PDA

View Full Version : Age of Sigmar style books to 40k in 2 years acc. to Hastings..



draccan
26-07-2015, 11:32
Buried in another thread, Hastings suggest Age of Sigmar style books is coming to 40k in two years...


Also I think when the first releases of your new "game" are pretty much exactly the same model just armed slightly differently and released at a slow pace then any interest will diminish quickly. I think the problem is that many people thought GW were going to at least provide them with an alternative to WFB, what they've provided is beyond basic, and as such I think has alienated their existing customer base, and as we all know GW does no marketing especially as WD or whatever it's called this week is only in GW stores then how do they expect anyone that isn't already a GW customer to see the new "game"?? I think this is without doubt the most poorly executed plan GW have had to day, even worse than finescat! And I'm lead to believe 40k isn't safe either as I'm told that within the next 2 years codex will go the same way as the WFB army book, so I'm going to leap to the conclusion that it means 40k will change in a similar manner to what WFB did.

(my emphasis)

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?411652-Any-news-on-how-sales-are-going/page2

What do you guys think?

Update from Hastings:


The title of this thread doesn't really match up to what I've said. I have said I was told that Codexes (Codices? how the hell do you do the plural of Codex anyway???) would be gone within 2 years. That might mean the rules for each unit are included in the boxes/free on the net/wd etc. I do think that 40k rules will become more simplified, why? because GW don't want to focus on making games systems/rules anymore, they purely want to sell models. I do not doubt for one second that they (the main 40k rules) "COULD" become like AoS, but that is my personal opinion, and as I openly said that was me jumping to the conclusion based on how easily they destroyed their longest game world in favour of making more money. I think rather than being of any use at all this thread is purely scaremongering and misleading. The death of the codex doesn't mean the end of 40k, the death of the army book in WFB was because AoS had ALREADY killed WFB, and AoS had no place for army books.

Beppo1234
26-07-2015, 12:06
it's kind of sucky, but I do feel the ruleset has become convoluted again. Seeing that 40k has already been through a streamlining like this in the past (2nd to 3rd edition change over), it would be nice if GW could find a balance between being too detailed, and being too simple. For me, there are too many named special rules that don't really need it, especially those about movement (ie. just give me back my movement characteristic and do away with 6" movement 'across the board' + special rules to differentiate).

Fulgrim's Gimp
26-07-2015, 12:26
Absolute suicide for GW to do this. Streamlining while maintaining player choice, yes. Ham handed implementation like Age of Stigma not at all.

ehlijen
26-07-2015, 12:54
Not surprised at all. It's what 6th and 7th have been moving towards already.

AoS is not a streamlined game. The core rules may be very simple, but the bloat is still there, just offloaded onto the warscrolls. Take the terrain rules: the core rules are so simplistic that being behind a wall offers no benefit (have to be in/on terrain, not behind it). The fix? A wall's warscroll adds a special rule that allows models behind it to use it as cover.
That is the opposite of streamlining!

Spiney Norman
26-07-2015, 14:29
I guess that means we have another two years to enjoy 40k before it get buried by GW's stupidity, kind of like receiving a terminal diagnosis. Time to dig out the 40k bucket list :D

I guess my beloved sisters of battle will never get their playable codex, that is probably my only regret if I'm honest, that and the fact that they botched the last DE book really badly and that will likely be the last one, at least my Necrons will go out on a high.

Seriously, at least we have a little time to prepare for this now, it's not being foisted on us overnight like wfb was, still I don't see myself spending much if any money on 40k from here on in, I have plenty of stuff in my painting backlog to last a good couple of years. I will draw my current Horus Heresy project to completion and then draw the curtain on GW for good.

Beppo1234
26-07-2015, 14:46
Seriously, at least we have a little time to prepare for this now, it's not being foisted on us overnight like wfb was, still I don't see myself spending much if any money on 40k from here on in, I have plenty of stuff in my painting backlog to last a good couple of years. I will draw my current Horus Heresy project to completion and then draw the curtain on GW for good.

me too... once I knock off the last of my traitors, and get my nids up to a 'single case' sized army, I kind of want to move on to more advanced minis (ie. non-gaming ones like those beautiful Andrea minis)

Killgore
26-07-2015, 15:09
It wouldn't bother me, I have a huge selection of past 40k rules systems to enjoy. If I don't like a new edition what's to stop my fellow gamers and myself from using a previous edition?

