As many rumor mills are reporting, 8th edition 40K is just around the corner, with many mongers stating mid 2017 as the big arrival. Many of the reported changes are advancing the fluff, returning the primarchs, and just generally ramping up the grim in the ol' Grim Dark. One of the things we aren't really hearing though is what the rules changes will entail. Lately, GW has shown a great willingness to listen to its fans and give them what they want. Problem with that is, as a community, us 40Kers are notoriously inconsistent with what we really want. With as large a community as we have, that is to be expected, but some of the things that are commonly held as largely agreed upon opinions such as "No super heavy vehicles in the base game" are not really supported by sales figures (IKs are some of their best sellers). Probably the single largest agreed upon opinion is "Streamline the rules!".

Which brings me to Age of Sigmar....

I am afraid that when the community by and large turned up its nose at Age of Sigmar when it was released, we were inadvertently telling GW that we don't really want streamlined rules. I am guilty of this myself, only just now giving AoS a chance with the release of the Generals Handbook and points. I recall the same thing happened when 3rd edition 40K stripped out all the bloat (and some of the flavor), many 2nd edition vets turned their nose up and refused to play.

I personally think AoS is really good, and the rules work very well for what its trying to accomplish. The self policing aspect of it (prior to match play) certainly causes problems with tournaments and pick up games, but the rules themselves are simple, sensible, and vastly different from 40K. Given that the AoS ruleset was often ridiculed for its simplicity and lack of points, will GW take this attitude (and the slow adoption rate) as a sign that 40K players like their rules big and bloaty? With the rules re-design already underway, will GW take note of the huge success of the AoS Generals Handbook and change gears with the 40K redesign? Or did GW already have the mindset to AoS-ify the 40K rules from the get go?

I personally want to see 40K retain its own identity and not just adopt the AoS base ruleset. However, there is much good in AoS that can work in 40K, especially with that added pieces from the Generals Handbook. The AoS warscroll system containing ALL the rules for a given unit is a wonderful thing, as is the app that allows you to get the rules for any given unit for free, only having to pay for battalions. GW is already using "dataslates" but I think they can take this all the way to the AoS method so that all special rules, weapons, and such are included on the dataslate. This eliminates the need for so many different unit types, pages and pages of universal special rules, and allows GW greater flexibility and diversity in unit creation. The keyword and Grand Alliance system could also be adopted, allowing Imperium, Chaos, and the various Xenos factions to operate in similar manner as the Grand Alliances, and ditch the awful allies system we currently have. This makes armies so much more diverse, as one Imperial or Chaos army could be completely different from the next without sacrificing effectiveness. Of course, this would require a bit more unit/model diversity in some of the Xenos armies such as Orks and Necrons (just need Clans and Dynasties sorted out), but that's not a bad thing.

So what are your thoughts? Will the slow adoption rate of AoS cause GW to shy away from a major overhaul of the 40K rules?

If they think aos was "streamlined" and that we hate streamlined rules because of our hate for aos, then they're so out of touch that we really just need GW to burn down so we can build something from the ashes. Let's hope the people that design the models survive the fire.

Streamlining can mean many things. Hopefully, it means fewer books and faster access to rules.

One thing that is great with AoS is the warscroll format: you have one page with all the rules for your unit. No need to go back 10 pages in the codex for a special rule, 10 pages forward for the weapon profile, then look through the BRB for yet another special rule (and that's the best case scenario, when you don't have to look through many more supplements and datasheets). Combined with an app, it's just perfect. Some people don't like screens, and can just print the warscrolls (or buy a nice book where they're already printed, with some nice art/fluff).
I really hope we'll see that, and that can be done independently of how the rules themselves change with the new edition.

To me the big factor is whether they're going to make all the previous codices obsolete or not. If they don't, they have limited room to change the rules, and won't be able to balance the game with just a new set of core rules.
Supposedly, the development of the new edition started a while back, so this decision has already been made (so before the release of the AoS general's handbook, when AoS bashing was at its peak).

fresus wrote:
To me the big factor is whether they're going to make all the previous codices obsolete or not. If they don't, they have limited room to change the rules, and won't be able to balance the game with just a new set of core rules.
Supposedly, the development of the new edition started a while back, so this decision has already been made (so before the release of the AoS general's handbook, when AoS bashing was at its peak).

As much as I hate to have to lose my codices (I have 3 armies), if it means that GW will give free dataslates and a 40K app like AoS has, I'd gladly suffer the loss. Sometimes you just have to rip the band-aid off quickly to let the healing begin

At the end of the day I don't care if they're streamlined or not, I just want them to be good and offer a level of tactical depth commensurate with the length of the rulebook.

And for the love of all that is cute and fluffy, even an attempt at balance would be appreciated.

40k absolutely needs to be its own thing. I think part of the huge backlash against AoS was the huge changes to the fluff and the discontinuation of some armies and factions.

No one wants to see their beautifully painted collection squatted. And quite rightly so.

I've not played myself, but from what I've read and heard the Sigmar rules themselves are not so much of an issue for people. The rules being free is certainly a very welcoming move for new players, and streamlining them helps too.

Personally I think they would have been better served keeping fantasy battles as a seperate game, maybe even hand it over to FW. There could still have been crossover with miniatures etc but it would have kept a lot of people on board. Then they could have set AoS up as the entry level game set in the realms of the gods or something.

As for 40k I think you could be right, any company would be foolhardy to follow a much maligned game in AoS and then use that as a base for their most profitable product line. They must surely be thinking twice about what to do with the 40k golden goose.

Personally I like the ruleset as is. That's not to say I don't think there should be some subtle streamlining and some rationalisation of some of the more broken parts of the game. The whole MC Vs Walker/Vehicle debate for one. Personally I think the streamlining can be achieved by tightening up the rules and editing them properly to make them more concise and easy to read. The rule book is a mess for example with different rules for certain things spread throughout the book, it's like a maze at times.

It should have easily found reference point and sections. Whereas now the rules on cover for example are spread between a section in the shooting phase, another section in the terrain part of the book and more in the special rules section, it really should have its own section, with just a page reference in the shooting phase part and the terrain part. Make things easier to find on the fly, write things more concisely and more clear, and most of all make the rules actually consistent.

I'd also love to see all the army rules and game rules go online and free allowing greater access to the game for anyone thinking of taking it up. Let the Codices be fluff and painting guides, with the rules thrown in for those who prefer to have a physical copy of the rules.

GW are always going to have to walk a tightrope between keeping their fan base happy and at the same time attracting fresh blood to the hobby. Trends change so what pleases a 30 year old veteran of the hobby might not intrest a young 13 year old who is just getting started.

You only have to look at the art thread to see how things have changed drastically, their new clean cut cartoonish art displeases a lot of us old hands, but at the same time they probably feel they need to make the game look pleasing and exciting to a younger generation. It's the same with the rules, the models etc.

Frankly it's an unenviable task.

 Blacksails wrote:
At the end of the day I don't care if they're streamlined or not, I just want them to be good and offer a level of tactical depth commensurate with the length of the rulebook.

And for the love of all that is cute and fluffy, even an attempt at balance would be appreciated.

I think the only way we ever see any semblance of balance is to make those previous codices and dataslates from various campaign books incompatible with the new edition. Like 3rd edition and AoS, this is going to infuriate a lot of the existing fan base. Free digital rules/dataslates for those old units/formations would keep the fanbase from completely rioting, but there would still be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

A new edition is a perfect time to shake things up. A competent company would release a new edition with a slew of either new faction books right away, or a comprehensive FAQ complete with point cost tweaks, profile changes, and wargear changes.

No need to invalidate anything, just make it balanced.

 Blacksails wrote:
A new edition is a perfect time to shake things up. A competent company would release a new edition with a slew of either new faction books right away, or a comprehensive FAQ complete with point cost tweaks, profile changes, and wargear changes.

