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.

I'm gonna preface this by saying I am looking forward to 8th and I think it's going to be great.

That said there is a reason not everyone plays AoS. I see a lot of AoS players saying 'it's great in AoS, there is no problem' whenever someone dislikes a change.

There is a fair argument to be made that people who didn't want to play AoS and chose to play 40k now don't have much of a choice, and that would be very frustrating to me.

Another fair point is why we need two game systems that are virtually identical? I know even during WHFB they weren't exactly dissimilar, but never before have the rules been this samey.

I mean when describing the difference between the games to a new comer am I really going to say 'well if you like rolling against toughness pick 40k, otherwise pick AoS'?

 insaniak wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Why would an app be more irritating than a book?

Slower, generally.

You should download the AoS app and try it, it's free. It's certainly no wonder of interface design, in fact it's a bit ugly, but it's fast and allows you to pin warscrolls in one section (called "My Battle") where you can quickly access them during the game. It's no slower than a book and arguably faster depending on how well you know your book. It's certainly faster than 7th edition codices where army wide special rules, unit special rules, and weapon profiles were all on different pages (not to mention USRs and many of the weapons had to be looked up in the main rule book).

 Mymearan wrote:
Why would an app be more irritating than a book?

It depends on how efficient the app is made and how well the phone/tablet/electronic device can load files. Personally, I can flick through a book to look up a rule faster than I can on any of my devices.

When we do look up rules, it's usually for some obscure interaction that comes up so rarely in the game, we just can't remember it. There's a difference between that and consistently checking a unique degradation table to find out how many attacks a creature has with each of its different weapons from constant wound loss.

Mind, our group doesn't play with formations and we incorporate all rules for each army into a single doc file so our version of 7th is bloat-light compared to average standards.

I would def agree that phones and the like are a right pain and slow the game down. I print out any stats/army cards etc I need - also much easier to hand over a sheet and let my opponent read it.

BUT

Having played both AOS and 7th ed - the way that the rules for individual units are handled in AOS is significantly easier to understand, remember and reference.

Now that GW have finally managed to start producing card packs for their armies - this should become even easier.

Neronoxx wrote:
Love how people are complaining about 8th being too difficult to learn/remember.

Except that's not what people are saying. They're saying that every unit having bespoke rules males a game harder to learn than one that uses universal rules. It's comparative, not an absolute statement.

These same people must not realize that they play a game where their space marine has 2-3 rules for their unit type, 2-3 for the color they are painted, 1 for being battlefirged, 2-3 for the formation they are in, 2-3 for the formation that formation is in, and the relics they use, psychic power's each different psyker..

No, some of us realise that just fine, and it's one of the reasons that some of us didn't play 7th ed.

The app versus book is a bit of a moot point being as they have already said they will be producing books too, no?

 Grinshanks wrote:
I'm gonna preface this by saying I am looking forward to 8th and I think it's going to be great.

That said there is a reason not everyone plays AoS. I see a lot of AoS players saying 'it's great in AoS, there is no problem' whenever someone dislikes a change.

There is a fair argument to be made that people who didn't want to play AoS and chose to play 40k now don't have much of a choice, and that would be very frustrating to me.

Another fair point is why we need two game systems that are virtually identical? I know even during WHFB they weren't exactly dissimilar, but never before have the rules been this samey.

I mean when describing the difference between the games to a new comer am I really going to say 'well if you like rolling against toughness pick 40k, otherwise pick AoS'?

That's a valid point. However, if someone says "this new rule is probably going to mean this, this and this" we can point to AoS and say "actually, that rule is also in AoS, and it resulted in that, that and that".

 Mymearan wrote:
I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.

There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.

Where is this 'bespoke' term coming from, I talk pretty good English and I had to look it up.

Are we being deliberately pretentious or something?

 Grinshanks wrote:
The app versus book is a bit of a moot point being as they have already said they will be producing books too, no?

Given that the discussion was about the app being a better option than flicking through the book, no, not really...

The way the AoS app works, you are always 2 taps away from accessing the rules of any unit in your army. I use an iPad mini for it and it is great in my opinion.

I understand the points people are making, but you need to understand there are 2 different ways to build a streamlined game and they are at opposite ends of a spectrum.

One is to build it bottom-up, with a tight set list of USRs that all units in the game can draw from. In these sorts of games balance can easier as there are less variables, there is also less to remember overall. The downside is the lack of flavour. KoW is a prime example of this. Some players love the simple ruleset that all units draw from, others think it is bland compared to traditional WHFB or AoS.

