Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Firstly, I want to clarify that this is neither a "Proposed rule" nor a "Rumor" topic, but it has elements of both.
I heard a rumor that MCs may become weaker as they suffer wounds a la AoS. I have no idea the credibility of the rumor, but it got me thinking nonetheless.

If true, what kinds of "weaker" could we expect? I am not familiar with AoS, but I hear things like reduced movement and strength.
I kinda think this would be neat and make more sense then a damage chart similar to vehicles. It would also be less rolling than a chart, so it could be a nice to replace the vehicle chart as well, but that's another topic.

So, what would you like to see? If done right it would certainly make MCs more balanced, but if done wring it would nerf them into the ground.

-

Long story short, behemoths in Age of Sigmar often have * in some fields instead of a numeric value, or in the description of their special abilities there will be certain wildcard characters.

Their profile will also include a chart that tells you what that place holder's value is, based on the number of wounds the behemoth has suffered.

As an example, Drycha does 6 attacks with her claws when she's unwounded, but that is reduced the more damage she has as the game progresses.

She might also have a spell or ability that wounds on a 3+ when she has no wounds, but only on a 6+ when she is almost dead, etc.

Behemoths in AoS have a large number of wounds, relative to 40k monstrous creatures or vehicles, but they're relatively easier to inflict wounds on. Broadly they are much scarier than 40k monstrous creatures at the start of the game, but whittle down to less than that by the time they're dead. You're also incentivized to use them earlier for fear they'll take hits early on and be reduced in effectiveness. In that way, there's a balance to how much risk you want to... risk.

I think it is a good idea, this rule should be in 40k.

Is it worth complicating the game further though? Assign toughness and armour saves to vehicles (with toughness values for different facings of tanks still) and remove weapon destroyed, immobilised etc. and the game becomes a lot simpler, which I think the GW really needs to be aiming for. As long as points costs for infantry etc. (which do lose effectiveness as they take damage) and monstrous creatures/vehicles are balanced against each other the system would be great

I was thinking that since most MCs in 40K have 3-5 wounds, with some few Nids having 6 wound MC, it would be simple to just reduce a certain stat for each wound suffered.
That way we don't have to alter the existing stat lines.

For example, 1 wound suffered could cause an MC to have -1WS to represent it being "destracted by it's pain", but could also grant it Rampage (probably best for the second wound suffered though). By 3+ wounds suffered, I think it should have -1Str.
Again, though, these are just examples of what I think/hope might happen and not something I am suggesting should happen. The first wound should be something that has an effect, but not utterly devastating, By 2 wounds it should make a noticeable difference and so on.

I really hope GW doesn't redo all the unit entries as that would invalidate a lot of there fairly expensive codices.

I'd prefer if it was a per-monster effect, rather than some global rulebook effect like -1WS for example...

AoS has each monster's wound effects in the specific warscroll for that monster which makes sense to me.

Some Tyranids for example are mindless killers controlled by the Hive mind, you can cut off a leg and they'll be slower and possibly have an exploitable weakness (- Init and - T) but will still fight just as hard and just as fearless.

 Gunzhard wrote:
I'd prefer if it was a per-monster effect, rather than some global rulebook effect like -1WS for example...

AoS has each monster's wound effects in the specific warscroll for that monster which makes sense to me.

Some Tyranids for example are mindless killers controlled by the Hive mind, you can cut off a leg and they'll be slower and possibly have an exploitable weakness (- Init and - T) but will still fight just as hard and just as fearless.

While I agree that would be more flavorful, it would require a significant errata, or worse, re-releasing codices.
In an ideal situation every Codex would still be valid and the BRB would concisely make all the changes needed for a new edition.
It is entirely possible to streamline the rules, clean up the mess and introduce a few new concepts WITHOUT making the need for whole new unit entries or "deleting" rules that codices make reference to.

 Galef wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
I'd prefer if it was a per-monster effect, rather than some global rulebook effect like -1WS for example...

AoS has each monster's wound effects in the specific warscroll for that monster which makes sense to me.

Some Tyranids for example are mindless killers controlled by the Hive mind, you can cut off a leg and they'll be slower and possibly have an exploitable weakness (- Init and - T) but will still fight just as hard and just as fearless.

While I agree that would be more flavorful, it would require a significant errata, or worse, re-releasing codices.
In an ideal situation every Codex would still be valid and the BRB would concisely make all the changes needed for a new edition.
It is entirely possible to streamline the rules, clean up the mess and introduce a few new concepts WITHOUT making the need for whole new unit entries or "deleting" rules that codices make reference to.

