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:
I am....not excited about most changes. In fact, I doubt if I even bother to play the new edition.

I am a tank fan, I love Steel Panthers and started playing Tau when they had cool tanks, and stopped when they didn't. I don't like the AV system being dropped. First of all, "everything can hurt everything" is lazy and unrealistic damage modelling. Second, vehicles getting MC profiles makes it very difficult to maintain both balance between tanks/MC's and weapons meant to hurt them, while keeping the tanks realistically modelled and believable (ie. they can be blown up by 1 sufficiently powerful hit, or lose mobility, weapons etc). People harp about Lasguns hurting a Leman Russ - but what about Lascannon? Presumably, Lascannon hit makes more wounds. Lets say it makes 1d6 wounds. This makes a Lascannon very dangerous against multi-wound characters, as it is now. It also makes it dangerous against infantry, which it isn't now. But I think we can assume a tank has more than 6 Wounds. Otherwise, it is way too easy to kill with Lasguns. For comparison, in AoS Empire Steam Tank has 12 wounds and 3+ save. If we take that as an example, it would be reasonable for Lascannon to do 2d6 wounds - a really lucky shot could one-shot it, most of the time you just do serious damage. Looks good, no?

But 2d6 would be crazy powerful against infantry units. So we need to balance it out with some additional rule that it only does 2d6 against Vehicles, and 1d6 against other targets. So as you see, we already need to start making exceptions for Vehicles anyway which defeats the purpose of simplification. Otherwise we dumb the game down too much. Oh, and we also need a rule for Vehicles to make them immune against Poison attacks.

The point is that why is any of this needed? AV system hardly was in need of rebalance. It was simple and intuitive and realistic. That is how armoured vehicles work in real life! It's what people expect. What you don't see in real life is enemies finishing up M1A1 with Kalashnikovs. And please, don't bring "we have aliens and superhumans and space magic, it's not realistic anyway" to this. Even a fictional setting needs its own internal sets of rules and logic which things work. Otherwise why doesn't, say, Marneus Calgar have a pistol which has same stats as Railgun.

Another aspect with AoS type progressive wounding is that now Vehicles will always die in same way. "Well, it has taken 2 wounds, lets take the Heavy Bolter off." I play 40k because it is a visual, cinematic experience. Rolling scatter for Blast markers is fun. Tanks blowing up and leaving craters is fun. Slowly whittling down hit points like in badly designed RTS game? Not cinematic or fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Land Raider has a minimum of six observation points be it cameras or periscopes. Which are also armored and are not easy to disable.

Cameras are armoured? Not easy to disable? Says who? You? How well armoured?

There are a lot of moving parts on those sponsons as well. Hinge joints.

If they have perfected super powerful Laser weapons and armour penetrating Bolter rounds, not unreasonable to assume they have also developed armoured Camera lenses and super-durable joints, no?

for multiwound dealing "tankbusting" weapons it would be as easy as slipping in a rule that all wounds are dealt to a single model, here's to hoping that was thought of. I'd really like my IG HWT to be relevant again and not haves the question i get now "Why do you bring those?" be a thing anymore but i do think the certain weapons should be geared towards certain targets. I would love to see a chaos knight barreling towards a ruin full of lascannon teams as they desperately try and gun it down, but that same scenario with a hoard of cultists instead doesn't sit well in my mind.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given how awful tanks are in 7E, and the numerous ways the 8E system could shape up, I'm not torn up by the changes.

As a diehard treadhead and the bitterest of bittervets, this isn't the most awful thing in the world to happen to tanks.

Ideal? No, but it's better than having both AV and HP's, and is easier to balance overall. We'll have to see what it actually looks like before condemning it too hard. If 100 lasgun shots might only average 1 wound on a 20 wound Russ tank, well, that'll be fine.

Basically, this.

A lot will come down to specific implementation. We have yet to see whether there is a new to-wound chart, we have yet to see what a light vehicles wounds value is, hell we don't even know what their saves will be (remember, we have save mods now, and WFB had a possibility of 0+ saves). In all honesty, vehicles have been kind of for a long time. Their only purpose was to be slightly mobile heavy weapons and a great many weapons on the field just made an absolute mockery of them.

