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

[RyantheFett]

5 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.

As someone who plays both games I would say that 40k is the easier game right now. AoS I feel has a lot of bloat in the wrong areas. Of course GW just stole the best ideas from AoS and put them into 40k so I would expect the same when 4th comes out next year.

Balance has been a huge issue for 40k and it has felt like the players were doing the beta test for GW. On the bright side 40k gets updates every 3 months so they are fixing many of the problems the game has right now (my Tau and Votann are good now!!!). Of course, AoS has some pretty bad balance issues as well with power creep, mortal wounds everywhere, and those death armies........

11 minutes ago, Beliman said:

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.

As a Tau player this has been a huge issue for 40k. Like I got my crisis suits that come with 7 different weapons, but since they are all the same price only one of them is taken every time!! Get the feeling that GW was lazy with a lot of the stuff especially with factions that would be getting a book soonish. Hopefully they avoid that with the new edition next year.

[Malakithe]

On 9/12/2023 at 11:21 AM, RyantheFett said:

As someone who plays both games I would say that 40k is the easier game right now. AoS I feel has a lot of bloat in the wrong areas. Of course GW just stole the best ideas from AoS and put them into 40k so I would expect the same when 4th comes out next year.

Same...its kinda funny how much different AoS was to 40k and so 40k starting taking design cues from AoS only to have 40k now be the much smoother and easier system. I currently hate how AoS is with all its stupid core battalions, list building restrictions, and constantly shifting seasonal stuff....and the terrible pointing system but thats always been there

[Mutton]

Three things from 40k that I hope get ported over:

1) Engagement range of fighting in two ranks. GET RID OF WEAPON RANGES.
2) Battleshock causing units to be unable to capture objectives rather than removing models.
3) Normalize a better curve for Bravery stats. Having a range of 4-7 is much easier to balance than what we have now (4-10+)

Edited September 24, 2023 by Mutton

[Sigmarusvult]

I agree with the points made by @Mutton I would also add strike first on the charge.

I also find the engagement range of 1 inche in 40k better (instead of 3 inches in aos), I don't like checking up all the time the 3' space between units non in combat,  I also don't like the possibility to fail a charge at a very short range and 40k fix that imo

I have never really understood the reasoning behind the concept of failing or succeeding a charge in a wargame like Warhammer. I can understand that you can lose the momentum in a battle  because of various factors (bad terrains, pikes, shooting...) and lose the effect of a charge,  however you  still end up in combat with your enemies by moving towards them. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Sigmarusvult

[Satyrical Sophist]

26 minutes ago, Sigmarusvult said:

I agree with the points made by @Mutton I would also add strike first on the charge.

I also find the engagement range of 1 inche in 40k better (instead of 3 inches in aos), I don't like checking up all the time the 3' space between units non in combat,  I also don't like the possibility to fail a charge at a very short range and 40k fix that imo

I have never really understood the reasoning behind the concept of failing or succeeding a charge in a wargame like Warhammer. I can understand that you can lose the momentum in a battle  because of various factors (bad terrains, pikes, shooting...) and lose the effect of a charge,  however you  still end up in combat with your enemies by moving towards them. 

I would really hate strike first on the charge. It would massively weaken strike first as a mechanic and also really push alpha strike lists. At the moment you need to choose where and when to engage, strike first on the charge is a big push to just always swinging in with combat capable units. I'm in favour of more conditional strike first, and units being able to combination attack, but not just blanket strike first.

 

Failing a charge would be failing to organise enough to advance as a group in battle ready formation I guess, which is why it is easier the closer you are, stuff like musicians make it easier etc. Its a game choice to have your unit not advance at all as opposed to charging with some kind of penalty, or lost models or whatnot. 

[Beliman]

7 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

would really hate strike first on the charge. It would massively weaken strike first as a mechanic and also really push alpha strike lists. At the moment you need to choose where and when to engage, strike first on the charge is a big push to just always swinging in with combat capable units. I'm in favour of more conditional strike first, and units being able to combination attack, but not just blanket strike first.

