Galas wrote: I don't understand the "but you will kill tanks with knives!"
Just a rule like
Vehicles: Vehicles ignore damage done by weapons with a damage value of: 1 and a rend value of: -
Boom. Problem solved. Tanks can only be damaged by antitank weaponry.
And please, stop masking your personal preferences as rationalized facts.
If you don't understand AoS its your problem, not of the game. You can not like it, thats fine. And its a reality that its in no way the best ruleset out there.
But all this AoS hate vs AoS fanboyism its tiresome. The Old World has been killed 2 years ago guys. Its time to move on.
And I say this as a guy that plays Warhammer Fantasy Battles 1 time at week and that roleplay in the old world 2 times a month.
Except we don't need any of that. At all. The entire point of every model being potentially (regardless of how unlikely) kill any other model on the table in AoS is that you don't end up in that same situation that is all too common in 40k where two thirds of any given TAC army is rendered useless against any given spam list. Anti-armour options will still far and away be the preferred tools for dealing with tanks and the like, but the idea is to not make extremely polarized list building where you're essentially playing a different game from your opponents so heavily rewarded.
I don't know why people are getting so up in arms about this. Polarized list building has been a huge criticism against 40k for ages. Unless you go the grav route, some generalization is going to have to happen.
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
tshirt, no. But I never said that. I argued against the point that body armour is a binary risk. The person I was arguing with was saying that it will either stop ALL bullets it's rated against NO MATTER WHAT. Or it will stop NO bullets, because it's not rated against that. And that's simply not true. Even a perfectly new piece of armour can get unlucky and let through a bullet it is rated against for various reasons, but I let that slide because that's highly unlikely and I don't need to go that far when his argument is that binary. A shot vest loses integrity. It doesn't become a tshirt, and I never said it did, so saying I'm arguing that is strawman.
auticus wrote: Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive.
That's not necessarily a bad thing if it is planned. Make sure that certain units are strong at defense and others at offense and you will get some really varied games as your lists will look completely different when you're defending and attacking.
That said, I am fully aware that it isn't that well thought out, and mostly just happens by mistake and as such isn't at all balanced with how everything else works, so instead you just get that one unit in the whole game that is ridiculously overpowered at that one specific job.
Guys, seriously this has nothing to do with our topic.
The variable armour save is a part of the topic and some had problems with that not being "realistic." I'm arguing that it in fact isn't any less realistic than the opposite. For what that's worth.
As such, I disagree that it doesn't have anything to do with the topic.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
What, have you problems with Zombie Conga Lines with Banshee and Vampire Lords at the head?
Boy! That was an Excelsior example of a balanced and tactical depht gameplay!
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
What, have you problems with Zombie Conga Lines with Banshee and Vampire Lords at the head?
Boy! That was an Excelsior example of a balanced and tactical depht gameplay!
Hey, conga lines are love, conga lines are live. Just ask my boyz when they try to allow the bossmen to keep up with them.
Galef wrote: Whatever happens, I really hope they get rid of the "take whatever you want" for structured play. Unbound is fine for that, but structure play should not be Unbound + tax = bonuses.
Something like only 1 CAD or Codex equivalent allowed. Formations are now taken are a "slot" within that detachment, rather than as stand-alone choices.
Only 1 "2nd faction detachment" is allowed. This would be Allied detachments (with 1 Formation slot available) or unique detachments like Assassins and Knights.
If you want to take 3 or more Factions, your army instantly becomes Unbound and loses all command benefits AND Formation bonuses.
That would really cut down on power builds. Want to add a Riptide wing to your Eldar CAD? You need to take an Allied Detahcment with 1 Tau HQ and 1 Troop to "unlock" it.
This is how "structure" or "matched" play should be.
None of that would matter if all units were fairly costed.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Come on ... when will that argument die already ?
GW sucks at balance... lol - maybe, but who does any better ?
PP with their "we've got to recost everything all the time because we did it wrong, several times in a row" ?
Seriously... unless you have symmetric factions and/or very limited diversity, balance in a tabletop game is at best very flawed.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Come on ... when will that argument die already ?
GW sucks at balance... lol - maybe, but who does any better ?
PP with their "we've got to recost everything all the time because we did it wrong, several times in a row" ?
Seriously... unless you have symmetric factions and/or very limited diversity, balance in a tabletop game is at best very flawed.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Come on ... when will that argument die already ?
GW sucks at balance... lol - maybe, but who does any better ?
PP with their "we've got to recost everything all the time because we did it wrong, several times in a row" ?
Seriously... unless you have symmetric factions and/or very limited diversity, balance in a tabletop game is at best very flawed.
If they stick with online living rules it may not be that big of an issue.
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
tshirt, no. But I never said that. I argued against the point that body armour is a binary risk. The person I was arguing with was saying that it will either stop ALL bullets it's rated against NO MATTER WHAT. Or it will stop NO bullets, because it's not rated against that. And that's simply not true. Even a perfectly new piece of armour can get unlucky and let through a bullet it is rated against for various reasons, but I let that slide because that's highly unlikely and I don't need to go that far when his argument is that binary. A shot vest loses integrity. It doesn't become a tshirt, and I never said it did, so saying I'm arguing that is strawman.
At the end of the day 40k's "armour save" doesn't represent firing a bullet in to a kevlar vest under controlled conditions. If it did, we'd just say X types of armour are completely immune to Y types of weapons.
40k's save represents the chance that a model will survive while wearing armour, compared to another model that isn't wearing armour. It's taking in to account the whole gamut of things that affect whether or not armour will be effective in keeping the model on it's feet in a combat situation. There'll be times when a gun weaker than the armour's rating still gets a penetration, there'll be times when the wearer gets lucky and stops a bullet that is above the armour's rating, and the CHANCE of armour failing increases with the power of the weapon being fired at it, so IMO a save modifier system is BOTH more realistic and also more balanced in game than the current AP system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vash108 wrote: Guys, seriously this has nothing to do with our topic.
Of course it does, we're discussion the merits of an armour save modifier system compared to an AP system thus we are discussing how armour works and thus what would be more realistic.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
There's got to be a better way of dealing with Deathstars. Maybe it's not allowing ICs from separate Codices/supplements into a unit. Maybe it's a 2 meter wide exhaust port. I don't know. But a 1 IC per unit limit really hurts weaker armies, too. Painboy and a Warboss in the same Boyz/Warbiker unit? Bye bye. Priests and Primaris Psykers in IG blobs? Bye bye. It's not particularly elegant of a fix and arguably hurts weaker armies more than stronger armies. Should we undergo a Sigmarization, not all ICs deserve to be stuck out in the open by themselves, especially force multipliers like aforementioned Painboy and Ministorum Priest. Whether super killy ICs are forced to go alone or force multiplier ICs are taken as upgrades to units, not all ICs should get the same treatment under an AoS-style rule set.
TedNugent wrote: If the armor is rated for that caliber, it is proof against that caliber, no matter how many times you shoot it.
No, that's just not how physics work. Something has to take the force and in doing so will take damage. Damaged protection loses structural integrity. But whatever, you carry your frayed kevlar around, I'll go by the common sense that is used by anyone else where a shot kevlar plate is replaced.
Either way, even if armour was magical and didn't take any damage from stopping bullets, neither system in 40k, the old or the suggested new one, does even a halfway job of representing it, so again, any conversation on how it works in real life is irrelevant to how it works in Warhammer.
Sorry, but two shots on a kelvlar vest dosent magicly turn it into a tshirt either.
tshirt, no. But I never said that. I argued against the point that body armour is a binary risk. The person I was arguing with was saying that it will either stop ALL bullets it's rated against NO MATTER WHAT. Or it will stop NO bullets, because it's not rated against that. And that's simply not true. Even a perfectly new piece of armour can get unlucky and let through a bullet it is rated against for various reasons, but I let that slide because that's highly unlikely and I don't need to go that far when his argument is that binary. A shot vest loses integrity. It doesn't become a tshirt, and I never said it did, so saying I'm arguing that is strawman.
Okay fair enough, i must have mÃsunderstood you then. Wouldn't your explanation match quite well with the terminator armor situation with 1's being failure even tho its rated against such "caliber"?
Anywho would be sad to see terminators needing saving on 3's and 4's against general armament in the future. That would not properly represent tactical drednought armor in my oppinion. Or atleast it should ignore -1 and -2 rends like some Lizardmen does in AoS
I just hope they dont implement fixed rolls to hit and to wound in AOS, other then that, they can do whatever they want.
morgoth wrote: GW sucks at balance... lol - maybe, but who does any better ?
Every system I have played since GW has been better. Perfect, no of course not. But LEAGUES better.
Bolt Action, Malifaux, SAGA... Basically everyone does at least better than GW.
I feel the Bloodbowl rules are quite reasonably balanced, but I suppose having a committee of players helping shape the living rulebooks must've helped a lot.
Not in my view, no. A lot of the more far out there things (blocks of 200 Bloodreavers or crap like that) were just that pre-points:
Far out there.
A unit of 200 models could be hurt bad with Battleshock tests, let alone the fact that Sudden Death could be brought to bear against the few character models you might have been able to fit on the board.
A big thing that added a "semblance of balance" is that a lot of the problem players(at least locally for me) tended to cease getting games when people started realizing that their whole goal was to try to show that AoScould be broken with wildly outlandish things that involved dropping a ton of scratch on something that would probably have been just as broken in WHFB.
What did you wind up using to make sure both sides were somewhat even?
It depended on what we were trying to accomplish.
In many cases, it was as simple as playing the asymmetric missions from the main rulebook. The first few Regiments of Renown campaigns ran under AoS used keyword, model count, and warscroll restrictions.
Ex:
Week 1 you could have 3 Warscrolls, one of which had to have the keyword "Hero". Nothing could have Monster, Warmachine, Priest, or Wizard as keywords.
You could have up to 2 of each Warscroll; barring the mandatory Hero(He or she was your leader; there was nothing else like them in the force).
Your force could not exceed 100 models for week one.
Week 2 would let you bring in one Warscroll for a Hero with Priest or Wizard; you couldn't duplicate it. You could also bring in one Warscroll with the keyword "Totem"(Battle Standard Bearers); again with no duplicates. Or alternatively you could use those two new Warscrolls to bring in two new units and duplicate them.
You could not exceed 150 models for week two.
Week 3 would let you bring in one Monster or Warmachine; no Hero keyword on either. Or that Warscroll could go to a new unit.
You could not exceed 200 models for week three.
Week 4 basically let you add three new Warscrolls, with no restrictions beyond "No duplicates on anything with keyword Hero, Wizard, or Priest" and a model count of 300. If you wanted to take multiples of something like that, you had to use up an additional Warscroll.
You want that super killy dude on the dragon, three times over? You give up those last three Warscroll slots.
Also, if you couldn't deploy the required units for a scenario in the space allotted for you? You have to split things down until you fit in the scenarios' allotted deployment.
Brutallica wrote: Okay fair enough, i must have mÃsunderstood you then. Wouldn't your explanation match quite well with the terminator armor situation with 1's being failure even tho its rated against such "caliber"?
We don't really know what terminator is "rated" against though. Maybe it's only rated for an autocannon hit at 200m and anything else is just getting lucky. Real armour isn't an on/off switch where it completely stops what it's rated for and doesn't stop at all what it's not rated for.
Anywho would be sad to see terminators needing saving on 3's and 4's against general armament in the future. That would not properly represent tactical drednought armor in my oppinion. Or atleast it should ignore -1 and -2 rends like some Lizardmen does in AoS
Personally I think Termies should have layered saves, and basic weaponry shouldn't have any modifier. So if we say a Heavy Bolter is -1 to save, Termies would be 2+ minus 1 makes them 3+ armour save, but then layered with a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable that they get to take in addition to their regular save rather than instead of it.
KingmanHighborn wrote: I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.
This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.
AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
LVO's winner didn't bring ANY deepstriking units. In fact, his list was considered atypical since it didn't bring any skyborne slayers or warrior brotherhood (this was prior to said formation being removed), instead using Wardens of the Realmgate and a Vexilior, both of which are area/character dependant and needed to be fielded on the table. Also, LVO was a very casual tournament.
Nice strawmans, btw. Apparently mortal wounds and rend don't exist in AoS.
Deathstar not Deep Strike.
Neither did they bring them.
You mean the 2 units of 5 Liberators that Reroll 1's to save?
Or about about the Castellant that grants a +1 save to the units?
So.... thats not a what he did? The list from Frontline Gaming and the pod cast about him are wrong?
Galas wrote: How can you play Deathstars in a game where Heroes can't join units and are easy to snip off the table?
Its not a true DS, it is 9" 12" bubbles that gives unit better saves, where those units already have re-rolls to saves.
They act just like DS tho.
Please tell me what units he used that gave him "reroll saves". If you mean Liberators with shield then they reroll saves of 1 only and their damage output is lackluster.
Please tell me what 9" and 12" bubbles you are talking about. If you are talking about the lord celestant then that is a 9" bubble of +1 to hit, not +1 armor. If you are talking about the Castellant then that is 1 unit within 12" to give +1 to their save rolls.
Also I hate to break it to you but a 2 units of 5 liberators or 1 unit of 10 is not even close to competitive considering you would need 200 points of characters to buff both of them if you used 2. It is a solid start to ANY Stormcast list, Also they move 5" a turn, man that's some deathstar with its 17" threat range 2% of the time.
Please at least play the game you are talking about before you act like an expert commentator.
Also Rend exists for a reason, so your buffed 3+ rerolling 1s unit goes to 4+ rerolling 1s or 5+ rerolling 1s, wow so good. Damage 2 or more means that each failed save is more punishing as well. Also mortal wounds ignore saves so.....
Basically stop looking at one tournament result in a vacuum with no knowledge of the game and drawing conclusions.
I don't see how to better deal with deathstars other than to not let them exist in the first place.
The whole concept of the deathstar is to create a structure that powerful characters can reside in that offers them near immunity to damage. That by itself is bad IMO. That you can stuff multiple characters into said deathstar is basically a mathematical insurance policy that your super powerful characters can't be hurt getting to their target.
The only real counter is to have one yourself. I used to think playing scenarios that required multiple objectives was the answer but its not really since the deathstar just splits up when it needs to to camp objectives at the end of the game after it destroyed the non-death star units of the enemies.
As such I'd prefer it if you just couldn't do it at all though I'm not averse to letting a single character receive a defensive boost to saves by being in proximity of a friendly unit.
As to the myth that all games are not balanced and GW should be excused, as others have pointed out, most other game companies simply do it better or care more about the cost of the units.
It is correct to say no game can be perfectly balanced. However, GW rules and points often reside in the far unbalanced spectrum.
Living rules are useful and good IF the points get updated regularly to reflect holes, exploits etc. Points that are adjusted once a year are not good enough to me because thats a year of TFG exploiting the game and making the game a super chore without writing comp packets which has the community up in arms for deviating from RAW.
As to the myth that all games are not balanced and GW should be excused, as others have pointed out, most other game companies simply do it better or care more about the cost of the units.
What other game companies?
The only one that is even remotely similar to GW products AND has any kind of player base is probably WMH and they're constantly fixing all the imbalance they're putting in it.
The wheel does spin a good deal faster, but it doesn'd seem more balanced to me.
I totally agree that 40k is far from being balanced, but I haven't seen anyone offer any comparable game which is clearly more balanced while being as diverse - or even offering a better balance/diversity compromise.
Well off hand we have Warmachine of course, and XWing, and Kings of War, and Warpath, and Infinity. These are all games popular in my area that utilize points and have various factions.
None of those are perfect, and I'm not a fan of any of them myself, but their points are miles ahead of GWs attempts.
40k's balance issues are so glaring that it would take little time to cut the gregarious offenders out. Its the extreme busted builds that cause the most issues as opposed to the minor issues.
Galef wrote: Whatever happens, I really hope they get rid of the "take whatever you want" for structured play. Unbound is fine for that, but structure play should not be Unbound + tax = bonuses.
Something like only 1 CAD or Codex equivalent allowed. Formations are now taken are a "slot" within that detachment, rather than as stand-alone choices. Only 1 "2nd faction detachment" is allowed. This would be Allied detachments (with 1 Formation slot available) or unique detachments like Assassins and Knights. If you want to take 3 or more Factions, your army instantly becomes Unbound and loses all command benefits AND Formation bonuses.
That would really cut down on power builds. Want to add a Riptide wing to your Eldar CAD? You need to take an Allied Detahcment with 1 Tau HQ and 1 Troop to "unlock" it. This is how "structure" or "matched" play should be.
None of that would matter if all units were fairly costed.
I am not worried about it fixing balance, I just miss the days of knowing what to expect from an opponent. When you can take units from 3+ Factions and unlimited detachments, "traditional" weaknesses are hard to exploit. I can no longer say "Oh you're playing X army, I know exactly how that plays" because no one play X army anymore. They play XYZ armies. Armies should have strengths and weaknesses and you shouldn't be able to take just the strengths of a different faction to plug the holes in others. Plus, structured play like this would encourage more thematic armies, instead of cherry picking what is good from multiple armies.
Malifaux, SAGA, Infinity, Bolt Action, Kings of War... the list just goes and goes.
But in my opinion, diversity its antagonist to proper balance.
If two rulesets are writted by the same guy with a good quality of rules desing, the one with less diversity will be more balanced. That is just a fact.
But as I play GW games more from a narrative mindset, I prefer more diversity than just pure gameplay balance.
And I'll repeat. One game can have more diversity and be more balanced that other game, but because its a better written game.
Galef wrote: Armies should have strengths and weaknesses and you shouldn't be able to take just the strengths of a different faction to plug the holes in others.
I agree, though I think most people still playing 40k probably like the infinite possibility rather than having structure with specific factions having specific strengths and weaknesses.
auticus wrote: Well off hand we have Warmachine of course, and XWing, and Kings of War, and Warpath, and Infinity. These are all games popular in my area that utilize points and have various factions.
None of those are perfect, and I'm not a fan of any of them myself, but their points are miles ahead of GWs attempts.
40k's balance issues are so glaring that it would take little time to cut the gregarious offenders out. Its the extreme busted builds that cause the most issues as opposed to the minor issues.
For Warmachine, I think that PP's constant rebalancing speaks tons to how imbalanced the game really is - even though they're doing something about it, which is great - but not more balanced at any point in time really.
There's like 3 people in the world who play KoW, Warpath or Infinity, and even less competition - that's clearly not enough to cause the level of net-listing 40k is largely a victim of.
And X-Wing is of course not comparable, with vastly less everything than 40K has.
It's not on the same level of complexity, anyone can pick it up in an hour, which is a great thing, but doesn't put it in the category of games like 40K.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Malifaux, SAGA, Infinity, Bolt Action, Kings of War... the list just goes and goes.
You're comparing skirmish and obscure games with 40K ?
Hell, until recently I hadn't even heard of SAGA, and comparing Bolt Action or Infinity to 40K is just dishonest.
No, what I'm asking for, is an example of a wargame with a standard game having about 50 to 200 models, vehicles, planes, titans, little dudes, skimmers, a wide variety of weapons and rules.
If you can name even two such games that have seen enough competition to reveal their imbalance and yet have less imbalance than 40K, then your argument may hold some ground.
auticus wrote: Well off hand we have Warmachine of course, and XWing, and Kings of War, and Warpath, and Infinity. These are all games popular in my area that utilize points and have various factions.
None of those are perfect, and I'm not a fan of any of them myself, but their points are miles ahead of GWs attempts.
40k's balance issues are so glaring that it would take little time to cut the gregarious offenders out. Its the extreme busted builds that cause the most issues as opposed to the minor issues.
For Warmachine, I think that PP's constant rebalancing speaks tons to how imbalanced the game really is - even though they're doing something about it, which is great - but not more balanced at any point in time really.
There's like 3 people in the world who play KoW, Warpath or Infinity, and even less competition - that's clearly not enough to cause the level of net-listing 40k is largely a victim of.
And X-Wing is of course not comparable, with vastly less everything than 40K has.
It's not on the same level of complexity, anyone can pick it up in an hour, which is a great thing, but doesn't put it in the category of games like 40K.
When I picked up the Cult Mechanicus book at release, I could - with a cursory glance - tell that Kataphrons were going to be very very good and Electro-priests were going to be absolutely a 100% pointless waste of points. I have not played any game system where the balance has been so glaringly tilted that I could at a glance disregard certain units completely. This long after the release, I have yet to find anyone that thinks Electro-priests useful in any regard that can't be vastly outdone by one or several other units.
I also prefer diversity in my games. I also prefer not being able to memorize every army and knowing exactly what I'd be facing in every game. Because I did that for a decade of tournament play and it burned me out to the point I almost got out of this hobby permanently because of it.
If you can name even two such games that have seen enough competition to reveal their imbalance and yet have less imbalance than 40K, then your argument may hold some ground.
When I picked up the Cult Mechanicus book at release, I could - with a cursory glance - tell that Kataphrons were going to be very very good and Electro-priests were going to be absolutely a 100% pointless waste of points. I have not played any game system where the balance has been so glaringly tilted that I could at a glance disregard certain units completely. This long after the release, I have yet to find anyone that thinks Electro-priests useful in any regard that can't be vastly outdone by one or several other units.
Very good, but was any of those game systems actually comparable to 40k in breadth and diversity?
Galas wrote: Malifaux, SAGA, Infinity, Bolt Action, Kings of War... the list just goes and goes.
You're comparing skirmish and obscure games with 40K ?
Hell, until recently I hadn't even heard of SAGA, and comparing Bolt Action or Infinity to 40K is just dishonest.
No, what I'm asking for, is an example of a wargame with a standard game having about 50 to 200 models, vehicles, planes, titans, little dudes, skimmers, a wide variety of weapons and rules.
If you can name even two such games that have seen enough competition to reveal their imbalance and yet have less imbalance than 40K, then your argument may hold some ground.
After you assertion:
There's like 3 people in the world who play KoW, Warpath or Infinity, and even less competition - that's clearly not enough to cause the level of net-listing 40k is largely a victim of
I think this isn't going anywhere.
Maybe, you know, the worst fault of 40k is that it is a game that don't know what it want to be? A game where Titans kill infantry platoons in the droves but then you have different weapon profiles for the weapons your squad leader of that same infantry platoon its wearing.
Maybe thats the reason no other game with the "scale" of 40k exist, and thats why 40k its so unbalanced. Because other people know that this is a path with no good ending.
auticus wrote: I also prefer diversity in my games. I also prefer not being able to memorize every army and knowing exactly what I'd be facing in every game. Because I did that for a decade of tournament play and it burned me out to the point I almost got out of this hobby permanently because of it.
If you can name even two such games that have seen enough competition to reveal their imbalance and yet have less imbalance than 40K, then your argument may hold some ground.
Warmaster and Epic.
I don't think that qualifies.
Neither were as wide and deep as 40K, neither saw the same success, tournament scene, and game-breaking attempts.
But I see your point about every game being the same.
And that's the case in every game, even those which are much better balanced.
Look at SC2, it's infinitely more balanced than any board game and a lot less diverse than 40K, yet there aren't 37 different builds for each faction.
It's great to want diversity, it's almost impossible to offer balance within diversity.
Maybe, you know, the worst fault of 40k is that it is a game that don't know what it want to be? A game where Titans kill infantry platoons in the droves but then you have different weapon profiles for the weapons your squad leader of that same infantry platoon its wearing.
Maybe thats the reason no other game with the "scale" of 40k exist, and thats why 40k its so unbalanced. Because other people know that this is a path with no good ending.
So essentially, what you're saying is that you don't like 40K the way it is, and then proceed to say instead that it's unreasonably unbalanced for the type of game it is.
Well here's the deal: it probably isn't.
And I totally agree that AOS-ification or any kind of simplification would be a GREAT thing for 40K.
I'm not sure that depends on the squad leader having a different weapon, because before that guy died last anyway so there never was any slowdown except when the platoon itself attacked.
So yeah, simplification would be good, bringing it closer to other simpler game systems would be good, but you still don't have any example of anything that's even remotely like 40K and that has a better diversity/balance compromise.
Those are all army-scale games. Thats where they qualify.
40k could be a lot better balanced if the company that produced it put game-balance as one of their priorities. They have repeatedly said in many blogs and interviews that its not their priority though.
It would never be perfectly balanced but there are a lot of really gross examples of imbalance that can be killed off with little effort.
When you can pick between two things, and something its just plain better than the other option... are you really having two options?
Its 40k really that diverse? Diversity, when mixed with a so unbalanced system than 60% of the options are uterly useless compared with the rest, its a ilusion of Diversity.
And I actually, as I said early, that I prefer diversity over balance. But I prefer ACTUAL diversity.
If I have 10 options equally playable, that game IS more diverse than a game that offer me 100 options where only 5 are useful.
But thats my impresion. And thats why I think that a game like Infinity or even Kings of War, with less options, offer more Diversity that the actual Warhammer 40k.
One example of my point: Codex: Tyranid Flyrant. One codex, only one real option.
40k has very little Diversity, It has no Balance in its diversity.
This in turn harms both its depth and how wide it is, when players are pushed into Form fit formats for there army.
It goes far more than balance of just rules when Players can turn up to games that one army can effectively Nullify Entire units, and worse when these units should be a base for the army construction.
Its a bit of a joke to think that 40k is some special snowflake with no game close. In the end you can have army with very few working elements, and some with more. But its not that far from the avg game of warmachine to the avg 40k games.
With the game of infinity have far more diversity of its basic elements than a lot of 40k army can have.
Bring on the AoSing! Maybe GW will get some good diversity in there models as well
Galas wrote: When you can pick between two things, and something its just plain better than the other option... are you really having two options?
Its 40k really that diverse? Diversity, when mixed with a so unbalanced system than 60% of the options are uterly useless compared with the rest, its a ilusion of Diversity.
And I actually, as I said early, that I prefer diversity over balance. But I prefer ACTUAL diversity. If I have 10 options equally playable, that game ITS more diverse than a game that offer me 100 options where only 5 are useful.
But thats my impresion. And thats why I think that a game like Infinity or even Kings of War, with less options, offer more Diversity that the actual Warhammer 40k.
One example of my point: Codex: Tyranid Flyrant. One codex, only one real option.
^^This. If there was a much more structured way of playing, than players would be forced to dig deeper into their armies to fill points, encouraging diversity.
As a bonus, it would cut down on the sheer number of special rules possible in a given game, thus speeding up games and cutting rules bloat
Galas wrote: When you can pick between two things, and something its just plain better than the other option... are you really having two options?
Its 40k really that diverse? Diversity, when mixed with a so unbalanced system than 60% of the options are uterly useless compared with the rest, its a ilusion of Diversity.
And I actually, as I said early, that I prefer diversity over balance. But I prefer ACTUAL diversity.
If I have 10 options equally playable, that game IS more diverse than a game that offer me 100 options where only 5 are useful.
But thats my impresion. And thats why I think that a game like Infinity or even Kings of War, with less options, offer more Diversity that the actual Warhammer 40k.
One example of my point: Codex: Tyranid Flyrant. One codex, only one real option.
And that is a netlisting conclusion.
If you're looking at it that way, every single game out there just has a single unique #1 build at all times.
And a single unique #1 build per faction at all times.
As you have decided to restrict your choices to only #1, of course you only have one choice.
That's the same everywhere, no matter the game and including the very balanced competitive computer games.
