Apparently there is a post to spikey bits that 40k is getting the following
Generals handbook
Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds
One thing I see a lot of people misunderstanding is that there wont be a 40k End Times, in terms of the entire fluff exploding. They never said 8th wont follow suit in terms of rules. That being said, I can see them doing a hybrid of AoS rules and current rules.
Bobthehero wrote: We'll see, not looking forward to giving up the AP system, especially since rend values tend to be on the (too) low side.
Im just wondering since there are so many wepaons in 40k how are there going to be any variance is some of the weapons like the 5 different versions of bolters. Or laz cannon vs Auto cannon
CaptainSomas wrote: One thing I see a lot of people misunderstanding is that there wont be a 40k End Times, in terms of the entire fluff exploding. They never said 8th wont follow suit in terms of rules. That being said, I can see them doing a hybrid of AoS rules and current rules.
I dont think anyone was questioning weather an end times rule wise was on the table, i just think no one thought GW would have the balls to do it.
The thing im worried about is the charging and strikeing first, that makes my terminators viable again, but also is going to make a lot of units really strong. Maybe even put orks back on the map.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: I'm willing to bet there will be some modifier that unwieldy weapons will swing last.
Or Thunderhammers and such will be nerfed somehow.
They would have to, else i cant get the image of a terminator doing a crow hop into a power fist punch out of my mind.
Quickjager wrote: Movement values are going to be HUGE. I look forward to them.
Can you elaborate what this means in terms of gameplay? I don't play AoS but my assumption is that instead of infantry moving 6" or w/e, they are going to have different/varying movement values? Like Eldar would be able to move farther on foot than say guardsmen? Wouldn't this complicate the ruleset further (not that I mind)?
Instead of the run and shoot rules they could simply have Eldar move 9". Necrons being slow on the fluff can be represented on the tabletop in their movement, etc.
It allows them to make more meaningful differences between factions and units. They could vary Space Marines more (Salamanders move slower, White Scars move faster, etc.)
These new changes alone are piquing my interest. I wonder if the implementation of ASF in 40K will work with unwieldy weapons like PK? Orks finally getting to hit first on the charge is going to be a godsend and make us feel like we can actually do something in CC again without losing half of our guys before hitting home.
Grimskul wrote: These new changes alone are piquing my interest. I wonder if the implementation of ASF in 40K will work with unwieldy weapons like PK? Orks finally getting to hit first on the charge is going to be a godsend and make us feel like we can actually do something in CC again without losing half of our guys before hitting home.
This is terrifying and a kick in the balls to anyone that just bought a codex that recently came out to fix their army. *cough* Traitor Legions *cough*
KingmanHighborn wrote: This is terrifying and a kick in the balls to anyone that just bought a codex that recently came out to fix their army. *cough* Traitor Legions *cough*
Assuming Decurions/Formations are still a thing, the recent supplements should still work.
I think this should be interpreted as positive news.
The rules team is connected to the tournament scene, this is literally "news from adepticon". So they'll probably be paying very close attention to the experiences of players.
They're also addressing a few glaring issues (unstructured comp play, army construction, all-or-nothing move stats and AP values) so they're on the right track for now.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
Yeah that mechanic sounds worse. I don't think it's ever been all or nothing on the move stats. blocks of movement sure, but infantry could always move 1" to 6" in the movement phase for example. AP doesn't need to be redone, army construction would be nice, love to see all formations thrown in the fire and go back to mandatory 1 HQ, 2+ Troops, 0-3 Elites, Fast and Heavy, style.
So...you know roll it back to third and we are good. Don't AoS it, and ruin everything. It's literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
There are no break tests vs shooting. They're basically nerfing sweeping advances. Will probably be something like current demonic instability.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I don't think it's ever been all or nothing on the move stats. blocks of movement sure, but infantry could always move 1" to 6" in the movement phase for example.
There's some issues with 12" move assault units, versus everything else.
Or look at something like Tzaangors against Cultists, where it's either a 6" move or GW tries to compensate with formation bonuses.
I'm cautiously pessimistic about this. While there are certainly problems with the rules to 40k right now, I'm of the very strong opinion that about 80% of the imbalance in the game comes from poor codex balance, not anything to do with the main rules. Sure, there are some problems with the main rules (The all-or-nothing way that D weapons and Stomps work, vehicles are generally designed in such a way that making them cost-effective is challenging without just making them incredibly cheap, and the Psychic phase is cluttered and overcomplicated,) but most of the complaints about the game stem from poor codex balancing.
For example - Morale not having any effect on the game? Well, that's because there are too many codices that completely or partly ignore Leadership, not because the core morale rules are broken. The problems with unit durability balancing? (That is, that units can become indestructible with rerollable saves, but regular armor is nearly useless in most circumstances?) A problem of codex balance making 2+3++ Eternal Warrior models with re-rolling saves and FNP far too common. Even assault isn't necessarily weak in a vacuum, it's just that most assault units lack the mobility options that they need to get into combat, while shooty armies seem to be able to move more quickly than ever.
I love 40k because of the fluff and the models, but also because the core ruleset is one that I really enjoy. I want to see the problems fixed and the rules streamlined, I don't want to see a complete overhaul, because then I won't be playing Warhammer 40k anymore. I've been playing since the very beginning of 5th edition, and while the rules have certainly changed since then, outside of the way Psychic Powers work, the rest of the game is still very recognizable as 40k. I don't want to see everything I've spent years playing get completely uprooted and thrown out for the sake of 'Updating'.
KingmanHighborn wrote: This is terrifying and a kick in the balls to anyone that just bought a codex that recently came out to fix their army. *cough* Traitor Legions *cough*
I was hoping that 8th when it came would just be 7th with a few gentle tweaks such that existing codices would remain usable. It is looking like a forlorn hope now.
KingmanHighborn wrote: This is terrifying and a kick in the balls to anyone that just bought a codex that recently came out to fix their army. *cough* Traitor Legions *cough*
I was hoping that 8th when it came would just be 7th with a few gentle tweaks such that existing codices would remain usable. It is looking like a forlorn hope now.
I may just give up on 40k and do something else.
Rebooting all the codexs is what was required to fix 40k. The game is so unbalanced because armies are redone over the course of several years that's impossible to keep armies inline with each other as game design philosophies change in between updates. Redoing all the armies at once put them all on the same page.
koooaei wrote: And i want to see an aos overhaul. It's a good one.
AoS DESTROYED Warhammer for good, I don't want it anywhere near 40K. There is literally not ONE GOOD THING about AoS. Not ONE! It's garbage, the new rules, and most of the new factions and models are garbage except for a few outliers. It's why I sold my Skaven and High Elves. And even then it took another book to come out to even attempt a patch on the hilarious awful rules and balance.
But yeah, might as well of not even bought any of the codexs or supplements, cause none of it's going to be usable if this can drops.
KingmanHighborn wrote: This is terrifying and a kick in the balls to anyone that just bought a codex that recently came out to fix their army. *cough* Traitor Legions *cough*
I was hoping that 8th when it came would just be 7th with a few gentle tweaks such that existing codices would remain usable. It is looking like a forlorn hope now.
I may just give up on 40k and do something else.
Rebooting all the codexs is what was required to fix 40k. The game is so unbalanced because armies are redone over the course of several years that's impossible to keep armies inline with each other as game design philosophies change in between updates. Redoing all the armies at once put them all on the same page.
Balance can be fixed by updating old codices to be inline with new ones. Sometimes just a supplement will do the job. 40k 7th has had a lot of playtesting (by the players) and there is a good amount of consensus as to what needs fixing, and this could be done without burning all that has come before. With a whole new ruleset all that playtesting gets burned too and you have to start from scratch, everything will have potential for imbalance and exploits but we will have to go through the whole laborious process of playing to find them out again.
40k is pretty light on tactical depth but AoS doesn't appear to have any. I have an issue with that too.
KingmanHighborn wrote: This is terrifying and a kick in the balls to anyone that just bought a codex that recently came out to fix their army. *cough* Traitor Legions *cough*
I was hoping that 8th when it came would just be 7th with a few gentle tweaks such that existing codices would remain usable. It is looking like a forlorn hope now.
I may just give up on 40k and do something else.
Rebooting all the codexs is what was required to fix 40k. The game is so unbalanced because armies are redone over the course of several years that's impossible to keep armies inline with each other as game design philosophies change in between updates. Redoing all the armies at once put them all on the same page.
Balance can be fixed by updating old codices to be inline with new ones. Sometimes just a supplement will do the job. 40k 7th has had a lot of playtesting (by the players) and there is a good amount of consensus as to what needs fixing, and this could be done without burning all that has come before. With a whole new ruleset all that playtesting gets burned too and you have to start from scratch, everything will have potential for imbalance and exploits but we will have to go through the whole laborious process of playing to find them out again.
40k is pretty light on tactical depth but AoS doesn't appear to have any. I have an issue with that too.
It would still mean the game would remain in a state of unbalance for several years until they go through updating all of the codexes in the game
40K has become more and more bloated as a ruleset. It started out inelegant, unbalanced, and clunky with 1st, and has never had a proper reboot -- just more and more inelegant, unbalanced, and clunky rules added each time. I'm really looking forward to a simplification because 7th is basically broken. There are not really any options any more, despite the need to spend hundreds of pounds on new books every year just to stay competitive. As would be expected from what we know of game theory and competitive game design, giving a plethora of options but not playtesting them for balance, just means that a few dominant strategies emerge. Rather than getting to choose your army, and then getting to make an interesting and synergetic list with it, you get to choose between maybe 10 different builds in total, very few of them particularly subtle.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
I am happy that I'd no longer lose an entire massive squad when 1 dude that they failed to hurt sweeping advances the entire squad after killing one of my guys and them bolting.
Well, if they bring the battlescrolls free like in AoS it would be good for people who want to start playing or people who dont want to look at the codex every 2 minutes in game (I'm making some myself from some friends and it could be cool to see it in 40k from GW)
Personally I have 0 problems with "AoSitation", just remmember that "getting AoSed" could mean "just put some AoS ideas" no "its just AoS with space marines". What I mean is that (from my point of view after some AoS games) it could be a good thing, deleting bloat on the rules is good for new and old players and it speeds the game.
Also "This topic comes up almost as often as Sisters of Battle… so we’re going to bring them back."
If something, there are actually games of aos happening in our lgs now. I'd say it's 50/50 with 9-th age but it's way more alive and well than it used to be before the reboot.
koooaei wrote: And i want to see an aos overhaul. It's a good one.
AoS DESTROYED Warhammer for good, I don't want it anywhere near 40K. There is literally not ONE GOOD THING about AoS. Not ONE! It's garbage, the new rules, and most of the new factions and models are garbage except for a few outliers. It's why I sold my Skaven and High Elves. And even then it took another book to come out to even attempt a patch on the hilarious awful rules and balance.
But yeah, might as well of not even bought any of the codexs or supplements, cause none of it's going to be usable if this can drops.
WHFB had dead fors years for AoS came out. Ok AoS wasn't a good game when they initially released it but you can't kill something that as already dead.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
I am happy that I'd no longer lose an entire massive squad when 1 dude that they failed to hurt sweeping advances the entire squad after killing one of my guys and them bolting.
That is an improvement I agree, but the way the new morale is suggested is concerning to say the least. At a glance, it appears to be designed with smaller more elite forces in mind (space marines) and ignores how absolutely devastating this would be to horde armies. Again, perhaps there is more to it than what we are seeing here but if this is what goes live it will basically shut out Orks, Nids & Guard for another edition "again".
koooaei wrote: And i want to see an aos overhaul. It's a good one.
AoS DESTROYED Warhammer for good, I don't want it anywhere near 40K. There is literally not ONE GOOD THING about AoS. Not ONE! It's garbage, the new rules, and most of the new factions and models are garbage except for a few outliers. It's why I sold my Skaven and High Elves. And even then it took another book to come out to even attempt a patch on the hilarious awful rules and balance.
But yeah, might as well of not even bought any of the codexs or supplements, cause none of it's going to be usable if this can drops.
I couldn't disagree more. Before AoS we were 2 friends playing, after AoS we are 7. It actually brought 5 of my friends into the world of miniature games and we are having a ton of fun.
AoS DESTROYED Warhammer for good, I don't want it anywhere near 40K. There is literally not ONE GOOD THING about AoS. Not ONE! It's garbage, the new rules, and most of the new factions and models are garbage except for a few outliers. It's why I sold my Skaven and High Elves. And even then it took another book to come out to even attempt a patch on the hilarious awful rules and balance.
But yeah, might as well of not even bought any of the codexs or supplements, cause none of it's going to be usable if this can drops.
WAAAAAAH, stop liking the things I don't like, waaaaaah!
AOS is a good game with some flaws, it has great support now and most people whom were saying it was bad came back on that after the GHB was dropped.
It's more fun than that last itteration of Fantasy was anyway.
I suspect they'll borrow the rules that have proven popular etc while also learning for their mistakes. don't expect silly "he with the biggest beard wins the roll off" rules
If WFB was "dead" then where was all the fury coming from then when AoS dropped? Who is it that is playing 9th age? Given all the rage that was provoked by a "dead" game system getting switched for a snakes 'n' ladders small child friendly version I wonder what rage will be produced by 40k getting AoSsed? Or perhaps 40k is "dead" too?
Anyway I expect given 40k has a larger community than WFB did we can expect an even larger backlash. Perhaps 40k will get its own version of 9th age.
BrianDavion wrote: I suspect they'll borrow the rules that have proven popular etc while also learning for their mistakes. don't expect silly "he with the biggest beard wins the roll off" rules
But I bought the chalice and everything ;_;
In all seriousness, you guys noticed how this WAS IN THE SAME POST as the troll video? Might just be an elaborate joke on Warhammer TV and Community's part. EVERYTHING is from Age of Sigmar, EVERYTHING.
3 ways to play - self explanatory. From AoS.
Army Selection - Ripped directly from AoS
Movement - Ripped directly from AoS
Shooting - Rend from AoS
Combat Phase - Same system AoS
Morale - Battleshock system from AoS
Also examine the wording on some of the rule changes:
"Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models." - That does not sound right, if they had said it was for streamlining or matching lore I would believe it, but this just sounds like the writer put down the first thing that came to mind.
"Armour save modifiers. This topic comes up almost as often as Sisters of Battle… so we’re going to bring them back. Every weapon will have its place in your army and better represent how you imagine them working in your head." - HA. Yeah, no that's equally stupid. Terrible made up justification that does not sound real at all. Also they would have to reprint EVERY SINGLE CODEX AND SUPPLEMENT to incorporate this new system.
"Charging units should fight first. It’s just more thematic." - Yes let's make it so that necron warriors can hit before Eldar, sounds "thematic". Seriously.....why would they do this the justification of "It will reward tactically outmaneuvering your opponent" is it works in AoS I don't see it working in 40k at all. It REALLY s with the lore IMO and goes against their own justification.
"Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties." - Say goodbye to every single horde army, this would BREAK every single army other than MEQs. Good Plan GW, alienate even more players.
Just to clarify, I like AoS. But these new rules "changes" do not sound in anyway real IMO.
SolarCross wrote: If WFB was "dead" then where was all the fury coming from then when AoS dropped?
People didn't know what to expect and than got something they couldn't wrap their heads around until the ghb arrived. Most people also tend to stick to crappy things they're used to rather than risking changing stuff for the better. At least until someone else shows it's not that frightening.
Don't close yourself with the "AOS IS gak OR ISNT" type of discussion guys.
It's better to think how could 40 benefice from some rules/ideas of AoS.
The "Aos is gak, it killed fantasy" train is gone, the ones who wanted to play WHF are playing other games/set of rules/last edition and the ones who liked AoS are playing AoS, there is no need to launch gak between them.
AoS was good from the sales point of view, Fantasy was too expensive to start and the ones who already have an army didn’t buy that much. I understand the pain for the Old World bomb guys, i really do, but gaking about it years later when it could be an opportunity for 40k to become better is crazy.
Also, a lot of complains from AoS came from the fluff, the destruction of the Old World but in 40k the world isn’t getting destroyed (sorry Cadia btw) if anything the fluff is finally advancing and not in a bad way (from my point of view).
Just stop with the AoS shitstorm, focus on 40k and how amazing (or horrible) could it be.
The Deathless Host wrote: Also they would have to reprint EVERY SINGLE CODEX AND SUPPLEMENT to incorporate this new system.
Don't they do that after every new edition? If they are talking about 8th edition changes this could be no problem.
BrianDavion wrote: Don't they do that after every new edition? If they are talking about 8th edition changes this could be no problem
No they don't actually, if they were to introduce this new system, it would mean having to redo EVERY codex right away (as apposed to doing it over the course of the edition as they normally do), and unless they are PDFing rules like AoS. there will be a large gap where some armies are unusable with the new rules.
I'd support making my Dark Eldar actually fast and killy though...Not just middling and somewhat killy.
BrianDavion wrote: Don't they do that after every new edition? If they are talking about 8th edition changes this could be no problem
No they don't actually, if they were to introduce this new system, it would mean having to redo EVERY codex right away (as apposed to doing it over the course of the edition as they normally do), and unless they are PDFing rules like AoS. there will be a large gap where some armies are unusable with the new rules.
I'd support making my Dark Eldar actually fast and killy though...Not just middling and somewhat killy.
If they bring the General's Handbook system and battlescrolls from AoS it could be very easy to port it to the new system and any mini could have rules with the new system while their new codex doesn't arrive (I mean codex like the battletomes from AoS)
BrianDavion wrote: Don't they do that after every new edition? If they are talking about 8th edition changes this could be no problem
No they don't actually, if they were to introduce this new system, it would mean having to redo EVERY codex right away (as apposed to doing it over the course of the edition as they normally do)
Don't proposed rule dudes do it in a couple days in their free time?
BrianDavion wrote: Don't they do that after every new edition? If they are talking about 8th edition changes this could be no problem
No they don't actually, if they were to introduce this new system, it would mean having to redo EVERY codex right away (as apposed to doing it over the course of the edition as they normally do)
Don't proposed rule dudes do it in a couple days in their free time?
Yes, but they don't work for GW. It looks REALLY bad if GW was to just leave half their product range unusable. Just shows Massive incompten- oh wait this sounds like GW actually.
As long as I don't have yet another army invalidated by changes I don't really mind and welcome the AoS rules since it's been much more fun to play than 40k.
Backspacehacker wrote: Apparently there is a post to spikey bits that 40k is getting the following
Generals handbook
Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds
Discuss?