What about +1 attacks? Maybe reduce attacks game-wide to make it more relevant.

[Sigmarusvult]

15 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

I would really hate strike first on the charge. It would massively weaken strike first as a mechanic and also really push alpha strike lists. At the moment you need to choose where and when to engage, strike first on the charge is a big push to just always swinging in with combat capable units. I'm in favour of more conditional strike first, and units being able to combination attack, but not just blanket strike first.

 

Failing a charge would be failing to organise enough to advance as a group in battle ready formation I guess, which is why it is easier the closer you are, stuff like musicians make it easier etc. Its a game choice to have your unit not advance at all as opposed to charging with some kind of penalty, or lost models or whatnot. 

I am talking of the strike first on the charge as it is currently in 40k: units who have charged will be able to fight with a strike first only after all the units from the opposing army with the strike first ability have attacked. Non charging strike first is therefore not irrelevant but actually more dangerous. Obviously you need to rebalance the game a bit, but it's not like alpha strikes lists are dominating the meta currently, most armies have access to strong or numerous screens imho.

[Sception]

The main thing I want from 40k 10th edition is character's joining units.  we've seen half a dozen wonky rules implementations from look out sir to gallatian vets to more different look out sir to bodyguard units to bodyguard units that work a little bit differently all trying to replicate the concept of just attaching a character to a unit with all falling short since you can still pass one charge and fail another and have your champion charge into battle alone while their stalwart bodyguard just hangs back and watches them go and its just annoying.  To say nothing of the many obnoxious short range 'within' or worse 'wholly within' auras that can be replaced with a simple, straight forward buff to the unit a hero is attached to.

Just have characters say what units they can join, and treat them and their squad as the same unit for the purposes of movement and have all damage apply to the squad first (including in melee!  that alone would fix many of the beatstick infantry heroes that aren't worth running cuz they die to easy even if they get to melee!), and then introduce a special 'sniper' or 'precision' rule to let special elite hero hunter units pick out heroes separately, and make sure all factions have access to at least one of these hero hunter type squads (eg for my ossiarchs you might give morghasts the hero hunter rule and also make one of the stalker unit's combat style options be hero hunting).  Maybe also let heroes target each other this way as a simplified version of old school challenges..

I don't know, I'm just tired of having all these different rules that all seem to be more obnoxious and less evocative ways of representing the old school system of just attaching heroes to your units.

[Beliman]

I just hope that 4.0 doesn't remove subfactions or any other addo-on to play when we build our lists. I'm talking about artifacts, mount traits, spells/prayers or any other unique table that makes our army a bit more unique. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Beliman

[Dogmantra]

18 hours ago, Sception said:

Just have characters say what units they can join,

And here's the rub! I think the GW system of rolling battletome releases rather than redoing everything in one go per edition has stopped them doing this because they currently have to use really clunky terminology like unit with wounds characteristic of four or less that doesn't have a mount (except companions), when you could just give that an INFANTRY keyword and be done with it. 4th edition would be a really good opportunity to either go the index route or just add more keywords to everything to enable something like this to work elegantly.

[Sception]

oh, yeah, that's the other big thing i want from 40k.  unit type keywords.  infantry, cavalry, warbeast, etc.  they don't have to have any inherent game rules attached, they just need to exist so other rules and abilities can reference them.  because yeah, 'unit with a wound characteristic of 4 or less that doesn't have mounts' is awkward, and 'hero with wound characteristic of 9 or less that doesn't have a mount - only companions don't count as mounts for this rule even though they count as mounts for everything else' is even more awkward.

 

yeah, this stuff would require compendium style rules resets that would suck for late arriving books, but it's still something the game needs, so... *shrug*

[Bosskelot]

The character system in 10th works horribly and is not something you want replicated.