If people sell up I can increase my collections ;)

Beppo1234
26-07-2015, 15:27
for the knowledgeable IP people: is it illegal to support the 'obsolete' game systems? I.e. is it illegal if someone created a 2nd edition 40k site with all the rules to play for free etc?

Spiney Norman
26-07-2015, 15:30
It wouldn't bother me, I have a huge selection of past 40k rules systems to enjoy. If I don't like a new edition what's to stop my fellow gamers and myself from using a previous edition?

If people sell up I can increase my collections ;)

That works well enough in he short term, but only playing discontinued games that you can't recruit for eventually leads to stagnation of a gaming community. Nothing will stop me continuing to play 40k (or wfb for that matter) with the old guard, but if that is all your gaming group offers you can't bring in any new players.

Gazak Blacktoof
26-07-2015, 15:34
It wouldn't bother me, I have a huge selection of past 40k rules systems to enjoy. If I don't like a new edition what's to stop my fellow gamers and myself from using a previous edition?

Agreed. I used to like WHFB, but we haven't played it in along time and its a shame the "reboot" is pants. My friend and I have agreed to use Warthrone rules instead.

I don't feel the same way about 40K at the moment. 40K is by far our favourite game of the two. I like the new mega formations and we're both sensible enough to curb the silly end of the balance spectrum so it provides a pretty much perfect game for us. If they discontinue the current rules for something more "streamlined" we'll carry on playing with what we've got.

Grand Master Raziel
26-07-2015, 16:40
I think the idea 40K is going to get an Age of Sigmar-style overhaul is Chicken Little, sky-is-falling internet panic. By all accounts, WHFB was an ailing game and something needed to be done to revive it. I don't know if AoS is going to do the trick, but I guess we'll see. Conversely, 40K is GW's cash cow, the biggest and best-selling game on the market. GW would have to be stupid to upset that particular apple cart. Are they that stupid? I guess we'll see. ;)

MajorWesJanson
26-07-2015, 17:19
In 2 more years they should have all the 40k books up to 7th ed standards (hopefully the early 7th books will see revamps to the post necron style). AoS books could mean a switch to campaign books and linked releases instead of army specific codices. We have already seen rules come that way with San thus reach and stormclaw. Just a small change to making the model releases linked to those directly instead of using the campaign to bridge codices.

Kijamon
26-07-2015, 17:19
Better trim down to one or two armies before it's too late then and my models become worthless.

AngryAngel
26-07-2015, 17:56
I guess that means we have another two years to enjoy 40k before it get buried by GW's stupidity, kind of like receiving a terminal diagnosis. Time to dig out the 40k bucket list :D

I guess my beloved sisters of battle will never get their playable codex, that is probably my only regret if I'm honest, that and the fact that they botched the last DE book really badly and that will likely be the last one, at least my Necrons will go out on a high.

Seriously, at least we have a little time to prepare for this now, it's not being foisted on us overnight like wfb was, still I don't see myself spending much if any money on 40k from here on in, I have plenty of stuff in my painting backlog to last a good couple of years. I will draw my current Horus Heresy project to completion and then draw the curtain on GW for good.

That would be quite sad for me. I know its coming, I see it coming, but doesn't make it better. Not that I don't have a huge selection and won't have enough by the end, still sucks however.


I think the idea 40K is going to get an Age of Sigmar-style overhaul is Chicken Little, sky-is-falling internet panic. By all accounts, WHFB was an ailing game and something needed to be done to revive it. I don't know if AoS is going to do the trick, but I guess we'll see. Conversely, 40K is GW's cash cow, the biggest and best-selling game on the market. GW would have to be stupid to upset that particular apple cart. Are they that stupid? I guess we'll see. ;)

Yes however both systems aren't selling what they feel they should. With new people at the wheel, and the steady push towards end time narrative and things you see similar to AoS already. I don't think saying this will happen will be internet panic, I fear its an inevitable evolution or mutation is how I choose to look at it. If its a mutation, I wish the sentinels would show up already and deal with it. As well GMR, I'd never bet against how stupid GW can be, you'll lose your money every time.

