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.

Backfire wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Vehicle AV gone - if they merge vehicles and monsters and it works like AOS - massive result, Looking forward to seeing how the new Dwarf airships work as that should give a good steer. Add in lots of wounds, good armour and some special rules and it should be fine. I think it will be huge improvement on AV/Damage Tables that we have now.

I guess the effect of small arms is to mission kill the vehicle - so like modern insurgents can damage Main Battle Tanks viewing systems, kill crew etc

For me that would be a really lame change as AV system is one of the things 40k has going for it, it is both intuitive and realistic. If vehicles get an MC profile, I would not even play that edition. Tanks are salt of the game and if they are not properly modelled, I won't bother. .

Do you think Tanks are modelled correctly under the current system - especially when compared to M. Creatures? Personally I don't but you might? Tanks tend to be used mostly when they are free like for Marines.

The AOS system is pretty much the same as the current system except:

1) You represent the armour of a given vehicle with a "armour save" rather than a completely different mechanic which serves no real purpose. This should also make vehicles more resilient to mid range weapons like the infamous Eldar jet bike cheese.
2) Damage table is subsumed into the profile so as you take hits, the vehicle, monster, dreadnought, whatever becomes less and less viable - this is tailored to each individual model and so results in different profiles. Some such as say Possessed Khorne vehicles might become less "shooty" but more "fighty" as they become damaged and hence enraged.
3) Less tracking of results that are usually irrelevant because you are trying to take away its wounds - often by glancing.

In summary as I see it, if they do it right (and that's a big if) they change one stat to make the profile and vehicle rules conform with the rest of the rules set. Add in Wounds and armour saves to the vehicle profile and we are golden.

You can even have modifiers (if you really wanted) for hitting all or given vehicles in different arcs.

 davou wrote:

Zatsuku wrote:

 kodos wrote:

nice, so IG soldiers have no problem killing a LandRaider in one phase without heavy weapons
14 wounds with 2+ save that get wounded on 4+ are nothing you can call tanky in that game.

sounds like a good idea

Please do some math before making such statements. It would be almost unkillable with lasgun fire. 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound, saves on anything but a 1. That would take 252 lasguns shots to take down statistically and something around 126 bolter shots? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

yep, sounds good to me too; land raiders are meant to be durable, not indestructible. If you pour a billion shots into them, and it goes poof fair game... and if you have some 1 out of 10 000 fluke where a small squad manages to do it, then that's also fine and fun.

Yup and personally I would rather someone be able to kill a land raider by shooting it with 252 lasguns, than what we have now where it can get taken out by a single lascannon. I remember games where one person got super lucky shooting vehicles and killed multiple land raiders on turn 1. Their lack of durability is one reason we see far fewer vehicles than we used to. Conversely in 5th vehicles were too durable in general (though you still had the lucky shot kills), I think making them similar to other models is a good choice. It also makes it easier to teach the game.

I'd prefer the new system as well. It stops the extremes of hard countering.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Vehicle AV gone - if they merge vehicles and monsters and it works like AOS - massive result, Looking forward to seeing how the new Dwarf airships work as that should give a good steer. Add in lots of wounds, good armour and some special rules and it should be fine. I think it will be huge improvement on AV/Damage Tables that we have now.

I guess the effect of small arms is to mission kill the vehicle - so like modern insurgents can damage Main Battle Tanks viewing systems, kill crew etc

For me that would be a really lame change as AV system is one of the things 40k has going for it, it is both intuitive and realistic. If vehicles get an MC profile, I would not even play that edition. Tanks are salt of the game and if they are not properly modelled, I won't bother. .

Do you think Tanks are modelled correctly under the current system - especially when compared to M. Creatures? Personally I don't but you might? Tanks tend to be used mostly when they are free like for Marines.

The AOS system is pretty much the same as the current system except:

1) You represent the armour of a given vehicle with a "armour save" rather than a completely different mechanic which serves no real purpose. This should also make vehicles more resilient to mid range weapons like the infamous Eldar jet bike cheese.
2) Damage table is subsumed into the profile so as you take hits, the vehicle, monster, dreadnought, whatever becomes less and less viable - this is tailored to each individual model and so results in different profiles. Some such as say Possessed Khorne vehicles might become less "shooty" but more "fighty" as they become damaged and hence enraged.
3) Less tracking of results that are usually irrelevant because you are trying to take away its wounds - often by glancing.

In summary as I see it, if they do it right (and that's a big if) they change one stat to make the profile and vehicle rules conform with the rest of the rules set. Add in Wounds and armour saves to the vehicle profile and we are golden.

