Age of Sigmar: 4.0 What would you like to borrow from 40k 10th edition?

[Skreech Verminking]

9 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

As features these could be great too. Also updates and free online rules like in AOS1.  

I mean…..

warscrolls are pretty much free.

except for warscroll we didn’t have amy other free rules for aos.

unless you’re talking about the core rules, in which case, they always where free.

[Bosskelot]

Having played a bunch of 10th Ed games now I should hope that AOS4 takes as little from them as possible.

The core rules alone are plagued with issues and a substantial step down from 9th, and this isn't even getting into the mess that is the Indexes. A lot of this can't be fixed either as it seems to be core central design intention rather than mistake. A good example of this is the "chaff-fication" of many units, where anything that isn't a Marine or above has been made substantially worse and seen huge points drops as a result. It leads to 8th Ed problems again with Aspect Warriors being worse than generic Marines in the areas they're meant to specialise in, but still being "good for their points" because they're so cheap. But that seems to fly in complete opposition to the Aeldari identity of a relatively small elite force.

There are so many bizarre choices in design in 10th, the consistent reintroducing issues that were problems in 8th or early 9th and fixed is one of the biggest ones in general 

[Beliman]

7 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

It leads to 8th Ed problems again with Aspect Warriors being worse than generic Marines in the areas they're meant to specialise in, but still being "good for their points" because they're so cheap.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Imo, that's part of the tunning. Doesn't matter if the core mechanics are fine if your units are just chaff.

It can happen to AoS too, just rewrite everything that it's not an SCE to a 1 wounds and 5+ save and change their attacks profiles to something like 1attack at 4+/5+ and no rend for 10 models and 100 points, and you will have the same result.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Beliman

[Ganigumo]

On 6/30/2023 at 2:45 AM, Bosskelot said:

Having played a bunch of 10th Ed games now I should hope that AOS4 takes as little from them as possible.

The core rules alone are plagued with issues and a substantial step down from 9th, and this isn't even getting into the mess that is the Indexes. A lot of this can't be fixed either as it seems to be core central design intention rather than mistake. A good example of this is the "chaff-fication" of many units, where anything that isn't a Marine or above has been made substantially worse and seen huge points drops as a result. It leads to 8th Ed problems again with Aspect Warriors being worse than generic Marines in the areas they're meant to specialise in, but still being "good for their points" because they're so cheap. But that seems to fly in complete opposition to the Aeldari identity of a relatively small elite force.

There are so many bizarre choices in design in 10th, the consistent reintroducing issues that were problems in 8th or early 9th and fixed is one of the biggest ones in general 

I've only gotten one game in of 10th and found it substantially better than 9th, which I hated. Generally my opinion is that they didn't cut nearly enough from the rules and its still full of bad complexity.

also narratively space marines should be better than aspect warriors.
Space marines are genetically modified super humans, with the best weapons and armor the imperium has access to. They range from being able to smash through concrete walls to ripping tanks in half and winning against thousands of foes.
Not saying aspect warriors should be chaff, but pretty much everything that isn't custodes should probably be punching beneath a space marine from a narrative sense.

The real problem is the prevalence of space marines and how Eldar are supposed to be elite. They're elite in comparison to stuff like humans and orks, who are the chaff horde infantry but because space marines have such a huge saturation in the playerbase and make up so many of the games armies there is a problem with an army that is supposed to be "elite" but weaker than space marines. Its middle-man syndrome.

By rights marine armies should look more like custodes in terms of model count, with custodes being even smaller, but that would shrink the game size considerably.

They could nerf marines to be less overpowered narratively as well.

[Bosskelot]

12 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

I've only gotten one game in of 10th and found it substantially better than 9th, which I hated. Generally my opinion is that they didn't cut nearly enough from the rules and its still full of bad complexity.

also narratively space marines should be better than aspect warriors.
Space marines are genetically modified super humans, with the best weapons and armor the imperium has access to. They range from being able to smash through concrete walls to ripping tanks in half and winning against thousands of foes.
Not saying aspect warriors should be chaff, but pretty much everything that isn't custodes should probably be punching beneath a space marine from a narrative sense.

