about initiative too.
docdoom77 wrote: True, but only in Rogue Trader. Second edition had that weird system where only one side could strike at all. I hope I never have to deal with that monster again. Parry, parry, parry.
It was a ridiculous system when armies started to get bigger but it was great for something like Necromunda. Maybe we'll see it again in Shadow War!
insaniak wrote: I could be misremembering, but I'm fairly sure 3rd had charger strike first, with it changing to initiative for 4th.
3rd was all about initiative too.
docdoom77 wrote: True, but only in Rogue Trader. Second edition had that weird system where only one side could strike at all. I hope I never have to deal with that monster again. Parry, parry, parry.
It was a ridiculous system when armies started to get bigger but it was great for something like Necromunda. Maybe we'll see it again in Shadow War!
I agree that it wasn't too bad for a small skirmish game like Necromunda (though still not my fave). I wouldn't be upset to see it in a game like that.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Buts that what they already have right now and it sucks.
Souljet wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Someone else said it, but that's how it works now and Terminators still are weak compared to how most people think they should be.
No, that's NOT how Terminators work at the moment. At the moment Terminators get to take their armour save OR they get to take their invulnerable save, not BOTH.
I propose to let Terminators take BOTH saves, so if they fail their armour they still get their invulnerable. It works basically the same as a 2D6 save except you roll the dice in sequence instead of at the same time, which means you don't have to roll every single save separately which would massively increase the amount of time it takes to play a game if one side has a lot of Terminators.
What I propose would lower the number of Terminators you lose by 1/3 if you use a 5+ invulnerable or 1/2 if you use a 4+ invulnerable. I'm undecided which would be better, 4+ seems a little bit too powerful against anti tank weapons, but 5+ seems a bit too weak against massed fire, so I guess I lean on the side of using a 4+ invulnerable.
You could also give Terminators a 2+ followed by a 3+, but have the 2nd save isn't invulnerable and is subject to modifiers if there's any "overflow", so if you get struck with a -6 weapon you take the first 5 points of modifiers to get rid of the 2+ and then use the last point of modifier to reduce the 2nd save from 3+ to 4+.... but that's probably too complicated (and enough wargamers suck at math that they wouldn't like it ).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Buts that what they already have right now and it sucks.
Souljet wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Someone else said it, but that's how it works now and Terminators still are weak compared to how most people think they should be.
No, that's NOT how Terminators work at the moment. At the moment Terminators get to take their armour save OR they get to take their invulnerable save, not BOTH.
I propose to let Terminators take BOTH saves, so if they fail their armour they still get their invulnerable. It works basically the same as a 2D6 save except you roll the dice in sequence instead of at the same time, which means you don't have to roll every single save separately which would massively increase the amount of time it takes to play a game if one side has a lot of Terminators.
What I propose would lower the number of Terminators you lose by 1/3 if you use a 5+ invulnerable or 1/2 if you use a 4+ invulnerable. I'm undecided which would be better, 4+ seems a little bit too powerful against anti tank weapons, but 5+ seems a bit too weak against massed fire, so I guess I lean on the side of using a 4+ invulnerable.
You could also give Terminators a 2+ followed by a 3+, but have the 2nd save isn't invulnerable and is subject to modifiers if there's any "overflow", so if you get struck with a -6 weapon you take the first 5 points of modifiers to get rid of the 2+ and then use the last point of modifier to reduce the 2nd save from 3+ to 4+.... but that's probably too complicated (and enough wargamers suck at math that they wouldn't like it ).
Ahh yes, I see what you mean. I misread your previous post.
Either way, I think we all agree terminators should hopefully benefit by whatever armour modifier system GW comes up with.
I would just give termies the ability to reroll failed armor saves on anything that was below a certain strength, say all S4 and below attacks. AP2 weapons still go through of course.
Bam. You get the near-immunity from small arms fire TDA is known for in the fluff while still being vulnerable to a bunch of other stuff. One big change is that I would make rending and sniper weapons AP2 again so that some units actually have a chance to hurt them.
silent25 wrote: If 40K is going full AoS for the rules, then we have the stats for Space Marines. Just look at the Stormcast. Most are 4+ armor and normally have either hit/wound of 3+/4+ or 4+/3+.
Still I don't think it will be a full conversion just based off the comment of chargers get to attack first in close combat. AoS works on alternating units between players in combat. I would prefer that to a chargers go first because it forces you to pick your combats and not just pile everything in.
To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.
No it's not. The active player chooses to activate a unit to attack. The receiving unit does not strike back. It then goes to the other player and he chooses one of his unit to activate to attack. It doesn't need to be the unit that was attacked previously. So if the active player charges two units in to engage two units, there are 4 combat combat rounds. Active player chooses one of their units to attack, other player chooses one of theirs to attack, active player chooses their second unit, and other player chooses their other unit.
