So we're apparently getting a new edition of 40k this year. Which is nice.
And there are of course various rumours flying around, including that it might be taking inspiration from Age of Sigmar.
Now, some might panic. AoS was certainly a big change to Warhammer, and it's a very different game. But rather than discuss the merits of that particular game, I want to discuss which element could be transferred over to 40k as is - so no major changes to the basic rules (to hit, to wound, to save etc)
Here's some thoughts to get you started.
1. Floating Initiative.
Man, I love that rule. For me it gives you a lot to think about in each turn, as you never know if your opponent might be about to get two player turns back to back. Took me a bit to get my head round it, but now I'm used to it it's a really fun challenge.
2. Warscrolls/Datasheets
They're neat, they're tidy, they're a bit of a blessing. If you're not familiar, imagine not having to flip through various books because all the unit rules are right there on a single page. Not quite as instantly transferable to 40k, but can be done with minimal tweaking.
That's my two top picks. Now over to you.
Remember, this isn't a chance to bash either rules set!
The Floating Initiative format would ruin 40k in my opinion.
Can you imagine 2 back to back turns of Tau shooting?
Or even anyone good/average in the shooting phase vs chaos demons or orks?
1) Three ways to play; yes, Matched subsumed the others but sometimes you find people who want to play default AOS, and this would let them include battleplan equivalents (Eternal War?) for more than just pickup game style approaches.
2) Free rules/warscrolls (dataslates?) available with updates
3) Battalions costing points, although this has the effect in AOS of basically killing the mega-battalion/Decurion types since they require all the other battalions to also be included, and the points are insane (The Flesh-Eater court one, for example, comes to 720 points just for the cost of all the battalions)
4) Restrictions on Leaders/Artillery/Behemoth at points levels, this could correspond to either a CAD approach or limiting tanks and walkers and such in general.
I think floating initiative would be terrible for 40k as it's done in AOS; it should have been like "order dice" that Bolt Action uses, or hell just change it from IGO-UGO to roll to pick a unit (same principle but more random).
It's a bit funny that AoS has better vehicle rules than 40K, but it does. The multiple wounds / degrading functionality as you take damage would be much better at representing a Titan, Rhino or Land Raider losing functionality as it gets hit.
Similarly the variable weapon damage that goes along with it would simplify 40K greatly without losing complexity. You could drop all the interconnected rules around Instant Death and Eternal Warrior and just have Lascannons do 1d6 wounds.
It's a bit funny that AoS has better vehicle rules than 40K, but it does. The multiple wounds / degrading functionality as you take damage would be much better at representing a Titan, Rhino or Land Raider losing functionality as it gets hit.
Similarly the variable weapon damage that goes along with it would simplify 40K greatly without losing complexity. You could drop all the interconnected rules around Instant Death and Eternal Warrior and just have Lascannons do 1d6 wounds.
This too completely forgot about degrading stats as it took damage.
One thing people always forget to mention about AoS formations (Warscroll Battallions) is that they still have to fit within the FOC. That's one thing I definitely want to see in 40k. I'm also a fan of how AoS handles Heroes (ICs). They can't be attached to other units and hidden away (so no more Death Stars!), but have increased survivability to compensate.
I'm not a fan of the shooting rule in AoS since you can still shoot into and out of combat, so I'm hoping that won't carry over.
Floating initiative is questionable since it can turn the tide too easily.
But warscrolls would be highly welcome. All rules at one sight similar to PP.
The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.
There are some very good things in AoS that would benefit 40k.
- Point costs for formations
- Degrading MC/vehicle stats
- The rending system! No more problems with 2++ rerollable saves when a Lascannon hit lowers your save by 4 I think this would help a lot with the save-stacking problem we see right now
So we're apparently getting a new edition of 40k this year. Which is nice.
And there are of course various rumours flying around, including that it might be taking inspiration from Age of Sigmar.
Now, some might panic. AoS was certainly a big change to Warhammer, and it's a very different game. But rather than discuss the merits of that particular game, I want to discuss which element could be transferred over to 40k as is - so no major changes to the basic rules (to hit, to wound, to save etc)
Here's some thoughts to get you started.
1. Floating Initiative.
Man, I love that rule. For me it gives you a lot to think about in each turn, as you never know if your opponent might be about to get two player turns back to back. Took me a bit to get my head round it, but now I'm used to it it's a really fun challenge.
2. Warscrolls/Datasheets
They're neat, they're tidy, they're a bit of a blessing. If you're not familiar, imagine not having to flip through various books because all the unit rules are right there on a single page. Not quite as instantly transferable to 40k, but can be done with minimal tweaking.
That's my two top picks. Now over to you.
Remember, this isn't a chance to bash either rules set!
Floating init would murder this game. Imagine a black legion raptor talon alpha striking on turn 1 and THEN taking an turn right after. Thats a auto win unless you play Tau. 40k is far to deadly to allow this.
I wouldnt mind warscrolls. WOuld save me hundreds of dollars on books.
AoS has plenty of great aspects, but I don't think there's much that could or should carry over to 40K.
- The damage charts for MC would be fantastic to have in 40K. This could probably be one generic chart.
- Points for formations, obviously. This would require a new publication of some sort.
Otherwise a simple removal of unnecessary bloat and overabundance of special rules from 40K should be fine.
Rules distrubution.
Pointed formations and CAD type restrictions still in use.
Degrading performance of large centerpiece models as damage is accrued.
Characters not being able to join units while still being important for buffing/debuffing etc.
AoS is an abysmally bad system. Compete garbage through and through
The random initiative rule that it has is possibly the worst thing i've ever seen. Thats all we need is more fething randomness in this game.
Can you possibly fathom an army like Tau or Eldar getting two turns of shooting in a row? Think about that for a second.
Characters not being able to join units is incredibly stupid and immersion breaking.
The Magic system is so simple it requires no thought, attention or dice management. The might as well just remove it all together and make the spells automatically cast. Not that I'm defending the 40K psychic phase. That thing is fething terrible too. They need to revamp the whole thing.
The ONLY thing I might want to see is monstrous creatures getting worse as they take wounds. But again that requires more note taking which might slow the game down unnecessarily.
I think there's a few great things in AoS that would work well for 40k.
Degrading monsters/vehicles.
A simplified spell/psychic system.
A change to the IGOUGO system. Even if it isn't the initiative system the AoS uses (which is very similar to the LotR initiative system, which I also like).
I really like the idea of warscrolls, but I'm afraid it would mean massively simplifying unit entries. There is NO WAY you can list all the wargear options for most generic characters, or even sergeants, on a single page with all their stats. In order to Warscroll 40k, the options are gonna need serious streamlining.
There's a fan made 40kAoS rule set out there made by Hive Fleet Charybdis. I think it gives a pretty good idea of SOME of the things we can expect. But it's HUGELY simplified from current 40k list building.
Ushtarador wrote: There are some very good things in AoS that would benefit 40k.
- Point costs for formations
- Degrading MC/vehicle stats
- The rending system! No more problems with 2++ rerollable saves when a Lascannon hit lowers your save by 4 I think this would help a lot with the save-stacking problem we see right now
What is the rending system? I don't know anything about AoS
I like the Vehicle/MC degradation system but I'd rather see the XWing initiative system than the AoS one, Eldar would need some reigning in first but after that the XWing initiative system would really represent how Eldar are different to a Space Marine - Stupidly high initiative and skill but average-human fragility.
If a weapon has rend it reduces the armour save value of it's target by the allotted amount.
So Rend -1 reduces the armour save of the opponent by one, Rend -2 by 2 and so on.
Actually, now that I think on it, the rend system might benefit 40K. Depending on other factors like how ranged weapons will be implemented into the system.
I think the biggest thing was "people don't just want to play with completely unstructured sandboxes". GW has this idea that their customer base just wants to put pretty things on a table and treat them like toys, and that failed with AoS and it took them a year to get around to realizing that, I'm hoping they apply that lesson more to 40k as well since that's the direction it's been heading.
I think a lot of the point has been missed here. What 40K can learn from AOS isn't just the basic rules.
For example the random turn order wouldn't work in 40k as several people have rightly said. Examples have been given that two rounds of tau shooting would be brutal and thats right. But the problem is not the random turn order, the problem is that certain armies in this game are far too destructive. Certain units can delete other units at will.
That is the problem with 40k.
Yes, the degrading monster/vehicle stats are cool, paying for formations is welcome, but this is window dressing.
The best thing for 40k to absorb from AOS is balance and parity. Anything can harm anything, there are no deathstars, and there is much better balance between armies in AOS.
40k has produced super build armies, overpowered formations, inexplicable disparity and consistency between points for different units. Some armies literally have no chance against others.
Ask an ork, AM or CSM player.
The approach to fixing things is to add more formations, extra complexity, extra layers of rules rather than fix the fundamentals of the army.
40k is a fun game, but the factions are in desperate need of some AOSing.
If a weapon has rend it reduces the armour save value of it's target by the allotted amount.
So Rend -1 reduces the armour save of the opponent by one, Rend -2 by 2 and so on.
Actually, now that I think on it, the rend system might benefit 40K. Depending on other factors like how ranged weapons will be implemented into the system.
Sounds like a pretty good system for 40k. It would make units with high armor saves still usefull
Rend - AP blows, it's always effective or never effective, the problem with rend from the 2nd ed days was it was tied to str, fantasy decoupled them a while ago and AoS's current implementation of rend is wonderful.
Wound profiles for MCs and vehicles - AoS gives vehicles and MCs a ton of wounds and armor saves, it balances that by making their performance degrades as they take wounds, which is a wonderful implementation of what the vehicle damage table was supposed to do but never managed to do in its five editions.
One save per hit - The saves in AoS include modifiers for the opponents rend and the models cover (and/or buffs), it's very rare that anything gets an additional save. This puts a cap on how tough a model can be per wound. This encourages people to use cover regardless of their armor rather than stand out in the open with their wang flapping in the breeze.
Things I do not want
Set hit/wound values - I like comparing str to toughness, it allows for a range of weapons and target types. Just having a static roll to wound (eg 3+) means lasguns work just as well against tanks as they do against orks. To Hit should be based on the unit and not weapon, though I'm not opposed to weapons providing modifiers.
Then there is the collection of what were they thinking rules, which don't need explanation because they are obviously awful:
Shooting while locked in melee (sword fighting with one hand and using an LMG in the other)
Rolling for turns (first guy to get two in a row wins)
Every piece of terrain is magic and has special rules (this is the deadly shrub, because it eats people)
As above, there are a few things that 40K could incorporate from AoS to improve the game.
1) Paying for formations. Formations are what has broken this game, formations and decurion formations giving massive buffs for free. Paying for formations could only be a good thing.
2) Movement values. Different troops should move different speeds. A hormagaunt could be movement 8 while a Guardsmen could be 4, Banshees could be 7 while Astates could be 6, A Trygon could be 8 while a Great Unclean One would be 5. It just makes more sense.
3) Rend Values. Power swords cut through power armour like butter but are no better then a choppa against artificer armour? Makes no sense. This redesign would require re-balancing of some elite units, leading to
4) more Multiple wound elites, all terminators should have 2 wounds to differentiate them from normal Marines.
5) CC weapons doing multiple damage. A Carnifex only has like 3 or 4 attacks, that hit on 4's, and only kill 2 models? I want a Carnifex charge to feel like a scythe through a unit, not a glorified thunderhammer, large models with big weapons should have the capacity to kill multiple models in one swing.
6) melee weapon range. Adds a bit more tactics into which weapons are better and how to posistion models. A custode Spear should have a longer range then a bayonet.
7) Set Command Traits. Better than the warlord traits of today, The warlord having a set synergestic warlord trait to his unit type (A chaos raptor lord has a different trait to a foot lord) helps build more themed lists.
I'd be happy with the reduction in necessary books to play the game, but really that's about it. There is really no reason they can't just do war scrolls now anyway. They'd be a bit more cluttered than the typical AoS scroll but it could work.
I can't think of anything worse to port over than the initiative system from AoS though. It's... Not a good rule in a game where a player gets to use their entire army when it's their turn. It would make more sense in a game like Lotr where initiative just means you get to act first in a given phase with alternating activations. It would be a disaster in 40k, and it's not good in AoS either. Please no.
dosiere wrote: I'd be happy with the reduction in necessary books to play the game, but really that's about it. There is really no reason they can't just do war scrolls now anyway. They'd be a bit more cluttered than the typical AoS scroll but it could work.
I can't think of anything worse to port over than the initiative system from AoS though. It's... Not a good rule in a game where a player gets to use their entire army when it's their turn. It would make more sense in a game like Lotr where initiative just means you get to act first in a given phase with alternating activations. It would be a disaster in 40k, and it's not good in AoS either. Please no.
QFT, I have no idea how people can even begin to entertain that floating init would be anything but a unmitigated disaster if ported to 40k. I also have to lug around the following books depending on my lists.
IA 13 (this one sucks as its a huge thick book). Codex CSM Traitor Legions. Traitors Hate if I want to run my renegade knights. Base Rule Book (not the mini book but the crap one). Codex CD
Hell my books are more of a burden than my actual army.
tneva82 wrote: Cost for formations. Pretty much that's it.
Yeah everything should have a point cost. Its kinda sad that 40k doesn't have this currently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: As above, there are a few things that 40K could incorporate from AoS to improve the game.
4) more Multiple wound elites, all terminators should have 2 wounds to differentiate them from normal Marines.
Please no :\
All most all offending lists include multi wound "elite" stuff for multiple editions now. The last thing we need is more of that crap. We need less multi wound nonsense .
Pr3Mu5 wrote:The Floating Initiative format would ruin 40k in my opinion.
Can you imagine 2 back to back turns of Tau shooting?
Or even anyone good/average in the shooting phase vs chaos demons or orks?
Funny Lord of the Rings rules does this beautifully without any problems. So while this is not Age of Sigmar, I would take the "floating initiative" from Age of Sigmar and add the LotR Priority to it.
Daston wrote:Nothing, I honestly can't think of 1 thing AoS improved on.
Maybe unit cards....they were kinda useful for the time we tried it.
What free data slates you don't want?
Asmodai wrote:Degrading Vehicle/MC Rules
It's a bit funny that AoS has better vehicle rules than 40K, but it does. The multiple wounds / degrading functionality as you take damage would be much better at representing a Titan, Rhino or Land Raider losing functionality as it gets hit.
Similarly the variable weapon damage that goes along with it would simplify 40K greatly without losing complexity. You could drop all the interconnected rules around Instant Death and Eternal Warrior and just have Lascannons do 1d6 wounds.
Totally forgot about degrading stats as wounds are taken. Would love that. Also your variable weapon damage suggestion is good as well.
Brutus_Apex wrote:AoS is an abysmally bad system. Compete garbage through and through
The random initiative rule that it has is possibly the worst thing i've ever seen. Thats all we need is more fething randomness in this game.
Can you possibly fathom an army like Tau or Eldar getting two turns of shooting in a row? Think about that for a second.
Characters not being able to join units is incredibly stupid and immersion breaking.
The Magic system is so simple it requires no thought, attention or dice management. The might as well just remove it all together and make the spells automatically cast. Not that I'm defending the 40K psychic phase. That thing is fething terrible too. They need to revamp the whole thing.
The ONLY thing I might want to see is monstrous creatures getting worse as they take wounds. But again that requires more note taking which might slow the game down unnecessarily.
Again no. You are wrong. The fix for your Tau or Eldar would be as I said before. Lord of the Rings does this with no issues at all.
alex0911 wrote:NOTHING.
What is it with people not wanting free dataslates?
The Magic system is so simple it requires no thought, attention or dice management. The might as well just remove it all together and make the spells automatically cast. Not that I'm defending the 40K psychic phase. That thing is fething terrible too. They need to revamp the whole thing.
This one's funny because this is how it used to work for 40k, you rolled a leadership check back in 5th edition and nobody complained then.
All most all offending lists include multi wound "elite" stuff for multiple editions now. The last thing we need is more of that crap. We need less multi wound nonsense .
In the world of D6 randomizers there are only two ways to make things tougher, add wounds or add layers of defenses. We've had five editions of adding layers of defenses, and that has lead to D weapons, invis, 3+ invuls, rerollable saves, shields that stop D weapons, FNP/RP, Grav weapons, stomp, etc literally all of the problems with the current balance scheme can be laid at the feet of that one very poor design decision. Game balance has drunkenly swayed between "Need to make this tougher" and "Oh crap made it too tough need to add a way to kill it" for years now. and with the Tau'anar we are entering the endgame for D-Weapons. One save, multiple wounds, keep the game running at full steam.
I also think multi-wound hits need to make a comeback, now its mentioned - and I would love to see damage-degrading stats for MC, GC, Vehicles and Super-heavies.
It might take some getting used to at first, but I've found it infinitely preferable to the current 40k 'and until I'm d.e.d., I'm at full efficiency LOL'.
Rending I'd love to see back (as in, negatives to armour), but with the plethora of weapons in 40k, I think it'd quickly become very, very messy to keep track of what has what etc.
As for multiple books?
Please check out the AoS App. You don't have to ever play the game, or spend anything, but do have a play.
In short, it's flawed, but remains damned useful. See, all the Warscrolls are available for free download. Once downloaded, you can tap it to add it to 'My Battle'. Likewise if you've bought any premium content (either the book via the app, or specific formations and what not). One tap, added to the battle.
This leaves you with all the essential rules on one app page. Handy, eh?
But I did say it's flawed. For me, these are more irritants, for others, possibly deal breakers. And here they are.
1. There's currently no way to log ownership of a physical book on the app. If I want the premium content, I'd have to buy it in the app. Booooo!
2. The 'My Battle' needs some work. You can only add a single example of a Warscroll. So if you've got say, 3 units of Orruk 'Ardboyz, one 10 strong, one 15 strong, the other 20 strong, there's just that one very basic Warscroll for them. Definite room for improvement.
There may be other issues which irritate other games, but those are my pics. Thankfully they're resolvable, and not inherent to the app. I've asked GW about some sort of code system, obtainable from stores, to unlock premium content when I buy the relevant physical book. They said they'd like to, and are looking into it, but aren't sure it's 100% possible. I know naff all about coding and that, so can only take their word for it.
My Battle? Well, it's basically just me adding a piece of paper with the exact composition - it'd still be nice to be able to app that though so it's all in one place
Now...apply that to 40k? Doesn't matter which Codex your stuff is in, it all appears on that one page, and only the rules you're using. In theory, that'd be ace.
I think a lot of people are letting their perceived bias of AOS creep in, having actually played it, it's really good (better than 40k). The 4 page rules are actually not bad, basic of course but that's why you have Battleplans so you aren't playing a straight kill game.
Rend I think would be really good, since there's also the way some things can ignore rend of certain amounts; so vehicles and monstrous creatures could, for instance, ignore Rend of up to -2 or something and be really nasty.
Damage varying by attack is a neat idea too, to better represent how killy something is.
AOS often has a few weapon options, so I think if 40k streamlined their options (there are way too many right now that overlap) it would still have variety as you could just pick what weapon you have, and use its relevant stats (some units have like 3-4 choices for melee and ranged, that really is not too far from 40k).
Points for formations, as said, is great and would definitely help kill some of the OP formations. It would probably need to have formations be balanced properly because some are not worth the points at all, and some are, but it's a start.
Heroes joining units is an iffy thing, but I think AOS handles it well enough with how they can buff units. You could always have some benefit to joining a unit (keep Look Out Sir?) added due to how far range is in 40k.
FOC I'm not sure of, I think in effect it gets ignored anyways with formations, so would it be that bad? It could be rudimentary like AOS has: Leaders, Battleline (Troops), Other , Behemoth (vehicles/MC/GMC?) which could get the same effect without the "fear" of Unbound.
In short there's a lot of great things AOS has that 40k could use, and a lot of the "nothing" comments seem to be out of sheer ignorance of AOS or thinking it's the same as it was when it launched.
Forgot about the degrading MC/vehicle rule, it's indeed pretty good.
I also like the movement stat, it's much easier than having to deal with many unit types, and additional rules like fleet or crusader. It could even be something like: you move your movement stat in inches, and you charge movement + D6.
The rend system works well, and would solve many things. But I'm afraid it would make 40K too similar to AoS. Lowering the number of low AP weapons would be much better imo.
All most all offending lists include multi wound "elite" stuff for multiple editions now. The last thing we need is more of that crap. We need less multi wound nonsense .
In the world of D6 randomizers there are only two ways to make things tougher, add wounds or add layers of defenses. We've had five editions of adding layers of defenses, and that has lead to D weapons, invis, 3+ invuls, rerollable saves, shields that stop D weapons, FNP/RP, Grav weapons, stomp, etc literally all of the problems with the current balance scheme can be laid at the feet of that one very poor design decision. Game balance has drunkenly swayed between "Need to make this tougher" and "Oh crap made it too tough need to add a way to kill it" for years now. and with the Tau'anar we are entering the endgame for D-Weapons. One save, multiple wounds, keep the game running at full steam.
