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.

On the return of Armour modifier:
I believe if Space Marine in tactical armour still roll on 3+, modifier should be -1 quite rare, -2 very rare, -3 maximum and extremly rare or even absent. Or they should propose more sophisticated mechanics. Or Space Marine tactical armour should be 2+ and terminator 1+ (still makes sense if 1 is always failed). My point is that 1D6 is not flexible enough for armour modifier mechanics as in 2nd edition. Thus 1D10 could be more useful. As it was said, 5+ or 6+ is not a relevant save throw on a D6.

 silent25 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That they're announcing these sorts of things, to me would indicate that 8th edition will arrive very soon. News of big changes like these will depress the sales as people are not sure what things are usable/good in the new edition and thus won't buy anything until they know.

Well they said that these new rules 'might' be out in time for Adepticon next year so to me it says that they haven't decided on this year or not. Or it says that 8th may have a community trial phase before it goes to print.

Given June/July has been the release date for new editions for quite a while now, it's going to be this year. I recall September/October being an edition release period a while ago though, but would still be this year. I do not remember there ever being an edition release ever being released in winter or spring.

I hope you're right. I don't want to wait another year. The current rules are such a mess that I just can't get excited about the game anymore.

To be honest, there's nothing to suggest that they are simplifying 40k. In fact, bringing back armour modifier nstead of AP is making the game more complex.

What's worrying me is that most of the changes introduced are taken from AOS (even though I like these changes), but that doesn't necessarly means that they will bring the other rules which makes AOS a dumpster fire of a game.

How many days is Adepticon?

 ncshooter426 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
[

2. Yeah that assumption worked out really well for AoS a game which has took 2 years to get back to the point it's failing predecessor was at when axed. Yeah some lessons have been learned hence 40k will start from the point of the generals handbook but my anacdotal evidence suggests if 40k goes full AoS(Never go full AoS man) then the only GW game played in my area will be 30k.

AoS has done better than FB ever did. Even at launch, after the initial wave of salt, I saw more people actually having fun with it than I ever saw in FB. GH came out, and suddenly it was everywhere.. AoS' sales account for more at my location than 40K, and player base.

So yeah, I can't fathom how "going full AoS" is a bad thing, but you are welcome to stick with 30K.

Seems like another one that doesn't know the difference between an anecdotal evidence and aggregate data

Part of me is excited (save mods, hit first on the charge) and makes me remember my fond days of 2nd. It would be nice if terminators got their 2D6 save back.

However if they do fixed to hit and to wound rolls I will just go back to oldhammer or stick my stuff in the loft and play Infinity and Flames of War.

Where can I find these latest rumors about 40k?

 Gamgee wrote:
How many days is Adepticon?

Runs through Sunday.

They do have The Google up there in Canada, right?

The problem is, by the time you've apologised 14 times to Canadian Google for bothering it, done your search and then thanked it for taking the time, it's just easier to expect some schmuck on a forum to answer elementary questions instead.

The movement stat is fine as long as it doesnt vaccinate wildly from unit to unit. I don't really want to see "fast" marines and so on. But like we saw with mechanicus and t heir dune strider 9 inch move stuff.

Armour save modifier, I'd probably leave that at the door. The problem with the game is too many units have access to insane firepower, we can all agree that the game went from like 1 special 1 heavy per unit to like everyone gets whatever they want pretty fast. See eldar jetbikes or dev centurons. Some units just have way too much damn firepower. The other reality is, sci fi or not, ballistic weaponry without even getting into the sci fi realm are pretty deadly things. I think if anything the game struggles more on representing mutiple wounding weaponry, gw's gotten better at adding some of that with mechanicus but unless mc's change, we need more of that, It's silly that a vindicator can remove whole single wound units but barely scratch mc's, this is a problem and has been fore a while.

Getting rid of initiative, or at least that seems to be what was communicated. Gettin ride of that in favour of charging unit striking first shows gw doesn't understand the problem with assault. It's getting one off in the first place, it's actually getting there that's the problem. And that;s not JUST a random charge problem, its a terrain problem, it's a no assault from reserve or outflank problem. In 5th you could assault from reserve and outflank and the game was better for it. I wouldn't got as far as assault from deep strike, but even then I'm open to some specialist units doing that too provided we're talkin a handful of units across all codex's (if those are even going to be a thing).

As for the leadership stat to matter, well, best of luck with that. Sounds good in theory but the leadership start already basically assumes all leadership is is yetliing "hey guys, don't flee". I'm not sure how you'd introduce complexity there. The other problem is a great majority of armies barely interact with the stat, and they shall know no fear it would seem.







The biggest problem 7th ed has beyond the bloat is the army construction. The actual core game just needs a cleanup. Walkers need to have a reason to exist, so either immune to immobilized or only halves their movement. You wouldn't have everyone reaching for the super heavies if cool looking walkers were actually allowed to not suck compared to mc's. And that's the next problem, mc's need to be addressed. Anything that is 100% effective until dead and isn't some cool character seems to be a bit much. So either a mechanic in which they lose combat effectiveness as their wounds decrease or more usr's that could slow or limit them. More multiwound weapons ala mechanicus maybe. They may also want to think about maybe having some terrain rules.

