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.

 kodos wrote:

 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

Making up stats for weapons isn't a great way to argue your point. -2 rend is extremely unusual and if you want to compare it would probably be given to things like las cannons, not hot shot lasguns. Weapons would obviously be tailored to the system. A strength 10, AP- weapon in 40k (do they even exist) would not become a 2+ to wound, 0 Rend weapon in AOS, because as you noted, that would be absurd. You wouldn't convert weapons using some kind of table, you would adapt each weapon so that it had the intended effect in the new system.

Although this whole conversation is hypothetical as I don't think there's any way they'll be going to fixed To hit and To wound.

 kodos wrote:

 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

The easiest way is to have the keywords "tank" and "anti tank". You can't wound the former unless you have the latter

Vorian wrote:

The easiest way is to have the keywords "tank" and "anti tank". You can't wound the former unless you have the latter

Easiest in that system, perhaps. I'm still not convinced that it's easier than 'compare S vs T, and you can't wound anything more than three points higher' which doesn't require any special rules at all.

They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.

And I'm not convinced at all that AoS' system is all that compatible with 40k.

Fantasy never really had the breadth of weapons that 40k does. A Halberd was a standardised item - +1 S, Requires Two Hands. Spears? Fight in Ranks, or +1S on the charge if mounted.

Sure, the odd unit here and there had a more unique item (Chaos Knight Ensorcelled Weapons spring to mind) but those were the exception rather than the rule.

40k? Well, blimey. Many weapons, each with their own niche (whilst both ostensibly anti-infantry, a Lasgun is remarkably different to a Shuriken Catapult).

Likewise the diversity of units. Warhammer never had Tanks in the way 40k does - the only exception was the 'headache' version of Steam Tank rules, which were eventually ditched in favour of just making it a well tough monster.

In 40k, there's all sorts of different tanks. Skimmer for instance are different target to Battle Tanks - they can jink for one.

AoS does have sort-of tanks now with the sky ships, and they have wounds and work like any other model. Same with weapons, we now have wooden bows in the same game as highly advanced Dwarven handheld guns.

Vorian wrote:
They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.

Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It wouldn't be repeated on every scroll in the exact same way...

That's worse!!!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

and we are missing that S10 AP- would auto kill Terminators without any save
because the impact of the force is high enough to smash anything without penetration the armour

but lets just look at real armour and ammo
for example you have HESH, build so that it is never penetration tank armour but kills everything living inside because of the force of the explosion on the outside while the armour is still intact.
APCR, sub-calibre ammo, will penetrate any kind of armour easily, but if it does not hit a vital system inside, nothing happen
(of course there is damage done by the force)
HEAT, a mix as the explosion on the outside creates the AP bolt that penetrates the armour and damage is done because of the high temperature and pressure

in 40k
HESH = S10 AP- (with special rule auto kill everything without save were strength doubles toughness)
APCR = S6 AP1
HEAT = S8 AP3

the system works fine and brings in the reality quite well

the problem is, AP is hard to balance regarding points because it is not a linear factor that can be calculated and change a lot with the opponents units
while an armour save modification is less realistic for future war, but scales linear and therefore balanced point cost can be calculated much easier

best way would be of course to have a strength related armour modifier (to demonstrate that pure force can kill stuff without penetration) and the AP value that is not related to strength but show that some weapons just ignore some kind of armour

 Mymearan wrote:

You wouldn't convert weapons using some kind of table, you would adapt each weapon so that it had the intended effect in the new system.

that is the point
adding fixed to wound roll is not streamlining the current system to make it faster
but killing 40k and making a complete new game that has nothing to do with the existing one

this worked for Warhammer Fantasy just because armour penetration was related to strength and not it's own stat

The easiest way is to have the keywords "tank" and "anti tank". You can't wound the former unless you have the latter

I see now a lot of people arguing about why a Carnifex or Demon Prince has the "tank" keyword

They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.

true, you are just doomed to it if it is done just the same way as in AoS

 kodos wrote:


in 40k
HESH = S10 AP- (with special rule auto kill everything without save were strength doubles toughness)
APCR = S6 AP1
HEAT = S8 AP3

the system works fine and brings in the reality quite well

This work with special rules involved... Otherwise it doens't! and it's even worse with "extreme" values :
a S10 AP- against infantry is something extremely deadly, that kill even T5 without problem... but bounce on every armor, even an ork wet T-Shirt.
Thus, this weapon should do nothing against vehicles, which are mostly armored... well that's not the case, S10 kill even the most resilient vehicles...

on the other hand a S1 AP1 weapon is capable to punch through any infantry armor, even terminator, but struggle to kill what's inside the armor.
against a vehicle, this could make it explode... if it could penetrate the armor!