I agree 100%.
More wounds, attacks or shots is better than more rerolls and saves.
What is it with people not wanting free dataslates?
The internet told them they should hate something, so they hate it.
Grimgold wrote:
. . .
Things I do not want
Set hit/wound values - I like comparing str to toughness, it allows for a range of weapons and target types. Just having a static roll to wound (eg 3+) means lasguns work just as well against tanks as they do against orks. To Hit should be based on the unit and not weapon, though I'm not opposed to weapons providing modifiers.
I see this argument against set wound values a lot, and I don't think people realized that it isn't as limiting as people think. Take a look at the Seraphon Bastilodon's "Impervious Defense" rule. It ignores all rend values and completely ignores to wound on a 4+ (assuming it failed the 3+). A similar rule could be used for heavily-armored vehicles/monsters in 40k.
Say a Guardsman with a Lasgun has a profile of 1/4+/0/5+/1 (one shot, hit on 4+, no rend, wound on 5+, 1 damage for those who aren't familiar with AoS profiles). A Space Marine with a Meltgun has a profile of 1/3+/-2/3+/d6. Now say a Landraider (or Chaos Landraider) has the "Ceramite Plating" rule that states something along the lines of "ignores all rend values and ignores the first point of damage from every wound taken". In this scenario, no number of attacks from the Guardsman will ever damage the Landraider since even if the attack goes through and wounds, the first wound is ignored. The Space Marine, on the other hand, can and likely will penetrated the armor.
That would violate the one save per hit idea, remember adding additional rolls to protect from damage increases toughness in a multiplicative manner instead of in a linear manner. Also I think slides (the gaming term for taking X amount of damage off of every attack) is a slippery slope that will get us back to exactly where we are right now in a hurry. A three point slide would ignore your version of melta 50% of the time, then they have to add weapons that ignore X amount of slide, and then we are back to D-Weapons and grav spam. Str V toughness deals with the idea well enough.
I'm ok with Impervious defenses for things like like void hardened armor and terminators, but it should be used sparingly. Games are the most fun when there are massive casualties on both sides, which is why everyone hates fighting necrons.
It's a bit funny that AoS has better vehicle rules than 40K, but it does. The multiple wounds / degrading functionality as you take damage would be much better at representing a Titan, Rhino or Land Raider losing functionality as it gets hit.
Similarly the variable weapon damage that goes along with it would simplify 40K greatly without losing complexity. You could drop all the interconnected rules around Instant Death and Eternal Warrior and just have Lascannons do 1d6 wounds.
So long as it came with the lots more wounds of monstrous creatures that AOS has so that the things that kill them are the big heavy duty weapons rather than a lucky round of bolter fire
(I've lost a disturbing amount of monsters to a round of bolters..)
Grimgold wrote: That would violate the one save per hit idea, remember adding additional rolls to protect from damage increases toughness in a multiplicative manner instead of in a linear manner. Also I think slides (the gaming term for taking X amount of damage off of every attack) is a slippery slope that will get us back to exactly where we are right now in a hurry. A three point slide would ignore your version of melta 50% of the time, then they have to add weapons that ignore X amount of slide, and then we are back to D-Weapons and grav spam. Str V toughness deals with the idea well enough.
I'm ok with Impervious defenses for things like like void hardened armor and terminators, but it should be used sparingly. Games are the most fun when there are massive casualties on both sides, which is why everyone hates fighting necrons.
I was just giving an example of how a fixed to-wound could prevent certain weapons from hurting certain models. Personally, I don't like SvT because it's just one more table to have to reference even if it is a simple formula. Still better than the WS table, though.
Again no. You are wrong. The fix for your Tau or Eldar would be as I said before. Lord of the Rings does this with no issues at all.
What did you say before? Who was talking about LotR? Again, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Even most AoS players don't like the floating initiative system.
Wrong. hahahah
What is it with people not wanting free dataslates?
In my experience you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay for quality.
The internet told them they should hate something, so they hate it.
Or maybe we have played the game, and didn't like it because of how shallow the rules are.
This one's funny because this is how it used to work for 40k, you rolled a leadership check back in 5th edition and nobody complained then.
For the record, I complained about the old 40K iteration of Psychic powers as well. It felt tacked on and poorly thought through. But back then I was too busy playing Fantasy. So...
I, personally love the rolling off for initiative every turn. I'm the only one at my lgs that does, and the only time it really mattered lost me a game, but I love it.
Likewise I love the terrain rules. We tell tales about the deadly fence and the haunted sign post.
But nobody here plays by those rules, usually.
On the question of initiative there is that other thing AoS does differently from 40k: the way it handles assaults... I honestly prefer initiative values on units to this. AoS can keep that.
I like that large monsters lose functionality as they get hurt, but in AoS I always feel like they lose too much punch too early. AoS is more melee oriented than 40k but because of the way it's rules work projectile oriented units hit pretty hard as is.
But hey, let's get more ambitious here... What if all space marines above scouts had two wounds? With three on centurions and terminators? What if the balance of what an army is in 40k was less about how a given unit is different from a space marine and instead was about how many wounds you get on the table relative to points?
All most all offending lists include multi wound "elite" stuff for multiple editions now. The last thing we need is more of that crap. We need less multi wound nonsense .
In the world of D6 randomizers there are only two ways to make things tougher, add wounds or add layers of defenses. We've had five editions of adding layers of defenses, and that has lead to D weapons, invis, 3+ invuls, rerollable saves, shields that stop D weapons, FNP/RP, Grav weapons, stomp, etc literally all of the problems with the current balance scheme can be laid at the feet of that one very poor design decision. Game balance has drunkenly swayed between "Need to make this tougher" and "Oh crap made it too tough need to add a way to kill it" for years now. and with the Tau'anar we are entering the endgame for D-Weapons. One save, multiple wounds, keep the game running at full steam.
Very well said Grimgold. You brought up some good points. Would love to see a counter to this.
Brutus_Apex wrote:
Again no. You are wrong. The fix for your Tau or Eldar would be as I said before. Lord of the Rings does this with no issues at all.
What did you say before? Who was talking about LotR? Again, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Even most AoS players don't like the floating initiative system.
Wrong. hahahah
If you read what I said before the quote when someone complained about the "floating initiative" just like you and said it was no good and can never work, I said Lord of the Rings does a beautiful job in how it's handled. You said a floating initiative system can never work with Tau and Eldar and I said it can in what I wrote above comment. I didn't think I would have to repeat myself again in the same post. That is why I said "what I wrote before".
What is it with people not wanting free dataslates?
In my experience you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay for quality.
Fair enough. Good point.
The internet told them they should hate something, so they hate it.
Or maybe we have played the game, and didn't like it because of how shallow the rules are.
Or how about people who have played the game and love it? How are they wrong? You have tried it and didn't like it. Great. But why bash something that people do like?
About the shallow part, I find the 40K rules more shallow than Age of Sigmar rules. That doesn't make me any more wrong that what you says make you right.
It's a bit funny that AoS has better vehicle rules than 40K, but it does. The multiple wounds / degrading functionality as you take damage would be much better at representing a Titan, Rhino or Land Raider losing functionality as it gets hit.
Similarly the variable weapon damage that goes along with it would simplify 40K greatly without losing complexity. You could drop all the interconnected rules around Instant Death and Eternal Warrior and just have Lascannons do 1d6 wounds.
THIS in so many ways. I just came to this realization earlier this week and came to this thread to post exactly this.
There are a lot of people who are saying 40k can learn nothing from it. I couldn't disagree more. There are a lot of things. Some positive and some negative.
1. The example above. Great idea.
2. Do NOT advance the storyline to the point of wiping out everything that came before.
3. Focus on multiple ways to play the game (as the Generals Handbook does)
4. Reducing effectiveness (or sometimes even increasing it in special cases) of monstrous creatures as they take wounds.
5. The Warscroll (Data Slate in 40k?) system for disseminating unit rules.
6. The Psychic Phase. Simplify it a bit and add one-off power types to specific Warscrolls.
Just off the top of my head there are three very solid things they can take away from AOS.
Honestly, people who have crapped all over "AoS is just 4 pages of rules!? Stupid." Don't seem to understand that as the game has expanded the rules and strategies become incredibly deep and complex based on Warscroll specific units.
Again no. You are wrong. The fix for your Tau or Eldar would be as I said before. Lord of the Rings does this with no issues at all.
What did you say before? Who was talking about LotR? Again, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Even most AoS players don't like the floating initiative system.
Wrong. hahahah
In LOTR only 1/3rd of your army can have bows IIRC. He kinda left that key piece of info out there...
So long as it came with the lots more wounds of monstrous creatures that AOS has so that the things that kill them are the big heavy duty weapons rather than a lucky round of bolter fire
(I've lost a disturbing amount of monsters to a round of bolters..)
That's actually one of the things I find charming about AoS, nothing is safe, even your dragon can get dropped like a stone if sufficient force is applied. It makes the game feel dangerous as opposed to the shin kicking contest many 40k battles tend to become. With that said I think the game has more depth when you have target profiles and roles, eg devastators as monster hunters and Tac marines as an anti-infantry force. I think Strength and toughness reflect that pretty well, tac marines are three times more effective shooting at T4 as opposed to T6. Devastators will have high str weapons that inflict multiple wounds per hit, which will be completely wasted on single wound mid toughness targets like tac marines but will be very effective against vehicles and MCs with high toughness and multiple wounds.
Personally I love AoS but IMO there's nothing 40k can take from it.
I'm still annoyed my Death army got needed and they needed to oblivion one of the undeads iconic things (summoning)
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Personally I love AoS but IMO there's nothing 40k can take from it.
I'm still annoyed my Death army got needed and they needed to oblivion one of the undeads iconic things (summoning)
Probably because of the overreaction from the fact that 40k's Summoning is a bit out of control.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Rending I'd love to see back (as in, negatives to armour), but with the plethora of weapons in 40k, I think it'd quickly become very, very messy to keep track of what has what etc.
Wouldn't it be the same as keeping track of armor saves and AP values just like is done now?
Wayniac wrote: Rend I think would be really good, since there's also the way some things can ignore rend of certain amounts; so vehicles and monstrous creatures could, for instance, ignore Rend of up to -2 or something and be really nasty.
I remember WHFB did the same thing by giving really heavily armored characters saves better than 2+, but armor save rolls of 1 always failed. So a model with a 1+ armor save still needed a 2+, but was unaffected by a Rend of -1.
I guess just saying that the particular unit ignores Rend of up to -2 is more straightforward. The only reason for using the 1+ or 0+ saves method would be if they also adopted the AoS rule of cover improving a units armor save rather than providing its own separate armor save.
I looked and didn't see what you had written before. So I looked again just now and found your post, but it doesn't explain to me why the LotR floating initiative thing is good for 40K. I have not played LotR so you will have to explain to me what the rule is. My comment earlier was specifically regarding the AoS initiative which I loathe entirely.
r how about people who have played the game and love it? How are they wrong? You have tried it and didn't like it. Great. But why bash something that people do like?
About the shallow part, I find the 40K rules more shallow than Age of Sigmar rules. That doesn't make me any more wrong that what you says make you right
They aren't wrong to enjoy something. I just want people to stop pretending like AoS is a good gaming system. It's weak. You can add as many warscrolls to the thing as you want, but the core mechanics are too shallow to call it anything more than an entry level beer and pretzels game.
I already had to sit back and watch Fantasy die, I don't want it to happen again to 40k. Now admittedly, they are not the same thing. GW will not can it's cash cow. But honestly, I want a complex, interactive, fun game that requires more thought than throwing some uber cheese list together and exploiting game design flaws. I don't just want Hammer/anvil tactics, I want depth and nuance. Something I feel AoS lacks completely, and Fantasy had an abundance of.
I do not like 40K in it's current state, and if I'm honest I haven't ever been particularly happy with the mechanics for 40K. It's simultaneously an easy game to grasp the basics of, and at the same time a massive bloat of redundant and unnecessary rules. Can 40K take some things from AoS? Possibly. But 40K and AoS have far more in common than Fantasy ever did.
IMO40K needs to be completely scrapped and built from the ground up. The sheer scale and epicness of the game and background of 40K demands it's own separate system to be able to function properly. In it's infancy it borrowed a lot of it's core mechanics from fantasy, which worked for a while. But after a certain point it grew too big to be sustained by a system designed for block infantry napoleonic battlefield tactics. I do not think AoS is the foundation 40K should be built on, because I already see it as a flawed foundation. It should be separate completely.
About the initiative in Lord of the Rings it's You move, then I move, You shoot, then I shoot and then we all assault together.
So while you can still get a "double turn" for initiative you don't move and shoot all at once so this I believe would help against Tau and Eldar, you have a chance to move out of the way or at least try and eliminate the damage that a I move, I shoot I assault would do.
As long as we have the "I do everything you do everything" things will never change and you will always have this problem against Tau or Eldar or who ever the new go to army becomes.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Personally I love AoS but IMO there's nothing 40k can take from it.
I'm still annoyed my Death army got needed and they needed to oblivion one of the undeads iconic things (summoning)
Probably because of the overreaction from the fact that 40k's Summoning is a bit out of control.
Still no excuse
My undead army is practically unplayable under matched play as 95% of the god death stuff cane from tomb kings which funnily enough aren't available anymore
About the initiative in Lord of the Rings it's You move, then I move, You shoot, then I shoot and then we all assault together.
So while you can still get a "double turn" for initiative you don't move and shoot all at once so this I believe would help against Tau and Eldar, you have a chance to move out of the way or at least try and eliminate the damage that a I move, I shoot I assault would do.
As long as we have the "I do everything you do everything" things will never change and you will always have this problem against Tau or Eldar or who ever the new go to army becomes.
Ok, I understand.
Actually that's not a bad system from the sounds of it, I would need to try it in a 40k application, but it sounds more interactive between players, you don't have a lot of wait time between turns and you can quickly try to counter your opponents plays.
I would still prefer a definite order of player turn determined at the beginning of the game rather than per turn. And I would actually be quite interested to see how a unit activation method similar to Hordemachine might work in 40K as well.
But either way, the turn based system for 40K as is now needs to go. It simply does not work anymore.
In regards to the armor saves from fantasy with modifiers, the details listed were all correct, and the lowest armor value I've seen was a -2+ saving throw for a Saurus lord. Yes, that's a NEGATIVE 2 armor save. You had to be S8 or ignore armor to even begin to modify it.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Personally I love AoS but IMO there's nothing 40k can take from it.
I'm still annoyed my Death army got needed and they needed to oblivion one of the undeads iconic things (summoning)
Probably because of the overreaction from the fact that 40k's Summoning is a bit out of control.
Still no excuse
My undead army is practically unplayable under matched play as 95% of the god death stuff cane from tomb kings which funnily enough aren't available anymore
Let's set some things straight here because either you are purposely over-selling the ''nerf'' Death has or you are misinformed. The ''nerf'' death received is that models can no longer be summoned for free in ranked matches, but instead models are paid for then left in reserve then summoning allows them to''deep-strike'' onto the field. So Death don't get free models, guess what? Nobody else does either! In fact Death still gets may more free models than anybody else due to their standard mechanic raising models without counterplay.
95% of death stuff is unplayable? Are you joking? Flesh-eater courts are perfectly viable, nighthaunts are a nightmare and your ENTIRE FACTION HAS BRAVERY 10! In WHFB and currently in Ninth Age undead models are overpriced for their stat-lines because when balancing the rules they had to take into account they are unbreakable and can be raised, AoS undead don't have this overprice compared to similar stated models and therefore you're complaints are utterly unfounded. If you want free models, play any of the many scenarios that are not Competitive play.
**Edit** Also Tomb Kings are still playable, as they still have point costs. Just because they haven't been updated doesn't mean you can't play them. GW has said this SPECIFICALLY.
Brutus_Apex wrote: AoS is an abysmally bad system. Compete garbage through and through
The random initiative rule that it has is possibly the worst thing i've ever seen. Thats all we need is more fething randomness in this game.
Can you possibly fathom an army like Tau or Eldar getting two turns of shooting in a row? Think about that for a second.
Characters not being able to join units is incredibly stupid and immersion breaking.
The Magic system is so simple it requires no thought, attention or dice management. The might as well just remove it all together and make the spells automatically cast. Not that I'm defending the 40K psychic phase. That thing is fething terrible too. They need to revamp the whole thing.
The ONLY thing I might want to see is monstrous creatures getting worse as they take wounds. But again that requires more note taking which might slow the game down unnecessarily.
Hey, how about you adjust the power curve like AoS did? Huh? You know, beastmen having a decent chance at fighting high elves or doing a-ok without getting murder-raped with ease and the like?
Oh yeah, inmersion breaking despite a boatload of wargames doing that.
The magic system is 40k's system prior to 7th edition. No one complained at that.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Personally I love AoS but IMO there's nothing 40k can take from it.
I'm still annoyed my Death army got needed and they needed to oblivion one of the undeads iconic things (summoning)
Probably because of the overreaction from the fact that 40k's Summoning is a bit out of control.
Still no excuse
My undead army is practically unplayable under matched play as 95% of the god death stuff cane from tomb kings which funnily enough aren't available anymore
Let's set some things straight here because either you are purposely over-selling the ''nerf'' Death has or you are misinformed. The ''nerf'' death received is that models can no longer be summoned for free in ranked matches, but instead models are paid for then left in reserve then summoning allows them to''deep-strike'' onto the field. So Death don't get free models, guess what? Nobody else does either! In fact Death still gets may more free models than anybody else due to their standard mechanic raising models without counterplay.
95% of death stuff is unplayable? Are you joking? Flesh-eater courts are perfectly viable, nighthaunts are a nightmare and your ENTIRE FACTION HAS BRAVERY 10! In WHFB and currently in Ninth Age undead models are overpriced for their stat-lines because when balancing the rules they had to take into account they are unbreakable and can be raised, AoS undead don't have this overprice compared to similar stated models and therefore you're complaints are utterly unfounded. If you want free models, play any of the many scenarios that are not Competitive play.
**Edit** Also Tomb Kings are still playable, as they still have point costs. Just because they haven't been updated doesn't mean you can't play them. GW has said this SPECIFICALLY.
Also let's forget that tomb kings (obsidian dinasty) and Bretonnia (Volpone, three duchies and another shmuck) are still in the Lore. Let's not forget it before they bring it as flakk against the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strg Alt wrote: The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.
So you've got any actual argument or you're just here to spit rethoric?
I love AoS, and am waiting for 40k to get the same treatment in many ways. Here's what I want:
1. £15 rulebook to rival GHB (core rules for free).
2. Dataslates free and able to be used without a codex (like the Warscrolls).
3. Formations being given points and having to fit within restrictions (for example within the CAD).
4. Different caps on unit types depending on points levels.
5. Objective based scenarios for tournament style play and narrative scenarios for campaign play (no Maelstrom or Kill Points).
6. Streamlined rules, but not to the full extent of AoS.
Bottle wrote: I love AoS, and am waiting for 40k to get the same treatment in many ways. Here's what I want:
1. £15 rulebook to rival GHB (core rules for free).
2. Dataslates free and able to be used without a codex (like the Warscrolls).
3. Formations being given points and having to fit within restrictions (for example within the CAD).
4. Different caps on unit types depending on points levels.
5. Objective based scenarios for tournament style play and narrative scenarios for campaign play (no Maelstrom or Kill Points).
6. Streamlined rules, but not to the full extent of AoS.
Pretty much this, though the degree of stream-line would be a matter of much heated debate. I personally think we need to cut off plenty of fat, certainly not to the extent of AoS, but there's a few branches that need to be sawed off.
The cap unit limit would be neat and you could make "modifications" based on what kind of army you grabbed. Granted, nothing too hardcore (points need to be retooled, like for yesterday) but a choice for fluffy armies that didn't require formation spam. I mean, my black-orcs army can be played without formations, just don't bring anything outside Ironjaw models. Impose restrictions for the benefit. REAL restrictions, not: oh yeah, you must take xyz but don't worry, you can most likely find a way to snug-in what you like from other places too! Just one detachment and that's it. You want "allies"? Go grab from the "wider-faction" (though this one may need a rework, so the port can't be made clean cut respect AoS).
Brutus_Apex wrote:I would still prefer a definite order of player turn determined at the beginning of the game rather than per turn. And I would actually be quite interested to see how a unit activation method similar to Hordemachine might work in 40K as well.
Please correct me if I am wrong, when you say Hordemachine, do you mean Warmachine/Hordes from Privateer Press or another game? If it is the PP game Warmahordes, I thought they had the same system as 40K, your turn you move, shoot, assault then opponents turn. If not, sorry what game would it be then?
Hey, how about you adjust the power curve like AoS did? Huh? You know, beastmen having a decent chance at fighting high elves or doing a-ok without getting murder-raped with ease and the like?
Oh yeah, inmersion breaking despite a boatload of wargames doing that.
The magic system is 40k's system prior to 7th edition. No one complained at that.
