Latest posts for the thread "Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing"

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

geargutz — GMT

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.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Deadnight — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Talys — GMT

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?

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

X078 — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

MechaEmperor7000 — GMT

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).

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Septimus Severus — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Brothererekose — GMT

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?

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Wyzilla — GMT

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

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

HoundsofDemos — GMT

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

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Accolade — GMT

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).

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

03mark87 — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

the_Armyman — GMT

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

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

geargutz — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Yoyoyo — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

OgreChubbs — GMT

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.....

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Brutus_Apex — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Peregrine — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

the_Armyman — GMT

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.

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, 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.

I bet I could make a perfectly balanced game of 18 different Eldar Craftworlds all fighting against each other, too.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Accolade — GMT

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.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Tycho — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Peregrine — GMT

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.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Wyzilla — GMT

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.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

HoundsofDemos — GMT

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

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Davor — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Wulfmar — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

oldzoggy — GMT

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

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Tycho — GMT

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.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Blacksails — GMT

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.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Vaktathi — GMT

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.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

MechaEmperor7000 — GMT

Imo I think that the rules to any game system should be free for two reasons:

1.) It becomes instantly accessible to any prospective player and is a good way to draw in people on the fence; they can try it out without feeling obligated to buy something first. This also encourages existing players to start multiple armies since they have a good understanding of the rules already and may see something interesting outside of their existing army, and may decide to invest in it. If the asking price to just "look" is 50+ bucks, I'm less inclined to start another army.

2.) It works better for rules balancing, for both sides. Unlike card games, miniatures don't have the rules printed on them so an online digital format makes it so that the game devs can make minute changes on the fly to account for unforeseen rule balance issues (which, as any game designer will tell you, you can never fully anticipate). This of course also requires a certain amount of willingness to balance on the developer's part, which GW has been lacking. It does give incentive to GW though, as they seem to wanna hold back rules and models because they want to wait till a new book is printed. In an online format they would not be restricted to this since, again, it would be an effective "living" document that they can update whenever they want.

However none of this means anything to them because GW will see it as loss of revenue. The irony though is if they did this, their miniatures would probably sell a lot better, compensating for the loss in revenue for the books.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

TheSilo — GMT

I have always been a fan of a tiered 40k system that caters more specifically to different game-styles and player-types. The official Kill Team book is a super lazy version, the Heralds of Ruin rules are much better catered to small-scale squad-based battles.

Tier 1 (or AoS style):
- 200-500 points, moving individually or in fire teams
- narrative, rpg elements
- fast playstyle
- individualized models

Tier 2, traditional 40k:
- 500-2500 points

Tier 3, Apoc/Epic:
- 2500+ points
- campaign focused
- simplified ruleset, minimal unit customization

This way, players can enter the game with lower overall cost, but there's also more specialized rules for larger games and experienced collectors. As it is, 40k is way too overwhelming for new players in terms of cost and complication, there's no way to have an introductory game since even me and my experienced gamer buddies are constantly relearning the massively complicated ruleset.

It's crazy that the current ruleset has MORE complicated rules for Apoc games.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

MechaEmperor7000 — GMT

That was sort of the idea with Combat Patrol, normal 40k and Apocalypse before.

Kill team theoretically comes first but it actually has more complicated rules.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

SagesStone — GMT

Yes, the background unfortunately gets killed with it. I think some things need rebalancing but the point system needs to be there.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

thegreatchimp — GMT

I find the question ironic, because those Stormcast lads are definately a nod to space marines -if anything AOS was WHFB given a bit of 40k treatment!

But on a serious note: While I don't much rate the 40k rule set, simplification alone isn't the answer. I like detail, so I don't actually consider the rules complicated as they stand, so much as downright illogical and irritatingly saturated with randomness.A complete re-write with an emphasis on tactical gameplay would be very welcome, but no I wouldn't AOS it. Anyway I'm not optimistic of any major overhauls -given the production rate of expansion material by GW has shown no signs of slowing, I predict we'll probably be stuck with this crap for at least another 5 years.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Raichase — GMT

It is amazing how the cycle has come full circle. I first learned 40k as 2nd edition (if anyone does the maths and figures out my age, I'll have to kill you), and it was just so over the top and confusing. For example, you couldn't just play with the D6, you needed all sorts of other dice and templates, not to mention wargear cards, vehicle cards etc... Thankfully we were young and just wanted to chuck dice at the table and shoot at each other. 20 Space Marines, 20 Orks and 40 Grots with a cardboard dreadnought provided hours of entertainment! We had our imaginations and some cardboard scenery and we just made it up on the fly. Dark Millennium, wargear cards, psychic phases... ain't nobody got time for that!

That's why I laughed when I ventured into my local GW after a prolonged absence to inquire about the latest edition of 40k and Franz mentioned the psychic phase. What's old is new again!

The game was so overcomplicated with rules and supplements that they hit a big old reset button on the whole thing, and we ended up with 3rd edition - the edition of the Rhino Rushing Marine armies. They provided a rulebook with a new "codex" in the back for every army, and then released new codexes one at a time. They cut the complexity down to a very basic ruleset (for 40k) and nuked the options. The force org chart replaced the old system (Min 25% of points spent on "troops", up to 50% "characters" and up to 50% "support").

They probably cut too deep, but the power creep is really noticeable with the flyers and super heavies being used in normal games of 40k. I believe in the rule of cool, and damn there are some awesome models around, but they should be why people play Apocalypse. I'm not going to play a 5000pt game just to put a couple more squads down, that's when you bring on the big toys. I wonder if 8th edition (or 9th) won't be the time for another big reset of the whole system...

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

Wulfmar wrote:
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.

GW could do an Age of Emporer and introduce it as a rules supplement or alternative ruleset for use with 40K models, which is what they should have done with WHFB and AoS.
.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

wuestenfux — GMT

Well, cheaper (or even free!) codices would be highly welcome.
However, establishing an oversimplified rule set similar to that of AoS would eventually kill 40k.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

My view is that the over-complicated ruleset that 40K has been growing into is killing the game already.

It would work if split back into separate optional books like Apoc.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Lithlandis Stormcrow — GMT

While I defend that 40k needs to have its rules simplified/clarified/streamlined, it does not need to go to the extent of AoS.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

thegreatchimp — GMT

The best way to renew the game would be to rewrite the rules for the large battles the game has come to accommodate, and then write a separate detailed and tactical rule set for "skirmish" games <50 troops, <5 tanks or an equivalent point size of lighter vehicles (i.e. the scale the game was priginally written to be played at). Unfortunately as they've only done a middling job on developing and maintaining a single rule set, I can't see them deciding to create two. WHFB being axed confirms that line of thinking.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jonolikespie — GMT

Simplified rules are a good thing.

Free rules are a good thing.

AoS takes those two things and implements them in the worst way imaginable.

As has been said a GOOD 8th edition is what is needed, not Age of Emperor.

(Although honestly I think the very base mechanics need to be totally overhauled, so I'd want 8th to be a serious change. Cover should be a to hit and or armour mod, not a save that can be utterly irrelevant when being shot at by weapons that simply don't beat your AP.)

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

thegreatchimp — GMT

jonolikespie wrote:
Although honestly I think the very base mechanics need to be totally overhauled, so I'd want 8th to be a serious change. Cover should be a to hit and or armour mod, not a save that can be utterly irrelevant when being shot at by weapons that simply don't beat your AP.)

