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.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Hit every location under template rolling high amount of dices. Good chance of getting some damage even if not blow out right away when you hit hull, turret, tracks and sponsor at once.

Against single monster high school hit doing multiple wounds was pretty good as well.

That's... absolutely not how templates work.

Yhats of you think 7th ed is only way templates have worked. But you DO know theres bewn more editions of 40k than 7th? Just because templates work like they do now doesnt mean it has slways been so. I can name 3 distinct phases each weakening russ vs tanks and monsters

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Of course convenience is a matter of opinion but I for one like not having to cross-reference or memorise dozens or hundreds of rules in a given game.

Which is why the glut of formations and alternate methods of army construction in 40K a big problem right now. You've got so many special rules (despite having a massive USR section), and then formation rules on top of them, then army selection rules, warlord traits that impact army special rules, and so on.

Giving every unit its own set of rules AoS-style isn't going to fix that.

And Emperor help us if we get AoS-style weapon profiles. This I dread more than anything. That homebrew one where the weapons had set To Wound values just makes me shiver. Not only is it stupid (so my Boltgun wounds a Grot and a Wraithknight on a 5+ equally?), but it also means you could have Bolters in one army that do something different to Bolters in another, or not even different armies, within the same army, because all their rules are 'bespoke'.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Agreed, USR are usually much better than a thousands little special snowflakes rules (though some units deserves some snowflakes rules).

It always boggle my mind when AOS fans claims that Bespoke rules are an improvement

Mine too, since everyone I've seen playing chaos or sigmarites or whatever has had identical rules.

That's easy to explain.

Warscrolls contain the unit's rules. My shield does X, your shield does Y. That they're different rules is immaterial, because you simply go with what's on your scroll.

The only issue there would be if a given scroll is updated without one player's knowledge, and you wind up with two players with identical units that don't have the same rule.

Ultimately, it's little different to 8th Edition - if I've Sword and Shield, I get a 5+ save. If I've got Sword and Spear, I've got a 6+. Different situation, different affect.

Main boon of Warscrolls of course is not having to flip between pages - or worse - books (seriously. I played an Apocalypse game and had to pack my Taghmata book, Imperial Knight book, Skitarii book and Cult Mechanicus book, despite I was playing as a single Mechanicus army). That got heavy quick, and meant I was trying to juggle the books when my opponents were shooting at me. If I tried that now, I'd need to add in the book with Cawl (because he's too good not to take!)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Of course convenience is a matter of opinion but I for one like not having to cross-reference or memorise dozens or hundreds of rules in a given game.

Which is why the glut of formations and alternate methods of army construction in 40K a big problem right now. You've got so many special rules (despite having a massive USR section), and then formation rules on top of them, then army selection rules, warlord traits that impact army special rules, and so on.

Giving every unit its own set of rules AoS-style isn't going to fix that.

And Emperor help us if we get AoS-style weapon profiles. This I dread more than anything. That homebrew one where the weapons had set To Wound values just makes me shiver. Not only is it stupid (so my Boltgun wounds a Grot and a Wraithknight on a 5+ equally?), but it also means you could have Bolters in one army that do something different to Bolters in another, or not even different armies, within the same army, because all their rules are 'bespoke'.

I think we've argued this long enough a while ago. The difference isn't in the to wound roll but the wound count roll. The grot still has one wound, the wraithknight has, say, twenty now instead of six. And weapons of the same type do the same in other "armies" you're conflating weapon profiles with unit rules.

Actually having looked at some more warscrolls I think the main advantage for GW is disgusing the shallowness of AoS's genepool.

Outside of exotic weapons there is only 1 special rule used but under different names and thats re-roll 1's which accounts for about 80% of special rules.

I guess if you had USR but then only had 4 rules it might look like you were a little lazy with your rules.

Lord Kragan wrote:
I think we've argued this long enough a while ago. The difference isn't in the to wound roll but the wound count roll. The grot still has one wound, the wraithknight has, say, twenty now instead of six. And weapons of the same type do the same in other "armies" you're conflating weapon profiles with unit rules.

I don't care that we argued it a while ago, it's still a terrible rule, especially when you bring vehicles into it (better give a Land Raider 30 wounds so it doesn't die to Laspistol fire!).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
I think we've argued this long enough a while ago. The difference isn't in the to wound roll but the wound count roll. The grot still has one wound, the wraithknight has, say, twenty now instead of six. And weapons of the same type do the same in other "armies" you're conflating weapon profiles with unit rules.

I don't care that we argued it a while ago, it's still a terrible rule, especially when you bring vehicles into it (better give a Land Raider 30 wounds so it doesn't die to Laspistol fire!).

