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 haven't played any AoS, but I have read that they price models in blocks. So instead of 1 ork costing 5 points 5 orks might cost 25.

Not only does this simplify the costing of units but it lets you change the points cost of each model in a more granular way e.g. 5 orks could cost 28 points but 1 ork couldn't cost 5.6 points!

 Kroem wrote:
I haven't played any AoS, but I have read that they price models in blocks. So instead of 1 ork costing 5 points 5 orks might cost 25.

Not only does this simplify the costing of units but it lets you change the points cost of each model in a more granular way e.g. 5 orks could cost 28 points but 1 ork couldn't cost 5.6 points!

Maybe by a competent ruler writer but not by GW. Believe me is much worse.

One example is the box of the Nurgle Knights in giant flyes. The box comes with two. You can make one a hero. But if you make one a hero, you'll need to make the other a hero or you won't be able to use it properly because the basic unit is bought in pairs.

 Kroem wrote:
I haven't played any AoS, but I have read that they price models in blocks. So instead of 1 ork costing 5 points 5 orks might cost 25.

Not only does this simplify the costing of units but it lets you change the points cost of each model in a more granular way e.g. 5 orks could cost 28 points but 1 ork couldn't cost 5.6 points!

What if I want to run 14 orks so I can free up the points to get my warboss a power klaw?

Points per model is better for granularity. I almost always run irregularly sized unit in horde lists because I shave points off here and there to use them elsewhere.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
I haven't played any AoS, but I have read that they price models in blocks. So instead of 1 ork costing 5 points 5 orks might cost 25.

Not only does this simplify the costing of units but it lets you change the points cost of each model in a more granular way e.g. 5 orks could cost 28 points but 1 ork couldn't cost 5.6 points!

What if I want to run 14 orks so I can free up the points to get my warboss a power klaw?

Points per model is better for granularity. I almost always run irregularly sized unit in horde lists because I shave points off here and there to use them elsewhere.

Yea its a fair point that you wouldn't be able to do stuff like that. For me that's not something I would miss, although I imagine some would.
Also I imagine it would (slightly) contribute to taking the emphasis away from the list building stage of 40k, which is too dominant at present.

 Kroem wrote:
I haven't played any AoS, but I have read that they price models in blocks. So instead of 1 ork costing 5 points 5 orks might cost 25.

Not only does this simplify the costing of units but it lets you change the points cost of each model in a more granular way e.g. 5 orks could cost 28 points but 1 ork couldn't cost 5.6 points!

And if you take 6 orks you have to pay for the 4 you're not taking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
I haven't played any AoS, but I have read that they price models in blocks. So instead of 1 ork costing 5 points 5 orks might cost 25.

Not only does this simplify the costing of units but it lets you change the points cost of each model in a more granular way e.g. 5 orks could cost 28 points but 1 ork couldn't cost 5.6 points!

What if I want to run 14 orks so I can free up the points to get my warboss a power klaw?

Points per model is better for granularity. I almost always run irregularly sized unit in horde lists because I shave points off here and there to use them elsewhere.

Yea its a fair point that you wouldn't be able to do stuff like that. For me that's not something I would miss, although I imagine some would.
Also I imagine it would (slightly) contribute to taking the emphasis away from the list building stage of 40k, which is too dominant at present.

Sigmar also doesn't cost out individual upgrades, so if I want to take a Stormcast Sequitor squad I pay the same whether or not I take the grandhammers. It's functionally the same structure as forcing you to play with power level, but it'd be way worse in 40k because the difference in value between a fully upgraded and an un-upgraded model is way bigger. Currently a Deathwatch Marine could roll into town with a boltgun and pistol only, and pay 14pts, or bring a combi-melta and a thunderhammer and pay 46pts. If you're playing with Power Level both of them cost PL2 (40pts), so I'm forced to overpay if I want any loadout other than heavy weapons or combi-weapon/thunderhammer.

Yea you wouldn't be able to drop the system straight into 40k, you would need to reorganise a bit to make the most of it.
You could part out units with wildly different upgrade options into seperate codex entries rather than lumping them together.
It sounds like AoS could do that a bit better too.

One annoyance in 8th is flicking around between units and weapons to figure out what a model with a particular weapon will actually cost you!

I'd honestly rather put more of 40k back into Sigmar than going the other way. Strength/Toughness, Invulnerable saves separate from armour saves, and unshootable characters particularly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:
...One annoyance in 8th is flicking around between units and weapons to figure out what a model with a particular weapon will actually cost you!

