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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

whatever nasty name you apply to sigmar players.

Aoshats?

Oh ouch, I guess we'll just have to take solace in the fact that we've been playing the better game for the last year or so.

ERJAK wrote:

They went down 2 pegs in the table system you designed less than 5 minutes ago.

It's your system man.

They only go down 1 peg in 'my' system. Only Movement goes lower.

Personally loving all of the changes, I swore blind I would not buy any models untill 8th dropped, the last couple articles made me buy some more I bought the let's start ork box now that deff dreds have a purpose, and I will be buying a morka/gorka naut after this update.
If I only new how many points nobs cost and what wounds they have I would buy another let's start ork box on top of that aswell, from what I have read the game is going to be so much more balanced,faster it's going to be great.
My only issue is retreating units in mele, but hey guess what we are hitting first now sonthey have compensated me I also think this has added more depth to the game "stream line" depth that is.
This fuss about vehicle sides is no issue for me you say it takes away tactical depth I say it adds to it, rather then trying to get a flank shot on a tank you now MUST take anti tank weaponry, so what have we lost, simple manuverability, what have we gained in depth, more precise lists you are going to have to actually think about what units your taking instead of spamming S6, on top of that vehicles are more survivable so you will have to pick which vehicles are the biggest threat and get rid of those first, we are gaining "stream lined" depth in my eyes and getting rid of uneccasary arguments in the process whilest getting to bring more varied lists.

Some people just can't handle change.

I used to play Fantasy before I took a break from the hobby, I used to check in on new models every now and again and I saw it change to AOS, I hated the game despite never playing it, i based my opinion on what other people wrote about it on forums, I actually played a game of it on TTS yesterday and despite me getting mauled I really enjoyed it, more then I did fantasy.

The moral of the story is try it before you bash it we know nothing about it we have micro snippets of rules and stat lines there is no space for math hammer here.

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.

That's kind of the point, though... They've stripped out a bunch of stuff to make the game faster, and then chosen to add unneccessary processes elsewhere.

Yes, checking the unit card isn't particularly time-consuming as a one-off. That doesn't change the fact that not needing to check the unit card is faster.

Yunno what would also be faster? Flat to wound rolls.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?

If similiar unit types (grouped into something like: walkers, tanks, skimmers, flyers, big bugs, chariots ect) come apart like each other that's fine, but I feel like there should be some difference between different kinds of models. A tank should lose shooting attacks instead of a walker's melee attacks for example. A Helbrute could gain attacks as its wounds drop as it becomes more crazed while losing WS to represent it going nuts.

There is a lot of flavor that could be mixed into the game this way and frankly I look forward to what they do with it.

Worst case scenario we can petition changes as this IS a living ruleset.

Agreed.

While I dont like the linear degradation, I think it is much better to have bespoken rules for every unit on this, rather than a simple universal rule

ERJAK wrote:
Having monsters degrade in different ways is better for balance, it's a better design space, it's fluffier, and most importantly it's not that big of a deal to learn I mean the Sigmar players handle it just fine and they're...whatever nasty name you apply to sigmar players.

I think it might depend on how many models will use this mechanic. Personally I don't really want to deal with 5 or six models in a normal force that behave like this. If it's just the bigger stuff, then sure, it won't be that bad.

 Megaknob wrote:

Some people just can't handle change.

And some can handle change just fine, but don't like certain change.

Different people like different things.

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Lascannons run 20 points on a Devastator and upwards to twice that for some other armies while being able to actually do a single wound around 50% of the time or less due of it's low shot output. Variable damage makes them more threatening in average, takes the game from "spam melta for your tank needs" and generally makes the weapon better without breaking the game or needing to make it cheaper..

Yes, I get that lascannons needed a boost. My point was that they went with D3 instead of just making it a 2 or a 3, when there is no particular reason fluffwise for the weapon's output to be variable. Which suggests that their intention is for heavy weapons to do a variable amount of damage to represent glancing vs full-on wounds.