Lord Damocles
26-07-2015, 18:08
What do you guys think?
That people have been clamouring for digital rules instead of hardcopies for years, so really that should be seen as good (or at least indifferent) news.

But I guess most people will focus on 75hasting69 'leaping to the conclusion' that the rules will suffer for the change.

Arthanor
26-07-2015, 18:15
The rules are going to be freely available online instead of being put into overly expensive books that rehash the same old lore? Oh nooo!! :rolleyes:

I'd more than welcome unit data slates to go the way of the warscroll. If the rules go the way of Age of Sigmar, that's a bit more problematic, but we'll see about that. If AoS isn't much of a success, 2 years is enough change for that direction to change too.. Or maybe in 2 years GW will have found a way to make AoS style rules that actually work. Wait an see, no need to jump and panic.

Scribe of Khorne
26-07-2015, 18:16
The writing has been on the wall for some time. Its time NOW to begin the work of getting a community standard out there, before GW nukes their whole line.


Or maybe in 2 years GW will have found a way to make AoS style rules that actually work. Wait an see, no need to jump and panic.

You must be new here. ;)

Beppo1234
26-07-2015, 18:33
does getting the data sheets included in the kits have something to do with this? The knights come with their rules profile included in their instruction booklet, do the new marine kits come with profiles included?

Griefbringer
26-07-2015, 19:41
for the knowledgeable IP people: is it illegal to support the 'obsolete' game systems? I.e. is it illegal if someone created a 2nd edition 40k site with all the rules to play for free etc?

Copyright lasts until 70 years has passed from the death of the last living author. Copyright owner choosing to discontinue selling new copies of a published work does not affect this. So if you want to publish on your own some existing 40K material without committing copyright infringement, then you will probably need to wait until sometime in the next century.

Notice that with regard to rules, copyright does not protect the actual rules mechanisms, only their specific written form. So it is technically legal to write a new rules set that works identical to an existing rules set, but is worded totally differently. Also some care would need to be taken to avoid possible trademark infringements.

Spiney Norman
26-07-2015, 19:58
That people have been clamouring for digital rules instead of hardcopies for years, so really that should be seen as good (or at least indifferent) news.

But I guess most people will focus on 75hasting69 'leaping to the conclusion' that the rules will suffer for the change.

GW pretty much demonstrated with AoS that they no longer have any regard for creating a playable game, it's just as well they are not charging for the AoS rules because they are not worth anything anyway.

You might have faith that GW will do a complete U-turn and release a balanced, competitive version of 40k, but the way they have been going I can't see it. The mechanics of a revamped 40k may not be identicle to AoS, but I'd be willing to place a bet that it will have less than 6 pages of rules, have free-form army building and no way of balancing forces.

Mawduce
26-07-2015, 20:50
Copyright lasts until 70 years has passed from the death of the last living author. Copyright owner choosing to discontinue selling new copies of a published work does not affect this. So if you want to publish on your own some existing 40K material without committing copyright infringement, then you will probably need to wait until sometime in the next century.

Notice that with regard to rules, copyright does not protect the actual rules mechanisms, only their specific written form. So it is technically legal to write a new rules set that works identical to an existing rules set, but is worded totally differently. Also some care would need to be taken to avoid possible trademark infringements.

That's why they took the names off the AoS copyright. It only says GW on it now, no authors names. Sneaky

Griefbringer
26-07-2015, 21:07
That's why they took the names off the AoS copyright. It only says GW on it now, no authors names. Sneaky

Actually, if the authors are unknown the copyright protection only lasts for 70 years from publication.

Losing Command
27-07-2015, 02:54
It wouldn't suprise me, but I'll believe it when I see it. GW seems unable to follow any direction for more than one or two months, so two years from now it sounds just as plausible that 40k will have movement trays, flank/rear charges and armour modifiers :p

Smooth Boy
27-07-2015, 04:06
Yeah this is sad but I had prepared myself for this as soon as AoS came out, so far Hastings has been pretty spot on.