As someone who spent about 18 months on 3rd ed before deciding 2nd ed was for me this is generally good news. Especially since 2nd was not perfect as a base game, it also needed some more extreme wargear and strategy card removing and loads of modern units are missing. I shall definitely look at what they come out with.

I was working on a way to convert the existing 40k into an AoS/2nd ed style system for ages, and the key was to be stingy with the Rend. My idea was Strength 8/AP 3 is -1, Strength 9/AP 2 is -2, and Strength 10/AP 1 was -3. So a plasma gun would be -2, because it reached AP 2, and a power sword wielded by an IG officer is -1. So only big guns and real melee weapons will affect saves. This was just a rough guide too. But if the new 40k is coming out, I can stop with all of this.

I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up being a 2018 release to coincide with 40k's 30th birthday

What I hope....

Tactical Marines
2 Wounds, 4+ Armour Save, 5" Move, 2 Attacks, 1 Damage.

Rule - Special Weapon - Flame, Plasma, Melta, Grav

Assault Marines
2 Wounds, 4+ Armour Save, 10" Move, 3 Attacks, 1 Damage

Rule - Death From Above! - Causes D3 damage on succesful charge.
Rule - Flanking - Can start in Reserve and deploy within 12" of any board edge at the start of your turn when declared.


Guardsmen
1 Wound, 6+ Save, 5" Move, 1 Attack, 1 Damage

Rule - Inspired - When joined by a character that's not a Commissar, has a 5+ armour save.
Rule - No Retreat - Can't flee from battle when joined by a Commissar.

Etc...

About armor modifier:
another viable option would be to mix current system with modifier.
Let say we still conider tactical armour with 3+ save.
A weapon with AP 6, 5 or 4 would not affect it
AP 2 or 1 will make the armour totally uneffective
but AP 3 would change the armour value with a -1 modifier (so save on 4+)
Sorry for theory crafting I cannot avoid it. Anyway I promise it is my last post on the subject.
out

Hmm, I wonder...

Charging unit strikes first, unless charging into cover, where strikes are resolved at initiative (unless assault grenades equipped.)

Instantly boosts a whole bunch of units like genestealers without making cover from assault completely irrelevant?

 Crablezworth wrote:
The movement stat is fine as long as it doesnt vaccinate wildly from unit to unit. I don't really want to see "fast" marines and so on. But like we saw with mechanicus and t heir dune strider 9 inch move stuff.

Armour save modifier, I'd probably leave that at the door. The problem with the game is too many units have access to insane firepower, we can all agree that the game went from like 1 special 1 heavy per unit to like everyone gets whatever they want pretty fast. See eldar jetbikes or dev centurons. Some units just have way too much damn firepower. The other reality is, sci fi or not, ballistic weaponry without even getting into the sci fi realm are pretty deadly things. I think if anything the game struggles more on representing mutiple wounding weaponry, gw's gotten better at adding some of that with mechanicus but unless mc's change, we need more of that, It's silly that a vindicator can remove whole single wound units but barely scratch mc's, this is a problem and has been fore a while.

Getting rid of initiative, or at least that seems to be what was communicated. Gettin ride of that in favour of charging unit striking first shows gw doesn't understand the problem with assault. It's getting one off in the first place, it's actually getting there that's the problem. And that;s not JUST a random charge problem, its a terrain problem, it's a no assault from reserve or outflank problem. In 5th you could assault from reserve and outflank and the game was better for it. I wouldn't got as far as assault from deep strike, but even then I'm open to some specialist units doing that too provided we're talkin a handful of units across all codex's (if those are even going to be a thing).

As for the leadership stat to matter, well, best of luck with that. Sounds good in theory but the leadership start already basically assumes all leadership is is yetliing "hey guys, don't flee". I'm not sure how you'd introduce complexity there. The other problem is a great majority of armies barely interact with the stat, and they shall know no fear it would seem.







The biggest problem 7th ed has beyond the bloat is the army construction. The actual core game just needs a cleanup. Walkers need to have a reason to exist, so either immune to immobilized or only halves their movement. You wouldn't have everyone reaching for the super heavies if cool looking walkers were actually allowed to not suck compared to mc's. And that's the next problem, mc's need to be addressed. Anything that is 100% effective until dead and isn't some cool character seems to be a bit much. So either a mechanic in which they lose combat effectiveness as their wounds decrease or more usr's that could slow or limit them. More multiwound weapons ala mechanicus maybe. They may also want to think about maybe having some terrain rules.

Marines are fast. Very fast. And their reactions are better. And they should have more wounds than a guardsman.