Absolutely agree. The long standing of that awful rule is one of the main things that killed my hopes that 40k would develop into a tactically rewarding game.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

In my opinion GW already started to change 40k to be more like AoS. Just looking at the latest formations I guess a good 8th will never come. But we will see a short sheet of basic rules and many more formations ignoring them.

jonolikespie wrote:

(Although honestly I think the very base mechanics need to be totally overhauled, so I'd want 8th to be a serious change. Cover should be a to hit and or armour mod, not a save that can be utterly irrelevant when being shot at by weapons that simply don't beat your AP.)

The basic rules can stay they are not that bad (except the AP stuff which needs to be replaced) but those are actually ignored by everyone which is the main problem.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

master of asgard — GMT

Better the devil you know...

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

DaPino — GMT

I would probably quit the hobby on the spot and that's not a ranty, impulsive decision but a sincere, well thought over decision I haven been thinking about for some time.

AoS is not the kind of game system I started this hobby for. I started playing 40K because it was mechanically more complex than the boardgames I play.
AoS is too simplistic for my tastes and if I wanted something I could pick up and finish within an hour, I'd pick up a different game entirely, like say Zombicide or epic spell wars.

The "Throw whatever you want on the table" doesn't really help the game either.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jonolikespie — GMT

DaPino wrote:
I would probably quit the hobby on the spot and that's not a ranty, impulsive decision but a sincere, well thought over decision I haven been thinking about for some time.

AoS is not the kind of game system I started this hobby for. I started playing 40K because it was mechanically more complex than the boardgames I play.
AoS is too simplistic for my tastes and if I wanted something I could pick up and finish within an hour, I'd pick up a different game entirely, like say Zombicide or epic spell wars.

The "Throw whatever you want on the table" doesn't really help the game either.

Obligitory "GW is not The Hobby" comment.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jreilly89 — GMT

Considering the the complete mess AoS is to 40k, yes, it would be a bad thing.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

40K is mechanically very similar to AoS.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Deadnight — GMT

Raichase wrote:
It is amazing how the cycle has come full circle.

So true old man! (Deadnight grabs flak armour and ducks!)

We were talking about this yesterday. I remember the rail end of third edition (so I'm old as well), when the game rules were so bloated it was kind of ridiculous. It wasn't just codex and rulebook. It was codex, rulebook, several editions of chapter approved along with various white dwarves with the specialist army list for your sub faction. Essentially,your own weight in paper. Heck, rules,bloat was the same - I remember three versions of true grit existing.

Fourth edition rolls around and all thst goes away. Cleaned up, streamlined and all the guff and bloated special rules sorted out. Seventh ed, and we're all back to the end of third edition in terms of how much paper you need to bring to the table to play.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

MongooseMatt — GMT

Raichase wrote:
I first learned 40k as 2nd edition (if anyone does the maths and figures out my age, I'll have to kill you)

Ah, you be just a Young Pup compared to those of us who started with Rogue Trader ;-)

But I would be happy with an AoSfication of 40k.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

the_Armyman — GMT

I think what everyone misses in this discussion is GW literally CAN'T go back and simplify 40K. They absolutely need people to purchase these huge model kits and massive armies to keep the ship from sinking. Fantasy was making so little money, that a complete reboot was a gamble they could afford to take. There will be no gamble with 40K that doesn't include the future of the company. They need rules churn, they need customers buying large armies, and they cannot officially segregate their players into Skirmish 40K, 40K, and Apoc 40K.

How would you simplify a game that meets all that criteria?

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Raichase — GMT

Deadnight wrote:
[...]

Fourth edition rolls around and all thst goes away. Cleaned up, streamlined and all the guff and bloated special rules sorted out. Seventh ed, and we're all back to the end of third edition in terms of how much paper you need to bring to the table to play.

Not only the amount of paper needed to play, but the sheer volume of different rules you need to know to face off against random opponents! I'm forever asking "what's that, what's that do?" Because it's hard to come up with a threat matrix if you don't know what is and isn't a threat!

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

mondo80 — GMT

It might not be possible to AOS 40k. Many armies have a lot of equipment customization options that need the points system to keep it balanced. The free and simplified rules are great and the new stat system is interesting.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Davor — GMT

Wulfmar wrote: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.

It's not a cash cow for GW. Otherwise they wouldn't be a miniatures company. Joking aside if it really was a cash cow, wouldn't you think they would have Sisters of Battle Codex? To me that screams cash cow

Tycho wrote:
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.

There is balance in 40K right now? No, no there is not. Nothing is really balanced in 40K right now from the way the rules are played to how the codices are made. Yes we can play fluffy armies right now, but you can also play very competitively in Age of Sigmar right now as well. Just need a conversation with your regular opponents.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Minijack — GMT

There is no need at all to even change much about 40k in order to "AoS" it.The two game are so very similar now.

People always talk about the puny 4 page rules of AoS,but really,every game uses on average 30+ pages if you count all the individual rules and weapon charts on all the warscrolls you will be using.Not saying that if 40k would go this route that the base rules would be only 4 pages,but more likely in the 6-10 page range due to template and blast weapons usage rules etc..

Free rules with free data slates then coupled with a fan made point system like the SDK scroll builder,,which I should add is a mathematical formula based on each warscrolls base stats,,so in that way GW is essentially providing points indirectly...do this and 40k would be fine.

For those few that play both games...do yourself a favor and make up an AoS list with you opponent using sdk ,,,1500 points or so and set up a maelstrom game using a couple sets of tac cards and you will see just how close these games are now

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jonolikespie — GMT

Minijack wrote:
There is no need at all to even change much about 40k in order to "AoS" it.The two game are so very similar now.

People always talk about the puny 4 page rules of AoS,but really,every game uses on average 30+ pages if you count all the individual rules and weapon charts on all the warscrolls you will be using.Not saying that if 40k would go this route that the base rules would be only 4 pages,but more likely in the 6-10 page range due to template and blast weapons usage rules etc..

Free rules with free data slates then coupled with a fan made point system like the SDK scroll builder,,which I should add is a mathematical formula based on each warscrolls base stats,,so in that way GW is essentially providing points indirectly...do this and 40k would be fine.

For those few that play both games...do yourself a favor and make up an AoS list with you opponent using sdk ,,,1500 points or so and set up a maelstrom game using a couple sets of tac cards and you will see just how close these games are now

I think when people say Age of Sigmarfy 40k they mean remove points.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Iur_tae_mont — GMT

AoS'ing 40k would be too drastic and probably kill them.

If they made "rules only" paperbacks of Codices, rulebooks, and even the Forgeworld books at a lower price than the hard covers( like think 5th ed book prices for paperbacks), that'd be a good step in the right direction.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

torgoch — GMT

I played reluctantly played Age of Sigmar a couple of times of Christmas. Loads of stuff in it would make 40k a better experience

Removal of toughness: Sounds dumb, actually really good. No more stuck in combat with things you can’t hurt as ‘toughness’ equates to more wounds. Makes things easier to point too. I can’t emphasise how much better I feel this would make 40k

Save modifiers: no more needs to be said

Hit modifiers: goodbye cover save, you won’t be missed

Warscroll: we started playing in minutes, now they need a bit more complexity around options, but the simple stateline really helps.

