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.

As many rumor mills are reporting, 8th edition 40K is just around the corner, with many mongers stating mid 2017 as the big arrival. Many of the reported changes are advancing the fluff, returning the primarchs, and just generally ramping up the grim in the ol' Grim Dark. One of the things we aren't really hearing though is what the rules changes will entail. Lately, GW has shown a great willingness to listen to its fans and give them what they want. Problem with that is, as a community, us 40Kers are notoriously inconsistent with what we really want. With as large a community as we have, that is to be expected, but some of the things that are commonly held as largely agreed upon opinions such as "No super heavy vehicles in the base game" are not really supported by sales figures (IKs are some of their best sellers). Probably the single largest agreed upon opinion is "Streamline the rules!".

Which brings me to Age of Sigmar....

I am afraid that when the community by and large turned up its nose at Age of Sigmar when it was released, we were inadvertently telling GW that we don't really want streamlined rules. I am guilty of this myself, only just now giving AoS a chance with the release of the Generals Handbook and points. I recall the same thing happened when 3rd edition 40K stripped out all the bloat (and some of the flavor), many 2nd edition vets turned their nose up and refused to play.

I personally think AoS is really good, and the rules work very well for what its trying to accomplish. The self policing aspect of it (prior to match play) certainly causes problems with tournaments and pick up games, but the rules themselves are simple, sensible, and vastly different from 40K. Given that the AoS ruleset was often ridiculed for its simplicity and lack of points, will GW take this attitude (and the slow adoption rate) as a sign that 40K players like their rules big and bloaty? With the rules re-design already underway, will GW take note of the huge success of the AoS Generals Handbook and change gears with the 40K redesign? Or did GW already have the mindset to AoS-ify the 40K rules from the get go?

I personally want to see 40K retain its own identity and not just adopt the AoS base ruleset. However, there is much good in AoS that can work in 40K, especially with that added pieces from the Generals Handbook. The AoS warscroll system containing ALL the rules for a given unit is a wonderful thing, as is the app that allows you to get the rules for any given unit for free, only having to pay for battalions. GW is already using "dataslates" but I think they can take this all the way to the AoS method so that all special rules, weapons, and such are included on the dataslate. This eliminates the need for so many different unit types, pages and pages of universal special rules, and allows GW greater flexibility and diversity in unit creation. The keyword and Grand Alliance system could also be adopted, allowing Imperium, Chaos, and the various Xenos factions to operate in similar manner as the Grand Alliances, and ditch the awful allies system we currently have. This makes armies so much more diverse, as one Imperial or Chaos army could be completely different from the next without sacrificing effectiveness. Of course, this would require a bit more unit/model diversity in some of the Xenos armies such as Orks and Necrons (just need Clans and Dynasties sorted out), but that's not a bad thing.

So what are your thoughts? Will the slow adoption rate of AoS cause GW to shy away from a major overhaul of the 40K rules?

If they think aos was "streamlined" and that we hate streamlined rules because of our hate for aos, then they're so out of touch that we really just need GW to burn down so we can build something from the ashes. Let's hope the people that design the models survive the fire.

Streamlining can mean many things. Hopefully, it means fewer books and faster access to rules.

One thing that is great with AoS is the warscroll format: you have one page with all the rules for your unit. No need to go back 10 pages in the codex for a special rule, 10 pages forward for the weapon profile, then look through the BRB for yet another special rule (and that's the best case scenario, when you don't have to look through many more supplements and datasheets). Combined with an app, it's just perfect. Some people don't like screens, and can just print the warscrolls (or buy a nice book where they're already printed, with some nice art/fluff).
I really hope we'll see that, and that can be done independently of how the rules themselves change with the new edition.

To me the big factor is whether they're going to make all the previous codices obsolete or not. If they don't, they have limited room to change the rules, and won't be able to balance the game with just a new set of core rules.
Supposedly, the development of the new edition started a while back, so this decision has already been made (so before the release of the AoS general's handbook, when AoS bashing was at its peak).

fresus wrote:
To me the big factor is whether they're going to make all the previous codices obsolete or not. If they don't, they have limited room to change the rules, and won't be able to balance the game with just a new set of core rules.
Supposedly, the development of the new edition started a while back, so this decision has already been made (so before the release of the AoS general's handbook, when AoS bashing was at its peak).