Basically marines need to be more powerful.

reluxor wrote:
About armor modifier:
another viable option would be to mix current system with modifier.
Let say we still conider tactical armour with 3+ save.
A weapon with AP 6, 5 or 4 would not affect it
AP 2 or 1 will make the armour totally uneffective
but AP 3 would change the armour value with a -1 modifier (so save on 4+)
Sorry for theory crafting I cannot avoid it. Anyway I promise it is my last post on the subject.
out

Armour modifier is basically AoS Rend, AP and STR will probably be going out the window and replaced with Rend. I think at the minute people are trying to fit the new rule rumours to existing statlines but everyone is probably getting an AoS style revamp.

I can't believe people will actually refuse to play the game if it has "fixed" hit and would rolls like Age of Sigmar. First of all, you pretty much already have fixed hit rolls. For shooting the roll is fixed, and in combat it's almost always either 4+ or 3+. "Fixed" to hit rolls would actually give more granularity in combat.

Fixed wound rolls just mean that how "tough" a model is to kill is instead represented by it's save and number of wounds.

I thought people mostly liked 40K for the setting and models, but apparently some people are really married to some of the specific mechanics of the game.

Albino Squirrel wrote:
I can't believe people will actually refuse to play the game if it has "fixed" hit and would rolls like Age of Sigmar. First of all, you pretty much already have fixed hit rolls. For shooting the roll is fixed, and in combat it's almost always either 4+ or 3+. "Fixed" to hit rolls would actually give more granularity in combat.

Fixed wound rolls just mean that how "tough" a model is to kill is instead represented by it's save and number of wounds.

I thought people mostly liked 40K for the setting and models, but apparently some people are really married to some of the specific mechanics of the game.

Just a quick note on Toughness, it's not a fun mechanic to interrupt the game to ask your opponent the Toughness of his unit so you know what will hit and wound. AoS just streamlines it, I don't know why people are complaining about that.

I actually missed this tidbit from the WarCom post:


I think it’s really great that we’re now developing rules by engaging the community and working with people like Frankie and Reece from LVO, Mike from Nova and Hank, Greg, Chris and the rest of the AdeptiCon team.

So this isn't GW developing rules in a vacuum, they're actively involving tournament organisers in their rules writing. I don't think we have to be overly worried.

Easy

Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game. Having fixed to wound roll is simply idiotic and is not a good abstraction. But I'm pretty sure it will not be included in 8th edition, since I think they would have mentionned it otherwise.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Easy

Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game.

There's nothing tactical about asking your opponent for his Toughness though

 troa wrote:
People are all up in arms over something that hasn't been fully fleshed out or announced. .

No, they're not. They're discussing rumoured changes that they don't like the sound of.

Assuming that people with an opinion that differs from your own must be typing in a frothing rage is how these discussion get so out of hand.

Albino Squirrel wrote:

I thought people mostly liked 40K for the setting and models, but apparently some people are really married to some of the specific mechanics of the game.

A shiny setting and models only gets you so far. A game is only playable for a fairly limited time if you don't actually enjoy playing it...

 streetsamurai wrote:
Easy

Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game. Having fixed to wound roll is simply idiotic and is not a good abstraction. But I'm pretty sure it will not be included in 8th edition, since I think they would have mentionned it otherwise.

Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.

 RyanAvx wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Easy

Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game.

There's nothing tactical about asking your opponent for his Toughness though

That's simply makes no sense, and is not what I'm claiming

Vorian wrote:
Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.

Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid because it's idiotic and bad").

Vorian wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Easy

Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game. Having fixed to wound roll is simply idiotic and is not a good abstraction. But I'm pretty sure it will not be included in 8th edition, since I think they would have mentionned it otherwise.

Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.

It completely changes the dynamic of the game, since it make all weapon able to wound anything (which doesn't make any sense, A human with a knife should never be able to damage a tank)

 Mymearan wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.

Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid").

Never let facts get in the way of a good whinge

 streetsamurai wrote:

Vorian wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Easy

Cause it removes a lot of the tactical aspect of the game. Having fixed to wound roll is simply idiotic and is not a good abstraction. But I'm pretty sure it will not be included in 8th edition, since I think they would have mentionned it otherwise.

Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.

It completely changes the dynamic of the game, since it make all weapon able to wound anything (which doesn't make any sense, A human with a knife should never be able to damage a tank)

We have no idea if tanks are going to have wounds and toughness or armour values... or anything at all to do with how they'll treat armour.

 Mymearan wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.

Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid because it's idiotic and bad").

Well, that only means that you have a selective percetion, since it have been pointed numerous times why it's bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Not particularly, it just uses different mechanics to distribute damage.

Yep. But people who hate AoS refuse to recognise that fixed To Hit and To Wound in combination with rend and high Wound counts promotes tactical use of units just as much as 40k. I haven't seen an explanation for why it wouldn't beyond stuff like street samurai's post ("it's stupid").

Never let facts get in the way of a good whinge

talking about selective perception