No need to invalidate anything, just make it balanced.

Indeed, personally the easiest way would be to redo all the codex and campaign rules, stick them up on the website for free. It won't stop them selling new codex and campaign books in the future it just means that everyone starts a fresh with clean rules. There's no need to invalidate or exclude anything. Some things may need points adjustments, buffs and nerfs, but that's part and parcel of the game already.

AOS as a rules set is complete garbage. It has almost no depth. Get this AOS gak outta my 40K before they blow up this setting too. Killing off fantasy was bad enough.

Re-building 40K's rules from the ground up is a good idea, because 7th ed. is not a good rules set. But for gods sakes don't go the AOS way. I want depth not random under developed trash.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Lately, GW has shown a great willingness to listen to its fans and give them what they want. Problem with that is, as a community, us 40Kers are notoriously inconsistent with what we really want.

The Roman Princeps Nero just gave the people what they wanted. Sure the masses loved him for it, but he bankrupted the state, was hated by the wealthy and thinkers of the day, and is remembered as one of the worst Princeps in history. GW doesn't want to be a Nero.

Funny parallel aside, I do find it promising that there has been a distinct lack of updating of major codecies lately, despite many desperately needing them. Coupled with the FAQs that I believe were as much about finding deficiencies in the rule set as they were to actually clarify things, I like where we are at right now.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AOS as a rules set is complete garbage. It has almost no depth. Get this AOS gak outta my 40K before they blow up this setting too. Killing off fantasy was bad enough.

Re-building 40K's rules from the ground up is a good idea, because 7th ed. is not a good rules set. But for gods sakes don't go the AOS way. I want depth not random under developed trash.

Going to have to disagree about the AoS depth. The core rules only seem shallow until you take into consideration that each unit has its own rules for how it functions. The core rules don't have to cover the special rules for units, unique spells and command traits, etc because they are handled on a unit by unit basis on the warscroll. Throw in the added points and "force org" rules from the General's Handbook, and AoS has plenty of depth, especially given how diverse armies can be.

Personally, I'd love to see the various unit types removed and just have special archetypes like AoS; Heroes, Behemoths (although a more appropriate name for 40K would be needed), and Artillery. This removes the AV vs Wound/Save inequality, allows similar units for different armies to function completely differently, and just simplifies the process more.

I completely disagree. All rules, unit types, special rules etc. should be contained entirely in the main rules. Not everything has to be special snowflake. Sometimes a hammer is just a hammer.

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

Randomness like getting to have two turns in a row is not what I consider to be depth in a game. The last thing an army like fething Tau need is to have two turns of shooting in a row.

I don't want simplicity. I want complexity. 40K is already way too simple of a game.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I completely disagree. All rules, unit types, special rules etc. should be contained entirely in the main rules. Not everything has to be special snowflake. Sometimes a hammer is just a hammer.

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

Randomness like getting to have two turns in a row is not what I consider to be depth in a game. The last thing an army like fething Tau need is to have two turns of shooting in a row.

I don't want simplicity. I want complexity. 40K is already way too simple of a game.

Personally I think with careful rule writing and a good editor, that it's possible to have a complex game with simple rules.

If 40k 8E is AoS with points, with further streamlined units, that would be great.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I completely disagree. All rules, unit types, special rules etc. should be contained entirely in the main rules. Not everything has to be special snowflake. Sometimes a hammer is just a hammer.

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

Randomness like getting to have two turns in a row is not what I consider to be depth in a game. The last thing an army like fething Tau need is to have two turns of shooting in a row.

I don't want simplicity. I want complexity. 40K is already way too simple of a game.

I'd argue that it's actually easier to have special rules in different places. Especially in the style of the war scrolls. Non USR for units are much easier to find than the USRs for particular units. In the new style of codecies special rules for units are found in their army list profile, which is kind of like a one stop shop for all things detailing that specific unit. Take an Eldar Pheonix lord. They've got a buttload of USRs and one or two unique ones. Which are easier to find? The unique ones that are right on the actual page for the unit, or the one where I have to go to the glossary in the BRB to find the right page for, and scan through half a dozen other rules?

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

One book? Considering that you need

1: The rulebook
2: The codex
3: If you want allies you need another.

Then you need to have to flip to each relevant section and figure out what you need. With a warscroll you just need.. The units war scroll, you can even print them out if you want to keep them handy nearby. If for some reason you want to use 20 different units, that's strange but you can keep such nearby too. The Battletomes keep everything nice and neat too if you want to check out an armies warscrolls and battalions.

If 40k would the same like AoS with the Handbook now, nothing will change.
Except that a reset of the rules gives us some time until GW catch up, but 2 years later it would be the same mess that it is now.
Power Creep, Apocalypse in 28mm and every 6 Months they break with the current streamlined system to add something else.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

I am afraid that when the community by and large turned up its nose at Age of Sigmar when it was released, we were inadvertently telling GW that we don't really want streamlined rules. I am guilty of this myself, only just now giving AoS a chance with the release of the Generals Handbook and points.

This is something different.

AoS is not a streamlined version of Warhammer Fantasy.
Turning down AoS was just because it is a Fantasy Mass-Skirmish. And not a really good one that offers something unique over all the other fantasy skirmish games around except that you use very large models.
For all those that already played a Skirmish game and wanted an additional R&F system, there was no reason to give AoS chance.

Comparing this to 40k would if the streamlined 8th would just be a Napoleonic kind of Rank & File game

 Blacksails wrote:
At the end of the day I don't care if they're streamlined or not, I just want them to be good and offer a level of tactical depth commensurate with the length of the rulebook.

And for the love of all that is cute and fluffy, even an attempt at balance would be appreciated.

Agree with everything here. I've never heard a WFB players every ask for more streamlined rules specifically - just rules that work and create balance.

Don't worry about AoS - GW will do what GW wants to do.

I heard a lot of people in 6th/7th complain that the magic phase needed to be tweaked because some armies could too easily dominate it.
GW gave us a totally random magic phase with lots of spells that could wipe units off the table with no save, kill your own wizard an his unit, or... twiddle your thumbs with not enough dice to cast a magic missile.

I heard a few people in 6th/7th mention that some terrain was a bit fiddly and hard to maneuver through.
GW gave us forests that eat people and ghost fences.

I heard a lot of people in 8th edition say that if you dropped all the crazy random nonsense rules, tweaked the magic phase, and balanced the armies, 8th edition was actually pretty good.
GW gave us Age of Sigmar.

I am not opposed to trimming stuff down (in fact it's one of the biggest points I continually argue for) but it all depends on how they go about it.

Today I got my first peak at the new points system for AoS (Courtesy of the guys over at Maximum Aggression Gaming) and while it was just a gloss-over, it looked somewhat like the old fantasy system. This made me kinda uneasy cuz it felt like that period of "no points" was literally them not knowing what to do and ended up defaulting back on the old method, but not before partially torching the boat. I hope the AoS version of 40k doesn't go through an era like that, cuz that felt like the result of poor planning.

As for the lore, god I hope they don't go down AoS's route. Part of the reason 40k drew me in was the timelessness of the setting; sure it sucks that the fluff isn't making meaningful headway but it's something we've all invested decades into. Nuking it will make it lose what little interested it had left in me and if I'm gonna have to get used to a new setting, there are far cheaper hobbies (with richer stories that don't rely on "up to 11 cliches") to get attached to.

40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

Makes you wonder what the new specialist games will be like. Its shocking playing BFG and 40k and thinking they came from the same company. I hope the new specialist games projects that revive old games keep the old spirit alive and don't channel any of the nonsense that has pervaded 40k.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

I believe Atia said something along those lines.

