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.

Before this whole Age of Sigmar malarkey my game group and I attempted to play warhammer fantasy using 7th ed. 40k rules, and 8th WHFB statblocks and weapon special rules. The games flowed pretty well, even though we only played a few small 500 point games, with relatively simple troop types. Has any one else attempted any thing similar?

Frankly, the main reason that I never played WHFB were:

1. The rulebook was just too big for a game I didn't really want to be my "main game".

2. Everyone who did play it had a bazillion models, and I didn't want to paint up a bazillion fantasy models. I just don't love fantasy models enough to do so.

3. I'm not a fan of movement trays and ranks of units, which is kind of a cornerstone of FB.

But if you play WHFB with simplified 40k rules... you kinda have AoS

BTW please kill one of the two duplicate posts

Yup... take fantasy + 40k gaming style + downstate to a skirmish game = AOS. Guess that's why so many 40k players love aos as a secondary game system.

 455_PWR wrote:
Yup... take fantasy + 40k gaming style + downstate to a skirmish game = AOS. Guess that's why so many 40k players love aos as a secondary game system.

And why so many Fantasy players hate it

AoS is not everybody's game.
But in our gaming group we enjoy it as a Fantasy replacement with simplified rules partly borrowed from 40k.
There is one vet refusing to play AoS and others waiting for the Aelf release.

 wuestenfux wrote:
AoS is not everybody's game.
But in our gaming group we enjoy it as a Fantasy replacement with simplified rules partly borrowed from 40k.
There is one vet refusing to play AoS and others waiting for the Aelf release.

What exactly are they waiting for? The Aelf rules have all been released. While you MIGHT possibly see new models, the recent Skaven Pestilens and Sylvaneth releases didn't really give us anything new that wasn't released for free on day one. It's very likely that when the Aelf factions get their campaign book that all you'll see is some reboxing of existing models, a few new battle plans and some fluff.

As the man says, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. If they want to play with their models, they might as well do so now and get new stuff when and IF it's released. Could be a while.

 Kriswall wrote:

What exactly are they waiting for? The Aelf rules have all been released. While you MIGHT possibly see new models, the recent Skaven Pestilens and Sylvaneth releases didn't really give us anything new that wasn't released for free on day one. It's very likely that when the Aelf factions get their campaign book that all you'll see is some reboxing of existing models, a few new battle plans and some fluff.

Given the content of the current books, I think it very likely both Dwarfs and Elves get a complete remake.

Kinda looking forward to it!

Cool. its turned into a "play AoS, AoS is fun" propaganda thread in only 3 posts. I've recently tried AoS. it was hollow, frail and at the end of the day a waste of my time. I don't like the Statatic values, Its stupid a zombies chance to hit and wound a peasant is the same value needed to hit and wound a giant. Why as a 40k player would you want to play AoS? Why would you want to play a game thats mechanics are vaguely 40k like but as shallow as a puddle and just as simple? These are all rhetorical, i don't need answers to them.
I agree that WHFB 8th wasnt even close to playable. it was bloated, the game made you feel like you needed hundreds of models just to play. but it had depth to it. range effected the dice, how tough and strong my units opponent were, effected dice. i know, i know. 40k shooting is static. a marine hits with a bolter on a 3+ always. but his chain sword needs a a different value when he is trying to wound a letter, compare to a thurster.
so i say to the AoS bandwagon, with as much respect as your due, can we drop the "just play AoS" campaign? their is dozens of threads for that. Lets talk WHFB-40k conversion.

So for the few games i tried we primarily used 40k's rule set. Such as its standard force organization. for simplicity sake we kept the units to their minimums. things we kept in place, were the BS chart, with its penalties and most of the weapons(great sword +2 S) and Armor saves checks. worked really well, felt like playing a Mordheim game with unit Coherency. What things would you Add, change or make new?

5on2 wrote:
Cool. its turned into a "play AoS, AoS is fun" propaganda thread in only 3 posts.

