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 extrapolation. I can't see him saying that even a little.
The way it reads, its implying that a rehaul balances the game. Since he says there is pleny of hope for 40k to get AoS'ed, followed by saying if they dont have said rehaul we will need to deal with our crappy balance implying then that a rehaul fixes it, meaning that the rehaul into AoS fixed WHFB balance which is did not because AoS has not some mad imbalance problems right now.
Backspacehacker wrote: implying then that a rehaul fixes it, meaning that the rehaul into AoS fixed WHFB balance which is did not because AoS has not some mad imbalance problems right now.
Ok, so first of all, an IMPLICATION is basically the opposite end of the spectrum to an ASSERTION. An assertion is defined as a "confidently and forcefully stated fact or belief." An implication is "the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated." Do you see how far apart those things are, even assuming you're right in your assumption? We have to DOUBLE ASSUME just to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Second, I believe the implication is not that at all. I believe the implication is that THIS GIVES IT A CHANCE. Not that it WILL BE BALANCED.
Yes at this point the current system of 40k is beyound repair. And I'm optimistic that the next round will be a breath of fresh air.
I don't know how many here actually play AoS, but I can tell you now that it's the most fun I've had with a GW game in years. I get that it was a big shake up to the rules and the fluff. I know that can be hard to stomach. And I k ow that GW didn't handle AoS right on intitial release. But they learn from their mistakes these days.
Honestly the lore nuke was the biggest issue I had with AoS
The other issue in reguards to the rules was that it was a total 180 on the the rules, and they they offered no support to a system they had been running for years. It would be like saying ok 40k uses movement trays now and we don't support the way it was played for years at all anymore. It's just a lack of care of players.
I'm hoping it does balance it to, there is a lot of issues with 7th and a lot of ways to fix it, a complete nuking of the rules? No it could be done with a handful of achanges. That said, AoS style rules are not to far from 40k in the way combat works.
I'm really untested to hear how the pyker phase works
Automatically Appended Next Post: One can hope they learned but then again the AoS launch bar is so bloody low you could trip over it and still have a better launch, you would need to really try to have a worse release lol.
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.
I hated WHFB movements that why I start Beastmen when they 1st came out, I loved them (And I think I'm the only person that loved the Ambush rule too.... It was amazing fun).
About MC vs Vehicles. play non FMC and tell me they are better... You spend 150-200pts on a 4-6w 3+ save guy that only moves 6" a turn..... Tau MC's are OP, But not Nids. As a nids player if The MC got nerfed then there will be 0 hope for them. They would need to cost 50pts for a Trygon to be playable. Nids has 3-4 good MC out of 16 that are consider playable. 3/4 of the MC are trash utter trash.
The Only vehicles IMO that need help are High Cost low Firepower ones, like Predators, or many of the IG ones.
Vehicles like Rhinos, Razorbacks and others that cost 100 or less are extremely effective for how cheap and what they do. yeah they die kinda easy.... But you are paying 35-50pts What do you want out of 35pts?
Rhinos can live just as long as a Carnifex and a Carnifex is 75-125pts more costly depending the load out.... Heck some Rhinos are free....
The other issue in reguards to the rules was that it was a total 180 on the the rules, and they they offered no support to a system they had been running for years. It would be like saying ok 40k uses movement trays now and we don't support the way it was played for years at all anymore. It's just a lack of care of players.
I'm hoping it does balance it to, there is a lot of issues with 7th and a lot of ways to fix it, a complete nuking of the rules? No it could be done with a handful of achanges. That said, AoS style rules are not to far from 40k in the way combat works.
I'm really untested to hear how the pyker phase works
Automatically Appended Next Post: One can hope they learned but then again the AoS launch bar is so bloody low you could trip over it and still have a better launch, you would need to really try to have a worse release lol.
Its completely different than that.
WHFB was only making something like 5-7% of the over all profits and sense its line was huge it was a failure of a game at the end. I dont agree with the move, but I do understand why and dont blame them.
40k on the other hand is in a Much better place than WHFB
Edit: As someone that starting in late 4th early 5th WHFB and stopped mid 7th, I'd rather play AoS than WHFB.
The sales number is because the game got no attention or real updates. So you had people in the hobby for so long they ended up having everything they needed and because of that the price to enter was so high, it was like 600 just to get a standard army. On top of putting them together and painting.
AoS is selling because they are actually marketing fantasy, the majority of AoS players I see coming into stores are people who played total warhammer.
Amishprn86 wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: One can hope they learned but then again the AoS launch bar is so bloody low you could trip over it and still have a better launch, you would need to really try to have a worse release lol.
Its completely different than that.
WHFB was only making something like 5-7% of the over all profits and sense its line was huge it was a failure of a game at the end. I dont agree with the move, but I do understand why and dont blame them.
40k on the other hand is in a Much better place than WHFB
Edit: As someone that starting in late 4th early 5th WHFB and stopped mid 7th, I'd rather play AoS than WHFB.
Again, nobody's disagreeing that a reboot was necessary, we're arguing with how it was handled.
8e WHFB was haphazard and poorly thought out; the changes to the magic phase made nothing happen the vast majority of the time and the epic spells were game-ending the other 5% of the time, the horde rules made any unit that wasn't a huge infantry block irrelevant, and pre-measuring without changes to cannons/with random charges screwed over monsters/cavalry pretty hard.
I'm asserting that the issue with WHFB that required the reboot was that it wasn't working rather than any fundamental issue with the concept that wasn't working. WHFB has worked in the past, could work in the future, and can be made to work (see: 8.5, 9e), throwing the whole thing out and replacing it with AoS betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.
Amishprn86 wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: One can hope they learned but then again the AoS launch bar is so bloody low you could trip over it and still have a better launch, you would need to really try to have a worse release lol.
Its completely different than that.
WHFB was only making something like 5-7% of the over all profits and sense its line was huge it was a failure of a game at the end. I dont agree with the move, but I do understand why and dont blame them.
40k on the other hand is in a Much better place than WHFB
Edit: As someone that starting in late 4th early 5th WHFB and stopped mid 7th, I'd rather play AoS than WHFB.
Again, nobody's disagreeing that a reboot was necessary, we're arguing with how it was handled.
8e WHFB was haphazard and poorly thought out; the changes to the magic phase made nothing happen the vast majority of the time and the epic spells were game-ending the other 5% of the time, the horde rules made any unit that wasn't a huge infantry block irrelevant, and pre-measuring without changes to cannons/with random charges screwed over monsters/cavalry pretty hard.
I'm asserting that the issue with WHFB that required the reboot was that it wasn't working rather than any fundamental issue with the concept that wasn't working. WHFB has worked in the past, could work in the future, and can be made to work (see: 8.5, 9e), throwing the whole thing out and replacing it with AoS betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.
Dakka Wolf wrote: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.
Oh, I'm sure it was because of poor sales. Same as the scenery rules which are still a design disaster IMO. I wouldn't even mind superheavies in 40k (most, like the baneblade, are fairly mediocre), the issue is with the destroyer rules also coming with them. They could have toned down the rules, but instead made them worse - remember when gargantuan creatures only used to take D3 wounds from any destroyer hit, instead of having a 1/6 chance to instantly vaporise? Honestly, whoever went "hmm, this rule was designed to speed up enormous games and people are complaining that models are too hard to kill - let's move over a gun which can kill everything with no downside" was a prat. Wraithknights in particular should all be melted into a giant heap and then left to be forgotten.
Backspacehacker wrote:The sales number is because the game got no attention or real updates. So you had people in the hobby for so long they ended up having everything they needed and because of that the price to enter was so high, it was like 600 just to get a standard army. On top of putting them together and painting.
AoS is selling because they are actually marketing fantasy, the majority of AoS players I see coming into stores are people who played total warhammer.
I don't disagree that the new game is selling because they're actually marketing it but man, they put a lot into trying to help Fantasy. Back in 5th for 40k (~2010), the releases alternated, with Fantasy usually getting more (and better looking) models - people complained because it wasn't 40k. They also released storm of magic to try and generate interest (granted, it was awful, but so was almost every supplement around that time) and consistently had battle reports of Fantasy in White Dwarf alongside 40k ones. The key issue was just that the rules for 7th and 8th were straight up bad, and the cost to get a usable army was ridiculous. 7th was a game of pinging around, routing random small units, and 8th was this absurd game of hordes, 6 dicing nuke spells and steadfast everything. I'll miss seeing Fantasy, but I can't say I found it that fun to ever play; far better that it's now a computer game instead, which has actively been balanced by the developers.
AnomanderRake wrote: betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.
Not really, the problem you have is that you're not seeing the same problem that GW was.
You're seeing a game that was unbalanced that needed fixing.
They were seeing a financial flagship sinking.
One of the biggest problems was getting new people into the game, and one of the biggest things keeping new people out of the game was the level of entry to build an army. This was their way to create a reasonable entry level.
Basically, they didn't have any "fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was," it's more you that are suffering from a fundamental refusal to understand what GW was trying to accomplish.
Personally, I really liked the game the way it was, and I had a whole Skaven army that isn't being played anymore because of AoS, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why they did and I can see that what they did was from a financial standpoint a solid choice. It wasn't based on the whims of tycoons as you are implying, but rather it was a seriously well thought out manoeuvre to ruin the game I liked, and they accomplished what they set out to do.
Ive seen whole armies like this for players wanting to do 40k armies with AoS. If im not mistaking there was a Google Docs that had it set up and you just need to type in the rules.
AnomanderRake wrote: betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.
Not really, the problem you have is that you're not seeing the same problem that GW was.
You're seeing a game that was unbalanced that needed fixing.
They were seeing a financial flagship sinking.
One of the biggest problems was getting new people into the game, and one of the biggest things keeping new people out of the game was the level of entry to build an army. This was their way to create a reasonable entry level.
Basically, they didn't have any "fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was," it's more you that are suffering from a fundamental refusal to understand what GW was trying to accomplish.
Personally, I really liked the game the way it was, and I had a whole Skaven army that isn't being played anymore because of AoS, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why they did and I can see that what they did was from a financial standpoint a solid choice. It wasn't based on the whims of tycoons as you are implying, but rather it was a seriously well thought out manoeuvre to ruin the game I liked, and they accomplished what they set out to do.
The two problems are fairly interconnected. If you can't parse the first you can't parse the second.
If you don't understand why your financial flagship is sinking you can't fix it. Throwing a set of random changes into a printer wouldn't have rescued WHFB. And to my mind a drastic reboot that pisses the entire old guard off and fills the Internet with spewings of hate for GW to the point where mentioning AoS is a Godwins-Law-level conversation-ender in some places isn't a good way to 'rescue a financial flagship'.
And, yet again, I understand why the reboot was necessary. I get the financial argument. I agree with 100% of the motives. I disagree with pretty much everything about the implementation.
And trying to claim AoS was an evil master plan to ruin WHFB would be a gross violation of Heinlein's Law ('never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence'). GW isn't an evil mastermind out to ruin their game, they're a bunch of human beings who took something that had to be done and did it badly. I'm not disputing that change had to happen, I'm arguing that the change needing to happen is not an excuse for doing the change badly.
AnomanderRake wrote: betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.
Not really, the problem you have is that you're not seeing the same problem that GW was.
You're seeing a game that was unbalanced that needed fixing.
They were seeing a financial flagship sinking.
One of the biggest problems was getting new people into the game, and one of the biggest things keeping new people out of the game was the level of entry to build an army. This was their way to create a reasonable entry level.
Basically, they didn't have any "fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was," it's more you that are suffering from a fundamental refusal to understand what GW was trying to accomplish.
Personally, I really liked the game the way it was, and I had a whole Skaven army that isn't being played anymore because of AoS, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why they did and I can see that what they did was from a financial standpoint a solid choice. It wasn't based on the whims of tycoons as you are implying, but rather it was a seriously well thought out manoeuvre to ruin the game I liked, and they accomplished what they set out to do.
The two problems are fairly interconnected. If you can't parse the first you can't parse the second.
If you don't understand why your financial flagship is sinking you can't fix it. Throwing a set of random changes into a printer wouldn't have rescued WHFB. And to my mind a drastic reboot that pisses the entire old guard off and fills the Internet with spewings of hate for GW to the point where mentioning AoS is a Godwins-Law-level conversation-ender in some places isn't a good way to 'rescue a financial flagship'.
And, yet again, I understand why the reboot was necessary. I get the financial argument. I agree with 100% of the motives. I disagree with pretty much everything about the implementation.
And trying to claim AoS was an evil master plan to ruin WHFB would be a gross violation of Heinlein's Law ('never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence'). GW isn't an evil mastermind out to ruin their game, they're a bunch of human beings who took something that had to be done and did it badly. I'm not disputing that change had to happen, I'm arguing that the change needing to happen is not an excuse for doing the change badly.
They most likely knew.... But there is another thing you havent even given thought it seems. Maybe they wanted a different game, maybe from there marketing and game design as a company they felt WHFB wasnt what they wanted anymore and they had an idea for AoS. Instead of making a 3rd game they decided to replace WHFB.
I've ran a business before and we did something like this. We wanted something completely different but not have 2 things similar at the same time, so we replaced one of them. We let everyone know and even had a meetting for all of clients if they had any questions. We figured we would loose about 10% of them and we did. But over all was better for the company.
Ive seen whole armies like this for players wanting to do 40k armies with AoS. If im not mistaking there was a Google Docs that had it set up and you just need to type in the rules.
Its fake b.c its not a 3+ save :3
Well, the way it is done looks not bad. The stats are negotiable.
A fusion of 40k and AoS (like Warmachine and Hordes) would not be a bad thing.
morgoth wrote: I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.
Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.
What's not to like?
Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.
Going to start listing issues with all this.
1) AoS beating old WHFB sales...for when? For 8e, the stagnant-doom-edition?
2) "You must buy all-new post-reboot armies to keep playing the game" may be a positive way to push the game financially, does that make it something the players shouldn't be bitching about?
3) Might the sales figures be impacted by the fact that WHFB was releasing almost no models by the end? Army book + one big Rare model you'd never actually use in a game because 8e made monsters s*** was the norm.
4) What omniscient alternate-timeline-hopping powers do you posses that you are so vastly certain AoS was a better decision than releasing 9e WHFB balanced to make things other than infantry deathstars function and updating the 5e-vintage Core models most armies were stuck with?
Seriously. "Doing better than WHFB 8th" is not a high bar.
Amishprn86 wrote: ...They most likely knew.... But there is another thing you havent even given thought it seems. Maybe they wanted a different game, maybe from there marketing and game design as a company they felt WHFB wasnt what they wanted anymore and they had an idea for AoS. Instead of making a 3rd game they decided to replace WHFB.
I've ran a business before and we did something like this. We wanted something completely different but not have 2 things similar at the same time, so we replaced one of them. We let everyone know and even had a meetting for all of clients if they had any questions. We figured we would loose about 10% of them and we did. But over all was better for the company.
Edit: Grammar. English is hard for me.
Personally I'm of the opinion they might have gotten half as much vitriol if they'd told everyone ahead of time "WHFB is dead, we're replacing it with a different game" rather than telling us we could still use our old models and then balancing the game such that the new models win everything.
As for the reboot/replacement argument if that was a serious consideration I doubt they'd have made AoS feel quite so 40k-like (with the God-Emperor, Space Marines, Deep Strike rules, general model size creep, etc.).
I'm going to just say that I'll be pissed if 40k gets AOSed. I play 40k and not Sigmar for a reason. I support some of the ideas they're coming up with (Movement values to be specific) but some of their ideas just don't make sense.
Always swing first on the charge? They said that this is more thematic and fluffy. It's not. You mean to tell me that when a lumbering Necron Lychguard charges into combat against the Dark Eldar arena champion Lilith, the necron somehow manages to beat here with what is currently initiative 2 vs. initiative 8+? Maybe a general +1 to initiative on the charge to represent a little edge when charging, but definitely nothing that is "Always strikes first".
Break Checks? ..... Ech. Sweeping advance never seems to do a whole lot for me as it is. And now space marines are vulnerable to running away. I never liked the representation of some models fleeing and some sticking because theoretically then you would have a bunch of terrified fleeing models running around the board, which are no longer represented in the game.
The fact of the matter is that AoS is a beer-and-pretzel game. It's casual. Its simple. And I play 40k because of that. 40k is more complex and intricate. In my experience, AoS turns into a massive pile of close combat in the middle of the table almost every game.
I'm hoping that 40k stays mostly 7th with a few adjustments. Or maybe even pulls back from some earlier editions. Maybe set back the power creep? But it's looking like we're going to be facing an entirely new game, which I would not have sunk my money into had I known it would have gone this way.
Ive seen whole armies like this for players wanting to do 40k armies with AoS. If im not mistaking there was a Google Docs that had it set up and you just need to type in the rules.
Its fake b.c its not a 3+ save :3
Well, the way it is done looks not bad. The stats are negotiable.
A fusion of 40k and AoS (like Warmachine and Hordes) would not be a bad thing.
...I mean, the way the shooting/melee balance works in AoS/40k the end result would be pretty weird...
2) "You must buy all-new post-reboot armies to keep playing the game" may be a positive way to push the game financially, does that make it something the players shouldn't be bitching about?
3) Might the sales figures be impacted by the fact that WHFB was releasing almost no models by the end? Army book + one big Rare model you'd never actually use in a game because 8e made monsters s*** was the norm.
.
Ugh dont, yet another gripe I have against AoS is the way that whilst sure, you can play the old armies, if you want to have a chance at winning you have to take Sigmarines or Slyvawhatsits or the like. Whats that, want to run your Dwarfs? Well, you can take Fyreslayers or Aerogoons, and have fun but your vanilla, honest old fantasy dwarves are fecked if they go anywhere near the new armies.
morgoth wrote: I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.
Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.
What's not to like?
Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.
Going to start listing issues with all this.
1) AoS beating old WHFB sales...for when? For 8e, the stagnant-doom-edition?
2) "You must buy all-new post-reboot armies to keep playing the game" may be a positive way to push the game financially, does that make it something the players shouldn't be bitching about?
3) Might the sales figures be impacted by the fact that WHFB was releasing almost no models by the end? Army book + one big Rare model you'd never actually use in a game because 8e made monsters s*** was the norm.
4) What omniscient alternate-timeline-hopping powers do you posses that you are so vastly certain AoS was a better decision than releasing 9e WHFB balanced to make things other than infantry deathstars function and updating the 5e-vintage Core models most armies were stuck with?
Seriously. "Doing better than WHFB 8th" is not a high bar.
I know it's a flawed source but ICV had spent years without feautring WHFB. AoS in the first period didn't (pre-GBH). This fall AoS got ZERO releases... yet still ranked 4th. And this is with a far bigger market (by 2014 the market was more than twice the size of 2008's/WHFB 7th ed), even bigger than the market in 2011 the last year WHFB ranked in. It's certainly doing better than pre-8th IMO. Though whether or not is the *better* choice I won't say a thing.
2) "You must buy all-new post-reboot armies to keep playing the game" may be a positive way to push the game financially, does that make it something the players shouldn't be bitching about?
3) Might the sales figures be impacted by the fact that WHFB was releasing almost no models by the end? Army book + one big Rare model you'd never actually use in a game because 8e made monsters s*** was the norm.
.
Ugh dont, yet another gripe I have against AoS is the way that whilst sure, you can play the old armies, if you want to have a chance at winning you have to take Sigmarines or Slyvawhatsits or the like. Whats that, want to run your Dwarfs? Well, you can take Fyreslayers or Aerogoons, and have fun but your vanilla, honest old fantasy dwarves are fecked if they go anywhere near the new armies.
Fyreslayers are a very weak army. Freeguild is easily mid-tier and Tomb Kings, FEC (which are an older army), properly played skavens and a pletora more say hi!
Eyjio: Well thought out, appreciate the work of writing all that down.
Original Necromunda had weapons that shifted the armor save depending on what was used so I can see that coming back.
Usually leadership or "fear" mechanics in the past would depend on fractions like "half" or "one quarter" so that the hordes would not be unduly penalized, it will be interesting to see what is done.
I know some of the rules writers had worried about starting fresh or trying to carry forward existing prior edition codex's with every revision and have chickened out each time so things are quite clunky.
They really should hire on contract as many of the old rules writers as possible and ask "if you could re-do the 40k rules, what would you make them?"
I am VERY happy with Bolt Action and would love to see something similar for 40k.
heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assumign a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to fhis pk attacks.