Shooting in combat: you would get to use your assault rifles in in combat as people have asked to do for years. It might need some balancing though (in AoS you can only do it in your turn and missile weapons seem quite short range anyway)

Battleshock: I really liked this mechanic – units don’t flee from minor casualties, but severe casualties are horrible. Command ability to get a unit immune to it is powerful and makes generals a bit more interesting that simply being a beat stick that gives up a point and might get a lucky warlord trait.

AoS has some problems, principally the lack of some kind of points system. I wasn’t keen on the dice off each turn as it made it harder to plan, but this was partly balanced by the lack of the initiative system or priorty striking for chargers meant getting the charge wasn’t such a big deal.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jonolikespie — GMT

torgoch wrote:
I wasn’t keen on the dice off each turn as it made it harder to plan, but this was partly balanced by the lack of the initiative system or priorty striking for chargers meant getting the charge wasn’t such a big deal.

That part I really hate, not for it being unbalanced when a player gets two turns in a row (though I do dislike that), but the fact that 40k already has problems where once your turn is over you can walk off to the bathroom, browse the store shelves, check your email, and take a nap, before your turn rolls back around.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

That would be solved by smaller, faster moving rules. One gripe I have against both AoS and 40K is the clunky To Hit, To Wound, To Save combat resolution. However it could be reduced by use of a multiple dice probability tabulation.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

torgoch wrote:

Removal of toughness: Sounds dumb, actually really good. No more stuck in combat with things you can’t hurt as ‘toughness’ equates to more wounds. Makes things easier to point too. I can’t emphasise how much better I feel this would make 40k

Or just removing the silly "stuck in combat" rule
a lot of the problems can be solved without having the same profile for all models or adding strange rules and while a fantasy game may work with a big melee blob in the centre, a sci fi game will have some problems.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Hawkeye888 — GMT

I'm not keen the AOSing of 40k, but a drastic overhaul of the game system might be something work while.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

MongooseMatt — GMT

torgoch wrote:
I wasn’t keen on the dice off each turn as it made it harder to plan, but this was partly balanced by the lack of the initiative system or priorty striking for chargers meant getting the charge wasn’t such a big deal.

I was a bit unsure about this to begin with, but the more I play AoS, the more I think it works. It is never a complete surprise when an opponent (or you!) gets two turns in a row, and so you can start playing around that and planning for it. It kinda becomes about managing the overall tide of battle and waiting for that moment when your opponent cannot get that second turn in a row, but you can. If it pops up, charge ahead and if not, there is another chance for it in the next round (after which the boot goes onto the other foot).

It seems a bit counter-intuitive to begin with, especially if you have played Fantasy Battle or 40k for a couple of decades or more... but it does work.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

torgoch — GMT

jonolikespie wrote:That part I really hate, not for it being unbalanced when a player gets two turns in a row (though I do dislike that), but the fact that 40k already has problems where once your turn is over you can walk off to the bathroom, browse the store shelves, check your email, and take a nap, before your turn rolls back around.

I don't think that is quite such as issue in AoS. You need to be present to counterspell, you need to make saves against shooting, and then you get to pick the second unit that fights in combat, which can be critical. You are probably more engaged in your opponents turn in AoS than you are in 40k.

The alternative is something like alternating activation, which GW implemented brilliantly in Epic: Armageddon. However, I feel that is probably a bit too technical for something is designed for immediate play.

MongooseMatt wrote:

I was a bit unsure about this to begin with, but the more I play AoS, the more I think it works. It is never a complete surprise when an opponent (or you!) gets two turns in a row, and so you can start playing around that and planning for it. It kinda becomes about managing the overall tide of battle and waiting for that moment when your opponent cannot get that second turn in a row, but you can. If it pops up, charge ahead and if not, there is another chance for it in the next round (after which the boot goes onto the other foot).

It seems a bit counter-intuitive to begin with, especially if you have played Fantasy Battle or 40k for a couple of decades or more... but it does work.

I'm used to rolling for priority each turn in E:A. However, as you used strategy ratings it felt something you could plan around more.That said, for AoS given the way combat is resolved, alternating turns could make the game a little duller, as the roll-off did add some tension to the start of each turn.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

MongooseMatt wrote:
... but it does work.

So does Frostgrave, but it would not work if I use the rules from Frostgrave to play 40k.
Yeah, the AoS rules work quite well to play AoS. They do not work if you want to play Warhammer Fantasy Battles and will not work if you wanto play Warhammer 40k.

They maybe will work for Age of Horus or Age of Whatever, but not for 40k

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

I don't want to play 40K.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

torgoch — GMT

Another thought, by simplifying the stateline you could introduce the concept of weapons being Anti-Personnel or Anti-Tank and have differing impacts

e.g. generically make heavy weapons wound infantry on a 6 and do 1 wound to reflect they are rubbish against infantry and give a marine something to do with his pistol

Then have lascannons be a 3+ to wound Armour, a -4 save, but only cause D2 wounds
Autocannon 5+ to wound, no save mod, D3 wounds, 2 shots
Multimelta, 2+/4+ (depending on distance), -4/-2 save mod, D6 wounds

Missile launcher can be 3+ wound, -1 save, D3 wounds and given an A-P profile as well

Monstrous Creatures would be hit by the vehicle profile to reflect their nature, so wound be vulnerable to both weapon types, but would offset this through a bucket load of wounds

Sounds better already!

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

So an imperial soldier would be able to survive a laser canon hit while a tank would be destroyed.

sounds perfect, like AoS

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Breng77 — GMT

It would be more realistic to make it harder to hit infantry with those heavy weapons than to wound.

That said AOS has some great ideas and some terrible. IF 40k adopted the good, and improved on it that would be great.

Good ideas -
Rules come with units not in codices. Easier to balance one unit at a time than entire armies, no need for armies to take forever to update.

Rules available online for old units- could be extended to erratas for balance.

Simplificaiton of tons of special rules.

Bad ideas

no balance system (points, army structure what have you)

the initiative roll- I love initiative rolls for unit by unit activation systems, for army by army it is terrible, especially with the ranged damage in 40k. Too much luck here for me.

dumb special rules for some units.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

torgoch — GMT

kodos wrote:So an imperial soldier would be able to survive a laser canon hit while a tank would be destroyed.

sounds perfect, like AoS

They'd take a wound and die. Like now. Characters would only take 1 wound which is a bit different for some now. My Marine bike characters or Necrons habitually take lascannon shots as they just take a wound.

Breng77 wrote:It would be more realistic to make it harder to hit infantry with those heavy weapons than to wound.

It would - but if you started giving out multiple wounds for lascannons on infantry then you'd turn them into character snipers i think. There's ways round it pof course - give them a rule they hit infantry on 6s and can't shoot characters. I came up with that asI was typing though, so it wasn't really thought out. However, it sounds much more interesting to play than the current rules. Shooting anti--tank weapons at infantry shouldn't be effective really. In Epic, a lascannon does absolutely nothing against infantry.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

torgoch wrote:

They'd take a wound and die. Like now

Now they take a wound and die on 2+, you want to change it to 6+ which makes them the perfect shield against heavy weapons.

Everything that can kill a tank is also killing infantry
make infantry hard to hit is ok, but not to make them hard to wound

And everything that can kill a tank with one shot should also be able to kill a char or monster with one shot.
Or why should the imperial guard general take more hit from a lasercannon then the leman russ tank?

