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.

I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange. Relative speeds of infantry and vehicles are not realistic. Ranges of weapons are not realistic, etc
Who knows how powerful a lasgun is. It is a made up weapon.
On top of that I always imagined that everything in 40k was super ancient and run down. Maybe that land raider was bullet proof when it rolled off the production line 500 years ago but now it is held together by duct tape and a prayer to the machine God.
There is also the point that this is a game not a simulation.

We will have to see how this plays out in the long run but I am optimistic that it will make for a more enjoyable gaming experience.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

That's generally what To Hit rolls represent! Once you've hit though, BOOM. Not, "I hit and... one guy managed to die in the explosion, whereas the others were miraculously unharmed!".

Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My issue with the lack of templates is that it just doesn't make sense.

I fire a Demolisher cannon at you and roll a 1... so the most powerful tank-portable explosive the Imperium can muster manages to hit 1 guy with a massive explosion? How does that make any sense?

There is plenty of potential in-lore explanations. E.g. The shot deviating massively and the explosion only hitting one guy, the explosion happening in a way that the brunt of the explosion gets blocked by terrain or other things to the dud downright being a dud or malfunctioning for a gazillion of reasons.

Most shots miss in war, but when a bloody great explosion goess off at the centre of 10 people, it's not like people get hit randomly by the expanding wave of fire and pressure. It hits everything.

Without a template involved the whole concept of you KNOWING that the shell explodid in the middle of the target goes right of the window. You don't. If the round was perfectly on target then you would have gotten the maximum number of hits instead. Just as is the case with any other non-template weapon.

Same applies to flame throwers. You don't wave a sheet of flame at 10 people and watch as 5+ of them just stand there wondering why their buddies are on fire.

Same as above, also if anything, many rules involving flaming templates don't make any realistic sense (e.g. how hitting models on different floors of a building is handled) either.

In many cases "realism" (which is extremely subjective as well considering we are talking about an universe with daemons, magic and Orks that can make anything happen if just enough believe in it) has to make way for fluid and sensical gameplay as well, there will always something to nitpick about when it comes to realism, especially when everyone values a different aspect of what they percieve to be realism in the game. E.g. the way the new rules are handled for vehicles both serves for more fluid, less complicated and intuitive gameplay while they are at the same time more realistic for ME, e.g. in my case wear and tear through repeated hits by guns and degrading effectiveness of a vehicle under fire not being currently simulated or tanks having to suffer from AT weapon ones-shots while Monstrous Creatures (including so heavily mechanized ones that they arguably already qualify as a vehicle) do not.

Chikout wrote:
I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange. Relative speeds of infantry and vehicles are not realistic. Ranges of weapons are not realistic, etc
Who knows how powerful a lasgun is. It is a made up weapon.
On top of that I always imagined that everything in 40k was super ancient and run down. Maybe that land raider was bullet proof when it rolled off the production line 500 years ago but now it is held together by duct tape and a prayer to the machine God.
There is also the point that this is a game not a simulation.

We will have to see how this plays out in the long run but I am optimistic that it will make for a more enjoyable gaming experience.

Exactly.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
These changes to vehicles and templates, from what we know, make no sense IMO, especially with the comment that anything can wound anything...

Let's take a real life example: WW2 Allied infantry firing rifles at a Tiger Tank.

The riflemen could stand there all day and all night firing away, and nothing would happen. Yeah, you might get a one in a million shot where a bullet goes down the barrel and richots inside the tank and kills all the crew, but I'm not buying that.

Did tank commanders hanging out of turrets get picked off by snipers? Of course they did, but 40k was never set up like that.

Even the WW2 'heavy bolter,' the .50 calibre machine gun wouldn't dent the Tiger Tank.

I have no problem with a heavy bolter taking out light vehicles, open topped vehicles, Ork trukks etc etc in 40k, but lasguns and heavy bolters against a land raider? Not for me

That AV 14 is there for a reason and well justified IMO.

The removal of templates is also bizarre. Flamethrowers shoot erratically in real life.

I suspect that most dakka members are also into military history/historical gaming as well, so you'll know that shrapnel from artillery fire flies all over the place, hence the template being needed.

