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.

Forget the burning dumpster fire of the game


If they retire Armageddon Dunes/Astrogranite Debris, I revolt!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Forget the burning dumpster fire of the game


If they retire Armageddon Dunes/Astrogranite Debris, I revolt!

So, funny thing about that. Peachy left the company and has been doing YouTube with the Painting Phase. He recommends AK interactive's texture paint, which comes in a much larger pot, is the exact same color as astrogranite (and comes in other colors) and is half the price of one of the pots of astrogranite.

Game's to the point where even someone like me who liked 9th most of the time thinks it could use a pretty massive overhaul.

I'm especially sick of them constantly fething it up in February.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:
He also speaks a bit about how he's not sure how much of a "reset" the rules are, but just that it is a codex reset and the edition will have indexes at launch. So sounds a bit more consistent with the other rumours.

A codex reset with indices at launch means a pretty big rules change. An incremental core rules change doesn't require that, or at least didn't for past edition changes.

If they're jumping ship already, that would honestly make 8th/9th the shortest and least successful 'era' of 40k.

No. 6th/7th was both shorter and MUCH much worse.

6th edition wasn't even 3 years.

I think he's means rules base. For all of 6th/7th's problems, they were based on the same rules that started in 3rd.

If they moved to a new rules base for 10th, it'd make the 8th/9th period unique.

Yep. 1st, 2nd, 3rd-7th, and 8th/9th.

Though I'd take 6th over everything 4th and onwards. Especially 7th, since that was just a few pages of errata and WFB's most unbalanced magic system stapled onto the game in a blind fit of optimistic stupidity, followed by absolutely terribly broken army books.

Back in 7th I advocated for stripping the to wound roll, because the rules were tedious and bloated and there were too many layers of saves.
Having played One page rules I think a to wound roll/ toughness is exactly what this game would need to turn down the high lethality.
Since lethality is the main problem of 9th as well I don’t think stripping toughness would be useful, especially not with how GW writes rules. It'd work until the third Codex is released.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Back in 7th I advocated for stripping the to wound roll, because the rules were tedious and bloated and there were too many layers of saves.
Having played One page rules I think a to wound roll/ toughness is exactly what this game would need to turn down the high lethality.
Since lethality is the main problem of 9th as well I don’t think stripping toughness would be useful, especially not with how GW writes rules. It'd work until the third Codex is released.

Bump toughness across the board and cut back number of shots.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Back in 7th I advocated for stripping the to wound roll, because the rules were tedious and bloated and there were too many layers of saves.
Having played One page rules I think a to wound roll/ toughness is exactly what this game would need to turn down the high lethality.
Since lethality is the main problem of 9th as well I don’t think stripping toughness would be useful, especially not with how GW writes rules. It'd work until the third Codex is released.

Bump toughness across the board and cut back number of shots.

Push save into toughness would make for a much faster game, with resilience as a roll for super tough things, and inv saves still on some things.
Would also help a lot for balance if there was a cut off for damage as well,
Instead I just think these tern the infantry part of the game into a how much can you shoot, as I have no real expectations of GW writing good rules for it.

Voss wrote:
Yep. 1st, 2nd, 3rd-7th, and 8th/9th.

Though I'd take 6th over everything 4th and onwards. Especially 7th, since that was just a few pages of errata and WFB's most unbalanced magic system stapled onto the game in a blind fit of optimistic stupidity, followed by absolutely terribly broken army books.

...I'm going to assume there's a typo in there, Voss?

And GW should leave Toughness and the to-wound roll alone. Different weapons will damage enemies at different rates, which is a function of the attacker's S & AP, and the defender's T & Save(s). And this 4chan gibberish even goes beyond the daftness of AOS' fixed to-wound rolls, where a Goblin wounds a Great Unclean One as easily as it wounds a Skaven Slave - if they'd said GW were porting that over, I'd've found it more believable, unfortunately.

I sincerely hope they don't do a full reset like they did with 8th. I hated having to buy indexes only for them to be invalidated fairly soon, and the power disparity between codex and index armies that existed until everyone had their codex. Plus it would be a major feels-bad for all World Eaters players, who will only get four months with their codex before it becomes obsolete. That part wouldn't even affect me directly but I'd still be unhappy about it.