I don't know what your first sentence is saying. Firstly, Beastmen the armybook was designed in 7th edition so didn't go through the same design shift as many of the 8th edition armybooks. Secondly I could if you want take on pretty much any army in 8th edition with another army. I'm not saying there weren't broken combos, but 8th edition was pretty solid across the board as far as balance goes. specific outliers being High Elves, Dark Elves and Warriors of Chaos with the right build. Coincidentally, all of those books came out near the end of the 8th edition cycle, right around the time they had already planned to eliminate Fantasy and introduce AoS.
Can you honestly say to me that there aren't broken combos in AoS, just like in any other game. Not to mention that AoS didn't even have a points system for the first year of it's existence, and you're somehow talking to me about balance issues when a game doesn't even have a method of balance written into it's core rules. As if I couldn't take an army of Chaos Lords and summon an entire army of Chaos Warriors onto the table every turn. That kind of power curve adjustment? is that what you are referring to?
It is completely immersion breaking for me. It doesn't matter that other games do it. I find it ridiculous. Why would my Lord not be leading his elite unit of warriors?
I complained about the psychic phase prior to 7th edition 40K. I think its half assed and tacked on. It requires almost no thought or management skills.
Please correct me if I am wrong, when you say Hordemachine, do you mean Warmachine/Hordes from Privateer Press or another game? If it is the PP game Warmahordes, I thought they had the same system as 40K, your turn you move, shoot, assault then opponents turn. If not, sorry what game would it be then?
Yea I meant Warmachine/Hordes. I meant unit activation, but where you only get to activate a single unit, go though their turn. And then the opponent gets to activate their unit. Back and forth like that. Similar to Bolt Action, but with activations. I'm not saying it would work, but I'd like to try it.
Hey, how about you adjust the power curve like AoS did? Huh? You know, beastmen having a decent chance at fighting high elves or doing a-ok without getting murder-raped with ease and the like?
Oh yeah, inmersion breaking despite a boatload of wargames doing that.
The magic system is 40k's system prior to 7th edition. No one complained at that.
I don't know what your first sentence is saying. Firstly, Beastmen the armybook was designed in 7th edition so didn't go through the same design shift as many of the 8th edition armybooks. Secondly I could if you want take on pretty much any army in 8th edition with another army. I'm not saying there weren't broken combos, but 8th edition was pretty solid across the board as far as balance goes. specific outliers being High Elves, Dark Elves and Warriors of Chaos with the right build. Coincidentally, all of those books came out near the end of the 8th edition cycle, right around the time they had already planned to eliminate Fantasy and introduce AoS.
Can you honestly say to me that there aren't broken combos in AoS, just like in any other game. Not to mention that AoS didn't even have a points system for the first year of it's existence, and you're somehow talking to me about balance issues when a game doesn't even have a method of balance written into it's core rules. As if I couldn't take an army of Chaos Lords and summon an entire army of Chaos Warriors onto the table every turn. That kind of power curve adjustment? is that what you are referring to?
It is completely immersion breaking for me. It doesn't matter that other games do it. I find it ridiculous. Why would my Lord not be leading his elite unit of warriors?
I complained about the psychic phase prior to 7th edition 40K. I think its half assed and tacked on. It requires almost no thought or management skills.
Only that I was speaking of AoS, but you know, nice job missing the thread of this whole conversation. And before you go on to make a half-assed defence:
You know perfectly what we are talking about, it's been patently clear: what if eldar/tau had two turns in a row!? what if ANY army had two turns in a row against orks!? If all it takes is two turns to break an army apart then things have gone badly in terms of balance. AoS even without points could play better than certain 40k match-ups, even with points. This is not taking into account combos, which exist in most games, not just the domains' of GW.
But hey, if you want to be intellectually dishonest be my guest.
Brutus, that's excatly my point: no one complained about it. You're one of the very few making this kind of argument, same as one of the few thinking 8th edition was "good". The psychic phase was dumbed down! Is something people barely said. Same goes for the units. YOU are not everyone and have no right to speak for everyone. There's plenty of skirmish wargames that don't allow for characters to join and I have to see a generalized complain of those fanbases. That breaking your inmersion is due 99% to your lack of imagination. Because honestly speaking what the hells is doing this chaos lord running around with a bunch of potential glory-stealers when he should have all the skulls/shags/plagues/rubik-cubes for himself.
For the same metric (they think it is), the people who "pretend" that AoS is not a bad game system could tell you the exact same thing.
Although strapped for time to play these days, I've not really seen Deathstars as we know them in AoS.
From my own experience, that's down to how your synergies are constructed, and then deconstructed by your opponent.
Now don't get me wrong here, there absolutely are horrible combos out there in AoS land - multiple buffs with the removal of Battleshock for instance.
But, the outright nastiest ones involve multiple characters being in range. Ok, that's nothing new. However in AoS, it's far harder to keep those lynchpin characters from a kicking, or perhaps more appropriately a liberal dousing of arrows/shot/magical bolts etc.
See, they can't actually hide in friendly units the way they can/could in 40k and previous iterations of Warhammer. The best you can do is block my LoS - there's no Look Out Sir or equivalent (barring special rules of course)
And that I've found prevents over reliance on 'one trick pony' lists - if your entire strategy revolves around that single impressive trick, losing an element of it can really break your strategy. And whilst characters can be well protected with their own stat line, I'm yet to find anything that's even approaching unkillable (see 6th Dark Elf lord with those magic items).
Then, couple that with the objectives. You can batter my army silly, leaving most or the majority of my force bleeding its last. But if you've neglected your objectives, it's for naught and the victory is mine.
Taking that objective dominated ethos, and ditching 'wiped out = auto loss' to 40k would go a long way to giving it a harder to abuse balance. And that makes games far more interesting if you ask me.
Example. The mission is perhaps to do with wrecking power generators, or disabling a communication network. If I achieve my objective, it shouldn't matter if I lose my entire force. Your generators are still destroyed. Your communications network remains offline.
By all means limit the nature of said victory and associated bragging rights/campaign/tournament points - but never take away the victory entirely.
And have a real variety of objectives - that helps prevent 'one size fits all' armies completely dominating the game. For some missions, remove the basic VPs, like First a Blood etc
Try to get the missions and objectives to the point that for every one your 'one focus' force will simply stroll through, there's at least two mission types you'll have sod all chance of winning. Encourage diverse armies, without preventing one focus armies. Represent the vagaries of war.
I find this discussion really funny; as the current version of Warhammer 40k IS the Age of Sigmar of 40k.
Warhammer 40k went through it's first streamlining in 3rd edition. The Core Mechanic cleanup dumped 80% of the rules. Remember turning charts for bikes? Hit locations on vehicles? A 54 card deck Psychic Phase or individual MODEL activation?
Nah, because Andy Chambers 'ruined' the game in 1999 and created the most successful miniature core rule set of all time (of course alienating lots of players that loved the complexities of 1st and 2nd Edition).
Warhammer: The Age of Sigmar learned from 3rd Edition 40k. Did it try something new by teaching the lesson that you don't need points to play? Sure. But, it was hardly a new move. It was just something that hadn't been done in 15 years. One could argue that 6th Edition Fantasy was the first 'Warhammer' streamlining as it dumped all the armybooks and cardboard from the games, but it was still Warhammer at its core.
Who cares what happens in 8th edition. It will never compare to what happened in 3rd.
Whatever 8th Edition looks like; don't imagine any of your current armies in it. If it is radically different, just imagine you models, not anything that they currently do.
3rd arguably threw baby out with the bath water though. The stripping away of needless complexity was absolutely welcome - I doubt many if any enjoyed keeping track of smoke, blind, plasma and vortex markers in a 2,000 point game.
But it also turned out quite bland, possibly due to the style of Codex they produced then.
AOS is really different than 40k in a way that makes the floating initiative much more manageable. Shooting is a much smaller factor so having to weather two rounds of it doesn't feel that bad. The real strength of it is getting to have double movement on your assault units. It forces everybody to act as though every unit has double its movement value. With shooting being what it is in 40k I don't think it would work.
I like deploying in AOS. Instead of one player places everything, and then the second player counter deployes each player takes turns placing a unit. It feels like there is a lot more room for both players to counter each other. Currently in 40k I almost always want to go second because counter deploying is so strong. Although I think I would prefer first player places one unit then they go in rounds placing two units at a time. There is more of a chance for first player to take part in the counter deployment, and it would go faster.
- I like the floating Initiative but agree that it wouldn't work for 40k. I'd be okay with players alternating the attacking order.
- Static to Hit Rolls, Wound rolls, and a Rend system.
- An overhaul of the psychic system is needed, but somewhere in between the AoS system would be better. (Rule of 1 hurts some lists)
- Static points for all of the models in a box, no cost upgrades and characters. Some things would obviously need to be adjusted, like Grav, but listbuilding is much easier in AOS.
- Faction reduction. Imperial, Chaos, Eldar, Xenos? This is very general but you get the idea. It would simplify the confusing and often abused allies rules.
-----
- The community. The 40k community has become quite toxic from what I've observed. Especially among the 'competetive' group. I've found the AoS community to be much more encouraging toward letting a player run what he wants as opposed to being told to avoid or run specific things because it is or isn't Competetive. I pass by 3 FLGS stores to play at a location where I never have to deal with ITC players unless they come in. They don't last long there after a few games because no one wants to play them.
Unit cards are great - annoying they did not actually make army card packs
The way they handleMonsters is also massively better than in Warhammer and avoids the travestry of 40k where the only good Vehcilce (Riptide, Babycarrier etc) is actually a monster
Simple to hit rolls with mods works well - esepcially since most combats in 40k are alresdy 4+ with some 3+ to hit
Akar wrote: A few things, some have been mentioned.
- I like the floating Initiative but agree that it wouldn't work for 40k. I'd be okay with players alternating the attacking order.
- Static to Hit Rolls, Wound rolls, and a Rend system.
- An overhaul of the psychic system is needed, but somewhere in between the AoS system would be better. (Rule of 1 hurts some lists)
- Static points for all of the models in a box, no cost upgrades and characters. Some things would obviously need to be adjusted, like Grav, but listbuilding is much easier in AOS.
- Faction reduction. Imperial, Chaos, Eldar, Xenos? This is very general but you get the idea. It would simplify the confusing and often abused allies rules.
-----
- The community. The 40k community has become quite toxic from what I've observed. Especially among the 'competetive' group. I've found the AoS community to be much more encouraging toward letting a player run what he wants as opposed to being told to avoid or run specific things because it is or isn't Competetive. I pass by 3 FLGS stores to play at a location where I never have to deal with ITC players unless they come in. They don't last long there after a few games because no one wants to play them.
Akar and I agree on most points here.
I won't touch 40k currently because the game has become too bloated.
I much prefer AoS's streamlined approach.
Only that I was speaking of AoS, but you know, nice job missing the thread of this whole conversation. And before you go on to make a half-assed defence:
You know perfectly what we are talking about, it's been patently clear: what if eldar/tau had two turns in a row!? what if ANY army had two turns in a row against orks!? If all it takes is two turns to break an army apart then things have gone badly in terms of balance. AoS even without points could play better than certain 40k match-ups, even with points. This is not taking into account combos, which exist in most games, not just the domains' of GW.
But hey, if you want to be intellectually dishonest be my guest.
Brutus, that's excatly my point: no one complained about it. You're one of the very few making this kind of argument, same as one of the few thinking 8th edition was "good". The psychic phase was dumbed down! Is something people barely said. Same goes for the units. YOU are not everyone and have no right to speak for everyone. There's plenty of skirmish wargames that don't allow for characters to join and I have to see a generalized complain of those fanbases. That breaking your inmersion is due 99% to your lack of imagination.
For the same metric (they think it is), the people who "pretend" that AoS is not a bad game system could tell you the exact same thing.
What half assed defence have I launched exactly? You are just posting the same stuff and saying that it's my lack of imagination that I can't make dumb rules work. You have nothing to defend. I have been actively saying why I don't like certain rules and why I think they should be better. You on the other hand have not given my a single example of why AoS style rules would be better for 40K.
I still have no idea why you just posted those warscroll links. What is that in reference to? I thought you were talking about their power level comparisons in 8th and then now in AoS.
No armies should have two turns in a row. Nobody. Of course 40K is broken, no one has ever denied that.
8th edition Fantasy was good, and 40K/AoS psychic phase is bad. I don't care that you or anyone else disagrees with me. That's my opinion, and I have never claimed to speak for anyone else.
I want my decisions in a game to matter more than my dice rolls. As for the current state of 40K/AoS. I cannot say that. I had that with Fantasy, and I resent the dumbing down of the game.
Please tell me why reducing the psychic phase to a single die roll is good for the game? Where is the skill? Where is the choice? Where is the dice management?
Please tell me why AoS floating initiative is good for the game? Why do you want an army to have two turns in a row?
Please tell me why having Heroes not being able to join units is beneficial for the game? Why is it more immersive for you? Why should that of all things be different? What is the point of changing this after 25 years?
Why on earth does everyone want such a simplified game? What ever happened to complexity and nuance being a desirable feature in a game. If I want to casually roll some dice I can just play Yahtzee.
I think, honestly, vehicles could greatly take benefit from an AoS-ified ruleset. Something along the lines of the steam tank's, both in survivability and offensive output.
Please tell me why reducing the psychic phase to a single die roll is good for the game? Where is the skill? Where is the choice? Where is the dice management?
40K psychic phase
the bordeom of a unbalanced phase where quite often one player can do sweet FA, just watch the other messing about with his dice managment
The unbalnced nature and tiresome nature of a phase when some abilities are just BS
Lots of skil in selecting an army with bucket loads of dice and then guess what dominating - wow such "Skill".
Why did we have to have the magic phase dumped into 40k - Please tell me why the previous system was not ok - cheese powers notwithstadning as there are a whole load of new ones.
Why is random psychic powers such an awesome partfo the game
AOS Magic - you have these spells, you roll adice to make them work - with or without synergy bonuese, your oppoent mayor may not stop them.
Only that I was speaking of AoS, but you know, nice job missing the thread of this whole conversation. And before you go on to make a half-assed defence:
You know perfectly what we are talking about, it's been patently clear: what if eldar/tau had two turns in a row!? what if ANY army had two turns in a row against orks!? If all it takes is two turns to break an army apart then things have gone badly in terms of balance. AoS even without points could play better than certain 40k match-ups, even with points. This is not taking into account combos, which exist in most games, not just the domains' of GW.
But hey, if you want to be intellectually dishonest be my guest.
Brutus, that's excatly my point: no one complained about it. You're one of the very few making this kind of argument, same as one of the few thinking 8th edition was "good". The psychic phase was dumbed down! Is something people barely said. Same goes for the units. YOU are not everyone and have no right to speak for everyone. There's plenty of skirmish wargames that don't allow for characters to join and I have to see a generalized complain of those fanbases. That breaking your inmersion is due 99% to your lack of imagination.
For the same metric (they think it is), the people who "pretend" that AoS is not a bad game system could tell you the exact same thing.
What half assed defence have I launched exactly? You are just posting the same stuff and saying that it's my lack of imagination that I can't make dumb rules work. You have nothing to defend. I have been actively saying why I don't like certain rules and why I think they should be better. You on the other hand have not given my a single example of why AoS style rules would be better for 40K.
I still have no idea why you just posted those warscroll links. What is that in reference to? I thought you were talking about their power level comparisons in 8th and then now in AoS.
No armies should have two turns in a row. Nobody. Of course 40K is broken, no one has ever denied that.
8th edition Fantasy was good, and 40K/AoS psychic phase is bad. I don't care that you or anyone else disagrees with me. That's my opinion, and I have never claimed to speak for anyone else.
I want my decisions in a game to matter more than my dice rolls. As for the current state of 40K/AoS. I cannot say that. I had that with Fantasy, and I resent the dumbing down of the game.
Please tell me why reducing the psychic phase to a single die roll is good for the game? Where is the skill? Where is the choice? Where is the dice management?
Please tell me why AoS floating initiative is good for the game? Why do you want an army to have two turns in a row?
Please tell me why having Heroes not being able to join units is beneficial for the game? Why is it more immersive for you? Why should that of all things be different? What is the point of changing this after 25 years?
Why on earth does everyone want such a simplified game? What ever happened to complexity and nuance being a desirable feature in a game. If I want to casually roll some dice I can just play Yahtzee.
Let's turn the tables for a second:
Please tell me how would the game improve with spending half an hour per game just deciding where I'll make a few rolls? Where's the skill when you are just going to choose the optimal spell for the situation and the skill will be that of your rolls? FU-CK dice management, this games are bloated enough as they are-
Please tell me why I should not want a cocky player be punished by thinking he'll have two turns and ends up by not having them and have his whole army in the open? Double turns aren't a sure-fire thing and they are actually a chastising mechanic too.
Please tell me why it is truly inmmersion breaking? Please tell how having unkillable units with a boatload of buffs is beneficial for the game?
And lastly an answer: You just don't get it. I could thoroughly explain it to you but you just won't get it, as sold on the pre-conceived concept as you're.
Just throwing this out there but I'm pretty sure in long past White Dwarf issues (at least 5th edition era, maybe before as well) there were formations printed in the issues for 40k that charged a flat fee + individual models. I remember the particular formations being large scale and/or pricey - the GK one with 3 'ravens and however many Dreadknights for I think 150pts + models comes to mind - and I just wanted to remind people these sorts of things existed once. Once.
There are many, many lessons from AoS, both on the what-to-do side and the what-not-to-do side. A few, in brief:
Positive things:
Command abilities. All too often HQ choices in 40k are just people with slightly bigger sticks to hit you with, AoS made your commanders contribute useful things to other units. Similarly getting command abilities or alternate systems (30k Cybertheurgy, for instance) lets non-psykers/factions with no psykers do a lot more that's presently denied them in 40k.
Dispelling/denial. Teclis camping in a corner turning off enemy magic isn't fun for anyone but Teclis ([/hyperbole]). Letting all Wizards meaningfully contribute to dispelling, but giving them a limited radius in which to do so forces more aggressive play and makes the whole game more interesting.
Clear/consistent faction definitions. Write down clearly in the text of the ability who it works on, when, and how. Don't make us dig through the rulebook to find out.
Negative things:
Decentralized rules. The point of keeping most of the rules in one core rulebook is to make sure everyone is playing the same game. The core rules give an indication what is possible, make the game predictable, give a consistent read on what effects interact with what how, etc.; AoS' four-page core project makes the whole game a black box unless you're willing to go read every rulebook for every army. Every single thing on the table is potentially loaded with effects you had no indication were possible that will kill you instantly because you weren't expecting them. It's frustrating, it makes the learning curve endless, and it makes every single thing you do feel like you're cheating because you're pulling rules out of your a** that your opponent has never heard of.
Melee-phase initiative. The simple alternating activation makes the alpha strike unbelievably powerful and makes entire games run on whose deathstar gets to attack first. The initiative-order setup is predictable, you can interact with it, and it required units to be designed to weather blows and strike later instead of building absolutely everything around the hope they'll get to hit first.
Strength/Toughness. I know I've ranted about this in the past, but it bears reiterating because it's such an important point. Making units' damage performance less dependent on their target undermines both gameplay and army building in favour of a back-of-the-envelope calculation that determines that there's zero point in taking 70-80% of the models in the game, because everything else does the exact same thing better in every way.
In summary: Keep the bones of the system. Rewrite the psychic phase. Trim the rules bloat out instead of shoveling it into the Codexes and proudly presenting a cleaned-up core rulebook. And don't throw pre-revision armies into the shredder and release content only for entirely-new armies. The game may yet survive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mraj__Undefined wrote: Just throwing this out there but I'm pretty sure in long past White Dwarf issues (at least 5th edition era, maybe before as well) there were formations printed in the issues for 40k that charged a flat fee + individual models. I remember the particular formations being large scale and/or pricey - the GK one with 3 'ravens and however many Dreadknights for I think 150pts + models comes to mind - and I just wanted to remind people these sorts of things existed once. Once.
You're thinking of formations printed for 4e Apocalypse. That was the standard back then.
If they PoS 40k like they did whfb my money will be going elsewere. Since aos hit the money I would of spent on whfb went into house stuff. Like my fence two cabanits tv stand and a couple bookshelves.
If they really do PoS 40k I think I will be done with 40k and their hand holding. Dumbing things down is not a good idea it kills things long term. Kids will jump on because it is easy but quit just as fast. Aos brought nothing good for long term growth, just dumbed it down to a halo game. Minimal thought do what you want and pew pew til your done.
I never seen anyone buy a theme army more then 2 models. Like the new woodies, people bought 2 boxes of hunters and old dryads done.
OgreChubbs wrote: If they PoS 40k like they did whfb my money will be going elsewere. Since aos hit the money I would of spent on whfb went into house stuff. Like my fence two cabanits tv stand and a couple bookshelves.
If they really do PoS 40k I think I will be done with 40k and their hand holding. Dumbing things down is not a good idea it kills things long term. Kids will jump on because it is easy but quit just as fast. Aos brought nothing good for long term growth, just dumbed it down to a halo game. Minimal thought do what you want and pew pew til your done.
