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.

In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.

 thenewgozoku wrote:
In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.

Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:


It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".

Didn't even get that far. Much better games out there to play, so little time. Anyway, I still think Hungry Hippo is a fair comparison given that AoS deliberately dumbed down the rules to appeal to a younger audience, also shown by the ever larger and more over-designed models and being able to take all the toys and fluff be damned. In regards to 40K I was expressing my hopes that the ruleset would be made up of cherrypicked rules from earlier editions and retained a tactical element rather than being completely gutted.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:


Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.

Taking the rulebook to the game really isn't a particular chore. It's just a book.

Ideally, most units should have few enough special rules that you would rarely have to look them up anyway. 40k has gone too far the other way already, with each successive edition adding extra unnecessary special rules, and going down the warscroll route and having the ability to create bespoke rules for every individual unit is going to result in an even bigger mess.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:


It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".

Anyway, I still think Hungry Hippo is a fair comparison given that AoS deliberately dumbed down the rules to appeal to a younger audience, also shown by the ever larger and more over-designed models and being able to take all the toys and fluff be damned.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?

Great to see the controversial viewpoint "AoS is bad" getting a rare airing in this thread.

Lord Kragan wrote:

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?

Thanks; I've actually watched a fair few games just to confirm what I thought from reading the rules and, yes, I was right, it's an absolute abortion of a game. Hopefully 40K doesn't go down that route.

Thommy H wrote:
Great to see the controversial viewpoint "AoS is bad" getting a rare airing in this thread.

It's Dakka, don't be surprised. It's fine to label something 'an abortion' when it's AoS on here

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?

Thanks; I've actually watched a fair few games just to confirm what I thought from reading the rules and, yes, I was right, it's an absolute abortion of a game. Hopefully 40K doesn't go down that route.

And it will go down that way.

Putting on my veteran hat here, but the most fundamental question for 40k (that's never been answered IMO) is this:

what kind of game does this new 40k want to be?

Does it want to be a skirmish game with 40-50 models per side and say, 1-3 vehicles?

or

an all action mega battle with titans, flyers, and all sorts of bells and whistles?

For me, and this had been a problem since 2nd edition IMO, 40k fails on both accounts because it tries to be all things to all men and falls flat on its face.

There's nothing worse than painting and assembling 20 guardsmen, and all the time that entails, only to have to remove them after 30 seconds when a Tau Mega battle suit of doom glances over at them.

It's very disheartening. That's not to say that guardsmen, normal humans after all, should be invincible and not be outclassed by tougher aliens or space marines.

But Titans and giant alien beasts belong to epic, not a skirmish game. At least in a skirmish game, the guardsmen can be competitive.

Who knows, maybe I'll be proved wrong and this new edition will get it 'right' but given GW's track record for bigger and better over the years, I expect another fudge between skirmish and epic...

I'm genuinely looking forward to some great reactions when it drops. Cheap eBay armies, grown men burning models. Can't wait.

 thenewgozoku wrote:
In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.

Ughh - horribe - much easier to have it on a unit card as is done is so many other games.

Quicker
more effective and intuative

Thebiggesthat wrote:
I'm genuinely looking forward to some great reactions when it drops. Cheap eBay armies, grown men burning models. Can't wait.

Don't forget about said grown men claim the company will close within ten months... only to go back (and play what they didn't like!) in six months.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 thenewgozoku wrote:
In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.

Ughh - horribe - much easier to have it on a unit card as is done is so many otehr games.

Quicker
more effective and intuative

Like AoS is doing now you mean. Good to have you on board

Lord Kragan wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:


It's statements like this that make it seem like people speak out on a game they've never played. I honestly don't see how AoS is less tactical than 40K, maybe less tactical than WHFB, and certainly differently tactical from 40K. Comparing it to hungry hippo or whatever children's game they can come up with just reeks of glanced at the four pages of rules maybe played a game or two before GHB and then said "f it".

