40K: 8th Ed. Rumors – The Primarch Schism

primarchs
The rumormongers are talking. The Primarchs return in 8th Edition – but THEN WHAT?

Bols-Rumors-avatar
We’ve been hearing for months about what 8th Edition of Warhammer 40,000 may hold.  Here’s today latest from an old reliable rumormonger who’s been around for years:
Sources tell BoLS:
-8th Edition starter is Astartes vs Chaos Marines.
-Rulebook will be similar to Age of Sigmar’s General’s Handbook.
-Look for Campaign Books similar to the Realmgate Wars series.
-Point costs and rules for Army construction will be in the “General’s Handbook” and future codex-like Books
-Release date for 8th Edition is June
-The new Edition will be set after Abaddons’s 13th Black Crusade
-Initial focus on factions will be on Imperium vs. Chaos
-There are brewing disagreement between the returning Primarchs
-Many are shocked and disagree the 40th Millennia Imperium’s religion and injustice.
Now the previous rumors were heavy on what the rule set would be like:
  • GW is borrowing some rules mechanics form Age of Sigmar to pull over into the new edition.
  • Look for an emphasis on ease of play, especially for new players.
  • Look for the variable-stats-based-on-damage rule mechanic seen on some Age of Sigmar monsters to make it’s way into the Grimdark.
  • Look for Psychics to be greatly simplified.
  • Army construction will not be constrained.
  • Some version of AoS Warscrolls will make their way into the game.
  • The game will retain it’s gameplay and tactical depth, and not come anywhere near AoS’s tiny 4 pages of rules.
  • GW’s design goal is to maintain 40K’s depth of tactics and play, while speeding up playtime and removing needless detail.
This could mirror the major shift we saw with Age of Sigmar from Warhammer Fantasy Battles – “New Setting, New Rules!” Guess we’ll find out soon enough…
~Have at it!
  • Donald Lindsey

    Fantastic! I hope it is even closer to AoS than everyone is willing to say. 40k needs to be trimmed back with chain axes.

    • Deathwing

      I disagree. I dont want 40k to become AOS. I despise AOS and I know a lot of the player base feels the same way.
      I would rather they cut just the fat and adjust the rules to fit into the same number of pages as the old 4th edition book. That was a very compact rules set compared to what we have now, but still massively more than AOS.

      • Zingbaby

        “A lot of the player base” despised AoS before it even hit the shelves… yeah I get it, the old world blah blah.

        Thing is; post-Generals Handbook AoS is a completely different animal and is a better game than 40k at the moment.

        • BurpinforDayz

          I completely disagree, AoS lacks a lot of strategy even with the generals handbook compared to 40k. I would like to see a little simplification but in my view the simplification of AoS and battle for Vedros should remain with the target audience of younger kids who can’t understand the game.

          • Donald Lindsey

            Strategy is not the same thing as min maxing a bloated rule set. AoS has every bit as much strategy as 40k with less breakability.

          • BurpinforDayz

            Wounding on a fixed value is dumb. The 40k is a bit too bloated tbh but in no way does AoS have even nearly as much strategy.

            In AoS range and shooting does not play a large enough role to constitute tactical play this alone makes AoS about 30% as tactical considering the lack of maneuverability held by most units

            There are no flyers in AoS

            There are no Vehicles in AoS

            The flying monstrous creatures are not represented accurately in the context of shooting.

            There are no templates or blasts in AoS so model placement is not part of strategy not to mention you can choose who to take off which makes no sense at all.

            Even CLOSE COMBAT the main feature of AoS has pretty much 0 strategy as initiative, strength, toughness and WS have no role not to mention no challenges and that tactical aspect.

            CC is simply my guys killer den ur gys ma guys win or i charge u first i win. Even the spell casting is very point and click, for shooting u just pick the enemies best unit for buffs u pick the biggest one or the choppiest ones.

            The mission are far less diverse and strategical in AoS very basic focus on objectives at best.

            Maneuverability has NO POINT in a who kills more mission if u think about it. All my troops will make it to combat, units that are fast enough will likely not hit hard enough or be able to make a T1 charge then get charged themselves. The who charges who first bonus only works with 1 of your units in reality.

            40k provides bonuses such as attacks for charges,includes the tactic of glorious intervention, tank positioning, aerial assault, functioning target priority and bubblewrapping not to mention deepstrike tactics and armoured deployment.

            I hope this helps everyone’s understanding as to in the core rules AoS is EXTREMELY dumbed down in the strategic side I didn’t even address the bloated rules.

          • Dan T

            Wounding fixed value is possibly my biggest gripe. What’s wrong with S v T? If that’s considered complicated then… yikes! Didn’t know they want to cater to the call of duty fanbase!

          • BurpinforDayz

            I just quite like the codex format, stats can be fun to master sometimes.

          • crcovar

            It’s not that it’s complicated, but it’s swings incredibly wild and is largely pointless. the WS chart is even worse, as the table is so static the stat is pretty worthless.

          • Dan T

            Yeah WS needs a look at. It’s a worthless stat with the current table.

          • BurpinforDayz

            The WS chart seems bad at first but if u think about it does actually make sense, no matter how good you are a fighter you simply can’t make it that hard for a group of troops to hit you and vica versa.

          • BurpinforDayz

            I will agree that it is randomly done though

          • Alpharius

            WS chart is fine except they really should have made the negative to be hit kick in at 2x WS rather than 2x WS+1. So WS6 (hit on 5+ by WS3), WS8 (hit on 5+ by WS4), and WS10 (hit on 5+ by WS5) would actually be significant numbers.

          • rtheom

            Well let’s be honest. The Call of Duty fanbase is MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than the current Games Workshop fanbase. So why wouldn’t they try to cater to it?

          • Dan T

            I know. I’ve a burning resentment for the cod franchise for what it did to the market.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            The problem with it is that it adds an additional layer on top of the game that needs to be referenced over and over and over again.

            I am fine with it being there or it going away.

          • BurpinforDayz

            TBH I think most people can remember the to wound and to hit chart with shooting. Its the WS one that gets people.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            The To Hit Chart with 40k is so cumbersome. The stat should just be what you need to hit, rather than subtracting the stat from 7.

            In my experience, there is a large contingent of people who do not remember the table for S v T and have to reference it (same with WS).

          • Dan T

            Except it’s easily memorized after enough matches.

          • Donald Lindsey

            This makes me think you have not played AoS…your statement about shooting is entirely untrue…as is most of your analysis.

          • BurpinforDayz

            Elaborate please.

          • Bulvi Nightbane

            Let’s see.

            The fixed wound values are a reflection of the quality of the weapon and the strength of the warrior. The hit value is a combo of the skill of the warrior and the ease with which the weapon can be wielded. The inherent durability or protection a model possesses is in its save value. The variety of ways that a units hit, wound, or save values may be buffed or de-buffed actually means that there is more strategy involved in AoS because there are more variables to anticipate.

            Shooting requires serious tactics to use successfully. The shorter ranges mean that ranged units require protection and thus better tactics in order to be successful.

            The variety in movement speeds in AoS is far greater than in 40k. Some units are very slow (Stormcast Paladins only move 4″) others are very fast (a Lothern Skycutter can be made to move as far as 30″) thus providing players with a far wider array of tacitcs.

            There are flyers in AoS. 1) because measurement is from model to model, you are free to build units with the fly rule high enough that they can only be hit by other flyers and ranged weapons. 2) there are rules for have a seperate table for flyers to battle in the air out of reach even of ranged weapons but free to descend to the main battle if they wish.

            Yes there are no tanks, but what did you expect. AoS is full fantasy not sci-fi. AoS has more monsters and incredible contraptions instead. Having tanks does not mean more strategy in 40k.

            Yes there are no templates in AoS, but you are assuming that means model placement has no meaning when the opposite is true. Because melee weapons have ranges too model placement is even more important. Comlex formations that combine multiple different units and very careful placement are possible in AoS that would never be allowed in 40k. Your units must work far more closely with one another in AoS in order to do well. Also chossong which models die is less of a negative when many units are uniform except for the unit leader, and making him die last makes the battle feel more epic.

            Your description of melee is better suited to 40k actually, you are mistaking more numerous stats for strategy. In 40k once 2 units smash together tactics goes out the window as it is then simply about the dice. In AoS you must plan the order in which your units will strike since you are taking turns with your opponent. Careful positioning so that units with spears can support the swordsmen. Careful removal of casualties so a hole doesn’t get opened for your opponent to reach the valuable archers. A Challenge in 40k is unrealistic, we magically end up in single combat with everyone ignoring us. In AoS heroes must actually cut their way through the melee to reach each other. A poorly positioned charge could leave you in combat with more enemies than you planned on. I could go on for hours.

            Magic must be used carefully, actually it is often a bad idea to buff your ‘best’ unit or de-buff the enemy’s best.

            Since everything has at least a little chance of hurting anything, target priority is far more important than in 40k.

            Lol, their are only 12 missions in the main 40k book and most of those vary little from one to another. In the General’s Handbook alone AoS beats that in both number and variety several times over. Also since objectives are often far more difficult to achieve in AoS they require better tactics than simply standing an objective secured unit on a position at the last minute.

            I have already done some explaining of why maneuvering and melee are more vital and complex in AoS and I do not feel like typing it again.

            Those rules you are describing are shared by all 40k armies, meaning the variety is limited. Because most of a units rules in AoS are unique to that unit the variety is an order of magnitude greater in AoS. This means a much wider array of tactics and strategies available to the players.

            Another note, in AoS the bigger the game the more complex the tactics.

            You have only succeeded in demonstrating one of the poorest understandings of AoS I have yet encountered. If you are ever in the Austin, TX area I would be happy to tutor you in the game.

          • ZeeLobby

            Addressing in order:

            1 – simplifying rolls just makes game faster. I think lookup tables provide more variety in unit capability and point cost. There are then more niche units available, and no clear winners.

            2 – Shorter ranges are a plus. Don’t know how tactically different it makes the game. It just means that close combat is more viable.

            3 – Varying movement characteristics exist in 40K.

            4 – Not having constant hit boxes, and allowing players to modify “height” and thereby interaction through basing is a horrible and abusable mechanic.That’s not tactics, that’s cheating, lol.

            5 – Tanks are a good example of the diversity in unit types in 40K though. It provides another tactical choice both in list building and on the tabletop.

            6 – Multiple ranges for melee means little when there’s no backstrike on your opponents turn. You might be able to hit them from 2″ away, but they’ll simply move forward the next turn at no penalty. All it does is extend charge range. Leaders til the end is pretty cool, but can be tactically achieved in 40K as well through good placement. A good player will consider this when playing.

            7 – I do admit combat is the one area interesting in AoS. That said, how much of a challenge is deciding who strikes first really? I mean I’d assume that it’s pretty obvious in most cases. You could “go on for hours” as far as melee goes, but I don’t think theres all that much greater tactical depth. I’d say it’s on par with 40K, just different. Placement of special weapon equipped models, placement of leader, etc.

            8 – Magic and psychic phase are comparable. Right now summoning is broken in AoS, but I don’t think it’s all that much thought provoking when it comes to decide who to buff. Again, there’s almost always the best choice.

            9 – I wouldn’t say everything hurting everything is more tactical than 40K. It is different. IE, deployment is much more important in 40K because everything doesn’t hurt everything. Positioning is much more important as well.

            10 – Missions I’m not touching, as that has little to do with tactics on a core rule level. The system shouldn’t be penalized if GW simply doesn’t offer more to one over the other.