The real problem is the prevalence of space marines and how Eldar are supposed to be elite. They're elite in comparison to stuff like humans and orks, who are the chaff horde infantry but because space marines have such a huge saturation in the playerbase and make up so many of the games armies there is a problem with an army that is supposed to be "elite" but weaker than space marines. Its middle-man syndrome.

By rights marine armies should look more like custodes in terms of model count, with custodes being even smaller, but that would shrink the game size considerably.

They could nerf marines to be less overpowered narratively as well.

Aspect Warriors are basically Aeldari Space Marines, so no.

A Marine will be a good generalist, an Aspect Warrior specializes in one specific area to be the best in that respect. A Howling Banshee is a nightmarish combat threat and could blend through plenty of normal Marines with ease, so Marines should shoot her before she gets to them and in a shooting contest the Banshee isn't winning. On the flipside very few Astartes things are winning a shoot-out with a Dark Reaper, but they can beat them in combat, so that's what they should aim to do.

Currently in 10th Howling Banshees lose combats to basic Marine line infantry, despite being specialized anti-elite combat shock troops. The one thing they are meant to be good at, is something they lose at.

Narratively individual Aeldari forces number in the couple of dozens, just like individual Marine forces. They are equally as elite in-lore.

 

And this is just Aspect Warriors. We have things like Incubi and Troupes and other similarly elite Marine-killing things becoming atrocious and chaff-like.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Bosskelot

[Gitzdee]

Its a month later now and i havent had the chance to play 40k myself. I am wondering if any of u have played more games now have any more insights now.

[Bosskelot]

I've played more 10th and my opinion of it has soured even more.

Just lots of change for the sake of change. Even its most arguably positive changes aren't necessarily an improvement on 9th, they're just something different. And there's a wealth of rules that look good on a first read but quickly show themselves to be problems in terms of mechanics or just general game smoothness if you just play a handful of games with them.

There is maybe the skeleton of a good edition in there. I once heard someone describe 10th as a bunch of stuff that is a conceptually good idea until it hits actual game mechanics and it falls apart. Them rushing it out to meet the 3 year deadline clearly did tremendous damage to it.

[Beliman]

4 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

And there's a wealth of rules that look good on a first read but quickly show themselves to be problems in terms of mechanics or just general game smoothness if you just play a handful of games with them.

Can you elavorate on this? I'm really interested in this kind of stuff. 

[Bosskelot]

20 hours ago, Beliman said:

Can you elavorate on this? I'm really interested in this kind of stuff. 

Mostly this is down to all the different reaction or interruptive rules that can trigger, such as moving in an opponents turn.*

A lot of it just massively slows the game down or just makes some units practically unable to be dealt with by certain armies because they just don't have the movement speed to close the distance and make that extra move useless. Putting Overwatch in the movement phase too has had disastrous knock-on effects for game smoothness too; if both players know what they're doing they know how good Overwatch is now, so every movement phase becomes a player moving a unit, stopping, and asking their opponent if they would like to Overwatch; the opponents might consider for a little bit and then either do it or not. Repeat this for all 10 movement phases, with some armies able to do it multiple times, and the time it takes to get through a game balloons out of control. And this isn't even getting into the balance concerns with it either: one of the reasons for most Aeldari infantry being useless as I descrbed above is also down to Overwatch. T3 1W infantry just get chewed up as soon as they want to move anywhere, so unless they're super cheap or can respawn endlessly their use in-game is basically very limited.

There's other stuff too such as Fly movement now requiring diagonal moves if non-infantry flyers want to go over terrain; it sounds like a good idea conceptually, but not only does it make it more worthwhile to just go around most terrain features as most Fly models (thereby defeating most of the purpose of the keyword), if you're actually playing the game properly diagonally measuring and moving units like this is an absolute nightmare. The same applies to the Charge & Fight Phase changes; GW removed most of the "jank" surrounding fight phase movement which I guess some people would like (not me, I enjoyed that aspect of 9th's fight phase) but now the fight phase takes longer to play because of all the "Must" qualifiers put into the rules about distances. It turns the phases into these long drawn out slogs of having to measure out every individual model.

