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.

 Galas wrote:
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.

Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then.

WHFB -> AoS was a way bigger change in how the game feels and I think 40k -> AoS would be a bigger change than 2nd -> 3rd, and not in a way a lot of people are going to like.

 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?

I've been pondering a 5th/7th hybrid called GRIMDARK: Future Wars.
It will be more like 5th, stealing only the best parts of 7th plus a few tweaks.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Spoiler:

 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.

As I have mentioned in this thread, my biggest apprehension with 40K being AoS'd is the replacement of the rules. 20-25 euros is what? Almost $30 after tax. That is still too expensive to replace all my army books at once. I can do $50 for 1 book at a time the way they release book now, but to replace at minimum the 3-4 armies I play would be a deal breaker for me. I would essentially just be getting into a whole new game, rather than updated the materials I already have for 40K
And only offering free rules (like the initial AoS armies) wopuld piss me off to no end. I am not buying an expensive tablet that I can't flip through as easily as an actual book.
Codex replacements better be no more expensive than a White Dwarf if GW does a hard reboot.

-

@ Baron Klatz

I'm glad you like it.

To make it a sister game to AoS and so that they aren't completely ripping off BA, I guess you could take it's combat phase mechanic and apply to shooting. Player who's turn it is picks a unit to shoot with, then the other player shoots with a unit and so on and so forth. Or...something like that.

If you guys are making a 5th/7th hybrid, what elements of 7th would you keep?

 Da-Rock wrote:
I bought into 40k back in 1985. Since then the game has changed 7 times...

6 times... 8th ed isn't out yet

 insaniak wrote:

 Da-Rock wrote:
I bought into 40k back in 1985. Since then the game has changed 7 times...

6 times... 8th ed isn't out yet

IIRC 3e was basically 2 editions, because there were the army lists in the BRB and the codexes that came out later. That might be what he's talking about. Or he miscounted.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then..

Yeah, the change to close combat was largely fairly well received. From memory, the bigger issues for a lot of people were the severe dumbing down of the vehicle rules and the gutting of psykers...even though physic powers were largely regarded as too powerful in 2nd, 3rd ed swung the pendulum way too far the other way, and effectively removed them from the game to begin with.

Just thought of this: 40k in three phases.

Phase one is the hero phase, which is just like the hero phase in AoS. Physic powers and command abilities etc.

Phase two is the shooting phase. The player who's turn it is picks one unit to shoot with, then the other player picks a unit to shoot with and so on and so forth. Units that have been shot at have to take battleshock tests and if they fail they can't act any further this turn (they don't lose models).

Phase three is the assault phase. The player who's turn it is moves units. Units that shot can move (unless they have a rule that says that they can't, like heavy weapons). Units that didn't shoot can move at double their movement stat. This is also how you assault. When you assault, its one unit on unit, and they fight until one side is wiped out.

That's really rough and wip but...it's what I'd do.

Here's a question I don't know if someone has asked on the board (I kind of skipped 20 pages), but how do we know these rumors aren't the Pancake Edition all over again?

 Charistoph wrote:
Here's a question I don't know if someone has asked on the board (I kind of skipped 20 pages), but how do we know these rumors aren't the Pancake Edition all over again?

Because they came from the Warhammer Community Site which is staffed by GW?

that and the staff themselves discussed this at adepticon.

kestral wrote:Another thing about nuking the setting is the novels. I like Warhammer Old world novels (though not as much as 40K), now there won't be any more. Instead there will be novels about steam dwarves and shoulderpad angels in a setting which vaguely reminds me of the Magic 'Verse. Could I learn to love it? Maybe, but I'm not going to try.

40K is awesome because of the modeling above all. You see that in contrast with games like Warmachine where you don't get to make up your own characters or groups, conversion is frowned upon, and terrain isn't much of a thing (at least around here). It is a better GAME than 40k hands down, but it is nowhere near as good a modeling experience. It will be a shame if they lose that - GW is already trying to get away from the wonder days of Dave wass'name and the scratch build/counts as armies that got me into it.

auticus wrote:lol AOS fans are "cultists" now. Oh the internet never ceases to provide.

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

If you hate the AOS setting, simply play the game and pretend you're in the old world. no one can destroy a fictional setting that never existed in the first place.

40k having its rules brought down can only be a good thing. The rules today are horrible for 40k to a lot of people.

Black September.

Did I type that clearly enough?

Black September.

I was on the ground floor with a new imprint from Malibu Comics called The Ultraverse, which had some of comics' better writers cut loose to creat whatever they wanted in a cohesive universe. With the comics glut of 93-94 causing the market to implode, Malibu put itself up for sale, with Marvel beating DC out in the end. Marvel then promptly started shoving in their 3rd tier charcters before executing a crossover event which rebooted history, along with sucking in some Z lister Marvel characters before the whole pitiful shebang was cancelled.