You can even have modifiers (if you really wanted) for hitting all or given vehicles in different arcs.

Yup it is overall a way better system that is much less all or nothing. Right now you are either fully mobile, or immobile, with a weapon or without, dead or alive.

Breng77 wrote:

Yup it is overall a way better system that is much less all or nothing. Right now you are either fully mobile, or immobile, with a weapon or without, dead or alive.

The "zero or nothing" gameplay is incredibly boring. Either you shoot and shoot and do nothing, or you miraculously shoot one shot first round and a fourth of the enemy's points are gone before he even gets to have a turn. Would find it much more fun if you could sort of rely on your tank holding up 2 maybe even 3 turns, and then it'll be gone. Makes it much more possible to plan, and the gamble wouldn't be "should I buy this landraider and end up with a crater on my side of the map" but rather be "should I try to push it forward on the third turn or take the safe route and get out of it?"

 insaniak wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Yep, I highly doubt that templates are getting removed, as GW has newer prettier templates in their SW:A boxes...

Those aren't new. They're the same templates we've had since 5th edition, just with red dye added to the plastic instead of green or grey.

And previously sold with 7th Ed Warhammer Gamer's Edition. Which I had. Dunno where me templates went though!

On invalidating the Codex books;
When you really look at it, the actual game crunch is just what, 10%, 20% of the books? I have no accurate number here, just guessing. But all the fluff will stay accurate of the setting in a new 8th edition doesn't change (much). If this is, what some sneaky git ( ) means by not invalidating the books, the entire rules system underneath may change, not even invalidating very recent additions such as the Gathering Storm books. I am, of course, not 'in the know', however. If the changes are actually only the addition of the old Movement characteristic and some other changes such as the AP system into an Armour Save Modifier, even that last part of the Codices remain valid. Such minor changes are, however, less likely to solve internal balance problems within individual codices. Nor problems with balance between codices.
And yes, I think I would feel somewhat cheated if the codices and other recent books are invalidated. Like Galef and many others here, I spent money on them. But it happens. That's the moment I can choose to remain playing the old system, switch to the new one, or an entirely different system altogether. Excrements happen.

On fixed target numbers;
I wouldn't mind an AoS style fixed to hit number and to wound number. If this means a grot can harm a wraithknight, so be it. I can (narratively, of course) imagine how some grot manages to throw a rock into the foot joint. which narratively causes the wraithknight to stumble and fall, narratively smashing its fragile head dome to bits and shards, hence losing a wound or two. I do think this might solve the problems of having to bring all-come lists to rock-paper-scissors type games where specific counters are needed. I have seen mention of modifiers to indicate sturdiness or increased resilience, modifying the fixed to wound rolls upward. I wouldn't object to such changes. Besides, if this system also incorporates saving throws for vehicles and walkers, I wouldn't think grots would have too much of a chance to break through armour anyways.

On altered vehicle rules;
If vehicles return to Wounds/Damage Capacity and a Toughess value and saves, I wouldn't mind. Combined with an AoS style 'increased damage effects' table, where loss of wounds/DC incurrs all manner of extra effects visible on a warscroll/datasheet this might both bring vehicles back in line with other models as far as rules go, and the tables might differentiate what happens to them in unprecedented ways. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.

On the setting;
I love the setting. I wouldn't like it if they changed it too much. But there is also a problem with this statement. It is highly subjective. For me, the arrival of a daemon primarch and a loyalist primarch (and more on the way as the storm was just gathering) is exciting. Not something completely necessary, but it shakes the foundations of the setting, without completely blowing up the universe. I can only hope Leman Russ will return for the Wolf Time! (even if that implies End Times), but that is personal and shows my preference for Space Wolves. There is stil so much of the (intact) setting to fight and war in. There are still Tyranids eating Orks, and Imperial Fists far away from Terra bolter drilling Dark Eldar. Some new alliances appeared (Concaves, Ynnari, etc.), but you don't have to use them. Cadia falling is a blow, but it is not the end of all (yet).

In the end it all comes down to preferences in areas where personal opinions flare and different people have different ways of coping with it all, moving on or holding on.
To each his or her own, I say.

. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.

Funnily enough it may even make Daemonic Vehicles useful in some capacity. Being able to eat your troops and gain back wounds is a bit more valuable when you have 10+ rather then 3 and a chance to die instantly.

I miss vehicles myself, either you have some super strong formation which gives you major bonuses to them or you just mostly see bike spam or deathstars.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.