If you've ever read WW2 infantry accounts from allied soldiers in say, Normandy, you'll know the Germans were good at air bursts with their mortar fire. This negated a lot of cover, and when fired in trees, the splinters of wood often caused casualties among the Allied troops.

This new edition needs templates.

There is no need for templates. You didnt even give any reasons why they should stay, you get the same result with '' pick a point of the board every unit with in 3" takes D3 hits.'' This 'new' system allows flexible rules for every blast or template effect instead of 3 cookie cutters. Scatter is a needless abstraction at this scale, i hope they die with the templates then i dont have to face palm when my battle tank shoot behind its self because 'reasons'.
Your historical referencing is pointless this is a scifi-fantasy game, emphasis on fantasy emphasis on game, and bad bad bad. If you really need to justify all this for your self then at least start with a semblance of whats being portrayed, a heavy bolter is not a 50.cal and lasgun is not a bolt action rifle. Ones a rpg/grenade launcher machine gun hybrid the other is a laser gun....

For a sci-fi game set in the 'future' you would think that optical sights and better ways of hitting the enemy would be more common...

The man that invents binoculars in the 40k setting will probably end up becoming head of Mars or something.

theocracity wrote:
Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?

Can' roll To Wound if they don't get hit in the first place.

If this is:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Now that you've hit, roll to see how many you actually hit!
3. Roll To Wound.

Then that's what this'd cause. If there's no initial To Hit roll, then that's a different story.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
These changes to vehicles and templates, from what we know, make no sense IMO, especially with the comment that anything can wound anything...

Let's take a real life example: WW2 Allied infantry firing rifles at a Tiger Tank.

oh no.....please....not this debate again, we've had pages and pages of it...

We won't know until we have the rules. It's going to be a careful balance and if they get it wrong either vehicles are going to be worthless (too easy to kill) or instant takes (too hard to kill). However it could work in an abstract way if the balance is right (including the reduction in the tanks abilities). I'm sad to see the changes in some ways (I still remember the days when you had a targeting template that you moved around based on the scatter dice roll to see what part you hit!), but understand that they are streamlining the game. The cynical side of me wonders though whether this benefits the tournament organisers (who have been involved the most) as it allows more games to be played, more players to get involved and them to earn more money...

The removal of templates is also bizarre. Flamethrowers shoot erratically in real life.

I suspect that most dakka members are also into military history/historical gaming as well, so you'll know that shrapnel from artillery fire flies all over the place, hence the template being needed.

If you've ever read WW2 infantry accounts from allied soldiers in say, Normandy, you'll know the Germans were good at air bursts with their mortar fire. This negated a lot of cover, and when fired in trees, the splinters of wood often caused casualties among the Allied troops.

This new edition needs templates.

I'm on the fence about templates. I do agree with what you have said and losing them also removes the possibility of flanking a unit in line and barbecuing them. Positioning your units in this way is no longer likely to have any advantage and hence flanking (especially for shooting will no longer be particularly useful) and also only gets you closer to an assault. On the other hand the number of template units, some being absolute monstrosities was getting out of hand for the size of the game. Templates I think are better for smaller skirmish games like Gates of Antares because there are far less units and stops all the shooting units hunkering down in the hardest terrain they can find. Removing templates also stops someone taking hours carefully placing miniatures to minimise splash damage.

I'm glad to see shooting into and out of combat has been consigned to the bin where it belongs.

The one thing I'm still not really keen on is the Battleshock rules as it is just too random. A poor round (even if neither opponent kills a lot) and then a bad roll could really neutralise a key unit and although there should be some statistical nuances in the game, randomness should not really be a deciding factor.

Worth emphasising this


Q: How will free rules be presented?

A: Digital and all of our stores and some independent stockiest will have a limited supply at launch in print format

if you want paper copies it sounds like you'll need to be quick

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Simple

Round was a dud,

It buried itself too deep before going off,

You missed the unit and only managed to cip one guy - Same as when your template scattered off target and did nothing

That's generally what To Hit rolls represent! Once you've hit though, BOOM. Not, "I hit and... one guy managed to die in the explosion, whereas the others were miraculously unharmed!".

 Mr Morden wrote:
Flamer thrower

The mechanism was playing up

low on fuel

badly aimed

I'd argue that's why flamers had such a short range, because at longer ranges all of the above would happen.