Also, AoS has it that any unit that is within 3" of an enemy unit can be chosen to activate. When a unit activates, you can pile your unit in 3" towards the closest enemy model, this can result in getting within 3" of another unit you didn't originally charge. It adds a nice element of area control where a player might end up charging one unit and inadvertently pull in another. It all adds a element of risk in engaging multiple combats and to be aware of area control.
I said charging player (as the person who is charging gets to pick the first striker), which is not the same as charging unit (although it was the word in the Warhammer community, so I might be wrong). I know how the AoS combat goes, and it's one of the reasons why it's so great game.
Now I may have this wrong, but wouldn't ASM automatically work for vehicles too? As in weapons with a small (or no) ASM simply won't be able to penetrate?
Jadenim wrote: Now I may have this wrong, but wouldn't ASM automatically work for vehicles too? As in weapons with a small (or no) ASM simply won't be able to penetrate?
Not if the rules stay as they are.
Because S10 ASM 0 will auto pen armour 10 the same way as S10 ASM 6
What they need to do, have always needed to do, with vehicles, is give them a save based on Type. Like basic vehicles get a 4+, tanks 3+, and certain wargear or vehicles giving bonuses. Like a dozer blade giving +1 save vs attacks from the front or being a skimmer subtracting a save point.
It always felt wrong that vehicles skipped that part of the normal sequence (hit-wound-save-damage vs hit-pen-damage)…
Suddenly vehicles become much more resilient to small arms and bringing actual AT weapons starts making sense again. Oh, and Haywire becomes relatively more powerful because it bypasses two things but eh.
To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.
When AoS was originally announced I theorised that it was the first step in merging the core rules of 40K and Warhammer into one set that was fundamentally the same (so people could easily cross over between systems). The differences would then be the setting/rules around that setting and the units/factions themselves. None of what I have heard dissuades me from this argument, with effectively the same break rules and game set up rules, formations and so on.
I think this has been the gameplan for a long time (it makes sense financially as you don't have to keep two rulesets up to date).
To be brutally honest, it was you and about 2000 people that theorised that, so please don't be too put out if people
Ignore your post and theory
Regards
I don't get it? Why would I be bothered if people ignore the post or theory. It's just pointing out that the thinking that they are merging the rulesets still holds up to the theory given the available data. I'm not sure what you are aiming at?
davou wrote: so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?
sounds pretty easy to do.
if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out
In 2nd ed cover reduced the number of hits received rather than give a save. Since most players used a lot of cover, it would be extremely rare to get 10 wounds in one shooting phase on a unit of terminators in 2nd ed. I would be surprised if it ever happened to me.
A few people have suggested that there isn't enough time for GW to be toying with new core rules while still producing the rulebook for later this year, to that I can only say think outside the box more. AoS had rules on 4 pages, now I am not saying 40k will get that simplified, but my point being that if they chose to strip the rules down to a simple 20 page booklet or something of the like, it would not take nearly the time or resources for the to produce in any reasonable amount of time. I mean, if they can put out white dwarfs weekly like they did, there is no reason why they couldn't produce something similar in a small window of time.
I actually think that is the case, the rules will be massively simplified and the warscroll/data slates will come out later for every unit.
Red Corsair wrote: I actually think that is the case, the rules will be massively simplified and the warscroll/data slates will come out later for every unit.
They'd kinda need them there for every unit from day 1 if the iconic statlines change, else every army becomes invalidated overnight and there will be much rage. Nah, they'll need 'warscrolls' for launch for all if that's their path.
Warhams-77 wrote: So GW is still discussing the rules? 8th in 2018 confirmed!?
No, I think they are just doing a slow roll out of information, possibly to soften the impact.
My local GW manager says he knows everything about it (but obviously can't tell us anything), and he will get the demo sets very soon as he will need to paint it up and practice with the new rules.
Red Corsair wrote: I actually think that is the case, the rules will be massively simplified and the warscroll/data slates will come out later for every unit.
They'd kinda need them there for every unit from day 1 if the iconic statlines change, else every army becomes invalidated overnight and there will be much rage. Nah, they'll need 'warscrolls' for launch for all if that's their path.
When they added hull points to vehicles, they managed to do it without an overnight reprint of every codex. If they are just adding a movement stat, something similar could be done. Or just add it to the FAQs.
Red Corsair wrote: I actually think that is the case, the rules will be massively simplified and the warscroll/data slates will come out later for every unit.
They'd kinda need them there for every unit from day 1 if the iconic statlines change, else every army becomes invalidated overnight and there will be much rage. Nah, they'll need 'warscrolls' for launch for all if that's their path.
When they added hull points to vehicles, they managed to do it without an overnight reprint of every codex. If they are just adding a movement stat, something similar could be done. Or just add it to the FAQs.
This was similar to where I was thinking. They simply need add movement. Aside from that I see no reason why the current profiles cannot remain until they released scrolls/whatever.
