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.

 Purifier wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.

4E also got alot of lies said about it, many rules were quoted by awful grognards that weren't even there. Many seemed to miss when most of the classes were just caddies to Wizards and CoDzilla...

Honestly though there's plenty to hope for if 40k gets AoS'ed, but if there isn't some big rehaul we'll still have to deal with the horrid codex balance we have now.

And you're asserting that AoS doesn't have horrid balance?

Where are you reading that he's asserting that? I mean, can you point to the words specifically? Because that's some world class extrapolation. I can't see him saying that even a little.

The way it reads, its implying that a rehaul balances the game. Since he says there is pleny of hope for 40k to get AoS'ed, followed by saying if they dont have said rehaul we will need to deal with our crappy balance implying then that a rehaul fixes it, meaning that the rehaul into AoS fixed WHFB balance which is did not because AoS has not some mad imbalance problems right now.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
implying then that a rehaul fixes it, meaning that the rehaul into AoS fixed WHFB balance which is did not because AoS has not some mad imbalance problems right now.

Ok, so first of all, an IMPLICATION is basically the opposite end of the spectrum to an ASSERTION. An assertion is defined as a "confidently and forcefully stated fact or belief." An implication is "the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated." Do you see how far apart those things are, even assuming you're right in your assumption? We have to DOUBLE ASSUME just to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Second, I believe the implication is not that at all. I believe the implication is that THIS GIVES IT A CHANCE. Not that it WILL BE BALANCED.

@ AnomanderRake

Well, I can't argue with that.

@ Backspacehacker

Yes at this point the current system of 40k is beyound repair. And I'm optimistic that the next round will be a breath of fresh air.

I don't know how many here actually play AoS, but I can tell you now that it's the most fun I've had with a GW game in years. I get that it was a big shake up to the rules and the fluff. I know that can be hard to stomach. And I k ow that GW didn't handle AoS right on intitial release. But they learn from their mistakes these days.

Honestly the lore nuke was the biggest issue I had with AoS

The other issue in reguards to the rules was that it was a total 180 on the the rules, and they they offered no support to a system they had been running for years. It would be like saying ok 40k uses movement trays now and we don't support the way it was played for years at all anymore. It's just a lack of care of players.

I'm hoping it does balance it to, there is a lot of issues with 7th and a lot of ways to fix it, a complete nuking of the rules? No it could be done with a handful of achanges. That said, AoS style rules are not to far from 40k in the way combat works.

I'm really untested to hear how the pyker phase works


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One can hope they learned but then again the AoS launch bar is so bloody low you could trip over it and still have a better launch, you would need to really try to have a worse release lol.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS places a lot of importance on manoeuvring as well. Especially with the pile in moves, which are much more important than you might first imagine. You'll be trying to position your troops to inflict the maximum amount of attacks whilst receiving the minimum amount back in turn. My friend is getting very good at this.

Also, they don't always end up as a big ruck in the center of the board. Our games are usually decided by who's able to dash to the unclaimed objective in the corner.

Without getting stuck into the subjective point of whether there's more or less depth to the movement phase now (if we do we'll be here all day) I think we should be able to agree, objectively, that the strategy/player choice/gameplay involved in the AoS movement phase is drastically different from that involved in the WHFB movement phase.

Which pissed off all the people who found the WHFB movement phase fun.

Which is why there was/is so much vitriol directed at the reboot from the old guard.

So coming back to my thread, which i somewhat abandon, I will agree with this, which also is the reason im sort of weary on the changes.

Change can be good as long as it makes the game more fun, but to much of a good this is really bad, IE what happened to WHFB. I often would equate WHFB to the table top version of total war, which was great i think that was really cool but when AoS just uprooted that, its understandable that peole were pissed and did not wanna even be a part of the game anymore because their game was dead. Thats what i fear for 40k. BUT with that said, it almost sounds like we are going back to 3rd ed rules which i have only heard about not actually played.

Overall as long as the core game play does not change, deathstars and super friends are addressed, MC are on par with vehicles, im down for what ever makes the game more fun. I just dont wanna walk into the store on my first game of 8th and and have it be nothing like 40k other then name and models like what AoS was to fantasy.

I hated WHFB movements that why I start Beastmen when they 1st came out, I loved them (And I think I'm the only person that loved the Ambush rule too.... It was amazing fun).