            11 – I’d argue maneuvring and melee are critical in both systems. Picking out key wargear is huge in 40K.

            12 – Having unique rules for every unit is, imo, the WORST part of AoS. USRs are great. There’s a reason most games have them. 40K’s issue is that they’re poorly defined, or interactions aren’t taken into account or clarified. That doesn’t make them a bad thing. I’ve read through a large amount of AoS unit rules, and many are similar to eachother and then slightly different. What you end up with is having to look at your opponents sheets every turn to remember what each unit can do. There’s no reason well defined USRs wouldn’t work, and heck, they could even be printed on the sheets.

            13 – Bigger game = more complex tactics is kind of a silly argument to make. I’d argue as both games grow larger, more tactics are involved. That’s just the nature of gaming in general.

            Maybe it’s just because I play more games than what GW offers, but both systems offer very little as far as tactical decision making. Regardless of system, target prioritization is pretty obvious in most cases, 40K focusing more on smart deployment. There are still clear winners and losers in every faction, and USRs vs unit rules is a wash once both are printed on the sheet. Personally I think USRs make playing new opponents much easier though.

            Could you possibly give a scenario that you consider tactically complex? (Genuinely curious, as I think it’d be pretty easy to show just as complex of a scenario in 40K).

          • Joka

            Tell ’em! USR! USR!

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Movement could be simplified by giving us a Movement stat rather than listing off how each different kind of unit moves.

            Tanks are an awful example of unit diversity since the rules are god awful. They are fragile in the extreme and can be blown up in one shot currently. In 5th edition, they were way too durable and basically unkillable unless you blew them up.

            7. If only one combat is happening, then it is easier and more elegant than 40k. If there are lots of battles going on, then you have to pick and choose your priority. That is where the depth and fun comes in, compared to 40k where each combat is unto itself and highly regimented thanks to the Initiative order. 🙂

            9. Summoning is weak in AoS currently, it is something GW is working on. It is still more balanced than Summoning in 40k 🙂 The phase it self is much simpler and easier in AoS than 40k. It is much more like older editions of 40k.

            10. There are tons and tons of missions for 40k that no one uses because they are in spat books that people do not own or use regularly.

            12. AoS’s biggest failing is that there are some fiddly rules that vary across different units (liek Shields). That is something GW could definitely imporve on.

            13. I agree, Bigger and Smaller games have different tactics and priorities one is not better or more tactical than the other.

          • Karru

            My problem with the fixed hitting/wounding is the amount of character it removes from the game. My Chaos Warriors don’t feel like the “superior warrior” they are in the fluff since they are always hitting and wound on the same value no matter who they are fighting. I’m fighting Stormcasts and they would be on a even footing, but it doesn’t feel like that since the Goblins I attack on another game suffer the same number of wounds as these guys before the roll to save is being made. I don’t like this system.

            This is the biggest reason why I dislike AoS. Since I enjoy collecting and creating narratives in my mind while I play, it’s hard to see it reflected in the game when my Elite unit that slaughters militia men with ease perform in a very similar manner against another Elite unit. It makes it less interesting.

            I’m not arguing that AoS is less strategic, you make some extremely valid points about that right there and anyone who ignores or tries to deny them is most likely just hating. If AoS would include WS/S/T again, I would most likely start it in an instant.

          • ZeeLobby

            It limits available range. It also makes some units clearer winners over others. This is ofcourse comparing it to a balanced 8th edition. Right now stats mean little as far as points cost goes.

          • Aezeal

            They are still elites…since they hit low, wound low, have some buff somewhere and have a good save. They will also work good against other elites… but usually less so since elites have a better armor save. And of course the weaker enemies will not wound hurt them as much.
            It MIGHT actually be more realistic. In some games in 8th elites would hardly get damage against militia.. but how realistic is being in combat and hardly getting damage no matter how much stronger you are? Combat is chaos and even strong fighters will end up dying.

          • Morten Brandt Jensen

            Nah, in 7th they would hit on 3+ and wound on 4+, 3+ or 2+ depending on the weapon. It was fun writing a list, but that was it. Except AoS weapons are weaker it’s quite the same as in WFB.

          • Karru

            Actually it depended on the guys they were fighting as well. Fighting a Giant with a hand weapon meant 5+ to wound, Halberds made it a 4+ and Great Weapons made it a 3+. When fighting Goblins it was 3+ with Hand Weapons, 2+ with Halberds and 2+ with Great Weapons. Now it’s 3+/4+/4+ and 4+/4+/3+ and -1 Rend no matter who you are fighting.

          • BurpinforDayz

            1. Different movement stats mean nothing if they have no consequence and it all ends up as a mesh in the middle.

            2. You are not allowed to model for an advantage

            3. If you think the only missions in 40k are those in the rule book you are clearly deluded

            4. How does making a game bigger in AoS affect the tactics and surely it would have even more of an impact in 40k with the introduction of Titans and superheavies.

            5. You can’t prioritize targets properly because nothing really shoots with decent range or does enough damage.

            6. There is an entire section of the rulebook dedicated to special rules not to mention the exponential amount of ones in the codexes, look it up next time

            7. Realism. You are playing a game in which everything wounds everything on a fixed number and hits on the same number as if everything stood still like a lemon.

            8. Archers do crap all in AoS from my understanding

            9. You said troops had small range weapons, so how do you intend to protect them in a basic system like AoS and still fire them.

            10. ‘More enemies than you planned on’ you are aware that isn’t a tactical choice that’s just being blind and not looking at the table.

            I will conclude that I like the AoS magic better though.

          • Karru

            Actually, even though I am not exactly a fan of AoS there is something I do need to correct here.

            If AoS does something great, it’s the “missions”. Most of them force you to move all over the board and they score vastly differently than they do in 40k. This is where the movement value comes in. Some armies are slow and have to rely on faster units to actually grab objectives. Some units can’t be used to take them effectively due to them not being able to get there to begin with.

            What is the perfect objective holder in 40k? Durable unit with Objective Secured. Pretty much the same thing with AoS. You want to have durable units, but AoS uses scoring that happens throughout the game. This means that you have to consider sending faster units to grab those objectives. This is where the movement value comes in. With different movement values, usually the tougher units aren’t exactly the fastest, while the weaker units are very fast. They have better movement value so they can go and grab the objective.

            It also helps with manoeuvring and setting charges. Since in 40k you have set speeds for all units, it makes objectives easier to grab since you can measure it before hand and moving 6″ + running D6 can bring you close enough to an objective.

            What I am trying to say here is that some armies have to find different ways to get themselves to objectives due to lack of speed. It also means you cannot go Roman Turtle Formation since scoring usually happens DURING the game, not after.

          • BurpinforDayz

            Fair enough. I was wrong about that then and I admit it.

          • wibbling

            Why is wounding on a fixed value ‘dumb’? Because you don’t like it? How not represented accurately?

            40K is NOT a tactical game. It’s a huge bundle of rules. What you think are tactics are merely min maxing for advantage. That’s just complexity, not tactics.

          • Jim Jimjim

            I don’t think you play Age of Sigmar.

          • Aezeal

            I agree… posts like his are poison. So much silliness just ruins any discussion. It’s tedious to keep pointing out all the lies.

          • BurpinforDayz

            lets just face it none of you can come up with a response.

          • Aezeal

            Well I’ve had quite a few replies in here refuting some of your stuff.. actually reacted on one of your posts just now…. but overall I just don’t bother discussing things with people who are in a closed mindset.

          • Randy Randalman

            All that your post revealed is that you have literally never played the game. You said about eleven things that aren’t even in the rules.

            Furthermore, shooting armies are currently the strongest in AoS, in terms of killing. (Bonesplitterz Kunnin Ruk is S-tier). More killier CC won’t win you the game. Objectives are everything now (re: strategy), and model placement for buffs/de-buffs is far more important than it is in 40k, where 99% of the models are throwaway.

            40k is needlessly bloated. Nowhere is there a reward for outplaying the opponent, because there are too many layers of dice to get through to have your strategy work. (Sometimes six steps that end up causing zero wounds on average.) A fixed to-wound value means the unit I want to have fill a specific role is likely to do so against the right target. Of o don’t have rend values it won’t work against high armor, etc. But unlike 40k, I don’t need six steps of rolling to cause one wound, nor will I ever face an unkillable unit like the current Space Marines death stars; or a Wraithknight, which renders 40% of the armies in the game unplayable.

            40k has dozens of broken combinations, but they all belong to 2-3 total armies, and it just isn’t fun for most other people anymore. It isn’t “tactical depth” to have a longer turn with more rules shoehorned in that simply don’t yield results; or 20 USR’s that do the same thing; or having to lug 5 books, two White Dwarfs, and a campaign supplement for one army.

            The rules have gone too wide, and the more they release, the messier it becomes. It can’t be fixed with simple changes at this point. Games like X-wing, WarmaHordes, and even AoS are growing against 40k because the simpler rules sets puts more reward in the hands of the general, and less on the dice. Fewer random tables, fewer layers of dice rolls, fewer moments of arbitrary math (and yes, much of 40k’s math is arbitrary), and fewer phases.

            AoS has some tweaks needed, but that’s it – tweaks. Every game needs those. 40k needs chunks of the game hacked away (which will upset people with their snowflake special army rules), the phases reimagined, overhauls to vehicles and armor, and the complete elimination of GW’s desire to create an entire rules phase for every tree and ruined building. Heck, I’m surprised they didn’t make a “scenic bases phase” when their heroic bases kit came out.

          • Aezeal

            A lot of these things you do in AoS too (bonus for charging on a lot of cavarly warscrolls, bubblewrapping is a very smart thing to do for a lot of big stuff, many battaltion warscroll have deepstrike abilities.
            Positioning the units which can take a charge means that getting charged certainly doesn’t mean you lost the combat etc. mobility is important since most missions are not about kill points etc etc.

            Sure it’s a lot less complicated.. but there are a lot of strategic choices.

            You included a lot of incorrect arguments in your post.

          • BurpinforDayz

            Why would you bubble wrap big stuff?

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Protect it from a charge.

          • BurpinforDayz

            Yes but why?

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Because you don’t want it to get locked in melee or fight a particular unit?

          • Aezeal

            To prevent it getting charged, loosing 6 wounds and then dropping in effectiveness? The chaff will just move some models forward and not loose much combat efficiency in the short run. A big model getting charged by anything with significant damage output is the thing to avoid. Positioning is key.. some sort of bubble wrapping is another option. Ideally you’d leave just enough room so the big model (hopefully with 2″range) can still poistion itself between/behind (with the edge of his bigger base) the other models. That way he can end up doing his full attacks but can not get return attacks by the full enemy unit.

          • Morten Brandt Jensen

            Strategy means something different. You are free to like or dislike the AoS rules.

            You are right in pointing out that AoS haven’t got rules for flyers. AV in 40k seems like a joke that is easily stopped these days, with grav and S:D negating the interesting mechanic.

            The rest of your points is not how I experience my 40k games. Maybe back in an older edition, like 3rd to 5th.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            “40k provides bonuses such as attacks for charges,includes the tactic of glorious intervention, tank positioning, aerial assault, functioning target priority and bubblewrapping not to mention deepstrike tactics and armoured deployment.”

            Glorious Intervention is a great example of well meaning rules bloat.

            AV is a broken system… A joke of a system compared to the monstrous creature rules. If people could snap their fingers and turn their Rhinos into Monstrous Creatures virtually everyone would. Why? it is a better system.

