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.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is. Definitely easier to get into too.

I know. Those people that seem to call AoS a mess seem to forget about things like the super-friends lists, the scat-bike spam with dual wraithknight, the riptide-wing with the kevin (fond of leet speak with their KV128 bull-craup) twins, and screamerstars, just to name a few un-fun combos that can run a game into the ground.

The two games are bad in different way. AoS is over-simplistic, has mechanics that kill immersion, and other things we discussed to death.
40k is the opposite: we would live better without a good number of the rules, and have some other ones fixed. Is an overdesigned mess.
Both have rules all over the place.

Point being, to fix AoS you should built (GW already started with points) with 40k you should cut, but the right things, not too much, not what works like the wound table.

They are two faces of the same medal, the lack of talent in the studio.

AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

Lord Kragan wrote:
AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

"Is one year old" is not an excluse for a company like GW.

Synergies like? You get bonuses if you bring more zombies? Also, we are derailing. Start a thread but the point is, many people do not want AoS in 40k, regardless you like AoS or not.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

"Is one year old" is not an excluse for a company like GW.

Synergies like? You get bonuses if you bring more zombies? Also, we are derailing. Start a thread but the point is, many people do not want AoS in 40k, regardless you like AoS or not.

It's not an excuse: it's a point made. They are developing the game system as time goes on. The GHB will be updated on basis on the data they record with the TO and the like as well as rules amendments as time goes on.
Regarding synergies:
Or you get bonuses if you choose to fight x units (brutes, bonesplitterz, mobs) or you get bonuses to being certain locations (terrain, cover) or special skills and general traits and formations.

Just to put an example with Ironjawz: your average ardboy will get 3 attacks from two choppas. He hits on a 4+. Now factor in a warchanter and he gets +1 to hit AND gets to move an additional d6'' in the hero phase. Add in the ironfist battalion d6'' extra movement. Now you get a unit with a nice damage output and mobility while meeting certain conditions and restriction. Now add in a warboss' WAAAGH! and hets +1 attack. But wait the WAAAGH only activates if you roll equal or less than the number of units at x distance! And it's a powerful and central skill in an Ironjaw army. So right out of the bat you're faced with several questions: do I want several units (make the skill more likely to trigger and greatly boost my army while covering more ground but making myself more vulnerable to enemy actions and diluting other bonsues' utility ) or big units (less chance of activation and flexibility but more potential output and reinforcement of other bonuses) ? Do I select x leader and formations, losing points for boys for toys? Do I risk my leaders in close combat, where they are extremely proficient or do I keep them so as to maximize the army-multiplier potential And this is a very uncomplicated army, don't get me started on what you can do with more finicky armies like sylvaneth or freeguild+ironweld.
Another example: gordrakk sinergizes brutally with a gore-fist. They become an extremely mobile army (as in, they go from having an average threat range of 15'' to having an average threat range of 33'') which makes them a lethal strategy for tying enemy units and an excellent counter for shooty armies, all while greatly enhancing their chances of triggering their d3 wounds special effect.

Furthermore the game has become more complex since tabling your opponent doesn't count as a victory in matched play so you have to play to the mission if you want to win, not just bashing heads.

The point of this thread is bob82ca bringing again his disdain for AoS all while being overly inflammatory.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

"Is one year old" is not an excluse for a company like GW.

Synergies like? You get bonuses if you bring more zombies? Also, we are derailing. Start a thread but the point is, many people do not want AoS in 40k, regardless you like AoS or not.

It's not an excuse: it's a point made. They are developing the game system as time goes on. The GHB will be updated on basis on the data they record with the TO and the like as well as rules amendments as time goes on.

"They are developing the game system as time goes on." Sorry, this is wrong. Is worse, actually, is part of the problem, but at least is on-topic.
GW must stop to put out stuff half-finished, not implement functional errata, and then sell us (well, not to me I am not going to buy them) more books with half-fixes. See CSM and 5 books of fail.
AoS should have been functional from day 1. This is not a guy writing an internet homebrew is a company of supposed professionals.
There is literally no way I can trust or take seriously these people after AoS. And I want their design principles away from 40k.

