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.

Dudeface wrote:
...when marines are totally redesigned from the ground up for the new edition (same as everyone else), it will likely do something else..

That's not helping your case.

7th edition has some pretty major issues, but the prospect of the game being turned into something completely different rather than fixing the issues is no more appealing for 40k than it was for Fantasy.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Edit: Link> https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/warhammer-40000-news-from-adepticon/

From the link:
“Armour save modifiers. This topic comes up almost as often as Sisters of Battle… so we’re going to bring them back. ”
WHY IS IT NOT THE SISTERS THAT YOU ARE BRINGING BACK IF THE TOPICS COME EVEN MORE OFTEN?

 Fafnir wrote:
7th is 5th edition, just with lots of extra bloat.

And random stapled on everywhere that doesn't have a coffee cup sitting there...

 insaniak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
...when marines are totally redesigned from the ground up for the new edition (same as everyone else), it will likely do something else..

That's not helping your case.

7th edition has some pretty major issues, but the prospect of the game being turned into something completely different rather than fixing the issues is no more appealing for 40k than it was for Fantasy.

We still have no idea what 8th Ed is going to look like.

All we know is a handful of things they'd like to include, and they hope it'll all be done and ready for release around Adepticon next year.

That's it.

If you're concerned that they're going in the wrong direction - tell GW.

If you're concerned the proposals, even if somehow fitted into the existing rules framework don't actually address the issues you have with 7th Ed - tell GW.

Come on folks. GW are listening to us these days. Time to raise your voice in their direction.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

gungo wrote:
"I hope all the rules stay almost exactly the same because 6th/7th ed is awesome"- said no one ever

White scars aren't the most played chapter that's ultramarines with thier 100 free character upgrades and free rules.

Me, 7th is the most fun I've had, 5th was terrible IMO.

The problem to me ISNT the 7th ed BRB its the power creep. if codex's and formations were ore balanced I feel more would like it. With that said i still highly enjoy the insane combinations we can do i just wish some wasone OP AF.

Even the base rules are responsible of the unbalance.

Every rule set had this tho, remember needing 6's to hit a moved skimmers? Or on roll of a 1 your bike died on terrain no saves? Or Fearless mobs taking wounds for each lost wound? Orc and Nids whre so happy back then. How about "guess" measuring? remember that crap.

There has always been a few extremely unbalanced factors in each rules set, but it comes down to "FUN" and 7th for me is A LOT more fun than other editions. What I dont enjoy is some armies getting special treatment.

Edit: Are there things i feel needs to change? yes, but honestly i'd rather see balance between armies and points cost before a new rule set, a new rule set with just as poorly balanced armies wont change the game much at all.

Can a new rule set lessen the gap? I dont think so, just read and compare Nids to Daemons, or DE to Eldar. The DE codex is literally just worst in everyway.

Despite what they say, 8th edition must be outlined enough by now that wishlisting of inclusions is relatively meaningless.

By that, I mean that if there really is a year to release, then they are not just starting design, they are finishing, prepping for a launch that big would require at least an 8 month lead time with printers for instance.

If the rumour of a release this summer is true, 8th is done already, and has been so for a while. Either way, input is a feel good thing, not an actual thing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why are you telling us?

Because this is a discussion forum. Glad we got that cleared up

Discussing them is what we're doing.

But those worried - go tell GW. They're listening these days.

Go take it to the 40k discussion section then, not the News and Rumors section

Amishprn86 wrote:
Every rule set had this tho, remember needing 6's to hit a moved skimmers? Or on roll of a 1 your bike died on terrain no saves? Or Fearless mobs taking wounds for each lost wound? Orc and Nids whre so happy back then. How about "guess" measuring? remember that crap.

There has always been a few extremely unbalanced factors in each rules set, but it comes down to "FUN" and 7th for me is A LOT more fun than other editions. What I dont enjoy is some armies getting special treatment.

Edit: Are there things i feel needs to change? yes, but honestly i'd rather see balance between armies and points cost before a new rule set, a new rule set with just as poorly balanced armies wont change the game much at all.

Can a new rule set lessen the gap? I dont think so, just read and compare Nids to Daemons, or DE to Eldar. The DE codex is literally just worst in everyway.