Flamers have a short range because it helps balance, again a high roll represents the flamer working normally - a low roll, bad aim, poor positioning, quick reactions by the target, fuel low, mixture wrong, - watch Aliens

40k is an abstraction of a fantasy universe full of larger than life characters.

I don't know what they've done since 3rd Edition to 7th edition that seems to have made it a Simulation of Entirely Quantified Weapons and Vehicles.

Chikout wrote:
I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange. Relative speeds of infantry and vehicles are not realistic. Ranges of weapons are not realistic, etc
Who knows how powerful a lasgun is. It is a made up weapon.
On top of that I always imagined that everything in 40k was super ancient and run down. Maybe that land raider was bullet proof when it rolled off the production line 500 years ago but now it is held together by duct tape and a prayer to the machine God.
There is also the point that this is a game not a simulation.

We will have to see how this plays out in the long run but I am optimistic that it will make for a more enjoyable gaming experience.

I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange.

So why does the game follow some arbitrary things from real life like laws of physics, weapons ranges, vehicle speeds, Armour protection etc etc but not others?

The game designers are making a considered decision to adopt some things but ignore others. They can't have it both ways, and they can't complain if somebody complains about it.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

If anyone is still going on about Lasguns not being able to hurt tanks and other vehicles (including light ones such as landspeeders that are even open topped) from the front, especially after hundreds of shots, and claiming that it's unrealistic, how about you guys come back with statemements by actual tank crew service personell to back your claims up? Lots of arm chair armoured vehicle and military experts in here with little to back up what they are furiously typing.

Also in real world that M1A2, completely undamaged and fresh from the factory, could be blown up by single anti-tank missile - something which can't happen in 8ED rules. So is that any more realistic then? And same will apply to that Carnifex btw so that issue won't be fixed. It is likely that average MC will have ~10 Wounds with maybe 4+ save, so they won't be one-shotted, and those Lasguns will do to them less damage than they do in 7Ed. So no, "suboptimal army" won't do any better under this system. Special weapons are still needed to deal with special threats.

As for templates, they are a cinematic element in a game which helps to make it feel more like a real battle and less abstract. One had to be cautious with them lest you blow up your own units. A normal roll to hit won't have that effect. Also, without templates, there is no reason NOT to keep your infantry units in a tight clump or block. Whilst this is not a big technical issue, it is going to make games look pretty silly.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

theocracity wrote:
Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?

Can' roll To Wound if they don't get hit in the first place.

If this is:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Now that you've hit, roll to see how many you actually hit!
3. Roll To Wound.

Then that's what this'd cause. If there's no initial To Hit roll, then that's a different story.

Can't believe I'm agreeing with you but this post.

Of course things go wrong in war with dud shells, and flamethrowers blowing up and I support that in any wargame 100% but IMO, the time for bad luck to affect a weapon should always be when you're trying to hit, never when you're trying to wound.

A successful hit roll in my book means you've paid your tax. You deserve the benefits for your success, subject to Armour saves of course where applicable.

Yes they can have it both ways if it means a more balanced and/or enjoyable game. This rule isn't realistic is not a good argument against it. The very fact it's a game makes it unrealistic.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
These changes to vehicles and templates, from what we know, make no sense IMO, especially with the comment that anything can wound anything...

Let's take a real life example: WW2 Allied infantry firing rifles at a Tiger Tank.

oh no.....please....not this debate again, we've had pages and pages of it...

We won't know until we have the rules. It's going to be a careful balance and if they get it wrong either vehicles are going to be worthless (too easy to kill) or instant takes (too hard to kill). However it could work in an abstract way if the balance is right (including the reduction in the tanks abilities). I'm sad to see the changes in some ways (I still remember the days when you had a targeting template that you moved around based on the scatter dice roll to see what part you hit!), but understand that they are streamlining the game. The cynical side of me wonders though whether this benefits the tournament organisers (who have been involved the most) as it allows more games to be played, more players to get involved and them to earn more money...

The removal of templates is also bizarre. Flamethrowers shoot erratically in real life.

