So I think we all at least agree on the 3 following super-factions:
Imperium of Man
Chaos
Aeldari
Each consists of multiple sub-factions that are all Battle Bros with each other. Arguably, IoM has so many subfactions that you could split it into Space Marines and everything not SM.
That pretty much just leaves the other Xenos, who do not fight well with each other (aside from Tau & Necrons). Orks would fight just fine alongside Chaos, but Nids/GSC are no one's friend
Galef wrote: So I think we all at least agree on the 3 following super-factions:
Imperium of Man
Chaos
Aeldari
Each consists of multiple sub-factions that are all Battle Bros with each other. Arguably, IoM has so many subfactions that you could split it into Space Marines and everything not SM.
That pretty much just leaves the other Xenos, who do not fight well with each other (aside from Tau & Necrons). Orks would fight just fine alongside Chaos, but Nids/GSC are no one's friend
I was more
Chaos, Nids, Orks and then everyone else.
For Ork mercenaries, they could simply follow the example set by the Fyreslayers. They're Ork, but could work for the others if the price is right.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Personally I hope Abaddon/Guilliman smash the Imperium in two.
One dogmatic half with
Inquisition, SoB, Templars, Dark Angels, Mechanicus
one reasonable half with Ultras, Wolfes, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Fallen
Both can take Imperial Guard of course.
It would take away from the bloat of imperial factions the game suffers from right now.
I'm not sure that the reasonable half is so reasonable. Guilliman was wounded by a Daemon weapon, lay in convalescence and then was resurrected by Xenos magic given by a nascent and growing Chaos God. It's not like the first time a Primarch was wounded by a Daemon weapon and laid in convalescence that things turned out so well.
This Primarch, who went through almost exactly what Horus went through PLUS the Xenos Chaos Deity thing, then immediately went to earth and took over before firing a bunch of people in charge and putting his own people in. And nobody said 'Hey, wait a minute... Horus pt. II - Don't you think we should clarify that you aren't a corrupted Daemonspawn first?"
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Personally I hope Abaddon/Guilliman smash the Imperium in two.
One dogmatic half with
Inquisition, SoB, Templars, Dark Angels, Mechanicus
one reasonable half with Ultras, Wolfes, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Fallen
Both can take Imperial Guard of course.
It would take away from the bloat of imperial factions the game suffers from right now.
I'm not sure that the reasonable half is so reasonable. Guilliman was wounded by a Daemon weapon, lay in convalescence and then was resurrected by Xenos magic given by a nascent and growing Chaos God. It's not like the first time a Primarch was wounded by a Daemon weapon and laid in convalescence that things turned out so well.
This Primarch, who went through almost exactly what Horus went through PLUS the Xenos Chaos Deity thing, then immediately went to earth and took over before firing a bunch of people in charge and putting his own people in. And nobody said 'Hey, wait a minute... Horus pt. II - Don't you think we should clarify that you aren't a corrupted Daemonspawn first?"
Ok, a dogmatic part and an unreasonable part. As long as it's split up into two. The Imperium is really way too big as a faction, and it's making the entire game unwieldy to balance. Splitting it up would not only make handling the factions much more reasonable, it would also make for a really good storyline.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Personally I hope Abaddon/Guilliman smash the Imperium in two.
One dogmatic half with
Inquisition, SoB, Templars, Dark Angels, Mechanicus
one reasonable half with Ultras, Wolfes, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Fallen
Both can take Imperial Guard of course.
It would take away from the bloat of imperial factions the game suffers from right now.
I'm not sure that the reasonable half is so reasonable. Guilliman was wounded by a Daemon weapon, lay in convalescence and then was resurrected by Xenos magic given by a nascent and growing Chaos God. It's not like the first time a Primarch was wounded by a Daemon weapon and laid in convalescence that things turned out so well.
This Primarch, who went through almost exactly what Horus went through PLUS the Xenos Chaos Deity thing, then immediately went to earth and took over before firing a bunch of people in charge and putting his own people in. And nobody said 'Hey, wait a minute... Horus pt. II - Don't you think we should clarify that you aren't a corrupted Daemonspawn first?"
Ok, a dogmatic part and an unreasonable part. As long as it's split up into two. The Imperium is really way too big as a faction, and it's making the entire game unwieldy to balance. Splitting it up would not only make handling the factions much more reasonable, it would also make for a really good storyline.
I do like this bit. I can't tell you how disappointed I am going to be if Karamazov shows up, high fives Guilliman and says "Let's get those Chaos boys now, woo!"
Matt Ward's treatment of The Gathering Storm factions bothered me a lot. It was like looking at melted wax statues of famous people - They were vaguely familiar, but completely different, grotesque caricatures. Except for the Inquisitor/Celestine scenes. Those were awesome.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Personally I hope Abaddon/Guilliman smash the Imperium in two.
One dogmatic half with
Inquisition, SoB, Templars, Dark Angels, Mechanicus
one reasonable half with Ultras, Wolfes, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Fallen
Both can take Imperial Guard of course.
It would take away from the bloat of imperial factions the game suffers from right now.
Grey Knights will be with the dogmatic half to be sure.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Personally I hope Abaddon/Guilliman smash the Imperium in two.
One dogmatic half with
Inquisition, SoB, Templars, Dark Angels, Mechanicus
one reasonable half with Ultras, Wolfes, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Fallen
Both can take Imperial Guard of course.
It would take away from the bloat of imperial factions the game suffers from right now.
I'm not sure that the reasonable half is so reasonable. Guilliman was wounded by a Daemon weapon, lay in convalescence and then was resurrected by Xenos magic given by a nascent and growing Chaos God. It's not like the first time a Primarch was wounded by a Daemon weapon and laid in convalescence that things turned out so well.
This Primarch, who went through almost exactly what Horus went through PLUS the Xenos Chaos Deity thing, then immediately went to earth and took over before firing a bunch of people in charge and putting his own people in. And nobody said 'Hey, wait a minute... Horus pt. II - Don't you think we should clarify that you aren't a corrupted Daemonspawn first?"
Ok, a dogmatic part and an unreasonable part. As long as it's split up into two. The Imperium is really way too big as a faction, and it's making the entire game unwieldy to balance. Splitting it up would not only make handling the factions much more reasonable, it would also make for a really good storyline.
I do like this bit. I can't tell you how disappointed I am going to be if Karamazov shows up, high fives Guilliman and says "Let's get those Chaos boys now, woo!"
Matt Ward's treatment of The Gathering Storm factions bothered me a lot. It was like looking at melted wax statues of famous people - They were vaguely familiar, but completely different, grotesque caricatures. Except for the Inquisitor/Celestine scenes. Those were awesome.
Overall as long as the core game play does not change, deathstars and super friends are addressed, MC are on par with vehicles, im down for what ever makes the game more fun. I just dont wanna walk into the store on my first game of 8th and and have it be nothing like 40k other then name and models like what AoS was to fantasy.
But MC, superfriends and deathstars are what 40k is now...
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Personally I hope Abaddon/Guilliman smash the Imperium in two.
One dogmatic half with
Inquisition, SoB, Templars, Dark Angels, Mechanicus
one reasonable half with Ultras, Wolfes, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Fallen
Both can take Imperial Guard of course.
It would take away from the bloat of imperial factions the game suffers from right now.
Grey Knights will be with the dogmatic half to be sure.
Semantics the first - who gives a damn if the 'old world' exists in their current world or not? They got rid of the old lore and replaced it dude. Call it whatever you want, I think it was a really bad move.
Actually, the old lore still exists. It talks about that as the "World that Was".
You can think it's a bad move as much as you want; it is not the same thing as a retcon.
Pedantry. Consider that it's not a question of there being a context for where the story went within the universe - maybe all that matters is that Spiderman and Mary Jane aren't together anymore, you know? Remake, reboot, revamp, re-imagining, retcon... it's different, now, than it was before. Arguing the context of the changes is meaningless.
You know, it's okay to just say "Yeah, I used the wrong term there, my bad."
Semantics the first - who gives a damn if the 'old world' exists in their current world or not? They got rid of the old lore and replaced it dude. Call it whatever you want, I think it was a really bad move.
Actually, the old lore still exists. It talks about that as the "World that Was".
You can think it's a bad move as much as you want; it is not the same thing as a retcon.
Pedantry. Consider that it's not a question of there being a context for where the story went within the universe - maybe all that matters is that Spiderman and Mary Jane aren't together anymore, you know? Remake, reboot, revamp, re-imagining, retcon... it's different, now, than it was before. Arguing the context of the changes is meaningless.
You know, it's okay to just say "Yeah, I used the wrong term there, my bad."
But why would you, when you can be pretentiously obtuse and feel like you were right all along?
I'm wondering if the shadow wars Armageddon rules might be a clue to how the future of 40k will look. OK, that's on a much smaller scale so it's not going to be the same, but I was thinking more on how the rules are presented within it. Perhaps some sort of hybrid of that and an AoS Warscroll?
I said in an earlier thread that Strength versus Toughness suits games played at the model level, but when it comes to unit level games these days I'm in favour of flat rolls.
Shadowwars Armegeddon is a Necromunda rules. They are a throwback to 2-3rd edition. I very much doubt they will re-release those editions as 8th edition.
Youn wrote: Shadowwars Armegeddon is a Necromunda rules. They are a throwback to 2-3rd edition. I very much doubt they will re-release those editions as 8th edition.
I know they're Necromunda rules. And I did say that because it's on a smaller scale it won't be the same.
Galef wrote: So I think we all at least agree on the 3 following super-factions:
Imperium of Man
Chaos
Aeldari
Each consists of multiple sub-factions that are all Battle Bros with each other. Arguably, IoM has so many subfactions that you could split it into Space Marines and everything not SM.
That pretty much just leaves the other Xenos, who do not fight well with each other (aside from Tau & Necrons). Orks would fight just fine alongside Chaos, but Nids/GSC are no one's friend
Agreed.
Aeldari should not be mixed up with Imperium.
Well, Roboute Guilliman is able to wield the Emperor's Sword, Chief Librarian Tigurius confirmed him, Marneus Calgar believes it's him, Inquisitor Greyfax believes it, and the Custodes did allow him admittance into the presence of the Emperor. Surely if he was Chaos tainted, someone would have seen/noticed something by then?
There are two schools of thought on Leadership: One is a new leader moves into his position and makes no changes for a while, simply observing and critically thinking about his new position before making changes. The second school of thought is a new Leader comes in, immediately fires a bunch of people, hires those he trusts, and makes big sweeping changes right off the bat to demonstrate they are in charge. Guilliman, being the most politically astute and made to govern Primarchs, immediately saw how bad the Imperium has become and is now trying to save it. So he went with the latter style.
Personally, I think it's too late and the Imperium is doomed. Guilliman may try to save as much as he can, but unless he can get some help, he may just cut loose vast areas of the Imperium, consolidate what power he has, build up his forces, and then embark on a new Crusade.
Tamwulf wrote: Well, Roboute Guilliman is able to wield the Emperor's Sword, Chief Librarian Tigurius confirmed him, Marneus Calgar believes it's him, Inquisitor Greyfax believes it, and the Custodes did allow him admittance into the presence of the Emperor. Surely if he was Chaos tainted, someone would have seen/noticed something by then?
Sure, just how Horus' corruption was spotted so fast.....
Future War Cultist wrote: but when it comes to unit level games these days I'm in favour of flat rolls.
I doubt that 40k will change to a unit level game with 8th
and just having flat rolls doesn't change anything (there is no time saving or another reason why it should work better on a specific scale)
It's already a unit level game...isn't it?
40k is a model level game
as gun range, cover, health​, line of sight, movement etc are all per model values
the only unit level rules are that models in units activate at the same time and act together
40k is a model level Skirmish game with rules to handle units
same as Warhammer Fantasy was
G00fySmiley wrote: I just really hope the imperium of man is.... nerfed on allies. it is currently just ridiculous. oh look a libraries conclave with white scar bikers, dark angels terminators, iron hands cad for vehicles with iwnd and fnp troops. also we have terminators attached to the new GK guy so reroll saves and improve inv save by 1 so 2++ rerollable TH/SS out front.
How are you managing to fit that all into 1850 while simultaneously forgetting Space Marines somehow forget their Chapter Tactics when joined by different Chapters?
Tamwulf wrote: Well, Roboute Guilliman is able to wield the Emperor's Sword, Chief Librarian Tigurius confirmed him, Marneus Calgar believes it's him, Inquisitor Greyfax believes it, and the Custodes did allow him admittance into the presence of the Emperor. Surely if he was Chaos tainted, someone would have seen/noticed something by then?
There are two schools of thought on Leadership: One is a new leader moves into his position and makes no changes for a while, simply observing and critically thinking about his new position before making changes. The second school of thought is a new Leader comes in, immediately fires a bunch of people, hires those he trusts, and makes big sweeping changes right off the bat to demonstrate they are in charge. Guilliman, being the most politically astute and made to govern Primarchs, immediately saw how bad the Imperium has become and is now trying to save it. So he went with the latter style.
Personally, I think it's too late and the Imperium is doomed. Guilliman may try to save as much as he can, but unless he can get some help, he may just cut loose vast areas of the Imperium, consolidate what power he has, build up his forces, and then embark on a new Crusade.
Yeah, I can see it, similar to how Rome abandoned britian, because they finally got competent leadership who realized Rome was too big to defend. The emperor also realized this problem, which is why he tried to make the Human webway, which would have shrunk the Imperium to a much more manageable size. Ultimately it proved too much for even the immortal emperor of mankind, enabled the Horus heresy, and turned terra into a time bomb that will eventually become another eye of terror. Maybe that's the endgame, terra blows up, Macragge becomes the new capital of the IoM (ala Constantinople and the western Roman empire), and the storm is the fall of the roman empire only in Space.
G00fySmiley wrote: I just really hope the imperium of man is.... nerfed on allies. it is currently just ridiculous. oh look a libraries conclave with white scar bikers, dark angels terminators, iron hands cad for vehicles with iwnd and fnp troops. also we have terminators attached to the new GK guy so reroll saves and improve inv save by 1 so 2++ rerollable TH/SS out front.
How are you managing to fit that all into 1850 while simultaneously forgetting Space Marines somehow forget their Chapter Tactics when joined by different Chapters?
I am not fitting that into it, I am just stuck playing against such bs as it smashes my orks to bits
Tamwulf wrote: Well, Roboute Guilliman is able to wield the Emperor's Sword, Chief Librarian Tigurius confirmed him, Marneus Calgar believes it's him, Inquisitor Greyfax believes it, and the Custodes did allow him admittance into the presence of the Emperor. Surely if he was Chaos tainted, someone would have seen/noticed something by then?
Alpharius is pretty darn sneaky. I'm pretty sure this is all a long con.
I really hope they don't stuff all the non-Eldar xenos together into some weird, fluff-destroying alliance. As has been previously said, they all have enough stuff that could be brought in to make them stand on their own. Yeah, orks can ally with most anyone if they pay but it would make me sad if they end up just being the low-rent henchmen of the cool kids.
There could be a faction that's fully devoted to the Waaagh, and Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka is the leader of it. In a way, it's like a combo of the Ironjawz and the Bonsplittaz.
Then there's another faction that mercenary. Fights in a very human way, with airstrikes and commandos. Killers for hire.
Then there's a faction that are piratey, looking to acquire loot and kill monsters. Like a cross between the Bonesplittaz and the Overlords (yeah, seriously!)
Then there's the feral orks left over on planets invaded beforehand.
There's four different style armies you could get for the Orks. Enough to make them a proper faction.
Regarding how allies will possibly work in an "AoSed" 40K, I am excited and hopeful for it. Here's my thinking:
When GW killed off WHFB, they split up most of the armies into multiple sub-factions, and mixed some elements up to make new factions (albeit some getting full support with others getting neglected for the past two years). For example:
- The three flavors of Elves (Wood Elf, High Elf, and Dark Elf) got split into 12 unique armies for purposes of alliances and allegiances.
- All the undead models (basically just Vampire Counts at this point) got split into 7 armies.
- Skaven got broken up into 6 different Clans.
- The Warriors of Chaos book models were spread across 9 factions(counting the leveled-up Archaon).
- Orcs & Goblins and Orge Kingdoms make up all 12 Destruction factions.
Granted, I do not expect GW to massively shake up the fluff for 40K like the transition from WHFB to AoS, but I could see them adding keywords to the various armies to allow for new combinations of allies in your armies. We have already seen this with the Gathering Storm books, as we got Detachments to field an all-Mechanicus army, an army made up of Astartes, Guard, Knights, and Sisters, and a combined Aeldari army of Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Harlequins. Guilliman himself recognized a need to work with "friendly" factions against bigger threats, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", if you will. But he still know that the Aeldari would only help so long as it served their interests.
Looking back to Age of Sigmar (and D&D alignments too), each army has an end-goal in mind for how it behaves. You have factions of Builders (Order, Lawful), factions of Lawlessness (Destruction, Chaos, Evil, Neutral), factions of Corruption (Chaos, Evil, Lawful), factions of Anarchy (Destruction, Chaos, Chaotic, Neutral), and factions that sit somewhere in between there.
Basically, here's what I am thinking:
- Keywords will be added to each Codex and each unit option.
- Different sub-factions within the Codexes (Codices?) will have their own interactions and keywords to add in (SM Chapters. Craftworld, AM Regiments, Inquisitor Orders, Ork Clans, Tomb Worlds, etc.). Remember when Dark Angels and Space Wolves were just Allies of Convenience? I remember.
- Different alliances can be taken based on your primary army. Like, a primary GSC army can take Tyranid and Imperial Guard allies, but probably not Astartes (unless they somehow tricked them...).
- Different named Unique characters could modify how the alliances can work. How would taking Commissar Yarrick in your army affect its in game alliance with Orks? Right now, no effect.
I would like to see some more Necrons work alongside Space Marines to fight bigger threats. I would like to see if a GSC infected world can get Astartes assistance in battle against Chaos Marines. I would like to see Inquisitors making shady deals with Orks and Eldar (and maybe even Chaos Marines!) to get what they want. I know that there are some alliances that would NEVER happen in the fluff (Legion of the Damned, Officio Assassinorum, Tyranids, and Deathwatch come to mind). But I would like to see possibilities for some of the more extreme alliances happening on the tabletop.
The issue is not that Allies can be taken in the game, it's how the game can get broken based on unintended game mechanics interactions that get abused by tournament players. I have Forged the Narrative more in the past year than in my first 6 years as a wargamer because those cheesy WAAC combos drove me out of the tournaments into Kill Team and scenarios games with certain players, and I am thankful for it! Some of my most fun games have been in these narrative games, and I have gained several new friends from it too.
Age of Sigmar has several different ways to build your army and play your collection. You can take anything in Open Play, make stories in Narrative Play, or "balance" out the armies fighting with Matched Play. If I could have 40K took just one thing from Age of Sigmar, this would be it! I'm not worried about the rules, as they are just abstractions and dice mechanics. I am okay with memorizing charts or rolling fixed-values to determine in-game effects. The rules are not what make 40K the awesome game that it is, rather it is the models on the table and the setting in which they play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: @ Dakka Flakka Flame
...
Then there's a faction that are piratey, looking to acquire loot and kill monsters. Like a cross between the Bonesplittaz and the Overlords (yeah, seriously!)
There kinda already is. The Free Bootaz, I believe (spelling?). Captain Badrukk and Flash Gitz are from this clan of Orks.
Yeah, between the different clans and all the ork content that has either been cut over the years or only appeared in the fluff or Gorkamorka I think there would be more than enough to make the orks their own stand alone faction.
I'm guessing that is true for the other xenos races as well, but I'm just not as familiar with them. The thing I'm a little worried about is that GW might consider seven different major factions to be too many and try to smash a bunch of the xenos together. I'm guessing they probably won't do that, but I'm a little nervous because I'm a little paranoid by nature.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Personally I hope Abaddon/Guilliman smash the Imperium in two.
One dogmatic half with
Inquisition, SoB, Templars, Dark Angels, Mechanicus
one reasonable half with Ultras, Wolfes, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Fallen
Both can take Imperial Guard of course.
It would take away from the bloat of imperial factions the game suffers from right now.
I'm not sure that the reasonable half is so reasonable. Guilliman was wounded by a Daemon weapon, lay in convalescence and then was resurrected by Xenos magic given by a nascent and growing Chaos God. It's not like the first time a Primarch was wounded by a Daemon weapon and laid in convalescence that things turned out so well.
This Primarch, who went through almost exactly what Horus went through PLUS the Xenos Chaos Deity thing, then immediately went to earth and took over before firing a bunch of people in charge and putting his own people in. And nobody said 'Hey, wait a minute... Horus pt. II - Don't you think we should clarify that you aren't a corrupted Daemonspawn first?"
Ok, a dogmatic part and an unreasonable part. As long as it's split up into two. The Imperium is really way too big as a faction, and it's making the entire game unwieldy to balance. Splitting it up would not only make handling the factions much more reasonable, it would also make for a really good storyline.
I do like this bit. I can't tell you how disappointed I am going to be if Karamazov shows up, high fives Guilliman and says "Let's get those Chaos boys now, woo!"
Matt Ward's treatment of The Gathering Storm factions bothered me a lot. It was like looking at melted wax statues of famous people - They were vaguely familiar, but completely different, grotesque caricatures. Except for the Inquisitor/Celestine scenes. Those were awesome.
Did Matt Ward actually write this?
