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.

Right, so the major changes for 8ed is out and people are talking about it all over the place, me and my group are having fierce discussion over the topic basically over why so many people think applying AoS style rules to 40K is good with much whining. I whined a bit but mostly because some so called "article writer" tries to create popular opinion. And then my friend asked me about my opinion as I played some other systems of miniature wargames too.

So I pulled out my calculator and did some math. I compared the two using two sets of conditions and made the following assumptions: 1. GEQs are T3 5+ units and MEQs are T4 3+ units and will become W1 5+Sv and W2 4+Sv in fixed system respectively; 2. Weapons are fired at BS3 and 4+ to hit when fixed; 3. Weapon used are base guns IMO and are S4 AP5 guns, when switched to the fixed system will become 4+ to wound and -1 rend.

After a quick calculation of the death rates, I ended up with these results, all rounded to the closest percent:
GEQ in S/T - 33%
GEQ in Fixed - 21%

MEQ in S/T - 9%
MEQ in Fixed - 3%
But then I remembered, there are weapons that do more than 1 damage, so I tried with weapons of 2 damage against the MEQs:
MEQ in Fixed, 2 Dmg - 17%

So the results suggest that both systems work, and the AoS system actually boosted the strength of GEQ armies provided that they can muster enough 2 Dmg weapons just require different measures to balance. But then I was told that a hit with a 2 Dmg weapon can kill 2 W1 models which I find against logic.

There are other concerns over the two systems such as weapons that deal 3 or more and random damage, but I just want to point out that it is not the fault of the Core Mechanics of AoS that makes it "unbalanced", and I am not against such change, but after looking at some really nasty AoS lists I really don't want 40K to become AoS in space. Any opinion? Also, please point out if there is any fallacies in calculation.

I'm looking forward to it being changed. The really nasty AOS lists pale in comparison to the 40k min/max garbage in my opinion.

I prefer a system where everything is viable. Otherwise you live in the world of only 10% of units are ever seen on a table because the other 90% can be countered or be in a position where they can't hurt something so people don't take them.

 auticus wrote:
I'm looking forward to it being changed. The really nasty AOS lists pale in comparison to the 40k min/max garbage in my opinion.

I prefer a system where everything is viable. Otherwise you live in the world of only 10% of units are ever seen on a table because the other 90% can be countered or be in a position where they can't hurt something so people don't take them.

Although a bit exaggerated, I do agree something needs to be done with the current unit and gaming balance. A new system might be the way, may be not, in fact it is not hard to plug in the current numbers into the AoS system, which I thing will greatly nerf MCs after a few assumptions. It would sure be nice to see people pay more troop tax because that Hell Turkey and 4 DP thing for example is obviously too OP.

I am looking forward to rifles and standard infantry weaponry becoming more deadly, and actually usable on the battle field. Bolters, lasguns, and other small arms fire should be more dangerous than they currently are.

I enjoyed it because it sped up play, it also made everything dangerous, but that's the question, should every unit in 40k be dangerous to every other unit. It's a question central to 40k strategy because up to this point we've had kind of a rock paper scissors thing going on between tough units (tanks, Monstrous creatures), massed infantry, and special weapons (devastators, heavy destroyers). Special weapons work best against tough units, tough units work best against infantry, and infantry is strong against fragile units with big guns. 40K is poorly balanced ATM so many of exceptions exist, but that seems to be the intention.

The answer in AoS was just to slather on wounds on big stompy units, so it was common to see monsters with 20+ wounds. They then give heavy weapons the ability to deal multiple wounds per hit, and the trinity is maintained, sort of. As a Necron player, I'm used to glancing things to death, but that's not the general experience in 40k. Most people would feel weird with a gun line of marines picking a land raider apart with bolters.

 Grimgold wrote:
I enjoyed it because it sped up play, it also made everything dangerous, but that's the question, should every unit in 40k be dangerous to every other unit. It's a question central to 40k strategy because up to this point we've had kind of a rock paper scissors thing going on between tough units (tanks, Monstrous creatures), massed infantry, and special weapons (devastators, heavy destroyers). Special weapons work best against tough units, tough units work best against infantry, and infantry is strong against fragile units with big guns. 40K is poorly balanced ATM so many of exceptions exist, but that seems to be the intention.

The answer in AoS was just to slather on wounds on big stompy units, so it was common to see monsters with 20+ wounds. They then give heavy weapons the ability to deal multiple wounds per hit, and the trinity is maintained, sort of. As a Necron player, I'm used to glancing things to death, but that's not the general experience in 40k. Most people would feel weird with a gun line of marines picking a land raider apart with bolters.

You reminded me, there are vehicles in 40K. And I don't really know how are they going to be affected in the new system. But I personally things multiple wound monster that decrease effectiveness as it takes more damage, which was mentioned in previous leaks is good and the new system is acceptable, but not the damages going to another model, the damage should work like a model hit by a D weapon, extra damage just kill that model harder. And then monsters should gain the ability to kill a mob of infantry in a shooting and/or combat, templates are an option, increasing their number of attacks may be another, but everything should make sense.