Going 2 turns in a row works for AoS because shooting isn't overpowered. In fact close combat is much stronger as you get to attack during both turns. In 40k shooting is far superior as close combat has too many caveats. To be honest I think 40k's close combat could benefit from a system like AoS. I haven't heard anyone say anything good about the to hit and to wound charts.

Can we do something about the to hit and to wound charts? How does Lucius, greatest swordmaster of all time, infused with demonhood, faster than any mortal, still being hit by grots on a 5+? And only hitting said grots on a 3+?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I believe Atia said something along those lines.

I don't recall seeing that on her blog, got any links?

The main problem with AOS is that it didn't address any of the issues with WHFB nor give what current WHFB players wanted. It's in all respects a completely different game which now is in even more direct competition with 40k, and regardless of the rules most 12 year old boys will choose Sci-Fi over Fantasy. Never mind the complete and utter destruction of the fluff and storylines WHFB had built over the years! Also the whole problem with the whole free data slate idea is it relies on all the current armies and factions being dumbed down (from both a business and rule perspective). However the correct type of extra complexity is what 40k really needs, not simply 'add moar rules' GW has been doing for the last decade or two.

I don't think simply making something free and drastically changing the rules is what 40k really needs. Keep the core 40k game created in 3rd, get rid of most of the rubbish, have a fresh look at the turn structure and look at the excessive number of special rules and effects. Then simply offer free dataslates that update all current codexes before the new 8th edition books are released (or maybe included them in the rulebook akin to 3rd ed). I think the main issue personally is 40k currently is trying to be Apocalypse lite, which itself was always a bad idea because armies of those sizes always suited epic more. But that will never change now because you wouldn't want to make so many peoples models useless all of a sudden.

40K needs more mathematical space, and less text.

Hey if it goes AoS I am going to have a blast playing the Pathfinder/9th age variant. Sure it might be obscure at first but 40k isn't popular anyways around here. Except by beginners or those who embrace the 3+ knights + (jet) bikes spam philosophy.

If they just rebalance all the stuff, and keep the flexibility of 7th then I willl also have a great time. So who cares, I will have my fun But AoSification is not the game / GW needs, nor is killing off the universe since it will split the community reducing their profits even more.

AoS has been flying under the radar for a few years now, I got back in the hobby (40k) 2 years ago or so and very VERY rarely have seen a game of AoS played at my local game store. This has changed, with the release of cheaper box sets, a new generals handbook and funnily enough the release of Total war: warhammer there are now more Sigmar players than there are 40k which is CRAZY, I have seen more games of AoS in the past month or so than my whole 2 years of regular attendance at the store which if you told my a while ago I would have laughed.

Now every day the painting tables are full of sigmar players all discussing total war warhammer and all the theorycrafting you can derive from the generals handbook. 40k is still around, there isn't a lack of it. But less so than sigmar nowadays.

8th edition will hopefully be an improvement, and might boost the playerbase, and seeing how large of an impact Total war: warhammer has made I expect Dawn of War 3 to make just as large of a splash. It is interesting to see how much videogames influence not only new players but also the return of old players.

 kodos wrote:

AoS is not a streamlined version of Warhammer Fantasy.

I would go so far as to call it not even streamlined. Just moving all the rules from the core rulebook to the individual units only gives the illusion of streamlining by hiding the clutter. 4th / 5th edition fantasy was simple. Most units did not have special rules, if they did they would most often be army wide and the game rules could be summarized on 5-10 pages, The rest of the pages used was just there to make the concepts clear or to flesh out the fluff of the game. The game didn't have a ton of "universal special rules" and any player could enter a pick up game without getting into too much surprises .AoS is the opposite of this. It does have slightly simpler core rules, but you can never be sure what a unit really does until you read or remember that specific war scroll.

What 40k needs is to remove 75% of the USR's, point rebalancing, points for formations, and elimination of all the shenanigans such as walker "monsters", jet bike troops, relentless bikes and grav/kill all guns.

 General Kroll wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I believe Atia said something along those lines.

I don't recall seeing that on her blog, got any links?

This was the thread that had the quote. Grain of salt as always:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/695030.page

Reavas wrote:
there are now more Sigmar players than there are 40k which is CRAZY

This isnt crazy at all. We don't have a working point system, and powercreep has gone out off controll.
40k is in a really bad place right now. It isn't that 40k is too complex etc. its just that GW's short term profit scheme of powcreep and free stuff is demanding its toll now . So to return a the question. Our love for "free stuff" did screw us over not ou aversion for AoS. We should have boo'ed at the free rhino's instead of embracing them if you even want to shift the blame from GW's poor policy to their customers.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I believe Atia said something along those lines.

I don't recall seeing that on her blog, got any links?

This was the thread that had the quote. Grain of salt as always:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/695030.page

Interesting stuff, the initial quote doesn't refer to Battle for Vedros at all though, unless there is something else buried in the 11 pages? I'd be intrigued to see it, since Vedros was clearly designed to be a completely seperate ruleset that was easy for entry level beginners, children specifically. While admirable, it was very basic and limited the kinds of units that could be taken. I can't see that working with a larger selection of different units and races, and certainly not with various super heavies and GMCs etc.

Is Vedros even a thing ?

I still don't have seen any picture of the gme actually being sold in a store.

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

The only thing that seems to be there is GW's facebook with pictures of boys playing with dads toys and a few impatient creeps asking where to buy the stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I would not call that obvious at all. AoS got a huge sales boost when they introduced points to all the things. Further removing points from 40k would not seem to fit the trend at all.

Huh? Where did I say that GW would remove points from 40k? I specifically said that 40k would still have points!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

This suggest even a move further away from having points.

I agree with JonHwangDD. AoS seems to have reached the mellowing point; Battle of Vedros seems like a very likely touch-off point for 40K's rules being rewritten in an AoS 1-2 page rulebook with some sort of Warscrolls for the armies/units (with points).

With the books like Kauyon/Mont'ka and Time of the Wulfen series that seem to mirror the End Time book compilation releases, it does look like we are approaching an End Times for 40K and 8th edition. I'm hoping GW is smart enough not to blow up the lore like the did with AoS, but as unpredictable as they've been in the last few years, I'm not writing anything off.

I myself, am getting off the edition bandwagon. I've bought my last core rulebook & codex from GW. I may still buy the models down the road, but I refuse to pick up another game edition - even with Roundtree at the helm, they've shown their rules writing is atrocious. Instead, I'm working on my own ruleset for my own use.

The difference is that WFB had become a rotting, festering albatross that GW fully intended to cancel, but the creative types pushed End Times. Surprisingly to the suits (but not the creatives), the giant End Times models and books were profitable enough that GW agreed to allow a much cheaper and sustainable version of WFB to survive. Hence, AoS. After the initial shock, AoS turns out to be a decent game, bringing in new blood, and GW allows more work along with "proper" combined Army Books and the General's Handbook, addressing the big complaint about points.

Having seen and learned from AoS, we have Battle for Vedros, which is test-marketing the 8E prototype outside GW's normal 40k channels. We also have not-End Times for 40k because GW knows they won't end 40k - the 40k background has actual value, and they know it. That's why 40k gets brings loads of license money.into GW.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

John makes some great points. We know that no matter what the game is being simplified. I've also heard from speculators that there could be two version of 8th. One like default AoS and the other like the generals handbook. AoS's rules were never its problem. The lack of points were. It's models have always been simply outstanding. Even better than a lot of 40k models in my opinion.

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

I imagine he is right, to a degree. The Vedros pack does seem like a good little starter set similar to Dark Vengence, but with paints! From a buisness standpoint they will release 8th edition with a starter pack. But whether it is Vedros remains to be seen. As there have been no leaks on 8th edition rulebook though, I imagine it may be a later starter pack than Vedros.

Also, how is guessing the starter pack they are releasing 8th edition with scaremongering?

