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.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
Wait is age getting to me, or didn't a six always count as a save back then, pretty sure a six is always a pass was in 2nd.

If I recall correctly wasn't it noted as the wild luck of a shot ricocheting at the last second etc.. pretty sure as a Ork player I went from pretty much always having the chance of a six save from incoming fire to none pretty much with AP?

That was never a rule in 40k. Sorry.

so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?

sounds pretty easy to do.

if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out

 davou wrote:
so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?

sounds pretty easy to do.

if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out

No, you rolled them all in pairs. That was a long way from being the most painful part of 2nd edition, though... You also resolved close combat one pair of models at a time...

 silent25 wrote:
If 40K is going full AoS for the rules, then we have the stats for Space Marines. Just look at the Stormcast. Most are 4+ armor and normally have either hit/wound of 3+/4+ or 4+/3+.

Still I don't think it will be a full conversion just based off the comment of chargers get to attack first in close combat. AoS works on alternating units between players in combat. I would prefer that to a chargers go first because it forces you to pick your combats and not just pile everything in.

To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

 jamopower wrote:

To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

It's also how it used to work in 40k,so not indicatve in itself.

 jamopower wrote:


To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

When AoS was originally announced I theorised that it was the first step in merging the core rules of 40K and Warhammer into one set that was fundamentally the same (so people could easily cross over between systems). The differences would then be the setting/rules around that setting and the units/factions themselves. None of what I have heard dissuades me from this argument, with effectively the same break rules and game set up rules, formations and so on.

I think this has been the gameplan for a long time (it makes sense financially as you don't have to keep two rulesets up to date).

 insaniak wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

It's also how it used to work in 40k,so not indicatve in itself.

True, but only in Rogue Trader. Second edition had that weird system where only one side could strike at all. I hope I never have to deal with that monster again. Parry, parry, parry.

 jamopower wrote:

 silent25 wrote:
If 40K is going full AoS for the rules, then we have the stats for Space Marines. Just look at the Stormcast. Most are 4+ armor and normally have either hit/wound of 3+/4+ or 4+/3+.

Still I don't think it will be a full conversion just based off the comment of chargers get to attack first in close combat. AoS works on alternating units between players in combat. I would prefer that to a chargers go first because it forces you to pick your combats and not just pile everything in.

To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

No it's not. The active player chooses to activate a unit to attack. The receiving unit does not strike back. It then goes to the other player and he chooses one of his unit to activate to attack. It doesn't need to be the unit that was attacked previously. So if the active player charges two units in to engage two units, there are 4 combat combat rounds. Active player chooses one of their units to attack, other player chooses one of theirs to attack, active player chooses their second unit, and other player chooses their other unit.

Also, AoS has it that any unit that is within 3" of an enemy unit can be chosen to activate. When a unit activates, you can pile your unit in 3" towards the closest enemy model, this can result in getting within 3" of another unit you didn't originally charge. It adds a nice element of area control where a player might end up charging one unit and inadvertently pull in another. It all adds a element of risk in engaging multiple combats and to be aware of area control.

 insaniak wrote:

 davou wrote:
so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?

sounds pretty easy to do.

if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out

No, you rolled them all in pairs. That was a long way from being the most painful part of 2nd edition, though... You also resolved close combat one pair of models at a time...

I feel so many of these problems would be solved if GW just moved to to a D10 (or even better, D12) system.

Before anyone gets too excited about the rules team, just remember that they just released a supplement that made one of the most mobile and shooty armies able to move and shoot twice per turn, along with an end times no one really wanted. It could be good...but it could also be really terrible.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I feel so many of these problems would be solved if GW just moved to to a D10 (or even better, D12) system.

Ah yes, let me roll 180 d12s for this unit of conscripts....

 kingbobbito wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I feel so many of these problems would be solved if GW just moved to to a D10 (or even better, D12) system.

Ah yes, let me roll 180 d12s for this unit of conscripts....

Better than rolling 360 d6s...

Souljet wrote:
I was just thinking, most of the discussion so far in relation to the proposed armour save modifiers has been revolved around how it would equate to the current AP system. Bare with me here, but could it simply work in unison with the strength instead?
For example, and for arguments sake,

strength 10 weapons have a -5,
S9 a -4
S8 a -3
S7 a -2
S6 a -1
S5 and below no effect.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You could do that, but I think the advantage of having a separate armour modifier stat is that you get more variety in weapons. You can have high strength weapons that aren't great at piercing armour, or low strength weapons that are awesome at piercing armour (maybe something corrosive).