Gee Dub don't actually put the author's names any more, but the sentence structure, ridiculously improbable scenarios and bad fan-fiction-esque feel to it makes me think he did. He did say Games Workshop brought him back. I find it hard to imagine any of their other authors writing this.
Compare the stories written to Draigo or his Space Marine codex fan-fiction stuff and you'll see the similarities in his descriptions.
The fact that there is work that authors refuse to put their name to is telling.
There could be a faction that's fully devoted to the Waaagh, and Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka is the leader of it. In a way, it's like a combo of the Ironjawz and the Bonsplittaz.
Then there's another faction that mercenary. Fights in a very human way, with airstrikes and commandos. Killers for hire.
Then there's a faction that are piratey, looking to acquire loot and kill monsters. Like a cross between the Bonesplittaz and the Overlords (yeah, seriously!)
Then there's the feral orks left over on planets invaded beforehand.
There's four different style armies you could get for the Orks. Enough to make them a proper faction.
This seems like a good way to handle it. maybeeeee if GW resurrects da grot revolushun (they've brought back GSC, primarchs, imperial robots, and now Necromunda rules in shadow war Armageddon, so while it is unlikely it I can't write it off entirely) the grots can get a faction too!
What I want to see is the return of ork clans with more expanding on their lore, special rules, and new models for each clan. As the lore stands we'd need more models (both more warscrolls and because GW decided not to print rules for something they don't have a model for, more minis) for certain clans to be something more than "orks, but you spam the associated elites/FA/HS unit associated with them." As-is Blood Axes only really have the kommando and borrowed Imperium vehicles (which for many players is either what all orks do or a no-go due to lack of a GW conversion kit/model). Snakebites only have grots, Lobbas (again, the current model doesn't even work with the current fluff: IIRC there used to be a catapult Lobba but it's OOP), squiggoths (FW only), and a lack of Mek stuff (most of the current model range). Freebootas, who until 7e weren't really an independent clan-equivalent so they can kinda be discounted, have flash gits and Badrukk. And Deff Skulls just have Lootas, and the looted wagon (justifiably no model). If we can get all of them fluffed out as much as IG regiments, craftworlds, or SM chapters that would be great. If GW made clans fade into the background and did what Future War Cultist suggests, that would be understandable as there would be only 3-4 factions (I doubt feral orks are coming back. When did we see them last, Epic 40k? If anything they'll get rolled into Snakebites despite that making no sense, because GW doesn't like redundant or semi-redundant orks.) instead of 6+ factions.
There could be a faction that's fully devoted to the Waaagh, and Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka is the leader of it. In a way, it's like a combo of the Ironjawz and the Bonsplittaz.
Then there's another faction that mercenary. Fights in a very human way, with airstrikes and commandos. Killers for hire.
Then there's a faction that are piratey, looking to acquire loot and kill monsters. Like a cross between the Bonesplittaz and the Overlords (yeah, seriously!)
Then there's the feral orks left over on planets invaded beforehand.
There's four different style armies you could get for the Orks. Enough to make them a proper faction.
Orks and the Tyranids are the NPC's for 40k.
There's no way they're going to put that much effort into Orks if the last couple years has been any indication.
They'd rather re-release a dozen more Space Marine books before they look at giving Orks another go at buffing mob rule to str 6.
I remember the Free Booterz. They should bring them back in force.
Part of the problem with the orks (not counting the rules) is you're kinda restricted to six colour schemes unless you go freeboota. They should try to shake that up a bit.
@ gnome_idea_what
I don't mind the Klans. It's just the colour scheme restrictions that bother me.
G00fySmiley wrote: I just really hope the imperium of man is.... nerfed on allies. it is currently just ridiculous. oh look a libraries conclave with white scar bikers, dark angels terminators, iron hands cad for vehicles with iwnd and fnp troops. also we have terminators attached to the new GK guy so reroll saves and improve inv save by 1 so 2++ rerollable TH/SS out front.
How are you managing to fit that all into 1850 while simultaneously forgetting Space Marines somehow forget their Chapter Tactics when joined by different Chapters?
I am not fitting that into it, I am just stuck playing against such bs as it smashes my orks to bits
On top of forgetting the second part and not remembering that the Ork codex is the primary problem due to how gakky it's written?
gnome_idea_what wrote: I doubt feral orks are coming back. When did we see them last, Epic 40k? If anything they'll get rolled into Snakebites despite that making no sense, because GW doesn't like redundant or semi-redundant orks.)
There were feral orks in 3rd Ed. with Codex Armageddon. That was a long time ago, though, and they just had rules with no specific models.
I would really like to see them flesh out all of the clans plus the pseudo-clans like Freebootas and feral orks. Yeah, Rebel Grots would be pretty fun too, but I imagine that if they keep the allies chart around they would actually be Come the Apocalypse with Orks.
Not that this is a wishlisting thread for orks, but something else I think would be cool is if they brought Yoofs into 40k. Make regular boyz Strength 4, while Yoofs are S3 and WS3. This would allow them to make a new model line that doesn't invalidate the older boyz, and it also would allow them to make a smaller ork that makes the Space Marines look bigger without invalidating their existing models. Most importantly, it gets rid of the ork boyz being S3 nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I don't mind the Klans. It's just the colour scheme restrictions that bother me.
It can still be fluffy to have multiple clans in one warband. Also, I always figured a person doesn't have to go ham with the colors. Like, Bad Moons could just have a few yellow dags rather than yellow everything, and I figure it wouldn't be that unusual for a Bad Moon to have a bit of blue or red here and there.
I might be remembering this wrong, but aren't there also a bunch of minor clans in addition to the six main ones?
Ghorros wrote: I'm not sure that the reasonable half is so reasonable. Guilliman was wounded by a Daemon weapon, lay in convalescence and then was resurrected by Xenos magic given by a nascent and growing Chaos God. It's not like the first time a Primarch was wounded by a Daemon weapon and laid in convalescence that things turned out so well.
This Primarch, who went through almost exactly what Horus went through PLUS the Xenos Chaos Deity thing, then immediately went to earth and took over before firing a bunch of people in charge and putting his own people in. And nobody said 'Hey, wait a minute... Horus pt. II - Don't you think we should clarify that you aren't a corrupted Daemonspawn first?"
Exalted. Thank you for giving my GK a fluffy reason to back up my commitment to killing Guilliman every time I see him on the table.
The issue is not that Allies can be taken in the game, it's how the game can get broken based on unintended game mechanics interactions that get abused by tournament players. I have Forged the Narrative more in the past year than in my first 6 years as a wargamer because those cheesy WAAC combos drove me out of the tournaments into Kill Team and scenarios games with certain players, and I am thankful for it! Some of my most fun games have been in these narrative games, and I have gained several new friends from it too.
I have pulled a complete 180 on my opinion of Forging, and completely agree with you. I came back to 40k 7th edition, from 2nd edition. I was quickly dragooned into going to tournaments by my local club, and had a great time doing local events. Then we started getting involved with the ITC, hosting ranted events, and traveling to further stores. Things got extreme fast, and the fun factor drained out of that competitive play. Even WAAC lists piloted by nice guys (and plenty aren't) are still unfun to play one after another. Couple that with bringing a WAAC list yourself to play at that level and even when you are winning, it is just a chore.
I have never found the writing of the novels or fluff sections of the rulebooks and codices to be very captivating, so I was never into the fluff very much, but knew the highlights. I was burnt out with the Tournament scene, and wanted a change, so I started looking at the Alter of War missions and other similar Missions in the Campaign books, and thought it would be fun to do some. My buddy and I ran the Tau Campaign missions and we had a riot. After that I wanted to do another Campaign style series, but there were sparingly few that included the Tau I could find. Another friend was playing Necrons, and he just said: "You should make them up yourself". Turns out I loved crafting custom missions, and that really dragged me into the fluff of our specific armies.
What I was really surprised to find out, was the game is great for that kind of play (for me). Sure it could be faster, or more balanced, but it was great and lead to some of the most entertaining moments of any games I've played. I am actually astounded at how much fun I was having, both on and off the table.
I have high hopes that 8th will be a good shakeup, but even if it is just a new mess, that makes different, equally unbalanced ruleset, with just as many WAAC exploits, I will play it just the same. I could due with a little less Epic scale in my 40k though. . .
G00fySmiley wrote: I just really hope the imperium of man is.... nerfed on allies. it is currently just ridiculous. oh look a libraries conclave with white scar bikers, dark angels terminators, iron hands cad for vehicles with iwnd and fnp troops. also we have terminators attached to the new GK guy so reroll saves and improve inv save by 1 so 2++ rerollable TH/SS out front.
How are you managing to fit that all into 1850 while simultaneously forgetting Space Marines somehow forget their Chapter Tactics when joined by different Chapters?
I am not fitting that into it, I am just stuck playing against such bs as it smashes my orks to bits
On top of forgetting the second part and not remembering that the Ork codex is the primary problem due to how gakky it's written?
And seriously? Complaining about Terminators?
when they don't scatter, show up turn 1 and drop 2 heavy flamers.. yea
and what about the second part am I forgetting? I don't like/ play much space marines. I have a ton of models of them but mostly just to paint. I know the basics of what their units do because I often play against them.
as for fitting into 1850 the "base" is 1240 points including tigarius, I fight it all the time
UM tigarius, 2 tac squads 305
white scars bike captain, 2x grav gun 3 mnan bike squads 266
dark angels baliel, deathwing w./ heavy flamer, 2x th/ss 1x lc, 1 scout squad 475
libraries conclave (iron hands for fnp)195
was unsure of points before doing on battlescribe but it has all the chapter tactics in there.
sometimes that gets changes up no ultramarines, cad is iron hands w/ a gorgon's chain chapter master on a bike.
I agree the ork codex is gak, but superfriends space marines is really annoying even when playing my other armies. Plus in fairness what other army will be allowed to do anything like this? can I choose to take some strong necron stuff with my eldar and ork stuff and use my powers to buff them and attach to eachother's squads?
I remember the Free Booterz. They should bring them back in force.
Part of the problem with the orks (not counting the rules) is you're kinda restricted to six colour schemes unless you go freeboota. They should try to shake that up a bit.
@ gnome_idea_what
I don't mind the Klans. It's just the colour scheme restrictions that bother me.
Easy fix: "Successor" Clans! Seriously, they are your models, paint them however you want! I have painted up thousands of points of Space Marines of various flavors in a custom color scheme. Turns out that it was a wise decision, as I really liked the current Chapter Tactics rules, and wanted to play Iron Hands and White Scars instead of Space Wolves. Aside from the Thunderwolves and Fenrisian Wolves, all the models jumped over without any complaints from anyone. Just got some orange-red Iron Hands with wolfy bling!
The issue is not that Allies can be taken in the game, it's how the game can get broken based on unintended game mechanics interactions that get abused by tournament players. I have Forged the Narrative more in the past year than in my first 6 years as a wargamer because those cheesy WAAC combos drove me out of the tournaments into Kill Team and scenarios games with certain players, and I am thankful for it! Some of my most fun games have been in these narrative games, and I have gained several new friends from it too.
I have pulled a complete 180 on my opinion of Forging, and completely agree with you. I came back to 40k 7th edition, from 2nd edition. I was quickly dragooned into going to tournaments by my local club, and had a great time doing local events. Then we started getting involved with the ITC, hosting ranted events, and traveling to further stores. Things got extreme fast, and the fun factor drained out of that competitive play. Even WAAC lists piloted by nice guys (and plenty aren't) are still unfun to play one after another. Couple that with bringing a WAAC list yourself to play at that level and even when you are winning, it is just a chore.
I have used those EXACT word before describing my tournament experiences: The games are a CHORE. With all the power combos out there, the many publications to keep up with, and the amount of models to have to buy to get to that level, it is no longer fun. I would get more enjoyment out of doing the dishes, because that means I at least had a home-cooked meal, you know?
There could be a faction that's fully devoted to the Waaagh, and Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka is the leader of it. In a way, it's like a combo of the Ironjawz and the Bonsplittaz.
Then there's another faction that mercenary. Fights in a very human way, with airstrikes and commandos. Killers for hire.
Then there's a faction that are piratey, looking to acquire loot and kill monsters. Like a cross between the Bonesplittaz and the Overlords (yeah, seriously!)
Then there's the feral orks left over on planets invaded beforehand.
There's four different style armies you could get for the Orks. Enough to make them a proper faction.
This seems like a good way to handle it. maybeeeee if GW resurrects da grot revolushun (they've brought back GSC, primarchs, imperial robots, and now Necromunda rules in shadow war Armageddon, so while it is unlikely it I can't write it off entirely) the grots can get a faction too!
What I want to see is the return of ork clans with more expanding on their lore, special rules, and new models for each clan. As the lore stands we'd need more models (both more warscrolls and because GW decided not to print rules for something they don't have a model for, more minis) for certain clans to be something more than "orks, but you spam the associated elites/FA/HS unit associated with them." As-is Blood Axes only really have the kommando and borrowed Imperium vehicles (which for many players is either what all orks do or a no-go due to lack of a GW conversion kit/model). Snakebites only have grots, Lobbas (again, the current model doesn't even work with the current fluff: IIRC there used to be a catapult Lobba but it's OOP), squiggoths (FW only), and a lack of Mek stuff (most of the current model range). Freebootas, who until 7e weren't really an independent clan-equivalent so they can kinda be discounted, have flash gits and Badrukk. And Deff Skulls just have Lootas, and the looted wagon (justifiably no model). If we can get all of them fluffed out as much as IG regiments, craftworlds, or SM chapters that would be great. If GW made clans fade into the background and did what Future War Cultist suggests, that would be understandable as there would be only 3-4 factions (I doubt feral orks are coming back. When did we see them last, Epic 40k? If anything they'll get rolled into Snakebites despite that making no sense, because GW doesn't like redundant or semi-redundant orks.) instead of 6+ factions.
You don't have to use specific models for specific factions. I would just have an equivalent for Chapter Tactics for Orks, call them Clan Cunnin' instead Think about what you could have! I am not familiar with the fluff on specific Clans, but I know that they have preferred strategies, and different colors have different significance to Orks. How about one that gives them a bonus to Leadership? Another that encourages lots of Dreads and Kans? How about bonuses to Flyers and Deff Coptas? Or one that makes all the Orks in the army BS3? The possibilities are there to reflect the Clan Cunnin' in just a couple rules that can change how an army works.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: You don't have to use specific models for specific factions. I would just have an equivalent for Chapter Tactics for Orks, call them Clan Cunnin' instead Think about what you could have! I am not familiar with the fluff on specific Clans, but I know that they have preferred strategies, and different colors have different significance to Orks. How about one that gives them a bonus to Leadership? Another that encourages lots of Dreads and Kans? How about bonuses to Flyers and Deff Coptas? Or one that makes all the Orks in the army BS3? The possibilities are there to reflect the Clan Cunnin' in just a couple rules that can change how an army works.
I like that units aren't specific to a clan even though each clan has a preference for certain units. This is before my time, but IIRC back in RT/2nd Edition certain units were clan specific. In 3rd Edition (when I started playing) they moved to having no clan-specific units, at least at first. Early 3rd edition actually kind of sucked unless you wanted to play Goffs. In later 3rd and in 4th they had rules allowing certain clans to take choices as troops, like Evil Sunz could have bikers as troops and Goffs could take skarboyz (or was it nobz?) as troops. I think that the Snakebites were the only clan with a specific unit (squiggoth). I might be remembering that all wrong, it was a long time ago.
I like the idea that anyone can take any unit as part of their clan, but it would be cool to see the clans distinguished in other ways. Like, anyone can take a squiggoth but the Snakebites can take it as a dedicated transport that doesn't use up a FoC slot. Or anyone can take bikers, but Evil Sunz can take them as Troops.
I think there are a lot of good ways this could be done. My personal preference is that different clans give different bonuses to the basic boyz, like you said with giving a certain clan a bonus to Leadership and whatnot. There's lots of ways that the different clans could give a small bonus to the boyz that would make them both effective on the tabletop and thematic with the army.
I was just browsing through the GW site for ideas on Ork factions. I could take the following:
Big and Small Meks with the guns
Shoota Boyz
Lootas
Burna Boys
Mek Gunz
and there's a faction who see 'Dakka' as the only way to Waaagh and so are obsessed with building the biggest guns out there. I think we could fit fliers in there too. A serious gunline ork army. And you can paint it in any colour you like.
Edit: You kind of just described the Bad Moons though. But I think that the majority of ork players are really down with people coming up with their own stuff. That's part of what draws people to the orks in the first place. I would say do what you want and the chances of anyone giving you grief are tiny.
Edit: You kind of just described the Bad Moons though. But I think that the majority of ork players are really down with people coming up with their own stuff. That's part of what draws people to the orks in the first place. I would say do what you want and the chances of anyone giving you grief are tiny.
I'll admit that it's far from original yes.
Maybe the Bad Moons can be the poster boyz of the Dakka cult? Either way, they can play around with the Orks.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I think that the majority of ork players are really down with people coming up with their own stuff. That's part of what draws people to the orks in the first place. I would say do what you want and the chances of anyone giving you grief are tiny.
Of course, a fair chunk of that is because Orks are weak right now. Orks unbound? Go for it. IG unbound? Rock on! Old IG? Sure! Bring that underperforming stuff, as much as you like, I don't care. OTOH, flip that to start loading up on "OP" stuff, and everyone will be saying "uncool, back that up!".
Maybe the Bad Moons can be the poster boyz of the Dakka cult? Either way, they can play around with the Orks.
I think that would work.
My understanding is that Kult of Speed armies can be from any clan, as most all orks like to go fast and feel the call to the Kult of Speed. Evil Sunz tend to like going fast more than other orks, so the majority of Kult of Speed armies tend to be made up of mostly Evil Sunz clan members.
Similarly most orks like big, noisy guns. Bad Moons just tend to like them even more than most orks (plus they have the teef to buy them and they like to show off). It would totally be fluffy to have more than one clan in your gunline army, or even to come up with your homebrew clan.
I'm working on a gunline Bad Moon ork army. It has a bunch of lootas. Lootas are more closely associated with Deff Skullz than Bad Moons, but I don't think anyone would blink at having a bunch of lootas being Bad Moons. I'm actually pretending that they are something like junior Flash Gitz, who have better guns than an average shoota boy but aren't yet the biggest and the shiniest like the Flash Gitz. I also want to make a Deff Skullz army that has a bunch of lootas that I'm going to kitbash using weapons that are more obviously stolen from non-orks, but to be honest that is a project that I haven't even started yet.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I think that the majority of ork players are really down with people coming up with their own stuff. That's part of what draws people to the orks in the first place. I would say do what you want and the chances of anyone giving you grief are tiny.
Of course, a fair chunk of that is because Orks are weak right now. Orks unbound? Go for it. IG unbound? Rock on! Old IG? Sure! Bring that underperforming stuff, as much as you like, I don't care. OTOH, flip that to start loading up on "OP" stuff, and everyone will be saying "uncool, back that up!".
I can see that happening. I actually feel a little bad for long-time Saim Hann players right now. If you don't want to be seen as a jerk getting your favorite units buffed beyond reason can actually be a bad thing.
My understanding is that Kult of Speed armies can be from any clan, as most all orks like to go fast and feel the call to the Kult of Speed. Evil Sunz tend to like going fast more than other orks, so the majority of Kult of Speed armies tend to be made up of mostly Evil Sunz clan members.
Similarly most orks like big, noisy guns. Bad Moons just tend to like them even more than most orks (plus they have the teef to buy them and they like to show off). It would totally be fluffy to have more than one clan in your gunline army, or even to come up with your homebrew clan.
I'm working on a gunline Bad Moon ork army. It has a bunch of lootas. Lootas are more closely associated with Deff Skullz than Bad Moons, but I don't think anyone would blink at having a bunch of lootas being Bad Moons. I'm actually pretending that they are something like junior Flash Gitz, who have better guns than an average shoota boy but aren't yet the biggest and the shiniest like the Flash Gitz. I also want to make a Deff Skullz army that has a bunch of lootas that I'm going to kitbash using weapons that are more obviously stolen from non-orks, but to be honest that is a project that I haven't even started yet.
Come to think of it, both the Bad Moons and the Deathskullz would be good for this cult of dakka. In either case, I like the sound of your project!
Here we have the cult of speed, cult of dakka (stand in name), Ghazghkull's mobs (all hoards of boyz and big stomping machines), the mercenary forces (Blood Axes as the poster boyz) and then Snake Bite feral orks. There's five different greenskin factions right there.
I could see new factions being drawn up as just two, Order versus Destruction, to make it easy. I've also thought of a more clever grouping of factions similar to previously posted ones. Imperium, Chaos, Order, and destruction. But something different that I've been thinking of since the new gathering storm changes is that some of our familiar armies may split to have a good and bad side. For example Dark Angels splitting to having a loyalist and traitor component. Possibly some orks dedicating themselves to gods of chaos. Also the dark eldar splitting into pro-Ynnari(Order) and pro-Vect/commorragh(destruction?), but a twist in that the decadent commorrites, unrepentant of their carnal ways which had birthed the slaaneshi god, resort to seeking it's help and worshiping it to protect commorragh's power structure and way of life threatened by the ynnari, and actually end up joining chaos. I think someone almost touched upon this idea earlier.
