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.

WHFB didn't have a 400+ model count requirement either lol.

My chaos warrior army was 35 models.
My dark elf army was 68 models.
My tomb kings army was 65 models.

(those all being my whfb 8th edition army list model counts, which were played casually or in tournaments)

Hell my AOS blood bound army has 74 models in it currently which is more models than any of those other three armies.

As to the "but sigmarines exist so it can't be the old world"... sigmarines could have existed in either world. If the complaint is there are new factions, then the issue isn't really with the old world or the new one, its that a faction exists that some people get cranky exists.

 Galas wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 auticus wrote:

AOS is going on its second year now. Its cracked the top 4 of North America sales, overshadowing WHFB.

And on a side note AoS has recieved actual support within the last decade, and does not have a 400+ model count requirement, courtesy of Kirby.

Thats the thing that makes me more sad about this. Have Roundtree become CEO 5 years early, and maybe the Old World still exist within us, with a lower model count, skirmish rulesets (Encouraged by the company, I know Fantasy has skirmish rules like Mordheim or Patrols), etc...

TBH, ANYONE but Kirby (or a look-a-like) would have worked to save OW. The thing is that it's a coulda and as one poet said: every coulda shoulda woulda vanished with a did.

Please don't forget that you are 100% allowed to rank up your models in nice, tight formations just like in WHFB, with the added benefit of getting more models into the melee, having no templates to watch out for and only really suffering for it on about three units (the Daemon of Slaanesh chariot, the Chaos warrior Gorebeast chariot and I believe the razorgore). It's not being a rank and file game has nothing to do with the rules. You still can totally do it, and your opponent flanking you/ outmanoeuvring you still has its downsides, more along the lines of weight of attacks to weight of attacks back. You're not forced to play ranked anymore, but choosing not to do so is a choice.

 auticus wrote:
WHFB didn't have a 400+ model count requirement either lol.

My chaos warrior army was 35 models.
My dark elf army was 68 models.
My tomb kings army was 65 models.

(those all being my whfb 8th edition army list model counts, which were played casually or in tournaments)

Hell my AOS blood bound army has 74 models in it currently which is more models than any of those other three armies.

As to the "but sigmarines exist so it can't be the old world"... sigmarines could have existed in either world. If the complaint is there are new factions, then the issue isn't really with the old world or the new one, its that a faction exists that some people get cranky exists.

Believe me, I have seen a 2k point Skaven Army of 600 models. Oh my god, the spam of Skaven Slavens. It totally feel like a swarm of rats, so slow and so epic.

But yes, the number of models was not the problem, it was the number of models+how their cost in real money don't stop increasing.

 auticus wrote:
WHFB didn't have a 400+ model count requirement either lol.

My chaos warrior army was 35 models.
My dark elf army was 68 models.
My tomb kings army was 65 models.

(those all being my whfb 8th edition army list model counts, which were played casually or in tournaments)

Hell my AOS blood bound army has 74 models in it currently which is more models than any of those other three armies.

As to the "but sigmarines exist so it can't be the old world"... sigmarines could have existed in either world. If the complaint is there are new factions, then the issue isn't really with the old world or the new one, its that a faction exists that some people get cranky exists.

>Chaos Warrios - small elite army
>Dark Elves - small elite army
>Tomb Kings - ended up as a small elite army

Try playing Skaven. Orcs and Giblins. Empire. Hell, any race without the big stuff. It was a lot different. I had over 200 models in my 2K list.

Try playing Skaven. Orcs and Giblins. Empire. Hell, any race without the big stuff. It was a lot different. I had over 200 models in my 2K list.

I'm not contending that large model-count armies existed.

I'm contending over the mythological *requirement* that you had to have hundreds of models.

That was, quite simply, not true or close to true.

One could *actively choose* to play a horde army. That is different from *requiring all armies* to have hundreds of models.

And I also played empire. My empire army was around 70 models. The only armies I ever saw breach 100 models (in both casual and tournament play) was a skaven army with mostly slaves and a goblin army.

I will reserve judgment until the rules are released.

Anything is better than the convoluted paragraphs we have for 7th edition.