The Vedros pack was a 40k starter set, just repurposed. Shame too, on release it use to be the best bang-for-your-buck starter 40k has ever seen.

I just got Into 40k right as 7th came out and while it's not the most Complicated game, it's deep enough to have a lot of depth to the thought process. And honestly if the rules change so drastically right as I'm about to start my second army(daemons) I'm going to just sell it all and mitigate losses. If nothing else but for running my effort so far.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The difference is that WFB had become a rotting, festering albatross that GW fully intended to cancel, but the creative types pushed End Times. Surprisingly to the suits (but not the creatives), the giant End Times models and books were profitable enough that GW agreed to allow a much cheaper and sustainable version of WFB to survive. Hence, AoS. After the initial shock, AoS turns out to be a decent game, bringing in new blood, and GW allows more work along with "proper" combined Army Books and the General's Handbook, addressing the big complaint about points.

Having seen and learned from AoS, we have Battle for Vedros, which is test-marketing the 8E prototype outside GW's normal 40k channels. We also have not-End Times for 40k because GW knows they won't end 40k - the 40k background has actual value, and they know it. That's why 40k gets brings loads of license money.into GW.

I don't agree. From what I heard, it was 8th edition that was pushed as 'one final go' by the creatives who didn't just want to can fantasy. End times was the farewell song when it was basically known that fantasy was going to be wound up and replaced. Aos has been in the works at gw for a couple of years - there is no way that aos was envisioned, planned, written, art made, moulds designed and made and plastics produced and shipped in the short time that end times was being released ans the suits realised that end times was moving. It was always planned as a minimum investment at launch release. If anything, the suits were probably convinced the 'albatross' of wfb was dead and gone and were surprised that the end times did so well

Aos might be a decent game (arguable) but a lot of its recent success is by gw doing a complete about face and changing everything about Aos from it was originally envisioned to be. The new blood that Aos brought in by its original year was very likely outweighed by the legions of fantasy players who left when thry realised that gw replaced a game they loved with... Something else. And there was the massive fallout and bad press as well. Overall, the launch of Aos fell far short of great.

It will be interesting to see how 8th pans out, but I don't think they will Aos 40k. As much as I enjoy home brew, narrative focused, collaboratively designed wargames as well as no points, it's a niche within the community that appreciates this sadly. Aos crystallised these feelings, and it's arguable turn around in fortunes is in all likelihood from gw doing an about face in its direction. I might be wrong, but considering the community's reception, I strongly doubt that a company as risk-averse as gw will march 40k down that same unsuccessful road they tried to do with Aos. As much as they might want to do this, you give the community what it wants if you want to make your money's. And the community as a whole don't want an Aos-Ification of 40k.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I completely disagree. All rules, unit types, special rules etc. should be contained entirely in the main rules. Not everything has to be special snowflake. Sometimes a hammer is just a hammer.

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

Randomness like getting to have two turns in a row is not what I consider to be depth in a game. The last thing an army like fething Tau need is to have two turns of shooting in a row.

I don't want simplicity. I want complexity. 40K is already way too simple of a game.

Personally I think with careful rule writing and a good editor, that it's possible to have a complex game with simple rules.

100% agree, and on the same note, 40k currently is a simple game with complex rules. Having to flip pages doesn't add depth.

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

I imagine he is right, to a degree. The Vedros pack does seem like a good little starter set similar to Dark Vengence, but with paints! From a buisness standpoint they will release 8th edition with a starter pack. But whether it is Vedros remains to be seen. As there have been no leaks on 8th edition rulebook though, I imagine it may be a later starter pack than Vedros.

Also, how is guessing the starter pack they are releasing 8th edition with scaremongering?

The scaremongering element is in the phrase "8th edition is just going to be Vedros" it's patently untrue and a comment only designed to inflame feelings that GW are dumbing down the brand. There's no evidence that this is the case, or indeed that Vedros is a test bed of any kind, be that rules systems or branding. It's aimed at an entirely different audience for a start. You don't test bed something aimed at teens and adults who buy from hobby stores and GW direct, by trying it out on 8 year olds who are seeing the game while out shopping with mummy and daddy at the hardware store.

It's a completely different kettle of fish.

Vedros is no doubt a test bed for a simpler version of the game aimed at children, the company are dipping their toes in a different market and seeing if they can make inroads there. I imagine if they do, the range of Vedros models may increase, however they will be limited by the rule set. But it won't be a progression to a new edition, it will be a seperate game and hobby range aimed at children.

 oldzoggy wrote:

What 40k needs is to remove 75% of the USR's, point rebalancing, points for formations, and elimination of all the shenanigans such as walker "monsters", jet bike troops, relentless bikes and grav/kill all guns.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/698286.page#8833859

 General Kroll wrote:

Personally I think with careful rule writing and a good editor, that it's possible to have a complex game with simple rules.

of course it is, but it would also mean that all things that came after stay in line with the core rules and GW was not able to keep a design for more than 6 months

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The difference is that WFB had become a rotting, festering albatross that GW fully intended to cancel, but the creative types pushed End Times. Surprisingly to the suits (but not the creatives), the giant End Times models and books were profitable enough that GW agreed to allow a much cheaper and sustainable version of WFB to survive. Hence, AoS. After the initial shock, AoS turns out to be a decent game, bringing in new blood, and GW allows more work along with "proper" combined Army Books and the General's Handbook, addressing the big complaint about points.

Having seen and learned from AoS, we have Battle for Vedros, which is test-marketing the 8E prototype outside GW's normal 40k channels. We also have not-End Times for 40k because GW knows they won't end 40k - the 40k background has actual value, and they know it. That's why 40k gets brings loads of license money.into GW.

Uuh development of aos was well underway(more like finalized) when et was released...indeed when aos was started fb was still top3 selling game in usa.

I think the major "issue" with AoS wasn't the streamlining, it was:

1) Destroying the Old World and remaking WHFB without any real transition. End Times came, then boom whole new game. If AoS was just a post-End Times game, where let's say half of the Empire is destroyed and the other half is rebuilding, with rules for both regimented AND skirmish-y (AoS level now) type of games, I think it would have been better received rather than literally blowing up the world and remaking it just so they can copyright everything.

2) The reception to Stormcasts as Fantasy Space Marines didn't help with #1 above. If they had been like a new Elite anti-Chaos faction made of Empire/Bretonnia/Elves/Dwarfs (think almost Deathwatch like, made up of different people) that weren't so obviously Space Marine, they might have made more sense.

3) Not so much lack of points, but the idea that it was originally pitched as essentially how Unbound 40k is: Take anything you want, from any faction, throw down and play! So it came off as not only sloppy and lazy but just reinforcing the at the time poorly perceived notions of balance.

Honestly, having actually tried AoS (only once though) it is not a bad game at all. It has its flaws like any GW game, but it could be made into a pretty enjoyable experience and a lot of things like warscrolls being available for free and simplified playstyle would IMHO greatly benefit 40k. Just not the other stuff, although personally I still really hope that they break up the Imperium and allow different Space Marine chapters to essentially have their own domains and the like to allow for Marine vs. Marine combat without it not making sense in the fluff (except in rare cases), but we all know that won't happen and the same can be said about Stormcasts.

 Gamgee wrote:
John makes some great points. We know that no matter what the game is being simplified. I've also heard from speculators that there could be two version of 8th. One like default AoS and the other like the generals handbook. AoS's rules were never its problem. The lack of points were. It's models have always been simply outstanding. Even better than a lot of 40k models in my opinion.

Aos has tons of problem rulewise. Fluff makes battles pointless since nobody has chance of winning. And art and models have gone to wow wannabe clone art. Funnily enough gw went to MORE easily copied style since they went to style that's dime in the dozen.

