WH40k changes - What does it mean to AOS?

[RuneBrush]

On 24/03/2017 at 10:43 PM, Galas said:

No! No Free Battalions! Thats actually one of the things AoS do well that its totally broken in 40k.

 

The "commands points" to me sound like the typical points costs for stronger units in tournament play. So, if you bring more "powerful" or maybe "unfluffy" (So, units outside your alliance/faction maybe) units you losse commands points that can be used for bonus ingame? 

For example: If you bring a Celestial Hurricanum in your Stormcast force it costs 3 Command Points that then you can't spend to "buy" bonus to your army.

And I don't think that a order in combat its compatible with the alternative activation sistem of AoS. I'm sure that will be a 40k only thing, they probably will keep Initiative and all those stats.

 

I think command points are going to be much simpler than that.  My thought is that if you pick certain units/combinations/formations you'll gain command points to spend on abilities/items that give you a nice thematic bonus.  Possibly something like we have in our traits currently.  The impression I get is that it's to reward people playing a really nicely composed army, rather than picking the most powerful units.

Shooting wise, I don't think we're going to see much difference.  The current restrictions and way you hit the closest model is one thing that's largely seen as a real positive in the game.  It plays quickly and provides a fairly realistic feel, so I can't see the logic changing.  I do hope they bring back the ability to shoot into combat for certain armies - but at a huge risk of hitting your own guys

[Jamopower]

Well the command points surely sound a lot like the allegiance related abilities in AoS.

 

The wound allocation to the closest model, including all the look out sir stuff, is one of the things I liked the least in 6/7th edition. So hopefully they'll go to the simple system where the owner removes the models, as in AoS. In any case, the shooting phase is where the new edition will either succeed or fail as it's so big part of the game. I would also say that direct port from AoS would be a failure. 

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

The changes already have had an effect on AoS and that is that the 40k fanbase has kind of lashed against it. I know this is kind of whining on my part, but I'm tired of the circlejerk going on dakkadakka and other sites. Damn, one's even called us cultists and that we were loathsome being. Yeah, I know this is the internet, but it gets tiresome.

[Dez]

I have to say, I like the Look Out Sir rule. However I'd like 40k to go back to a wound allocation system like AoS has.

[DynamicCalories]

I spoke to a friend of mine who plays 40k about this, and he said he felt AoS was an imbalanced game of throwing minis on the table. It's weird that people playing a hobby game by the same company have such little knowledge of how the other products they produce work. The reports from adepticon that show a top 15 dominated by three races is surely symptomatic of a bigger problems in 40k than AoS. 

Another friend thinks that 40k can't change fast enough. He loves the minis but can't be bothered to learn the rules. Nothing to do with his intelligence either, as he works for WETA doing composite work - hardly a simple task - he just doesn't think that learning a bunch of tables and increasingly esoteric rules that are used to supplement what appears to be messy core system is a good use of his time when there is clearly another way: the AoS way.

If we're cultists, i'll take that. I'd rather be a laid back AoS cultist than this guy: 

Edit: expanded the second bit. Also if people prefer 40k I mean no disrespect for them. In depth rule systems are great, but maybe not great if they result in stagnating metas for your core games.

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

4 minutes ago, DynamicCalories said:

I spoke to a friend of mine who plays 40k about this, and he said he felt AoS was an imbalanced game of throwing minis on the table. It's weird that people playing a hobby game by the same company have such little knowledge of how the other products they produce work. The reports from adepticon that show a top 15 dominated by three races is surely symptomatic of a bigger problems in 40k than AoS. 

Another friend thinks that 40k can't change fast enough. He loves the minis but can't be bothered to learn the rules. Nothing to do with his intelligence either, as he works for WETA doing composite work - hardly a simple task.

You know, this is a funny thing. Then there's this guy who goes around that AoS has the depth of a puddle and you can only win using newer armies... yet uses his skavens pretty badly. When told so? He goes "so you're going learn to play on me!?" I mean... you obviously don't kno how to play.

 

But, let's remember how things were 2 years ago. It will go away.

[DynamicCalories]

I think GW need to do something to make people aware that things have changed since the General's Handbook. There seem to be a lot of people that are not aware of its existence,  or the fact points are in, or that GW are actively changing the balance of certain things without asking for people to shell out £££. 

AoS might be streamlined, but I don't know if it is really that over-simplified.  I might not need to memorise S/T charts and BS and so on, but I still need to learn my warscrolls well.

[Gaz Taylor]

14 minutes ago, DynamicCalories said:

I think GW need to do something to make people aware that things have changed since the General's Handbook. There seem to be a lot of people that are not aware of its existence,  or the fact points are in, or that GW are actively changing the balance of certain things without asking for people to shell out £££. 

