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.

Spoletta wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
As bad as it is, AoS did cause a lot of rebasing and GW gave us a table of standard base sizes for each model.

Not only that, but with the endless spells, we had the first case of LoS based on bases. The palisade spells negates LoS if you cannot trace a straight line between the center of the attacking model and the center of target without touching the palisade base.

Yeah, but you can still use square bases in AoS, can't you? Which would imply that bases don't have that much of an impact on the game.
Its not like WHFB, where changing the base size had a considerable impact on the game, as units then had a much bigger footprint on the table.

No, you can't use square bases. You can have them on your models, but by rules you have to measure distances as if they had the standard round base.

That's weird, how does that even work?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
As bad as it is, AoS did cause a lot of rebasing and GW gave us a table of standard base sizes for each model.

Not only that, but with the endless spells, we had the first case of LoS based on bases. The palisade spells negates LoS if you cannot trace a straight line between the center of the attacking model and the center of target without touching the palisade base.

Yeah, but you can still use square bases in AoS, can't you? Which would imply that bases don't have that much of an impact on the game.
Its not like WHFB, where changing the base size had a considerable impact on the game, as units then had a much bigger footprint on the table.

No, you can't use square bases. You can have them on your models, but by rules you have to measure distances as if they had the standard round base.

That's weird, how does that even work?

It doesn't, but GW is doing their best to keep from telling fantasy players they have to update their models to play.

ValentineGames wrote:

Get rid of the D6.
Fix cover saves to be worth taking cover.
Fix the AP system.
Scrap random shots.
Scrap random damage.
Bring back fire arcs.
Stop solving everything with invulnerable saves.
Fix bogging the game down with so many rolls.
Fix CP.

I actually agree with all of this except firing arcs.

I'm to the point where I almost exclusively use the GW dice app. So, moving to a d10 system wouldn't really change how i play the game.

I like the idea of a defensive trait called "Tough" or "powered" or whatever, with a value.

Tough 1 = ignore 1 point of AP
Tough 2 = ignore 2 points of AP (For terminators or similar)

Also, definitely switch to d10's.

Wayniac wrote:
What I don't get is why the AP system worked fine in 2nd edition, but it has broken down now in 8th. Is it just because the scale has grown exponentially from 2nd? Although vehicles still had armor facings then.

I have a strong nostalgia for 2nd, but the AP didn't really work fine, in the sense that armour varied from poor to middling, due to abundant AP modifiers. Power armour was reduced to a 4+ against most small arms, lasguns included. Shuriken catapults reduced it to 5+! The vast majority of heavy weapons had at least -3 AP. Terminator armour was a beast to crack with 3+ on 2D6, and there were a scattering of decent 2+ saves like Khornate power armour, but that was about the height of it.

I think the current approach of modifying points values (but not statlines) to improve balance is good. as it doesn't invalidate the existing codexes.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What I don't get is why the AP system worked fine in 2nd edition, but it has broken down now in 8th. Is it just because the scale has grown exponentially from 2nd? Although vehicles still had armor facings then.

I have a strong nostalgia for 2nd, but the AP didn't really work fine, in the sense that armour varied from poor to middling, due to abundant AP modifiers. Power armour was reduced to a 4+ against most small arms, lasguns included. Shuriken catapults reduced it to 5+! The vast majority of heavy weapons had at least -3 AP. Terminator armour was a beast to crack with 3+ on 2D6, and there were a scattering of decent 2+ saves like Khornate power armour, but that was about the height of it.

You also have to keep in mind that guardsmen couldn´t shoot multiple times with their flashlights in 2nd because of the lack of an order mechanic. And Rapid Fire could only be used by SM & CSM. Shuriken catapult were a serious threat though with their range of 24´´.
Infantry apart from Terminators had to hug cover in 2nd or else die a quick death. But you could also hide infantry at the start of the game to increase their survival rate and these lurkers had to be detected first in order to be shot at. Although once they started shooting by themselves, they stopped being hidden.