So Order would have: Tau, Eldar, Ynnari, A component of friendly Necrons too presumably
Destruction would have: Orks, Tyrannids, Necrons, Harlequins (they are more of a chaotic neutral archetype, presumably those not aligned with the ynnari)
Chaos: CSM, Demons, Fallen Angels, Evil Dark Eldar, Chaos Orks
Imperium: Yea right
To explain these new groupings,
Order would be bound together by the common cause of creating order and stomping out threats to all civilized life, but don't want to be ruled by the imperium.
Destruction would be bound by the common cause of wanting to see the universe and the current civilized order of things burned to the ground, but don't like chaos.
..Wait Evil Dark Eldar? The ones that came through and absolutely shoved Daemons right back through the Gate Of Khaine?
No, I mean vect and his vassals. You know the one who opened the gate and let the demons in to destroy his rivals?
I don't think you actually read that part. It was the shattering of Biel-tan and the reverberations of Yneeds Avatar's birth that shattered and broke the gate. Vect and his vassals escaped to their hidden area to ride out the storm and attempt to keep power once things got repelled.
The only factions I can see being lumped together are:
Armies of the Imperium: This title has been used recently, and is the catch-all umbrella for the 31 flavours of Space marine, 3 factions of Inquisition, The Ineptus Mechanicus, Astral Millipede, Millipede Tempura, The Eccelesiarchy and so on. It allows for semi-generic units such as Arbites to make a come-back as units unaligned to a specific faction, but part of the larger whole. It's as if you had an army of Guard, but want some decent C&C smack down with your favourite Not-Dredd policemen.
Xenos: Aeldari: Vanilla (Craft), Chocolate (Dark) and Rainbow-Sprinkles-with-sherbert flavours of Eldar. Allows introduction of Caramel (Exodites) with a few units here and there. Maybe even Corsairs (Rum + Raisin) too, as a conversion kit between the three races. Pop a corsair conversion kit into a guardian/kabalite/harlie box and you're laughing.
Xenos: This area I can see being an "Individual Battletome" area or mini-compilations ala Disciples of Tzeentch. So, Tau Empire + Auxillaries leaves room open for kroot, vespids, demiurg, Gue'la and so on. Orks get their Clans! Maybe even a 8th Clan in rebel grots. Necrons...well, Dynasties? I guess they'd have more formations than anything to represent the uniformity of their appearance but differing lords and such. Tyranids gain GSC, with options to run pure GSC, pure nid, One of the big Hive fleets, etc.
Excommunicate Traitoris: Chaos, in all its flavours. Probably best split up the way AoS is handling Chaos- splitting the big 4 up into mini-compilations and then the cover-all which includes Undivided. Legions and Daemons and Cults, oh my! Could introduce renegades as a new subfaction to allow some cross-pollination of regular marine kits into the chaos armoury. MkVII chaos? hell yeah. Knee pads with faces on them! Spikes growing out of spikes! Plastic Huron! Make Undecided Great Again!
This all being said, I have no idea how 40k 8th is going to pan out. I just want smaller sized armies so I can get back in without having to paint in excess of 80 dudes plus vehicles
G00fySmiley wrote: I just really hope the imperium of man is.... nerfed on allies. it is currently just ridiculous. oh look a libraries conclave with white scar bikers, dark angels terminators, iron hands cad for vehicles with iwnd and fnp troops. also we have terminators attached to the new GK guy so reroll saves and improve inv save by 1 so 2++ rerollable TH/SS out front.
How are you managing to fit that all into 1850 while simultaneously forgetting Space Marines somehow forget their Chapter Tactics when joined by different Chapters?
I am not fitting that into it, I am just stuck playing against such bs as it smashes my orks to bits
On top of forgetting the second part and not remembering that the Ork codex is the primary problem due to how gakky it's written?
And seriously? Complaining about Terminators?
when they don't scatter, show up turn 1 and drop 2 heavy flamers.. yea
and what about the second part am I forgetting? I don't like/ play much space marines. I have a ton of models of them but mostly just to paint. I know the basics of what their units do because I often play against them.
as for fitting into 1850 the "base" is 1240 points including tigarius, I fight it all the time
UM tigarius, 2 tac squads 305
white scars bike captain, 2x grav gun 3 mnan bike squads 266
dark angels baliel, deathwing w./ heavy flamer, 2x th/ss 1x lc, 1 scout squad 475
libraries conclave (iron hands for fnp)195
was unsure of points before doing on battlescribe but it has all the chapter tactics in there.
sometimes that gets changes up no ultramarines, cad is iron hands w/ a gorgon's chain chapter master on a bike.
I agree the ork codex is gak, but superfriends space marines is really annoying even when playing my other armies. Plus in fairness what other army will be allowed to do anything like this? can I choose to take some strong necron stuff with my eldar and ork stuff and use my powers to buff them and attach to eachother's squads?
Deathwing don't show up T1 and cannot bring two heavy flamers in a squad unless they're at 10 dudes, so that's 210 points per Heavy Flamer. No, you're honestly not allowed to complain about that.
Also once all those characters join other squads they forget their Chapter Tactics. So this is still no issue.
I really don't think you've played against Space Marines to be honest.
We can already see from the attempts here that there's not really a clean, logical way for GW to split the current 40k factions into AoS-style Grand Alliances. There will always be a few outliers that just don't fit. GW basically had to completely rewrite the WH background in order to make their system work in AoS and even then it still feels a bit arbitrary.
So I'd assume we won't see that. Maybe IoM, Chaos and Eldar might get something that combines their various factions in some way but I wouldn't expect to see, for example, Necrons and Orks being lumped together to make the system work.
One thing I really hope they fix is how allies work in general. So many of the problems in 7th edition can be traced to the ally system. Just a simple rule that stops allies interacting with one another would go a long way to fixing those problems. If you stop allies sharing special rules and psychic powers and stop them joining each other's units things become a lot less abuseable.
Slipspace wrote: We can already see from the attempts here that there's not really a clean, logical way for GW to split the current 40k factions into AoS-style Grand Alliances. There will always be a few outliers that just don't fit. GW basically had to completely rewrite the WH background in order to make their system work in AoS and even then it still feels a bit arbitrary.
I don't think it will work with four big factions, like in AoS, but I could see 40k working quite well with seven 'Grand Alliance' style factions:
Slipspace wrote: We can already see from the attempts here that there's not really a clean, logical way for GW to split the current 40k factions into AoS-style Grand Alliances. There will always be a few outliers that just don't fit. GW basically had to completely rewrite the WH background in order to make their system work in AoS and even then it still feels a bit arbitrary.
I don't think it will work with four big factions, like in AoS, but I could see 40k working quite well with seven 'Grand Alliance' style factions:
Tau: Tau Fire Caste, Kroot Mercenaries, Farsight Enclaves, Vespid, other alien auxiliaries
Tyranids: Hive Fleets, Genestealer Cults
That's definitely a possibility but it feels a bit weird with Orks, Necrons and Tau being just their current stuff split up while the other factions get a proper alliance. I'm really not a fan of the way AoS splits everything into micro-factions so I hope they don't go that route.
Although, I'd rather not get involved in any rumour run around (correct me if there is any solid evidence for this) I don' think they're going to 'AoS' it. I'm just not sure what GW's motive would be behind it and, more than anything, I don't see why anyone would want it like that. Now don't get my wrong, I like AoS (ooh err, controversial) but I like have the two separate games with there different rules. It's nice
This Primarch, who went through almost exactly what Horus went through PLUS the Xenos Chaos Deity thing, then immediately went to earth and took over before firing a bunch of people in charge and putting his own people in. And nobody said 'Hey, wait a minute... Horus pt. II - Don't you think we should clarify that you aren't a corrupted Daemonspawn first?"
Well yeah... that was 10,000 years ago in a world where they think praying to a gun makes it shoot better. I'm going out on a limb and say that no one who wasn't there, knows how the Heresy actually happened. It's all tall tales and myths.
Amanax wrote: Well yeah... that was 10,000 years ago in a world where they think praying to a gun makes it shoot better.
Of course praying to your gun makes it shoot better! Next you'll be saying that making punching motions while firing a handgun doesn't make the bullets fly out faster.
Loremaster Of Awesomeness wrote: Although, I'd rather not get involved in any rumour run around (correct me if there is any solid evidence for this) I don' think they're going to 'AoS' it. I'm just not sure what GW's motive would be behind it and, more than anything, I don't see why anyone would want it like that. Now don't get my wrong, I like AoS (ooh err, controversial) but I like have the two separate games with there different rules. It's nice
The GW designers at Adepticon went over the new profile. Its very similar to AOS. If thats not solid enough, I'm not sure what would be.
Loremaster Of Awesomeness wrote: Although, I'd rather not get involved in any rumour run around (correct me if there is any solid evidence for this) I don' think they're going to 'AoS' it. I'm just not sure what GW's motive would be behind it and, more than anything, I don't see why anyone would want it like that. Now don't get my wrong, I like AoS (ooh err, controversial) but I like have the two separate games with there different rules. It's nice
The GW designers at Adepticon went over the new profile. Its very similar to AOS. If thats not solid enough, I'm not sure what would be.
Are you sure you aren't thinking about Shadow War?
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.
Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone. The way its described, small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles but they have multiple wounds? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having armor in the first place? To negate small arms fire?
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.
I'd imagine you'd determine a number of hits then roll to hit for each "shot" using the units BS.
Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone. The way its described, small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles but they have multiple wounds? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having armor in the first place? To negate small arms fire?
There's plenty of other ways to represent that, armour saves, immunity to fire with a characteristic < or > than X, an ability to regenerate wounds etc etc
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?
There can be other restrictions (back in the day you could only charge if the vehicle hadn't moved) and assault vehicle can confer extra advantages to still offer something above a standard transport.
I'm sorry but all of this sounds pretty
Then you're not fully appreciating what it could mean.
But then, given the nature of the source, it all seems a little unlikely that this is true anyhow.
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits?
Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone.
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles?
Have you looked at AoS warscrolls? Automatic Xd6 hits pretty much exactly how AoS handles "Blast" type effects.
I think it's sad that AVs are going away, if only because Dreads, etc. don't deserve to be on par with MCs.
GW will (and should) remove a number of unnecessary distinctions, so that's fine. The game never really needed them anyways, given that GW wants the game to be about who has the prettiest models, not who can remember the most detailed rules arcana.
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.
Roll to hit. If it hits, roll D6 for number of hits - would be the obvious solution. Or alternatively, roll for number of hits and then roll to hit with each one.
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?
Hard to make any judgement on that without knowing what other rules go along with it. There may be different rules governing charge distance, or who strikes first, depending on which sort of transport vehicle you're exiting. Or they may have just removed 'open-topped' or 'assault vehicles' vehicles from the game, and just count all vehicles the same regardless of whether or not they have a roof, or an assault ramp or whatever.
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits?
Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone.
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles?
Have you looked at AoS warscrolls? Automatic Xd6 hits pretty much exactly how AoS handles "Blast" type effects.
I think it's sad that AVs are going away, if only because Dreads, etc. don't deserve to be on par with MCs.
GW will (and should) remove a number of unnecessary distinctions, so that's fine. The game never really needed them anyways, given that GW wants the game to be about who has the prettiest models, not who can remember the most detailed rules arcana.
Look... most MC's are not so secretly walkers anyway. Dreadknights, Riptides and other large battle suits, wraiths. Etc.
So I honestly dont know what you are talking about when you say you don't want dreads on par with monsterous creatures.
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits?
Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone.
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles?
Have you looked at AoS warscrolls? Automatic Xd6 hits pretty much exactly how AoS handles "Blast" type effects.
I think it's sad that AVs are going away, if only because Dreads, etc. don't deserve to be on par with MCs.
GW will (and should) remove a number of unnecessary distinctions, so that's fine. The game never really needed them anyways, given that GW wants the game to be about who has the prettiest models, not who can remember the most detailed rules arcana.
I'm just skeptical as to how they will be able to make it work. I can see if working great for some stuff, not so great for others. Like take hellhound torrent flamers for example. Even if my opponent spaces out his infantry conservatively I can usually make it hit 4-6 models. If its changed to a D6 roll, that is a net loss for that unit & will make it difficult to field.
On the other hand, grenade launchers on infantry will be king. 5pts for 24" D6 wound weapon. Yeah that sounds amazing.
I could see vehicles working like Azreal described "There's plenty of other ways to represent that, armour saves, immunity to fire with a characteristic < or > than X, an ability to regenerate wounds etc etc". I just think it would be ridiculous if all of sudden S3-6 weapons were all the sudden glancing/penetrating leman russes. Would entirely defeat the purpose of a tank to begin with.
Commissar Benny wrote: I'm just skeptical as to how they will be able to make it work. I can see if working great for some stuff, not so great for others. Like take hellhound torrent flamers for example. Even if my opponent spaces out his infantry conservatively I can usually make it hit 4-6 models. If its changed to a D6 roll, that is a net loss for that unit & will make it difficult to field.
Well that is only look at one aspect.. if they did go down thing route. Who knows what they actually will do with the Heldrake's weapons
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits?
Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone.
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles?
Have you looked at AoS warscrolls? Automatic Xd6 hits pretty much exactly how AoS handles "Blast" type effects.
I think it's sad that AVs are going away, if only because Dreads, etc. don't deserve to be on par with MCs.
GW will (and should) remove a number of unnecessary distinctions, so that's fine. The game never really needed them anyways, given that GW wants the game to be about who has the prettiest models, not who can remember the most detailed rules arcana.
I'm just skeptical as to how they will be able to make it work. I can see if working great for some stuff, not so great for others. Like take hellhound torrent flamers for example. Even if my opponent spaces out his infantry conservatively I can usually make it hit 4-6 models. If its changed to a D6 roll, that is a net loss for that unit & will make it difficult to field.
On the other hand, grenade launchers on infantry will be king. 5pts for 24" D6 wound weapon. Yeah that sounds amazing.
I could see vehicles working like Azreal described "There's plenty of other ways to represent that, armour saves, immunity to fire with a characteristic < or > than X, an ability to regenerate wounds etc etc". I just think it would be ridiculous if all of sudden S3-6 weapons were all the sudden glancing/penetrating leman russes. Would entirely defeat the purpose of a tank to begin with.
Why would you assume Heldrakes or Grenade Launchers would be remotely the same? If we are believing this rumour then codices are gone and warscrolls are replacing them, so nothing has to be the same as now. Not to mention it could be things like 1d3 or 1d6+1 instead of straight up d6.
Zatsuku wrote: Why would you assume Heldrakes or Grenade Launchers would be remotely the same? If we are believing this rumour then codices are gone and warscrolls are replacing them, so nothing has to be the same as now. Not to mention it could be things like 1d3 or 1d6+1 instead of straight up d6.
Its hard to make any assumptions at this point but if templates are going away it would make sense that all template weapons will be resolved via D6. Maybe you are right, maybe flame template weapons will be resolved on 2D6 and you take the highest roll of the two. Perhaps grenade launchers/missile launchers will be D3 who knows. While codices may be going away, I think most weapons will still function in a similar manner that they do now.
I'd honestly prefer the av and str to remain as is. Otherwise we'll see grot blastas downing landraiders...eventually.
Don't think it'd happen. I think it's going to be more like in the new necromundula game. Str that still rolls vs toughness/av, damage (wounds) that the attack can deal - usually either 1, d3 or d6 or something like that, save modifiers instead of all-or-nothing ap values, short/long range of shooting with different to-hit bonuses or penalties for that. Oh, and sustained fire dice representing extra shots - but it can easilly be simplified back to assault2. Cover and size and other aspects give penalties to-hit. Basically, 2-d edition. Nothing wrong with it. If something, it's a better system than 5-6-7.
Grot mega blasta. It's kinda like a squadron of demolishers combining their shots into an apoc blast. I've always believed there's no problem that can't be fixed with adding more grots.
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.
Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone. The way its described, small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles but they have multiple wounds? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having armor in the first place? To negate small arms fire?
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?
I'm sorry but all of this sounds pretty
Complete opposite reaction:
All sounds good to me.
Codexes replaced with free downloads, well given the cost and content of 7th ed codexes that's welcome. I would be looking to buy campaign books and Battletomes when they come out because I like hard copy. Also praying for card packs for warscrolls nice and early.
Templates - bit meh either way - interestingly that's the way Bolt Action did it and lots of people liked but they have reverted back to templates which has had a mixed reaction.
Vehicle AV gone - if they merge vehicles and monsters and it works like AOS - massive result, Looking forward to seeing how the new Dwarf airships work as that should give a good steer. Add in lots of wounds, good armour and some special rules and it should be fine. I think it will be huge improvement on AV/Damage Tables that we have now.
I guess the effect of small arms is to mission kill the vehicle - so like modern insurgents can damage Main Battle Tanks viewing systems, kill crew etc
Armour save mod - hmm ok - happy either way - need to see the numbers.
Charging for vehicles - might just be stationary ones - have to see how it works.
We were told the same thing about AoS. Whoops, Battletomes (which now contain pretty much all you need).
I suspect the rumour from Naftka is someone's wishlist/made up tripe.
As ever, I am open to being wrong
One positive element of the AOS reboot was that initially at least everything had rules (good or bad) for the current edition. The limping on through editions with rules, play style and other aspects designed for a previous edition (or earlier) is and always was a stupid idea.
I am not a fan of electronic format as I have to print it out but I can def see the major plus points in an overall update rather than bits and pieces here and there.
True that - most armies were on a level playing field from the outset, but whether that still holds true is up to the individual (Sylvaneth for instance are really sneaky, but don't take too much putting down once you get your hands on them).
I'm a big fan of AoS - but I'm not convinced 40k needs such a large overhaul. For my money, Warhammer's flaws were as follows.
1. It was perceived to be an exclusively large scale game. This meant the perceived entry cost was high.
2. This wasn't really helped that the game just didn't pay off at low points (1,500 being the minimum for my tastes). Too few units, and there was no coming back from a single duff combat. So whilst I don't think point 1 is entirely accurate, it did require a decent investment to get things going.
3. It seemed having to buy models to fill out ranks didn't appeal. I can understand why - especially as you had to buy the same kit for the front rank.
4. The system was just old. 40k got a big old overhaul around 1998 when 3rd Ed gutted the rules, and sadly the background. But that did make the game a less laborious task. Warhammer? Well, barring how you cast spells, the core rules would be familiar to someone who hadn't played since Harry the Hammer first showed his face. Combat, shooting, movement - all virtually unchanged. Game design moved on, typically to swifter resolution.
40k?
Well, it mostly just needs a rules diet of some kind. I don't mind there being lots of rules, especially since Universal Special Rules are in the main rulebook. But with supplements containing various new units, new formations, new psychic powers, new weapons, new characters, new charts, new missions - it became too sprawling for most. Me, completest weirdo, so I have all the books (barring Blood Angels, Traitor Legions, Grey Knights and that new Imperial Traitor Legions equivalent).
The core of the game though is pretty much dandy for my needs. Scales up and down quite nicely. Yes I'd like to see some kind of restriction against the beardiest of army builds, but that's more a problem with the player than the game.
So absolutely needs work, just not the 'ground up' AoS was.
Regardless of outcome though, I'll still give it a whirl. Didn't think I'd enjoy AoS (first reaction to the new statline? 'WTF is this??'), but now I really, really love it. (YMMV. My enjoyment is mine alone. In a genuinely respectful way, IDGAF if you like it or not )
I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.
Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone. The way its described, small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles but they have multiple wounds? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having armor in the first place? To negate small arms fire?
If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?
I'm sorry but all of this sounds pretty
Templates were removed from AOS. Its pretty easy actually. Weapon hits. Roll damage. Apply damage. Templates usually do D6 wounds. Very easy. No stopping to align the template. No stopping to argue that you went 25 degrees instead of 28 degrees. No arguing that Bob's shoe lace is under the template and should be hit.
Vehicle armor hurt by small arms fire. Yeah. I don't hate it. Why? Because I don't like paper/rock/scissors extreme game play. I like that everything will be able to hurt everything, so that TFG can't bring an an entire counter army and win the game before the first die is cast in the list building phase.
Yep, I highly doubt that templates are getting removed, as GW has newer prettier templates in their SW:A boxes, and I don't think they would make new ones if they were going to be limited to one of 40k's spinoff games. (If you don't like my use of the word spinoff, deal with it )
All the others so-called rumors are either basically confirmed already (release date) or simple copy/pastes of AoS' rules. I'd safely wager that it's mostly phony baloney.
small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles
Well couldn't they just give heavily armoured vehicles a 0+ or 1+ armour save? Then you would need an armour piercing weapon with a rend value, i.e -1 or -2, to even hurt those vehicles making them immune to small arms.
My problem with the lack of armour values on vehicles is that is it reduces the value of positional play if there in no advance to getting behind or on the flank of heavily armoured vehicles the days of blazing away at the rear armour with your shoota boys hoping for a lucky six have gone :-(
small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles
Well couldn't they just give heavily armoured vehicles a 0+ or 1+ armour save? Then you would need an armour piercing weapon with a rend value, i.e -1 or -2, to even hurt those vehicles making them immune to small arms.
My problem with the lack of armour values on vehicles is that is it reduces the value of positional play if there in no advance to getting behind or on the flank of heavily armoured vehicles the days of blazing away at the rear armour with your shoota boys hoping for a lucky six have gone :-(
Nothing to say that a vehicle doesn't have different saves from different angles.
I love the idea of vehicles being high wound count, high save models.
insaniak wrote: Hard to make any judgement on that without knowing what other rules go along with it.