That being said, I'm not about to quit playing or anything. I'll just have to roll with the punches like everyone else. At least we're most likely getting The Lion out of the deal.

40k is one of the very few mass battle games that use toughness and armour

all others are either skirmish or have a single defence stat
this is nothing new, this is what made 40k unique among the other system around, that there is more granularity and it worked well for the initial rules

a problem if 8th/9th was that GW made a new "to wound" table without adjusting Strength/Toughness according to the new table

in theory were are back to the ideas of 3rd-7th Edition Auto-Wound of high strength weapons
if Strength is Double+1 Toughness you don't make a roll but kill the target if you hit

it is the same but without the need to do "math" during the game but just checking if there is the special rule in the unit data sheet that says yes or no


the problem is never that those things don't work with other games, or that other games make better use of such mechanics
the problem is that GW designer copy&paste rules from other games without understanding why those rules are used in the first place

Stratagems and Command Points were a literal copy of other rules, yet GW managed to crew it up in a way that people "hate" that game mechanic now no matter if it works for the other games or not

Kill Teams movement tools are another good example, literal copy of other games without using any of the advantages but just make it a ruler without numbers so people don't need to do "math"

a combined defence stat makes a faster game as you roll less dice
but you can be sure that GW will find a way to make it much slower

"Game is intended to be faster, with smaller units and a much bigger emphasis on terrain" Wasn't that the mantra of 9th? They were successful, completely. MSU is the rule. Terrain is oppressively (to the point of damaging the quality of the game) obscuring L shaped ruins. God help you if have lanes of fire with only a -1 to hit to save you. It's invisible or dead. Yep, we need more of all that. My troops auto wound? Unless they're 3x the wound count on stuff that matters like AoS this will get dirty really fast.

Toughness is now only on datasheets with a [Heavy Armour] keyword ability. E.g Terminators, Rhinos, Dreadnoughts etc. Generic troops now only roll to hit when attacking and save when defending.

That's bull gak, but I believe it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think he's means rules base. For all of 6th/7th's problems, they were based on the same rules that started in 3rd.

If they moved to a new rules base for 10th, it'd make the 8th/9th period unique.

6th was about 2 years and up till 9th took the lead, it was the worst edition IMHO

Most players look back on 7th as worse but that was mostly later in the edition, based on the formation spam/allies rules. the mechanics of the game were actually slightly better in many ways in 7th.

It was the first edition that dropped after most of the original design team left.

Yes the basic mechanics were based on 3rd-5th but they added so much garbage that it was only partially recognizable. that is why when we did our hybrid edition rules most come from 3rd-5th and about the only things we use aside from some 6th/7th ed codexes that didn't exist before 5th was grenade throwing, snap fire, overwatch and combining the FW flyer rules with the GW flyer rules (making hem harder to hit but easier to kill).

40k is one of the very few mass battle games that use toughness and armour

all others are either skirmish or have a single defence stat
this is nothing new, this is what made 40k unique among the other system around, that there is more granularity and it worked well for the initial rules

That is one of the reasons i still play oldhammer. i like it for what it is-epic thematic battles in the 40K universe, not meant to be balanced, not meant to be for tournament play. it is unique in the genre, It is comparatively fast (we can usually get through 7 turns in less than 2 hours) and simple for a large battle game while not being so abstract that it loses it's simulation type feel.

I play a bunch of other game systems i enjoy (see my sig) regularly and they are all unique in their own way. It keeps you from getting burned out by playing the same game system over and over, especially when you get to play as much as our game group does.

I already have a hard confirm on a 40K game for Saturday pitting my 7th ed admech codex VS 5th ed imperial guard codex. i also have a confirm on a clan V clan classic battle tech game, i am almost certain we will also be getting some monpoc in as well....and that's just for starters.

Apple fox wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Back in 7th I advocated for stripping the to wound roll, because the rules were tedious and bloated and there were too many layers of saves.
Having played One page rules I think a to wound roll/ toughness is exactly what this game would need to turn down the high lethality.
Since lethality is the main problem of 9th as well I don’t think stripping toughness would be useful, especially not with how GW writes rules. It'd work until the third Codex is released.

Bump toughness across the board and cut back number of shots.