I think a rules set can introduce better balance than you're giving it credit for.

Consider this one very small, very simply change - remove Tabling as a method of victory.

Suddenly, beardy cheese armies lose much of their appeal - because you won't be able to simply ROFLstomp your opponent - that default 'win button' is gone.

Instead, you need to look to capturing objectives and fulfilling other mission parameters and victory conditions.

Put in enough variety to said conditions, and you start to skew the 'meta' back toward more balanced armies - as in a greater range of units and unit types, simply because you never know what you'll need to do to score your VPs and actually win the game.

I appreciate that I sound like a broken record, but AoS has this down far better than 40k does at present - indeed you can utterly wipe me out, but still suffer a catastrophic loss, all because I bagged way more VPs by playing the game, rather than just going for the kill.

I know there's peeps on here not keen on AoS as a ruleset, but I do encourage you to at least try a 40k game using AoS victory conditions (some adaptation will of course be needed) to see the difference it can make.

But otherwise yes - sorting out points and codex internal balance is absolutely required - nobody likes having completely duff units in their book, let alone in their personal collection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NoggintheNog wrote:
Despite what they say, 8th edition must be outlined enough by now that wishlisting of inclusions is relatively meaningless.

By that, I mean that if there really is a year to release, then they are not just starting design, they are finishing, prepping for a launch that big would require at least an 8 month lead time with printers for instance.

If the rumour of a release this summer is true, 8th is done already, and has been so for a while. Either way, input is a feel good thing, not an actual thing.

Rumour seemingly isn't true though - given GW themselves have said around this time next year.

Input is always a good thing.

 Rolsheen wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why are you telling us?

Because this is a discussion forum. Glad we got that cleared up

Discussing them is what we're doing.

But those worried - go tell GW. They're listening these days.

Go take it to the 40k discussion section then, not the News and Rumors section

As much as I wish it was easier to find the news under all the discussion, the heading to this forum literally says...

"Discuss news and rumors about the world of miniature war gaming."

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Amishprn86 wrote:
Every rule set had this tho, remember needing 6's to hit a moved skimmers? Or on roll of a 1 your bike died on terrain no saves? Or Fearless mobs taking wounds for each lost wound? Orc and Nids whre so happy back then. How about "guess" measuring? remember that crap.

There has always been a few extremely unbalanced factors in each rules set, but it comes down to "FUN" and 7th for me is A LOT more fun than other editions. What I dont enjoy is some armies getting special treatment.

Edit: Are there things i feel needs to change? yes, but honestly i'd rather see balance between armies and points cost before a new rule set, a new rule set with just as poorly balanced armies wont change the game much at all.

Can a new rule set lessen the gap? I dont think so, just read and compare Nids to Daemons, or DE to Eldar. The DE codex is literally just worst in everyway.

I think a rules set can introduce better balance than you're giving it credit for.

Consider this one very small, very simply change - remove Tabling as a method of victory.

Suddenly, beardy cheese armies lose much of their appeal - because you won't be able to simply ROFLstomp your opponent - that default 'win button' is gone.

Instead, you need to look to capturing objectives and fulfilling other mission parameters and victory conditions.

Put in enough variety to said conditions, and you start to skew the 'meta' back toward more balanced armies - as in a greater range of units and unit types, simply because you never know what you'll need to do to score your VPs and actually win the game.

I appreciate that I sound like a broken record, but AoS has this down far better than 40k does at present - indeed you can utterly wipe me out, but still suffer a catastrophic loss, all because I bagged way more VPs by playing the game, rather than just going for the kill.

I know there's peeps on here not keen on AoS as a ruleset, but I do encourage you to at least try a 40k game using AoS victory conditions (some adaptation will of course be needed) to see the difference it can make.

But otherwise yes - sorting out points and codex internal balance is absolutely required - nobody likes having completely duff units in their book, let alone in their personal collection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NoggintheNog wrote:
Despite what they say, 8th edition must be outlined enough by now that wishlisting of inclusions is relatively meaningless.

By that, I mean that if there really is a year to release, then they are not just starting design, they are finishing, prepping for a launch that big would require at least an 8 month lead time with printers for instance.