So while it is possible for a unified damage system to utterly screw vehicles, they are already pretty screwed and in no small part due to the AV system and being some of the few things in the game to be reliably one-shot even with lower strength weapons (compared to high-end anti-tank).

Giving vehicles the same "filters" as other models (i.e. toughness, a save, and wounds) has the ability to make them a great deal more durable and reliable than they have been. And making Monstrous Creatures "suffer" from the same performance degradation means that we can finally have Dreadnaughts fighting daemons like the Emperor intended.

So we'll need to see how it goes, but it has a lot of potential to fix the things that are currently wrong with vehicles if it is done right.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.

No, but pour enough shots into it and eventually it might hit an exposed part or weaken an area enough to cause damage. Since Terminators are said to have armour like a tank should they also be completely immune to small-arms fire?

First of all armor like a tank is too broad of a term to have an argument about, especially considering the diversity of vehicles in 40k. Second, terminator armor being body armor is inevitably going to have weaker parts like visors or joints. It's juat that they are extremely hard to land s shot on.
An undamaged LR doesn't have that. Having a LR being damaged by some anti-tank weapon means there is such a weapon on the field and even still the whole shoot the damaged part thing is really fishy. But that's not my point.
Realistically the only thing a lot of autoguns would be able to achieve against and undamaged LR is to maybe damage it's visors.

Well lets see if guardsmen poured enough fire to track the Raider, blind the vision blocks, knock out the unarmored guns, blow out the unarmored machine spirit, kill the tank commander and rip up the exhaust ports.....is not the Land Raider dead? The hull remains undamaged.

Guns are armored, save the pintle mounted storm bolter. Not to metion that heavy weaponry is typically pretty sturdy even withour armor, due to the fact that it has to withstand the power of it's own shots. Machine spirit is perfectly safe inside the tank's hull so is it's crew. Only the very top part of exhaust pipes is unarmored but damaging them would give no useful effect in battle at all.

They are armored laterally not frontally and have exposed optics and power cabling. Your next remark makes zero sense what so ever. A barrel and bolt housing only have to withstand the PSI generated by the firing of the round not its "power" whatever that means. The actual machine spirit by canon is the optic system located to the left of the heavy bolters and thus unarmored. The tank commander rides in the open and so will the driver if the vision blocks are impaired, most causalities on a tank is the tank commander from small arms fire. Damaging exhaust would cause significant issues to a tank plus the exhaust all includes most of the ridged back of the raider, which directly leads to the engine.

Erm, what? You do realise that to withstand the pressure you have to buld the barrel out of really durable material, making it pretty much impossible to damage by small arms fire during real combat?
Here's a picture just for you:

The mahine spirit is 2. See how its inside the hull? You know, under the armor and only has wiring connecting it to the sensor?
Do you think that tank commander is somehow unable to get back inside the vehicle and will be hanging out of commander’s cupola untill he is shot dead? Because that's not what happens at all.
Sure, you can maybe knock of the very top part of the exhaust. However I have hard time seeing how this is going in any way impaire the LR in it's current battle scince it's not going to block the gas from coming out.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

There are 3 points. Machine Spirit, Driver and Tank Commander. Disabling any of those would be a significant issue.

IKR. Shame lasguns won't be able to do anything to them since they'll all be inside the hull during intence gunfire.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

As for every other comment, you don't seem to know much about how weaponry or armor works. But if you want to keep going on the 'realistic' bent you have your going to keep getting shown why your realism is fantasy.

Ahh, the good old "im smart ur dumb" argument.

Just a point on one thing that was mentioned...
Do we think there will be Grand Alliance equivalents?
Especially considering the fact that GW have confirmed today there are only 5 books... Space marines in one codex, Armies of the Imperium in another and "there's a book with a couple of xenos armies in it"
Considering outside of Marines and even if we say ALL other Imperial factions there are just three books to fit in Orks, Nids (Genestealer cult will likely be thrown in with nids), Chaos (including Daemons), Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons and more interestingly a NEW faction by release day there is going to be a grouping together of the factions...

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:


Yeah 50 guardsmen won't do the job. But what if it was 100 or more? What if they had BS modifiers or rerolls? I mean yeah thats a ton of models, so thats not really a good example. Bet we've got things like skitarii vanguard that have great BS and they make 3 shots. Does that justify a ton of them killing a LR? Of course it doesn't it's still a freaking LR. Taping a ton of rifles together does not make them into an anti-tank cannon, that's not how this works.

