Nostromodamus wrote: So random anonymous internet person claims to have seen when GW staffers can't take holidays...
... therefore 8th edition 40k?
It's not unreasonable. By all accounts, the staffers can't take holidays only when big releases are coming. Otherwise they can just have their reserve managers fill in for them.
I think the most unbelievable thing about that is GW giving their staff three months warning.
If it's legit, we will have confirmation soon enough. Knowing people at the design studio who are willing to talk about their work is pretty rare, but lots of us are friends with some random GW employee.
Perfect Organism wrote: I think the most unbelievable thing about that is GW giving their staff three months warning.
If it's legit, we will have confirmation soon enough. Knowing people at the design studio who are willing to talk about their work is pretty rare, but lots of us are friends with some random GW employee.
Ehhh...being told "You can't take holidays during this time period" isn't the same as being told "40k 8th edition is this time period".
I think that Blood Bowl and Silver Tower got the same kind of "blackout" timeframe.
Well, I'm just on the bandwagon of "wait for more evidence/info from GW"
Heck, it wouldn't surprise me tho. Working in a big business it's not uncommon for people to be denied holidays due to big orders coming through, and even then it's usually for the really good stuff that earns tons of cash.
It does tickle me that, making the (pretty big) assumption that it's true, some posters' reactions are "it walk s like a duck, it quacks like a duck... Hang on, it must be a chicken in disguise!!"
Waiting until I see more firm evidence from GW. They've been pretty loose-lipped as of late
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: It does tickle me that, making the (pretty big) assumption that it's true, some posters' reactions are "it walk s like a duck, it quacks like a duck... Hang on, it must be a chicken in disguise!!"
Cuz no one has thrown around the 8th edition rumor before
Also, if this would have been made up and fed to him there would be a lot of garbage, like initiative will get removed, the Emperor dies but returns and gets 40k rules and his own 96-page Codex book (first release of 8th edition 11111) and/or the game is going to be renamed. All that blabla
TheDraconicLord wrote: Right, I'm taking this possibility with enough salt to fill up and entire new ocean, BUUUUUUUUT
Spoiler:
Pretty please a revolution in the rules, I want a game as fun as AoS *fingers crossed*
The rumours in the pubs around Nottingham are that there was going to be a huge AoS style dumbing down of the 40k rules with some work started in parallel. Then AoS launched with more of a damp fart than a Bang and concerns were raised about the new direction but plans were to persist then after months of AoS sales that managed to keep dropping plans were made for 8th to be another revision rather than a revolution.
Throw in the drama of the Darklord being overthrown around that time and I guess it could be true but who knows until we see what is released.
From what I hear it's going to be a fairly significant shift. Think 2nd to 3rd vs. 5th to 6th.
Additionally the time frame is perfect. They don't need the bump for sales this fiscal year. That starts their new fiscal year off with a bang. Not to mention it's their tried and true release time frame for edition changes. It's almost always in that time slot between May and June. Just for the last few editions of 40k it's been to prop up sales for the year so May.
Azreal13 wrote: It does tickle me that, making the (pretty big) assumption that it's true, some posters' reactions are "it walk s like a duck, it quacks like a duck... Hang on, it must be a chicken in disguise!!"
Cuz no one has thrown around the 8th edition rumor before
Are you replying to someone else, because that doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of what I was saying?
Huh. Well...that looks like a decent possibility to me. That's almost 90% accurate. I'll take it. As much as I run a screamer star every game...I'll be crossing my fingers that kind of thing disappears in 8th! From EVERYBODY.
Not intended as a rumour-spreading but more anecdotal backup; when I went into a shop recently and was being rather hesitant about a Gathering Storm-related purchase, the chap behind the counter was at pains to emphasise that it should be valid for at least 3 months. That exact wording, which I thought an odd way of putting it but as I'm hardly a religious forum visitor I just put it down to being something I'd maybe missed.
Or he could have been simply providing reassurance to make a sale. Who knows?
I remember reading something like this a few weeks/months ago. It had all dates for 2017. I think they had one in February or March I though as well as June and can't remember the other two. Maybe one was in September or November.
Isn't June when Rogue Trader was released? If so June does look like a good time to coincide with 30th anniversary of Rouge Trader/40K.
The red dates (dates when staff cannot book holiday due to large releases) have been moved around a few times but the next big managers meeting is late May with the expectation being that it will be the get the new edition out and play with it.
June 3rd pre orders with teasers throughout May and not a lot of 40k till then (but the AoS Duardin, Adeptus Titanicus and perhaps Generals Handbook II to keep people busy) rings true for me.
But bear in mind we are already in March with the White Dwarf giving us the releases for the first half of this month and telling us Adeptus Titanicus is next month and not mentioning 40k. AoS Duardin in May takes us to the new 40k edition in June.
Ben2 wrote: April sees the release of Adeptus Titanicus.
The red dates (dates when staff cannot book holiday due to large releases) have been moved around a few times but the next big managers meeting is late May with the expectation being that it will be the get the new edition out and play with it.
June 3rd pre orders with teasers throughout May and not a lot of 40k till then (but the AoS Duardin, Adeptus Titanicus and perhaps Generals Handbook II to keep people busy) rings true for me.
But bear in mind we are already in March with the White Dwarf giving us the releases for the first half of this month and telling us Adeptus Titanicus is next month and not mentioning 40k. AoS Duardin in May takes us to the new 40k edition in June.
could be, and gathering storm is from everything we've heard a GREAT place to start a new edition
Ben2 wrote: April sees the release of Adeptus Titanicus.
The red dates (dates when staff cannot book holiday due to large releases) have been moved around a few times but the next big managers meeting is late May with the expectation being that it will be the get the new edition out and play with it.
June 3rd pre orders with teasers throughout May and not a lot of 40k till then (but the AoS Duardin, Adeptus Titanicus and perhaps Generals Handbook II to keep people busy) rings true for me.
But bear in mind we are already in March with the White Dwarf giving us the releases for the first half of this month and telling us Adeptus Titanicus is next month and not mentioning 40k. AoS Duardin in May takes us to the new 40k edition in June.
I thought the last information about Titanicus was it is delayed indefinitely until a production slot opens up.
As for Duardin I was under the impression there fans were a little like 40kSoB fans and ever next release is theres on the thinest evidence. For example pretty much every maximum zoom in teaser image shown has been claimed as duardin.
Davor wrote: I remember reading something like this a few weeks/months ago. It had all dates for 2017. I think they had one in February or March I though as well as June and can't remember the other two. Maybe one was in September or November.
Isn't June when Rogue Trader was released? If so June does look like a good time to coincide with 30th anniversary of Rouge Trader/40K.
Rogue Trader was released around WD issue 93 (teaser in #92) back in September 1987
Spoiler:
40k's 25th anniversary was celebrated in early 2012 though, and GW may take a more liberal approach again.
June sounds fine, several 40k and WFB editions were released in summer
Now we'll get all the humourless posters up in here saying they're not AOSing 40K because everything isn't exactly the same as when they did that to WHFB!!!
I don't care if it looks like AoS, infinity, or a mule's hindlegs. 40k as it is is an almost unplayable game due to their method of solving issues (aka: cranking more USRs and intensifying the needed book-keeping) and relentless power-creep. Meanwhile look at AoS. The powerboys got nerfed but got to add more variety of viable builds to adjust the powercurve.
GodDamUser wrote: I love how vague that that image is in the OP.. No actual point of reference except of 2 dates that could be for any month.. past or present
Now to make this rampant speculation even more hard to take. Apparently there will be teasers this month from GW about upcoming products and I recall that some of them won't be released for months or perhaps even until close to the end of the year.
So if 8th is happening. What will be released between it and after it this year? What race will get the honors of the first big release of 8th?
It's all a big race now.
Edit
When do we expect GS3 ending spoilers to drop?
Ben2 wrote: The current edition is a bit of a big mess. It needs a 2nd to 3rd style reboot on the rules side ideally with more modern mechanics.
I don't think that is what will happen though, just a lot of fine tuning. Hopefully making the game easier to get into and removing barriers to entry.
I (mostly) agree with you. I don't think it has anything to do with 'modern mechanics' though. They could take the game back to its 3rd Ed roots, create a robust and extensive system of universal special rules that rather than constantly making special case rules, ditch the fething formation nonsense completely, and it would work. No need to reinvent the wheel.
But yes, burn and churn for the current state of the game. That is required, and sadly, as you said, I don't think it'll happen.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I (mostly) agree with you. I don't think it has anything to do with 'modern mechanics' though. They could take the game back to its 3rd Ed roots, create a robust and extensive system of universal special rules that rather than constantly making special case rules, ditch the fething formation nonsense completely, and it would work. No need to reinvent the wheel.
But yes, burn and churn for the current state of the game. That is required, and sadly, as you said, I don't think it'll happen.
See I disagree with the Formations things here.. The idea of formations are awesome and is meant for you to make more fluffy armies
Its just the select few that are too strong that make people rue them
You think they'd know what they were doing by now.
The current edition is a bit of a big mess. It needs a 2nd to 3rd style reboot on the rules side ideally with more modern mechanics.
I don't think that is what will happen though, just a lot of fine tuning. Hopefully making the game easier to get into and removing barriers to entry.
Agreed. There are a ton of good things about AoS. And how they are handling that game is amazing for GW. The game plays fast and fun and is solid competitively. And they adjust the competitive level regulary. So "AoSing" rules wise would actually be amazing. I don't think it's going to go that far but let's be real. If they'd released points and the match play book when AoS started it would have taken off like a rocket. The fact that it is growing pretty fast at a competitive level now in the US indicates they're doing something right.
40k is a poop show right now of rules bloat and games that don't finish. I welcome our 8th edition overlords under NuGW.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I (mostly) agree with you. I don't think it has anything to do with 'modern mechanics' though. They could take the game back to its 3rd Ed roots, create a robust and extensive system of universal special rules that rather than constantly making special case rules, ditch the fething formation nonsense completely, and it would work. No need to reinvent the wheel.
But yes, burn and churn for the current state of the game. That is required, and sadly, as you said, I don't think it'll happen.
See I disagree with the Formations things here.. The idea of formations are awesome and is meant for you to make more fluffy armies
Its just the select few that are too strong that make people rue them
I'm gonna agree here, formations aren't bad at all, they make things MUCH more fluffy, there are a few formations that are a tad broken but by and large the idea is good. the Gladius for example, not a bad idea, and no one would have issue with it if it didn't give free transports in a battle company
GodDamUser wrote: See I disagree with the Formations things here.. The idea of formations are awesome and is meant for you to make more fluffy armies
Its just the select few that are too strong that make people rue them
I'm gonna agree here, formations aren't bad at all, they make things MUCH more fluffy, there are a few formations that are a tad broken but by and large the idea is good. the Gladius for example, not a bad idea, and no one would have issue with it if it didn't give free transports in a battle company
I 'spose it's more that I like the idea of formations as a concept, but I hate the execution. It should be done like the original version of Apocalypse, where the formation has a points cost so to get the benefit taking the formation you have to pay for it.
And no formation, ever, at any stage, should ever - ever - give free transports/unit upgrades/wargear/etc. That is daft.
GodDamUser wrote: See I disagree with the Formations things here.. The idea of formations are awesome and is meant for you to make more fluffy armies
Its just the select few that are too strong that make people rue them
I'm gonna agree here, formations aren't bad at all, they make things MUCH more fluffy, there are a few formations that are a tad broken but by and large the idea is good. the Gladius for example, not a bad idea, and no one would have issue with it if it didn't give free transports in a battle company
I 'spose it's more that I like the idea of formations as a concept, but I hate the execution. It should be done like the original version of Apocalypse, where the formation has a points cost so to get the benefit taking the formation you have to pay for it.
And no formation, ever, at any stage, should ever - ever - give free transports/unit upgrades/wargear/etc. That is daft.
You pay for them if you have the correct models in your army. Those models now get benefits from the battalion. You pay points, usually anywhere from 20-200 points per battalion to be included in your army. Those models cannot be a part of any other battalion now.
Example: Firelance Starhost
1 Scar Vet on Cold one Or Carnosaur
3 units of Saurus Knights
They still count for your unit cost (Leader, Behemoth, Battleline/Other), and they have an actual cost to them. It'd be like if you tried to take several Triptide formations but it would not count because you'd go over your Behemoth limit and would not have any battleline(Troops) to function as an actual army.
Personally believe the AoS battalion treatment makes the most sense, is the most understandable, the fairest, and the easiest to regulate.
They are simple and clean (Like one of my favorite songs.)
Oh Utada....
No, go back to percentage based armies, make people do maths! In their heads, too!
Was it Epic that had the unit/ formation card system? I liked that system. I like other things too.
GodDamUser wrote: See I disagree with the Formations things here.. The idea of formations are awesome and is meant for you to make more fluffy armies
Its just the select few that are too strong that make people rue them
I'm gonna agree here, formations aren't bad at all, they make things MUCH more fluffy, there are a few formations that are a tad broken but by and large the idea is good. the Gladius for example, not a bad idea, and no one would have issue with it if it didn't give free transports in a battle company
I 'spose it's more that I like the idea of formations as a concept, but I hate the execution. It should be done like the original version of Apocalypse, where the formation has a points cost so to get the benefit taking the formation you have to pay for it.
And no formation, ever, at any stage, should ever - ever - give free transports/unit upgrades/wargear/etc. That is daft.
People always get stuck on 'oh free transports, free wargear, blah, blah, blah' like the fact that it has an exact point value in a codex makes it somehow mystical. EVERY FORMATION GIVES FREE STUFF. Just because you can't total out the exact number of points you're getting out of it doesn't mean it's not a huge powerboost *cough*skyhammer*cough*.
I will say though that having formations be free is just bad. There should always be a lever you can pull to adjust things that isn't just nuking a model's usefulness outside of the super OP formation. Once they have points now you can argue that just getting discounts on upgrades/models is a boring, finicky way for formations to work and that getting to do something unique or cool instead would be better, but that's more about how things feel than actual balance.
You think they'd know what they were doing by now.
I fear they do know what they're doing. They're selling drugs to addicts. People lap up every garbage codex supplement with 1 page of extra rules to make their army better. People drop hundreds on doubles and triples of models just to field formations with a free powerup. 3 editions in 5 years sounds bad to us, but if customers are willing to pay for a new rulebook every 2 years, why wouldn't they print one? If people pay for garbage, why work hard to make it good? Just sell them the garbage.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: They still count for your unit cost (Leader, Behemoth, Battleline/Other), and they have an actual cost to them. It'd be like if you tried to take several Triptide formations but it would not count because you'd go over your Behemoth limit and would not have any battleline(Troops) to function as an actual army.
