I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

We AoS "fanboys" are tired of 40k fanboys being snide snobs thinking that a "standard" game lasting 4 hours and ending with a royal head-ache is cool and hammering how cool it is. We are also tired of people not knowing how to play (because I've seen little to no deathstars in this game, so please explain me in what they consisted) and whinning about it (but you're right that archers shooting in meele is a mess, my only complain). And don't get me started on the self-projection of yours with the "deathstars" part as there are a LOT of lists in 40k being basically deathstars (superfriends anyone?).

There is lots wrong with 40k

The rules are bloated and a mess - look at Walkers vs Monsterous Creatures alone.

The Army books are the same - the rules for a single faction are now often spread across codexes, campaign packs, supplements, exclusive packs etc - then multiply by how many allies you use.

The balance is shot to pieces - both in terms of army versus army and internally. There are Power Codexes that tower above the others - Necrons, Tau, Marines and Eldar - that then haev formation bonuses heaped on top to make the other codexes even worse.

Randomness has spread to too mamny areas of both army creation and in game.

All of this needs addressing.

Are you sure you read it? Just checking because at least one thing you said was not what they wrote. The "doing away with strength and toughness" bit. The article says they're making changes to those stats and some other core mechanics.

Also, we've heard from other rumor sources such as Sad Panda that indeed it will NOT be an AOS-style game, simply streamlined, again, as stated in the article that has you outraged. Please refrain from fearmongering.

I also agree that it's great that every game of 40k teaches you something new. I just dislike that the new thing is typically a rule.

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

AoS was a botched execution of a good idea, a signature GW move.

40k is a bloated mess of a ruleset that is suffocating under its own weight. It has no idea what scale it wants to play at, and ends up being a company level wargame built around platoon level rules with gobs of unnecessary squad and individual level detail. The rules are spread over so many different sources that collecting them all is almost impossible and would cost several thousand dollars ar this point.

D&D works with complex rules because its scale is limited. You have a part of 3-5 adventurers with a DM and typically a similar number of enemies, and the DM actively manages everything. 40k can have 50x+ as many elements to keep track of, with no DM to manage anything. Why on earth 40k insists on worrying about what type of blade an individual infantryman's power weapon has, and has rules for duels amidst a battle between tank companies and the like is beyond me. Why is wound allocation done on a per model basis when actions, upgrades, and the like are done on a squad basis? All sorts of funk and weirdness in the 40k ruleset could use some cleaning up or complete renovation.

40k is in desperate need of a rebooted ruleset. Nobody wants a repeat of AoS, and I'm sure GW will bungle it like are wont to do, but if you look at the other successful wargames out now, they all have dramatically simpler rules. One can look at Dropzone Commander, Infinity, Warmahordes, Malifaux, etc and see that games can be just as deep or deeper without the minutae 40k gets itself lost in. In fact, as a tactical battle simulator, an actual wargame, 40k is about as thin and simple as they come, tactics are simple and straightforward, and offer very little real depth in most cases, but are buried beneath multiple layers of stat happy rules.

A 40k reboot cant come fast enough, I just dont think GW are the right people to handle that

Put simply?
No, no sigmarification, GW learned the folly of that
Second, two new codexes just came out, so I doupt anythin will change that much.
40k is fine as is andjust needs a few tweaks here and there with codexes needing to be lifted up.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Put simply?
No, no sigmarification, GW learned the folly of that
Second, two new codexes just came out, so I doupt anythin will change that much.
40k is fine as is andjust needs a few tweaks here and there with codexes needing to be lifted up.

I don't think GW would be beyond releasing all new Codices. I will point to the End Times where many books were released in a short time and quickly became outdated. We are seeing a lot of new books being released just like The End Times.

Its not like they havent released codex books that were made partially or totally obsolete near a new edition before. The 2E Sisters of Battle book being probably the most egregious example.

I'm honestly not totally against simplification of rules, and listing essential stats on unit types.

Though, to be honest, I have but a passing knowledge of AOS. That being said, I think the #1 thing I do NOT want to see in new 40k is wounding on a set value.

A grot wounding a guardman or a bloodthirster on a set value is a little silly to me. I think they try to mitigate this on large monsters by giving them boatloads of HP, but I think that's an inelegant solution.

I suppose you could make the same argument for grots hitting guardsmen or bloodthirsters on the same value, though, which AOS also does.

IDK. Some simplification would not necessarily be a bad thing. I just hope they don't go full pants-on-head stupid again and cut points costs and just say 'bring whatever you want!".

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

IDK. Some simplification would not necessarily be a bad thing. I just hope they don't go full pants-on-head stupid again and cut points costs and just say 'bring whatever you want!".

With current 40k its almost there given the detachment/allies rules and formation freebies.

Simpler is better game design. You want complexity in interaction not complexity of mechanics.

A games rules should be fast and fluid. Intuitive. As little rule book checking and chart checking as possible.

From those mechanics there should be a lot of what is referred to as emergent game play and counter play. Emergent game play is when 2 or more rules cause interactions that are not explicitly stated but emerge from the way they interact.

Simple rules, complex interaction.

People who are worried about the sigmarifcation of 40k think it's just going to be a copy paste of the sigmar rules, but that seems like an oversimplification. There are lots of good ideas in AoS, and more than a couple of bad ones, but the same could be said for 40k. Here are some areas I think 40k could benefit from taking some ideas from AoS:

Rend - AP is a horrible mechanic, this weapon is 100% effective at bypassing armor or it isn't at all. Rend allows a more organic way of dealing with this concept.

Cover benefits - in AoS being in cover gives a benefit to your armor save (+1 generally), which when combined with the rend change gives even space marines a reason to seek out good firing positions rather than standing in the open. This would require modifying saves so that space marines (and their equivalents) have a 4+, and terminators and such have a 3+. Marines would of course have two or more wounds a piece, because they are supposed to be tough, more on that in the next section.

Toughness as wounds instead of layers of defenses or absurd saves - there are currently 4 types of saves in 40k, and rerolls for some of them, and some of them can be stacked. That's not even counting defenses like invis, or toughness buffs. It's this nasty rats nest of rules that was intended to add nuance, but in the end just adds complication and makes the system vulnerable to exploitation. AoS just piles wounds on things that are supposed to be able to take sustained fire. It's simple and much harder to exploit to get things like superfriends.

Multiple profiles for for MC and vehicles based on wounds taken - Picking up from the last point, we have this lame vehicle damage chart, but no equivalent for MCs. The intent is to reflect damage taken over the course of the battle, and I think it's a mechanic that would be as valid for a carnifex as a leman russ battle tank. You reflect that by a diminishing stat line as wounds accumulate. This gets rid of the fine until dead problem MCs have right now which is one of the things that make them flat better than vehicles.

Alternating activations - AoS only took this half way, with alternating activations in the fight subphase, but it's a complete no brainer. Taking turns activating units adds a lot of tactical depth, and doesn't leave one player sitting on his hands for 15 - 20 minutes. There should also be some seizing the initiative mechanic that allows units with high initiative more flexibility in activations.

Fixed to hit rolls - It's a simplification, and allows certain weapons to be more or less accurate as a means of balance/diversification.

Things I do not want to see from AoS in 40k

Fixed to wound rolls - Strength vs. toughness reflects the wide variety of weapons and targets available in a Sci-Fi setting. This also means that wounds won't have to be as crazy in 40k as they are in AoS, where things regularly topped 20 wounds.

Shooting shenanigans - yeah, we all kind of think this is dumb, I wouldn't be opposed to snap firing into melee for units not engaged, but certainly not people in melee shooting out.

Destroying the setting - This was an awful decision, no bones about it. The 40k setting is one of the most cherished settings in all of fiction, and it would be heresy to mangle it like they did to fantasy.

Stupid terrain rules - This was horrendous, and nobody I played with rolled on the chart, it made it silly instead of tactical, that every rock flower or tree was "Magic".

Rolling for turns - this was a horrible idea rejected by the community, and rightly so.

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

Current game could be cleaner. I actually like the "core" rules for 40K quite a bit, but the multiple layers of special rules hurt the game overall.

 Grimgold wrote:

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations arent making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Formations are also a really bad way of balancing armies post facto instead of just fixing the codex books, even if GW is actually attempting to use them as a balancing mechanism (as opposed to the more likely sales aspect), its another case of GW seemingly going out of their way to find the most ridiculous and ineffective way possible instead of just directly addressing the codex issues.

bob82ca wrote:
What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design?

Because simpler is always better, everything else being equal. Complexity is a bad thing, it makes the game harder to learn and makes it much more likely that you'll have balance issues and/or broken rule interactions. But it's the price you pay for including the things that you want. For example, if you add vehicles to your infantry skirmish game you're going to have to increase the complexity of your game by adding vehicle rules. The problem with 40k is that it has tons of complexity but gets nothing in return for that complexity. You have a billion rules to remember and execute every turn, but it's still a very shallow game in a strategic sense. You could delete a lot of those extra rules and lose nothing in gameplay.

Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons).

D&D is a bad game that, like 40k, benefits from the "critical mass" factor where it's the game that everyone knows so new players get introduced to it first and it continues to be the game that everyone knows. And some of D&D's biggest problems come in when someone shows up with a dozen different supplements, each with some obscure rule that makes their character idea even more broken.

Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game.

This is not a good thing.

In a good game you learn new things about strategy each time you played. Your opponent does something you weren't expecting, and you learn how to out-think them in the future. But in 40k most of the time the new thing you learn is some form of "I didn't know this rule existed". And that isn't a good experience.

Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic.

They really aren't. Overwatch is the perfect example of excessive complexity and rules bloat. Hitting on 6s means that you're spending a lot of time rolling dice for little, if any, gain. And you don't give up anything to fire overwatch so there's no strategic decision involved, it's just another set of dice to roll to resolve a charge. Even a very basic improvement, like a unit that fires overwatch not being able to attack at all in combat if the charge is successful, would at least make it more than just a tedious exercise in dice rolling.

And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

Nobody wants to do this.

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

The fact that games other than 40k are currently growing and even threatening GW's position in the market pretty strongly suggests that the problem is not with a lack of a market. GW is just failing to convince the market to buy their stuff.

I'd be okay with simpler rules as long as the story is not advanced like with Fantasy. The game could be made simpler but I still want it to be 40k.

Where is the rumours that we will lose strength and toughness values and that we will get warscrolls. I have just skimmed through several BoLS and SpikyBits rumour pages; they mention being more streamlined but no mention of no T or Str. If there truely is a rumour page suggesting this please do link it, if not this post seems like a bit of an over reaction to the word 'streamline'.

I don't think it's that the rules are too complicated or bloated, that's a miscalculation on GWs part and a misunderstanding of some players. GW has never been smart about listening to their players, if they had they'd have heard for the last 20 years "stop writing crappy rules." That's what's wrong with 40k, it's not too bloated or complicated, it's just a poorly constructed rule set.

Seriously does anyone here who plays GW not know as common knowledge that any new codex is going to have laughably bad, contradictory, broken, and missing rules that someone who's played the game for a month can spot right away yet somehow GW sent it to press?

Their sales did decline partially do to video games, but i feel like a bigger part is that some of us don't want to have to bring or fight against the same tired two lists of super OP unit spam, that's not fun. They're bleeding players that want to be able to build a list that is with models they like and have a fun game beyond just winning for winnings sake. That combined with overpricing models, total lack of community support. Remember when GW was active with their community and their website had more than just a store?

Their codex power is all over place, some armies languish multiple editions old while others get a new codex twice a year. They have no consistency between them, no inner consistency.

I think if they put together a good rules team, really play tested the thing, took player feedback and tried to write good rules instead of just write rules with their only goal being to make you buy certain high profit margin models they'd get back a lot of the wallet share they lost.

 Vaktathi wrote:
except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations aren't making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Necrons got a few formations, but they are all demonstrably worse than a decurion. With that said, yes, they release more formations for popular armies, but it's not exactly surprising that they are milking their cash cows. Outside of the sky hammer annihilation force and riptide wing (and seriously wtf were they thinking on those) most of the formations are roughly on par or a bit worse than existing formations. Orks got some new formations that made them much more competitive, and the chaos formations may not have made them top tier but it made them much better. Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

People who argue against some form of post hoc balance maintenance can't get past their dislike of specific formations to take in the larger picture. It's like you expect them to nail the rules balance every codex, which is unrealistic, and barring some form of subscription based living rules system post hoc is the only way to fix balance issues.

 Peregrine wrote:


D&D is a bad game that, like 40k, benefits from the "critical mass" factor where it's the game that everyone knows so new players get introduced to it first and it continues to be the game that everyone knows. And some of D&D's biggest problems come in when someone shows up with a dozen different supplements, each with some obscure rule that makes their character idea even more broken.

I am going to say as a D&D DM. I lay the rules out up front, with a list of books/races/classes/ect that you can use. Because this is my game and my world you are playing in and if you want to join you have to stay inside my guidelines for the most part. Other than that it is D&D as normal.

Also if a character winds up with something completely game breaking, it is my fault as a DM.

40k is more of a free for all in what people bring. Plus there is a bit more of a monetary value to you army you bring as opposed to your Half-Elf/Vampire/Dragonborn you whipped up in 30 mins, people tend to be more upset about their $100 + model they purchased and spend weeks painting and now being told they cannot use it because FW or something silly.

bob82ca wrote:

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish.

In fairness, there's some issues with basic rules

Twin-linked/re-roll shooting misses is so common it makes the BS stat nearly obsolete.

Armour saves are likewise pointless in many cases.

Power weapons are a mess. If, like 3rd, the were still quite rare and just ignored armour saves, that could work. In that case, the ignoring armor saves would be balanced by the rareness.

About overwatch, i always thought it would be better if a unit could choose to enter over watch.

Shooting phase. You can shoot, you can run, you can overwatch.

Overwatch allows you to shoot durring the enemys turn, after a unit finishes moving, at full bs, and half range.

All units begin the game in overwatch to prevent first turn deepstrike alpha strikes.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations aren't making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Necrons got a few formations, but they are all demonstrably worse than a decurion.

I'd consider the Decurion a formation itself really, and its only what, a little over a year and a half old?

With that said, yes, they release more formations for popular armies, but it's not exactly surprising that they are milking their cash cows. Outside of the sky hammer annihilation force and riptide wing (and seriously wtf were they thinking on those) most of the formations are roughly on par or a bit worse than existing formations. Orks got some new formations that made them much more competitive, and the chaos formations may not have made them top tier but it made them much better. Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

Many of these armies have gone years without updates however, and were released with immediately noticeable issues, or when they did get recent updates GW didnt do anything to fix the core issues except add formations.

Its like...what was the point of doing Traitors Hate with its formations instead of just redoing the 4 year old 6E CSM codex...? It might make CSM's a *bit* better, but all those core fundamental big issues remain unchanged.

People who argue against some form of post hoc balance maintenance can't get past their dislike of specific formations to take in the larger picture. It's like you expect them to nail the rules balance every codex, which is unrealistic, and barring some form of subscription based living rules system post hoc is the only way to fix balance issues.

I dont like the concept of free formations fundamentally, it doesnt really have anything to do with specific formations, even if the benefits are minor, if we're playing around a points centric balance system, the benefits of formations should cost something. Beyond that, there's really nothing in the "meat and potatoes" that shows any attempt at such mechanisms operating to balance anything. The strong armies remain just as strong, the weak armies remain proportionally weak. Formations arent allowing CSM's to compete on anything near equal footing with Eldar for example, who got two codex books since the last CSM codex was released and got dialed up to 11 each time, outrageous formations included in particular with the latest one (like making aspect warriors you were gonna take anyway BS5, on top of their other new buffs like AP0 Fire Dragons, for zero cost).


Nobody expects perfect balance, but there's nothing even remotely resembling the attempt here really with Formations, particularly when they get tied to web bundles as sales hooks. Far too many things that are plainly broken or worthless at even a momentary glance from the most casual of players get through, and no attempt is ever made to rectify those issues.Meanwhile the "ho-hum" formations just seem like afterthought phone in filler material to get the page count up to where they want it.

Formations are one of the worst things about 40k right now. More than anything they need to go. I want real actual open list building. Not free or paid for rules that encourage monobuilds.