No, but pour enough shots into it and eventually it might hit an exposed part or weaken an area enough to cause damage. Since Terminators are said to have armour like a tank should they also be completely immune to small-arms fire?

First of all armor like a tank is too broad of a term to have an argument about, especially considering the diversity of vehicles in 40k. Second, terminator armor being body armor is inevitably going to have weaker parts like visors or joints. It's juat that they are extremely hard to land s shot on.
An undamaged LR doesn't have that. Having a LR being damaged by some anti-tank weapon means there is such a weapon on the field and even still the whole shoot the damaged part thing is really fishy. But that's not my point.
Realistically the only thing a lot of autoguns would be able to achieve against and undamaged LR is to maybe damage it's visors.

Well lets see if guardsmen poured enough fire to track the Raider, blind the vision blocks, knock out the unarmored guns, blow out the unarmored machine spirit, kill the tank commander and rip up the exhaust ports.....is not the Land Raider dead? The hull remains undamaged.

Guns are armored, save the pintle mounted storm bolter. Not to metion that heavy weaponry is typically pretty sturdy even withour armor, due to the fact that it has to withstand the power of it's own shots. Machine spirit is perfectly safe inside the tank's hull so is it's crew. Only the very top part of exhaust pipes is unarmored but damaging them would give no useful effect in battle at all.

They are armored laterally not frontally and have exposed optics and power cabling. Your next remark makes zero sense what so ever. A barrel and bolt housing only have to withstand the PSI generated by the firing of the round not its "power" whatever that means. The actual machine spirit by canon is the optic system located to the left of the heavy bolters and thus unarmored. The tank commander rides in the open and so will the driver if the vision blocks are impaired, most causalities on a tank is the tank commander from small arms fire. Damaging exhaust would cause significant issues to a tank plus the exhaust all includes most of the ridged back of the raider, which directly leads to the engine.

Erm, what? You do realise that to withstand the pressure you have to buld the barrel out of really durable material, making it pretty much impossible to damage by small arms fire during real combat?
Here's a picture just for you:

Spoiler:

The mahine spirit is 2. See how its inside the hull? You know, under the armor and only has wiring connecting it to the sensor?
Do you think that tank commander is somehow unable to get back inside the vehicle and will be hanging out of commander’s cupola untill he is shot dead? Because that's not what happens at all.
Sure, you can maybe knock of the very top part of the exhaust. However I have hard time seeing how this is going in any way impaire the LR in it's current battle scince it's not going to block the gas from coming out.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

There are 3 points. Machine Spirit, Driver and Tank Commander. Disabling any of those would be a significant issue.

IKR. Shame lasguns won't be able to do anything to them since they'll all be inside the hull during intence gunfire.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

As for every other comment, you don't seem to know much about how weaponry or armor works. But if you want to keep going on the 'realistic' bent you have your going to keep getting shown why your realism is fantasy.

Ahh, the good old "im smart ur dumb" argument.

Please stop filling the rumor thread with this nonsense. I've had to sift through this ridiculous conversation for actual interesting content all day.

I'm pretty sure there are separate forums for this, maybe take it there?

Not a mod (obviously), just a humble lurker who wants to read about the new edition.

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Just a point on one thing that was mentioned...
Do we think there will be Grand Alliance equivalents?
Especially considering the fact that GW have confirmed today there are only 5 books... Space marines in one codex, Armies of the Imperium in another and "there's a book with a couple of xenos armies in it"
Considering outside of Marines and even if we say ALL other Imperial factions there are just three books to fit in Orks, Nids (Genestealer cult will likely be thrown in with nids), Chaos (including Daemons), Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons and more interestingly a NEW faction by release day there is going to be a grouping together of the factions...

What we deem as a "faction" is not the same in AoS as it is in 40k.

Faction in 40k: Eldar, Orks, Dark Eldar, etc.
Faction in AoS: Ironweld Arsenal, Wanderers, Everchosen, Shadowblades...

There are some factions that consist of as few as 3 unit types.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

yeah just because you CAN damage a tank, doesn't mean you WILL. prtty sure you'll need dedicated anti-tank to kill a LR

But if the Lasguns have so negligible chance of hurting a tank, why even give them such a chance in the first place? Seems pretty pointless and only serves to bog down the game, as I said.