Unless I missed something I don't think the major changes are out, We have rough descriptions of mechanics but no actual mechanics. Until we see the actual ranges for rending and the actual ranges for saves we don't have anything to go by.

For instance, I would like to see Invul saves converted into a counter to rending.

Terminator has a 2+ armor and a 2 invul.

Someone shoot it with a rending 4 shot (Would give the terminator a 6+ save) but the invul reduces that to rending 2. (giving the Terminator a 4+ save).

How exactly will the saves and rending work? We don't know. You have too many unknowns to do any math that means anything.

Lets hope it doesnt exist WITH AP

Because if Heavy Bolters have -1, EVERYONE will Spam them, as they would have AP4, and make 3+ a 4+...

The second you ditch the concept of saves being tied to dice rolls (for ex, "A 2+ save!"), and instead make it based on a armor rating scale affected by rending which translates into saves, you get more granularity among units. ("your rending reduces my armor rating from 10 to 8, so my save is still 2+").

The question is how much reshaping is actually going to happen. I really don't think this change is necessary to balance 40k. The current state of things is fine, if they would just adjust point costs, and make a few things more viable with minor tweaks.

Additionally, by making basic rules for units free, they could update them frequently, so there'd be more balance as time goes by. It's ridiculous that you have to wait for an entirely new addition to address fundamental overcosting / undercosting of units.

The basic issue with the fixed hit/wound mechanism is that the primary reason people give for needing it is bulls***.

People claim that the to-hit/to-wound charts are too complicated and fixed values make the game easier to learn, ignoring the fact that you need to learn the to-hit/to-wound chart ONCE and the AoS mechanism requires a set of unique stats for every weapon.

You need to know (approximately) twenty numbers before you've memorized the to-hit/to-wound charts (six cases of "if S is (T+/-X) then the target number is (Y)", three cases of "if attacker's WS is (defender's +/-X) then target number is (Y)", and the simple relationship between BS and target number ("target number is 7-BS").).

So after that overhead a unit in 40k requires you to know a nine-number statline and a four-number statline per gun or special close combat weapon.

But a unit in AoS requires you to know a four-number statline, a six-number unarmed-melee statline if the unit doesn't have a special melee weapon, and an extra six-number statline per weapon.

And weapon statlines in AoS can't be independent of model statlines, because the to-hit values have been taken off the model stat and attached solely to the weapon.

So in 40k I need to know four values to know what a boltgun does (24" range, S4, AP5, Rapid Fire). In AoS I'd need six numbers, but I'd need six numbers per unit that could possibly be equipped with a boltgun. (Stopped counting at thirty units after three Codexes).

If you wanted an AoS-style statline you'd be nuking one small table to introduce a mountain of extra tables in the name of simplifying the game, on top of killing customizability and granularity.

And all this is before people suggest adding distinct anti-tank to-wound values to make Guard Conscripts unable to kill Land Raiders.

I will have no opinion until I see actual rules. All the rumors are intriguing, but they're still just rumors. Everything leaked by the company itself is suspect until I see it in print and in the greater context of other rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I will have no opinion until I see actual rules. All the rumors are intriguing, but they're still just rumors. Everything leaked by the company itself is suspect until I see it in print and in the greater context of other rules.

This, plus they actually state 'we are trying out these rules....'

I doubt we will see the return of many of them, given that some of them actually *slow the game down* instead of speeding it up...

Using the example from Hive Fleet Charybdis blog for Tactical Marine. It would look like:

W: 2 M: 5" Sv:4+ Br: 8
Bolter - Rng: 24" A: 2 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 4+ Rend: -1 Dmg: 1
Hvy Wpn - Rng: 36" A: 1 ToHit: 4+ ToWnd: 3+ Rend: -1 Dmg: 1d3
Models: 5-10 Points: 160 (battleline)
Rule: 1 marine may carry heavy weapon.
Rule: 1 marine may be vet sgt with +1 melee attack
Rule: Rapid Fire - If unit doesn't move it gets +1 attack per model with bolter or heavy bolter.
Hvy bolter can be replaced:
-- Flame (9" range) d3 mortal
-- Las -2 rend,
-- Grav: saved wounds wound, non-saved ones don't
-- Melta: Double damage vs Vehicles
-- Missile: +1 damage vs groups of 5+
-- Plasma: 6 is mortal wounds, 1 is mortal wound on firer


Assuming that is close to the normal stats. It means a 5 man tactical squad would look like:

Tactical Squad: 1 vet sgt, 3 tactical marines, 1 heavy bolter (160) or
Tactical Squad: 1 vet sgt, 8 tactical marines, 1 heavy bolter (320)

That results in actually less figures on the table troop wise, then now. But they may actually be far more useful. The game as it stands right now, if you play in a tournament would die before you got to play them from Barrage fire. My current area Meta means my opponent will field 4 to 6 Wyverns. Resulting in any exposed troops dying near instantly.