1. Multiple ways to play just formalizes how things are already. More regular updates to game balance and points is a good thing.
2. Movement stat back - it should never have gone away in the first place! This is a better rule and can replace some of the randomness in the game around things like running. It also allows for more tactical decision-making and better representation of things like Terminators and Hormagaunts.
3. Meh. Overwatch will still keep the game shooting-focused. Assault armies needed some help. The main beneficiary is Orks who like to charge and have gak Initiative. I'm fine with giving Orks a boost.
4. Better than the all or nothing AP and in a MEQ world means that there will now be more viable weapons choices for each squad.
5. This one I'm less happy about, but we'll see what the execution is like.
BrianDavion wrote: Don't they do that after every new edition? If they are talking about 8th edition changes this could be no problem
No they don't actually, if they were to introduce this new system, it would mean having to redo EVERY codex right away (as apposed to doing it over the course of the edition as they normally do), and unless they are PDFing rules like AoS. there will be a large gap where some armies are unusable with the new rules.
I'd support making my Dark Eldar actually fast and killy though...Not just middling and somewhat killy.
Not really.
For M stat they would just need to re-do the Quick reference page for each army, 1/ 2 pages per army
Now that I think about it Armour modifiers (and any other weapon changes) could be done there too.
Morale things may need a bit of alterations, but the armies that actually suffer from morale all need a new codex as is.
If AoSed means a couple of armies gone immediately, the entire catalogue almost switched off by new models and progressively definitely abandoned, games with fewer models but some huge and extremely expensive ones like in AoS then no, I would hate that.
Crazyterran wrote: Instead of the run and shoot rules they could simply have Eldar move 9".
I think you mean 12".
Besides, being able to move after you shoot is immensely more powerful than being able to just move more.
Either way, that would be a solid nerf to units that don't need any (eldar infantry in general, barring warp spiders, which wouldn't care much).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SolarCross wrote: If WFB was "dead" then where was all the fury coming from then when AoS dropped? Who is it that is playing 9th age? Given all the rage that was provoked by a "dead" game system getting switched for a snakes 'n' ladders small child friendly version I wonder what rage will be produced by 40k getting AoSsed? Or perhaps 40k is "dead" too?
Anyway I expect given 40k has a larger community than WFB did we can expect an even larger backlash. Perhaps 40k will get its own version of 9th age.
If you take the time to observe people on dakka, you will see that the most vocal most furious people don't even play the friggin game at all.
That's where battle was at the time, many people with armies, waiting on the sidelines, maybe playing one game every six months, furiously raging on forums at the destruction of a game they didn't really care for anymore.
Crazyterran wrote: I'm willing to bet there will be some modifier that unwieldy weapons will swing last.
Or Thunderhammers and such will be nerfed somehow.
An option more in line with Sigmar might be to say that 1 model in every 5 (for example) can take a Thunderhammer. And then the Thunderhammer has its own to hit/to wound/rend/damage stat line.
So you gain the ability to do a hefty strike at initiative but lose the ability to spam weapons that are OP.
This is not gospel how 40k will work of course. This is just speculation based on reading AOS datasheets
So I thought shooting was going to be the end all be all in AoS as well. (Similar to thoughts about the upcoming 40k), but it didn't happen, because they drastically changed the range of shooting weapon except warmachines which are rather limited. Ex. My Wood Elf Glade Guard (Archers) went from 30" range to 20" range. Even basic humans who move 5" can potentially cover 5-11" in one turn then next turn move 5" and charge 2d6". Sometimes I only get one turn of shooting an enemy unit before they charge me due to reduced shooting ranges.
I wouldn't mind a simplification, but I hope they don't take it very far.
I don't want a movement stat, it isn't needed.
I wish charging gave +1 initiative, including to unwieldy weapons.
I wish they tweaked leadership, but the way in the OP is a stupid way.
I'd like AP modifers instead, I hate the all or nothing system. Why does slashing a Terminator with a power sword only hurt as much as pistol whipping him?
I'd like a new 'evasion' stat, which would be to BS what WS is to WS or T to S.
I'd like a new psychic system, I much preferred the 5th ed system.
I'd like less random, I have no idea who my warlord or psykers are until I roll dice, it's silly.
I'd like vehicles and/or MCs changed, especially walkers.The base rules significantly favour MCs over walkers.
As for fluff... I hate where gathering storms are taking us, they may not be invalidating the old fluff but they're spinning aroun, turning upside and shaking well.
AoSlol, It brings me back to 5h edition wfb not AoS! I liked it a lot but I played an all cav army then and there where reasons for it.
Movement values are great if they remove most of the movement related rules. Most of you will not believe it but it actually streamlines the game a lot. If they keep al the silly diskstrider like rules then meh. However it is also dooms all non fast melee armies into being defenders. And being melee defenders sucks in a game with guns. So this is a huge boon for fast / bike armies.
Assault = strike first I loved this in 5th wfb it brings back some tactics in the form of screening units etc. However I can easily see some nasty eldar consolidate way too far trickery ruin it all. It also is a huge boon for fast / bike armies. Also yay for deepstrike reservers, genestealers and wulfy shenanigans ... :\
Morale is gone everybody crumbles undead style. BOOO! I do not like this at all. I love moral, crumble is a dull mechanic that never felt right. Just look at how much ork players love their 40k equivalent of it ; ) Who knows, I do not expect it but it might just be enough to bring blob boyz back since who knows perhaps its better than the current mob rule, however it will create some new dull tapit deathstars.
Save modifiers :\ Blegh Terminators and tactical marines where already bad, no need t punish them any further. Also in 5th edition wfb it just resulted in every one taking the highest str weapn.... Hate to imagine what this does to high str high volume weapon spam :\
Swamping each unit in their own "special rules" .... This gives me the AoS shivers, and really reminds me not to spend too much on 40k in the upcoming months.
kirotheavenger wrote: I wouldn't mind a simplification, but I hope they don't take it very far.
I don't want a movement stat, it isn't needed. Maybe not but it's a heck of a lot simpler than all the movement rules they've had to use to simulate it (Dunestrider/Battle focus etc.)
I wish charging gave +1 initiative, including to unwieldy weapons. That' would range from Ok to completely useless though (Marines charging marines= good. Orks charging Marines= useless) Hurts the MOS but having a rule that does nothing just because of who you're facing just sucks (Fear vs marines for example)
I wish they tweaked leadership, but the way in the OP is a stupid way. Better in some ways- sweeping advance sucks on the receiving end. Worse in others
I'd like AP modifers instead, I hate the all or nothing system. Why does slashing a Terminator with a power sword only hurt as much as pistol whipping him? Agreed
I'd like a new 'evasion' stat, which would be to BS what WS is to WS or T to S.
I'd like a new psychic system, I much preferred the 5th ed system. 5th Edition Psychics were so... meh. Something between then and now would be best IMO I'd like less random, I have no idea who my warlord or psykers are until I roll dice, it's silly.
I'd like vehicles and/or MCs changed, especially walkers.The base rules significantly favour MCs over walkers.
As for fluff... I hate where gathering storms are taking us, they may not be invalidating the old fluff but they're spinning around, turning upside and shaking well.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
I am happy that I'd no longer lose an entire massive squad when 1 dude that they failed to hurt sweeping advances the entire squad after killing one of my guys and them bolting.
That is an improvement I agree, but the way the new morale is suggested is concerning to say the least. At a glance, it appears to be designed with smaller more elite forces in mind (space marines) and ignores how absolutely devastating this would be to horde armies. Again, perhaps there is more to it than what we are seeing here but if this is what goes live it will basically shut out Orks, Nids & Guard for another edition "again".
The horde armies in AoS do well because every 10 models in a unit adds +1 to Battleshock, so Ork armies would get +3 for being in a 30+ horde.. And maybe would finally be a reason to stuff that Mob Rule behind a shelf. Though they'd probably have alot more then just shoving those rules onto the current ruleset considering how big some of them are.
Remember that guy who melted down his army to protest AoS?
I hope we see more amazing freakouts. People have strong feelings on this subject!
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
I'd also like to note that single models (COUGH COUGH, Monstrous Creatures, HACK WHEEZE) will essentially be fearless in CC, so even ones that are not very good at CC like Tau's will be pseudo fearless, as D6 - 8 < 0. It's a poorly thought out rule
WarhammerWorld wrote:Armour save modifiers. This topic comes up almost as often as Sisters of Battle… so we’re going to bring them back. Every weapon will have its place in your army and better represent how you imagine them working in your head.
kirotheavenger 721440 9268849 7bcdbca0f55855f1c70 wrote:
1. I don't want a movement stat, it isn't needed. Maybe not but it's a heck of a lot simpler than all the movement rules they've had to use to simulate it (Dunestrider/Battle focus etc.)
2. I wish charging gave +1 initiative, including to unwieldy weapons. That' would range from Ok to completely useless though (Marines charging marines= good. Orks charging Marines= useless) Hurts the MOS but having a rule that does nothing just because of who you're facing just sucks (Fear vs marines for example)
3. I wish they tweaked leadership, but the way in the OP is a stupid way. Better in some ways- sweeping advance sucks on the receiving end. Worse in others
4. I'd like AP modifers instead, I hate the all or nothing system. Why does slashing a Terminator with a power sword only hurt as much as pistol whipping him? Agreed
5. I'd like a new 'evasion' stat, which would be to BS what WS is to WS or T to S.
6. I'd like a new psychic system, I much preferred the 5th ed system. 5th Edition Psychics were so... meh. Something between then and now would be best IMO
7. I'd like less random, I have no idea who my warlord or psykers are until I roll dice, it's silly.
8. I'd like vehicles and/or MCs changed, especially walkers.The base rules significantly favour MCs over walkers.
9. As for fluff... I hate where gathering storms are taking us, they may not be invalidating the old fluff but they're spinning around, turning upside and shaking well.
1. Maybe, but honestly battle focus is bollocks anyway.
It'd need to be small diffences, 9'' move for infantry would be huge compared 6'', and if jump packs grant x2 movement 18'' for Spiders or Hawks is a major boon.
2. True, but it puts a middle ground between slow models first because of charging (which makes less sense), and equal models attacking first due to charging (which makes more sense).
3. Sweeping advances could be tweaked, but not like this. Elite units give zero feths and horde armies are annilated in droves under this system.
I'd like a system that means both units are subject to leadership tests though.Perhaps after combat both sides roll leadership (- casualties taken), any that fail flee and if both flee no sweeps can be had. Subject to sweeping changes.
6. Maybe, I preferred the less random and simpler casting system of 5th, and it wasn't the end of the world if you no psykers and your opponent did.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
Or make it like the empire: rolls of 1 (or 2 in a formation) ignore battleshock, have commissars adjust the dice roll by, say, -1 or -2 to units within 6'' in exchange to d3 wounds... or something along the lines of mitigating casualties. Or just cast inspiring presence to ignore that unit's battleshock. Yeah, that could work. Ogre Tyrants inflict d3 unsavable wounds to units, those unit then don't suffer battleshock. AoS is more complicated than that, the thing is that it will go on the units unique abilities.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
Heh, this is why we used to take Commissars (Well, I still do) instead of priests. Under at least one previous set of rules, a Fearless units took additional wounds based on how much it lost by (same for ATSKNF if they didn't escape). So Stubborn was BETTER than Fearless. Nids hated it tho, you could assault a large unit of Gaunts and secondary assault a Carnifex or other MC, kill bunches of Gaunts and the every unit on the losing side took however many wounds their side lost the combat by. They got armor saves but it was an easy way to put a lot of wounds on a big ugly.
Wouldn't mind seeing AP modifiers come back. Bolters -1, Heavy Bolters -3, I think lascannons were -6. But the issue is the easy availability of Invul saves, which the modifiers would not affect.
Movement stats, meh, they might shake things up. Let's see, used to be Squats 3", humans 4", Eldar either 5" or 6", don't recall any others. Coure, back then you either moved (base movement) or you ran (double move) or you charged (double move). There was no move, shoot, charge. Took a little more planning to get it all to work together.
don_mondo wrote: Wouldn't mind seeing AP modifiers come back. Bolters -1, Heavy Bolters -3, I think lascannons were -6. But the issue is the easy availability of Invul saves, which the modifiers would not affect.
Might just as well forget all power armour and terminator armour would be joke as well. Heavy bolter reducing terminator to 5+? Gee. Plasma would be pretty useless weapon also.
Well guess if everybody hates anything with better than 5+ armour...
Martel732 wrote: Armor save mods are a dumpster fire. But whatever gw wants.
It's funny how much I disagree. I hate the all-or-nothing of saves at the moment. AP4? Might as well be AP-, have fun with that. Ap3, ALRIGHT NOW WE'RE COOKING! The difference between something that's supposed to be half decent and something that's decent at going through armour is just waaaaaay too big.
They haven't been such a big deal in wfb due to low amounts of high str both in close combat and in shooting. But just imagine the effects of the current high volume high str shooting on termites. And what this does to the meta. It isn't that I fear for termies being shot down it is the rise of more easy to get by "kill all guns" that mow down all infantry with ease.
hobojebus wrote: Oh but when I told you about it I was crazy, guys I warned you about this a year ago.
X-wing will get another big in flux of bitter ex gw customers.
You're not Nostradamus. Everyone has been expecting some sort of AoS'ing for a year at least. The question hasn't been "if," it has been "how much." And it still is.
Kain wrote: As someone who played Warhammer fantasy and plays AOS, armour save mods weren't that big a deal. They worked just fine.
did you play 40k 2nd ed? You know 40k with ASM. If your save wasn't unmodifiedable or terminator you pretty much never used it. Certainly not often enough to make you go "oh boy I'm glad I have armour!". Power armour was worth maybe like one point if that. For tactical marine that's 30pts base.
Only total idiot would PAY for power armour if there was chance. Anything lesser than that and...well would make one doubt whether you are even alive if you paid for it unless you enjoy paying for useless things. Guess one way to boost up army size if you insist on playing within x% of agreed point value(ie not bringing 1500 pts to 2000 pts game) by spending points to what amounts to might just as well not have paid for it.
Worked barely in FB because modifiers were smaller in general especially for shooting. But in 40k with all the guns armour saves just got wiped. 6+ or 7+ for power armour was standard result. 6+ is not enough to justify price, 7+ you can't even roll without being terminator.
Kain wrote: As someone who played Warhammer fantasy and plays AOS, armour save mods weren't that big a deal. They worked just fine.
did you play 40k 2nd ed? You know 40k with ASM. If your save wasn't unmodifiedable or terminator you pretty much never used it. Certainly not often enough to make you go "oh boy I'm glad I have armour!". Power armour was worth maybe like one point if that. For tactical marine that's 30pts base.
Only total idiot would PAY for power armour if there was chance. Anything lesser than that and...well would make one doubt whether you are even alive if you paid for it unless you enjoy paying for useless things. Guess one way to boost up army size if you insist on playing within x% of agreed point value(ie not bringing 1500 pts to 2000 pts game) by spending points to what amounts to might just as well not have paid for it.
Worked barely in FB because modifiers were smaller in general especially for shooting. But in 40k with all the guns armour saves just got wiped. 6+ or 7+ for power armour was standard result. 6+ is not enough to justify price, 7+ you can't even roll without being terminator.
This do we really want to live in a meta where those easy to spam S5+ Ap4 guns are good against GEQ ( no save ), MEQ (6+sv ) and TEQ (5+sv) ? For I am not looking forward to a game where tau / eldar / necron / space marine anti marines guns are the same as anti ork boy and anti termi guns.
Kain wrote: As someone who played Warhammer fantasy and plays AOS, armour save mods weren't that big a deal. They worked just fine.
did you play 40k 2nd ed? You know 40k with ASM. If your save wasn't unmodifiedable or terminator you pretty much never used it. Certainly not often enough to make you go "oh boy I'm glad I have armour!". Power armour was worth maybe like one point if that. For tactical marine that's 30pts base.
Only total idiot would PAY for power armour if there was chance. Anything lesser than that and...well would make one doubt whether you are even alive if you paid for it unless you enjoy paying for useless things. Guess one way to boost up army size if you insist on playing within x% of agreed point value(ie not bringing 1500 pts to 2000 pts game) by spending points to what amounts to might just as well not have paid for it.
Worked barely in FB because modifiers were smaller in general especially for shooting. But in 40k with all the guns armour saves just got wiped. 6+ or 7+ for power armour was standard result. 6+ is not enough to justify price, 7+ you can't even roll without being terminator.
This do we really want to live in a meta where those easy to spam S5+ Ap4 guns are good against GEQ ( no save ), MEQ (6+sv ) and TEQ (5+sv) ?
I don't know why you all assume all the rules and stats are just gonna be the same, just with modifiable armour saves tagged on. I'm hoping the shake-up is gonna be considerably larger than that.
I don't know why you all assume all the rules and stats are just gonna be the same, just with modifiable armour saves tagged on. I'm hoping the shake-up is gonna be considerably larger than that.
The level of assuming is mindstaggering. I see people knowing the rules before anyone has even seen a glimpse of them, even the ones that haven't been teased.
Because it seems to be more in line with them releasing more and more high rate of fire high str type of weapons in the past few years. I do not expect them to suddenly invalidate nearly all heavy guns of the popular armies. Sure there are going to be some changes to compensate things, but I can imagine non of them who are in line with GW's recent publications that would prevent the rise of mid-high strap mid high kill all guns.
Armor save modifiers are a terrible idea because the weapon stats were imbalanced in 2nd edition?
That's your argument? Seriously? Give me a break, this is an excellent idea that will make a ton of currently useless weapons playable again, while presenting a great opportunity to rebalance Grav and Scatterlasers. Even Heavy Bolters will have a place with Rend -1 If they take it even further, they might even reduce the range on some of the annoying guns, just imagine.
I am very interested how low STR low AP weapons are handled within an AP modifer system.
Take hotshot lasguns, Str 3 and AP 3. low chance to wound without orders. If the armor modifier is too low then it becomes a horrible weapon (even worse than what it currently is) as the weapon is overpriced for what it does. If anything I hope GW learns the proper point balancing.
Now the real question is...
Will Rend REPLACE AP, or Work with it?
(As AP4 Weapons (of which most have Multiple Shots/a Blast/Template) with -1 Will become Metagame)
I can smell Autocannon Havoc Spam from here
I have been against 40K getting a rules "reboot" since AoS killed Fantasy. Yes Fantasy was limping along mortally wounded, but invalidating all the expensive publications I owned was pretty much the final blow for me.
