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.

 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.

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.

If these warscrolls are so good for the game, why haven't they got the points on? Making people buy a book that they can change a few numbers in each year is a bigger scam than re-releasing a codex every 4 years.

Warscrolls/datasheets should have *all* the info on. Books can have the fluff, painting guides and new scenarios. Surely that would make more sense. If points change, update the warscroll pdf on the webpage as it's needed.

Surely having people spend 'book money' on extra models is more profit making.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 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.

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.

If these warscrolls are so good for the game, why haven't they got the points on? Making people buy a book that they can change a few numbers in each year is a bigger scam than re-releasing a codex every 4 years.

Warscrolls/datasheets should have *all* the info on. Books can have the fluff, painting guides and new scenarios. Surely that would make more sense. If points change, update the warscroll pdf on the webpage as it's needed.

Surely having people spend 'book money' on extra models is more profit making.

http://www.scrollbuilder.com/ There you go, now you don't have to buy the books.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:


If these warscrolls are so good for the game, why haven't they got the points on? Making people buy a book that they can change a few numbers in each year is a bigger scam than re-releasing a codex every 4 years.

Warscrolls/datasheets should have *all* the info on. Books can have the fluff, painting guides and new scenarios. Surely that would make more sense. If points change, update the warscroll pdf on the webpage as it's needed.

Surely having people spend 'book money' on extra models is more profit making.

Points are not on warscrolls because that would make it impractical to change a large portion of them at once.

Oh, and the points are free on GW's scrollbuilder.com, which I've already pointed out several times in this thread. But i guess you were too busy making hyperbolic statements to notice.

 auticus wrote:

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.

you also don't need to buy the 40k rules as everyone can tell you what your marines can do...

but more seriously the if people are argue that AoS is bad, and others still claim that you don't need to buy, than you cannot argue against it because the game is bad
and using your own set of house rules is no argument, as the main advantage of GW games is that you can play them everywhere because all are using the same rules.
is soon as each club has their own rules, there is no reason anymore to play GW games at all, as using rules just for your local group, you can use everything better out there
and if you want to play tournaments or events, each having their own rules, you can also go to other game events because building an army and use it on every event is not possible if each use different rules.

thats why the Handbook sold so well, because one unique source if house rules brings the advantage over other games back
and that is also the reason why 40k is not the main game here any more, as tournaments have their own rules and especially here they have restrictions so that only hardcore players like them

 Whirlwind wrote:
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.

How is Gates of Antares?
Have you given Kings of War a go for your mass battle rank and flank game itch? It plays better than it reads and I would highly recommend it.

Back on topic. It's important to note that different games provide different experiences and focus on different aspects (exciting, being balanced, being casual, etc) and therefore appeal to different players. There is noting wrong with avoiding a game because it is not to your taste, deciding and shouting that it's a bad game because of that is not cool.
The current Warhammers seem to be more focused on epic battles starring your mini's (think idea is form an interview?) than being serious test of one player's mind against the other (not say no skill is involved), which can be good fun for a certain kind of player.
Which is one of the reasons I think 40k 8th will be received better than AoS (in addition to better marketing, customer interaction and having testes ideas already) is that 40k is already largely such a game, so it will be much less of a shock as the type of player it appeals to will not change (one might say it will be "recognisably still Warhammer 40,000")

Hm i don't think so.

As AOS was released we got the Warscroll and most of them are also still valid.
And you don't have to buy the Generals Handbook, as it only gives you the points and some Houserules.

You can get the points everywhere on the internet.

40k is and was a different story. You need to buy the rulebook, without it you don't know most of the rules, not how far your models move, on which modifier they shoot or how to resolve close combat.

Also old Fantasy was also heavily Houseruled by tournaments and nobody played a different game if they showed up.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

 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.

This argument seems to be rather people meaning different things when they say tactics or strategies. Comparing AoS to say, Bolt Action, I'd say is a good place to start. In Bolt Action, I always feel like there are meaningful and game -state changing choices to make throughout every round, irrespective of my list or the way dice are rolled. Between the order dice, the available actions, careful use of terrain, and the pinning system there are lots of decisions to be made and consequences to consider every round in Bolt Action. I don't feel this way during a game of AoS usually, and here is why:

After a game of Bolt Action, I often think to myself "I should have gone to cover in round 3 with that unit rather than risk that dash over open ground, or I should have been more patient/aggressive advancing up the right flank there, why did I not use my machine gun team to cover my tank advancing using an ambush dice that round, I could have stopped that panzerfaust team if I had just done x, why didn't I use my officer on my first activation to activate that unit as well instead of my tank..." etc...

After a game of AoS, I think things like "man, if only I had won that random roll for initiative on turn 2, I need to use formation x next time, if only I had rolled better for that charge distance with my knights, I can't believe II only rolled 1 wound with my cannon that round, etc...."