If the rumour of a release this summer is true, 8th is done already, and has been so for a while. Either way, input is a feel good thing, not an actual thing.

Rumour seemingly isn't true though - given GW themselves have said around this time next year.

Input is always a good thing.

You can do that now with the current rules, Changing and adding missions is easier than a full rewrite given your example.

But again from my point, some armies are just so bad you can just kill enough and not be threaten. You dont need to table, but if my army can kill yours 2 times faster than you can kill mine, there is a problem and IMO the 1st main problem is unbalanced with armies.

Just an example: If you buff Tanks for hopes that IG, DE, and Orks, then Eldar/SM tanks inadvertently get better too, and leads us to the same spot.

Edit: I'm not saying a new rule set isnt needed or want, but its not the core problem with 40k atm, Power creep and Formations with killer combos and DS's using OP codex's thats been favor over 4-5 Armies that literally got nerf and stupified down to nothing b.c of Lawsuits are the 1st problems that should be fixed.


Im fine with a new edition, I just feel the game was at the point that we can FINALLY balance the game better, make some modifications to the BRB to make the best 40k rules to date.
Getting a completely different rules set means we have to work from the ground up again.

Just my 0.2c

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Rumour seemingly isn't true though - given GW themselves have said around this time next year.

Did they? Didn't they say that this time next year people might be using these rules, which certainly is the case even if the rules are released before that.

I just don't believe they would be hinting at such big changes if the release wasn't imminent. It would be really bad for the sales.

Really, to me all this discussion about broad ideas that are not definitive and how they will affect being literally aplicated how it was mentioned in 2 lines of text with all the actual rules of 7th edition its so pointless.

Like, discussing about the concept its right, but things like "marines will be OP because ATSKNF blablabla" or "nobody will have armours because its obvius that all weapons will have -6 armour modifiers blablabla!" its like... alarmism.

I'm coming to the conclusion the whole thing is just one massive troll.

zerosignal wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion the whole thing is just one massive troll.

Well you know here soon is April 1st.

 Elbows wrote:

(CONS)
-"Bespoke rules"...eh. Bespoke stat lines are fine, but I don't think we should trade hundreds of special rules for special rules allocated to each unit. The vast majority of infantry units shouldn't have special rules - their abilities should be indicated by their equipment and a stat line. While 2nd had plenty of special rules, the vast majority of your infantry models did not (unless it was wargear related). Keep the genuine special rules to characters and monsters/creatures etc.

Bespoke rules are a huge plus for 40K. Most models come with some damn new thing anyway. Why flip through tons of pages in a huge book when you forget a rule when you can just have the scroll for your unit handy?

I do think people need to get ready for AoS weapon stat lines. Why? It's easier to balance something when you can measure it's effectiveness regardless of the opponent.

A bolter might be something like 3+/4+ rend 1 and 2 damage. That way it's potentially killing two models per wound (abstracting exploding bullets or a hail of fire), which maintains the strength of marines over hordes.

It might be shocking to lots of you, but eventually you'll come to see that it's not bad at all....or quit the game.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


But again from my point, some armies are just so bad you can just kill enough and not be threaten. You dont need to table, but if my army can kill yours 2 times faster than you can kill mine, there is a problem and IMO the 1st main problem is unbalanced with armies.

Just an example: If you buff Tanks for hopes that IG, DE, and Orks, then Eldar/SM tanks inadvertently get better too, and leads us to the same spot.

Edit: I'm not saying a new rule set isnt needed or want, but its not the core problem with 40k atm, Power creep and Formations with killer combos and DS's using OP codex's thats been favor over 4-5 Armies that literally got nerf and stupified down to nothing b.c of Lawsuits are the 1st problems that should be fixed.


Im fine with a new edition, I just feel the game was at the point that we can FINALLY balance the game better, make some modifications to the BRB to make the best 40k rules to date.
Getting a completely different rules set means we have to work from the ground up again.

Just my 0.2c

But wouldn't the balancing need in any case complete rewriting of everything to make it happen? Trying to fix the things you mentioned one book at a time, while also doing some modifications to the BRB, just leads to new problems eventually.

