Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's my thoughts on the different gaming systems I have played over the years:

AoS has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.

Warhammer 40K has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.

Warhammer Fantasy has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.

Battlefleet Gothic has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.

Warmahordes has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.

Dungeons & Dragons has some cool concepts and some flawed executions. But it is still a fun game if you are willing to try it and keep an open mind.

Personally, I am willing to give the new edition a shot. I don't play near as much 40K anymore, sticking instead to AoS, but that has to do with the local player base and that most of my (exclusively) 40K friends live almost 2 hours away. So I play with certain players and friends who are in it for the love of the game and narrative, not those cheesy WAAC players interested in throwing down at the tournaments. They have their way of playing, and I have mine.

As far as the OP...

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Apparently there is a post to spikey bits that 40k is getting the following

Generals handbook
Having more ways to play your game is not a problem. The options for Open, Narrative, and Matched play works very well in AoS, and I don't see how it would cause problems in 40K. And according to GW, the General's Handbook is one of the best selling supplements they have ever produced, so people are willing to pay for other ways to play their games. Anybody remember the old Battle Missions book from 4th and 5th edition?

Movement stat back
I like this better than the current system of "Unit type moves X inches". Gives more variety and flavor across armies and can simplify a section of the rulebook.

Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Don't knock it until you try it. This might work out to be a lot cooler than what is currently in place. With the current info released, there is not enough to get upset over yet.

Armor save modifiers
I seem to recall hearing that this was a thing back in previous editions of 40K. Why would it be a problem to bring it back? Just because it is used in AoS doesn't mean it is a bad thing. I am personally in favor of it, as it can give resilient things a slight chance at survival.

Mortal wounds
First off, the GW announcement did not mention anything about "Mortal Wound" in their announcement. And frankly, Mortal Wounds always seemed to me like a "No saves allowed" wound or an Instant Death attack from 40K or a Killing Blow/Heroic Killing Blow from Fantasy. Having other ways to cause damage to your opponents army can be a fun and neat way to differentiate armies.

Discuss?

Really, it doesn't make a difference to me, whatever the changes are. The rules are just there as an abstraction of what might happen in real life, and just there to facilitate a positive gaming experience between players. At this point, I think that 5th edition 40K, the version I started on, was the best one I played. Not because I can empirically or rationally prove it, but because of my early gaming moments and experiences. I have had several fun experiences in 6th and 7th edition as well, but I still played it and learned the rules. The games are about having fun, not about following rules, as you don't HAVE to have the rules to move around little plastic soldiers, tanks, and creatures in simulated galactic conflict.

I mean, will the coming changes in rules change other players's mentality for how they seek to play their games? Will the WAAC TFG players in my local tournament scene all suddenly start playing for fluff, narrative, and fun? Will I and my friends start playing in tournaments again?

Hey, the Chicago Cubs won the World Series, so anything is possible

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?

I mean, I can see that being good or bad, depending.

But if they dole out an AP value to EVERYTHING, like Galef suggested (which is honestly fairly logical), than armor is going to be kind of a joke.

For example, bolters reducing 2+ saves to a 3+ saves, just because?

I would definitely be ok with high strength weapons having AP modifiers - for example, it's not quite logical that terminators get the same save from battle cannons and lasguns.

But flooding the game with AP modifiers sounds like a nightmare for armored units.

Then again, I play orks, and I've always said armor is for losers. Maybe it will be.

Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.

The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.

And from what little I know of AoS, it seems most units have a pretty low save - 'ardboys, for example, have a 4+ save, and I think 3+ saves are pretty rare.

I mean, common rending weapons combined with generally low-ish saves (4+), combined with wounding everything on a set value, seems like stuff gets killed in droves. But I suppose lots of stuff have multiple wounds, so maybe it's not so bad.

IDK, I'm keeping an open mind, but that sounds unpleasant for MEQ/TEQs.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.

The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.

It's also worth mentioning that in some instances, you don't have an "automatic" Rend but rather a situational Rend based on a roll of a 6 or something like that.