Always swing first on the charge? They said that this is more thematic and fluffy. It's not. You mean to tell me that when a lumbering Necron Lychguard charges into combat against the Dark Eldar arena champion Lilith, the necron somehow manages to beat here with what is currently initiative 2 vs. initiative 8+? Maybe a general +1 to initiative on the charge to represent a little edge when charging, but definitely nothing that is "Always strikes first".
I think the idea is that Lilith should be so mobile that if someone actually manages to charge her, the DE player has screwed up royally. I remains to be seen if it pans out that way, but Eldar in general should be difficult to pin down so you can charge them. Lilith's incredible speed can be represented by movement rate, sheer number of attacks, and/or a very good save, not just via an initiative stat.
But the notion of one side unloading ALL of their attacks before the other gets off any attacks at all is a bad, unrealistic mechanic. Yes, it simplifies things, because you need some simplification in a wargame, but chargers going first is no more unrealistic than higher initiative throwing all their attacks first.
Personally, I'd like to see all attacks going off at the same time, and chargers get a bonus attack to reward good positioning/momentum.
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 edition did succeed in bringing a lot of new players who never played before or would even consider D&D.
G00fySmiley wrote: heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assuming a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to this pk attacks.
That wouldn't be too bad if true
DE Wyches, Genestealers and such wouldn't be royally screwed by being charged then (As they are very reliant on striking first)
And it's not always going to be possible to avoid counter-charges
G00fySmiley wrote: heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assuming a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to this pk attacks.
That wouldn't be too bad if true
DE Wyches, Genestealers and such wouldn't be royally screwed by being charged then (As they are very reliant on striking first)
And it's not always going to be possible to avoid counter-charges
G00fySmiley wrote: heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assuming a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to this pk attacks.
That wouldn't be too bad if true
DE Wyches, Genestealers and such wouldn't be royally screwed by being charged then (As they are very reliant on striking first)
And it's not always going to be possible to avoid counter-charges
it sounded good, same friend called a lot of the changes to 6th, he knows several people at GW, some were experimental changes not implemented but a lot was there (like flyers and intercept). I like it thematically as it represents the warrior having to change the focus of attention,. In the above example SM pay attention to what they were shooting and following orders, then the orks are charging they ready for combat and it takes a few precious seconds to ready to attack back but not receiving the full weight of attacks before swords and knives drawn
I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.
It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.
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 edition did succeed in bringing a lot of new players who never played before or would even consider D&D.
And I was one of them! I never got a chance to play during my high school or younger years, and once I got to college the new thing was 4th edition (the PHB2 was the newest release at that point). What was the important part of the game? Making friends and memories as we play late into the night and have crazy rolls giving us stories for our lives.
And AoS is doing that now for other players. I know of several players between my closest GW and FLGS that started with Age of Sigmar and really enjoyed it. To the point that they are getting into 40K. Would Warhammer Fantasy have got these same players into both games? Possibly, but we will never know for certain.
What 40K really needs to copy from Age of Sigmar is not necessarily the rules, but the attitude of the game, a reduced barrier to entry, and less unnecessary complexities during the game itself.
davou wrote: I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.
It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.
But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6
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 extrapolation. I can't see him saying that even a little.
The way it reads, its implying that a rehaul balances the game. Since he says there is pleny of hope for 40k to get AoS'ed, followed by saying if they dont have said rehaul we will need to deal with our crappy balance implying then that a rehaul fixes it, meaning that the rehaul into AoS fixed WHFB balance which is did not because AoS has not some mad imbalance problems right now.
I'm sorry what are you trying to imply I'm saying? I'm saying that it has the chance for balance because right now even in AoS there's far closer balance then 40k. That and I hope for certain things to happen that won't prove valid if the current codex balance stays the same.
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.
Death has one of the strongest armies in Settra/Tomb Kings/Deathrattle. Destruction can go without death star armies (Though it tends towards it thanks to Ironjawz Ironfist and Bonefists Kunnin Rukk.. Shouldn't have allowed Arrer boyz to be available in it), and 7 Giants isn't even a valid army, and what Order List? Are you talking deepstriking Stormcasts? Are you talking about Sylvaneth or any other army? What Chaos army? Skaven Skyrers, Bloodbound?
It's like you want to discuss AoS balance but you've got nothing to really show so you just made some weird generalizations.
davou wrote: I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.
It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.
But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6
So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.
If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.
And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction
davou wrote: I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.
It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.
But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6
So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.
If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.
And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction
Sense when are there cavalry and lances in your examples? Oh anyways you know what cavalry does get? HoW...
davou wrote: I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.
It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.
But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6
So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.
If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.
And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction
Sense when are there cavalry and lances in your examples? Oh anyways you know what cavalry does get? HoW...
We have HoW for that very reason.....
Which doesn't actually use any of the models weapons and doesn't depend upon any other factors like Furious Charge.
davou wrote: I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.
It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.
But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6
So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.
If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.
And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction
Sense when are there cavalry and lances in your examples? Oh anyways you know what cavalry does get? HoW...
We have HoW for that very reason.....
Which doesn't actually use any of the models weapons and doesn't depend upon any other factors like Furious Charge.
HoW Is a clunky measure for it.
There still is a rule for it tho and what Cavalry units in 40k have lances? If you say Bikes, then thats stupid b.c No bike rider will stop their bike and melee fist/lance fight a person with daggers.
Either way it doesnt matter b,c if what they say is finallised there are no more unit types so there is no Cavalry
The point of my comment 1st was that some units should strike 1st against chargers due to fluff/rules. Wychs are 10pt S3/T3 models b.c they are suppose to hit 1st and able to dodge attacks even from the best fighters out there.
davou wrote: I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.
It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.
But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6
So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.
If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.
And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction
Sense when are there cavalry and lances in your examples? Oh anyways you know what cavalry does get? HoW...
We have HoW for that very reason.....
Which doesn't actually use any of the models weapons and doesn't depend upon any other factors like Furious Charge.
HoW Is a clunky measure for it.
There still is a rule for it tho and what Cavalry units in 40k have lances? If you say Bikes, then thats stupid b.c No bike rider will stop their bike and melee fist/lance fight a person with daggers.
.
And even without taking them into consideration, because in 40k they do stop their bikes and melee fist/chainsword fight people with daggers, even those with hit & run.
Lances was just an example. If an elemental fire leopard jumped out of a tree and mauled you, it wouldn't give you a fair warning to put up your dukes either. Charging at a unit on the top of some battlements is a different story, but bum rushing a group that was in the process of shooting at something else should absolutely be represented by getting to hit them before they have a chance to make their incredible reflexes matter.
Getting a charge off on another unit should represent catching them, and you should get to slap them at least. HOW represents physically running them over with your vehicle or landing on their heads when you drop out of the sky.
and AGAIN thats just the fluff argument. The fact is, that this mechanic is not only easy to explain in the fluff, but also attempts to address a major failing point of the game by making the assault element more important.
As someone not playing at the moment, I can't argue with a reboot, even if I half expect a total meltdown. Free rules would get enormous goodwill from me. A simple system can be elegant and have depth - flames of war does pretty well with very basic mechanics. That tactical marine data sheet is DOA with me though - the heavy weapons are ludicrous. Hopefully fake, although it is hard to imagine a dedicated fan doing that so badly. Maybe a troll attempt.
kestral wrote: As someone not playing at the moment, I can't argue with a reboot, even if I half expect a total meltdown. Free rules would get enormous goodwill from me. A simple system can be elegant and have depth - flames of war does pretty well with very basic mechanics. That tactical marine data sheet is DOA with me though - the heavy weapons are ludicrous. Hopefully fake, although it is hard to imagine a dedicated fan doing that so badly. Maybe a troll attempt.
I just now noticed it and honestly that's... A very poor attempt at even trying to figure out how to use special/heavy weapons, even some AoS units get one per 5 they could've done! And a 36" Melta.
Just a side note about the whole pay to play arguments on new armies.
The newest AoS armies are not always the strongest atall.
In fact, 2 of the top armies are Skryre skaven and savage orcs.
The skaven got an update in end times and savage orcs ages before that.
Yet both armies don't really struggle to top tournaments consistently.
The only update they had were bases (skaven are still on squares for the most part)
Fyreslayers?
Your better off with generic old dwarves as they perform a lot better due to higher damage output, numbers and lower points.
Sigmarines?
They are solid but nowhere near top of the food chain.
They aren't AoS marines in terms of rules power.
Considering they are poster boys aswell.
Khorne bloodbound?
Not really all that great.
A few shots later their characters are dead and no buffs for anyone.
Sylvaneth?
Solid army that's up there.
Still not in the leagues of the 2 I first mentioned though.
So all in all, new armies aren't best atall.
In fact a few are very far from it.
This isn't 40k with a power creep with each new book.
This is partially why I play AoS more than 40k now.
Also, that pic is fake.
Abbreviated weapon names are a start. (Melta? Multi or gun?)
Just the general wording of it seems off for a scroll.
Not to mention the 36" range flamer lol.
kestral wrote: As someone not playing at the moment, I can't argue with a reboot, even if I half expect a total meltdown. Free rules would get enormous goodwill from me. A simple system can be elegant and have depth - flames of war does pretty well with very basic mechanics. That tactical marine data sheet is DOA with me though - the heavy weapons are ludicrous. Hopefully fake, although it is hard to imagine a dedicated fan doing that so badly. Maybe a troll attempt.
Well, if there's one thing to take solace in, it's the quote from their article:
Warhammer Community blug post wrote:I think it’s really great that we’re now developing rules by engaging the community and working with people like Frankie and Reece from LVO, Mike from Nova and Hank, Greg, Chris and the rest of the AdeptiCon team.
Combined with Mike's recent blog post that he was in Nottingham talking to designers though can't say much, I would bet you a pound for a penny that they were either talking about game balance or scenario design to diversify the game. After all, these people have been exceptionally influential in the 40k scene and have undoubtedly helped solidify the game's future by fixing some of the outright broken rules as well as creating interesting scenarios which need more thought than the main rulebook ones. If any of them is reading this comment - you've done a great job over the years with a tough gig, and have kept a game I love alive even when it might not have deserved it.
All that said, I think everyone knows the issues with the game as it stands; that half a dozen people have thanked me for my post shows me that it's not just me thinking these things. The fact is that 7th, with all the codices, is broken - on one end, you've got armies which try to stop you playing the game by being invincible via psychic power abuse, and at the other you have armies which try to stop you playing the game by wiping almost all of your units out in the first few turns. Neither is particularly fun to play or face. Narrative campaigns fall apart because things such as Ork invasions are laughable - even with fluffy lists, I've seen Space Marines win games easily against them with a 250 point handicap. Necrons, my personal favourite army, are in their own absurd predicament, having managed to somehow apparently survive since near the dawn of time, yet somehow remain unable to kill GCs, deal with psykers or contend with strength D at all - so much for particle flaying weapons. Guard actually managed to get worse due to losing their fearless tarpit nonsense whilst gaining nothing but the Wyvern. Tyranids might as well be called the joke army, as they just get smashed by Knights, Wraithknights and grav; there's very little they can actually do against any vaguely competitive army; this shows in their results - their best ranked player at Adepticon came 92nd, below orks at 57th and Necrons at 38th. Still, at least they got played at all, unlike sisters. I'm relatively confident that these huge holes in the game will be at least patched in 8th because even here, now I've moved to their homeland of Nottingham, you can see the discontent. Hell, on the livestream that Warhammer TV did at Adepticon of the team tournament, the chat was really friendly until a Wraithknight came out and one shot a knight before it could do anything. I felt bad for them honestly, the presenters were clearly quite embarrassed at how much of a farce it was and the chat erupted into complaints. It's not good enough, and I think they've finally heard that message at the top of the company.
davou wrote: Lances was just an example. If an elemental fire leopard jumped out of a tree and mauled you, it wouldn't give you a fair warning to put up your dukes either. Charging at a unit on the top of some battlements is a different story, but bum rushing a group that was in the process of shooting at something else should absolutely be represented by getting to hit them before they have a chance to make their incredible reflexes matter.
Getting a charge off on another unit should represent catching them, and you should get to slap them at least. HOW represents physically running them over with your vehicle or landing on their heads when you drop out of the sky.
and AGAIN thats just the fluff argument. The fact is, that this mechanic is not only easy to explain in the fluff, but also attempts to address a major failing point of the game by making the assault element more important.
There is a difference in a 20 man regiment running and charging than a sneaking cat.... And Im not arguing that ALL units must work this way. I gave you an example of some units that wouldnt work this way. Your example was a reason for 1 unit to strike 1st not an example that all units must strike 1st............ My example was some units will always strike 1st. Sure soe units will strike 1st even if they charge or dont charge.
Again... the point is there will always be a unit that will counter the rules.
as it currently stands, a chainsword can't compete with a power weapon. I hope they find a way to make them more competitive with each other. I love chainswords but I would never bother putting one on a model when there's other, better options.
G00fySmiley wrote: heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assumign a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to fhis pk attacks.
That sits well with me.
Charges' +1 attacks calculated at I10 along with Hammer of Wrath would sit well with me.
Big question I'm struggling with is what happens when a model is equipped with weaponry?
Charge attacks go into a Hammer of Wrath type pool, no questions asked?
Charge attacks are calculated including equipped weapons?
Charge +1 attacks can be allocated to the Hammer of Wrath pool or the regular initiative pool?
as it currently stands, a chainsword can't compete with a power weapon. I hope they find a way to make them more competitive with each other. I love chainswords but I would never bother putting one on a model when there's other, better options.
Chainswords are alright, most models that have access to them just can't utilise them in a useful way. Space Wolves Grey Hunters are probably the only the only unit that can really get a proper benefit out of Chainswords - cough up two points per model and add the chainsword to the bolt pistol and boltgun each Grey Hunter already carries, it means a Grey Hunter unit can unleash a volley of bolt pistol shots, charge and be hitting with three attacks per model or Rapid Fire the boltgun in defence and activating Counter Attack still be attacking three times per model.
If saves go the way of AoS they'd probably get the ability to knock the save down by one.
KingmanHighborn wrote: This is terrifying and a kick in the balls to anyone that just bought a codex that recently came out to fix their army. *cough* Traitor Legions *cough*
I own Traitor Legions, too, and I understand how frustrating it is to watch your book very quickly become irrelevant. I mean, with Death Guard on the horizon, the book is already slotted to be out of date rather shortly. It took Traitor's Hate two months? Unfortunately with the End Times-style releases happening right now one must remain vigilant.
G00fySmiley wrote: heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assumign a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to fhis pk attacks.
That sits well with me.
Charges' +1 attacks calculated at I10 along with Hammer of Wrath would sit well with me.
Big question I'm struggling with is what happens when a model is equipped with weaponry?
Charge attacks go into a Hammer of Wrath type pool, no questions asked?
Charge attacks are calculated including equipped weapons?
Charge +1 attacks can be allocated to the Hammer of Wrath pool or the regular initiative pool?
as it currently stands, a chainsword can't compete with a power weapon. I hope they find a way to make them more competitive with each other. I love chainswords but I would never bother putting one on a model when there's other, better options.
Chainswords are alright, most models that have access to them just can't utilise them in a useful way. Space Wolves Grey Hunters are probably the only the only unit that can really get a proper benefit out of Chainswords - cough up two points per model and add the chainsword to the bolt pistol and boltgun each Grey Hunter already carries, it means a Grey Hunter unit can unleash a volley of bolt pistol shots, charge and be hitting with three attacks per model or Rapid Fire the boltgun in defence and activating Counter Attack still be attacking three times per model.
If saves go the way of AoS they'd probably get the ability to knock the save down by one.
as it was explained to me "like hammer of wrath" some units still get an unmodified hammer of wrath attack, but the attack made for charging is with their weapon. so a unit of 1 lone nob biker with PK charges. hammer of wrath hits at str 4 ap- on contact, then the fight subphase. as the charging unit he gets 1 str 8 ap2 attack (still has to hit) then the opponent he charged say 4 remaining scouts attack back with 4 str 4 attacks hit and wound as normal. if the nob survives then the other 3 attacks come in at i1 str 8 ap2 (note str 9 if they retain furious charge at +1 str)
I assume rage will net 2 attacks first but when I asked that was an unknown as well.
With the assumed simplification that this new rule set is suppose to bring I find it extremely difficult to expect a more complex combat phase with I go, you go I go etc. I would expect to see the initiative stat to complete disappear making the combat phase streamlined.
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?
You know what? I'm going to bite the bullet. Yes. it doesn't have horrid balance. It's in a VERY superior position to 40k in terms of balance. Not great, okay-ish, but certainly not horrid.
Just look at adepticon:
http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=11199 Almost 1 in 8 players, 12%, in the 40k championship didn't win a single game (all defeats or a single stalemate). 25 out of 203.
http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=11298 Two out of a hundred and four. A sixth in terms of proportion. And those six two played 3 out of 6 games, rather than the full set.
At LVO? Out of 73 (or was it 93? I think it's 73) 2 lost all the games, with only one player winning all its games. The ratio for 40k playes was noticeably higher too in those cases.
You can bemoan and make the giant strawman that "only you can win with post-reboot armies" you've been making in other threads but the truth is that the strongest army in the meta is tomb-kings, a pre-re-boot army. It is followed by Clan Skryre, another pre-reboot army and bonesplitterz tied with sylvaneth. Being the early an army that received no new models/profiles, only an update. FEC are pretty high in the meta too, having only old models and barely any usable batallions (and nothing on the terms of spells/unique stuff).
Meanwhile new armies have pretty bad rankings. Fyreslayers? Not seen at all on either tournament. Consensus is that they are very overcosted across the board. Khorne bloodbound? about the same and hampered by their excessive focus on meelee without the needed speed (which may be solved with the new battletome).
However, he is pretty decent in porting the rules over. If they do AoS the statline, then yes, a 2W 4+ is the standard for dudes in full plate in AoS and that is what at Tactical Marine would be.
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?
You know what? I'm going to bite the bullet. Yes. it doesn't have horrid balance. It's in a VERY superior position to 40k in terms of balance. Not great, okay-ish, but certainly not horrid.
Just look at adepticon:
http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=11199 Almost 1 in 8 players, 12%, in the 40k championship didn't win a single game (all defeats or a single stalemate). 25 out of 203.
http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=11298 Two out of a hundred and four. A sixth in terms of proportion. And those six two played 3 out of 6 games, rather than the full set.
At LVO? Out of 73 (or was it 93? I think it's 73) 2 lost all the games, with only one player winning all its games. The ratio for 40k playes was noticeably higher too in those cases.
You can bemoan and make the giant strawman that "only you can win with post-reboot armies" you've been making in other threads but the truth is that the strongest army in the meta is tomb-kings, a pre-re-boot army. It is followed by Clan Skryre, another pre-reboot army and bonesplitterz tied with sylvaneth. Being the early an army that received no new models/profiles, only an update. FEC are pretty high in the meta too, having only old models and barely any usable batallions (and nothing on the terms of spells/unique stuff).
Meanwhile new armies have pretty bad rankings. Fyreslayers? Not seen at all on either tournament. Consensus is that they are very overcosted across the board. Khorne bloodbound? about the same and hampered by their excessive focus on meelee without the needed speed (which may be solved with the new battletome).
While we are talking about balance, the top 4 in the AOS adepticon event were each from a different grand alliance. In the 40k the top 12 were all space marines, chaos demons or eldar. No Ork, Dark Eldar or Tyranid armies in the top 50.
It seems very clear from this that AOS is not doing to badly in terms of balance but 40k is REALLY struggling.
morgoth wrote: I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.
Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.
What's not to like?
Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.
I like how despite AoS' relative success its cult-like fanbase still insist that killing WHFB was a good thing and we should all be grateful for it.
They added Fantasy Space Marines to get the 40k players to pick up the game. That was always going to sell. If they added Sigmarines into the Old World we'd probably see sales skyrocket, but they were nigh-on impossible to justify adding so... out the whole setting went.
The problem with AoS has never been about whether a rules-lite skirmish game unto itself was the problem. The issue was that they threw out the baby with the bathwater, along with the bath itself, the pipes, the drain, etc.
Baron Klatz wrote: That doesn't seem bad considering that equates to a 40k which only gets it's bathwater thrown out.
If 40k-AoS was universally reviled then there's at least the comfort they'll swiftly(ish) release a version much closer to prior editions. So no, it doesn't seem quite as bad. That, and even if they practically made 8th into AoS complete with four pages of rules, at least it would still be a lot closer to 7th compared to what AoS was to WHFB.
