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 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?
As a parent, I would never use GW games to Play with my Kids.
the advantage of their game is that it can be played everywhere, but their rules always have been bad written and lack of balance.
there are much easier to learn rules out there that can have a much deeper in game experience.
While of course the best tabletop to start with kids is the LEGO Heroica (RPG style but OOP) or LEGO Brick Wars, we play X-Wing starter Box games because they are Star Wars fans.
I will go with the Mantic games later when they want to paint their own minis.
easy to learn, Deadzone is done in less than an hour and it is no problem to switch to FireFight later when their collection grows.
the problem with AoS is, the rules are simple and easy core rules are squishy and the models expensive while the advanced stuff is already getting complicated
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
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.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
Funny thing is 40k doesn't require hours on math. Ultimately 40k rules are actually very simple. Problem is balance but that doesn't get fixed by simplifying game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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
This still makes power armour useless. Note how surviving had pretty much zero impact from wearing power armour.
You know what would be even tougher target? No power armour, more bodies. It's not like getting that decent cover required you to have power armour...Guy standing butt naked would also be hit on 5+. There just would be more of them=more durable.
You would be better off leaving your armour off. That's where ASM leads to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coblen wrote: 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.
That would however be pretty much how it works in real life. Either your armour is strong enough or not.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 08:01:19
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.
Funny thing is 40k doesn't require hours on math.
It always makes me giggle when people talk about "mathhammer" like it's something complicated. 40k level of maths you should have figured out by, what, middle school?
40k level maths is so simple I wonder how some people manage to NOT figure it out in a matter of minutes if not seconds
The only slightly complicated thing is if you try and use binomial distributions to figure out percentages, but even then it's not all that complicated.
This still makes power armour useless. Note how surviving had pretty much zero impact from wearing power armour.
You know what would be even tougher target? No power armour, more bodies.
I'm pretty sure most of us are hoping for save modifiers are applied at a massively reduced amount to 2nd edition.
I'm hoping for a Bolter to be no modifier, a Heavy Bolter to be -1, what's currently AP3 would maybe be -2, what's currently AP2 would be -3 or maybe -4. That would Marines are no less hard to kill against massed small arms fire, slightly easier to kill with Heavy Bolter level fire, and slightly harder to kill with high end weapons, and basically the same against high strength anti-tank weapons.
You would be better off leaving your armour off. That's where ASM leads to.
Either way points would have to be adjusted to make armour worth taking.
ERJAK wrote: 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.
That would however be pretty much how it works in real life. Either your armour is strong enough or not.
That's not really how it works in real life. In real life you have different penetration based on range and angle you strike the target, the more powerful the weapon, the more points you can hit at more ranges on your target and get a penetration.
If you think of the leg armour on someone to be a cylinder, a powerful gun might be able to blow the leg off regardless of where it hits where as a weak gun might only be able to penetrate if it hits the leg in the centre (off to the side and it hits the armour at an angle and bounces off) while a really weak gun might not be able to penetrate the armour plate at all and relies in hitting between the gaps.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 08:14:17
coblen wrote: 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.
That would however be pretty much how it works in real life. Either your armour is strong enough or not.
Never ever start bringing "real life" into the argument of 40k. The game isn't in any way shape or form made to in any way accurately represent anything in real life. In real life you don't stand around and wait while your opponent shoots your army to bits. In real life your weapon can shoot further than you can move at a light jog in the same time as someone is able to strike one blow in close combat. In real life psychic abilities are limited to psychiatric wards and more on the dumbass topic of what armour can and can't do in real life, if your armour blocks a blow in real life, it's often fethed for further use and won't block the next shot. If a kevlar plate stops a bullet, you don't just dig the bullet out and dust it off. That kevlar plate is now used and is discarded. And in real life, even if your armour stops a bullet, you're most likely out of the fight for a while, potentially with broken ribs.
Don't start bringing in real life into 40k. Particularly when you are wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 08:58:54
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.
Funny thing is 40k doesn't require hours on math. Ultimately 40k rules are actually very simple. Problem is balance but that doesn't get fixed by simplifying game.
Formation Lord of Sculls hits a greentide with, let's say, 102 models in it. Inflicts 102 randomly allocated hits. As you have mixed saves, you got to allocate hits firts. So, you roll d102, count up to the model that you got, roll to-wounds, saves and fnp-s till it dies. Than it dies, you roll d101, count up to the model that you got, roll to-wounds, saves and fnp-s till it dies...eventually you get up to a character that you don't want dead, so add rolls to look outs to this.
DrNo172000 wrote: 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.
Yep, for example, chess!
captain bloody fists wrote: 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.
Haha, yes. You're paying for the privilege of having the newly developed ruleset in order to play that new game. It doesn't invalidate your old collection of books because you can still play with those old rules if you choose. Thinking you're entitled to new rules for free is a bit like expecting a free iphone upgrade because you've had one for years, or expecting to get the rebooted Transformers DVD for free because you have all the old cartoons!
