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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:


No I really haven't, your suggesting the core rules require minimum to zero patching elsewhere or else it's poor game design, which is an arbitrary hurdle you have made up. Your welcome to disagree with their method, but suggesting something is poor design because it doesn't follow some arbitrary criteria you personally have is hogwash. Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card. MTG is a glaringly obvious example of why your wrong. And yes, plenty of cards only function because of the rule on there card, a rule found on a profile can both make a unit unique AND function.

This statement :"Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card."... Suggests that you are indeed missing the distinction between special rules that add flavour or distinction and special rules that patch holes in the core rules.

The former is fine, the latter is not. If you're fine with both, that's entirely up to you... I disagree (which I apparently have your permission for, so that's a relief...)

The rules don't allow for horde melee armies because that would give too much benefit to ranged hordes, it also doesn't give inherent benefits to ranged horde armies for the same reason. If you want to run a giant blob of guard up the table to try and beat everything to death, it should be a bad idea (hence the "fix bayonets" memes)

So, the core rules allow for units to get really large but their unit rules are what make a particular strategy viable. That, again, is NOT a weakness of the system. The orks having furious charge wasn't considered a weakness, it just let them be viable in melee, why is an old system giving them a way to circumvent an inherent disadvantage in their stat line, but a new edition of the game doing the exact same thing is somehow a problem.

 jhnbrg wrote:
Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.

feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.

Time to get back to painting i guess...

Yes, I think you should leave if you're unable to be polite about people you've clearly never met. They are definitely competitive, make no mistake about that, but they're certainly not WAAC, and I know for a fact that both MVB and Reecius have horde armies. They also host some of the largest events for all players, including writing narrative events for them - that is not the act of someone who just wants to power game. There is absolutely no point in throwing a fit over the revealed rules working against infantry blobs when we have no idea if there's other rules which either significantly buff hordes, or are extremely detrimental to MSU tactics. There are such rules in AoS and this ruleset is clearly taking inspiration from that, so even if you hadn't been so rude, you'd be judging very prematurely. Any conceivably realistic morale rules which require a unit to make a test will penalise larger units over smaller ones because the net impact of failure is larger; retreat also does this. The fact that anyone has been arguing that low leadership hordes will struggle without special rules to mitigate the damage of morale, when such units have ALWAYS needed special rules to mitigate the impact of morale is astonishingly cavillous. It blows my mind that people don't think Orks and Tyranids large units will get leadership buffs after they've had them in every other iteration of their rules which has ever been printed.

Joyboozer wrote:


Yeah, all the great people in this hobby, but a few people complain, and on the internet no less, so the gaming community sucks. You know what sucks? Over reactions and generalisations.

A few? Every day we have someone new declaring how today's thing is the worst thing ever and that it will make them quit.

 jhnbrg wrote:


Its been playtested by a bunch of waac power gamers that will decide how games should be played, i VERY little confidence in them getting horde armies playable. All they want is small fast playing armies that are quick to paint.

feth this, i will leave until I can see the complete new rules.

Time to get back to painting i guess...

Power gamers are the best type of people to playtest as they will stress test the rules to their limits and sometimes break them.

Not doing this is how we got things like double Lash of Submission DPs as GW "Never thought people would want to take two".

Eyjio wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.

Except the majority seem to be on board. The facebook posts are certainly getting a very good reception. You don't like them, that doesn't mean your view is shared.

Besides, if you think either the psychic phase or morale looks worse than what we currently have, I don't know what to tell you - I'm not sure how anyone other than a masochist who thrives off poorly written rules and arguments could actually enjoy the 7e system for psychic powers.

Well you are assuming two things here.

First, just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. In fact some of the most terrible things humanity has ever created have been the popular choice. You like the rules, that doesn't mean your views are shared.

And second, I never said that 7th ed. was good at all. It's a poorly designed game. I wanted an overhaul, but not a bad one.

The psychic phase is bad because it's all or nothing. There's nothing there to promote a dice management system where you can attempt to push through psychic powers that will help you win the game, or the other way around that lets you stop specific powers from going off. Now it's just "roll two dice" If it goes off then great, if not too bad. There's no risk or reward system and doesn't force you to make strong tactical decisions like it should. It's mindless.