Funnily enough it may even make Daemonic Vehicles useful in some capacity. Being able to eat your troops and gain back wounds is a bit more valuable when you have 10+ rather then 3 and a chance to die instantly.

I miss vehicles myself, either you have some super strong formation which gives you major bonuses to them or you just mostly see bike spam or deathstars.

Or you see the Rhino wandering around in GK/Deathwatch lists to give three ablative wounds for 40pts (with a dozer blade) in an army where you normally get two dude for 40pts. Or you see the Wave Serpent running around waving the fact that it's a better battle tank than any of the actual battle tanks in the Craftworld list in peoples' faces.

Vehicles aren't bad, they're just running on a set of 5e-vintage assumptions about what they are and should do in an age where that isn't enough. See 30k (where everything has higher armour and occasionally higher hull points, where infantry are actually required, and where Destroyer weapons are "one in the Lords of War slot in a 2,000pt game, maybe") for examples of vehicles that actually behave like they ought to.

So, originally, my Grey Knight army was the following:

2 Brother Champions
2 Techmarines with conversion beamers
1 5 man strike squad with 1 psycannon
4 5 man purifier squads with 2 psyconnons
1 5 man purgator squad with 4 psycannons
1 Dreadnight

1 extra Dreadnought that I could use if I broke into multiple forces.

The issue came in that if I put them out as foot troops in buildings/ect. As soon as we get to play our tournament games in my area. We have multiple players that run 4 to 6 wyverns. The fix for that was my army now includes 2 razorbacks and 5 rhinos to keep the troops alive on turn one if I don't win the roll.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.

Funnily enough it may even make Daemonic Vehicles useful in some capacity. Being able to eat your troops and gain back wounds is a bit more valuable when you have 10+ rather then 3 and a chance to die instantly.

I miss vehicles myself, either you have some super strong formation which gives you major bonuses to them or you just mostly see bike spam or deathstars.

Or you see the Rhino wandering around in GK/Deathwatch lists to give three ablative wounds for 40pts (with a dozer blade) in an army where you normally get two dude for 40pts. Or you see the Wave Serpent running around waving the fact that it's a better battle tank than any of the actual battle tanks in the Craftworld list in peoples' faces.

You must be thinking about 6th Ed Wave Serpent... the current one is rather bad compared to the actual Craftworlds Battle Tanks, which admittedly suck.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

. I read about Khornate vehicles gaining attacks for being damaged further, great idea! This might differentiate a Chaos Rhino and an Imperial Rhino in ways other than the difference between a combi-bolter and a stormbolter.

Funnily enough it may even make Daemonic Vehicles useful in some capacity. Being able to eat your troops and gain back wounds is a bit more valuable when you have 10+ rather then 3 and a chance to die instantly.

I miss vehicles myself, either you have some super strong formation which gives you major bonuses to them or you just mostly see bike spam or deathstars.

Or you see the Rhino wandering around in GK/Deathwatch lists to give three ablative wounds for 40pts (with a dozer blade) in an army where you normally get two dude for 40pts. Or you see the Wave Serpent running around waving the fact that it's a better battle tank than any of the actual battle tanks in the Craftworld list in peoples' faces.

Vehicles aren't bad, they're just running on a set of 5e-vintage assumptions about what they are and should do in an age where that isn't enough. See 30k (where everything has higher armour and occasionally higher hull points, where infantry are actually required, and where Destroyer weapons are "one in the Lords of War slot in a 2,000pt game, maybe") for examples of vehicles that actually behave like they ought to.

I mostly run Chaos which should set an example of what sort of Vehicles I can run.

I use to be a supporter of vehicle armor values. With in the last few years I have since flipped on my standings. It just doesn't make sense on an in game level. As it stands AP (armor Penetration) has little to no effect on penetrating a vehicle's AV (Armor Value). Not to mention all the time I have had small game argument over what facing a particular model was in, do you go with the majority or do you divide the group up based on which armor facing they are in, so you have to crack open a rule book as this has change from edition to edition, and these issue pop up with the easy definable corners present on rhinos, a whole new host of problems pop up when you are trying to draw that line from something like a wave serpent or devil fish. Be the new iteration a flat toughness value or fixed wound values I look forward to what the 8th will bring.

 Purifier wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Yup it is overall a way better system that is much less all or nothing. Right now you are either fully mobile, or immobile, with a weapon or without, dead or alive.