I remember when the first Spanish rumours of AoS came out and I refused to believe GW would reboot the franchise that made them...

Crimson Reaver
27-07-2015, 10:40
This doesn't surprise me at all. What it does mean is that I'm going to start looking at keeping only the essential GW stuff I can't live without, everything else is getting sold on to people who will still give me a good price for it in the hope that the sky isn't falling.

Spiney, we might get some "Warscrolls" for the Sisters, you never know :D

I'm not going to be so presumptuous to say that AoS is objectively a bad rules set, but it is NOT what I'm looking for. I don't care if I get a free kitten with every purchase, GW will have managed to release the third set of rules in a row that make my gaming less enjoyable, and as such I will be taking that as a sign that GW no longer want my money or for me to be in the "hobby".

If by the time this happens we can see that AoS has matured into a much more complete game, then I'll reconsider, but subjectively there's better stuff out there now that I can reliably get games of.

Quaade
27-07-2015, 11:25
Copyright lasts until 70 years has passed from the death of the last living author. Copyright owner choosing to discontinue selling new copies of a published work does not affect this. So if you want to publish on your own some existing 40K material without committing copyright infringement, then you will probably need to wait until sometime in the next century.

Notice that with regard to rules, copyright does not protect the actual rules mechanisms, only their specific written form. So it is technically legal to write a new rules set that works identical to an existing rules set, but is worded totally differently. Also some care would need to be taken to avoid possible trademark infringements.

GW vs CH ruled that rules are uncopyrightable, you might as well give them away for free since they are defined outside the Work of Art statute. Fluff on the other hand IS work of art which is the reason I see GW changing to a AoS approach for books would be the way forward.

It would also mean you got lorebooks that are just that, beautiful set pieces for a story while the rules are kept seperate and can be updated at a moment's notice, like was done on AoS warscroll release with some units that was horribly broken.

draccan
27-07-2015, 11:33
It is a simplified way for looking at it... I think GW earned tons of money on rulebooks, even if they are sometimes pirated... I doubt you are right that this is the way they are thinking.

BramGaunt
27-07-2015, 12:01
It is a simplified way for looking at it... I think GW earned tons of money on rulebooks, even if they are sometimes pirated... I doubt you are right that this is the way they are thinking.

Jup. This is like saying "I'll stop selling jewelry because someone might steal it from me!"

75hastings69
27-07-2015, 12:17
The title of this thread doesn't really match up to what I've said. I have said I was told that Codexes (Codices? how the hell do you do the plural of Codex anyway???) would be gone within 2 years. That might mean the rules for each unit are included in the boxes/free on the net/wd etc. I do think that 40k rules will become more simplified, why? because GW don't want to focus on making games systems/rules anymore, they purely want to sell models. I do not doubt for one second that they (the main 40k rules) "COULD" become like AoS, but that is my personal opinion, and as I openly said that was me jumping to the conclusion based on how easily they destroyed their longest game world in favour of making more money. I think rather than being of any use at all this thread is purely scaremongering and misleading. The death of the codex doesn't mean the end of 40k, the death of the army book in WFB was because AoS had ALREADY killed WFB, and AoS had no place for army books.

StraightSilver
27-07-2015, 12:32
I don't think we will see the end of Codices / Codexes for 40K, they are a proven seller.

However what I think we will see is data sheets being included in the kits.

This will allow GW to produce new models without having to update army books, and they will be able to publish formations in WD as they have been doing.

Eventually I think Codices / Codexes will simply just be fluff or campaign books for the army and all the rules will be included in the model boxes.

Samsonov
27-07-2015, 12:47
for the knowledgeable IP people: is it illegal to support the 'obsolete' game systems? I.e. is it illegal if someone created a 2nd edition 40k site with all the rules to play for free etc?
To my knowledge, this can be done. Look at netepic on the taccoms forum. They have basically done this over epic and providing they take certain precautions then it is legal (at least according to various posters, and GW has not objected in the many years since first started).