Nobody liked (Okay, some yes, but those are of rare kind) the death of the old world. Nobody wanted it.
But some of us stop crying his death, because in the end its a fictional game, and all things come to an end, even if you can still play it (Just as I do every week) or read his lore.
When my grandfather died, my grandmother spend the next 15 years wearing all black and mourning his death. The End Times finished in 2015.
But the bitterness of those that just call people that like other games "cult-like fanbase" its tiresome. As if Fanboys and Haters weren't to faces of the same coin, you know.
And in the Adepticons results, yeah. Thats a good slap of reality to those people that just, ignoring the state of the game, call that its the most unbalance thing on earth.
And before you say anything, no, AoS its not the best game in the world, not the most balanced. But are we talking of GW or not? You can't create a silk purse from a pig's ear.
If GW can make 40k achieve the level of balance that exist in AoS, without nuking his system and making it AoS 2.0, I'll be the first to clap and jump to play it again. But first of all I'm a narrative player, and to me the good Imperium of Old with the degradation of everything its gone with the Guilliman New-Age, but at least the galaxy its still here.
Arbitrator wrote: That, and even if they practically made 8th into AoS complete with four pages of rules, at least it would still be a lot closer to 7th compared to what AoS was to WHFB.
That's a fair point... at least AoS-40K would still be the same type of game. Just with a completely different rules structure. 40K has weathered that before (twice).
My main issue with the change from WHFB to AoS was less to do with the actual rules and more to do with the fact that they took a ranked, largely-generic fantasy game (which I enjoyed) and turned it into a skirmish-formation magic & steampunk game (which I'm not particularly interested in, as I already have Warmachine).
If AoS had resulted in a mass shakeup of the rules, but still been the same type of game, I would have been far more open to trying it out.
morgoth wrote: I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.
Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.
What's not to like?
Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.
I like how despite AoS' relative success its cult-like fanbase still insist that killing WHFB was a good thing and we should all be grateful for it.
They added Fantasy Space Marines to get the 40k players to pick up the game. That was always going to sell. If they added Sigmarines into the Old World we'd probably see sales skyrocket, but they were nigh-on impossible to justify adding so... out the whole setting went.
The problem with AoS has never been about whether a rules-lite skirmish game unto itself was the problem. The issue was that they threw out the baby with the bathwater, along with the bath itself, the pipes, the drain, etc.
You know what I like? People still spiteful who still feel they need to go and insult people MULTIPLE TIMES in order to make an argument against something they don't like. But hey, I'm a cultist of course I cannot see the truth since I'm maybe brainwashed.
Galas wrote: Nobody liked (Okay, some yes, but those are of rare kind) the death of the old world. Nobody wanted it.
Spoiler:
But some of us stop crying his death, because in the end its a fictional game, and all things come to an end, even if you can still play it (Just as I do every week) or read his lore.
When my grandfather died, my grandmother spend the next 15 years wearing all black and mourning his death. The End Times finished in 2015.
But the bitterness of those that just call people that like other games "cult-like fanbase" its tiresome. As if Fanboys and Haters weren't to faces of the same coin, you know.
And in the Adepticons results, yeah. Thats a good slap of reality to those people that just, ignoring the state of the game, call that its the most unbalance thing on earth.
And before you say anything, no, AoS its not the best game in the world, not the most balanced. But are we talking of GW or not? You can't create a silk purse from a pig's ear.
If GW can make 40k achieve the level of balance that exist in AoS, without nuking his system and making it AoS 2.0, I'll be the first to clap and jump to play it again. But first of all I'm a narrative player, and to me the good Imperium of Old with the degradation of everything its gone with the Guilliman New-Age, but at least the galaxy its still here.
Maybe in your quarter of the world, most people didn't like the bloated rules, haven't seen anyone who disliked old world setting yet, it was so diverse and a faction for everybody.
I don't mind the whole overhauling of the rules in 40K but if they do an AOS there will be a bigger backlash, most people got in to the game because of the setting.
Not because of the rules there have always been better rulesets out there.
I know. Pinning... Which doesn't do Jack-All for the amount of shots somebody can sometimes make, which in my opinion should cause pinning in the first place. 60+ shots from a gun line, and no pinning because the weapons do not cause such. A suppression mechanic could, would, and should factor in volume of fire.
Galas wrote: Nobody liked (Okay, some yes, but those are of rare kind) the death of the old world. Nobody wanted it.
Spoiler:
But some of us stop crying his death, because in the end its a fictional game, and all things come to an end, even if you can still play it (Just as I do every week) or read his lore.
When my grandfather died, my grandmother spend the next 15 years wearing all black and mourning his death. The End Times finished in 2015.
But the bitterness of those that just call people that like other games "cult-like fanbase" its tiresome. As if Fanboys and Haters weren't to faces of the same coin, you know.
And in the Adepticons results, yeah. Thats a good slap of reality to those people that just, ignoring the state of the game, call that its the most unbalance thing on earth.
And before you say anything, no, AoS its not the best game in the world, not the most balanced. But are we talking of GW or not? You can't create a silk purse from a pig's ear.
If GW can make 40k achieve the level of balance that exist in AoS, without nuking his system and making it AoS 2.0, I'll be the first to clap and jump to play it again. But first of all I'm a narrative player, and to me the good Imperium of Old with the degradation of everything its gone with the Guilliman New-Age, but at least the galaxy its still here.
Maybe in your quarter of the world, most people didn't like the bloated rules, haven't seen anyone who disliked old world setting yet, it was so diverse and a faction for everybody.
I don't mind the whole overhauling of the rules in 40K but if they do an AOS there will be a bigger backlash, most people got in to the game because of the setting.
Not because of the rules there have always been better rulesets out there.
Bravo on missing the whole point of the discussion, We are talking of an AoS-ification OF THE RULES. The setting is going anywhere, and they've been telling us so (and the narrative supports it) for 3 months.
I know. Pinning... Which doesn't do Jack-All for the amount of shots somebody can sometimes make, which in my opinion should cause pinning in the first place. 60+ shots from a gun line, and no pinning because the weapons do not cause such. A suppression mechanic could, would, and should factor in volume of fire.
I like to see a rule that you can choose to shoot and pin a unit but forgo dealing wounds. Would be something neat. Would it work in 40k? IDK would need to test it.
Galas wrote: Nobody liked (Okay, some yes, but those are of rare kind) the death of the old world. Nobody wanted it.
Spoiler:
But some of us stop crying his death, because in the end its a fictional game, and all things come to an end, even if you can still play it (Just as I do every week) or read his lore.
When my grandfather died, my grandmother spend the next 15 years wearing all black and mourning his death. The End Times finished in 2015.
But the bitterness of those that just call people that like other games "cult-like fanbase" its tiresome. As if Fanboys and Haters weren't to faces of the same coin, you know.
And in the Adepticons results, yeah. Thats a good slap of reality to those people that just, ignoring the state of the game, call that its the most unbalance thing on earth.
And before you say anything, no, AoS its not the best game in the world, not the most balanced. But are we talking of GW or not? You can't create a silk purse from a pig's ear.
If GW can make 40k achieve the level of balance that exist in AoS, without nuking his system and making it AoS 2.0, I'll be the first to clap and jump to play it again. But first of all I'm a narrative player, and to me the good Imperium of Old with the degradation of everything its gone with the Guilliman New-Age, but at least the galaxy its still here.
Maybe in your quarter of the world, most people didn't like the bloated rules, haven't seen anyone who disliked old world setting yet, it was so diverse and a faction for everybody.
I don't mind the whole overhauling of the rules in 40K but if they do an AOS there will be a bigger backlash, most people got in to the game because of the setting.
Not because of the rules there have always been better rulesets out there.
You're absolutely right. The primary thing that keeps 40k alive for me is the setting, not the rules. The rules are bloated af. Simply replace them with the rules of AoS, I'm happy.
I never cared about the setting of WHFB, nor do I care about the setting of AoS. I just never read it, it's fantasy and that's all I need to know. I can understand that people dislike the change, though. I wouldn't appreciate it if they threw away the entire 40k universe and replaced it with something entirely different - even if the rules were much better. I'd still play it, but I'd also probably just refuse to go with the new background/lore.
After all it's you who decides to play a story/narrative driven game, and where that happens setting-wise. It's just the same as with RPGs. I never moved on from 3.5ED Forgotten Realms since I just plain hate 4ED Forgotten Realms. I can still use the 4ED or 5ED rules and play in the 3.5ED world.
Another thing about nuking the setting is the novels. I like Warhammer Old world novels (though not as much as 40K), now there won't be any more. Instead there will be novels about steam dwarves and shoulderpad angels in a setting which vaguely reminds me of the Magic 'Verse. Could I learn to love it? Maybe, but I'm not going to try.
40K is awesome because of the modeling above all. You see that in contrast with games like Warmachine where you don't get to make up your own characters or groups, conversion is frowned upon, and terrain isn't much of a thing (at least around here). It is a better GAME than 40k hands down, but it is nowhere near as good a modeling experience. It will be a shame if they lose that - GW is already trying to get away from the wonder days of Dave wass'name and the scratch build/counts as armies that got me into it.
kestral wrote: Another thing about nuking the setting is the novels. I like Warhammer Old world novels (though not as much as 40K), now there won't be any more. Instead there will be novels about steam dwarves and shoulderpad angels in a setting which vaguely reminds me of the Magic 'Verse. Could I learn to love it? Maybe, but I'm not going to try.
I loved the Gortex and Felix novels.. that were leading up to a massive Chaos incursion... but then they changed Author and that kinda went no where
There is no inherent reason why BL couldn't set novels in the Old World if the demand were there. I mean it's still officially in the past of AoS, right? So if Horus Heresy fiction is OK...
kestral wrote: 40K is awesome because of the modeling above all. You see that in contrast with games like Warmachine where you don't get to make up your own characters or groups, conversion is frowned upon, and terrain isn't much of a thing (at least around here). It is a better GAME than 40k hands down, but it is nowhere near as good a modeling experience. It will be a shame if they lose that - GW is already trying to get away from the wonder days of Dave wass'name and the scratch build/counts as armies that got me into it.
Indeed! You don't even NEED MODELS in Warmahordes, since the rules for model size and presence are all determined by its base size. Terrain pieces are just cutouts set on the table. And conversions are shunned in a big way. (And I'm pretty sure that, up until Mk III, custom army color schemes were frowned upon, at least in my local area.) And I know how everyone goes on about how excellent the game is, but I find it to be just as cumbersome as 40K, in as much as I have to find in the rulebook how something works every other turn on the game, plus I find the players (in my area) to be rather snobbish and elitist about being PP gamers.
Each wargame has 3 components: the Game, the Fluff & Setting, and the Models. Warmahordes is a decent game with a decent setting and fine models. 40K is an awesome setting with amazing models but a bloated game. AoS is doing great in the models, decent in the gameplay, and is establishing its setting and fluff.
If you could only have your wargame be good in just 2 of those 3 components, which would you choose?
kestral wrote: 40K is awesome because of the modeling above all. You see that in contrast with games like Warmachine where you don't get to make up your own characters or groups, conversion is frowned upon, and terrain isn't much of a thing (at least around here). It is a better GAME than 40k hands down, but it is nowhere near as good a modeling experience. It will be a shame if they lose that - GW is already trying to get away from the wonder days of Dave wass'name and the scratch build/counts as armies that got me into it.
Indeed! You don't even NEED MODELS in Warmahordes, since the rules for model size and presence are all determined by its base size. Terrain pieces are just cutouts set on the table. And conversions are shunned in a big way. (And I'm pretty sure that, up until Mk III, custom army color schemes were frowned upon, at least in my local area.) And I know how everyone goes on about how excellent the game is, but I find it to be just as cumbersome as 40K, in as much as I have to find in the rulebook how something works every other turn on the game, plus I find the players (in my area) to be rather snobbish and elitist about being PP gamers.
Each wargame has 3 components: the Game, the Fluff & Setting, and the Models. Warmahordes is a decent game with a decent setting and fine models. 40K is an awesome setting with amazing models but a bloated game. AoS is doing great in the models, decent in the gameplay, and is establishing its setting and fluff.
If you could only have your wargame be good in just 2 of those 3 components, which would you choose?
Fluff and the models, the game can always be adapted to and rules always change, its a lot harder to do that to the fluff and models.
Personally really not a fan recent AoS releases. As of late, GW seems to be way over designing their models to the point of them just being grotesque.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kellymatthew37 wrote: I don't think it will be as bad as fantasy, the largest part of that was for copyright protection.
Yeah, it wont take much to not be as bad as it. Simply, dont nuke the universe for reasons.
kellymatthew37 wrote: I don't think it will be as bad as fantasy, the largest part of that was for copyright protection.
Yeah, it wont take much to not be as bad as it. Simply, dont nuke the universe for reasons.
Well the reasons were probably very relevant.
Like having to waste the next 25 years of profit on IP lawyers plus trying to save the sinking ship.
Vs launching a new game and making money.
I'm happy the company that makes the game I love isn't dumb enough to shoot itself in the foot and die for reasons.
kellymatthew37 wrote: I don't think it will be as bad as fantasy, the largest part of that was for copyright protection.
Yeah, it wont take much to not be as bad as it. Simply, dont nuke the universe for reasons.
Well the reasons were probably very relevant.
Like having to waste the next 25 years of profit on IP lawyers plus trying to save the sinking ship.
Vs launching a new game and making money.
I'm happy the company that makes the game I love isn't dumb enough to shoot itself in the foot and die for reasons.
I would say the IP is not really a valid argument, because GW has changed the name of their factions or things in their games before for copy right reasons with out nukeing them. IE IG are now AM, and every thing is now adeptas astartes rather then space marines.
Which again there are plenty of ways that WHFB could have been saved rather then just lol chaos destroyed it all, like actually marketing it like they did at the end times. Because if you think about it, how much content for WHFB came out before the end times? Then look at the end times and look how many video games and marketing they were getting and how much that drew new people in.
But again we could argue until the cows came home about how WHFB could or could not have been saved, so its rather moot.
lolAOS fans are "cultists" now. Oh the internet never ceases to provide.
AOS is going on its second year now. Its cracked the top 4 of North America sales, overshadowing WHFB.
If you hate the AOS setting, simply play the game and pretend you're in the old world. no one can destroy a fictional setting that never existed in the first place.
40k having its rules brought down can only be a good thing. The rules today are horrible for 40k to a lot of people.
Each wargame has 3 components: the Game, the Fluff & Setting, and the Models. Warmahordes is a decent game with a decent setting and fine models. 40K is an awesome setting with amazing models but a bloated game. AoS is doing great in the models, decent in the gameplay, and is establishing its setting and fluff.
If you could only have your wargame be good in just 2 of those 3 components, which would you choose?
Fluff and Game play. I can convert, find, jury rig and otherwise make the models work. They may not be quite as pretty, but they'll be mine. Fluff inspires me, game play keeps me interested and provides an outlet for competition.
kestral wrote: Another thing about nuking the setting is the novels. I like Warhammer Old world novels (though not as much as 40K), now there won't be any more. Instead there will be novels about steam dwarves and shoulderpad angels in a setting which vaguely reminds me of the Magic 'Verse. Could I learn to love it? Maybe, but I'm not going to try.
You should read City of Secrets. It's really good, and it broke down a lot of the preconceptions I had about the setting.
auticus wrote: lolAOS fans are "cultists" now. Oh the internet never ceases to provide.
AOS is going on its second year now. Its cracked the top 4 of North America sales, overshadowing WHFB.
It's overshadowing a game that no longer exists? Impressive. Top 4 isn't exactly phenomenal. X-Wing and 40k are the big hitters in wargaming with everything else waiting in line behind.
If you hate the AOS setting, simply play the game and pretend you're in the old world. no one can destroy a fictional setting that never existed in the first place.
40k having its rules brought down can only be a good thing. The rules today are horrible for 40k to a lot of people.
Won't disagree about the 40k rules needing an overhaul but it misses the point somewhat to say "just play as if you're in the Old World" when there are people bringing Sigmarines and Fiery Dwarfs on dragons.
Simply put: If GW 'names' a unit, but doesn't also create (and sell) a model for that unit before another company does...the other company will 'own' the model, and GW will be in the position of "copying." Understandably, they want it the other way around.
AOS is going on its second year now. Its cracked the top 4 of North America sales, overshadowing WHFB.
It would be interesting to know just how much money AoS has taken at the expense of 40k sales, as 40k players get disillusioned with the 40k rules and move to the only other GW game.
I know GW's profits are up, is this because 40k players buying into AoS are spending more to get started than they would have done on 40k additions to their army?
AOS is going on its second year now. Its cracked the top 4 of North America sales, overshadowing WHFB.
It would be interesting to know just how much money AoS has taken at the expense of 40k sales, as 40k players get disillusioned with the 40k rules and move to the only other GW game.
I know GW's profits are up, is this because 40k players buying into AoS are spending more to get started than they would have done on 40k additions to their army?
Which brings us to a pretty sterile debate on whether those players would have just swapped to another system, or maybe they didn't "need" to buy anything else. Dunno, let's drop the selling angle, unless we've got a crystal ball.
Galas wrote: Nobody liked (Okay, some yes, but those are of rare kind) the death of the old world. Nobody wanted it.
Spoiler:
But some of us stop crying his death, because in the end its a fictional game, and all things come to an end, even if you can still play it (Just as I do every week) or read his lore.
When my grandfather died, my grandmother spend the next 15 years wearing all black and mourning his death. The End Times finished in 2015.
But the bitterness of those that just call people that like other games "cult-like fanbase" its tiresome. As if Fanboys and Haters weren't to faces of the same coin, you know.
And in the Adepticons results, yeah. Thats a good slap of reality to those people that just, ignoring the state of the game, call that its the most unbalance thing on earth.
And before you say anything, no, AoS its not the best game in the world, not the most balanced. But are we talking of GW or not? You can't create a silk purse from a pig's ear.
If GW can make 40k achieve the level of balance that exist in AoS, without nuking his system and making it AoS 2.0, I'll be the first to clap and jump to play it again. But first of all I'm a narrative player, and to me the good Imperium of Old with the degradation of everything its gone with the Guilliman New-Age, but at least the galaxy its still here.
Maybe in your quarter of the world, most people didn't like the bloated rules, haven't seen anyone who disliked old world setting yet, it was so diverse and a faction for everybody.
I don't mind the whole overhauling of the rules in 40K but if they do an AOS there will be a bigger backlash, most people got in to the game because of the setting.
Not because of the rules there have always been better rulesets out there.
Sorry, I think I don't understand your point or you don't understand mine. What I was saying its that nobody wanted and nobody liked the destruction of the Old World. I agree, I prefer the setting of the Old World that Age of Sigmar.
From a rules stand point I prefer more skirmish games that rank and file games, but I agree too, that the problem with WHFB its that the system changes from a thing to a other totally different.
My point was not that "GW needed to kill WHFB and that AoS its the best thing ever", my point its:
Nobody liked the destruction of the old world, but has been done, so you can be bitter and aggresive and be hostile during years, or you can accept it.
And no, this its not a "fanboy" wanting to people to stop critizisin AoS. AoS has many flaws, his launch was terrible, and all of that can be and should be criticised with arguments, because we have all to remember that if we let GW think that they are just in a safe spot, they can go back to the Kirby Era.
But the people that just want to hate AoS without a constructive discusion, and even worse, just insult and attack the people that play and like that game, its tiresome at this point.
EDIT: The "economical sucess" to me its a sterile debate, first:
-We don't have numbers. We just don't have them, its all speculation and subjetive lists with no hard data.
-The "My game make more money!" don't go anywhere.
I think the start collecting boxes might be responsible for a lot of the increased profits, but I'm also certain that AoS has played a big part in it too. I can assure you that I'll be spending a hell of a lot on it next month. A lot.
I've currently given up on 40k and went full AoS, for a variety of reasons. But if 40k follows AoS's lead I'll be back to it with gusto.
AOS is going on its second year now. Its cracked the top 4 of North America sales, overshadowing WHFB.
And on a side note AoS has recieved actual support within the last decade, and does not have a 400+ model count requirement, courtesy of Kirby.
Thats the thing that makes me more sad about this. Have Roundtree become CEO 5 years early, and maybe the Old World still exist within us, with a lower model count, skirmish rulesets (Encouraged by the company, I know Fantasy has skirmish rules like Mordheim or Patrols), etc...