John makes some great points. We know that no matter what the game is being simplified. I've also heard from speculators that there could be two version of 8th. One like default AoS and the other like the generals handbook. AoS's rules were never its problem. The lack of points were. It's models have always been simply outstanding. Even better than a lot of 40k models in my opinion.

AOS's rules were always, and still are a problem. The lack of points was just a slap in the face to everyone who ever wanted some remote semblance of balance or competitive play.

I'd argue that it's actually easier to have special rules in different places. Especially in the style of the war scrolls. Non USR for units are much easier to find than the USRs for particular units. In the new style of codecies special rules for units are found in their army list profile, which is kind of like a one stop shop for all things detailing that specific unit. Take an Eldar Pheonix lord. They've got a buttload of USRs and one or two unique ones. Which are easier to find? The unique ones that are right on the actual page for the unit, or the one where I have to go to the glossary in the BRB to find the right page for, and scan through half a dozen other rules?

It's not so much that I dislike the idea of a warscroll. I'm fine with having a units stats and rules laid out in front of me. It's the idea that every unit has individual rules to essentially represent the same thing. USR should be in the main rule book and laid out in an organized fashion, and any unit that has that special rule could have it on the warscroll. Currently there are like 50 different types of shields in AOS, why can't a shield and it's rules be present in the main rules so everyone knows what it does. It's just messy and all over the place. Just have everything laid out in the main rules, and then add them onto the warscroll if it's applicable to the unit.

 Purifier wrote:
If they think aos was "streamlined" and that we hate streamlined rules because of our hate for aos, then they're so out of touch that we really just need GW to burn down so we can build something from the ashes. Let's hope the people that design the models survive the fire.

I think this is the jist of it. If GW can't critically look at issues fans have with the game, then 40k will never increase its appeal to a larger fan base. Of course fans will never all agree on what the direction for the game is, but that's the nature of human beings (you'll never see everyone agree to anything). However, 40k could easily become a much more accessible game like it was in previous generations.

Well I know as much as I dislike the ITC sometimes they do have a better than average sense of fair play. They seem to like the rules a lot which matters to me. Listening to them explain some things makes me like the rules quite a bit.

As for the models its a matter of opinion. Considering how good AoS is doing I should think they did something right. Considering I was never ever going to get an old fantasy army and I intend to get an AoS army they did something right. Particularity with the generals handbook.

Currently there are like 50 different types of shields in AOS, why can't a shield and it's rules be present in the main rules so everyone knows what it does. It's just messy and all over the place. Just have everything laid out in the main rules, and then add them onto the warscroll if it's applicable to the unit.

Because not all shields do the same thing, Savage Orruks Bone Shields only provide a 5+ in the combat phase, while Chaos Knight Rune Shields provide 5+ against Mortal Wounds, and a Saurus Guard Shield ignores -1 rend.

Not all weapons are the same, many have differing names and have differing stats, that's why they each tend to be towards their own scroll, to make them different rather then homogenized based on one 'Shield'

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

I imagine he is right, to a degree. The Vedros pack does seem like a good little starter set similar to Dark Vengence, but with paints! From a buisness standpoint they will release 8th edition with a starter pack. But whether it is Vedros remains to be seen. As there have been no leaks on 8th edition rulebook though, I imagine it may be a later starter pack than Vedros.

Also, how is guessing the starter pack they are releasing 8th edition with scaremongering?

The scaremongering element is in the phrase "8th edition is just going to be Vedros"

First, that's not at all what I wrote. As you quoted above, I wrote that "40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros." "Derived from" is different from "just going to be". You are derived from your mother; you are not going to be your mother.

Second, it's not scaremongering in the least. I think the coming simplification and streamlining of 40k will only be a good thing. 7E is worse than 2E, and it needs to be pruned back.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Currently there are like 50 different types of shields in AOS, why can't a shield and it's rules be present in the main rules so everyone knows what it does. It's just messy and all over the place. Just have everything laid out in the main rules, and then add them onto the warscroll if it's applicable to the unit.

Because not all shields do the same thing, Savage Orruks Bone Shields only provide a 5+ in the combat phase, while Chaos Knight Rune Shields provide 5+ against Mortal Wounds, and a Saurus Guard Shield ignores -1 rend.

Not all weapons are the same, many have differing names and have differing stats, that's why they each tend to be towards their own scroll, to make them different rather then homogenized based on one 'Shield'

But they really don't need to be. You don't need X different shields, Y different halberds, Z different swords etc.

You are introducing complexity to the rules which is not needed just because you can.

I don't mean to encroach on this thread but if people are interested I have a thread Age of the Imperium.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689382.page

It is my early attempt to make a 40k with modified rule of AOS and still keeping the flavor and feel of 40k. Feedback and test plays are very welcomed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Currently there are like 50 different types of shields in AOS, why can't a shield and it's rules be present in the main rules so everyone knows what it does. It's just messy and all over the place. Just have everything laid out in the main rules, and then add them onto the warscroll if it's applicable to the unit.

Because not all shields do the same thing, Savage Orruks Bone Shields only provide a 5+ in the combat phase, while Chaos Knight Rune Shields provide 5+ against Mortal Wounds, and a Saurus Guard Shield ignores -1 rend.

Not all weapons are the same, many have differing names and have differing stats, that's why they each tend to be towards their own scroll, to make them different rather then homogenized based on one 'Shield'

But they really don't need to be. You don't need X different shields, Y different halberds, Z different swords etc.

You are introducing complexity to the rules which is not needed just because you can.

It does however avoid the issue of the weapon/item being costed towards a whole rather then a single in mind, which is still one of the biggest things that bug me in 40k. A plasma gun is the same cost for BS1 to BS5, on durable models, on models that'll die to it's own overheat easily enough.

Also they don't need to be? That's one of the few things I love about AoS, I'd rather have new variations rather then 'Sword, Sword, Sword' being the exact same for everyone despite differing enchantments and otherwise.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

I imagine he is right, to a degree. The Vedros pack does seem like a good little starter set similar to Dark Vengence, but with paints! From a buisness standpoint they will release 8th edition with a starter pack. But whether it is Vedros remains to be seen. As there have been no leaks on 8th edition rulebook though, I imagine it may be a later starter pack than Vedros.

Also, how is guessing the starter pack they are releasing 8th edition with scaremongering?

The scaremongering element is in the phrase "8th edition is just going to be Vedros"

First, that's not at all what I wrote. As you quoted above, I wrote that "40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros." "Derived from" is different from "just going to be". You are derived from your mother; you are not going to be your mother.

Second, it's not scaremongering in the least. I think the coming simplification and streamlining of 40k will only be a good thing. 7E is worse than 2E, and it needs to be pruned back.

Meh...close enough, I'm not going to argue semantics. The fact remains though that you've nothing to back up your claims. I agree the rules needs to be simplified, but I don't agree that the game itself needs simplification. That's what Vedros is essentially, a dumbed down version of the game aimed at 8 year olds.

 btgrimaldus wrote:
I don't mean to encroach on this thread but if people are interested I have a thread Age of the Imperium.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689382.page

It is my early attempt to make a 40k with modified rule of AOS and still keeping the flavor and feel of 40k. Feedback and test plays are very welcomed.

AoS is basically streamlined 40k from a gameplay mechanics standpoint. It's very minimal tweaks. The real challenge would be the dataslates that strip the rules down to basics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

I imagine he is right, to a degree. The Vedros pack does seem like a good little starter set similar to Dark Vengence, but with paints! From a buisness standpoint they will release 8th edition with a starter pack. But whether it is Vedros remains to be seen. As there have been no leaks on 8th edition rulebook though, I imagine it may be a later starter pack than Vedros.

Also, how is guessing the starter pack they are releasing 8th edition with scaremongering?

