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.
Some weapon options do have different points - Stormcasts have quite a few.
What? Since when?
The biggest problem with AOS point costs are that the option cost nothing, so from competitive standpoint there is for example no reason to use a Freeguild General on foot and without a banner, because at the same cost you can give them a pony and banner.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/08 15:21:51
I particularly like the notion of Formations costing points on their own merit and Reinforcement points to limit summoning shenanigans.
Free points need to be removed completely. (And consequently armies should have some semblance of balance)
EDIT: Although as highlighted, wargear options should not go the way of AoS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/08 15:26:55
By the 37 keys of Tzeentch,We open the way for our brothers,
By the 1000 whispers of Slaanesh we call to them,
By the 12 plagues of Nurgle we fell their enemies,
And by the mighty axe of Khorne we cut open the world for them!
- Ritual of Summoning, Recited by Amphion and Zethus Dark Sorcerers of the Deimos Peninsula,Kronos
Crimson, I think he's talking about different unit load outs.
For example, if I take Prosecutors with celestial hammers (the entire unit) they are more expensive than the javelin-armed Prosecutors, as a whole unit.
You are correct, that individual model upgrades are not costed differently---at least what I've seen. For example, if I arm two of every five Retributors with maces the unit's cost doesn't change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/08 15:25:49
Some weapon options do have different points - Stormcasts have quite a few.
What? Since when?
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Space Marines (Ultramarines) vs. Astra Militarium (Cadia)
SM 1 Captain
10 Tactical Marines
3 (Snap-fit) Centurions
AM Command squad (Lieutenant, Standard Bearer, Commisar)
2 Squads (20 figures)
1 Heavy Weapons team (Lascannon, Melta or Heavy Bolter)
1 Sentinel
3 sheets of cardstock terrain, ruler and templates, 2 Fortune decks (32 Ultramarine cards, 32 Cadian cards) [The fortune cards are like those found in the boardgames for Betrayal at Calth & Burning of Prospero. Ultramines focus on driving through attacks and pushing forward into enemy forces; the Cadian cards are generally defensive in nature, allowing them to "hold the line', call on reinforcements or even off-board artillery strikes.]
Comes with abbreviated rules and a scenario book.
The backstory:Roboute Guilliman has begun the crusade to drive Chaos back to the Eye of Terror. As part of his plan, he has led the 2nd company to to the fallback stronghold of the remnants of the Cadia XIII on the planet Erebor. At Erebor, the Cadia forces have reteated to lick their wounds and brood over their recent losses. Roboute's intent is to rally the disheartened forces (led by a recovering Uskar Creed) under Roboute's new imperial vision and against the enemies of the Imperium. However, his approach to the stronghold is rebuffed; the AM forces believe the return f the Primarch to be a Chaos trick. Roboute is suspicious when he cannot directly contact Creed, and orders elements of the 2nd Company on a secret mission to the planet...
All scenarios are on a 4X4 playing area
SCENARIO 1: Scouting for Trouble
SM Player: 3 marine figures; AM Player: 1 Platoon (10 figures). AM player sets up in center of board on an objective marker, SM player arrives from any edge. 5 turns; Marines go first; No Fortune cards are used
Conditions: SM player wins if he is able to destroy the AM platoon or drive it off the objective and seize it. AM player wins if they can hold the objective and/or destroy the marine forces
Harold Primus's squad arrived undetected planetside and began their approach to the fortress on Erebor. Not far from the main fortress, the marines encountered a guardpost keeping watch for enemy approach. Rather than attempt to circumvent the outpost, Harold and his squad beleived they could use the information within the outpost to find a way through the fortesses defenses - and possibly Creed's location.
SCENARIO 2: Patrol
SM Player: 3 Centurions (each is treated as a seperate squad); AM Player: 1 Platoon (10 figures) & Sentinel; Players set up on opposite sides; SM player must destroy the sentinel and get at least one Centurion off the AM's side of the board. Fortune cards are used
Harold's marine squad discovered a weak point in Erebor's fortress that could be exploited by a team of Centurions armed with seige drills. The centurions were quietly dispatched to tunnel into the walls, but have run afoul of a local patrol.
