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.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assuming a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to this pk attacks.

That wouldn't be too bad if true
DE Wyches, Genestealers and such wouldn't be royally screwed by being charged then (As they are very reliant on striking first)
And it's not always going to be possible to avoid counter-charges

Jbz` wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assuming a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to this pk attacks.

That wouldn't be too bad if true
DE Wyches, Genestealers and such wouldn't be royally screwed by being charged then (As they are very reliant on striking first)
And it's not always going to be possible to avoid counter-charges

DE Wychs needs new rules they already are screwed

Jbz` wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assuming a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to this pk attacks.

That wouldn't be too bad if true
DE Wyches, Genestealers and such wouldn't be royally screwed by being charged then (As they are very reliant on striking first)
And it's not always going to be possible to avoid counter-charges

it sounded good, same friend called a lot of the changes to 6th, he knows several people at GW, some were experimental changes not implemented but a lot was there (like flyers and intercept). I like it thematically as it represents the warrior having to change the focus of attention,. In the above example SM pay attention to what they were shooting and following orders, then the orks are charging they ready for combat and it takes a few precious seconds to ready to attack back but not receiving the full weight of attacks before swords and knives drawn

I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.

It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.

 Vash108 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Pretty honest question so bear with me: D&D essentially had the same problem. 3rd edition was a cluster feth, so they rebooted it with 4th edition. 4th edition was too video-gamey, so they revamped it with 5th edition. 5th edition has free rules online, drastically simplified rules, and has increased the player base tenfold.

As it is, 40k is a mix of 3rd and 4th edition D&D: too bloated and power levels are all over the place. Why is 40k getting simplified viewed as such a bad thing? Pricing aside, it seems like one of the few things they could do to bring in new players.

4th edition did succeed in bringing a lot of new players who never played before or would even consider D&D.

And I was one of them! I never got a chance to play during my high school or younger years, and once I got to college the new thing was 4th edition (the PHB2 was the newest release at that point). What was the important part of the game? Making friends and memories as we play late into the night and have crazy rolls giving us stories for our lives.

And AoS is doing that now for other players. I know of several players between my closest GW and FLGS that started with Age of Sigmar and really enjoyed it. To the point that they are getting into 40K. Would Warhammer Fantasy have got these same players into both games? Possibly, but we will never know for certain.

What 40K really needs to copy from Age of Sigmar is not necessarily the rules, but the attitude of the game, a reduced barrier to entry, and less unnecessary complexities during the game itself.

 davou wrote:
I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.

It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.

But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.

4E also got alot of lies said about it, many rules were quoted by awful grognards that weren't even there. Many seemed to miss when most of the classes were just caddies to Wizards and CoDzilla...

Honestly though there's plenty to hope for if 40k gets AoS'ed, but if there isn't some big rehaul we'll still have to deal with the horrid codex balance we have now.

And you're asserting that AoS doesn't have horrid balance?

Where are you reading that he's asserting that? I mean, can you point to the words specifically? Because that's some world class extrapolation. I can't see him saying that even a little.

The way it reads, its implying that a rehaul balances the game. Since he says there is pleny of hope for 40k to get AoS'ed, followed by saying if they dont have said rehaul we will need to deal with our crappy balance implying then that a rehaul fixes it, meaning that the rehaul into AoS fixed WHFB balance which is did not because AoS has not some mad imbalance problems right now.

I'm sorry what are you trying to imply I'm saying? I'm saying that it has the chance for balance because right now even in AoS there's far closer balance then 40k. That and I hope for certain things to happen that won't prove valid if the current codex balance stays the same.

Well i mean its not like AoS is any better balanced, Death is dead, Destruction is viable if your running death star like armies, 7 Giants is a hilarious army to run BTW. Then with order and Chaos is just who can build a better wombo combo and get it off first.

Im all for the nerfing of the cheese, but i just dont want it watered down to nothing.

