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.

I should have learned that the library of codices and supplements will be useless after the end of days. (and not bought any.)

 Phydox wrote:

I should have learned that the library of codices and supplements will be useless after the end of days. (and not bought any.)

Totally off-topic. I knwo this may be a joke but we are talking about rules that could benefit 40k if they were being ported from AoS.
Also, it's not such a thing, you have the lore there.

How about getting rid of templates and scatter dice? Every 40k club evening I see and hear and participate in futile discussions over how many models are underneath, discussing what the "exact angle" of the arrow on the scatter dice is, moving it 0,5" less far or further.
No I prefer something like the Celestial Prime's ability to shoot and then hit every model within d6 inch.

How to completely kill your sales.

Danny slag wrote:
How to completely kill your sales.

This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.

There will always be haters.

What I really appreciate about AoS is that a decision was made regarding what kind of game it would be and it was made accordingly. It's not like 40k now that tries to be a fun narrative game, a competition game, a "high resolution" squad game and a game with monsters and giant mech's simultaneously. Which makes is struggle with all of those.

 DarkBlack wrote:
There will always be haters.

That's the spirit, calling people who have criticisms of the product "haters".

Ignore them all you want, I've heard empty forums make for great echo chambers.

Ruin wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
There will always be haters.

That's the spirit, calling people who have criticisms of the product "haters".

Ignore them all you want, I've heard empty forums make for great echo chambers.

Because most of the arguments aren't anything near constructive or even decent criticism.

There are some constructive arguments for it, but they tend to be better given by people who have actually TRIED it.

Rend Values, Multiple Damage instead of instant death (make ew half it? Or, since multiple damage, bolster wounds?), Monstrous Creature/Vehicle degradation.

Ruin wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
There will always be haters.

That's the spirit, calling people who have criticisms of the product "haters".

Ignore them all you want, I've heard empty forums make for great echo chambers.

I'm going to say that some guy shouting: NOTHING! or "IT'S AN INSULT TO WARGAMING!" (which are things that have been posted in this very same thread) can hardly be called criticism (or valid one at least). Now, this thread has provided some valid criticsm (terrain and shooting pop into mind) but this ain't the target of the affirmation.

I've heard that ignoring the evidence also makes for great echo chambers, you seem to be well on the way in that department.

 minisnatcher wrote:
How about getting rid of templates and scatter dice? Every 40k club evening I see and hear and participate in futile discussions over how many models are underneath, discussing what the "exact angle" of the arrow on the scatter dice is, moving it 0,5" less far or further.
No I prefer something like the Celestial Prime's ability to shoot and then hit every model within d6 inch.

I actually like templates, mostly because of the tactics involved: you can only use them if the model holding the flamer is in front, but that exposes it to shooting.
However, I think blasts take up too much time to use. You have to place the blast marker, roll for scatter, take out the tape measure to move it, and recount the number of models.
The ability you listed isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't depend on the model's BS. I would prefer something like: you place the blast marker and count the number of models under it. You roll a D6. If it's bellow the firing model's BS you hit all models under the blast. If it's above you only hit half of them. On a 5 or a 6 (or just on a 6), it's a complete miss. It would be much faster and doesn't require you to follow the direction of a small arrow on a die.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.

Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.

As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.

I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.

Ah yes the ol "I'm too SMART for games that have easy to access rules".

So in order for him to get sudden death your army needed to outnumber him 3 to 1. You couldn't surround your warboss in a blob of 60 goblins? Unless he had ranged attacks he shouldn't be able to touch him unless you positioned terribly.

And thats not even using the pitched battle rules for competitive play. You played the casual no-points mode and expected balance when you had no idea what you were doing. The complexity of the game isn't in the ruleset, its the actual strategy invovled.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.

Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.

As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.

I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.

So you basically went in, played with no matched play, played no scenario, played in a way that benefitted the opponent, and lost. Whow, what a tragedy and such an indicative.

I've played greentide in 40k. Your whinning on moving many bases doesn't move me. Spears/2''= extra rank. Simple as that. Seriously speaking, your comments can be milked quite further but I don't really want to.

 minisnatcher wrote:
How about getting rid of templates and scatter dice? Every 40k club evening I see and hear and participate in futile discussions over how many models are underneath, discussing what the "exact angle" of the arrow on the scatter dice is, moving it 0,5" less far or further.
No I prefer something like the Celestial Prime's ability to shoot and then hit every model within d6 inch.