The actual game, however, when enjoyed by people who are not trying to break it (a small minority), is incredibly vast.
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
There's got to be a better way of dealing with Deathstars. Maybe it's not allowing ICs from separate Codices/supplements into a unit. Maybe it's a 2 meter wide exhaust port. I don't know. But a 1 IC per unit limit really hurts weaker armies, too. Painboy and a Warboss in the same Boyz/Warbiker unit? Bye bye. Priests and Primaris Psykers in IG blobs? Bye bye. It's not particularly elegant of a fix and arguably hurts weaker armies more than stronger armies. Should we undergo a Sigmarization, not all ICs deserve to be stuck out in the open by themselves, especially force multipliers like aforementioned Painboy and Ministorum Priest. Whether super killy ICs are forced to go alone or force multiplier ICs are taken as upgrades to units, not all ICs should get the same treatment under an AoS-style rule set.
GW could invent a new character type, so we have ICs of which you can only have one in a unit, and ICs of which you can have more than one in a unit. So Librarians and Chaos Lords would be type 1 and painboyz, primaris psykers and inquisitorial henchmen become type 2. Hey presto, you can have the best of both worlds!
auticus wrote: AOS points did not make AOS balanced. It made it more structured. The points themselves are, like most of GW's attempts at points, very flawed.
Also points in a vacuum don't work very well as a 100 point defensive unit may be worth 200-300 points in a scenario that is defensive in nature and may not be worth 50 points if that in a scenario where they have to move and be offensive. I say that having wrote azyr comp for AOS.
The deathstar thing - I hate deathstars. I hope those go away forever. I'd be ok with a single character being able to join a unit and then being able to target that character but it gets a Look Out Sir. Anything more than that just encourages the death star garbage thats been a staple in 40k (and fantasy) for the past couple of decades.
There's got to be a better way of dealing with Deathstars. Maybe it's not allowing ICs from separate Codices/supplements into a unit. Maybe it's a 2 meter wide exhaust port. I don't know. But a 1 IC per unit limit really hurts weaker armies, too. Painboy and a Warboss in the same Boyz/Warbiker unit? Bye bye. Priests and Primaris Psykers in IG blobs? Bye bye. It's not particularly elegant of a fix and arguably hurts weaker armies more than stronger armies. Should we undergo a Sigmarization, not all ICs deserve to be stuck out in the open by themselves, especially force multipliers like aforementioned Painboy and Ministorum Priest. Whether super killy ICs are forced to go alone or force multiplier ICs are taken as upgrades to units, not all ICs should get the same treatment under an AoS-style rule set.
GW could invent a new character type, so we have ICs of which you can only have one in a unit, and ICs of which you can have more than one in a unit. So Librarians and Chaos Lords would be type 1 and painboyz, primaris psykers and inquisitorial henchmen become type 2. Hey presto, you can have the best of both worlds!
Well would you fething look at that. People complain that GW doesn't listen, and they start to do so, then we got a vocal majority saying the game needs a total reboot so that's what they're going to attempt.
What harm is it really going to do? AoS is pretty balanced based off the main posts I see here that don't disparage it because it isn't WHF and that they BLEW IT UP!!!
Might as well see what the change brings.
Galas wrote: When you can pick between two things, and something its just plain better than the other option... are you really having two options?
Its 40k really that diverse? Diversity, when mixed with a so unbalanced system than 60% of the options are uterly useless compared with the rest, its a ilusion of Diversity.
And I actually, as I said early, that I prefer diversity over balance. But I prefer ACTUAL diversity.
If I have 10 options equally playable, that game IS more diverse than a game that offer me 100 options where only 5 are useful.
But thats my impresion. And thats why I think that a game like Infinity or even Kings of War, with less options, offer more Diversity that the actual Warhammer 40k.
One example of my point: Codex: Tyranid Flyrant. One codex, only one real option.
And that is a netlisting conclusion.
If you're looking at it that way, every single game out there just has a single unique #1 build at all times.
And a single unique #1 build per faction at all times.
As you have decided to restrict your choices to only #1, of course you only have one choice.
That's the same everywhere, no matter the game and including the very balanced competitive computer games.
The actual game, however, when enjoyed by people who are not trying to break it (a small minority), is incredibly vast.
I'm one of those that always use a giant in his armys so I'm far from the netlist and competitive player mindset
But we are speaking here of the competitive type of player. And you are correct that always will be something that its the number 1 in the "meta" of the game.
But its very different when the second "build/hero/unit" whatever its 5% less powerful than the number 1, and when the second one is 60% less powerfull and the last one its like a toddler fighting Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson in WWE.
Vash108 wrote: As far as AoS goes does it encourage mixed weapons in groups,? I would be curious if it would do the same in 40k.
Yes and no.
There are some units that can take mixed weapons; i.e. "Some models in the unit can have swords and shields while others can have spears and shields". For the most part you're looking at something like:
A unit of Dudebros can choose to take Dudehammers and Dudeshields, Dudeswords and Dudeshields, or Dudehammers and Dudeswords. The Dudebrah gets to make an additional attack/hits or wounds betterer with his Dudehammer or Dudesword.
1 in 10 Dudebros can take a Dudegreathammer/Greatsword.
That's the kind of setup we tend to see right now.
Galas wrote: When you can pick between two things, and something its just plain better than the other option... are you really having two options?
Its 40k really that diverse? Diversity, when mixed with a so unbalanced system than 60% of the options are uterly useless compared with the rest, its a ilusion of Diversity.
And I actually, as I said early, that I prefer diversity over balance. But I prefer ACTUAL diversity.
If I have 10 options equally playable, that game IS more diverse than a game that offer me 100 options where only 5 are useful.
But thats my impresion. And thats why I think that a game like Infinity or even Kings of War, with less options, offer more Diversity that the actual Warhammer 40k.
One example of my point: Codex: Tyranid Flyrant. One codex, only one real option.
And that is a netlisting conclusion.
If you're looking at it that way, every single game out there just has a single unique #1 build at all times.
And a single unique #1 build per faction at all times.
As you have decided to restrict your choices to only #1, of course you only have one choice.
That's the same everywhere, no matter the game and including the very balanced competitive computer games.
The actual game, however, when enjoyed by people who are not trying to break it (a small minority), is incredibly vast.
When played in a casual setting 40k breaks all the time. Its more effort to not break it than it is to break it so often, otherwise this just seems to end up being the same "your playing it wrong"
Look at SC2, it's infinitely more balanced than any board game and a lot less diverse than 40K, yet there aren't 37 different builds for each faction.
It's great to want diversity, it's almost impossible to offer balance within diversity.
I like diversity of models, but not necessarily rules. Therefore I can see a diverse model range existing with a simple ruleset if we lump certain models into categories.
For example, we could lump all space marine special characters into a category called 'space marine special characters', who all have the same rules. Then you have one set of rules, but lots of models that could represent that unit. This means that GW could release new models without having to release rules updates, and players can play their favourite models without having to jeopardise their chances of winning. You could have unit options to represent their different wargear, but in simplified manner, so Calgar has two power fists and Lysander has a thunder hammer and storm shield, for example.
Other categories could be:
space marine light vehicles (rhino, razorback, landspeeder)
space marine support vehicles (stalker, predator, whirlwind)
imperial guard support vehcicles (leman russ, hydra)
and so on. There could be some options with the entry to represent guns or flying, but I think you'll recognise that having one codex entry for space marine support tanks with some options for it is simpler than four or five entries with different options and points costs. This also has the benefit of being easier to balance because if you create a new faction, you can give it the same categories and just create models to fill the categories. Obviously some factions will lack certain categories and gain others, but across various factions, all codices will have similar look entries but with different weapons or options.
PS I haven't actually fleshed this out in detail - it's just an idea, but I think it represents some out of the box thinking that could improve 40k.
Vash108 wrote: As far as AoS goes does it encourage mixed weapons in groups,? I would be curious if it would do the same in 40k.
Yes and no.
There are some units that can take mixed weapons; i.e. "Some models in the unit can have swords and shields while others can have spears and shields". For the most part you're looking at something like:
A unit of Dudebros can choose to take Dudehammers and Dudeshields, Dudeswords and Dudeshields, or Dudehammers and Dudeswords. The Dudebrah gets to make an additional attack/hits or wounds betterer with his Dudehammer or Dudesword.
1 in 10 Dudebros can take a Dudegreathammer/Greatsword.
That's the kind of setup we tend to see right now.
So it would probably work more or less like it does now with 1 in 5 dudebros can take a special weapon.
Galas wrote: ...
Maybe, you know, the worst fault of 40k is that it is a game that don't know what it want to be? A game where Titans kill infantry platoons in the droves but then you have different weapon profiles for the weapons your squad leader of that same infantry platoon its wearing.
Maybe thats the reason no other game with the "scale" of 40k exist, and thats why 40k its so unbalanced. Because other people know that this is a path with no good ending.
Back in 5th and earlier 6th edition, Apocalypse was the only place to play with Super-heavies and Titans, and I felt it was better for it. I would much rather have different scaled sizes of the game rather than the risk of dealing with Super-heavies and Gargantuan Creatures in regular sized games and have no possible counter for it. 30K even has a restriction that the army must be at least so many points, and then there is a further army percentage restriction. If GW were to give of "3 ways to play", I would like to different scales of game over Matched/Open/Narrative. I want to see Kill Team for skirmish games, standard games for larger games (up to so many points), and Apocalypse all rolled into the main book (or equivalent General's Handbook) so as to give players the options to play the games they want.
Anyone else remember the old Battle Missions book from 4th and 5th Edition? I liked that book. Maybe I should dig out my old copy...
corpuschain wrote: GW could invent a new character type, so we have ICs of which you can only have one in a unit, and ICs of which you can have more than one in a unit. So Librarians and Chaos Lords would be type 1 and painboyz, primaris psykers and inquisitorial henchmen become type 2. Hey presto, you can have the best of both worlds!
I like this idea as well, and GW has played with it before in the past. Warhammer Fantasy had Heroes and Lords on top of Unit Champions. Warmahordes has Unit Attachments in addition to Solo models and Unit Leaders. Age of Sigmar just has loose characters aside from the squad sergeants. Heck, even in 40K we already had HQ characters, and then non-HQ Independent Characters that could be taken with a 0-3 limit (see the Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum Codexes [Codices?]).
Vash108 wrote: As far as AoS goes does it encourage mixed weapons in groups,? I would be curious if it would do the same in 40k.
Yes and no.
There are some units that can take mixed weapons; i.e. "Some models in the unit can have swords and shields while others can have spears and shields". For the most part you're looking at something like:
A unit of Dudebros can choose to take Dudehammers and Dudeshields, Dudeswords and Dudeshields, or Dudehammers and Dudeswords. The Dudebrah gets to make an additional attack/hits or wounds betterer with his Dudehammer or Dudesword.
1 in 10 Dudebros can take a Dudegreathammer/Greatsword.
That's the kind of setup we tend to see right now.
So it would probably work more or less like it does now with 1 in 5 dudebros can take a special weapon.
More or less. Some units have options for SgtDudebro to make him a little more powerful. So, again, not much different.
Excited about the changes, and happy that I guessed right for most of them. The error I see a lot of people not in favor of them making is they are assuming these changes with today's ruleset. The thunder hammers on charge issue, it's very unlikely that thunder hammers will stay the same, who knows maybe unwieldy weapons will allow only one attack, and that attack inflicts multiple wounds to a single target, so it's great for monster/vehicle hunting but so so at clearing infantry. They hinted at changes like this when they said weapons will now perform more like they do in fluff.
I'm hoping the next reveal is the vehicle changes, the vehicle rules are awful in 40k, and giving them the AoS treatment where they function more like MCs with a toughness value, armor saves, and a large number of wounds seems like a good fix.
Speaking of saves, one save choose which would also be a very welcome change, choose your armor/invul/cover save, roll it and that's it, no FnP, No LoS, No RP, save or take the wounds. FnP and RP can be done in different ways that do not increase unit durability in a multiplicative manner. Having played flesh eater courts, I think that is a wonderful way to do repair protocols, tough guys have multiple wounds and heal every round, and single wound units can be replaced. No shooting at a unit for five rounds and not getting a single wound thru. FnP could become a beserker-like thing where after taking a fatal wound they are not immediately removed from the board, instead, they get to act on their next turn and then they expire. Kind of like Dogged from infinity.
I've always found striking in order to be an annoying and silly mechanic. A marine swinging an axe is so cumbersome that five men armed with knives all get to strike at him before he can land a single blow, it's just dumb. Unfortunately it has become something of a norm for wargames. The proposed 8th ed system is no better: A squad of guys with bayonets fixed, expecting a charge will be half wiped out before they can strike back?
There are much better ways of handling combat. LOTR did it well with opposed dice rolls. Combat should be simultaneous, except in special circumstances. "First Strike" has it's place -models with spears and stealth attacks, for example, are justified in being able to get their blows in first. It should be a limited special rule though.
Hopeful for this - there are lot of good things in AOS that arer awful in 40k at the moment
Monsters are much more thematic and better rules than what we are stuck with in 40k and it will be interesting to see how they handle trasnprt vehicles with the new dwarf airships.
My memory is escaping me. I'm trying my best to remember who had their signature stating AOS was 40K players' warning, and if it was on this board or one of the others. THAT dude gets a cookie.
If this goes down the way AOS did, I may be able to bulk up my 3rd Ed. armies really fast and really cheap. That's the only thing I'm looking forward to. And I'm cautiously waiting to see how the playerbase changes. If we bleed more than we bring in, then I will be stuck with ebay to find my toys. THAT won't be good at all, but maybe it's necessary at this point.
Back in 5th and earlier 6th edition, Apocalypse was the only place to play with Super-heavies and Titans, and I felt it was better for it
True. The problem was, and GW obviously saw this on their bottomline, was that few wanted to deviate from tournament standard, which APOC was not a part of, and they weren't selling the super heavy models because few wanted them if they weren't tournament standard.
thegreatchimp wrote: I've always found striking in order to be an annoying and silly mechanic. A marine swinging an axe is so cumbersome that five men armed with knives all get to strike at him before he can land a single blow, it's just dumb. Unfortunately it has become something of a norm for wargames. The proposed 8th ed system is no better: A squad of guys with bayonets fixed, expecting a charge will be half wiped out before they can strike back?
There are much better ways of handling combat. LOTR did it well with opposed dice rolls. Combat should be simultaneous, except in special circumstances. "First Strike" has it's place -models with spears and stealth attacks, for example, are justified in being able to get their blows in first. It should be a limited special rule though.
Honestly, I think Initiative is such a terrible stat for immersion... You've got crazy good Dark Eldar dude in one corner, with Init 9, WS 7 or 8 or whatever, the guy would basically be impossible to touch for anyone not truly remarkable themselves, and some poor schmuck still hits him half the friggin time. why?
The guy is so blazing fast you can't even see his moves, yet he only manages to strike once, when a Powerfist dude manages just as many attacks in the same time ? wtf.
I like the proposed change of "chargers" strike first, it's going to make things a lot simpler.
Best would probably be nobody goes first ... anyway, getting rid of the nearly useless I stat sounds like a good thing to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FrozenDwarf wrote: better sooner then later.
300+ pages rule books are outdated and unwanted.
if you cant learn how to play any mini game whitin an afternoon, then the rules are unessesary complex.
True that.
Maybe an afternoon is a bit short-ish, but when most people struggle with most things even after ten games, there is something terrible going on.
I have been playing 40k since 1988 and completely lost any interest during 6:th and 7:th. Recently me and my son has started playing Age of Sigmar and it actually is a fun game!
I would be interested in a complete reboot of 40k, especially if it will make my orks playable again.
Galef wrote: Whatever happens, I really hope they get rid of the "take whatever you want" for structured play. Unbound is fine for that, but structure play should not be Unbound + tax = bonuses.
Something like only 1 CAD or Codex equivalent allowed. Formations are now taken are a "slot" within that detachment, rather than as stand-alone choices.
Only 1 "2nd faction detachment" is allowed. This would be Allied detachments (with 1 Formation slot available) or unique detachments like Assassins and Knights.
If you want to take 3 or more Factions, your army instantly becomes Unbound and loses all command benefits AND Formation bonuses.
That would really cut down on power builds. Want to add a Riptide wing to your Eldar CAD? You need to take an Allied Detahcment with 1 Tau HQ and 1 Troop to "unlock" it.
This is how "structure" or "matched" play should be.
None of that would matter if all units were fairly costed.
I am not worried about it fixing balance, I just miss the days of knowing what to expect from an opponent. When you can take units from 3+ Factions and unlimited detachments, "traditional" weaknesses are hard to exploit. I can no longer say "Oh you're playing X army, I know exactly how that plays" because no one play X army anymore. They play XYZ armies.
Armies should have strengths and weaknesses and you shouldn't be able to take just the strengths of a different faction to plug the holes in others.
Plus, structured play like this would encourage more thematic armies, instead of cherry picking what is good from multiple armies.
I just wish armies could have their playstyle AND have weaknesses. What do you do against current lists like Riptides that have interceptor/skyfire? Can't walk up the board or you get shot to death. Can't deep strike or you lose your models. Can't have a jink based army because Tau have ignores cover spamming more than any other army.
Meanwhile you can't even play Imperial Guard at a tournament because they're so bad.
Why are we not even willing to give potential army balance a chance? People are seriously so up in arms about a few rules that they'd rather jump ship then to have Orks be good.
But the naysayers won't leave, they'll stick around like jaded cops waiting for their pension. Look at how many people whine on dakkadakka about 40k rules/tactics when they haven't even played since 5th edition. Its just going to get worse.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
Every single good 40K player disagrees with you.
You can give an electro deathstar to an average player, which isn't even a hard build to play, and he'll get creamed by good players with bottom tier armies.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
Every single good 40K player disagrees with you.
You can give an electro deathstar to an average player, which isn't even a hard build to play, and he'll get creamed by good players with bottom tier armies.
If the list did most of it, we'd know by now.
Really?
Seems you play a different 40k than the rest.
40K has genuine tactical depth, but the level of game literacy required to play it well is out of all proportion to the amount of fun or tactical depth, for most people.
The attached warscroll is what I assume is the Age of Sigmar corollary to the 40K Tactical Marine. So presumably this would be similar-ish to what 8th edition would look like.
no ballistic skill chart, no strength vs toughness chart, armor save modifiers listed on weapon profile, special rules listed on the unit warscroll.
I like AOS personally and if they make 40k more like this I'll be getting a new army for it as well.
I just had a Horrible thought. What if 8th edition uses the EXACT same rules as AoS, putting out new Warscolls for the existing 40K models? Then they write some fluff that the AoS Realms exist within the 40K universe and the 2 have become aware of each other.
AoS and 40K could play like Warmachine & Hordes....ugh.
Galef wrote: I just had a Horrible thought. What if 8th edition uses the EXACT same rules as AoS, putting out new Warscolls for the existing 40K models? Then they write some fluff that the AoS Realms exist within the 40K universe and the 2 have become aware of each other.
AoS and 40K could play like Warmachine & Hordes....ugh.
Paranoia and fanfictions aren't a valid source for guesses. To begin with even with the announcements, 40k would play differently from AOS.
Galef wrote: I just had a Horrible thought. What if 8th edition uses the EXACT same rules as AoS, putting out new Warscolls for the existing 40K models? Then they write some fluff that the AoS Realms exist within the 40K universe and the 2 have become aware of each other.
AoS and 40K could play like Warmachine & Hordes....ugh.
..So like the really old days when Chaos Space Marines came over through the portals from time to time? Fantasy used to be at one point just another world in the 40k universe.
It seems to me too that the list building phase is where most of the game is won, at least in my experiences. But the problems in my experience lies not with the lists, but the players that abuse the broken system in order to win constantly. I have sworn off of tournaments and just stick to games with certain players, and I feel so much better about my gaming experiences.
Sure, the current game has issues, but no change will get rid of WAACTFG style players. A new edition might distract them, but they will always find a way to play their way. While I am excited for a new edition, I am still hesitant to start going back to tournaments again.
Back in 5th and earlier 6th edition, Apocalypse was the only place to play with Super-heavies and Titans, and I felt it was better for it
True. The problem was, and GW obviously saw this on their bottomline, was that few wanted to deviate from tournament standard, which APOC was not a part of, and they weren't selling the super heavy models because few wanted them if they weren't tournament standard.
Doesn't 30k have a 25% rule when it comes to Lords of War? As in your Lord of War units can't comprise more than 25% of your total points. That would keep a lot of the bigger stuff out of normal sized games and it would help keep people from taking formations of some of the less expensive Lords of War.
Of course there's the related issue of the various Lords of War needing to be costed fairly.
I have found that tournaments bring out the worst in some people.
That has nothing to do with the game system or balance or anything.
I have won games where I had the worse list by a long shot and would've won by turn 3 if the tables had been turned, and I have lost games against better players where my list was massively better than theirs but I just lacked another 20 games wirh it to drive it properly.
List bulding is important, fun, and rightly so, but tournaments have proven time and time again that's just a small part of the game.
The single biggest factor in 40K seems to be skill, followed closely by luck, and then list building.
Good players place high consistently, even with subpar lists or armies, whereas finals have seen weaker army lists pull an unlikely win thanks to the dice god.
I'll never get this idea that AoS is more tactical and less likely to result in a one-sided curb stomp than 40k.
To each there own but I dont see which games you are playing or watching.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
Every single good 40K player disagrees with you.
You can give an electro deathstar to an average player, which isn't even a hard build to play, and he'll get creamed by good players with bottom tier armies.
If the list did most of it, we'd know by now.
So where are the bottom tier armies winning GTs. It takes a good list and a good player to finish in the winner's circle, the top lists are few in number and universally exploit unbalanced units/formations. Here is why it matters, at the top level of play you have a large enough population that skill levels are somewhat homogenized (certainly more than you would find at a local meta). This allows the other two factors Luck, and army list, to have a much larger effect on the outcome. Since luck will always return the mean, that leaves army lists as a deciding factor. When we see such a small number of army lists at the top, we know balance is off. This is an important feedback mechanism for the game, it gives us a clear picture of where adjustments are needed.
Since skill is so wildly different in local metas, and it plays such a large role in the game outcome, it makes it hard for local only players to determine what's balanced and how much of a boost someone is getting from having a strong army list. This leads to all sort of weird ideas about game balance and the role various factors play. This means when talking about balance it's best to take a step back from your personal experience and look at the top of the game. The top shows there are some clear issues with game balance, and people who say list is all that matters are oversimplifying the issue, but there really is an issue there.
There are inherent difficulties in balancing lists when there are so many options. We know this both from game theory and from practical observation of such games, 40K included. It would be sufficiently time-consuming to balance such a game in the initial design process, that it's effectively impossible to do so, even with extensive playtesting. This is why games like Magic: The Gathering, or MOBA games, use ongoing rules tweaks and potentially just outright ban unbalanced options or combos. GW doesn't care about any of that stuff -- they don't even do the initial playtesting, really. So they are better off giving us a simpler ruleset, as long as it has decent rules and deep strategy.
Galef wrote: I just had a Horrible thought. What if 8th edition uses the EXACT same rules as AoS, putting out new Warscolls for the existing 40K models? Then they write some fluff that the AoS Realms exist within the 40K universe and the 2 have become aware of each other.
AoS and 40K could play like Warmachine & Hordes....ugh.
Sounds good to me - I honestly don;t know why they did not do that from day one
thegreatchimp wrote: I've always found striking in order to be an annoying and silly mechanic. A marine swinging an axe is so cumbersome that five men armed with knives all get to strike at him before he can land a single blow, it's just dumb. Unfortunately it has become something of a norm for wargames. The proposed 8th ed system is no better: A squad of guys with bayonets fixed, expecting a charge will be half wiped out before they can strike back?
There are much better ways of handling combat. LOTR did it well with opposed dice rolls. Combat should be simultaneous, except in special circumstances. "First Strike" has it's place -models with spears and stealth attacks, for example, are justified in being able to get their blows in first. It should be a limited special rule though.
Martel732 wrote: 40k has lots of options, but huge swaths of them are very similar, but differ in easily comparable ways.
Yes, but "easily comparable" doesn't mean "easily playtestable". You get emergent complexity once you start looking at 12 factions, maybe 20 or 30 units each (even if many are similar), 1500+ point games, and optional wargear. It gets worse when you add formations. There is a very high chance that a degenerate strategy will emerge -- the one essentially unbeatable list, unbeatable even by other high-level players. So you might as well not have any options at all...
The single biggest factor in 40K seems to be skill, followed closely by luck, and then list building.
Wow. I have never tought that this day will come.
Actually, to me, with the most basic guidelines like don't overextend your trops, go for objetives and don't fail in the bait-units, W40k its one of the less skilled heavy wargames or even tabletop games I known. My ranking of "things that are important to win 40k" its literal the inverse of yours.
You can call that Tournament are a small portion of the game and that where you play subpar lists all go rank 1 with good players. But just look at the list of the bigger tournaments and you will se that all the good list are clones and all the broken spams we all know. 80% (Totally accurate percentage) of the games of 40k are decided in the List and Army selection.
And a game so based in dice rolling as 40k can't be really a skill heavy game.
greyknight12 wrote: It's pretty sad that the game has hit the point that so many players are literally saying "well, anything is better than this"
I am of the mindset there is literally nothing they can accidentally do to make Grey Knights worse. We got nowhere to go but up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I agree the order for winning in 40k is
-List building
-Luck
-Skill
Play chaos... there is always farther down the rabbits hole to go.
Also AoS is not a tactical game it is literally a move to the center and start rolling. People are fighting in the center 99 of your guys vs 1 of theirs shoot him your bolt stormers or storm bolters what ever it is for sigmarines. Do not worry your arrows disappear when they hit your guys they only hurt them "smart fricking arrows".. Try to make your army split nope The magic boss fields make sure your general needs to be in the center for synergy.
Want scenery nope peek a boo elves are a thing now.... so much fun
At least list building is almost a thing in 40k for aos people are to dumb to do it so they have pre made lists you pick.
In terms of the way it's going, I rather they burn it down and rebuild it again.
Currently the rules are a joke.
The fact they need constant errata for said rules as they weren't thought out says it all.
Granted sometimes there is oversight, but around 30 questions per book with easily triple that not answered?
In terms of order, list building is key.
Throw a new player a tournament eldar list and run them through it for half hour and they shouldn't have many issues in games again good players with low tier armies.
Only so much skill can compensate for poor units.
Being a good general will make them better, sure.
It won't however have them competing as some other units do.
Luck is also highly relevant as I have seen countless games won and lost on a dice roll in the last turn.
Hell, seizing the initiative is huge for some armies and that is pure luck.
A gun line army can make or break depending on opponent and 1st turn.
Edit: ogre, you want want to look into AoS a bit more.
If your army is clumped in the middle then you have screwed up somewhere in the game.
Trying to grind through the centre will be an auto loss for most armies.
I do agree on the shooting into combat though and always hitting enemies.
That has bugged me from day 1.
Generally though AoS is a highly tactical game when played by 2 competent people.
The only time you should have multiple units in 1 place is if your removing a key unit or using a hammer and anvil.
Clumping just allows someone to flank you and pick of vulnerable or key parts of your army.