In fact, the "to wound" and "armor penetration" concepts are reversed between infantry and vehicles, leading to either :
* Stupid weapons, like the example above
* Linking more or less S and AP, a more powerful weapon got more S and less AP, and the dual stat is not really needed...


On the 8th edition rules?
I really hope GW will not follow AoS rules...

Aos rules are IMHO a pool of good ideas that doen't mesh together well :
4 pages ruleset, but with unessential ruling (like bonus depending who won last game), and lacking basic thing like terrain (yes, I know, warscrolls, but terrain should not be on unit scroll...)
Alternating player role is a good way to keep players involved in the game, except when you do it with full turn.
Get rid of some unit stats to make the game "easier" but get those stats back on weapons, with useless ones (to wound roll is just there to keep the three roll resolution dear to GW...)
No need to look in the book for special rules, but everyone is special, even squad leaders that get different bonuses and make everything complicated for no good reasons...


Can they do better? I don't know... Part of me want to play again, but not at any cost, and not with rules for rules sake!

Dark Phoenix wrote:

a S10 AP- against infantry is something extremely deadly, that kill even T5 without problem... but bounce on every armor, even an ork wet T-Shirt.
Thus, this weapon should do nothing against vehicles, which are mostly armored

wrong, as it shows that the weapon was able to kill the crew or systems inside without penetrating the armour
and such weapons exists since medieval times in warfare as penetrating the armour is not necessary to "kill" a tank/armoured soldier

saying that weapons that cannot penetrate armour should not kill tanks or armoured infantry just show that you don't know how some Anti-Tank weapons work
(ever read about stories that as most M4 survived the battle fully operational while the crew was killed inside)

Dark Phoenix wrote:

This work with special rules involved... Otherwise it doens't!

don't ask me why GW removed that part from the general rules that instant death ignores armour and S double T always count as ID.

In fact, the "to wound" and "armor penetration" concepts are reversed between infantry and vehicles,

No, they are not
the problem in 40k is that AP is not taken into account for vehicles which is a general problem of the AV system (as AV = T+Armour) that could have been easily solved right from the start either with having an armour save or if don't want vehicles to have an armour save with the following
S + 6 - AP VS AV = penetration

(now it is S+D6 VS AV = glancing hit, S+D6 VS AV+1 = penetration)

 insaniak wrote:

Vorian wrote:
They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.

Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.

So a tank and anti tank keyword is more complex than AV, different rules for armour penetration dice, different tables for damage, hull points? Or in other words a completely separate and additional system.

Sure. Ok.

Vorian wrote:

So a tank and anti tank keyword is more complex than AV, different rules for armour penetration dice, different tables for damage, hull points? Or in other words a completely separate and additional system.

right, and there is no reason to change the current system for an equal complicated system

this would be just changing stuff for the sake of change and not changing the rules to make them faster and more streamlined

I think keywords would be better, tbh

Armour piercing - ignores 4+ to 6+ saves
Anti Tank - something something vehicle armour effect
Blast - Flak armour gets better save vs it
High Explosive - ignores cover, ignores 4+ to 6+ saves
Flamer - ignores cover

That kind of thing.

Edit: see, done it myself! High Explosive - ignores cover, ignores 4+ to 6+ saves - just make that "Blast, Armour Piercing" - done! No internal-referencing Hi-Ex keyword needed!

It's pretty obviously more simple.

There's one system, there's no looking up comparison tables, etc.

You might not like it, which is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but inventing nonsense scenarios to say "I prefer the other system" is just silly.

There is nothing inherently wrong in the simpler system.

 kodos wrote:
[
don't ask me why GW removed that part from the general rules that instant death ignores armour and S double T always count as ID.