The "zero or nothing" gameplay is incredibly boring. Either you shoot and shoot and do nothing, or you miraculously shoot one shot first round and a fourth of the enemy's points are gone before he even gets to have a turn. Would find it much more fun if you could sort of rely on your tank holding up 2 maybe even 3 turns, and then it'll be gone. Makes it much more possible to plan, and the gamble wouldn't be "should I buy this landraider and end up with a crater on my side of the map" but rather be "should I try to push it forward on the third turn or take the safe route and get out of it?"

The way monstrous creatures get weaker as they take wounds in AoS is really cool. I haven't read the warscrolls of all of them, just the particular ones I was interested in. For those they did a really good job of making it seem like the monster was getting weaker as it took wounds.

That said, I think what Breng77 was saying* is that right now it is nice that vehicles lose things in "chunks" as they take damage. They don't suffer from blood loss and get a decreased number of attacks and a decreased movement, they get a sponson blown clean off and lose all attacks from that weapon or take a hit to the engine and lose all mobility.

I think that treating vehicles more like they treat big monsters in AoS could work out well as long as GW makes them feel like machines instead of monsters.

*Edit: Actually, it looks like I misread what Breng77 was saying.

Yeah, I want dreadnoughts to feel like they mean something again. As they stand right now, you frequently lose all your dreadnoughts before they have any meaning at all in the game.

I have fielded 5 helbrutes in my chaos force and had them all die by the end of turn 2. They managed to move once, shoot once and were all dead. That just seems pointless.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Yup it is overall a way better system that is much less all or nothing. Right now you are either fully mobile, or immobile, with a weapon or without, dead or alive.

The "zero or nothing" gameplay is incredibly boring. Either you shoot and shoot and do nothing, or you miraculously shoot one shot first round and a fourth of the enemy's points are gone before he even gets to have a turn. Would find it much more fun if you could sort of rely on your tank holding up 2 maybe even 3 turns, and then it'll be gone. Makes it much more possible to plan, and the gamble wouldn't be "should I buy this landraider and end up with a crater on my side of the map" but rather be "should I try to push it forward on the third turn or take the safe route and get out of it?"

The way monstrous creatures get weaker as they take wounds in AoS is really cool. I haven't read the warscrolls of all of them, just the particular ones I was interested in. For those they did a really good job of making it seem like the monster was getting weaker as it took wounds.

That said, I think what Breng77 was saying is that right now it is nice that vehicles lose things in "chunks" as they take damage. They don't suffer from blood loss and get a decreased number of attacks and a decreased movement, they get a sponson blown clean off and lose all attacks from that weapon or take a hit to the engine and lose all mobility.

I think that treating vehicles more like they treat big monsters in AoS could work out well as long as GW makes them feel like machines instead of monsters.

More or less, though I do think you could do things like:
Rhino 10 wounds
8-10 wounds - no negative effects
6-8 wounds - Weapon system damaged -1 to BS
4-6 wounds -drive damaged: vehicle can only move at combat speed
2-4 wounds - weapon destroyed
1-2 wounds - severe drive damage - vehicle can only move 1/2 speed
0 wounds - Destroyed - wrecked, if vehicle lost more than 2 wounds to reach this point it explodes.

I prefer not to have loss of all mobility unless it is close to the bottom of the list, for things with more than 1 weapon you could have multiple weapon destroyed results, but since number of weapons are variable in most cases so for something like a predator it might look like

Predator 14 wounds
12-14 wounds - no effect
10-12 wounds - drive damaged: vehicle can only move at combat speed
8-10 wounds - weapon systems damaged - destroy one sponson, if no sponsons -1 BS
6-8 wounds - severe drive damage - vehicle can only move 1/2 speed
4-6 wounds- weapon systems damaged - destroy one sponson, if no sponsons -1 BS
2-4 wounds - immobilized
1-2 wounds - main cannon destroyed
0 wounds - Destroyed - wrecked, if vehicle lost more than 2 wounds to reach this point it explodes.

My ideal would be to have vehicles able to be functional in some way up until they are dead like any other model. Right now if you get immobilized and weapon destroyed with only one gun in many cases you might as well be dead.

Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

I don't think the tables are hard to memorize. I do think that there might be a way to have fixed to hit rolls that still represents certain models being able to skillfully defend themselves.

Say a Striking Scorpions Exarch has a "Parry -2" rule on his data sheet. Then an ork boy who normally hits on a 4+ would only be hitting on a 6+.

They could do something similar with dodging/jinking.

