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.

Well, in AoS, despite the fact that model hit on a specific number and are therefore able to hit monsters, some monsters in AoS like the Stardrake are still hard to remove.

ERJAK wrote:

See this is what people who don't understand how AoS, or just yunno...math in general, think about this. The AoS system works functionally the same as the 40k system only better, smoother,

No, with a fixed to wound roll for the active unit, it works fundamental different to a comparison table were the toughness of the opponent matters.

functionally the same as actual 40k would be taking the targets defence as "to wound" roll with the rend value modifying that one and armour save being always the same (except for weapons that just ignore armour in general)

the AoS System is smoother, but different and not better in general.

ASM and a straight to hit roll would improve 40k, as those are things that make trouble balancing units.
a fixed to wound roll based only on the units strength and remove toughness at all is something completely different and not an improvement (as S+T are the values that define the model type and the weapon needed to kill it, just because the balancing is bad and there are weapons that are effective against all types, doesn't mean it would be an improvement if it is replaced by something different)

The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.



Can I imagine better systems? yes
Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no

Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system

Earth127 wrote:
The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.



Can I imagine better systems? yes
Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no

Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system

Some people like LOTR's system, that's GW's maybe they could use some of that.

Never played that one. So I can't say.

 loki old fart wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.



Can I imagine better systems? yes
Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no

Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system

Some people like LOTR's system, that's GW's maybe they could use some of that.

I have no idea what it's like now, but when it came out, it sure wasn't balanced. Hobbit slingers were monstrously strong units.

 Purifier wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
The better system will always be the one with the most tought and effort put into it. AoS as stands is the better game than the bloated 40K. Formations cost points so they are not as game breaking. Bloat was reduced when AoS released. So AoSificiation in that sense is a good thing.



Can I imagine better systems? yes
Do I think Gw is willing/able to put in the time to balance a more complex system? no

Therefore them lending from themselves is I think the best we can hope for and it sounds promising. Tough I do hope for a more indepth magic/hero system

Some people like LOTR's system, that's GW's maybe they could use some of that.

I have no idea what it's like now, but when it came out, it sure wasn't balanced. Hobbit slingers were monstrously strong units.

What was the combat resolution system like ?

 Fafnir wrote:
Another benefit of having every model being at least theoretically capable of killing every other one is that spam armies aren't nearly as dominant.

As things are now, spam armies can invalidate the viability of most of a take-all-corners list. If someone's running all armour, and only a third of your army is dedicated for anti armour, then that means two thirds of your army is functionally irrelevant, a waste of points.

In AoS, even if you haven't brought an army of dedicated hard counters, you can still manage to play around with what you've got and mount some form of offensive threat.

Exactly the primary reason I am for these changes. You can't take a general army with a little of everything because people are going to spam extremes and your take a little of everything army is going to be largely useless against their extreme.

 Fafnir wrote:
Another benefit of having every model being at least theoretically capable of killing every other one is that spam armies aren't nearly as dominant.

Of course, it could be argued that more structured army selection could also accomplish that.

Not as easily with as much respect to differently structured armies. There is a reasom bounded accuracy was one the most popullar/requested features in dnd 5e.

Have everything be able to do something to almost everything (even minor damage) is a death knell for unkillable daethstars/ superfriends.

Deaht by a thousand cuts as the eldar would say. Right now it's more do a thousand cuts at least one will hurt. and the others are nothing. I'd prefer each cut do a little but never too much.

Traditionally, more structured army selection doesn't really help with that. 5th edition was the apex of structured CAD play, and hard counter was pretty much the order of the day.

In a tournament sized force (which lets be honest is also what casual games follow) the CAD was way too loose and you could easily fill your army with hard counter fun like the Draigo Paladin Death Star that couldn't be killed.

The only way army selection would help with spam is a sort of mainstay rule where you have to have as much CORE/TROOPs as you do non, and then only if the CORE/TROOP selections are also not themselves a hard counter.

This restriction would mean half of the army has to be CORE/TROOP choices that should not be hard counters for anything, which would tone down the extreme builds a bit, but still allow for the other half of the army to still be an extreme hard counter. (I personally oppose any paper/rock/scissors approach to a game, I prefer everything being able to affect everything at some level)

Wasn't the main issue with the Draigo and chums deathstar in 5th the wound allocation rules?

Rather than the rules of the models making them unkillable it was an issue with the core rules which could have been easily fixed (but was overcorrected in 6th/7th).

 auticus wrote:
Traditionally, more structured army selection doesn't really help with that. 5th edition was the apex of structured CAD play, and hard counter was pretty much the order of the day.