I only play 40K now, and have not played any other games for years, not even video games (haven't played those in over a decade). So if 40K gets a reboot, I have no choice but to accept it, because I love my models and want to continue using them.
So hopefully one of the following thing happens:
A) The Codices and all other books that have rules for armies stay Valid and the Generals Handbook just simplifies the main rules and errata's the Move Stat for existing units.
B) If all the above rule books are "wiped clean" instead, GW better provide replacement rules for free. And not just digital stuff. I want hard copy rule to hold in my hand. If these are not free, they better be SUPER CHEAP. Like less the $10 per codex cheap
If either of those things happen, I will be happy and full embrace the new 40K: Age of Something, Something.
It isn't about if a weapon would kill stuff its about you no longer needing to choose between anti horde or GEQ, TEQ or MEQ. Or in other words weapons like heavy bolters and their xenos cousins with +1 or +2 str suddenly become the new grav. It sure "rebalances" things like grav but making nearly everything a kill all gun isn't the way to go if you ask me.
This isn't based on 2nd edition 40k. Its based on 5th wfb and modern 40k. I played both a lot and you really do not want their save mechanic near to anything that has tau or eldar guns.
I personally hope they don't entirely throw out the old rules, as the base rules weren't terrible, just an overabundance of special rules and some imbalance between certain unit types like vehicles vs MCs. It honestly wouldn't be hard to just tone down on the existing rules and try to return to games with comparatively low model counts. I've not seen "horde marines" in person, but the concept makes me die a little.
As heavily alluded to by the Morale rule ideas, I'm very concerned that even "all new rules" might only make things worse in terms of power creep/Herohammer, as it looks like super uber-duber tough awesome guys are going to become even more super uber-duber tough awesome, while high model count armies (Guard, Orks, Nids, one of which is mid tier and the others are bottom tier) will only suffer even more until they're literally designed to lose against the prominent armies: truly devolved into NPCs that exist only to highlight how cool and strong these other armies you should be collecting and playing are.
Also, what if 8th ed is just HOT PRIMARCH ON PRIMARCH ACTION!! The horror... the horror.
Quickjager wrote: I am very interested how low STR low AP weapons are handled within an AP modifer system.
They could give those weapons the old ignores armour or armour piercing (x) rule. it would be more interesting to see what they do with cover saves and inv saves. They might just go all the way and make them to hit modifiers and ward saves ( reanimation protols for everyone with an inv save)
As heavily alluded to by the Morale rule ideas, I'm very concerned that even "all new rules" might only make things worse in terms of power creep/Herohammer, as it looks like super uber-duber tough awesome guys are going to become even more super uber-duber tough awesome, while high model count armies (Guard, Orks, Nids, one of which is mid tier and the others are bottom tier) will only suffer even more until they're literally designed to lose against the prominent armies: truly devolved into NPCs that exist only to highlight how cool and strong these other armies you should be collecting and playing are.
Also, what if 8th ed is just HOT PRIMARCH ON PRIMARCH ACTION!! The horror... the horror.
Jup this seems quite in line with the current releases. Also they might drop the independent character rule and nearly all the equipment rules ...: / Just look at the new Sisters of silence sheets those flamer girls are a different unit from the sword girls this is most likely done with 8th in mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, if this fails, maybe geedubs finally goes belly up like they deserve.
blegh no ofcourse not. They will not go belly up, nor do they deserve it. What will happen is that the game loses some elements of what some of us vets like while gaining some others. I really hope that they leave 30k alone, making it a refuge for those who still want to play old 40k
KingmanHighborn wrote: Sweeping advances have been nerfed since 4th, is that REALLY necessary?
It doesn't really need updating. All that will happen is blobs via Orks/Nids/Guard will loose more models while other factions won't see their troops dying to sweeping advance. We might as well just reduce Nids to Nidzilla's, completely do away with guard blobs + conscripts and just discontinue orks. Weirdly enough also the armies with the lowest LD values.
I wouldn't be surprised if they've listened to players who aren't happy to loose elite 100-150+ point units to sweeping advances. It's always has been those players who have complained about it. You need sweeping advances to stay in the game in some manner otherwise you'll just have units stuck in assault all game.
don_mondo wrote: Wouldn't mind seeing AP modifiers come back. Bolters -1, Heavy Bolters -3, I think lascannons were -6. But the issue is the easy availability of Invul saves, which the modifiers would not affect.
Might just as well forget all power armour and terminator armour would be joke as well. Heavy bolter reducing terminator to 5+? Gee.
jreilly89 wrote: This thread again? Does this have any actual information, or just more conjecture?
Most of this thread is based on actual information from GW officials at adepticon. While the video seems to be a joke the rest of it seems to be serious enough to present at the event.
jreilly89 wrote: This thread again? Does this have any actual information, or just more conjecture?
Most of this thread is based on actual information from GW officials at adepticon. While the video seems to be a joke the rest of it seems to be serious enough to present at the event.
( I 'll edit the link in once I can find the video with the horrible sound ( for the first 10 minutes ) of a guy who was there who told a similar story as the GW adeption coverage on the community site )
Count me among those who are cautiously optimistic.
A major update to the core rules would be a breath of fresh air. I also think Games Workshop learned their lesson regarding the fluff - I have serious doubts that they'll pull an "Age of the Emperor" for 40k.
Recently the Independent Characters podcast came out with a very good episode about the upcoming Edition Change and big updates in general. They offer a very measured, reasonable perspective on what might be coming, and about attitudes towards those kind of changes in the past. It might do some good for those with doom on the mind to listen to some rational folks go over the subject.
( I 'll edit the link in once I can find the video with the horrible sound ( for the first 10 minutes ) of a guy who was there who told a similar story as the GW adeption coverage on the community site )
Well, if it actually happens, color me excited. AoS is a far superior system to 40k
Save modifiers and movement rates -very welcome. Not favourable about the changes to morale. I don't see that there was a problem with leadership tests, and it strikes me as a bit silly to have squadies become permenant casualties just because they are shaken.
I don't see how this is AOSing it. It's just changing some core rules, not re-booting the game.
Martel732 wrote: Armor save mods are a dumpster fire. But whatever gw wants.
It's funny how much I disagree. I hate the all-or-nothing of saves at the moment. AP4? Might as well be AP-, have fun with that. Ap3, ALRIGHT NOW WE'RE COOKING! The difference between something that's supposed to be half decent and something that's decent at going through armour is just waaaaaay too big.
Very true, it's always been slowed and problematic, it's great they're now thinking of fixing it. maybe. who knows.
thegreatchimp wrote: Save modifiers and movement rates -very welcome. Not favourable about the changes to morale. I don't see that there was a problem with leadership tests, and it strikes me as a bit silly to have squadies become permenant casualties just because they are shaken.
I don't see how this is AOSing it. It's just changing some core rules, not re-booting the game.
It's AoSing it because that's basically the same rules AoS has right now. Also, Leadership is stupid. It's either impossible to pass (Orks) or largely ignored
If they keep the current weapon stats and APs, they could make the save modifiers like reverse BS:
AP6/- = no modifier
AP5 = -1 to armour save
AP4 = -2
AP3 = -3
AP2 = -4 So a Terminator would still get a 6+ armour save against AP2
AP1 = -5 so it ignores all armour
But of course, they could scrap the AP system entirely.
I won't play 40k in its current state. A lot of that is the rules bloat and that I don't like spending an hour a game in the rulebook trying to find rules contradictions and clarifications.
The other part is all of the armies I really like have really bad rules and I can't get a good quality game in with my models unless my opponent is not min/maxing LVO lists.
So I am fully 100% behind the AOSification of 40k and hope that it returns to something that I can enjoy and use the armies I have without having to follow the meta around and play armies I don't like just so I can get in a good game.
commander dante wrote: Now the real question is...
Will Rend REPLACE AP, or Work with it?
(As AP4 Weapons (of which most have Multiple Shots/a Blast/Template) with -1 Will become Metagame)
I can smell Autocannon Havoc Spam from here
Heh, used to be heavy bolter/assault cannon spam, especially since twin-linked back then meant double the shots. Used to run a dread with twin linked heavy bolters on one arm an assault cannon on the other. He could easily wipe out a 10-man squad of Space marines in a single round of shooting. So yeah, it could become a thing...
don_mondo wrote: Wouldn't mind seeing AP modifiers come back. Bolters -1, Heavy Bolters -3, I think lascannons were -6. But the issue is the easy availability of Invul saves, which the modifiers would not affect.
Might just as well forget all power armour and terminator armour would be joke as well. Heavy bolter reducing terminator to 5+? Gee. Plasma would be pretty useless weapon also.
Well guess if everybody hates anything with better than 5+ armour...
Well, you have to remember (or know) that a Terminator save back then was a 3+ on 2d6... With no Invul unless they could buy a special field (wargear card).
Galef wrote: If they keep the current weapon stats and APs, they could make the save modifiers like reverse BS: AP6/- = no modifier AP5 = -1 to armour save AP4 = -2 AP3 = -3 AP2 = -4 So a Terminator would still get a 6+ armour save against AP2 AP1 = -5 so it ignores all armour
But of course, they could scrap the AP system entirely.
A system like this is going to make feel no pain even stronger than it already is.
Same with Stormshields, assuming rending can't touch invuln saves.
Rending will help some armies, and completely invalidate others, like Grey Knights.
auticus wrote: The other part is all of the armies I really like have really bad rules and I can't get a good quality game in with my models unless my opponent is not min/maxing LVO lists.
So I am fully 100% behind the AOSification of 40k and hope that it returns to something that I can enjoy and use the armies I have without having to follow the meta around and play armies I don't like just so I can get in a good game.
Aint this the truth, I like Chaos, Orks, and Walkers.
Chaos got a bit of a boost but still there's a world of difference fighting an eldar list and an ork list. They got rid of Animosity in Age of Sigmar so I hope the same comes with 8th Orks.
commander dante wrote: Now the real question is...
Will Rend REPLACE AP, or Work with it?
(As AP4 Weapons (of which most have Multiple Shots/a Blast/Template) with -1 Will become Metagame)
I can smell Autocannon Havoc Spam from here
It would replace it, if that's the route they're going.
The way Age of Sigmar works is this:
X unit attacks Y unit. Model Z within unit X has a Greatsword of Choppiness.
Y unit has a Save of 4+.
The majority of X unit has to Hit on a 5+ and Wounds on a 5+. Their weapons have no Rend value.
X unit hits and wounds. Y unit makes their save roll with no modifier from Rend.
Z model has a to Hit on 5+, Wounding on a 4+(a lot of the "specialist" weapons have varying values rather than them being the same). The Greatsword of Choppiness has a Rend value of -2.
Y has to make their save roll, adding 2 to the value required to make the save. Their 4+ becomes a 6+.
Generally there's also special rules associated with the special weapons, stuff like a To Wound roll of a 6 becomes a Mortal Wound(no saves allowed unless there's a special rule on unit Y allowing them to make a save versus Mortal Wounds) or a To Hit roll of a 6 generates an additional attack. There also tends to be special rules associated to the various "loadouts" for a unit; i.e. a unit with two daggers might get to make an additional attack compared to a sword and shield version but the sword and shield version gets to reroll failed Save rolls of 1 or something like that.
Galef wrote: If they keep the current weapon stats and APs, they could make the save modifiers like reverse BS:
AP6/- = no modifier
AP5 = -1 to armour save
AP4 = -2
AP3 = -3
AP2 = -4 So a Terminator would still get a 6+ armour save against AP2
AP1 = -5 so it ignores all armour
But of course, they could scrap the AP system entirely.
A system like this is going to make feel no pain even stronger than it already is.
Same with Stormshields, assuming rending can't touch invuln saves.
Rending will help some armies, and completely invalidate others, like Grey Knights.
That's assuming Feel No Pain and Invulnerable Saves remain as they are.
"Rending", the USR, is not the same as Rend values like in AoS.
auticus wrote: I won't play 40k in its current state. A lot of that is the rules bloat and that I don't like spending an hour a game in the rulebook trying to find rules contradictions and clarifications.
The other part is all of the armies I really like have really bad rules and I can't get a good quality game in with my models unless my opponent is not min/maxing LVO lists.
So I am fully 100% behind the AOSification of 40k and hope that it returns to something that I can enjoy and use the armies I have without having to follow the meta around and play armies I don't like just so I can get in a good game.
I love this reaction ( aside from my utter dislike of the word bloat). For the suggested rule changes by GW might exaclty have the opposite result of what you would like them to do.
The current state isn't ideal but the rules aren't that hard to find really they are all in the rulebook, and most of the more regular players know the most important ones by heart. The things that we usually do have to look up are funky unit special rules interactions with each other and the rules. Most likely the new releases such as the time cheating daemon possessed vampire space elfs of cheesy doom, splitting horros, genestealer cults or any of the other new releases they all tend to be released with interesting but quite complex new mechanics that all needed a huge FAQ to make them work. What GW proposed was to give each unit more of those unit specific rules guaranteeing that you are likely to be unfamiliar with more of the special rules of new models.
Your old models having crappy rules, and the net listers having all the power, is most likely not going to change either with new rules set. It will just be an other incarnation of the I come to krump you all list that is going to do the stomping as long as gw isn't going to abandon power creep as one of the essential tools to sell models and the new 40k + AoS releses prove that they aren't likely to change anything about this. Do you really expect GW to make your old army made of old models that you do not have to buy the star of the new edition ?
Holy flipping bacon. When will gw just learn to LEAVE STUFF ALONE!!!! I had to stop playing fantasy when AOS came out and clusterflipped the whole thing. I've still got 3 huge fantasy army's I can't use. Now they want to do the same thing to 40k???
40k is not broken. It does not need AOS rules. Maybe a few rule consolidations, and some clarity across a few others but seriously. Why the heck do we need new basic rules every 2 years?
If they want competitive play: then release codex updates for all races at the same time with balancing across everything. Imbalance exists now because army's have different level of codex creep.
Variety is good. AOS appeals to some. But just because people buy it does not mean those people buy 40k as well. It also does not mean that everyone who plays 40k will switch over.
If this does happen ... (and gathering storm was indeed the "end times" of 40k.... combined with all the price hikes I will be done. I can not afford to keep paying insane prices for plastic models, 60-70$ for a codex and Likley 200 for the rules every 2 years.
Seriously gw. If it ain't broke don't flipping flip it.
The current state isn't ideal but the rules aren't that hard to find really they are all in the rulebook, and most of the more regular players know the most important ones by heart.
The problem is that bloat also slows down the game in general.
Galef wrote: If they keep the current weapon stats and APs, they could make the save modifiers like reverse BS:
AP6/- = no modifier
AP5 = -1 to armour save
AP4 = -2
AP3 = -3
AP2 = -4 So a Terminator would still get a 6+ armour save against AP2
AP1 = -5 so it ignores all armour
But of course, they could scrap the AP system entirely.
A system like this is going to make feel no pain even stronger than it already is.
Same with Stormshields, assuming rending can't touch invuln saves.
Rending will help some armies, and completely invalidate others, like Grey Knights.
ASSUMING EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME.
And even if it did, SO WHAT. Yeah, it would completely topple the current meta and shift what armies are strong and which aren't. So. What. It's not like it's toppling some finely tuned balanced machine. 40k balance is an utter steaming pile of gak as far as balance goes. Honestly, if they made one marine able to face an army of Orks alone, it wouldn't feel any more unbalanced than it is already. It's already unplayably poorly balanced. I just can't bring myself to care about 40k in its current state, so even rebalancing completely based on throwing darts at a chart would be welcome, because at least it has a CHANCE to make 40k interesting again.
Caedes wrote: Holy flipping bacon. When will gw just learn to LEAVE STUFF ALONE!!!! I had to stop playing fantasy when AOS came out and clusterflipped the whole thing. I've still got 3 huge fantasy army's I can't use. Now they want to do the same thing to 40k???
40k is not broken. It does not need AOS rules. Maybe a few rule consolidations, and some clarity across a few others but seriously. Why the heck do we need new basic rules every 2 years?
If they want competitive play: then release codex updates for all races at the same time with balancing across everything. Imbalance exists now because army's have different level of codex creep.
Variety is good. AOS appeals to some. But just because people buy it does not mean those people buy 40k as well. It also does not mean that everyone who plays 40k will switch over.
If this does happen ... (and gathering storm was indeed the "end times" of 40k.... combined with all the price hikes I will be done. I can not afford to keep paying insane prices for plastic models, 60-70$ for a codex and Likley 200 for the rules every 2 years.
Seriously gw. If it ain't broke don't flipping flip it.
yeah, couldn't agree more. They never should have changed from 2nd ed to 3rd, and definitely should have stopped at 4th, maybe 5th...
Seriously gw. If it ain't broke don't flipping flip it.
Here's the problem: 40k IS broken. Like, unabashedly broken. Rules bloat, wildly varying army power levels, Formations out the wazoo. 40K drastically needs a trimming down for rules at least.
Caedes wrote: Holy flipping bacon. When will gw just learn to LEAVE STUFF ALONE!!!! I had to stop playing fantasy when AOS came out and clusterflipped the whole thing. I've still got 3 huge fantasy army's I can't use. Now they want to do the same thing to 40k???
40k is not broken. It does not need AOS rules. Maybe a few rule consolidations, and some clarity across a few others but seriously. Why the heck do we need new basic rules every 2 years?
If they want competitive play: then release codex updates for all races at the same time with balancing across everything. Imbalance exists now because army's have different level of codex creep.
Variety is good. AOS appeals to some. But just because people buy it does not mean those people buy 40k as well. It also does not mean that everyone who plays 40k will switch over.
If this does happen ... (and gathering storm was indeed the "end times" of 40k.... combined with all the price hikes I will be done. I can not afford to keep paying insane prices for plastic models, 60-70$ for a codex and Likley 200 for the rules every 2 years.
Seriously gw. If it ain't broke don't flipping flip it.
yeah, couldn't agree more. They never should have changed from 2nd ed to 3rd, and definitely should have stopped at 4th, maybe 5th...
Back in my day, people said they should've stopped before they created Rogue Trader.
Caedes wrote: Imbalance exists now because army's have different level of codex creep.
This is entirely untrue. Even newer books like Cult Mechanicus has INCREDIBLE imbalances in the same codex. They have *amazingly* strong units like the Kataphran (which in turn have an amazing imbalance in their weapons choices as some are OP and others are pointless) while they also have the worse than useless Electro-Priests.
If the only problem was varying power creep, at least each codex would have fantastic internal balance. That's just not the case.
Seriously gw. If it ain't broke don't flipping flip it.