If you want to have a bigger difference between anti infantry and anti tank guns, make it impossible for anti infantry weapons to kill tanks.
Anti tank weapons are already bad against infantry because they can cause only a single wound a turn.

every wound of an anti tank weapon removes 2 wounds from one model
still bad against infantry but better against monsters and tanks

give them a rule they hit infantry on 6s and can't shoot characters.

every space marine char would like this
killing the whole enemy army without a chance of being killed is nice

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Peregrine — GMT

Rather than have absurd situations like lasgun hits being more effective at killing infantry than lascannon hits the obvious solution is to let rate of fire be the most common difference between anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons. Anti-tank weapons should massively overkill any infantry unfortunate enough to be in their path, but the low rate of fire should make it generally a poor idea to waste them on infantry unless there are no more tanks on the table. Spending an expensive anti-tank gun on killing a single guardsman shouldn't be a winning strategy. Anti-infantry weapons, on the other hand, might have a lower chance of killing a model per shot, but would make up for it with much higher rate of fire. The end result would be that anti-infantry weapons kill more models than anti-tank weapons and are clearly a better choice when you're expecting infantry.

Honestly, one of the biggest problems with balancing 40k is that MEQs are the standard infantry type instead of a rare heavy infantry unit, and the heavy infantry role is filled by ridiculous death star units that normal anti-infantry guns can't even touch. If "normal" infantry were more common it would do a lot to fix the problem of anti-tank weapons being the default choice for everything.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

MechaEmperor7000 — GMT

Peregrine wrote:
Rather than have absurd situations like lasgun hits being more effective at killing infantry than lascannon hits the obvious solution is to let rate of fire be the most common difference between anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons. Anti-tank weapons should massively overkill any infantry unfortunate enough to be in their path, but the low rate of fire should make it generally a poor idea to waste them on infantry unless there are no more tanks on the table. Spending an expensive anti-tank gun on killing a single guardsman shouldn't be a winning strategy. Anti-infantry weapons, on the other hand, might have a lower chance of killing a model per shot, but would make up for it with much higher rate of fire. The end result would be that anti-infantry weapons kill more models than anti-tank weapons and are clearly a better choice when you're expecting infantry.

Honestly, one of the biggest problems with balancing 40k is that MEQs are the standard infantry type instead of a rare heavy infantry unit, and the heavy infantry role is filled by ridiculous death star units that normal anti-infantry guns can't even touch. If "normal" infantry were more common it would do a lot to fix the problem of anti-tank weapons being the default choice for everything.

The problem with that though is that GW will have to advertise Space Marines less, and possibly roll some space marine books into the core one (BAs and DAs).

That is never going to happen though. There are almost as many space marine characters as there are characters from all other factions combined (Between the SoBs, Inquisition and Grey Knights we have maybe about 6-7 characters. Ultramarines alone have Five just in the codex). GW so thoroughly milked that cow that now the game is basically Warhammer: Age of Space Marines.

For what you're proposing to happen, the entire game would need an overhaul.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Peregrine — GMT

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
For what you're proposing to happen, the entire game would need an overhaul.

You're right, it does. This is just one of many reasons that the entire game needs to be replaced.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Filch — GMT

Out of pure spite and hatred towards gw and all the people with fat wallets to support them, i welcome a AoS of 40k.

I hope they throw out points because things are already op and imba from being undercosted like the WK. I hope they make dumb rules with beards and dancing on one foot. I hope they make the models 3x the price they are now. a box of 10 marines is $99. Yeah i hope GW crash and burns hard. Then I can finally give up hoping GW turning their company around.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

HoundsofDemos — GMT

If you hate the game why are you on a forum dedicated to it.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

Peregrine wrote:

Honestly, one of the biggest problems with balancing 40k is that MEQs are the standard infantry type instead of a rare heavy infantry unit, and the heavy infantry role is filled by ridiculous death star units that normal anti-infantry guns can't even touch. If "normal" infantry were more common it would do a lot to fix the problem of anti-tank weapons being the default choice for everything.

Marines are difficult
but there are solutions to get them more in line with the rest of the infantry so that it would still be better to use anti infantry weapons to kill them instead of anti tank weapons.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

For what you're proposing to happen, the entire game would need an overhaul.

working on that but I guess it will take another year until it is finished

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

autumnlotus — GMT

A question about the proposed removal of toughness: if you just add wounds, woudlnt thatean that any source of instant death would make them pointless? Or massed shots against something that should be almost immortal? Like a GUO, are you saying a squad of conscripts should be able to murder it with their fists? Or that a single tanl shot shoudl make my Warlord just explode? That seems very drastic and unfun

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

sing your life — GMT

HoundsofDemos wrote:
If you hate the game why are you on a forum dedicated to it.

Most popular part of the forum =/= what the forum is dedicated to.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Fenrir Kitsune — GMT

HoundsofDemos wrote:
If you hate the game why are you on a forum dedicated to it.

Yeah, why don't you just go and live in the Soviet Union if you love it so much, amirite?

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Formosa — GMT

For simplifying the stating, bs4 means 4+ to hit.... Simples, weapon skill would be the same, but add a modifier, double WS is + 1 and -1 respectively.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Wyzilla — GMT

For balancing issues, I'd suggest a restructure of the Astartes army. Gut the MEQ count- turn space marines into something like movie marines or tau battlesuits. You've just got a couple squads per army at most, they're hard to kill, but rare as hell. Instead the main infantry is Chapter Serfs, equipped to a similar level to veteran guardsmen.

Or alternatively roll all the Imperial Codices into one GIANT fat book, and Space Marines purely become an Elite/HQ choice.

Spoiler:

Something similar to this from art I got for my Chapter for Chapter Serf infantry.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Yoyoyo — GMT

sing your life wrote:
Most popular part of the forum =/= what the forum is dedicated to.

I lurk in the P&M and tournament section, but I just can't resist the sweet sweet drama of the General 40k forum

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Crablezworth — GMT

HoundsofDemos wrote:
If you hate the game why are you on a forum dedicated to it.

The hobby of 40k is about 70% blaming jervis for stuff, I thought this was common knowledge. This is like every comment on bols "if yo don;t like it, no one is forcing you to bu..." .

There can be no discussion, no nuance In the far future, there is only fan worship apparently lol

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

The point of AoSing 40K is to simplify it and get rid of things like T. It works fine in AoS, which has big monsters and stuff, in fact, I think they should have simplified the rules even further, they are still too similar to 40K/WHFB in the stat line and combat resolution.

I dare say human ingenuity might be able to create a rule that stops tanks from getting blown up by rifles, and makes anti-tank guns not a good weapon against infantry.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

wuestenfux — GMT

Breng77 wrote:
It would be more realistic to make it harder to hit infantry with those heavy weapons than to wound.

That said AOS has some great ideas and some terrible. IF 40k adopted the good, and improved on it that would be great.

Good ideas -
Rules come with units not in codices. Easier to balance one unit at a time than entire armies, no need for armies to take forever to update.

Rules available online for old units- could be extended to erratas for balance.

Simplificaiton of tons of special rules.

Bad ideas

no balance system (points, army structure what have you)

the initiative roll- I love initiative rolls for unit by unit activation systems, for army by army it is terrible, especially with the ranged damage in 40k. Too much luck here for me.

dumb special rules for some units.