Death has one of the strongest armies in Settra/Tomb Kings/Deathrattle. Destruction can go without death star armies (Though it tends towards it thanks to Ironjawz Ironfist and Bonefists Kunnin Rukk.. Shouldn't have allowed Arrer boyz to be available in it), and 7 Giants isn't even a valid army, and what Order List? Are you talking deepstriking Stormcasts? Are you talking about Sylvaneth or any other army? What Chaos army? Skaven Skyrers, Bloodbound?

It's like you want to discuss AoS balance but you've got nothing to really show so you just made some weird generalizations.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 davou wrote:
I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.

It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.

But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6

So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.

If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.

And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction

 davou wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 davou wrote:
I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.

It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.

But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6

So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.

If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.

And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction

Sense when are there cavalry and lances in your examples? Oh anyways you know what cavalry does get? HoW...

We have HoW for that very reason.....

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 davou wrote:
I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.

It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.

But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6

So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.

If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.

And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction

Sense when are there cavalry and lances in your examples? Oh anyways you know what cavalry does get? HoW...

We have HoW for that very reason.....

Which doesn't actually use any of the models weapons and doesn't depend upon any other factors like Furious Charge.

HoW Is a clunky measure for it.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 davou wrote:
I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.

It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.

But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6

So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.

If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.

And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction

Sense when are there cavalry and lances in your examples? Oh anyways you know what cavalry does get? HoW...

We have HoW for that very reason.....

Which doesn't actually use any of the models weapons and doesn't depend upon any other factors like Furious Charge.

HoW Is a clunky measure for it.

There still is a rule for it tho and what Cavalry units in 40k have lances? If you say Bikes, then thats stupid b.c No bike rider will stop their bike and melee fist/lance fight a person with daggers.

Either way it doesnt matter b,c if what they say is finallised there are no more unit types so there is no Cavalry

The point of my comment 1st was that some units should strike 1st against chargers due to fluff/rules. Wychs are 10pt S3/T3 models b.c they are suppose to hit 1st and able to dodge attacks even from the best fighters out there.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 davou wrote:
I dont get all the hate for chargers striking first. When you get attacked, it's usually by suprise.

It makes sense to me that a squad of eldar that were busy gunning down a truck to the left get caught with their parents ts down when a mob of orks jumps the trench and starts stabbing them. Initiative should come into play after that, when they're properly in the fight.

But not all Eldar kin are that way, like Wychs they train for battling, they are very experienced, they will never keep their eye off of the enemy and see the strike coming, hence why a troop unit is I6

So? Train all you want, but if a cavalry charges you with Lance's it makes no sense for you to get to swing at them first. Same for being body slammed by a golem, or bowled over by a dreadnought.

If I ran at you ready to Chophouse in half with a sword, it makes no sense for me to scream at youto ready your best response.

And that's just fluff explanation, the fact is assault needs a serious buff... This is a step in the right direction

Sense when are there cavalry and lances in your examples? Oh anyways you know what cavalry does get? HoW...

We have HoW for that very reason.....

Which doesn't actually use any of the models weapons and doesn't depend upon any other factors like Furious Charge.

HoW Is a clunky measure for it.

There still is a rule for it tho and what Cavalry units in 40k have lances? If you say Bikes, then thats stupid b.c No bike rider will stop their bike and melee fist/lance fight a person with daggers.
.

Rough Riders do.

And even without taking them into consideration, because in 40k they do stop their bikes and melee fist/chainsword fight people with daggers, even those with hit & run.

Lances was just an example. If an elemental fire leopard jumped out of a tree and mauled you, it wouldn't give you a fair warning to put up your dukes either. Charging at a unit on the top of some battlements is a different story, but bum rushing a group that was in the process of shooting at something else should absolutely be represented by getting to hit them before they have a chance to make their incredible reflexes matter.

Getting a charge off on another unit should represent catching them, and you should get to slap them at least. HOW represents physically running them over with your vehicle or landing on their heads when you drop out of the sky.

and AGAIN thats just the fluff argument. The fact is, that this mechanic is not only easy to explain in the fluff, but also attempts to address a major failing point of the game by making the assault element more important.

