When are the other loyalist bromarchs coming back?
Well 2 are dead:
Ferrus Manus
(My main man) Sanguinius
So that leaves:
Corax (Raven Guard)
Leman Russ (Space Wolves)
Jaghatai Khan (White Scars)
Rogal Dorn (Imperial Fists)
Lion El Johnson (Dark Angels)
Vulkan (Salamanders)
Vulkan and Rogal are believed dead but y'know no body so I reckon they're not dead.
Lion El Johnson is asleep on the Rock so that's an easy come back
Corax and Leman Russ are out on separate jollies so they just need to come back.
Jaghatai Khan went chasing Dark Eldar into the webway so he can come back as well when he stops fucking about.
I think that covers it.
Roboute Guilliam was the best one to bring back IMO considering he's the most stable/best statesman of the living primarchs.
For example, if Leman Russ came back his plan would be to gather all Imperial military resources he can (so basically all of it) and then charge at the Eye of Terror
I thought Vulkan was unkillable and showed up in a recent book set a 1000 years after the Heresy?
And Dorn I though was all but confirmed dead, disapearing on a Chaos Vessel. But they changed that right?
Also Dorn would so have a plan to defend the Imperium.
Based on it being blue colored plastic I think it's from the new AoS starter.
0
Options
Halos Nach TariffCan you blame me?I'm too famous.Registered Userregular
The board tile behind her suggests maybe the upcoming 'Shadowspire' game for AOS, which we don't really know anything about but maybe seems to be some sort of arena fighting thing, maybe?
I believe lady stormcast are mentioned in the books, or, at least, there's no reason for there not to be any given how they are made, so it's nice to see at least one show up in plastic.
The board tile behind her suggests maybe the upcoming 'Shadowspire' game for AOS, which we don't really know anything about but maybe seems to be some sort of arena fighting thing, maybe?
I believe lady stormcast are mentioned in the books, or, at least, there's no reason for there not to be any given how they are made, so it's nice to see at least one show up in plastic.
Woulda been better if there were more of them mixed into the regular range, instead of just one model as a one-off game
Adepticon's site is a little unclear. Can you basically walk in and get a weekend pass to access the vendor hall and non tournament events that are still open?
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited March 2017
Yes. $30 bucks cash. I'm just crashing every event I thinks looks interesting. If someone no-shows, I'll just pay the fee on the spot.
Vulkan and Rogal are believed dead but y'know no body so I reckon they're not dead.
Lion El Johnson is asleep on the Rock so that's an easy come back
Corax and Leman Russ are out on separate jollies so they just need to come back.
Jaghatai Khan went chasing Dark Eldar into the webway so he can come back as well when he stops fucking about.
I'm not up to date on any fluff retcons, but Rogal Dorn died in combat with his fellow Fists to a Chaos Champion and they brought his body back. Not 'stabbed in the neck and still kinda alive' Rowboat style, but just dead.
Vulkan disappeared and left his chapter a bunch of clues to track him down, but IIRC the new Necron fluff had something that pointed to Trazyn having a primarch in his collection, which could be Vulkan.
Pretty sure the only part of Dorns body they recovered was his hand which is now a relic. That leaves a whole lot of primarch left to be running around. He's "dead" but without a body they can bring him back if they want to.
Does Corax still have his awful "Nevermore" ending? Surely the Black Library is going to retcon that and give him something more dignified, like being incinerated or trampled to death?
I'm always surprised they stuck with Lionel Johnson for the 2E Angels codex. Thought for sure they'd sweep that gag under the rug, too.
I think you guys are underestimating the intelligence of Leman Russ.... Which, of course, has worked in his favor before
The following people are amazing and I love them: Wildcat, Timspork, Kias, Denada, susan, Sharp101, [GHSC]Ryctor, Matev, Matrias, ItBurns, Slapnuts, Dayspring, see317, and the unknown poster that sent me a box of Death Company! If you get them as Santees you should buy them amazing things!
last seen dying killing Uber Ork warboss, "the beast" but considering he's a perpetual I reckon he'll be back. And yeah there are some hints he's currently sitting in a Necron's personal collection
Corax is still doing his "nevermore" bullshit as far as I'm aware but someone please correct me.
And yes, the only part of Dorn recovered was his fist. So there's an entire body unaccounted for which could be used as an excuse to bring him back.
Oh and someone mentioned the Imperial Fists always having a plan?
They do (though I'm not sure if they're still allowed to use it):
It's called "the Last Wall" protocol:
The Last Wall was a secret protocol of the Imperial Fists and their Successor Chapters.
Formed covertly by Rogal Dorn after the adoption of the Codex Astartes, the protocol called for the Imperial Fists and their Successors to reunify into a Legion should Terra come under grave threat. Should this condition be met, the Imperial Fists, Black Templars, Crimson Fists, Excoriators, Iron Knights[2], Fists Exemplar, and Soul Drinkers[2] were all to rendezvous in the Phall System before moving to save Terra. Because the protocol violated the edicts of the Codex Astartes and the will of the High Lords of Terra, the Last Wall could have resulted in the condemnation of the Imperial Fists and their successors as traitors.1
Thus far the only known example of the Last Wall protocol being put into action was during the War of the Beast, where the combined forces of Dorn's sons fell under the control of Chapter Master Koorland.[1] During the conflict, the Chapter's of The Last Wall each contributed a portion of their strength to rebuild the extinct Imperial Fists
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
last seen dying killing Uber Ork warboss, "the beast" but considering he's a perpetual I reckon he'll be back. And yeah there are some hints he's currently sitting in a Necron's personal collection
Corax is still doing his "nevermore" bullshit as far as I'm aware but someone please correct me.
