PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer 40k 8th Edition



Pages : [1] 2

Loyalist87
16-05-2016, 14:19
Commentary on War of Sigmar:


Expect 40k to have a shake up later in the year!
"It won't be as drastic as Warhammer, but it will be quite a change."
More stream lined and easier to pick...


I was talking to Ally Morrison and Adam Dunn (They were near the entrance) I know Adam from a while back and during our chat 40k came up...
Well about how cumbersome it's become.
Any way.
He said the quote above....

Casper Hawser
16-05-2016, 15:33
Weird they'd bog it down a bit more with this new flyer book. Unless the new flyer book has made flyers simpler I've not read it so maybe it has.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ambience 327
16-05-2016, 15:35
This sounds to me like a nod to the Battle For Vedros stuff coming out. It is supposed to have a simplified version of the rules from what I've heard.

lachlin
16-05-2016, 16:12
2ND edition was collapsing under it's own weight before GW streamlined it for 3rd edition. Maybe that will happen with 8th?

Inquisitor Engel
16-05-2016, 16:58
2ND edition was collapsing under it's own weight before GW streamlined it for 3rd edition. Maybe that will happen with 8th?

Perhaps.

I wouldn't mind a D&D style approach. The basic game is incredibly straightforward, then you buy supplements that support more advanced models and play styles.

vlad78
16-05-2016, 17:09
3rd edition also ended totally bloated, only 7th is worse.

Furthermore, if they don't bring a radically new gameplay, if they don't depart from yougoigo, the game will stay really poor from a tactical point of view. Alternate activation brings so much improvement.

Yet an 8th edition so soon will probably disgust a few more players.
I for myself didn't buy the 7th edition rulebook and stopped buying when 7th edition space marine codex launched for a lack of anything really new. 40k nowadays is not the game I fell in love anymore.

The speed of releases keeps increasing and judging form the last death from the skies, quality keeps falling. I will certainly not jump on the 8th edition ship especially if it looks like 8th wfb designed to milk customers while AOS was already planned.

inq.serge
16-05-2016, 17:19
I hope they do as they always do when they do right; Borrow from Epic. I know AoS got lot of bad critique for being new, but as an avid AoS-player, some of the best parts of AoS are borrowed from Epic.

Theocracity
16-05-2016, 17:41
I certainly wouldn't mind a simpler version of the rules. I haven't played in a while, and every time I consider it my mind starts to wander when I consider all the elements I'd have to take into consideration.

And if they mess it up, I can just continue my modeling and keep not caring about the rules too much. Win / win for me.

duffybear1988
16-05-2016, 17:59
3rd edition also ended totally bloated, only 7th is worse.

Furthermore, if they don't bring a radically new gameplay, if they don't depart from yougoigo, the game will stay really poor from a tactical point of view. Alternate activation brings so much improvement.

Yet an 8th edition so soon will probably disgust a few more players.
I for myself didn't buy the 7th edition rulebook and stopped buying when 7th edition space marine codex launched for a lack of anything really new. 40k nowadays is not the game I fell in love anymore.

The speed of releases keeps increasing and judging form the last death from the skies, quality keeps falling. I will certainly not jump on the 8th edition ship especially if it looks like 8th wfb designed to milk customers while AOS was already planned.

Nope. 3rd ed was nowhere near as bloated as 7th. A few extra sheets of rules is not massive bloat. Especially when they were mostly available free online and/or came in WD or the Chapter Approved books.

Smooth Boy
16-05-2016, 18:06
I've got a sinking feeling in my stomach...

Loyalist87
16-05-2016, 18:31
3rd and 5th Editions were both very slim measured with the 7th.

inq.serge
16-05-2016, 19:01
Maybe They'll do like AoS And try to explain the rules as clear and with as few words as possible?

Don't want to wishlist, but something they should copy from AoS is the Keyword system.

I.E: Give all plasma weapons PLASMA keyword, and all flamers FLAMER keyword, and give flamers and all melta weapons the HEAT keyword, and then give the Avatar an immunity to weapons with HEAT keyword.

This would make stuff like, what counts as a flamer against Salamanders and Plasma against OX Inq.s, and what counts as adeptus astartes against CSM so much easier.

Malefactum
16-05-2016, 20:22
I.E: Give all plasma weapons PLASMA keyword, and all flamers FLAMER keyword, and give flamers and all melta weapons the HEAT keyword, and then give the Avatar an immunity to weapons with HEAT keyword.
And that's how it came to be that the Avatar is immune to Melta, but not to Flamer...?

Anyway, editions coming faster and faster, eh?

aracerssx
16-05-2016, 20:34
if 40k turns to what vedros is, that will be the last nail for me.

WarsmithGarathor94
16-05-2016, 20:44
I don't mind them streamlining 40k but I hope they don't go back to 5th ed era style rules as that was actually quite boring and I started in 5th

sunborn
16-05-2016, 20:54
I certainly wouldn't mind a simpler version of the rules. I haven't played in a while, and every time I consider it my mind starts to wander when I consider all the elements I'd have to take into consideration. .

You aren't the only one. I do this too. I want to play the game, but the special rules that have special rules are terrible.

It wouldn't be bad if each unit had cards like X-wing. Even then, the rulebooks aren't laid out to use units from multiple codices.

Let's not even mention that many factions are completely uncompetitive.

BoyMilla
16-05-2016, 21:15
I have wondered for a while now if GW will try to amalgamate AoS & 40k, much like Warmahordes?
Reasons for my thinking.
1.AoS change to round bases means continuity with 40k.
2.General scale/power creep of AoS units to more mythical/godlike beings, could actually stand up against 40k units.
3.AoS background with realmgates/portals would allow for travel into the 40k setting.
4.Now a simplification of the 40k ruleset mean it could be made even more compatible with AoS.

I could be way off with my speculation, but it could entice players of 40k to collect an AoS army and vice versa....
Or of course it could enrage/alienate the 40k player base and mean the downfall of GW.

Comrade Penguin
16-05-2016, 21:25
I am hesitantly looking forward to this. I haven't played in about a year and a half as the current system is such a mess. Too many rolls and rerolls, exceptions to rules, and sub-phases now days. No casual game should last 4+ hours.

Æon
16-05-2016, 22:32
While the 40k rules could certainly use some streamlining, I hope they pick the good ideas from X-Wing, Infinity, Antares, Bolt Action and Warmachine, rather than AoS-ing 40k. A modern and tactical rule system that rewards planning and thinking ahead, more synergy between units, alternating activations and game size scalability would be wonderful. "Roll to see if you get two whole turns in a row" would not.

Also, I hope they don't mess up the setting too much or kill off races that don't sell too well. I fear for the Sisters of Battle.

aracerssx
16-05-2016, 22:35
can't believe it's gonna turn into this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq6sFN4mmbs

Latro_
16-05-2016, 22:53
mandatory omg this gonna suck for chaos post.


----

on a serious note imo 40k now is bloated by its supplements, formations and army special rules... the actual core rules are not imo all that hard to pickup or bloated. So to do a big streamline then its gotta come as an out with everything approach which might be the case since when was the actual last codex? they're offering up supplements to prop armies and sales up lately... the last codex was over 6 months ago right?! but i cant see them rendering all that obsolete... take into consideration FW books and 40k is a beast that'll ruffle a lot of feathers making expensive books toilet paper. On the other side if they just change the core rules what can they really change up that much to make sense with the current books... e.g. you aint making all vehicles just have a T value, what about all the references to rules in supplements and codex books they put a leash round the neck of all but the small changes to the rules... so i'm very perplexed how this is gonna pan out.

Spiney Norman
16-05-2016, 23:40
I've got a sinking feeling in my stomach...

Me too, to be honest I couldn't give a monkeys what happens to 40k, I haven't played in almost a year, but rule changes to 40k always impact on 30k and I've literally just finished painting up a 2K word bearers army using the Legions Astartes list.

The big question for me is whether these changes (whatever they were) were planned under the 'churn n burn' philosophy of the previous CEO or the new direction the company has been going in since Rowntree took over, something tells me that it's a little too soon for a new edition to have come from the Rowntree culture shift. Brace for impact everyone :(

I guess it's time for a 30/40k sales embargo, don't want to be throwing money at a game that could be irreparably shafted in a couple of months time.

AngryAngel
16-05-2016, 23:49
I don't mind them streamlining 40k but I hope they don't go back to 5th ed era style rules as that was actually quite boring and I started in 5th

On the other hand, 5th ed was my golden age for 40k, so I'd actually start a positive topic in general in praise of the sun ( GW ) if they did take it back to 5th ed in a way. Which makes me know, they won't do such, but if it is a true edition shift, and if it makes a lot of these new book releases pointless, I can see a major uproar.



Me too, to be honest I couldn't give a monkeys what happens to 40k, I haven't played in almost a year, but rule changes to 40k always impact on 30k and I've literally just finished painting up a 2K word bearers army using the Legions Astartes list.

The big question for me is whether these changes (whatever they were) were planned under the 'churn n burn' philosophy of the previous CEO or the new direction the company has been going in since Rowntree took over, something tells me that it's a little too soon for a new edition to have come from the Rowntree culture shift. Brace for impact everyone :(

I guess it's time for a 30/40k sales embargo, don't want to be throwing money at a game that could be irreparably shafted in a couple of months time.

As soon as I saw this topic it was like the feeling when Ackbar saw the Imperial fleet just watching the rebels and knew, it was a trap, that is how the news hits me. I hope for the best but feel like it'll end up an awful trap.

thraxdown
17-05-2016, 04:42
Knowing GW they're convinced that assault is too strong and need a new edition to tone it down.

Malefactum
17-05-2016, 05:35
can't believe it's gonna turn into this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq6sFN4mmbsWhat's different to 7th? Except that no special rules are involved (yet), everything looks as usual.

nonnopj
17-05-2016, 06:26
Please please Hastings come and tell us there's nothing to worry

Inviato dal mio GT-I8200 utilizzando Tapatalk

MajorWesJanson
17-05-2016, 06:56
Age of Sigmar had 2 major parts that came at once that caused the major disconnect.
First, the setting blew up and all the fluff was redone. That was widely considered a mistake and has since made a lot of people very unhappy.
Second, the rules were redone to be a lot more streamlined, which besides the lack of point values, 40K could really benefit from.

Spiney Norman
17-05-2016, 07:09
Knowing GW they're convinced that assault is too strong and need a new edition to tone it down.

Indeed, apparently nerfing grenades into the ground via FAQ didn't go far enough, personally I suspect the guiding philosophy will probably have remained, "how can we shaft dark eldar even more", but we shall see...

Death spinner
17-05-2016, 07:54
I really hope this is just a rumour :(. 8th ed may not be perfect, but to see 40k turn too simplistic takes soo much away from the game

Rogue Star
17-05-2016, 08:03
I hope they gut a few of the good bits from AoS to use for 40K. Their are genuinely good ideas in there. The warscrolls being self-contained for everything you need on the unit would be great. By providing a profile on a Tactical Space Marine in the same style, say merging the hit roll of the Boltgun, Combat Knife, Bolt Pistol and Frag Grenade into the actual stat of the weapon, you could probably fit the Save, Wounds and Ld into a wheel, much like AoS. The key words at the bottom would help, like "Imperial, Space Marine, Tactical, Troop" providing more information than the icon at the top that tells you it's a Troop Choice.

Ben
17-05-2016, 08:39
It's slightly different to what I was told, and yes, due to lead times 8th edition will have been written under Kirby. It will also have been written in a time when the default attitude in senior management was that no one played games, and anyone who questioned Kirby openly got the boot.

I was told 8th would be incorporating the FAQ, and that the rules changes would go up online. That might be a comforting internal rumour.

However if 40k has been AOS'd under Kirby then literally a year of releases with new 40k will already have been planned and written.

We will see in 4 months when the new edition comes out.

Russell's teapot
17-05-2016, 08:51
I waited excitedly for 6th.

I've leaned my lesson.

Warhams-77
17-05-2016, 09:51
No Ben, it won't come in 4 months, not even in 2016 :)


Sad Panda - DakkaDakka


New edition won't arrive in 2016.

But they will (and kinda already do) move the story forward.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/691067.page#8660241

Danjester
17-05-2016, 09:52
I've not enjoyed playing 40K since 5th ed. Allies, detachments, formations, psychic phase, flyers... All the newer additions in the past two editions have swamped the game and it's not been fun, for me anyway.

I'm enjoying 30K with 5th or 6th, depending on who I'm playing. But to see 40K go from a (roughly) 4yr cycle of rules to a 2yr one is pretty ******. I can't justify spending £50 on a core rulebook plus who-knows-how-many supplements every 2yrs.

WarsmithGarathor94
17-05-2016, 12:10
@angryangel
While some things about 5th ed were nice alot of it was just boring for example woth the exception of eldar and grey knights psykers and their powers were not actually that good and the rules blatantly favored mechanised armies which I hated at the time as back then I couldn't offend to mechanise my chaos marine army. Once you add in the fact that there was no allies etc it was rather boring. If I had to pick a edition as my fave it would be 6th for all its problems it was actually very fun

A.T.
17-05-2016, 12:33
for example woth the exception of eldar and grey knights psykers and their powers were not actually that goodI remember it more for jaws of the world wolf and lash of submission.

I think with 5e though it started out in a pretty good place for faction balance - 4e books with 5e rules don't give you any clear front runners (though a few armies like daemons were in a bad place).
By the time 6th rolled around players were already facing the horrors of 5e GK and crons, and the age of flyers was about to be ushered in with the helldrake...

WarsmithGarathor94
17-05-2016, 12:50
I remember it more for jaws of the world wolf and lash of submission.

I think with 5e though it started out in a pretty good place for faction balance - 4e books with 5e rules don't give you any clear front runners (though a few armies like daemons were in a bad place).
By the time 6th rolled around players were already facing the horrors of 5e GK and crons, and the age of flyers was about to be ushered in with the helldrake...

I never used jaws and the only time I ever used lash was on a sorceror not a prince. The thing is 6th Ed made psykers actually useful and I personally didn't feel handicapped bringing my Sorcerors lol.

Cheeslord
17-05-2016, 13:17
On the other hand, 5th ed was my golden age for 40k, so I'd actually start a positive topic in general in praise of the sun ( GW ) if they did take it back to 5th ed in a way. Which makes me know, they won't do such, but if it is a true edition shift, and if it makes a lot of these new book releases pointless, I can see a major uproar.


On prior form, new edition releases tend to go to pains NOT to invalidate the previous wave of codices, supplements, dataslates and digital rending ponies. This does tend to limit how much each new edition can change the game however. On the other hand, maybe something similar to AOS, with the advantage of feedback from that project, would not be all that bad. Super-streamlined rules, core plot advancement that is not afraid to change things up, and maybe even a return of compatibility between the sci-fi and fantasy games.

Probably shouldn't ditch points though...

Mark.

Spiney Norman
17-05-2016, 13:23
I never used jaws and the only time I ever used lash was on a sorceror not a prince. The thing is 6th Ed made psykers actually useful and I personally didn't feel handicapped bringing my Sorcerors lol.

I think what really did 6th & 7th in was the ever increasing scale creep and blatant disregard for balance, the escalation book was a bad idea to begin with, unbound, formations and formations-of-formations only made things progressively worse. That's not to say formations couldn't have been handled well, it's just that GW in their extreme ignorance decided that the bonuses they conveyed should be completely free for no good reason.

Actually the core engine behind 6th/7th is fairly sound, 30k uses the same basic mechanics and is a great game, but that's because all the unbound/formation crap just doesn't exist in 30k and it imposes sensible limits on super-heavies.

Vector Strike
17-05-2016, 15:32
I hope they tone down the special rules bloat and streamline decurions for everyone able to get one. Also, reduce dice throwing

Loyalist87
17-05-2016, 15:32
Sadpanda on Dakkadakka:


There is a new edition of 40K in the works.

It's also correct that GW doesn't bother re-doing old Codex books, basically since Tau, as they consider 7th a lame duck rule set (there will still be rules for new miniatures, incl. campaigns, Codex Deathwatch, etc..).

Just that the timeline is off and the new edition further away ... at least 2017 ... according to my information (which has been good so far, but a new edition of 40K is the most secretive topic you could find in GW).

Comrade Penguin
17-05-2016, 16:09
I really think they should reset the clock on a few sub-phases that are really slowing the game down. Overwatch is the biggest offender since you have to check range, roll to hit, roll to wound, and take armor saves ALL BEFORE even starting the combat. A simpler solution would be to allow units to chose to shoot with their guns while in melee instead of making their normal melee hits, but hitting on 6's still.

They should also dump the psychic phase in favor for how AOS does its magic. Simple and quick.

Someone also mentioned that cover should be a modifier on the to hit roll, which I adamantly agree with. The less rolling of dice the better.

Theocracity
17-05-2016, 17:00
I really think they should reset the clock on a few sub-phases that are really slowing the game down. Overwatch is the biggest offender since you have to check range, roll to hit, roll to wound, and take armor saves ALL BEFORE even starting the combat. A simpler solution would be to allow units to chose to shoot with their guns while in melee instead of making their normal melee hits, but hitting on 6's still.

They should also dump the psychic phase in favor for how AOS does its magic. Simple and quick.

Someone also mentioned that cover should be a modifier on the to hit roll, which I adamantly agree with. The less rolling of dice the better.

I like all of these ideas. Hopefully that's the kind of direction they take.

I'm fine with waiting until 2017 for it, too. They should take their time on this. Until then we can stop worrying and love the bomb the craziness of lame duck 7th.

Fangschrecken
17-05-2016, 18:21
I think what really did 6th & 7th in was the ever increasing scale creep and blatant disregard for balance, the escalation book was a bad idea to begin with, unbound, formations and formations-of-formations only made things progressively worse. That's not to say formations couldn't have been handled well, it's just that GW in their extreme ignorance decided that the bonuses they conveyed should be completely free for no good reason.

Actually the core engine behind 6th/7th is fairly sound, 30k uses the same basic mechanics and is a great game, but that's because all the unbound/formation crap just doesn't exist in 30k and it imposes sensible limits on super-heavies.

Words for the Word God.

I started in 4th and have played fairly regularly since. I've liked most of the changes from edition to edition. Although I miss area terrain. It makes so much more sense for forests and stuff where it's supposed to be thick and block line of sight but the model forest wont because you still want to be able to place minis in there. I still have fun at my groups weekly meet up. Some people bring formations, or allies, or super heavies (looking at you Tau player who thinks a stormsurge isn't that hard to deal with) but it's generally pretty casual and fun while still retaining a competitive edge.

For all it's faults in balance I still like playing the game, but maybe that has more to do with who I'm playing with. Perhaps, as a casual gamer, I'll enjoy most any edition so long as the folks around me aren't abusing stuff. BUT, I cant imagine a game with no point values. Speaking for a group of people who meet up after work we really don't have enough time to sit there for an hour and decide who is playing who and who is taking what units and so on. Points are a good place to start. Everyone shows up with 1500pts ready to go and if they and the person they're playing want they can move that up or down. AOS just seems broken in that regard. Isn't it supposed to be you get to use whatever you like? Like unbound? But then they've given rules to units to promote what they think the synergies should be and that's just going to restrict your choices again. I mean, you can always have a fun game if you and your opponent want to, but having a chance to win is important and I can't conceptualize a better starting point for fairness than point values. /rant

WarsmithGarathor94
17-05-2016, 18:49
I think what really did 6th & 7th in was the ever increasing scale creep and blatant disregard for balance, the escalation book was a bad idea to begin with, unbound, formations and formations-of-formations only made things progressively worse. That's not to say formations couldn't have been handled well, it's just that GW in their extreme ignorance decided that the bonuses they conveyed should be completely free for no good reason.

Actually the core engine behind 6th/7th is fairly sound, 30k uses the same basic mechanics and is a great game, but that's because all the unbound/formation crap just doesn't exist in 30k and it imposes sensible limits on super-heavies.

I agree
Tbh the formation I find most insulting is the Librarius Conclave and I say this as someone who also has a space marine army

Whirlwind
17-05-2016, 19:06
Somehow I doubt they will avoid points this time as I don't think even GW are stupid enough to do the same thing twice (especially as they state that they have learnt their lessons).

As a query do we know when SadPanda was provided the 40k rumour? It would seem strange that a direct comment from GW staff would be so contradictory (and only just last week)? Just trying to get a handle with regards the timescales as either if sales are sliding maybe they have sped up the release date of 40k for this year; or alternatively maybe they have dropped it back as it was going full AoS but they are now delaying it to bring in points?

My hunch has always been that we might see an End Times like series (maybe not as extreme but still a substantial move forward in the fluff) towards the end of the year (which could change how you play the game as it did in the End Times). I also think that the basic rules will head towards AoS style light rules with specific rules on the unit 'combat cards'. This from GW perspective mean that you don't ever really need to worry about game rules again; it is easier for players to swap between systems; and it is the units themselves that provide a difference in the game (so flyers would have their own specific rules on the combat cards etc). In the future then you will only have campaign packs like the Tau and SW one (and maybe combat card compendiums in the same manner as AoS). Points will work as per rumoured for AoS. In some ways doing this before an end times series makes sense; release the rules, then have a series of end times books (on the basis they sold very well for WFB) and try and get people hooked on the game from the series start rather than a manufactured start. If the rules are to be freely available then releasing them early probably doesn't cause too much of an issue? Still I think the days of what we know of as 40k are coming to a close.