I suspect that most dakka members are also into military history/historical gaming as well, so you'll know that shrapnel from artillery fire flies all over the place, hence the template being needed.

If you've ever read WW2 infantry accounts from allied soldiers in say, Normandy, you'll know the Germans were good at air bursts with their mortar fire. This negated a lot of cover, and when fired in trees, the splinters of wood often caused casualties among the Allied troops.

This new edition needs templates.

I'm on the fence about templates. I do agree with what you have said and losing them also removes the possibility of flanking a unit in line and barbecuing them. Positioning your units in this way is no longer likely to have any advantage and hence flanking (especially for shooting will no longer be particularly useful) and also only gets you closer to an assault. On the other hand the number of template units, some being absolute monstrosities was getting out of hand for the size of the game. Templates I think are better for smaller skirmish games like Gates of Antares because there are far less units and stops all the shooting units hunkering down in the hardest terrain they can find. Removing templates also stops someone taking hours carefully placing miniatures to minimise splash damage.

I'm glad to see shooting into and out of combat has been consigned to the bin where it belongs.

The one thing I'm still not really keen on is the Battleshock rules as it is just too random. A poor round (even if neither opponent kills a lot) and then a bad roll could really neutralise a key unit and although there should be some statistical nuances in the game, randomness should not really be a deciding factor.

People moving miniatures to minimize splash damage was never a problem for me, because real-life military units have a loose formation when moving and firing at any rate anyway.

This ain't Warhammer 1750ADk with everybody marching in line

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

theocracity wrote:
Isn't actual damage what To Wound rolls are supposed to represent?

Can' roll To Wound if they don't get hit in the first place.

If this is:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Now that you've hit, roll to see how many you actually hit!
3. Roll To Wound.

Then that's what this'd cause. If there's no initial To Hit roll, then that's a different story.

I believe there are still To Hit rolls for new-template weapons.

How is that breakdown substantially different from the current rules though? The only difference is that current 40k bake the 'To Hit' and 'How Many You Actually Hit' steps into the scatter step. If you scatter entirely you miss, and if you scatter so you only hit 1 model you didn't hit many. All of those scatter rules then function as an extended exception to the normal ways that shooting rules work, for no real additional benefit besides the ability to sell plastic accessories and dice that are otherwise useless in the game.

Earth127 wrote:
Yes they can have it both ways if it means a more balanced and/or enjoyable game. This rule isn't realistic is not a good argument against it. The very fact it's a game makes it unrealistic.

Balanced game? They've been trying to balance 40K since the 1980s!

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

In many cases "realism" (which is extremely subjective as well considering we are talking about an universe with daemons, magic and Orks that can make anything happen if just enough believe in it) has to make way for fluid and sensical gameplay as well, there will always something to nitpick about when it comes to realism, especially when everyone values a different aspect of what they percieve to be realism in the game. E.g. the way the new rules are handled for vehicles both serves for more fluid, less complicated and intuitive gameplay.

Current system: roll to hit, roll to penetrate, if you penetrate roll for effect which is same for all Vehicles.
New system: roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, roll for how many wounds, consult the damage table which is unique for each Vehicle.

How it is more fluid and less complicated? If anything, the new system seems slower and more laborous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Earth127 wrote:
This rule isn't realistic is not a good argument against it. The very fact it's a game makes it unrealistic.

If realism is irrelevant, why don't we have infantry with Gretchin sized models but S10 T10? Why don't we have infantry models carrying Demolisher cannons? Why don't we have pistols with 72" range, S10 AP1?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Chikout wrote:
I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange. Relative speeds of infantry and vehicles are not realistic. Ranges of weapons are not realistic, etc
Who knows how powerful a lasgun is. It is a made up weapon.
On top of that I always imagined that everything in 40k was super ancient and run down. Maybe that land raider was bullet proof when it rolled off the production line 500 years ago but now it is held together by duct tape and a prayer to the machine God.
There is also the point that this is a game not a simulation.

We will have to see how this plays out in the long run but I am optimistic that it will make for a more enjoyable gaming experience.

I must admit I find all these comparisons to real life strange.

So why does the game follow some arbitrary things from real life like laws of physics, weapons ranges, vehicle speeds, Armour protection etc etc but not others?

