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.

That is why I said "what I wrote before".

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.

IMO 40K 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.

Fair enough Brutus.

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.

 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

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:

 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.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

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.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

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:

https://www.games-workshop.com/es-ES/WSC-HE-ENG
https://www.games-workshop.com/es-ES/WSC-BM-ENG


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.

On the subject of balance...

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.

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.

Much of it is superior to 40K

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:

https://www.games-workshop.com/es-ES/WSC-HE-ENG
https://www.games-workshop.com/es-ES/WSC-BM-ENG


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.

Simpe and effective

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

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:

https://www.games-workshop.com/es-ES/WSC-HE-ENG
https://www.games-workshop.com/es-ES/WSC-BM-ENG


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.

About the degradation for 40k:

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.

Look at AOS....Don't do a damn thing it does.

Chaospling wrote:
About the degradation for 40k:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Look at AOS....Don't do a damn thing it does.

Yes, screw costing formations! Pricing rules breaks the balance. Oh and don't get me started on getting units' rules for free. The gall!