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.

In the game where a battlesuit and a nurge daemon can get poisoned why is there a "realism" talk?

 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.

...or 6th/7th is actually that bad (it is!)

AoS is actually great... join us. All is well here *pushes brain back inside of ear*

 thenewgozoku wrote:
In the game where a battlesuit and a nurge daemon can get poisoned why is there a "realism" talk?

Battlesuits have pilots that can get poisonned when a shot gets through the armor, or its acid. A Nurgle demon can get hurt by acid.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Battlesuits have pilots that can get poisonned when a shot gets through the armor, or its acid. A Nurgle demon can get hurt by acid.

That still doesn't explain why the to-wound roll is improved against the toughness of the battlesuit. The weak shot carrying the poison should have to attempt to break through the battlesuit's toughness and armor save (virtually impossible for most poisoned weapons, fluff-wise) and only then should it have a chance to wound the pilot. As it is now the poisoned weapon gets the same to-wound roll against a battlesuit and a naked grot, with the high toughness of the battlesuit offering no protection at all.

 Bobthehero wrote:


Battlesuits have pilots that can get poisonned when a shot gets through the armor, or its acid. A Nurgle demon can get hurt by acid.

Almost all vahicles have pilots in 40k. And don't forget the dreadknight - penitent engine paradox.

Well I never said it was consistent, just that poison wounding these things isn't that unrealisitic.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Guy in a 5 man unit (3 wounds/model) gets hit for 1 wound this turn as he's the only guy visible.
Player moves that guy behind wall and moves an unwounded guy to the previous guy's spot.
That unit takes 2 additional wounds from shooting.
A unit cannot have more than one wounded model at a time (assuming AoS's rules continue for this example).

And? I already covered this in my example. If units are taking wounds, and not models, then this isn't a problem.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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?

It's a game. They do that.

The game designers are making a considered decision to adopt some things but ignore others. They can't have it both ways,

Except, you know, they always have. It was like this before you started playing and it'll be this way when you're gone.

and they can't complain if somebody complains about it.

In these days of internets, there's someone to complain, loudly, about everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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

Of course, a key factor here is intent of the rules vs pure RAW. When I used to play 40k regularly , before it became the current clusterfeth that it is now, I used to space my guys out to minimise template damage, but I didn't use a 2" tool to make sure I was exactly the maximum spread. I did it by eye. Much like members of real life military units do it by eye rather than by tape measure between them.

I think it's also worth pointing out that with the advent of 32mm bases, and more models moving onto them (optionally in many cases for veteran players), it creates a form of advantage for models using those slightly larger bases in avoiding multiple hits from template weapons. I used to love dropping templates on the enemy, in particular that flamer template was satisfying, but I'm ok with going to a different form of abstraction in an already heavily-abstracted system (or set of systems).

Liking what I see so far!

In regards to line of sight, you may be able to wound models outside of line of sight, but if there aren't any models in sight the wound pool empties. I use a similar system in a home brew game I'm playtesting, if you wanna sacrifice guys to save a special weapon, go ahead. But the casualties may make you think twice about if it is worth it.

As for cover, in AOS it increases your save by one or two. If this ports over then a marine in cover will be dramatically more durable than an ork boy or guardsmen in the same position.

Anyone knows what time they are going to spoil the "weapon profiles" today?

Later tonight.

 thenewgozoku wrote:
Anyone knows what time they are going to spoil the "weapon profiles" today?

Right before I go to bed, so I can have 10 pages of this thread to read when I wake up

 thenewgozoku wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:


Battlesuits have pilots that can get poisonned when a shot gets through the armor, or its acid. A Nurgle demon can get hurt by acid.

Almost all vahicles have pilots in 40k. And don't forget the dreadknight - penitent engine paradox.

This of course isn't an issue with the core rules, the fact there's a bunch of vehicles that for no reason use the rules for monsterous creatures rules is an issue with the codexs.

Nobody complained that carnifexs were OP compared to tanks, the riptide / wraith knight started the unbalance.

 alanmckenzie wrote:
[
And a 12 page booklet is something everyone can print at home, at work or GW can pump out a reprint in about a week, as opposed to the 130ish pages of Shadow War.

I wonder if there's any chance of GW simply bundling the rules in with White Dwarf?

 Azazelx wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:
[
And a 12 page booklet is something everyone can print at home, at work or GW can pump out a reprint in about a week, as opposed to the 130ish pages of Shadow War.

