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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Edit: 40k is more of a narrative game, you and your opponent are meant to talk it over before you play. Alot of the tabling problems will stop if pick up games did this. Armies are still very poorly balanced, not saying this would fix balance problems just will make games more fun.

Once the main advantage of GW games was that you just get into the store and club, get an opponent, have fun for 2 hours and leave.
Now you need to talk an hour before to arrange the game, which alternate rules to use, the narrative part etc, play for 1 hour (because you just have 2 hours of spare time) and leave

 kodos wrote:
lists that reduce the amount of lucky dice rolls or can easy handle all kind of random mission stuff are always on top.

There are no such lists. That's exactly my point.

morgoth wrote:

There are no such lists. That's exactly my point.

thats way we see the all jetbikes eldar lists here so much or slaansh/tzeentch demon spam or gladius, because enough psykers to get the spells you need and fast obsec units with heavy shooting to fullfill all malestrom missions within a turn without a problem.

Just saying that there is no faction that can handle maelstrom and random traits/spells better than other ones just tells me that you have never played 7th edi 40k

Maybe there is no such lists with the alternate version of 40k you use, but not with the GW 40k rules

 kodos wrote:

morgoth wrote:

There are no such lists. That's exactly my point.

thats way we see the all jetbikes eldar lists here so much or slaansh/tzeentch demon spam or gladius, because enough psykers to get the spells you need and fast obsec units with heavy shooting to fullfill all malestrom missions within a turn without a problem.

Just saying that there is no faction that can handle maelstrom and random traits/spells better than other ones just tells me ...

I don't remember saying that.

What I said, is that no list is ultimate in all mission packages.
And that having the better list doesn't do 80% of the work for you.

Maelstrom is a perfect example of how luck is way more important than list building.

Tell you what, let's make this very simple:
Give me two examples of average players winning a relevant tournament with a top list - that shouldn't be too hard if list building is 80% and the rest is mostly luck.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

It's how those stats interact that causes complication, and in that area 40k just sucks donkey balls.

I can deal with a model having 10 stats as long as the interactions are simple enough. In fact I prefer it because it allows more variety between different units. I've never found tables complicated (especially since after a few games you just remember the interactions anyway).

Agreed. I think the flaws with the 40k stat system are:
-Lack of diversity in certain stats- there's a lot of 3s and 4s. I find it a bit annoying that nowhere in the galaxy is there a marine squad with BS5.
-WS having so little impact on actually avoiding being hit.
-As previously mentioned, Initiative. It should be used for reactions -avoiding blasts and suchlike, not to determine melee striking order.

I've seen a lot of complaints about the lack of a single melee stat (to replace WS, A, and S. I have mixed feelings about this: It would greatly quicken things up, but on the other hand I like that some models have many weaker attacks, while others have fewer heavy blows.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
THIS is were formations comes in to break up the army to fill a different style, If you like MC's there could be MC formations that lets you take more of them, or if you like Lictors, then there is a formation with Lictors etc..
Formations should have been to fill our different army roles, fluff and break up the monotony of an army

The thing I don't like about formations is they are anti-choice. I like Lictors, but I don't want to take a formation which requires 5 of the bastards (plus deathleaper if you take the assassin brood).

Formations are part of the number 1 problem with 40k, that is that instead of fixing the rules GW just piles on more rules. Of course formations are just GW's excuse to sell more models, I doubt they were thinking "geeze, this is going to improve the game!", rather they were thinking "People stopped buying Lictors, how do we get them to buy more? I know, lets introduce a formation with special rules that requires people to own 5 of them!".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
THIS is were formations comes in to break up the army to fill a different style, If you like MC's there could be MC formations that lets you take more of them, or if you like Lictors, then there is a formation with Lictors etc..
Formations should have been to fill our different army roles, fluff and break up the monotony of an army

The thing I don't like about formations is they are anti-choice. I like Lictors, but I don't want to take a formation which requires 5 of the bastards (plus deathleaper if you take the assassin brood).

Formations are part of the number 1 problem with 40k, that is that instead of fixing the rules GW just piles on more rules. Of course formations are just GW's excuse to sell more models, I doubt they were thinking "geeze, this is going to improve the game!", rather they were thinking "People stopped buying Lictors, how do we get them to buy more? I know, lets introduce a formation with special rules that requires people to own 5 of them!".

