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.

So, let's say for instance that Duncan Halls AoS 40k codexes were messed around with in the Games Workshop studios. He released those March 2016 on his blog.

This means in a years worth of time. Games Workshop could have tweaked those rules into what they really feel it should look like. That is alot of time to mess with any set of rules.

Since, AoS itself is only 4 pages of rules. I am pretty sure a cleaned up version of them could be done quite quickly.

 Mymearan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sadly that is also balanced with "rules are free, but for points for all armies you have to buy this annually-updated handbook supplement and/or pay for our app". So free is not really free. I hope they go beyond that and just republish all unit cards for free, with all info on them inc. points, and Codexes become fluff/formations only.

Free is really free because you can find all the points for AoS for free on scrollbuilder.com which GW has acquired.

Now that Scrollbuilder.com has been acquired by GW, what guarantee is there that that feature (point costs seen for free) will remain?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sadly that is also balanced with "rules are free, but for points for all armies you have to buy this annually-updated handbook supplement and/or pay for our app". So free is not really free. I hope they go beyond that and just republish all unit cards for free, with all info on them inc. points, and Codexes become fluff/formations only.

Free is really free because you can find all the points for AoS for free on scrollbuilder.com which GW has acquired.

Now that Scrollbuilder.com has been acquired by GW, what guarantee is there that that feature (point costs seen for free) will remain?

Nothing except that they said it will.

Yeah, they have confirmed that it will still be free.

Youn wrote:
So, let's say for instance that Duncan Halls AoS 40k codexes were messed around with in the Games Workshop studios. He released those March 2016 on his blog.

This means in a years worth of time. Games Workshop could have tweaked those rules into what they really feel it should look like. That is alot of time to mess with any set of rules.

Since, AoS itself is only 4 pages of rules. I am pretty sure a cleaned up version of them could be done quite quickly.

Except they won't have started with fanmade stuff as a basis.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Agreed with the tanks vs. monsters point, and also tanks vs. tanks. It always boggled my mind that the Leman Russ battle cannon was almost entirely impotent against other heavy tanks.

You realise right that has nothing to do with templates right? Russel were great even with templates

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 silverstu wrote:


Except all the existing factions will have updated rules and points on release of 8th?? Thats much better than previous editions where the rules were updated but everyone was stuck on old codex until they got an update- which took years.. This way all the factions will start at a similar level.

Will they?

That would seem to rely on GW writing all new army lists so that they are balanced. If they've been unable to do that one-at-a-time for the past 20 years, what would lead you to believe they're going to manage it when they're trying to rush out everyone's rules at the same time?

Are they rushing though? They might have been working on the new rules since AoS dropped, or longer, and have been doing the new edition rules alongside the current rules; editions are "usually" planned out well in advance. I'd actually be more certain they aren't rushing every army's rules, rather than expecting them to be rushed.

Yeah, I wonder about that too, the past few Codices (Tau, Orks and Imperial Agents for me) have all been copy/paste, with the edition of a few new units. There were no significant structural changes, even though all three have glaring issues with certain units under 6th/7th rules, and no significant new fluff etc. Now it could just be a half-assed cash in, but to me it feels more like a holding action; minimal updates to shoehorn in the new models whilst the majority of their resources are working on 8th in the background.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Youn wrote:
So, let's say for instance that Duncan Halls AoS 40k codexes were messed around with in the Games Workshop studios. He released those March 2016 on his blog.

This means in a years worth of time. Games Workshop could have tweaked those rules into what they really feel it should look like. That is alot of time to mess with any set of rules.

Since, AoS itself is only 4 pages of rules. I am pretty sure a cleaned up version of them could be done quite quickly.

Except they won't have started with fanmade stuff as a basis.

Especially stuff that breaks the style guide so badly. Seriously, why does he add a keyword to a unit just to give them a heavy weapon? What is that about? Adding Keywords is about external interactions not internal unit mechanics. Unless he doesn't intend to add keywords in which case that could be clearer. Plus it just looks clunky; if you really don't want to extend the ranged weapons list in the profile section, why not have a profile with stars for the values and include a table with the profiles, like how AoS monsters have a table for their attacks?

But mostly they won't be copying anyone's AoS fanwork because it's quite unlikely that they will be making 40k into a straight clone of AoS. Borrowing elements, sure, maybe even whole mechanics (40k has been in dire need of the keyword system at least for three editions now) but Warhammer Age of Grimdark is a low margin option.

tneva82 wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Agreed with the tanks vs. monsters point, and also tanks vs. tanks. It always boggled my mind that the Leman Russ battle cannon was almost entirely impotent against other heavy tanks.