Probably so that if you run into a situation where you get a pick-up game of tanks versus Grots, you might be inclined to give it a go rather than just throw in the towel before deploying even?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/just-bought-a-codex-dont-worry-weve-got-you-covered/

You can claim a voucher no matter where you bought your codex and/or rulebook, as long as you have your proof of purchase and it’s dated between the 25th of February 2017 and the 22nd of April 2017.

There's more news to come tomorrow yes?

 Ronin_eX wrote:

A lot will come down to specific implementation. We have yet to see whether there is a new to-wound chart, we have yet to see what a light vehicles wounds value is, hell we don't even know what their saves will be (remember, we have save mods now, and WFB had a possibility of 0+ saves). In all honesty, vehicles have been kind of for a long time. Their only purpose was to be slightly mobile heavy weapons and a great many weapons on the field just made an absolute mockery of them.

So while it is possible for a unified damage system to utterly screw vehicles, they are already pretty screwed and in no small part due to the AV system and being some of the few things in the game to be reliably one-shot even with lower strength weapons (compared to high-end anti-tank).

Giving vehicles the same "filters" as other models (i.e. toughness, a save, and wounds) has the ability to make them a great deal more durable and reliable than they have been.

My viewpoint was not from the point of whether vehicles are "screwed" or not, it is whether they are fun and intuitive to play. As said, if the "fix" is to make them RTS type hit point piles which have to be slowly whittled down, then I would rather have current "flawed" system, thank you.

Also, this new system is just as hard, if not harder, to balance vehicles right, because now one has to figure in every weapon in the game. It is going to be incredibly tight rope between having too few Wounds, and having too many.

 Azazelx wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Land Raider has a minimum of six observation points be it cameras or periscopes. Which are also armored and are not easy to disable.

Cameras are armoured? Not easy to disable? Says who? You? How well armoured?

There are a lot of moving parts on those sponsons as well. Hinge joints. Yeah, I know. "they are armoured hinges that are not easy to disable."


I'm out. No point in arguing with a total mark for something on the internet.

Oh, are we going there? Allright, exactly how much power does a lasgun have?
Ahh, joints. Those massive parts made entirely of metal. I know, what a jucy target for a lasgun.
LR is described as one of the most durable vehicles in all 40k able do withstand ridiculous amounts of punishment. There is only GW to blame for them deciding that lasgun or even autogun fire can somehow bring it down.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:


Please stop filling the rumor thread with this nonsense. I've had to sift through this ridiculous conversation for actual interesting content all day.

I'm pretty sure there are separate forums for this, maybe take it there?

Not a mod (obviously), just a humble lurker who wants to read about the new edition.

Ok.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Backfire wrote:

But if the Lasguns have so negligible chance of hurting a tank, why even give them such a chance in the first place? Seems pretty pointless and only serves to bog down the game, as I said.

Probably so that if you run into a situation where you get a pick-up game of tanks versus Grots, you might be inclined to give it a go rather than just throw in the towel before deploying even?

Then you deploy the Grot Tanks, obviously!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Just a point on one thing that was mentioned...
Do we think there will be Grand Alliance equivalents?
Especially considering the fact that GW have confirmed today there are only 5 books... Space marines in one codex, Armies of the Imperium in another and "there's a book with a couple of xenos armies in it"
Considering outside of Marines and even if we say ALL other Imperial factions there are just three books to fit in Orks, Nids (Genestealer cult will likely be thrown in with nids), Chaos (including Daemons), Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons and more interestingly a NEW faction by release day there is going to be a grouping together of the factions...

What we deem as a "faction" is not the same in AoS as it is in 40k.

Faction in 40k: Eldar, Orks, Dark Eldar, etc.
Faction in AoS: Ironweld Arsenal, Wanderers, Everchosen, Shadowblades...

There are some factions that consist of as few as 3 unit types.

Exactly my point, three books to fit in all of those 40K FACTIONS (orks, nids,crons, all types of eldar, chaos, Tau and a NEW FACTION) watch the video the question was asked will there be a new faction we haven't seen before? "yes", "for release day" was the answer. They have 5 books coming out. ONLY 5 and two of those are Imperium, that was confirmed today in the Warhammer TV livestream now available on Facebook. SO my question was will there be a 40k equivalent of Grand Alliances? for example Eldar and Tau? etc.