Anyway, I still think Hungry Hippo is a fair comparison given that AoS deliberately dumbed down the rules to appeal to a younger audience, also shown by the ever larger and more over-designed models and being able to take all the toys and fluff be damned.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?

I'm not sure how watching someone play a game is going to help (or spend hours watching someone jabbering on about it)? As I mentioned earlier if you don't like Tennis but do like Badminton then you aren't suddenly going to change an opinion on it if the Tennis rules get tweaked here and there but fundamentally the rules are the same because it is more the fundamentals that determine the general mindset of a game. It's all a personal opinion, some things people will like, others won't (else things would be very boring?). I'll quite happily say that I don't really appreciate AoS because I find it lacks an ability to engage my brain - for whatever reason I can see any links between units relatively easily; whether that is because I spent hours when I was (much) younger looking over larger rulesets and how things might integrate is a possibility. Hence AoS for me is the game of last resort and usually I've drifted off after a 2-3 rounds and watching other peoples games of 40k or whatever and just let my opponent get on with it. But that's just me and other people have their own different perceptions. The issue will be for some people that they prefer not to have 40K go the AoS route even if they wish that some of the bloat in 40k currently is removed - for such people the concern is that the new 40k will become this simple *from their perspective*. However I'm less concerned because the thing that I learnt from WFB to AoS is that it allowed me to expand my horizons into other games that WFB had been filling. So I'm now collecting Dropfleet, All Quiet on the Martian Front, Gates of Antares, Armada and Xwing which I never really did before they cancelled WFB. This in some ways has enriched my gaming experience (the only thing I'm really missing is a type of mass ranked battle game but I can still play any of the WFB editions as the need arises) so I in some ways see the introduction of AoS as a positive experience and if 40k goes the same way then it's likely, for me, it will still be a positive experience, probably just not in the way GW would like.

I am optimistic about this announcement so far. Unlike AoS, I actually like the models and fluff of 40K it's just the game rules themselves that have been holding me back. Really, 7th edition is borderline unplayable right now for me.

The one huge miss though is the 3 ways to play. What a great opportunity for them to create 2 or 3 different systems for smaller or larger games, and instead they went the almost useless AoS route on this one. As long as 40K continues to use the same rules no matter the scale of the game it's never going to be as good as it could be.

People here are talking about different thinks

Deserve AoS the hate?
Yes up to a point, because the stuff you get for free is not the same game as with the rules you can buy.

So people who just know the free stuff have their opinion build on a different game as those that bought the books and played it

There us no way to change that problem if the secound group tells the first group that the game is fine and you don't need to buy stuff.


Now the question is will it be the same with 40k
that the free rules are bad and you need to buy books to get the actual game
and it will get the same problem, as those who just know the free stuff and think the game is bad will run into the hate of those who think the rules you can buy are perfect but still tell you that you don't need them

I have played AoS, of course because without testing them you cannot say anything about
But I already played a fantasy Skirmish and AoS does not add anything special to make it worth switching

But therefore I know, everyone who tell me that you don't need to buy rules for the game is talking bs is the free rules are just bad

dosiere wrote:
I am optimistic about this announcement so far. Unlike AoS, I actually like the models and fluff of 40K it's just the game rules themselves that have been holding me back. Really, 7th edition is borderline unplayable right now for me.

The one huge miss though is the 3 ways to play. What a great opportunity for them to create 2 or 3 different systems for smaller or larger games, and instead they went the almost useless AoS route on this one. As long as 40K continues to use the same rules no matter the scale of the game it's never going to be as good as it could be.

Exactly. Good post.

I don't expect a normal human in flak armour and armed only with a lasgun, to go toe to toe with super-human space marines or tough alien beasts or robots.

But a 20 man unit, with some heavy weapon and a commander, should at the least, be semi-competitive for a few turns. That's not too much to ask for in any game.

Years ago, I played Brettonians and enjoyed fielding the peasant models because they were very characterful. Again, I wasn't expecting them to go head to head with a bloodthirster, but if you buy and field a unit for any game system, there should be some return on that for the money spent and the time spent on assembling and painting them.

