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.

The question is simple, would it be such a bad thing if they changed 40k like they did fantasy.
Now I understand most hate the change to fantasy (though my opinion is that I never played fantasy so I can't compare the b4 and after). I play 40k, and despite playing to just 7th edition, I don't think I'll hate the idea of an aosed 40k.
I play the game, I read these forums and a ton of posters hate 7th edition, it is an unbalanced game with little to no hope of ever improving.
So what would doing an aos of 40k acomplish?
-It will get rid of 7th edition....can anyone argue that would be a bad thing?
-all rules will be simplified...so vehicles, walkers and monstrous creatures will be put in a general category, a lot of people would want those categories melded ever since mcs have dominated the table over vehicles.
-rulez will be free....what's so bad about this, I won't have to buy 4 books just to play an army
-the points system will be anihilated ...many here agree that the current point system in 7th is unbalanced beyond belief, now I understand many would stop playing the game after points are gone, but it opens up for the players to make their own points for models using systems that are based on balance (just look at aos sdk, I haven't yet tried it but at least these guys are trying)
-a change in the story, aos was an oportunity for gw to advance the lore of a game that to my knowledge had stagnated...I would welcome that in 40k, the setting has changed little, it has been in a perpetual "things are about to explode" state that it has gotten boring. I want to see the setting advance.

Now this is where I expect the tar and feathers, but I'm honestly curious as to what harm and benefit this could do to the game, and I want to know your opions as well.

I think there is a good side to this as well as a bad.

I think it would make 40k and gw more 'honest' in what it is, what it tries to be, and the attitude behind the game that they seem to want to push.

On the minus side, it makes the game basically unworkable for pick up and tournament play.

Oh no, not this thread again

With respect to the game, I'll just say... no... and leave it at that.

As to the story, both 30k and 40k have great, popular story lines that wouldn't be easy to beat (not to mention, very risky). Why mess with those?

If by AoS'ing they will:

A: Remove points systems - No, they might as well pack up and close shop.

B: Compact and revise the rules a bit - Yes, if only to get rid of all the house-ruling and pseudo 40k that is going around.

In terms of the lore: Nope. GW can barely keep the current lore going consistently. I dread what they would do to it if they had to hit a reset button like AoS.

In terms of the Game: This one's iffy. I kinda wish they would do a overhaul like 3rd edition, where a lot of the rules are streamlined and simplified. Currently it seems every weapon not listed in the rulebook needs a special rule of it's own, rather than try to just build a weapon with the existing special rules. Maybe even overhaul the stats so that it would be something easy and "plug'n play".

However, how they handled AoS is not the way I want them to do to 40k. Namely, throwing any semblance of balance out the window by eliminating points systems without rebalancing each unit to match another one. Maybe they can make it so that each UNIT is set in stone, so that way they could be balanced without points, but some balance is needed (so say a unit of 5 Necron Immortals would be equal to a unit of 15 Termagants, but never 1 Immortal = 1 Termagant).

I'm only learning Inquisitor so am unqualified to weigh in on the rules in any detail. I find all this Warlords and Monstrous Creatures, CADs and Formations perplexing -- when I last looked at 40K (the game, not the setting) one had to have 1 x HQ and 2 x Troop choices, then Elites, Heavy Support and Fast Attack.

It terms of the setting any 'moving forward' would be a disaster. The 40K setting (less a good part of the more recent stuff which I simply ignore) where it is a deep, compelling and fascinating world, that, like a sculpture, one can pick up and turn around and constantly admire. Changing anything would destroy it -- let it stay as it is.

geargutz wrote:
-It will get rid of 7th edition....can anyone argue that would be a bad thing?

I'm in a big pool of 40k players, the So. Cal scene. To my experience, it is probably the most stable pool, as in a continuum of the same guys, playing for years. Since 5e. Which means that 7e is holding the interest of the guys. Around here , anyway.

The general opinion of these guys is that 5e was the Golden Age. There was imbalance then (e.g. GK psyfileman dreadnaughts, Nob bikers) and other goofery. But as was in 3e, 4e and since, Evolution takes place, and the meta adapts.

40k is entirely too complex, in any edition, to achieve the sort of balance you're implying, There's imbalance now, poor orks, DE, and Sisters. And the eldar and SM.

Then again, I *really* like 7e, too. I like it along with 5e, equally. 6e was 7e's aborted prototype, with bad mechanics, but 7e's rule-set fixed those. 4e, I liked, but it had a lot of broken mechanics (Skimmers vs AP1), consolidating into new h2h combats (Dark Eldar regularly eating Tau).

