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.

We're just getting started...

Remove WS/BS
Remove armour saves
Remove game
Done


This is sarcasm. You know it's bad when pre SM2.0 8th is looking better and better...

drbored wrote:
Neat. Get rid of Armor of Contempt.

While they're at it, flatten AP. 'High AP' weapons could be -3 at max. Anything that a regular infantry model is holding like bolters and flesh borers and astartes chainswords, AP 0.

So you think a melta-gun or such, when carried by say a guardsman, should be AP.0 I hope you're better at your day job than you are games design....

ccs wrote:

drbored wrote:
Neat. Get rid of Armor of Contempt.

While they're at it, flatten AP. 'High AP' weapons could be -3 at max. Anything that a regular infantry model is holding like bolters and flesh borers and astartes chainswords, AP 0.

So you think a melta-gun or such, when carried by say a guardsman, should be AP.0 I hope you're better at your day job than you are games design....

Pretty sure he means normal small arms.

Lasguns, Bolters, etc.
Not special or heavy weapons.

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:

drbored wrote:
Neat. Get rid of Armor of Contempt.

While they're at it, flatten AP. 'High AP' weapons could be -3 at max. Anything that a regular infantry model is holding like bolters and flesh borers and astartes chainswords, AP 0.

So you think a melta-gun or such, when carried by say a guardsman, should be AP.0 I hope you're better at your day job than you are games design....

Pretty sure he means normal small arms.

Lasguns, Bolters, etc.
Not special or heavy weapons.

Just have some armors/units have a USR like 'Hardened n', and let it cancel the first n points of AP. That way you can also meaningfully distinguish between e.g. Terminator, Gravis and Artificer armor and so on, or do justice to extremely tough vehicles like Land Raiders. Then of course you can go another step further and have another axis with stuff that ignores Hardened and so on...

Racerguy180 wrote:
We're just getting started...

Remove WS/BS
Remove armour saves
Remove game
Done


This is sarcasm. You know it's bad when pre SM2.0 8th is looking better and better...

That would solve all the issues with the rules. Strange that someone would sarcastically say this is sarcasm (I joke of course)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:


Just have some armors/units have a USR like 'Hardened n', and let it cancel the first n points of AP. That way you can also meaningfully distinguish between e.g. Terminator, Gravis and Artificer armor and so on, or do justice to extremely tough vehicles like Land Raiders. Then of course you can go another step further and have another axis with stuff that ignores Hardened and so on...

Personally not a fan of adding more bloat to replace bloat, but unless GW is willing to reduce the AP of weapons in order to remove AOC, this might be the only way baring a complete reset.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
We're just getting started...

Remove WS/BS
Remove armour saves
Remove game
Done


This is sarcasm. You know it's bad when pre SM2.0 8th is looking better and better...

That would solve all the issues with the rules. Strange that someone would sarcastically say this is sarcasm (I joke of course)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:


Just have some armors/units have a USR like 'Hardened n', and let it cancel the first n points of AP. That way you can also meaningfully distinguish between e.g. Terminator, Gravis and Artificer armor and so on, or do justice to extremely tough vehicles like Land Raiders. Then of course you can go another step further and have another axis with stuff that ignores Hardened and so on...

Personally not a fan of adding more bloat to replace bloat, but unless GW is willing to reduce the AP of weapons in order to remove AOC, this might be the only way baring a complete reset.

They want bloaty stuff because they think it's fluffy, so aiming at a system without bloat is a self-defeating attempt. The only real choice there is is between well-defined bloat and random bloaty stuff that accrues over the course of the edition. More/more complicated USRs is probably better than twenty versions of not-exactly-the-same rules of the week distributed over a dozen codexes.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:

drbored wrote:
Neat. Get rid of Armor of Contempt.

While they're at it, flatten AP. 'High AP' weapons could be -3 at max. Anything that a regular infantry model is holding like bolters and flesh borers and astartes chainswords, AP 0.

So you think a melta-gun or such, when carried by say a guardsman, should be AP.0 I hope you're better at your day job than you are games design....

Pretty sure he means normal small arms.

Lasguns, Bolters, etc.
Not special or heavy weapons.

Just have some armors/units have a USR like 'Hardened n', and let it cancel the first n points of AP. That way you can also meaningfully distinguish between e.g. Terminator, Gravis and Artificer armor and so on, or do justice to extremely tough vehicles like Land Raiders. Then of course you can go another step further and have another axis with stuff that ignores Hardened and so on...