Characters joining units has really only shown itself to "work" if you're an army like Space Marines; where the sheer amount of characters, who all wear the same armour and are the same size as the units they lead, means that for the most part there's always at least one good choice for a Leader to attach to, or a unit to have. Then you get to every other army and the system just breaks down. The nonsense of Tyranid characters becoming weaker by joining bodyguard units because mixed toughness isn't really a thing and Sisters and Aeldari having these restrictive bodyguard units which either just make certain character/bodyguards useless dead picks are the prime examples here. But there's also just the fact it's made big deathball units the meta again as if your characters often cannot benefit anything outside their own unit, you just put all of your eggs into one basket instead. Then if the bodyguard unit dies, you're left with a bunk character that often doesn't do anything else.

The shift over to Tempest also makes games longer, as there is the requisite drawing of your cards, reading your objectives, looking at the board state to figure out if you can do them, thinking about it, and either continuing on with your turn, or discarding one and pulling another card out and repeating that process. This isn't a major thing on its own, but when both players are doing it over 5 turns then time quickly gets added onto the clock.

And while I enjoyed Tempest in 9th, and enjoy Tactical Objs in 10th, they are definitely frustrating for a lot of people to play and do not "reward building balanced armies" or whatever nonsense people liked to say about them in 9th compared to the GT missions. If you don't have cheap highly mobile throwaway units you cannot play the mission pack well, just like Tempest. And so your only choice is to lean into pure lethality and table your opponents. Can't do that either? Well, have fun I guess? Not to mention the randomness makes it difficult for people to counterplay their opponents objective play which was a huge part of 9th. Now the best general play, even if you can play objs well, is just to table people by turn 3 because if they get better draws than you in the first 3 turns it can be incredibly difficult to actually make that comeback. Not to mention the inconsistency of which cards can be freely discarded on turn 1; somehow GW thinks Behind Enemy Lines and Seize Enemy Output are easily doable in the first turn despite like, maybe Aeldari and Marines being the only ones conceptually capable of doing it somewhat reliably.

Also, requiring every unit to now have its own super special unique rules adds more bloat, burden of knowledge, imbalance and gotcha moments onto the game than stratagems ever did. A unit can't just be a fast moving skimmer with a heavy weapon on it anymore; it now needs some additional rule where it places a debuff on an enemy unit somehow EXCEPT if it's the same skimmer with slightly different weapons it now has a completely different rule entirely. Certain artillery units have absolutely punishing "Pinning" rules that can severely limit the movement of units; in 8th and 9th these were stratagems and so could only be used once except for the one exploit end of 8th where a Thunderfire Cannon could Tremor Shells 2 units at once and was considered wildly OP as a result. Now just take 3 Nightspinners or 3 Basilisks or 3 TFCs/2 Whirlwinds etc and just be hitting 3-5 units with these rules every single turn.

 

*AOS players will immediately think of Redeploy here. Guess which mechanic, aside from the double turn, makes people bounce off of AOS the most? Yeah, it's Redeploy. Now Redeploy is everywhere in 40k.

[Beliman]

Thx for the explanation @Bosskelot.

It seems that AoS is better prepared for Attached characters: we don't have SvsT and we already play with bubbles, so easy to balance and build a mechanic around heroes and units (CoS already has that). And everything else about movement-charge-fight phase seems to be close to what we already have: we need to move each individual model, three times for turn (move, charge and pile in) and then mesure if they can attack. To be honest, attached characters would remove some wasted time.

I'm not a fan of mission cards, I prefer a simple approach: battleplan. I don't like layers on top of layers to feel that a meh army has easy to win conditions... just fix that meh armies and move on. RNG missions seems to be 2 steps back unless the game is completely made with that in mind (Malifaux has rng missions too, but you can change your list after knowing what missions are you gonna play with).

About reactions, I'm only used with Horus Heresy, and I enjoy them. They are powerful but easy to addapt and counter. And to be fair, there are mechanics and units scarier than 3 rounds of shooting in the same turn...