It's supposition based on a pool of 1 for the moment, but it seems likely.

I can fluff the variable damage: a shot against a walker's arm (1 wound) vs the power source/motive engine/warp battery (6 wounds). It'd be less the weapon being variable but how lucky the shot was.

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

They went down 2 pegs in the table system you designed less than 5 minutes ago.

It's your system man.

They only go down 1 peg in 'my' system. Only Movement goes lower.

That heavily favors shooty monsters over melee ones. And for the record you said all their stats would drop.

Trying to apply a uniform solution to everything doesn't work and degredation tables are a good system that help make larger models unique and interesting without forcing things like the GMC rules and again is fluffy as all hell.

Plenty of things in 40k are silly and would make the game faster if they got removed, like close combat in general, but that's still here.

 insaniak wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

Some people just can't handle change.

And some can handle change just fine, but don't like certain change.

Different people like different things.

Bah-humbug, that's just another liberal lie! Don't deploy on me!
JK.

But seriously, hope we get an actual preview for some factions. This wasn't bad, but hardly sufficient.

 Megaknob wrote:
Personally loving all of the changes, I swore blind I would not buy any models untill 8th dropped, the last couple articles made me buy some more I bought the let's start ork box now that deff dreds have a purpose, and I will be buying a morka/gorka naut after this update.
If I only new how many points nobs cost and what wounds they have I would buy another let's start ork box on top of that aswell, from what I have read the game is going to be so much more balanced,faster it's going to be great.
My only issue is retreating units in mele, but hey guess what we are hitting first now sonthey have compensated me I also think this has added more depth to the game "stream line" depth that is.
This fuss about vehicle sides is no issue for me you say it takes away tactical depth I say it adds to it, rather then trying to get a flank shot on a tank you now MUST take anti tank weaponry, so what have we lost, simple manuverability, what have we gained in depth, more precise lists you are going to have to actually think about what units your taking instead of spamming S6, on top of that vehicles are more survivable so you will have to pick which vehicles are the biggest threat and get rid of those first, we are gaining "stream lined" depth in my eyes and getting rid of uneccasary arguments in the process whilest getting to bring more varied lists.

Some people just can't handle change.

I used to play Fantasy before I took a break from the hobby, I used to check in on new models every now and again and I saw it change to AOS, I hated the game despite never playing it, i based my opinion on what other people wrote about it on forums, I actually played a game of it on TTS yesterday and despite me getting mauled I really enjoyed it, more then I did fantasy.

The moral of the story is try it before you bash it we know nothing about it we have micro snippets of rules and stat lines there is no space for math hammer here.

Facings and the viability of Anti tank weapons are two completely unrelated questions. Let's be serious fors a second, removing facings does not make the game more tactical

In age of Sigmar "many" weapons have 2 or 3 as damage, but I haven't see one that does a flat 6 in damage. Normally the ones that can do so much damage are always a d6.
I have seen some that do 1d3 in damage, but I think 2 and 3 as flat damage are more common.

 Brother Xeones wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Having monsters degrade in different ways is better for balance, it's a better design space, it's fluffier, and most importantly it's not that big of a deal to learn I mean the Sigmar players handle it just fine and they're...whatever nasty name you apply to sigmar players.

I think it might depend on how many models will use this mechanic. Personally I don't really want to deal with 5 or six models in a normal force that behave like this. If it's just the bigger stuff, then sure, it won't be that bad.

And fair enough, in Sigmar the most tables you even CAN deal with is 4. You literally cannot take more than that.

Tyranids are really the only army I'd be worrying about having too many tables, but their monsters are so similar to each other you could get away with a somewhat unified table. Just not cross faction.

I'm curious how largest model is going to affect the Stompa and Deff Dreds. If Deff Dreds will actually get "Largest Model" status since they are quite large, and if this will indeed impact my dusty old Kan Wall like I hope it will.

