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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

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

depends on what your game is
you chose a design world and stick with all your rules inside this world
as long as all your rules are conform with the basic design of the world, everything is ok

if your design world says there are phases and a specific action can only be performed in it's specific phase
all units that can move outside the movement phase or shoot outside the shooting phase, have special rules that are breaking the basic design rules of that created world

a of course you can alter your design to phases that are free and everyone can just change shoot and movement actions


and this makes 40k a mess, there are some left overs from editions that had a different basic design and GW changes the basic design of their world for new codex release

Not sure anyone is arguing that 40k isn't a mess

System does need an overhaul. But to reiterate my point from various threads (possibly including this one) I don't think it needs the Ground Up that brought us AoS.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

System does need an overhaul. But to reiterate my point from various threads (possibly including this one) I don't think it needs the Ground Up that brought us AoS.

40k needs a re-write from scratch and every faction done in the same time

first to remove those copy&paste left overs that are just there because they were forgotten to remove 2 editions ago
and to have the same basic design all the faction rules

this is why AoS is the better game for now
maybe it is getting worse after GW changes the design again with a new battledome

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

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).

Meh, from my perspective a lot of nonsense gets talked about core mechanics.

They are generally just a framework to manipulate probability and can generally be made to work.

We'll no doubt get someone posting how horrible fixed to wound rolls are and that a laspistol can kill a land raider. If that's possible / probable then something has gone wrong in the implementation. Though Nothing really makes it superior to the many other ways it can be done.


Having rules all over the place is a pretty terrible thing objectively though

I don't see how having rules on individual sheets per unit would matter in most armies.


For example: Most marines probably can get by with printing a total of 10 pages for their codex. And with the ability to laminate those sheets, it pretty much means you get cards to use for the entire edition.

If you lack a printer, go to Office depot or Staples. Or maybe the public library. At most, it would cost you the fee for using the computer for 1 hour.

It wouldn't matter, I find it hilarious that people are acting like this is some new concept. It just demonstrates how long they have been from ACTUALLY playing the fething game. I have a book case plum full of codexes from multiple editions, a random grab at any one will demonstrate that snowflake rules for each unit isn't really a new concept. Heck, my last game was with admech, from the line troops to the HS they all had unit to unit unique rules and the game played out fine. Seriously, I looked outside this morning and the Sun was still on the rise

As an AoS player, I quite enjoy having special rules on warscrolls and a limited set of main rules. While the entire game has reams of special rules, the actual impact and record-keeping is low because you're only using a few at a time. I think this is a huge benefit to "simple core rules, bloated special/unit rules". So even if my units all override the core rules in some fashion (bespoke everywhere!), it's still easy to play because I know exactly what I need to know.

And regarding the constant value of to-hit rules and whether it doesn't make sense, keep in mind the overall abstraction is different. The full attack requires the hit, wound, and save rolls so altogether I find they make more sense. Otherwise yes, it would be break immersion to be equally likely to hit a sneaky unit vs a giant beast.

Now I don't have experience with 40k except watching people play it, but I'm hopeful they do streamline it as above because it will get me playing it! I have no interest in having to search through piles of books, tables, etc. Unless the goal of 40k is "Excel the Wargame"; in that case it's just not for me. I guess it's a question of balancing speed/accessibility with level of simulation.

reposting this cuz i haven't seen it in this "rumor" thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/720026.page#9239255

 Clanan wrote:
As an AoS player, I quite enjoy having special rules on warscrolls and a limited set of main rules. While the entire game has reams of special rules, the actual impact and record-keeping is low because you're only using a few at a time. I think this is a huge benefit to "simple core rules, bloated special/unit rules". So even if my units all override the core rules in some fashion (bespoke everywhere!), it's still easy to play because I know exactly what I need to know.

And regarding the constant value of to-hit rules and whether it doesn't make sense, keep in mind the overall abstraction is different. The full attack requires the hit, wound, and save rolls so altogether I find they make more sense. Otherwise yes, it would be break immersion to be equally likely to hit a sneaky unit vs a giant beast.