Ian Sturrock wrote: There are inherent difficulties in balancing lists when there are so many options. We know this both from game theory and from practical observation of such games, 40K included. It would be sufficiently time-consuming to balance such a game in the initial design process, that it's effectively impossible to do so, even with extensive playtesting. This is why games like Magic: The Gathering, or MOBA games, use ongoing rules tweaks and potentially just outright ban unbalanced options or combos. GW doesn't care about any of that stuff -- they don't even do the initial playtesting, really. So they are better off giving us a simpler ruleset, as long as it has decent rules and deep strategy.
If they move to using freely available online warscrolls and a General's Handbook that is updated yearly like AoS then they'll have the ability to tweak point costs and unit rules on a regular basis. I'm not saying that they couldn't simplify things as well, just that the ability to tweak things without costing the players a lot of money can make fine-tuning a relatively complicated ruleset a lot easier.
In terms of the way it's going, I rather they burn it down and rebuild it again.
Currently the rules are a joke.
The fact they need constant errata for said rules as they weren't thought out says it all.
Granted sometimes there is oversight, but around 30 questions per book with easily triple that not answered?.
Can you really call it 30 questions when 6 of them are do my doors half to be open and can I throw it at the other player when I am mad?
I will adress one point , only because I saw it being used all the time.
If you see that all AoS games tend to end in a big fight in the middle, that its because its a game without objetives.
Did you ever played pitched battles in Fantasy? Its exactly the same. A big fight in the middle, maybe with more fast units flanking. Just like AoS.
And thats one of the bigger problems I saw in the old fantasy. Everyone played Pitchet battles! At least, here in Spain. That thing was the most boring type of battle!
At least list building is almost a thing in 40k for aos people are to dumb to do it so they have pre made lists you pick.
Wow.
At first I tought you were serious. Good trolling mate
So when you play ironjaws you dont pick a formation? Because I played them and you either ran ard fist
iron fist
or pig fist or what ever it was called.
You never just picked units. You picked a formation and ran those units.
At least list building is almost a thing in 40k for aos people are to dumb to do it so they have pre made lists you pick.
Wow.
At first I tought you were serious. Good trolling mate
So when you play ironjaws you dont pick a formation? Because I played them and you either ran ard fist
iron fist
or pig fist or what ever it was called.
You never just picked units. You picked a formation and ran those units.
What is 40k Formations & Detachments for 500?
At least you pay for formations in AoS, though you can run without.
Don't try to attack Age of Sigmar with formations, because thats one of the only things that everyone agres its 20 times better in Age of Sigmar than in 40k.
You pay for them, and they need to work with the basic army formation chart.
And you are talking about Ironjawz, a faction that literally has only 3 non hero units.
Galas - good catch, I completely overlooked that one.
I've found that around 90% of the scenarios have no reason for you to be in the middle of the table to begin with.
That is of course ignoring the few where 1 player begins there.
I've found that a good scenario in AoS plays pretty much like 40k.
Just with less issues, less quoting from books and no discussions of rules interpretations.
Galas wrote: Don't try to attack Age of Sigmar with formations, because thats one of the only things that everyone agres its 20 times better in Age of Sigmar than in 40k.
You pay for them, and they need to work with the basic army formation chart.
And you are talking about Ironjawz, a faction that literally has only 3 non hero units.
What can I say thats the AoS I spent my money on the real mistake was not playing the poster boys and thinking I would get units.
Also no one I play with said battletomes where a good idea. It killed list building and everything that was good about the game. List building is amazing now I crack open my pamphlet of rules and look at both units in my army and pick a formation place them down and done... yay...
You can't expect to use a fresh new race and have tons of units to pick. Yeah, Ironjawz and Sylvaneth are not the poster boys like Stormasct and Bloodbound.
Genestealer Cults, Skitarii and Tempestus Scions, Sisters of Silence and Custodes, don't have much selection of units either.
Battletomes are the books. I think you are talking about formations.
But I'll concede you that. I don't like Formations either. But if they are here to stay, I like 20 times more the version of AoS that the one in W40K.
Galas wrote: You can't expect to use a fresh new race and have tons of units to pick. Yeah, Ironjawz and Sylvaneth are not the poster boys like Stormasct and Bloodbound.
Genestealer Cults, Skitarii and Tempestus Scions, Sisters of Silence and Custodes, don't have much selection of units either.
Battletomes are the books. I think you are talking about formations.
But I'll concede you that. I don't like Formations either. But if they are here to stay, I like 20 times more the version of AoS that the one in W40K.
Thats the thing for me list building is more then half the fun of the game. I play less and less each year I enjoy building armies painting and sculpting. The last little bit of fun I had in 40k was list building and then they made riptide wings and such. There is so little choice now a days you win with your wallet not your skill. You want to win with tau you pick that stupid wing thing play 5 riptides.
AoS will always be lacking due to the lack of list building, also they burnt some bridges when ironjaws got 2 units poster boys got 60 and vampire counts got head swaps that where already in the kits....
buffalozap wrote: no ballistic skill chart, no strength vs toughness chart, armor save modifiers listed on weapon profile, special rules listed on the unit warscroll.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I've never found the number of stats on a model's profile to a source of complication.
It's how those stats interact that causes complication, and in that area 40k just sucks donkey balls.
I can deal with a model having 10 stats as long as the interactions are simple enough. In fact I prefer it because it allows more variety between different units. I've never found tables complicated (especially since after a few games you just remember the interactions anyway).
I find having less stats is good in games like Epic 40k, where you want to be able to abstract a whole range of different troops/weapons down to a few simple dice rolls, hence why Epic used "firepower" and I think it worked perfectly well in the context of Epic. 40k has always (or at least the past 20 years) been about having some variety, so more stats doesn't really hurt it.
I'm the opposite - I hate list building and I hate how list building dominates a lot of games. I'd like to actually show up and play against someone and have a game where the game decides the game, not the list.
List building is a very important and fun part of the game. Tabletop strategy is also a very important and fun part of the game. If either aspect becomes relatively unimportant then it wouldn't be near as fun of a game, IMO.
That video was surprisingly kinda funny. The deep strike part made me laugh.
Vid was great. I had to rewind it back to that part. I was stunned and thought to myself "They totally just did that". GW is killin it.
I will say I am hopeful for GW's future. I've playing on and off for years, starting when I was a young blood and I have never seen them change for the better like this. I am curious and bet new strategies and the current direction will attract new players.
As for the list building... I field models I like not models that will make me dominate and crush my opponent. I like to think of myself a very friendly gamer, whether I win or lose as long as both my opponent and I have fun in the process it's all good.
Also AoS is not a tactical game it is literally a move to the center and start rolling. People are fighting in the center 99 of your guys vs 1 of theirs shoot him your bolt stormers or storm bolters what ever it is for sigmarines. Do not worry your arrows disappear when they hit your guys they only hurt them "smart fricking arrows".. Try to make your army split nope The magic boss fields make sure your general needs to be in the center for synergy.
]
Except, you know, that part where the more free-form charge and pile-in phases allow you to position units very specifically to counter enemy formations and drag in additional combats/exclude others, with the bulk of the game's combat being around figuring out the best way to net your optimal unit placement in combats while denying your opponent the same.
So from reading the Warhammer World link with the video I couldn't watch because sleeping kidlets, the new edition is shaping up to be 2nd Ed. spliced with AOS. There may be some grognards who are really happy with this.
Ian Sturrock wrote: There are inherent difficulties in balancing lists when there are so many options. We know this both from game theory and from practical observation of such games, 40K included. It would be sufficiently time-consuming to balance such a game in the initial design process, that it's effectively impossible to do so, even with extensive playtesting. This is why games like Magic: The Gathering, or MOBA games, use ongoing rules tweaks and potentially just outright ban unbalanced options or combos. GW doesn't care about any of that stuff -- they don't even do the initial playtesting, really. So they are better off giving us a simpler ruleset, as long as it has decent rules and deep strategy.
If they move to using freely available online warscrolls and a General's Handbook that is updated yearly like AoS then they'll have the ability to tweak point costs and unit rules on a regular basis. I'm not saying that they couldn't simplify things as well, just that the ability to tweak things without costing the players a lot of money can make fine-tuning a relatively complicated ruleset a lot easier.
Agreed. I think that with a miniatures wargame with multiple factions, online rules and ongoing tweaks is by far the best approach.
Not even close to GK level's now, got a small boost thanks to Traitor Legions. Orks are the one's where you want to hit rock bottom.
I've won the last local competitive tourney with orks just cause everyone forgot how they look like. So, you can call it an anti-meta list, probably. And it seems that the 1 and 2 places are usually occupied by anti-meta lists than the internet wisdom lists go and the rest are people who play for fun. So, in some sense there is a portion of skill involved but it's mostly used to come up with an anti-meta list and to avoid supid mistakes during games.
As for gk. You've still got the dreadknight and librarians. to loose.
I've won the last local competitive tourney with orks just cause everyone forgot how they look like. So, you can call it an anti-meta list, probably. And it seems that the 1 and 2 places are usually occupied by anti-meta lists than the internet wisdom lists go and the rest are people who play for fun. So, in some sense there is a portion of skill involved but it's mostly used to come up with an anti-meta list and to avoid supid mistakes during games.
the german masters series put in a money price for the first one who win a masters tournament with orcs because they are now perfect as an anti-meta list faction
no one did it in the last season and the usual orc tournament players (and there are some very good 40k players) quit the masters because they feel frisked by that announcement (win with orcs is easy if you are good enough, while none of the top 3 players risk their season victory by playing a weak faction)
auticus wrote: I'm the opposite - I hate list building and I hate how list building dominates a lot of games. I'd like to actually show up and play against someone and have a game where the game decides the game, not the list.
But I'm old.
Get off my lawn.
Most people I've spoken to over the decades enjoys list building but just dislikes how badly balanced the game is such that winning revolves around list building.
Here's the difference between good list building and bad list building:
Good list building:
"Hmmm, unit A and unit B look nice, unit A is more choppy and I'm building a choppy force and it'll compliment this other unit C I've already chosen, so I'll take A. Oh, and now I equip them, I see option X, Y and Z, X has a short ranged area of effect which would be cool, I'll take that!"
Bad list building (aka 40k)
"Hmm, unit A and unit B look nice"
*does mental calculation*
"Oh, unit A is much better than unit B, I guess I'll take that. Oh and now for the weapon options, X, Y and Z"
*does a mental calculation*
"Hmm, Y is massively overpriced and Z is never going to function as intended, I guess I'll take X"
orks are very mission - dependent. Also, i won a game vs ravenwing magic deathstar just cause the time went out, so luck definitely played part. Magic ravenwing counters bully boyz easilly otherwise. Got batreps in the batrep section.
Anywayz, back to age of primarchs. I'd love the complete rehaul of the game. Not just that it needs it - it's more fun. Like a new game! Exploration.
auticus wrote: I'm the opposite - I hate list building and I hate how list building dominates a lot of games. I'd like to actually show up and play against someone and have a game where the game decides the game, not the list.
But I'm old.
Get off my lawn.
Most people I've spoken to over the decades enjoys list building but just dislikes how badly balanced the game is such that winning revolves around list building.
Here's the difference between good list building and bad list building:
Good list building:
"Hmmm, unit A and unit B look nice, unit A is more choppy and I'm building a choppy force and it'll compliment this other unit C I've already chosen, so I'll take A. Oh, and now I equip them, I see option X, Y and Z, X has a short ranged area of effect which would be cool, I'll take that!"
Bad list building (aka 40k)
"Hmm, unit A and unit B look nice"
*does mental calculation*
"Oh, unit A is much better than unit B, I guess I'll take that. Oh and now for the weapon options, X, Y and Z"
*does a mental calculation*
"Hmm, Y is massively overpriced and Z is never going to function as intended, I guess I'll take X"
If the units all were perfectly balanced in "Points" for the stats and special rules for each unit.
Even if that was the case we would still have niche units that have very odd roles (And this is fine) so you would still have popular units on the table (Again this is fine). Thats why we have 6 troop slots, an Armies troop was suppose to be the Core. Thats why GK's can have terminators as troops, or SW Bikes for troops. This was a good way to have the bulk of an army more fluffy and then you had those niche units in Elites/ Heavies etc...
But when the points per unit are so skewed and they dont give an army viable troops you get "Net lists" like we see in Tau, where its 3 Riptides and Ghostkeels as a staple of the list.
Or Eldar with Warp Spiders, Seer Conceal and WK's, at least Eldar has Bikes but you never see Guardians.
Or Nids with 0 gants........ I mean only Fliers err oh man is Nids book bad :/
There are some Armies that are like this, SM, SGC etc.. even Daemons is a great balanced book if it wasnt for the combos you can do with them
I feel this is what players mean when they dont like List building, They get an Army b.c the aesthetic reasons and Not to power game with numbers. If the Armies like Orcs, Nids etc.. used 4-6 Troops slots as there Bread and Butter, then you could build out the rest of your 500-1k points with units to fill a "role' and sense you know what roll you will want, you can just "buy and take" the models you like,
THIS is were formations comes in to break up the army to fill a different style, If you like MC's there could be MC formations that lets you take more of them, or if you like Lictors, then there is a formation with Lictors etc..
Formations should have been to fill our different army roles, fluff and break up the monotony of an army
Edit: Example: Nids, you want more Psychic? well now you pic what one you like more a Zoanthropes or Malecptors NOT what one is better Points per Point.
Or DE, Wychs vs Kabalite Warriors, The Warrior is 2pts cheap but is dbl the efficiency of a Wych.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
Every single good 40K player disagrees with you.
You can give an electro deathstar to an average player, which isn't even a hard build to play, and he'll get creamed by good players with bottom tier armies.
If the list did most of it, we'd know by now.
So where are the bottom tier armies winning GTs.
Everywhere... just look at actual tournament results and look at the lists, it's quite obvious that most of these aren't your typical netlist like "screamerstar" or Iyanden beaststar were.
Dark Eldar is a bottom tier army, deep bottom tier, yet some good players still manage to pull off decent rankings or even first places.
I also remember some orks placing really fething high, when in your depiction, they shouldn't even be able to enter any kind of top 10 with the weight and power level of most lists in those events.
Bottom line is this: without properly studying tournament results and top players, any talk of balance is irrelevant because you're only discussing your perception of balance, in your local meta, with your local mission package and at your level of skill / your circle's level of skill.
It's like SC2, average players might say that widow mines are completely OP - and even until Platinum / Diamond I deeply believed so, because they placed a solid burden of APM on the opposing players at little cost.
Yet at Masters or GM / competition level, nobody uses them because they're just not that good.
And that's in a game that has 100x more competitive players than 40K and way more balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ian Sturrock wrote: There are inherent difficulties in balancing lists when there are so many options. We know this both from game theory and from practical observation of such games, 40K included. It would be sufficiently time-consuming to balance such a game in the initial design process, that it's effectively impossible to do so, even with extensive playtesting. This is why games like Magic: The Gathering, or MOBA games, use ongoing rules tweaks and potentially just outright ban unbalanced options or combos. GW doesn't care about any of that stuff -- they don't even do the initial playtesting, really. So they are better off giving us a simpler ruleset, as long as it has decent rules and deep strategy.
Exactly, and the free rules and ongoing rules tweak will do the rest, which is why even being 100% AoSed would still be a great thing for 40K.
Martel732 wrote: 40k has lots of options, but huge swaths of them are very similar, but differ in easily comparable ways.
Yes, but "easily comparable" doesn't mean "easily playtestable". You get emergent complexity once you start looking at 12 factions, maybe 20 or 30 units each (even if many are similar), 1500+ point games, and optional wargear. It gets worse when you add formations. There is a very high chance that a degenerate strategy will emerge -- the one essentially unbeatable list, unbeatable even by other high-level players. So you might as well not have any options at all...
Exactly this.
The entropy of a system like 40K is way out of control and not comparable to any other system.
This may be a bad thing - it probably is - but that still doesn't make the balance vs entropy compromise objectively bad, especially since we have no point of comparison.
The single biggest factor in 40K seems to be skill, followed closely by luck, and then list building.
Wow. I have never tought that this day will come.
Actually, to me, with the most basic guidelines like don't overextend your trops, go for objetives and don't fail in the bait-units, W40k its one of the less skilled heavy wargames or even tabletop games I known. My ranking of "things that are important to win 40k" its literal the inverse of yours.
You can call that Tournament are a small portion of the game and that where you play subpar lists all go rank 1 with good players. But just look at the list of the bigger tournaments and you will se that all the good list are clones and all the broken spams we all know. 80% (Totally accurate percentage) of the games of 40k are decided in the List and Army selection.
And a game so based in dice rolling as 40k can't be really a skill heavy game.
But that's the thing my friend, you haven't studied competitive 40K like I have.
Look at those bigger tournaments, look at who regularly places high and look at their lists.
Many of the top players have atypical lists which are less broken and a lot harder to handle, but which in their hands deliver the value.
Sure, most entrants come in with a copy/paste netbuild, but those people never make it to #1, despite having crazy good lists.
Believe me, take a deeper look at this and you'll see exactly this:
- top players always place high, even with seemingly underpowered lists
- average players with top lists never make it to #1
- when two top players, one with an OP list, and one with an underpowered list face off, sometimes the UP list wins (Nova 2014: Tony Kopach with a crappy list vs Thomas Donslund with Iyanden beaststar - two crazy good players, Iyanden beaststar vastly better list, luck made the difference and Kopach goes home with the trophy).
- matching the list to the mission package makes all the difference in the world (LVO 2015: Sean Nayden with Lictorshame, a build that doesn't deliver outside of the LVO package)
Lastly, I think it would help you a ton if you asked a few 40K champions how they feel about the game and the importance of skill, list building and luck.
Maybe they have a better understanding of all this, who knows.
Look at those bigger tournaments, look at who regularly places high and look at their lists.
Many of the top players have atypical lists which are less broken and a lot harder to handle, but which in their hands deliver the value.
[....]
Lastly, I think it would help you a ton if you asked a few 40K champions how they feel about the game and the importance of skill, list building and luck.
Maybe they have a better understanding of all this, who knows.
And the result is no one plays the original 40k.
All tournaments use house rules and it is hard to find a unified system
so all those people can only tell you about the house ruled version which tells you nothing about the current game sold by GW.
ITC uses different missions, so there Dark Eldar with Ynnari formations plays different than in the German TTM series that uses the original Mission has a "2 factions only" limit which ban all the new Ynnari formations.
You can still ask those that play many different series/countries with different house rules and do this since 4th edition.
Most if them will tell you that the original rules are crap and what houserules they prefer to make the game playable
- when two top players, one with an OP list, and one with an underpowered list face off, sometimes the UP list wins (Nova 2014: Tony Kopach with a crappy list vs Thomas Donslund with Iyanden beaststar - two crazy good players, Iyanden beaststar vastly better list, luck made the difference and Kopach goes home with the trophy).
- matching the list to the mission package makes all the difference in the world (LVO 2015: Sean Nayden with Lictorshame, a build that doesn't deliver outside of the LVO package)
Nice examples, but those are not 40k tournaments
they use house rules to balance and adjust the game to make such results possible
Give me an examples of a 30+ player tournaments with the original rules were the good players with bad factions always place high
Give me an examples of a 30+ player tournaments with the original rules were the good players with bad factions always place high
That's a strawman right there.
Not only are there many tournaments which don't alter the rules, unlike ITC.
There are litterally next to 0 tournaments with 30+ players and no specific mission packages.
Good lists are good within a mission package of course, and my argument is that even in that case, having the better list doesn't do 80% of the job.
What we are discussing is what matters most in a game of 40K.
Top players regularly place high irrespective of faction or list, that shows that skill is what matters most.
Then, the top 3 of any event is rarely taken by copy/paste netlists, showing that even the strongest, most broken lists regularly lose to other weaker lists.
Lastly, there is indeed a bit more good lists at the top and more bad lists at the bottom, so list building clearly plays a part.
If the theory of the listbuilding-whiners was correct, what you would see is all good lists on top and all bad lists on the bottom with very little variation.
That's not what we can see.
Give me an examples of a 30+ player tournaments with the original rules were the good players with bad factions always place high
That's a strawman right there.
Not only are there many tournaments which don't alter the rules, unlike ITC.
There are litterally next to 0 tournaments with 30+ players and no specific mission packages.
Which just goes to imply that 40k isn't a good competitive game.
Give me an examples of a 30+ player tournaments with the original rules were the good players with bad factions always place high
Certain tournaments do favor more than other, but no tournament will use the BRB Missions.
They are just to random. a Player could easily win b.c he was lucky enough to get 3 out of the 12 missions that is army favors and the opponents doesnt.
Imagine a KDK army of 10 soulgrinders and a Barace Scorpion with 2-3 sorcerer to get invis, now he could be extremely luck and get a Kill point game and The Emperors will for his 1st 2 games. The the 3rd one for Malestrom could be Tactical Escalation and wins basically b.c the other players couldnt remove him from the Objectives before he drew good ones.
I know it sounds like it wouldnt happen, but sadly it can, there are literally 100's of players games that lost simple to bad card draw. You cant have tournaments with Malestrom rules from the BRB
Edit: 40k is more of a narrative game, you and your opponent are meant to talk it over before you play. Alot of the tabling problems will stop if pick up games did this. Armies are still very poorly balanced, not saying this would fix balance problems just will make games more fun.
If the theory of the listbuilding-whiners was correct, what you would see is all good lists on top and all bad lists on the bottom with very little variation.
That's not what we can see.
I see it
there are not many tournaments around using original not re-balanced rules and there, lits that reduce the amount of lucky dice rolls or can easy handle all kind of random mission stuff are always on top.
If you are only talking about small tournaments, of course a very good player can always smash the 10 newbies who have no clue about the game.
If you are talking about the re-balanced alternate 40k rules, you are right, but that is the reason to use those alternate rules in the first place.
So the only point you are making is that we need to use an alternative version of 40k, nothing more
Which just goes to imply that 40k isn't a good competitive game.
And that's not a strawman.
Says who?
The people and organizers who have rarely if ever played the actual 40K game?
Please... most of these organizations have been house ruling for so long they have no idea what 40K is.
Edit: 40k is more of a narrative game, you and your opponent are meant to talk it over before you play. Alot of the tabling problems will stop if pick up games did this. Armies are still very poorly balanced, not saying this would fix balance problems just will make games more fun.
Once the main advantage of GW games was that you just get into the store and club, get an opponent, have fun for 2 hours and leave.
Now you need to talk an hour before to arrange the game, which alternate rules to use, the narrative part etc, play for 1 hour (because you just have 2 hours of spare time) and leave
thats way we see the all jetbikes eldar lists here so much or slaansh/tzeentch demon spam or gladius, because enough psykers to get the spells you need and fast obsec units with heavy shooting to fullfill all malestrom missions within a turn without a problem.
Just saying that there is no faction that can handle maelstrom and random traits/spells better than other ones just tells me that you have never played 7th edi 40k
Maybe there is no such lists with the alternate version of 40k you use, but not with the GW40k rules
thats way we see the all jetbikes eldar lists here so much or slaansh/tzeentch demon spam or gladius, because enough psykers to get the spells you need and fast obsec units with heavy shooting to fullfill all malestrom missions within a turn without a problem.
Just saying that there is no faction that can handle maelstrom and random traits/spells better than other ones just tells me ...
I don't remember saying that.
What I said, is that no list is ultimate in all mission packages.
And that having the better list doesn't do 80% of the work for you.
Maelstrom is a perfect example of how luck is way more important than list building.
Tell you what, let's make this very simple:
Give me two examples of average players winning a relevant tournament with a top list - that shouldn't be too hard if list building is 80% and the rest is mostly luck.
It's how those stats interact that causes complication, and in that area 40k just sucks donkey balls.
I can deal with a model having 10 stats as long as the interactions are simple enough. In fact I prefer it because it allows more variety between different units. I've never found tables complicated (especially since after a few games you just remember the interactions anyway).
Agreed. I think the flaws with the 40k stat system are:
-Lack of diversity in certain stats- there's a lot of 3s and 4s. I find it a bit annoying that nowhere in the galaxy is there a marine squad with BS5.
-WS having so little impact on actually avoiding being hit.
-As previously mentioned, Initiative. It should be used for reactions -avoiding blasts and suchlike, not to determine melee striking order.
I've seen a lot of complaints about the lack of a single melee stat (to replace WS, A, and S. I have mixed feelings about this: It would greatly quicken things up, but on the other hand I like that some models have many weaker attacks, while others have fewer heavy blows.
Amishprn86 wrote: THIS is were formations comes in to break up the army to fill a different style, If you like MC's there could be MC formations that lets you take more of them, or if you like Lictors, then there is a formation with Lictors etc..
Formations should have been to fill our different army roles, fluff and break up the monotony of an army
The thing I don't like about formations is they are anti-choice. I like Lictors, but I don't want to take a formation which requires 5 of the bastards (plus deathleaper if you take the assassin brood).
Formations are part of the number 1 problem with 40k, that is that instead of fixing the rules GW just piles on more rules. Of course formations are just GW's excuse to sell more models, I doubt they were thinking "geeze, this is going to improve the game!", rather they were thinking "People stopped buying Lictors, how do we get them to buy more? I know, lets introduce a formation with special rules that requires people to own 5 of them!".
Amishprn86 wrote: THIS is were formations comes in to break up the army to fill a different style, If you like MC's there could be MC formations that lets you take more of them, or if you like Lictors, then there is a formation with Lictors etc..
Formations should have been to fill our different army roles, fluff and break up the monotony of an army
The thing I don't like about formations is they are anti-choice. I like Lictors, but I don't want to take a formation which requires 5 of the bastards (plus deathleaper if you take the assassin brood).
Formations are part of the number 1 problem with 40k, that is that instead of fixing the rules GW just piles on more rules. Of course formations are just GW's excuse to sell more models, I doubt they were thinking "geeze, this is going to improve the game!", rather they were thinking "People stopped buying Lictors, how do we get them to buy more? I know, lets introduce a formation with special rules that requires people to own 5 of them!".
But that mentality is the problem with 40katm NOT formations, even without formations they could just have had different CADs like we see with Ynnari, Ynnari is extremely strong but thats not a formation.
Edit: 40k is more of a narrative game, you and your opponent are meant to talk it over before you play. Alot of the tabling problems will stop if pick up games did this. Armies are still very poorly balanced, not saying this would fix balance problems just will make games more fun.
Once the main advantage of GW games was that you just get into the store and club, get an opponent, have fun for 2 hours and leave.
Now you need to talk an hour before to arrange the game, which alternate rules to use, the narrative part etc, play for 1 hour (because you just have 2 hours of spare time) and leave
I played in 2nd and 3rd Edition and the above was never the case even then. Pick up games have never really worked in Warhammer just people pretended they did because it was good enough. It was never intended to be done in that way that's part of why GW tried to push a more social aspect of the game with the original launch of AOS they just grossly underestimated how lazy everyone wants to be in regards to deciding what would make a fun game and the fact that everyone expects the rules to actually not be garbage to help facilitate it
It wasn't laziness people had zero clue how units ranked against each other which was why all those systems sprung up desperately trying to bring some balance.
AoS clearly had no play testing before release its perfectly reasonable to worry the same will be true of 8th, you'd hope gw learnt something from the last debacle but past experience shows they probably haven't.
At least list building is almost a thing in 40k for aos people are to dumb to do it so they have pre made lists you pick.
Wow.
