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.

whirlwindstruggle wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Then we need to specifie what its to "feel like 40k". I'm sure to most 2nd edition players 3rd don't feel like the 40k they liked.

Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then.

WHFB -> AoS was a way bigger change in how the game feels and I think 40k -> AoS would be a bigger change than 2nd -> 3rd, and not in a way a lot of people are going to like.

I was there at the time and I disagree, I felt the sweeping changes were very profound.

I was there as well and didn't like a lot of the changes (I'm more than happy to see a return to armour modifers and movement stats for example). But at the time I was also, ummm, 14 I think and my only experience of wargames was 40k, Epic 40k and WHFB

These days, being a bit older and having experienced a wider array of games, I don't think 2nd and 3rd are terribly different at their core. We may have lost the movement stat, but units still had a Ws, Bs, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, Sv. Space Marines halved in price and armies got bigger, emphasis shifted from one thing to another, but the overall 40k feel IMO was still much the same. I think you could definitely make the argument that the past 6 editions of 40k from 2nd through 7th are largely just adjustments of the same system, with 2nd -> 3rd being the biggest adjustment, but most of the things that define one edition or another are nuanced variations with large implications rather than big sweeping changes, of which there haven't been many over the years.

A change in the feel that wasn't rules related was that around that time it felt like 40k stopped being an intentional parody and started becoming an unintentional parody

 ZergSmasher wrote:

-Tweak the way Grav works against vehicles. I think it is just too powerful for a single 6 against a vehicle to immobilize it permanently. Grav is the reason some of the iconic vehicles like Land Raiders are stuck on shelf duty. I'm complaining about this even though I use Grav heavily in my Dark Angels army. To me it's fine as a good anti-MC/GMC weapon, but it shouldn't be a solution against vehicles. Those are what meltaguns and lascannons are for.

Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.

whirlwindstruggle wrote:

Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.

Grav is the worst... I stopped playing my nids because of it D=

GodDamUser wrote:

whirlwindstruggle wrote:

Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.

Grav is the worst... I stopped playing my nids because of it D=

EIther grav turns into HH graviton weapons or we destroy all grav-guns from the game's history. It's the only place for them.

Lord Kragan wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

whirlwindstruggle wrote:

Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.

Grav is the worst... I stopped playing my nids because of it D=

EIther grav turns into HH graviton weapons or we destroy all grav-guns from the game's history. It's the only place for them.

The first time I took my 'Nids to a campaign weekend, I faced a guy on 1500 points who had twenty..Seven? Twenty-six? Grav guns. Hilariously, I had taken the Manufactorum Genestealer list and was nothing but Genestealers and Lictors.

He did not like the way that game went.

Ghorros wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:

whirlwindstruggle wrote:

Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.

Grav is the worst... I stopped playing my nids because of it D=

EIther grav turns into HH graviton weapons or we destroy all grav-guns from the game's history. It's the only place for them.

The first time I took my 'Nids to a campaign weekend, I faced a guy on 1500 points who had twenty..Seven? Twenty-six? Grav guns. Hilariously, I had taken the Manufactorum Genestealer list and was nothing but Genestealers and Lictors.

He did not like the way that game went.

Very rare that I run Nids in competition but when I do I run Skyborne and Spawnborne. Grav is hardly relevant.
Grav doesn't like Fen Wolves either.

Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.

Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.

 Elbows wrote:
Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.

Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.

In 3rd edition, we had the Rhino rush. Charging from the Rhino which has already been moved in the movement phase was possible.
I think this will not come back, or does it?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.

Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.

In 3rd edition, we had the Rhino rush. Charging from the Rhino which has already been moved in the movement phase was possible.
I think this will not come back, or does it?

You also had the Chaos Lord on Pegasus - You bought the Wings upgrade and the Chaos Mount upgrade so that he could move 12 inches in the movement phase(Cavalry), then 12 inches in the assault phase(Wings). Bonus Points if you put him in the Pegasus square base and turned him to the side. Turning was free, so you'd get an extra inch of movement and get first turn charges pretty easily. Then, you'd consolidate in to combat with something else and run down the board that way.

One rumor i have heard churning around the mill, but it has not backing is the 2 sets of rules thing.

GW would spear head a streamlined AoS style 40k, while at the same time picking up a more complicated 30k supporting platic 30k models that would use rules that are an adapted 7th ed set.

Which really leaves everyone in a complicated place, imo, i think the smarter move, if the rumor is true, is offer a 40k AoS rules, and then a 40k legion rules which use 7th ed modified. then keep 30k its own thing.

I'm interested to see how it all goes. I won't be buying many more items until this all lands (I have like 12k in total anyway)

Excited to try the rules before ruling them out as no good though.

