Hmmm, the Aelves of Ulgu are shrouded in smoke and mists and the Realm is said to be a mirror of Hysh. He's seen the Aeleves! Quick, everyone hold H.B down!
SickSix wrote: So it's Shadespire that's so gar out? Not nurgle? Cause thst stuff looked ready for immediate release.
Aye I really hope so, need more mutant cultists stat!
Oh who am I kidding, the old Death Guard unit was my favourite out the lot, just looked so different to paint and see on the table. Of course I'll be buying everything.
I have never really liked using SC as I prefer the 'generic' homebrew heroes but Mortarion is gonna just look so cool that this may be the first force in which I actually revolve it around a SC.
What attracts me the most is each Nurgle fella can look really unique that makes them all look really striking on the tabletop. Just look at the Blight Kings kit. But turn them into Plague Marines and Terminators?!
You make the model, the model makes back!
Edit: But the prospect of a Khorne AND Slaanesh release on par with 1k and DG?! HAT DIGGIDY DAAAYUM!
Anyone at Adepticon, who attended the GW "Ask the Studio" seminar, was there any new info/media shared? It was marketed as the follow up to the Studio Preview session that gave us the DG leaks. I'm hoping more was revealed today.
I'd rather see this that the layering of saves people are talking about, one of the problems with the game at the minute is how many layers of rolls there are on saves, its what annoys a lot of people with necrons a warrior has a 50/50 chance to pass followed by a 50:50 chance with a 1 in 6 chance of re rolling, takes forever and can be extremely annoying, imagine GK paladins with FnP 2+ followed by a 5+ followed by a 5+ to take one of their 2 wounds.
I'd rather see this that the layering of saves people are talking about, one of the problems with the game at the minute is how many layers of rolls there are on saves, its what annoys a lot of people with necrons a warrior has a 50/50 chance to pass followed by a 50:50 chance with a 1 in 6 chance of re rolling, takes forever and can be extremely annoying, imagine GK paladins with FnP 2+ followed by a 5+ followed by a 5+ to take one of their 2 wounds.
Of course with ASM instead of AP, you will have a better chance to get through. A Krak missile or Battle cannon would have decent odds of killing some at that point.
Plastic T-Hawk...yes please. I have assembled a resin one. It was a fun model but needed to be pinned to hell and back. I wish I could of gotten my hands on a metal one.
As for 8th edition 40k. They need to do something drastic. Every edition since 3rd has just been 3rd edition + random rules bloat. Nothing has really changed since 3rd rules wise. Is AOS'ing the way to go? I don't know I didn't care for AoS when I played it a few times. I didn't like the models. I don't like the fluff. I HATE the trademarked names ( that really drives me nuts).
I am glad that AoS has evolved from the 4page pamphlet it started out as. The joke rules where fething terrible and should of never been created. The Generals handbook while it does fix the game ( actually it makes it a different game) but it goes back on what GW said free rules for AoS. Again I'm glad people like Aos and play it. I will not be one of those.
The only thing I really enjoy from GWatm is Horus Heresy. 30k I enjoy, I use to enjoy the novels but as usual once the main studio got its hands on the HH books it went all to hell ( ty again for posting the LG interviews, they where a fething fantastic read) as usual.
GW main has made great strides in the last year or so and I give them major props for that. But... I really believe that 8th edition will make or break GW for a long while in the future. If it flops like 7th edition did I really hope AoS is as popular as the AoS cheerleaders on here make it out to be because it will have to carry the main part of the company.
I HOPE 8th is a stellar edition but " Hope is the beginning of unhappiness".
Plastic T-Hawk...yes please. I have assembled a resin one. It was a fun model but needed to be pinned to hell and back. I wish I could of gotten my hands on a metal one.
No, no you don't. I've not built one myself, but I have witnessed one nearly break one of the most talented and enthusiastic modellers I know.
I'd rather see this that the layering of saves people are talking about, one of the problems with the game at the minute is how many layers of rolls there are on saves, its what annoys a lot of people with necrons a warrior has a 50/50 chance to pass followed by a 50:50 chance with a 1 in 6 chance of re rolling, takes forever and can be extremely annoying, imagine GK paladins with FnP 2+ followed by a 5+ followed by a 5+ to take one of their 2 wounds.
I've never found multiple rolls all that time consuming. I've heard people complain it's time consuming, but never really experienced it myself. Maybe I'm just quicker than average at sweeping my hand over a pile of dice and extracting the successes/failures
I would think keeping track of wounds would be more of a hassle.
The psychic rules have completely changed, several times. Close Combat has been at least slightly different in each edition. Casualty resolution, choosing targets, determining cover, area terrain, army selection... quite a lot has changed since 3rd edition.
And that's a big part of the problem. An edition change shouldn't see wholesale changes to the rules, unless it's to fix things that are legitimately broken. If GW had used the edition changes from 3rd ed onwards to refine the game, instead of changing things around for change's sake, what we would have now could have been a finely-tuned machine.
Instead, each edition they swap stuff around to alter the balance of power and mix up how things work just because they can, and each time it introduces new problems... some of which get fixed next edition, and some of which just get carried across from one edition to the next.
6th and 7th edition should have been vastly different beasts. 6th edition should have taken 5th edition and fixed the clunky wound allocation rules, tweaked transport vehicles, adjusted the power levels of a few psychic powers... and beyond that, just fine-tuned wording to remove ambiguity or errors.
The end result wouldn't have been perfect... but it would have been a vastly more playable game than what we wound up with instead.
Wouldnt be too hard with blast and new rules. Can easilly see something like this
small blast is d6 hits (average 3 hit which is usually what you can get with clever positioning)
large blast is 2d6 hits
Anything bigger can have a small additional step, IE: BaneBlade Cannon
Pick a model. Unit belonging to that model takes 3d6 hits. Other units within 6 inches of the model selected also take 2d6 hits.
Wouldnt need templates anymore. Just a good old tape measure and you could get everything done.
As for scatter it's somewhat represented by the fact that you'll roll low sometimes. You could also require an actual BS check now to actually hit in the first place.
Anyone knows this podcast and is aware if they have any merit?
I like what I see here.
About assaulting out of vehicles; remember that in 3rd ed, assaults were not randomized like they are now. What they could do is make disembarking count as your movement full stop, so if you want to charge it'll be up to your roll. Assault vehicles could just assist with this.
What I also hope they do is make 40k's shooting function like AoS's combat. Player A picks a unit to shoot with, then player B picks a unit to shoot with and so on and so forth until everyone has shot. This would eliminate the need for overwatch. And if you land a drop pod in among the enemy, you can expect to come under heavy fire.
Hell, if they could mimic bolt action and have shooting and assault done together, you could have a situation were you do race up and assault out of a transport, destroying one unit, only to be shot/counter assaulted to death. If they just get both players paying together at the same time then they'll have succeeded in my books.
andysonic1 wrote: Turning all vehicles into assault vehicles would be...
nothing special as we had it before
not 3rd Rhino rush, butr also 5th edi that if the transport did not move, a unit that exit could do everything they want
it would be much better than the current stuff with
About assaulting out of vehicles; remember that in 3rd ed, assaults were not randomized like they are now. What they could do is make disembarking count as your movement full stop, so if you want to charge it'll be up to your roll. Assault vehicles could just assist with this.
What I also hope they do is make 40k's shooting function like AoS's combat. Player A picks a unit to shoot with, then player B picks a unit to shoot with and so on and so forth until everyone has shot. This would eliminate the need for overwatch. And if you land a drop pod in among the enemy, you can expect to come under heavy fire.
Hell, if they could mimic bolt action and have shooting and assault done together, you could have a situation were you do race up and assault out of a transport, destroying one unit, only to be shot/counter assaulted to death. If they just get both players paying together at the same time then they'll have succeeded in my books.
For what it's worth, the alternating shooting and assaulting is a mechanic in the Burning of Prospero boxed game. Could be that it is used as a kind of test run for rules which could be implemented, could be nothing, but GW has implemented this kind of mechanic.
caminacambob wrote: For what it's worth, the alternating shooting and assaulting is a mechanic in the Burning of Prospero boxed game. Could be that it is used as a kind of test run for rules which could be implemented, could be nothing, but GW has implemented this kind of mechanic.
I did not know that. I'm hoping that GW goes further with it.
I find that this mechanic keeps both players invested in the game to the end.
Anyone knows this podcast and is aware if they have any merit?
Big question will be if 40k adopts the wound on X similar to AoS. There hasn't been any confirmation of that happening as far as I can tell. Would like some differences between AoS and 40k and would like to see some sort of Strength vs Toughness mechanic remain. It streamlines stuff in AoS but WHFB had already moved away from stuff being unwoundable. 40K, a las pistol still can't damage a Land Raider. Will be a bit more jarring a move.
Yeah, extra dice is bad, but then the game of mini finger twister one had to play sometimes with templates could be equally annoying and time consuming.
You could give a flamer a 8-9" range, with it having D6 attacks (going to 2D6 if the unit is over 10 models). They could hit automatically too. Meanwhile, an Inferno Cannon is the same but with a 20" range. Just a thought.
I'm happy templates are going. They only slow the game down imo.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Random hits rather than templates and multi-wound vehicles.
I always thought 40K needed more dice rolling and record keeping. Bravo GW.
Yeah, carrying over a template and scattering it is much better and doesn't cause any disputes at all. And keeping hull points is vehicles is totally a new kind of record keeping that wasn't there before.
..
The changes rumoured either have the same record keeping and time consuming or just hasten the game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Random hits rather than templates and multi-wound vehicles.
I always thought 40K needed more dice rolling and record keeping. Bravo GW.
I don't think rolling 1d6 hits is more dice rolling and record keeping than rolling 2d6+scatter, subtracting BS from the 2d6 roll, moving the template and then discussing which models are touched by the template.
Tracking wounds on vehicles isn't any more onerous than tracking hull points.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Tracking wounds on vehicles isn't any more onerous than tracking hull points.
It sort of is, in that vehicles typically don't have more than 3-4 hull points whereas AoS monsters (on which this system looks based) can have upwards of 15-20 wounds.
That said, if it's paired with an AoS-style system where capabilities degrade with damage, then it'll be a big improvement. The current system is very binary, and affects certain vehicles differently than others in a very gamey way (see: storm bolters on Vindicators to soak Weapon Destroyed results). Changing that to a system where every vehicle or monster is progressively weakened by damage in a particular way will be much better.
Sounds pretty good. I'm fine with removing templates and save modifiers are OK too if they're kept small like in AOS and not like they were in 2E/WHFB. And if we finally get vehicles to use similar wounding/armour mechanics as other units I'll be over-joyous.
pizzaguardian wrote: Yeah, carrying over a template and scattering it is much better and doesn't cause any disputes at all. And keeping hull points is vehicles is totally a new kind of record keeping that wasn't there before.
Scattering every template is a bad rule as well. They should just do it the way it was in 3rd Ed:
1. Cover most amount of minis with template possible. 2. Roll To hit for everything using a template. 3. Duplicate models hit by the amount of templates being fired.
Continue on with regular wound/saves/etc. All this scattering nonsense should never have come about. Removing them wholesale isn't the solution, but it is the typical pendulum swing we should expect from GW.
As for Hull Points? Also a dumb idea, and probably one of the worst to enter 40K in the past two editions. A wounds system bolted onto a system that doesn't use wounds. Who thought that was good design?
Formerly Wu wrote: It sort of is, in that vehicles typically don't have more than 3-4 hull points whereas AoS monsters (on which this system looks based) can have upwards of 15-20 wounds.
I didn't say the thing you're quoting, but I agree. There's a difference between tracking a few hull points and keeping track of a 15-20 wound vehicle.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Yeah but we'll get some of those fancy D10's in our preferred army colours like AoS got.
I do actually take that as a bonus.. I've brought four of those pots and I don't even play AoS at the mo.
At most stores that sell Warhammer, you can buy the 20-sided spin down life-counters from Magic the Gathering for a few cents each. I'll probably just use the wound counters from Descent though - they're the right size and denominations for AoS.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Scattering every template is a bad rule as well. They should just do it the way it was in 3rd Ed:
1. Cover most amount of minis with template possible.
2. Roll To hit for everything using a template.
3. Duplicate models hit by the amount of templates being fired.
Continue on with regular wound/saves/etc. All this scattering nonsense should never have come about. Removing them wholesale isn't the solution, but it is the typical pendulum swing we should expect from GW.
I didn't play 3rd edition and can't quite follow your paraphrasing of it, but a single dice roll for # of hits still seems a lot more straightforward than what you're describing.
I'll also note that in the AoS system, many weapons designed for templates have warscroll interactions that make them more efficient. For example, an Empire Mortar normally does D3 damage on a successful wound. This increases to D6 and 2D6 when used against larger units, effectively mimicking the scatter/template effect with a lot less fuss.
As for Hull Points? Also a dumb idea, and probably one of the worst to enter 40K in the past two editions. A wounds system bolted onto a system that doesn't use wounds. Who thought that was good design?
Formerly Wu wrote: It sort of is, in that vehicles typically don't have more than 3-4 hull points whereas AoS monsters (on which this system looks based) can have upwards of 15-20 wounds.
I didn't say the thing you're quoting, but I agree. There's a difference between tracking a few hull points and keeping track of a 15-20 wound vehicle.
There's always going to be some trade-off in a rules set, but I think a bit more record-keeping in exchange for a more flexible and engaging system is worth it.
1. Cover most amount of minis with template possible.
2. Roll To hit for everything using a template.
3. Duplicate models hit by the amount of templates being fired.
Sounds like it'd cause problems for the Orks.. again.
Wingeds wrote: So when can we expect this to drop? May or June/ July?
Mostly want to know when Death Guard are going to be released, I figure they'll most likely be the poster army for the new edition.
They are doing painting demos about death guard at warhammer fest in May so it is highly likely that death guard will be next month. Hastings suggested August with a new starter set. Deathguard in May, thunderhawk in June, Ghb2 for AOS in July and 8th edition in August makes sense. That said in previous genarations they have come out with a new edition in summer and a starter set later so they may do the same this time.
Colpicklejar wrote: I'm fine with templates being gone, but I will miss the wonderful feeling of putting the template over a mass of guard, genestealers, or orks.
Well certainly not much reason to space out units anymore. Apart from special scenarios shooting yourself to foot. Expect ranks of boyz and grots in b2b contact
I'm definitely for changing templates to random hits, I was sceptical at first during the change from WHFB to AoS but boy did it make my life easier. I also hate being forced to space models out in a unit just to minimise damage from blasts and I don't even play Orks or Tyranids!
This sounds rubbish :(
I don't want to see any major changes to the game mechanics, they are fine. Just a little tidying up, and rebalancing, and some better allies/detachments restrictions.
D6 hits for blast is so much variance.... horrible.
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.
I was really hoping for the vehicles to have some combination of the wounds system from AoS, and armor. The rumour means there is no point in trying to maneuver to get a rear shot. I am all for speeding up play, I just really dislike when a lot of the tactical elements of a game are stripped out completely.
Yeah... hadn't thought of that. Rolling to find out how many dice you get to roll, then rolling those dice to see how many of them you get to roll again... and then again.
Stop adding steps GW. Scattering everything was bad enough.
flakpanzer wrote: I was really hoping for the vehicles to have some combination of the wounds system from AoS, and armor. The rumour means there is no point in trying to maneuver to get a rear shot. I am all for speeding up play, I just really dislike when a lot of the tactical elements of a game are stripped out completely.
We don't know that yet. I see a ton of people jumping to conclusions yet making assumptions about changes that have not been released or announced.
I can, however, tell you that the removal of templates from WHFB to AoS had next to 0 effect on the overall tactical feel of the game. It ended up being absolutely fine without them. In regards to 40k, is it 'cool' when your flamer template gets the perfect positioning and wipes an entire unit? sure... but the removal of templates and making the weapon roll random wounds does indeed even out some of the peaks and valleys of template weapons designs. I have had games where template weapons never really did crap... and others where they basically won the game due to wiping out a critical unit or two.
If this is true and templates are gone, the damage will be normalized a bit better and certain armies that are overly susceptible to mass flamer/templates will stand a better chance.
Moving vehicles from armor to higher wound counts is something I felt would have been better for awhile now. Certain vehicles are worthless right now.. with this change and the 'possible' rumored change of assaulting out of vehicles you will see a massive influx of certain vehicles that basically have been abandoned by the meta. Enter.. rhino.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah... hadn't thought of that. Rolling to find out how many dice you get to roll, then rolling those dice to see how many of them you get to roll again... and then again.
Stop adding steps GW. Scattering everything was bad enough.
Randomness. Because tactics are hard, and everybody needs to feel like a winner because they rolled certain results.
FrothingMuppet wrote: So did anyone think to ask about the Nu-Marine that popped up the other month?
Any news about that?
I thought it turned out to be an April Fools hoax.
Anyway the actual rumors if you missed them.
Not sure how rumourish this is or somebody just making assumptions that the next edition of 40K will be a version of Age of Sigmar, as those rumours sound just like Age of Sigmar.
Having played AOS from the start and seen how it's grown and developed, I'm really excited and hoping 40K goes down a similar route. I can see how it's not everybody's cup of tea but it is a good game if you give it chance and the Three ways of playing really mean that there is something for everybody.
Kinda like the idea of getting rid of templates and scattering. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to bust out a protractor to prove how the other player was getting the direction of the scatter wrong.
Gaz Taylor wrote: Not sure how rumourish this is or somebody just making assumptions that the next edition of 40K will be a version of Age of Sigmar, as those rumours sound just like Age of Sigmar.
Given how 7th adopted things from WHFB, such assumptions probably aren't unreasonable.
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.
Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.
Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.
