Oddly enough, I couldn't find another on of these (but I'll take directions if it exists), so....
Tell me what you want from 8th
What greases your bolter & chainsword?
What would you like to see?
What would you cry heresy at?
Personally I want to see the rumored 3 ways to play, I'd love to see a super stripped back, greased up scotsman of an open play system and for GW to take down the, albeit circumvent-able (but not legally), paywall to knowing what I'm up against.
Basically, I'm up for a gentle but thorough Sigmar'ing.
Free core rules or inexpensive core rules. $30 or less.
Generals Handbook like add-on.
Free dataslates for all armies. Released on Day One.
Optional Codexes released with formations that COST POINTS! Also will have all of the dataslates in physical form.
Rules complexity pruned rather than gameplay complexity. Unified Rites of War-like detachment mechanism rather than the wild variety we have these days. Pre-6e-style Ld-test psychic powers instead of a separate phase.
(I'd cry "Heresy!" at most things people are suggesting copy-pasting wholesale from AoS. Keep the WS and S/T tables, but write them out as the straightforward comparison (e.g. "if S is one higher than target's T: 3+ to wound") instead of the full-on ten-by-ten. And keep one vehicle damage table instead of writing a unique one for each vehicle.)
I'd love to see some active modification of the game rather than just FAQ for ambiguous elements.
I'm sick and tired of the only time something gets addressed is when the rules get a major overhaul, or if its kinda vague in its wording. If something is broken to the point of ruining the game, it needs to be tamed. If something is so miserable that it drives players away from their armies, it's gotta be addressed.
davou wrote: ...I'd love to see some active modification of the game rather than just FAQ for ambiguous elements.
I'm sick and tired of the only time something gets addressed is when the rules get a major overhaul...
Elaboration on this: If they're going to do the AoS-app datasheet thing take advantage of the format. Edit things when they need to be edited instead of letting mistakes ferment for years before changing anything.
The things mentioned by GW are already a step in the right direction (Movement Value, Save Mods, Leadership affects everyone, chargers strike first).
I'd also like to see:
-Cover Modifiers to hit
-Warscroll Style Data Sheets
-Return to simpler casualty removal (ala 4th edition) this is VERY important to me.
-Folding vehicles into the standard wound/armor rules
-Curbing the ability for extreme list building
-Less complicated rules in general (complex game play is good, complicated rules are bad)
-Get rid of the damn psychic phase
-Reduce random tables (i.e psychic powers, warlord traits, etc) and replace with a pay for what you want system
-An attempt at balance
Why do people want to see the psychic phase go away? I think that, on balance, I prefer getting all the psychic stuff over with in one phase rather than having to remember stuff spread over the three main phases like in 5th
I don't particularly mind a few random table either - just not when they're basically meaningless (e.g. mysterious objectives)
I'd ideally like to see a grand re-balancing of points costs across the board. It seems like it'd be pretty common sense to spot certain undercosted units/formations from what is played at tournaments and bring them back into line with the rest. Likewise some things pretty much never get played, so it would make sense to reduce the cost of these a little. I reckon a lot of gamers could give this a decent go and get a lot right about it.
For me it is the execution of the phase rather than the fact that it exists. The two things I prefer the old way are witchfires, and force weapons. But for the most part having all psychics in one phase is way better. The problem I have is the execution which makes having one psyker almost useless. I think if they want to keep the psychic dice thing I would prefer the fantasy like casting values (i.e. to get such and such a spell off you need to roll a 7+, and to shut the power down the opponent needs to beat your rolled value.) Then cap how many dice can be used on any one power. Right now against high psyker armies single psykers are essentially useless, and the way we roll adds time to the game.
A lot of the stuff I would like has already been mentioned.
When they mention rewarding thematic armies I hope they implement whatever plan they have in a way that still gives us freedom to list build. I like my armies to be fluffy and thematic, but I don't want to be forced to follow extremely specific list building instructions. Restrictions and requirements are fine and to be expected, I just want a lot of opportunities for customization and to make them "my dudes" to remain.
I hope they make Imperial and Ork tanks good. I hope they make walkers good.
I hope ork vehicles explode and/or wreck in over-the-top hilarious fashion, but I hope they balance the ork rules/points in such a way that this is fun for both the ork player and his opponent. Similarly, I hope a lot of the ork weapons retain a crazy random element, but that the randomness is not simply a punishment for the ork player and that it is not so random that it removes all strategy.
I hope they don't combine certain factions into nonsensical alliances.
I hope we keep the wide variety of options while reducing the complexity of accessing those different options (basically I'm saying that I like warscrolls but I don't want things overly simplified and choices limited).
more balance (yes is not impossible) and bit of semplification cant handle to waste 20 mins pre game to generate traits/rewardsand psy power. Play with 1 CODEX and maybe a single add on not with 3-4 books like you need right now.
Removal of things that take up extra time unnecessarily; simplified wound allocation, cover by terrain piece instead of model's eye view, no more d66 table rolls etc.
less randomness. choose your warlord trait, pay for your psychic powers. take current warp charge system and that is the points you have to spend on powers.
AOS style simplification of rules.
more durability across the board or just a major toning down of ranged firepower
lords of war is only GMC and super heavies, character models like Avatar, Calgar, Draigo etc. back to HQ where they belong.
points adjustments across the board based on some kind of actual unit formula rather than the whims of the codex author/tradition
A ban on all re rolll 1's abilities in the game and a ban on all non unit specific re roll save and invisibility like powers.
piloted walking monsters become vehicles. Bikes become 1HP vehicles and all get a huge point increase and are never able to score. Vehicles also get an armour save and use the same cover save rules as anthing else in the game.
Grav guns all become unique relics, relics become available to all sorts of models and there will be a book purely dedicated to universal and race specific relics.
Beasts can't be joined by non specific IC's and are also never able to score.
Cover system of shadow war. Jink gets killed off, movement based - to hit modifiers return.
Psy powers like magic used to work in 5th wfb.
You can assault again out of non assault vehicles if they do not have moved this turn. You are allowed to start in battle brother transports. However there will be restrictions on what models can be in what transport. -> such as drop pod is power armored dudes only, etc.
Army building mehcanics of 7th with the addition of army wide max % spend on each non troop category. Such as max 25% spend on low. etc. These could be modified by choosing a different primary detachment. Synergy needs to be toned town drasticly. Ideally not by killing of the allies matrix but just by making all special rules and buffs faction or unit specific.
Only troops or equivalent can score..
Good clear terrain rules with photo's explaining stuff like multi lv fighting etc.
unit kill point missions go the way of the dodo, and are replaced by point cost kill points. meal storm objective have to be kept 2 turns and no longer contain any unbalancing crazy stuff such as kill, turbo boost issue a challenge etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would also be nice if they incorporated a lv up system for each character in the army in the core rulebook shadow war style.
Making unit sarges and non named HQ's more unique and fun to play.
A ban on all re rolll 1's abilities in the game and a ban on all non unit specific re roll save and invisibility like powers.
Bikes become 1HP vehicles and all get a huge point increase and are never able to score.
Vehicles also get an armour save.
Grav guns all become unique relics, relics become available to all sorts of models and there will be a book purely dedicated to universal and race specific relics.
Beasts can't be joined by non specific IC's and are also never able to score.
Cover system of shadow war.
Jink gets killed off, movement based - to hit modifiers return.
Psy powers like magic used to work in 5th wfb.
You can assault again out of non assault vehicles if they do not have moved this turn.
You are allowed to start in battle brother transports. However there will be restrictions on what models can be in what transport. -> such as drop pod is power armored dudes only, etc.
Army building mehcanics of 7th with the addition of army wide max % spend on each non troop category. Such as max 25% spend on low. etc. These could be modified by choosing a different primary detachment.
Synergy needs to be toned town drasticly. Ideally not by killing of the allies matrix but just by making all special rules and buffs faction or unit specific.
Only troops or equivalent can score..
Good clear terrain rules with photo's explaining stuff like multi lv fighting etc.
unit kill point missions go the way of the dodo, and are replaced by point cost kill points.
meal storm objective have to be kept 2 turns and no longer contain any unbalancing crazy stuff such as kill, turbo boost issue a challenge etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would also be nice if they incorporated a lv up system for each character in the army in the core rulebook shadow war style.
Making unit sarges and non named HQ's more unique and fun to play.
Thank god you're not writing the new rules, or my Ravenwing army would be useless
*Puts on rose colored glasses*. Now that that's out of the way.
I want to see a living rules set that has been pruned and can be actively tweaked and updated. I don't mind paying for a rulebook but ideally I'd like to see it come with a digital copy you download along with the physical copy (and that same digital copy you could buy as a stand alone purchase for less than they physical book, if not free digitally out of the gate) that is updated as the rules change or are tweaked.
At least twice a year the rules are adjusted and updated depending on feedback and observations of what is working too well, and what is working not well enough in the game.
Digital rules for all armies listed. I'd also love to be able to purchase a codex for my armies with pictures and fluff and rules too, of course, and fully plan to purchase updated codexes for their fluff and visuals, but I want the army rules to be laid out digitally for free download and printing. These should be available from day one of the edition's release and updated along side the game rulebook.