Sooooo......Basically a system where you need at least (X) AP to change the save value of power armour, at least (Y) AP to change the save value of terminator armour, at least (Z) AP to change the save value of Carapace armour, and so on? This sounds familiar......

Tsagualsa wrote:

They want bloaty stuff because they think it's fluffy, so aiming at a system without bloat is a self-defeating attempt. The only real choice there is is between well-defined bloat and random bloaty stuff that accrues over the course of the edition. More/more complicated USRs is probably better than twenty versions of not-exactly-the-same rules of the week distributed over a dozen codexes.

I still don't understand why they ditched USRs... I've gotten the feeling there was some collective trauma related to them that occurred during my hiatus between 5th and 9th...

I see the bloat as being caused by the layering of rules. A bunch of rules that don't interact or stack on each other strikes me as a lot less bloaty and I wish they'd return to that (and, for clarity, I'm not referring here to the replacement of USRs with a dozen variations of the same rule)

GW removing the core of the game without thinking ahead what to do with the faction rules

GW taking a whole Edition to gather information on how to adjust the faction rules to fit the new core

They new faction rules are worse than the old ones so they try to patch in rules from before to fix it

And in a few months everyone is really happy that the most fun and balanced edition of all is finally replaced with a different game and a promise that "this time it will be right"

The old AP system was bad because GW handed out Ap2 like candy, negating any armour. The new AP system is bad because GW hands out Ap-2 like candy, negating the most important armour values .

Since 5th Edition I hoped for an AP system with Ap modifiers (basically because the old system meant there were only two Ap values: Ap2/1 on the one side and all the other Ap values on the other side). Then 8th brought modifiers and I realized the old Ap system was indeed as bad as I felt, but modifiers alone can't save 40K.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I mean... attacking the symptoms instead of the causes is clearly the GW way, but feth me >_>

It's, you know, possible, that the problem lies rather in giving every gun and their uncle armor reduction. Because if you think it's bad for MEQ, every other faction would like a word, too.

Notably, the better your armor, the worse AP affects you.

A 2+ save dropping to a 3+ doubles your damage.
But a 5+ to 6+ or even a 5+ to no save is only a 25% or 50% increase.

The same is true for toughness. Going from S3 to S4 means doubling your damage input against T7, while it only means a 33% increase vs T3 targets.

IMHO it is such an issue for Marines because they only have good saves for defense. I mean you can waste your AP-1 bolters on my Tyrannofex, because sure the AP-1 means you are doubling damage against my 2+ save but you are still wounding on 6s. The double of negligible is still negligible.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The old AP system was bad because GW handed out Ap2 like candy, negating any armour. The new AP system is bad because GW hands out Ap-2 like candy, negating the most important armour values .

Since 5th Edition I hoped for an AP system with Ap modifiers (basically because the old system meant there were only two Ap values: Ap2/1 on the one side and all the other Ap values on the other side). Then 8th brought modifiers and I realized the old Ap system was indeed as bad as I felt, but modifiers alone can't save 40K.

So same problem both times. Except under the old system they didn't start handing out AP2 "like candy" until 5th. While they started right from the beginning in the current one. And it was hilariously with loyalist marines that they started as well (specifically with primaris). Loyalists are their own worst enemy.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The old AP system was bad because GW handed out Ap2 like candy, negating any armour. The new AP system is bad because GW hands out Ap-2 like candy, negating the most important armour values .

Since 5th Edition I hoped for an AP system with Ap modifiers (basically because the old system meant there were only two Ap values: Ap2/1 on the one side and all the other Ap values on the other side). Then 8th brought modifiers and I realized the old Ap system was indeed as bad as I felt, but modifiers alone can't save 40K.

So same problem both times. Except under the old system they didn't start handing out AP2 "like candy" until 5th. While they started right from the beginning in the current one. And it was hilariously with loyalist marines that they started as well (specifically with primaris). Loyalists are their own worst enemy.

3rd edition blundered pretty early on by introducing the 'Choppa rule' for orks, which felt bad for Terminators, which lead to the added 5+ invul. for termies, and stuff spiraled out from there.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The old AP system was bad because GW handed out Ap2 like candy, negating any armour. The new AP system is bad because GW hands out Ap-2 like candy, negating the most important armour values .

Since 5th Edition I hoped for an AP system with Ap modifiers (basically because the old system meant there were only two Ap values: Ap2/1 on the one side and all the other Ap values on the other side). Then 8th brought modifiers and I realized the old Ap system was indeed as bad as I felt, but modifiers alone can't save 40K.