"If the iconic statlines change" is what I wrote, guys. Not adding a stat, I was referring to something changing the statline to something super new. Plus, "if". If they adopt fixed to hit or to wound, for example, they can ditch WS, BS, S, T, etc. If... so many ifs. :-)
NivlacSupreme wrote: Is anybody here a GW manager?
Crams large bundle of cash in pocket
I don' think so, but hey why don't you give me that large bundle of cash? You get to give your money to GW and I get the sweet af models! It's a win win!
Guttered we didn't get to see some cthulu aleves but the DG are a fine substitution.
I wouldn't mind if they went the 3rd edition route and release limited statlines for each faction with the intent to fill them all out in their entirety over time. So long as they introduce a strong core system that makes the game itself actually good for once with the tools they do give us, I have no problem waiting for the flashy parts. This would be especially viable in an age of the internet, where unit entries can be updated piecemeal at a much more regular pace.
Furthermore along that route, I wouldn't mind if later additions were done less as an entire range at once, but with a spattering of releases spread across factions (once a certain sisterhood of metallic stragglers are taken care of). That way less factions would feel like they're completely left out.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Buts that what they already have right now and it sucks.
Souljet wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.
Someone else said it, but that's how it works now and Terminators still are weak compared to how most people think they should be.
No, that's NOT how Terminators work at the moment. At the moment Terminators get to take their armour save OR they get to take their invulnerable save, not BOTH.
I propose to let Terminators take BOTH saves, so if they fail their armour they still get their invulnerable. It works basically the same as a 2D6 save except you roll the dice in sequence instead of at the same time, which means you don't have to roll every single save separately which would massively increase the amount of time it takes to play a game if one side has a lot of Terminators.
What I propose would lower the number of Terminators you lose by 1/3 if you use a 5+ invulnerable or 1/2 if you use a 4+ invulnerable. I'm undecided which would be better, 4+ seems a little bit too powerful against anti tank weapons, but 5+ seems a bit too weak against massed fire, so I guess I lean on the side of using a 4+ invulnerable.
You could also give Terminators a 2+ followed by a 3+, but have the 2nd save isn't invulnerable and is subject to modifiers if there's any "overflow", so if you get struck with a -6 weapon you take the first 5 points of modifiers to get rid of the 2+ and then use the last point of modifier to reduce the 2nd save from 3+ to 4+.... but that's probably too complicated (and enough wargamers suck at math that they wouldn't like it ).
Or you could simply make Terminators +1 toughness, to help them shrug off massed small arms fire.
FrothingMuppet wrote: Weren't they meant to show something that's a year out? From what I've seen everything they put up is coming in the next 3-6 months?
Shadespire comes out in the winter. So at least 7 or 8 months from now.
Well, it may be that the people who were in the seminars are still in bed and so haven't posted yet, I'd make it half 5 in the morning over at Adepticon. I mean, yes, i might have expected some posts as soon as people got out or even during the seminar if there were major reveals so it is likely that nothing of note came out of them. That is a shame because i was kinda of hoping for them to maybe expand a bit on some of the reveals they had done during the studio preview and the blurb on the promo thing posted in this thread suggested they might. I guess we will see what gets posted over the rest of Sunday. It has still been a pretty good last couple of weeks to be a warhammer 40k/AoS fan!
There was one tweet from Kenny Lull saying the seminar was interesting but that is all I have seen. GW had a get together with some key members of the us community after that, so it is understandable why no one has done a write up. I wasn't expecting more news but I am interested in the process. Who decides what to do next? Who decided to make the rules for AOS 4 pages? It wasn't Jervis.
Hopefully Kenny will talk about it all on his podcast.
FrothingMuppet wrote: Weren't they meant to show something that's a year out? From what I've seen everything they put up is coming in the next 3-6 months?
They said almost a year out, and I think Shadespire is coming much later this year from what I've heard.
Chikout wrote: There was one tweet from Kenny Lull saying the seminar was interesting but that is all I have seen. GW had a get together with some key members of the us community after that, so it is understandable why no one has done a write up. I wasn't expecting more news but I am interested in the process. Who decides what to do next? Who decided to make the rules for AOS 4 pages? It wasn't Jervis.
Hopefully Kenny will talk about it all on his podcast.
seems to me very strange, but today they have another Ask the Studio seminar.
job of developing the product before publication, and it imposes a huge burden on the players to keep track of all the weekly changes. And when you're making major changes like that (as opposed to minor point cost adjustments) you're almost guaranteeing that you will create things that don't work well and have to keep making major changes. The correct way to do it is to do proper design and playtesting so that the final product is finished, and needs minor adjustments at most once it is published.
) but what if 
healthy discussion is great and all but for some of you best not blow your top until you know more. At the very least wait until Adepticon is over. 