SCENARIO 3: Gunline
SM Player: 1 squad of Marines w/ special weapon; may bring on a second squad of 5 marines (w/ heavy weapon on turn 3); AM Player: 2 platoons (10 man each), Heavy weapons team; 5 turns; Fortune cards used [3 cards, +1 per turn]
SM player must destroy the Heavy Weapons team and get at least one squad off the AM's side of the board. The AM player must prevent any marines from exiting their side of the board. If an AM squad is reduced to less than 5 men, the AM player may choose to remove the remaining models on his turn and place a fresh squad of 10 troops at his edge of the board (at least 10" away from any enemy troops)
Though the centurions are able to breach the walls of the Erebor Fortress, their activities have alerted the AM forces to the marine's presence planetside. The AM is able to erect a gunline between the arriving marines and the breech in the fortress. The marines must break through!
SCENARIO 4: Infiltration
SM Player: Captain & 5 marines (each marine is treated as a squad); AM player: 1 platoon (10 models) (each model is treated as a squad) - models are deployed throughout play area, which consists of a mazeworks of 6" long, 1/4" wide (cardboard) LOS-blocking walls.
SM player must get the Captain off the far side of the board. On the AM's turn, if a marine is within 12" of a guard model and visible, the AM player may add 2 additional guard models at one of the four deployments areas (2 on left half, 2 or right half). The first time a SM player gets a marine with 12" of the AM's side of the board, the AM player may immediately deploy a Sentinel.
Gatharus Ule, captain of the fifth squad, had managed to lead his marines into the bowels of the Erebor Fortress to locate Uskar Creed and deliver Roboute's personal message to the commander of the Cadian forces. Dodging the guard's patrols would not be an easy task, but Gatharus was determined to complete his task, regardless of the odds. He need only make his way to the dull clanking in the distance..."
SCENARIO 5: Final Assault
SM Player: all models; AM Player: All models; AM player sets up on one edge w/ 3 (cardboard) Landmine terrain markers and 2 (cardboard) Aegis defense line markers. SM player sets up on opposite edge; 5 turns
Condition: All rules in play, the side with the most VP's win
Finally, Roboute recieved word from Creed. During his hospitilation, fanatical subordinates still loyal to the old ways had seized control of the planetary forces, and isolated Creed from getting word to his own troops to lay down arms for the arrival of the Ultramarines. Now, Robute had isolated the insubordiate forces and it was time to crush them and liberate the true commander of the Militium forces - the real war was about to begin."
...or at least, I wish
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/08 15:47:40
Kirasu wrote: The only thing AoS did was drastically increase the amount of nostalgic Tomb kings and Bretonnian players asking ".. but when do we get models?"
Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling so you can't hear people talking doesn't mean people aren't talking. AoS is currently in a fantastic place and has been going from strength to strength since the release of the Generals Handbook.
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
I kinda hope they AoS it to the point with the General's Handbook filled with all sorts of special rules, psychic powers, point values, and etc. Then free datasheets that have special rules that are unique to those units, and all of what those units do with the datasheets. Maybe formations thrown in there as well, but I'm just hoping for one big ass book THATS IT.
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
About formations, I hate how they currently are in 40K. They limit the army building. I want to be able to choose what units I want to use. And sure, no one is forcing me to use formations, but the benefits are often so great, that not using them would be like not using 20% of the allowed points. (People often lump formations and allies together as things that unbalance the game, but I think they're complete opposites. Sure, you may be able to create some stupid combos with allies, but first and foremost allies increase your freedom of army building while formations decrease it.) AOS method where formations cost points is way better, then it at least feels less like I'm intentionally gimping myself if I'm not using them.
Another thing I think 40K should steal from AOS are the behemoth rules. Decreasing efficiency when taking damage is a good idea. They should build monster/vehicle rules in 40K on this model. And of course unify vehicle and non-vehicle rules. It is my biggest peeve in 40K and would be even if it wouldn't lead to imbalance issues; it is just ugly and inelegant game design that the vehicles use completely different mechanics than the non vehicles, especially when the line between the two is often arbitrary as hell.