I never seen anyone buy a theme army more then 2 models. Like the new woodies, people bought 2 boxes of hunters and old dryads done.
Circumstancial evidence at its finest. "Hey, I'd never play fantasy (though I did follow the rules and events)! But I started with AoS and money that would have gone on other things went for AoS!"
Both comments hold the same truth. Both are circumstancial evidence and are of no value. I've seen people buy a bunch of silvaneth, but I'm not going to say that's representative.
If that were used in 40k wouldn't we have to look in the books all the time? Think about all the different monsters in the Tyranid army, all the different battlesuits in the Tau army, all the different vehicles in the Astra Militarum....
For Vehicles, as it is now, we just have to remember some charts and that's it.
If that were used in 40k wouldn't we have to look in the books all the time? Think about all the different monsters in the Tyranid army, all the different battlesuits in the Tau army, all the different vehicles in the Astra Militarum....
For Vehicles, as it is now, we just have to remember some charts and that's it.
Treat battlesuits as 3-wound models and a 4+ save. Done.
Ghostkeels like dracothian guard and diminished damage output, screw the 2+ cover saves bs.
Riptides and stormsurges the only ones to use the bands-decrease.
Reduce the number of bands to two three in most cases.
It works for AoS because you're unlikely to field more than 2-3 types of behemoths, if at all.
Yes, screw costing formations! Pricing rules breaks the balance. Oh and don't get me started on getting units' rules for free. The gall!
And don't touch the wound counts. Or give everyone psychic hoods. Or scythe out every single Allied-related headache at a stroke by giving everyone a typeline and defining what types rules apply to. None of that would be positive at all.
AoS may be terrible, but it's terrible the same way most of GW's trip-ups are, where they had a pile of cool ideas and then utterly failed at testing them or ensuring they worked in the real world. You can usually see bits and peices of the cool ideas if you look for them.
comparing core rules, 40k is actually a pretty solid game. Certain rules need some tweaking, mainly the USR's. Outside of that there really is nothing wrong with the game. Issues come up when you start looking at all the different codecs. Not all the codecs are the same "power level." Personally, the most balanced games I have played have been at the 2500pt level. Looking at some of the new formations and Army lists, just furthers that belief.
For me, 40k should learn from AoS is what direction the rules should NOT go. Yes I understand that many players think the game is too complex, but many players also enjoy complexity, and some of us think the game could use more complexity to make it more realistic. There are already games out there that are more simplistic than 40k, and if this game is too hard, then go play them. But please stop trying to drag this game down too.
Far too many times, I've watched as a game I loved to play got dragged down to a simpler level to match other games. When this happens, it's always a death nail for the game that changed. Sure people will come to the game to try the new rules, but inevitably they will go back to the old game they were playing, as 40K just won't be as cool, and they don't want to start completley over. Meantime those of us who enjoyed complex games are left with fewer and fewer options.
Yes there are some rules that need to be changed, but that does not mean they need to be simplified. Yes there are balance issues, but that's not a problem with the core rules, that's a problem with codex's coming up and mucking things up by giving one army a way to circumvent the rules that other armies can't. Balance issues are going to always be there as some armies will get more attention than others, thus newer and more useful abilities. Balance issues will always be there, so long as GW does not decide unit point costs based on a set point chart instead of their current method of play testing a new unit and giving it a arbitrary point value.
In the end, the biggest problem many people have with the AoS change, is the fact that it completley invalidated all the current rulebooks. Both 40k and Fantasy went through many editions of new and changed rules without invalidating the existing codexs and Army Books. Yes I know it happened in the 2nd - 3rd edition change, I also remember none of the people I knew liking it, because so many armies were forced to be bland generic garbage until they lucked out and got a new army book, but even then they had a hard time finding someone to play them, because the other guy's Codex wasn't out yet.
The resistace to a new AoS type ruleset for 40k is a multi front issue and based on past examples of this happening, would most likely do far more harm than good for the game overall.
There are two types of complexity. Complexity that adds to the game and complexity that bloats it. 40K has a lot of the latter in recent releases.
-Wolfen give a random buff to the entire army just by being included,
-you need note book to keep track of a Greater Daemons wargear,
-the Warp Storm table, all these new SM exclusive disciplines and their antagonistic Chaos ones,
-a near unlimited amount of formations each with their own specific rules,
-overlapped special rules
40K is complex, but in all the wrong ways. If 40K wanted to be nuanced it would have ballistic modifiers instead of cover saves, it would have more limited movement options (some armies can be anywhere and everywhere whenever they want, leading to almost no tactical choices) and a psychic phase that amounts to more than ''throw all dice to stop that one power''. But it doesn't, instead it has random tables and 2+ cover saves that doesn't stack with armour and basically no moral penalties for 80% of the entire roster despite being a large chunk of the rules. Bloated.
Just an interesting note, in this month's WD batrep they have to use a fething cheat sheet pinned to the wall that was filled with crib notes for random abilities and effects the armies have so they did not forget.
If this is not indicative of an overly bloated system full of unnecessary rules I don't know what is.
Ruin wrote: Just an interesting note, in this month's WD batrep they have to use a fething cheat sheet pinned to the wall that was filled with crib notes for random abilities and effects the armies have so they did not forget.
If this is not indicative of an overly bloated system full of unnecessary rules I don't know what is.
Bad memory. Simple as that. I too have a cheatsheet for ANY wargame I have. It makes things faster.
I think there are tons of things to learn from AOS and 7th that GW should use when doing a "new edition".
Firstly they should have learned that despite what rules system they come up with we as a community will tweak it to make a game we enjoy playing. That is the reason why ITC, South coast and custom tourny rules are pretty much standard.
Simplification is definitely a goal to keep in mind, but it is not the cure all answer. AOS was very simplified and depending on what forces you take it make game predictable (Forces meet at the center of the board.. roll dice, kill kill kill over and over whoever has abilities that cause more mortal wounds wins.). It does however have some benefits. Doing away with tables is awesome, sliding abilities for monstrous creatures actually make it not game breaking to have a gigantic beasts in small battles. Special rules are what take this game from boring into something special, narrative play is where this thing shines.
To ignore the good and bad things about AOS and 7th would be folly. We can't just say... "don't do that" Seriously how many have even played 5+ games of AOS? There's a ton of things I hope they do that make the game refreshing and more balanced.
Though the kill kill kill part doesn't hold true at all in matched play. Sometimes (read: if yo don't do anything else) doing overwhelming killing force may cost you the game there, because you didn't go and play for the mission.
Strg Alt wrote: The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.
Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.
As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.
OgreChubbs wrote: Aos brought nothing good for long term growth, just dumbed it down to a halo game. Minimal thought do what you want and pew pew til your done.
Have you actually played a Halo game at all?
Though considering that Halo was a multi-million dollar seller which still is making games to this day, that would be pretty good for it's growth eh?
I keep seeing a few people are saying 40K is too complex and others are saying 40K is not complex. After reading the 40K is not complex, they could be correct. Maybe instead of saying 40K is too complex maybe we should say 40K is too convoluted.
Let 40K keep the complexity it has, but don't make 40K convoluted. Age of Sigmar now has lots of complexity, but it's not convoluted.
So now I will say 8th edition of 40K should have no convolution at all. Make it clear, concise and well written.
Davor wrote: I keep seeing a few people are saying 40K is too complex and others are saying 40K is not complex. After reading the 40K is not complex, they could be correct. Maybe instead of saying 40K is too complex maybe we should say 40K is too convoluted.
Let 40K keep the complexity it has, but don't make 40K convoluted. Age of Sigmar now has lots of complexity, but it's not convoluted.
So now I will say 8th edition of 40K should have no convolution at all. Make it clear, concise and well written.
Davor wrote: I keep seeing a few people are saying 40K is too complex and others are saying 40K is not complex. After reading the 40K is not complex, they could be correct. Maybe instead of saying 40K is too complex maybe we should say 40K is too convoluted.
Let 40K keep the complexity it has, but don't make 40K convoluted. Age of Sigmar now has lots of complexity, but it's not convoluted.
So now I will say 8th edition of 40K should have no convolution at all. Make it clear, concise and well written.
I hadn't thought about this distinction. Kudos to you, sir/madam.
Davor wrote: I keep seeing a few people are saying 40K is too complex and others are saying 40K is not complex. After reading the 40K is not complex, they could be correct. Maybe instead of saying 40K is too complex maybe we should say 40K is too convoluted.
Let 40K keep the complexity it has, but don't make 40K convoluted. Age of Sigmar now has lots of complexity, but it's not convoluted.
So now I will say 8th edition of 40K should have no convolution at all. Make it clear, concise and well written.
I'd pretty much agree with that too.
AoS doesn't have a great many rules, especially compared to 40k, but the way it all interacts makes the game far more challenging than first looks might suggest.
Please tell me why reducing the psychic phase to a single die roll is good for the game? Where is the skill? Where is the choice? Where is the dice management?
40K psychic phase
the bordeom of a unbalanced phase where quite often one player can do sweet FA, just watch the other messing about with his dice managment
The unbalnced nature and tiresome nature of a phase when some abilities are just BS
Lots of skil in selecting an army with bucket loads of dice and then guess what dominating - wow such "Skill".
Why did we have to have the magic phase dumped into 40k - Please tell me why the previous system was not ok - cheese powers notwithstadning as there are a whole load of new ones.
Why is random psychic powers such an awesome partfo the game
AOS Magic - you have these spells, you roll adice to make them work - with or without synergy bonuese, your oppoent mayor may not stop them.
Simpe and effective
Yea, the 40K psychic systems bad. Thats what I've been saying. It was a poor port over from Fantasy 7th edition. But not an exact port either, a bad one.
Random powers more or less was an attempt at balancing the powers out so that you wouldn't automatically take the best powers in the lore. I'm not necessarily for or against choosing powers, but the lore needs to have every power be equally useful to the player. Otherwise again, you'll just have people taking the same powers all the time.
Simple? yes. I would say tremendously boring.
My suggestion would be to port over an adjusted version of the 8th edition fantasy magic phase instead. Now before everyone looses their minds I'll explain.
The 3 main problems 8th edition magic phase:
1) 6th spell was incredibly powerful and could easily tip the game in your favour.
2) It didn't scale well at larger games.
3) Magic Resistance didn't work as intended.
The first problem solves it's self because we aren't using the same lores as Fantasy. 40K has it's own disciplines and they need to make sure the Psychic powers aren't game winningly powerful. I'm looking at you Invisibility.
Simply Adding an additional D6 for every 1000 points above a 3000 point game could solve this issue, but I'm open to suggestions.
Magic resistance isn't really a thing in 40K, unless you take into consideration Adamantium will. But I'll address this later.
So in the Psychic phase you would roll 2d6 and the player who's turn it is gains that many dice to cast psychic powers on to a maximum of 12 dice. The opponent gets the best of the 2 rolls. You need to choose how many dice you want to cast a psychic power on to a maximum of 6 dice. Casting levels of Psychic powers are increased to 6+ for basic spells and lets say 18 or 22+ for really high ones. You roll the dice add them up and then add your psychic mastery level. If it equals or beats the casting level of the psychic power then it goes off. If not, then it doesn't. The opponent can then attempt to stop the casting with their own dice using the same method adding in psychic mastery levels or adamantium will if applicable. If you roll double 1's then you suffer perils of the warp.
The benefit of this system are that you have a maximum number of warp charges to cast with. This eliminates armies that have 24+ dice so you don't just sit there for half an hour while your opponent rolls every power they have. It also forces the player to decide which spells to cast because they have a finite amount of dice to cast with. You can't just spam constantly. It also adds a level of complexity to the game by promoting spell and dice management while eliminating spamming of spells and spamming of units that generate power dice.
Many armies in 40K also have no access to psychic powers. This benefits them because it shrinks the casting pool down, and buffs the dispel pool up on average. Making it so armies without psykers have more of a chance to stop game winning spells without relying completely on rolling a bunch of 6's.
Let's turn the tables for a second:
Please tell me how would the game improve with spending half an hour per game just deciding where I'll make a few rolls? Where's the skill when you are just going to choose the optimal spell for the situation and the skill will be that of your rolls? FU-CK dice management, this games are bloated enough as they are-
Please tell me why I should not want a cocky player be punished by thinking he'll have two turns and ends up by not having them and have his whole army in the open? Double turns aren't a sure-fire thing and they are actually a chastising mechanic too.
Please tell me why it is truly immersion breaking? Please tell how having unkillable units with a boatload of buffs is beneficial for the game?
Don't you just come automatically with spells in AoS? How is that not choosing the right spells for your army? Additionally, why would I not cast a spell that was beneficial to me at the time? Isn't that how you play a game, by doing something that is beneficial to you? Not to mention that you already roll psychic powers randomly which doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a spell that you want.
Adding a level of tactical and strategic decision making to game isn't the same as rules bloat. Just so you know.
Oh I see, so you don't actually want any tactical thought in your game because you want to "punish" people who like to play a more serious style wargame. This is somehow more important to you than seeing two turns of 7 riptides shooting at the opponent, or 6 units of fully equipped scatterbikes rip into a enemy's line from 36" away.
I think this sentence more than anything is telling of your mindset. You aren't actually interested in having a strong tactical game at all, you just like seeing people who enjoy a strong wargames fall flat due to bad rules and unnecessary layers of randomness.
And lastly an answer: You just don't get it. I could thoroughly explain it to you but you just won't get it, as sold on the pre-conceived concept as you're.
I think I do get it. You can't thoroughly explain anything because there's nothing there to explain.
Marmatag wrote: I actually like the current implementation of the psychic phase.
While the selection method of powers is questionable, I would say it's analogous to drawing cards from a deck, which I'm fine with.
Thing is, when some people will have the Ace, King, Queen and Jack taken out of the deck it's not really fair then is it? It's only fine drawing cards from a deck when everyone has an equal chance at those 52 cards. When say 2/3 or 3/4 of the deck is taken away from you, but the other person gets a full deck something is terribly long
To address the OPs question, 40k can learn NOTHING from AOS.
Players like me win games based our our superior understanding of the rules and ability to articulate interpretations others feel too intimidated to challenge. We wear opponents out based on our ability to endure 6 to 8 hour gaming sessions using an 800 point army, instead of relying on the random fortune of dice and imbalanced rulesets.
Simplifying the rules would spoil my enjoyment of the game, which is the player-to-player interaction over speculative claims about mechanics. I would hate a situation where, instead of making up rules in a serious voice and having people just accept what I say, a short sheet could be referenced that easily and efficiently clears up the matter. Might as well just play cribbage if we all know enough to agree on things without needing to read 10 pages from 5 books.
AOSifying the rules could also reduce the time of games, which would be irritating. I like it when my opponents bow out before turn 4 because sunrise has come and they need to get to work. 40k players should be mental marathon runners and arguing over rules is just as important as any other meta in the game, such as list selection, dice rolling, moving, shooting or assaulting. It takes time to have a good argument, and cutting into that leaves a lot of players wondering what to do with their lives when they are not at the table.
The one thing I think 40k could take from AOS is a renaming of all the factions. Some extra vowels and a misplaced consonant would be very helpful in making the various races sound all grimdark and futuristic. I am betting GW could increase sales in Germany just by introducing some umlauts.
Oh, and if they could also switch the fluff so that the entire universe has ended and the Emperor is leading armies as part of some kind of Ragnarok existence completely disconnected from reality as we know it, I would be all for that. If they can use this as an excuse to phase out all old models and sell me a bunch of monopose models with exaggerated proportions, that would be grand.
techsoldaten wrote: To address the OPs question, 40k can learn NOTHING from AOS.
Players like me win games based our our superior understanding of the rules and ability to articulate interpretations others feel too intimidated to challenge. We wear opponents out based on our ability to endure 6 to 8 hour gaming sessions using an 800 point army, instead of relying on the random fortune of dice and imbalanced rulesets.
Simplifying the rules would spoil my enjoyment of the game, which is the player-to-player interaction over speculative claims about mechanics. I would hate a situation where, instead of making up rules in a serious voice and having people just accept what I say, a short sheet could be referenced that easily and efficiently clears up the matter. Might as well just play cribbage if we all know enough to agree on things without needing to read 10 pages from 5 books.
AOSifying the rules could also reduce the time of games, which would be irritating. I like it when my opponents bow out before turn 4 because sunrise has come and they need to get to work. 40k players should be mental marathon runners and arguing over rules is just as important as any other meta in the game, such as list selection, dice rolling, moving, shooting or assaulting. It takes time to have a good argument, and cutting into that leaves a lot of players wondering what to do with their lives when they are not at the table.
The one thing I think 40k could take from AOS is a renaming of all the factions. Some extra vowels and a misplaced consonant would be very helpful in making the various races sound all grimdark and futuristic. I am betting GW could increase sales in Germany just by introducing some umlauts.
Oh, and if they could also switch the fluff so that the entire universe has ended and the Emperor is leading armies as part of some kind of Ragnarok existence completely disconnected from reality as we know it, I would be all for that. If they can use this as an excuse to phase out all old models and sell me a bunch of monopose models with exaggerated proportions, that would be grand.
Regarding your last statement. a) It's called 30k's great crusade. b) Isn't Fantasy completely disconnected from reality as we know it? You know, last time I checked in the news, there wasn't a giant bumhole torn into the fabric of reality that leads into hell on each pole of the world. It also does have other bizarre things such as a moon made entirely out of drugs and a weird ass vortex of magic in the middle of an island. c) I think it's better proportioned that the no-knees dwarves, plus there's plenty of models, such as gore-gruntas, varanguard, and the kurnoth hunters, that aren't monopose. Something that the old fantasy ailed even more from, considereing that most of your army would be dudes holding a spear and whield in an awkward position.
I know it's sarcasm but that last line had me puzzled a bit.
techsoldaten wrote: To address the OPs question, 40k can learn NOTHING from AOS.
Players like me win games based our our superior understanding of the rules and ability to articulate interpretations others feel too intimidated to challenge. We wear opponents out based on our ability to endure 6 to 8 hour gaming sessions using an 800 point army, instead of relying on the random fortune of dice and imbalanced rulesets.
Simplifying the rules would spoil my enjoyment of the game, which is the player-to-player interaction over speculative claims about mechanics. I would hate a situation where, instead of making up rules in a serious voice and having people just accept what I say, a short sheet could be referenced that easily and efficiently clears up the matter. Might as well just play cribbage if we all know enough to agree on things without needing to read 10 pages from 5 books.
AOSifying the rules could also reduce the time of games, which would be irritating. I like it when my opponents bow out before turn 4 because sunrise has come and they need to get to work. 40k players should be mental marathon runners and arguing over rules is just as important as any other meta in the game, such as list selection, dice rolling, moving, shooting or assaulting. It takes time to have a good argument, and cutting into that leaves a lot of players wondering what to do with their lives when they are not at the table.
The one thing I think 40k could take from AOS is a renaming of all the factions. Some extra vowels and a misplaced consonant would be very helpful in making the various races sound all grimdark and futuristic. I am betting GW could increase sales in Germany just by introducing some umlauts.
Oh, and if they could also switch the fluff so that the entire universe has ended and the Emperor is leading armies as part of some kind of Ragnarok existence completely disconnected from reality as we know it, I would be all for that. If they can use this as an excuse to phase out all old models and sell me a bunch of monopose models with exaggerated proportions, that would be grand.
Regarding your last statement. a) It's called 30k's great crusade. b) Isn't Fantasy completely disconnected from reality as we know it? You know, last time I checked in the news, there wasn't a giant bumhole torn into the fabric of reality that leads into hell on each pole of the world. It also does have other bizarre things such as a moon made entirely out of drugs and a weird ass vortex of magic in the middle of an island. c) I think it's better proportioned that the no-knees dwarves, plus there's plenty of models, such as gore-gruntas, varanguard, and the kurnoth hunters, that aren't monopose. Something that the old fantasy ailed even more from, considereing that most of your army would be dudes holding a spear and whield in an awkward position.
@Lord Kragan yes, that was my point. I do not enjoy feeling like I identify with the subject of a game in any way and truly wish 40k were more abstract - like Go or Chess. Blowing up the Universe AOS-style might be a good way to make things seem even less familiar. The AOS setting opens the door to the imagination and encourages people to ask questions, like wondering why a world's worth of dead people are going around smacking each other with sticks in the afterlife. That kind of setting would go over well with 40k players and probably bring a lot of new people into the game.
With regards to your point about space bumholes and whatnot, true story: I belong to a skeptics society, we had a speaker out a couple years ago who is an astrophysicist. He gave a presentation about the math used to measure the total size and weight of the cosmos. He did describe several celestial bodies / phenomenon as orifices in reality - so it's not that far fetched!
