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.

With the release of malign sorcery, AoS obtained a whole set of relics, command traits, spells and endless spells that do not belongs to a particular faction but they are shared by everybody.

Some of this items are actually quite good. Other one's synergies well with different factions.

By doing this they kinda modulated the power level of all the battle tomes to be similar.

For instance, before to increase the points, there were an endless spell called geminids of uhl-ghysh that was broken. But this didn't brake the game because basically every army with 40 spare points could get it.

Aos is just much more simple in term of game design. Special rules are usually really limited in number as they are bound to units/characters.
40K is a complete mess in game design : the number of relics and stratagem is not even streamlined from one faction to another (this has gotten worse with the vigilus campaign, the SM supplement and PA) and sometime I feel like GW is not even trying to balance it all out !
For exemple, many factions have outright fluff rules/relics/stratagems, that makes sense from a fluff point of view but are not just that useful in a competitive environment.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:



Also, those 'OP' armies were never anywhere near as OP as marines are(statistically going by tournament results during their OP time), even post IH nerf. A book like release IH would NEVER make it to print in AoS.

This isn't really true. The problem is that marines are WAY more accessible than Ynnari and it is only IH reaching Ynnari levels of crazy.

Ynnari
2018 (only real data outside LVO is July forward)

Jul - 67.3%
Aug - 69.8
Sep - 58.0
Oct - 60.8
Nov - 62.8
Dec - 47.0

IH
2019
Jul - 25%
Aug - no games
Sep - 54.9
Oct - 69.4
Nov - 65.8
Dec - 65.9

To be fair, because of how many Marine and IH players there are, those IH numbers are dragged down by the plethora of not-quite-IH-but-still-OP Marine lists, as well as other IH lists.

With Ynnari there was less mirror-matching going on.

40kstat win rates are controlled for mirror matches IIRC. Regardless, IH need another swing of the nerfhammer.

 Ishagu wrote:
They should not be held to account for a meta built around 3rd party, unofficial, homebrew rules.

That holds up until you sponsor events run with them, then you're on board, and consequently responsible. I know that's hard to accept though.

GW want to be where the community congregates. That won't change.

 Ishagu wrote:
GW want to be where the community congregates. That won't change.

Man, it's like you've almost made the logical link to the validity of the event, but you won't for painfully obvious reasons.

Your argument is really stupid lol.

If GW wanted to push ITC missions you would find them in Chapter Approved.

Simmer down and keep it polite please.

Darsath wrote:
I imagine that Games Workshop is fully aware of how much of a nightmare the game is becoming with the amount of bloat in the game. Space Marines are certainly OP, though I don't see this changing. Honestly, I think the chances of a new edition coming this Summer to work as a soft reset are actually quite likely. It just seems like the easier solution.

Here's hoping that SoB, most certainly the last Codex release of this edition, is the way 9th Edition Codices will be handled, assuming that the Sororitas Codex was written with 9th in mind (see the final army books for AoS before AoS 2.0 released). Because stuff like the Marines Codex and particularly the IF and ESPECIALLY the IF Supplements need to be nuked from orbit. Otherwise the next edition will be a mess from the get-go, considering it is certain they won't just replace all Codices in their entirety and reboot all factions like they did with the launch of 8th Edition.

What 40k needs is most of the old guard of rules writers (particularly those like Cruddace) being kicked out and replaced with young, talented writers actually interested in balance and heavily playtesting it and making sure there is good internal balance in a new book, like AoS does and the completely new Adepta Sororitas rules writer did.

 Ishagu wrote:
Your argument is really stupid lol.

If GW wanted to push ITC missions you would find them in Chapter Approved.

They kind of do? It's been pretty apparent the carry over of the way things score came from ITC among other items.

Its much easier to fix a game thats so basic you might aswell play chess.
As a narrative play dude, I cant stand AoS because its background is just so terrible.

I played two games of AoS early on around when Blood Warriors first came out.

Once with my Seraphon, and once with Bloodbound. The same week I sold all of my seraphon models and the bs battletone. How the hell did something so unique like Aztec Lizardmen end up becoming so stupid like Aztec Lizardmen ghost memories?

For Bloodbound, I still have my models because they look great...