About MC vs Vehicles. play non FMC and tell me they are better... You spend 150-200pts on a 4-6w 3+ save guy that only moves 6" a turn..... Tau MC's are OP, But not Nids. As a nids player if The MC got nerfed then there will be 0 hope for them. They would need to cost 50pts for a Trygon to be playable. Nids has 3-4 good MC out of 16 that are consider playable. 3/4 of the MC are trash utter trash.

The Only vehicles IMO that need help are High Cost low Firepower ones, like Predators, or many of the IG ones.
Vehicles like Rhinos, Razorbacks and others that cost 100 or less are extremely effective for how cheap and what they do. yeah they die kinda easy.... But you are paying 35-50pts What do you want out of 35pts?
Rhinos can live just as long as a Carnifex and a Carnifex is 75-125pts more costly depending the load out.... Heck some Rhinos are free....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Honestly the lore nuke was the biggest issue I had with AoS

The other issue in reguards to the rules was that it was a total 180 on the the rules, and they they offered no support to a system they had been running for years. It would be like saying ok 40k uses movement trays now and we don't support the way it was played for years at all anymore. It's just a lack of care of players.

I'm hoping it does balance it to, there is a lot of issues with 7th and a lot of ways to fix it, a complete nuking of the rules? No it could be done with a handful of achanges. That said, AoS style rules are not to far from 40k in the way combat works.

I'm really untested to hear how the pyker phase works


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One can hope they learned but then again the AoS launch bar is so bloody low you could trip over it and still have a better launch, you would need to really try to have a worse release lol.

Its completely different than that.

WHFB was only making something like 5-7% of the over all profits and sense its line was huge it was a failure of a game at the end. I dont agree with the move, but I do understand why and dont blame them.

40k on the other hand is in a Much better place than WHFB

Edit: As someone that starting in late 4th early 5th WHFB and stopped mid 7th, I'd rather play AoS than WHFB.

The sales number is because the game got no attention or real updates. So you had people in the hobby for so long they ended up having everything they needed and because of that the price to enter was so high, it was like 600 just to get a standard army. On top of putting them together and painting.

AoS is selling because they are actually marketing fantasy, the majority of AoS players I see coming into stores are people who played total warhammer.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ AnomanderRake

Well, I can't argue with that.

@ Backspacehacker

Yes at this point the current system of 40k is beyound repair.

Yeah, that's exactly what my game repair specialist said...
With the typo and all.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
One can hope they learned but then again the AoS launch bar is so bloody low you could trip over it and still have a better launch, you would need to really try to have a worse release lol.

Its completely different than that.

WHFB was only making something like 5-7% of the over all profits and sense its line was huge it was a failure of a game at the end. I dont agree with the move, but I do understand why and dont blame them.

40k on the other hand is in a Much better place than WHFB

Edit: As someone that starting in late 4th early 5th WHFB and stopped mid 7th, I'd rather play AoS than WHFB.

Again, nobody's disagreeing that a reboot was necessary, we're arguing with how it was handled.

8e WHFB was haphazard and poorly thought out; the changes to the magic phase made nothing happen the vast majority of the time and the epic spells were game-ending the other 5% of the time, the horde rules made any unit that wasn't a huge infantry block irrelevant, and pre-measuring without changes to cannons/with random charges screwed over monsters/cavalry pretty hard.

I'm asserting that the issue with WHFB that required the reboot was that it wasn't working rather than any fundamental issue with the concept that wasn't working. WHFB has worked in the past, could work in the future, and can be made to work (see: 8.5, 9e), throwing the whole thing out and replacing it with AoS betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
One can hope they learned but then again the AoS launch bar is so bloody low you could trip over it and still have a better launch, you would need to really try to have a worse release lol.

Its completely different than that.

WHFB was only making something like 5-7% of the over all profits and sense its line was huge it was a failure of a game at the end. I dont agree with the move, but I do understand why and dont blame them.

40k on the other hand is in a Much better place than WHFB

Edit: As someone that starting in late 4th early 5th WHFB and stopped mid 7th, I'd rather play AoS than WHFB.

Again, nobody's disagreeing that a reboot was necessary, we're arguing with how it was handled.

8e WHFB was haphazard and poorly thought out; the changes to the magic phase made nothing happen the vast majority of the time and the epic spells were game-ending the other 5% of the time, the horde rules made any unit that wasn't a huge infantry block irrelevant, and pre-measuring without changes to cannons/with random charges screwed over monsters/cavalry pretty hard.