40k is already going in the direction of AoS, in the sense that we have formations, no balance (albeit in AoS they had to listen to the crowd and throw some points later on), progressively worse written fluff, and rules all over the places. If you have formations and warscrolls you do not have a tight ruleset. Too much stuff to keep track of.

Regarding synergies:
Or you get bonuses if you choose to fight x units (brutes, bonesplitterz, mobs) or you get bonuses to being certain locations (terrain, cover) or special skills and general traits and formations.

Just to put an example with Ironjawz: your average ardboy will get 3 attacks from two choppas. He hits on a 4+. Now factor in a warchanter and he gets +1 to hit AND gets to move an additional d6'' in the hero phase. Add in the ironfist battalion d6'' extra movement. Now you get a unit with a nice damage output and mobility while meeting certain conditions and restriction. Now add in a warboss' WAAAGH! and hets +1 attack. But wait the WAAAGH only activates if you roll equal or less than the number of units at x distance! And it's a powerful and central skill in an Ironjaw army. So right out of the bat you're faced with several questions: do I want several units (make the skill more likely to trigger and greatly boost my army while covering more ground but making myself more vulnerable to enemy actions and diluting other bonsues' utility ) or big units (less chance of activation and flexibility but more potential output and reinforcement of other bonuses) ? Do I select x leader and formations, losing points for boys for toys? Do I risk my leaders in close combat, where they are extremely proficient or do I keep them so as to maximize the army-multiplier potential And this is a very uncomplicated army, don't get me started on what you can do with more finicky armies like sylvaneth or freeguild+ironweld.
Another example: gordrakk sinergizes brutally with a gore-fist. They become an extremely mobile army (as in, they go from having an average threat range of 15'' to having an average threat range of 33'') which makes them a lethal strategy for tying enemy units and an excellent counter for shooty armies, all while greatly enhancing their chances of triggering their d3 wounds special effect.

The point of this thread is bob82ca bringing again his disdain for AoS all while being overly inflammatory.

Sorry but this looks like the usual bonus stacking, not different from all the cheese with psypowers in 40k. Both are more like a M:tG combo.
Besides, that's still a lot of rolling. Roll less than that or does not trigger. Move additional d6 instead of, say, 3". Roll roll roll roll roll
A system with good synergies would be one with rules that allow to exploit features of a model not directly designed for that purpose. And then use more models in combination.
Like say, in 3rd, mobile Dark Eldar units and punchy ones, plus the crossed fire rules (don't remember the english name, the ones concerning fleeing on enemy units and be destroyed).

You build an interesting system if you have units functional on his own, and then able to exploit an interesting, well built, coherent system.
What did you show is just bonus stacking I am sorry (albeit the warboss part and its choices are indeed interesting - I like that! I like choices). Is something spoon-feeded, but these are pre-built combos by the designer, no true potential for synergy. This can be fun, but is not particularly interesting, gets old fast, and is not the best the company ever did.

Mind it 40k is going away from that fast, now is the same combo-fest, or armies left in the dust.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
AoS is literally a year-old game. You don't creat a game system and make it hours and hours long just to start grasping. And again, it's not overly simplistic once you factor in the MANY synergys that appear and keep appearing.

"Is one year old" is not an excluse for a company like GW.

Synergies like? You get bonuses if you bring more zombies? Also, we are derailing. Start a thread but the point is, many people do not want AoS in 40k, regardless you like AoS or not.

It's not an excuse: it's a point made. They are developing the game system as time goes on. The GHB will be updated on basis on the data they record with the TO and the like as well as rules amendments as time goes on.

"They are developing the game system as time goes on." Sorry, this is wrong. Is worse, actually, is part of the problem, but at least is on-topic.
GW must stop to put out stuff half-finished, not implement functional errata, and then sell us (well, not to me I am not going to buy them) more books with half-fixes. See CSM and 5 books of fail.
AoS should have been functional from day 1. This is not a guy writing an internet homebrew is a company of supposed professionals.
There is literally no way I can trust or take seriously these people after AoS. And I want their design principles away from 40k.

40k is already going in the direction of AoS, in the sense that we have formations, no balance (albeit in AoS they had to listen to the crowd and throw some points later on), progressively worse written fluff, and rules all over the places. If you have formations and warscrolls you do not have a tight ruleset. Too much stuff to keep track of.