As someone not playing at the moment, I can't argue with a reboot, even if I half expect a total meltdown. Free rules would get enormous goodwill from me. A simple system can be elegant and have depth - flames of war does pretty well with very basic mechanics. That tactical marine data sheet is DOA with me though - the heavy weapons are ludicrous. Hopefully fake, although it is hard to imagine a dedicated fan doing that so badly. Maybe a troll attempt.

 kestral wrote:
As someone not playing at the moment, I can't argue with a reboot, even if I half expect a total meltdown. Free rules would get enormous goodwill from me. A simple system can be elegant and have depth - flames of war does pretty well with very basic mechanics. That tactical marine data sheet is DOA with me though - the heavy weapons are ludicrous. Hopefully fake, although it is hard to imagine a dedicated fan doing that so badly. Maybe a troll attempt.

I just now noticed it and honestly that's... A very poor attempt at even trying to figure out how to use special/heavy weapons, even some AoS units get one per 5 they could've done! And a 36" Melta.

Just a side note about the whole pay to play arguments on new armies.


The newest AoS armies are not always the strongest atall.
In fact, 2 of the top armies are Skryre skaven and savage orcs.
The skaven got an update in end times and savage orcs ages before that.
Yet both armies don't really struggle to top tournaments consistently.
The only update they had were bases (skaven are still on squares for the most part)

Fyreslayers?
Your better off with generic old dwarves as they perform a lot better due to higher damage output, numbers and lower points.

Sigmarines?
They are solid but nowhere near top of the food chain.
They aren't AoS marines in terms of rules power.
Considering they are poster boys aswell.

Khorne bloodbound?
Not really all that great.
A few shots later their characters are dead and no buffs for anyone.

Sylvaneth?
Solid army that's up there.
Still not in the leagues of the 2 I first mentioned though.





So all in all, new armies aren't best atall.
In fact a few are very far from it.
This isn't 40k with a power creep with each new book.
This is partially why I play AoS more than 40k now.







Also, that pic is fake.
Abbreviated weapon names are a start. (Melta? Multi or gun?)
Just the general wording of it seems off for a scroll.
Not to mention the 36" range flamer lol.

morgoth wrote:
I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.

Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.

What's not to like?

Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.

Tell me, do you have many Tigers round where you're from? Or are the rocks doing their jobs and keeping them away?

 kestral wrote:
As someone not playing at the moment, I can't argue with a reboot, even if I half expect a total meltdown. Free rules would get enormous goodwill from me. A simple system can be elegant and have depth - flames of war does pretty well with very basic mechanics. That tactical marine data sheet is DOA with me though - the heavy weapons are ludicrous. Hopefully fake, although it is hard to imagine a dedicated fan doing that so badly. Maybe a troll attempt.

Well, if there's one thing to take solace in, it's the quote from their article:

Warhammer Community blug post wrote:I think it’s really great that we’re now developing rules by engaging the community and working with people like Frankie and Reece from LVO, Mike from Nova and Hank, Greg, Chris and the rest of the AdeptiCon team.

Combined with Mike's recent blog post that he was in Nottingham talking to designers though can't say much, I would bet you a pound for a penny that they were either talking about game balance or scenario design to diversify the game. After all, these people have been exceptionally influential in the 40k scene and have undoubtedly helped solidify the game's future by fixing some of the outright broken rules as well as creating interesting scenarios which need more thought than the main rulebook ones. If any of them is reading this comment - you've done a great job over the years with a tough gig, and have kept a game I love alive even when it might not have deserved it.