At first I tought you were serious. Good trolling mate
So when you play ironjaws you dont pick a formation? Because I played them and you either ran ard fist
iron fist
or pig fist or what ever it was called.
You never just picked units. You picked a formation and ran those units.
Ardfist? Dude, no one plays that.
"pig fist", yeah, played it twice or so out of thirty times, seen it played about as many times at best.
And the worst example you could pick: ironfist.
Just I case let's go through the facts:
Ironjawz have three non-heroe units: ardboyz, brutes, and gore-gruntas.
Ironfist tells you must take 3-5 units between: ardboyz, brutes and gore-gruntas. It imposes a very harsh restriction on the formation's unit composition though: you can only take the ratio of gruntas/brutes/ardboyz you want.
WHOA!! Such a limitation and pidgeon-holing of my armybuilding! I-I'm forced to take multiples of three-to-five (with no limit!) of ALL the units I must/can take!
Please behold and feel pity of the Ironjaw player who has such a pre-set list, he can only pick the units he wants and never go beyond six units (unless, you know, he grabbed another ironfist) or below two (at which point he'd be kind of screwed up in terms of board control), such a tragedy!
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: List building is a very important and fun part of the game. Tabletop strategy is also a very important and fun part of the game. If either aspect becomes relatively unimportant then it wouldn't be near as fun of a game, IMO.
Ah no its an important and fun part of the game for you and likely many others - equally its takes too much time, is annoying and unfun part for others.
Same with
Painting
Modelling
Rolling a few or a little dice
Narrative elements
Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds
As always with a new edition, the rules are not getting better they will just get different.
Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds
As always with a new edition, the rules are not getting better they will just get different.
Mortal wounds is made-up stuff that doesn't appear in the article.
Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds
As always with a new edition, the rules are not getting better they will just get different.
Mortal wounds is made-up stuff that doesn't appear in the article.
In the video, they talk about morale: roll a D6, add the casualties, and subtract the leadership value. If the result is larger than zero, the unit gets that many wounds. Could be mortal wounds with no save whatsoever. In AoS some models have a save against mortal wounds.
Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds
As always with a new edition, the rules are not getting better they will just get different.
Mortal wounds is made-up stuff that doesn't appear in the article.
In the video, they talk about morale: roll a D6, add the casualties, and subtract the leadership value. If the result is larger than zero, the unit gets that many wounds. Could be mortal wounds with no save whatsoever. In AoS some models have a save against mortal wounds.
KingmanHighborn wrote: There is literally not ONE GOOD THING about AoS. Not ONE! I
Indeed! Free unit rules, points cost for formations, and formation having to conform to standard army construction are all terrible things! I want to pay for my rules, not my formations, dammit!
I'm late to the discussion again, but if it's true that 40k is being Sigmarised then I'm very happy.
About morale. Battleshock doesn't hurt hoards. It actually works out very well for them. Your bravery is increased by 1 for every ten models in the unit. Units also have banners to affect battleshock and characters can grant abilities to help out too. Case in point, Bloodbound Bloodreavers only have a Bravery of 5 and no save, so on paper they're vulnerable to Battleshock. However, because of their icon bearer and the amount I take in a unit, they actually average out at Bravery 7-8 for me. On average, I only lose a couple of Bloodreavers a turn to Battleshock, if I even lose any at all. And that is only when they aren't under the effects of the Bloodsecrator's Portal Of Skulls. When they are under it's effects, they don't take Battleshock tests at all.
This can all be easily replicated in 40k. Imperial Guard infantry blobs and Ork Mobs would probably get a leadership/bravery stat of 7-10 after the size and other bonuses are taking into account. And in the case of the Guard, the Commissar will probably have an ability to inflict mortal wounds (these are automatic wounds with no saves) on the unit in exchange for taking no battleshock. And I can easily imagine that an Ork bosspole could function exactly like an Orruk Skull Icon, which grants a 6+ save against fleeing.
Someone also mentioned this idea that I quite like; 40k's shooting being resolved like combat in AoS. Player who's turn it is picks one unit to shoot with, then other player picks a unit to shoot with, then the previous player picks another unit to shoot with and so on and so forth, representing a realistic gunfight with both sides dropping. Suppressing abilities can prevent a unit from shooting.
Chargers going first is also a step in the right direction. Now charging will be worth it for all those low initiative armies.
Charging units should fight first. Thats a good lure.But imaging that i can throw away Codex orks, Codex deathwatch and Codex genesteales, the rulebook, 4 supplements for orks.....thats a nice bill.......
Negach wrote: Charging units should fight first. Thats a good lure.But imaging that i can throw away Codex orks, Codex deathwatch and Codex genesteales, the rulebook, 4 supplements for orks.....thats a nice bill.......
Now imagine your orks being perfectly competitive. Welcome to AoS' greenskins.
Correct me if I'm wrong but...aren't Greenskins bloody nasty in AoS? I heard that even little Night Goblins can be brutal. Wouldn't you guys want 40k greenskins (and nids) to be a serious force again?
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: List building is a very important and fun part of the game. Tabletop strategy is also a very important and fun part of the game. If either aspect becomes relatively unimportant then it wouldn't be near as fun of a game, IMO.
Ah no its an important and fun part of the game for you and likely many others - equally its takes too much time, is annoying and unfun part for others.
Same with
Painting
Modelling
Rolling a few or a little dice
Narrative elements
People have fun in different ways.
True enough. You're right that different people like different things.
But do you really hate list building? Like, would you rather that GW just provide you with your army list so you didn't have to think at all about what units to take and what options to give them? I'm definitely not saying that's wrong, it just strikes me as strange.
I might just be misunderstanding what you're saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Someone also mentioned this idea that I quite like; 40k's shooting being resolved like combat in AoS. Player who's turn it is picks one unit to shoot with, then other player picks a unit to shoot with, then the previous player picks another unit to shoot with and so on and so forth, representing a realistic gunfight with both sides dropping. Suppressing abilities can prevent a unit from shooting.
That doesn't seem like a bad idea. I tend to like games where both players are pretty active most of the time rather than waiting for fifteen minutes just watching what's happening and rolling armor saves. A lot of things would have to be tweaked, like IG orders, but that doesn't seem like it would be particularly hard.
Maybe they could do the same thing with movement? Again, a lot of stuff would have to be changed to make that work, but it seems doable. They could pretty much eliminate IGOUGO in the sense of entire armies and just make it on a unit-by-unit basis.
The biggest downside that I can think of would be maybe needing to use counters in bigger games, but that doesn't seem like much of a downside. There are probably a lot of problems that I'm not thinking about.
I'm interested. I think 40K has needed a 2nd-3rd reboot for a while, rather than more iterations and layers of rules that push an 18-year-old system way, way past the breaking point.
They could rip off Bolt Action and have orders. Have a unit do all it's moving and shooting in one go. That would certainly mix things up and help people remember who's done what.
Future War Cultist wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but...aren't Greenskins bloody nasty in AoS? I heard that even little Night Goblins can be brutal. Wouldn't you guys want 40k greenskins (and nids) to be a serious force again?
Ironjawz are surprisingly fast and get up in your face well enough, Bonesplitterz are a surprisingly magical orruk force that have a few more tricks up their sleeve and have a focus for breaking down giant monsters. The baseline greenskin has yet to be updated, and I have yet to see a force of such.
Someone also mentioned this idea that I quite like; 40k's shooting being resolved like combat in AoS. Player who's turn it is picks one unit to shoot with, then other player picks a unit to shoot with, then the previous player picks another unit to shoot with and so on and so forth, representing a realistic gunfight with both sides dropping. Suppressing abilities can prevent a unit from shooting.
I mentioned something to that effect I think in this thread or maybe another.
I'm not actually sure how that would work or if it would work well.
In AoS you'd have combats in both player turns So this would be shooting in both player turns. I'm not really sure about that idea. Anything to cause more panic
It might make for a very interactive game or a confusing one if things aren't tracked during a turn. I'm now wondering if that would create a shorter game length. Maybe not in the time it takes to play but the number of turns.
It would also depend on if there's shooting into combats.
There's a lot to consider.
They could rip off Bolt Action and have orders. Have a unit do all it's moving and shooting in one go. That would certainly mix things up and help people remember who's done what.
I haven't played Bolt Action yet. Is that the one where each of your units has a token that gets put in a sack, and then you draw tokens out to see which unit is getting activated? That would make keeping track fairly simple.
Future War Cultist wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but...aren't Greenskins bloody nasty in AoS? I heard that even little Night Goblins can be brutal. Wouldn't you guys want 40k greenskins (and nids) to be a serious force again?
Greenskins are pretty damn good in AOS, mainly because they have the best out of the command traits, alleigance abilities, and relics. Rampaging destroyers and Ironfists make Ironjawz as fast as warpspiders. Battlebrew is just plain mean on behemoths. Meteoric hammerblades turns that puny heroe into an horde blender, easily scoring a dozen mortal wounds per round against big units. Talisman of protection gives you a 4++ against MW, the highest you can get (and only nagash has it) Vituperation blade is the bane of Hero-hammer. Bonesplitterz are extremely efficient with shooting. Goblins can pull nasty "cavalry" lists and the moonclan goblins are actually one of the (if not THE) most competitive troop choice in AOS. Regular greenskinz are a bit of jack of all trades, more fragile than the new versions but more numerous (albeti stronger and more elite than grots) but they excel in their support capabilities. Out of all the greenskin based destruction range, their warbosses are the best army buffers.
Just to summarize a bit:
1) Ironjawz. Excellent meelee game. Amongst the top 5 fastest armies of the game, easily the first if we discount alpha-striking. Their warbosses on foot, megabosses, and brute bosses punch way above their weight clases. They are an army geared to ram against elite armies.
2)Bonesplitterz. Excellent ranged game but not slouches in combat. Has a good magic utility and amount of bodies. Excellent against monsters.
3)Greenskinz. Decent meelee and range. Has excellent buffing abilities, that brutally synergize with other greenskin factions. Good for the backbone of an army.
4) Moonclan grots. The kings of horde play. Since body count is how objectives are captured, they are also the most efficient troop choice in the game. They have also great heroes for supporting them.
5) Spiderfang grots. Good speed, meelee and multiple shenanigans.
Future War Cultist wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but...aren't Greenskins bloody nasty in AoS? I heard that even little Night Goblins can be brutal. Wouldn't you guys want 40k greenskins (and nids) to be a serious force again?
Greenskins are pretty damn good in AOS, mainly because they have the best out of the command traits, alleigance abilities, and relics. Rampaging destroyers and Ironfists make Ironjawz as fast as warpspiders. Battlebrew is just plain mean on behemoths. Meteoric hammerblades turns that puny heroe into an horde blender, easily scoring a dozen mortal wounds per round against big units. Talisman of protection gives you a 4++ against MW, the highest you can get (and only nagash has it) Vituperation blade is the bane of Hero-hammer. Bonesplitterz are extremely efficient with shooting. Goblins can pull nasty "cavalry" lists and the moonclan goblins are actually one of the (if not THE) most competitive troop choice in AOS. Regular greenskinz are a bit of jack of all trades, more fragile than the new versions but more numerous (albeti stronger and more elite than grots) but they excel in their support capabilities. Out of all the greenskin based destruction range, their warbosses are the best army buffers.
Just to summarize a bit:
1) Ironjawz. Excellent meelee game. Amongst the top 5 fastest armies of the game, easily the first if we discount alpha-striking. Their warbosses on foot, megabosses, and brute bosses punch way above their weight clases. They are an army geared to ram against elite armies.
2)Bonesplitterz. Excellent ranged game but not slouches in combat. Has a good magic utility and amount of bodies. Excellent against monsters.
3)Greenskinz. Decent meelee and range. Has excellent buffing abilities, that brutally synergize with other greenskin factions. Good for the backbone of an army.
4) Moonclan grots. The kings of horde play. Since body count is how objectives are captured, they are also the most efficient troop choice in the game. They have also great heroes for supporting them.
5) Spiderfang grots. Good speed, meelee and multiple shenanigans.
I'd rather the game play out like an equal game of chess; at the moment it plays out like chess, but one player's side has more queens and knights and the other player has more pawns. Oh and the queens and knights cost the most real money. If you look at tournament winning armies the majority are $500+. So much for buying the starter pack and a couple models you like and expecting to be competitive. You better devote time to buying 20+combi meltas and missile launchers separately from the boxed sets. Oh and if you bring terminators or other models that look cool but aren't "worth their points" you're a slow because the current 'meta' calls for units that move fast and hit hard. If you aren't devoting 40+ hours of planning and play testing your list you might as well not show up.
At least AoS allows everyone to do damage to everyone. And its possible for a newbie to go toe to toe with an experienced player.
I'd rather the game play out like an equal game of chess; at the moment it plays out like chess, but one player's side has more queens and knights and the other player has more pawns. Oh and the queens and knights cost the most real money. If you look at tournament winning armies the majority are $500+. So much for buying the starter pack and a couple models you like and expecting to be competitive. You better devote time to buying 20+combi meltas and missile launchers separately from the boxed sets. Oh and if you bring terminators or other models that look cool but aren't "worth their points" you're a slow because the current 'meta' calls for units that move fast and hit hard. If you aren't devoting 40+ hours of planning and play testing your list you might as well not show up.
At least AoS allows everyone to do damage to everyone. And its possible for a newbie to go toe to toe with an experienced player.
You would be amazed just how 1 sided AoS can also be though.
Through formation and command benefits some armies are plain stupid.
I love AoS just as much as fantasy, don't get me wrong.
But when someone spams Skryre, kunnin rukk etc in friendly games you soon realise how it's possible to lose a game in 2 turns.
Some things are just a pain like mournguls.
Throw mystic shield on them and buff with specific command traits and you have a high damage output model with a 2+ save, 4+ save against mortal wounds, ignores rend and gets a 5+ save after all that against normal and mortal.
All that on top of being able to heal, good movement, plenty of tricks and generating more damage.
Through certain spells you can catapult them across the board or with the book, instantly summon them.
Simply put, AoS can be abused just as much as 40k.
It is however a lot rarer from what I've seen.
While you do pay for formations, some are easily worth double their cost.
Jackal wrote: You would be amazed just how 1 sided AoS can also be though.
Through formation and command benefits some armies are plain stupid.
I love AoS just as much as fantasy, don't get me wrong.
But when someone spams Skryre, kunnin rukk etc in friendly games you soon realise how it's possible to lose a game in 2 turns.
Some things are just a pain like mournguls.
Throw mystic shield on them and buff with specific command traits and you have a high damage output model with a 2+ save, 4+ save against mortal wounds, ignores rend and gets a 5+ save after all that against normal and mortal.
All that on top of being able to heal, good movement, plenty of tricks and generating more damage.
Through certain spells you can catapult them across the board or with the book, instantly summon them.
Simply put, AoS can be abused just as much as 40k.
It is however a lot rarer from what I've seen.
While you do pay for formations, some are easily worth double their cost.
Hah, don't remember me about the mourngul. Funny thing, that's a forgeworld model.
Ignore the fact that chaos dwarves are tamakurans horde are pure FW armies and terrible.
Or the fact that the mourngul is one of the only overly strong FW units in the game.
It is however stupidly high points to reflect that.
Most people will either shoot it or throw something with high wounds at it to prevent regeneration.
Still rather face double or triple mourngul at 2k than kunnin rukk.
Yeah, Age of Sigmar still has 3-4 list or units that are VERY OP.
Its a GW rule system afterall.
The difference with the state of 40k its that the rest are more similar in power level, and in general you have more real variation in a faction or army with much more options being actually useful.
And free rules, faster gameplay, etc, etc...
But, in a personal level, I don't want 40k to be EXACTLY like AoS. I think that different systems are good, and I don't want every system to be exact the same because that its pretty boring. But 40k can learn some lessons from his younger brother.
Those three I know from experience are heinously powerful armies in the game (admittedly there are some I have not played yet) and they will give any other army a beasting.
Now, I saw someone mention horde armies and how they would be perfectly fine under the battleshock system.
Lies.
As a Skaven player I can tell you that Battleshock is one of the most stupid implementations within the game and no matter how many morale buffs you get for taking models in a unit you still will not have enough to matter. As you take more your unit gets bigger and costs more and so does the amount of elite figures your opponent have to throw at it rise. You are screwed no matter what you do, unless you have one of the magical "Ignore Battleshock" standards/items/abilities within your army, and then you have to keep it within range of every single one of your units or you will lose them.
I had a game once against undead and my 50 rat Skaven clanrat block hit a 20 Skeleton unit. The Skeletons won through sheer attrition and laughably good battleshock - they had 10 and I had 5. My unit just bled morale caused casualties. In the most recent game I had 20 Clanrats became 6 after a really bad Battleshock roll.
The only way to stop this from happening is to have a BS immunity item/ability and to keep EVERYTHING within range of it at once. If something slips out, or your immunity wielder is sniped, it is good bye army.
If AoS comes to 40K then Guard, Orks and Tyranids will be dead.
Those three I know from experience are heinously powerful armies in the game (admittedly there are some I have not played yet) and they will give any other army a beasting.
Now, I saw someone mention horde armies and how they would be perfectly fine under the battleshock system.
Lies.
As a Skaven player I can tell you that Battleshock is one of the most stupid implementations within the game and no matter how many morale buffs you get for taking models in a unit you still will not have enough to matter. As you take more your unit gets bigger and costs more and so does the amount of elite figures your opponent have to throw at it rise. You are screwed no matter what you do, unless you have one of the magical "Ignore Battleshock" standards/items/abilities within your army, and then you have to keep it within range of every single one of your units or you will lose them.
I had a game once against undead and my 50 rat Skaven clanrat block hit a 20 Skeleton unit. The Skeletons won through sheer attrition and laughably good battleshock - they had 10 and I had 5. My unit just bled morale caused casualties. In the most recent game I had 20 Clanrats became 6 after a really bad Battleshock roll.
The only way to stop this from happening is to have a BS immunity item/ability and to keep EVERYTHING within range of it at once. If something slips out, or your immunity wielder is sniped, it is good bye army.
If AoS comes to 40K then Guard, Orks and Tyranids will be dead.
Inspiring presence, verminous clawpack. BAM! Problem solved with that unit's morale.
Those three I know from experience are heinously powerful armies in the game (admittedly there are some I have not played yet) and they will give any other army a beasting.
Now, I saw someone mention horde armies and how they would be perfectly fine under the battleshock system.
Lies.
As a Skaven player I can tell you that Battleshock is one of the most stupid implementations within the game and no matter how many morale buffs you get for taking models in a unit you still will not have enough to matter. As you take more your unit gets bigger and costs more and so does the amount of elite figures your opponent have to throw at it rise. You are screwed no matter what you do, unless you have one of the magical "Ignore Battleshock" standards/items/abilities within your army, and then you have to keep it within range of every single one of your units or you will lose them.
I had a game once against undead and my 50 rat Skaven clanrat block hit a 20 Skeleton unit. The Skeletons won through sheer attrition and laughably good battleshock - they had 10 and I had 5. My unit just bled morale caused casualties. In the most recent game I had 20 Clanrats became 6 after a really bad Battleshock roll.
The only way to stop this from happening is to have a BS immunity item/ability and to keep EVERYTHING within range of it at once. If something slips out, or your immunity wielder is sniped, it is good bye army.
If AoS comes to 40K then Guard, Orks and Tyranids will be dead.
This is the 'liar' speaking.
In your example, let me ask you something. Did you take a Grey Seer? Or a Screaming Bell? Or a Chieftain with a Battle Standard? If not, why not? All three of these units help with Battleshock, which Skaven will quite rightly be vulnerable to. And then there's the Verminus Clawpack formation.
Before you call me a liar, maybe you should reconsider your choices and move to alleviate your armies weaknesses like a good player should.
Jackal wrote: It's funny, the FW stigma still exists.
Ignore the fact that chaos dwarves are tamakurans horde are pure FW armies and terrible.
Or the fact that the mourngul is one of the only overly strong FW units in the game.
It is however stupidly high points to reflect that.
Most people will either shoot it or throw something with high wounds at it to prevent regeneration.
Still rather face double or triple mourngul at 2k than kunnin rukk.
The fun part was of the stygma. Mournghul is the only remotely OP thing from AoSFW. It's also the only remotely OP thing in current Death production.
Those three I know from experience are heinously powerful armies in the game (admittedly there are some I have not played yet) and they will give any other army a beasting.
Now, I saw someone mention horde armies and how they would be perfectly fine under the battleshock system.
Lies.
As a Skaven player I can tell you that Battleshock is one of the most stupid implementations within the game and no matter how many morale buffs you get for taking models in a unit you still will not have enough to matter. As you take more your unit gets bigger and costs more and so does the amount of elite figures your opponent have to throw at it rise. You are screwed no matter what you do, unless you have one of the magical "Ignore Battleshock" standards/items/abilities within your army, and then you have to keep it within range of every single one of your units or you will lose them.
I had a game once against undead and my 50 rat Skaven clanrat block hit a 20 Skeleton unit. The Skeletons won through sheer attrition and laughably good battleshock - they had 10 and I had 5. My unit just bled morale caused casualties. In the most recent game I had 20 Clanrats became 6 after a really bad Battleshock roll.
The only way to stop this from happening is to have a BS immunity item/ability and to keep EVERYTHING within range of it at once. If something slips out, or your immunity wielder is sniped, it is good bye army.
If AoS comes to 40K then Guard, Orks and Tyranids will be dead.
Inspiring presence, verminous clawpack. BAM! Problem solved with that unit's morale.
Yeah, just spend a bunch of points to gain a little extra advantage by bringing these very few average-ability units, but hey at least battleshock tests wont hurt as mu-oh wait. If it was +2 morale per every 10 then maybe you would be on to something, but +1 morale per ten is pathetic when you consider just how many points you have to dump into these average-at-best units to gain any real benefit. And even still, by the time you have spent all those points the other player with his 'character' army (as opposed to your 'NPC mooks' army) has the equivalent points in his uba powerful guys and can just inflict so many casualties that even with 50+ Skaven in the unit the +1 bonuses still do not really matter.
Galas wrote: Yeah, Age of Sigmar still has 3-4 list or units that are VERY OP.
Its a GW rule system afterall.
The difference with the state of 40k its that the rest are more similar in power level, and in general you have more real variation in a faction or army with much more options being actually useful.
And free rules, faster gameplay, etc, etc...
But, in a personal level, I don't want 40k to be EXACTLY like AoS. I think that different systems are good, and I don't want every system to be exact the same because that its pretty boring. But 40k can learn some lessons from his younger brother.
Make it three, Warrior brotherhood and Knight Taxyros are no longer amongst us...
Those three I know from experience are heinously powerful armies in the game (admittedly there are some I have not played yet) and they will give any other army a beasting.
Now, I saw someone mention horde armies and how they would be perfectly fine under the battleshock system.
Lies.
As a Skaven player I can tell you that Battleshock is one of the most stupid implementations within the game and no matter how many morale buffs you get for taking models in a unit you still will not have enough to matter. As you take more your unit gets bigger and costs more and so does the amount of elite figures your opponent have to throw at it rise. You are screwed no matter what you do, unless you have one of the magical "Ignore Battleshock" standards/items/abilities within your army, and then you have to keep it within range of every single one of your units or you will lose them.
I had a game once against undead and my 50 rat Skaven clanrat block hit a 20 Skeleton unit. The Skeletons won through sheer attrition and laughably good battleshock - they had 10 and I had 5. My unit just bled morale caused casualties. In the most recent game I had 20 Clanrats became 6 after a really bad Battleshock roll.
The only way to stop this from happening is to have a BS immunity item/ability and to keep EVERYTHING within range of it at once. If something slips out, or your immunity wielder is sniped, it is good bye army.
If AoS comes to 40K then Guard, Orks and Tyranids will be dead.
Inspiring presence, verminous clawpack. BAM! Problem solved with that unit's morale.
Yeah, just spend a bunch of points to gain a little extra advantage by bringing these very few average-ability units, but hey at least battleshock tests wont hurt as mu-oh wait. If it was +2 morale per every 10 then maybe you would be on to something, but +1 morale per ten is pathetic when you consider just how many points you have to dump into these average-at-best units to gain any real benefit. And even still, by the time you have spent all those points the other player with his 'character' army (as opposed to your 'NPC mooks' army) has the equivalent points in his uba powerful guys and can just inflict so many casualties that even with 50+ Skaven in the unit the +1 bonuses still do not really matter.
... You DO know that verminous clawpack gives +2 to bravery per ten models, do you?
I have 0 knowledge with Skavens, but in the "meta" of my Club, the Horde armys (Skeletons/Zombies, Goblins, Bloodbound with marauders/bloodreavers, Freeguild) are pretty strong and normally they don't have a problem with battleshock.
But you know what? Hordes are much less vulnerable to mortal wounds and can have a much bigger presence in objetives and map. If they are more vulnerable to Battleshock... well, thats just ok.
The problem with "Hordes" its always how much they die and his low morale.
So 40k can learn so many things from AoS, yet AoS suffers from pretty much the same issues (certain OP units and combos, "outdated" armies being left in the gutter as the arms race goes on and on, etc.) GW games have always suffered from.
Future War Cultist wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but...aren't Greenskins bloody nasty in AoS? I heard that even little Night Goblins can be brutal. Wouldn't you guys want 40k greenskins (and nids) to be a serious force again?
Greenskins are pretty damn good in AOS, mainly because they have the best out of the command traits, alleigance abilities, and relics. Rampaging destroyers and Ironfists make Ironjawz as fast as warpspiders. Battlebrew is just plain mean on behemoths. Meteoric hammerblades turns that puny heroe into an horde blender, easily scoring a dozen mortal wounds per round against big units. Talisman of protection gives you a 4++ against MW, the highest you can get (and only nagash has it) Vituperation blade is the bane of Hero-hammer. Bonesplitterz are extremely efficient with shooting. Goblins can pull nasty "cavalry" lists and the moonclan goblins are actually one of the (if not THE) most competitive troop choice in AOS. Regular greenskinz are a bit of jack of all trades, more fragile than the new versions but more numerous (albeti stronger and more elite than grots) but they excel in their support capabilities. Out of all the greenskin based destruction range, their warbosses are the best army buffers.
Just to summarize a bit:
1) Ironjawz. Excellent meelee game. Amongst the top 5 fastest armies of the game, easily the first if we discount alpha-striking. Their warbosses on foot, megabosses, and brute bosses punch way above their weight clases. They are an army geared to ram against elite armies.
2)Bonesplitterz. Excellent ranged game but not slouches in combat. Has a good magic utility and amount of bodies. Excellent against monsters.
3)Greenskinz. Decent meelee and range. Has excellent buffing abilities, that brutally synergize with other greenskin factions. Good for the backbone of an army.
4) Moonclan grots. The kings of horde play. Since body count is how objectives are captured, they are also the most efficient troop choice in the game. They have also great heroes for supporting them.
5) Spiderfang grots. Good speed, meelee and multiple shenanigans.
I almost missed this. Thank you for telling me this.
Galas wrote: Yeah, Age of Sigmar still has 3-4 list or units that are VERY OP.
Its a GW rule system afterall.
The difference with the state of 40k its that the rest are more similar in power level, and in general you have more real variation in a faction or army with much more options being actually useful.
And free rules, faster gameplay, etc, etc...