You realise right that has nothing to do with templates right? Russel were great even with templates

Going to respectfully disagree here.

Standard Battlecannon Leman Russes were okay versus most targets, generally speaking, but against another AV:14 target you were fishing for 6's on the 2D6-take the highest roll and that was just to get a glance. At best, your Russ will fire just 5 to 6 times a game. So to kill another AV:14 target you had to get that 6 three to four times, and if you're shooting the battle cannon you're not shooting any other weapons on the tank at all save for snap firing them. Spring for the hull mounted Lascannon or sponson multimeltas? Then you choose to shoot those at regular BS instead of the big gun.

Even against lower AV targets, AV:11, 12, or 13, you still cannot blow the target up (If it isn't open topped of course) with a lucky 7 on the damage table since the AP of the Battle Cannon is 3.

There's a reason Standard LRBT, and to a little lesser extent Leman Russ Demolishers (AP:2 and St:10 make the difference here despite the very short range), are all but unseen in most Guard Armies I see. The LRBT is lackluster for its steep points cost and middling firepower.

For the same cost as a plain jane LRBT I can purchase a Leman Russ Eradicator, which has the same exact armor profile, armed with the Eradicator Nova Cannon (36" range ignores cover ST:6, AP:4 large blast that isn't an Ordnance Weapon) with a hull mounted Lascannon and a pair of sponson mounted Multimeltas.

Exact same points cost.
One tank fires one St:8, AP:3 ordnance large blast at full BS a turn and snap fires a heavy bolter.
The other tank fires a St:6, AP:4 large blast a turn (granted, at shorter range) that ignores cover and fires a Lascannon and 2 multimeltas, ALL at full BS.

I know which tank I'm going to be more concerned with putting down/dealing with first, personally.

There are other reasons and examples I can give, but that one hopefully drives the point home.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

 Red__Thirst wrote:

Going to respectfully disagree here.

Standard Battlecannon Leman Russes were okay versus most targets, generally speaking, but against another AV:14 target you were fishing for 6's on the 2D6-take the highest roll and that was just to get a glance. At best, your Russ will fire just 5 to 6 times a game. So to kill another AV:14 target you had to get that 6 three to four times, and if you're shooting the battle cannon you're not shooting any other weapons on the tank at all save for snap firing them. Spring for the hull mounted Lascannon or sponson multimeltas? Then you choose to shoot those at regular BS instead of the big gun.

Even against lower AV targets, AV:11, 12, or 13, you still cannot blow the target up (If it isn't open topped of course) with a lucky 7 on the damage table since the AP of the Battle Cannon is 3.

There's a reason Standard LRBT, and to a little lesser extent Leman Russ Demolishers (AP:2 and St:10 make the difference here despite the very short range), are all but unseen in most Guard Armies I see. The LRBT is lackluster for its steep points cost and middling firepower.

For the same cost as a plain jane LRBT I can purchase a Leman Russ Eradicator, which has the same exact armor profile, armed with the Eradicator Nova Cannon (36" range ignores cover ST:6, AP:4 large blast that isn't an Ordnance Weapon) with a hull mounted Lascannon and a pair of sponson mounted Multimeltas.

Exact same points cost.
One tank fires one St:8, AP:3 ordnance large blast at full BS a turn and snap fires a heavy bolter.
The other tank fires a St:6, AP:4 large blast a turn (granted, at shorter range) that ignores cover and fires a Lascannon and 2 multimeltas, ALL at full BS.

I know which tank I'm going to be more concerned with putting down/dealing with first, personally.

There are other reasons and examples I can give, but that one hopefully drives the point home.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Hit every location under template rolling high amount of dices. Good chance of getting some damage even if not blow out right away when you hit hull, turret, tracks and sponsor at once.

Against single monster high school hit doing multiple wounds was pretty good as well.

Just cause Russ is bad in 7th Ed doesn't mean it was always bad.

Problem is not template. Fact. Even Gw got it working with templates even if they screwed it up.

Edit. Stupid auto correct. Russ. Not Russian

 insaniak wrote:

 silverstu wrote:


Except all the existing factions will have updated rules and points on release of 8th?? Thats much better than previous editions where the rules were updated but everyone was stuck on old codex until they got an update- which took years.. This way all the factions will start at a similar level.

Will they?