Can someone explain how it's a bad thing to take what is successful from AOS and port it to 40k?

To act like AOS is a complete failure with no redeemable qualities is totally unfair.

If the end result in 8th edition is that the game is more balanced, faster to play, with the same level of strategic and tactical depth, is that really a problem?

And please stop saying "Marines in the to 12," because it's really very specific, and there are a LOT of marine chapters and flavors out there. They may all be the same to you, but that's a problem with your perception not matching reality.

The problem is that GW should do it right and not just some copy&paste without concept
they can take ideas from AoS but need to write the rules from scratch

because copy&paste of good ideas without concept is why we have this mess in the first place

 kodos wrote:
The problem is that GW should do it right and not just some copy&paste without concept
they can take ideas from AoS but need to write the rules from scratch

because copy&paste of good ideas without concept is why we have this mess in the first place

Regardless of how they implement 8th edition, you could make the statement that "they should do it right," how does that tie in specifically to AOS?

 Marmatag wrote:

 kodos wrote:
The problem is that GW should do it right and not just some copy&paste without concept
they can take ideas from AoS but need to write the rules from scratch

because copy&paste of good ideas without concept is why we have this mess in the first place

Regardless of how they implement 8th edition, you could make the statement that "they should do it right," how does that tie in specifically to AOS?

Because AOS was an unplayable mess until the GHB came along. You know that, I know that (though I still consider it an abomination of a game, GHB or not), practically everyone knows that.

GW have shown time and time again they cannot write proper rules. Simon Grant has said he just writes rules that "seem cool" and with no consideration for the game as a whole. These factors do not instil a lot of faith in a company to make their flagship game right.

If that is true the game system would look something as follows: http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.com/2016/03/age-of-sigmar-40k-space-marine.html .

I am not sure the rule system wouldn't be very much different from that if it was purely AoS.

 Marmatag wrote:

If the end result in 8th edition is that the game is more balanced, faster to play, with the same level of strategic and tactical depth, is that really a problem?

That really depends on whether or not it's still a game that feels like 40K.

If the trade-off for fixing the game is that it winds up being a completely different game with a 40K logo on it, yes, that's going to be a problem for a lot of players.

 Marmatag wrote:


And please stop saying "Marines in the to 12," because it's really very specific, and there are a LOT of marine chapters and flavors out there. They may all be the same to you, but that's a problem with your perception not matching reality.

there are uncountable ork warbands, different basic cultures between them all... all on one book no separate rules. There are many different elder craftworlds, corsairs and even planet dwelling space elves all in the same book. different Imperial guard regiments use different tactics and builds, yet they get a single book and not much different. Even the tyranids have different hive fleets that act different under the control of individual nord queens. Necrons are starting to be more independent some more than others and are going to vary now. Dark elder have different cabals and functions/armaments. Tau are space communists s... yea you go that one right. I would argue the ignorance is in thinking only the space marines are so different from eachother. I do agree different founding chapters need things to make them unique but so should xenos races.

It will be interesting to see what happens if they totally nuke it. I imagine there will be a "9th age" equivalent, but I'd really hope for something more. I totally respect what 9th age is doing, but it is basically a cleaned up version of an edition I didn't much care for, and thus didn't inspire me that much, though I would like to try it at some point. Will something emerge from the depths of the "Proposed Rules" board?

Then we need to specifie what its to "feel like 40k". I'm sure to most 2nd edition players 3rd don't feel like the 40k they liked.

What if they were simply inspired by AoS?

See I had this thought of a hybird of AoS and Bolt Action. Each player taking it in turns to use a unit (like BA), but if a unit suffered any casualties it must take an AoS style battleshock test first, and if they roll over their bravery then instead of losing models they simply can't act...except to go to ground. For big units like tanks/monsters it's per wounds suffered instead. There's your crew shaken or stunned right there.

At the end of the day we can only wait and see what GW do, but I'm really confident they can make this work.

 Galas wrote:
I'm sure to most 2nd edition players 3rd don't feel like the 40k they liked.

