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.

ERJAK wrote:

macluvin wrote:
So when they talked about chaos there was no mention of possessed... but GW has been struggling to find a way to move those crappy models every way they could short of giving them decent rules. You guys think they finally gave up on them or you think they are going to make them overpowered?

To be fair, it wasn't GW talking about Chaos.

GW published it on their community page, selected by them and edited by them. The specific author is irrelevant. It was a fluff piece without a single mention of anything specific for 8th, which would be fine if these blog posts are aimed at new players of the game, but they're not, they're aimed at existing players who want to know what 8th is about. If all the faction "previews" have zero actual information, then i vote to replace them all with this, as at least then we can sing along !

SeanDrake wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.

There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.

Well, it's you so it's obvious you'll go for the bile.

What's that I cannot hear you over the sound of hooves.

Ok let me.round up the issues and opinons I have regarding why AoS provides no benefits to 40k.

People have an issue with USR'S being to complicated or being superseded by codexs and some units having similar rules with different names - AoS' s solution is to give every unit similar rules with different names and Basic stuff with similar names and different rules. So no actual benefit there and with them going to 40k style codexs I would guess it will get worse.

40k had a fully functioning morale and pinning system that actually works fine as anyone who plays 30k can confirm the issues we're down to GW making over half the armies completely immune to it. - AoS you have nothing but a dice roll and remove models.

Sorry 19mth old son wants to play(we tried AoS was to simple for him ;p)

Yes and no - AOS and it seems 8th Ed 40k works in a similar way to an number of other successful games.

The basic rules are relatively simple and can be quickly grasped, then each individual unit can make tweeks (large or small) to this and/or have synergies with other units enabling tactical activity and decisions base don the units chosen for the battle.

A single warscroll/datacard etc should have all the rules required to operate that unit in conjunction with the base rule set rather than the 7th Ed - here's the rules in 5 different places - a single point of reference is I feel a great help. GW have been slow to produce a physical version beyond the books and so many rely on the App - which is fine for them - however with fanmade and now official datacard army packs it is extremely simple to look at any given unit that your opponent has and understand what it can do.

40k morale system was ok - nothing special and was ignored by half the armies in the game.

Backfire wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Why would an app be more irritating than a book?

Slower, generally.

You should download the AoS app and try it, it's free.

Can't, I don't have any device which could use it.

7th edition Codices were badly laid out, yes, even when compared to previous ones. Feels like building an army takes 2 times longer than in 5th edition.

Widows phone eh ? My phone doesn't have an app available.

So far we've had a lot of "This meal is going to be great". With no meat on the table. More relevant information is needed, before any rational judgements can be made.

Well, they've shown off some popular stuff.

Every since AoS introduced debilitating damage, I've had a hankering for the same thing in 40k.

Likewise, but for even longerer, I've wanted the clear disparity between Walkers and Monstrous Creatures attended to - MC were (are, depending on when you read this) objectively better - an Autocannon was a threat to a Dreadnought, but laughed at by the majority of MC who'd just take their save.

Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!

That's actually one of the things I'm really liking the sound of. It's been endlessly frustrating getting off a charge and then having to wait while your models get hacked to pieces before being allowed to get some stab on.

Chargers striking first is ace, absolutely.

But it's the after that I want to know more about. I enjoy AoS' method, and hope it's much the same. But with various units having ways round it, I just want to know more.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, they've shown off some popular stuff.

Every since AoS introduced debilitating damage, I've had a hankering for the same thing in 40k.

Likewise, but for even longerer, I've wanted the clear disparity between Walkers and Monstrous Creatures attended to - MC were (are, depending on when you read this) objectively better - an Autocannon was a threat to a Dreadnought, but laughed at by the majority of MC who'd just take their save.

Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!

Didn't we have that before, with weapon destroyed weapon destroyed, immobilized results. It's GW's fault, not the basic rules. That for marketing purposes they chose to sell models that ignored them rules.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Chargers striking first is ace, absolutely.

But it's the after that I want to know more about. I enjoy AoS' method, and hope it's much the same. But with various units having ways round it, I just want to know more.

I think they said it would be like that, but with chargers striking first as you say. So it's chargers attack, then AoS style unit selection after that.

Not to the same degree.

If you were lucky, a Dreadnought might only be repeatedly stunned or shaken - none of which lead to it's destruction. But equally, a single Lascannon could blow it apart.

