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.

Togusa wrote:
Compared to everything else out there, AoS is quite unique. I dove headfirst into it last year during the pandemic, looking for an escape from the daily grind. I read the lore, books, started buying models to work on.

I don't know how you see it, but this is how I see it.

Sure, I'm glad you enjoy your hobby, and I admit the models releases are really beautiful. It's a matter of taste, and everyone is entitled to their own. For me, there has never been huge pull towards AoS in particular since it doesn't stick out next to universes like Warcraft, Warmachine, LotR, Dragon Age and maaaany others, while I feel like 40k definitely sticks out next to Star Trek, Star Wars, Andromeda, Babylon 5, Alien/Predator, Mass Effect and other.

40K is a game that has become overrun by the tournament players. Everything is "hyper" balanced, constant rules changes, errata.

I don't see how those things are bad? I mostly play casual games and all those things have helped, not hindered us. Right now the chat of our gaming club is running wild with people celebrating being able to bring Monoliths, Lord of Skulls and Baneblades for just 1 CP.

Some armies got constant power creep while others were forgotten. The setting is boring. Primaris marines got three years worth of releases why other more interesting factions like Tyranids or Eldar got squat. For some reason, Eldar always get op rules that break the game, and Tyranids just get broken rules that suck.

A few years ago, I would have agreed, but 9th seems like a genuine attempt to get every codex up to the same level.
And doesn't AoS get those golden totally-not-marines all the time? They just announced more of them recently

What I've seen with AoS is a fun game, with incredible lore and wonderful world building. Tons of amazing factions, with unique and interesting models, no tournament domination or tryhards (at least at the friendly levels, I don't go to events so make of that what we will.). Lots of different factions have gotten updates and every army is capable of playing the game, even underdog factions are pretty well supported in the rules. The fundamentals of the game are simplistic, yet allow for some complex interactions. Never have I had more fun playing on the tabletop than with this game.

I don't want to argue this, because you aren't wrong. I just want to say that it's pretty much the same for me, with the big disclaimer that currently the power difference between 9th edition and 8th edition codices is pretty bad. As long as you play 8th vs 8th and 9th vs 9th it works just like described.

AoS is a game full of creativity and interesting rules. 40K is a game that is as stagnant as the universe it is set in, where anytime something new comes out half the community hates it simply because it doesn't "follow the lore."

I'm fairly sure that this is a vocal minority. Reading communities outside of dakka really helps fix that perspective.

In all honestly I detest choosing which order simultaneous close combat actions happen in as a mechanic. It’s far less simulationist than initiative was and makes for much less variation in how different assault units function.

“Charging unit strikes first” is more than enough of a fix for the issues low initiative causes on it’s own.

changemod wrote:
In all honestly I detest choosing which order simultaneous close combat actions happen in as a mechanic. It’s far less simulationist than initiative was and makes for much less variation in how different assault units function.

“Charging unit strikes first” is more than enough of a fix for the issues low initiative causes on it’s own.

How is hundreds of I2 orks waiting politely and patiently in line for their I3 human adversaries to finish bayoneting them all before doffing their caps and picking up their choppas to strike back a simulation of anything? Initiative works acceptably in drawn out combats where one side/character isn't going to annihilate the other in one go, as it's a fairly simple way of dealing with the turn based nature of tabletop games. It was pretty terrible in 40k, where the goal of any combat unit was to either destroy the enemy in one go (for editions where you could sweep into the next combat or enemies could back away freely) or kill all but a single model (in editions where you couldn't advance but were protected by that lone survivor until you killed it in your opponent's combat phase).

Besides, if you have charging trump initiative, there's little reason to bother writing it down. Most combats are effectively resolved in a single turn, so you'd only be referencing it in corner cases or situations that weren't actually about the combat (like a squad of IG holding up a shooting dreadnought - never killing it, but dying slowly enough to take it out of the game).

If you wanted something more simulation-y, you'd have to go for simultaneous resolution of damage. But without that, the game-y alternating activations at least give you some decisions to make. And cleaning it up like this just makes everything smoother. At least until they forget and add a super shiny, special new version of ASF that goes before even other ASF stuff.

changemod wrote:
In all honestly I detest choosing which order simultaneous close combat actions happen in as a mechanic. It’s far less simulationist than initiative was and makes for much less variation in how different assault units function.

“Charging unit strikes first” is more than enough of a fix for the issues low initiative causes on it’s own.