Edited August 17, 2023 by Beliman

[Doko]

i really really would love get heroes inside of units,its so pain in the ass measure and get inside wholy within 9" auras omg and also this would give a use to the combat heroes without buffs

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

Attached leaders, an Objective Control stat, and universal special rules would all be brilliant. Also, the simplification of units and factions to focus on having a smaller number of focused, more-impactful rules.

[Malakithe]

The way 40k does battle shock now is much better. Still largely useless but still better. Also the OC stat sounds cool at first but is also irrelevant in its current form. 

40k list building is unhinged. Im not sure if I like it. The freedom to add whatever you want is nice but some lists are so skewed and specialized that it breaks the game. I think AoS needs the Rule of 3 while 40k needs a battleline tax. 

[Gitzdee]

At first i liked the idea of attaching characters. Untill i wanted to build an Elder list and characters had a dedicated unit assigned to them. Without those units the characters are basicly useless. I get the idea/lore behind it. I dont know how i feel about this being transfered to AoS. I feel like characters should be more powerfull and as a bonus buff a unit and not be useless when the unit is gone. Also wouldnt like it if Skragrott was only attachable to moonclan units.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Gitzdee

[Malakithe]

3 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

At first i liked the idea of attaching characters. Untill i wanted to build an Elder list and characters had a dedicated unit assigned to them. Without those units the characters are basicly useless. I get the idea/lore behind it. I dont know how i feel about this being transfered to AoS. I feel like characters should be more powerfull and as a bonus buff a unit and not be useless when the unit is gone. Also wouldnt like it if Skragrott was only attachable to moonclan units.

For me adding Leaders to units is a trap for most factions. People at first were so focused on adding Leaders to every single unit they would hamstring themselves due to all the points you lose out. 

If you want to bring a Leader simply cuz you like it then fine but it better do something good to make up for its points and the points for the bodyguard unit. My thinking is if that Leader doesnt have an intended purpose then just leave it out. More points for units that actually do work.

For AoS most Heroes in the game are buff/support guys with very little true combat Heroes. The real fighty Heroes are on mounts anyway so they wont be joining units unless the mounts are small cavalry ones.

[Beliman]

2 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

For AoS most Heroes in the game are buff/support guys with very little true combat Heroes. The real fighty Heroes are on mounts anyway so they wont be joining units unless the mounts are small cavalry ones.

That's sad.

But AoS could exploit this stuff. There are armies with slow number of troops (aka, micro-armies), and having heroes that can buff certain units can improve their gameplay.

E.g: a Murknob can give ward 4+ vs spells to their unit, and because only buffs one unit, we could have another ability that makes all spells that target a unit within 12" of his retinue, re-target Murknobz retinue instead.

In other words, players are going to have various types of Guttrippaz with diferent roles and diferent styles to play: anti-magic Guttrippaz, Stubborn Guttrippaz, Bully Guttrippaz, etc... Imagine armies with 8-10 heroes and only 3 troops (hi fyreslayers!), the gameplay would be massive improved!

Of course GW can ****** this up and just give a crazy good buff to just one heroe. People will spam unit+heroes, but that's exactly what we already have...

[Malakithe]

10 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That's sad.

But AoS could exploit this stuff. There are armies with slow number of troops (aka, micro-armies), and having heroes that can buff certain units can improve their gameplay.

E.g: a Murknob can give ward 4+ vs spells to their unit, and because only buffs one unit, we could have another ability that makes all spells that target a unit within 12" of his retinue, re-target Murknobz retinue instead.

In other words, players are going to have various types of Guttrippaz with diferent roles and diferent styles to play: anti-magic Guttrippaz, Stubborn Guttrippaz, Bully Guttrippaz, etc... Imagine armies with 8-10 heroes and only 3 troops (hi fyreslayers!), the gameplay would be massive improved!

Of course GW can ****** this up and just give a crazy good buff to just one heroe. People will spam unit+heroes, but that's exactly what we already have...

