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.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
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?

That they got kicked firmly in the balls when they did that with AOS and have been taking steps to address it. At this point, it's less about the will and more about the ability to implement/courage to take a gamble on, a big change.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
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?

Well, I, personally, am hoping for a truly balanced system where all levels of play are possible...

 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.
Especially after that LE character getting sold out everywhere.

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

They're waiting for a proper slot to fit them in. It doesn't make sense to release SIsters with any of the GS books as it would take focus away from the narrative. Give it time.

 Verviedi wrote:
Well, I, personally, am hoping for a truly balanced system where all levels of play are possible...

This will be the 8th time GW have failed to do that. They've become exceedingly efficient at it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Well, I, personally, am hoping for a truly balanced system where all levels of play are possible...

This will be the 8th time GW have failed to do that. They've been exceedingly efficient at it.

But then again I cant really think of the single system that has achieved this

 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.

To be clear, I don't hate the idea of vehicles having different rules to monstrous creatures, I just think that it's a level of unnecessary complexity in a game the size that 40K has become. I actually prefer a system like 2nd edition's, where vehicle damage was far more involved than it is now... But resolving 2nd edition vehicle damage in larger games was just painfully tedious.

 insaniak wrote:
I actually prefer a system like 2nd edition's, where vehicle damage was far more involved than it is now.

So do I! That's why I based my damage tables and some of the general vehicle rules in Only War off of them.

The vehicle rules we wrote for 40K also borrowed a lot from 2nd Ed. Not quite individual damage tables, but the tables were as important/slightly more important than 3rd Ed, but there was more to vehicles than everything firing at the same target.

BrianDavion wrote:

 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...."?

These days I'm feeling like:

It was the dawn of the 8th age of mankind, a time of great confusion as... as... y'know I don't want to do this anymore.
I mean why should I bother to spend hours painting up infantrymen when some giant kaiju/mecha/superman is just going to blow through them and the only way I can compete is to get my own or to buy a dozen books till I find some crazy formation that gives everyone invulnerable saves and rending because of... I dunno, reasons. Sure hope springs eternal but lets face it GW is making more money than ever and they ain't gonna tamper with the current pay-to-win marketing plan.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 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.

You could just give vehicles a toughness value but determin their armor save based on facing. For example a rhino would be toughness 7 with a a 3+ save to the front and sides and a 4+ on the rear. Something like that.


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.




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

Your making up problems. Who cares if bolters can wound a T7 Rhino? If it has a 3+ save that more then makes up for the fact that it can't be exploded in one go. Or hulled out without a save like it can now. Your also pretending S4 can't hurt a rhino now, which it can in the rear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record I also loved the vehicle hit locations in 2nd edition, I also thought skid checks were hilarious on bikes, that said I have to echo what insaniak said, the game is far too massive in scale for those rules. Resurrect those tables for a relaunch of gorkka morkka.

 Crimson wrote:

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.

I wouldn't mind vehicles losing AV for Toughness if they have a different Armour Save for their facings. But I just can't get on board in giving vehicles wounds. Personnaly, I'd like to see vehicles lose the Hull Points characteristic but with Pen Hit either giving a further +1 on the Vehicle Damage Chart or make you roll 2 dices and pick the highest (and make a 7 = Wrecked and 8+ = Explosion). This way, it would make them far more resistant to small arms

 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.

Of course then you need bunch of special rules to make sure vehicles still operate differently to biological things. Immunity to poison etc.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

To be clear, I don't hate the idea of vehicles having different rules to monstrous creatures, I just think that it's a level of unnecessary complexity in a game the size that 40K has become. I actually prefer a system like 2nd edition's, where vehicle damage was far more involved than it is now... But resolving 2nd edition vehicle damage in larger games was just painfully tedious.

Is a 100 pages of rules (or so) really that much for a game that demands that big an investment in money and time as 40K does ??? Especially if we consider that newbies can discount huge part of the rules at first (such as flyers and psykers) until they get familiar with the basics. Personally, I think it doesn't. What they should do, though, is remove parts of the game that doesn't add much yet takes a lot of time. Challenges, for example, are not only ridiculous realistically wise but also add a layer of complexity and planning that is just not needed imo. Same for look out sir, do I really need to add another round of dice rolls to see if I can save my Nobz Boss (or is it Boss Nobz ???) who, apart from giving a bonus on the Mob Rule table, is exactly the same as every other models in the unit. It's war, even characters should die easily if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 Crimson wrote:

 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.

I presume rhino would then be either T8 or T7 with 1+ save with no 1 to fail? Otherwise you have altered game effects rather than just unified rules.

 Formosa wrote:

 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.

