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.

 firechcken23 wrote:
@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

Or worse, you absolutely 100% know every rule, but your opponent doesn't so it looks like you are making $h!+ up as you go. That's how I feel most of the time.
I have most of the more complicated rules tagged with post-it sticky notes so that I can immediately show my opponent a rule that I am using.

I like the flavor of most of the special rules, but it would be nice if there were less....much less.

strepp wrote:

 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.

Thats the thing that I like the most from AoS. I can buy a box that I like, build it, and play with it because I can just download all the rules I need for them online.

Thats good to GW too because they can release new boxes to armys without needing a suplement, campaings, etc...

I feel like i know about 85% of the rules.

Again, all great points about the strengths of AoS.

Also, AoS's faction rules work far better than 40k's allies matrix. You can have a generic faction army using the general's handbook, and all's fair and you can just buy and use what you want. They might want to try this for 40k; Imperium, Eldar, Chaos...so on.

Galef wrote:

 firechcken23 wrote:
@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

Or worse, you absolutely 100% know every rule, but your opponent doesn't so it looks like you are making $h!+ up as you go. That's how I feel most of the time.
I have most of the more complicated rules tagged with post-it sticky notes so that I can immediately show my opponent a rule that I am using.

I like the flavor of most of the special rules, but it would be nice if there were less....much less.

Or how you interpret the rules may not jive with how they believe they work, or, even worse, the FAQs give answers which are completely contradictory to the written rules or with each other.

Future War Cultist wrote:Again, all great points about the strengths of AoS.

Also, AoS's faction rules work far better than 40k's allies matrix. You can have a generic faction army using the general's handbook, and all's fair and you can just buy and use what you want. They might want to try this for 40k; Imperium, Eldar, Chaos...so on.

Technically you can do that in 40K now. As someone mentioned somewhere, there is little point to it because sticking to Formations is just too dang good.

And the organizations of the Formations are largely fine, but the extra rules that many of them give are just crazy, especially when compounded with even more bonuses from a joint detachment like the Strike Forces.


One of the things I like about AoS is that every unit has, at most, 3 special rules all laid out right there, 1 usually associated with a wargear of some kind. Then there are the warband groups (I don't know the name used) which offer a couple more rules to work with, but I haven't heard about anyone complaining about their power like, say, the Battle Company rule for the Gladius Strike Force.

I see a lot of concerns in this thread about GW getting it wrong from the start and while that is fair I feel most of those concerns are coming from people that haven't been involved in the AOS side of things and seeing what this new community involved GW is all about.

This isn't the same GW from a few years ago, heck, its not even the same GW from when AOS launched. GW has become responsive and adaptive. They are asking for and responding to feedback from the community. They are inviting community leaders in for advice on how point things and create effective scenarios.

Not convinced? I don't blame you. But as an example of this new GW just look at one of there recent posts on the AOS community site. They are going to be featuring a 3rd party army builder on their site. No cease and desist, no lawyers, but rather they embraced it. This is also after they just came out with a paid version of an army building feature in their own AOS app. If that doesn't give you some hope for the future than nothing will.

 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.

Öhm. There were never hobbit slingers in that game. Lotr for me is still the only balanced gaming system GW has produced. Basically you can build whatever list you like and still have a chance against whatever the enemy fields, simply because decisions matter. 40K is more like watching an action movie. You don't have to think much, just watch everything explode. Building the list and talking the game over with your opponent is nearly the most important aspect for the outcome.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Again, all great points about the strengths of AoS.

Also, AoS's faction rules work far better than 40k's allies matrix. You can have a generic faction army using the general's handbook, and all's fair and you can just buy and use what you want. They might want to try this for 40k; Imperium, Eldar, Chaos...so on.

My biggest issue with this would be look at 40k, imperium of man just has so many options.

you would have imperium able to take knights, space marines of all flavors, custodies, imperial guard, sisters of battle and sisters of silence, mechanicum, and skitarri models / formations

chaos would at lest get the variety of chaos space marines probably traiter guard, renegade imperial knights and demons

elder they might make united so dark elder, elder, and harlies

tyranids might get genesteeler cults and tydanids

necrons would get necrons

tau would get tau

orks would get orks cementing them in absolute last place in the current state

still all armies other than imperium of man, chaos, or eldar would have glaring holes or limited to just a few options.

@ Charistoph

Formations in AoS not only do cost extra points, but they also have to fit into the FOC. And AoS's FOC is tied into the points cost of the game. If 40k was to follow this formula, things would be a lot better.

@ G00fy Smiley

They should divide the Orks up into the Clans. AoS has shown that Greenskins can be massively varied.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Again, all great points about the strengths of AoS.