WHFB didn't have a 400+ model count requirement either lol.
My chaos warrior army was 35 models.
My dark elf army was 68 models.
My tomb kings army was 65 models.
(those all being my whfb 8th edition army list model counts, which were played casually or in tournaments)
Hell my AOS blood bound army has 74 models in it currently which is more models than any of those other three armies.
As to the "but sigmarines exist so it can't be the old world"... sigmarines could have existed in either world. If the complaint is there are new factions, then the issue isn't really with the old world or the new one, its that a faction exists that some people get cranky exists.
AOS is going on its second year now. Its cracked the top 4 of North America sales, overshadowing WHFB.
And on a side note AoS has recieved actual support within the last decade, and does not have a 400+ model count requirement, courtesy of Kirby.
Thats the thing that makes me more sad about this. Have Roundtree become CEO 5 years early, and maybe the Old World still exist within us, with a lower model count, skirmish rulesets (Encouraged by the company, I know Fantasy has skirmish rules like Mordheim or Patrols), etc...
TBH, ANYONE but Kirby (or a look-a-like) would have worked to save OW. The thing is that it's a coulda and as one poet said: every coulda shoulda woulda vanished with a did.
Please don't forget that you are 100% allowed to rank up your models in nice, tight formations just like in WHFB, with the added benefit of getting more models into the melee, having no templates to watch out for and only really suffering for it on about three units (the Daemon of Slaanesh chariot, the Chaos warrior Gorebeast chariot and I believe the razorgore). It's not being a rank and file game has nothing to do with the rules. You still can totally do it, and your opponent flanking you/ outmanoeuvring you still has its downsides, more along the lines of weight of attacks to weight of attacks back. You're not forced to play ranked anymore, but choosing not to do so is a choice.
auticus wrote: WHFB didn't have a 400+ model count requirement either lol.
My chaos warrior army was 35 models.
My dark elf army was 68 models.
My tomb kings army was 65 models.
(those all being my whfb 8th edition army list model counts, which were played casually or in tournaments)
Hell my AOS blood bound army has 74 models in it currently which is more models than any of those other three armies.
As to the "but sigmarines exist so it can't be the old world"... sigmarines could have existed in either world. If the complaint is there are new factions, then the issue isn't really with the old world or the new one, its that a faction exists that some people get cranky exists.
Believe me, I have seen a 2k point Skaven Army of 600 models. Oh my god, the spam of Skaven Slavens. It totally feel like a swarm of rats, so slow and so epic.
But yes, the number of models was not the problem, it was the number of models+how their cost in real money don't stop increasing.
auticus wrote: WHFB didn't have a 400+ model count requirement either lol.
My chaos warrior army was 35 models.
My dark elf army was 68 models.
My tomb kings army was 65 models.
(those all being my whfb 8th edition army list model counts, which were played casually or in tournaments)
Hell my AOS blood bound army has 74 models in it currently which is more models than any of those other three armies.
As to the "but sigmarines exist so it can't be the old world"... sigmarines could have existed in either world. If the complaint is there are new factions, then the issue isn't really with the old world or the new one, its that a faction exists that some people get cranky exists.
>Chaos Warrios - small elite army
>Dark Elves - small elite army
>Tomb Kings - ended up as a small elite army
Try playing Skaven. Orcs and Giblins. Empire. Hell, any race without the big stuff. It was a lot different. I had over 200 models in my 2K list.
Try playing Skaven. Orcs and Giblins. Empire. Hell, any race without the big stuff. It was a lot different. I had over 200 models in my 2K list.
I'm not contending that large model-count armies existed.
I'm contending over the mythological *requirement* that you had to have hundreds of models.
That was, quite simply, not true or close to true.
One could *actively choose* to play a horde army. That is different from *requiring all armies* to have hundreds of models.
And I also played empire. My empire army was around 70 models. The only armies I ever saw breach 100 models (in both casual and tournament play) was a skaven army with mostly slaves and a goblin army.
Can someone explain how it's a bad thing to take what is successful from AOS and port it to 40k?
To act like AOS is a complete failure with no redeemable qualities is totally unfair.
If the end result in 8th edition is that the game is more balanced, faster to play, with the same level of strategic and tactical depth, is that really a problem?
And please stop saying "Marines in the to 12," because it's really very specific, and there are a LOT of marine chapters and flavors out there. They may all be the same to you, but that's a problem with your perception not matching reality.
The problem is that GW should do it right and not just some copy&paste without concept
they can take ideas from AoS but need to write the rules from scratch
because copy&paste of good ideas without concept is why we have this mess in the first place
kodos wrote: The problem is that GW should do it right and not just some copy&paste without concept
they can take ideas from AoS but need to write the rules from scratch
because copy&paste of good ideas without concept is why we have this mess in the first place
Regardless of how they implement 8th edition, you could make the statement that "they should do it right," how does that tie in specifically to AOS?
kodos wrote: The problem is that GW should do it right and not just some copy&paste without concept
they can take ideas from AoS but need to write the rules from scratch
because copy&paste of good ideas without concept is why we have this mess in the first place
Regardless of how they implement 8th edition, you could make the statement that "they should do it right," how does that tie in specifically to AOS?
Because AOS was an unplayable mess until the GHB came along. You know that, I know that (though I still consider it an abomination of a game, GHB or not), practically everyone knows that.
GW have shown time and time again they cannot write proper rules. Simon Grant has said he just writes rules that "seem cool" and with no consideration for the game as a whole. These factors do not instil a lot of faith in a company to make their flagship game right.
If the end result in 8th edition is that the game is more balanced, faster to play, with the same level of strategic and tactical depth, is that really a problem?
That really depends on whether or not it's still a game that feels like 40K.
If the trade-off for fixing the game is that it winds up being a completely different game with a 40K logo on it, yes, that's going to be a problem for a lot of players.
And please stop saying "Marines in the to 12," because it's really very specific, and there are a LOT of marine chapters and flavors out there. They may all be the same to you, but that's a problem with your perception not matching reality.
there are uncountable ork warbands, different basic cultures between them all... all on one book no separate rules. There are many different elder craftworlds, corsairs and even planet dwelling space elves all in the same book. different Imperial guard regiments use different tactics and builds, yet they get a single book and not much different. Even the tyranids have different hive fleets that act different under the control of individual nord queens. Necrons are starting to be more independent some more than others and are going to vary now. Dark elder have different cabals and functions/armaments. Tau are space communists s... yea you go that one right. I would argue the ignorance is in thinking only the space marines are so different from eachother. I do agree different founding chapters need things to make them unique but so should xenos races.
It will be interesting to see what happens if they totally nuke it. I imagine there will be a "9th age" equivalent, but I'd really hope for something more. I totally respect what 9th age is doing, but it is basically a cleaned up version of an edition I didn't much care for, and thus didn't inspire me that much, though I would like to try it at some point. Will something emerge from the depths of the "Proposed Rules" board?
See I had this thought of a hybird of AoS and Bolt Action. Each player taking it in turns to use a unit (like BA), but if a unit suffered any casualties it must take an AoS style battleshock test first, and if they roll over their bravery then instead of losing models they simply can't act...except to go to ground. For big units like tanks/monsters it's per wounds suffered instead. There's your crew shaken or stunned right there.
At the end of the day we can only wait and see what GW do, but I'm really confident they can make this work.
Galas wrote: I'm sure to most 2nd edition players 3rd don't feel like the 40k they liked.
Indeed. And a lot of players didn't like 3rd ed, and many left the game as a result.
But 40k still growth besides those that stop playing because they don't like the game. Thats the key here. Some will left the game, thats a sure thing. Now the point its if the balance will be positive at the end.
Honestly if they just balanced the psychic phase a bit, and adjusted the power scale of some things (way too much AP2, monstrous creatures super duper strongsauce, adjust over/undercosted units) i'd be fine with that.
Personally I fall into the camp of, "minor changes are required, not sweeping, game re-defining changes."
That said, i'm open to some AoS concepts, such as a "Aos-Rending" concept being applied to certain weapon types.
kestral wrote: It will be interesting to see what happens if they totally nuke it. I imagine there will be a "9th age" equivalent, but I'd really hope for something more. I totally respect what 9th age is doing, but it is basically a cleaned up version of an edition I didn't much care for, and thus didn't inspire me that much, though I would like to try it at some point. Will something emerge from the depths of the "Proposed Rules" board?
The problem with a T9A Version (call it M42) woukd be that it will be a balanced 7th and all those who liked the bloated mess will like the fan version
the same is 9th Age is a balanced 8th Edition and people like me who did not liked 8th are not liking T9A too (the game is not bad but I like other stuff more)
So you would need to write 40k from scratch and streamline it with a fast gameplay in mind from the start
I And now the problem is very easy to solve, find a group who agrees on how the rules should look like
I try since the end of 5th to get enough people interested in a re-write to make proper playtesting
the only thing I found were people who rather wrote their own rules than to help writing the rules of someone else
and the rest just sticks with whatever GW gives them
that's why I paused my version of 40k and tried Warpath
The game is not going to get totally overhauled to AoS, people thinking that are dreaming. Just the other day they announced their t-shirt store, and one of the designs is the iconic marine statline. It seems pretty unlikely that they'd make that, knowing how iconic the stats for a marine are, and then just months later totally alter them. In fact, I would bet that almost every single statline currently in the game will remain identical barring getting a movement trait in the back of the new rules. People are blowing the small amount of information we've got way out of proportion. Personally, I'm hoping there's a substantial overhaul but from the rumours we've gotten and the boxed set releases I sincerely doubt it.
Eyjio wrote: The game is not going to get totally overhauled to AoS, people thinking that are dreaming. Just the other day they announced their t-shirt store, and one of the designs is the iconic marine statline. It seems pretty unlikely that they'd make that, knowing how iconic the stats for a marine are, and then just months later totally alter them. In fact, I would bet that almost every single statline currently in the game will remain identical barring getting a movement trait in the back of the new rules. People are blowing the small amount of information we've got way out of proportion. Personally, I'm hoping there's a substantial overhaul but from the rumours we've gotten and the boxed set releases I sincerely doubt it.
I agree with this.
What GW needs to understand is that the game needs to cater to the competitive community, more than it does. While I don't count myself in that group (yet, who knows), you need a thriving competitive meta, as that creates interest in the game, which also helps casual players get more people to play with.
I am not advocating that every army be capable of taking the top spot in a tournament. That kind of balance is pretty difficult, unless the game is totally homogenized. But there's an acceptable performance, even in a loss, that should be the goal. I know that's nebulous and i'm being vague, but it's easier to know than to explain. You just lost to the best tournament net-list imaginable. Did you have fun? Maybe you lost 5-6, but played a great game. That's different than losing with no points and being table before your second turn.
I bought into 40k back in 1985. Since then the game has changed 7 times. If my memory serves, there were 7 times that people screamed that the sky was falling, (Nothing new for most of us).
I will say that out of all those editions, 7th is the most convoluted.....(in my opinion of course). 3rd's issues seemed to be less about how much was there, but more about how much was missing.
4th seemed to be a gateway to 5th, (which I think was the best edition of them all).
Do I think GW will completely AOS40k.....No, (are they capable of it...yes).
Simplified S v T for everything. Strength and Toughness reduced to 1 to 5. If your strength doesn't equal or beat their toughness you can't hurt them. Provided that you can hurt them, roll to hit, then they take their saves. Then maybe battleshock like I mentioned before. Saves and Wounds are used to differentiate how tough things really are.
I guess what I'm saying is, it's possible to streamline 40k whilst keeping the spirit of the old rules. They probably won't do this.
Personally I fall into the camp of, "minor changes are required, not sweeping, game re-defining changes.".
I too am in this camp and feel like a few changes to the main rules can do loads to rebalance the game. Making melee more viable, vehicles better, tone down MCs, etc, would go a long way and would even make re-costing unnecessary if done right (thus leaving the codices as is).
You could easily make the existing AP system into an AoS rend style.
However, if a reboot is done, I would be fine with it as long as all the physical book army rules were cheap.
Personally I fall into the camp of, "minor changes are required, not sweeping, game re-defining changes.".
I too am in this camp and feel like a few changes to the main rules can do loads to rebalance the game. Making melee more viable, vehicles better, tone down MCs, etc, would go a long way and would even make re-costing unnecessary if done right (thus leaving the codices as is).
You could easily make the existing AP system into an AoS rend style.
However, if a reboot is done, I would be fine with it as long as all the physical book army rules were cheap.
-
Or free in an online format and moderately priced on physical format. Me thinks that 20-25 euros per softcover would be reasonable for this kind of books.
Because AOS was an unplayable mess until the GHB came along. You know that, I know that (though l consider it an abomination of a game,GHB or not), practically everyone knows that.Â
I'm not sure if that's accurate since there are people who still play Open and Narrative play and that scenarios were always there since the starter box. The GHB just added points that made it better for tournaments and games with newbies where a gentlemen's agreement is much tougher for people unfamiliar with the units.
GWÂ have shown time and time again they cannot write proper rules. Simon Grant has said he just writes rules that "seem cool" and with no consideration for the game as a whole. These factors do not instil a lot of faith in a company to make their flagship game right.
Oh I don't know, I thought being told to write rules on only four pages that balanced out hundreds of warscrolls and stopped any "instant wins" was pretty impressive.
As to the "but sigmarines exist so it can't be the old world"... sigmarines could have existed in either world. If the complaint is there are new factions, then the issue isn't really with the old world or the new one, its that a faction exists that some people get cranky exists.
Indeed, Fyreslayers can work too since the Tomb kings focused Gotrek and Felix novel talked about a lost dwarf hold in the southlands that made the Lizardmen into armor and mounts. Just adjust it so that the losing of the hold made them go slayer and their fire obsession comes from a culture shift in the jungles from either using captured djinns or a magic corrupted volcano.
See I had this thought of a hybird of AoS and Bolt Action. Each player taking it in turns to use a unit (like BA), but if a unit suffered any casualties it must take an AoS style battleshock test first, and if they roll over their bravery then instead of losing models they simply can't act...except to go to ground. For big units like tanks/monsters it's per wounds suffered instead. There's your crew shaken or stunned right there.
At the end of the day we can only wait and see what GW do, but I'm really confident they can make this work.
20-25 euros for a Softcover of aprox 160 pages where 30% its pretty pictures its to me in the limit of how reasonable I find that.
The actual prices of codex is just greedy at its finest. 33€ for the Tau one (Softcover, 128p) where you even't have new art, all its reused photographs of miniatures. Blergh.
In general the rulebook of wargames, RPG, etc... are all just overpriced. Not at the level of University level books, but is insane.
Galas wrote: 20-25 euros for a Softcover of aprox 160 pages where 30% its pretty pictures its to me in the limit of how reasonable I find that.
The actual prices of codex is just greedy at its finest. 33€ for the Tau one (Softcover, 128p) where you even't have new art, all its reused photographs of miniatures. Blergh.
Pretty much the same for me. It's GW we are talking about. Rountree may not be (for now) as bad as Kirby, but he's still GW.
Heh, I think everyone who bought the new tau codex said that, since IIRC it didn't even have new units rules! (so basically people re-paid the 6th ed codex!)
Galas wrote: Then we need to specifie what its to "feel like 40k". I'm sure to most 2nd edition players 3rd don't feel like the 40k they liked.
Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then.
WHFB -> AoS was a way bigger change in how the game feels and I think 40k -> AoS would be a bigger change than 2nd -> 3rd, and not in a way a lot of people are going to like.
kestral wrote: It will be interesting to see what happens if they totally nuke it. I imagine there will be a "9th age" equivalent, but I'd really hope for something more. I totally respect what 9th age is doing, but it is basically a cleaned up version of an edition I didn't much care for, and thus didn't inspire me that much, though I would like to try it at some point. Will something emerge from the depths of the "Proposed Rules" board?
I've been pondering a 5th/7th hybrid called GRIMDARK: Future Wars.
It will be more like 5th, stealing only the best parts of 7th plus a few tweaks.
Personally I fall into the camp of, "minor changes are required, not sweeping, game re-defining changes.".
I too am in this camp and feel like a few changes to the main rules can do loads to rebalance the game. Making melee more viable, vehicles better, tone down MCs, etc, would go a long way and would even make re-costing unnecessary if done right (thus leaving the codices as is). You could easily make the existing AP system into an AoS rend style.
However, if a reboot is done, I would be fine with it as long as all the physical book army rules were cheap.
-
Or free in an online format and moderately priced on physical format. Me thinks that 20-25 euros per softcover would be reasonable for this kind of books.
As I have mentioned in this thread, my biggest apprehension with 40K being AoS'd is the replacement of the rules. 20-25 euros is what? Almost $30 after tax. That is still too expensive to replace all my army books at once. I can do $50 for 1 book at a time the way they release book now, but to replace at minimum the 3-4 armies I play would be a deal breaker for me. I would essentially just be getting into a whole new game, rather than updated the materials I already have for 40K And only offering free rules (like the initial AoS armies) wopuld piss me off to no end. I am not buying an expensive tablet that I can't flip through as easily as an actual book. Codex replacements better be no more expensive than a White Dwarf if GW does a hard reboot.
To make it a sister game to AoS and so that they aren't completely ripping off BA, I guess you could take it's combat phase mechanic and apply to shooting. Player who's turn it is picks a unit to shoot with, then the other player shoots with a unit and so on and so forth. Or...something like that.
If you guys are making a 5th/7th hybrid, what elements of 7th would you keep?
Da-Rock wrote: I bought into 40k back in 1985. Since then the game has changed 7 times...
6 times... 8th ed isn't out yet
IIRC 3e was basically 2 editions, because there were the army lists in the BRB and the codexes that came out later. That might be what he's talking about. Or he miscounted.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then..
Yeah, the change to close combat was largely fairly well received. From memory, the bigger issues for a lot of people were the severe dumbing down of the vehicle rules and the gutting of psykers...even though physic powers were largely regarded as too powerful in 2nd, 3rd ed swung the pendulum way too far the other way, and effectively removed them from the game to begin with.
Phase one is the hero phase, which is just like the hero phase in AoS. Physic powers and command abilities etc.
Phase two is the shooting phase. The player who's turn it is picks one unit to shoot with, then the other player picks a unit to shoot with and so on and so forth. Units that have been shot at have to take battleshock tests and if they fail they can't act any further this turn (they don't lose models).
Phase three is the assault phase. The player who's turn it is moves units. Units that shot can move (unless they have a rule that says that they can't, like heavy weapons). Units that didn't shoot can move at double their movement stat. This is also how you assault. When you assault, its one unit on unit, and they fight until one side is wiped out.
That's really rough and wip but...it's what I'd do.
Here's a question I don't know if someone has asked on the board (I kind of skipped 20 pages), but how do we know these rumors aren't the Pancake Edition all over again?
Charistoph wrote: Here's a question I don't know if someone has asked on the board (I kind of skipped 20 pages), but how do we know these rumors aren't the Pancake Edition all over again?
Because they came from the Warhammer Community Site which is staffed by GW?
kestral wrote:Another thing about nuking the setting is the novels. I like Warhammer Old world novels (though not as much as 40K), now there won't be any more. Instead there will be novels about steam dwarves and shoulderpad angels in a setting which vaguely reminds me of the Magic 'Verse. Could I learn to love it? Maybe, but I'm not going to try.
40K is awesome because of the modeling above all. You see that in contrast with games like Warmachine where you don't get to make up your own characters or groups, conversion is frowned upon, and terrain isn't much of a thing (at least around here). It is a better GAME than 40k hands down, but it is nowhere near as good a modeling experience. It will be a shame if they lose that - GW is already trying to get away from the wonder days of Dave wass'name and the scratch build/counts as armies that got me into it.
auticus wrote:lolAOS fans are "cultists" now. Oh the internet never ceases to provide.
AOS is going on its second year now. Its cracked the top 4 of North America sales, overshadowing WHFB.
If you hate the AOS setting, simply play the game and pretend you're in the old world. no one can destroy a fictional setting that never existed in the first place.
40k having its rules brought down can only be a good thing. The rules today are horrible for 40k to a lot of people.
Black September.
Did I type that clearly enough?
Black September.
