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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I think the cover-increases-save is not great. The only issue I have with FNP is the extra roll. Although personally I tend to swing back to the 2nd ed subtraction To Hit roll, which has the extra bonus of removing dice from the roll process earlier. The problem is it starts to suck for low BS models, although for 40k I think a "6s always hit" works well as a solution.

Yeah. Feels like something like this might work better. Maybe only have the to-hit modifier kick in outside of X" or something (sort of like the ravenguard/alaitoc faction abilities) so that all armies have some counterplay to offset the to-hit penalty. A crossfire mechanic would work well here too.

"A crossfire mechanic would work well here too." <<==== Nice!

 catbarf wrote:

Also it's a sidenote, but I've never felt the explanation of having the defender roll saves so they 'get the last say' to be particularly compelling. I played Tyranids and Guard primarily in 3rd-5th, so I rarely got a save to begin with. You could easily swap it around and have the attacker roll to hit and roll to penetrate armor, then the defender gets a 'toughness save', and that'd always give you at least some chance to survive.

You might even combine the hit roll (=weapon accuracy) with the penetration roll (=weapon, uh, penetration) to have only a single roll. You could list it with the weapon instead of giving the firer a distinct ballistic skill...

Also, crossfire! I'd love that. A reason to attempt real manoeuvring. Of course, none of this has any bearing on what 10th will be bringing to the table.

The Plunging Fire rule is at least a step towards positioning and maneuvering making an impact on gameplay.

It's not the most elegant way of doing it, but it's something at least.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Also it's a sidenote, but I've never felt the explanation of having the defender roll saves so they 'get the last say' to be particularly compelling. I played Tyranids and Guard primarily in 3rd-5th, so I rarely got a save to begin with. You could easily swap it around and have the attacker roll to hit and roll to penetrate armor, then the defender gets a 'toughness save', and that'd always give you at least some chance to survive.

You might even combine the hit roll (=weapon accuracy) with the penetration roll (=weapon, uh, penetration) to have only a single roll. You could list it with the weapon instead of giving the firer a distinct ballistic skill...

Also, crossfire! I'd love that. A reason to attempt real manoeuvring. Of course, none of this has any bearing on what 10th will be bringing to the table.

I always felt Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system was a fairly elegant approach to consolidating rolls like that. Roll to hit, target rolls to dodge, if the attacker rolls higher you multiply the difference by the weapon's damage multiplier. Compare to the target's armor, and for each multiple of their armor the intensity of damage increases. Eg you fire a gun with +2 to hit and x8 damage against a target with armor 12. You roll a 3 and add your +2 to get 5, they roll a 1. The difference is 4, so multiplied by x8 you get 32, and since that's over double the target's armor but not quite triple, you inflict Heavy Damage. Obviously opposed rolls don't scale well to a mass-battle game, but it did create a system where you could resolve an entire attack with one roll while still having interesting damage effects and multiple levers with which to differentiate weapons.

Meanwhile in Dust Warfare the number of dice a weapon rolls depends on the target type, so viability against different target types was baked into the weapons. Successes are always 5+, sustained fire lets you re-roll, cover mitigates the first hit (or two hits for heavy cover IIRC), and then the target rolls armor saves to mitigate further damage. Simple, fast.

Starship Troopers represented weapons as dice (with modifiers) and gave units Hit, Save, and Kill values. To shoot you just roll the dice; if you score the Hit value they get to roll a save, and if you score the Kill value they get no save. Basic infantry weapons were almost always D6 based so you didn't need a clutch of weird dice. Combat usually came down to rolling a bunch of D6s plus a couple of more exotic dice, then the target rolled some saves, and that's it.

Or OnePageRules does 40K-lite by consolidating to-hit and to-wound into a single roll. A lasgun hits on 5+, then you get your save. Attacker rolls once, defender rolls once, done.

All just examples of different ways to do it. Rolling at least three times (and possibly a lot more, with re-rolls, variable shots, variable damage, FNPs, etc) for separate, unrelated trials- where how well you hit has no bearing on how likely you are to inflict damage- is the old-school approach.

