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.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
I'm going to say probably not as it changes all the stat lines to the 'I'm too stupid to learn rules and charts' version of AoS.

This right here is the exact reaction I was expecting. What you mean, my pretty little snowflake, is the 'I'm smart enough to understand that it works out the same mathematically while being much quicker, and allowing for direct modifiers to the rolls instead of just rerolls which stop the quadratic scaling issues that 40k gets.' version of AoS.

AoS is, at the moment, the better game. Period. the more 40k can get from AoS the better.

I wonder if we'll see two different rulesets to address this.

There's a clear division between "fast simple rules" types and the "let me spend hours on math" types.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I wonder if we'll see two different rulesets to address this.

There's a clear division between "fast simple rules" types and the "let me spend hours on math" types.

I feel like I am in between in the grand scheme of things. I don't mind simple rules and mechanics, but I also don't mind looking at (and eventually memorizing) charts to determine what happens to what. But at this point in my life, I would rather have more, better, quicker games than longer games that take hours to complete because an unexpected rules contradiction occurred.

As a dad myself, I want to introduce wargaming to my kids. They could handle AoS quicker than 40K for certain, as it is simpler. Less stuff to remember, the easier it is to grasp and play.

I wonder how many of those who dislike or favor bigger rules to smaller rules are parents themselves?

I think the biggest misconception that comes with simple vs complex rules sets is that complex is required for a game to have deep tactical play. This is of course not true, as there are many games that are much more deep in terms of tactics then 40k that have no charts and considerably less complexity.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Have you read literally anything that the people who have actually played AoS have said in this thread?

There is nothing with a Rend of -4 or higher. It's exceedingly rare to see a Rend of -3, and uncommon to see a Rend of -2.

This isn't like the AP system where it's on everything and anything. Rend tends to be on special weapons or "elite" armies with well crafted stuff, but lesser numbers. Rend values of "-" are incredibly common. You tend to see "causes a Mortal Wound on Wound rolls of 6" before high Rend values.

It is exceedingly unlikely that they will veer too far from this.

Yes, but I'm not as convinced that they won't shift towards rend being more common and armor saves also getting better compared with AoS. I'm not saying that it's likely, just that I wouldn't be surprised.

I really don't know what will happen. My post was mostly just to show that high rend values like in 2nd Ed. 40k wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world, depending on how they changed other rules.

I agree that it all depends on implementation. That's why I'm cautiously optimistic.

I think the big thing from the doom and gloom people with the 2nd ed amour pen styles, seem to be forgetting was that with the old cover system it was also harder to hit..

So a heavy bolter would make a Power Armour save on a 6+, but if they were standing in decent cover that hvy bolter was only hitting you on a 5+

If you were getting melted so easily, it was normally your own fault for positioning badly

GodDamUser wrote:
I think the big thing from the doom and gloom people with the 2nd ed amour pen styles, seem to be forgetting was that with the old cover system it was also harder to hit..

So a heavy bolter would make a Power Armour save on a 6+, but if they were standing in decent cover that hvy bolter was only hitting you on a 5+

If you were getting melted so easily, it was normally your own fault for positioning badly

I certainly hope cover becomes meaningful again. As it stands now in some situations it does nothing at all. Cover should provide a benefit no matter how good your armor is. Since they are going with armor modifiers on weapons it would not be to hard to have cover simply be a positive modifier to your armor.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Have you read literally anything that the people who have actually played AoS have said in this thread?

There is nothing with a Rend of -4 or higher. It's exceedingly rare to see a Rend of -3, and uncommon to see a Rend of -2.

This isn't like the AP system where it's on everything and anything. Rend tends to be on special weapons or "elite" armies with well crafted stuff, but lesser numbers. Rend values of "-" are incredibly common. You tend to see "causes a Mortal Wound on Wound rolls of 6" before high Rend values.

It is exceedingly unlikely that they will veer too far from this.

Yes, but I'm not as convinced that they won't shift towards rend being more common and armor saves also getting better compared with AoS. I'm not saying that it's likely, just that I wouldn't be surprised.

I really don't know what will happen. My post was mostly just to show that high rend values like in 2nd Ed. 40k wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world, depending on how they changed other rules.

I agree that it all depends on implementation. That's why I'm cautiously optimistic.

The "high rend values in 2nd edition" also had to do with the fact that some things saved on 2D6 rather than 1 D6.

I would be incredibly surprised to see that. Hence why I think it far far more likely to see the Rend and Armor Saves like in AoS.

I know I'm getting repetitive now, but AoS is a fairly good system. It really wouldn't be bad for 40k to get in there, and the insistence people have right now about "D6-AP value" needing to match whatever Rending value they should get is detrimental to discussion surrounding this as it lets people start making wildly outlandish scenarios of Terminators needing 7s to save or whatever.