Please, try any other game system. Malifaux, Bolt Action, SAGA... ANYTHING. You'll instantly notice how broken the balance in 40k is.
In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?
I mean, I can see that being good or bad, depending.
But if they dole out an AP value to EVERYTHING, like Galef suggested (which is honestly fairly logical), than armor is going to be kind of a joke.
For example, bolters reducing 2+ saves to a 3+ saves, just because?
I would definitely be ok with high strength weapons having AP modifiers - for example, it's not quite logical that terminators get the same save from battle cannons and lasguns.
But flooding the game with AP modifiers sounds like a nightmare for armored units.
Then again, I play orks, and I've always said armor is for losers. Maybe it will be.
Caedes, you are one voice saying it is not broken as opposed to a large tide of voices saying it is. If you hate the game or hate that it's changing, you can always stop playing.
Also for everyone: Note that until they specifically detail how something works, we do not know how it's going to work. Making assumptions now just leads to getting riled up over something without understanding it.
Kap'n Krump wrote: In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?
I mean, I can see that being good or bad, depending.
But if they dole out an AP value to EVERYTHING, like Galef suggested (which is honestly fairly logical), than armor is going to be kind of a joke.
For example, bolters reducing 2+ saves to a 3+ saves, just because?
I would definitely be ok with high strength weapons having AP modifiers - for example, it's not quite logical that terminators get the same save from battle cannons and lasguns.
But flooding the game with AP modifiers sounds like a nightmare for armored units.
Then again, I play orks, and I've always said armor is for losers. Maybe it will be.
Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.
The current state isn't ideal but the rules aren't that hard to find really they are all in the rulebook, and most of the more regular players know the most important ones by heart.
The problem is that bloat also slows down the game in general.
Again with the undefined and horrible word that most of the internet users seem to love like the newest meme....
Bloat doesnt slow down games, poorly designed rules do such as the way we currently allocate and save wounds, or making each inquisitor have to generate a warlord trait in an army that needs 1 of those characters per 3 MsU units.
These sort of rules aren't a huge parts of text nor especially complex they are just devouring time like no other.
While having surplus rules like dune strider, or eldar rending instead of regular rending, and having multiple rule sets for the same sort of equipment in different codexes make the rule set messy but do not affect the game speed in any way.
What "bloat" reaally does is clogg up discussions about rules by preventing players to communicate properly about the rules.
Kap'n Krump wrote: In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?
I mean, I can see that being good or bad, depending.
But if they dole out an AP value to EVERYTHING, like Galef suggested (which is honestly fairly logical), than armor is going to be kind of a joke.
For example, bolters reducing 2+ saves to a 3+ saves, just because?
I would definitely be ok with high strength weapons having AP modifiers - for example, it's not quite logical that terminators get the same save from battle cannons and lasguns.
But flooding the game with AP modifiers sounds like a nightmare for armored units.
Then again, I play orks, and I've always said armor is for losers. Maybe it will be.
It's entirely dependent on how large or small the modifiers are. If current Ap 5/4 weapons are only -1 then Imperial guard/Dark Eldar/Orks etc. are going to get a (tiny) survivability boost. It also means that weapons that are Ap2/3 won't spammed so much as they are now because the other weapons won't patter harmlessly off without an insane number of them anymore. It may also make those MEQ and TEQ weapons LESS effective at killing them as they might not completely negate the save anymore.
After some thought i'm okay with the rending idea, provided they scale it with armor values extending beyond the d6 range.
For instance,
Armor 0 = no save Armor 1-2 = 6+ save Armor 3-4 = 5+ save Armor 5-6 = 4+ save armor 7-8 = 3+ save armor 9-10+ = 2+ save
With a rending chart similar to what Galef posted.
So there'd be a big difference between armor rating 9 and 10, while it confers a 2+ save in both cases, a boltgun would reduce armor 9 to a 3+ save, while armor 10 would remain 2+.
Just a thought.
But i think most of 40k's problems could be solved by GW publishing balanced gaming formats, with some restrictions and point levels, and then balancing around that.
For instance, if they declared that a standard, competitive tournament game was 1500 points intended to be 1v1, it would make it easier to define a balance structure for that specific scenario.
The current state isn't ideal but the rules aren't that hard to find really they are all in the rulebook, and most of the more regular players know the most important ones by heart.
The problem is that bloat also slows down the game in general.
Again with the undefined and horrible word that most of the internet users seem to love like the newest meme....
Bloat doesnt slow down games, poorly designed rules do such as the way we currently allocate and save wounds, or making each inquisitor have to generate a warlord trait in an army that needs 1 of those characters per 3 MsU units.
These sort of rules aren't a huge parts of text nor especially complex they are just devouring time like no other.
While having surplus rules like dune strider, or eldar rending instead of regular rending, and having multiple rule sets for the same sort of equipment in different codexes make the rule set messy but do not affect the game speed in any way.
What "bloat" reaally does is clogg up discussions about rules by preventing players to communicate properly about the rules.
You seem to be the only one with issues with that word, so it may not be an error with most peoples communications.
It doesn't hurt when you explicity mention surplus rules.. So many rules that could be cut just by changing the movement stat to allow for things to move without a million different variations to 'speed up' a unit.
Marmatag wrote: After some thought i'm okay with the rending idea, provided they scale it with armor values extending beyond the d6 range.
For instance,
Armor 0 = no save
Armor 1-2 = 6+ save
Armor 3-4 = 5+ save
Armor 5-6 = 4+ save
armor 7-8 = 3+ save
armor 9-10+ = 2+ save
With a rending chart similar to what Galef posted.
So there'd be a big difference between armor rating 9 and 10, while it confers a 2+ save in both cases, a boltgun would reduce armor 9 to a 3+ save, while armor 10 would remain 2+.
Just a thought.
It could work in concept, but I seriously doubt they'll go beyond a D6 system. Not an impossibility, just unlikely, in my opinion.
I'm not convinced. 40k needs heavy trimming & codex balancing, not a rules overhaul. The AoS system heavily favors shooting, even moreso than 40k, with the main balancing factor being that shooting attacks are usually much less powerful compared to close combat. I don't see how this could transfer to 40k easily.
Also, under the AoS system anything can harm anything. This makes more sense in a medieval type setting but not in a futuristic setting with vehicles & anti-tank weaponry. It'll be very jarring for massive tanks to be able to take damage from guardsmen laser pointer fire... Lets hope they keep the toughness/vehicle armor system.
Kap'n Krump wrote: In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?
In RT weapons had a separate armour save modifier, this was unrelated to the weapon's strength, for most basic or pistol weapons it was a -1 iirc so power armour which was a 4+ back then would drop to a 5+ and flak armour was pretty much effectively useless much of the time. Some weapons had a 0 modifier and one or two had a +1. Special and heavy weapons usually had a bigger modifier. Terminators back then had a rule that their armour couldn't be reduced below a 6+ save, but I think they were pretty unique in that regard.
Don't get me wrong. The rules need some adjusting. But a wholesale discard of the system that has worked for decades, in favor of something that has only been around a few years and fractured that player base is a bad idea. It would be like Chevrolet saying "hey we sold more corvettes last year,cause people must love them, so let's make all our cars corvettes and scrap everything else, and next year we will only release corvettes - at a 15% price hike!"
It's business management suicide.
Instead - they need to keep the core rules, tweak the interactions with each other, but more important: balance all the armies at the same time with the main rules. Do 8th, and ALL the armies new books at once. Models release not needed. Then they can sprinkle new kits and whatnot through the year, and not have to worry about new rules or how the new tau book works against the old eldar book... that was all done at rule release.
But nope. GW has sacrificed logic for madness and given into the dollar gods.
Marmatag wrote: After some thought i'm okay with the rending idea, provided they scale it with armor values extending beyond the d6 range.
For instance,
Armor 0 = no save
Armor 1-2 = 6+ save
Armor 3-4 = 5+ save
Armor 5-6 = 4+ save
armor 7-8 = 3+ save
armor 9-10+ = 2+ save
With a rending chart similar to what Galef posted.
So there'd be a big difference between armor rating 9 and 10, while it confers a 2+ save in both cases, a boltgun would reduce armor 9 to a 3+ save, while armor 10 would remain 2+.
Just a thought.
IF they stay close to AoS, they won't.
It is fairly rare to see -2 Rending, let alone -3 or higher. I legitimately cannot think of anything with higher than -3 Rend but I'm sure someone will find something.
What you would likely see in the case of a Boltgun is a statline like this:
4+ to Hit
4+ to Wound
2 Attacks
Rend -1
Mass Reactive Rounds, Superhuman Marksmanship, whatever: Reroll failed To Hit rolls of 1.
What are you not convinced of? This isn't a rumor, it's straight from GW. No specifics or guarantees, granted, but this isn't some wild rumor, it's likely happening, in one way or another.
Kap'n Krump wrote: In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past
this is how it used to work in Wfb ( and those rule where ported to 40k)
S 3 or 4 ( I can't remember) did have no armour reducing ability. Each str above that added 1 to the armour reducing of the weapon. Weapons such as pistols etc could also have the armour piercing (x) rule that was just added to the armour reducing ability. Other units or weapons could just have the "ignore armour rule"
Armour could be stacked and wasn't a stat. So shield + heavy armour + barding + horse etc gave you a total save of a 2+ The best armour you could have was 1+ a 1 on a d6 always failed but it would protect you by sort of negating the first -1
So lets assume you got a total of 2 in armour reduction and you went up to someone with a 4+ sv. This meant that a 4+ sv would become a 6+ sv.
This resulted in the mass spammage of S5+ weapons, this was balanced out by the fact that most standard troops had S3 and that it was nearly impossible to buff them above S5. Those units who could had a serious impact on the game. One of the issues with the current state of 40k is the issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons this is why I do not think that this is a good direction for it will only reinforce the spammage of "kill all guns" since they will now also be perfect for mowing down TEQ and MEQ. Who needs single shot weapons when you could just equip each guy with the ideal spray gun and kill it all.
What are you not convinced of? This isn't a rumor, it's straight from GW. No specifics or guarantees, granted, but this isn't some wild rumor, it's likely happening, in one way or another.
If they do go all-in on the AoS rules then it will make Vehicles and Monsters really way more interesting. That poor Wraithknight is looking a lot less threating when its at half health with reduced attacks and hit/wound chance.
The real question is, will the armies be split up like in Sigmar? I hope not, my poor Dark Elves can't wait for an update.
My guess at a Space Marine:
Move 6, Wound1, Brave 8, Save 3+
Boltgun: Range 24 Attack 1 Hiit 3+ Wound 4+ Rend -
Extra Attack a half distance
Bolt Pistol same as boltgun minus the Rapidfire rule and 12" range
Plasma Gun: Rage 24 Attack 1 HIt 3+ Wound 3+ Rend -1
Extra Attack at half distance. One per 5 five models in the unit
Melta: Range 18" Attack 1 Hit 3+ Wound 2+ rend -3
D6 wounds verses Vehicles
Maybe instead of shield/barding/horses, they'll combine things like armor/invluns/cover?
Like, a unit in cover gets +1 save, invluns give another +1 save, or something to that tune?
At any rate........IDK, it sounds like that could be unpleasant for armored units. But it's impossible to say without specifics.
But rolling cover/invluns/armor into a + modifier system and a -modifier system based on strength or other universial stats would definitely be simpler, which is clearly the direction they are headed.
What are you not convinced of? This isn't a rumor, it's straight from GW. No specifics or guarantees, granted, but this isn't some wild rumor, it's likely happening, in one way or another.
Maybe instead of shield/barding/horses, they'll combine things like invluns/cover?
Like, a unit in cover gets +1 save, invluns give another +1 save, or something to that tune?
At any rate........IDK, it sounds like that could be unpleasant for armored units. But it's impossible to say without specifics.
But rolling cover/invluns/armor into a + modifier system and a -modifier system would definitely be simpler, which is clearly the direction they are headed.
The old system used ward saves that would be used as an unconditional FNP instead of invul saves and cover saves gave a negative to hit modifier.
Khaine wrote: I'm not convinced. 40k needs heavy trimming & codex balancing, not a rules overhaul. The AoS system heavily favors shooting, even moreso than 40k, with the main balancing factor being that shooting attacks are usually much less powerful compared to close combat. I don't see how this could transfer to 40k easily.
Well, the other main balancing factor is that Cover saves modify your Armor and many units have things that grant them additional protection versus shooting or close combat. Some types of shields, for example, let you reroll failed Saves against Shooting Attacks but not CC ones.
Also, under the AoS system anything can harm anything. This makes more sense in a medieval type setting but not in a futuristic setting with vehicles & anti-tank weaponry. It'll be very jarring for massive tanks to be able to take damage from guardsmen laser pointer fire... Lets hope they keep the toughness/vehicle armor system.
This gets bandied about alot. But it's not necessarily true. And there are rules in place that allow for modifiers to mitigate this kind of thing.
For example, there are some units that have special rules allowing them to ignore Rend modifiers of less than 3--effectively meaning they will be saving quite a few of those wounds since it removes the hurtful Rend modifier. There's also modifiers that make it so that units have to add to their Hit or Wound values, or reduce the Damage value of a weapon, or any number of things like that.
And realistically? A 30 Hull Point "massive tank" being able to take damage from a Guardsman's piddly lasgun but able to regenerate those Hull Points from Enginseers is still going to take a hell of a lot of Guardsmen to kill it.
Kap'n Krump wrote: In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?
I mean, I can see that being good or bad, depending.
But if they dole out an AP value to EVERYTHING, like Galef suggested (which is honestly fairly logical), than armor is going to be kind of a joke.
For example, bolters reducing 2+ saves to a 3+ saves, just because?
I would definitely be ok with high strength weapons having AP modifiers - for example, it's not quite logical that terminators get the same save from battle cannons and lasguns.
But flooding the game with AP modifiers sounds like a nightmare for armored units.
Then again, I play orks, and I've always said armor is for losers. Maybe it will be.
Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.
The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.
As a lighthearted aside, did anyone else notice the box labeled 'plastic thunderhawk' in the video associated with the adpeticon rules leaks? I thought it was pretty cute.
Like, a unit in cover gets +1 save, invluns give another +1 save, or something to that tune?
At any rate........IDK, it sounds like that could be unpleasant for armored units. But it's impossible to say without specifics.
It could mean the end of MANZ, since most of the current anti horde weapons would also reduce their saves to a 5+ or 4+ . but you are right without any further specifications we do not know what is going to happen.
Here's my thoughts on the different gaming systems I have played over the years:
AoS has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.
Warhammer 40K has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.
Warhammer Fantasy has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.
Battlefleet Gothic has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.
Warmahordes has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.
Dungeons & Dragons has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.
Personally, I am willing to give the new edition a shot. I don't play near as much 40K anymore, sticking instead to AoS, but that has to do with the local player base and that most of my (exclusively) 40K friends live almost 2 hours away. So I play with certain players and friends who are in it for the love of the game and narrative, not those cheesy WAAC players interested in throwing down at the tournaments. They have their way of playing, and I have mine.
As far as the OP...
Backspacehacker wrote: Apparently there is a post to spikey bits that 40k is getting the following
Generals handbook
Having more ways to play your game is not a problem. The options for Open, Narrative, and Matched play works very well in AoS, and I don't see how it would cause problems in 40K. And according to GW, the General's Handbook is one of the best selling supplements they have ever produced, so people are willing to pay for other ways to play their games. Anybody remember the old Battle Missions book from 4th and 5th edition?
Movement stat back
I like this better than the current system of "Unit type moves X inches". Gives more variety and flavor across armies and can simplify a section of the rulebook.
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Don't knock it until you try it. This might work out to be a lot cooler than what is currently in place. With the current info released, there is not enough to get upset over yet.
Armor save modifiers
I seem to recall hearing that this was a thing back in previous editions of 40K. Why would it be a problem to bring it back? Just because it is used in AoS doesn't mean it is a bad thing. I am personally in favor of it, as it can give resilient things a slight chance at survival.
Mortal wounds
First off, the GW announcement did not mention anything about "Mortal Wound" in their announcement. And frankly, Mortal Wounds always seemed to me like a "No saves allowed" wound or an Instant Death attack from 40K or a Killing Blow/Heroic Killing Blow from Fantasy. Having other ways to cause damage to your opponents army can be a fun and neat way to differentiate armies.
Discuss?
Really, it doesn't make a difference to me, whatever the changes are. The rules are just there as an abstraction of what might happen in real life, and just there to facilitate a positive gaming experience between players. At this point, I think that 5th edition 40K, the version I started on, was the best one I played. Not because I can empirically or rationally prove it, but because of my early gaming moments and experiences. I have had several fun experiences in 6th and 7th edition as well, but I still played it and learned the rules. The games are about having fun, not about following rules, as you don't HAVE to have the rules to move around little plastic soldiers, tanks, and creatures in simulated galactic conflict.
I mean, will the coming changes in rules change other players's mentality for how they seek to play their games? Will the WAACTFG players in my local tournament scene all suddenly start playing for fluff, narrative, and fun? Will I and my friends start playing in tournaments again?
Hey, the Chicago Cubs won the World Series, so anything is possible
Kap'n Krump wrote: In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?
I mean, I can see that being good or bad, depending.
But if they dole out an AP value to EVERYTHING, like Galef suggested (which is honestly fairly logical), than armor is going to be kind of a joke.
For example, bolters reducing 2+ saves to a 3+ saves, just because?
I would definitely be ok with high strength weapons having AP modifiers - for example, it's not quite logical that terminators get the same save from battle cannons and lasguns.
But flooding the game with AP modifiers sounds like a nightmare for armored units.
Then again, I play orks, and I've always said armor is for losers. Maybe it will be.
Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.
The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.
And from what little I know of AoS, it seems most units have a pretty low save - 'ardboys, for example, have a 4+ save, and I think 3+ saves are pretty rare.
I mean, common rending weapons combined with generally low-ish saves (4+), combined with wounding everything on a set value, seems like stuff gets killed in droves. But I suppose lots of stuff have multiple wounds, so maybe it's not so bad.
IDK, I'm keeping an open mind, but that sounds unpleasant for MEQ/TEQs.
Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.
The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.
It's also worth mentioning that in some instances, you don't have an "automatic" Rend but rather a situational Rend based on a roll of a 6 or something like that.
Good example of this is the Waywatcher and his Precise Shot ability.
Waywatchers have a Waystalker Bow with 3 Attacks and a Rend of -1. When firing Precise Shots, the Waystalker Bow inflicts 2 Damage rather than 1 and on any roll of a 6--the Wound is resolved with -2 Rend rather than -1.
Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.
Can you provide any examples on how or why? or has it been a while?
Well, power armor was 3+ as it is now. But heavy bolters were -2 armor save, as was the standard issue shuriken catapult, as was the dreaded sonic blaster. The shuriken cannon was a nightmare at -3, and the Eldar could spam them to the point where they could kill 10 teminators through a 3+ on 2D6 save. Regular marines just melted away, need a "6" to save vs the shuriken cannon.
And from what little I know of AoS, it seems most units have a pretty low save - 'ardboys, for example, have a 4+ save, and I think 3+ saves are pretty rare.
I mean, common rending weapons combined with generally low-ish saves (4+), combined with wounding everything on a set value, seems like stuff gets killed in droves. But I suppose lots of stuff have multiple wounds, so maybe it's not so bad.
'Ardboys are a 4+ Save with 2 Wounds and when armed with Orruk-Forged Shields? You roll a D6 before allocating a Wound. On a roll of a 6, the Wound is ignored.
IDK, I'm keeping an open mind, but that sounds unpleasant for MEQ/TEQs.
Only if you insist on not seeing all the rules tied to something, I guess.
What remains to be seen is if cover is going to work like sigmar, where it is a modifier to your base save. This could be interesting as it could make space marines that stand out in the open more vulnerable, while also actually giving them a benefit for taking cover. That change alone could make the game more tactical for some factions. For lower save armies however, the effect may end up being the opposite as a +1 to your save from a 6+ is almost not even worth the trouble.
It could be cool, we will just have to see. I just hope my lasguns get a boost (probably not though).
Kap'n Krump wrote: In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?
I mean, I can see that being good or bad, depending.
But if they dole out an AP value to EVERYTHING, like Galef suggested (which is honestly fairly logical), than armor is going to be kind of a joke.
For example, bolters reducing 2+ saves to a 3+ saves, just because?
I would definitely be ok with high strength weapons having AP modifiers - for example, it's not quite logical that terminators get the same save from battle cannons and lasguns.
But flooding the game with AP modifiers sounds like a nightmare for armored units.
Then again, I play orks, and I've always said armor is for losers. Maybe it will be.
Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.
The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.
And from what little I know of AoS, it seems most units have a pretty low save - 'ardboys, for example, have a 4+ save, and I think 3+ saves are pretty rare.
I mean, common rending weapons combined with generally low-ish saves (4+), combined with wounding everything on a set value, seems like stuff gets killed in droves. But I suppose lots of stuff have multiple wounds, so maybe it's not so bad.
IDK, I'm keeping an open mind, but that sounds unpleasant for MEQ/TEQs.
Depends. Things like Magic Shield can give a unit an automatic +1, and it seems like FNP is much more common on units, especially Orks
Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.
The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.
It's also worth mentioning that in some instances, you don't have an "automatic" Rend but rather a situational Rend based on a roll of a 6 or something like that.
Good example of this is the Waywatcher and his Precise Shot ability. Waywatchers have a Waystalker Bow with 3 Attacks and a Rend of -1. When firing Precise Shots, the Waystalker Bow inflicts 2 Damage rather than 1 and on any roll of a 6--the Wound is resolved with -2 Rend rather than -1.
That kind of ability isn't unheard of.
Yep. Plus things like Khorne Warriors reflecting Mortal Wounds back on the opponent, roll's of 6s do 2 Wounds, etc.
Sledgehammer wrote: What remains to be seen is if cover is going to work like sigmar, where it is a modifier to your base save. This could be interesting as it could make space marines that stand out in the open more vulnerable, while also actually giving them a benefit for taking cover. That change alone could make the game more tactical for some factions. For lower save armies however, the effect may end up being the opposite as a +1 to your save from a 6+ is almost not even worth the trouble.
Speaking as someone who plays Wood Elves...trust me, it's a huge benefit.
Especially when taking into account the fact that those units are designed from the ground up to get better than average while in Cover. Banners in my Wanderer units grant +2 Bravery to my Wanderers while in Cover. Eternal Guard can reroll failed Save rolls of 1 or 2 when in Cover; which is great for a unit with a 5+ save.
My Waywatcher grants a rule as part of his Command Ability, "See, But Do Not Be Seen".
That makes it so anything within 18" of him gains his special rule, "Invisible Hunter", meaning -1 to be hit by Shooting Attacks.
I could see similar treatment for Guard, something like a rule of "Keep your head down!" where they are -1 to be hit by Shooting Attacks and get +2 to their Save when
It could be cool, we will just have to see. I just hope my lasgun gets a boost (probably not though).
You'd be surprised how often the little things from AoS added up for armies that were less than great before.
Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.
Can you provide any examples on how or why? or has it been a while?
Well, already posted it once but here it is again. In 2nd ed, bolters had a -1 save modifier, heavy bolters were a -3 (and hvy bolters also did d4 wounds...). So if you shoot up a Marine squad with a heavy bolter, their save becomes a 6+. And there was no such thing as cover saves back then, cover was a -1 or -2 to hit. I mentioned earlier about running a dreadnought that could easily wipe out a 10-man Marine squad per turn with twin -linked (double shots, not re-roll to hit) heavy bolters and an assault cannon. So that Sanguinary blob would be reduced to a 5+ save vs heavy bolters, and even a 3+ save vs standard bolters. All of a sudden armies like Guard wouldn't need to spam plasma and lascannons to defeat 2+ armor, they could load up on heavy bolters instead.
Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.
Can you provide any examples on how or why? or has it been a while?
Well, already posted it once but here it is again. In 2nd ed, bolters had a -1 save modifier, heavy bolters were a -3 (and hvy bolters also did d4 wounds...). So if you shoot up a Marine squad with a heavy bolter, their save becomes a 6+. And there was no such thing as cover saves back then, cover was a -1 or -2 to hit. I mentioned earlier about running a dreadnought that could easily wipe out a 10-man Marine squad per turn with twin -linked (double shots, not re-roll to hit) heavy bolters and an assault cannon. So that Sanguinary blob would be reduced to a 5+ save vs heavy bolters, and even a 3+ save vs standard bolters. All of a sudden armies like Guard wouldn't need to spam plasma and lascannons to defeat 2+ armor, they could load up on heavy bolters instead.
Well, does that not make the game more tactical? Should a space marine be able to stand out in the open and defiantly shrug off any shots? Should a player not be punished for standing in the open, and rewarded for using the terrain to his advantage?
How is an opponent supposed to use the terrain to their advantage, if you are not punished for using it unwisely?
I understand the concern, but I think that there is a balance here between the two ideas, even if they are contrary to each other.
This resulted in the mass spammage of S5+ weapons, this was balanced out by the fact that most standard troops had S3 and that it was nearly impossible to buff them above S5. Those units who could had a serious impact on the game. One of the issues with the current state of 40k is the issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons this is why I do not think that this is a good direction for it will only reinforce the spammage of "kill all guns" since they will now also be perfect for mowing down TEQ and MEQ. Who needs single shot weapons when you could just equip each guy with the ideal spray gun and kill it all.
The issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons... like which weapons exactly ?
To this day, the most broken thing in 40K is yet another superfriends deathstar, and the only competitive S6-based build has AP nothing (or 6. lol) - do we even play the same game?
The ideal weapon today is a grav weapon, and such a system would make it less so. good stuff!
Mass fire does a fantastic job of cutting through marines. I don't know who you're playing where Marines are walking up field shrugging off fire. That literally doesn't happen, ever.
TAC squads are effectively worthless in the game today. If formations didn't require them, people wouldn't use them.
Kap'n Krump wrote: As a lighthearted aside, did anyone else notice the box labeled 'plastic thunderhawk' in the video associated with the adpeticon rules leaks? I thought it was pretty cute.
Which brings me back to the drop pod.... god I love it. If only they could be played that way, and anything you destroy is indeed dead for all games purposes.
Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.
Can you provide any examples on how or why? or has it been a while?
Well, already posted it once but here it is again. In 2nd ed, bolters had a -1 save modifier, heavy bolters were a -3 (and hvy bolters also did d4 wounds...). So if you shoot up a Marine squad with a heavy bolter, their save becomes a 6+. And there was no such thing as cover saves back then, cover was a -1 or -2 to hit. I mentioned earlier about running a dreadnought that could easily wipe out a 10-man Marine squad per turn with twin -linked (double shots, not re-roll to hit) heavy bolters and an assault cannon. So that Sanguinary blob would be reduced to a 5+ save vs heavy bolters, and even a 3+ save vs standard bolters. All of a sudden armies like Guard wouldn't need to spam plasma and lascannons to defeat 2+ armor, they could load up on heavy bolters instead.
Well, does that not make the game more tactical? Should a space marine be able to stand out in the open and defiantly shrug off any shots? Should a player not be punished for standing in the open, and rewarded for using the terrain to his advantage?
How is an opponent supposed to use the terrain to their advantage, if you are not punished for using it unwisely?
I understand the concern, but I think that there is a balance here between the two ideas, even if they are contrary to each other.
Oh I'm not against the idea, was just answering the 'examples' question. But then, my primary army is IG...
TAC squads have largely been "worthless" for pretty much every version of the game and you only ever took them to meet min CAD requirements (and even then at their min size).
In a game where you can cherry pick elites, its hard to justify taking normal guys.
This resulted in the mass spammage of S5+ weapons, this was balanced out by the fact that most standard troops had S3 and that it was nearly impossible to buff them above S5. Those units who could had a serious impact on the game. One of the issues with the current state of 40k is the issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons this is why I do not think that this is a good direction for it will only reinforce the spammage of "kill all guns" since they will now also be perfect for mowing down TEQ and MEQ. Who needs single shot weapons when you could just equip each guy with the ideal spray gun and kill it all.
The issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons... like which weapons exactly ?
To this day, the most broken thing in 40K is yet another superfriends deathstar, and the only competitive S6-based build has AP nothing (or 6. lol) - do we even play the same game?
The ideal weapon today is a grav weapon, and such a system would make it less so. good stuff!
Nope we are clearly not playing the same game. You appear to play in a superfriends deathstar grav spam meta while I never encounter any of those type of deathstars and only once faced a grav spam list. While things like assault cannons, (psi) heavy bolters, Deffguns shuriken cannons, heavy flamers, manticores and gaus blasters are quite common in games I play. I would not like it if these guns and their equivalents joined grav in their indiscriminate killyness.
The armour save mechanic is broke in 40k. If you honestly think rerollable 2+ saves is meant to make players ignore or tarpit units that have it.
Personally I'd be fine with ap1 being a -2 modifier for armour and invul saves and ap2 being a -1 modifier however that just makes the game more about spamming ap2 weapons.
And I'm not sure just dealing with 2+ armor reroll nonsense will solve all the issues since we still have 2++ invul reroll nonsense.
They also need to fix the invis power becuase that's also completely broken. 40k has issues and what very little was said seems to show gw isn't just ignoring it for another edition. I don't know anyone who wanted 6th ed with minor tweaks for a third time in a row.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: The games are about having fun, not about following rules, as you don't HAVE to have the rules to move around little plastic soldiers, tanks, and creatures in simulated galactic conflict.
I can't agree more! I do enjoy debating the intricacies of the game, but the hate that GW gets over their rules is astonishing. If people hate the rules, but still play the game, it must be because they love the fluff and/or the models (because if it was about the rules, they'd have been lured to another system long ago). If they remembered that that's the reason they play, they might calm down about the rules a bit. I say that in the hope that people will be a bit calmer and happier about their hobby, not to have a go at them.
My personal wish is for a simplified system with fewer special rules and 'special cases'. I'd prefer a system where most of the units are fairly similar in how they function, meaning that (a) picking an army is about what looks/feels cool and not about what is powerful, and (b) winning is about strategy rather than army/unit choice. Obviously we don't want it so simplified that there's no difference between a daemon prince and an eldar exarch, but I'd like there to be just one or two unique rules and stats differences that distinguish one model from another. One thing that would be quite nice is to do away with universal special rules and instead have army-wide special rules, so that when you pick up a chaos codex, it tells you that all the infantry move a certain distance, don't ever run away, hate space marines and so on. That way, instead of learning the RULEBOOK, including all the rules that have nothing to do with my army, I just learn some basic rules and then learn my codex (which hopefully isn't too complex).
This is somewhere between the AoS 'every model has its own rules' and the 40k 'all models follow the rules in this big book' styles.
gungo wrote: The armour save mechanic is broke in 40k. If you honestly think rerollable 2+ saves is meant to make players ignore or tarpit units that have it.
Personally I'd be fine with ap1 being a -2 modifier for armour and invul saves and ap2 being a -1 modifier however that just makes the game more about spamming ap2 weapons.
What? They should be -5/-4 at the very very least, while AP3 should be -3 and so on
gungo wrote: The armour save mechanic is broke in 40k. If you honestly think rerollable 2+ saves is meant to make players ignore or tarpit units that have it.
Personally I'd be fine with ap1 being a -2 modifier for armour and invul saves and ap2 being a -1 modifier however that just makes the game more about spamming ap2 weapons.
What? They should be -5/-4 at the very very least, while AP3 should be -3 and so on
Why in the world would you want -5/-4 when there's very little that will be at saves of 2+ or 3+?
Because those weapons make a mockery of most defenses? They can blow up a Land Raider or Leman Russ with a single shot with a bit of luck, armor carried by infantry should offer little to no protection agaisnt those.
Bobthehero wrote: Because those weapons make a mockery of most defenses? They can blow up a Land Raider or Leman Russ with a single shot with a bit of luck, armor carried by infantry should offer little to no protection agaisnt those.
Which is why most of those weapons likely will get the ability to cause Wounds that can't have saves taken on certain rolls, or will cause multiple wounds?
I get that this is new and frightening, but we're still a LONG way off. GW said they hope to have this by next year's Adepticon.
Bobthehero wrote: Because those weapons make a mockery of most defenses? They can blow up a Land Raider or Leman Russ with a single shot with a bit of luck, armor carried by infantry should offer little to no protection agaisnt those.
Which is why most of those weapons likely will get the ability to cause Wounds that can't have saves taken on certain rolls, or will cause multiple wounds?
I get that this is new and frightening, but we're still a LONG way off. GW said they hope to have this by next year's Adepticon.
I'd love to see a return to weapons with a wound characteristic. Here's some old 2nd edition profiles:
Bolter: 24" | S4 | Save Mod -1 | Wounds: 1
Meltagun: 12" | S8 | Save Mod -4 | Wounds: D6
Assault cannon: 36" | S8 | Save Mod -3 | Wounds: D10
I like the concept but at the same time this would really make characters useless. I actually like character based gameplay and would like to see more of it rather than less. It helps create a narrative.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: The games are about having fun, not about following rules, as you don't HAVE to have the rules to move around little plastic soldiers, tanks, and creatures in simulated galactic conflict.
I can't agree more! I do enjoy debating the intricacies of the game, but the hate that GW gets over their rules is astonishing. If people hate the rules, but still play the game, it must be because they love the fluff and/or the models (because if it was about the rules, they'd have been lured to another system long ago). If they remembered that that's the reason they play, they might calm down about the rules a bit. I say that in the hope that people will be a bit calmer and happier about their hobby, not to have a go at them.
Hey, someone read my post!
But yeah, the rules aren't what is keeping players around and playing. It is the fluff of the setting that brings people in (at least in my experience). This is an awesome setting that came about from fans of the goofy and over the top awesomeness of 1980s science fiction combined with fantasy that has grown into this amazing amalgamation of absolute delight.
corpuschain wrote: My personal wish is for a simplified system with fewer special rules and 'special cases'. I'd prefer a system where most of the units are fairly similar in how they function, meaning that (a) picking an army is about what looks/feels cool and not about what is powerful, and (b) winning is about strategy rather than army/unit choice. Obviously we don't want it so simplified that there's no difference between a daemon prince and an eldar exarch, but I'd like there to be just one or two unique rules and stats differences that distinguish one model from another. One thing that would be quite nice is to do away with universal special rules and instead have army-wide special rules, so that when you pick up a chaos codex, it tells you that all the infantry move a certain distance, don't ever run away, hate space marines and so on. That way, instead of learning the RULEBOOK, including all the rules that have nothing to do with my army, I just learn some basic rules and then learn my codex (which hopefully isn't too complex).
This is somewhere between the AoS 'every model has its own rules' and the 40k 'all models follow the rules in this big book' styles.
Funnily enough, this sounds rather similar to Warhammer Fantasy. Hear me out folks!
In Warhammer Fantasy, you had the main rulebook and the army book. Each model and unit followed similar roles in how the functioned on the table, and each army had its own rules that covered most or all of the models for gaming. Sure, you still had all of those USRs to know, but they were in one place, and interactions between these rules were not nearly as clunky as how it works in 40K. In AoS, each model or unit has its own special rules, with larger benefits being added in for allegiances and formations. In 40K, there are the base rules, unit special rules, army specific rules, and formation/detachment provided special rules, all coming from the rulebook, Codices (codexes?), Supplements, and Campaign books, plus FAQs and Erratas to keep up with (which every game should have), and if you play in tournaments you have restrictions or additional rules on top of those! I'm all for having lots of options to play games, but I don't want to bring a library's worth of publications with me to use what I want to play.
I find all this rampant speculation about Rending values to be silly. Without a proper frame of reference as to how the mechanic will work in the context of the new edition, this is unnecessary. The save system might be changed, or additional dice types might be added into the game. Speculate, sure, but keep it calm and rational.
No new dice values were added to AoS. I find it far less likely that they'll start doing things like using D8s or D10s, and more likely that they'll keep things fairly close to AoS.
Well, I guess people can argue that the D20 is now part of AoS as a Wound Tracker.
Bobthehero wrote: Because those weapons make a mockery of most defenses? They can blow up a Land Raider or Leman Russ with a single shot with a bit of luck, armor carried by infantry should offer little to no protection agaisnt those.
Which is why most of those weapons likely will get the ability to cause Wounds that can't have saves taken on certain rolls, or will cause multiple wounds?
I get that this is new and frightening, but we're still a LONG way off. GW said they hope to have this by next year's Adepticon.