AoS might be streamlined, but I don't know if it is really that over-simplified.  I might not need to memorise S/T charts and BS and so on, but I still need to learn my warscrolls well.

The issue is that majority of the people who are basically saying Age of Sigmar is simple or has issues or what ever, generally will not be bother to explore any new changes or care about this. Some people just like to moan about stuff and blame things for the reason the thing they like is not like what they think it is. They seem to put more time and energy into this because they enjoy complaining about it!  

From my point of view, it's difficult to say what the changes mean for AOS as we have no idea what is actually going to happen. I can assume that the new version of 40K is going to be similar to Age of Sigmar (and I think this is a very good thing), but we won't know until it drops.  

[DynamicCalories]

It has been very weird reading the threads over on Dakka. They really do seem to think this is the end of everything. It's a curious hobby. Every change is nearly always perceived as bad, making it easier for more people to get into thus expanding the player base, GW's profits and therefore: better models, sculpts, prices, players etc is frowned on.

[EvDJ]

28 minutes ago, DynamicCalories said:

It has been very weird reading the threads over on Dakka. They really do seem to think this is the end of everything. It's a curious hobby. Every change is nearly always perceived as bad, making it easier for more people to get into thus expanding the player base, GW's profits and therefore: better models, sculpts, prices, players etc is frowned on.

There can be a touch of the snob factor attached to those kind of reactions. You find it in music, the new music lover who only listens to 6music (include myself in this list sometimes), or serial gig goer who loves the fact that they know this cool band that you've never heard of, and who get grumpy when that same band 'go mainstream.' The phrase "I liked them way before everyone else," or "i played it when it was a game for grown ups." same thing happened in WoW, if you talk to those players who played it from the beginning you'll sometimes find them complaining that it was harder in the good old days, that the proliferation of flight points has made the game too easy, as if spending 20 min just running from one end of Stranglethorn to another was some kind of rite of passage.

Its odd how serious we can sometimes take our toys.

[DynamicCalories]

There's definitely a fear of an institution you know and love being "colonised" which reveals a lot of ironies, very few people were there from the beginning. People who have been around for an age are probably far more relaxed about changes too.

I too, love 6music.

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

You brits and your singing competitions.

[DynamicCalories]

We do have a lot of them, but 6music is a digital radio station run by the BBC that does primarily alt/indie stuff

[Galas]

I just have to say that, I aggre with all that you have said, and I'm even participating in those conversations in other forums, but remember that this has to be a positive oasis in a sea of hate, and bringing conversations of other forums here just to talk about people that can't defend themselves don't give us anything.

 

And yes, people fear change. Its a animal instinct. And if you have money in something, its even worse.

[DynamicCalories]

@Galas There's been plenty of reasonable discussion elsewhere, I agree. I am not going to single certain aspects of it out. Like I said, it's been weird, not hilarious or dumb or annoying, just weird, from my perspective. It is a curious hobby

[VBS]

I think it's a logical fear because the combination of lack of news and the radical whfb--> aos precedent makes a lot of people agitated.

If you invested tons of cash and time on game you currently like and there is looming menace to turn it upside down, wouldn't you express your dissatisfaction? And if you are a fanatical zealot of the game (ie. competitive player or fluff-junky), this menace would be perceived as the apocalypse and so you will log on some random forum and rant to infinity. Nothing new under the sun.

I personally think w40k needs a complete overhaul and don't have a particular preference for the type of change (aos inspired or whatever, not taking sides). Tbh, if the change is unbearable for some people, they should just do a 9th Age version of it (which happens to work well enough) or stick to old editions. Problem solved. Besides, this won't affect in any way AoS as the rumoured changes point towards incorporating AoS elements in 40k, not the other way around.

[Galas]

I think that the inclusion of vehicle rules in the new Kharadron Ships point AoS to be the "beta-testing" of new GW games.

Not that its a bad thing, if I'm gonna be a lab white rat I just need some cheese to keep me happy  

[Sleboda]

36 minutes ago, VBS said:

 

I think it's a logical fear because the combination of lack of news and the radical whfb--> aos precedent makes a lot of people agitated.

 

I'm not agitated, but I understand.  After End Times, I was peeved that my "investment" in those books was essentially wasted.  I had figured the next version of the game, even if in a new world, would not hard reset all the rules for all my models in all my books, especially not ones I had just bought.

That lesson has kept me from buying anything new for 40K in the last 18 months or so.  I really wanted the Traitor/Magnus special book and the new Storm books, but I believe they will soon be redundant. The seminar at Adepticon strengthened my view on that. 

I'm very much looking forward to a hard reset on 40K, but that's because I'm not as invested of late. 