But that mentality is the problem with 40k atm NOT formations, even without formations they could just have had different CADs like we see with Ynnari, Ynnari is extremely strong but thats not a formation.

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Edit: 40k is more of a narrative game, you and your opponent are meant to talk it over before you play. Alot of the tabling problems will stop if pick up games did this. Armies are still very poorly balanced, not saying this would fix balance problems just will make games more fun.

Once the main advantage of GW games was that you just get into the store and club, get an opponent, have fun for 2 hours and leave.
Now you need to talk an hour before to arrange the game, which alternate rules to use, the narrative part etc, play for 1 hour (because you just have 2 hours of spare time) and leave

I played in 2nd and 3rd Edition and the above was never the case even then. Pick up games have never really worked in Warhammer just people pretended they did because it was good enough. It was never intended to be done in that way that's part of why GW tried to push a more social aspect of the game with the original launch of AOS they just grossly underestimated how lazy everyone wants to be in regards to deciding what would make a fun game and the fact that everyone expects the rules to actually not be garbage to help facilitate it

It wasn't laziness people had zero clue how units ranked against each other which was why all those systems sprung up desperately trying to bring some balance.

AoS clearly had no play testing before release its perfectly reasonable to worry the same will be true of 8th, you'd hope gw learnt something from the last debacle but past experience shows they probably haven't.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Galas wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:


At least list building is almost a thing in 40k for aos people are to dumb to do it so they have pre made lists you pick.

Wow.

At first I tought you were serious. Good trolling mate

So when you play ironjaws you dont pick a formation? Because I played them and you either ran ard fist
iron fist
or pig fist or what ever it was called.

You never just picked units. You picked a formation and ran those units.

Ardfist? Dude, no one plays that.
"pig fist", yeah, played it twice or so out of thirty times, seen it played about as many times at best.
And the worst example you could pick: ironfist.

Just I case let's go through the facts:

Ironjawz have three non-heroe units: ardboyz, brutes, and gore-gruntas.
Ironfist tells you must take 3-5 units between: ardboyz, brutes and gore-gruntas. It imposes a very harsh restriction on the formation's unit composition though: you can only take the ratio of gruntas/brutes/ardboyz you want.

WHOA!! Such a limitation and pidgeon-holing of my armybuilding! I-I'm forced to take multiples of three-to-five (with no limit!) of ALL the units I must/can take!

Please behold and feel pity of the Ironjaw player who has such a pre-set list, he can only pick the units he wants and never go beyond six units (unless, you know, he grabbed another ironfist) or below two (at which point he'd be kind of screwed up in terms of board control), such a tragedy!

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
List building is a very important and fun part of the game. Tabletop strategy is also a very important and fun part of the game. If either aspect becomes relatively unimportant then it wouldn't be near as fun of a game, IMO.

Ah no its an important and fun part of the game for you and likely many others - equally its takes too much time, is annoying and unfun part for others.

Same with
Painting
Modelling
Rolling a few or a little dice
Narrative elements

People have fun in different ways.

Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds

As always with a new edition, the rules are not getting better they will just get different.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds

As always with a new edition, the rules are not getting better they will just get different.

Mortal wounds is made-up stuff that doesn't appear in the article.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds

As always with a new edition, the rules are not getting better they will just get different.

Mortal wounds is made-up stuff that doesn't appear in the article.

In the video, they talk about morale: roll a D6, add the casualties, and subtract the leadership value. If the result is larger than zero, the unit gets that many wounds. Could be mortal wounds with no save whatsoever. In AoS some models have a save against mortal wounds.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Movement stat back
Charging units swing first no matter what (As if thunderwolves with thunder hammers was not BS enough)
Armor save modifiers
Mortal wounds

As always with a new edition, the rules are not getting better they will just get different.

Mortal wounds is made-up stuff that doesn't appear in the article.

In the video, they talk about morale: roll a D6, add the casualties, and subtract the leadership value. If the result is larger than zero, the unit gets that many wounds. Could be mortal wounds with no save whatsoever. In AoS some models have a save against mortal wounds.