Commissar_42
27-07-2015, 14:32
I seriously doubt this is true.

Vazalaar
27-07-2015, 14:37
I don't think we will see the end of Codices / Codexes for 40K, they are a proven seller.

However what I think we will see is data sheets being included in the kits.

This will allow GW to produce new models without having to update army books, and they will be able to publish formations in WD as they have been doing.

Eventually I think Codices / Codexes will simply just be fluff or campaign books for the army and all the rules will be included in the model boxes.

Lol, this was what we hoped for Fantasy and instead we got AoS!

If AoS makes a lot more money than previous Warhammer versions than there is a chance that 40K will change to an AoS ruleset. If AoS flops, there is zero reason that 40K rules will change to an AoS system.

Malagor
27-07-2015, 14:47
I seriously doubt this is true.
That what we said about Fantasy and yet they took it out behind the shed, blew it's brains out and replaced it with Age of *****.
It will happen for 40k as well.

Crimson Reaver
27-07-2015, 14:49
I seriously doubt this is true.

I'm very much inclined to trust Hastings on this one, the fact that GW have literally just done this with their other core game system seems to indicate which way the wind is blowing on this one, they want a customer base unfettered by purchasing constraints, which is pretty much what they view a points system as being at this point, hence all the ways around it in 40K already.

Nope, if the sky fell once and we got fair warning from those in the know, I'm not going to take a chance that suddenly they are now wrong about everything and GW start applying a dash of common sense about their business model :D

Lord_Crull
27-07-2015, 14:58
I'd believe it. A few months ago I would have scoffed at the rumors, but with Age of Sigmar I'm ready to believe it. GW has already shown their willingness to gut a core system if need be. It's true 40k sells more than Fantasy but the precedent is there. That's especially true with the little hints that are being included in the latest 40k codices, such as the implications in Cult Mechanicus about their deal with the Dark Eldar about the golden throne.

I've pretty much gone cold turkey on purchases for 40k. I've made some last minute purchases to round out my collection and I've stopped any future 40k purchases. I already have 3000pts of Vampire Counts that I don't use and I fear the same thing will happen to my vast 40k collection.

gwarsh41
27-07-2015, 15:02
I don't think a 2 year ahead rumor has ever been true. I think this is just fishing.

Malagor
27-07-2015, 15:03
I don't think a 2 year ahead rumor has ever been true. I think this is just fishing.
*coughs* fantasy *coughs*

gwarsh41
27-07-2015, 15:05
*coughs* fantasy *coughs*

It was rumored that fantasy would have a skirmish game alongside 9th edition. It was rumored that 9th edition would use round or square bases, and you could form your units in 3 distinct styles (rank, skirmish, and something else) each giving bonuses. There were a lot of rumors, but if you can find one 2 years old that points to AoS I will concede my point.

Malagor
27-07-2015, 15:07
Yes, Hastings himself.

75hastings69
27-07-2015, 15:38
It was rumored that fantasy would have a skirmish game alongside 9th edition. It was rumored that 9th edition would use round or square bases, and you could form your units in 3 distinct styles (rank, skirmish, and something else) each giving bonuses. There were a lot of rumors, but if you can find one 2 years old that points to AoS I will concede my point.

I could send you PMs over 3 years old discussing the demise of WFB would that suit? In fact if you care to look you WILL find discussions on the fantasy threads about the demise of army books and rolling them into smaller groups of armies (i.e. order, Destruction etc.) think they were by Harry though as well as myself.

Having known MANY people at GW for MANY years I can tell you without any shadow of doubt that things two years out are not unknown quantities to some members of GW. When I was right in the thick of the rumour mill some years back the occasional eagle eyed viewer might even have seen unreleased models in the background of pictures on my painting logs MANY MONTHS before they were released. I was sat happily reading the WoC army book 5 months before it was released, almost 6 months before for the O&G one, so please don't figure to assume that no one knows anything and they're just fishing, some people know a great deal, what they chose to share is entirely different.

Seriously GW don't do things on a whim, whatever is going to happen to 40k WILL already be well progressed, just no-one hears about it until the last minute.