I'd love to see a return to weapons with a wound characteristic. Here's some old 2nd edition profiles:
Bolter: 24" | S4 | Save Mod -1 | Wounds: 1
Meltagun: 12" | S8 | Save Mod -4 | Wounds: D6
Assault cannon: 36" | S8 | Save Mod -3 | Wounds: D10
Lascannon: 60" | S9 | Save Mod -6 | Wounds: 2D6
Aha! They DID have "rending" profiles back in the day! Why are people complaining that this is like AoS? Seems to me that AoS is more like old 40K
I also like the idea of a "damage" stat for weapons, but more like Warhammer Fantasy than AoS. In AoS, the damage overkills and spills into the next model, resulting in powerful sweeping attacks. I would prefer to see the Warhammer Fantasy method, which is that the single model takes that much damage on a failed save. That way, you have really powerful single-shot weapons or punches that can wreck a single target but not swarms, and then have high rate-of-fire weapons that can devastate swarms without a regular chance of destroying strong units.
Kanluwen wrote: No new dice values were added to AoS. I find it far less likely that they'll start doing things like using D8s or D10s, and more likely that they'll keep things fairly close to AoS.
Well, I guess people can argue that the D20 is now part of AoS as a Wound Tracker.
True, but they did put d8s, d10s, and d12s into the Burning of Prospero box game. Granted, one game doesn't mean a change to 40K, but GW has been playing with the idea of using other dice types to facilitate game experiences.
Kanluwen wrote: No new dice values were added to AoS. I find it far less likely that they'll start doing things like using D8s or D10s, and more likely that they'll keep things fairly close to AoS.
Well, I guess people can argue that the D20 is now part of AoS as a Wound Tracker.
True, but they did put d8s, d10s, and d12s into the Burning of Prospero box game. Granted, one game doesn't mean a change to 40K, but GW has been playing with the idea of using other dice types to facilitate game experiences.
This guy did a pretty awesome job of porting 40k armies over to AOS rules. Obviously it's not perfect, but you can see some good examples of what unit/weapon profiles could look like.
I highly doubt the rules will be the exact same as AOS, but this is a good way to frame all this speculating on Rend and armor values.
Can't recall where I found this, but if somebody knows the thread I'm sure the creator would appreciate credit.
Either GW makes the best 40k ever by addressing the worst stuff in the rules and a complete overhaul of the bloated 5.3 edition (and finally stick to a rule design for all the faction books)
or they kill of their game by just making tweaks but copy&paste everything else and turn it in a much more bloated mess.
or they kill it because they decide after the first codex books that they want to add new ideas and the next faction will be ignoring again 50% of the core rules
So 1/3 chance that the game will be better.
What does this mean for me?
Nothing special, there is a chance that I get back to 40k or I just stay with Warpath (which has everything that was announced for 8th but here I already know that the rules are well written and no future faction will be out of balance)
SolarCross wrote: AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?
SolarCross wrote: AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?
Bloated rules and complaining on the internet
Different folk different bloat.
Yup, and the difference lays in thickness of the bloat. I take almost half the time to play a game of AoS that a game of 40k take. And it's more satisfying. Look, my ardboyz today ran 33 inches in turn 1 (and got thouroughly spanked). Match was a constant back and forth and was won by a heroic warboss slaughtering the enemy frontlines in. a roaring rampage.
I don't feel it's quite fair to pass judgement on AoS-style rules until we actually see them. My hopes are that such a rule set will help balance out all of the different armies.
My expectation is that Age of Primarchs will be a cacophonous ode to the power creep. Fortunately this is not yet a certain thing.
Yup, and the difference lays in thickness of the bloat. I take almost half the time to play a game of AoS that a game of 40k take. And it's more satisfying. Look, my ardboyz today ran 33 inches in turn 1 (and got thouroughly spanked). You can just imagine the hilariousness of the scene at rolling two elevens in a row.
Wow such tactical depth! It's almost on the same level as snakes 'n' ladders! Truly Chess must now forfeit its crown as the game of kings to this wonderous new game for toddlers.
SolarCross wrote: AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?
Bloated rules and complaining on the internet
Different folk different bloat.
Yup, and the difference lays in thickness of the bloat. I take almost half the time to play a game of AoS that a game of 40k take. And it's more satisfying. Look, my ardboyz today ran 33 inches in turn 1 (and got thouroughly spanked). You can just imagine the hilariousness of the scene at rolling two elevens in a row.
Wow such tactical depth! It's almost on the same level as snakes 'n' ladders! Truely Chess must now forfeit its crown as the game of kings to this wonderous new game for toddlers.
I suppose that who brings the most grav or nastiest deathstar can't compare to me detailing the most funny case in the game.
Wrong. AoS' rules are great, and everything's clear and concise. It literally has free rules and its 4 pages of rules to learn the game
Clear and concise is nothing I would connect with AoS.
the 4 pages of rules are the worst stuff about the game and leave more questions than the answer
with the GHB and the FAQ, the game is decent.
the problem is, it is still a vast improvement to bloated and complicated 40k which use all those complicated stuff to turn into a very simple game on the board.
this does not say that AoS is a very good game, but how bad 40k really is.
Except they never really seem to play anything; they just gripe online.
I tend to play a lot and a lot of different stuff.
Maybe if I would not have started with SAGA before AoS come up I would play AoS more.
but with the fantasy battle boards for SAGA I see no reason to get deeper into another fantasy skirmish game
I tend to play a lot and a lot of different stuff.
Maybe if I would not have started with SAGA before AoS come up I would play AoS more.
but with the fantasy battle boards for SAGA I see no reason to get deeper into another fantasy skirmish game
I'm not very familiar with SAGA is it good then? It has been adapted for fantasy?
I'm cautiously optimistic. I think most of what they're proposing could be good, but it all depends on implementation. It could easily turn out really bad as well.
If they were to give weapons rend in a vacuum that would be awful for MEQs and TEQs. If they changed other things, like how armor and covers saves work, it could be a good thing for heavily armored infantry.
If they just gave Heavy Bolters a rend of -2 they would annihilate most heavily armored infantry. If they gave Lascannons a rend of -4 things would be pretty much the same.
If they shifted TEQ saves to 0+ and MEQ saves to 2+ that would mean 2+ and 4+ saves respectively against Heavy Bolters, and 4+ and 6+ respectively against Lascannons. So Heavy Bolters would be a little more effective and Lascannons would be a little less effective than they are now.
If they change the cover save system to give a bonus of one for poor cover and two for good cover that would benefit heavily armored infantry. Now TEQS in ruins are getting a 2+ against Lascannons and Heavy Bolters, while MEQs in ruins get a 4+ against Lascannons and a 2+ against Heavy Bolters. This is without going to ground.
This is assuming a WHFB type system where saves of better than 2+ still fail on a one. However, they could do it sort of like high Ballistic Skill rolls where a save of better than 2+ gives the model a re-roll at a reduced chance. So a TEQ in ruins goes to ground while being fired at by Heavy Bolters. That would be a base save of 0+, which turns to -3 with cover, but then you add a Rend of 2 for the Heavy Bolters and end up with a -1 save. That could mean the TEQ has a 2+ save, but if it fails it gets to re-roll and makes the save on a 4+ (if I did my math right).
So it all depends on implementation. Right now TEQs don't seem to stand up well against shooting anyway, so I doubt GW could make it much worse. I think they actually have the potential to make TEQs too durable against shooting, but I doubt they will.
I'm not very familiar with SAGA is it good then? It has been adapted for fantasy?
It is a semi historical game with fast gameplay and action over historical accuracy. And with a lot of plastic boxes available you can start very cheap.
I like but its main advantage is also its main disadvantage
the BattleBoards define how a faction is played but also limits the options of the faction (if your board does not give you something for cavalry it is not worth to use one).
I will admit that the AoS method of cover being just a blanked bonus to a model's save to be overly simplistic, and doesn't fit my brain as well as other parts of the game. I would rather cover be a modifier or penalty to accuracy, namely, it would affect the attacker. Being behind a wall makes me harder to hit. Cover saves as a save equivalent to armor or magic always seemed a bit odd to me. Warmahordes had it where it was a penalty to the attack rolls. Perhaps there is some sweet middle ground to be found?
Unless there also going to be a "rending" value for weapons/units against Cover? Like how a SM Auspex already works?
Bobthehero wrote: Your numbers are way too high vs shooting, would lascannon struggle to kill terminators when they can blow up tanks?
If this is directed at me, then I would say that my post wasn't supposed to be a suggestion so much as showing that adding rend plus a few other concepts from WHFB/AoS might actually benefit heavy infantry more than hurt it.
I'm not very familiar with SAGA is it good then? It has been adapted for fantasy?
It is a semi historical game with fast gameplay and action over historical accuracy. And with a lot of plastic boxes available you can start very cheap.
I like but its main advantage is also its main disadvantage
the BattleBoards define how a faction is played but also limits the options of the faction (if your board does not give you something for cavalry it is not worth to use one).
As far as a charging unit always striking first goes, I can see how it would often be more cinematic. It would also benefit low-Initiative units like ork boyz.
What if instead of making the charging unit make all of its attacks first they took away the normal +1 attack for charging and instead made Hammer of Wrath standard for everything. That way the charging unit would get one extra attack at their base strength and Initiative 10, and then combat would proceed normally. That would be cinematic, but not a huge departure from the current initiative system. They would need to readjust units that already have Hammer of Wrath and either give them a different bonus or reduce their points.
Striking at charge is actually one of the things I like, for forces some tactics back in this game. Its at the cost of buffing bikes /cav / fast moving stuff even further but I a sot of ok with this.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I'm cautiously optimistic. I think most of what they're proposing could be good, but it all depends on implementation. It could easily turn out really bad as well.
If they were to give weapons rend in a vacuum that would be awful for MEQs and TEQs. If they changed other things, like how armor and covers saves work, it could be a good thing for heavily armored infantry.
If they just gave Heavy Bolters a rend of -2 they would annihilate most heavily armored infantry. If they gave Lascannons a rend of -4 things would be pretty much the same.
Have you read literally anything that the people who have actually played AoS have said in this thread?
There is nothing with a Rend of -4 or higher. It's exceedingly rare to see a Rend of -3, and uncommon to see a Rend of -2.
This isn't like the AP system where it's on everything and anything. Rend tends to be on special weapons or "elite" armies with well crafted stuff, but lesser numbers. Rend values of "-" are incredibly common. You tend to see "causes a Mortal Wound on Wound rolls of 6" before high Rend values.
It is exceedingly unlikely that they will veer too far from this.
If they shifted TEQ saves to 0+ and MEQ saves to 2+ that would mean 2+ and 4+ saves respectively against Heavy Bolters, and 4+ and 6+ respectively against Lascannons. So Heavy Bolters would be a little more effective and Lascannons would be a little less effective than they are now.
If they change the cover save system to give a bonus of one for poor cover and two for good cover that would benefit heavily armored infantry. Now TEQS in ruins are getting a 2+ against Lascannons and Heavy Bolters, while MEQs in ruins get a 4+ against Lascannons and a 2+ against Heavy Bolters. This is without going to ground.
This assumes that Going to Ground remains a thing.
This is assuming a WHFB type system where saves of better than 2+ still fail on a one. However, they could do it sort of like high Ballistic Skill rolls where a save of better than 2+ gives the model a re-roll at a reduced chance. So a TEQ in ruins goes to ground while being fired at by Heavy Bolters. That would be a base save of 0+, which turns to -3 with cover, but then you add a Rend of 2 for the Heavy Bolters and end up with a -1 save. That could mean the TEQ has a 2+ save, but if it fails it gets to re-roll and makes the save on a 4+ (if I did my math right).
So it all depends on implementation. Right now TEQs don't seem to stand up well against shooting anyway, so I doubt GW could make it much worse. I think they actually have the potential to make TEQs too durable against shooting, but I doubt they will.
Most likely what you would see for Terminator "Tactical" Squads is this:
Move: 3"--Slower than average infantry.
Save: 2+
Wounds: 3
LD: As it is now.
Storm Bolter--Hits on 4s, Wounds on 4s, Rend of "-", with a range of like 15". Deals 4 attacks; on "To Hit" rolls of 6s it can make an additional attack.
Can swap 1 in 5 models to have an Assault Cannon, Heavy Flamer, Cyclone ML. Models get Power Fists for CC except the Sergeant who gets a Power Sword.
Some special rule about how before you finally allocate a Wound, you get to roll for Power Fields where they get to make a roll to "block" Mortal Wounds or to flatout ignore a Wound on a 5 or a 6.
Some special rule that they cannot Run, but can elect to move and fire during the Movement Phase in addition to firing during the Shooting Phase or stay still double the number of attacks they make with their ranged weapons in the Shooting Phase. Or something about getting "teleported" instead of moving normally, letting them show up in unexpected places.
So, let's say your Terminators get shot at by Guardsmen while out in the open.
Guardsmen have Lasguns--Hits on 4s, Wounds on 5s. Rend of "-". 2 attacks. If the Guardsmen stay still during Movement Phase, they get to add +1 to their Hit and Wound rolls or something like that.
7 Guardsmen(Remember, Sergeants only come with Laspistols and Weapon Teams fire their Heavy Weapons) fire Lasguns.
14 attacks. They stood still so they get to Hit on 3s instead of 4s, and they get to Wound on 4s instead of 5s.
Let's say 8 of them hit and wound.
You roll your saves:
You roll 4, 3, 3, 2, 5, 5, 1, 1.
You then get to roll twice to try to "block" the 1s.
You roll a 2 and a 6; one Wound gets through.
But that's not all. The Guardsmen then fire their Autocannon.
Hits on 3s, Wounds on 4s, Rend of -1, with 4 shots that cause 2 Damage each.
Two shots both Wound and Hit.
You roll twice, save one and fail one after going through everything.
Net result: You lose one Terminator to an entire squad dumping all of its fire into you.
Why is that important?
Because in AoS, every model in a unit can attack something else as long as it is in range.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
Yoyoyo wrote: I wonder if we'll see two different rulesets to address this.
There's a clear division between "fast simple rules" types and the "let me spend hours on math" types.
I feel like I am in between in the grand scheme of things. I don't mind simple rules and mechanics, but I also don't mind looking at (and eventually memorizing) charts to determine what happens to what. But at this point in my life, I would rather have more, better, quicker games than longer games that take hours to complete because an unexpected rules contradiction occurred.
As a dad myself, I want to introduce wargaming to my kids. They could handle AoS quicker than 40K for certain, as it is simpler. Less stuff to remember, the easier it is to grasp and play.
I wonder how many of those who dislike or favor bigger rules to smaller rules are parents themselves?
I think the biggest misconception that comes with simple vs complex rules sets is that complex is required for a game to have deep tactical play. This is of course not true, as there are many games that are much more deep in terms of tactics then 40k that have no charts and considerably less complexity.
Kanluwen wrote: Have you read literally anything that the people who have actually played AoS have said in this thread?
There is nothing with a Rend of -4 or higher. It's exceedingly rare to see a Rend of -3, and uncommon to see a Rend of -2.
This isn't like the AP system where it's on everything and anything. Rend tends to be on special weapons or "elite" armies with well crafted stuff, but lesser numbers. Rend values of "-" are incredibly common. You tend to see "causes a Mortal Wound on Wound rolls of 6" before high Rend values.
It is exceedingly unlikely that they will veer too far from this.
Yes, but I'm not as convinced that they won't shift towards rend being more common and armor saves also getting better compared with AoS. I'm not saying that it's likely, just that I wouldn't be surprised.
I really don't know what will happen. My post was mostly just to show that high rend values like in 2nd Ed. 40k wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world, depending on how they changed other rules.
I agree that it all depends on implementation. That's why I'm cautiously optimistic.
I think the big thing from the doom and gloom people with the 2nd ed amour pen styles, seem to be forgetting was that with the old cover system it was also harder to hit..
So a heavy bolter would make a Power Armour save on a 6+, but if they were standing in decent cover that hvy bolter was only hitting you on a 5+
If you were getting melted so easily, it was normally your own fault for positioning badly
GodDamUser wrote: I think the big thing from the doom and gloom people with the 2nd ed amour pen styles, seem to be forgetting was that with the old cover system it was also harder to hit..
So a heavy bolter would make a Power Armour save on a 6+, but if they were standing in decent cover that hvy bolter was only hitting you on a 5+
If you were getting melted so easily, it was normally your own fault for positioning badly
I certainly hope cover becomes meaningful again. As it stands now in some situations it does nothing at all. Cover should provide a benefit no matter how good your armor is. Since they are going with armor modifiers on weapons it would not be to hard to have cover simply be a positive modifier to your armor.
Kanluwen wrote: Have you read literally anything that the people who have actually played AoS have said in this thread?
There is nothing with a Rend of -4 or higher. It's exceedingly rare to see a Rend of -3, and uncommon to see a Rend of -2.
This isn't like the AP system where it's on everything and anything. Rend tends to be on special weapons or "elite" armies with well crafted stuff, but lesser numbers. Rend values of "-" are incredibly common. You tend to see "causes a Mortal Wound on Wound rolls of 6" before high Rend values.
It is exceedingly unlikely that they will veer too far from this.
Yes, but I'm not as convinced that they won't shift towards rend being more common and armor saves also getting better compared with AoS. I'm not saying that it's likely, just that I wouldn't be surprised.
I really don't know what will happen. My post was mostly just to show that high rend values like in 2nd Ed. 40k wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world, depending on how they changed other rules.
I agree that it all depends on implementation. That's why I'm cautiously optimistic.
The "high rend values in 2nd edition" also had to do with the fact that some things saved on 2D6 rather than 1 D6.
I would be incredibly surprised to see that. Hence why I think it far far more likely to see the Rend and Armor Saves like in AoS.
I know I'm getting repetitive now, but AoS is a fairly good system. It really wouldn't be bad for 40k to get in there, and the insistence people have right now about "D6-AP value" needing to match whatever Rending value they should get is detrimental to discussion surrounding this as it lets people start making wildly outlandish scenarios of Terminators needing 7s to save or whatever.
Or cover could be treated the way it should...and make it harder for someone to hit you. However, that seems to be decried as "oh, no, maths!" and is widely shunned for some reason.
Kanluwen wrote: Have you read literally anything that the people who have actually played AoS have said in this thread?
There is nothing with a Rend of -4 or higher. It's exceedingly rare to see a Rend of -3, and uncommon to see a Rend of -2.
This isn't like the AP system where it's on everything and anything. Rend tends to be on special weapons or "elite" armies with well crafted stuff, but lesser numbers. Rend values of "-" are incredibly common. You tend to see "causes a Mortal Wound on Wound rolls of 6" before high Rend values.
It is exceedingly unlikely that they will veer too far from this.
Yes, but I'm not as convinced that they won't shift towards rend being more common and armor saves also getting better compared with AoS. I'm not saying that it's likely, just that I wouldn't be surprised.