I'm for increasing depth, and removing randomness. In my eyes, scattering blasts does a good job of this. Random shots don't. Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
The rumor said Armor Values were gone, if they include variable Toughness based on facing, that would be great. We will just have to wait and see.
armour values are gone just means that everything will be wounded with the same mechanic, which is something the game needs after the chances of 6th.
if the skip the facings too, this would be stupid as there is no reason to do it (actually it would make the game better if this would expand to all big models in the game)
but this is still GW who just write rules because they look cool on paper
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.
Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.
I'm for increasing depth, and removing randomness. In my eyes, scattering blasts does a good job of this. Random shots don't. Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
Ok there I have to ask again, sorry if I'm getting hung up on semantics, but you say "removing randomness" but isn't it basically the exact same amount of randomness, one of them just has an extra die? (Now I'm not asking about 'depth', or the possibility of hitting other units).
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.
Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.
I'm for increasing depth, and removing randomness. In my eyes, scattering blasts does a good job of this. Random shots don't. Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
Ok there I have to ask again, sorry if I'm getting hung up on semantics, but you say "removing randomness" but isn't it basically the exact same amount of randomness, one of them just has an extra die? (Now I'm not asking about 'depth', or the possibility of hitting other units).
Scattering blasts is a situation where removing randomness really can't be done without compromising the system. I can cut out random warlord traits, psychic powers, random stormsurge rockets, the Chaos Boon Table, etc, and replace them with fixed values, true player tactical choice, or in the case of the Chaos Boon Table, an actual useful rule.
Scattering blasts makes sense, as that Basilisk does not have the systems necessary to pinpoint a shell at a rapidly moving target. It is a case where randomness is good, in a sea of terrible randomness.
Warhams-77 wrote: While I believe new sources may bring good info, this here doesnt sound like one which does.
These rumours popped up on Warseer by Williamsond (on the new marines thread) so it's not a complete unknown. I haven't checked to see if he has rumour accuracy though.
The removal of templates will also let us rethink unit spacing. No need to spend time and table space carefully spacing out your hoard units to minimize casualties. It should allow larger units so move around the table easier. To me it feels like 8th may be a faster paced game.
I'd rather keep templates, partly because I bought the apoc templates not to long ago to use them at some point . While I get it would be faster to just roll for hits, spacing out units or not and the ability to drift onto other targets is part of the strategic choices you have to make in using the templates and that is something that I'd rather not lose. Never really had many arguments about what was hit by them, but maybe thats because I dont play with TFG's , it usually just means 1 hit more or less so usually not that big of a deal.
I feel like getting rid of templates and scatter worked for the transition from fantasy to AoS because there were so few templates involves. The occasional breath weapon, mortar or catapult/ trebuchet were really all that came up, plus a few of the #6 spells in 8th which didn't scatter.
40K by contrast has a TON of template and scatter weapons. Shoot, one of the most basic Space Marine heavy weapons back to the beginning can scatter, and you basic 5th edition tactical squad could scatter with their rocket launcher before dropping their flamer template! Not to say that still couldn't happen now, but you get my point.
Templates can be replaced by dice rolls (d3, d6, 2d6 for example) very nicely. First edition Bolt Action did it and it was a big plus IMHO.
Roll to hit using the unit BS and then, if a hit occurs, roll appropriate dice for damage. Perhaps a to-hit modifier for trying to artillery a facing other than the closest one.
Verviedi wrote: Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
Scattering blasts makes sense, as that Basilisk does not have the systems necessary to pinpoint a shell at a rapidly moving target. It is a case where randomness is good, in a sea of terrible randomness.
What are you saying here, that your stormsurge should keep templates but they don't scatter? I don't get it.
Situation A: with templates.
You place a blast template on the head of one model, and decide with your opponent that it touches 5 models. You roll to hit and scatter the blast a bit and it ends up hitting only 2 models. You inflict 2 wounds.
Situation B: without templates.
You fire at a unit and hit, it does d6 wounds. You roll a 2.
Really more complicated? Really?
The only downside I see is that sometimes with blasts you scatter onto different models - nearby vehicles or friendlies even - which is pretty fun. Removing templates might - for example - make Vindicators better as they might be more reliable at shooting near your own forces.
Which doesn't make sense since they use the term boyz all the same in AoS. But you know, the horse isn't dead yet.
It never will be, the horse is immortal and unfeeling of mortal pain, because it's going to take years for the present crop of designers to cycle out and the naming conventions to drift back towards something vaguely recognisable.
They say it isn't as simple as AoS so I imagine we get to keep our to-wound charts.
I am liking just about everything except I will miss the trusty flamer template.
Honestly I'd have been happy to see the charts go, they're a needlessly complex way to add depth. There's nothing wrong with the AoS approach of rolling against a value per se, it just needs them to bump the basic dice for the game up to a D10 or D12 so that a switch from "to-hit table/to-wound-table/armour save" to "roll against X to hit/roll against Y to save" still has sufficient range to preserve variety, although of course they'd also probably have to add roll modifiers back in instead of the current AP/cover mechanics and for some baffling reason GW's design team still seem to think memorising a set of unique tables or constantly looking them up in game is more difficult than basic addition & subtraction.
Verviedi wrote: Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
Scattering blasts makes sense, as that Basilisk does not have the systems necessary to pinpoint a shell at a rapidly moving target. It is a case where randomness is good, in a sea of terrible randomness.
What are you saying here, that your stormsurge should keep templates but they don't scatter? I don't get it.
Situation A: with templates.
You place a blast template on the head of one model, and decide with your opponent that it touches 5 models. You roll to hit and scatter the blast a bit and it ends up hitting only 2 models. You inflict 2 wounds.
Situation B: without templates.
You fire at a unit and hit, it does d6 wounds. You roll a 2.
Really more complicated? Really?
The only downside I see is that sometimes with blasts you scatter onto different models - nearby vehicles or friendlies even - which is pretty fun. Removing templates might - for example - make Vindicators better as they might be more reliable at shooting near your own forces.
Templates scattering and not knowing how many rockets you're firing are entirely different things. Ballistic Skill represents the systems a model has that can actually pinpoint blasts. Complex physics, trajectory calculations, detonation heights, etc are far more complex than counting rockets. A Stormsurge, being ballistic skill three despite its many advanced systems (don't ask why), does not have the ability to pinpoint a blast over a rapidly-changing battlefield at a moving target through whatever clouds of smoke are in the way, while being shot with a variety of small arms and moving itself. It can, however, count rockets.
Your not rolling how many rockets you fired, your rolling to see how many guys were caught in the blast. No different then the randomness of scattering a templet to hit random number of guys. Just random in a different way.
The cluster rocket system is not a blast weapon. It's a Heavy 4D6 weapon that fires independently targeting rockets, with little to no blast radius. You are, indeed, rolling to see how many rockets the weapon fired.
I need to roll shots, then roll hits, then roll wounds. If it was truly "how many guys were in the blast", I wouldn't have to roll To Hit.
Forcast wrote: Then why are you talking about them in a template discussion?
That is how the new template weapons are rumored to work. template on the weapon profile gets replaced with Assault d6 or whatever...
I was using that abominable thing as an example of how random shots are idiotic by principle (unless it's Orks, in which case I can *twitch* tolerate it).
Here's a few more things, I suppose.
• Templates being Assault D6 removes the need for tactical unit spacing, to defend against templates.
• Templates being Assault D6 instead of scatter completely removes the feeling of an enormous artillery shell slamming into the earth and hitting a unit, everything around the unit, and occassionally teamkilling.
• Templates being Assault D6 instead of scatter, again, creates the logical failure of a shell vanishing into the aether if its shots miss. Say I fired at an enormous blob of bunched up Guard, surrounded by other blobs. If the shell missed, nothing would happen, instead of the shell scattering and causing collateral damage. Where's the flavor in that?
I like getting rid of templates. I played Warhammer Fantasy and now AOS. The games play much faster without having to place and deviate templates. I suspect the same will happen with 40 k. If it is like AOS, hits will be determined by size of template. 1-3 for small, 1-6 for large, I assume more for apoc blasts. Also, if they are getting rid of armor values then I hope each vehicle will get a table (like lagre monsters do in AOS) that shows the effect of increasing damage. That would be pretty cool!
Each vehicle getting its own table would not be fun for anyone. Think of how annoying it would be to memorize. That'd cause time-consumption by needing to check its datasheet every time it gets damaged.
Verviedi wrote: The cluster rocket system is not a blast weapon. It's a Heavy 4D6 weapon that fires independently targeting rockets, with little to no blast radius. You are, indeed, rolling to see how many rockets the weapon fired.
I need to roll shots, then roll hits, then roll wounds. If it was truly "how many guys were in the blast", I wouldn't have to roll To Hit.
So..... then this has nothing to do with the topic. You just don't like the storm surge's rules, nothing about the core rules change that.
Gaz Taylor wrote: Not sure how rumourish this is or somebody just making assumptions that the next edition of 40K will be a version of Age of Sigmar, as those rumours sound just like Age of Sigmar.
Given how 7th adopted things from WHFB, such assumptions probably aren't unreasonable.
Not at all now but it does make you wonder if these are actual rumours or somebody making assumptions. I'll be honest, I would make the same assumptions and I'm really hoping this is the way it goes. AOS is my favourite ruleset now as it's easy to pick up, the rules also don't get in the way of playing the game and it's fun.
On the subject of templates, if it follows the AOS design, then I would expect a Flamer to do say D3 damage. So a Bolter would do 2 Damage for example but a Flamer would do random. It really does work really well once you get used to it.
Verviedi wrote: The cluster rocket system is not a blast weapon. It's a Heavy 4D6 weapon that fires independently targeting rockets, with little to no blast radius. You are, indeed, rolling to see how many rockets the weapon fired.
I need to roll shots, then roll hits, then roll wounds. If it was truly "how many guys were in the blast", I wouldn't have to roll To Hit.
So..... then this has nothing to do with the topic. You just don't like the storm surge's rules, nothing about the core rules change that.
=/
No, it's absolutely relevant, as a display of how too much randomness exists in game, and what constitutes "constructive randomness" and "randumb". I'm for removing randomness in all forms that aren't necessary and don't enrich the game. Replacing templates with MOAR RANDOM does not enrich the game, for the reasons I posted.
random for randoms sake = bad. Random with a mechanic to make the game faster = good. Templates add other slow game factors. including template placement argument as well as model spacing, scatter dice rolls and template walking are time consumers... plus if I don't have to gather my dice and templates and walk to my opponents other side of the table.. that speeds things up.
Verviedi wrote:Each vehicle getting its own table would not be fun for anyone. Think of how annoying it would be to memorize. That'd cause time-consumption by needing to check its datasheet every time it gets damaged.
How many times do you need to check wargear to see what it is?
You don't "memorize" these things anyways. Or I guess I should say most people don't.
Verviedi wrote: The cluster rocket system is not a blast weapon. It's a Heavy 4D6 weapon that fires independently targeting rockets, with little to no blast radius. You are, indeed, rolling to see how many rockets the weapon fired.
I need to roll shots, then roll hits, then roll wounds. If it was truly "how many guys were in the blast", I wouldn't have to roll To Hit.
So..... then this has nothing to do with the topic. You just don't like the storm surge's rules, nothing about the core rules change that.
=/
No, it's absolutely relevant, as a display of how too much randomness exists in game, and what constitutes "constructive randomness" and "randumb". I'm for removing randomness in all forms that aren't necessary and don't enrich the game. Replacing templates with MOAR RANDOM does not enrich the game, for the reasons I posted.
Except what you posted really had nothing to do with templates. You just used the templates being moved to random as an excuse to springboard into a complaint about the CRS.
The shift from templates->"randumb" as you call it in AoS is actually a bit better.
You pick a point either on the board or in an enemy unit or an enemy unit itself. You then roll to see what gets Hit/Wounded. Some of these have chain attacks, essentially, where it expands outward.
As someone said, no need for finger-twister. No arguments about "Oh the template wasn't really touching him" or "He's on a different level!" or any of that crap.
Verviedi wrote: Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
Scattering blasts makes sense, as that Basilisk does not have the systems necessary to pinpoint a shell at a rapidly moving target. It is a case where randomness is good, in a sea of terrible randomness.
What are you saying here, that your stormsurge should keep templates but they don't scatter? I don't get it.
Situation A: with templates.
You place a blast template on the head of one model, and decide with your opponent that it touches 5 models. You roll to hit and scatter the blast a bit and it ends up hitting only 2 models. You inflict 2 wounds.
Situation B: without templates.
You fire at a unit and hit, it does d6 wounds. You roll a 2.
Really more complicated? Really?
The only downside I see is that sometimes with blasts you scatter onto different models - nearby vehicles or friendlies even - which is pretty fun. Removing templates might - for example - make Vindicators better as they might be more reliable at shooting near your own forces.
Templates scattering and not knowing how many rockets you're firing are entirely different things. Ballistic Skill represents the systems a model has that can actually pinpoint blasts. Complex physics, trajectory calculations, detonation heights, etc are far more complex than counting rockets. A Stormsurge, being ballistic skill three despite its many advanced systems (don't ask why), does not have the ability to pinpoint a blast over a rapidly-changing battlefield at a moving target through whatever clouds of smoke are in the way, while being shot with a variety of small arms and moving itself. It can, however, count rockets.
I'm sorry but I have to chime in here. You could just as easily say of the six rockets you fired, some missed, or they hit close but did no damage, or whatever forge the narrative bs answer you want to makeup. Your argument that this is radically different than what is currently happening is ludicrous, you're just looking for a reason not to like a potential change. You have not presented a real argument against the change beyond "muh physics" and you also made an argument AGAINST yourself by saying the way it currently is is more complex then just counting how many rockets hit the target.
What's what? The Stormsurge can't pinpoint the blast over a target in the heat of battle due to numerous factors? Well, now some of those missiles just miss instead of scattering off the target and missing. Your argument is invalid and I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling everyone at this point.
I'm assuming the weapons randomness will reflect shadow war. Weapons have a sustained fire rate, and damage from 1-d3. Makes sense as you could clip someone with a plasma gun, or hammer them in the chest.
Everything looks good so far, except for no codex books. Codex books are great for old and new fluff, art, paint scheme ideas, and of course rules. They have been a staple of 40k since... practically forever. I like aos rules being free in an app, and would only like the 40k codex-less rules if they follow suit in a free app and printable formats.
I can see this as what aos has become, where the app is becoming a money drain if you want multiple armies.
Verviedi wrote: Each vehicle getting its own table would not be fun for anyone. Think of how annoying it would be to memorize. That'd cause time-consumption by needing to check its datasheet every time it gets damaged.
If the general rules get chopped down and the tables are fairly small like they are in AoS, the time saved vs time lost will pretty much even out and be gone over time as you memorize your own unit rules.
455_PWR wrote: Everything looks good so far, except for no codex books. Codex books are great for old and new fluff, art, paint scheme ideas, and of course rules. They have been a staple of 40k since... practically forever. I like aos rules being free in an app, and would only like the 40k codex-less rules if they follow suit in a free app and printable formats.
I can see this as what aos has become, where the app is becoming a money drain if you want multiple armies.
New AoS Battletomes are codexes in everything but name, so I wouldn't worry about that. Most likely the initial rules will be free as a get-you-by method, then new codexes will come out over time to flesh out factions.
How many times do you need to check wargear to see what it is?
You don't "memorize" these things anyways. Or I guess I should say most people don't.
Almost never, I have my codices memorized. I only check for my opponent's sake, or if it's a new book.
Kanluwen wrote: Except what you posted really had nothing to do with templates. You just used the templates being moved to random as an excuse to springboard into a complaint about the CRS.
The shift from templates->"randumb" as you call it in AoS is actually a bit better.
You pick a point either on the board or in an enemy unit or an enemy unit itself. You then roll to see what gets Hit/Wounded. Some of these have chain attacks, essentially, where it expands outward.
As someone said, no need for finger-twister. No arguments about "Oh the template wasn't really touching him" or "He's on a different level!" or any of that crap.
The "different level" thing is addressed in the rulebook, no? I can have legitimate complaints about random shot counts, and still talk about templates being replaced with more random shot counts.
A relatively stable system with simple methods of calculation, which also provides flavor for the game, being replaced with a system based on arbitrary randomness = bad, regardless of how fast the system with more random works. Replacing a stock, simple template with a system that requires measuring outward consumes more time measuring the circle radius around the point, and also allows "fudging" the measurement just as bad as partial template coverage does.
Another consequence of removing templates and going with a random shot number is that certain weapons will suddenly become much better against tough single-model units like vehicles and monstrous creatures unless they make some sort of ruling that the weapon only does multiple hits if there are multiple models in the target unit or something inane like that.
For example, a demolisher template hitting a vehicle has a respectable chance of taking it out if it doesn't scatter, but holy heck, if you get d6 S10 AP 2 Ordinance shots against even a landraider, you're in a completely different postal code of destructive capability. . .
I'll miss my templates, I really will. Especially my flamer template. (Heavy Flamer templates are, in my opinion, so much fun.)
That said, I won't mourn their removal long if they are removed in lieu of a faster and better method of determining wounds.
Also, the templates will still see use in Necro... I mean, Shadow War Armageddon.
I do hope to see a small buff to the Hand Flamers ability to hurt more targets as well (speaking as a Blood Angels player here), as the weapon is a really cool/fluffy piece of kit, but is nigh useless against anything but GEQ/Xenos.
Red__Thirst wrote: I'll miss my templates, I really will. Especially my flamer template. (Heavy Flamer templates are, in my opinion, so much fun.)
That said, I won't mourn their removal long if they are removed in lieu of a faster and better method of determining wounds.
Also, the templates will still see use in Necro... I mean, Shadow War Armageddon.
I do hope to see a small buff to the Hand Flamers ability to hurt more targets as well (speaking as a Blood Angels player here), as the weapon is a really cool/fluffy piece of kit, but is nigh useless against anything but GEQ/Xenos.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
It would be fun if you could charge, shoot your hand flamer and then start hacking away. It's not like a marine would fear that thing.
How many times do you need to check wargear to see what it is?