So same problem both times. Except under the old system they didn't start handing out AP2 "like candy" until 5th. While they started right from the beginning in the current one. And it was hilariously with loyalist marines that they started as well (specifically with primaris). Loyalists are their own worst enemy.

3rd edition blundered pretty early on by introducing the 'Choppa rule' for orks, which felt bad for Terminators, which lead to the added 5+ invul. for termies, and stuff spiraled out from there.

Right. Terminators got a 5++ because of a rule that reduced their 2+ to a 4+.............

..........Wait. What?

In my opinion, the game suffers from having such a huge difference between the smallest and weakest model to the biggest and strongest model, while trying to maintain balance despite that.

In a perfect world, in a rule system isolated from reality, an army made up of 2000 points of grots would have just as much a chance of winning as an army made up of 2000 points of imperial knights.

The grot weapons, however weak, would have a chance to hit and wound the imperial knights... which is ridiculous.

In 7th edition and prior, this wasn't an issue because small arms couldn't hurt the armor values of tanks, or certain strengths of weapons couldn't hurt high enough toughness. This I think is the core of the issue, where GW seems to be pursuing a 'anything can fight anything, at least a little bit' sort of mentality.

Now, that system works in Age of Sigmar because you have a couple other systems working for you. 1. less prominence of ranged weapons, so being in combat with something means you're risking the return attacks. and 2. damage spillover, where big enough models, despite only having 1 or 2 attacks, can still scrape away whole ranks of lesser models.

Bring back the difference between infantry and vehicles while also giving a handful of weapons, particularly those with blast or explosions of some sort, a level of damage spillover. Those two changes would dramatically reduce the need for things to have such ridiculous AP vs invul mechanics.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The old AP system was bad because GW handed out Ap2 like candy, negating any armour. The new AP system is bad because GW hands out Ap-2 like candy, negating the most important armour values .

Since 5th Edition I hoped for an AP system with Ap modifiers (basically because the old system meant there were only two Ap values: Ap2/1 on the one side and all the other Ap values on the other side). Then 8th brought modifiers and I realized the old Ap system was indeed as bad as I felt, but modifiers alone can't save 40K.

So same problem both times. Except under the old system they didn't start handing out AP2 "like candy" until 5th. While they started right from the beginning in the current one. And it was hilariously with loyalist marines that they started as well (specifically with primaris). Loyalists are their own worst enemy.

3rd edition blundered pretty early on by introducing the 'Choppa rule' for orks, which felt bad for Terminators, which lead to the added 5+ invul. for termies, and stuff spiraled out from there.

Right. Terminators got a 5++ because of a rule that reduced their 2+ to a 4+.............

..........Wait. What?

It was more the likes of Howling Banshees and Incubi that got terminators their 5++. Going first with power weapons and tons of attacks made a bit of a mess of terminators. It was fairly early in the edition though (before the 3.5 codexes started upcoming out).

Though it was also to make up for the fact they got a save on two dice in 2nd Ed.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

I still don't understand why they ditched USRs...

Because GW wanted to make the 8th edition rules as short ('accessible') as possible; following the AoS model.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The old AP system was bad because GW handed out Ap2 like candy, negating any armour. The new AP system is bad because GW hands out Ap-2 like candy, negating the most important armour values .

Since 5th Edition I hoped for an AP system with Ap modifiers (basically because the old system meant there were only two Ap values: Ap2/1 on the one side and all the other Ap values on the other side). Then 8th brought modifiers and I realized the old Ap system was indeed as bad as I felt, but modifiers alone can't save 40K.

So same problem both times. Except under the old system they didn't start handing out AP2 "like candy" until 5th. While they started right from the beginning in the current one. And it was hilariously with loyalist marines that they started as well (specifically with primaris). Loyalists are their own worst enemy.

3rd edition blundered pretty early on by introducing the 'Choppa rule' for orks, which felt bad for Terminators, which lead to the added 5+ invul. for termies, and stuff spiraled out from there.

It wasn´t just choppas. Main culprit was plasma gun spam with S7 AP2 deleting Terminators in 3rd while during 2nd only a heavy plasma gun being used on max power was dangerous to tactical dreadnought armour.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:

drbored wrote:
Neat. Get rid of Armor of Contempt.

While they're at it, flatten AP. 'High AP' weapons could be -3 at max. Anything that a regular infantry model is holding like bolters and flesh borers and astartes chainswords, AP 0.

So you think a melta-gun or such, when carried by say a guardsman, should be AP.0 I hope you're better at your day job than you are games design....

