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.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Because those weapons make a mockery of most defenses? They can blow up a Land Raider or Leman Russ with a single shot with a bit of luck, armor carried by infantry should offer little to no protection agaisnt those.

Which is why most of those weapons likely will get the ability to cause Wounds that can't have saves taken on certain rolls, or will cause multiple wounds?

I get that this is new and frightening, but we're still a LONG way off. GW said they hope to have this by next year's Adepticon.

I'd love to see a return to weapons with a wound characteristic. Here's some old 2nd edition profiles:

Bolter: 24" | S4 | Save Mod -1 | Wounds: 1

Meltagun: 12" | S8 | Save Mod -4 | Wounds: D6

Assault cannon: 36" | S8 | Save Mod -3 | Wounds: D10

Lascannon: 60" | S9 | Save Mod -6 | Wounds: 2D6

Aha! They DID have "rending" profiles back in the day! Why are people complaining that this is like AoS? Seems to me that AoS is more like old 40K

I also like the idea of a "damage" stat for weapons, but more like Warhammer Fantasy than AoS. In AoS, the damage overkills and spills into the next model, resulting in powerful sweeping attacks. I would prefer to see the Warhammer Fantasy method, which is that the single model takes that much damage on a failed save. That way, you have really powerful single-shot weapons or punches that can wreck a single target but not swarms, and then have high rate-of-fire weapons that can devastate swarms without a regular chance of destroying strong units.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No new dice values were added to AoS. I find it far less likely that they'll start doing things like using D8s or D10s, and more likely that they'll keep things fairly close to AoS.

Well, I guess people can argue that the D20 is now part of AoS as a Wound Tracker.

True, but they did put d8s, d10s, and d12s into the Burning of Prospero box game. Granted, one game doesn't mean a change to 40K, but GW has been playing with the idea of using other dice types to facilitate game experiences.

Indeed, the armour penetration profiles were worked out thus:

S+Wounds+D6 so a Bolter was D6+4 or a Lascannons was 3D6+9. Multimelta was brutal: 8+2D12+D6, yes it did 2D12 wounds and it had a 2" blast on top!

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No new dice values were added to AoS. I find it far less likely that they'll start doing things like using D8s or D10s, and more likely that they'll keep things fairly close to AoS.

Well, I guess people can argue that the D20 is now part of AoS as a Wound Tracker.

True, but they did put d8s, d10s, and d12s into the Burning of Prospero box game. Granted, one game doesn't mean a change to 40K, but GW has been playing with the idea of using other dice types to facilitate game experiences.

They put D8s in Blood Bowl, so what?

Board games get unique dice. It happens.

Here's an example of what some of the stats MIGHT look like, assuming complete AOSification of the rules.

http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.com/2016/03/age-of-sigmar-40k-space-marine.html?m=1

This guy did a pretty awesome job of porting 40k armies over to AOS rules. Obviously it's not perfect, but you can see some good examples of what unit/weapon profiles could look like.
I highly doubt the rules will be the exact same as AOS, but this is a good way to frame all this speculating on Rend and armor values.

Can't recall where I found this, but if somebody knows the thread I'm sure the creator would appreciate credit.

AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

The internet is going to be such an annoying place while this plays out.

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

Bloated rules and complaining on the internet

 jreilly89 wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

Bloated rules and complaining on the internet

Done! I'll take it.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

Bloated rules and complaining on the internet

Different folk different bloat.

So what will happen?

Either GW makes the best 40k ever by addressing the worst stuff in the rules and a complete overhaul of the bloated 5.3 edition (and finally stick to a rule design for all the faction books)
or they kill of their game by just making tweaks but copy&paste everything else and turn it in a much more bloated mess.
or they kill it because they decide after the first codex books that they want to add new ideas and the next faction will be ignoring again 50% of the core rules

So 1/3 chance that the game will be better.

What does this mean for me?

Nothing special, there is a chance that I get back to 40k or I just stay with Warpath (which has everything that was announced for 8th but here I already know that the rules are well written and no future faction will be out of balance)

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

they play SAGA

 kodos wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

they play SAGA

Except they never really seem to play anything; they just gripe online.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

Bloated rules and complaining on the internet

Still an improvement over AoS

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

You'll know when you grow up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

Bloated rules and complaining on the internet

Different folk different bloat.

Yup, and the difference lays in thickness of the bloat. I take almost half the time to play a game of AoS that a game of 40k take. And it's more satisfying. Look, my ardboyz today ran 33 inches in turn 1 (and got thouroughly spanked). Match was a constant back and forth and was won by a heroic warboss slaughtering the enemy frontlines in. a roaring rampage.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

Bloated rules and complaining on the internet

Still an improvement over AoS

Wrong. AoS' rules are great, and everything's clear and concise. It literally has free rules and its 4 pages of rules to learn the game

I don't feel it's quite fair to pass judgement on AoS-style rules until we actually see them. My hopes are that such a rule set will help balance out all of the different armies.

