Rules preview from Adepticon

Barking Agatha wrote:

Okay, but doesn't that make Initiative a kind of useless stat? It feels like they've never quite found a way to make a high agility as good as a high strength value.

Quote :

3. Armour/save modifiers are coming back.  Every weapon in your army will have its place.

That sounds good, as long as they don't hand out modifiers left and right. For models that never get to roll an armour save because every weapon is at least AP5, it doesn't make much difference if they still never get to roll an armour save because every weapon is at least -2. Space Meringues will howl, tho. Or maybe there could be a rule that a roll of 6 always succeeds, just like a 1 always fails?

Well, high initiative values will still matter for close combats that last beyond the initial turn. If you're stuck in after the charge, attack order will likely revert back to initiative order. That is, of course, assuming that they're pulling this mechanics from earlier editions of WHFB, which had this rule.

As for modifiers, it could work. If bolters have a -1 to armor (which is what I think they had in 1st-2nd ed 40k), then we would actually get an armor save (6+); currently, we get nothing. However, that means that they might have to bring back some of the older mechanics to simulate much better types of armor - for example, in 2nd ed, Terminators had a 3+ save, rolled on 2D6.

Aside from the morale change, these changes seem less like 'Sigmarizing' 40k, and more like 'going back to 2nd edition 40k'.

amishprn86 wrote:

We still dont know 90% the rules, so i really dont want to say anything yet.

If there is not going to be unit "types" anymore, then what will happen to, MCs, Fliers, bikes etc...

There are so many things that HAS to change for EACH unit by removing unit types. This alone is a huge game changer. So big that all the units need a rewrite before 8th ed lands.

See: Age of Sigmar. Every unit has a free warscroll. All points values are in the new BRB aka The General's Handbook mk.II. Codexes become multi-faction smorgasbords that are entirely optional except for the EXTREMELY NECESSARY formations inside to make your army good.

TeenageAngst wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

We still dont know 90% the rules, so i really dont want to say anything yet.

If there is not going to be unit "types" anymore, then what will happen to, MCs, Fliers, bikes etc...

There are so many things that HAS to change for EACH unit by removing unit types. This alone is a huge game changer. So big that all the units need a rewrite before 8th ed lands.

See: Age of Sigmar. Every unit has a free warscroll. All points values are in the new BRB aka The General's Handbook mk.II. Codexes become multi-faction smorgasbords that are entirely optional except for the EXTREMELY NECESSARY formations inside to make your army good.

If they go this way, we dont know yet :/

Quote :

If they go this way, we dont know yet :/

It made no sense to publish Codex: Harlequins. Like absolutely zero. It contains all of 7 units. Codex: Aeldari however would be applicable and marketable to every Dark Eldar, Eldar, and Harlequins player. They'd sell a bazillion of them rather than banking that people are gonna pay $50 a pop for 3 new codexes (hint: they're not they're gonna download them off /tg/). $50 for a big fat fluffy book that lets me play 3 entire armies is not bad.

Really, I'm not a fan of the charging unit making the first attack.

From my understanding, the entire concept of Eldar is that they sacrifice a higher save, strength, and toughness for the ability to hit first. It'll be a sad day when Necrons are hitting first against Gladiatorial Champions trained for centuries to master the art of agility and speed.

Charging units getting to attack first is going to bring us back to a combat-centric game. All those I1 attacks that people pray survive until their turn in the combat will suddenly get to plow through enemy units carte blanche. It also involves too much randomness IMO. If you get the charge, you're almost guaranteed to do significant damage. If you don't, you lose.

ONE attack per model, like a HoW but with the user's weapon, would make more sense. It's a nice boon that would help to balance out overwatch without guaranteeing you the victory in the ensuing combat.

This would make Grotesques utterly disgusting btw.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Charging units getting to attack first is going to bring us back to a combat-centric game. All those I1 attacks that people pray survive until their turn in the combat will suddenly get to plow through enemy units carte blanche. It also involves too much randomness IMO. If you get the charge, you're almost guaranteed to do significant damage. If you don't, you lose.