Indeed. And a lot of players didn't like 3rd ed, and many left the game as a result.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'm sure to most 2nd edition players 3rd don't feel like the 40k they liked.

Indeed. And a lot of players didn't like 3rd ed, and many left the game as a result.

But 40k still growth besides those that stop playing because they don't like the game. Thats the key here. Some will left the game, thats a sure thing. Now the point its if the balance will be positive at the end.

Honestly if they just balanced the psychic phase a bit, and adjusted the power scale of some things (way too much AP2, monstrous creatures super duper strongsauce, adjust over/undercosted units) i'd be fine with that.

Personally I fall into the camp of, "minor changes are required, not sweeping, game re-defining changes."

That said, i'm open to some AoS concepts, such as a "Aos-Rending" concept being applied to certain weapon types.

 kestral wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens if they totally nuke it. I imagine there will be a "9th age" equivalent, but I'd really hope for something more. I totally respect what 9th age is doing, but it is basically a cleaned up version of an edition I didn't much care for, and thus didn't inspire me that much, though I would like to try it at some point. Will something emerge from the depths of the "Proposed Rules" board?

The problem with a T9A Version (call it M42) woukd be that it will be a balanced 7th and all those who liked the bloated mess will like the fan version
the same is 9th Age is a balanced 8th Edition and people like me who did not liked 8th are not liking T9A too (the game is not bad but I like other stuff more)

So you would need to write 40k from scratch and streamline it with a fast gameplay in mind from the start

I And now the problem is very easy to solve, find a group who agrees on how the rules should look like

I try since the end of 5th to get enough people interested in a re-write to make proper playtesting
the only thing I found were people who rather wrote their own rules than to help writing the rules of someone else
and the rest just sticks with whatever GW gives them

that's why I paused my version of 40k and tried Warpath

The game is not going to get totally overhauled to AoS, people thinking that are dreaming. Just the other day they announced their t-shirt store, and one of the designs is the iconic marine statline. It seems pretty unlikely that they'd make that, knowing how iconic the stats for a marine are, and then just months later totally alter them. In fact, I would bet that almost every single statline currently in the game will remain identical barring getting a movement trait in the back of the new rules. People are blowing the small amount of information we've got way out of proportion. Personally, I'm hoping there's a substantial overhaul but from the rumours we've gotten and the boxed set releases I sincerely doubt it.

Eyjio wrote:
The game is not going to get totally overhauled to AoS, people thinking that are dreaming. Just the other day they announced their t-shirt store, and one of the designs is the iconic marine statline. It seems pretty unlikely that they'd make that, knowing how iconic the stats for a marine are, and then just months later totally alter them. In fact, I would bet that almost every single statline currently in the game will remain identical barring getting a movement trait in the back of the new rules. People are blowing the small amount of information we've got way out of proportion. Personally, I'm hoping there's a substantial overhaul but from the rumours we've gotten and the boxed set releases I sincerely doubt it.

I agree with this.

What GW needs to understand is that the game needs to cater to the competitive community, more than it does. While I don't count myself in that group (yet, who knows), you need a thriving competitive meta, as that creates interest in the game, which also helps casual players get more people to play with.

I am not advocating that every army be capable of taking the top spot in a tournament. That kind of balance is pretty difficult, unless the game is totally homogenized. But there's an acceptable performance, even in a loss, that should be the goal. I know that's nebulous and i'm being vague, but it's easier to know than to explain. You just lost to the best tournament net-list imaginable. Did you have fun? Maybe you lost 5-6, but played a great game. That's different than losing with no points and being table before your second turn.

I bought into 40k back in 1985. Since then the game has changed 7 times. If my memory serves, there were 7 times that people screamed that the sky was falling, (Nothing new for most of us).

I will say that out of all those editions, 7th is the most convoluted.....(in my opinion of course). 3rd's issues seemed to be less about how much was there, but more about how much was missing.

4th seemed to be a gateway to 5th, (which I think was the best edition of them all).

Do I think GW will completely AOS 40k.....No, (are they capable of it...yes).