And yes, the only part of Dorn recovered was his fist. So there's an entire body unaccounted for which could be used as an excuse to bring him back.
Oh and someone mentioned the Imperial Fists always having a plan?
They do (though I'm not sure if they're still allowed to use it):
It's called "the Last Wall" protocol:
The Last Wall was a secret protocol of the Imperial Fists and their Successor Chapters.
Formed covertly by Rogal Dorn after the adoption of the Codex Astartes, the protocol called for the Imperial Fists and their Successors to reunify into a Legion should Terra come under grave threat. Should this condition be met, the Imperial Fists, Black Templars, Crimson Fists, Excoriators, Iron Knights[2], Fists Exemplar, and Soul Drinkers[2] were all to rendezvous in the Phall System before moving to save Terra. Because the protocol violated the edicts of the Codex Astartes and the will of the High Lords of Terra, the Last Wall could have resulted in the condemnation of the Imperial Fists and their successors as traitors.1
Thus far the only known example of the Last Wall protocol being put into action was during the War of the Beast, where the combined forces of Dorn's sons fell under the control of Chapter Master Koorland.[1] During the conflict, the Chapter's of The Last Wall each contributed a portion of their strength to rebuild the extinct Imperial Fists
The Deliverance Lost novel didn't actually change Corax's eventual leaving, but it did appear to retcon the crap out of the situation that led to his leaving.
Does Vulkan at least do some awesome shit before dying (for like the millionth time)? Because he's basically been an chump for the HH novels. Freaking Nick Kyme needs to be tied up and locked in the basement.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
last seen dying killing Uber Ork warboss, "the beast" but considering he's a perpetual I reckon he'll be back. And yeah there are some hints he's currently sitting in a Necron's personal collection
Corax is still doing his "nevermore" bullshit as far as I'm aware but someone please correct me.
And yes, the only part of Dorn recovered was his fist. So there's an entire body unaccounted for which could be used as an excuse to bring him back.
Oh and someone mentioned the Imperial Fists always having a plan?
They do (though I'm not sure if they're still allowed to use it):
It's called "the Last Wall" protocol:
The Last Wall was a secret protocol of the Imperial Fists and their Successor Chapters.
Formed covertly by Rogal Dorn after the adoption of the Codex Astartes, the protocol called for the Imperial Fists and their Successors to reunify into a Legion should Terra come under grave threat. Should this condition be met, the Imperial Fists, Black Templars, Crimson Fists, Excoriators, Iron Knights[2], Fists Exemplar, and Soul Drinkers[2] were all to rendezvous in the Phall System before moving to save Terra. Because the protocol violated the edicts of the Codex Astartes and the will of the High Lords of Terra, the Last Wall could have resulted in the condemnation of the Imperial Fists and their successors as traitors.1
Thus far the only known example of the Last Wall protocol being put into action was during the War of the Beast, where the combined forces of Dorn's sons fell under the control of Chapter Master Koorland.[1] During the conflict, the Chapter's of The Last Wall each contributed a portion of their strength to rebuild the extinct Imperial Fists
The Deliverance Lost novel didn't actually change Corax's eventual leaving, but it did appear to retcon the crap out of the situation that led to his leaving.
Does Vulkan at least do some awesome shit before dying (for like the millionth time)? Because he's basically been an chump for the HH novels. Freaking Nick Kyme needs to be tied up and locked in the basement.
Vulkan
Rugby tackles The beast into a WAAAAAH powered mega Gargent generator then blows up said generator with his hammer. They both die.
It would be an awesome way to go, saving the Imperium from organised ork hell.
Except it turns out the Beast is just the apex of Ork evolution and there was more than one of them.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I am really happy with some of these changes. Especially save modification coming back on shooting weapons instead of all/nothing.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Any thoughts on whether they might shift to d10s or higher? Sure people would have to drop cash for dice, but that's trivial compared to the price of models, and it'd be nice to have a little more granularity. Especially since stats go to 10.
It's unlikely, since AoS is d6, but still...
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
8th edition sounds like it has the explicit goal of simplifying the game, and moving away from D6s would be pretty contrary to that. Not sure I can see it happening.
+2
Options
Dr_KeenbeanDumb as a buttPlanet Express ShipRegistered Userregular
Prospero uses D8s and D10s and it's very simple.
I'm not saying I think they're going that route (I don't) just that there's precedent.
Going back to individual move values and save modifiers seems like the opposite of simplifying it to me.
At least movement values would be a simplification as it's just a single number to add to the profile while right now there are so many unit types + movement types that interact with each other and vehicles are in in one place, infantry an another and so on and the actual units are in another book all together.
Armour save modifiers depends on how prevalent they are. Like in AoS normal weapons often don't have any modifiers at all.
Going back to individual move values and save modifiers seems like the opposite of simplifying it to me.
I don't see how it makes the game more or less complicated to be honest.
It's either memorizing "infantry go 6, jump troops go 12, etc" or looking at a card and going "This unit moves X because it says X on the card"
Similarly I don't see going "Okay this weapon is AP1 so it ignores you armor save of 2+ and gets a bonus against vehicles" as being more or less complicated then "Okay, your save is 4+, my gun gives -1, so you save on 5+"
Both systems are dead simple.