That's battleshock. It affects models not wounds.

That's battleshock. It affects models not wounds.

There is no further information in the video. The notion of battleshock has not been used.

KingmanHighborn wrote: There is literally not ONE GOOD THING about AoS. Not ONE! I

Indeed! Free unit rules, points cost for formations, and formation having to conform to standard army construction are all terrible things! I want to pay for my rules, not my formations, dammit!

I'm late to the discussion again, but if it's true that 40k is being Sigmarised then I'm very happy.

About morale. Battleshock doesn't hurt hoards. It actually works out very well for them. Your bravery is increased by 1 for every ten models in the unit. Units also have banners to affect battleshock and characters can grant abilities to help out too. Case in point, Bloodbound Bloodreavers only have a Bravery of 5 and no save, so on paper they're vulnerable to Battleshock. However, because of their icon bearer and the amount I take in a unit, they actually average out at Bravery 7-8 for me. On average, I only lose a couple of Bloodreavers a turn to Battleshock, if I even lose any at all. And that is only when they aren't under the effects of the Bloodsecrator's Portal Of Skulls. When they are under it's effects, they don't take Battleshock tests at all.

This can all be easily replicated in 40k. Imperial Guard infantry blobs and Ork Mobs would probably get a leadership/bravery stat of 7-10 after the size and other bonuses are taking into account. And in the case of the Guard, the Commissar will probably have an ability to inflict mortal wounds (these are automatic wounds with no saves) on the unit in exchange for taking no battleshock. And I can easily imagine that an Ork bosspole could function exactly like an Orruk Skull Icon, which grants a 6+ save against fleeing.

Someone also mentioned this idea that I quite like; 40k's shooting being resolved like combat in AoS. Player who's turn it is picks one unit to shoot with, then other player picks a unit to shoot with, then the previous player picks another unit to shoot with and so on and so forth, representing a realistic gunfight with both sides dropping. Suppressing abilities can prevent a unit from shooting.

Chargers going first is also a step in the right direction. Now charging will be worth it for all those low initiative armies.

Charging units should fight first. Thats a good lure.But imaging that i can throw away Codex orks, Codex deathwatch and Codex genesteales, the rulebook, 4 supplements for orks.....thats a nice bill.......

 Negach wrote:
Charging units should fight first. Thats a good lure.But imaging that i can throw away Codex orks, Codex deathwatch and Codex genesteales, the rulebook, 4 supplements for orks.....thats a nice bill.......

Now imagine your orks being perfectly competitive. Welcome to AoS' greenskins.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...aren't Greenskins bloody nasty in AoS? I heard that even little Night Goblins can be brutal. Wouldn't you guys want 40k greenskins (and nids) to be a serious force again?

Because Tau/SM/Eldar/Daemon players don't want the competition.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
List building is a very important and fun part of the game. Tabletop strategy is also a very important and fun part of the game. If either aspect becomes relatively unimportant then it wouldn't be near as fun of a game, IMO.

Ah no its an important and fun part of the game for you and likely many others - equally its takes too much time, is annoying and unfun part for others.

Same with
Painting
Modelling
Rolling a few or a little dice
Narrative elements

People have fun in different ways.

True enough. You're right that different people like different things.

But do you really hate list building? Like, would you rather that GW just provide you with your army list so you didn't have to think at all about what units to take and what options to give them? I'm definitely not saying that's wrong, it just strikes me as strange.

I might just be misunderstanding what you're saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Someone also mentioned this idea that I quite like; 40k's shooting being resolved like combat in AoS. Player who's turn it is picks one unit to shoot with, then other player picks a unit to shoot with, then the previous player picks another unit to shoot with and so on and so forth, representing a realistic gunfight with both sides dropping. Suppressing abilities can prevent a unit from shooting.

That doesn't seem like a bad idea. I tend to like games where both players are pretty active most of the time rather than waiting for fifteen minutes just watching what's happening and rolling armor saves. A lot of things would have to be tweaked, like IG orders, but that doesn't seem like it would be particularly hard.