On the other side of the spectrum you have games that are streamlined top-down. AoS and 40k 8th have a simple core set of rules and all the special rules are devolved to the unit as bespoke rules. This means you have a bit more to remember than a game focused around USRs but the advantage is all the design-space the game opens up. When creating new units for USR based games you have a limited set of tools, when creating units for a bespoke unit game you can really let the story and lore of the miniatures dictate the rules.

And that's what has always been at the core of GW games, recreating the background and lore on the table top. The approach they are taking gives them unlimited potential for new unit rules without clogging up the main system (i.e. if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).

Both are streamlined, both have pros and cons. It sucks if you wanted a tight USR led game, because that's not what 40k is going to be. On the other hand there are lots of people who prefer to have bespoke unit rules that allow for greater variety and flavour that sits on top of the simple core mechanics in a modular nature.

Except that's not what people are saying. They're saying that every unit having bespoke rules males a game harder to learn than one that uses universal rules. It's comparative, not an absolute statement.

If they follow the AOS style then it will usually be a few rules per unit and they are mostly dice modifiers. Having all the information in once place as a electronic or (preferably) physical data card has, in my experience made things much simpler in both AOS and other systems.

One of the other complaints previously has been that all units are the same - again the ability to make minor (or indeed major) adjustments using each units data card means that the flavour and uniqueness of various units can be maintained but in a (IMO) easily accessed and intuitive way.

Bottle's answer is much better - see above

SeanDrake wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.

There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.

Well, it's you so it's obvious you'll go for the bile.

 insaniak wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.

The simpler system where each unit uses unique special rules rather than having standardised universal rules? Yeah, that'll be no problem to memorise...

Yeah, where every unit also had special rules specific for their faction and universal special rules some of which gave other special rules.

Gonna be seriously harder to keep track of when every piece of information will be found in the unit description.

 Bottle wrote:
The way the AoS app works, you are always 2 taps away from accessing the rules of any unit in your army. I use an iPad mini for it and it is great in my opinion.

I understand the points people are making, but you need to understand there are 2 different ways to build a streamlined game and they are at opposite ends of a spectrum.

One is to build it bottom-up, with a tight set list of USRs that all units in the game can draw from. In these sorts of games balance can easier as there are less variables, there is also less to remember overall. The downside is the lack of flavour. KoW is a prime example of this. Some players love the simple ruleset that all units draw from, others think it is bland compared to traditional WHFB or AoS.

On the other side of the spectrum you have games that are streamlined top-down. AoS and 40k 8th have a simple core set of rules and all the special rules are devolved to the unit as bespoke rules. This means you have a bit more to remember than a game focused around USRs but the advantage is all the design-space the game opens up. When creating new units for USR based games you have a limited set of tools, when creating units for a bespoke unit game you can really let the story and lore of the miniatures dictate the rules.

And that's what has always been at the core of GW games, recreating the background and lore on the table top. The approach they are taking gives them unlimited potential for new unit rules without clogging up the main system (i.e. if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).

Both are streamlined, both have pros and cons. It sucks if you wanted a tight USR led game, because that's not what 40k is going to be. On the other hand there are lots of people who prefer to have bespoke unit rules that allow for greater variety and flavour that sits on top of the simple core mechanics in a modular nature.

Exactly. There's a third way also: You put in such a huge amount of USRs that you can still get that flavour of using bespoke rules. Song of Blade and Heroes does this, but only because you can create your own units and USRs are integral to that system. It is pretty cumbersome and leads to a lot of bookflipping since there's no way you can remember all those rules. 40k 7th does this PLUS it uses a ton of bespoke rules, so it's really the worst of both worlds. 40k 8th takes my prefered approach, which is the flavourful one with all bespoke rules that are all in one place which minimizes bookflipping (dakka word of the month?) 40k has such a huge spectrum of units, from Grots to Warlord Titans, that a USR system will most likely become unbearably bloated... which is exactly what happened to 7th.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grinshanks wrote:
The app versus book is a bit of a moot point being as they have already said they will be producing books too, no?

Given that the discussion was about the app being a better option than flicking through the book, no, not really...

I think I misread the discussion as people thinking they'd have to use the app or warscrolls only

There's also the layout of AoS books.

All the unit cards are bundled together toward the back of the book, and you usually see two or three to a page - it's only the biggest and spangliest of units that need a page to themselves.

Already, that's much easier to navigate mid-game than current 40k layout, where the units are spread out to a page each in the middle of the book, the armoury is it's own section, and formations also on different pages.

Trust us. Those who play AoS have been playing this way for a while now, and it's a doddle compared to 40k!

 insaniak wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
Love how people are complaining about 8th being too difficult to learn/remember.