I agree with your point that dwarves are perfectly proportioned and was unaware that there were so many options in the AOS range for dynamically posing models. I was just hoping GW could invalidate the current range and come up with something new for us to purchase. So many 40k players I know can't stand their collections and would really like to see a complete overhaul plus rules preventing them from using the old ones. It would also be great if every model were bulked out to heroic proportions, I like the aesthetic of of Ahmed-Hamouda-style Astartes and think everyone else would too.
Pr3Mu5 wrote: The Floating Initiative format would ruin 40k in my opinion.
Can you imagine 2 back to back turns of Tau shooting?
Or even anyone good/average in the shooting phase vs chaos demons or orks?
Solution: Nerf Tau and other extremely shooty armies that need it.
Honestly, I wish GW would release equivalents of FAQ's that nerfed/buffed armies that really need it for being consistently broken/weak. (Tau/Eldar/Orks)
There are a bunch of people that do not play AoS commenting in a AoS to 40k thread, fun times.
IMO what should be used for 40k:
Assault rules are much faster/easier/fun in AoS then 40k.
Movement stats for each unit instead of unit type movement.
Rending instead of AP, much better.
Pretty much removing invulns and a wound bump everywhere.
Datasheets that tell you how the unit plays instead of TABLES EVERYWHERE.
Drastic reduction in universal special rules, datasheet tells you what the unit does.
More missions that actually are fun/balanced.
What should not be brought over:
Initiative as it stands is not done well in AoS. (This could easily be adjusted/fixed.)
Shooting in CC with EVERY weapon is really dumb, some weapons are ok (pistols for example.) Many people abuse this thinking they can just shoot at everything despite not having LoS out of the combat.
-Stat/attack reduction of MCs as they take wounds. Yeah, I play big Daemons, but this would definitely take Riptides/Wraithknights down a notch, and make them a bit closer to what vehicles are now.
-Being able to roll Charge distance before declaring a target. Yeah, it's still a random Charge distance, but it's something
-Streamlined rules, bumps in wounds, simpler saves, Rending rules
What I don't want brought over:
-Random Initiative. I've seen several games where an army gets back to back turns and just stomps all over the enemy
-Shooting into CC. Tau/Eldar would just slaughter people with this.
sfshilo wrote: Assault rules are much faster/easier/fun in AoS then 40k.
Movement stats for each unit instead of unit type movement.
Rending instead of AP, much better.
Pretty much removing invulns and a wound bump everywhere.
Datasheets that tell you how the unit plays instead of TABLES EVERYWHERE.
Drastic reduction in universal special rules, datasheet tells you what the unit does.
More missions that actually are fun/balanced.
What should not be brought over:
Initiative as it stands is not done well in AoS. (This could easily be adjusted/fixed.)
Shooting in CC with EVERY weapon is really dumb, some weapons are ok (pistols for example.) Many people abuse this thinking they can just shoot at everything despite not having LoS out of the combat.
This list sounds fair. The missions bit is kind of subjective but would be nice.
How does init work in AOS? It's gotten mentioned a few times in this thread but hasn't been explained very clearly.
sfshilo wrote: Assault rules are much faster/easier/fun in AoS then 40k.
Movement stats for each unit instead of unit type movement.
Rending instead of AP, much better.
Pretty much removing invulns and a wound bump everywhere.
Datasheets that tell you how the unit plays instead of TABLES EVERYWHERE.
Drastic reduction in universal special rules, datasheet tells you what the unit does.
More missions that actually are fun/balanced.
What should not be brought over:
Initiative as it stands is not done well in AoS. (This could easily be adjusted/fixed.)
Shooting in CC with EVERY weapon is really dumb, some weapons are ok (pistols for example.) Many people abuse this thinking they can just shoot at everything despite not having LoS out of the combat.
This list sounds fair. The missions bit is kind of subjective but would be nice.
How does init work in AOS? It's gotten mentioned a few times in this thread but hasn't been explained very clearly.
Initiative works this way:
First you roll a die, whomever wins begins deployment. He gets to deploy ONE unit. Then the opponent gets to deploy another. This keeps on until a player finishes deploying. Whomever ends first (ties are resolved with a die) gets to decide who goes first.
After that, and at the end of every turn, you roll a die each. Whomever wins gets to go first. Yes, this means some armies can get two turns on a row... or not, get cocky and overexpose their positions and get shagged hard by the enemy. If you have the advantage it's a great additional edge, but it can also turn the tide of a desperate situation.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Personally I love AoS but IMO there's nothing 40k can take from it.
I'm still annoyed my Death army got needed and they needed to oblivion one of the undeads iconic things (summoning)
Probably because of the overreaction from the fact that 40k's Summoning is a bit out of control.
Still no excuse
My undead army is practically unplayable under matched play as 95% of the god death stuff cane from tomb kings which funnily enough aren't available anymore
Let's set some things straight here because either you are purposely over-selling the ''nerf'' Death has or you are misinformed. The ''nerf'' death received is that models can no longer be summoned for free in ranked matches, but instead models are paid for then left in reserve then summoning allows them to''deep-strike'' onto the field. So Death don't get free models, guess what? Nobody else does either! In fact Death still gets may more free models than anybody else due to their standard mechanic raising models without counterplay.
95% of death stuff is unplayable? Are you joking? Flesh-eater courts are perfectly viable, nighthaunts are a nightmare and your ENTIRE FACTION HAS BRAVERY 10! In WHFB and currently in Ninth Age undead models are overpriced for their stat-lines because when balancing the rules they had to take into account they are unbreakable and can be raised, AoS undead don't have this overprice compared to similar stated models and therefore you're complaints are utterly unfounded. If you want free models, play any of the many scenarios that are not Competitive play.
**Edit** Also Tomb Kings are still playable, as they still have point costs. Just because they haven't been updated doesn't mean you can't play them. GW has said this SPECIFICALLY.
Uh what
I never said you can't play a tomb kings army but its not very good unless you spam serpant knights Serra archers khailida and necro sphines backed up by screaming skull catapults and funnily enough gw doesn't sell those models anymore. Plus yay 1 decent death faction what good is that for me someone who plays a skeleton heavy army and who has no interest in non undead death models with the exception of necromancers and liche priests.
Something the Death conversation did bring up though is how 40K will handle bravery. In 40K psychology rules are almost useless, most forces ignore them wholesale and the others it only effects once in a blue moon. So I'd like to see a better morale system implemented, however having 4/5 of the forces being bravery 10 would be boring. Similarly it wouldn't do to see Terminators running away if a few models die. I'd be interested to see how 40K handles bravery.
Skymate wrote: My two cents?
How not to ruin a franchise by turning it into a piece of nonsense about Sigmarines
You wish they were about half as interesting as stormcasts. Then again, what can we expect of someone who clearly seems to lack knowledge of the lore and the whole gist.
All these complaints about the initiative! You cannot evaluate based on the current rules and what units can do etc as everything would change... It would be a much different game.
I love hate the initiative in AOS but if you're a decent player it causes you to play around it and adds dimension to the game. Also picks up the pace. Games of 40K take way to long and players get tired.
AOS stuff I hope makes it over:
3 ways to play / GH initiative
command ablities
magic phase ( please god no psychic phase like we have now )
Monster table
points for formations and restrictions on LOW
increase in points all around to deflate the game
Rules for IC multiple wounds and rending system
warscroll system
Horrible AOS stuff:
shooting
terrain rules
screening / LOS
The biggest thing 40k can learn from A,O,S is this.
GW plc do not care about game play or quality rules writing.
Only the short term sales of over priced bits of plastic.
Explanation..
The core rules for WHFB were fine.Sales department wanted to push higher volumes of models and more 'special ' models with 'special rules'.
This simply made the WHFB game harder to get into in terms of 'cost and complication ' barriers to entry.
GW plc s WHFB lost lots of gamers to other 'fantasy battle ' rules sets that were provably simply better in terms of rules complication to game play complexity, and general levels of initial investment.(Armies of Arcana, Kings of War etc.)
WHFB really suffered in terms of sales because 'general fantasy tropes' were made by loads of manufacturers.And so the 'price inelastic' customers simply bought better value for money product from other companies.
GW plc learned the lesson do not use generic names for their product.(Its hard to explain why your product costs up to 5 times as much!If you use 'trademark names that no one recognizes instantly you have a much better time of it.)
The lesson GW plc should have learned is good rules add value to your entire product range.
Poor rules simply detract from the perceived quality and value of your product range.
Lanrak wrote: The biggest thing 40k can learn from A,O,S is this.
GW plc do not care about game play or quality rules writing.
Only the short term sales of over priced bits of plastic.
Explanation..
The core rules for WHFB were fine.Sales department wanted to push higher volumes of models and more 'special ' models with 'special rules'.
This simply made the WHFB game harder to get into in terms of 'cost and complication ' barriers to entry.
GW plc s WHFB lost lots of gamers to other 'fantasy battle ' rules sets that were provably simply better in terms of rules complication to game play complexity, and general levels of initial investment.(Armies of Arcana, Kings of War etc.)
WHFB really suffered in terms of sales because 'general fantasy tropes' were made by loads of manufacturers.And so the 'price inelastic' customers simply bought better value for money product from other companies.
GW plc learned the lesson do not use generic names for their product.(Its hard to explain why your product costs up to 5 times as much!If you use 'trademark names that no one recognizes instantly you have a much better time of it.)
The lesson GW plc should have learned is good rules add value to your entire product range.
Poor rules simply detract from the perceived quality and value of your product range.
That 4 pages of rules can be just as good as, or better then, 208 pages.
Exalted. Funny what clear concise well written rules can do eh? Also it doesn't just have to be 4 pages but could be 10, or 20 and definitely not 208.
I believe I said it before. Have all the "basic" rules in a few pages, and then all the rules of what units do on cards/dataslates. There is lots of depth in Age of Sigmar and like Tamwulf has said you don't need 208 pages to achieve this.
sfshilo wrote: Assault rules are much faster/easier/fun in AoS then 40k.
Movement stats for each unit instead of unit type movement.
Rending instead of AP, much better.
Pretty much removing invulns and a wound bump everywhere.
Datasheets that tell you how the unit plays instead of TABLES EVERYWHERE.
Drastic reduction in universal special rules, datasheet tells you what the unit does.
More missions that actually are fun/balanced.
What should not be brought over:
Initiative as it stands is not done well in AoS. (This could easily be adjusted/fixed.)
Shooting in CC with EVERY weapon is really dumb, some weapons are ok (pistols for example.) Many people abuse this thinking they can just shoot at everything despite not having LoS out of the combat.
This list sounds fair. The missions bit is kind of subjective but would be nice.
How does init work in AOS? It's gotten mentioned a few times in this thread but hasn't been explained very clearly.
Initiative works this way:
First you roll a die, whomever wins begins deployment. He gets to deploy ONE unit. Then the opponent gets to deploy another. This keeps on until a player finishes deploying. Whomever ends first (ties are resolved with a die) gets to decide who goes first.
After that, and at the end of every turn, you roll a die each. Whomever wins gets to go first. Yes, this means some armies can get two turns on a row... or not, get cocky and overexpose their positions and get shagged hard by the enemy. If you have the advantage it's a great additional edge, but it can also turn the tide of a desperate situation.
Combat however is quite different from 40k.
No unit or model has an Initiative stat. None at all.
Instead, combat is IGOUGO, starting with whomever has the Initiative that turn. They pick one unit to fight with, and resolve all of its attacks. Like all other GW games, you can split your attacks as you please.
Once that's done, your opponent picks one of their units, and has at you. They are not limited to the unit that just took a beating....nor does it have to be a unit in base to base contact. See, all close combat weapons have a range, from 1" to 3". So long as your target is in range, you can have a swing,
Rinse and repeat until all units have had their ruck. Then comes the real killer - Battleshock.
I effing love Battleshock. It's akin to a Leadership test, but all units that have suffered casualties take it. You simply roll a D6, and add the number of casualties (not wounds!) the unit has taken that combat phase. That result is then compared to the unit's Bravery. For every point it exceeds the unit's Bravery, you lose a further model.
And as I said, every unit that suffered combat casualties is subject to Battleshock. Nobody actually wins a combat in the traditional sense.
It can be an absolute killer!
However, I don't think those combat rules could be adapted to 40k - it's just too different. Fun, but too different.
And again, you are just here to argue because you have no good points. You just like AoS and want 40K to go the same way when there are many examples of why those rules won't work.
End of the day, whether you enjoy AoS is moot. GW have reported to their shareholders it's not only selling better than Warhammer did, but doing so beyond expectation.
I enjoy it, you don't, and there's no mileage in trying to convince the other and so on.
To refer back to my earlier post - if you feel AoS has nothing to 'teach' 40k - that's cool.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: End of the day, whether you enjoy AoS is moot. GW have reported to their shareholders it's not only selling better than Warhammer did, but doing so beyond expectation.
Is this by word of mouth or in print where we can see this?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: End of the day, whether you enjoy AoS is moot. GW have reported to their shareholders it's not only selling better than Warhammer did, but doing so beyond expectation.
Is this by word of mouth or in print where we can see this?
If I recall correctly they said so in their financial report of November-June for 2016. Then again, 40k barely got any release... so go figure on how well it went for them to not have anything new from the golden goose.
And again, you are just here to argue because you have no good points. You just like AoS and want 40K to go the same way when there are many examples of why those rules won't work.
LOLF! Strawman much? I've said that 40k could learn a few things. Not that SHOULD be so and certainly not that it should be the SAME. How about you, a guy who,for a solid part of the conversation, has resorted to begging the question and making ad-hominems?
I effing love Battleshock. It's akin to a Leadership test, but all units that have suffered casualties take it. You simply roll a D6, and add the number of casualties (not wounds!) the unit has taken that combat phase. That result is then compared to the unit's Bravery. For every point it exceeds the unit's Bravery, you lose a further model.
And unlike 40k there are ways of mitigating it, but not everyone is high LD/special rules that ignore it all over.
The closest that comes to a rule for such is Grand Alliance Death which features battleshock 10 units, but they tend to be weaker then most. The usual battleshock blockages tend to come from command traits or specialized units.
As someone who plays both AoS and 40k I would say there are certain things that can be ported over. Many of which has been covered by some who has clearly plays both games as well.
Let's take the things that shouldn't be port over (IMO anyways)
- terrain rules. (Its too complicated to keep track, and what if you play kill team?)
- shooting in close combat (As much as I would love it playing as a tau player, I think it doesn't make sense.)
- Allegiance (I don't want all order armies to come together, because it makes the world less dreadful. And its weird to see dark eldar allying themselves with space marines no matter what)
What should be ported over
- free rules for individual models. They have them somewhat already in the box they come with but having it on an app would be nice also (Battlescribe already has their rules too so why not?)
- cleaner rule set. The rules are getting too convulated so having nice clean rules are good.
- Command Ability. Apart from command traits, different commander could give extra rules to make them stand out.
- Battleshock. Its amazingly done.
- 3 ways to play. No one plays the cinematic missions in 40k, but for AoS its very much welcomed. This brings more fun to the group actually because pickup games could use matched play, while friends can do open play, and campaigns can do narrative play with
- damage system to monstrous creatures and vehicles (I play tau and I think this is a really good and cinematic way to make it more fun for everyone.)
- damage output. Like someone said, it makes no sense for a carnifex to charge into combat to kill 2-3 guardsmen, or not even at times. Imagine jurassic world when that super dinosaur flail around, and none of the security team died. What a boring movie it would be. And 40k and AoS are one of the few tabletop games that are more cinematic in experience IMO. I have played warmahordes, infinity, malifaux and flames of war, but none gave me the visual excitement that these 2 games gave me and this would help make it more interesting too.
What could be but needs alot of play testing
- Initiative (For Aos this works super well, but for 40k it seems hard because of how devastating shooting is. IGOUGO like malifaux or LOTR could be fun too.
- Individual warscrolls (As much as I love how every unit is different, I think it might be a little too much for 40k. I do like individual movement and rules though. It makes the unit more unique)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: End of the day, whether you enjoy AoS is moot. GW have reported to their shareholders it's not only selling better than Warhammer did, but doing so beyond expectation.
Is this by word of mouth or in print where we can see this?
If I recall correctly they said so in their financial report of November-June for 2016. Then again, 40k barely got any release... so go figure on how well it went for them to not have anything new from the golden goose.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: End of the day, whether you enjoy AoS is moot. GW have reported to their shareholders it's not only selling better than Warhammer did, but doing so beyond expectation.
Is this by word of mouth or in print where we can see this?
If I recall correctly they said so in their financial report of November-June for 2016. Then again, 40k barely got any release... so go figure on how well it went for them to not have anything new from the golden goose.
Thank you nice to know.
Which without hard numbers as a statement it is meaningless. AoS could be selling just one more copy than WHFB was and it would still be factually correct.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 30% of sales is what was allegedly bandied about at a manager's meeting.
I can't corroborate that myself, but multiple sources reported the same info.
I think, though, it was due in good part because 40k hadn't got any big release, which is something that drives hight the sales. Not going to say it drowned into the ground, but it certainly wasn't the peak of the game. Still better than fantasy, mind you, they outright stated in that report that AoS did better than fantasy in its last years (including end times).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: End of the day, whether you enjoy AoS is moot. GW have reported to their shareholders it's not only selling better than Warhammer did, but doing so beyond expectation.
Is this by word of mouth or in print where we can see this?
If I recall correctly they said so in their financial report of November-June for 2016. Then again, 40k barely got any release... so go figure on how well it went for them to not have anything new from the golden goose.
Thank you nice to know.
Which without hard numbers as a statement it is meaningless. AoS could be selling just one more copy than WHFB was and it would still be factually correct.
Only that companies don't go by that metric. They go by percentages and they generally go by significant percentages (so not 0.1 or even 1 percent). For a company that sells perhaps thousands of boxes, 1000 and 1001 will be more or less the same, you need to crank it up to 1100 or 1200 at least.
I should have learned that the library of codices and supplements will be useless after the end of days. (and not bought any.)
Totally off-topic. I knwo this may be a joke but we are talking about rules that could benefit 40k if they were being ported from AoS.
Also, it's not such a thing, you have the lore there.
How about getting rid of templates and scatter dice? Every 40k club evening I see and hear and participate in futile discussions over how many models are underneath, discussing what the "exact angle" of the arrow on the scatter dice is, moving it 0,5" less far or further.
No I prefer something like the Celestial Prime's ability to shoot and then hit every model within d6 inch.
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
What I really appreciate about AoS is that a decision was made regarding what kind of game it would be and it was made accordingly. It's not like 40k now that tries to be a fun narrative game, a competition game, a "high resolution" squad game and a game with monsters and giant mech's simultaneously. Which makes is struggle with all of those.
Rend Values, Multiple Damage instead of instant death (make ew half it? Or, since multiple damage, bolster wounds?), Monstrous Creature/Vehicle degradation.
That's the spirit, calling people who have criticisms of the product "haters".
Ignore them all you want, I've heard empty forums make for great echo chambers.
I'm going to say that some guy shouting: NOTHING! or "IT'S AN INSULT TO WARGAMING!" (which are things that have been posted in this very same thread) can hardly be called criticism (or valid one at least). Now, this thread has provided some valid criticsm (terrain and shooting pop into mind) but this ain't the target of the affirmation.
I've heard that ignoring the evidence also makes for great echo chambers, you seem to be well on the way in that department.
minisnatcher wrote: How about getting rid of templates and scatter dice? Every 40k club evening I see and hear and participate in futile discussions over how many models are underneath, discussing what the "exact angle" of the arrow on the scatter dice is, moving it 0,5" less far or further.
No I prefer something like the Celestial Prime's ability to shoot and then hit every model within d6 inch.
I actually like templates, mostly because of the tactics involved: you can only use them if the model holding the flamer is in front, but that exposes it to shooting.
However, I think blasts take up too much time to use. You have to place the blast marker, roll for scatter, take out the tape measure to move it, and recount the number of models.
The ability you listed isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't depend on the model's BS. I would prefer something like: you place the blast marker and count the number of models under it. You roll a D6. If it's bellow the firing model's BS you hit all models under the blast. If it's above you only hit half of them. On a 5 or a 6 (or just on a 6), it's a complete miss. It would be much faster and doesn't require you to follow the direction of a small arrow on a die.
The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.
Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.
As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.
I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.
Ah yes the ol "I'm too SMART for games that have easy to access rules".
So in order for him to get sudden death your army needed to outnumber him 3 to 1. You couldn't surround your warboss in a blob of 60 goblins? Unless he had ranged attacks he shouldn't be able to touch him unless you positioned terribly.
And thats not even using the pitched battle rules for competitive play. You played the casual no-points mode and expected balance when you had no idea what you were doing. The complexity of the game isn't in the ruleset, its the actual strategy invovled.
The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.
Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.
As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.
I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.
So you basically went in, played with no matched play, played no scenario, played in a way that benefitted the opponent, and lost. Whow, what a tragedy and such an indicative.
I've played greentide in 40k. Your whinning on moving many bases doesn't move me. Spears/2''= extra rank. Simple as that. Seriously speaking, your comments can be milked quite further but I don't really want to.
minisnatcher wrote: How about getting rid of templates and scatter dice? Every 40k club evening I see and hear and participate in futile discussions over how many models are underneath, discussing what the "exact angle" of the arrow on the scatter dice is, moving it 0,5" less far or further.
No I prefer something like the Celestial Prime's ability to shoot and then hit every model within d6 inch.
Please no. Removal of templates (and the convoluted rules that followed with each model that used to use one) are one of the worst aspects of AoS. Templates are a staple of tabletop games, it's certain 40k player's staunch refusal to actually roll the scatter dice next to the unit (creating terrible parallaxes) that is the problem.
Keeping templates in helps prolong the argument phase.
For example:
Make flamers d3 hits within 6" of the shooter. No shooting roll.
Blast is d3 + 1 hits in the target unit with a required shooting roll.
Ordnance is d6+1 in the target unit with a required shooting roll.
For stuff arriving that needed a scatter die:
player bringing them in picks a point.
player opposing picks another point within 12 inches.
On a 4+ they're on target with whatever special abilities (reroll for homing beacon, etc.) affect the roll. Otherwise, the central model is placed on the point picked by opponent.
The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.
Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.
As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.
I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.
So you basically went in, played with no matched play, played no scenario, played in a way that benefitted the opponent, and lost. Whow, what a tragedy and such an indicative.
I've played greentide in 40k. Your whinning on moving many bases doesn't move me. Spears/2''= extra rank. Simple as that. Seriously speaking, your comments can be milked quite further but I don't really want to.
The above mentioned gaming experience example was a test game in which I controlled both armies to learn the rules of the game. My usual tabletop buddies are computer gamers who don´t even own a single miniature. And who should blame them for it? Nowadays an army costs a fortune. I introduced them to the 2nd edition (Battle Bible found on the interwebz) & 5th edition ruleset from 40K and the WHFB ruleset that comes with the boxed set of Battle for Skull Pass .
So I told them that GW published a new edition for Fantasy Wargaming with a ruleset that is comprised of only four pages. Even as my buddies are no tabletop experts they instinctively knew that GW screwed up badly. There are cardgames like Magic the Gathering or roleplaying games like D&D which have rulebooks/rulesets that are more sophisticated and done with more love than AOS.
I told them no further details of this game but showed them instead a guy on youtube who can explain AOS in a nutshell better than anybody on the various interwebz forums. It is a spoof for sure but his revelations of this brand new game from GW coincide with my own POV that I gleaned from my above mentioned test game.
We had a blast watching this and surely you will too. Oh my gosh, watching this again cracks me up. Ten Bloodthirsters.Hilarious! So from this moment on we agreed that AOS is simply not worth the time & effort for our gaming group. Period.
We had a blast watching this and surely you will too. Oh my gosh, watching this again cracks me up. Ten Bloodthirsters.Hilarious! So from this moment on we agreed that AOS is simply not worth the time & effort for our gaming group. Period.
Nah, it's probably one of the poorer ones I've seen, cursing for curses sake and is generally just a bit meh compared to some of the better ones, there was another AoS one I've seen that was actually pretty good and if I can find it again I'll link it here.
The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.
Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.
As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.
I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.
So you basically went in, played with no matched play, played no scenario, played in a way that benefitted the opponent, and lost. Whow, what a tragedy and such an indicative.
I've played greentide in 40k. Your whinning on moving many bases doesn't move me. Spears/2''= extra rank. Simple as that. Seriously speaking, your comments can be milked quite further but I don't really want to.
The above mentioned gaming experience example was a test game in which I controlled both armies to learn the rules of the game. My usual tabletop buddies are computer gamers who don´t even own a single miniature. And who should blame them for it? Nowadays an army costs a fortune. I introduced them to the 2nd edition (Battle Bible found on the interwebz) & 5th edition ruleset from 40K and the WHFB ruleset that comes with the boxed set of Battle for Skull Pass .
So I told them that GW published a new edition for Fantasy Wargaming with a ruleset that is comprised of only four pages. Even as my buddies are no tabletop experts they instinctively knew that GW screwed up badly. There are cardgames like Magic the Gathering or roleplaying games like D&D which have rulebooks/rulesets that are more sophisticated and done with more love than AOS.
I told them no further details of this game but showed them instead a guy on youtube who can explain AOS in a nutshell better than anybody on the various interwebz s. It is a spoof for sure but his revelations of this brand new game from GW coincide with my own POV that I gleaned from my above mentioned test game.
We had a blast watching this and surely you will too. Oh my gosh, watching this again cracks me up. Ten Bloodthirsters.Hilarious! So from this moment on we agreed that AOS is simply not worth the time & effort for our gaming group. Period.
I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.
Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.
Lord Kragan wrote: I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.
Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.
If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?
Lord Kragan wrote: I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.
Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.
If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?
It's called 40k.
So, you're, implying that it's worse than bringing half a dozen wraithknights?. Which is something that you can do perfectly fine in 40k. It's called unbound and was a thing even prior to AoS. That speaks volumes out of 40k, doesn't it?
You're missing the point of the statement, though. The point of the sixteen cannons' argument is that, if someone brings something unreasonable, it means you can too bring something unreasonable because you two have outright decided to do some crazy gak. . Again, not many people own sixteen cannons. And the point is that neither of you are abided to the structured game of Matched Play, which could, at best, let you bring in... what, 4 blood thirst at 2k points? And then you'd sacrifice more than half of your army on 4 models which will make any ironjaw/bonesplitter player so hard that his dong will throw the army out of the table.
Lord Kragan wrote: I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.
Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.
If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?
It's called 40k.
So, you're, implying that it's worse than bringing half a dozen wraithknights?. Which is something that you can do perfectly fine in 40k. It's called unbound and was a thing even prior to AoS. That speaks volumes out of 40k, doesn't it?
You're missing the point of the statement, though. The point of the sixteen cannons' argument is that, if someone brings something unreasonable, it means you can too bring something unreasonable because you two have outright decided to do some crazy gak. . Again, not many people own sixteen cannons.
So, by your own admission AoS is the wargaming version of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Cool.
Lord Kragan wrote: I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.
Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.
If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?
It's called 40k.
So, you're, implying that it's worse than bringing half a dozen wraithknights?. Which is something that you can do perfectly fine in 40k. It's called unbound and was a thing even prior to AoS. That speaks volumes out of 40k, doesn't it?
You're missing the point of the statement, though. The point of the sixteen cannons' argument is that, if someone brings something unreasonable, it means you can too bring something unreasonable because you two have outright decided to do some crazy gak. . Again, not many people own sixteen cannons.
So, by your own admission AoS is the wargaming version of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Cool.
What the hell are you talking about? Prisoners dilemma works because the two sides don't trust each other. This result in Open play happens because they AGREE TO. But hey, you want to be intellectually dishonest? Fine by me. Apparently everyone owns ten bloodthirsters and sixteen cannons or either of the two. Amirite?
And this is, again, something that 40k can do, and has been able to for a year prior to AoS's open play. With unbound you can bring in two blocks of triptides and marklerlight drone formations. hell, you can even snug half a dozen wraithknights! Does that make 40k a prisoners dilemma too? No, because this two people, if they bring such an army against each other, will have most likely (99.999999999% sure) agreed prior to the match.
Lord Kragan wrote: I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.
Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.
If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?
It's called 40k.
So, you're, implying that it's worse than bringing half a dozen wraithknights?. Which is something that you can do perfectly fine in 40k. It's called unbound and was a thing even prior to AoS. That speaks volumes out of 40k, doesn't it?
You're missing the point of the statement, though. The point of the sixteen cannons' argument is that, if someone brings something unreasonable, it means you can too bring something unreasonable because you two have outright decided to do some crazy gak. . Again, not many people own sixteen cannons.
So, by your own admission AoS is the wargaming version of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Cool.
And this is why most people tend to ignore the haters, because this is what it ends up with.
There's some things from AoS I'd definitely like to see. The free and easy to obtain rules for everything. Different ways to play the game. The simple and easy casting and dispelling mechanism. Command abilities. Battleshock. The lack of charts and templates. And warscrolls. However:
Jathom wrote: There is NO WAY you can list all the wargear options for most generic characters, or even sergeants, on a single page with all their stats. In order to Warscroll 40k, the options are gonna need serious streamlining.
This is very true. A warscroll entry for every option in an average 40k unit is impossible. Believe me, I've tried.
I love the Initiative system AoS uses, but I accept that it probably wouldn't work in 40k due to the higher amount of shooting in the game. What would probably be best is some sort of hybrid of the AoS and Bolt Action systems. That's what I'm trying to make at any rate.
So we're apparently getting a new edition of 40k this year. Which is nice.
And there are of course various rumours flying around, including that it might be taking inspiration from Age of Sigmar.
Now, some might panic. AoS was certainly a big change to Warhammer, and it's a very different game. But rather than discuss the merits of that particular game, I want to discuss which element could be transferred over to 40k as is - so no major changes to the basic rules (to hit, to wound, to save etc)
Here's some thoughts to get you started.
1. Floating Initiative.
Man, I love that rule. For me it gives you a lot to think about in each turn, as you never know if your opponent might be about to get two player turns back to back. Took me a bit to get my head round it, but now I'm used to it it's a really fun challenge.
2. Warscrolls/Datasheets
They're neat, they're tidy, they're a bit of a blessing. If you're not familiar, imagine not having to flip through various books because all the unit rules are right there on a single page. Not quite as instantly transferable to 40k, but can be done with minimal tweaking.
That's my two top picks. Now over to you.
Remember, this isn't a chance to bash either rules set!
I agree and would love these two things as well as monsters getting weaker as they take more wounds and perhaps something akin for vehicles (though not the same). The roll for iniiative choice each round is excellent. Much more strategy and thinking on your toes. Picking and alternating close combat too is wonderful. I know it's more pew pew in 40K but it just works so well. Don't think 40k needs shooting into and out of combats though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes, the three ways to play also. Especially distinguishing from and supporting both competitive and narrative, understanding the nature of each and keeping up to date with community feedback for competitive.
People refer to the Rend rule as if it is something new. It was part of Fantasy when I started wargaming almost 20yrs ago. The AP system is one of the biggest annoyances 40k has always had for me. I think it was meant as a simpler save system but it lead to the state 40k is in now. The strength and damage output has escalated so much, models need to have multiple saves with different rules (armour, invulnerable, FnP) to matter in this game.
Bring it back to a single save and the Rend mechanic.
Delete the whole thing and Sigmarfy it for all I care.
Nowadays every single formation they release deletes my whole (old) army in one turn, I hardly play anymore.
40k desperately needs a reset to lower the threshold for newer players. Systems like X-Wing are so simple yet so nuanced, 40k needs to get with the times.
GW hopefully ignores the elitist few who object.
After having a good read of the AoS rules, relevant parts of the General's handbook, and watching a game (and buying into the local escalation), I have to say that there's a lot that 40k can learn just through a good review of AoS on paper.
One problem a lot of people don't seem to realize is that having a better understanding of 40k's convoluted mess of rules does not necessarily make you a more skilled player. The ability to effectively research and comprehend the relevant points might also coincide with the skills needed to utilize them effectively, but not always. Real skill is in recognizing and out-thinking your opponent's available options, and planning accordingly to counter them. 40k's barrier comes in making that breadth of options ridiculously esoteric, rather than making the choices themselves have depth. To that end, you usually end up playing against the rulebook, rather than the opposing player.
A simple ruleset that gives players a variety of tools to constantly outplay one another has more meaningful complexity than a static brick of pages which devolves into a matter of who can toss the most dice. Chess is a game with 11 rules, and yet it has far more tactical depth than 40k could ever hope to have in its current state. A satisfying game doesn't come from recognizing some small technicality in the rulebook, it comes from the feeling of actually out-thinking your opponent and punishing their choices.
AoS definitely has its own issues, but it's got a lot more going for it than the current 40k rules, and would be a solid starting point for a newly rebooted rule system. A new 40k doesn't have to be quite as simple, and I'd prefer something where units aren't quite as homogenous, but a direction that has me focusing more on my opponent than the book is one hell of a start.
My main problem with the initiative system of AoS (turn order, not melee initiative), is that if the other player plays two turns in a row, you basically spend twice as long doing nothing, just looking at the other person play. When a player turn can easily take 30mins, it means you won't do much for a whole hour.
Obviously 40K could be played much faster with streamlined rules (fewer saves, fewer rerolls and special cases), but a player turn in a standard 2,000pts game will always last a while.
So, independently of any tactical or game design considerations, I don't like the initiative system because I get bored when I wait too long for my turn to play.
fresus wrote: My main problem with the initiative system of AoS (turn order, not melee initiative), is that if the other player plays two turns in a row, you basically spend twice as long doing nothing, just looking at the other person play. When a player turn can easily take 30mins, it means you won't do much for a whole hour.
Obviously 40K could be played much faster with streamlined rules (fewer saves, fewer rerolls and special cases), but a player turn in a standard 2,000pts game will always last a while.
So, independently of any tactical or game design considerations, I don't like the initiative system because I get bored when I wait too long for my turn to play.
Agreed. The turn initiative system shouldn't be ported to 40k at all. I speculate that it was introduced, in the first place, to counter-balance the phenomenon of effectively staying at the rim of each others' threat bubbles and wait for the other's player nerves to break and possibly botch a charge roll (I guess it could have been introduced to promote a wilder, funnier game I suppose...). The random roll for charge, on the other hand, was IMO introduced to mitigate the older effect of the "sharper eye" in which you are at a disadvantage if you can't judge distances properly(I guess this could also have been introduced to promote a wilder, funnier game...). All in all it was all a chain of fixes that were in the context of a game in which the +1 bonus for charging could decide the match. IMO40k doesn't need that. The melee initiative, OTOH, is something I would welcome in the new edition. It is maybe the only thing I can point and be 100% that I want to see it again.
The 'sharper eye' advantage could be mitigated more effectively and intelligently by developing a system that encouraged melee-minded players to maneuver and trap their opponents for an optimal and decisive blow, rather than simply having them rush forward and hope to be the first to hit.
As for the random turn order, there was this stream: Drakosath Sigmarines vs shooty Chaos Dwarves. Sigmarines got lucky, because they managed to win a second roll. It would've simply been a game over, had the Dwarves got two turns in a row.
We once lost a points battle, just because opponent was more lucky and got more turns. So no.
Mayk0l wrote: 40k desperately needs a reset to lower the threshold for newer players. Systems like X-Wing are so simple yet so nuanced, 40k needs to get with the times.
While it is simpler I do hope that it doesn't go the route of "Buy these newest cards or be worthless". X-wing is just so highly competitive but it seems like if y ou want to run something functioning you need to grab things from all over with no guarantee that it'll be effective.
I played a game of AoS today, and not only was it very fun with virtually no arguing over the rules, but we also managed to finish it within two hours. I can't say the same for any of the games of 40k I've played recently. Whatever they do, they need to inject 40k with a new dose of that sense of fun and ease that AoS has.
The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.
Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.
As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.
I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.
So you basically went in, played with no matched play, played no scenario, played in a way that benefitted the opponent, and lost. Whow, what a tragedy and such an indicative.
I've played greentide in 40k. Your whinning on moving many bases doesn't move me. Spears/2''= extra rank. Simple as that. Seriously speaking, your comments can be milked quite further but I don't really want to.
The above mentioned gaming experience example was a test game in which I controlled both armies to learn the rules of the game. My usual tabletop buddies are computer gamers who don´t even own a single miniature. And who should blame them for it? Nowadays an army costs a fortune. I introduced them to the 2nd edition (Battle Bible found on the interwebz) & 5th edition ruleset from 40K and the WHFB ruleset that comes with the boxed set of Battle for Skull Pass .
So I told them that GW published a new edition for Fantasy Wargaming with a ruleset that is comprised of only four pages. Even as my buddies are no tabletop experts they instinctively knew that GW screwed up badly. There are cardgames like Magic the Gathering or roleplaying games like D&D which have rulebooks/rulesets that are more sophisticated and done with more love than AOS.
I told them no further details of this game but showed them instead a guy on youtube who can explain AOS in a nutshell better than anybody on the various interwebz forums. It is a spoof for sure but his revelations of this brand new game from GW coincide with my own POV that I gleaned from my above mentioned test game.
We had a blast watching this and surely you will too. Oh my gosh, watching this again cracks me up. Ten Bloodthirsters.Hilarious! So from this moment on we agreed that AOS is simply not worth the time & effort for our gaming group. Period.
Have you played D&D by yourself before? It isn't fun no matter how much rules you have.
So he played against himself? Nice job proving his own argument void of any validity then. For all that we know he could have simply thrown the grot at the chaos lord and handle the victory the chaos forces the victory on a platter, contrary to what would happen on a battlefield, and no matter what he says afterwards the assumption remains.
Now, something more that I've thought: you run in the movement phase. Forget about moving the minis twice, just make the roll and move. Plenty of people do this already but I've met with enough TFG to know this can't always be done. It would make the game faster for assault based armies, something that I can give you solid proof as I play a black orc army (Ironjaws) . Sure, it would be detrimental for eldar's battlefocus, but we could switch that rule to: you roll on the movement phase but you can decide where to use it.
Davor wrote: I keep seeing a few people are saying 40K is too complex and others are saying 40K is not complex. After reading the 40K is not complex, they could be correct. Maybe instead of saying 40K is too complex maybe we should say 40K is too convoluted.
Let 40K keep the complexity it has, but don't make 40K convoluted. Age of Sigmar now has lots of complexity, but it's not convoluted.
So now I will say 8th edition of 40K should have no convolution at all. Make it clear, concise and well written.
Great post Davor. Complexity is not a bad thing. Convolution is. Exalted!
Davor wrote: I keep seeing a few people are saying 40K is too complex and others are saying 40K is not complex. After reading the 40K is not complex, they could be correct. Maybe instead of saying 40K is too complex maybe we should say 40K is too convoluted.
Let 40K keep the complexity it has, but don't make 40K convoluted. Age of Sigmar now has lots of complexity, but it's not convoluted.
So now I will say 8th edition of 40K should have no convolution at all. Make it clear, concise and well written.
Great post Davor. Complexity is not a bad thing. Convolution is. Exalted!
Yes that's the perfect way to discribe it! 40k is a complex and convoluted game, with rules cancelling each other out and too much random rolling. AoS is still complex but everything works together like a well oiled machine.
I like how MCs/Vehicles work in AoS. Theres no arbirrary line that makes a world of difference.
For example what makes a Riptide an MC and a Dreadnought a walker? If anything it should be reversed as a Dreadnought is hard wired into his giant battlesuit.
And when does a regular infantry become a monstrous creature? That makes a world of difference but is at least reasonably clear cut.
I'd also like a rerevamped psychic phase, did 5th ed really have it so bad?
Personally I thibk AoS did so well since it's simpler than 40k. People can choose rhe quick and cheerful AoS or the more indepth 40k. If people want an indepth 40k Ao40k would kill that. And 30k is seriously expensive.
I have never played a single game of AoS in my life.. but from what I could understand in this thread, I would really like to see the MC getting weaker by taking wounds.
I would also greatly appreciate free unit cards and I would love to have the armor save modifiers back (rending?).
Initiative that could lead to one player, having two turns back to back seems like a bad idea in 40k.
Iron Angel wrote: I have never played a single game of AoS in my life.. but from what I could understand in this thread, I would really like to see the MC getting weaker by taking wounds.
I would also greatly appreciate free unit cards and I would love to have the armor save modifiers back (rending?).
Initiative that could lead to one player, having two turns back to back seems like a bad idea in 40k.
Cheers
It is a bad idea in 40k but can lead to some hilarious results. Imagine it, orks and dark eldar may actually have a chance of winning in those scenarios!
Another thing would be the points. Age of Sigmar's system, the general's handbook, is actually the result of using the SGCT system on the PPC scale. Those two were two methods made by fans and, more to the point, tournament players. As of now we know that at least two tournament players still participate in the game's design, specifically being consulted on points and balances. Competiitvely speaking, there's still disparity between armies, but the community has reached the consensus that on a casual or even semi-casual level, we have a good scenario. 40k needs the tournament players from ALL armies to participate on matters of balance. You know, doing actualy playtesting.
Iron Angel wrote: I have never played a single game of AoS in my life.. but from what I could understand in this thread, I would really like to see the MC getting weaker by taking wounds.
I would also greatly appreciate free unit cards and I would love to have the armor save modifiers back (rending?).
Initiative that could lead to one player, having two turns back to back seems like a bad idea in 40k.
Cheers
Another thing would be the points. Age of Sigmar's system, the general's handbook, is actually the result of using the SGCT system on the PPC scale. Those two were two methods made by fans and, more to the point, tournament players. As of now we know that at least two tournament players still participate in the game's design, specifically being consulted on points and balances. Competiitvely speaking, there's still disparity between armies, but the community has reached the consensus that on a casual or even semi-casual level, we have a good scenario. 40k needs the tournament players from ALL armies to participate on matters of balance. You know, doing actualy playtesting.
I agree on that, I'd like to see people that actually try to min/max and abuse etc. the rules and points to be involved in testing and balancing.
Mayk0l wrote: 40k desperately needs a reset to lower the threshold for newer players. Systems like X-Wing are so simple yet so nuanced, 40k needs to get with the times.
While it is simpler I do hope that it doesn't go the route of "Buy these newest cards or be worthless". X-wing is just so highly competitive but it seems like if y ou want to run something functioning you need to grab things from all over with no guarantee that it'll be effective.
I definitely agree with you on this. It's a habit that FFG have (I have the same issue with the LCGs); their release rate tends to be very high whilst also basically all mandatory. You need three of every new ship.
The reason I mentioned X-Wing is because it's a very rich and tactically engaging game while being a very 'simple' game at its core at the same time. It has a healthy set of basic rules and core mechanics on which they build.
I don't feel 40k needs to be this simple, but they can definitely learn from games like X-Wing how streamlining rules can help.
40k needs, imho, an overhaul in its core mechanics, not just some fat-trimming. Sigmarfying it would be one way to do that but doesn't necessarily have to be the way. However, I think if they want to change the bloated mess the rules are right now (instead of just adding bits here and taking away bits there) they will have to apply changes at a fundamental/core level.
Edit: I also feel they should ignore the naysayers.. but that's my personal opinion. People will complain whether they go left or right. They do, however, have the opportunity to change things to get more players into the game. AoS did. Why not 40k.
Edit: I also feel they should ignore the naysayers.. but that's my personal opinion. People will complain whether they go left or right. They do, however, have the opportunity to change things to get more players into the game. AoS did. Why not 40k.
The thing about this point is that most of the players who are content with the clusterfeth of rules that we call Warhammer 40k are going to generally be the same kind of people that will stick with whatever GW gives them. So, while a good portion of the fanbase suffers from some serious battered-wife-syndrome, it can actually be put to good use in keeping a playerbase that's already attached to the IP playing whatever they throw our way, regardless of how drastic the changes might be. I can only hope the changes are sufficiently drastic and, most importantly, good.
To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Edit: I also feel they should ignore the naysayers.. but that's my personal opinion. People will complain whether they go left or right. They do, however, have the opportunity to change things to get more players into the game. AoS did. Why not 40k.
I'd like to see some concrete proof that AoS managed to get in some new players. My guess would be that any spike in AoS/Fantasy players will have a lot more to do with GW new business practices than because of AoS itself.
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
Finally, a sensible contribution. I was laughing at how much of a silly hate fest this thread was becoming.
TLR What can 40k learn from AoS? That it must learn from infinity or else there will be a masive chimp-out of rodney-king-esque proportions amongst the fanbase.
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting. Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....
People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.
This is what he said before the analysis.
I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.
He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.
Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, its not because I disagree with you that I haven't been paying attention. About all the things you've listed, I feel 40k could do way better than simply adopting what is done in Aos (even if in sone cases, it would be an upgrade, just not the optimal outcome). Specifically, of the things youve listed,I'd much rather have formations completely removed and replaced with a grater variety and restrictived FOC instead of adding point costs to them (and points for formations was something 40k did before AoS was even a thing). I'm not interested in getting free rules (though a free quick set would help get new players in) if the tradeoff is them not being developed to the same extent. This is definitely the case, imo, with AoS where the 4 pages feels not only incomplete but also incredibly shallow (and considering you practically need the GHB and at least a battletome to play AoS, it having free rules is highly debatable ). AoS point costing being based on fan play-testing (though highly unlikely for new releases afaik) is definitively an improvement over 40k current nonsensical approach . Still, I feel a way better altetnative would be for GW to hire a statisticians team complemented by rigorous in-house play testing (with yearly revision and maybe a army building application/software where points cost are adjusted continuously ). As for running in the movement phase and no deathstar, I don't feel it's something specific to AoS, just a major fumble that it isn't the case in 40k.
Finaly, I mostly agree with your last paragraph, I just don't feel it's as bad as you claim. I'd much rather have them hire technical writers capable of laying down a tight ruleset instead of simplifying things (and removing the thousand, all so similar,special rules provided by formations would definitely help).
Many in my store do agree they would like to see the monster rules transferred to vehicles somewhat and paying for formations. Those are the two things I could see carrying over.
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting. Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....
People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.
This is what he said before the analysis.
I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.
He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.
Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.
If you believe anything that a randmon unknown poster say on the internet, contact me, I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge for not much Not to metnion that that post was made just a few days before the pictures of ALarielle and the info on the GRB started circulating. Hardly a proof of someone having contacts good enough to know informations about AOS sales. ANyway, Hasting (which is a much more credible rumourmongers) said AOS sales were bad, and in the ICV2 sales chart that was released in august, AOS failed to crack the top 5 (and WHFB was commonly on that list) . So the 35% figures is obviouslyy bogus.
And I'll trust my own anylsis, I happen to be a doctor in business administration. There's nothing to suggest that AS is a succes sale wise. Saying that it sold better than WHFB had on the last years (which is the only claim that was made in the financials) means nothing taken only in that context, since we don't know if these sales were mostly due to AOS, WHFB players completing their armies (last chance to buy), or WQ. Not to be arrogant, but taking comments made by the CEO in a financials at a face value shows an incredible naievety business-wise.
Hastings also happens to hate the living guts of AoS. I'm not going to take the account of someone who's been confirmed to be viased at face value either.
Curiously enough, though, we had this "source" from another rumormonger on august:
AoS makes 35% or GWs Sales.
Comparing to Fantasy ?
Before it was squatted WFB was ~5% (and therefore lower than paints & tools)
This, by the way, are two different individuals and at different blogs and dates.
Lord Kragan wrote: Hastings also happens to hate the living guts of AoS. I'm not going to take the account of someone who's been confirmed to be viased at face value either.
Curiously enough, though, we had this "source" from another rumormonger on august:
AoS makes 35% or GWs Sales.
Comparing to Fantasy ? Before it was squatted WFB was ~5% (and therefore lower than paints & tools)
This, by the way, are two different individuals and at different blogs and dates.
lol. so Hasting was a good source when you tought he was saying AOs sales were good, but since it was shown to you that he in fact claimed the oppositite, he's no longer a good source Nice logic
And no, a few random unkwown posters claiming something won't convince me, and shouldn't convince anyone who have a minimum of rationality.
Lord Kragan wrote: Hastings also happens to hate the living guts of AoS. I'm not going to take the account of someone who's been confirmed to be viased at face value either.
Curiously enough, though, we had this "source" from another rumormonger on august:
AoS makes 35% or GWs Sales.
Comparing to Fantasy ?
Before it was squatted WFB was ~5% (and therefore lower than paints & tools)
This, by the way, are two different individuals and at different blogs and dates.
lol. so Hasting was a good source when you tought he was saying AOs sales were good, but since it was shown to you that he in fact claimed the oppositite, he's no longer a good source Nice logic
And no, a few random unkwon posters claiming something won't convince me, and shouldn't convince anyone who have a minimum of rationality.
No, I'm saying that if someone that doesn't like someone admits it's doing well, even when he hates the living guts of it, it is a positive sign of it. Also, Hasting's comment was around april, which I will agree with in THAT context that yes, it wasn't doing well (I mean, it was fyreslayers and Stormcast Extremis, I'll be damned if those releases spurred too many people). But if we are speaking of after the mid-year then no, that shouldn't be accounted at face value
So basically you want to make the argument of the genie then?
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....
People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.
This is what he said before the analysis.
I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.
He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.
Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.
If you believe anything that a randmon unknown poster say on the internet, contact me, I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge for not much Not to metnion that that post was made just a few days before the pictures of ALarielle and the info on the GRB started circulating. Hardly a proof of someone having contacts good enough to know informations about AOS sales. ANyway, Hasting (which is a much more credible rumourmongers) said AOS sales were bad, and in the ICV2 sales chart that was released in august, AOS failed to crack the top 5 (and WHFB was commonly on that list) . So the 35% figures is obviouslyy bogus.
And I'll trust my own anylsis, I happen to be a doctor in business administration. There's nothing to suggest that AS is a succes sale wise. Saying that it sold better than WHFB had on the last years (which is the only claim that was made in the financials) means nothing taken only in that context, since we don't know if these sales were mostly due to AOS, WHFB players completing their armies (last chance to buy), or WQ. Not to be arrogant, but taking comments made by the CEO in a financials at a face value shows an incredible naievety business-wise.
Well considering you just said why I should believe a random unknown poster on the internet why should I believe that you are a doctor in a business administration? Anyway believe what you want.
WHFB had long ago left the top 5 too. This are just the year prior to the "squatting" and the last one is in full swing of End Times, when "in theory" the game should be at its strongest.
yeah but WHFB was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%. so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it's almost a 100% sure it would be on this chart.
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....
People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.
This is what he said before the analysis.
I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.
He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.
Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.
If you believe anything that a randmon unknown poster say on the internet, contact me, I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge for not much Not to metnion that that post was made just a few days before the pictures of ALarielle and the info on the GRB started circulating. Hardly a proof of someone having contacts good enough to know informations about AOS sales. ANyway, Hasting (which is a much more credible rumourmongers) said AOS sales were bad, and in the ICV2 sales chart that was released in august, AOS failed to crack the top 5 (and WHFB was commonly on that list) . So the 35% figures is obviouslyy bogus.
And I'll trust my own anylsis, I happen to be a doctor in business administration. There's nothing to suggest that AS is a succes sale wise. Saying that it sold better than WHFB had on the last years (which is the only claim that was made in the financials) means nothing taken only in that context, since we don't know if these sales were mostly due to AOS, WHFB players completing their armies (last chance to buy), or WQ. Not to be arrogant, but taking comments made by the CEO in a financials at a face value shows an incredible naievety business-wise.
Well considering you just said why I should believe a random unknown poster on the internet why should I believe that you are a doctor in a business administration? Anyway believe what you want.
I can give you my name if you want to. And even a pic of me. lol. And of course I'll believe what I want. I sure as hell won't believe a few made up nonsensical comments just for the sake of it.
streetsamurai wrote: yeah but he was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%, so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it sure as hell would be on this chart
No, according to the LAST YEARS, it wasn't more than 10-15%. Then AoS would take more of the sales as it got a huge boost in support (I mean, half a year of non-stop releases almost, of course it affected negatively the golden goose-considering that the peaks of consume happen during the release and nearby weeks).
Assuming 30 percent and 40k 60 percent, we are speaking of twice as much, and I doubt any of those games above sold half as much either. GW lost the total dominance of the market long ago.
Nevertheless, let's quit this senseless dickwaving. This thread has been derailed well enough by people wanting to be smartasses on both sides.
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....
People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.
This is what he said before the analysis.
I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.
He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.
Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.
If you believe anything that a randmon unknown poster say on the internet, contact me, I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge for not much Not to metnion that that post was made just a few days before the pictures of ALarielle and the info on the GRB started circulating. Hardly a proof of someone having contacts good enough to know informations about AOS sales. ANyway, Hasting (which is a much more credible rumourmongers) said AOS sales were bad, and in the ICV2 sales chart that was released in august, AOS failed to crack the top 5 (and WHFB was commonly on that list) . So the 35% figures is obviouslyy bogus.
And I'll trust my own anylsis, I happen to be a doctor in business administration. There's nothing to suggest that AS is a succes sale wise. Saying that it sold better than WHFB had on the last years (which is the only claim that was made in the financials) means nothing taken only in that context, since we don't know if these sales were mostly due to AOS, WHFB players completing their armies (last chance to buy), or WQ. Not to be arrogant, but taking comments made by the CEO in a financials at a face value shows an incredible naievety business-wise.
Well considering you just said why I should believe a random unknown poster on the internet why should I believe that you are a doctor in a business administration? Anyway believe what you want.
I can give you my name if you want to. And even a pic of me. lol. And of course I'll believe what I want. I sure as hell won't believe a few made up nonsensical comments just for the sake of it.
Why should I believe that's actually you or that's actually you in your picture? You could of just given me fake information? It's the internet after all. *shrugs*
streetsamurai wrote: yeah but he was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%, so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it sure as hell would be on this chart
No, according to the LAST YEARS, it wasn't more than 10-15%. Then AoS would take more of the sales as it got a huge boost in support (I mean, half a year of non-stop releases almost, of course it affected negatively the golden goose-considering that the peaks of consume happen during the release and nearby weeks).
Assuming 30 percent and 40k 60 percent, we are speaking of twice as much, and I doubt any of those games above sold half as much either. GW lost the total dominance of the market long ago.
Nevertheless, let's quit this senseless dickwaving. This thread has been derailed well enough by people wanting to be smartasses on both sides.
Sorry wasn't you that made the 15% comment
And agreed we're getting off topic.
But to be honest, I only asked the guy were that info was coming from, cause he said it was in the financials, and was genuinely interested to see if it was true (I'm actually interested in doing a case study on AOS for my job, so I want all the relvant info). You came in afterward claiming also something that was untrue (that Hasting made the claim).
streetsamurai wrote: yeah but he was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%, so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it sure as hell would be on this chart
No, according to the LAST YEARS, it wasn't more than 10-15%. Then AoS would take more of the sales as it got a huge boost in support (I mean, half a year of non-stop releases almost, of course it affected negatively the golden goose-considering that the peaks of consume happen during the release and nearby weeks).
Assuming 30 percent and 40k 60 percent, we are speaking of twice as much, and I doubt any of those games above sold half as much either. GW lost the total dominance of the market long ago.
Nevertheless, let's quit this senseless dickwaving. This thread has been derailed well enough by people wanting to be smartasses on both sides.
Right, Right, to be on topic as I said 40k could benefit from the monster rules, time and time again people always argue in my store is over vehicle rules
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, its not because I disagree with you that I haven't been paying attention. About all the things you've listed, I feel 40k could do way better than simply adopting what is done in Aos (even if in sone cases, it would be an upgrade, just not the optimal outcome). Specifically, of the things youve listed,I'd much rather have formations completely removed and replaced with a grater variety and restrictived FOC instead of adding point costs to them (and points for formations was something 40k did before AoS was even a thing). I'm not interested in getting free rules (though a free quick set would help get new players in) if the tradeoff is them not being developed to the same extent. This is definitely the case, imo, with AoS where the 4 pages feels not only incomplete but also incredibly shallow (and considering you practically need the GHB and at least a battletome to play AoS, it having free rules is highly debatable ). AoS point costing being based on fan play-testing (though highly unlikely for new releases afaik) is definitively an improvement over 40k current nonsensical approach . Still, I feel a way better altetnative would be for GW to hire a statisticians team complemented by rigorous in-house play testing (with yearly revision and maybe a army building application/software where points cost are adjusted continuously ). As for running in the movement phase and no deathstar, I don't feel it's something specific to AoS, just a major fumble that it isn't the case in 40k.
Finaly, I mostly agree with your last paragraph, I just don't feel it's as bad as you claim. I'd much rather have them hire technical writers capable of laying down a tight ruleset instead of simplifying things (and removing the thousand, all so similar,special rules provided by formations would definitely help).
AoS forces you to fit in the FOC those formations too. It's not "unique", but you nevertheless have to fit all your stuff in. You can bring in nice toys of formations to fluff your army out but you need to respect the universal boundaries. I'd not mind formations if they followed the principles of being costed and needing to fit into a standarized FOC.
40k's basic rules are 4 pages too, the complexity on both games comes from the "special" rules. This is where things start to diverge. AoS unit rules are self-contained and fairly streamlined. 40k's tend to be more byzantine. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three instances of rules overlapping with each other, having similarity but not being the exact same thing, and two where the rules "neuter" each other. That makes the game murky. I'd say we need a big overhaul to remove the overlapping rules, streamlining noticeably.
Yeah... I'm not seeing them hiring a statistician team. I seriously doubt even the other companies do it with their games. Would be optimal, certainly, but IMO we'd better go for the second best first.
Not saying it's something AoS-only, just that AoS does it and 40k could learn from it. I play orcs in AoS and I know that I'd take at least twice in 40k just by virtue of needing to move my army twice in a turn outside of assaults.
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, its not because I disagree with you that I haven't been paying attention. About all the things you've listed, I feel 40k could do way better than simply adopting what is done in Aos (even if in sone cases, it would be an upgrade, just not the optimal outcome). Specifically, of the things youve listed,I'd much rather have formations completely removed and replaced with a grater variety and restrictived FOC instead of adding point costs to them (and points for formations was something 40k did before AoS was even a thing). I'm not interested in getting free rules (though a free quick set would help get new players in) if the tradeoff is them not being developed to the same extent. This is definitely the case, imo, with AoS where the 4 pages feels not only incomplete but also incredibly shallow (and considering you practically need the GHB and at least a battletome to play AoS, it having free rules is highly debatable ). AoS point costing being based on fan play-testing (though highly unlikely for new releases afaik) is definitively an improvement over 40k current nonsensical approach . Still, I feel a way better altetnative would be for GW to hire a statisticians team complemented by rigorous in-house play testing (with yearly revision and maybe a army building application/software where points cost are adjusted continuously ). As for running in the movement phase and no deathstar, I don't feel it's something specific to AoS, just a major fumble that it isn't the case in 40k.
Finaly, I mostly agree with your last paragraph, I just don't feel it's as bad as you claim. I'd much rather have them hire technical writers capable of laying down a tight ruleset instead of simplifying things (and removing the thousand, all so similar,special rules provided by formations would definitely help).
AoS forces you to fit in the FOC those formations too. It's not "unique", but you nevertheless have to fit all your stuff in. You can bring in nice toys of formations to fluff your army out but you need to respect the universal boundaries. I'd not mind formations if they followed the principles of being costed and needing to fit into a standarized FOC.
40k's basic rules are 4 pages too, the complexity on both games comes from the "special" rules. This is where things start to diverge. AoS unit rules are self-contained and fairly streamlined. 40k's tend to be more byzantine. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three instances of rules overlapping with each other, having similarity but not being the exact same thing, and two where the rules "neuter" each other. That makes the game murky. I'd say we need a big overhaul to remove the overlapping rules, streamlining noticeably.
Yeah... I'm not seeing them hiring a statistician team. I seriously doubt even the other companies do it with their games. Would be optimal, certainly, but IMO we'd better go for the second best first.
Not saying it's something AoS-only, just that AoS does it and 40k could learn from it. I play orcs in AoS and I know that I'd take at least twice in 40k just by virtue of needing to move my army twice in a turn outside of assaults.
There's a certain logic in making your unit run in the shooting phase and not in the movement phase. It's to ensure that you don't mistakenly make them shoot after they have run. I don't think it's necessary (hell, I always make my unit run in the movement phasE) but in very large game, it might be useful
AoS's handling of formations is definitely something 40k can use. Giving them an additional cost and requiring them to fit into a FOC goes a long way towards fixing them.
Also, I've yet to encounter any horrible death stars whilst playing AoS. Every game so far has felt balanced. That's what I enjoy most about it.
streetsamurai wrote: yeah but WHFB was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%. so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it's almost a 100% sure it would be on this chart.
Would it?
That ranking system doesn't include GW's own sales - only those of third parties and wholesalers who agree to take part.
Now, we can extrapolate that unknown data, after a fashion.
To do that, you need to look at GW's own financials, which breaks down their sales by territory, and from there by channel. Let's take the last half year report, purely as an example.
North America - £11,131,000.00 trade, £7,044,000.00 retail. Sadly, Mail Order, including FW only gives a total, not broken down by territory, so I shan't include it here, as there's no way to accurately extrapolate.
Total North American sales are therefore £18,174,000.00, of which around 40% is through their own stores.
Now, the competitors sales that feature in that report don't have their own stores, so already the results are heavily skewed, and to a serious analyst to the point of worthlessness - because again, we have no way of knowing how much of GW's reported (and independently verified, because laws) Trade sales are actually taken into account - nor whether those reporting to the list are just end-user sales, or overall stock spend.
So it's certainly an interesting snapshot, but far too incomplete for any pretence at accuracy.
I think Age Of Sigmar can teach 40k how to better handle warlord traits and unique wargear too. So far I've found everything to be nicely balanced and interesting too. Plus, no rolling to see what you get. You have the choice to pick one outright if you'd rather do that.
DarkBlack wrote: What I really appreciate about AoS is that a decision was made regarding what kind of game it would be and it was made accordingly. It's not like 40k now that tries to be a fun narrative game, a competition game, a "high resolution" squad game and a game with monsters and giant mech's simultaneously. Which makes is struggle with all of those.
It seems to me that this is correct. There are a lot of different kinds of games, and each can be really fun, but trying to make one ruleset be all things to all people seems likely to end up making everyone unhappy.
I wonder if GW would be better off making three separate games in the same universe that use mostly the same miniatures? They already do this to some extent with games like Blood Bowl, but I'm thinking more along the lines of fleshing out Kill Team and Apocalypse and making them more stand alone games.
Kill Team could be a fun, fast skirmish game that only takes about 45 minutes to play. Like AoS the basic rules could be short and free, and each unit could have a free war scroll with its specific rules and options. Have the equivalent of the General's Handbook for point values, scenarios, etc. but don't make it so individual codices are necessary for every army. This would be really good for bringing new players in terms of the amount of money and time it would take to start playing. It would also be good for more experienced players who want to spend an extraordinary amount of time painting and modeling just a few models, play really narrative games, dabble in other armies or just have a game to play during their lunch break.
Normal 40k could be much as it is now. An army game with lots of complexity that makes each unit and army feel different than others and has enough rules to represent things like cover and morale that it feels like your decisions matter and things are actually happening rather than just plopping cool models down on the table and then taking turns seeing who can roll the most sixes. To get this level of detail while keeping most games at a reasonable length it might require making things cost more points and/or put a lower points cap on most games. (See caveats below.)
Apocalypse could be where all the cool superheavies and gigantic horde armies come out. Have a set of rules that simplifies things like movement, cover, line of sight and individual model placement for the sake of speeding things up. Games would still take longer than regular 40k, but not all day. Maybe lower the bar for what is considered an "Apcalypse" level game in terms of the number of models and maybe what kinds of units, formations and allies are allowed.
Caveats: I'm just getting back into Warhammer 40k and have yet to play a game of AoS, so I'm more or less a noob.
Also, when I say that "normal" 40k could be much as it is now I'm not saying that things couldn't be rebalanced or that certain rules couldn't be simplified, I'm just saying the core way the game has been played for the last few decades could remain the same and it could continue to be an army game with a lot of detail.
I think that is an absolutely fantastic idea! Especially making Apocalypse having a simplified rule set to speed it up. Like a spiritual successor to Epic? And this way everyone has the level of game that they're comfortable with. Someone should develop this further! Someone like me, for example. When I get the time...if ever.
Future War Cultist wrote: Especially making Apocalypse having a simplified rule set to speed it up. Like a spiritual successor to Epic?
That's what I was thinking. I mean, I really like the idea of an Imperial Guard army doing a massive charge of several maxed out platoons backed up by a Baneblade, but that probably doesn't belong in a game where the exact placement of each individual model matters for things like true line of sight and blast templates.
The other day I heard on a podcast that part of the reason that GW stopped supporting Epic was that they found that instead of buying both Epic models and 40k models they were spending the same amount of money and buying Epic instead of normal 40k (I don't know if this is actually true or just a rumor the hosts heard somewhere). People have been building up there collections of 28mm 40k over the years and a lot of people have amassed truly huge armies. There's also been some spill over of the smaller scale epic vehicles (like Stompas and Baneblades) into normal 40k. I think there should be a way for people to play with their gigantic armies, and maybe turning Apocalypse into a new Epic of sorts would allow people to do that without shifting money away from GW's main revenue source of 28mm 40k.
That doesn't make sense. Why would they care that customers are buying more Epic than 40k? They are still getting money for it, aren't they? If that was the case, then wouldn't GW start focusing more on Epic?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That doesn't make sense. Why would they care that customers are buying more Epic than 40k? They are still getting money for it, aren't they? If that was the case, then wouldn't GW start focusing more on Epic?
You might be right, and the thing about Epic eating into 40k sales could be a total falsehood that I'm repeating.
I can see how it could have been a problem though, as maintaining a second rules system and product line does have a cost and so if they were selling the same amount they might actually be losing money. Using made up numbers, if the average 40k player spent $350 a year on GW stuff and they were hoping to increase that to $500 a year by introducing Epic, but if it turned out that the average customer spent $150 on Epic and decreased their 40k spending to $200 a year then it makes sense that they wouldn't want to spend more money on coming up with new rules, new models and maintaining production and inventory for Epic.
That's completely hypothetical, and I don't know the real story of what happened.
But if you did your suggestion, then wouldn't you have a situation where GW would be creating models that are mostly viable for three separate games? Would that not encourage people to buy them, and everyone can settle in to the size of game they're happy with? Maybe I'm confused. It wouldn't be the first time.
If I was doing this, I'd have the smallest game, kill team, keep the current S v T system (refined of course), then 40k would have a AoS style refined system, then apocalypse would have a AoS style system based on a unit by unit basis rather than a model by model basis. And when I say AoS style I mean something like AoS. Maybe not exactly AoS itself.
If I was doing this, I'd have the smallest game, kill team, keep the current S v T system (refined of course), then 40k would have a AoS style refined system, then apocalypse would have a AoS style system based on a unit by unit basis rather than a model by model basis. And when I say AoS style I mean something like AoS. Maybe not exactly AoS itself.
Sorry, rambling again.
I could defiantely get behind something like this.
A suggestion I saw in the 'AFTERLIFE' game system which might be an idea would be akin to condensing WS/BS/Strengh into an 'offense' stat or similar, and condensing Toughness/Armour into a 'defence' stat or similar.
Simply roll accuracy vs defense to get a to-hit/to-wound.
Alternatively you could keep armour save seperate and have cover modify the defense stat of a model, thus keeping cover relevant for armoured models.
Disadvantage though is that it closely links WS/BS/Syrength. Which normally are seperate unit/weapon profiles.
I think one thing that is becoming apparent is that we are clearly moving to a 'grand alliance' style way of organising factions. I'm not saying it will be EXACTLY like it is in AoS, however in the gathering storm series we have seen formations combining marines and adeptus sororitas in Fall of Cadia and in Fracture of Biel Tan we are seeing formations combining Craftworld and dark eldar and harlequins and dark eldar. I think that in so far as GW can do this they and to be honest it makes sense as it will sell more models as more models become viable for people to buy and use as the factions increase in scope. I can easily see factions such as 'Imperium of Man' covering all adeptus astartes, astra militarum, adeptus sororitas, Grey Knights etc and a similar one covering the 'Aelidari' for craftworld, harlequin and dark eldar forces. I admit this doesn't work quite so well for all the factions, though Genestealer Cults and Tyranids could make up another alliance and all chaos factions obviously. The difficult ones are the Tau, Necrons and Orks who don't really fit together but don't really go with anyone else either. They can then implement something similar to what they did in the Generals Handbook whereby if you run a straight up Blood Angels army for example then you get to select a warlord trait and/or get certain special abilities or rules which you don't get if you run an 'imperium of man' army consisting of blood angels, imperial guard and some grey knights. However, equally, running an imperium of man army doesn't necessarily penalise you in the way that running unbound does now in that you don't get formation bonuses/benefits.
I certainly hope that the unit dataslates go the same way as the warscrolls from AoS because I simultaneously love how the warscrolls tell you pretty much everything you need to know about the unit in terms of rules and abilities whereas the dataslates tell you SOME of what you need to know in terms of rules and abilities. For others you either need to check their unit type in the BRB to see if that gives them any special rules (jet pack infantry getting deepstrike for example) or elsewhere in the codex or the special rules section of the BRB. There is so much flicking through different books to do and/or so much to remember about units that is not explicitly stated on their dataslate and that is a real annoyance for me because something inevitably gets forgotten. The dataslate should be a one stop shop for everything you need to know about that unit.
Finally, i can absolutely see them introducing the mechanic where monsters and machines get less effective as they suffer wounds/damage and i actually think that is a pretty cool mechanic!
The difficult ones are the Tau, Necrons and Orks who don't really fit together but don't really go with anyone else either.
If they continue along the lines of AoS, we would see smaller factions being introduced that they can make models for.
For example Tau would get their allied races. In the best case scenario we would see the reintroduction of the Kroot hive stuff, expanded Vespids, and introduction of Gue'va stuff. With further allied species like the Psyker race, the Demi-urg and the like.
Orks.. Bit trickier, but I believe we could get some more feral boyz stuff, Squiggs, maybe grot stuff reintroduced fully as an army (like Grot tanks!)
Necrons would be MUCH trickier to do so aside from fancier stuff from each of the necron tomb's, though maybe we could see a mechanic or warscroll type that allows them to take mind-scarab "slaves" from other alliances (Several battalions allow for you to take other army units so long as they had the proper keyword)
Necrons would be MUCH trickier to do so aside from fancier stuff from each of the necron tomb's, though maybe we could see a mechanic or warscroll type that allows them to take mind-scarab "slaves" from other alliances (Several battalions allow for you to take other army units so long as they had the proper keyword)
I for one would be thrilled if they paid homage to the 3rd ed codex and introduced Necron worshipping techpriests. And Pariahs. And Tomb Worlds still under the control of C'tan / genocidal AI. Give me back my Silver Legions, GW.
Future War Cultist wrote: But if you did your suggestion, then wouldn't you have a situation where GW would be creating models that are mostly viable for three separate games? Would that not encourage people to buy them, and everyone can settle in to the size of game they're happy with? Maybe I'm confused. It wouldn't be the first time.
If I was doing this, I'd have the smallest game, kill team, keep the current S v T system (refined of course), then 40k would have a AoS style refined system, then apocalypse would have a AoS style system based on a unit by unit basis rather than a model by model basis. And when I say AoS style I mean something like AoS. Maybe not exactly AoS itself.
Sorry, rambling again.
Yes, if they used mostly the same model range it seems like it would be cheaper to support three separate games, especially if two of the three primarily used one book. (Unless I'm confused about what we're talking about as well.)
I think your way of separating the games word work well too, as Kill Team lends itself to more detailed play.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Necrons would be MUCH trickier to do so aside from fancier stuff from each of the necron tomb's, though maybe we could see a mechanic or warscroll type that allows them to take mind-scarab "slaves" from other alliances (Several battalions allow for you to take other army units so long as they had the proper keyword)
Dividing 40k up into factions is tricky but possible and ultimately I think it's the best way to go. Obviously you could have the imperium of man, the eldar (craft world, dark, harlequins, extro...those hippie ones and the corsairs) and chaos. I guess the tyranids can go with the stealer cults. Orks...what about dividing them up into the six clans? Get a bit of variantion there? Then the tau and their allies...yeah, it's the necrons who complicate things.
Make something called the Necron Nexus, composed off all of the different dynasties who have their own thing (like craftworld Illyden), as well as slaves, non-necron flunkies, rogue AI and C'tan. To me, it makes perfect sense for the necrons to use slaves and human lackies as cannon fodder, negociation and labour; it still takes resources to repair living metal (especially if the TW is small and/or has faulty equipment), and having a bunch of lesser races serving them would fit with their new megalomaniacal personality and Egyptian Shtick (see : Goa'Uld). The use of human emissaries could reintroduce a return of silent necron lords, and reintroduce the mystery and foreboding that was lost in the 5th ed book. Even for the traditional genocidal crons it would make sense; the Daleks in doctor who were known to use human slaves, and they have pretty much the same MO. Not to mention that slaves that can no longer work would be "upgraded" into necrons.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Make something called the Necron Nexus, composed off all of the different dynasties who have their own thing (like craftworld Illyden), as well as slaves, non-necron flunkies, rogue AI and C'tan.
To me, it makes perfect sense for the necrons to use slaves and human lackies as cannon fodder, negociation and labour; it still takes resources to repair living metal (especially if the TW is small and/or has faulty equipment), and having a bunch of lesser races serving them would fit with their new megalomaniacal personality and Egyptian Shtick (see : Goa'Uld). The use of human emissaries could reintroduce a return of silent necron lords, and reintroduce the mystery and foreboding that was lost in the 5th ed book.
Even for the traditional genocidal crons it would make sense; the Daleks in doctor who were known to use human slaves, and they have pretty much the same MO. Not to mention that slaves that can no longer work would be "upgraded" into necrons.
I like this a lot.
Also I was re reading the rules for AoS and here's a good one; models with more than one attack can split them up between different targets. It's as easy as that. And it's done at the model level, not the unit level. And this got me thinking; imagine if 40k was that simple? There would be no need for Split Fire, because this is a much better version of it.
Take the imperial guard orders. Smite at will and First Rank Fire and Second Rank fire could be combined into one order that simply grants the unit an extra attack with each one of their ranged weapons. The las guns can now go from firing one shot at range to two, which can either be targeted against one enemy unit (that's FRFSRF) or divided amongst several different targets (SAW).
Now I could be wrong about this but as it's at the model level and not the unit level, I think you would have to resolve all of their 'base attacks' against the 'main target' before you start declaring targets for the bonus attacks. I'm making it sound more complicated than it really is, and instead of having just one model in the unit split their fire, now the whole unit can do it.
Edit: I am indeed wrong. AoS is even more flexible than that. It is literally just picking target(s) on a model by model basis and resolving all similar attacks against their shared target. So in 40k, you could say "heavy weapon marine targets vehicle with missile launcher (resolve now), then Bolter marines and Sergeant fire 4 shots at target A (resolve now) then 4 shots along with plasma gun marine at target B (resolve now). Split fire has now been improved and placed into the core rules.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Make something called the Necron Nexus, composed off all of the different dynasties who have their own thing (like craftworld Illyden), as well as slaves, non-necron flunkies, rogue AI and C'tan.
To me, it makes perfect sense for the necrons to use slaves and human lackies as cannon fodder, negociation and labour; it still takes resources to repair living metal (especially if the TW is small and/or has faulty equipment), and having a bunch of lesser races serving them would fit with their new megalomaniacal personality and Egyptian Shtick (see : Goa'Uld). The use of human emissaries could reintroduce a return of silent necron lords, and reintroduce the mystery and foreboding that was lost in the 5th ed book.
Even for the traditional genocidal crons it would make sense; the Daleks in doctor who were known to use human slaves, and they have pretty much the same MO. Not to mention that slaves that can no longer work would be "upgraded" into necrons.
I like this a lot.
Also I was re reading the rules for AoS and here's a good one; models with more than one attack can split them up between different targets. It's as easy as that. And it's done at the model level, not the unit level. And this got me thinking; imagine if 40k was that simple? There would be no need for Split Fire, because this is a much better version of it.
Take the imperial guard orders. Smite at will and First Rank Fire and Second Rank fire could be combined into one order that simply grants the unit an extra attack with each one of their ranged weapons. The las guns can now go from firing one shot at range to two, which can either be targeted against one enemy unit (that's FRFSRF) or divided amongst several different targets (SAW).
Now I could be wrong about this but as it's at the model level and not the unit level, I think you would have to resolve all of their 'base attacks' against the 'main target' before you start declaring targets for the bonus attacks. I'm making it sound more complicated than it really is, and instead of having just one model in the unit split their fire, now the whole unit can do it.
Edit: I am indeed wrong. AoS is even more flexible than that. It is literally just picking target(s) on a model by model basis and resolving all similar attacks against their shared target. So in 40k, you could say "heavy weapon marine targets vehicle with missile launcher (resolve now), then Bolter marines and Sergeant fire 4 shots at target A (resolve now) then 4 shots along with plasma gun marine at target B (resolve now). Split fire has now been improved and placed into the core rules.
Yeah, I'd love a split fire/attacks per model (declared before rolling any, of course) like AoS. Shooting into/out of combat though in 40K I'm not feeling. But, who knows.
The inability to fire a squad's missile launcher at a tank and the bolters at infantry is always one of the biggest non-intuitive stumbling blocks I run into when teaching new players - it almost always prompts "That doesn't make sense.".
Fixing that would make learning/teaching the game easier, and make common troops choices not feel so much like a tax.
I look forward to psychic powers getting gutted down to an individual character basis.
I'd like them to do something about the Franken-armies too, AoS has the same problem but it rewards you more for matching factions.
Like a blood angel libby could only cast his basic powers on allies and his main power only works on blood angels. That I would be fine with.
The other plus is that 40k going to a living rulebook APP means GW could update obviously broken things whenever they'd like. Even a 6 month to a year rotation would be a fantastic idea.
Obviously the floating initiative point has been made. Clearly a bad idea. I'm not a fan of the degrading stats for mc either. It usually takes me to at least turn 3 to get into combat with them, so being at half of its original ability when I get there is less than appealing. I'm not much of a fan of the 40kcc hitting system (guardsmen hitting an avatar of khaine on 5+?) But AoS system is worse. To be honest, the only thing 40k needs, in my opinion is a rework/trimming of the rules, codex consolidation, and a slight advance in the story.
Madoch1 wrote: Obviously the floating initiative point has been made. Clearly a bad idea. I'm not a fan of the degrading stats for mc either. It usually takes me to at least turn 3 to get into combat with them, so being at half of its original ability when I get there is less than appealing. I'm not much of a fan of the 40kcc hitting system (guardsmen hitting an avatar of khaine on 5+?) But AoS system is worse. To be honest, the only thing 40k needs, in my opinion is a rework/trimming of the rules, codex consolidation, and a slight advance in the story.
But here's the thing. In AoS those beasts would be able to charge by turn two. Everything is faster. Everything dies faster. Everything can die.
I think that is an absolutely fantastic idea! Especially making Apocalypse having a simplified rule set to speed it up. Like a spiritual successor to Epic? And this way everyone has the level of game that they're comfortable with. Someone should develop this further! Someone like me, for example. When I get the time...if ever.
This is what I thought so as well. Have Kill Teams as the "intro" or "learn to play" then have 40K as the "standard" and then Apocalypse to "be the huge games". Thing is I have to say I am wrong. If anything, Age of Sigmar The General's Handbook has proved that there will only be "one standard" way of playing. No fault from GW at all but will be the players who cause this. Just like in 40K and old Fantasy, if you couldn't come up with a 1500 point army there is no use in starting. This just happened to me a few weeks ago with 40K. I asked on our Facebook page if anyone wants to play small point games and I was basically told, "once you come up with a 1000 point CAD army, come back". I can see this happening as well. It doesn't matter how many options GW gives us to play, it will be the community who sets the standard on how to play. Just look at the General's Handbook. Who is really playing the other 2 ways? Hardly anyone. I know I can't get any of those games at my store.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Give me back my Silver Legions, GW.
Why? How did they disappear? Only you make them disappear if you choose to. Or are you saying they had special rules that you can't no longer use because nobody will let you use them?
I will admit, the shooting into combat is the one rule I'm not keen on in AoS. But, it's small fry really.
@ Asmodai
Yes, exactly. Also, this would hopefully encourage people to mix up their weapon load outs. Heavy Bolters on a Vanquisher wouldn't be wasted now because they could target the infantry around the main target. Y'know, like real life.
@ TheIronCrow
I think a combo of 5th ed and AoS Magic would work really well. Two universal powers (smite and defend?) plus one or two unique powers for the psyker in their entry.
Davor wrote: No thank you to Rhino Rush on last turn. That is all I think of in 5th edition.
The thing is, outside of the wound allocation and overpowered vehicles, 5th edition was the best written ruleset the game's ever had. Just get rid of that, and 40k would be at its strongest.
I agree, I think 5th ed was the best edition we had. It had a few flaws but overall it played out very well.
Also, maybe this isn't the place to post this but I've created a sort of AoS inspired profile for 40k. It gives the model the same stats as found in AoS but to get around the wider range of wargear found in 40k I've basically replace the separate individual ranged and melee weapon profiles with one catch all profile for shooting attacks and one catch all profile for melee attacks. Here's a sample:
Basically, for both you roll one D6 for each attack you have, and if this score meets your required result for your target type your attack is successfully struck. Infantry and light vehicles use anti infantry, heavy vehicles and the biggest MCs use anti tank and aircraft and flying monsters are anti-aircraft. Your opponent then takes a save minus the rend (cover is +1 to save) for each successful attack, and each failed save inflicts the profiles damage.
In this case, I've merged both grenade types into one. In my system a marine would have 2 wounds like the stormcast, so whereas this guy could kill multiple weaker targets with his shot (representing a frag round) he's likely to only kill 1 marine (a krak round). I do have options to include wargear for some models such as characters.
It's really crude and WIP at the moment but am I on to something here?
Future War Cultist wrote: I agree, I think 5th ed was the best edition we had. It had a few flaws but overall it played out very well.
Also, maybe this isn't the place to post this but I've created a sort of AoS inspired profile for 40k. It gives the model the same stats as found in AoS but to get around the wider range of wargear found in 40k I've basically replace the separate individual ranged and melee weapon profiles with one catch all profile for shooting attacks and one catch all profile for melee attacks. Here's a sample:
Basically, for both you roll one D6 for each attack you have, and if this score meets your required result for your target type your attack is successfully struck. Infantry and light vehicles use anti infantry, heavy vehicles and the biggest MCs use anti tank and aircraft and flying monsters are anti-aircraft. Your opponent then takes a save minus the rend (cover is +1 to save) for each successful attack, and each failed save inflicts the profiles damage.
In this case, I've merged both grenade types into one. In my system a marine would have 2 wounds like the stormcast, so whereas this guy could kill multiple weaker targets with his shot (representing a frag round) he's likely to only kill 1 marine (a krak round). I do have options to include wargear for some models such as characters.
It's really crude and WIP at the moment but am I on to something here?
On a good step. Movement should be 3 though. Why 5 unless you are going to make Eldar and Tyranids like a movement 9 then. On the right path. I say make a thread in the 40K Proposed Rules and continue there.
I think this would help a lot with the save-stacking problem we see right now