Latro_
17-05-2016, 19:13
I dunno but i read all of his previous posts on dakka's rumour forum and hes been pretty darn on point.

Things i'm pretty much gonna assume:
Factions are gonna get the AoS treatment probably be something like Imperium, Chaos, Xenos Light, Xenos Dark
Force org / formations gonna be gone, unbound will be the norm
They might make all vehicles have a creature stat line and similar rules re moving etc
They might change wounding, hitting etc based on a new system instead of charts, i expect charts will be gone. e.g. BS/WS will probably be what you need to hit on a dice at all times, guns might always wound a certain dice based on something new like the size of the model

Charistoph
17-05-2016, 19:15
If they charge as much for this book as they did the last, I think I will be selling all my GW stuff. Just too much over a short time with too much cost involved. This is just compounded with my local game store having closed shop a month ago, and no good place to build.

Whirlwind
17-05-2016, 19:29
If they charge as much for this book as they did the last, I think I will be selling all my GW stuff. Just too much over a short time with too much cost involved. This is just compounded with my local game store having closed shop a month ago, and no good place to build.

I don't think you to worry about the rulebook. Almost certainly you will be able to download them for free as per AoS. Just re-reading the rumour it is possible for both to be true. We could see an End Times shake up that makes games easier to pick up and play with a new full blown 40k next year? I wasn't questioning SPs accuracy, rather trying to get an understanding of the timescales and what it might mean because it is likely they both could be true (assuming the GW staff conversation wasn't made up!)

KazenX
17-05-2016, 19:46
I really think they should reset the clock on a few sub-phases that are really slowing the game down. Overwatch is the biggest offender since you have to check range, roll to hit, roll to wound, and take armor saves ALL BEFORE even starting the combat. A simpler solution would be to allow units to chose to shoot with their guns while in melee instead of making their normal melee hits, but hitting on 6's still.

They should also dump the psychic phase in favor for how AOS does its magic. Simple and quick.

Someone also mentioned that cover should be a modifier on the to hit roll, which I adamantly agree with. The less rolling of dice the better.

Man movement is really the longest phase.7th’s wound allocation has minimal impact on this, moving a unit of Gaunts, Orks, or a platoon of Guardsmen on a battlefield with terrain is far more time consuming than shooting, assault, or using psychic powers with them.

Shooting in melee adds a ton of balance complications (it used to be a thing in 2nd ed under a very different and imo worse close combat structure). Overwatch as it stands now allows you to take hits on less valuable models and provides an option to fail a charge under fire. Removing it would shift the balance in favor of non elite assault units and significantly weaken shooting overall. However in the case of units that can load up on high RoF or AP weapons much better at both CC and Shooting.

The dedicated psychic phase is pretty important both from a lore perspective and from a mechanics perspective. It's important to separate it from shooting to allow it to have different mechanics, multiple designers had said that having psychers be basically heavy weapons was not only a disservice to the source material but also a pretty boring game mechanic.

There used to be cover modifiers back in 2nd edition, but they were removed because they removed a sense of agency from the player (very important in the alternating format that we have now) and (though this is pure speculation on my part) they make shooting way less effective. Going by the old rules with my Marines I'm hitting a target in hard cover at close range on a 6+ and then they get a armor save? That's even less useful than the bolter is now, heaven help my Guardsmen, or Guants, or Tau. They made sense in WHFB due to the emphasis on close combat and the nature of shooting; bows & arrows, black powder weapons, lizards, etc. it doesn't work as well in a setting with scifi elements.

KazenX
17-05-2016, 20:01
If they AoS 40k I'm gonna sit it out till it gets back to an enjoyable level of complexity. If I wanted to play Heroscape I'd do that (in it's defense Heroscape provided a deeper play experience than AoS). I can only hope that 8th is to 7th what 7th was to 6th, we get some clarification on rules, hopefully they spend some of that royalty money and hire a technical writer, and they consolidate the expansions into the main rule book.

Comrade Penguin
17-05-2016, 20:59
@ KazenX

I agree that movement takes too long, especially when you factor in running in the shooting phase. I would roll the run into the movement phase, which would cut down that time significantly.

May I assume that you currently play a shooting army? Maybe marines, eldar, IG, or tau? Because I can tell you that us Ork, Tyranid, DEldar, and Chaos players are really feeling the brunt of all the shooting.

Many changes to the rules in 6th/7th swung the balance of the game too far into shooting matches. Overwatch killing the closest models and preventing charges with literally no consequences for the shooters. Removing models from the front effectively neutered any unit that relies on its numbers to make it to combat (ork boys, gaunts, etc). No more charging when otuflanking means that elite assault units have to stop and inch from their targets and get blown off the board (genestealers). Yes you can add more terrain, but that slows melee units down and there are so many options for ignoring cover that terrain can hinder more than it helps.

Look, I get it. My buddy plays marines and he is having a blast in this edition. He has the formations and tools to either shoot effectively or get his guys into combat relatively unscathed. He can charge out of the deep strike, or fly up to the enemy with relatively tough fliers and deliver his brutal melee units. He also has access to very powerful allies, including lovely things like knights and wyvern squadrons. What a great time to be an imperial player! Not so much fun for my ork boys or my Tyranids warriors...

WarsmithGarathor94
17-05-2016, 21:05
Funnily enough my CSM's have gotten into more assaults in this edition than they ever did in 5th

Charistoph
17-05-2016, 21:33
I don't think you to worry about the rulebook. Almost certainly you will be able to download them for free as per AoS. Just re-reading the rumour it is possible for both to be true. We could see an End Times shake up that makes games easier to pick up and play with a new full blown 40k next year? I wasn't questioning SPs accuracy, rather trying to get an understanding of the timescales and what it might mean because it is likely they both could be true (assuming the GW staff conversation wasn't made up!)

If they were going to do End Times before the next rulebook later this summer, we would have seen it already, I think.

Story-wise, 40K is in a good enough place. There are literally millennia of fluff to fill. If anything, we would probably be looking at the possibility of a reduction of 40K building in favor of 30K till the Heresy completely takes over. (I hope not, Tyranids and Necrons would suffer, and a reason to completely drop Sisters.)

Still, 3 main rulebooks and starters in 6 years really crimps in to my model-buying, especially with WarmaHorde's 3rd Mk coming out sooner and all the update costs that entails. A free ruleset ala AOS (but more detailed) would be welcome.

Whirlwind
17-05-2016, 22:35
If they were going to do End Times before the next rulebook later this summer, we would have seen it already, I think.

Story-wise, 40K is in a good enough place. There are literally millennia of fluff to fill. If anything, we would probably be looking at the possibility of a reduction of 40K building in favor of 30K till the Heresy completely takes over. (I hope not, Tyranids and Necrons would suffer, and a reason to completely drop Sisters.)

Still, 3 main rulebooks and starters in 6 years really crimps in to my model-buying, especially with WarmaHorde's 3rd Mk coming out sooner and all the update costs that entails. A free ruleset ala AOS (but more detailed) would be welcome.

I wasn't clear, what I meant was that the End Times (likely 13th Black Crusade etc) will start in a series of books that will maybe span over 9 -12 months or so. The books could bring new ways of playing (e.g. specific scenario set ups, maybe tweak some rules?). These books could cover amongst other things Slaanesh and Eldar final battle bringing forth yneead(sp?) whilst collapsing the doorway in the dark elder realms and forcing the two factions closer. The Dark Eldar become your living Eldar and the Eldar your 'dead eldar' (hence why no new plastic shrine models recently). Orks would see Margaret Thatcher ;) reunite the unwashed hordes for a massive Waaagh; the 13th Black crusade; what appears to be the final crushing Tyranid invasion etc etc. The new edition would then come out when the dust has settled from these battles maybe with the Emperor Ascendant? (which although not as significant as the End Times was will still be a pretty big shakeup of the fluff).

Then you get the new rules in mid 2017.

momerathe
17-05-2016, 22:51
For me, the most obvious change over the editions is the escalations in armor saves, followed by the wider availability of AP, leading to yet more saves, re-rolls, etc etc. Is it wrong of me to want 2nd edition save modifiers back? and make them rare.


Furthermore, if they don't bring a radically new gameplay, if they don't depart from yougoigo, the game will stay really poor from a tactical point of view. Alternate activation brings so much improvement.



I hope they do as they always do when they do right; Borrow from Epic. I know AoS got lot of bad critique for being new, but as an avid AoS-player, some of the best parts of AoS are borrowed from Epic.

I'd love to see this.

KazenX
17-05-2016, 22:53
@ KazenX

I agree that movement takes too long, especially when you factor in running in the shooting phase. I would roll the run into the movement phase, which would cut down that time significantly.

May I assume that you currently play a shooting army? Maybe marines, eldar, IG, or tau? Because I can tell you that us Ork, Tyranid, DEldar, and Chaos players are really feeling the brunt of all the shooting.



The problem isn't when the run occurs it's that is occurs at all, you're still rolling dice. I'd just bring back movement as a stat, no need to have to roll. I don't think that rolling really matters time wise, it's the physical act of moving large units (or units period) that makes a difference.

I have alot of armies, including Orks, Khorne Zerkers, Deamons so yeah I get it. Zerkers + Deamons have been getting the most play in 7th actually. That's not to say they are good (no transports for those Zerkers :cries:) but they are fun and given my local meta I can play them with dominating my opponents (my Eldar), getting bored (Marines, assault oriented; bikes, termies, dreads, played them along time in that configuration but nothing else Marine speaks to me), or getting steamrolled (Guard, I have no luck with them, lots of gets hot fails and general failures to wound or hit). It's boring and lame to steamroll people I have no desire to do it, your local meta and luck really effect the play experience most of the armies that I fear are assault focused, reports of the death of assault are greatly exaggerated but I will agree there are some basic changes that could be made to improve assault, namely increased movement for certain units and a gradient to "ignores cover" so it's not all or nothing.

As to the pull from the front issues, I've only had a few charges fail with the Zerkers due to casualties, more with the Orks but still. Terrain lay out, spacing, number of units, opponents, luck all play a big role in if you make it there or not. The solution does seem to be more terrain.

We have a lot of limitations on the play space vs # of models. 6x4 is a big table for most people but given the points scope of the game (really anything over 1500) it can get crowded in a hurry. It also means there is no escape and limited maneuver for both assault and shooty armies, which is only compounded by the limited movement range of most of the units. I have a mixed view on outflank charges, I wouldn't mind seeing it as a limited option for certain units or with a warlord but as a blanket rule it would just end up being the reverse of what you're complaining about instead of not being able to get into close combat, there would be no way to avoid it.

These issues are why I hope we don't see a drastic change, just some tuning. If we do see sweeping changes they won't benefit the game because the balancing process will have to start from scratch.

Ben
17-05-2016, 23:36
Sad Panda and I could conceivably both be right, if they do a reprint incorporating the FAQ and errata this year and a whole new edition next year (7.5 and then 8).

There are plenty of people who would buy both. Even if GW put all the 7.5 edition changes online for free.

Azazyll
17-05-2016, 23:55
I'm mostly concerned about what this will mean for 30k

Gingerwerewolf
18-05-2016, 09:55
Just to take a sensible chill pill for a second people and stop predicting what ifs.

They have Just asked for the people to help with a FAQ. Its not even official yet.
They have just released Death From the Skies.

They are NOT going to release a ground up rebuild.

The release will be more akin to 6th to 7th, a cleanup, tweak a few rules here and there and bring in the Death from the Skies base rules. That's why they have asked us for the FAQ, to help them clean it up.

This is not a reboot like AoS. This is not a reboot akin to 2nd to 3rd. Hell its less than 4th to 5th, or 5th to 6th.

I say that it will be small enough that they could even do the thing that they did with Tau - that the FAQ + 7th Edition rules = 8th edition. You will probably not even need to pick up the rulebook if you dont want.

Stay Calm people the sky is not falling.

Malagor
18-05-2016, 10:06
Just to take a sensible chill pill for a second people and stop predicting what ifs.

They have Just asked for the people to help with a FAQ. Its not even official yet.
They have just released Death From the Skies.

They are NOT going to release a ground up rebuild.

The release will be more akin to 6th to 7th, a cleanup, tweak a few rules here and there and bring in the Death from the Skies base rules. That's why they have asked us for the FAQ, to help them clean it up.

This is not a reboot like AoS. This is not a reboot akin to 2nd to 3rd. Hell its less than 4th to 5th, or 5th to 6th.

I say that it will be small enough that they could even do the thing that they did with Tau - that the FAQ + 7th Edition rules = 8th edition. You will probably not even need to pick up the rulebook if you dont want.

Stay Calm people the sky is not falling.
Citation needed.
Until then, while the sky may not be falling right now nor ever, it's prudent to stay indoors just in case because what you just said, was said by many people before GW took Fantasy out back and blew it's brains out with a shotgun, still a profitable game mind you.
People are worried are totally justified with their worry due to GW's past behaviour. They do not love their franchises(if there is any) as much as the players do.

Gingerwerewolf
18-05-2016, 10:14
Citation needed.
Until then, while the sky may not be falling right now nor ever, it's prudent to stay indoors just in case because what you just said, was said by many people before GW took Fantasy out back and blew it's brains out with a shotgun, still a profitable game mind you.
People are worried are totally justified with their worry due to GW's past behaviour. They do not love their franchises(if there is any) as much as the players do.

Why the hell do I need a citation? None of you lot need one for the constant GW bashing and what if statements you make.

And its plainly obvious that they have done a U turn on their past behaviour.

Dont bash my post because it disagrees with your bias that GW Sucks and will kill the game. My opinion is just as valid as yours, if not more logical because Im not predicting doom.

Rogue Star
18-05-2016, 10:23
Story-wise, 40K is in a good enough place. There are literally millennia of fluff to fill. If anything, we would probably be looking at the possibility of a reduction of 40K building in favor of 30K till the Heresy completely takes over. (I hope not, Tyranids and Necrons would suffer, and a reason to completely drop Sisters.)

We've already seen the storyline start to creep forwards - the Ethereal Aun'va, spiritual head of the Tau Empire is dead, Captain Shrike has been elected Chapter Master of the Raven Guard, the Wulfen have returned, and there is a daemonic incursion in the Fenris system... these events are setting the stage for the next edition, I'd wager.


Until then, while the sky may not be falling right now nor ever, it's prudent to stay indoors just in case because what you just said, was said by many people before GW took Fantasy out back and blew it's brains out with a shotgun, still a profitable game mind you.

Because it wasn't making them as much profit as 40K, and had been on a steady decline they hoped AoS would stop or reverse. 40K doesn't need a major shakeup because it's the breadwinner, as far as GW are concerned.


Dont bash my post because it disagrees with your bias that GW Sucks and will kill the game. My opinion is just as valid as yours, if not more logical because Im not predicting doom.

Because we're told by reliable rumormongers, that the current edition of 40K is considered a lameduck by the design studio - something not ideal, but would cost too much or take too much work to fix in the short term, which implies they have plans for more than just tweaks.

Everyone should just relax.

Malagor
18-05-2016, 10:48
Why the hell do I need a citation? None of you lot need one for the constant GW bashing and what if statements you make.
Well let's see, we got reliable rumourmongers that it will be a major change, alot of streamlining and so forth so that has alot of weight behind it.
Stating that it won't be a big change and just be a few minor tweaks despite trustworthy sources saying otherwise seems like a ostrich-like thing to do if you don't back it up with reliable sources saying otherwise.

Dont bash my post because it disagrees with your bias that GW Sucks and will kill the game. My opinion is just as valid as yours, if not more logical because Im not predicting doom.
First of all, you should check what bash means. Asking for sources isn't bashing, explaining why people are worried isn't bashing either which is what my post did.
And any Warhammer fan should realise by now that GW sucks, doesn't make me any less of a Warhammer fan, much easier to enjoy the games when people just stop kidding themselves.
GW sucks, their business practices suck, their mentality sucks, they suck, now enjoy the game.
And with GW's recent history doom is actually more logical then not even tho I think 40k can actually survive a AoSification move.



Because it wasn't making them as much profit as 40K, and had been on a steady decline they hoped AoS would stop or reverse. 40K doesn't need a major shakeup because it's the breadwinner, as far as GW are concerned.

I'm not disagreeing overall but can point out that 40k is in decline as well and in GW's mind it might be in need for a shakeup which based on the rumours so far, is what they will do.

Rogue Star
18-05-2016, 11:12
I'm not disagreeing overall but can point out that 40k is in decline as well and in GW's mind it might be in need for a shakeup which based on the rumours so far, is what they will do.

Changes are definitely coming, but as has been mentioned in rumors, I don't think it's anything that should be worried about. The story has progressed to make way for new stuff, kits which where in finecast: Aun'va's death means, we can have a new Ethereal on floating throne or whatever, as his successor. Likewise, now that Shrike is Chapter Master rather than Captain of the 3rd Company, when he comes out as a plastic monopose character, I'd imagine he'd be suitably embellished. It's progression compared to the End Times which was more "Estalia? Skaven swallowed it up. Norsca? Overrun by Archaon's horde" which was more steady removal of elements that they didn't intend to keep.

Likewise, in the worst case scenario, if they used AoS rules on 40K... it wouldn't be a massive change as 40K was never ranked combat, front/side facing rules anyway. If they put a Space Marine into the exact same profile/stats as AoS... nothing has changed. By moving the To Hit roll and To Wound to say the Boltgun, it only eliminates the need to look up an Ork Boy's toughness to see what he needs to roll to wound - essentially removing the need for you to learn anything but your own army's units. Likewise, the Ork player still gets a Toughness (unless Mortal Wound/Rending in 40K terms) and an Armour save...

You can't really "Age of Sigmar" 40K because because the process was making WHFB more like 40K... how do you make 40K more like 40K? :p

logan054
18-05-2016, 12:06
Changes are definitely coming, but as has been mentioned in rumors, I don't think it's anything that should be worried about. The story has progressed to make way for new stuff, kits which where in finecast: Aun'va's death means, we can have a new Ethereal on floating throne or whatever, as his successor. Likewise, now that Shrike is Chapter Master rather than Captain of the 3rd Company, when he comes out as a plastic monopose character, I'd imagine he'd be suitably embellished. It's progression compared to the End Times which was more "Estalia? Skaven swallowed it up. Norsca? Overrun by Archaon's horde" which was more steady removal of elements that they didn't intend to keep.

Likewise, in the worst case scenario, if they used AoS rules on 40K... it wouldn't be a massive change as 40K was never ranked combat, front/side facing rules anyway. If they put a Space Marine into the exact same profile/stats as AoS... nothing has changed. By moving the To Hit roll and To Wound to say the Boltgun, it only eliminates the need to look up an Ork Boy's toughness to see what he needs to roll to wound - essentially removing the need for you to learn anything but your own army's units. Likewise, the Ork player still gets a Toughness (unless Mortal Wound/Rending in 40K terms) and an Armour save...

You can't really "Age of Sigmar" 40K because because the process was making WHFB more like 40K... how do you make 40K more like 40K? :p

But you can AoS 40k. I dunno, have a massive 5 book set that kills off all the races that don't make enough money. Totally redesign everything so what races are left don't interact well with the new races.

I can't imagine 40k would work very well on 4 pages.

Rogue Star
18-05-2016, 12:14
But you can AoS 40k. I dunno, have a massive 5 book set that kills off all the races that don't make enough money.

Last we heard, even stuff like the Tyranids and Tau were outselling WHFB factions like Beastmen and Tomb Kings, so... there is nothing that you can really drop. I suppose never update the Sisters of Battle? Amalgamate the Militarum Tempestues back into the Astra Militarum? Merge the Cult Mechanicus and the Skitarii (The latter two should all be in one book anyway).

In fact that just highlights my point, GW just added the Adeptus Mechanicus as a faction, fall of this year the Deathwatch and Genestealer Cults will become standalone factions...

GW won't kill off factions because even the lowest selling 40K factions (which last I checked where the Orks and Necrons, but that was an age ago) are still doing better than WHFB's op sellers - the Necrons were selling about as well as the High Elves, who were WHFB's upper tier sales.

It's apples to oranges.


I can't imagine 40k would work very well on 4 pages.

Last I checked, 40K wasn't working very well on a hundred pages either...

logan054
18-05-2016, 12:40
I didn't know anyone actually knew the sales figures for any of the ranges outside the company. That's just a whole lot of opinion.

While I agree the current rules aren't working, the 4 pages of AoS wouldn't exactly be an improvement. It's just not a good game.

Whatever they have planned for 40k was put in motion long before the release of AoS.

Rogue Star
18-05-2016, 12:51
I didn't know anyone actually knew the sales figures for any of the ranges outside the company. That's just a whole lot of opinion.

We did, at one point in the mists of time, have the sales figures of each range of WHFB and 40K up on this forum, but like I said, that was a long time ago, but I can't see the WHFB sales increasing. Even the most popular ranges, the Vampire Counts, Warriors of Chaos etc were middling around 40K's halfway point, while the Space Marines were combined, outselling all of WHFB and the rest of 40K combined.