That would seem to rely on GW writing all new army lists so that they are balanced. If they've been unable to do that one-at-a-time for the past 20 years, what would lead you to believe they're going to manage it when they're trying to rush out everyone's rules at the same time?

To be fair, I believe the one at a time approach is exactly WHY there is no balance. As evidence I'll use the 3rd edition rule book and the 5th edition (maybe 6th) fantasy rule books which had EVERY current unit entry for every available faction in the core rule book, though fantasy had a separate booklet Ravening Hords but it came in tandem. Those two prior instances when they released rules for everything were arguable the MOST balanced. I remember playing a ton of games with each of those examples and we were content with them simply leaving them alone since games were so tight between factions.

 Red Corsair wrote:

To be fair, I believe the one at a time approach is exactly WHY there is no balance. As evidence I'll use the 3rd edition rule book and the 5th edition (maybe 6th) fantasy rule books which had EVERY current unit entry for every available faction in the core rule book, though fantasy had a separate booklet Ravening Hords but it came in tandem. Those two prior instances when they released rules for everything were arguable the MOST balanced. I remember playing a ton of games with each of those examples and we were content with them simply leaving them alone since games were so tight between factions.

But haven't GW said every single unit is going to be a special little snowflake with it's own rules. Isn't that where problems start to arise?

Not if they're developed holistically across all factions at the same time.

Most Codex issues arise from progressive inflation or, perhaps more so, authors giving their pet armies too much oomph with too little oversight.

A team working on all the stuff together cuts out both these issues.

tneva82 wrote:

Hit every location under template rolling high amount of dices. Good chance of getting some damage even if not blow out right away when you hit hull, turret, tracks and sponsor at once.

Against single monster high school hit doing multiple wounds was pretty good as well.

That's... absolutely not how templates work.

His point is it used to be.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Hit every location under template rolling high amount of dices. Good chance of getting some damage even if not blow out right away when you hit hull, turret, tracks and sponsor at once.

Against single monster high school hit doing multiple wounds was pretty good as well.

That's... absolutely not how templates work.

In 2nd ed vehicles had hit location, for example the left or right tracks, hull or turret and a blast could hit multiple of these giving it a greater chance to do some damage.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
His point is it used to be.

Excuse me for assuming we were discussing the game as it's been for at least the last 10 years.

Gimgamgoo wrote:
But haven't GW said every single unit is going to be a special little snowflake with it's own rules. Isn't that where problems start to arise?

Not really. Rules bloat comes in when there's a lot of core rules AND a lot of exceptions, spread out over multiple sources. When the core rules are simple and all the exceptions are unit-specific, it's easier to keep track of.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
His point is it used to be.

Excuse me for assuming we were discussing the game as it's been for at least the last 10 years.

Gimgamgoo wrote:
But haven't GW said every single unit is going to be a special little snowflake with it's own rules. Isn't that where problems start to arise?

Not really. Rules bloat comes in when there's a lot of core rules AND a lot of exceptions, spread out over multiple sources. When the core rules are simple and all the exceptions are unit-specific, it's easier to keep track of.

Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.

SeanDrake wrote:

Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.

Are there examples of this so far in Age of Sigmar?

Is the way they did it in such a way that actually causes problems in play?

SeanDrake wrote:

Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.

it is better as long as they stick with one design
simple core and bloated unit rules or bloated core and simple unit rules
as soon as they start mixing that again we have the same mess as before

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
His point is it used to be.

Excuse me for assuming we were discussing the game as it's been for at least the last 10 years.

Any reason for the aggression? I pointed out you'd missed the point of the post you were referring to. No need to snap.

 frozenwastes wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.

Are there examples of this so far in Age of Sigmar?

Is the way they did it in such a way that actually causes problems in play?

not really.
The biggest thing people use this complaint on is shields.
Different units shields cause different effects- some negate wounds on an additional roll of 5 or 6, improve armor save or add other bonus, but are all generally defensive based.
The difference between AoS' system and Rules bloat is that the rules are basic: reroll ones, or add ones, or -1, etc etc. Even with every unit having unique rules, the rules are worded well enough that it's largely a non-issue.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Any reason for the aggression? I pointed out you'd missed the point of the post you were referring to. No need to snap.

You and I have different definitions of "aggression" and "snap."

Yes, and one of them is wrong...

Neronoxx wrote:

Spoiler:

 frozenwastes wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

Yeah if AoS is the template you will get the same rule with a dozen different names rather than just 1 core rule but hey apparently that's better.

Are there examples of this so far in Age of Sigmar?