As much as I hate to have to lose my codices (I have 3 armies), if it means that GW will give free dataslates and a 40K app like AoS has, I'd gladly suffer the loss. Sometimes you just have to rip the band-aid off quickly to let the healing begin

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.

40k absolutely needs to be its own thing. I think part of the huge backlash against AoS was the huge changes to the fluff and the discontinuation of some armies and factions.

No one wants to see their beautifully painted collection squatted. And quite rightly so.

I've not played myself, but from what I've read and heard the Sigmar rules themselves are not so much of an issue for people. The rules being free is certainly a very welcoming move for new players, and streamlining them helps too.

Personally I think they would have been better served keeping fantasy battles as a seperate game, maybe even hand it over to FW. There could still have been crossover with miniatures etc but it would have kept a lot of people on board. Then they could have set AoS up as the entry level game set in the realms of the gods or something.

As for 40k I think you could be right, any company would be foolhardy to follow a much maligned game in AoS and then use that as a base for their most profitable product line. They must surely be thinking twice about what to do with the 40k golden goose.

Personally I like the ruleset as is. That's not to say I don't think there should be some subtle streamlining and some rationalisation of some of the more broken parts of the game. The whole MC Vs Walker/Vehicle debate for one. Personally I think the streamlining can be achieved by tightening up the rules and editing them properly to make them more concise and easy to read. The rule book is a mess for example with different rules for certain things spread throughout the book, it's like a maze at times.

It should have easily found reference point and sections. Whereas now the rules on cover for example are spread between a section in the shooting phase, another section in the terrain part of the book and more in the special rules section, it really should have its own section, with just a page reference in the shooting phase part and the terrain part. Make things easier to find on the fly, write things more concisely and more clear, and most of all make the rules actually consistent.

I'd also love to see all the army rules and game rules go online and free allowing greater access to the game for anyone thinking of taking it up. Let the Codices be fluff and painting guides, with the rules thrown in for those who prefer to have a physical copy of the rules.

GW are always going to have to walk a tightrope between keeping their fan base happy and at the same time attracting fresh blood to the hobby. Trends change so what pleases a 30 year old veteran of the hobby might not intrest a young 13 year old who is just getting started.

You only have to look at the art thread to see how things have changed drastically, their new clean cut cartoonish art displeases a lot of us old hands, but at the same time they probably feel they need to make the game look pleasing and exciting to a younger generation. It's the same with the rules, the models etc.

Frankly it's an unenviable task.

 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.

A new edition is a perfect time to shake things up. A competent company would release a new edition with a slew of either new faction books right away, or a comprehensive FAQ complete with point cost tweaks, profile changes, and wargear changes.

No need to invalidate anything, just make it balanced.

 Blacksails wrote:
A new edition is a perfect time to shake things up. A competent company would release a new edition with a slew of either new faction books right away, or a comprehensive FAQ complete with point cost tweaks, profile changes, and wargear changes.

No need to invalidate anything, just make it balanced.

Indeed, personally the easiest way would be to redo all the codex and campaign rules, stick them up on the website for free. It won't stop them selling new codex and campaign books in the future it just means that everyone starts a fresh with clean rules. There's no need to invalidate or exclude anything. Some things may need points adjustments, buffs and nerfs, but that's part and parcel of the game already.

AOS as a rules set is complete garbage. It has almost no depth. Get this AOS gak outta my 40K before they blow up this setting too. Killing off fantasy was bad enough.

Re-building 40K's rules from the ground up is a good idea, because 7th ed. is not a good rules set. But for gods sakes don't go the AOS way. I want depth not random under developed trash.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Lately, GW has shown a great willingness to listen to its fans and give them what they want. Problem with that is, as a community, us 40Kers are notoriously inconsistent with what we really want.

The Roman Princeps Nero just gave the people what they wanted. Sure the masses loved him for it, but he bankrupted the state, was hated by the wealthy and thinkers of the day, and is remembered as one of the worst Princeps in history. GW doesn't want to be a Nero.

Funny parallel aside, I do find it promising that there has been a distinct lack of updating of major codecies lately, despite many desperately needing them. Coupled with the FAQs that I believe were as much about finding deficiencies in the rule set as they were to actually clarify things, I like where we are at right now.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AOS as a rules set is complete garbage. It has almost no depth. Get this AOS gak outta my 40K before they blow up this setting too. Killing off fantasy was bad enough.