Except that's not what people are saying. They're saying that every unit having bespoke rules males a game harder to learn than one that uses universal rules. It's comparative, not an absolute statement.

It also depends on the quantity of rules to remember. Let's take 2 examples, 40k with users USR's, and X-Wing where every named model has bespoke rules:



6 USR's, 3 bespoke rules on the models themselves, plus a full table to remember, plus whatever USR's and special rules on the weaponry/transport. And those rules are in 3 different books.



1 bespoke rule.

X-Wing is not harder to learn than 7th due to it's use of bespoke rules.

In 8th tho, half of the Wulfen special rules could be factored into it's stat line, a couple binned as they're generally unneeded, leaving say 3 on the unit card itself, plus still maybe the table to represent their unpredictability. All bespoke rules yes but all presented in the same place, on the same small card (or app if you're that way inclined). Far better than currently, despite not using USR's.

To show how useful the AoS app is in game, here's a quick example where I've got my scenario rules, army special rules, and unit rules (taken from multiple books) specifically tailored to my army all in one place. Tapping on any of these will show their rules in full, and the app also ties them together like a custom made book for scrolling too, with the core AoS rules tagged on the end (which are also directly accessible via one tap on the rules button in the footer). You could even add your opponent's units in there too if you wanted.

It's so much faster and handier than having multiple physical books, filled with content irrelevant to your game, and handier than printing it all out too. Here's hoping the 40K app is as good!

For me, the only failing of the AoS App is that, at least currently, there's no way to tell it that I own the physical copy of each book (and I do own all of them. Even the Dreadfort one) - so short of repurchasing via the App, I have no access to the premium content.

Which is a pain.

But, it's something I and I'm sure others regularly hassle GW on. I'm far from IT literate, but it strikes me that the programming side of that may be quite easy, but the trick is how to distribute the codes. I'm not even asking for a free digital copy, just that the premium content is unlocked.

I get people preferring physical cards or books rather than a phone or tablet, and that's fine. But 7th's abomination of rules for an army being in 4 books and 27 diffferent places had to go. Unit cards, whether physical or on an app is so much better, i cannot understand any argument that prefers the current way that 7th does it in comparison.

 Bottle wrote:
if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
.

I don't understand how you would put together an effective army using this approach, frankly. Knowing what other armies are capable of is kind of integral to forming strategy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:
I get people preferring physical cards or books rather than a phone or tablet, and that's fine. But 7th's abomination of rules for an army being in 4 books and 27 diffferent places had to go. Unit cards, whether physical or on an app is so much better, i cannot understand any argument that prefers the current way that 7th does it in comparison.

I don't think anyone is holding 7th ed up as a paragon of spectacular games design.

There's nothing about having individual unit cards with all of a units rules on them that intrinsically requires bespoke rules rather than USRs, though. WotC's Star Wars Miniatures game, for example, had unit cards with full rules, and must of those rules were specifically written to be generic, so that they could be reused for other units where appropriate. They also included a Glossary of every special rule in the rulebook, which was updated periodically to catch new releases.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

If you're really capable of playing Warhammer 40k: My Big Fat Geek Edition without cracking a book during the game than I doubt you'll have much trouble memorizing 8th's simpler rules.

The simpler system where each unit uses unique special rules rather than having standardised universal rules? Yeah, that'll be no problem to memorise...

Yeah, where every unit also had special rules specific for their faction and universal special rules some of which gave other special rules.

Gonna be seriously harder to keep track of when every piece of information will be found in the unit description.

With USRs you have to remember every rule, with bespoke you only have to remember the one you're using.

Plenty of people have used both systems, even plenty of people here and the vast majority think that the unit card system is easier to digest.

This is something that is hard to understand until you experience because yes, it SEEMS like it SHOULD be more complex but actually ends up quite a bit simpler. Most sigmar players can sit down to a game with an entirely new army and have a pretty solid understanding about how everything works by top of turn two; and no it's not because it lacks options.

 insaniak wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
.

I don't understand how you would put together an effective army using this approach, frankly. Knowing what other armies are capable of is kind of integral to forming strategy.

You're right that you might want to know them. And this is again supported by GWs model in AoS of making all warscrolls available for free.

It isn't a necessity to learn the unit rules however, or any USRs that might not impact your game.

Lord Kragan wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think you guys are looking for a problem where none exists. The bespoke degradation system is one of the most beloved features of AoS. It's now in 40k because of that.

There was me thinking it was in mostly because they could not be bothered designing and maintaining a fully functioning rule set alongside AoS.

Well, it's you so it's obvious you'll go for the bile.

What's that I cannot hear you over the sound of hooves.