Debilitating Damage is, for my money, a better way to do it. As an opponent, you might choose to do just enough damage to cripple the thing. As an owning player, your decisions based on that model will be affected by how much damage you're now willing to risk, because it's far more quantifiable.

Likewise, stuff like Landraider need no longer live in tedium at the threat of a five man combi-melta veteran team drop podding in and evaporating it in double quick time. Sure, that's still going to be a threat, but not the no-brainer it currently is, because the damage itself is random.

I'm excited for this new take, as are my local group But everyone is different and absolutely entitled to their views. I can only speak for myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hragged wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Chargers striking first is ace, absolutely.

But it's the after that I want to know more about. I enjoy AoS' method, and hope it's much the same. But with various units having ways round it, I just want to know more.

I think they said it would be like that, but with chargers striking first as you say. So it's chargers attack, then AoS style unit selection after that.

Certainly hope so Good combat selection is the key to victory. Or a crushing defeat if you pick poorly!

 loki old fart wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, they've shown off some popular stuff.

Every since AoS introduced debilitating damage, I've had a hankering for the same thing in 40k.

Likewise, but for even longerer, I've wanted the clear disparity between Walkers and Monstrous Creatures attended to - MC were (are, depending on when you read this) objectively better - an Autocannon was a threat to a Dreadnought, but laughed at by the majority of MC who'd just take their save.

Only thing I'm dubious about is CC striking order - no issue with chargers striking first, but it's how it's all worked from there. Info is a bit vague!

Didn't we have that before, with weapon destroyed weapon destroyed, immobilized results. It's GW's fault, not the basic rules. That for marketing purposes they chose to sell models that ignored them rules.

Yeah, there was no real reason for a damage table for vehicles and yet not have one for MC's - the AOS system is a very nice way of doing it and enables you to tailor it to different things /units.

SeanDrake wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.

There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.

Well, it's you so it's obvious you'll go for the bile.

What's that I cannot hear you over the sound of hooves.

Ok let me.round up the issues and opinons I have regarding why AoS provides no benefits to 40k.

People have an issue with USR'S being to complicated or being superseded by codexs and some units having similar rules with different names - AoS' s solution is to give every unit similar rules with different names and Basic stuff with similar names and different rules. So no actual benefit there and with them going to 40k style codexs I would guess it will get worse.

40k had a fully functioning morale and pinning system that actually works fine as anyone who plays 30k can confirm the issues we're down to GW making over half the armies completely immune to it. - AoS you have nothing but a dice roll and remove models.

Sorry 19mth old son wants to play(we tried AoS was to simple for him ;p)

The actual benefit of every unit having their own but similar rules is that, in that case, you have the whole rule in one place instead of having to look up the USR and then apply the exception to that. I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

I also fail to see how bringing up moral and pinning adds anything to this discussion about the format of rules.

And lastly, if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, do you really think comparing AoS players to "19 mth old" babies, even in jest, is going to help? Or wouldn't you say it adds to the impression that you don't really know what you are talking about?

I'm directly replying to you here, but this holds true for lots of people here. You are calling this a discussion, when you are in fact trying your hardest to drive the actual discussion into a wall of sarcastic comments and insults.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Likewise, stuff like Landraider need no longer live in tedium at the threat of a five man combi-melta veteran team drop podding in and evaporating it in double quick time. Sure, that's still going to be a threat, but not the no-brainer it currently is, because the damage itself is random.

It might just be me, but I for one am REALLY hoping meltas and armourbane weapons get an effective nerf if they lose their 2D6 penetration. For me, it made meltaguns THE tool to deal with vehicles, and basically made anything AV13/14 feel completely pointless - the same tools dealt with armour either way. I'm hoping that they're just similar to lascannons instead - lots of damage, but still have to roll to penetrate the same way (maybe rerolling failures at half range). It would be a better way of doing it IMO - plasma could do 1 damage per shot, but from a larger range and rapid fire; melta could do D6 damage from close range but be very limited range; lascannons could do more from greater range, but be much more expensive+heavy. I feel like that's a good balance. It also leave room for heavy bolters, which could have -1 rend but be cheaper - after all, as much as people are worrying about hordes vs morale, their main enemy in AP5 bolters just got removed, as did flamers; there's nothing we know of which actually makes up that gap yet.

First things first, to the thread at large :

Regardless of anyone's personal opinion on any given game of toy soldiers, there's is no room in this thread did insults, whether direct or implied. Different people like different things. Get over it.

eedden wrote:

The actual benefit of every unit having their own but similar rules is that, in that case, you have the whole rule in one place instead of having to look up the USR and then apply the exception to that. I fail to see how that is a bad thing..