Good models ate the one thing AoS has for them, and that had NOTHING to do with the setting. Infact, tons of AoS minis are ugly as feth. Idoneth, fyreslayers, Sylvaneth, and every other faction that is completley new and not just an extension of WhFB armies like the Gloomspite Nightgoblins

TLDR: AoS is boring as hell so you really shouldnt even care.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I imagine that Games Workshop is fully aware of how much of a nightmare the game is becoming with the amount of bloat in the game. Space Marines are certainly OP, though I don't see this changing. Honestly, I think the chances of a new edition coming this Summer to work as a soft reset are actually quite likely. It just seems like the easier solution.

Here's hoping that SoB, most certainly the last Codex release of this edition, is the way 9th Edition Codices will be handled, assuming that the Sororitas Codex was written with 9th in mind (see the final army books for AoS before AoS 2.0 released). Because stuff like the Marines Codex and particularly the IF and ESPECIALLY the IF Supplements need to be nuked from orbit. Otherwise the next edition will be a mess from the get-go, considering it is certain they won't just replace all Codices in their entirety and reboot all factions like they did with the launch of 8th Edition.

What 40k needs is most of the old guard of rules writers (particularly those like Cruddace) being kicked out and replaced with young, talented writers actually interested in balance and heavily playtesting it and making sure there is good internal balance in a new book, like AoS does and the completely new Adepta Sororitas rules writer did.

Oh man. Cruddace is a massive idiot. Its actually super sad to see that a lot of the same people who helped shape 40k into such an awesome setting are the same ones who are really hurting it. Like, how the hell did every single one of them lose their touch?

What a damn shame.

123ply wrote:
Its much easier to fix a game thats so basic you might aswell play chess.
As a narrative play dude, I cant stand AoS because its background is just so terrible.

I played two games of AoS early on around when Blood Warriors first came out.

Once with my Seraphon, and once with Bloodbound. The same week I sold all of my seraphon models and the bs battletone. How the hell did something so unique like Aztec Lizardmen end up becoming so stupid like Aztec Lizardmen ghost memories?

For Bloodbound, I still have my models because they look great...

Good models ate the one thing AoS has for them, and that had NOTHING to do with the setting. Infact, tons of AoS minis are ugly as feth. Idoneth, fyreslayers, Sylvaneth, and every other faction that is completley new and not just an extension of WhFB armies like the Gloomspite Nightgoblins

TLDR: AoS is boring as hell so you really shouldnt even care.

And i love AOS background, i love how the Old world is a 1/2 history/myth with tales of legends and great events that no one knows what is wholly the truth and what isn't.

As someone that plays both, AoS is for sure for me is a better game, not only more fun, but also more tactics. In 40k i don't even use half that tactics i do in AoS. 40k doesn't match the fluff any better, honestly it matches worst i feel. Being in 8th its a 90% shooting game and i can literally lose 1/2 my army turn 1 from shooting right now, thats not fun, i haven't had fun in 40k for about a year now, and its just even worst with PA/marines.

Then the missions, CA is better, but i still prefer AoS missions, when movements matter 100x more, and you don't have to kill to stop a unit from getting objectives, but a better deployment and movement phase can gain you victory thats amazing. I win a lot of my games without needing to halfway tabling someone.

TLDR: 40k is boring as hell so you really shouldnt even care

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

bananathug wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it the ITC rule that first floor blocks LOS is one of the major reasons the IH list works. You can hide all of your troops in the building and your opponent has no choice but to shoot the dread because the infantry models fit so nicely in the building and there is no way to draw LOS to them.

I started out thinking this rule was a good idea, and the more time goes on, the more I see it getting seriously abused and causing issues just as bad as the ones it was trying to prevent, it cuts off *too* much LoS frequently and leaves a lot of things like character gimmickry much more capable than it should be.

Interestingly GW use a less binary version of the same rule at their events

https://warhammerworld.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/07/Warhammer-40000-Ruins-House-Rule.pdf

Given the way their terrain tends to be set up that does create some LOS block but if you build a list assuming you will always be able to hide your Intercessors then you are in for a nasty shock. Just one small gap in the terrain undoes your whole strategy.

However the GW tournament results are nothing like as skewed as ITC results and I really do not think you can put it all down to this difference in terrain rules. I do think that the missions are the biggest difference so you have to look at those as by far the most likely cause. As per the subject of this thread, it is worth noting that the ITC AoS tournament used the book missions rather than ITC homebrew and it had a far more diverse leaderboard.