Now I don't have experience with 40k except watching people play it, but I'm hopeful they do streamline it as above because it will get me playing it! I have no interest in having to search through piles of books, tables, etc. Unless the goal of 40k is "Excel the Wargame"; in that case it's just not for me. I guess it's a question of balancing speed/accessibility with level of simulation.

In 40k you have a glossary of what feels like 50 USR's which have several areas of overlap, for example slow and purposeful and relentless, or ATSKNF and fearless where one iteration is flat out better then the other. Which doesn't matter too much in the end since every faction cooks up their own version anyway. So already players need to reference the BRB for USR's while referencing the rules in their respective codex for their faction AND each unit entry AND formation benefits. No one remembers everything currently anyway and needs to double check, even if they do believe they know it all, it is a common courtesy to make sure. It would be WAY easier if each unit had all it's relevant rules on it's data sheet.

 axisofentropy wrote:
reposting this cuz i haven't seen it in this "rumor" thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/720026.page#9239255

Saw it a while ago, possibly in another thread. Everyone seemed to think 8th edition 40k release, but who knows...

I just view it as "we expect to be busy at this time".

tneva82 wrote:

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

1. I never played second edition, so that rule was not familiar to me.
2. Templates have not worked that way since 3rd edition, which is 40k as it has been recognizable for almost the last 20 years. Obviously anything can work differently, if it's being done in a different system. That's why I used the present tense "work."
3. Countering an argument about how things work now with an argument about how things used to work 20 years ago, without actually stating that you're sending the goalposts onto a Back to the Future-esque adventure, is a good way to confuse people.

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.

This I have to agree with it. At least if you gives an unit some kind of special rules, make it original and interesting. In AOS, most of these only consist in re-rolls, or adding +1 to a roll

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Once upon a time we had 4 different versions of True Grit in print (Space Wolves, Grey Knight, Death Guard and one other), so yeah, I don't fancy our chances.

Universal Special Rules aren't just there for convenience, there's also there to cut down on mistakes. If most of your rules come from a central source then that cuts down on the chance of making mistakes, and updates can apply to large swathes of units rather than having to update individual units over and over again.

All "bespoke" rules give you is the chance to say "bespoke" in your marketing material as if it were some sort of inherent good.

This I largely agree with, but they confuse things for me by making one rule refer to another.

Take Boneswords: Life Drain or whatever it is... their rule says 6s cause Instant Death. So you look up Boneswords to see what they do, then you have to look up Instant Death.
Gulp! - you look it up - 6s are Precision Shots. So you go look up another thing.
My Hive Tyrant is a Flying Monstrous Creature. I look that up. He gets a bundle of rules to look up.

To be honest I'd much rather have all the relevant stuff spelled out on a unit card and not have to rely on 3rd party summary sheets.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Take Boneswords: Life Drain or whatever it is... their rule says 6s cause Instant Death. So you look up Boneswords to see what they do, then you have to look up Instant Death.
Gulp! - you look it up - 6s are Precision Shots. So you go look up another thing.
My Hive Tyrant is a Flying Monstrous Creature. I look that up. He gets a bundle of rules to look up.

To be honest I'd much rather have all the relevant stuff spelled out on a unit card and not have to rely on 3rd party summary sheets.

You're mixing two different issues here.

Having everything spelt out on unit cards is an awesome idea, and definitely something worth pursuing.

But having unit cards doesn't automatically mean also dispensing with USRs.




Regardless of where they are written down, it makes far more sense and is much easier for players to learn when rules that do the same thing are actually the same rule, rather than having a bunch of differently-named rules that all do the same thing. Or having a bunch of differently-named rules that all do almost the same thing, for no reason other than to have more special rules.

Every single unit doesn't need to have it's own special snowflake rule. That might be ok for a small-scale skirmish game, but when you have as many models on the table as a typical game of 40K, it's really not taking anything away from the game if some of those models just run around and shoot things without having to have a bunch of special rules to remember.

 streetsamurai wrote:

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.