The scaremongering element is in the phrase "8th edition is just going to be Vedros"

First, that's not at all what I wrote. As you quoted above, I wrote that "40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros." "Derived from" is different from "just going to be". You are derived from your mother; you are not going to be your mother.

Second, it's not scaremongering in the least. I think the coming simplification and streamlining of 40k will only be a good thing. 7E is worse than 2E, and it needs to be pruned back.

Meh...close enough, I'm not going to argue semantics. The fact remains though that you've nothing to back up your claims. I agree the rules needs to be simplified, but I don't agree that the game itself needs simplification. That's what Vedros is essentially, a dumbed down version of the game aimed at 8 year olds.

No, it's not "close enough". You deliberately misquoted me. That is a LIE.

BTW, Thanks for the PM where you wrote: "Dude, I'm sorry about being totally stupid and wrong in the 8E thread". Well, with that PM, I accept your apology. Close enough, right?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

It does however avoid the issue of the weapon/item being costed towards a whole rather then a single in mind, which is still one of the biggest things that bug me in 40k. A plasma gun is the same cost for BS1 to BS5, on durable models, on models that'll die to it's own overheat easily enough.

Also they don't need to be? That's one of the few things I love about AoS, I'd rather have new variations rather then 'Sword, Sword, Sword' being the exact same for everyone despite differing enchantments and otherwise.

This right here. Different types of swords and shields are going to have differing levels of effectiveness, even more so when that same item is in the hands of warriors with different skill levels. An Orruk sword should in no way be the same as a Sigmarine or Chaos sword. Why would a shield made of wood and bone have the same effectiveness as a shield made of warp forged iron or steel?

AoS is using weapon and equipment rules to represent the effectiveness of the combined warrior and weapon instead of using a model stat line, weapon stat line, and a static to-hit and to-wound table. Its no less complex or deep, its just a different approach.

Here comes game design into play.
For a small skirmish game, an RPG level of details is ok while for a mass battle game this is unnecessary complicated and things are more simple.

Aos has a strange way to keep things simple.
While weapons ahve an RPG level of details, the units profiles are all the same.
from a design point of view, this gives a lot of possibilities and you don't need to care about what was written before or how the units fit to everything else.

for the game, it is the complete opposite of streamlined rules

 kodos wrote:
Here comes game design into play.
For a small skirmish game, an RPG level of details is ok while for a mass battle game this is unnecessary complicated and things are more simple.

Aos has a strange way to keep things simple.
While weapons ahve an RPG level of details, the units profiles are all the same.
from a design point of view, this gives a lot of possibilities and you don't need to care about what was written before or how the units fit to everything else.

for the game, it is the complete opposite of streamlined rules

In other words your saying that AOS is very complex we just see the end result? I would agree the matrix im using to make the 40K Age of the Imperium is very complex to represent stats correctly. No to mention there were so many i actually switched to a D10 System to better represent the stats.

No, AoS is very complicated, not complex, but in the end giving the same result as a simple, streamlined but complex set of rules (just with the difference that the designers don't need to know any details about their own system)

And if you want such rules, just use one-page 40k, it is exactly what AoS wants to be just better.
If you want to have a complicated and bloated set of rules, basing it on AoS is the best way to go

Of the things I hear people call AoS, Complicated or bloated isn't too much one of them.

It is a fun system at least to me, there are generally some special rules in the rulebook, though those tend to be baseline stuff like Mystic Shield and Arcane bolt which all Wizards know.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 btgrimaldus wrote:
I don't mean to encroach on this thread but if people are interested I have a thread Age of the Imperium.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689382.page

It is my early attempt to make a 40k with modified rule of AOS and still keeping the flavor and feel of 40k. Feedback and test plays are very welcomed.

AoS is basically streamlined 40k from a gameplay mechanics standpoint. It's very minimal tweaks. The real challenge would be the dataslates that strip the rules down to basics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

I imagine he is right, to a degree. The Vedros pack does seem like a good little starter set similar to Dark Vengence, but with paints! From a buisness standpoint they will release 8th edition with a starter pack. But whether it is Vedros remains to be seen. As there have been no leaks on 8th edition rulebook though, I imagine it may be a later starter pack than Vedros.

Also, how is guessing the starter pack they are releasing 8th edition with scaremongering?

The scaremongering element is in the phrase "8th edition is just going to be Vedros"

First, that's not at all what I wrote. As you quoted above, I wrote that "40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros." "Derived from" is different from "just going to be". You are derived from your mother; you are not going to be your mother.

Second, it's not scaremongering in the least. I think the coming simplification and streamlining of 40k will only be a good thing. 7E is worse than 2E, and it needs to be pruned back.

Meh...close enough, I'm not going to argue semantics. The fact remains though that you've nothing to back up your claims. I agree the rules needs to be simplified, but I don't agree that the game itself needs simplification. That's what Vedros is essentially, a dumbed down version of the game aimed at 8 year olds.

No, it's not "close enough". You deliberately misquoted me. That is a LIE.

BTW, Thanks for the PM where you wrote: "Dude, I'm sorry about being totally stupid and wrong in the 8E thread". Well, with that PM, I accept your apology. Close enough, right?

I don't engage in discussions with people who break rule 1.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Of the things I hear people call AoS, Complicated or bloated isn't too much one of them.

It is a fun system at least to me, there are generally some special rules in the rulebook, though those tend to be baseline stuff like Mystic Shield and Arcane bolt which all Wizards know.

It is certainly looks fun, and a ton of players play it so it must me fun for them.
The "bloat" of AoS is in the Warscrolls when you compare it with older editions wfb. All units have now at least 1 or more special / semi unique rules.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Of the things I hear people call AoS, Complicated or bloated isn't too much one of them.

It is a fun system at least to me, there are generally some special rules in the rulebook, though those tend to be baseline stuff like Mystic Shield and Arcane bolt which all Wizards know.

It is certainly looks fun, and a ton of players play it so it must me fun for them.
The "bloat" of AoS is in the Warscrolls when you compare it with older editions wfb. All units have now at least 1 or more special / semi unique rules.

I'm used to Warmachine, so having some stuff put to a card makes it easier. If you use a single battletome all the rules for that faction tend to be within them as well.

The card thing also works pretty well since you can just look to the card, know all the rules without needing to check the main rulebook and makes it easier for new players too without constant book flipping.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

It is a fun system

of course it is, same is 40k or Mensch ärgere Dich nicht

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm used to Warmachine, so having some stuff put to a card makes it easier. If you use a single battletome all the rules for that faction tend to be within them as well.

Except for those faction were the book was outdated a week after it got released

 kodos wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

It is a fun system

of course it is, same is 40k or Mensch ärgere Dich nicht

Never heard of that second one, but that does look like an interesting one.

 kodos wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm used to Warmachine, so having some stuff put to a card makes it easier. If you use a single battletome all the rules for that faction tend to be within them as well.

Except for those faction were the book was outdated a week after it got released

In Warmachine or AoS? I haven't really kept up with Warmachine and MK3 there is some heavy grumbling, but I've yet to see the system yet if someone has gotten outdated. For AoS the only thing I would figure that would be outdated is the new style after Sylvaneth that adds new Allegiance stuff.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

In Warmachine or AoS? [...]. For AoS the only thing I would figure that would be outdated is the new style after Sylvaneth that adds new Allegiance stuff.

AoS, Sig-Marines and Undead got new formations and units right after their book was out.
Now they are uoutdated as a whole and only nice for background stories

 kodos wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

In Warmachine or AoS? [...]. For AoS the only thing I would figure that would be outdated is the new style after Sylvaneth that adds new Allegiance stuff.

AoS, Sig-Marines and Undead got new formations and units right after their book was out.
Now they are uoutdated as a whole and only nice for background stories

What units are outdated? For the formations I figure you are talking about the Campaign books? Might want to actually give a bit more detail.