As for AoS... ehh, at it's core, it's simplified it's 40K. It's not a very good replacement for WHFB, if you want a ranked, mass combat historical/Fantasy game, no. But you're telling me that there is literally any difference between a Judicator moving, then firing his bow, compared to a Space Marine, moving and firing his bolter? They just removed the Weapon Strength to target's Toughness to determine wounding score, by outright starting the weapon does this much damage, now roll for toughness and armour, which is purely 40K, just without the need to check a chart.

logan054
18-05-2016, 12:57
It's really badly over simplified 40k. I have no problem with have set to hit rolls on unit data entries, that's one thing I liked about warthrone. The rules for AoS are just bad.

Rogue Star
18-05-2016, 13:06
The rules for AoS are just bad.

Um, again, how? I pointed out, it's 40K without stuff like Overwatch, or encircling, which is a shame as I think adding them would greatly improve the tactical choices of AoS...

But are you telling me you don't think there are any good things to take from it? You don't think stuff like the Keywords at the bottom would work better than the current guesswork "Are the Space Wolves Space Marines? Do they get access to the Stormhawk Interceptor?" which required tagging stuff? Move values to better represent swifter troops, rather than just everyone getting a set move, run and charge? How about giving stuff like a Chainsword an engagement range, longer than say, a Tactical Space Marine's combat nice, so they're not just both armed with CCWs, allowing them to suit their role again? And easier to determine who is in Assault range/Consolidate?

Yeah, AoS is simple, but plenty of stuff in there 40K would benefit from.

logan054
18-05-2016, 13:25
AoS is taking simple to an extreme. Let's measure from the model and let cannons shoot while engaged in combat? Right... I liked the idea of models getting weaker as they got more injured.

Apart for that, AoS has saved me a lot of money, does that count as something good coking out of it?

Comrade Penguin
18-05-2016, 14:06
40k could use some simplification like AOS, and I would be ok with fixed hit rolls. The wound roles should be based on the target though, like Kings of War's system.

I don't know how they would put units like fliers or superheavies into an AOS style system though.

Theocracity
18-05-2016, 14:11
AoS is taking simple to an extreme. Let's measure from the model and let cannons shoot while engaged in combat? Right... I liked the idea of models getting weaker as they got more injured.


I would say my main concern with porting AoS to 40k would be the shooting in combat rules. I don't think that makes much sense even in a setting where most units only have Melee weapons. Measuring from the model doesn't seem like that big of a change from using the model for true LoS like we do now.

But I think it generally has good ideas that 40k could benefit from.


I don't know how they would put units like fliers or superheavies into an AOS style system though.

Vehicle armor is a bit of a question, but at its simplest it could be handled the same way as monstrous creature rules, with the damage charts and all. Planes would be pretty simple actually - give them a rule that makes them hard to hit, and give anti-air weapons a rule like sky fire that makes them hit normally against flyers. You could even make them vulnerable to melee, and rely on their high bases and the short range of melee weapons to keep them safe. They could still be attacked by FMCs or a particularly heroic model on a tall piece of terrain who rolls super well.

Spiney Norman
18-05-2016, 14:36
Just to take a sensible chill pill for a second people and stop predicting what ifs.

They have Just asked for the people to help with a FAQ. Its not even official yet.
They have just released Death From the Skies.

They are NOT going to release a ground up rebuild.

Just like they would never release a string of £50 game supplements for wfb packed with new army lists and game rules mere months before totally and utterly nuking the game out of existence?

Hmmm, let's just say that those of us sitting on a pile of now-defunct end times book don't quite follow your logic.

Rogue Star
18-05-2016, 14:51
I liked the idea of models getting weaker as they got more injured.

I know right! Don't you think stuff like Hive Tyrants and Eldar Avatar would benefit from something like that? Or even the Space Marine Dreadnought to show as battle-damage mounts, his movements become slower, his weapons do less damage etc as it attempts to keep fighting, dragging sparking limbs and leaking amniotic fluids and machine oil? :D


40k could use some simplification like AOS, and I would be ok with fixed hit rolls. The wound roles should be based on the target though, like Kings of War's system.

Sounds sensible.


I don't know how they would put units like fliers or superheavies into an AOS style system though.

Fliers would just be treated, under the current AoS rules, as vehicles which can move over all terrain types. I think treating them like the larger creatures, with a chart that shows as more damage is accumulated, the movement and damage output lowering could work really well, much more balanced than say, a lucky roll outright destroying it or shearing the Dreadnought's Assault cannon off in the first turn, forcing it to footslog across the field to punch things. Likewise, having a Techmarine nearby to steadily repair it would be very fitting for the background.

Mr. CyberPunk
18-05-2016, 15:02
While the 40k rules could certainly use some streamlining, I hope they pick the good ideas from X-Wing, Infinity, Antares, Bolt Action and Warmachine, rather than AoS-ing 40k. A modern and tactical rule system that rewards planning and thinking ahead, more synergy between units, alternating activations and game size scalability would be wonderful. "Roll to see if you get two whole turns in a row" would not.

Also, I hope they don't mess up the setting too much or kill off races that don't sell too well. I fear for the Sisters of Battle.

Mostly agreed, I don't really feel 40K rules are too bloated, but 40k would definitively benefit from your recommendations (specifically, alternating activation, or at least, add more reactive actions other than overwatch and deny the witch) and I'd also like to see each army have a unique special rules that make them feel different from each others (like the Tyranid or the Guards have, not some weak **** like Waagh or Power from Pain). Still IMO, the real problem with 40k nowadays is the utter lack of balance (I'm also not fond of formations, but could live with them if they were applied more evenhandedly, i.e. if they were more balanced which is, once again, 40k main flaw). I don't want 40k to be turned into some dumb kid's game. If I wanted to play a botched game with hastily written rules only 2 page deep that I could learn in a heartbeat, I already have the options to turn to AOS or any game that comes in a cereal box.

Comrade Penguin
18-05-2016, 16:26
I would say my main concern with porting AoS to 40k would be the shooting in combat rules. I don't think that makes much sense even in a setting where most units only have Melee weapons. Measuring from the model doesn't seem like that big of a change from using the model for true LoS like we do now.

But I think it generally has good ideas that 40k could benefit from.



Vehicle armor is a bit of a question, but at its simplest it could be handled the same way as monstrous creature rules, with the damage charts and all. Planes would be pretty simple actually - give them a rule that makes them hard to hit, and give anti-air weapons a rule like sky fire that makes them hit normally against flyers. You could even make them vulnerable to melee, and rely on their high bases and the short range of melee weapons to keep them safe. They could still be attacked by FMCs or a particularly heroic model on a tall piece of terrain who rolls super well.

I agree they would have to remove shooting into combats as that would further nerf melee units. I also do not want any measuring from the model as that introduce the problem of modeling for advantage.

Fliers would also have to have some kind of additional rule where they had to fly in a straight line for X amount of inches before turning 90 degrees.

Danjester
18-05-2016, 16:35
Given that 7th came out of the blue, only 23 months after 6th hit, and when a heap of products for 6th had dropped like Stronghold Assault etc, I wouldn't put it past GW to plough onwards.

BUT, the departure of the last CEO does seem to have been followed by a seachange and an improved attempt by the company to sell the products the masses seem to want to buy.

Danjester
18-05-2016, 16:35
Given that 7th came out of the blue, only 23 months after 6th hit, and when a heap of products for 6th had dropped like Stronghold Assault etc, I wouldn't put it past GW to plough onwards.

BUT, the departure of the last CEO does seem to have been followed by a seachange and an improved attempt by the company to sell the products the masses seem to want to buy.

Theocracity
18-05-2016, 16:43
Fliers would also have to have some kind of additional rule where they had to fly in a straight line for X amount of inches before turning 90 degrees.

Yup. I think vehicle movement rules and vehicle armor (with its facings, anti-armor weapons, etc) are one of the trickier elements to figure out under the AoS dynamic. Too simple and they start to feel too much like monstrous creatures - too complex and you start to bloat the rules or unit cards.

I'm wondering if the introduction of Pursuit and Agility values in Death from the Skies could be a way of testing how to handle a different mechanism for vehicle movement rules. If they introduce movement rates for individual units, pursuit could be changed to be the 'movement speed' for vehicles, while agility could be a way to represent how easily they can turn mid movement.

H3L!X
18-05-2016, 17:14
We've already seen the storyline start to creep forwards - the Ethereal Aun'va, spiritual head of the Tau Empire is dead, Captain Shrike has been elected Chapter Master of the Raven Guard, the Wulfen have returned, and there is a daemonic incursion in the Fenris system... these events are setting the stage for the next edition, I'd wager.

Don't forget the story hints in the Harlequin Codex.
The Chains that locked the book, which was writen by Cegorach (The Laughing God), are now gone.
And within is his plan on how to defeat Slaneesh and save the Eldar.

Gingerwerewolf
18-05-2016, 19:45
If they are bringing out an entirely new version of 40k, a ground-up rewrite, why are they doing FAQs now? What are they for?|

The Studio must be working on them right now - as today a whole bunch of Imperial ones dropped.

IF they have written a new version of 40k, why would they bother writing FAQs

Also, all the Rumor mongers Ive seen are just pointing to a cleaning up of the rules. Which falls into line with the FAQ coming out right now. Can you point me at the reliable ones that are saying this is a massive change?

Charistoph
18-05-2016, 21:20
Good point. Even if it was clarification on what they need to address in the next version, we'd still be looking at 6 months to a year before a release. Any physical book release by September is already at the printers. That is why an "End Times" release at this time point would be pointless with the time frame established by this rumor, unless we consider the conflict books that have come out over the last year as "End Times".

TabulaRasa
18-05-2016, 22:59
If they are bringing out an entirely new version of 40k, a ground-up rewrite, why are they doing FAQs now? What are they for?|

The Studio must be working on them right now - as today a whole bunch of Imperial ones dropped.

IF they have written a new version of 40k, why would they bother writing FAQs

Also, all the Rumor mongers Ive seen are just pointing to a cleaning up of the rules. Which falls into line with the FAQ coming out right now. Can you point me at the reliable ones that are saying this is a massive change?

Because the new edition wouldn't be arriving until 2017? According to a Sad Panda quote on dakka the new edition won't make it out during 2016

Tokamak
18-05-2016, 23:12
I have wondered for a while now if GW will try to amalgamate AoS & 40k, much like Warmahordes?
Reasons for my thinking.
1.AoS change to round bases means continuity with 40k.
2.General scale/power creep of AoS units to more mythical/godlike beings, could actually stand up against 40k units.
3.AoS background with realmgates/portals would allow for travel into the 40k setting.
4.Now a simplification of the 40k ruleset mean it could be made even more compatible with AoS.

I could be way off with my speculation, but it could entice players of 40k to collect an AoS army and vice versa....
Or of course it could enrage/alienate the 40k player base and mean the downfall of GW.

You may be on to something. Especially with the colliding realms in AoS we might be seeing a unit of imperial guard intruding on some aelven forest like that Avatar movie.

AngryAngel
19-05-2016, 01:50
Why the hell do I need a citation? None of you lot need one for the constant GW bashing and what if statements you make.

And its plainly obvious that they have done a U turn on their past behaviour.

Dont bash my post because it disagrees with your bias that GW Sucks and will kill the game. My opinion is just as valid as yours, if not more logical because Im not predicting doom.

I think it is ok to question the choices of GW when rumors of a new edition drops, they have been on a good path, but they can always back pedal quite oddly. I will also say, GW can never catch a GW hater by surprise, merely, for they seek treachery by the company around ever turn, all GW can do is justify their suspicions. Speaking as a GW hater that does really want to love them once more. ( A lot of the video games look good ? )


But you can AoS 40k. I dunno, have a massive 5 book set that kills off all the races that don't make enough money. Totally redesign everything so what races are left don't interact well with the new races.

I can't imagine 40k would work very well on 4 pages.

Deep inside, I would die and probably sell off my guys or just keep playing current rules as I'd never start to re buy my armies at the prices of today, or assemble them all, or paint them all, etc.



Um, again, how? I pointed out, it's 40K without stuff like Overwatch, or encircling, which is a shame as I think adding them would greatly improve the tactical choices of AoS...

But are you telling me you don't think there are any good things to take from it? You don't think stuff like the Keywords at the bottom would work better than the current guesswork "Are the Space Wolves Space Marines? Do they get access to the Stormhawk Interceptor?" which required tagging stuff? Move values to better represent swifter troops, rather than just everyone getting a set move, run and charge? How about giving stuff like a Chainsword an engagement range, longer than say, a Tactical Space Marine's combat nice, so they're not just both armed with CCWs, allowing them to suit their role again? And easier to determine who is in Assault range/Consolidate?

Yeah, AoS is simple, but plenty of stuff in there 40K would benefit from.

Problem for many is AoS is too simple, at least for me it feels like playing Warhammer RISK, I kind of liked the depth and some complexity with fantasy, 40k could use some trimming down, but to go the AoS route is the path to ruin.



AoS is taking simple to an extreme. Let's measure from the model and let cannons shoot while engaged in combat? Right... I liked the idea of models getting weaker as they got more injured.

Apart for that, AoS has saved me a lot of money, does that count as something good coking out of it?

This



Don't forget the story hints in the Harlequin Codex.
The Chains that locked the book, which was writen by Cegorach (The Laughing God), are now gone.
And within is his plan on how to defeat Slaneesh and save the Eldar.

Which would link up well with them not wanting slannesh around, like in fantasy, I guess time will tell.



You may be on to something. Especially with the colliding realms in AoS we might be seeing a unit of imperial guard intruding on some aelven forest like that Avatar movie.

Wasn't avatar just IG vs Kroot ?..damn..I thought it was..I've been fighting Tau for unobtanium ever since..

morvaeldd
19-05-2016, 07:30
Last I checked, 40K wasn't working very well on a hundred pages either...

It works well on One Page [emoji1]

Rogue Star
19-05-2016, 08:02
It works well on One Page [emoji1]

And a perfect highlight that a game doesn't need to be ten or more pages long to qualify as "good", provided it captures the effect it intended. AoS is too drastically different from WHFB, is pretty clear.

logan054
19-05-2016, 10:28
And a perfect highlight that a game doesn't need to be ten or more pages long to qualify as "good", provided it captures the effect it intended. AoS is too drastically different from WHFB, is pretty clear.

It's easy to cut down the rules in the book without having the weapons and special rules in the main rules. I dare say they would cut down the page count a lot.

The page count should be proportional to what you're trying to cover.

I do like the idea of alternative unit activation, this again was something I liked about Warthrone. I don't think simple for the sake of simple is the answer.

Gingerwerewolf
19-05-2016, 11:07
It's easy to cut down the rules in the book without having the weapons and special rules in the main rules. I dare say they would cut down the page count a lot.

The page count should be proportional to what you're trying to cover.

I do like the idea of alternative unit activation, this again was something I liked about Warthrone. I don't think simple for the sake of simple is the answer.

The old Epic Order and Activation system was brilliant. Im talking not the Dice version, but the 2nd edition Space Marine Game (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Space_Marine_(Game))

Its Order system was great.

logan054
19-05-2016, 12:04
The old Epic Order and Activation system was brilliant. Im talking not the Dice version, but the 2nd edition Space Marine Game (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Space_Marine_(Game))

Its Order system was great.

Now that brings back some memories! I use to love epic! If I'm honest I can hardly remember the rules, I'm sure it had something to do with counters.

A.T.
19-05-2016, 12:49
If I'm honest I can hardly remember the rules, I'm sure it had something to do with counters.First fire, advance, and charge (and fall back).

Greatly simplified - First fire meant you held your ground at shot (and could shoot up units charging you), charge meant you didn't shoot but moved quickly, and advance meant you could shoot, move, and assault, but the other two orders got first actions over you.

Due to the way epic worked many games would end half way through turn 1 as units either charged forward onto objectives or first fired with wads of guns in order to reach the VP target.

Cybtroll
19-05-2016, 19:05
I'm hopeful for a new edition. But I also know that in little time it will became bloated exactly like the current one (that, BTW, apart from the IgoYougo structure is pretty solid. We even play Kill Team with basic rules and codexes point costs).

The fact is: making up a new rule is always very easy. And any designer want to leave a trace of his passage.
So... as long as they need/leave GD to introduce new rules any time, any fixing will only be temporary.

I had high hopes back to when they introduced the USR in the main book... but if they have been able to mess with those, that'll happen again.

From my point of view it's almost a no - news. Same stuff, old stuff.

sturguard
20-05-2016, 03:20
Just to take a sensible chill pill for a second people and stop predicting what ifs.

They have Just asked for the people to help with a FAQ. Its not even official yet.
They have just released Death From the Skies.

They are NOT going to release a ground up rebuild.

The release will be more akin to 6th to 7th, a cleanup, tweak a few rules here and there and bring in the Death from the Skies base rules. That's why they have asked us for the FAQ, to help them clean it up.

This is not a reboot like AoS. This is not a reboot akin to 2nd to 3rd. Hell its less than 4th to 5th, or 5th to 6th.

I say that it will be small enough that they could even do the thing that they did with Tau - that the FAQ + 7th Edition rules = 8th edition. You will probably not even need to pick up the rulebook if you dont want.

Stay Calm people the sky is not falling.

You know people said the exact same thing when rumors of AOS first started, then when many of us tried to sell off our warhammer armies, they lost 50% of their value.

totgeboren
20-05-2016, 07:25
Considering most games are sort of determined by latest the end of turn three nowadays because of the massive offensive power-level increase (one squad of Dire Avengers in the Aspect formation using bladestorm will wipe out a full 10-man marine squad in a single turn of shooting for example, and that is just cheap basic infantry!), a hidden order system like in the old Epic game could probably be pretty fun.
GW could continue the paper-rock-scissors approach of Death from the Skies and have the gameplay involve something else than rolling the most 6s.

Or it will be terrible. 3ed was terrible, almost made me quit.
If GW reboots 40k and starts of with a system that was as terrible as 3ed was from the start, I will likely quit, and now I'm too old to come back if I leave. :p

Spiney Norman
20-05-2016, 07:46
Let's just say I'm not optimistic, AoS proved fairly conclusively that GW has a remarkable 'blind spot' when it comes to identifying the problems with a edition of one of their game and how to fix it.

Rogue Star
20-05-2016, 08:01
Or it will be terrible. 3ed was terrible, almost made me quit.
If GW reboots 40k and starts of with a system that was as terrible as 3ed was from the start, I will likely quit, and now I'm too old to come back if I leave.

I liked some bits of it, other bits were baffling. But that's GW all over... sometimes I'd wish they'd look at popular competitors and just unashamedly nab ideas from them... seriously, if they toned 40K down to something like Gates of Antares I'd be all over that. :p

Gingerwerewolf
20-05-2016, 11:33
You know people said the exact same thing when rumors of AOS first started, then when many of us tried to sell off our warhammer armies, they lost 50% of their value.

Where I understand your fears, Its not even the same ballpark. But since nothing I can say will assuage those fears I'm not going to bother

Anyway, why sell off your army? Kings of War is basically Warhammer as was, so you could have just used your armies that way.

jtrowell
20-05-2016, 13:29
I think what really did 6th & 7th in was the ever increasing scale creep and blatant disregard for balance, the escalation book was a bad idea to begin with, unbound, formations and formations-of-formations only made things progressively worse. That's not to say formations couldn't have been handled well, it's just that GW in their extreme ignorance decided that the bonuses they conveyed should be completely free for no good reason.

Actually the core engine behind 6th/7th is fairly sound, 30k uses the same basic mechanics and is a great game, but that's because all the unbound/formation crap just doesn't exist in 30k and it imposes sensible limits on super-heavies.

It's funny, for a moment I was thinking that you were referencing WHFB and the army book creep of its late 7th edition, the first part of what you wrote would fit perfectly.

And we all know how it ended for Fantasy ... :shifty:

Comrade Penguin
20-05-2016, 15:11
Let's just say I'm not optimistic, AoS proved fairly conclusively that GW has a remarkable 'blind spot' when it comes to identifying the problems with a edition of one of their game and how to fix it.

If I heard this rumor 6 months ago I would whole-heatedly agree. But recent changes in GW's direction (FAQs, online presence, points in AOS) have me slightly optimistic. Maybe GW has finally realized that the Game matters, and will devote resources into crafting a critically acclaimed game.

What frustrates me is that I want to play and give them my money, but the game is so out of wack that my head starts spinning every time I look at jumping back in. This past week I was considering reviving my hibernating Tyranids. I checked my LGS's Facebook group and the most recent game showed pictures of countless droppods littering the field while 3 knights stomped some tyranids. I remembered why I stopped playing in the first place and went back to playing video games :shifty:

shin'keiro
20-05-2016, 15:48
can't believe it's gonna turn into this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq6sFN4mmbs

Well, that's 40k.. have you been playing it wrong? haha

sephiroth87
20-05-2016, 15:58
If I heard this rumor 6 months ago I would whole-heatedly agree. But recent changes in GW's direction (FAQs, online presence, points in AOS) have me slightly optimistic. Maybe GW has finally realized that the Game matters, and will devote resources into crafting a critically acclaimed game.