Yeah, better it dies to a stray lascannon that rolled a lucky six while MCs go and work perfectly even when on the verge of death.

For me, the most interesting and potentially 'game changing' thing is letting charging units strike first.

Depending on how terrain may or may not affect that, some units should get a decent boost from that - Orks immediately spring to mind, as they'll get their attacks in before the enemy gets to do them over.

That in turn may make smaller mobs more appealing, as you don't need to shell out points for what'll amount to little more than ablative wounds.

Could also do the same for beasties like the Carnifex - absolute tank, but due to it's low I value, wary of too many other units in combat.

Choice of words was careful here - as without further info we don't really know how it'll play out. Could be so many exceptions to it that it becomes entirely moot.

SeanDrake wrote:
Actually having looked at some more warscrolls I think the main advantage for GW is disgusing the shallowness of AoS's genepool.

Outside of exotic weapons there is only 1 special rule used but under different names and thats re-roll 1's which accounts for about 80% of special rules.

I guess if you had USR but then only had 4 rules it might look like you were a little lazy with your rules.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-grave-guard-en.pdf

Double damages on 6+
+1 save if rend -
Standard let's you recover casualties.
Hornblower let's you charge minimum 6''

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-freeguild-guard-en.pdf

Swordsmen: +1 to save rolls in CQC re-roll ones to save.
Standard bearer, no models flee on a 1.
Hornblower: countercharge.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-freeguild-handgunners-en.pdf

Standard bearer, no models feel on a 1.
+1 to hit if stands still. +1 to hit if there's 20+ models (massed fire is more likely to hit something).
Hornblower: allows for "overwatch" (the only, with archers and crossbowmen, capable in the game).

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-orruk-ardboyz-en.pdf
shields: 6++ "ward" against regular wounds.
drummer/musician: +2 to charge rolls.
banners: either avoid battleshock loses on a 6+ or 2+ bravery/leadership.

You didn't really look much, didn't you?

Freeguild Guard also get lots of + to hit as the unit gets bigger (though thanks to Battleshock, those numbers can be cut down surprisingly quickly with a concerted effort. Unless they roll a '1'!)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Freeguild Guard also get lots of + to hit as the unit gets bigger (though thanks to Battleshock, those numbers can be cut down surprisingly quickly with a concerted effort. Unless they roll a '1'!)

I'd not count too much on that, considering their batallion ups it to 1 and 2 and the order alleigance is almost tailormade for them, re-rolling battleshock if close to heroes.

True enough. Just needs some artillery at them to thin out the numbers

And btw its bad game design from the get go if every unit breaks basic rules with their own special rules. Thats like first rule of not to do in professional game design

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Of course convenience is a matter of opinion but I for one like not having to cross-reference or memorise dozens or hundreds of rules in a given game.

Which is why the glut of formations and alternate methods of army construction in 40K a big problem right now. You've got so many special rules (despite having a massive USR section), and then formation rules on top of them, then army selection rules, warlord traits that impact army special rules, and so on.

Giving every unit its own set of rules AoS-style isn't going to fix that.

Maybe not entirely but wouldn't it still be better to cut down on the sources of special rules to just the warscroll/dataslate instead of the mess you describe?

And Emperor help us if we get AoS-style weapon profiles. This I dread more than anything. That homebrew one where the weapons had set To Wound values just makes me shiver. Not only is it stupid (so my Boltgun wounds a Grot and a Wraithknight on a 5+ equally?), but it also means you could have Bolters in one army that do something different to Bolters in another, or not even different armies, within the same army, because all their rules are 'bespoke'.

I also don't like the fixed to wound roll, but I think it could be cool if they had it the way KoW does it where it's flipped around and there's a set roll to wound the model and weapons etc. modify that.

tneva82 wrote:
And btw its bad game design from the get go if every unit breaks basic rules with their own special rules. Thats like first rule of not to do in professional game design

Someone better tell nearly every wargames designer ever then.....even Chess, if we assume the majority pieces (Pawns) act in a way every other piece then doesn't.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Someone better tell nearly every wargames designer ever then.....even Chess, if we assume the majority pieces (Pawns) act in a way every other piece then doesn't.

Disingenuity is an ugly colour on your Grotsnik.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And btw its bad game design from the get go if every unit breaks basic rules with their own special rules. Thats like first rule of not to do in professional game design

Someone better tell nearly every wargames designer ever then.....even Chess, if we assume the majority pieces (Pawns) act in a way every other piece then doesn't.

breaking basic rules in chees would be like
you always alternate your moves, except after moving the white tower which would allow you to place the white king on any white field on the board and than make a single move with it

Or when a Prawn, which can move two squares forward in it's first move, then only one square after that and can only take pieces diagonally makes it across the board, when it becomes a Queen with all the associated benefits?