+4
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
8th edition sounds like it has the explicit goal of simplifying the game, and moving away from D6s would be pretty contrary to that. Not sure I can see it happening.
I'd argue that moving from d6s could allow for simplification of rules as they could replace various tables with a straight 'roll over/under the relevant stat'. The complexity of the system isn't that dependent on the dice being used, I think the mismatch between the stat system and the dice being used is a bigger factor.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Going back to individual move values and save modifiers seems like the opposite of simplifying it to me.
I don't see how it makes the game more or less complicated to be honest.
It's either memorizing "infantry go 6, jump troops go 12, etc" or looking at a card and going "This unit moves X because it says X on the card"
Similarly I don't see going "Okay this weapon is AP1 so it ignores you armor save of 2+ and gets a bonus against vehicles" as being more or less complicated then "Okay, your save is 4+, my gun gives -1, so you save on 5+"
Both systems are dead simple.
Honestly, the whole Armor Rating thing confused the hell out of me for a few months, and I kind of hate the idea that some weapons can completely bypass armor.
I know that, mechanistically, there's no difference between "my weapon gives -1 to armor saves, so your 6+ save is now impossible to make" and "My AP3 Weapon removes your 4+ Armor save", but I feel that I enjoy the tactical feeling of maybe being able to overcome a -1 to your armor save with your own buffs.
Basically what I'm saying is I love how AoS handles attacking, wounding, saving, and dealing damage, so as I've said before I'm happier if we are moving towards that.
In Age of Sigmar are armor save modifier weapons all still considered "special" weapons that are rarer or more expensive?
What I'm worried about is that right now I can say a gun is AP4 or AP3 and have it penetrate certain armors but not others. But if I change it to -1 to target's armor save, and put that property on a basic gun, it actually becomes much stronger vs. 2+ armor than 4+ armor.
Going from a 2+ save to a 3+ save is a much worse debuff than going from a 5+ to 6+, and I well, 2+ armor units are currently non-competitive as it is so...
In Age of Sigmar are armor save modifier weapons all still considered "special" weapons that are rarer or more expensive?
What I'm worried about is that right now I can say a gun is AP4 or AP3 and have it penetrate certain armors but not others. But if I change it to -1 to target's armor save, and put that property on a basic gun, it actually becomes much stronger vs. 2+ armor than 4+ armor.
Going from a 2+ save to a 3+ save is a much worse debuff than going from a 5+ to 6+, and I well, 2+ armor units are currently non-competitive as it is so...
Looking at current game balance to look at game balance post major system overhauls is a fruitless endeavor.
Point costs will have to be adjusted accordingly, and if they move towards a Sigmar model expect models to have lower saves in general but a lot more wounds. Terminators walking around with 3 or more wounds a model wouldn't be a surprise under an AoS-ized 40k.
In Age of Sigmar are armor save modifier weapons all still considered "special" weapons that are rarer or more expensive?
What I'm worried about is that right now I can say a gun is AP4 or AP3 and have it penetrate certain armors but not others. But if I change it to -1 to target's armor save, and put that property on a basic gun, it actually becomes much stronger vs. 2+ armor than 4+ armor.
Going from a 2+ save to a 3+ save is a much worse debuff than going from a 5+ to 6+, and I well, 2+ armor units are currently non-competitive as it is so...
All weapons in Age of Sigmar have a rend statistic giving how much alter saves by so - , -1, -2 and so on.
Weapons have a separate damage statistic though. So a rend -1 damage 2 weapon removes two wounds from a model per failed save.
So a plasma gun on a marine might be something like 2 attacks, 3+ hit 3+ wound, -1 rend, 2 damage. (Numbers I just pulled out my ass)
Models have much higher wounds for than you would expect though. A standard stormcast has 2, paladins (veterans) have 3, heroes have at least five. Cavalry have five and large monsters can easily have 12-16. I would expect a land raider to have maybe 15-20 under the AoS system.
I don't see why people dislike the current vehicle system. Giving vehicles wounds is not a good way to represent the difference between vehicles and creatures. Vehicles are supposed to be able to get blown to shit with 1 shot from a weapon designed to do that, and be completely invulnerable to small arms. That's how it works in real life.
The big issue is more that things like Riptides and such should be vehicles, not mc. Crisis suits should realistically be like AV 8/9 vehicles.
As pointed out earlier, a straight rending (- save) system is really unfair in a system where high penetration weaponry, mass firepower, and heavy armor are hallmarks. The solution is not to make weaker weapons stronger, its to reduce the availability of things like plasma and smart missile systems which can be taken en masse and completely invalidate heavy armor and cover, respectively. In addition, the sheer weight of firepower that really started to become available beginning with the 5th edition DE book showcased how, statistically, if you have enough firepower to put out wounds, things will still die. Again, this is a problem of availability. Either troops need to be made cheaper to field more to make up for the rate of destruction, the availability of firepower needs to be toned down to increase survivability, or the way survivability is calculated needs to be adjusted.
Right now the 2 strongest builds in the game are those that involve making a single unit that is so powerful it cannot be killed, or spamming as many units as you can that can put out enough firepower to wipe things out regardless of their durability. Balanced forces have very little ability to function vs these types of builds, and sadly the second type is a really common sight as tau/eldar/sm all encourage it to be so.