Afrodactyl wrote:The Plunging Fire rule is at least a step towards positioning and maneuvering making an impact on gameplay.

It's not the most elegant way of doing it, but it's something at least.

While I'm not holding my breath, it is possible that crossfire or something like it might be a game-wide rule. Plunging Fire is a good sign that they want positioning to matter.

Apocalypse probably was the closest 40k ever got to a system appropriate for its scale.

Sad it never got a lot of attention.

 Tyran wrote:
Apocalypse probably was the closest 40k ever got to a system appropriate for its scale.

Sad it never got a lot of attention.

Preach! One of my main wishes for 10th was damage at the end of the turn.


Personally (and I'm probably in the minority here) but I would have loved to have seen "cover" as a separate invulnerable-type save mechanic. I.E. the fence your Guardsman is hiding behind provides a 6++, if that is failed then the 5+ flak armor would be up to bat; the model always gets the cover save (except against cover-ignoring weapons) and then it's armor save. I feel that would be a little more realistic then systems implemented in previous editions; even though it would add another die roll.

My preferred order of operations example: enemy rolls to hit -> you roll cover saves (if necessary) -> you roll armor saves (if necessary) -> enemy rolls to wound -> place tokens representing wounds received or models destroyed -> proceed with your turn -> remove models at the end of the Battle Round

there is a mechanic I like for armour/cover in a roleplay game, the mechanic is good but would struggle in a d6 system

basically "you have been hit!", ok you now have a chance to outright avoid the damage, this is a mixture of several passive effects, e.g. chance of armour deflecting the hit, being behind a wall, it being foggy and whatever, these are added - you can then optionally add an active effect - parry, dodge, block mostly (obviously for ranged weapons its dodge) - this costs you your own action though but is good.

so maybe starts as a 7++, maybe cover takes it to a 6++ (this is above the effect on the to hit roll), maybe you can go to 5++ with some armour etc, you get the idea.

this is the chance of the hit simply not effecting you

if that fails it does hit you, your armour now reduces the damage taken (this obviously implies a multi wound system - but could work at a squad level)


and also, yes the Apoc system they did of minor and major hits was nice, you know a squad is taking a lot of fire but not the effect of that at until the end of the turn, do they try something heroic? do they try to mitigate it? does the enemy aim for overkill? I really liked that system and it felt a lot better for the scale of games 40k is generally trying to be to have squads act as a single "thing"

 Lord Clinto wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Apocalypse probably was the closest 40k ever got to a system appropriate for its scale.

Sad it never got a lot of attention.

Preach! One of my main wishes for 10th was damage at the end of the turn.


Personally (and I'm probably in the minority here) but I would have loved to have seen "cover" as a separate invulnerable-type save mechanic. I.E. the fence your Guardsman is hiding behind provides a 6++, if that is failed then the 5+ flak armor would be up to bat; the model always gets the cover save (except against cover-ignoring weapons) and then it's armor save. I feel that would be a little more realistic then systems implemented in previous editions; even though it would add another die roll.

My preferred order of operations example: enemy rolls to hit -> you roll cover saves (if necessary) -> you roll armor saves (if necessary) -> enemy rolls to wound -> place tokens representing wounds received or models destroyed -> proceed with your turn -> remove models at the end of the Battle Round

Yep, I'd play that. Reminds me of the [sad old git mode]good old days of 2nd ed when you got your force field saves and then your armour saves afterwards[/sad old git mode].

Armour then field saves, actually

 Tyran wrote:
Apocalypse probably was the closest 40k ever got to a system appropriate for its scale.

Sad it never got a lot of attention.

Ultimately some of the core aspects of Apocalypse should've been kept in order to stop GW from making the same mistakes they usually make.

Give me back runtbots with force fields to protect the snotling herds please Jimmy.

 Lord Clinto wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Apocalypse probably was the closest 40k ever got to a system appropriate for its scale.

Sad it never got a lot of attention.

Preach! One of my main wishes for 10th was damage at the end of the turn.