Simplified S v T for everything. Strength and Toughness reduced to 1 to 5. If your strength doesn't equal or beat their toughness you can't hurt them. Provided that you can hurt them, roll to hit, then they take their saves. Then maybe battleshock like I mentioned before. Saves and Wounds are used to differentiate how tough things really are.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's possible to streamline 40k whilst keeping the spirit of the old rules. They probably won't do this.

 Marmatag wrote:

Personally I fall into the camp of, "minor changes are required, not sweeping, game re-defining changes.".

I too am in this camp and feel like a few changes to the main rules can do loads to rebalance the game. Making melee more viable, vehicles better, tone down MCs, etc, would go a long way and would even make re-costing unnecessary if done right (thus leaving the codices as is).
You could easily make the existing AP system into an AoS rend style.

However, if a reboot is done, I would be fine with it as long as all the physical book army rules were cheap.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Personally I fall into the camp of, "minor changes are required, not sweeping, game re-defining changes.".

I too am in this camp and feel like a few changes to the main rules can do loads to rebalance the game. Making melee more viable, vehicles better, tone down MCs, etc, would go a long way and would even make re-costing unnecessary if done right (thus leaving the codices as is).
You could easily make the existing AP system into an AoS rend style.

However, if a reboot is done, I would be fine with it as long as all the physical book army rules were cheap.

-

Or free in an online format and moderately priced on physical format. Me thinks that 20-25 euros per softcover would be reasonable for this kind of books.

Because AOS was an unplayable mess until the GHB came along. You know that, I know that (though l consider it an abomination of a game,GHB or not), practically everyone knows that. 

I'm not sure if that's accurate since there are people who still play Open and Narrative play and that scenarios were always there since the starter box. The GHB just added points that made it better for tournaments and games with newbies where a gentlemen's agreement is much tougher for people unfamiliar with the units.

GW have shown time and time again they cannot write proper rules. Simon Grant has said he just writes rules that "seem cool" and with no consideration for the game as a whole. These factors do not instil a lot of faith in a company to make their flagship game right.

Oh I don't know, I thought being told to write rules on only four pages that balanced out hundreds of warscrolls and stopped any "instant wins" was pretty impressive.

As to the "but sigmarines exist so it can't be the old world"... sigmarines could have existed in either world. If the complaint is there are new factions, then the issue isn't really with the old world or the new one, its that a faction exists that some people get cranky exists.

Indeed, Fyreslayers can work too since the Tomb kings focused Gotrek and Felix novel talked about a lost dwarf hold in the southlands that made the Lizardmen into armor and mounts. Just adjust it so that the losing of the hold made them go slayer and their fire obsession comes from a culture shift in the jungles from either using captured djinns or a magic corrupted volcano.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What if they were simply inspired by AoS?

See I had this thought of a hybird of AoS and Bolt Action. Each player taking it in turns to use a unit (like BA), but if a unit suffered any casualties it must take an AoS style battleshock test first, and if they roll over their bravery then instead of losing models they simply can't act...except to go to ground. For big units like tanks/monsters it's per wounds suffered instead. There's your crew shaken or stunned right there.

At the end of the day we can only wait and see what GW do, but I'm really confident they can make this work.

Oh, I like that idea.

20-25 euros for a Softcover of aprox 160 pages where 30% its pretty pictures its to me in the limit of how reasonable I find that.

The actual prices of codex is just greedy at its finest. 33€ for the Tau one (Softcover, 128p) where you even't have new art, all its reused photographs of miniatures. Blergh.

In general the rulebook of wargames, RPG, etc... are all just overpriced. Not at the level of University level books, but is insane.

 Galas wrote:
20-25 euros for a Softcover of aprox 160 pages where 30% its pretty pictures its to me in the limit of how reasonable I find that.

The actual prices of codex is just greedy at its finest. 33€ for the Tau one (Softcover, 128p) where you even't have new art, all its reused photographs of miniatures. Blergh.

Pretty much the same for me. It's GW we are talking about. Rountree may not be (for now) as bad as Kirby, but he's still GW.

Heh, I think everyone who bought the new tau codex said that, since IIRC it didn't even have new units rules! (so basically people re-paid the 6th ed codex!)