We initially switched to the ITC-style ground floor blocking LoS for our ruins locally because, like a lot of people, our terrain was designed for an earlier edition and didn't work too well with 8th's absolutely terrible terrain rules. However, as time has gone on we've noticed these rules tend to produce very skewed games and unintended results where it's too easy to hide pretty much everything if you want, often crammed into a comically dense cluster of models huddled up against the wall of a shelled building. As a result we've now moved towards modifying our current terrain and building new terrain that works with TLoS. So there's a lot of blocked LoS on the ground floor of ruins, but not all of it. I think the ITC rule was created out of expediency but should be revisited and terrain renovated or updated to be more in line with TLoS rules. If that were then combined with a change to the core terrain rules to make them a bit more detailed we might see some of these offenders starting to fall away of their own accord.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They kind of do? It's been pretty apparent the carry over of the way things score came from ITC among other items.

Madness, who uses facts in an argument like this. I find your entire premise offensive sir.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Your argument is really stupid lol.

If GW wanted to push ITC missions you would find them in Chapter Approved.

They kind of do? It's been pretty apparent the carry over of the way things score came from ITC among other items.

and taking the good parts of ITC is not a problem, taking good parts from anything is often a good idea. But this is about the effect of the bad parts.

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Your argument is really stupid lol.

If GW wanted to push ITC missions you would find them in Chapter Approved.

They kind of do? It's been pretty apparent the carry over of the way things score came from ITC among other items.

and taking the good parts of ITC is not a problem, taking good parts from anything is often a good idea. But this is about the effect of the bad parts.

Which is interesting since ITC was developed out of some perceived bad parts in GW's line up.

Of course, what is considered bad is not always universally recognized...

 Charistoph wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Your argument is really stupid lol.

If GW wanted to push ITC missions you would find them in Chapter Approved.

They kind of do? It's been pretty apparent the carry over of the way things score came from ITC among other items.

and taking the good parts of ITC is not a problem, taking good parts from anything is often a good idea. But this is about the effect of the bad parts.

Which is interesting since ITC was developed out of some perceived bad parts in GW's line up.

Of course, what is considered bad is not always universally recognized...

ITC comes from a time when GW withdrew from the tournament scene and the basis for the game was universally seen as bad. I'd argue we are in a different time now and the custom missions are no longer needed.

 Ordana wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Your argument is really stupid lol.

If GW wanted to push ITC missions you would find them in Chapter Approved.

They kind of do? It's been pretty apparent the carry over of the way things score came from ITC among other items.

and taking the good parts of ITC is not a problem, taking good parts from anything is often a good idea. But this is about the effect of the bad parts.

Which is interesting since ITC was developed out of some perceived bad parts in GW's line up.

Of course, what is considered bad is not always universally recognized...

ITC comes from a time when GW withdrew from the tournament scene and the basis for the game was universally seen as bad. I'd argue we are in a different time now and the custom missions are no longer needed.

I don't see why both cannot exist. Personally I liek the fun of open war and chapter approved/codex missions but if somebody wants to play ITC I get the appeal. It used to really be a better way in previous editions, but with 8th it is more of an alternative than a necessity

It's not that they can't co-exist, its that a few very vocal people think the game should be balanced around the ITC rules, rather than GWs

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Your argument is really stupid lol.

If GW wanted to push ITC missions you would find them in Chapter Approved.

They kind of do? It's been pretty apparent the carry over of the way things score came from ITC among other items.

and taking the good parts of ITC is not a problem, taking good parts from anything is often a good idea. But this is about the effect of the bad parts.

Which is interesting since ITC was developed out of some perceived bad parts in GW's line up.

Of course, what is considered bad is not always universally recognized...

ITC comes from a time when GW withdrew from the tournament scene and the basis for the game was universally seen as bad. I'd argue we are in a different time now and the custom missions are no longer needed.

I don't see why both cannot exist. Personally I liek the fun of open war and chapter approved/codex missions but if somebody wants to play ITC I get the appeal. It used to really be a better way in previous editions, but with 8th it is more of an alternative than a necessity

Their models, their money people can do whatever they want. But when people complain about how dominated the ITC tends to be by whatever is seen as best right now I will point to the world outside of it where this is less the case.

ERJAK wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Go back to before the SM books released and you see a wide variety of armies in 40k tournaments.

But in broad terms GW simply shat the bed with the Marine release. Its entirely possible the AoS team screws up at some point and releases a horribly broken book that will have the same result. (And I think it looked like that for a while when Slaanesh first came out).