Now, according to Auticus, if I chose to play a Marvel game, I can pretend that NONE of that ever happened and play it as if it's the Ultraverse. Except it DID happen. I will NEVER get to read another Hardcase story again, I will NEVER find out what happened to Mantra, I will never know how Jimmy Ruiz would have wound up as Prototype because of the Marvel rewrite, and I won't find out about Bob Cambell's Prototype because of the cancellation. Kestra was right to lament the death of the setting and of ANY new material coming out fictionwise or otherwise. I tried to imagine filet mignon while eating sardines. Guess what? It was still sardines.

I'm wishlisting here, but here are some things I'd like to see in 8th edition:
-Better balance. Not sure how it would be accomplished, but a good start would be to take the problem armies (both bad and good) and tweak them towards the middle. Make armies like Orks and Dark Eldar better, and tone down Eldar, Tau, and the like.
-Make combat great again. It already looks like they are going to do this, which is good news for CC-oriented armies like Orks and Khorne Daemonkin.
-Tweak the allies system. Disallowing units from embarking in allies' transports was a good first step, but deathstars are still a problem for the game. Maybe they need to make it where even battle brothers cannot join each other's units. This would kill Superfriends, the Bark Bark Star, the CentStar, and the WWP Archon with Wraithguard combos just like that. Of course, this would make some characters useless (like Celestine), but maybe some characters could have some kind of exception (maybe a new USR).
-Tweak the way Grav works against vehicles. I think it is just too powerful for a single 6 against a vehicle to immobilize it permanently. Grav is the reason some of the iconic vehicles like Land Raiders are stuck on shelf duty. I'm complaining about this even though I use Grav heavily in my Dark Angels army. To me it's fine as a good anti-MC/GMC weapon, but it shouldn't be a solution against vehicles. Those are what meltaguns and lascannons are for.
-Throw units such as Terminators and Meganobz a bone. They are expensive pointswise and have very cool models, but currently they aren't really good at all. A 2+ armor save just doesn't mean all that much these days. While they're at it, they should fix walkers as well so they can actually see some play time.

My wish list - shack up with Maelstrom's edge and Flames of war and have an unholy love child.

The top things would be:
Play faster. Games take too long, makes it tough to enjoy them.
Keep Psychic powers under control. Less random, but less game breaking.
Play well at all scales. A really good system would be able to take a game of Titan vs. IG company and make it fun as well as a tiny game of "lunchhammer".
Don't use the core rules to balance codexes, fix the codexes.
For crying out loud, at $50 a book you ought to be able pay for decent playtest and design. Just keep the armies with certain bounds.
Capture the "feel" of the 40K source material. Space marines play like stormtroopers. IG play like ww1/2 armies. Orks play like Zulus (only they get to win sometimes). Tank vs tank battles have some of the feel of historical armored space battles.
Encourage some level of combined arms - for example, you can't win the game from your own starting line, but assault armies need some shooting to prevent overwatch.

 Galas wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Nobody liked (Okay, some yes, but those are of rare kind) the death of the old world. Nobody wanted it.

Spoiler:

But some of us stop crying his death, because in the end its a fictional game, and all things come to an end, even if you can still play it (Just as I do every week) or read his lore.
When my grandfather died, my grandmother spend the next 15 years wearing all black and mourning his death. The End Times finished in 2015.

But the bitterness of those that just call people that like other games "cult-like fanbase" its tiresome. As if Fanboys and Haters weren't to faces of the same coin, you know.

And in the Adepticons results, yeah. Thats a good slap of reality to those people that just, ignoring the state of the game, call that its the most unbalance thing on earth.

And before you say anything, no, AoS its not the best game in the world, not the most balanced. But are we talking of GW or not? You can't create a silk purse from a pig's ear.

If GW can make 40k achieve the level of balance that exist in AoS, without nuking his system and making it AoS 2.0, I'll be the first to clap and jump to play it again. But first of all I'm a narrative player, and to me the good Imperium of Old with the degradation of everything its gone with the Guilliman New-Age, but at least the galaxy its still here.

Maybe in your quarter of the world, most people didn't like the bloated rules, haven't seen anyone who disliked old world setting yet, it was so diverse and a faction for everybody.
I don't mind the whole overhauling of the rules in 40K but if they do an AOS there will be a bigger backlash, most people got in to the game because of the setting.
Not because of the rules there have always been better rulesets out there.

Sorry, I think I don't understand your point or you don't understand mine. What I was saying its that nobody wanted and nobody liked the destruction of the Old World. I agree, I prefer the setting of the Old World that Age of Sigmar.

From a rules stand point I prefer more skirmish games that rank and file games, but I agree too, that the problem with WHFB its that the system changes from a thing to a other totally different.