Ok let me.round up the issues and opinons I have regarding why AoS provides no benefits to 40k.

People have an issue with USR'S being to complicated or being superseded by codexs and some units having similar rules with different names - AoS' s solution is to give every unit similar rules with different names and Basic stuff with similar names and different rules. So no actual benefit there and with them going to 40k style codexs I would guess it will get worse.

40k had a fully functioning morale and pinning system that actually works fine as anyone who plays 30k can confirm the issues we're down to GW making over half the armies completely immune to it. - AoS you have nothing but a dice roll and remove models.

Sorry 19mth old son wants to play(we tried AoS was to simple for him ;p)

So when they talked about chaos there was no mention of possessed... but GW has been struggling to find a way to move those crappy models every way they could short of giving them decent rules. You guys think they finally gave up on them or you think they are going to make them overpowered?

 Bottle wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).
.

I don't understand how you would put together an effective army using this approach, frankly. Knowing what other armies are capable of is kind of integral to forming strategy.

You're right that you might want to know them. And this is again supported by GWs model in AoS of making all warscrolls available for free.

It isn't a necessity to learn the unit rules however, or any USRs that might not impact your game.

Also, because the rules don't interact with other rules, other than deliberate and specific buffs, you only have to learn that one scroll, which means you can focus more on getting an idea of what the unit does rather than having to pick apart the wording for every possible crazy combo.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The way the AoS app works, you are always 2 taps away from accessing the rules of any unit in your army. I use an iPad mini for it and it is great in my opinion.

I understand the points people are making, but you need to understand there are 2 different ways to build a streamlined game and they are at opposite ends of a spectrum.

One is to build it bottom-up, with a tight set list of USRs that all units in the game can draw from. In these sorts of games balance can easier as there are less variables, there is also less to remember overall. The downside is the lack of flavour. KoW is a prime example of this. Some players love the simple ruleset that all units draw from, others think it is bland compared to traditional WHFB or AoS.

On the other side of the spectrum you have games that are streamlined top-down. AoS and 40k 8th have a simple core set of rules and all the special rules are devolved to the unit as bespoke rules. This means you have a bit more to remember than a game focused around USRs but the advantage is all the design-space the game opens up. When creating new units for USR based games you have a limited set of tools, when creating units for a bespoke unit game you can really let the story and lore of the miniatures dictate the rules.

And that's what has always been at the core of GW games, recreating the background and lore on the table top. The approach they are taking gives them unlimited potential for new unit rules without clogging up the main system (i.e. if they aren't on the table in front of you never need to learn their rules).

Both are streamlined, both have pros and cons. It sucks if you wanted a tight USR led game, because that's not what 40k is going to be. On the other hand there are lots of people who prefer to have bespoke unit rules that allow for greater variety and flavour that sits on top of the simple core mechanics in a modular nature.

Exactly. There's a third way also: You put in such a huge amount of USRs that you can still get that flavour of using bespoke rules. Song of Blade and Heroes does this, but only because you can create your own units and USRs are integral to that system. It is pretty cumbersome and leads to a lot of bookflipping since there's no way you can remember all those rules. 40k 7th does this PLUS it uses a ton of bespoke rules, so it's really the worst of both worlds. 40k 8th takes my prefered approach, which is the flavourful one with all bespoke rules that are all in one place which minimizes bookflipping (dakka word of the month?) 40k has such a huge spectrum of units, from Grots to Warlord Titans, that a USR system will most likely become unbearably bloated... which is exactly what happened to 7th.

Batman Miniature Game is also a horrible example of making bespoke rules as usr:s. You have card for every model, but then have to search every rule from two books. In addition some of them are weapon abilities, some attacks, some skills, etc. which are all in their separate sections in the books (that naturally don't have an index). Infinity is as bad, but it also has fair share of usr's that give out other usr's, and in addition different levels of these usr's that stack, except some rules that don't stack. In addition the (2ed book) book was edited quite interestingly. It was quite a feat to learn to play the game from the book without anyone to teach the rules. And I would say that 6/7th edition 40k is even worse, except at least the rulebooks were indexed.

macluvin wrote:
So when they talked about chaos there was no mention of possessed... but GW has been struggling to find a way to move those crappy models every way they could short of giving them decent rules. You guys think they finally gave up on them or you think they are going to make them overpowered?

To be fair, it wasn't GW talking about Chaos.

 Mymearan wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Why would an app be more irritating than a book?

Slower, generally.

You should download the AoS app and try it, it's free.

Can't, I don't have any device which could use it.

7th edition Codices were badly laid out, yes, even when compared to previous ones. Feels like building an army takes 2 times longer than in 5th edition.