 Grimgold wrote:
Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

There's a third option: errata. The only reason to set up a false dilemma between "buy a new codex every few months" and "break and/or bloat the game with formations" is if you assume that all rules, including updates to rules, must be paid for as part of a $50 book. If you get rid of that assumption you can release balance updates for free as often as you like.

And, honestly, if making a new codex every few months is a "complete non-starter" then so is having to buy a new campaign book every few months. Both are "buy a new book or your army sucks", and putting "supplement" on the cover instead of "codex" doesn't matter.

Honestly here are my theory's about what's going to happen with 40k and now this is just a brief over view of it so take this lightly

-no mor WS just a you hit on X
- AP change in that AP will now only modify your save. IE AP 2 adds 3 to your armor roll or something.
-formations are here to stay


Just a few things

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

There's a third option: errata. The only reason to set up a false dilemma between "buy a new codex every few months" and "break and/or bloat the game with formations" is if you assume that all rules, including updates to rules, must be paid for as part of a $50 book. If you get rid of that assumption you can release balance updates for free as often as you like.

And, honestly, if making a new codex every few months is a "complete non-starter" then so is having to buy a new campaign book every few months. Both are "buy a new book or your army sucks", and putting "supplement" on the cover instead of "codex" doesn't matter.

They did an errata, and it was a fething mess. There should never be a case where a set of rules that supersede the rules you currently have, or else you have a situation like what happened to a good friend of mine where he went to a game with a shiny new librarius conclave, and found out it was gutted by an errata and that his rule book was wrong. It's not a hard concept, every book needs to stand on it's own in regards to future supplements in that future supplements can not change existing rules. if this is not the case Codexes are worthless, as the printed material can be invalidated at any point without your knowledge.

Let me ask this, what would it take to convince you that some form of post hoc balancing needs to occur, and that erratas are a monumentally bad idea outside of game breaking oversites/typos. If the answer is there is no amount of evidence or logic that will change your mind, lets just stop there, because a lot of people on here aren't interested in having a conversation and then making up their mind, and instead just want to bitch, which us fine it's a free forum but I'd prefer not to waste my time on them.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations arent making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Formations are also a really bad way of balancing armies post facto instead of just fixing the codex books, even if GW is actually attempting to use them as a balancing mechanism (as opposed to the more likely sales aspect), its another case of GW seemingly going out of their way to find the most ridiculous and ineffective way possible instead of just directly addressing the codex issues.

I disagree. There are some nice formations in traitors hate and some sleepers. Cant comment on other factions.

Table wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

except...the best armies are getting the best formations and the worst ones are largely getting the worst formations or no formations. There's nothing to show that GW is actually using formations as anything but sales mechanisms. Formations arent making armies like CSM's or DE or IG meaningfully more viable against Eldar or Necrons or SM's, while formations for the latter three just make the power gap even bigger.

Formations are also a really bad way of balancing armies post facto instead of just fixing the codex books, even if GW is actually attempting to use them as a balancing mechanism (as opposed to the more likely sales aspect), its another case of GW seemingly going out of their way to find the most ridiculous and ineffective way possible instead of just directly addressing the codex issues.

I disagree. There are some nice formations in traitors hate and some sleepers. Cant comment on other factions.

The issue is in comparison to other formations they are not that hot.

Take DA lions blade, you can make an 1850 bare bones lions blade strike force which ends up haveing 30 tac marines, 10 assault marines, 10 devastatos, scouts, a company master and a Chaplin. But the real beauty of it? I can then take 10 razor backs for free, every single MODEL, even the razor backs, get objective secure, everything gets to also fire at full BS in over watch.

So compared to things like that, new formations arnt that great .

 Grimgold wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Without formations or something like them the only way to tune an army is new units or a new codex, and new units have a significant lead up time, and new codexes that invalidate the existing codexes every few months is a complete non-starter.

There's a third option: errata. The only reason to set up a false dilemma between "buy a new codex every few months" and "break and/or bloat the game with formations" is if you assume that all rules, including updates to rules, must be paid for as part of a $50 book. If you get rid of that assumption you can release balance updates for free as often as you like.

And, honestly, if making a new codex every few months is a "complete non-starter" then so is having to buy a new campaign book every few months. Both are "buy a new book or your army sucks", and putting "supplement" on the cover instead of "codex" doesn't matter.

They did an errata, and it was a fething mess. There should never be a case where a set of rules that supersede the rules you currently have, or else you have a situation like what happened to a good friend of mine where he went to a game with a shiny new librarius conclave, and found out it was gutted by an errata and that his rule book was wrong. It's not a hard concept, every book needs to stand on it's own in regards to future supplements in that future supplements can not change existing rules. if this is not the case Codexes are worthless, as the printed material can be invalidated at any point without your knowledge.

Let me ask this, what would it take to convince you that some form of post hoc balancing needs to occur, and that erratas are a monumentally bad idea outside of game breaking oversites/typos. If the answer is there is no amount of evidence or logic that will change your mind, lets just stop there, because a lot of people on here aren't interested in having a conversation and then making up their mind, and instead just want to bitch, which us fine it's a free forum but I'd prefer not to waste my time on them.

Sorry but thats nonsense - if the game or costs or units are not working you have to change them. Many games do this to make them better.

I do not know a single game system where there was not errata to correct errors either straight mistakes, printing errors or due to balance.

If you want to play games where there are cheesy exploits that can never be corrected thats a sad state of affiairs.

Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I don't mind complexity in a game. However, what I do not like is taking a simple game (i.e. 3rd edition 40K) and then piling on 15 years of bloat, making it into a complex game.

If you're going to do a complex game, make it complex from the beginning - at the core rules. This means that army lists and entries can be simplified while the game is still as complex as people want/like.

It's borderline comical listening to podcasts about new 40K releases:

"Well this is the new HQ unit. He has immaculate ejaculation, eternal consternation, feel no popsicle, 'they shall know no pandas', blessed fecality, and glorious cream cheese..."

They really, desperately need to get rid of the dozens upon dozens of special rules and simply rely on stat lines again. Rules can be more complex across the board, but I can imagine the frustration of a new player showing up to a game and running into a wall of:

"Oh, he doesn't suffer instant death because..."
"Oh, he ignores any enemy weapons AP2 or less..."
"Oh, he always gets cover, even in the open..."
"Oh, he can't suffer more than one wound..."
"Oh, he comes back to life even when he's killed..."
"Oh, he ignored all of your special rules agains him..."
"Oh, he can't be hurt by X, Y or Z..."
"Oh, you suffer Terror if you try to attack him..."

I'm exaggerating, slightly but you get the point. There's a fundamental problem with your game when you stick to the core mechanics for way too long - so long that you have to start creating an enless list of rules which break those exact core mechanics --- because the design has locked you into a narrow box of outcomes/possibilities.

Lord Kragan wrote:

We AoS "fanboys" are tired of 40k fanboys being snide snobs thinking that a "standard" game lasting 4 hours and ending with a royal head-ache is cool and hammering how cool it is. We are also tired of people not knowing how to play (because I've seen little to no deathstars in this game, so please explain me in what they consisted) and whinning about it (but you're right that archers shooting in meele is a mess, my only complain). And don't get me started on the self-projection of yours with the "deathstars" part as there are a LOT of lists in 40k being basically deathstars (superfriends anyone?).

i've had a bit of a thought about the whole archers into combat thing and i reckon that it should be if you rolled and missed the missed ones should be wounds against your own models.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers? That isn't to say they haven't made significant changes to armies, but they do so by adding new units or redoing a codex (or the equivalent) or during an edition switch over. The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes. People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains. You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements, with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

 Grimgold wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers? That isn't to say they haven't made significant changes to armies, but they do so by adding new units or redoing a codex (or the equivalent) or during an edition switch over. The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes. People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains. You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements, with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

To be fair, those companies are not dealing with the same scale as warhammer games are.

And your rule books is not getting over ruled by a cheap jpg, its getting balanced or corrected.

Fact is if you run a warp spider army because you know its broke, and you are butt hurt that a cheese army gets nerfed, thats your own fault. .

 Grimgold wrote:
They did an errata, and it was a fething mess. There should never be a case where a set of rules that supersede the rules you currently have, or else you have a situation like what happened to a good friend of mine where he went to a game with a shiny new librarius conclave, and found out it was gutted by an errata and that his rule book was wrong. It's not a hard concept, every book needs to stand on it's own in regards to future supplements in that future supplements can not change existing rules. if this is not the case Codexes are worthless, as the printed material can be invalidated at any point without your knowledge.

The problem here is that what you're describing with codex updates is exactly like errata, except you have to pay for it. A new codex that includes a new version of the librarius conclave is going to have the exact same result as changing the rules by errata/FAQ, a player that builds an army under the old rules can easily have that army gutted by a new edition of the codex. So you have two choices: you can have rules printed once and never updated (unless the core rules have a new edition), or you can have post hoc balancing. If you choose the second option you're getting errata/FAQs, the only question that remains is whether you're going to pay $50 for the errata or download a free pdf.

Let me ask this, what would it take to convince you that some form of post hoc balancing needs to occur, and that erratas are a monumentally bad idea outside of game breaking oversites/typos. If the answer is there is no amount of evidence or logic that will change your mind, lets just stop there, because a lot of people on here aren't interested in having a conversation and then making up their mind, and instead just want to bitch, which us fine it's a free forum but I'd prefer not to waste my time on them.

Nothing is going to convince me because you've created a false dilemma between bad options and ignored the one where errata is done right.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers?

That sounds like an extremely subjective statement, reading through Warmahorde's Errata it appears that there's a fair number of wording changes, rules adjustments, etc over 13 pages of Errata, just not points costs changes. If your estimation of their errata is that they aren't making significant balance changes via points (as opposed to removing special rules or changing rules wording) then I would posit that it's probably because they don't have the scale of the balance issues that GW allowed 40k to get to in the first place and the fixes are primarily minor ability and wording adjustments to fix abilities that are not functioning as intended and to make things fit their points costs as opposed to changing them, which if the issues are minor is fine.

Right off the top of my head however we can also look at something like Dropzone Commander (since that's the one I'm most immediately familiar with) that does errata about once a year, with rules wording changes, points costs updates, etc.

http://www.hawkwargames.com/blogs/errata

They also publish an army builder program that's updated with the latest releases and errata within a couple of weeks and their new print runs have the errata already edited in. I've never seen Errata or updates prove to be a major source of friction.

That isn't to say they haven't made significant changes to armies, but they do so by adding new units or redoing a codex (or the equivalent) or during an edition switch over. The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes.

When was the last time they tried such a thing for 40k? 2E? A couple minor things in 3E? Certainly they didn't in 4E, 5E, 6E or 7E where all they've done is FAQ.

Even going back to 2E, GW have really never done proper Errata for 40k, they did things like suggest banning of virus grenades and the like, and a couple minor changes (depending on which print version of the book you got) in the 3.5E CSM codex, but I honestly can't recall GW ever really doing major balance errata to their games that wasn't in the form of a new product.

That said they did do a living ruleset thing for BFG for a while, and that actually worked rather well, nobody seemed to have any issues, until they just stopped all activity related to specialists games and let them wither for a couple years and then just closed down the lines entirely without much comment.

People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

They don't seem spectacularly annoyed when other games do Errata. I've yet to see anything of the sort with Dropzone Commander, or Firestorm Armada, or FFG's 40k RPG's. Likewise, literally every videogame ever works this way through patches.

The idea that balance changes through occasional errata is supremely destructive and fun killing is ridiculous. It certainly doesn't kill all those other games.

I would suggest that if this is an issue for GW, it's probably because they historically have done little or nothing to let people know where to find updates, when they have published updates, or reached out to the community regarding what they think issues are until literally this year, and they've gotten themselves dozens of pages of FAQ but no errata and don't seem to be learning from their mistakes with their releases.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains.

You mean how most other games do it? That's called patching. Formations are hamfisted band-aids that miss fixing the fundamental issues but take just as much, if not more, effort to produce and distribute, especially given that you have to buy them and they're coming from multiple different sales channels in a dizzying array of different releases. I'd much prefer my balance fixes to be in a nice easy PDF than have to buy an expensive band-aid that requires me to run an army through formations just to have an chance at an even game, particularly when they could have just released a new codex with that same effort

You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements,

I don't see issues with that in other games. 40k is literally the only game people think that's a problem with. Given how many supplements, expansions, dataslates, campaigns, etc ad nauseum GW is asking us to *buy* to ostensibly fix these issues (assuming they're not just sales vehicles, and that there actually is an intended balance component to these) I don't see how formations are any better.

with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

Now this is getting off the tracks and putting words in my mouth. For semi-serious or non-serious games, people can do whatever they want, they can run their own house rules and errata or no errata. That's an entirely different conversation. But I would assume that released errata would be "standard" unless otherwise agreed upon (like other games that do Errata), not that people can't agree not to use them.

There are a few other AoS changes that might make it in as well that aren't bad when you stop and think about it, especially from the point of view of speeding up play.

There are no template weapons in AoS, and instead you simply have a random number of hits on the unit affected. Given that templates are very much 'gotcha' weapons for people who deploy badly due to mistakes or circumstances, this makes them more reliable at a higher level of play, while not punishing newer players quite as badly. A blast may inflict 1d6 wounds, or a flamethower might inflict 2d6 wounds. Quick and simple without having to worry about extra dice or templates.

The other thing is mortal wounds, which honestly are a much less obnoxious way of doing D weapons. For reference, a mortal wound requires only a hit, and no armor save is taken against it. Most normal troops are wiped out very quickly by mortal wounds. Others might have defenses against them, or a block of wounds that keep them from being wiped out by a few stray mortal wounds. It's not a bad system, and helps exemplify very powerful attacks and weapons.

The other thing is simplifying magic to a 2d6 roll that you have to beat the target number for your spell to go off - other wizards can counter and need to beat your 2d6 roll and be within 18" of your caster. Powers only last until your next hero phase, but commanders all have a command ability that boosts their troops that is usable for free each hero phase. Plus a generic inspiring presence they can use to allow a unit to ignore morale rolls if needed. Good times.

Back to the original topic:

What does "Sigmarification" even mean, to you that is?
It's meaning changes from person to person depending on if they view AoS is a positive or negative light and a what stage that person cemented their view of AoS.
For example: someone who does not like AoS and stopped keeping track at release seems to think "Sigmarification" means simplifying the rules into a child's game without points.

This does not make sense and is rather unhelpful. What AoS is; is a simple core that provides basic mechanics that other layers can be added to (scenarios, balancing systems, whatever narrative pleases you, etc.), aimed at casual gamers (i.e. are looking for a fun time rather than a chess-like mental challenge, a.k.a "Jimmy") and is accesible/easy to get into (several game sizes and modes supported, rules easy to learn and access).
Instead of taking the vague mention of Sigmar as an opportunity to take cheap shots at a game that you don't like for whatever reason, could we please have a term that describes adding the above characteristics.

Yes AoS has problems (and things I dislike, fixed to wound and the LOS rules), but it has good qualities too.
The warscroll system and simple "foundation layer" core rules in 40k? YES, all the yes.
Fixed to wound and shooting at units you're not engaged with during close combat? Not so much.

 RuneGrey wrote:


The other thing is simplifying magic to a 2d6 roll that you have to beat the target number for your spell to go off - other wizards can counter and need to beat your 2d6 roll and be within 18" of your caster. Powers only last until your next hero phase, but commanders all have a command ability that boosts their troops that is usable for free each hero phase. Plus a generic inspiring presence they can use to allow a unit to ignore morale rolls if needed. Good times.

Well this remembers me the older psychic powers in 40k. You know, discipline test and all that jazz. Before they introduced a dice system like the WHFB one, after it was clear for years that was the most broken part of WHFB.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimgold wrote:


I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers?

I think you should visit PP forums. I remember when the Pistol Wraith was patched in MKII. Oh my. It was like being on the wrong side of a.. Broadside.

The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes. People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

I don't know if you were annoyed, but when they kind of fixed the Dark Eldar with WD and Capitulum Adprobavit back then in 3rd, that was a more than welcome change. They made an unplayable army just hard mode. Yes, I would prefer those hack frauds of the designers knew more math and made better rules on the first place, but an errata could fix some of their biggest missteps.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains. You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements, with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

What happens now is that we have supplements with formations that enhance armies with already good or OP rules, and do not do enough for armies with a codex written by an intern not caring or not knowing enough. Think about Riptide Wing vs Orkurion. Or the fact that we have barely playable CSM after (1) Codex (2) Bumbling Black Legion (3) Crimson Whocares (4) Daemonkin of the Usual God (5) Traitors' Slight Resentment

That's five book of failure. Yes, yes Daemonkin can work but still has most of the original's codex issues. A codex written of a guy that cares only about Eldar.