Select/purchase warlord trait and psychic powers. Make each variant of HQ choice have their own 'pool' of available warlord traits to choose from; Chaplains have one set, Captains a different set, Librarians their own different set, etc. Let unique special characters have their warlord trait come as standard as per current.
Lastly, make assault more viable. I don't want it to be the end-all-be-all, and I want shooting to still be effective, but let assault be able to at least hang with shooting some how compared to how it currently is.
Make Overwatch a choice. You either shoot on your turn, or you hold fire and pep for overwatch in your opponent's turn. Not both.
Thank god you're not writing the new rules, or my Ravenwing army would be useless
I would give them and the other typical bike armies some rules to balance my nerfs out in order to make them a low mid tier army if you changed your play style.
But yeah bikes rules are currently in my opinion an abomination even before reroll saves, grav spam or move shoot jump rules.
Bikes are now fast, durable scoring gun platforms. These sort of good on all fronts units should rarely exist in a game, and if they to then it doesn't make any sense to be a bike.
Good on two fronts should be the max so fast and scoring would be ok, but you would not be durable nor a gun platform etc.
Don't worry I will not be writing the new rules, however if I did I would also nerf all other units who break this rule ; )
Bring in wound impact on performance for monstrous creatures and vehicles and ditch hull points. So basically import how it works in age of sigmar. 16 wounds to a model and d3 damage sustained. As the wounds add up the vehicle or MC degrades. Would prevent vehicles getting luck shot killed.
I would not enjoy 16+ wound to a vehicle model games with transport spam at all. :\ That is roughly 5-6 wounds per HP and wound not fix the current weakness of vehicles at all while at the same time pressuring armies even more to field high rate of fire weapons who also evaporate infantry armies.
It all depends on how reliable those multi wound weapons are. If they are just a single shot weapon that does 1d6 wounds then it would still be more reliable to just pack high volume weapons. Since those do not have the 1chance to hit nor the 1d6 gamble. Take the current edition as an example, high volume weapons spam such as grav spam and haywire is a thing while melta spam or lascannon spam is usually considered not to be worth it.
Wishlist.
*Apocalypse - there's a place for Superheavies and GMCs, bring it back and relegate them there.
*Pricing and statline overhaul - People don't buy hoard armies because they're stupidly expensive to purchase, clumsy to deploy and play and they're so compressed by cheap elites that they're awful at any kind of competition, it's a shame because hoard armies look amazing on the tabletop.
*Disembark and charge from any vehicle or consolidate from melee to melee.
*Armour modifier ap rather than all or nothing ap.
*To hit roll modifiers.
*Gameplay that encourages troop use rather than Decurions that encourage it.
*Equality in Codexes/Scrolls.
Dakka Wolf wrote: People don't buy hoard armies because they're stupidly expensive to purchase, clumsy to deploy and play and they're so compressed by cheap elites that they're awful at any kind of competition, it's a shame because hoard armies look amazing on the tabletop.
I do not expect GW to make hoard armies good again in 8th. Building and collecting a hoard army isn't really what most players want to do. Even most horde players do not like to paint 150+ of the same guys. It is a rare thing to actually see a horde army where every model is painted with love. The shift to lower model count armies tends to make players more satisfied with their models / armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pushing players who would hate building a hoard army into buying into them just because they are strong seems like a thing GW should avoid, if they want to keep their player base happy.
Dakka Wolf wrote: People don't buy hoard armies because they're stupidly expensive to purchase, clumsy to deploy and play and they're so compressed by cheap elites that they're awful at any kind of competition, it's a shame because hoard armies look amazing on the tabletop.
I do not expect GW to make hoard armies good again in 8th. Building and collecting a hoard army isn't really what most players want to do. Even most horde players do not like to paint 150+ of the same guys. It is a rare thing to actually see a horde army where every model is painted with love. The shift to lower model count armies tends to make players more satisfied with their models / armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pushing players who would hate building a hoard army into buying into them just because they are strong seems like a thing GW should avoid, if they want to keep their player base happy.
There was a time when fifty models in a 2000 point match was considered a hoard.
Dakka Wolf wrote: People don't buy hoard armies because they're stupidly expensive to purchase, clumsy to deploy and play and they're so compressed by cheap elites that they're awful at any kind of competition, it's a shame because hoard armies look amazing on the tabletop.
I do not expect GW to make hoard armies good again in 8th. Building and collecting a hoard army isn't really what most players want to do. Even most horde players do not like to paint 150+ of the same guys. It is a rare thing to actually see a horde army where every model is painted with love. The shift to lower model count armies tends to make players more satisfied with their models / armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pushing players who would hate building a hoard army into buying into them just because they are strong seems like a thing GW should avoid, if they want to keep their player base happy.
while I can agree most people would not want to paint that many models let alone paint them well is rare that is nto a reason to not make them viable again. I would love to run my green tide. I have over 200 ork boyz models all painted to a decent table top finish and the few times I have brought them out since 6th they just autolose.
Alright lets put it in an other way, they don't have to be not viable they can be buffed slightly they just can't be good. Because a large quantity of players tend do flock towards good armies and good armies being out of reach for them because of huge investments in both time,money and the inability to cope with boredom while painting feels wrong and will likely result in less than ideal situations. Just imagine all those eldar players switching to unpainted ork blobz, thats no fun for any of us.
-Rules like Bolt Action to some extent (or at least a move away from you go I go).
-Cheaper prices on everything. Coming from WW2 miniatures, the high prices of GW was uncomfortable. Why is it that a I can get 40 infantry men for a winter soviet army and special weapons teams (once again referring to BA) for about $50, but one squad of Cadians, 10 men, are $30! Both are in the same scale and plastic!!!
-Support for everything. I want my Sister of Battle plastics, I want a bit more diversity in my Imperial Guard, and what ever model GW is too lazy to make, which goes into my last.
-Support the crap out of third party. Allow OGL to flourish and not have to worry about being sued.
NenkotaMoon wrote: -Rules like Bolt Action to some extent (or at least a move away from you go I go).
-Cheaper prices on everything. Coming from WW2 miniatures, the high prices of GW was uncomfortable. Why is it that a I can get 40 infantry men for a winter soviet army and special weapons teams (once again referring to BA) for about $50, but one squad of Cadians, 10 men, are $30! Both are in the same scale and plastic!!!
-Support for everything. I want my Sister of Battle plastics, I want a bit more diversity in my Imperial Guard, and what ever model GW is too lazy to make, which goes into my last.
-Support the crap out of third party. Allow OGL to flourish and not have to worry about being sued.
You are backing the wrong horse here. Gw is never going to ramp up production cost while lowering their prices and inviting the competition in. They are there to make profit, no shareholder will agree to these plans. It might be a good idea to switch back to BA
Removal of d weapons on anything less than a super heavy
Fixing of vehicles so that they are not tissue paper (by removing glances or going aos type system)
Vehicles able to do something in hand to hand combat with a save as well
Removal of emp style weapons
Removal of tau throwing the rule book away
Rebalance of points so that it is fair or as fair as can be
Save modifiers rather than ap A kicking for any one who worked on the ork codex or who says its fair.
Allowing vehicles to fire all there weapons even at different targets
The removal of favoritism​ on codex releases as in no one should have 3 codecs before others get one
Point cost for formations
Fixing transports rules that allow the people inside it to fire normally when jinking but the stable platforms with soficted targeting computers are snap firing.
Other races getting more love for there model range and the removal of finecast from all ranges
I am sure there is alot more but that will do for now
NenkotaMoon wrote: -Rules like Bolt Action to some extent (or at least a move away from you go I go).
-Cheaper prices on everything. Coming from WW2 miniatures, the high prices of GW was uncomfortable. Why is it that a I can get 40 infantry men for a winter soviet army and special weapons teams (once again referring to BA) for about $50, but one squad of Cadians, 10 men, are $30! Both are in the same scale and plastic!!!
-Support for everything. I want my Sister of Battle plastics, I want a bit more diversity in my Imperial Guard, and what ever model GW is too lazy to make, which goes into my last.
-Support the crap out of third party. Allow OGL to flourish and not have to worry about being sued.
You are backing the wrong horse here. Gw is never going to ramp up production cost while lowering their prices and inviting the competition in.
They are there to make profit, no shareholder will agree to these plans. It might be a good idea to switch back to BA
oldzoggy wrote: Alright lets put it in an other way, they don't have to be not viable they can be buffed slightly they just can't be good.
Because a large quantity of players tend do flock towards good armies and good armies being out of reach for them because of huge investments in both time,money and the inability to cope with boredom while painting feels wrong and will likely result in less than ideal situations. Just imagine all those eldar players switching to unpainted ork blobz, thats no fun for any of us.
They can be good, they (just like anything else) shouldn't be head and shoulders above anything else as a way to play. The best solution is for GW to offer distinct armies with different playstyles, some of which might be hoard armies. With Orks and Tyranids for instance I would love to see hoard as a playable alternative, and be just as viable as other army styles in those factions.