The game designers are making a considered decision to adopt some things but ignore others. They can't have it both ways, and they can't complain if somebody complains about it.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of "real life like laws" not accounted for in 40k. Arguing that removal of one abstraction in favour of another is somehow inconsistent on the part of the game designers is incredibly disingenuous. Just say it like it is, you like templates, don't try to make it into an argument about realism. The end result of a Wyvern using templates or a Wyvern not using templates is going to be the same: sometimes it kills a few models, sometimes a lot. Template weapons in 7th can only cause one wound to monstrous creatures or vehicles... is that realistic? The only thing you loose is the physical sensation of holding that template over some dudes, and the tedium of moving dozens of models while keeping them exactly 2" apart.

"Lasguns can kill Riptides, Riptides too weak, 0/10 unit pls buff. Also I prefer the old way of generating automatic hits by holding a perfectly circular piece of plastic over models but this whole "rolling a dice" thing sounds too unrealistic for my taste. After all, blasts are perfectly circular and all people in real life have perfect circles around them dictating their hit box."

"Well, I'm sure it take infinity-bazillion lasguns to kill a new Land Raider anyway and not a real issue. Also, templates are bad and slow down play - much better to have even more random rolls to see what you get instead because randomness is fun!"

That's the level of conversation we're now at. If you prefer the old way where units couldn't be harmed at all, and loved holding templates over models because it felt better, that's fine. If you like the fact that there's now no total rock-paper-scissor match ups, and prefer fast gameplay to holding plastic over toy soldiers, that's also fine. Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.

Eyjio wrote:
"Lasguns can kill Riptides, Riptides too weak, 0/10 unit pls buff. Also I prefer the old way of generating automatic hits by holding a perfectly circular piece of plastic over models but this whole "rolling a dice" thing sounds too unrealistic for my taste. After all, blasts are perfectly circular and all people in real life have perfect circles around them dictating their hit box."

"Well, I'm sure it take infinity-bazillion lasguns to kill a new Land Raider anyway and not a real issue. Also, templates are bad and slow down play - much better to have even more random rolls to see what you get instead because randomness is fun!"

That's the level of conversation we're now at. If you prefer the old way where units couldn't be harmed at all, and loved holding templates over models because it felt better, that's fine. If you like the fact that there's now no total rock-paper-scissor match ups, and prefer fast gameplay to holding plastic over toy soldiers, that's also fine. Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.

Well put.

I may be arguing against templates, but the truth is I'm gonna miss them at least a little bit. Not the parts where we all stand around squinting over the table at a sketchily-scattered template trying to hit models under a ruin ceiling, of course. But there was an element of fun to them.

That being said, I totally understand why GW would want to streamline its rules by getting rid of the way that templates and vehicle armor functioned as unnecessary extended exceptions to the way all of the other rules worked, and the oddities and bad gameplay that developed from those. I'm looking forward to having games go a bit quicker - maybe it'll actually get me playing again.

"Realistic" is the wrong word, and sends peeps down all these stupid paths. "Plausible and internally consistent" is probably the better term.

The important thing is, do heavy tanks feel like heavy tanks? Do they feel more durable than lighter tanks? Are anti-tank weapons relatively more effective vs tanks than light weapons? Is the opposite true?

Try to look at the changes under that measure.

Edit: For what it's worth, I think the current mismatch between vehicles and MC's is horrible and this change fixes that. Regardless of other factors, that's a huge win in my book

 Weazel wrote:
So much Doom & Gloom here when e.g. vehicle rules have barely been glanced yet. I'd wait for more substantial details before passing judgement on the rules.

I know GW doesn't have a great track record at making rules and balancing things. However GW didn't have a reputation of listening to their customer base and taking input on rules and other issues. But look how have things turned around.

Have to say I'm liking this "new GW" and I'm really excited about this new edition. 7th edition has all but killed my and our group's interest in 40k. I'm confident it cannot possibly be worse.

I saw what you did nice pun

I am hoping that Dreadnoughts will do well from this rule change, mine have a bad habit of exploding in turn 1

Eyjio wrote:
"Lasguns can kill Riptides, Riptides too weak, 0/10 unit pls buff. Also I prefer the old way of generating automatic hits by holding a perfectly circular piece of plastic over models but this whole "rolling a dice" thing sounds too unrealistic for my taste. After all, blasts are perfectly circular and all people in real life have perfect circles around them dictating their hit box."