I don't see why people dislike the current vehicle system. Giving vehicles wounds is not a good way to represent the difference between vehicles and creatures. Vehicles are supposed to be able to get blown to shit with 1 shot from a weapon designed to do that, and be completely invulnerable to small arms. That's how it works in real life.
The big issue is more that things like Riptides and such should be vehicles, not mc. Crisis suits should realistically be like AV 8/9 vehicles.
As pointed out earlier, a straight rending (- save) system is really unfair in a system where high penetration weaponry, mass firepower, and heavy armor are hallmarks. The solution is not to make weaker weapons stronger, its to reduce the availability of things like plasma and smart missile systems which can be taken en masse and completely invalidate heavy armor and cover, respectively. In addition, the sheer weight of firepower that really started to become available beginning with the 5th edition DE book showcased how, statistically, if you have enough firepower to put out wounds, things will still die. Again, this is a problem of availability. Either troops need to be made cheaper to field more to make up for the rate of destruction, the availability of firepower needs to be toned down to increase survivability, or the way survivability is calculated needs to be adjusted.
Right now the 2 strongest builds in the game are those that involve making a single unit that is so powerful it cannot be killed, or spamming as many units as you can that can put out enough firepower to wipe things out regardless of their durability. Balanced forces have very little ability to function vs these types of builds, and sadly the second type is a really common sight as tau/eldar/sm all encourage it to be so.
I don't think comparisons to how things do or do not work in real life is a valid line of argument for 40k. 40k is a decidedly not realistic game. If we are playing Advanced Squad leader, a game that attempts to actually model ww2, penetration values on different caliber guns, has different armor values for turrets and hulls, etc. Sure. But 40k is a game about superhumans punching aliens in the face.
I mean, the entire premise of 40k gameplay is using points to try and have two roughly equal sides have a roughly fair fight to have fun. That is about as unrealistic of a premise for a battle as you can get. The real question is, is the way that armor value works fun? Is it fun for both players? Does it create interesting and engaging gameplay? Back in 3rd tanks were all or nothing, if you penetrated armor you either got anything from a crew stunned to blowing up the entire tank. No middle ground, no hull points. The binary nature of it really did not benefit the game. The variance was far too high from a land raider dying the very first time it was shot to it shrugging of lascannon after lascannon for an entire game. Right now I'd say the vehicle rules aren't in a very fun place, especially for some armies, such as Orks and transports.
There is nothing inherently unfair about a rending system. Would it be unfair to drop it into the current edition without changing anything? Of course. But they would not to that. Changing to a rending system would necessitate many other changes. Rending worked fine in 2nd edition and it can work fine again, they just need to alter other systems around it. Depending on how they change the numbers in the system, plasma may no longer completely invalidate heavy armor. Just because it does in the current system there is no reason to assume it will do so in the new rending system. I would not be surprised to see heavy armor grant additional wounds in addition to better armor saves. In that way, even if rending mitigates the bonus from your armor, it does not completely invalidate the bonuses from heavy armor. It's always struck me as odd that a terminator and a grot walk around with the same number of wounds.
As for cover I'd like to see the system completely overhauled. The cover system in 40k has sucked since at least 3rd edition. Giving you a save that you can't use with your armor save? Rubbish. Make cover an interesting tactical decision, make people want to play with and around it. Something simple like +1 to your armor save with be a massive improvement, help mitigate rending, give everyone a reason to use it. I'd like to see ignore cover removed from the game. Terrain informs interesting decisions on the tabletop, ignoring terrain removes interesting decision making. If you want to displace someone from an entrenched position that is what close combat is for.
Again, I'm not sure what the percentage in looking at the current strongest builds are for the next edition. There is no reason to assume those builds will even be possible in the next edition. One thing I'd love to see 40k take from AoS is make it so independent characters can not join units. A ton of the rules bloat and clunkiness (Look Out Sir, Death Stars) in the current system come from the ability to join characters to units.
+6
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited March 2017
The current vehicle system is disliked because it makes them so weak and easily removed compared to everything else. The uselessness of dreadnaughts compared to MCs being a prime example. They can be crippled and instantly removed in ways that MCs never can be, and you still pay a premium point cost for them.
Also, the lack of buffs, like inherent smash attacks.
*Edit*Good example being, look at how many things can smash a landraider without being specifically anti-vehicle.
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
Options
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
As for cover I'd like to see the system completely overhauled. The cover system in 40k has sucked since at least 3rd edition. Giving you a save that you can't use with your armor save? Rubbish. Make cover an interesting tactical decision, make people want to play with and around it. Something simple like +1 to your armor save with be a massive improvement, help mitigate rending, give everyone a reason to use it. I'd like to see ignore cover removed from the game. Terrain informs interesting decisions on the tabletop, ignoring terrain removes interesting decision making. If you want to displace someone from an entrenched position that is what close combat is for.
The caveat for what I'm about to say also goes to all the agrees I gave out to previous posts on this page regarding possible rules-changes; I have never played tabletop Warhammer 40,000 in any iteration, so when I "agree" to something, all that says is that I think the person makes a strong argument, and when I offer ideas I'm just spitballing what sounds appealing. Feel free to disregard any of it in its entirety.