You don't "memorize" these things anyways. Or I guess I should say most people don't.
Almost never, I have my codices memorized. I only check for my opponent's sake, or if it's a new book.
So what does a Recon Drone have on it?
Kanluwen wrote: Except what you posted really had nothing to do with templates. You just used the templates being moved to random as an excuse to springboard into a complaint about the CRS.
The shift from templates->"randumb" as you call it in AoS is actually a bit better.
You pick a point either on the board or in an enemy unit or an enemy unit itself. You then roll to see what gets Hit/Wounded. Some of these have chain attacks, essentially, where it expands outward.
As someone said, no need for finger-twister. No arguments about "Oh the template wasn't really touching him" or "He's on a different level!" or any of that crap.
The "different level" thing is addressed in the rulebook, no? I can have legitimate complaints about random shot counts, and still talk about templates being replaced with more random shot counts.
Random shot counts != "templates being replaced".
A relatively stable system with simple methods of calculation, which also provides flavor for the game, being replaced with a system based on arbitrary randomness = bad, regardless of how fast the system with more random works. Replacing a stock, simple template with a system that requires measuring outward consumes more time measuring the circle radius around the point, and also allows "fudging" the measurement just as bad as partial template coverage does.
How in the world are templates "a relatively stable system"?
You place them, then you roll for Scatter in most cases.
Also, it's a lot harder to "fudge" the measurement whenthe rules for the attack say something to the effect of:
Units(or in some cases, units) within 12 inches of the designated point suffer X amount of wounds.
Is a unit or model within 12 inches of the designated point?
Yes?
They suffer X amount of Wounds.
No?
Nothing happens.
How many times do you need to check wargear to see what it is?
You don't "memorize" these things anyways. Or I guess I should say most people don't.
Almost never, I have my codices memorized. I only check for my opponent's sake, or if it's a new book.
So what does a Recon Drone have on it?
Homing beacon, burstcannon, positional relay, notable for having two wounds, Pathfinder only. And IIRC it can become a turret on a Devilfish, although I've never and most like will never use the model so I don't know exactly how it works.
Except what you posted really had nothing to do with templates. You just used the templates being moved to random as an excuse to springboard into a complaint about the CRS.
The shift from templates->"randumb" as you call it in AoS is actually a bit better.
You pick a point either on the board or in an enemy unit or an enemy unit itself. You then roll to see what gets Hit/Wounded. Some of these have chain attacks, essentially, where it expands outward.
As someone said, no need for finger-twister. No arguments about "Oh the template wasn't really touching him" or "He's on a different level!" or any of that crap.
The "different level" thing is addressed in the rulebook, no? I can have legitimate complaints about random shot counts, and still talk about templates being replaced with more random shot counts.
Random shot counts != "templates being replaced".
Again, it's an illustration of how randomness for the sake of randomness harms the game, not a direct comparison.
Addendum
A relatively stable system with simple methods of calculation, which also provides flavor for the game, being replaced with a system based on arbitrary randomness = bad, regardless of how fast the system with more random works. Replacing a stock, simple template with a system that requires measuring outward consumes more time measuring the circle radius around the point, and also allows "fudging" the measurement just as bad as partial template coverage does.
How in the world are templates "a relatively stable system"?
You place them, then you roll for Scatter in most cases.
Also, it's a lot harder to "fudge" the measurement whenthe rules for the attack say something to the effect of:
Units(or in some cases, units) within 12 inches of the designated point suffer X amount of wounds.
Templates are a stable system because they follow a simple formula. They are a set width, with a clearly defined central point, and a tool to help them scatter properly. Additionally, scatter allows them to hit units other than the ones intended, which is flavorful.
Is a unit or model within 12 inches of the designated point?
Yes?
They suffer X amount of Wounds.
No?
Nothing happens.
Fudging measurements is quite easy. I can easily see someone subtly moving the tape to cover more area, or "misjudging" where the point actually is.
: Sorry about the quote failure, it's annoying to do on mobile. I'll edit in quotes as I go.
It would be fun if you could charge, shoot your hand flamer and then start hacking away. It's not like a marine would fear that thing.
Being able to use it in conjunction with assault would be thematically epic, I do agree. I have one on my Blood Angels captain model and did it mostly for the rule of cool (I love the look of flamer weapons, personally) and always lamented the rules for them were less than impressive.
Always felt like the hand flamer should have been ST:4, AP:6 or ST:4: AP:-. That makes it hit like a bolt pistol vs. most targets. If a model has two of them (paired hand flamers) then they would get to re-roll their to-wound roll or, if they do away with templates as it seems they are, re-roll the to-hit the D6 or increase it to 2D6 instead.
Lots of options, and I'm looking forward to seeing where they go with it.
I'm not sure if I can buy templates being removed just yet. People say when WHFB switched to AoS it had no effect on gameplay, but lets be honest here, there wasn't a whole lot of template weapons in that game compared to 40k, not even close. And people saying 'well just remove superheavies hurr hurr hurr' yea that's not happening either. I like to think GW knows how fun templates are.
A bunch of podcasts saying the same thing doesn't mean confirmed. You could make a pretty safe 'rumor' just by using any AoS rule because everyone is drinking the age of emperor kool-aid anyways.
There's a stormcast ability (I think it's for dracoths) that lets you nominate a point on the board and roll a d6 for all units within 2" of that point, and on a 4+ they suffer mortal wounds. It works really well, and is quick and easy to perform too. It's a great stand in for a template ability.
I'll say this too. One of the advantages of warscrolls is that you can have different answers to the same question. A shield carried by one faction will not do the same things as a shield carried by another faction. It really makes units feel unique.
Everything looks good so far, except for no codex books. Codex books are great for old and new fluff, art, paint scheme ideas, and of course rules. They have been a staple of 40k since... practically forever. I like aos rules being free in an app, and would only like the 40k codex-less rules if they follow suit in a free app and printable formats.
I can see this as what aos has become, where the app is becoming a money drain if you want multiple armies.
Actually if they do it like AoS it's like the best of both worlds, all the basic rules you need are free to download/in the app and if you want the fluff and pretty pictures you can buy the book (when they get around to it of course, but lately they've been grinding out Battletome like crazy).
It would be fun if you could charge, shoot your hand flamer and then start hacking away. It's not like a marine would fear that thing.
Being able to use it in conjunction with assault would be thematically epic, I do agree. I have one on my Blood Angels captain model and did it mostly for the rule of cool (I love the look of flamer weapons, personally) and always lamented the rules for them were less than impressive.
Always felt like the hand flamer should have been ST:4, AP:6 or ST:4: AP:-. That makes it hit like a bolt pistol vs. most targets. If a model has two of them (paired hand flamers) then they would get to re-roll their to-wound roll or, if they do away with templates as it seems they are, re-roll the to-hit the D6 or increase it to 2D6 instead.
Lots of options, and I'm looking forward to seeing where they go with it.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
I have one on my assault captain because I love the thought of him descending from the sky in a hail of flames. After the 5 scouts I have and the 10 from SW my next project is painting up his base and getting 10 sanguinary guard to roll with him. Total overkill and very expensive but really darn cool.
How many times do you need to check wargear to see what it is?
You don't "memorize" these things anyways. Or I guess I should say most people don't.
Almost never, I have my codices memorized. I only check for my opponent's sake, or if it's a new book.
So what does a Recon Drone have on it?
Homing beacon, burstcannon, positional relay, notable for having two wounds, Pathfinder only. And IIRC it can become a turret on a Devilfish, although I've never and most like will never use the model so I don't know exactly how it works.
I have a very distinct feeling you were checking the book.
Fudging measurements is quite easy. I can easily see someone subtly moving the tape to cover more area, or "misjudging" where the point actually is.
: Sorry about the quote failure, it's annoying to do on mobile. I'll edit in quotes as I go.
Quick note...
What you described?
That's not "fudging the measurements".
That's cheating.
"Fudging the measurements" would be something like if you have a weird shaped model that you need to find a good point of reference for.
I have one on my assault captain because I love the thought of him descending from the sky in a hail of flames. After the 5 scouts I have and the 10 from SW my next project is painting up his base and getting 10 sanguinary guard to roll with him. Total overkill and very expensive but really darn cool.
Agreed, mine is an assault oriented captain too, typically flanked by an Honor Guard sporting several Storm Shields.
I do want to paint up some Sanguinary Guard in the near future to field with my Captain. They're not the most optimal but they look so damn cool.
I have one on my assault captain because I love the thought of him descending from the sky in a hail of flames. After the 5 scouts I have and the 10 from SW my next project is painting up his base and getting 10 sanguinary guard to roll with him. Total overkill and very expensive but really darn cool.
Agreed, mine is an assault oriented captain too, typically flanked by an Honor Guard sporting several Storm Shields.
I do want to paint up some Sanguinary Guard in the near future to field with my Captain. They're not the most optimal but they look so damn cool.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
Thinking about it, we should have been able to bring some of our cool unique stuff in Shadow War. For specialists it could have been Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, Veteran and Terminator. No Sanguinary Priest because they're actually leaders for BA.
How many times do you need to check wargear to see what it is?
You don't "memorize" these things anyways. Or I guess I should say most people don't.
Almost never, I have my codices memorized. I only check for my opponent's sake, or if it's a new book.
So what does a Recon Drone have on it?
Homing beacon, burstcannon, positional relay, notable for having two wounds, Pathfinder only. And IIRC it can become a turret on a Devilfish, although I've never and most like will never use the model so I don't know exactly how it works.
I have a very distinct feeling you were checking the book.
Fudging measurements is quite easy. I can easily see someone subtly moving the tape to cover more area, or "misjudging" where the point actually is.
: Sorry about the quote failure, it's annoying to do on mobile. I'll edit in quotes as I go.
Quick note...
What you described?
That's not "fudging the measurements".
That's cheating.
"Fudging the measurements" would be something like if you have a weird shaped model that you need to find a good point of reference for.
I know it's cheating. My concern was related to people who would abuse the uncertainty of what model is where to cheat, something that can't be done with the template system (which, granted, has issues, but none too terrible)
Given that 100% of what GW has sad about new40k lines up with Age of Sigmar, it's fairly easy to extrapolate possibilities that would fit in that framework. So we're probably going to see tons and tons of made up rumours, some of which may be right despite being fake.
I don't think anything in that picture sounds crazy, but if I spent ten minutes thinking about how I might represent a given 40k thing in Age of Sigmar terms, I'd probably come up with something that sounds really reasonable.
In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
With every new edition of 40k, I give the game an honest look and consider getting back in. I'm an AoS fan, but dig the 40k setting way more, so I've never gotten into AoS.
zerosignal wrote: This sounds rubbish :(
I don't want to see any major changes to the game mechanics, they are fine. Just a little tidying up, and rebalancing, and some better allies/detachments restrictions.
I can't really imagine GW bringing 2nd edition rules back from the dead in Shadow War: Armageddon without them heralding changes for 8th edition.
Going to have to take a look at those 40K 2.5 Edition rules we were working on when 3rd edition came out (which caused our group to quit playing 40K).
flakpanzer wrote: I was really hoping for the vehicles to have some combination of the wounds system from AoS, and armor. The rumour means there is no point in trying to maneuver to get a rear shot. I am all for speeding up play, I just really dislike when a lot of the tactical elements of a game are stripped out completely.
Armor Values were just an extension of the Strength vs Toughness wound system without actually saying the were toughnesses higher than 10, so there is no reason why vehicles can't just have toughness and wounds like regular figs and MCs. To explore this, just extend the 3rd edition Strength vs Toughness table past 10 and look at the rolls needed to wound and then compare them to the rolls needed to glance/penetrate armor values. Glance was a new mechanic, but otherwise the rolls needed to wound or glance/penetrate are the same.
I could easily see templates being replaced by a mixture of "roll xd6 wounds vs. a unit" and "pick a point on the board, every units (friend or foe) within 2 inches suffers xd6 wounds".
Let's be honest here, the flame and blast templates were not the problem. The problem was with scatter die. It cause a lot of problems in games, especially ones with strangers. I do feel sad that the Flame Template is going to be culled in the move to eliminate scattering blast templates.
Also, point to note here: the rumor says that it works like how flamers work in overwatch.
So that would mean that blast weapons hit automatically, a random number of times. They would not be changed to firing a random number of shots.
That would indeed be pretty similar to how they work now. I agree, having them firing a random number of shots would be very strange, but I could probably be OK with auto-hit and then a random number of hits as a streamline/workaround.
I can totally understand the complaint that it reduces the tactics from minute model placement/micromanagement as well as positioning the model firing to get the right number of targets, and at the end of the day I would proooobably miss flamer templates, but scatter dice are incredibly awkward as stated. and slow down the game to a huge degree, as well as making bases matter... after playing AOS I gotta say, not having to think about my models in terms of the bases is fairly refreshing.
The change would basically make blast/template weapons impossible to avoid, but variable in terms of damage, and it would go a long way towards fixing a few old classics like battlecannons and basilisks whose preferred targets tend to be high value units, who subsequently have smaller unit sizes.
the_scotsman wrote: Also, point to note here: the rumor says that it works like how flamers work in overwatch.
So that would mean that blast weapons hit automatically, a random number of times. They would not be changed to firing a random number of shots.
That would indeed be pretty similar to how they work now. I agree, having them firing a random number of shots would be very strange, but I could probably be OK with auto-hit and then a random number of hits as a streamline/workaround.
I can totally understand the complaint that it reduces the tactics from minute model placement/micromanagement as well as positioning the model firing to get the right number of targets, and at the end of the day I would proooobably miss flamer templates, but scatter dice are incredibly awkward as stated. and slow down the game to a huge degree, as well as making bases matter... after playing AOS I gotta say, not having to think about my models in terms of the bases is fairly refreshing.
The change would basically make blast/template weapons impossible to avoid, but variable in terms of damage, and it would go a long way towards fixing a few old classics like battlecannons and basilisks whose preferred targets tend to be high value units, who subsequently have smaller unit sizes.
We are probably going to have weapons that have a variable amount of attacks and/or damage. They do it in AoS.
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.
Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.
I'm for increasing depth, and removing randomness. In my eyes, scattering blasts does a good job of this. Random shots don't. Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
Ok there I have to ask again, sorry if I'm getting hung up on semantics, but you say "removing randomness" but isn't it basically the exact same amount of randomness, one of them just has an extra die? (Now I'm not asking about 'depth', or the possibility of hitting other units).
Scattering blasts is a situation where removing randomness really can't be done without compromising the system. I can cut out random warlord traits, psychic powers, random stormsurge rockets, the Chaos Boon Table, etc, and replace them with fixed values, true player tactical choice, or in the case of the Chaos Boon Table, an actual useful rule.
Scattering blasts makes sense, as that Basilisk does not have the systems necessary to pinpoint a shell at a rapidly moving target. It is a case where randomness is good, in a sea of terrible randomness.
This whole line of reasoning is terrible.
In AOS you don't roll random hits then roll again to hit. You pick a unit in range or say a warp fire thrower for example, you roll d6 and that is the number of HITS. Your making huge assumptions when you assume that blasts will determin the number then roll to hit, your also assuming how many hits they can generate. For all you know a Basilisk could generate 2d3 auto hits. Either way, this is WAY more efficient then the mess with templates. I am also calling BS on using that Basilisk as an example, I play guard and I can tell you that tank is lucky as all hell if it can find a space with 3 dudes under the template before scattering, slowed. The push for bigger bases and the edition flip flop between placing the blast anywhere to centered over a models base has made a 5 inch diameter blast only capable of fitting 2 guys under the template if they are maxed spaced. Currently the small blast can get 1 guy. The old system has sucked for years, it's more random, time consuming and generates more arguing then nearly any other system. Where was the template originally as you hover it over ambiguously? Are you following the arrow? Are you moving the template only or are you shifting the template in the opposite direction you move the template (I see this in 9/10 games it's not malicious it's a hand eye thing)? Then who is under the template?
Your also ignoring the major fix this has on solo models. Now a flamer toting joe can hose the same idiot captain down with multiple hits, or that vindicator that can only fit a single tervigon under the blast can now blast massive damage out of it.
TLDR; it's not more random it's just not the same. Play with it first.
I'm willing to give the new edition of 40k a fair and honest shake over the course of several months, hopefully playing weekly.
I like the concept, and the rumors fix the vast majority of my personal gripes with 40k at present. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the actual rules coming soon.
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.
Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.
I'm for increasing depth, and removing randomness. In my eyes, scattering blasts does a good job of this. Random shots don't. Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
Ok there I have to ask again, sorry if I'm getting hung up on semantics, but you say "removing randomness" but isn't it basically the exact same amount of randomness, one of them just has an extra die? (Now I'm not asking about 'depth', or the possibility of hitting other units).
Scattering blasts is a situation where removing randomness really can't be done without compromising the system. I can cut out random warlord traits, psychic powers, random stormsurge rockets, the Chaos Boon Table, etc, and replace them with fixed values, true player tactical choice, or in the case of the Chaos Boon Table, an actual useful rule.
Scattering blasts makes sense, as that Basilisk does not have the systems necessary to pinpoint a shell at a rapidly moving target. It is a case where randomness is good, in a sea of terrible randomness.
This whole line of reasoning is terrible.
In AOS you don't roll random hits then roll again to hit. You pick a unit in range or say a warp fire thrower for example, you roll d6 and that is the number of HITS. Your making huge assumptions when you assume that blasts will determin the number then roll to hit, your also assuming how many hits they can generate. For all you know a Basilisk could generate 2d3 auto hits. Either way, this is WAY more efficient then the mess with templates. I am also calling BS on using that Basilisk as an example, I play guard and I can tell you that tank is lucky as all hell if it can find a space with 3 dudes under the template before scattering, slowed. The push for bigger bases and the edition flip flop between placing the blast anywhere to centered over a models base has made a 5 inch diameter blast only capable of fitting 2 guys under the template if they are maxed spaced. Currently the small blast can get 1 guy. The old system has sucked for years, it's more random, time consuming and generates more arguing then nearly any other system. Where was the template originally as you hover it over ambiguously? Are you following the arrow? Are you moving the template only or are you shifting the template in the opposite direction you move the template (I see this in 9/10 games it's not malicious it's a hand eye thing)? Then who is under the template?
