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.

Wouldnt be too hard with blast and new rules. Can easilly see something like this

small blast is d6 hits (average 3 hit which is usually what you can get with clever positioning)
large blast is 2d6 hits

Anything bigger can have a small additional step, IE: BaneBlade Cannon

Pick a model. Unit belonging to that model takes 3d6 hits. Other units within 6 inches of the model selected also take 2d6 hits.

Wouldnt need templates anymore. Just a good old tape measure and you could get everything done.


As for scatter it's somewhat represented by the fact that you'll roll low sometimes. You could also require an actual BS check now to actually hit in the first place.

Voldrak wrote:
Some more tidbits about 8th edition:

https://pp.userapi.com/c638719/v638719363/314ca/mtw3XJERJ8U.jpg

Anyone knows this podcast and is aware if they have any merit?

I like what I see here.

About assaulting out of vehicles; remember that in 3rd ed, assaults were not randomized like they are now. What they could do is make disembarking count as your movement full stop, so if you want to charge it'll be up to your roll. Assault vehicles could just assist with this.

What I also hope they do is make 40k's shooting function like AoS's combat. Player A picks a unit to shoot with, then player B picks a unit to shoot with and so on and so forth until everyone has shot. This would eliminate the need for overwatch. And if you land a drop pod in among the enemy, you can expect to come under heavy fire.

Hell, if they could mimic bolt action and have shooting and assault done together, you could have a situation were you do race up and assault out of a transport, destroying one unit, only to be shot/counter assaulted to death. If they just get both players paying together at the same time then they'll have succeeded in my books.

 andysonic1 wrote:
Turning all vehicles into assault vehicles would be...

nothing special as we had it before
not 3rd Rhino rush, butr also 5th edi that if the transport did not move, a unit that exit could do everything they want

it would be much better than the current stuff with

 kodos wrote:

not 3rd Rhino rush, butr also 5th edi that if the transport did not move, a unit that exit could do everything they want

Man, how quickly I forgot that!

 Future War Cultist wrote:


I like what I see here.

About assaulting out of vehicles; remember that in 3rd ed, assaults were not randomized like they are now. What they could do is make disembarking count as your movement full stop, so if you want to charge it'll be up to your roll. Assault vehicles could just assist with this.

What I also hope they do is make 40k's shooting function like AoS's combat. Player A picks a unit to shoot with, then player B picks a unit to shoot with and so on and so forth until everyone has shot. This would eliminate the need for overwatch. And if you land a drop pod in among the enemy, you can expect to come under heavy fire.

Hell, if they could mimic bolt action and have shooting and assault done together, you could have a situation were you do race up and assault out of a transport, destroying one unit, only to be shot/counter assaulted to death. If they just get both players paying together at the same time then they'll have succeeded in my books.

For what it's worth, the alternating shooting and assaulting is a mechanic in the Burning of Prospero boxed game. Could be that it is used as a kind of test run for rules which could be implemented, could be nothing, but GW has implemented this kind of mechanic.

 caminacambob wrote:
For what it's worth, the alternating shooting and assaulting is a mechanic in the Burning of Prospero boxed game. Could be that it is used as a kind of test run for rules which could be implemented, could be nothing, but GW has implemented this kind of mechanic.

I did not know that. I'm hoping that GW goes further with it.

I find that this mechanic keeps both players invested in the game to the end.

Voldrak wrote:
Some more tidbits about 8th edition:

https://pp.userapi.com/c638719/v638719363/314ca/mtw3XJERJ8U.jpg

Anyone knows this podcast and is aware if they have any merit?

Big question will be if 40k adopts the wound on X similar to AoS. There hasn't been any confirmation of that happening as far as I can tell. Would like some differences between AoS and 40k and would like to see some sort of Strength vs Toughness mechanic remain. It streamlines stuff in AoS but WHFB had already moved away from stuff being unwoundable. 40K, a las pistol still can't damage a Land Raider. Will be a bit more jarring a move.

Random hits rather than templates and multi-wound vehicles.

I always thought 40K needed more dice rolling and record keeping. Bravo GW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random hits rather than templates and multi-wound vehicles.

I always thought 40K needed more dice rolling and record keeping. Bravo GW.

Personally I prefer blasts being resolved without fudging a template around. As for vehicles, they already have "wounds" and damage results to track.

Yeah, extra dice is bad, but then the game of mini finger twister one had to play sometimes with templates could be equally annoying and time consuming.

What would Torrent accomplish? Lets see how they nerf my poor Heldrakes even further.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
What would Torrent accomplish? Lets see how they nerf my poor Heldrakes even further.

Maybe flamers get a six inch range targeting one unit, and torrent gets a 12 (18?) inch range targeting one unit? It's pretty basic.

You could give a flamer a 8-9" range, with it having D6 attacks (going to 2D6 if the unit is over 10 models). They could hit automatically too. Meanwhile, an Inferno Cannon is the same but with a 20" range. Just a thought.

I'm happy templates are going. They only slow the game down imo.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random hits rather than templates and multi-wound vehicles.

I always thought 40K needed more dice rolling and record keeping. Bravo GW.

Yeah, carrying over a template and scattering it is much better and doesn't cause any disputes at all. And keeping hull points is vehicles is totally a new kind of record keeping that wasn't there before.