In 3rd, I had a better CSM book half the size of one of these. And no, I did not abuse that one. And errata exists for that. But the same CONCEPT, with a balance codex, is better than this crap.

Now we will have a Thousand sons book, because they have to sell the new Magnus the Action Figure. With a chance of having the same not-functional TS in the original codex. Or a formation to make them functional that requires X of this and Y of that, in perfect SpamHammer 40k. And that does not work in a 1000 pts battle, useful to teach a kid to play. In a book with probably other factions, like PP does. And that's the thing I like the least of PP, so no thanks GW, do not imitate that.

THEY ALREADY MAKE ERRATA. IS JUST NOT WELL THOUGHT THROUGH, IS DUMB, THE FLUFF THAT GOES WITH IT IS A DUMBER FILLER, AND FACTIONS ARE OVERLOOKED AND WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT.
This is a borderline criminal behaviour. And BT this means 40K is already Sigmarified. Actions figure style new minis? Magnus, Wulfen of the Space Furries. High volume, crap content books? Check. Worse is yet to come.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, Errata works fine for literally every other tabletop game in existence, not sure why its so bad for 40k.

It also doesnt mean they need to do it weekly, once every 6 months or once a year works fine for other games.

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers? That isn't to say they haven't made significant changes to armies, but they do so by adding new units or redoing a codex (or the equivalent) or during an edition switch over. The reason the GW errata was such a cluster is that they tried to enact balance changes. People were rightly annoyed by that because you pay fifty bucks for a book that gets overruled by a cheap jpg on the GW facebook page, which is rules rejiggering pretending to be error correction.

To see if I have your position straight, instead of enhance armies post hoc via supplements like formations, you would prefer a body of additional rules, rules changes, and or clarifications like the one ITC maintains. You also want it to be a living body of rules that is updated on a regular basis, once every six months or as needed. You also want that to be the word of law, on par with the base book and printed supplements, with No semi-serious game being played without adhering to those rules. You also don't see any issues arising from that?

Again complete nonsense - Errata has been issued for all those games directly because of balance - that's why they have free downloadable pdfs of FAQs and errata - something that GW refused to bother with.

So let me get this straight you want to "enhance armies via paid for supplements etc " but not allow changes via FAqs and errata (as pretty much every other game does) - how weird is that world view? Its fine to change everything as long as its in book.

You don't think players can look at an errata every six months?
You want people to use broken or exploitative rules, army creation.......because?
You are stating that people pay $50 for their rules and don't want it to be fair and balanced but prefer it to be broken - one or another - guessing you and your friend preferred the exploits such as the Conclave.

Do you read the forum - one of the most constant sources of irritation and arguments is that 40k did not have a faq errata system in place and whilst not at all perfect the recent faq's have been seen by the vast majority as at least a step in the right direction.

Now I would agree that it can be irritating that points and rules change - Dropzone Commander is a bit of a prime example but the changes have been made with best intentions - to made a better game.

Grimgold wrote:People who are worried about the sigmarifcation of 40k think it's just going to be a copy paste of the sigmar rules, but that seems like an oversimplification. There are lots of good ideas in AoS, and more than a couple of bad ones, but the same could be said for 40k. Here are some areas I think 40k could benefit from taking some ideas from AoS:

Rend - AP is a horrible mechanic, this weapon is 100% effective at bypassing armor or it isn't at all. Rend allows a more organic way of dealing with this concept.

Cover benefits - in AoS being in cover gives a benefit to your armor save (+1 generally), which when combined with the rend change gives even space marines a reason to seek out good firing positions rather than standing in the open. This would require modifying saves so that space marines (and their equivalents) have a 4+, and terminators and such have a 3+. Marines would of course have two or more wounds a piece, because they are supposed to be tough, more on that in the next section.

Toughness as wounds instead of layers of defenses or absurd saves - there are currently 4 types of saves in 40k, and rerolls for some of them, and some of them can be stacked. That's not even counting defenses like invis, or toughness buffs. It's this nasty rats nest of rules that was intended to add nuance, but in the end just adds complication and makes the system vulnerable to exploitation. AoS just piles wounds on things that are supposed to be able to take sustained fire. It's simple and much harder to exploit to get things like superfriends.

Multiple profiles for for MC and vehicles based on wounds taken - Picking up from the last point, we have this lame vehicle damage chart, but no equivalent for MCs. The intent is to reflect damage taken over the course of the battle, and I think it's a mechanic that would be as valid for a carnifex as a leman russ battle tank. You reflect that by a diminishing stat line as wounds accumulate. This gets rid of the fine until dead problem MCs have right now which is one of the things that make them flat better than vehicles.

Alternating activations - AoS only took this half way, with alternating activations in the fight subphase, but it's a complete no brainer. Taking turns activating units adds a lot of tactical depth, and doesn't leave one player sitting on his hands for 15 - 20 minutes. There should also be some seizing the initiative mechanic that allows units with high initiative more flexibility in activations.

Fixed to hit rolls - It's a simplification, and allows certain weapons to be more or less accurate as a means of balance/diversification.

Things I do not want to see from AoS in 40k

Fixed to wound rolls - Strength vs. toughness reflects the wide variety of weapons and targets available in a Sci-Fi setting. This also means that wounds won't have to be as crazy in 40k as they are in AoS, where things regularly topped 20 wounds.

Shooting shenanigans - yeah, we all kind of think this is dumb, I wouldn't be opposed to snap firing into melee for units not engaged, but certainly not people in melee shooting out.

Destroying the setting - This was an awful decision, no bones about it. The 40k setting is one of the most cherished settings in all of fiction, and it would be heresy to mangle it like they did to fantasy.

Stupid terrain rules - This was horrendous, and nobody I played with rolled on the chart, it made it silly instead of tactical, that every rock flower or tree was "Magic".

Rolling for turns - this was a horrible idea rejected by the community, and rightly so.

Formations costing points - believe it or not GW is using formations as a patch to fix the worst armies in the game and make them more competitive. It's a way to make balance changes without invalidating the original codex. As such costing points is tough sell.

Pretty much agree with all of this. That would be a great simplification of 40k.

Rolling for turns is actually a fun idea. After all you've a 50% chance of going first. It's not bad and it leads to hilarious results and tactics.

I would welcome Warscrolls but would want them on cards - army packs of them would be a must buy for me.

Fixed to hit is fine - we already have the situation where almost everything hits on a 3+ or 4+ in close combat. Make things that are great in CC hit on a 2+ and things that are not on 5+ or 6+.

The monsters declining in power as they suffer wounds is intuitive and works well. Use for both vehicles and Monstrous creatures

Shooting out of combat I would avoid.

I'd fully back a sigmarification of 40k. I even had a thread about it.

AoS isn't perfect but it does a lot of things very right. And more importantly, it's much easier to get into. Yes they had to destroy the setting to bring it in but there's good reasons for that (that I won't get into at the moment). They wouldn't need to destroy the 40k universe because it works just fine. Brilliantly even.

Trimming the core rules down to a four page booklet and giving all units a warscrolls (data slates?) with vehicles using the same characteristics as everything else (with them and monsters getting weaker as they lose wounds) is something I completely support.

 Mr Morden wrote:
There is lots wrong with 40k

The rules are bloated and a mess - look at Walkers vs Monsterous Creatures alone.

The Army books are the same - the rules for a single faction are now often spread across codexes, campaign packs, supplements, exclusive packs etc - then multiply by how many allies you use.

The balance is shot to pieces - both in terms of army versus army and internally. There are Power Codexes that tower above the others - Necrons, Tau, Marines and Eldar - that then haev formation bonuses heaped on top to make the other codexes even worse.

Randomness has spread to too mamny areas of both army creation and in game.

All of this needs addressing.

You've basically mentioned my exact thoughts. Right now playing 40K can be a real chore, unless you're not running a Riptide Wing or a Skyhammer & Raptor Wing combo. I don't want a major fluff overhaul, since I think that it's fine as it is, but the rules must change, or the game will really go down the drain completely.

 Grimgold wrote:

I checked the errata for mantic games, privateer press, and warlord games and not one of them make significant balance changes via errata, so care to cite soem examples of literally every other table top game that's not one of the twenty or so games from those three publishers?

PP made errata that made major changes to some of the most broken characters and theme forces in the latter years of Mk2. They made regular errata a cornerstone of the new edition, and have already announced that in the first balance errata, the top and bottom 5% of models will be getting looked at, and two underperforming factions will be revamped. So you clearly haven't spent much effort in looking.

Judging by the linked rule sheet, the change will be along the lines of single attacks being able to inflict multiple wounds, and a general reduction in dice throwing. That is in no way a bad thing.

I actually can see GW going the route of data-slating every unit in the game. I can't believe anybody thinks the current codex/supplement system is working...as evidenced above by needing 5 books to play CSM...oh wait, 6 counting Chaos Daemons: Demonic Incursion, which you need for many of the formations.

I also wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bigger push into digital rules. It's functionally that way now since so many FAQs and erratas are needed to play official games.

 WhiteBobcat wrote:
Judging by the linked rule sheet, the change will be along the lines of single attacks being able to inflict multiple wounds, and a general reduction in dice throwing. That is in no way a bad thing.

I actually can see GW going the route of data-slating every unit in the game. I can't believe anybody thinks the current codex/supplement system is working...as evidenced above by needing 5 books to play CSM...oh wait, 6 counting Chaos Daemons: Demonic Incursion, which you need for many of the formations.

I also wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bigger push into digital rules. It's functionally that way now since so many FAQs and erratas are needed to play official games.

I fear you are misinterpreting my example. You do not need 5 books to play Chaos Marines. You need one book, written by competent designers, or by designers that do not care only about Eldar like Mr Kelly. Or, giving those hack frauds the benefit of the doubt, not overworked designers that have too many deadlines to properly playtest. I had 1 book in 3rd edition (yes, yes I know but is beyond the point).

ONE book and occasional errata is enough. But I guess you make less money than writing crap, and than fix it with other crap, and make people pay for it. With proposed fix as "spam X, so you get a bonus!". Thank you for the model diversity on the table GW. Is what I expect from the company with the bestest minis in the world evar.

Warscroll fix nothing if the skill and effort put into game design is at the same level of the current one. People advocating AoSification ignore the moon and look at the finger.

I agree on the digital, 'tough.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I agree on the digital, 'tough.

Someone had mentioned a Digital Subscription you can pay for where you get everything as long as you are subscribed. This would be alongside other options. But If I paid a reasonable amount for get all the books and constant updates through an App or other means, it could be worth while?

 Vash108 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I agree on the digital, 'tough.

Someone had mentioned a Digital Subscription you can pay for where you get everything as long as you are subscribed. This would be alongside other options. But If I paid a reasonable amount for get all the books and constant updates through an App or other means, it could be worth while?

If handled professionally (so: not like it is now) and with a reasonable price, I can see it.

Now an RPG is apples to orange but didn't WOTC did something similar with DnD insider?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


Now an RPG is apples to orange but didn't WOTC did something similar with DnD insider?

I can't remember if it was only for their Monthly magazines, online play and character builder though. I am not sure they actually put source books in it, just the rules. It has been a while and I can't quite remember.

Case and point Skitarii. I absolutely love this model range, IMHO the best that currently exists. But instead of making a well written army book GW split the army into two books with rules that don't synergise in the least and make for a completely awkward play. There was no good reason for this in the least, none. Then they release a formation that makes the army play as it should....as one dex, but also is so insanely OP and stupid with free upgrades that it's sickening, and this formation just so happens to require you to buy every model in the range plus a knight. Is there a more obvious example of purposefully writing crap rules to scammily sell models?

*I actually like the concept of formations, probably one of the best additions to the game in a while when done right, so I'm not decrying formations themselves. They let you build different flavors of armies from any given codex and can give a lot of variety. They can make an army play the way the fluff reads, giving you essentially different army wide rules within one dex depending on how your force is composed. I like that, i just don't like how most of the time it seems GW only uses it as a sales tool and breaks the game by doing so. One good example I think is the genestealers cult, i don't know who wrote it or why it's different but that whole book the rules reflect the fluff perfectly, and each formation makes sense, adds something cool and isn't stupidly powerful or asinine. It's one of the best written codexes i've seen i think.

Can we go back to third and just revise some of it? That seems like te best course of action.

SNAAAAKE wrote:
Can we go back to third and just revise some of it? That seems like te best course of action.

Go back even further and take some ideas out of second, like the return of a movement stat.

Another 'sigmarification' suggestion: simply make difficult terrain half the models movement value. No more random rolls.

The removal of the Movement stat was easily one of the stupidest design decisions GW ever made with regard to 40K.

Eh, I don't know about that. Having movement defined by unit type isn't a terrible implementation. The bigger issue is how wonky a lot of that movement implementation has become, like everything else with GW, but in and of itself ditching the movement stat wasn't a terrible concept.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, an Eldar moving 6" while a Space Marine moves 5" isn't adding a whole lot of tactical depth, you're talking about 6" of extra movement over an average game. To get real variety that actually matters, you either need gargantuan movement distances in general, or you end up with some armies that have movement so gimped they're functionally stationary to make the "fleet" armies feel fast.

Ive been playing 40k since 2nd edition... let me say it is a mess now. Formations with free benefits have created massive imbalance. Second, formations, superheavies, fliers, etc, should have stayed in apocalypse. They have diluted the game. Third, the cost of the game. This is what has caused the game to decline. Many of us with large armies can easily stay in the game, but getting new folks to buy in can be a challenge.

I also like aos. However, I don't want to see 40k become aos. The strength and toughness aspect has been around for a log time. If they were to do anything, it would be to go back to a mix of 5th and 6th edition... without formations, fliers, or superheavies.

SNAAAAKE wrote:
Can we go back to third and just revise some of it? That seems like te best course of action.

We are still playing third edition. This is not 7.0 we are playing. We are really playing 3.4 right now.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Eh, I don't know about that. Having movement defined by unit type isn't a terrible implementation. The bigger issue is how wonky a lot of that movement implementation has become, like everything else with GW, but in and of itself ditching the movement stat wasn't a terrible concept.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, an Eldar moving 6" while a Space Marine moves 5" isn't adding a whole lot of tactical depth, you're talking about 6" of extra movement over an average game. To get real variety that actually matters, you either need gargantuan movement distances in general, or you end up with some armies that have movement so gimped they're functionally stationary to make the "fleet" armies feel fast.

Nope, it was a stupid move (badum, ching!)

A Space Marine (and most humans) used to move 4". Running or charging was 8". Extremely simple, and still fast enough to cover reasonable distances in a game. Need to go further? Use jump packs or (gasp!) a transport like a Rhino (capable of 20-30" movement, I don't remember the datafax). Most Eldar were around 5" with a few like the Banshees being 6". Almost every Tyranid was 6". So when running that's 12" which is plenty quick. It provided simple, real differentiation without resorting to stupid random dice rolls or complete chance. That Tyranid army? It's going to chase you down on foot and there is crap-all you can do about it. The only thing you can hope for is the other player misjudging when declaring charges (or relying on overwatch). It also meant that faster moving units would inevitably move faster through terrain - making it even more useful.

You don't need Fleet rules or any other fancy movement rules. Just a simple stat.

Interesting discovery while messing around on the store page. It seems the Stormraven's page has been updated with most of the rules.

I am not sure I would like a Movement stat. That would be just one more thing to keep track of.

 Vash108 wrote:
I am not sure I would like a Movement stat. That would be just one more thing to keep track of.

I am sorry I don't believe in this. Adding a movement stat is not anymore complicating anything. After all if you can say this unit has this BS, or that unit has that WS and this weapon does this, that war gear does that, adding in movement is not that big a deal like you are implying. So then we should not ever be adding any new codices, any new rules, any new weapons any new war gear, any new psychic powers any new anything.

Davor wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I am not sure I would like a Movement stat. That would be just one more thing to keep track of.