Pretty sure he means normal small arms.

Lasguns, Bolters, etc.
Not special or heavy weapons.

Just have some armors/units have a USR like 'Hardened n', and let it cancel the first n points of AP. That way you can also meaningfully distinguish between e.g. Terminator, Gravis and Artificer armor and so on, or do justice to extremely tough vehicles like Land Raiders. Then of course you can go another step further and have another axis with stuff that ignores Hardened and so on...

Sooooo......Basically a system where you need at least (X) AP to change the save value of power armour, at least (Y) AP to change the save value of terminator armour, at least (Z) AP to change the save value of Carapace armour, and so on? This sounds familiar......

Yeah, and it's an awful idea too.

Also AP-1 on Bolters, let alone Bolt Rifles, is not a problem.

I'd be surprised if they got rid of Armor of Contempt just for a points drop. AOC came from power armor factions being unhappy their armor is worthless when there are so many good AP weapons in 9th. Making the units cheaper (but still easily killed) doesn't solve that issue.

I personally really liked that you rolled 2D6 for terminator armour back in second edition (and it was a 3+ save) and think a return to this sort of granularity could work better.

However, there would have to be a rule modification for batch rolling the saves otherwise saves would slow the game down so bad.

There's plenty that could be done with marines to make them more survivable than messing about with armour saves or AP on the fly.

Allowing marines to break the all wounds must be allocated against a wounded model first so you could allocate 1 wound across every model for normal marines etc before removing models...

Or

Allowing marines to remove models at the end of their players turn etc so they still get another playable turn out of them.

Or

Marines get mini transhuman across the board (wounds of 2 always fail).

Some of these could be quite powerful, and then also cross over a bit with some factions special rules (that would then need to be adjusted).

Played around with designing a few systems I usually come around to Power Armour and Terminators re-roll all saves.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also AP-1 on Bolters, let alone Bolt Rifles, is not a problem.

Given that at the onset of 8th AP-1 generally corresponded to AP4 in the old system, yes, yes it is.

Has there ever been accirate leals for data slates before?

This is the source at the moment with other stuff:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/zwbqdz/rumours_from_the_death_or_glory_live_stream/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I am not sure how I feel about losing AoC, but I also lack enough context. I do feel like they're trying to do too many big changes ( based on the link ) all at once.

On the other hand no AoC will make people considering 30 scarabs a little more cautious.

I feel we need a game-wide reset of weapon stats.

The problem is you've got units paying a premium for AP (and to a degree strength, rerolls etc) and then others seem to get it all for free. AoC is necessary to tone down the second - but it makes the first feel bad.

I mean bolt rifles being AP-1 may have started things off - but wasn't obviously a problem. 20 points for 2 S4 AP-1 shots isn't all that. Is a 28 point Heavy Intercessor throwing out 2 S5 AP-1 shots scary? No.

By contrast Tyranid Warriors can pay 30 points for 5 S4 AP- or 3 S5 AP-2 shots. Seems noticeably better - because it is.
But you also get 4 S7 AP-2 2 damage attacks in melee. Its this second one which is indicating "9th edition creep". This isn't remotely the same as say 2-3 S4 AP- punches.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally really liked that you rolled 2D6 for terminator armour back in second edition (and it was a 3+ save) and think a return to this sort of granularity could work better.

However, there would have to be a rule modification for batch rolling the saves otherwise saves would slow the game down so bad.

You'd have to modify more than rules. 'Batch rolling' multiple-dice resolutions would more realistically involve modifying human eyes and brains, especially if you want the result to be comprehensible to the person not rolling the dice. Beyond a handful of color-coded dice pairs, it becomes an unreadable mess.

Losing Armor of Contempt would require something absolutely huge for space marines to replace it. Points cuts alone just wont do it.

Speaking as a marine player myself, I don't really *want* points cuts. The amount of "stuff" I have on the table feels about right. I'm not playing marines to play a horde army. Heck, I already field more models than my Tyranid opponent. One of the things I want is for marines to feel armored and tough; which AoC helps with.

It also feels a bit weird that they would remove Armor of Contempt for Space Marines right after specifically creating a similar (but better) rule for Leagues of Votann.

So unless Void Armor goes too... the rule is staying in the game. The question is whether or not Space Marines will get it.

They gotta sell those Votaan models after all.

As someone who benefits from AoC, with it paring nicely with Disgustingly Resilient, I'm glad to see it going away as I feel that it threw the game's who AP system off.