Personally (and I'm probably in the minority here) but I would have loved to have seen "cover" as a separate invulnerable-type save mechanic. I.E. the fence your Guardsman is hiding behind provides a 6++, if that is failed then the 5+ flak armor would be up to bat; the model always gets the cover save (except against cover-ignoring weapons) and then it's armor save. I feel that would be a little more realistic then systems implemented in previous editions; even though it would add another die roll.

My preferred order of operations example: enemy rolls to hit -> you roll cover saves (if necessary) -> you roll armor saves (if necessary) -> enemy rolls to wound -> place tokens representing wounds received or models destroyed -> proceed with your turn -> remove models at the end of the Battle Round

Otherwise fine idea but for sake of practicality hit, wound, saves. Switching rollers slows game down needlessly.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/28/gambits-and-missions-heres-how-you-win-games-of-new40k/

Huzzah.

I was kinda hoping they'd go back to the 6x4 board size (I know it's technically just a minimum), but I'll gladly take short edge deployment zones as a consolation. New mission system looks interesting.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
I was kinda hoping they'd go back to the 6x4 board size (I know it's technically just a minimum), but I'll gladly take short edge deployment zones as a consolation. New mission system looks interesting.

Short edges is for Only War - there's deployment cards for the Chapter Approved missions, which will probably have a variety of layouts.

I'm still sticking with 6x4 regardless.

I absolutely LOVE that. It reminds me somewhat of 2nd edition mission cards, but modernized. I already loved Tempest of War. if it can be flexible enough I think it will be great, to use as-is for pickup games/game night, or even hand-pick a series of themed missions for a tournament, so you have a tournament but with a slight theme (gasp, a narrative!) behind the choices.

I do wish 6x4 was the standard again, but it's one of those things where I 100% blame ITC/FLG for the new style dominating, as they A) Immediately said all ITC sanctioned events would be using the minimum only, and B) Conveniently FLG immediately began selling mats in the new size.

 Asmodai wrote:


Short edges is for Only War - there's deployment cards for the Chapter Approved missions, which will probably have a variety of layouts.

I'm still sticking with 6x4 regardless.

Good catch! Hopefully short edges shows up in CA missions (although I'm pretty sure I've yet to draw the short edge deployment in a tempest game hahaha)

So in order to play you will need to have your codex and a deck of cards, which looks as if it is going to be updated with every IA.

I also wonder what is going to stop people from changing to gambit at turn 3, if they max out the original primary. The victory points don't get reset, so armies that can do gambits easier would get ta huge bust comparing to others.

Non world wide thing releated, at my store all the tables have on of their short age touching a well. I wonder how we are going to go around the problems of one person having to run around the table, bumping in to other people. Especialy as more then half of the players at our store are 30+, and not exactly the size of a 13 year old.

Karol wrote:
So in order to play you will need to have your codex and a deck of cards, which looks as if it is going to be updated with every IA.

I also wonder what is going to stop people from changing to gambit at turn 3, if they max out the original primary. The victory points don't get reset, so armies that can do gambits easier would get ta huge bust comparing to others.

Non world wide thing releated, at my store all the tables have on of their short age touching a well. I wonder how we are going to go around the problems of one person having to run around the table, bumping in to other people. Especialy as more then half of the players at our store are 30+, and not exactly the size of a 13 year old.

this edition has already informed us we'll need more gaming aids since the very beginning (two page for your rules + datasheet).

Karol wrote:
So in order to play you will need to have your codex and a deck of cards, which looks as if it is going to be updated with every IA.

I also wonder what is going to stop people from changing to gambit at turn 3, if they max out the original primary. The victory points don't get reset, so armies that can do gambits easier would get ta huge bust comparing to others.

Non world wide thing releated, at my store all the tables have on of their short age touching a well. I wonder how we are going to go around the problems of one person having to run around the table, bumping in to other people. Especialy as more then half of the players at our store are 30+, and not exactly the size of a 13 year old.

I didn't see anything stating that primaries "max out". So you're giving up 30 points potentially from primaries for 30 points potentially from gambit.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


this edition has already informed us we'll need more gaming aids since the very beginning (two page for your rules + datasheet).