First thing first: AoS solves several issues in 40k: formations DO cost points, unlike 40k (mind you, there are cases of being underscosted but they have clearly stated they'll adjust points periodically, that's attempt at balance), you don't have free summoning and the fluff is, in comparison to the first books (which weren't good, I admit) is getting better fluff as time goes on (seriously there's a massive difference in the writing quality).
The rules are free to play and you can use models from an old game they made so there's that too. That too much stuff to keep track of isn't an excuse when there's an app that lets you check it on your mobile phone in a second.

Also, on synergy, it's definition: the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; Buff stacking IS synergy: assuming a model has 10 attacks, and hits on a 4+ he hits 5 times.
A) +1 to hit nets 6.6 hits, 1.6 more hits.
B) +2 attacks nets 6 hits, 1 more hit

If you make a sum, that's 2.6 more hits.

C) +1 to hit and +2 attacks nets you 8 hits. That's 3 more hits.

3>2.6, the whole is bigger than its parts. That's synergy.
Long story short: you're conflating stuff with your definition of synergy.

Lord Kragan wrote:


First thing first: AoS solves several issues in 40k: formations DO cost points, unlike 40k (mind you, there are cases of being underscosted but they have clearly stated they'll adjust points periodically, that's attempt at balance), you don't have free summoning and the fluff is, in comparison to the first books (which weren't good, I admit) is getting better fluff as time goes on (seriously there's a massive difference in the writing quality).
The rules are free to play and you can use models from an old game they made so there's that too. That too much stuff to keep track of isn't an excuse when there's an app that lets you check it on your mobile phone in a second.

To be an added value, something should be of value in the first place. Formation are not. They are garbage, at least in the way GW conceives them.

If a unit needs a formation to work or to work better, simply it has not been designed in the right way. I am just sick of this.

One can design armies with different organisation (say, the two death korps lists) or even units (the awesome, and of course removed different missions of the stormtroopers in the 5ed IG codex). is what happened in 3rd with Craftworlds of CSM (yes there was cheese but again, it was the execution being wrong) with units removed and added. Or the tiered casters in WarmaHordes.

This does not happen because they prefer sell us formations and other synergies that rewards impulse buying of multiple copies of the same unit and I cannot accept to swallow it as good, brilliant design or "synergy" and i want my 40k away from this, not closer.

If you consider that good fluff. Ok. "De gustibus non disputandum est" I suppose.

The rules are free but is 4 pages of incoherent mess made to imitate Privateer Press and other companies without knowing that these put online an actual ruleset.

Whatever I see you don't want to have a discussion whatsoever and keep repeating your mantra. You don't even realize how non-sensical you're being.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Whatever I see you don't want to have a discussion whatsoever and keep repeating your mantra. You don't even realize how non-sensical you're being.

If I don't like what you say does not mean I am not discussing.

And frankly, I am not going further on this. Look at the above posts; you say that AoS has fantastic synergy, I say that a good, well designed synergy between units should be something better than bonus stacking, and you answer going on number crunching the bonus stacking.

I KNOW that synergy is " the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements". But if only adds a +1, instead of opening gameplay options on the battlefiled (say, pin units to make it vulnerable to assault, stuff like this), is just a game of gimmicks. It can be fun, but do not sell me as good design because is borderline insulting.

I think we are done here. Let's go back to 40k, is for the better.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Whatever I see you don't want to have a discussion whatsoever and keep repeating your mantra. You don't even realize how non-sensical you're being.

If I don't like what you say does not mean I am not discussing.

And frankly, I am not going further on this. Look at the above posts; you say that AoS has fantastic synergy, I say that a good, well designed synergy between units should be something better than bonus stacking, and you answer going on number crunching the bonus stacking.

I think we are done here. Let's go back to 40k, is for the better.

The thing is that you're not undestanding the baisc meaning of the word you're so adamant in defending, all while missing the point of the explanations you're given. You're not discusing since you're literally repeated thrice the same argument and almost the same lines.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Whatever I see you don't want to have a discussion whatsoever and keep repeating your mantra. You don't even realize how non-sensical you're being.