Okay, I'm being slightly facetious. I understand where they're coming from. If you release a new codex and then nerf it two months later with a new ruleset, that's pretty harsh on your customers. I'd say that, while GW doesn't owe us anything for free, they owe us consideration and respect for keeping their company afloat all these years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 09:49:34
Well.. maybe it's not balanced (I don't play chess enough to disagree with your assertion), but it definitely has lots of tactical depth, which was my point.
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.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
Honestly, this is how I feel about it too. I don't understand the Sky-is-Falling ranting when the sky is already around our ankles. It can't fall any further. This can only make it better.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
The 'devoid of thought' point is a good one. It's one thing to have complex rules that make sense and seem to do something useful, so you think to yourself, 'well, this is complicated, but I guess it'll be worth it when I get to use these rules to tactical advantage', versus what 40k is which is complex, self-contradictory and poorly written, so the thought process is more like, 'ok, so I... erm... what? Let me read that again... Hmm... How's that different from rending? Why doesn't it just say rending? So, who strikes first then? Why doesn't it mention when to take a leadership test? Oh, so those points I spent on that USR are essentially wasted...'
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
Jbz` wrote: 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)
First of all, what reference do you use to say that an "all or nothing AP" is "way less realistic than a rending system?"
Take tank armor. There are multiple historical examples of Tiger tanks taking multiple 75mm Sherman rounds to the frontal armor, or T-34's taking multiple 37mm rounds. Because the armor piercing shells were unable to pierce the armor frontally at any range, it just simply failed to penetrate. Dozens and dozens of shots could be leveled onto the same tank with no result, until, miraculously, a 2 pounder shell lodges itself in the turret ring, preventing the Tiger's main gun from rotating and the crew bails.
What the 2+ system where the 1 is always a failure is meant to represent is a bullet that pierces body armor - let's say, kevlar which is rated to stop pretty much any common pistol caliber. If I shoot you in your kevlar jacket, say a 5+ save, my AP6 9mm round will fail to penetrate the kevlar jacket any time it hits the kevlar. However, it doesn't cover your entire body, since if I shoot your arms, head, legs, groin, etc, I will still have a success even though my bullet is only AP6 and does not negate your armor save.
IRL they use a ratings system for body armor. Level IIIa is able to stop a 9mm pistol round and up to .44 magnum consistently with no reasonable expectation of failure. These body armors are repeatedly tested for obvious reasons against these calibers and show again and again that they are able to resist impact from those calibers. Level III rated body armor is able to consistently stop 5.56mm NATO rifle rounds and AK-47 bullets. Level IV rated body armor is consistently tested to be able to withstand impacts from .308 caliber or 7.62mm NATO rounds. If those armors had expectations of failure from repeated impacts from those calibers, they would not have those ratings, and no one would have faith in their combat capabilities.
TL;DR, sorry, bullets either penetrate armor or they don't. Or they hit armor or they don't. The old system was more accurate and realistic in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you.
Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
Mother earth is pregnant for the third time, for y'all have knocked her up. I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe, but I was not offended. For I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own gak.
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.
TL;DR, sorry, bullets either penetrate armor or they don't. Or they hit armor or they don't. The old system was more accurate and realistic in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you.
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that kevlar hit by a bullet doesn't get damaged? I'm afraid it does. "in spite of what your touchyfeelz may tell you."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 11:10:02
captain bloody fists wrote: 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.
more to the point codex writing, printing books etc all costs money.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
TedNugent wrote: Take tank armor. There are multiple historical examples of Tiger tanks taking multiple 75mm Sherman rounds to the frontal armor, or T-34's taking multiple 37mm rounds. Because the armor piercing shells were unable to pierce the armor frontally at any range, it just simply failed to penetrate. Dozens and dozens of shots could be leveled onto the same tank with no result, until, miraculously, a 2 pounder shell lodges itself in the turret ring, preventing the Tiger's main gun from rotating and the crew bails.
There are several variables which affect whether or not a weapon will penetrate armour, 2 big ones are range and angle of incidence. That's why Tiger crews were encouraged to angle themselves, because the frontal armour was just a big flat slab and so by angling the tank, rounds would bounce off instead of penetrating. Angle is a huuuuuuge variable in how well you can penetrate armour and on a person wearing armour the angle of incidence is constantly varying.
I mentioned it in a previous post so I'm just going to copy/pasta that....
That's not really how it works in real life. In real life you have different penetration based on range and angle you strike the target, the more powerful the weapon, the more points on the target you can hit at more ranges on your target and get a penetration.
If you think of the leg armour on someone to be a cylinder, a powerful gun might be able to blow the leg off regardless of where it hits where as a weak gun might only be able to penetrate if it hits the leg in the centre (off to the side and it hits the armour at an angle and bounces off) while a really weak gun might not be able to penetrate the armour plate at all and relies in hitting between the gaps.
....so armour modifiers make perfect sense in that the lower the modifier, the less points on the enemy's armour will result in a penetration, the higher the modifier, the more points can be penetrated by the weapon.