True, but you could also go back to the pre-8e organization where all the info was on your datasheet and "here's the price of this model with its default wargear"/"here's the price of trading (item X) for (item Y)" was the structure of upgrades.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the critique about CP generation being turn based: the game doesn't have to copy the CP generation exactly and only dole out 1 a turn. It could easilly be set to 2 a turn (3 with a warlord on the table) and be just as effective at balancing the game's CP problem. The point is that spreading CP out makes players make meaningful choices in it's use, instead of spamming certain combos for as many turns as they can.

okey, but how is this suppose to work, when one force has 10+ stratagems and most of them are worth taking, when relics exist that are worth taken , and other armies have 2-3 sources they spend CP on. getting 2-3CP per turn, maybe would end with option taking for the armies with multiple options, but armies that have to spend those 4-5CP per turn to work will just get worse. It would require a total rewrite of all codex, and it doesn't seem like GW can keep the same power level over 3-4 books, not to mention all of them.

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the critique about CP generation being turn based: the game doesn't have to copy the CP generation exactly and only dole out 1 a turn. It could easilly be set to 2 a turn (3 with a warlord on the table) and be just as effective at balancing the game's CP problem. The point is that spreading CP out makes players make meaningful choices in it's use, instead of spamming certain combos for as many turns as they can.

okey, but how is this suppose to work, when one force has 10+ stratagems and most of them are worth taking, when relics exist that are worth taken , and other armies have 2-3 sources they spend CP on. getting 2-3CP per turn, maybe would end with option taking for the armies with multiple options, but armies that have to spend those 4-5CP per turn to work will just get worse. It would require a total rewrite of all codex, and it doesn't seem like GW can keep the same power level over 3-4 books, not to mention all of them.

How many armies constantly need to spend 4-5 CP on a stratagem a turn to be functional? And let's not kid purselves, a fair number of strats need a rework in general. There should be no useless ones, much less ones you need to have in every single build. They should compliment a particular build and playstyle not be the build and playstyle.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Gareth_Evans wrote:
Alternate activations in the fight phase.

40K puts too much emphasis on going first.

In AoS if you charge, you get the first activation, then it alternates. This makes the Slanesh or Banshee ability "fight first" actually good, since other than the first charge, you actually get to fight first like the description!

You still need a bonus for charging. Charging then getting killed before getting to hit is the worst thing ever.

But you do get a bonus from charging, you get to choose the first activation. The AoS system however mitigates the IGOUGO, which just gives *all* the advantages to the first player; getting killed before getting to hit is the worst thing ever.

Wow... I didn't expect some of the strong hate against AOS. lol

Here are some great stuff I think will be great for 40K.

Free-to-field Faction Terrains
This is probably one of the best idea in AOS. It encourages player to contribute terrain to the game, sets a nice theme on the board and help tournament organizers cut down a little on terrain logistics.

Faction Allies
In AOS your allies cannot benefit from their own faction allegiance and abilities and are limited to 25% of your entire army. It helps to build a more cohesive identity for any faction because you will focus on playing within your own faction. Of course it goes directly against soup in 40k but maybe GW can find a middle ground.

Staggered Deployment
This is a fairly new way of playing in AOS where you break up your army in 3 parts and they comes in on different turns. The general consensus is that games played this is faster and less mentally exhausting because both players don't have to manage the entire army on turn 1.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made and is worse than fantasy in almost every conceivable way.

They already took too much of AoS with 8th ed. 40k and we have a new terrible game because of it.

What 40K needs is alternating activations of either units or sub phases.

Double turn might be the worst mechanic in gaming history. Anyone wanna play against a gunline for two turns in a row?

Found the salt mines.

"u mad bro" is not a counter argument.

I don't mind AoS being a dumping ground for testing 40k rules because that seems to be what it is (aside from also being a reason to provide "alt sculpts" and conversion fodder for 40k), it means the rules are somewhat refined when they head over to 40k.

No need to counter argument something that had no argument to begin with.

I mean, I get people are salty at AoS, but then I wonder how much time people spend being salty and I can't help but feel sorry for them. So much pent up useless anger and bitterness that threatens to swallow anyone who gets too close. Use salt on good food, not on hate and irrational indignation..

Meanwhile the rest of us are enjoying fun games. Just love life and enjoy its near infinite diversity while you are still alive. Grasp that oyster and see it for the smorgasbord of delights that it is.