That's not a benefit of bespoke rules, it's a benefit of having rules printed on the card. They could do the same thing (as some other games have done) with USRs.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.

It's not so much that it's a problem, it's that it could be better.

A single rule that covers every unit that would be subject to it is far better than every unit subject to degradation having their own unique table.

Why? As weird as it nobody has been talking about the fact that it is far easier to balance a model when it's not being barraged by a number of USR's. Just having a general degradation means that some will either have troubles either adjusting or some will end up not affected at all because their design means that it does jack to it.

A unique system allows for better individual unit balancing because they don't have to beholden to something previous. Such as the former editions inability to balance out BS2-BS4 shooting with various weapons like Mega Blasters on Orks being the same cost as Space Marines Plasma Guns despite a wildly weaker profile for shooting.

When will we get the free copy of rules and bare-bones "Codexes"? Like June?

 insaniak wrote:

eedden wrote:

The actual benefit of every unit having their own but similar rules is that, in that case, you have the whole rule in one place instead of having to look up the USR and then apply the exception to that. I fail to see how that is a bad thing..

That's not a benefit of bespoke rules, it's a benefit of having rules printed on the card. They could do the same thing (as some other games have done) with USRs.

Yeah, but they're not going to. They've had USR's for years now and have increasingly ignored them in favor of giving units their own unique rules and mechanics, even when a USR would've worked. And at this point I think we should probably just accept that.

Besides, if all they did were use existing USR's for everything then people would probably call it boring.

lliu wrote:
When will we get the free copy of rules and bare-bones "Codexes"? Like June?

I believe so.

There should also be books akin to Grand Alliance ones for AoS, according to the live chat from yonks ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Likewise, stuff like Landraider need no longer live in tedium at the threat of a five man combi-melta veteran team drop podding in and evaporating it in double quick time. Sure, that's still going to be a threat, but not the no-brainer it currently is, because the damage itself is random.

It might just be me, but I for one am REALLY hoping meltas and armourbane weapons get an effective nerf if they lose their 2D6 penetration. For me, it made meltaguns THE tool to deal with vehicles, and basically made anything AV13/14 feel completely pointless - the same tools dealt with armour either way. I'm hoping that they're just similar to lascannons instead - lots of damage, but still have to roll to penetrate the same way (maybe rerolling failures at half range). It would be a better way of doing it IMO - plasma could do 1 damage per shot, but from a larger range and rapid fire; melta could do D6 damage from close range but be very limited range; lascannons could do more from greater range, but be much more expensive+heavy. I feel like that's a good balance. It also leave room for heavy bolters, which could have -1 rend but be cheaper - after all, as much as people are worrying about hordes vs morale, their main enemy in AP5 bolters just got removed, as did flamers; there's nothing we know of which actually makes up that gap yet.

For me, it was more the ways players had to mitigate Melta's ridiculous short range. Too many units could deepstrike right in - and often (but not always) without scattering. And as the traditional thing was Combi-Meltas, that unit could still be used to tackle infantry, compared to say Fire Dragons (a unit we didn't often see, as there was no reliable way to get them close enough, and they were largely ponk against more other targets)

lliu wrote:
When will we get the free copy of rules and bare-bones "Codexes"? Like June?

Best guess looks to be 17th June (based on the rumour that GW holidays have been cancelled for the week beforehand and the fact that June's White Dwarf will not be out until the 16th, 2 weeks later than normal)

My question would be - if an update is going to be posted every day until release that's another 40 updates! What are they going to talk about

 Chimera_Calvin wrote:

lliu wrote:
When will we get the free copy of rules and bare-bones "Codexes"? Like June?

Best guess looks to be 17th June (based on the rumour that GW holidays have been cancelled for the week beforehand and the fact that June's White Dwarf will not be out until the 16th, 2 weeks later than normal)

My question would be - if an update is going to be posted every day until release that's another 40 updates! What are they going to talk about

Yeah I'm not so sure myself, 2 months seems a very long time from announcement to release.

Do we know what GW has in the pipeline from next week? I thought the May WD only previewed up to last weekend and we don't know what's coming on preorder next. Seems very strange to me that they would change the normal date of WD too. Could we ligitimately have the new rules dropped on us early and then new models, starter set etc released at the start of June to coincide with the mid June white dwarf?

Or am I just being way too hopeful?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not to the same degree.