Well, we still don't know the details of how it is going to be implemented - the 'always strike first on the charge' rule is a carryover from certain editions of WFB (6th at the very least, not sure about others). However, IIRC, in WFB there were still units that struck last, regardless of initiative or charge due to them being slow or having unwieldy weapons, and similarly, there were certain units that always struck first regardless of charge. So, for all we know, power-fists might always strike last.

WFB though was an entirely different animal from what I understand, so it probably made more sense in the context of that game. For instance, I know pre-measuring wasn't allowed, so getting the charge off was that much more risky.

TeenageAngst wrote:

WFB though was an entirely different animal from what I understand, so it probably made more sense in the context of that game. For instance, I know pre-measuring wasn't allowed, so getting the charge off was that much more risky.

I played 4th-7th (Stopped at 7th) It was all guess and if you failed the charge you had to move your unit that distance.

But players had fast moving throw away units or units like chariots to make the inital charge, b.c you measure after you declare your charge (and it is easy to eyeball close units). If you made it good, if not you didnt care. But it was only hard to guess the distance from eyeballing after 8" or so. those are bad charges anyways b.c failing a charge is really bad lol, specially if they can flank you.

40k 2nd and rogue trader itself used the WHFB rule set. Most of these changes are just that.

Its like someone in the studio found the old rulebooks, had a game and went - WOW! lets use these bits!

Rogue Trader and 2nd edition suffered from a lot of issues though, like a *lot* of issues if some of the greybeards I talked to are to be believed. Superpowered ICs that could wipe entire squads with vortex grenades for instance. Rules-wise, I think 3rd-6th were considered high water marks by various people depending who you ask. 5th was apparently good for DE because vehicles were practically indestructible, 3rd was good for CSM because there were so many fluffy wargear options and vehicles were rolling death traps, 4th was good for... well it was basically 3rd refined but bad for CSM, and 6th was like 7th but better I guess idk. People liked the way it handled psychic powers better.

7th could definitely do with improvement and as long as the changes they mentioned are pretty much the only things they bring in from Sigmar, cept maybe the way it handles factions, I'd call it a good direction. However if our warriors and wyches end up being virtually identical to guardians and storm guardians I'm going to write a nasty letter.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Rogue Trader and 2nd edition suffered from a lot of issues though, like a *lot* of issues if some of the greybeards I talked to are to be believed. Superpowered ICs that could wipe entire squads with vortex grenades for instance. Rules-wise, I think 3rd-6th were considered high water marks by various people depending who you ask. 5th was apparently good for DE because vehicles were practically indestructible, 3rd was good for CSM because there were so many fluffy wargear options and vehicles were rolling death traps, 4th was good for... well it was basically 3rd refined but bad for CSM, and 6th was like 7th but better I guess idk. People liked the way it handled psychic powers better.

7th could definitely do with improvement and as long as the changes they mentioned are pretty much the only things they bring in from Sigmar, cept maybe the way it handles factions, I'd call it a good direction. However if our warriors and wyches end up being virtually identical to guardians and storm guardians I'm going to write a nasty letter.

Most players (or former players, rather) I know are pretty nostalgic about 2nd edition (I myself only played a couple games of it, and was annoyed with the way 2nd edition 40k was marketed and presented), due to the rules complexity, vs. 3rd edition, which was extremely simple by comparison (The benefit of this, of course, was that games took half as long to play as before). However, there were definitely problems with ICs being too powerful, but this was mitigated in 3rd edition with the instant death rule (being hit with a weapon that was double toughness or better). Putting in some of the stuff from 2nd edition, while keeping innovations like instant death would probably allow for the incorporation of some features of early 40k, while keeping it from devolving into Herohammer again (unless, of course, they start giving *everyone* Eternal Warrior, or the equivalent).

I'm one of the WHFB players that was "displaced" by the End Times event. I'm not really interested in AoS and the current trend in 40K is giving me a strong case of deja vu.