I'm asserting that the issue with WHFB that required the reboot was that it wasn't working rather than any fundamental issue with the concept that wasn't working. WHFB has worked in the past, could work in the future, and can be made to work (see: 8.5, 9e), throwing the whole thing out and replacing it with AoS betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.

I didnt say you disagreed.......

Dakka Wolf wrote:You don't think the crappy Apoc sales might have had something to do with it? Personally I loved Apoc but hate seeing Apoc models in standard play to the point that I don't even like Apoc anymore.
Hopefully the AoS ing re-establishes boundries and separates Apoc from standard - now that everybody has Apoc models it might get another shot at life.

Oh, I'm sure it was because of poor sales. Same as the scenery rules which are still a design disaster IMO. I wouldn't even mind superheavies in 40k (most, like the baneblade, are fairly mediocre), the issue is with the destroyer rules also coming with them. They could have toned down the rules, but instead made them worse - remember when gargantuan creatures only used to take D3 wounds from any destroyer hit, instead of having a 1/6 chance to instantly vaporise? Honestly, whoever went "hmm, this rule was designed to speed up enormous games and people are complaining that models are too hard to kill - let's move over a gun which can kill everything with no downside" was a prat. Wraithknights in particular should all be melted into a giant heap and then left to be forgotten.

Backspacehacker wrote:The sales number is because the game got no attention or real updates. So you had people in the hobby for so long they ended up having everything they needed and because of that the price to enter was so high, it was like 600 just to get a standard army. On top of putting them together and painting.

AoS is selling because they are actually marketing fantasy, the majority of AoS players I see coming into stores are people who played total warhammer.

I don't disagree that the new game is selling because they're actually marketing it but man, they put a lot into trying to help Fantasy. Back in 5th for 40k (~2010), the releases alternated, with Fantasy usually getting more (and better looking) models - people complained because it wasn't 40k. They also released storm of magic to try and generate interest (granted, it was awful, but so was almost every supplement around that time) and consistently had battle reports of Fantasy in White Dwarf alongside 40k ones. The key issue was just that the rules for 7th and 8th were straight up bad, and the cost to get a usable army was ridiculous. 7th was a game of pinging around, routing random small units, and 8th was this absurd game of hordes, 6 dicing nuke spells and steadfast everything. I'll miss seeing Fantasy, but I can't say I found it that fun to ever play; far better that it's now a computer game instead, which has actively been balanced by the developers.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.

Not really, the problem you have is that you're not seeing the same problem that GW was.

You're seeing a game that was unbalanced that needed fixing.
They were seeing a financial flagship sinking.

One of the biggest problems was getting new people into the game, and one of the biggest things keeping new people out of the game was the level of entry to build an army. This was their way to create a reasonable entry level.

Basically, they didn't have any "fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was," it's more you that are suffering from a fundamental refusal to understand what GW was trying to accomplish.

Personally, I really liked the game the way it was, and I had a whole Skaven army that isn't being played anymore because of AoS, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why they did and I can see that what they did was from a financial standpoint a solid choice. It wasn't based on the whims of tycoons as you are implying, but rather it was a seriously well thought out manoeuvre to ruin the game I liked, and they accomplished what they set out to do.

I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.

Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.

What's not to like?

Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.

Seems to be a fake or not?

 wuestenfux wrote:
Seems to be a fake or not?

Ive seen whole armies like this for players wanting to do 40k armies with AoS. If im not mistaking there was a Google Docs that had it set up and you just need to type in the rules.

Its fake b.c its not a 3+ save :3

 Purifier wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.

Not really, the problem you have is that you're not seeing the same problem that GW was.

You're seeing a game that was unbalanced that needed fixing.
They were seeing a financial flagship sinking.

One of the biggest problems was getting new people into the game, and one of the biggest things keeping new people out of the game was the level of entry to build an army. This was their way to create a reasonable entry level.

Basically, they didn't have any "fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was," it's more you that are suffering from a fundamental refusal to understand what GW was trying to accomplish.

Personally, I really liked the game the way it was, and I had a whole Skaven army that isn't being played anymore because of AoS, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why they did and I can see that what they did was from a financial standpoint a solid choice. It wasn't based on the whims of tycoons as you are implying, but rather it was a seriously well thought out manoeuvre to ruin the game I liked, and they accomplished what they set out to do.