Things that I really don't want to see adopted from AOS, is the static rolls. In AOS the models really don't interact with each other; it really doesn't matter much which model or weapon you use to attack which foe, your chances remain the same (there are of course some special rules which make certain units better against certain types of foes, but that is a cumbersome way to handle something that could be easily baked in the basic rules.) One of the biggest sources of tactical depth in 40K is that different weapons are effective against different foes, and it would be a huge mistake to lose that.
Reinforcement points? Who thought that was a good idea?
Whilst 40K does need a massive ground-up overhaul to remove the endless bloat that it has attracted over 2 editions, I really do hope it doesn't get as simplified as the AoS rules.
I mean, it's nice that they added Matched Play and gave everything points, but each unit can still be armed with whatever. Unit options, wargear options and characters are all just "blah" in those rules, seemingly not costing anything above the base-line guys in the unit. That's no way to balance a ruleset. Some things are worth more than others, and a Devastator Squad w/4 Missile Launchers is worth more than a Devastator Squad where you've (for whatever reason) chosen to take nothing.
Exactly in the same boat as you. Except that would like all formations to be removed. They limit your creativity and make the game even more of a mess.
And I hope that 8th edition will be more interesting than mindlessly throwing dice hoping for a 4+ a la AOS
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
About formations, I hate how they currently are in 40K. They limit the army building. I want to be able to choose what units I want to use. And sure, no one is forcing me to use formations, but the benefits are often so great, that not using them would be like not using 20% of the allowed points. (People often lump formations and allies together as things that unbalance the game, but I think they're complete opposites. Sure, you may be able to create some stupid combos with allies, but first and foremost allies increase your freedom of army building while formations decrease it.) AOS method where formations cost points is way better, then it at least feels less like I'm intentionally gimping myself if I'm not using them.
Another thing I think 40K should steal from AOS are the behemoth rules. Decreasing efficiency when taking damage is a good idea. They should build monster/vehicle rules in 40K on this model. And of course unify vehicle and non-vehicle rules. It is my biggest peeve in 40K and would be even if it wouldn't lead to imbalance issues; it is just ugly and inelegant game design that the vehicles use completely different mechanics than the non vehicles, especially when the line between the two is often arbitrary as hell.
Things that I really don't want to see adopted from AOS, is the static rolls. In AOS the models really don't interact with each other; it really doesn't matter much which model or weapon you use to attack which foe, your chances remain the same (there are of course some special rules which make certain units better against certain types of foes, but that is a cumbersome way to handle something that could be easily baked in the basic rules.) One of the biggest sources of tactical depth in 40K is that different weapons are effective against different foes, and it would be a huge mistake to lose that.
Exalted this. Every single words. except for the vehicule rules. I like the fact that two completely distinct concepts (creatures and vehicules) have different rules. I hate the fact that they mixed things up just for the sake of it (deadknight as a MC)
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/03/08 18:01:28
lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
There are indeed many cases, some more obvious than others. Stormcast Judicators (the basic shooting infantry) for example have two weapon options, one of which may as well not exist because of how much worse it is. I would be very sad to see 40k go that route.
Exalted this. Every single words. except for the vehicule rules. I like the fact that two completely distinct concepts (creatures and vehicules) have different rules. I hate the fact that they mixed things up just for the sake of it (deadknight as a MC)
I don't mean that vehicles should have no rules unique to them at all. They should. But there is absolutely no reason for the whole wounding and saving procedure to work completely differently for vehicles and non-vehicles.
If we would be using the 3-7 edition basic rules framework, I would give the vehicles Toughness, Wounds, and an Armour Save that could be different based on the hull facing. Then I'd remove Instant Death rule and have powerful one shot weapons such as lascannons to do multiple wounds like they did in the second edition (d3 or d6 wounds, stuff like that.) The vehicle's performance (the move, how many weapons they can shoot with) would degrade based on the wounds suffered.
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
There are indeed many cases, some more obvious than others. Stormcast Judicators (the basic shooting infantry) for example have two weapon options, one of which may as well not exist because of how much worse it is. I would be very sad to see 40k go that route.