5e was simpler that 7e. But I *like* 7e's complexity. I know longer feel as though I'm every playing the same game or mission twice, considering how varied enemy armies are built.

geargutz wrote:
-all rules will be simplified...so vehicles, walkers and monstrous creatures will be put in a general category, a lot of people would want those categories melded ever since mcs have dominated the table over vehicles.

I agree simplicity is a good thing, like a well played piano. But then again, an orchestra of options, weapons, psy-powers. It a lot more fun to be explored.

geargutz wrote:
-rulez will be free....what's so bad about this, I won't have to buy 4 books just to play an army

Amen to that!

geargutz wrote:
-the points system will be anihilated ...many here agree that the current point system in 7th is unbalanced beyond belief, now I understand many would stop playing the game after points are gone, but it opens up for the players to make their own points for models using systems that are based on balance (just look at aos sdk, I haven't yet tried it but at least these guys are trying)
-a change in the story, aos was an oportunity for gw to advance the lore of a game that to my knowledge had stagnated...I would welcome that in 40k, the setting has changed little, it has been in a perpetual "things are about to explode" state that it has gotten boring. I want to see the setting advance.

After 20+ years of GW's fluff largely remaining the same, I don't think it should change.

I like to go back and reread LotR. It's great as is.

geargutz wrote:
Now this is where I expect the tar and feathers, but I'm honestly curious as to what harm and benefit this could do to the game, and I want to know your opions as well.

No tar and feathers from me.

I think this is good healthy discussion.


I'll see if this helps your discussion:
It's not the rule-set. That has 40k so difficult to play well, but the many codexes. To vary and flavor 20 or so armies, fairly, is an enormous task for GW, even if building on foundations laid out in 1990. Marines have not especially changed. They, along with Tau and Eldar have only got better (Codex-Creep, yay! ).

So, AoS. What would Marines (or another) look like if given the AoS treatment?

Instead of AOS'ing, can we HH it? Good rules, good resin models, good fluff, no horribly broken stuff?

I would dread a fluff reset like AOS did. I tried to read the new background for fantasy and it's just bad.

I think the rules situation for 40k and the model cost are the two things doing the most damage to 40k. GW seems to be addressing the model cost through these new army starter boxes, so perhaps they'll address the rules too.

GW can take two approaches to dealing with the rules: accept that their rules are of poor quality (essentially the same rules for four editions with increasing levels of layered-on additions) and not charge for them, or continue to charge the very high level they are now ($50 for one army) and produce highly worked-over, highly functional rules that feel more worth their cost.

Army and rulebooks seem to be going the way of the dodo. I really can't think of any big games that don't provide free rules in digital format- even WM/H has their full rules online now. GW seems to think that they can charge 90% for digital releases (or make them enhanced and cost the same amount as the paper copy!). Continuing down the road of re-hashing books every two years without actually improving the books (they are always a little better, and a little worse) simply cannot be a sustainable model for a majority of the gaming population (the population that buys the most product overall).

40k is currently unplayable, for me at least. It's become unwieldy in terms of rules, and power creep is turning it into mega monster battles, rather than infantry with support style game play. Each codex ups the anty in terms of new special weapons and rules, further depressing the value of mainstay units and weaponry. There is so much ignores cover, ap2, strength d, strikes first, rerollable this and that, grav, commonplace monsterous creatures, etc, etc, etc that there hardly seems any point in having default, normal rules in the first place. 40k is a giant mess, imo. I don't see what a reboot of the system could hurt at this point. I don't really see any brakes on the train, though. GW isn't going to stop amping stats of units in new codexes, nor stop releasing massive, nigh unkillable robot monsters. That's what sells, and frankly I feel it is killing 40k. Bring on the reboot I say. Or just release guardsmen in centurion armor. Screw it.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Instead of AOS'ing, can we HH it? Good rules, good resin models, good fluff, no horribly broken stuff?

You do realize that if you play HH, you're using the rules for 40K, right? It's not a differnet game. The only reason HH is more balanced is because FW has the luxury of writing for a playerbase that contains about 95% space marine armies. If you think FW has always been great at writing balanced rules, I can point to about 12 volumes of Imperial Armor books that might disagree with that statement.