If I don't like what you say does not mean I am not discussing.

And frankly, I am not going further on this. Look at the above posts; you say that AoS has fantastic synergy, I say that a good, well designed synergy between units should be something better than bonus stacking, and you answer going on number crunching the bonus stacking.

I think we are done here. Let's go back to 40k, is for the better.

The thing is that you're not undestanding the baisc meaning of the word you're so adamant in defending, all while missing the point of the explanations you're given. You're not discusing since you're literally repeated thrice the same argument and almost the same lines.

No, you are just moving the goalpost. I recognise that stacking multiple +1 bonus is indeed a form of synergy, is just the worst possible design-wise.
Is just boring, lazy design compared to what a well designed game could bring.

And, we are off-topic.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


I KNOW that synergy is " the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements". But if only adds a +1, instead of opening gameplay options on the battlefiled (say, pin units to make it vulnerable to assault, stuff like this), is just a game of gimmicks. It can be fun, but do not sell me as good design because is borderline insulting.

See, you're not grasping what you've been told, just focusing on the most base of the boons. Also, pinning something is debuffing, and I think we've made it clear buff/de-buff stack doesn't count as synergy.

Let's look at ironfist (which could go as a brute, ardboy, and gore-grunta squad, so no unit spamming) and the warchanter.
Imagine a case where your unit (let's say gore-grunta) has been tied in combat. You want them to hold objective A but they cannot because they'd have to reatreat.
But wait! You can move a d6'' for the batallion! That means you can use that movement to retreat from the combat AND get close to the warchanter, get the other d6'' movement and thuse move towards the objective as you've basically made a hit-and-run tactic. Furthermore that saves you rolling because you make a single roll instead of 6 (rolling to hit, to wound and to save for both sides). Just to give you a picture: I got charged by a unit saurus knights but got to disengage using the ironfist and could still move towards the backfield objective. That alone gave me 4VPs because I had tied the rest of the enemy army thanks to my units' superior mobility

Do you want more strategy/possibilies?
Look at the sylvaneth: you can summon a wyldwood close to the enemy, then make a unit of tree-revenants appear from it and charge the enemy. Now they do have a skill that lets them re-roll any die per phase. Which means that you can use them to re-roll a charge die and thus make it more likely. See? Without any need of adding buffs, we've gone to make a unit an excellent blitzkrieg tool as they have the chance to greatly close the gap and reach soon the meelee.
Skryre have units/batallions that let you deepstrike and close in to strike weakest enemy joints.

Lord Kragan wrote:


See, you're not grasping what you've been told, just focusing on the most base of the boons. Also, pinning something is debuffing, and I think we've made it clear buff/de-buff stack doesn't count as synergy.

The focus on the sentence is on the combined use of units and the effects they bring by themselves (good assault units + sniper unit) and their use together, not the pinning per se.

Let's look at ironfist (which could go as a brute, ardboy, and gore-grunta squad, so no unit spamming) and the warchanter.
Imagine a case where your unit (let's say gore-grunta) has been tied in combat. You want them to hold objective A but they cannot because they'd have to reatreat.
But wait! You can move a d6'' for the batallion! That means you can use that movement to retreat from the combat AND get close to the warchanter, get the other d6'' movement and thuse move towards the objective as you've basically made a hit-and-run tactic.

Do you want more strategy/possibilies?
Look at the sylvaneth: you can summon a wyldwood close to the enemy, then make a unit of tree-revenants appear from it and charge the enemy. Now they do have a skill that lets them re-roll any die per phase. Which means that you can use them to re-roll a charge die and thus make it more likely. See? Without any need of adding buffs, we've gone to make a unit an excellent blitzkrieg tool as they have the chance to greatly close the gap and reach soon the meelee.
Skryre have units/batallions that let you deepstrike and close in to strike weakest enemy joints.

These are gimmicks. Are combo, because, as said, these are pre-made interactions designed for the units.

Think about the Dark Eldar example I made above. The fast units are fast because they are mobile platforms of fire, deliver units in melee, control the fiels and so on.
The melee units are dedicated assaulters.
The effect of make the assaulted units flee into a mobile units, that was able to go there because of its mobility, makes the assaulters more effective and creates another use for the mobile units.
This is allowed by a rule set that conceived an unit being destroyed if caught in the cross-fire.