Your also ignoring the major fix this has on solo models. Now a flamer toting joe can hose the same idiot captain down with multiple hits, or that vindicator that can only fit a single tervigon under the blast can now blast massive damage out of it.
TLDR; it's not more random it's just not the same. Play with it first.
Great post, and I think you touched on something that bugs me with 40k currently. Vindicators are better at hunting large groups instead of big single creatures. A change like this would make them viable at both, and much deadlier to MCs.
Not to mention that with the warscroll system it's very easy to simulate the inaccurate randomness of say, an Earthshaker shell, in a way that doesn't constrain other types of blasts. Say:
incoming! On a To Hit roll of 1, the shell has scattered from it's intended target and now threatens friend and foe alike. Choose a random unit, friendly or enemy, within 6" of the target. That unit suffers D3 wounds.
I have mixed feelings about templates. On the one hand, there is nostalgia and the tactile aspects that make templates kind of a fun mechanic. There is no doubt that templates (blasts more so than flame templates) are a source of slowing and contention in the game, as it can be time consuming to measure and scatter a template, and arguments can frequently arise.
If blasts cause multiple hits instead that could be an interesting mechanic that could make big tanks and such feel way more effective against big monsters. Big tanks with big guns are laughable against monsters and big stompy robots. I think a big Leman Russ canon should be a threat to a big Tyranid monster.
I'm neutral either way. It would depend on the execution, and I acknowledge that most of my objection is purely because "thats how it's always been done" which isn't a necessarily good substantive argument.
Has everyone seen the image of the space marine tactical squad written up in a
Format similar to AOS making the rounds? Has that been proven a fake or is it still unconfirmed?
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
rollawaythestone wrote: I have mixed feelings about templates. On the one hand, there is nostalgia and the tactile aspects that make templates kind of a fun mechanic. There is no doubt that templates (blasts more so than flame templates) are a source of slowing and contention in the game, as it can be time consuming to measure and scatter a template, and arguments can frequently arise.
If blasts cause multiple hits instead that could be an interesting mechanic that could make big tanks and such feel way more effective against big monsters. Big tanks with big guns are laughable against monsters and big stompy robots. I think a big Leman Russ canon should be a threat to a big Tyranid monster.
I'm neutral either way. It would depend on the execution, and I acknowledge that most of my objection is purely because "thats how it's always been done" which isn't a necessarily good substantive argument.
I think templates worked fine when there was a fairly limited number of models and weapon types on the table. The bigger and more varied the game has gotten, the more templates have become a hassle or a constriction on design.
Agreed with the tanks vs. monsters point, and also tanks vs. tanks. It always boggled my mind that the Leman Russ battle cannon was almost entirely impotent against other heavy tanks.
streetsamurai wrote: Some posters are so obsessed with speed and streamlining, that they probably would be happy to only do a dice roll off to decide who won.
Removing templates would kill a lot of the immersion and flavour of the game imo
Agreed, removing blast and flamer templates would really suck. It seems most of these people would be better serve with playing magic or video games if they dislike models placement so much and feels templates takes too much time. Thats not to say that some of the abuses can't be removed. A squadron of tanks shooting a tons of barrage weapons is simply not fun though
Templates are a drag. I don't think I have seen anything else in the game result in as many arguments as templates and scatter. So not only do they slow the game down on the own, but the 'discussion' that ensues bogs things down even worse. This is only exacerbated by the fact that some armies can field so many template weapons.
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with similarr minded players
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
You yourself just said that people who don't like/want templates should
Go play computer games or ccg. How is that any different? Pot meet kettle...
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
Sorry, if a group of people think it is a good thing to stomp new players so badly they never come back to a given club, convention or store, that's objectively bad for the future of the hobby.
The people they drive away may never find people like you or I before they quit.
So yes, I hope the Age of the Emperor causes them to feel like all the time and money they spent was wasted to the point that they quit. I hope they feel disregarded and betrayed. They're the bullies who should be driven away and if a new edition helps that, great. The current one seems to be attracting those sort of people and all the reasonable people are playing Age of Sigmar, X-Wing, Bolt Action, Flames of War and so on.
I've been looking to get back into 40k with every new edition since I stopped playing in 5th, but the local community is definitely a barrier. I think it's caused in part by the current approach to the rules that rewards enfranchisement and punishes unfamiliarity way too much
If you don't have players doing this sort of thing to your local 40k community, or if they are such a small minority, then great. What I said only applies to those who would brag about beating someone so bad they never come back to play again. Or those who approve when others do so.
This postmodernism of "If they stomp noobs and make then quit, its just how they play, just let them" its absurd. Obviously, we are not gonna go and broke theirs model and punch them in the face, but lest not pretend those kind of players are any good to the hobby.
They are just detrimental to the long run, just like internet trolls, etc... I have no problems with trolls doing what they want with other trolls in his proper enviroment (*cough* 4chan *cough*) but when they just flee free like winged monkeys and start pooping in everyones faces, then things get ugly.
A healthy community has to get rid of some type of players. Thats basic.
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
Sorry, if a group of people think it is a good thing to stomp new players so badly they never come back to a given club, convention or store, that's objectively bad for the future of the hobby.
The people they drive away may never find people like you or I before they quit.
So yes, I hope the Age of the Emperor causes them to feel like all the time and money they spent was wasted to the point that they quit. I hope they feel disregarded and betrayed. They're the bullies who should be driven away and if a new edition helps that, great. The current one seems to be attracting those sort of people and all the reasonable people are playing Age of Sigmar, X-Wing, Bolt Action, Flames of War and so on.
I've been looking to get back into 40k with every new edition since I stopped playing in 5th, but the local community is definitely a barrier. I think it's caused in part by the current approach to the rules that rewards enfranchisement and punishes unfamiliarity way too much
If you don't have players doing this sort of thing to your local 40k community, or if they are such a small minority, then great. What I said only applies to those who would brag about beating someone so bad they never come back to play again.
My posts were mostly aimed at the waac types rather than the noobcrushers, which I honestly believe is rather marginal
I'm pretty confident in saying that the vast majority of new players don't start on their own and play their first games with some unknown veterans but rather with their friends or others newbies. Plus, witht he $$$ it cost to build an army, I don't think someone is just gonna quit after one bad experience
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
Sorry, if a group of people think it is a good thing to stomp new players so badly they never come back to a given club, convention or store, that's objectively bad for the future of the hobby.
The people they drive away may never find people like you or I before they quit.
So yes, I hope the Age of the Emperor causes them to feel like all the time and money they spent was wasted to the point that they quit. I hope they feel disregarded and betrayed. They're the bullies who should be driven away and if a new edition helps that, great. The current one seems to be attracting those sort of people and all the reasonable people are playing Age of Sigmar, X-Wing, Bolt Action, Flames of War and so on.
I've been looking to get back into 40k with every new edition since I stopped playing in 5th, but the local community is definitely a barrier. I think it's caused in part by the current approach to the rules that rewards enfranchisement and punishes unfamiliarity way too much
If you don't have players doing this sort of thing to your local 40k community, or if they are such a small minority, then great. What I said only applies to those who would brag about beating someone so bad they never come back to play again.
I'm pretty confident in saying that the vast majority of new players don't start on their own and play their first games with some unknown veterans but rather with their friends or others newbies. Plus, witht he $$$ it cost to build an army, I don't think someone is just gonna quit after one bad experience
So your argument is that you think something doesn't happen? Wow. Rock-solid argument.
Speaking from anecdotal evidence (yes, I know) I've seen plenty of cases, either demos or first matches, where the local veteran/whale WAS indeed the first experience and in multiple cases drove away from the hobby the new player.
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
You yourself just said that people who don't like/want templates should Go play computer games or ccg. How is that any different? Pot meet kettle...
That's not the same thing at all. One is playing the game a certain way, the other is changing the rules of the game
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
Sorry, if a group of people think it is a good thing to stomp new players so badly they never come back to a given club, convention or store, that's objectively bad for the future of the hobby.
The people they drive away may never find people like you or I before they quit.
So yes, I hope the Age of the Emperor causes them to feel like all the time and money they spent was wasted to the point that they quit. I hope they feel disregarded and betrayed. They're the bullies who should be driven away and if a new edition helps that, great. The current one seems to be attracting those sort of people and all the reasonable people are playing Age of Sigmar, X-Wing, Bolt Action, Flames of War and so on.
I've been looking to get back into 40k with every new edition since I stopped playing in 5th, but the local community is definitely a barrier. I think it's caused in part by the current approach to the rules that rewards enfranchisement and punishes unfamiliarity way too much
If you don't have players doing this sort of thing to your local 40k community, or if they are such a small minority, then great. What I said only applies to those who would brag about beating someone so bad they never come back to play again.
I'm pretty confident in saying that the vast majority of new players don't start on their own and play their first games with some unknown veterans but rather with their friends or others newbies. Plus, witht he $$$ it cost to build an army, I don't think someone is just gonna quit after one bad experience
So your argument is that you think something doesn't happen? Wow. Rock-solid argument.
Speaking from anecdotal evidence (yes, I know) I've seen plenty of cases, either demos or first matches, where the local veteran/whale WAS indeed the first experience and in multiple cases drove away from the hobby the new player.
Same thing apply to your argument also. Not because you think it happens often does it happens often. Anyway, there will be 3 ways to play 8th edition, so most type of players should find their fit.
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
Sorry, if a group of people think it is a good thing to stomp new players so badly they never come back to a given club, convention or store, that's objectively bad for the future of the hobby.
The people they drive away may never find people like you or I before they quit.
So yes, I hope the Age of the Emperor causes them to feel like all the time and money they spent was wasted to the point that they quit. I hope they feel disregarded and betrayed. They're the bullies who should be driven away and if a new edition helps that, great. The current one seems to be attracting those sort of people and all the reasonable people are playing Age of Sigmar, X-Wing, Bolt Action, Flames of War and so on.
I've been looking to get back into 40k with every new edition since I stopped playing in 5th, but the local community is definitely a barrier. I think it's caused in part by the current approach to the rules that rewards enfranchisement and punishes unfamiliarity way too much
If you don't have players doing this sort of thing to your local 40k community, or if they are such a small minority, then great. What I said only applies to those who would brag about beating someone so bad they never come back to play again. Or those who approve when others do so.
Why would streamlining the rules would make the WAAC players flee? THe only reason they left AOS (along with everybodies else) was because there was no point cost, and GW won't repeat that same mistake again.
frozenwastes wrote: In a lot of areas, the local community needs a purge. The local 40k scene is made up of waac "that guys" who get off crushing new players so they never come back (they actually boisterously brag about beating someone so bad they never come back). So if a mass army invalidation causes them to all rage quit, then the Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.
You know what? I agree. I've had the misfortune to know so many of these kinds of players over the years, and if this big change helps clear them out then happy days.
Waaaaaaahhh, they play the game in a way I don't like so I want them out I highly dislike waac types, but instead of hoping they quit rage an hobby they enjoy and spent countless $ and hours in, I simply don't play with them and set up my games with simalar minded players
Sorry, if a group of people think it is a good thing to stomp new players so badly they never come back to a given club, convention or store, that's objectively bad for the future of the hobby.
The people they drive away may never find people like you or I before they quit.
So yes, I hope the Age of the Emperor causes them to feel like all the time and money they spent was wasted to the point that they quit. I hope they feel disregarded and betrayed. They're the bullies who should be driven away and if a new edition helps that, great. The current one seems to be attracting those sort of people and all the reasonable people are playing Age of Sigmar, X-Wing, Bolt Action, Flames of War and so on.
I've been looking to get back into 40k with every new edition since I stopped playing in 5th, but the local community is definitely a barrier. I think it's caused in part by the current approach to the rules that rewards enfranchisement and punishes unfamiliarity way too much
If you don't have players doing this sort of thing to your local 40k community, or if they are such a small minority, then great. What I said only applies to those who would brag about beating someone so bad they never come back to play again.
I'm pretty confident in saying that the vast majority of new players don't start on their own and play their first games with some unknown veterans but rather with their friends or others newbies. Plus, witht he $$$ it cost to build an army, I don't think someone is just gonna quit after one bad experience
So your argument is that you think something doesn't happen? Wow. Rock-solid argument.
Speaking from anecdotal evidence (yes, I know) I've seen plenty of cases, either demos or first matches, where the local veteran/whale WAS indeed the first experience and in multiple cases drove away from the hobby the new player.
Lol, so you blast me for deducting something based on my personnal experience than you point some anecdotal evidence of your own to try to prove me wrong
I'd say it is fake. I sincerly doubt they would use exactly the same layout as AOS for 40k. I also doubt they would use abbreviation like Las for lascannon
CT GAMER wrote: Has everyone seen the image of the space marine tactical squad written up in a
Format similar to AOS making the rounds? Has that been proven a fake or is it still unconfirmed?
At what point you said: "from my own experience, from what I've seen, etc etc.?"
Even then, the shared comments of FAR more people than you on this site have given plenty more horror stores to support my comment than yours. Maybe not the "predominant" introduction but nonetheless a SUBSTANCIAL issue.
I'd say it is fake. I sincerly doubt they would use exactly the same layout as AOS for 40k. I also doubt they would use abbreviation like Las for lascannon
Fanmade.
If I had an euro for every time I've seen this image in the days since adepticon I think I'd make a whole new army.
streetsamurai wrote: The point is that you try to discredit his argument by using exactly the same type of argument. Which is why it was a ridiculous comment
It's not as much as ridiculous as pointing that far more often that the opposite is mentioned to happen, at least in other places than his local meta (and I play in different cities across the year so it's not something as localized as he MAY be)
streetsamurai wrote: What is your basis to say that this mentionned more often ????Nothing I'd wager, only your biaised perspective.
And his perspective is purely objective too. I think we are running in circles and this is just becoming a circle of NU-UH! IF they go the GHB's route, there will be less "WAAC" because the tournament players that are consulted will curb down the extreme rules up to a point with addient limitations/points. Which I think this is what they are doing since they mentioned they met tournament organizers/players back in these events, implying they are searching for experimented input, which is more needed in 40k than AoS since GW seems to have more tournament players of the latter than the early in-house.
Ridiculing? I think the one that's rushing is you.
streetsamurai wrote: What is your basis to say that this mentionned more often ????Nothing I'd wager, only your biaised perspective.
And his perspective is purely objective too. I think we are running in circles and this is just becoming a circle of NU-UH! IF they go the GHB's route, there will be less "WAAC" because the tournament players that are consulted will curb down the extreme rules up to a point with addient limitations/points. Which I think this is what they are doing since they mentioned they met tournament organizers/players back in these events, implying they are searching for experimented input, which is more needed in 40k than AoS since GW seems to have more tournament players of the latter than the early in-house.
Ridiculing? I think the one that's rushing is you.
subjective is the word you're looking for, not objective. And I don't see why having more balanced rules would make noobcrushing less frequent, nor WAAC attitude. Chess is as balanced a game as you will see, and these 2 attitudes are extremely prevalent.
Why would streamlining the rules would make the WAAC players flee? THe only reason they left AOS (along with everybodies else) was because there was no point cost, and GW won't repeat that same mistake again.
It's not the streamlining at all. It's the army invalidation that can make it all happen. The people who were buying heavily into the End Times didn't just not transition into Age of Sigmar for a lack of a points system.
It's very likely that if you make a generalist army and have a wide collection for your army of choice, things will be fine. But if you've gone through the army list to find the most efficient options and spammed them, then a change to those things can invalidate the whole army. By which I mean, make it no longer work for their WAAC purposes.
There's something about Age of Sigmar that lets people who are still casual play it alongside the more serious players. It's more accessible and doesn't reward enfranchisement to the degree that 40k does. So the WAAC players aren't as attracted to it because their approach isn't as rewarded. I want new40k to be like that.
streetsamurai wrote: What is your basis to say that this mentionned more often ????Nothing I'd wager, only your biaised perspective.
And his perspective is purely objective too. I think we are running in circles and this is just becoming a circle of NU-UH! IF they go the GHB's route, there will be less "WAAC" because the tournament players that are consulted will curb down the extreme rules up to a point with addient limitations/points. Which I think this is what they are doing since they mentioned they met tournament organizers/players back in these events, implying they are searching for experimented input, which is more needed in 40k than AoS since GW seems to have more tournament players of the latter than the early in-house.
Ridiculing? I think the one that's rushing is you.
subjective is the word you're looking for, not objective. And I don't see why having more balanced rules would make noobcrushing less frequent.
Nope. The word you were looking for now was sarcasm.
And in my opinion the more balanced rules AND points would make noobcrushing far less frequent. Again, speaking from experience, Noobcrushers usually bring "strong" armies that synergize with the current dominant mechanics (shooting in this edition's case). Maybe they won't bring a power list (though I have seen-only a few- instances of that happening) but there's certainly a skew in favor of them most of the time.
If the player has an army that won't have an uphill battle from the get-go the defeat won't be as bad.
Why would streamlining the rules would make the WAAC players flee? THe only reason they left AOS (along with everybodies else) was because there was no point cost, and GW won't repeat that same mistake again.
It's not the streamlining at all. It's the army invalidation that can make it all happen. The people who were buying heavily into the End Times didn't just not transition into Age of Sigmar for a lack of a points system.
It's very likely that if you make a generalist army and have a wide collection for your army of choice, things will be fine. But if you've gone through the army list to find the most efficient options and spammed them, then a change to those things can invalidate the whole army. By which I mean, make it no longer work for their WAAC purposes.