You mean that AoS, the game that started with a rules pamphlet and had special rules that required you to dance and grow beards now has a more organised set of army construction set than Warhammer "Dumpster Fire" 40,000?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: They still count for your unit cost (Leader, Behemoth, Battleline/Other), and they have an actual cost to them. It'd be like if you tried to take several Triptide formations but it would not count because you'd go over your Behemoth limit and would not have any battleline(Troops) to function as an actual army.
You mean that AoS, the game that started with a rules pamphlet and had special rules that required you to dance and grow beards now has a more organised set of army construction set than Warhammer "Dumpster Fire" 40,000?
Very minimal organization rules. And frankly lack of those or points was never biggest problem with AOS. And the real problems still haven't been fixed.
Joyboozer wrote: Was it Epic that had the unit/ formation card system? I liked that system. I like other things too.
I've wondered if such a system could work for 40K. It would allow for armies to have unique organisations, like the 'Nids did in Epic.
ERJAK wrote: People always get stuck on 'oh free transports, free wargear, blah, blah, blah' like the fact that it has an exact point value in a codex makes it somehow mystical. EVERY FORMATION GIVES FREE STUFF. Just because you can't total out the exact number of points you're getting out of it doesn't mean it's not a huge powerboost *cough*skyhammer*cough*.
Few formations give you hundreds of points over your opponent like the Marine and AdMech ones do though. That's a serious problem when you're taking hundreds of points in transports, or upgrading every unit with as much stuff as they can legally carry, all for free. You are playing at a points advantage then, and playing 1850 points vs 2200 points isn't fair. Wrapping that up in a "But it's a formation!" doesn't make it any better. Yes, other formations give you free extra rules, but that's the point of formations. Formations actively giving you whole new units/free everything is a terrible rules decision.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: They still count for your unit cost (Leader, Behemoth, Battleline/Other), and they have an actual cost to them. It'd be like if you tried to take several Triptide formations but it would not count because you'd go over your Behemoth limit and would not have any battleline(Troops) to function as an actual army.
You mean that AoS, the game that started with a rules pamphlet and had special rules that required you to dance and grow beards now has a more organised set of army construction set than Warhammer "Dumpster Fire" 40,000?
Aos has come a long way in a short time. The generals handbook is essentially the aos rulebook. It is the improvements that Aos has seen which gives me hope that 40k will get an improved ruleset.
I mean if they get rid of the free units formations I think they should also get rid of summoning since it's basically the same thing... But after that the line gets blurry. Are formations with respawning units okay? (Eg Skyblight and the cultist formation?
I don't expect a major shift coming. There are to many existing rules for that. Some things will just br straight up broken. The only way I could see it actually working is if they published a new book and then released all of the updated codexes again online for free. Which they won't do.
Joyboozer wrote: Was it Epic that had the unit/ formation card system? I liked that system. I like other things too.
I've wondered if such a system could work for 40K. It would allow for armies to have unique organisations, like the 'Nids did in Epic.
ERJAK wrote: People always get stuck on 'oh free transports, free wargear, blah, blah, blah' like the fact that it has an exact point value in a codex makes it somehow mystical. EVERY FORMATION GIVES FREE STUFF. Just because you can't total out the exact number of points you're getting out of it doesn't mean it's not a huge powerboost *cough*skyhammer*cough*.
Few formations give you hundreds of points over your opponent like the Marine and AdMech ones do though. That's a serious problem when you're taking hundreds of points in transports, or upgrading every unit with as much stuff as they can legally carry, all for free. You are playing at a points advantage then, and playing 1850 points vs 2200 points isn't fair. Wrapping that up in a "But it's a formation!" doesn't make it any better. Yes, other formations give you free extra rules, but that's the point of formations. Formations actively giving you whole new units/free everything is a terrible rules decision.
and I suspect GW agrees with you on that. we've not seen a new formation that gives you "free stuff" in awhile. my gut feeling in GW's realized it's a bad one too
Silent_Tempest wrote: I mean if they get rid of the free units formations I think they should also get rid of summoning since it's basically the same thing... But after that the line gets blurry. Are formations with respawning units okay? (Eg Skyblight and the cultist formation?
I don't expect a major shift coming. There are to many existing rules for that. Some things will just br straight up broken. The only way I could see it actually working is if they published a new book and then released all of the updated codexes again online for free. Which they won't do.
I like summoning. Are there as many people who hate summoned my as there are who hate formations?
Reinforcement points? Who thought that was a good idea?
Whilst 40K does need a massive ground-up overhaul to remove the endless bloat that it has attracted over 2 editions, I really do hope it doesn't get as simplified as the AoS rules.
I mean, it's nice that they added Matched Play and gave everything points, but each unit can still be armed with whatever. Unit options, wargear options and characters are all just "blah" in those rules, seemingly not costing anything above the base-line guys in the unit. That's no way to balance a ruleset. Some things are worth more than others, and a Devastator Squad w/4 Missile Launchers is worth more than a Devastator Squad where you've (for whatever reason) chosen to take nothing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: *skims through Generals' Handbook*
Whilst 40K does need a massive ground-up overhaul to remove the endless bloat that it has attracted over 2 editions, I really do home it doesn't get as simplified as the AoS rules.
Hear, hear. These are my thoughts exactly. I find it nice that there are two different types of game you can play and that both have completely different rule sets. AoS for quick games and 40K for huge games. Them's my thoughts at least
Silent_Tempest wrote: I mean if they get rid of the free units formations I think they should also get rid of summoning since it's basically the same thing... But after that the line gets blurry. Are formations with respawning units okay? (Eg Skyblight and the cultist formation?
I don't expect a major shift coming. There are to many existing rules for that. Some things will just br straight up broken. The only way I could see it actually working is if they published a new book and then released all of the updated codexes again online for free. Which they won't do.
I like summoning. Are there as many people who hate summoned my as there are who hate formations?
I definitely hate it for the same reason I hate free stuff formations. Tons of free points/units/warp charges. Breaks a fundamental rule of the game: We both use armies of the same point level. I think the same of those new bull gak horrors. Those rules are completely broken. Another thing that has always bothered me about summoning is the wide access. I feel like only Chaos Space Marines/Renegades should be able to summon. (Yes not demons.)
I also don't really understand why everything thinks the game is "bloated". You have to roll for psychic powers which s new and does slow the game down a bit. The rules for demonic gifts also slows the game down. Other than that? I don't get it the game about the same amount of rules as it always has. Army selection is more complicated with their being like 3 times of the number sources. (That I would like to see fixed. There's just to god dam many sources of rules.) But these don't affect the game when you're actually playing it.
I would like to see them revamp warlord traits since so many games they literally useless. (+3 to run? To bad my warlord is riding a bike... )
Reinforcement points? Who thought that was a good idea?
Whilst 40K does need a massive ground-up overhaul to remove the endless bloat that it has attracted over 2 editions, I really do home it doesn't get as simplified as the AoS rules.
I mean, it's nice that they added Matched Play and gave everything points, but each unit can still be armed with whatever. Unit options, wargear options and characters are all just "blah" in those rules, seemingly not costing anything above the base-line guys in the unit. That's no way to balance a ruleset. Some things are worth more than others, and a Devastator Squad w/4 Missile Launchers is worth more than a Devastator Squad where you've (for whatever reason) chosen to take nothing.
That's where you're wrong Batman!
But seriously, comparing 40k to AoS is silly - they are different.
People are hoping some logic is applied to 40k's ruleset, that's all...
Neronoxx wrote: But seriously, comparing 40k to AoS is silly - they are different.
1. Comparing rulesets from different games isn't 'silly'.
2. Comparing rulesets from games that are different isn't 'silly' either.
3. AoS and 40K are not as different as WFB and 40K were. Both are skirmish (apparently) level games involving squads of loose miniatures and various heroes and big units. They're like a dozen other games out there.
To be honest, i would be happy with just a list of "official rule sources"
At the moment there are;
Codexes
Codex Supplements
Campaign Books,
White Dwarf formations,
Box specific formations,
Web only formations.
Now we need sites like detachment compendium or some army builder just to keep track. It can't be denied it is a bit too much for a good portion of people.
Reinforcement points? Who thought that was a good idea?
Whilst 40K does need a massive ground-up overhaul to remove the endless bloat that it has attracted over 2 editions, I really do hope it doesn't get as simplified as the AoS rules.
I mean, it's nice that they added Matched Play and gave everything points, but each unit can still be armed with whatever. Unit options, wargear options and characters are all just "blah" in those rules, seemingly not costing anything above the base-line guys in the unit. That's no way to balance a ruleset. Some things are worth more than others, and a Devastator Squad w/4 Missile Launchers is worth more than a Devastator Squad where you've (for whatever reason) chosen to take nothing.
I think it's a good idea. Like I said once to a guy who plays daemons (and by playing I say he brings 2.5k points to 1.5k games in 40k)... "I'm sorry you've got to pay for your army now".
There's a few aspects born out of the FAQ that need ironing (which they are working) but it's a good concept since summoning let's you charge and act inmediately after entering the battlefield, so it's not like in 40k where you have to endure the pre-emptive strike and sufer the scatter that can bone you ( not in AoS though you cannot place closer than 9'' from the foe), plus summoning is easier than in 40k and more flexible :you have better statistical chance of succes (most basic stuff triggers on a 4-5, so it's 90-80 chance of success while in 40k, on 3d6 you'd have a 12.5% chance to summon the same thing) you don't need a lucky roll to get the power to summon x thing. All wizards (of the corresponding factions) know how to summon stuff.
Plenty of characters don't have any upgrades also but regarding units, this I think is them doing away with the "illusion of thought". Grav-guns cost x points but ultimately you're going to try to fit in as many as you can so you may as well include it in the base point.
Reinforcement points? Who thought that was a good idea?
Whilst 40K does need a massive ground-up overhaul to remove the endless bloat that it has attracted over 2 editions, I really do hope it doesn't get as simplified as the AoS rules.
I mean, it's nice that they added Matched Play and gave everything points, but each unit can still be armed with whatever. Unit options, wargear options and characters are all just "blah" in those rules, seemingly not costing anything above the base-line guys in the unit. That's no way to balance a ruleset. Some things are worth more than others, and a Devastator Squad w/4 Missile Launchers is worth more than a Devastator Squad where you've (for whatever reason) chosen to take nothing.
If you think Pink Horrors splitting and summoning spam in 40K is bad, you've never seen a Tzeentch Daemon or Nagash list in Age of Sigmar. Reinforcement points were pretty much a hammer blow pointed straight at those armies; summoning now works as a form of Deep Strike and gives you flexibility with your spare points to choose what you want to summon in a game. Reinforcement points make a lot of sense, but most agree that they are too harsh on some armies.
Unit armament isn't unbalanced like you suggest. Unit entries clearly state which weapons that models can be equipped with (you can't have a Chaos Warrior with both a Halberd and a Greatblade for example) and units which do have "special weapons" are hard-capped as to how many of those they can take based on their unit size. The only "imbalance" is if a person actively doesn't build their models with those special weapons...but unlike 40K, there's absolutely zero reason not to use them, especially as they diversify the unit.
Not sure I follow your reasoning honestly, how much AoS do you play? As someone who participates in AoS tournaments, I can assure you that it's a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more balanced game than 40k. There's power lists but nothing on the scale of 2++ re-rollable death-stars in 40K or horrendously under-priced models like Wraithknights, every army has a counter and every faction can be made competitive in some way through the Grand Alliance rules.
But that's getting a bit too off-topic Super keen on fluff spoilers, I wanna know what's up with Sicarius. Also, how on earth will Guilliman react to Centurions?
AoS has a much wider summoning pool. If you're a Nercomancer, you can summon any Undead unit that isn't a Special Character - that includes your mates Bob and Bert, who can the summon more stuff.
So whilst Reinforcement points look odd to the 40k eye, they're necessary because of how it all works in AoS (no more summoning the ideal unit at the ideal time laziness. Not anymore, oh no!)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So whilst Reinforcement points look odd to the 40k eye, they're necessary because of how it all works in AoS (no more summoning the ideal unit at the ideal time laziness. Not anymore, oh no!)
Nevermind tzeentch herald that by RAW would summon in average close to 100 copies of himself in first turn. Then on second turn unless you get all those killed you could start it fresh. Not every one of those will create 100 copies but good chunk will.
Keep this until you get bored of creating more and just start throwing in bolts at the enemy...
At least they got it fixed but sheesh. They didn't realize that having just ONE tzeentch herald in the army breaks the rules right away?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So whilst Reinforcement points look odd to the 40k eye, they're necessary because of how it all works in AoS (no more summoning the ideal unit at the ideal time laziness. Not anymore, oh no!)
Nevermind tzeentch herald that by RAW would summon in average close to 100 copies of himself in first turn. Then on second turn unless you get all those killed you could start it fresh. Not every one of those will create 100 copies but good chunk will.
Keep this until you get bored of creating more and just start throwing in bolts at the enemy...
At least they got it fixed but sheesh. They didn't realize that having just ONE tzeentch herald in the army breaks the rules right away?
They don't expect players to be jerks, much like I doubt the 40K rules-writers anticipated 2++ re-rollable invulnerable save units Besides, that's what the General's Handbook is for. If you're playing Narrative Play and someone tries to pull that stunt, they're clearly not worth playing with. Also, who on earth would buy 100 Heralds of Tzeentch?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So whilst Reinforcement points look odd to the 40k eye, they're necessary because of how it all works in AoS (no more summoning the ideal unit at the ideal time laziness. Not anymore, oh no!)
Nevermind tzeentch herald that by RAW would summon in average close to 100 copies of himself in first turn. Then on second turn unless you get all those killed you could start it fresh. Not every one of those will create 100 copies but good chunk will.
Keep this until you get bored of creating more and just start throwing in bolts at the enemy...
At least they got it fixed but sheesh. They didn't realize that having just ONE tzeentch herald in the army breaks the rules right away?
Tneva we've had this conversation a while back but I don't want to repeat it, so all I'm going to say is quit that gak-ass hyperbole.
If you want to apport something of substance beyond: I DON'T LIKE IT! You're welcome, but do so.
By the way, 0,000000012% chance to summon 100 heralds isn't average, at all. Please don't make up stuff for your arguments either.
Ruin wrote: How is he making stuff up if it's possible?
Treating a one in a billion chance as fact and a clear example that breaks systematically balance is an hyperbole and making stuff. But to further ellaborate I'd have to go and talk about statistical significance and all that, and as constipated as I am I don't want to.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So whilst Reinforcement points look odd to the 40k eye, they're necessary because of how it all works in AoS (no more summoning the ideal unit at the ideal time laziness. Not anymore, oh no!)