I don't know that they should get rid of 'ignore cover' mechanics entirely. I think being able to use weapons like artillery, mortars, grenades, or a flamethrower to fuck over units cuddled up in a hidey-hole is a fundamental aspect of any combat system modeled from post-industrial age warfare, and has a visceral 'cool' factor to it as well. I agree with your points about why the ability to remove terrain as an important tactical consideration can be bad game design, but would argue that the solution is two-fold:
Make weapons that ignore terrain less prolific, or assign a bigger point or opportunity cost to them
Replace the current binary way of handling this with something a little gradual. Like maybe there's three degrees of cover (loose objects, solid barrier, and enclosed position) that give increasing cover saves, and anti-cover weapons have varying degrees of negation (with the better stuff, ie artillery/mortars being the most hard to come by). This way most terrain cover (which will fall in the 'solid barrier' tier) will still provide a small bonus most of the time.
Going back to individual move values and save modifiers seems like the opposite of simplifying it to me.
I don't see how it makes the game more or less complicated to be honest.
It's either memorizing "infantry go 6, jump troops go 12, etc" or looking at a card and going "This unit moves X because it says X on the card"
Similarly I don't see going "Okay this weapon is AP1 so it ignores you armor save of 2+ and gets a bonus against vehicles" as being more or less complicated then "Okay, your save is 4+, my gun gives -1, so you save on 5+"
Both systems are dead simple.
Movement might be simpler in some ways, but it seems like having save modifiers/rend will add complexity to shooting because you're going from a binary system where you either get your save or you don't to one with a lot more options. For example if you had a devastator squad with four different weapons shooting at a squad of marines they might get four different saves. Not saying that's a bad thing necessarily, just that if they're going for simplification that seems to be going in the opposite direction, but obviously it'll depend on what else they change and how the whole system works.
fray on
"I told you," said Ford. "Eddies in the space-time continuum."
"And this is his sofa, is it?" said Arthur.
I don't see why people dislike the current vehicle system. Giving vehicles wounds is not a good way to represent the difference between vehicles and creatures. Vehicles are supposed to be able to get blown to shit with 1 shot from a weapon designed to do that, and be completely invulnerable to small arms. That's how it works in real life.
The big issue is more that things like Riptides and such should be vehicles, not mc. Crisis suits should realistically be like AV 8/9 vehicles.
As pointed out earlier, a straight rending (- save) system is really unfair in a system where high penetration weaponry, mass firepower, and heavy armor are hallmarks. The solution is not to make weaker weapons stronger, its to reduce the availability of things like plasma and smart missile systems which can be taken en masse and completely invalidate heavy armor and cover, respectively. In addition, the sheer weight of firepower that really started to become available beginning with the 5th edition DE book showcased how, statistically, if you have enough firepower to put out wounds, things will still die. Again, this is a problem of availability. Either troops need to be made cheaper to field more to make up for the rate of destruction, the availability of firepower needs to be toned down to increase survivability, or the way survivability is calculated needs to be adjusted.
Right now the 2 strongest builds in the game are those that involve making a single unit that is so powerful it cannot be killed, or spamming as many units as you can that can put out enough firepower to wipe things out regardless of their durability. Balanced forces have very little ability to function vs these types of builds, and sadly the second type is a really common sight as tau/eldar/sm all encourage it to be so.
I don't think comparisons to how things do or do not work in real life is a valid line of argument for 40k. 40k is a decidedly not realistic game. If we are playing Advanced Squad leader, a game that attempts to actually model ww2, penetration values on different caliber guns, has different armor values for turrets and hulls, etc. Sure. But 40k is a game about superhumans punching aliens in the face.
I'm drunk and didn't read the rest of your post, but this is a terrible argument.
If you don't give a shit about things being even remotely realistic then why does it matter that anything does anything except what they say it does?
Because we want things to make some sort of sense, and if vehicles operate exactly like giant fucking space bugs then that doesn't make any sense. Sure they're giant space bugs, but the basic idea is that they're supposed to be able to keep moving and fighting even when you blow chunks out of them. Tanks generally don't do that. That's the point.
As for balance, 40k is about as far from balanced as you can get, so if that's the reason you want it changed, you should be pushing for a whole new system cause 40k is beyond fucked.
There is nothing inherently unfair about a rending system. Would it be unfair to drop it into the current edition without changing anything? Of course. But they would not to that. .
That's an insane assumption given their history. Of course they would.
Rending worked fine in 2nd edition and it can work fine again, they just need to alter other systems around it. Depending on how they change the numbers in the system, plasma may no longer completely invalidate heavy armor.
Except for it being shown to do exactly that in basically every example ever. That's what it does.
I would not be surprised to see heavy armor grant additional wounds in addition to better armor saves. In that way, even if rending mitigates the bonus from your armor, it does not completely invalidate the bonuses from heavy armor. It's always struck me as odd that a terminator and a grot walk around with the same number of wounds.
I'd be pretty surprised. AOS was a huge overhaul because fantasy was a dead system. 40k is one of (if not the) biggest wargaming systems in the world. They're not likely to completely flip it on its head.
As for cover I'd like to see the system completely overhauled. The cover system in 40k has sucked since at least 3rd edition. Giving you a save that you can't use with your armor save? Rubbish. Make cover an interesting tactical decision, make people want to play with and around it. Something simple like +1 to your armor save with be a massive improvement, help mitigate rending, give everyone a reason to use it. I'd like to see ignore cover removed from the game. Terrain informs interesting decisions on the tabletop, ignoring terrain removes interesting decision making. If you want to displace someone from an entrenched position that is what close combat is for.