There's something about Age of Sigmar that lets people who are still casual play it alongside the more serious players. It's more accessible and doesn't reward enfranchisement to the degree that 40k does. So the WAAC players aren't as attracted to it because their approach isn't as rewarded. I want new40k to be like that.
I dont see it bro. Each new codex (for your army) and editions usually shake the meta enough that you have to rebuild pretty much all of your army if you want to stay at the top of the food chain, and WACC players always do it. The reason why AOS was spared by WACC players imo was because of the lack of points, and you will see more and more of them now that they introduced them back.
streetsamurai wrote: What is your basis to say that this mentionned more often ????Nothing I'd wager, only your biaised perspective.
And his perspective is purely objective too. I think we are running in circles and this is just becoming a circle of NU-UH! IF they go the GHB's route, there will be less "WAAC" because the tournament players that are consulted will curb down the extreme rules up to a point with addient limitations/points. Which I think this is what they are doing since they mentioned they met tournament organizers/players back in these events, implying they are searching for experimented input, which is more needed in 40k than AoS since GW seems to have more tournament players of the latter than the early in-house.
Ridiculing? I think the one that's rushing is you.
subjective is the word you're looking for, not objective. And I don't see why having more balanced rules would make noobcrushing less frequent.
Nope. The word you were looking for now was sarcasm.
And in my opinion the more balanced rules AND points would make noobcrushing far less frequent. Again, speaking from experience, Noobcrushers usually bring "strong" armies that synergize with the current dominant mechanics (shooting in this edition's case). Maybe not a power list but there's certainly a skew in favor of them most of the time.
If the player has an army that won't have an uphill battle from the get-go the defeat won't be as bad.
As I said before, that's a hell of a stretch, since chess is as balanced a game as you'll find, and noobcrushing and WACC players are extremely prevalent . But anyways, we disgress. I don't think anyone is against balanced tules
It also doesn't matter that either perspective is subjective. I'm talking about a problem that exists in my local community. Friends who used to run tournaments have all stopped because the players are awful to one another. If an event is marked as new player friendly, these people intentionally show up and try to stomp as many new players as possible. And then brag about it.
And it's all 40k. The AoS events go off without any problems (as do the FoW, Bolt Action, and Infinity events-- though Warmachine events have all died for similar reasons). So I want the rug pulled out from beneath the problem players. And I already know a true "Age of the Emperor" approach to 40k will do it because of how much they complained about Age of Sigmar and make fun of the people who play it.
A new edition that actually changes things will indeed shake things up. Some players will return from the game. New people will get interested. And if the approach infuriates just enough of the WAAC players so that they are no longer so heavily impacting the local tone, then things can go back to the way they were from 3rd through half of sixth. The incremental changes with the same base as 3rd edition hasn't shaken things up enough in years.
Welcome to the edition sequel of "While stocks last." game aids. GW's new slogan "All 'While stocks last' game aids, All the time!"
Timmy: "I want to start a Dark Eldar army. Do you have their codex in stock?"
Red shirt: "Oh, sorry, we don't print codexes anymore. We now make card packs for all your unit entries - nice and convenient. Unfortunately, Dark Eldar are no longer available and no more will be printed, but don't worry they're available from Warhammer Digital."
Who would have thought that we'd see the day where an iPad would become a requirement to play Warhammer.
oni wrote: Welcome to the edition sequel of "While stocks last." game aids. GW's new slogan "All 'While stocks last' game aids, All the time!"
Timmy: "I want to start a Dark Eldar army. Do you have their codex in stock?"
Red shirt: "Oh, sorry, we don't print codexes anymore. We now make card packs for all your unit entries - nice and convenient. Unfortunately, Dark Eldar are no longer available and no more will be printed, but don't worry they're available from Warhammer Digital."
Who would have thought that we'd see the day where an iPad would become a requirement to play Warhammer.
EDIT: Stepped the line there, nevermind.
I still have to see this part of the rumour holding truth. Even in AoS the "codex"/battletome isn't done with entirely. And IF there's this warhammer digital only rules, you can print them, I doubt it would cost more than two euros.
streetsamurai wrote: I dont see it bro. Each new codex (for your army) and editions usually shake the meta enough that you have to rebuild pretty much all of your army if you want to stay at the top of the food chain, and WACC players always do it. The reason why AOS was spared by WACC players imo was because of the lack of points, and you will see more and more of them now that they introduced them back.
I think the change is going to be far more drastic than the incremental updating of 3rd edition that has been going on for nearly 20 years. It hopefully won't be the same as adjusting to a new codex.
I think it is easy to underestimate how passionate enfranchised players get about change in games like 40k. A new edition where all the codecies are invalidated would be massive in terms of refreshing the player base with a combination of new and returning players and an exodus of some rage quitters. Even people who stopped playing WHFB in 7th and had their armies sitting on the shelf for all of 8th raged about Age of Sigmar. I've noticed that WAAC types are even more emotionally invested than the average player. I've seen loads of Flames of War tournament players complain online about the edition change that just happened and if the commonality with AoS that the Adepticon presentations contained are anything to go by, this will be a far greater change than V3 to V4 of Flames of War.
It'll be like D&D edition wars. "My hate of d02 know no limit" LOL
One advantage in game design: removing templates means that differing base sizes and/or model sizes don't affect gameplay. Your 25mm base RT Orks or new 40mm base Speyss Orruks (tm) would take the same amount of hits using a non-template method. A template would generate different numbers depending on base/model sizes. I guess this could not only balance weapon effects between different armies a little better, but future-proof against any scale creep.
It does however mean staying spaced to coherency max wouldn't reduce your casualties in the same way, so opens up potential for different deployment and movement.
Can't say I hate this no more templates rumor, since it means I won't have to spread out my 60+ gaunts since they all don't get templated to death in one turn. Really opens up new ways in how I can deploy them.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Can't say I hate this no more templates rumor, since it means I won't have to spread out my 60+ gaunts since they all don't get templated to death in one turn. Really opens up new ways in how I can deploy them.
frozenwastes wrote: It also doesn't matter that either perspective is subjective. I'm talking about a problem that exists in my local community. Friends who used to run tournaments have all stopped because the players are awful to one another. If an event is marked as new player friendly, these people intentionally show up and try to stomp as many new players as possible. And then brag about it.
And it's all 40k. The AoS events go off without any problems (as do the FoW, Bolt Action, and Infinity events-- though Warmachine events have all died for similar reasons). So I want the rug pulled out from beneath the problem players. And I already know a true "Age of the Emperor" approach to 40k will do it because of how much they complained about Age of Sigmar and make fun of the people who play it.
A new edition that actually changes things will indeed shake things up. Some players will return from the game. New people will get interested. And if the approach infuriates just enough of the WAAC players so that they are no longer so heavily impacting the local tone, then things can go back to the way they were from 3rd through half of sixth. The incremental changes with the same base as 3rd edition hasn't shaken things up enough in years.
As the t-shirt say: "You don't always need a plan bro. Sometime you just need balls" lol. If you have people showing up to a newbies friendly event with the sole intent of crushing them, it's on your group to kick them out.
streetsamurai wrote: I dont see it bro. Each new codex (for your army) and editions usually shake the meta enough that you have to rebuild pretty much all of your army if you want to stay at the top of the food chain, and WACC players always do it. The reason why AOS was spared by WACC players imo was because of the lack of points, and you will see more and more of them now that they introduced them back.
I think the change is going to be far more drastic than the incremental updating of 3rd edition that has been going on for nearly 20 years. It hopefully won't be the same as adjusting to a new codex.
I think it is easy to underestimate how passionate enfranchised players get about change in games like 40k. A new edition where all the codecies are invalidated would be massive in terms of refreshing the player base with a combination of new and returning players and an exodus of some rage quitters. Even people who stopped playing WHFB in 7th and had their armies sitting on the shelf for all of 8th raged about Age of Sigmar. I've noticed that WAAC types are even more emotionally invested than the average player. I've seen loads of Flames of War tournament players complain online about the edition change that just happened and if the commonality with AoS that the Adepticon presentations contained are anything to go by, this will be a far greater change than V3 to V4 of Flames of War.
It'll be like D&D edition wars. "My hate of d02 know no limit" LOL
I think it will be a greater change than usual. But I must say that the hate for AOS and D&D 4th edition wasn't only due to the amount of change they brought, but also cause they were turd in a box (AOS is now a lot better than it was, but the stigma still lingers)
I don't have an actual bucket of water that I can pour on this thread, so I'm going to use blue text.
There's a bit too much vitriol and argument in this thread, especially since we've had no real news since before Adepticon started. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and realize that it's not going to be as bad as you think. Most of us will adapt and move on.
As the t-shirt say: "You don't always need a plan bro. Sometime you just need balls" lol. If you have people showing up to a newbies friendly event with the sole intent of crushing them, it's on your group to kick them out.
I don't own the local stores nor do I organize all the local clubs/groups. I'm talking about the larger local community.
Sorry, but the current edition of 40k is a great environment for WAAC players and my locale isn't the only place dealing with the issue.
As the t-shirt say: "You don't always need a plan bro. Sometime you just need balls" lol. If you have people showing up to a newbies friendly event with the sole intent of crushing them, it's on your group to kick them out.
I don't own the local stores nor do I organize all the local clubs/groups. I'm talking about the larger local community.
Sorry, but the current edition of 40k is a great environment for WAAC players and my locale isn't the only place dealing with the issue.
Best way to discourage the WAAC players from turning up is to change the prizes that are handed out.
Don't give prizes for winning the games, but base it purely on sportsmanship and enjoyment
You give a prize out for winning the games.. and these people will come out and smash face get their shiny stuff and feel great for it.
Best way to discourage the WAAC players from turning up is to change the prizes that are handed out.
Don't give prizes for winning the games, but base it purely on sportsmanship and enjoyment
You give a prize out for winning the games.. and these people will come out and smash face get their shiny stuff and feel great for it.
We seem to have gotten ourselves infected with a small coterie of those who play to win at all costs purely for ego reasons. They show up at prizeless events specifically to stomp newbs. Or in their words "teach them how the game is really played." The warmachine players have been heard saying similar things. In the case of that game, the latest edition change shook out all the local casual players who just didn't bother updating and stopped playing.
To tie this back to the new edition of 40k, I really do think there's a game design element to creating an environment where things like this flourish. When you've had this rotating repeated tweaking and codex release approach bloating the game over the last 19 years (!) you create the perfect environment for WAAC. People tend to drop out for an edition and then reassess the situation when something changes. So if the change is substantial enough, I bet loads of locals who have quit (like myself) would give it another look. And it won't take that many returning players or new players to make the negative experience of playing certain opponents a regular experience for new players. The bigger the change, the more likely the player base will experience greater flux.
I like the rules of AoS and the fiction of the 40k universe, so a Sigmarization of 40k would be ideal for me. And given that all the opponents I used to have fun playing 40k with all largely do AoS, I'm guessing they'd get back in as well.
While GW's sales are up a bit, it's largely driven by the exchange rate, their stand alone games and the success of Age of Sigmar. Which means 40k has declined over the last year and bit. So it makes sense that GW will look at what is working (Age of Sigmar and stand alone games with high levels of accessibility) and what is not working (rules bloat that rewards enfranchised players and punishes casual ones) and do more of the former. Given how everything rules wise in the Adepticon presentation could have been said about Age of Sigmar and it's success, I think the Sigmarization of 40k is inevitable. And it's a very good thing. It's been 19 years of the same base game being repeatedly tweaked. It needs to be truly updated.
Best way to discourage the WAAC players from turning up is to change the prizes that are handed out.
Don't give prizes for winning the games, but base it purely on sportsmanship and enjoyment
You give a prize out for winning the games.. and these people will come out and smash face get their shiny stuff and feel great for it.
We seem to have gotten ourselves infected with a small coterie of those who play to win at all costs purely for ego reasons. They show up at prizeless events specifically to stomp newbs. Or in their words "teach them how the game is really played." The warmachine players have been heard saying similar things. In the case of that game, the latest edition change shook out all the local casual players who just didn't bother updating and stopped playing.
To tie this back to the new edition of 40k, I really do think there's a game design element to creating an environment where things like this flourish. When you've had this rotating repeated tweaking and codex release approach bloating the game over the last 19 years (!) you create the perfect environment for WAAC. People tend to drop out for an edition and then reassess the situation when something changes. So if the change is substantial enough, I bet loads of locals who have quit (like myself) would give it another look. And it won't take that many returning players or new players to make the negative experience of playing certain opponents a regular experience for new players. The bigger the change, the more likely the player base will experience greater flux.
I like the rules of AoS and the fiction of the 40k universe, so a Sigmarization of 40k would be ideal for me. And given that all the opponents I used to have fun playing 40k with all largely do AoS, I'm guessing they'd get back in as well.
While GW's sales are up a bit, it's largely driven by the exchange rate, their stand alone games and the success of Age of Sigmar. Which means 40k has declined over the last year and bit. So it makes sense that GW will look at what is working (Age of Sigmar and stand alone games with high levels of accessibility) and what is not working (rules bloat that rewards enfranchised players and punishes casual ones) and do more of the former. Given how everything rules wise in the Adepticon presentation could have been said about Age of Sigmar and it's success, I think the Sigmarization of 40k is inevitable. And it's a very good thing. It's been 19 years of the same base game being repeatedly tweaked. It needs to be truly updated.
Not true.
The most recent ICV2 report states that GW growth is almost entirely due to 40k
While GW's sales are up a bit, it's largely driven by the exchange rate
Point of order, their sales are up substantially before any adjustment for exchange rates, and given the high profile releases for 40K, I'd argue it's impossible to realistically argue where all the money has come from. Likely a bit of everything.
It is only in the report that you have to buy though. WHich i don't encourage you to do (unless you are also intereted in card games and comics), since it is pretty much the only interesting information concering GW.
Games Workshop has revived
its miniature lines in the U.S.
over the past 18 months,
bringing a stronger foundation to a
miniatures category that was turbocharged
by Star Wars over the same
period. Leading that resurgence in the
U.S. is Warhammer 40K. Gary Ray of
Black Diamond Games in Concord,
California told us, “GW has turned
themselves around. They put out
good stuff and you get what you want.
It has skyrocketed for us.”
Paul Butler of Games and Stuff in Glen
Burnie, Maryland concurred. “40K continues to truck along like a beast,”
he said. “It’s not uncommon for me to
have incredibly large spikes around
significant releases. I have 3-6 people
waiting outside on Saturday for new
releases almost every other week. It’s
got incredible IP awareness.”
CMLR wrote: And, nah, only doomsayers would expect this to be truth, the fonts are painfully different.
Uhh... dude. It's fake. We know it's fake. It says it's fake right at the top right of the picture. Simmer down.
Uhh... dude. I know you know, again, the OP said: "if some people literally havent chopped the part where it sayed "unofficial" and decieved people it would be great.", and has a point; doomsayers would skipped that delicate part completely because they are expecting it to be tru.
Damn, it wouldn't be surprising to see this on BolS as something confirmed
Azreal13 wrote:Point of order, their sales are up substantially before any adjustment for exchange rates, and given the high profile releases for 40K, I'd argue it's impossible to realistically argue where all the money has come from. Likely a bit of everything.
Yes, a bit of everything.
streetsamurai wrote: It is only in the report that you have to buy though. WHich i don't encourage you to do (unless you are also intereted in card games and comics), since it is pretty much the only interesting information concering GW.
Games Workshop has revived its miniature lines in the U.S. over the past 18 months, bringing a stronger foundation to a miniatures category that was turbocharged by Star Wars over the same period. Leading that resurgence in the U.S. is Warhammer 40K. Gary Ray of Black Diamond Games in Concord, California told us, “GW has turned themselves around. They put out good stuff and you get what you want. It has skyrocketed for us.” Paul Butler of Games and Stuff in Glen Burnie, Maryland concurred. “40K continues to truck along like a beast,” he said. “It’s not uncommon for me to have incredibly large spikes around significant releases. I have 3-6 people waiting outside on Saturday for new releases almost every other week. It’s got incredible IP awareness.”
Well that's cool. I thought it was sort of stable while stand alone games and age of sigmar were blowing up.
Then I'd like to amend my previous statement and add a bit more uncertainty to it. If 40k is growing along with Age of Sigmar, they may not be quite as willing to make massive changes.
Thanks, Silverstu, a very helpful hint I compiled all his posts below
Thanks a lot, Williamsond, I'm looking forward to 8th's reveal. This sounds pretty interesting
What made the rounds here two days or so ago
The original source
Williamsond - Warseer Forum
my source (who was spot on about the plastic primarchs and fantasy with round bases), seems to be pretty sure both the plastic thunderhawk and the new marines faction rumours are true (along with a load of stuff about 8th) and we will see them this year. The only thing he's gotten wrong in the past was when the titanicus game would be released he had said it was due this spring but looks like its going to be later this year/ early next year now.
all said and done if we don't see a plastic thunderhawk around the same time as the next edition (summer) I would be very surprised.
[...]
he pretty much confirmed a lot of what's going around the rumour mill:
1, Codexs are done and will be replaced on launch day with war-scroll style release much in the vain that AoS was.
2, Gone are templates, weapons will instead do random numbers of wounds much like flamer do now in overwatch.
3, Vehicle armour values are gone, vehicles will instead get multiple wounds (expect even the most basic tank to have a lot of wounds double figures) heavier weapons will however do multiple wounds too.
4, Weapons will have a armour save modifier much like second edition rather than an ap value, so you have a save and this is reduced depending which weapon you're shot with, rather than getting full save until your ap value is beaten.
5, Early summer release date, I think he said June but it may have been July my memory isn't what it used to be .
6, Rules will be simplified but not to the extent of AoS like Aos there will be three ways to play open narrative and matched.
7, Charging from vehicles is back not just assault vehicles, expect to see rhinos full of assault marines as far as the eye can see...