I really don't know what will happen. My post was mostly just to show that high rend values like in 2nd Ed. 40k wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world, depending on how they changed other rules.
I agree that it all depends on implementation. That's why I'm cautiously optimistic.
The "high rend values in 2nd edition" also had to do with the fact that some things saved on 2D6 rather than 1 D6.
I would be incredibly surprised to see that. Hence why I think it far far more likely to see the Rend and Armor Saves like in AoS.
Actually those values were ported over almost exactly from Rogue Trader which did NOT have 2d6 armor saves.
But I don't think they will be that high if adopted for 8th edition.
The current ap system has always really bugged me. Having ap3 stuff be just as useless as ap- stuff verses terminators just feels way wrong.
A simple change like ap5 = -1, ap4 = -2, ap3 = -3, ap2 = -4, ap1 = -5 sounds fine to me if accompanied by an increase in models saves. Increase every models save by 1. Give terminators a 1+ save so that you need some rend to hurt them in the first place. Let them tank an infinite number of scatter lasers, shrug off bolters, grumble over heavy bolters, fear ap 3, and fall over to meltas.
Gradients strike me as much easier to balance then all or nothing systems so we may finally see terminators fairly priced. Currently you can take them in a low power game and watch them never die, or take them in even mid powered games and watch them disappear.
Kanluwen wrote: Between a rend value of -1 to -3 and the ability to cause "Mortal Wounds" or the like, I'd be happy.
I also like that powerful attacks in AoS do multiple wounds. If they got rid of Instant Death and made everything that is currently Strength 8 or higher do d3 wounds I think that would probably be an improvement.
Of course that is also dependent on what other changed they make.
I've never understood this mentality that people seem to think that they are entitled to FREE codexs/books etc for when a new edition drops (or in this instance a possible major reshape of the rule set) because "i've had my collection for X number of years!" come on guys we're all in the same boat and lets face facts they're a company providing a product and a game system, they owe you d**k all.
I can see the Genestealer Cult people being a little ticked if their codex ends up getting invalidated after less than a year. There's a decent chance that won't happen though.
I'm assuming these changes are significant enough that it'll be necessary to produce a new edition of all rules supplements. Whatever about it being a bit of a pain having to buy new codexes, I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who has splashed out on all the supplements to date....
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I can see the Genestealer Cult people being a little ticked if their codex ends up getting invalidated after less than a year. There's a decent chance that won't happen though.
Considering how many codexes mere months (if that) before new editions were invalidated, I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
I know people who have had free replacements when they have purchased a codex only for a new one to drop within 2 months, But that may of been a particular GW store manager decision as opposed to company policy
I'd personally like it if 8th was really just like a 7.5, with everything cleaned up, a few changes here and there. But, if they do AoS it, I hope they go all the way so we can play the 2 games against one another, like Warmachine and Hordes
Well, that kinda sucks to hear they are going the route of AoS for 40k. AoS may very well be a more playable system right now than 40k, but that speaks volumes to the mess that 40k is rather than anything about AoS. I can see however if GW is your hobby this would be a positive move.
If anything I was hoping to see them intentionally steer away from going this direction to try to retain 2 distinct systems for a different gaming experience to cater to different crowds. I guess it makes sense to make them Similar so as to get people who play one to slide easily into the other.
Eh... I'll be watching with as open a mind as I can muster because I love the idea of 40k, the fluff, and the models.
I admit I'm disgusted by both the rending mechanic and the charging unit striking first with no immediate retaliation, both of which strike me as extremely unrealistic compared to the 7th ed rules.
However, seeing how the audience has clamored for both of these rule changes and giving vehicles "wounds" (ugh), I'm not sure what to think.
There are dozens of ways to simplify the ridiculous ruleset without resorting to this. One outstanding method would be to remove the psychic tables and random warlord trait charts completely from the game, removing all formations and detachment bonuses/systems from the game, then removing overwatch completely. Then remove strength D or make it a consistently applied rule. Condense the insane number of USRs. Remove the excessive rules bloat from individual units in each of the codexes. Remove random table charts like the Chaos Boon table, the ork Mob rule table, and the Shokk attack gun (okay, maybe you could keep that last one for flavor).
Remove special rules like "If it inflicts a casualty, roll a D6 for each dead model and inflict D3 wounds per" or other excessive, mathematically difficult to model and meandering rules.
AoS has upsides - free, updated core rules and dataslates - simple core rules. But it has downsides - namely that it loses a lot of the authenticity, tactics and roleplaying elements in favor of making a cheap party game for buying big setpiece model kits.
Honestly reading this article on Warhammer Community is kind of like a bad dream.
All or nothing AP sucks, and is way less realistic than a rending system.
Plus it completely skews weapons to either having to fire crazy amounts of shots or have low Ap to be used.
With Rend you' at least have the middle of the ground weapons on the table more.
If all weapons have a decent chance of hurting the enemy for their cost you're more likely to see a mix instead of every squad packing the same weapons (Grav/Scatter lasers for example)
I am cautiously optimistic about the changes, but far too much is up in the air in terms of specifics for me to make any serious sort of judgment one way or another. I've never played AoS, so my understanding of likely implementations are based on what I've read in this thread and the News & Rumors thread.
Thematic Army bonuses: Sounds like formation to me. While the existing balance in the formations is off, I'm honestly a big supporter of the concept in general. I wouldn't mind existing formations remaining, so long as the worst offenders (Gladius, Riptide Wing, etc.) ended up with appropriate point costs. CADs have always struck me as a "one size fits all" approach that just doesn't make sense for such strategically, tactically, and culturally distinct armies that make up WH40k.
Movement Stat: Seems like it has its strengths and weaknesses. I could see it simplifying things a bit by removing a host of now-useless USRs and by increasing granularity in representing fluffy speeds. On the other hand, that's another stat to memorize for each and every unit in each and every army (no, GW, you don't JUST have to know the rules for your own army if you want to play reasonably competitively), and that intuitively strikes me as more difficult than memorizing unit types (and their accompanying movement speeds & USRs).
Charging Units Swinging First: An interesting mechanic, though as a Tau player, mostly academic to my own army's rules. I'll withhold judgement entirely here, particularly given the devil's in the details for this sort of change, but superficially it seems like it gives the sort of reward that charging really should.
Armor Save Modifiers: I really like the increased granularity in durability, though I can understand the hesitancy. IF it is implemented in a way similar to AoS, with a range of 0 to -3 (and with -2 and -3 being extremely rare), that seems like it could strike the right balance between making non-penetrating AP relevant without making armor nearly worthless.
Mortal Wounds: I have no idea how these are supposed to work. Can someone with AoS experience explain it for me?
There doesn't seem to be enough information yet for people to be getting as mad as they are on the forums, a lot of people are taking a single sentence and calling it the end of the world.
Rolsheen wrote: There doesn't seem to be enough information yet for people to be getting as mad as they are on the forums, a lot of people are taking a single sentence and calling it the end of the world.
It's great isn't it!
My three favorite moments on dakka were:
--> the AoS "no points, have fun boys!" freakout
--> the 7th edition Eldar codex Scatterbike freakout
--> the epic Mutilator thread, dramatically ending by a Mutilator punching out a Stormraven with a chainfist
So far there hasn't been any widespread panic. GW has been suspiciously open and responsive so far. I still have faith though!
Eldarain wrote: Mortal Wounds are essentially Ward Saves only.
So the equivalent of an AP 2 Ignores Cover wound in the current edition?
I'm guessing they're relatively rare?
That is fair to say. There are spells which cause them. Usually in increments of D3 or D6. Some units have hits/wounds which roll a 6 cause a mortal wound instead of their normal damage. (Particularly good with buffs to hit/wound respectively) There are corner cases where some lists can pump out a disproportionate amount of them but it sounds like the GH2 will reign them in.
I feel like I am in between in the grand scheme of things. I don't mind simple rules and mechanics, but I also don't mind looking at (and eventually memorizing) charts to determine what happens to what. But at this point in my life, I would rather have more, better, quicker games than longer games that take hours to complete because an unexpected rules contradiction occurred.
As a dad myself, I want to introduce wargaming to my kids. They could handle AoS quicker than 40K for certain, as it is simpler. Less stuff to remember, the easier it is to grasp and play.
I wonder how many of those who dislike or favor bigger rules to smaller rules are parents themselves?
As a parent, I would never use GW games to Play with my Kids.
the advantage of their game is that it can be played everywhere, but their rules always have been bad written and lack of balance.
there are much easier to learn rules out there that can have a much deeper in game experience.
While of course the best tabletop to start with kids is the LEGO Heroica (RPG style but OOP) or LEGO Brick Wars, we play X-Wing starter Box games because they are Star Wars fans.
I will go with the Mantic games later when they want to paint their own minis.
easy to learn, Deadzone is done in less than an hour and it is no problem to switch to FireFight later when their collection grows.
the problem with AoS is, the rules are simple and easy core rules are squishy and the models expensive while the advanced stuff is already getting complicated
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: I wonder if we'll see two different rulesets to address this.
There's a clear division between "fast simple rules" types and the "let me spend hours on math" types.
Funny thing is 40k doesn't require hours on math. Ultimately 40k rules are actually very simple. Problem is balance but that doesn't get fixed by simplifying game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GodDamUser wrote: I think the big thing from the doom and gloom people with the 2nd ed amour pen styles, seem to be forgetting was that with the old cover system it was also harder to hit..
So a heavy bolter would make a Power Armour save on a 6+, but if they were standing in decent cover that hvy bolter was only hitting you on a 5+
If you were getting melted so easily, it was normally your own fault for positioning badly
This still makes power armour useless. Note how surviving had pretty much zero impact from wearing power armour.
You know what would be even tougher target? No power armour, more bodies. It's not like getting that decent cover required you to have power armour...Guy standing butt naked would also be hit on 5+. There just would be more of them=more durable.
You would be better off leaving your armour off. That's where ASM leads to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coblen wrote: The current ap system has always really bugged me. Having ap3 stuff be just as useless as ap- stuff verses terminators just feels way wrong.
That would however be pretty much how it works in real life. Either your armour is strong enough or not.
Yoyoyo wrote: I wonder if we'll see two different rulesets to address this.
There's a clear division between "fast simple rules" types and the "let me spend hours on math" types.
Funny thing is 40k doesn't require hours on math.
It always makes me giggle when people talk about "mathhammer" like it's something complicated. 40k level of maths you should have figured out by, what, middle school?
40k level maths is so simple I wonder how some people manage to NOT figure it out in a matter of minutes if not seconds
The only slightly complicated thing is if you try and use binomial distributions to figure out percentages, but even then it's not all that complicated.
This still makes power armour useless. Note how surviving had pretty much zero impact from wearing power armour.
You know what would be even tougher target? No power armour, more bodies.
I'm pretty sure most of us are hoping for save modifiers are applied at a massively reduced amount to 2nd edition.
I'm hoping for a Bolter to be no modifier, a Heavy Bolter to be -1, what's currently AP3 would maybe be -2, what's currently AP2 would be -3 or maybe -4. That would Marines are no less hard to kill against massed small arms fire, slightly easier to kill with Heavy Bolter level fire, and slightly harder to kill with high end weapons, and basically the same against high strength anti-tank weapons.
You would be better off leaving your armour off. That's where ASM leads to.
Either way points would have to be adjusted to make armour worth taking.
ERJAK wrote: The current ap system has always really bugged me. Having ap3 stuff be just as useless as ap- stuff verses terminators just feels way wrong.
That would however be pretty much how it works in real life. Either your armour is strong enough or not.
That's not really how it works in real life. In real life you have different penetration based on range and angle you strike the target, the more powerful the weapon, the more points you can hit at more ranges on your target and get a penetration.
If you think of the leg armour on someone to be a cylinder, a powerful gun might be able to blow the leg off regardless of where it hits where as a weak gun might only be able to penetrate if it hits the leg in the centre (off to the side and it hits the armour at an angle and bounces off) while a really weak gun might not be able to penetrate the armour plate at all and relies in hitting between the gaps.
coblen wrote: The current ap system has always really bugged me. Having ap3 stuff be just as useless as ap- stuff verses terminators just feels way wrong.
That would however be pretty much how it works in real life. Either your armour is strong enough or not.
Never ever start bringing "real life" into the argument of 40k. The game isn't in any way shape or form made to in any way accurately represent anything in real life. In real life you don't stand around and wait while your opponent shoots your army to bits. In real life your weapon can shoot further than you can move at a light jog in the same time as someone is able to strike one blow in close combat. In real life psychic abilities are limited to psychiatric wards and more on the dumbass topic of what armour can and can't do in real life, if your armour blocks a blow in real life, it's often fethed for further use and won't block the next shot. If a kevlar plate stops a bullet, you don't just dig the bullet out and dust it off. That kevlar plate is now used and is discarded. And in real life, even if your armour stops a bullet, you're most likely out of the fight for a while, potentially with broken ribs.
Don't start bringing in real life into 40k. Particularly when you are wrong.
Yoyoyo wrote: I wonder if we'll see two different rulesets to address this.
There's a clear division between "fast simple rules" types and the "let me spend hours on math" types.
Funny thing is 40k doesn't require hours on math. Ultimately 40k rules are actually very simple. Problem is balance but that doesn't get fixed by simplifying game.
Formation Lord of Sculls hits a greentide with, let's say, 102 models in it. Inflicts 102 randomly allocated hits. As you have mixed saves, you got to allocate hits firts. So, you roll d102, count up to the model that you got, roll to-wounds, saves and fnp-s till it dies. Than it dies, you roll d101, count up to the model that you got, roll to-wounds, saves and fnp-s till it dies...eventually you get up to a character that you don't want dead, so add rolls to look outs to this.
DrNo172000 wrote: I think the biggest misconception that comes with simple vs complex rules sets is that complex is required for a game to have deep tactical play. This is of course not true, as there are many games that are much more deep in terms of tactics then 40k that have no charts and considerably less complexity.
Yep, for example, chess!
captain bloody fists wrote: I've never understood this mentality that people seem to think that they are entitled to FREE codexs/books etc for when a new edition drops (or in this instance a possible major reshape of the rule set) because "i've had my collection for X number of years!" come on guys we're all in the same boat and lets face facts they're a company providing a product and a game system, they owe you d**k all.
Haha, yes. You're paying for the privilege of having the newly developed ruleset in order to play that new game. It doesn't invalidate your old collection of books because you can still play with those old rules if you choose. Thinking you're entitled to new rules for free is a bit like expecting a free iphone upgrade because you've had one for years, or expecting to get the rebooted Transformers DVD for free because you have all the old cartoons!
Okay, I'm being slightly facetious. I understand where they're coming from. If you release a new codex and then nerf it two months later with a new ruleset, that's pretty harsh on your customers. I'd say that, while GW doesn't owe us anything for free, they owe us consideration and respect for keeping their company afloat all these years.
Well.. maybe it's not balanced (I don't play chess enough to disagree with your assertion), but it definitely has lots of tactical depth, which was my point.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
Honestly, this is how I feel about it too. I don't understand the Sky-is-Falling ranting when the sky is already around our ankles. It can't fall any further. This can only make it better.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
The 'devoid of thought' point is a good one. It's one thing to have complex rules that make sense and seem to do something useful, so you think to yourself, 'well, this is complicated, but I guess it'll be worth it when I get to use these rules to tactical advantage', versus what 40k is which is complex, self-contradictory and poorly written, so the thought process is more like, 'ok, so I... erm... what? Let me read that again... Hmm... How's that different from rending? Why doesn't it just say rending? So, who strikes first then? Why doesn't it mention when to take a leadership test? Oh, so those points I spent on that USR are essentially wasted...'
Jbz` wrote: All or nothing AP sucks, and is way less realistic than a rending system.
Plus it completely skews weapons to either having to fire crazy amounts of shots or have low Ap to be used.
With Rend you' at least have the middle of the ground weapons on the table more.
If all weapons have a decent chance of hurting the enemy for their cost you're more likely to see a mix instead of every squad packing the same weapons (Grav/Scatter lasers for example)
First of all, what reference do you use to say that an "all or nothing AP" is "way less realistic than a rending system?"
Take tank armor. There are multiple historical examples of Tiger tanks taking multiple 75mm Sherman rounds to the frontal armor, or T-34's taking multiple 37mm rounds. Because the armor piercing shells were unable to pierce the armor frontally at any range, it just simply failed to penetrate. Dozens and dozens of shots could be leveled onto the same tank with no result, until, miraculously, a 2 pounder shell lodges itself in the turret ring, preventing the Tiger's main gun from rotating and the crew bails.
What the 2+ system where the 1 is always a failure is meant to represent is a bullet that pierces body armor - let's say, kevlar which is rated to stop pretty much any common pistol caliber. If I shoot you in your kevlar jacket, say a 5+ save, my AP6 9mm round will fail to penetrate the kevlar jacket any time it hits the kevlar. However, it doesn't cover your entire body, since if I shoot your arms, head, legs, groin, etc, I will still have a success even though my bullet is only AP6 and does not negate your armor save.
IRL they use a ratings system for body armor. Level IIIa is able to stop a 9mm pistol round and up to .44 magnum consistently with no reasonable expectation of failure. These body armors are repeatedly tested for obvious reasons against these calibers and show again and again that they are able to resist impact from those calibers. Level III rated body armor is able to consistently stop 5.56mm NATO rifle rounds and AK-47 bullets. Level IV rated body armor is consistently tested to be able to withstand impacts from .308 caliber or 7.62mm NATO rounds. If those armors had expectations of failure from repeated impacts from those calibers, they would not have those ratings, and no one would have faith in their combat capabilities.
TL;DR, sorry, bullets either penetrate armor or they don't. Or they hit armor or they don't. The old system was more accurate and realistic in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I can see the Genestealer Cult people being a little ticked if their codex ends up getting invalidated after less than a year. There's a decent chance that won't happen though.
Considering how many codexes mere months (if that) before new editions were invalidated, I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
TL;DR, sorry, bullets either penetrate armor or they don't. Or they hit armor or they don't. The old system was more accurate and realistic in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that kevlar hit by a bullet doesn't get damaged? I'm afraid it does. "in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you."
captain bloody fists wrote: I've never understood this mentality that people seem to think that they are entitled to FREE codexs/books etc for when a new edition drops (or in this instance a possible major reshape of the rule set) because "i've had my collection for X number of years!" come on guys we're all in the same boat and lets face facts they're a company providing a product and a game system, they owe you d**k all.
more to the point codex writing, printing books etc all costs money.