On Rules Bloat

I see a lot of people complaining about rules bloat (not just here). The problem is not that there are a lot of rules to learn. Everybody learns the BRB quickly within a few games and also learns any army rules they can get their hands on. The announcement made it sound like every unit will feel more unique, which suggests that there will be even more information to learn than we need to know now.

In my opinion, the real problem is that it's hard to find where all the rules for an army are hidden and there are so many rulebooks to read in order to stay competitive. The only perfect solution to this is to make the books free; and for the rules for every formation, detachment, etc. to be put on the GW website so that it's easy to access the information. This is not what they're proposing, but don't let anyone tell you that the "bloat" will somehow be cut down by changing the system when the information will continue to be hidden in splat books and White Dwarfs.

Armour Save Modifiers are coming back!

I didn't play 2nd edition, but since nobody has explained how it worked in WHFB I'll do that just so we have more information. In WHFB, S3 and below did not modify armour; S4 was a -1 to armour; S5 was a -2 armour, etc. There was also an Armour Piercing (X) rule, where the number in brackets subtracted an additional amount from armour saves. The counter to this was that heavily armoured units would often have 1+ or 0+ saves, depending on a variety of factors (1 is always a fail).

I imagine that we'd be seeing many units getting a boost to their saves if this rule is implemented. Also I don't think that weapons like lasguns or grot blasters would have any armour piercing value at all. There's a lot they can do with this and I'm cautiously optimistic about the change. What it probably won't do is encourage people to diversify their weaponry at all. For example, scatter lasers might be have a -3 armour save modifier (what it would have been in WHFB) which Eldar might find sufficient for killing TEQ so they won't worry about finding AP 2 equivalent weapons to bring.

What does this mean for cover saves? In WHFB, cover gave a penalty on To Hit rolls which might be a cool change. That way your MEQ have a bonus for being in cover. Or it might give a bonus to your saving throw. Overall this could be an interesting change.

Charging units fight first!

This can be a mixed bag, as people have pointed out. I saw on the Warhammer Community page that this would reward "outmaneuvering" your opponent. 40K units aren't rank and file, you just run your melee units at the enemy and hope they get there before the enemy shoots them down. This is not "outmaneuvering" but it does give an advantage to melee units.

The problems melee units tend to have is delivery method, not being able to assault off a transport or from reserve, and getting cut down by Overwatch. I don't think that this will help with those problems at all. Some armies have gotten Formations or Detachments which let them overcome some of these weaknesses and I was hoping that GW would continue this theme for the struggling armies.

It should also be noted that in WHFB that units which would normally fight last (units with great weapons, etc.) would actually fight first if they charged. If this is carried over, then TH/SS Termies will fight first in combat if they charge, which gives those types of units a lot more teeth. WHFB did not give the +1A for charging though. I also hope they keep units in cover striking first, or turn it to normal Initiative unless the charging unit has assault grenades and that defensive grenades will likely negate the charge bonus.

Failing morale causes Wounds rather than fleeing!

There was an edition where Fearless units did this in 40K iirc. The "problem" was that high points units were getting instantly wiped after combat. I worry that GW will let ATSKNF ignore the Wounds altogether.

I personally like how morale is handled for the most part and I'd rather that they dropped this point. I don't like how many armies have really high Ld for no additional investment or are ATSKNF/Fearless. I want ATSKNF to be subject to effects like Phantasm Grenade Launchers. If failing morale (in combat) causes Wounds then I want them to be applied to all units equally (Fearless or otherwise).

On Speed of Play

I don't think that any of the listed changes will speed up play, but might not necessarily make game play slower either. GW said they might axe default unit types, which means keeping track of more rules and values; you will need to calculate armour save modifiers instead of just checking AP in both the shooting and the combat phases.

This is assuming that AoS rules aren't adopted more widely where it looks like you'd have to calculate To Hit rolls and maybe To Wound rolls rather than simply referencing a chart that we've all memorised. For reference, units in AoS tell you what they need to roll To Hit rather than giving you a BS value. Then that number can be modified by certain bonuses or penalties, which takes longer to figure out and inevitably results in forgetting to use your abilities periodically.