Agreed, weapon variety is important. As I mentioned though, you could have those special armour piercing weapons reflected on the dataslate/scroll. The S = specific armour modifier doesn't have to be an absolute no comprimises rule.

Souljet wrote:
Then perhaps D and Grav could be -6 effectively making all normal armour completely useless, except terminators/centurions/obliterators equivalents who get to roll on the old 3+ 2d6 rule. This would give them an ok chance of saving a D or Grav shot (9+ on 2D6).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't think we want to bring back the 2D6 rule, it was kind of fun and characterful, but when you have 10 heavy bolters shooting at a unit of Terminators do you really want to be resolving each hit separately?

That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.

Someone else said it, but that's how it works now and Terminators still are weak compared to how most people think they should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:
so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?

sounds pretty easy to do.

if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out

You would quit having terminators in your army if you had to roll 2 dice armour saves? Even though it would go someway to reflecting how good their armour is supposed to be?
Rolling 2D6 for each wound on a TDA squad wouldn't be too much of a pain. It would only be if you had a whole army in the armour would it get a little annoying and time consuming imo.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

It's also how it used to work in 40k,so not indicatve in itself.

True, but only in Rogue Trader. Second edition had that weird system where only one side could strike at all. I hope I never have to deal with that monster again. Parry, parry, parry.

I could be misremembering, but I'm fairly sure 3rd had charger strike first, with it changing to initiative for 4th.

Just to weigh in, the save more will probably fall in line like this
Ap- to ap6 would be no more
Ap5 would be -1
Ap3-4 would be -2
Ap1-2 would be -3

Save would be the same. Invulnerable saves would have different effects based on theme
Energy shields would negate a certain level of modifier. So terminators would ignore the first point of armor mod, for example. The hologram based invul saves would allow rerolls of a certain number for saves, or be a smaller save number that ignored armor mods (think harlequins)

With vehicles, you will probably see a situation with the "vehicle" special rule allowing for a certain level of armor mod to not be able to hurt them period (also running on the assumption of units having set wound rolls and different units lowering them to create the breadth of damage capability you see today.)
Just my thoughts here

 Whirlwind wrote:

 jamopower wrote:


To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

When AoS was originally announced I theorised that it was the first step in merging the core rules of 40K and Warhammer into one set that was fundamentally the same (so people could easily cross over between systems). The differences would then be the setting/rules around that setting and the units/factions themselves. None of what I have heard dissuades me from this argument, with effectively the same break rules and game set up rules, formations and so on.

I think this has been the gameplan for a long time (it makes sense financially as you don't have to keep two rulesets up to date).

To be brutally honest, it was you and about 2000 people that theorised that, so please don't be too put out if people
Ignore your post and theory

Regards

 insaniak wrote:
I could be misremembering, but I'm fairly sure 3rd had charger strike first, with it changing to initiative for 4th.

3rd was all about initiative too.

 docdoom77 wrote:
True, but only in Rogue Trader. Second edition had that weird system where only one side could strike at all. I hope I never have to deal with that monster again. Parry, parry, parry.

It was a ridiculous system when armies started to get bigger but it was great for something like Necromunda. Maybe we'll see it again in Shadow War!

So GW is still discussing the rules? 8th in 2018 confirmed!?

Cosmic Schwung wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I could be misremembering, but I'm fairly sure 3rd had charger strike first, with it changing to initiative for 4th.

3rd was all about initiative too.

 docdoom77 wrote:
True, but only in Rogue Trader. Second edition had that weird system where only one side could strike at all. I hope I never have to deal with that monster again. Parry, parry, parry.

It was a ridiculous system when armies started to get bigger but it was great for something like Necromunda. Maybe we'll see it again in Shadow War!

I agree that it wasn't too bad for a small skirmish game like Necromunda (though still not my fave). I wouldn't be upset to see it in a game like that.

It's one of the strangest things: The 2nd Ed rules were fun, but didn't work for 2nd Ed 40K. But they worked perfectly for Necromunda.

I wonder why that was?

Warhams-77 wrote:
So GW is still discussing the rules? 8th in 2018 confirmed!?