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

18 minutes ago, Galas said:

I think that the inclusion of vehicle rules in the new Kharadron Ships point AoS to be the "beta-testing" of new GW games.

Not that its a bad thing, if I'm gonna be a lab white rat I just need some cheese to keep me happy  

We will be GLORIOUS! lab white rats. With shiny fur and boneripper tier of body build when they are done with us.

 

But yeah, let's keep this civil and positive guys.  Vent a bit of steam but let's not overdo ourselves.

[Kyriakin]

I mean. Be honest, How would you all feel if GW were sending out strong hints that they were going to wind down AoS, and would instead only be supporting, say, Shadespire for their fantasy line?

Gutted, I'd guess. And we've only been immersed in this world for less than two years.

It's easy to be "I'm alright Jack" if you haven't spent thousands on miniatures that may or may not survive, in army(s) that may or may continue to exist in an unknown, but likely completely different, game that the person may or may not like.

From what little I know about 40K, I think a revolution is probably required. Still, the agitation is very justified IMHO, as many of us spend a good proportion of our non-working/non-sleeping lives on this hobby. It's important.

PS: I have no dog in this fight, as I haven't bought a 40K miniature since 1995, and currently own zero (been eyeing up Death Korps of Krieg for ages, though!).

[DynamicCalories]

It's not so much "i'm alright jack" from myself, as, "give GW the benefit of the doubt given the last few years"

The changing of certain rulesets to change 40k from its current state to a slightly more open and new player friendly atmosphere is not really the same as them setting fire to an entire game system. It's less like them binning AoS for shadespire and more like them... binning WHFB for AoS*. Which granted, saw some armies get relegated to the compendium, but that's always a danger whenever they update to a new core ruleset, or bring out new models that make your old tyranids and eldar looks totally incongruous to the whole new design.

 

*I'd even suggest that utnil we know the extent of it, it's probably much less like that than it is like 40k being streamlined slightly. We'll know when we know I suppose. For me, alongside Shadow War it might just get me back into 40k.

[RuneBrush]

I think you've actually got quite few different attitudes from people who play 30k/40k currently.  The usual doommongers are out with their bells and foghorns shouting about how the end of the world is nigh, but you've also got a whole range of people from the "angry" to "ecstatic" about upcoming changes.

GW have said on numerous occasions that they're not going to go "end times" on 40k and admitted that how they handled WHFB to AoS could have been done better.  But they have also acknowledged that 40k does need a shake up and there's a lot of things in AoS that work significantly better than their 40k equivalent.  The new version of 40k won't be a completely new game - it has to interface with existing ranges and expansions such as Heresy and 40k still forms a significant part of GW's annual sales.

One of the biggest problems when reading the comments section of a large portion of the internet is that the people commenting live in their own little bubble and are blissfully unaware (or ignore) what GW have said (both publicly and when asked face to face), but are still happy to shout the odds from their own skewed and inaccurate opinion.  Think about the number of times we come across people saying that "AoS has no tactics" - 99% of the time the person saying it has never played a game.  It's a bit like saying "I don't like butternut squash" when you've only looked at it in the supermarket or had a friend explain what it's like.

I think I've said before, I'm looking forward to the new rules.  I'm still collecting for the three main games and happy to invest in new books, models etc for all of them, does this make me one of those "fan boyz"?  Possibly, however I'm happy to say when I don't like something or when something doesn't make sense.

[Thebiggesthat]

Part of me is excited, part of me is worried.

I'm excited, as I love the AoS rule-set. I have a load of 40k stuff kicking around, and with releases coming up like Deathguard, the chance to buy some stunning miniatures and play them in a decent rule-set is great. There is some great lore, and the chance to delve back into that is exciting.

I'm worried because I know the competitive 40k scene. It's WAAC, no real effort to theme or model in a fluffy way. It's calculators and percentages. Those people left WHFB when AoS was introduced, and haven't really come back. That was partly down to the initial introduction of the rule-set, and the lack of points. You won't have that in 40k, you'll have a GHB off the bat, and whilst things will hopefully be more balanced there will still be that mentality. Plus, there will be more crossover players, bringing that into the AoS scene. I don't want to see cherry picked mixed lists that are just mathammered and plonked down. We've seen that at two tournaments this year already 

My worries will be mainly placated when we find out how narrative will play for 40k. I see 'my kind' mainly in this area, although I would like to go to a few events and see some cool armies.

[Popisdead]

I'm worried because I know the competitive 40k scene. It's WAAC, no real effort to theme or model in a fluffy way.

That is every competitive scene/game. Either play it that way or don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thebiggesthat]

It really isn't in AoS, judging from the lists in the last 18 months and all the tournament play I've seen. Not to the same levels as 40k. But locally YMMV