Also not to be picky but my original post say WITHIN 2 years.

draccan
27-07-2015, 16:16
@Hastings - I added the new comments in the OP but I can't change the title. I think it is very fitting.

@All - I do remember rumours from Hastings and others for 1-2 years ago that hinted at AoS. Though no one thought they would go that far or for the replacement game to be so lame (my opinion)..

Crimson Reaver
27-07-2015, 16:42
I think that was part of the issue, despite the eventual reliability of some of the original rumours, at the time they were so out of the ordinary that no-one thought GW would go through with it.

With 40K, I wonder if they're looking at some ways of rationalising their ranges going forward, removing Finecast, Sisters of Battle, various old Eldar sculpts and looking for a Chaos reboot along the lines of AoS. If you look at some of the stuff that didn't get updated in favour of new releases, that's my only conclusion to draw from this.

Beppo1234
27-07-2015, 17:27
To my knowledge, this can be done. Look at netepic on the taccoms forum. They have basically done this over epic and providing they take certain precautions then it is legal (at least according to various posters, and GW has not objected in the many years since first started).

how would this apply to past incarnations of 40k? Would GW really care if someone was supporting one of their older editions? It still motivates the sale of plastic right.

Lord Damocles
27-07-2015, 18:26
I think rather than being of any use at all this thread is purely scaremongering and misleading.
Scaremongering is this year's Mat(t) Ward.

AngryAngel
27-07-2015, 18:50
I could send you PMs over 3 years old discussing the demise of WFB would that suit? In fact if you care to look you WILL find discussions on the fantasy threads about the demise of army books and rolling them into smaller groups of armies (i.e. order, Destruction etc.) think they were by Harry though as well as myself.

Having known MANY people at GW for MANY years I can tell you without any shadow of doubt that things two years out are not unknown quantities to some members of GW. When I was right in the thick of the rumour mill some years back the occasional eagle eyed viewer might even have seen unreleased models in the background of pictures on my painting logs MANY MONTHS before they were released. I was sat happily reading the WoC army book 5 months before it was released, almost 6 months before for the O&G one, so please don't figure to assume that no one knows anything and they're just fishing, some people know a great deal, what they chose to share is entirely different.

Seriously GW don't do things on a whim, whatever is going to happen to 40k WILL already be well progressed, just no-one hears about it until the last minute.

Also not to be picky but my original post say WITHIN 2 years.

I concur with your words and know they are accurate. Some people just don't want to believe things can be planned out and set into motion that far ahead of time, I don't know why, but it happens. Don't let it get to you and your words and knowledge on these matters stands for itself, you don't need to explain yourself to anyone here. Though I am happy for all the info you have dropped over the years and appreciate it.

draccan
27-07-2015, 18:51
I think the fact that you were saying, Hastings that army books are going away in an AoS thread is very news-worth. And I quoted you in full.

Even if this doesn't mean End Times for 40k (I doubt that), it is still very news worthy. No army books could very well mean no army selection system as well as a whole new edition of 40k. Kinda hard to imagine the current version working without army books. Those two go together...

So very, very newsworthy IMHO.

Not sure why you are back-tracking on this rumour ?!

InstantKarma
27-07-2015, 19:36
It seems it would be harder to do a 40k 'End Times' if only because ths scale would be so much larger. But then again, fiction is fiction and things can be forced to work, even if they break the narrative.

If nothing else, 40k has been 'hinting' for several editions that the Golden Throne will fail, and no one knows what will happen to the Emperor, Imperium after that. Failbadon has his 13th Black Crusade going (fought to the draw so GW had write it into the fluff to make it seem deliberate) just like Storm of Chaos (which was then repackaged and sold as 'The End Times').

Yah, I have an interest, but not the money to go through this with 40k.

Commissar_42
27-07-2015, 19:45
I'm very much inclined to trust Hastings on this one, the fact that GW have literally just done this with their other core game system seems to indicate which way the wind is blowing on this one, they want a customer base unfettered by purchasing constraints, which is pretty much what they view a points system as being at this point, hence all the ways around it in 40K already.