The codexs are the problem. The reason the game is so unbalanced because of the broken units in the codexs. All of the codexs have to be rewritten otherwise the game will be just as unbalanced as before.

I'd rather see a generic chart that, if necessary, could be modified in later-released codexes to provide either blanket changes (i.e. Tyranids lose T and I, but not WS or BS, Tau would lose BS and Increase Gets Hot rolls, etc.) or targeted changes (Riptides and Ghostkeels might lose their jet pack capabilities, while Stormsurges would be subject to the normal penalties).

I'd also like to see this apply to all multi-wound models, not just MC. If your captain survives despite getting a lascannon round to the face, he should be just as impeded as a Dreadknight who survives the same.

 Galef wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
I'd prefer if it was a per-monster effect, rather than some global rulebook effect like -1WS for example...

AoS has each monster's wound effects in the specific warscroll for that monster which makes sense to me.

Some Tyranids for example are mindless killers controlled by the Hive mind, you can cut off a leg and they'll be slower and possibly have an exploitable weakness (- Init and - T) but will still fight just as hard and just as fearless.

While I agree that would be more flavorful, it would require a significant errata, or worse, re-releasing codices.
In an ideal situation every Codex would still be valid and the BRB would concisely make all the changes needed for a new edition.
It is entirely possible to streamline the rules, clean up the mess and introduce a few new concepts WITHOUT making the need for whole new unit entries or "deleting" rules that codices make reference to.

In all honesty we'd end up with a better game if we kept the BRB and overwrote every Codex than if we kept every Codex and overwrote the BRB. The wobbly balance seesaw and formation bloat exist because GW refuses to update unit entries, not because there are grand sweeping core-rules changes that need to be made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
...Tau would lose BS...

Just out of curiosity you know almost the entire Codex is BS3, right?

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Is it worth complicating the game further though? Assign toughness and armour saves to vehicles (with toughness values for different facings of tanks still) and remove weapon destroyed, immobilised etc. and the game becomes a lot simpler, which I think the GW really needs to be aiming for. As long as points costs for infantry etc. (which do lose effectiveness as they take damage) and monstrous creatures/vehicles are balanced against each other the system would be great

Problem with that idea is that now you're going to see a lot more vehicles threatened by things they used to be immune to. For example, lasguns can wound up to T6, but have no way to wound vehicles. If you gave vehicles a T value roughly equivalent to armor (so for AV 10, thatd be T6) You now have a ton of vehicles that can be killed by weapons that posed no threat to them before them. Weapons like bolters would be a lot punchier and I think Tau Pulse rifles would be able to technically kill any vehicle in the game at that point, as Toughness only goes up to 10.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

In all honesty we'd end up with a better game if we kept the BRB and overwrote every Codex than if we kept every Codex and overwrote the BRB. The wobbly balance seesaw and formation bloat exist because GW refuses to update unit entries, not because there are grand sweeping core-rules changes that need to be made.

While I agree with you and Crownaxe, the current "mess" is still preferable over having to buy 2-4 replacement codices for the armies many players already have.
The only good way (read: humane) of updating every codex is to do so for free, or at a dramatically reduced cost than the current $50 per book.

GW isn't going to do this and it is out of the realm of practicality to print so many books all at once. I used to play Fantasy for years, and although AoS seems like a fine game, invalidating the army books is the single reason I have not bothered to get into AoS. There are no free BOOKS to replace the old ones. Some of us like actual books rather than just digital stuff.
I think GW learned some lessons from AoS and hopefully they can find a clever balance between refreshing the game and no alienating the fanbase.

You can keep all the free rules and detachment bonuses, but if the main rules give no advantages between unit types, than it can balance out.

-

 AnomanderRake wrote:

In all honesty we'd end up with a better game if we kept the BRB and overwrote every Codex than if we kept every Codex and overwrote the BRB. The wobbly balance seesaw and formation bloat exist because GW refuses to update unit entries, not because there are grand sweeping core-rules changes that need to be made.

I agree the 7th rulebook isn't that bad actually sure there are some things that need to be fixed such as random charge range, the psy phase, mealstorm objectives, kill points and perhaps wound allocation, but the codexes are far worse no amount of rulebook rules can fix the power gaps between those. I am sure that we would all enjoy the hell out of 8th if it was just 7th with minor fixes + balanced codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

The only good way (read: humane) of updating every codex is to do so for free, or at a dramatically reduced cost than the current $50 per book.

