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.

That depends, as you say with the armor save, they could give modifiers for positioning if they choose to (Rear is -2 to save).

 insaniak wrote:
Hard to make any judgement on that without knowing what other rules go along with it.
...
That's if these are even legit to begin with.

This right here! We don't know exactly what the rules are going to be, or what is getting exactly changed. We need to stop evaluating the rules as if they are going to be just added into the current rulebook. Don't just blindly see something and think about how it doesn't work becuase the game might trouble handling it. Rather, think about how other rules might be changed to fit around it.

I don't listen to or follow rumors, like, EVER, anymore. It's just not worth it. Glaring grammar and spelling issues aside, I just don't get anything out of following the rumors. Some might be right, many are wrong, and some are forgotten that end up correct later. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Even if I had the time to read the news and rumor sites like I used to, I wouldn't. Aside from what the companies officially release on their own, I don't care. We will get what we get. If I like it, great! If not, I'll move on or wait for the next edition, or let GW know how I feel about it.

In any case, I am eager to see what the future holds for 40K. I have been thoroughly enjoying AoS as of late, and only play with certain players anymore regardless of any game system; a new edition of 40K (or Warmahordes, or WHFB, or AoS) will not change that.

why should have a vehicle different saves and not just 3 values for toughness?

 kodos wrote:
why should have a vehicle different saves and not just 3 values for toughness?

Why would that be easier or more representative?

if a vehicle/monster has T10 and 2+/3+/4+ saves, the weapon needed to kill it is always the same while just the chance to kill it, is different.

with the possibility that no weapons with S9/10 will have a modifier that is worse than -5.

while a vehicle/monster with T10/9/8 and a 3+ save is something different and it is worth to get low strength weapons in the back

Why not have a single T value and a single save value? MCs don't have multiple values despite also not being totally homogenous in their 'armour' or vulnerability layout.

When people talk about simplifying 40k, you have to look at the rules that aren't adding any depth to the game and just slow it down at the scale it works at. With the giant stomping robots and 50+ model blobs moving around the table, worrying about a few degrees of facings to see if you shoot at AV14 or AV13 is just a waste of everyone's time.

If the game was smaller and worried more about positions and facings of individual models, then sure, it would make sense to have multiple values for everything, but now we're basically describing a squad based game with less than a dozen models, or an RPG style game where you track the damage across your body.

It doesn't make much sense to keep facings with multiple armour values in the game for a single unit type that doesn't even matter much anyways.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why not have a single T value and a single save value? MCs don't have multiple values despite also not being totally homogenous in their 'armour' or vulnerability layout.

When people talk about simplifying 40k, you have to look at the rules that aren't adding any depth to the game and just slow it down at the scale it works at. With the giant stomping robots and 50+ model blobs moving around the table, worrying about a few degrees of facings to see if you shoot at AV14 or AV13 is just a waste of everyone's time.

If the game was smaller and worried more about positions and facings of individual models, then sure, it would make sense to have multiple values for everything, but now we're basically describing a squad based game with less than a dozen models, or an RPG style game where you track the damage across your body.

It doesn't make much sense to keep facings with multiple armour values in the game for a single unit type that doesn't even matter much anyways.

And we could remove measuring and make the game grid-based. I quite like that you can get into the back of a large thing and hit a weak point. But I also think it should be like that on MCs. I feel it does add to the game.

As far as the "toughness value" thing, I am sort of hoping Toughness goes away. I want the fixed chance to wound depending on weapon and would rather see vehicles balanced by enormous wound pools.

 Purifier wrote:

As far as the "toughness value" thing, I am sort of hoping Toughness goes away. I want the fixed chance to wound depending on weapon and would rather see vehicles balanced by enormous wound pools.