But, in a personal level, I don't want 40k to be EXACTLY like AoS. I think that different systems are good, and I don't want every system to be exact the same because that its pretty boring. But 40k can learn some lessons from his younger brother.
Make it three, Warrior brotherhood and Knight Taxyros are no longer amongst us...
Those three I know from experience are heinously powerful armies in the game (admittedly there are some I have not played yet) and they will give any other army a beasting.
Now, I saw someone mention horde armies and how they would be perfectly fine under the battleshock system.
Lies.
As a Skaven player I can tell you that Battleshock is one of the most stupid implementations within the game and no matter how many morale buffs you get for taking models in a unit you still will not have enough to matter. As you take more your unit gets bigger and costs more and so does the amount of elite figures your opponent have to throw at it rise. You are screwed no matter what you do, unless you have one of the magical "Ignore Battleshock" standards/items/abilities within your army, and then you have to keep it within range of every single one of your units or you will lose them.
I had a game once against undead and my 50 rat Skaven clanrat block hit a 20 Skeleton unit. The Skeletons won through sheer attrition and laughably good battleshock - they had 10 and I had 5. My unit just bled morale caused casualties. In the most recent game I had 20 Clanrats became 6 after a really bad Battleshock roll.
The only way to stop this from happening is to have a BS immunity item/ability and to keep EVERYTHING within range of it at once. If something slips out, or your immunity wielder is sniped, it is good bye army.
If AoS comes to 40K then Guard, Orks and Tyranids will be dead.
Inspiring presence, verminous clawpack. BAM! Problem solved with that unit's morale.
Yeah, just spend a bunch of points to gain a little extra advantage by bringing these very few average-ability units, but hey at least battleshock tests wont hurt as mu-oh wait. If it was +2 morale per every 10 then maybe you would be on to something, but +1 morale per ten is pathetic when you consider just how many points you have to dump into these average-at-best units to gain any real benefit. And even still, by the time you have spent all those points the other player with his 'character' army (as opposed to your 'NPC mooks' army) has the equivalent points in his uba powerful guys and can just inflict so many casualties that even with 50+ Skaven in the unit the +1 bonuses still do not really matter.
... You DO know that verminous clawpack gives +2 to bravery per ten models, do you?
So you 50 Clanrats might last two turns instead of one? But you are still left with a pile of worthless mooks who will still get slaughtered and still die once they start dropping numbers.
Korinov wrote: So 40k can learn so many things from AoS, yet AoS suffers from pretty much the same issues (certain OP units and combos, "outdated" armies being left in the gutter as the arms race goes on and on, etc.) GW games have always suffered from.
Nobody said that AoS was a perfect system, not even that it was a GREAT system. (To me, the better system GW has ever produced was the LOTR one)
It has some of the problems of 40k as you mention, but at a MUCH lower scale. And that doesn't negate that, besides those problems, its has other things that are just much better, like the formation system. Its those kind of things that 40K can learn from AoS.
And we have to remember: This its the internet, where everything its OP, and everything its trash at the same time, and you only will face OP-ComboWombo armys and TFG all the time
"Battleshock kill horde armys because my skavens die to battleshock"
and other guys respond with
"But Skavens have this and this to counter his vulnerability to battleshock"
Don't sound to me as "get good"
As I pointed out, it does not matter how big our bonus-per-10-models, as soon as you take casualties you start losing models, losing the bonus, and losing even more models. With 50 Clanrats you are looking at what, a quarter of a 1K game, and they do start out with Battleshock 13 under the formations rules. By turn two they are probably down to Battleshock 11, and then they commit to a charge and get slaughtered down to 6 as your opponents heavy infantry/beasts laugh them off and wail in on them.
And then you fail Battleshock, more run and the whole thing turns into a cascade failure.
Korinov wrote: So 40k can learn so many things from AoS, yet AoS suffers from pretty much the same issues (certain OP units and combos, "outdated" armies being left in the gutter as the arms race goes on and on, etc.) GW games have always suffered from.
Nobody said that AoS was a perfect system, not even that it was a GREAT system.
It has some of the problems of 40k as you mention, but at a MUCH lower scale. And that doesn't negate that, besides those problems, its has other things that are just much better, like the formation system. Its those kind of things that 40K can learn from AoS.
Well, current 40k is the sad result of many years of arms race, design shifts, fanfiction-level writing (for both rules and background) and insane piling of special rules upon more special rules. AoS is a much younger game in comparison, so obviously they've had way less time to screw up. The fact that it's already showing quite a bunch of typical GW antics does not paint a pretty picture for the future. It actually suggests GW has learnt pretty little from their mistakes of the past, and will likely keep repeating them again and again.
Also, I don't think 40k needs any kind of formation system. The traditional CAD system can work just nice if proper restrictions are put into place, with variations that allow players to alleviate some restrictions in exchange of making others heavier (this worked really well in the 3.5 CSM codex, despite some mistakes and oversights on Haines' part). The problem with 40k is that all restraint went well out of the window a long time ago, 0-1 restrictions were erased because it was all about selling more and more models, rules be damned. And formation shenanigams did nothing to improve things in the long run, mostly because - unlike many innocent players still believe - from the beginning they were designed with only one single goal in mind: to goad players into buying more models.
I look at AoS and don't like what I see. It was initially advertised as a free-rules game with a low model count. The rules proved to be absolutely abysmal upon release, and since then of course non-free supplements have been released in order to 'fix' it. The low model is countered by the fact that most new models are outrageously expensive.
I will concede that of course there are a few things 40k could learn from AoS. There are also a million things 40k could learn from other games, but it just won't happen.
Left 40k and been AoSing since its release,,yes all the way back when it "wasnt cool" to play AoS..
Yes,AoS has its OTT lists and units,,however,one of the big balancing factors in matched play is the variance of the 6 scenarios listed for matched play;
Each OPed list will struggle against a mid range list in at least one of the 6 scenarios.Some scenarios allow you castle up,some make you cover the board well,some require you to have a strong Hero element and so on.
For those that didnt follow the LVO results for the AoS championship,out of the 73 players that competed,2 players lost all thier games and 1 player won all their games...try to get those results in a similar size 40k event...
I agree with what you said, besides the "abysmall" of AoS rules on release.
And the price for the miniatures, yep, it was insane with Stormcasts, they where priced (And still are even with reductions) as if they where made of actual gold. Now, it is even reasonable to fantasy and GW standard (like 20 kairic acolytes for 40€).
But, with the help of the community (Because now GW its actually talking with "pro-players" and all that to make the big rulebooks) I think that AoS, if GW its interested, can avoid the actual 40k state.
Korinov wrote: So 40k can learn so many things from AoS, yet AoS suffers from pretty much the same issues (certain OP units and combos, "outdated" armies being left in the gutter as the arms race goes on and on, etc.) GW games have always suffered from.
Nobody said that AoS was a perfect system, not even that it was a GREAT system. (To me, the better system GW has ever produced was the LOTR one)
It has some of the problems of 40k as you mention, but at a MUCH lower scale. And that doesn't negate that, besides those problems, its has other things that are just much better, like the formation system. Its those kind of things that 40K can learn from AoS.
This is what doesn't encourage me. GW should be looking outside of their games to find GOOD options rather than "40k does it terrible, AoS does is badly but better, so lets use the AoS system!".
AoS's morale system just sounds yuck, I don't really care if some people think it's better than the 40k morale system because the 40k morale system is also junk
AoS does formations better? Oh, those things I wish never existed in the first place are done better by AoS? Sorry if I'm not getting excited
AoS has overly simplified rules such that to regain variety every unit needs special rules, just flicking through it seems on average AoS units have 3 or 4 or more bespoke rules. The upside is these rules are instead printed in the warscrolls instead of a stupidly large USR section like 40k. But IMO it's still a terrible system; at least in the context of a larger scale wargame like 40k is (fine for something like an RPG or very small scale skirmish where it's realistic to read and learn all the rules for all the units on the table during the pregame setup).
If you have half a brain you break down the armies into five or six individual units and move them as such. I understand that having ten to twenty models per unit is a little confusing but that doesn't complicate it. Unless it's easier for you to only use 2-3, but I'd say 5-6 is probably average for AoS. Pretty close for 40K as well. If for those 5-6 you had to learn 5-6 pages of rules that's super easy=AoS. 40k=3-4 FAQs, main rule book, codex, supplement easily equating to 100+ pages at the minimum. How can anyone playing 40k complain about bespoke rules when every tournament directs players to have all sources available?
I run my entire AoS army on a single, one sided sheet of paper.
I mean, sure, I play Rotbringers, so my unit selection is Blight Kings and... more Blight Kings, but even most other armies should have no trouble fitting their entire breadth of rules onto one or two sheets.
Jjohnso11 wrote: If you have half a brain you break down the armies into five or six individual units and move them as such. I understand that having ten to twenty models per unit is a little confusing but that doesn't complicate it. Unless it's easier for you to only use 2-3, but I'd say 5-6 is probably average for AoS. Pretty close for 40K as well. If for those 5-6 you had to learn 5-6 pages of rules that's super easy=AoS. 40k=3-4 FAQs, main rule book, codex, supplement easily equating to 100+ pages at the minimum. How can anyone playing 40k complain about bespoke rules when every tournament directs players to have all sources available?
And follow their bolted on efforts to make sense of the madness.
Jjohnso11 wrote: If for those 5-6 you had to learn 5-6 pages of rules that's super easy=AoS. 40k=3-4 FAQs, main rule book, codex, supplement easily equating to 100+ pages at the minimum. How can anyone playing 40k complain about bespoke rules when every tournament directs players to have all sources available?
And again we're back to AoS's merits being "well it's better than 40k", as if I ever held 40k up as a gold standard
I'm less cut up about 40k being reworked than I was about WHFB being reworked, because, well, I thought WHFB was at its core still a good game (8th edition screwed it up for me and I didn't play after 7th, but it was still a good basis for a game IMO).
40k on the other hand I'm quite happy to get completely reworked. I've been saying it needs to be reworked for a bloody decade or so. I just don't want to see it being reworked as "Age of Sigmar 40,000" as AoS is a game that holds even less appeal to me at its core than 40k does. I'm not saying AoS doesn't do some things better than 40k, I just don't like it as being a basis for what 40k should be.
Lots of good discussion here. There are a few things that I think are worth discussing. The first is GW's commitment to doing annual handbooks for AOS. If they do this for 40k it will allows for fairly regular balancing of the game. If all they do is increase the points of the top 10 percent of units and decrease the points on the the bottom 10 percent then after a few years we will have a much more balanced game than we do now.
It also allows them to give a shot in the arm to under performing armies without needing to commit to putting out a new codex. The fyreslayers in AOS being a case in point.
GW's increasingly active presence in the tournament scene should help them to get a good idea of what needs to be tweaked.
There is a lot of talk about bravery with horde armies and the problems it causes, but little talk of the perks. Horde armies often gain additional attacks or improved hit and wound rolls for fighting in large units. On top of that there are the various abilities that leaders have to either reduce the effect of battle shock or maximise the perks of large units.
AOS is by now means a perfect game, but a lot of good work has brought it from the terrible launch to pretty good position now.
In a way AOS has kind of been a beta test for the new 40k.
Not sure what we can expect in detail after GW's announcement that some game mechanik will change.
Actually, I like the AoS system. Its not perfect but some genuine ideas are in there. Its simplicity in terms of the ruleset is priceless.
My guess is that 40k will be made different by changing some rules but not AoSified.
Reintroduction of movement stat, armour saving throw modifiers and weapons causing multiple wounds? Well, 2nd had all of this and it is good to see these rules implemented again in the next edition.
People should worry about the possibility of fixed to-hit & to wound rolls like in AoS. Let´s hear what Private Hudson has to say about this horror scenario and it´s consequences for 40K as a whole:
People should worry about the possibility of fixed to-hit & to wound rolls like in AoS.
What do you hit on with Ballistic Skill 3?
What do you wound on with Poisoned weapons, unless something is a Gargantuan or Vehicle?
"Fixed to-hit and wound rolls" have been a part of 40k for a long time. Ballistic Skill is a "fixed to hit & wound roll". There are certain instances where you get modifiers for or against it(Overwatch and Invisibility reducing it to BS1, certain Psyker abilities or special rules for units/characters granting +1/2/3/whatever to BS).
Wounding is also a "fixed" value. It just does it comparatively all the time, leading to the mathhammer of "what weapon is best".
Lets face it in H-T-hand we pretty much have everyone hitting on 3's or 4's anyway - with the insanity of match ups like Avatars, Bloodthirsters and Primarchs missing their Gretchin opponent on a 1 or a 2.
People should worry about the possibility of fixed to-hit & to wound rolls like in AoS.
What do you hit on with Ballistic Skill 3?
What do you wound on with Poisoned weapons, unless something is a Gargantuan or Vehicle?
"Fixed to-hit and wound rolls" have been a part of 40k for a long time. Ballistic Skill is a "fixed to hit & wound roll". There are certain instances where you get modifiers for or against it(Overwatch and Invisibility reducing it to BS1, certain Psyker abilities or special rules for units/characters granting +1/2/3/whatever to BS).
Wounding is also a "fixed" value. It just does it comparatively all the time, leading to the mathhammer of "what weapon is best".
the fear of fixed to wound rolls is the AoS way of doing
the Defensive value of the target is armour, while the "to wound" roll depends only on the strength and is limited to 5 values (2+ - 6+)
so the difference between a Grot and a Phantom Knight would be the armour save and nothing else
a fixed value, were the roll needed is on the opponents models (like in LoTR, Warpath, FoW), is no problem
People should worry about the possibility of fixed to-hit & to wound rolls like in AoS.
What do you hit on with Ballistic Skill 3?
What do you wound on with Poisoned weapons, unless something is a Gargantuan or Vehicle?
"Fixed to-hit and wound rolls" have been a part of 40k for a long time. Ballistic Skill is a "fixed to hit & wound roll". There are certain instances where you get modifiers for or against it(Overwatch and Invisibility reducing it to BS1, certain Psyker abilities or special rules for units/characters granting +1/2/3/whatever to BS).
Wounding is also a "fixed" value. It just does it comparatively all the time, leading to the mathhammer of "what weapon is best".
the fear of fixed to wound rolls is the AoS way of doing
the Defensive value of the target is armour, while the "to wound" roll depends only on the strength and is limited to 5 values (2+ - 6+)
so the difference between a Grot and a Phantom Knight would be the armour save and nothing else
And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.
I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.
So it gets just an Feel No Pain roll additional to the armour save to compensate the "a imperial guard lasgun wounds everything on 5+" and make it less vulnerable than a Grot instead of just keeping a Strength/Toughness table were Strength 3 just cannot wound Toughness 6+ (or instead of just roll to wound against the defensive value of the Phantomknight which is 8+ and you need +2 Penetration, Rend or whatever to wound it on a 6+)
I don't see how this is not a bad idea or were the huge improvement is.
it makes things simpler, but removes a lot of the diversity in 40k (and there is already not much left any more)
this is still GW.
those guys that miss important stuff in the rules (and never read their own books) or use houserules to playtest formations (because RAW it is unplayable but they don't bother to write this in a FAQ), or give us buildings that are unusable in the game because it will take 2 turns and a lucky dice roll to reach a level were models can be placed.
I think they will just forget and oversee a lot of thinks if they don't get some external players at least to cross-read or check the new rules before they print them
Kanluwen wrote: And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.
I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.
So, in the end, it's a simplification of some core mechanics... and then another pile up of a ton of special rules.
As I've said before, the more you can represent and solve with the core mechanics and rules, the better. Only add special rules that modify said core mechanics when absolutely mandatory and unavoidable.
The GW way seems to be quite the opposite, though. Nothing is cool without half a dozen special rules printed in its profile (obviously, at least one of said special rules will itself represent three more special rules combined).
I understand some people simple know no other way than the GW way, of couse.
Kanluwen wrote: And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.
I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.
So, in the end, it's a simplification of some core mechanics... and then another pile up of a ton of special rules.
As I've said before, the more you can represent and solve with the core mechanics and rules, the better. Only add special rules that modify said core mechanics when absolutely mandatory and unavoidable.
The GW way seems to be quite the opposite, though. Nothing is cool without half a dozen special rules printed in its profile (obviously, at least one of said special rules will itself represent three more special rules combined).
I understand some people simple know no other way than the GW way, of couse.
Its not just GW - Malifuax has basic mechnics but many many of the individual units change things and interactions - couple with synergy bonuses - same as AOS. They ALL have special rules and tricks
Yes Malifaux is a skirmish game but with a card for each unit type you would not have that many more unique uinits than you do with Malfaux.
Now hopefully new 40K comes with Army card packs - something that AOS was missing (officially) until recently as this makes it all easier - certianly better than trying to constantly flick through half a dozen codexes or even worse squinting at someones phone becuase everything is digital.
Guardsman (WS 3/S3) vs. Grot (WS2/T2): Guardsman hits Grot on 3+ & wounds on 3+.
Guardsman (WS 3/S3) vs. Space Marine (WS4/T4): Guardsman hits Space Marine on 4+ & wounds on 5+.
Guardsman (WS 3/S3) vs. Bloodthirster (WS10/T6; 5th): Guardsman hits Bloodthirster on 5+ & wounds on 6+.
These few examples show that it is crucial for the Guardsman what kind of opponent he will face in 40K 3rd+ close combat. In AoS his to-hit & to-wound rolls against all opponents are fixed. It doesn´t matter if he squares off against cannon fodder (Grot) or a killing machine (Bloodthirster). This kills immersion for me and therefore it is not a thing I would like to see in a future edition.
[bRanged Combat in 40K 3rd-5th:[/b]
To-Hit: There is no to-hit modifier in the basic rules (cover of target, range, speed of target, speed of the shooter). There might be some special rules (USR, equipment) and that is it. Just a bad design mechanic. 2nd was clearly superior in this regard.
You even have silly situations like this one:
1. A Space Marine without cover gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
2. A Space Marine in cover (Forest 5+; depends on edition) gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
There is no benefit for the Space Marine to be in cover because he can either use his AS 3+ or his cover save 5+ but not both. So he will naturally use the better save. This fosters a gung-ho playing style which is just plain obnoxious. To-hit modifiers like in 2nd would be much appreciated in the next edition but you can´t expect wonders from GW.
Kanluwen wrote: And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.
I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.
So we simplify the rules to the point we need special rules to regain basic functionality that already exists within the core rules? Yeah, not sounding too appealing.
People are already talking about how they want more granularity in 40k. Having a separate to hit, to wound and to save that are based on both the attacker/weapon's offensive ability and the target's defensive ability is how we squeeze granularity out of the system without resorting to D20's.
Hell, you mentioned Bs as being one "fixed value" roll that we currently have, I'd argue that we should maybe go the other way where Bs could also be variable based on the target's initiative***.
*** and I'd probably remove initiative from affecting close combat, at the moment initiative and weapon skill in CC seem like redundant stats, they're both measures of a model's skill in CC.
You even have silly situations like this one:
1. A Space Marine without cover gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
2. A Space Marine in cover (Forest 5+; depends on edition) gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
There is no benefit for the Space Marine to be in cover because he can either use his AS 3+ or his cover save 5+ but not both. So he will naturally use the better save. This fosters a gung-ho playing style which is just plain obnoxious. To-hit modifiers like in 2nd would be much appreciated in the next edition but you can´t expect wonders from GW.
To-wound: same as in close combat (see above).
I'm pretty sure removing the effectiveness of cover to armoured troops was the whole purpose of getting rid of "to hit" modifiers in 3rd edition. GW designers wanted to see Space Marines walking bravely down the middle of the battlefield rather than taking cover. Of course 20 years of that when every 2nd army you play against is Space Marines and it gets a bit old.
An easy way to make cover important for models with a good save without massively changing the game is just to make saves stack, where you can take multiple saves to ward off an attack. So a Space Marine would take a cover save first and if that's failed they still get to take their armour save.
To-Hit: There is no to-hit modifier in the basic rules (cover of target, range, speed of target, speed of the shooter). There might be some special rules (USR, equipment) and that is it. Just a bad design mechanic. 2nd was clearly superior in this regard.
You even have silly situations like this one:
1. A Space Marine without cover gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
2. A Space Marine in cover (Forest 5+; depends on edition) gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
There is no benefit for the Space Marine to be in cover because he can either use his AS 3+ or his cover save 5+ but not both. So he will naturally use the better save. This fosters a gung-ho playing style which is just plain obnoxious. To-hit modifiers like in 2nd would be much appreciated in the next edition but you can´t expect wonders from GW.
To-wound: same as in close combat (see above).
Actually this fits the fluff perfectly IMO, the warrior in Power Armour or similar only uses cover if he or she needs to - say when facing Anti-tank class weapons. Makes complete sense to me.
Personally I think the full range of to hit mods you are discussing are best in a skimrish game like Necromunda (or the new version)
hese few examples show that it is crucial for the Guardsman what kind of opponent he will face in 40K 3rd+ close combat. In AoS his to-hit & to-wound rolls against all opponents are fixed. It doesn´t matter if he squares off against cannon fodder (Grot) or a killing machine (Bloodthirster). This kills immersion for me and therefore it is not a thing I would like to see in a future edition.
It does equally break immersion for me when you can have a BloodThirster tryong to hit a Grethin in single combat and only managing it 2/3 of the time!!
Making Ini the value of how good you can doge attacks instead of removing it would be nice.
WS/BS VS Ini gives you the "to hit" roll
S VS T is "to wound"
both tables have a +/-2 cap, so WS 7 VS Ini 3 auto hits etc
Solid Cover gives a bonus to your armour save (instead of just being additional one) which would work better with an ASM value (Bolter with -1 to AS gets countered by light cover that add +1 AS)
not solid cover (like smoke, jink etc) adds X to Ini
and no such things are not for small Skirmish only, but work also well for Mass Skirmish games (Warmachine, Starship Troopers etc)
Kanluwen wrote: And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.
I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.
So we simplify the rules to the point we need special rules to regain basic functionality that already exists within the core rules? Yeah, not sounding too appealing.
That's how I felt at first with AoS, but it really grows on you.
It also lets there be some thematic rules that don't exactly 'work' right now; like where a unit of Gretchin get a better save/LD value for being in larger numbers or rules letting them up the save of nearby Orks or whatever.
There's room for a lot of weirdness in AoS that only works because they don't use USRs but instead they use rules specific to the unit.
People are already talking about how they want more granularity in 40k. Having a separate to hit, to wound and to save that are based on both the attacker/weapon's offensive ability and the target's defensive ability is how we squeeze granularity out of the system without resorting to D20's.
And those same people usually complain about needing a hundred different books to know everything.
As it stands, I can figure out the special rules of a unit without needing to consult the BRB or that army book* in AoS.
Admittedly this might be changing with the relics and whatnot, but few books have them at the moment.
Hell, you mentioned Bs as being one "fixed value" roll that we currently have, I'd argue that we should maybe go the other way where Bs could also be variable based on the target's initiative***.
*** and I'd probably remove initiative from affecting close combat, at the moment initiative and weapon skill in CC seem like redundant stats, they're both measures of a model's skill in CC.
I've always been of the opinion that Initiative is an underused stat outside of CC.
It would have been a perfect counter to Markerlights. Oh well.
Kanluwen wrote: And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.
I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.
So, in the end, it's a simplification of some core mechanics... and then another pile up of a ton of special rules.
Quick, tell me what makes Zealot different from Fearless.
The reason 40k has so many USRs right now is that many of them are just slight iterations of the other, or with one or two things added to an existing USR.
As I've said before, the more you can represent and solve with the core mechanics and rules, the better. Only add special rules that modify said core mechanics when absolutely mandatory and unavoidable.
Except the more you represent and "solve" with the core mechanics and rules, the more watered down the overall play experience is. When every unit and every weapon act in the same
manner, why bother playing anything other than X army?
By contrast, a Swifthawk Agents force heavy on Sea Guard and Shadow Warriors plays radically different to a Wanderers force heavy on Eternal Guard, and Glade Guard.
Why?
Because the special rules on each of those units makes them behave differently. The forces more or less function the same(Sea Guard are basically Eternal Guard with Bows, Glade Guard are more numerous Shadow Warriors)...yet Arcane Bodkins mean that the Glade Guard can behave in a different manner than the Shadow Warriors and the Sea Guard can be whittling the enemy down before they get into CC while the Eternal Guard can active "Fortress of Boughs" and be far more tanky than they have a right to be.
The GW way seems to be quite the opposite, though. Nothing is cool without half a dozen special rules printed in its profile (obviously, at least one of said special rules will itself represent three more special rules combined).
I understand some people simple know no other way than the GW way, of couse.
Yes, because that's what it is. AoS rules are great because it's GW. You caught me.
kodos wrote: Making Ini the value of how good you can doge attacks instead of removing it would be nice.
WS/BS VS Ini gives you the "to hit" roll
S VS T is "to wound"
both tables have a +/-2 cap, so WS 7 VS Ini 3 auto hits etc
Solid Cover gives a bonus to your armour save (instead of just being additional one) which would work better with an ASM value (Bolter with -1 to AS gets countered by light cover that add +1 AS)
not solid cover (like smoke, jink etc) adds X to Ini
and no such things are not for small Skirmish only, but work also well for Mass Skirmish games (Warmachine, Starship Troopers etc)
It does screw over races like Orks who are actually good at fighting but not high I CLose combat is about parrying etc as much as dodging - now you could use it for missile attacks which would be interesting I think. BS vs I
Thats pretty much how cover works in AOS.
re varied modifiers - It depends on the number of models - it does kinda work in Bolt Action so maybe you are right - woudl need to try it.
He'll respond by claiming that isn't as high as WHFB was at its peak (2011, 3rd place) despite the article attached to this ranking stating the market has been growing for five years in a row (well, 8, 5 since 2011) and thus it's likely to be occupying a bigger volume, despite not having the same percentage of the pie.
It does screw over races like Orks who are actually good at fighting but not high I CLose combat is about parrying etc as much as dodging - now you could use it for missile attacks which would be interesting I think. BS vs I
really?
of course it you need to redistribute values because now there is no worse "to hit" in melee than 4+
and Orcs are massive which makes them more easy to hit than some small Grots which is now shown by Ini and that low Ini attacks last. If this is gone and the attacker strike first melee works different.
But Orcs being WS 4 and Ini 2 VS SM with WS4 and Ini4, let the Orcs hit on 4+ while being hit on 2+ by Marines. And there is balance because the number of Orcs is usually higher.
and of course this would be a Dark Eldars dream because low armour and toughness but hard to hit makes them viable again
re varied modifiers - It depends on the number of models
it depends more on how clear and streamlined the rules are.
if all tables are the same, you just need to remember the +/-2 and and the what kind of modifier change armour and to hit nothing more
and of course, to hit modifiers should always work the same no matter if in range or melee to keep it simple (and of course, close combat in fog should affect the to hit value the same way as shooting something behind smoke, or attacking with a wall in between)
and how to we know that this rising is because of more people playing AoS and not because more people buy GW models to play something else?
for Warmachine/Horde, X-Wing and 40k this is clear because there are not other common system that use the same models, while Fantasy stuff, we have several Skirmish games and 2 mass battle games were a lot of people still buy the GW Fantasy stuff.
I have seen here more Kings of War/T9A armies using Stormcast Eternals than people playing AoS in total
Guys guys... and what if... they aren't gonna introduce fixed to wound and to hit rols in 40K?