Nevermind tzeentch herald that by RAW would summon in average close to 100 copies of himself in first turn. Then on second turn unless you get all those killed you could start it fresh. Not every one of those will create 100 copies but good chunk will.
Keep this until you get bored of creating more and just start throwing in bolts at the enemy...
At least they got it fixed but sheesh. They didn't realize that having just ONE tzeentch herald in the army breaks the rules right away?
They don't expect players to be jerks, much like I doubt the 40K rules-writers anticipated 2++ re-rollable invulnerable save units Besides, that's what the General's Handbook is for. If you're playing Narrative Play and someone tries to pull that stunt, they're clearly not worth playing with. Also, who on earth would buy 100 Heralds of Tzeentch?
Since when having one tzeentch herald is being jerk?
Show's "quality" of game when having something as simple as ONE basic hero breaks the system. We aren't even talking about some cryptic combo utilizing multiple sourcebooks or something. We are talking about THE most basic hero choice for daemon tzeentch forces. Just that. Nothing else. No other unit. No batallion rule or something. One basic unit that's by all logic is very common. One that you could expect to see at least 2 or 3.
But taking 1 breaks game immediately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Kragan wrote: By the way, 0,000000012% chance to summon 100 heralds isn't average, at all. Please don't make up stuff for your arguments either.
Tzeentch herald has very small chance(like under 1%) of failing to create another herald. 3 dice one time ability. You ARE aware of that rule right?
Then new herald has exact same chance to create yet another. I presume you are aware that just because first herald used ability new one hasn't lost his right?
And so on. And so on.
Guess you haven't ever studied probabilities if you claim it's 0.000000012%. So I'll just ignore anything you say regarding probabilities.
tneva82 wrote: Since when having one tzeentch herald is being jerk?
Show's "quality" of game when having something as simple as ONE basic hero breaks the system. We aren't even talking about some cryptic combo utilizing multiple sourcebooks or something. We are talking about THE most basic hero choice for daemon tzeentch forces. Just that. Nothing else. No other unit. No batallion rule or something. One basic unit that's by all logic is very common. One that you could expect to see at least 2 or 3.
But taking 1 breaks game immediately.
Errr...what? I said summoning spam to the degree you describe DOES NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN NORMAL GAMES as usually people aren't jerks that would abuse that system. If you're going to say the rules system is broken because of one element that can be abused, where's your defence for Ynnari spamming Windriders? I'll wait patiently.
The point you seem to be missing is that both 40K and AoS have elements that can be abused...except AoS curbed those out with the General's Handbook. For 40k you need ITC/Community Comp/3rd party tournament rules to avoid the abuse. If a player shows up to a game with the intent of summoning 100 Heralds of Tzeentch, they're either a) not worth playing against in a Narrative Game or b) going to realize their "tactic" (note the quotation marks) doesn't work in Matched Play.
I'd argue Magnus breaks 40K immediately but whatever. Show me someone who will actually go out of their way to purchase 100 Heralds of Tzeentch - unless you're saying they're ok to just use proxies and blu-tac'd bases to prove your point, which is pathetic - so that they can use them all in a game. Show me. I'll wait.
Speaking of which....does Age of Sigmar have any armies you physically can't play?
Yeah...you realize 40K has a faction that legally cannot be fielded by itself because of the core rules of the game? Poor Timmy just wanted to play an army of Legion of the Damned and even bought their codex. He didn't know his army immediately loses the game on Turn 1...
Super keen on fluff spoilers, I wanna know what's up with Sicarius. Also, how on earth will Guilliman react to Centurions?
be intreasting to see how all the named UM chars react to the return of Gulliman. as for Centurions, keep in mind while they're new and weird things to us, or Gulliman they're proably one of the easier to understand new things. they're just a combined enhanced armor and weapons system thats pretty conventional compared to some of the other changes
It is fairly obvious that you can't just take Aos's rule set and transfer it over but there are a lot of lessons that can be learnt. One good one is a fairly regular points adjustment. How long have people been complaining about the wraithknight's points for? Taking feedback from the community in this is another aspect that Aos is embracing well and that should be transferred over to 40k. Just adding these elements would help to balance 40k immensly.
Well, I don't think 'one' Herald is breaking the game, or being a jerk. It's multiple Heralds, with the level of jerk being proportional to the number of Heralds.
Of course Summoning is now limited by points and so there is cap on 'Jerk'. But Jerk reaches infinity when in a points free game a player says "all these individually based snotlings are my proxy Heralds".
Caederes wrote: Also, how on earth will Guilliman react to Centurions?
I really do wish Text-to-Speech wasn't a thing.
I'm glad someone got the reference
Realistically though, I don't expect they'll touch on that as it's about the last thing Guilliman should be concerned with given...
I'm very curious to see what Cypher does, they've said there's a big twist with him in the book and I doubt they're referring to his identity being revealed.
Not sure if you're being ironic or not, but if it's the latter, trust me, the Horus Heresy novels make it clear that's not the case (and I won't say why obviously)
Now we need sites like detachment compendium or some army builder just to keep track. It can't be denied it is a bit too much for a good portion of people.
Now we need sites like detachment compendium or some army builder just to keep track. It can't be denied it is a bit too much for a good portion of people.
That was the point, we need people to put their time to scour the webz and put them together from dozens and dozens of sources. Bless their hearth tough..
H.B.M.C. wrote: Unit options, wargear options and characters are all just "blah" in those rules, seemingly not costing anything above the base-line guys in the unit. That's no way to balance a ruleset. Some things are worth more than others, and a Devastator Squad w/4 Missile Launchers is worth more than a Devastator Squad where you've (for whatever reason) chosen to take nothing.
Some weapon options do have different points - Stormcasts have quite a few.
Chikout wrote: It is fairly obvious that you can't just take Aos's rule set and transfer it over but there are a lot of lessons that can be learnt. One good one is a fairly regular points adjustment. How long have people been complaining about the wraithknight's points for? Taking feedback from the community in this is another aspect that Aos is embracing well and that should be transferred over to 40k. Just adding these elements would help to balance 40k immensly.
Sure you can transfer AoS's rule set over to 40k.
People have already done it. One fan site has made data scrolls for several armies.
They're not perfectly balanced but AoS's rules let you move, shoot, close combat and have morale effects.
Different form of rules but really pretty easily compatible with 40k armies if you want to do it.
I would buy back into 40k again (haven't played in a couple of editions) hard if they actually did 'port AoS rules over.
Some weapon options do have different points - Stormcasts have quite a few.
What? Since when?
The biggest problem with AOS point costs are that the option cost nothing, so from competitive standpoint there is for example no reason to use a Freeguild General on foot and without a banner, because at the same cost you can give them a pony and banner.
Crimson, I think he's talking about different unit load outs.
For example, if I take Prosecutors with celestial hammers (the entire unit) they are more expensive than the javelin-armed Prosecutors, as a whole unit.
You are correct, that individual model upgrades are not costed differently---at least what I've seen. For example, if I arm two of every five Retributors with maces the unit's cost doesn't change.
Space Marines (Ultramarines) vs. Astra Militarium (Cadia)
SM 1 Captain
10 Tactical Marines
3 (Snap-fit) Centurions
AM Command squad (Lieutenant, Standard Bearer, Commisar)
2 Squads (20 figures)
1 Heavy Weapons team (Lascannon, Melta or Heavy Bolter)
1 Sentinel
3 sheets of cardstock terrain, ruler and templates, 2 Fortune decks (32 Ultramarine cards, 32 Cadian cards) [The fortune cards are like those found in the boardgames for Betrayal at Calth & Burning of Prospero. Ultramines focus on driving through attacks and pushing forward into enemy forces; the Cadian cards are generally defensive in nature, allowing them to "hold the line', call on reinforcements or even off-board artillery strikes.]
Comes with abbreviated rules and a scenario book.
The backstory:Roboute Guilliman has begun the crusade to drive Chaos back to the Eye of Terror. As part of his plan, he has led the 2nd company to to the fallback stronghold of the remnants of the Cadia XIII on the planet Erebor. At Erebor, the Cadia forces have reteated to lick their wounds and brood over their recent losses. Roboute's intent is to rally the disheartened forces (led by a recovering Uskar Creed) under Roboute's new imperial vision and against the enemies of the Imperium. However, his approach to the stronghold is rebuffed; the AM forces believe the return f the Primarch to be a Chaos trick. Roboute is suspicious when he cannot directly contact Creed, and orders elements of the 2nd Company on a secret mission to the planet...
All scenarios are on a 4X4 playing area
SCENARIO 1: Scouting for Trouble
SM Player: 3 marine figures; AM Player: 1 Platoon (10 figures). AM player sets up in center of board on an objective marker, SM player arrives from any edge. 5 turns; Marines go first; No Fortune cards are used
Conditions: SM player wins if he is able to destroy the AM platoon or drive it off the objective and seize it. AM player wins if they can hold the objective and/or destroy the marine forces
Harold Primus's squad arrived undetected planetside and began their approach to the fortress on Erebor. Not far from the main fortress, the marines encountered a guardpost keeping watch for enemy approach. Rather than attempt to circumvent the outpost, Harold and his squad beleived they could use the information within the outpost to find a way through the fortesses defenses - and possibly Creed's location.
SCENARIO 2: Patrol
SM Player: 3 Centurions (each is treated as a seperate squad); AM Player: 1 Platoon (10 figures) & Sentinel; Players set up on opposite sides; SM player must destroy the sentinel and get at least one Centurion off the AM's side of the board. Fortune cards are used
Harold's marine squad discovered a weak point in Erebor's fortress that could be exploited by a team of Centurions armed with seige drills. The centurions were quietly dispatched to tunnel into the walls, but have run afoul of a local patrol.
SCENARIO 3: Gunline
SM Player: 1 squad of Marines w/ special weapon; may bring on a second squad of 5 marines (w/ heavy weapon on turn 3); AM Player: 2 platoons (10 man each), Heavy weapons team; 5 turns; Fortune cards used [3 cards, +1 per turn]
SM player must destroy the Heavy Weapons team and get at least one squad off the AM's side of the board. The AM player must prevent any marines from exiting their side of the board. If an AM squad is reduced to less than 5 men, the AM player may choose to remove the remaining models on his turn and place a fresh squad of 10 troops at his edge of the board (at least 10" away from any enemy troops)
Though the centurions are able to breach the walls of the Erebor Fortress, their activities have alerted the AM forces to the marine's presence planetside. The AM is able to erect a gunline between the arriving marines and the breech in the fortress. The marines must break through!
SCENARIO 4: Infiltration
SM Player: Captain & 5 marines (each marine is treated as a squad); AM player: 1 platoon (10 models) (each model is treated as a squad) - models are deployed throughout play area, which consists of a mazeworks of 6" long, 1/4" wide (cardboard) LOS-blocking walls.
SM player must get the Captain off the far side of the board. On the AM's turn, if a marine is within 12" of a guard model and visible, the AM player may add 2 additional guard models at one of the four deployments areas (2 on left half, 2 or right half). The first time a SM player gets a marine with 12" of the AM's side of the board, the AM player may immediately deploy a Sentinel.
Gatharus Ule, captain of the fifth squad, had managed to lead his marines into the bowels of the Erebor Fortress to locate Uskar Creed and deliver Roboute's personal message to the commander of the Cadian forces. Dodging the guard's patrols would not be an easy task, but Gatharus was determined to complete his task, regardless of the odds. He need only make his way to the dull clanking in the distance..."
SCENARIO 5: Final Assault
SM Player: all models; AM Player: All models; AM player sets up on one edge w/ 3 (cardboard) Landmine terrain markers and 2 (cardboard) Aegis defense line markers. SM player sets up on opposite edge; 5 turns
Condition: All rules in play, the side with the most VP's win
Finally, Roboute recieved word from Creed. During his hospitilation, fanatical subordinates still loyal to the old ways had seized control of the planetary forces, and isolated Creed from getting word to his own troops to lay down arms for the arrival of the Ultramarines. Now, Robute had isolated the insubordiate forces and it was time to crush them and liberate the true commander of the Militium forces - the real war was about to begin."
Kirasu wrote: The only thing AoS did was drastically increase the amount of nostalgic Tomb kings and Bretonnian players asking ".. but when do we get models?"
Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling so you can't hear people talking doesn't mean people aren't talking. AoS is currently in a fantastic place and has been going from strength to strength since the release of the Generals Handbook.
I kinda hope they AoS it to the point with the General's Handbook filled with all sorts of special rules, psychic powers, point values, and etc. Then free datasheets that have special rules that are unique to those units, and all of what those units do with the datasheets. Maybe formations thrown in there as well, but I'm just hoping for one big ass book THATS IT.
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
About formations, I hate how they currently are in 40K. They limit the army building. I want to be able to choose what units I want to use. And sure, no one is forcing me to use formations, but the benefits are often so great, that not using them would be like not using 20% of the allowed points. (People often lump formations and allies together as things that unbalance the game, but I think they're complete opposites. Sure, you may be able to create some stupid combos with allies, but first and foremost allies increase your freedom of army building while formations decrease it.) AOS method where formations cost points is way better, then it at least feels less like I'm intentionally gimping myself if I'm not using them.
Another thing I think 40K should steal from AOS are the behemoth rules. Decreasing efficiency when taking damage is a good idea. They should build monster/vehicle rules in 40K on this model. And of course unify vehicle and non-vehicle rules. It is my biggest peeve in 40K and would be even if it wouldn't lead to imbalance issues; it is just ugly and inelegant game design that the vehicles use completely different mechanics than the non vehicles, especially when the line between the two is often arbitrary as hell.
Things that I really don't want to see adopted from AOS, is the static rolls. In AOS the models really don't interact with each other; it really doesn't matter much which model or weapon you use to attack which foe, your chances remain the same (there are of course some special rules which make certain units better against certain types of foes, but that is a cumbersome way to handle something that could be easily baked in the basic rules.) One of the biggest sources of tactical depth in 40K is that different weapons are effective against different foes, and it would be a huge mistake to lose that.
Reinforcement points? Who thought that was a good idea?
Whilst 40K does need a massive ground-up overhaul to remove the endless bloat that it has attracted over 2 editions, I really do hope it doesn't get as simplified as the AoS rules.
I mean, it's nice that they added Matched Play and gave everything points, but each unit can still be armed with whatever. Unit options, wargear options and characters are all just "blah" in those rules, seemingly not costing anything above the base-line guys in the unit. That's no way to balance a ruleset. Some things are worth more than others, and a Devastator Squad w/4 Missile Launchers is worth more than a Devastator Squad where you've (for whatever reason) chosen to take nothing.
Exactly in the same boat as you. Except that would like all formations to be removed. They limit your creativity and make the game even more of a mess.
