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.

There will be more news today?

 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.

AoS allows you to voluntarily break from combat and has better synergy between multiple nearby units.
edit for proof and a discussion of the tactical benefits of doing so - https://aos-tactics.com/2017/03/21/retreating-in-age-of-sigmar/

What's the saying? "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

 Mymearan wrote:

 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.

Funny. In real world at least people have ran from battle and returned rather than vanish into thin air.

Well, it looks like 40k will be even MORE if a Shooting game then a Close Combat game

Armour Save Modifiers? (I.E MOST SHOOTING WEAPONS)
An AoS Leadership System? (I.E UNLESS YOUR NECRONS, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE HALF YOUR GUYS)

And what does Close Combat get?
Charging unit attacks first


*Sigh*
Looks like ill have to crack open Rulebooks to create a "Revised" 7th ed (or just call it 7.5 ed)

Not really going to lose half your guys....

Let's consider a Space Marine squad as they stand. With their Vet Sarge, they're Ld9.

Not allowing for any ATSKNF, because we don't know how/if it might affect things.

In order to lose anyone to Battleshock, as lifted straight from AoS, you need to lose 4 models in combat and then roll a 6....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 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.

Funny. In real world at least people have ran from battle and returned rather than vanish into thin air.

You mean like how units can be scattered when fleeing from combat and removed from the board in every edition of 40k and Warhammer up to and including 8th Ed Warhammer and 7th Ed 40k......and how that's described as the unit's cohesion being broken, but not necessarily everyone dead - just too scattered for the scope of a single battle to deal with rectifying?

 Silentz wrote:

AoS allows you to voluntarily break from combat and has better synergy between multiple nearby units.
edit for proof and a discussion of the tactical benefits of doing so - https://aos-tactics.com/2017/03/21/retreating-in-age-of-sigmar/

Excellent. I like both of those ideas better than I like Battleshock.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not really going to lose half your guys....

Let's consider a Space Marine squad as they stand. With their Vet Sarge, they're Ld9.

Not allowing for any ATSKNF, because we don't know how/if it might affect things.

In order to lose anyone to Battleshock, as lifted straight from AoS, you need to lose 4 models in combat and then roll a 6....

And, of course, since it doesn't make sense for a space marine to wet himself and run away, we can probably safely assume that ATSKNF will negate it.

Which leaves us with a mechanic that half the armies in the game ignore, which seems somewhat pointless.

Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system

S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Fleeing is represented in some tabletop games by having the models move away from the enemy. In others, it's represented by removing models that are unlikely to have a further effect on the battle. 40k has both variants, and AoS only the latter. Models who perform an orderly retreat from combat may do so in AoS and will not be removed. As for the "personal teleport" comment, I'm sure you are aware that tabletop games are abstractions and not simulations of reality, and that almost any mechanic in any game could be similarly ridiculed.

insaniak wrote:
And, of course, since it doesn't make sense for a space marine to wet himself and run away, we can probably safely assume that ATSKNF will negate it.

Which leaves us with a mechanic that half the armies in the game ignore, which seems somewhat pointless.

Can we safely assume that? Considering how low bravery Stormcast Eternals (aka Sigmarines) usually have. Why would we assume that? Especially since they say it will affect all armies.

 insaniak wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

AoS allows you to voluntarily break from combat and has better synergy between multiple nearby units.
edit for proof and a discussion of the tactical benefits of doing so - https://aos-tactics.com/2017/03/21/retreating-in-age-of-sigmar/

Excellent. I like both of those ideas better than I like Battleshock.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not really going to lose half your guys....

Let's consider a Space Marine squad as they stand. With their Vet Sarge, they're Ld9.

Not allowing for any ATSKNF, because we don't know how/if it might affect things.

In order to lose anyone to Battleshock, as lifted straight from AoS, you need to lose 4 models in combat and then roll a 6....

And, of course, since it doesn't make sense for a space marine to wet himself and run away, we can probably safely assume that ATSKNF will negate it.

Which leaves us with a mechanic that half the armies in the game ignore, which seems somewhat pointless.

