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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.

And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A straight port wouldn't quite do the trick - Orks for instance would just be on the receiving end without a further special rule. But I think it could be adapted to 40k.

Orks were exactly what came to mind the moment I saw this rule change. They really need to be a bit more specific regarding some of the changes.

Also, I'll soon be selling my kidney for a Thunderhawk.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

ingtaer wrote:
That new drop pod rule had me cracking up. Oh, how I have been tempted.

For members of the Sad Old Git Society (Soggy Soggy Soggy! OI OI OI!), that's not far from how you deployed Drop Pods in Olden Epic.

Get Blast Marker. Pile up the Drop Pod tokens on it. lift to a set distance off the table (30cm? Might've been more), then flip it. They lands where their token lands.

That was a lot more fun when they eventually released lead drop pods ...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.

And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.

They will need to find a compromise - either Battleshock only works in melee, or you get additional modifiers working for you when testing "shooting panic" battleshock or... I dunno.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Darth Bob wrote:

I like to think that the Death Guard are so mired in Nurgle's corruption that they now see everything as "7". So, despite being the 14th Legion, they think they're the 7th. When they bring their squads to the battlefield, they walk around in squads of 10, and when asked how many of them there are, they respond with "Seven!". After taking casualties someone might ask "How many of you are left?" and they will say "Seven!", even though there's like 3 and a half of them left after the Battlecannon hit them.

Everything is Seven!

Brother Joe: "My lord Mortarion, it's movie night and the brothers want to know what tonight's movie is."

Mortarion: "The same as every movie night, my son."

Fairly certain the scythe in the Death Guard video is a Manreaper scythe.. Sooo Calas Typhon

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Fairly certain the scythe in the Death Guard video is a Manreaper scythe.. Sooo Calas Typhon

It's almost certainly Daemon Prince Mortarion.

 Darth Bob wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Fairly certain the scythe in the Death Guard video is a Manreaper scythe.. Sooo Calas Typhon

It's almost certainly Daemon Prince Mortarion.

Wagering this aswell.

 Darth Bob wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Fairly certain the scythe in the Death Guard video is a Manreaper scythe.. Sooo Calas Typhon

It's almost certainly Daemon Prince Mortarion.

Nope. Because the Mortarion we've seen views of, still has his 30k chainsaw scythe thing.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Darth Bob wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Fairly certain the scythe in the Death Guard video is a Manreaper scythe.. Sooo Calas Typhon

It's almost certainly Daemon Prince Mortarion.

Nope. Because the Mortarion we've seen views of, still has his 30k chainsaw scythe thing.

If you watch the video, the scythe very clearly widens out towards the point like Mortarion's, rather than tapering. Even the angle and silhouette is almost identical.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.

And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.

That's not how it works usually, the biggest part of the Battleshock roll is in most cases the number of casualties, not the D6. "One bad roll" killing a whole squad that would otherwise be totally fine is very rare. Elite units with high Bravery are often effectively immune to Battleshock because you need to kill nearly the entire unit to have a chance of removing more with Battleshock.

tneva82 wrote:

Problem is in 2nd ed pretty much everything had save modifier. Which resulted in...you guess it! Armour being useless unless it was terminator scale..

A -1 modifier doesn't make 3+ armour useless. It makes it save on a 4+. And different weapons having different modifiers make that they affect armour differently. Which, so long as GW persist with having separate rolls for hitting, Wounding and saving, is exactly how it should be.


Modifiers add granularity which is lacking from the current AP system.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

But i already have an entire deathguard army with over 40 plague marines... that you don't need the new models but want the new models but dont need the new models dilema

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.

And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.

It's not actually that big a deal. Smaller model count, elite units tend to rarely ever have to worry about battleshock unless they're already getting absolutely trounced in the first place, while larger grunt units tend to have plenty of ways to insulate themselves against battleshock losses. In my experience, battleshock only starts to become a big issue when large multi-front assaults happen where one side is being overrun in the first place, where most non-fearless units would taken off of the table anyway in 40k.

What really makes battleshock an attractive system is that the player is always in control. While the damage you suffer is at the whims of the dice gods, your units will always function as you dictate until they're destroyed. You might lose a chunk of a unit to a bad roll, but your entire unit won't be wiped off the map by a single abnormal roll (and if your losses are significant enough that this happens, your unit was not going to stick around anyway).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
- as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements,

So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.

'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.

Movement stats, something we have all wanted back since 3rd edition dropped.
Armour save modifiers, always thought these worked better than the all or nothing AP system, but it depends how common / high they end up being. Most basic guns should NOT have a modifier. (and terminators need their 2D6 roll back)

The AoS morale system, it's basically the crumble rule from WHFB undead. It terrible. By far the worst rule I ever had to deal with in fantasy. It's main point was to counter act the ability to summon troops faster than your opponent could kill them. They should have just tamed down the summoning.

I don't spend so much time painting and modelling just to take models off the table as fast as possible.

Also square bases confirmed! Oh the juicy tears when everyone realises they WEREN'T joking.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.

And some of us don't like the idea of a rest of a squad vanishing because of one bad roll.

Which is entirely fair enough - but less likely to happen in AoS unless you've taken a small unit size - in which case even under 40k Ld it'd likely be curtains.

As I said, Battleshock will need to be adapted to 40k, rather than simply imported without change.

But I'm overall looking forward to Ld not being something only a couple of armies ever really worry about, and people having to adapt to attrition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
- as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements,

So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.

'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.

You can retreat from combat in AoS, no problem (and indeed, doing so and having a new unit then charge in is a good tactic).

As for 'I dunno, die of fright', Battleshock represent individuals fleeing.

 Fafnir wrote:

What really makes battleshock an attractive system is that the player is always in control. .

No, see, that's really not a selling point.