Looks like cover saves are a thing of the past, now they look like they are going with "to hit" modifiers, so more cover means your fireing at a lower ballistic skill. Makes more sense to me, more cover, less chance to hit.

To clarify GW is using the new necromunda to introduce bits of 8th edition and it looks pretty solid, things like armour value modifiers on all weaponry, no more cover saves, etc. Its all the stuff they discussed before except the leadership, and assault phase are unique to the boxed game, so gotta wait for more info on those ones. But I like the new profiles and new shooting phase rules. Little worried about how my DE transports will fair with no cover save tho.

I hope they get rid of the ability to move multiple times in a turn. Along with killing the movement stat, removing safe modifiers and the cover system, making models move more than once a turn is another of my pet hates from 2nd -> 3rd.

Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not, albeit a reduced save.

It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover

-

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I hope they get rid of the ability to move multiple times in a turn. Along with killing the movement stat, removing safe modifiers and the cover system, making models move more than once a turn is another of my pet hates from 2nd -> 3rd.

From what I can running and possibly charging will all be in the movement phase. It also looks like charge distance is based off of your initiative.

 Galef wrote:
Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.

It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover

-

It's also incredibly clunky on a D6.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
One rumor i have heard churning around the mill, but it has not backing is the 2 sets of rules thing.

GW would spear head a streamlined AoS style 40k, while at the same time picking up a more complicated 30k supporting platic 30k models that would use rules that are an adapted 7th ed set.

Which really leaves everyone in a complicated place, imo, i think the smarter move, if the rumor is true, is offer a 40k AoS rules, and then a 40k legion rules which use 7th ed modified. then keep 30k its own thing.

Yes, I heard those. Baseless bullpucky borne out of sheer wishlisting that was.

Martel732 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.

It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover

-

It's also incredibly clunky on a D6.

Seems to work just fine with other systems.
Like DzC, KoW, BA, Flames of War...

I'm pretty certain Epic, Necromunda and BFG used D6 modifiers as well. The notion that modifiers and D6s are incomptible is flawed; it does work, it's used everywhere else.

I'm not sure I'd say "fine". But we'll have to see what to-hit numbers look like and what the modifiers are. But any modification to a D6 roll is pretty huge.

 Elbows wrote:
Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.

No, they definitely weren't. Why would they be? I remember pinning a Carnifex to the ground with my techmarine

I think Tyranids were immune to Virus Outbreak and some other biological stuff, but Grav worked fine.

 Elbows wrote:
Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.

Yeah, 2nd to 3rd was a huge paradigm shift.

 Galef wrote:
Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.

It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover

-

Wouldn't that still make blast weapons really powerful though?
Though maybe they should make it that you have to roll to hit first before firing, and if you miss you roll for scatter, with D6 scatter for small blasts and 2D6 for large.

Reavas wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I hope they get rid of the ability to move multiple times in a turn. Along with killing the movement stat, removing safe modifiers and the cover system, making models move more than once a turn is another of my pet hates from 2nd -> 3rd.

From what I can running and possibly charging will all be in the movement phase. It also looks like charge distance is based off of your initiative.

Where abouts did you hear that? Charge distance based off initiative doesn't sound great, unless they plan on revising every unit's initiative. Things like Orks are Ini2 but that's because they're slow to think, not slow to charge.

As a horde player I'm definitely pro-one-move-per-turn.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.

It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover

-

Wouldn't that still make blast weapons really powerful though?
Though maybe they should make it that you have to roll to hit first before firing, and if you miss you roll for scatter, with D6 scatter for small blasts and 2D6 for large.

Considering how "hit or miss" blasts are right now anyway (see what I did there?), blasts need all the help they can get. BS modifiers would still affect how far a blast scatters, and with only a 33% change to roll a Hit, it is far from guaranteed.

You could also make cover of any kind only give -1 to BS maximum, with Stealth providing an additional -1 & Shroud -2 and no longer stackable with each other. Since you wouldn't be able to go below BS1, a total possible -3BS is really all you would need against most enemies. Invisibility at this point would only be relevant in melee and could thus be re-worded to count any attacks at the unit to be at BS1/WS1.

-

wuestenfux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.

Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.

In 3rd edition, we had the Rhino rush. Charging from the Rhino which has already been moved in the movement phase was possible.
I think this will not come back, or does it?

I always get annoyed at the Rhino Rush being brought up because Eldar Falcon/Wave Serpent rush was much worse. That, and as long as you weren't exactly 18" away on turn 1, the rush couldn't possibly make it towards you.

Ghorros wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.

Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.