Good example of this is the Waywatcher and his Precise Shot ability.
Waywatchers have a Waystalker Bow with 3 Attacks and a Rend of -1. When firing Precise Shots, the Waystalker Bow inflicts 2 Damage rather than 1 and on any roll of a 6--the Wound is resolved with -2 Rend rather than -1.

That kind of ability isn't unheard of.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.

Can you provide any examples on how or why? or has it been a while?

Well, power armor was 3+ as it is now. But heavy bolters were -2 armor save, as was the standard issue shuriken catapult, as was the dreaded sonic blaster. The shuriken cannon was a nightmare at -3, and the Eldar could spam them to the point where they could kill 10 teminators through a 3+ on 2D6 save. Regular marines just melted away, need a "6" to save vs the shuriken cannon.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

And from what little I know of AoS, it seems most units have a pretty low save - 'ardboys, for example, have a 4+ save, and I think 3+ saves are pretty rare.

I mean, common rending weapons combined with generally low-ish saves (4+), combined with wounding everything on a set value, seems like stuff gets killed in droves. But I suppose lots of stuff have multiple wounds, so maybe it's not so bad.

'Ardboys are a 4+ Save with 2 Wounds and when armed with Orruk-Forged Shields?
You roll a D6 before allocating a Wound. On a roll of a 6, the Wound is ignored.

IDK, I'm keeping an open mind, but that sounds unpleasant for MEQ/TEQs.

Only if you insist on not seeing all the rules tied to something, I guess.

What remains to be seen is if cover is going to work like sigmar, where it is a modifier to your base save. This could be interesting as it could make space marines that stand out in the open more vulnerable, while also actually giving them a benefit for taking cover. That change alone could make the game more tactical for some factions. For lower save armies however, the effect may end up being the opposite as a +1 to your save from a 6+ is almost not even worth the trouble.

It could be cool, we will just have to see. I just hope my lasguns get a boost (probably not though).

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
In the news, it says they're bringing back armor modifying values. Does anyone know how they worked in the past, or have a basic summary of how they work in AoS?

I mean, I can see that being good or bad, depending.

But if they dole out an AP value to EVERYTHING, like Galef suggested (which is honestly fairly logical), than armor is going to be kind of a joke.

For example, bolters reducing 2+ saves to a 3+ saves, just because?

I would definitely be ok with high strength weapons having AP modifiers - for example, it's not quite logical that terminators get the same save from battle cannons and lasguns.

But flooding the game with AP modifiers sounds like a nightmare for armored units.

Then again, I play orks, and I've always said armor is for losers. Maybe it will be.

Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.

The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.

And from what little I know of AoS, it seems most units have a pretty low save - 'ardboys, for example, have a 4+ save, and I think 3+ saves are pretty rare.

I mean, common rending weapons combined with generally low-ish saves (4+), combined with wounding everything on a set value, seems like stuff gets killed in droves. But I suppose lots of stuff have multiple wounds, so maybe it's not so bad.

IDK, I'm keeping an open mind, but that sounds unpleasant for MEQ/TEQs.

Depends. Things like Magic Shield can give a unit an automatic +1, and it seems like FNP is much more common on units, especially Orks




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Krump, essentially you have an armor value like now, and weapons come with an automatic Rend of 1 2 or 3. I'd say about 40% of weapons have a rend of 0, 33% have a rend of 1, and the remaining have a rend of 2, rend 3 is pretty rare.

The ratio of rend 1 to rend 2 weapons is all based on battle reports I've watched, but seems pretty consistent.

It's also worth mentioning that in some instances, you don't have an "automatic" Rend but rather a situational Rend based on a roll of a 6 or something like that.

Good example of this is the Waywatcher and his Precise Shot ability.
Waywatchers have a Waystalker Bow with 3 Attacks and a Rend of -1. When firing Precise Shots, the Waystalker Bow inflicts 2 Damage rather than 1 and on any roll of a 6--the Wound is resolved with -2 Rend rather than -1.