My expectation is that Age of Primarchs will be a cacophonous ode to the power creep. Fortunately this is not yet a certain thing.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Yup, and the difference lays in thickness of the bloat. I take almost half the time to play a game of AoS that a game of 40k take. And it's more satisfying. Look, my ardboyz today ran 33 inches in turn 1 (and got thouroughly spanked). You can just imagine the hilariousness of the scene at rolling two elevens in a row.

Wow such tactical depth! It's almost on the same level as snakes 'n' ladders! Truly Chess must now forfeit its crown as the game of kings to this wonderous new game for toddlers.

 SolarCross wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

You'll know when you grow up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
AoS looks good for toddlers, what do the grown ups get?

Bloated rules and complaining on the internet

Different folk different bloat.

Yup, and the difference lays in thickness of the bloat. I take almost half the time to play a game of AoS that a game of 40k take. And it's more satisfying. Look, my ardboyz today ran 33 inches in turn 1 (and got thouroughly spanked). You can just imagine the hilariousness of the scene at rolling two elevens in a row.

Wow such tactical depth! It's almost on the same level as snakes 'n' ladders! Truely Chess must now forfeit its crown as the game of kings to this wonderous new game for toddlers.

I suppose that who brings the most grav or nastiest deathstar can't compare to me detailing the most funny case in the game.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Wrong. AoS' rules are great, and everything's clear and concise. It literally has free rules and its 4 pages of rules to learn the game

Clear and concise is nothing I would connect with AoS.
the 4 pages of rules are the worst stuff about the game and leave more questions than the answer

with the GHB and the FAQ, the game is decent.

the problem is, it is still a vast improvement to bloated and complicated 40k which use all those complicated stuff to turn into a very simple game on the board.
this does not say that AoS is a very good game, but how bad 40k really is.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Except they never really seem to play anything; they just gripe online.

I tend to play a lot and a lot of different stuff.

Maybe if I would not have started with SAGA before AoS come up I would play AoS more.
but with the fantasy battle boards for SAGA I see no reason to get deeper into another fantasy skirmish game

 kodos wrote:

I tend to play a lot and a lot of different stuff.

Maybe if I would not have started with SAGA before AoS come up I would play AoS more.
but with the fantasy battle boards for SAGA I see no reason to get deeper into another fantasy skirmish game

I'm not very familiar with SAGA is it good then? It has been adapted for fantasy?

I'm cautiously optimistic. I think most of what they're proposing could be good, but it all depends on implementation. It could easily turn out really bad as well.

If they were to give weapons rend in a vacuum that would be awful for MEQs and TEQs. If they changed other things, like how armor and covers saves work, it could be a good thing for heavily armored infantry.

If they just gave Heavy Bolters a rend of -2 they would annihilate most heavily armored infantry. If they gave Lascannons a rend of -4 things would be pretty much the same.

If they shifted TEQ saves to 0+ and MEQ saves to 2+ that would mean 2+ and 4+ saves respectively against Heavy Bolters, and 4+ and 6+ respectively against Lascannons. So Heavy Bolters would be a little more effective and Lascannons would be a little less effective than they are now.

If they change the cover save system to give a bonus of one for poor cover and two for good cover that would benefit heavily armored infantry. Now TEQS in ruins are getting a 2+ against Lascannons and Heavy Bolters, while MEQs in ruins get a 4+ against Lascannons and a 2+ against Heavy Bolters. This is without going to ground.

This is assuming a WHFB type system where saves of better than 2+ still fail on a one. However, they could do it sort of like high Ballistic Skill rolls where a save of better than 2+ gives the model a re-roll at a reduced chance. So a TEQ in ruins goes to ground while being fired at by Heavy Bolters. That would be a base save of 0+, which turns to -3 with cover, but then you add a Rend of 2 for the Heavy Bolters and end up with a -1 save. That could mean the TEQ has a 2+ save, but if it fails it gets to re-roll and makes the save on a 4+ (if I did my math right).

So it all depends on implementation. Right now TEQs don't seem to stand up well against shooting anyway, so I doubt GW could make it much worse. I think they actually have the potential to make TEQs too durable against shooting, but I doubt they will.

 SolarCross wrote:

I'm not very familiar with SAGA is it good then? It has been adapted for fantasy?

It is a semi historical game with fast gameplay and action over historical accuracy. And with a lot of plastic boxes available you can start very cheap.
I like but its main advantage is also its main disadvantage
the BattleBoards define how a faction is played but also limits the options of the faction (if your board does not give you something for cavalry it is not worth to use one).

fantasy rules can ge found here (but still need the saga rulebook)
http://www.a-fantastic-saga.com

Your numbers are way too high vs shooting, would lascannon struggle to kill terminators when they can blow up tanks?