I'm also one of those who has lost all interest in GW after 6th ed 40k and 8th FB, but found out AoS to be an excellent game that has surpassed almost all other gaming (mainly Infinity, BtGoA, Batman, Saga, etc.) for me. It feels very much like 40k, but without many of the stupid and convoluted rules (like all sorts of complicated wound allocation, charging through the shortest route, shooting at one unit, the ap and cover save mechanics, deathstars, psychic phase, challenges, snapshots, the either/or mechanic in charging in cover, etc. etc.). But on the other hand I don't think the system supports shooting, very well but on the other hand neither does 40k. With the experience of other sci-fi games (Dropzone commander, Infinity, Beyond th Gates of Antares, Tomorrow's war to name a few), I have come to conclusion that there needs to be some sort of reaction mechanism to keep the game interesting. Straight I go U go leads very easily to a competition who shoots the other army from the table fastest or who can buff their units to fast or durable enough to prevent that. Also different ranges with limited effective range increases the depth of the gameplay very much.

On AP vs Save Modifiers....are the two really mutually exclusive?

Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.

But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.

What if.....

Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.

Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.

Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.

The biggest items to ponder are how they handle 1) special weapons for units and their point costs, and 2) shooting into or out of combat.

With all the shooting 40K has having the latter would create very deadly games and since most units come with guns, well, pew pew pew!

Did they talk about the Shadow War game at all in the presentation? Or was it pretty much the same info we already know?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On AP vs Save Modifiers....are the two really mutually exclusive?

Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.

But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.

What if.....

Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.

Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.

Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.

The main problem (at least in my mind) is the ap mechanic is impossible to give a cost so that it would be balanced, as the opponent can be whatever and depending on that, the effectiveness of the weapon can shift 100% whereas rend -1 will have the same effect in every time, of course with larger rend there can be situations where you'll have excess, but that's a smaller issue. Add to this the cover save mechanic, which makes the ap values from 4 to 6 and armour saves of 4+ or worse meaningless most of the time. Especially in smal groups where there are just few armies you face, the points can be way off, as due to lack of suitable opponents, some weapons don't work the way they are designed (e.g. dark reapers in meta consisting mostly of light armoured armies or the more likely case of heavy bolters in marine meta).
From this fundamental design flaw, originates a lot of inbalance in the system as stuff tends to be either too cheap leading to auto inclusion or too expensive leading to stuff gathering dust on shelf.

My Thousand Sons welcome the new rend mechanic with open arms. I've been looking for a reason to run heavy bolters for a very long time.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On AP vs Save Modifiers....are the two really mutually exclusive?

Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.

But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.

What if.....

Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.

Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.

Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.

Well, the other thing you're ignoring is that if you were to do things the AoS way...

So that Autocannon would be:
R-48" Hits on 4+, Wounds on 3+. 2 attacks(possibly with rules in place where the owning unit can make additional shots if it remained stationary) Rend -1 and Damage 2 or 3.

The Heavy Bolter might be:
36" Hits on 4+ Wounds on 4+ 3 Attacks with Rend -1 and Damage 1. Maybe a special rule called "Mass Reactive" where you get to reroll failed To Wound rolls or where a "To Hit" roll of a 6 causes 2 Wounds rather than 1.

If GW can keep this up until next Saturday and then just turn round and shout "April Fools, Suckers" it will be the best troll ever.

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

Nah. It's 2017 alright, probably June/July. They're pretty much following the End Times template.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On AP vs Save Modifiers....are the two really mutually exclusive?

Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.

But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.

Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.

Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.

What if.....

Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.

Well, the other thing you're ignoring is that if you were to do things the AoS way...

So that Autocannon would be:
R-48" Hits on 4+, Wounds on 3+. 2 attacks(possibly with rules in place where the owning unit can make additional shots if it remained stationary) Rend -1 and Damage 2 or 3.

The Heavy Bolter might be:
36" Hits on 4+ Wounds on 4+ 3 Attacks with Rend -1 and Damage 1. Maybe a special rule called "Mass Reactive" where you get to reroll failed To Wound rolls or where a "To Hit" roll of a 6 causes 2 Wounds rather than 1.

Not sure I'm ignoring anything - just exploring the concept that bringing back Save Modifiers doesn't necessarily mean the end of AP?