All that said, I think everyone knows the issues with the game as it stands; that half a dozen people have thanked me for my post shows me that it's not just me thinking these things. The fact is that 7th, with all the codices, is broken - on one end, you've got armies which try to stop you playing the game by being invincible via psychic power abuse, and at the other you have armies which try to stop you playing the game by wiping almost all of your units out in the first few turns. Neither is particularly fun to play or face. Narrative campaigns fall apart because things such as Ork invasions are laughable - even with fluffy lists, I've seen Space Marines win games easily against them with a 250 point handicap. Necrons, my personal favourite army, are in their own absurd predicament, having managed to somehow apparently survive since near the dawn of time, yet somehow remain unable to kill GCs, deal with psykers or contend with strength D at all - so much for particle flaying weapons. Guard actually managed to get worse due to losing their fearless tarpit nonsense whilst gaining nothing but the Wyvern. Tyranids might as well be called the joke army, as they just get smashed by Knights, Wraithknights and grav; there's very little they can actually do against any vaguely competitive army; this shows in their results - their best ranked player at Adepticon came 92nd, below orks at 57th and Necrons at 38th. Still, at least they got played at all, unlike sisters. I'm relatively confident that these huge holes in the game will be at least patched in 8th because even here, now I've moved to their homeland of Nottingham, you can see the discontent. Hell, on the livestream that Warhammer TV did at Adepticon of the team tournament, the chat was really friendly until a Wraithknight came out and one shot a knight before it could do anything. I felt bad for them honestly, the presenters were clearly quite embarrassed at how much of a farce it was and the chat erupted into complaints. It's not good enough, and I think they've finally heard that message at the top of the company.

 davou wrote:
Lances was just an example. If an elemental fire leopard jumped out of a tree and mauled you, it wouldn't give you a fair warning to put up your dukes either. Charging at a unit on the top of some battlements is a different story, but bum rushing a group that was in the process of shooting at something else should absolutely be represented by getting to hit them before they have a chance to make their incredible reflexes matter.

Getting a charge off on another unit should represent catching them, and you should get to slap them at least. HOW represents physically running them over with your vehicle or landing on their heads when you drop out of the sky.

and AGAIN thats just the fluff argument. The fact is, that this mechanic is not only easy to explain in the fluff, but also attempts to address a major failing point of the game by making the assault element more important.

There is a difference in a 20 man regiment running and charging than a sneaking cat.... And Im not arguing that ALL units must work this way. I gave you an example of some units that wouldnt work this way. Your example was a reason for 1 unit to strike 1st not an example that all units must strike 1st............ My example was some units will always strike 1st. Sure soe units will strike 1st even if they charge or dont charge.


Again... the point is there will always be a unit that will counter the rules.

I just had this thought;

as it currently stands, a chainsword can't compete with a power weapon. I hope they find a way to make them more competitive with each other. I love chainswords but I would never bother putting one on a model when there's other, better options.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assumign a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to fhis pk attacks.

That sits well with me.
Charges' +1 attacks calculated at I10 along with Hammer of Wrath would sit well with me.
Big question I'm struggling with is what happens when a model is equipped with weaponry?

Charge attacks go into a Hammer of Wrath type pool, no questions asked?
Charge attacks are calculated including equipped weapons?
Charge +1 attacks can be allocated to the Hammer of Wrath pool or the regular initiative pool?

What would people prefer to see?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I just had this thought;

as it currently stands, a chainsword can't compete with a power weapon. I hope they find a way to make them more competitive with each other. I love chainswords but I would never bother putting one on a model when there's other, better options.

Chainswords are alright, most models that have access to them just can't utilise them in a useful way. Space Wolves Grey Hunters are probably the only the only unit that can really get a proper benefit out of Chainswords - cough up two points per model and add the chainsword to the bolt pistol and boltgun each Grey Hunter already carries, it means a Grey Hunter unit can unleash a volley of bolt pistol shots, charge and be hitting with three attacks per model or Rapid Fire the boltgun in defence and activating Counter Attack still be attacking three times per model.
If saves go the way of AoS they'd probably get the ability to knock the save down by one.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
This is terrifying and a kick in the balls to anyone that just bought a codex that recently came out to fix their army. *cough* Traitor Legions *cough*