AoS is a breath of fresh air to a game that was actively dying, as much as Fantasy fans want to deny it.

I know nothing about the game's balance but it seems like the complaints are significantly less.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AoS is a breath of fresh air to a game that was actively dying, as much as Fantasy fans want to deny it.

I know nothing about the game's balance but it seems like the complaints are significantly less.

WHFB 8e bad != Sigmar good.

You may here fewer complaints because nobody who played Fantasy transitioned over to Sigmar. Anecdotally, at least, I've never encountered anyone who made the transition rather than jumping over to Kings of War, or anyone who likes Sigmar who played Fantasy. And on top of that in my vicinity I have yet to encounter an active Sigmar community or any game store that bothers to stock it, so there may just be fewer people.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AoS is a breath of fresh air to a game that was actively dying, as much as Fantasy fans want to deny it.

I know nothing about the game's balance but it seems like the complaints are significantly less.

WHFB 8e bad != Sigmar good.

You may here fewer complaints because nobody who played Fantasy transitioned over to Sigmar. Anecdotally, at least, I've never encountered anyone who made the transition rather than jumping over to Kings of War, or anyone who likes Sigmar who played Fantasy. And on top of that in my vicinity I have yet to encounter an active Sigmar community or any game store that bothers to stock it, so there may just be fewer people.

I played Fantasy and transitioned over, pretty much all of my friends that play table top games and played Fantasy transferred over. How ever, none of them play Kings of War. Different areas, different groups, different results.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AoS is a breath of fresh air to a game that was actively dying, as much as Fantasy fans want to deny it.

I know nothing about the game's balance but it seems like the complaints are significantly less.

WHFB 8e bad != Sigmar good.

You may here fewer complaints because nobody who played Fantasy transitioned over to Sigmar. Anecdotally, at least, I've never encountered anyone who made the transition rather than jumping over to Kings of War, or anyone who likes Sigmar who played Fantasy. And on top of that in my vicinity I have yet to encounter an active Sigmar community or any game store that bothers to stock it, so there may just be fewer people.

I don't buy single pieces of anecdotal evidence. People just need to get over the whole "they blew up everything" and see if it's a functional game. Based on the lesser complaints I've seen, it seems to be functional and at minimum decent.

Can't say the same for current 40k.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AoS is a breath of fresh air to a game that was actively dying, as much as Fantasy fans want to deny it.

I know nothing about the game's balance but it seems like the complaints are significantly less.

WHFB 8e bad != Sigmar good.

You may here fewer complaints because nobody who played Fantasy transitioned over to Sigmar. Anecdotally, at least, I've never encountered anyone who made the transition rather than jumping over to Kings of War, or anyone who likes Sigmar who played Fantasy. And on top of that in my vicinity I have yet to encounter an active Sigmar community or any game store that bothers to stock it, so there may just be fewer people.

I don't buy single pieces of anecdotal evidence. People just need to get over the whole "they blew up everything" and see if it's a functional game. Based on the lesser complaints I've seen, it seems to be functional and at minimum decent.

Can't say the same for current 40k.

I've tried myself to give it a second chance a couple of times. I've found a lot of really one-sided tablings result from people who wrote one book not really getting how any other books work (ex. the degree to which Khorne Bloodbound are priced assuming they have all the layers of character buffs because the writers didn't know the Stormcast can remove all those characters in one turn of shooting with pretty much no chance of failure).

I'd like it if 40k adopted a similar system to AoS where the data sheets are free to download, but the faction abilities, lore, and point costs are in the codex.

AoS's initial release was catastrophic - so its hard to see how it was a breath of fresh air for a game which, due to end times interest, was arguably on the up even if it was riddled with problems.

From 2nd edition (call it like it is) I think you have a game in AoS - but I really struggle to see how anyone can claim its more functional than 40k.

I might just miss the nuance - but yeah, I think you are more likely to get one-sided games than in 40k. Things like the double turn (going second, then going first) mechanic may, potentially, reduce the impact of list-building (after all, if you get to inflict twice as much damage before they get to respond even the best list is likely in a bad way) but eh. I don't think its a satisfying way to win or lose a game.

I can say the fan base are generally friendly, welcoming etc (although 40k seems to be improving all the time too). So there isn't malice as their list stomps yours into thin paste - but that doesn't really... help.

Also I hate the Ossiarchs. Sorry. First range that has completely failed with me since the fire dwarves.

20% point limit on Allies.

That's about it.