Also you need to check with your opponent before you roll every single die. Rolling To Hit? Announce your intent, check your score, ask your opponent for any modifiers, roll and repeat To Wound and for Saves. Currently you announce your intent, roll To Hit, roll To Wound, tell your opponent the AP of the shots. It's definitely not faster, but it might not be so bad once we're practised at it.

-----------

I want to end by responding to TeenageAngst's post on the previous page:

TeenageAngst wrote:

This is a long post...this is why I am off the cuff EXTREMELY concerned about this new edition coming out.

I share your concern about "the Sigmarizing of 40k" (I like that term) but I have a slightly different view. Over the last 6 months, I think that GW's business strategy has become selling more models by doing stuff that matters to their customers - which has been a welcome change to me. Even so, even with the General's Handbook I'm just not interested in AoS because the setting isn't recognisable to me. If 40k follows the trend, then I think I would be repelled even if the rules were an improvement over the current edition. I hope that GW recognises that our fears are twofold: the game will be dumbed down too much/made not competitive, and we'll lose our connection to the setting we've grown to love if it's changed too much.

Finally producing the rest of the rules for the game after initially destroying the setting and selling an incomplete book for $90 is not worthy of praise. I already have a tactical skirmish game to play, it is called Warhammer 40'000 and it is fun. I used to have a high strategy game to play with huge emphasis on movement and positioning but now that's dead and I have to buy a few hundred circular bases in order to get continued use from my models. And now Matt Ward has returned from the grave to come for the only tabletop game I have left.

OF COURSE the response to the General's Handbook was positive, the game wasn't playable before it was released and players could finally salvage their huge personal and monetary investment into the hobby after they got the book. Of course you have to pay for the book and of course the game is so different that you're probably going to need to get a new army anyway. I doubt that the response to the GH was unusual for major releases and I hope GW remembers that 40K is still much more popular than AoS because the majority of players prefer both the system and the world to their equivalents in AoS.

If I wanted the reader to take anything away from this, it's that we should not blindly trust GW with our game. Yes the new CEO has done a lot of great things, but if we don't share our concerns with them, then we run the risk that the game can be irreversibly changed. The reason GW has announced/leaked the information that they have is that they want to know what we think about it so they can avoid losing money by putting out content we don't support. So if you don't support a rule, please be vocal about it wherever you normally discuss these things because GW really does want to hear the criticism.

Quote :

So if you don't support a rule, please be vocal about it wherever you normally discuss these things because GW really does want to hear the criticism.

Yes yes yes! The squeaky wheel gets the oil, lads. Also, perception is reality, so if we convince them something sounds unfun, it probably won't be included.

Ok, i don't support any sigmarization of 40k rules. I think the current ruleset is a good spot to start from, and just fix it where it isn't working quite as intended.

Quote :

Ok, i don't support any sigmarization of 40k rules. I think the current ruleset is a good spot to start from, and just fix it where it isn't working quite as intended.

I think GW is at least trying to do that. There's a lot of streamlining that needs to be done, I wouldn't object to removing unit types, but I think this is a shift against the "one size fits all" mentality. For instance, I find it somewhat concerning that pointy space elves wearing the grimdark equivalent of a unitard move exactly as fast as a hulking super-human clad in armor the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. Speed based armies have lost their edge, and I think GW is trying to make the core rules a platform for each army to exemplify their strengths.

..now whether or not this is going to a well intentioned train wreck has yet to be seen.

I will say I wholeheartedly approve of the reworked move mechanic. Also doing away with basic unit types means we might not have things like Wraithknights getting to stomp out Primarchs.

I like the idea of the movement stat returning, and the BS skill is weird. Just give me my to hit number, and then modify it for cover/unit being shot at, and let me roll. The currant way has a chart that most of us have memorized, but new players have to reference said chart. Same with melee attacks, except even after years of playing, I don't have that memorized.