My point was not that "GW needed to kill WHFB and that AoS its the best thing ever", my point its:
Nobody liked the destruction of the old world, but has been done, so you can be bitter and aggresive and be hostile during years, or you can accept it.

And no, this its not a "fanboy" wanting to people to stop critizisin AoS. AoS has many flaws, his launch was terrible, and all of that can be and should be criticised with arguments, because we have all to remember that if we let GW think that they are just in a safe spot, they can go back to the Kirby Era.

But the people that just want to hate AoS without a constructive discusion, and even worse, just insult and attack the people that play and like that game, its tiresome at this point.

EDIT: The "economical sucess" to me its a sterile debate, first:
-We don't have numbers. We just don't have them, its all speculation and subjetive lists with no hard data.
-The "My game make more money!" don't go anywhere.

I Did not attack you, i failed at sentence comprehension, for that i apologize.
I do not hate AOS, they could have handled its transfer better, to no upset those who really like the old world or shudder 8th WHFB .
As a 40k player i am just worried that they would do something similar with 40K and make 30K their main thing as the heresy seems to be the main focus lately.

Now, according to Auticus, if I chose to play a Marvel game, I can pretend that NONE of that ever happened and play it as if it's the Ultraverse. Except it DID happen.

Sorry for your loss. It did happen. Its time to move on.

Not everyone deals with loss the same. For my part, I write my own Ultraverse stories, I custom up my own Ultraverse actiong figures, and I play Classichammer with enough people to keep it interesting. That's how I deal with loss. I'm not going to shell out for Marvel's newest drivel when their drivel is what I didn't want in the first place. THAT is asinine. If someone wants their drivel, more power to them. I don't want it. Same goes for the current state of GW. If that's not the way you think I should move on, well, I don't know what to tell you that wouldn't violate Rule # 1

I've said it before and I'll say it again but 7th edition is mostly great (BRB wise). Sadly, it has been ruined by imbalance and formations nonsense. If they could fix that in the next edition, and ideally :

- make the game a little bit quicker (for example by removing challenges and look out sir),
- make it more dynamic by adding responsive options during your opponent turn or, even better, adopting ''I go, You'' go) activations
- tweak a couple of nonsensical rules (like cover saves)

then it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it seems they'll go with an overly simplistic game à la AoS that appeal to those who want to play wargaming with their kids or wife or those looking for a casual experience.

I think I can understand why GW would want to AoS 40k, and I believe it has to do with increasing sales by lowering the barrier to entering the hobby.

I have no interest in AoS whatsoever. But a buddy of mine, that I have played 40k and WFB with over the years, got the AoS starter set for his sons over the holidays. He swears that the game is extremely fun and the simplicity doesn't detract from the game. In fact he now prefers the simplicity of AoS to the games we have played over the last couple decades.

Personally though, I would be sad to see 40k move in that direction. I understand why GW would do it, but I would still be sad for the change. I love the game the way it is. I will most likely just stick with the current edition and not move forward with the rest of the community.

Really guys, we all have spend years and money in this, and we all love our fantasy universes, but please, don't scalate the hostility, Just Tony.

I know this is the internet, but behind every avatar its a person that deserves respect, even if they don't have the same opinion as you do. And I say this to everybody, even to myself if somebody has been offended with what I have said. It wasn't my intention.

Maybe its a flawed comparasion, but what its happening here now is basically what its happening to Warcraft, a universe where I'm more deeply invested (Heck, I have a private server of roleplay in a World of Warcraft emulator). The changes on the Lore (Because at this point I just don't care about the MMORPG) are just so bad, to give you an idea, they jump from fighting a army of undead (pretty basic fantasy ) to fight in Space-ships with a infinite legion of Demons in outer space. I spend months bitter and angry about that, but I come to the conclusion than that just hurt me. Blizzard don't give a f*ck about what I think of his universe. So I make my private server, I pick the Lore in the point where I like it, and then expand it to my likings.

But I don't go to the forums of people that enjoy this new lore and call them ignorants, cultists, and fanboys, etc... They are totally free to like things I don't like. But still I love to enter debates about the quality of the Lore, and I can disagree with people but with respect, etc...

At the end, it all come down to that. You can dictate your own divertissement, or eat what other people throw at you.

But this is the big thing.. They are not killing off the 40k Lore.. (they are progressing it slightly, Imperium will be more proactive)

Its just mainly the rules themselves that are changing

I know! Its just to exemplify what I'm saying. Whenever I talk about "Lore" just change it for "Rules".

Indeed, I don't know why fantasy was brought up at all except to try and fuel the dwindling anti-AoS fire.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Here's a question I don't know if someone has asked on the board (I kind of skipped 20 pages), but how do we know these rumors aren't the Pancake Edition all over again?