Sorry dude, this is a 40k thread. I'm not sure what game you're playing where flyers outside of Top tier FMCs aren't absolute garbage across the board but I'm sure there's a thread for that system somewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

To be clear, I don't hate the idea of vehicles having different rules to monstrous creatures, I just think that it's a level of unnecessary complexity in a game the size that 40K has become. I actually prefer a system like 2nd edition's, where vehicle damage was far more involved than it is now... But resolving 2nd edition vehicle damage in larger games was just painfully tedious.

Is a 100 pages of rules (or so) really that much for a game that demands that big an investment in money and time as 40K does ??? Especially if we consider that newbies can discount huge part of the rules at first (such as flyers and psykers) until they get familiar with the basics. Personally, I think it doesn't. What they should do, though, is remove parts of the game that doesn't add much yet takes a lot of time. Challenges, for example, are not only ridiculous realistically wise but also add a layer of complexity and planning that is just not needed imo. Same for look out sir, do I really need to add another round of dice rolls to see if I can save my Nobz Boss (or is it Boss Nobz ???) who, apart from giving a bonus on the Mob Rule table, is exactly the same as every other models in the unit. It's war, even characters should die easily if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It depends on what that 100 pages says. When it takes a solid 35 to figure out how to move models into terrain from open ground, you probably have some fat you can cut.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Of course then you need bunch of special rules to make sure vehicles still operate differently to biological things. Immunity to poison etc.

Of course this brings up Necrons once again.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Of course then you need bunch of special rules to make sure vehicles still operate differently to biological things. Immunity to poison etc.

Of course this brings up Necrons once again.

No it doesn't. You have to accept that some level of abstraction is required to allow the rules to function as a game. We could argue all day long about whether Necrons should be affected by poison or Fleshbane and changing vehicles to be Toughness based may blur the lines a bit but the important question is whether it works or not. Incidentally, 2nd edition tried the realistic approach to what would be affected by different things like gas and virus weapons and it was a disaster, with too many exceptions based on fluff.

Giving vehicles a Toughness seems like it could work. People here seem to be arguing the specifics rather than the general concept (whether a Rhino would be T7 or T8, have a 3+ or a 4+ save isn't relevant to whether the basic idea is good or not). It also has the advantage that it's the same system we use for everything else. Sure, you'd probably need one or two extra rules for vehicles to allow for things like Armourbane and immunity to poison but a couple of exceptions/additions is better than an entirely different system IMO.

Maybe the problem is 40k has conditioned us all to think Toughness = organic, AV = non-organic? Of course, even that isn't true any more with things like Riptides and Wraithknights.

Why does everyone think vehicles getting a T value and a Save means we need even more special rules to make sure they are unaffected by poison? AV has nothing to do with vehicles immunity to poison.

The vehicle unit type does.

Read your rule book. The poison rule specifically states it does not function against vehicles. Not AV. Vehicles.

If the Vehicle rules change the Vehicle unit type doesn't magically disappear. Everything called a vehicle now would still be a vehicle then.

It could also then be used as a vehicle (excuse the pun) to right some longstanding wrongs within the game then. A riptide could keep the stat line it has now, yet be classed as a vehicle. Different armour values for different facings could still be a thing for vehicles. Riptides can be effected by armour bane but not poison and flesh bane. Heck, I'd say the same for centurions, dread knights, wraith knights etc.

The vehicle damage table can go away then, whilst the game would lose a bit of character, it's still not fair that a MC can be bought down to 1 wound and still be 100% effective offensively, but a vehicle bought down to 1 hull point may have lost weapons, temporary loss of movement or shooting, immobilised etc etc.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
It could also then be used as a vehicle (excuse the pun) to right some longstanding wrongs within the game then. A riptide could keep the stat line it has now, yet be classed as a vehicle. Different armour values for different facings could still be a thing for vehicles. Riptides can be effected by armour bane but not poison and flesh bane. Heck, I'd say the same for centurions, dread knights, wraith knights etc.

The vehicle damage table can go away then, whilst the game would lose a bit of character, it's still not fair that a MC can be bought down to 1 wound and still be 100% effective offensively, but a vehicle bought down to 1 hull point may have lost weapons, temporary loss of movement or shooting, immobilised etc etc.

They have a classification for all the tau MC. It's vehicle walker. Why the hell they are GMC and MC is beyond me. Bring on Age of Sigmars sliding stat line for multiwound models and apply it to everything with more than 2 wounds.

Scrap facings it adds complication when we are working off rounded bases. Scrap firing arcs. It can easily be assumed that any vehicle is being driven by a competent pilot who is positioning the vehicle while on the move to maximize the effectiveness of it's weapons (also, cuts down on complication).