Agree with this sentiment, but again, I don't think we're ever going to see sweeping changes.
Again, I'm not sure what the percentage in looking at the current strongest builds are for the next edition. There is no reason to assume those builds will even be possible in the next edition. One thing I'd love to see 40k take from AoS is make it so independent characters can not join units. A ton of the rules bloat and clunkiness (Look Out Sir, Death Stars) in the current system come from the ability to join characters to units.
Deathstars and mass firepower have been strong since 5th and only gotten stronger. They have shown no inclination to changing that. Their proposed rule changes wouldn't make them any weaker. Until they do a complete rules overhaul, this is how the game will be player, no matter what minor tweaks you make except something that vastly buffs assault and give more units the ability to rapidly assault.
I'm drunk and didn't read the rest of your post, but this is a terrible argument.
If you don't give a shit about things being even remotely realistic then why does it matter that anything does anything except what they say it does?
Because we want things to make some sort of sense, and if vehicles operate exactly like giant fucking space bugs then that doesn't make any sense. Sure they're giant space bugs, but the basic idea is that they're supposed to be able to keep moving and fighting even when you blow chunks out of them. Tanks generally don't do that. That's the point.
As for balance, 40k is about as far from balanced as you can get, so if that's the reason you want it changed, you should be pushing for a whole new system cause 40k is beyond fucked.
I'm going to assume the abrasive tone is a result of you being drunk, but, when you come back to the thread sober there's no reason we can't keep this a pleasant, civil conversation.
To me Warhammer 40k is deeply unrealistic from it's core premise. Everything that the game is built around, its core universe, its core setting, its core assumptions, is unrealistic. Therefore, realism is not a concern of mine when it comes to the game. Internal consistency within the lore and between the gameplay and the lore is far more important than the realism, and you can have a strong sense of internal consistency without any realism.
Very little about 40k makes sense from a realistic perspective. If you want 40k to be realistic, you are pushing for an even newer, more completely overhauled system than a balanced 40k. 40k trades heavily in abstractions in the name of keeping things simple, keeping things cinematic, and keeping things fluffy. If realism is the goal we are going to have to completely overhaul the shooting system to at least factor in the movement speeds of both the firer and the target, like they do in ASL. After all, there is nothing realistic that a space marine with a heavy bolter sitting in cover shooting at grots in the open has the same effective accuracy and firepower as a space marine with a heavy bolter on a landspeeder going 100kmh in one direction firing at an enemy landspeeder going 100kmh is the opposite direction. But this isn't a concern in 40k, because realism is not and has never been a goal of the system. Cinematic, heroic, fluffy action has been, and my landspeeder gunning down an enemy landspeeder while both race and gun their engines is fluffy and fun.
Posts
I thought Vulkan was unkillable and showed up in a recent book set a 1000 years after the Heresy?
And Dorn I though was all but confirmed dead, disapearing on a Chaos Vessel. But they changed that right?
Also Dorn would so have a plan to defend the Imperium.
Is this just a one-off or a preview for a future release?
I believe lady stormcast are mentioned in the books, or, at least, there's no reason for there not to be any given how they are made, so it's nice to see at least one show up in plastic.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/03/gw-shadespire-gameplay-more-pics.html
Woulda been better if there were more of them mixed into the regular range, instead of just one model as a one-off game
But still, is nice for actual confirmation
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
I'm not up to date on any fluff retcons, but Rogal Dorn died in combat with his fellow Fists to a Chaos Champion and they brought his body back. Not 'stabbed in the neck and still kinda alive' Rowboat style, but just dead.
Vulkan disappeared and left his chapter a bunch of clues to track him down, but IIRC the new Necron fluff had something that pointed to Trazyn having a primarch in his collection, which could be Vulkan.
I'm always surprised they stuck with Lionel Johnson for the 2E Angels codex. Thought for sure they'd sweep that gag under the rug, too.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
Corax is still doing his "nevermore" bullshit as far as I'm aware but someone please correct me.
And yes, the only part of Dorn recovered was his fist. So there's an entire body unaccounted for which could be used as an excuse to bring him back.
Oh and someone mentioned the Imperial Fists always having a plan?
They do (though I'm not sure if they're still allowed to use it):
The Last Wall was a secret protocol of the Imperial Fists and their Successor Chapters.
Formed covertly by Rogal Dorn after the adoption of the Codex Astartes, the protocol called for the Imperial Fists and their Successors to reunify into a Legion should Terra come under grave threat. Should this condition be met, the Imperial Fists, Black Templars, Crimson Fists, Excoriators, Iron Knights[2], Fists Exemplar, and Soul Drinkers[2] were all to rendezvous in the Phall System before moving to save Terra. Because the protocol violated the edicts of the Codex Astartes and the will of the High Lords of Terra, the Last Wall could have resulted in the condemnation of the Imperial Fists and their successors as traitors.1
Thus far the only known example of the Last Wall protocol being put into action was during the War of the Beast, where the combined forces of Dorn's sons fell under the control of Chapter Master Koorland.[1] During the conflict, the Chapter's of The Last Wall each contributed a portion of their strength to rebuild the extinct Imperial Fists
The Deliverance Lost novel didn't actually change Corax's eventual leaving, but it did appear to retcon the crap out of the situation that led to his leaving.
Vulkan
It would be an awesome way to go, saving the Imperium from organised ork hell.