In 3rd edition, we had the Rhino rush. Charging from the Rhino which has already been moved in the movement phase was possible.
I think this will not come back, or does it?

You also had the Chaos Lord on Pegasus - You bought the Wings upgrade and the Chaos Mount upgrade so that he could move 12 inches in the movement phase(Cavalry), then 12 inches in the assault phase(Wings). Bonus Points if you put him in the Pegasus square base and turned him to the side. Turning was free, so you'd get an extra inch of movement and get first turn charges pretty easily. Then, you'd consolidate in to combat with something else and run down the board that way.

I'm not exactly sure it was legal to give the Chaos Lord both, have to double check when I get the book again.

Also, something people get wrong consistently, the consolidate move was only a 3" move. If you spaced your troops out, you wouldn't GET consolidated into. If they rolled dice for the distance, you got to shoot at the chargers with your entire army if you had line of sight.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.

It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover

-

It's also incredibly clunky on a D6.

Seems to work just fine with other systems.
Like DzC, KoW, BA, Flames of War...

I'm pretty certain Epic, Necromunda and BFG used D6 modifiers as well. The notion that modifiers and D6s are incomptible is flawed; it does work, it's used everywhere else.

I have the same sentiment, as playing lots of Blood Bowl makes me say it should be in that list of games where modifiers work. The "1s always fail, 6s always succeed" clause really helps that a lot as well.

However, I must admit that the disparity in relative strength of 40k models is a huge issue that might put the idea to the test. In Blood Bowl, strength tends to only range from 2-5, with the Treeman and Deathroller being the notable exceptions. Agility only naturally range from 1-4 as far as I'm aware, so rolls like picking up a ball will only be as good as 2+, and even AG 1 can grab it on a 5+ when alone. It's really more of a 1-5 scale than a 1-10, which I think is more succinct, fits on a d6 more easily, and doesn't make any particular team/player terribly stronger than another. Plus, factoring obvious weaknesses in statlines and the devastating effect of failing a roll also help maintain balance. It's a game where the notion of a "death star" is nonexistent. No single model can bring and take the pain, handle the ball, move really fast, and do it all reliably (Loner comes to mind). I think 40k would be a lot better when even the super OP units have an Achilles heel in that they cannot perform certain roles well. But with the death star meta, there are too many things that are both exceptionally hard to even damage and will destroy you in return.

TL;DR Dice modifiers good, stats ranging 1-10 bad.

Ahh third, back when Rhinos were space marine skateboards. The rhino rush did happen, it just happened with blood angels and their turbo boosted rhinos. I still have an irrational dislike of blood angels from that time, even though disliking them now is like picking on the fat kid in dodgeball. Maybe 8th will be kinder to the once fearsome chapter who have fallen on hard times due to crap rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.

No, they definitely weren't. Why would they be? I remember pinning a Carnifex to the ground with my techmarine

I think Tyranids were immune to Virus Outbreak and some other biological stuff, but Grav worked fine.

 Elbows wrote:
Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.

Yeah, 2nd to 3rd was a huge paradigm shift.

You're absolutely right, I had been reading the Tyranids and the Chaos Daemons entries and mixed it up. Daemons were immune to graviton guns. Tyranids only ignored poisons/etc.

 Just Tony wrote:
I always get annoyed at the Rhino Rush being brought up because Eldar Falcon/Wave Serpent rush was much worse.

Yet the Rhino Rush was more common because Space Marines were more common. Something isn't always named because of what's better, but by what is most common.

 Grimgold wrote:
Ahh third, back when Rhinos were space marine skateboards. The rhino rush did happen, it just happened with blood angels and their turbo boosted rhinos. I still have an irrational dislike of blood angels from that time . . .

Haha! same. Now there were some real first-turn-charge shenanigans.

 Just Tony wrote:

I always get annoyed at the Rhino Rush being brought up because Eldar Falcon/Wave Serpent rush was much worse. That, and as long as you weren't exactly 18" away on turn 1, the rush couldn't possibly make it towards you.

Generic marines weren't the problem, the problem was Blood angels with a potential to move D6 towards the enemy at turn start, then move 18" with the overcharged engine, then dismount 2" then charge 6 for up to 32" of charge distance. In a game where you had to stand still to Rapid-Fire.

 Grimgold wrote:
Ahh third, back when Rhinos were space marine skateboards. The rhino rush did happen, it just happened with blood angels and their turbo boosted rhinos. I still have an irrational dislike of blood angels from that time, even though disliking them now is like picking on the fat kid in dodgeball. Maybe 8th will be kinder to the once fearsome chapter who have fallen on hard times due to crap rules.

Now we need a fat blood angel model holding a dodge ball...