I am sorry I don't believe in this. Adding a movement stat is not anymore complicating anything. After all if you can say this unit has this BS, or that unit has that WS and this weapon does this, that war gear does that, adding in movement is not that big a deal like you are implying. So then we should not ever be adding any new codices, any new rules, any new weapons any new war gear, any new psychic powers any new anything.

I like the examples given a few posts ago about nids being 6" marines 4" and so on. It makes a lot of sense.

But, that being said, your highlighting exactly why it's bad. The game already has too many things to keep track of. We don't want to add more, we want to condense and reduce.

movement stat would be great.

 455_PWR wrote:
Ive been playing 40k since 2nd edition... let me say it is a mess now. Formations with free benefits have created massive imbalance. Second, formations, superheavies, fliers, etc, should have stayed in apocalypse. They have diluted the game. Third, the cost of the game. This is what has caused the game to decline. Many of us with large armies can easily stay in the game, but getting new folks to buy in can be a challenge.

I also like aos. However, I don't want to see 40k become aos. The strength and toughness aspect has been around for a log time. If they were to do anything, it would be to go back to a mix of 5th and 6th edition... without formations, fliers, or superheavies.

This pretty much.

Things i would really like to see changed in 40k

Formations cost points to take
Remove weapon skill on weapon skill attack, treat WS as you would with BS skill, 4 hits on 2, 6 hits on 2 reroll hit on 6 ect ect
AP effects armor save not completely negate it, IE every 1 point at or below your armor save is a negative 2 to your roll, IE i have a 2+ you have AP 2, i need to roll a 4+
Better pyker phase. Leadership test, cast the number of spells equal to your mastery
Remove HP go back to 5th ed vehicles, but fix the transport exploitation
Cut down on the rule over writes that rule nonsense

 EnTyme wrote:
Interesting discovery while messing around on the store page. It seems the Stormraven's page has been updated with most of the rules.

As I said before, that's for a board game.

 Verviedi wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Interesting discovery while messing around on the store page. It seems the Stormraven's page has been updated with most of the rules.

As I said before, that's for a board game.

I wasn't aware that Tactical Marines are part of Stormcloud Assautl

@ Lance845

I've got to say that a movement stat to replace all the various unit definitions and movement based special rules is the best way to go. It's just easier.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Interesting discovery while messing around on the store page. It seems the Stormraven's page has been updated with most of the rules.

As I said before, that's for a board game.

I wasn't aware that Tactical Marines are part of Stormcloud Assautl

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see a dataslate link on the Tactical Marines page there...

Check the "play" tab. It's not a dataslate. The (partial) rules are on the actual page.

Weird. There's no such tab for me. I wonder if GW is showing different stuff to different browsers? Wouldn't be the first time they've had some hinky stuff with their website.

Well I'm browsing from work (slow day), so no choice but to use IE.

Davor wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I am not sure I would like a Movement stat. That would be just one more thing to keep track of.

I am sorry I don't believe in this. Adding a movement stat is not anymore complicating anything. After all if you can say this unit has this BS, or that unit has that WS and this weapon does this, that war gear does that, adding in movement is not that big a deal like you are implying. So then we should not ever be adding any new codices, any new rules, any new weapons any new war gear, any new psychic powers any new anything.

I am sorry I don't believe in this. Adding a stat across the board instead of adding a new codex inside an existing rule set is different. If they revamped the entire ruleset and paired down on a lot of movement rules and kept it case by case where you can easily keep up with it like a Unit Stat card like AoS maybe. Also I do not mean EXACTLY like AoS but in a similar fashion that it is easy to look at with just glance.

Making things more complicated is never a good answer.

So, if you think a Movement stat is somehow more complicated how do you justify the current movement rules?

 EnTyme wrote:
Check the "play" tab. It's not a dataslate. The (partial) rules are on the actual page.

I've tried multiple browsers, my mobile phone, and different countries. I can't find a "Play" tab. I don't doubt you, I'm just having trouble duplicating your results.

And I really want to, because if they start putting up rules online, man, that'd be sweet.

EDIT:
From another thread about this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/705309.page#8960521

 Elbows wrote:
So, if you think a Movement stat is somehow more complicated how do you justify the current movement rules?

I don't. I think they should come up with something new. If they do what to give every different unit a different movement speed, they need to make it easy and readily available such as a stat card.

Something like AoS, Warmahordes, Darkage.

Just put a semi-durable, dry-erase stat card in every unit box. You can track special weapons and wounds, etc.

Then you would need to do the same for every opponent you fight for your own reference.

If a new player looks at that and I have to explain to them.

me: Well that is a guards men they move 4"

them: What about this guy?

me: Well that is a scout he is a bit better than a Guardsman so he can run 6"

them: so these guys also run 6"?

me: No those are space marines they are like scouts but better and in power armor so they can move 8"!

 ziggurattt wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Check the "play" tab. It's not a dataslate. The (partial) rules are on the actual page.

I've tried multiple browsers, my mobile phone, and different countries. I can't find a "Play" tab. I don't doubt you, I'm just having trouble duplicating your results.

And I really want to, because if they start putting up rules online, man, that'd be sweet.

Another user managed to get a screen shot in another thread.

 Vash108 wrote:
Then you would need to do the same for every opponent you fight for your own reference.

If a new player looks at that and I have to explain to them.

me: Well that is a guards men they move 4"

them: What about this guy?

me: Well that is a scout he is a bit better than a Guardsman so he can run 6"

them: so these guys also run 6"?

me: No those are space marines they are like scouts but better and in power armor so they can move 8"!

But you could say that about any stat for any model;

This guardsman is a normal human in flak armour so he's got a 5+ save, but this space marine is a super human in power armour so he's got a 3+ save. A new player would need everything explained to them anyway so I don't really see what the problem is.

What is the difference between telling a newbie 'These guys move 4", these 6", these 9" ' and havig to tell them 'These guys are normal, these have Fleet, they have Battle-Focus"

Also, with the proliferation of Bulky, Very Bulky and Flat-out-Fat, they need a Size stat in the game too, methinks.

Well. a movement STat is placale in a profile and thus printable on a reference card for each army list . fast at hant and in sight during a game.

And... less rules to keep track of. its better.

compare " ah here its 4 " to " oh it has fleet. hm wait fleet was? ( looking it up in the dex ) " oh thats in the BRB ( openin the BRB ) " ah there.."

you see what i mean? moving stats are simpler. and the ae also lett to keep in mind. a simple value easily readable to a bunch of rules that... just tell you how far you can move


the same with vehicles... when i read the rules i always see " the vehicle can do this at battle speed an this at another speed" and then i have to look up the values vfor these speeds . instead of having the information directly in the rules.

This is also a huge Problem in 40k. The rules are messed up. You always have to make needles pageturs to get to the actual informatioin you need.

I really like the rules as they are now.

I played a bit 10 years ago then started again in 7th edition and invested a lot in it. I think they did a great job and a lot of peoples find interesting ways to keep the hobby alive: Private campaigns, friendly tournaments with some rule tweaking, lot of investment in buildings and a good mat.

Sure it's complex. Sure it take some time to get use to it. But it's part of what make it great too.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Well. a movement STat is placale in a profile and thus printable on a reference card for each army list . fast at hant and in sight during a game.

And... less rules to keep track of. its better.

I would be down for official stat cards that have all the info that would be great

Movement stats were very simple. Every single human based character had a 4" stat. Tyranids were all 6" except two entries. Eldar were the most diverse, but were overwhelmingly 5". Poor squats were 3"!

Now, knowing GW they would probably muck it up if they brought it back...and arbitrarily make random Space Marines faster than others and similarly daft crap.

So basically back to 2nd Ed. we go? With that, I lose all hope in 40K

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back to 2nd Ed. we go? With that, I lose all hope in 40K

We're only talking about reintroducing a movement stat. We're not talking about bringing back the more convoluted rules from 2nd.

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

Couldn't agree more. I don't want 40k to become an oversimplified game à la AoS (which I feel is not only too simple, but just plain bad, still that's for another topic). It doesn't mean that some of the bloat can't be removed (for example, run should definitely be called before you move your unit so that you only have to move it once per turn) and most importantly, remove the whole mess that is formations where you get tons of special rules that are hard to keep track of ( on top of making it very hard too keep track of which unit is part of which formation). But I don't want my psychik phase to be resolved around a simple ld test like it was in previous edition. It's supposed to be something entirely different so it should get a rule mechanism that make it feel unique (like it does now). Sure at the end of the day, it's only throwing dice and you could basically achieve the same probability of success with a simple ld test, but imo, it only sacrifice gaming experience for simplicity (same thing if you streamline MC and Vehicles).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
There is lots wrong with 40k

The rules are bloated and a mess - look at Walkers vs Monsterous Creatures alone.

The Army books are the same - the rules for a single faction are now often spread across codexes, campaign packs, supplements, exclusive packs etc - then multiply by how many allies you use.

The balance is shot to pieces - both in terms of army versus army and internally. There are Power Codexes that tower above the others - Necrons, Tau, Marines and Eldar - that then haev formation bonuses heaped on top to make the other codexes even worse.

Randomness has spread to too mamny areas of both army creation and in game.

All of this needs addressing.

A vehicle and a montrous creature are 2 very different entitie. imo, they need to have different rules to represent this. It would be lame if they behave the same way. The overabundance of codex and supplements makes it very hard to keep up, I agree. Though, if you remove the formations, this issue becomes instantly far less dramatic. At the very least, rules should be printed free on GW website so that I can at least get an idea of what I'm facing without having to spend countless of hours and 1000's of $$. Balance is a mess and definitively the core of the problem with current 40k (and once again, formation only amplify it). Disagree that randomness is such a problem, it makes it more of a game of risk management than pure strategy but that's not necessarily a bad thing (random charging range can make for crucial, game changing decisions and random running range also add a risk element to the movement phase). The problem is once again balance where some randomly allocated psychic power or warlord trait are so much more powerful than others.

If itsdone right simple rules lead to highly complex games.

one of the best examples is the Japanese game Go.

also. if i compare 40k with another one i know ( Droppzone Comander) then its obvious that a simpler set of rules is something you should welcome enthusiasticaly

 Backspacehacker wrote:
And your rule books is not getting over ruled by a cheap jpg, its getting balanced or corrected.

Not to mention complaining about changes being in some JPG in facebook is pretty damn silly seeing those are drafts and therefore are not official yet and will be on more easy to spot position when they COME official.

But let's see. PP warmachine faq. "change X to Y" a lot in many pages. That's changes. Your books have therefore been invalidated by PDF...

And WM mk3 is pretty new and already so many changes...With already promised periodic balance changes by...You guess it! Erratas.

Funny that. Some people complain having to buy new codex all the time, some people complain GW should release new codex more often rrather than errata existing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
I like the examples given a few posts ago about nids being 6" marines 4" and so on. It makes a lot of sense.

But, that being said, your highlighting exactly why it's bad. The game already has too many things to keep track of. We don't want to add more, we want to condense and reduce.

With movement stat you would get rid of tons of special rules that were created specifically to alter unit speeds DESPITE lack of movement value.

Reason goes away, those special rules go away.

 _ghost_ wrote:
one of the best examples is the Japanese game Go.

Game is originally chinese though

I like the idea of a movement stat. It works well in the Middle Earth SBG, and 40k could do a lot worse than taking notes from what is almost universally regarded as one of GW's best rule-sets.

I'd like morale to play a bigger part in the game. And I think even in a simplified system it would be possible to do it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'd like morale to play a bigger part in the game. And I think even in a simplified system it would be possible to do it.

The problem with morale being a bigger factor is the inevitable whining when everyone's favorite special snowflakes lose their LD 10/re-rolls/fearless/ATSKNF/etc and have to risk morale penalties. It's necessary to have morale mean something and not just be pointless rules bloat, but a lot of people are going to be very unhappy about it.

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with morale being a bigger factor is the inevitable whining when everyone's favorite special snowflakes lose their LD 10/re-rolls/fearless/ATSKNF/etc and have to risk morale penalties. It's necessary to have morale mean something and not just be pointless rules bloat, but a lot of people are going to be very unhappy about it.

You're right, unfortunately. But personally I say 'em.

Moral either needs to be important or scrapped. And I don't want to scrap it.

Even just a reduction in the amount of Fearless units and the power of ATSKNF would be a welcome, if minor, change.

Couldn't a movement stat, perhaps, make the game faster?

Assume Humans move 5".Perhaps Necron move 4" and Eldar 6", who knows. Ork and Tau still 5". Eyeballing now, so maybe they hire me.

If a Marine moves up to 5", he can act normally during the Shooting and Assault phase.
Weapons with heavy, assault, rapide fire (and the pointless Salvo if you really want it) work as now.

If he shots an assault weapon, or is somehow relentless, can Assault of [Movement +d6].

If instead he decides to run, moves twice the movement (12") and his turn stops there. This avoids the run rolls.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back to 2nd Ed. we go? With that, I lose all hope in 40K

We're only talking about reintroducing a movement stat. We're not talking about bringing back the more convoluted rules from 2nd.

Nah, they've already done that with 7th....

I've gotta start a new thread in proposed rules.

If you trim all the fat from the game you'll have more room for tactics. At least that's I think.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Couldn't a movement stat, perhaps, make the game faster?

Assume Humans move 5".Perhaps Necron move 4" and Eldar 6", who knows. Ork and Tau still 5". Eyeballing now, so maybe they hire me.

If a Marine moves up to 5", he can act normally during the Shooting and Assault phase.
Weapons with heavy, assault, rapide fire (and the pointless Salvo if you really want it) work as now.

If he shots an assault weapon, or is somehow relentless, can Assault of [Movement +d6].

If instead he decides to run, moves twice the movement (12") and his turn stops there. This avoids the run rolls.

So....AoS?

More like WHFB, except charging doesn't happen in the movement phase.

(So kinda like AoS if AoS didn't use 40k's charging distance method)

I think we can all agree that 40k has become crazy convoluted with rules all over the place. AoS took this from one end of the pendulum to the other. 40k needs to find the sweet spot. Right in the middle. Not too bloated not too slim. So basically somewhere in between the 200+ pages of rules for 40k and the 4 for AoS.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Couldn't a movement stat, perhaps, make the game faster?

Assume Humans move 5".Perhaps Necron move 4" and Eldar 6", who knows. Ork and Tau still 5". Eyeballing now, so maybe they hire me.

If a Marine moves up to 5", he can act normally during the Shooting and Assault phase.
Weapons with heavy, assault, rapide fire (and the pointless Salvo if you really want it) work as now.

If he shots an assault weapon, or is somehow relentless, can Assault of [Movement +d6].

If instead he decides to run, moves twice the movement (12") and his turn stops there. This avoids the run rolls.

So....AoS?

I was thinking about warmachine when I wrote it
(yes the charge there is more like WHFB but you see my point. an I know there the action is more flexible in moving/shoting, but then again the scale and activation rules are different).

And.. I was NOT thinking about, say, fixed to hit and to wound roll, nonsensical shooting and so on. Let's not open that can of worms, perhaps, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rezyn wrote:
I think we can all agree that 40k has become crazy convoluted with rules all over the place. AoS took this from one end of the pendulum to the other. 40k needs to find the sweet spot. Right in the middle. Not too bloated not too slim. So basically somewhere in between the 200+ pages of rules for 40k and the 4 for AoS.

This. I would be even fine with most of the current rules if:

(1) We had mechanics coherent with fluff. A Lascannon, or at least a Vanquisher, would need some mechanic to deal d3 wounds/HP (ET would protect from this, too) to fulfill their role in fluff (this, or a rework of vehicle damage.. SOMETHING). Meanwhile, we have weapons dealing damage in subsequent turns, like a DoT, that is a pain because of bookeping.The last one is a useless mechanic that should not exist. And meanwhile, again, they forgot or omitted the old pinning for artillery and snipers.

(I recognize point 1 is huge, stuff like Monstrous "Creatures vs Walkers" falls here)

(2) we had a reduction of randumb, both stuff like maelstrom and the fact that you have to roll 1873513573657253 times just to get the game started

(3)we removed the whole new Psychic Phase is WHFB magic. And magic was the most problematic part of WHFB

(4) we had an appropriate cost in point of units.

(5) We decided what is the scope and scale. if they want squads and superheavies in the same game, fine. But then give us different FoCs related to the scale in points of the game. You should not bring a Wraithnight at 1000 points, unless a scenario is built around it.