Why, GW has always done this. My ork codex is released in 2014 is buying a new book every 3 years in order to keep the game and the company healthy that inhumane ?
Also codexes are currently only 25 pound retail price, thats roughly 31 dollar at the moment. They haven't been this cheap in years.

I play 4 different armies (mainly 2) so even if the new books were only $20 a piece, I would have to drop $80 just to paly a game with models I already own, or shelf certain armies until I buy their corresponding book.
Sure if you only play 1 army, it would not be as bad and the benefit of fixing the "codex mess' would be a small price to pay, but for those of us that play multiple armies, it is a terrifying idea.
I guess it is the downside of concentrating all my hobby/gaming time into 1 game, as I only play 40K (no other table-tops and I haven't played video games in over a decade).

Another issue with "hitting the reset button" like AoS is that you have no idea what new bugs will have to be worked out (like no points cost wtf?). 40K currently has some good stuff in it and we know what it's issues are. It would be a shame to lose all the good stuff just to spite the bad stuff. I see each new edition as a tweak on the last

Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Yeah cost-wise it would suck to replace everything, but really at this point - it's the only way to actually fix this mess, and I'd personally rather pay if the resulting product is actually worth it.

It would be nice if there was some transitional monetary relief though.

I agree the core rules are pretty good with some minor twitches, I for one love Maelstrom but the core set needs to be fixed and work more like the Tactical Supremacy / Cities of Death / or Race Maelstrom sets. I also love Random Charge, but I agree the Psychic phase needs fixing as does Challenges.

You know that they aren't going to release those books all at the same time right, and that that cash you spend on those books will probably be spend on GW stuff any way ; )
For example AoS did give you the stuff for free but still kept up their book release scheme and published all sorts of cool books with nice rules for sub factions within the old wfb armies that the more skeptical minded people might call fragmented armybooks.

Switching to toughness and armour save values would require lots of erratas, that's a fair point. I suppose it could be done similarly to the switch to psychic power chart availability for the various factions, but it would obviously require a lot more to list every vehicle in the game in the core rulebook with their new T/Sv stats. I still think it would be worth it eventually

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Is it worth complicating the game further though? Assign toughness and armour saves to vehicles (with toughness values for different facings of tanks still) and remove weapon destroyed, immobilised etc. and the game becomes a lot simpler, which I think the GW really needs to be aiming for. As long as points costs for infantry etc. (which do lose effectiveness as they take damage) and monstrous creatures/vehicles are balanced against each other the system would be great

Problem with that idea is that now you're going to see a lot more vehicles threatened by things they used to be immune to. For example, lasguns can wound up to T6, but have no way to wound vehicles. If you gave vehicles a T value roughly equivalent to armor (so for AV 10, thatd be T6) You now have a ton of vehicles that can be killed by weapons that posed no threat to them before them. Weapons like bolters would be a lot punchier and I think Tau Pulse rifles would be able to technically kill any vehicle in the game at that point, as Toughness only goes up to 10.

Fair comment, but these vehicles would be getting armour saves and would be immune to damage like crew stunned, weapon destroyed etc. I don't know... I think introducing the idea would be a big change to the game but once people get used to the idea it would streamline the game and make it easier to pick up for new players. Now I think the game is a bit too complex which is why I wouldn't support MC's weakening with wounds taken

Not that the idea doesn't have some merit. It completely makes sense from the point of view of realism, but then if you went down that route why wouldn't any model with multiple wounds become weaker as they lose wounds? I believe it would be better to simplify the game more, and if it's a problem that MC's are overpowered against infantry and vehicles then their points should be increased accordingly

MCs costing more would fix the mechanics, but it's pretty insulting that a TRex is more durable than an Abrams in 40K.

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Is it worth complicating the game further though? Assign toughness and armour saves to vehicles (with toughness values for different facings of tanks still) and remove weapon destroyed, immobilised etc. and the game becomes a lot simpler, which I think the GW really needs to be aiming for. As long as points costs for infantry etc. (which do lose effectiveness as they take damage) and monstrous creatures/vehicles are balanced against each other the system would be great

While it might not make the game that much simpler, having all those values on the unit's datascroll like in AOS would cut down on bookkeeping.

Good. It's about time. I always wanted MC's to get the same status effect treatment as vehicles. Seems ridiculous that a riptide can take a meltagun to the face and keep walking like nothing's happened lol.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
Good. It's about time. I always wanted MC's to get the same status effect treatment as vehicles. Seems ridiculous that a riptide can take a meltagun to the face and keep walking like nothing's happened lol.

