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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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

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

The 40k background & lore will stay..

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

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

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

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

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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

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

The 40k background & lore will stay..

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

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

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

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

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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

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

The 40k background & lore will stay..

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

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

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

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

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 oldzoggy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

It is a fun system

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

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

 kodos wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

It is a fun system

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

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

 kodos wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

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

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

 kodos wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

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

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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

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

The 40k background & lore will stay..

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

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

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

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

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

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

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

The 40k background & lore will stay..

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

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

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

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

Frankly your theory is an absolute non starter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just like pyramid quoting.

pyramids are the worst

ClassicCarraway wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Brutus_Apex wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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











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

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

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

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


Hope someone reads this.

Peace out

Ember

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

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

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

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, no argument there...

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

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

I won't play Warhammer Candyland!

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

For 7.99 a month you should get everything.

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