If AOS just had 9th's Look Out Sir rule it would be way better.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

10 hours ago, Sception said:

yeah, this stuff would require compendium style rules resets that would suck for late arriving books, but it's still something the game needs, so... *shrug*

I'm also strongly in favour of adding keywords. I really wonder why GW introduced the keyword system at all when they continually refuse to actually make use of it beyond putting the grand alliance, faction name and unit name down as a keyword.

I don't even think we would need compendiums to do it, just update the keywords in the app.

[petitionercity]

For this thread, I'd ask a different question - what can 4th edition borrow from 1st or 2nd edition of AoS? What can it borrow from other GW games, including Warcry, Kill Team and even the Specialist Games Studio (formerly forge world and Specialist games)'s games? What would you want from other major wargames (as GW staffers of course play many games!)?

[Gitzdee]

24 minutes ago, petitionercity said:

For this thread, I'd ask a different question - what can 4th edition borrow from 1st or 2nd edition of AoS? What can it borrow from other GW games, including Warcry, Kill Team and even the Specialist Games Studio (formerly forge world and Specialist games)'s games? What would you want from other major wargames (as GW staffers of course play many games!)?

I am a huge supporter of the alternate activations system of Warcry.

I would also take the character customization and keywords from WHFB.

I would take inspiration from the combat phase from OPR. (After close combat step back 1 inch) 

Some games have a pinning rule for heavy ranged shots or artillery fire. I would like to see some rules like this.

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, petitionercity said:

For this thread, I'd ask a different question - what can 4th edition borrow from 1st or 2nd edition of AoS? What can it borrow from other GW games, including Warcry, Kill Team and even the Specialist Games Studio (formerly forge world and Specialist games)'s games? What would you want from other major wargames (as GW staffers of course play many games!)?

There was a post talking about what we would like to see (wishlist) for AoS 4.0 here

Imho, a few things that I would like to borrow from other games/ editions:

• AoS 2.0, Warhammer Fantasy & Conquest: Tools to customize our heroes, or at least, a lot of artifacts/weapons/traits/whatever with points.
• AoS 1.0: Campaign box sets
• War40k, Conquest and a bunch of other games: USR for abilities (no need to attach them to weapons).
• Asoiaf and Conquest: Keywords that really matter (cavalry, war machine, infantry, Hero, etc...)
• Malifaux and Middle Earth: Soulstons and Fate points. A Heroic mechanic to improve Heroes (remove Heroic actions, no need to use an economy system).
• Horus Heresy-Exemplary battles: new free rules with new units (kitbash), new scenarios and even new sub-themed armies.
• Warhammer Fantasy: Write all armies as if they were civilizations. Write their lore, chronology, language, characters (even if they don't have miniatures), popular events, great wars, etc. 

[Sception]

Alternating activations from War Cry or Middle Earth or honestly any other sensible miniatures game would also be a godsend.  I get why some people like the player turn system with the possibility of a double turn, but it scales down really badly (you can't fight your way back from losing your first wave to an unlucky double turn if you're playing a small game where the first wave is all you have), and in larger games where it hypothetically keeps games interesting and unpredictable without deciding games outright it can result in mind numbingly long stretches of time where your opponents turn just never ends and you just kind of sit around waiting to get to play again.

[petitionercity]

21 hours ago, Beliman said:

There was a post talking about what we would like to see (wishlist) for AoS 4.0 here

Imho, a few things that I would like to borrow from other games/ editions:

• AoS 2.0, Warhammer Fantasy & Conquest: Tools to customize our heroes, or at least, a lot of artifacts/weapons/traits/whatever with points.
• AoS 1.0: Campaign box sets
• War40k, Conquest and a bunch of other games: USR for abilities (no need to attach them to weapons).
• Asoiaf and Conquest: Keywords that really matter (cavalry, war machine, infantry, Hero, etc...)
• Malifaux and Middle Earth: Soulstons and Fate points. A Heroic mechanic to improve Heroes (remove Heroic actions, no need to use an economy system).
• Horus Heresy-Exemplary battles: new free rules with new units (kitbash), new scenarios and even new sub-themed armies.
• Warhammer Fantasy: Write all armies as if they were civilizations. Write their lore, chronology, language, characters (even if they don't have miniatures), popular events, great wars, etc. 