And I hope that 8th edition will be more interesting than mindlessly throwing dice hoping for a 4+ a la AOS
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
About formations, I hate how they currently are in 40K. They limit the army building. I want to be able to choose what units I want to use. And sure, no one is forcing me to use formations, but the benefits are often so great, that not using them would be like not using 20% of the allowed points. (People often lump formations and allies together as things that unbalance the game, but I think they're complete opposites. Sure, you may be able to create some stupid combos with allies, but first and foremost allies increase your freedom of army building while formations decrease it.) AOS method where formations cost points is way better, then it at least feels less like I'm intentionally gimping myself if I'm not using them.
Another thing I think 40K should steal from AOS are the behemoth rules. Decreasing efficiency when taking damage is a good idea. They should build monster/vehicle rules in 40K on this model. And of course unify vehicle and non-vehicle rules. It is my biggest peeve in 40K and would be even if it wouldn't lead to imbalance issues; it is just ugly and inelegant game design that the vehicles use completely different mechanics than the non vehicles, especially when the line between the two is often arbitrary as hell.
Things that I really don't want to see adopted from AOS, is the static rolls. In AOS the models really don't interact with each other; it really doesn't matter much which model or weapon you use to attack which foe, your chances remain the same (there are of course some special rules which make certain units better against certain types of foes, but that is a cumbersome way to handle something that could be easily baked in the basic rules.) One of the biggest sources of tactical depth in 40K is that different weapons are effective against different foes, and it would be a huge mistake to lose that.
Exalted this. Every single words. except for the vehicule rules. I like the fact that two completely distinct concepts (creatures and vehicules) have different rules. I hate the fact that they mixed things up just for the sake of it (deadknight as a MC)
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
There are indeed many cases, some more obvious than others. Stormcast Judicators (the basic shooting infantry) for example have two weapon options, one of which may as well not exist because of how much worse it is. I would be very sad to see 40k go that route.
Exalted this. Every single words. except for the vehicule rules. I like the fact that two completely distinct concepts (creatures and vehicules) have different rules. I hate the fact that they mixed things up just for the sake of it (deadknight as a MC)
I don't mean that vehicles should have no rules unique to them at all. They should. But there is absolutely no reason for the whole wounding and saving procedure to work completely differently for vehicles and non-vehicles.
If we would be using the 3-7 edition basic rules framework, I would give the vehicles Toughness, Wounds, and an Armour Save that could be different based on the hull facing. Then I'd remove Instant Death rule and have powerful one shot weapons such as lascannons to do multiple wounds like they did in the second edition (d3 or d6 wounds, stuff like that.) The vehicle's performance (the move, how many weapons they can shoot with) would degrade based on the wounds suffered.
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
There are indeed many cases, some more obvious than others. Stormcast Judicators (the basic shooting infantry) for example have two weapon options, one of which may as well not exist because of how much worse it is. I would be very sad to see 40k go that route.
It's because the rules were too much to have combined on the same scroll. Javelins do not have access to the Grandblade/Axe/Hammer and Hammers do not have access to the Trident. Judicators can be the same, because the specialty weapon is not specific to any set.
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
About formations, I hate how they currently are in 40K. They limit the army building. I want to be able to choose what units I want to use. And sure, no one is forcing me to use formations, but the benefits are often so great, that not using them would be like not using 20% of the allowed points. (People often lump formations and allies together as things that unbalance the game, but I think they're complete opposites. Sure, you may be able to create some stupid combos with allies, but first and foremost allies increase your freedom of army building while formations decrease it.) AOS method where formations cost points is way better, then it at least feels less like I'm intentionally gimping myself if I'm not using them.
Another thing I think 40K should steal from AOS are the behemoth rules. Decreasing efficiency when taking damage is a good idea. They should build monster/vehicle rules in 40K on this model. And of course unify vehicle and non-vehicle rules. It is my biggest peeve in 40K and would be even if it wouldn't lead to imbalance issues; it is just ugly and inelegant game design that the vehicles use completely different mechanics than the non vehicles, especially when the line between the two is often arbitrary as hell.
Things that I really don't want to see adopted from AOS, is the static rolls. In AOS the models really don't interact with each other; it really doesn't matter much which model or weapon you use to attack which foe, your chances remain the same (there are of course some special rules which make certain units better against certain types of foes, but that is a cumbersome way to handle something that could be easily baked in the basic rules.) One of the biggest sources of tactical depth in 40K is that different weapons are effective against different foes, and it would be a huge mistake to lose that.
See I don't agree, the static rolls in aos work in almost the exact same way as the charts in 40k work, and you still need to specialize weapons based on their stats. Firing a mortal wound cannon into a unit with no armor save is stupid, putting a no rend unit into a stormcast with 3+ rerolling ones is just asking to die, using rend-2 on a models with a 6+ save is wasteful. The only meaningful difference between 40k and AoS weapons are that a lot more AoS weapons are usable. When was the last time you saw someone bring a plasma cannon? Or a heavy bolter not on a free razorback? Or a shuriken catapult?,Or not-twinlinked devourer with brainleech worms? Or shooty chaos? Or shooty space wolves? Or astramilitarum in general? AoS weapons seem like they offer less tactics and variety because the stats are just modifiers on a consistent baseline, but because every weapon is at least somewhat useful every weapon matters. In 40k the only armies that have more than 3 meaningful weapons profiles are Tau and Admech.
Another benefit of the static to-hit to-wound is that it makes it simpler to use modifiers rather than rerolls, which is awesome because it really smooths out the power curve of buffs.
The special rules per unit thing is actually less cumbersome than the USR thing in 40k, which always seems counter intuitive until you realize that A)It allows you to deal with each unit as it's own entity and makes finding and digesting the rule simpler, and B) limits how crazy rules interactions can get by limiting it to a single model/unit.
Should the two games become the same? Absolutely not, but writing mechanics off just because they seem 'simple' or 'dumbed down' from the outside without really investigating isn't the way to go either.
edit: the example about judicators. the crossbows, after the rules changes in the new stormcast book, have the potential to be very powerful and offer a fun tactical option, yes it's quite a bit more difficult to get the most out of them; doesn't make them worthless. Not like how a plasma cannon is a pathetic piece of garbage relative to a grav cannon, even being 20pts cheaper.
Crimson wrote: Another thing I think 40K should steal from AOS are the behemoth rules. Decreasing efficiency when taking damage is a good idea. They should build monster/vehicle rules in 40K on this model. And of course unify vehicle and non-vehicle rules. It is my biggest peeve in 40K and would be even if it wouldn't lead to imbalance issues; it is just ugly and inelegant game design that the vehicles use completely different mechanics than the non vehicles, especially when the line between the two is often arbitrary as hell.
I've always thought that was basically how Gargantuan Creatures should work. My idea wasn't as extensive, but it was a case of the really big creatures get multiple toughness values and wound values. So, for example, the smaller Tyranid Biotitan might be:
T8/6/5 W3/4/4
The first three wounds it takes are at T8, then next four are at T6 as the wounds make it weaker, and the final 4 are at T5 and because it's T5 once it gets to that point it can be "finished off" with a single S10 attack.
Crimson wrote: Things that I really don't want to see adopted from AOS, is the static rolls. In AOS the models really don't interact with each other; it really doesn't matter much which model or weapon you use to attack which foe, your chances remain the same (there are of course some special rules which make certain units better against certain types of foes, but that is a cumbersome way to handle something that could be easily baked in the basic rules.) One of the biggest sources of tactical depth in 40K is that different weapons are effective against different foes, and it would be a huge mistake to lose that.
Could not agree more. I like the static rolls on a small scale, like in Silver Tower, but on a larger scale it just doesn't make sense. Weapons should be more than a 3+, 4+ or 5+ roll for damage. By the same token though they shouldn't have a litany of special rules following them. Whereas AoS went too far in simplifying the weapon rules, 40K's current state has every third weapon getting some special case rule or, far worse, a rule that is like an existing rule but is slightly different. 3rd Ed had that problem, with the game at one stage having 4 versions of True Grit (IIRC, rulebook version, Grey Knight version, Space Wolf version and Death Guard version).
streetsamurai wrote: Exalted this. Every single words. except for the vehicule rules. I like the fact that two completely distinct concepts (creatures and vehicules) have different rules. I hate the fact that they mixed things up just for the sake of it (deadknight as a MC)
I like having vehicle rules that are separate from the creature rules. I know some people (like insaniak) hate that, but for me I think vehicles should be played differently than Toughness/Wounds. But you are right about the problem with the way some monstrous creatures are vehicles and some aren't. I'd roll Monstrous Creatures and Walkers into their own category, base everything off the way the Wraithlord is written, and be done with it, so all walkers can be Toughness/Wounds/Armour Save.
When we did our own version of 40K because we were just tired of GW's lurching unpredictability (and the fact that the 4th/5th Ed vehicle rules ---sucked---), we did just this to walkers. Worked really well. Ended up looking like:
Personally I'd AoSify everything even the vehicles. I'd have 2 seperate rules for vehicles though. Vehicles wouldn't have armour but would have an armour save and wounds like normal models.
Armour - Model is immune to conventional weapons.
Tank Buster - Weapon is able to damage Armour.
Following a rules...
Tank Buster weapons come in three types, Light, Medium and Heavy, they also have two damage types, Glance and Penetrate.
Light - Glances on 6s, Penetrates on 5s, no damage on 1-4
Medium - Glance on 5, 6, Penetrate on 4, no damage on 1-3
Heavy - Glance on 4-6, Penetrate on 3, no damage on 1 and 2.
Glance - When a weapon glances, roll a D3 dice to determine the effect.
Penetrate - Full weapon damage, vehicle takes armour save.
About the only thing you need, which hasn't been mentioned, but is fairly elementary, is a "Vehicle" compound rule which would confer immunity to the effects of poison (but conversely make the unit affected by Haywire) etc, then a T/Sv system with degrading performance based on damage taken is, just about, my perfect solution.
The granularity on offer with what damage effects happen and where on the track they kick in can really alter the feel of a unit with otherwise very similar stats on the table.
Azreal13 wrote: About the only thing you need, which hasn't been mentioned, but is fairly elementary, is a "Vehicle" compound rule which would confer immunity to the effects of poison (but conversely make the unit affected by Haywire) etc, then a T/Sv system with degrading performance based on damage taken is, just about, my perfect solution.
The granularity on offer with what damage effects happen and where on the track they kick in can really alter the feel of a unit with otherwise very similar stats on the table.
Yeah but tanks should be able to go book in a single shot.
The one problem we ran into with our "turn walkers into T/W creatures" was that, despite the fact that T/Sv was roughly equivalent to Av+Glancing/Penetrating rules, the vehicles could die instantly to a lucky shot whereas the walkers couldn't. We solved it with a smaller damage chart for MCs/Walkers where 1-3 = just a regular wound, 4 was 'Shaken', 5 was 'Stunned' and 6 was D3 wounds rather than 1.
I like damage charts. It gives you dramatic effects.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I like having vehicle rules that are separate from the creature rules. I know some people (like insaniak) hate that, but for me I think vehicles should be played differently than Toughness/Wounds.
it can still be different, the outcome just need to be the same
now we have a mixed T/W + old vehicle chart that does not work out
if you don't like the straight T for vehicles give them TankArmour with a value from 6-16. against vehicles, weapons add 6 minus their AP to their Strength, to wound rolls are resolved normal
add Multi Wounds to some single shot weapons, add a damage chart for all large models (also monsters) or skip it
so different mechanic, not Thoughness/Armour Save but the outcome is similar and the gap between monsters and vehicles is gone
Azreal13 wrote: About the only thing you need, which hasn't been mentioned, but is fairly elementary, is a "Vehicle" compound rule which would confer immunity to the effects of poison (but conversely make the unit affected by Haywire) etc, then a T/Sv system with degrading performance based on damage taken is, just about, my perfect solution.
The granularity on offer with what damage effects happen and where on the track they kick in can really alter the feel of a unit with otherwise very similar stats on the table.
Yeah but tanks should be able to go book in a single shot.
The one problem we ran into with our "turn walkers into T/W creatures" was that, despite the fact that T/Sv was roughly equivalent to Av+Glancing/Penetrating rules, the vehicles could die instantly to a lucky shot whereas the walkers couldn't. We solved it with a smaller damage chart for MCs/Walkers where 1-3 = just a regular wound, 4 was 'Shaken', 5 was 'Stunned' and 6 was D3 wounds rather than 1.
I like damage charts. It gives you dramatic effects.
Perhaps that's something to confer on proper anti tank weapons? Give them some sort of capability of oneshotting a vehicle even if it's at max health. Would be a good way to incentivise people taking stuff like the good ole lascannon.
Warpath has a nice system with the easy dice rolling and vehicle being different without being worse
(their main advantage compared to AoS is that you roll to wound against the defence of the target)
Yeah but tanks should be able to go book in a single shot.
and we should be able to kill a monster with a head shot
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Perhaps that's something to confer on proper anti tank weapons? Give them some sort of capability of oneshotting a vehicle even if it's at max health. Would be a good way to incentivise people taking stuff like the good ole lascannon.
the problem is, if it is just a chance, high rof weapons are still better at killing vehicles
if it is reliable, no one would take vehicles any more
as long as their is no clear rule for what is a walker, a monster or tank and the mechanic between them are equal (like add the damage chart for monstrous creates, if you cut their legs of the cannot walk even if they have some wounds left)
If vehicles get T/Sv it will have to be particularly high for it to be remotely viable. So a lander raider would need to to be T10 with a 3+ Sv and 4 wounds or it will be hot garbage. Even a rhino will need to be T8 just for it to be as tough to kill as it is now, except it would have a save. I just see vehicles being a bunch of carnifexs that nobody wants to use because the game mostly has phased out non-gimmick MCs because of high S low Ap multi-shot weapons being so common.
I would actually be able to bring a Hammerhead with Ion Cannon or two just for fun. As well as a railgun Hammerhead even if single shots aren't so good in the new edition still. Second coolest looking tank in the game after the Baneblade that is.
The end of financial year/ pre New edition release could be battle sisters, couldn't it? They fit the description of a low expectation release that is placed in the cycle where if successful it's great but if not gw have time to make up for it in revenue elsewhere.
We've not heard anything substantial about Sisters. If anything, reliable rumor people have said that Celestine and the Gemini are the only ones for the foreseeable future.
It blows me away a bit that even after GW drummed up so much hype for a Sisters release it still hasn't happened.
Especially after that LE character getting sold out everywhere.
You have to wonder what they are waiting for.
New ED I guess.