(6) we had a possible rework of cover, like a penalty to hit. And rework of scattering mechanic. You should scatter only if you miss. Is nonsensical as it works now. In case, give a penalty to AB, and integrate it with a new cover mechanic.

(7) EDIT: we change Overwatch; as-is, is a no-brainer. Either rework it as sort of prepared action against charger, or as the new intercept, or remove it. is either made OP by biased design (Tau) or pointless.

(8) EDIT: we removed the too many Rerolls. Some reroll is nice, but we are now rerolling everything. This must be restrained somehow.

Future War Cultist wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back to 2nd Ed. we go? With that, I lose all hope in 40K

We're only talking about reintroducing a movement stat. We're not talking about bringing back the more convoluted rules from 2nd.

Well...

Ruin wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back to 2nd Ed. we go? With that, I lose all hope in 40K

We're only talking about reintroducing a movement stat. We're not talking about bringing back the more convoluted rules from 2nd.

Nah, they've already done that with 7th....

So they've brought back Overwatch right off the bat, percentages are back (one of the things I hated most about 2nd, at least the FOC is used in conjuncti... Oh, wait. Unbound.) , save modifiers (the other thing I hated about 2nd) , and people want movement characteristics back? Once again, just port the new units to 2nd, you'll pretty much be in the same spot. Well, the vehicle rules are different I guess.

I guess it's a good thing people have different opinions. Other than hand-to-hand and the Psychic phase, 2nd was a far tighter/better rules set in my opinion. However the scale of the game now will not allow it to be anything like 2nd edition.

Yeah, 2E, even without its wonky balance issued, broke down very rapidly once armies started to get larger than a couple dozen models on each side. Part of why 7E is having so many problems is a return to many of those 2E concepts but with even more stuff on the table.

overwatch is a huge problem: it kils the efficiency of any CC army. Is it normal for a squad of termi to get hammered by a squad of 30 guardsmens overwatching? In some way yes... But to afford no chance whatsoever to any army focused on CC that is the core of the problem.

We're talking 'nids and Orks here folks.

Perhaps hi ini models (5+) should get a jinks save while charging.
Perhaps orks should get a FNP against overwatch.

Perhaps overwatch should go far away back to where it came from (2nd ed)

Einachiel wrote:
overwatch is a huge problem: it kils the efficiency of any CC army. Is it normal for a squad of termi to get hammered by a squad of 30 guardsmens overwatching? In some way yes... But to afford no chance whatsoever to any army focused on CC that is the core of the problem.

We're talking 'nids and Orks here folks.

Perhaps hi ini models (5+) should get a jinks save while charging.
Perhaps orks should get a FNP against overwatch.

Perhaps overwatch should go far away back to where it came from (2nd ed)

Or maybe none of those options are worth discussing?

You want a way to afford armies that are CC centric a chance against Overwatch? You do three things:
A) Overwatch can only be fired by those models who are actually facing the charging unit.
B) Overwatch can be mitigated by the charging unit if they have Offensive Grenades or Blind Grenades
C) Overwatch becomes a 'mode' that you have to declare a unit will enter into during their Movement or Shooting phase.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Einachiel wrote:
overwatch is a huge problem: it kils the efficiency of any CC army. Is it normal for a squad of termi to get hammered by a squad of 30 guardsmens overwatching? In some way yes... But to afford no chance whatsoever to any army focused on CC that is the core of the problem.

We're talking 'nids and Orks here folks.

Perhaps hi ini models (5+) should get a jinks save while charging.
Perhaps orks should get a FNP against overwatch.

Perhaps overwatch should go far away back to where it came from (2nd ed)

Or maybe none of those options are worth discussing?

You want a way to afford armies that are CC centric a chance against Overwatch? You do three things:
A) Overwatch can only be fired by those models who are actually facing the charging unit.
B) Overwatch can be mitigated by the charging unit if they have Offensive Grenades or Blind Grenades
C) Overwatch becomes a 'mode' that you have to declare a unit will enter into during their Movement or Shooting phase.

I like suggestion B. I'd quibble on A, though: right now, non-vehicle models don't have facings at all. Where the model is pointing literally does not ever matter, so this would be a rather large addition. C, I like depending on implementation. As long as it's not "give up movement and shooting to be able to take a Ld test, and if that passes, models in the unit being charged can fire a single snapshot IFF they get charged by the unit you're bracing against", which has been seriously suggested at least once. Something like "give up shooting; declare a 90 degree arc. If a unit in that region moves or charges, fire at them, maximum one reaction shot per phase but you fire as you normally would, calculating range, line of sight and cover based on their starting position. All weapons that fire must have range and line of sight (unless they have special rules that don't require it, such as Barrage)."

Option C) sounds great! But instead of shooting you can declare overwatch, taste like good ol 2nd ed; love it!

I have suggested c many times. In shooting you either shoot, run, or enter overwatch.

Overwatch allows you to interrupt enemy movement to make a shooting attack at full bs but 1/2 range.

Allows units to cover each other (what overwatch actually is), allows units to lay ambushes, allows assault units to try and send decoys to eat overwatch.

Of course this should be coupled with units being able to charge from delivery methods (deepstrike, vehicles, infiltrate and outflank etc etc..)

 Lance845 wrote:
I have suggested c many times. In shooting you either shoot, run, or enter overwatch.

Overwatch allows you to interrupt enemy movement to make a shooting attack at full bs but 1/2 range.

Allows units to cover each other (what overwatch actually is), allows units to lay ambushes, allows assault units to try and send decoys to eat overwatch.

Of course this should be coupled with units being able to charge from delivery methods (deepstrike, vehicles, infiltrate and outflank etc etc..)

I like the sound of this.

Overwatch was dangerous in 2nd edition, but limited in several ways (not sure how Overwatch works in current 40K).

-A unit declared Overwatch at the beginning of its turn (no movement, no shooting, nothing...just Overwatch).

-Once a unit shoots on Overwatch, it's done. Thus you're limited to essentially shooting one enemy unit (unless the unit is faced separately allowing you to engage multiple enemy units)

-Models could only watch in their designated line of sight (irrelevant now since model facing is no longer considered).

-A unit firing on Overwatch suffers a -1 penalty if the target is emerging from cover, into cover, or charging the Overwatch unit (not combined, just a max of -1 penalty).

-A unit could shoot on Overwatch at any point during the enemy's turn (not limited to phases, etc.).

-A unit on Overwatch can be knocked out of Overwatch by shooting at it (and it subsequently fails a Leadership test).

_____________________

It could turn 2nd ed. games into real stalemates, but the authors also pointed out in the rulebook that heavy cover was suggested for all games of 40K. They openly state that the game will degenerate into a shooting match if no terrain is used --- and with almost no exception they found denser terrain to provide a better game.

 Elbows wrote:
Overwatch was dangerous in 2nd edition, but limited in several ways (not sure how Overwatch works in current 40K).

Overwatch currently is just an exercise in time wasting most of the time. You get to shoot the unit assaulting you but at BS1, so essentially rolling buckets of dice for little effect.

bob82ca wrote:
What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design?

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it.

Simpler *is* better, that's a fact.
1. Simpler, tighter rules make it far more likely that the players actually play a correct game the way the rules say they're supposed to play it.
2. Simpler, smaller rules make it more likely that the players have the opportunity to play with the entire ruleset.
3. Simpler rules place more emphasis on the tactical game on the actual tabletop, rather than buried in rules arcana and interactions.
It's a shift to more strategic games that emphasize gameplay.

AoS had a few mistakes at launch, and the current state of AoS suggests that GW learned a lot about how to clean up a system. One can expect 40k 8E:
- minimally advance the fluff
- retain "Grimdarkness" (tm)
- retain points values
- phase out the FoC in favor of unbound + formations
- create grand alliances with a smaller number of larger Codex books
- simplify rules dramatically
- remove universal special rules in favor of printing them with the unit

I'm not a fan of the Movement Stat returning. Currently there are 9 types of units and occasionally a special rule like Fleet. That's only 7 Movement rates players have to remember and you can tell by just looking at a model how fast it moves.

If the Movement Stat returns then we'll have to learn the movement rates of hundreds of different units. Even if each codex only had 2 different Movement rates (Infantry and Bikes/Cavalry) for each army, that would still be 40+ different movement rates we'd have to memorize.

I just posted a similar answer yesterday.

40k has already had its Age of Sigmar. It was called 3rd Edition. Has anyone played or talked to anyone who played.? It was pretty complicated. It you were going to play a b I g game, better bring a sleeping bag cause your weekend was shot.

3rd Ed simplified 40k. I liked 2nd Ed, I liked 3rd edition. I think thus next edition is going to target itself to compete against skirmish games like Infinity. Skirmish games are popular now because of cost to get it. G dub isn't stupid.

I don't see the current game as overly complicated, but of course I've played a long time. I don't have a p are oblem with all the special rules. I have a problem with clarity of the rules, and point values imbalances.

Gdub needs to do a serious adjustment for point costs. Second, make itself more accessible for game questions, provide timly updates and FAQs, and proofread before stuff goes for printing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design?

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it.

Simpler *is* better, that's a fact.
1. Simpler, tighter rules make it far more likely that the players actually play a correct game the way the rules say they're supposed to play it.
2. Simpler, smaller rules make it more likely that the players have the opportunity to play with the entire ruleset.
3. Simpler rules place more emphasis on the tactical game on the actual tabletop, rather than buried in rules arcana and interactions.
It's a shift to more strategic games that emphasize gameplay.

Simpler rules also resulted in some really, really boring 3rd (beginning) and 4th (CSM, Eldar) dexs too, so one has to balance out simple with fun too.

 Phydox wrote:
40k has already had its Age of Sigmar. It was called 3rd Edition. Has anyone played or talked to anyone who played.? It was pretty complicated. It you were going to play a b I g game, better bring a sleeping bag cause your weekend was shot.

3rd Ed simplified 40k. I liked 2nd Ed, I liked 3rd edition. I think thus next edition is going to target itself to compete against skirmish games like Infinity. Skirmish games are popular now because of cost to get it. G dub isn't stupid.

I don't see the current game as overly complicated, but of course I've played a long time. I don't have a p are oblem with all the special rules. I have a problem with clarity of the rules, and point values imbalances.

Gdub needs to do a serious adjustment for point costs. Second, make itself more accessible for game questions, provide timly updates and FAQs, and proofread before stuff goes for printing.

I started 40k at the very tail of 2E, and mostly played 3E / 4E. 3E was great. 3E armies actually started to look like armies, and you could actually play 3E games with 50+ models per side in a not-unreasonable amount of time.

2E was inherently much slower and cumbersome; listbuilding, core gameplay, and resolution were all much clunkier than 3E. Particularly Rulebook 3E.

7E is only slightly more complicated than 2E, and most of that is due to having several times more armies and units than were available in 2E. 2E didn't separate BA from DA, nor give them extra-specially unique Dreadnoughts and Flyers. 2E didn't have Tau or Admech or Titans or Necron codices. Harlequins were part of Eldar. GSC was part of Tyranids. CSM didn't have loads of Dinobots.

GW has never been particularly good with points costs, and I don't think they had as much of an Internet thing actively trying to "break" each Codex upon release. I do think their editing is on par with, or better than, every other game company that isn't Hasbro.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design?

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it.

Simpler *is* better, that's a fact.
1. Simpler, tighter rules make it far more likely that the players actually play a correct game the way the rules say they're supposed to play it.
2. Simpler, smaller rules make it more likely that the players have the opportunity to play with the entire ruleset.
3. Simpler rules place more emphasis on the tactical game on the actual tabletop, rather than buried in rules arcana and interactions.
It's a shift to more strategic games that emphasize gameplay.

Simpler rules also resulted in some really, really boring 3rd (beginning) and 4th (CSM, Eldar) dexs too, so one has to balance out simple with fun too.

I, for one, would be perfectly happy to go back to playing 3E Rulebook lists. Those games were fun, and were more tactical than what we play today.

Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

I'm not a fan of the Movement Stat returning. Currently there are 9 types of units and occasionally a special rule like Fleet. That's only 7 Movement rates players have to remember and you can tell by just looking at a model how fast it moves.

If the Movement Stat returns then we'll have to learn the movement rates of hundreds of different units. Even if each codex only had 2 different Movement rates (Infantry and Bikes/Cavalry) for each army, that would still be 40+ different movement rates we'd have to memorize.

I don't really think it would be as bad as all that.
It's not like the stats wont be on the unit profiles. Which, if the trend continues will be in the boxed sets along with the building instructions or on the GW site under the pictures of the models, as PDF's, like they are now.(AoS models)
If it even becomes a thing again.

Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

Always liked the thought of a D12, numbered 0-9 with a 'success' and 'fail' side as well for the last two, no longer have to worry about a '1 is always a fail' stuff, the dice have it on them, can also easily use for percentages - say your rolling ten to hit rolls, at 35% chance, roll ten dice, any that are a 1 or a 2 are obviously successes, and that roll a 4 or more are obviously fails, the only one you roll for the 'units' are ones that come up a three - easy to do and with percentages you can drop re-rolls, just apply a shift, then you have the granularity to do stuff like -1% to hit for every inch of range or whatever

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Simpler rules also resulted in some really, really boring 3rd (beginning) and 4th (CSM, Eldar) dexs too, so one has to balance out simple with fun too.

So it'd be better with things like 3rd Ed. Craftworld Eldar and Chaos 3.5? I like balance, even if some people think of it as "boring". M:TG is right over there if you need excitement ----------->

JohnHwangDD wrote:I, for one, would be perfectly happy to go back to playing 3E Rulebook lists. Those games were fun, and were more tactical than what we play today.

That's so true. I like some of the codex flavor, but I don't feel I REALLY lose out on anything by using the BGB lists. Same goes for 6th WFB with Ravening Hordes.

I see why D10's or D12's sound like a good idea, but I don't see what they offer that is significantly different to what 2 separate D6's, 2D6 or D66 (one D6 after the other) rolls could do.

On the original topic: I play 40k and AoS with my Tzeentch daemons, AoS is subjectively a more enjoyable experience, so I welcome 40k becoming more (but not entirely) like AoS.

While I never see a mainstream GW game going to a D8/D10/D12 etc., the idea has a lot of merit from a game design standpoint.

A D10 for instance would make far more sense in a game the size of 40K with the huge differences between a gretchin and a blood thirster, etc. As it stands now, regardless of a unit's BS, you have five different bands of possibility, instead of nine --- assuming we decide that a result of '1' is always a failure. It's not a glorified D6 as the above poster suggests.

You could easily change the stat line in 40K to a simple "X+" for almost every stat.

It's better than 2D6, D66 etc. because you could use a D10/D12 etc. as the primary dice. You sure as hell don't want to roll two dice per single boltgun shot, etc.

I think a 2d6 and movement stat would help a lot.

One of the biggest problems in 40k is representing speed. Humans, eldar, and whatever creepy looking nid creature move at roughly the same speed and it breaks the narrative a bit. It'd be nice if humans moved 4", eldar/marines moved 5", and some daemons/nids moved 6".
This would also give Necrons a weakness in that they are slow, moving 3", but can run and shoot. So effectively they move 6" but that is their top speed regardless. It would make for more interesting games. I'm a huge fan of the movement speed stat in WMH, and it adds a nice tactical complexity to the game. They'd have to reduce weapon ranges.

A 2d6 provides a nice bell curve. This would make things like terminators a lot better, since you could give them a low armor stat and have it up how many shots they take. You can also expand stats from 1-10 to 1-20, like in WMH.

I would play the heck out of a 40k setting but closer to WMH rules style game. Just take all my money.

 Just Tony wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Simpler rules also resulted in some really, really boring 3rd (beginning) and 4th (CSM, Eldar) dexs too, so one has to balance out simple with fun too.

So it'd be better with things like 3rd Ed. Craftworld Eldar and Chaos 3.5? I like balance, even if some people think of it as "boring". M:TG is right over there if you need excitement ----------->

What a strange non-argument, considering this is about mechanics rather then balance, which even in the most perfect ruleset can be a problem if something is horrifically balanced, I mean a book can be as simple as move and shoot but if it contains 3 point S7 AP3 48' gun models its going to break the game regardless of how simple it is.

Akiasura wrote:
I think a 2d6 and movement stat would help a lot.