I own Traitor Legions, too, and I understand how frustrating it is to watch your book very quickly become irrelevant. I mean, with Death Guard on the horizon, the book is already slotted to be out of date rather shortly. It took Traitor's Hate two months? Unfortunately with the End Times-style releases happening right now one must remain vigilant.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
heard a rumor... take this with a metric gak ton of salt, but the source has been fairly reliably to this point. the attack first is supposedly the +1 attack for charge per model, rest taken at initiative. so take 20 ork boys charging 10 marines. 20 attacks from the orks, then the marines attack back, then the orks throw back another 20 (30 if slugga boys) assuming everybody is in range. Assumign a challenge and orks have a nob with a PK nob does one swing first then SM sarg if not having a fist attacks, then the nob gets the res to fhis pk attacks.

That sits well with me.
Charges' +1 attacks calculated at I10 along with Hammer of Wrath would sit well with me.
Big question I'm struggling with is what happens when a model is equipped with weaponry?

Charge attacks go into a Hammer of Wrath type pool, no questions asked?
Charge attacks are calculated including equipped weapons?
Charge +1 attacks can be allocated to the Hammer of Wrath pool or the regular initiative pool?

What would people prefer to see?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I just had this thought;

as it currently stands, a chainsword can't compete with a power weapon. I hope they find a way to make them more competitive with each other. I love chainswords but I would never bother putting one on a model when there's other, better options.

Chainswords are alright, most models that have access to them just can't utilise them in a useful way. Space Wolves Grey Hunters are probably the only the only unit that can really get a proper benefit out of Chainswords - cough up two points per model and add the chainsword to the bolt pistol and boltgun each Grey Hunter already carries, it means a Grey Hunter unit can unleash a volley of bolt pistol shots, charge and be hitting with three attacks per model or Rapid Fire the boltgun in defence and activating Counter Attack still be attacking three times per model.
If saves go the way of AoS they'd probably get the ability to knock the save down by one.

as it was explained to me "like hammer of wrath" some units still get an unmodified hammer of wrath attack, but the attack made for charging is with their weapon. so a unit of 1 lone nob biker with PK charges. hammer of wrath hits at str 4 ap- on contact, then the fight subphase. as the charging unit he gets 1 str 8 ap2 attack (still has to hit) then the opponent he charged say 4 remaining scouts attack back with 4 str 4 attacks hit and wound as normal. if the nob survives then the other 3 attacks come in at i1 str 8 ap2 (note str 9 if they retain furious charge at +1 str)

I assume rage will net 2 attacks first but when I asked that was an unknown as well.

With the assumed simplification that this new rule set is suppose to bring I find it extremely difficult to expect a more complex combat phase with I go, you go I go etc. I would expect to see the initiative stat to complete disappear making the combat phase streamlined.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.

4E also got alot of lies said about it, many rules were quoted by awful grognards that weren't even there. Many seemed to miss when most of the classes were just caddies to Wizards and CoDzilla...

Honestly though there's plenty to hope for if 40k gets AoS'ed, but if there isn't some big rehaul we'll still have to deal with the horrid codex balance we have now.

And you're asserting that AoS doesn't have horrid balance?

You know what? I'm going to bite the bullet. Yes. it doesn't have horrid balance. It's in a VERY superior position to 40k in terms of balance. Not great, okay-ish, but certainly not horrid.

Just look at adepticon:
http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=11199 Almost 1 in 8 players, 12%, in the 40k championship didn't win a single game (all defeats or a single stalemate). 25 out of 203.

http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=11298 Two out of a hundred and four. A sixth in terms of proportion. And those six two played 3 out of 6 games, rather than the full set.

At LVO? Out of 73 (or was it 93? I think it's 73) 2 lost all the games, with only one player winning all its games. The ratio for 40k playes was noticeably higher too in those cases.