Try 30 meltaguns to the face. I've got one wound left! I'm fine. Riptides are more survivable than warhound titans. Think about that.

It's situations like that where I think feel no pain should be gone on monstrous creatures. The most I would let them have is "It Will Not Die".

It's not just that. Once the void shields are gone (knocked down by autocannons or whatever), Str D tears apart the Warhound. But the Riptide still has its trusty 3++! You have to pray for a "6" with a D weapon, and even that is gone in ITC.

Ive always thought that there should be some sort of debuffs, or even yet another damage chart on MCs when they reach half or their last wound.

Will it happen? Unless movement stats come back in 8th edition, I don't see it happening. After all will GW nerf their beloved Space Marines after all these years getting free rules and buffs?

Then again did we think GW would be doing what they are doing now? So anything is possible after all. So if we have movement stats back, then I say HELL YES go for it. If not, then I say no, it will only nerf codices like Tyranids and what not.

If you think marines have gotten buffs, maybe you should check out riptide and wraithknight. Also, marines have been hit with heinous indirect nerfs in the form of xeno firepower that makes a mockery of T4 3+. It's so bad the fluff has zero credibility.

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Switching to toughness and armour save values would require lots of erratas, that's a fair point. I suppose it could be done similarly to the switch to psychic power chart availability for the various factions, but it would obviously require a lot more to list every vehicle in the game in the core rulebook with their new T/Sv stats. I still think it would be worth it eventually

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Is it worth complicating the game further though? Assign toughness and armour saves to vehicles (with toughness values for different facings of tanks still) and remove weapon destroyed, immobilised etc. and the game becomes a lot simpler, which I think the GW really needs to be aiming for. As long as points costs for infantry etc. (which do lose effectiveness as they take damage) and monstrous creatures/vehicles are balanced against each other the system would be great

Problem with that idea is that now you're going to see a lot more vehicles threatened by things they used to be immune to. For example, lasguns can wound up to T6, but have no way to wound vehicles. If you gave vehicles a T value roughly equivalent to armor (so for AV 10, thatd be T6) You now have a ton of vehicles that can be killed by weapons that posed no threat to them before them. Weapons like bolters would be a lot punchier and I think Tau Pulse rifles would be able to technically kill any vehicle in the game at that point, as Toughness only goes up to 10.

Fair comment, but these vehicles would be getting armour saves and would be immune to damage like crew stunned, weapon destroyed etc. I don't know... I think introducing the idea would be a big change to the game but once people get used to the idea it would streamline the game and make it easier to pick up for new players. Now I think the game is a bit too complex which is why I wouldn't support MC's weakening with wounds taken

Not that the idea doesn't have some merit. It completely makes sense from the point of view of realism, but then if you went down that route why wouldn't any model with multiple wounds become weaker as they lose wounds? I believe it would be better to simplify the game more, and if it's a problem that MC's are overpowered against infantry and vehicles then their points should be increased accordingly

The problem with saves though is you will eventually fail your saves, especially against mass fire. So with mass fire firing on a t6 vehicle, it will go down when it shouldn't even be hurt.

It's a good idea and in theory would be nice to be added in.
But are we going to buff the wounds on these MC's like in AoS?

A bloodthirster taking 5-6 wounds and being slightly weaker in AoS is 1 thing.
In 40k that's dead.

You couldn't have wound brackets at 0-1, 2-3 etc as it would hamper them stupidly to the point no one would take them.

If they simply add the approriate "datacard" thats a plastified piece of paper or plastic to have on hand to keep track, its a good idea.

On the subject of giving vehicles T and saves, its the other way around, Vehicles shouldn't become MC's, its MC's that should be affected like vehicles.

Even if you give T and saves to vehicles it wouldn't change much to the problem that MC's ar far more dangerous and reliable.

Even if vehicles becomes immune to dmages like MC's and have a rule that says they are immune to poison etc, they still be subpar compared to MC's.

MC's strength is not only the immunity to damage, its a corpus of rules that surrounds them, Smash, can fire any weapons no matter they're movement, can Overwatch/assault/defend itselfs, can benefit from rules such has FnP, IWND and others that affects non-vehicles models.

There is a lot of things where a MC is ( in most cases, since not all MC's are equal) just plain better at it then vehicles, that giving vehicles T and saves is just a band aid on a wooden leg.

The AoS solution is a more sensible one, just need to get it tight and simple.