I think GW should drop an AoS bomb on 40K just for funsies. It would be interesting to see how quickly they reverse gears as soon as they realize that the only thing keeping this whole wreck afloat is the bloated, golden cow of 7th Edition

 Brothererekose wrote:

geargutz wrote:
Now this is where I expect the tar and feathers, but I'm honestly curious as to what harm and benefit this could do to the game, and I want to know your opions as well.

No tar and feathers from me.

I think this is good healthy discussion.

thankyou, and i hope so too

 Brothererekose wrote:

I'll see if this helps your discussion:
It's not the rule-set. That has 40k so difficult to play well, but the many codexes. To vary and flavor 20 or so armies, fairly, is an enormous task for GW, even if building on foundations laid out in 1990. Marines have not especially changed. They, along with Tau and Eldar have only got better (Codex-Creep, yay! ).

granted fantasy had been around longer and had just as many armies and they still did a rules simplification. they have proven they could do it.
i guess many wouldnt mind an aos 40k, but on the condition they do points, and by what i mean points is that they point everything via balance. it would be quite the undertaking, but it could very well save the franchise.

Regarding points: What AoS did right was offload balance to player level, what it did wrong was fail to formalize it.

I think some kind of structured negotiation in combination with points would help even out the "competitive 40k" side of things, with drafting, bans, sideboards, player influence on missions and terrain, whatever.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Instead of AOS'ing, can we HH it? Good rules, good resin models, good fluff, no horribly broken stuff?

HH is more over priced then aos and it not balanced there is only one model with different paint scheme. It is not hey what ary do you play it is , hey what colour armour do your space marine wear. So fun.....

I understand the financial reason behind creating AOS. However, 8th edition was my favourite game ever. All the reasons why it wasn't selling were the reasons why i enjoyed it so much. I love huge games, I dislike tiny little battles with 10 guys. It's complex, I love learning complex systems and I have no time for basic rules written on napkins. I love fantasy tropes, I love square base block movement. Everything about the game I loved for the most part. I don't for the life of me understand why people didn't like it, or why it didn't catch on, but thats just me. I understand there is a huge financial investment in the game, but you could say that about pretty much any hobby that you enjoy. Besides AOS is now looking to be more expensive than fantasy anyway lol.

40K may not be balanced, but you can't blame the points system on that. The points system works if you have a group of writers who know how to actually cost things appropriately. Clearly GW has no idea how to do this, or to write balanced rules or they don't care to. Either way, it makes for a poor game.

I also hate HATE the idea of mish mash armies on the board. I hate how AOS is now "just bring whatever you like". Its fething stupid, what ever happened to armies that look like armies? Even having an allies system puts restrictions on what you can bring, although that is being exploited to no end now too. Restrictions imposed on players create a better game.

The rules are free because they are garbage, I will gladly pay for rules that are well written.

I shouldn't have to make up a rules system for these people that apparently get paid to do that already.

AOS broke my heart. As a fantasy player for over 15 years that was involved in a very large and competitive group, it kills me that no one plays anymore. They don't play AOS either, they just moved on to other games and I guess I can't blame them. I originally supported the idea of AOS until I saw that they just killed the game on every conceivable level. All I have left is to collect the armies I want before they all get transfered over to circular bases *shudder*.

40K is the only thing keeping GW alive. If they changed it like AOS then they would probably go bankrupt in a year. Just look at 6th edition, that was a hack edition (admittedly so is 7th, but less so) that was only out for 2 years before they had to update it because it wasn't selling. People hated it, they sucked all the life out of the codexes and just threw some poorly conceived rules in there about assault and fliers etc. If they actually listened to their customer base and released a competitively strong, tight rules set, they would be laughing all the way to the bank. But as it stands, whoever is in charge of their rules writing department doesn't have a fething clue.

Of course AoSing 40k would be a bad thing. 40k is in a bad state right now, but AoS is the kind of disaster that would drive most game designers to commit suicide in shame. It's an unbelievable example of incompetence in game design with few, if any, redeeming qualities. The only possible good thing that could come out of AoSing 40k is that, because a 40k version of AoS would be unplayable, it could force the community to create their own rules for using GW's models and those rules might be an improvement over 7th edition.

 the_Armyman wrote:
The only reason HH is more balanced is because FW has the luxury of writing for a playerbase that contains about 95% space marine armies.

