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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I want see all those quitters quit, so they can stand outside in the cold watching us through the window playing our Age of Xmas feast!

SJ

Or...they could just be at home, doing something else, playing another game, or something else...

Don't forget foe half the cost, so our Xmas feast will have more toys and food, beer, and in time...people.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I want see all those quitters quit, so they can stand outside in the cold watching us through the window playing our Age of Xmas feast!

SJ

Talk about a healthy perspective.

I'd play HH rules.
Balance, gentlemen.

Where is the option for

"Sell most of my thousands of dollars of models, keep enough units from a few armies to play the new system; Don't ever buy another GW product"



I'm just still confused why AOS cant coexist with WFB... keep both rule sets out there to let players have options to collect more minis.

Play 7 th and 3rd

I don't understand this philosophy that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design. This idea that if GW dumbed down the games, like what they did to fantasy into AOS, then they will open it up to a larger player base.

There target market is nerds! People like myself that get inspired to paint my army because there is a whole world to explore within the game. I feel like GW thinks that they're going to start selling the game to Call of Duty Players or something. But the thing is, they will never be a market for those types of kids. They don't have the attention span to assemble 100 miniatures and paint them meticulously!

When GW was in its heyday, with a store in every shopping centre, that was a very different time. There wasn't a lot of cool gak for kids to do like they have today. Not everyone had Internet in their homes, and video games weren't as emersive and realistic. Warhammer is just not going to be as mainstream as it was back then. It doesn't mean that the product is flawed, or too complicated.

My opinion is that AOS will eventually be a dead game. People that are supporting the new game are mostly still in the hobby phase. They've invested money and time and are painting their sigmarines. Once the newness fades, you're left with a really bad core game design. And what's really telling of this is when you see gamers on YouTube like Oncebitten360 or the crew at 1+ armor trying to play AOS. People with a ton of tabletop experience trying there best to have fun with it.

And if 40k goes the way of AOS it will be the beginning of the end for GW.

As for me, I will still play 7 th for a while. Then maybe try some other games! Or maybe wait for GW to go bankrupt and has or reworks 40k with some real professional game designers!

I've actually come to hope for something like AoS for 40k. The more I play 40k and the more I realize the power creep and OP codexes and useless units, ext, the more I hope that AoS would happen to it. All of the rules being free, and balancing a ton of the units so that everything has cool rules and is useful to some degree. That would make 40k better, imo.

^It also comes with no points costs, basically relying on hardcore homebrewing to even get a balanced, functional game.

I'd stay, but convince my friend and my FLGS to keep playing normal 40K.

 krodarklorr wrote:
I've actually come to hope for something like AoS for 40k. The more I play 40k and the more I realize the power creep and OP codexes and useless units, ext, the more I hope that AoS would happen to it. All of the rules being free, and balancing a ton of the units so that everything has cool rules and is useful to some degree. That would make 40k better, imo.

All of those problems you listed could be fixed by designers that would actually put in effort.
Simplification and "do it yourself" don't answer any of those specifically.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
I've actually come to hope for something like AoS for 40k. The more I play 40k and the more I realize the power creep and OP codexes and useless units, ext, the more I hope that AoS would happen to it. All of the rules being free, and balancing a ton of the units so that everything has cool rules and is useful to some degree. That would make 40k better, imo.

All of those problems you listed could be fixed by designers that would actually put in effort.
Simplification and "do it yourself" don't answer any of those specifically.

Which isn't going to happen. 40k is about the money, and they're going to use it to sell the models they want to move first and foremost, therefor, nothing will ever resemble any form of balance. Whereas AoS is at least balanced as far as each army against eachother.

 krodarklorr wrote:
Whereas AoS is at least balanced as far as each army against eachother.

No, it isn't.

It can't even be considered poorly balanced because there is no balance at all. AoS can't be considered balanced in any way because no such balance exists. There are no metrics, methods, limits, or rules regarding army construction and force comparisons, therefore none can be reasonably drawn using the rules as written.

The game is not balanced because there is no balance in the first place. There would need to be some sort of rough rules for army composition or set metric to compare units relative power, but there are none. And no, wounds are not a good measure of a unit's power.

 Blacksails wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Whereas AoS is at least balanced as far as each army against eachother.

No, it isn't.

It can't even be considered poorly balanced because there is no balance at all. AoS can't be considered balanced in any way because no such balance exists. There are no metrics, methods, limits, or rules regarding army construction and force comparisons, therefore none can be reasonably drawn using the rules as written.

The game is not balanced because there is no balance in the first place. There would need to be some sort of rough rules for army composition or set metric to compare units relative power, but there are none. And no, wounds are not a good measure of a unit's power.

Let me clarify. The game is not balanced, not by a long shot. The only way to play the game is in a casual "Lets vow not to be that guy" setting. In this setting (which is the only way I've played the 3-4 games I've tried) the game is playable, but only in that setting. And from my experience, at my store we have Dwarfs, Tomb Kings (me), Lizardmen, WoC, Skaven, Brettonians, Stormcast Eternals, Wood Elves, and Daemons. Every army has played similar lists against eachother, and every army has good stuff everywhere. My point is, there is not a single bad army. Why? Because the rules were released at once, and it was because all of the models weren't selling. So, they made everything good, or at least fun and cool. That alone would make me enjoy 40k more.