Well as long as it is not going to be, we will send 6 decks to every non GW store and everyone else can buy our new Warhammer+++ 30$ subscription I will be okey with it. I am not against the idea of cards, being use and haven't played the new system, can't properly judge the new scoring mechanics. I do not like how hard it is to get rules from GW in the last 12 months or so. One of the main reasons I play more AoS right now, is because I couldn't get my hands on AoO or boarding rules sets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:


I didn't see anything stating that primaries "max out". So you're giving up 30 points potentially from primaries for 30 points potentially from gambit.

Well max out in the game play sense. When you know there is no way in the next 2 turns you will get 30VP from primary, and if your opponent is ahead, then trying a gambit can make sense. If GW designes some armies in a way where they can do it. We don't know how other gambits look like and how faction rules will look like. IMO it will still be a fringe case to actualy try them, unless GW drops the ball on some army, that can just easily do it.

 Asmodai wrote:

Karol wrote:
So in order to play you will need to have your codex and a deck of cards, which looks as if it is going to be updated with every IA.

I also wonder what is going to stop people from changing to gambit at turn 3, if they max out the original primary. The victory points don't get reset, so armies that can do gambits easier would get ta huge bust comparing to others.

Non world wide thing releated, at my store all the tables have on of their short age touching a well. I wonder how we are going to go around the problems of one person having to run around the table, bumping in to other people. Especialy as more then half of the players at our store are 30+, and not exactly the size of a 13 year old.

I didn't see anything stating that primaries "max out". So you're giving up 30 points potentially from primaries for 30 points potentially from gambit.

I think it will probably 10 painting, 30 secondary, and 60 primary. So IF you have done well enough to score MAX primary turns 2 and 3 then this would fill the remaining primary.

I wonder where the tradeoff point is between taking the gambit and sticking with primary. It'll probably depend on which two gambits you have available to select from. If they're all worth 30 VP, that'd make the decision easier. Then you'd have to take into account your ability to accomplish the gambit, your ability to score your secondaries, and your ability to prevent your opponent from scoring enough primary and secondaries win anyway. As someone who preferred tempest largely because it let me avoid making decisions on which secondaries to make, I'm dreading having to make this decision haha. Still, I like the mechanic and I hope the tradeoff point is something that comes up enough to be relevant.

Wayniac wrote:
I do wish 6x4 was the standard again, but it's one of those things where I 100% blame ITC/FLG for the new style dominating, as they A) Immediately said all ITC sanctioned events would be using the minimum only, and B) Conveniently FLG immediately began selling mats in the new size.

They're businessmen first, gamers second. It probably wasn't always this way, but the moment they started a business, they had to be businessmen first. So, I guarantee they saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. They were able to sell new mats to everyone who already purchased one -AND- fit more players into their events which equals more ticket sales.

I also stuck with 6'x4' and have no plans to change.

What is probably the most tragic thing about the move to the smaller play area is the loss of the Realm of Battle Gameboards and Sector Imperialis Gameboards. These were truly two of the best products GW ever released.

 oni wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I do wish 6x4 was the standard again, but it's one of those things where I 100% blame ITC/FLG for the new style dominating, as they A) Immediately said all ITC sanctioned events would be using the minimum only, and B) Conveniently FLG immediately began selling mats in the new size.

They're businessmen first, gamers second. It probably wasn't always this way, but the moment they started a business, they had to be businessmen first. So, I guarantee they saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. They were able to sell new mats to everyone who already purchased one -AND- fit more players into their events which equals more ticket sales.

I also stuck with 6'x4' and have no plans to change.

What is probably the most tragic thing about the move to the smaller play area is the loss of the Realm of Battle Gameboards and Sector Imperialis Gameboards. These were truly two of the best products GW ever released.

