Jump to content

New 40k Side discussion. What similarities will there be to AOS?


KHHaunts

Recommended Posts

First of all let me just take a moment to justify this thread to all of you that will pounce and moan "This is an AOS not 40k forum!"

Firstly there is has been alot of reactions about the new 40k announcement on this forum and so i thought it prudent to open up a place to "Dump" all these discussions.

Secondly as my title suggests. I belive that 40k link to AOS (Such as comparing storylines in one to release sin other such as tzeentch stuff) and now with the new changes we are likely to see alot of AOS players branching out to 40k and vice versa because of the lessons 40k seems to have learned from AOS's apparent awesomeness.

If the mods dont like having it fair enough but thought it would be worth a shot.

 

So to steer the discussion on the right lines. What do you think that the new 40k will take from AOS? and what will be different/Kept the same as before.

For instance im am curious to know if they will do away with generic elements to profiles like wargear (A bolter is a bolter and its effectiveness is calculated based on the wielder) and instead go for individual warscroll like profiles with the weapon options and their stats laid out for each unit.

What do people think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Individual warscrolls do seem like the way to go — easier to change when they update the rules, easier for people to learn and reference.

I'd be a little surprised if they don't adopt the AoS turn structure, with initiative rolls each round and psychic powers in the hero phase. Why have two completely different systems for your core games?

In the interests of making everything easier to learn, I'd expect to see BS and probably WS replaced with a "To Hit" score (why bother with that extra complexity?).

The biggest question in my mind is how they will handle tanks — I wouldn't want to see a Land Raider become a 20-wound monster, as easy to wound as a guardsman. One of the big differences between 40K and AoS is that 40K has much more emphasis on different weapons for different roles. For example, a heavy bolter is anti-infantry, a lascannon is anti-tank, that doesn't mean one is simply "more powerful" that the other, just that they do very different things. Power weapons are good against armoured infantry, but not against vehicles. That sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Individual warscrolls do seem like the way to go — easier to change when they update the rules, easier for people to learn and reference.

I'd be a little surprised if they don't adopt the AoS turn structure, with initiative rolls each round and psychic powers in the hero phase. Why have two completely different systems for your core games?

In the interests of making everything easier to learn, I'd expect to see BS and probably WS replaced with a "To Hit" score (why bother with that extra complexity?).

The biggest question in my mind is how they will handle tanks — I wouldn't want to see a Land Raider become a 20-wound monster, as easy to wound as a guardsman. One of the big differences between 40K and AoS is that 40K has much more emphasis on different weapons for different roles. For example, a heavy bolter is anti-infantry, a lascannon is anti-tank, that doesn't mean one is simply "more powerful" that the other, just that they do very different things. Power weapons are good against armoured infantry, but not against vehicles. That sort of thing.

See i wasnt sure about WS and BS as alot of people didnt like the over simplfied to hit without taking into account a models speed strength etc. I think there does need to be some significant differences in either case just t to keep the games interesting. otherwise there only selling one game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but as it stands now they could pretty much replace BS with a "To Hit" score, and a rule stating that snap shots only ever hit on 6s. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that there was never really a good reason to have a characteristic that was basically "seven minus your base 'To-Hit' score".

WS I can see people getting more worked up over because it's defensive as well as offensive, but since it currently never modifies the required "To Hit" score to less than 3+, and only rarely up to 5+, it's actual impact on the game is minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to mix them.

I hope I can make a scenario of Word Bearers land on Cadia and find a bunch of savages work as a game between marines and maybe,.. bonesplitter rules?  

It makes me think of the times the Primarchs lead armies, such as the Mortarion leading the Dusk Warriors in raids on settlements, etc.  

 

Mostly the narrative and creative side.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've leaked a lot of this on the Warhammer Community site already.  It looks like the basic structure is staying the same, just with streamlining.  They've confirmed vehicle rules are going, they will now just be tough monsters with wounds etc like everyone else.  They're getting rid of the I value, with the charging person attacking first, ala 7th Ed fantasy.  All units will now have a movement value, so it's not a blanket 6" too.  But broadly outside that it looks like it's staying very similar with the same phases as before etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may actually be more compatible than a lot of people unfamiliar with AoS might realize.  I'm sure there's a simple way to convert S&T into fixed numbers and to factor high toughness into the save or by adding a defensive ability from some warscroll or another.

I got into AoS when I actually finally played the game and then asked some questions of people who knew it better than I.  I'm excited about the new version of 40k because of the similarities to Age of Sigmar.  And that as someone doing nurgle daemons, I'll already have an army that works in the new 40k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to the new edition. This will prob get me back in after swearing I'd never go near the game again back in 07. 