Nope, if the sky fell once and we got fair warning from those in the know, I'm not going to take a chance that suddenly they are now wrong about everything and GW start applying a dash of common sense about their business model :D
Except WHF had collapsed as a game in its own right, people had lost interest and no one was playing it. There's still plenty of interest in 40k and people are playing it, why go for a huge revamp?

Lord Damocles
27-07-2015, 19:45
Failbadon has his 13th Black Crusade going (fought to the draw so GW had write it into the fluff to make it seem deliberate)
Objection your honour!

The Eye of Terror campaign was a Chaos victory.

Mawduce
27-07-2015, 20:06
Except WHF had collapsed as a game in its own right, people had lost interest and no one was playing it. There's still plenty of interest in 40k and people are playing it, why go for a huge revamp?

1. 40k sales are falling too
2. Because GW don't want to be a games company, they want to be a models company.
3. GW want their market to be rich kids/adults

Malagor
27-07-2015, 20:53
Except WHF had collapsed as a game in its own right, people had lost interest and no one was playing it. There's still plenty of interest in 40k and people are playing it, why go for a huge revamp?
Nonsense, Fantasy was still a profitable system. 10-20% of GW's profits infact and still had alot of people playing it.
Considering the lack of attention Fantasy got, the fact that not only that it was a profitable game but also stood for quite a decent part of GW's profits is quite amazing.
But it was shrinking just as 40k is doing and make no mistake, if GW see that AoS is turning a bigger profit then old fantasy then they will do the same to 40k in hopes that they will boost 40k's sales as well.

Charistoph
27-07-2015, 21:18
In a way, I can see this.

Unit rules are "slate-based" and provided in the kits and online.

Codices are dropped in favor of campaign books which will include Formations for several armies, and can be used in the scenarios or out.

Points will be gone, and armies will be Decurion v Strike Force v etc.

People will still say it is broken as hell.

Skargit Crookfang
27-07-2015, 21:18
Nonsense, Fantasy was still a profitable system. 10-20% of GW's profits infact and still had alot of people playing it.
Considering the lack of attention Fantasy got, the fact that not only that it was a profitable game but also stood for quite a decent part of GW's profits is quite amazing.
But it was shrinking just as 40k is doing and make no mistake, if GW see that AoS is turning a bigger profit then old fantasy then they will do the same to 40k in hopes that they will boost 40k's sales as well.

I've heard everything from 10-25% regionally. I'd say 16% sounds reasonable. That doesn't mean 40k is 84%... hobby supplies. .. terrain. .. hell even lotr and the hobbit have had their share of sales (usually coinciding with movie and dvd releases en masse)... that doesn't make 40k the behemoth it is sometimes known as, but it is a solid majority.

That said, 40k isn't exactly lighting the world on fire, lately, and perhaps GW feels that they've gone as far as they can with the system as it is, short of a massive shakeup as to not let sales flounder to the point they let fantasy (allegedly) sink.

I was one of the loudest detectors of Harry and Hasting's rumours for quite sometime when discussed at Da Warpath. I was wrong. The "year zero" equivalency for AoS was entirely true. Right down to the finer points.

I'm not a huge 40k player, but we're all in this together. If hastings and harry have something to say, it shouldn't be dismissed just to suit your own narrative. Learned that one the hard way.

Bergen Beerbelly
27-07-2015, 23:48
I would just like to point out for those doubting that 40k End Times will happen...

Codex Eldar Craftworlds (2015) page 33:

991.M41
Time of Ending

The Eldar mystic Kysaduras the Anchorite proclaims the End Times to have begun.

75hastings69
28-07-2015, 01:41
I think the fact that you were saying, Hastings that army books are going away in an AoS thread is very news-worth. And I quoted you in full.

Even if this doesn't mean End Times for 40k (I doubt that), it is still very news worthy. No army books could very well mean no army selection system as well as a whole new edition of 40k. Kinda hard to imagine the current version working without army books. Those two go together...

So very, very newsworthy IMHO.

Not sure why you are back-tracking on this rumour ?!