BrotherGecko wrote: If vehicles get T/Sv it will have to be particularly high for it to be remotely viable. So a lander raider would need to to be T10 with a 3+ Sv and 4 wounds or it will be hot garbage. Even a rhino will need to be T8 just for it to be as tough to kill as it is now, except it would have a save. I just see vehicles being a bunch of carnifexs that nobody wants to use because the game mostly has phased out non-gimmick MCs because of high S low Ap multi-shot weapons being so common.
GW has been quite reluctant to give out Toughness values above 6, which is a problem. Making a Land Raider T8 would be horrible.
dan2026 wrote: It blows me away a bit that even after GW drummed up so much hype for a Sisters release it still hasn't happened.
They didn't drum up any hype for a 'sisters release'. They made a throwaway comment in a video about plastic sisters, and released a resin mini to accompany a copypasta Codex. Any drummed up hype came from people reading too much into it.
kodos wrote: and we should be able to kill a monster with a head shot
Helps to read the rest of what I posted.
I said that we encountered that problem, and implemented a solution that allowed for the occasional one-shoting of walkers.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They didn't drum up any hype for a 'sisters release'. They made a throwaway comment in a video about plastic sisters, and released a resin mini to accompany a copypasta Codex. Any drummed up hype came from people reading too much into it.
Oh bs. They knew exactly what they were doing with that comment.
If they didn't expect people to jump to that conclusion by saying the words 'plastic sisters', then GW really have no clue at all.
A Sisters re-release is probably the most asked for thing EVER in 40k.
In all the years I have known 40k, you can't go 5 minutes without someone speculating about Sisters.
You think GW doesn't know this?
BrotherGecko wrote: If vehicles get T/Sv it will have to be particularly high for it to be remotely viable. So a lander raider would need to to be T10 with a 3+ Sv and 4 wounds or it will be hot garbage. Even a rhino will need to be T8 just for it to be as tough to kill as it is now, except it would have a save. I just see vehicles being a bunch of carnifexs that nobody wants to use because the game mostly has phased out non-gimmick MCs because of high S low Ap multi-shot weapons being so common.
GW has been quite reluctant to give out Toughness values above 6, which is a problem. Making a Land Raider T8 would be horrible.
Exactly, anything less than T10 and they wouldn't make it past turn 1 in any game.
If GW want to simplify vehicle rules, they could drop the front/side/rear values system and just assign a single armor value for the vehicle. They could then drop the explodes result entirely and switch it to multiple hull points (D3).
They could simplify flyers by publicly shaming whoever wrote their rules, came up with the idea and has used one in a game. Then seize every flyer and burn them with their entire stock. Thus they will be simplfied.
Failing take the proper measures, they could give then rules like, "you can't win any game if you deploy a flyer" or "your opponent may use a warlord titan for free if you deploy a flyer".
BrotherGecko wrote: If vehicles get T/Sv it will have to be particularly high for it to be remotely viable. So a lander raider would need to to be T10 with a 3+ Sv and 4 wounds or it will be hot garbage. Even a rhino will need to be T8 just for it to be as tough to kill as it is now, except it would have a save. I just see vehicles being a bunch of carnifexs that nobody wants to use because the game mostly has phased out non-gimmick MCs because of high S low Ap multi-shot weapons being so common.
GW has been quite reluctant to give out Toughness values above 6, which is a problem. Making a Land Raider T8 would be horrible.
Exactly, anything less than T10 and they wouldn't make it past turn 1 in any game.
If GW want to simplify vehicle rules, they could drop the front/side/rear values system and just assign a single armor value for the vehicle. They could then drop the explodes result entirely and switch it to multiple hull points (D3).
They could simplify flyers by publicly shaming whoever wrote their rules, came up with the idea and has used one in a game. Then seize every flyer and burn them with their entire stock. Thus they will be simplfied.
Failing take the proper measures, they could give then rules like, "you can't win any game if you deploy a flyer" or "your opponent may use a warlord titan for free if you deploy a flyer".
the flyer rules are not a problem, and haven't been in a while, its the flyers cost that is the issue, make flyers more expensive.
To add to this rumour, this is not an 8th ED, its a Reboot of sorts, GW is not calling it 8th.
I sure hope 8th edition isn't anything like AoS. Sure, 40K has its problems (mainly balance and poorly designed formations), but there's no need to throw the baby with the water. If they do so, I at least hope they'll come with something better elaborated than AoS.
Flyer's are not all that strong honestly. It's not even an issue. If anything flyers are pretty useless and anemic with their damage outputs. They also can't cap objectives so can't even contribute to winning that way.
Flyer's are just not at a great place barring the upper top 5 or so which might see play.
Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
I don't disagree with that. It certainly would make things a lot easier since the systems would be unified. But would facings go away as well or would vehicles have different toughness values for different facings? Removing facings would definitely be acceptable to me.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.
For 40K, super-future vehicles not having weaker side or rear armor could easily be explained away, or just ignored. I think one "toughness" value all around would be the way to go. I'd like vehicles to have Armor saves, just so Leman Russes don't get plinked to death with Lasguns or other non-AT weapons.
Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.
What does this simulate? Should Necrons also have AV because they are machines? It adds nothing, it is just a distinction without a difference, it is bad game design. All modern games strive for unified mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
casvalremdeikun wrote: I don't disagree with that. It certainly would make things a lot easier since the systems would be unified. But would facings go away as well or would vehicles have different toughness values for different facings? Removing facings would definitely be acceptable to me.
I think facings are fine for boxy vehicles such as most tanks. Moving to exploit a weak spot is a nice strategic element. As I suggested earlier, I'd give vehicles with facings one uniform toughness score, but an armour save which varies depending on the facing.
for the billionith time, they're not GOING to rename it. warhammer 40k is a well known property etc. warhammer however, is confused due to well.. 40k. thus a rename to clarify was good sense
for the billionith time, they're not GOING to rename it. warhammer 40k is a well known property etc. warhammer however, is confused due to well.. 40k. thus a rename to clarify was good sense
Yeah, they'd never come out and call something just "Warhammer.."
for the billionith time, they're not GOING to rename it. warhammer 40k is a well known property etc. warhammer however, is confused due to well.. 40k. thus a rename to clarify was good sense
Crimson wrote: No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
But it's not the same thing. Right now S5 can wound T8. It can't do diddly to AV12 though. Give vehicles a toughness value equal to their current AV (ie. AV12 = T8, AV13 = T9, AV14 = T10), and you open up a whole other class of weapons that can damage them. A Rhino (AV11, so now T7) could be wounded by Bolters.
Giving vehicles wounds is daft (and yes, the Hull Points patch they slapped on the vehicle rules is stupid for this very reason).
dan2026 wrote: In all the years I have known 40k, you can't go 5 minutes without someone speculating about Sisters.
Yes, but as I said, it's the Sisters players doing that. GW didn't do anything other than, as I said, an off-hand comment (which was more than likely related to Celestine's mini and her bodyguard), and released a resin limited edition miniature which we've heard they were surprised at its sales. So they did not hype a 'sisters release', because there was no release to hype.
You could make vehicles immune to anything with an ap worse than 4 (or save modifier of a given value if they go back) that solves the small arms fire and high s, high rof, poor ap stuff being too good against them?
Now you're adding special rules to fight a failing of the rules. You're also limiting yourself from a design perspective if you add in a high strength low AP* weapon.
*And by 'low AP' I mean like AP6, AP-, 'cause AP is backwards.
Not too difficult to work out what this reboot will look like. Huge expensive kits, requirement to roll lots and lots of dice, ability to use all the toys, heavy on the randomness and light on the tactics. What precedence is there to suggest it will be anything else?
But it's not the same thing. Right now S5 can wound T8. It can't do diddly to AV12 though. Give vehicles a toughness value equal to their current AV (ie. AV12 = T8, AV13 = T9, AV14 = T10), and you open up a whole other class of weapons that can damage them. A Rhino (AV11, so now T7) could be wounded by Bolters.
This system assumes that the vehicles get armour saves too, which will significantly affect the survivability. You cannot just directly convert the old stats like that.
Giving vehicles wounds is daft (and yes, the Hull Points patch they slapped on the vehicle rules is stupid for this very reason).
It is no more stupid than a Carnifex having wounds. Why can a 'critical hit' one shot a land raider but not a Carnifex? What is stupid to have BOTH the wounds and the damage chart. Just have the wounds and have the efficiency of the vehicle (or a monster) to decrease as the wounds are suffered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Now you're adding special rules to fight a failing of the rules. You're also limiting yourself from a design perspective if you add in a high strength low AP* weapon.
Why should such a weapon be effective against a vehicle? If it cannot pierce a power armour how could it pierce a tank?
tyrannosaurus wrote: Not too difficult to work out what this reboot will look like. Huge expensive kits, requirement to roll lots and lots of dice, ability to use all the toys, heavy on the randomness and light on the tactics. What precedence is there to suggest it will be anything else?
That they got kicked firmly in the balls when they did that with AOS and have been taking steps to address it. At this point, it's less about the will and more about the ability to implement/courage to take a gamble on, a big change.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Not too difficult to work out what this reboot will look like. Huge expensive kits, requirement to roll lots and lots of dice, ability to use all the toys, heavy on the randomness and light on the tactics. What precedence is there to suggest it will be anything else?
Well, I, personally, am hoping for a truly balanced system where all levels of play are possible...
dan2026 wrote: It blows me away a bit that even after GW drummed up so much hype for a Sisters release it still hasn't happened.
Especially after that LE character getting sold out everywhere.
You have to wonder what they are waiting for.
New ED I guess.
They're waiting for a proper slot to fit them in. It doesn't make sense to release SIsters with any of the GS books as it would take focus away from the narrative. Give it time.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I like having vehicle rules that are separate from the creature rules. I know some people (like insaniak) hate that, but for me I think vehicles should be played differently than Toughness/Wounds.
To be clear, I don't hate the idea of vehicles having different rules to monstrous creatures, I just think that it's a level of unnecessary complexity in a game the size that 40K has become. I actually prefer a system like 2nd edition's, where vehicle damage was far more involved than it is now... But resolving 2nd edition vehicle damage in larger games was just painfully tedious.
insaniak wrote: I actually prefer a system like 2nd edition's, where vehicle damage was far more involved than it is now.
So do I! That's why I based my damage tables and some of the general vehicle rules in Only War off of them.
The vehicle rules we wrote for 40K also borrowed a lot from 2nd Ed. Not quite individual damage tables, but the tables were as important/slightly more important than 3rd Ed, but there was more to vehicles than everything firing at the same target.
"it was the dawn of the 8th age of mankind, Space Marines ate popcorn as they watched Primarchs duke it out...."?
These days I'm feeling like:
It was the dawn of the 8th age of mankind, a time of great confusion as... as... y'know I don't want to do this anymore.
I mean why should I bother to spend hours painting up infantrymen when some giant kaiju/mecha/superman is just going to blow through them and the only way I can compete is to get my own or to buy a dozen books till I find some crazy formation that gives everyone invulnerable saves and rending because of... I dunno, reasons. Sure hope springs eternal but lets face it GW is making more money than ever and they ain't gonna tamper with the current pay-to-win marketing plan.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
I don't disagree with that. It certainly would make things a lot easier since the systems would be unified. But would facings go away as well or would vehicles have different toughness values for different facings? Removing facings would definitely be acceptable to me.
You could just give vehicles a toughness value but determin their armor save based on facing. For example a rhino would be toughness 7 with a a 3+ save to the front and sides and a 4+ on the rear. Something like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Now you're adding special rules to fight a failing of the rules. You're also limiting yourself from a design perspective if you add in a high strength low AP* weapon.
*And by 'low AP' I mean like AP6, AP-, 'cause AP is backwards.
Your making up problems. Who cares if bolters can wound a T7 Rhino? If it has a 3+ save that more then makes up for the fact that it can't be exploded in one go. Or hulled out without a save like it can now. Your also pretending S4 can't hurt a rhino now, which it can in the rear.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record I also loved the vehicle hit locations in 2nd edition, I also thought skid checks were hilarious on bikes, that said I have to echo what insaniak said, the game is far too massive in scale for those rules. Resurrect those tables for a relaunch of gorkka morkka.
Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.
What does this simulate? Should Necrons also have AV because they are machines? It adds nothing, it is just a distinction without a difference, it is bad game design. All modern games strive for unified mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
casvalremdeikun wrote: I don't disagree with that. It certainly would make things a lot easier since the systems would be unified. But would facings go away as well or would vehicles have different toughness values for different facings? Removing facings would definitely be acceptable to me.
I think facings are fine for boxy vehicles such as most tanks. Moving to exploit a weak spot is a nice strategic element. As I suggested earlier, I'd give vehicles with facings one uniform toughness score, but an armour save which varies depending on the facing.
I wouldn't mind vehicles losing AV for Toughness if they have a different Armour Save for their facings. But I just can't get on board in giving vehicles wounds. Personnaly, I'd like to see vehicles lose the Hull Points characteristic but with Pen Hit either giving a further +1 on the Vehicle Damage Chart or make you roll 2 dices and pick the highest (and make a 7 = Wrecked and 8+ = Explosion). This way, it would make them far more resistant to small arms
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
Of course then you need bunch of special rules to make sure vehicles still operate differently to biological things. Immunity to poison etc.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I like having vehicle rules that are separate from the creature rules. I know some people (like insaniak) hate that, but for me I think vehicles should be played differently than Toughness/Wounds.
To be clear, I don't hate the idea of vehicles having different rules to monstrous creatures, I just think that it's a level of unnecessary complexity in a game the size that 40K has become. I actually prefer a system like 2nd edition's, where vehicle damage was far more involved than it is now... But resolving 2nd edition vehicle damage in larger games was just painfully tedious.
Is a 100 pages of rules (or so) really that much for a game that demands that big an investment in money and time as 40K does ??? Especially if we consider that newbies can discount huge part of the rules at first (such as flyers and psykers) until they get familiar with the basics. Personally, I think it doesn't. What they should do, though, is remove parts of the game that doesn't add much yet takes a lot of time. Challenges, for example, are not only ridiculous realistically wise but also add a layer of complexity and planning that is just not needed imo. Same for look out sir, do I really need to add another round of dice rolls to see if I can save my Nobz Boss (or is it Boss Nobz ???) who, apart from giving a bonus on the Mob Rule table, is exactly the same as every other models in the unit. It's war, even characters should die easily if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But it's not the same thing. Right now S5 can wound T8. It can't do diddly to AV12 though. Give vehicles a toughness value equal to their current AV (ie. AV12 = T8, AV13 = T9, AV14 = T10), and you open up a whole other class of weapons that can damage them. A Rhino (AV11, so now T7) could be wounded by Bolters.
This system assumes that the vehicles get armour saves too, which will significantly affect the survivability. You cannot just directly convert the old stats like that.