What frustrates me is that I want to play and give them my money, but the game is so out of wack that my head starts spinning every time I look at jumping back in. This past week I was considering reviving my hibernating Tyranids. I checked my LGS's Facebook group and the most recent game showed pictures of countless droppods littering the field while 3 knights stomped some tyranids. I remembered why I stopped playing in the first place and went back to playing video games :shifty:
I agree with every bit of this.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
22-05-2016, 13:52
If I heard this rumor 6 months ago I would whole-heatedly agree. But recent changes in GW's direction (FAQs, online presence, points in AOS) have me slightly optimistic. Maybe GW has finally realized that the Game matters, and will devote resources into crafting a critically acclaimed game.

What you need to remember is that new editions take a lot of time and resources to pull together, if 8th ed is fo release this year the development for it may have started 18 months to 2 yrs ago, they certainly didn't start kicking ideas around in the last six weeks.

I don't deny that GW has made some impressive gains recently in relation to their attitude and approach to interacting with their customers and even their pricing, but all these 'gains' have been made in the last six months or so, and my gut tells me that is too short a time frame to encompass the development of a new edition of 40k.

Mr_Rose
22-05-2016, 14:15
What you need to remember is that new editions take a lot of time and resources to pull together, if 8th ed is fo release this year the development for it may have started 18 months to 2 yrs ago, they certainly didn't start kicking ideas around in the last six weeks.

I don't deny that GW has made some impressive gains recently in relation to their attitude and approach to interacting with their customers and even their pricing, but all these 'gains' have been made in the last six months or so, and my gut tells me that is too short a time frame to encompass the development of a new edition of 40k.

Right and everyone who might actually know anything has said there's no chance of a new edition this year and probably not until late next at the earliest.

The problem as I see it is that we have here a conflation of two separate statements:
That 40k would "see a major shake-up" towards the end of this year. That a new edition is on the way
Somehow those have become "there will be a new edition this year" which contradicts several other rumours.

As of right now I don't believe whatever is happening at the end of the year is a new edition. It might be a major expansion or it might be a global campaign or it might be something else entirely.

P.S. If they're going to change rule systems completely they could do far worse than to adopt the B@C system but with ranges instead of hexes.

sunborn
23-05-2016, 05:01
What frustrates me is that I want to play and give them my money, but the game is so out of wack that my head starts spinning every time I look at jumping back in. This past week I was considering reviving my hibernating Tyranids. I checked my LGS's Facebook group and the most recent game showed pictures of countless droppods littering the field while 3 knights stomped some tyranids. I remembered why I stopped playing in the first place and went back to playing video games :shifty:

Seems like there are quite a few of us that feel this way around here. No new version any time soon though. I am happy to keep my money for now.

Althenian Armourlost
02-06-2016, 09:33
Seems like there are quite a few of us that feel this way around here. No new version any time soon though. I am happy to keep my money for now.

Been a die-hard 40k fan of 40k since 1994. Spent the last year and a half playing FFG Imperial Assault and Armada. This is how bad 40k needs to change. I love the game, the setting, the minis.... but the rules are horrid. IA is a fun game for 5 people, that lasts under 2 hours and doesn't require a dedicated room in which to play it. I hope the new rules bring 40k back to being fun, like it used to be.

anselminus
02-06-2016, 10:12
Wait and see. A small simplification of the rules would not harm.

my_name_is_tudor
02-06-2016, 18:13
Been a die-hard 40k fan of 40k since 1994. Spent the last year and a half playing FFG Imperial Assault and Armada. This is how bad 40k needs to change. I love the game, the setting, the minis.... but the rules are horrid. IA is a fun game for 5 people, that lasts under 2 hours and doesn't require a dedicated room in which to play it. I hope the new rules bring 40k back to being fun, like it used to be.

In the same camp, except since 1998. Spent the last couple of years playing Imperial Assault, Descent, Deadzone, X-Wing... And so on.

40k is far too big, messy, and unbalanced for me to bother nowadays. The flyers were the biggest turn off for me. Effectively meaning every army had to buy one in order to have a fun, (relatively) balanced game.

Butyi
03-06-2016, 07:18
I am active in a gaming club that was founded around 2003. 40,000 players there are extremely tournament oriented and always try to max out their army lists. In the last year and a half, the group that regularly plays 40,000 dramatically dwindled in numbers, losing players to Xwing, Dystopian Wars and others. Those that still play are always complaining about the vastness of choices and the lack of structure of where those choices are printed (if at all... think of the digital codexes and supplements). It really is a mess, there's no denying that. Since last week, some of the guys have turned to AoS, as that is a less cluttered gaming system. I think that says it all.

Orthon
03-06-2016, 07:39
My gaming group used to have a full six tables of 40k every week. Now it has essentially disbanded and no one plays at all. It is literally an empty room with no one showing up. Unheard of.

The game went down fast starting in 6th edition and the release of Tau and Eldar. Escalation and Stronghold assault made it worse. Imperial Knights made it worse. 7th edition made it worse. It just got worse and worse and more and more people quit.

I do not actually think the core rules are the problem. The game was fine back in the day. The unbalanced nature of Tau, Eldar, Space Marines (battle company), and a host of things really released since mid 2013 have ruined the game.

They can release new core rules, but if they leave Tau, Eldar, Space Marines, and Imperial Knights as they are then the game will remain stale and not worth a damn. The ridiculous external balance is the main issue. Chaos, Orks, IG, and Tyranids are pretty much garbage in comparison that you might as well not even bother.

Mr. CyberPunk
03-06-2016, 08:20
My gaming group used to have a full six tables of 40k every week. Now it has essentially disbanded and no one plays at all. It is literally an empty room with no one showing up. Unheard of.

The game went down fast starting in 6th edition and the release of Tau and Eldar. Escalation and Stronghold assault made it worse. Imperial Knights made it worse. 7th edition made it worse. It just got worse and worse and more and more people quit.

I do not actually think the core rules are the problem. The game was fine back in the day. The unbalanced nature of Tau, Eldar, Space Marines (battle company), and a host of things really released since mid 2013 have ruined the game.

They can release new core rules, but if they leave Tau, Eldar, Space Marines, and Imperial Knights as they are then the game will remain stale and not worth a damn. The ridiculous external balance is the main issue. Chaos, Orks, IG, and Tyranids are pretty much garbage in comparison that you might as well not even bother.

100% agreed

jtrowell
03-06-2016, 08:43
This remind me of the situation at the end of WHFB 7th edition, with a few armies clearly superior to others (mainly daemons and Vampire counts).

Funny thing is that 8th edition managed to make all armies more balanced with each others that they had ever been since the 6th edition ravening hordes booklet, but as usual GW didn't manage to follow the same design guidelines and while the first books where somewhat balanced both internaly and externaly (even TK where not so bad that they lost before even plaing, and both them and O&G had plenty of viable ways to build the army), they later changed (VC got some things stricly better than TK just because, like their skeleton spear being a free upgrade when they costed 1 point per model for the TK), badly designed army rules where multiplied (I didn't like the ASF on all high elves and adding it to other elves as a racial ability was lazy and made the armies more boring from my point of view, to say nothing of the dwarves random hatred), monstruous cavalries where made more and more powerful going from nice unit (necro knights were very good at the time, but with a def of 3+ certainly not too strong) to very powerful with some weakness (mournfag riders, who shouldn't had gotten def 2+, with relatively low morale as their weakness) to mary sue knights (demigriffs).

In short, you would have to hope that they manage a second time to get a new edition more balanced for the armies that their original edition *and* that they manage to follow clear balanced design guidelines for the whole edition.

My faith in GW still having both the competence and the will to do both is not very strong.

Tokamak
03-06-2016, 09:14
Frustrating isn't it? Even 7th edition wasn't entirely bad, it was mostly a polish on 6th edition but the ridiculous army creep that then ensued completely ruined it. 8th edition was a stroke of genius that levelled the armies again and indeed, they power creep messed it up again.

40k doesn't have a problem with armies but with units. No unit should ever feel like a requirement to even stand a remote chance, yet that's what superheavies and flyers have brought. If they can pull an 8th on the 40k then that'd be great.

Rogue Star
03-06-2016, 15:50
Well this edition has nerfed close combat to a degree, so armies which relied heavily upon it... say Tyranids, wouldn't call it a good edition, polished or not.

Xeones
03-06-2016, 17:15
Make 40k great again! :shifty:

I think it would take a pretty significant shift from the current rule system for me to sit up and take notice of 8th edition. I don't actually hold much hope of that happening. In fact, I'm much more hopeful that if they introduce a main-stream Heresy line by expanding on Betrayal at Calth, they'll come up with a much better system for that line, and then shift that ruleset over to 40k eventually.

I've been at the fringes of 40k since 4th edition, but I really lost interest around the time 6th edition hit. I keep telling myself I'm mostly in it for the painting and modeling side anyway. :( The one thing I thought was right on the money with 6th was the introduction of hull points on vehicles which by itself should have reduced the nonsense of razorback parking lots and things that were prevalent back then. I also liked the idea of giving melee weapons an AP value and expanding the complexity of power weapons. I just didn't really like some of the specific choices that were made in its implementation. I also suppose the wound allocation mechanic introduced in 6th was an improvement in some ways as well. My real issue was that the gap between shooting and melee actually widened when, imo, it needed to be reduced.

These days, the system is just too bloated and disjointed. The new prevalence of Superheavies and Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures and the like have shifted the game away from what I feel is really the soul of 40k—which is still set up like a small to mid-sized skirmish game, but is marketed and played quite differently these days by a lot of players.

I liked including aircraft from a modeling perspective and from the perspective of providing a more comprehensive picture of the battle space. The problem I have however is that I feel aircraft should never have been designed so that they invalidate most ground units that don't have skyfire. In my estimation, they should have kept them similar to how they introduced them at the end of 5th edition--basically as an extension of the fast skimmer ruleset. Allow for a cover save which increases in effectiveness the farther you move in your turn, (with caveats that you can't do things like disembark troops or fire more that a couple of weapons at ground targets) and you're good.

Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles need to be reconciled as well. I know this is controversial but in my opinion they need to streamline both categories to follow a similar mechanic. Rather than making Vehicles like MC's I'd actually go the other direction and make MC's like vehicles. Just give MC's a different damage table to vehicles. Would this be a massive shift and a nerf to a lot of MCs? Yes, but imo, as a class, they are too powerful already.

I like the concept of formations which can change up the FOC, but there really needs to be some standardization. I agree with whoever said earlier that formations should not get special rules that they don't pay for. I'd actually go further and say that most formations shouldn't get special rules at all. It bloats the game too much with all these special rules running around everywhere and it makes things quite muddled when you have to figure out how these rules interact with one another in the middle of a game. The benefit of a formation should be the units and unit combinations that it allows you to take—not the additional special nonsense it lets you pull.

I'm not a fan of a psychic phase, an air phase, a hurling nasty insults phase, or any of the rest. Make these mechanics fit within the existing phases, reduce randomness across the board (charge range, run distance, psychic powers, warlord tables, etc), and drastically cut the number of units with special snowflake rules. Complexity is fine. I like nuanced complexity. But sprawling, disorganized, chaotic complexity just makes me gag a little.

But then again, what do I know? I'm only in this hobby for the painting and modeling anyway...

Orthon
04-06-2016, 00:48
The laughable state of the meta: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/06/01/the-current-state-of-40k-and-its-community/

I don't want to play games where it is two Stormsurges and 3 riptides sitting in a corner and these five monstrous creatures table your entire army. I laughed out loud when I read a White Dwarf a few years ago where they brought 5 riptides and crushed the new Tyranids and they were like yay this is the way the game should be played! No points or force organization for the win! It is like Rock'em Sock'em Robots—just take as many monstrous creatures as you can for the win! Tau have only gotten more abusive since then (that was in 6th).

I don't want to play a game where another side gets 350+ points of free stuff in the form of transports and a host of free rules. It is just tedious and unfair.
CSM is relegated to being the punching bags of the loyalists. The best way to play them is as Khorne Daemonkin where you want to die as much as possible so you get free stuff! Such fun! It shows how bad Bloodthirsters and Daemon units are that they have to be handed out for free and you will still lose to Tau and free transport grav spam.

I don't want to play against psychic death starts with rerollable 2+/3++ saves or 2++ shenanigans. I don't want to play against psychic deathstars that can teleport across the board and assault you turn one. It is a joke. Also why do Space Marines get a variety of ways to assault turn one or out of reserves while everyone else gets ignored? It is just abusive. Also grav spam. I do not want to play a game where Space Marines get yearly (seems much more often than that now!) updates and releases while everyone else that badly needs them is simply ignored.

The Eldar Wraithknight can wtfpwn two Imperial Knights with ease if it pays attention (unlike the Dawn of War III trailer). He is just that undercosted. Every unit in the Eldar codex is quite good. Units that can carry multiple strength D flamers should not be in the game. It is bad comedy.

The game is just unplayable right now. The FAQs are not addressing the sad state of the game really. Tiny little band aids over things that do not matter. They have a lot of work ahead of them and I doubt they will do anything to address any of this because it seems to be what they are pedaling (40k should be about Rock’em Sock’em Robots, free stuff, and psychic abuse—the complete opposite of any semblance of balance).

Voss
04-06-2016, 02:40
What you need to remember is that new editions take a lot of time and resources to pull together, if 8th ed is fo release this year the development for it may have started 18 months to 2 yrs ago, they certainly didn't start kicking ideas around in the last six weeks.

I don't deny that GW has made some impressive gains recently in relation to their attitude and approach to interacting with their customers and even their pricing, but all these 'gains' have been made in the last six months or so, and my gut tells me that is too short a time frame to encompass the development of a new edition of 40k.
But it fits in pretty well with the short development time of 7th. Almost as if the development was rushed to put out a product as a stop-gap money maker, and then they picked development back up and kept working to produce 8th (or what would have been a proper 7th edition) if they hadn't needed to rush something out to fill the hole in their earnings.

But yeah, most of the development would been under the standard GW model, which... eh. Nothing suggests they'd cut back on the crazy and focus on building a solid ruleset.

G8Keeper
04-06-2016, 09:51
I think whilst gw has to take some of the blame, players still have their own choices to make, often resulting in a local meta arms race. However; my friends and I recently played out a hard fought 5000pt "normal" 40k game. Yes there were formations but no there wasn't any super heavies or the like. The resulting game was both shooty and assaulty and had us biting our nails to a hard fought draw (I just about grabbed some objectives on the last turn).

To me that game proved that 40k can still be played with the current ruleset and feel like it used to. Its all a matter of if you have the right kind of opponent.

P.S. I even took a dark angel battle company (rhinos free).

Tokamak
04-06-2016, 10:28
The balance of a game shouldn't depend on the amount of restraint both players show in their army. If certain unit types, like super-heavies and flyers etc can't be picked without triggering an arms race then that's GW's fault. Not the gamers.

That's all we're asking for. A system that just allows us to use the stuff we've bought, mostly because we liked the miniatures, without being accused of trying to win at all costs.

Fangschrecken
04-06-2016, 17:35
I think the game really does get more balanced at higher points levels if you avoid superheavies (or too many of them)

Malefactum
04-06-2016, 20:57
The FAQs are not addressing the sad state of the game really.And why would they? They are rule clarifications, not erratas or changes. They aren't even meant to be changes either. They are meant to explain everyone how the rules were intended to be played in the first place.


If certain unit types, like super-heavies and flyers etc can't be picked without triggering an arms race then that's GW's fault.Isn't that what the game is all about ever since? If I can't compete with vehicle-spam, I start an arms race to counter vehicles. If my opponent steam roles me with assault units, I start an arms race with assault-counters. If my opponent crushes me with monstrous creatures I can't even damage, I start an arms race to buy poison/grav guns or similar. That's 40k. Ever since. That already had been the same back in 2nd edition. And in all editions after that. It's a game of counters and yes, an arms race.

Captain Marius
04-06-2016, 21:06
I dont think it was ever this bad until they added super heavies and flyers to the game, much as i enjoy these things in bigger point games, like 3k plus, they just knacker the casual scene completely. A frikkin army of Imperial Knights, i mean cmon, who thought this was a good idea two years (and two codexes...) ago!

Malefactum
04-06-2016, 21:12
I didn't say all is good with the state of 40k. I just invalidated some arguments which are not tied to 8th edition at all.

G8Keeper
04-06-2016, 22:12
I was also trying to get across that there are people who enjoy the game as it is whilst admitting that yes it has flaws, its written by imperfect beings.

murgel2006
04-06-2016, 23:52
The balance of a game shouldn't depend on the amount of restraint both players show in their army. If certain unit types, like super-heavies and flyers etc can't be picked without triggering an arms race then that's GW's fault. Not the gamers.

There can and will be people whose opinion on that will differ. Like myself. I really feel strongly about the importance of "restraint" by the players and I feel as strongly about who is responsible for the power creep on the gaming table. IMO it is the players who ruin the game. The rules may be great or not so great, the codices might be powerful or OP or weak but all this can be taken care of if people were to try for "making a fun game for us" not a meet and beat.
Still I see and except the need for a competitive set of rules but GW should make them a separate rules set all together. 40k tournament edition. Currently they listen to the community, why not provide a simple straight rules set for tournaments and a complex and broad rules set for the "narrative" players.

Sometimes I get tired of: "We want balance, balance, balance!" So no formations, no boni, only CAD and no LoW. All armies use the same weapons, tanks, saves. A Marine just looks different from a guardsman form a gaunt but the stats are the same. There you have your balanced game. Might be a bit boring though. The various armies are different and that makes for an unbalanced game inherently.

GW has to go and undo many mistakes from the last few years. But most of them seem to be in the "eye of the beholder" like bring back selective targeting, jumping/falling from buildings, victory points and many more.
personally I loved the leaked 6th edition because it had so much variety in how one could play the game, even changing the ygoigo approach etc.
8th edition would find it's way to my collection of rules if it will support variety and strategic / tactical depth for my games. And I still know I will house rule quite a few things.

Dosiere
05-06-2016, 03:42
I didn't say all is good with the state of 40k. I just invalidated some arguments which are not tied to 8th edition at all.

I think it's fair to say the arms race has never been this OTT or so rock/paper/scissors as now, although I was not around before 5th. A unit kitted out for anti vehicle could still put some hurt on infantry, just at much reduced efficiency for the points. A unit kitted out for anti horde could often be given a tool or two to deal with vehicles in a pinch.

Also, and maybe most crucially, 6/7 editions have introduced formations and unbound, which means entire armies can be and are composed entirely of a particular unit or type - an army of nothing but Knights or dreadnoughts, monstrous creatures, etc... That's not really an arms race, just hard counters that need to be spammed in return to deal with them to the detriment of creating anything resembling an all comers type of list.

Dealing with one or two riptides, wrath knights, or imperial Knights is something that can be planned for. Dealing with an entire force of nothing but those things is much more difficult if you still want a balanced force yourself. We need thoughtful army composition rules so that there are a mix of unit types in armies and less spam of just the most OP ones, while still letting people have plenty of freedom in list building within reason.

The alternative would be to go to the AoS route where there are fewer hard counters and pretty much every unit can engage with and interact with everything else. While it would be unlikely, a lasgun could shoot at and wound an imperial knight for instance. I'd rather not go that way, but I'd prefer it to what we have now. I want the game to be decided mostly on the table during a game and not just on who brought what. 40k right now is the first time in my wargaming hobby where I've just simply declined games. I didn't even do that with AoS, despite all its issues.

Malefactum
05-06-2016, 10:31
That's not an issue of 7th in particular though. Even in 4th or 5th there had been lists which were horribly imbalanced and a nightmare to face or even win against them. The same is true for 2nd, for 3rd not so much as many units were simply meh. I agree though that being able to spam certain things in 7th made it worse.

Tokamak
05-06-2016, 15:15
I really feel strongly about the importance of "restraint" by the players and I feel as strongly about who is responsible for the power creep on the gaming table. IMO it is the players who ruin the game. T

It makes the outcome meaningless though. The player that pulls their punches the most will win.

Ben
05-06-2016, 22:16
GW bear responsibility for formations and their use as a sales technique. Buy 10 5 man marine squads and get 10 free in points Razorbacks is an easy way to get players to stump up for tanks.

Take one of every unit in the Skitarii and Admech Codexes plus 1-3 Knights and get 800 points of free upgrades and plasma never gets hot is the same.

And that is GWs fault. They put that in the game and want you to use it to buy the kits.

Riptides used to be a centre piece model. At the tournament I visited on Saturday with about 20 attendees, there were three Eldar/Tau armies with 3 or more Riptides and a Wraith Knight.

Ursus
06-06-2016, 06:32
I was at an event not long ago that had an 850 point 40k introductory tournament. One player took an inquisitor, a couple of troops, and a Warhound Titan with 2 laser destructors. Hell of an introduction. Mind you they lost their first game against a pair of invisible wraith knights....

I'd like to see an 8th edition with a return of the force org chart being meaningful. Only troops able to score and lords of war restricted to a single choice which costs less than 25% of the army total.