AoS has managed to release quite a few OP armies over time. The difference is that they have managed to up their nerf rate faster than the 40k one. When Skaven and FEC came out they were massively OP, but then they released a FAQ that changed a few wordings and re-pointed units and Skaven went from Massively OP to very strong armies.

Same with Slaanesh recently as their Christmas FAQ again included point changes and rule changes to existing armies.

That is one of the things I like currently with AoS. The design team has shown themselves to be slightly more responsive and fluid in regards to their balancing.

Also, those 'OP' armies were never anywhere near as OP as marines are(statistically going by tournament results during their OP time), even post IH nerf. A book like release IH would NEVER make it to print in AoS.

Well Tzeentch just got a new battletome that can summon over 1500 points of models (note summons are free in AoS) turn 1 so there's that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's not that they can't co-exist, its that a few very vocal people think the game should be balanced around the ITC rules, rather than GWs

All I can say is that as a player having yet ANOTHER set of rules I need to have and deal with is very unattractive.

And AOS is more balanced around summoning, my CoS army that doesn't summon that i use for events doesn't care if you summon 1500pts turn 1, as you also spent something like 1200pts to do that, so you really only gained a couple hundred points. Then turn 1 all your heroes are dead, so by by casters.

Thats the difference in AoS to 40k what seem OP isnt, look at OBR EVERYONE thought they was going to be top dog and they did really bad to what people was expecting in all 3 events this past weekend, b.c movement and board control is just as important to raw numbers and stats. OBR didn't have board control.

40k has a hard time with board control as a concept. Melee is such a binary component of the game for several reasons, but primarily because there's so much emphasis on shooting that melee shuts down, often permanently, that its really hard to make scenarios that are primarily about maneuvering to a position. A mission packet that could inject a healthy dose of board control into the game would be a huge win in my mind, but I'm not sure how when so many matchups can turn into
"move forward and get tabled/stay put and table them".

AoS is easier b.c of the 3" don't touch me zone, when each 25mm base now has a 6.98" movement denial (unless they have fly, but you still can't land there) zone, it makes a huge difference.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
AoS is easier b.c of the 3" don't touch me zone, when each 25mm base now has a 6.98" movement denial (unless they have fly, but you still can't land there) zone, it makes a huge difference.

Honestly, I find that the 2" coherence in 40K balances that out, a unit of 10 can block out a similar area of the table in both games. Small units zone better in AoS and larger units zone better in 40K is my general feeling.

I think the importance of zoning being greater in AoS is more to do with the missions between the two tournaments circuits. Zoning in the ITC missions is much less of a thing because it does nothing to stop your opponent winning on the primary and secondary VPs they can pick up for killing stuff. I play non-ITC competitive 40K and I find zoning just as important there as it is in AoS because its more about movement and objective holding.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
AoS is easier b.c of the 3" don't touch me zone, when each 25mm base now has a 6.98" movement denial (unless they have fly, but you still can't land there) zone, it makes a huge difference.

Honestly, I find that the 2" coherence in 40K balances that out, a unit of 10 can block out a similar area of the table in both games. Small units zone better in AoS and larger units zone better in 40K is my general feeling.

I think the importance of zoning being greater in AoS is more to do with the missions between the two tournaments circuits. Zoning in the ITC missions is much less of a thing because it does nothing to stop your opponent winning on the primary and secondary VPs they can pick up for killing stuff. I play non-ITC competitive 40K and I find zoning just as important there as it is in AoS because its more about movement and objective holding.

You are talking about 2 models then, 2"+50mm (so basically 2"). That means you have 1" on each side and 2" in the middle with the 2 bases for 2", a total of 6"

In sigmar 2 models are 1" apart with 1" bases for 3", but now its 3" on each side for a total of 9"


Then you have it in both directions, in sigmar you can make 1 line of 10 guys, this will be a total rectangle type shape of 26"x7". In 40k 10 guys will do 32"x3" Its that x3 vs x7 that is HUGE, 4" doesn;t sound like a lot, but when you have 2 layers like that you can effectively stop any unit from moving with a 14" dead zone were in 40k its 8", thats almost double.