That kind of ability isn't unheard of.

Yep. Plus things like Khorne Warriors reflecting Mortal Wounds back on the opponent, roll's of 6s do 2 Wounds, etc.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
What remains to be seen is if cover is going to work like sigmar, where it is a modifier to your base save. This could be interesting as it could make space marines that stand out in the open more vulnerable, while also actually giving them a benefit for taking cover. That change alone could make the game more tactical for some factions. For lower save armies however, the effect may end up being the opposite as a +1 to your save from a 6+ is almost not even worth the trouble.

Speaking as someone who plays Wood Elves...trust me, it's a huge benefit.

Especially when taking into account the fact that those units are designed from the ground up to get better than average while in Cover. Banners in my Wanderer units grant +2 Bravery to my Wanderers while in Cover. Eternal Guard can reroll failed Save rolls of 1 or 2 when in Cover; which is great for a unit with a 5+ save.
My Waywatcher grants a rule as part of his Command Ability, "See, But Do Not Be Seen".
That makes it so anything within 18" of him gains his special rule, "Invisible Hunter", meaning -1 to be hit by Shooting Attacks.

I could see similar treatment for Guard, something like a rule of "Keep your head down!" where they are -1 to be hit by Shooting Attacks and get +2 to their Save when

It could be cool, we will just have to see. I just hope my lasgun gets a boost (probably not though).

You'd be surprised how often the little things from AoS added up for armies that were less than great before.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.

Can you provide any examples on how or why? or has it been a while?

Well, already posted it once but here it is again. In 2nd ed, bolters had a -1 save modifier, heavy bolters were a -3 (and hvy bolters also did d4 wounds...). So if you shoot up a Marine squad with a heavy bolter, their save becomes a 6+. And there was no such thing as cover saves back then, cover was a -1 or -2 to hit. I mentioned earlier about running a dreadnought that could easily wipe out a 10-man Marine squad per turn with twin -linked (double shots, not re-roll to hit) heavy bolters and an assault cannon. So that Sanguinary blob would be reduced to a 5+ save vs heavy bolters, and even a 3+ save vs standard bolters. All of a sudden armies like Guard wouldn't need to spam plasma and lascannons to defeat 2+ armor, they could load up on heavy bolters instead.

I'm in the camp of minor tweaks + streamlining. I actually really like 40k 7th edition.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.

Can you provide any examples on how or why? or has it been a while?

Well, already posted it once but here it is again. In 2nd ed, bolters had a -1 save modifier, heavy bolters were a -3 (and hvy bolters also did d4 wounds...). So if you shoot up a Marine squad with a heavy bolter, their save becomes a 6+. And there was no such thing as cover saves back then, cover was a -1 or -2 to hit. I mentioned earlier about running a dreadnought that could easily wipe out a 10-man Marine squad per turn with twin -linked (double shots, not re-roll to hit) heavy bolters and an assault cannon. So that Sanguinary blob would be reduced to a 5+ save vs heavy bolters, and even a 3+ save vs standard bolters. All of a sudden armies like Guard wouldn't need to spam plasma and lascannons to defeat 2+ armor, they could load up on heavy bolters instead.

Well, does that not make the game more tactical? Should a space marine be able to stand out in the open and defiantly shrug off any shots? Should a player not be punished for standing in the open, and rewarded for using the terrain to his advantage?

How is an opponent supposed to use the terrain to their advantage, if you are not punished for using it unwisely?

I understand the concern, but I think that there is a balance here between the two ideas, even if they are contrary to each other.

 oldzoggy wrote:

This resulted in the mass spammage of S5+ weapons, this was balanced out by the fact that most standard troops had S3 and that it was nearly impossible to buff them above S5. Those units who could had a serious impact on the game. One of the issues with the current state of 40k is the issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons this is why I do not think that this is a good direction for it will only reinforce the spammage of "kill all guns" since they will now also be perfect for mowing down TEQ and MEQ. Who needs single shot weapons when you could just equip each guy with the ideal spray gun and kill it all.

The issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons... like which weapons exactly ?

To this day, the most broken thing in 40K is yet another superfriends deathstar, and the only competitive S6-based build has AP nothing (or 6. lol) - do we even play the same game?

The ideal weapon today is a grav weapon, and such a system would make it less so. good stuff!

Im down for a complete rehaul

40k as a game is terrible. and honestly iv been having way more fun with point costed aos.

Mass fire does a fantastic job of cutting through marines. I don't know who you're playing where Marines are walking up field shrugging off fire. That literally doesn't happen, ever.

TAC squads are effectively worthless in the game today. If formations didn't require them, people wouldn't use them.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
As a lighthearted aside, did anyone else notice the box labeled 'plastic thunderhawk' in the video associated with the adpeticon rules leaks? I thought it was pretty cute.

https://youtu.be/7dl0OtWqCa0?t=1m5s

Which brings me back to the drop pod.... god I love it. If only they could be played that way, and anything you destroy is indeed dead for all games purposes.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Well I can tell you power armor was useless in 2nd ed. If they do this, I won't have to worry how good BA are anymore.

Can you provide any examples on how or why? or has it been a while?

Well, already posted it once but here it is again. In 2nd ed, bolters had a -1 save modifier, heavy bolters were a -3 (and hvy bolters also did d4 wounds...). So if you shoot up a Marine squad with a heavy bolter, their save becomes a 6+. And there was no such thing as cover saves back then, cover was a -1 or -2 to hit. I mentioned earlier about running a dreadnought that could easily wipe out a 10-man Marine squad per turn with twin -linked (double shots, not re-roll to hit) heavy bolters and an assault cannon. So that Sanguinary blob would be reduced to a 5+ save vs heavy bolters, and even a 3+ save vs standard bolters. All of a sudden armies like Guard wouldn't need to spam plasma and lascannons to defeat 2+ armor, they could load up on heavy bolters instead.

Well, does that not make the game more tactical? Should a space marine be able to stand out in the open and defiantly shrug off any shots? Should a player not be punished for standing in the open, and rewarded for using the terrain to his advantage?

How is an opponent supposed to use the terrain to their advantage, if you are not punished for using it unwisely?

I understand the concern, but I think that there is a balance here between the two ideas, even if they are contrary to each other.

Oh I'm not against the idea, was just answering the 'examples' question. But then, my primary army is IG...

TAC squads have largely been "worthless" for pretty much every version of the game and you only ever took them to meet min CAD requirements (and even then at their min size).

In a game where you can cherry pick elites, its hard to justify taking normal guys.

morgoth wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:

This resulted in the mass spammage of S5+ weapons, this was balanced out by the fact that most standard troops had S3 and that it was nearly impossible to buff them above S5. Those units who could had a serious impact on the game. One of the issues with the current state of 40k is the issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons this is why I do not think that this is a good direction for it will only reinforce the spammage of "kill all guns" since they will now also be perfect for mowing down TEQ and MEQ. Who needs single shot weapons when you could just equip each guy with the ideal spray gun and kill it all.

The issue of ranged S6+ ap4 weapons... like which weapons exactly ?

To this day, the most broken thing in 40K is yet another superfriends deathstar, and the only competitive S6-based build has AP nothing (or 6. lol) - do we even play the same game?

The ideal weapon today is a grav weapon, and such a system would make it less so. good stuff!

Nope we are clearly not playing the same game. You appear to play in a superfriends deathstar grav spam meta while I never encounter any of those type of deathstars and only once faced a grav spam list.
While things like assault cannons, (psi) heavy bolters, Deffguns shuriken cannons, heavy flamers, manticores and gaus blasters are quite common in games I play. I would not like it if these guns and their equivalents joined grav in their indiscriminate killyness.