Like AoS I'm mostly looking forward to the storyline moving forward, some awesome figures, and hopefully the ability to play small games (something I love with AoS) as I really don't have the time for large all day battles anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few updates:

  • BS and WS are dice numbers indeed (2+, 3+, etc)
  • Terminators are 2 wounds now
  • Marines have saves on 3+, termies have 2+ saves (******' insane)
  • All units have move value
  • S and T are still there, so there's still S v. T comparison

That's about it. Not a massive change, but the biggest would be in the individual warscroll-like approach in terms of rules and such. Hopefully each unit gets their own special rules instead of USR, which is nice in concept but a bit of a bar of entry for newbies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ruben said:
  • Marines have saves on 3+, termies have 2+ saves (******' insane)

I think that has been the case since 2nd or 3rd ed, but it's not as crazy as it would be in aos since there aren't many (any?) ways to buff the armour save and there is a huge proliferation of high AP weapons (which currently in 40k work as all or nothing, though I believe that's changing to the rend system that aos uses).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top to bottom this is what I expect:

- Grand Allegiance like AoS, it just seems to be split up into 3 now, which honestly makes it easier for GW. I mean what to do with Death? Even if theyd split up Undead from Ghouls and Spirits, I can't imagne putting more than 3-4 factions in there. All there's really left after that is Zombies/Frankensteins, Werewolves and Mummies...
- This Allegiance will consist out of several Factions, like AoS, but I think the blending of them this time will be handled a bit better. What I mean by this is that it took GW a couple of designs to get the AoS variant right but they are now largely there.
- 40K's army composition will be likely integrated into the Competative Play. Though I also expect many different Units can become Troop, Fast or Heavy, due to Battalions or Character/General choices.
- Battalions will be a thing! By large because they are fantastic to use for armies that can technically blend but reward players for going into a certain mono direction.
- Warscrolls will indeed be like AoS. They will likely not have costs on them. Which might annoy people at first but also has an advantage, it keeps the product relevant whilst allowing for a lot of re-balancing/re-costing in the main Generals Handbook/Rulesbook.  Privateer Press took the other route for example and if your going to mess with costs your also going to invalidate hard-copies of Warscrolls (not ideal for the consumer). 
- Units will have the real live box upgrade choices, which makes bit collecting awesome but not mandatory :P 
- Armies will really be capable to play as their lore pans them out. This is largely thanks to how Battelines can affect armies.

Overall I think that GW now really has a good feeling on how to 'balance a game enough', I say this because I feel AoS is also an example of this and while there are certainly some top tier lists, the lists (usually) arn't that drastically more powerful as others.

40K overall will likely be massively upgraded over it's current edtion. Honestly I also hope that AoS will go back to a statgrid in later editions because it makes things a little bit more difficult but also more characterful. In reality we are only a few steps away from that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think nu40k is going to be great. What we've heard so far is very good.

Chargers getting first strike is great: hello Tyranid and Ork combat being scary again! Alternating after that retains the tactics of AoS, but I would like to see special rules such as bracing or characters/units that ignore charge superiority. That said, movement values reduce the need for that quite a lot. How can fire warriors get the drop on an Eldar Exarch? Will if the Exarch can move 6" and the Tau can only move 4", then you can abstract that to be the Exarch being out of position or too gallus etc.

Vehicles getting Wounds and likely damage tables such as AoS Monsters and Vehicles, but Lasguns being able to hurt them: This is getting done over and over elsewhere but I can't see the issue. Speculative maths has been run and we're talking about 100s of lasguns firing at a tank to take off one wound. But as we know from AoS, 1 one wound often means nothing: it takes 5 wounds for an Ironclad to suffer any kind of minor loss of function, so either they've lost 4 wounds to heavy weaponry prior to that, or you can consider the mass lasgun fire as nothing more than weakening an armour plate that is later fired through. If a mass barrage of Lasgun shots takes off the last wound of a tank.. well I imagine it would have already been pretty banged up. I would like to see facings however, as it makes sense for them to exist in the 41st millennium.

Two sets of points levels: Power Levels with AoS style unit equipment and squad purchasing for Narrative/some open games as opposed to Matched Play with points per model and individual equipment: it's the best of both worlds. Anyone who hates on Open play is an elitist idiot who thinks new people should have to endure a comprehensive rules hazing before they can play as opposed to letting them enjoy one of the strenghts of tabletop games: their amazing ability to be modular.

No firing into or out of combat: Definitely needed in 40k given the prominence of weaponry, something similar in AoS would be needed.

Templates going: fluffy fun but ultimately a pain. Makes it more gamey and abstract, but this is 40k, not a historical simulation.

All in all it looks like it is being streamlined but retaining a level of complexity above AoS, which is also fine. From a personal perspective as a 2E and 3E player who missed 4-7 but has found AoS extremely inviting and enjoyable: I think this all sounds absolutely wonderful. The only thing I'd like to see is adjustments to points which make a 40k army slightly less expensive, as my wallet shudders at the thought of collecting Skitarii or Tyranids even though my body.. MAH BODY IS TELLING ME YEHEHEYEEESSS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DynamicCalories Im just going to switch from game to game as I feel like it :D I mean what this does do is allow you to truely focus on your favourite. I always liked both systems for several reasons and by all means Age of Sigmar and 40K will remain different in gameplay due to how 40K will continue to have it's more interactive statistical grid.

I do agree with you that chargers going to strike first is a thing... I don't really know why a charge cannot be a simple +1 Iniative or 2 even. This would indeed allow Characters and very high I models to at least strike at the same time... But hey, this variant is simple aswell. 