The whole point of the current morale system is that units in the thick of it won't always do what you want them to.

And that, for me, is much more thematic than racing to remove models from the table.

 Tamereth wrote:

Also square bases confirmed! Oh the juicy tears when everyone realises they WEREN'T joking.

Please recant the Litany Against Trolling and rewatch.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

As for 'I dunno, die of fright', Battleshock represent individuals fleeing.

If it represents that by having them inexplicably vanish from the middle of the table, then it does so badly.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
- as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements,

So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat, or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.

'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.

"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle. Individual models who run away are unlikely to have any further effect o the battle, which is exactly what this abstraction represents.

 insaniak wrote:
Modifiers add granularity which is lacking from the current AP system.

But watch as they take two giant leaps back with weapon rules that wound on a certain roll because there's no S or T anymore.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
- as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements,

So would allowing units to voluntarily break from combat,

You can already do that in AoS.

or creating better synergy between multiple units attacking the same enemy.

Most armies have some form of synergistic enhancement going on between units within specific ranges. Although having units that benefit not just from being in range, but from coordinated actions would be pretty cool. Still, battleshock itself serves as a solid system of providing synergy in that it allows you to focus down a unit with multiple of your own for extra potential damage compared to attacking separate targets.

'Let's just remove more models, because they, I dunno, die of fright or something... ' might be a better system than the current one, but that doesn't make it the best alternative. Or even a good one.

Part of the point of making models move off the table faster (at least, the more tarpitty ones) with less steps is to make the game move faster overall. 4-6 hour long 40k games at 'standard' points values are not ideal by any measure. Combats in AoS generally tend to be more decisive to the outcome of the entire game than in 40k right now, so having them end quickly after their overall direction of the battle has been decided gets rid of a lot of busywork and arbitrary dice rolling.

 Mymearan wrote:

"Die of fright"? It's called fleeing, and it happens in battle.

No, fleeing is represented in a tabletop game by having the models move away from the enemy.

Unless every model is equipped with a personal teleport solely for use when they get scared, having the models just disappear is a poor way to represent running from the battle.

...in your view. This is quite the blanket statement thread.

insaniak wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

What really makes battleshock an attractive system is that the player is always in control. .

No, see, that's really not a selling point.

The whole point of the current morale system is that units in the thick of it won't always do what you want them to.

And that, for me, is much more thematic than racing to remove models from the table.

Okay, but at the end of the day, a unit that goes AWOL is for all intents and purposes already off the table anyway. If it's something that really bothers you, I'm sure no one would mind if you placed your fleeing units on the table to show that they were running off into irrelevance anyway. Battleshock is not a model inexplicably dying, it's the model being shaken or damaged in a way that leaves it no longer under your control or relevant to the battle. Which is exactly the same roll that fleeing units fulfill, but now with less book keeping (and now hopefully a factor for armies that aren't just Imperial Guard).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Modifiers add granularity which is lacking from the current AP system.

But watch as they take two giant leaps back with weapon rules that wound on a certain roll because there's no S or T anymore.

If units are given a higher proportion of wounds to compensate for a removed toughness value, the overall resilience of the unit is maintained, but with added consistency of damage delivered. It means that you're less likely to have completely wasted actions, since the damage does become more granular even in how it's counted.

Thebiggesthat wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

BaronVonSnakPak wrote:

The core gameplay, using movement speed, save, leadership,wounds, magic casting, melee/ranged and rending is EXACTLY the same. The Generals Handbook was a balance patch, not a gameplay overhaul, it changed what you bring to the game, but not how you play the game itself.

Which is bad because it didn't fix the REAL problems with AOS. Points? That wasn't biggest problem with AOS by far. It was from the get go bad rules and total lack of tactical depth.

Keep banging that 'lack of tactical depth' drum, despite plenty of posters giving you loads of examples of how wrong you are

Enjoy your new 40k

Others stating loads of bad examples doesn't make AOS tactically deeper. I have played lots of AOS. It has zero depth.

And if 8th ed sucks as it likely will I ignore it. I play 40k. Not worried about edition per se. Haven't played 7th ed for a long time. Still play 40k. 8th edition is simply more books I can ignore. As it is GW has made it impossible for me to use any of their recent releases anyway. Not even "I don't want" but literally "I CANNOT". Whether fluff or rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
...in your view. This is quite the blanket statement thread.

Well, of course it's 'in my view'... Who else's opinion would I be offering?

Then I'd volunteer you've played it entirely wrong - but that's a whole different thread.

If you don't like AoS, I don't care. If you like AoS, I don't care.

Can we please crack on with the subject in hand?

 insaniak wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Problem is in 2nd ed pretty much everything had save modifier. Which resulted in...you guess it! Armour being useless unless it was terminator scale..

A -1 modifier doesn't make 3+ armour useless. It makes it save on a 4+. And different weapons having different modifiers make that they affect armour differently. Which, so long as GW persist with having separate rolls for hitting, Wounding and saving, is exactly how it should be.


Modifiers add granularity which is lacking from the current AP system.

It's not just -1. It's -1, -2, -3 everything so abundant. Which means that you are paying lots for armour you don't really use.

Did you ever play 2nd ed? I still play. I know exactly how useful power armour is in 2nd ed. It's to the level that only reason space marines take it because they HAVE TO. If space marines could ditch all armour and run naked for cheaper price THEY WOULD DO IT! And in a heartbeat. Extra guys are better than armour save which you often can't use or is like 5+ or 6+.

Nevermind something like 5+ save or 6+ save which is even worse than in 7th ed.

Only armour worth paying anything in 2nd ed is terminator armour. Power armour MAYBE if it's 1 pts but if you could run tactical marine naked for 25 pts rather than 30 pts guess what? Naked it is.