Are you reading the same thread? The closest to an obviously pro-AoS post was effectively "AoS is pretty similar to WFB played with 40k rules".

5on2 wrote:

so i say to the AoS bandwagon, with as much respect as your due, can we drop the "just play AoS" campaign? their is dozens of threads for that. Lets talk WHFB-40k conversion.

Cool. Want to use the correct forum to do it in, though? Like Proposed Rules? Because this is general discussion.

RoperPG wrote:

5on2 wrote:
Cool. its turned into a "play AoS, AoS is fun" propaganda thread in only 3 posts.

Are you reading the same thread? The closest to an obviously pro-AoS post was effectively "AoS is pretty similar to WFB played with 40k rules".

its similar like checkers is to chess.

5on2 wrote:

so i say to the AoS bandwagon, with as much respect as your due, can we drop the "just play AoS" campaign? their is dozens of threads for that. Lets talk WHFB-40k conversion.

Cool. Want to use the correct forum to do it in, though? Life Proposed Rules? Because this is general discussion.

I don't really see AoS as being all that similar to 40k, only in a general sense of being a loose formation squad based game.

Personally I've always preferred WHFB rules to 40k rules anyway. I feel like there'd be a decent amount of rebalancing needing to be done, I feel like an edition earlier than 7th (40k) would work better.

Did you adopt 40k movement or stick with the movement stats that come with WHFB?

RoperPG wrote:
Cool. Want to use the correct forum to do it in, though? Like Proposed Rules? Because this is general discussion.

That's a pretty damned nitpicky complaint to make. Given the OP is discussing an overall conversion of rules rather than proposing a specific rule I think "general discussion" is fine.

I would really like it if someone wrote up a set of rules that used Fantasy models and theri stats with a 40K style of putting together units, armies, formations, etc.

SG

5on2 wrote:
its similar like checkers is to chess.

Not arguing that, but it's not exactly the AoS "propaganda thread" you claimed it to be.

5on2 wrote:
wow, arn't we petty. BTW where is the "life proposed rule" section? I couldn't find it

I don't know, but as that isn't what I posted I can't really help you there.

(BTW, we get it - you don't like AoS. Now you don't have to derail your own thread and make hyperbolic statements to demonstrate that.)

As a condition of posting here, the rules of the site must be followed.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

In particular:

Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.

Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.

It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.

I believe we used the fantasy movement score. I've always found it weird that in the future everything moved at the same rate. I'm torn on Calvary, should we use them like WHFB horses or like bikes.

5on2 wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

5on2 wrote:
Cool. its turned into a "play AoS, AoS is fun" propaganda thread in only 3 posts.

Are you reading the same thread? The closest to an obviously pro-AoS post was effectively "AoS is pretty similar to WFB played with 40k rules".

its similar like checkers is to chess.

Checkers and Chess are only similar in that they use the same board. Other than that, they're not very similar at all.

Whether you like it or not, it's hard to argue with the idea that AoS is a game using progressed WFB lore with a game mechanic similar to a simplified 40k ruleset. Per your statement, the only similarity would be that you play on a board. You're coming off as a little melodramatic, which I'm certain is not your intent.

I actually like the idea of the simplified mechanic.

Ballistic Skill was replaced by a simple To Hit value. This is fine as this isn't really a change. BS 3 was always 4+ to hit. Weapon Skill, Strength and Toughness were all removed. Instead we have To Wound rolls, Rend values and increased number of Wounds for "tougher" models. This is also more or less the same thing, in the sense that...
1. I'm trying to hit a man shaped target. I'm a decent swordsman, so I can hit this man shaped target about half of the time. I have a 4+ To Hit in melee. Not only can I hit, but I can usually hit hard enough to hurt an average target. I have a 4+ To Wound in melee. My target is wearing decent armor and is an amazing swordsman himself. He blocks several of my hits and turns some of the others that might have otherwise hurt him away. My target gets a 4+ Save roll. BUT... I'm super strong and I have good weapons. I bash through his defenses with my superior strength and he gets -1 to his Save roll. Not only do I bash through his defenses, but when I do, I hit so hard he takes more damage than if a weaker foe had hit him. Fortunately, my opponent is particularly tough and has many Wounds. I've hurt him, but I need to hurt him a lot more if I'm going to take him out of the battle.