I can't say I agree on that last part given that they were $300 for really large hunks of plastic. Especially since they got rid of an actual useful gaming cloth which they had before that. Before the realm of battle board they had an actual green cloth mat that you could throw over stuff that would have actually been useful for plenty of things had they still sold it

I just really didn't like that itc immediately said this minimum is going to be the only thing by making it tournament standard knowing full well what that would have done. They could have left it up to individual TO's but instead they made it so that every game I've ever seen since 9th Edition has been on the minimum and asking to use a normal size table gets you looked at the same as saying let's not use points

I'm a terrain junkie, so $300.00 and worth every penny IMO. I have one of each and love them.

I even have GW original 3'x3' vacuum formed table top. It was issued to a few stores back in the early 2000's (4th edition) to run demo games. It wouldn't surprise me if I have the last one in existence.

Wayniac wrote:
I just really didn't like that itc immediately said this minimum is going to be the only thing by making it tournament standard knowing full well what that would have done. They could have left it up to individual TO's but instead they made it so that every game I've ever seen since 9th Edition has been on the minimum and asking to use a normal size table gets you looked at the same as saying let's not use points

FLG and their ilk are gakky market actors, news at 11.

I hope the deployment cards measure all relevant distances from the board edges rather than the center line. This makes it easier to use whatever board size you want.

I also find it weird that none of the example cards or card types seem to have or support rules for where to play objectives... So perhaps objective placement rules are core?

That would be a consistent game factor despite so much else being randomized. It will be interesting to see if consistent objective placement rules still leave missions feeling samey even with a random deck.

I think it's cooler than what we have now... But I'm a poor judge because Crusade doesn't award VPs for Secondaries and I can't judge the game by standards that matter to me until I find out what the 10th ed equivalent of Crusade is and whether or not Agendas continue to exist.

Wayniac wrote:

 oni wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I do wish 6x4 was the standard again, but it's one of those things where I 100% blame ITC/FLG for the new style dominating, as they A) Immediately said all ITC sanctioned events would be using the minimum only, and B) Conveniently FLG immediately began selling mats in the new size.

They're businessmen first, gamers second. It probably wasn't always this way, but the moment they started a business, they had to be businessmen first. So, I guarantee they saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. They were able to sell new mats to everyone who already purchased one -AND- fit more players into their events which equals more ticket sales.

I also stuck with 6'x4' and have no plans to change.

What is probably the most tragic thing about the move to the smaller play area is the loss of the Realm of Battle Gameboards and Sector Imperialis Gameboards. These were truly two of the best products GW ever released.

I can't say I agree on that last part given that they were $300 for really large hunks of plastic. Especially since they got rid of an actual useful gaming cloth which they had before that. Before the realm of battle board they had an actual green cloth mat that you could throw over stuff that would have actually been useful for plenty of things had they still sold it

I just really didn't like that itc immediately said this minimum is going to be the only thing by making it tournament standard knowing full well what that would have done. They could have left it up to individual TO's but instead they made it so that every game I've ever seen since 9th Edition has been on the minimum and asking to use a normal size table gets you looked at the same as saying let's not use points

Well one of the things that makes it look bad is the fact that you're lying.

Not all ITC sanctioned events had to be the new size. All FLG RUN events are the new size and were since launch. I've been to several ITC approved events that use 6x4 and one that used BOTH sizes because who cares at a locals?

Did they have a material interest in selling people new mats at the new size? Yes. But let's characterize what happened at least a little bit accurately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
I hope the deployment cards measure all relevant distances from the board edges rather than the center line. This makes it easier to use whatever board size you want.

I also find it weird that none of the example cards or card types seem to have or support rules for where to play objectives... So perhaps objective placement rules are core?

That would be a consistent game factor despite so much else being randomized. It will be interesting to see if consistent objective placement rules still leave missions feeling samey even with a random deck.

I think it's cooler than what we have now... But I'm a poor judge because Crusade doesn't award VPs for Secondaries and I can't judge the game by standards that matter to me until I find out what the 10th ed equivalent of Crusade is and whether or not Agendas continue to exist.

Article says players place objectives.

But it doesn't give the parameters of how many are placed and where. I imagine it's one in each deployment zone and two in no-man's land with a minimum distance from either DZ.

And more importantly, since that doesn't come from the cards, it's likely a consistent rule.