This I have to agree with it. At least if you gives an unit some kind of special rules, make it original and interesting. In AOS, most of these only consist in re-rolls, or adding +1 to a roll

Not sure if this is on topic, but this is completely incorrect. I didn't review every warscroll but I did go over the Death Alliance and Sylvaneth faction scrolls. None of the units, including the basic chaff/battleline forces, had special rules as bland as +1 and/or rerolls. Or if they did, they had other, specialer rules. Buffs, synergies, special movement, modifiers, resurrections, etc. I would argue the main advantage of warscrolls is limiting cognitive load at game time, not any sort of shallowness.

But this feels more like a discussion/debate, rather than rumors, so I'll leave it at that.

 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!).

Except there would be a rule on land raiders that allow it to ignore any weapon without a rend of -3 or better, or it causes wounds against it to take a negative 3 to the roll making most weapons unable to hurt it.

The unit having possible defensive bonuses completely​ eliminates the issues you think will happen. Those type of bonuses exist within AOS, they will exist in any game built in the same mentality.

One rumor I heard somewhere (can't remember if it was this thread) was that overwatch will be a thing of the past. This concerns me, as good overwatch is the thing that sets my Dark Angels apart from regular Space Marines. Of course, if they redo the Dark Angels stuff along with everything else to be more like AoS I suppose I can hope they throw the boys in green (and black and tan) a bone.

In general, I just hope I don't have to have a longer beard than my opponent to trigger any abilities. Or anything else of that nature.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except there would be a rule on land raiders...

*record scratch*

And you've just created an exception to a general rule to combat a failing of the general rules. AV didn't have that problem, and required no special rules or exceptions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except there would be a rule on land raiders...

*record scratch*

And you've just created an exception to a general rule to combat a failing of the general rules. AV didn't have that problem, and required no special rules or exceptions.

Av was already an exception to the general rules, that's why there was a separate section of the rulebook where it described how vehicles were different that anything else in the game.

So, you want an exception to the general rules of the game that you don't think is an exception to the general rules of the game?

Also, this exception to the general rules can also be used to increase the toughness of monstrous creatures as well. Vehicles could give a blanket protection against things with low rend values while monsters could lower the chance to wound. It would do the same thing without needing separate mechanics for each a d also not needing to consult a chart.

 Clanan wrote:
As an AoS player, I quite enjoy having special rules on warscrolls and a limited set of main rules. While the entire game has reams of special rules, the actual impact and record-keeping is low because you're only using a few at a time. I think this is a huge benefit to "simple core rules, bloated special/unit rules". So even if my units all override the core rules in some fashion (bespoke everywhere!), it's still easy to play because I know exactly what I need to know.

And regarding the constant value of to-hit rules and whether it doesn't make sense, keep in mind the overall abstraction is different. The full attack requires the hit, wound, and save rolls so altogether I find they make more sense. Otherwise yes, it would be break immersion to be equally likely to hit a sneaky unit vs a giant beast.

Now I don't have experience with 40k except watching people play it, but I'm hopeful they do streamline it as above because it will get me playing it! I have no interest in having to search through piles of books, tables, etc. Unless the goal of 40k is "Excel the Wargame"; in that case it's just not for me. I guess it's a question of balancing speed/accessibility with level of simulation.

you should go take a look at Khorne bloodbound and sigmarines

But just looked at the sylvaneth, and they are indeed much more interesting

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

*record scratch*

And you've just created an exception to a general rule to combat a failing of the general rules. AV didn't have that problem, and required no special rules or exceptions.