Yes this is how 40k works currently. You could have 2 of the same unit doing different things because of which Leaders are in the unit buffing them. Some factions dont care as much about Leaders joining units and some are almost entirely dependent on them joining. Very hit and miss.

Id be okay with this in AoS but it would have be to along side some other very sweeping changes as well

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Malakithe said:

Yes this is how 40k works currently. You could have 2 of the same unit doing different things because of which Leaders are in the unit buffing them. Some factions dont care as much about Leaders joining units and some are almost entirely dependent on them joining. Very hit and miss.

I get that.

 But qll this stuff can be solved in AoS. Thougness doesn't exists, movement can be tweaked and most of the heroes moves exactly as their troops, we don't have 6 types of weapons for each unit so it's easier to not overlap abilities with heroes, small number of units in some armies that are easier to chose what buff they need, etc.

Of course SCE and Mega,Gargants are going to be the exception with a lot of problems, but that's expected.

[RyantheFett]

I always thought that AoS was the more causal game out of the two. Right now 40k is much easier game to play and I have taught two people who have enjoyed it. Not really sure if I could do the same with Sigmar right now. Will be interesting to see how much they strip out of in 4th and how much they copy from 40k.

As for 40k, GW is pretty clear that their goal is causal play and they don't really care about the pro scene. I like a lot of the changes, with my only real complaint is that their balance is compete trash and we are still in the beta of the game.

The Cities book could be a good way to see the future of the game:

• The 3 inch rule is nice and I would not be surprised if that will happen to all the factions or even if you can put them in the unit themselves. Getting rid of aura abilities would be great since I play LRL, Stormcast, and maybe Cities......... I am tired of ward save bubbles............ so tired....
• Removal of the magic phase and units having unique spells that happen all over the place. Sort of get hints of that with the new Stormcast units and I think it is a pretty good change in 40k.
• Sub faction rules and restrictions being tripped down a lot.

Edited August 19, 2023 by RyantheFett

[Skreech Verminking]

Many people have shared their oppinion about this topic, to which I often or mostly share the same wish.

of course that isn’t true for all.

for example I don’t like the double turn, neither in a casual nor in a tournament setting.

while some people do say that it is boring without it I have played enough games that don’t have sich a thing and yet work well and are interesting in their own way.

as for my personal wish.

i really really wish gw would just make an overhaul to the weaponry in aos.

something I really liked in the old world and in 40k is that many of the generic weapons are basically the same thing.

of course in 40k there are certain exceptions, but a heavy bolter stats for a space marine unit is basically the same thing as it is for a guardsmen squad.

this is something I really would like to have back.

just make it easy a longbow has 24 inches and the average human will hit (+4) wound (+4) rend (/) damage (1)

is an elve using a bow= +1 to the hit characteristics. (The elve would be hitting on a 3+)

is a goblin using the bow= -1 to the hit characeteristics (the goblin would be hitting on a 5+ instead of a 4+)

something similar to this is something I wish gw would do again.

I actually find it quite stupid when an elve for some reason has a bow that has apparently the strentgh to eradicate atoms, especially when it is blind.

of course that shouldn’t mean that special weapons shouldn’t exist, but at least make them something special.

And not something that gets commonly used by everybody.

also a goblin that hits and wounds like a stormcast with the same damage profile, 

Seems a bit over exaggerated.

I do hope to see that changed at some point 

[wayniac]

I hope they take nothing. 40k 10th edition is a complete dumpster fire and IMHO a huge step backwards.  AOS is already the superior game. 