Think about it. If they want that in 40k, why they don't just say it in the post? They talk about other AoS rules like battleshock and Rend etc...
So, why not talk about fixed rolls? That its a big thing, if you are wonna remake the 40K rulesystem its not a thing that you can say at the end "oh yeah that will be cool". All the system should be based in it.
So I don't think GW will introduce fixed to hit and to wound rolls in 40k.
And, in a personal level, I like special rules in my units, but thats maybe because I'm a RPG player first, and I love when my units are special snowflakes
And if I remember correctly... every unit in Fantasy and 40k has special rules, they just have it asociated with a generic entry in the rulebook instead of in their own profile, glued to his weapon option, or written in his army book/codex page. Not that its a bad thing.
Galas wrote: Guys guys... and what if... they aren't gonna introduce fixed to wound and to hit rols in 40K?
Think about it. If they want that in 40k, why they don't just say it in the post? They talk about other AoS rules like battleshock and Rend etc...
So, why not talk about fixed rolls? That its a big thing, if you are wonna remake the 40K rulesystem its not a thing that you can say at the end "oh yeah that will be cool". All the system should be based in it.
So I don't think GW will introduce fixed to hit and to wound rolls in 40k.
Yeah I don't necessarily think GW are going to introduce fixed wounds, we're just discussing the options more than actually having the expectation GW are going to do it, they might, they might not.
The big one I dislike is using Battleshock more than anything.
And, in a personal level, I like special rules in my units, but thats maybe because I'm a RPG player first, and I love when my units are special snowflakes
Yeah it's probably the RPG thing. I like the idea that my units are special snowflakes, but I can deal with it only being the IDEA. Like, my imagination can picture them being special snowflakes without me having a rule saying "hey look, we're special snowflakes".
I find reading through the AoS Warscrolls painful with all their special rules, it's not appealing to me at all. On the one hand it's nice GW put all the rules for a unit on the card, but IMO there's still just way too many modifications and interruptions to core rules written within individual unit's rules.
I prefer it if the core rules are comprehensive enough to give variety without needing to use special rules. Want to make a model immune to small arms fire? Just up the toughness, no need to introduce a special rule saying it's immune to small arms fire.
I reckon special rules should be reserved for things that, err, are actually special I'm fine with the idea of Terminators getting special armour rules because they're supposed to be out of the ordinary. I'm also fine with a couple of army specific rules, as in, rules that apply to every unit within an army so you don't have to screw around chasing rules for individual units. Like Lizardmen with their Cold Bloodedness and Scaly Skin, or Bretonnians with their Lance Formation, or Space Marines with Rapid Fire (back when Rapid Fire was something only Space Marines could do).
And if I remember correctly... every unit in Fantasy and 40k has special rules, they just have it asociated with a generic entry in the rulebook instead of in their own profile, glued to his weapon option, or written in his army book/codex page. Not that its a bad thing.
WHFB wasn't nearly as bad as 40k. I mean, obviously every unit had a weapon and that weapon had rules, but the WHFB weapon rules fitted on a page and after a game or two you knew what all the weapon options were.
But 40k is a mess of special rules, to the point where they don't even feel special anymore.
I heard from my FLGS that the new edition should be dropping this fall (can't remember if they specified a month, but I'd imagine September or early October), but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition than full on AoS. Make of that what you will, but that gives us another half a year to bicker, argue, and speculate until GW throws the rumormongers another bone
KommissarKiln wrote: I heard from my FLGS that the new edition should be dropping this fall (can't remember if they specified a month, but I'd imagine September or early October), but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition than full on AoS. Make of that what you will, but that gives us another half a year to bicker, argue, and speculate until GW throws the rumormongers another bone
From a video they said June or July.
I stopped my 40k activities other than playing.
KommissarKiln wrote: I heard from my FLGS that the new edition should be dropping this fall (can't remember if they specified a month, but I'd imagine September or early October), but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition than full on AoS. Make of that what you will, but that gives us another half a year to bicker, argue, and speculate until GW throws the rumormongers another bone
From a video they said June or July.
I stopped my 40k activities other than playing.
There was a thread in N&R that said GW staff had blacked out holiday dates June 3rd through 17th. I'd bet that's the ETA for 8th there.
KommissarKiln wrote: I heard from my FLGS that the new edition should be dropping this fall (can't remember if they specified a month, but I'd imagine September or early October), but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition than full on AoS. Make of that what you will, but that gives us another half a year to bicker, argue, and speculate until GW throws the rumormongers another bone
They've been trying to get back to 2nd Edition since before Apocalypse was introduced.
Kanluwen wrote: Quick, tell me what makes Zealot different from Fearless.
The reason 40k has so many USRs right now is that many of them are just slight iterations of the other, or with one or two things added to an existing USR.
And that's why 40k needs some very serious effort towards revising and significantly trim Special Rules down, specially those who basically try to represent the same thing. Zealot and Fearless. Rage and Furious Charge. Etc etc.
Except the more you represent and "solve" with the core mechanics and rules, the more watered down the overall play experience is. When every unit and every weapon act in the same
manner, why bother playing anything other than X army?
By contrast, a Swifthawk Agents force heavy on Sea Guard and Shadow Warriors plays radically differeynt to a Wanderers force heavy on Eternal Guard, and Glade Guard.
Why?
Because the special rules on each of those units makes them behave differently. The forces more or less function the same(Sea Guard are basically Eternal Guard with Bows, Glade Guard are more numerous Shadow Warriors)...yet Arcane Bodkins mean that the Glade Guard can behave in a different manner than the Shadow Warriors and the Sea Guard can be whittling the enemy down before they get into CC while the Eternal Guard can active "Fortress of Boughs" and be far more tanky than they have a right to be.
If done right, you don't need special rules in order for units to behave differently and have a different role on the battlefield. You just have to get things right with the core mechanics. "You need a crap ton of special rules to spice up the game" is typical GW cult mentality. The High Elves 4th Ed. armybook has like four or five special rules in the entire book, and it's probably one of the best armybooks ever written for WHFB.
If you want to make an unit tanky, give them heavy armor. Heavy armor as in real life, not as in GW's world, where you have a 66% chance of dying if hit by a stick while wearing full mail armor from head to toe. Give them a high melee skill that makes them hard to hit, as opposed to "streamlined" to hit mechanics where everything will have at least a 33% chance of hitting a centuries-old elf swordsman.
In short, get the core mechanics right and suddenly you won't find any need for most special rules. If the Glade Guard gets some decent gear (and you have it SO FREAKING EASY in a fantasy setting, "oooh this is magic wood armor made from super-duper-magic tree and tough-as-adamantium magic leaves!", there's your cool armor) and is as hard to hit in melee as they should be when fighting inferior opponents, they won't need any snowflake special rule in order to be tanky.
Yes, because that's what it is. AoS rules are great because it's GW. You caught me.
The GW way is getting rid of the Movement stat in order to "streamline" the game, then adding twenty different special rules afterwards in order to make anything faster than the average guardsman work.
If anyone wants inspiration for some good rules, looking outside the GW sphere is mandatory. GW have again and again proven to be totally incompetent at rule design.
Yes thats right after ghb dropped, that small increase didn't stick however if it had maintained momentum it should of been higher in the charts after xmas instead it has slipped off completely just like on release.
40k on the other hand is consistant, which could change if this aos remake goes bad.
Yes thats right after ghb dropped, that small increase didn't stick however if it had maintained momentum it should of been higher in the charts after xmas instead it has slipped off completely just like on release.
40k on the other hand is consistant, which could change if this aos remake goes bad.
At the end of the day GW cares about bottom line profit and making their customers happy. Happy customers=better profit. They've been pushing their product toward the older customers for years and it has slightly helped their profits.
New management came in and decided that it would be better for profits if they made the rules more easily accessible to newer inexperienced customers. How does one go about simplifying rules so a company that produces miniatures can sell those miniatures across a broader target audience. They adapted fixed values for rolling dice and a four page rule book.
I can now play AoS with my wife and shes ok with playing it for 45-60 minutes. I'm happy I get to play and shes happy shes spending time with me. Win-win. She has also started asking me to buy other models. Someone that has never been involved in any type of fantasy setting(she hadn't watched star wars before we started dating) is now playing a table top game. I hadn't played WHF or 40k since 2012 and then AoS came out and I'm playing at least once a week. Spending at least $200 a month on new models.
To help placate the different tiers of gamers AoS has three different 'modes': open play-new people and people who have that one thing they've always liked to try; narrative-those people who enjoy fluff and also want GW to pick their armies and the scenario; and matched play - tournaments, WAAC players, and people who want to get bragging rights one the size of their nerd w******. These three different tiers are doing a successful job of getting those people to buy their product.
Yes thats right after ghb dropped, that small increase didn't stick however if it had maintained momentum it should of been higher in the charts after xmas instead it has slipped off completely just like on release.
40k on the other hand is consistant, which could change if this aos remake goes bad.
Yes thats right after ghb dropped, that small increase didn't stick however if it had maintained momentum it should of been higher in the charts after xmas instead it has slipped off completely just like on release.
40k on the other hand is consistant, which could change if this aos remake goes bad.
Even GW said that this its a new "Golden Age" for the company. They are increasing profits after years and years of decline.
Who can expect that keep contact with the constumers and give them actual price reductions, variety and actually funny games, and giving them what they want, will help a company to have better sales?
Galas wrote: Even GW said that this its a new "Golden Age" for the company. They are increasing profits after years and years of decline.
Who can expect that keep contact with the constumers and give them actual price reductions, variety and actually funny games, and giving them what they want, will help a company to have better sales?
Obviously, Kirby don't.
Kirby was terrible, but honestly it's not like they've deviated so so much from his guidelines since the new CEO was appointed (remember here Kirby was just acting CEO before, and he is still the president so he's hardly "gone" at all). The rules are still a mess and the prices are still insane; some bundles and discounts have been released, yes, but it's mostly plastic stuff from many years ago, most new models are getting more and more expensive with each release, Kharn is 29€ for flint's sake.
Only noticeable things they've done any differently is a much more active engagement of the gaming community and more shiny toys and boxed games. Judging by the community's reaction, an incredible number of people was just desperate to be thrown a bone, hence the "ecstasic" mood of the last months. Deep-lying, worrying issues still remain though, and with no solution in the inmediate horizon.
Yeah, one can't look again with the same eyes the prices of fantasy miniatures after looking at those boxes of 28 mm plastic historicals that ofer you 48 models for 20€
I'm optimistic in the future of GW. Not I'm a fanboy or just want to defend them, they don't pay me for that, and actually I play more Kings of War and Infinity that actual GW games.
My philosophy its to buy miniatures that I like at the prices I find reasonable. As you say, Kharn for 29€ to me its insane. The Orruk Megabos for 30€ its the same. 20 Kairic Acolytes for 28€ in WaylandGames its a price I'm willing to pay, as I'm willing to pay 18€ for 20 mantic zombies but not 31€ for 10 of the GW crappy ones.
As I said early, I think that 40k can learn things from AoS, and obviusly AoS its not the best game out there (Its still a GW game afterall). GW can learn from other and better systems, thats obvius, but thats just being unrealistic.
Fun enough to my narrative games its all what I ask to GW. If the 8th edition of 40k isn't fun to me, I'll just stop playing.
Maybe in 3 years AoS its in a worse state, as you have noted. But 3 years its not the present, so I'll just enjoy it for the moment.
People are getting as upset about these 'new' rules being put into 40k as they were removed in 3rd ed.
Trust me though, armour save mods, the 'M' stat and cover mods will all make the game play more like a wargame and less like an arms race. Space-Marines will learn not to stand in the open opposite squads armed with autocannon, and they can write the 'fleet of foot' rule out of the rulebook if they so wish.
I don't know they might have started bringing back boxed games, start collecting sets with actual savings, and went to the lore with deathwatch, genestealer, cults, and horus heresy? I mean I kinda agree that they haven't done much if that means they've completely turned around from the pit that was games workshop four years ago- which was when they started really jacking the prices up on everything.
If you hate GW so much why are on you a page talking about it?
I don't talk about the garbage miniatures that come from PP. Or the fact that they lack any type of customization in the form of different weapons or upgrades. Mantic is alright, but also has a very simple straightforward game play. Wait isn't that what everyone is complaining about with AoS?
Hold on they took our dang square bases!! I can't move my little miniatures in a straight line and put them base to base with my opponents miniatures because they're circles and ovals and not squares and rectangles!! Ah they're all going to be in battle in the middle of the board! Which isn't what my square blocks of Soldiers used to do every single battle, or wait was it?
Jjohnso11 wrote: Mantic is alright, but also has a very simple straightforward game play. Wait isn't that what everyone is complaining about with AoS?
Sure. And many people (quite probably some of the same people) make the exact same complaints about Mantic's rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Snebze wrote: Space-Marines will learn not to stand in the open opposite squads armed with autocannon, ...
I can't remember if it was pointed out in this thread or the one in News and Rumours, but the whole point of the AP system was that Space Marines didn't need to make use of cover against anything except the heavier, nastier weapons. Space Marines are supposed to be advancing implacably up the table, not lurking in the shrubbery.
Of course, it turned out that the game didn't actually play out that way - the ready availability of heavy weapons to most armies meant that smart Space Marine players just kept right on hugging the cover... or tried standing around in the middle of the board and complained when their army kept getting wiped out by turn 2.
The problem with Space Marines its the fact that they are so OP in the fluff that its imposible (Well, its posible, but GW don't want space marines armys of 2k points that consist of 10 marines and 1 tank) to represent then correctly in the game.
Perhaps the answer is to give them lots of wounds, which works well in the AoS system. Especially if weapons are going to be causing multiple wounds too.
I don't talk about the garbage miniatures that come from PP. Or the fact that they lack any type of customization in the form of different weapons or upgrades. Mantic is alright, but also has a very simple straightforward game play. Wait isn't that what everyone is complaining about with AoS?
Hold on they took our dang square bases!! I can't move my little miniatures in a straight line and put them base to base with my opponents miniatures because they're circles and ovals and not squares and rectangles!! Ah they're all going to be in battle in the middle of the board! Which isn't what my square blocks of Soldiers used to do every single battle, or wait was it?
Why so offensive to gamers of other games? You're happy to admit that since 2012 you didn't play any 40k or whfb, but nice short AoS games give you and your wife a nice easy game to play.
Other gamers were in a similar position to you but instead of giving up for 3 or so years, went and found games they could have the same enjoyment you and your wife do with AoS.
Instead of defending AoS, you're just sounding like another white knight sticking with GW for the sake of it.
I still buy GW figures, I still have thousands of GW models, I still hope for a good future for 40K. But I found other games to play as well. I expect a lot of the "AoS haters" are that way because they spent decades of time collecting, building and painting models for an aesthetic that no longer exists in GW's games. Not because they're crying about blocks of square soldiers. Many of us now have nice short simple games of KoW with our wives - like you do AoS with yours - for the exact same reasons as you.
Rick Priestley addresses the issue of unit stats rather well in his book on Wargame design. He holds to it that the modern trend for shorter statlines isn't neccessarily a good thing -that it's more intuitive to gameplay to have many stats, than fewer stats and a large number of special rules.
thegreatchimp wrote: Rick Priestley addresses the issue of unit stats rather well in his book on Wargame design. He holds to it that the modern trend for shorter statlines isn't neccessarily a good thing -that it's more intuitive to gameplay to have many stats, than fewer stats and a large number of special rules.
Well I can think of one stat 40k could really use...a size stat. It would effect transport capacity, grav weaponary, the ablity to claim cover, ramming...lots of rules all wrapped up into a single stat.
I was making the point that I don't go to KoW or Warmachine forums and talk about how terrible those games play. I could troll KoW and Warmachine forums and talk about game mechanics, lack of support for their game, and all kinds of things I personally don't like about them, but I don't. So I become kind of a prick to people when they get on here and bash 40k or AoS for stuff they don't like that I personally enjoy. I didn't enjoy the games when they became 3-4 hours of searching through four or five different books to find a rule.
Jjohnso11 wrote: I was making the point that I don't go to KoW or Warmachine forums and talk about how terrible those games play. I could troll KoW and Warmachine forums and talk about game mechanics, lack of support for their game, and all kinds of things I personally don't like about them, but I don't. So I become kind of a prick to people when they get on here and bash 40k or AoS for stuff they don't like that I personally enjoy. I didn't enjoy the games when they became 3-4 hours of searching through four or five different books to find a rule.
You have a good point Jjohnso, but this its actually the 40k Forum, so it don't apply here.
Today, the people that dislike AoS don't go to AoS only threads to troll them like in the past.
Jjohnso11 wrote: I was making the point that I don't go to KoW or Warmachine forums and talk about how terrible those games play. I could troll KoW and Warmachine forums and talk about game mechanics, lack of support for their game, and all kinds of things I personally don't like about them, but I don't.
If you did, it wouldn't be 'trolling' unless you were doing it specifically to get a rise out of people. Discussion forums are for discussing things. An opinion doesn't have to be a positive one for it to be a valid point of discussion.
So I become kind of a prick to people when they get on here and bash 40k or AoS for stuff they don't like that I personally enjoy.
For what purpose?
Remember the old saying about honey and flies? Act 'like a prick' in response to opinions that differ from your own, and all you do is spark resentment and hostility. If you're passionate enough about a game to react that strongly to people dissing it, then share that rather than getting cranky because somebody on the internet doesn't like what you like.
I think Crownaxe mentioned a fair number of pages back that 40k has gotten to the point that it's so massive that we basically need a hard reboot on everything to have anything resembling balance again.
And I whole hearty agree with that statement. Even just ignoring codexes coming out with imbalanced power, there's numerous dataslates, supplements, expansions, and unique rules that there's no way they can fix this piecemeal. There's just too many special snowflake rules running about (especially since a lot of them do the same things, just slightly different enough that it didn't warrent a rulebook keyword). Formations basically tossed any semblance of balance out the window and even just returning to the old CADFoC won't help, since a lot of units got shuffled around in the meantime (or got buffs. Try explaining to the Tactical Squads why Scouts are now the preferred Troop Choice, when flat out bikes aren't an option, over them without breaking some hearts).
It's gonna be a hard pill to swallow, but it's gotta come one way or another. Otherwise prepare for another 2 editions of Paris-grade cheese and rustled jimmies. The only real issue I see is that a lot of people are afraid they might screw it up like AoS's initial launch did. That is a valid complain, but is a risk we'll have to take. And to be very honest, there's no way to predict whether or not they will, since GW under Rountree have done some stuff that is praise worthy, but also stuff that has been on par (if not worse) than what Kirby did.
As for conning people out of money for new codexes that might be invalidated in the next few months, just remember that this forum was just as vicious when nothing came out. For the time being, we should cut them some slack. Once 8th drops, then we can burn them at the stake of they screw it up.
As for conning people out of money for new codexes that might be invalidated in the next few months, just remember that this forum was just as vicious when nothing came out.
'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.
'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.
I didn't mean that they were the only two options, I mean that anything GW does or don't do generally will draw negative reactions one way or another. And it's not even like it's a neglect able amount either. Plus in the context of a complete rule overhaul, there's very little other choice beyond "invalidating what we just released before" and "release nothing". I suppose they could release "bridged" codexes and then release a free update for them down the line (like they did with 3rd-5th edition) but that would not only hamstring their ability to do a rules overhaul, but is also much more labor intensive (as much as GW are cash grabbers, they are still people with bills to pay).
Personally I think they should have done nothing for a good four months and then did a huge release. At least then whoever bought their new codexes could at least have a decent "run" at it, even if the rest of the fanbase is upset at being "ignored" again.
Jjohnso11 wrote: I was making the point that I don't go to KoW or Warmachine forums and talk about how terrible those games play. I could troll KoW and Warmachine forums and talk about game mechanics, lack of support for their game, and all kinds of things I personally don't like about them, but I don't. So I become kind of a prick to people when they get on here and bash 40k or AoS for stuff they don't like that I personally enjoy. I didn't enjoy the games when they became 3-4 hours of searching through four or five different books to find a rule.
Here's the difference: are you going to those other forums because you have a massive amount of time, money, and modelling/painting effort into a game that is getting ready to change in a way that may jeopardize that work and are airing your grievances and concerns with other gamers/hobbyists, or are you simply showing up to say "KOW suxxxx!!!1!1!!!! lolXD"? Because one makes you a passionate gamer, and the other makes you a petulant child.
'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.
Personally I think they should have done nothing for a good four months and then did a huge release. At least then whoever bought their new codexes could at least have a decent "run" at it, even if the rest of the fanbase is upset at being "ignored" again.
A rule book/supplement is only invalidated if you don't use it. Just because 8th comes out doesn't mean you have to play it immediately. I will, because I'll be glad to see 7th in my rear view mirror. It's really up to the fans how quickly they adopt or don't a new rule set. If someone happen to be one of those people that has to be up to date all the time, then I would recommend not buying anything after the third year of a 40k edition.
I don't talk about the garbage miniatures that come from PP. Or the fact that they lack any type of customization in the form of different weapons or upgrades. Mantic is alright, but also has a very simple straightforward game play. Wait isn't that what everyone is complaining about with AoS?
Hold on they took our dang square bases!! I can't move my little miniatures in a straight line and put them base to base with my opponents miniatures because they're circles and ovals and not squares and rectangles!! Ah they're all going to be in battle in the middle of the board! Which isn't what my square blocks of Soldiers used to do every single battle, or wait was it?
Why so offensive to gamers of other games? You're happy to admit that since 2012 you didn't play any 40k or whfb, but nice short AoS games give you and your wife a nice easy game to play.
Because gamers of other games are offensive to us 40K gamers all the frigging time.
You're always saying GW is expensive when you either buy crappy/historic at lower prices or flat out worse at the same price (PP) miniatures.
Well we like the GW universe and their miniature range, and we're happy to buy those even if we'd like them to be cheaper.
I think that overall, we'd like it if you kept your negativity to yourself when it's about a game you don't even play.
Snebze wrote: People are getting as upset about these 'new' rules being put into 40k as they were removed in 3rd ed.
Trust me though, armour save mods, the 'M' stat and cover mods will all make the game play more like a wargame and less like an arms race. Space-Marines will learn not to stand in the open opposite squads armed with autocannon, and they can write the 'fleet of foot' rule out of the rulebook if they so wish.
People are more worried about the AoS rules being introduced than 2nd edition 40k rules coming back in (except some people worried that modifiers are going to make armour useless, but I don't think that represents the prevailing sentiment).
Galas wrote:The problem with Space Marines its the fact that they are so OP in the fluff that its imposible (Well, its posible, but GW don't want space marines armys of 2k points that consist of 10 marines and 1 tank) to represent then correctly in the game.
thegreatchimp wrote:Rick Priestley addresses the issue of unit stats rather well in his book on Wargame design. He holds to it that the modern trend for shorter statlines isn't neccessarily a good thing -that it's more intuitive to gameplay to have many stats, than fewer stats and a large number of special rules.
I'm quoting these two together as my response involves both.
First, Priestly is spot on. 40k is actually a nice example of said trend. It used to be a pretty complex game regarding its core mechanics (RT/2nd) then said core rules were simplified in 3rd. Since then, in order to represent a lot of things that can't be properly covered by the simplified core mechanics, tons of special rules have been added and piled up one over another.
Second, Priestly himself said in an interview that during the 90s the GW writers pretty much became huge Space Marine fanboys, and the joke was totally lost on them. It's like what Verhoeven did when adapting Starship Troopers, but in reverse. I believe the 40k fluff simply cannot be taken seriously outside of a few specific pieces here and there, and in regards to the setting's suspension of disbelief, it's easier for me to dismiss most of it as clunky imperial propaganda.
This is why I've always been so skeptical of "truesize" projects. They're nice and cool and all that, but in the end you're converting your models towards representing a fluff that has never been represented in the game. And your superheroes will still have one wound and die easily to lasgun shots, which looks kind of ridiculous.
morgoth wrote:You're always saying GW is expensive when you either buy crappy/historic at lower prices or flat out worse at the same price (PP) miniatures.
Well we like the GW universe and their miniature range, and we're happy to buy those even if we'd like them to be cheaper.
I think that overall, we'd like it if you kept your negativity to yourself when it's about a game you don't even play.
GW cultists always so worried about others' negativity...
(note how all the competition is dismissed as "crappy")
morgoth wrote:You're always saying GW is expensive when you either buy crappy/historic at lower prices or flat out worse at the same price (PP) miniatures.
Well we like the GW universe and their miniature range, and we're happy to buy those even if we'd like them to be cheaper.
I think that overall, we'd like it if you kept your negativity to yourself when it's about a game you don't even play.
GW cultists always so worried about others' negativity...
(note how all the competition is dismissed as "crappy"
Nice ad hominem with strawman sauce there.
I guess it's time for me to find cheap weapons and goth-looking clothes with GW insigna all over them -oh wait, that's probably what my wardrobe is filled with since I'm a cultist.
"buy crappy/historic at lower prices" > do you mean to say that you know other miniature companies from which you can buy better / equal / futuristic miniatures for less than the GW price? I've seen better and more expensive, or equivalent and more expensive, but never the same for cheaper. I wish to be enlightened. Teach me o wise one.
"worse at the same price" > arguably PP miniatures are lacking in detail, sculpt quality and many other things - which doesn't matter since apparently it's a much better game, much simpler, much faster, less centered on miniatures I've even heard them say.
Initially I was over the moon when I found out that they were bringing some elements of AoS into 40k, but that was before I remembered what a gak storm it was going to cause.
morgoth wrote: do you mean to say that you know other miniature companies from which you can buy better / equal / futuristic miniatures for less than the GW price? I've seen better and more expensive, or equivalent and more expensive, but never the same for cheaper. I wish to be enlightened. Teach me o wise one.
Dreamforge Games, Mantic, Warlord Games
add Perry Miniatures, Gripping Beast and Conquest Games for not futuristic Stuff
And now you will say you don't like their design
but personal preference has nothing to do with equivalent quality
it is ok if you like GW Marines more than Mantic Enforcer and you won't find 1:1 GW Marines because of Copyright reasons, but this does not mean that there is not the same for cheaper
morgoth wrote: do you mean to say that you know other miniature companies from which you can buy better / equal / futuristic miniatures for less than the GW price? I've seen better and more expensive, or equivalent and more expensive, but never the same for cheaper. I wish to be enlightened. Teach me o wise one.
Dreamforge Games, Mantic, Warlord Games
add Perry Miniatures, Gripping Beast and Conquest Games for not futuristic Stuff
And now you will say you don't like their design
but personal preference has nothing to do with equivalent quality
it is ok if you like GW Marines more than Mantic Enforcer and you won't find 1:1 GW Marines because of Copyright reasons, but this does not mean that there is not the same for cheaper
This has been discussed several times and it's clear that there can be no end to this discussion with people who think Dreamforge miniatures are equivalent quality to Games Workshop.
Let's go back to another topic which has a shot at being productive or something.
morgoth wrote: do you mean to say that you know other miniature companies from which you can buy better / equal / futuristic miniatures for less than the GW price? I've seen better and more expensive, or equivalent and more expensive, but never the same for cheaper. I wish to be enlightened. Teach me o wise one.