Or cover could be treated the way it should...and make it harder for someone to hit you. However, that seems to be decried as "oh, no, maths!" and is widely shunned for some reason.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Have you read literally anything that the people who have actually played AoS have said in this thread?

There is nothing with a Rend of -4 or higher. It's exceedingly rare to see a Rend of -3, and uncommon to see a Rend of -2.

This isn't like the AP system where it's on everything and anything. Rend tends to be on special weapons or "elite" armies with well crafted stuff, but lesser numbers. Rend values of "-" are incredibly common. You tend to see "causes a Mortal Wound on Wound rolls of 6" before high Rend values.

It is exceedingly unlikely that they will veer too far from this.

Yes, but I'm not as convinced that they won't shift towards rend being more common and armor saves also getting better compared with AoS. I'm not saying that it's likely, just that I wouldn't be surprised.

I really don't know what will happen. My post was mostly just to show that high rend values like in 2nd Ed. 40k wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world, depending on how they changed other rules.

I agree that it all depends on implementation. That's why I'm cautiously optimistic.

The "high rend values in 2nd edition" also had to do with the fact that some things saved on 2D6 rather than 1 D6.

I would be incredibly surprised to see that. Hence why I think it far far more likely to see the Rend and Armor Saves like in AoS.

Actually those values were ported over almost exactly from Rogue Trader which did NOT have 2d6 armor saves.

But I don't think they will be that high if adopted for 8th edition.

TDA was just about the only thing that saved on 2D6.

Have a vague recollection that Carnifexes did too, but hardly anything, certainly not enough to justify an entire save modifier structure.

The current ap system has always really bugged me. Having ap3 stuff be just as useless as ap- stuff verses terminators just feels way wrong.

A simple change like ap5 = -1, ap4 = -2, ap3 = -3, ap2 = -4, ap1 = -5 sounds fine to me if accompanied by an increase in models saves. Increase every models save by 1. Give terminators a 1+ save so that you need some rend to hurt them in the first place. Let them tank an infinite number of scatter lasers, shrug off bolters, grumble over heavy bolters, fear ap 3, and fall over to meltas.

Gradients strike me as much easier to balance then all or nothing systems so we may finally see terminators fairly priced. Currently you can take them in a low power game and watch them never die, or take them in even mid powered games and watch them disappear.

 Azreal13 wrote:
TDA was just about the only thing that saved on 2D6.

Have a vague recollection that Carnifexes did too, but hardly anything, certainly not enough to justify an entire save modifier structure.

Well then, I'm wrong.

In any case there were things that saved on 2D6. So modifiers like that weren't impossibly unhelpful.

Between a rend value of -1 to -3 and the ability to cause "Mortal Wounds" or the like, I'd be happy.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Between a rend value of -1 to -3 and the ability to cause "Mortal Wounds" or the like, I'd be happy.

I also like that powerful attacks in AoS do multiple wounds. If they got rid of Instant Death and made everything that is currently Strength 8 or higher do d3 wounds I think that would probably be an improvement.

Of course that is also dependent on what other changed they make.

I've never understood this mentality that people seem to think that they are entitled to FREE codexs/books etc for when a new edition drops (or in this instance a possible major reshape of the rule set) because "i've had my collection for X number of years!" come on guys we're all in the same boat and lets face facts they're a company providing a product and a game system, they owe you d**k all.

I can see the Genestealer Cult people being a little ticked if their codex ends up getting invalidated after less than a year. There's a decent chance that won't happen though.

I'm assuming these changes are significant enough that it'll be necessary to produce a new edition of all rules supplements. Whatever about it being a bit of a pain having to buy new codexes, I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who has splashed out on all the supplements to date....

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I can see the Genestealer Cult people being a little ticked if their codex ends up getting invalidated after less than a year. There's a decent chance that won't happen though.

Considering how many codexes mere months (if that) before new editions were invalidated, I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

I know people who have had free replacements when they have purchased a codex only for a new one to drop within 2 months, But that may of been a particular GW store manager decision as opposed to company policy

I'd personally like it if 8th was really just like a 7.5, with everything cleaned up, a few changes here and there. But, if they do AoS it, I hope they go all the way so we can play the 2 games against one another, like Warmachine and Hordes

 Bi'ios wrote:
I'd personally like it if 8th was really just like a 7.5, with everything cleaned up, a few changes here and there.

But that was what 4th was to 3rd, was 5th to 4th, 6th to 5th and 7th to 6th... Still had the same issues every time

looking forward to a new format

Well, that kinda sucks to hear they are going the route of AoS for 40k. AoS may very well be a more playable system right now than 40k, but that speaks volumes to the mess that 40k is rather than anything about AoS. I can see however if GW is your hobby this would be a positive move.

If anything I was hoping to see them intentionally steer away from going this direction to try to retain 2 distinct systems for a different gaming experience to cater to different crowds. I guess it makes sense to make them Similar so as to get people who play one to slide easily into the other.