I presume rhino would then be either T8 or T7 with 1+ save with no 1 to fail? Otherwise you have altered game effects rather than just unified rules.
BrotherGecko wrote: If vehicles get T/Sv it will have to be particularly high for it to be remotely viable. So a lander raider would need to to be T10 with a 3+ Sv and 4 wounds or it will be hot garbage. Even a rhino will need to be T8 just for it to be as tough to kill as it is now, except it would have a save. I just see vehicles being a bunch of carnifexs that nobody wants to use because the game mostly has phased out non-gimmick MCs because of high S low Ap multi-shot weapons being so common.
GW has been quite reluctant to give out Toughness values above 6, which is a problem. Making a Land Raider T8 would be horrible.
Exactly, anything less than T10 and they wouldn't make it past turn 1 in any game.
If GW want to simplify vehicle rules, they could drop the front/side/rear values system and just assign a single armor value for the vehicle. They could then drop the explodes result entirely and switch it to multiple hull points (D3).
They could simplify flyers by publicly shaming whoever wrote their rules, came up with the idea and has used one in a game. Then seize every flyer and burn them with their entire stock. Thus they will be simplfied.
Failing take the proper measures, they could give then rules like, "you can't win any game if you deploy a flyer" or "your opponent may use a warlord titan for free if you deploy a flyer".
the flyer rules are not a problem, and haven't been in a while, its the flyers cost that is the issue, make flyers more expensive.
To add to this rumour, this is not an 8th ED, its a Reboot of sorts, GW is not calling it 8th.
Sorry dude, this is a 40k thread. I'm not sure what game you're playing where flyers outside of Top tier FMCs aren't absolute garbage across the board but I'm sure there's a thread for that system somewhere.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I like having vehicle rules that are separate from the creature rules. I know some people (like insaniak) hate that, but for me I think vehicles should be played differently than Toughness/Wounds.
To be clear, I don't hate the idea of vehicles having different rules to monstrous creatures, I just think that it's a level of unnecessary complexity in a game the size that 40K has become. I actually prefer a system like 2nd edition's, where vehicle damage was far more involved than it is now... But resolving 2nd edition vehicle damage in larger games was just painfully tedious.
Is a 100 pages of rules (or so) really that much for a game that demands that big an investment in money and time as 40K does ??? Especially if we consider that newbies can discount huge part of the rules at first (such as flyers and psykers) until they get familiar with the basics. Personally, I think it doesn't. What they should do, though, is remove parts of the game that doesn't add much yet takes a lot of time. Challenges, for example, are not only ridiculous realistically wise but also add a layer of complexity and planning that is just not needed imo. Same for look out sir, do I really need to add another round of dice rolls to see if I can save my Nobz Boss (or is it Boss Nobz ???) who, apart from giving a bonus on the Mob Rule table, is exactly the same as every other models in the unit. It's war, even characters should die easily if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It depends on what that 100 pages says. When it takes a solid 35 to figure out how to move models into terrain from open ground, you probably have some fat you can cut.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
Of course then you need bunch of special rules to make sure vehicles still operate differently to biological things. Immunity to poison etc.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
Of course then you need bunch of special rules to make sure vehicles still operate differently to biological things. Immunity to poison etc.
Of course this brings up Necrons once again.
No it doesn't. You have to accept that some level of abstraction is required to allow the rules to function as a game. We could argue all day long about whether Necrons should be affected by poison or Fleshbane and changing vehicles to be Toughness based may blur the lines a bit but the important question is whether it works or not. Incidentally, 2nd edition tried the realistic approach to what would be affected by different things like gas and virus weapons and it was a disaster, with too many exceptions based on fluff.
Giving vehicles a Toughness seems like it could work. People here seem to be arguing the specifics rather than the general concept (whether a Rhino would be T7 or T8, have a 3+ or a 4+ save isn't relevant to whether the basic idea is good or not). It also has the advantage that it's the same system we use for everything else. Sure, you'd probably need one or two extra rules for vehicles to allow for things like Armourbane and immunity to poison but a couple of exceptions/additions is better than an entirely different system IMO.
Maybe the problem is 40k has conditioned us all to think Toughness = organic, AV = non-organic? Of course, even that isn't true any more with things like Riptides and Wraithknights.
Why does everyone think vehicles getting a T value and a Save means we need even more special rules to make sure they are unaffected by poison? AV has nothing to do with vehicles immunity to poison.
The vehicle unit type does.
Read your rule book. The poison rule specifically states it does not function against vehicles. Not AV. Vehicles.
If the Vehicle rules change the Vehicle unit type doesn't magically disappear. Everything called a vehicle now would still be a vehicle then.
It could also then be used as a vehicle (excuse the pun) to right some longstanding wrongs within the game then. A riptide could keep the stat line it has now, yet be classed as a vehicle. Different armour values for different facings could still be a thing for vehicles. Riptides can be effected by armour bane but not poison and flesh bane. Heck, I'd say the same for centurions, dread knights, wraith knights etc.
The vehicle damage table can go away then, whilst the game would lose a bit of character, it's still not fair that a MC can be bought down to 1 wound and still be 100% effective offensively, but a vehicle bought down to 1 hull point may have lost weapons, temporary loss of movement or shooting, immobilised etc etc.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: It could also then be used as a vehicle (excuse the pun) to right some longstanding wrongs within the game then. A riptide could keep the stat line it has now, yet be classed as a vehicle. Different armour values for different facings could still be a thing for vehicles. Riptides can be effected by armour bane but not poison and flesh bane. Heck, I'd say the same for centurions, dread knights, wraith knights etc.
The vehicle damage table can go away then, whilst the game would lose a bit of character, it's still not fair that a MC can be bought down to 1 wound and still be 100% effective offensively, but a vehicle bought down to 1 hull point may have lost weapons, temporary loss of movement or shooting, immobilised etc etc.
They have a classification for all the tau MC. It's vehicle walker. Why the hell they are GMC and MC is beyond me. Bring on Age of Sigmars sliding stat line for multiwound models and apply it to everything with more than 2 wounds.
Scrap facings it adds complication when we are working off rounded bases. Scrap firing arcs. It can easily be assumed that any vehicle is being driven by a competent pilot who is positioning the vehicle while on the move to maximize the effectiveness of it's weapons (also, cuts down on complication).
So many pages of bull gak rules can just up and disappear along with all the problems they create if you just make vehicles work like everything else.
I presume rhino would then be either T8 or T7 with 1+ save with no 1 to fail? Otherwise you have altered game effects rather than just unified rules.
I'd probably give a Rhino 3+ save on other facing, 4+ at the rear. (But that's just off the top of my head, and of course properly designing vehicle stats for this system would require a lot of mathammer and testing.) And yes, it is altering the mechanics. Everyone knows that current vehicle rules are bad. Alteration is required for improvement to be possible.
Giving vehicles a Toughness seems like it could work. People here seem to be arguing the specifics rather than the general concept (whether a Rhino would be T7 or T8, have a 3+ or a 4+ save isn't relevant to whether the basic idea is good or not). It also has the advantage that it's the same system we use for everything else. Sure, you'd probably need one or two extra rules for vehicles to allow for things like Armourbane and immunity to poison but a couple of exceptions/additions is better than an entirely different system IMO.
I presume rhino would then be either T8 or T7 with 1+ save with no 1 to fail? Otherwise you have altered game effects rather than just unified rules.
I'd probably give a Rhino 3+ save on other facing, 4+ at the rear. And yes, it is altering the mechanics. Everyone knows that current vehicle rules are bad. Alteration is required for improvement to be possible.
Lol so say hello to bolters at front blowing rhinos.
sorry no thanks. I want game to have at least some semblance of logic.
We've drifted off of release date rumors and into wishlisting (I know, right? First time a rumor thread has ever drifted into wishlisting!). Let's get it back on topic about the release date.
If you want to discuss how we'd all like a pony what we'd like to see in 8th, please start a new thread in Warhammer 40K Discussions.
I presume rhino would then be either T8 or T7 with 1+ save with no 1 to fail? Otherwise you have altered game effects rather than just unified rules.
I'd probably give a Rhino 3+ save on other facing, 4+ at the rear. And yes, it is altering the mechanics. Everyone knows that current vehicle rules are bad. Alteration is required for improvement to be possible.
Lol so say hello to bolters at front blowing rhinos.
sorry no thanks. I want game to have at least some semblance of logic.
Again, that's a complaint about the specific numbers rather than the general idea. The numbers may need tweaking but I think the idea is a good one once you get over the prejudice built up over the decades that AV = vehicle and Toughness = organics.
Also, even using the example above with T7/3+ save at the front, it would need 27 bolter shots at BS4 to cause a single wound. You're welcome to fire a Battle Company's worth of bolters at the front of my Rhino to kill it if you really want.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.
Formosa wrote: this is not an 8th ED, its a Reboot of sorts, GW is not calling it 8th.
Isn't that GW's standard approach? I don't remember them calling 7th 7th, or 6th 6th. It's just called the Warhammer 40,000 Rules, so that that way (a) new players don't have to worry about their rulebook becoming obsolete imminently or indeed ever, and (b) there is no record of the failure, nay, heresy of earlier editions; rather, Warhammer 40,000 has been perfect and immortal for ten thousand years, just like the Emperor, no rotting corpses to see here!
Hate the current vehicle damage table and surrounding mechanics (why does a weapon's armour piercing value affect its vehicle damage roll, and not its' armour penetration roll? That really sucks). Don't see how a toughness stat would help at all.
I believe historically new editions of 40K have come out in the summer, around June/July?
So it's certainly plausible.
However the 30th aniversary of 40K is in October 2017 so I would have thought they would wait until then for a big release like this.
Adeptus Titanicus is released in April though so I don't think that would make any difference to staffing in June.
The most recent rumour engine looked to be a floor tile of some sort which suggests another boxed game is coming out. The tile appeared to have a BloodLetter skull on it so could be either 40K or AoS related, and rumour mill is normally a couple of months out.
Not saying it isn't a new edition of 40K, I just thought they wouuld have waited until October.
Edit: Just remembered though that October is normally big miniature release month. Looking at the storyline of Rising Storm III I reckon we might be seeing a new line of minis (but I'm not gonna say who - somebody else can reset the clock, lol) and they would certainly be a big deal for the 30th anniversary.
jreilly89 wrote: So, ignoring all the "This is what 8th should have", again, do we have any hard evidence other than the "No holiday time" and a bunch of hear say?
No, as hard evidence would be marketing, and everything known is in about the first post of this thread. And that's speculation. So no.
Hastings has popped up on the war of sigmar blog saying there will be completely new imperial units made by guillemot and Cawl that will include new types of marines and will feature in a new starter set later this year.
Chikout wrote: Hastings has popped up on the war of sigmar blog saying there will be completely new imperial units made by guillemot and Cawl that will include new types of marines and will feature in a new starter set later this year.
I'd forgotten about the marine rumour, but brand new imperial units sounds very interesting. That could mean October slot is used for minis - new Space Marines are always a big deal.
And I'd forgotten that although October is technically the 30th anniversary they did celebrate it early for the 25th anniversary.
Chikout wrote: Hastings has popped up on the war of sigmar blog saying there will be completely new imperial units made by guillemot and Cawl that will include new types of marines and will feature in a new starter set later this year.
I want to believe him 100%, but he posted it literally right under the ending of Rise of the Primarch...which basically says that.
Super Marines... *sigh* Dragon Ball Z here we come. I guess that means the old xenos will be needing to become Awakened Namekrons, Ginyu Force Tau, and Perfect Nids.
SeanDrake wrote: if that don't foreshadow a new powergrab I will be very surprised. The Enlightened empire home to free humanity,aeldari,custodes and Space Marines that don't need flea collars.
Anyone who at this stage does not think this is the 40k End Times fluffwise is in denial.
The ground has been laid for massive amounts of change army wise. We have the Potential for but not limited too:
A new line of guard given cadia and catachan got krumped good.
A new line of combined eldar, pretty self explanatory.
A new breed of super marine, using new armour developed off Robot Ghoulman's new super suit.
New Chaos forces with Primarch and god specific troops.
New wolfy mcwolfson all wolfy all the time wulvern force.
More loyalist primarchs and there forces.
Reformed Ultramarines Legion and new mcragge based empire.
Terran based genestellar cult with more units.
The list goes on.
To quote myself from the GS3 thread I seem cynical but so far I called it pretty well.
I really did not want "sigmarines" in 40 k but I guessed it was inevitable, In the Ukgw minatures are protected by design rites which last 30 years how old is 40k this year
RG's blood or not, those new marines best be decked head to toe in purity seals, have a custom made tabard from the cloth draped over fallen martyrs and weapons that emit both a menacing and holy vibe.
How else are we supposed to tell these marines are true crusaders of the mighty Emperor's cause?
So uh are the Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar, and regular Nids being squatted then? There have been no rumors for any of them on any front except maybe a Necron C'tan.
Completely new imperial units and new types of marines?
This could mean a drastic aesthetic change. Older models like Cadians/Catachans wouldn´t mesh well with the new guardsmen. There is also the possibility of another scale creep concerning infantry. This has happened before for the Orks. Compare the 2nd edition greenskins with 3rd edition models. The former were comedic trigger-happy gun nuts and the latter grim beefed-up trigger-happy brutes.
Completely new imperial units and new types of marines?
This could mean a drastic aesthetic change. Older models like Cadians/Catachans wouldn´t mesh well with the new guardsmen. There is also the possibility of another scale creep concerning infantry. This has happened before for the Orks. Compare the 2nd edition greenskins with 3rd edition models. The former were comedic trigger-happy gun nuts and the latter grim beefed-up trigger-happy brutes.
From what Hastings is saying, it's strictly Marines and weapons.
Cadians would likely be fine, but might get new weapons added into their box when/if they get redone.
Catachans are a lost cause though. Those models have been trash for decades.
Hmmm, some part of me hope this is not true I would be all for space marines getting new gear, honestly it does kinda sound like something the emperor would do if he could walk about. I mean they are fighting CSM on warp juice of course you would need to make something "better".
Oh yeah I hope they will be just a 'small elite' lot and not replace the entire army of marines. I wonder if they will just be for Ultramarine's and their successors since they will have RG's blood.
Chikout wrote: Hastings has popped up on the war of sigmar blog saying there will be completely new imperial units made by guillemot and Cawl that will include new types of marines and will feature in a new starter set later this year.
This one is true and pretty clear from the ending paragraphs in the book. Though opens door for all factions. Which apparently are up on the Internutz
Chikout wrote: Hastings has popped up on the war of sigmar blog saying there will be completely new imperial units made by guillemot and Cawl that will include new types of marines and will feature in a new starter set later this year.