Is the way they did it in such a way that actually causes problems in play?

not really.
The biggest thing people use this complaint on is shields.
Different units shields cause different effects- some negate wounds on an additional roll of 5 or 6, improve armor save or add other bonus, but are all generally defensive based.
The difference between AoS' system and Rules bloat is that the rules are basic: reroll ones, or add ones, or -1, etc etc. Even with every unit having unique rules, the rules are worded well enough that it's largely a non-issue.

My experience with AoS is limited to playing in games where friends supplied all the models, terrain and warscrolls/armies ready to go to play a couple of those narrative scenarios. I do remember my guys having shields that rerolled ones. I don't think it would have been confusing if another model somewhere else had a shield that did something else. I just don't remember it. I think there were shields.

I went and looked at some war scrolls and found the chaos warriors there did have shields and their shields save against mortal wounds rather than reroll saves.

Yeah, I really don't think this approach will be much of a problem for 40k.

Once upon a time we had 4 different versions of True Grit in print (Space Wolves, Grey Knight, Death Guard and one other), so yeah, I don't fancy our chances.

Universal Special Rules aren't just there for convenience, there's also there to cut down on mistakes. If most of your rules come from a central source then that cuts down on the chance of making mistakes, and updates can apply to large swathes of units rather than having to update individual units over and over again.

All "bespoke" rules give you is the chance to say "bespoke" in your marketing material as if it were some sort of inherent good.

[EDIT]: I come at this from the perspective of someone who has been part of rules writing teams on a number of projects that developed out of one another (Black Crusade out of Deathwatch, Only War out of Black Crusade, Dark Heresy 2.0 out of Only War) and how a larger and more granular set of universal special rules helped to improve things and give far greater choice and simplicity to both writers and players alike. You look at the Concussive Rule from Deathwatch and it's an all-or-nothing rule that either has no effect, or renders even the biggest units utterly useless to the point where they might as well give up and go home. Look at it in later rules and it now has a (X) next to it allow for granularity of its rules so you can have concussive weapons that have small effects and concussive weapons that have large effects. And none of this requires giving individual weapons a unique special rule, as it is all derived from a central rules location.

You apply the same mentality to 40K and they actually did that in 40K. For a long time Lightning Claws had their own rule, but turning that rule into Shred means that you can apply it to anything, rather than re-writing the rule (with variation, by accident or design) each time you need to use it.

I can see it becoming a problem down the road, even if it hasn't quite gotten there for Age of Sigmar. If they're on top of not using similar terms so people don't get the idea that they should be the same thing (like the true grit example) then things should be alright for longer. The sigmarines have "Sigmarite Shields" but the chaos warriors and knights have "Chaos Runeshields." Those two differently named pieces of equipment have different effects rather than both sharing some sort of standard "shield" mechanic.

Also, bespoke usually means custom for the customer/user. Like a suit tailored to fit an individual (probably the most common use of the term). Given that everyone who runs space orruk nobz will be using the same standard rules means they are not bespoke at all. Really a strange choice of words.

But bespoke! It's all bespoke!

It is sort of fun to type.

Agreed, USR are usually much better than a thousands little special snowflakes rules (though some units deserves some snowflakes rules).

It always boggle my mind when AOS fans claims that Bespoke rules are an improvement

My position is that it's going to require extra vigilance to keep from causing problems. Simple practices like always having ridiculous individual names like "sigmarite shields" and "gomril shields."

It might get really strange when the Salamander space marine has a "Vulkan Forge Beam" and an Imperial Guard trooper has a "Mars Pattern Meltagun" and they do different things but look exactly the same.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Agreed, USR are usually much better than a thousands little special snowflakes rules (though some units deserves some snowflakes rules).

It always boggle my mind when AOS fans claims that Bespoke rules are an improvement

Mine too, since everyone I've seen playing chaos or sigmarites or whatever has had identical rules.

Anyway, I personally don't recall many people claiming that having no common special rules was a benefit or problem with AoS. However I do recall many claims that having all the rules for a given unit in one place, eliminating multi-book lookups, was a really good idea and reduced confusion and potentially missing bits/confusion between units.

Based on that principle, having universal special rules becomes a liability; every time you update one you have to adjust dozens of copies anyway or you get arguments. Better to keep the rules to the unit and adjust its position into if that particular variation is over-/under- powered. Which is what seems to be happening with the new General's Handbook revised point values.

Of course convenience is a matter of opinion but I for one like not having to cross-reference or memorise dozens or hundreds of rules in a given game.