The lack of points or army composition is terrible, and I don't hope for that aspect.

Every army also has bad stuff, which still has the same basic problems of WFB.

But I've long been a proponent of 40k just releasing a new edition with all armies updated at once.

 Blacksails wrote:
Every army also has bad stuff, which still has the same basic problems of WFB.

But I've long been a proponent of 40k just releasing a new edition with all armies updated at once.

I also support this.
Or if nothing else, in very quick succession.

 Blacksails wrote:
Every army also has bad stuff, which still has the same basic problems of WFB.

But I've long been a proponent of 40k just releasing a new edition with all armies updated at once.

"Bad stuff" is only how we perceive it. Tomb Guard are better than Skeleton Warriors, so why ever take them? That's the mindset most people have. There will always be something you could take that's better. Just like the military could nuke the enemy instead of sending in troops, because that's more effective, right? (Don't hop on my case, I know all of the flaws in the analogy. It's just an example) Wargaming shouldn't have to be about just using the best thing every time. That's why I dislike pick-up games, because most people seem to think that's an acceptable way to play. (If you can't tell, I'm a proponent of not min/maxing your best stuff)

And I would love for 40k to do that. It would make so much sense, and the game would be that much better as a whole. But that would never happen.

I've already quit and sold off nearly all of my GW models on account of AoS, and moved to steampunkier pastures. Thank you, GW, for providing the final prod needed to quit you.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Every army also has bad stuff, which still has the same basic problems of WFB.

But I've long been a proponent of 40k just releasing a new edition with all armies updated at once.

"Bad stuff" is only how we perceive it. Tomb Guard are better than Skeleton Warriors, so why ever take them? That's the mindset most people have. There will always be something you could take that's better. Just like the military could nuke the enemy instead of sending in troops, because that's more effective, right? (Don't hop on my case, I know all of the flaws in the analogy. It's just an example) Wargaming shouldn't have to be about just using the best thing every time. That's why I dislike pick-up games, because most people seem to think that's an acceptable way to play. (If you can't tell, I'm a proponent of not min/maxing your best stuff)

And I would love for 40k to do that. It would make so much sense, and the game would be that much better as a whole. But that would never happen.

Casual at all costs gaming still doesn't address fundamental balance issues in GW games. Those units are still bad even if you don't believe in optimization.

Use the already adequately developed 7th edition rules with house rule modifications. Would lend another aspect of creativity to the hobby, although this would make pick up games much more complicated/difficult to execute to both players likings.

 krodarklorr wrote:

"Bad stuff" is only how we perceive it.

No...bad stuff can be tested and found to be more or less objectively ranked as to how good something is. Its why nearly every other game every made has gone through extensive testing and employed basic math to ensure things are wildly out of balance.

Tomb Guard are better than Skeleton Warriors, so why ever take them? That's the mindset most people have. There will always be something you could take that's better.

Its the mindset some people have, and frankly, its a very valid question. All it shows is that the company behind the game should have a reason to use units on the table. And in a better balanced game, while technically true in that most units will have a superior choice, that choice becomes less important on deciding the game's outcome, whereas taking rough riders and ratlings in an IG list is immediately going to put you at a significant handicap.

Just like the military could nuke the enemy instead of sending in troops, because that's more effective, right? (Don't hop on my case, I know all of the flaws in the analogy. It's just an example)

Its a really poor example. Probably better had you just not written it, or maybe work on your analogies.

Wargaming shouldn't have to be about just using the best thing every time. That's why I dislike pick-up games, because most people seem to think that's an acceptable way to play. (If you can't tell, I'm a proponent of not min/maxing your best stuff)

Errr...you're basically making my point. A balanced game would solve those issues. You could go through your book, pick the units you want that fill the roles you want for that battle, and stand a reasonable chance against nearly any list given you've covered the basics. That way, player decision making would determine the game, not the lists brought to the table.

And I would love for 40k to do that. It would make so much sense, and the game would be that much better as a whole. But that would never happen.

Its a nice idea to dream about. But yeah, stands about a beer's chance at an AA meeting of happening.

I honestly and legitimately have no idea.

If the rules are as simplified as AoS...

Well I wouldn't panic and sell everything ASAP, or light anything on fire, that is for sure. I still love the models, and lore. So I would probably do what a lot of Fantasy players have done, and just keep playing the past edition.

7th has been OK to us, sure there are some things I would like changed, but if its the end, so be it. Honestly I wish we could see how well AoS is doing compared to how well fantasy was doing. That should give us a general idea if 40k will be hit with the AoS bat.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the 40k rules were toned down a bit. Not like AoS, I like initiative values and quite a few of the special rules. I also think that sometimes there are just too many special rules, and sometimes the combat is too convoluted.