´

this just won't work without adding more special rules.

like a guard lasgun always wounds on 5+, no ASM and just 1 wound, a phantom knight has 2+ armour, cost 300 points
a grot has 6+ armour, cost 5 points

to balance that out the knight would need to have more than 100 health point

or you need to add a special rule that represent toughness and the knight has -3 to wound rolls while the grot has +2
but than you could alos just add the defensive roll on the knight, "is wounded on 6+" instead of lasgun always wounds on 5+

or keep S VS T because it makes it much easier

worrying about a few degrees of facings to see if you shoot at AV14 or AV13 is just a waste of everyone's time.

Yes that is a fair point actually.
When I think about the times that the directional armour system has both mattered and created an interesting narrative they are pretty few and far between.

It does make the game slighter cooler, but the amount of faffing around is probably not worth it.

 kodos wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

like a guard lasgun always wounds on 5+, no ASM and just 1 wound, a phantom knight has 2+ armour, cost 300 points
a grot has 6+ armour, cost 5 points

to balance that out the knight would need to have more than 100 health point

That logical leap would only work if the grot and the phantom knight had the same killing potential. No, it would not need 100 wounds, because the offensive value of the knight is ridiculously higher than the grot, their points aren't balanced around solely their amount of wounds.. It would need a lot of wounds, but not 100.

No because S vs T is rigid, unchangeable and gets in bloat issues.

In AoS basic guys cost more points. B

Bring balance closer by taking down the extremes people. 1 knight shouldn't be equal to 60 grots. Yes the grots will oversaturate the knights defences and attack capabilities unless he takes out like 10 a turn.

For vehicles you might want to have a seperate to wound value on your weapon. Who is complaining about the survavability of dreadnoughts right now vs cawl or celestine or even FMC?. Only one of these can be hurt by lasguns note it's the others that are way to survavible.

Facing works best/(only) with square or rectangular vehicles but the amount of arguments I have had about eldar vehicles? disastrous.

I'd be perfectly happy if lasguns had a flat to hit roll of 5+ that was improved by unit size and orders etc, and a flat to wound roll of 4+ with no rend. When shooting at a target with a 3+ save (say, a tank), ten of them will only score 0.56 wounds on it. A 56% of scoring only a single wound on a model that will probably have 6-12 wounds. A wound which an engineer model willl probably heal too. That's not going to destroy any tank anytime soon.

This could work. If they do it.

you know that if there is a fixed to wound roll without modifiers, you just can remove it without effecting the gameplay at all?

no reason to have 2 flt rolls at all, as you can get the combined chance of to hit* to wound*ROF into one roll.

adding a second one and increase the number of attacks is just there to slow the game down by rolling more often than needed.

 Purifier wrote:

That logical leap would only work if the grot and the phantom knight had the same killing potential. No, it would not need 100 wounds, because the offensive value of the knight is ridiculously higher than the grot, their points aren't balanced around solely their amount of wounds.. It would need a lot of wounds, but not 100.

than give him just 50 wounds and the possibility to kill 30 models a turn
would be the same

if you just thinking of "more wounds" is 10-15, this will never work unless the game is scaled down by 50% of its size and stuff like superheavys is removed.

just removing the defence won't be compensated by decreasing the chance to hit by 50%.

 kodos wrote:
you know that if there is a fixed to wound roll without modifiers, you just can remove it without effecting the gameplay at all?

no reason to have 2 flt rolls at all, as you can get the combined chance of to hit* to wound*ROF into one roll.

adding a second one and increase the number of attacks is just there to slow the game down by rolling more often than needed.

 Purifier wrote:

That logical leap would only work if the grot and the phantom knight had the same killing potential. No, it would not need 100 wounds, because the offensive value of the knight is ridiculously higher than the grot, their points aren't balanced around solely their amount of wounds.. It would need a lot of wounds, but not 100.

than give him just 50 wounds and the possibility to kill 30 models a turn
would be the same

if you just thinking of "more wounds" is 10-15, this will never work unless the game is scaled down by 50% of its size and stuff like superheavys is removed.

just removing the defence won't be compensated by decreasing the chance to hit by 50%.