If we could get the best of both world, why not.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Loborocket — GMT

HoundsofDemos wrote:
If you hate the game why are you on a forum dedicated to it.

I wonder this same thing about a lot of people who regularly post to this forum. Makes it not as great as it could be needing to constantly wade through the negativity. Seeing the world of 40k through the lens of DakkaDakka is NOT reality.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Deadnight — GMT

Loborocket wrote:
HoundsofDemos wrote:
If you hate the game why are you on a forum dedicated to it.

I wonder this same thing about a lot of people who regularly post to this forum. Makes it not as great as it could be needing to constantly wade through the negativity. Seeing the world of 40k through the lens of DakkaDakka is NOT reality.

To be fair, 'playing' the game is not the hobby. It's only a small part. You don't need to play the game in order to participate. Plenty people here don't play the game, or play so infrequently that they don't really count as 'players'. But thankfully, 40k, and wargaming in general covers more than just 'playing' games. There is painting, modelling, converting, collecting on the physical side. There is immersing yourself in the lore. There is the soap opera and all its attendant high drama in discussing the corporate affairs of the company that creates it all (better than coronation street!) and it's bedfellows. There is also, more importantly, engagement with other nerds of a similar disposition who like the same equally niche hobby that you might not otherwise get a chance to talk about. For a lot of people, gw is still something they have a passionate interest in.

If either of you take a look, this forum is called the '40k General discussion'. 'General' discussion, by its very definition covers all of these things, and not just 'playing' the game. And shockingly, it's open to everyone who wishes to discuss, or involve themselves in any 'general' topic. forcing a certain viewpoint away is called censorship. Last time I checked, that was generally considered a bad thing...

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jreilly89 — GMT

Deadnight wrote:
Loborocket wrote:
HoundsofDemos wrote:
If you hate the game why are you on a forum dedicated to it.

I wonder this same thing about a lot of people who regularly post to this forum. Makes it not as great as it could be needing to constantly wade through the negativity. Seeing the world of 40k through the lens of DakkaDakka is NOT reality.

To be fair, 'playing' the game is not the hobby. It's only a small part. You don't need to play the game in order to participate. Plenty people here don't play the game, or play so infrequently that they don't really count as 'players'. But thankfully, 40k, and wargaming in general covers more than just 'playing' games. There is painting, modelling, converting, collecting on the physical side. There is immersing yourself in the lore. There is the soap opera and all its attendant high drama in discussing the corporate affairs of the company that creates it all (better than coronation street!) and it's bedfellows. There is also, more importantly, engagement with other nerds of a similar disposition who like the same equally niche hobby that you might not otherwise get a chance to talk about. For a lot of people, gw is still something they have a passionate interest in.

If either of you take a look, this forum is called the '40k General discussion'. 'General' discussion, by its very definition covers all of these things, and not just 'playing' the game. And shockingly, it's open to everyone who wishes to discuss, or involve themselves in any 'general' topic. forcing a certain viewpoint away is called censorship. Last time I checked, that was generally considered a bad thing...

I would argue playing the game is at least a third. Sure, you can just collect, paint, and convert models, but by the number of people who play, playing is at the bare minimum a third, and that's no "small part".

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

Depends on the person, playing 40k is less than 1% of my hobby.
At the moment the only game I play is X-Wing, but 40k is the game were I paint and convert stuff, write story’s and have "what if" discussions on the web.

I still have enough here to keep on painting for years without buying something.

And I stopped really playing the game after I had no chance to get a list for tournaments.
Because for me it is easier to play tournament than to get into the club once a week.
And having 10k points of Marines, 4k Damons, 4k CSM and 2k Tau and being not able to get 1 playable tournament list was the point I stopped playing the game.

Yeah, playing the game is just a small part of the hobby

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

The thing is, this forum is not a cheerleading group for 40K. It's a forum for discussion. That includes a spectrum of negative and positive viewpoints.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Deadnight — GMT

jreilly89 wrote:

I would argue playing the game is at least a third. Sure, you can just collect, paint, and convert models, but by the number of people who play, playing is at the bare minimum a third, and that's no "small part".

Oh?

Is it though? gw claim 80% of their customers don't actually play the game.... And what numbers can you bring to the table when you claim 'by The number of people who play'? Seems like an empty claim to me, with a random number pulled out, and maybe confirmation bias because you (and I) are active players, and the people we know are also active players. But we don't necessarily represent 'the community'. I mean, to the actively playing community, of course gaming could potentially represent a huge chunk of what makes 40k '40k'. But that's just confirmation bias.There's folks out there who love the game, and show no interest in either the lore or painting and modelling. Likewise, there's folks out there who focus on either of the two latter aspects, and for whom gaming is far less than 'a third'. So for them, yes it is 'a small part'. And yet, if you ask them what their hobbies are, they'll still probably say '40k'. There have been numerous threads put up as to what part of the hobby people like most. And it's not always the gaming side that draws people.

I don't think it's 80% don't play as gw claim, but I do personally think that a lot more people are more interested in the idea of playing, than actively playing, and that there is a fair chunk out there whose main avenue to gaming is the lore, painting or dakka. There are those who exclusively play on vassal, and those that only play the video games. Heck, there are plenty former players, or 'dormant' players that last played two or three editions ago, and players that can count the number of games they played in the last year on one hand(amazing how life can get in the way), or whose gaming groups broke up, or who moved to areas where there are no gamers, but still want to maintain an interest. There are plenty people who post waiting for their first game - heck. I painted and read lore for about two years before I got my first game of 40k in. If you talked to an eighteen year old Deadnight, his 40k was reading the 2nd ed fluff, discussing the hobby, chatting with fellow like minded nerds and painting his fire warriors as a way to relax and unwind when he was studying for his exams during his final year in secondary school. There were times when I completely burned out (both from 40k,and for a spell from warmachine) where for the best part of a year each time, I resolutely kept clear of gaming. I painted my models, I read my lore and I followed the news. There have been times where I've lived and worked in places where there was no gaming and my gaming life dropped back to zero, from multiple games a week! Let me repeat. No games played during all those times. And I doubt I am the only one. And more importantly, during any of those times when I wasn't actively gsming, if you has asked me my hobbies, I would still have said 'I'm into 40k'. Because 40k is more than 'playing' the table top Wargame. heck, I am happy to buy, convert and paint models that have no rules, no game to go with, but merely as things to enjoy painting. (FYI, hasslefree models - great company - check them out! ) again, I am far from the only one.

You can argue all you want, and make those claims (and with respect, that's all they are) and to be honest with you, I personally will not disagree With you in your views as to the importance of the gaming side - in fact, I'll probably agree with you in your viewpoint. Personally at least, playing wargames is important to me to too, and probably as important as any other aspect of the hobby -I get as much enjoyment from it as I do the painting and reading fluff. As you say - a third? Sure, why not. Seems a legitimate number to me. To us. But there are those out there for whom the gaming isn't really all that important, but they are immersed in other areas to a greater degree. When I talk about a 'small part', I'm talking about the hobby and the community and all the circumstances that people can find themselves in as a whole. In other words, there are plenty reasons to not be gaming, but to still be active on the forums.But there are those who read every.single.bl book. And there are those that spend months on a single model painting it. In preference to the game. Is gaming a third to them, or something a bunch of other people do?