Abbadonsrighthand
06-06-2016, 07:29
I was at an event not long ago that had an 850 point 40k introductory tournament. One player took an inquisitor, a couple of troops, and a Warhound Titan with 2 laser destructors. Hell of an introduction. Mind you they lost their first game against a pair of invisible wraith knights....

I'd like to see an 8th edition with a return of the force org chart being meaningful. Only troops able to score and lords of war restricted to a single choice which costs less than 25% of the army total.

Or how about we take a lesson from the eldar codex and make troops actually worth taking so people will want to take them. Also the lord of war restriction is kind of stupid

Sureshot05
06-06-2016, 09:13
40k was designed in the last decade and hasn't adapted to the competition.

When someone spends an age making an army, and then setting up a game (with terrain and travel etc.) they want a fair experience. If one invests a large amount of effort and the outcome is poor due to rules imbalances then the competition looks a lot more attractive. Compare with Warmachine or X-wing. Both games have much lower set up times and result in generally fairer games. If you are going to play a game and want a good experience, the set up (tiem to get on table) and pregame hobby (spent a couple of weeks painting up that squad etc) should be reflected in the end experience.

40K desperately needs to balance the need to bring in sales (formations, OP units, super heavies) with the game balance. The former is a short term strategy, but the long term, game balance, requires a lot of deep and difficult questions which GW need to address and work on.

Geep
06-06-2016, 09:31
Or how about we take a lesson from the eldar codex and make troops actually worth taking so people will want to take them.
Like the afformentioned Eldar army that had 2 Wraithnknights at 1850 pts?
Eldar does have strong troops, but there's no reasonable way that an amount of common troops can be equal to a Warhound, Wraithknight pair, etc. To make that possible, power would have to be ramped up so that whoever goes first wins (or whoever can stay in reserve the longest, to get the first shot when they show up).

Right now the rules have been backed into a corner for many reasons- GW wants to push expensive kits, people want that expensive kit to win them games, and you can't reasonably rebalance things without a major rules shakeup (which would be unpopular). Eventually something will have to give- the playerbase will grow bored and fade (as seems to be happening), or the rules will have to be reset.
40k was designed as a small scale skirmish game- since then it's had thousands of extras tacked on, but the core rules haven't changed, and they're failing as a result.

Also the lord of war restriction is kind of stupid
Why?
Restrictions are great at making a game actually playable in a quick and friendly fashion. It's really only because of the GW marketing department that there are (virtually) no limits now, and the game is suffering.

Mandragola
06-06-2016, 12:40
There’s this assumption that the people asking for 40k to be fair are just the tournament players. Speaking as a tournament player, I don’t think that’s true.

Fundamentally, I don’t need 40k to be balanced in order to play it at tournaments and have fun. I’m not especially concerned about the fluffiness of my armies or any consideration beyond how they perform on the tabletop (though actually I’ve started winning painting and sportsmanship prizes lately, which is weird!). I have the time and money needed to look through all the codices, study the meta, check out the rules for the event I’m going to and build an effective list. I realise I’m in a very small minority here. Most people can’t do this, and that's the problem.

I think that the people who suffer right now are actually the casual players and especially the kids – plus maybe their parents buying the stuff for them. The game should be fun for everyone. That means that you should be able to have fun games no matter what you buy. If you think a model is cool you should be able to use it. You shouldn’t buy it, paint it up, bring it along to play and find that it’s useless – or that it’s too good and nobody wants to play you. If two friends who know nothing about the game walk out of a store with random armies, they should be able to play good games with their purchases.

Right now there are several threads about knights and how broken they are. This is unusual in that normally people are complaining that their fluffy armies are useless. Now they are complaining that they are too good and you can’t get a game. But neither option is ok. If kid#1 thinks knights are cool and kid#2 thinks orks are cool, they are going to have spent a ton of money and not ended up with a fun game to play. This sucks for them and it sucks for GW.

I hear the argument about “restraint”, and I’m sorry to say I think it’s rubbish. We as players shouldn’t have to fix GW’s mess. GW has loads of money and staff, and no excuse for failing to design a balanced game.

The same goes for imposing limits by TOs and so on - though I get why this is seen as necessary. Ultimately you wouldn’t need limits on superheavies if their rules were fair. The problem is now how many superheavies you can have, it’s that they are too powerful. Stuff that is too powerful just should not exist. And the effect of nerfing one thing is just that something else ends up taking over. Ban knights at a tournament and you can expect to see a ton more death stars, for instance.

So for now I feel like unrestricted tournament play is the bit of the game that works best for how I like to play. To me, the idea of facing 4-5 knights is an interesting challenge, so bring it on. But for most people it’s just a wasted evening. Ultimately it’s bad for GW’s bank balance if people get bored of being stomped into the ground and stop showing up at their shops.

This is particularly true now that GW is not the only show in town. People can play x-wing or warmahordes, or a dozen other things. Outfits like FFG live by their reputation as games designers. GW still has the best models, but it’s impossible to defend their games.

Ursus
06-06-2016, 13:10
Or how about we take a lesson from the eldar codex and make troops actually worth taking so people will want to take them. Also the lord of war restriction is kind of stupid

Fortunately Forgeworld disagrees with your opinion regarding restrictions and 30k continues to go from strength to strength.

Azazyll
06-06-2016, 16:12
It seems to me that part of the problem is a certain oversimplification and lack of vision on GW's part. They clearly do have a desire to promote flexibility. I don't believe this "forging the narrative" business is only a cynical ploy to sell big kits (it is ALSO a ploy to sell big kits). You can play any kind of game you can imagine now. Weird scenarios, strange circumstances, historical oddities. The problem with this is twofold:
1) even if they had done a good job balancing points in the first place, that would still require the assumption of some kind of normative style of play. By abandoning those normative restrictions points will naturally be out of whack.
2) Lots of people it turns out want to play competitively rather than casually, and no alternative model for them was provided.

GW really needs to create a stricter baseline game, a consciously thought out and carefully considered norm, like a control group. Points and rules should be made with this style in mind.

That doesn't mean no more "forging the narrative" look-what-awesome-and-whacky-scenario-I-thought-of games. GW should be explicit that these are encouraged and provide ideas as they are doing now. But I think they expected people and especially tournament organizers to fill this gap themselves, not realizing that 1) people are over-reliant on the game designer for authority and 2) because GW didn't have such a situation firmly in mind when making the rules and balancing the units no such baseline norm could ever be created.

Just a thought on the philosophical underpinnings of the current crisis

Abbadonsrighthand
06-06-2016, 17:11
Fortunately Forgeworld disagrees with your opinion regarding restrictions and 30k continues to go from strength to strength.

Well using my own experiances the majority of the time the Max i play is 1500 so would struggle to fit in a smallish super heavy like a typhon never mind a knight

Losing Command
06-06-2016, 17:57
What might help a lot is besides the points value having a 'type of battle' you can agree on, which have different levels of restrictions. Like : skirmish - mostly infantery, few special units ; small engagement - single FOC, no formations, allies etc ; Escalation - everything is allowed, for example.
That way those who do enjoy having games with superheavies, stacked formations and everything can still play those types of games, but it also gives players who prefer less crazy games a way to have a great time. Because 40k is now basically Apocalypse, and not everybody liked Apocalypse when that was just an expasion.

Comrade Penguin
06-06-2016, 19:41
What might help a lot is besides the points value having a 'type of battle' you can agree on, which have different levels of restrictions. Like : skirmish - mostly infantery, few special units ; small engagement - single FOC, no formations, allies etc ; Escalation - everything is allowed, for example.
That way those who do enjoy having games with superheavies, stacked formations and everything can still play those types of games, but it also gives players who prefer less crazy games a way to have a great time. Because 40k is now basically Apocalypse, and not everybody liked Apocalypse when that was just an expasion.

Pretty much this. The Apocalypse units should have stayed in Apocalypse, but now we are all forced to play that expansion.

I am hoping they do what they are doing with AOS. Make three ways to play: Balanced competitive mode, an anything goes unbound mode, and a fluffy narrative mode.

Geep
07-06-2016, 02:12
I am hoping they do what they are doing with AOS. Make three ways to play: Balanced competitive mode, an anything goes unbound mode, and a fluffy narrative mode.
I sort of agree (on this aspect of AoSification only :p ), but think there only needs to be two styles: Balanced and unbound. Fluffy narratives should be possible within both, with no special tweaking required. Unbound doesn't really require anything special either- just remind people they're free to tweak the game and include/exclude rules.

On a similar line of thought to the narrative mode, I really wish things like the old Bunker Assault, Linebreaker and similar missions would be brought back- I've collected many of the newer scenario books, and found them lacking. Even things as extreme as the Planetfall rules just don't tick the right boxes somehow.

fenrisbrit
07-06-2016, 21:50
I sort of agree (on this aspect of AoSification only :p ), but think there only needs to be two styles: Balanced and unbound. Fluffy narratives should be possible within both, with no special tweaking required. Unbound doesn't really require anything special either- just remind people they're free to tweak the game and include/exclude rules.

On a similar line of thought to the narrative mode, I really wish things like the old Bunker Assault, Linebreaker and similar missions would be brought back- I've collected many of the newer scenario books, and found them lacking. Even things as extreme as the Planetfall rules just don't tick the right boxes somehow.

I think that this could be developed a little further: Balanced competitive. Restricted lists for "pick-up" games (cuts down on the unwelcome games where someone turns up with too many super heavies and/or fliers etc compared to your Troops centric skirmish force). Unbound for those who want to go large with a group of close friends etc. There could be further sub divisions.

I guess the thing is that this could be done with the rules as they are, but it is human instinct not to want to place restrictions on pick-up games with those we do not know well; it sounds too needy. But if there were a framework published that made an easy reference point then the rules come to our rescue and help us over that hurdle.

Tokamak
08-06-2016, 14:31
I completely disagree with separating the super-heavies from the main game again. It's the superheavies that need internal change rather than exclusion.

Apocalypse is from a completely different era. From before the plastic Baneblade even. It was a ruleset to use your FW miniatures in. Then GW created two superheavy kits (Stompa and Baneblade) and with it an update for apocalypse. These days the technological advances in production made for super-heavies to be developed more easily so they've become more prevalent in the game.

So I that's why disagree with that these units should be kept separately from the main game. They're no longer some expansion that facilitates their use, they've become integral to the game.

And that's a good thing. However, they HAVE to be changed. A complete rehaul is required. The rules for superheavies need to be written with their popularity in mind. Armies with superheavies should never be more powerful than armies without them. It shouldn't take another super-heavy to beat another super-heavy. That works lore-wise and that was the point of the expansions, but it won't do any longer.

The miniature range of 40k has outgrown it's ruleset and if GW misses the opportunity to re-establish balance in the 8th edition then they're no longer a game company.

fenrisbrit
08-06-2016, 20:51
I completely disagree with separating the super-heavies from the main game again. It's the superheavies that need internal change rather than exclusion.

Apocalypse is from a completely different era. From before the plastic Baneblade even. It was a ruleset to use your FW miniatures in. Then GW created two superheavy kits (Stompa and Baneblade) and with it an update for apocalypse. These days the technological advances in production made for super-heavies to be developed more easily so they've become more prevalent in the game.

So I that's why disagree with that these units should be kept separately from the main game. They're no longer some expansion that facilitates their use, they've become integral to the game.

And that's a good thing. However, they HAVE to be changed. A complete rehaul is required. The rules for superheavies need to be written with their popularity in mind. Armies with superheavies should never be more powerful than armies without them. It shouldn't take another super-heavy to beat another super-heavy. That works lore-wise and that was the point of the expansions, but it won't do any longer.

The miniature range of 40k has outgrown it's ruleset and if GW misses the opportunity to re-establish balance in the 8th edition then they're no longer a game company.

I see your point as an alternative approach. But I am not sure how GW do this. A super-heavy should be a thing of dread and difficult for an infantry man to take down. Too re-calibrate the super-heavy seems wrong. But the infantry man should have his place on the battlefield. On a 6x4 table (even allowing for the vaugaries of scale in a war-game) a superheavy becomes too dominant - infantry would simply avoid and call for help (in game terms they would be off the table). And so the super heavy finds its most comfortable resting place in Apoc games where (often) bigger tables and larger armies are in play.

And so, in sum, I think GWs mistake was trying to make a "one size fits all" game (to sell more models?) when in reality it doesn't work.

Fangschrecken
08-06-2016, 21:56
Giving super heavies and gargantuan creatures a damage chart would make a ton of difference. The fact that they are fully operational until destruction is a major issue when facing them. As I recall, in the original apocalypse book they had a damage chart and it seems to work ok.

inq.serge
08-06-2016, 21:57
Giving super heavies and gargantuan creatures a damage chart would make a ton of difference. The fact that they are fully operational until destruction is a major issue when facing them. As I recall, in the original apocalypse book they had a damage chart and it seems to work ok.

They have damage charts in AoS; and it works great. I totally agree with you to the max.

Malefactum
09-06-2016, 05:45
Naa, it didn't work great at all when the chart was in place. Being able to destroy the only weapon of a super heavy is maybe logical, but bad for balance. I mean, disabling a 900 point model with a single las-cannon is making that model totally useless. Balance doesn't mean to totally invalidate super heavies. It means to keep them viable without making them dominating the field. A 900 point model should still be able to wipe out 900 points of other models over the course of the game. Yes, this sounds hefty. But this is balanced after all. They should not be able to destroy 900 points each turn. But neither should they be crippled by a 120 points unit in the first turn. Mind you, not every super heavy is an AV14 (or 15) all around either.

H3L!X
09-06-2016, 06:44
Naa, it didn't work great at all when the chart was in place. Being able to destroy the only weapon of a super heavy is maybe logical, but bad for balance. I mean, disabling a 900 point model with a single las-cannon is making that model totally useless. Balance doesn't mean to totally invalidate super heavies. It means to keep them viable without making them dominating the field. A 900 point model should still be able to wipe out 900 points of other models over the course of the game. Yes, this sounds hefty. But this is balanced after all. They should not be able to destroy 900 points each turn. But neither should they be crippled by a 120 points unit in the first turn. Mind you, not every super heavy is an AV14 (or 15) all around either.
Agree.
If 120 points could destroy 900 in one go, i would consider this small unit OP.

MajorWesJanson
09-06-2016, 07:04
I remember that damage used to mean something on superheavies. But at the same time, Primary Weapon also meant something- it gave a save vs Weapon Destroyed results

jtrowell
09-06-2016, 08:36
One method might be to treat each superheavy as a sort of composite unit made of several part.
Each part would have his own armor and damage table, and consequence for the whole model when destructed/damaged.

The main weapon might be one such target, but it would probably most of the time be very hard to destroy, but even if destroyed you would still have your secondary weapons, as well as close combat abilities.

Legs/tracks or the like might be targetted to slow down or immobilize the super heavy.

Or you might try to go for the body/head or any other vital part to kill or disable it faster, but knowing that this part if the most heavily armored and that it will be harder to damage that any of the others (but that if you have heavy enough weapons it might be the best way to kill it).

In short it would not be unlike having a group of unit composed of assaut unit(s) (legs), big artillery tanks (primary weapons), small arms/support tanks (secondary weapons), and a general/support unit holding the whole together (body/head).

But it would probably need a complete revamp of the whole vehicule system anyway, and lots of test to get the balance right.

williamsond
09-06-2016, 09:28
I think the whole armour penetration system just need to be done away with just give every thing a toughness but give vehicles and super heavies a lot more wounds. weapons that currently have armour bane/lance/other AP characteristics just need to do multiple wounds I think this sort of system goes back to rogue trader days.

A.T.
09-06-2016, 09:46
I think the whole armour penetration system just need to be done away with just give every thing a toughness but give vehicles and super heavies a lot more wounds. weapons that currently have armour bane/lance/other AP characteristics just need to do multiple wounds I think this sort of system goes back to rogue trader days.In rogue trader vehicles had a toughness value and wounds. Any vehicle wounded had to roll a d6 at the end of the turn and add the number of wounds taken -1. If the total was 6 or higher they had to roll a d10 with the same modifier against a damage effect chart - a result of 12+ caused the vehicle to spontaneously explode, lower results caused lesser effects.

At strength 5 and d4 wounds per hit it was entirely possible to blow away a landraider with a single salvo from a heavy bolter (landraiders were toughness 8, 30 wounds, 5+ armour save - typical values for a higher end tank). Dreadnoughts were T6, superheavies (juggernauts) were T10.

Tokamak
09-06-2016, 10:01
I see your point as an alternative approach. But I am not sure how GW do this. A super-heavy should be a thing of dread and difficult for an infantry man to take down. Too re-calibrate the super-heavy seems wrong.

I think a super-heavy should trump every semi-large target on the battlefield. Other vehicles, heavies, large monsters and elite deathballs all need to worry about a super-heavy. But small infantry should be out of it's scope. And it sort of is already, because super-heavies rarely waste their power on cheap infantry.

That's a loop that needs closing. So:

Yes, infantry should be utterly wiped away by super-heavies.

BUT

If infantry manages to get up close to a super-heavy, then it should be able to be a severe threat to the super-heavy.

That way the super-heavy retains its place as dominating the battle-field, however, it can no longer ignore infantry as it does now. The strategy to deal with super-heavies then is to give it too many priorities to adequately deal with. A player mainly wants to use it to take out the juicy targets but the more they're being focussed, the more they jeopardise the super-heavy's safety.

I think that's an elegant way to balance them again.

Mandragola
09-06-2016, 11:26
On the whole I think that the effect infantry would have up cloes to a superheavy is massively underrated by the current rules. So for instance you'd start to have some pretty serious problems if a Genestealer got inside your baneblade. That's obviously what it would be trying to do and, given the number of hatches all over the place and several genestealers all trying to do it, they'd be likely to succeed. And of course the same applies to lots of people. Marines might use a melta bomb to blow a hatch off, then throw half a dozen frag grenades inside, or fire their flamer in.

What they would not do is all stand around while one guy stuck a krak grenade on the back of the baneblade.

Skilled and well-equipped infantry are actually a major threat to tanks, which is why tanks really don't like to go ahead of their infantry support into terrain that might conceal enemy infantry that they can't see.

One of the other weird things for superheavies is their speed. Why is it that my Typhon can race around at 12" per turn firing all its guns? It's pretty bizarre with the IG ones, where a Leman Russ is a heavy vehicle with the "lumbering behemoth" rule but a baneblade is positively sprightly.

In any case Tokamek's point stands I think. If superheavies were fair, they would not need to be restricted. I've got nothing against the idea of an army of knights in theory (and I've got one so I'd like to play it from time to time!) but not if it's not a fair game. Rather than preventing people from using their toys, why not write rules that make it a good game when they do?

Tokamak
09-06-2016, 11:50
And if the rules aren't fair then people will be prevented from playing with them anyway. Opponents simply decline.

my_name_is_tudor
09-06-2016, 18:26
Some sort of rate of fire rules might help. How long does a turn last? And how long should it take to reload a baneblade's main weapon?

Malefactum
09-06-2016, 18:58
I'm not even sure a regular Baneblade gets back it's points very often...
On the other hand, a unit cannot only be valued by how much damage it deals, but also by how much it can swallow. Because if you can keep a 2500 points army busy for the entire game with a single super heavy, all the remaining points of yours can shoot at the enemy unhindered. I think that's underestimated very often.

H3L!X
09-06-2016, 21:32
I'm not even sure a regular Baneblade gets back it's points very often...
On the other hand, a unit cannot only be valued by how much damage it deals, but also by how much it can swallow. Because if you can keep a 2500 points army busy for the entire game with a single super heavy, all the remaining points of yours can shoot at the enemy unhindered. I think that's underestimated very often.
Thats a very good point.

The_Real_Chris
16-06-2016, 15:17
I hope it is a simplified version of 2nd edition :) (So vehicles, assault, sustain dice and overwatch changes :) )

Or just Epic Armageddon :)

Rabbitden
16-06-2016, 15:32
I'm not sure baneblades are a problem at all. I often field one against my opponent and it normally dies by turn 2 or 3 before getting much done. Harald Deathwolf comes on from the side of the table, smashes it with his hammer and it flips over and explodes. This happens pretty much everytime I use it against my opponent. Baneblades/varients are one of the weaker superheavies if you ask me. I have more trouble with Knights (Imperial and Eldar).

Thomson
16-06-2016, 15:57
I'm not sure baneblades are a problem at all. I often field one against my opponent and it normally dies by turn 2 or 3 before getting much done. Harald Deathwolf comes on from the side of the table, smashes it with his hammer and it flips over and explodes. This happens pretty much everytime I use it against my opponent. Baneblades/varients are one of the weaker superheavies if you ask me. I have more trouble with Knights (Imperial and Eldar).
Well, put any IG Super Heavy vs a Wraithknight and have fun seeing the "mighty" tank die a horrible death. The Shadowsword has a slight chance to kill it if it rolls a 6 on its D-Roll (happens in 33% of the games, since the Shadowsword has a chance to survive the first shooting round of the knight and gets 2 shots if it had the initiative, at least if the Eldar player made a mistake...). But otherwise the 50% more expensive tank is usually toast. (Its two D weapons vs one in favor of the Knight...)