Triggering d6 movements and having units dance all over the field is a gimmick. Moreover, is not clear for me this "from the bataillon". Is a rule of the "orruks"? Of the ironjaws (the names are awful btw).

The sylvanet example is not clear Where is the synergy? A units summons another, does it count as synergy? A unit self buffs (if I got the sentence right) does it count as synergy?

Let's say we have a different idea of how things should work and call it a day, ok?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


See, you're not grasping what you've been told, just focusing on the most base of the boons. Also, pinning something is debuffing, and I think we've made it clear buff/de-buff stack doesn't count as synergy.

The focus on the sentence is on the combined use of units and the effects they bring by themselves (good assault units + sniper unit) and their use together, not the pinning per se.

The sylvanet example is mind-boggling. Where is the synergy? A units summons another, does it count as synergy? A unit self buffs (if I got the sentence right) does it count as synergy?

Let's say we have a different idea of how things should work and call it a day, ok?

No, the sylvaneth doesn't summon the unit, it summons terrain and the revenants use said terrain (which serves mainly a defensive purpose instead of an aggressive one) as a deepstrike platform. That means that they made the assaulter more effective because they enabled a more easy charge, without the need of directly buffing the unit. Then the unit used a special skill that didn't necessarily need to be used in that way but complemented the chance the other unit had given through a non conventional method. It gives the sorcerer an added bonus as it becomes part of a counter-attack force: dryads got charged? Summon forest and let the revenants on the other side appear to counter-attack and reinforce your position. The enemy is too close? Summon the forest and zip away.

The bonus movement May be viewed as a bit gimmicky but just think on this: without it, the Ironjaws have to brace themselves for the charge and the opponent gets complacent as they control the flow. With it, it's the other way around due to the neck-snapping speed. It utterly changes the style you play ironjaws and greatly boosts certain of its strengths (offensive power) while other way may favour more reactive stances (ie: using shields and cover instead of charging headlong, holding the ground instead of proactively seeking the opponent, something at which they can excel too).

EDIT: also, after thinking about your example, there's a very similar case in AoS with the Fyreslayers: the Hearthguard can trap enemy monsters, making them more vulnerable to assault as they cannot move (as much, it doesn't fully nulify their movement, because that would be a bit broken as there are no checks needed), which makes your work easier and safer for your fyreslayers. And this is a bigger bonus if you're taking a mixed alleigance and go with freeguild. Monsters are the prime CQC units in the setting, halving their movement just gives you more time to shoot, thus making them a defensive choice and acting as a bulwark of sorts rather than a shooty unit.

Two things from AoS that I don't recall being mentioned and I would really like to see in 40k:

How magic works. Being familiar with a load of psychic disciplines then rolling on those and recording the results is a pain that is not worth the effort for me. I don't use half the powers I roll and I only have those because I had to stack the odds of getting something useful. It adds useless bookkeeping and random imbalance between armies.
Instead; AoS has 2 universal spells and each wizard brings something unique to the table that you pay fro and get every time.
To cast, you roll 2D6 (plus your buffs) against a value and you opponent can do the same (against your score) if in range to stop you (a limited number of times). Done. Simple and clean. Instead of a phase that takes ages because of agonizing about trying to manage risk and ends up effectively being rolling off. The warp charge pool does not add significantly more than simply limiting the number of spells that can be cast or unbound per wizard taken.

Second is the owner's choice wound allocation. Yes, it is less realistic, yes it takes some tactical consideration out of the game and yes putting characters in units will have to go with it. I don't mind; the other models can pick the special weapon up, 40k is bloated with too many tactical considerations and taking saves for individually models is cumbersome and takes ages (you can add "look out sir" for heroes in coherency to avoid character sniping).