The Eldar Factions should have an increase in defense for their high mobility and such, something that never appeared in post 2nd Edition play and not sure about before that. However it has been part of the fluff that they are preternaturally fast, and difficult to target.

As to AP, I would say that anything with an AP of 5-6 would be -0, AP 3-4 would be -1, and AP 1-2 would be -3. Force field/Psychic shield invulnerable saves would be unaffected. Marine armor and Tau Battlesuits could have a special rule that reduces the effect of AP. There are lots of ways to make AP work as a modifier system.

I'm largely quite happy with the suggested rule changes, though staying that way will depend entirely on how it's implemented.

From my few games of Sigmar I've found that Rend/armour modifiers are very simple and straightforward to make use of and exponentially better than the all or nothing AP system we currently have, a bad system where lightly armoured units tend to die with ease to everything. The big worry is how they set it up, my preference would be for a straight conversion where everything with AP4 or worse has no modifier, AP3 is -1, AP2 is -2 and AP1 is -3. Best of all would be bringing back the damage mechanic of 2nd Ed, if Lascannons and Dark Lances can strip multiple wounds/hull points of models they'd be far more useful and we could also do away with Eternal Warrior and Instant Death.

The return of the movement stat is brilliant especially when paired with the removal of unit types. This game only really needs 3 unit types; Infantry, Monsters and Vehicles but we currently have something like a dozen and for no purpose, all those extra unit types are there to give us extra rules to govern movement and in a few special cases how they take damage in very specific and restrictive ways. Anyone thats tried to rebalance Hellions to be something other than trash will find they need a massive list of special rules to get around the harmful restrictions of Jump Infantry. Most of these wouldn't need to exist with a movement stat, just a few USR's like Move Through Cover and Hammer of Wrath applied to specific units where needed and we'd have things simplified and making sense. How GW will approach this though remaines to be seen.

Always hitting first on the charge could be really good so long as it has a few restrictions, things like Power Fists and Thunderhammers should always be unweildy unless being swung by something like a Primarch or Carnifex.

Moral is the unusual one. The core of the current system is actually pretty good the real problem is the mass access to And They Shall Know No Fear and Fearless, when it's so easy to make 2/3rds of the armies in the game completely ignore the moral system it becomes a real problem. I feel that removing ATSKNF completely (stubborn is a good enough replacement) and making Fearless far harder to get would be a much better proposition. That said, Battleshock does work since in Sigmar units either have easy means to boost a low Bravery by running huge squads or have a high Bravery for elite units, the only time when large swaythes of models start running away is generally when you're loosing badly anyway.

If all of the above is implemented I can easily see 40K having the sort of release Sigmar had, specifically in that all of the 8th edition army books were made obsolite at once and everything had it's rules replaced in one go. Given the huge disparity that currently exists between the current codexes and supplements I feel this would be a far better way of doing things that keeping the current books with an enormous errata that would be needed for them to still be usable whilst drip feeding in new rules books, and probably focusing on new armies leaving most of the current lot in the dust for years.

Honestly, I think most of the core mechanics of the game are super-fine but it are certain rules that are poison to the whole framework of the game. Most of all "Ignore Cover" and "They shall not know fear".

Regarding Cover, I'm fine that "everything is a cover save" (meaning actual cover, stealth, shrouded and jink). I think we already have enough wound-neglecting mechanics with the different covers and FNP/RP.

I think the biggest problem comes from the "Ignore Cover" rule itself, which is basically a flat AP2 on these kind of saves. Rather, I'd like it to have a -2 modifier on cover saves to neglect the protection of actual cover. This way, Ignore Cover does not become a hard-counter to some armies like us, but rather a soft-counter that works equally well against all factions.

Some weapons could also be allowed to have an Ignore Cover (3/4) rule. Right now, it's almost like having a "Ignore Armour" rule.
Also, I think invisibility should be a made a cover-save as well.