Like I said a lot of this has been confirmed already to be true, so I expect all the other stuff will be true too. He was quite positive about the changes and others I have gained info from who are in the know "so to speak" say that the secret play testing they did with the wider community seems to have been time well spent. I know there's a lot of guys out there now who are sitting on NDAs who know a lot more but for obvious reasons are being very tight lipped.
[...]
if all the stuff I've been told is true this is going to be the edition of vehicle rush close combat, looks like we'll have to wait until 17 June to see
[...]
It's very strange to see all the big 40k sites are running with my rumour list today, even a lot of the other sites like bolter and chain sword etc are talking about it. However with the amount of hate and dismissive comments I've seen I'm glad I'm not being credited as the original source.
[...]
sorry all I've been told is that AV is gone and replaced with a profile and lots of wounds.
if all the stuff I've been told is true this is going to be the edition of vehicle rush close combat, looks like we'll have to wait until 17 June to see
Ah.. 40k.
In the grim darkness of the far future, where everyone has a gun capable of melting someone at 1000 paces, we still just charge across the battlefield and hit each other with fists, swords and chainsaws.
Here's hoping it doesn't turn into an edition like that. Otherwise all the AoS players will take the mick, saying all you do in 40k is push everything to the middle and roll loads of dice.
if all the stuff I've been told is true this is going to be the edition of vehicle rush close combat, looks like we'll have to wait until 17 June to see
Ah.. 40k.
In the grim darkness of the far future, where everyone has a gun capable of melting someone at 1000 paces, we still just charge across the battlefield and hit each other with fists, swords and chainsaws.
Here's hoping it doesn't turn into an edition like that. Otherwise all the AoS players will take the mick, saying all you do in 40k is push everything to the middle and roll loads of dice.
With the Movement stat coming back, it may be that things move slower overall (please!). At the moment, things can be across the board in a turn or so, but in older editions, it took a bit of slogging. For example, in older editions, Space Marines were Move 4" or, if you wanted to charge or run, it was double your Movement, so Charge 8".
Future War Cultist wrote: There's a stormcast ability (I think it's for dracoths) that lets you nominate a point on the board and roll a d6 for all units within 2" of that point, and on a 4+ they suffer mortal wounds. It works really well, and is quick and easy to perform too. It's a great stand in for a template ability.
I'll say this too. One of the advantages of warscrolls is that you can have different answers to the same question. A shield carried by one faction will not do the same things as a shield carried by another faction. It really makes units feel unique.
It also leads to rulebloay to hell.
Nobody misses when dark angel storms held worked differently to ultramarine just because
Future War Cultist wrote: There's a stormcast ability (I think it's for dracoths) that lets you nominate a point on the board and roll a d6 for all units within 2" of that point, and on a 4+ they suffer mortal wounds. It works really well, and is quick and easy to perform too. It's a great stand in for a template ability.
I'll say this too. One of the advantages of warscrolls is that you can have different answers to the same question. A shield carried by one faction will not do the same things as a shield carried by another faction. It really makes units feel unique.
It also leads to rulebloay to hell.
Nobody misses when dark angel storms held worked differently to ultramarine just because
Not the same situation.
The shields for each faction work differently.
The "Glade Shields" on Eternal Guard for the Wanderers get to reroll save rolls of 1; or 1 and 2 when in Cover.
The "Stardrake Shields" on Seraphon let you ignore the enemy's Rend characteristic unless it is -2 or better.
Each unit has their own uniquely named kind of shield, which gives them some kind of unique attribute. It's listed on the warscroll themselves rather than in some main rulebook.
Standardized rules benefit everyone, yet I feel GW continues to miss this point. All armies in the Imperium uses the same basic wargear thus it makes absolutely no sense that a stormshield is different between armies.
Verviedi wrote: Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.
I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?
A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.
Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.
I'm for increasing depth, and removing randomness. In my eyes, scattering blasts does a good job of this. Random shots don't. Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
Ok there I have to ask again, sorry if I'm getting hung up on semantics, but you say "removing randomness" but isn't it basically the exact same amount of randomness, one of them just has an extra die? (Now I'm not asking about 'depth', or the possibility of hitting other units).
Scattering blasts is a situation where removing randomness really can't be done without compromising the system. I can cut out random warlord traits, psychic powers, random stormsurge rockets, the Chaos Boon Table, etc, and replace them with fixed values, true player tactical choice, or in the case of the Chaos Boon Table, an actual useful rule.
Scattering blasts makes sense, as that Basilisk does not have the systems necessary to pinpoint a shell at a rapidly moving target. It is a case where randomness is good, in a sea of terrible randomness.
This whole line of reasoning is terrible.
In AOS you don't roll random hits then roll again to hit. You pick a unit in range or say a warp fire thrower for example, you roll d6 and that is the number of HITS. Your making huge assumptions when you assume that blasts will determin the number then roll to hit, your also assuming how many hits they can generate. For all you know a Basilisk could generate 2d3 auto hits. Either way, this is WAY more efficient then the mess with templates. I am also calling BS on using that Basilisk as an example, I play guard and I can tell you that tank is lucky as all hell if it can find a space with 3 dudes under the template before scattering, slowed. The push for bigger bases and the edition flip flop between placing the blast anywhere to centered over a models base has made a 5 inch diameter blast only capable of fitting 2 guys under the template if they are maxed spaced. Currently the small blast can get 1 guy. The old system has sucked for years, it's more random, time consuming and generates more arguing then nearly any other system. Where was the template originally as you hover it over ambiguously? Are you following the arrow? Are you moving the template only or are you shifting the template in the opposite direction you move the template (I see this in 9/10 games it's not malicious it's a hand eye thing)? Then who is under the template?
Your also ignoring the major fix this has on solo models. Now a flamer toting joe can hose the same idiot captain down with multiple hits, or that vindicator that can only fit a single tervigon under the blast can now blast massive damage out of it.
TLDR; it's not more random it's just not the same. Play with it first.
Kirasu wrote: Standardized rules benefit everyone, yet I feel GW continues to miss this point. All armies in the Imperium uses the same basic wargear thus it makes absolutely no sense that a stormshield is different between armies.
Have you seen how many different rules get tacked onto new characters and models? Rules on a scroll is super simple, adds variety, and keeps us from having to keep a bookmark in a massive book to find that special rule.
Kirasu wrote: Standardized rules benefit everyone, yet I feel GW continues to miss this point. All armies in the Imperium uses the same basic wargear thus it makes absolutely no sense that a stormshield is different between armies.
What about an archaeotech Storm Shield wielded by a Dark Angels Champion? A hand-crafted artifact wielded by a Salamanders Champion?
There's actually a ton of places where you could feasibly make a case for Storm Shields acting slightly different, which all actually end up being kind of fluffy.
Not to mention differences in shield design ethos and how the warrior uses them.
A Targe is a kind of shield, as is a Tower Shield. Both have completely different applications (Targe is for parry, Tower outright blocking, and only really effective used by a block) and allow for radically different fighting styles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kirasu wrote: Standardized rules benefit everyone, yet I feel GW continues to miss this point. All armies in the Imperium uses the same basic wargear thus it makes absolutely no sense that a stormshield is different between armies.
But here I do and I don't agree.
Yes, if they're going for standardised equipment (let's stick with the Stormshield example) then it had better be identical across the game. So Bolt Pistols are Bolt Pistols, with identical stats and application.
But, in Age of Sigmar, each unit has it's own unique rules on it's sheet. So with that design, it's not as big a deal as Stormshields across two books, because they're not meant to be equivalent.
As someone who hasn't touched AoS (because, good game or not, I loved the old world setting for over a decade and the decision to kill it off essentially makes the whole universe dead to me. :( At least it lives on in Total War: Warhammer..! ) how does the Warscroll system work. Is it literally just you get rules in box or download them from GW's website with everything you need for the unit to play it, and just play?
GenRifDrake wrote: As someone who hasn't touched AoS (because, good game or not, I loved the old world setting for over a decade and the decision to kill it off essentially makes the whole universe dead to me. :( At least it lives on in Total War: Warhammer..! ) how does the Warscroll system work. Is it literally just you get rules in box or download them from GW's website with everything you need for the unit to play it, and just play?
That's literally it.
Poked around for the first time yesterday (Never been interested in Fantasy, but rumors of 8th edition being like AoS had me curious)
They're all just right there for download, along with the game rules. Completely free, each unit has it's own special rules or modifiers.
I actually really like it. They don't have a tenth of the fluff as the codex system does, but from a strictly gameplay standpoint, if 8th edition is anything like it it'll be so much simpler, especially for new players.
My brother picked it up just in time, he just started playing and is already frustrated by all the rules, 8th will make it easier for everyone (hopefully)
GenRifDrake wrote: As someone who hasn't touched AoS (because, good game or not, I loved the old world setting for over a decade and the decision to kill it off essentially makes the whole universe dead to me. :( At least it lives on in Total War: Warhammer..! ) how does the Warscroll system work. Is it literally just you get rules in box or download them from GW's website with everything you need for the unit to play it, and just play?
That's literally it.
Poked around for the first time yesterday (Never been interested in Fantasy, but rumors of 8th edition being like AoS had me curious)
They're all just right there for download, along with the game rules. Completely free, each unit has it's own special rules or modifiers.
I actually really like it. They don't have a tenth of the fluff as the codex system does, but from a strictly gameplay standpoint, if 8th edition is anything like it it'll be so much simpler, especially for new players.
My brother picked it up just in time, he just started playing and is already frustrated by all the rules, 8th will make it easier for everyone (hopefully)
100% Agree. Now we just need to convince the other heretics.
The warscrolls for AoS are missing a 4 page rulebook and a point system. The point system is in the General's Handbook. And it basically gives the units name and how many points the base number of models cost.
So if the Infantryman (Generic) warscroll says 5 to 20 models. And the General's Handbook says Infantryman (Generic) cost 50 points. 5 infantry man would cost 50 points, 6 to 10 would cost 100, 11 to 15 would cost 150 and 16 to 20 would cost 200.
GenRifDrake wrote: As someone who hasn't touched AoS (because, good game or not, I loved the old world setting for over a decade and the decision to kill it off essentially makes the whole universe dead to me. :( At least it lives on in Total War: Warhammer..! ) how does the Warscroll system work. Is it literally just you get rules in box or download them from GW's website with everything you need for the unit to play it, and just play?
That's literally it.
Poked around for the first time yesterday (Never been interested in Fantasy, but rumors of 8th edition being like AoS had me curious)
They're all just right there for download, along with the game rules. Completely free, each unit has it's own special rules or modifiers.
I actually really like it. They don't have a tenth of the fluff as the codex system does, but from a strictly gameplay standpoint, if 8th edition is anything like it it'll be so much simpler, especially for new players.
My brother picked it up just in time, he just started playing and is already frustrated by all the rules, 8th will make it easier for everyone (hopefully)
100% Agree. Now we just need to convince the other heretics.
They'll come around. Or they'll keep playing 7th. It's really not as big a deal as people make it. Nobodies' forcing you.
For example, I HATE the newer Halo games. So my friends and I just play the old ones. Sure it's a bummer that I don't get the story updates, but we still have fun. I don't get why people can't have that mentality about it.
GenRifDrake wrote: As someone who hasn't touched AoS (because, good game or not, I loved the old world setting for over a decade and the decision to kill it off essentially makes the whole universe dead to me. :( At least it lives on in Total War: Warhammer..! ) how does the Warscroll system work. Is it literally just you get rules in box or download them from GW's website with everything you need for the unit to play it, and just play?
It is pretty much this. You can see points for free by using the scroll builder website.
The things that are worth paying for are mostly battleplans which negate the mosh pit in the middle of the board problem that a lot of early AOS games had. There are also battalions, magic items and faction abilities which are only in the battletomes or the general's handbook but these are layers on top of the core free ruleset.
It will be very interesting to see to what extent 40k will copy this philosophy. Will they try to get the rules into 8 or 12 pages? Will they do a free app with all the core rules in it? etc, etc.
Kirasu wrote: Standardized rules benefit everyone, yet I feel GW continues to miss this point. All armies in the Imperium uses the same basic wargear thus it makes absolutely no sense that a stormshield is different between armies.
What about an archaeotech Storm Shield wielded by a Dark Angels Champion? A hand-crafted artifact wielded by a Salamanders Champion?
There's actually a ton of places where you could feasibly make a case for Storm Shields acting slightly different, which all actually end up being kind of fluffy.
Yeah while "Standardized" equipment is that there's boltguns, there's in actuality there are many different brands of boltgun and some do things differently and no I'm not talking about Stalker Bolters and the like.
For example the most baseline is the Godwyn pattern, the Minotaurs use the Godwyn Ultima, the Deathwatch use Hesh-pattern, Salamanders use the Nocturne-Ultima...
I could go on, but to say that each brand fires exactly the same range, firing rate, and other such factors is completely surprising given that technology can vary between Forgeworlds even, and we've even seen modifications such as the Baal Pattern Rhinos.. It just all specifically depends on if you have a major codex that isn't baseline.
I started playing Warhammer 40,000 shortly after 2nd edition hit store shelves.
Games back then were typically played at 2000 points, used 30-40 models total and took 4+ hours to play.
Why did it take 4+ hours to play? Several reasons; two of which were:
1. Movement stats - Everything moved so slow that it took several turns just to position for a shot or get close enough to assault.
2. Stat modifiers - A fair amount of time was chewed up determining what die roll was needed to hit and what die roll was needed to save.
Simple does not always = Quick.
My concern is that while we'll see a simplification of the rules, we will not see a reduction in time required to play the game.
Here's to hoping that I'm wrong.
P.S. The move stat was one of the biggest reasons 2nd edition Eldar = Auto-win.
You know the people that mostly complain about being able to have fluffier lists and stand a chance against cheese, more variety in games, and a lot more mainstream game that doesn't need over $150 in books are usually "That guy". The people that are uber-competitive pricks, and it will be so bitter sweet that the meta will flip like a pancake soon, and hopefully be as relaxed of games as HH.
oni wrote: I started playing Warhammer 40,000 shortly after 2nd edition hit store shelves.
Games back then were typically played at 2000 points, used 30-40 models total and took 4+ hours to play.
Why did it take 4+ hours to play? Several reasons; two of which were:
1. Movement stats - Everything moved so slow that it took several turns just to position for a shot or get close enough to assault.
2. Stat modifiers - A fair amount of time was chewed up determining what die roll was needed to hit and what die roll was needed to save.
Simple does not always = Quick.
My concern is that while we'll see a simplification of the rules, we will not see a reduction in time required to play the game.
Here's to hoping that I'm wrong.
P.S. The move stat was one of the biggest reasons 2nd edition Eldar = Auto-win.
That's a solid point, I would argue however that Warhammer was never intended to be a "quick" game.
Based on your own point there it's been a lengthy game virtually since it's inception.
So while I'm with you on game speed, I think it's not realistic, simply because it's never been a fast game.
Besides, they offer opportunities to play quicker games such as Zone Mortalis and Kill Team.
oni wrote: I started playing Warhammer 40,000 shortly after 2nd edition hit store shelves.
Games back then were typically played at 2000 points, used 30-40 models total and took 4+ hours to play.
Why did it take 4+ hours to play? Several reasons; two of which were:
1. Movement stats - Everything moved so slow that it took several turns just to position for a shot or get close enough to assault.
2. Stat modifiers - A fair amount of time was chewed up determining what die roll was needed to hit and what die roll was needed to save.
Simple does not always = Quick.
My concern is that while we'll see a simplification of the rules, we will not see a reduction in time required to play the game.
Here's to hoping that I'm wrong.
P.S. The move stat was one of the biggest reasons 2nd edition Eldar = Auto-win.
If it took so long because everything moved so slow that's not a problem because a Movement stat exists, that's a problem of stat distribution and it's impact on the game overall. If they add a movement stat and made 6" be the "standard" human/average movement, then you'll see no difference to how your models are position/moving around in 8th edition as compared to now. They'll still move 6", just some people, probably folks like Eldar and the nippier, swarmy critters like hormogaunts etc will move faster, and some maybe even slower, like I could see a cumbersome centurion being something that does not huff it as fast as a regular marine etc.
Point 2 varies massively from person to person, and i've not caught up yet fully with rumours but if you mean Armour Modifiers i've never had an issue with it as a fantasy player, it becomes pretty innate and quick to caluclate in your head overtime. I usually did it pre-emptively as I knew what was going to be attacked by what from declarations so I knew if that unit was going to be hit by this then that would mean come my time to roll saves, I would need to roll this etc etc. I don't get why people think you need to do such calculation WHEN the time actually comes for you to roll dice... Do it BEFORE hand, you know what's going to hit you and what's coming, your opponent HAS to tell you, do it in your head whilst they're working out how many hits and wounds they're going to lay on you.
Older games took longer because that's how the game was designed. It wasn't done in error. The rulebook stated outright in the beginning; here is how long a game will take.
Gaming culture might value a 45-90 minute game (and surely that would work better in a tournament setting) but that wasn't the purpose of 2nd edition, or Rogue Trader.
Being well versed in second, it's quite easy to rapidly go through games if you have modified the two longest steps; psychic phase, and hand-to-hand combat. Modifiers and movement values had almost zero impact on the speed of the game. Slow infantry? Rhinos could move up to 25" on Fast Speed band (jump packs allow assault marines to move 18"+4" if they were attempting to charge into close combat - i.e. there was a purpose to taking them). Also weapons generally shot further than they do in 3rd-7th so you don't need to be up close and personal with your firearms. 60-72" was common for heavy weapons. Berzerkers could triple their Movement Value instead of double it when charging/running, so they'd move 12" a turn. You were responsible for buying stuff in your army which allowed you to move rather than the silliness of your whole army doing a 1st turn charge like you can now in games.