AV would be also an exception
but for general rules going with a fixed "to wound" value on the weapon (instead of strength) an special rules (-X to wound) on the target (instead of toughness) would be needed anyway
if it is not there the general core rules are already missing something important to handle stuff that should not be wounded by small arms

 Red Corsair wrote:
It wouldn't matter, I find it hilarious that people are acting like this is some new concept. It just demonstrates how long they have been from ACTUALLY playing the fething game. I have a book case plum full of codexes from multiple editions, a random grab at any one will demonstrate that snowflake rules for each unit isn't really a new concept. Heck, my last game was with admech, from the line troops to the HS they all had unit to unit unique rules and the game played out fine. Seriously, I looked outside this morning and the Sun was still on the rise

You're right, it's not a new thing. It IS something that people have been complaining about for several editions now. It's the root cause of the rules bloat the we're all going the new edition will fix.

Replacing rules-bloated codexes with rules-bloated warscrolls doesn't really achieve anything worthwhile, other than to potentially make said rules slightly more accessible.

I actually think vehicles might be a point where an exception to the general to hit, wound and save system through a single defensive rule on their warscroll will be ideal.

They should have exceptional resistance or even immunity to small arms fire. This seems like an ideal point to call out an exception.

Sorry, the tank has Blessed Adamantium and is immune to those weapons!

That's going to feel way more awesome than "what's the AV on that? 11? So I'd need to roll a 7. Oh well."

I think a rule that specifically calls out the immunity to small arms as an exception will be far more evocative and clear to new players than a AV system where they are immune as an implication of the arithmetic.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I actually think vehicles might be a point where an exception to the general to hit, wound and save system through a single defensive rule on their warscroll will be ideal.

That sounds like a Universal Special Rule, rather than something you repeat on every single warscroll.

And if you're going to have USRs like that, well, firstly you should find an organic way to not need the rule in the first place, but putting that aside you should perhaps not go the 'bespoke' route and just make a solid base ruleset that is broad, granular and flexible enough to not require endless special rules, exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, or for every unit to have its own set of rules.

I largely agree, but people seem to really like it in AoS. It seems to be working. But maybe that's in comparison to the current state of 40k? "Working" being a relative term.

Either way, it seems like what is ahead. I've just been looking at some AoS game play and what people think about it to see how it might actually pan out. Not sure I'd call it a failure or an idea that's going to ruin things necessarily.

Just give certain vehicles immunity to anything below -1 or -2 rend. Done, fixed To Hit and To Wound rolls now work perfectly against vehicles. All these systems are simply different ways to manipulate probability of damaging Unit X with Weapon Y. The base system isn't a problem, the implementation is what matters. T vs S or fixed to hit/wound with more wounds, both can be equally good or bad depending on implementation.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Take Boneswords: Life Drain or whatever it is... their rule says 6s cause Instant Death. So you look up Boneswords to see what they do, then you have to look up Instant Death.
Gulp! - you look it up - 6s are Precision Shots. So you go look up another thing.
My Hive Tyrant is a Flying Monstrous Creature. I look that up. He gets a bundle of rules to look up.

To be honest I'd much rather have all the relevant stuff spelled out on a unit card and not have to rely on 3rd party summary sheets.

You're mixing two different issues here.

Having everything spelt out on unit cards is an awesome idea, and definitely something worth pursuing.

But having unit cards doesn't automatically mean also dispensing with USRs.




Regardless of where they are written down, it makes far more sense and is much easier for players to learn when rules that do the same thing are actually the same rule, rather than having a bunch of differently-named rules that all do the same thing. Or having a bunch of differently-named rules that all do almost the same thing, for no reason other than to have more special rules.

Every single unit doesn't need to have it's own special snowflake rule. That might be ok for a small-scale skirmish game, but when you have as many models on the table as a typical game of 40K, it's really not taking anything away from the game if some of those models just run around and shoot things without having to have a bunch of special rules to remember.

I get you, but Geedubs did the mixing. If you follow my logic through, and add yours, you could make a version of Instant Death rule that adds in 'Some weapons cause Instant Death on a roll - this is usually shown as Instant Death (6+)' etc. like Feel No Pain. So Tyranid Bonesword and Lashwhio could be simplified from:

Swiftstrike, Life Drain

To just:

+3 Initiative (Assault Phase only), Instant Death (6+)

Now THAT would be a good use of USRs. If you wanna go the other way and mix flavour text with rules, please gimme unit cards! Until then homemade cheat sheets and BattleScribe summaries are the order of the day.