Dreamforge Games, Mantic, Warlord Games
add Perry Miniatures, Gripping Beast and Conquest Games for not futuristic Stuff
And now you will say you don't like their design
but personal preference has nothing to do with equivalent quality
it is ok if you like GW Marines more than Mantic Enforcer and you won't find 1:1 GW Marines because of Copyright reasons, but this does not mean that there is not the same for cheaper
This has been discussed several times and it's clear that there can be no end to this discussion with people who think Dreamforge miniatures are equivalent quality to Games Workshop.
Let's go back to another topic which has a shot at being productive or something.
Its has been discussed a lot, Honestly I do not see how people can think GW is in such a superior design position. Marines there top selling line looks dorky to me now that i buy so many varied miniatures.
'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.
Indeed. And easing this process boils down to limiting the number of publications for a game. I can't even name all the 40k supplements off the top of my head, the sheer amount of those Imperial Armour books alone is shocking. All material neccessary to play should be in the main rulebook. It should include simplified / summarised army lists too, enough for beginners to field a force. Expansions should be composed of campaigns, and codexes. The codexes should include all sub-codexes. Keep the cost down for players, and keep updating manageable. Doing any less it neglecting your player base.
morgoth wrote: do you mean to say that you know other miniature companies from which you can buy better / equal / futuristic miniatures for less than the GW price? I've seen better and more expensive, or equivalent and more expensive, but never the same for cheaper. I wish to be enlightened. Teach me o wise one.
Dreamforge Games, Mantic, Warlord Games
add Perry Miniatures, Gripping Beast and Conquest Games for not futuristic Stuff
And now you will say you don't like their design
but personal preference has nothing to do with equivalent quality
it is ok if you like GW Marines more than Mantic Enforcer and you won't find 1:1 GW Marines because of Copyright reasons, but this does not mean that there is not the same for cheaper
This has been discussed several times and it's clear that there can be no end to this discussion with people who think Dreamforge miniatures are equivalent quality to Games Workshop.
Let's go back to another topic which has a shot at being productive or something.
Its has been discussed a lot, Honestly I do not see how people can think GW is in such a superior design position. Marines there top selling line looks dorky to me now that i buy so many varied miniatures.
I wouldn't go that far personally, I have bought non-GW miniatures which were indeed better, but about twice the price of GW stuff.
It's just that running around shouting "GW is way too expensive" when really there is a grand total of 0 companies out there which offer what they offer (a mniature range with a bajillion models, each coherent by faction more or less).
There are some models out there which are indeed good and well made and better than GW - and sometimes even cheaper, but that's a strict minority.
Most of the better models are more expensive and do not share aesthetics with a wide range of miniatures.
Those mantic enforcers don't look crisp to me, all their details seem to be rounded.
Maybe because they were painted by a 3-year old instead of a studio painter, I don't know.
The thing is: it's great that you play other games, it's great that you like other products, but don't expect every single 40K fan to just listen to some people's hate speeches about GW and never once react.
I find the reaction of the other guy totally justified regarding mantic, pp and other stuff, considering the constant bs we are being spammed with about how WMH is a better game, how 40K is the worst balanced game in this quadrant of the galaxy, about how we're just tools for buying stuff that the most evil company in the galaxy (GW) produces, how we're cultists for even preferring their miniature ranges to others, etc.
I think this is all a big joke tbh, I can't see them actively changing the structure of the game, having engaged with the TO's in the states.
I'm anticipating a few tweaks here and there, adoption of the FAQ's into the main rules, and possibly a 'three ways to play' (basic, intermediate, advanced).
But if you tie up the proposed rules changes with the tone of the video on the same page (obvious pisstake) then I really don't think this is going to happen.
Why so offensive to gamers of other games? You're happy to admit that since 2012 you didn't play any 40k or whfb, but nice short AoS games give you and your wife a nice easy game to play.
Other gamers were in a similar position to you but instead of giving up for 3 or so years, went and found games they could have the same enjoyment you and your wife do with AoS.
Instead of defending AoS, you're just sounding like another white knight sticking with GW for the sake of it.
I still buy GW figures, I still have thousands of GW models, I still hope for a good future for 40K. But I found other games to play as well. I expect a lot of the "AoS haters" are that way because they spent decades of time collecting, building and painting models for an aesthetic that no longer exists in GW's games. Not because they're crying about blocks of square soldiers. Many of us now have nice short simple games of KoW with our wives - like you do AoS with yours - for the exact same reasons as you.
To which you replied... (I added the red correction for you)
You're always saying GW is expensive when you either buy crappy/historic at lower prices or flat out worse at the same price (PP) miniatures.
You're? You mean me? GWis expensive. This doesn't mean other figures are crappy. It also doesn't mean I don't buy GW figures. My last 3 miniature purchases were 3 Kroxigors and a Starpriest from GW, a box of Skinks and a Genestealer Goliath (and a hardback Genestealer Cult book) from Element Games. Both purchases last week. The week before I bought a box of British Soldiers for Bolt Action from Warlord and a Strider from Mantic. I don't consider any of the figures "crappy" or I wouldn't have bought them.
I think that overall, we'd like it if you kept your negativity to yourself when it's about a game you don't even play.
My negativity?
There I was thinking I was just pointing out to a GW player that there was no need to insult other gamers. Hardly negative. I know a lot of GW players are stuck in the GW only bubble, but some of us actually like multiple games/figures including the GW universe.
Now, as an ex-40k player, with 9 still current hardback codexes, every set of rules since 3rd edition and a wardrobe full of figures in 13 hardshell GW cases, I'm still happy for 40k to be AoS'ed. It needs clearer rules. If this means a rulebook, then all unit rules on single sheets - brilliant.
Why do I consider myself an ex-40k player? Well, for me Flyers and Formations killed my enjoyment of the game. I realise they aren't likely to disapear. By all accounts formations is a thing in AoS as well. My biggest pet peeve with any game, is having to look in multiple books for rules for a single army. I don't mind a rulebook with a codex, but supplement after supplement puts me off.
I guess I'll wait and see how GW treat the new 40k. Exciting times.
'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.
Indeed. And easing this process boils down to limiting the number of publications for a game. I can't even name all the 40k supplements off the top of my head, the sheer amount of those Imperial Armour books alone is shocking. All material neccessary to play should be in the main rulebook. It should include simplified / summarised army lists too, enough for beginners to field a force. Expansions should be composed of campaigns, and codexes. The codexes should include all sub-codexes. Keep the cost down for players, and keep updating manageable. Doing any less it neglecting your player base.
You are right, the material necessary to play a game is rather high. Recently, I played Eldar and took 4 books beside the rulebook with me.
However, GW made a lot of money with their supplementary books recently.
'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.
Indeed. And easing this process boils down to limiting the number of publications for a game. I can't even name all the 40k supplements off the top of my head, the sheer amount of those Imperial Armour books alone is shocking. All material neccessary to play should be in the main rulebook. It should include simplified / summarised army lists too, enough for beginners to field a force. Expansions should be composed of campaigns, and codexes. The codexes should include all sub-codexes. Keep the cost down for players, and keep updating manageable. Doing any less it neglecting your player base.
You are right, the material necessary to play a game is rather high. Recently, I played Eldar and took 4 books beside the rulebook with me. However, GW made a lot of money with their supplementary books recently.
When I was first introduced to Games Workshop, it was back in the 2004 with the Lord of the Rings game. That rule book was no bigger than the current 40K main rules book and it include 100% of the rules for every model in the range at that time. For every faction.
If GW ends up rebooting the rules from scratch, I hope they do so by releasing a similar (hard copy) rule book. Granted there are far more models than that version of LotR, but GW could easily include the rules for a dozen different basic units for each faction (probably just a single set of rules for all Space Marines that just add 1-2 extra rules per chapter). Give the players just enough rules to still play and learn the edition, then begin releasing codex supplements for each faction, or even several factions at once.
So you could do a Space Marine codex that adds in all the other special units, even BAs, DAs & Wolves. You could have an Aeldari codex with all Eldar, DE, Harlies & Ynnari. An Imperial Agents book for everything not Space Marine. A Chaos book with all the CSM Legions and all the Daemons. Then you release a single Xenos book for everything else. If the rules are simple enough, you can expand on them like this and each multi-faction codex would not have to be more expensive than a current single faction codex
At the danger of going off on a tangent few will read.
I think there is a fundamental divide between what might crudely be defined as "playing tin soldiers" and playing a game.
WHFB had a quality because two massed armies facing each other in massed ranks across a table "looked" great. You had the fantasy elements but you could also imagine any real battle from the dawn of time through to the mid nineteenth century. The game may have become better or worse through the editions but this was I think fundamental to its charm.
Unfortunately the evolution of 8th went progressively against this idea which is partly I think why its popularity declined (amongst a variety of other issues).
40k in the same way should have that. For me at least the core of the game is meant to be about great looking infantry supported by a few more exotic options (tanks, creatures, perhaps one aircraft). Unfortunately however this being lost as competitive armies are increasingly composed of the better MC/GMC (which make a mockery of the scale, balance and generally the whole game). Its not uncommon to see lists where 2/3rds of points are invested in such models.
I don't find AoS armies as impressive because they just look like gangs or random assortments of stuff. They are not armies. Moreover I think most of the skill is in quasi-gamesmanship. Its not proper gamesmanship (you are not psyching your opponent out) but I don't find pre-measuring everything to the nth degree so you are in 2" of this model but just out of 3" of this other model to be a skill worth cultivating. The ability to win the initiative roll at a key point (typically turn two and certainly turn 3) is also not a skill.
For me AoS's simplicity is a virtue but not a overwhelming one. Warmahordes is a simpler game than 40k. Its quicker to play. What it gains in simplicity however it seems to lose in epicness. The whole game could just be played with pieces of paper (and certainly this seems the ever more popular way to do terrain). Sure this is true of 40k and WHFB - but something important would be lost in a way that doesn't seem as significant in Warmahordes.
Its probable AoS will be successful as new armies are released and GW's model quality continues. Sylvaneth were great, the new Dwarfs look good and I am sure tentacle Aelves will be brilliant too. A game you can play in an hour or two has an advantage over one that typically takes 3-4.
I do think however that if 40k just becomes AoS in space something special will be lost.
I welcome the Sigmafication of 40K and look forward to only 4 pages of rules.
Probably won't be that extreme, but seeing any reduction in the rules bloat and overall complexity of the game will make it more accessible to newer players.
Tyel wrote: At the danger of going off on a tangent few will read.
I think there is a fundamental divide between what might crudely be defined as "playing tin soldiers" and playing a game.
WHFB had a quality because two massed armies facing each other in massed ranks across a table "looked" great. You had the fantasy elements but you could also imagine any real battle from the dawn of time through to the mid nineteenth century. The game may have become better or worse through the editions but this was I think fundamental to its charm.
Unfortunately the evolution of 8th went progressively against this idea which is partly I think why its popularity declined (amongst a variety of other issues).
8th funnily enough brought back massed ranks. 7th was the small cav spam edition because one good flank charge and the entire rank dies.
Yeah, 8th was the hoard edition. It would have been fine if "elite" units could actually kill stuff without being buried and if steadfast wasn't so powerful.
In typical GW fashion, they balanced it out by introducing "pass this arbitary stat test or the unit instantly dies" spells...which were also very effective against elite units that did not have some 100 or so models.
8th wasn't great. It needed to be redone.
I would have been fine with AoS, if they hadn't nuked the setting, came up with cringeworthy names for everything, got rid of ranks making it look like 40k, and made the art so damn garish. It looks like something from Warcraft or any other generic fantasy setting.
I would take Blanche over AoS's current art anytime. At least his work has a certain flavor that doesn't look like its from DeviantArt
That said, the current 40k rules set could use some pruning. As long as they nuke the rules and don't touch the setting or atmosphere too much, then it should be fine.
Not that they had already done so by letting Matt Ward touch it and set a precedent for flashy honorable heroes everywhere. Remember when Necrons were egypian flavored robots instead of robot flavored egyptians, who actually had thematically consistent, albeit undeveloped lore? I do. That was awesome.
kodos wrote: And there is balance because the number of Orcs is usually higher.
Youre seriously suggesting that putting twice as many hits on orks in close combat is some kinda of ballance? Youd have to slash the cost of boys down to 2ppm for that to be any kind of ballanced, because they fething suck gak right now.
kodos wrote: And there is balance because the number of Orcs is usually higher.
Youre seriously suggesting that putting twice as many hits on orks in close combat is some kinda of ballance? Youd have to slash the cost of boys down to 2ppm for that to be any kind of ballanced, because they fething suck gak right now.
it is always a good idea to base future points costs on the current powerlevel of a unit.
and with the possibility to always measure, strike first if you attack and have at least twice as many models in a close combat, you have done something wrong if the answer hurts that much no matter if they hit on 4+ or 3+;.
and an increase of 1/6 doesn't make twice as many hits.
but of course of just base stats need to be equal for all units and everyone should hit and wound with the same dice roll, AoS is the perfect system.
Just 3+ & 4+, no difference and no need to worry about "how can it be balanced that a single elite infantry model can kill more cheap mass infantry models than the cheap mass infantry model can kill elite infantry models"
and an increase of 1/6 doesn't make twice as many hits.
I am not disagreeing with the other stuff you are saying, but this statement can be true. If you hit on 6s, a 1/6 increase to hit on 5s does in fact yield twice as many hits Conversely, going from a 2+ to a 3+ will double the changes of failure. A 1/6 difference at the extreme ends of the dice, do in fact make a big difference on a D6. But it doesn't make as much difference from 3+ to 4+, or vice verse
Tyel wrote: At the danger of going off on a tangent few will read.
I think there is a fundamental divide between what might crudely be defined as "playing tin soldiers" and playing a game.
WHFB had a quality because two massed armies facing each other in massed ranks across a table "looked" great. You had the fantasy elements but you could also imagine any real battle from the dawn of time through to the mid nineteenth century. The game may have become better or worse through the editions but this was I think fundamental to its charm.
Unfortunately the evolution of 8th went progressively against this idea which is partly I think why its popularity declined (amongst a variety of other issues).
8th funnily enough brought back massed ranks. 7th was the small cav spam edition because one good flank charge and the entire rank dies.
It's like nobody ran chaff or spread their battle line out to mitigate the chances of flank charges. Or shot/magic missiled the cav to get them below effective strength. Remember, you had to be above a certain US to cancel ranks
Daston wrote: I will be happy with all of it but if they do fixed to hit and to wound stats like AoS then I am leaving.
I am not sure I'd be completely out due to this, but I agree it would be lame. Having a Gretchen able to wound a WK on a set value would be ridiculous. Even if the WK had 100wounds, that should no be possible. Likewise, a Bloodthirster should wound on 2+ against most infantry, yet have a slightly harder time with tougher targets.
This variation on X can wound Y, but cannot effectively wound Z is part of the reason such variety exists in 40K. If a Marine always wounds on 4+ no matter the target, that would be lame and boring.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, 8th was the hoard edition. It would have been fine if "elite" units could actually kill stuff without being buried and if steadfast wasn't so powerful.
In typical GW fashion, they balanced it out by introducing "pass this arbitary stat test or the unit instantly dies" spells...which were also very effective against elite units that did not have some 100 or so models.
8th wasn't great. It needed to be redone.
I would have been fine with AoS, if they hadn't nuked the setting, came up with cringeworthy names for everything, got rid of ranks making it look like 40k, and made the art so damn garish. It looks like something from Warcraft or any other generic fantasy setting.
I would take Blanche over AoS's current art anytime. At least his work has a certain flavor that doesn't look like its from DeviantArt
That said, the current 40k rules set could use some pruning. As long as they nuke the rules and don't touch the setting or atmosphere too much, then it should be fine.
Not that they had already done so by letting Matt Ward touch it and set a precedent for flashy honorable heroes everywhere. Remember when Necrons were egypian flavored robots instead of robot flavored egyptians, who actually had thematically consistent, albeit undeveloped lore? I do. That was awesome.
Nah, 8th was Avoidance Cavalry/Gunline edition. hordes where only good against all foot melee armies. My skaven got beasted across two/three turns by Dwarven shooting and in the next game High Elf Reavers detroyed my blocks without ever getting threatened in return. I packed it in after that.
Giving the popular armies relatively cheap core shooting was a major mistake, and whomever decided that Light cavalry should be able to march AND shoot AND free reform AND turn as many times as they like a turn was an idiot.
Oh and the magic phase. Sweet gak, that was horrifically stupid. The game pretty much became "bring magic/antimagic users or die"
But no, the model count for many of the armies did not help either, nor did the sudden influx on big shiny toys.... But then again look at 40K Shooting is dominant (though to be fair it should be)
Some idiot decided to give certain armies (Tau, Eldar, Marines) insane levels of mobility
The Psychic phase has become a case of "You need to have a lot of psykers/anti psykers or you are going to feel the hurt"
The game has bloated to vast proportions where entire companies worth of infantry can be deployed, and too little effect, whilst big, powerful and deadly super units (Super Heavies/GMC's) dominate the game.
40K needs a reboot, preferably back to a modified 3rd edition. By all means, give us the option for vast games with swathes of infantry and super units, but make these the exception; IE Apocalypse. Bring us back too the basic game: The Platoon. A small number of infantry supported by a few tanks and/or elite units.
AoS is NOT the way to go though. And it NEVER will be.
Pretty honest question so bear with me: D&D essentially had the same problem. 3rd edition was a cluster feth, so they rebooted it with 4th edition. 4th edition was too video-gamey, so they revamped it with 5th edition. 5th edition has free rules online, drastically simplified rules, and has increased the player base tenfold.
As it is, 40k is a mix of 3rd and 4th edition D&D: too bloated and power levels are all over the place. Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
jreilly89 wrote: Pretty honest question so bear with me: D&D essentially had the same problem. 3rd edition was a cluster feth, so they rebooted it with 4th edition. 4th edition was too video-gamey, so they revamped it with 5th edition. 5th edition has free rules online, drastically simplified rules, and has increased the player base tenfold.
As it is, 40k is a mix of 3rd and 4th edition D&D: too bloated and power levels are all over the place. Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
Because not everyone likes everything, and people spend more time complaining than rejoicing, especially online.
jreilly89 wrote: Pretty honest question so bear with me: D&D essentially had the same problem. 3rd edition was a cluster feth, so they rebooted it with 4th edition. 4th edition was too video-gamey, so they revamped it with 5th edition. 5th edition has free rules online, drastically simplified rules, and has increased the player base tenfold.
As it is, 40k is a mix of 3rd and 4th edition D&D: too bloated and power levels are all over the place. Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
4th has the opposite problem 3e, AoS, and 40k have, it was too balanced. It didn't really matter what you did or how you did it, everything basically did the same thing making distinctions almost entirely cosmetic.
4e D&D is what people who make shallow posts talking about how 'balance' is bad because it makes player choice irrelevant are talking about.
The major parallel between 4e and AoS is that they both took a superficial and ineffective approach to 'simplifying' the game; they decided that the soul of the game was how the dice worked, trimmed out most of the depth (movement rules, synergy, target priority...), and left in most of the bloat (many dice, long lists of redundant spells/abilities, too many classes, too many phases of play...).
Nobody is objecting to 40k getting simplified, we're objecting to it getting simplified badly.
40k has the same issues it's had for years: the game takes an age to play; the mechanics are clunky at best; there's a high barrier to entry; several sections of the rules are very limiting to the design space; various parts of the game and units are outright broken. Some of the changes they're making address these, some have potential to fix things, and some might make things worse.
With respect to it taking a long time, this has gotten worse and worse since the psychic phase was introduced, and it was already terrible from 6th. It would have been poor in 5th too, but was somewhat mitigated due to everyone zooming around in metal boxes. Really, games of 40k just take too long nowadays - I can play most medium sized board games 3 or 4 times in the space of a fast 40k game; if people aren't having fun during all of that (and let's be honest, they aren't unless they love watching people plan movement and psychic powers for up to 15 mins at a time) then it needs improving. Becoming more like Age of Sigmar would help for this, as well as clunky game mechanics. Say what you want about the majority of the game itself, it does things such as movement and magic very well - it's fast and easy to understand, with very few things you might describe as clunky. Compared to 40k where there's two dozen unit types which are largely only differ by how far they move and what terrain they can cover, as well as a dozen types of weapon which largely only vary by whether you can move or charge with them, on top of four or five dozen special rules... it's a refreshing change of pace. I mean, one of the most competitive formations in the game, the War Convocation, was printed briefly in a magazine with limited distribution, has rules split across 3 army books and needs constant cross referencing to tables at the beginning of each book for special rules activated once per game - is that not just a testament of how absurdly bloated the system is at the moment?
The barrier to entry has been helped quite dramatically with the introduction of the various board games, as well as kill team. Hopefully the new Necromunda-inspired game will help this further. Honestly, this is an area where GW has fairly tirelessly improved the game since 5th, and it really shows. The balance, unfortunately, has never been great but I think it's fair to say this is probably the worst I've seen it; no edition will fix this, though if they're fully redoing a lot of the books for 8th hopefully they'll at least somewhat mitigate the impact of the daemons/eldar/grav spam sweeping over everything.
And that leaves the bit which I think the new information helps with - limited design space. There's a fair amount to tackle here:
3 ways to play sounds to me like a whole lot of nothing. I'm hoping, though not optimistic, that this really translates to unbound and wacky formations go into the "open play" equivalent so that "matched play" becomes somewhat more solid. We'll see.
Army selection granting command points sounds better than the current formation structure, but really will depend on how it's implemented. If it's the same as it currently is (i.e. get free bonuses for taking X units) then it'll be no better. I like the idea of formations, but they fall foul of what I'm calling design space. With them, armies are very similar (see: every war convocation army, most Decurions pre-Eldar smashing the Necron book into irrelevancy, the Space marine battle company) as well as having the old "take these tax units to get the good ones" problem. I don't see how that's avoidable. We'll see how it's done; I'm not hopeful.
Movement values should honestly never have disappeared, and it's amazing how long it's taken for them to come back. They open up a lot of chances to make units more diverse, as well as fixing issues like assault units being useless unless they can either move 12+" or teleport next to enemies and then charge. There are so many useless units in the game because footslogging assault just doesn't function - hopefully this helps that a little.
Armour save modifiers are a great change in my opinion. I know people are worried about them, but there's a real issue with 40k which has existed for ages, in that AP is all or nothing. It's led to an arms race where in 5e you needed 3+ or better, then in 6e you needed 2+ or rerollable saves, and now we have D weapons because people were getting 2++ rerollables just to survive. Likewise, the best guns have gone from low volume lasplas in 4e, to as many meltaguns as you could cram into a list in 5e, to as many S7+ weapons and ignores cover templates as possible, to the situation now where if you can't generate 4+ AP2 hits or 6+ ignores cover hits per unit per turn, your gun is worthless trash. Everyone uses grav guns because there's no reason not too. Currently, you're never happy to take a grenade launcher or heavy bolter for any amount of points because they're worth almost nothing - AP4 in a game where the most seen units are all 3+ armour saves or 4+ cover saves is meaningless. I'm hoping cover becomes either a save modifier or a to hit modifier instead, but either way armour modifiers give these weapons a reason to actually exist. I doubt that AP will translate into the modifier exactly (I'd bet a heavy bolter will be either -1 or -2 for example, rather than the -3 AP4 would indicate) so it's a reason for optimism in my opinion. Of course, it now means they NEED to give the more elite units like terminators multiple wounds in the same way that elite units in AoS have multiple wounds, but that seems like a small trade off.
Charging units striking first, whilst not being exactly what they said (they're "hoping to work this out", which implies more everyone gets a hammer of wrath hit or something) would be a novel change. It has some definite winners - orks, necrons and IG would love to be able to ever strike first - and some definite losers. It all depends how movement ends up working - if a hormagaunt brood is faster moving than, say, a marine, it seems likely they'll get a charge (assuming, you know, they're ever actually playable), so it won't be an issue. If there's insta-drop and charge shenanigans around, I can see this being an issue. Really though, if it's just one round of combat then it seems pretty small as far as changes go.
Morale killing models per death over leadership sounds quite cool. My first worry is that it punishes hordes who, unless there's a major update in 8th, are currently bad - the only usable one is GSC who can insta-charge, mitigating shooting issues. That said, I think it opens design space; the current "sweeping advance rules" were a band-aid which needed to be pulled off years ago. The issue with SA is that it's all or nothing - either you beat the dice and your unit is 100% fine, or you fail and everybody dies no matter how big the unit is. This has lead to more and more armies getting fearless, stubborn bubbles, ATSKNF, LD10 area of effect etc, until morale is a near pointless stat in most competitive games. You just cannot afford to lose every single model in a large unit to an unlucky combat, so the rules have been balanced around that over the years. In turn, we got things like the tarpits of 6e where there were unbreakable blobs of guard who's sole job was to exist until the end of the game in combat, stopping enemies doing anything. That's not fun. However, it also means that hordes can NEVER be allowed to be strong and fearless in the current rules, because the result is the same - two people whiffing combat again and again, going nowhere and never checking for morale; a bit of an issue when there's an army which is literally meant to be fearless hordes! This sounds like a way to escape that, at the trade of favourring elite armies. I hope that's balanced out, as hordes already need a lot of love, but my thoughts are that this actually gives them the design space to make hordes good.
So, for now, I'm cautiously optimistic about these announcements. Obviously it leaves some major issues still in the game - mass proliferation of AP2 might become mass -ve modifiers, the psychic phase needs to disappear for being a time vampire, invisibility needs to disappear forever, assault options need to justify their existence in most squads - but on the whole I can see this being good for the game.
This has lead to more and more armies getting fearless, stubborn bubbles, ATSKNF, LD10 area of effect etc, until morale is a near pointless stat in most competitive games.
I'm salty, because while in most cases these LD problems don't matter.... It hurts double for orks who drop like flies and get none of the fearless love
jreilly89 wrote: Pretty honest question so bear with me: D&D essentially had the same problem. 3rd edition was a cluster feth, so they rebooted it with 4th edition. 4th edition was too video-gamey, so they revamped it with 5th edition. 5th edition has free rules online, drastically simplified rules, and has increased the player base tenfold.
As it is, 40k is a mix of 3rd and 4th edition D&D: too bloated and power levels are all over the place. Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
4th has the opposite problem 3e, AoS, and 40k have, it was too balanced. It didn't really matter what you did or how you did it, everything basically did the same thing making distinctions almost entirely cosmetic.
4e D&D is what people who make shallow posts talking about how 'balance' is bad because it makes player choice irrelevant are talking about.
The major parallel between 4e and AoS is that they both took a superficial and ineffective approach to 'simplifying' the game; they decided that the soul of the game was how the dice worked, trimmed out most of the depth (movement rules, synergy, target priority...), and left in most of the bloat (many dice, long lists of redundant spells/abilities, too many classes, too many phases of play...).
Nobody is objecting to 40k getting simplified, we're objecting to it getting simplified badly.
I always thought that the soul of the game, whatever the system, regardless of miniature wargaming, roleplaying, sports, or anything, is FUN.
Seriously, the rules don't matter in the big scheme of things. All they are used for is to abstract out into a mechanic what might happen in real life should such an encounter occur. All the dice do is help out with the probability of success or failure for a given experience.
Think back for a moment, and put some sincere thought into this: WHY DO YOU ENJOY WARGAMING? Is it for the models, or for the rules? Is it for the other players, or for a chance to be good at something? Do you enjoy the painting over the gaming? Do you like playing in tournaments? How about narrative campaigns? Is the fluff your favorite part over any other? Or do you hope to make some crazy, epic moments on the tabletop?
