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.

It blows me away a bit that even after GW drummed up so much hype for a Sisters release it still hasn't happened.
Especially after that LE character getting sold out everywhere.

You have to wonder what they are waiting for.
New ED I guess.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I hope they get rid of AP. Change it to something similar to how the AoS Rend system works.

A call from the second edition of 40k.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
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.

GW has been quite reluctant to give out Toughness values above 6, which is a problem. Making a Land Raider T8 would be horrible.

 dan2026 wrote:
It blows me away a bit that even after GW drummed up so much hype for a Sisters release it still hasn't happened.

They didn't drum up any hype for a 'sisters release'. They made a throwaway comment in a video about plastic sisters, and released a resin mini to accompany a copypasta Codex. Any drummed up hype came from people reading too much into it.

 kodos wrote:
and we should be able to kill a monster with a head shot

Helps to read the rest of what I posted.

I said that we encountered that problem, and implemented a solution that allowed for the occasional one-shoting of walkers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They didn't drum up any hype for a 'sisters release'. They made a throwaway comment in a video about plastic sisters, and released a resin mini to accompany a copypasta Codex. Any drummed up hype came from people reading too much into it.

Oh bs. They knew exactly what they were doing with that comment.
If they didn't expect people to jump to that conclusion by saying the words 'plastic sisters', then GW really have no clue at all.
A Sisters re-release is probably the most asked for thing EVER in 40k.

In all the years I have known 40k, you can't go 5 minutes without someone speculating about Sisters.
You think GW doesn't know this?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
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.

GW has been quite reluctant to give out Toughness values above 6, which is a problem. Making a Land Raider T8 would be horrible.

Exactly, anything less than T10 and they wouldn't make it past turn 1 in any game.

If GW want to simplify vehicle rules, they could drop the front/side/rear values system and just assign a single armor value for the vehicle. They could then drop the explodes result entirely and switch it to multiple hull points (D3).

They could simplify flyers by publicly shaming whoever wrote their rules, came up with the idea and has used one in a game. Then seize every flyer and burn them with their entire stock. Thus they will be simplfied.

Failing take the proper measures, they could give then rules like, "you can't win any game if you deploy a flyer" or "your opponent may use a warlord titan for free if you deploy a flyer".

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
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.

GW has been quite reluctant to give out Toughness values above 6, which is a problem. Making a Land Raider T8 would be horrible.

Exactly, anything less than T10 and they wouldn't make it past turn 1 in any game.

If GW want to simplify vehicle rules, they could drop the front/side/rear values system and just assign a single armor value for the vehicle. They could then drop the explodes result entirely and switch it to multiple hull points (D3).

They could simplify flyers by publicly shaming whoever wrote their rules, came up with the idea and has used one in a game. Then seize every flyer and burn them with their entire stock. Thus they will be simplfied.

Failing take the proper measures, they could give then rules like, "you can't win any game if you deploy a flyer" or "your opponent may use a warlord titan for free if you deploy a flyer".

the flyer rules are not a problem, and haven't been in a while, its the flyers cost that is the issue, make flyers more expensive.

To add to this rumour, this is not an 8th ED, its a Reboot of sorts, GW is not calling it 8th.

Removing facings on a vehicule would be horrible

I sure hope 8th edition isn't anything like AoS. Sure, 40K has its problems (mainly balance and poorly designed formations), but there's no need to throw the baby with the water. If they do so, I at least hope they'll come with something better elaborated than AoS.

Flyer's are not all that strong honestly. It's not even an issue. If anything flyers are pretty useless and anemic with their damage outputs. They also can't cap objectives so can't even contribute to winning that way.

Flyer's are just not at a great place barring the upper top 5 or so which might see play.

Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.

No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.

 Crimson wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.

No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.

I don't disagree with that. It certainly would make things a lot easier since the systems would be unified. But would facings go away as well or would vehicles have different toughness values for different facings? Removing facings would definitely be acceptable to me.

Facings can be really hard to determine for some vehicles since they're no longer all Rhinos. I wouldn't really miss them either.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
8th huh.

Darn.

I'll have to come up with a whole new sig.

"it was the dawn of the 8th age of mankind, Space Marines ate popcorn as they watched Primarchs duke it out...."?

 Crimson wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Why can't vehicles have Armor Saves instead of Toughness values? Keep the AV system, but give every vehicle an Armor save on top of that. That way your dedicated AV-busting weapons still serve a purpose, but Scatbikes have a tougher time taking out a tank.

No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.

Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.

For 40K, super-future vehicles not having weaker side or rear armor could easily be explained away, or just ignored. I think one "toughness" value all around would be the way to go. I'd like vehicles to have Armor saves, just so Leman Russes don't get plinked to death with Lasguns or other non-AT weapons.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

Not at all, a vehicle and an ''organic'' being are 2 vastly different things. It makes perfect sense that they would follow different mechanisms for receiving damage.