You could only roll it all into one roll if you start using D20 or higher. A D6 doesn't allow for that without every model being basically the same, and it would be a math challenge to figure out what you're rolling in order to take everything into account before you can roll it.

You don't have to remove it, just rebalance it.

You're gonna need to give some real examples though, with some math, if you want to shut down the idea completely. I'm just spitballing, but you're saying anything along those lines is impossible. It's not, though. AoS is doing fine enough, and the huge models like Nagash aren't suffering. It's not quite comparable, but it certainly proves that it can be done.

That rumor would seem to indicate it's going to pretty much AoS.

If anyone wants to play test what that would feel like try playing with the rules at http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.com/2016/03/age-of-sigmar-40k-space-marine.html

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

I don't listen to or follow rumors, like, EVER, anymore. It's just not worth it. Glaring grammar and spelling issues aside, I just don't get anything out of following the rumors. Some might be right, many are wrong, and some are forgotten that end up correct later. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Even if I had the time to read the news and rumor sites like I used to, I wouldn't. Aside from what the companies officially release on their own, I don't care. We will get what we get. If I like it, great! If not, I'll move on or wait for the next edition, or let GW know how I feel about it.

This times a million.

Speculation, counter speculation, emotional reactions to speculative rumor. About 95% waste of energy if you ask me.

I'm excited to try the new version of the game. I think this shake up is going to give the game a fresher feel.

 Purifier wrote:

You could only roll it all into one roll if you start using D20 or higher. A D6 doesn't allow for that without every model being basically the same, and it would be a math challenge to figure out what you're rolling in order to take everything into account before you can roll it.

math need to be done by the designer
but yeah, a D20 would be better for such a system

that is the reason why AoS use so much buffs and re-rolls because the basic profile with to fixed rolls make all models the same

@kodos

and 40K does not use buffs, rerolls and special rules?

d20 might be better but don't underestimate the weight of more dice. Are there no apps you can use? or quickly add/substract and discard the wrong dice? rolling 60 dice and quickly gettting rid of the fails/ succeses is not hard.

Earth127 wrote:
@kodos
and 40K does not use buffs, rerolls and special rules?

I haven't seen so many +x toughness or +x strength around, or re-rolls for to hit rolls.

as you don't need to hit re-rolls and a bonus on to wound rolls to keep an Guard soldier different from a Space Marines

The funny thing I always find with these discussions, is many of the rules 'suggested' often are more bloated and confusing than the rules people imagine they are replacing.

Imho GW should either completely revamp the rules from the ground up or return to most of the core features introduced in 3rd.

Then and only then should rule exceptions, buffs, neg modifiers etc be discussed.

Also I think GW needs to get out of this idea of only using D6's in their core games. I think D6's and D10's would be enough.

Earth127 wrote:

d20 might be better but don't underestimate the weight of more dice. Are there no apps you can use? or quickly add/substract and discard the wrong dice? rolling 60 dice and quickly gettting rid of the fails/ succeses is not hard.

this is not the problem
the problem is to add a dice roll just to pretend that the rules are more complex than they really are

eg the tactical Space Marines hits in 3+, wounds on 4+ and has 2 attacks
the Assault Marine hits on 4+, wounds on 3+ and has 2 attacks
and the Marine with different rules just roll to hit on 3+ and has 1 attack

all 3 are basically the same and not comparable to something were the to wound roll depends on the target they attack


the one thing is, there is no easy way to replace a S VS T system from 1-10 by a fixed D6 roll without modifications
you need either roll against the defence and modify it with your strength, or with your strength and modify it with the defence

if there is no modification, you will always end up with less difference than before and more units will be basically the same

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
The funny thing I always find with these discussions, is many of the rules 'suggested' often are more bloated and confusing than the rules people imagine they are replacing.

Also I think GW needs to get out of this idea of only using D6's in their core games. I think D6's and D10's would be enough.

Uh, no. GW needs to do either all D6s or all D10s. Mixing them is madness. Also, irony, thy name is Baldeagle91.

 Purifier wrote:

And we could remove measuring and make the game grid-based.