But we, and our Personal like don't necessarily define all that the hobby comprises. for me, for example, my current 'active' interest in 40k is enjoying the forgeworld Horus heresy books and very occasionally buying a model to paint. I enjoy discussing 'the state' of the hobby online because I personally find it interesting.

And all that said and done. Even if someone doesn't play the Wargame, (for whatever reason), or bArely plays it, but still maintains an interest in the general state of 40k's affairs, then who are folks to tell them that their opinions and thoughts are not welcome in an Internet forum titled '40k General discussion'. When they start polluting the army list section or other unrelated places with irrelevancies, you can rightly point out they're in the wrong place. But here? That's what 'here' is for.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Loborocket — GMT

It is like some kind of alternate reality here where the people who want less negativity are considered the "trolls" bothering those who want to wallow in their misery. Wallow on, Wallow on!!!!

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Azreal13 — GMT

Let's see, before I go back and read the thread, I'm going to predict that Loborocket has been posting in yet another thread complaining that people have different opinions to his?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yep. Same old, same old.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to not fall into the trap of posting a very poor signal to noise ratio because other people are doing it constantly, do I think gutting the 40K universe, abandoning all sense of in game structure and reducing the whole thing still further towards a dice rolling exercise with little pretense at strategy would be a bad thing? Absolutely.

However, I have no conceptual issue with GW scrapping the whole system in favor of something leaner and simpler, as long as lessons have been learned and it is handled better.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jonolikespie — GMT

You know if they trimmed the rules way down to AoS levels I'd be happy.

I'd be ambivalent if they cut the point costs out like AoS.

If they scrap the universe and remake it in an AoS style I think I'd not bother ever looking at 40k again and GW would go belly up within the year.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Deadnight — GMT

Loborocket wrote:
It is like some kind of alternate reality here where the people who want less negativity are considered the "trolls" bothering those who want to wallow in their misery. Wallow on, Wallow on!!!!

Pointing out the legitimate flaws in a game =/= 'wallowing in their misery'. Negativity and positivity walk hand in hand mate. If people are negative about stuff, here's a shocker for you - maybe there is a reason? And leading on from that bombshell announcement. maybe they'd like to discuss it? Hmm, I wonder if there would be an appropriate forum to discuss such a view?

Army lists?

You make da call?

Proposed rules?

Battle reports?

Tactics?

Background?

Hmm, I don't think any of them are really appropriate. Oh, but what's this?! There is a forum for 40k here called '40k general discussion'. Hmm, I think that might be the most logical place to discuss such things. In fact, it kind of makes sense as this is a 'general' topic. Who knew?

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Crablezworth — GMT

Deadnight wrote:
Loborocket wrote:
It is like some kind of alternate reality here where the people who want less negativity are considered the "trolls" bothering those who want to wallow in their misery. Wallow on, Wallow on!!!!

Pointing out the legitimate flaws in a game =/= 'wallowing in their misery'. Negativity and positivity walk hand in hand mate. If people are negative about stuff, here's a shocker for you - maybe there is a reason? And leading on from that bombshell announcement. maybe they'd like to discuss it? Hmm, I wonder if there would be an appropriate forum to discuss such a view?

Army lists?

You make da call?

Proposed rules?

Battle reports?

Tactics?

Background?

Hmm, I don't think any of them are really appropriate. Oh, but what's this?! There is a forum for 40k here called '40k general discussion'. Hmm, I think that might be the most logical place to discuss such things. In fact, it kind of makes sense as this is a 'general' topic. Who knew?

I whole heatedly agree with your findings and would like to subscribe to your newsletter good sir.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Raichase — GMT

There's a definite difference between negativity and the pointing out of flaws. Most of the gamers complaints about 40k stem from their passion, and their outright offense at things that are wrong - they invest a lot of time, money and effort into the game, and it is offensive when you get a slap in the face. The only "negativity" I don't like is the flat out "it's rubbish, don't bother". If someone is at that point, they should just walk away.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Deadnight — GMT

Raichase wrote:
There's a definite difference between negativity and the pointing out of flaws. Most of the gamers complaints about 40k stem from their passion, and their outright offense at things that are wrong - they invest a lot of time, money and effort into the game, and it is offensive when you get a slap in the face. The only "negativity" I don't like is the flat out "it's rubbish, don't bother". If someone is at that point, they should just walk away.

And yet, one posters negativity is another posters objective assessment.

'it's rubbish, don't bother' is a valid assessment if a poster feels that yes, indeed it is rubbish, it's pointless or just far too much hassle to make work and if there are better options out there.

Viewpoints and perceptions.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Raichase — GMT

Deadnight wrote:
And yet, one posters negativity is another posters objective assessment.

'it's rubbish, don't bother' is a valid assessment if a poster feels that yes, indeed it is rubbish, it's pointless or just far too much hassle to make work and if there are better options out there.

Viewpoints and perceptions.

In that case, I think it comes down to how the opinion is expressed. If someone is really dirty on 40k, then they can still participate in discussions by pointing players to better games as opposed to suggesting that someone give up altogether. Kind of like constructive criticism - in both situations, the player is saying they don't like the game! Which is fair enough too, everyone is entitled to their opinion - what else is the point of a discussion forum if not?

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Deadnight — GMT

Raichase wrote:

In that case, I think it comes down to how the opinion is expressed. If someone is really dirty on 40k, then they can still participate in discussions by pointing players to better games as opposed to suggesting that someone give up altogether. Kind of like constructive criticism - in both situations, the player is saying they don't like the game! Which is fair enough too, everyone is entitled to their opinion - what else is the point of a discussion forum if not?

Which is all well and good, (and I agree, by the way!) but the best expressed (negative) opinion will still be seen by someone as 'wallowing in their misery'.

And I personally don't necessarily hold that as a fair counterpoint to the opinion either.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

Shall we abandon the back-biting and get back to the actual topic?

It's only to be expected that in general a discussion forum is for discussion, and this implies there will be comments and arguments for and against the topic.

At the same time, I would point out for anti-negativity people that we have run various threads that are aimed at positivity, where we discourage negative sniping as off topic.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Raichase — GMT

On the original topic of "AOS"ing 40k, the consensus seems to be that a simplification of the rules would be welcomed by the community - putting more emphasis on tactics and gamesmanship versus "showing up with the biggest gun", but removing points values would remove the majority of gamers. It would certainly remove me, part of the thrill of the game is having a set budget and having to come up with a good strategy around what you can buy with those points.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Davor — GMT

Raichase wrote:
On the original topic of "AOS"ing 40k, the consensus seems to be that a simplification of the rules would be welcomed by the community - putting more emphasis on tactics and gamesmanship versus "showing up with the biggest gun", but removing points values would remove the majority of gamers. It would certainly remove me, part of the thrill of the game is having a set budget and having to come up with a good strategy around what you can buy with those points.

Go to the AoS forum, there is a thread about missing list building or something like that. I am shocked to see a lot of the people don't miss it at all. So it seems a lot of people do not care for a points system. I am really surprised by that. So I am not so sure removing points in 40K will remove the majority of gamers. Maybe people on the internet will not go on the forums, but I don't think it will stop people gaming.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jonolikespie — GMT

Davor wrote:
Raichase wrote:
On the original topic of "AOS"ing 40k, the consensus seems to be that a simplification of the rules would be welcomed by the community - putting more emphasis on tactics and gamesmanship versus "showing up with the biggest gun", but removing points values would remove the majority of gamers. It would certainly remove me, part of the thrill of the game is having a set budget and having to come up with a good strategy around what you can buy with those points.