            Flyers are some of the most controversial additions to the game.

            Bubble wrapping exists in AoS.

            Target Priority is still a thing in AoS. You can’t tell me you want to shoot your Dracoth’s Lighting Breath at a unit of chaffe compared to the guy one a dragon, can you?

            if you are looking for armored deployment, then you shouldn’t play a fantasy game.

            Deepstriking exists in AoS.

          • Mordrot

            Flyers are why I dont play 40k anymore.

          • matty199

            Ill tell you what is extremely dumbed down…

          • ZeeLobby

            Totally agree, and compared to other games, both are pretty lacklustre these days. I miss the block unit formation strategies of WHFB. Now AoS is just 40K but fantasy.

          • Muninwing

            rank and flank forever!

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Go play KoW, 9th Age or the new FFG game.

          • Muninwing

            there’s the thing, isn’t it?

            suddenly, to play a game i signed on for and spent money on, i have to learn a different set of rules and potentially buy supplements from another group or company instead of GW.

            it’s almost like businesses are normally compelled to strive for loyal regular customers, and by pulling the rug out from under them, they are basically handing their sales over to others for no good reason…

          • Xodis

            That’s how normal games progress. After 8 editions throughout 32 years, its not abnormal for a company to move in a different direction. Hell, Video Games have been doing it forever. The game you “signed on for and spent money on…” still exists as well.

          • BurpinforDayz

            Please read my post below to see why that isn’t necessarily true.

          • vlad78

            Which means almost no strategy. 40k ruleset is already bad. AOS is worse because it oversimplified the game and makes no sense in a fantasy setting.

          • Muninwing

            yeah… really not.

            i won’t bash the game. but i will say that i found it boring and hollow myself.

            if that’s what i wanted, i would have bought different models and played a different game.

          • Graeme Donaldson

            Have you played AoS? You can break it simply by taking a single unit or using the synergy between two units. It has nowhere near the depth and tactical freedom of 40k or Fantasy. After a year and a half playing it and waiting for it to be more than constant warscroll and book/app checking and arguments over vague contradictory rules I’ve moved back to Fantasy.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Have you looked at the FAQs?

          • Graeme Donaldson

            Yeah we’ve been playing with them, they haven’t really changed much though. Just cleared up a lot of “oh that’s actually how you intend it to work?” type confusion. Like 6s not always being hits so you can make a unit useless by giving it a -2/-3 to hit, or stop special save abilities by having rend on your attacks etc.

          • J Mad

            No…. no it doesnt.

          • Bulvi Nightbane

            Actually the variety and depth of both strategy and tactics in AoS is far greater than what is present in 40k. Saying that ” AoS and battle for Vedros should remain with the target audience of younger kids who can’t understand the game,” shows a serious lack of understanding on your part, not to mention belittling kids. For my part I was out playing older vets of 40k back when I started at age 12. . Think of it like this: 40k is difficult to learn but easy to master, and AoS is easy to learn but difficult to master. The truth is AoS requires more skill and creativity to play well then some players seem to possess.

          • ZeeLobby

            Do you have any examples of difficult mastery? I guess I just haven’t seen this yet.

          • Bulvi Nightbane

            Read my very long post on here.

          • Aezeal

            I wouldn’t say it’s more difficult.. but there are more than enough choices in each phases where either one is slightly better than the other and that will add up.

            I will say though it’s the special rules on units that add up in the end. It’s more easily accessable since it’s all with the unit stats etc but you will probably not know all the enemies special rules and that can really ruin your day. (As my enemy discovered when he attack my dryads with a units of pistoliers…. lots of attacks, rend good wounding…… but hitting on 5+…. and hitting on 5+ means that when you get -1 to hit (which my dryads get) your damage output is halved :D).

            Anyway… my point being. I think AoS isn’t as simple as some say, there are a lot of choices… when you recognize the choice the best choice is usually not hard to spot.. but in my opinion this was the same in fantasy and is likely the same in 40K. On the other hand while the basic rules are short.. there are loads of special rules.. it’s not really bloat.. but it’s not possible to remember them all either (just like fantasy or 40 K rules really).

          • BurpinforDayz

            The problem I see to be honest (and I may be wrong) is that there isn’t so much you can do once deployed to maneuver , there are no transports and not enough guns to compensate.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            There weren’t really any transports in Fantasy and there is the same amount of archers/ranged units now as then…

          • BurpinforDayz

            I didn’t play fantasy sorry I assumed this was continuing on my comment about tactics and strategy compared to 40k.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Sorry, this is a big thread with people cross talking a lot.

          • Aezeal

            Comparison to 40K is more difficult to me since I don’t play. But while movement is different (or the goal of it) in AoS it’s still benificial to team up on a unit to get the most out of the Battleshock test (It’s also less clumsy with the arbitrary flank and rear charges..fantasy had and the effect of the 2nd charge is less hit or miss than in fantasy (where enemy either held their ground and notthing really happend or they ran and got overrun and where gone).

          • Zingbaby

            Now I know you’ve just never played AoS – because it is WAY more strategic than 40K right now.

            The rules are more simple and less dense – agreed, but the game itself requires so much more strategy and tactical in-game (not just list-building) decision making.

          • BurpinforDayz

            I’ll say it again read my post below please.

          • Zingbaby

            All you did was ramble off about things/units that 40K has and AoS does not.

            I generally hate any comparison of these games to Chess – but the point can be made, Chess also lacks flyers and vehicles and is quite a bit more “strategic” than 40K.

            40K is won and lost at the List-building “phase”… AoS is won and lost on the table, that alone makes it far, far more strategic.

          • BurpinforDayz

            Chess has more components than 40k, substitute the various chess pieces into AoS and u will see there is a lot less to work with.

          • BurpinforDayz

            You have also failed to convince me of the tactical aspect whilst I have given clear evidence against it.

          • Zingbaby

            You’ve never be convinced until you sit down and play a game.

          • BurpinforDayz

            I have played a game, I played against a Sylvaneth army with my nurgle daemons and blood reavers I lost the game and turned out my opponent had a lot more points than me as I didnt have the handbook. Its a fun game just VERY little tactics.

          • Aezeal

            How can you expect a tactical game when the armies aren’t balanced….
            As far as I read here some 40K fights are total whipes.. can’t imagine there being much strategy in those games… and that is with the SAME point values.

          • Aaron

            I tried 3 and watched others, Aos degenerates into an all in melee in the middle every time….

          • Severius_Tolluck

            And 40k does not? I’d say 40k did that for years until 6th, and then everyone cried hoping it would go back to that…

          • Muninwing

            5th was when they added objectives. it was a good add.

            combat pre-napoleonic (broadly… even back to the American Revolution) is different from post-napoleonic in a number of fundamental ways (and that’s the bridge between).

            i know i noted this above, but i have a really hard time believing in the inclusion of objectives in AoS. most of what i’ve seen is stuff that would be done before the armies met on the battlefield, not during.

            it’s a scale problem, it’s a “jamming something in to make the game design less flawed” thing, and it’s replacing all the tactics of movement and positioning with something else to make it more credible.

            methinks the lady doth protest too much.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Hrmn, kinda had objectives and scenarios just like AoS does now in RT and 2nd.. and there were generic objective games in fourth in the BRB.. that no one ever played…. 5th didn’t really add anything new other than hey we have objectives but … killpoints, “have fun going against elite squads with weak ones!” But I digress

          • Muninwing

            i missed RT and 2nd, started in 3rd.

            4th had general kinds of missions, but many amounted to the meat grinder of killing more points than you lost.

            5th added in objectives as specific mechanisms… and that’s when they unified and normalized the system, and started to make it an assumed.

            killpoints came in too, as did certain units being worth points (or more points). as did the “only troops can claim objectives” mechanic that was later abandoned.

            i think that it makes more sense… it’s also a great way to create narrative play. certain aspects i think are a bit ridiculous (any formation that gives you free stuff shouldn’t also include ObSec… and ObSec should be more important… and armies/units that used to be playable and aren’t inordinate should have more ObSec units like Deathwing Terminators… but that’s a separate conversation). but it’s a sort of work in progress.

            that’s also why i’m apprehensive about any talk of “we should streamline the game” or sigmarizing 40k. it’s foolish to light your kitchen on fire because you don’t want to wash the dishes. and all that gradual progress and refinement is then lost.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            I see your point. I was just saying that GW games since the late 90’s -early 00’s, regardless how many ticks the edition number get by majority always ended in the middle slapping each other in CC. AoS does try to change it up a bit with the scenarios. Same with 40k. But your average gamer does not want the objectives, does not want the scenarios, they wish not to do narrative and just want to slap each other silly and cry need balance!
            In AoS, many of the armies are not fairly matched up, those scenarios were the band aid that brought an asymmetrical approach. Not the greatest, but I found it entertaining, however I am not the average gamer. I come from Historical background, which by and far is scenario with no points and is seldom fair.
            I understand that some how my opinions will be disregarded and that it will be chalked up to Anecdotal but whatever. I just found some people’s reactions comical as they bash one game and say their game is better or more sophisticated when it itself was the AoS of it’s day! That by and large it all just comes down to a cluster %#@^ in the end, and everybody takes it too serious.

          • Aezeal

            Then it’s not played right. Sure it’s primarily a melee game, which is very different from 40K. But it’s not that different from fantasy.
            I cannot remember a single fantasy game where there was NOT a battle in the middle… it’s just how things are with full tables. WIth old 2K armies you always had enough to deploy about 2/3 of your deployment zone full of units (unless you REALLY wanted to turtle ofc.. since you could place them all in 1/3 of the deployment zone). But when deploying 2/3 it means you’ll nearly always deploy in the middle and on a side (to support each other) or completely spread thin over the whole back line. The same goes for AoS.. and this means that in both games there WILL be a fight in the middle. But anyone pushing all troops in the middle in AoS will just not get objectives (3-4 of them in most scenario’s so not something you can contest with a single fight) so they are not playing it right. It also means they are not trying to intercept/ assassinate key characters behind enemy lines (who will usually not go into combat themselves since the risk of loosing their buff isn’t worht it unless it’s a general on a monster who REALLY has a good damage out put).

          • Muninwing

            fantasy ended up with a battle in the middle.

            yes. because it was about organized, massed, trained blocks of infantry who fight better by commanding the killing ground. get rid of the rank-and-file aspect of this and it turns from a tactical game involving planning and maneuvering… into a messy free-for-all without rhyme or reason or reasonable tactics or strategy.

            how units supported each other, what they lined up paired against, how your “spoiler units” like artillery or cavalry or skirmishers adapted or changed the overall composition of a battle line… it was all strategic.

            in an army-level low-tech game with a theoretically smaller model count than a rank-and-file force-based game, just about everything i’ve heard suggested for objectives would probably be done before the armies appeared on the field. it’s such a stretch.

            and if you need that stretch from preventing the game from being near unplayable, then maybe it’s a design flaw.

            maybe not. i have not played much (nobody in my area still plays, most got really sick of AoS really fast… and i’m unenthused about the incongruous style of game). maybe i’m getting stuck on all the wrong things. but so far it’s not looking good.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            AoS can but so can 40k and Warmachine.

            The way you prevent the scrum in the middle is with objectives/win-conditions that require you to go to a location and claim/hold it.