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

I imagine he is right, to a degree. The Vedros pack does seem like a good little starter set similar to Dark Vengence, but with paints! From a buisness standpoint they will release 8th edition with a starter pack. But whether it is Vedros remains to be seen. As there have been no leaks on 8th edition rulebook though, I imagine it may be a later starter pack than Vedros.

Also, how is guessing the starter pack they are releasing 8th edition with scaremongering?

The scaremongering element is in the phrase "8th edition is just going to be Vedros"

First, that's not at all what I wrote. As you quoted above, I wrote that "40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros." "Derived from" is different from "just going to be". You are derived from your mother; you are not going to be your mother.

Second, it's not scaremongering in the least. I think the coming simplification and streamlining of 40k will only be a good thing. 7E is worse than 2E, and it needs to be pruned back.

Meh...close enough, I'm not going to argue semantics. The fact remains though that you've nothing to back up your claims. I agree the rules needs to be simplified, but I don't agree that the game itself needs simplification. That's what Vedros is essentially, a dumbed down version of the game aimed at 8 year olds.

No, it's not "close enough". You deliberately misquoted me. That is a LIE.

BTW, Thanks for the PM where you wrote: "Dude, I'm sorry about being totally stupid and wrong in the 8E thread". Well, with that PM, I accept your apology. Close enough, right?

I don't engage in discussions with people who break rule 1.

That's good, because I won't engage with people who falsely quote others. Good day to you.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros.

40k will still have "points" of some sort, even though they don't really like to play that way internally.

The 40k background & lore will stay..

That's one hell of a claim to make, got anything to back it up?

As I see it, I'm merely stating the obvious, based on what we've seen to date.

I still think that's a hell of a leap to make, and frankly smacks of scaremongering. We've had no indication that Vedros is a test bed for 8th edition. Frankly we've had evidence to the contrary. For one thing rumour mongers have been saying the design team are already working on 8th edition. Vedros has barely hit the shelves, so as test bed, it would be a pretty poor one...either that or the design team have a time machine.

Secondly, Vedros is aimed at a completely different audience, to the kind of gamers and hobbyists that play 40k and keep GWs finances afloat. If anything Vedros is a complete spin off of the game. It's simplicity is such that you'd not be able to fit in the range of models and races currently available.

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

I imagine he is right, to a degree. The Vedros pack does seem like a good little starter set similar to Dark Vengence, but with paints! From a buisness standpoint they will release 8th edition with a starter pack. But whether it is Vedros remains to be seen. As there have been no leaks on 8th edition rulebook though, I imagine it may be a later starter pack than Vedros.

Also, how is guessing the starter pack they are releasing 8th edition with scaremongering?

The scaremongering element is in the phrase "8th edition is just going to be Vedros"

First, that's not at all what I wrote. As you quoted above, I wrote that "40k 8E rules will be derived from Battle for Vedros." "Derived from" is different from "just going to be". You are derived from your mother; you are not going to be your mother.

Second, it's not scaremongering in the least. I think the coming simplification and streamlining of 40k will only be a good thing. 7E is worse than 2E, and it needs to be pruned back.

Meh...close enough, I'm not going to argue semantics. The fact remains though that you've nothing to back up your claims. I agree the rules needs to be simplified, but I don't agree that the game itself needs simplification. That's what Vedros is essentially, a dumbed down version of the game aimed at 8 year olds.

No, it's not "close enough". You deliberately misquoted me. That is a LIE.

BTW, Thanks for the PM where you wrote: "Dude, I'm sorry about being totally stupid and wrong in the 8E thread". Well, with that PM, I accept your apology. Close enough, right?

I don't engage in discussions with people who break rule 1.

That's good, because I won't engage with people who falsely quote others. Good day to you.

I just like pyramid quoting.

pyramids are the worst

ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
At the end of the day I don't care if they're streamlined or not, I just want them to be good and offer a level of tactical depth commensurate with the length of the rulebook.

And for the love of all that is cute and fluffy, even an attempt at balance would be appreciated.

I think the only way we ever see any semblance of balance is to make those previous codices and dataslates from various campaign books incompatible with the new edition. Like 3rd edition and AoS, this is going to infuriate a lot of the existing fan base. Free digital rules/dataslates for those old units/formations would keep the fanbase from completely rioting, but there would still be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

More like what 6th Ed. WFB did, provide a small book of army lists which were all balanced with each other. I still stand with 6th Ed. with Ravening Hordes as the most balanced WFB you will ever play.

3rd 40K had the same with the lists in the book. It wasn't until the Codices came out that the imbalance started. That, and Gav Thorpe.

Brutus_Apex wrote:

John makes some great points. We know that no matter what the game is being simplified. I've also heard from speculators that there could be two version of 8th. One like default AoS and the other like the generals handbook. AoS's rules were never its problem. The lack of points were. It's models have always been simply outstanding. Even better than a lot of 40k models in my opinion.

AOS's rules were always, and still are a problem. The lack of points was just a slap in the face to everyone who ever wanted some remote semblance of balance or competitive play.

I'd argue that it's actually easier to have special rules in different places. Especially in the style of the war scrolls. Non USR for units are much easier to find than the USRs for particular units. In the new style of codecies special rules for units are found in their army list profile, which is kind of like a one stop shop for all things detailing that specific unit. Take an Eldar Pheonix lord. They've got a buttload of USRs and one or two unique ones. Which are easier to find? The unique ones that are right on the actual page for the unit, or the one where I have to go to the glossary in the BRB to find the right page for, and scan through half a dozen other rules?

It's not so much that I dislike the idea of a warscroll. I'm fine with having a units stats and rules laid out in front of me. It's the idea that every unit has individual rules to essentially represent the same thing. USR should be in the main rule book and laid out in an organized fashion, and any unit that has that special rule could have it on the warscroll. Currently there are like 50 different types of shields in AOS, why can't a shield and it's rules be present in the main rules so everyone knows what it does. It's just messy and all over the place. Just have everything laid out in the main rules, and then add them onto the warscroll if it's applicable to the unit.

Not even competitive play. Simple pick up games were a Herculean task when typically you fight for table space at the local club in the first place. The last thing you need is an hour or more deciding on how you're going to play the game before you play the game.

I really don't think 40K needs that right now. And honestly, one quick press release from GW stating that Unbound can be played without points would be enough without needing another edition.











I really am glad I retrogame, this wouldn't motivate me to leave the house to play, let alone buy and paint models for new armies.

Why can't they just stay different games.. 40k is fun and if it changes I'm not going to learn a different game just to keep some semblance of what I used to have fun with. I'll just find a different way to spend my money

I hated AoS when it first came out (mostly because of fluff changes and round bases) but once I accepted that I couldn't change it back, I actually started playing it. And if you ask me, I will tell you that it is the BEST game GW currently makes (apart from The Horus Heresy). The only things missing from WHFB were the Lores of Magic, which have been added, and more customization options (such as Magical Items), which have been... added. Oh, and points, which have been added. Even round bases have grown on me, I probably won't rebate my whole army, but all my new units are on round bases.

Honestly the way to go is with 40k is just to adopt the 30k rules with 3 HQ and more balanced armies. It would help GW sales too, if they balance things people will just run what they think looks cool. But don't make it like AoS. Some of your old rules need to stay.


Hope someone reads this.

Peace out

Ember

Ecdain wrote:
Why can't they just stay different games.. 40k is fun and if it changes I'm not going to learn a different game just to keep some semblance of what I used to have fun with. I'll just find a different way to spend my money

I don't think anybody has suggested they use the same rules (in fact, I have stated personally I want 40K to remain its own game). The gist is more about adopting some of the design choices made with AoS, like smaller, simpler core rule book, more complete dataslates, free unit rules and digital application, etc.