I wonder if there's any chance of GW simply bundling the rules in with White Dwarf?

Sounds like a very reasonable suggestion. Did they do that with AoS? It was during "White Dwarf Weekly", wasn't it? I stopped buying for pretty much that entire. period.

Didn't bundle the core rules with AoS, no mate. They were available to download from the GW main website on day 1 though.

That sounds familiar. The one that came with a Liberator perhaps.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.

This is the main reason I can't play current 40k.

Current 40k doesn't allow that though, you have to be in range and LoS to die.

It's just it's lumbered with the tedious 'closest models first' which can devolve into an exercise of "which model is a fraction of a millimetre closer than the other".

I think what we really need to see is a unit card / datasheet / warscroll.

The biggest complaint about current 40k is the bloat, and how every unit is a special snowflake with it's own special rules to learn. AoS is worse for this, and with only a 12 page rulebook I can see the bulk of the information will be split across the units.

After all can you really play a game of AoS with just the 4 pages of rules, or do you need pages of warscrolls for all the units both you and your opponent are using. In reality there are a LOT of rules for AoS they are just spread out.

I'm quite excited about most of the changes mentioned so far, especially to Vehicles and the introduction of save modifiers. Also, the fact that multiple people worked to balance all the factions simultaneously. Glad to hear that it may be finally viable for me to play a mono-DE army.

I certainly won't miss all the unkillable Frankensteinian deathstars, or bringing a 2000 pts army to a 1500 pts game.

Requizen wrote:
Two different ways to point the army:

Power level - more for Narrative, less granular, sounds more like AoS where upgrades aren't taken into account.

Matched Play - current 40k style where models/weapons/upgrades all costed.

This is very good, the AoS thing where you just pick whatever upgrades you like is batgak mental.

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
They just hinted that IC wont be able to join units. Instead they will pass traits on to unit(S) nearby.

Oooohh, not sure about this one. Unless they're going to radically bump up the power level of all ICs or change the vast majority of weaker ICs into upgrades for unit leaders ala Straken/Creed for IG command squads, this seems like a recipe for making almost every character but the Special Characters non-viable - a lot of characters need a unit's worth of ablative wounds and challenge interceptors to survive long enough that their other abilities are actually viable.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 NivlacSupreme wrote:
If the heresy gets on this system the "anything can hurt vehicles" will be funny. "Oh that's a nice Leman Russ. Shame if someone was to shoot 80 bolters shots at it"

Too bad it will probably have like 30 wounds or what not.

and a 2+ armour save

Oh a 2+ save, well that's OK then, it's not like 2+ units have anything to fear from volume of fire

Overall this seems fairly positive - they appear to be actually learning from AoS' mistakes, and they seem to be trying to find ways to retain complexity while still streamlining play somewhat, which is better than the AoS approach of streamlining via raw simplification. What will be interesting to see is whether they decide to incorporate these changes back into AoS in the next GHB revision. Still, Allies sounded like a great idea at first, so I'll keep the wallet shut until I've had a chance to view the rules in detail and see what exactly they mean by "some changes" to the fluff.

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Have you played 40k in the last decade? I ask because every gamer I know or talk to have no issue with things dying, the problem is when the other guys army doesn't so much die because of stupid rule interactions.

Anecdotal, obviously, but one of the more frequent complaints I've come across over the years, and one of the biggest issues for me personally, is that the ability to kill things too quickly renders objectives largely meaningless, and too often your big, impressive units that you spent so much time assembling and painting stay on the table for all of three and a half minutes before going back into the case.

I would have preferred the new edition to have made it harder to kill things and concentrate more on objectives, suppression and unit synergy.

Well, this is a mixed bunch. Yeah it's annoying when your painstakingly finished Vanguard Veteran unit is wiped out in R1, OTOH games take longer if much of the armies remain on table towards later rounds. Plus killing stuff is gratifying. Some time ago I had a game where my opponent had super durable Necron army and I played very cautiously. It was really boring and took very long time - my shooting wouldn't do anything, he couldn't reach most of my units.
I remember version of Steel Panthers: WW2 where infantry was hugely durable. Casualties were rare and most of the time units just got pinned. It was extremely frustrating and slow to play. Then again, I remember Close Combat 3 where infantry pretty much auto-died if they heard tank's clatter nearby...obviously going to opposite end is no good either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Oooohh, not sure about this one. Unless they're going to radically bump up the power level of all ICs or change the vast majority of weaker ICs into upgrades for unit leaders ala Straken/Creed for IG command squads, this seems like a recipe for making almost every character but the Special Characters non-viable - a lot of characters need a unit's worth of ablative wounds and challenge interceptors to survive long enough that their other abilities are actually viable.