          • Muninwing

            how well do objectives work in a game like that? and how interesting is it? and how is this different from just rehashing 40k in another setting?

            besides… what is the model? if you’re a ravening horde looking for a new victim, why would you want to avoid the scrum in the middle that you plan on dominating? should a khornate horde be looking to hold a location instead of bloodthirstily charge in?

            i get it in 40k… computers, and mimicking the modern style of combat, and the skirmish nature all add to the narrative of synchronous units achieving complex goals. but a hundred hungry ghouls catapulting themselves headlong toward a source of food are probably not going to sit atop a relic just to contrive a reason why the game isn’t seriously compromised by a lack of basic mechanic to make an unfavorable event occur.

            or a reason why combat-heavy armies aren’t getting proper support bonuses from seeking such a thing out.

            or a reason why the press and crush of a horde isn’t better represented by having pressure advantages in the scrum that they would gravitate toward.

            suddenly, the four pages of rules just are not enough…

          • Depends on where/what the objective is. 40k does too as does WM/H.

          • Bulvi Nightbane

            I have played hundreds of matches in AoS and have only had that happen once.

          • Aezeal

            your evidence is full of lies…

          • Keith Wilson

            actually doesnt that make it more tactical? not strategic?

          • ZeeLobby

            You have some good examples? I have yet to see anything all that perplexing. (Although i also have limited opportunities). Like what would be a good example of a hard choice in AoS that isn’t in 40K or doesn’t have some kind of equivalent?

          • Aezeal

            I doubt there is some thing like that. I think most choices in wargames aren’t that hard. Deployment is critical, deciding where to move to in the first turns is important. After that most things get simpler (once units are in combat there are often not that much choices for a turn or 2). This was the same for fantasy.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with the simplicity of AoS. Like you wrote above I do think a lot of it just shifted to individual special rules. Personally I thought fantasy had more tactical decisions with unit facing, charge intercepting etc. It was at least different. But yeah, I don’t see how anyone can argue that AoS is more tactically challenging than 40K. Easier to play maybe

          • Aezeal

            It was different certainly but as I said in another reply (which I typed a few secs ago somewhere in here) the flank/rear charges where a goal in themselves and the you either where lucky or not and got the overrun or not. Now you can just charge with the 2nd unit and do more damage and try to get a graduated effect out of the battleshock phase.
            I think tactics in wargaming is kinda overrated to behonest.. I’ve seen games of tanks, flames of war, 40K etc etc.. and after deployment it was pretty clear what most moves where going to be. The only game which seemed a bit different was X-wing.. but that is likely due to the extreme low model count so you really had tons of room to move.
            Sure there are tactics but most stupid moves are clear. I’m sure 40K has top players who get more out of a game then I could (if I played) but I’m certain the same goes for AoS. 40K is just a cluttered rule set which is needlessly complicated to achieve the same thing. I like the slilghtly shorter games offers me compared to Fantasy and it plays differently but there isn’t really more or less tactical depth. All the whining about WS etc.. sort of pointless since most armies will have similar WS so not much to gain by choosing a different target. If you play orcs vs elfs you are just going to get worse hit rolls.

            Decisions in AoS are often about where to move in the first turns to set up the charges or avoid them. Who to shoot to remove their buffin g or to weaken big mosters.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Funny many of us thought that about 40k when it came out and got a simplified third edition again, compared to Fantasy… full circle, all that…

          • matty199

            Hear this all the time from people who havent played sigmar

        • georgelabour

          AOS lacks mechs with chainsaw hands.

          Also chainsaw swords, chainsaw axes, chainsaw flails, and chainsaws with smaller chainsaws for teeth.

          Therefore your argument is invalid. 😛

      • Donald Lindsey

        AoS grows on you. List building is easier and less abusable, and it is every bit as enjoyable on the table top.

        • Karru

          You can go ahead and ignore this if you believe that the fact of me never actually playing a single game of AoS will effect things in a major way, but here is my opinion on AoS. I did a lot of research on it when I was thinking of starting a Nurgle army of Daemons and the new Nurgle Chaos Mortal Models and I own the General’s Handbook

          First of all, AoS is a good game, it’s not great but it’s good. I do have some major problems with it that is the reason why I have no interest on playing a single game of it until I they “fix” it.

          Biggest reason, lack of WS vs WS and Strength vs Toughness. Why is this such a huge deal? Because it removes strategy from the game, a lot of strategy. It also makes the game feel quite boring in the long run for me since it doesn’t matter in any major way who I’m playing against, the damage I deal will always be the same on average before the opponent rolls to save.

          I personally find this very boring in terms of actually having to think counters. This is part of the reason why list building is easier. You don’t need to actually think how to deal with certain threats, like monsters or high toughness creatures. Now all you have to is maximise the number of attacks done by one or two of your units, make a blocking unit that soaks up enemy attack so your guys can actually charge and then smack the opponent. How you do this is up to you. Do you want re-rolls or actual attacks? Do you prefer weapons that wound better and/or have Rend?

          Compare that to 40k list building for example. When I start making a list in 40k I have to take quite a few things into consideration. Am I facing a Horde army, Elite army or a mixture of the two? How do I deal with them, do I take more specialised weapons/units to take down the elite units while I let my regular weapons deal with the horde element? Next I have to think about some AT for my army. Do I need heavy AT? Should I bring it in form of a Melee unit or dedicated ranged unit? You get the picture.

          “But in AoS you need to think about similar things. What if the opponent is running a shooty list or lots of monsters?” I know this might be an argument here, so let’s look at it this way. In 40k I can make any list I want but there will be a major difference in performance of all the elements of my army depending on the opposition. For example, I play against Imperial Guard with my Space Marines. Now my Bolters are very effective against Guardsmen since I wound them on a 3+ and negate their Armour Save. When I’m fighting against Orks, they are still effective but only wound on a 4+. This in itself is a major difference.

          In AoS it really doesn’t matter who I am facing. It’s kinda like Magic: The Gathering. You can find the most effective combo of units, for example Stormcast has the Dracothian Guard units are extremely effective and have basically everything they would ever need to face the opponent. They have answers to ranged armies since they have speed, they have answers to horde armies since they have amazing ranged weapons and they have answers to elite armies or monsters since they have attacks that cause Mortal Wounds.

          What I mean with this is the fact that I have no need to think about special units that deal with certain threats that certain armies bring to the table. Since all but the Save is fixed when I’m fighting an enemy, I can just look at with from the PoV of getting enough attacks. At that point it doesn’t matter if my opponent has 3+ save or a 6+ save, my guys are most likely making enough attacks and wounds to kill the entire unit, since their numbers are most likely reflected by their save.

          This leads to “one list to rule them all” mentality for players. I have no need to make my list different, I can make one list and that’s it. This is not fun for me. Why? Because while I can switch things around, that doesn’t mean that my opponent will be doing the same. He can stick with his one list until the end of time since it’s already effective enough and me switching my army won’t make a difference. As someone whose main reason to make lots of different armies is because I’m tired of playing the same list over and over again. I need breaks between my lists. After I have played a game of 40k with my SM, I will most likely play a game with my IG. It will feel completely different if I fight the same opponent and list again. Mostly because the opponent might have units and weapons that are either utter overkill/too specialised against me or might be useless. This makes the game feel very different.

          I don’t get that feeling from AoS. This is why I don’t like the idea of it happening to 40k.

          • Donald Lindsey

            You have given a good bit of thought to your response, and I appreciate that, however…as good as all of your suppositions about how AoS should play look in a forum post, most of them are still incorrect. The game is simply better than what you think it is when you play…I don’t play Sigmarines, but can tell you for certain that they don’t have an answer for ranged units or units with large model count at all…for example. The lack of str vs toughness or comparing WS simplifies the game, and I promise that rerollable look out sirs followed by rerollable saves followed by rerollable FNP so that no character model dies goes much further toward “boring”.

            All of that said, I mostly wish that the noisier people on the topic of “Sigmarizing” 40k were not the ones who have decided that they hate AoS entirely based on theory.

            Give the game a proper shot…you might surprise yourself and have alot of fun.

          • Karru

            My examples were very extreme, but my point on the WS/S/T still stands. Those re-rollable saves and FNP rolls can go for all I care, but I would still pretty much like to have those WS/S/T back. It felt different when I played with my Dark Elves against Chaos Warriors and even though I hit a lot, I couldn’t cause any wounds due to their high toughness in 8th edition Fantasy. Then when I fought against Night Goblins army, my Spearmen were suddenly incredible killing machines that took little damage back.

            This is my issue with it. Once again, I’m not saying that AoS isn’t good, it is. I’m sure that if it didn’t replace Fantasy Battles, it wouldn’t be so hated as it is now. It’s not the case of me not playing it out of principle like X-wing, but because I don’t like the fixed hitting/wounding values.

          • Muninwing

            i think that one issue might be that “simplify the game” is not always appropriate.

            AoS went a little extreme with how simple they wanted to pare back their rules. as a result, there’s a lot that they don’t address that makes the game feel lesser than what was before. in exchange, the game speeds up and is easier to learn, but it sacrifices depth and upper-level thinking.

            if you don’t care about length of game too much… and if you actually joined up and bought a WHF army because it was a tactical and strategic puzzle you wanted to be tested by… then taking something you fundamentally enjoyed and replacing it with a system whose advantages you see as design flaws is nowhere near equal.

            and if people are trying to justify why the game is worth it by claiming features of just about every game are somehow unique to AoS, the arguments fall on deaf ears.

            my old Nurgle Beastmen had no good answer to artillery/shooting lists. but being able to horde/skirmish meant i could outmaneuver and outmove nearly any army. i had to be careful when making my lists because i needed a certain kind of balance. i had to deploy, move, and react carefully in each turn.

            i could calculate risk factors. i could make calls on the fly about what i wanted each unit to achieve. but it was different than in a skirmish force like 40k.

            streamlining all that because of the exaggerated “rerollable” extra saves is reductio ad absurdum. it wasn’t hard to roll to hit, or roll to wound, or roll to save unless we’re talking about the later additions of stupidity that could have easily been rolled back (looking at daemons for instance). simplifying it lost depth.

            claiming that basic components are features is the job of a used car salesman or a politician, not a legitimate fan of a game.

          • Xodis

            The problem with WS/S/T is you are forgetting another key ingredient in the design: Number of attacks. With melee weapons (much like how 40K does with ranged weapons) the weapon also determines how many “shots” you get at hitting/wounding adding further complexity to the system. Its another part of the system that gets missed and I haven’t seen it mentioned yet. It goes back to those same 40K arguments over which weapons to use that never really quit….except that Heavy Bolters suck and Gravs must be spammed lol.

            # of attacks + toHit + toWound + Rending + # of wounds dealt per wound makes for a lot of factors that need to be addressed when building an army and when determining who should march towards who on the table.

          • Aezeal

            40k has had single top lists for each army for ages when I have to believe the forums here… so saying that is a thing against AoS is kinda odd.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Before formations, there were set lists that were very popular because they used the most, best units in a codex.

        • Kaylum Dicks

          Fungus also grows on you, doesn’t mean I’m going to spend my money on fungus.

          • Xodis

            So you prefer food without mushrooms or Truffles? You are missing out.

      • BurpinforDayz

        AoS is fun as a game just anyone who thinks it requires even a portion of 40ks tactics should read my post below.

        • Zingbaby

          If your definition of “tactics” is List-building, then maybe I would agree.

          Otherwise, absolutely not.

          • BurpinforDayz

            You haven’t read the post

          • BurpinforDayz

            I mentioned nothing about unit choice

      • Mark of Death

        Why are they destroying the amazing world they have been given. It won’t be the 40k universe anymore! They could have brought back the traitor Primarchs without destroying the whole concept.

