Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One thing I hope they DONT bring to 40k is the rolling to see who gets first during each turn.

 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.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 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.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

Replied via PM to avoid de-railing the thread.

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.

My two cents?
How not to ruin a franchise by turning it into a piece of nonsense about Sigmarines

 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.

What can 40K learn from AoS?

That 4 pages of rules can be just as good as, or better then, 208 pages.

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.

Congratulations, are you done with your ranting?

Tamwulf wrote:What can 40K learn from AoS?

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.

No, it's just saying that speaking to you will be like speaking to a brick wall. I do prefer to not wast my time when I could do other things.

Congratulations, are you done with your ranting?

You don't find these two sentences ironic in any way? No? Nothing?

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

No, it's just saying that speaking to you will be like speaking to a brick wall. I do prefer to not wast my time when I could do other things.

Congratulations, are you done with your ranting?

You don't find these two sentences ironic in any way? No? Nothing?

What I find ironic is that you don't find the irony on a few of your statements. Not going to point them, have fun finding it out.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 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.

Thats because there are none.

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.

And for those continuing to bicker about whether or not AoS is a good game in its own right?

Nobody cares. So.......

Um, who died and made you a mod? If you have a problem with a post hit the yellow triangle of friendship.

Nobody cares. So.......

Well I do care because it directly affects me and my hobby. I want to see a good game come out of 40K 8th edition.

Which remains entirely subjective.

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?

Davor wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Thats because there are none.

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)

Lord Kragan wrote:

Davor wrote:

 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.

Davor wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Davor wrote:

 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.

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.

 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).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ruin wrote:

Davor wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Davor wrote:

 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.

What I'd like to know is how they define 'it's later years' for Warhammer

Anyways, veering wildly off topic once again!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What I'd like to know is how they define 'it's later years' for Warhammer

Anyways, veering wildly off topic once again!

If you ask me, I'd go on a leg and say from the beginning of 8th edition.

Also, yes.