If you were lucky, a Dreadnought might only be repeatedly stunned or shaken - none of which lead to it's destruction. But equally, a single Lascannon could blow it apart.

Debilitating Damage is, for my money, a better way to do it. As an opponent, you might choose to do just enough damage to cripple the thing. As an owning player, your decisions based on that model will be affected by how much damage you're now willing to risk, because it's far more quantifiable.

Likewise, stuff like Landraider need no longer live in tedium at the threat of a five man combi-melta veteran team drop podding in and evaporating it in double quick time. Sure, that's still going to be a threat, but not the no-brainer it currently is, because the damage itself is random.

Well, the damage is still random. We don't know how much Meltaguns do damage, but if it's say 2d6 within 6" (which would be consistent with how it is modelled now), then four Meltaguns are still like to cripple or kill any vehicle smaller than a superheavy.

They'll probably have at least 5 days just showing of a given unit and talking about it's special rules. Ork Boyz, Tactical Marines, Eldar Guardians, Imperial Guardsman, Bloodletters - they would each be interesting, they could show the profile, weapon profile, and talk about the special rules.

But I also expect that we'll see full battle reports appear before the launch.

I would assume that they would have some books/info availabe at the Warhammer fest in few weeks?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
insaniak's right, of course.

Having a different chart for every single big creature is just artificial game balance and there is no reason why a decent hit from a Lascannon somehow has a completely different effect on two units just because one is good at shooting (and doesn't care about HTH) and one is the opposite.

A far simpler and elegant solution would have simply been something along the lines of:

25%-50% wounds = -1 To Hit with HTH and Shooting, halve movement, halve attacks (round up for both)
25% or lower wounds = -2 To Hit with HTH and Shooting, halve movement again, halve attacks (round up for both).

And that's it. For all my bespoke jokes (that ryhmes! HA!), this is a simpler method that would require far less back and forth. As was said earlier, as long as you know the profile of the unit you are using then the above makes things easier.

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

The coming of the Defiler Kingdoms has long been prophetic. Let it happen!!!

 Ssgt Carl wrote:
Well, you heard it. He has bespoken... *badumm tssss*

That actually made me grin. Thank you.

Since you asked (and I didn't see an actual response), why what you suggest is bad compared to bespoke charts.

It horribly favors shooting models. a Melee model cares about 3 of the 4 characteristics you quote (WS, Attacks, movement), a shooting might only care about 2 of them (BS and maybe movement) possibly only 1. SO if I have a mostly stationary shooting unit it doesn't care about a bunch of this stuff, so unless melee models are going to be costed a lot cheaper than shooting ones (and OP if not weakend prior to melee) this doesn't work. Further things like halving attacks have a much greater effect on models with more attacks. If you are a shooting unit and start with 2 attacks, and you go down to 1 attack, and remain there it is not as big a deal as being a model with say 8 attacks that goes to 4 and then 2. Same is true for movement, units that rely on fast movement are unduly hurt by this chart. It is much more difficult to balance a single chart across all models than it is to have bespoke charts. So sure it is easier it just isn't better, similar to how the current chart is bad because it effects all models in different ways. Are you a tank with 1 big gun, oh well weapon destroyed and now you are relatively useless. A close combat walker, sorry you got immobilized might as well be dead.

What I would prefer is if the effects all happened at regular intervals, so half wounds and 25% wounds (which so far they are in 40k). That way you always know when they will happen (without having to check), and can prompt opponents to check to see.

Good point.

I'm there on the Sunday, so will likely busy myself confirming/clarifying reports from Saturday.

Is it possible that many of the bespoke rules will just be USRs, but printed out on the actual unit entry rather than in the main book? Like if a unit has Furious Charge, it has what Furious Charge does on its card. But Khorne Berserkers and Death Company or whatever both have the same bespoke rule.

Could very well be - we just don't know yet.

I never wanted to label anyone as a negative complainer. However, this current "The rules will be too hard to remember" line of attack is utterly, utterly ridiculous.

 Grinshanks wrote:


Another fair point is why we need two game systems that are virtually identical? I know even during WHFB they weren't exactly dissimilar, but never before have the rules been this samey.

AoS may yet merge into a 40K model. Having similar systems means you can play either and not feel lost. Good for the company and good for the health of gaming groups.

So how bad was AoS with invalidating unit weapon options? I'm really hoping units like Chosen, etc. won't be stripped of special weapons options and leave me with large numbers of useless models.

PP did much the same with Warmahordes, only to a greater degree.