The moral system for 40K was fine mechanically. The problem is that basically all armies are immune to it. It didn't need to change to mindless AOS nonsense. Why would a single marine run off and abandon his squad, just because he got shot at? Why isn't pinning a thing like it should be? It's unnecessarily simplified to the point of being lore and immersion breaking.

Just like Characters not being able to join units. "Sorry guys, can't join your squad and use your transport to get across the battlefield. Looks like i'll just go alone." This to me is the worst offender, it's so unnecessary. Half of my enjoyment out of this game is creating characters and running them with their honour guard or whatever. Now I can't do this because people thought that reading a single page of rules was too much to handle?

I'll admit, I wanted GW to succeed here. Even though I knew they were going to AOS the rules, I hoped beyond hope that they wouldn't dumb down the rules to that level. The first few days of rumours had me excited. I like changes to shooting and weapons profiles. It's more or less been down hill from there.

Barring some unseen rules exceptions for characters not being shot to death in the middle of the battlefield or being able to ride in transports with units, this is the deal breaker for me. You will likely never see an on foot character ever again if this is the case.

 andysonic1 wrote:
I have no idea why you and a handful of other users find the idea of some units manipulating the core rules to better suit their unique traits is wrong.

I don't have a problem with that.

I'm clearly not managing to make my point in a way that is not going to be misinterpreted, however, so it's probably best to just drop it and move on.



So... Warp Rift, eh?

In the "WAAC doing the feedback", actually, thats the kind of player that you want to do feedback to you. Obviously, not about how to make the game, but to find the holes in it and fix them.




Based in the Kharadron Overlords vehicles, you can put in a vehicle characters and units altogether. I expect something similar to 40k. And, whats the difference between having your character INTO a unit, or having it 1" away from it and giving them buffs?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
I have to disagree it's very useful! (Not the Gw gold piece of £€$ so much) I have two made of plastic card 3'' by 1'' by 1/2'' excellent to fit between models for conherency to help eye ball weapon ranges, minimum charge range etc. But mainly we use them to drop in front of units so you don't move within 3'' of them when moving or charging so much easier so manage than a tap measure in tight spaces. Normally I dish out 3'' 6'' 18'' and full length tap measures for our games. More convenient, faster measuring, and less likely to knock stuff over. I just cut down the whippie measures you get in starters for my smaller rulers and made the 'combat gauge' out of thick plastic card minus the dashing neck tie lol which i suspect is just a hinderence. I'd recommend everyone make them to try out.

I never said it wasn't useful, just that it's not mandatory in order to play the game and not an item I've seen used. Matter of fact, I'd forgotten about the combat gauge until Youn and Azreal13 posted similar items from different manufacturers.

Believe me, when you've got 20 Ork Boyz mixed up with as many Termagants and you need to try and figure out if one of the ones in the middle is inside or outside 1", a tape measure just won't cut it.

40K players are going to need these as part of the player kit, just don't, for the love of all that's holy, waste all that cash on the GW one which doesn't offer any functional advantage, when there's so much choice of third party ones out there.

 Galas wrote:
In the "WAAC doing the feedback", actually, thats the kind of player that you want to do feedback to you. Obviously, not about how to make the game, but to find the holes in it and fix them.

Agreed. Find the most broken combos and fix them. That's what most fighting game patches are, fixing broken characters.

Hopefully GW releases a combat gauge for 40K. It seems like something that is going to come in handy.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hopefully GW releases a combat gauge for 40K. It seems like something that is going to come in handy.

Hopefully it's something that comes in the starter set rather than being a purchased bit...


It wasn't something available right at launch for AoS, as far as I recall. It was a month or two later.

Plenty of other companies make better ones anyway. Just buy a gf9 one.

 Kirasu wrote:
Plenty of other companies make better ones anyway. Just buy a gf9 one.

Yup, no need to not use my PP ones I already own.