Saunders
16-06-2016, 17:00
That's what happens when you have a specialised unit going up against a generalist unit. The Bane blades and their variants can handle just about any conventional threat with their volume of weaponry, but they really excel at targeting squads over individual models due to their emphasis on blast weapons. The Wraithknight with heavy wraithcannons, on the other hand, excels at hunting low-tier superheavies such as the baneblade.

Thomson
16-06-2016, 17:08
That's what happens when you have a specialised unit going up against a generalist unit. The Bane blades and their variants can handle just about any conventional threat with their volume of weaponry, but they really excel at targeting squads over individual models due to their emphasis on blast weapons. The Wraithknight with heavy wraithcannons, on the other hand, excels at hunting low-tier superheavies such as the baneblade.

That argument would be valid, if the Shadowsword, which has always been and should be a Titan Killer would not loose 2 out of 3 times vs a Wraithknight, while it costs 50% more. And it would also be valid if the Wraithknight would be worse at killing squads but in fact is even better because of ... well... stomp.

On the bottom line a Wraithknight does everything better than any Imperial Super Heavy tank at 65% of the points. And it is usually also tougher and more mobile.

P.S.: The only Super Heavy which rivals the Wraithknight is the Hellhammer with its crazy S10 Ignore Cover AP 2 Template. But it is pretty short ranged and Super Heavy Tanks die like flies in close combat. (maybe not so fast after the grenade FAQ, but two ork bosses with claws are usually enough to finish them off) and it is still over 50% more expensive in points while it is about equal in overall combat performance.

Saunders
16-06-2016, 19:03
For the record, Shadowswords were never *effective* titan killers; they mount a single volcano cannon, which is a fourth of the firepower that the lightest classes of titans can bring (the warhound and revenant both drop four large blasts, versus the single large blast of the Shadowsword). If you count, for instance, the void-shields on an Imperial titan, it's a foregone conclusion.

Stomping requires you to be in assault. I'm not really invested in this discussion, but you can't just say "a Wraithknight does everything better than a baneblade." The shadowsword, for instance, can shoot 120" with its volcano cannon, which is essentially what you're paying for. The Shadowsword consqentially does better at shooting units containing more than two models, since it has a large blast. You're also getting a front armor of AV14, which is much better versus the T8 of the Wraithknight (which roughly exceeds AV12 in terms of its ability to damage, withe the associated advantages and disadvantages of having a toughness value)

murgel2006
16-06-2016, 19:18
For the record, Shadowswords were never *effective* titan killers; they mount a single volcano cannon, which is a fourth of the firepower that the lightest classes of titans can bring (the warhound and revenant both drop four large blasts, versus the single large blast of the Shadowsword). If you count, for instance, the void-shields on an Imperial titan, it's a foregone conclusion.

Stomping requires you to be in assault. I'm not really invested in this discussion, but you can't just say "a Wraithknight does everything better than a baneblade." The shadowsword, for instance, can shoot 120" with its volcano cannon, which is essentially what you're paying for. You're also getting a front armor of AV14, which is much better versus the T8 of the Wraithknight (which roughly exceeds AV12 in terms of its ability to damage, withe the associated advantages and disadvantages of having a toughness value)

I do agree.
There often is a problem with comparing different units, simply spoken, they are different. Most times they cover different roles in the battle an thus are almost incomparable.
There is however one thing that bugs this up. The rules. Which try to treat models in classes not in battlefield roles. AND the rules generally, by their nature have to ignore what a model looks like
Simply spoken there are rules that should not apply to all models of a class. A good example IMO is the stomp rule. Remove stomp from a Wraithknight and it suffers greatly in power. The Sun cannon becomes an attractive option again and even the shoulder weapons do so. Besides I feel it could be argued that the small feet are not useful to stomp (say it only generates 1/3 or 1/2 of the hits).

IMO stomp has the same problem as tank shock. The rules currently do not work well.

Malefactum
16-06-2016, 21:04
Well, arguing that way puts the short legs of an Imperial Knight in a category barely able to stomp regular infantry sized models at all. Worse if we're going to consider Ork-Super-Heavy-Walkers... how could they ever stomp something bigger than a nurgling... Rules are rules and on purpose not what a model represents in all cases.

Thomson
17-06-2016, 00:16
For the record, Shadowswords were never *effective* titan killers; they mount a single volcano cannon, which is a fourth of the firepower that the lightest classes of titans can bring (the warhound and revenant both drop four large blasts, versus the single large blast of the Shadowsword). If you count, for instance, the void-shields on an Imperial titan, it's a foregone conclusion.

Stomping requires you to be in assault. I'm not really invested in this discussion, but you can't just say "a Wraithknight does everything better than a baneblade." The shadowsword, for instance, can shoot 120" with its volcano cannon, which is essentially what you're paying for. The Shadowsword consqentially does better at shooting units containing more than two models, since it has a large blast. You're also getting a front armor of AV14, which is much better versus the T8 of the Wraithknight (which roughly exceeds AV12 in terms of its ability to damage, withe the associated advantages and disadvantages of having a toughness value)
Well, maybe my problem is that the first time I played Shadowswords was in Epic 2nd edition where they had been extremely effective Titan Killers :P

And 120" range is as good as 48" at least if it comes to a typical 40k game. Btw my shadowsword did very well before the D Weapon nerf in 7th. After that it only gets its pts back if for some reason I roll a 6. With all the rerollable cover and invulnerability saves in the game the thing is basically pointless. An Eldar Wraithknight is an extremely mobile unit that can almost always maneuver into a position where it makes its 2 D shots count. And it also is a pretty potent close combat unit. And AV14 front is worth nothing in the current environment. And that is not a problem of Super Heavies but of amassed D weapons, Grav, Lance and whatever. But we can go on with that discussion for ever I guess. However, I can come up easily with half a dozen 400 pts armies that would beat any Imperial Super Heavy, but I can't think of much 300 pts armies that have a chance against a Wraithknight. Maybe you can enlighten me.

P.S.: Honestly, how many even semi competitive lists field a IG Super Heavy these days? How many lists containing one have placed in the top 10 during any Tournament including more than 20 players (heck, make it 12) Compare this to lists containing Wraithknights...

P.P.S.: And thinking back, the Shadowsword was a pretty decent Titan Killer in 5th and a very good one in 6th. Yes it was a very vulnerable unit (but there was a pretty good Apoc formation to make it survive, that one where you could distribute the damage to the sourrounding Russes) but you could maneuver it into position and then its D shot did really something. But with 7th where you lost ignore cover you are lucky if one of the two shots you get off deals any damage and then its a whopping 2 hull points. Yeah and baneblades are fun because they can kill 25 orcs in one turn if they are not in cover. If they are its down to 16, so you kill 35 if you are lucky (and your opponent did not think about spreading them) and then die.

slave
17-06-2016, 00:49
The consensus I see is that there are the have's and the have not, and then there is Eldar. 8th won't fix that. Eldar are so god awfully overpowered and broken, there is literally no point in playing this game. 8th won't fix this. They need to fire all the people responsible for writing that book, especially the knight, and the T8 wraithlord still existing, and fire the person who allowed it to go to print.

Orks, Tyranids, SOB, Dark Eldar, Dark Angels and Chaos need to be brought up to Tau/Necron level, at at least.

This won't be fixed with 8th, unless they go the Privater Press route and release all army books, at the same time.

Thomson
17-06-2016, 01:19
The consensus I see is that there are the have's and the have not, and then there is Eldar. 8th won't fix that. Eldar are so god awfully overpowered and broken, there is literally no point in playing this game. 8th won't fix this. They need to fire all the people responsible for writing that book, especially the knight, and the T8 wraithlord still existing, and fire the person who allowed it to go to print.

Orks, Tyranids, SOB, Dark Eldar, Dark Angels and Chaos need to be brought up to Tau/Necron level, at at least.

This won't be fixed with 8th, unless they go the Privater Press route and release all army books, at the same time.

Well my Dark Angels have no real problems vs Eldar. Even Imperial Guard are more dangerous since they get Ignore Cover that easy. Azrael with his 4++ for his transport and unit is really mean, especially if pumped up by psykers. Have you ever put him in a Thunderhawk? :D (Yeah two CADs are to cheap, I agree)

SOB can be super mean, but they basically only have one really working list. Khorne Daemonkin are fine too, they can even scare Eldar.

I agree to Chaos Marines, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Orks. It is just rediculous how far they are below the Eldar level. You can do well with IG if you spam Blobs and Lascannon Teams (30+ lascannons in a 1850 pt game with priests and psykers is something everybody is afraid of, especially if some of them are twin linked in Vendettas :D ... and no matter how much firepower you have it is a pain to mow through the sheer amount of units you can field. But you will usually loose kill point games :( )

Replicant253
17-06-2016, 04:10
In 25 years of playing I have never felt so strongly that 40K needs a massive rules re-set and shake up. I would support a AOS-esque rules revision, just leave the setting alone. Of the other games I play 40K is scoring pretty low on the fun factor, which is really the only factor that matters.

Malefactum
17-06-2016, 05:38
and the T8 wraithlord still existing, and fire the person who allowed it to go to print.Really? In a game full of grav, poison and snipers, T8 scares you, but AV12 doesn't? Personally I'm more afraid of 10 AV10 boxes flooding the board for free.

Thomson
17-06-2016, 09:03
Really? In a game full of grav, poison and snipers, T8 scares you, but AV12 doesn't? Personally I'm more afraid of 10 AV10 boxes flooding the board for free.
T8 has a slight disadvantage because it can be wounded by S5, but it has a huge advantage because it can still fire its weapons after it was hit... or move... and it does not blow up. But I agree T8 is not the problem. It is only a problem if pumped up with psychic boosts.

In my opinion 40k had never a serious rules problem (beginning with 5th edition). At least the core rules where fine. It was just the random point values of units and crazy codex (and later formation) specific rules that messed everything up. And formations made things only worse because they introduced more completely out of whack balance issues, since some of them are amazing and others are just worse than CAD.

IMO there is only one really ugly thing in the 7th edition rule book and that is Invisibility. And one thing that is bad is that the 6 on the D weapon table does so extremely much more than any other roll, that you can basically just forget any other result. But otherwise the rules are fine.

They should stop trying to fix their serous mistakes when writing codices by releasing new editions of the rules.

slave
17-06-2016, 21:15
It's also immune to S3 stuff. As a Tyranid player, that hurts. The bulk of the IG army can't hurt it. It's difficult to build a "take on any opponent" list when Eldar has so much cheese.

Malefactum
18-06-2016, 06:42
AV12 is also immune to S3. Even to S5. So what exactly is the argument here?

Denny
18-06-2016, 08:37
Eldar are so god awfully overpowered and broken, there is literally no point in playing this game.

That's a shame. I was thinking about booking in a game against my mates Nids with my Chaos Marines. It's a shame that a codex which will not have any involvement in the game nevertheless renders the matchup pointless.

Nkari
18-06-2016, 11:46
AV12 is also immune to S3. Even to S5. So what exactly is the argument here?

Because as far as I know no vehicle is armour 12 all around.. they got 10 in the back.. meaning they die to str 4..

But generally wraithbone constructs should have armour value and not Toughness or all walkers should allso have toughness and not armour value.. some ******* consistency would be nice.

Malefactum
18-06-2016, 11:57
But generally wraithbone constructs should have armour value and not Toughness or all walkers should allso have toughnessThat is up to dispute. You may interpret a Wraith-construct as a monstrous creature just as legally as interpreting them as a vehicle. They are both and still none of it. It's getting kinda funny when looking at Tau walkers though. They are all vehicles and yet all treated as monstrous creatures with even better armour saves.

Nkari
18-06-2016, 12:05
That is up to dispute. You may interpret a Wraith-construct as a monstrous creature just as legally as interpreting them as a vehicle. They are both and still none of it. It's getting kinda funny when looking at Tau walkers though. They are all vehicles and yet all treated as monstrous creatures with even better armour saves.

They are made up of the same material as falcons and all of its derivetives, same with craftworlds.. if falcon has an armour value so should the multi wound wraith constructs, imho ofc.

Loyalist87
18-06-2016, 12:09
In 25 years of playing I have never felt so strongly that 40K needs a massive rules re-set and shake up. I would support a AOS-esque rules revision, just leave the setting alone. Of the other games I play 40K is scoring pretty low on the fun factor, which is really the only factor that matters.

+1

same here!

Malefactum
18-06-2016, 12:34
They are made up of the same material as falcons and all of its derivetives, same with craftworlds.. if falcon has an armour value so should the multi wound wraith constructs, imho ofc.So since Wraithbone isn't too much different to chitin, should Tyranids have an armour value? Or should Falcons due to Wraithbone having a biological-like part instead have a toughness? Both is ridiculous. Same as the discussion about Wraith-constructs having a toughness or an armour-value. Both makes sense. Some argue more towards one, others towards the other. Are Wraithlords closer to a Dreadnought or closer to a Hive Tyrant? There you go. No idea. Both makes sense.

Casper Hawser
18-06-2016, 12:53
So since Wraithbone isn't too much different to chitin, should Tyranids have an armour value? Or should Falcons due to Wraithbone having a biological-like part instead have a toughness? Both is ridiculous. Same as the discussion about Wraith-constructs having a toughness or an armour-value. Both makes sense. Some argue more towards one, others towards the other. Are Wraithlords closer to a Dreadnought or closer to a Hive Tyrant? There you go. No idea. Both makes sense.

I'd say more a Dread Knight[emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fable
18-06-2016, 13:51
Because as far as I know no vehicle is armour 12 all around.

Allow me to be the first to introduce you to the Storm Raven, the most common flyer in the game. Also, the Storm Fang, a space wolf flyer you'll probably never see because Thunderwolves.

While the Morkanaut isn't AV12 all around, it is rear armour 12.


They are made up of the same material as falcons and all of its derivetives, same with craftworlds.. if falcon has an armour value so should the multi wound wraith constructs, imho ofc.

It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The Falcon and other vehicles are predominantly piloted by a living pilot, or multiple pilots, invluding most of the Titans, though these can be supported by spirit stones, and this is similar to the imperium's conventional vehicles with pilots and Machine spirit support.

Wraith constructs, on the other hand, are imbued with spirits from spirit stones. At that point the spirit and the shell are one cohesive being, in the same way that infantry and monstrous creatures are. If you read Asurmen it becomes pretty clear that the the "living" pilot and their twin's spirit are effectively operating as one being, even getting psychic pain feedback from the construct as if it were an extension of the their own flesh.

Really, if we were going to say all units that featured similar materials were given uniform rules regardless of their implementation it would seriously change the game. I expect some of the imperial armies would be heavily effected.

Tokamak
18-06-2016, 14:23
On the other hand, a unit cannot only be valued by how much damage it deals, but also by how much it can swallow. Because if you can keep a 2500 points army busy for the entire game with a single super heavy, all the remaining points of yours can shoot at the enemy unhindered. I think that's underestimated very often.

Yeah that's why superheavies need gradual destruction for it to work well with normal armies.

sephiroth87
18-06-2016, 16:26
+1

same here!
+2. Blow it up. Start over. Streamline the rules and bring them into the present. Playtest it using players. I want to play and support 40k but cannot in its current form.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Malefactum
18-06-2016, 17:04
Yeah that's why superheavies need gradual destruction for it to work well with normal armies.Gradual destruction on the other hand could lead to them being totally unusable after first turn. Such an expensive unit should never be disabled that easily either. What else would be the point to field 500-900 points if you can do nothing with it after first turn?

Tokamak
18-06-2016, 20:04
I think it should. Superheavies can obliterate that amount of points on the first turn just as easily. It should be a liability that the superheavy player needs to avoid to the best of his abilities.

Malefactum
18-06-2016, 20:42
I guess we simply agree to disagree then. To wipe out the same amount of points as a super heavy costs is often not that fast to pull off. For some of them if there is a proper pray, sure (like another super-heavy as target for a titan-hunter), but not for each and everyone of them in any situation. But whatever.

Tokamak
18-06-2016, 21:57
To wipe out the same amount of points as a super heavy costs is often not that fast to pull off.

About as fast as a superheavy becomes completely unusable through a damage chart.

dangerboyjim
18-06-2016, 23:00
If they are working on an 8th edition, I hope they take their time and reinvent the whole thing.

3 modes of play - Skirmish level (think inquisitor warbands), Battle level (Squads and Vehicles), Apocalypse (Super heavy, fliers, nutty stuff)

Reinvent the way force organisation works, to limit spam, overpowered models and units. No more taking on 3 Riptides and a Wraithknight. This could incorporate and reign in the excesses of the formation system (which is utterly broken)

Get rid of codex system - What!!!? - Yeah it's out of date, make the rules for each faction free on the website that keep up to date with new units, periodically publish 3 nice books for those of us that must have hardbacks, Imperium, Chaos and Xenos.


Most of all though, stop making pretty units then come up with rules for them as an afterthought. Consider how they impact on the game as part of the actual design process...


Sorry I'm of into wish listing now...

Tokamak
18-06-2016, 23:39
Most of all though, stop making pretty units then come up with rules for them as an afterthought.

This. This is the root of all the problems. GW is taking a very lazy approach to balance and is willing to sacrifice gameplay for short-term sales.

Spamming units should be a great way to give yourself a handicap, not an advantage.

ehlijen
19-06-2016, 09:14
Most of all though, stop making pretty units then come up with rules for them as an afterthought. Consider how they impact on the game as part of the actual design process...


In other words, stop being GW?

Sorry, that's a bit harsh, but think GW's approach to making profits would have to change drastically for that strategy to face any rethinking. It might well be for the best, but I don't think such change will come lightly, or any time soon.

Promethius
19-06-2016, 09:55
If they are working on an 8th edition, I hope they take their time and reinvent the whole thing.

3 modes of play - Skirmish level (think inquisitor warbands), Battle level (Squads and Vehicles), Apocalypse (Super heavy, fliers, nutty stuff)

Reinvent the way force organisation works, to limit spam, overpowered models and units. No more taking on 3 Riptides and a Wraithknight. This could incorporate and reign in the excesses of the formation system (which is utterly broken)

Get rid of codex system - What!!!? - Yeah it's out of date, make the rules for each faction free on the website that keep up to date with new units, periodically publish 3 nice books for those of us that must have hardbacks, Imperium, Chaos and Xenos.


Most of all though, stop making pretty units then come up with rules for them as an afterthought. Consider how they impact on the game as part of the actual design process...


Sorry I'm of into wish listing now...

I Think a re-do ala third edition is in order. Stick the rules for every unit in the box and do more detailed faction books later. Big rules overhaul and simplification

Senbei
19-06-2016, 10:30
I Think a re-do ala third edition is in order. Stick the rules for every unit in the box and do more detailed faction books later. Big rules overhaul and simplification


Not even that so much.... I always just felt that they just needed to scrap most of the special rules, then put it in the unit's stat-line instead. ASF? Just give them a high 'I' and strike on initiative.

Saunders
20-06-2016, 20:23
I think it should. Superheavies can obliterate that amount of points on the first turn just as easily. It should be a liability that the superheavy player needs to avoid to the best of his abilities.

I assure you that super-heavies generally do not destroy their point cost in models in the first turn. Conversely, conventional alpha strikes are much more liable to destroy super-heavies (this is especially true in regards to mass grav versus gargantuan creatures, and to a lesser extent mass melta versus super-heavy vehicles)

fenrisbrit
20-06-2016, 23:08
If they are working on an 8th edition, I hope they take their time and reinvent the whole thing....

I agree. The things that keep players in 40k are the background, the models, and the accessibility of a global community. The rules are second rate and sliding inevitably towards mediocrity. I am trying better rules sets with other games. It is only a matter of time before one of those other games catches players imaginations and a fulcrum will have passed. GW should take the opportunity to breath (radical) new life back in to their rules before that tipping point occurs.

flyingthruwater01
20-06-2016, 23:19
I doubt they've got the creative ability to actually write a new ruleset which is why for the most part everything they've released since mid 00's has been tacked onto the last ruleset andy chambers and co left them. If AoS is anything to go by I wouldn't get my hopes up for a wonderfully radical and well thought out shake up

Sent from my 4027X using Tapatalk

Malefactum
21-06-2016, 05:37
For me, the rules the way they are in the core, make 40k to me what it is. Yea, sure, the miniatures are nice. But the rules for me make it what it is. Move, shoot (including the hit+wound+save rolls), assault (also including the hit+wound+save rolls, although CC needs a buff). That's the mechanics I like. I do for example not like the AoS way or the Deathwatch:Overkill rules. At all.

Losing Command
21-06-2016, 06:23
The problem with the current turn sequence in 40k is that, as the amount of points and firepower increases, the advantage of the player who gets to do his turn first also increases to the point where who starts first also wins. One of the most common complaints about Apocalypse games has always been that the side that gets the first turn can focus down all priority targets with all those thousands of points available to them, leaving the side that goes second pretty much neutrilized before even doing anything.
The amounts of killing power armies can have in 40k even at lower point levels already means that players who didn't bring armies at the same level of power are experiencing the same thing.