I was on the ground floor with a new imprint from Malibu Comics called The Ultraverse, which had some of comics' better writers cut loose to creat whatever they wanted in a cohesive universe. With the comics glut of 93-94 causing the market to implode, Malibu put itself up for sale, with Marvel beating DC out in the end. Marvel then promptly started shoving in their 3rd tier charcters before executing a crossover event which rebooted history, along with sucking in some Z lister Marvel characters before the whole pitiful shebang was cancelled.
Now, according to Auticus, if I chose to play a Marvel game, I can pretend that NONE of that ever happened and play it as if it's the Ultraverse. Except it DID happen. I will NEVER get to read another Hardcase story again, I will NEVER find out what happened to Mantra, I will never know how Jimmy Ruiz would have wound up as Prototype because of the Marvel rewrite, and I won't find out about Bob Cambell's Prototype because of the cancellation. Kestra was right to lament the death of the setting and of ANY new material coming out fictionwise or otherwise. I tried to imagine filet mignon while eating sardines. Guess what? It was still sardines.
I'm wishlisting here, but here are some things I'd like to see in 8th edition:
-Better balance. Not sure how it would be accomplished, but a good start would be to take the problem armies (both bad and good) and tweak them towards the middle. Make armies like Orks and Dark Eldar better, and tone down Eldar, Tau, and the like.
-Make combat great again. It already looks like they are going to do this, which is good news for CC-oriented armies like Orks and Khorne Daemonkin.
-Tweak the allies system. Disallowing units from embarking in allies' transports was a good first step, but deathstars are still a problem for the game. Maybe they need to make it where even battle brothers cannot join each other's units. This would kill Superfriends, the Bark Bark Star, the CentStar, and the WWP Archon with Wraithguard combos just like that. Of course, this would make some characters useless (like Celestine), but maybe some characters could have some kind of exception (maybe a new USR).
-Tweak the way Grav works against vehicles. I think it is just too powerful for a single 6 against a vehicle to immobilize it permanently. Grav is the reason some of the iconic vehicles like Land Raiders are stuck on shelf duty. I'm complaining about this even though I use Grav heavily in my Dark Angels army. To me it's fine as a good anti-MC/GMC weapon, but it shouldn't be a solution against vehicles. Those are what meltaguns and lascannons are for.
-Throw units such as Terminators and Meganobz a bone. They are expensive pointswise and have very cool models, but currently they aren't really good at all. A 2+ armor save just doesn't mean all that much these days. While they're at it, they should fix walkers as well so they can actually see some play time.
My wish list - shack up with Maelstrom's edge and Flames of war and have an unholy love child.
The top things would be:
Play faster. Games take too long, makes it tough to enjoy them.
Keep Psychic powers under control. Less random, but less game breaking.
Play well at all scales. A really good system would be able to take a game of Titan vs. IG company and make it fun as well as a tiny game of "lunchhammer".
Don't use the core rules to balance codexes, fix the codexes.
For crying out loud, at $50 a book you ought to be able pay for decent playtest and design. Just keep the armies with certain bounds.
Capture the "feel" of the 40K source material. Space marines play like stormtroopers. IG play like ww1/2 armies. Orks play like Zulus (only they get to win sometimes). Tank vs tank battles have some of the feel of historical armored space battles.
Encourage some level of combined arms - for example, you can't win the game from your own starting line, but assault armies need some shooting to prevent overwatch.
Galas wrote: Nobody liked (Okay, some yes, but those are of rare kind) the death of the old world. Nobody wanted it.
Spoiler:
But some of us stop crying his death, because in the end its a fictional game, and all things come to an end, even if you can still play it (Just as I do every week) or read his lore.
When my grandfather died, my grandmother spend the next 15 years wearing all black and mourning his death. The End Times finished in 2015.
But the bitterness of those that just call people that like other games "cult-like fanbase" its tiresome. As if Fanboys and Haters weren't to faces of the same coin, you know.
And in the Adepticons results, yeah. Thats a good slap of reality to those people that just, ignoring the state of the game, call that its the most unbalance thing on earth.
And before you say anything, no, AoS its not the best game in the world, not the most balanced. But are we talking of GW or not? You can't create a silk purse from a pig's ear.
If GW can make 40k achieve the level of balance that exist in AoS, without nuking his system and making it AoS 2.0, I'll be the first to clap and jump to play it again. But first of all I'm a narrative player, and to me the good Imperium of Old with the degradation of everything its gone with the Guilliman New-Age, but at least the galaxy its still here.
Maybe in your quarter of the world, most people didn't like the bloated rules, haven't seen anyone who disliked old world setting yet, it was so diverse and a faction for everybody.
I don't mind the whole overhauling of the rules in 40K but if they do an AOS there will be a bigger backlash, most people got in to the game because of the setting.
Not because of the rules there have always been better rulesets out there.
Sorry, I think I don't understand your point or you don't understand mine. What I was saying its that nobody wanted and nobody liked the destruction of the Old World. I agree, I prefer the setting of the Old World that Age of Sigmar.
From a rules stand point I prefer more skirmish games that rank and file games, but I agree too, that the problem with WHFB its that the system changes from a thing to a other totally different.
My point was not that "GW needed to kill WHFB and that AoS its the best thing ever", my point its:
Nobody liked the destruction of the old world, but has been done, so you can be bitter and aggresive and be hostile during years, or you can accept it.
And no, this its not a "fanboy" wanting to people to stop critizisin AoS. AoS has many flaws, his launch was terrible, and all of that can be and should be criticised with arguments, because we have all to remember that if we let GW think that they are just in a safe spot, they can go back to the Kirby Era.
But the people that just want to hate AoS without a constructive discusion, and even worse, just insult and attack the people that play and like that game, its tiresome at this point.
EDIT: The "economical sucess" to me its a sterile debate, first:
-We don't have numbers. We just don't have them, its all speculation and subjetive lists with no hard data.
-The "My game make more money!" don't go anywhere.
I Did not attack you, i failed at sentence comprehension, for that i apologize.
I do not hate AOS, they could have handled its transfer better, to no upset those who really like the old world or shudder 8th WHFB .
As a 40k player i am just worried that they would do something similar with 40K and make 30K their main thing as the heresy seems to be the main focus lately.
Now, according to Auticus, if I chose to play a Marvel game, I can pretend that NONE of that ever happened and play it as if it's the Ultraverse. Except it DID happen.
Sorry for your loss. It did happen. Its time to move on.
Not everyone deals with loss the same. For my part, I write my own Ultraverse stories, I custom up my own Ultraverse actiong figures, and I play Classichammer with enough people to keep it interesting. That's how I deal with loss. I'm not going to shell out for Marvel's newest drivel when their drivel is what I didn't want in the first place. THAT is asinine. If someone wants their drivel, more power to them. I don't want it. Same goes for the current state of GW. If that's not the way you think I should move on, well, I don't know what to tell you that wouldn't violate Rule # 1
I've said it before and I'll say it again but 7th edition is mostly great (BRB wise). Sadly, it has been ruined by imbalance and formations nonsense. If they could fix that in the next edition, and ideally :
- make the game a little bit quicker (for example by removing challenges and look out sir),
- make it more dynamic by adding responsive options during your opponent turn or, even better, adopting ''I go, You'' go) activations
- tweak a couple of nonsensical rules (like cover saves)
then it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it seems they'll go with an overly simplistic game à la AoS that appeal to those who want to play wargaming with their kids or wife or those looking for a casual experience.
I think I can understand why GW would want to AoS40k, and I believe it has to do with increasing sales by lowering the barrier to entering the hobby.
I have no interest in AoS whatsoever. But a buddy of mine, that I have played 40k and WFB with over the years, got the AoS starter set for his sons over the holidays. He swears that the game is extremely fun and the simplicity doesn't detract from the game. In fact he now prefers the simplicity of AoS to the games we have played over the last couple decades.
Personally though, I would be sad to see 40k move in that direction. I understand why GW would do it, but I would still be sad for the change. I love the game the way it is. I will most likely just stick with the current edition and not move forward with the rest of the community.
Really guys, we all have spend years and money in this, and we all love our fantasy universes, but please, don't scalate the hostility, Just Tony.
I know this is the internet, but behind every avatar its a person that deserves respect, even if they don't have the same opinion as you do. And I say this to everybody, even to myself if somebody has been offended with what I have said. It wasn't my intention.
Maybe its a flawed comparasion, but what its happening here now is basically what its happening to Warcraft, a universe where I'm more deeply invested (Heck, I have a private server of roleplay in a World of Warcraft emulator). The changes on the Lore (Because at this point I just don't care about the MMORPG) are just so bad, to give you an idea, they jump from fighting a army of undead (pretty basic fantasy ) to fight in Space-ships with a infinite legion of Demons in outer space. I spend months bitter and angry about that, but I come to the conclusion than that just hurt me. Blizzard don't give a f*ck about what I think of his universe. So I make my private server, I pick the Lore in the point where I like it, and then expand it to my likings.
But I don't go to the forums of people that enjoy this new lore and call them ignorants, cultists, and fanboys, etc... They are totally free to like things I don't like. But still I love to enter debates about the quality of the Lore, and I can disagree with people but with respect, etc...
At the end, it all come down to that. You can dictate your own divertissement, or eat what other people throw at you.
Charistoph wrote: Here's a question I don't know if someone has asked on the board (I kind of skipped 20 pages), but how do we know these rumors aren't the Pancake Edition all over again?
Because they came from the Warhammer Community Site which is staffed by GW?
Fair enough. I have just seen people talking about it, but never referencing where it has come from. That usually meant that it came from a rumor monger.
Fair enough. I have just seen people talking about it, but never referencing where it has come from. That usually meant that it came from a rumor monger.
Well the 'IT'S TURNING INTO AOS' is all rumor based on a mention of what they would like to do with Leadership and Moral, being described as to something similar to what AoS has.
The other things that have been confirmed as changing is that Movement Values are coming back, and they are Changing how AP is working (people are presuming it is going to be based off 2nd Ed system)
Personally, I'm intrigued to see how it all goes. I'm one of the fortunate few who doesn't have a dog in the fight. I play 2nd ed. and only occasionally buy modern GW model kits (namely HH stuff or the occasional vehicle).
I can't imagine the game could get any worse. To me that's a plus. The backlash will be pretty large whatever direction they go. If there are indeed sweeping changes (and it very much appears there shall be) it'll be the largest shift since 1998 or whenever 2nd was finally replaced.
3rd-7th are all built on the same skeleton, so a fundamental change in the structure of the game will alienate some people and draw in others. It's nowhere near as damning as wiping the fluff/lore slate clean as they did with Fantasy (biggest offense...you'd have seen half the complaints had the rules simply changed bu the Lore/model lines remained the same).
(eats popcorn) I guess it's nice to sit on the outside and watch the world burn every now and then. I'll be chuffed if they somehow churn out a good game which appeals to me, but I'm not planning on it. I just hope I get some new models out of the whole thing.
Galas wrote: Then we need to specifie what its to "feel like 40k". I'm sure to most 2nd edition players 3rd don't feel like the 40k they liked.
Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then.
WHFB -> AoS was a way bigger change in how the game feels and I think 40k -> AoS would be a bigger change than 2nd -> 3rd, and not in a way a lot of people are going to like.
I was there at the time and I disagree, I felt the sweeping changes were very profound.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again but 7th edition is mostly great (BRB wise). Sadly, it has been ruined by imbalance and formations nonsense. If they could fix that in the next edition, and ideally :
- make the game a little bit quicker (for example by removing challenges and look out sir),
- make it more dynamic by adding responsive options during your opponent turn or, even better, adopting ''I go, You'' go) activations
- tweak a couple of nonsensical rules (like cover saves)
then it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it seems they'll go with an overly simplistic game à la AoS that appeal to those who want to play wargaming with their kids or wife or those looking for a casual experience.
AoS isn't simplistic, it's simplified. There's a difference. AoS chose to put it's complexity in it's warscrolls while leaving the base rules easy to digest. In the end learning how to play your army in AoS is no less difficult than doing the same in 40k, the difference is AoS lets you learn one unit at a time and lets you get models on the table quicker from picking up your first models, and is less frustrating.
Basically 40k chose complexity, Sigmar chose depth and Sigmar is better off for it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then..
Yeah, the change to close combat was largely fairly well received. From memory, the bigger issues for a lot of people were the severe dumbing down of the vehicle rules and the gutting of psykers...even though physic powers were largely regarded as too powerful in 2nd, 3rd ed swung the pendulum way too far the other way, and effectively removed them from the game to begin with.
I played Orks. My favourite thing from 2nd edition was the virus outbreak card.
Oh, the sweet sweet sound of me setting up my army, the virus outbreak card being played and then me removing everything but my mega-armoured individuals before I had the chance to move.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again but 7th edition is mostly great (BRB wise). Sadly, it has been ruined by imbalance and formations nonsense. If they could fix that in the next edition, and ideally :
- make the game a little bit quicker (for example by removing challenges and look out sir),
- make it more dynamic by adding responsive options during your opponent turn or, even better, adopting ''I go, You'' go) activations
- tweak a couple of nonsensical rules (like cover saves)
then it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it seems they'll go with an overly simplistic game à la AoS that appeal to those who want to play wargaming with their kids or wife or those looking for a casual experience.
AoS isn't simplistic, it's simplified. There's a difference. AoS chose to put it's complexity in it's warscrolls while leaving the base rules easy to digest. In the end learning how to play your army in AoS is no less difficult than doing the same in 40k, the difference is AoS lets you learn one unit at a time and lets you get models on the table quicker from picking up your first models, and is less frustrating.
Basically 40k chose complexity, Sigmar chose depth and Sigmar is better off for it.
Yes, this!
AoS is easy to learn and play but there is a hell of a lot of depth to. I play Bloodbound and believe it or not, it's a very intricate and nuanced army to play with, despite being blood thirsty axe wielding maniacs.
Galas wrote: Then we need to specifie what its to "feel like 40k". I'm sure to most 2nd edition players 3rd don't feel like the 40k they liked.
Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then.
WHFB -> AoS was a way bigger change in how the game feels and I think 40k -> AoS would be a bigger change than 2nd -> 3rd, and not in a way a lot of people are going to like.
I was there at the time and I disagree, I felt the sweeping changes were very profound.
I was there as well and didn't like a lot of the changes (I'm more than happy to see a return to armour modifers and movement stats for example). But at the time I was also, ummm, 14 I think and my only experience of wargames was 40k, Epic 40k and WHFB
These days, being a bit older and having experienced a wider array of games, I don't think 2nd and 3rd are terribly different at their core. We may have lost the movement stat, but units still had a Ws, Bs, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, Sv. Space Marines halved in price and armies got bigger, emphasis shifted from one thing to another, but the overall 40k feel IMO was still much the same. I think you could definitely make the argument that the past 6 editions of 40k from 2nd through 7th are largely just adjustments of the same system, with 2nd -> 3rd being the biggest adjustment, but most of the things that define one edition or another are nuanced variations with large implications rather than big sweeping changes, of which there haven't been many over the years.
A change in the feel that wasn't rules related was that around that time it felt like 40k stopped being an intentional parody and started becoming an unintentional parody
-Tweak the way Grav works against vehicles. I think it is just too powerful for a single 6 against a vehicle to immobilize it permanently. Grav is the reason some of the iconic vehicles like Land Raiders are stuck on shelf duty. I'm complaining about this even though I use Grav heavily in my Dark Angels army. To me it's fine as a good anti-MC/GMC weapon, but it shouldn't be a solution against vehicles. Those are what meltaguns and lascannons are for.
Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.
Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.
Grav is the worst... I stopped playing my nids because of it D=
EIther grav turns into HH graviton weapons or we destroy all grav-guns from the game's history. It's the only place for them.
The first time I took my 'Nids to a campaign weekend, I faced a guy on 1500 points who had twenty..Seven? Twenty-six? Grav guns. Hilariously, I had taken the Manufactorum Genestealer list and was nothing but Genestealers and Lictors.
Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.
Grav is the worst... I stopped playing my nids because of it D=
EIther grav turns into HH graviton weapons or we destroy all grav-guns from the game's history. It's the only place for them.
The first time I took my 'Nids to a campaign weekend, I faced a guy on 1500 points who had twenty..Seven? Twenty-six? Grav guns. Hilariously, I had taken the Manufactorum Genestealer list and was nothing but Genestealers and Lictors.
He did not like the way that game went.
Very rare that I run Nids in competition but when I do I run Skyborne and Spawnborne. Grav is hardly relevant.
Grav doesn't like Fen Wolves either.
Elbows wrote: Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.
Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.
In 3rd edition, we had the Rhino rush. Charging from the Rhino which has already been moved in the movement phase was possible.
I think this will not come back, or does it?
Elbows wrote: Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.
Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.
In 3rd edition, we had the Rhino rush. Charging from the Rhino which has already been moved in the movement phase was possible.
I think this will not come back, or does it?
You also had the Chaos Lord on Pegasus - You bought the Wings upgrade and the Chaos Mount upgrade so that he could move 12 inches in the movement phase(Cavalry), then 12 inches in the assault phase(Wings). Bonus Points if you put him in the Pegasus square base and turned him to the side. Turning was free, so you'd get an extra inch of movement and get first turn charges pretty easily. Then, you'd consolidate in to combat with something else and run down the board that way.
One rumor i have heard churning around the mill, but it has not backing is the 2 sets of rules thing.
GW would spear head a streamlined AoS style 40k, while at the same time picking up a more complicated 30k supporting platic 30k models that would use rules that are an adapted 7th ed set.
Which really leaves everyone in a complicated place, imo, i think the smarter move, if the rumor is true, is offer a 40kAoS rules, and then a 40k legion rules which use 7th ed modified. then keep 30k its own thing.
Looks like cover saves are a thing of the past, now they look like they are going with "to hit" modifiers, so more cover means your fireing at a lower ballistic skill. Makes more sense to me, more cover, less chance to hit.
To clarify GW is using the new necromunda to introduce bits of 8th edition and it looks pretty solid, things like armour value modifiers on all weaponry, no more cover saves, etc. Its all the stuff they discussed before except the leadership, and assault phase are unique to the boxed game, so gotta wait for more info on those ones. But I like the new profiles and new shooting phase rules. Little worried about how my DE transports will fair with no cover save tho.
I hope they get rid of the ability to move multiple times in a turn. Along with killing the movement stat, removing safe modifiers and the cover system, making models move more than once a turn is another of my pet hates from 2nd -> 3rd.
Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past. However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not, albeit a reduced save.
It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hope they get rid of the ability to move multiple times in a turn. Along with killing the movement stat, removing safe modifiers and the cover system, making models move more than once a turn is another of my pet hates from 2nd -> 3rd.
From what I can running and possibly charging will all be in the movement phase. It also looks like charge distance is based off of your initiative.
Galef wrote: Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.
It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover
Backspacehacker wrote: One rumor i have heard churning around the mill, but it has not backing is the 2 sets of rules thing.
GW would spear head a streamlined AoS style 40k, while at the same time picking up a more complicated 30k supporting platic 30k models that would use rules that are an adapted 7th ed set.
Which really leaves everyone in a complicated place, imo, i think the smarter move, if the rumor is true, is offer a 40kAoS rules, and then a 40k legion rules which use 7th ed modified. then keep 30k its own thing.
Yes, I heard those. Baseless bullpucky borne out of sheer wishlisting that was.
Galef wrote: Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.
It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover
-
It's also incredibly clunky on a D6.
Seems to work just fine with other systems.
Like DzC, KoW, BA, Flames of War...
I'm pretty certain Epic, Necromunda and BFG used D6 modifiers as well. The notion that modifiers and D6s are incomptible is flawed; it does work, it's used everywhere else.
I'm not sure I'd say "fine". But we'll have to see what to-hit numbers look like and what the modifiers are. But any modification to a D6 roll is pretty huge.
Galef wrote: Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.
It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover
-
Wouldn't that still make blast weapons really powerful though?
Though maybe they should make it that you have to roll to hit first before firing, and if you miss you roll for scatter, with D6 scatter for small blasts and 2D6 for large.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hope they get rid of the ability to move multiple times in a turn. Along with killing the movement stat, removing safe modifiers and the cover system, making models move more than once a turn is another of my pet hates from 2nd -> 3rd.
From what I can running and possibly charging will all be in the movement phase. It also looks like charge distance is based off of your initiative.
Where abouts did you hear that? Charge distance based off initiative doesn't sound great, unless they plan on revising every unit's initiative. Things like Orks are Ini2 but that's because they're slow to think, not slow to charge.
As a horde player I'm definitely pro-one-move-per-turn.
Galef wrote: Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.
It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover
-
Wouldn't that still make blast weapons really powerful though?