If I actually had to pick something then maybe the Leviathan mission card format which actually seems pretty good

Edited September 12, 2023 by wayniac

[Gitzdee]

On 8/20/2023 at 1:07 PM, Skreech Verminking said:

Many people have shared their oppinion about this topic, to which I often or mostly share the same wish.

of course that isn’t true for all.

for example I don’t like the double turn, neither in a casual nor in a tournament setting.

while some people do say that it is boring without it I have played enough games that don’t have sich a thing and yet work well and are interesting in their own way.

as for my personal wish.

i really really wish gw would just make an overhaul to the weaponry in aos.

something I really liked in the old world and in 40k is that many of the generic weapons are basically the same thing.

of course in 40k there are certain exceptions, but a heavy bolter stats for a space marine unit is basically the same thing as it is for a guardsmen squad.

this is something I really would like to have back.

just make it easy a longbow has 24 inches and the average human will hit (+4) wound (+4) rend (/) damage (1)

is an elve using a bow= +1 to the hit characteristics. (The elve would be hitting on a 3+)

is a goblin using the bow= -1 to the hit characeteristics (the goblin would be hitting on a 5+ instead of a 4+)

something similar to this is something I wish gw would do again.

I actually find it quite stupid when an elve for some reason has a bow that has apparently the strentgh to eradicate atoms, especially when it is blind.

of course that shouldn’t mean that special weapons shouldn’t exist, but at least make them something special.

And not something that gets commonly used by everybody.

also a goblin that hits and wounds like a stormcast with the same damage profile, 

Seems a bit over exaggerated.

I do hope to see that changed at some point 

I agree that weapons need to change to give the miniatures a stronger identity. Everything seems so similar now. But i think this is a result of dumbing down warscrolls en keywords of AoS compared to WHFB. There is a lot to say about connecting rules to lore. Some things i would never want to see again though like ethereal and magic weapons.

I do like the system of weapon types like slashing/blunt/piercing weapons and give units different kind of armour/ resistance. I would also like character customization back. I loved putting extra points in a character and building my own custom hero to reflect this. It would actually be fun to field heroes on foot again too.

[Beliman]

11 hours ago, wayniac said:

I hope they take nothing. 40k 10th edition is a complete dumpster fire and IMHO a huge step backwards.  AOS is already the superior game. 

If I actually had to pick something then maybe the Leviathan mission card format which actually seems pretty good

Maybe I'm wrong, but I usually hear that the main issue with 40k is their balance. Some of them have weapons that can't do any damage, others armies can shoot without LoS, others have weird interactions and others just don't have enough tools to play.

But I don't see anyone saying that the weapons keywords don't work, or the game has too much going on (bloat), or it's hard to understand how the games works.

[Warfiend]

4 hours ago, Beliman said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I usually hear that the main issue with 40k is their balance. Some of them have weapons that can't do any damage, others armies can shoot without LoS, others have weird interactions and others just don't have enough tools to play.

But I don't see anyone saying that the weapons keywords don't work, or the game has too much going on (bloat), or it's hard to understand how the games works.

I got a few 40k armies including an Aeldari one. And when the game released months ago they where horribly overpowered, which only got worse as people learned how too play. Then they nerfed the Aeldari significantly but it made no difference for balance because of how massively overpowered they where.

Recently they've received some broad point increases and some nerfs while other factions have gotten point decreases and still they're a very strong faction. I'd suspect they're still going to win the majority of their games. Because not only did they not nerf Aeldari that hard, they nerfed the other OP armies way harder. I think they're still the best army in the game by a mile atm.

One of the problems with balance has been weapon keywords. Not on it's own but in combination with army rules and stratagems 

 

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Warfiend said:

I got a few 40k armies including an Aeldari one. And when the game released months ago they where horribly overpowered, which only got worse as people learned how too play. Then they nerfed the Aeldari significantly but it made no difference for balance because of how massively overpowered they where.

Recently they've received some broad point increases and some nerfs while other factions have gotten point decreases and still they're a very strong faction. I'd suspect they're still going to win the majority of their games. Because not only did they not nerf Aeldari that hard, they nerfed the other OP armies way harder. I think they're still the best army in the game by a mile atm.

One of the problems with balance has been weapon keywords. Not on it's own but in combination with army rules and stratagems 

 

Yeah, it sucks. but I still think that's not a Core Rules problem.

Btw, my main issue is that htere are some things that are weird. Free weapons seems good for games like AoS, that are sidegrades instead of just upgrades. But for a game that has a basic troop with 9 diferent weapons, it doesn't feel right and pretty sure it's not balanced enough. Same with a lot of stuff that it's just... weird.