All fantastic ideas, and it's your last point - write as civilisations - that the game desperately needs. I find it so mind-boggling this hasn't occured, beyond novels and - sometimes - Soulbound. The Realms don't yet feel real, mostly. Ideas of economy, craft, history, learning, development and so on are really missing - at least in published materials. The high magic world of AoS could be so fascinatingly developed, it shouldn't feel like the world that was, but it should be as developed as that world was.

[RetconnedLegion]

Characters being able to join units. That’s it. Nothing else. 

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, RetconnedLegion said:

Characters being able to join units. That’s it. Nothing else. 

Same here

although should or shouldn’t the double turn get removed.

i will probably be happy about both outcomes

 

[SunStorm]

Can we get marked Daemon princes being able to lead the mono-god forces armies please?

World Eaters can be led by a demon prince of Khorne, but Blades of Khorne can't

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

On 11/18/2023 at 6:19 PM, Skreech Verminking said:

Same here

although should or shouldn’t the double turn get removed.

i will probably be happy about both outcomes

 

I think recently more people have been learning how the double turn plays in AoS:

• Going second is the stronger option unless you can alpha strike.
• Put screens in your list.
• Only take a double turn if it wins you the game.

Once you get those basics down, I personally like what the double turn does for the game in regard to list building and in-game decision making.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Xil]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:52 AM, Bosskelot said:

The character system in 10th works horribly and is not something you want replicated.

If AOS just had 9th's Look Out Sir rule it would be way better.

yep, never was a fan of it in older editions and i still don't like it. 

Moreover...there is still that "lone operative" rule that leaves your character unattached.

[Sception]

It's dumb when a retinue runs too fast and the hero that goes with them can't keep up and falls out of formation due to two different run rolls.  It's dumb when a character charges into combat and their loyal bodyguard fails the roll and just stands idle while they watch their beloved leader go of to their death unsupported.  It is dumb that /so many/ of the units in this game are 5 wound infantry hero melee beatsticks that are almost universally terrible because they are so easily picked out and killed.  And there are so many obnoxious rules - bodyguards, gelato champs, look out sir, sequential combat activations, short range "wholly within" bubbles - all of which are grasping and failing at the idea of heroes being attached to specific units.  Regardless of your opinion of the 40k implementation, the game is suffering for lack of such a system.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Sception

[RyantheFett]

On 11/20/2023 at 3:34 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think recently more people have been learning how the double turn plays in AoS:

• Going second is the stronger option unless you can alpha strike.
• Put screens in your list.
• Only take a double turn if it wins you the game.

Once you get those basics down, I personally like what the double turn does for the game in regard to list building and in-game decision making.

I think a bigger problem for double turns is that GW have a lot of rules and factions that punish players crazy hard if they lose that roll. Thinking of certain factions like LRL and Cities that if they fail to get certain spells off and then lose the Priority Roll then its just game over lol. Throw in how punishing it could be for new players who don't know how to counter it.

Will be interesting to see what 4.0 decides to do to with it.

16 hours ago, Sception said:

It is dumb that /so many/ of the units in this game are 5 wound infantry hero melee beatsticks that are almost universally terrible because they are so easily picked out and killed.  And there are so many obnoxious rules - bodyguards, gelato champs, look out sir, sequential combat activations, short range "wholly within" bubbles - all of which are grasping and failing at the idea of heroes being attached to specific units.  Regardless of your opinion of the 40k implementation, the game is suffering for lack of such a system.

Between the Cities 3 inch giving order rule and the new look out sir rule it makes me think they will just attach heroes to units in 4.0. Feels like the game is halfway there already.

Of course I am tired of most of my armies being stuck in a bubble and like that in 40k units attached with heroes can do their own thing.