Please no. Removal of templates (and the convoluted rules that followed with each model that used to use one) are one of the worst aspects of AoS. Templates are a staple of tabletop games, it's certain 40k player's staunch refusal to actually roll the scatter dice next to the unit (creating terrible parallaxes) that is the problem.

Keeping templates in helps prolong the argument phase.

For example:
Make flamers d3 hits within 6" of the shooter. No shooting roll.
Blast is d3 + 1 hits in the target unit with a required shooting roll.

Ordnance is d6+1 in the target unit with a required shooting roll.

For stuff arriving that needed a scatter die:
player bringing them in picks a point.
player opposing picks another point within 12 inches.
On a 4+ they're on target with whatever special abilities (reroll for homing beacon, etc.) affect the roll. Otherwise, the central model is placed on the point picked by opponent.

Ruin wrote:

That's the spirit, calling people who have criticisms of the product "haters".

Ignore them all you want, I've heard empty forums make for great echo chambers.

No, I would not call people with legitimate (i.e. relevant and without logical fallacy) criticism haters. Nice example of a straw man though.

In fact, I find ignoring haters is usually best.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.

Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.

As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.

I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.

So you basically went in, played with no matched play, played no scenario, played in a way that benefitted the opponent, and lost. Whow, what a tragedy and such an indicative.

I've played greentide in 40k. Your whinning on moving many bases doesn't move me. Spears/2''= extra rank. Simple as that. Seriously speaking, your comments can be milked quite further but I don't really want to.

The above mentioned gaming experience example was a test game in which I controlled both armies to learn the rules of the game. My usual tabletop buddies are computer gamers who don´t even own a single miniature. And who should blame them for it? Nowadays an army costs a fortune. I introduced them to the 2nd edition (Battle Bible found on the interwebz) & 5th edition ruleset from 40K and the WHFB ruleset that comes with the boxed set of Battle for Skull Pass .
So I told them that GW published a new edition for Fantasy Wargaming with a ruleset that is comprised of only four pages. Even as my buddies are no tabletop experts they instinctively knew that GW screwed up badly. There are cardgames like Magic the Gathering or roleplaying games like D&D which have rulebooks/rulesets that are more sophisticated and done with more love than AOS.
I told them no further details of this game but showed them instead a guy on youtube who can explain AOS in a nutshell better than anybody on the various interwebz forums. It is a spoof for sure but his revelations of this brand new game from GW coincide with my own POV that I gleaned from my above mentioned test game.

Here you go (Laughing Guy Plays Warhammer Age of Sigmar)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ke7LuZUFv4

We had a blast watching this and surely you will too. Oh my gosh, watching this again cracks me up. Ten Bloodthirsters.Hilarious! So from this moment on we agreed that AOS is simply not worth the time & effort for our gaming group. Period.

We had a blast watching this and surely you will too. Oh my gosh, watching this again cracks me up. Ten Bloodthirsters.Hilarious! So from this moment on we agreed that AOS is simply not worth the time & effort for our gaming group. Period.

Nah, it's probably one of the poorer ones I've seen, cursing for curses sake and is generally just a bit meh compared to some of the better ones, there was another AoS one I've seen that was actually pretty good and if I can find it again I'll link it here.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.

Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.

As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.

I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.

So you basically went in, played with no matched play, played no scenario, played in a way that benefitted the opponent, and lost. Whow, what a tragedy and such an indicative.

I've played greentide in 40k. Your whinning on moving many bases doesn't move me. Spears/2''= extra rank. Simple as that. Seriously speaking, your comments can be milked quite further but I don't really want to.

The above mentioned gaming experience example was a test game in which I controlled both armies to learn the rules of the game. My usual tabletop buddies are computer gamers who don´t even own a single miniature. And who should blame them for it? Nowadays an army costs a fortune. I introduced them to the 2nd edition (Battle Bible found on the interwebz) & 5th edition ruleset from 40K and the WHFB ruleset that comes with the boxed set of Battle for Skull Pass .
So I told them that GW published a new edition for Fantasy Wargaming with a ruleset that is comprised of only four pages. Even as my buddies are no tabletop experts they instinctively knew that GW screwed up badly. There are cardgames like Magic the Gathering or roleplaying games like D&D which have rulebooks/rulesets that are more sophisticated and done with more love than AOS.
I told them no further details of this game but showed them instead a guy on youtube who can explain AOS in a nutshell better than anybody on the various interwebz s. It is a spoof for sure but his revelations of this brand new game from GW coincide with my own POV that I gleaned from my above mentioned test game.

