New 40k edition

[WestRider]

It was somewhere in the comments. I can't remember if it was actually Atia or Hastings, or if it was just someone random.

[Brother Glacius]

GW has every reason to go with unit warscrolls in every box and get rid of army books. That way they can release across armies however they want, and people get the rules they need when they buy the model. They can toss out formations from time to time to grant extra bonuses to encourage you to buy more models. 40K is dead, long live 40K!

[Sugarlessllama]

I am really excited by the possibility of warscrolls for my Space Marines. I think it would be awesome.

[InfestedKerrigan]

I like lamp.

[Threejacks]

9 hours ago, pretre said:

Sounds more wishlisty than actual.

 Certainly does for those that would like to see a universal ruleset for both games,plus theorizing like this has been going on since AoS dropped...I posted it kinda wondering if maybe you had some insight into if the original poster had a rumor record or not.

  Personally I would be dissapointed if this were to happen mainly to see vehicles treated just like monsters in AoS would be just bland as [big bad swear word],,,I very much like the way its done in AoS but when I think of AFV combat I want to have vehicle facings,specific munition effects,tank shock and stun..stuff like that.Now its possible I think by having a data slate that shows HP`s per facing perhaps,then add in a bespoke crit table for shots that hit a facing thats been hulled out,or something along those lines.Something like Battletech was in the day,certainly not to the extent of needing record sheets for each vehicle though.

 

  This whole thing is starting to kinda worry me,,I rem years back,like when 6th dropped for 40k and there was some long thread on either Dakka or Wineseer(cant rem were) about how GW is moving to one game system for both games,of course many considered it rediculous at the time...

[pretre]

I'm a bit behind and not at home until Monday so I made a reminder to come back to that one then.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Threejacks said:

 This whole thing is starting to kinda worry me,,I rem years back,like when 6th dropped for 40k and there was some long thread on either Dakka or Wineseer(cant rem were) about how GW is moving to one game system for both games,of course many considered it rediculous at the time...

I like the idea of a universal ruleset, but I don't want to see the game dumbed down, either. If we switched to the 4-page rulebook format, I think I'd quit 40k. Sad to think about.

I don't mind the idea of GW "Also" making a dumbed down 40k that was compatible with AoS, but I'd hate to see 40k replaced with a dumbed down version. 

[Brother Glacius]

GW is smart enough not to completely AoS 40K. I think they will take what does work from AoS and find a way to implement it. They aren't going to make one system that fits both. I don't see them wanting 40K armies on the table facing AoS armies. AoS is geared to a very specific type of play and 40K does not fit in that space. The trick that GW needs to figure out is how to produce simpler rule set and still retain the various flavors for the units without constantly hitting you with new unit specific special rules.

[Sugarlessllama]

Well unit specific rules aren't really a problem in AoS. Since the rule is clearly defined on the warscroll for the unit it isn't confusing at all. Right now 40K has unit rules, that reference codex rules, that reference USRs, that in turn reference different USRs. But somehow people think that is less complex and more "flavorful" than the rule in its entirety presented on the warscroll.

I really don't get it.

[fluger]

The one wishlisty part of that I love is random rolls to hit with templates/blasts.  I hate the debates on models hit that stem from using templates/blasts.  I'd love to see it work as a roll to hit and then a hit is d6 models hit and a miss is d3 models hit.  Large blast is +2 (or 1).   Templates would be d6.

Also, go back to twin linking means if you get a hit, you get two hits, not a reroll.    

[WestRider]

I'd rather go with 2d3 instead of d6 for the Hit. That way, if you're firing a bunch of Blasts, and some hit and some miss, it's just a variable number of d3s instead of some d3s and some d6s. Also, it makes it impossible to get just one Hit with a Large Blast, which was a problem I had constantly with the similar 3rd Ed Cityfight system.

[fluger]

Fair enough, but the specifics are less important, fiddling with templates and blast markers and scatter dice is just too time consuming.

[fluger]

Also, since we're wishlisting, change gets hot to just lose one shot next turn.