      • wibbling

        No, your opinion is that others think the same as you. They do not. You despise a game bcause it is simple and removes the ability to cheat? Grow up man.

      • Aezeal

        To be honest.. it might not be completely what you want for 8th edition.. But chainsaw trimming it back to something simple and then building on that in future editions is probably way better than piling crap on crap on crap

      • Eagle50

        Screw 4e. Simplistic flavorless garbage.

    • Talos2

      It would make my wallet a good deal less strained if they did.

      • Dan T

        Because you’d stop buying their product?

        😉

        • Commissar Molotov

          Ex-ACTLY!

        • Talos2

          Yeah, at least to a large degree anyway. I’ve bought 1 box of aos orks since release, fantasy was my main game before that. I’ve moved onto other games, mainly board games since. You might think the addiction would keep me buying, I know it wouldn’t

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            We lost you and gained new people. Such is life.

            Also, board games? Really?

            At least play a real game 🙂

          • Talos2

            Yeah er………ha

          • Dan T

            You have my sympathy lol. I was really interested in moving into WHFB because the setting was very interesting to me.

        • Talos2

          Wyrds new game the other side looks very interesting.

    • Frank Lévesque-Nicol

      “Streamlining” is heresy! Death to the false solution!

    • Kaylum Dicks

      If I want to play a game like AoS, then I’ll play AoS. There’s no need to ruin 40k too.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        GW can make a lot more money by making 40k simpler. It doesn’t need to be AoS simple. Just cut the rulebook in half and write a tighter rule set.

        • Kaylum Dicks

          And they stand to loose a lot of money doing that too. Many people play this game because it’s complex. Simply changing the rules does not ensure balance, it only ensures change. And you can change the rules and streamline the game without invalidating the current army books. But you there’s talk of the new rule book having point costs for all current armies, that sounds a lot like completly changing the way the game works, so much so that the current army books can’t be used.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            This is going to be like 2E to 3E. All codexes will be invalidated, most likely.

            And to be honest, the game thrived after the switch from 2nd Edition’s bloat to the more stream lined 3rd edition.

          • Kaylum Dicks

            It thrived after a time, the initial change was rather stagnant. The desire to play the game almost died for most players as the rules became overly bland. But during that change, GW hadn’t been pushing out numerous new army books.

            Back then, most players had 1 army book, a rulebook, and a copy of Dark Millennium, that was about it. Now most armies have 2 or more $50 books. Chaos is getting 2 new books this month alone. 9 new armies or sub armies have already been added in the past year or two. Many players of those armies have been waiting a very long time to see their army come out. Now they are about to watch as those armies get generalized once more

            When AoS came out, Fantasy completely died in my part of the state. No one plays it, no one cares about it all interest that did exist, is now gone. You can streamline the game without killing all the current books.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I am sorry the game died in your area but i my area, AoS revitalized fantasy. 7th and 8th editions killed Fantasy. AoS has brought tons of new people into the game. Lots of young people as well as vets.

          • Kaylum Dicks

            I hear people say this all the time, yet I’ve seen no evidence of it. Forum activity is significantly lower on the AoS boards than on 40k boards on many forums. Sites like eBay and other resale sites seem to have a lot less traffic for AoS than 40k, and I’ve yet to go into a store where AoS is widely played. I’m not talking about the 5 or stores within a hour drive of my house, but the random store I drop into when on the road.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Fantasy never re-sold as well as 40k. AoS is still new and does not have huge balance problems, so people are not selling whole armies off.

          • Kaylum Dicks

            I see tons of listings for AoS armies, they just aren’t selling for much. When GW releases a new kit for AoS, there’s more chatter about how it can fit into a 40k army, than there is about it going into an AoS army.

            As for AoS not outselling 40k, that was never up for debate, the point is, fantasy has gone downhill since AoS came out. Granted it was already in a slump, but it still found a way. Do people like it? Sure. Will people like it, if the same thing happens to 40k? Yup. But people like to be cropped on while having sex, doesn’t make it the popular choice.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I see lots of talk about AoS, maybe you just don’t frequent places that talk about AoS much? Lots of facebook groups.

            I think you very much have an opinion and warp reality to fit your conclusion. AoS is much more popular than you are giving it credit for.

          • Kaylum Dicks

            Or perhaps you’re warping reality to fit your conclusion. I never said no one was talking about it, I didn’t say people didn’t like the game, I said AoS does not have the popularity Fantasy had. I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but you keep trying to twist my replies around to fit your narrative, it’s old, and so I’m out.

          • Loki Nahat

            AoS certainly isn’t popular my friend

    • Muninwing

      if i wanted to play a crappy skirmish game with weak rules and terrible writing, i’d play warmachine.

      at least i couldn’t complain about balance (as much).

      paring back is one thing. making it into something fundamentally different and gutting the very reasons why people signed on to play in the first place is just stupid.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        GW needs to make a profit to survive. People weren’t buying Fantasy models in large enough numbers to justify its existence.

        • Muninwing

          we’ve heard it all before. and it’s not exactly what the company has said — they actually were not making enough profit — not that they were losing money.

          it also dismisses the reasons why people had stopped buying. a crappy unbalanced edition made people wait for the next edition, hoping for a fix.

          it also doesn’t excuse their shipping it out half-finished and with such utterly abysmal fluff. and the sales in AoS’s first quarter were worse than WHF had been for years (thus necessitating the GHB to fix the game from being an utter flop).

          it also doesn’t overcome the business-stupid decision to give up a place of prominence dominating one style of game, to alienate your core consumers and try to make the move into another style (with fewer veins for revenue to mine… smaller game, no rulebooks) where they compete with many others.

          but to each their own.

          the real point is that people got into 40k for a reason, and it’s not perfect. but if you don’t like the color of your house you don’t light it on fire.

          i’d much rather that GW came up with a functional points metric, and tried to nerf the worst of the unbalancing rules, than decided to gut the game and give me a new crappier game to use their models with… maybe they’ll try to copy infinity? or some other game? instead of releasing their own skirmish game and not giving up the dominance of their initial market…

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Their game, their rules. Sadly.

            You can’t do anything when a company has a bad leader. Which GW did for many years. Only in the last year has the new CEO been able to right the ship.

      • Admiral Raptor

        You already have a crappy skirmish game with weak rules. 40k has never been in worse shape. It needs to be burned down and built back up from the ground.

        I don’t want to see a single rule carried over between 7th and 8th.

        • Loki Nahat

          get out

        • Muninwing

          … then why do you want to play it?

          i’ve been playing since 3rd, and the game has not changed that much. yes, there are changes… but if anything the game has added more depth and consideration double to what has been lost in the old meat grinder style of play.

          it just sounds like you want a completely different kind of game. so… why not find one? you’ll complain a lot less.

    • J Mad

      No… it would ruin the game for me tot he point I wouldnt play 8th, I would still play 7th. I hate AoS (Yes i’ve played GRB) it’s completely boring, no thinking and 0 strategy of a game.

  • Hudson

    So… do I bother to pick up chaos legions or not?

    • Agent OfBolas

      Don’t waste money. It’s going to be valid only up to 2nd quarter of 2017.

      It’s like End of Times books … they were released and … BOOM! All of them are not valid anymore.

      • Dan Wilson

        Alternatively, since the Primarch’s seem to be making a return, these Legion rulesets will be written in a way that maintains there validity into the new era.

        • Hudson

          One can only hope. But then we run into the situation where a year down the line, and the book is way down in the power curve, because it was constrained to a previous edition. Its happened before and it feels like history repeating itself. Remember, Chaos was the first 6th ed codex and was never updated to reflect the meta.

          I really want to be excited for the new books, but the with looming 8th, the uncertainty is wracking my brain.

        • Agent OfBolas

          In End Times … it went totally opposite so all things released before End Times are now … just a nice book, but useless from tournament gaming perspective.

          For house rules they are OK, but no longer supported.

    • Karru

      If you are amongst those lucky to be able to play older edition, then I would suggest to buy it. I am lucky enough to play a “fixed” edition of 5th with my friends and these books will give us a lot to play around with. I personally have no interest on Age of the Emperor.

    • pskontz

      Im saying sme thing about agents of imperium haha

  • Agent OfBolas

    Sounds like a dream … current 40k rules are so overcomplicated, unbalanced and scaterred over dozens of books … that any kind of simplification is welcomed.

    • J Mad

      Its not unbalanced b.c the rules, but the codex power creep.

      The general rules only needs some tweaking, AOS is over simplified and will lead to a boring game that I play once a month rather than every week.

      • Agent OfBolas

        There won’t be as much simplification as in AoS. It would be still much more complicated game, but with fixes like simplification of main rules + more additional things on Warscrols as well as removal of S/T mechanics – and this is the BIG one as it kills deathstars, the most boring and predictable thing in whole 40k.

  • Good. I don’t like having to spend every 10 minutes looking up a rule or a rule that references a rule.

    • ZeeLobby

      Or trying to find 2 rules interactions, which aren’t defined or clarified anywhere… :(.

    • Deacon Ix

      Or a rule that for this particular unit on the 3rd Thursday of the 4th month after a full moon doesn’t apply.

      • Graeme Donaldson

        Still better than AoS and its “every unit has similar special Rules but are slightly different and have to be constantly checked every phase to make sure this is the unit with the champion that’s +1 attack and musician that’s +1 to run and charge rolls and shields that give you +1 to save rolls against shooting as long as you’re 12″ away from a Hero unit, and not the re-roll failed to hit champion and +1 to battleshock musician and shields that let you re-roll 1s to save as long as the rend of the attack is – unit”. I am so sick of that confusing mess. I long for just a “fleet means this for everyone” style system for AoS like 40k has currently.

        • J Mad

          This, I feel there is just as much looking up, Ive play 40k for years and honestly we only look up a rule is bizarre situations or using a unit we havent used in a long time.

  • I don’t think the rules of 40k are complicated, they are pretty solid and have been for almost all the editions. The problem lies in GWs added layers of way too many special rules and now all the formations and whatnot. I’d prefer to see them cut away that chaff. But, thats unlikely to happen I think which is a shame.

    When I was a lad I wanted to see the Primarchs return but to be honest I think they are best left to legend with the current marines etc trying to live up to that ideal. The fluff is getting a bit to much like infant school playground banter with each other ‘dads’ going toe to toe.

  • Sage

    See this is the problem. They can’t bring the Primarchs back without shaking up the settings Grimdark nature. If they start doing braindead things like ban the Worship of the Emperor or the Inquisition; I feel like they’d be going too far.

    • Drew

      I think there’s room for both; what I think is likely if these rumors prove true is that some of the primarchs go for the way things are in the 41st millennium Imperium and others don’t. Some, like Dorn, probably look at the situation and say, “Well, this is what we’re dealing with, so I guess we have to work with it,” while those more like Russ and Vulkan are horrified by what the Imperium has become and refuse to support the High Lords/Imperial Cult/etc., focusing instead on protecting their corner of the galaxy as best they can. Maybe Imperium Secundus even makes a comeback?

      Could make for some really neat story interaction…Imperial factions who view each other as enemies (or, at best, misguided) but will ally together against outsiders…that’s got potential.

      SOME of the people in the universe are allowed to be good guys without completely destroying the integrity of the setting, you know! After all, 40k has people who are irredeemably evil; it’s no less plausible for there to be room for some who are genuinely noble.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        I could definitely see Roboute Guilliman saying, “Wow. This is not what I intended at all. Let’s make Ultramar great again!