Also, AoS's faction rules work far better than 40k's allies matrix. You can have a generic faction army using the general's handbook, and all's fair and you can just buy and use what you want. They might want to try this for 40k; Imperium, Eldar, Chaos...so on.

My biggest issue with this would be look at 40k, imperium of man just has so many options.

you would have imperium able to take knights, space marines of all flavors, custodies, imperial guard, sisters of battle and sisters of silence, mechanicum, and skitarri models / formations

chaos would at lest get the variety of chaos space marines probably traiter guard, renegade imperial knights and demons

elder they might make united so dark elder, elder, and harlies

tyranids might get genesteeler cults and tydanids

necrons would get necrons

tau would get tau

orks would get orks cementing them in absolute last place in the current state

still all armies other than imperium of man, chaos, or eldar would have glaring holes or limited to just a few options.

They could do Imperium, Chaos, Order Xenos (Aeldari & Tau) and Destruction Xenos (Nids, Necrons & Orks)
Then make a simplified Allie matrix from there, Like Imperials can ally with other imperials and Order Xenos, but cannot ally with Chaos or Destruction Xenos
Making only 2 level of alliance: You can or you cannot.

-

 timwrightii wrote:
I see a lot of concerns in this thread about GW getting it wrong from the start and while that is fair I feel most of those concerns are coming from people that haven't been involved in the AOS side of things and seeing what this new community involved GW is all about.

This isn't the same GW from a few years ago, heck, its not even the same GW from when AOS launched. GW has become responsive and adaptive. They are asking for and responding to feedback from the community. They are inviting community leaders in for advice on how point things and create effective scenarios.

Not convinced? I don't blame you. But as an example of this new GW just look at one of there recent posts on the AOS community site. They are going to be featuring a 3rd party army builder on their site. No cease and desist, no lawyers, but rather they embraced it. This is also after they just came out with a paid version of an army building feature in their own AOS app. If that doesn't give you some hope for the future than nothing will.

I hope you are correct, I really do. The only way we will know for sure is if GW actually addresses point costs at the start of 8th. If they don't all of this is for nothing. New rulebook won't solve it. Formations won't solve it. Point costs are one of the sole balancing mechanics that exist in the game and right now some units are under priced by literally hundreds of points. Other units are so overpriced that just fielding them could likely decide the outcome of the game before either player has taken their first turn. There are units who haven't seen a point cost revaluation in nearly a decade. Other units that were terrible to begin with & no one used had their point costs doubled. GW needs to sit and down really math hammer what every unit in the game is worth. FW as well for that matter. Many of those models rules are 10-15 years old.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Charistoph

Formations in AoS not only do cost extra points, but they also have to fit into the FOC. And AoS's FOC is tied into the points cost of the game. If 40k was to follow this formula, things would be a lot better.

Not always. A lot depends on how you're playing the game. There is a way to play the game without points at all. Now, getting other people to play those with you is a different story, obviously.

Also, there is the capacity for point values in the 40K Formations, but they just haven't been used for a very long time.

I would think it would be:

Order: Imperium, Eldar/Dark Eldar, Tau
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Destruction: Tyranid, Orks, Grots
Death: Necrons

That actually kind of leaves Necron in a bad spot without many allies though.

Youn wrote:
I would think it would be:

Order: Imperium, Eldar/Dark Eldar, Tau
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Destruction: Tyranid, Orks, Grots
Death: Necrons

That actually kind of leaves Necron in a bad spot without many allies though.

why are grots separate from orks? also orks are a huge source of biomass tyranids would not ally with them they would just want to eat them, maybe see empty rocks with them to come back and eat later. Also Dark elder would really not get along with tau or the Imperium they stick mostly to the webway to live depraved lives of excess outside of the reach of she who thirsts.

So, the best setup would probably be:

Empire of Man: Imperium, Cult of Mars, Inquisition
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Xenos: Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau
Death: Necrons, Tyrnanids

 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.

That's because 5th edition had structure without balance.

And because the wound allocation rules were too easy to game with complex units, which allowed people to build practically unkillable deathstars with certain armies.

AoS was able to bring some pretty diverse forces under one banner. Case in point, Order contains Dark Elves and Dwarfs. If 40k was to do the same, I think they need to think outside of the box. Unite the factions that have shared goals together, even if they're still insanely different.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS was able to bring some pretty diverse forces under one banner. Case in point, Order contains Dark Elves and Dwarfs. If 40k was to do the same, I think they need to think outside of the box. Unite the factions that have shared goals together, even if they're still insanely different.

That might work. However, the goals of most of the 40k factions are mutually exclusive.

whirlwindstruggle wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

-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.

Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.

Okay I'm sick of this coming up.