Go to the AoS forum, there is a thread about missing list building or something like that. I am shocked to see a lot of the people don't miss it at all. So it seems a lot of people do not care for a points system. I am really surprised by that. So I am not so sure removing points in 40K will remove the majority of gamers. Maybe people on the internet will not go on the forums, but I don't think it will stop people gaming.

And if you look in the "how is AoS doinf in your area" you'll see only 25% positive results. Just because there aren't a ton of people posting that they miss it doesn't mean people haven't just dropped fantasy and stop checking the threads down there.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Skinflint Games — GMT

I got into 40k at the ass end of the RT era, and as I tecall, points were never originally a thing- it was very scenario driven. Maybe a "skirmish level" version, mission led and sans super heavies and all the Apocalypse lunacy wouldn't be such a bad thing. Even if it's just offered as an option.

There again, there's always my game ;-)

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

MechaEmperor7000 — GMT

In terms of simplification I'd wish they'd go to around the time of late 3rd edition/early 4th edition. Those times had the Tyranid Mutation Table, the Imperial Guard Doctrines, Space Marine Chapter Traits, and Chaos Legions. Those were pretty fun to play around with, but nothing too complex as to make you flip through books each time you wanted to play.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

War Kitten — GMT

I think whether or not it would be a "good" thing would depend entirely on how they approached it. If they trimmed down the rules and encouraged a skirmish style of play with an option for larger battles I'd be all for it. But if they approached it like they did AOS where they butchered the setting I had come to love (I got into fantasy midway through 8th), then no. It wouldn't be a good thing. I love the background of 40k, and if they threw it out like they did Fantasy I would just stop playing entirely

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Accolade — GMT

jonolikespie wrote:
Davor wrote:
Raichase wrote:
On the original topic of "AOS"ing 40k, the consensus seems to be that a simplification of the rules would be welcomed by the community - putting more emphasis on tactics and gamesmanship versus "showing up with the biggest gun", but removing points values would remove the majority of gamers. It would certainly remove me, part of the thrill of the game is having a set budget and having to come up with a good strategy around what you can buy with those points.

Go to the AoS forum, there is a thread about missing list building or something like that. I am shocked to see a lot of the people don't miss it at all. So it seems a lot of people do not care for a points system. I am really surprised by that. So I am not so sure removing points in 40K will remove the majority of gamers. Maybe people on the internet will not go on the forums, but I don't think it will stop people gaming.

And if you look in the "how is AoS doinf in your area" you'll see only 25% positive results. Just because there aren't a ton of people posting that they miss it doesn't mean people haven't just dropped fantasy and stop checking the threads down there.

Going on what Jono is saying, I think it makes perfect sense that people in the AOS sub are okay with there not being points. Really, the only people left in that forum are people who are enthusiastic about that game. That's not me knocking on their enjoyment, I'd just be surprised to see that many dissenters remaining at this point. I think a better comparison would be the level of traffic of the WH-AOS forum compared to its earlier iterations (WHFB 6th-8th) to see the overall popularity of this game over time.

Beyond that, people rarely admit huge flaws with games they're currently very positive about. If you saw GW come out with a points system for AOS tomorrow, you'd see everyone suddenly saying points improve the experience. It's just all relative to what's current.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

jamesk1973 — GMT

Have the novels even reached the point that fighting on Terra has began?

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

Skinflint Games wrote:
I got into 40k at the ass end of the RT era, and as I tecall, points were never originally a thing- it was very scenario driven. Maybe a "skirmish level" version, mission led and sans super heavies and all the Apocalypse lunacy wouldn't be such a bad thing. Even if it's just offered as an option.

There again, there's always my game ;-)

It had a points system for calculating the cost of made-up units. (Points, money, tonnage, space allocations, and so on are all similar ways of valuing units.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Accolade wrote:
...

Going on what Jono is saying, I think it makes perfect sense that people in the AOS sub are okay with there not being points. Really, the only people left in that forum are people who are enthusiastic about that game. That's not me knocking on their enjoyment, I'd just be surprised to see that many dissenters remaining at this point. I think a better comparison would be the level of traffic of the WH-AOS forum compared to its earlier iterations (WHFB 6th-8th) to see the overall popularity of this game over time.

Beyond that, people rarely admit huge flaws with games they're currently very positive about. If you saw GW come out with a points system for AOS tomorrow, you'd see everyone suddenly saying points improve the experience. It's just all relative to what's current.

There is a known element of psychology that people tend to be positive about things they have bought. For example, having bought a camera, people prefer to read positive rather than nagetive reviews of it. This clearly explains why the people who like AoS tend to get annoyined by the constant criticism from people who don't like it.

It’s also pretty logical that if you hate games without a points system, you aren’t going to be interested in AoS. As to whether it’s a flaw, I think the game would have been better with some kind of valuation for units, just to make it easier to design fair or unfair scenarios. But the game seems perfectly playable without one.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

krodarklorr — GMT

jonolikespie wrote:
You know if they trimmed the rules way down to AoS levels I'd be happy.

I'd be ambivalent if they cut the point costs out like AoS.

If they scrap the universe and remake it in an AoS style I think I'd not bother ever looking at 40k again and GW would go belly up within the year.

I can agree to that, to an extent. I'd be ecstatic if the rules went free and all armies received updates at once, making them more balanced against eachother. However, I'd still prefer points cost, or at the very least some form of making an army (I dunno, you have to take a Hero and 2 Core equivalents, or something like that).

If GW did the exact same thing to 40k, they would definitely die out, unfortunately.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

otahak — GMT

I believe that "AoS"-ing the fluff would be unwise. The lore and the cathartic effects of modeling the miniatures has on me are really the only reasons I'm still into it a decade later. The rules however have long been a point of contention for me, and a (minor) reason for my lack of play (the primary reason being a lack of folks to play with lol). While I've not bothered learning 7ed, and likely won't - I can understand where GW is coming from. Both from a need to continually drive sales, and because frankly most of us would've grown bored of the same rulesets without new gimmicks like data cards formations detachments and the like.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Col. Dash — GMT

They will not AoS 40k. They have already learned from the mistake of AoS and they are not going to kill their cash cow which is their only system making money. Granted they had to do something with Fantasy, they were only making 64 pence(think I have the money name right) for every pound they put into the game. 40k is not in the same dire straits that fantasy was in. On the negative side they alienated almost every long time fantasy player they had and many of those have switched over to Kings of War. The stated goal of AoS is to bring in new players into a beginners type game and wean them into the more complicated 40k game.

Getting rid of points would be horrific. List building is one of the primary draws to the game outside painting and collecting and actually playing. What I can see them doing is doing another streamline of the game again and doing away with many special rules. I personally do not mind the current rules set. I am not a fan of the new decuron system but I have no problem with formations if they were a straight addition to the mandatory FOC. Unbound is a moot point since no one plays it.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

ClassicCarraway — GMT

Kilkrazy wrote:

Accolade wrote:
...