Well the lore fluff update didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Or couldn't assume myself. Starting to get bored with how they are promoting this. I spend more time as a hobbyist than a gamer. Seeing all the rules is cool but at this point I just want some peeks at the models and physical content. The models are going to sell the box for me, rules are just icing on the cake.

If 40k horde units are anything like AoS horde units then they'll balance out fewer models making it into melee by giving the units bonus attacks based on its size. For instance a skeleton horde gets +1 attack for every model when there's 20, +2 attacks at 30, and so on.

I take it the general consensus is that they're Age of Sigmarifying the rules? I read somewhere that they're culling it down to 12 pages of core rules?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hopefully GW releases a combat gauge for 40K. It seems like something that is going to come in handy.

Hopefully it's something that comes in the starter set rather than being a purchased bit...


It wasn't something available right at launch for AoS, as far as I recall. It was a month or two later.

I would be down with that. Heck, they could even use the material they used to make the templates from. Include two of them in the starter set (one for each player). Otherwise I am sure someone will 3D print one (I want one with a Crimson Fists emblem that I can paint up in their colors). But they definitely should release one separately for those people that don't get the starter set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I take it the general consensus is that they're Age of Sigmarifying the rules? I read somewhere that they're culling it down to 12 pages of core rules?

The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I take it the general consensus is that they're Age of Sigmarifying the rules? I read somewhere that they're culling it down to 12 pages of core rules?

I think that they are using AoS as a beta test for 40k. They are fixing basically every issue I have with AoS (shooting into combat,random initiative rolls, etc...) and keeping 40k as a more tactical and complex wargame than AoS.
For me, they are taking the good of AoS and keeping enough of the good of 40k. To other people the mere mention of AoS is a heresy. Others have legitimate criticism of some aspects (Because obviously this is not gonna be a perfect wargame), or just don't like some changes, something that is totally legitimate too.
And, Kings of War has a core ruleset of 16 pages, so 12-20 pages is perfectly fine for a good Wargame. I prefer longer ones, because I'm more in the narrative kind, and I prefer narrative and complete system that the streamlined version that works better in competitive enviroments. But as I really enjoy AoS, personally I'm content with it.

The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.

I don't mean literally make it the same system, I mean that they're culling the rules down to a tiny fraction of what it was and oversimplifying?

Gamgee wrote:"mass bloodshed and fire in the Damocles Gulf" I feel proud the IoM got wrecked so hard and then basically lit a warp storm to stop the Tau (which back fired big time) was one of the events to start this gak.

I knew the damn AdMech were messing with seriously heresy weapons. I dare say the weapons they unleashed would probably classify them as Here-teks and chaos tainted AdMech. Now they contributed to tearing the entire IoM in half.

Well the IoM can officially say they are reaching Eldar levels of stupidity with messing up the galaxy now. At this point the only thing worse that they could do would be if the Emperor spawned into a full chaos god and then made all the rifts 10x worse.

Also today's article mentions time distortions. I wonder if the Tau are/were under fast time mode to expand so fast in such a short time?

That's just one theory among several. Considering the narrative, it's more likely that the Armless Wonder's gradual destruction of Necron pylons over the millennia, and the final destruction of the Cadian Gate, had more to do with it. Now, Chaos enjoys a major strategic advantage, with the Eye and Maelstrom being linked and the Imperium split in half.

ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Canonically he already had it: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/High_Lords_of_Terra

Apparently he just took his old chair back.

High lordS of terra. Notice the plural. There's many of them. Dubious any one of them at least before Guillimann return could really be considered in complete charge of Imperium's army. Not even Guillimann before he got stasified.

The title was still his though. Regardless of actual authority wielded by the mortals that stood in for him, it's not like he stole something that wasn't his.

That said I'm just glad to see the story going forward instead of retconning things into existance.

But my point is it's unlikely that position gave him ultimate authority(he was one of many) even then so if he now has ultimate power either GW retconned or that's new change after he woke up. Ie he usurped himself power he didn't have.

Back when he held the seat the mortals of the High Lords of Terra were people appointed by the Emperor and Malcador, they'd likely defer to RG's decisions out of respect to him being the Big E's son.