The armour save mechanic is broke in 40k. If you honestly think rerollable 2+ saves is meant to make players ignore or tarpit units that have it.

Personally I'd be fine with ap1 being a -2 modifier for armour and invul saves and ap2 being a -1 modifier however that just makes the game more about spamming ap2 weapons.

And I'm not sure just dealing with 2+ armor reroll nonsense will solve all the issues since we still have 2++ invul reroll nonsense.

They also need to fix the invis power becuase that's also completely broken. 40k has issues and what very little was said seems to show gw isn't just ignoring it for another edition. I don't know anyone who wanted 6th ed with minor tweaks for a third time in a row.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
The games are about having fun, not about following rules, as you don't HAVE to have the rules to move around little plastic soldiers, tanks, and creatures in simulated galactic conflict.

I can't agree more! I do enjoy debating the intricacies of the game, but the hate that GW gets over their rules is astonishing. If people hate the rules, but still play the game, it must be because they love the fluff and/or the models (because if it was about the rules, they'd have been lured to another system long ago). If they remembered that that's the reason they play, they might calm down about the rules a bit. I say that in the hope that people will be a bit calmer and happier about their hobby, not to have a go at them.

My personal wish is for a simplified system with fewer special rules and 'special cases'. I'd prefer a system where most of the units are fairly similar in how they function, meaning that (a) picking an army is about what looks/feels cool and not about what is powerful, and (b) winning is about strategy rather than army/unit choice. Obviously we don't want it so simplified that there's no difference between a daemon prince and an eldar exarch, but I'd like there to be just one or two unique rules and stats differences that distinguish one model from another. One thing that would be quite nice is to do away with universal special rules and instead have army-wide special rules, so that when you pick up a chaos codex, it tells you that all the infantry move a certain distance, don't ever run away, hate space marines and so on. That way, instead of learning the RULEBOOK, including all the rules that have nothing to do with my army, I just learn some basic rules and then learn my codex (which hopefully isn't too complex).
This is somewhere between the AoS 'every model has its own rules' and the 40k 'all models follow the rules in this big book' styles.

gungo wrote:
The armour save mechanic is broke in 40k. If you honestly think rerollable 2+ saves is meant to make players ignore or tarpit units that have it.

Personally I'd be fine with ap1 being a -2 modifier for armour and invul saves and ap2 being a -1 modifier however that just makes the game more about spamming ap2 weapons.

What? They should be -5/-4 at the very very least, while AP3 should be -3 and so on

They killed WHFB to make it more like 40k, but now they're making 40k more like AoS.

Go figure.

 Bobthehero wrote:

gungo wrote:
The armour save mechanic is broke in 40k. If you honestly think rerollable 2+ saves is meant to make players ignore or tarpit units that have it.

Personally I'd be fine with ap1 being a -2 modifier for armour and invul saves and ap2 being a -1 modifier however that just makes the game more about spamming ap2 weapons.

What? They should be -5/-4 at the very very least, while AP3 should be -3 and so on

Why in the world would you want -5/-4 when there's very little that will be at saves of 2+ or 3+?

Because those weapons make a mockery of most defenses? They can blow up a Land Raider or Leman Russ with a single shot with a bit of luck, armor carried by infantry should offer little to no protection agaisnt those.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Because those weapons make a mockery of most defenses? They can blow up a Land Raider or Leman Russ with a single shot with a bit of luck, armor carried by infantry should offer little to no protection agaisnt those.

Which is why most of those weapons likely will get the ability to cause Wounds that can't have saves taken on certain rolls, or will cause multiple wounds?

I get that this is new and frightening, but we're still a LONG way off. GW said they hope to have this by next year's Adepticon.

You see this anti armour weapon its the best we can produce. Now watch it penetrate a leather shirt with ease..

Now don't start asking questions about so called "tanks" or we will test the next weapon on you.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Because those weapons make a mockery of most defenses? They can blow up a Land Raider or Leman Russ with a single shot with a bit of luck, armor carried by infantry should offer little to no protection agaisnt those.