Appreciate it!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
There's more news to come tomorrow yes?

There sure is, everyday until release they say.

Good thing about KO having another 2 weeks of releases means the next WD really will be chock full of new goodies!

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
There's more news to come tomorrow yes?

There sure is, everyday until release they say.

Good thing about KO having another 2 weeks of releases means the next WD really will be chock full of new goodies!

*claps and squees*

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Not insanely armoured in all places cube of death vs puny lasgun fire combat. Damaging land raider's cameras and smoke launchers is the best you can hope to achieve here. [...] Oh, are we going there? Allright, exactly how much power does a lasgun have?

I went into detail here;

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1290/719678.page#9301631

But yes, a bunch of lasguns should be able to punch through a LR, unless you hand-wave a magic shield around it.

and even if they couldn't (but they could) it makes sense to allow it in order to fix the horrid broken gameplay.

I'm super excited about these changes. Around a month ago, I made a post here saying what I considered too be the greatest flaws in the 40k rules. My main points were these:
-It takes ages to complete a game, and for just under half of that you're doing absolutely nothing, which isn't fun
-A lot of mechanics are extremely clunky, e.g. flyers instantly crashing if they are forced over ground infantry
-The cost of entry is very high
-There are several rules restricting design space, e.g. sweeping advance is too penalising so leadership is invalidated; hull points are almost universally too low other than on Knights
-Various parts of the game are outright broken; psychic powers are ridiculously swingy, maelstrom objectives are way too random, summoning is ridiculous
-Multiple units are outright broken; see Knights, Riptides, Daemon psykers, half the Eldar codex, etc; in the case of Eldar, they've been overpowered in every single edition other than 5th, which is insane.

So, what have they tried to fix according to the Q&A today? Well, basically all of that. They explicitly came out saying they wanted games to be shorter, they've reworked almost the whole core rules from the sounds of it and the units have apparently had the most time ever spent balancing them with community input. Fantastic news honestly.

I actually love the vehicle changes. The vehicle rules in 40k have been rubbish ever since they were introduced - they've never once been balanced. Either they were too quick or too tough or too frail; not once have they ever been a "I might take this as an option", they've been one of a brain dead pick or a total reject in every single edition so far. In 5e, it got so bad that everyone without many cheap tanks (aka everyone but the imperial factions) was screwed, yet in 6e they might as well have been made of paper mache. The best part of the rules for them at the moment is that armour values give some tactical value to flanking, but even then that mostly just became deep strike behind + melta rather than actually encouraging manoeuvring to fire, for the simple reason that to hit rear armour otherwise means running into a wall of guns recklessly. The vehicle damage chart is likewise terrible in my opinion for the same reason that strength D and instant death are terrible: it's fun to see centrepiece models do something cool. Know what's really not fun? Taking a model which took a long time to paint and cost many points, just to immediately remove it because the first shot of the game made it die like a cheapo drop pod thanks to a lucky roll. It's degenerative to the game and I'll be glad to see it vanish. On top of that, performance degrading with wounds lost means that there's less randomness and fewer things to track, as well as less charts to learn; plus, it's also quite cool to think of a tank slowly being whittled down, chundering onwards until the track come off and the guns can't fire. It also cuts out 27 pages of rules, most of which are exceptions like explaining how, even though AV14 acts nearly identically to T10, it's not actually T10 because of immunity to S7, how tanks can shuffle infantry around but other vehicles and monstrous creatures can't for some reason, and why the most armoured things in the game don't get an armour save, trading it for a roll on a table which might instantly kill them instead. It also helps prevent silly games where someone takes a mechanised army and the other person can't do anything with 75% of their army as they can't harm tanks. More durable, less random, easier to explain, less bookkeeping, arguable more thematic - what's not to love?

I'm assuming the release day faction will be death guard.

This monstrosity of a post:


It's Off Topic. We've had a number of on-topic warnings in the past few days. I'm very close to locking this thread and making you all take the discussion to a new, heavily moderated thread. That's right, we'll do stealth edits and play pranks. We'll put words in your mouth and set you against the people in your Friends list.

STAY.

ON.