 DarkBlack wrote:

Spoiler:

Two things from AoS that I don't recall being mentioned and I would really like to see in 40k:

How magic works. Being familiar with a load of psychic disciplines then rolling on those and recording the results is a pain that is not worth the effort for me. I don't use half the powers I roll, that I only have because I had to stack the odds of getting something useful. It adds useless bookkeeping and random imbalance between armies.
Instead; AoS has 2 universal spells and each wizard brings something unique to the table that you pay fro and get every time.
To cast, you roll 2D6 (plus your buffs) against a value and you opponent can do the same if in range to stop you (a limited number of times). Done. Simple and clean. Instead of a phase that takes ages because of agonizing because you are trying to manage risk and ends up effectively rolling off against an opponent. The warp charge pool does not add significantly more than simply limiting the number of spells that can be cast or unbound per wizard taken.

Second is the owner's choice wound allocation. Yes, it is less realistic, yes it takes some tactical consideration out of the game and yes putting characters in units will have to go with it. I don't mind, the other models can pick the special weapon up, 40k is bloated with too many tactical considerations and taking saves for individually models is cumbersome and takes ages (you can have "look out sir" for heroes in coherency to avoid character sniping).

You're absolutely right. I've suggested the first one for physic powers before in a home made rules thread. It was a combination of AoS magic and 5th edition pysker rules. The pysker has a fix set of powers and takes a leadership test to manifest them. Double one or double six is perils of the warp (which in this case is suffer one mortal wound). Unlike in AoS enemy pyskers can't unbind your powers unless they're a space marine librarian with a pyshic hood, but certain units are resistant to them.

I suggested calling the 40k version of Arcane Bolt 'Smite' and Mystic Sheild 'Ward'. The way I see it, it doesn't matter if the pysker is blasting you with lightning or using telekinesis to throw a boulder at you, the end result is the same; you're dead.

I'd much rather have a simple and to the point system than the long and complicated randomised one 40k currently has.

 DarkBlack wrote:
Two things from AoS that I don't recall being mentioned and I would really like to see in 40k:

How magic works. Being familiar with a load of psychic disciplines then rolling on those and recording the results is a pain that is not worth the effort for me. I don't use half the powers I roll and I only have those because I had to stack the odds of getting something useful. It adds useless bookkeeping and random imbalance between armies.
Instead; AoS has 2 universal spells and each wizard brings something unique to the table that you pay fro and get every time.
To cast, you roll 2D6 (plus your buffs) against a value and you opponent can do the same (against your score) if in range to stop you (a limited number of times). Done. Simple and clean. Instead of a phase that takes ages because of agonizing about trying to manage risk and ends up effectively being rolling off. The warp charge pool does not add significantly more than simply limiting the number of spells that can be cast or unbound per wizard taken.

I Agree! Wasn't a similar resolution a thing of the 40k of the past? Psychic powers were the facto risky equipments that needed a leadership test to work and they had a point cost. They were part of the list building. No random rolls. The risk of rolling was only in the perils, and there were no problems because another faction has no psykers (tau, necrons). I totally agree on bookeping and to the idiocy of adding another phase.
Bonus because they made the psyphase in 40k closer to the magic phase in WHFB, and that one was the one that gave more headaches because of balance problems. Chapeau, design team!
EDIT: one could argue that someone wants diversified powers among armies, but I think they should be of support mostly, not OP, selectable and paid with points, and simple to cast.

Second is the owner's choice wound allocation. Yes, it is less realistic, yes it takes some tactical consideration out of the game and yes putting characters in units will have to go with it. I don't mind; the other models can pick the special weapon up, 40k is bloated with too many tactical considerations and taking saves for individually models is cumbersome and takes ages (you can add "look out sir" for heroes in coherency to avoid character sniping).

Again, agree wholeheartedly. And this was in 40k before, unless I played it wrong. Carefully placing the squad, because of the current wound allocation rules, subtracts a good deal of time to the gameplay. I see someone can enjoy this subtlety but is it worthy?
The sergeant is more experienced, it makes sense he exposes himself less, and his the last to go down. The meltagun if picked up by a companion when is dropped by its bearer. If you want to have these elements of the squad targetable, there is the Precision Shot rule. Actually, it makes no sense the current wound allocation and the precision shot rule to exist in the same ruleset.
Chapeau again, design team!

This is what I mean when I talk about bad design. These hack frauds are the people that design the game around gimmicks they fill splats with, but then the basic ruleset is skeleton or an incoherent mess.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is.