But that's just my speculation of course.

Consider that Gorillaman was the one who dissolved the old War Council and governing Council of Terra and created the Senatorum Imperialis on his order, and was in charge of all military matters, I would say that he called all the shots considering the state of emergency and having the largest surviving loyalist Legion. With the loss of Malcador and the Emperor, there was a major power vacuum. The Imperium was in shambles, fighting was still going on, and the other remaining loyalist Primarchs were either demoralized or unfit to run things. Rowboat stepped up to the plate and took charge. The sheer scope and radical nature of his reforms wouldn't have been possible if he were just "first among equals" and had limited authority from the start.


It makes sense and fits the theme of Ultramar and Girlyman, being inspired by the Roman Republic and it's temporary office of "dictator". When things settled down/stabilized, and his reforms in place to prevent Horus Heresy 2: Electric Boogaloo, he gave up most of the authority he held in favor of the High Lords, serving as Chairman of the Senatorum and CoC of the Armed Forces (it also helped he spent a lot of his time zipping around the galaxy, personally "putting out fires" and taking on his traitor brothers).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.

I don't mean literally make it the same system, I mean that they're culling the rules down to a tiny fraction of what it was and oversimplifying?

The core 40k game was freakishly simple as it is. its all the bloated special rules that really increased the size of the brb to maybe 20-30 pages. the rest of those books tend to be a lot of examples and pictures and fluff.

i wouldn't say its over simplifying

simplifying for sure.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hopefully GW releases a combat gauge for 40K. It seems like something that is going to come in handy.

Hopefully it's something that comes in the starter set rather than being a purchased bit...


It wasn't something available right at launch for AoS, as far as I recall. It was a month or two later.

I would be down with that. Heck, they could even use the material they used to make the templates from. Include two of them in the starter set (one for each player). Otherwise I am sure someone will 3D print one (I want one with a Crimson Fists emblem that I can paint up in their colors). But they definitely should release one separately for those people that don't get the starter set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I take it the general consensus is that they're Age of Sigmarifying the rules? I read somewhere that they're culling it down to 12 pages of core rules?

The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.

http://bitsofwar.com/38-new-gaming-accessories

 Desubot wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The fact there are 12 pages of rules rather than 4 pages makes it a lot less likely that they are AoSifying 40K. There are similarities and parallel rules, but it isn't remotely like they are going to be the same system.

I don't mean literally make it the same system, I mean that they're culling the rules down to a tiny fraction of what it was and oversimplifying?

The core 40k game was freakishly simple as it is. its all the bloated special rules that really increased the size of the brb to maybe 20-30 pages. the rest of those books tend to be a lot of examples and pictures and fluff.

i wouldn't say its over simplifying

simplifying for sure.

The 12 pages also don't include the 14 FOCs, or any of the information on the three ways to play.

I want to take a small shot at predicting how those 12 pages might lay out:
1. Statline - usually one of the first pages in other editions, this is a gimme on how the rules will be broken down.
2. Movement phase - rules for movement, how terrain affects it (if it does at all), and the new run movement will be all fit here. Possibly with a picture showing how to measure to move your models.
3. Psychic phase - Mastery levels, how to use powers and the Smite (and I'm guessing Force too) power(s) laid out. Maybe a generic set of psychic powers as well, but I have a feeling those will go away in favor of army specific flavors of witchery
4-5. Shooting phase - how to pick targets, how modifiers work, rolling to wound and how saves work. Probably with an example diagram for clarification.
5-6. Charge/Assault phase/Morale - the usual stuff we're used to really. New morale doesn't require much to really clarify. Most of this will likely be dedicated to charging modifiers (if terrain matters, ect), the consolidation move and how to determine which models can fight. I expect pictures here as well.
7. Terrain rules - not full datasheets for fortifications and the like, but some general stuff regarding how it works, the different modifiers it provides and how it can effect movement
8. Unit keywords - the core keywords like "infantry" and "vehicle" that are sure to be spread through the datasheets. Any special rules that are set to those keywords will likely be mentioned here too
9-10. USRs - I don't expect a lot but any that would have to be shared between multiple armies (ANTSKNF, FNP, ECT)
11-12. Ranged and special weapons that every army shares (flamers, power swords, ect) to cut down on how much they need to be repeated in every single book. Grenades will likely see some love here too.