Honestly I prefer the game trying to be less of a simulation. Honestly simulation style games really feel better on PC than they do on the table top just because a lot of the work can be done behind the scenes instead of making players spend half their time looking stuff up.

 Trimarius wrote:

changemod wrote:
In all honestly I detest choosing which order simultaneous close combat actions happen in as a mechanic. It’s far less simulationist than initiative was and makes for much less variation in how different assault units function.

“Charging unit strikes first” is more than enough of a fix for the issues low initiative causes on it’s own.

How is hundreds of I2 orks waiting politely and patiently in line for their I3 human adversaries to finish bayoneting them all before doffing their caps and picking up their choppas to strike back a simulation of anything?

A very strange view of it. Of course they aren't just standing there, they're reacting slower because they've got slower reflexes. It really is as simple as that.

If it's "I3 humans" attacking them, odds are those orks are going to fairly easily tank through that and hit back.

Besides, if you have charging trump initiative, there's little reason to bother writing it down. Most combats are effectively resolved in a single turn, so you'd only be referencing it in corner cases or situations that weren't actually about the combat (like a squad of IG holding up a shooting dreadnought - never killing it, but dying slowly enough to take it out of the game).

Even taking this hyperbole literally, if only the first turn matters to you then you should have no horse in the race as to how turn 2 onward combat is resolved whether it be through something statistical or through bizarre alternation where the order players choose to resolve simultaneous events has an effect on their resolution.

My complaint about chargers going after those they charge is that when you charge you are creating psychological pressure for your opponent that sould give you a momentary advantage that should allow you to take initiative in a fight, at least initiallh. Plus in past editions it was assumed that if you had grenades they prevented you from having your I slowed by terrain because you used them to keep people's heads down, which you'd use to create an advantage as well.

The issue is that attack speed is a function of strength in melee combat. Being able to move a sharp bit of metal of a given weight at a faster pace simply requires more strength, not manual dexterity or lightning reflexes. Aim can certainly involve those, but that's WS in 40k, not Initiative. You could argue that sufficient training or experience to anticipate the earliest opportunity to attack might feature, but that also falls apart in 40k, where Initiative has historically been assigned by species, and is, again, really more a function of WS.

And having lower Initiative certainly does represent standing there and doing nothing while you wait for your opponent to finish their attacks. Dead models don't get to swing back, after all, and most models in the game have only a single wound. If ten choppa/slugga boyz and ten assault intercessors (both with a whopping 30 attacks a side) find themselves in a neutral combat, why do, on average, all ten orks decide not to attack at all? The marines, being ~I4 swing first and kill all ten boyz. Obviously the points are unbalanced, but we're talking about the simulation, not the point costs. In a larger brawl, those ten orks, that were bred, designed, and live only for war, still decide not to participate in the battle.

Initiative only really works when you can expect a boxing match that goes back and forth for at least a few rounds. In a game where the only two outcomes for an individual contest (again, the overwhelming majority of models have only one wound) are either "totally fine and able to strike back at full efficiency" or "instantly dead without even a chance to respond in kind", it just can't work.

As for your second comment, it isn't hyperbole, it's how most combats are resolved. Someone is generally going to suffer unsustainable damage in the first round unless neither side has any melee skill, in which case the actual combat was probably not the goal of the engagement (i.e. swarming an objective or the aforementioned attempt to lock a shooting unit down for a turn). I'd much rather have a potentially interesting gameplay decision than a vestigial stat that offers nothing in return and is only really present because it used to be.

ClockworkZion wrote:My complaint about chargers going after those they charge is that when you charge you are creating psychological pressure for your opponent that sould give you a momentary advantage that should allow you to take initiative in a fight, at least initiallh. Plus in past editions it was assumed that if you had grenades they prevented you from having your I slowed by terrain because you used them to keep people's heads down, which you'd use to create an advantage as well.

Well, you do get the first strike by charging. Just not every first strike across the table.

I get the psychological angle, but if we're delving into that, it'd only then be fair to deal with the psychological issues inherent to leaving the safety (however dubious it might be) of a position to charge headlong into a melee where the danger is immediate and personal. Most people aren't big fans of that. Obviously lots of things in 40k wouldn't care (whether they're alien monstrosities or drug addled religious fanatics of a death cult), but those are exactly the sorts who also wouldn't care much about being charged.