"Well, I'm sure it take infinity-bazillion lasguns to kill a new Land Raider anyway and not a real issue. Also, templates are bad and slow down play - much better to have even more random rolls to see what you get instead because randomness is fun!"

That's the level of conversation we're now at. If you prefer the old way where units couldn't be harmed at all, and loved holding templates over models because it felt better, that's fine. If you like the fact that there's now no total rock-paper-scissor match ups, and prefer fast gameplay to holding plastic over toy soldiers, that's also fine. Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.

What are you doing coming here and being completely reasonable?! People like you don't belong on the internetz!

I for one will not miss templates, as even against the most casual opponent there is disagreement over what they hit. Heck, the old 4+ if partially under was done away with to make it easier and there are STILL discussions. I'm well up for an alternative.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

This ain't Warhammer 1750ADk with everybody marching in line

Please, please tell me you are joking with that line. Every single piece of artwork you see of the Astra Militarum is them in massive blobs, with swords, firing lines, standard barers, flags, etc. There's a reason people draw parallel lines between the Astra Militarum and the late 1700 to late 1800 wars in this time - because that's the kind of design GW were going for.

Not using the flamer templates will be sad, because they are amusing, but I also remember using vortex grenade templates with their cool vortex storm patterns on too.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


People moving miniatures to minimize splash damage was never a problem for me, because real-life military units have a loose formation when moving and firing at any rate anyway.

This ain't Warhammer 1750ADk with everybody marching in line

Sorry I wasn't clear...it was the time some people took to do it (getting a template out and measuring each one to ensure they were in the perfect position) - which isn't particularly realistic either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Worth emphasising this


Q: How will free rules be presented?

A: Digital and all of our stores and some independent stockiest will have a limited supply at launch in print format

if you want paper copies it sounds like you'll need to be quick

Sigh, not this again. I would have thought GW would have learnt from the Necromunda fiasco. I mean at least they could put up a pre-order so they could know how many to put in circulation.

Eyjio wrote:
Recognise that these are just design choices made to speed up and simplify the rules. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side glad that both are here - I think that functionally vehicles will actually end up stronger, while not being as mindlessly frustrating as the 5e invincible tank syndrome (aka I hope you enjoy marines and guard, because nothing else stands a chance); likewise, while I like the idea of templates, the reality of them was not fun to play and excessively time consuming compared to any other unit of shooting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water and try the rules out first - if you dislike them, then you can complain based on data rather than gut feeling.

Tanks were not invincible in 5th edition. It was pretty much only edition where Land Raider was (sometimes) good.
The problem was that they were too cheap and could be spammed at horrible amounts so it was a Codex issue rather than basic rules issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:

Edit: For what it's worth, I think the current mismatch between vehicles and MC's is horrible and this change fixes that. Regardless of other factors, that's a huge win in my book

This is again more of a Codex issue than BRB issue: they threw out "Monstrous Creatures" which by all logic and common sense should have been Walkers. If Riptide had been AV12 Walker, there would have been few complaints.
Not that many people complained that Carnifexi were too good...

 Tamereth wrote:
So we're getting AoS 40K edition.

And everyone seems to be OK with that. GW's brainwashing marketing has finally paid off for them.

I am not a big fan of AoS, but so far I'm ok, wouldn't say excited, about what's been revealed. Two main reasons, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this:

1) the current 40k rules are so messy IMO an AoS 40k would actually be an improvement. Not the direction I want it to go but the fact is I have not been playing 40k for a while now because the rules just kinda suck no matter how you want to play. They're too bloated for casual play and too imbalanced to get excited about tournaments. There really is hardly anywhere to go but up.

2) An AoS release for 40k would be far less dramatic than it was in fantasy. It's still essentially the same type of game, in the same universe, with the same models.

My personal take on AoS is that it has a lot of good ideas that were and remain poorly executed. if they can execute well, and I'm hoping they will because they have lots of $$$ reasons to take it more seriously than they did AoS, it might turn out to be what AoS could have been. Very casual, but fun.