TOPIC.

It's not hard.

Eyjio wrote:
I'm super excited about these changes. Around a month ago, I made a post here saying what I considered too be the greatest flaws in the 40k rules. My main points were these:
-It takes ages to complete a game, and for just under half of that you're doing absolutely nothing, which isn't fun
-A lot of mechanics are extremely clunky, e.g. flyers instantly crashing if they are forced over ground infantry
-The cost of entry is very high
-There are several rules restricting design space, e.g. sweeping advance is too penalising so leadership is invalidated; hull points are almost universally too low other than on Knights
-Various parts of the game are outright broken; psychic powers are ridiculously swingy, maelstrom objectives are way too random, summoning is ridiculous
-Multiple units are outright broken; see Knights, Riptides, Daemon psykers, half the Eldar codex, etc; in the case of Eldar, they've been overpowered in every single edition other than 5th, which is insane.

So, what have they tried to fix according to the Q&A today? Well, basically all of that. They explicitly came out saying they wanted games to be shorter, they've reworked almost the whole core rules from the sounds of it and the units have apparently had the most time ever spent balancing them with community input. Fantastic news honestly.

I actually love the vehicle changes. The vehicle rules in 40k have been rubbish ever since they were introduced - they've never once been balanced. Either they were too quick or too tough or too frail; not once have they ever been a "I might take this as an option", they've been one of a brain dead pick or a total reject in every single edition so far. In 5e, it got so bad that everyone without many cheap tanks (aka everyone but the imperial factions) was screwed, yet in 6e they might as well have been made of paper mache. The best part of the rules for them at the moment is that armour values give some tactical value to flanking, but even then that mostly just became deep strike behind + melta rather than actually encouraging manoeuvring to fire, for the simple reason that to hit rear armour otherwise means running into a wall of guns recklessly. The vehicle damage chart is likewise terrible in my opinion for the same reason that strength D and instant death are terrible: it's fun to see centrepiece models do something cool. Know what's really not fun? Taking a model which took a long time to paint and cost many points, just to immediately remove it because the first shot of the game made it die like a cheapo drop pod thanks to a lucky roll. It's degenerative to the game and I'll be glad to see it vanish. On top of that, performance degrading with wounds lost means that there's less randomness and fewer things to track, as well as less charts to learn; plus, it's also quite cool to think of a tank slowly being whittled down, chundering onwards until the track come off and the guns can't fire. It also cuts out 27 pages of rules, most of which are exceptions like explaining how, even though AV14 acts nearly identically to T10, it's not actually T10 because of immunity to S7, how tanks can shuffle infantry around but other vehicles and monstrous creatures can't for some reason, and why the most armoured things in the game don't get an armour save, trading it for a roll on a table which might instantly kill them instead. It also helps prevent silly games where someone takes a mechanised army and the other person can't do anything with 75% of their army as they can't harm tanks. More durable, less random, easier to explain, less bookkeeping, arguable more thematic - what's not to love?

Exalting for pure dedication. That's a freaking paragraph lol

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm assuming the release day faction will be death guard.

That's hardly a new faction though, That's just Chaos Marines

I'm very excited for the armor modifiers. I've always felt a little stiffed by the AP system. Both my 30k and 40k Dangles in the fluff love their swords, but there wasn't a ton of reason to put them on my characters for obvious crunch reasons (why would a praetor take an AP3 weapon in a world full of artificer armor?)

With this change though, while my swords will never have the armor penetration of a power fist per say, at least they won't be entirely invalidated.

This means I can play a fluffy game with fluffy gear and not be resigned to losing!

Eyjio wrote:

I actually love the vehicle changes. The vehicle rules in 40k have been rubbish ever since they were introduced - they've never once been balanced. Either they were too quick or too tough or too frail; not once have they ever been a "I might take this as an option", they've been one of a brain dead pick or a total reject in every single edition so far. In 5e, it got so bad that everyone without many cheap tanks (aka everyone but the imperial factions) was screwed, yet in 6e they might as well have been made of paper mache. The best part of the rules for them at the moment is that armour values give some tactical value to flanking, but even then that mostly just became deep strike behind + melta rather than actually encouraging manoeuvring to fire, for the simple reason that to hit rear armour otherwise means running into a wall of guns recklessly. The vehicle damage chart is likewise terrible in my opinion for the same reason that strength D and instant death are terrible: it's fun to see centrepiece models do something cool. Know what's really not fun? Taking a model which took a long time to paint and cost many points, just to immediately remove it because the first shot of the game made it die like a cheapo drop pod thanks to a lucky roll. It's degenerative to the game and I'll be glad to see it vanish. On top of that, performance degrading with wounds lost means that there's less randomness and fewer things to track, as well as less charts to learn; plus, it's also quite cool to think of a tank slowly being whittled down, chundering onwards until the track come off and the guns can't fire. It also cuts out 27 pages of rules, most of which are exceptions like explaining how, even though AV14 acts nearly identically to T10, it's not actually T10 because of immunity to S7, how tanks can shuffle infantry around but other vehicles and monstrous creatures can't for some reason, and why the most armoured things in the game don't get an armour save, trading it for a roll on a table which might instantly kill them instead. It also helps prevent silly games where someone takes a mechanised army and the other person can't do anything with 75% of their army as they can't harm tanks. More durable, less random, easier to explain, less bookkeeping, arguable more thematic - what's not to love?

Well, I can only agree to disagree. I guess it comes down to whether one likes Steel Panthers or Red Alert. I happen to prefer Steel Panthers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
I'm very excited for the armor modifiers. I've always felt a little stiffed by the AP system. Both my 30k and 40k Dangles in the fluff love their swords, but there wasn't a ton of reason to put them on my characters for obvious crunch reasons (why would a praetor take an AP3 weapon in a world full of artificer armor?)

With this change though, while my swords will never have the armor penetration of a power fist per say, at least they won't be entirely invalidated.

This means I can play a fluffy game with fluffy gear and not be resigned to losing!

Power Swords being to situational was one of the down sides of present AP system, true.
However I am afraid what Armour Save modifier system does to Terminators. There probably will be tons of Rend on the battlefield...

That's why Lorek is my favorite moderator! You sux, Alph!


On topic: they did say that all 5 (!) faction books are available on release; right? Is something going to be limited print? Core rules?


"- 40k rules will have free PDF digital + printed store copies"

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Just a point on one thing that was mentioned...
Do we think there will be Grand Alliance equivalents?
Especially considering the fact that GW have confirmed today there are only 5 books... Space marines in one codex, Armies of the Imperium in another and "there's a book with a couple of xenos armies in it"
Considering outside of Marines and even if we say ALL other Imperial factions there are just three books to fit in Orks, Nids (Genestealer cult will likely be thrown in with nids), Chaos (including Daemons), Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons and more interestingly a NEW faction by release day there is going to be a grouping together of the factions...

I think it will be Astartes, Armies of the Imperium, Chaos. Then it will be Eldar/Aeldari (the four current factions, maybe something new) and the rest of xeno races (Orks, Tyranids, Necrons, Tau and Genestealers)

 kronk wrote:

On topic: they did say that all 5 (!) faction books are available on release; right? Is something going to be limited print? Core rules?

I understand they meant that 5 armies will get codices at launch, other will get AoS type conversions at launch and full codices later.

We'll put words in your mouth and set you against the people in your Friends list.

Ha! I don't have any friends!

But seriously pleased with all these changes, not a single thing I have a problem with, at least in principle.

Will be nice to want to play 40K again, and it will be even better now I've got other games to play so I'm not stuck with it if it goes down the toilet again.

Backfire wrote:

 kronk wrote:

On topic: they did say that all 5 (!) faction books are available on release; right? Is something going to be limited print? Core rules?

I understand they meant that 5 armies will get codices at launch, other will get AoS type conversions at launch and full codices later.

Seems like either way everyone will be able to play right away, just a matter of how many unique rules you get right off the bat.

I tend to subscribe to all armies in 5 books though, so we'll see.

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm assuming the release day faction will be death guard.

That's hardly a new faction though, That's just Chaos Marines

It's best to keep expectations in check. Death Guard are a new faction under the Chaos listing. Expecting DG are the teased new faction but then again, there were already revealed so weird why they wouldn't just say the new faction was DG.

Yes, they said big and cheap, so it seems to me they are going to be releasing the Grand Alliance style books from AOS. Grand Alliance Order, Chaos, Death, Destruction.