Instant Death doesn't ignore armour. It never has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:

So a tank and anti tank keyword is more complex than AV, different rules for armour penetration dice, different tables for damage, hull points? Or in other words a completely separate and additional system.

Sure. Ok.

I never mentioned AV, so I have no idea where you got the idea that's what I was suggesting.

We are discussing how a fixed to wound roll interacts with vehicles compared to how the current system does. The current system uses AV as a seperate system.

 kodos wrote:


wrong, as it shows that the weapon was able to kill the crew or systems inside without penetrating the armour
and such weapons exists since medieval times in warfare as penetrating the armour is not necessary to "kill" a tank/armoured soldier

saying that weapons that cannot penetrate armour should not kill tanks or armoured infantry just show that you don't know how some Anti-Tank weapons work
(ever read about stories that as most M4 survived the battle fully operational while the crew was killed inside)

In that case, the weapon effectively ignore the armor... and it not AP - in that case!
A S10 AP- is very effective against light infantry (Depending on RoF...) but nearly ineffective against heavy armored infantry, yet very effective against tanks... something doesn't add up...

 kodos wrote:

don't ask me why GW removed that part from the general rules that instant death ignores armour and S double T always count as ID.

I don't know either... I agree that ID from S>2*T should ignore armor!

 kodos wrote:

No, they are not
the problem in 40k is that AP is not taken into account for vehicles which is a general problem of the AV system (as AV = T+Armour) that could have been easily solved right from the start either with having an armour save or if don't want vehicles to have an armour save with the following
S + 6 - AP VS AV = penetration

(now it is S+D6 VS AV = glancing hit, S+D6 VS AV+1 = penetration)

I said "reversed" because you wound against infantry using S, and mitigate armor with AP.
Against a vehicle, you "wound" using AP (modifier on the damage table) and mitigate armor with S.

You solution is something I'd like if every damage was done in one roll! (I'm an heretic who think that "to would" and "to save" is the same concept of "resilience", and one of them should go...)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I think keywords would be better, tbh

Armour piercing - ignores 4+ to 6+ saves
Anti Tank - something something vehicle armour effect
Blast - Flak armour gets better save vs it
High Explosive - ignores cover, ignores 4+ to 6+ saves
Flamer - ignores cover

That kind of thing.

I'd call those Special Rules (universal or not) rather than keywords.

Easiest way to make vehicles work is as follows:


Current AV -- New Save
14 - 0+
13 - 1+
12 - 2+
11 - 3 +
10 - 4+
Saves below 2+ always save...


And make some weapons that say:
Meltagun Rend -2 double damage vs vehicles
Plasma Rend -2 (Causes Mortal wound on 1 to firer, on 6 causes Mortal wound to target)
Lascannon Rend -3
Distortion Cannon (Causes mortal wounds)

Bolter Rend -1
Lasgun Rend 0
Autogun Rend 0
Shuriken Catapult Rend -1

See pretty simple once you make a landraider something like 16 wounds. It will make it very sturdy. And you will need quite a few shots to kill it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It wouldn't be repeated on every scroll in the exact same way...

That's worse!!!

I meant as in the number would be different, hence my examples of various methods to mitigate low strength weapons effectiveness against what should be harder targets.

Age of sigmar has a single universal rule. There is no reason to think the new game wouldn't at least include one or two more (specifically the transport rule HAS to be in there) so making a "hardened (_+)" rule where it says specifically what weapons would either be weakened or ignored depending on the route taken mechanically is not outside the realm of possibility. We don't need an extensive special rules list, having most special rules be on the sheet instead is perfectly fine.

Again, most players I know memorise their rules for the units they play quickly, but may need to reference enemy rules often. Having those rules on the sheets needed to play the unit quickens look up time if someone needs it and saves on the extra paper needed to carry around because you aren't lugging pages of information that will never come up in your game. Everything at your finger tips, and nothing on the table that is the being used for that game. Win win.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Rules bloat has been a problem for a while, but your making several assumptions already.
A. You are assuming there will be the same or more bloat before seeing the rules (head scratch)
B. You are assuming the rules will remain stagnant and that the problem you assumed from A will get worse over time.