Again, that's not too much to ask from a game, and hopefully, this new edition will get the balance right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
People here are talking about different thinks

Deserve AoS the hate?
Yes up to a point, because the stuff you get for free is not the same game as with the rules you can buy.

So people who just know the free stuff have their opinion build on a different game as those that bought the books and played it

There us no way to change that problem if the secound group tells the first group that the game is fine and you don't need to buy stuff.


Now the question is will it be the same with 40k
that the free rules are bad and you need to buy books to get the actual game
and it will get the same problem, as those who just know the free stuff and think the game is bad will run into the hate of those who think the rules you can buy are perfect but still tell you that you don't need them

I have played AoS, of course because without testing them you cannot say anything about
But I already played a fantasy Skirmish and AoS does not add anything special to make it worth switching

But therefore I know, everyone who tell me that you don't need to buy rules for the game is talking bs is the free rules are just bad

Like I said on the AOS release thread a couple of years ago, when I buy a new car, I don't expect to have to turn up with a steering wheel and engine

If rules are free, then they should contain what you need. I have zero problem with a company saying 'you want our rules, then buy the book. Fair enough. But the free rules were pitched as the only thing you needed back then. There was no mention of having to buy a few more books to get the extra stuff you needed. It felt like a deception at the time if I'm being honest.

GW should come down on one side or another. Trying to go 50/50 just creates a mess IMO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Like I said on the AOS release thread a couple of years ago, when I buy a new car, I don't expect to have to turn up with a steering wheel and engine

If rules are free, then they should contain what you need. I have zero problem with a company saying 'you want our rules, then buy the book. Fair enough. But the free rules were pitched as the only thing you needed back then. There was no mention of having to buy a few more books to get the extra stuff you needed. It felt like a deception at the time if I'm being honest.

GW should come down on one side or another. Trying to go 50/50 just creates a mess IMO.

Yes, I feel like this is a huge part of what made AoS feel like GW was just punching all of us fantasy players in the gut. If they'd just done what they've been doing for the last year or so from the beginning and they'd been upfront about it it wouldn't have been such a crap parade. That is why I feel pretty comfortable with what is happening with 40K now 'cause it feels like GW actually has learned from their mistakes and actually want to do something good. Like if they release bare-bones rules for free but are clear that if you want things like points and scenarios you have to buy the rulebook which is what you would have done anyway.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
The FAQ gives me hope that the rules won't be dumbed down to the point of AoS simplicity, which has about as much tactical nuance as Hungry Hippo. Interesting that 40K could end up as the tactical choice after Fantasy held that title for so long.

AoS is tactically more in depth than 40k. You are confusing complicated combat resolution and dice rolling for no reason with skill/tactics.

Yup.

And 40k is seemingly using different rules from AoS - because we've been told it's likely to be 'charging units strike first', which is very different from AoS, where learning how to pick your fights is a significant challenge.

But hey. He's already confirmed he's barely played the game, so we'll just have to assume he's talking out his 'arris.

The core rules of AOS do not change with the GHB.
The warscrolls that define a unit in AOS do not change with the GHB.

The game is the same if you have the GHB or do not have the GHB.

Therefore yes the free version of the rules are the same.

The difference is the GHB has scenarios and put points on things. Points are one way to play. They are not the only play. I realize for some people, they think that they are the only way to play - but indeed they are not.

Ifyou want to play *with points* then yes you have to shell out that $25 for the GHB. I'll do that any day over the $100 giant tome from hell that you have to memorize.

I'm not into memorizing giant tomes of rules and needing a law degree to play a game anymore. I'd rather just play the game.

USRs all bundled into a huge tome, no thanks. I'm glad thats gone. I'm glad thats being burned in the fire. I much prefer the rules on cards in front of me for the units that I choose to take.

I got tired of having to have my nose in the rulebook in every game because either I misinterpreted or forgot one of the dozens of convoluted exceptions, or my opponent did and we had to spend time to see what was right.

Bring on the new 40k. Maybe I'll play it again.