...
That's if these are even legit to begin with.
This right here! We don't know exactly what the rules are going to be, or what is getting exactly changed. We need to stop evaluating the rules as if they are going to be just added into the current rulebook. Don't just blindly see something and think about how it doesn't work becuase the game might trouble handling it. Rather, think about how other rules might be changed to fit around it.
I don't listen to or follow rumors, like, EVER, anymore. It's just not worth it. Glaring grammar and spelling issues aside, I just don't get anything out of following the rumors. Some might be right, many are wrong, and some are forgotten that end up correct later. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Even if I had the time to read the news and rumor sites like I used to, I wouldn't. Aside from what the companies officially release on their own, I don't care. We will get what we get. If I like it, great! If not, I'll move on or wait for the next edition, or let GW know how I feel about it.
In any case, I am eager to see what the future holds for 40K. I have been thoroughly enjoying AoS as of late, and only play with certain players anymore regardless of any game system; a new edition of 40K (or Warmahordes, or WHFB, or AoS) will not change that.
Why not have a single T value and a single save value? MCs don't have multiple values despite also not being totally homogenous in their 'armour' or vulnerability layout.
When people talk about simplifying 40k, you have to look at the rules that aren't adding any depth to the game and just slow it down at the scale it works at. With the giant stomping robots and 50+ model blobs moving around the table, worrying about a few degrees of facings to see if you shoot at AV14 or AV13 is just a waste of everyone's time.
If the game was smaller and worried more about positions and facings of individual models, then sure, it would make sense to have multiple values for everything, but now we're basically describing a squad based game with less than a dozen models, or an RPG style game where you track the damage across your body.
It doesn't make much sense to keep facings with multiple armour values in the game for a single unit type that doesn't even matter much anyways.
Blacksails wrote: Why not have a single T value and a single save value? MCs don't have multiple values despite also not being totally homogenous in their 'armour' or vulnerability layout.
When people talk about simplifying 40k, you have to look at the rules that aren't adding any depth to the game and just slow it down at the scale it works at. With the giant stomping robots and 50+ model blobs moving around the table, worrying about a few degrees of facings to see if you shoot at AV14 or AV13 is just a waste of everyone's time.
If the game was smaller and worried more about positions and facings of individual models, then sure, it would make sense to have multiple values for everything, but now we're basically describing a squad based game with less than a dozen models, or an RPG style game where you track the damage across your body.
It doesn't make much sense to keep facings with multiple armour values in the game for a single unit type that doesn't even matter much anyways.
And we could remove measuring and make the game grid-based. I quite like that you can get into the back of a large thing and hit a weak point. But I also think it should be like that on MCs. I feel it does add to the game.
As far as the "toughness value" thing, I am sort of hoping Toughness goes away. I want the fixed chance to wound depending on weapon and would rather see vehicles balanced by enormous wound pools.
As far as the "toughness value" thing, I am sort of hoping Toughness goes away. I want the fixed chance to wound depending on weapon and would rather see vehicles balanced by enormous wound pools.
´
this just won't work without adding more special rules.
like a guard lasgun always wounds on 5+, no ASM and just 1 wound, a phantom knight has 2+ armour, cost 300 points
a grot has 6+ armour, cost 5 points
to balance that out the knight would need to have more than 100 health point
or you need to add a special rule that represent toughness and the knight has -3 to wound rolls while the grot has +2
but than you could alos just add the defensive roll on the knight, "is wounded on 6+" instead of lasgun always wounds on 5+
worrying about a few degrees of facings to see if you shoot at AV14 or AV13 is just a waste of everyone's time.
Yes that is a fair point actually.
When I think about the times that the directional armour system has both mattered and created an interesting narrative they are pretty few and far between.
It does make the game slighter cooler, but the amount of faffing around is probably not worth it.
like a guard lasgun always wounds on 5+, no ASM and just 1 wound, a phantom knight has 2+ armour, cost 300 points
a grot has 6+ armour, cost 5 points
to balance that out the knight would need to have more than 100 health point
That logical leap would only work if the grot and the phantom knight had the same killing potential. No, it would not need 100 wounds, because the offensive value of the knight is ridiculously higher than the grot, their points aren't balanced around solely their amount of wounds.. It would need a lot of wounds, but not 100.
No because S vs T is rigid, unchangeable and gets in bloat issues.
In AoS basic guys cost more points. B
Bring balance closer by taking down the extremes people. 1 knight shouldn't be equal to 60 grots. Yes the grots will oversaturate the knights defences and attack capabilities unless he takes out like 10 a turn.
For vehicles you might want to have a seperate to wound value on your weapon. Who is complaining about the survavability of dreadnoughts right now vs cawl or celestine or even FMC?. Only one of these can be hurt by lasguns note it's the others that are way to survavible.
Facing works best/(only) with square or rectangular vehicles but the amount of arguments I have had about eldar vehicles? disastrous.
I'd be perfectly happy if lasguns had a flat to hit roll of 5+ that was improved by unit size and orders etc, and a flat to wound roll of 4+ with no rend. When shooting at a target with a 3+ save (say, a tank), ten of them will only score 0.56 wounds on it. A 56% of scoring only a single wound on a model that will probably have 6-12 wounds. A wound which an engineer model willl probably heal too. That's not going to destroy any tank anytime soon.
That logical leap would only work if the grot and the phantom knight had the same killing potential. No, it would not need 100 wounds, because the offensive value of the knight is ridiculously higher than the grot, their points aren't balanced around solely their amount of wounds.. It would need a lot of wounds, but not 100.
than give him just 50 wounds and the possibility to kill 30 models a turn
would be the same
if you just thinking of "more wounds" is 10-15, this will never work unless the game is scaled down by 50% of its size and stuff like superheavys is removed.
just removing the defence won't be compensated by decreasing the chance to hit by 50%.
That logical leap would only work if the grot and the phantom knight had the same killing potential. No, it would not need 100 wounds, because the offensive value of the knight is ridiculously higher than the grot, their points aren't balanced around solely their amount of wounds.. It would need a lot of wounds, but not 100.
than give him just 50 wounds and the possibility to kill 30 models a turn
would be the same
if you just thinking of "more wounds" is 10-15, this will never work unless the game is scaled down by 50% of its size and stuff like superheavys is removed.
just removing the defence won't be compensated by decreasing the chance to hit by 50%.
You could only roll it all into one roll if you start using D20 or higher. A D6 doesn't allow for that without every model being basically the same, and it would be a math challenge to figure out what you're rolling in order to take everything into account before you can roll it.
You don't have to remove it, just rebalance it.
You're gonna need to give some real examples though, with some math, if you want to shut down the idea completely. I'm just spitballing, but you're saying anything along those lines is impossible. It's not, though. AoS is doing fine enough, and the huge models like Nagash aren't suffering. It's not quite comparable, but it certainly proves that it can be done.
I don't listen to or follow rumors, like, EVER, anymore. It's just not worth it. Glaring grammar and spelling issues aside, I just don't get anything out of following the rumors. Some might be right, many are wrong, and some are forgotten that end up correct later. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Even if I had the time to read the news and rumor sites like I used to, I wouldn't. Aside from what the companies officially release on their own, I don't care. We will get what we get. If I like it, great! If not, I'll move on or wait for the next edition, or let GW know how I feel about it.
This times a million.
Speculation, counter speculation, emotional reactions to speculative rumor. About 95% waste of energy if you ask me.
You could only roll it all into one roll if you start using D20 or higher. A D6 doesn't allow for that without every model being basically the same, and it would be a math challenge to figure out what you're rolling in order to take everything into account before you can roll it.
math need to be done by the designer
but yeah, a D20 would be better for such a system
that is the reason why AoS use so much buffs and re-rolls because the basic profile with to fixed rolls make all models the same
and 40K does not use buffs, rerolls and special rules?
d20 might be better but don't underestimate the weight of more dice. Are there no apps you can use? or quickly add/substract and discard the wrong dice? rolling 60 dice and quickly gettting rid of the fails/ succeses is not hard.
The funny thing I always find with these discussions, is many of the rules 'suggested' often are more bloated and confusing than the rules people imagine they are replacing.
ImhoGW should either completely revamp the rules from the ground up or return to most of the core features introduced in 3rd.
Then and only then should rule exceptions, buffs, neg modifiers etc be discussed.
Also I think GW needs to get out of this idea of only using D6's in their core games. I think D6's and D10's would be enough.
d20 might be better but don't underestimate the weight of more dice. Are there no apps you can use? or quickly add/substract and discard the wrong dice? rolling 60 dice and quickly gettting rid of the fails/ succeses is not hard.
this is not the problem
the problem is to add a dice roll just to pretend that the rules are more complex than they really are
eg the tactical Space Marines hits in 3+, wounds on 4+ and has 2 attacks
the Assault Marine hits on 4+, wounds on 3+ and has 2 attacks
and the Marine with different rules just roll to hit on 3+ and has 1 attack
all 3 are basically the same and not comparable to something were the to wound roll depends on the target they attack
the one thing is, there is no easy way to replace a S VS T system from 1-10 by a fixed D6 roll without modifications
you need either roll against the defence and modify it with your strength, or with your strength and modify it with the defence
if there is no modification, you will always end up with less difference than before and more units will be basically the same
Baldeagle91 wrote: The funny thing I always find with these discussions, is many of the rules 'suggested' often are more bloated and confusing than the rules people imagine they are replacing.
Also I think GW needs to get out of this idea of only using D6's in their core games. I think D6's and D10's would be enough.
Uh, no. GW needs to do either all D6s or all D10s. Mixing them is madness. Also, irony, thy name is Baldeagle91.
And we could remove measuring and make the game grid-based.
Sure? If you really want to.
I quite like that you can get into the back of a large thing and hit a weak point. But I also think it should be like that on MCs. I feel it does add to the game.
Its a question of both consistency and value. If you're going to have, might as well make it a mechanic that is common enough to actually matter to most armies. The value aspect comes from how much the rule actually matters in any given game. Rear AV will almost exclusively be used for assaults and most vehicles have the same or similar side armour to their front armour, making those arc differences minimal. Common vehicles, like Rhinos, Eldar tanks, and Knights either have the same front and side, or 1 point difference, which I'd argue will be fairly negligible given the weapons the players are usually using on those targets anyways.
Game player would be quicker with a single value without losing out on much tactical value. Let's be honest, its rarely the enemy player trying to get flanks on a vehicle as it is the controlling player making an informed decision to point their strongest facings towards the biggest threats. Given the scale of the game and the 'cinematic' nature people always seem to want, it would take away the silliness of building walls of vehicles that move sideways across the battlefield.
If the game was much smaller where a single tank was the majority of your force, then you could implement proper vehicle movement rules and differing armour values which would add a layer of tactics, but 40k is too large and bloated for that.
As far as the "toughness value" thing, I am sort of hoping Toughness goes away. I want the fixed chance to wound depending on weapon and would rather see vehicles balanced by enormous wound pools.
Ehhhh, mixed feelings. I'd totally buy that a lasgun has no business damaging many of the more powerful vehicles in the game, but it would help buff the generally useless infantry basic weapons. Ideally, you would classify the weapons as 'anti-infantry' and 'anti-armour' or similar, which would provide bonuses and drawbacks against unit types.
And we could remove measuring and make the game grid-based.
Sure? If you really want to.
I quite like that you can get into the back of a large thing and hit a weak point. But I also think it should be like that on MCs. I feel it does add to the game.
Its a question of both consistency and value. If you're going to have, might as well make it a mechanic that is common enough to actually matter to most armies. The value aspect comes from how much the rule actually matters in any given game. Rear AV will almost exclusively be used for assaults and most vehicles have the same or similar side armour to their front armour, making those arc differences minimal. Common vehicles, like Rhinos, Eldar tanks, and Knights either have the same front and side, or 1 point difference, which I'd argue will be fairly negligible given the weapons the players are usually using on those targets anyways.
Game player would be quicker with a single value without losing out on much tactical value. Let's be honest, its rarely the enemy player trying to get flanks on a vehicle as it is the controlling player making an informed decision to point their strongest facings towards the biggest threats. Given the scale of the game and the 'cinematic' nature people always seem to want, it would take away the silliness of building walls of vehicles that move sideways across the battlefield.
If the game was much smaller where a single tank was the majority of your force, then you could implement proper vehicle movement rules and differing armour values which would add a layer of tactics, but 40k is too large and bloated for that.
As far as the "toughness value" thing, I am sort of hoping Toughness goes away. I want the fixed chance to wound depending on weapon and would rather see vehicles balanced by enormous wound pools.
Ehhhh, mixed feelings. I'd totally buy that a lasgun has no business damaging many of the more powerful vehicles in the game, but it would help buff the generally useless infantry basic weapons. Ideally, you would classify the weapons as 'anti-infantry' and 'anti-armour' or similar, which would provide bonuses and drawbacks against unit types.
That only works one way. If a meltagun pierces land raider armor imagine what it would do to a guardsman.
Blacksails wrote: Ehhhh, mixed feelings. I'd totally buy that a lasgun has no business damaging many of the more powerful vehicles in the game, but it would help buff the generally useless infantry basic weapons. Ideally, you would classify the weapons as 'anti-infantry' and 'anti-armour' or similar, which would provide bonuses and drawbacks against unit types.
I tried that method myself once. I went a step further. Everything would have a to hit score for ground targets and a separate score for air targets, then a to wound score for 'light' targets and then again for 'heavy' targets'. Something like this:
It seems like most of the vehicles that have a significant disparity between front, side and rear AV also tend to be boxier and easier to figure out what facing is being shot at. I'm probably just forgetting about a lot of vehicles though.
They might just be able to throw in a special rule on some tanks that gives them a lower save and/or toughness against rear attacks.
I think fixed to hit and wound with modifiers and a save with modifiers would work quite well if implemented correctly. I also think it could make for a variety of types of durability. That while thematic might end up the same mathematically in some cases.
If say a space marine always hits on a 3+ in shooting and his bolter always wounds on a 4+ with no save modifier. You could make Rhinos durable against that type of shooting by giving them things like -2 to wound rolls, and a 2+ save and say 10 wounds. This would mean a bolter would need a 3+ to hit, but a 6+ to wounds and then a 2+ save. This would give s bolter a 1.85% chance to wound. Which is better than it can do against anything but rear armor now, but more durable than rear armor. Given this it would take ~50 bolter shots to do one wound, or 500 to kill a rhino. You could also easily put in to hit modifiers based on movement (+1 to hit if the vehicle is stationary, -1 if it moved 12"). You could then make things like lascannons wound on a 0+ with a -5 to save. Then a lascannon would hit on a 3+, wound on a 2+ and only allow a 6+ save, wounding 46% of the time. Then have each wound cause D3 wounds (or 2 wounds if you want less random) This would also mean that a lascannon that hits basically always kills most infantry models (auto-wound, almost always no save) That would mean 10 lascannon shots would typically kill a rhino.
So obviously tweaking could happen to these stats (maybe only 5 wounds for a rhino, maybe only a 3+ save etc), but I think it would work quite well.
It would also allow things like wyches to have a negative hit modifier to make them hard to hit but easy to wound, which would be fluffier than what they are now.
Now this doesn't necessarily make the game less complicated, but it might make it easier for people to learn as you only need to know your own stats and not a table on how they compare.
Player A - "Ok I hit on 3s"
Player B - "my unit has a -2 modifier to that roll, so that is 5s to hit"
Makes more sense to a new player than
Player A -"I'm WS 10"
Player B - "I'm WS 2 so you hit on 3s"
Player A - "But my WS 3 guys hit you on 3s as well."
Predator Wnds: 10 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Autocannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3+1 Rend: -1
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons
Land Raider Wnds: 14 Move: 10" Save: 2+
Lascannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -2
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons
At 14 wounds at a 2+ armor save 1+ vs Rend 0 weapons.This also assumes that items that are 1+ are immune to attacks basically from that weapon type.
Rules wise that would become extremely easy to remember. There would be very little argument over it.
Something with 14 wounds and a 2+ armor would have to take a huge amount of attacks to take it down in a game. That would be much more satisfying for your 250+ point item then what it is now.
I'd be inclined to put the to hit on the model not the weapon, that way different models can hit different with the same weapon, so weapon statlines need not change from model to model.
If they keep all statlines that same as they are written in the codices (which they have stated will still be valid publications for 8th), I wouldn't mind an altered 'To hit' and 'To wound' charts. Basically keep them as they are now, but put some 2s on the 'to hit' and more 6s on the 'to wound. Meaning that units with much higher WS can hit on 2+ instead of 3+, possibly at the same "double +1" threshold that require low WS units to hit on 5+ So a WS2 model will hit a WS5+ model on 5+ as they do now, but that WS5+ model will be able to hit the WS2 model on a 2+. You would therefore need WS9 to hit Marines on 2+
Currently str 4 attacks wound as such vs: T4= 4+, T5= 5+, T6= 6+. T7= 6+, T8= cannot wound. I think it would go a long way if str4 could actually wound T8 on a 6. Likewise allowing str3 to wound T7 Add in Armour save modifiers using the current AP values and suddenly Marines can actually hurt WKs without spamming Grav.
Breng77 wrote: It would also allow things like wyches to have a negative hit modifier to make them hard to hit but easy to wound, which would be fluffier than what they are now.
Now this doesn't necessarily make the game less complicated, but it might make it easier for people to learn as you only need to know your own stats and not a table on how they compare.
Player A - "Ok I hit on 3s"
Player B - "my unit has a -2 modifier to that roll, so that is 5s to hit"
When people first started talking about fixed to-hit and to-wound rolls in 40k it struck me as a really bad idea, but now I think with appropriate modifiers it could be pretty cool.
A guardsmen shouldn't have the same chance to hit a Howling Banshee Exarch in melee as they do to hit a Fire Warrior, but the Exarch or other high WS models could be given a "parry" ability or something that gives other models a negative modifier to hit them in close combat. One cool effect of this is it might better represent big ol' monsters like carnifexes and ork warbosses. I imagine a carnifex taking big, scything swings or a warboss throwing haymakers with a powerfist might be difficult to dodge or parry, but at the same time they wouldn't necessarily be hard to hit. I don't imagine a carnifex would sit there using the tip of its talon to parry chainsword strikes. (To be fair giving a carnifex a higher WS in the current system could represent the difficulty of getting past all of its scything talons laying waste in every direction.)
If they are having charging units go first a "parry" rule could interact with unwieldy weapons. So maybe a Space Marine Captain with a Thunder Hammer no longer strikes last but he loses out on his parry ability.
I'm not saying that's what they'll do or that's what they should do, I'm just saying there's a lot of things they could potentially do and I'm pretty excited. My fears mostly revolve around changes to the fluff rather than changes to the rules.
Eldarain wrote: Where was it stated that existing books would be valid for 8th?
I thought I read back several pages that GW stated this at Adepticon or a similar event. If true, that really limits what rumors we can believe. It is entirely possible to add Move Stats to existing units via an Errata, just as they did when Hull points were added to the game.
It makes perfect sense for them to keep the books because they have released so dang many in the recent 2 years and the backlash that happened after AoS. It would only make business sense to keep all the codices & supplements valid and just alter the main rule around them. It might be harder to rebalance everything, but it is entirely possible with key main rules changes. Really it could look like a completely different game and still use the same stats that exist in the codices
As long as the changes are meaningful and not just GW Tzeentchian change for changes sake that would be nice. Have entirely too many books that could be invalidated.
Predator Wnds: 10 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Autocannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3+1 Rend: -1
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons
Land Raider Wnds: 14 Move: 10" Save: 2+
Lascannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -2
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons
At 14 wounds at a 2+ armor save 1+ vs Rend 0 weapons.This also assumes that items that are 1+ are immune to attacks basically from that weapon type.
Rules wise that would become extremely easy to remember. There would be very little argument over it.
Something with 14 wounds and a 2+ armor would have to take a huge amount of attacks to take it down in a game. That would be much more satisfying for your 250+ point item then what it is now.
nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.
Eldarain wrote: Where was it stated that existing books would be valid for 8th?
I thought I read back several pages that GW stated this at Adepticon or a similar event. If true, that really limits what rumors we can believe. It is entirely possible to add Move Stats to existing units via an Errata, just as they did when Hull points were added to the game.
It makes perfect sense for them to keep the books because they have released so dang many in the recent 2 years and the backlash that happened after AoS.
It would only make business sense to keep all the codices & supplements valid and just alter the main rule around them.
It might be harder to rebalance everything, but it is entirely possible with key main rules changes.
Really it could look like a completely different game and still use the same stats that exist in the codices
-
I think it is important that all units remain valid, but I would hope that if rules changes are large all codices would be invalidated similar to AOS. IF well thought out data slates were released free for all units it would be fine. The problem with trying to keep all codices etc valid is that is exactly what leads to balance issues. It is ridiculously hard to balance codex releases especially when they cross editions.
Eldarain wrote: Where was it stated that existing books would be valid for 8th?
I thought I read back several pages that GW stated this at Adepticon or a similar event. If true, that really limits what rumors we can believe. It is entirely possible to add Move Stats to existing units via an Errata, just as they did when Hull points were added to the game.
It makes perfect sense for them to keep the books because they have released so dang many in the recent 2 years and the backlash that happened after AoS.
It would only make business sense to keep all the codices & supplements valid and just alter the main rule around them.
It might be harder to rebalance everything, but it is entirely possible with key main rules changes.