It's not to say you aren't making decisions in both games, but the way AoS is designed (from the way units interact and the small amount of things during the game that actually change the way the game is played like the almost nonexistant terrain rules) most of those choices come down to inititatve rolls, charge distances, and pre-game synergies made during the list building phase.

Both games can be fun, but I can't bring myself to say AoS is full of interesting tactical choices along the same lines of a game like Bolt Action, WFB, 40K (sometimes), etc... Doesn't make AoS a bad game, in fact it doesn't even have to be a negative. One of the reasons I have come to enjoy AoS finally is that I can just admire the models, roll some dice, and not have to navigate my way through five rulebooks/codexes, a forty page FAQ, how 5 different special rules interact with each other to create an illogical outcome, etc...

My hope is that this new edition of 40K manages to capture the more casual play of AoS while still making it feel like a sci-fi wargame of meaningful decisions, which I know a copy-paste of the current AoS rules would not do for me.

Hm, but in 40k it also do come to such random dice rolls or if you had this psy power or why did my oponent save all his saving throws etc.

So i think 40k is also in the same category as AOS. It has also not that much tactical choices if you play a game.

I think most people forget, that the Gamesworkshop Games are not that hyper tactical, if compared to other games or companies.

 Whirlwind wrote:

My main concern is that I'm wondering just how sustainable two games that are almost identical are. I don't think 40k will have to worry and isn't likely to have the same blowback as for WFB - it is still going to be a skirmish game, but if they are fundamentally the same game then I'd question why people would start AoS instead when there is a larger gaming group of 40k players to join. There's a risk that the two games cannibalise off each other.

40k started as an expansion of the already existing WFB and it's still here, 30 years later (and, let's face it, the rules for both had always been more similar than different.)

 DarkBlack wrote:

How is Gates of Antares?

it is good, more like Bolt Action in space but I prefer Warpath FireFight

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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.

Oh, I agree. The amount of special rules on units for the current edition looks simply stupid, IMHO. Most core units should have enough with stats & equipment to be defined, with maybe a general army rule, while leaving special rules for, you know, special units.

Sorta like back in 3rd, maybe?

Are the Bolt Action rules free?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
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.

THIS. The basic statline should be built to cover most things you need to know. Special Rules to be actually special.

Some good points made here. I would be over the moon if 40k went down the route of Bolt Action (a game I really want to get into asap). Think about the weapons too. In bolt action you have a profile for a pistol, rifle, sub-machine gun etc. Everyone is using the same weapons, so you can't get more balanced than that. Now obviously 40k can't exactly do that on account of the variety of weaponry it has, but it might be able to do something close to it. But at this point I'm just speculating.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Are the Bolt Action rules free?

just the quick reference sheet

I don't understand why GW thinks someone will not spend more than thirty minutes to read the rules
but will spend hours assembling and painting their miniatures..

Are all the miniatures going to two piece models that are snap fit? Don't want the customer
base spending to much time with their new hobby... Just seems like two different ideas mixed.

When I first got into GWs games.. I wanted a big massive rule book, proving that I could do things
that was difficult.. but thinking every customer has an attention of a gnat may end up hurting them.

Look at how well Shadow Wars sold and the rules are actually seem quite long compared to AoS
but I feel it makes for a better game.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 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.

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".

Sorry, I didn't know I needed to eat dog gak to know it tastes bad...

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Some good points made here. I would be over the moon if 40k went down the route of Bolt Action (a game I really want to get into asap). Think about the weapons too. In bolt action you have a profile for a pistol, rifle, sub-machine gun etc. Everyone is using the same weapons, so you can't get more balanced than that. Now obviously 40k can't exactly do that on account of the variety of weaponry it has, but it might be able to do something close to it. But at this point I'm just speculating.

If I were you, I'd be ordering a Bolt Action rulebook right now.

Bloody good game, and the authors' track records speak for themselves.

And on the plus side, there is no copyright on WW2 stuff, so there are a ton of companies out there making the minis at competitive prices, and Warlords' own range is pretty good as well.

Lord Kragan wrote:

http://www.scrollbuilder.com/ There you go, now you don't have to buy the books.

 Mymearan wrote:

Points are not on warscrolls because that would make it impractical to change a large portion of them at once.
Oh, and the points are free on GW's scrollbuilder.com, which I've already pointed out several times in this thread. But i guess you were too busy making hyperbolic statements to notice.

Wow, You guys really are too predictable. I make a comment on how I personally would like something to be in nu40k, and you guys take it as a slur about AoS and get all defensive.
Even Lord Kragan's one line comment giving out a useful piece of information to me, came across as an offensive dig.