Overall I agree with your analysis. New 40K is going to be great.

PS I think that we as a community should try and test the 3" rule to Missle Attacks. What I mean by that is that I think Missle Attacks would be 'perfect' if their range was reduced to 3" if there is an enemy model within 3" of that model. It doesn't emulate realism completely but makes more sence as bullets bending over their closest target into a model at the edge of the board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Killax Charging initiative seems to place more emphasis on movement values, encouraging positioning instead of allowing units to be bold just because they have a high initiative. If a seething mass of hormagaunts with their low initiative charge a high initiative unit of soldiers, you're still breaking the abstraction, just in a different way. 

You either see in your head: a furious tide of chitin and scything talons smashing into the braced marines and totally overwhelming them... or a a furious tide of chitin and scything talons smashing into the braced marines and breaking like a weak tide against a pier.

I imagine there will be more levels of detail: grenades, the ability for certain units to brace, and especially adept units ignoring the rule via warscroll abilities, and as we know you can also spend a command point to change charge priority.

There's been a lot of talk about it simplifying charges and combat. It does, but not before adding its own nuances. If you get charged by a mob of Ork Boyz then you were likely out of position, and you should probably pay the consequences for that. We'll see how it plays, but given the warscroll system, any huge issues like this can be taken out and fixed. Universal Special Rules have a tendencies to cause big issues when tampered with, but individual unit rules as we have seen with AoS, means that that rule can be fixed without it breaking 30 other units.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DynamicCalories I agree. However I also think that learning the different ways of Initiative change due to Charge is another rule to learn and I think GW somehow wants to keep it as simple as possible while still giving the depth. In general I do believe that an Initiative charge bonus would be the most realistic aspect. Indeed it blends movement into iniative aswell, but logically speaking I feel this should be the way. Someone who is fast, usually strikes fast also :) 

For grenades there is a small rule I hope they might include and that's how it interacts with types of terrain. In our current day and age this is where grenades are used for as they are a means to deal with fortified positions better as a rifle does. However it would also imply that terrain doesn't grand armour bonusses, it would just severly mess with the possability to hit someone. To the point where I'm even talking about situations that say -1 and -2 to hit, which wouldn't apply for a Grenade in the same way it wouldn't apply for a Flamer.

What I do think is that the new Dawn of War game might give us some hints on what is to come. But I can't really be botherd to really look into that game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Requizen said:

They confirmed on Twitter that rolling for initiative is only AoS.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
 

 

2 minutes ago, DynamicCalories said:

I don't think they are doing that Kaleb. From what I have seen it is fixed turn order.

Good, yeah there are pros and cons to both.

The biggest con to iniative that goes all over the place is that it increases the time required to play. Comming from Malifaux for example you really see that it adds tactical dimension but that tactical dimension also forces you to  reconsider more moves. Which thakes up more time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Killax I played a lot of the beta and I don't think it is much indication of where things are going. It's a mix of DoW1 and DoW2. Most units only have one active ability now, if at all, except for heroes who have 2 or 3. Unit sizes are on the whole smaller so maybe that is an indication of army size being reigned in somewhat? I would personally enjoy that.

It's a fun game though, but I am terrible at it. Still, I will never forget the 3v3  Space Marine game I played where I countered their titan and infantry push by melting everything they had with a giant orbital laser strike. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw those new 40k profiles along with the other info and it looks amazing! Genuinely excited for the new edition. Wish they actually did this to WHFB, sort of halfway between both.  

Keeping S and T is a good point. A goblin wounding a dragon just as it would a zombie is one of the points I dislike of AoS, but I think it is impossible to make such a rollback unless they do a "AoS 2ed". I hope however that they do introduce things like different points per type of play, shooting restrictions, etc...    

Just like this new 40k seems to have learned from AoS mistakes and even added a few of its rules, I think AoS would greatly benefit from the same exchange, like a mutual feedback. With the yearly rules update policy, both games can improve that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, VBS said:

Saw those new 40k profiles along with the other info and it looks amazing! Genuinely excited for the new edition. Wish they actually did this to WHFB, sort of halfway between both.  

Keeping S and T is a good point. A goblin wounding a dragon just as it would a zombie is one of the points I dislike of AoS, but I think it is impossible to make such a rollback unless they do a "AoS 2ed". I hope however that they do introduce things like different points per type of play, shooting restrictions, etc...    

Just like this new 40k seems to have learned from AoS mistakes and even added a few of its rules, I think AoS would greatly benefit from the same exchange, like a mutual feedback. With the yearly rules update policy, both games can improve that way.

I don't fully agree, but were close. 

I think needing it to be a toughness value compare to a strength is kind of arbitrary. They could rename strength and toughness to merit and will or something stupid and mechanically it'd be the same. 

I think your issue is more along the lines of a an elf dragon being 14 wounds with a 4+ save feels kind pitiful. I wish the big monsters felt more like big monsters rather than a handful of stormcast eternals. 

I honestly wish all the dragons were like 400-600 points and they felt meatier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...