I know. Those people that seem to call AoS a mess seem to forget about things like the super-friends lists, ...

The two games are bad in different way. AoS is over-simplistic, has mechanics that kill immersion, and other things we discussed to death.
40k is the opposite: we would live better without a good number of the rules, and have some other ones fixed. Is an overdesigned mess.
Both have rules all over the place.

Point being, to fix AoS you should built (GW already started with points) with 40k you should cut, but the right things, not too much, not what works like the wound table.

AoS is fine for what it is, and it has a better core game engine than 40k. The unfounded claim that AoS is "over-simplistic" and "kill immersion" needs to be defended with concrete examples in the current environment of GHB and Grand Alliances, not as initially released via PDFs.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is.

I know. Those people that seem to call AoS a mess seem to forget about things like the super-friends lists, ...

The two games are bad in different way. AoS is over-simplistic, has mechanics that kill immersion, and other things we discussed to death.
40k is the opposite: we would live better without a good number of the rules, and have some other ones fixed. Is an overdesigned mess.
Both have rules all over the place.

Point being, to fix AoS you should built (GW already started with points) with 40k you should cut, but the right things, not too much, not what works like the wound table.

AoS is fine for what it is, and it has a better core game engine than 40k. The unfounded claim that AoS is "over-simplistic" and "kill immersion" needs to be defended with concrete examples in the current environment of GHB and Grand Alliances, not as initially released via PDFs.

So, I have to buy a big book? Weren't the rules free?

I'll take the $25 hit for working points values, but at least you can still play with the base rules and no points, and *FORGE THE NARRATIVE* or something weird like that. :lol:

I see the addition of AoS features as being an improvement to the game. As it stands, AoS is currently a *much* better game with a lot more nuance than the 4 pages of rules would suggest. There are things I disagree with to a certain extent, but even some of the worse are not as bad as they felt at first.

 RuneGrey wrote:
I'll take the $25 hit for working points values, but at least you can still play with the base rules and no points, and *FORGE THE NARRATIVE* or something weird like that. :lol:

I see the addition of AoS features as being an improvement to the game. As it stands, AoS is currently a *much* better game with a lot more nuance than the 4 pages of rules would suggest. There are things I disagree with to a certain extent, but even some of the worse are not as bad as they felt at first.

It works fine for me and my opponents when we play narrative play. Up to date we've yet to use points for a narrative scenario and I've been in quite a lot of tight matches. The rules ARE free and if you want to use points you've to pay ZERO euros/dollars as you can use scrollbuilder for free (and it includes everything you need to know for "basic" matched play). The GHB just adds a lot of more stuff aside from basic guidelines like the path to glory and campaign systems or the various scenarios for narrative and matched play. But hey 20 euros is a crime when compared to the steal that are the 40+ euros of the rulebook in 40k.

From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

 Vash108 wrote:
From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

It's more that anyone within the army can summon said unit, a Chaos Wizard can summon all the things that are available to Chaos wizards like Daemons. Though with Matched play they balanced out summoning by making them more like reserves, where you have to have XXX points free to summon something.

So if you had an army, you'd reserve say.. 300 points, then you'd have 300 points worth of things you can summon. No free lunch like in 40k where you can just keep summoning to one's hearts content.

The reason it seems like they are summon heavy is that there's no randomization in AoS unless you want it too, most wizards tend to have two "Basic" spells with a unique or two so summoning has to be left up on the respective units warscroll, and with the new battletomes can select from those spells as well for your army of choice, command traits are picked, spells are picked (They do leave it as an option for a D6 if you want it to, but this is optional)

 Vash108 wrote:
From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

Nope. The following armies are "summong heavy":

Order;

-Seraphon/Lizardmen.
-Sylvaneth, though its more of the terrain summoning variety (as well as driads).

Destruction: no summon heavy armies at all.

Death:

-Everything barring fully fledged flesheater courts.

Chaos:

-Daemons/hosts of slaanesh, that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

It's more that anyone within the army can summon said unit, a Chaos Wizard can summon all the things that are available to Chaos wizards like Daemons. Though with Matched play they balanced out summoning by making them more like reserves, where you have to have XXX points free to summon something.