Sure? If you really want to.

I quite like that you can get into the back of a large thing and hit a weak point. But I also think it should be like that on MCs. I feel it does add to the game.

Its a question of both consistency and value. If you're going to have, might as well make it a mechanic that is common enough to actually matter to most armies. The value aspect comes from how much the rule actually matters in any given game. Rear AV will almost exclusively be used for assaults and most vehicles have the same or similar side armour to their front armour, making those arc differences minimal. Common vehicles, like Rhinos, Eldar tanks, and Knights either have the same front and side, or 1 point difference, which I'd argue will be fairly negligible given the weapons the players are usually using on those targets anyways.

Game player would be quicker with a single value without losing out on much tactical value. Let's be honest, its rarely the enemy player trying to get flanks on a vehicle as it is the controlling player making an informed decision to point their strongest facings towards the biggest threats. Given the scale of the game and the 'cinematic' nature people always seem to want, it would take away the silliness of building walls of vehicles that move sideways across the battlefield.

If the game was much smaller where a single tank was the majority of your force, then you could implement proper vehicle movement rules and differing armour values which would add a layer of tactics, but 40k is too large and bloated for that.

As far as the "toughness value" thing, I am sort of hoping Toughness goes away. I want the fixed chance to wound depending on weapon and would rather see vehicles balanced by enormous wound pools.

Ehhhh, mixed feelings. I'd totally buy that a lasgun has no business damaging many of the more powerful vehicles in the game, but it would help buff the generally useless infantry basic weapons. Ideally, you would classify the weapons as 'anti-infantry' and 'anti-armour' or similar, which would provide bonuses and drawbacks against unit types.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

And we could remove measuring and make the game grid-based.

Sure? If you really want to.

I quite like that you can get into the back of a large thing and hit a weak point. But I also think it should be like that on MCs. I feel it does add to the game.

Its a question of both consistency and value. If you're going to have, might as well make it a mechanic that is common enough to actually matter to most armies. The value aspect comes from how much the rule actually matters in any given game. Rear AV will almost exclusively be used for assaults and most vehicles have the same or similar side armour to their front armour, making those arc differences minimal. Common vehicles, like Rhinos, Eldar tanks, and Knights either have the same front and side, or 1 point difference, which I'd argue will be fairly negligible given the weapons the players are usually using on those targets anyways.

Game player would be quicker with a single value without losing out on much tactical value. Let's be honest, its rarely the enemy player trying to get flanks on a vehicle as it is the controlling player making an informed decision to point their strongest facings towards the biggest threats. Given the scale of the game and the 'cinematic' nature people always seem to want, it would take away the silliness of building walls of vehicles that move sideways across the battlefield.

If the game was much smaller where a single tank was the majority of your force, then you could implement proper vehicle movement rules and differing armour values which would add a layer of tactics, but 40k is too large and bloated for that.

As far as the "toughness value" thing, I am sort of hoping Toughness goes away. I want the fixed chance to wound depending on weapon and would rather see vehicles balanced by enormous wound pools.

Ehhhh, mixed feelings. I'd totally buy that a lasgun has no business damaging many of the more powerful vehicles in the game, but it would help buff the generally useless infantry basic weapons. Ideally, you would classify the weapons as 'anti-infantry' and 'anti-armour' or similar, which would provide bonuses and drawbacks against unit types.

That only works one way. If a meltagun pierces land raider armor imagine what it would do to a guardsman.

 Blacksails wrote:
Ehhhh, mixed feelings. I'd totally buy that a lasgun has no business damaging many of the more powerful vehicles in the game, but it would help buff the generally useless infantry basic weapons. Ideally, you would classify the weapons as 'anti-infantry' and 'anti-armour' or similar, which would provide bonuses and drawbacks against unit types.