In a tournament sized force (which lets be honest is also what casual games follow) the CAD was way too loose and you could easily fill your army with hard counter fun like the Draigo Paladin Death Star that couldn't be killed.

The only way army selection would help with spam is a sort of mainstay rule where you have to have as much CORE/TROOPs as you do non, and then only if the CORE/TROOP selections are also not themselves a hard counter.

This restriction would mean half of the army has to be CORE/TROOP choices that should not be hard counters for anything, which would tone down the extreme builds a bit, but still allow for the other half of the army to still be an extreme hard counter. (I personally oppose any paper/rock/scissors approach to a game, I prefer everything being able to affect everything at some level)

A single vindicator shot could kill that squad. Or like a single round of shooting from a plasma russ. Which is why I think 5th was a much better game. People cry about GK being OP. However it's nothing like how unbalanced the game is now.

Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.

Martel732 wrote:
Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.

My 5th Edi Grey Hunter Spam disagree

But this has also to do with mission design, as the rulebook ones were bad and those that we used here didn't give GK the chance to over the top of everyone else

The point being that Draigo paladin star was a hard counter element designed to be unkillable in pretty much every situation, which was why it was so prevalent and copied across lists the world over.

Hard counter spam has been a part of 40k since tournaments became popular and even before that. With a CAD. Without a CAD.

I remember Nob Bikers being a problem for everyone.

Anyway, I like flat rolls but a small part of me can't quite reconcile the fact that using them would mean that a lasgun now stands a chance of damaging a battle tank. Even if it's the absolute tinyest of chances. But I think I could lean to get over it.

Martel732 wrote:
Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.

Psy dreads were the bomb. Then again so were sanguinary high priests in every troops squad in lazplas razors. Space wolves had the longfangs and greyhunters. Salamanders had super melta. Everyone was strong. There were no weak armies in 5th edition.

I think that it would be helpful to go back pre 2012 and look at 40k general discussion threads that popped up back then and view in full glory the things people were complaining about lol as well as look at what armies were always showing up (hint, it wasn't all armies, it was a top three or four).

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.

Psy dreads were the bomb. Then again so were sanguinary high priests in every troops squad in lazplas razors. Space wolves had the longfangs and greyhunters. Salamanders had super melta. Everyone was strong. There were no weak armies in 5th edition.

Except GK power weapons turned FnP the feth off. As did any AP2. GK and Necrons dominated the other lists for those few months. No question.

Commissar Benny wrote:
Morale

"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."

So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.

I dont think itll be too bad, youd lose ALL those models if you ran and got caught anyway. I think this may make combat a bit cleaner

Id like to see how it all plays out.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.

Psy dreads were the bomb. Then again so were sanguinary high priests in every troops squad in lazplas razors. Space wolves had the longfangs and greyhunters. Salamanders had super melta. Everyone was strong. There were no weak armies in 5th edition.

Except GK power weapons turned FnP the feth off. As did any AP2. GK and Necrons dominated the other lists for those few months. No question.

BA had I5 on the charge. It was balanced.

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Morale

"Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties."

So lets say I have a squad of 50 conscripts with a Commissar, lose 25 of them to enemy shooting and make a leadership test. Roll a 1 + 25 (-9 from Commissar), so I take an additional 17 casualties? hahaha NO. Lets hope its a little more complicated than that, otherwise Orks/Nids/Guard can just sit out 8th edition.

I dont think itll be too bad, youd lose ALL those models if you ran and got caught anyway. I think this may make combat a bit cleaner

Id like to see how it all plays out.

And it may also discourage Elite style death stars, since losing by even 1 will cost dearly.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Vindicators spent the whole game chain shaken because of psyriflemen. Get real here. 5th ed GK were the spiritual predecessors of 7th ed Eldar.

Psy dreads were the bomb. Then again so were sanguinary high priests in every troops squad in lazplas razors. Space wolves had the longfangs and greyhunters. Salamanders had super melta. Everyone was strong. There were no weak armies in 5th edition.

Except GK power weapons turned FnP the feth off. As did any AP2. GK and Necrons dominated the other lists for those few months. No question.

BA had I5 on the charge. It was balanced.

Not at all, but that's all in the past.