Though maybe they should make it that you have to roll to hit first before firing, and if you miss you roll for scatter, with D6 scatter for small blasts and 2D6 for large.
Considering how "hit or miss" blasts are right now anyway (see what I did there?), blasts need all the help they can get. BS modifiers would still affect how far a blast scatters, and with only a 33% change to roll a Hit, it is far from guaranteed.
You could also make cover of any kind only give -1 to BS maximum, with Stealth providing an additional -1 & Shroud -2 and no longer stackable with each other. Since you wouldn't be able to go below BS1, a total possible -3BS is really all you would need against most enemies. Invisibility at this point would only be relevant in melee and could thus be re-worded to count any attacks at the unit to be at BS1/WS1.
Elbows wrote: Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.
Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.
In 3rd edition, we had the Rhino rush. Charging from the Rhino which has already been moved in the movement phase was possible.
I think this will not come back, or does it?
I always get annoyed at the Rhino Rush being brought up because Eldar Falcon/Wave Serpent rush was much worse. That, and as long as you weren't exactly 18" away on turn 1, the rush couldn't possibly make it towards you.
Elbows wrote: Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.
Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.
In 3rd edition, we had the Rhino rush. Charging from the Rhino which has already been moved in the movement phase was possible.
I think this will not come back, or does it?
You also had the Chaos Lord on Pegasus - You bought the Wings upgrade and the Chaos Mount upgrade so that he could move 12 inches in the movement phase(Cavalry), then 12 inches in the assault phase(Wings). Bonus Points if you put him in the Pegasus square base and turned him to the side. Turning was free, so you'd get an extra inch of movement and get first turn charges pretty easily. Then, you'd consolidate in to combat with something else and run down the board that way.
I'm not exactly sure it was legal to give the Chaos Lord both, have to double check when I get the book again.
Also, something people get wrong consistently, the consolidate move was only a 3" move. If you spaced your troops out, you wouldn't GET consolidated into. If they rolled dice for the distance, you got to shoot at the chargers with your entire army if you had line of sight.
Galef wrote: Making Cover saves be 'to hit' modifiers would go a long way towards streamlining. It would basically remove a dice roll step. It would also mean that 2+ re-rollable cover saves are a thing of the past.
However, GW may re-introduce a dice roll if the AP system turns into save modifiers instead. So you don't get to make a cover save, but depending on the AP, you might get an Armour save in a situation where you currently would not.
It would also mean that Ignores cover would not be so devastating, since it would merely make you roll your unmodified BS against units in cover
-
It's also incredibly clunky on a D6.
Seems to work just fine with other systems.
Like DzC, KoW, BA, Flames of War...
I'm pretty certain Epic, Necromunda and BFG used D6 modifiers as well. The notion that modifiers and D6s are incomptible is flawed; it does work, it's used everywhere else.
I have the same sentiment, as playing lots of Blood Bowl makes me say it should be in that list of games where modifiers work. The "1s always fail, 6s always succeed" clause really helps that a lot as well.
However, I must admit that the disparity in relative strength of 40k models is a huge issue that might put the idea to the test. In Blood Bowl, strength tends to only range from 2-5, with the Treeman and Deathroller being the notable exceptions. Agility only naturally range from 1-4 as far as I'm aware, so rolls like picking up a ball will only be as good as 2+, and even AG 1 can grab it on a 5+ when alone. It's really more of a 1-5 scale than a 1-10, which I think is more succinct, fits on a d6 more easily, and doesn't make any particular team/player terribly stronger than another. Plus, factoring obvious weaknesses in statlines and the devastating effect of failing a roll also help maintain balance. It's a game where the notion of a "death star" is nonexistent. No single model can bring and take the pain, handle the ball, move really fast, and do it all reliably (Loner comes to mind). I think 40k would be a lot better when even the super OP units have an Achilles heel in that they cannot perform certain roles well. But with the death star meta, there are too many things that are both exceptionally hard to even damage and will destroy you in return.
Ahh third, back when Rhinos were space marine skateboards. The rhino rush did happen, it just happened with blood angels and their turbo boosted rhinos. I still have an irrational dislike of blood angels from that time, even though disliking them now is like picking on the fat kid in dodgeball. Maybe 8th will be kinder to the once fearsome chapter who have fallen on hard times due to crap rules.
Elbows wrote: Oddly, in 2nd ed. Tyranids were immune to graviton guns.
No, they definitely weren't. Why would they be? I remember pinning a Carnifex to the ground with my techmarine
I think Tyranids were immune to Virus Outbreak and some other biological stuff, but Grav worked fine.
Elbows wrote: Regarding 2nd to 3rd...the change was pretty tremendous.
Yeah, 2nd to 3rd was a huge paradigm shift.
You're absolutely right, I had been reading the Tyranids and the Chaos Daemons entries and mixed it up. Daemons were immune to graviton guns. Tyranids only ignored poisons/etc.
Just Tony wrote: I always get annoyed at the Rhino Rush being brought up because Eldar Falcon/Wave Serpent rush was much worse.
Yet the Rhino Rush was more common because Space Marines were more common. Something isn't always named because of what's better, but by what is most common.
Grimgold wrote: Ahh third, back when Rhinos were space marine skateboards. The rhino rush did happen, it just happened with blood angels and their turbo boosted rhinos. I still have an irrational dislike of blood angels from that time . . .
Haha! same. Now there were some real first-turn-charge shenanigans.
I always get annoyed at the Rhino Rush being brought up because Eldar Falcon/Wave Serpent rush was much worse. That, and as long as you weren't exactly 18" away on turn 1, the rush couldn't possibly make it towards you.
Generic marines weren't the problem, the problem was Blood angels with a potential to move D6 towards the enemy at turn start, then move 18" with the overcharged engine, then dismount 2" then charge 6 for up to 32" of charge distance. In a game where you had to stand still to Rapid-Fire.
Grimgold wrote: Ahh third, back when Rhinos were space marine skateboards. The rhino rush did happen, it just happened with blood angels and their turbo boosted rhinos. I still have an irrational dislike of blood angels from that time, even though disliking them now is like picking on the fat kid in dodgeball. Maybe 8th will be kinder to the once fearsome chapter who have fallen on hard times due to crap rules.
Now we need a fat blood angel model holding a dodge ball...
Grimgold wrote: Ahh third, back when Rhinos were space marine skateboards. The rhino rush did happen, it just happened with blood angels and their turbo boosted rhinos. I still have an irrational dislike of blood angels from that time, even though disliking them now is like picking on the fat kid in dodgeball. Maybe 8th will be kinder to the once fearsome chapter who have fallen on hard times due to crap rules.
Now we need a fat blood angel model holding a dodge ball...
I really should be welcoming the change, as the BA have realistically nowhere to go but up. My current lists that manage to squeak out some wins are so unsatisfying in terms of how BA are supposed to work. But I'm so mortified of GW's attempts at, well, anything.
nordsturmking wrote: I really hope they keep the to-hit and to-wound tables. Because the AoS system sucks.
Why does it suck?
Because an Ork Grot having a set 5+ to wound seems silly against something like a WK, which it currently cannot wound. The variation of hitting and wounding is part of the whole fun of 40K. A Space Marine shouldn't hit EVERYTHING on a 4+. Some things should be harder or easier to hit/wound
In the AoS system a unit hits everything on a 3+ for example. So a bloodthirster not harder to hit for this unit than a goblin. That doesn't represent the different skill levels these to have in CC.
nordsturmking wrote: I really hope they keep the to-hit and to-wound tables. Because the AoS system sucks.
Why does it suck?
Because an Ork Grot having a set 5+ to wound seems silly against something like a WK, which it currently cannot wound. The variation of hitting and wounding is part of the whole fun of 40K. A Space Marine shouldn't hit EVERYTHING on a 4+. Some things should be harder or easier to hit/wound
-
Which is why a) wounds count vary between games (yeah, you did one wound with 12 attacks, try chewing the other 15+) and b) there exists negative modifiers to those rolls, treelords can impose -1 to hit rolls. Driads too. Etc. Etc.
What Lord Kragan said. Seriously, when your attacks have no rend and the target has a 3+ save with rerolls and 6-12 wounds, you will struggle to hurt them.
Baron Klatz wrote: Indeed and that's not taking in the buffs(and healing) other units will be giving to those powerhouses.
Absolutely. Now in my last game my lowly Bloodreaver Chieftain managed to kill a Lord Celestant on a Dracoth. But this was only after the Lord had been severely wounded by a Slaughterpriest's prayer. And before he was killed he still found the time to slaughter an entire unit of Blood Warriors and about 90% of the Chieftain's unit almost single handedly. The Blood Warriors in return only inflicted a single wound on him, and the Reavers were doing nothing to him until that lucky hit finished him off.
So a flat to hit and wound system can produce some odd results but honestly the game can work just fine with it.
Both fixed to hit and to wound rolls and tables with values are totally valid systems to achieve the same goal.
The trick its if those systems are executed with a good quality writing.
But I don't think one or the other is so important in the feeling of a game. 40k can still be 40k without charts and AoS can still be AoS without fixed rolls.
But as 40k uses charts, and those can totally work, even liking the fixed system of AoS, I think that the charts should remain here. Basically because I want 40k to be a good game, not AoS 2.0. To play AoS, I have AoS.
Both systems allow me to have snotlings and goblins or "squad champions" killing all-mighty heroes in those epic moments and epic rolls, so I'm fine with that.
I also think people should stop looking at Shadow War as an indication for 8th Ed... Shadow War was based of Necromunda a 2nd Ed game. This doesn't mean that it is going back that way.. (that being said 2nd ed, Best ed)
Future War Cultist wrote: What Lord Kragan said. Seriously, when your attacks have no rend and the target has a 3+ save with rerolls and 6-12 wounds, you will struggle to hurt them.
And there can be Special Rules which subtract from the Wound Roll or negate a certain number of Wounds in an Attack/Round/etc. It can be workable, if one is willing to try it out.
Baron Klatz wrote: Indeed and that's not taking in the buffs(and healing) other units will be giving to those powerhouses.
Absolutely. Now in my last game my lowly Bloodreaver Chieftain managed to kill a Lord Celestant on a Dracoth. But this was only after the Lord had been severely wounded by a Slaughterpriest's prayer. And before he was killed he still found the time to slaughter an entire unit of Blood Warriors and about 90% of the Chieftain's unit almost single handedly. The Blood Warriors in return only inflicted a single wound on him, and the Reavers were doing nothing to him until that lucky hit finished him off.
So a flat to hit and wound system can produce some odd results but honestly the game can work just fine with it.
Yup, but as Galas pointed, and we should remember: it doesn't "need to". 40k should stay its own thing and maintain the essential core mechanics while removing the bloat and the poorly thought out stuff. T/S ain't bad per se, it's stuff like grav and d weapons.
Grimgold wrote: Ahh third, back when Rhinos were space marine skateboards. The rhino rush did happen, it just happened with blood angels and their turbo boosted rhinos. I still have an irrational dislike of blood angels from that time . . .
Haha! same. Now there were some real first-turn-charge shenanigans.
I always get annoyed at the Rhino Rush being brought up because Eldar Falcon/Wave Serpent rush was much worse. That, and as long as you weren't exactly 18" away on turn 1, the rush couldn't possibly make it towards you.
Generic marines weren't the problem, the problem was Blood angels with a potential to move D6 towards the enemy at turn start, then move 18" with the overcharged engine, then dismount 2" then charge 6 for up to 32" of charge distance. In a game where you had to stand still to Rapid-Fire.
So essentially if they had nerved that BA codex or removed it entirely, the problem would have been fixed...
..until you got Black Templars with CCW falling forwards when failing LD checks.
nordsturmking wrote: I really hope they keep the to-hit and to-wound tables. Because the AoS system sucks.
I'd be ok with either tables or sensible modifiers like bolt action. The way AoS does it is horrendously boring, and requires layers and layers of more pointless dice rolling and special rules to achieve something that should be part of the basic rules. If they're going to use fixed values at least get rid of one of them so you waste less time rolling dice over and over.
The amount of dice you roll in AOS is the same as what you roll in whfb or 40k.
You roll to hit. You roll to wound. Other person rolls a save.
I personally don't care either way they do it. So long as more things in the game are viable again and garbage like free points (excessive summoning) and free formations go away and list building / hard countering is brought down a couple pegs.
auticus wrote: The amount of dice you roll in AOS is the same as what you roll in whfb or 40k.
You roll to hit. You roll to wound. Other person rolls a save.
I personally don't care either way they do it. So long as more things in the game are viable again and garbage like free points (excessive summoning) and free formations go away and list building / hard countering is brought down a couple pegs.
That is true for what happened in AoS. Beastmen actually became worth bringing and a lot of the monsters that you wouldn't think to bring because of price:survivability ratio completely changed.
Exactly. Min/max listbuilding is still a thing but the game opened up quite a bit when everything could hurt everything.
As it stands now, you might as well remove a giant chunk of 40k out and delete it because you'll never see it on tables since someone can just hard counter it and make it so that army cannot hurt the other side.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I hope they get rid of the ability to move multiple times in a turn. Along with killing the movement stat, removing safe modifiers and the cover system, making models move more than once a turn is another of my pet hates from 2nd -> 3rd.
? That is why you had overwatch, great for area denial and with space marines the -1 to Bs wasn't a big issue
Future War Cultist wrote: What Lord Kragan said. Seriously, when your attacks have no rend and the target has a 3+ save with rerolls and 6-12 wounds, you will struggle to hurt them.
I can send Gutrot Spume into just about any unit and fully expect him to never die. The guy is a freaking wall. There are plenty of units out there who will never be able to deal with him (although he is primarily a hero killer, for what that's worth).
The other thing about the 'fixed rolls, higher wound count' method of combat resolution is that damage becomes more granular. You're less likely to end up with bad rolls resulting in an entirely worthless round of combat, and you're relying less on RNG extremes to greatly change the outcome of combat (ie, you rarely are relying on landing a six just to get a wound).
I'm a fan of having units across the board be more useful as a general rule.
I want my tactical marines, scouts, and my imperial guardsmen to all at least be able to threaten more than your basic infantry stuff.
Guess we shall see what we shall see in the coming weeks and months. I'm really digging the new Shadow Wars rules leaks and can't wait to get my hands on them and try it out. I already have several force ideas for my Blood Angels, My Vostroyans, and Harlequins.
nordsturmking wrote: I really hope they keep the to-hit and to-wound tables. Because the AoS system sucks.
I'd be ok with either tables or sensible modifiers like bolt action. The way AoS does it is horrendously boring, and requires layers and layers of more pointless dice rolling and special rules to achieve something that should be part of the basic rules. If they're going to use fixed values at least get rid of one of them so you waste less time rolling dice over and over.
See this is what people who don't understand how AoS, or just yunno...math in general, think about this. The AoS system works functionally the same as the 40k system only better, smoother, and in a way that make the game scale linearly rather than the quadratic issues that pop up in 40k.
I think Tradito's just picturing the wraithknight standing still while he rolls a bucket of dice.
It was the same thing with early AoS arguments that it was a bad thing that a goblin can slay a dragon. No one really pictured the dragon fighting back and ripping apart entire units while hardly being hurt in those arguments, though.
Another benefit of having every model being at least theoretically capable of killing every other one is that spam armies aren't nearly as dominant.
As things are now, spam armies can invalidate the viability of most of a take-all-corners list. If someone's running all armour, and only a third of your army is dedicated for anti armour, then that means two thirds of your army is functionally irrelevant, a waste of points.
In AoS, even if you haven't brought an army of dedicated hard counters, you can still manage to play around with what you've got and mount some form of offensive threat.
Well, in AoS, despite the fact that model hit on a specific number and are therefore able to hit monsters, some monsters in AoS like the Stardrake are still hard to remove.
See this is what people who don't understand how AoS, or just yunno...math in general, think about this. The AoS system works functionally the same as the 40k system only better, smoother,
No, with a fixed to wound roll for the active unit, it works fundamental different to a comparison table were the toughness of the opponent matters.
functionally the same as actual 40k would be taking the targets defence as "to wound" roll with the rend value modifying that one and armour save being always the same (except for weapons that just ignore armour in general)
the AoS System is smoother, but different and not better in general.
ASM and a straight to hit roll would improve 40k, as those are things that make trouble balancing units.
a fixed to wound roll based only on the units strength and remove toughness at all is something completely different and not an improvement (as S+T are the values that define the model type and the weapon needed to kill it, just because the balancing is bad and there are weapons that are effective against all types, doesn't mean it would be an improvement if it is replaced by something different)
The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.
Can I imagine better systems? yes Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no
Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system
Earth127 wrote: The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.
Can I imagine better systems? yes
Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no
Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system
Some people like LOTR's system, that's GW's maybe they could use some of that.
Earth127 wrote: The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.
Can I imagine better systems? yes
Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no
Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system
Some people like LOTR's system, that's GW's maybe they could use some of that.
I have no idea what it's like now, but when it came out, it sure wasn't balanced. Hobbit slingers were monstrously strong units.
Earth127 wrote: The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.
Can I imagine better systems? yes
Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no
Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system
Some people like LOTR's system, that's GW's maybe they could use some of that.
I have no idea what it's like now, but when it came out, it sure wasn't balanced. Hobbit slingers were monstrously strong units.
Fafnir wrote: Another benefit of having every model being at least theoretically capable of killing every other one is that spam armies aren't nearly as dominant.
As things are now, spam armies can invalidate the viability of most of a take-all-corners list. If someone's running all armour, and only a third of your army is dedicated for anti armour, then that means two thirds of your army is functionally irrelevant, a waste of points.
In AoS, even if you haven't brought an army of dedicated hard counters, you can still manage to play around with what you've got and mount some form of offensive threat.
Exactly the primary reason I am for these changes. You can't take a general army with a little of everything because people are going to spam extremes and your take a little of everything army is going to be largely useless against their extreme.
Fafnir wrote: Another benefit of having every model being at least theoretically capable of killing every other one is that spam armies aren't nearly as dominant.
Of course, it could be argued that more structured army selection could also accomplish that.
Not as easily with as much respect to differently structured armies. There is a reasom bounded accuracy was one the most popullar/requested features in dnd 5e.
Have everything be able to do something to almost everything (even minor damage) is a death knell for unkillable daethstars/ superfriends.
Deaht by a thousand cuts as the eldar would say. Right now it's more do a thousand cuts at least one will hurt. and the others are nothing. I'd prefer each cut do a little but never too much.
Traditionally, more structured army selection doesn't really help with that. 5th edition was the apex of structured CAD play, and hard counter was pretty much the order of the day.
In a tournament sized force (which lets be honest is also what casual games follow) the CAD was way too loose and you could easily fill your army with hard counter fun like the Draigo Paladin Death Star that couldn't be killed.
The only way army selection would help with spam is a sort of mainstay rule where you have to have as much CORE/TROOPs as you do non, and then only if the CORE/TROOP selections are also not themselves a hard counter.
This restriction would mean half of the army has to be CORE/TROOP choices that should not be hard counters for anything, which would tone down the extreme builds a bit, but still allow for the other half of the army to still be an extreme hard counter. (I personally oppose any paper/rock/scissors approach to a game, I prefer everything being able to affect everything at some level)
Wasn't the main issue with the Draigo and chums deathstar in 5th the wound allocation rules?
Rather than the rules of the models making them unkillable it was an issue with the core rules which could have been easily fixed (but was overcorrected in 6th/7th).
auticus wrote: Traditionally, more structured army selection doesn't really help with that. 5th edition was the apex of structured CAD play, and hard counter was pretty much the order of the day.
In a tournament sized force (which lets be honest is also what casual games follow) the CAD was way too loose and you could easily fill your army with hard counter fun like the Draigo Paladin Death Star that couldn't be killed.
The only way army selection would help with spam is a sort of mainstay rule where you have to have as much CORE/TROOPs as you do non, and then only if the CORE/TROOP selections are also not themselves a hard counter.
This restriction would mean half of the army has to be CORE/TROOP choices that should not be hard counters for anything, which would tone down the extreme builds a bit, but still allow for the other half of the army to still be an extreme hard counter. (I personally oppose any paper/rock/scissors approach to a game, I prefer everything being able to affect everything at some level)
A single vindicator shot could kill that squad. Or like a single round of shooting from a plasma russ. Which is why I think 5th was a much better game. People cry about GK being OP. However it's nothing like how unbalanced the game is now.
Martel732 wrote: Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.