I've seen lots of people bringing up that they think the 8th edition stuff mentioned is going to turn out to be an elaborate April Fool's joke. You do not start an April Fool's joke a week early, that would be insane. I personally would lose some of the good will I've had toward GW lately over them doing something stupid like that.

Bartali wrote:

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

Nah. It's 2017 alright, probably June/July. They're pretty much following the End Times template.

I sure hope your'e right! I just can't even bring myself to play 40k these days. It's such a mess.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On AP vs Save Modifiers....are the two really mutually exclusive?

Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.

But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.

Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.

Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.

What if.....

Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.

Well, the other thing you're ignoring is that if you were to do things the AoS way...

So that Autocannon would be:
R-48" Hits on 4+, Wounds on 3+. 2 attacks(possibly with rules in place where the owning unit can make additional shots if it remained stationary) Rend -1 and Damage 2 or 3.

The Heavy Bolter might be:
36" Hits on 4+ Wounds on 4+ 3 Attacks with Rend -1 and Damage 1. Maybe a special rule called "Mass Reactive" where you get to reroll failed To Wound rolls or where a "To Hit" roll of a 6 causes 2 Wounds rather than 1.

Not sure I'm ignoring anything - just exploring the concept that bringing back Save Modifiers doesn't necessarily mean the end of AP?

Oh yeah. It absolutely does.

AP is an all or nothing system. You don't add modifiers to an all or nothing system.

Until you do? Then it ceases to be 'all or nothing', as per my example?

 jamopower wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On AP vs Save Modifiers....are the two really mutually exclusive?

Let's consider the Heavy Bolter and the Autocannon. Both weapons are much of a muchness. Both have AP4.

But whilst an Autocannon can, with a little luck, blow a hole in a tank, a Heavy Bolter can only really tickle the lightest of vehicles. Both however wound a Sister of Battle on a 2+, and both allow her full save.

What if.....

Autocannon - Range (whatever it is now), S7, AP4, Rend -1, Heavy 2.

Heavy Bolter - Range 36", S5, AP4, Rend -, Heavy 3.

Autocannon is better at getting through body armour then, because whilst it doesn't ignore the Power Armour, it does reduce it's effectiveness.

The main problem (at least in my mind) is the ap mechanic is impossible to give a cost so that it would be balanced, as the opponent can be whatever and depending on that, the effectiveness of the weapon can shift 100% whereas rend -1 will have the same effect in every time, of course with larger rend there can be situations where you'll have excess, but that's a smaller issue. Add to this the cover save mechanic, which makes the ap values from 4 to 6 and armour saves of 4+ or worse meaningless most of the time. Especially in smal groups where there are just few armies you face, the points can be way off, as due to lack of suitable opponents, some weapons don't work the way they are designed (e.g. dark reapers in meta consisting mostly of light armoured armies or the more likely case of heavy bolters in marine meta).
From this fundamental design flaw, originates a lot of inbalance in the system as stuff tends to be either too cheap leading to auto inclusion or too expensive leading to stuff gathering dust on shelf.

I agree completely.

At least some of the reason certain weapons become either junk or auto-takes in the current meta is not because the weapons are good or bad per say, but because they are good or bad against specific armies. You aren't going to take a Heavy Bolter because you have a huge chance of playing against a Marine army and with their 3+ save, paying for AP4 on a Heavy Bolter is a waste of points.

It biases the game such that "good" weapons are the ones that are good against a large variety of units, typically the ones that are either high S low AP (thus good against Space Marines and tanks) or simply high rate of fire (thus being good against hordes but also forcing lots of saves to be effective against Marines). Everything in between is just kind of, meh, unless it has some other rules to make it stand out (ignores cover or something like that).

The tricky thing is you don't want all guns to be equally good at all things, because half of the (very limited) tactics involved in 40k is choosing the right weapon to shoot at the right target. But at the moment it just swings waaaay too far given that we have entire armies made up of nothing but 3+ saves, it makes pricing AP3 and AP4 weapons pretty much impossible. What is only 1 point of difference on the AP chart is a huge difference.... when fighting against marines, but not a difference at all when fighting an army that is made up of 4+ or worse saves. So there's just no way of pricing it fairly because the fair price depends on your opponent.