So...
"Stronger" models get rend and have better to wound rolls.
"Tougher" models get more wounds.
"High Weapon Skill" models get special rules or have low To Hit/To Wound rolls.
"High Weapon Skill" defending models get special rules or have low Save rolls.

I just don't have to know which models are strong or tough or particularly good at fighting. I just need to know to hit, to wound, rend and save. The core concepts are still there... the mechanic is just simplified.

40k is a relatively complex skirmish game where models move, shoot, charge, occasionally use 'magic' or special rules and use D6 rolls to determine success or failure.
AoS is a relatively simple skirmish game where models move, shoot, charge, occasionally use 'magic' or special rules and use D6 rolls to determine success of failure.

AoS is most definitely 40k Lite set in the distant future of the WFB world.

My first AOS game was kinda like that, 40k players both of us, lots of people in the room, hadnt done much pre-reading of rules and stuff, etc. We naturally devolved into 40k almost play styles.

I found it much more boring and kinda pointless than playing the AOS rules as written to the letter. My second game was alot more by the book and it was also more tactical and involved. The big thing was abandoning 40k pilein, and alternating combat.

But no, ive never tried to purposely play WHFB with 40k rules. I would just play 40k. Fantasy was cool because it was so different. AOS has lost it's lustre for me. 8th edition has more appeal than 40k with fantasy rules injected, IMO. 40k is entirely built around it's own principles, and i think it would require too much tinkering to be worth it.

I never played 8th, but it was interesting to.me because of it's differences from 40k.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
Yup... take fantasy + 40k gaming style + downstate to a skirmish game = AOS. Guess that's why so many 40k players love aos as a secondary game system.

And why so many Fantasy players hate it

On this, we're in complete agreement.

Thing is, there's a lot of 40k players, not many Fantasy players. I believe GW is betting that the secondary game for 40k players + some new blood > disgruntled Fantasy players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I never played 8th, but it was interesting to.me because of it's differences from 40k.

Yeah, me too. But it wasn't interesting enough for me to properly study the rulebook (even though I bought the hardcover) and spend 1000+ hours of painting miniatures to play the game, since I won't field unpainted models, and I won't paint models to lower than a standard that is what I think is something I'd be proud of.

5on2 wrote:
I believe we used the fantasy movement score. I've always found it weird that in the future everything moved at the same rate. I'm torn on Calvary, should we use them like WHFB horses or like bikes.

By the dark gods, yes!
I hate how everyone in 40k is as fast as everyone else, losses flavor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I almost forgot, AOS is still for simpletons & peons. Enjoy your crappy game.

 GraywarTS wrote:

Oh and I almost forgot, AOS is still for simpletons & peons. Enjoy your crappy game.

Cheers!
Point of inquiry; if - as professed by your avatar - 'Haters gonna die', which of your family members should I send flowers to?

"Oh and I almost forgot, AOS is still for simpletons & peons. Enjoy your crappy game."

Well, talk about a closed minded, immature, and uneducated comment.... what if someone commented that to a game you play and like? This is a forum for fantasy and age of sigmar. If you don't like it go somewhere else but don't call folks here simpletons (I have three college degrees and a great career).

Thanks and please be more mature here

I've always been attracted to 40k for the emphasis on shooting. I prefer that sort of play style to everything ending up in combat and rolling off. However, I'm a fantasy guy and sci-fi does nothing for me, which stops me from getting into 40k. I'm glad AoS has made shooting a bigger deal, in a way.

 GraywarTS wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I almost forgot, AOS is still for simpletons & peons. Enjoy your crappy game.

Given the ominous rumblings about what is going to happen to 40K fairly soon, I'd be careful about making comments like that