TedNugent wrote: Take tank armor. There are multiple historical examples of Tiger tanks taking multiple 75mm Sherman rounds to the frontal armor, or T-34's taking multiple 37mm rounds. Because the armor piercing shells were unable to pierce the armor frontally at any range, it just simply failed to penetrate. Dozens and dozens of shots could be leveled onto the same tank with no result, until, miraculously, a 2 pounder shell lodges itself in the turret ring, preventing the Tiger's main gun from rotating and the crew bails.
There are several variables which affect whether or not a weapon will penetrate armour, 2 big ones are range and angle of incidence. That's why Tiger crews were encouraged to angle themselves, because the frontal armour was just a big flat slab and so by angling the tank, rounds would bounce off instead of penetrating. Angle is a huuuuuuge variable in how well you can penetrate armour and on a person wearing armour the angle of incidence is constantly varying.
I mentioned it in a previous post so I'm just going to copy/pasta that....
That's not really how it works in real life. In real life you have different penetration based on range and angle you strike the target, the more powerful the weapon, the more points on the target you can hit at more ranges on your target and get a penetration.
If you think of the leg armour on someone to be a cylinder, a powerful gun might be able to blow the leg off regardless of where it hits where as a weak gun might only be able to penetrate if it hits the leg in the centre (off to the side and it hits the armour at an angle and bounces off) while a really weak gun might not be able to penetrate the armour plate at all and relies in hitting between the gaps.
....so armour modifiers make perfect sense in that the lower the modifier, the less points on the enemy's armour will result in a penetration, the higher the modifier, the more points can be penetrated by the weapon.
It's true body armour is rated in "levels", but I'm sure for armour to attain a level it has to stop a certain projectile at a specific range and a specific angle with a specific material used behind supporting the armour. But the abstraction in wargames for armour saves, IMO, aren't meant to represent the bullet squarely hitting the armour at a specific range, they're designed to represent the swirling mess of variables that come in to determine whether or not the person is still standing after being hit thanks to their armour, and in that sense a graduated modifier system works fine.
And putting reality aside, I think a modifier system is simply more balanced than an all or nothing AP-like system,
captain bloody fists wrote: I've never understood this mentality that people seem to think that they are entitled to FREE codexs/books etc for when a new edition drops (or in this instance a possible major reshape of the rule set) because "i've had my collection for X number of years!" come on guys we're all in the same boat and lets face facts they're a company providing a product and a game system, they owe you d**k all.
more to the point codex writing, printing books etc all costs money.
The idea is that they're meant to be loss leaders. Cheap/free rules are supposed to act as incentive for consumers to buy more models.
captain bloody fists wrote: I've never understood this mentality that people seem to think that they are entitled to FREE codexs/books etc for when a new edition drops (or in this instance a possible major reshape of the rule set) because "i've had my collection for X number of years!" come on guys we're all in the same boat and lets face facts they're a company providing a product and a game system, they owe you d**k all.
more to the point codex writing, printing books etc all costs money.
The idea is that they're meant to be loss leaders. Cheap/free rules are supposed to act as incentive for consumers to buy more models.
Free rules aren't exactly loss leaders, they're more like marketing costs.
Paper codexes, however, were indeed loss leaders.
The point he was trying to make is that this was a solid improvement for GW as they wouldn't have to waste shelf space, time and money on producing low margin paper items.
A very good thing too, because these get outdated much faster than plastic crack, decreasing effective margins especially for resellers.
SickSix wrote: People need to separate rule mechanics from AoS.
40k is clearly more shooty than AoS. Obviously a direct port isn't going yo work.
In all fairness, 40k has been shooting friendly only from mid 5-th. The most shooty-oriented it ever got was 6-th edition. Which is widely considered to be the worst of all.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
For me, these changes seem great and may breathe new life into 40k. I am happy with AOS apart from a few minor things, so this has me excited for 8th edition, although I have shelved building my Eldar now until I see the actual rules.
I don't understand the "but you will kill tanks with knives!"
Just a rule like
Vehicles: Vehicles ignore damage done by weapons with a damage value of: 1 and a rend value of: -
Boom. Problem solved. Tanks can only be damaged by antitank weaponry.
And please, stop masking your personal preferences as rationalized facts.
If you don't understand AoS its your problem, not of the game. You can not like it, thats fine. And its a reality that its in no way the best ruleset out there.
But all this AoS hate vs AoS fanboyism its tiresome. The Old World has been killed 2 years ago guys. Its time to move on.
And I say this as a guy that plays Warhammer Fantasy Battles 1 time at week and that roleplay in the old world 2 times a month.
SickSix wrote: People need to separate rule mechanics from AoS.
40k is clearly more shooty than AoS. Obviously a direct port isn't going yo work.
In all fairness, 40k has been shooting friendly only from mid 5-th. The most shooty-oriented it ever got was 6-th edition. Which is widely considered to be the worst of all.
And since electro-displacement, it's basically assault-oriented ... so . yeah whatever.
captain bloody fists wrote: I've never understood this mentality that people seem to think that they are entitled to FREE codexs/books etc for when a new edition drops (or in this instance a possible major reshape of the rule set) because "i've had my collection for X number of years!" come on guys we're all in the same boat and lets face facts they're a company providing a product and a game system, they owe you d**k all.
more to the point codex writing, printing books etc all costs money.
The idea is that they're meant to be loss leaders. Cheap/free rules are supposed to act as incentive for consumers to buy more models.
Free rules aren't exactly loss leaders, they're more like marketing costs.
Paper codexes, however, were indeed loss leaders.
The point he was trying to make is that this was a solid improvement for GW as they wouldn't have to waste shelf space, time and money on producing low margin paper items.
A very good thing too, because these get outdated much faster than plastic crack, decreasing effective margins especially for resellers.
Besides, how many times have we heard GW tell us "We're not a game company, we're a model company."? Usually as an excuse for sloppy/poor rules writing...
Amishprn86 wrote: AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
40k is screwed. We know that. It has the tactical depth of half filled saucer.
But the option between 40k suckiness and AoS suckiness isn't really appealing to me. There's a whole world of options beyond "it can be like AoS or it can be like 40k".
AoS's morale system is a way of hand waving the complexities of morale in to "well.... more models are removed". Morale could be so many things and we are left with either AoS's casualty based morale system or 40k's terrible excuse for a morale system..... urgh.
Amishprn86 wrote: AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
40k is screwed. We know that. It has the tactical depth of half filled saucer.
But the option between 40k suckiness and AoS suckiness isn't really appealing to me. There's a whole world of options beyond "it can be like AoS or it can be like 40k".
AoS's morale system is a way of hand waving the complexities of morale in to "well.... more models are removed". Morale could be so many things and we are left with either AoS's casualty based morale system or 40k's terrible excuse for a morale system..... urgh.
I don't think 40k's morale system is so bad.
What's bad is ATSKNF, Fearless across the board, and many other things that make morale-based play anecdotal at best.
don_mondo wrote: Besides, how many times have we heard GW tell us "We're not a game company, we're a model company."? Usually as an excuse for sloppy/poor rules writing...
That was the mantra during the tenure of the previous CEO, who led GW in that direction, which they are no longer doing anymore (how many borad games and specialty games have they released recently?) . That emphasis on models over games gave us some amazing models though, and now that phase is over, and GW is focusing on the game aspect as much as the model aspect, listening to and engaging with its customers, and making things better overall.
I am convinced that, if enough players are vocal about it, any negative changes will be changed and made better. Just remember that they can't make everyone happy, as some players want things to work one way, and others another way.
I just hope that it affects the games and competitive scene to tone down the local WAACTFG players that make the game a chore.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
TL;DR, sorry, bullets either penetrate armor or they don't. Or they hit armor or they don't. The old system was more accurate and realistic in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that kevlar hit by a bullet doesn't get damaged? I'm afraid it does. "in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you."
What are you even talking about dude. If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it. Why don't you actually read what I said again and then watch the video I cited for you.
Unless you shot the exact same place twice in rapid succession, as with an AN-94 in two-shot burst mode with steel core munition or something against level III, but that's just as easily modeled by the current rending USR and D6 roll system, where 1 is always modeled as a catastrophic failure.
It's actually a genius RP system, and there's not a whole lot of good things to say about the core ruleset of 40k.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Edit: He had a 10man (he could make it into 2x mans) with good saves that are re-rolling.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Neither did they bring them. Seeing the top lists, I can assure you they could have gone down a far nastier path. ALL of them, except the khorne bloodbound.
TL;DR, sorry, bullets either penetrate armor or they don't. Or they hit armor or they don't. The old system was more accurate and realistic in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that kevlar hit by a bullet doesn't get damaged? I'm afraid it does. "in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you."
What are you even talking about dude. If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it. Why don't you actually read what I said again and then watch the video I cited for you.
Unless you shot the exact same place twice in rapid succession, as with an AN-94 in two-shot burst mode with steel core munition or something against level III, but that's just as easily modeled by the current rending USR and D6 roll system, where 1 is always modeled as a catastrophic failure.
It's actually a genius RP system, and there's not a whole lot of good things to say about the core ruleset of 40k.
This sounds like a discussion that should have it's own Off Topic thread or go to PM.
Whatever happens, I really hope they get rid of the "take whatever you want" for structured play. Unbound is fine for that, but structure play should not be Unbound + tax = bonuses.
Something like only 1 CAD or Codex equivalent allowed. Formations are now taken are a "slot" within that detachment, rather than as stand-alone choices. Only 1 "2nd faction detachment" is allowed. This would be Allied detachments (with 1 Formation slot available) or unique detachments like Assassins and Knights. If you want to take 3 or more Factions, your army instantly becomes Unbound and loses all command benefits AND Formation bonuses.
That would really cut down on power builds. Want to add a Riptide wing to your Eldar CAD? You need to take an Allied Detahcment with 1 Tau HQ and 1 Troop to "unlock" it. This is how "structure" or "matched" play should be.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Edit: He had a 10man (he could make it into 2x mans) with good saves that are re-rolling.
How was he splitting the squad? I'm not aware of anything that lets you do that, but i don't know stormcasts that well.
Also deathstaring is impossible in AoS because independent characters cant join units, so you can't hide them in wounds. They can just be shot separately or melee attacks allocated to them.
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
It's literally a week before April fools, in fact, April fools is literally next Saturday.
At worst, they are just putting those ideas out there to see how the community likes it, and if we don't then they brush it off as an April fools joke.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Neither did they bring them.
You mean the 2 units of 5 Liberators that Reroll 1's to save?
Or about about the Castellant that grants a +1 save to the units?
So.... thats not a what he did? The list from Frontline Gaming and the pod cast about him are wrong?
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
Its not a true DS, it is 9" 12" bubbles that gives unit better saves, where those units already have re-rolls to saves.
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
That is one thing I hope they change IMO. I should be able to join my IC's into other groups within reason.
Getting rid of Battle Bros would instantly fix this. There should really only be 2 kinds of allies: The ones you can fight along side, and those you can't...at all. If all allies were either Convience, or Come the Apoc (6th ed style, so they cannot ally at all) than Deathstars would be very VERY hard to pull off. No ICs joining or Psychic buffing different Faction units.
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
That is one thing I hope they change IMO. I should be able to join my IC's into other groups within reason.
Getting rid of Battle Bros would instantly fix this. There should really only be 2 kinds of allies: The ones you can fight along side, and those you can't...at all.
If all allies were either Convience, or Come the Apoc (6th ed style, so they cannot ally at all) than Deathstars would be very VERY hard to pull off.
No ICs joining or Psychic buffing different Faction units.
-
This would make a lot of sense. It would shut down some weird combos too.
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
That is one thing I hope they change IMO. I should be able to join my IC's into other groups within reason.
Getting rid of Battle Bros would instantly fix this. There should really only be 2 kinds of allies: The ones you can fight along side, and those you can't...at all.
If all allies were either Convience, or Come the Apoc (6th ed style, so they cannot ally at all) than Deathstars would be very VERY hard to pull off.
No ICs joining or Psychic buffing different Faction units.
-
So what happens with things like Inquisitors or Techpriest Dominii in the SC formation?
No. Just no. "Getting rid of Battle Brothers" wouldn't fix anything in terms of death stars. Fixing the problem units(like they did with White Scars Librarius Conclave in TWC/Ravenwing, for example--they made it so Chapter Tactics go away as soon as any other Marine army book units are present even if they don't have CT) would fix death stars.
Fixing the cause of death stars(the need for a hard-hitting, virtually unkillable unit for imperial armies that aren't just knights) would fix death stars.
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
That is one thing I hope they change IMO. I should be able to join my IC's into other groups within reason.
Getting rid of Battle Bros would instantly fix this. There should really only be 2 kinds of allies: The ones you can fight along side, and those you can't...at all.
If all allies were either Convience, or Come the Apoc (6th ed style, so they cannot ally at all) than Deathstars would be very VERY hard to pull off.
No ICs joining or Psychic buffing different Faction units.
-
So what happens with things like Inquisitors or Techpriest Dominii in the SC formation?
No. Just no. "Getting rid of Battle Brothers" wouldn't fix anything in terms of death stars. Fixing the problem units(like they did with White Scars Librarius Conclave in TWC/Ravenwing, for example--they made it so Chapter Tactics go away as soon as any other Marine army book units are present even if they don't have CT) would fix death stars.
Fixing the cause of death stars(the need for a hard-hitting, virtually unkillable unit for imperial armies that aren't just knights) would fix death stars.
Etc etc etc.
I feel the rules and proper costing of units may layer on to help that as well. Especially if they are going with the AoS rend idea.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Neither did they bring them.
You mean the 2 units of 5 Liberators that Reroll 1's to save?
Or about about the Castellant that grants a +1 save to the units?
So.... thats not a what he did? The list from Frontline Gaming and the pod cast about him are wrong?
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
Its not a true DS, it is 9" 12" bubbles that gives unit better saves, where those units already have re-rolls to saves.
They act just like DS tho.
Please post the actual quote, then we can have the actual argument.
He had a mid-tier list AT BEST. He won the tournament because no one in the top 5 except the khorne player (who, being khorne had it pretty difficult from the get-go since most of their forces are pretty lackluster) was nowhere close to an optimal list.
Please stop flaunting your ignorance, these lists are nowhere close to strong:
-Tomb Kings. What is this? Where are the necrosphinxes and the necropolis knights. What the hell is doing Arkhan and a necromancer there? OUT WITH THEM. Literally a quarter of the army is a weight that drags the list.
-Sylvaneth. 6 scytes? Alarielle in a list with just one more behemoth? 2 units of revenants but just one unit of driads? You telling me this made it to top 5?
-Khorne: good job sir, you know how to build proper armies, and your arms must be built like an olympic gymnast from moving that horde of models.
-Ironjawz. Okay, this bloke must be some god-of-war because with that list he wasn't even trying and got second. No ironfist? Goregruntas? TWO WEIRDNOB SHAMANS AND NO BALEWIND VORTEX? 3 separate units of brutes and no one carries gore-hackas? A)Drop the crusha and goregruntas, bring two footslogging megabosses and twenty ardboyz, drop one weridnob and get a balewind and weirdfist. Get a frigging a ironfist, merge one unit of brutes and give them gore-hackas. B) Drop the weirnob shaman and the goregruntas. Get an ironfist and a balewind vortex. THEN we can start talking of an actual ironjaw list, though I'd not really take the weirdnob. But that's personal preference.
You may want to hear about something called mortal wounds, multiple wounds, and rend. Or actually use quotes if you want to cite someone. I don't know what requizen said in that podcast nor I want to waste an hour dissecting a tournament I already dissected a month ago with the people on The Grand Alliance where most people agreed those were baby lists and I almost got another anneurism upon seeing the ironjaw list. This tournament was relaxed as hell and these lists show it.
I feel the rules and proper costing of units may layer on to help that as well. Especially if they are going with the AoS rend idea.
Proper costing of units is (no pun intended) pointless without setting in place a structure or guidelines that encourage people to not be toolbags.
Them adding points to AoS was one of the most disappointing things they could have done in my opinion. It shifted the impetus for self-policing back to GW and the points themselves. I can only hope that since they're purportedly aiming from the ground up for all three game types that points will be done better here, but I'm not holding my breath.
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
Kanluwen wrote: Proper costing of units is (no pun intended) pointless.
Them adding points to AoS was one of the most disappointing things they could have done in my opinion. It shifted the impetus for self-policing back to GW and the points themselves.
Agreed too. But it makes it easier for pick up games, so I guess it can be as a necessary evil.
Not in my view, no. A lot of the more far out there things (blocks of 200 Bloodreavers or crap like that) were just that pre-points: Far out there.
A unit of 200 models could be hurt bad with Battleshock tests, let alone the fact that Sudden Death could be brought to bear against the few character models you might have been able to fit on the board.
A big thing that added a "semblance of balance" is that a lot of the problem players(at least locally for me) tended to cease getting games when people started realizing that their whole goal was to try to show that AoScould be broken with wildly outlandish things that involved dropping a ton of scratch on something that would probably have been just as broken in WHFB.
Not in my view, no. A lot of the more far out there things (blocks of 200 Bloodreavers or crap like that) were just that pre-points:
Far out there.
A unit of 200 models could be hurt bad with Battleshock tests, let alone the fact that Sudden Death could be brought to bear against the few character models you might have been able to fit on the board.
A big thing that added a "semblance of balance" is that a lot of the problem players(at least locally for me) tended to cease getting games when people started realizing that their whole goal was to try to show that AoScould be broken with wildly outlandish things that involved dropping a ton of scratch on something that would probably have been just as broken in WHFB.
What did you wind up using to make sure both sides were somewhat even?
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
tshirt, no. But I never said that. I argued against the point that body armour is a binary risk. The person I was arguing with was saying that it will either stop ALL bullets it's rated against NO MATTER WHAT. Or it will stop NO bullets, because it's not rated against that. And that's simply not true. Even a perfectly new piece of armour can get unlucky and let through a bullet it is rated against for various reasons, but I let that slide because that's highly unlikely and I don't need to go that far when his argument is that binary. A shot vest loses integrity. It doesn't become a tshirt, and I never said it did, so saying I'm arguing that is strawman.
AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
can drops.
Also they would have to reprint EVERY SINGLE CODEX AND SUPPLEMENT to incorporate this new system.
I don't want a movement stat, it isn't needed. Maybe not but it's a heck of a lot simpler than all the movement rules they've had to use to simulate it (Dunestrider/Battle focus etc.)
Hear me out folks!