I love that damn army, and am dying to see it anywhere near viable on the field again.

ERJAK wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

whatever nasty name you apply to sigmar players.

Aoshats?

Oh ouch, I guess we'll just have to take solace in the fact that we've been playing the better game for the last year or so.

Well, out of the choice of two Warhhammer branded collectible miniatures games made by GW anyway...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Could we not just have a standardised formula so that we don't have to refer to the unit card for the entire game?

But everything is bespoke now, insaniak! You're going to need to look at the unit card for everything.

Everything!!!

Yea, I know you want to beat a dead horse, but it has literally never been an issue across many tournaments in AoS.

Perhaps they'll even cost power fists and the like separately from unit to unit.

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Again, not that big of a deal. It adds less time than chucking templates saves, let alone all the other things they're doing to make the game faster.

That's kind of the point, though... They've stripped out a bunch of stuff to make the game faster, and then chosen to add unneccessary processes elsewhere.

Yes, checking the unit card isn't particularly time-consuming as a one-off. That doesn't change the fact that not needing to check the unit card is faster.

I have a feeling six months from now everyone will be used to checking and not care. It's not really a time sink to have the book open to that page before grabbing your tape measure to move the model or before you make an attack in assault.

I'm going to make a strange claim here on why it's actually a good idea to have in the game: it makes the big models more balanced. Currently models like Knights are good because you deploy them and until they run out of HP they don't lose any functionality. This is also one of the reasons the Riptide was such a pain. By making it so they can get weaker as they take wounds it presents the controlling player with a choice: do you run this up to smash your opponent's gob in, or play it more defensively to ensure it stays at full power longer? Likewise for the opponent it gives them the ability to potentially weaken a model that is a huge threat instead of being forced solely to kill it to make it less dangerous, meaning you can split your target piority more than before. Especially since you can easilly know how many wounds you need to do to weaken the model. A great thing when some of these models now have over twenty wounds.

These are good changes to the game in my opinion.

One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.

How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?

I think 40K players are going to need to get in the habit of game aids, something that it was reasonably light on before but are common in a lot of other systems. A token set for a WMH army or Guild Ball Team, camo markers for Infinity etc, are all just part of the toolkit.

 JimOnMars wrote:
One thing I don't like about the degradation profiles for all units (and bespoke rules in general) is that we are all going to have to memorize all of them.

How long will it be before we get threads on dakka about "that guy" who conveniently "forgets" to degrade his unit?

Forced to memorize something you can just have the book open to?

Those sorts of players wo "forget" things will always exist. I wouldn't pass or fail a game mechanic on their ability to forget to apply rules aainst their armies correctly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think 40K players are going to need to get in the habit of game aids, something that it was reliably light in before but are common in a lot of other systems.

I forsee people making cards for their derading units and tracking them Warmahordes style. Though I expect the cards will be MtG style for no reason.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:
Personally loving all of the changes, I swore blind I would not buy any models untill 8th dropped, the last couple articles made me buy some more I bought the let's start ork box now that deff dreds have a purpose, and I will be buying a morka/gorka naut after this update.
If I only new how many points nobs cost and what wounds they have I would buy another let's start ork box on top of that aswell, from what I have read the game is going to be so much more balanced,faster it's going to be great.
My only issue is retreating units in mele, but hey guess what we are hitting first now sonthey have compensated me I also think this has added more depth to the game "stream line" depth that is.
This fuss about vehicle sides is no issue for me you say it takes away tactical depth I say it adds to it, rather then trying to get a flank shot on a tank you now MUST take anti tank weaponry, so what have we lost, simple manuverability, what have we gained in depth, more precise lists you are going to have to actually think about what units your taking instead of spamming S6, on top of that vehicles are more survivable so you will have to pick which vehicles are the biggest threat and get rid of those first, we are gaining "stream lined" depth in my eyes and getting rid of uneccasary arguments in the process whilest getting to bring more varied lists.

Some people just can't handle change.