Re-building 40K's rules from the ground up is a good idea, because 7th ed. is not a good rules set. But for gods sakes don't go the AOS way. I want depth not random under developed trash.

Going to have to disagree about the AoS depth. The core rules only seem shallow until you take into consideration that each unit has its own rules for how it functions. The core rules don't have to cover the special rules for units, unique spells and command traits, etc because they are handled on a unit by unit basis on the warscroll. Throw in the added points and "force org" rules from the General's Handbook, and AoS has plenty of depth, especially given how diverse armies can be.

Personally, I'd love to see the various unit types removed and just have special archetypes like AoS; Heroes, Behemoths (although a more appropriate name for 40K would be needed), and Artillery. This removes the AV vs Wound/Save inequality, allows similar units for different armies to function completely differently, and just simplifies the process more.

I completely disagree. All rules, unit types, special rules etc. should be contained entirely in the main rules. Not everything has to be special snowflake. Sometimes a hammer is just a hammer.

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

Randomness like getting to have two turns in a row is not what I consider to be depth in a game. The last thing an army like fething Tau need is to have two turns of shooting in a row.

I don't want simplicity. I want complexity. 40K is already way too simple of a game.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I completely disagree. All rules, unit types, special rules etc. should be contained entirely in the main rules. Not everything has to be special snowflake. Sometimes a hammer is just a hammer.

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

Randomness like getting to have two turns in a row is not what I consider to be depth in a game. The last thing an army like fething Tau need is to have two turns of shooting in a row.

I don't want simplicity. I want complexity. 40K is already way too simple of a game.

Personally I think with careful rule writing and a good editor, that it's possible to have a complex game with simple rules.

If 40k 8E is AoS with points, with further streamlined units, that would be great.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I completely disagree. All rules, unit types, special rules etc. should be contained entirely in the main rules. Not everything has to be special snowflake. Sometimes a hammer is just a hammer.

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

Randomness like getting to have two turns in a row is not what I consider to be depth in a game. The last thing an army like fething Tau need is to have two turns of shooting in a row.

I don't want simplicity. I want complexity. 40K is already way too simple of a game.

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?

Warscrolls make things needlessly complicated. The rules are all over the place, instead of checking one book, you have to check like 20 different warscrolls now.

One book? Considering that you need

1: The rulebook
2: The codex
3: If you want allies you need another.

Then you need to have to flip to each relevant section and figure out what you need. With a warscroll you just need.. The units war scroll, you can even print them out if you want to keep them handy nearby. If for some reason you want to use 20 different units, that's strange but you can keep such nearby too. The Battletomes keep everything nice and neat too if you want to check out an armies warscrolls and battalions.

If 40k would the same like AoS with the Handbook now, nothing will change.
Except that a reset of the rules gives us some time until GW catch up, but 2 years later it would be the same mess that it is now.
Power Creep, Apocalypse in 28mm and every 6 Months they break with the current streamlined system to add something else.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

I am afraid that when the community by and large turned up its nose at Age of Sigmar when it was released, we were inadvertently telling GW that we don't really want streamlined rules. I am guilty of this myself, only just now giving AoS a chance with the release of the Generals Handbook and points.

This is something different.

AoS is not a streamlined version of Warhammer Fantasy.
Turning down AoS was just because it is a Fantasy Mass-Skirmish. And not a really good one that offers something unique over all the other fantasy skirmish games around except that you use very large models.
For all those that already played a Skirmish game and wanted an additional R&F system, there was no reason to give AoS chance.

Comparing this to 40k would if the streamlined 8th would just be a Napoleonic kind of Rank & File game

 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.

Agree with everything here. I've never heard a WFB players every ask for more streamlined rules specifically - just rules that work and create balance.

Don't worry about AoS - GW will do what GW wants to do.

I heard a lot of people in 6th/7th complain that the magic phase needed to be tweaked because some armies could too easily dominate it.
GW gave us a totally random magic phase with lots of spells that could wipe units off the table with no save, kill your own wizard an his unit, or... twiddle your thumbs with not enough dice to cast a magic missile.

I heard a few people in 6th/7th mention that some terrain was a bit fiddly and hard to maneuver through.
GW gave us forests that eat people and ghost fences.

I heard a lot of people in 8th edition say that if you dropped all the crazy random nonsense rules, tweaked the magic phase, and balanced the armies, 8th edition was actually pretty good.
GW gave us Age of Sigmar.