The two problems are fairly interconnected. If you can't parse the first you can't parse the second.

If you don't understand why your financial flagship is sinking you can't fix it. Throwing a set of random changes into a printer wouldn't have rescued WHFB. And to my mind a drastic reboot that pisses the entire old guard off and fills the Internet with spewings of hate for GW to the point where mentioning AoS is a Godwins-Law-level conversation-ender in some places isn't a good way to 'rescue a financial flagship'.

And, yet again, I understand why the reboot was necessary. I get the financial argument. I agree with 100% of the motives. I disagree with pretty much everything about the implementation.

And trying to claim AoS was an evil master plan to ruin WHFB would be a gross violation of Heinlein's Law ('never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence'). GW isn't an evil mastermind out to ruin their game, they're a bunch of human beings who took something that had to be done and did it badly. I'm not disputing that change had to happen, I'm arguing that the change needing to happen is not an excuse for doing the change badly.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
betrays a fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was.

Not really, the problem you have is that you're not seeing the same problem that GW was.

You're seeing a game that was unbalanced that needed fixing.
They were seeing a financial flagship sinking.

One of the biggest problems was getting new people into the game, and one of the biggest things keeping new people out of the game was the level of entry to build an army. This was their way to create a reasonable entry level.

Basically, they didn't have any "fundamental refusal to understand what the problem was," it's more you that are suffering from a fundamental refusal to understand what GW was trying to accomplish.

Personally, I really liked the game the way it was, and I had a whole Skaven army that isn't being played anymore because of AoS, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why they did and I can see that what they did was from a financial standpoint a solid choice. It wasn't based on the whims of tycoons as you are implying, but rather it was a seriously well thought out manoeuvre to ruin the game I liked, and they accomplished what they set out to do.

The two problems are fairly interconnected. If you can't parse the first you can't parse the second.

If you don't understand why your financial flagship is sinking you can't fix it. Throwing a set of random changes into a printer wouldn't have rescued WHFB. And to my mind a drastic reboot that pisses the entire old guard off and fills the Internet with spewings of hate for GW to the point where mentioning AoS is a Godwins-Law-level conversation-ender in some places isn't a good way to 'rescue a financial flagship'.

And, yet again, I understand why the reboot was necessary. I get the financial argument. I agree with 100% of the motives. I disagree with pretty much everything about the implementation.

And trying to claim AoS was an evil master plan to ruin WHFB would be a gross violation of Heinlein's Law ('never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence'). GW isn't an evil mastermind out to ruin their game, they're a bunch of human beings who took something that had to be done and did it badly. I'm not disputing that change had to happen, I'm arguing that the change needing to happen is not an excuse for doing the change badly.

They most likely knew.... But there is another thing you havent even given thought it seems. Maybe they wanted a different game, maybe from there marketing and game design as a company they felt WHFB wasnt what they wanted anymore and they had an idea for AoS. Instead of making a 3rd game they decided to replace WHFB.

I've ran a business before and we did something like this. We wanted something completely different but not have 2 things similar at the same time, so we replaced one of them. We let everyone know and even had a meetting for all of clients if they had any questions. We figured we would loose about 10% of them and we did. But over all was better for the company.

Edit: Grammar. English is hard for me.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Seems to be a fake or not?

Ive seen whole armies like this for players wanting to do 40k armies with AoS. If im not mistaking there was a Google Docs that had it set up and you just need to type in the rules.

Its fake b.c its not a 3+ save :3

Well, the way it is done looks not bad. The stats are negotiable.
A fusion of 40k and AoS (like Warmachine and Hordes) would not be a bad thing.

morgoth wrote:
I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.

Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.

What's not to like?

Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.

Going to start listing issues with all this.

1) AoS beating old WHFB sales...for when? For 8e, the stagnant-doom-edition?

2) "You must buy all-new post-reboot armies to keep playing the game" may be a positive way to push the game financially, does that make it something the players shouldn't be bitching about?

3) Might the sales figures be impacted by the fact that WHFB was releasing almost no models by the end? Army book + one big Rare model you'd never actually use in a game because 8e made monsters s*** was the norm.

4) What omniscient alternate-timeline-hopping powers do you posses that you are so vastly certain AoS was a better decision than releasing 9e WHFB balanced to make things other than infantry deathstars function and updating the 5e-vintage Core models most armies were stuck with?