I used to play Fantasy before I took a break from the hobby, I used to check in on new models every now and again and I saw it change to AOS, I hated the game despite never playing it, i based my opinion on what other people wrote about it on forums, I actually played a game of it on TTS yesterday and despite me getting mauled I really enjoyed it, more then I did fantasy.

The moral of the story is try it before you bash it we know nothing about it we have micro snippets of rules and stat lines there is no space for math hammer here.

Facings and the viability of Anti tank weapons are two completely unrelated questions. Let's be serious fors a second, removing facings does not make the game more tactical

Your completely right sir it's more bloated rules the game does not need, so it's been cut.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?

If similiar unit types (grouped into something like: walkers, tanks, skimmers, flyers, big bugs, chariots ect) come apart like each other that's fine, but I feel like there should be some difference between different kinds of models. A tank should lose shooting attacks instead of a walker's melee attacks for example. A Helbrute could gain attacks as its wounds drop as it becomes more crazed while losing WS to represent it going nuts.

There is a lot of flavor that could be mixed into the game this way and frankly I look forward to what they do with it.

Worst case scenario we can petition changes as this IS a living ruleset.

I see your point about different unit types having different ways of degradation, but I also agree with Insaniak that a more universal method makes sense, especially if the whole idea is to reduce unnecessary complexity. So I would propose a separate table for main unit types: walkers, tanks, skimmers/flyers, and critters. That way you can use the same rule of thumb for each type yet have various and more appropriate results that fit each class. Fair enough?

EDIT: On a side note, the debate on simplicity for it's own sake routinely takes a beating around here. Simple does not equal better or worse, it just means simple. So when someone says 'hey this is simpler so it's better' you have to be careful. Chutes & Ladders is a simpler game but isn't 'better' unless that is exactly the game you want to play. By the same token, more complex rules aren't 'worse' just because they are less simple. It's always a give and take for the overall effect you want to have on the game being played. I find the lack of armor facings a great oversimplification which in this scale of game absolutely belong, but by the same token I am loathe to have different (degradation) rules for each vehicle in the game because to me personally that is unnecessary complication.

Different strokes for different folks and all that! As long as everybody finds a way to enjoy their own gaming experience it's all good!

 Megaknob wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:
Personally loving all of the changes, I swore blind I would not buy any models untill 8th dropped, the last couple articles made me buy some more I bought the let's start ork box now that deff dreds have a purpose, and I will be buying a morka/gorka naut after this update.
If I only new how many points nobs cost and what wounds they have I would buy another let's start ork box on top of that aswell, from what I have read the game is going to be so much more balanced,faster it's going to be great.
My only issue is retreating units in mele, but hey guess what we are hitting first now sonthey have compensated me I also think this has added more depth to the game "stream line" depth that is.
This fuss about vehicle sides is no issue for me you say it takes away tactical depth I say it adds to it, rather then trying to get a flank shot on a tank you now MUST take anti tank weaponry, so what have we lost, simple manuverability, what have we gained in depth, more precise lists you are going to have to actually think about what units your taking instead of spamming S6, on top of that vehicles are more survivable so you will have to pick which vehicles are the biggest threat and get rid of those first, we are gaining "stream lined" depth in my eyes and getting rid of uneccasary arguments in the process whilest getting to bring more varied lists.

Some people just can't handle change.

I used to play Fantasy before I took a break from the hobby, I used to check in on new models every now and again and I saw it change to AOS, I hated the game despite never playing it, i based my opinion on what other people wrote about it on forums, I actually played a game of it on TTS yesterday and despite me getting mauled I really enjoyed it, more then I did fantasy.

The moral of the story is try it before you bash it we know nothing about it we have micro snippets of rules and stat lines there is no space for math hammer here.

Facings and the viability of Anti tank weapons are two completely unrelated questions. Let's be serious fors a second, removing facings does not make the game more tactical

Your completely right sir it's more bloated rules the game does not need, so it's been cut.