The I-move-shoot-charge you-move-shoot-charge system was no issue at all when 40k was still more of a skirmish game. But now that you can pretty much field an entire battle company of marines at like 1500 points it really starts to show that it was not made for games with armies as 'large' as today.

williamsond
21-06-2016, 09:16
I Think a re-do ala third edition is in order. Stick the rules for every unit in the box and do more detailed faction books later. Big rules overhaul and simplification

I'm all for this a reset of every unit at once is the only way forward.

Thomson
21-06-2016, 12:25
I assure you that super-heavies generally do not destroy their point cost in models in the first turn. Conversely, conventional alpha strikes are much more liable to destroy super-heavies (this is especially true in regards to mass grav versus gargantuan creatures, and to a lesser extent mass melta versus super-heavy vehicles)
Agreed. Even the hopelessly underpriced Wraithknight with two D weapons has trouble pulling this off. One of the few vehicles that may pull this off is a Hellhammer, but only if the opponent was somehow a little... uh... heroic during setup.

And if I think about it I would put a third rule in the problem bucket, and that is Ignore Cover. It should be somehow changed to rerolling successful cover saves instead of plainly ignoring them. In a lot of situations Ignore cover is basically equal to double damage, or even quadruple damage vs Ravenwing.

And again, I think it would be much better to carefully revamp the current ruleset, and changing *far less* than what was done with 6th and 7th. They should concentrate on fixing bugs instead of changing everything and introduce new bugs.

AoS has shown that they are capable of messing some things seriously up in a four page ruleset. If thy try to do 40k and make it a little more complex (which most of the 40k players seem to want) there would be much more problems. Not less.

Thomson
21-06-2016, 12:27
I'm all for this a reset of ever unit at once is the only way forward.
There are few phrases that spelled the doom of as many IT companies as "We do it again from scratch".

williamsond
21-06-2016, 13:27
I know where your coming fromThomson but remembering the times they did this before with early warhammer fantasy and 40k it really did help to rebalance every thing. It wasn't perfect but it helped tidy every thing up and bring it back to a level playing field.

I would even be up for buying a new army book once a year if every thing was done at the same time in one tome and balance was the main drive. As it stands whole armies become invalidated on a regular basis every time GW shoe horn the next big thing into the latest release.

Thomson
21-06-2016, 16:19
I know where your coming fromThomson but remembering the times they did this before with early warhammer fantasy and 40k it really did help to rebalance every thing. It wasn't perfect but it helped tidy every thing up and bring it back to a level playing field.

I would even be up for buying a new army book once a year if every thing was done at the same time in one tome and balance was the main drive. As it stands whole armies become invalidated on a regular basis every time GW shoe horn the next big thing into the latest release.
I agree that it can be done, but I seriously doubt that GW has the manpower or the skill to pull it off.

fenrisbrit
23-06-2016, 21:20
I agree that it can be done, but I seriously doubt that GW has the manpower or the skill to pull it off.

And that is GWs conundrum: there is no "do nothing" option. They are doomed to a gradual slide to mediocrity if they just fiddle at the edges. They risk totally breaking the previously successful business formula if they go radical.

philbrad2
23-06-2016, 21:36
No news or rumour to back this up moving to 40K GENERAL for those continuing the discussion.

PhilB
:chrome:
+ =I= + WarSeer Moderation Team + =I= + WarSeer Posting Guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines)
The WarSeer FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php)
The WarSeer Moderation/Posting/Forum guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules)

Elbows of Death
25-06-2016, 14:50
While I'm in the camp that would actually look at 40K if it was fully re-booted...I find it highly unlikely.

A full reboot (even something as simple as re-introducing a Movement value, or changing the way Armor Values work on vehicles etc.) would require a launch of new codices across the board. We have to look back to the 2nd-3rd transition to see the last time that the fundamentals of the game changed.

When this occurred the changeover was pretty easy. 2nd edition armies could be generally covered by six major codices: Space Marines, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Imperial Guard, Chaos. The need to release the basic codices in rapid succession for the launch lead to terrible codices. Thin, mediocre books with zero fluff...just hugely unimpressive compared to the quality tomes of 2nd edition.

These were later fluffed out with a wide range of expanded content codices (all thin and cheap books).

Anyway, the point is that a relaunch in a full effort would require either A) A "Codex Imperialis" approach where a limited army list for each major faction is listed in the main rulebook or an additional book, or B) A full release for a much larger list of armies now (adding in Knights, Necrons, Tau, Grey Knights, Mechanicum, Daemons etc.). It would be impossible for GW to release 10-12 codices in a quick 1-2 month span in order to place a new version of the game in players' hands.

Now, if GW decided to let 7th drive on for several years it could possibly happen, but it would be a tall order, even for a company of GW's size.

I think letting armies run rampant has been a mistake. The "brand" is now too big to reboot effectively. This is why we've seen the game change frequently/immensely from 3rd edition but it's still stuck on the super trimmed down statistics/methods that were started in 3rd edition.

At the very minimum, GW would have to stop with "codex for every single branch!" and combine stuff back into larger more comprehensive codices. Put Harlequins back into the Eldar codex, even if you can run them as their own force. Make a single Imperial Guard codex, ignore the specialist books. Create a generic Imperial Agents codex for Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, Inquisitor Forces, Imperial Stormtroopers if you want etc. One Chaos codex (like the 2nd edition model) which includes Space Marines, Daemons, and Cultists lists in one book. Start with a single Space Marines codex, address chapters later if you want. Tyranids can handle Tyranids swarms and then Genestealer Cult lists (like 2nd edition books etc.).

I just don't see it happening and I think it's a bad thing. They're too big to reboot easily.

Fangschrecken
25-06-2016, 18:01
They could just do what they did for age of sigmar and release .pdf lists online for all the codexes and go about releasing the books as they get to them.

But I'd reckon that approach leads poor sales for factions until they get a proper release and codex.

ehlijen
25-06-2016, 18:45
I think thinner, cheaper books might just be what GW needs. If they showed a serious effort towards balancing the game again with a reboot and to provide affordable codices to get started in the new edition, they might just get more disgruntled veterans to at least peek their nose in again, and from their get a chance to impress them again.

Right now the premium price, low effort content approach to codices is killing all interest for me and most of my friends. Hardcover, full colour...I don't care as long as there is obviously no thought given to rules balance and more and more artwork is replaced with unimpressive photos.

Elbows of Death
25-06-2016, 20:54
It's possible. As an avid 2nd gen gamer I flamed out pretty quick in 3rd edition. It would take a seriously good product to get me to come back to 40K. Sadly no game underpinned by the 3rd gen. mechanics will get me to raise an eye-brow. I think PDFs might be a good start, but even the amount of work it would take to get all of them around the same time would be tough. I do think GW needs to reduce the "armies" available. There are waaaay too many branches of forces which need to be compiled into forces (which also might make some of them more competitive).

murgel2006
26-06-2016, 09:06
The longer I follow this discussion the more I get a specific feeling.
GW needs another game in the 40k background. Besides needing to redo a big portion of their rules.

To me it looks as if a "balance above all" competitive edition is needed which has the basic rules (foc, few if any special rules, only basic units etc.) and nothing more. And an expanded game with all the shenanigans like formations, special rules, buildings, heavies etc.

Besides that I really think 40k should think about going back to something closer to 2nd.


PS: I still love the leaked 6th ed rulebook and consider it a great work.

ehlijen
26-06-2016, 09:41
The longer I follow this discussion the more I get a specific feeling.
GW needs another game in the 40k background. Besides needing to redo a big portion of their rules.

To me it looks as if a "balance above all" competitive edition is needed which has the basic rules (foc, few if any special rules, only basic units etc.) and nothing more. And an expanded game with all the shenanigans like formations, special rules, buildings, heavies etc.

Besides that I really think 40k should think about going back to something closer to 2nd.


PS: I still love the leaked 6th ed rulebook and consider it a great work.


A better approach would be to make separate games at different scope levels, and I believe the knight and flyer games are a step in the right direction (though I haven't seen their rules yet). Back in the specialist games days, titan players had Epic, skirmish players had inquisitor and necromunda and battle players had 40k, and each game did ok in its own scope.

Tokamak
26-06-2016, 11:28
Yeah I think we're going to get either a full reboot that's shodily done, or a well-polished ruleset that doesn't change much. I have no confidence whatsoever that GW will be able to pull a well-polished reboot.


A better approach would be to make separate games at different scope levels, and I believe the knight and flyer games are a step in the right direction

Dividing 40k into mini-games is just a lazy cop-out. Lorewise all these unit-types interact with each other, the miniatures are all on the same scale so the only reason to keep them separate would be that it's too difficult to balance a game around them. Lazy.

Not to mention that there's plenty of strategy games that manage to combine vastly different units together in a well calibrated mix. Ineptitude is not an excuse.

Mr_Rose
26-06-2016, 11:50
The longer I follow this discussion the more I get a specific feeling.
GW needs another game in the 40k background. Besides needing to redo a big portion of their rules.

To me it looks as if a "balance above all" competitive edition is needed which has the basic rules (foc, few if any special rules, only basic units etc.) and nothing more. And an expanded game with all the shenanigans like formations, special rules, buildings, heavies etc.

Besides that I really think 40k should think about going back to something closer to 2nd.


PS: I still love the leaked 6th ed rulebook and consider it a great work.

If you're looking for that game, consider Betrayal at Calth. Amazingly simple mechanics with enough range and subtlety to actually expand to tabletop scale without too much trouble. Pretty much the best new game GW have put out since War of the Ring.

ehlijen
26-06-2016, 11:56
Yeah I think we're going to get either a full reboot that's shodily done, or a well-polished ruleset that doesn't change much. I have no confidence whatsoever that GW will be able to pull a well-polished reboot.

Dividing 40k into mini-games is just a lazy cop-out. Lorewise all these unit-types interact with each other, the miniatures are all on the same scale so the only reason to keep them separate would be that it's too difficult to balance a game around them. Lazy.

Not to mention that there's plenty of strategy games that manage to combine vastly different units together in a well calibrated mix. Ineptitude is not an excuse.

Balance is one problem, but relevance and rules depth are others. 40k is an infantry focused game. Positioning of individual models matters, look out sir is a thing, casualty removal has specified rules, challenges can occur, you have several steps of pile in moves in combat...
While knights aren't affected by any of that. Nor do they care how far they moved when determining their firepower.
The player with more models has more complex rules for his models than the player with few models. That is the opposite of how a good game would handle it.

Every game that handles both infantry and superheavy combat greatly abstracts the infantry and focuses on the superheavy units for decision complexity. Battletech infantry platoons are a floating gun with an HP counter that's measured in 'men alive' while the mecha have 11 hit locations and 8 critical tables. In epic, infantry is abstracted into squad stands to allow entire platoons to operate at the same complexity as a tank squadron. And in both games, orbital bombardment is tightly controlled because it would otherwise make every other unit type irrelevant.

40k doesn't work at the current detail levels. There isn't enough reason to pay for a flamethrower on trooper no. 4 in the face of an AV13 or T8 wall, or an all flyer army, so why is the game tracking that option? Why are we worried about whether there are 6 or 7 lasguns in a rifle squad when the opponent might be thinking if he wants a titan or a mega tank?

To work at a scale that can include superheavies, 40k needs to give up on a lot of granularity to remain playable. And that would make official that the iconic tactical marine is exactly as irrelevant as the DOW III trailer makes him look, something I don't think GW is going to be happy with.

Dividing the game isn't lazy, insisting that elements that don't fit together should stay in one game is lazy.

Elbows of Death
26-06-2016, 14:02
^This continues to be my main gripe. GW has run into a problem of their own making. When GW went to 3rd edition...they dumbed down the rules immensely. I mean, a ton. Stats were removed, vehicles went from a full datafax each to a simple minisule armour number with a generic "all vehicles" damage table etc. It was a move to make the game faster/more violent and spur the purchase of more and more models. Now with the ever-expanding range of miniatures and armies...they're loading buckets of special rules onto this flimsy base underpinnings, like loading a table with more and more crap. They have tried to take the stupidly simple bits and turn it back into a rather complex game. It simply isn't working.

Tokamak
26-06-2016, 14:52
Balance is one problem, but relevance and rules depth are others. 40k is an infantry focused game. Positioning of individual models matters, look out sir is a thing, casualty removal has specified rules, challenges can occur, you have several steps of pile in moves in combat...
While knights aren't affected by any of that. Nor do they care how far they moved when determining their firepower.
The player with more models has more complex rules for his models than the player with few models. That is the opposite of how a good game would handle it.

Every game that handles both infantry and superheavy combat greatly abstracts the infantry and focuses on the superheavy units for decision complexity. Battletech infantry platoons are a floating gun with an HP counter that's measured in 'men alive' while the mecha have 11 hit locations and 8 critical tables. In epic, infantry is abstracted into squad stands to allow entire platoons to operate at the same complexity as a tank squadron. And in both games, orbital bombardment is tightly controlled because it would otherwise make every other unit type irrelevant.

40k doesn't work at the current detail levels. There isn't enough reason to pay for a flamethrower on trooper no. 4 in the face of an AV13 or T8 wall, or an all flyer army, so why is the game tracking that option? Why are we worried about whether there are 6 or 7 lasguns in a rifle squad when the opponent might be thinking if he wants a titan or a meg

a tank?


I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said there. It's a really lucid assessment of the current state of the game.


To work at a scale that can include superheavies, 40k needs to give up on a lot of granularity to remain playable. And that would make official that the iconic tactical marine is exactly as irrelevant as the DOW III trailer makes him look, something I don't think GW is going to be happy with.


And I wholeheartedly disagree with that. A game where both superheavies and low infantry are both equally relevant is not unthinkable.


Dividing the game isn't lazy, insisting that elements that don't fit together should stay in one game is lazy.

Not doing about the friction it creates is lazy. Completely redefining the way these elements relate to each other is a craft which will require lots ingenuity, creativity and testing.

Splitting the whole thing into separate games completely ruins the point. It's basically giving up on balancing the mechanics that got introduced since the last edition.

Besides, a flyer and knight mini-game would work far better on a smaller scale anyway.

Kahadras
26-06-2016, 16:02
Balance is one problem, but relevance and rules depth are others. 40k is an infantry focused game.

I think this boils down the problem with 40K. It an infantry focused game which is making infantry less and less relevant.

Elbows of Death
26-06-2016, 16:04
It's a comically dangerous place when you have huge pie-plates flying around eviscerating entire squads (or more!) in single shots...this was never the case in previous editions. I watch battle reports now and it's shocking how crazy the lethal environment is now (probably to speed up games and sell you more minis).

sephiroth87
26-06-2016, 19:44
Balance is one problem, but relevance and rules depth are others. 40k is an infantry focused game. Positioning of individual models matters, look out sir is a thing, casualty removal has specified rules, challenges can occur, you have several steps of pile in moves in combat...
While knights aren't affected by any of that. Nor do they care how far they moved when determining their firepower.
The player with more models has more complex rules for his models than the player with few models. That is the opposite of how a good game would handle it.

Every game that handles both infantry and superheavy combat greatly abstracts the infantry and focuses on the superheavy units for decision complexity. Battletech infantry platoons are a floating gun with an HP counter that's measured in 'men alive' while the mecha have 11 hit locations and 8 critical tables. In epic, infantry is abstracted into squad stands to allow entire platoons to operate at the same complexity as a tank squadron. And in both games, orbital bombardment is tightly controlled because it would otherwise make every other unit type irrelevant.

40k doesn't work at the current detail levels. There isn't enough reason to pay for a flamethrower on trooper no. 4 in the face of an AV13 or T8 wall, or an all flyer army, so why is the game tracking that option? Why are we worried about whether there are 6 or 7 lasguns in a rifle squad when the opponent might be thinking if he wants a titan or a mega tank?

To work at a scale that can include superheavies, 40k needs to give up on a lot of granularity to remain playable. And that would make official that the iconic tactical marine is exactly as irrelevant as the DOW III trailer makes him look, something I don't think GW is going to be happy with.

Dividing the game isn't lazy, insisting that elements that don't fit together should stay in one game is lazy.
Agree with your assessment.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Tokamak
26-06-2016, 20:27
I think this boils down the problem with 40K. It an infantry focused game which is making infantry less and less relevant.

And yet there's countless fairly comparable games where infantry IS relevant. Not just balanced, but hugely important to succeed.

40k shouldn't be an infantry game, it should be a game where infantry dominates and dictates the flow of the game. Yet right now it's neither. And because it's neither I fear that people are throwing away the superheavies and flyers with the bathwater while they can have their own, modest, roles in the game.

murgel2006
26-06-2016, 21:54
... When GW went to 3rd edition...they dumbed down the rules immensely. I mean, a ton. Stats were removed, vehicles went from a full datafax each to a simple minisule armour number with a generic "all vehicles" damage table etc. It was a move to make the game faster/more violent and spur the purchase of more and more models. Now with the ever-expanding range of miniatures and armies...they're loading buckets of special rules onto this flimsy base underpinnings, like loading a table with more and more crap. They have tried to take the stupidly simple bits and turn it back into a rather complex game. It simply isn't working.

3rd was the reason I stopped collecting and playing for a while. However I do not agree to the suggested reasons for GW to simplify the game. IMO GW did that because they saw the potential of the customer group significantly younger than what they had addressed before. The 16 up group did not offer enough potential, by adding the 12 up group GW opened up the wallet of parents when before there was just pocket money and gifts. Besides I think they aimed for more long term customers and the significant increase in playable armies seems to support that.

Back to the point. Breaking 40k up in different games of the same scale does not look attractive to me. The rules have had various optional settings working side by side (just look at 4th ed. Kill team) still To me a complexity-variable rule system seems to be the way to go.
Variability is what I would look for if I had to make some decisions.

Charistoph
26-06-2016, 23:42
40k shouldn't be an infantry game, it should be a game where infantry dominates and dictates the flow of the game. Yet right now it's neither. And because it's neither I fear that people are throwing away the superheavies and flyers with the bathwater while they can have their own, modest, roles in the game.

I don't know, I think that a game where infantry dominates would be an infantry game. Warmachine was called Infantrymachine for a while for that very reason.

Or did you mean where only Infantry is involved?


Back to the point. Breaking 40k up in different games of the same scale does not look attractive to me. The rules have had various optional settings working side by side (just look at 4th ed. Kill team) still To me a complexity-variable rule system seems to be the way to go.
Variability is what I would look for if I had to make some decisions.

I don't know. 40K as technically been broken up like that for quite some time. Between Kill Team/Necromunda, regular 40K, and Apocalypse, those levels have been in place for some time.

Only since the release of Escalation and Unbound has Apocalypse been broken from that level scheme. That is still technically not true, as some Forgeworld models and Formations are still Apocalypse only. But that is not discounting that the difference between them has been vastly reduced and Apocalypse really only means "Mega-Battle" instead of "free for all Mega-Battle" like it used to.

Kill Team and similar events are all still viable alternatives to that, though, if people are willing to actually use them.

ehlijen
27-06-2016, 00:07
And yet there's countless fairly comparable games where infantry IS relevant. Not just balanced, but hugely important to succeed.

40k shouldn't be an infantry game, it should be a game where infantry dominates and dictates the flow of the game. Yet right now it's neither. And because it's neither I fear that people are throwing away the superheavies and flyers with the bathwater while they can have their own, modest, roles in the game.

Which games are those?

Yes, in epic and battletech infantry can be relevant, if brought in company strength or higher. In epic, an infantry playing piece is a full squad, in battletech it's platoon, and in neither game do they achieve much unless you bring at least three stands, preferably more.
In 40k, the rules expect us to care about each individual trooper: Does the rocket launcher have LoS? Did the heavy bolter model move? Will the flamer guy hit his friends? Is the sergeant in the front and thus required to make LOS rolls?

Games that make infantry relevant in the face of superheavies, as far as I know, use one of the following methods:
1) Infantry has rules fiat attributes that require it in order to win (realistic, if a bit crude)
2) Infantry operates at the company or higher level, individual troopers don't matter.
3) Infantry are required by the FOC rules
4) Superheavies, if they exist, are strictly limited by the FOC rules

1) used to be true in Cities of Death (which was before superheavies, which also wouldn't have been able to manoeuvre on CoD tables), which is why that supplement was one of the best things to ever happen to 40k. Too bad GW misunderstood that success and made planetstrike all about the whacky stratagems instead. Since, GW has been moving away from that. Only troops scoring was the next move, but watered down by too many non-infantry units becoming troops, and then the formation system where now anything GW wants to sell more of might get objective secured. GW would need to revert this trend if infantry is to be relevant again.
2) Would mean the iconic tactical marine would blur into his squad. The rules are currently obsessed with tracking individual squad members, when at best squads as a whole matter to the game. If the game's scope is to grow to include superheavies, that focus on detail needs to decrease, no increase as it has with 6th/7th.
3) and 4) are meaningless as long as unbound exists, and even if it didn't would require restraint when making new formations, not something GW has shown an interest in.

In short, 40k has none of the ingredients to allow infantry and superheavies to coexist inside one working game, and I believe it would require more sacrifice on either end of the spectrum than GW is willing to make.