It's because the rules were too much to have combined on the same scroll. Javelins do not have access to the Grandblade/Axe/Hammer and Hammers do not have access to the Trident. Judicators can be the same, because the specialty weapon is not specific to any set.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/08 18:45:15
Since the General's Handbook was released (see Prosecutors).
Oh gak, you're right! I never noticed that. It is really weird that they did that with the Prosecutors and not with so many other units where imbalance issues are way more obvious. (There are many cases where you just can choose to take stuff that makes you better, for free. Not just situationally better, just plain better with no downsides whatsoever.)
About formations, I hate how they currently are in 40K. They limit the army building. I want to be able to choose what units I want to use. And sure, no one is forcing me to use formations, but the benefits are often so great, that not using them would be like not using 20% of the allowed points. (People often lump formations and allies together as things that unbalance the game, but I think they're complete opposites. Sure, you may be able to create some stupid combos with allies, but first and foremost allies increase your freedom of army building while formations decrease it.) AOS method where formations cost points is way better, then it at least feels less like I'm intentionally gimping myself if I'm not using them.
Another thing I think 40K should steal from AOS are the behemoth rules. Decreasing efficiency when taking damage is a good idea. They should build monster/vehicle rules in 40K on this model. And of course unify vehicle and non-vehicle rules. It is my biggest peeve in 40K and would be even if it wouldn't lead to imbalance issues; it is just ugly and inelegant game design that the vehicles use completely different mechanics than the non vehicles, especially when the line between the two is often arbitrary as hell.
Things that I really don't want to see adopted from AOS, is the static rolls. In AOS the models really don't interact with each other; it really doesn't matter much which model or weapon you use to attack which foe, your chances remain the same (there are of course some special rules which make certain units better against certain types of foes, but that is a cumbersome way to handle something that could be easily baked in the basic rules.) One of the biggest sources of tactical depth in 40K is that different weapons are effective against different foes, and it would be a huge mistake to lose that.
See I don't agree, the static rolls in aos work in almost the exact same way as the charts in 40k work, and you still need to specialize weapons based on their stats. Firing a mortal wound cannon into a unit with no armor save is stupid, putting a no rend unit into a stormcast with 3+ rerolling ones is just asking to die, using rend-2 on a models with a 6+ save is wasteful. The only meaningful difference between 40k and AoS weapons are that a lot more AoS weapons are usable. When was the last time you saw someone bring a plasma cannon? Or a heavy bolter not on a free razorback? Or a shuriken catapult?,Or not-twinlinked devourer with brainleech worms? Or shooty chaos? Or shooty space wolves? Or astramilitarum in general? AoS weapons seem like they offer less tactics and variety because the stats are just modifiers on a consistent baseline, but because every weapon is at least somewhat useful every weapon matters. In 40k the only armies that have more than 3 meaningful weapons profiles are Tau and Admech.
Another benefit of the static to-hit to-wound is that it makes it simpler to use modifiers rather than rerolls, which is awesome because it really smooths out the power curve of buffs.
The special rules per unit thing is actually less cumbersome than the USR thing in 40k, which always seems counter intuitive until you realize that A)It allows you to deal with each unit as it's own entity and makes finding and digesting the rule simpler, and B) limits how crazy rules interactions can get by limiting it to a single model/unit.
Should the two games become the same? Absolutely not, but writing mechanics off just because they seem 'simple' or 'dumbed down' from the outside without really investigating isn't the way to go either.
edit: the example about judicators. the crossbows, after the rules changes in the new stormcast book, have the potential to be very powerful and offer a fun tactical option, yes it's quite a bit more difficult to get the most out of them; doesn't make them worthless. Not like how a plasma cannon is a pathetic piece of garbage relative to a grav cannon, even being 20pts cheaper.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/08 19:01:44
Crimson wrote: Another thing I think 40K should steal from AOS are the behemoth rules. Decreasing efficiency when taking damage is a good idea. They should build monster/vehicle rules in 40K on this model. And of course unify vehicle and non-vehicle rules. It is my biggest peeve in 40K and would be even if it wouldn't lead to imbalance issues; it is just ugly and inelegant game design that the vehicles use completely different mechanics than the non vehicles, especially when the line between the two is often arbitrary as hell.