If a rule add tactical depth to a game it is not really bloating. Unless you want the game winner to only be determinate by a single dice roll off .

ERJAK wrote:


Tyranids are really the only army I'd be worrying about having too many tables, but their monsters are so similar to each other you could get away with a somewhat unified table. Just not cross faction.

AoS doesn't give tables to things in the 8-10 wounds range so that would solve a lot of 'nids.

If 40k was a Warmachine sized skirmish game I'd be down for more facing rules, but in a game that focuses more on company (military not corporate) level instead of squad level engagements it's too fussy for a game without movement trays. Ridding of something that spawns arguements due to wonky model shape, that doesn't have the support of the bases the models are supplied with and was a part of a poorly balanced vehicle system that is being replaced with something that is more balanced for everyone.

Could we have a more tactical game with facings? Yes. But the game needs to be designed for it from the bases the models use on up. That and every large would need a clear diagram on it's facings if we want anything more than a "front and rear" acing system.

Also all the fire arc tracking and arguments I"m sure we'd enjoy would be worth it on a game that needed streamlining instead of increased rules complexity that prevented faster game play with less bored waiting for opposing players.

The problem with a universal degradation rule, even separated in types (Tanks, walkers, etc...) is that even if you distribute the degradation evenly in all of the stats, meele units will suffer more than shooting ones? Why?
Because to a meele walker/vehicle/monster, etc... the loss of movement will hurt much more than a shooting one. And boom, you began with meele being more weak than shooting.

Degradation-tables by unit is more hard to memorice, but leads to a more fine tunning and balance. And as others have said, to some fluffy things like the Hellbrute gaining attacks etc...

 amanita wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While I get that it may be a bit uncomfortable to adjust to unit degredation when it's not uniform, at the same time, why should it be? Why should a walker degrade the same way as a tank and why should those degrade the same as a skimmer? Why should a Biotitan and a Knight degrade he same way?

If similiar unit types (grouped into something like: walkers, tanks, skimmers, flyers, big bugs, chariots ect) come apart like each other that's fine, but I feel like there should be some difference between different kinds of models. A tank should lose shooting attacks instead of a walker's melee attacks for example. A Helbrute could gain attacks as its wounds drop as it becomes more crazed while losing WS to represent it going nuts.

There is a lot of flavor that could be mixed into the game this way and frankly I look forward to what they do with it.

Worst case scenario we can petition changes as this IS a living ruleset.

I see your point about different unit types having different ways of degradation, but I also agree with Insaniak that a more universal method makes sense, especially if the whole idea is to reduce unnecessary complexity. So I would propose a separate table for main unit types: walkers, tanks, skimmers/flyers, and critters. That way you can use the same rule of thumb for each type yet have various and more appropriate results that fit each class. Fair enough?

Not every model inside of those types would start with the same stats so even if they follow the same rules you'd still need to check their profiles to get an idea of what their weakened stats would look like.

Basically it leaves us where we started: if models can get weaker, even if they follow a specific rule for type or the same rule for every model, you'd still need to look at their stats due to the differences in stats that every different model has.

Covered by others

 Galas wrote:
The problem with a universal degradation rule, even separated in types (Tanks, walkers, etc...) is that even if you distribute the degradation evenly in all of the stats, meele units will suffer more than shooting ones? Why?
Because to a meele walker/vehicle/monster, etc... the loss of movement will hurt much more than a shooting one. And boom, you began with meele being more weak than shooting.

Degradation-tables by unit is more hard to memorice, but leads to a more fine tunning and balance. And as others have said, to some fluffy things like the Hellbrute gaining attacks etc...

I cold see Ork vehicles lose toughness as some of their scrap armour falls off before anything important starts taking damage too....

But yes, basically any kind of system based around models getting weaker has some bookeeping involved reagardless of how it's done.

My dream of a defiler heavy CSM army may come true! Woot!

There is only one true demon engine - the Defiler!