        • Keith Wilson

          hah ,,, you win the conversation

  • Dan T

    40k could do with a tidy up but nothing as drastic as AoS. At least keep stat profiles intact.

    Simple is fine but overly simple is a snooze.

    • Bulvi Nightbane

      I want to see 2 changes. 1) make the psychic phase much simpler. 2) each unit’s special rules should all be on its one page as in AoS. Both of those would slim down the time it takes to play and make learning the game easier for new people.

      • Dan T

        I agree with 2 but is the psychic phase really that complicated? It is time consuming though.

        • Bulvi Nightbane

          It is not complicated once you get used to it but it is not very intuitive for new players to figure out, and yes it is very time consuming compared to how it used to be.

        • Deacon Ix

          It just doesn’t really flow very well and I say this as someone who loves psykers (Tzeentch Deamons :))

  • Alpharius

    “The game will retain it’s gameplay and tactical depth”. Whatever is afforded by the core ruleset goes out the window with formations and USR stacking.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah, sadly I don’t see formations going away either. They’ll at least make people pay points for them, but then we have to ask if those costs will be appropriate.

      • Joka

        Like everything else: mostly yes, some overpriced and 2-3 so overpowered that the ones before won’t matter at all.

        • ZeeLobby

          Haha. Yeah. Most liklely. Looks like my GW vacation may last a little longer if this is the case. Just gets old when your faction continually falls behind.

          • Dan T

            At least you dont have to feel guilty playing your favorite army!

            Just depressed at how weak they are!

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha, there is that I guess. I do feel bad for my Eldar friend. He basically shelved them just to get games in at our local store. Short of purposely playing badly, he’ll just faceroll people even with weaker lists.

          • Dan T

            I was just getting into 40k as the new eldar dex launched. So my next preferred force was tau…

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. I’m a CSM/DE player. Haven’t had much fun lately. Funnily I have picked up Tau, and have had good games with them, but came in second to last in a 42 uber-competitive event recently. I should note that I took a highlander list and everyone else was running 5 riptides, drone net, KDK, Daemons+Eldar, etc.

          • Dan T

            Im really interested in DE actually. I’d like to do those or demons next.

            At the moment I only play in a small group of mostly family so I dont have to deal with things like 5 riptides ha ha ha

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. DE can be surprisingly good, even against other power builds. The main problem is that their Craftworld brothers do the majority of what they do better, and are more survivable to boot. The DE line of models is downright amazing though. It’s why I’ve still kept mine.

          • Dan T

            Thats pretty much my primary reason for choosing armies. How cool they look!

  • Scotty Vi Britannia

    I hope they don’t take away wargear choices for hq and stuff like that. I also hate how in AoS dice rolls are fixed with say a 4+ regardless of what the weapon is hitting.

    • ZeeLobby

      I mean if they kill the customizability it’ll not only render a lot of their sprues useless, but it’ll kill off one of the more characterful aspects of the game. Sadly, I can’t see how they can go to fixed rolls without removing all of that, unless they do modifiers for all pieces of wargear, etc. and then it’s just as complicated as it is now.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Almost every AoS unit has wargear. My liberators have the choice of 4 different load outs as well as the option for a specialist weapon.

  • Kaylum Dicks

    Sounds like what I’ve been worried about. If the Rulebook will be “Point costs and rules for Army construction will be in the “General’s Handbook” and future codex-like Books,” that sounds an awful lot like a whole new rule set, which will invalidate all the current codexes. It’s possible that they are simply retooling the point values, but given their history with 40k 3rd to 4th and AoS change, a complete rule redo to bring both games into the same ruelset sounds likely.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      1) Invalidation is important because armies are not balanced at all.

      2) Just because 40k is adopting some ideas from AoS, does not mean the two systems Wil Wil the same.

      • Kaylum Dicks

        You can address issues without invalidating dozens of rulebooks. How many new books have come out this Year? There are 3 new books coming out this month alone. Invalidating them like that is just an insult to all players, expecially those who have even waiting to have rules for their army to come out.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          You honestly cannot.

          Not if they want to create a balanced game with a General’s Handbook.

          What you really need to do is invalidate all the books and start over.

          • Kevin Buesse

            They can do that and see a crater where their sales used to be.

            AoS only sold well because the models brought out we consciously 40k friendly. And there was massive lent up demand for quality chaos models.

            Hell I’ll never play AoS and still own the chaos models from the starter. They make excellent KDK proxies.

            If they mishandle the switch as badly as they did with ET for fantasy sales will bein utter shambles.

            You can’t just tank an entire story and rule set without proper communication to reassure your buyers that your not straight screwing them.

            PP and mantic know this they communicate things and play test. People are eased in 3-6 months ahead of time so they have time to get past the jitters before it even drops.

            If GW is really going to spring the sigmarization of 40k on us with little to no warning that’s straight corporate suicide.

            Given the recent wrath of magnus mess it looks like they still can’t assess major flaws which gives me little hope for these new rules.

          • Admiral Raptor

            They’ve done this before. At the end of 2nd edition 40k and at the end of 5th edition Fantasy. Both times the player base ended up being fine with it. In the case of 40k it actually gained a lot of popularity after the reboot.

            AoS is selling better than Fantasy was because it’s far more fun than 8th edition fantasy. Chances are it’ll be the same for 40k.

  • Branahar

    Really wish they would stop pandering to ikle children and stupid people, cant play the game in less than a minute, learn fool…..

    • Dan T

      I cant help but share this sentiment. The video game industry has been in a rut for the longest time because of ”streamlining” aka making things accessible to the lowest denominator.

      • ZeeLobby

        Agreed. Luckily there are still unique stars out there, even in tabletop gaming. There are def alternatives that have more depth than either game. Sadly 40K’s fluff is just massive at this point.

        • BurpinforDayz

          Agreed but it is understandable that a lot of people can’t learn the sheer quantity of rules in a suitable time so they should have games like AoS which are more simple and require less thought. Better for a quick game.

          • Dan T

            This is the issue. Instead of having one product cater to a certain type or age of person they want everything to cater to everyone, in turn alienating those who want complexity.

          • BurpinforDayz

            If they make 40k as simple as AoS and remove the customization I will probably stop playing. Just won’t be as fun I guess.

          • Dan T

            I’ll keep playing 7th. It’s a bit busted but beggars cant be choosers!

          • Kevin Buesse

            At that point just take the parts you like and mash it with the parts of old Ed’s you liked. Drop the chaff and off you go.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, most people I know who want to play quick games just grab board games these days. Or play video games. The only people I know who tabletop wargame are people who want that tactical depth. I mean maybe I’m in an outlier area, but it’s one of the reasons X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. have become increasingly popular lately.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        The real money is in fast paced games these days. Gotta go where the money is. Every company is making their games faster and easier to learn.

        • Dan T

          I know. It’s depressing as hell.

  • BurpinforDayz

    Lack of upgrades and customization would make the game a bit like AoS and generally not as good. Hope GW doesn’t go down that route.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      AoS is filled with upgrades…

      • BurpinforDayz

        O guess they do have point costs for weapons and upgrades then, armour etc?

        I might have been wrong though I’m not so familiar with the rules.

        • Kevin Buesse

          As I understand it no points cost you just upgrade the while unit or some such.

          I looked at the game once when it released and noped out the GHB made some fixes but nothing in the setting moves me enough to take the dive.

          So all this is second hand from my Gaming group.

  • Commissar Molotov

    Y’all have fun playing AoS in spaaaaaa-ce…

    I’m just gonna take my toys and go home.

  • Joka

    Now, now. It’s fine to trim out some redundant stuff and whatnot.
    But what the game really needs is a fresh start for all faction with an equal power level. At the moment the disparity between factions is embarassing. Also why that much focus on formations? The basic build a bear CAD-like detachment that went off on codex at the start of 7ed were pretty neato imho. You would choose between the generic obsec or the faction oriented bonuses wich were actually quite balanced: no one ever said “The shield of baal detachment” or “skitarii maniple” are broken.

    • Joka

      Also you COULD combine them with themselves and lesser formation. No need for the damn decurion-like ones.

    • ZeeLobby

      Wasn’t one of those the “give skitarii 6 drop pods” blood angels detachment though? I think it would have only been a matter of time until things got worse. Decurions just came out instead. Personally, I was happy back with CADs and ADs, or honestly CADs with no allies. It was fun when people played A faction, instead of cherry picking from multiple.

      • Joka

        Yeah, that was a major flaw but it was not inherent to the detachments but to how the buffs are shared and vehicles were back then.
        The actual “Flesh tearers strike force” wasn’t imbalanced outside of i pick a libby, a tac squad and then i carshare 6 FA slots.
        It had a major flaw tough, a kinda common one in 40k. Basically you would trade +1I on the charge or obsec for rage if you got 10+ on charge roll wich can be superior to both in a list built around ASM and bikes as intended but it is too luck reliant wich could be both ways but usually ensures one of the sides doesn’t get a really healty game.
        I hope they will toss a bit less “lucky oddballs” in the next edition.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        We’re going to see an AoSing of the factions, so that gw can Release campaign books that focus on a handful of armies by those units will be used by lot of people thanks to the alliance system.

  • pskontz

    I hated hte lack of depth of AOS enough to sell all my armies (and I gave it a good try or 5) I hear generals handbook helped a lot (shoulda been at the release tbh) but I am willing to try again but the Rules are what gave me pause… 40k needs trimming but if it goes to far that way I guess I get to freeze in time and not move on and trim my own garagehammer rules. or move on to something else….

    • Kevin Buesse

      IMO take fifth add the shooting rules 7th IE overwatch to balance charges from the edge and you have a pretty solid start.

      Keep HP and damage for vehicles, fliers kinda need to be added.

      Keep the psychic phase dump the rules use the 5th ed mechanics.

      Also none of this out of turn movement crap all moves in the movement phase except assault and special cases like JSJ.

      Next send apoc stuff back to Apoc or at least 2500 pts.

      Dump challenges and that stuff it slows the game far too much.

      That’s where I’d say most people would be happy.

      Me I’d also make WS not suck by making it work on 2-6 and that each point of difference between you affects the roll. So WS 5 hits on 3 vs WS 4 and on 2 vs WS 3. Watch assault not suck anymore when added with disordered charges from table edges and stationary vehicles.

      Limit Grav to only wounding on 4+ and amps reroll only 1’s. D weapons are a flat auto wound or Len and force rerolls of successful invulnerable saves. No magic sucky shots or insta gibs. Much more consistent. Template versions would still ignore cover.

      There’s more but this is on mobile and running long.

  • Raven Jax

    Devil’s advocate here. Some of us like the complication. Are there some rules that could be trimmed or made easier to understand? Absolutely. Necrons should not have a special rule that once you look up what it means, it says “They get Zealot.” The rule should just say “Zealot.”

    However, a lot of people love hugely-in-depth strategizing. Sitting on your couch in the evening, crafting hundreds of lists. You’re never going to play all of them, but it’s so much fun to have a game with such a huge number of options.

    I’d hate for them to take away upgrades. I bought the General’s Handbook. I’ve played AoS. Most of my games were decided by whether a not a person won the dice roll to take two turns in a row. Building a Dwarf list involved….picking a general and some dwarves.

    Not like 40K. Do I take Tactical Squads? Is the tax worth it for the formation? How should I kit them out? Special or Heavy Weapons? Do I want them to hold objectives or tank hunt or infantry melee? What about my HQ? Should I make my leader shoot-y or CC? Power armor? Terminator armor? What relic? What chapter tactics should I use?