No, it's more balanced because FW has openly said "7th edition is stupid, don't use any of those rules". No maelstrom missions, no formations, psychic powers are heavily nerfed, few/no Apocalypse-scale weapons outside of the LoW slot, a 25% cap on LoW points, etc. If you apply the same design rules to 40k armies you get a much better game.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course AoSing 40k would be a bad thing. 40k is in a bad state right now, but AoS is the kind of disaster that would drive most game designers to commit suicide in shame. It's an unbelievable example of incompetence in game design with few, if any, redeeming qualities. The only possible good thing that could come out of AoSing 40k is that, because a 40k version of AoS would be unplayable, it could force the community to create their own rules for using GW's models and those rules might be an improvement over 7th edition.

I think you gravely underestimate the idea of what having a paycheck will make most people do. No designers I know of have committed suicide over being forced to write the rules for AoS.

Peregrine wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
The only reason HH is more balanced is because FW has the luxury of writing for a playerbase that contains about 95% space marine armies.

No, it's more balanced because FW has openly said "7th edition is stupid, don't use any of those rules". No maelstrom missions, no formations, psychic powers are heavily nerfed, few/no Apocalypse-scale weapons outside of the LoW slot, a 25% cap on LoW points, etc. If you apply the same design rules to 40k armies you get a much better game.

HH deals with problems in 40k from 6th and previous that 7th edition only doubled down upon. As such, its going to be a better experience simply by what Peregrine mentioned- it gets rid of the rules insanity GW invoked in 7th during the great search for more profits.

That being said, 40k really could use a significant reworking. 5th edition, which seems now to be one of the most popular editions, is not without its major flaws. And as a separate issue, the cost of the rules has only compounded all of these issues dramatically.

40k would benefot from a general stream lining of the rules as well as maybe having the core rulebook be free. 40k would also benefit from advancing the storyline just enough that its still the same lore we all love but there are new stories to add to the fluff sections of updated codexes. 40k would NOT benefit from consolodating the factions and moving the timeline so far forward that its essentially a reinvented place with almost no meaningful connection to the fluff that got most of us into the game in the first place.

I dont generally co plain about GW. I ignore threads complaining about prices. I tend not to complain too much about poorly written rules (with the exception of the 6th ed CSM codex which I still bought), and I wasnt even that mad about 7th coming out so fast. If they AoS 40k the way they AoSed WFB, i will be done and out. No more GW purchases (and Ive been buying very consistently since RT) no more games of 40k. Done and out.

 the_Armyman wrote:
I think you gravely underestimate the idea of what having a paycheck will make most people do. No designers I know of have committed suicide over being forced to write the rules for AoS.

Yes, obviously they haven't. But that just proves that they have no sense of shame, and will put their name on any humiliating garbage as long as it gets them a paycheck.

So, which HH book has the rules for the moving, shooting, and assault phases? HH is reskinned 40K, nothing more. Although I agree that the LoW and formations problem is flying rodent gak insane in 40K, there's also a significant problem with rules bloat

I said the 30k rules are better, not that they fix everything that is wrong with 40k. Most people would agree that 5th edition was better than 7th edition, and the 30k rules reverse a lot of the things that make 7th edition worse.

and HH only gets around this issue by having almost every game revolving around WS4, BS4, T4, S4, I4 (see a trend?), 3+ save Joes. You can make SMs of every shade and color slightly different with a bajillion special rules, but it doesn't break down because the baseline between models is so consistent.

This is simply wrong. Marines might be the focus of the game, but there are still other armies that diverge wildly from that MEQ stat line. Solar auxilia are effectively a veteran-heavy IG army with carapace vets and lots of tanks. Militia are a horde army with tons of cheap GEQ spam. Admech are kind of a Tau/Tyranid hybrid army with cheap infantry screening tons of MCs. And I have no doubt that you could make a 30k version of every 40k army without breaking the things that make 30k better than 40k.

For me, the 7th edition rules are too expensive, too complicated and have too many wacky elements like flyers, fortresses, Str D weapons, blah blah blah, and the codexes are far too expensive as well. For all the above reasons, I gave up 40K when 6th edition came in.

AoS compared to WHFB lost a lot of tactical things like formations and flanking bonuses, but 40K doesn't have those to lose, so the change would mostly be a slight simplification. AoS is more or less based on the core 40K rules in fact.

So, given I have two armies sitting around unused, I would welcome a game that gave me free rules and war datascrolls to get them back into action. I don't care about all the complicated options for tricking out individual characters and troop types. I would be happy with simplified units.

 Peregrine wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:
I think you gravely underestimate the idea of what having a paycheck will make most people do. No designers I know of have committed suicide over being forced to write the rules for AoS.