Except it turns out the Beast is just the apex of Ork evolution and there was more than one of them.
It's unlikely, since AoS is d6, but still...
I'm not saying I think they're going that route (I don't) just that there's precedent.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
"And this is his sofa, is it?" said Arthur.
At least movement values would be a simplification as it's just a single number to add to the profile while right now there are so many unit types + movement types that interact with each other and vehicles are in in one place, infantry an another and so on and the actual units are in another book all together.
Armour save modifiers depends on how prevalent they are. Like in AoS normal weapons often don't have any modifiers at all.
I don't see how it makes the game more or less complicated to be honest.
It's either memorizing "infantry go 6, jump troops go 12, etc" or looking at a card and going "This unit moves X because it says X on the card"
Similarly I don't see going "Okay this weapon is AP1 so it ignores you armor save of 2+ and gets a bonus against vehicles" as being more or less complicated then "Okay, your save is 4+, my gun gives -1, so you save on 5+"
Both systems are dead simple.
I'd argue that moving from d6s could allow for simplification of rules as they could replace various tables with a straight 'roll over/under the relevant stat'. The complexity of the system isn't that dependent on the dice being used, I think the mismatch between the stat system and the dice being used is a bigger factor.
Honestly, the whole Armor Rating thing confused the hell out of me for a few months, and I kind of hate the idea that some weapons can completely bypass armor.
I know that, mechanistically, there's no difference between "my weapon gives -1 to armor saves, so your 6+ save is now impossible to make" and "My AP3 Weapon removes your 4+ Armor save", but I feel that I enjoy the tactical feeling of maybe being able to overcome a -1 to your armor save with your own buffs.
Basically what I'm saying is I love how AoS handles attacking, wounding, saving, and dealing damage, so as I've said before I'm happier if we are moving towards that.
What I'm worried about is that right now I can say a gun is AP4 or AP3 and have it penetrate certain armors but not others. But if I change it to -1 to target's armor save, and put that property on a basic gun, it actually becomes much stronger vs. 2+ armor than 4+ armor.
Going from a 2+ save to a 3+ save is a much worse debuff than going from a 5+ to 6+, and I well, 2+ armor units are currently non-competitive as it is so...
Looking at current game balance to look at game balance post major system overhauls is a fruitless endeavor.
Point costs will have to be adjusted accordingly, and if they move towards a Sigmar model expect models to have lower saves in general but a lot more wounds. Terminators walking around with 3 or more wounds a model wouldn't be a surprise under an AoS-ized 40k.
All weapons in Age of Sigmar have a rend statistic giving how much alter saves by so - , -1, -2 and so on.
Weapons have a separate damage statistic though. So a rend -1 damage 2 weapon removes two wounds from a model per failed save.
So a plasma gun on a marine might be something like 2 attacks, 3+ hit 3+ wound, -1 rend, 2 damage. (Numbers I just pulled out my ass)
Models have much higher wounds for than you would expect though. A standard stormcast has 2, paladins (veterans) have 3, heroes have at least five. Cavalry have five and large monsters can easily have 12-16. I would expect a land raider to have maybe 15-20 under the AoS system.
The big issue is more that things like Riptides and such should be vehicles, not mc. Crisis suits should realistically be like AV 8/9 vehicles.
As pointed out earlier, a straight rending (- save) system is really unfair in a system where high penetration weaponry, mass firepower, and heavy armor are hallmarks. The solution is not to make weaker weapons stronger, its to reduce the availability of things like plasma and smart missile systems which can be taken en masse and completely invalidate heavy armor and cover, respectively. In addition, the sheer weight of firepower that really started to become available beginning with the 5th edition DE book showcased how, statistically, if you have enough firepower to put out wounds, things will still die. Again, this is a problem of availability. Either troops need to be made cheaper to field more to make up for the rate of destruction, the availability of firepower needs to be toned down to increase survivability, or the way survivability is calculated needs to be adjusted.
Right now the 2 strongest builds in the game are those that involve making a single unit that is so powerful it cannot be killed, or spamming as many units as you can that can put out enough firepower to wipe things out regardless of their durability. Balanced forces have very little ability to function vs these types of builds, and sadly the second type is a really common sight as tau/eldar/sm all encourage it to be so.
I don't think comparisons to how things do or do not work in real life is a valid line of argument for 40k. 40k is a decidedly not realistic game. If we are playing Advanced Squad leader, a game that attempts to actually model ww2, penetration values on different caliber guns, has different armor values for turrets and hulls, etc. Sure. But 40k is a game about superhumans punching aliens in the face.
I mean, the entire premise of 40k gameplay is using points to try and have two roughly equal sides have a roughly fair fight to have fun. That is about as unrealistic of a premise for a battle as you can get. The real question is, is the way that armor value works fun? Is it fun for both players? Does it create interesting and engaging gameplay? Back in 3rd tanks were all or nothing, if you penetrated armor you either got anything from a crew stunned to blowing up the entire tank. No middle ground, no hull points. The binary nature of it really did not benefit the game. The variance was far too high from a land raider dying the very first time it was shot to it shrugging of lascannon after lascannon for an entire game. Right now I'd say the vehicle rules aren't in a very fun place, especially for some armies, such as Orks and transports.