It's true body armour is rated in "levels", but I'm sure for armour to attain a level it has to stop a certain projectile at a specific range and a specific angle with a specific material used behind supporting the armour. But the abstraction in wargames for armour saves, IMO, aren't meant to represent the bullet squarely hitting the armour at a specific range, they're designed to represent the swirling mess of variables that come in to determine whether or not the person is still standing after being hit thanks to their armour, and in that sense a graduated modifier system works fine.
And putting reality aside, I think a modifier system is simply more balanced than an all or nothing AP-like system,
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 11:46:39
captain bloody fists wrote: 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.
more to the point codex writing, printing books etc all costs money.
The idea is that they're meant to be loss leaders. Cheap/free rules are supposed to act as incentive for consumers to buy more models.
captain bloody fists wrote: 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.
more to the point codex writing, printing books etc all costs money.
The idea is that they're meant to be loss leaders. Cheap/free rules are supposed to act as incentive for consumers to buy more models.
Free rules aren't exactly loss leaders, they're more like marketing costs.
Paper codexes, however, were indeed loss leaders.
The point he was trying to make is that this was a solid improvement for GW as they wouldn't have to waste shelf space, time and money on producing low margin paper items.
A very good thing too, because these get outdated much faster than plastic crack, decreasing effective margins especially for resellers.
SickSix wrote: People need to separate rule mechanics from AoS.
40k is clearly more shooty than AoS. Obviously a direct port isn't going yo work.
In all fairness, 40k has been shooting friendly only from mid 5-th. The most shooty-oriented it ever got was 6-th edition. Which is widely considered to be the worst of all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 12:38:58
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.
If by better game you mean dice rolling experience with no tactical depth sure.
Now if you mean game that offers tactical choices and battle of wit...Nope. Not even a close.
AoS' tactical depth is leagues better than 40k, which is often just won at the list building phase, with armies pretty much playing themselves past that point. Sure, you'll roll a lot of dice and go through a million phases, but most of that is just going through the motions of dice for dice' sake.
There's so much more that you can do with the movement of AoS than you ever could with 40k, it's made charging and piling in much more tactical than the bloody mash that is 40k.
This is going to be the most excited I've been in 6 years to touch 40k again, as the game in its current state is an unplayable mess of countless rules that still manages to be devoid of much real thought despite its bloat.
AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
For me, these changes seem great and may breathe new life into 40k. I am happy with AOS apart from a few minor things, so this has me excited for 8th edition, although I have shelved building my Eldar now until I see the actual rules.
I don't understand the "but you will kill tanks with knives!"
Just a rule like
Vehicles: Vehicles ignore damage done by weapons with a damage value of: 1 and a rend value of: -
Boom. Problem solved. Tanks can only be damaged by antitank weaponry.
And please, stop masking your personal preferences as rationalized facts.
If you don't understand AoS its your problem, not of the game. You can not like it, thats fine. And its a reality that its in no way the best ruleset out there.
But all this AoS hate vs AoS fanboyism its tiresome. The Old World has been killed 2 years ago guys. Its time to move on.
And I say this as a guy that plays Warhammer Fantasy Battles 1 time at week and that roleplay in the old world 2 times a month.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
SickSix wrote: People need to separate rule mechanics from AoS.
40k is clearly more shooty than AoS. Obviously a direct port isn't going yo work.
In all fairness, 40k has been shooting friendly only from mid 5-th. The most shooty-oriented it ever got was 6-th edition. Which is widely considered to be the worst of all.
And since electro-displacement, it's basically assault-oriented ... so . yeah whatever.
captain bloody fists wrote: 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.
more to the point codex writing, printing books etc all costs money.
The idea is that they're meant to be loss leaders. Cheap/free rules are supposed to act as incentive for consumers to buy more models.
Free rules aren't exactly loss leaders, they're more like marketing costs.
Paper codexes, however, were indeed loss leaders.
The point he was trying to make is that this was a solid improvement for GW as they wouldn't have to waste shelf space, time and money on producing low margin paper items.
A very good thing too, because these get outdated much faster than plastic crack, decreasing effective margins especially for resellers.
Besides, how many times have we heard GW tell us "We're not a game company, we're a model company."? Usually as an excuse for sloppy/poor rules writing...
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD
Amishprn86 wrote: AlTthe past tournament that just happen a month or so ago (LVO I believe) the guy that won had DS or 2 mini DS's... Well the Pod cost of the winner talking about his army at least from what he was saying.
So yeah tell me again how AoS is more thinking when you just run a few DS's and stomp everyone.
For those that dont know, he has tough units with good and Re-rolling savings.
40k is screwed. We know that. It has the tactical depth of half filled saucer.
But the option between 40k suckiness and AoS suckiness isn't really appealing to me. There's a whole world of options beyond "it can be like AoS or it can be like 40k".
AoS's morale system is a way of hand waving the complexities of morale in to "well.... more models are removed". Morale could be so many things and we are left with either AoS's casualty based morale system or 40k's terrible excuse for a morale system..... urgh.
Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