    • Bryan Ruhe

      “Sitting on your couch in the evening, crafting hundreds of lists. You’re never going to play all of them, but it’s so much fun to have a game with such a huge number of options.”

      This sounds like torture to me. I also hate deck-building/deck-crafting (a la MTG).

      I love the models. I love the fluff. I want to throw down my models and play a game. The meta-game is debilitating. Casual play for me, all the way. Narrative-based battles and missions. I’m no power-player and I have no interest in min-maxing or looking for the best synergies.

      I know I represent the minority here. Just voicing the other side.

      • Bulvi Nightbane

        You are actually not in the minority, it is just that the bulk of casual players have no interest in engaging competitive players in an argument. They would rather spend their time gaming.

      • Raven Jax

        I don’t think you represent the minority at all. I completely agree with you. I’m not talking about meta-gaming. I’m talking about just trying out a bunch of different options and building fun lists. Build a Salamanders list, Build a White Scars list, Build an Alpha Legion list. My lists are rarely very competitive because I make them very fluffy to that faction.

        All I’m saying is that it’s great to have a game that allows us to do both, and I’d hate for them to change that.

    • Admiral Raptor

      We are complete opposites. All I want from list building is to pick some models to play with. I guess that’s why I love the AoS system.

      It’s kind of nice to know that at least someone has been having fun with list building in 7th :P.

  • Daniel

    -8th Edition starter is Astartes vs Chaos Marines.
    -Initial focus on factions will be on Imperium vs. Chaos

    No thx.

  • sjap98

    What I expect:
    All characteristics will stay.
    Shooting in close combat will be allowed (like in AoS).
    Alternate unit activation in close combat.
    No +1 bonus to charge .
    You choose your psychic powers.
    Vehicles will be Monster Creatures…and function differently depending on the amount of damage .
    Wound allocation: Owner’s choice.
    No templates or blast markers.(saves time when moving large blobs of infantry without having to space them out).
    Unit coherency 1″.
    Choose warlord trait.
    Maybe: To hit depending on weapon used.
    That’s what I can think of at the top of my head .

    • Karru

      Also known as: Not 40k or Age of the Emperor.

      • sjap98

        Age of Vect!

    • Admiral Raptor

      I hope the characteristics change. I think the AoS method is better than the stats that we have currently. Failing that I hope that if they do keep the traditional stat block weapon skill gets a serious revamp. A WS 10 Bloodthirster should not be missing 1/3 of his attacks against everything.

      • sjap98

        I was thinking that assault would be resolved just as shooting: WS 10?, hit on 2+, reroll1s, hit on 2+…

        • Admiral Raptor

          I could comfortably live with that.

  • wibbling

    4 Pages of rules was a vast improvement. Only people who hated it were bad players desperate to rules lawyer.

    • Karru

      4 Pages of Rules had major problems. Do I need to remind you about the Summoning abuse that happened with Nagash and Co.?

      “Those are just WAAC players abusing and twisting rules in their favour”. Not the case actually. They played the game like it was meant to be played. With no limits to what could be brought or used.

      • ZeeLobby

        I love how the guy below stated the fact that model-to-model measuring was a good thing, as you could put fliers far above where other units couldn’t touch them…

        • Karru

          Nothing wrong there right? I mean, it’s clearly not against the rules so it doesn’t make you an A-hole. Meanwhile what does make you an A-hole is playing 40k and using the rules given to you to make a list!

          • ZeeLobby

            LoL. I mean it’s ridiculous the blinders people put on these days… Regardless of the changes to 40K, these same people will be coming to it’s defense when 8th drops, although they despise it now. As far as they’re concerned GW can do no wrong moving forward, while somehow ignoring the issues looking back.

          • Karru

            Gotta love the GW “fanbase”!

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean I guess when you have poop and slightly less smelly poop as your only options for dinner, you’ll always eat the less smelly one.

            Personally I think WHFB last a lot of it’s tactics and character when it transformed into AoS. Saying it’s the best because it’s better than 40K is nothing to write home about. Oh well, hopefully 8th won’t continue and endless spiral of simplification to GI Joes.

          • Karru

            I totally agree with you on the WHFB thing. AoS is extremely simplistic due to fixed values, but I’m not saying that it didn’t bring some interesting ideas to the table.

          • frank

            Been playing for 15 years I still find myself amazed that the fan base is never happy overall and theirs also always some overtly positive fans. the disposition often depends on what the current state of the rules for their favorite army. cant say I haven’t had my moments in either camp my biggest problem is still over the price of the game its self. hardest thing for me is not getting all like you want me to pay what?!

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Model to Model was and is stupid. It was only used because GW wanted to retain Fantasy players (making them change bases would have been a huge detriment to that goal). Even in 40k now, they say use what the model came with or something sized appropriately.

          The model to model movement made it weird when you had creatures with big wings. Pivoting the model would technically mean you gained several inches of free movement.

    • ZeeLobby

      I know right! I want no pages! So much easier to make pew pew noises then.

    • Raven Jax

      Actually no. A lot of people who hated it were people who were hoping for a little more clarification or tactical depth than four pages could provide.

    • Grasshopper

      Yes: slim rules are good!
      But: a bit more clarification (maybe examples) would have been much appreciated at the start of AoS

  • Jim Jimjim

    So long to a garbage ruleset. Hopefully.

  • BurpinforDayz

    Things that really should stay:

    Upgrades
    Vehicles
    Templates
    Stats

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Upgrades are in AoS, so I don’t see them going away. The little ones will probably die though (like digital weapons).

      Vehicles will likely use the same system as everyone else now (i.e. use Toughness (or the equivalent of) and have degrading stat lines like monsters).

      Templates will probably go the way of the dodo, or at least scattering.

      Even AoS has stats.

      • BurpinforDayz

        As in paid points upgrades for wargear/ armour etc.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          I don’t see that sticking around. You buy a unit, you can play with anything it can potentially come with. Baking the cost in makes list building easier.

          • BurpinforDayz

            Its a fair point its just something I personally feel makes the game more interesting. Easy to see how it over complicates things though.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I thought it was weird too until I started playing a lot of AoS. Now I prefer it. I can build an AoS list on 10 minutes, as opposed to 40k which can take a lot longer. 🙂

          • Admiral Raptor

            True that. I hate list building in 40k anymore. It takes forever compared with how fast and easy it is in AoS.

  • Crablezworth

    “Army construction will not be constrained.” I lol’d

    • Karru

      Is that supposed to be new? Aren’t we currently doing that already? How is that a change?

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      I think they mean like AoS where you can play with anything but you get bonuses for sticking with a faction and better bonuses for sticking within an army.

  • SilentPony

    Yeah, but how many of them are even left to care? The Khan. Russ, Lion and Corax? The rest dead.
    Gulliman had his throat slashed by the same blade that nearly killed Horus and needed Chaos to fix, Sanguinius is doing the Charleston in Heaven, Vulkan finally learned that 6 PrimOrks beats 1 Perpetual, Ferrus is just a metal skull now, and Rogal switches between being a handless skeleton, just hands, or a full skeleton based on the day of the week.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Khan, Russ, Lion, Corax, Dorn and Gulliman are all likely to return. No body, no death.

  • Josh Husher

    Sure, fine whatever. As long as they can BALANCE the thing, the game is currently a bloated wreck and I will accept whatever they have to do in order to fix that. I don’t play this game for some love of its mechanical depth and complexity, there are objectively better games for that, I play this game for its setting and style, and as long as that can be retained, I’ll accept it.

    The bigger concern is if GW can do it. Which I have some major doubts about, but we’ll see.

    • Defenestratus

      I don’t want balance if that means that the rules are simplified or watered down so that every race is just the same with a different shade of paint on them.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        AoS does not feel that way, at least to me.

        • Defenestratus

          The best example I can give is movement rates.

          I’m sick of everything having a movement of 6″ or 12″. Giving something that is supposed to be “fast” fleet isn’t the answer because then everything is the damn same!

          Bring back movement statistics. Marines move 4″ like they used to.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            AoS has movement stat and it is glorious. I love it so much.

            Just giving us an M stat eliminates a lot of rules bloat to describe different types of movement.

  • Sonic tooth

    so…..from a minis point of view its more space marines versus more space marines. hmmmm…. but if that means corax might return id be happy. like to see more xenos tho. no chance of seein my other hero poor old sanguinius back tho sob sob….

    • Defenestratus

      GW needs to feed the bottom line.

      Unfortunately the majority of the playerbase are powermarine knuckleheads that don’t know what they’re missing by playing a xenos race.

  • Charmayn Deather

    So glad I’m out of the GW mess, already killing off WHFB was a huge mistake, AoS is a mediocre replacement and now they will go forward scrapping 40K and turn it into AoS 40K. I wonder how much decades more it will take to fix the games they have instead of just make them worse

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      “Huge Mistake”.

      Just because you do not like something does not mean it was a mistake.

      • Charmayn Deather

        Even if AoS would be a good game I would still consider that move as such. Instead of fixing the game they scrapped it, now they are doing same with 40K.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Well, WFB was dying. it needed a big overhaul. Either you go AoS or Kings of War. GW banked on AoS bringing more people in than KoW.

          I think they are right in the long run.

          • Charmayn Deather

            I wont tell you you are wrong, but the huge overhaul that WHFB needed would have been better than killing it off. AoS is played just because its GW, that’s the only reason. KoW, while its a good game, it lacks features that WHFB had and that are missed by many.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            The biggest obstacle for games is time investment.

            There is a reason a game like X-Wing is popular. Games are short (30 to 90 minutes) and there is 0 prep time.

            Compare that with WFB of old. You had to buy, build and paint hundreds of models before you could even play. Then the games took 90 to 180 minutes a piece.

            Our society is trending towards a desire for faster and faster games. The old WFB system was too clunky to work with that.

            So you have to either play smaller games (was not going to happen), gut the system or start over.

            You don’t like KoW but I guarantee you WFB would have looked a lot more like KoW had they wanted to keep the rank and file format.

          • Charmayn Deather

            X-Wing is popular because its star wars, minis are pre-painted if I’m not mistaken and fast.

            AoS did pick up after the community did the job for GW with the General`s Compendium. The low barrier of entry, its fast, easy, but its still the Fisher Price of TT.

            Never wrote I didn’t like KoW, I wrote that there were features missing, I see no issue of doing a faster game system with a rank and file format. Buying the hundreds of minis that was a major issue with WHFB and there was no system to allow the players to climb up which could have been solved with a simple solution.

            In the past GW always did a poor job of updating their game rules, so many editions ended up in a bloated mess. Now it will happen again.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            if Star Wars alone could sustain a game, then Star Wars Miniatures (by WotC) would have been huuuuge but it was not.

            Star Wars helps but the game itself is what keeps people playing and buying.

          • Well to chime in, I play AOS because its the only system on the market that holds my interest. If another fantasy game could hold my interest I’d gladly play it instead.

          • Alpharius

            Ruleset, sure. Background, no. Scrapping the Old World (right when there are a several excellent games that tie into that world), for some Yugyo battle universe where every word has been modified to ynclude az many y’s ynd z’s az yz pozzyble, was probably at least a little bit of a mistake.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            The Background was deep and venerable due to its age but at its core it was just another generic pastiche of the real world blended with Tolkien’s work.

            The old World was great because it had been around for 30 years.

            The Old World was also cumbersome and difficult to use because it had 30 years worth of fluff built up.