Push save into toughness would make for a much faster game, with resilience as a roll for super tough things, and inv saves still on some things.
Would also help a lot for balance if there was a cut off for damage as well,
Instead I just think these tern the infantry part of the game into a how much can you shoot, as I have no real expectations of GW writing good rules for it.

Well. While BS 3+ S4 vs T4+ can be roughly be same as 4+...problem is of course with values ranging from 2+ to 6+ not much variety.

But then again that's just rumour. I'll believe it when I see it.

marines kill on a 3+
normals kill on a 4+, or a 5+ v marines
orks kill on a 6+ because feth orks..

I could see them trying to streamline it that way, fits with making upgrades more costed in, and I'd expect to see "power level" pushed a lot harder

leopard wrote:
marines kill on a 3+
normals kill on a 4+, or a 5+ v marines
orks kill on a 6+ because feth orks..

I could see them trying to streamline it that way, fits with making upgrades more costed in, and I'd expect to see "power level" pushed a lot harder

With a lot of marines conveniently elevated to 2 wounds, marines would still be much more resilient than e.g. guardsmen, just by a different mechanism. Of course that makes a lot of difference for D1 vs D2 or DD3 weapons, but that is probably a plus in GW's book, because it allows to make marines 'moar awesome' with their 20 different types of boltgun.

I'm hoping they say 'feth it' and reintroduce D4, D8, D10, D12 rolls/dice rather than 2D6+2 nonsense.

Straight dice roll. Easy. Can make tough armour tough again, such as Terminator armour being 3+ but on a D12 or something, with the fallback to 5++ on a D6 if hit with something hilariously big.
It would even benefit simple troops, such as guardsmen, would be 5+ still, but on a D8 so a straight 50/50. Hell, there's so much granularity you could have that would address issues of a straight D6 system...

Pigs fly before that happens.

tneva82 wrote:
Pigs fly before that happens.

but would they be "FinePigs(tm)" and pre-painted or not? monopose? available only a limited edition boxed set that didn't include the rules?

I'd appreciate if you didn't gunk up the thread with quippy one-liners.

tneva82 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Back in 7th I advocated for stripping the to wound roll, because the rules were tedious and bloated and there were too many layers of saves.
Having played One page rules I think a to wound roll/ toughness is exactly what this game would need to turn down the high lethality.
Since lethality is the main problem of 9th as well I don’t think stripping toughness would be useful, especially not with how GW writes rules. It'd work until the third Codex is released.

Bump toughness across the board and cut back number of shots.

Push save into toughness would make for a much faster game, with resilience as a roll for super tough things, and inv saves still on some things.
Would also help a lot for balance if there was a cut off for damage as well,
Instead I just think these tern the infantry part of the game into a how much can you shoot, as I have no real expectations of GW writing good rules for it.

Well. While BS 3+ S4 vs T4+ can be roughly be same as 4+...problem is of course with values ranging from 2+ to 6+ not much variety.

But then again that's just rumour. I'll believe it when I see it.

You can do a lot with a D6 if you want, they don’t have to stick to a strict formula. Just GW has no idea of why, so we just expect a bunch of random rather than a look at refinement of systems.
It’s probably a feature for them, can now sells new books. But actually fixing issues, I expect so little.

still think that somewhere in the Nottingham bunker there needs to be a serious discussion about what 40k is meant to be.

for me you have the "universe", and games set in it, I'd like to see kill team expanded, thats the "skirmish" game, squad level. 40k used to be the sort of platoon level, not huge, individuals still matter - GW have moved more towards it being company level and up, in terms of game size

whats needed is a choice on what size of game they want, and rules suitable for it.

I'd almost say use the Apoc system as a core game, slightly more detailed and then stick a new game in between thats aimed at a 'core' or three or four units, with some supporting elements and that works at that level

current 40k is trying to work with small and large games and failing at both

A certain amount of that feels unavoidable.

The core game’s scale has grown over the years, as folk spend ever more years collecting and growing armies, and so the rules were adapted to allow larger forces to be realistically fielded.

Not also providing smaller scale, perhaps with more detailed rules is what did for WHFB, as that got to the stage where the initial outlay was pretty damned high.