 Marmatag wrote:
Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

I agree with this. It should be harder to hit certain units in melee because their WS is higher. As if they can deflect your blows
Tables are just fine. Maybe allow really high WS to hit really low WS on 2+, and allow more Str values to wound higher Ts, like Str 4 being able to wound T8 on a 6, but otherwise interact with all other Ts as it does now.

 Marmatag wrote:
Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch

TonyL707 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch

It could stand an adjustment sure (like adding some 2+s to the chart), but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than every model hitting on the same value no matter what the target is.

-

I read the whole thread

I'm pro Age of the Emperor.

The Sigmarization of 40k would have a serious shot at getting me back into the game.

GW hasn't gotten any of my wargaming budget since about a third of the way through 5th edition. Each new edition change means that some people will stop playing, some people will start new and some people will return.

I'm guessing the many, many players who were slowly ground out over the tweaking of the same rules set over and over while calling it a new edition and the constant bloat of supplements and special rules would give a reboot a serious look.

As for the existing customer base, I think the loyal dakka posters with thousands of points outlined in their signatures make up a minority of GW's customers and most of their customers tend to quit after a year or two anyway. Or aren't so serious about the rules and are negatively effected by how they are strewn everywhere across multiple books and supplements.

The people I know how play AoS simply print their warscrolls (some use tablets) and then have their physical books for reference and reading enjoyment.

 Galef wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch

It could stand an adjustment sure (like adding some 2+s to the chart), but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than every model hitting on the same value no matter what the target is.

-

maybe like shooting same effect, WS 10 avatar swings as a ws 2 gretchin on 2's reroll on 2's. maybe subtract the lower model's WS for reroll on 4, lower weapon skill hits on 5's

more realistically space marine captain vs ork boy ws 6 hits on 2's rerolls misses to 6's. ork boys 6-4 so WS2 hits on 5's

ties hit on 4's both sides as now

This sort of thing would be good for 40k. It's from the new bundle of a Start Collecting set, a Battletome book and this:

Warscroll Cards: Blades of Khorne

This pack of 33 large-format cards contains the each of the unit Warscrolls from Battletome: Blades of Khorne, printed on individual cards for handy reference in your battles, along with a selection of gaming tokens – use these to indicate the Allegiance Abilities, skills and statuses used by your models in games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar

TonyL707 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch

Except for another WS10 dude.

 Galef wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch

It could stand an adjustment sure (like adding some 2+s to the chart), but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than every model hitting on the same value no matter what the target is.

-

I'm not quite sure why it needs to make sense as such, it's a game in the end, surely just making it more fun is the ultimate goal? At the moment you're usually either hitting on a 3+ or a 4+ depending on the target, I don't think fixing this at a set value is going to make a whole lot of difference other than make things a whole lot easier.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

Not sure the WS table is the best thing to be quoting, unless you're being sarcastic? Given that WS10 guy hits everything on a 3+ from lowly snotling to Space Marine Primarch

Except for another WS10 dude.

Why I said up to Primarch, since RG is WS 9

For those concerned about fixed to hit and wound numbers, I was poking around some warscrolls and found this:

Dance of Death: You can add 2 to save rolls for this unit in the combat phase.

So it looks like Age of Sigmar already has rules to reduce hits against those that are great at melee combat. I've also noticed similar rules for those that are great at being offensive in melee combat.

Remember, final wounds = wounds inflicted (attacks * percent hits * percent wounds) - saves (wounds inflicted * percent saved) so you can modify any variable in there to model skill in different way. It doesn't all have to be loaded onto "to hit" to be about their skill with weapons.

I'd much prefer to see alternating turns in this new edition over any of these proposed changes. the hardest part of getting people into the game is having to wait an hour between turns and just taking models off the table before you even have a chance to use them


"I just spent a week painting this deamon prince, can't wait to use him!" oh... I go turn 2, he'll be dead before I even get to use him.

Indeed, frozen. People see fixed to-hit and to-wound and then forget about all of the defensive abilities that modify that. Looking through different warscrolls, I've seen everything from +2 save in the combat phase to ignore the first point of damage from each attack to ignoring damage from weapons worse than -1 rend. There are many ways to represent a resilience and combat acumen other than WS and T.

 Marmatag wrote:
Fixed hit/wound is nonsense.

The tables aren't exactly rocket science.

An Ork Boy is just as likely to hit an average imperial guardsman, as he is to hit what was previous a WS10 model. Yeah that makes sense.

"My melee prowess is unheard of! Yet, I'm just as easy to hit in one on one combat as your average guardsman. Because people can't memorize tables."

And my Daemonic Vehicles for some reason hit like a normal guardsman.