Semi-AoS stat lines:
Move, Wounds, Save, Bravery
Weapons Fixed Values:Range, Rate, Ranged To Hit, Melee To Hit, Infantry To Damage, Vehicle To Damage, Damage
All special rules as per warscrolls.
Point cost in upper right of each warscroll
This would make a Marine look like:
Tactical Squad
Mv: 5" Wnd: 2, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 75 per 5
Bolter: Rng: 24"/1" Attacks: 1/1 ToHit: 4+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Heavy Bolter: 36"/1" Attacks: 3/1 ToHit: 3+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 3+/6+ Dam(I/V): 1d3/1 Rend: -1
A squad of marines is 5 to 10 models.
Rapid fire: Marines that don't move may rapid fire bolters or heavy bolters for double their number of attacks.
One marine in 5 may swap out his bolter for a heavy bolter.
The marine with heavy bolter may swap out his weapon for Lascannon (Special rules), Multi-melta (special rules), Plasma cannon (Special Rules), Gravcannon(special rules), Flamer (Special rules), Meltagun (Special Rules), Plasma gun (Special rule)....
Keyword: INFANTRY
And a vehicle written as follows:
Rhino
Mv: 10" Wnd: 8, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 35
Storm Bolter: Rng: 24"/- Attacks: 1/- ToHit: 4+/- ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Transport: May carry up to 10 INFANTRY models
Embark: Models that end within 3" of this model at end of movement may Embark on the vehicle. Place on side of table, units embarked may not be shot at or shoot at anything while embarked.
Disembark: Models that start a turn embarked may disembark anywhere along the movement of the vehicle and move upto half their movement away from the exit point on the vehicle. Disembarked troops may not embark on the same vehicle in the same turn.
Keyword: VEHICLE
I really would like to see semi-AoS rules applied to 40k. I think the one that would seriously help current balance is if eldar jetbikes got the following rule:
A squad of jetbikes consists of 3 to 9 jetbikes, every third jetbike may exchange it's twin linked shuriken catapults for a scatter laser.
Have you ever played an horde army and felt like the experience of painting one is something you would like to repeat ?
If not then it isn't that strange that GW somehow agrees with this sentiment and tries to discourage people from going there unless they really want to.
Semi-AoS stat lines: Move, Wounds, Save, Bravery Weapons Fixed Values:Range, Rate, Ranged To Hit, Melee To Hit, Infantry To Damage, Vehicle To Damage, Damage All special rules as per warscrolls. Point cost in upper right of each warscroll
This would make a Marine look like: Tactical Squad Mv: 5" Wnd: 2, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 75 per 5 Bolter: Rng: 24"/1" Attacks: 1/1 ToHit: 4+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1 Heavy Bolter: 36"/1" Attacks: 3/1 ToHit: 3+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 3+/6+ Dam(I/V): 1d3/1 Rend: -1
I know just the game for you can already use 40k models in it ; ) no need in changing the rules for the rest of us just go and play battle for vedros and have the time of your life.
oldzoggy wrote: It all depends on how reliable those multi wound weapons are. If they are just a single shot weapon that does 1d6 wounds then it would still be more reliable to just pack high volume weapons. Since those do not have the 1chance to hit nor the 1d6 gamble. Take the current edition as an example, high volume weapons spam such as grav spam and haywire is a thing while melta spam or lascannon spam is usually considered not to be worth it.
It also depends on things like save modifiers. If high rate of fire weapons tend to have worse save modifiers (and vehicles have saves), but single shot 1D6 wound causing weapons don't allow saves or reduce them terribly. It would work just fine.
If for instance a Land Raider had 15 wounds and a 2+ save. A high rate of fire weapon that was hitting on 3s, wounding on 6s and allowing that 2+ would take 810 shots to kill the vehicle
A single shot weapon hitting on 3s, Wounding on 2s and not allowing a save would take about 8 shots to kill the land raider.
So it all depends on execution. If those high rate of fire weapons are ignoring saves, and wounding easily it is a problem. But even if haywire wounds on a 2+ but allows saves, it would still take 162 shots to kill the vehicle.
oldzoggy wrote: Allright lets follow your example. Why would you ever use a las cannon that instead of a grav cannon (even without the immob rule).
If a Lascannons Range 48", Att: 1 Rend -3, ToHit: 4+ ToDamage: 3+ Damage 2d3
If a Gravcannon Range 36", Att: 1 Rend: *, ToHit: 4+ ToDamage: Opponents save Modifier Damage 1d6 Mortal wounds
You effectively have two completely different weapons. In which a person would have to make a decision on which is better.
oldzoggy wrote: Allright lets follow your example. Why would you ever use a las cannon that instead of a grav cannon (even without the immob rule).
AS posted below it depends on the execution of both weapons.
Lets say
Las cannon is 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, no save does 1D6 wounds (completely theoretical) =7.7 shots to kill so 8 lascannons
Grav cannon is 3+ to hit, 6+ to wound (currently on vehicles), no save 5 shots. = 135 shots to kill or 27 Grav cannons
Grav cannons are currently 15 points more expensive than lascannons
Even with grav amp rerolls it is 14 grav cannons.
Even if grav wounds on 2s it is 5.4 grav cannons v 8 lascannons, but grav is almost double the cost
The issue is we don't know how things will work, but in basically every scenario Lascannons are significantly better than they are now, especially when you consider things like monstrous creatures taking multiple wounds as well.
Most of my wants have been covered but bear restating,
war scrolls,
vehicles getting toughness/wounds/armor saves
Heavy weapons do multiple wounds
AoS style rend replacing AP Pay for formations
Pay for psychic powers, with points based on usefulness (so Invis will be ruinously expensive)
D-Weapons just do lots of wounds instead of having a completely different wounding mechanic
Change grav weapons in 40k to be like 30k grav weapons, fluffy and effective but not omgwtfbbq things they are now
A more "perfect imbalance" style of balancing where units are balanced points wise, but with special rules to shake up the game and add layers of strategy.
I would like to see a key word system that would state if something was biological, mechanical, and/or ethereal. Then you would have stuff like poison weapons that do more damage to anything biological, and haywire do the same to mechanical, none of this my giant robot is immune to your haywire because reasons.
Warscrolls and all armies updated and posted for free on Day 1. A lot of people are asking for that. On top of that, I want regularly scheduled updates. Perhaps every 3 or 4 months on a pre-announced date updates will be released for the rules and Warscrolls, so that GW can actually respond to issues but the schedule still leaves a guarantee things won't change out of nowhere.
They should also align major releases to this schedule. It would be nice to actually know when stuff is coming out.
I like horde armies, but I will admit that my orks aren't painted to a great standard. (I actually have ~150 boyz still on sprue.) I've recently picked up quite a few Tyranids as well, and I plan to dip them.
I'd like to take up Iron Warriors again, and have a ridiculously small elite force where I can paint up individual models as a cleanser in between batch painting orks.
I think that aesthetics are important in a game like this, but I also think there is aesthetic value seeing wave after wave of orks, 'nids or IG. There are armies where each individual model should be picked up and held close to one's eye to appreciate their fine details, and then there are armies that are meant to be appreciated from a couple feet away.
I only wish for a more fluid gameplay based more on decisions than random dice rolling. Points costs for warlord traits, formations and psychic powers.
Make it more simple. We all know what happens if someone fires at a squad partly in cover with different saves in it and also FnP. It gets very fiddly and you end up rolling saves for every single model individually, with rerolls, look out sir and what have you. I want that to be simplified.
Decide if your character wants to tank all the shots with his 2+ or if you want to save him and sacrifice the whole squad, which only has 4+ saves. No in between, "oh, I'll roll for his saves individually until he has one wound left and then I'll start to make LOS, and then I'll make their saves and their FnP, rerolling ones." This is just an example of things that are tiresome in this game and need simplification.
I just got back 40k after a LONG hiatus (last edition I played was 3rd). The sheer amount of rules is insanity, and they are all cross-referenced.
E.g.: Any MC has AP2 in melee - why doesn't it simply say that? It states that an MC get's another rule, and that rule includes AP2 in melee. This is confusing, unnecessary and makes looking up things MUCH more complicates, especially for new players.
So I absolutely support the AoS-style warscrolls/datasheets/whatever.
Also reduce the amount of rules in general - hammer of wrath, rending, furious charge, counterattack, entropic strike, etc. etc.
why not "this model always gets +1S in the first phase of every melee engagement", or "this model gets +1S in the first melee phase after a successful charge", or "this model always wounds on rolls of 6".
Movement rules: Fleet, move through terrain, fast, battle readiness, jump pack infantry, jet pack infantry, flying, swooping, turboboost, run, charge - jesus christ.
Unit specific movement profiles could remove the need for all that nonsense, while retaining "unique" styles
Personally I enjoyed the save modifiers of the 2nd edition over the "hard counter" AP system. Although my biggest issue here is 2+ saves, and specifically 2+ rerollable. The value of AP2 vs. non AP2 really hurts weapons variety I think.
3+ is no issue, as you can reliable whittle them down... and 3+ units would really suffer from rending rules.
Cover is ridiculous. Make it a save modifier (or a to hit modifier, as someone else stated).
I like the "morale = deserters" system of AoS.