My thoughts still stand... if I'm army building, I want to have my warscrolls in front of me. I want to see what the stats/abilities are and how many points they're worth. I don't want to keep opening another book, or going up to my computer to open a webpage, just to look up points. It's not about me being cheap and wanting stuff for free. As it happens, I like the system of having a core hardback rulebook with basic (get you by) stats at the back, and a single army book with all the details in. Also, last week I managed to get my hands on the Genestealer Cults hardback. I haven't had a game of 40k for 2 years,. but I still buy models now and again and get some of the books for the info. Nor will I complain my GSC book is out of date within 2 months of me buying it. The fluff and pics were all I wanted it for and I'll still have them.

I have no problems with AoS or your love of it. Yes, it's introduction killed off my WFB armies as they were, but it made me play other games and try other models/manufacturerers. The AoSifying of Fantasy openened my eyes to a whole world of much better games. If nu40k happens to be in that category of good games, I'll be back playing it and buying more stuff.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

http://www.scrollbuilder.com/ There you go, now you don't have to buy the books.

 Mymearan wrote:

Points are not on warscrolls because that would make it impractical to change a large portion of them at once.
Oh, and the points are free on GW's scrollbuilder.com, which I've already pointed out several times in this thread. But i guess you were too busy making hyperbolic statements to notice.

Wow, You guys really are too predictable. I make a comment on how I personally would like something to be in nu40k, and you guys take it as a slur about AoS and get all defensive.
Even Lord Kragan's one line comment giving out a useful piece of information to me, came across as an offensive dig.

Well, it's not my fault if you have a skin too thin to bear people pointing things up an actually valid point.

As I said yesterday, for every poster calling AOS an abortion, there's another with a stick up their behind who will jump down your throats at even the slightest perceived criticism.

This needs to stop, it drags things off topic and buries any meaningful discussion.

 Azreal13 wrote:
As I said yesterday, for every poster calling AOS an abortion, there's another with a stick up their behind who will jump down your throats at even the slightest perceived criticism.

This needs to stop, it drags things off topic and buries any meaningful discussion.

The thing is that there's barely any meat to make meaningful distinction: everything that really deserved being talked about was done so in the first 4-5 pages and then it degraded into a massive bickering-fest between fans and detractors.

Ruin wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 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.

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".

Sorry, I didn't know I needed to eat dog gak to know it tastes bad...

So I take it you haven't played AoS then?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If I were you, I'd be ordering a Bolt Action rulebook right now.

Bloody good game, and the authors' track records speak for themselves.

And on the plus side, there is no copyright on WW2 stuff, so there are a ton of companies out there making the minis at competitive prices, and Warlords' own range is pretty good as well.

I just got stung for new glasses but I will definitely pick it up soon.

On a side note has a potential release date come forward, I was sure I recall someone raising a holiday ban for GW staff in June, but can't find it on the boards?

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
On a side note has a potential release date come forward, I was sure I recall someone raising a holiday ban for GW staff in June, but can't find it on the boards?

Yes. Weeks 3-10 of june if memory serves right. Which makes me wonder what will be going on this may.

@Gimgamgoo

For me the positives of having the points seperate to the warscrolls far outweighs any negatives. Surely you can appreciate having the points seperate and all in one book means GW can rebalance every faction at once without needing to re-edit every single Warscroll (which would also make pages and pages of your Battletome out-of-date too).

This is something WHFB never had, instead armies would be stuck with the same points values for years and even across editions. I like the new system much better.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
As I said yesterday, for every poster calling AOS an abortion, there's another with a stick up their behind who will jump down your throats at even the slightest perceived criticism.

This needs to stop, it drags things off topic and buries any meaningful discussion.

The thing is that there's barely any meat to make meaningful distinction: everything that really deserved being talked about was done so in the first 4-5 pages and then it degraded into a massive bickering-fest between fans and detractors.

Then the solution is to say nothing, let the thread drop off the front page and then re-engage when there's something new. Not bicker about the merits of AOS, which has been the subject of 3 in thread warnings that I've seen.

Yeah I don't want to turn it into a debate about the merits of AoS. The only thing is, I haven't heard any news or rumors either, so all I have to offer is speculation and wish listing.

 Bottle wrote:
@Gimgamgoo

For me the positives of having the points seperate to the warscrolls far outweighs any negatives. Surely you can appreciate having the points seperate and all in one book means GW can rebalance every faction at once without needing to re-edit every single Warscroll (which would also make pages and pages of your Battletome out-of-date too).

This is something WHFB never had, instead armies would be stuck with the same points values for years and even across editions. I like the new system much better.

Quite clearly it works ok for you and I don't have experience of AoS with points. I just thought editing a number on a pdf and uploading it over an old version would be less hassle than reprinting an entire book for GW. Cheaper for us as well.

Surely GW is better off with us spending £30 on figures than £30 on a book. The profit margins on a sprue of plastic has to be significantly higher than on a book.

BTW that AoS army builder looks nice. Let's hope nuGW keep it free and not on some subsciption service like they would have done a few years ago.

On the 40k facebook page they said that the new site have easter eggs for things to come