Honestly there probably could be a dozen ways to slice the core rules up but this is how I basically expect the basics of the game to get divided and frankly it's more than enough pages to fit everything even with pictures.

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:


No I really haven't, your suggesting the core rules require minimum to zero patching elsewhere or else it's poor game design, which is an arbitrary hurdle you have made up. Your welcome to disagree with their method, but suggesting something is poor design because it doesn't follow some arbitrary criteria you personally have is hogwash. Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card. MTG is a glaringly obvious example of why your wrong. And yes, plenty of cards only function because of the rule on there card, a rule found on a profile can both make a unit unique AND function.

This statement :"Plenty of other successful games have rules found on the individual unit/product card."... Suggests that you are indeed missing the distinction between special rules that add flavour or distinction and special rules that patch holes in the core rules.

The former is fine, the latter is not. If you're fine with both, that's entirely up to you... I disagree (which I apparently have your permission for, so that's a relief...)

What holes? Suggesting there are holes is an assumption by you that the design wasn't intentional. So far the morale system they leaked works fine, you haven't proved that it doesn't work, merely demonstrated why you dislike it, because it doesn't stand up to your standard. The same standard that includes moving targets set by yourself. Apparently, ALL scenarios and units must be addressed by the core rules and not fleshed out elsewhere. Which I demonstrated is wrong, other games do "patch," as you call it, their core system MTG being a huge example.

Your arguing for more of the same crap that so far has suffocated the game. A core ruleset where the morale section attempts to cover every scenario possible across many pages. This is a failed design, we have evidence in the form of every other edition. There are too many unit entries and scenarios in such an open game to try to cover it all in one place. Instead you get overly wordy rules that create errors in game requiring constant FAQ'ing. This intimidates new comers and irritates vets. It's much simpler to strip the morale rules down into one common abstract system and use the datacards to make unit specific changes.

Again, explain why the game is supposed to function from the core rules alone? This makes no sense, the codexes contain unit entries that literally would fall under a patch according to your own criteria. You can't play 40k without them afterall, so the core rules CLEARLY weren't designed to be stand alone.

The warp rift fluff is generic and forgettable.

Except for "Gork's Grin". That's fething genius, I love that and will forever use it.

Crimson Path getting a nod was good too.

Not enough info presented so far to really decide id the rift will really be as interesting as they're trying to make it.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Eyjio wrote:Well, that confirms it then characters cannot join units...and GW has officially ruined another game for me. Bad psychic phase, bad morale system, and now this. These guys don't learn.

Just like Characters not being able to join units. "Sorry guys, can't join your squad and use your transport to get across the battlefield. Looks like i'll just go alone." This to me is the worst offender, it's so unnecessary. Half of my enjoyment out of this game is creating characters and running them with their honour guard or whatever. Now I can't do this because people thought that reading a single page of rules was too much to handle?

This is just a mindset, there is nothing different than a character walking next to a unit, rather than being in that unit other than the rules that stop it being cheesy.
Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".

 Rippy wrote:

Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".

And when he dies, you can just pretend he's still alive!

This is just a mindset, there is nothing different than a character walking next to a unit, rather than being in that unit other than the rules that stop it being cheesy.
Just get in the right mindset of "This character is in this unit, because he is marching up with them".

Ok, but why do I need to change my mindset over something that should never have been removed to begin with.

Are they going to be able to ride with units in transports? I don't know. But I do know I don't want to foot slog my terminator lord up the board.

To bad Belial can't deep strike with this Death Wing anymore, right guys? It's super unfluffy to have to join a unit that he was designed to be with, right?

Who is going to take any Dark Eldar Character if they can't take a transport? Not that anyone takes anything but a Lhamian now anyway because GW can't write a proper codex to save their life.