Remove all the random talents! warlord traits, chaos boons, combat drugs, talents here and there - who can remember all that crap? Make it options, make it cost points, and then you can see it in the army builder / warscroll on your phone/tablet.
Any kill the psychic phase, please. Make it abilities.
While I'd like to see numerous changes in the forthcoming edition, with the rumors and information we got so far, I'm now left only wishing that 8th edition doesn't end up anything close to AoS.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: While I'd like to see numerous changes in the forthcoming edition, with the rumors and information we got so far, I'm now left only wishing that 8th edition doesn't end up anything close to AoS.
It will end wth certain similarity to AoS.
In regards to looking AoS. I just hope they don't bring Grand-Alliances. It doesn't translate that well int 40k as there's quite a few outliers.
One thing I've heard a few people say although not on this thread is the idea that guard should run faster than marines... this appears to be based on the assumption that big armour means heavier means slower... and I wouldn't put it past GW.
one thing I do not want full stop is a charging unit striking first!
You mean to tell me that if, for example a guard infantry squad decides to commit suicide by charging a dark eldar or even eldar unit with bayonet and they are not already locked in combat (they may have just consolidated out of combat for example), those space elves are going to just stand there and let the humans throw the first punch? I don't think so. An initiative modifier yes, chargers strike first... No!
Vehicles need to be made more reliable or on the flop side bring a load of the current MCs (I'm looking at you Tau) down a peg or two by making them vehicles or what they truly are... walkers. The suggestions of giving vehicles wounds and armour saves should help though.
I want to see Orks get a buff. They are by far the most fun army to play against and yet they really struggle. Our resident Ork players are best placed to suggest how that can be done.
I want, and from what we have heard from GW am likely to get, bonuses for actually playing my army in a way that matches the fluff. The novels I have consumed feverishly in the past year or so have been the main driving force in building my army the way it currently is, loadout wise etc, but I have no recollection anywhere of reading about Grav centurions dropping in a pod with a librarian running around blasting everything while a grav wielding command squad on bikes with an attached librarius conclave (now invisible thanks to the whitches) jinks an entire enemy armies shooting while two 5 man tactical squads sit on back field objectives cowering at all the AP3 weapons their enemy carries. And that's just marines!
I agree with @oldzoggy that all grav should be made relics and be limited. This might be bias on my part but I hate grav and don't use it for exactly the same reason I dont use centurions, it was a stupid invention dreamt up by GW as a way to not have SMs lose out in an arms race that shouldn't even have started. If Wraithknights hadn't be so undercosted and/or OP we wouldn't have had to unnecessarily introduce a new weapon to deal with it.
I want my tactical squads to actually be more useful than my specialist units since they are more experienced and better warriors and my veterans even more so. I don't understand why Sternguards main use is as a suicide anti tank or anti heavy infantry unit. Rather undignified and wasteful purpose for a chapters most venerated Brothers.
I want horde armies to be viable. I understand the previous comments about GW not wanting to push people down that route because of the huge investment in time and resources but that doesn't mean making a horde Nid army the only way to play them, just make it one of the viable options. The only reason I haven't made a Nid swarm army, to relive the invasion of Ultramar, is because of the pointlessness of the list as it can't work with the current editions rules.
I would hope that I am not required to spend nearly £100 on books for the army I have already collected and poured money into GW for in order to simply carry on playing it but I guess that is out of my hands.
All that being said I am quietly optimistic and think that GW will likely have learnt a lot of lessons from the move to AOS and they have been making so very sound decisions over the past year, seemly moving the company in a positive direction, but you know the old adage... "old habits die hard".
My concern is that GWs opinion of a fluffy marine army is a lot of Tactical marines or something.
Personally I think playing fluffy should be it's own reward, and that GW should allow that sort of thing.
But they shouldn't try to encourage you to do so, as everyones opinion of fluff is different, and homebrew fluff will always have the potential to differ.
You mean to tell me that if, for example a guard infantry squad decides to commit suicide by charging a dark eldar or even eldar unit with bayonet and they are not already locked in combat (they may have just consolidated out of combat for example), those space elves are going to just stand there and let the humans throw the first punch? I don't think so. An initiative modifier yes, chargers strike first... No!
I find it equally ridiculous that a unit that was in the process of running across the battlefield, shooting at something else, and executing orders can never be caught off guard when some other group jumps the with weapons. The fact that they can react is already represented, by overwatch. The game is abstracted in starts and stops, but its meant to represent and ongoing battle.
A unit landing on you while your trying to fire at some other part of the battlefield, trying not be shot, trying to listen to your squad leader, potentially trying to reload, avoiding debris, planning to charge someone else.... It makes sense that a unit that was PREPARED to hit you with a pointy stick gets to hit first.
You mean to tell me that if, for example a guard infantry squad decides to commit suicide by charging a dark eldar or even eldar unit with bayonet and they are not already locked in combat (they may have just consolidated out of combat for example), those space elves are going to just stand there and let the humans throw the first punch? I don't think so. An initiative modifier yes, chargers strike first... No!
I find it equally ridiculous that a unit that was in the process of running across the battlefield, shooting at something else, and executing orders can never be caught off guard when some other group jumps the with weapons. The fact that they can react is already represented, by overwatch. The game is abstracted in starts and stops, but its meant to represent and ongoing battle.
A unit landing on you while your trying to fire at some other part of the battlefield, trying not be shot, trying to listen to your squad leader, potentially trying to reload, avoiding debris, planning to charge someone else.... It makes sense that a unit that was PREPARED to hit you with a pointy stick gets to hit first.
the rumor I heard from a good source was the bonus attack for charging first goes then it goes to initiative to represent the unit caught off guard or having been otherwise occupied. ie 20 slugga/choppa ork boyz w/ nob and pk charge a unit of 10 tac marines. orks swing 20 attacks hitting on 4's wounding on 4's (averaging 4 saves for the marine player) then nob gets one tag with PK hit on 4's wound on 2's (no save) the mathematically around 8 marines swing back hitting on 4's wound on 4's with 8 attacks (2 ork tshirt saves) then the ork normal attack would happen 60 attacks hitting on 4's wounding on 4's followed by the remaining 3 power claw attacks
I can see them going with charging units striking first being more cinematic. Charging in turn based games can get weird though.
For example, you could have two close-combat oriented units running across the board towards each other. Unit A is outside of charge range, so they run instead. Unit B is then within charge range, and they make it in. Unit B charged Unit A, but I would argue that Unit A is also charging Unit B. I mean, maybe they winded themselves running and while they were busy catching their breath Unit B charged them, but in my mind it should be two close combat units smashing into each other rather than one standing around while the other charges it. That's one of the difficulties of turn-based games.
Also, many advantages granted by charging are weird. Why would a charging unit hit harder, or go first? If you have two spearmen with equal reach, and Spearman A charges at Spearman B who is standing still, they will hit each other equally hard and at the same time. It makes sense for the units with the longest reach to go first, although that could be difficult to keep track of and would probably require a different stat in the weapon profile. It would make sense for certain units, like horse mounted lancers, to hit harder on the charged as they braced against their huge horse. Certain Hammer of Wrath attacks from bikes and the like also make a sort of sense. I could see leadership tests on both sides involved with charging, but that would probably bog the game down.
I think they'll keep a lot of the weird advantages with charging around due to the cinematic feel it gives to things. I'm okay with that.
I would actually be okay with them getting rid of initiative steps in close combat entirely, and having the speed of different units and weapons be represented by their number of attacks. Maybe a Space Marine with a boltpistol and chainsword gets to make three attacks, while their sergeant with a power fist only gets to make one, and the Dark Eldar they are fighting get to make a crazy number of attacks and have some special rules that make them harder to hit. All attacks resolve at the same time.
You mean to tell me that if, for example a guard infantry squad decides to commit suicide by charging a dark eldar or even eldar unit with bayonet and they are not already locked in combat (they may have just consolidated out of combat for example), those space elves are going to just stand there and let the humans throw the first punch? I don't think so. An initiative modifier yes, chargers strike first... No!
I find it equally ridiculous that a unit that was in the process of running across the battlefield, shooting at something else, and executing orders can never be caught off guard when some other group jumps the with weapons. The fact that they can react is already represented, by overwatch. The game is abstracted in starts and stops, but its meant to represent and ongoing battle.
A unit landing on you while your trying to fire at some other part of the battlefield, trying not be shot, trying to listen to your squad leader, potentially trying to reload, avoiding debris, planning to charge someone else.... It makes sense that a unit that was PREPARED to hit you with a pointy stick gets to hit first.
the rumor I heard from a good source was the bonus attack for charging first goes then it goes to initiative to represent the unit caught off guard or having been otherwise occupied. ie 20 slugga/choppa ork boyz w/ nob and pk charge a unit of 10 tac marines. orks swing 20 attacks hitting on 4's wounding on 4's (averaging 4 saves for the marine player) then nob gets one tag with PK hit on 4's wound on 2's (no save) the mathematically around 8 marines swing back hitting on 4's wound on 4's with 8 attacks (2 ork tshirt saves) then the ork normal attack would happen 60 attacks hitting on 4's wounding on 4's followed by the remaining 3 power claw attacks
Perfectly fair IMO.