So many pages of bull gak rules can just up and disappear along with all the problems they create if you just make vehicles work like everything else.

tneva82 wrote:

I presume rhino would then be either T8 or T7 with 1+ save with no 1 to fail? Otherwise you have altered game effects rather than just unified rules.

I'd probably give a Rhino 3+ save on other facing, 4+ at the rear. (But that's just off the top of my head, and of course properly designing vehicle stats for this system would require a lot of mathammer and testing.) And yes, it is altering the mechanics. Everyone knows that current vehicle rules are bad. Alteration is required for improvement to be possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Giving vehicles a Toughness seems like it could work. People here seem to be arguing the specifics rather than the general concept (whether a Rhino would be T7 or T8, have a 3+ or a 4+ save isn't relevant to whether the basic idea is good or not). It also has the advantage that it's the same system we use for everything else. Sure, you'd probably need one or two extra rules for vehicles to allow for things like Armourbane and immunity to poison but a couple of exceptions/additions is better than an entirely different system IMO.

Yes, this.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

I presume rhino would then be either T8 or T7 with 1+ save with no 1 to fail? Otherwise you have altered game effects rather than just unified rules.

I'd probably give a Rhino 3+ save on other facing, 4+ at the rear. And yes, it is altering the mechanics. Everyone knows that current vehicle rules are bad. Alteration is required for improvement to be possible.

Lol so say hello to bolters at front blowing rhinos.

sorry no thanks. I want game to have at least some semblance of logic.

Orange Moderator Text!

We've drifted off of release date rumors and into wishlisting (I know, right? First time a rumor thread has ever drifted into wishlisting!). Let's get it back on topic about the release date.

If you want to discuss how we'd all like a pony what we'd like to see in 8th, please start a new thread in Warhammer 40K Discussions.

tneva82 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

I presume rhino would then be either T8 or T7 with 1+ save with no 1 to fail? Otherwise you have altered game effects rather than just unified rules.

I'd probably give a Rhino 3+ save on other facing, 4+ at the rear. And yes, it is altering the mechanics. Everyone knows that current vehicle rules are bad. Alteration is required for improvement to be possible.

Lol so say hello to bolters at front blowing rhinos.

sorry no thanks. I want game to have at least some semblance of logic.

Again, that's a complaint about the specific numbers rather than the general idea. The numbers may need tweaking but I think the idea is a good one once you get over the prejudice built up over the decades that AV = vehicle and Toughness = organics.

Also, even using the example above with T7/3+ save at the front, it would need 27 bolter shots at BS4 to cause a single wound. You're welcome to fire a Battle Company's worth of bolters at the front of my Rhino to kill it if you really want.

 Formosa wrote:

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

Source?

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 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.

Just curious. Should Necrons have AV?

 Formosa wrote:
this is not an 8th ED, its a Reboot of sorts, GW is not calling it 8th.

Isn't that GW's standard approach? I don't remember them calling 7th 7th, or 6th 6th. It's just called the Warhammer 40,000 Rules, so that that way (a) new players don't have to worry about their rulebook becoming obsolete imminently or indeed ever, and (b) there is no record of the failure, nay, heresy of earlier editions; rather, Warhammer 40,000 has been perfect and immortal for ten thousand years, just like the Emperor, no rotting corpses to see here!

Hate the current vehicle damage table and surrounding mechanics (why does a weapon's armour piercing value affect its vehicle damage roll, and not its' armour penetration roll? That really sucks). Don't see how a toughness stat would help at all.

So, ignoring all the "This is what 8th should have", again, do we have any hard evidence other than the "No holiday time" and a bunch of hear say?

I'm kind of unsure on this one.

I believe historically new editions of 40K have come out in the summer, around June/July?

So it's certainly plausible.

However the 30th aniversary of 40K is in October 2017 so I would have thought they would wait until then for a big release like this.

Adeptus Titanicus is released in April though so I don't think that would make any difference to staffing in June.

The most recent rumour engine looked to be a floor tile of some sort which suggests another boxed game is coming out. The tile appeared to have a BloodLetter skull on it so could be either 40K or AoS related, and rumour mill is normally a couple of months out.

Not saying it isn't a new edition of 40K, I just thought they wouuld have waited until October.

Edit: Just remembered though that October is normally big miniature release month. Looking at the storyline of Rising Storm III I reckon we might be seeing a new line of minis (but I'm not gonna say who - somebody else can reset the clock, lol) and they would certainly be a big deal for the 30th anniversary.

 jreilly89 wrote:
So, ignoring all the "This is what 8th should have", again, do we have any hard evidence other than the "No holiday time" and a bunch of hear say?

No, as hard evidence would be marketing, and everything known is in about the first post of this thread. And that's speculation. So no.