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Switching to toughness and armour save values would require lots of erratas, that's a fair point. I suppose it could be done similarly to the switch to psychic power chart availability for the various factions, but it would obviously require a lot more to list every vehicle in the game in the core rulebook with their new T/Sv stats. I still think it would be worth it eventually

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Is it worth complicating the game further though? Assign toughness and armour saves to vehicles (with toughness values for different facings of tanks still) and remove weapon destroyed, immobilised etc. and the game becomes a lot simpler, which I think the GW really needs to be aiming for. As long as points costs for infantry etc. (which do lose effectiveness as they take damage) and monstrous creatures/vehicles are balanced against each other the system would be great

Problem with that idea is that now you're going to see a lot more vehicles threatened by things they used to be immune to. For example, lasguns can wound up to T6, but have no way to wound vehicles. If you gave vehicles a T value roughly equivalent to armor (so for AV 10, thatd be T6) You now have a ton of vehicles that can be killed by weapons that posed no threat to them before them. Weapons like bolters would be a lot punchier and I think Tau Pulse rifles would be able to technically kill any vehicle in the game at that point, as Toughness only goes up to 10.

Fair comment, but these vehicles would be getting armour saves and would be immune to damage like crew stunned, weapon destroyed etc. I don't know... I think introducing the idea would be a big change to the game but once people get used to the idea it would streamline the game and make it easier to pick up for new players. Now I think the game is a bit too complex which is why I wouldn't support MC's weakening with wounds taken

Not that the idea doesn't have some merit. It completely makes sense from the point of view of realism, but then if you went down that route why wouldn't any model with multiple wounds become weaker as they lose wounds? I believe it would be better to simplify the game more, and if it's a problem that MC's are overpowered against infantry and vehicles then their points should be increased accordingly

Any IG player out there can tell you that armor saves mean jack diddly to lasguns. I will just spam FRFSRF and that will be a dead vehicle sooner or later that used to ignore it completely.

Additionally, taking away the vehicle damage chart is a really bad idea. Pretty much every game out there that has vehicles has vehicle effects for damage. What should be done is monstrous creatures suffering similar results, not getting rid of them entirely.

I guarantee you if you had a "monstrous creature damage chart" along these lines, it would help balance immensely as far as a "Vehicles vs Monstrous Creatures" debate, at least in a vacuum. You would still need to rebalance individual units to make the costs better, but honestly the game needs a serious revamp in points anyways. Even just aping the Vehicle damage chart would be a start

Monstrous Creature Damage table

1-3 Shaken! " All weapons fire at snap shots until the end of the next turn."

4 Stunned " The Monstrous Creature may only fire snap shots next turn and cannot move until the end of the next turn. If the creature was flying (can't remember technical terms, swooping, gliding, etc.) the creature crashes to the ground. The creature may be fired at as a normal ground target after the attack that stunned it is finished.

5 Weapon Destroyed! "One of the creature's weapons (randomly chosen) is destroyed. If the creature would have no weapons left, treat this as an Immobilized result (see below)

6 Immobilized "The creature cannot move for the rest of the game. It may pivot on the spot, to represent the creature rolling over or turning, but cannot move from the spot on it's own volition. If it suffers a further Immobilized result, treat the creature as suffering an additional wound instead. Creatures that are flying (again, I don't use MC's, swooping/gliding/whatever the word is) crash to the ground as if it was stunned and are then immobilized.

7+ Instant death The creature drops dead from an exceptionally well placed or powerful shot. Its wounds immediately drops to zero and it is removed as a casualty.

Ap 2 adds one to the damage chart, AP 1 adds 2. AP 5 or more takes away 3 from the result, meaning the highest it can roll is 3, and if the roll is 3 or less no damage result is caused, it just does a wound (so that lasguns or bolters can't stun lock a carnifex with ease) Cover is treated as with vehicles on the 25% or more obscured, etc.

Again, you'd have to revamp all monstrous creature costs to adapt to the new table, and I would recommend certain armies get rules to work around this (for example, perhaps Nids get an "extra armor" type of upgrade for things like Carnifexes to allow them to drop the damage roll by one, so they would only be able to be instantly killed by AP1 and could potentially even have it where they ignore a roll of 1-3 to represent their rabid nature, etc.) but I think it would make for a good system as it's essentially identical to the vehicle one, making it easy to remember. Essentially nothing has been changed, just that Monstrous Creatures have their own table with a few terms tweaked to account for how Monstrous creatures work.