..
The changes rumoured either have the same record keeping and time consuming or just hasten the game.

I'd not have any issues with these rumours, but as always taking with plenty of salt.

Although it would be a bonus with my vehicles all slowly getting based if they went to a wound system.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random hits rather than templates and multi-wound vehicles.

I always thought 40K needed more dice rolling and record keeping. Bravo GW.

I don't think rolling 1d6 hits is more dice rolling and record keeping than rolling 2d6+scatter, subtracting BS from the 2d6 roll, moving the template and then discussing which models are touched by the template.

Tracking wounds on vehicles isn't any more onerous than tracking hull points.

hate most of them. Hope they are false

I'm fine with templates being gone, but I will miss the wonderful feeling of putting the template over a mass of guard, genestealers, or orks.

...Random hits instead of templates and blasts?!

Random hits worked fine in city fight, I have no issue with it

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tracking wounds on vehicles isn't any more onerous than tracking hull points.

It sort of is, in that vehicles typically don't have more than 3-4 hull points whereas AoS monsters (on which this system looks based) can have upwards of 15-20 wounds.

That said, if it's paired with an AoS-style system where capabilities degrade with damage, then it'll be a big improvement. The current system is very binary, and affects certain vehicles differently than others in a very gamey way (see: storm bolters on Vindicators to soak Weapon Destroyed results). Changing that to a system where every vehicle or monster is progressively weakened by damage in a particular way will be much better.

Sounds pretty good. I'm fine with removing templates and save modifiers are OK too if they're kept small like in AOS and not like they were in 2E/WHFB. And if we finally get vehicles to use similar wounding/armour mechanics as other units I'll be over-joyous.

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Yeah, carrying over a template and scattering it is much better and doesn't cause any disputes at all. And keeping hull points is vehicles is totally a new kind of record keeping that wasn't there before.

Scattering every template is a bad rule as well. They should just do it the way it was in 3rd Ed:

1. Cover most amount of minis with template possible.
2. Roll To hit for everything using a template.
3. Duplicate models hit by the amount of templates being fired.

Continue on with regular wound/saves/etc. All this scattering nonsense should never have come about. Removing them wholesale isn't the solution, but it is the typical pendulum swing we should expect from GW.

As for Hull Points? Also a dumb idea, and probably one of the worst to enter 40K in the past two editions. A wounds system bolted onto a system that doesn't use wounds. Who thought that was good design?

 Formerly Wu wrote:
It sort of is, in that vehicles typically don't have more than 3-4 hull points whereas AoS monsters (on which this system looks based) can have upwards of 15-20 wounds.

I didn't say the thing you're quoting, but I agree. There's a difference between tracking a few hull points and keeping track of a 15-20 wound vehicle.

Yeah but we'll get some of those fancy D10's in our preferred army colours like AoS got.

I do actually take that as a bonus.. I've brought four of those pots and I don't even play AoS at the mo.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
Yeah but we'll get some of those fancy D10's in our preferred army colours like AoS got.

I do actually take that as a bonus.. I've brought four of those pots and I don't even play AoS at the mo.

At most stores that sell Warhammer, you can buy the 20-sided spin down life-counters from Magic the Gathering for a few cents each. I'll probably just use the wound counters from Descent though - they're the right size and denominations for AoS.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Scattering every template is a bad rule as well. They should just do it the way it was in 3rd Ed:

1. Cover most amount of minis with template possible.
2. Roll To hit for everything using a template.
3. Duplicate models hit by the amount of templates being fired.

Continue on with regular wound/saves/etc. All this scattering nonsense should never have come about. Removing them wholesale isn't the solution, but it is the typical pendulum swing we should expect from GW.

I didn't play 3rd edition and can't quite follow your paraphrasing of it, but a single dice roll for # of hits still seems a lot more straightforward than what you're describing.

I'll also note that in the AoS system, many weapons designed for templates have warscroll interactions that make them more efficient. For example, an Empire Mortar normally does D3 damage on a successful wound. This increases to D6 and 2D6 when used against larger units, effectively mimicking the scatter/template effect with a lot less fuss.

As for Hull Points? Also a dumb idea, and probably one of the worst to enter 40K in the past two editions. A wounds system bolted onto a system that doesn't use wounds. Who thought that was good design?

 Formerly Wu wrote:
It sort of is, in that vehicles typically don't have more than 3-4 hull points whereas AoS monsters (on which this system looks based) can have upwards of 15-20 wounds.

I didn't say the thing you're quoting, but I agree. There's a difference between tracking a few hull points and keeping track of a 15-20 wound vehicle.

There's always going to be some trade-off in a rules set, but I think a bit more record-keeping in exchange for a more flexible and engaging system is worth it.

1. Cover most amount of minis with template possible.
2. Roll To hit for everything using a template.
3. Duplicate models hit by the amount of templates being fired.

Sounds like it'd cause problems for the Orks.. again.

So when can we expect this to drop? May or June/ July?

Mostly want to know when Death Guard are going to be released, I figure they'll most likely be the poster army for the new edition.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
What would Torrent accomplish? Lets see how they nerf my poor Heldrakes even further.

torrent would give flamers longer range

gungo wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
What would Torrent accomplish? Lets see how they nerf my poor Heldrakes even further.

torrent would give flamers longer range

Heldrakes still put in some decent hurt (you just have to think more when moving them)..