We are all in this hobby for our own reason, so not one answer will fit for everyone.
If the rules get changed in a way you don't like, then make up your own rules and play that game! The example of D&D 4th edition was given, and I have no problem saying that I enjoyed it! It was the system that was out and being supported when I first tried D&D, and our group realized that some things didn't work, and so we made our own house rules. Does it REALLY matter that the warrior was using At-Will and Encounter powers to attack the Giant Ant Queen instead of making standard melee attacks? No! What matters is that we had fun together, and we had a memorable campaign.
No system will be perfect, and that's okay. Figure out WHY YOU ENJOY WARGAMING and then think about what rules changes will do to your personal experiences in the big scheme of things.
jreilly89 wrote: Pretty honest question so bear with me: D&D essentially had the same problem. 3rd edition was a cluster feth, so they rebooted it with 4th edition. 4th edition was too video-gamey, so they revamped it with 5th edition. 5th edition has free rules online, drastically simplified rules, and has increased the player base tenfold.
As it is, 40k is a mix of 3rd and 4th edition D&D: too bloated and power levels are all over the place. Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
Because not everyone likes everything, and people spend more time complaining than rejoicing, especially online.
Cos complaining about complaining isn't complaining, amirite?
Eyjio wrote: Morale killing models per death over leadership sounds quite cool. My first worry is that it punishes hordes who, unless there's a major update in 8th, are currently bad - the only usable one is GSC who can insta-charge, mitigating shooting issues. That said, I think it opens design space; the current "sweeping advance rules" were a band-aid which needed to be pulled off years ago. The issue with SA is that it's all or nothing - either you beat the dice and your unit is 100% fine, or you fail and everybody dies no matter how big the unit is. This has lead to more and more armies getting fearless, stubborn bubbles, ATSKNF, LD10 area of effect etc, until morale is a near pointless stat in most competitive games. You just cannot afford to lose every single model in a large unit to an unlucky combat, so the rules have been balanced around that over the years. In turn, we got things like the tarpits of 6e where there were unbreakable blobs of guard who's sole job was to exist until the end of the game in combat, stopping enemies doing anything. That's not fun. However, it also means that hordes can NEVER be allowed to be strong and fearless in the current rules, because the result is the same - two people whiffing combat again and again, going nowhere and never checking for morale; a bit of an issue when there's an army which is literally meant to be fearless hordes! This sounds like a way to escape that, at the trade of favourring elite armies. I hope that's balanced out, as hordes already need a lot of love, but my thoughts are that this actually gives them the design space to make hordes good.
Does anyone else remember 5th edition's Fearless rule? A Fearless unit could lose combat, and they would take additional Wounds based on how much they lost by, but would get their armor saves. What about that as a mechanic? It would represent models fleeing and getting cut down by the victors, or by their comrades who consider those fleeing to be traitors and cowards.
jreilly89 wrote: Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
For me, the dread that comes from the idea of a simplified reboot is that it will mean hundreds of dollars spent on book goes down the drain at once. It is one thing to update a book every now and then, but to straight up wipe the slate clean is terrifying. If GW could reboot just the main rule book, yet leave all the codices alone (meaning statlines, points costs and faction specific special rules would have to remain) than I could be happy with a drastically different main rule set. A set of smart writers can find a way to simplify the main rules and still make all the puzzle pieces in the codices fit. But given what happened with Fantasy 8th ed into AoS, I doubt this would happen.
And free downloadable rules are a slap in the face. They are not free. They are the cost of a tablet and painfully scrolling through digital info. I would rather pay for actual books, much more user friendly. In my experience, I can find a rule twice as fast in a book as most players can scroll to it on a device.
I mentioned this before but hoard armies have nothing to fear. The battleshock system works well for them. Also, if 40k follows AoS's line with objectives being controlled by whoever has the most models around it them and granting points on a turn by turn basis then they'll really come into their own. I've won by spamming bloodreavers to do just that. They die in droves, but I owned the objectives long enough to pull into the lead.
jreilly89 wrote: Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
For me, the dread that comes from the idea of a simplified reboot is that it will mean hundreds of dollars spent on book goes down the drain at once. It is one thing to update a book every now and then, but to straight up wipe the slate clean is terrifying.
-
Even if it wasnt a simplified update, the addition of squad based movement and changing how AP works, along with what ever else they'd have added, still invalidates your books. Hell everytime a codex updates your old ones are invalidated.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Even if it wasnt a simplified update, the addition of squad based movement and changing how AP works, along with what ever else they'd have added, still invalidates your books. Hell everytime a codex updates your old ones are invalidated.
But that's 1 book at a time, not all of them. And adding a movement rate for each unit could be done in the main rules via an Index of units, exactly how they did when then introduced Hull Points. That edition brought in a new stat, yet all the codices were still valid. They were all updated eventually, but not all at once.
If GW does go the AoS route and does a hard reboot, I would be willing to reinvest if the hardcopy rules were affordable. Like $10 per soft-cover book. Or priced as they are, but packed with multiple factions, like a single Space Marine book with all chapters, even BAs, DAs and SWs. Another book with all Chaos, Another with all Aeldari, etc.
Galef wrote: And adding a movement rate for each unit could be done in the main rules via an Index of units, exactly how they did when then introduced Hull Points.
Simply look back at the previous editions for this. Would be simple to extrapolate, and come up with something like this:
Tyranids Movement 6, Eldar and Dark Eldar Movement 5, Squats and Ratlings Movement 3, all else Movement 4. Simple base rule that I can still recall from memory. Only make up a few exceptions, probably stuff like Wraithguard being Movement 4 for being somewhat slower to grasp the physical reality around them for example
On the other hand, a complete reboot like with AoS might be refreshing. I understand the pain of having all those book nullified right then and there. I too have just about every codex, and, just to be on the safer side, stopped buying all those expansions and campaign books and what not.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Does anyone else remember 5th edition's Fearless rule? A Fearless unit could lose combat, and they would take additional Wounds based on how much they lost by, but would get their armor saves. What about that as a mechanic? It would represent models fleeing and getting cut down by the victors, or by their comrades who consider those fleeing to be traitors and cowards.
The problem with 5th edition Fearless was that it was fairly universally reviled. In many cases, it made being Fearless a liability, because the unit could get stuck in a combat with something that they either were fairly evenly matched with or couldn't kill, and would lose through attrition where a non-fearless unit could have just broken from the combat.
Making more models die faster is not the way to fix a game that already focuses too heavily on killing models as quickly as possible. I would rather see morale have a less direct affect on the unit (reducing their effectiveness, rather than forcing them to run away or just removing models wholesale) so that units actually stayed on the board for longer.
This, for me, is one of the biggest problems with 40K, and has been for a long time. We have all these pretty models, we spend hours putting them together and painting them... and as likely as not, they stay on the board for all of 3 and a half minutes before going back in the case. Hell, I bought the original plastic/metal Vindicator kit when it was first released at the end of 2nd (might have been very early 3rd) edition. I assembled it the day after buying it. I didn't get to shoot with it until 5th edition.
That's an extreme case, but the point remains - the game should focus on your units doing things, rather than just on how quickly you can table your opponent. Because that way, we'd all get to actually play with our models more.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Does anyone else remember 5th edition's Fearless rule? A Fearless unit could lose combat, and they would take additional Wounds based on how much they lost by, but would get their armor saves. What about that as a mechanic? It would represent models fleeing and getting cut down by the victors, or by their comrades who consider those fleeing to be traitors and cowards.
The problem with 5th edition Fearless was that it was fairly universally reviled. In many cases, it made being Fearless a liability, because the unit could get stuck in a combat with something that they either were fairly evenly matched with or couldn't kill, and would lose through attrition where a non-fearless unit could have just broken from the combat.
Making more models die faster is not the way to fix a game that already focuses too heavily on killing models as quickly as possible. I would rather see morale have a less direct affect on the unit (reducing their effectiveness, rather than forcing them to run away or just removing models wholesale) so that units actually stayed on the board for longer.
This, for me, is one of the biggest problems with 40K, and has been for a long time. We have all these pretty models, we spend hours putting them together and painting them... and as likely as not, they stay on the board for all of 3 and a half minutes before going back in the case. Hell, I bought the original plastic/metal Vindicator kit when it was first released at the end of 2nd (might have been very early 3rd) edition. I assembled it the day after buying it. I didn't get to shoot with it until 5th edition.
That's an extreme case, but the point remains - the game should focus on your units doing things, rather than just on how quickly you can table your opponent. Because that way, we'd all get to actually play with our models more.
That right there about Fearless crumble is what killed Swarms going from 6th to 7th WFB. If you take the same thing that made people stop taking swarms and apply it to the nice expensive elite units that GW needs to make mass money off of ESPECIALLY if they just did a new plastic kit for, then you quickly see why people disliked the mechanic so much.
To me, fearless would have to mean something about the choices you have, and are willing to make. It doesn't automatically drop your IQ by a couples of tens so you stick around hopeless fights and such!
As such, I think it would be nice to have some kind of morale mechanic, where you would need to make a morale test to do stuff. Stuff like charging into that 20-strong Genestealer horde with your 10-strong Imperial Guard Infantry squad. If the opposing side has a rule that causes fear, it would then modify your chances of affecting it negatively, and being fearless (which I would apply to Space Marines as "They Shall Know No Fear!", would negate such a test completely, as they know no fear and therefor are totally free to charge into an outnumbering enemy squad that has claws which rip their power armour to shreds liek a pair of scissors does flimsy paper.
The opposite would be true as well. Those Guardsmen would likely be desperate, and either continue fighting such a close combat, or run off and get eaten alive, depending on morale checks and their outcome. Space marines would simply choose to leave combat at a time of their choosing. They wouldn't fear the retalliation and perform some form of fighting retreat.
in the same way, I would be hoping for some rule set for suppression. I never thought it fun, nor practical, to roll 20+ ranged fire attacks (punisher gatlings and such) or massed fire from an infantry squad 20 strong at rapid fire range. Especially when all it does, is remove models. Each and every squad that doesn't suffer enough casualties just stands up, returns fire or does whatever the heck it wants to. How about a weapon having both a number of attacks, and a suppression value? Make morale checks by rolling dice added to Morale against such a suppression value to see if the affected squad even dares raising their heads from what cover they sought. Weapons which now have tremendously cumbersome rates of fire, or stuff that causes frightening explosions (Demolisher battle cannons?) might actually get a reasonably low rate of fire, but high suppression values. Some other weapons might have high suppression, like a sniper rifle. "Where did that come from!? Heads down, boys!"
jreilly89 wrote: Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
For me, the dread that comes from the idea of a simplified reboot is that it will mean hundreds of dollars spent on book goes down the drain at once. It is one thing to update a book every now and then, but to straight up wipe the slate clean is terrifying.
If GW could reboot just the main rule book, yet leave all the codices alone (meaning statlines, points costs and faction specific special rules would have to remain) than I could be happy with a drastically different main rule set. A set of smart writers can find a way to simplify the main rules and still make all the puzzle pieces in the codices fit.
But given what happened with Fantasy 8th ed into AoS, I doubt this would happen.
And free downloadable rules are a slap in the face. They are not free. They are the cost of a tablet and painfully scrolling through digital info. I would rather pay for actual books, much more user friendly. In my experience, I can find a rule twice as fast in a book as most players can scroll to it on a device.
-
You're supposed to use the search and table of contents features when you use electronic formats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Xcapobl wrote: To me, fearless would have to mean something about the choices you have, and are willing to make. It doesn't automatically drop your IQ by a couples of tens so you stick around hopeless fights and such!
As such, I think it would be nice to have some kind of morale mechanic, where you would need to make a morale test to do stuff. Stuff like charging into that 20-strong Genestealer horde with your 10-strong Imperial Guard Infantry squad. If the opposing side has a rule that causes fear, it would then modify your chances of affecting it negatively, and being fearless (which I would apply to Space Marines as "They Shall Know No Fear!", would negate such a test completely, as they know no fear and therefor are totally free to charge into an outnumbering enemy squad that has claws which rip their power armour to shreds liek a pair of scissors does flimsy paper.
The opposite would be true as well. Those Guardsmen would likely be desperate, and either continue fighting such a close combat, or run off and get eaten alive, depending on morale checks and their outcome. Space marines would simply choose to leave combat at a time of their choosing. They wouldn't fear the retalliation and perform some form of fighting retreat.
in the same way, I would be hoping for some rule set for suppression. I never thought it fun, nor practical, to roll 20+ ranged fire attacks (punisher gatlings and such) or massed fire from an infantry squad 20 strong at rapid fire range. Especially when all it does, is remove models. Each and every squad that doesn't suffer enough casualties just stands up, returns fire or does whatever the heck it wants to. How about a weapon having both a number of attacks, and a suppression value? Make morale checks by rolling dice added to Morale against such a suppression value to see if the affected squad even dares raising their heads from what cover they sought. Weapons which now have tremendously cumbersome rates of fire, or stuff that causes frightening explosions (Demolisher battle cannons?) might actually get a reasonably low rate of fire, but high suppression values. Some other weapons might have high suppression, like a sniper rifle. "Where did that come from!? Heads down, boys!"
Eyjio wrote: 40k has the same issues it's had for years: the game takes an age to play; the mechanics are clunky at best; there's a high barrier to entry; several sections of the rules are very limiting to the design space; various parts of the game and units are outright broken. Some of the changes they're making address these, some have potential to fix things, and some might make things worse.
(snip)
That's an excellent summary. Go back in time and describe the current state of the game to players of 5e or earlier, and they'd probably assume you were on drugs.
jreilly89 wrote: Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
For me, the dread that comes from the idea of a simplified reboot is that it will mean hundreds of dollars spent on book goes down the drain at once. It is one thing to update a book every now and then, but to straight up wipe the slate clean is terrifying.
If GW could reboot just the main rule book, yet leave all the codices alone (meaning statlines, points costs and faction specific special rules would have to remain) than I could be happy with a drastically different main rule set. A set of smart writers can find a way to simplify the main rules and still make all the puzzle pieces in the codices fit.
But given what happened with Fantasy 8th ed into AoS, I doubt this would happen.
And free downloadable rules are a slap in the face. They are not free. They are the cost of a tablet and painfully scrolling through digital info. I would rather pay for actual books, much more user friendly. In my experience, I can find a rule twice as fast in a book as most players can scroll to it on a device.
-
I love hard copy - I don't use electronic so I know where you are coming from and its often painful to watch people messing about with phones and the like, but printers are a thing and if the rules are free you are paying for just paper and printer costs. Plus likely they will bring out books. They have with AOS. I would hope more for printed cards as they are much better play aids than codex's - hard copy or electronic.
You simply can't change the system and still keep the same stats, army rules and special rules - that's one of the main reasons why the game is in such a terrible mess - GW did not reboot Codexes when editions change - so rules don't work, armies are suddenly terrible, units are pointed wrong or their role is redundant. Also the broken codexes stay broken or get worse, this is an opportunity to fix what is broken, not stick with the same problems.
I have 7 editions of rules and codexes - I used to have a complete set but the recent few years they have been two expensive and two regular.
To me one of the great benefits of moving away to having points in a codex is that you can now do yearly re-balancing updates to fix blatant problems which would otherwise be ignored for years. It should lead to hopefully more consistency in balance.
Elemental wrote: That's an excellent summary. Go back in time and describe the current state of the game to players of 5e or earlier, and they'd probably assume you were on drugs.
Thanks! To be honest, if you told me about 7th in 5e, my reactions would probably have been: "Why does 40k need a magic phase? Are non-Imperium armies really being played or are you pulling my leg? You mean special weapons other than meltaguns exist and tanks are pretty squishy? Which idiot ported the destroyer weapons over when nobody even likes them in Apoc?" There have definitely been more than a few missteps along the way, but in fairness the game isn't just 100% mech IG, mech Grey Knights and mech Space Wolves any more. I do sort of long for the days where Draigowing was an army which could actually exist on the table for more than 2 turns - nowadays it'd just get wiped by various D weapons and stomps.
insaniak wrote:Making more models die faster is not the way to fix a game that already focuses too heavily on killing models as quickly as possible. I would rather see morale have a less direct affect on the unit (reducing their effectiveness, rather than forcing them to run away or just removing models wholesale) so that units actually stayed on the board for longer.
This, for me, is one of the biggest problems with 40K, and has been for a long time. We have all these pretty models, we spend hours putting them together and painting them... and as likely as not, they stay on the board for all of 3 and a half minutes before going back in the case. Hell, I bought the original plastic/metal Vindicator kit when it was first released at the end of 2nd (might have been very early 3rd) edition. I assembled it the day after buying it. I didn't get to shoot with it until 5th edition.
That's an extreme case, but the point remains - the game should focus on your units doing things, rather than just on how quickly you can table your opponent. Because that way, we'd all get to actually play with our models more.
I agree that models don't stay on the table long enough, but I disagree that morale should have a less direct effect. The issue with making morale do something else (such as reduce BS/WS, having to regroup or blocking the ability to charge, etc) is that it slows the game down even more - a low BS unit is basically a dead unit, and if you make unit-by-unit morale exceptions you increase bookkeeping, and thus the risk of someone making a mistake or forgetting a rule. Especially in combat, we're now seeing models with 8+ attacks because assault is so gimped; most units need more killing power in assault and the new change would go towards helping that, although realistically we also need the weapon skill chart to become nearly identical to the roll-to-wound chart if it's ever going to be anything other than whiffing attacks constantly.
In my opinion, it's the ridiculous levels which shooting has gotten to which has left us in this state - Land Raiders die in single hits which is absurd (and has been true since 5th, barring the newfound ability of most armies to now glance them to death), and destroyer weapons are still one of the least fun things ever introduced into a gaming system for exactly this reason - you painted a large model lovingly? Too bad, dead in one hit, along with losing that point investment. I maintain that this is still a good change thematically, as you can just imagine the models deserting the battle, and is a much simpler compromise which might allow them to have meaningful leadership. You are right though, the lethality of the average weapon should be reduced significantly.
morgoth wrote:It's called pinning.
You know, it's easy to forget this rule is actually in the game. I think the last time I saw a unit get pinned was in 6th, and that was in a narrative campaign. I'd love to see snipers actually be worth taking though, as opposed to being worse than bolters most of the time.
Eyjio wrote: The issue with making morale do something else (such as reduce BS/WS, having to regroup or blocking the ability to charge, etc) is that it slows the game down even more - a low BS unit is basically a dead unit, and if you make unit-by-unit morale exceptions you increase bookkeeping, and thus the risk of someone making a mistake or forgetting a rule.
You just use counters placed in units to indicate the morale state of a unit. You could use actual counters, or have dice that represent the morale level, or something like Epic 40k did with blast markers.
Elemental wrote: That's an excellent summary. Go back in time and describe the current state of the game to players of 5e or earlier, and they'd probably assume you were on drugs.
Thanks! To be honest, if you told me about 7th in 5e, my reactions would probably have been: "Why does 40k need a magic phase? Are non-Imperium armies really being played or are you pulling my leg? You mean special weapons other than meltaguns exist and tanks are pretty squishy? Which idiot ported the destroyer weapons over when nobody even likes them in Apoc?" There have definitely been more than a few missteps along the way, but in fairness the game isn't just 100% mech IG, mech Grey Knights and mech Space Wolves any more. I do sort of long for the days where Draigowing was an army which could actually exist on the table for more than 2 turns - nowadays it'd just get wiped by various D weapons and stomps.
You don't think the crappy Apoc sales might have had something to do with it? Personally I loved Apoc but hate seeing Apoc models in standard play to the point that I don't even like Apoc anymore.
Hopefully the AoS ing re-establishes boundries and separates Apoc from standard - now that everybody has Apoc models it might get another shot at life.
jreilly89 wrote: Pretty honest question so bear with me: D&D essentially had the same problem. 3rd edition was a cluster feth, so they rebooted it with 4th edition. 4th edition was too video-gamey, so they revamped it with 5th edition. 5th edition has free rules online, drastically simplified rules, and has increased the player base tenfold.
As it is, 40k is a mix of 3rd and 4th edition D&D: too bloated and power levels are all over the place. Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.
4th has the opposite problem 3e, AoS, and 40k have, it was too balanced. It didn't really matter what you did or how you did it, everything basically did the same thing making distinctions almost entirely cosmetic.
4e D&D is what people who make shallow posts talking about how 'balance' is bad because it makes player choice irrelevant are talking about.
The major parallel between 4e and AoS is that they both took a superficial and ineffective approach to 'simplifying' the game; they decided that the soul of the game was how the dice worked, trimmed out most of the depth (movement rules, synergy, target priority...), and left in most of the bloat (many dice, long lists of redundant spells/abilities, too many classes, too many phases of play...).
Nobody is objecting to 40k getting simplified, we're objecting to it getting simplified badly.
I always thought that the soul of the game, whatever the system, regardless of miniature wargaming, roleplaying, sports, or anything, is FUN.
Seriously, the rules don't matter in the big scheme of things. All they are used for is to abstract out into a mechanic what might happen in real life should such an encounter occur. All the dice do is help out with the probability of success or failure for a given experience.
Think back for a moment, and put some sincere thought into this: WHY DO YOU ENJOY WARGAMING? Is it for the models, or for the rules? Is it for the other players, or for a chance to be good at something? Do you enjoy the painting over the gaming? Do you like playing in tournaments? How about narrative campaigns? Is the fluff your favorite part over any other? Or do you hope to make some crazy, epic moments on the tabletop?
We are all in this hobby for our own reason, so not one answer will fit for everyone.
If the rules get changed in a way you don't like, then make up your own rules and play that game! The example of D&D 4th edition was given, and I have no problem saying that I enjoyed it! It was the system that was out and being supported when I first tried D&D, and our group realized that some things didn't work, and so we made our own house rules. Does it REALLY matter that the warrior was using At-Will and Encounter powers to attack the Giant Ant Queen instead of making standard melee attacks? No! What matters is that we had fun together, and we had a memorable campaign.
No system will be perfect, and that's okay. Figure out WHY YOU ENJOY WARGAMING and then think about what rules changes will do to your personal experiences in the big scheme of things.
Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.
WHFB, to me (and I suspect many others), was supposed to be the game of maneuver-heavy impulse warfare, where battles were won by clever positioning as much or more than by having bigger toys than the other guy. AoS is, instead, a game of size creep and die rolls that stripped out the maneuver element of gameplay almost entirely in favour of a superficially similar dice mechanic and 40k-style bigger-things-win balance.
If you'd put me in charge of the WHFB reboot we'd have ended up with something more like War of the Ring, wherein unnecessary fiddly stat elements, complicated special rules, and unnecessary die rolls got stripped out and the maneuver/impulse warfare gameplay stayed. Leave in how the game is supposed to play and take out the endless rules bloat, rather than stripping out the gameplay and preserving the rules bloat.
AoS places a lot of importance on manoeuvring as well. Especially with the pile in moves, which are much more important than you might first imagine. You'll be trying to position your troops to inflict the maximum amount of attacks whilst receiving the minimum amount back in turn. My friend is getting very good at this.
Also, they don't always end up as a big ruck in the center of the board. Our games are usually decided by who's able to dash to the unclaimed objective in the corner.
Future War Cultist wrote: AoS places a lot of importance on manoeuvring as well. Especially with the pile in moves, which are much more important than you might first imagine. You'll be trying to position your troops to inflict the maximum amount of attacks whilst receiving the minimum amount back in turn. My friend is getting very good at this.
Also, they don't always end up as a big ruck in the center of the board. Our games are usually decided by who's able to dash to the unclaimed objective in the corner.
Without getting stuck into the subjective point of whether there's more or less depth to the movement phase now (if we do we'll be here all day) I think we should be able to agree, objectively, that the strategy/player choice/gameplay involved in the AoS movement phase is drastically different from that involved in the WHFB movement phase.
Which pissed off all the people who found the WHFB movement phase fun.
Which is why there was/is so much vitriol directed at the reboot from the old guard.
Future War Cultist wrote: AoS places a lot of importance on manoeuvring as well. Especially with the pile in moves, which are much more important than you might first imagine. You'll be trying to position your troops to inflict the maximum amount of attacks whilst receiving the minimum amount back in turn. My friend is getting very good at this.
Also, they don't always end up as a big ruck in the center of the board. Our games are usually decided by who's able to dash to the unclaimed objective in the corner.
Without getting stuck into the subjective point of whether there's more or less depth to the movement phase now (if we do we'll be here all day) I think we should be able to agree, objectively, that the strategy/player choice/gameplay involved in the AoS movement phase is drastically different from that involved in the WHFB movement phase.
Which pissed off all the people who found the WHFB movement phase fun.
Which is why there was/is so much vitriol directed at the reboot from the old guard.
So coming back to my thread, which i somewhat abandon, I will agree with this, which also is the reason im sort of weary on the changes.
Change can be good as long as it makes the game more fun, but to much of a good this is really bad, IE what happened to WHFB. I often would equate WHFB to the table top version of total war, which was great i think that was really cool but when AoS just uprooted that, its understandable that peole were pissed and did not wanna even be a part of the game anymore because their game was dead. Thats what i fear for 40k. BUT with that said, it almost sounds like we are going back to 3rd ed rules which i have only heard about not actually played.
Overall as long as the core game play does not change, deathstars and super friends are addressed, MC are on par with vehicles, im down for what ever makes the game more fun. I just dont wanna walk into the store on my first game of 8th and and have it be nothing like 40k other then name and models like what AoS was to fantasy.
Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.
4E also got alot of lies said about it, many rules were quoted by awful grognards that weren't even there. Many seemed to miss when most of the classes were just caddies to Wizards and CoDzilla...
Honestly though there's plenty to hope for if 40k gets AoS'ed, but if there isn't some big rehaul we'll still have to deal with the horrid codex balance we have now.
Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.
4E also got alot of lies said about it, many rules were quoted by awful grognards that weren't even there. Many seemed to miss when most of the classes were just caddies to Wizards and CoDzilla...
Honestly though there's plenty to hope for if 40k gets AoS'ed, but if there isn't some big rehaul we'll still have to deal with the horrid codex balance we have now.
Well i mean its not like AoS is any better balanced, Death is dead, Destruction is viable if your running death star like armies, 7 Giants is a hilarious army to run BTW. Then with order and Chaos is just who can build a better wombo combo and get it off first.
Im all for the nerfing of the cheese, but i just dont want it watered down to nothing.
Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.
4E also got alot of lies said about it, many rules were quoted by awful grognards that weren't even there. Many seemed to miss when most of the classes were just caddies to Wizards and CoDzilla...
Honestly though there's plenty to hope for if 40k gets AoS'ed, but if there isn't some big rehaul we'll still have to deal with the horrid codex balance we have now.
And you're asserting that AoSdoesn't have horrid balance?
Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.
4E also got alot of lies said about it, many rules were quoted by awful grognards that weren't even there. Many seemed to miss when most of the classes were just caddies to Wizards and CoDzilla...
Honestly though there's plenty to hope for if 40k gets AoS'ed, but if there isn't some big rehaul we'll still have to deal with the horrid codex balance we have now.
And you're asserting that AoSdoesn't have horrid balance?
Where are you reading that he's asserting that? I mean, can you point to the words specifically? Because that's some world class assumption. I can't see him saying that even a little.
edit: I liked another word better.