This one is true and pretty clear from the ending paragraphs in the book. Though opens door for all factions. Which apparently are up on the Internutz
Honestly I can see GW turning the tempestus scions as the new "standard" for guard considering the end of the book if they are going to produce new tech and the like.
unmercifulconker wrote: Oh yeah I hope they will be just a 'small elite' lot and not replace the entire army of marines. I wonder if they will just be for Ultramarine's and their successors since they will have RG's blood.
This is what I would like to see for them to be a new "elite" sort of unit.
Chikout wrote: Hastings has popped up on the war of sigmar blog saying there will be completely new imperial units made by guillemot and Cawl that will include new types of marines and will feature in a new starter set later this year.
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.
Just curious. Should Necrons have AV?
At the end of the day, A necron is a robotical humanoid. It is much more similar to a human than a tank is. So no, they souldn't use AV.
As fot these rumours. Marines marines, tech being allowed once again. Seems like they are really wreaking the setting
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.
Just curious. Should Necrons have AV?
At the end of the day, A necron is a robotical humanoid. It is much more similar to a human than a tank is. So no, they souldn't use AV.
As fot these rumours. Marines marines, tech being allowed once again. Seems like they are really wreaking the setting
there not "wrecking" the setting, their moving on....the setting has been stale for over 30 years, its time for some changes
someone like Roboute has the ability to make major changes like this
I can see them stunting the imperal guard and making them new. The did it to fantasy anything easy to copy was dropped.
So my guess is space marines and guard will be replaced or gone. Space marines are to generic and not super duper men anymore. So they will make them all custodians of the golden toilet or a new race of them. Sigmarines cross platform ladies.
Let's just say that we have a vastly different opinion. For me 40k is a setting, not a story that need continuous evolutions. Making technological advancement no longer a crime amount to removing one of the collest apsect of the setting imo.
Oh well, It seems that GW is no longer for me. AOS completely killed my love for Warhammer, and I fear (note that I said fear, since we don't know for sure what's coming) that 8th edition will do the same for 40k
casvalremdeikun wrote: Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.
Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.
Just curious. Should Necrons have AV?
At the end of the day, A necron is a robotical humanoid. It is much more similar to a human than a tank is. So no, they souldn't use AV.
As fot these rumours. Marines marines, tech being allowed once again. Seems like they are really wreaking the setting
there not "wrecking" the setting, their moving on....the setting has been stale for over 30 years, its time for some changes
someone like Roboute has the ability to make major changes like this
If the setting is so stale, why do you constantly have to ask questions about what has happened?
streetsamurai wrote: Let's just say that we have a vastly different opinion. For me 40k is a setting, not a story that need continuous evolutions. Making technological advancement no longer a crime amount to removing one of the collest apsect of the setting imo.
Oh well, It seems that GW is no longer for me. AOS completely killed my love for Warhammer, and I fear (note that I said fear, since we don't know for sure what's coming) that 8th edition will do the same for 40k
I think the fact they tore Down the space marine and replaced it with a sigmarine shows they are moving forward and marines will be gone soon.
streetsamurai wrote: Let's just say that we have a vastly different opinion. For me 40k is a setting, not a story that need continuous evolutions. Making technological advancement no longer a crime amount to removing one of the collest apsect of the setting imo.
Oh well, It seems that GW is no longer for me. AOS completely killed my love for Warhammer, and I fear (note that I said fear, since we don't know for sure what's coming) that 8th edition will do the same for 40k
I think the fact they tore Down the space marine and replaced it with a sigmarine shows they are moving forward and marines will be gone soon.
Do people honestly think this or is this just trolling?
streetsamurai wrote: Let's just say that we have a vastly different opinion. For me 40k is a setting, not a story that need continuous evolutions. Making technological advancement no longer a crime amount to removing one of the collest apsect of the setting imo.
Oh well, It seems that GW is no longer for me. AOS completely killed my love for Warhammer, and I fear (note that I said fear, since we don't know for sure what's coming) that 8th edition will do the same for 40k
I think the fact they tore Down the space marine and replaced it with a sigmarine shows they are moving forward and marines will be gone soon.
streetsamurai wrote: Let's just say that we have a vastly different opinion. For me 40k is a setting, not a story that need continuous evolutions. Making technological advancement no longer a crime amount to removing one of the collest apsect of the setting imo.
Oh well, It seems that GW is no longer for me. AOS completely killed my love for Warhammer, and I fear (note that I said fear, since we don't know for sure what's coming) that 8th edition will do the same for 40k
I think the fact they tore Down the space marine and replaced it with a sigmarine shows they are moving forward and marines will be gone soon.
Do you really believe this?
After AoS boost in money, the sigmarines being bigger newer better. GW history of over doing the good guys, they tore down the marine statue. Gilly and crawl are making new marines and custodians are out. I am 100% on them being replaced with new super duper marines.
I had assumed that it was going to be a new armour mark and maybe bigger chapters. But actual Astartes 2.0? Is there a word for feeling apprehensive and intrigued at the same time?
I really hope the don't mess around with Space Marine scale too much. We just got new Thousand Sons and Deathwatch.
If the new Starter Set follows the same theme of the previous ones where it includes the Rulebook, I will be on board for one. It will undoubtedly have Space Marines in some form inside, so I will be able to make use of it.
streetsamurai wrote: There was no AOS boost in money related to sigmarines, or at the very least, we don't know if there was one
Compare pre AoSGW financial statements with post AoSGW financial statements.
You will find you are wrong.
God, in this thread too? Can't we just keep this nonsense to the financials thread?
There's no definite, direct, correlation between AOS and GW's financials improving. There's far too many other big, unrelated, releases in the same time period, so the signal to noise ratio in terms of what, precisely, turned the financials around is too high.
Yes, there is a plausible narrative that an improvement in AOS sales has occurred, relative to WHFB, but there are equally plausible narratives that explain it that only require AOS to have had enough of a bump to not make them liars when they said AOS is doing better than WHFB was.
The rumors about the Super Marines is a bit concerning. I wonder if they'll exist alongside "normal" marines? If so, games with the two fighting each other are going to look quite weird.
Posted this on the wrong thread originally. So here for posterity:
A Marine Reboute 2.0 Doesn't appeal. At all. I was okay with Cadia falling, Beil-Tan fracturing, 13th Crusade getting close to Terra, Feth, I was even hyped about Primarchs returning.
A lot of us have put time and effort and a lot of TLC in making our legions/chapters. I really don't want all of that invalidated overnight.
'Can't keep up with Scat bikes or put down necrons using the finest super soldiers the Imperium has to offer? Well now you can, with the new Super engineered, super soldiers of the Imperium. Guillimarines. Geneseed plus.' Urgh.
streetsamurai wrote: yeah, I really dont' think they will remove marines, since it is the bread and butter of the comany.
They don't have to remove Marines from the game to completely replace them with these 'new' Marines.
Marines are a complete line. They basically nothing that isn't available in plastic. Aside from inventing new units and ret-conning them into the fluff (ala Centurions) their next option is to completely replace the model line over time.
What will they be called though? Thundercast Immortals for now. If AoS has Sigmarines, will these be Gilmarines?
streetsamurai wrote: There was no AOS boost in money related to sigmarines, or at the very least, we don't know if there was one
Compare pre AoSGW financial statements with post AoSGW financial statements.
You will find you are wrong.
God, in this thread too? Can't we just keep this nonsense to the financials thread?
There's no definite, direct, correlation between AOS and GW's financials improving. There's far too many other big, unrelated, releases in the same time period, so the signal to noise ratio in terms of what, precisely, turned the financials around is too high.
Yes, there is a plausible narrative that an improvement in AOS sales has occurred, relative to WHFB, but there are equally plausible narratives that explain it that only require AOS to have had enough of a bump to not make them liars when they said AOS is doing better than WHFB was.
Yep, and ST and the last chance to buy armies have also a lot to do with the improvement of AOS sale compared to WHFB sales (not to mention that the year they used was a starter set year, which always sale in tremendous numbers, and we don't know to which years they compared it (probably a non starter set year)) But then, at this point, I've pretty much realised that a lot of the posters here are completely clueless when it comes to business administration
With the primarch having a stat line of 6 and the normal ones a stat line of 4, the new marine might get a stat line of 5 (Thunderwarriors?).
A marine with that stats would be a lot more expensive points-wise (centurions are 55 points) than the normal 14 points marine.
I don´t think they would go with this.
If they get rid of the normal marines and you are able to field "Thunderwarriors" for the normal 14 points, how much points should a guardsman cost? 1?
So not a likely option.
If they are close to the normal marine with just a small upgrade, they wouldn´t have that impact that is now discussed. You could field normal and re-sized advanced marines.
Or simply use the new models as count as for the normal marines.
In general i don´t believe in AOS-sification of 40k. Some special rules will be gone or changed. I don´t think that if all vehicles get a T value though i believe closing the gap between MC´s and vehicles. We will see.
streetsamurai wrote: yeah, I really dont' think they will remove marines, since it is the bread and butter of the comany.
They don't have to remove Marines from the game to completely replace them with these 'new' Marines.
Marines are a complete line. They basically nothing that isn't available in plastic. Aside from inventing new units and ret-conning them into the fluff (ala Centurions) their next option is to completely replace the model line over time.
What will they be called though? Thundercast Immortals for now. If AoS has Sigmarines, will these be Gilmarines?
Yeah, I agree with you, but I was responding to the poster that thought that GW were phasing out marines.
Firefox1 wrote: With the primarch having a stat line of 6 and the normal ones a stat line of 4, the new marine might get a stat line of 5 (Thunderwarriors?).
A marine with that stats would be a lot more expensive points-wise (centurions are 55 points) than the normal 14 points marine.
I don´t think they would go with this.
If they get rid of the normal marines and you are able to field "Thunderwarriors" for the normal 14 points, how much points should a guardsman cost? 1?
So not a likely option.
If they are close to the normal marine with just a small upgrade, they wouldn´t have that impact that is now discussed. You could field normal and re-sized advanced marines.
Or simply use the new models as count as for the normal marines.
In general i don´t believe in AOS-sification of 40k. Some special rules will be gone or changed. I don´t think that if all vehicles get a T value though i believe closing the gap between MC´s and vehicles. We will see.
Have you payed attention over the years? The new marines will be criminally under cost is my guess while having relentless stock for better mobility and on paper it will be a no brainer to take them over tacticals. You really think they care how they are priced in relation to stagnant decades old kits? People will bitch and moan while hypocritically buying up droves of them and starting PM threads, all of which will reward the new decision on GW's financials. Eventually old marines will become the Chaos warriors and Knights of fantasy, simply replaced by newer bigger better models. I don't fault GWBTW either, it is the only smart option at this point.
A while back I predicted marines being phased out and replaced and was scoffed at because marines are GW's bread and butter, trouble is even with a few minutes of thought you realize the player base is only ever going to get so big in this hobby and eventually you saturate the market with all those marine kits and your only option to stay afloat is to replace them with marines plus.
Quote me later if I am wrong, but like I said before, these new marines will be such a no brainer to field in game and they will fly off the shelves as the arms race that is 40k continues despite the groaning on here.
New Astartes forged on Mars? This could bring some nice new models. I would love new Marines similiar to the 30th Anniversary Space Marine and those Giger-esque designs of RT. The Mechanicus would love that design too, I guess
New type of armour is fine. This Guilliman's blood nonsense is far from fine. This sort of upgraded über marines would instantly devalue all the existing marines, all the legendary marine heroes people love. I hope it is BS.
Yep, and ST and the last chance to buy armies have also a lot to do with the improvement of AOS sale compared to WHFB sales (not to mention that the year they used was a starter set year, which always sale in tremendous numbers, and we don't know to which years they compared it (probably a non starter set year))
But then, at this point, I've pretty much realised that a lot of the posters here are completely clueless when it comes to business administration
I will be ever so happy for you to show me this data oh great and wise business administrator.
Crimson wrote: New type of armour is fine. This Guilliman's blood nonsense is far from fine. This sort of upgraded über marines would instantly devalue all the existing marines, all the legendary marine heroes people love. I hope it is BS.
Sad Panda, the hero we need! Please, tell us you have more information to share!
Hopefully it only means that they can create more marines and that they are no longer limited by the existing geneseeds. Cause indeed, if it's truel, it will only devaluate current marines
Yep, and ST and the last chance to buy armies have also a lot to do with the improvement of AOS sale compared to WHFB sales (not to mention that the year they used was a starter set year, which always sale in tremendous numbers, and we don't know to which years they compared it (probably a non starter set year))
But then, at this point, I've pretty much realised that a lot of the posters here are completely clueless when it comes to business administration
I will be ever so happy for you to show me this data oh great and wise business administrator.
Which data? That ST sold well and that the last chance to buy armies were sold out in a matter of a few days? That's common knowledge
Crimson wrote: New type of armour is fine. This Guilliman's blood nonsense is far from fine. This sort of upgraded über marines would instantly devalue all the existing marines, all the legendary marine heroes people love. I hope it is BS.
Sad Panda, the hero we need! Please, tell us you have more information to share!
Hopefully it only means that they can create more marines and that they are no longer limited by the existing geneseeds. Cause indeed, if it's truel, it will only devaluate current marines
Yep, and ST and the last chance to buy armies have also a lot to do with the improvement of AOS sale compared to WHFB sales (not to mention that the year they used was a starter set year, which always sale in tremendous numbers, and we don't know to which years they compared it (probably a non starter set year))
But then, at this point, I've pretty much realised that a lot of the posters here are completely clueless when it comes to business administration
I will be ever so happy for you to show me this data oh great and wise business administrator.
Which data? That ST sold well and that the last chance to buy armies were sold out in a matter of a few days? That's common knowledge
Give up it's like arguing with creationists and climate change deniers.
Crimson wrote: New type of armour is fine. This Guilliman's blood nonsense is far from fine. This sort of upgraded über marines would instantly devalue all the existing marines, all the legendary marine heroes people love. I hope it is BS.
Sad Panda, the hero we need! Please, tell us you have more information to share!
Hopefully it only means that they can create more marines and that they are no longer limited by the existing geneseeds. Cause indeed, if it's truel, it will only devaluate current marines
Yep, and ST and the last chance to buy armies have also a lot to do with the improvement of AOS sale compared to WHFB sales (not to mention that the year they used was a starter set year, which always sale in tremendous numbers, and we don't know to which years they compared it (probably a non starter set year))
But then, at this point, I've pretty much realised that a lot of the posters here are completely clueless when it comes to business administration
I will be ever so happy for you to show me this data oh great and wise business administrator.
Which data? That ST sold well and that the last chance to buy armies were sold out in a matter of a few days? That's common knowledge
Give up it's like arguing with creationists and climate change deniers.