If I bullrush you and tackle you while you were doing something else it amkes sense that you get slammed regardless of how much of a ninja you happen to be.
Going with pure initiative at all times kinda makes it feel like every unit in the game screams "Were over here, charging you; from the left, READY YOURSELVES" when they launch a combat against another unit. Init should certainly matter, but not when you get caught in a trap. If you don't want the unit with the slower Init hitting first, either be out of range, or charge them first.
All I want for 8th is a generic Space Marine Scout HQ choice. My wish is simple GW, please make it happen. I am bummed that to make an all 10th Company army I am pretty much stuck with Ultramarines for a good chunk of it.
I'm hoping they add AOS style wounds/damage charts to vehicles, but still prevent things like lasgun fire from taking one down. I think one way they could do it would be to have a rule like "Armored: wound rolls against this model suffer a -2 penalty. If this would result in a required roll of 7+, the would roll is prevented entirely. Weapons with the Anti-Armor trait ignore the penalty, and instead deal double the amount of damage upon a successful wound roll", and then have weapons like krak missiles, lascannons and melta weapons have the Anti-Armor trait.
1. For the love of god DO NOT bring back armor save modifiers. Keep the current weapon AP system.
2. Elimination of most USR's.
3. Remove all the odd nuts & bolts that people either don't remember or don't care to use.
4. Give Monstrous Creatures degradation tables like in AoS.
5. Reduce cover saves to 6+; 5+ at the most.
6. Eliminate Look Out Sir.
7. Keep blast markers and flame templates.
I'm not totally against AoS charging goes first business but I would like to see a few conditions to actually getting it.
Rather than a straight up thing I'd like to see the Initiative stat remain but any models not facing the charging unit strike the charging unit at I1.
Holy god I would hate that. It already takes horde armies upwards for fourty minutes to finish a movement phase, can you imagine if suddenly facing mattered?!
Hell, I've been knowing to 'deploy' orks by dumping a ziplock back upside down and giving the pile a few 'pats' in order to space them out.
First problem with hoard armies is the number of models needed, I want to see a return to 2nd edition model counts.
Orks look better when the paint has been treated a little rough, same with my Nids.
I use magnetic strips of five (fridge magnet advertising) for movement. Each gaunt base has a 2mm magnet glued to it, took me a while to make but it's worth it.
Your Ork hoards would probably benefit directional play, especially if directional Overwatch from 2nd ed comes back.
You mean to tell me that if, for example a guard infantry squad decides to commit suicide by charging a dark eldar or even eldar unit with bayonet and they are not already locked in combat (they may have just consolidated out of combat for example), those space elves are going to just stand there and let the humans throw the first punch? I don't think so. An initiative modifier yes, chargers strike first... No!
I find it equally ridiculous that a unit that was in the process of running across the battlefield, shooting at something else, and executing orders can never be caught off guard when some other group jumps the with weapons. The fact that they can react is already represented, by overwatch. The game is abstracted in starts and stops, but its meant to represent and ongoing battle.
A unit landing on you while your trying to fire at some other part of the battlefield, trying not be shot, trying to listen to your squad leader, potentially trying to reload, avoiding debris, planning to charge someone else.... It makes sense that a unit that was PREPARED to hit you with a pointy stick gets to hit first.
the rumor I heard from a good source was the bonus attack for charging first goes then it goes to initiative to represent the unit caught off guard or having been otherwise occupied. ie 20 slugga/choppa ork boyz w/ nob and pk charge a unit of 10 tac marines. orks swing 20 attacks hitting on 4's wounding on 4's (averaging 4 saves for the marine player) then nob gets one tag with PK hit on 4's wound on 2's (no save) the mathematically around 8 marines swing back hitting on 4's wound on 4's with 8 attacks (2 ork tshirt saves) then the ork normal attack would happen 60 attacks hitting on 4's wounding on 4's followed by the remaining 3 power claw attacks
Perfectly fair IMO.
If I bullrush you and tackle you while you were doing something else it amkes sense that you get slammed regardless of how much of a ninja you happen to be.
Going with pure initiative at all times kinda makes it feel like every unit in the game screams "Were over here, charging you; from the left, READY YOURSELVES" when they launch a combat against another unit. Init should certainly matter, but not when you get caught in a trap. If you don't want the unit with the slower Init hitting first, either be out of range, or charge them first.
That would be a really good way of doing it to give the charging unit some bonus and guaranteed strike capacity another thing we thought of today would be to say that if a charging unit has a lower initiative they strike at the same time as the unit receiving the charge. I'd be happy with either, just no straight up charging guarantees first strike.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: 1. For the love of god DO NOT bring back armor save modifiers. Keep the current weapon AP system.
2. Elimination of most USR's.
3. Remove all the odd nuts & bolts that people either don't remember or don't care to use.
4. Give Monstrous Creatures degradation tables like in AoS.
5. Reduce cover saves to 6+; 5+ at the most.
6. Eliminate Look Out Sir.
7. Keep blast markers and flame templates.
on point 7...
the owner of a local 3rd party store mentioned being told by GW to not order any more templates. Whether they're being redesigned or going completely is anybody's guess.
Ideally, I'd like to see 5th brought back with some bits of 4th and some of the more "low level" post 5E changes mixed in (stuff like 4E victory points instead of KP's, 7E rapid fire weapon & vehicle passenger effect rules) and a return to at least the power level path GW looked to be pursuing in late 6th/early 7E before they hard-reversed and went full Derp with Necrons and later.
That would play quite nicely, allowing for larger armies but without the ridiculous scale of things that 7E has brought in but also allow play at a lower level that functions much easier without having to worry about some of the more obscene stuff that can be packed in at low levels now, and with dramatically fewer issues of things like MC's vs Vehicles or Assault vs Shooting and the like.
More realistically, I expect that we'll see more "bring whatever you want" mix and match nonsense with some of the more extravagant power combo stuff cut out and potentially wild but ultimately misplaced core gameplay mechanic changes, as is tradition.
thought of today would be to say that if a charging unit has a lower initiative they strike at the same time as the unit receiving the charge. I'd be happy with either, just no straight up charging guarantees first strike.
IMO the only way to guarantee getting to react to an opponents assault first should be spending your own action or part of your own action on your turn to get it.
If your unit could 'Dig in' during their turn, instead of shoot; id be perfectly fine with them having full bs on overawatch and getting to strike first despite being charged....
But in reality, that unit that eats the charge was likely shooting at something else, moving in a different direction and as the rules stand they still get to strike first if they happen to have better reflexes.
I am all for charging first = striking first. This made 5th warhammer fantasy a game of tactics since movement suddenly becomes important. 40k is lacking at this point. However I am not sure if premeasuring + random charge distance make it as enjoyable as it was.
Also do not fear for your eldar close combat units they will probably have superior movement stats and tricks. If you manage to get charged by a slower opponent with them you deserve to be annihilated in first round close combat. This is what made the assault first charge first rule great. It forced players to actually plan ahead, and come up with clever ambushes instead of just shoving your close combat blob of doom forward to the enemy in hope that you somehow managed to get into close combat.
Vaktathi wrote: More realistically, I expect that we'll see more "bring whatever you want" mix and match nonsense with some of the more extravagant power combo stuff cut out and potentially wild but ultimately misplaced core gameplay mechanic changes, as is tradition.
Vaktathi wrote: More realistically, I expect that we'll see more "bring whatever you want" mix and match nonsense with some of the more extravagant power combo stuff cut out and potentially wild but ultimately misplaced core gameplay mechanic changes, as is tradition.
Unbound would be fairer than Decurion or Gladius.
In many ways yes, but I was more addressing the trend in general. Between the allies rules, formations, multiple detachments, etc there's far too much mix and match and whatnot for this game to have any coherency even without unbound.
For me, smaller games than the 1850 pt insanity pervading the current meta. A game that I can finish in an hour to hour-and-a-half rather than spending a half day on it to give up after the 4th turn.
No rerollable saves, cover and invuln can't be better than a 3+. Give every army invuln saves or EW. Limit the number of dice used on dispelling. Make some equivalent to irresistable force from FB (getting perills should be worth the risk). Let us choose psykik powers and warlord traits and get rid of useless and broken ones (Haemorage and invisiblity respectivly) .Give either everybody FOC alterations, or get rid of them alltogether (why can SM take bikes as troops, but orks can't?). Give BS and armour/cover modifiers instead of conventional ap.
Understandable, many of us buy into an army because of the cool idea that is a horde army.. However do you currently own a decently painted Ig horde ?
Yes
Bit of a divergance but what is your process for painting?
I used to do Soviets from Bolt Action so I am used to a horde. I use Cadians (which I homebrew some fluff and say that they are not Cadian's but from a planet that just models there stuff) and a few aftermarket from Victoria Miniatures, like slouch hats and bare arms. Play some nice music or Netflix and just take my time. I can get about 15 guys straight on a good night, four if bad. Assembly and paint both. Tanks are a bit different. A day to assemble and a day to paint. As well, most if not all my stuff is hand painted, including my tanks, no airbrush.