My 5th Edi Grey Hunter Spam disagree
But this has also to do with mission design, as the rulebook ones were bad and those that we used here didn't give GK the chance to over the top of everyone else
The point being that Draigo paladin star was a hard counter element designed to be unkillable in pretty much every situation, which was why it was so prevalent and copied across lists the world over.
Hard counter spam has been a part of 40k since tournaments became popular and even before that. With a CAD. Without a CAD.
I remember Nob Bikers being a problem for everyone.
Anyway, I like flat rolls but a small part of me can't quite reconcile the fact that using them would mean that a lasgun now stands a chance of damaging a battle tank. Even if it's the absolute tinyest of chances. But I think I could lean to get over it.
Martel732 wrote: Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.
Psy dreads were the bomb. Then again so were sanguinary high priests in every troops squad in lazplas razors. Space wolves had the longfangs and greyhunters. Salamanders had super melta. Everyone was strong. There were no weak armies in 5th edition.
I think that it would be helpful to go back pre 2012 and look at 40k general discussion threads that popped up back then and view in full glory the things people were complaining about lol as well as look at what armies were always showing up (hint, it wasn't all armies, it was a top three or four).
Martel732 wrote: Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.
Psy dreads were the bomb. Then again so were sanguinary high priests in every troops squad in lazplas razors. Space wolves had the longfangs and greyhunters. Salamanders had super melta. Everyone was strong. There were no weak armies in 5th edition.
Except GK power weapons turned FnP the feth off. As did any AP2. GK and Necrons dominated the other lists for those few months. No question.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
I dont think itll be too bad, youd lose ALL those models if you ran and got caught anyway. I think this may make combat a bit cleaner
Martel732 wrote: Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.
Psy dreads were the bomb. Then again so were sanguinary high priests in every troops squad in lazplas razors. Space wolves had the longfangs and greyhunters. Salamanders had super melta. Everyone was strong. There were no weak armies in 5th edition.
Except GK power weapons turned FnP the feth off. As did any AP2. GK and Necrons dominated the other lists for those few months. No question.
"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."
So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.
I dont think itll be too bad, youd lose ALL those models if you ran and got caught anyway. I think this may make combat a bit cleaner
Id like to see how it all plays out.
And it may also discourage Elite style death stars, since losing by even 1 will cost dearly.
Martel732 wrote: Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.
Psy dreads were the bomb. Then again so were sanguinary high priests in every troops squad in lazplas razors. Space wolves had the longfangs and greyhunters. Salamanders had super melta. Everyone was strong. There were no weak armies in 5th edition.
Except GK power weapons turned FnP the feth off. As did any AP2. GK and Necrons dominated the other lists for those few months. No question.
Forget specific rules for a moment and just feel how 40K currently plays. Then, go play Age of Sigmar. GW wants 40K to have the same feeling of game play as Age of Sigmar. For that reason alone, I love Age of Sigmar. The rules flow into the game and as you are playing, they come naturally to you. When I play AoS, I almost never have to look at the rules. And it's usually something like "Oh, that model is a Hero? Hold on a sec... yeah. I get d3 attacks vs. Hero's instead of 1" or "That's a magic attack? Umm.... yup. Here it is. I can ignore magic attacks on a 6+". Better yet, it's right there on my warscroll for that model- it doesn't just say "Hatred", and then I have to go dig out my base rulebook and look up hatred. The Warscroll says "Hatred- you gain +1 to hit vs. Spiders" and you know exactly what are Spiders, because the Warscroll tells you the name keyword of the unit- "This is a unit of Spiders"!
I hate playing 7th ed 40K because too many players don't know all the rules, or they get them confused with earlier editions, or they try to game the rules to the breaking point and it's turn 4 after you've been playing for over an hour when a rules argument breaks out. I'm not some great rules guru either, but I hate making a note about something that didn't feel right in the game. I hate spending 15 minutes during a game trying to find some obscure rule. Then after the game, going and looking it up and discovering that we played that rule wrong, and it cost me the game or my opponent lost the game! I hate winning by "cheating"- more like winning by omission, but it was unintentional. I've never had a game of AoS like that.
8th Edition 40K should flow like that. It should not grind to a halt as both players look up some weird or obscure rule. And that's kind of the rub for me in 40K right now- it totally feels like a grind. How far can I push this rule, how many of these weapons can I squeeze into my list, and how many MSU's and detachments can I take to make that sweet, sweet formation Deathstar? It's to the point now where I can look at a list and think to myself "There is no way I can win this game with this list" and then the game just... sucks. And I lose, because I didn't field mass amounts of MSU to get an extra 300 bonus points due to a formation, or I didn't maximize gravity weapons, or I only get d6 power dice while my opponent gets 20+d6. 40K has become a system where the win/loss doesn't depend on how well you played the game, but by your army list and that really bothers me. In an ideal game to me, it should be about 30/70. I love choosing my list and using different things, but it should ultimately be my performance on the table that dictates if I win or lose, not my army list. The current game feels like 80/20. And that really bothers me in 7th ed 40K. And that's a feeling I've never had in Age of Sigmar.
If Aos'ing 8th edition can make the game flow better, make my ability to play the game rather then maximize my army list to win, and take away the grind feeling, then I am all for it, and I think a lot of players would agree.
Tamwulf wrote: I hate playing 7th ed 40K because too many players don't know all the rules, or they get them confused with earlier editions, or they try to game the rules to the breaking point and it's turn 4 after you've been playing for over an hour when a rules argument breaks out. I'm not some great rules guru either, but I hate making a note about something that didn't feel right in the game. I hate spending 15 minutes during a game trying to find some obscure rule. Then after the game, going and looking it up and discovering that we played that rule wrong, and it cost me the game or my opponent lost the game! I hate winning by "cheating"- more like winning by omission, but it was unintentional. I've never had a game of AoS like that.
I agree with you completely, but I just want to point out that AoS has the benefit of being a brand new rule set, which means that there are no confusions with prior editions because no prior editions exist. Although it's a problem in 40k, it's one that at this point in the game won't be going away without a drastic overhaul of the core game mechanics - and it's that overhaul that seems to be contentious here and elsewhere.
Personally, I love that I can go on to GW's site and find the rules for a unit. I recently purchased my first Imperial Knight as an ally for my MT, and while it's awesome to get the profile and points, etc., included in the instructions, not having the weapon profiles and special rules seems silly. Why only include half the rules if they're functionally useless? Give me the AoS system where I can play with my plastic army straight out of the box without need for a reference to the complex rules.
yes. trying to play a game with a new player is nearly impossible, and it's not their fault. I feel like rn some units have like, 5 special rules and yet to know any of them you have to go and track down every single one just to check if it's going to affect you this turn. the game needs to be inviting, and right now it feels like I'm fighting the rules every turn
yes. trying to play a game with a new player is nearly impossible, and it's not their fault. I feel like rn some units have like, 5 special rules and yet to know any of them you have to go and track down every single one just to check if it's going to affect you this turn. the game needs to be inviting, and right now it feels like I'm fighting the rules every turn
Or worse, you absolutely 100% know every rule, but your opponent doesn't so it looks like you are making $h!+ up as you go. That's how I feel most of the time.
I have most of the more complicated rules tagged with post-it sticky notes so that I can immediately show my opponent a rule that I am using.
I like the flavor of most of the special rules, but it would be nice if there were less....much less.
Tamwulf wrote: I hate playing 7th ed 40K because too many players don't know all the rules, or they get them confused with earlier editions, or they try to game the rules to the breaking point and it's turn 4 after you've been playing for over an hour when a rules argument breaks out. I'm not some great rules guru either, but I hate making a note about something that didn't feel right in the game. I hate spending 15 minutes during a game trying to find some obscure rule. Then after the game, going and looking it up and discovering that we played that rule wrong, and it cost me the game or my opponent lost the game! I hate winning by "cheating"- more like winning by omission, but it was unintentional. I've never had a game of AoS like that.
I agree with you completely, but I just want to point out that AoS has the benefit of being a brand new rule set, which means that there are no confusions with prior editions because no prior editions exist. Although it's a problem in 40k, it's one that at this point in the game won't be going away without a drastic overhaul of the core game mechanics - and it's that overhaul that seems to be contentious here and elsewhere.
Personally, I love that I can go on to GW's site and find the rules for a unit. I recently purchased my first Imperial Knight as an ally for my MT, and while it's awesome to get the profile and points, etc., included in the instructions, not having the weapon profiles and special rules seems silly. Why only include half the rules if they're functionally useless? Give me the AoS system where I can play with my plastic army straight out of the box without need for a reference to the complex rules.
Thats the thing that I like the most from AoS. I can buy a box that I like, build it, and play with it because I can just download all the rules I need for them online.
Thats good to GW too because they can release new boxes to armys without needing a suplement, campaings, etc...
Again, all great points about the strengths of AoS.
Also, AoS's faction rules work far better than 40k's allies matrix. You can have a generic faction army using the general's handbook, and all's fair and you can just buy and use what you want. They might want to try this for 40k; Imperium, Eldar, Chaos...so on.
yes. trying to play a game with a new player is nearly impossible, and it's not their fault. I feel like rn some units have like, 5 special rules and yet to know any of them you have to go and track down every single one just to check if it's going to affect you this turn. the game needs to be inviting, and right now it feels like I'm fighting the rules every turn
Or worse, you absolutely 100% know every rule, but your opponent doesn't so it looks like you are making $h!+ up as you go. That's how I feel most of the time.
I have most of the more complicated rules tagged with post-it sticky notes so that I can immediately show my opponent a rule that I am using.
I like the flavor of most of the special rules, but it would be nice if there were less....much less.
Or how you interpret the rules may not jive with how they believe they work, or, even worse, the FAQs give answers which are completely contradictory to the written rules or with each other.
Future War Cultist wrote:Again, all great points about the strengths of AoS.
Also, AoS's faction rules work far better than 40k's allies matrix. You can have a generic faction army using the general's handbook, and all's fair and you can just buy and use what you want. They might want to try this for 40k; Imperium, Eldar, Chaos...so on.
Technically you can do that in 40K now. As someone mentioned somewhere, there is little point to it because sticking to Formations is just too dang good.
And the organizations of the Formations are largely fine, but the extra rules that many of them give are just crazy, especially when compounded with even more bonuses from a joint detachment like the Strike Forces.
One of the things I like about AoS is that every unit has, at most, 3 special rules all laid out right there, 1 usually associated with a wargear of some kind. Then there are the warband groups (I don't know the name used) which offer a couple more rules to work with, but I haven't heard about anyone complaining about their power like, say, the Battle Company rule for the Gladius Strike Force.
I see a lot of concerns in this thread about GW getting it wrong from the start and while that is fair I feel most of those concerns are coming from people that haven't been involved in the AOS side of things and seeing what this new community involved GW is all about.
This isn't the same GW from a few years ago, heck, its not even the same GW from when AOS launched. GW has become responsive and adaptive. They are asking for and responding to feedback from the community. They are inviting community leaders in for advice on how point things and create effective scenarios.
Not convinced? I don't blame you. But as an example of this new GW just look at one of there recent posts on the AOS community site. They are going to be featuring a 3rd party army builder on their site. No cease and desist, no lawyers, but rather they embraced it. This is also after they just came out with a paid version of an army building feature in their own AOS app. If that doesn't give you some hope for the future than nothing will.
Earth127 wrote: The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.
Can I imagine better systems? yes
Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no
Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system
Some people like LOTR's system, that's GW's maybe they could use some of that.
I have no idea what it's like now, but when it came out, it sure wasn't balanced. Hobbit slingers were monstrously strong units.
Öhm. There were never hobbit slingers in that game. Lotr for me is still the only balanced gaming system GW has produced. Basically you can build whatever list you like and still have a chance against whatever the enemy fields, simply because decisions matter. 40K is more like watching an action movie. You don't have to think much, just watch everything explode. Building the list and talking the game over with your opponent is nearly the most important aspect for the outcome.
Also, AoS's faction rules work far better than 40k's allies matrix. You can have a generic faction army using the general's handbook, and all's fair and you can just buy and use what you want. They might want to try this for 40k; Imperium, Eldar, Chaos...so on.
My biggest issue with this would be look at 40k, imperium of man just has so many options.
you would have imperium able to take knights, space marines of all flavors, custodies, imperial guard, sisters of battle and sisters of silence, mechanicum, and skitarri models / formations
chaos would at lest get the variety of chaos space marines probably traiter guard, renegade imperial knights and demons
elder they might make united so dark elder, elder, and harlies
tyranids might get genesteeler cults and tydanids
necrons would get necrons
tau would get tau
orks would get orks cementing them in absolute last place in the current state
still all armies other than imperium of man, chaos, or eldar would have glaring holes or limited to just a few options.
Formations in AoS not only do cost extra points, but they also have to fit into the FOC. And AoS's FOC is tied into the points cost of the game. If 40k was to follow this formula, things would be a lot better.
@ G00fy Smiley
They should divide the Orks up into the Clans. AoS has shown that Greenskins can be massively varied.
Also, AoS's faction rules work far better than 40k's allies matrix. You can have a generic faction army using the general's handbook, and all's fair and you can just buy and use what you want. They might want to try this for 40k; Imperium, Eldar, Chaos...so on.
My biggest issue with this would be look at 40k, imperium of man just has so many options.
you would have imperium able to take knights, space marines of all flavors, custodies, imperial guard, sisters of battle and sisters of silence, mechanicum, and skitarri models / formations
chaos would at lest get the variety of chaos space marines probably traiter guard, renegade imperial knights and demons
elder they might make united so dark elder, elder, and harlies
tyranids might get genesteeler cults and tydanids
necrons would get necrons
tau would get tau
orks would get orks cementing them in absolute last place in the current state
still all armies other than imperium of man, chaos, or eldar would have glaring holes or limited to just a few options.
They could do Imperium, Chaos, Order Xenos (Aeldari & Tau) and Destruction Xenos (Nids, Necrons & Orks)
Then make a simplified Allie matrix from there, Like Imperials can ally with other imperials and Order Xenos, but cannot ally with Chaos or Destruction Xenos
Making only 2 level of alliance: You can or you cannot.
timwrightii wrote: I see a lot of concerns in this thread about GW getting it wrong from the start and while that is fair I feel most of those concerns are coming from people that haven't been involved in the AOS side of things and seeing what this new community involved GW is all about.
This isn't the same GW from a few years ago, heck, its not even the same GW from when AOS launched. GW has become responsive and adaptive. They are asking for and responding to feedback from the community. They are inviting community leaders in for advice on how point things and create effective scenarios.
Not convinced? I don't blame you. But as an example of this new GW just look at one of there recent posts on the AOS community site. They are going to be featuring a 3rd party army builder on their site. No cease and desist, no lawyers, but rather they embraced it. This is also after they just came out with a paid version of an army building feature in their own AOS app. If that doesn't give you some hope for the future than nothing will.
I hope you are correct, I really do. The only way we will know for sure is if GW actually addresses point costs at the start of 8th. If they don't all of this is for nothing. New rulebook won't solve it. Formations won't solve it. Point costs are one of the sole balancing mechanics that exist in the game and right now some units are under priced by literally hundreds of points. Other units are so overpriced that just fielding them could likely decide the outcome of the game before either player has taken their first turn. There are units who haven't seen a point cost revaluation in nearly a decade. Other units that were terrible to begin with & no one used had their point costs doubled. GW needs to sit and down really math hammer what every unit in the game is worth. FW as well for that matter. Many of those models rules are 10-15 years old.
Formations in AoS not only do cost extra points, but they also have to fit into the FOC. And AoS's FOC is tied into the points cost of the game. If 40k was to follow this formula, things would be a lot better.
Not always. A lot depends on how you're playing the game. There is a way to play the game without points at all. Now, getting other people to play those with you is a different story, obviously.
Also, there is the capacity for point values in the 40K Formations, but they just haven't been used for a very long time.
That actually kind of leaves Necron in a bad spot without many allies though.
why are grots separate from orks? also orks are a huge source of biomass tyranids would not ally with them they would just want to eat them, maybe see empty rocks with them to come back and eat later. Also Dark elder would really not get along with tau or the Imperium they stick mostly to the webway to live depraved lives of excess outside of the reach of she who thirsts.
auticus wrote: Traditionally, more structured army selection doesn't really help with that. 5th edition was the apex of structured CAD play, and hard counter was pretty much the order of the day.
That's because 5th edition had structure without balance.
And because the wound allocation rules were too easy to game with complex units, which allowed people to build practically unkillable deathstars with certain armies.
AoS was able to bring some pretty diverse forces under one banner. Case in point, Order contains Dark Elves and Dwarfs. If 40k was to do the same, I think they need to think outside of the box. Unite the factions that have shared goals together, even if they're still insanely different.
Future War Cultist wrote: AoS was able to bring some pretty diverse forces under one banner. Case in point, Order contains Dark Elves and Dwarfs. If 40k was to do the same, I think they need to think outside of the box. Unite the factions that have shared goals together, even if they're still insanely different.
That might work. However, the goals of most of the 40k factions are mutually exclusive.
-Tweak the way Grav works against vehicles. I think it is just too powerful for a single 6 against a vehicle to immobilize it permanently. Grav is the reason some of the iconic vehicles like Land Raiders are stuck on shelf duty. I'm complaining about this even though I use Grav heavily in my Dark Angels army. To me it's fine as a good anti-MC/GMC weapon, but it shouldn't be a solution against vehicles. Those are what meltaguns and lascannons are for.
Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.
Okay I'm sick of this coming up.
Grav is NOT the reason any of those units are bad. Grav simply helped prove how bad they already were.
Nobody was running Land Raiders before. Grav was not the reason for this. They weren't ran because they have gakky fire power for the price and weren't durable anyway vs other weapons. Why is Grav even being mentioned here? The rules fault is with the Land raider.
-Tweak the way Grav works against vehicles. I think it is just too powerful for a single 6 against a vehicle to immobilize it permanently. Grav is the reason some of the iconic vehicles like Land Raiders are stuck on shelf duty. I'm complaining about this even though I use Grav heavily in my Dark Angels army. To me it's fine as a good anti-MC/GMC weapon, but it shouldn't be a solution against vehicles. Those are what meltaguns and lascannons are for.
Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.
Okay I'm sick of this coming up.
Grav is NOT the reason any of those units are bad. Grav simply helped prove how bad they already were.
Nobody was running Land Raiders before. Grav was not the reason for this. They weren't ran because they have gakky fire power for the price and weren't durable anyway vs other weapons. Why is Grav even being mentioned here? The rules fault is with the Land raider.
Actually Land Raider Crusaders were run at one point. The standard Godhammer was always terrible (And of course Chaos only has that variant)
I hope that in all the feedback our beloved leader TOs (and anyone else GW is consulting) are giving they don't forget to address points costs. Everyone gets worked up about deathstars, D-weapons, and psykers (as they should) but there is literally a whole faction that is OP solely because of undercosted units (Eldar) and another that can ignore point values (Space Marines w/Battle Company); as well as dozens of other units who extremely under or over priced making them very over or under powered, respectively. No one would be complaining about scatbikes if they were 50 points a model, most of the stuff currently in the game would be reasonable IF it was priced accordingly. Synergies from allies and psychic buffs make it harder (and I think alot of those should go away too), but a fair base cost as a starting point needs to be pushed as a primary design concern.
Empire of Man: Imperium, Cult of Mars, Inquisition
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Xenos: Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau
Death: Necrons, Tyrnanids
Eldar with Tau?
im having flashbacks
I'll be shocked to see Grand Alliances in 40k unless they work completely differently from AoS. The Imperium and Chaos faction fit into nice, neat little groups, but the Xenos make the system really messy. Eldar, DE, and Harlequins play nice, but the rest? Even in Youn's example, the Silent King is coming back specifically to stop the Tyranid threat, and in what world would Eldar and Orks play nice?
Grand Alliances Imperium: SMs, Sisters, Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Order: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau
Each of these can ally within themselves without much restriction
Terminal Threats Destruction: Orks, Necrons, Tyranids
Unlike in WFB, Destruction isn't an Alliance, and doesn't get any Allies - each of them has to go it alone!
Grand Alliances Imperium: SMs, Sisters, Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Order: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau
Each of these can ally within themselves without much restriction
Terminal Threats Destruction: Orks, Necrons, Tyranids
Unlike in WFB, Destruction isn't an Alliance, and doesn't get any Allies - each of them has to go it alone!