We recently played three 1500 pt. games in about eight hours (about 10 hours total but that included lunch and hanging out between games). We've edited the psychic phase and hand-to-hand combat and voila...easier and smoother. Personally I like getting stuck into a 2-4 hour game myself. I've less interest in a "short" game unless we're doing a Necromunda/Mordheim evening and playing a bunch of small skirmishes.
oni wrote: I started playing Warhammer 40,000 shortly after 2nd edition hit store shelves.
Games back then were typically played at 2000 points, used 30-40 models total and took 4+ hours to play.
Why did it take 4+ hours to play? Several reasons; two of which were:
1. Movement stats - Everything moved so slow that it took several turns just to position for a shot or get close enough to assault.
2. Stat modifiers - A fair amount of time was chewed up determining what die roll was needed to hit and what die roll was needed to save.
Simple does not always = Quick.
My concern is that while we'll see a simplification of the rules, we will not see a reduction in time required to play the game.
Here's to hoping that I'm wrong.
P.S. The move stat was one of the biggest reasons 2nd edition Eldar = Auto-win.
To me those issues are a problem with execution and not one of the ideas themselves.
1.) If things were too slow, just make them faster, if the slowest units move say 4-5", but are mostly long range shooting units, then it isn't really an issue. They can also still run, or use other methods of transport. If anything I see it as a way to make more units fast without all faster units moving 12". So if Daemonettes are supposed to be fast maybe the move 9" in the movement phase.
2.) Modifiers causing slowdown has 2 probable causes. First, multiple modifiers on every roll. If unit A gets +1 to hit for not moving, -2 for shooting into cover, and its target has another -1 due to a special rule, I can see how this could slow people down if they are bad at quick math. Does that really take less time then rolling a cover save?, or having re-rolls to various saves? We have so many re-rolls today that it takes just as long to make all the rolls (or longer). Second, people not being comfortable with modifiers. Just like the to hit table taking a long time if you need to check it every time, modifiers take a long time if you need to check all of them. In 2e you needed to commit both the table and the modifiers to memory.
It may well be that execution isn't there and it could be a mess, but if it is things should speed up.
Well, if the demons are any indication of what type move they would have in 8th edition. Demonettes have 6", Bloodletters have 5" and Plaguebearers have 4" in AoS. So, I would bet they are going to be the same in 8th.
Older games took longer because that's how the game was designed.
Maybe, although my experience is a little different to Oni's. Sure, we could take a while to play games in the beginning, but with a regular set of opponents and armies, I reckon we were banging through 3000pt games in a little over two hours towards the end of 2nd.
Slow play isn't always the fault of the rules, the players can have a big impact too. (Which isn't a criticism, just people vary.)
I remeber that those 2500 points B&B games in 2nd took less time than the 1850P tournament games wer everyone tries to play fast
so the game become much slower over time
the fastest games we had in 4th
I don't recall 2nd being overly long. You remember stats over time and just rattle them off, ditto modifiers. In fact, I remember statlines to this day because of 2nd.
It had Wargear cards and Psychic cards and cards galore, but each of them had everything you needed to know on it. The clutter on the table side was high, but it reduced the sheer amount of cross-referencing needed currently. The idea that USRs are always the same is great, but there are so many that in practice you may as well have unit cards.
Right now, to play 7th, I make a list in Battlescribe, print off the summary then use that, the Codex summary tables, and the ArbitorIan's summary sheets as much as possible to play. Bits of paper really do help! I for one welcome our new, rumoured Warscroll overlords...
Honestly, there is no reason daemons couldn't get a straight port over from AoS to...guess we'll call it 8th for now. How are they in AoS with points and such? I haven't played since "put whatever you want on the table and have fun".
Warhammer was in his beginning a form to fight bigger battles with a hard roleplay feeling.
Pure competitive games are better being quick and easy, balanced, etc... but thats was never the intention of Warhammer. (And I don't say this to excuse his poor balance. Theres minimuns even to a "narrative" focus game)
But today its obvius that quick and competitive games its the cow that gives the most milk and attracts more players, so its obvious why GW wants to make 40k more accesible (Just like AoS)
And in the point about AoS points, yes, they are in the General Hand Book, but you can go to the Warscrol builder and just see them for free:
GW already confirmed that they will put this tool in his oficial Warhammer Community site, so they will give the points for the units free too. The pure competitive experience of AoS still needs the Generals HandBook and the Battletomes, but as long as they sell those for 20€ I see it reasonable.
Elbows wrote:Being well versed in second, it's quite easy to rapidly go through games if you have modified the two longest steps; psychic phase, and hand-to-hand combat. Modifiers and movement values had almost zero impact on the speed of the game.
This is my experience as well. A curated subset of the wargear cards and some modifications to the psychic phase and close combat and 2nd edition becomes quick and solid.
oni wrote: I started playing Warhammer 40,000 shortly after 2nd edition hit store shelves.
Games back then were typically played at 2000 points, used 30-40 models total and took 4+ hours to play.
Why did it take 4+ hours to play? Several reasons; two of which were:
1. Movement stats - Everything moved so slow that it took several turns just to position for a shot or get close enough to assault.
2. Stat modifiers - A fair amount of time was chewed up determining what die roll was needed to hit and what die roll was needed to save.
Simple does not always = Quick.
My concern is that while we'll see a simplification of the rules, we will not see a reduction in time required to play the game.
Here's to hoping that I'm wrong.
P.S. The move stat was one of the biggest reasons 2nd edition Eldar = Auto-win.
I played the same edition and while i agree that SOME games took forever, your reasons why are totally bogus. 9/10 infantry moved 4" and could run 8" if they forfeit shooting. You were lucky to see more then 2-3 vehicles per side which had their on data cards that made it dumby proof. Save mods were simple to, again 9/10 weapons used the same conversion chart, -1 for s4, -2 for s5 etc etc.
What killed the game was that ridiculous combat system, where a single assassin (I am looking at you eversore) could dance 3" from guy to guy fighting individual combats with each and every model, including things like fumbles and parries. THIS is what bogged the games down. It appears as though it aint returning either.
As playing squats, I had some games in 3rd that lasted less then 20 minutes.
Opponent draws virus card and chooses model in middle of table. 90% of my army dies before anybody takes turn. Yup, that was a first round of a tournament.
I also remember my friend at that point in time used to take level 4 inquisitor. Draw 4 inquisitor powers, are any of those 4 Vortex? No, throw 4 back draw other 4. Yes? Well, you have Vortex, don't worry about rest of cards.
Run from middle of imperial guard pack, up against landraider/predator. Cast Vortex... laugh.....
oni wrote: I started playing Warhammer 40,000 shortly after 2nd edition hit store shelves.
Games back then were typically played at 2000 points, used 30-40 models total and took 4+ hours to play.
Why did it take 4+ hours to play? Several reasons; two of which were:
1. Movement stats - Everything moved so slow that it took several turns just to position for a shot or get close enough to assault.
2. Stat modifiers - A fair amount of time was chewed up determining what die roll was needed to hit and what die roll was needed to save.
If a 2000 point game was taking more than 4 hours to play, you were doing something wrong. Most of my games were 2-4 hours at most.
And what slowed the game down was simply that stuff tended to die slower due to hit modifiers and vehicles being harder to kill, and close combat taking forever to resolve one model at a time.
P.S. The move stat was one of the biggest reasons 2nd edition Eldar = Auto-win.
Not even close. Eldar were OP because of overpowered wargear, superior psychic powers and units that could attack from behind terrain without giving the enemy the opportunity to hit back. The fact that their troops could move a little faster than most other models was the least of the issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Youn wrote: As playing squats, I had some games in 3rd that lasted less then 20 minutes.
Opponent draws virus card and chooses model in middle of table. 90% of my army dies before anybody takes turn. Yup, that was a first round of a tournament.
That's exactly why GW errataed out the Virus Outbreak card.
What killed the game was that ridiculous combat system, where a single assassin (I am looking at you eversore) could dance 3" from guy to guy fighting individual combats with each and every model, including things like fumbles and parries. THIS is what bogged the games down. It appears as though it aint returning either.
Yeah, melee coupled with ridiculously open-ended wargear-stacking made things drag on. Who didn't try to stack terminator armour, a power field and a displacer field on their marine captain...
Virus Outbreak: A dormant virus becomes active. You may play thei card at anytime. Place the Virus counter anywhere on the table. Any models within 2" of the counter are affected by it as if a Virus grenade had detonated at that spot. Work out the results of the Virus Outbreak immediately and leave the counter in place for the rest of the game. Anything which approaches within 2" of the Virus counter in subsequent movement phases will be attacked by the virus again.
Virus Grenade (50 pt wargear card): Everything not in sealed suit under 2" blast marker that rolls a 3+ dies. If model dies lay model down roll d6" radius. On 4+ any model touched also dies, repeat.
I also remember my friend at that point in time used to take level 4 inquisitor. Draw 4 inquisitor powers, are any of those 4 Vortex? No, throw 4 back draw other 4. Yes? Well, you have Vortex, don't worry about rest of cards.
Really liking this femcast design the more I see it. Hopefully she will not be the only one and GW will add more into the mix with future releases.
Could the game be closer than we think? A character preview in April for a game that contains less than ten models seems a bit early for something coming at the end of the year.
JohnnyHell wrote: I don't recall 2nd being overly long. You remember stats over time and just rattle them off, ditto modifiers.
Sure, but memorising all that is harder when every unit has unique rules.
Admittedly, current 40k already has major problems with too many rules, but I don't think making all rules unit-specific is really going to help.
I'd be much keener on playing more (and therefore probably buying more) if they just made the codexes actually balanced and well-written with the tools available in the current rules-set. If they can't do that, how do the hope to fix the game by changing everything? The main problem was never the core rules, it was the haphazard way codexes were written with no regard for balance or restraint.
Youn wrote: As playing squats, I had some games in 3rd that lasted less then 20 minutes.
Opponent draws virus card and chooses model in middle of table. 90% of my army dies before anybody takes turn. Yup, that was a first round of a tournament.
I also remember my friend at that point in time used to take level 4 inquisitor. Draw 4 inquisitor powers, are any of those 4 Vortex? No, throw 4 back draw other 4. Yes? Well, you have Vortex, don't worry about rest of cards.
Run from middle of imperial guard pack, up against landraider/predator. Cast Vortex... laugh.....
Just to clarify, I believe that was 2nd edition and not 3rd. I started in 3rd and those were the horror stories the grognards would tell of the previous edition(s).
Just in response to a lot of rage I've seen in other places, To clarify I'm not saying army books won't return in some future shape but that the current batch of codex's will be no longer use-able and will be replaced with free stuff on launch day much like its been done in the past with older editions. Army books will return in good time but in more of the vain that current AoS books are released.
Youn wrote: As playing squats, I had some games in 3rd that lasted less then 20 minutes.
Opponent draws virus card and chooses model in middle of table. 90% of my army dies before anybody takes turn. Yup, that was a first round of a tournament.
I also remember my friend at that point in time used to take level 4 inquisitor. Draw 4 inquisitor powers, are any of those 4 Vortex? No, throw 4 back draw other 4. Yes? Well, you have Vortex, don't worry about rest of cards.
Run from middle of imperial guard pack, up against landraider/predator. Cast Vortex... laugh.....
Just to clarify, I believe that was 2nd edition and not 3rd. I started in 3rd and those were the horror stories the grognards would tell of the previous edition(s).
Virus Outbreak was indeed 2nd edition, as were Squats.
Really liking this femcast design the more I see it. Hopefully she will not be the only one and GW will add more into the mix with future releases.
Could the game be closer than we think? A character preview in April for a game that contains less than ten models seems a bit early for something coming at the end of the year.
I only see a sigmarine with a boob armour. I wouldn't call it nice nor original
Just in response to a lot of rage I've seen in other places, To clarify I'm not saying army books won't return in some future shape but that the current batch of codex's will be no longer use-able and will be replaced with free stuff on launch day much like its been done in the past with older editions. Army books will return in good time but in more of the vain that current AoS books are released.
This seems like the only sensical possibility. How do you make mass changes to how the game is played - introducing new stats for units and such - without releasing all those rules on release day. Codex's should come back in time as armies get their revisions, in the same way that AoS army books have come up down the road - sylvaneth, orks, stormcast, etc, have all gotten updated army books.
I genuinely look forward to FINALLY having all armies 'up to date', to include Sisters of Battle, I.G., Orks, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels hopefully.
Then, as people play with the revised/updated army lists and submit feedback, as well as play tournament or competitions that GW can monitor (review lists and winners, ferret out overly powerful combinations, etc.), they can then adjust the various army's worst offenders on the power scale to balance things as completely as possible. THEN, release the new and balanced codexes for people to purchase if they wish to do so for fluff and pretty pictures.
They can also release new campaign books with formations and missions/narratives a-la the Gathering Storm books and the Traitor's Hate/Angel's Blade books did.
Red__Thirst wrote: I genuinely look forward to FINALLY having all armies 'up to date', to include Sisters of Battle, I.G., Orks, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels hopefully.
Then, as people play with the revised/updated army lists and submit feedback, as well as play tournament or competitions that GW can monitor (review lists and winners, ferret out overly powerful combinations, etc.), they can then adjust the various army's worst offenders on the power scale to balance things as completely as possible. THEN, release the new and balanced codexes for people to purchase if they wish to do so for fluff and pretty pictures.
They could do all of that without changing the core rules. If they aren't willing or able to do it in 7th edition, why do you think they will do it in 8th?
Red__Thirst wrote: I genuinely look forward to FINALLY having all armies 'up to date', to include Sisters of Battle, I.G., Orks, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels hopefully.
Then, as people play with the revised/updated army lists and submit feedback, as well as play tournament or competitions that GW can monitor (review lists and winners, ferret out overly powerful combinations, etc.), they can then adjust the various army's worst offenders on the power scale to balance things as completely as possible. THEN, release the new and balanced codexes for people to purchase if they wish to do so for fluff and pretty pictures.
They could do all of that without changing the core rules. If they aren't willing or able to do it in 7th edition, why do you think they will do it in 8th?
Because that is exactly what they are doing with AoS. If they take one thing from aos to 40k it should be this.
Red__Thirst wrote: I genuinely look forward to FINALLY having all armies 'up to date', to include Sisters of Battle, I.G., Orks, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels hopefully.
Then, as people play with the revised/updated army lists and submit feedback, as well as play tournament or competitions that GW can monitor (review lists and winners, ferret out overly powerful combinations, etc.), they can then adjust the various army's worst offenders on the power scale to balance things as completely as possible. THEN, release the new and balanced codexes for people to purchase if they wish to do so for fluff and pretty pictures.
They could do all of that without changing the core rules. If they aren't willing or able to do it in 7th edition, why do you think they will do it in 8th?
Because that is exactly what they are doing with AoS. If they take one thing from aos to 40k it should be this.
Experience says they will do that for the 1st couple of codexs/armies and the say feth it to much work and revert back to type. As for the abbandoning the current codexs again experience says existing armies while get a new set of rules at launch and that is it there dead.
Codex like in AoS so we see Codex Nu-Marines, Codex Nurgle, Codex Ynnari, Codex Nu-Ork clan, Codex Genestealers, Updated Rulebook 8.5 Codex Nu-Marines 2nd Edi, before any regular old faction get a real Codex update
Perfect Organism wrote: They could do all of that without changing the core rules. If they aren't willing or able to do it in 7th edition, why do you think they will do it in 8th?
Past (recent) precedent with AOS specifically. Logically if they're going to be changing the fundamental structure of how the game works & is played, it would make sense that they revamp *everything* to function within the new system.
I think the general consensus is that 40k, specifically 7th edition, is pretty borked and bloated with several editions worth of rules that are overly cumbersome and detract from the game by slowing it down or making it just not very much fun to play in anything resembling a tournament.
To be frank, the game needs a significant shake up rules wise. Redoing the model stats and adjusting rules makes the most sense when done in conjunction with a revamp of the core game rules so the models function smoothly within said core rules.
I personally am ready for 7th to go away and for 8th edition to come in. I want 40k to grow & flourish, and in the current 7th rules I don't think it will, at least not the way it could with removing the bloat & streamlining the more cumbersome elements.
Sadly that is also balanced with "rules are free, but for points for all armies you have to buy this annually-updated handbook supplement and/or pay for our app". So free is not really free. I hope they go beyond that and just republish all unit cards for free, with all info on them inc. points, and Codexes become fluff/formations only.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That seems more like a 'you' problem than a problem with the mini. Most people here seem to like it.
Most people? Was there a poll I missed?
When it came there were faaar more people saying: me likes it than the opposite. And really, the sculpts are pretty good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: Codex like in AoS so we see Codex Nu-Marines, Codex Nurgle, Codex Ynnari, Codex Nu-Ork clan, Codex Genestealers, Updated Rulebook 8.5 Codex Nu-Marines 2nd Edi, before any regular old faction get a real Codex update
You make it sound like it's worse than 7th ed where marine publications (6 codex and 11-13 supplements if we consider the re-issuing of Black Legion and Crimson slaughter valid) almost if not outright outnumber the releases of ALL other armies (13 to 16 publications IIRC).
kodos wrote: Codex like in AoS so we see Codex Nu-Marines, Codex Nurgle, Codex Ynnari, Codex Nu-Ork clan, Codex Genestealers, Updated Rulebook 8.5 Codex Nu-Marines 2nd Edi, before any regular old faction get a real Codex update
Except all the existing factions will have updated rules and points on release of 8th?? Thats much better than previous editions where the rules were updated but everyone was stuck on old codex until they got an update- which took years.. This way all the factions will start at a similar level. The AoS system looks a lot more dynamic and easier to keep up to date and they look like they are improving it all the time- i think it will be great for 40k.
we got the general update for all factions always for a new edition, this is nothing special or new
it is also nothing new that the general update was outdated the day it get online with the first new codex that followed a new design.
I don't expect that to change
yeah, all factions will get an update, but it will take years until they are playable.
With 8th edition, all factions will be like Sisters of Battle are in 7th.
Yeah they have rules, but miss the important parts of that edition and remember, all factions started with the same level and updated rules at the beginning of 6th.