Really, it's your imagination with horde armies that can keep you going. I like to think each Guardsmen has a story. I also like switching heads around from different spruces One of my flamers has the bandana head from a Chimera sprew.
I would like to see 40k have feth all to do with AoS but that horse has bolted. I would have had no problem with a ground up rebuild of 40k but oh well.
The free rules is a bit of slight of hand, AoS had free core rules mostly because there was only 4 pages. But to get any real flavour to the game you need to buy the books.
Anyway so what I would like to see is damage control removing the worst bits of AoS.
So no shooting into combat.
No shooting out of combat.
No mysterious scenery.
No random charge distances.
no random turns.
More than 2 psychic powers at launch.
No Mob Rule for every army.
No Fixed to hit or to wound rolls.
No mortal wounds.
No Rend, actually have a real set of save modifiers.
Vehicles are not just funny looking people.
I find the idea that people hate fixed to-hit/wound hilarious. We already have that. You play SM? You hit on 3's, in shooting. Period. In combat you will typically hit on 4's, sometimes on 3's, and almost never on 5's. Most weapons wound on 4's or 3's. Obviously more specialized weapons make it easier to wound.
But what if my BS/WS is higher? In a AoS version you would have +1 to hit for that model (like a sergeant for example) The effect is exactly the same. And there are plenty of ways to change dice rolls
Fixed amounts make its simpler then saying 7-BS(4)=to hit(3+) and makes it a flat 3+. No charts, no comparisons, easy.
What I want to see:
Changes made to dice rolls and NOT stat lines like in AoS.
Charges are a flat double your Movement like in SWA.
No pre-measuring.
Pull models from anywhere instead of the front.
Less super friends.
Formations with points and no free stuff.
Templates and markers gone, don't think that will happen
Psychic powers back in the shooting phase or incorporated into a Command Phase like AoS Psychic Powers a roll on 2d6, either you get it or you don't.
MC's and Vehicles with degrading abilities. More damage means less effective.
Vehicles are the biggest question. If they go full on AoS then they would have Wounds which I would like to see as AV=Wounds. So Rhinos would have 10 wounds, Landraiders would have 14, ect. Probably can't work everywhere but would be decent start
BomBomHotdog wrote: I find the idea that people hate fixed to-hit/wound hilarious. We already have that. You play SM? You hit on 3's, in shooting. Period. In combat you will typically hit on 4's, sometimes on 3's, and almost never on 5's. Most weapons wound on 4's or 3's. Obviously more specialized weapons make it easier to wound.
but there is not really when it's a d6 there's +/- 1, +/-2 or re-roll ones.
Thats why almost all AoS units are a variation of 3/4 to hit and 3/4 to wound then one of the above 5 options as a "special" rule with it's own custom name(ignoring the dozen other versions of it with different names).
People say it's easier but is there any point in making it easier, then giving basic shields 5 different rules so you have to look up how our opponents work completely differently to yours. The game was basically a shonky 4 page shell of a game they have spent 2 years trying to dress up as a real game.
BomBomHotdog wrote: I find the idea that people hate fixed to-hit/wound hilarious. We already have that. You play SM? You hit on 3's, in shooting. Period. In combat you will typically hit on 4's, sometimes on 3's, and almost never on 5's. Most weapons wound on 4's or 3's. Obviously more specialized weapons make it easier to wound.
but there is not really when it's a d6 there's +/- 1, +/-2 or re-roll ones.
Thats why almost all AoS units are a variation of 3/4 to hit and 3/4 to wound then one of the above 5 options as a "special" rule with it's own custom name(ignoring the dozen other versions of it with different names).
People say it's easier but is there any point in making it easier, then giving basic shields 5 different rules so you have to look up how our opponents work completely differently to yours. The game was basically a shonky 4 page shell of a game they have spent 2 years trying to dress up as a real game.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
AoS is and has been the superior game since it launched, the things people hated on (goofy rules, model to model measurement) got houseruled out pretty quickly and now barely even exist. The only other problem was army building which the GHB fixed.
Side bar: don't get rid of premeasuring you're not a good player because you know how long 6 inches looks and anyone who knows how long their pointer finger is can get around it.
BomBomHotdog wrote: I find the idea that people hate fixed to-hit/wound hilarious. We already have that. You play SM? You hit on 3's, in shooting. Period. In combat you will typically hit on 4's, sometimes on 3's, and almost never on 5's. Most weapons wound on 4's or 3's. Obviously more specialized weapons make it easier to wound.
but there is not really when it's a d6 there's +/- 1, +/-2 or re-roll ones.
Thats why almost all AoS units are a variation of 3/4 to hit and 3/4 to wound then one of the above 5 options as a "special" rule with it's own custom name(ignoring the dozen other versions of it with different names).
People say it's easier but is there any point in making it easier, then giving basic shields 5 different rules so you have to look up how our opponents work completely differently to yours. The game was basically a shonky 4 page shell of a game they have spent 2 years trying to dress up as a real game.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
AoS is and has been the superior game since it launched, the things people hated on (goofy rules, model to model measurement) got houseruled out pretty quickly and now barely even exist. The only other problem was army building which the GHB fixed.
Side bar: don't get rid of premeasuring you're not a good player because you know how long 6 inches looks and anyone who knows how long their pointer finger is can get around it.
Gotta agree with you there.
Nine inches from pinkie tip to thumb tip.
Twelve inches from elbow to wrist.
Twenty one inches from elbow to fingertip.
Nobody ever looked twice when I rested an arm or hand on the tabletop to move models.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
I haven't played enough of AoS to debate that, so I won't, but there is something that feels inherently wrong about the way this system is set up. Maybe you could adress this issue I have with it:
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat. In a well constructed chart (not necessarily the one we have right now, mind you), this is represented by pitting WS 2 against WS 6, which leads to a very improbable dice roll of 6+.
If said Grot did attack another Grot, however, this would change to a 4+, which makes sense, since it would be easier for them to hit a model that is less proficient in defending or fighting in general.
The chart-system allows for this differentiation, while a fixed value system does not.
Why do I think this is important? Units should be multi-faceted. They should have win- as well as lose-scenarios, not a single average efficiency against every single enemy type. You can, of course, offset that by attaching dice modifiers to unit profiles, but I'd argue that this only makes things more complicated than the alternative (which honestly is really, really simple to learn).
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
I haven't played enough of AoS to debate that, so I won't, but there is something that feels inherently wrong about the way this system is set up. Maybe you could adress this issue I have with it:
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat. In a well constructed chart (not necessarily the one we have right now, mind you), this is represented by pitting WS 2 against WS 6, which leads to a very improbable dice roll of 6+.
If said Grot did attack another Grot, however, this would change to a 4+, which makes sense, since it would be easier for them to hit a model that is less proficient in defending or fighting in general.
The chart-system allows for this differentiation, while a fixed value system does not.
Why do I think this is important? Units should be multi-faceted. They should have win- as well as lose-scenarios, not a single average efficiency against every single enemy type. You can, of course, offset that by attaching dice modifiers to unit profiles, but I'd argue that this only makes things more complicated than the alternative (which honestly is really, really simple to learn).
There's huge variety in how it works in AoS as is. Some units give -1 to hit, some give -1 to wound, some halve wounds, and some can heal. Weak units like Grots could also carry negative abilities like say "Wheedly: Against Heroes and Monsters/Vehicles this unit must reroll successful hits" or some such. Finally there is the tag system so there could be a rule like "Vehicle/Monster: unless the attacking model has anti-vehicle/monster then it has no rend value and only ever inflicts 1 damage." Not useful against Grots since they'd like be no rend 1 damage but against say Bolters it could make a difference.
Also all that making it easier for Grots to wound stuff does is make it so that Grots will actually be used to do something instead of sit on objectives. As it is now that and cheap troops filler is all they accomplish.
There's huge variety in how it works in AoS as is. Some units give -1 to hit, some give -1 to wound, some halve wounds, and some can heal. Weak units like Grots could also carry negative abilities like say "Wheedly: Against Heroes and Monsters/Vehicles this unit must reroll successful hits" or some such. Finally there is the tag system so there could be a rule like "Vehicle/Monster: unless the attacking model has anti-vehicle/monster then it has no rend value and only ever inflicts 1 damage." Not useful against Grots since they'd like be no rend 1 damage but against say Bolters it could make a difference.
Also all that making it easier for Grots to wound stuff does is make it so that Grots will actually be used to do something instead of sit on objectives. As it is now that and cheap troops filler is all they accomplish.
So additional, unit-specific rules is in fact the solution they chose to compensate for the problem I described? If so, how is that easier than having a single chart that applies to everything?
Don't get me wrong, I can see the appeal of the tag system and special rules that work in tandem with it. It's similar to TCGs in a way and I think it's a good way to diversivy units, but we don't really need fixed values for that, do we?
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat.
And why not? Thats like saying a bumble bee should not be able to easily sting me. It can very easily sting me, but its gonna get smooshed pretty quick afterwards and it's gonna need about 200 friends in order for me to start having any serious problems.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
I haven't played enough of AoS to debate that, so I won't, but there is something that feels inherently wrong about the way this system is set up. Maybe you could adress this issue I have with it:
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat. In a well constructed chart (not necessarily the one we have right now, mind you), this is represented by pitting WS 2 against WS 6, which leads to a very improbable dice roll of 6+.