I am not opposed to trimming stuff down (in fact it's one of the biggest points I continually argue for) but it all depends on how they go about it.

Today I got my first peak at the new points system for AoS (Courtesy of the guys over at Maximum Aggression Gaming) and while it was just a gloss-over, it looked somewhat like the old fantasy system. This made me kinda uneasy cuz it felt like that period of "no points" was literally them not knowing what to do and ended up defaulting back on the old method, but not before partially torching the boat. I hope the AoS version of 40k doesn't go through an era like that, cuz that felt like the result of poor planning.

As for the lore, god I hope they don't go down AoS's route. Part of the reason 40k drew me in was the timelessness of the setting; sure it sucks that the fluff isn't making meaningful headway but it's something we've all invested decades into. Nuking it will make it lose what little interested it had left in me and if I'm gonna have to get used to a new setting, there are far cheaper hobbies (with richer stories that don't rely on "up to 11 cliches") to get attached to.

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..

Makes you wonder what the new specialist games will be like. Its shocking playing BFG and 40k and thinking they came from the same company. I hope the new specialist games projects that revive old games keep the old spirit alive and don't channel any of the nonsense that has pervaded 40k.

 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?

I believe Atia said something along those lines.

Going 2 turns in a row works for AoS because shooting isn't overpowered. In fact close combat is much stronger as you get to attack during both turns. In 40k shooting is far superior as close combat has too many caveats. To be honest I think 40k's close combat could benefit from a system like AoS. I haven't heard anyone say anything good about the to hit and to wound charts.

Can we do something about the to hit and to wound charts? How does Lucius, greatest swordmaster of all time, infused with demonhood, faster than any mortal, still being hit by grots on a 5+? And only hitting said grots on a 3+?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I believe Atia said something along those lines.

I don't recall seeing that on her blog, got any links?

The main problem with AOS is that it didn't address any of the issues with WHFB nor give what current WHFB players wanted. It's in all respects a completely different game which now is in even more direct competition with 40k, and regardless of the rules most 12 year old boys will choose Sci-Fi over Fantasy. Never mind the complete and utter destruction of the fluff and storylines WHFB had built over the years! Also the whole problem with the whole free data slate idea is it relies on all the current armies and factions being dumbed down (from both a business and rule perspective). However the correct type of extra complexity is what 40k really needs, not simply 'add moar rules' GW has been doing for the last decade or two.

I don't think simply making something free and drastically changing the rules is what 40k really needs. Keep the core 40k game created in 3rd, get rid of most of the rubbish, have a fresh look at the turn structure and look at the excessive number of special rules and effects. Then simply offer free dataslates that update all current codexes before the new 8th edition books are released (or maybe included them in the rulebook akin to 3rd ed). I think the main issue personally is 40k currently is trying to be Apocalypse lite, which itself was always a bad idea because armies of those sizes always suited epic more. But that will never change now because you wouldn't want to make so many peoples models useless all of a sudden.

40K needs more mathematical space, and less text.

Hey if it goes AoS I am going to have a blast playing the Pathfinder/9th age variant. Sure it might be obscure at first but 40k isn't popular anyways around here. Except by beginners or those who embrace the 3+ knights + (jet) bikes spam philosophy.

If they just rebalance all the stuff, and keep the flexibility of 7th then I willl also have a great time. So who cares, I will have my fun But AoSification is not the game / GW needs, nor is killing off the universe since it will split the community reducing their profits even more.

AoS has been flying under the radar for a few years now, I got back in the hobby (40k) 2 years ago or so and very VERY rarely have seen a game of AoS played at my local game store. This has changed, with the release of cheaper box sets, a new generals handbook and funnily enough the release of Total war: warhammer there are now more Sigmar players than there are 40k which is CRAZY, I have seen more games of AoS in the past month or so than my whole 2 years of regular attendance at the store which if you told my a while ago I would have laughed.

Now every day the painting tables are full of sigmar players all discussing total war warhammer and all the theorycrafting you can derive from the generals handbook. 40k is still around, there isn't a lack of it. But less so than sigmar nowadays.

8th edition will hopefully be an improvement, and might boost the playerbase, and seeing how large of an impact Total war: warhammer has made I expect Dawn of War 3 to make just as large of a splash. It is interesting to see how much videogames influence not only new players but also the return of old players.