Really it could look like a completely different game and still use the same stats that exist in the codices
-
I don't remember seeing this assertion anywhere. If you can find it, let me know.
I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.
Predator Wnds: 10 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Autocannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3+1 Rend: -1
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons
Land Raider Wnds: 14 Move: 10" Save: 2+
Lascannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -2
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons
At 14 wounds at a 2+ armor save 1+ vs Rend 0 weapons.This also assumes that items that are 1+ are immune to attacks basically from that weapon type.
Rules wise that would become extremely easy to remember. There would be very little argument over it.
Something with 14 wounds and a 2+ armor would have to take a huge amount of attacks to take it down in a game. That would be much more satisfying for your 250+ point item then what it is now.
nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.
sounds like a good idea
What makes you think they could do it in 1 round. If we go with his numbers if lasguns are Rend 0 they cannot hurt it at all without heavy weapons. But if they have rend -1 but hit on 4s wound on 5s and are single shot, it would take 252 lasgun shots to do 14 wounds. SO how many lists have 252 guardsman? Even if they have 2 shots how many have 125 guardsman, and if they do at 5 points each why is it a problem to have 625 points of guardsman shooting at a single 250 point target having the ability to kill it? Also what are the odds of all of those models to have range and LOS? What if cover makes it harder to hit?
Breng77 wrote: The problem with trying to keep all codices etc valid is that is exactly what leads to balance issues. It is ridiculously hard to balance codex releases especially when they cross editions.
Only if GW doesn't quickly update those older armies. I have been though 3 edition changes and each time (except 6th to 7th) the overall affect was a decent rebalance and shake up of the army power levels. GW has proven recently that they can rapid-fire releases, so initially releasing just a new edition, then new codices over a few months is very possible.
And I might add preferable. "Free" dataslates are not actually free as they require the purchase of a Tablet or similar device. And digital rules are inferior to hard copy. I haven't met a person able to scroll to a rule faster than I can flip to a page.
I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.
As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.
Breng77 wrote: The problem with trying to keep all codices etc valid is that is exactly what leads to balance issues. It is ridiculously hard to balance codex releases especially when they cross editions.
Only if GW doesn't quickly update those older armies. I have been though 3 edition changes and each time (except 6th to 7th) the overall affect was a decent rebalance and shake up of the army power levels. GW has proven recently that they can rapid-fire releases, so initially releasing just a new edition, then new codices over a few months is very possible.
And I might add preferable. "Free" dataslates are not actually free as they require the purchase of a Tablet or similar device. And digital rules are inferior to hard copy.
I haven't met a person able to scroll to a rule faster than I can flip to a page.
I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.
As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.
-
Well, since that is a practical impossibility, you might as well just say you don't approve.
I didn't mind when they did it for 3rd edition and I won't mind now. Sometimes you've just got to sweep it all away and start over again.
I don't think anything less would reignite my passion for the game.
The real problem with using old codexes comes in with what order do you do them in?
So, if you create a Space Marine 8th edition codex first. Then the Tyranid players still suffering with the 6th edition codex have rules that make absolutely no sense. After all right now in 7th edition, their psychic rules are actually non-sense.
But, if they release a Warscroll for each model they have right now, it becomes a much faster and smoother turn over. At that point, they can release hard/soft cover books at a good rate without anyone simply not having their army for a year.
Youn wrote: The real problem with using old codexes comes in with what order do you do them in?
So, if you create a Space Marine 8th edition codex first. Then the Tyranid players still suffering with the 6th edition codex have rules that make absolutely no sense. After all right now in 7th edition, their psychic rules are actually non-sense.
But, if they release a Warscroll for each model they have right now, it becomes a much faster and smoother turn over. At that point, they can release hard/soft cover books at a good rate without anyone simply not having their army for a year.
In both 2nd and 3rd edition, they scrapped previous books and included army lists in the boxed set, which worked as serviceable rules for all the models until Codices were released.
I think Digital Warscroll style is pretty likely considering how they handled AoS and Shadow War.
Galef wrote: "Free" dataslates are not actually free as they require the purchase of a Tablet or similar device. And digital rules are inferior to hard copy.
I haven't met a person able to scroll to a rule faster than I can flip to a page.
Its free if you already have a tablet (and many can and do have tablets without having any need from wargames), and its relatively cheap to print out just the dataslates (significantly less so than it would cost to purchase a new codex).
I'd also submit that, while it is probably faster to flip to a page than scroll for a rule, that dynamic shifts when you need to flip through 5 separate rulebooks to find all the rules you needs for one particular unit, compared to a single dataslate.
If they're keeping all the existing rule books as viable, the latter is going to be the rule, rather than the exception.
By and by, any luck finding the source for the "GW will keep all their existing codexes as viable when the rules change" statement?
As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.-
That first option isn't happening. You know it. I know it.
That said, I don't think it would be unreasonable for GW to provide the option of purchasing (at or near cost of producing/distributing) a decent quality printout of the dataslates they initially release, or add that to the Basic Rule Book purchase (which would almost certainly be included as part of the cost for buying the Basic Rule Book).
I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.
As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.-
Breng77 wrote: The problem with trying to keep all codices etc valid is that is exactly what leads to balance issues. It is ridiculously hard to balance codex releases especially when they cross editions.
Only if GW doesn't quickly update those older armies. I have been though 3 edition changes and each time (except 6th to 7th) the overall affect was a decent rebalance and shake up of the army power levels. GW has proven recently that they can rapid-fire releases, so initially releasing just a new edition, then new codices over a few months is very possible.
And I might add preferable. "Free" dataslates are not actually free as they require the purchase of a Tablet or similar device. And digital rules are inferior to hard copy.
I haven't met a person able to scroll to a rule faster than I can flip to a page.
I sure hope they are NOT valid after 8th. Those books are half of what is wrong with 40k right now.
As long as GW provides IMMEDIATE, hard copy, free or at least VERY cheap replacements for all the existing army rules, yeah sure, I too hope they reboot 40K.
-
I remember 5th to 6th and 6th to 7th and don't really remember a great rebalancing some armies were still terrible. Some remained bad across several editions, some were broken across several editions. In the past entire armies have gone editions without update while others were updated multiple times. I've seen no evidence to suggest that GW can release all new codices at edition release or that people would be happy to buy them. As for requiring a tablet, the AOS stuff was PDF, so all you need is a printer and a binder. So not free
But cheaper than buying multiple codices or supplements again.
I wouldn't mind a ruleset that included the datasheets for all existing units print within the rulebook. If 8th ed is simple enough (like AOS with 4 pages of rules) than this would be entirely possible. I actually started with GW by playing the Lord of the Rings game, and that is how they did this
If only up to a dozen or less pages are dedicated to the main rules and the new profiles for units are small enough to fit several per page, a single 100-200 page book could include all of the current 40K units (especially since Marines/Imperium would share so many units that could just apply a "faction rule" to give flavor to the different Chapters)
EDIT: Did I just basically describe the General's Handbook? AoS left a bad taste in my mouth when it killed Fantasy, and even though it now sounds like a much better game, I haven't picked it up.
2nd edit: SIde question: If GW has 40K 8th ed already planned out (which I think they do), than why do all the newest 40K kits have all the unit profiles/rules printed in the instructions? That seems odd to go through all the trouble to print all those instructions for part of them to be invalid within a few months.
The General's handbook really serves as the point costs for all units that exist in the game. In theory, those should have been printed in the upper right corner of each warscroll when they were originally created but, you know... noone is perfect.
There of course is alot more other stuff in that handbook.
If they have stated that the codexes are still valid (I don't see how that can be possible) then i think half of these rumors can't happen since an AOS-like stat change would invalidate most every unit sheet. This is what has me confused. It could just be adding some stats back like Shadow War has, but that's not "AOS level changes" like most of these rumormongers state.
Galef wrote: I wouldn't mind a ruleset that included the datasheets for all existing units print within the rulebook.
If 8th ed is simple enough (like AOS with 4 pages of rules) than this would be entirely possible. I actually started with GW by playing the Lord of the Rings game, and that is how they did this
That's how they did 3d Edition. There were rules for every army in the BRB. Granted, they were pretty vanilla, but at least you could start playing right away. (Even the initial 3rd Ed. codexes were a little bland, IMO, until they started releasing supplements and 3.5 books.)
I think printable free PDF warscrolls on rollout are a better solution than including everything in the BRB. It might cost a little more for a few people (I don't own a printer) but it would keep the size and cost of the core rulebook down.
Old books getting invalidated sucks, but sometimes it is necessary. I've got piles of invalid Warhammer books. I've got a stack of 3/3.5 D&D books that is probably four feet tall. I think that any relatively complex rules system that relies on printed books probably will need a total reboot* every once in a while. By moving towards digital rules it might actually keep them from having to invalidate so many books in the future. I hope they do publish printed books, but I think if they do we will have to expect them to have a shorter shelf life than digital rules (although we might be able to print off updates).
*Reboot of the rules, not of the story/setting.
One possibility is that 8th Edition might be a transitional edition that is not around for a long time. It might be only halfway towards GW's end goal, but would allow them to keep around the existing books for another year or two. They could publish cheap/free codex updates and campaign books (like the Gathering Storm series) that help get us used to the way that the new rules are going to work. This lets them ease us into things and will help keep people who bought some of the newer rule books (like GSC and Traitor Legions) from feeling cheated. Then, in a year or two they could roll out 9th Edition with more radical changes.
nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.
sounds like a good idea
Please do some math before making such statements. It would be almost unkillable with lasgun fire. 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, saves on anything but a 1. That would take 252 lasguns shots to take down statistically and something around 126 bolter shots? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.
sounds like a good idea
Please do some math before making such statements. It would be almost unkillable with lasgun fire. 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, saves on anything but a 1. That would take 252 lasguns shots to take down statistically and something around 126 bolter shots? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
yep, sounds good to me too; land raiders are meant to be durable, not indestructible. If you pour a billion shots into them, and it goes poof fair game... and if you have some 1 out of 10 000 fluke where a small squad manages to do it, then that's also fine and fun.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: Old books getting invalidated sucks, but sometimes it is necessary. I've got piles of invalid Warhammer books. I've got a stack of 3/3.5 D&D books that is probably four feet tall. I think that any relatively complex rules system that relies on printed books probably will need a total reboot* every once in a while. By moving towards digital rules it might actually keep them from having to invalidate so many books in the future. I hope they do publish printed books, but I think if they do we will have to expect them to have a shorter shelf life than digital rules (although we might be able to print off updates).
*Reboot of the rules, not of the story/setting.
One possibility is that 8th Edition might be a transitional edition that is not around for a long time. It might be only halfway towards GW's end goal, but would allow them to keep around the existing books for another year or two. They could publish cheap/free codex updates and campaign books (like the Gathering Storm series) that help get us used to the way that the new rules are going to work. This lets them ease us into things and will help keep people who bought some of the newer rule books (like GSC and Traitor Legions) from feeling cheated. Then, in a year or two they could roll out 9th Edition with more radical changes.
I have nearly all of the D&D 4th edition books sitting on my bookshelves, along with all my softback, black and white, 5th edition Codexes (Codices?), WHFB Army Books, some outdated Forge World Imperial Armor books, and various hardback 40K Codexes that were outdated more recently than Chaos Marines, such as Eldar, Tau, and the first Imperial Knight Codexes. I have all 3 Necron Codexes. I even got a really old Tyranid Codex (4th edition, I think) that is a lot of fun to look at.
If the rules get changed, then publications will get invalidated. That is okay. It has been happening longer than I can remember for 40K, and I don't see it stopping. Yes, it sucks that you spent money on something that is no longer current, but it's not the end of the world.
I like the idea that 8th edition might be transitional; I had not thought of that before. Kind of makes sense though, since that is basically what 6th edition ended up being.
2nd edit: SIde question: If GW has 40K 8th ed already planned out (which I think they do), than why do all the newest 40K kits have all the unit profiles/rules printed in the instructions? That seems odd to go through all the trouble to print all those instructions for part of them to be invalid within a few months.
-
That doesn't seem odd to me at all, particularly if the rumors are true that the dataslates will be available for free.
Why?
IF the dataslates will be available for free, then the inclusion of the new rules in the box would be absolutely meaningless (and would be a spoiler for the new rules for a new edition), and would not allow those units to be used in the existing 7th edition game (which is still the current edition, and the only edition that can be played until the 8th edition is actually released).
GW, in that case, would have every incentive to include the rules for the current edition (which would make those units immediately playable) and every incentive not to bother including the rules for 8th edition (which would spoil rules changes and remain unplayable at the moment, likely reducing sales).
Vehicle AV gone - if they merge vehicles and monsters and it works like AOS - massive result, Looking forward to seeing how the new Dwarf airships work as that should give a good steer. Add in lots of wounds, good armour and some special rules and it should be fine. I think it will be huge improvement on AV/Damage Tables that we have now.
I guess the effect of small arms is to mission kill the vehicle - so like modern insurgents can damage Main Battle Tanks viewing systems, kill crew etc
For me that would be a really lame change as AV system is one of the things 40k has going for it, it is both intuitive and realistic. If vehicles get an MC profile, I would not even play that edition. Tanks are salt of the game and if they are not properly modelled, I won't bother.
Not too hot about removing Templates either. I think they are a cool mechanic and rolling for scatter is always fun.
2nd edit: SIde question: If GW has 40K 8th ed already planned out (which I think they do), than why do all the newest 40K kits have all the unit profiles/rules printed in the instructions? That seems odd to go through all the trouble to print all those instructions for part of them to be invalid within a few months.
-
They're all going to need new instructions when the kits all get re-branded for the new edition anyway, so it doesn't really matter what they put on them now.
2nd edit: SIde question: If GW has 40K 8th ed already planned out (which I think they do), than why do all the newest 40K kits have all the unit profiles/rules printed in the instructions? That seems odd to go through all the trouble to print all those instructions for part of them to be invalid within a few months.
-
They're all going to need new instructions when the kits all get re-branded for the new edition anyway, so it doesn't really matter what they put on them now.
And it's hardly unprecedented. All the units released with Warhammer Fantasy End Times got rules. They were all invalidated.
Hell, they even invalidated the bases that came in many of the boxes.
Vehicle AV gone - if they merge vehicles and monsters and it works like AOS - massive result, Looking forward to seeing how the new Dwarf airships work as that should give a good steer. Add in lots of wounds, good armour and some special rules and it should be fine. I think it will be huge improvement on AV/Damage Tables that we have now.
I guess the effect of small arms is to mission kill the vehicle - so like modern insurgents can damage Main Battle Tanks viewing systems, kill crew etc
For me that would be a really lame change as AV system is one of the things 40k has going for it, it is both intuitive and realistic. If vehicles get an MC profile, I would not even play that edition. Tanks are salt of the game and if they are not properly modelled, I won't bother. .
Do you think Tanks are modelled correctly under the current system - especially when compared to M. Creatures? Personally I don't but you might? Tanks tend to be used mostly when they are free like for Marines.
The AOS system is pretty much the same as the current system except:
1) You represent the armour of a given vehicle with a "armour save" rather than a completely different mechanic which serves no real purpose. This should also make vehicles more resilient to mid range weapons like the infamous Eldar jet bike cheese.
2) Damage table is subsumed into the profile so as you take hits, the vehicle, monster, dreadnought, whatever becomes less and less viable - this is tailored to each individual model and so results in different profiles. Some such as say Possessed Khorne vehicles might become less "shooty" but more "fighty" as they become damaged and hence enraged.
3) Less tracking of results that are usually irrelevant because you are trying to take away its wounds - often by glancing.
In summary as I see it, if they do it right (and that's a big if) they change one stat to make the profile and vehicle rules conform with the rest of the rules set. Add in Wounds and armour saves to the vehicle profile and we are golden.
You can even have modifiers (if you really wanted) for hitting all or given vehicles in different arcs.
nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.
sounds like a good idea
Please do some math before making such statements. It would be almost unkillable with lasgun fire. 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, saves on anything but a 1. That would take 252 lasguns shots to take down statistically and something around 126 bolter shots? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
yep, sounds good to me too; land raiders are meant to be durable, not indestructible. If you pour a billion shots into them, and it goes poof fair game... and if you have some 1 out of 10 000 fluke where a small squad manages to do it, then that's also fine and fun.
Yup and personally I would rather someone be able to kill a land raider by shooting it with 252 lasguns, than what we have now where it can get taken out by a single lascannon. I remember games where one person got super lucky shooting vehicles and killed multiple land raiders on turn 1. Their lack of durability is one reason we see far fewer vehicles than we used to. Conversely in 5th vehicles were too durable in general (though you still had the lucky shot kills), I think making them similar to other models is a good choice. It also makes it easier to teach the game.
Vehicle AV gone - if they merge vehicles and monsters and it works like AOS - massive result, Looking forward to seeing how the new Dwarf airships work as that should give a good steer. Add in lots of wounds, good armour and some special rules and it should be fine. I think it will be huge improvement on AV/Damage Tables that we have now.
I guess the effect of small arms is to mission kill the vehicle - so like modern insurgents can damage Main Battle Tanks viewing systems, kill crew etc
For me that would be a really lame change as AV system is one of the things 40k has going for it, it is both intuitive and realistic. If vehicles get an MC profile, I would not even play that edition. Tanks are salt of the game and if they are not properly modelled, I won't bother. .
Do you think Tanks are modelled correctly under the current system - especially when compared to M. Creatures? Personally I don't but you might? Tanks tend to be used mostly when they are free like for Marines.
The AOS system is pretty much the same as the current system except:
1) You represent the armour of a given vehicle with a "armour save" rather than a completely different mechanic which serves no real purpose. This should also make vehicles more resilient to mid range weapons like the infamous Eldar jet bike cheese.
2) Damage table is subsumed into the profile so as you take hits, the vehicle, monster, dreadnought, whatever becomes less and less viable - this is tailored to each individual model and so results in different profiles. Some such as say Possessed Khorne vehicles might become less "shooty" but more "fighty" as they become damaged and hence enraged.
3) Less tracking of results that are usually irrelevant because you are trying to take away its wounds - often by glancing.
In summary as I see it, if they do it right (and that's a big if) they change one stat to make the profile and vehicle rules conform with the rest of the rules set. Add in Wounds and armour saves to the vehicle profile and we are golden.
You can even have modifiers (if you really wanted) for hitting all or given vehicles in different arcs.
Yup it is overall a way better system that is much less all or nothing. Right now you are either fully mobile, or immobile, with a weapon or without, dead or alive.
Yup it is overall a way better system that is much less all or nothing. Right now you are either fully mobile, or immobile, with a weapon or without, dead or alive.
The "zero or nothing" gameplay is incredibly boring. Either you shoot and shoot and do nothing, or you miraculously shoot one shot first round and a fourth of the enemy's points are gone before he even gets to have a turn. Would find it much more fun if you could sort of rely on your tank holding up 2 maybe even 3 turns, and then it'll be gone. Makes it much more possible to plan, and the gamble wouldn't be "should I buy this landraider and end up with a crater on my side of the map" but rather be "should I try to push it forward on the third turn or take the safe route and get out of it?"
On invalidating the Codex books; When you really look at it, the actual game crunch is just what, 10%, 20% of the books? I have no accurate number here, just guessing. But all the fluff will stay accurate of the setting in a new 8th edition doesn't change (much). If this is, what some sneaky git ( ) means by not invalidating the books, the entire rules system underneath may change, not even invalidating very recent additions such as the Gathering Storm books. I am, of course, not 'in the know', however. If the changes are actually only the addition of the old Movement characteristic and some other changes such as the AP system into an Armour Save Modifier, even that last part of the Codices remain valid. Such minor changes are, however, less likely to solve internal balance problems within individual codices. Nor problems with balance between codices.
And yes, I think I would feel somewhat cheated if the codices and other recent books are invalidated. Like Galef and many others here, I spent money on them. But it happens. That's the moment I can choose to remain playing the old system, switch to the new one, or an entirely different system altogether. Excrements happen.
On fixed target numbers; I wouldn't mind an AoS style fixed to hit number and to wound number. If this means a grot can harm a wraithknight, so be it. I can (narratively, of course) imagine how some grot manages to throw a rock into the foot joint. which narratively causes the wraithknight to stumble and fall, narratively smashing its fragile head dome to bits and shards, hence losing a wound or two. I do think this might solve the problems of having to bring all-come lists to rock-paper-scissors type games where specific counters are needed. I have seen mention of modifiers to indicate sturdiness or increased resilience, modifying the fixed to wound rolls upward. I wouldn't object to such changes. Besides, if this system also incorporates saving throws for vehicles and walkers, I wouldn't think grots would have too much of a chance to break through armour anyways.
On altered vehicle rules; If vehicles return to Wounds/Damage Capacity and a Toughess value and saves, I wouldn't mind. Combined with an AoS style 'increased damage effects' table, where loss of wounds/DC incurrs all manner of extra effects visible on a warscroll/datasheet this might both bring vehicles back in line with other models as far as rules go, and the tables might differentiate what happens to them in unprecedented ways. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.