Similar to that, ATSKNF should not completely ignore wide-spread mechanics like fear or regrouping but instead just make it easier to pass it. Maybe it could allow re-rolls or add a flat +2 on the 2D6 for fear and regrouping.


Now, what I really would like to see is a big tweak to the melee combat system. I want the ability to hit on a 2+ and maybe the initiative system should be tweaked alltogether.

I've been thinking of removing Initiative as it is and instead make it that you you always hit against Initiative with your own Weapon skill. So WS3 against I5 will wound on a 6+.
Naturally, that would require to change initiative stats on all units.


And yes, I completely agree with @Imateria when it comes to movement.

Edit: I would also love to see adjustments done to GMCs. First, instead of poison hitting on a 6+, there should rather be a -1 or -2 modifier. Similarly, I'd like to see a damage table like on vehicles.

I think a lot of these ideas are really productive. You guys should consider trying to concentrate your ideas into 142 characters and posting it on the FAQ. Anything this long will get skimmed at best.

I'm excited for full rework of units. I pray for balance!

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Edit: I would also love to see adjustments done to GMCs. First, instead of poison hitting on a 6+, there should rather be a -1 or -2 modifier. Similarly, I'd like to see a damage table like on vehicles.

Adjustments to Superheavy Vehicles would be nice too. For example, 'Weapon Destroyed' results should be able to affect them - maybe make the main weapons the last to go if people are concerned about their main weapon getting taken out by one lucky shot... but there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to blow bits of a superheavy off to make it less effective as it takes more damage. Similarly, they shouldn't automatically explode in massive apocalyptic fashion - sometimes you should just cause enough damage to a giant machine to make it stop working, turning it into a giant chunk of terrain.

krayd wrote:

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Edit: I would also love to see adjustments done to GMCs. First, instead of poison hitting on a 6+, there should rather be a -1 or -2 modifier. Similarly, I'd like to see a damage table like on vehicles.

Adjustments to Superheavy Vehicles would be nice too. For example, 'Weapon Destroyed' results should be able to affect them - maybe make the main weapons the last to go if people are concerned about their main weapon getting taken out by one lucky shot... but there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to blow bits of a superheavy off to make it less effective as it takes more damage. Similarly, they shouldn't automatically explode in massive apocalyptic fashion - sometimes you should just cause enough damage to a giant machine to make it stop working, turning it into a giant chunk of terrain.

Indeed. It's sad to see how much the game could be improved or be made more interesting just by tweaking what is already there.

I was thinking more about the Armor save thing. The 0-6 Save from fantasy/sigmar makes perfect sense. Terminators get a 1+ Vehicles get a 0+ Space Marines and Tau Battlesuits a 2+ Marine Scouts, Aspect Warriors and Tau Firewarriors 3+ Eldar Guardians 4+ Imperial Guard and Dark Eldar Kabalites 5+ and so on. Sure it needs some more tweaking, but this seems a good start for a modifier based Save system. It also increases variety in saves to 8 from 6.

megatrons2nd wrote:

I was thinking more about the Armor save thing.  The 0-6 Save from fantasy/sigmar makes perfect sense.  Terminators get a 1+ Vehicles get a 0+ Space Marines and Tau Battlesuits a 2+ Marine Scouts, Aspect Warriors and Tau Firewarriors 3+ Eldar Guardians 4+ Imperial Guard and Dark Eldar Kabalites 5+ and so on.  Sure it needs some more tweaking, but this seems a good start for a modifier based Save system.  It also increases variety in saves to 8 from 6.

below based on existing armor values

Along with this I would love to see the movement modified by armor. start with the race base 7" for guard, 8" for marines, 9" for Aedari. Now start subtracting for armor 5" guard, 4" marines, Harlequins 9", Aspect warriors 5", Guardians 7". Use wargear to override these values: marine jump packs 9", Eldar jetbikes 12", DE jetbikes 14"(less armor so lighter), hellions 10" or 11". by doing this you can make similar tech different by race and subrace.