WHY EMBER THINKS 8TH WILL BE ABOUT ALPHARIUS



Whats that fighting the Eagle? Oh yes, a snek.



Look! A blue space marine! Blue... LIKE ALPHA LEGION!

Voldus is a... GREY KNIGHT! Omegon was a... GREY KNIGHT (maybe).


Ok, I don't know. I just want the alpha legion to come back.

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
WHY EMBER THINKS 8TH WILL BE ABOUT ALPHARIUS



Whats that fighting the Eagle? Oh yes, a snek.



Look! A blue space marine! Blue... LIKE ALPHA LEGION!

Voldus is a... GREY KNIGHT! Omegon was a... GREY KNIGHT (maybe).


Ok, I don't know. I just want the alpha legion to come back.

The Alpha Legion are no more gone than any other faction in 40k. What do you mean by "come back" - they've not gone anywhere?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?

Thanks; I've actually watched a fair few games just to confirm what I thought from reading the rules and, yes, I was right, it's an absolute abortion of a game. Hopefully 40K doesn't go down that route.

Can you quit using that as a metaphor, please?

 auticus wrote:
The core rules of AOS do not change with the GHB.
The warscrolls that define a unit in AOS do not change with the GHB.

The game is the same if you have the GHB or do not have the GHB.

of course they call it houserules and say you don't need to use them
I have never seen an AoS game that ignore bases instead of using the GHB rules, to use them fir measuring

and this alone makes it a complete different game and than we are talking about summoning etc.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:

 thenewgozoku wrote:
In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.

Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.

You can have a finite set of USR and still have them all in the units' individual description. I tend to prefer that over a "special snowflake rules for every unit so now I have to learn all my stuff plus all the stuff of my opponents to be able to make informed decisions" approach greatly, thank you very much.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

So how about you go and educate yourself rather than keep on with this misconception?

Thanks; I've actually watched a fair few games just to confirm what I thought from reading the rules and, yes, I was right, it's an absolute abortion of a game. Hopefully 40K doesn't go down that route.

You might as well be holding a sign that says CONFIRMATION BIAS. It's objectively better than 40k 7th. Simplicity does not equate to something being a children's game, this was covered on dakka in 2015.

This has many people who had moved on from 40k (myself included) back and hopeful.

and this alone makes it a complete different game and than we are talking about summoning etc.

No argument. But it was said that this was NEEDED to play the game.

When no - no its not needed. It is a set of house rules. If its universally adopted set of house rules, thats great but its still a set of house rules.

And not everyone uses the matched play rules for summoning. I know a lot of people that do not or have their own version of summoning restrictions.

What AOS' release did do was shatter the assumption that everyone must use the same rules. It made official the concept of optional rules, much like old RPGs back in the day did (ex: D&D's Unearthed Arcana).

The CORE rules remain the same regardless. The optional stuff about summoning etc apply only to one format.

THe only one real universal house rule i've noted are bases, and you hardly need to buy the $25 GHB to use base to base contact.

 Albertorius wrote:

 TheDraconicLord wrote:

 thenewgozoku wrote:
In AoS all the complex rules are on the units witch i would prefer to be USR to save time.

Gods, no, that means you have to carry around an extra bible just for those. AoS uses the same idea as skirmish games, with rules on unit's cards. It's much easier to carry around 10 or less sheets of paper with rules or actual proper cards (search around, they already created some) with the rules than the BRB.

You can have a finite set of USR and still have them all in the units' individual description. I tend to prefer that over a "special snowflake rules for every unit so now I have to learn all my stuff plus all the stuff of my opponents to be able to make informed decisions" approach greatly, thank you very much.

Personally I'm of the opinion that special rules should be, well, special. Leave them for units that actually have something unique about them rather than handing them out to every unit in the game (or multiple to every unit in the game).

Though I agree with the idea of having a finite set of special rules that are printed both in the rulebook somewhere and also in the unit's description. Likewise you can have weapon lists in the rulebook, but still have the weapon stats on the unit's datasheet so you don't have to go flipping through multiple books.