One of the biggest problems in 40k is representing speed. Humans, eldar, and whatever creepy looking nid creature move at roughly the same speed and it breaks the narrative a bit. It'd be nice if humans moved 4", eldar/marines moved 5", and some daemons/nids moved 6".
This would also give Necrons a weakness in that they are slow, moving 3", but can run and shoot. So effectively they move 6" but that is their top speed regardless. It would make for more interesting games. I'm a huge fan of the movement speed stat in WMH, and it adds a nice tactical complexity to the game. They'd have to reduce weapon ranges.

A 2d6 provides a nice bell curve. This would make things like terminators a lot better, since you could give them a low armor stat and have it up how many shots they take. You can also expand stats from 1-10 to 1-20, like in WMH.

I would play the heck out of a 40k setting but closer to WMH rules style game. Just take all my money.

You should buy up some old 2nd ed. rulebooks/codices and have a blast - it's what I've done. My friend and I are simply adapting the psychic phase and close combat to be more simple/streamlined.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

This make no sense at all

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

This make no sense at all

Yes it does. I've been trying to explain it to my friend for months. He thinks a d10 would add this incredible amount of depth... how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line? How many would actually have a 10? Bloodthirster? Avatar of Khaine? It's pointless. Anything other than a d6 needs to be a d20 but in a game of random stuff I'd rather have 6 results or a d66 result over 20 results.
Imagine the annoyance of 20 possessed abilities or scattering d20 +/- or whatever.

 DeffDred wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

This make no sense at all

Yes it does. I've been trying to explain it to my friend for months. He thinks a d10 would add this incredible amount of depth... how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line? How many would actually have a 10? Bloodthirster? Avatar of Khaine? It's pointless. Anything other than a d6 needs to be a d20 but in a game of random stuff I'd rather have 6 results or a d66 result over 20 results.
Imagine the annoyance of 20 possessed abilities or scattering d20 +/- or whatever.

How many units have a value of 1 (apart of attack and wound) right now ??? How many got a 10 ??? Basically none. Using d10 add 67% of range value compared to a d6, I just don't see how you can claim it's pointless.

 DeffDred wrote:
how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line?

How many units have a 1 now? Aside from the fact that you aren't required to avoid using 1s no matter what dice you use it's still a significant increase in the range of numbers available. Under the current D6 system 1s and 6s are very rare, and virtually all units have stats in the 2-5 range (and even 2s are fairly rare). So that's four numbers available. If you move to a D10 system and keep the "no using the highest or lowest number" rule you now have 2-9 available, which is eight numbers. That's double the number of values.

Also, remember that most of 40k's problems with the D6 system aren't that hard to resolve. The most common issue is the "elite, but not that elite" units, where you want to give them a bit better stats than the basic unit but not quite as much as the best stuff. For example, normal IG troops are BS 3, and veterans/stormtroopers/etc should have improved BS. But you have to add a full point of BS, bringing them all the way up to space marine level. Now, I'm quite happy with this, because those special snowflakes, but some people don't like "normal" humans having the same stats as marines. Then you have the same problem with marines, a sternguard squad would really like improved BS over a tactical squad but if you add a full point of BS you bring them up to heroic HQ level and that's too far. And you can't solve the problem within the D6 system by re-scaling everything downwards to free up numbers, because you still have to leave room for orks/conscripts/etc at BS 2 and snap shots at BS 1.

A D10 system solves this rather neatly. Let's say we keep the same roll to hit system and just change the numbers (making the to-hit number = 11 - BS). "Normal" humans can be BS 5, keeping the same 50% hit rate. Veterans get BS 6. Tactical marines get BS 7. Sternguard get BS 8. HQs get BS 9. God-like characters get BS 10. That covers all of the relevant categories already, the extra numbers added by moving all the way to a D20 would be redundant. And of course if you change the core mechanic instead of keeping the same to-hit system you can free up all of those lower numbers and get even more possible values in case you come up with something that needs them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line?

How many units have a 1 now? Aside from the fact that you aren't required to avoid using 1s no matter what dice you use it's still a significant increase in the range of numbers available. Under the current D6 system 1s and 6s are very rare, and virtually all units have stats in the 2-5 range (and even 2s are fairly rare). So that's four numbers available. If you move to a D10 system and keep the "no using the highest or lowest number" rule you now have 2-9 available, which is eight numbers. That's double the number of values.

Also, remember that most of 40k's problems with the D6 system aren't that hard to resolve. The most common issue is the "elite, but not that elite" units, where you want to give them a bit better stats than the basic unit but not quite as much as the best stuff. For example, normal IG troops are BS 3, and veterans/stormtroopers/etc should have improved BS. But you have to add a full point of BS, bringing them all the way up to space marine level. Now, I'm quite happy with this, because those special snowflakes, but some people don't like "normal" humans having the same stats as marines. Then you have the same problem with marines, a sternguard squad would really like improved BS over a tactical squad but if you add a full point of BS you bring them up to heroic HQ level and that's too far. And you can't solve the problem within the D6 system by re-scaling everything downwards to free up numbers, because you still have to leave room for orks/conscripts/etc at BS 2 and snap shots at BS 1.

A D10 system solves this rather neatly. Let's say we keep the same roll to hit system and just change the numbers (making the to-hit number = 11 - BS). "Normal" humans can be BS 5, keeping the same 50% hit rate. Veterans get BS 6. Tactical marines get BS 7. Sternguard get BS 8. HQs get BS 9. God-like characters get BS 10. That covers all of the relevant categories already, the extra numbers added by moving all the way to a D20 would be redundant. And of course if you change the core mechanic instead of keeping the same to-hit system you can free up all of those lower numbers and get even more possible values in case you come up with something that needs them.

All of those examples seem like a drastic case of imbalance. BS is fine and all but applying that to WS or S and T would just ruin the game. Certain units would become completely obsolete if their stats were based off fluff. Grots, conscripts, nurglings would all be shockingly pathetic.

Now if this were a complete overhaul of the game it could make more sense but its pointless debating on it until everyone can agree on the basic rules changes before making suggestions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Sternguard hitting 80% of the time? That's just stupid. Eldar would have to have a "faster than human" save to compensate for that.

A character hitting 90% of the time?! Isn't that just currently BS 10?

 DeffDred wrote:
All of those examples seem like a drastic case of imbalance. BS is fine and all but applying that to WS or S and T would just ruin the game.

Why? Anything you can do in a D6 system can be done in a D10 system, you just pick the appropriate numbers that give you roughly the same probability as you'd have under the D6 system. I can't see any way that this would ruin the game unless it's a badly executed D10 system.

Certain units would become completely obsolete if their stats were based off fluff. Grots, conscripts, nurglings would all be shockingly pathetic.

Yes, of course they'd be pathetic. They should be pathetic. But fortunately in a points-based game like 40k having pathetic units is not a problem. Grots/nurglings/etc would be extremely cheap per model to reflect their pathetic stat line, while conscripts would fall somewhere in the middle between the truly pathetic units and the "trained troops" level of normal guardsmen/fire warriors/etc.

And Sternguard hitting 80% of the time? That's just stupid. Eldar would have to have a "faster than human" save to compensate for that.

Why is that so bad? Sternguard are already hitting 66% of the time, so it's a ~21% increase in firepower. That is comparable to the firepower levels you can already get (for example, it's considerably less than giving them a re-roll to hit) and easily compensated for by increasing their point cost if necessary. And remember that this was just a bare minimum "keep the same mechanics with a D10" change, it wouldn't necessarily be 80% if you're allowed to change the whole hit-wound-save process in addition to changing what dice are used.

A character hitting 90% of the time?! Isn't that just currently BS 10?

No, that would be BS 5 like many characters have already. At BS 5 you're hitting 83% of the time already, bumping it up to 90% is not a big difference. And remember that characters rarely have the biggest guns in the army, going up to 90% hit rate on a single plasma pistol or combi-melta or whatever is not going to make a meaningful difference in balance across an entire army.

Watching a video battle report got me thinking I'd really like them to remove look out sir. It takes a lot of time and makes IC far too hard to kill. Doing so would also help put the emphasis back on the small guy's

 Peregrine wrote:
or whatever is not going to make a meaningful difference in balance across an entire army.

Then what would be the point of the changes in the first place?

Akiasura wrote:
I think a 2d6 and movement stat would help a lot.

One of the biggest problems in 40k is representing speed. Humans, eldar, and whatever creepy looking nid creature move at roughly the same speed and it breaks the narrative a bit. It'd be nice if humans moved 4", eldar/marines moved 5", and some daemons/nids moved 6".
This would also give Necrons a weakness in that they are slow, moving 3", but can run and shoot. So effectively they move 6" but that is their top speed regardless. It would make for more interesting games. I'm a huge fan of the movement speed stat in WMH, and it adds a nice tactical complexity to the game. They'd have to reduce weapon ranges.

A 2d6 provides a nice bell curve. This would make things like terminators a lot better, since you could give them a low armor stat and have it up how many shots they take. You can also expand stats from 1-10 to 1-20, like in WMH.

I would play the heck out of a 40k setting but closer to WMH rules style game. Just take all my money.

Not going to happen. The squads are huge in 40k compared to WMH (at least, they can be). How are you supposed to roll a bucket of dice, AND roll them in couples? Is not the level of resolution GW wants to sell you SpamHammer.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
I think a 2d6 and movement stat would help a lot.

One of the biggest problems in 40k is representing speed. Humans, eldar, and whatever creepy looking nid creature move at roughly the same speed and it breaks the narrative a bit. It'd be nice if humans moved 4", eldar/marines moved 5", and some daemons/nids moved 6".
This would also give Necrons a weakness in that they are slow, moving 3", but can run and shoot. So effectively they move 6" but that is their top speed regardless. It would make for more interesting games. I'm a huge fan of the movement speed stat in WMH, and it adds a nice tactical complexity to the game. They'd have to reduce weapon ranges.

A 2d6 provides a nice bell curve. This would make things like terminators a lot better, since you could give them a low armor stat and have it up how many shots they take. You can also expand stats from 1-10 to 1-20, like in WMH.

I would play the heck out of a 40k setting but closer to WMH rules style game. Just take all my money.

Not going to happen. The squads are huge in 40k compared to WMH (at least, they can be). How are you supposed to roll a bucket of dice, AND roll them in couples? Is not the level of resolution GW wants to sell you SpamHammer.

Indeed, 2d6 would be the best, but no way is it implementable in the current scale of 40k

Deff, you seem to be missing the point.

It's simple mathematics. A D10 applied to a game system allows more variation in stats than a D6. You seem to be implying that it does not. This is incorrect.

The inclusion of a D10 or any other type of dice would obviously require a complete change to the way the game is handled, but that's not what we're discussing. You seem to be implying that mathematically a D10 and D6 are the same...which is patently false. If not, you're coming across that way and may wish to restructure your statement.

Well but a D6 has advantages you can nevverever get by a d6

the biggest is that you eyes are able to recognise any given number on a d6 much much faster han on a d10.

so game would become a lot slower just because you need more time to flick through a bunch of dice.... and 40k uses a lot of dice.

In addition it would be much more streng consumuing. you have to conentrate more to read a bunch of d10.

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS...

Well. there's your problem. BOLS is not a particularly reliable source of rumors. You are better off throwing a bunch of random ideas written on scraps of paper into a hat, pulling one out at random and posting about it.

Lord Kragan wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

We AoS "fanboys" are tired of 40k fanboys being snide snobs thinking that a "standard" game lasting 4 hours and ending with a royal head-ache is cool and hammering how cool it is. We are also tired of people not knowing how to play (because I've seen little to no deathstars in this game, so please explain me in what they consisted) and whinning about it (but you're right that archers shooting in meele is a mess, my only complain). And don't get me started on the self-projection of yours with the "deathstars" part as there are a LOT of lists in 40k being basically deathstars (superfriends anyone?).

Open your eyes... AOS is a mess

 _ghost_ wrote:
Well but a D6 has advantages you can nevverever get by a d6

the biggest is that you eyes are able to recognise any given number on a d6 much much faster han on a d10.

so game would become a lot slower just because you need more time to flick through a bunch of dice.... and 40k uses a lot of dice.

In addition it would be much more streng consumuing. you have to conentrate more to read a bunch of d10.

Yes, and no. I play numerous games which use a lot of D10s and I don't find it any slower than a D6. 40K uses far too many D6's as it is now...so that's a problem in and of itself. The number of attacks/shots/etc. is one of the things which turns me off hugely from current 40K.

 Elbows wrote:
It's simple mathematics. A D10 applied to a game system allows more variation in stats than a D6. You seem to be implying that it does not. This is incorrect.

The inclusion of a D10 or any other type of dice would obviously require a complete change to the way the game is handled, but that's not what we're discussing. You seem to be implying that mathematically a D10 and D6 are the same...which is patently false. If not, you're coming across that way and may wish to restructure your statement.

What most of you are choosing not to comprehend is how marginal the difference is between a d10 and a d6. Yes, 10 it is more than 6, but not the point that it would actually change anything in terms of how the game works. If the point is to have an incremental change for appearances, then by all means, shift a d6 game over to a d10. Just don't expect it to be meaningfully different from the d6 version.

I recognise the changes from a d6 to a d10. And I do not think it would slow down the game.
My fear is, following iterations of the game would still shift the values toward the middle or high-middle.

Look at how many units were BS3 and went gradually to BS4 edition after edition. In 3rd, only Ulthwé Black Guardians were BS4. Guardians now..
Space Marines Scouts. IG got BS4 veterans.
Or designers got way around it with mechanics like twin-linked everywhere, heavy 20, relentless salvos, marketlights....

The dice is not the problem. The lack restraint and possibly fanboyism from the designer's part should be limited.

Overall, is the continuous rolling and rerolling that slows the game and removes player's agency.

alex0911 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

We AoS "fanboys" are tired of 40k fanboys being snide snobs thinking that a "standard" game lasting 4 hours and ending with a royal head-ache is cool and hammering how cool it is. We are also tired of people not knowing how to play (because I've seen little to no deathstars in this game, so please explain me in what they consisted) and whinning about it (but you're right that archers shooting in meele is a mess, my only complain). And don't get me started on the self-projection of yours with the "deathstars" part as there are a LOT of lists in 40k being basically deathstars (superfriends anyone?).

Open your eyes... AOS is a mess

No it isnt: barring the fact that you can shoot while in combat the game has no glaring issues so to speak off. But you know what, do tell me what exactly is the mess in this game, c'mon do tell me? In so far the only thing most people have said is: it's bad, it's a mess. C'mon, what the hell is bad?
And don't come me with the OP's post because if it's what I think what happened then It shouldn't surprise no one that Vlad deleted everything in combat. Do you expect that, to make an example, 200pts last you too long against a 400-500 points worth of enemies??

EDIT: Now I actually remember the OP, 'kay nothing lost then, guy's an inflammatory moron.

AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is. Definitely easier to get into too.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is. Definitely easier to get into too.

I know. Those people that seem to call AoS a mess seem to forget about things like the super-friends lists, the scat-bike spam with dual wraithknight, the riptide-wing with the kevin (fond of leet speak with their KV128 bull-craup) twins, and screamerstars, just to name a few un-fun combos that can run a game into the ground.

Changing from d6s to d10s would be a pretty good improvement. I've always been disturbed by the extreme difference between say, a 2+ and a 3+.

Any argument about how d6s are easier to read or whatever and that's why they're better. They're just... wrong.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is. Definitely easier to get into too.

I know. Those people that seem to call AoS a mess seem to forget about things like the super-friends lists, the scat-bike spam with dual wraithknight, the riptide-wing with the kevin (fond of leet speak with their KV128 bull-craup) twins, and screamerstars, just to name a few un-fun combos that can run a game into the ground.

The two games are bad in different way. AoS is over-simplistic, has mechanics that kill immersion, and other things we discussed to death.
40k is the opposite: we would live better without a good number of the rules, and have some other ones fixed. Is an overdesigned mess.
Both have rules all over the place.

Point being, to fix AoS you should built (GW already started with points) with 40k you should cut, but the right things, not too much, not what works like the wound table.

They are two faces of the same medal, the lack of talent in the studio.

AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

Lord Kragan wrote:
AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

"Is one year old" is not an excluse for a company like GW.

Synergies like? You get bonuses if you bring more zombies? Also, we are derailing. Start a thread but the point is, many people do not want AoS in 40k, regardless you like AoS or not.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

"Is one year old" is not an excluse for a company like GW.