On the setting; I love the setting. I wouldn't like it if they changed it too much. But there is also a problem with this statement. It is highly subjective. For me, the arrival of a daemon primarch and a loyalist primarch (and more on the way as the storm was just gathering) is exciting. Not something completely necessary, but it shakes the foundations of the setting, without completely blowing up the universe. I can only hope Leman Russ will return for the Wolf Time! (even if that implies End Times), but that is personal and shows my preference for Space Wolves. There is stil so much of the (intact) setting to fight and war in. There are still Tyranids eating Orks, and Imperial Fists far away from Terra bolter drilling Dark Eldar. Some new alliances appeared (Concaves, Ynnari, etc.), but you don't have to use them. Cadia falling is a blow, but it is not the end of all (yet).
In the end it all comes down to preferences in areas where personal opinions flare and different people have different ways of coping with it all, moving on or holding on.
To each his or her own, I say.
. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.
Funnily enough it may even make Daemonic Vehicles useful in some capacity. Being able to eat your troops and gain back wounds is a bit more valuable when you have 10+ rather then 3 and a chance to die instantly.
I miss vehicles myself, either you have some super strong formation which gives you major bonuses to them or you just mostly see bike spam or deathstars.
. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.
Funnily enough it may even make Daemonic Vehicles useful in some capacity. Being able to eat your troops and gain back wounds is a bit more valuable when you have 10+ rather then 3 and a chance to die instantly.
I miss vehicles myself, either you have some super strong formation which gives you major bonuses to them or you just mostly see bike spam or deathstars.
Or you see the Rhino wandering around in GK/Deathwatch lists to give three ablative wounds for 40pts (with a dozer blade) in an army where you normally get two dude for 40pts. Or you see the Wave Serpent running around waving the fact that it's a better battle tank than any of the actual battle tanks in the Craftworld list in peoples' faces.
Vehicles aren't bad, they're just running on a set of 5e-vintage assumptions about what they are and should do in an age where that isn't enough. See 30k (where everything has higher armour and occasionally higher hull points, where infantry are actually required, and where Destroyer weapons are "one in the Lords of War slot in a 2,000pt game, maybe") for examples of vehicles that actually behave like they ought to.
So, originally, my Grey Knight army was the following:
2 Brother Champions
2 Techmarines with conversion beamers
1 5 man strike squad with 1 psycannon
4 5 man purifier squads with 2 psyconnons
1 5 man purgator squad with 4 psycannons
1 Dreadnight
1 extra Dreadnought that I could use if I broke into multiple forces.
The issue came in that if I put them out as foot troops in buildings/ect. As soon as we get to play our tournament games in my area. We have multiple players that run 4 to 6 wyverns. The fix for that was my army now includes 2 razorbacks and 5 rhinos to keep the troops alive on turn one if I don't win the roll.
. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.
Funnily enough it may even make Daemonic Vehicles useful in some capacity. Being able to eat your troops and gain back wounds is a bit more valuable when you have 10+ rather then 3 and a chance to die instantly.
I miss vehicles myself, either you have some super strong formation which gives you major bonuses to them or you just mostly see bike spam or deathstars.
Or you see the Rhino wandering around in GK/Deathwatch lists to give three ablative wounds for 40pts (with a dozer blade) in an army where you normally get two dude for 40pts. Or you see the Wave Serpent running around waving the fact that it's a better battle tank than any of the actual battle tanks in the Craftworld list in peoples' faces.
You must be thinking about 6th Ed Wave Serpent... the current one is rather bad compared to the actual Craftworlds Battle Tanks, which admittedly suck.
. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.
Funnily enough it may even make Daemonic Vehicles useful in some capacity. Being able to eat your troops and gain back wounds is a bit more valuable when you have 10+ rather then 3 and a chance to die instantly.
I miss vehicles myself, either you have some super strong formation which gives you major bonuses to them or you just mostly see bike spam or deathstars.
Or you see the Rhino wandering around in GK/Deathwatch lists to give three ablative wounds for 40pts (with a dozer blade) in an army where you normally get two dude for 40pts. Or you see the Wave Serpent running around waving the fact that it's a better battle tank than any of the actual battle tanks in the Craftworld list in peoples' faces.
Vehicles aren't bad, they're just running on a set of 5e-vintage assumptions about what they are and should do in an age where that isn't enough. See 30k (where everything has higher armour and occasionally higher hull points, where infantry are actually required, and where Destroyer weapons are "one in the Lords of War slot in a 2,000pt game, maybe") for examples of vehicles that actually behave like they ought to.
I mostly run Chaos which should set an example of what sort of Vehicles I can run.
I use to be a supporter of vehicle armor values. With in the last few years I have since flipped on my standings. It just doesn't make sense on an in game level. As it stands AP (armor Penetration) has little to no effect on penetrating a vehicle's AV (Armor Value). Not to mention all the time I have had small game argument over what facing a particular model was in, do you go with the majority or do you divide the group up based on which armor facing they are in, so you have to crack open a rule book as this has change from edition to edition, and these issue pop up with the easy definable corners present on rhinos, a whole new host of problems pop up when you are trying to draw that line from something like a wave serpent or devil fish. Be the new iteration a flat toughness value or fixed wound values I look forward to what the 8th will bring.
Yup it is overall a way better system that is much less all or nothing. Right now you are either fully mobile, or immobile, with a weapon or without, dead or alive.
The "zero or nothing" gameplay is incredibly boring. Either you shoot and shoot and do nothing, or you miraculously shoot one shot first round and a fourth of the enemy's points are gone before he even gets to have a turn. Would find it much more fun if you could sort of rely on your tank holding up 2 maybe even 3 turns, and then it'll be gone. Makes it much more possible to plan, and the gamble wouldn't be "should I buy this landraider and end up with a crater on my side of the map" but rather be "should I try to push it forward on the third turn or take the safe route and get out of it?"
The way monstrous creatures get weaker as they take wounds in AoS is really cool. I haven't read the warscrolls of all of them, just the particular ones I was interested in. For those they did a really good job of making it seem like the monster was getting weaker as it took wounds.
That said, I think what Breng77 was saying* is that right now it is nice that vehicles lose things in "chunks" as they take damage. They don't suffer from blood loss and get a decreased number of attacks and a decreased movement, they get a sponson blown clean off and lose all attacks from that weapon or take a hit to the engine and lose all mobility.
I think that treating vehicles more like they treat big monsters in AoS could work out well as long as GW makes them feel like machines instead of monsters.
*Edit: Actually, it looks like I misread what Breng77 was saying.
Yeah, I want dreadnoughts to feel like they mean something again. As they stand right now, you frequently lose all your dreadnoughts before they have any meaning at all in the game.
I have fielded 5 helbrutes in my chaos force and had them all die by the end of turn 2. They managed to move once, shoot once and were all dead. That just seems pointless.
Yup it is overall a way better system that is much less all or nothing. Right now you are either fully mobile, or immobile, with a weapon or without, dead or alive.
The "zero or nothing" gameplay is incredibly boring. Either you shoot and shoot and do nothing, or you miraculously shoot one shot first round and a fourth of the enemy's points are gone before he even gets to have a turn. Would find it much more fun if you could sort of rely on your tank holding up 2 maybe even 3 turns, and then it'll be gone. Makes it much more possible to plan, and the gamble wouldn't be "should I buy this landraider and end up with a crater on my side of the map" but rather be "should I try to push it forward on the third turn or take the safe route and get out of it?"
The way monstrous creatures get weaker as they take wounds in AoS is really cool. I haven't read the warscrolls of all of them, just the particular ones I was interested in. For those they did a really good job of making it seem like the monster was getting weaker as it took wounds.
That said, I think what Breng77 was saying is that right now it is nice that vehicles lose things in "chunks" as they take damage. They don't suffer from blood loss and get a decreased number of attacks and a decreased movement, they get a sponson blown clean off and lose all attacks from that weapon or take a hit to the engine and lose all mobility.
I think that treating vehicles more like they treat big monsters in AoS could work out well as long as GW makes them feel like machines instead of monsters.
More or less, though I do think you could do things like:
Rhino 10 wounds
8-10 wounds - no negative effects
6-8 wounds - Weapon system damaged -1 to BS 4-6 wounds -drive damaged: vehicle can only move at combat speed
2-4 wounds - weapon destroyed
1-2 wounds - severe drive damage - vehicle can only move 1/2 speed
0 wounds - Destroyed - wrecked, if vehicle lost more than 2 wounds to reach this point it explodes.
I prefer not to have loss of all mobility unless it is close to the bottom of the list, for things with more than 1 weapon you could have multiple weapon destroyed results, but since number of weapons are variable in most cases so for something like a predator it might look like
Predator 14 wounds
12-14 wounds - no effect
10-12 wounds - drive damaged: vehicle can only move at combat speed
8-10 wounds - weapon systems damaged - destroy one sponson, if no sponsons -1 BS 6-8 wounds - severe drive damage - vehicle can only move 1/2 speed
4-6 wounds- weapon systems damaged - destroy one sponson, if no sponsons -1 BS 2-4 wounds - immobilized
1-2 wounds - main cannon destroyed
0 wounds - Destroyed - wrecked, if vehicle lost more than 2 wounds to reach this point it explodes.
My ideal would be to have vehicles able to be functional in some way up until they are dead like any other model. Right now if you get immobilized and weapon destroyed with only one gun in many cases you might as well be dead.
I don't think the tables are hard to memorize. I do think that there might be a way to have fixed to hit rolls that still represents certain models being able to skillfully defend themselves.
Say a Striking Scorpions Exarch has a "Parry -2" rule on his data sheet. Then an ork boy who normally hits on a 4+ would only be hitting on a 6+.
They could do something similar with dodging/jinking.
An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.
"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."
I agree with this. It should be harder to hit certain units in melee because their WS is higher. As if they can deflect your blows
Tables are just fine. Maybe allow really high WS to hit really low WS on 2+, and allow more Str values to wound higher Ts, like Str 4 being able to wound T8 on a 6, but otherwise interact with all other Ts as it does now.
An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.
"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."
Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch
An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.
"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."
Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch
It could stand an adjustment sure (like adding some 2+s to the chart), but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than every model hitting on the same value no matter what the target is.
The Sigmarization of 40k would have a serious shot at getting me back into the game.
GW hasn't gotten any of my wargaming budget since about a third of the way through 5th edition. Each new edition change means that some people will stop playing, some people will start new and some people will return.
I'm guessing the many, many players who were slowly ground out over the tweaking of the same rules set over and over while calling it a new edition and the constant bloat of supplements and special rules would give a reboot a serious look.
As for the existing customer base, I think the loyal dakka posters with thousands of points outlined in their signatures make up a minority of GW's customers and most of their customers tend to quit after a year or two anyway. Or aren't so serious about the rules and are negatively effected by how they are strewn everywhere across multiple books and supplements.
The people I know how play AoS simply print their warscrolls (some use tablets) and then have their physical books for reference and reading enjoyment.
An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.
"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."
Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch
It could stand an adjustment sure (like adding some 2+s to the chart), but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than every model hitting on the same value no matter what the target is.
-
maybe like shooting same effect, WS 10 avatar swings as a ws 2 gretchin on 2's reroll on 2's. maybe subtract the lower model's WS for reroll on 4, lower weapon skill hits on 5's
more realistically space marine captain vs ork boy ws 6 hits on 2's rerolls misses to 6's. ork boys 6-4 so WS2 hits on 5's
This sort of thing would be good for 40k. It's from the new bundle of a Start Collecting set, a Battletome book and this:
Warscroll Cards: Blades of Khorne
This pack of 33 large-format cards contains the each of the unit Warscrolls from Battletome: Blades of Khorne, printed on individual cards for handy reference in your battles, along with a selection of gaming tokens – use these to indicate the Allegiance Abilities, skills and statuses used by your models in games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar
An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.
"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."
Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch
An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.
"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."
Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch
It could stand an adjustment sure (like adding some 2+s to the chart), but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than every model hitting on the same value no matter what the target is.
-
I'm not quite sure why it needs to make sense as such, it's a game in the end, surely just making it more fun is the ultimate goal? At the moment you're usually either hitting on a 3+ or a 4+ depending on the target, I don't think fixing this at a set value is going to make a whole lot of difference other than make things a whole lot easier.
An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.
"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."
Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch
For those concerned about fixed to hit and wound numbers, I was poking around some warscrolls and found this:
Dance of Death: You can add 2 to save rolls for this unit in the combat phase.
So it looks like Age of Sigmar already has rules to reduce hits against those that are great at melee combat. I've also noticed similar rules for those that are great at being offensive in melee combat.
Remember, final wounds = wounds inflicted (attacks * percent hits * percent wounds) - saves (wounds inflicted * percent saved) so you can modify any variable in there to model skill in different way. It doesn't all have to be loaded onto "to hit" to be about their skill with weapons.
I'd much prefer to see alternating turns in this new edition over any of these proposed changes. the hardest part of getting people into the game is having to wait an hour between turns and just taking models off the table before you even have a chance to use them
"I just spent a week painting this deamon prince, can't wait to use him!" oh... I go turn 2, he'll be dead before I even get to use him.
Indeed, frozen. People see fixed to-hit and to-wound and then forget about all of the defensive abilities that modify that. Looking through different warscrolls, I've seen everything from +2 save in the combat phase to ignore the first point of damage from each attack to ignoring damage from weapons worse than -1 rend. There are many ways to represent a resilience and combat acumen other than WS and T.
frozenwastes wrote: ...the tweaking of the same rules set over and over while calling it a new edition...
Er... That's what a new edition is...
The problem with 40k isn't that the ruleset has stayed essentially the same for several editions. It's that they've used each new edition to change things for the sake of change instead of fixing the existing issues.
Do you think Tanks are modelled correctly under the current system - especially when compared to M. Creatures? Personally I don't but you might? Tanks tend to be used mostly when they are free like for Marines.
Yes, tanks are modelled much better than Monstrous Creatures in terms of realism and intuitiveness. Present system is not perfect - vehicles have too few Hull Points - but it is better than the MC model.
The AOS system is pretty much the same as the current system except:
1) You represent the armour of a given vehicle with a "armour save" rather than a completely different mechanic which serves no real purpose. This should also make vehicles more resilient to mid range weapons like the infamous Eldar jet bike cheese.
2) Damage table is subsumed into the profile so as you take hits, the vehicle, monster, dreadnought, whatever becomes less and less viable - this is tailored to each individual model and so results in different profiles. Some such as say Possessed Khorne vehicles might become less "shooty" but more "fighty" as they become damaged and hence enraged.
3) Less tracking of results that are usually irrelevant because you are trying to take away its wounds - often by glancing.
Vehicles are already resilient to mid range weapons if they have high enough AV. A Predator or Hammerhead doesn't care how many zillion Scatter Lasers you have. This is how it should be - it would be horribly lame if well-armoured vehicles could be whittled down by volume of fire from weak weapons. As for the frequent complaint that vehicles can be one-shotted - that is a tradeoff you need to accept if you use vehicles. It is how they work in real life. You don't see anyone killing M1A1 by shooting it with AK-47's hundreds of times, do you? But it can blow up from one anti-tank missile shot at it.
You do realise scatter lasers can kill both of those right?
They do have side and rear armour also.
Only a numpty would shoot the front armour :p
I do agree about small arms killing tanks though.
Just give tanks a 1+ save like in epic (1 doesn't auto fail) so only weapons with a rend can damage them.
I completely agree that an AK47 wouldn't pop a tank and that's how it should be.
But I do feel that tanks also shouldn't get taken out by a single shot so easily.
The land raider is currently the biggest joke in 40k.
250 points for something with poor shooting for it's cost, and can be instantly nailed by either S9-10 weapons, lance, melta etc.
Edit:
On the subject of force weapons.
I find it ironic that one works fine against a hive tyrant lol.
You'd think the shadow in the warp shuts it down.
Like when synapse used to confer EW :p
Do you think Tanks are modelled correctly under the current system - especially when compared to M. Creatures? Personally I don't but you might? Tanks tend to be used mostly when they are free like for Marines.
Yes, tanks are modelled much better than Monstrous Creatures in terms of realism and intuitiveness. Present system is not perfect - vehicles have too few Hull Points - but it is better than the MC model.
Honestly, I think the Hull Points are properly set, but only if we reverse the concepts of Glancing and Penetrating Hits. If the only effective way to get rid of Hull Points was to either be a Penetrating Hit or a Weapon designed to penetrate armor (AP: 1 or AP: 2), I think the Hull Points would be about right and properly represent how tough killing a Vehicle should be. Sadly, that is not how they are, so...
Backfire wrote: Vehicles are already resilient to mid range weapons if they have high enough AV. A Predator or Hammerhead doesn't care how many zillion Scatter Lasers you have. This is how it should be - it would be horribly lame if well-armoured vehicles could be whittled down by volume of fire from weak weapons. As for the frequent complaint that vehicles can be one-shotted - that is a tradeoff you need to accept if you use vehicles. It is how they work in real life. You don't see anyone killing M1A1 by shooting it with AK-47's hundreds of times, do you? But it can blow up from one anti-tank missile shot at it.
And it's not like Force doesn't work against most Monstrous Creatures, after all. The only difference is that AT Weapons that can one-shot a Vehicle, both today and in days past, are far more prevalent than Force Weapons. It also doesn't help that most people would rather take the same route to killing Vehicles as they would Monstrous Creatures, i.e. bury them under the weight of lighter fire.
Tanks mechanism should remain as it is. Where the actual system fails is the low effect of AP against tank armour, with the consequence that a high enough strenght Weapon with a poor AP can destroy a tank only with volume of fire.
Rewriting rules adding a strong link between weapon AP and chances of stripping hull points, would fix the tanks issue.
High strenght combined with low AP would be the profile of AT weapons, opposing to mid-low strenght, high rate of fire profile suitable for anti infantry weapons.
Rewriting rules adding a strong link between weapon AP and chances of stripping hull points, would fix the tanks issue.
Your proposal is to make more weapons more effective against tanks? Do you not realize that the problem with tanks right now is that they are massively too fragile in comparison to MC's and bike type infantry?
AP already strongly effects vehicles, making them even weaker against ap makes sense if you're writing a book or a story, but in a game design needs to consider whether the end result is playable crunch. 40k has made too much effort for the rules to match the fluff recently, and IMO thats been a problem because its madly unbalanced things for everyone and a lot of players are left holding short sticks.
Rewriting rules adding a strong link between weapon AP and chances of stripping hull points, would fix the tanks issue.
Your proposal is to make more weapons more effective against tanks? Do you not realize that the problem with tanks right now is that they are massively too fragile in comparison to MC's and bike type infantry?
AP already strongly effects vehicles, making them even weaker against ap makes sense if you're writing a book or a story, but in a game design needs to consider whether the end result is playable crunch. 40k has made too much effort for the rules to match the fluff recently, and IMO thats been a problem because its madly unbalanced things for everyone and a lot of players are left holding short sticks.
I agree with you.
What I mean is that stripping hps should depends on AP once you get a pen or a glancing hit.. If you don't have a low AP value you should not be able to do real damage to a tank.
This way less weapons would be effective against tanks. Hope I make my thought clearer.
The Deer Hunter wrote: I agree with you.
What I mean is that stripping hps should depends on AP once you get a pen or a glancing hit.. If you don't have a low AP value you should not be able to do real damage to a tank.
This way less weapons would be effective against tanks. Hope I make my thought clearer.
If you mean no real damage to the structural integrity of the tank, then yes, but things outside the hull can be damaged by non-penetrating weapons. Most weapons really are not well armored if they need to traverse rapidly.
From an AoS perspective, that would almost require Mortal Wounds (or similar) in order to do any damage to Vehicles.
The Deer Hunter wrote: I agree with you.
What I mean is that stripping hps should depends on AP once you get a pen or a glancing hit.. If you don't have a low AP value you should not be able to do real damage to a tank.
This way less weapons would be effective against tanks. Hope I make my thought clearer.
If you mean no real damage to the structural integrity of the tank, then yes, but things outside the hull can be damaged by non-penetrating weapons. Most weapons really are not well armored if they need to traverse rapidly.
From an AoS perspective, that would almost require Mortal Wounds (or similar) in order to do any damage to Vehicles.
The idea is that the game needs a clear separation between anti tank and anti infantry weapons. As long as weapons like grav or scatter laser are good against both infantry and tanks, players don't make choices. A good for all unit/weapon brings the game into spam and no brain lands, and this is never a good thing.
Do you think Tanks are modelled correctly under the current system - especially when compared to M. Creatures? Personally I don't but you might? Tanks tend to be used mostly when they are free like for Marines.
Yes, tanks are modelled much better than Monstrous Creatures in terms of realism and intuitiveness. Present system is not perfect - vehicles have too few Hull Points - but it is better than the MC model.
The AOS system is pretty much the same as the current system except:
1) You represent the armour of a given vehicle with a "armour save" rather than a completely different mechanic which serves no real purpose. This should also make vehicles more resilient to mid range weapons like the infamous Eldar jet bike cheese.
2) Damage table is subsumed into the profile so as you take hits, the vehicle, monster, dreadnought, whatever becomes less and less viable - this is tailored to each individual model and so results in different profiles. Some such as say Possessed Khorne vehicles might become less "shooty" but more "fighty" as they become damaged and hence enraged.
3) Less tracking of results that are usually irrelevant because you are trying to take away its wounds - often by glancing.
Vehicles are already resilient to mid range weapons if they have high enough AV. A Predator or Hammerhead doesn't care how many zillion Scatter Lasers you have. This is how it should be - it would be horribly lame if well-armoured vehicles could be whittled down by volume of fire from weak weapons. As for the frequent complaint that vehicles can be one-shotted - that is a tradeoff you need to accept if you use vehicles. It is how they work in real life. You don't see anyone killing M1A1 by shooting it with AK-47's hundreds of times, do you? But it can blow up from one anti-tank missile shot at it.