Here you go (Laughing Guy Plays Warhammer Age of Sigmar)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ke7LuZUFv4

We had a blast watching this and surely you will too. Oh my gosh, watching this again cracks me up. Ten Bloodthirsters.Hilarious! So from this moment on we agreed that AOS is simply not worth the time & effort for our gaming group. Period.

I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.

Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.

Lord Kragan wrote:
I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.

Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.

If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?

 Korinov wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.

Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.

If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?

It's called 40k.

So, you're, implying that it's worse than bringing half a dozen wraithknights?. Which is something that you can do perfectly fine in 40k. It's called unbound and was a thing even prior to AoS. That speaks volumes out of 40k, doesn't it?

You're missing the point of the statement, though. The point of the sixteen cannons' argument is that, if someone brings something unreasonable, it means you can too bring something unreasonable because you two have outright decided to do some crazy gak. . Again, not many people own sixteen cannons. And the point is that neither of you are abided to the structured game of Matched Play, which could, at best, let you bring in... what, 4 blood thirst at 2k points? And then you'd sacrifice more than half of your army on 4 models which will make any ironjaw/bonesplitter player so hard that his dong will throw the army out of the table.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.

Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.

If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?

It's called 40k.

So, you're, implying that it's worse than bringing half a dozen wraithknights?. Which is something that you can do perfectly fine in 40k. It's called unbound and was a thing even prior to AoS. That speaks volumes out of 40k, doesn't it?

You're missing the point of the statement, though. The point of the sixteen cannons' argument is that, if someone brings something unreasonable, it means you can too bring something unreasonable because you two have outright decided to do some crazy gak. . Again, not many people own sixteen cannons.

So, by your own admission AoS is the wargaming version of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Cool.

Ruin wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.

Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.

If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?

It's called 40k.

So, you're, implying that it's worse than bringing half a dozen wraithknights?. Which is something that you can do perfectly fine in 40k. It's called unbound and was a thing even prior to AoS. That speaks volumes out of 40k, doesn't it?

You're missing the point of the statement, though. The point of the sixteen cannons' argument is that, if someone brings something unreasonable, it means you can too bring something unreasonable because you two have outright decided to do some crazy gak. . Again, not many people own sixteen cannons.

So, by your own admission AoS is the wargaming version of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Cool.

What the hell are you talking about? Prisoners dilemma works because the two sides don't trust each other. This result in Open play happens because they AGREE TO. But hey, you want to be intellectually dishonest? Fine by me. Apparently everyone owns ten bloodthirsters and sixteen cannons or either of the two. Amirite?

And this is, again, something that 40k can do, and has been able to for a year prior to AoS's open play. With unbound you can bring in two blocks of triptides and marklerlight drone formations. hell, you can even snug half a dozen wraithknights! Does that make 40k a prisoners dilemma too? No, because this two people, if they bring such an army against each other, will have most likely (99.999999999% sure) agreed prior to the match.

Ruin wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
I've always found this guy steriotypcal and offensive. Thank you for reminding me that abomination and shame to my country exists. I've always had a great time being offended by this guy's behavior.
And here we go with the Ten Nagashes Argument.

Does anyone actually know a person who owns ten Nagashes? In itself that is a non-response which can be easily refuted: if your oponent brings in ten bloodthirsters you bring in sixteen cannons.

If the game allows someone to bring ten bloodthirsters and then be countered by sixteen cannons, well, that speaks volumes about the game itself, doesn't it?

It's called 40k.

So, you're, implying that it's worse than bringing half a dozen wraithknights?. Which is something that you can do perfectly fine in 40k. It's called unbound and was a thing even prior to AoS. That speaks volumes out of 40k, doesn't it?

You're missing the point of the statement, though. The point of the sixteen cannons' argument is that, if someone brings something unreasonable, it means you can too bring something unreasonable because you two have outright decided to do some crazy gak. . Again, not many people own sixteen cannons.

So, by your own admission AoS is the wargaming version of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Cool.

And this is why most people tend to ignore the haters, because this is what it ends up with.

Ah, I'm late to the discussion, again.

There's some things from AoS I'd definitely like to see. The free and easy to obtain rules for everything. Different ways to play the game. The simple and easy casting and dispelling mechanism. Command abilities. Battleshock. The lack of charts and templates. And warscrolls. However:

 Jathom wrote:
There is NO WAY you can list all the wargear options for most generic characters, or even sergeants, on a single page with all their stats. In order to Warscroll 40k, the options are gonna need serious streamlining.