I wouldn’t say no to a middle ground between Skirmish and Mass Pagga in terms of rules. Being stuck in my ways, 2nd Ed type detail would suit me. In terms of rough modern equivalent? A 1,500 point 2nd Ed game was about nice, and is probably around 1,000 points worth of modern Stuff.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A certain amount of that feels unavoidable.

The core game’s scale has grown over the years, as folk spend ever more years collecting and growing armies, and so the rules were adapted to allow larger forces to be realistically fielded.

Not also providing smaller scale, perhaps with more detailed rules is what did for WHFB, as that got to the stage where the initial outlay was pretty damned high.

I wouldn’t say no to a middle ground between Skirmish and Mass Pagga in terms of rules. Being stuck in my ways, 2nd Ed type detail would suit me. In terms of rough modern equivalent? A 1,500 point 2nd Ed game was about nice, and is probably around 1,000 points worth of modern Stuff.

Also the actual minis got a lot bigger in scale and also lots of huge sized kits these days. Meaning the footprints on a regular table feel a bit to crowded. IMO.
Smaller armies would probably be more fun to build and play and look better on the table.

A big part of it is expectation, even when we did big games we had a hard divide of players wanting to see big games with infantry and tanks, to players who just wanted to bring there biggest minis and ignore the smaller stuff.
I don’t want to see infantry reduced even more, it what makes 40k still Interesting.
So these rules do just fill me with more apathy to the GW brand.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A certain amount of that feels unavoidable.

The core game’s scale has grown over the years, as folk spend ever more years collecting and growing armies, and so the rules were adapted to allow larger forces to be realistically fielded.

Not also providing smaller scale, perhaps with more detailed rules is what did for WHFB, as that got to the stage where the initial outlay was pretty damned high.

I wouldn’t say no to a middle ground between Skirmish and Mass Pagga in terms of rules. Being stuck in my ways, 2nd Ed type detail would suit me. In terms of rough modern equivalent? A 1,500 point 2nd Ed game was about nice, and is probably around 1,000 points worth of modern Stuff.

that sort of size game, getting its own rules, but perhaps such that when you get a faction codex you also get the rules for this game as well would appeal a lot

gives options

you can use the "big" game with lower points and get a faster, less detailed game
you can use the "medium" game rules with higher points and get a slower, more detailed game

comes down to asking "do you want the individual model to make a difference or be part of a unit?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A certain amount of that feels unavoidable.

The core game’s scale has grown over the years, as folk spend ever more years collecting and growing armies, and so the rules were adapted to allow larger forces to be realistically fielded.

Not also providing smaller scale, perhaps with more detailed rules is what did for WHFB, as that got to the stage where the initial outlay was pretty damned high.

I wouldn’t say no to a middle ground between Skirmish and Mass Pagga in terms of rules. Being stuck in my ways, 2nd Ed type detail would suit me. In terms of rough modern equivalent? A 1,500 point 2nd Ed game was about nice, and is probably around 1,000 points worth of modern Stuff.

Also the actual minis got a lot bigger in scale and also lots of huge sized kits these days. Meaning the footprints on a regular table feel a bit to crowded. IMO.
Smaller armies would probably be more fun to build and play and look better on the table.

its not even the models being physically larger as such, its the close proximity that does it, feels right for infantry up close, but tanks bumper to bumper looks wrong

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So let's fix 9th's lethality issues by making it even easier to kill things.

That sounds like a GW solution alright.

Hear, hear. Especially with all those armies that somehow can spam 2+ ap -1 or ap -2 attacks.

M.

thinking about it, if the "to wound" roll goes this is a massive buff to any horde shooting army like say Imperial Guard..

basically it can work in historical games where everyone is equally squishy and weapons are equally lethal if they hit - so all that matters is "did you hit?" and "do they have effective armour?"

but not sure the idea of the best anti infantry weapon being the las gun because of how many you bring working is going to be fun

A very trustworthy leaker over on TGA (AoS forum) just said at least a part of the latest rumors are false. Specifically these three things:

>Core rules are streamlined
>Psychic Phase and Command Phase are combined
>Toughness is now only on datasheets with a [Heavy Armour] keyword ability. E.g Terminators, Rhinos, Dreadnoughts etc. Generic troops now only roll to hit when attacking and save when defending.

No idea about the rest of the rumors he just quoted these and said false but at least in terms of AoS I can't remember a time he was wrong about something