If said Grot did attack another Grot, however, this would change to a 4+, which makes sense, since it would be easier for them to hit a model that is less proficient in defending or fighting in general.
The chart-system allows for this differentiation, while a fixed value system does not.
Why do I think this is important? Units should be multi-faceted. They should have win- as well as lose-scenarios, not a single average efficiency against every single enemy type. You can, of course, offset that by attaching dice modifiers to unit profiles, but I'd argue that this only makes things more complicated than the alternative (which honestly is really, really simple to learn).
Going by Grots in AoS they hit and wound on 5's. Now they get additional attacks for every 10 in the unit up to 30. So lets just say you have 30, just to maximize. Melee weapons in AoS have a range which is 1" for the Grots so only they ones in base-to-base will get to attack. You might squeeze in a few more models but your over-all efficiency will be determined by how many you get in range. You just said a Greater Deamon but didn't specify so I'm going to use a Bloodthirster. They get 4+ save. The Grots might score 1 wound each with 3 attacks and the Bloodthrister would save half the time. Now when the Bloodthirster attacks he only gets 6 attacks but hits on 3s and wounds on 2s, at worst 4s. His axe has a rend which will negate the Grots armor (6+) and each successful wound causes d3 casualties to the Grots. If all 6 hit and Wound that's going to average out to about 12 wounds on the Grots. Even if the Grots go first in combat they will still end up being the losers In the combat barring any terrible rolls.
Now here's the kicker. Battleshock, which GW said was coming to 40k, will destroy the Grot unit. Grots are a whopping Bravery 4. For the test you roll and add your Casualties and subtract your Bravery. Lets say the Unit lots 10 Models so it has 20 left. Grots get to add 2 to their Bravery (1 for every 10) making it a 6. They are already loosing 4 models before rolling and will loose between a total of 5 to 10. The Bloodthirster will stand a bit bloodied and bruised. In one round of combat the Grots have lost upwards of half to a third of its force while the Deamon might have gone down a tier or two in power.
Can the Grots kill the Bloodthirster? Potentially. Will it happen? Probably not. Does it happen? Sure and its funny when it does.
Having played both they work exactly the same in practice, thw only difference is that fixed values are easier to teach someone.
I haven't played enough of AoS to debate that, so I won't, but there is something that feels inherently wrong about the way this system is set up. Maybe you could adress this issue I have with it:
Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat. In a well constructed chart (not necessarily the one we have right now, mind you), this is represented by pitting WS 2 against WS 6, which leads to a very improbable dice roll of 6+.
If said Grot did attack another Grot, however, this would change to a 4+, which makes sense, since it would be easier for them to hit a model that is less proficient in defending or fighting in general.
The chart-system allows for this differentiation, while a fixed value system does not.
Why do I think this is important? Units should be multi-faceted. They should have win- as well as lose-scenarios, not a single average efficiency against every single enemy type. You can, of course, offset that by attaching dice modifiers to unit profiles, but I'd argue that this only makes things more complicated than the alternative (which honestly is really, really simple to learn).
As you say the current WS chart is very poor - the best you can do is hit ona 3+ - thats pathetic, so that Greater Daemon can only hit that Grot 2/3 of the time.
More importanty - we already have fixed to hit rolls when you use BS - considering how important shooting is in the current version of 40K - why is this ok and WS can't be fixed rolls as well?
A rework of basic rules to shift up the meta and make assault armies a bit more viable. Streamlining out of over complicated rules. An honest attempt to balance armies as opposed to giving a good army even more toys and doing nothing for the low tier army. Example- my main army is nids and my side army eldar.
As you say the current WS chart is very poor - the best you can do is hit on a 3+ - that's pathetic, so that Greater Daemon can only hit that Grot 2/3 of the time.
More importantly - we already have fixed to hit rolls when you use BS - considering how important shooting is in the current version of 40K - why is this ok and WS can't be fixed rolls as well?
To be fair that's also kinda ridiculous that hitting a building that the guy is stood next to is just as easy as a gretchin at the limits of the weapon range
As you say the current WS chart is very poor - the best you can do is hit ona 3+ - thats pathetic, so that Greater Daemon can only hit that Grot 2/3 of the time.
More importanty - we already have fixed to hit rolls when you use BS - considering how important shooting is in the current version of 40K - why is this ok and WS can't be fixed rolls as well?
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the current chart either, but I think the general concept is solid.
To answer your question: Because shooting is a one-way street and close combat is not. There is no way of dodging a bullet coming at you, but you can block or redirect a blow in close combat if you know what you are doing.
@BomBomHotdog:
Thanks for elaborating. I see how is can still work out fine, but the general problem I posted is still not addressed, is it?
As you say the current WS chart is very poor - the best you can do is hit on a 3+ - that's pathetic, so that Greater Daemon can only hit that Grot 2/3 of the time.
More importantly - we already have fixed to hit rolls when you use BS - considering how important shooting is in the current version of 40K - why is this ok and WS can't be fixed rolls as well?
To be fair that's also kinda ridiculous that hitting a building that the guy is stood next to is just as easy as a gretchin at the limits of the weapon range
Indeed - or even worse - a Guardsman has the same chance to hit a Scout Sniper with camo cloaks in cover at maximum range as he does as shooting a Stationary vehicle that has been left parked next to him.
But for some reason - thats all fine and its only in Close Combat that fixed rolls can;t possibly be right? makes no sense does it.
To answer your question: Because shooting is a one-way street and close combat is not. There is no way of dodging a bullet coming at you, but you can block or redirect a blow in close combat if you know what you are doing.
So it shoud be the same chance to hit: a Scout Sniper with camo cloaks in cover at maximum range as a Stationary vehicle that has been left parked next to him??
Actually the fluff has Eldar and others dodging bullets, and you can dodge the muzzle not the bullet.
So it shoud be the same chance to hit: a Scout Sniper with camo cloaks in cover at maximum range as a Stationary vehicle that has been left parked next to him??
Actually the fluff has Eldar and others dodging bullets, and you can dodge the muzzle not the bullet.
No, range, cover and camo cloaks should put negative modifiers on the to hit roll.
As for supernatural skills: That's what ward saves are for.
To answer your question: Because shooting is a one-way street and close combat is not. There is no way of dodging a bullet coming at you, but you can block or redirect a blow in close combat if you know what you are doing.
But it isn't really though. Shooting a massive Ork that's standing around just enjoying the gunfire and explosions is a lot easier than shooting a grot that's doing his damnedest to look unimportant behind that pebble.
Personally I would prefer a ranged to-hit chart. And I wish both the new shooting and the current melee chart would work a bit like the current to-wound chart but leaping every two difference.
IE If both are equal it's a 4+, but you need to be 2 better to hit on a 3+.
Indeed - or even worse - a Guardsman has the same chance to hit a Scout Sniper with camo cloaks in cover at maximum range as he does as shooting a Stationary vehicle that has been left parked next to him.
Given that Camo Cloaks are likely something that'll decrease the To Hit of the unit..
Semi-AoS stat lines:
Move, Wounds, Save, Bravery
Weapons Fixed Values:Range, Rate, Ranged To Hit, Melee To Hit, Infantry To Damage, Vehicle To Damage, Damage
All special rules as per warscrolls.
Point cost in upper right of each warscroll
This would make a Marine look like:
Tactical Squad
Mv: 5" Wnd: 2, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 75 per 5
Bolter: Rng: 24"/1" Attacks: 1/1 ToHit: 4+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Heavy Bolter: 36"/1" Attacks: 3/1 ToHit: 3+/4+ ToDamage(I/V): 3+/6+ Dam(I/V): 1d3/1 Rend: -1
A squad of marines is 5 to 10 models.
Rapid fire: Marines that don't move may rapid fire bolters or heavy bolters for double their number of attacks.
One marine in 5 may swap out his bolter for a heavy bolter.
The marine with heavy bolter may swap out his weapon for Lascannon (Special rules), Multi-melta (special rules), Plasma cannon (Special Rules), Gravcannon(special rules), Flamer (Special rules), Meltagun (Special Rules), Plasma gun (Special rule)....
Keyword: INFANTRY
And a vehicle written as follows:
Rhino
Mv: 10" Wnd: 8, Save 4+, Brav: 7 Points: 35
Storm Bolter: Rng: 24"/- Attacks: 1/- ToHit: 4+/- ToDamage(I/V): 4+/- Dam(I/V): 1/- Rend: -1
Transport: May carry up to 10 INFANTRY models
Embark: Models that end within 3" of this model at end of movement may Embark on the vehicle. Place on side of table, units embarked may not be shot at or shoot at anything while embarked.
Disembark: Models that start a turn embarked may disembark anywhere along the movement of the vehicle and move upto half their movement away from the exit point on the vehicle. Disembarked troops may not embark on the same vehicle in the same turn.