Or something like this:
Armies of the Emperor: Armies of the Imperium, 'Crons
Aeldari: Harleys, DE, Eldar
Chaos: CSM, Daemons, Chaos Cults (wouldn't surprise me if they did them)
Destruction: GSC, Nids
Orks
Tau
Dark Eldar in order, doesn't seem like a good fit. I'm guessing we won't see allies, or possibly only handpicked allies in the competitive play, to hard to balance it otherwise, and GW has stated that a more balanced play experience is a big goal fro 8th. Still, if we are guessing factions (not necessarily allies), Here is mine based on fluff:
Imperium: Still it's own thing
Xenos: Tau, Eldar, Necrons, orcs basically the xenos that are intelligent, self-interested, capable of diplomacy, and are effectively nation states outside of the control of the IoM.
Chaos: Chaos space marines, daemons, renegades and heretics.
X-Risks: Tyranids, GSC, old crons, men of iron, basically Xenos that can't or won't work with others, whose goals involve the destruction of all life, and twisting their mustache like appendages.
I imagine there will be more than 4 factions, but thigns will be codensed slightly. We cant really just throw things together like fantasy did, because at least the ones all slammed together by fantasy either worked together regularly (Order, Chaos, and Destruction to some degree) or, in the case of Death, was enslaved by Nagash.
Imo, It will be:
Imperial
Aeldari
Chaos
Tau and Auxillaries (theres tons they could expand on here, so Tau dont really need a team upm rather fleshing out the smaller parts later like they did with a bunch of things in AoS)
Tyranids (mroe gribblies, beasties, and wannabe Godzillas! Genestealer cults get added here, too, of course.)
Necrons (add Pariahs back, maybe expand on the C'tan a bit - maybe mear slivers of fragments if C'tan as a form of 'lesser Daemon almost?)
Orks (again, lots of fleshing out to be done of minor factions. Savage Orks, Freebootaz, Goffs...)
A Tau/Eldar team up doesnt really work anymore. they seem to be setting up a Resurgent Eldar thing, which would mean the dying race guiding its chosen successor would now become the Resurgent Empire at odds with the young Upstarts.
I guess we will have to see where they go with the Storm, now that its gathered.
- Space Humans = Imperium, subgroups = Mechanicum , Ecclesiarchy, Space Marines , Imp. Guard , Agents of the Imp.
- Space Elfs = Aeldari, Dark Aeldari, Ynnead followers, Harlies+Exodites etc
- Space Orks = Ork Klans red, yellow, blue , etc pp - Space Undead = Necron Dynasties a,b,c,d, etc pp - Space Villains = CSM, Demons, Mutants, the rest of the damned, etc
- Space Bugs = tyranid Hive fleets , I , II , III , etc pp
- New guys on the block in space = Tau / wildcard
This keeps the well known setup of many universes, ( Humans , orks, elves, undead, demons/Angels based, additional type to make this one different from anyone else ) and it may work if they expand on easy to expand factions ( orks + crons are pretty numerous ).
I think your current ally matrix is pretty revealing on what the factions are going to be.
Hint: I don't think it will be more than four. Those wanting allies removed from the game will tend to want a bunch of factions to prevent the allies thing in tournaments today happening, but I think thats wishful thinking. I fully expect when the factions are revealed that every 40k forum on the globe will explode in liquid hot magma on par to what happened when AOS factions were revealed.
I just really hope the imperium of man is.... nerfed on allies. it is currently just ridiculous. oh look a libraries conclave with white scar bikers, dark angels terminators, iron hands cad for vehicles with iwnd and fnp troops. also we have terminators attached to the new GK guy so reroll saves and improve inv save by 1 so 2++ rerollable TH/SS out front.
G00fySmiley wrote: I just really hope the imperium of man is.... nerfed on allies. it is currently just ridiculous. oh look a libraries conclave with white scar bikers, dark angels terminators, iron hands cad for vehicles with iwnd and fnp troops. also we have terminators attached to the new GK guy so reroll saves and improve inv save by 1 so 2++ rerollable TH/SS out front.
You can bitch about nerfing Imperial allies when I'm allowed to run my Daemonhunters army with one book instead of five.
(Blanket bans on Allies are a popular proposal, but people forget that 'no allies' (absent broader overhauls) would be as good as deleting the Inquisition, GK, Deathwatch, Assassins, the Mechanicum, MT, the Talons of the Emperor...)
(What we really need is Gathering-Storm-style "this detachment can take units from Codexes X, Y, and Z" detachments and a 30k-style one-detachment army. Make people playing allies play allies instead of borrowing a single dude to help out the deathstar.)
(Also it'd help if GW stopped using allies as an excuse to make the GK book Codex: Dreadknights. Some of us like the infantry.)
G00fySmiley wrote: I just really hope the imperium of man is.... nerfed on allies. it is currently just ridiculous. oh look a libraries conclave with white scar bikers, dark angels terminators, iron hands cad for vehicles with iwnd and fnp troops. also we have terminators attached to the new GK guy so reroll saves and improve inv save by 1 so 2++ rerollable TH/SS out front.
You can bitch about nerfing Imperial allies when I'm allowed to run my Daemonhunters army with one book instead of five.
(Blanket bans on Allies are a popular proposal, but people forget that 'no allies' (absent broader overhauls) would be as good as deleting the Inquisition, GK, Deathwatch, Assassins, the Mechanicum, MT, the Talons of the Emperor...)
(What we really need is Gathering-Storm-style "this detachment can take units from Codexes X, Y, and Z" detachments and a 30k-style one-detachment army. Make people playing allies play allies instead of borrowing a single dude to help out the deathstar.)
(Also it'd help if GW stopped using allies as an excuse to make the GK book Codex: Dreadknights. Some of us like the infantry.)
some allies are fine, but its the let me take the best of the best possible everything that annoys me. The really annoying part is also those who bring this as a "fluff list" saying they are alliance of the imperium and then proceed to use their overpowered netlist to destroy my fluffy ork list because they were looking for a "fluffy battle" not that my orks can do anything against that list with their strongest builds. one simple fix would be armies of the imperium, only one space marine chapter tactic can be taken, only relics, units, and powers for that chapter may be taken.
I think if they did AoS40k. Some of the most abusive items would honestly smooth out.
For example: I play GK. I am pretty much forced to use Dreadknights in my list. I own 2 Dreadnoughts. But, there is zero reason to ever use a Dreadnought in the current lists.
If they both had wounds and movement scores. I might actually field my dreadnoughts.
In the case of my Death guard Army. I would definitely field my Helbrutes.
On a tournament scale, the number of armies in my area that field 4 to 6 wyverns also would be less annoying to face. As right now, they pretty much mean power armored troops not in vehicles lose.
Limit the amount alllies can buff each other. Battle brothers needs a nerf and allies of convenience a buff so make this one step.
This would prevent massive unprecedented synergy while still retaining your ability to field multiple factions (and no: Imperium of man is not one faction.)
And to everyone crying unfluffy I can sooner imagine an ordo malleus inquisitor working with eldar corsair mercenearies than SW. And when has fluff everf been properly represented by the rules? Remember the thread about totally wacky things supported by the game thread?
If they went down the route of AoS, taking allies would mess up your Allegiance right? Because all units would have to have the right keyword in their rules yes? So you would have to rely on a generic faction rules.
Also, at the risk of starting a gak storm, here's how I think things might go faction wise:
Chaos (easy)
Nids (including the gene stealer cultists)
Greenskins (with a bigger emphasis on the different klans)
Everything else. Yes, everyone else. They don't want to fall to chaos, they don't want to be eaten by the nids and they aren't the greenskins. They hate each other's guts but they'll work together when faced with the threat of the other three. There's a bit of president for it already.
Jambles wrote: Absolutely zero chance IMO that you'll see a standalone faction for Orks, Tyranids, Tau, or Necrons. Why would they do this?
You understand that they rejigged a lot of the fluff for AoS, right? That's why we have things divided up the way they are in AoS.
You have the "Destruction" faction consisting of Orruks, Ogors, and the Grots because Ogors apparently have been worshiping Gork and Mork since the End Times.
We haven't seen anything quite as drastic as destroying the Old World for 40k yet. Yet.
Personally, I'm hoping Guilliman tears down the Commissariat.
For sure it's gonna be Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, and something like Xenos to lump the rest of the line together.
I'm not even 100% convinced they'll give Eldar their own place.
They did.
It's called "Aeldari". They even went and redid some of the dividing lines from before to make things a bit more interesting.
I just a thought of the nids and necrons being paired together, with a joint aim of destroying all sentient life in the galaxy in order to defeat Chaos once and for all. No more life with emotions means no more Chaos. Pariahs could be brought back, and made up of various races, like an evil warp repelling stormcast faction.
I would hate it if they lumped nids into another factions, it is shown throughout every lore book that includes tyranids that they hate everybody. their current ally chart shows that they are 'come the apocalypse' allies only with everybody, basically meaning they cannot ally. I mean this could change, but I hope not.
Jambles wrote: Absolutely zero chance IMO that you'll see a standalone faction for Orks, Tyranids, Tau, or Necrons. Why would they do this?
You understand that they rejigged a lot of the fluff for AoS, right? That's why we have things divided up the way they are in AoS.
You have the "Destruction" faction consisting of Orruks, Ogors, and the Grots because Ogors apparently have been worshiping Gork and Mork since the End Times.
We haven't seen anything quite as drastic as destroying the Old World for 40k yet.
Yet.
Personally, I'm hoping Guilliman tears down the Commissariat.
For sure it's gonna be Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, and something like Xenos to lump the rest of the line together.
I'm not even 100% convinced they'll give Eldar their own place.
They did.
It's called "Aeldari". They even went and redid some of the dividing lines from before to make things a bit more interesting.
I'm desperately hoping they don't, and I know I'm not the only one. Doing what they did to Fantasy's lore to 40k might be the one thing GW could do that would actually make me stop playing.
I'm all for 'advancing the plot' and such, like they've been doing, it's been fun. If they retcon, I'm probably just gonna dip.
Sorry, not seeing the "Aeldari" section on the GW website? They're still split into Craftworld/Dark/Harlequins. Unless your point is about the soft lore reworking they did to introduce the concept of "Aeldari" as being the name of the Eldar race as a whole, and extrapolating that into what MAY become a new faction in what MAY be the new way factions are done in 40k?
In which case I assert that they haven't yet done what you say they have, and my point stands that there's no certainty the Eldar will end up with their own general faction in this proposed division.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Orks, Nids and Necrons should be standalone factions - they're nobody's friends, just things to destroy and eat.
Tau, they can be Eldar friends in the sense that the enemy of my enemey is my friend.
Should, and will, are entirely different things. Ideally they're breaking down what "should" be it's own faction and replacing that with what works best together.
Like, the Space Marines should arguably be their own faction separate from the rest of the Imperium, being the semi-autonomous political entities they are - but not all the Space Marines like to work together, and some of them operate very differently, so we should probably make sure to keep ones like the Space Wolves and Dark Angels distinct... aaand now we're just back here in 7th.
Jambles wrote: Absolutely zero chance IMO that you'll see a standalone faction for Orks, Tyranids, Tau, or Necrons. Why would they do this?
You understand that they rejigged a lot of the fluff for AoS, right? That's why we have things divided up the way they are in AoS.
You have the "Destruction" faction consisting of Orruks, Ogors, and the Grots because Ogors apparently have been worshiping Gork and Mork since the End Times.
We haven't seen anything quite as drastic as destroying the Old World for 40k yet.
Yet.
Personally, I'm hoping Guilliman tears down the Commissariat.
For sure it's gonna be Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, and something like Xenos to lump the rest of the line together.
I'm not even 100% convinced they'll give Eldar their own place.
They did.
It's called "Aeldari". They even went and redid some of the dividing lines from before to make things a bit more interesting.
I'm desperately hoping they don't, and I know I'm not the only one. Doing what they did to Fantasy's lore to 40k might be the one thing GW could do that would actually make me stop playing.
I'm all for 'advancing the plot' and such, like they've been doing, it's been fun. If they retcon, I'm probably just gonna dip.
"Retcon" isn't what they did with the Old World. I know, I know, I know some people will argue that...but it wasn't.
They didn't just have it "all be a dream" or something stupid like that. They wiped it all out. The Old World burned. There's a smoldering core of it left, but it is uninhabitable and is nothing but an albatross hung across Sigmar's neck. He's sitting brooding over his massive failure.
Sorry, not seeing the "Aeldari" section on the GW website? They're still split into Craftworld/Dark/Harlequins. Unless your point is about the soft lore reworking they did to introduce the concept of "Aeldari" as being the name of the Eldar race as a whole, and extrapolating that into what MAY become a new faction in what MAY be the new way factions are done in 40k?
In which case I assert that they haven't yet done what you say they have, and my point stands that there's no certainty the Eldar will end up with their own general faction in this proposed division.
Uh yeah, they absolutely did do that.
Read "Gathering Storm II". It wasn't just a "soft lore reworking". Ynnari and Aeldari are specifically named in rules related material, not just lore stuff.
firechcken23 wrote: I would hate it if they lumped nids into another factions, it is shown throughout every lore book that includes tyranids that they hate everybody. their current ally chart shows that they are 'come the apocalypse' allies only with everybody, basically meaning they cannot ally.
Jambles wrote: Absolutely zero chance IMO that you'll see a standalone faction for Orks, Tyranids, Tau, or Necrons. Why would they do this?
You understand that they rejigged a lot of the fluff for AoS, right? That's why we have things divided up the way they are in AoS.
You have the "Destruction" faction consisting of Orruks, Ogors, and the Grots because Ogors apparently have been worshiping Gork and Mork since the End Times.
We haven't seen anything quite as drastic as destroying the Old World for 40k yet.
Yet.
Personally, I'm hoping Guilliman tears down the Commissariat.
For sure it's gonna be Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, and something like Xenos to lump the rest of the line together.
I'm not even 100% convinced they'll give Eldar their own place.
They did.
It's called "Aeldari". They even went and redid some of the dividing lines from before to make things a bit more interesting.
I'm desperately hoping they don't, and I know I'm not the only one. Doing what they did to Fantasy's lore to 40k might be the one thing GW could do that would actually make me stop playing.
I'm all for 'advancing the plot' and such, like they've been doing, it's been fun. If they retcon, I'm probably just gonna dip.
"Retcon" isn't what they did with the Old World. I know, I know, I know some people will argue that...but it wasn't.
They didn't just have it "all be a dream" or something stupid like that. They wiped it all out. The Old World burned. There's a smoldering core of it left, but it is uninhabitable and is nothing but an albatross hung across Sigmar's neck. He's sitting brooding over his massive failure.
Sorry, not seeing the "Aeldari" section on the GW website? They're still split into Craftworld/Dark/Harlequins. Unless your point is about the soft lore reworking they did to introduce the concept of "Aeldari" as being the name of the Eldar race as a whole, and extrapolating that into what MAY become a new faction in what MAY be the new way factions are done in 40k?
In which case I assert that they haven't yet done what you say they have, and my point stands that there's no certainty the Eldar will end up with their own general faction in this proposed division.
Uh yeah, they absolutely did do that.
Read "Gathering Storm II". It wasn't just a "soft lore reworking". Ynnari and Aeldari are specifically named in rules related material, not just lore stuff.
Semantics the first - who gives a damn if the 'old world' exists in their current world or not? They got rid of the old lore and replaced it dude. Call it whatever you want, I think it was a really bad move.
Semantics the second - I read gathering storm 2, and I saw the Aeldari lore they introduced and the new Ynnari faction. You're arguing that this means the Aeldari are a faction in 40k? Cause I don't think it do - the Ynnari are a new faction, is that what you meant? But I also don't think that's what you're arguing, I'm pretty sure you're trying to say it's in the lore, which I'm not contesting you on. I'm just talking about rules.
Semantics the first - who gives a damn if the 'old world' exists in their current world or not? They got rid of the old lore and replaced it dude. Call it whatever you want, I think it was a really bad move.
Actually, the old lore still exists. It talks about that as the "World that Was".
You can think it's a bad move as much as you want; it is not the same thing as a retcon.
Semantics the second - I read gathering storm 2, and I saw the Aeldari lore they introduced and the new Ynnari faction. You're arguing that this means the Aeldari are a faction in 40k? Cause I don't think it do - the Ynnari are a new faction, is that what you meant? But I also don't think that's what you're arguing, I'm pretty sure you're trying to say it's in the lore, which I'm not contesting you on. I'm just talking about rules.
No, I meant what I said.
Ynnari, as a faction, have rules specifying Aeldari models.
I was asking that because I think it's time that the Dark Eldar just bit the bullet and became a chaos faction. In ancient real life societies, worship of the gods had as much to do with keeping them happy and content as it did with anything else. People thought if they just did the prayers and the sacrifices, they wouldn't suffer a plague or a storm. Think of the Dark Eldar doing something like this. They keep killing and raiding to keep their souls intact and to 'pay off' she who thirsts.
Semantics the first - who gives a damn if the 'old world' exists in their current world or not? They got rid of the old lore and replaced it dude. Call it whatever you want, I think it was a really bad move.
Actually, the old lore still exists. It talks about that as the "World that Was".
You can think it's a bad move as much as you want; it is not the same thing as a retcon.
Pedantry. Consider that it's not a question of there being a context for where the story went within the universe - maybe all that matters is that Spiderman and Mary Jane aren't together anymore, you know? Remake, reboot, revamp, re-imagining, retcon... it's different, now, than it was before. Arguing the context of the changes is meaningless.
And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the Aeldari. I'll be buying their Codex as soon as it comes out, for sure.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Orks, Nids and Necrons should be standalone factions - they're nobody's friends, just things to destroy and eat.
Tau, they can be Eldar friends in the sense that the enemy of my enemey is my friend.
We have more examples in fluff of the Necrons working with the IoM than we have examples of the Tau working with the IoM, the most recent of which was Trazyn the infinite saving the Cadia Gate multiple times at the beginning of the rising storm. Necrons have also engaged in trade with the IoM via rogue traders, and have diplomatic relations with the Tau. Certain Necron factions like the Mephrit dynasty might fall into the category of nobodies allies, but Immohtek, Trazyn, and several other phaerons are capable of working with others to further their own ends, which is all diplomacy amounts to in the 40k universe (and arguably ours as well). Take the Tau for example, the Necrons are a much better ally for them against the IoM, the Eldar are weak and getting weaker, where as the Necrons strength increases by the day. Long term the eldar have a more live and let live attitude, but at the current rate of population decay they will be dust and memory by the time the Tau and Necrons are ready to overthrow the IoM.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Orks, Nids and Necrons should be standalone factions - they're nobody's friends, just things to destroy and eat.
Tau, they can be Eldar friends in the sense that the enemy of my enemey is my friend.
We have more examples in fluff of the Necrons working with the IoM than we have examples of the Tau working with the IoM, the most recent of which was Trazyn the infinite saving the Cadia Gate multiple times at the beginning of the rising storm. Necrons have also engaged in trade with the IoM via rogue traders, and have diplomatic relations with the Tau. Certain Necron factions like the Mephrit dynasty might fall into the category of nobodies allies, but Immohtek, Trazyn, and several other phaerons are capable of working with others to further their own ends, which is all diplomacy amounts to in the 40k universe (and arguably ours as well). Take the Tau for example, the Necrons are a much better ally for them against the IoM, the Eldar are weak and getting weaker, where as the Necrons strength increases by the day. Long term the eldar have a more live and let live attitude, but at the current rate of population decay they will be dust and memory by the time the Tau and Necrons are ready to overthrow the IoM.
Yeah, this is all a good point. I like the Necrons going to the stage of Kingdoms all over the galaxies with different motives. But regardless, they could fit into an Order Faction.
Thats not exactly precise. The Ynnari have similarities with the reunification of the Elven race in Fantasy but its not the same.
The Ynnari are a NEW faction of Dark Eldar, Eldar, Harlequin and even Exodites, but they are a small fraction.
Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequin are still their own thing and they are much bigger in number that the Ynnari.
Aeldari its just another them for Eldar.
You're familiar with AoS, right?
Aeldari is certainly "another term for Eldar"...except it's also now being used to describe models that are Eldar of any flavor. Read the Ynnari rules. It talks in some places about "Aeldari" models, in other places about models with the "Ynnari faction".
Aeldari is not interchangeable with Ynnari or Eldar or Dark Eldar or Harlequin. Aeldari is more like how the various Elf flavors have gotten "Aelf" as a keyword.