Because they came from the Warhammer Community Site which is staffed by GW?

Fair enough. I have just seen people talking about it, but never referencing where it has come from. That usually meant that it came from a rumor monger.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fair enough. I have just seen people talking about it, but never referencing where it has come from. That usually meant that it came from a rumor monger.

Well the 'IT'S TURNING INTO AOS' is all rumor based on a mention of what they would like to do with Leadership and Moral, being described as to something similar to what AoS has.

The other things that have been confirmed as changing is that Movement Values are coming back, and they are Changing how AP is working (people are presuming it is going to be based off 2nd Ed system)

Personally, I'm intrigued to see how it all goes. I'm one of the fortunate few who doesn't have a dog in the fight. I play 2nd ed. and only occasionally buy modern GW model kits (namely HH stuff or the occasional vehicle).

I can't imagine the game could get any worse. To me that's a plus. The backlash will be pretty large whatever direction they go. If there are indeed sweeping changes (and it very much appears there shall be) it'll be the largest shift since 1998 or whenever 2nd was finally replaced.

3rd-7th are all built on the same skeleton, so a fundamental change in the structure of the game will alienate some people and draw in others. It's nowhere near as damning as wiping the fluff/lore slate clean as they did with Fantasy (biggest offense...you'd have seen half the complaints had the rules simply changed bu the Lore/model lines remained the same).

(eats popcorn) I guess it's nice to sit on the outside and watch the world burn every now and then. I'll be chuffed if they somehow churn out a good game which appeals to me, but I'm not planning on it. I just hope I get some new models out of the whole thing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Galas wrote:
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.

Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then.

WHFB -> AoS was a way bigger change in how the game feels and I think 40k -> AoS would be a bigger change than 2nd -> 3rd, and not in a way a lot of people are going to like.

I was there at the time and I disagree, I felt the sweeping changes were very profound.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again but 7th edition is mostly great (BRB wise). Sadly, it has been ruined by imbalance and formations nonsense. If they could fix that in the next edition, and ideally :

- make the game a little bit quicker (for example by removing challenges and look out sir),
- make it more dynamic by adding responsive options during your opponent turn or, even better, adopting ''I go, You'' go) activations
- tweak a couple of nonsensical rules (like cover saves)

then it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it seems they'll go with an overly simplistic game à la AoS that appeal to those who want to play wargaming with their kids or wife or those looking for a casual experience.

AoS isn't simplistic, it's simplified. There's a difference. AoS chose to put it's complexity in it's warscrolls while leaving the base rules easy to digest. In the end learning how to play your army in AoS is no less difficult than doing the same in 40k, the difference is AoS lets you learn one unit at a time and lets you get models on the table quicker from picking up your first models, and is less frustrating.

Basically 40k chose complexity, Sigmar chose depth and Sigmar is better off for it.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even though a lot changed from 2nd to 3rd, the game as a whole pretty much functioned the same, probably the change to close combat was one of the biggest ones as far as "feel" was concerned, but many people who enjoyed 2nd still though CC was a bit cumbersome back then..

Yeah, the change to close combat was largely fairly well received. From memory, the bigger issues for a lot of people were the severe dumbing down of the vehicle rules and the gutting of psykers...even though physic powers were largely regarded as too powerful in 2nd, 3rd ed swung the pendulum way too far the other way, and effectively removed them from the game to begin with.

I played Orks. My favourite thing from 2nd edition was the virus outbreak card.

Oh, the sweet sweet sound of me setting up my army, the virus outbreak card being played and then me removing everything but my mega-armoured individuals before I had the chance to move.

ERJAK wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again but 7th edition is mostly great (BRB wise). Sadly, it has been ruined by imbalance and formations nonsense. If they could fix that in the next edition, and ideally :

- make the game a little bit quicker (for example by removing challenges and look out sir),
- make it more dynamic by adding responsive options during your opponent turn or, even better, adopting ''I go, You'' go) activations
- tweak a couple of nonsensical rules (like cover saves)

then it would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it seems they'll go with an overly simplistic game à la AoS that appeal to those who want to play wargaming with their kids or wife or those looking for a casual experience.

AoS isn't simplistic, it's simplified. There's a difference. AoS chose to put it's complexity in it's warscrolls while leaving the base rules easy to digest. In the end learning how to play your army in AoS is no less difficult than doing the same in 40k, the difference is AoS lets you learn one unit at a time and lets you get models on the table quicker from picking up your first models, and is less frustrating.

Basically 40k chose complexity, Sigmar chose depth and Sigmar is better off for it.

Yes, this!

AoS is easy to learn and play but there is a hell of a lot of depth to. I play Bloodbound and believe it or not, it's a very intricate and nuanced army to play with, despite being blood thirsty axe wielding maniacs.