Just like morale in current 40k?
Or that it allows you to re-roll it. What I'm seeing here is more of an issue of 40k rather than the rule per se.

 insaniak wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

AoS allows you to voluntarily break from combat and has better synergy between multiple nearby units.
edit for proof and a discussion of the tactical benefits of doing so - https://aos-tactics.com/2017/03/21/retreating-in-age-of-sigmar/

Excellent. I like both of those ideas better than I like Battleshock.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not really going to lose half your guys....

Let's consider a Space Marine squad as they stand. With their Vet Sarge, they're Ld9.

Not allowing for any ATSKNF, because we don't know how/if it might affect things.

In order to lose anyone to Battleshock, as lifted straight from AoS, you need to lose 4 models in combat and then roll a 6....

And, of course, since it doesn't make sense for a space marine to wet himself and run away, we can probably safely assume that ATSKNF will negate it.

Which leaves us with a mechanic that half the armies in the game ignore, which seems somewhat pointless.

Firstly, it is telling that you criticise a concept without having a grasp on how it works in AoS. Secondly, battleshock and being able to retreat from combat using manual movement are not separate concepts - they are one and the same. They are designed to work this way. It is a very elegant and well done combination that removes unnecessary morale rules whilst offering greater tactical options. That doesn't mean the idea of battleshock is brilliant or that morale as it has worked in other gw games is bad. Just that the way it has been integrated in aos is well considered.

There are certainly issues with battleshock in 40k. The amount of long range shooting means that casualties are typically higher than in 40k. Losing an entire unit to shooting is exceptional in aos, but one would expect this to be different in 40k. Therefore I would hope that they adjust with this in mind. Whether that is through all shooting being weakened (which should happen to some extent anyway - there is too much that dies instantly) or by giving overall higher values or scaling with unit size. The key thing to remember is that rules cannot be judged in isolation.

It should also be noted that in aos all generals have an inspiring presence which they can choose to use on a unit which makes it immune to batttleshock. There are ways 40k could work around this to mitigate morale issues. However aos does it well because it gives you the choice of using your general's other command ability or this inspiring presence - a tactical choice rather than a passive action.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 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.

Funny. In real world at least people have ran from battle and returned rather than vanish into thin air.

I refer to my above comment about all tabletop being abstractions, not simulations. But perhaps you would like rules for soldiers lying down on the ground playing dead in the hopes that the enemy won't notice them? Why, we couldn't just remove the model, they're not really dead!

The thing that fills me with dread the most: talk of bespoke rules for all your units.

Of the many things I dislike about AoS, that one's right up there at the top of the list. It doesn't make it easier to know what rules everyone has, it makes it more difficult because there's no common ground to refer to. Sorting through a bunch of Warscrolls to find the right unit and the correct rule on the page is annoying and needlessly slows things down while adding pointless complexity without adding any depth.

The comment about only needing to know the rules for your own army just goes to show how little GW understands their own system and players. It's kinda important to know how your opponent's army works too and giving them all special snowflake rules really doesn't help with that.

Also, I really hope we get to keep the S/T chart and GW doesn't start breaking up the various armies into the tiny factions like they've done in AoS.

Movement values, save modifiers and morale actually meaning something again all sounds good to me. All depends on the detail of how it's implemented. I think too many people are projecting current 40k rules and principles onto these new rules without realising the specifics will change dramatically. Maybe you just won't have shooting that will remove 10+ models in one go any more since the morale rules also lead to model removal.

The issue is that rule exactly in 40k.

So as opposed to sweeping advance that removes all models, we are upset that you would lose some models?

 SickSix wrote:
So as opposed to sweeping advance that removes all models, we are upset that you would lose some models?

I didn't know a Bolter round could perform a sweeping advance. That's... uh... news.

Is there actually a plastic thunderhawk?

Are we actually going to square bases?

Possibly.

No.

In that precise order.

 NivlacSupreme wrote:


Are we actually going to square bases?