Deep Strike is the best USR example I can think of that says 'this covers a multitude of ways of getting to the battlefield and sums them all up nice and easily'. THIS. I subscribe to this as it works. Terminators don't say 'Teleporter Assault' and Scions 'Valkyrie Insertion' - just 'Deep Strike. The flavour text is dealt with elsewhere. If it all worked this way, fine!

 Mymearan wrote:
Just give certain vehicles immunity to anything below -1 or -2 rend. Done, fixed To Hit and To Wound rolls now work perfectly against vehicles.

so changing 40k from "high Strength" weapon killing vehicles to "high AP" weapon killing vehicles
HotShot Lasguns with now S3 AP3 (wound 5+, rend -2) are killing Land Raiders better than S10 AP- (wound 2+, rend -), in that new system

this is ok, I just don't think it as an solution to the original problem, but more changing the whole system up completely from the ground.

likely how GW would do it anyway, instead of solving the problem just changing the system so that the problem get replaced by a different one and everyone believes it is solved....

The base system isn't a problem, the implementation is what matters. T vs S or fixed to hit/wound with more wounds, both can be equally good or bad depending on implementation

right, and you did it wrong
as you set the armour save modification/AP (rend) as counter to strength (to wound) and removed toughness completely

a fixed to wound roll will always need an opposing modifier to convert the existing 40k system
it doesn't matter it you roll against a fixed toughness (5+) and modify with your strength (+1) or roll a fixed strength (5+) and modify with toughness (-1), but you need it to convert the current system.
otherwise it would be a completely different thing were nothing from previous editions would be the same, and not just a more streamlined version of the rules
and your high rate of fire hot-shot lasguns are better at killing tanks than your high strength one shot low AP weapons

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
I actually think vehicles might be a point where an exception to the general to hit, wound and save system through a single defensive rule on their warscroll will be ideal.

That sounds like a Universal Special Rule, rather than something you repeat on every single warscroll.

And if you're going to have USRs like that, well, firstly you should find an organic way to not need the rule in the first place, but putting that aside you should perhaps not go the 'bespoke' route and just make a solid base ruleset that is broad, granular and flexible enough to not require endless special rules, exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, or for every unit to have its own set of rules.

It wouldn't be repeated on every scroll in the exact same way, there would be different levels of it and different reasons for it.

They could even implement a system like I have in my personal wargame where the units have a category that make it immune to certain levels of weaponry. The rules could be something like...

Behemoth 1: weapons take a -1 penalty to wound and rend against this unit.
Heavy armor 2: weapons with a rend value of 2 or less may not damage this unit.
Hardened 1: this unit rerolls any failed saves of 1

All of these rules would be able to lower the efficacy of weapons with low to wound rolls and/or low rend characteristics without necessitating a large number of universal rules. And if the rules are already on the dataslate, they don't need to be in the core rules because you need the stats available for any units you bring anyway.

To can make a clean and solid ruleset where the different parts of the game are exceptions to the core rules.

When you play an RPG they don't list every option available in the game in one place and then tell you what options your class gets access to, your class will tell you how you change the game itself. Same methodology here. If the game is a simple baseline to learn, then any exceptions presented will.be readily understood because of easily people grasp the rule itself.

I've never understood how a hotshot laser can be amazing at penetrating armour and somehow not any better at hurting the thing inside it. Or something be twice as killy as a lasgun (S6) yet your tshirt gives you a save against it. Categories of weapons doing differing damage against armour would be nice (say Flak actually doing its job vs blasts, and getting a positive modifier like it used to) but the different guns doing different things seems like a way to play game mechanics off against each other and differentiate weapons, but isn't really simulating much anymore.