Forget specific rules for a moment and just feel how 40K currently plays. Then, go play Age of Sigmar. GW wants 40K to have the same feeling of game play as Age of Sigmar. For that reason alone, I love Age of Sigmar. The rules flow into the game and as you are playing, they come naturally to you. When I play AoS, I almost never have to look at the rules. And it's usually something like "Oh, that model is a Hero? Hold on a sec... yeah. I get d3 attacks vs. Hero's instead of 1" or "That's a magic attack? Umm.... yup. Here it is. I can ignore magic attacks on a 6+". Better yet, it's right there on my warscroll for that model- it doesn't just say "Hatred", and then I have to go dig out my base rulebook and look up hatred. The Warscroll says "Hatred- you gain +1 to hit vs. Spiders" and you know exactly what are Spiders, because the Warscroll tells you the name keyword of the unit- "This is a unit of Spiders"!

I hate playing 7th ed 40K because too many players don't know all the rules, or they get them confused with earlier editions, or they try to game the rules to the breaking point and it's turn 4 after you've been playing for over an hour when a rules argument breaks out. I'm not some great rules guru either, but I hate making a note about something that didn't feel right in the game. I hate spending 15 minutes during a game trying to find some obscure rule. Then after the game, going and looking it up and discovering that we played that rule wrong, and it cost me the game or my opponent lost the game! I hate winning by "cheating"- more like winning by omission, but it was unintentional. I've never had a game of AoS like that.

8th Edition 40K should flow like that. It should not grind to a halt as both players look up some weird or obscure rule. And that's kind of the rub for me in 40K right now- it totally feels like a grind. How far can I push this rule, how many of these weapons can I squeeze into my list, and how many MSU's and detachments can I take to make that sweet, sweet formation Deathstar? It's to the point now where I can look at a list and think to myself "There is no way I can win this game with this list" and then the game just... sucks. And I lose, because I didn't field mass amounts of MSU to get an extra 300 bonus points due to a formation, or I didn't maximize gravity weapons, or I only get d6 power dice while my opponent gets 20+d6. 40K has become a system where the win/loss doesn't depend on how well you played the game, but by your army list and that really bothers me. In an ideal game to me, it should be about 30/70. I love choosing my list and using different things, but it should ultimately be my performance on the table that dictates if I win or lose, not my army list. The current game feels like 80/20. And that really bothers me in 7th ed 40K. And that's a feeling I've never had in Age of Sigmar.

If Aos'ing 8th edition can make the game flow better, make my ability to play the game rather then maximize my army list to win, and take away the grind feeling, then I am all for it, and I think a lot of players would agree.

@ Tamwulf

Damn straight. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Thats the point here. 40k shoudln't be AoS 2.0. But it should want to feel as smooth and fresh as AoS.

The easy way its making 40k AoS 2.0.

The hard way its making 40k its own good game. I prefer the second, but I think GW will go for the first.

I see people make tactical errors all the time in 40k. These are generally very subtle - it's a game of inches.

Saying it's mostly list building does not match with my experience.

But again, i'm not competing in the LVO/BAO.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I hate playing 7th ed 40K because too many players don't know all the rules, or they get them confused with earlier editions, or they try to game the rules to the breaking point and it's turn 4 after you've been playing for over an hour when a rules argument breaks out. I'm not some great rules guru either, but I hate making a note about something that didn't feel right in the game. I hate spending 15 minutes during a game trying to find some obscure rule. Then after the game, going and looking it up and discovering that we played that rule wrong, and it cost me the game or my opponent lost the game! I hate winning by "cheating"- more like winning by omission, but it was unintentional. I've never had a game of AoS like that.

I agree with you completely, but I just want to point out that AoS has the benefit of being a brand new rule set, which means that there are no confusions with prior editions because no prior editions exist. Although it's a problem in 40k, it's one that at this point in the game won't be going away without a drastic overhaul of the core game mechanics - and it's that overhaul that seems to be contentious here and elsewhere.

Personally, I love that I can go on to GW's site and find the rules for a unit. I recently purchased my first Imperial Knight as an ally for my MT, and while it's awesome to get the profile and points, etc., included in the instructions, not having the weapon profiles and special rules seems silly. Why only include half the rules if they're functionally useless? Give me the AoS system where I can play with my plastic army straight out of the box without need for a reference to the complex rules.

@tamwulf

yes. trying to play a game with a new player is nearly impossible, and it's not their fault. I feel like rn some units have like, 5 special rules and yet to know any of them you have to go and track down every single one just to check if it's going to affect you this turn. the game needs to be inviting, and right now it feels like I'm fighting the rules every turn