Why, yes, including the move tray with wheels! (sold separately, batteries not included! )

 commander dante wrote:
Well, it looks like 40k will be even MORE if a Shooting game then a Close Combat game

Armour Save Modifiers? (I.E MOST SHOOTING WEAPONS)
An AoS Leadership System? (I.E UNLESS YOUR NECRONS, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE HALF YOUR GUYS)

And what does Close Combat get?
Charging unit attacks first


*Sigh*
Looks like ill have to crack open Rulebooks to create a "Revised" 7th ed (or just call it 7.5 ed)

My orks (an assault army)
- Oh no armour mods, never got much of a save anyway
- AS modifiers for ork weps, most ork weapons AP are meh so if they get added armour mods this is great for orks (esp if CC weps get it) as above orks for the most part don't care about armour mods in return
- Fighting first on the charge, I2... currently loose loads of boyz before they get to swing
- Loose combat models die instead of running away. Mob rule we normally loose boyz instead of running away currently, or worse the nobs been challenged out and we run away and get swept
- Command points for playing 'fluffy' armies. Fluffy Ork armies of loads of boyz are also probably the best, whey command points

10 boyz charge 10 marines (ignoring OW)
New rules:
orks fight first 40 attacks
3.33 marine dies
8 marines fight back
1.66 orks die
Marines loose combat by 1/2

carries on:
marines fight first 8 attacks (assuming they didnt run away and are immune to the new LD rule)
1.66 orks die
orks fight with 21 attacks
1.1 marines die
orks might loose by 1 say for examples. Roll a dice D6 get a 6(worse result) add 1 = 7... 7-7 = 0 no orks die happy days carry on as normal next turn


Current rules:
marines fight first 10 attacks
2 orks die
orks fight back 32 attacks
2.66 marines die

carries on:
marines fight first 8 attacks
1.66 orks die
orks fight with 21 attacks
1.1 marines die
orks might loose for examples. Roll 2 dice you get a 7 (average) + 1 = 8 orks ld 7 so fails. Anything but a 1 on the mob check they run away... lets say they don't roll a 1 the marines can now sweep the orks d6+I (4) vs orks d6+2 good chance all the orks die

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
Is there actually a plastic thunderhawk?

Are we actually going to square bases?

Square bases? No. that was a joke.

Thunder hawk? No idea. I must have missed something

 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.

40k vs AOS

40k
squad of 10 guys with Ld of 8
they take 3 casualties, roll Ld test and get a nine, they fall back.
This may destroy all 7 of them as they may fall off the table edge in to a dead end, swept or just be so far behind near the end of the game they might as well be dead (even when they regroup they snap shot so are near useless)

AOS
squad of 10 guys with bravery of 8
they take 3 casualties, roll bravery test and get a nine, they loose 1 guy.
Nothing more and they had to roll the highest possible fail for that to happen.

 Latro_ wrote:
Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system

S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh

As you noticed that's not good. Autocannons? -3 modifier. Power armour saves on 6+. Terminators on 5+.

This is precisely the problem you have with ASM. You pay premium for the save, then you barely use. Terminators would be even more ridiculously overpriced when even autocannons would be scything through them.

Plasma weapons would btw come entirely useless in that system. So yeah as you noticed bad idea.

AP to modifier straight works bit better but only marginally. Armour would still be useless but at least plasma etc weapons would be have use. Even if they would still be worthless barely worth extra point as autocannon would be plenty good as it is(actually autocannon would be god weapon of imperials...)

 kronk wrote:

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
Is there actually a plastic thunderhawk?

Are we actually going to square bases?

Square bases? No. that was a joke.

Thunder hawk? No idea. I must have missed something

There's a cardboard box (your normal, brown type products are shipped in) crudely labelled "plastic Thunderhawk" in the background when they talk about Deep Striking.

 Mymearan wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Fleeing is represented in some tabletop games by having the models move away from the enemy. In others, it's represented by removing models that are unlikely to have a further effect on the battle. 40k has both variants, and AoS only the latter. Models who perform an orderly retreat from combat may do so in AoS and will not be removed. As for the "personal teleport" comment, I'm sure you are aware that tabletop games are abstractions and not simulations of reality, and that almost any mechanic in any game could be similarly ridiculed.

You realize voluntarily retreating from battle is NOT exactly good way to represent guys losing nerve and running away to regroup later? That's player deciding. In other words your troops would only get scared WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT TO THE PLAYER!