Maybe they could do the same thing with movement? Again, a lot of stuff would have to be changed to make that work, but it seems doable. They could pretty much eliminate IGOUGO in the sense of entire armies and just make it on a unit-by-unit basis.

The biggest downside that I can think of would be maybe needing to use counters in bigger games, but that doesn't seem like much of a downside. There are probably a lot of problems that I'm not thinking about.

Move stat? Save modifiers? Whuuut?

Well, we'll just see how this goes I guess.

I'm interested. I think 40K has needed a 2nd-3rd reboot for a while, rather than more iterations and layers of rules that push an 18-year-old system way, way past the breaking point.

@ Dakka Flakka Flame

They could rip off Bolt Action and have orders. Have a unit do all it's moving and shooting in one go. That would certainly mix things up and help people remember who's done what.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but...aren't Greenskins bloody nasty in AoS? I heard that even little Night Goblins can be brutal. Wouldn't you guys want 40k greenskins (and nids) to be a serious force again?

Ironjawz are surprisingly fast and get up in your face well enough, Bonesplitterz are a surprisingly magical orruk force that have a few more tricks up their sleeve and have a focus for breaking down giant monsters. The baseline greenskin has yet to be updated, and I have yet to see a force of such.

Someone also mentioned this idea that I quite like; 40k's shooting being resolved like combat in AoS. Player who's turn it is picks one unit to shoot with, then other player picks a unit to shoot with, then the previous player picks another unit to shoot with and so on and so forth, representing a realistic gunfight with both sides dropping. Suppressing abilities can prevent a unit from shooting.

I mentioned something to that effect I think in this thread or maybe another.
I'm not actually sure how that would work or if it would work well.
In AoS you'd have combats in both player turns So this would be shooting in both player turns. I'm not really sure about that idea. Anything to cause more panic
It might make for a very interactive game or a confusing one if things aren't tracked during a turn. I'm now wondering if that would create a shorter game length. Maybe not in the time it takes to play but the number of turns.
It would also depend on if there's shooting into combats.
There's a lot to consider.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Dakka Flakka Flame

They could rip off Bolt Action and have orders. Have a unit do all it's moving and shooting in one go. That would certainly mix things up and help people remember who's done what.

I haven't played Bolt Action yet. Is that the one where each of your units has a token that gets put in a sack, and then you draw tokens out to see which unit is getting activated? That would make keeping track fairly simple.

I might be thinking of a different game.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but...aren't Greenskins bloody nasty in AoS? I heard that even little Night Goblins can be brutal. Wouldn't you guys want 40k greenskins (and nids) to be a serious force again?

Greenskins are pretty damn good in AOS, mainly because they have the best out of the command traits, alleigance abilities, and relics. Rampaging destroyers and Ironfists make Ironjawz as fast as warpspiders. Battlebrew is just plain mean on behemoths. Meteoric hammerblades turns that puny heroe into an horde blender, easily scoring a dozen mortal wounds per round against big units. Talisman of protection gives you a 4++ against MW, the highest you can get (and only nagash has it) Vituperation blade is the bane of Hero-hammer. Bonesplitterz are extremely efficient with shooting. Goblins can pull nasty "cavalry" lists and the moonclan goblins are actually one of the (if not THE) most competitive troop choice in AOS. Regular greenskinz are a bit of jack of all trades, more fragile than the new versions but more numerous (albeti stronger and more elite than grots) but they excel in their support capabilities. Out of all the greenskin based destruction range, their warbosses are the best army buffers.

Just to summarize a bit:

1) Ironjawz. Excellent meelee game. Amongst the top 5 fastest armies of the game, easily the first if we discount alpha-striking. Their warbosses on foot, megabosses, and brute bosses punch way above their weight clases. They are an army geared to ram against elite armies.
2)Bonesplitterz. Excellent ranged game but not slouches in combat. Has a good magic utility and amount of bodies. Excellent against monsters.
3)Greenskinz. Decent meelee and range. Has excellent buffing abilities, that brutally synergize with other greenskin factions. Good for the backbone of an army.
4) Moonclan grots. The kings of horde play. Since body count is how objectives are captured, they are also the most efficient troop choice in the game. They have also great heroes for supporting them.
5) Spiderfang grots. Good speed, meelee and multiple shenanigans.