Keyword: VEHICLE
I really would like to see semi-AoS rules applied to 40k. I think the one that would seriously help current balance is if eldar jetbikes got the following rule:
A squad of jetbikes consists of 3 to 9 jetbikes, every third jetbike may exchange it's twin linked shuriken catapults for a scatter laser.
Spoiler:
Venerable Ironclad wrote: I would like to see a key word system that would state if something was biological, mechanical, and/or ethereal. Then you would have stuff like poison weapons that do more damage to anything biological, and haywire do the same to mechanical, none of this my giant robot is immune to your haywire because reasons.
You two read my minds.
For that second (rather awesome) idea, I was suddenly reminded of pokemon with two different elemental types (bare with me here). They have twice as many strengths...and twice as many weaknesses too. Just imagine for a second if all marines had the biological and mechanical keyword because of their power armor. Suddenly haywire grenades and arc weaponry can be used to great effect against them (and necrons too). This could be a great way to re-balance things. Make Marines killing machines sure, but there's plenty of ways to use that armor against them.
My hopes for 8th though are:
Return of movement value
Damage charts for big units (with vehicles sharing the same stats as everyone else)
Rend and damage stats for weapons
Cover providing a save modifer
Physic powers using an AoS style system
Bolt action style actions. Anything to break up the I go you go system.
If 40k used AoS's combat system for shooting (one player shoots with a unit, then the other players shoots with a unit and so on) then I would be over the moon.
Free rules... let us spend money on models
no 2+ save can be rerolled as a blanket rule
Have minor "chapter tactics" like rules for different: chapters, Traitor Legions, various Hive Fleets, Craftworlds, Klanz, etc.
Bobthehero wrote: Cover modifiers don't work on a D6, unless you also give positive modifiers, so far I only see people wanting to reduce BS.
Large target (Tank/monstrous creature) would be a positive for sure. Depending on the weapon range might give a positive modifier (Point blank with a shotgun for example)
It's just a fact that there are more things that would reduce the chances to hit than increase them.
Bobthehero wrote: Cover modifiers don't work on a D6, unless you also give positive modifiers, so far I only see people wanting to reduce BS.
Did you ever seen shooting in WFB?
Moved -1
Cover -1
Long Range (over half the distance) -1
Not a "Fast" Weapon -1
Your BS 4 goes from hitting on 3s to hitting on 6s then each 6 needs an additional 4+ to successfully hit. My Darkshards always cried for the first turn or 2 because of needing to move.
Thinking about it, that's actually a thing in SWA. Haven't seen it yet personally but it's there.
Bobthehero wrote: Cover modifiers don't work on a D6, unless you also give positive modifiers, so far I only see people wanting to reduce BS.
They worked just fine in WHFB. There were multiple dice modifications for the To Hit roll for shooting. And they all stacked. i.e. target unit was behind soft cover, giving the shooting unit -1 to hit, and the shooting unit was at greater than half the max range of the weapon, for another -1, giving a total of -2 to hit. Sometimes, you would have all bonuses to hit, or a mix of penalties and bonuses. It honestly worked quite well.
I would definitely like to see something like this introduced into 40k. Most of the rumors that have been semi-confirmed I'm happy with, but I -really- want to be able to assault from reserves again. Not Deep Strike reserves, except in ultra-rare cases, but assaulting from Outflank or deployment edge reserves should never have been disallowed. As a Tau player, I'd like to see a return of our old markerlight rules, the current ones are flat broken. 2 markerlights to remove cover from a unit against -all- shooting from my army?? Ridiculous. The Riptide wing needs to die in a fire too.
Formations need to have a point cost attached to them, if you want crazy special rules for your entire army, fine - but you're gonna pay 10-20pts per unit (or more, depending on bonus) in the formation to do it.
I don't want to see fixed to hit/to wound rolls, but the current tables need to be addressed. Especially the CC to hit table. A WS4 model should not be hitting a WS5 model on 4's. And I think if there are more than 4pts difference in WS, the higher WS should be hitting on 2's. If a sufficiently high BS allows you to hit on 2's, a sufficiently high WS relative to target WS should allow for the same.
Bobthehero wrote: Cover modifiers don't work on a D6, unless you also give positive modifiers, so far I only see people wanting to reduce BS.
Did you ever seen shooting in WFB?
Moved -1
Cover -1
Long Range (over half the distance) -1
Not a "Fast" Weapon -1
Your BS 4 goes from hitting on 3s to hitting on 6s then each 6 needs an additional 4+ to successfully hit. My Darkshards always cried for the first turn or 2 because of needing to move.
Thinking about it, that's actually a thing in SWA. Haven't seen it yet personally but it's there.
It's exactly because I saw WHFB shooting that I don't want it in 40k
SWA features war gear to increase BS and lower cover penalties, unless this kind of stuff shows up in 40k, I am against BS penalties.
It's exactly because I saw WHFB shooting that I don't want it in 40k
SWA features war gear to increase BS and lower cover penalties, unless this kind of stuff shows up in 40k, I am against BS penalties.
Well I wouldn't be too worried since it looks like 40k is going to a static to-hit and if it's going to be close to AoS then to-hit modifiers are far and few between and usually depend on special rules. Like +1 to hit if 20 more models in the unit or -1 to hit against this unit in close combat (boo Nurgle)
I have another hope for 40k, although I doubt it'll happen. A size stat that determines transport capacity, ability to use cover, grav weapons etc. Like for grav weapons, for each hit you score you roll a dice and if the result is equal to or less than the units size they suffer a mortal wound (oh yeah, make mortal wounds a thing in 40k too). So small units would be almost immune to grav weapons whilst lords of war will be very vulnerable to them. How it should be.
AoS40k i would be happy with ... even an even conversion of the char and combat order ... then all the armies could interchange ... and in a round about way they would have added dwarves in space back into 40k
BertBert wrote: Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat.
Why not? A Greater Daemon is a HUGE target. It's as big as an elephant. Why shouldn't a small person be able to poke at or otherwise strike an elephant? It's pretty much impossible to miss, I'd think.
Now wounding, that's a very different issue. A person is not particularly strong compared to a small elephant, much less a trained war elephant. And the parts a person might easily reach, they're tough and don't have much in the way of vital organs.
A Grot very wll might hit that GD on a 4+. But it'd need a 6+ to wound and the GD might save on 3++ invulnerable.
not to mention a big 10+ wound pool. So in John example you need on average 360 grot attacks to kill it. That is a lot of attacks to sink into one model.
BertBert wrote: Using an extreme example, a Grot should not be able to easily hit a Greater Deamon in close combat.
Why not? A Greater Daemon is a HUGE target. It's as big as an elephant. Why shouldn't a small person be able to poke at or otherwise strike an elephant? It's pretty much impossible to miss, I'd think.
Now wounding, that's a very different issue. A person is not particularly strong compared to a small elephant, much less a trained war elephant. And the parts a person might easily reach, they're tough and don't have much in the way of vital organs.
A Grot very well might hit that GD on a 4+. But it'd need a 6+ to wound and the GD might save on 3++ invulnerable.
I would counter that by pointing out that (At least in the case of the Keeper of secrets and Bloodthirster) they are much quicker than the likes of an elephant to react to and dodge the attack. (Supposingly).
I would concede that they'd be easier to hit than a person sized creature of similar skill/speed though.
JamesY wrote: All I'd really like is balance. I'd like to win or lose based on tactics in the game and list build, not just get killed by a codex.
Well, this is pretty much the best and only chance the game has had to be balanced in 20 years. Since they're rewriting the rules for each unit on day one, there's not going to be any more cycle of factions that suck until they get their codex, pretty much in order of popularity. At least, not at first.
JamesY wrote: All I'd really like is balance. I'd like to win or lose based on tactics in the game and list build, not just get killed by a codex.
As much as I agree the game needs balance - I honestly doubt we'll get it.
I don't think GW rule writers work with any kind of co-ordination between codexes/codicies. The decurion supplements were a step in the right direction though, maybe I owe them more credit.
JamesY wrote: All I'd really like is balance. I'd like to win or lose based on tactics in the game and list build, not just get killed by a codex.
As much as I agree the game needs balance - I honestly doubt we'll get it.
I don't think GW rule writers work with any kind of co-ordination between codexes/codicies. The decurion supplements were a step in the right direction though, maybe I owe them more credit.
That's exactly why I'm hopeful, though. This time, they're not a bunch of codices written by different people months or years apart. All of the rules for every unit are coming at the same time, right from day one.
If OOP models don't get rules they'll be lost forever, and that would be a shame.
I'm also hoping that they straight up implement AoS damage allocation for 40k. It's abstract yes but its also so quick and easy to resolve and prevents time wasting shenanigans.
0. A FAST forgeworld update for everything
1. The Leman Russ to not be a liability
2. Flyers to be powerful but fragile,
3. AA weapons actually effective instead of the piddling skyfire equipment we currently have
4. Either superheavys to be so OP that they have benefits to killing them built in (say, +x victory points standard, -1 leadership for enemy army) or toned down and priced down enough so that the Shadowsword gets dusted off.
5. Close Combat elements becoming worth building into the army, instead of a tarpit/party wipe gamble.
makes no sense does it.