Lol indeed I should just give up
But since I'm a university professor in Business adminstration, It's really hard for me to let such ignorance go uncorrected
Guys, you think they don't want to devalue current marines? lol
Makes far more sense to treat marines like empire state units in fantasy and invalidate them in game and create a new uber marine.
They have nothing to lose from you, they got your money, they can only get more of it from the people that will by the next generation. They were only ever going to sell so many marine kits. The current bloat with things like gladius was a smart move by them to get all those collectors to buy out their marine stock ha ha.
I can honestly say I haven't met a new marine collector in at least 2 years in my area, while the vets have slowly bought enough marines that they openly brag about never needing to buy any more marine kits.
I am sure marines will still have legacy rules but don't act shocked when over the next few years they become total neglected rubbish. How long before we get a new Uber rhino chassis?
Edit: BTW I am not laughing at people having invalidated armies, just chuckling at the situation as a whole. I have a ton of marines myself lol In fact I bet I have well over 300 marines across faction, and to add some anecdotal evidence, the only new marines I have bought in the last 5 years were the calth chaps.
yeah, but marines still make up a lot of their sales, since a lot of the new players choose them. And since these molds are already paid for, wouldn't make sense to kill the free golden goose
Red Corsair wrote: Guys, you think they don't want to devalue current marines? lol
Makes far more sense to treat marines like empire state units in fantasy and invalidate them in game and create a new uber marine.
They have nothing to lose from you, they got your money, they can only get more of it from the people that will by the next generation. They were only ever going to sell so many marine kits. The current bloat with things like gladius was a smart move by them to get all those collectors to buy out their marine stock ha ha.
I can honestly say I haven't met a new marine collector in at least 2 years in my area, while the vets have slowly bought enough marines that they openly brag about never needing to buy any more marine kits.
I am sure marines will still have legacy rules but don't act shocked when over the next few years they become total neglected rubbish. How long before we get a new Uber rhino chassis?
Edit: BTW I am not laughing at people having invalidated armies, just chuckling at the situation as a whole. I have a ton of marines myself lol In fact I bet I have well over 300 marines across faction, and to add some anecdotal evidence, the only new marines I have bought in the last 5 years were the calth chaps.
Hmm, what you are saying actually makes some sense. I could see GW doing this I mean look at the scale of the new Deathwatch stuff.
Give up it's like arguing with creationists and climate change deniers.
So the guys making a claim without actual sales data think they're the ones that aren't the "climate change deniers"? That's rich.
You have the quantities sold? I bet a number of occasions something sold out quick you might have said, 'Well they probably didn't make a ton - that's why it sold out so fast!'
Red Corsair wrote: Guys, you think they don't want to devalue current marines? lol
Makes far more sense to treat marines like empire state units in fantasy and invalidate them in game and create a new uber marine.
They have nothing to lose from you, they got your money, they can only get more of it from the people that will by the next generation. They were only ever going to sell so many marine kits. The current bloat with things like gladius was a smart move by them to get all those collectors to buy out their marine stock ha ha.
I can honestly say I haven't met a new marine collector in at least 2 years in my area, while the vets have slowly bought enough marines that they openly brag about never needing to buy any more marine kits.
I am sure marines will still have legacy rules but don't act shocked when over the next few years they become total neglected rubbish. How long before we get a new Uber rhino chassis?
Edit: BTW I am not laughing at people having invalidated armies, just chuckling at the situation as a whole. I have a ton of marines myself lol In fact I bet I have well over 300 marines across faction, and to add some anecdotal evidence, the only new marines I have bought in the last 5 years were the calth chaps.
streetsamurai wrote: yeah, but marines still make up a lot of their sales, since a lot of the new players choose them. And since these molds are already paid for, wouldn't make sense to kill the free golden goose
Well if they are just gonna add the Gullstartes to the regular Marines as an add on, would it really be killing the Goose or in their eyes enhancing it?
streetsamurai wrote: yeah, but marines still make up a lot of their sales, since a lot of the new players choose them. And since these molds are already paid for, wouldn't make sense to kill the free golden goose
Right, but that doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity to make more money off newer, bigger, better marines does it? In the interim they still have those paid for mold as insurance. My bet is even the vets that will initially bitch will by out the new stuff, at which point it is only inevitable they completely replace the old stuff.
Not trying to be negative btw, I hate doomseekers on forums. Maybe the new kits will be so baller we all welcome them. Some part of me will be irritated though since I have invested years of painting ha ha. I have hundreds of painted marines for pete sake, and to a better then table top standard on most.
No way are they gonna invalidate current marines. By a physical and fluff standpoint it wouldn't make sense. I am pretty sure, Primarch or not, there is not enough RG blood to produce marines for every chapter to the extent that they would push the old marines out of production/fluff. Plus are Iron Hands, Space Wolves etc gonna willingly accept brothers who have their uncle's blood in them and not the 'spirit' of their own father?
Give up it's like arguing with creationists and climate change deniers.
So the guys making a claim without actual sales data think they're the ones that aren't the "climate change deniers"? That's rich.
You have the quantities sold? I bet a number of occasions something sold out quick you might have said, 'Well they probably didn't make a ton - that's why it sold out so fast!'
Don't be silly. ST molds demanded a big financial investment. It's obvious that they made a ton of it. This wasn't some repackaged box of existing models a la Gorechosen or GOC, the game contained exclusively brand new models. Not to mention that each GW store had numerous copy of it, and that they were doing a big push at LGS to buy a lot of it.
unmercifulconker wrote: No way are they gonna invalidate current marines. By a physical and fluff standpoint it wouldn't make sense. I am pretty sure, Primarch or not, there is not enough RG blood to produce marines for every chapter to the extent that they would push the old marines out of production/fluff. Plus are Iron Hands, Space Wolves etc gonna willingly accept brothers who have their uncle's blood in them and not the 'spirit' of their own father?
The old marines won't vanish, but they will just feel like weaklings next to the new übermarines. And yes, it is possible that they will be UM only, or that the other chapters will welcome these new sons of their 'spiritual liege' to lord over them with open arms.
Mat Ward's wet dream, basically.
unmercifulconker wrote: No way are they gonna invalidate current marines. By a physical and fluff standpoint it wouldn't make sense. I am pretty sure, Primarch or not, there is not enough RG blood to produce marines for every chapter to the extent that they would push the old marines out of production/fluff. Plus are Iron Hands, Space Wolves etc gonna willingly accept brothers who have their uncle's blood in them and not the 'spirit' of their own father?
The old marines won't vanish, but they will just feel like weaklings next to the new übermarines. And yes, it is possible that they will be UM only, or that the other chapters will welcome these new sons of their 'spiritual liege' to lord over them with open arms. Mat Ward's wet dream, basically.
They will be Ultras only until in his new Great Crusade, Based Robbie G rediscovers those brothers that vanished at the end of the Scouring, including Dorn who they will confirm was only missing and give him his 40k model long before they ever release his 30k one.
Give up it's like arguing with creationists and climate change deniers.
So the guys making a claim without actual sales data think they're the ones that aren't the "climate change deniers"? That's rich.
You have the quantities sold? I bet a number of occasions something sold out quick you might have said, 'Well they probably didn't make a ton - that's why it sold out so fast!'
Don't be silly. ST molds demanded a big financial investment. It's obvious that they made a ton of it. This wasn't some repackaged box of existing models a la Gorechosen or GOC, the game contained exclusively brand new models. Not to mention that each GW store had numerous copy of it, and that they were doing a big push at LGS to buy a lot of it.
Putting the cart before the horse. A large investment doesn't preclude the majority of sales.
Also last chance to buy were online only, correct?
So instead of assuming that the new type of marine would be something you would take alongside regular tacticals, like every other release for space marines since the beginning of time, and like would go along with how it would actually work in the fluff; we automatically assume it's going to be a wholesale reboot of the line?
Look, if they do release a new type of marine and it is so brokenly powerful that there'll never be a reason to take a tactical ever again, then 8th edition will have already started off shooting itself in the foot. We're in a time where it seems like even GW themselves don't like 40k that much anymore. And GW is very aware of the prevailing feeling of frustration within the game. Some GW people have been quoted to say stuff like 40k is crushing itself under it's own weight.
I think that with all the positive things GW has done in the last year our so, it's not unreasonable to be a little optimistic about them fixing some of the issues 40k has going forward without screwing anyone any harder than is normal for an edition change. AoS is all of a sudden in a really good place because they took feedback from the community and from people who organize and run events and I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar thing going forward with 40k.
Give up it's like arguing with creationists and climate change deniers.
So the guys making a claim without actual sales data think they're the ones that aren't the "climate change deniers"? That's rich.
You have the quantities sold? I bet a number of occasions something sold out quick you might have said, 'Well they probably didn't make a ton - that's why it sold out so fast!'
Don't be silly. ST molds demanded a big financial investment. It's obvious that they made a ton of it. This wasn't some repackaged box of existing models a la Gorechosen or GOC, the game contained exclusively brand new models. Not to mention that each GW store had numerous copy of it, and that they were doing a big push at LGS to buy a lot of it.
Putting the cart before the horse. A large investment doesn't preclude the majority of sales.
Also last chance to buy were online only, correct?
where did I say anything about the majority of sales? You should read more carefully before doing snarky comments
And while last chance to buy was online only, it obviuosly had an impact in retail stores that stocked the models that were discontinued.
Imagine the new Mk X marines occupying a gap between tacticals and terminators. You could make an army composed only of them, but it would be like a Deathwing army, you may well get swamped.
But since I'm a university professor in Business adminstration, It's really hard for me to let such ignorance go uncorrected
That still doesn't mean your conclusion is correct though, as GW don't publish such info?
Last Chance To Buy was a selling through of stock - so we've absolutely no idea what that stock level was when it all went up. Then you'd have to factor in other games like BB selling out on teams etc, because allegedly GW were taken by surprise at its popularity.
Then there's Start Collecting sets - which seem to be pretty damned popular (even if some are better than others for being repeat buy building blocks), the various Board Games, the Heresy games, Age of Sigmar - all in a surprisingly short period of time when you look back at it, so much you can't compare it to any recent Annual Report in terms what was actually on sale.
However, we can make some shaky tie ups. Why shaky? Because it involves plausible if unsubstantiated rumours. For instance, shortly after a manager's meeting, it was bandied about that AoS was selling better than expected, and had accounted for 30% of sales, yes?
Following that, GW announced some impressive 6 month figures, and have since released a further statement that year end has continued that trend.
So adding what we're told by t'Internet to what we know from their reports - the two do match up, no? As I said, it's not 'proof positive', but it does somewhat pour water on your claim it's just ST and Last Chance to Buy, no?
I just can't wrap my head around the concept of bigger marines. If they're just trying to adjust to a "true" scale, then they've got a LOT of work to do updating everything. However, it sounds like these new marines are more so just "these goes to 11" compared to their punier marine brethren...which doesn't make sense either since Space Marines are so powerful they apparently functionally operate in tiny chapters of 1000 marines...and these guys are just that much better than that?
Also, it sounds like they're being set up to oppose the old Imperium with some of the goings-on in the Gathering Storm, so are we looking at Big Marines vs Small Marines in the next starter?
Of course, I didn't see Centurions coming, but at least they're just exo-armor.
But since I'm a university professor in Business adminstration, It's really hard for me to let such ignorance go uncorrected
That still doesn't mean your conclusion is correct though, as GW don't publish such info?
Last Chance To Buy was a selling through of stock - so we've absolutely no idea what that stock level was when it all went up. Then you'd have to factor in other games like BB selling out on teams etc, because allegedly GW were taken by surprise at its popularity.
Then there's Start Collecting sets - which seem to be pretty damned popular (even if some are better than others for being repeat buy building blocks), the various Board Games, the Heresy games, Age of Sigmar - all in a surprisingly short period of time when you look back at it, so much you can't compare it to any recent Annual Report in terms what was actually on sale.
However, we can make some shaky tie ups. Why shaky? Because it involves plausible if unsubstantiated rumours. For instance, shortly after a manager's meeting, it was bandied about that AoS was selling better than expected, and had accounted for 30% of sales, yes?
Following that, GW announced some impressive 6 month figures, and have since released a further statement that year end has continued that trend.
So adding what we're told by t'Internet to what we know from their reports - the two do match up, no? As I said, it's not 'proof positive', but it does somewhat pour water on your claim it's just ST and Last Chance to Buy, no?
1-That was a troll job, Hasting debunked it. 2-Tne increase can be credited to a million things, SE being really low on that list. Anybody who has a bit of knowledge in BA knows that a company financial report will do anything to make themselves look good, including putting lipstick on a pig. The little phrase stating that AOS is selling better than WHFB in recent years is absolutely meaningless, since it doesn't give any indication on how that increase was obtained (old kits being sold beacuse they were discontinued??? New kits selling well? Mostly based on ST???? We don't know), and to which year they compared it (starter set year or not). 3-ANd I never said it was only ST and Last chance to buy, only that it had a lot to do with it. Which it obviously did. I personally think AOS is not selling well, but I don't try to claim it is the case since we don't know for sure. What irks me is people stating it sell well without having any evidence.
ST and Last Chance having a lot to do with it isn't obvious at all - you're not presenting a case so much as making a claim on the internet without support, then backing it up with a claim to qualification (you may well be who you say, but as Internet, you'll forgive me not taking it at face value)
ST and Last Chance having a lot to do with it isn't obvious at all - you're not presenting a case so much as making a claim on the internet without support, then backing it up with a claim to qualification (you may well be who you say, but as Internet, you'll forgive me not taking it at face value)
It is obvious, especially in ST case. This was a large scale release that sold so well that they just urgently made another new (repackaged) ST game to ride in its wave. Sure, we don't know with a 100% certainty (like we don't know with a 100% certainty that marines are GW best sellers), but anyone with a minimum of common sense can connect the dots.
Likely pure Geneseed extraction from Guilliman rather than his red stuff.
I've not read many of the spoilers, but do we know what Cawl's Quest of 10,000 years was by the end of the book (yes or no will do, don't want to know what it is!)
ST and Last Chance having a lot to do with it isn't obvious at all - you're not presenting a case so much as making a claim on the internet without support, then backing it up with a claim to qualification (you may well be who you say, but as Internet, you'll forgive me not taking it at face value)
It is obvious, especially in ST case. This was a large scale release that sold so well that they just urgently made another new (repackaged) ST game to ride in its wave.
Still not obvious. Despite the common name, Hammerhal is closer to Quest than Silver Tower was - pre-set Dungeons, need for a dungeon master - Silver Tower had neither of those features.
And that's still not answering why you claim Stormcast Eternals, and one assumes by extension AoS, aren't a large part of GW's recent change in fortunes?
That could happen too 
.jpeg)