Seriously. "Doing better than WHFB 8th" is not a high bar.

I honestly think they (GW) just wanted a new game and felt that moving away from WHFB was better for the company.

Could they make WHFB better and sales higher? yes, easily. Did they want to? No.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
...They most likely knew.... But there is another thing you havent even given thought it seems. Maybe they wanted a different game, maybe from there marketing and game design as a company they felt WHFB wasnt what they wanted anymore and they had an idea for AoS. Instead of making a 3rd game they decided to replace WHFB.

I've ran a business before and we did something like this. We wanted something completely different but not have 2 things similar at the same time, so we replaced one of them. We let everyone know and even had a meetting for all of clients if they had any questions. We figured we would loose about 10% of them and we did. But over all was better for the company.

Edit: Grammar. English is hard for me.

Personally I'm of the opinion they might have gotten half as much vitriol if they'd told everyone ahead of time "WHFB is dead, we're replacing it with a different game" rather than telling us we could still use our old models and then balancing the game such that the new models win everything.

As for the reboot/replacement argument if that was a serious consideration I doubt they'd have made AoS feel quite so 40k-like (with the God-Emperor, Space Marines, Deep Strike rules, general model size creep, etc.).

I'm going to just say that I'll be pissed if 40k gets AOSed. I play 40k and not Sigmar for a reason. I support some of the ideas they're coming up with (Movement values to be specific) but some of their ideas just don't make sense.

Always swing first on the charge? They said that this is more thematic and fluffy. It's not. You mean to tell me that when a lumbering Necron Lychguard charges into combat against the Dark Eldar arena champion Lilith, the necron somehow manages to beat here with what is currently initiative 2 vs. initiative 8+? Maybe a general +1 to initiative on the charge to represent a little edge when charging, but definitely nothing that is "Always strikes first".

Break Checks? ..... Ech. Sweeping advance never seems to do a whole lot for me as it is. And now space marines are vulnerable to running away. I never liked the representation of some models fleeing and some sticking because theoretically then you would have a bunch of terrified fleeing models running around the board, which are no longer represented in the game.

The fact of the matter is that AoS is a beer-and-pretzel game. It's casual. Its simple. And I play 40k because of that. 40k is more complex and intricate. In my experience, AoS turns into a massive pile of close combat in the middle of the table almost every game.

I'm hoping that 40k stays mostly 7th with a few adjustments. Or maybe even pulls back from some earlier editions. Maybe set back the power creep? But it's looking like we're going to be facing an entirely new game, which I would not have sunk my money into had I known it would have gone this way.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Seems to be a fake or not?

Ive seen whole armies like this for players wanting to do 40k armies with AoS. If im not mistaking there was a Google Docs that had it set up and you just need to type in the rules.

Its fake b.c its not a 3+ save :3

Well, the way it is done looks not bad. The stats are negotiable.
A fusion of 40k and AoS (like Warmachine and Hordes) would not be a bad thing.

...I mean, the way the shooting/melee balance works in AoS/40k the end result would be pretty weird...

 AnomanderRake wrote:

2) "You must buy all-new post-reboot armies to keep playing the game" may be a positive way to push the game financially, does that make it something the players shouldn't be bitching about?

3) Might the sales figures be impacted by the fact that WHFB was releasing almost no models by the end? Army book + one big Rare model you'd never actually use in a game because 8e made monsters s*** was the norm.
.

Ugh dont, yet another gripe I have against AoS is the way that whilst sure, you can play the old armies, if you want to have a chance at winning you have to take Sigmarines or Slyvawhatsits or the like. Whats that, want to run your Dwarfs? Well, you can take Fyreslayers or Aerogoons, and have fun but your vanilla, honest old fantasy dwarves are fecked if they go anywhere near the new armies.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I honestly think they (GW) just wanted a new game and felt that moving away from WHFB was better for the company.

Could they make WHFB better and sales higher? yes, easily. Did they want to? No.

So if they wanted a 'new game' why'd they make starter-box-rules 40k?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.

Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.

What's not to like?

Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.

Going to start listing issues with all this.

1) AoS beating old WHFB sales...for when? For 8e, the stagnant-doom-edition?

2) "You must buy all-new post-reboot armies to keep playing the game" may be a positive way to push the game financially, does that make it something the players shouldn't be bitching about?