However in reality morale doesn't work only when it's convenient to commander. Troops flee and regroup based on, funny that, emotions which commander can't dictate. Troopers are(in even 9in 40k mostly) not robots.

 commander dante wrote:
Well, it looks like 40k will be even MORE if a Shooting game then a Close Combat game

Armour Save Modifiers? (I.E MOST SHOOTING WEAPONS)
An AoS Leadership System? (I.E UNLESS YOUR NECRONS, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE HALF YOUR GUYS)

And what does Close Combat get?
Charging unit attacks first


*Sigh*
Looks like ill have to crack open Rulebooks to create a "Revised" 7th ed (or just call it 7.5 ed)

I don't know- CC will benefit from changes to movement, CC weapons can grant ASM as could the strength of the attacker in CC. We'd need to see how it all integrates and how different units benefit. Hopefully Nids and Orks will see a boost to their CC abilities, movement could make Nids very fast again and getting attacks first if charging could be big along with Battleshock meaning they are less likely to get stuck in prolonged combat.

tneva82 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system

S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh

As you noticed that's not good. Autocannons? -3 modifier. Power armour saves on 6+. Terminators on 5+.

This is precisely the problem you have with ASM. You pay premium for the save, then you barely use. Terminators would be even more ridiculously overpriced when even autocannons would be scything through them.

Plasma weapons would btw come entirely useless in that system. So yeah as you noticed bad idea.

AP to modifier straight works bit better but only marginally. Armour would still be useless but at least plasma etc weapons would be have use. Even if they would still be worthless barely worth extra point as autocannon would be plenty good as it is(actually autocannon would be god weapon of imperials...)

The Power Klaw in shadow wars is -3, that seems an obvious hint to the levels.

So AP 2 stuff becomes -3, AP3 to -2 and AP 4 to -1 - with some jigging about in specific circumstances?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
So as opposed to sweeping advance that removes all models, we are upset that you would lose some models?

I didn't know a Bolter round could perform a sweeping advance. That's... uh... news.

And a bolter round isn't going to kill 4 marines in one round either. Which is how many dead marines it would take in one turn (assuming current leadership values and ignoring what ATSKNF could possibly do, although it'll probably just be a reroll on battleshock) for a squad to have a 1/6 chance of losing a single marine.

People are seriously overestimating the effects of battleshock. People just seem to be really scared of AoS. Don't worry guys, the water's warm and actually quite pleasant.

Honestly battleshock and units always hitting first on the charge is trash. Battleshock applies to all wounds taken, not just im combat. You can lose 15 orks in a single shooting phase, and that unit is basically gone. Yeah Orks are gonna get helped by always hitting first, but how exactly do you plan to get there with Sigmar style leadership? Also how do guard plan to stick?
Furthermore, always strikes first on every unit?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Thunder hammers, necron lychguard, powerklaws, chainfists, STOMPAS, KHORNE D THIRSTERS, all hitting first?! How does this not break the game? If my necron warriors can rapid fire you, and then relentless charge you, it practically doubles my killing power for free. Also it makes some units like flayed ones go from crap to horribly OP. 5 attacks with shred on the charge at marine strength and ws. Like honestly, what the hell. There's a reason that initiative exists.

tneva82 wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
Wonder if they are just gonna blanket release chart for a armour mod for weapons for play around with the AP system

S minus AP value might work as a modifier unless AP lower than armour in which case carry on as before.
edit: no hangon that would not work to good. ugh

As you noticed that's not good. Autocannons? -3 modifier. Power armour saves on 6+. Terminators on 5+.

This is precisely the problem you have with ASM. You pay premium for the save, then you barely use. Terminators would be even more ridiculously overpriced when even autocannons would be scything through them.

Plasma weapons would btw come entirely useless in that system. So yeah as you noticed bad idea.

AP to modifier straight works bit better but only marginally. Armour would still be useless but at least plasma etc weapons would be have use. Even if they would still be worthless barely worth extra point as autocannon would be plenty good as it is(actually autocannon would be god weapon of imperials...)

In the current AOS system they mitigated this by having terminator role units just have multi wounds. All this jumping to conclusions with out the full picture is ridiculous. For all we know invulnerable saves will stack on top of armour saves,most high armour save models will get extra wounds or rules like lizardmen were they ignore anything below -2 rend. So lets not make sweeping judgments without looking at the possibilitys.