I've always thought that was basically how Gargantuan Creatures should work. My idea wasn't as extensive, but it was a case of the really big creatures get multiple toughness values and wound values. So, for example, the smaller Tyranid Biotitan might be:
T8/6/5 W3/4/4
The first three wounds it takes are at T8, then next four are at T6 as the wounds make it weaker, and the final 4 are at T5 and because it's T5 once it gets to that point it can be "finished off" with a single S10 attack.
Crimson wrote: Things that I really don't want to see adopted from AOS, is the static rolls. In AOS the models really don't interact with each other; it really doesn't matter much which model or weapon you use to attack which foe, your chances remain the same (there are of course some special rules which make certain units better against certain types of foes, but that is a cumbersome way to handle something that could be easily baked in the basic rules.) One of the biggest sources of tactical depth in 40K is that different weapons are effective against different foes, and it would be a huge mistake to lose that.
Could not agree more. I like the static rolls on a small scale, like in Silver Tower, but on a larger scale it just doesn't make sense. Weapons should be more than a 3+, 4+ or 5+ roll for damage. By the same token though they shouldn't have a litany of special rules following them. Whereas AoS went too far in simplifying the weapon rules, 40K's current state has every third weapon getting some special case rule or, far worse, a rule that is like an existing rule but is slightly different. 3rd Ed had that problem, with the game at one stage having 4 versions of True Grit (IIRC, rulebook version, Grey Knight version, Space Wolf version and Death Guard version).
streetsamurai wrote: Exalted this. Every single words. except for the vehicule rules. I like the fact that two completely distinct concepts (creatures and vehicules) have different rules. I hate the fact that they mixed things up just for the sake of it (deadknight as a MC)
I like having vehicle rules that are separate from the creature rules. I know some people (like insaniak) hate that, but for me I think vehicles should be played differently than Toughness/Wounds. But you are right about the problem with the way some monstrous creatures are vehicles and some aren't. I'd roll Monstrous Creatures and Walkers into their own category, base everything off the way the Wraithlord is written, and be done with it, so all walkers can be Toughness/Wounds/Armour Save.
When we did our own version of 40K because we were just tired of GW's lurching unpredictability (and the fact that the 4th/5th Ed vehicle rules ---sucked---), we did just this to walkers. Worked really well. Ended up looking like:
Personally I'd AoSify everything even the vehicles. I'd have 2 seperate rules for vehicles though. Vehicles wouldn't have armour but would have an armour save and wounds like normal models.
Armour - Model is immune to conventional weapons.
Tank Buster - Weapon is able to damage Armour.
Following a rules...
Tank Buster weapons come in three types, Light, Medium and Heavy, they also have two damage types, Glance and Penetrate.
Light - Glances on 6s, Penetrates on 5s, no damage on 1-4
Medium - Glance on 5, 6, Penetrate on 4, no damage on 1-3
Heavy - Glance on 4-6, Penetrate on 3, no damage on 1 and 2.
Glance - When a weapon glances, roll a D3 dice to determine the effect.
Penetrate - Full weapon damage, vehicle takes armour save.
About the only thing you need, which hasn't been mentioned, but is fairly elementary, is a "Vehicle" compound rule which would confer immunity to the effects of poison (but conversely make the unit affected by Haywire) etc, then a T/Sv system with degrading performance based on damage taken is, just about, my perfect solution.
The granularity on offer with what damage effects happen and where on the track they kick in can really alter the feel of a unit with otherwise very similar stats on the table.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: About the only thing you need, which hasn't been mentioned, but is fairly elementary, is a "Vehicle" compound rule which would confer immunity to the effects of poison (but conversely make the unit affected by Haywire) etc, then a T/Sv system with degrading performance based on damage taken is, just about, my perfect solution.
The granularity on offer with what damage effects happen and where on the track they kick in can really alter the feel of a unit with otherwise very similar stats on the table.
Yeah but tanks should be able to go book in a single shot.