Grav is NOT the reason any of those units are bad. Grav simply helped prove how bad they already were.
Nobody was running Land Raiders before. Grav was not the reason for this. They weren't ran because they have gakky fire power for the price and weren't durable anyway vs other weapons. Why is Grav even being mentioned here? The rules fault is with the Land raider.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

whirlwindstruggle wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

-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.

Grav is horrible against Tyranid Monstrous Creatures as well, I think grav needs a re-think altogether.

Okay I'm sick of this coming up.

Grav is NOT the reason any of those units are bad. Grav simply helped prove how bad they already were.
Nobody was running Land Raiders before. Grav was not the reason for this. They weren't ran because they have gakky fire power for the price and weren't durable anyway vs other weapons. Why is Grav even being mentioned here? The rules fault is with the Land raider.

Actually Land Raider Crusaders were run at one point. The standard Godhammer was always terrible (And of course Chaos only has that variant)

Youn wrote:
So, the best setup would probably be:

Empire of Man: Imperium, Cult of Mars, Inquisition
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Xenos: Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau
Death: Necrons, Tyrnanids

Eldar with Tau?

im having flashbacks

I hope that in all the feedback our beloved leader TOs (and anyone else GW is consulting) are giving they don't forget to address points costs. Everyone gets worked up about deathstars, D-weapons, and psykers (as they should) but there is literally a whole faction that is OP solely because of undercosted units (Eldar) and another that can ignore point values (Space Marines w/Battle Company); as well as dozens of other units who extremely under or over priced making them very over or under powered, respectively. No one would be complaining about scatbikes if they were 50 points a model, most of the stuff currently in the game would be reasonable IF it was priced accordingly. Synergies from allies and psychic buffs make it harder (and I think alot of those should go away too), but a fair base cost as a starting point needs to be pushed as a primary design concern.

 Desubot wrote:

Youn wrote:
So, the best setup would probably be:

Empire of Man: Imperium, Cult of Mars, Inquisition
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Xenos: Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau
Death: Necrons, Tyrnanids

Eldar with Tau?

im having flashbacks

I'll be shocked to see Grand Alliances in 40k unless they work completely differently from AoS. The Imperium and Chaos faction fit into nice, neat little groups, but the Xenos make the system really messy. Eldar, DE, and Harlequins play nice, but the rest? Even in Youn's example, the Silent King is coming back specifically to stop the Tyranid threat, and in what world would Eldar and Orks play nice?

It would be hard to do it. It certainly couldn't be limited to four factions.

Youn wrote:
So, the best setup would probably be:

Grand Alliances
Imperium: SMs, Sisters, Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Order: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau
Each of these can ally within themselves without much restriction

Terminal Threats
Destruction: Orks, Necrons, Tyranids
Unlike in WFB, Destruction isn't an Alliance, and doesn't get any Allies - each of them has to go it alone!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Youn wrote:
So, the best setup would probably be:

Grand Alliances
Imperium: SMs, Sisters, Guard, Mechanicus, Inquisition
Chaos: Demons, Traitor
Order: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau
Each of these can ally within themselves without much restriction

Terminal Threats
Destruction: Orks, Necrons, Tyranids
Unlike in WFB, Destruction isn't an Alliance, and doesn't get any Allies - each of them has to go it alone!

Or something like this:

Armies of the Emperor: Armies of the Imperium, 'Crons
Aeldari: Harleys, DE, Eldar
Chaos: CSM, Daemons, Chaos Cults (wouldn't surprise me if they did them)
Destruction: GSC, Nids
Orks
Tau

Dark Eldar in order, doesn't seem like a good fit. I'm guessing we won't see allies, or possibly only handpicked allies in the competitive play, to hard to balance it otherwise, and GW has stated that a more balanced play experience is a big goal fro 8th. Still, if we are guessing factions (not necessarily allies), Here is mine based on fluff:

Imperium: Still it's own thing

Xenos: Tau, Eldar, Necrons, orcs basically the xenos that are intelligent, self-interested, capable of diplomacy, and are effectively nation states outside of the control of the IoM.

Chaos: Chaos space marines, daemons, renegades and heretics.

X-Risks: Tyranids, GSC, old crons, men of iron, basically Xenos that can't or won't work with others, whose goals involve the destruction of all life, and twisting their mustache like appendages.

 Grimgold wrote:
Dark Eldar in order, doesn't seem like a good fit.

there are no Dark Eldar any more, only Aeldari

 kodos wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Dark Eldar in order, doesn't seem like a good fit.

there are no Dark Eldar any more, only Aeldari

Vect and Lady Malys would have a word with you, mon'keigh...

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Dark Eldar in order, doesn't seem like a good fit.

there are no Dark Eldar any more, only Aeldari

Vect and Lady Malys would have a word with you, mon'keigh...

The two factions will most likely be rolled into one. Same as High/Dark