The 30th anniversary is this year, maybe tomorrow they will give more info.




or sunday

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.

Buts that what they already have right now and it sucks.

Souljet wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.

Someone else said it, but that's how it works now and Terminators still are weak compared to how most people think they should be.

No, that's NOT how Terminators work at the moment. At the moment Terminators get to take their armour save OR they get to take their invulnerable save, not BOTH.

I propose to let Terminators take BOTH saves, so if they fail their armour they still get their invulnerable. It works basically the same as a 2D6 save except you roll the dice in sequence instead of at the same time, which means you don't have to roll every single save separately which would massively increase the amount of time it takes to play a game if one side has a lot of Terminators.

What I propose would lower the number of Terminators you lose by 1/3 if you use a 5+ invulnerable or 1/2 if you use a 4+ invulnerable. I'm undecided which would be better, 4+ seems a little bit too powerful against anti tank weapons, but 5+ seems a bit too weak against massed fire, so I guess I lean on the side of using a 4+ invulnerable.

You could also give Terminators a 2+ followed by a 3+, but have the 2nd save isn't invulnerable and is subject to modifiers if there's any "overflow", so if you get struck with a -6 weapon you take the first 5 points of modifiers to get rid of the 2+ and then use the last point of modifier to reduce the 2nd save from 3+ to 4+.... but that's probably too complicated (and enough wargamers suck at math that they wouldn't like it ).

The rules writing seminar and the first ask the studio seminar should both have finished by now. I'm hoping to hear what was discussed.

Thanks, guys, looking forward to the reports

Chikout wrote:
The rules writing seminar and the first ask the studio seminar should both have finished by now. I'm hoping to hear what was discussed.

no rules writing and the ask the studio seminar on friday 24.

Saturday 25 - rules writing and the ask the studio seminar
Sunday 26 - ask the studio seminar

guru wrote:

Chikout wrote:
The rules writing seminar and the first ask the studio seminar should both have finished by now. I'm hoping to hear what was discussed.

no rules writing and the ask the studio seminar on friday 24.

Saturday 25 - rules writing and the ask the studio seminar
Sunday 26 - ask the studio seminar

Oops. I am officially an idiot. Tomorrow then. Should be interesting.

Yeah, inside the studio seminar tomorrow should be interesting.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.

Buts that what they already have right now and it sucks.

Souljet wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.

Someone else said it, but that's how it works now and Terminators still are weak compared to how most people think they should be.

No, that's NOT how Terminators work at the moment. At the moment Terminators get to take their armour save OR they get to take their invulnerable save, not BOTH.

I propose to let Terminators take BOTH saves, so if they fail their armour they still get their invulnerable. It works basically the same as a 2D6 save except you roll the dice in sequence instead of at the same time, which means you don't have to roll every single save separately which would massively increase the amount of time it takes to play a game if one side has a lot of Terminators.

What I propose would lower the number of Terminators you lose by 1/3 if you use a 5+ invulnerable or 1/2 if you use a 4+ invulnerable. I'm undecided which would be better, 4+ seems a little bit too powerful against anti tank weapons, but 5+ seems a bit too weak against massed fire, so I guess I lean on the side of using a 4+ invulnerable.

You could also give Terminators a 2+ followed by a 3+, but have the 2nd save isn't invulnerable and is subject to modifiers if there's any "overflow", so if you get struck with a -6 weapon you take the first 5 points of modifiers to get rid of the 2+ and then use the last point of modifier to reduce the 2nd save from 3+ to 4+.... but that's probably too complicated (and enough wargamers suck at math that they wouldn't like it ).

Ahh yes, I see what you mean. I misread your previous post.
Either way, I think we all agree terminators should hopefully benefit by whatever armour modifier system GW comes up with.

I would just give termies the ability to reroll failed armor saves on anything that was below a certain strength, say all S4 and below attacks. AP2 weapons still go through of course.

Bam. You get the near-immunity from small arms fire TDA is known for in the fluff while still being vulnerable to a bunch of other stuff. One big change is that I would make rending and sniper weapons AP2 again so that some units actually have a chance to hurt them.

TDA and Mega Armor and the ilk could add an extra wound. but that is way off topic.


Rule writing discussion! Yay!
Cruddace...well at least it isn't Kelly.