The one problem we ran into with our "turn walkers into T/W creatures" was that, despite the fact that T/Sv was roughly equivalent to Av+Glancing/Penetrating rules, the vehicles could die instantly to a lucky shot whereas the walkers couldn't. We solved it with a smaller damage chart for MCs/Walkers where 1-3 = just a regular wound, 4 was 'Shaken', 5 was 'Stunned' and 6 was D3 wounds rather than 1.
I like damage charts. It gives you dramatic effects.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I like having vehicle rules that are separate from the creature rules. I know some people (like insaniak) hate that, but for me I think vehicles should be played differently than Toughness/Wounds.
it can still be different, the outcome just need to be the same
now we have a mixed T/W + old vehicle chart that does not work out
if you don't like the straight T for vehicles give them TankArmour with a value from 6-16. against vehicles, weapons add 6 minus their AP to their Strength, to wound rolls are resolved normal
add Multi Wounds to some single shot weapons, add a damage chart for all large models (also monsters) or skip it
so different mechanic, not Thoughness/Armour Save but the outcome is similar and the gap between monsters and vehicles is gone
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Azreal13 wrote: About the only thing you need, which hasn't been mentioned, but is fairly elementary, is a "Vehicle" compound rule which would confer immunity to the effects of poison (but conversely make the unit affected by Haywire) etc, then a T/Sv system with degrading performance based on damage taken is, just about, my perfect solution.
The granularity on offer with what damage effects happen and where on the track they kick in can really alter the feel of a unit with otherwise very similar stats on the table.
Yeah but tanks should be able to go book in a single shot.
The one problem we ran into with our "turn walkers into T/W creatures" was that, despite the fact that T/Sv was roughly equivalent to Av+Glancing/Penetrating rules, the vehicles could die instantly to a lucky shot whereas the walkers couldn't. We solved it with a smaller damage chart for MCs/Walkers where 1-3 = just a regular wound, 4 was 'Shaken', 5 was 'Stunned' and 6 was D3 wounds rather than 1.
I like damage charts. It gives you dramatic effects.
Perhaps that's something to confer on proper anti tank weapons? Give them some sort of capability of oneshotting a vehicle even if it's at max health. Would be a good way to incentivise people taking stuff like the good ole lascannon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/08 19:18:58
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Warpath has a nice system with the easy dice rolling and vehicle being different without being worse
(their main advantage compared to AoS is that you roll to wound against the defence of the target)
Yeah but tanks should be able to go book in a single shot.
and we should be able to kill a monster with a head shot
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Perhaps that's something to confer on proper anti tank weapons? Give them some sort of capability of oneshotting a vehicle even if it's at max health. Would be a good way to incentivise people taking stuff like the good ole lascannon.
the problem is, if it is just a chance, high rof weapons are still better at killing vehicles
if it is reliable, no one would take vehicles any more
as long as their is no clear rule for what is a walker, a monster or tank and the mechanic between them are equal (like add the damage chart for monstrous creates, if you cut their legs of the cannot walk even if they have some wounds left)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/08 19:25:06
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
If vehicles get T/Sv it will have to be particularly high for it to be remotely viable. So a lander raider would need to to be T10 with a 3+ Sv and 4 wounds or it will be hot garbage. Even a rhino will need to be T8 just for it to be as tough to kill as it is now, except it would have a save. I just see vehicles being a bunch of carnifexs that nobody wants to use because the game mostly has phased out non-gimmick MCs because of high S low Ap multi-shot weapons being so common.
I would actually be able to bring a Hammerhead with Ion Cannon or two just for fun. As well as a railgun Hammerhead even if single shots aren't so good in the new edition still. Second coolest looking tank in the game after the Baneblade that is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/08 20:03:01
The end of financial year/ pre New edition release could be battle sisters, couldn't it? They fit the description of a low expectation release that is placed in the cycle where if successful it's great but if not gw have time to make up for it in revenue elsewhere.
We've not heard anything substantial about Sisters. If anything, reliable rumor people have said that Celestine and the Gemini are the only ones for the foreseeable future.
- Alpharius]
Legion: Dark Angels 
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts