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.

Let's suppose what was just done to Warhammer Fantasy with Age of Sigmar was done to Warhammer 40,000, and we saw a new "Age of The Emperor" edition in which the timeline is drastically advanced and we see a resurrected Emperor leading the Imperium, Slaanesh destroyed or captured, and other similar fluff changes.

Let's also suppose that the rules for the game are changed to be in-line with those of Age of Sigmar. So four pages of rules, free downloadable warscrolls (datasheets?), fixed To Hit and To Wound rolls for units (A Space Marine Boltgun wounds both a Gretchin and a Wraithknight on a 3+, for instance), movement is measured from the model and not the base, and most importantly, no points, so you could take as many models as you could fit into your deployment zone.

My question is this: would you want to play that game?

It would make me quit my CSM army entirely to focus on FW Word Bearers.

If FW HH is discontinued too, I will ebay the whole lot and find another hobby entirely.

Models and game is enough to keep me going. If GW takes one from me, the other is not enough.

I've voted 'yes' because I would try a few demo games to see if I liked it.

If I did I'd play it, if I didn't I'd stick to 7th.

I'm a setting fan if GW absolutly trashes the setting well.... my intreast would depend on the new setting. I've walked away from other settings in gaming I loved after the developers ruined them

Sure. As long as it's still fun.

If it advances the story in an interesting way then id play it.
Fixed to hit and wound in sigmar are awsome.

The way I see it, 40K is so imbalanced right now, it can't get any worse. So yeah I would try it and see if it's more fun.

I will also try it. AoS is not that bad and 40k is too unbalanced right now, so why not? However, I like the setting as it is and I don't want a End TImes!

Maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, as it stands I haven't played a game of 40k in a couple years, but I wouldnt automatically say no to an age of sigmar style game either.

I play tau. As fast as they seem to advance in the fluff, either I'd have to toss my whole army and start again from scratch or rage as my faction got squatted.

With that said, they have to advance the timeline somehow, as there are timelines in the codecii that have advanced to 999M42

Are there? I'm pretty sure M41 is as far as any codex has gone

Would I play an "Age of Sigmar" style 40k game? Not as AoS is set up now.

I mean, I'm all for a reboot of the current ruleset, but AoS isn't doing anything for me.

The AoS rules really feel like someone going out of their way to produce a ruleset that doesn't really do anything well. It doesn't want to be a competitive tournament game, ok fine. But it still is set up around what is fundamentally a "competitive" style pickup play. It professes to be a "narrative" ruleset, but provides zero narrative functionality. I'm not sure how that's going to help 40k.

Under no circumstances.

Absolutely not, I'm honestly AoS fizzles out or fails so that this broken no points crap won't spread to 40k.

I honestly don't think AoS will stay the way it is. I think they did this so they could start from the ground up with a new rule set. Given time it will grow back into something more familiar to what Warhammer Fantasy was, but hopefully they will keep most of the streamlining they have done releasing the AoS rule set, and stay away from Army Books to keep the cost down for both the consumer and the company.

To do a full rules reboot they had to do something drastic, sadly I think they went to far and alienated their older players; however, in their defense, their older players weren't really buying many products either, but that is a discussion for a different thread.

I hope that they don't AoS 40k, but if they did, I'm sure I'd continue to play it, or wait for the rebound that I'm sure is to come, but much like my undead army, my models might sit on the shelf for a while as I wait to see how things pan out.

The short answer is "No", but it's actually not so much points. I really could care less about whether tactical marines cost 5, 10, 15, 20 or zero points, because we actually assemble most of our 40k scenarios a lot more in the spirit of AoS than 40k (ie two sides figure out an interesting encounter and the models to use cooperatively). Quite often, the points on the two sides aren't even close, but that's ok, because we know the game is going to be fair despite that (or perhaps because of it).

The thing is, I like playing big army games with lots of models. And AoS rules suck for playing a 6x4 or larger table with 70+ models. Plus it takes the reason to build my next 250+ model army

Now thinking, I should specify that SOME of the changes I'd be fine with, like advancing the setting (if it was done well and/or set up so that you could play in multiple "eras" so you wouldn't be screwed out of the current one) and of course no objection to free rules in any capacity (it's really the nature of the AOS rules that are a problem).

40k with a simplified rule set would be highly welcome.
Atm we just play apoc battles and friendly games sporadically.

If the rules were free, I'd give it a try. I don't know enough about AoS to know why its so unpopular (never been a Fantasy Player).

It would completely ruin the setting, just as WHFB has been ruined. AoS is horrible, and doing it for 40k would be the end of it.

If they revamped the setting entirely, I'd be offput. I they revamp the game to be like Age of Sigmar, I'd be out in a heartbeat. If they do both, well, guess Age of Emperor is some pretty advanced fanfic but I refuse to acknowledge it.

Free balanced and streamlined rulesets? Sure.

Fked up the setting and didn't add a balancing mechanic? Hell no.

Probably not. A lot of my friends have slowly jumped on the that train of thinking AoS is the way to go, but I'm against it.

Balanced armies and free rules? Yes please.
Nerfing the ridiculousness that is current 40k? Yes please.
Reducing the bloatedness? Yes please.

Removing points and relying on other people to be "decent players"? No thanks.

 jasper76 wrote:
If the rules were free, I'd give it a try. I don't know enough about AoS to know why its so unpopular (never been a Fantasy Player).

Imagine playing W40k when there is no points limit, and where you can win by sudden death by having a ++2inv unit not die after 6 turns or by alfa striking the opposing players HQ turn 1. Oh and the normal win condition is , who ever has the most models on the table at the end of turn 6 wins, if no sudden death or auto scenario win happens.



I wouldn't play it. It gives edge to all good armies and gives my army nothing.

Makumba wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If the rules were free, I'd give it a try. I don't know enough about AoS to know why its so unpopular (never been a Fantasy Player).

Imagine playing W40k when there is no points limit, and where you can win by sudden death by having a ++2inv unit not die after 6 turns or by alfa striking the opposing players HQ turn 1. Oh and the normal win condition is , who ever has the most models on the table at the end of turn 6 wins, if no sudden death or auto scenario win happens.



I wouldn't play it. It gives edge to all good armies and gives my army nothing.

Well, in all fairness, all the armies would lose all of the stupid stuff and become streamlined. So no 2++ rerollables and alphastriking may or may not be toned down.

In short: no.

In long: maybe, if GW eventually tweaks AoS enough that some semblance of a balanced metagame evolves. That's not outside the realm of possibility - newer warscrolls may introduce mechanics that have a spoiler effect on players who abuse the open-ended army deployment rules. I don't have a lot of faith in GW's ability to do that, but who knows.

A tweaked version of AoS might work well as the basis of a skirmish rulset for 40k. You could even make it work without points if you designed the mechanics and missions correctly. But having Age of the Emperor just wipe out the existing company-level ruleset? No way - I've tried a few games of AoS using 2000 point equivalent Fantasy armies, and it just takes forever to play due to all the dice rolling that you have to do for individual models in close combat (seriously, WHFB 8e seems so streamlined by comparison). It's totally unsuitable for large battles. It still seems crazy to me that AoS meant as a replacement for WHFB, rather than just a new skirmish ruleset that you can play with the same range of models.

Only a closed mind would vote no and mean it. Of course we would try it.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Only a closed mind would vote no and mean it. Of course we would try it.

SJ

An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

And liable to get dragged into GW's next moneysink.

 Selym wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Only a closed mind would vote no and mean it. Of course we would try it.

SJ

An open mind is a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

And liable to get dragged into GW's next moneysink.

GW counts on this and one can nothing do against it, only if one quits for good.

I'd like free rulebook at least.