Every wargame has basic units breaking the basic rules. That's where variety comes from.

None of those examples are of something 'breaking' the rules Grotsnik. Stop it.

The AoS warscrolls posted above do not break the base rules at all, so I'm not sure what the point of this game-design-101 is.

He's arguing it badly, not being disingenuous.

A game can consist of a bunch of units each with unique rules quite happily (see chess). Is what he means

The stuff about breaking fundamental rules is a pointless offshoot.

Edit: and the ninja posting on a similar theme demonstrates why it was a pointless offshoot. Thank you

 His Master's Voice wrote:
The AoS warscrolls posted above do not break the base rules at all, so I'm not sure what the point of this game-design-101 is.

Sure.....whatevs.

Still doesn't change his original premise was bunkum - very very few wargames don't feature units which have rule exceptions and exemptions.

Therefore, it being 'the first rule of professional game design' (neatly alluding that GW are somehow not professional, but amateur) is clearly wrong, no?

Yes all games have you its that break but bot 100% like amateur ganes like aos have.


If all are special none are.

If you have to desperately find unut that doesnt have unique special rule you know game sucks. Simple as that. Shows designer is amateur that assumes special rules are needed for flavor.

40k has too many rules already. Last thing it needs is aos style bloat with special rules for every unit.

tneva82 wrote:
Yes all games have you its that break but bot 100% like amateur ganes like aos have.


If all are special none are.

If you have to desperately find unut that doesnt have unique special rule you know game sucks. Simple as that. Shows designer is amateur that assumes special rules are needed for flavor.

40k has too many rules already. Last thing it needs is aos style bloat with special rules for every unit.

That's your opinion. None of it is fact.

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

I mean, I don't do psychotropic substances meself, but I'd like to send it for Lab analysis?

Because what you've described applies to pretty much every game I've ever played on the table top? X-Wing? New rules with every new ship. Ditto Armada. Warmahordes? You guessed it!

Also, hands up who's 'desperately' looking for any given unit....right....counts hands.....that's no-one.

It is interesting though. When GW did try streaming rules it was considered a total failure as it had taken the character out of the game and it didn't "feel" like you were using specific units any more.

That game was Epic 40k.

And 3rd Ed 40k.

In my opinion they threw baby out with the bath water on that one.

As for rules bloat?

40k's main problem is how scattered everything is. Formations, items, psychic powers are now scattered over a number of volumes. So far the highest count I can come up with off the top of my head is my mixed Mechanicus with the Ordinatus and Knights at 5 books, 6 if you include the main rules. If they did just a single Mechanicus book, that'd drop down to three/four.

AoS? Not even in the same league for the most part. The Scrolls are downloadable, so I need only really carry my iPad with me - and seeing as that's got all my best music on it (currently enjoying Plasmatics. Anything where a chainsaw is the guitar solo gets my vote) that's no chore at all.

3rd Ed 40k is different though. It wasn't a massive scarring failure.

I think Epic 40k means we will never see an elegant streamlined game from GW - or at least while it's still in the organisational memory.

GW think the bulk of their players like rules differentiating all of their units. They aren't aiming to cater to the people that will argue that streamlined rules make for the best game because they don't believe that's the most profitable way forward.

tneva82 wrote:
And btw its bad game design from the get go if every unit breaks basic rules with their own special rules. Thats like first rule of not to do in professional game design

Ever play Heroscape - beautifully simple, inovative, intuiative and highly tactical game system - evey single unit (single chracter or squads) had between 1 and 3 special rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroscape

You had the unit cards in front of you - no one evey had a problem in my experience with the rules

Vorian wrote:
3rd Ed 40k is different though. It wasn't a massive scarring failure.

I think Epic 40k means we will never see an elegant streamlined game from GW - or at least while it's still in the organisational memory.

GW think the bulk of their players like rules differentiating all of their units. They aren't aiming to cater to the people that will argue that streamlined rules make for the best game because they don't believe that's the most profitable way forward.

Epic Armageddon was better. AP/AT stats for weapons, showing their effectiveness against infantry and armour respectively. Much better than the 'add up your firepower' malarkey (though that did work beautifully for BFG)

AoS is the closest they've done in some time. No consulting cross reference charts to hit and to wound - you just aim for whatever the Scroll says (with modifiers where appropriate).