What does this simulate? Should Necrons also have AV because they are machines? It adds nothing, it is just a distinction without a difference, it is bad game design. All modern games strive for unified mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I don't disagree with that. It certainly would make things a lot easier since the systems would be unified. But would facings go away as well or would vehicles have different toughness values for different facings? Removing facings would definitely be acceptable to me.

I think facings are fine for boxy vehicles such as most tanks. Moving to exploit a weak spot is a nice strategic element. As I suggested earlier, I'd give vehicles with facings one uniform toughness score, but an armour save which varies depending on the facing.

 Formosa wrote:

To add to this rumour, this is not an 8th ED, its a Reboot of sorts, GW is not calling it 8th.

very interesting !

New Name will be Warhammer 40k: Age of Girlyman

GodDamUser wrote:
New Name will be Warhammer 40k: Age of Girlyman

for the billionith time, they're not GOING to rename it. warhammer 40k is a well known property etc. warhammer however, is confused due to well.. 40k. thus a rename to clarify was good sense

Honestly, they won't even rename it if we are suddenly in the 42nd millennium. It will always be Warhammer 40,000.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, they won't even rename it if we are suddenly in the 42nd millennium. It will always be Warhammer 40,000.

proably not no. as I said the name is just such a major brand they'd be stupid to rename it.

BrianDavion wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
New Name will be Warhammer 40k: Age of Girlyman

for the billionith time, they're not GOING to rename it. warhammer 40k is a well known property etc. warhammer however, is confused due to well.. 40k. thus a rename to clarify was good sense

Yeah, they'd never come out and call something just "Warhammer.."

BrianDavion wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
New Name will be Warhammer 40k: Age of Girlyman

for the billionith time, they're not GOING to rename it. warhammer 40k is a well known property etc. warhammer however, is confused due to well.. 40k. thus a rename to clarify was good sense

It was a joke... thought that was obvious

 Crimson wrote:
No, AV needs to go too. It is completely stupid to have a two different methods to roll for basically the same thing.

But it's not the same thing. Right now S5 can wound T8. It can't do diddly to AV12 though. Give vehicles a toughness value equal to their current AV (ie. AV12 = T8, AV13 = T9, AV14 = T10), and you open up a whole other class of weapons that can damage them. A Rhino (AV11, so now T7) could be wounded by Bolters.

Giving vehicles wounds is daft (and yes, the Hull Points patch they slapped on the vehicle rules is stupid for this very reason).

 dan2026 wrote:
In all the years I have known 40k, you can't go 5 minutes without someone speculating about Sisters.

Yes, but as I said, it's the Sisters players doing that. GW didn't do anything other than, as I said, an off-hand comment (which was more than likely related to Celestine's mini and her bodyguard), and released a resin limited edition miniature which we've heard they were surprised at its sales. So they did not hype a 'sisters release', because there was no release to hype.

You could make vehicles immune to anything with an ap worse than 4 (or save modifier of a given value if they go back) that solves the small arms fire and high s, high rof, poor ap stuff being too good against them?

Now you're adding special rules to fight a failing of the rules. You're also limiting yourself from a design perspective if you add in a high strength low AP* weapon.




*And by 'low AP' I mean like AP6, AP-, 'cause AP is backwards.

Not too difficult to work out what this reboot will look like. Huge expensive kits, requirement to roll lots and lots of dice, ability to use all the toys, heavy on the randomness and light on the tactics. What precedence is there to suggest it will be anything else?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

But it's not the same thing. Right now S5 can wound T8. It can't do diddly to AV12 though. Give vehicles a toughness value equal to their current AV (ie. AV12 = T8, AV13 = T9, AV14 = T10), and you open up a whole other class of weapons that can damage them. A Rhino (AV11, so now T7) could be wounded by Bolters.

This system assumes that the vehicles get armour saves too, which will significantly affect the survivability. You cannot just directly convert the old stats like that.

Giving vehicles wounds is daft (and yes, the Hull Points patch they slapped on the vehicle rules is stupid for this very reason).

It is no more stupid than a Carnifex having wounds. Why can a 'critical hit' one shot a land raider but not a Carnifex? What is stupid to have BOTH the wounds and the damage chart. Just have the wounds and have the efficiency of the vehicle (or a monster) to decrease as the wounds are suffered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Now you're adding special rules to fight a failing of the rules. You're also limiting yourself from a design perspective if you add in a high strength low AP* weapon.

Why should such a weapon be effective against a vehicle? If it cannot pierce a power armour how could it pierce a tank?

 Crimson wrote:
I would give the vehicles Toughness, Wounds, and an Armour Save (...).

They had this idea at the end of 2nd edition but didn't use it in 3rd (BS = crew):



As Jervis is still around, maybe we'll get something like that at last.