Disagree. in "real life" - Monsters would loose limbs, weapons etc but currently they do not degrade their capabilities until they just die.
The Deer Hunter wrote: The idea is that the game needs a clear separation between anti tank and anti infantry weapons. As long as weapons like grav or scatter laser are good against both infantry and tanks, players don't make choices. A good for all unit/weapon brings the game into spam and no brain lands, and this is never a good thing.
I completely agree. Good against all comers weapons need to be few and far between, not common as muck. And Grav weaponry needs to be tweaked to be quite useless against small targets so that it's no longer a no brainer.
Grav needs to go away there is almost nothing it doesn't kill quickly you can't kill with bolters.
Also there is a difference between good and useless. Good against everything should be rare. this goes both ways tough. Good defence against everything but the hardest counter should also be rare. Useless/ impossible should be rare to the point of non-existence except in highly specialised cases. It may be fluffy according to some but models (almost all of them) dying fast is not a bad thing.
I don't mind my vehicles dying to glancing hits. I mind them dying to 3 of them.
either you have a clear rock/paper/scissor (infantry/tanks/flyers) system or an everything can kill everything system
if you go for the secound, every army would need to have the same level of armoury (scatter laser on fast moving troops for everyone)
if you go for the first this needs to be on a unit level and not army level (and no mixed units that acts as all 3 while some factions only have access to rock and nothing more)
Rock/paper/siccors runs into the practical issue of owning representative models/options.
Also if there is a clear issue with one unit remove that unit/option. Don't buff everything else for one outlier. That's how you end up with ooc powercreep.
Earth127 wrote: Rock/paper/siccors runs into the practical issue of owning representative models/options.
Also if there is a clear issue with one unit remove that unit/option. Don't buff everything else for one outlier. That's how you end up with ooc powercreep.
People needing to own models is not a problem for the company that provides them
Earth127 wrote: Rock/paper/siccors runs into the practical issue of owning representative models/options.
Also if there is a clear issue with one unit remove that unit/option. Don't buff everything else for one outlier. That's how you end up with ooc powercreep.
the conclusion that rock/paper/scissors ends in powercreep is interesting
if only melter weapons would be able to kill tanks, and every army would have access to it, there would be no problem.
the problem would appear if you do it in GW style and just give 50% of the factions melter and one faction get an melter weapon that akso kills flyer and infantry
just because GW is not able to write rules does not mean that the basic idea is bad
kodos wrote: if only melter weapons would be able to kill tanks, and every army would have access to it, there would be no problem.
Want to bet? GW would just then set up a few armies able to spam them while another army would have only one dedicated unit in a contested slot and only 1-2 in Formations, while another army would have it only as a Psyker Power or a Relic.
kodos wrote: if only melter weapons would be able to kill tanks, and every army would have access to it, there would be no problem.
Want to bet? GW would just then set up a few armies able to spam them while another army would have only one dedicated unit in a contested slot and only 1-2 in Formations, while another army would have it only as a Psyker Power or a Relic.
this is the reason why I think they will mess up 8th anyway
no matter what design they will choose, they won't stick with it for long and 8th will only be good as long as not many new codex books are out
Earth127 wrote: Rock/paper/siccors runs into the practical issue of owning representative models/options.
Also if there is a clear issue with one unit remove that unit/option. Don't buff everything else for one outlier. That's how you end up with ooc powercreep.
the conclusion that rock/paper/scissors ends in powercreep is interesting
if only melter weapons would be able to kill tanks, and every army would have access to it, there would be no problem.
the problem would appear if you do it in GW style and just give 50% of the factions melter and one faction get an melter weapon that akso kills flyer and infantry
just because GW is not able to write rules does not mean that the basic idea is bad
I was responding to your point about scatter lasers everywhere not the rock paper scissors idea as a whole.
Gw ability to mess up balance at every lvl can destroy any system they try so no point bringing that up.
I don't like the rock/paper/sissors because it means you can lose in the list building/alpha strike phase and then the game stops being fun. If this happens when you play like every week you'll get over it. But for people with busy schedules, bad acces to gaming space/ no FLGS that can be a major issue.
I'll requote myself here a bit: There is no real problem with vehicles being glanced to death, there is a problem when this happens way too fast.
Land raiders are a special case since they massive durability vs firepower but that is by design. For your average not mobile bunker tank tough yeah let it take a 250 lasgun shots to kill on average. When was the last time you faced a guard player who could say that 125 guys shooting at 1 tank to kill it was worthwile?
I'd like a balance like starcraft: sure there are counters to marines but bring enough marines/ undersupport the counters and the terrans still win.
I don't like the rock/paper/sissors because it means you can lose in the list building/alpha strike phase
of course, if you don't take anti aircraft guns but your opponent a lot of flyers you lose
if the faction rules are good, taking a balanced list that can deal with everything will be the way to go, while an extreme list will always have problems with counter lists
I don't have a problem with extreme lists running into isssues with counterlists. I have a problem with balanced lists feeling like there's 80% dead weight vs a more extreme list.
Earth127 wrote: I don't have a problem with extreme lists running into isssues with counterlists. I have a problem with balanced lists feeling like there's 80% dead weight vs a more extreme list.
But that's the whole point.
You have on average about 30-40% dead weight vs a more extreme list, and you gain the advantage of fairing equivalently against pretty much any list.
It's risk vs reward. Nobody forced you to take a "balanced" list which by nature is "middle of the road" in everything.
There isn't a single strategy game out there which favors a "balanced" list, SC2 for example relies on intelligence + skew, maybe the missing part in 40k is intelligence or interaction in list building.
Earth127 wrote: I don't have a problem with extreme lists running into isssues with counterlists. I have a problem with balanced lists feeling like there's 80% dead weight vs a more extreme list.
it would be only dead weight if the only possible way of winning a game would be killing all enemy models
and even than, if those 80% are the stuff the extreme list has problems to kill, it is not dead weight.
but that is a reason why most games have different victory conditions that are not just "killing"
The problem with the whole rock/paper/scissor comparison is that it is all to basic for a game like 40k. Saying you bring a mostly rock list vs a rock/paper/scissor list one would assume that the rock would invalidate the scissors while struggling vs the paper and things would balance out, but the game is not like that. You have different unit types but those units can carry different weapons. So while you may have an all rock list, you can have rock/paper/scissor weapons on your rocks meaning that while all your weapons can hurt something in your opponent's list only on third of there weapons can hurt your list.
Venerable Ironclad wrote: The problem with the whole rock/paper/scissor comparison is that it is all to basic for a game like 40k. Saying you bring a mostly rock list vs a rock/paper/scissor list one would assume that the rock would invalidate the scissors while struggling vs the paper and things would balance out, but the game is not like that. You have different unit types but those units can carry different weapons. So while you may have an all rock list, you can have rock/paper/scissor weapons on your rocks meaning that while all your weapons can hurt something in your opponent's list only on third of there weapons can hurt your list.
So maybe rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock (hail Sam Kass!)?
Venerable Ironclad wrote: The problem with the whole rock/paper/scissor comparison is that it is all to basic for a game like 40k. Saying you bring a mostly rock list vs a rock/paper/scissor list one would assume that the rock would invalidate the scissors while struggling vs the paper and things would balance out, but the game is not like that. You have different unit types but those units can carry different weapons. So while you may have an all rock list, you can have rock/paper/scissor weapons on your rocks meaning that while all your weapons can hurt something in your opponent's list only on third of there weapons can hurt your list.
Unless your opponent has a paper list with all rock weapons, in which case you get destroyed for banking everything on rock defense.
No matter the comparison, it's pointless because skew lists are the name of the strategy game.
Easier to balance if you ask me is to forget pure rock/paper/siccors and create soft counters rather than hard ones.
Also while kill-point games aren't the default they do make for the easiest pick up games. Maelstrom makes mobility/msu much more powerfull altar of war objectives favor obsec wich is not equally given to all armies And both of them can cause serious arguments about objectives/terrain placement. Kill points usually makes for the better pick up game with a relative stranger and little pre-game discussion in my experience.
this is the sad thing about this edition
killing is never the best way to set up a game, but if it is the best you get....
Venerable Ironclad wrote: The problem with the whole rock/paper/scissor comparison is that it is all to basic for a game like 40k.
of course this is more complex than just that 3 options
but you go either that way that Anti-Infantry weapons cannot kill tanks, while Anti-Tank weapon cannot kill infantry units
or 1 weapon can kill everything no matter what it is, (S10 AP1 large blast template, and every basic warrior has one, but than of course it is not that simple, the same as a rock/paper/scissor system is not that simple)
the easy fix for me to make the game more fun is... only play maelstrom mission games preferring tactical supremecy games. less paper rock scissors matters. ok, you brought 2 imperial knights and a few units, now you need to get to objectives to score and do dmg vs just trying to table an opponent. you would be surprised how much a balancing act this forces into a game when your group agrees to it. many more troops taken, less deathstar wulfen with librarian conclave attached etc. because sure they can get a point but they need to take multiple points.
G00fySmiley wrote: the easy fix for me to make the game more fun is... only play maelstrom mission games preferring tactical supremecy games. less paper rock scissors matters. ok, you brought 2 imperial knights and a few units, now you need to get to objectives to score and do dmg vs just trying to table an opponent. you would be surprised how much a balancing act this forces into a game when your group agrees to it. many more troops taken, less deathstar wulfen with librarian conclave attached etc. because sure they can get a point but they need to take multiple points.
When the guys at ITC (I think it was them? might have been a different tournament circuit...) starting using those combined Eternal War/Maelstrom missions for their tournaments, me and my gaming group tried them out and really liked the combo. Having the regular and maelstrom objectives mixed as a sort of primary/secondary mission system really made things more dynamic and interesting, without having to completely rely on the randomness of the maelstrom missions. We still like to use the regular Maelstrom objectives, so we forego the changed objectives table that ITC uses (they have like 6 very generic ones rather than the d66), but it's more or less the same otherwise, I highly recommend trying it out.
The thing about Maelstrom is that different things become OP for different reasons (e.g. Swooping Hawks, with the ability to reach every objective every turn, or Drop Pods, with the ability to get to and sit on every objective turn one).
Maelstrom is an interesting alternate play mode, and it does discourage deathstars, but it isn't a one-stop fix to everything.
AnomanderRake wrote: The thing about Maelstrom is that different things become OP for different reasons (e.g. Swooping Hawks, with the ability to reach every objective every turn, or Drop Pods, with the ability to get to and sit on every objective turn one).
Maelstrom is an interesting alternate play mode, and it does discourage deathstars, but it isn't a one-stop fix to everything.
Had this talk recently with a buddy. I love Maelstrom because it evens out some of the power levels (in terms of I can get almost tabled and still win by objectives), however the random draws can totally favor one person and gak over the other.
There is no one stop fix everything method but there are some that can go a long way:
I'd like to see an online living point system where GW updates points costs as time goes on. You'll never get right straight of the bat so adapt as necessary along the way. Also unlocking detachments/formation bonus has to have a points cost (see AoS) Reducing of rule scattering and by extension bloat. Right now even your basic stuff can have its rules spread out in 5 places. More effort spent on clear rules writing. More effort on preventing power creep.
Maelstrom random objectives can screw you over and this is especially a problem for people who don't get to play more than once every 2 months (like me of late).
Yeah Maelstrom is a good idea with poor execution. The idea of evolving objectives is a good one, the idea of opponents not necessarily having the same objective is a good one, but the implementation is poor because of what some objectives are, and the fact that they are random.
If I draw objectives I am sitting on, and you don't I get a huge advantage.
If you want to look at a better implementation, look at games like malifaux, where there is 1 shared mission (worth 4 points max), and then secondary objectives (worth max of 3 points each) that are chosen from a pool of randomly determined objectives that are chosen at the start of the game.
So if you had things like shared objectives (you could do claim numbered objectives, and you score 1 point for each objective you can control for 1 game turn starting on turn 2, but you cannot claim the same objective twice. Or claiming table quarters scoring 1 point per turn if you have at least 2 quarters. etc) and then separate objectives (line breaker, slay the warlord, kill heavy support choices, kill fast attack, kill troops etc.) and you select 2 such choices based on your army and your opponents army.
Malestorm is a good idea, but due to its randomness, it shouldn't be the sole factor in winning a game.
Hopefully 8th edition will have "mixed" missions as the standard. So end of the game objectives, with mid-game points being earnable.
the ITC fixed objectives plus maelstrom are good, but more book keeping than just a deck of cards, but if it works and makes the game fun for you go for it. I just have zero interest in kill teams ever again unless it gets changed to % of units lost. orks guard and tyranids usually have a big if not impossible hill to climb to make that work while a GK paladin army or imperial knight list is probably just always going to win it.
yup kill points is a bad mission unless it is combined with other missions. So if you have kill points + objectives, you can try to play one side of the mission to overcome the KP disadvantage.
I honestly think that kill points should be a secondary objective in every mission, rather than a mission alone. So you get 1 point each for Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker, First blood and 1 point for every enemy unit completely destroyed.
I'd like the book to only have 6 main mission (instead of 12) and simplified Maelstrom objective for at least 4 of those missions. You could do a 2D6 chart, so 2-12 and release 11 matching cards for those who want to draw cards instead. You shuffle that cards if you go through all 11.
The problem with always KP is that it encourages deathstars because they do well in KP missions. If I take a high KP army then I start behind (usually first blood is easier to get in this case as well).
More mission types are usually good. However each has its own balance issues and different kinds of lists needed.
Btw hasn't this thread gone a bit OT of late. It started as a discussion about AoS mechanics making their way into 40K ( good if you ask me, evil incarnate as far some posters seem concerned) and is now a general chat about the state of 40k and design philosophy?
I haven't been used Killpoints since the very fist games of 5th
we changed very soon to primary/secondary objective missions with units points cost as tie breaker
used that until in 7th the tournament guys here wanted kill points back to balance death stars
I don't think I would like it from a fluff stand point. It would potentially be interesting from a game play aspect, but fluff wise it wouldn't really fit because the setting is different.
Full-on AoS wouldn't work because the lack of taking vehicles into account and the system not designed to deal with shooty armies.
Playing both games combined would be a nightmare with biws more powerfull then lasguns???
The cover/terrain system would need tweeking (aka buffing) and a seperate to wound modifier for vehicles would do the trick there.
Otherwise I like the approach GW has taken with AoSOnly with the general's hand book. Formations costing points, reduction of rules bloat , basic rules avaible for free, return of movement, etc. Most people seem to be stuck in nightmares of second edition and end times/ AoS "point"lessnes.
The Pitched Battle missions in the GHB look interesting. Half of them look like they could end up being a big brawl in the middle, which would favor deathstars too much, but I'm hoping that deathstars get toned down in 8th anyway. The video battle reports of AoS don't usually look like just a big brawl in the middle, there's usually a bit of that but also a bunch of stuff happening around the flanks and in the backfields too. I haven't played AoS yet though, just watched videos, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Galef wrote: If 40K 8th ed goes full-on AoS with all the same stats and mechanics, how would people feel if this allowed players to play both games together?
I can see people doing it for a laugh, but I don't like the idea that chainmail and longbows are on an equal level with ceramite and plasma weapons. The two games represent very different power levels.
That said, if someone came up with a fluffy reason why their army of dudes with chainmail and longbows is actually really dangerous then I wouldn't be mad about it. Maybe they're super magical like daemons. Maybe they're from a primitive feudal world so the AdMech made them plasma arrows because that's what they're trained to use. There is definitely a ridiculous streak to 40k, and it's all about having fun so I think it could be fine with a small amount of narrative effort.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: The Pitched Battle missions in the GHB look interesting. Half of them look like they could end up being a big brawl in the middle, which would favor deathstars too much, but I'm hoping that deathstars get toned down in 8th anyway. The video battle reports of AoS don't usually look like just a big brawl in the middle, there's usually a bit of that but also a bunch of stuff happening around the flanks and in the backfields too. I haven't played AoS yet though, just watched videos, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Galef wrote: If 40K 8th ed goes full-on AoS with all the same stats and mechanics, how would people feel if this allowed players to play both games together?
I can see people doing it for a laugh, but I don't like the idea that chainmail and longbows are on an equal level with ceramite and plasma weapons. The two games represent very different power levels.
That said, if someone came up with a fluffy reason why their army of dudes with chainmail and longbows is actually really dangerous then I wouldn't be mad about it. Maybe they're super magical like daemons. Maybe they're from a primitive feudal world so the AdMech made them plasma arrows because that's what they're trained to use. There is definitely a ridiculous streak to 40k, and it's all about having fun so I think it could be fine with a small amount of narrative effort.
Well, feudal worlds are a thing, and there was a weapon modification in Dark Heresy called Mono that allowed melee weapons and arrows to lose the Primitive characteristic and affect non-Primitive armor. There is definitely precedent.
That said, if someone came up with a fluffy reason why their army of dudes with chainmail and longbows is actually really dangerous then I wouldn't be mad about it. Maybe they're super magical like daemons. Maybe they're from a primitive feudal world so the AdMech made them plasma arrows because that's what they're trained to use. There is definitely a ridiculous streak to 40k, and it's all about having fun so I think it could be fine with a small amount of narrative effort.
I thought the Stormcast Eternals and Lizardmen were treated as "deamons" of a sort in AoS. An easy fix (which would align well for fluff too) is that the Realms are a pocket universe in the Warp (like the Webway) and has different properties, making the armour and weapons from there seem as strong and powerful as the weapons and armour in the 40K universe.
Still, I hope this doesn't happen. It just doesn't seem right.
Youn wrote: I could see Feral Orc army charging a group of Space Marines.
Yeah, I can see that.
I've got an army of old WHFB orcs/orruks. A bunch of them have two choppas and don't look too out of place compared to my slugga boyz. I'm thinking about magnetizing the arms of some of them that have removable arms so that I can swap out shields for sluggas and run them as a Snakebites army. If I decide to get really into it I might make some stikkbomb arrers that I can stick on my arrer boyz to count as shootas for 40k and then take off for AoS.
I'm kind of waiting to see if regular Orruks get an update in AoS. If GW decides to stick with Ironjawz and Bonesplittaz and give regular orcs the Free Peoples treatment then I might just model them permanently into 40k Snakebites.
Earth127 wrote: I don't have a problem with extreme lists running into isssues with counterlists. I have a problem with balanced lists feeling like there's 80% dead weight vs a more extreme list.
But that's the whole point.
You have on average about 30-40% dead weight vs a more extreme list, and you gain the advantage of fairing equivalently against pretty much any list.
It's risk vs reward. Nobody forced you to take a "balanced" list which by nature is "middle of the road" in everything.
There isn't a single strategy game out there which favors a "balanced" list, SC2 for example relies on intelligence + skew, maybe the missing part in 40k is intelligence or interaction in list building.
I wouldn't use SC2 as an example, it's a real-time strategy game with in-match economy being massively important.
In 40k, you build your list many times blind, with no ability to react to your opponents army ingame. One nice way to lessen the effect of this blindness would be just to borrow the concept of sideboard from MtG. Honestly though bringing in sideboard like this would not help much at all, it would massively boost already strong armies IMO.
Economy is the other part which is lacking, currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases table the opponent in 1-2 turns. I equate this to early rushes. In SC2 usually early rushes occur in situations when other player goes for the long game, building economy and defending, while the opponent opts for early aggression, sacrificing his long term economic potential for early victory. Both strategic, economic choices have drawbacks and rewards.
In 40k the hard shooting, kind of early aggression lists mostly don't suffer obvious drawbacks for the chosen early aggression tactic, as many shooting armies are given exceptionally high mobility together with the shooting (Eldar, Tau), so they can easily shoot hard and still play the long term game, i.e. capturing objectives. All the while still being extremely potent units also in cc, rendering many dedicated cc units useless.
So as bottom line, I'm saying that current 40k with many different units and on many different levels lacks very basic [choice: risk AND reward] interplay, with there essentially being many units which only provide rewards but very little risks. This kind of all reward, no risk element just doesnt exist in SC2, and in any balanced game in general.
Yeah I complain about that a lot. There is no risk in 40k. Or very little risk. Its entirely about reward. Which is actually a game design paradigm that started in the late 2000s.
Middle of the road lists are indeed terrible because competitive players will never create one of these, and instead go for an extreme build in an aspect of the game to win the game before the game starts.
The reason that feels wrong to a lot of people is that its not very organic. Its gamey.
I have an eldar army. But it's dated. I have played it mostly in 2nd and 3rd edition. This means I have a lot of units at this point that have zero use on the table.
For example. I have 10 striking scorpions and 10 howling banshees. I lack vehicles to make them even remotely useful and the striking scorpions are complete garbage at the moment. In theory, if each got their purpose back by having them on warscrolls they might be interesting to use again.
You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.
you can
I have seen tournament concepts about removing the enemy by turn 1 from the table
does not depend on the opponents list but more on who starts and how the table looks like
Economy is the other part which is lacking, currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases table the opponent in 1-2 turns.
Not really no.
You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.
So you say no one has ever been tabled by 1st turn shooting?
But yeah, I should rephrase my claim, I will do it now:
".. currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases almost effectively table the opponent in 1-2 turns."
And actually if enemy can shoot more than half of your army in single turn of shooting, it doesn't matter if you actually get tabled or not, you will still lose the game, or atleast it will become very difficult for you to win.
Also this youtube video, showcasing the now-ultra-competitive Traitor Legions Supplement World Eaters Butcher Horde against Tau list:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiZR7juqnc
But to you, I presume, bringing Dedicated C&C army against Dedicated shooting army is bringing the proverbial rock against proverbial paper?
I haven't enjoyed the rules for their own merits since 5th edition, so I for one look forward to an overhaul if it actually happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if the changes are smaller than expected.
I haven't even played a game since 4th or 5th edition, but I definitely welcome a little streamlining because I plan to start playing again and reading the 7th edition book has been akin to reading a textbook. I get the rules but there are so many places they could trim the fat, as it were. Condense rolls, replace large table rolls with cards etc.
Luciferian wrote: I haven't even played a game since 4th or 5th edition, but I definitely welcome a little streamlining because I plan to start playing again and reading the 7th edition book has been akin to reading a textbook. I get the rules but there are so many places they could trim the fat, as it were. Condense rolls, replace large table rolls with cards etc.
I also used to play long time ago for several years, CSM, during CSM 3.0 and 3.5 codices. Then finally 4th edition CSM codex hit and I was playing against my friends Tau army who jetpacked everywhere. Teleport homer was lost in 4th edition which made dealing with jetpack infantry pain in the ass, earlier still one could turbo-boost bikes (you got the jink equivalent from turbo-boosting) and then teleport homer in Obliterators or Terminators with CSM codex 3.5. Well long story short, I stopped playing for several years, and got back as of late due to Traitor Legions release. Which was a mistake tbh, CSM is still pretty bad. So now I am also rooting for big changes in the system, while building up 30k army, as I am very dissappointed in current state of 40k.
I hope 40k gets AoSed hard.
Also this youtube video, showcasing the now-ultra-competitive Traitor Legions Supplement World Eaters Butcher Horde against Tau list:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiZR7juqnc
But to you, I presume, bringing Dedicated C&C army against Dedicated shooting army is bringing the proverbial rock against proverbial paper?
This was honestly the worst World Eaters list I have ever seen. He knew full well what he was going against and yet sunk tons of points into marines with kitted out champs, absolute madness. There was also barely any cover on that table and he spread out his fast units instead of deploying tactically. This is not an ultra-competitive list, it was a fluffy list against a competitive list. The same things that make World Eaters good are the same things that make KDK good: fast, hard hitting units. His army had nothing of the sort beyond his lord.
Yes, the game is imbalanced, but this game was won at the list building level not on the battlefield.
andysonic1 wrote: This is not an ultra-competitive list, it was a fluffy list against a competitive list. The same things that make World Eaters good are the same things that make KDK good: fast, hard hitting units. His army had nothing of the sort beyond his lord.
Yes, the game is imbalanced, but this game was won at the list building level not on the battlefield.
Me saying list was ultra-competitive was sarcasm, sorry about that. I just constantly see claims that Traitor Legions made CSM competitive, which has not really materialized in top tournament results, unless you count in Magnus based lists. Otherwise Traitor Legions Supplement is just full of fluffy formations with the anti-CC edition we have at the moment.
andysonic1 wrote: This is not an ultra-competitive list, it was a fluffy list against a competitive list. The same things that make World Eaters good are the same things that make KDK good: fast, hard hitting units. His army had nothing of the sort beyond his lord.
Yes, the game is imbalanced, but this game was won at the list building level not on the battlefield.
Me saying list was ultra-competitive was sarcasm, sorry about that. I just constantly see claims that Traitor Legions made CSM competitive, which has not really materialized in top tournament results, unless you count in Magnus based lists. Otherwise Traitor Legions Supplement is just full of fluffy formations with the anti-CC edition we have at the moment.
I kind of saw the sarcasm but I've seen that video passed around without sarcasm before so I wanted to be sure no one got the wrong idea about it. World Eaters can be good, but they won't beat competitive shooting armies. Death Guard come pretty close. Thousand Sons = Magnus and Deamons, basically the KDK of magic users which helps Deamons more than Marines. Until Chaos gets a point decrease across the board with better upgrades (COUGH GRAV COUGH) they won't be competitive.
Economy is the other part which is lacking, currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases table the opponent in 1-2 turns.
Not really no.
You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.
So you say no one has ever been tabled by 1st turn shooting?
But yeah, I should rephrase my claim, I will do it now:
".. currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases almost effectively table the opponent in 1-2 turns."
And actually if enemy can shoot more than half of your army in single turn of shooting, it doesn't matter if you actually get tabled or not, you will still lose the game, or atleast it will become very difficult for you to win.
Also this youtube video, showcasing the now-ultra-competitive Traitor Legions Supplement World Eaters Butcher Horde against Tau list:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiZR7juqnc
But to you, I presume, bringing Dedicated C&C army against Dedicated shooting army is bringing the proverbial rock against proverbial paper?
Only garbage lists get tabled anywhere as fast as two turns without massive luck
Economy is the other part which is lacking, currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases table the opponent in 1-2 turns.
Not really no.
You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.
So you say no one has ever been tabled by 1st turn shooting?
But yeah, I should rephrase my claim, I will do it now:
".. currently many armies in 40k can shoot so hard they can in many cases almost effectively table the opponent in 1-2 turns."
And actually if enemy can shoot more than half of your army in single turn of shooting, it doesn't matter if you actually get tabled or not, you will still lose the game, or atleast it will become very difficult for you to win.
Also this youtube video, showcasing the now-ultra-competitive Traitor Legions Supplement World Eaters Butcher Horde against Tau list:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiZR7juqnc
But to you, I presume, bringing Dedicated C&C army against Dedicated shooting army is bringing the proverbial rock against proverbial paper?
Only garbage lists get tabled anywhere as fast as two turns without massive luck
About 2 weeks ago I took a Hounds of Abaddon/Cyclopea Cabal/Black Legion Speartip into a similar game against Tau, and the Tau player conceded at the end of turn 2.
Only garbage lists get tabled anywhere as fast as two turns without massive luck
With the current rules forcing a loss if you end a game turn with nothing on the table, all it takes is for a player to leave a little too much in Reserve, regardless of how good their list is. I've seen a few games end in turn 1 over the years due to one player putting too little on the table at the start.
You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.
you can
I have seen tournament concepts about removing the enemy by turn 1 from the table
does not depend on the opponents list but more on who starts and how the table looks like
I am hoping to get the Ynarri jet bike army in close pack formation for my next tournament. If I can get that and turn one. I will see how close I can come to tabling him.
You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.
you can
I have seen tournament concepts about removing the enemy by turn 1 from the table
does not depend on the opponents list but more on who starts and how the table looks like
I am hoping to get the Ynarri jet bike army in close pack formation for my next tournament. If I can get that and turn one. I will see how close I can come to tabling him.
Just Tony wrote: So how many actual facts to we have yet? I'm genuinely curious
1.5....
1. We are getting Movement values back
1.5 They are planning on changing how leadership works and are looking to do something similar to what AoS has
You forgot the charge gaining initiative.
I did too
so 2.5 things
You also forgot to mention that the sky is falling and you might as well sell your armies now before the new rules make you set fire to your Dark Elf army.
You also forgot to mention that the sky is falling and you might as well sell your armies now before the new rules make you set fire to your Dark Elf army.
Eh, it was only the plastics. If it was OOP metal Executioners or Blackguard I'd be annoyed.
That looks like garbage. Are you trying to tailor to that one specific build and deployment pattern?
That list should beat all of the lists that I faced in my last tournament. The only list I face that might have issues with is the space wolf 9 drop pod army. Plus, it's a very cheap list for me to deploy.
You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.
you can
I have seen tournament concepts about removing the enemy by turn 1 from the table
does not depend on the opponents list but more on who starts and how the table looks like
I am hoping to get the Ynarri jet bike army in close pack formation for my next tournament. If I can get that and turn one. I will see how close I can come to tabling him.
You can never shoot the opponent off the board in 1 turn, and 2 turns require them to have a really bad list.
you can
I have seen tournament concepts about removing the enemy by turn 1 from the table
does not depend on the opponents list but more on who starts and how the table looks like
I am hoping to get the Ynarri jet bike army in close pack formation for my next tournament. If I can get that and turn one. I will see how close I can come to tabling him.
On topic: it seems like they are going to swing the pendulum back from shooting armies to melee armies, and while that would benefit me greatly I do hope they don't swing too hard. I want to have a fighting chance not be TFG.
On topic: it seems like they are going to swing the pendulum back from shooting armies to melee armies, and while that would benefit me greatly I do hope they don't swing too hard. I want to have a fighting chance not be TFG.
So a 12 year old and his friend happen to find themselves in a games store and think the miniatures on the wall are awesome. One of them really likes the space marines and another things the necron guys are pretty cool.
So they each grab a box and head to the register. They tell the person they want to play this cool game. He goes on to tell them that they'll need a copy of the rulebook and a codex each for the rules they will need.
--- The future ---
So they each grab a box and head to the register. They tell the person they want to play this cool game. He goes on to tell them that the rules are free and they can find the free dataslate inside the box and online for the stats for their models.
After Age of Sigmar happened many people predicted the coming of the Age of the Emperor. They were reminded though that 40k was doing great in terms of sales and Warhammer Fantasy was struggling. So they'd never do the same thing with 40k.
Unless there was another reason. A means of making the product even more accessible to the next generation of gamers. With even less barriers to entry.
frozenwastes wrote: So a 12 year old and his friend happen to find themselves in a games store and think the miniatures on the wall are awesome. One of them really likes the space marines and another things the necron guys are pretty cool.
So they each grab a box and head to the register. They tell the person they want to play this cool game. He goes on to tell them that they'll need a copy of the rulebook and a codex each for the rules they will need.
--- The future ---
So they each grab a box and head to the register. They tell the person they want to play this cool game. He goes on to tell them that the rules are free and they can find the free dataslate inside the box and online for the stats for their models.
After Age of Sigmar happened many people predicted the coming of the Age of the Emperor. They were reminded though that 40k was doing great in terms of sales and Warhammer Fantasy was struggling. So they'd never do the same thing with 40k.
Unless there was another reason. A means of making the product even more accessible to the next generation of gamers. With even less barriers to entry.
frozenwastes wrote: So a 12 year old and his friend happen to find themselves in a games store and think the miniatures on the wall are awesome. One of them really likes the space marines and another things the necron guys are pretty cool.
So they each grab a box and head to the register. They tell the person they want to play this cool game. He goes on to tell them that they'll need a copy of the rulebook and a codex each for the rules they will need.
--- The future ---
So they each grab a box and head to the register. They tell the person they want to play this cool game. He goes on to tell them that the rules are free and they can find the free dataslate inside the box and online for the stats for their models.
After Age of Sigmar happened many people predicted the coming of the Age of the Emperor. They were reminded though that 40k was doing great in terms of sales and Warhammer Fantasy was struggling. So they'd never do the same thing with 40k.
Unless there was another reason. A means of making the product even more accessible to the next generation of gamers. With even less barriers to entry.
Very true.
But AoS was just a test, this is for real
A lot will depend on how there test goes and if they can make the alternatives any good.
I recently picked up the new Lord of Change and Blue Horrors. Both came with full color instructions the included rules for AoS and 40K, including profiles, points and options. I believe many of the Start Collecting boxes are the same.
So it brings up a question: If 40K 8th edition is right around the corner (and has probably been done for a while) why would GW print out these rules to include in the boxes if they are doing a 'reboot' of 40K and potentially scrapping all the existing rules? It would make no sense to print so many full color booklets just for them to be invalid within a few months
Does that mean that no matter how drastic they change the main rules, 8th edition 40K will still use all the existing codices and thus all stats, special rules, points cost, formations and detachments will remain until each codex gets updated, likely one at a time as now?
Galef wrote: I recently picked up the new Lord of Change and Blue Horrors. Both came with full color instructions the included rules for AoS and 40K, including profiles, points and options.
I believe many of the Start Collecting boxes are the same.
So it brings up a question:
If 40K 8th edition is right around the corner (and has probably been done for a while) why would GW print out these rules to include in the boxes if they are doing a 'reboot' of 40K and potentially scrapping all the existing rules?
It would make no sense to print so many full color booklets just for them to be invalid within a few months
Does that mean that no matter how drastic they change the main rules, 8th edition 40K will still use all the existing codices and thus all stats, special rules, points cost, formations and detachments will remain until each codex gets updated, likely one at a time as now?
-
The Nagash model I purchased shortly after AoS released had full 8th edition rules printed on it.
frozenwastes wrote: So a 12 year old and his friend happen to find themselves in a games store and think the miniatures on the wall are awesome. So they each grab a box and head to the register. They tell the person they want to play this cool game.
He goes on to tell them that they'll need a copy of the rulebook and a codex each for the rules they will need.
--- The future ---
He goes on to tell them that the rules are free and they can find the free dataslate inside the box and online for the stats for their models.
That works, although my vision for an rules-light 8E is more that people use the free rules and dataslates, but also that the rules are compact enough (say, 8 pages) that they can be included in every Codex. Then, all you'd need is just your Codex, and you'd have everything you need to play right there. Or, a group could get a single rulebook with ALL of the stats and rules in one place. But that's just me thinking about the implication of what a complact ruleset allows.
Galef wrote: I recently picked up the new Lord of Change and Blue Horrors. Both came with full color instructions the included rules for AoS and 40K, including profiles, points and options.
I believe many of the Start Collecting boxes are the same.
So it brings up a question:
If 40K 8th edition is right around the corner (and has probably been done for a while) why would GW print out these rules to include in the boxes if they are doing a 'reboot' of 40K and potentially scrapping all the existing rules?
It would make no sense to print so many full color booklets just for them to be invalid within a few months
Does that mean that no matter how drastic they change the main rules, 8th edition 40K will still use all the existing codices and thus all stats, special rules, points cost, formations and detachments will remain until each codex gets updated, likely one at a time as now?
-
The Nagash model I purchased shortly after AoS released had full 8th edition rules printed on it.
Which is dumb. I guess it just shows that the different departments at GW either don't talk to each other, or don't care.
Does that mean that no matter how drastic they change the main rules, 8th edition 40K will still use all the existing codices and thus all stats, special rules, points cost, formations and detachments will remain until each codex gets updated, likely one at a time as now?
Worst case scenario for us would be that the new rules are only available in the boxes and you have to buy the models again to get the rules for them
and GW has no problem to sell you the 7th edi rules a week before the new edi arrives and the rules are replaced by something new
Galef wrote: I recently picked up the new Lord of Change and Blue Horrors. Both came with full color instructions the included rules for AoS and 40K, including profiles, points and options.
I believe many of the Start Collecting boxes are the same.
So it brings up a question:
If 40K 8th edition is right around the corner (and has probably been done for a while) why would GW print out these rules to include in the boxes if they are doing a 'reboot' of 40K and potentially scrapping all the existing rules?
It would make no sense to print so many full color booklets just for them to be invalid within a few months
Does that mean that no matter how drastic they change the main rules, 8th edition 40K will still use all the existing codices and thus all stats, special rules, points cost, formations and detachments will remain until each codex gets updated, likely one at a time as now?
-
The Nagash model I purchased shortly after AoS released had full 8th edition rules printed on it.
Which is dumb. I guess it just shows that the different departments at GW either don't talk to each other, or don't care.
-
Indeed. Even though I bought the model to use as a C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer anyway, my first thought was "Oh good! Now I know how to use this model in a defunct game system! /s"
If 40K 8th edition is right around the corner (and has probably been done for a while) why would GW print out these rules to include in the boxes if they are doing a 'reboot' of 40K and potentially scrapping all the existing rules?
-
Because they're still selling that kit for the current game during the time between when it was made and when the new rules are released.
GW change packaging and inserts every time a new edition drops.
I'd rather have rules to play any model I buy as soon as I buy the model.
I prefer a physical copy of those rules. A digital copy would be fine, but I'd prefer a physical copy. I sincerely doubt I'm alone in this.
Providing the rules for 8th edition (which is explicitly filled with bespoke rules, per GW's announcements) would give too much away for them to ever be included before 8th edition is actually launched.
I don't care if the rules are effectively useless in a few months due to an edition change, presuming the new rules are provided for effectively free somehow.
If previous edition changes are anything to go by, updated stats (when necessary, like when Vehicles got HP) are going to be provided as part of the edition update.
A single printed color sheet, produced en masse, is not going to be so costly as to make it cost-prohibitive to do this.
Given the trend that AoS set, we're probably getting free access to the new edition dataslates in one go.
Frankly, the concept that the late-in-the-edition model releases have 7th edition stats is effectively meaningless in terms of predictive usefulness.
To be honest, that would only work if they were sticking with an edition, but since we are all rubes that continue to rebuy stuff we already have, that will never happen.
The Nagash model I purchased shortly after AoS released had full 8th edition rules printed on it.
Which is dumb. I guess it just shows that the different departments at GW either don't talk to each other, or don't care.
Probably not the explanation. The explanation is that the models get the rules of the current edition when they are manufactured.
I've been through two edition changes in games where the models come with full rules in each product. It's no big catastrophe to put a page into the recycling and continue to use the updated ones you were using for the stuff you had already purchased pre edition change anyway.
This idea that no rules in the box is better is a bit strange. Consider:
No rules in the box: 7th edition: no rules 8th edition: no rules
Current rules in the box: 7th edition: rules 8th edition: no rules
Future releases after 8th launches: 7th edition: no rules 8th edition: rules
No rules is literally the worst case scenario as the customer gets nothing no matter what edition is current or when the product is made.
Given the example of Age of Sigmar, I think it's fair to say that free PDF dataslates are going to get everyone the rules they need for the transition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote: Their test has been successfully completed already, it's called AoS and it does an excellent job of drawing new players in.
This. Age of Sigmar was a total change in terms of how they offered a fantasy game to people. And it worked.
40k isn't getting designed with Age of Sigmar in mind for the same reasons that WHFB was replaced. It's not that 40k is in trouble and needs to be totally replaced due to the same sales issues that WHFB had. There are just certain things about Age of Sigmar that are advantageous both to the post launch customer and the company making the game.
I say "post launch" customer because I was there for the release of 3rd edition 40k. People are going to be so mad when their newly purchased codex and rulebook and supplement A through Z are all invalidated. It's necessary though if they want to get to a place where the game is accessible to no players.
frozenwastes wrote: It's not that 40k is in trouble and needs to be totally replaced.
40k has entered a permanent, steady decline,resulting from new games that take share from the former GW monopoly, amplified by GW pursuing profit over market share.
40k needs a total replacement, and a lot of that is due to the rules getting completely out of control. The complexity is far too high, as is the buy-in (both time and money). GW can't manage it.
If it makes you guys feel better, two different GW employees have stated at adepticon and on the warhammer community page, that codexs are not going away (not yet anyways) but they fully intend to intermix and make rules and datasheets much more available.
I personally think they are going to make an App or just have the datasheets of all models and probably formations (like in the start collecting boxes) in the model boxes, and for download on their site/app.
Codexs will still probably be useful and not wholly defunk, with some changes to the rules. I assume it will be like the Death from the Skies update. Core models rules will be the same, add these two bars and or change these two bits on the profile and whammy, a spicy update sandwhich.
I could wholly be wrong, but I assume this is what they will do, to minimize cost of updating and replacing, while still keeping their inventory useful and sellable.
frozenwastes wrote: It's not that 40k is in trouble and needs to be totally replaced.
40k has entered a permanent, steady decline,resulting from new games that take share from the former GW monopoly, amplified by GW pursuing profit over market share.
40k needs a total replacement, and a lot of that is due to the rules getting completely out of control. The complexity is far too high, as is the buy-in (both time and money). GW can't manage it.
I actually agree. I added "due to the same sales issues that WHFB had." to the post you quoted. My point was that 40k, while certainly down from its height, isn't in the state that WHFB 8th edition sales were.
I think it does need a total replacement in terms of the rules and how the Kirby/Merrit era was about piling up the cost of entry as high as possible to maximize the amount of cash extracted before a new player quits and that needs to go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsol wrote: If it makes you guys feel better, two different GW employees have stated at adepticon and on the warhammer community page, that codexs are not going away (not yet anyways) but they fully intend to intermix and make rules and datasheets much more available.
Codexes as a product line might stick around, but I'm not seeing anything which should make anyone expect their 7th edition (or 6th or 5th or whenever the last time rules for your army were published) books to remain valid. Codexes will still be a thing in the way WHFB Army Books still are: in their new form as Battletomes.
Save modifiers, movement rates, battleshock type moral, the changes talked about are just too big for the rules in a 7th edition codex to be still valid. I guess I could see a bunch of conversion tables that say things like "if your BS is 3, your to hit number is 4+. Lasguns have a wound roll of X. If your old save was X your new save is Y" but that seems unlikely given what they've said about "bespoke" rules per unit like Age of Sigmar has. I think it's far more likely that if its on sale on their website, they'll be a PDF with a free 8th edition data slate. They'll be apps for both Android and Apple that allow you to download them all for free with the option to purchase the additional rules content of the battletome type books as they come out.
They might make Grand Alliance type books with all the stats in one place as well. Those might be the first new "codex" type books we will see.
This is of course, assuming that because everything we've seen so far is right out of Age of Sigmar, and Age of Sigmar seems to be really working for GW, that we can expect the analogous news to continue.