Synergies like? You get bonuses if you bring more zombies? Also, we are derailing. Start a thread but the point is, many people do not want AoS in 40k, regardless you like AoS or not.

It's not an excuse: it's a point made. They are developing the game system as time goes on. The GHB will be updated on basis on the data they record with the TO and the like as well as rules amendments as time goes on.
Regarding synergies:
Or you get bonuses if you choose to fight x units (brutes, bonesplitterz, mobs) or you get bonuses to being certain locations (terrain, cover) or special skills and general traits and formations.

Just to put an example with Ironjawz: your average ardboy will get 3 attacks from two choppas. He hits on a 4+. Now factor in a warchanter and he gets +1 to hit AND gets to move an additional d6'' in the hero phase. Add in the ironfist battalion d6'' extra movement. Now you get a unit with a nice damage output and mobility while meeting certain conditions and restriction. Now add in a warboss' WAAAGH! and hets +1 attack. But wait the WAAAGH only activates if you roll equal or less than the number of units at x distance! And it's a powerful and central skill in an Ironjaw army. So right out of the bat you're faced with several questions: do I want several units (make the skill more likely to trigger and greatly boost my army while covering more ground but making myself more vulnerable to enemy actions and diluting other bonsues' utility ) or big units (less chance of activation and flexibility but more potential output and reinforcement of other bonuses) ? Do I select x leader and formations, losing points for boys for toys? Do I risk my leaders in close combat, where they are extremely proficient or do I keep them so as to maximize the army-multiplier potential And this is a very uncomplicated army, don't get me started on what you can do with more finicky armies like sylvaneth or freeguild+ironweld.
Another example: gordrakk sinergizes brutally with a gore-fist. They become an extremely mobile army (as in, they go from having an average threat range of 15'' to having an average threat range of 33'') which makes them a lethal strategy for tying enemy units and an excellent counter for shooty armies, all while greatly enhancing their chances of triggering their d3 wounds special effect.

Furthermore the game has become more complex since tabling your opponent doesn't count as a victory in matched play so you have to play to the mission if you want to win, not just bashing heads.

The point of this thread is bob82ca bringing again his disdain for AoS all while being overly inflammatory.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

"Is one year old" is not an excluse for a company like GW.

Synergies like? You get bonuses if you bring more zombies? Also, we are derailing. Start a thread but the point is, many people do not want AoS in 40k, regardless you like AoS or not.

It's not an excuse: it's a point made. They are developing the game system as time goes on. The GHB will be updated on basis on the data they record with the TO and the like as well as rules amendments as time goes on.

"They are developing the game system as time goes on." Sorry, this is wrong. Is worse, actually, is part of the problem, but at least is on-topic.
GW must stop to put out stuff half-finished, not implement functional errata, and then sell us (well, not to me I am not going to buy them) more books with half-fixes. See CSM and 5 books of fail.
AoS should have been functional from day 1. This is not a guy writing an internet homebrew is a company of supposed professionals.
There is literally no way I can trust or take seriously these people after AoS. And I want their design principles away from 40k.

40k is already going in the direction of AoS, in the sense that we have formations, no balance (albeit in AoS they had to listen to the crowd and throw some points later on), progressively worse written fluff, and rules all over the places. If you have formations and warscrolls you do not have a tight ruleset. Too much stuff to keep track of.

Regarding synergies:
Or you get bonuses if you choose to fight x units (brutes, bonesplitterz, mobs) or you get bonuses to being certain locations (terrain, cover) or special skills and general traits and formations.

Just to put an example with Ironjawz: your average ardboy will get 3 attacks from two choppas. He hits on a 4+. Now factor in a warchanter and he gets +1 to hit AND gets to move an additional d6'' in the hero phase. Add in the ironfist battalion d6'' extra movement. Now you get a unit with a nice damage output and mobility while meeting certain conditions and restriction. Now add in a warboss' WAAAGH! and hets +1 attack. But wait the WAAAGH only activates if you roll equal or less than the number of units at x distance! And it's a powerful and central skill in an Ironjaw army. So right out of the bat you're faced with several questions: do I want several units (make the skill more likely to trigger and greatly boost my army while covering more ground but making myself more vulnerable to enemy actions and diluting other bonsues' utility ) or big units (less chance of activation and flexibility but more potential output and reinforcement of other bonuses) ? Do I select x leader and formations, losing points for boys for toys? Do I risk my leaders in close combat, where they are extremely proficient or do I keep them so as to maximize the army-multiplier potential And this is a very uncomplicated army, don't get me started on what you can do with more finicky armies like sylvaneth or freeguild+ironweld.
Another example: gordrakk sinergizes brutally with a gore-fist. They become an extremely mobile army (as in, they go from having an average threat range of 15'' to having an average threat range of 33'') which makes them a lethal strategy for tying enemy units and an excellent counter for shooty armies, all while greatly enhancing their chances of triggering their d3 wounds special effect.

The point of this thread is bob82ca bringing again his disdain for AoS all while being overly inflammatory.

Sorry but this looks like the usual bonus stacking, not different from all the cheese with psypowers in 40k. Both are more like a M:tG combo.
Besides, that's still a lot of rolling. Roll less than that or does not trigger. Move additional d6 instead of, say, 3". Roll roll roll roll roll
A system with good synergies would be one with rules that allow to exploit features of a model not directly designed for that purpose. And then use more models in combination.
Like say, in 3rd, mobile Dark Eldar units and punchy ones, plus the crossed fire rules (don't remember the english name, the ones concerning fleeing on enemy units and be destroyed).

You build an interesting system if you have units functional on his own, and then able to exploit an interesting, well built, coherent system.
What did you show is just bonus stacking I am sorry (albeit the warboss part and its choices are indeed interesting - I like that! I like choices). Is something spoon-feeded, but these are pre-built combos by the designer, no true potential for synergy. This can be fun, but is not particularly interesting, gets old fast, and is not the best the company ever did.

Mind it 40k is going away from that fast, now is the same combo-fest, or armies left in the dust.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

"Is one year old" is not an excluse for a company like GW.

Synergies like? You get bonuses if you bring more zombies? Also, we are derailing. Start a thread but the point is, many people do not want AoS in 40k, regardless you like AoS or not.

It's not an excuse: it's a point made. They are developing the game system as time goes on. The GHB will be updated on basis on the data they record with the TO and the like as well as rules amendments as time goes on.

"They are developing the game system as time goes on." Sorry, this is wrong. Is worse, actually, is part of the problem, but at least is on-topic.
GW must stop to put out stuff half-finished, not implement functional errata, and then sell us (well, not to me I am not going to buy them) more books with half-fixes. See CSM and 5 books of fail.
AoS should have been functional from day 1. This is not a guy writing an internet homebrew is a company of supposed professionals.
There is literally no way I can trust or take seriously these people after AoS. And I want their design principles away from 40k.

40k is already going in the direction of AoS, in the sense that we have formations, no balance (albeit in AoS they had to listen to the crowd and throw some points later on), progressively worse written fluff, and rules all over the places. If you have formations and warscrolls you do not have a tight ruleset. Too much stuff to keep track of.

First thing first: AoS solves several issues in 40k: formations DO cost points, unlike 40k (mind you, there are cases of being underscosted but they have clearly stated they'll adjust points periodically, that's attempt at balance), you don't have free summoning and the fluff is, in comparison to the first books (which weren't good, I admit) is getting better fluff as time goes on (seriously there's a massive difference in the writing quality).
The rules are free to play and you can use models from an old game they made so there's that too. That too much stuff to keep track of isn't an excuse when there's an app that lets you check it on your mobile phone in a second.

Also, on synergy, it's definition: the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; Buff stacking IS synergy: assuming a model has 10 attacks, and hits on a 4+ he hits 5 times.
A) +1 to hit nets 6.6 hits, 1.6 more hits.
B) +2 attacks nets 6 hits, 1 more hit

If you make a sum, that's 2.6 more hits.

C) +1 to hit and +2 attacks nets you 8 hits. That's 3 more hits.

3>2.6, the whole is bigger than its parts. That's synergy.
Long story short: you're conflating stuff with your definition of synergy.

Lord Kragan wrote:


First thing first: AoS solves several issues in 40k: formations DO cost points, unlike 40k (mind you, there are cases of being underscosted but they have clearly stated they'll adjust points periodically, that's attempt at balance), you don't have free summoning and the fluff is, in comparison to the first books (which weren't good, I admit) is getting better fluff as time goes on (seriously there's a massive difference in the writing quality).
The rules are free to play and you can use models from an old game they made so there's that too. That too much stuff to keep track of isn't an excuse when there's an app that lets you check it on your mobile phone in a second.

To be an added value, something should be of value in the first place. Formation are not. They are garbage, at least in the way GW conceives them.

If a unit needs a formation to work or to work better, simply it has not been designed in the right way. I am just sick of this.

One can design armies with different organisation (say, the two death korps lists) or even units (the awesome, and of course removed different missions of the stormtroopers in the 5ed IG codex). is what happened in 3rd with Craftworlds of CSM (yes there was cheese but again, it was the execution being wrong) with units removed and added. Or the tiered casters in WarmaHordes.

This does not happen because they prefer sell us formations and other synergies that rewards impulse buying of multiple copies of the same unit and I cannot accept to swallow it as good, brilliant design or "synergy" and i want my 40k away from this, not closer.

If you consider that good fluff. Ok. "De gustibus non disputandum est" I suppose.

The rules are free but is 4 pages of incoherent mess made to imitate Privateer Press and other companies without knowing that these put online an actual ruleset.

Whatever I see you don't want to have a discussion whatsoever and keep repeating your mantra. You don't even realize how non-sensical you're being.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Whatever I see you don't want to have a discussion whatsoever and keep repeating your mantra. You don't even realize how non-sensical you're being.

If I don't like what you say does not mean I am not discussing.

And frankly, I am not going further on this. Look at the above posts; you say that AoS has fantastic synergy, I say that a good, well designed synergy between units should be something better than bonus stacking, and you answer going on number crunching the bonus stacking.

I KNOW that synergy is " the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements". But if only adds a +1, instead of opening gameplay options on the battlefiled (say, pin units to make it vulnerable to assault, stuff like this), is just a game of gimmicks. It can be fun, but do not sell me as good design because is borderline insulting.

I think we are done here. Let's go back to 40k, is for the better.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Whatever I see you don't want to have a discussion whatsoever and keep repeating your mantra. You don't even realize how non-sensical you're being.

If I don't like what you say does not mean I am not discussing.

And frankly, I am not going further on this. Look at the above posts; you say that AoS has fantastic synergy, I say that a good, well designed synergy between units should be something better than bonus stacking, and you answer going on number crunching the bonus stacking.

I think we are done here. Let's go back to 40k, is for the better.

The thing is that you're not undestanding the baisc meaning of the word you're so adamant in defending, all while missing the point of the explanations you're given. You're not discusing since you're literally repeated thrice the same argument and almost the same lines.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Whatever I see you don't want to have a discussion whatsoever and keep repeating your mantra. You don't even realize how non-sensical you're being.

If I don't like what you say does not mean I am not discussing.

And frankly, I am not going further on this. Look at the above posts; you say that AoS has fantastic synergy, I say that a good, well designed synergy between units should be something better than bonus stacking, and you answer going on number crunching the bonus stacking.

I think we are done here. Let's go back to 40k, is for the better.

The thing is that you're not undestanding the baisc meaning of the word you're so adamant in defending, all while missing the point of the explanations you're given. You're not discusing since you're literally repeated thrice the same argument and almost the same lines.

No, you are just moving the goalpost. I recognise that stacking multiple +1 bonus is indeed a form of synergy, is just the worst possible design-wise.
Is just boring, lazy design compared to what a well designed game could bring.

And, we are off-topic.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


I KNOW that synergy is " the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements". But if only adds a +1, instead of opening gameplay options on the battlefiled (say, pin units to make it vulnerable to assault, stuff like this), is just a game of gimmicks. It can be fun, but do not sell me as good design because is borderline insulting.

See, you're not grasping what you've been told, just focusing on the most base of the boons. Also, pinning something is debuffing, and I think we've made it clear buff/de-buff stack doesn't count as synergy.

Let's look at ironfist (which could go as a brute, ardboy, and gore-grunta squad, so no unit spamming) and the warchanter.
Imagine a case where your unit (let's say gore-grunta) has been tied in combat. You want them to hold objective A but they cannot because they'd have to reatreat.
But wait! You can move a d6'' for the batallion! That means you can use that movement to retreat from the combat AND get close to the warchanter, get the other d6'' movement and thuse move towards the objective as you've basically made a hit-and-run tactic. Furthermore that saves you rolling because you make a single roll instead of 6 (rolling to hit, to wound and to save for both sides). Just to give you a picture: I got charged by a unit saurus knights but got to disengage using the ironfist and could still move towards the backfield objective. That alone gave me 4VPs because I had tied the rest of the enemy army thanks to my units' superior mobility

Do you want more strategy/possibilies?
Look at the sylvaneth: you can summon a wyldwood close to the enemy, then make a unit of tree-revenants appear from it and charge the enemy. Now they do have a skill that lets them re-roll any die per phase. Which means that you can use them to re-roll a charge die and thus make it more likely. See? Without any need of adding buffs, we've gone to make a unit an excellent blitzkrieg tool as they have the chance to greatly close the gap and reach soon the meelee.
Skryre have units/batallions that let you deepstrike and close in to strike weakest enemy joints.

Lord Kragan wrote:


See, you're not grasping what you've been told, just focusing on the most base of the boons. Also, pinning something is debuffing, and I think we've made it clear buff/de-buff stack doesn't count as synergy.

The focus on the sentence is on the combined use of units and the effects they bring by themselves (good assault units + sniper unit) and their use together, not the pinning per se.

Let's look at ironfist (which could go as a brute, ardboy, and gore-grunta squad, so no unit spamming) and the warchanter.
Imagine a case where your unit (let's say gore-grunta) has been tied in combat. You want them to hold objective A but they cannot because they'd have to reatreat.
But wait! You can move a d6'' for the batallion! That means you can use that movement to retreat from the combat AND get close to the warchanter, get the other d6'' movement and thuse move towards the objective as you've basically made a hit-and-run tactic.

Do you want more strategy/possibilies?
Look at the sylvaneth: you can summon a wyldwood close to the enemy, then make a unit of tree-revenants appear from it and charge the enemy. Now they do have a skill that lets them re-roll any die per phase. Which means that you can use them to re-roll a charge die and thus make it more likely. See? Without any need of adding buffs, we've gone to make a unit an excellent blitzkrieg tool as they have the chance to greatly close the gap and reach soon the meelee.
Skryre have units/batallions that let you deepstrike and close in to strike weakest enemy joints.

These are gimmicks. Are combo, because, as said, these are pre-made interactions designed for the units.

Think about the Dark Eldar example I made above. The fast units are fast because they are mobile platforms of fire, deliver units in melee, control the fiels and so on.
The melee units are dedicated assaulters.
The effect of make the assaulted units flee into a mobile units, that was able to go there because of its mobility, makes the assaulters more effective and creates another use for the mobile units.
This is allowed by a rule set that conceived an unit being destroyed if caught in the cross-fire.

Triggering d6 movements and having units dance all over the field is a gimmick. Moreover, is not clear for me this "from the bataillon". Is a rule of the "orruks"? Of the ironjaws (the names are awful btw).

The sylvanet example is not clear Where is the synergy? A units summons another, does it count as synergy? A unit self buffs (if I got the sentence right) does it count as synergy?

Let's say we have a different idea of how things should work and call it a day, ok?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


See, you're not grasping what you've been told, just focusing on the most base of the boons. Also, pinning something is debuffing, and I think we've made it clear buff/de-buff stack doesn't count as synergy.

The focus on the sentence is on the combined use of units and the effects they bring by themselves (good assault units + sniper unit) and their use together, not the pinning per se.

The sylvanet example is mind-boggling. Where is the synergy? A units summons another, does it count as synergy? A unit self buffs (if I got the sentence right) does it count as synergy?

Let's say we have a different idea of how things should work and call it a day, ok?