I tried that method myself once. I went a step further. Everything would have a to hit score for ground targets and a separate score for air targets, then a to wound score for 'light' targets and then again for 'heavy' targets'. Something like this:

Attacks: 1 Groundfire: 4+ Skyfire: 6+ Anti-Infantry: 4+ Anti-Armour: 6+ Rend: - Damage: 1

I kinda gave up on it though, because of arguments over what qualifies for what.

It seems like most of the vehicles that have a significant disparity between front, side and rear AV also tend to be boxier and easier to figure out what facing is being shot at. I'm probably just forgetting about a lot of vehicles though.

They might just be able to throw in a special rule on some tanks that gives them a lower save and/or toughness against rear attacks.

I think fixed to hit and wound with modifiers and a save with modifiers would work quite well if implemented correctly. I also think it could make for a variety of types of durability. That while thematic might end up the same mathematically in some cases.

If say a space marine always hits on a 3+ in shooting and his bolter always wounds on a 4+ with no save modifier. You could make Rhinos durable against that type of shooting by giving them things like -2 to wound rolls, and a 2+ save and say 10 wounds. This would mean a bolter would need a 3+ to hit, but a 6+ to wounds and then a 2+ save. This would give s bolter a 1.85% chance to wound. Which is better than it can do against anything but rear armor now, but more durable than rear armor. Given this it would take ~50 bolter shots to do one wound, or 500 to kill a rhino. You could also easily put in to hit modifiers based on movement (+1 to hit if the vehicle is stationary, -1 if it moved 12"). You could then make things like lascannons wound on a 0+ with a -5 to save. Then a lascannon would hit on a 3+, wound on a 2+ and only allow a 6+ save, wounding 46% of the time. Then have each wound cause D3 wounds (or 2 wounds if you want less random) This would also mean that a lascannon that hits basically always kills most infantry models (auto-wound, almost always no save) That would mean 10 lascannon shots would typically kill a rhino.

So obviously tweaking could happen to these stats (maybe only 5 wounds for a rhino, maybe only a 3+ save etc), but I think it would work quite well.

It would also allow things like wyches to have a negative hit modifier to make them hard to hit but easy to wound, which would be fluffier than what they are now.

Now this doesn't necessarily make the game less complicated, but it might make it easier for people to learn as you only need to know your own stats and not a table on how they compare.

Player A - "Ok I hit on 3s"
Player B - "my unit has a -2 modifier to that roll, so that is 5s to hit"

Makes more sense to a new player than

Player A -"I'm WS 10"
Player B - "I'm WS 2 so you hit on 3s"
Player A - "But my WS 3 guys hit you on 3s as well."

It would be extremely easy to just give Vehicles lower saves: Example:


Marine Wnds: 2 Move: 5" Save: 4+ B: 8
Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 4+ Damage: 1 Rend: -1
Heavy Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1

Can replace heavy bolter with Lascannon, Multi-melta, Missile Launcher, Gravcannon, Heavy flamer.
Example rule for Lascannon: -2 Rend


Rhino Wnds: 8 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Storm Bolter: Range: 24" Att: 2 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 4+ Damage: 1 Rend: -1

Razorback Wnds: 8 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Twin linked Heavy Bolter: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1


Predator Wnds: 10 Move: 10" Save: 3+
Autocannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3+1 Rend: -1
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons

Land Raider Wnds: 14 Move: 10" Save: 2+
Lascannon: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -2
2 Twin linked Heavy Bolter sponsons: Range: 36" Att: 1 ToHit: 3+ ToWnd: 3+ Damage: 1d3 Rend: -1
Extra armor: +1 to saves vs Rend - weapons



At 14 wounds at a 2+ armor save 1+ vs Rend 0 weapons.This also assumes that items that are 1+ are immune to attacks basically from that weapon type.

Rules wise that would become extremely easy to remember. There would be very little argument over it.

Something with 14 wounds and a 2+ armor would have to take a huge amount of attacks to take it down in a game. That would be much more satisfying for your 250+ point item then what it is now.

I'd be inclined to put the to hit on the model not the weapon, that way different models can hit different with the same weapon, so weapon statlines need not change from model to model.