Yes, obviously they haven't. But that just proves that they have no sense of shame, and will put their name on any humiliating garbage as long as it gets them a paycheck.

So, which HH book has the rules for the moving, shooting, and assault phases? HH is reskinned 40K, nothing more. Although I agree that the LoW and formations problem is flying rodent gak insane in 40K, there's also a significant problem with rules bloat

I said the 30k rules are better, not that they fix everything that is wrong with 40k. Most people would agree that 5th edition was better than 7th edition, and the 30k rules reverse a lot of the things that make 7th edition worse.

and HH only gets around this issue by having almost every game revolving around WS4, BS4, T4, S4, I4 (see a trend?), 3+ save Joes. You can make SMs of every shade and color slightly different with a bajillion special rules, but it doesn't break down because the baseline between models is so consistent.

This is simply wrong. Marines might be the focus of the game, but there are still other armies that diverge wildly from that MEQ stat line. Solar auxilia are effectively a veteran-heavy IG army with carapace vets and lots of tanks. Militia are a horde army with tons of cheap GEQ spam. Admech are kind of a Tau/Tyranid hybrid army with cheap infantry screening tons of MCs. And I have no doubt that you could make a 30k version of every 40k army without breaking the things that make 30k better than 40k.

FW also seems to have plans too. The errata that popped up gives the Dark Angels the option to buy a bonus against MC's. While IIRC some of the mechs in HH fall under the monstrous creature rules, it also gives them a bonus against FMC's. I suspect Tyranids or something like them may show up in 30k's near future.

I haven't played HH but it does seem to cut out all the things about I don't like about 7th edition.

If we can get all the rules (well I wouldn't really call them rules) but all the stats for free in PDF format like GW did for Fantasy units, then I say YES.

40K is already a crappy game, I don't think they can actually make it worse. Hell I am sure we would have more fluffy games instead of people trying to win with plastic toy soldiers, that is for sure.

GW makes a lot of money from 40K codices, dataslates and rulebooks. I don't expect they will give up that particular cash-cow any time soon.

As for removing points for models and having to guess at the relative strengths - the game is already sort of like that, the whole points thing is really just an excuse to practise addition because it has no meaning in comparison to the relative strengths of units.

Yes it would be horrible. That is all I am going to say about it.

Davor wrote:
If we can get all the rules (well I wouldn't really call them rules) but all the stats for free in PDF format like GW did for Fantasy units, then I say YES.

40K is already a crappy game, I don't think they can actually make it worse. Hell I am sure we would have more fluffy games instead of people trying to win with plastic toy soldiers, that is for sure.

But you can have fluffy 40k games right now. You dont need a whole new rule set for that. That is justa conversation with your regular opponents. If you think a new ruleset, especially one that intentionally foregoes even the pretense of balance is going to improve that, you have another thing coming.

The points in the OP are fairly poor. Because something doesn't currently work very well doesn't mean the only or best option is to ditch it entirely.

The balance issues around points means we should be asking for a game that has balanced points, not a game where we don't have points at all. It only aggravates balance issues and complicates gameplay outside of close friends who want to play scenario specific games, in which case, they can elect to ignore points anyways.

The rules being expensive should be an argument for the price matching the value. Either we get a gak load more content for the current asking price, or we pay a gak load less for the same content. Making them free would be welcome, but not at the expense of having them be terrible. I'll pay for good rules gladly, but even gakky rules that are free aren't worth the time to download.

The current edition being terrible is an argument to release a good edition that fixes the issues, not throws them away.

Simplified rules is not necessarily a good thing if they don't provide depth. Striking a balance between complexity and depth is what they should be striving for, not some ultimate goal of being the most simplified thing ever. I don't want to play Yahtzee, I want to play a wargame.

Again, they can change and advance the story without killing literally everything many people have grown up with.

Ask for a superior product, not some hastily thrown together 'rule set' that markets itself as being 'narrative'. Let the players decide how they want to make their games narrative, so give them a complete structure to build off of, not an incomplete mess they have to fill in the blanks.

I think that, in all practical terms, it's there already.

Points costs are already semi-irrelevant. When armies are getting free wargear, free special rules, free units, etc, such that you can have an 1850pt CAD facing what is effectively a 2500pt (or more) War Convocation, the points are meaningless.

Force organization is already basically like AoS, Unbound is there already and formations just give you an incentive to take X configuration of things without any rhyme or reason half the time.

The background is certainly increasingly worse, mirroring AoS's generification.

I'd say it's already there, just different execution.