I think what will happen is that Independent Character-rule is removed but Look out,sir! remains. That way they won't get auto-sniped by heavy weapons, and complicated IC rule becomes unnecessary.

Backfire wrote:

I think what will happen is that Independent Character-rule is removed but Look out,sir! remains. That way they won't get auto-sniped by heavy weapons, and complicated IC rule becomes unnecessary.

That, or a return to 4th edition's rule which didn't allow you to target ICs unless they were the closest available target.

 Kanluwen wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think any kids still playing 40k/AoS these days just enjoy unpacking their miniatures and putting them back away. It's us old fogies who actually want our models that we spent hundreds of hours painting to, ya know... do something, before we put them back away again.

If I'm gonna be honest, 8th edition WHFB was this for me as a Wood Elf player.

I unpacked, stuff died to gentle breezes whether in cover or not cause y'know...no armor saves on basically everything.

In AoS? My stuff sticks around a lot longer now.

Yeah and that's one of several reasons why I quit WHFB with 8th. I'm sure I can go off on a rant about how GW should have fixed WHFB instead of killing it

Proof of the Pudding, by Mad Doc Grotsnik, aged 36 and 11/12ths

So GW are telling us this has been roundly playtested, both internally and externally - including by those who run major tournaments in the USA.

Now, that all sounds very welcome and positive.

But....but for me, the real Proof of the Pudding won't be how well balanced it is on release - the simple fact there is that game hours massively increase, so it's likely some oddities will be shown up quickly. Others still might come out in the wash in say, 6 months time.

So the litmus test is how well they tweak and update things, as they've promised they will.

At the moment, that's largely an unknown quantity. We're not talking FAQs here, but updates and changes to Scrolls and core rules where needed.

We've seen some tweaks done here and there on AoS, and from what I'm told (it's not been for armies I'm familiar with ) they've done a decent job - and GHB2 is just around the corner, which promises to tweak the points (little bird tells me some characters are going up in points, and 'too cheap' units like Skyfires are going up as well).

That my chums is when I'll know enough to pass a balanced, experienced judgement

(But hey that's just me. I'm only a role model to my God Daughter. Everyone else can do as they please )

I think the age of ICs being able to join any almost any unit and giving them their buffs is over. Rather I think either they have to slog it alone (still protected by some means like in AoS) or can only join units whose job in the fluff is to protect them (Honour Guard, Tyrant Guard, Incubi, etc).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Proof of the Pudding, by Mad Doc Grotsnik, aged 36 and 11/12ths

So GW are telling us this has been roundly playtested, both internally and externally - including by those who run major tournaments in the USA.

Now, that all sounds very welcome and positive.

But....but for me, the real Proof of the Pudding won't be how well balanced it is on release - the simple fact there is that game hours massively increase, so it's likely some oddities will be shown up quickly. Others still might come out in the wash in say, 6 months time.

So the litmus test is how well they tweak and update things, as they've promised they will.

At the moment, that's largely an unknown quantity. We're not talking FAQs here, but updates and changes to Scrolls and core rules where needed.

We've seen some tweaks done here and there on AoS, and from what I'm told (it's not been for armies I'm familiar with ) they've done a decent job - and GHB2 is just around the corner, which promises to tweak the points (little bird tells me some characters are going up in points, and 'too cheap' units like Skyfires are going up as well).

That my chums is when I'll know enough to pass a balanced, experienced judgement

(But hey that's just me. I'm only a role model to my God Daughter. Everyone else can do as they please )

We also know that the 40k GHB will have yearly updates (they said it on the stream). Don't know if they'll change stuff in between, or even if they should! Some things need time to settle and it takes a while for people to find out if something is really broken or not.

Indeed.

I'd hope we don't get what could be 'knee-jerk' tweaks, simply because it seems likely people will have to adapt their strategies and tactics to the new rules, so previously sure-fire stuff might not work as well.

If stuff is clearly really out of whack, around 6m would be good for me (but as before, that's just me)

I confess that I haven't read all 69 pages of this thread, so perhaps this has already been answered.
Are there still going to be invulnerable saves, and ,if not, what is the effect on units which tend to rely upon those?
*looks at thousand sons and Tzeentch daemons*