This morning, the Bell says we're getting a streamlined 8E, with some AoS influences, for new players, but not full AoS. Which should have been what everybody expected, and what I specifically called out as BfV-like. We'll see for sure come 2Q next year.

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
.

Honestly the way to go is with 40k is just to adopt the 30k rules with 3 HQ and more balanced armies. It would help GW sales too, if they balance things people will just run what they think looks cool. But don't make it like AoS. Some of your old rules need to stay.

Doesn't HH use the same rules as 7th edition 40K? Seems the only real difference between the two are detachment restrictions and lack of non-imperial-based armies. Is HH balanced because of its core rules or because every army effectively has access to the same gear and unit types?

Honestly, as longs as the dark angels dont get dicked over and i can still use my ravenwing and deathwing army with out them being some crappy warscroll crap, ill be A ok.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This morning, the Bell says we're getting a streamlined 8E, with some AoS influences, for new players, but not full AoS. Which should have been what everybody expected, and what I specifically called out as BfV-like. We'll see for sure come 2Q next year.

Ehhhhh well lets be honest, The bell just shoots in the dark. you shoot enough times your gonna hit something. So anything they say i take with a grain of salt.

That said, i think the best way to stream line is with the formations as is, IE, This formation gets this rule, or this faction gets this rule globally. Kinda like dark angels get grim resolve globally.

For the most part if you are running all formations its really easy to know the rules.

Where rules get gaky is when you start bring in all the weird rules that play off each other, like shouded stealth, infiltrate and scout, the rules for deep striking. And more importantly the lack of clarity on the rules.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
.

Honestly the way to go is with 40k is just to adopt the 30k rules with 3 HQ and more balanced armies. It would help GW sales too, if they balance things people will just run what they think looks cool. But don't make it like AoS. Some of your old rules need to stay.

Doesn't HH use the same rules as 7th edition 40K? Seems the only real difference between the two are detachment restrictions and lack of non-imperial-based armies. Is HH balanced because of its core rules or because every army effectively has access to the same gear and unit types?

Pretty much that, though there was some imbalances (Sons of Horus had the most overcosted troops and rules for a while)

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Honestly, as longs as the dark angels dont get dicked over and i can still use my ravenwing and deathwing army with out them being some crappy warscroll crap, ill be A ok.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This morning, the Bell says we're getting a streamlined 8E, with some AoS influences, for new players, but not full AoS. Which should have been what everybody expected, and what I specifically called out as BfV-like. We'll see for sure come 2Q next year.

Ehhhhh well lets be honest, The bell just shoots in the dark. you shoot enough times your gonna hit something. So anything they say i take with a grain of salt.

Sure, no argument there...

Some parts of the system could be streamlined without hurting the game. Having all of the special snowflake rules and formations that have been printed in 30 different places all contained in the rulebooks and codices would be a great start. It's almost impossible for a newer player to play without trying to find OOP supplements, dataslates, rules sheets from old boxed sets and back issues of White Dwarf to figure out all of the rules for his units. I would hope that 8e would get everything in one place for one brief moment. Right now, I play 40K because I enjoy the game. I like chucking lots of dice. I like having different types of units that require different strategies to use. I like the different flavors of the armies. I like the fact that some armies are strong in certain areas, but have weaknesses. That requires smart play to use your strong points to their best advantage while covering your weaknesses. I like how most of the units and factions are different from each other, and how they relate to the backstory. I like the fact that the game has enough complexity to stay interesting through several hundred games with the same army.

Age of Sigmar lost most of that. I can tolerate some cleaning up of the rules. Even a bit of streamlining and simplification wouldn't hurt the game. I hope they don't touch the basic combat system, as it is the heart of the game, and provides a lot of the "personality" that distinguishes 40k from the other hundreds of fanciful wargames out there. They need to leave the basics of the shooting phase, wounds, saves charging, overwatch, assaults and the like reasonably intact. The basic feel of the game is quite fun right now. If it stops being fun, challenging and exciting, I will take my money and find another game to spend it on.

I won't play Warhammer Candyland!

They should do a digital rules subscription which includes like three armies core rules and an army builder for like 7.99 a month then just change stuff as they want.

For 7.99 a month you should get everything.

I would rather pay the one time fee and always have access.

GoblinChow wrote:
Age of Sigmar lost most of that. I can tolerate some cleaning up of the rules. Even a bit of streamlining and simplification wouldn't hurt the game. I hope they don't touch the basic combat system, as it is the heart of the game, and provides a lot of the "personality" that distinguishes 40k from the other hundreds of fanciful wargames out there. They need to leave the basics of the shooting phase, wounds, saves charging, overwatch, assaults and the like reasonably intact. The basic feel of the game is quite fun right now. If it stops being fun, challenging and exciting, I will take my money and find another game to spend it on.

Have you played AoS? It plays pretty much exactly like GW/40k with the same core move-shoot-save combat mechanics, but it's just a lot cleaner.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

GoblinChow wrote:
Age of Sigmar lost most of that. I can tolerate some cleaning up of the rules. Even a bit of streamlining and simplification wouldn't hurt the game. I hope they don't touch the basic combat system, as it is the heart of the game, and provides a lot of the "personality" that distinguishes 40k from the other hundreds of fanciful wargames out there. They need to leave the basics of the shooting phase, wounds, saves charging, overwatch, assaults and the like reasonably intact. The basic feel of the game is quite fun right now. If it stops being fun, challenging and exciting, I will take my money and find another game to spend it on.

Have you played AoS? It plays pretty much exactly like GW/40k with the same core move-shoot-save combat mechanics, but it's just a lot cleaner.

I personally don't feel the two games play or feel anything alike, outside of the most basic of mechanics (ie, d6 rolls, move/shoot/charge/assault basic framework). The devil is in the details I guess, as the way magic, charging, assault, dealing damage, and turn order work in AoS is so vastly different from 40K (and really I'm glad, they need to stay different).

In my perfect world, we'd get the 40K dataslate version of warscrolls, with unit and weapon rules fully self contained (and freely available). Codexes would be used for fluff and formation/detachments. We'd get the AoS casualty selection rules and eliminate unit sub-types outside of IC/MC/Vehicle (which is really just a tag for special rules) and just keep the unit sub-type style rules on the dataslate. The Psychic phase should be modified to tone it down a bit, maybe work more like the AoS version.

And for the love of all that is holy, keep the base-to-base measurement method vs model-to-model (which even AoS players don't use if possible).

I tried AoS, but it had such a pared down feel. It did have the same basic mechanics, but it felt a lot like Dungeons and Dragons 4e. In D&D 4e, it felt like every character class used the same mechanics with a couple of numbers adjusted and the names of the skills and attributes changed a bit. It felt like we were just repeating the same actions over with different numbers. 4e lost the connection between the story and the mechanics.

A friend came over with his Dark Eldars a couple of nights ago, and you could really feel the difference between the way his units and my units worked. You could feel the fluff in the combat system. The really tough Marines vs. the fast and fragile Eldar and the even faster and more fragile Harlequins. I never got that feel in AoS. It just ended up feeling like a neat little mathmatical dice rolling odds game with some nicely painted figures. Enough of the crunchy details and differences were gone. My experience in AoS was running somebody elses army, so I may not have been as attached to my units, but the whole game just seemed a bit more generic. I had to sell off my original Warhammer figures (All pre 40k) back when the kids were born, so I was actually more interested in the fantasy side of things when I returned. AoS should have really grabbed my heart, but it never did. I think the combat system in 40K combines with the characters and units well enough so that you can imagine different units as having different styles and personalities. Nothing in AoS gave me that thrill. (In all fairness, AoS had just gotten started at the time, and it may have developed some flavor in the meantime, but my initial experience left me flat.

OK, fair enough.