            This isn’t to say that Sigmar is better. it is just brand new and GW has not put a ton of effort into building each of the realms as real places (rather than cool battlefields).

  • euansmith

    I’m sure some folk will be unhappy that 8th is going to be too much like AoS, and some folk will be unhappy that 8th is going to be enough like AoS. Hopefully GW hit some sort of sweet spot and appeal to the largest portion of the community, or, at least the one with the most disposable hobby income. I want GW to continue to exist and produce bits for me to convert for other games.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Considering the success of AoS and the way 40k continues to sell well even in bad editions, I don’t think GW has much to worry about.

      Simplify and balance 40k. Haters going to hate. People will still buy models and more people will play.

  • frank

    Never thought they would revive the primarchs but could be neat to see what they do with them. will be cool to see what direction they take things but kinda a screw you to anyone with home brew chapters though haha

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Homebrew chapters are from the two lost chapters or have a Primarch that is either unknown to them or too removed to have an influence.

      • frank

        in story terms that is correct, though the lost primarchs are not really a part of the story anymore in the HH books they make a few references to them being killed by the other legions before the great crusade began. what i mean is the characters are gunna be walking dimigods that home brew chapters will either have to come up with alternative models for or be lacking the strength that a primarch brings to the table.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Or save the points and buy a big tank. Happens all the time in 30k.

          • frank

            that is possible i dont play the 30k version im assuming for armies like shattered legions that would be true but come on a primarch or a tank. to me a tanks just not as cool an option as the walking murder machine haha.

      • Donald Lindsey

        ???

  • Archmike

    I want a movement stat. Give me a move stat and i’ll be happy,

  • Ronin

    I hope this game gets simplified. The problem with 40k is it wants to be a massive battle game, but the system is better catered to skirmishes and small battles because of how it emphasizes the individual model. Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it unless you want to spend 3-4 hours a game (which I don’t). That’s why people would much prefer to play something smaller and faster.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      I think 3 to 4 hours is bad. Either make it a day long event or get the game over with in an hour/hour-and-a-half.

      • Ronin

        1 hour-1.5 hours would be ideal for me, but I also like being able to play with a big enough army. As of now, I’ve scaled my games down to no more than 1500 because it takes too long depending on the model count. Besides, most of the player base is getting older and they have a lot more to attend to like family, spouses, kids, jobs, etc. I’ve had a lot of games having to end short because of that.

        • Grasshopper

          That is one of my top main arguments for quicker/sleaker game systems: I really like gaming. But I also have other things to do. 1.5 h for an interesting battle would be just perfect!

  • Underoath6

    I for one would love it if in this schism between the primarchs they went full Civil War and Guilliman (Captain America) was the one that was the biggest opponent of the way the Imperium of the 41st millennium operates.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      He basically created the Imperium in the wakeo f the Heresy. What the Imperium devolved into after the Age of Apostasy is totally warped from what came before.

    • Muninwing

      that might be the only way that i’d be ok with the return… i’m still not sold on the re-entry.

  • Dottor Sbrana Anime

    A little bit of semplification is welcome
    semplification please, not a total game deconstruction, please keep in mind the lesson learned with AOS

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Rule 1) Start with a points system 😉

      You could easily gut half the rule book and 40k would still play like 40k but be way simpler and better (which is what I think they are going for).

      • Dottor Sbrana Anime

        I agree, a part of the BRB is almost useless, and the rules need a big reorganization, but damn it! it is wh40k it shall not become warcraft!

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          I don’t see AoS as being anything like Warcraft, either in lore of game system.

  • Graeme Donaldson

    Please no warscrolls, please no warscrolls, please no warscrolls…

    • Grasshopper

      Warscrolls = <3
      Embrace them!

      • Graeme Donaldson

        No chance! They over complicate the game too much, sick of having my head buried in an app or battletome just because this unit is slightly different to this other unit.

        • Grasshopper

          I use to print them out. It’s convenient.

          • Graeme Donaldson

            Yeah but it’s not as convenient as 8th ed, all you needed to do was learn the few unique special rules for your units as well as the standard special rules that you pick up after like two games, then you could have your entire army reference on one or two sheets of paper and not need to keep ruffling through pages of warscrolls to see what this unit’s hit roll is or what their musician does. Just loads easier. http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa0b29c8084870b5361ddc9f7dcd24d2e4cc534d81a3d0cc71a16d79cedadf8b.jpg

          • Grasshopper

            I see what you mean and wouldn’t disagree with your apporach to 8th. But I find warscrolls equally convenient after you “learn the few unique special rules for your units”. I play Skaven and after a few games I know what the special rules for my units are. It was quite the same in 8th (but a bit harder). The little rat-men had also some quirks under their belts that had to be memorized or written out or whatever. But if your experience is different, well then it just is.

  • MaxisLithium

    If building an army works something like how it does in AoS General’s handbook, then I think we will be able to move away from some of the worst bloat. I would really like to see a modifier system like the the ‘rend’ system from AoS

    My question is if this will invalidate existing books or not.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Rend is great. I like it more than AP.

      Invalidation is probable.

    • Admiral Raptor

      I hope it invalidates every last book. The farther GW can get away from 7th, the better off we’ll be.

  • pokemastercube .

    if they bring primarchs back properly (beyond the deamon ones) they better bring sanguinius back or the whole thing is dead to me

    ok maybe not dead, but i wont be enjoying it as much as i should, only horus is truly gone given what the emperor did to him, but the others who died could still ressurect, heck vulkan did several times

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Dead is dead… Unless he is resurrected in the body of the Sanguinor.

    • Admiral Raptor

      He is the 40k version of Jesus, so I wouldn’t rule out a return. I would prefer it if he was undead, because I love the idea of a skeletal Sanguinius.

  • ctFallen

    UGH! I like and play AOS but I don’t see why we need 2 games like that. I don’t see why after giving us all these new armies and supplements of which Horus HEresy is part of why they would blow up the system and start over from scratch. Yes AOS made the end times books obsolete but other than those there had been very few Fantasy releases in the previous year but if they do that to 40k/30k there is alot more money in those books. I feel GW has earned alot of goodwill with their changes over the past 6-10 months and starting the 40k/30k system over would cancel all that good work they have done with alot of people. Also it would once again divide a community which only helps their competitors.
    I agree there are things that need to be done to streamline it more I just don’t think starting over with AOS style is the way to go. Not to mention as much as I like AOS it has some huge problems, its very far from a perfect system.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Because there is more potential money in a simplified game than money in the current game (or a variation there of).

      • Muninwing

        40k still being one of the industry leaders would argue heartily with that conclusion.

        it’s a “grass is always greener” problem.

        if they decide to torpedo 40k and change it on such a fundamental level that it no longer resembles the game it once was (such as AoS did), they are taking a risk.

        will people like the new product more? will more people like it? with more people stick with it? or will this alienate our customers more than it attracts?

        if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. while i wish this was about rules and playability, it’s not. 40k is still selling well, so no need to risk the nuke.

        instead, they could do as they probably should have with WHF… redo Necromunda/Killteams as its own full game with different rules, and keep their cash cow well fed.

    • Nyyppä

      Well, 40k as is is “fubar”. Even if the “overhaul is minor it’s not like the game is going to get worse. Also the GHB style points system is a welcome change. Imagine if they’d make points something like 10 bucks per faction and they updated those every 6 months based on what’s too cheap/costly compared to it’s value. They could actually achieve balance of some sort!

  • Amarax

    My local area was dominated by 40k for years. When AOS come out most Fantasy players quit. After the Generals Handbook my local store is FLOODED with people playing AOS. 4/5 games are AOS. Painting comp? Mainly AOS. Purchases? Mainly AOS. People are still doing 40k, sure, but I’ve never seen anything in table top gaming like the sudden surge of AOS in the last 12 months or so. Is it more than Fantasy was? So much more, it has made 40k sales / participation look SIMILAR to what Fantasy was, but obviously 40k is still ticking over. This is in the UK, by the way.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Exactly.

      I really think it varies by region and how popular Fantasy was in your area.

      If Fantasy was dead, then AoS is likely doing well. if Fantasy was big, then AoS is likely struggling.

    • Antoine Henry

      Lol…In the rest of the world, AoS does not even exist then 🙂

  • Nyyppä

    Wait, what? People are being offended by fictional world over 38000 years in the future? What the f…..?

  • MightyOrang

    Not sure how much they’re going to cut if the new Thousand Sons book is any measure.

  • Interrogator_Chaplain

    This single post has basically caused two of the members of our gaming group to stop collecting until 8th ed.

    Lol.

  • Admiral Raptor

    It all sounds good to me! I’m looking forward to seeing the returning primarchs on both sides.

  • Mitchell

    30k will always be 30k

  • It’ll be interesting to see if they do breach that 999.M41 cut-off date they’ve clung to over the years. Doing so opens up a LOT of possibility… but it also opens up the risk they’re going to upset the “one minute to midnight” balance that the entire setting is precipitated on.

    If true, it seems they’ve learned some lessons from HH and 30K and that could be interesting… but at the same time “living” settings for game rarely work out well (just ask AEG).

    Still, cautiously optimistic. 40K as it is right now is so bloated with four editions’ tacked-on rules that I find it essentially unplayable. Paring it back and making sense of a lot of the kludgy bits is a step the game NEEDS to take, while injecting some freshness into the setting is a step it probably ought to take.

    • David Leimbach

      50k – tyranids vs tyranids. Well, because (spoiler) everyone gets eaten by tyranids.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      You don’t need to advance the story tons past the new millennium, just a touch.

      And it doesn’t mean it has to be a living setting, like AEG’s stuff. just periodically updated as the story demands/requires.

  • Grasshopper

    Amen

  • Leo

    Well, it looks like I am going to spare a lot of money..

  • FreshBumCheeks

    I think aos takes less processing power to play then 40k.

    Imo Guardsmen should have a harder time wounding a Big monster then a grot. It just makes sense to me.

    Maybe have a set to hit chart if people cant memorize the Ballistic skill chart. (Its easier to memorize chart then to subtract from 7)

    But in aos a bloodbound dood wounding a giant the same he wounds a got doesn’t make sense to me.

    Also rend means you can basically put a dent in anything where in 40k some weapons arnt effective against terminators as they are against a person without a save. makes alot more sense to me in overall fun factor.

    If you have a passion in the hobby learning the rules for the base game and the units is a little bit more fun then having basic rules and slightly more diverse units.

    40ks system allows more customization for custom scenarios (Zone mortalis, heresy rpg, last stand tabletop)

    as where aos is less forgiving.

    Thats just my two cents, Both games are fun but i would recommend 40k to more dedicated wargame fans with a passion for learning the game as a journey instead of being thrown into it.

    • Muninwing

      yes.

      exactly.

      and while that means that AoS has the ability to appeal more broadly, it also means that the core fans of the games in the past — who signed on because they wanted a game requiring more processing power — are now being left out in the cold.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Which the rules handle by dropping the assumed scale of the game.

    Fantasy went down from hundreds of models to a handful and found great success.

    Pair that with simplifying the game and you have a winner on your hands.

  • Mateldar

    So long 40K… I’ll miss you…

  • Shane

    The change I’d prefer to WS interactions is just have them follow the S/T chart. I’m attacking with WS 5, you have WS 3, I need a 2+ and you need a 6. Make it so that you can never get worse than needing a 6. That alone would simplify it all, since in all my years of playing with newbies and vets alike I can count on one hand the amount of times people have been confused by S/T, but the WS chart befuddles for a while almost every single newbie and still confuses a fair number of vets.