Then some units that have fly still need to get within 1" of each other, so if you move correctly event with fly they might not be able to charge between at all (One of my main opponents its Deepkin, they basically are jetbikes, i would say equal to Shining spears without the guns), so i make a "w" shape so he can not pile in, it only take 3 models out of 10 to move slightly close to each other to stop a cavalry unit from fitting.

Its also more important b.c if you can move a 20-40man block right in front of them, they have to kill it, there is no going around.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Then you have it in both directions, in sigmar you can make 1 line of 10 guys, this will be a total rectangle type shape of 26"x7". In 40k 10 guys will do 32"x3" Its that x3 vs x7 that is HUGE, 4" doesn;t sound like a lot, but when you have 2 layers like that you can effectively stop any unit from moving with a 14" dead zone were in 40k its 8", thats almost double.

In 40K you don't string units out in straight lines to zone areas out. I usually find myself putting units in an oval or square shape of some sort to zone out table space. I can then leave gaps in that so long as they are not large enough for the base of the opposing unit that has Fly - or if the unit has multiple models so long as the gaps are not close enough together for that opposing unit to land in unit cohesion. Yes it does end up looking a bit more like Napoleonic squares than classical ranks in lines but that is fine, all I am after is filling up enough table space to deny movement into key locations.

The key difference is that i have far greater freedom in model removal in 40K so I can remove models from the middle freely. If I do that in AoS I would lose big chunks of models - so if I maximise my coverage I can find myself forced to either reduce it when a spell takes out a couple of models or know that i am sacrificing half my unit later in the turn.

On balance I find it is roughly equivalent between the two systems at around about 10 models. You may find it different but I think it unlikely that it is really anywhere near different enough to explain the different play between the two systems at LVO. I still think the missions putting much more emphasis on movement and table control in AoS is the big difference.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Then you have it in both directions, in sigmar you can make 1 line of 10 guys, this will be a total rectangle type shape of 26"x7". In 40k 10 guys will do 32"x3" Its that x3 vs x7 that is HUGE, 4" doesn;t sound like a lot, but when you have 2 layers like that you can effectively stop any unit from moving with a 14" dead zone were in 40k its 8", thats almost double.

In 40K you don't string units out in straight lines to zone areas out. I usually find myself putting units in an oval or square shape of some sort to zone out table space. I can then leave gaps in that so long as they are not large enough for the base of the opposing unit that has Fly - or if the unit has multiple models so long as the gaps are not close enough together for that opposing unit to land in unit cohesion. Yes it does end up looking a bit more like Napoleonic squares than classical ranks in lines but that is fine, all I am after is filling up enough table space to deny movement into key locations.

The key difference is that i have far greater freedom in model removal in 40K so I can remove models from the middle freely. If I do that in AoS I would lose big chunks of models - so if I maximise my coverage I can find myself forced to either reduce it when a spell takes out a couple of models or know that i am sacrificing half my unit later in the turn.

On balance I find it is roughly equivalent between the two systems at around about 10 models. You may find it different but I think it unlikely that it is really anywhere near different enough to explain the different play between the two systems at LVO. I still think the missions putting much more emphasis on movement and table control in AoS is the big difference.

Right and i was making it simple to show a point, in AoS you dont string them out either, you make all types of shapes just like you would in 40k, U, T, L, V, O, Q, etc.. The difference is in AOS you only need 50 models to literally cut off 1/2 the table.. this is my main tactic when playing BoC as i don't have a lot of the tools to deal loads of damage like other armies. And by 1/2 i mean he literally can't place models outside of charging on my 1/2.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And AOS is more balanced around summoning, my CoS army that doesn't summon that i use for events doesn't care if you summon 1500pts turn 1, as you also spent something like 1200pts to do that, so you really only gained a couple hundred points. Then turn 1 all your heroes are dead, so by by casters.

Thats the difference in AoS to 40k what seem OP isnt, look at OBR EVERYONE thought they was going to be top dog and they did really bad to what people was expecting in all 3 events this past weekend, b.c movement and board control is just as important to raw numbers and stats. OBR didn't have board control.

Well the list I was mentioning has six gaunt summoners and brings in a lord of change turn one, and is summoning in six units of pink horrors that cast, and has minimum battleline that casts, and it isn't particularly optimized either. Oh and all those things shoot.

Also to be fair to the community it was only the less experienced who were saying OBR would dominate. Give credit to the tourney crowd who predicted (correctly) that Petrifax have trouble sealing a tourney win because they are likely to hit another tier-1 army at some point that will dismantle them.