I will admit that the AoS method of cover being just a blanked bonus to a model's save to be overly simplistic, and doesn't fit my brain as well as other parts of the game. I would rather cover be a modifier or penalty to accuracy, namely, it would affect the attacker. Being behind a wall makes me harder to hit. Cover saves as a save equivalent to armor or magic always seemed a bit odd to me. Warmahordes had it where it was a penalty to the attack rolls. Perhaps there is some sweet middle ground to be found?

Unless there also going to be a "rending" value for weapons/units against Cover? Like how a SM Auspex already works?

 Bobthehero wrote:
Your numbers are way too high vs shooting, would lascannon struggle to kill terminators when they can blow up tanks?

If this is directed at me, then I would say that my post wasn't supposed to be a suggestion so much as showing that adding rend plus a few other concepts from WHFB/AoS might actually benefit heavy infantry more than hurt it.

Ah, I see, okay.

 kodos wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

I'm not very familiar with SAGA is it good then? It has been adapted for fantasy?

It is a semi historical game with fast gameplay and action over historical accuracy. And with a lot of plastic boxes available you can start very cheap.
I like but its main advantage is also its main disadvantage
the BattleBoards define how a faction is played but also limits the options of the faction (if your board does not give you something for cavalry it is not worth to use one).

fantasy rules can ge found here (but still need the saga rulebook)
http://www.a-fantastic-saga.com

Thanks for the info. If I ever feel the inclination to get back into fantasy I'll take a look at it.

More ways to play!

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
. Right now TEQs don't seem to stand up well against shooting anyway, so I doubt GW could make it much worse. .

Lets say that they have proven to be very creative in the past.

As far as a charging unit always striking first goes, I can see how it would often be more cinematic. It would also benefit low-Initiative units like ork boyz.

What if instead of making the charging unit make all of its attacks first they took away the normal +1 attack for charging and instead made Hammer of Wrath standard for everything. That way the charging unit would get one extra attack at their base strength and Initiative 10, and then combat would proceed normally. That would be cinematic, but not a huge departure from the current initiative system. They would need to readjust units that already have Hammer of Wrath and either give them a different bonus or reduce their points.

Striking at charge is actually one of the things I like, for forces some tactics back in this game. Its at the cost of buffing bikes /cav / fast moving stuff even further but I a sot of ok with this.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic. I think most of what they're proposing could be good, but it all depends on implementation. It could easily turn out really bad as well.

If they were to give weapons rend in a vacuum that would be awful for MEQs and TEQs. If they changed other things, like how armor and covers saves work, it could be a good thing for heavily armored infantry.

If they just gave Heavy Bolters a rend of -2 they would annihilate most heavily armored infantry. If they gave Lascannons a rend of -4 things would be pretty much the same.

Have you read literally anything that the people who have actually played AoS have said in this thread?

There is nothing with a Rend of -4 or higher. It's exceedingly rare to see a Rend of -3, and uncommon to see a Rend of -2.

This isn't like the AP system where it's on everything and anything. Rend tends to be on special weapons or "elite" armies with well crafted stuff, but lesser numbers. Rend values of "-" are incredibly common. You tend to see "causes a Mortal Wound on Wound rolls of 6" before high Rend values.

It is exceedingly unlikely that they will veer too far from this.

If they shifted TEQ saves to 0+ and MEQ saves to 2+ that would mean 2+ and 4+ saves respectively against Heavy Bolters, and 4+ and 6+ respectively against Lascannons. So Heavy Bolters would be a little more effective and Lascannons would be a little less effective than they are now.

If they change the cover save system to give a bonus of one for poor cover and two for good cover that would benefit heavily armored infantry. Now TEQS in ruins are getting a 2+ against Lascannons and Heavy Bolters, while MEQs in ruins get a 4+ against Lascannons and a 2+ against Heavy Bolters. This is without going to ground.

This assumes that Going to Ground remains a thing.

This is assuming a WHFB type system where saves of better than 2+ still fail on a one. However, they could do it sort of like high Ballistic Skill rolls where a save of better than 2+ gives the model a re-roll at a reduced chance. So a TEQ in ruins goes to ground while being fired at by Heavy Bolters. That would be a base save of 0+, which turns to -3 with cover, but then you add a Rend of 2 for the Heavy Bolters and end up with a -1 save. That could mean the TEQ has a 2+ save, but if it fails it gets to re-roll and makes the save on a 4+ (if I did my math right).

So it all depends on implementation. Right now TEQs don't seem to stand up well against shooting anyway, so I doubt GW could make it much worse. I think they actually have the potential to make TEQs too durable against shooting, but I doubt they will.