This is very true. A warscroll entry for every option in an average 40k unit is impossible. Believe me, I've tried.

I love the Initiative system AoS uses, but I accept that it probably wouldn't work in 40k due to the higher amount of shooting in the game. What would probably be best is some sort of hybrid of the AoS and Bolt Action systems. That's what I'm trying to make at any rate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do?

So we're apparently getting a new edition of 40k this year. Which is nice.

And there are of course various rumours flying around, including that it might be taking inspiration from Age of Sigmar.

Now, some might panic. AoS was certainly a big change to Warhammer, and it's a very different game. But rather than discuss the merits of that particular game, I want to discuss which element could be transferred over to 40k as is - so no major changes to the basic rules (to hit, to wound, to save etc)

Here's some thoughts to get you started.

1. Floating Initiative.

Man, I love that rule. For me it gives you a lot to think about in each turn, as you never know if your opponent might be about to get two player turns back to back. Took me a bit to get my head round it, but now I'm used to it it's a really fun challenge.

2. Warscrolls/Datasheets

They're neat, they're tidy, they're a bit of a blessing. If you're not familiar, imagine not having to flip through various books because all the unit rules are right there on a single page. Not quite as instantly transferable to 40k, but can be done with minimal tweaking.

That's my two top picks. Now over to you.

Remember, this isn't a chance to bash either rules set!

I agree and would love these two things as well as monsters getting weaker as they take more wounds and perhaps something akin for vehicles (though not the same). The roll for iniiative choice each round is excellent. Much more strategy and thinking on your toes. Picking and alternating close combat too is wonderful. I know it's more pew pew in 40K but it just works so well. Don't think 40k needs shooting into and out of combats though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, the three ways to play also. Especially distinguishing from and supporting both competitive and narrative, understanding the nature of each and keeping up to date with community feedback for competitive.

People refer to the Rend rule as if it is something new. It was part of Fantasy when I started wargaming almost 20yrs ago. The AP system is one of the biggest annoyances 40k has always had for me. I think it was meant as a simpler save system but it lead to the state 40k is in now. The strength and damage output has escalated so much, models need to have multiple saves with different rules (armour, invulnerable, FnP) to matter in this game.
Bring it back to a single save and the Rend mechanic.

Delete the whole thing and Sigmarfy it for all I care.
Nowadays every single formation they release deletes my whole (old) army in one turn, I hardly play anymore.

40k desperately needs a reset to lower the threshold for newer players. Systems like X-Wing are so simple yet so nuanced, 40k needs to get with the times.
GW hopefully ignores the elitist few who object.

After having a good read of the AoS rules, relevant parts of the General's handbook, and watching a game (and buying into the local escalation), I have to say that there's a lot that 40k can learn just through a good review of AoS on paper.

One problem a lot of people don't seem to realize is that having a better understanding of 40k's convoluted mess of rules does not necessarily make you a more skilled player. The ability to effectively research and comprehend the relevant points might also coincide with the skills needed to utilize them effectively, but not always. Real skill is in recognizing and out-thinking your opponent's available options, and planning accordingly to counter them. 40k's barrier comes in making that breadth of options ridiculously esoteric, rather than making the choices themselves have depth. To that end, you usually end up playing against the rulebook, rather than the opposing player.

A simple ruleset that gives players a variety of tools to constantly outplay one another has more meaningful complexity than a static brick of pages which devolves into a matter of who can toss the most dice. Chess is a game with 11 rules, and yet it has far more tactical depth than 40k could ever hope to have in its current state. A satisfying game doesn't come from recognizing some small technicality in the rulebook, it comes from the feeling of actually out-thinking your opponent and punishing their choices.

AoS definitely has its own issues, but it's got a lot more going for it than the current 40k rules, and would be a solid starting point for a newly rebooted rule system. A new 40k doesn't have to be quite as simple, and I'd prefer something where units aren't quite as homogenous, but a direction that has me focusing more on my opponent than the book is one hell of a start.

My main problem with the initiative system of AoS (turn order, not melee initiative), is that if the other player plays two turns in a row, you basically spend twice as long doing nothing, just looking at the other person play. When a player turn can easily take 30mins, it means you won't do much for a whole hour.
Obviously 40K could be played much faster with streamlined rules (fewer saves, fewer rerolls and special cases), but a player turn in a standard 2,000pts game will always last a while.
So, independently of any tactical or game design considerations, I don't like the initiative system because I get bored when I wait too long for my turn to play.