In your defense this is how things panned out in the past with codexes, but with free to download warscrolls for individual units GW has a MUCH easier time updating rules on scrolls that are redundant or no longer work. So yes, it does achieve more but your willfully ignoring the potential in order to bang on that same drum. Again, I understand why given GW's high tower approach in the past but if you aren't willing to move forward and give it a chance before it's released then I have no idea what your looking for here.

I feel like some people are taking one sentence and running away with it in one direction lol. I mean unless you have proof that these scrolls would create more bloat? Because right now AoS is actually disproving that claim, it's remarkably elegant in it's simplicity and it isn't difficult to track a units rules on its scroll.

If a lasgun was 5+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no rend, 1 damage
And a Land raider had 16 wounds and a 2+ save

Then it would take 864 lasgun shots to take down the Land Raider. No game bending rules, no special exceptions, just perfectly reasonable statlines.

Leggy wrote:
If a lasgun was 5+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no rend, 1 damage
And a Land raider had 16 wounds and a 2+ save

Then it would take 864 lasgun shots to take down the Land Raider. No game bending rules, no special exceptions, just perfectly reasonable statlines.

except that lasguns should not be able to kill a Land Raider and that it feels just stupid that the difference between a Raider Terminator and Wrath Knight is just the number of health points

for a complete new game this is ok, for a streamlined 40k it is garbage

 kodos wrote:

Leggy wrote:
If a lasgun was 5+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no rend, 1 damage
And a Land raider had 16 wounds and a 2+ save

Then it would take 864 lasgun shots to take down the Land Raider. No game bending rules, no special exceptions, just perfectly reasonable statlines.

except that lasguns should not be able to kill a Land Raider and that it feels just stupid that the difference between a Raider Terminator and Wrath Knight is just the number of health points

for a complete new game this is ok, for a streamlined 40k it is garbage

Hardly an intelligent counter point - The difference in these units can largely be referred to as a size difference, and it is reasonably assumable that they should be similar if not equal in terms of armor quality.
So then, how do we distinguish those differences? Variation in Health is the quickest, most effective method. This would A - Streamline the damage process and the required learning of it, and B - give players a clearer idea of how durable their units are.

Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.

Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....

If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.

 insaniak wrote:

Vorian wrote:
They are both incredibly easy - I'm just pointing out that just because it's a fixed to wound roll it doesn't mean you're doomed to laspistols killing land raiders or some complex system to so it.

Except that you do add unnecessary complexity by having a system thatv requires special rules in order for the core mechanics of the game to function correctly.

This statement is so ridiculous. Your framing the argument in a way that suggests that somehow those special rules aren't a section of the core rules just because they are located on unit cards and not written in to a compendium of a BRB.

 TalonZahn wrote:
Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.

Maybe they found a crack in the armor, a window, some crazy ricochet....

If it takes 900 shots, then it should take 900 shots.

Agreed. Lasguns are actually scary - they just get gakked on by the fact that everything else is scarier. It doesn't mean that 900 of them can't kill something.

I wonder if they'll switch twin linked back to how it was in second edition. You hit once, but get twice as many shots to resolve if you do hit. It would do a lot for the likes of twin linked lascannons in the game if it was bought back.

Neronoxx wrote:

So then, how do we distinguish those differences? Variation in Health is the quickest, most effective method. This would A - Streamline the damage process and the required learning of it, and B - give players a clearer idea of how durable their units are.

of course, if every hit strips 1 Healthpoint is clear and stremalined
to give more variation on the hit rolls to have more difference between units, we roll 2 D6 instead of one and keep it streamlined

so unit A roll 4+, 4+ to hit with 10 shots and takes 3 HP on average and the target makes 3 saves

it is simple as you don't need care about anything than the save of the target as this is the only difference


it is just not 40k, as we have now Toughness 1-10 and 2+ - 6+ save, gives about 50 possible variations that are cut down to simply 5.
of course you can make the handling of those 50 possibilities easier by removing 45 of them, but this is not what I would call streamlining the rules



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TalonZahn wrote:
Except, lasguns SHOULD be able to kill a Land Raider, at some point, through some method.

from a realistic point of view, no
small calibre fire never ever kills heavy armour,

from a gameplay point of view, the "everything should be able to kill everything" it only makes sence of you want cut down the variation and make a very simple game were everything is similar