So if you had an army, you'd reserve say.. 300 points, then you'd have 300 points worth of things you can summon. No free lunch like in 40k where you can just keep summoning to one's hearts content.

The reason it seems like they are summon heavy is that there's no randomization in AoS unless you want it too, most wizards tend to have two "Basic" spells with a unique or two so summoning has to be left up on the respective units warscroll, and with the new battletomes can select from those spells as well for your army of choice, command traits are picked, spells are picked (They do leave it as an option for a D6 if you want it to, but this is optional)

And Honestly I think it makes more sense than in 40k (as well as taking a lot less time to spend, as you make less rolls). So this guy who has spend decades studying x magic doesn't exactly know which spells he gets?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
From some of the AoS armies I saw, which was only a couple, they seemed very summon heavy? Is this a pattern across the other armies?

It's more that anyone within the army can summon said unit, a Chaos Wizard can summon all the things that are available to Chaos wizards like Daemons. Though with Matched play they balanced out summoning by making them more like reserves, where you have to have XXX points free to summon something.

So if you had an army, you'd reserve say.. 300 points, then you'd have 300 points worth of things you can summon. No free lunch like in 40k where you can just keep summoning to one's hearts content.

The reason it seems like they are summon heavy is that there's no randomization in AoS unless you want it too, most wizards tend to have two "Basic" spells with a unique or two so summoning has to be left up on the respective units warscroll, and with the new battletomes can select from those spells as well for your army of choice, command traits are picked, spells are picked (They do leave it as an option for a D6 if you want it to, but this is optional)

I like that idea and immediately makes it better that I had first thought. So would I be able to Side Board several different units and summon the ones I needed per my situation as long as it fit within that 300?

Pretty much: the basic idea is that you're sacrfying points in order to get whatever you want later on and in place. They also are able to make charges after being summoned so this ability is very useful for those units that can be best described as glass.cannons.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Pretty much: the basic idea is that you're sacrfying points in order to get whatever you want later on and in place. They also are able to make charges after being summoned so this ability is very useful for those units that can be best described as glass.cannons.

The downside in AoS is that you must place newly summoned units (or ones that are deployed outside the battlefield and are dropping, arriving from the side, or rising from below) more than 9" away from the enemy, leaving charges upon summoning as long shots at best. I don't believe there's anything that negates that 9" for summoning, although Stormcast and Skaven have rules or formations that allow them to drop in closer..

The other thing is that the more powerful the unit you want to summon, the higher the difficulty required. Summon Bloodthirster is on something fairly high - a 9 or a 10 IIRC - and I've seen a game or two go by where someone reserved the points to summon one and never got it off.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
The two games are bad in different way. AoS is over-simplistic, has mechanics that kill immersion, and other things we discussed to death.
40k is the opposite: we would live better without a good number of the rules, and have some other ones fixed. Is an overdesigned mess.
Both have rules all over the place.

Point being, to fix AoS you should built (GW already started with points) with 40k you should cut, but the right things, not too much, not what works like the wound table.

AoS is fine for what it is, and it has a better core game engine than 40k. The unfounded claim that AoS is "over-simplistic" and "kill immersion" needs to be defended with concrete examples in the current environment of GHB and Grand Alliances, not as initially released via PDFs.

So, I have to buy a big book? Weren't the rules free?

If you want to talk about AoS as it currently sits, yes.

The rules are still free. If you go into a GW store, they will give you a beautifully printed pamphlet of the AoS rules. If you want the army details, and the points, you'll have to shell out for the books.

 DeffDred wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

This make no sense at all

Yes it does. I've been trying to explain it to my friend for months. He thinks a d10 would add this incredible amount of depth... how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line? How many would actually have a 10? Bloodthirster? Avatar of Khaine? It's pointless. Anything other than a d6 needs to be a d20 but in a game of random stuff I'd rather have 6 results or a d66 result over 20 results.
Imagine the annoyance of 20 possessed abilities or scattering d20 +/- or whatever.

This is mathematically not true. The 1's and 10's aren't important. It's making 2-9 meaningful.

You can only have units with the option to be summoned (summoning spell on their warscroll) on your "sideboard" and you have to have a wizard from the correct grand alliance.