No, the sylvaneth doesn't summon the unit, it summons terrain and the revenants use said terrain (which serves mainly a defensive purpose instead of an aggressive one) as a deepstrike platform. That means that they made the assaulter more effective because they enabled a more easy charge, without the need of directly buffing the unit. Then the unit used a special skill that didn't necessarily need to be used in that way but complemented the chance the other unit had given through a non conventional method. It gives the sorcerer an added bonus as it becomes part of a counter-attack force: dryads got charged? Summon forest and let the revenants on the other side appear to counter-attack and reinforce your position. The enemy is too close? Summon the forest and zip away.

The bonus movement May be viewed as a bit gimmicky but just think on this: without it, the Ironjaws have to brace themselves for the charge and the opponent gets complacent as they control the flow. With it, it's the other way around due to the neck-snapping speed. It utterly changes the style you play ironjaws and greatly boosts certain of its strengths (offensive power) while other way may favour more reactive stances (ie: using shields and cover instead of charging headlong, holding the ground instead of proactively seeking the opponent, something at which they can excel too).

EDIT: also, after thinking about your example, there's a very similar case in AoS with the Fyreslayers: the Hearthguard can trap enemy monsters, making them more vulnerable to assault as they cannot move (as much, it doesn't fully nulify their movement, because that would be a bit broken as there are no checks needed), which makes your work easier and safer for your fyreslayers. And this is a bigger bonus if you're taking a mixed alleigance and go with freeguild. Monsters are the prime CQC units in the setting, halving their movement just gives you more time to shoot, thus making them a defensive choice and acting as a bulwark of sorts rather than a shooty unit.

Two things from AoS that I don't recall being mentioned and I would really like to see in 40k:

How magic works. Being familiar with a load of psychic disciplines then rolling on those and recording the results is a pain that is not worth the effort for me. I don't use half the powers I roll and I only have those because I had to stack the odds of getting something useful. It adds useless bookkeeping and random imbalance between armies.
Instead; AoS has 2 universal spells and each wizard brings something unique to the table that you pay fro and get every time.
To cast, you roll 2D6 (plus your buffs) against a value and you opponent can do the same (against your score) if in range to stop you (a limited number of times). Done. Simple and clean. Instead of a phase that takes ages because of agonizing about trying to manage risk and ends up effectively being rolling off. The warp charge pool does not add significantly more than simply limiting the number of spells that can be cast or unbound per wizard taken.

Second is the owner's choice wound allocation. Yes, it is less realistic, yes it takes some tactical consideration out of the game and yes putting characters in units will have to go with it. I don't mind; the other models can pick the special weapon up, 40k is bloated with too many tactical considerations and taking saves for individually models is cumbersome and takes ages (you can add "look out sir" for heroes in coherency to avoid character sniping).

 DarkBlack wrote:

Spoiler:

Two things from AoS that I don't recall being mentioned and I would really like to see in 40k:

How magic works. Being familiar with a load of psychic disciplines then rolling on those and recording the results is a pain that is not worth the effort for me. I don't use half the powers I roll, that I only have because I had to stack the odds of getting something useful. It adds useless bookkeeping and random imbalance between armies.
Instead; AoS has 2 universal spells and each wizard brings something unique to the table that you pay fro and get every time.
To cast, you roll 2D6 (plus your buffs) against a value and you opponent can do the same if in range to stop you (a limited number of times). Done. Simple and clean. Instead of a phase that takes ages because of agonizing because you are trying to manage risk and ends up effectively rolling off against an opponent. The warp charge pool does not add significantly more than simply limiting the number of spells that can be cast or unbound per wizard taken.

Second is the owner's choice wound allocation. Yes, it is less realistic, yes it takes some tactical consideration out of the game and yes putting characters in units will have to go with it. I don't mind, the other models can pick the special weapon up, 40k is bloated with too many tactical considerations and taking saves for individually models is cumbersome and takes ages (you can have "look out sir" for heroes in coherency to avoid character sniping).

You're absolutely right. I've suggested the first one for physic powers before in a home made rules thread. It was a combination of AoS magic and 5th edition pysker rules. The pysker has a fix set of powers and takes a leadership test to manifest them. Double one or double six is perils of the warp (which in this case is suffer one mortal wound). Unlike in AoS enemy pyskers can't unbind your powers unless they're a space marine librarian with a pyshic hood, but certain units are resistant to them.

I suggested calling the 40k version of Arcane Bolt 'Smite' and Mystic Sheild 'Ward'. The way I see it, it doesn't matter if the pysker is blasting you with lightning or using telekinesis to throw a boulder at you, the end result is the same; you're dead.

I'd much rather have a simple and to the point system than the long and complicated randomised one 40k currently has.

 DarkBlack wrote:
Two things from AoS that I don't recall being mentioned and I would really like to see in 40k:

How magic works. Being familiar with a load of psychic disciplines then rolling on those and recording the results is a pain that is not worth the effort for me. I don't use half the powers I roll and I only have those because I had to stack the odds of getting something useful. It adds useless bookkeeping and random imbalance between armies.
Instead; AoS has 2 universal spells and each wizard brings something unique to the table that you pay fro and get every time.
To cast, you roll 2D6 (plus your buffs) against a value and you opponent can do the same (against your score) if in range to stop you (a limited number of times). Done. Simple and clean. Instead of a phase that takes ages because of agonizing about trying to manage risk and ends up effectively being rolling off. The warp charge pool does not add significantly more than simply limiting the number of spells that can be cast or unbound per wizard taken.

I Agree! Wasn't a similar resolution a thing of the 40k of the past? Psychic powers were the facto risky equipments that needed a leadership test to work and they had a point cost. They were part of the list building. No random rolls. The risk of rolling was only in the perils, and there were no problems because another faction has no psykers (tau, necrons). I totally agree on bookeping and to the idiocy of adding another phase.
Bonus because they made the psyphase in 40k closer to the magic phase in WHFB, and that one was the one that gave more headaches because of balance problems. Chapeau, design team!
EDIT: one could argue that someone wants diversified powers among armies, but I think they should be of support mostly, not OP, selectable and paid with points, and simple to cast.

Second is the owner's choice wound allocation. Yes, it is less realistic, yes it takes some tactical consideration out of the game and yes putting characters in units will have to go with it. I don't mind; the other models can pick the special weapon up, 40k is bloated with too many tactical considerations and taking saves for individually models is cumbersome and takes ages (you can add "look out sir" for heroes in coherency to avoid character sniping).

Again, agree wholeheartedly. And this was in 40k before, unless I played it wrong. Carefully placing the squad, because of the current wound allocation rules, subtracts a good deal of time to the gameplay. I see someone can enjoy this subtlety but is it worthy?
The sergeant is more experienced, it makes sense he exposes himself less, and his the last to go down. The meltagun if picked up by a companion when is dropped by its bearer. If you want to have these elements of the squad targetable, there is the Precision Shot rule. Actually, it makes no sense the current wound allocation and the precision shot rule to exist in the same ruleset.
Chapeau again, design team!

This is what I mean when I talk about bad design. These hack frauds are the people that design the game around gimmicks they fill splats with, but then the basic ruleset is skeleton or an incoherent mess.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is.

I know. Those people that seem to call AoS a mess seem to forget about things like the super-friends lists, ...

The two games are bad in different way. AoS is over-simplistic, has mechanics that kill immersion, and other things we discussed to death.
40k is the opposite: we would live better without a good number of the rules, and have some other ones fixed. Is an overdesigned mess.
Both have rules all over the place.

Point being, to fix AoS you should built (GW already started with points) with 40k you should cut, but the right things, not too much, not what works like the wound table.

AoS is fine for what it is, and it has a better core game engine than 40k. The unfounded claim that AoS is "over-simplistic" and "kill immersion" needs to be defended with concrete examples in the current environment of GHB and Grand Alliances, not as initially released via PDFs.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is.

I know. Those people that seem to call AoS a mess seem to forget about things like the super-friends lists, ...

The two games are bad in different way. AoS is over-simplistic, has mechanics that kill immersion, and other things we discussed to death.
40k is the opposite: we would live better without a good number of the rules, and have some other ones fixed. Is an overdesigned mess.
Both have rules all over the place.

Point being, to fix AoS you should built (GW already started with points) with 40k you should cut, but the right things, not too much, not what works like the wound table.

AoS is fine for what it is, and it has a better core game engine than 40k. The unfounded claim that AoS is "over-simplistic" and "kill immersion" needs to be defended with concrete examples in the current environment of GHB and Grand Alliances, not as initially released via PDFs.

So, I have to buy a big book? Weren't the rules free?

I'll take the $25 hit for working points values, but at least you can still play with the base rules and no points, and *FORGE THE NARRATIVE* or something weird like that. :lol:

I see the addition of AoS features as being an improvement to the game. As it stands, AoS is currently a *much* better game with a lot more nuance than the 4 pages of rules would suggest. There are things I disagree with to a certain extent, but even some of the worse are not as bad as they felt at first.

 RuneGrey wrote:
I'll take the $25 hit for working points values, but at least you can still play with the base rules and no points, and *FORGE THE NARRATIVE* or something weird like that. :lol:

I see the addition of AoS features as being an improvement to the game. As it stands, AoS is currently a *much* better game with a lot more nuance than the 4 pages of rules would suggest. There are things I disagree with to a certain extent, but even some of the worse are not as bad as they felt at first.

It works fine for me and my opponents when we play narrative play. Up to date we've yet to use points for a narrative scenario and I've been in quite a lot of tight matches. The rules ARE free and if you want to use points you've to pay ZERO euros/dollars as you can use scrollbuilder for free (and it includes everything you need to know for "basic" matched play). The GHB just adds a lot of more stuff aside from basic guidelines like the path to glory and campaign systems or the various scenarios for narrative and matched play. But hey 20 euros is a crime when compared to the steal that are the 40+ euros of the rulebook in 40k.

From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

 Vash108 wrote:
From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

It's more that anyone within the army can summon said unit, a Chaos Wizard can summon all the things that are available to Chaos wizards like Daemons. Though with Matched play they balanced out summoning by making them more like reserves, where you have to have XXX points free to summon something.

So if you had an army, you'd reserve say.. 300 points, then you'd have 300 points worth of things you can summon. No free lunch like in 40k where you can just keep summoning to one's hearts content.

The reason it seems like they are summon heavy is that there's no randomization in AoS unless you want it too, most wizards tend to have two "Basic" spells with a unique or two so summoning has to be left up on the respective units warscroll, and with the new battletomes can select from those spells as well for your army of choice, command traits are picked, spells are picked (They do leave it as an option for a D6 if you want it to, but this is optional)

 Vash108 wrote:
From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

Nope. The following armies are "summong heavy":

Order;

-Seraphon/Lizardmen.
-Sylvaneth, though its more of the terrain summoning variety (as well as driads).

Destruction: no summon heavy armies at all.

Death:

-Everything barring fully fledged flesheater courts.

Chaos:

-Daemons/hosts of slaanesh, that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

It's more that anyone within the army can summon said unit, a Chaos Wizard can summon all the things that are available to Chaos wizards like Daemons. Though with Matched play they balanced out summoning by making them more like reserves, where you have to have XXX points free to summon something.

So if you had an army, you'd reserve say.. 300 points, then you'd have 300 points worth of things you can summon. No free lunch like in 40k where you can just keep summoning to one's hearts content.

The reason it seems like they are summon heavy is that there's no randomization in AoS unless you want it too, most wizards tend to have two "Basic" spells with a unique or two so summoning has to be left up on the respective units warscroll, and with the new battletomes can select from those spells as well for your army of choice, command traits are picked, spells are picked (They do leave it as an option for a D6 if you want it to, but this is optional)

And Honestly I think it makes more sense than in 40k (as well as taking a lot less time to spend, as you make less rolls). So this guy who has spend decades studying x magic doesn't exactly know which spells he gets?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

It's more that anyone within the army can summon said unit, a Chaos Wizard can summon all the things that are available to Chaos wizards like Daemons. Though with Matched play they balanced out summoning by making them more like reserves, where you have to have XXX points free to summon something.

So if you had an army, you'd reserve say.. 300 points, then you'd have 300 points worth of things you can summon. No free lunch like in 40k where you can just keep summoning to one's hearts content.

The reason it seems like they are summon heavy is that there's no randomization in AoS unless you want it too, most wizards tend to have two "Basic" spells with a unique or two so summoning has to be left up on the respective units warscroll, and with the new battletomes can select from those spells as well for your army of choice, command traits are picked, spells are picked (They do leave it as an option for a D6 if you want it to, but this is optional)

I like that idea and immediately makes it better that I had first thought. So would I be able to Side Board several different units and summon the ones I needed per my situation as long as it fit within that 300?

Pretty much: the basic idea is that you're sacrfying points in order to get whatever you want later on and in place. They also are able to make charges after being summoned so this ability is very useful for those units that can be best described as glass.cannons.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Pretty much: the basic idea is that you're sacrfying points in order to get whatever you want later on and in place. They also are able to make charges after being summoned so this ability is very useful for those units that can be best described as glass.cannons.

The downside in AoS is that you must place newly summoned units (or ones that are deployed outside the battlefield and are dropping, arriving from the side, or rising from below) more than 9" away from the enemy, leaving charges upon summoning as long shots at best. I don't believe there's anything that negates that 9" for summoning, although Stormcast and Skaven have rules or formations that allow them to drop in closer..

The other thing is that the more powerful the unit you want to summon, the higher the difficulty required. Summon Bloodthirster is on something fairly high - a 9 or a 10 IIRC - and I've seen a game or two go by where someone reserved the points to summon one and never got it off.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
The two games are bad in different way. AoS is over-simplistic, has mechanics that kill immersion, and other things we discussed to death.
40k is the opposite: we would live better without a good number of the rules, and have some other ones fixed. Is an overdesigned mess.
Both have rules all over the place.

Point being, to fix AoS you should built (GW already started with points) with 40k you should cut, but the right things, not too much, not what works like the wound table.

AoS is fine for what it is, and it has a better core game engine than 40k. The unfounded claim that AoS is "over-simplistic" and "kill immersion" needs to be defended with concrete examples in the current environment of GHB and Grand Alliances, not as initially released via PDFs.

So, I have to buy a big book? Weren't the rules free?

If you want to talk about AoS as it currently sits, yes.

The rules are still free. If you go into a GW store, they will give you a beautifully printed pamphlet of the AoS rules. If you want the army details, and the points, you'll have to shell out for the books.

 DeffDred wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

This make no sense at all

Yes it does. I've been trying to explain it to my friend for months. He thinks a d10 would add this incredible amount of depth... how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line? How many would actually have a 10? Bloodthirster? Avatar of Khaine? It's pointless. Anything other than a d6 needs to be a d20 but in a game of random stuff I'd rather have 6 results or a d66 result over 20 results.
Imagine the annoyance of 20 possessed abilities or scattering d20 +/- or whatever.

This is mathematically not true. The 1's and 10's aren't important. It's making 2-9 meaningful.

You can only have units with the option to be summoned (summoning spell on their warscroll) on your "sideboard" and you have to have a wizard from the correct grand alliance.

 RuneGrey wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Pretty much: the basic idea is that you're sacrfying points in order to get whatever you want later on and in place. They also are able to make charges after being summoned so this ability is very useful for those units that can be best described as glass.cannons.

The downside in AoS is that you must place newly summoned units (or ones that are deployed outside the battlefield and are dropping, arriving from the side, or rising from below) more than 9" away from the enemy, leaving charges upon summoning as long shots at best. I don't believe there's anything that negates that 9" for summoning, although Stormcast and Skaven have rules or formations that allow them to drop in closer..

The other thing is that the more powerful the unit you want to summon, the higher the difficulty required. Summon Bloodthirster is on something fairly high - a 9 or a 10 IIRC - and I've seen a game or two go by where someone reserved the points to summon one and never got it off.

Yes and no. There's a couple ways to circumvent this issue. First that comes to my mind is sylvaneth. Plunk a unit of whatever you want in a wyldwood, cast the spell that lets you move wyldwoods 2d6. Voila.
Also Morghast archai can charge 3d6 dice and ardboyz that come to the table as per the ardfist rules (read: you plunk them on the backfield) can be targetted by Gordrakk's skill to charge 3d6 and so on. I'm pretty sure there's a couple more ways to deal with the 9'' issue.
And it should be rightfully so that there's more difficulty involved in summoning a big critter rather than a small one. if you fear missing that summon roll, just shell 20 or so points for a couple of chaos familiars.