No, for now I don't see any rumour that say that it will be different that it was before
Except all the existing factions will have updated rules and points on release of 8th?? Thats much better than previous editions where the rules were updated but everyone was stuck on old codex until they got an update- which took years.. This way all the factions will start at a similar level.
Will they?
That would seem to rely on GW writing all new army lists so that they are balanced. If they've been unable to do that one-at-a-time for the past 20 years, what would lead you to believe they're going to manage it when they're trying to rush out everyone's rules at the same time?
JohnnyHell wrote: Sadly that is also balanced with "rules are free, but for points for all armies you have to buy this annually-updated handbook supplement and/or pay for our app". So free is not really free. I hope they go beyond that and just republish all unit cards for free, with all info on them inc. points, and Codexes become fluff/formations only.
Free is really free because you can find all the points for AoS for free on scrollbuilder.com which GW has acquired.
Except all the existing factions will have updated rules and points on release of 8th?? Thats much better than previous editions where the rules were updated but everyone was stuck on old codex until they got an update- which took years.. This way all the factions will start at a similar level.
Will they?
That would seem to rely on GW writing all new army lists so that they are balanced. If they've been unable to do that one-at-a-time for the past 20 years, what would lead you to believe they're going to manage it when they're trying to rush out everyone's rules at the same time?
Are they rushing though? They might have been working on the new rules since AoS dropped, or longer, and have been doing the new edition rules alongside the current rules; editions are "usually" planned out well in advance. I'd actually be more certain they aren't rushing every army's rules, rather than expecting them to be rushed.
So, let's say for instance that Duncan Halls AoS40k codexes were messed around with in the Games Workshop studios. He released those March 2016 on his blog.
This means in a years worth of time. Games Workshop could have tweaked those rules into what they really feel it should look like. That is alot of time to mess with any set of rules.
Since, AoS itself is only 4 pages of rules. I am pretty sure a cleaned up version of them could be done quite quickly.
JohnnyHell wrote: Sadly that is also balanced with "rules are free, but for points for all armies you have to buy this annually-updated handbook supplement and/or pay for our app". So free is not really free. I hope they go beyond that and just republish all unit cards for free, with all info on them inc. points, and Codexes become fluff/formations only.
Free is really free because you can find all the points for AoS for free on scrollbuilder.com which GW has acquired.
Now that Scrollbuilder.com has been acquired by GW, what guarantee is there that that feature (point costs seen for free) will remain?
JohnnyHell wrote: Sadly that is also balanced with "rules are free, but for points for all armies you have to buy this annually-updated handbook supplement and/or pay for our app". So free is not really free. I hope they go beyond that and just republish all unit cards for free, with all info on them inc. points, and Codexes become fluff/formations only.
Free is really free because you can find all the points for AoS for free on scrollbuilder.com which GW has acquired.
Now that Scrollbuilder.com has been acquired by GW, what guarantee is there that that feature (point costs seen for free) will remain?
Youn wrote: So, let's say for instance that Duncan Halls AoS40k codexes were messed around with in the Games Workshop studios. He released those March 2016 on his blog.
This means in a years worth of time. Games Workshop could have tweaked those rules into what they really feel it should look like. That is alot of time to mess with any set of rules.
Since, AoS itself is only 4 pages of rules. I am pretty sure a cleaned up version of them could be done quite quickly.
Except they won't have started with fanmade stuff as a basis.
Agreed with the tanks vs. monsters point, and also tanks vs. tanks. It always boggled my mind that the Leman Russ battle cannon was almost entirely impotent against other heavy tanks.
You realise right that has nothing to do with templates right? Russel were great even with templates
Except all the existing factions will have updated rules and points on release of 8th?? Thats much better than previous editions where the rules were updated but everyone was stuck on old codex until they got an update- which took years.. This way all the factions will start at a similar level.
Will they?
That would seem to rely on GW writing all new army lists so that they are balanced. If they've been unable to do that one-at-a-time for the past 20 years, what would lead you to believe they're going to manage it when they're trying to rush out everyone's rules at the same time?
Are they rushing though? They might have been working on the new rules since AoS dropped, or longer, and have been doing the new edition rules alongside the current rules; editions are "usually" planned out well in advance. I'd actually be more certain they aren't rushing every army's rules, rather than expecting them to be rushed.
Yeah, I wonder about that too, the past few Codices (Tau, Orks and Imperial Agents for me) have all been copy/paste, with the edition of a few new units. There were no significant structural changes, even though all three have glaring issues with certain units under 6th/7th rules, and no significant new fluff etc. Now it could just be a half-assed cash in, but to me it feels more like a holding action; minimal updates to shoehorn in the new models whilst the majority of their resources are working on 8th in the background.
Youn wrote: So, let's say for instance that Duncan Halls AoS40k codexes were messed around with in the Games Workshop studios. He released those March 2016 on his blog.
This means in a years worth of time. Games Workshop could have tweaked those rules into what they really feel it should look like. That is alot of time to mess with any set of rules.
Since, AoS itself is only 4 pages of rules. I am pretty sure a cleaned up version of them could be done quite quickly.
Except they won't have started with fanmade stuff as a basis.
Especially stuff that breaks the style guide so badly. Seriously, why does he add a keyword to a unit just to give them a heavy weapon? What is that about? Adding Keywords is about external interactions not internal unit mechanics. Unless he doesn't intend to add keywords in which case that could be clearer. Plus it just looks clunky; if you really don't want to extend the ranged weapons list in the profile section, why not have a profile with stars for the values and include a table with the profiles, like how AoS monsters have a table for their attacks?
But mostly they won't be copying anyone's AoS fanwork because it's quite unlikely that they will be making 40k into a straight clone of AoS. Borrowing elements, sure, maybe even whole mechanics (40k has been in dire need of the keyword system at least for three editions now) but Warhammer Age of Grimdark is a low margin option.
Agreed with the tanks vs. monsters point, and also tanks vs. tanks. It always boggled my mind that the Leman Russ battle cannon was almost entirely impotent against other heavy tanks.
You realise right that has nothing to do with templates right? Russel were great even with templates
Going to respectfully disagree here.
Standard Battlecannon Leman Russes were okay versus most targets, generally speaking, but against another AV:14 target you were fishing for 6's on the 2D6-take the highest roll and that was just to get a glance. At best, your Russ will fire just 5 to 6 times a game. So to kill another AV:14 target you had to get that 6 three to four times, and if you're shooting the battle cannon you're not shooting any other weapons on the tank at all save for snap firing them. Spring for the hull mounted Lascannon or sponson multimeltas? Then you choose to shoot those at regular BS instead of the big gun.
Even against lower AV targets, AV:11, 12, or 13, you still cannot blow the target up (If it isn't open topped of course) with a lucky 7 on the damage table since the AP of the Battle Cannon is 3.
There's a reason Standard LRBT, and to a little lesser extent Leman Russ Demolishers (AP:2 and St:10 make the difference here despite the very short range), are all but unseen in most Guard Armies I see. The LRBT is lackluster for its steep points cost and middling firepower.
For the same cost as a plain jane LRBT I can purchase a Leman Russ Eradicator, which has the same exact armor profile, armed with the Eradicator Nova Cannon (36" range ignores cover ST:6, AP:4 large blast that isn't an Ordnance Weapon) with a hull mounted Lascannon and a pair of sponson mounted Multimeltas.
Exact same points cost.
One tank fires one St:8, AP:3 ordnance large blast at full BS a turn and snap fires a heavy bolter.
The other tank fires a St:6, AP:4 large blast a turn (granted, at shorter range) that ignores cover and fires a Lascannon and 2 multimeltas, ALL at full BS.
I know which tank I'm going to be more concerned with putting down/dealing with first, personally.
There are other reasons and examples I can give, but that one hopefully drives the point home.
Standard Battlecannon Leman Russes were okay versus most targets, generally speaking, but against another AV:14 target you were fishing for 6's on the 2D6-take the highest roll and that was just to get a glance. At best, your Russ will fire just 5 to 6 times a game. So to kill another AV:14 target you had to get that 6 three to four times, and if you're shooting the battle cannon you're not shooting any other weapons on the tank at all save for snap firing them. Spring for the hull mounted Lascannon or sponson multimeltas? Then you choose to shoot those at regular BS instead of the big gun.
Even against lower AV targets, AV:11, 12, or 13, you still cannot blow the target up (If it isn't open topped of course) with a lucky 7 on the damage table since the AP of the Battle Cannon is 3.
There's a reason Standard LRBT, and to a little lesser extent Leman Russ Demolishers (AP:2 and St:10 make the difference here despite the very short range), are all but unseen in most Guard Armies I see. The LRBT is lackluster for its steep points cost and middling firepower.
For the same cost as a plain jane LRBT I can purchase a Leman Russ Eradicator, which has the same exact armor profile, armed with the Eradicator Nova Cannon (36" range ignores cover ST:6, AP:4 large blast that isn't an Ordnance Weapon) with a hull mounted Lascannon and a pair of sponson mounted Multimeltas.
Exact same points cost.
One tank fires one St:8, AP:3 ordnance large blast at full BS a turn and snap fires a heavy bolter.
The other tank fires a St:6, AP:4 large blast a turn (granted, at shorter range) that ignores cover and fires a Lascannon and 2 multimeltas, ALL at full BS.
I know which tank I'm going to be more concerned with putting down/dealing with first, personally.
There are other reasons and examples I can give, but that one hopefully drives the point home.
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
Hit every location under template rolling high amount of dices. Good chance of getting some damage even if not blow out right away when you hit hull, turret, tracks and sponsor at once.
Against single monster high school hit doing multiple wounds was pretty good as well.
Just cause Russ is bad in 7th Ed doesn't mean it was always bad.
Problem is not template. Fact. Even Gw got it working with templates even if they screwed it up.
Except all the existing factions will have updated rules and points on release of 8th?? Thats much better than previous editions where the rules were updated but everyone was stuck on old codex until they got an update- which took years.. This way all the factions will start at a similar level.
Will they?
That would seem to rely on GW writing all new army lists so that they are balanced. If they've been unable to do that one-at-a-time for the past 20 years, what would lead you to believe they're going to manage it when they're trying to rush out everyone's rules at the same time?
To be fair, I believe the one at a time approach is exactly WHY there is no balance. As evidence I'll use the 3rd edition rule book and the 5th edition (maybe 6th) fantasy rule books which had EVERY current unit entry for every available faction in the core rule book, though fantasy had a separate booklet Ravening Hords but it came in tandem. Those two prior instances when they released rules for everything were arguable the MOST balanced. I remember playing a ton of games with each of those examples and we were content with them simply leaving them alone since games were so tight between factions.
To be fair, I believe the one at a time approach is exactly WHY there is no balance. As evidence I'll use the 3rd edition rule book and the 5th edition (maybe 6th) fantasy rule books which had EVERY current unit entry for every available faction in the core rule book, though fantasy had a separate booklet Ravening Hords but it came in tandem. Those two prior instances when they released rules for everything were arguable the MOST balanced. I remember playing a ton of games with each of those examples and we were content with them simply leaving them alone since games were so tight between factions.
But haven't GW said every single unit is going to be a special little snowflake with it's own rules. Isn't that where problems start to arise?
Hit every location under template rolling high amount of dices. Good chance of getting some damage even if not blow out right away when you hit hull, turret, tracks and sponsor at once.
Against single monster high school hit doing multiple wounds was pretty good as well.
Hit every location under template rolling high amount of dices. Good chance of getting some damage even if not blow out right away when you hit hull, turret, tracks and sponsor at once.
Against single monster high school hit doing multiple wounds was pretty good as well.
That's... absolutely not how templates work.
In 2nd ed vehicles had hit location, for example the left or right tracks, hull or turret and a blast could hit multiple of these giving it a greater chance to do some damage.
Excuse me for assuming we were discussing the game as it's been for at least the last 10 years.
Gimgamgoo wrote:
But haven't GW said every single unit is going to be a special little snowflake with it's own rules. Isn't that where problems start to arise?
Not really. Rules bloat comes in when there's a lot of core rules AND a lot of exceptions, spread out over multiple sources. When the core rules are simple and all the exceptions are unit-specific, it's easier to keep track of.
Excuse me for assuming we were discussing the game as it's been for at least the last 10 years.
Gimgamgoo wrote:
But haven't GW said every single unit is going to be a special little snowflake with it's own rules. Isn't that where problems start to arise?
Not really. Rules bloat comes in when there's a lot of core rules AND a lot of exceptions, spread out over multiple sources. When the core rules are simple and all the exceptions are unit-specific, it's easier to keep track of.
Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.
Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.
it is better as long as they stick with one design
simple core and bloated unit rules or bloated core and simple unit rules
as soon as they start mixing that again we have the same mess as before
Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.
Are there examples of this so far in Age of Sigmar?
Is the way they did it in such a way that actually causes problems in play?
not really.
The biggest thing people use this complaint on is shields.
Different units shields cause different effects- some negate wounds on an additional roll of 5 or 6, improve armor save or add other bonus, but are all generally defensive based.
The difference between AoS' system and Rules bloat is that the rules are basic: reroll ones, or add ones, or -1, etc etc. Even with every unit having unique rules, the rules are worded well enough that it's largely a non-issue.
Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.
Are there examples of this so far in Age of Sigmar?
Is the way they did it in such a way that actually causes problems in play?
not really.
The biggest thing people use this complaint on is shields.
Different units shields cause different effects- some negate wounds on an additional roll of 5 or 6, improve armor save or add other bonus, but are all generally defensive based.
The difference between AoS' system and Rules bloat is that the rules are basic: reroll ones, or add ones, or -1, etc etc. Even with every unit having unique rules, the rules are worded well enough that it's largely a non-issue.
My experience with AoS is limited to playing in games where friends supplied all the models, terrain and warscrolls/armies ready to go to play a couple of those narrative scenarios. I do remember my guys having shields that rerolled ones. I don't think it would have been confusing if another model somewhere else had a shield that did something else. I just don't remember it. I think there were shields.
I went and looked at some war scrolls and found the chaos warriors there did have shields and their shields save against mortal wounds rather than reroll saves.
Yeah, I really don't think this approach will be much of a problem for 40k.
Once upon a time we had 4 different versions of True Grit in print (Space Wolves, Grey Knight, Death Guard and one other), so yeah, I don't fancy our chances.
Universal Special Rules aren't just there for convenience, there's also there to cut down on mistakes. If most of your rules come from a central source then that cuts down on the chance of making mistakes, and updates can apply to large swathes of units rather than having to update individual units over and over again.
All "bespoke" rules give you is the chance to say "bespoke" in your marketing material as if it were some sort of inherent good.
[EDIT]: I come at this from the perspective of someone who has been part of rules writing teams on a number of projects that developed out of one another (Black Crusade out of Deathwatch, Only War out of Black Crusade, Dark Heresy 2.0 out of Only War) and how a larger and more granular set of universal special rules helped to improve things and give far greater choice and simplicity to both writers and players alike. You look at the Concussive Rule from Deathwatch and it's an all-or-nothing rule that either has no effect, or renders even the biggest units utterly useless to the point where they might as well give up and go home. Look at it in later rules and it now has a (X) next to it allow for granularity of its rules so you can have concussive weapons that have small effects and concussive weapons that have large effects. And none of this requires giving individual weapons a unique special rule, as it is all derived from a central rules location.
You apply the same mentality to 40K and they actually did that in 40K. For a long time Lightning Claws had their own rule, but turning that rule into Shred means that you can apply it to anything, rather than re-writing the rule (with variation, by accident or design) each time you need to use it.
I can see it becoming a problem down the road, even if it hasn't quite gotten there for Age of Sigmar. If they're on top of not using similar terms so people don't get the idea that they should be the same thing (like the true grit example) then things should be alright for longer. The sigmarines have "Sigmarite Shields" but the chaos warriors and knights have "Chaos Runeshields." Those two differently named pieces of equipment have different effects rather than both sharing some sort of standard "shield" mechanic.
Also, bespoke usually means custom for the customer/user. Like a suit tailored to fit an individual (probably the most common use of the term). Given that everyone who runs space orruk nobz will be using the same standard rules means they are not bespoke at all. Really a strange choice of words.
My position is that it's going to require extra vigilance to keep from causing problems. Simple practices like always having ridiculous individual names like "sigmarite shields" and "gomril shields."
It might get really strange when the Salamander space marine has a "Vulkan Forge Beam" and an Imperial Guard trooper has a "Mars Pattern Meltagun" and they do different things but look exactly the same.
streetsamurai wrote: Agreed, USR are usually much better than a thousands little special snowflakes rules (though some units deserves some snowflakes rules).
It always boggle my mind when AOS fans claims that Bespoke rules are an improvement
Mine too, since everyone I've seen playing chaos or sigmarites or whatever has had identical rules.
Spoiler:
see frozenwastes post above
Anyway, I personally don't recall many people claiming that having no common special rules was a benefit or problem with AoS. However I do recall many claims that having all the rules for a given unit in one place, eliminating multi-book lookups, was a really good idea and reduced confusion and potentially missing bits/confusion between units.
Based on that principle, having universal special rules becomes a liability; every time you update one you have to adjust dozens of copies anyway or you get arguments. Better to keep the rules to the unit and adjust its position into if that particular variation is over-/under- powered. Which is what seems to be happening with the new General's Handbook revised point values.
Of course convenience is a matter of opinion but I for one like not having to cross-reference or memorise dozens or hundreds of rules in a given game.
(image from bbunnies)
But... I really believe that 8th edition will make or break 
cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"
. While I get it would be faster to just roll for hits, spacing out units or not and the ability to drift onto other targets is part of the strategic choices you have to make in using the templates and that is something that I'd rather not lose. Never really had many arguments about what was hit by them, but maybe thats because I dont play with 
, it usually just means 1 hit more or less so usually not that big of a deal.
I highly dislike 