3) Might the sales figures be impacted by the fact that WHFB was releasing almost no models by the end? Army book + one big Rare model you'd never actually use in a game because 8e made monsters s*** was the norm.

4) What omniscient alternate-timeline-hopping powers do you posses that you are so vastly certain AoS was a better decision than releasing 9e WHFB balanced to make things other than infantry deathstars function and updating the 5e-vintage Core models most armies were stuck with?

Seriously. "Doing better than WHFB 8th" is not a high bar.

I know it's a flawed source but ICV had spent years without feautring WHFB. AoS in the first period didn't (pre-GBH). This fall AoS got ZERO releases... yet still ranked 4th. And this is with a far bigger market (by 2014 the market was more than twice the size of 2008's/WHFB 7th ed), even bigger than the market in 2011 the last year WHFB ranked in. It's certainly doing better than pre-8th IMO. Though whether or not is the *better* choice I won't say a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

2) "You must buy all-new post-reboot armies to keep playing the game" may be a positive way to push the game financially, does that make it something the players shouldn't be bitching about?

3) Might the sales figures be impacted by the fact that WHFB was releasing almost no models by the end? Army book + one big Rare model you'd never actually use in a game because 8e made monsters s*** was the norm.
.

Ugh dont, yet another gripe I have against AoS is the way that whilst sure, you can play the old armies, if you want to have a chance at winning you have to take Sigmarines or Slyvawhatsits or the like. Whats that, want to run your Dwarfs? Well, you can take Fyreslayers or Aerogoons, and have fun but your vanilla, honest old fantasy dwarves are fecked if they go anywhere near the new armies.

Fyreslayers are a very weak army. Freeguild is easily mid-tier and Tomb Kings, FEC (which are an older army), properly played skavens and a pletora more say hi!

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I honestly think they (GW) just wanted a new game and felt that moving away from WHFB was better for the company.

Could they make WHFB better and sales higher? yes, easily. Did they want to? No.

So if they wanted a 'new game' why'd they make starter-box-rules 40k?

I was talking about AOS... 40k will be the same with some rules changes to to try and balance/speed up the game, it will be about the same.

Eyjio: Well thought out, appreciate the work of writing all that down.

Original Necromunda had weapons that shifted the armor save depending on what was used so I can see that coming back.
Usually leadership or "fear" mechanics in the past would depend on fractions like "half" or "one quarter" so that the hordes would not be unduly penalized, it will be interesting to see what is done.

I know some of the rules writers had worried about starting fresh or trying to carry forward existing prior edition codex's with every revision and have chickened out each time so things are quite clunky.

They really should hire on contract as many of the old rules writers as possible and ask "if you could re-do the 40k rules, what would you make them?"
I am VERY happy with Bolt Action and would love to see something similar for 40k.

heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assumign a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to fhis pk attacks.

Teo wrote:

Always swing first on the charge? They said that this is more thematic and fluffy. It's not. You mean to tell me that when a lumbering Necron Lychguard charges into combat against the Dark Eldar arena champion Lilith, the necron somehow manages to beat here with what is currently initiative 2 vs. initiative 8+? Maybe a general +1 to initiative on the charge to represent a little edge when charging, but definitely nothing that is "Always strikes first".

I think the idea is that Lilith should be so mobile that if someone actually manages to charge her, the DE player has screwed up royally. I remains to be seen if it pans out that way, but Eldar in general should be difficult to pin down so you can charge them. Lilith's incredible speed can be represented by movement rate, sheer number of attacks, and/or a very good save, not just via an initiative stat.

But the notion of one side unloading ALL of their attacks before the other gets off any attacks at all is a bad, unrealistic mechanic. Yes, it simplifies things, because you need some simplification in a wargame, but chargers going first is no more unrealistic than higher initiative throwing all their attacks first.

Personally, I'd like to see all attacks going off at the same time, and chargers get a bonus attack to reward good positioning/momentum.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Pretty honest question so bear with me: D&D essentially had the same problem. 3rd edition was a cluster feth, so they rebooted it with 4th edition. 4th edition was too video-gamey, so they revamped it with 5th edition. 5th edition has free rules online, drastically simplified rules, and has increased the player base tenfold.

As it is, 40k is a mix of 3rd and 4th edition D&D: too bloated and power levels are all over the place. Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.

4th edition did succeed in bringing a lot of new players who never played before or would even consider D&D.