Going on what Jono is saying, I think it makes perfect sense that people in the AOS sub are okay with there not being points. Really, the only people left in that forum are people who are enthusiastic about that game. That's not me knocking on their enjoyment, I'd just be surprised to see that many dissenters remaining at this point. I think a better comparison would be the level of traffic of the WH-AOS forum compared to its earlier iterations (WHFB 6th-8th) to see the overall popularity of this game over time.

Beyond that, people rarely admit huge flaws with games they're currently very positive about. If you saw GW come out with a points system for AOS tomorrow, you'd see everyone suddenly saying points improve the experience. It's just all relative to what's current.

There is a known element of psychology that people tend to be positive about things they have bought. For example, having bought a camera, people prefer to read positive rather than nagetive reviews of it. This clearly explains why the people who like AoS tend to get annoyined by the constant criticism from people who don't like it.

It’s also pretty logical that if you hate games without a points system, you aren’t going to be interested in AoS. As to whether it’s a flaw, I think the game would have been better with some kind of valuation for units, just to make it easier to design fair or unfair scenarios. But the game seems perfectly playable without one.

Your two points are very logical....however, the 40K fanbase seems to defy both of those points. The 40K community has been eat up with negativity since 3rd edition (back when GW had their own forum). While this is likely a gross overstatement, it feels like every 40K themed forum, newsboard, rumor site, etc is predominately negative towards GW and the game in general. I think Bolter and Chainsword is one of the few sites that is predominantly pro-40K/GW.

Regarding posts from people who aren't interested in a game, the Dakka 40K boards (and plenty of other 40K sites) are loaded down with people that hate the game, hate GW, don't play the game/haven't played the game in years, and yet still post fairly regularly (and fairly negatively). So if an AoS forum poll indicates its online community doesn't have a problem with no point values, maybe we are overlooking the possibility that it works to a certain extent (I can't wrap my head around it personally, my personality requires some form of structure, but I know several people personally that love AoS and its lack of points). It reminds me of that old Eldar philosopher quote regarding Orks:

The Orks are the pinnacle of creation. For them, the great struggle is won. They have evolved a society which knows no stress or angst. Who are we to judge them? We Eldar who have failed, or the Humans, on the road to ruin in their turn. And why? Because we sought answers to questions that an Ork wouldn't even bother to ask! We see a culture that is strong and despise it as crude.

Re:Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Accolade — GMT

There is no need to "AOS" the 40k fluff. Any AOS'ing is already completed- we saw that in things like renaming the Imperial Guard to Astra Militarum. There's nothing else that would need changing.

The AOS-ification of WHFB came about because the game was quite generic. This was bad- in GW's eyes at least- because it meant claiming originality of any concepts was stupidly easy to refute. Good/bad/wood elves, orcs and goblins, other fantasy tropes...those, coupled with the Medieval and Renaissance flairs of the human factions, and there wasn't a ton that GW could truly claim as its own.

Funnily enough though, I think GW is now past the stage where they're trying to sue companies for concept infringement. They basically lost everything of importance in the CHS case, and companies are now free to make things explicitly for use in WHFB/40k. So the AOS-ification seems to make little sense from the legal standpoint. Perhaps the goal in changing the universe was just to help deal with some internal conflict Kirby and his Kronies were feeling over the games.

The rules are a curious matter than I'm not entirely sure which direction GW will go. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure they've come to enjoy the money the make from cycling the rules every few years (both in terms of buying new rules and buying new models to deal with game paradigm shifts). On the other, there seems to be an increasing level of alienation going on with the high cost just to keep up with the game (refer to the Why does this game feel so expensive?). GW has been seeing continually lower sales, so there might be some consideration of this issue. Tabletop games with large miniature libraries seem to be moving away from pricey rules as well. Both Infinity and WM/H have free rules now. From a new player's perspective, you're dropping roughly $135 in the rules alone, enough for entire factions from other games (yes, I realize there are somewhat cheaper ways to get 40k rules, but I'm talking about someone introduced to the GW store).

I think, as it stands, GW will have to make *some* change to the way they approach the rules that make it cheaper, whether it's less frequent cycling or decreased cost. GW could easily go to ditching points in 40k since it conflicts with their MO.

I would be okay with most changes GW institutes with 40k as long as they decrease the cost of entry/upkeep cost. That cost is what's sinking 40k (slowly).

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

ClassicCarraway — GMT

I'm certainly not opposed to some form of "AoS-ing" of 40K. Simplifying the rules, FREE rules, releasing all of the updated rules for existing units all at once (preferably balanced better against each other)....these are all good things.

I still can't (as previously stated) accept no points value for units, and no model count limit. There needs to be some built-in way to balance forces against each other. Even if its keeping the detachment/formation style army building process and making it 1 formation, X number of detachments per side, but making the optional units in each detachment required, and setting the model count for each unit, ie. Tactical Marines MUST be 10 models, Necron Warriors MUST be 20 models, and so on. That might make me more accepting of a no-points value system.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

JohnHwangDD — GMT

My first choice would be for GW to roll back the rules complexity to 3E, where an army's rules fit on just a few pages, and most stuff was abstracted and streamlined.

Failing that, GW simplifying the 40k core rules to something like AoS would be great. I would prefer that GW further clean up the Codices with simplified, self-contained 1-page Datafaxes as well.

Regardless, I assume that GW will have learned from AoS, and retain detachment structures (a la Decurion) with points costs.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

ClassicCarraway — GMT

JohnHwangDD wrote:
My first choice would be for GW to roll back the rules complexity to 3E, where an army's rules fit on just a few pages, and most stuff was abstracted and streamlined.

Failing that, GW simplifying the 40k core rules to something like AoS would be great. I would prefer that GW further clean up the Codices with simplified, self-contained 1-page Datafaxes as well.

Regardless, I assume that GW will have learned from AoS, and retain detachment structures (a la Decurion) with points costs.

I personally loved 3rd edition, but the criticism that it stripped out all the flavor was a valid one. Some of the best parts of that edition remain though, blanket movement based on unit type, standardized vehicle rules and damage charts, all or nothing armour save rules, standardized special rules, among others.

Personally, GW could do a lot simply by combining some of the unit types that have similar functionality, such as Bikes and Cavalry (maybe throw in Beasts), and possibly Jump and Jetpack Infantry (really, I don't know why these function so differently). Heck, lets make vehicles and MC follow the same rule set, since the line between the two is so blurred from a model standpoint. Also, I'm sure there are a number of special rules that could be combined, cutting back on the sheer volume of unique special rules.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

There is no reason for unit types at all.
One big problem is that unit types are very specific and to change minor things you need special rules and/or a new unit type (adding a movement value would be the next thing)

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

Kilkrazy — GMT

Unit types in 40K have the same purpose as key words in AoS. They confer some kind of Universal Special Rule on the unit.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

kodos — GMT

They could have the same purpose if used right.

Would "aos"ing 40k be that bad of a thing

thegreatchimp — GMT

ClassicCarraway wrote:
I personally loved 3rd edition, but the criticism that it stripped out all the flavor was a valid one. Some of the best parts of that edition remain though, blanket movement based on unit type, standardized vehicle rules and damage charts, all or nothing armour save rules, standardized special rules, among others.

I'm with you on most of that but over time I've come to dislike the all or nothing armour save, and by connection intensely dislike a system whereby a model can't avail of both cover and armour at the same time -it was one of the worst mechanics GW ever introduced imho.