Cheeslord
27-06-2016, 11:40
Buildings can also make infantry relevant, if the buildings make the infantry very hard to kill and in some cases contain objectives. Sensible rulesets would allow other infantry to assault buildings, so the best counter to infantry hiding in a building is to send in your own infantry to clear them out.

Of course, the alternative is to level every structure on the battlefield with heavy tank fire... but if the buildings are numerous and tough it can move the balance back to infantry...

Mark.

Orthodox
27-06-2016, 11:58
and thus required to make LOS rolls?

Games that make infantry relevant in the face of superheavies, as far as I know, use one of the following methods:

2) Infantry operates at the company or higher level, individual troopers don't matter.

2) Would mean the iconic tactical marine would blur into his squad. The rules are currently obsessed with tracking individual squad members, when at best squads as a whole matter to the game. If the game's scope is to grow to include superheavies, that focus on detail needs to decrease, no increase as it has with 6th/7th

In short, 40k has none of the ingredients to allow infantry and superheavies to coexist inside one working game, and I believe it would require more sacrifice on either end of the spectrum than GW is willing to make.

They could keep super heavies if they focus more on the individual infantry model, really. If a game is supposed to be about heroic space marines, then the space marines should do heroic stuff like taking on and winning against giant walkers. I think some very few of those second edition rules, damage dice and much inflated stats with more modifiers, could make it more of a contest between war machines and elite infantry fire teams.

If a squad has good leadership and good BS, and gets in close, then it could be able to place a really good lascannon shot on a joint and do good damage. Also a unit that has small models could easily have improved cover against large models. IG squads can take good cover against flyers and tanks, and sentinels or war walkers should be able to hide from super heavies more easily than equally sized targets could.

Tokamak
27-06-2016, 12:03
Which games are those? .

First one that comes to mind is Advance Wars. But let's include Dawn of War and Civilization or hell, even Chess and Stratego.

The common role of infantry is area control. Infantry can capture objectives, free up resources, take up Garrison in nearly anything. Large amounts of infantry are tarpits that make the most powerful units obsolete by forcing to waste their resource on them.

In W40k they're deprived of this role because the bigger a model gets, the more easily it's able to wipe out any infantry on the table while infantry itself is mathematically unable to put a single scratch on them.

That relation has to change. Flyers need to be susceptible to small-arms fire, superheavies should incredibly vulnerable to infantry melee and infantry itself should enjoy enormous benefits from occupying that offers even the mildest amount of cover.

Infantry could also be made more resilient by being able to recover from weapons that clearly weren't meant for them. Any anti-armour explosions aimed at infantry could merely shake them up a bit and have them recover in a next turn, simulating a shockwave effect rather than actual obliteration (while actual small-arms fire finishes off wounded infantry for good).

MajorWesJanson
27-06-2016, 12:59
First one that comes to mind is Advance Wars. But let's include Dawn of War and Civilization or hell, even Chess and Stratego.

The common role of infantry is area control. Infantry can capture objectives, free up resources, take up Garrison in nearly anything. Large amounts of infantry are tarpits that make the most powerful units obsolete by forcing to waste their resource on them.

In W40k they're deprived of this role because the bigger a model gets, the more easily it's able to wipe out any infantry on the table while infantry itself is mathematically unable to put a single scratch on them.

That relation has to change. Flyers need to be susceptible to small-arms fire, superheavies should incredibly vulnerable to infantry melee and infantry itself should enjoy enormous benefits from occupying that offers even the mildest amount of cover.

Infantry could also be made more resilient by being able to recover from weapons that clearly weren't meant for them. Any anti-armour explosions aimed at infantry could merely shake them up a bit and have them recover in a next turn, simulating a shockwave effect rather than actual obliteration (while actual small-arms fire finishes off wounded infantry for good).

I disagree with a some of this. Combat aircraft should not be brought down by small arms fire (this is a problem for a lot of the fliers in the game- Ork planes are paper, as are Dark Eldar, who saw their bomber lose armor to go with a price increase). Planes already die to weight of mid strength fire, besides a handful of the most durable ones. Your average S 3/4 weapon should not be a threat to a flier.

Making superheavies vulnerable to units in melee is a mixed bag. It may make sense for troops to be easily ability to swarm a baneblade and stuff grenades in hatches, but at the same time a knight, stompa, or titan are well suited for close combat, or too large, so ifantry with hand grenades should not be rolling over them. A better solution would be to remove the stupid immunity to the damage chart that Apoc II added for superheavies. Age of Sigmar having vehicles and monsters losing stats and abilities as they are damaged is I think the best approach. And would help balance MCs and Vehicles more.

Infantry hit by an anti-tank weapon should be dead. That said, a lot of Anti-tank weapons would be better suited to be single shot rather than blast, or smaller blasts. I'm looking at you, Titan Turbolasers and Eldar Pulsars.

I do want to see a return to the earlier edition's Troops only scoring. They just need to resist the urge to start giving everything else scoring via special rules.

Thomson
27-06-2016, 13:15
A better solution would be to remove the stupid immunity to the damage chart that Apoc II added for superheavies.
Then they should add a damage table for monstrous creatures and gargantuan monstrous creatures, too.

IMO the only real problem with super heavy walkers/gargantuan creatures is stomp. Super Heavy tanks are currently a joke. I haven't seen one getting its points back for a long time. (Maybe in an Apoc game where the table is to small for enemy forces to set up)

Thomson
27-06-2016, 13:27
First one that comes to mind is Advance Wars. But let's include Dawn of War and Civilization or hell, even Chess and Stratego.

Well, I would say Advances Squad Leader. It basically does everything right. While it does not have Titans, it has King Tigers and IS 3, which are pretty close to Super Heavy Tanks in 40k. There a planes, heroes, leaders, boats, assault, everything (even battleships firing from beyond the board). It works from single platoon level up to battalion level. And each scenario has a balancing option which is usually adding a single light machine gun to an OB of 10 squads. I have played it a lot a long time ago. Was often thinking of making ASL rules for 40k units.

P.S: And you can kill a King Tiger with a Molotov Cocktail if you set it up right and have a little luck.

P.P.S: Basically it took 40k 7 editions to basically get building rules similar to ASL... but of course the ASL rules are still better...

Tokamak
27-06-2016, 13:51
Yeah the act of a single soldier bringing down a giant behemoth should be on the table. It should be difficult, it should be unlikely, but that's the epic heroism that makes the game interesting.


I disagree with a some of this. Combat aircraft should not be brought down by small arms fire (this is a problem for a lot of the fliers in the game- Ork planes are paper, as are Dark Eldar, who saw their bomber lose armor to go with a price increase). Planes already die to weight of mid strength fire, besides a handful of the most durable ones. Your average S 3/4 weapon should not be a threat to a flier.

Making superheavies vulnerable to units in melee is a mixed bag. It may make sense for troops to be easily ability to swarm a baneblade and stuff grenades in hatches, but at the same time a knight, stompa, or titan are well suited for close combat, or too large, so ifantry with hand grenades should not be rolling over them. A better solution would be to remove the stupid immunity to the damage chart that Apoc II added for superheavies. Age of Sigmar having vehicles and monsters losing stats and abilities as they are damaged is I think the best approach. And would help balance MCs and Vehicles more.

Infantry hit by an anti-tank weapon should be dead. That said, a lot of Anti-tank weapons would be better suited to be single shot rather than blast, or smaller blasts. I'm looking at you, Titan Turbolasers and Eldar Pulsars.

I do want to see a return to the earlier edition's Troops only scoring. They just need to resist the urge to start giving everything else scoring via special rules.

Are these 'shoulds' from a realism perspective or a gameplay perspective?

Thomson
27-06-2016, 15:00
Yeah the act of a single soldier bringing down a giant behemoth should be on the table. It should be difficult, it should be unlikely, but that's the epic heroism that makes the game interesting.



Are these 'shoulds' from a realism perspective or a gameplay perspective?
Well, if you would look at dreaded "realism":
1) Engaging a tank in melee is a pretty daunting task and usually ends with you being crushed by a vehicle with a mass of several dozen tons. Even in WW1 it was not very successful, and beginning with WW2 and tanks which could run in excess of 10 miles per hour even off road it became almost suicide. (And the people who constructed tanks weren't stupid - the vehicles hat lots of countermeasures to avoid grenades being tossed into it - most of them as simple as a steel mesh)
2) Tanks could usually switch between HE rounds and AT rounds (of several variations) even in WW2 where they started to use APDS (without FS and DU). IMO D-Weapons (which emulate real "Anti Tank" weapons) should be limited to 5 inch templates. Usually it is not nice to be close to an anti tank round for infantry, but even if you think of future Tank weapons as gigantic laser or particle beams the area of effect should be not that big (the larger the area of effect, the less penetration your round has). Maybe give weapons a focused or diverse pattern)
3) Much more dreadful for tanks where bazookas or "Panzerfäuste". very effective self propelled rockets with HEAT warheads, which where capable of killing even the best armored tanks - but they weren't very accurate and therefore limited to short range.
4) In modern times you have man portable anti tank missiles.

So, realistically, melee currently in 40k even with the grenade nerf works better than it worked in WW2, maybe as good as WW1. IMO it shouldn't work vs Skimmers at all.

D-Weapons currently are to unreliable when it comes to destroying super heavy vehicles or gargantuan creatures but have far to huge templates. They should also come in different categories. IMO dedicated Anti Tank D weapons should get +1 or +2 on the table vs vehicles/monstrous/gargantuan creatures and should never have a blast area beyond 5" - for game purposes, the 6 should be changed from 6+1d6 hull points to 3+1d3 (at least)

Theoretically you could give very short ranged D weapons (6" or something like that) to all kind of different armies to allow infantry to be really scary for huge things at close range.

man portable anti tank missiles are something I would restrict to Eldar, Tau and maybe the Adeptus Mechanicus in 40k. Maybe Orks should get a Gretchin piloted one, too.

Charistoph
27-06-2016, 19:30
When creating a Gundam Wing fandex, I needed a basic Infantry unit. I provided the option for a One Use AT or AA missile to some of these units ala the modern LAW or Stinger.

Such a concept would work for Tempest units as well, which are known for having fancy gear like this.

Comrade Penguin
27-06-2016, 20:17
To work at a scale that can include superheavies, 40k needs to give up on a lot of granularity to remain playable. And that would make official that the iconic tactical marine is exactly as irrelevant as the DOW III trailer makes him look, something I don't think GW is going to be happy with.


I'm glad I'm not the only who felt that way watching that gameplay trailer. I really think the developers took a page out of GW's playbook to make the superheavies look awesome and fun to play with, while the lesser units feel boring and less exciting.

This translates directly into the current meta. Why take a bunch of tactical squads when you can take one knight and laugh it up as you crush worthless infantry?

Tokamak
27-06-2016, 20:41
Well, if you would look at dreaded "realism":

Okay so none of the rules that make the game interesting are realistic.

Ironbone
30-06-2016, 04:38
none of the rules that make the game interesting are realistic.
Well games never can be realistic, the very concept of the game prevents that. And people don't play games for "true" realism, but rather "magical" verion of it.

Anyway, there is my personal 7 ( 7 from a hell lot more, but forum isn't made of rubber ) ideas I would like to see implemented into 40k if 8th ed is really the case.

1 - for your turn you shall wait forever - I go-you go system is....unimaginative at best. Sure, there are some small breaks in this, like interceptor, but overall, with turns sometimes lasting over an hour, beeing on reciving end is boooooring as hell. Playing one big phase ( your movement-my movement, my shooting-your shooting ) instead of whole turn would make more dynamic and allow to more responsive towards enemy tactics.
2 - Dred big gunz - some weapons are simply way too powerfull. Str D is suposed to be "titan-killing" class of weapons, yet Eldar are capable on mounting in on basic infantry. Grav guns are possibly even worse, as they not only outshoot supposedly rapid-fireing guns, but turn your save ( thing that suppose to protect you ) into very thing that drags your models to grave.
3 - Immortality on sale - on other side of the spectrum, some units can be build to be absurdly durable, to the point of beeing capable of withstanding firepower of entire army without much effort. That alone escalates useing of dred big gunz, kicking more moderate weapons out of use, and turning mediocre guns into useless ones.
4 - No cover for you... - I really like way 5th ed handled cover. Sure, some ( and not without some merit ) call it "ed of 4+" because basicly everything granted you 4+ cover, but that was a good thing. For fragile armies decent cover is abouletly essential to be competetive. Since very start of 6th ed (starting with CSM), game seen flow then flood of ignoring cover weaponry and abilities.
5 - ...but a lot for them ! - What's worse, cover is very wrongly distributed. Special rules that grant it, are significantly more present in already durable armies. Who have bikes, access to easily obtainable stealth and shrouded ? Marines, Tau, Eldar. So unless you stumble into one of million ignoring cover weapons, rich only get richer. Also is yet another example of two problems magnifying each other.
6 - 47 detachments for everyone <roar of crowd> ! - Detachments system ( creatiing army from a lot of mini amies ) may sound ok on paper, but in practice is just a mess. Now every army have literary dozens of dozens ways of building list with diffrent detachments, formations and alies, and knowing all of them is a steep chellenge on it's own, let alone useing it properly. Add that even worst enemies can go ally, and armies now days tend to resemble some sort of Frankenstein monsters.
7 - bigger isn't better - game steadily turns into fest of deathstars, superheavies and gargantuans, making it's core models feeling more and more unimportant.

Charistoph
30-06-2016, 05:04
6 - 47 detachments for everyone <roar of crowd> ! - Detachments system ( creatiing army from a lot of mini amies ) may sound ok on paper, but in practice is just a mess. Now every army have literary dozens of dozens ways of building list with diffrent detachments, formations and alies, and knowing all of them is a steep chellenge on it's own, let alone useing it properly. Add that even worst enemies can go ally, and armies now days tend to resemble some sort of Frankenstein monsters.

On this, I would argue, numerous detachments is a good thing. The number of detachments isn't the problem, but what shineys come with the detachments.

A lot of historical games limit army builds in this way, and that is a good thing. The problem that GW did was give those detachments a "you'd be stupid not to" reasons to take them.

Not every army should have a Marine FOC, but I wouldn't go far enough to doubly improve their Reanimation Protocols or Free Transports while giving them different options. If they give a bonus at all, it should be strategic and fairly minor, like the best being a +/-1 to Reserve Rolls, Deep Strike, or the IG detachment allowed 1 extra Order per game.

Heck, IG armies should be built as various detachments, each with a different force focus, that cannot be as cohesive in battle as the Marine brothers are.

TL;DR: Number of detachments are fine, just get rid of the Special Rules and Command Benefits.

MajorWesJanson
30-06-2016, 06:55
I'd like to see some of the mechanics that are similar on the surface but work a lot differently in practice be unified. For one, Ballistic Skill and Weapons Skill are totally different in how you use them. BS is a straight up value, while WS is an opposed value on a chart. I'd love to see both of those change, which could simplify a lot of other mechanics as well.
Make both an opposed value- Change cover from a save to the opposed value (though you would have to change a lot of the cover affecting rules, that would be ok because it would simplify a lot as well)

Natural 1s always miss, natural 6s always hit.
When shooting, d6 + Ballistic Skill - Cover value >/= 7 is a hit.
When in CC, d6 + Weapons skill - opponents Weapon skill >/= 4 is a hit.
Fliers Hard to Hit could change form Snapfire to a straight +cover value based on their speed. Skyfire would just ignore that bonus.

You would need to rebalance a lot of things, but a lot of special rules could go away, and you could remove the WS chart entirely, with a system that rewards WS differences a lot more, providing a boost for CC specialists.

Snake Tortoise
30-06-2016, 07:22
I like the rules at the moment, I'd just like to see superheavies and GMCs paying a premium in points to discourage them in competitive games and troops of all factions encouraged by making them disproportionately cheap. For example, the first 5 chaos space marines can cost what they do in the codex but any additional models cost 7 or 8 points each. Make upgrades for troops cheaper too- including their special and heavy weapons, and upgrades for unit leaders. Essentially I'd love to see the core troop choices in every codex be the most point efficient units so people are building lists around them.

Abbadonsrighthand
30-06-2016, 09:08
Charistoph why remove command benefits is the fist of medusas benefits of 2 warlord traits one of which must come from strategic power of the machine spirit to all vehicles within 12" of a indeoendant character from this detachment and non vehicle models getting +1 feel no pain from the same thing too much? Its hardly game breaking

Abbadonsrighthand
30-06-2016, 09:09
I like the rules at the moment, I'd just like to see superheavies and GMCs paying a premium in points to discourage them in competitive games and troops of all factions encouraged by making them disproportionately cheap. For example, the first 5 chaos space marines can cost what they do in the codex but any additional models cost 7 or 8 points each. Make upgrades for troops cheaper too- including their special and heavy weapons, and upgrades for unit leaders. Essentially I'd love to see the core troop choices in every codex be the most point efficient units so people are building lists around them.

So you want superheavies to not be used at all then...

MajorWesJanson
30-06-2016, 09:55
I do like the idea that troops get cheaper as you buy larger units, like how FW does it. Making some upgrades unit priced rather than price per model would also encourage that as well.

Comrade Penguin
30-06-2016, 14:40
So you want superheavies to not be used at all then...

He didn't say that. He wants to make taking troops an attractive choice again, rather than the formation tax like they are now.

I think super heavies should be treated like Forgeworld units from 3rd-6th editions. You can take them and they are great models, but they are not the most point efficient choice. That way you please both the fluff players/modellers (they can still take their large centerpiece models) and the competitive/pick up gamers (the game is more balanced and the player who took a super heavy is at a disadvantage).

Charistoph
30-06-2016, 16:51
Charistoph why remove command benefits is the fist of medusas benefits of 2 warlord traits one of which must come from strategic power of the machine spirit to all vehicles within 12" of a indeoendant character from this detachment and non vehicle models getting +1 feel no pain from the same thing too much? Its hardly game breaking

What? I think one or more of your words is off, as that first sentence does not really make sense.

If what I think you are saying is why remove Command Benefits which are not much, read my post again. Any Command Benefits/Formation Special Rules should be of minimal value, not the huge game changers we are seeing today. They should be just enough to consider taking it over the classic FOC (which would also have a minimal Command Benefit, if any), but not so much that it becomes a no-brainer to take them. Fluff and flavor should be the main consideration, not the fact that Reanimation Protocols get ridiculously powerful or you are getting free light transports. Your Warlord getting a second Trait may fall in either category, depending on the Traits in question.

morvaeldd
01-07-2016, 10:38
For a game to be interesting there must be rock paper scissors relation between units (so for example infantry in cover should be dangerous to heavies and superheavies) and there must be a weakness in every unit to be exploited in certain circumstances.

ehlijen
01-07-2016, 15:44
For a game to be interesting there must be rock paper scissors relation between units (so for example infantry in cover should be dangerous to heavies and superheavies) and there must be a weakness in every unit to be exploited in certain circumstances.

That's half of it. The game also needs to ensure that every army contains a minimum of rock, paper and scissors, if the game itself wants to be interesting, not just the list writing. Tactical skill should decide whether a player can make his scissors cut the enemy paper, not just the decision to bring them.

Charistoph
01-07-2016, 16:18
I would prefer rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock. Combinations are a little more possible.

Ssilmath
01-07-2016, 16:28
That's half of it. The game also needs to ensure that every army contains a minimum of rock, paper and scissors, if the game itself wants to be interesting, not just the list writing. Tactical skill should decide whether a player can make his scissors cut the enemy paper, not just the decision to bring them.

I don't fully agree with the game forcing you to have one of each type. That's not fun, and it quashes a lot of interesting ideas and themes. Far better, I think, to make sure that an army that is 1/3 Paper/Rock/Scissors is going to still do quite well against an army that is 2/3 Rock. At that point, there is still an element of list building but there is also room for theming. You just take a calculated risk at fielding your tank company if your opponent is bringing a balanced army (or one that is themed around a counter to yours). I think the biggest balance problem (Aside from some points being wacky) is that Rock armies crush Scissors while still handling Paper quite well. Bring that paradigm (With more than three sides, of course) back into more of a balance, and I think you'll find the game shifting away from spam outside of themed lists.

murgel2006
01-07-2016, 17:15
The rock/paper/scissors thing is why I still have various SM armies even if my main collection is Eldar/Harlequins/Corsairs.
I know all about Sun Tzu and knowing your enemy etc. but frankly I do neither have the money nor the time to own, read and learn all the armies. So form my personal view a game should be made to be fun even if you so not know all the various papers to your rocks etc....
And Marine armies offer that kind of relaxed approach generally.

So I would like to see an interesting rules set in 8th. Streamlined quite a bit but covering all kinds of battlefield actions.
AND I would like to see it done in such a way that the 7th ed codixes do not need to be replaced just FAQed.
Besides that, I think special rules belong into a codex.
After that I would love to have the edition for 5 years at least and would love for GW to aim at a 10 years life-cycle for it.

Charistoph
01-07-2016, 17:16
Hey, it works for 30K...

Garanaul the Black
01-07-2016, 19:32
Hey, it works for 30K...

I haven't played 30K yet but keep hearing how well the rules are balanced. Is there a suspicion that some of these rules will be ported over into the pending 8th edition?