There is nothing inherently unfair about a rending system. Would it be unfair to drop it into the current edition without changing anything? Of course. But they would not to that. Changing to a rending system would necessitate many other changes. Rending worked fine in 2nd edition and it can work fine again, they just need to alter other systems around it. Depending on how they change the numbers in the system, plasma may no longer completely invalidate heavy armor. Just because it does in the current system there is no reason to assume it will do so in the new rending system. I would not be surprised to see heavy armor grant additional wounds in addition to better armor saves. In that way, even if rending mitigates the bonus from your armor, it does not completely invalidate the bonuses from heavy armor. It's always struck me as odd that a terminator and a grot walk around with the same number of wounds.
As for cover I'd like to see the system completely overhauled. The cover system in 40k has sucked since at least 3rd edition. Giving you a save that you can't use with your armor save? Rubbish. Make cover an interesting tactical decision, make people want to play with and around it. Something simple like +1 to your armor save with be a massive improvement, help mitigate rending, give everyone a reason to use it. I'd like to see ignore cover removed from the game. Terrain informs interesting decisions on the tabletop, ignoring terrain removes interesting decision making. If you want to displace someone from an entrenched position that is what close combat is for.
Again, I'm not sure what the percentage in looking at the current strongest builds are for the next edition. There is no reason to assume those builds will even be possible in the next edition. One thing I'd love to see 40k take from AoS is make it so independent characters can not join units. A ton of the rules bloat and clunkiness (Look Out Sir, Death Stars) in the current system come from the ability to join characters to units.
Also, the lack of buffs, like inherent smash attacks.
*Edit*Good example being, look at how many things can smash a landraider without being specifically anti-vehicle.
The caveat for what I'm about to say also goes to all the agrees I gave out to previous posts on this page regarding possible rules-changes; I have never played tabletop Warhammer 40,000 in any iteration, so when I "agree" to something, all that says is that I think the person makes a strong argument, and when I offer ideas I'm just spitballing what sounds appealing. Feel free to disregard any of it in its entirety.
I don't know that they should get rid of 'ignore cover' mechanics entirely. I think being able to use weapons like artillery, mortars, grenades, or a flamethrower to fuck over units cuddled up in a hidey-hole is a fundamental aspect of any combat system modeled from post-industrial age warfare, and has a visceral 'cool' factor to it as well. I agree with your points about why the ability to remove terrain as an important tactical consideration can be bad game design, but would argue that the solution is two-fold:
Movement might be simpler in some ways, but it seems like having save modifiers/rend will add complexity to shooting because you're going from a binary system where you either get your save or you don't to one with a lot more options. For example if you had a devastator squad with four different weapons shooting at a squad of marines they might get four different saves. Not saying that's a bad thing necessarily, just that if they're going for simplification that seems to be going in the opposite direction, but obviously it'll depend on what else they change and how the whole system works.
"And this is his sofa, is it?" said Arthur.
I'm drunk and didn't read the rest of your post, but this is a terrible argument.
If you don't give a shit about things being even remotely realistic then why does it matter that anything does anything except what they say it does?
Because we want things to make some sort of sense, and if vehicles operate exactly like giant fucking space bugs then that doesn't make any sense. Sure they're giant space bugs, but the basic idea is that they're supposed to be able to keep moving and fighting even when you blow chunks out of them. Tanks generally don't do that. That's the point.
As for balance, 40k is about as far from balanced as you can get, so if that's the reason you want it changed, you should be pushing for a whole new system cause 40k is beyond fucked.
[edit] I went back and reread
That's an insane assumption given their history. Of course they would.
Except for it being shown to do exactly that in basically every example ever. That's what it does.
I'd be pretty surprised. AOS was a huge overhaul because fantasy was a dead system. 40k is one of (if not the) biggest wargaming systems in the world. They're not likely to completely flip it on its head.
Agree with this sentiment, but again, I don't think we're ever going to see sweeping changes.
Deathstars and mass firepower have been strong since 5th and only gotten stronger. They have shown no inclination to changing that. Their proposed rule changes wouldn't make them any weaker. Until they do a complete rules overhaul, this is how the game will be player, no matter what minor tweaks you make except something that vastly buffs assault and give more units the ability to rapidly assault.
I'm going to assume the abrasive tone is a result of you being drunk, but, when you come back to the thread sober there's no reason we can't keep this a pleasant, civil conversation.
To me Warhammer 40k is deeply unrealistic from it's core premise. Everything that the game is built around, its core universe, its core setting, its core assumptions, is unrealistic. Therefore, realism is not a concern of mine when it comes to the game. Internal consistency within the lore and between the gameplay and the lore is far more important than the realism, and you can have a strong sense of internal consistency without any realism.
Very little about 40k makes sense from a realistic perspective. If you want 40k to be realistic, you are pushing for an even newer, more completely overhauled system than a balanced 40k. 40k trades heavily in abstractions in the name of keeping things simple, keeping things cinematic, and keeping things fluffy. If realism is the goal we are going to have to completely overhaul the shooting system to at least factor in the movement speeds of both the firer and the target, like they do in ASL. After all, there is nothing realistic that a space marine with a heavy bolter sitting in cover shooting at grots in the open has the same effective accuracy and firepower as a space marine with a heavy bolter on a landspeeder going 100kmh in one direction firing at an enemy landspeeder going 100kmh is the opposite direction. But this isn't a concern in 40k, because realism is not and has never been a goal of the system. Cinematic, heroic, fluffy action has been, and my landspeeder gunning down an enemy landspeeder while both race and gun their engines is fluffy and fun.