Eh... I'll be watching with as open a mind as I can muster because I love the idea of 40k, the fluff, and the models.

I admit I'm disgusted by both the rending mechanic and the charging unit striking first with no immediate retaliation, both of which strike me as extremely unrealistic compared to the 7th ed rules.

However, seeing how the audience has clamored for both of these rule changes and giving vehicles "wounds" (ugh), I'm not sure what to think.

There are dozens of ways to simplify the ridiculous ruleset without resorting to this. One outstanding method would be to remove the psychic tables and random warlord trait charts completely from the game, removing all formations and detachment bonuses/systems from the game, then removing overwatch completely. Then remove strength D or make it a consistently applied rule. Condense the insane number of USRs. Remove the excessive rules bloat from individual units in each of the codexes. Remove random table charts like the Chaos Boon table, the ork Mob rule table, and the Shokk attack gun (okay, maybe you could keep that last one for flavor).

Remove special rules like "If it inflicts a casualty, roll a D6 for each dead model and inflict D3 wounds per" or other excessive, mathematically difficult to model and meandering rules.

AoS has upsides - free, updated core rules and dataslates - simple core rules. But it has downsides - namely that it loses a lot of the authenticity, tactics and roleplaying elements in favor of making a cheap party game for buying big setpiece model kits.

Honestly reading this article on Warhammer Community is kind of like a bad dream.

All or nothing AP sucks, and is way less realistic than a rending system.
Plus it completely skews weapons to either having to fire crazy amounts of shots or have low Ap to be used.
With Rend you' at least have the middle of the ground weapons on the table more.

If all weapons have a decent chance of hurting the enemy for their cost you're more likely to see a mix instead of every squad packing the same weapons (Grav/Scatter lasers for example)

I am cautiously optimistic about the changes, but far too much is up in the air in terms of specifics for me to make any serious sort of judgment one way or another. I've never played AoS, so my understanding of likely implementations are based on what I've read in this thread and the News & Rumors thread.

Thematic Army bonuses: Sounds like formation to me. While the existing balance in the formations is off, I'm honestly a big supporter of the concept in general. I wouldn't mind existing formations remaining, so long as the worst offenders (Gladius, Riptide Wing, etc.) ended up with appropriate point costs. CADs have always struck me as a "one size fits all" approach that just doesn't make sense for such strategically, tactically, and culturally distinct armies that make up WH40k.

Movement Stat: Seems like it has its strengths and weaknesses. I could see it simplifying things a bit by removing a host of now-useless USRs and by increasing granularity in representing fluffy speeds. On the other hand, that's another stat to memorize for each and every unit in each and every army (no, GW, you don't JUST have to know the rules for your own army if you want to play reasonably competitively), and that intuitively strikes me as more difficult than memorizing unit types (and their accompanying movement speeds & USRs).

Charging Units Swinging First: An interesting mechanic, though as a Tau player, mostly academic to my own army's rules. I'll withhold judgement entirely here, particularly given the devil's in the details for this sort of change, but superficially it seems like it gives the sort of reward that charging really should.

Armor Save Modifiers: I really like the increased granularity in durability, though I can understand the hesitancy. IF it is implemented in a way similar to AoS, with a range of 0 to -3 (and with -2 and -3 being extremely rare), that seems like it could strike the right balance between making non-penetrating AP relevant without making armor nearly worthless.

Mortal Wounds: I have no idea how these are supposed to work. Can someone with AoS experience explain it for me?

There doesn't seem to be enough information yet for people to be getting as mad as they are on the forums, a lot of people are taking a single sentence and calling it the end of the world.

Mortal Wounds are essentially Ward Saves only.

 Rolsheen wrote:
There doesn't seem to be enough information yet for people to be getting as mad as they are on the forums, a lot of people are taking a single sentence and calling it the end of the world.

It's great isn't it!

My three favorite moments on dakka were:

--> the AoS "no points, have fun boys!" freakout
--> the 7th edition Eldar codex Scatterbike freakout
--> the epic Mutilator thread, dramatically ending by a Mutilator punching out a Stormraven with a chainfist

So far there hasn't been any widespread panic. GW has been suspiciously open and responsive so far. I still have faith though!

 Eldarain wrote:
Mortal Wounds are essentially Ward Saves only.

So the equivalent of an AP 2 Ignores Cover wound in the current edition?

I'm guessing they're relatively rare?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Mortal Wounds are essentially Ward Saves only.

So the equivalent of an AP 2 Ignores Cover wound in the current edition?

I'm guessing they're relatively rare?

That is fair to say. There are spells which cause them. Usually in increments of D3 or D6. Some units have hits/wounds which roll a 6 cause a mortal wound instead of their normal damage. (Particularly good with buffs to hit/wound respectively) There are corner cases where some lists can pump out a disproportionate amount of them but it sounds like the GH2 will reign them in.