Which is why most of those weapons likely will get the ability to cause Wounds that can't have saves taken on certain rolls, or will cause multiple wounds?

I get that this is new and frightening, but we're still a LONG way off. GW said they hope to have this by next year's Adepticon.

I'd love to see a return to weapons with a wound characteristic. Here's some old 2nd edition profiles:

Bolter: 24" | S4 | Save Mod -1 | Wounds: 1

Meltagun: 12" | S8 | Save Mod -4 | Wounds: D6

Assault cannon: 36" | S8 | Save Mod -3 | Wounds: D10

Lascannon: 60" | S9 | Save Mod -6 | Wounds: 2D6

I like the concept but at the same time this would really make characters useless. I actually like character based gameplay and would like to see more of it rather than less. It helps create a narrative.

 corpuschain wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
The games are about having fun, not about following rules, as you don't HAVE to have the rules to move around little plastic soldiers, tanks, and creatures in simulated galactic conflict.

I can't agree more! I do enjoy debating the intricacies of the game, but the hate that GW gets over their rules is astonishing. If people hate the rules, but still play the game, it must be because they love the fluff and/or the models (because if it was about the rules, they'd have been lured to another system long ago). If they remembered that that's the reason they play, they might calm down about the rules a bit. I say that in the hope that people will be a bit calmer and happier about their hobby, not to have a go at them.

Hey, someone read my post!

But yeah, the rules aren't what is keeping players around and playing. It is the fluff of the setting that brings people in (at least in my experience). This is an awesome setting that came about from fans of the goofy and over the top awesomeness of 1980s science fiction combined with fantasy that has grown into this amazing amalgamation of absolute delight.

 corpuschain wrote:
My personal wish is for a simplified system with fewer special rules and 'special cases'. I'd prefer a system where most of the units are fairly similar in how they function, meaning that (a) picking an army is about what looks/feels cool and not about what is powerful, and (b) winning is about strategy rather than army/unit choice. Obviously we don't want it so simplified that there's no difference between a daemon prince and an eldar exarch, but I'd like there to be just one or two unique rules and stats differences that distinguish one model from another. One thing that would be quite nice is to do away with universal special rules and instead have army-wide special rules, so that when you pick up a chaos codex, it tells you that all the infantry move a certain distance, don't ever run away, hate space marines and so on. That way, instead of learning the RULEBOOK, including all the rules that have nothing to do with my army, I just learn some basic rules and then learn my codex (which hopefully isn't too complex).
This is somewhere between the AoS 'every model has its own rules' and the 40k 'all models follow the rules in this big book' styles.

Funnily enough, this sounds rather similar to Warhammer Fantasy. Hear me out folks!

In Warhammer Fantasy, you had the main rulebook and the army book. Each model and unit followed similar roles in how the functioned on the table, and each army had its own rules that covered most or all of the models for gaming. Sure, you still had all of those USRs to know, but they were in one place, and interactions between these rules were not nearly as clunky as how it works in 40K. In AoS, each model or unit has its own special rules, with larger benefits being added in for allegiances and formations. In 40K, there are the base rules, unit special rules, army specific rules, and formation/detachment provided special rules, all coming from the rulebook, Codices (codexes?), Supplements, and Campaign books, plus FAQs and Erratas to keep up with (which every game should have), and if you play in tournaments you have restrictions or additional rules on top of those! I'm all for having lots of options to play games, but I don't want to bring a library's worth of publications with me to use what I want to play.

I find all this rampant speculation about Rending values to be silly. Without a proper frame of reference as to how the mechanic will work in the context of the new edition, this is unnecessary. The save system might be changed, or additional dice types might be added into the game. Speculate, sure, but keep it calm and rational.

No new dice values were added to AoS. I find it far less likely that they'll start doing things like using D8s or D10s, and more likely that they'll keep things fairly close to AoS.

Well, I guess people can argue that the D20 is now part of AoS as a Wound Tracker.