[Threejacks]

 The way Area of Effect type stuff is handled in AoS is usually choosing a point on the battlefield within the range of the weapon,then either its a set value 2-6 inches or a d3 or d6 variable,,then all models in that range from the point chosen either take a mortal wound,or take one on say a 4+.Some even have variable effect "rings" of sorts..like "models within 3" of the target location take d3 mortals,,models from 4-6" out take 1 mortal wound..stuff like that.Waaay easier than setting a template out there and trying to judge who takes hits while weapon barrels,raised arms and other model bits pop off..

 

[Romans832]

17 minutes ago, fluger said:

Also, since we're wishlisting, change gets hot to just lose one shot next turn.

There's no negative effect to its use...

Risking losing your model is what makes it didn't to have so much power

[Threejacks]

I should add that most any combat resolution effect that exists in 40k,exists in AoS..there are warscrolls that have overwatch meaning they can shoot imediatly after an enemy has completed a charge within a 1/2 inch of them,the difference in AoS with this is that the unit still gets the charge off and doesnt get doinked by loosing a few key models that were leading the charge thus screwing up the charge range roll..in this way I think its overwatch the way it should have been.

  There are warscrolls effects that cover twin linking,look out sir,gets hot effects( usually some sort of rage thing that inflicts a mortal wound on the unit)Hit and run as in charge in and attack,then after the attack roll a d6 and move that many inches..some allow units to retreat and charge in the same turn.There is even challenge effects like Hero`s or monsters that can pile in double the normal distance(6" instead of 3") as long as they end up within 1/2inch of an enemy Hero model..this can be very nasty since Hero`s cant be hidden in units but can still be wrapped and often times wrapping is alot harder to do than it seems,especially when you need to get more strikes on target.

  Actually I would say that AOS has many more individual special rules than 40k does,,its just that since they are all on the warscrolls you only need to worry about the ones you are playing in your army or facing across the board,this needs to be put into 40k,simple as that.

 

[Swan-of-War]

I think having the USRs in one place is pretty convenient, especially when researching for an all-comers list or a tourney.  

[fluger]

17 hours ago, Romans832 said:

There's no negative effect to its use...

Risking losing your model is what makes it didn't to have so much power

Nah, it's a nonsense rule.  Losing a shot the next turn is enough of a negative.  As it stands now, the ancient and powerful plasma gun would kill a guardsmen every 9 times the trigger was pulled.  That's pretty stupid.

[WestRider]

I'd like to see it go different ways, depending on the Faction and Weapon. For instance, Imperials have safety features on theirs, so it loses a shot the next Turn as it cools down. Chaos and Ork Weapons with Gets Hot, on the other hand, are built to emphasize firepower over safety, so those still damage their wielders.

[Guest]

Talked to FW customer service recently, for unrelated reasons, but did mention my concerns over the new edition. She described to next edition as being closer to AoS and seemed to imply that was a positive direction to be moving the game.

Might have to start selling my 40k now...

[WestRider]

"Closer to" is a very vague term. 40K as it is currently, plus comprehensive keywording, would be closer to AoS. Wait for it, give it a try.

Also, have you tried AoS post-General's Handbook? Because, structurally, the things they've been talking about sound much more like that than like AoS at first release, and with the GH, it's actually a really fun Game, and I wouldn't have a problem with 40K moving more in that direction.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, WestRider said:

"Closer to" is a very vague term. 40K as it is currently, plus comprehensive keywording, would be closer to AoS. Wait for it, give it a try.

Also, have you tried AoS post-General's Handbook? Because, structurally, the things they've been talking about sound much more like that than like AoS at first release, and with the GH, it's actually a really fun Game, and I wouldn't have a problem with 40K moving more in that direction.

AoS isn't a bad game. I don't mean to suggest that. I enjoyed it pre-general's handbook, and have only heard good things about the addition of the handbook.

AoS is just not the game I play. Nor is it the game I've invested so much time and effort into. I'm not looking for my game to become something else, even if that something else is also good. If I wanted to play something else, I'd play something else - and probably a cheaper something else. 

[WestRider]

Even so, I would wait and see just how much more like AoS it becomes, and in what ways. It might well still maintain a distinct 40K feel.

[Skkipper]

as long as orks become winnable and berzerkers suck less.

 

[Threejacks]

1 hour ago, Skkipper said:

as long as orks become winnable and berzerkers suck less.

 

 In  the Mortal Realms of Aos one of the most powerful and cost efficient battalions(formations) belongs to the Savage Orruks,,and yes they can wreck the best of top lists