You can bemoan and make the giant strawman that "only you can win with post-reboot armies" you've been making in other threads but the truth is that the strongest army in the meta is tomb-kings, a pre-re-boot army. It is followed by Clan Skryre, another pre-reboot army and bonesplitterz tied with sylvaneth. Being the early an army that received no new models/profiles, only an update. FEC are pretty high in the meta too, having only old models and barely any usable batallions (and nothing on the terms of spells/unique stuff).

Meanwhile new armies have pretty bad rankings. Fyreslayers? Not seen at all on either tournament. Consensus is that they are very overcosted across the board. Khorne bloodbound? about the same and hampered by their excessive focus on meelee without the needed speed (which may be solved with the new battletome).

Indeed and the Fyreslayers are getting a point change to help their current bad position.

A living rulebook, community input and free rules are a really great boon for any system.

That pic is fake. It is from this guy's blog:

http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.com/2016/03/40k-age-of-sigmar-space-marine.html

However, he is pretty decent in porting the rules over. If they do AoS the statline, then yes, a 2W 4+ is the standard for dudes in full plate in AoS and that is what at Tactical Marine would be.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Exactly. D&D4e and AoS got so much backlash from players of earlier editions because they didn't pay attention to what made the game fun.

4E also got alot of lies said about it, many rules were quoted by awful grognards that weren't even there. Many seemed to miss when most of the classes were just caddies to Wizards and CoDzilla...

Honestly though there's plenty to hope for if 40k gets AoS'ed, but if there isn't some big rehaul we'll still have to deal with the horrid codex balance we have now.

And you're asserting that AoS doesn't have horrid balance?

You know what? I'm going to bite the bullet. Yes. it doesn't have horrid balance. It's in a VERY superior position to 40k in terms of balance. Not great, okay-ish, but certainly not horrid.

Just look at adepticon:
http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=11199 Almost 1 in 8 players, 12%, in the 40k championship didn't win a single game (all defeats or a single stalemate). 25 out of 203.

http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=11298 Two out of a hundred and four. A sixth in terms of proportion. And those six two played 3 out of 6 games, rather than the full set.

At LVO? Out of 73 (or was it 93? I think it's 73) 2 lost all the games, with only one player winning all its games. The ratio for 40k playes was noticeably higher too in those cases.

You can bemoan and make the giant strawman that "only you can win with post-reboot armies" you've been making in other threads but the truth is that the strongest army in the meta is tomb-kings, a pre-re-boot army. It is followed by Clan Skryre, another pre-reboot army and bonesplitterz tied with sylvaneth. Being the early an army that received no new models/profiles, only an update. FEC are pretty high in the meta too, having only old models and barely any usable batallions (and nothing on the terms of spells/unique stuff).

Meanwhile new armies have pretty bad rankings. Fyreslayers? Not seen at all on either tournament. Consensus is that they are very overcosted across the board. Khorne bloodbound? about the same and hampered by their excessive focus on meelee without the needed speed (which may be solved with the new battletome).

While we are talking about balance, the top 4 in the AOS adepticon event were each from a different grand alliance. In the 40k the top 12 were all space marines, chaos demons or eldar. No Ork, Dark Eldar or Tyranid armies in the top 50.
It seems very clear from this that AOS is not doing to badly in terms of balance but 40k is REALLY struggling.

morgoth wrote:
I like how despite AoS beating old WHFB sales, people still argue that maybe GW made a mistake.

Guys... they made money, and it didn't take 5 years to catch up to the old dying game that had a very large cost base.

What's not to like?

Even crazier, we're getting reports of HAPPY people who had a great time with a GW game.

I like how despite AoS' relative success its cult-like fanbase still insist that killing WHFB was a good thing and we should all be grateful for it.

They added Fantasy Space Marines to get the 40k players to pick up the game. That was always going to sell. If they added Sigmarines into the Old World we'd probably see sales skyrocket, but they were nigh-on impossible to justify adding so... out the whole setting went.

The problem with AoS has never been about whether a rules-lite skirmish game unto itself was the problem. The issue was that they threw out the baby with the bathwater, along with the bath itself, the pipes, the drain, etc.