I'm not back tracking on it. I didn't say there will be "age of sigmar style books in 40k in 2 years" I said i was told to expect codexes to be a thing of the past within 2 years, how they then deal with putting rules out there for stuff for 40k is an unknown quantity to me, what I did say is that I had jumped to the conclusion that it would probably fall more in line with AoS but that's my opinion, nothing more, it's not a rumour, for what it's worth I agree with you that it will most likely remove enforced army selection to a degree - just to enable people to buy things that take their fancy and use them rather than plan purchases built around what they are allowed to use. The only rumour to take from the post you quoted was the demise of the codex within 2 years.

R.D.
28-07-2015, 02:13
I would just like to point out for those doubting that 40k End Times will happen...

Codex Eldar Craftworlds (2015) page 33:

991.M41
Time of Ending

The Eldar mystic Kysaduras the Anchorite proclaims the End Times to have begun.

40k has been in 'End Times are beginning' mode for at least a decade now.

Bergen Beerbelly
28-07-2015, 03:11
40k has been in 'End Times are beginning' mode for at least a decade now.

But look at it in the light of what has happened to Warhammer Fantasy. And with how far in advance they have been planning the End Times stuff. Then look at what Hastings has said about how far in advance he was able to look at other things that took quite a while to come out to the public. Seems to me that it is an easter egg for what is coming in 40k. The rest of that statement from Kysaduras goes on to say that the Eldar's only hope of survival lies with Ynnead. Sounds similar to what happened to the Warhammer races. And the last two codexes are the only ones where Kysaduras actually proclaims that the End Times have begun. He doesn't say that in any other Eldar codexes.

the gribbly
28-07-2015, 04:48
Age of Calgar is coming..

Mawduce
28-07-2015, 06:36
But look at it in the light of what has happened to Warhammer Fantasy. And with how far in advance they have been planning the End Times stuff. Then look at what Hastings has said about how far in advance he was able to look at other things that took quite a while to come out to the public. Seems to me that it is an easter egg for what is coming in 40k. The rest of that statement from Kysaduras goes on to say that the Eldar's only hope of survival lies with Ynnead. Sounds similar to what happened to the Warhammer races. And the last two codexes are the only ones where Kysaduras actually proclaims that the End Times have begun. He doesn't say that in any other Eldar codexes.

No, it's in the Harely dex and also something was hinted at in the Mechanicum dex as well. The laughing god has plans for Slaanesh that boarder on the same bs that is going on in AoS and the Dark Eldar made a deal with the Imperium because of some warp portal under the golden thrown. Fact is the parallels with fantasy and 40k are clear as crystal. I'm sure the fluff writers in house are working hard on both systems without teams separated for both individually. And if they are individual teams you can sure bet they are talking to each other and taking their ideas from both systems. I'm not saying AoS is coming to 40k with certainty, but it would behoove us to prepare ourselves for the event.

nonnopj
28-07-2015, 07:23
Better trim down to one or two armies before it's too late then and my models become worthless.
me too. made it in fantasy and i'm so happy i disengaged while i could

Inviato dal mio GT-I8200 utilizzando Tapatalk

Cheeslord
28-07-2015, 09:02
40k has been in 'End Times are beginning' mode for at least a decade now.

I believe even in Rogue Trader the Emperor was gradually failing, both personally as the Golden Throne was gradually failing and the knowledge to repair it was being lost, and strategically as the empire was slowly losing ground to heretics, renegades, Xenos and Chaos.

I think being Doomed has always been part of the "Grimdark" universe of 40K and is not a specific lead-up to the Squattification of the Empire...

Wesser
28-07-2015, 09:38
Mm this is my fault. GW must have found out I still spend money on Their products, and have prepared a move to ensure it won't continue.

I wonder how GW Will squeeze more space marines into 40k though.

Crimson Reaver
28-07-2015, 10:30
Except WHF had collapsed as a game in its own right, people had lost interest and no one was playing it. There's still plenty of interest in 40k and people are playing it, why go for a huge revamp?

WHFB and 40K are both suffering to differing extents from GW's attempts to expand on the scale of the game. I got into 40K when it was very much a skirmish system and there were limits on what could reasonably be deployed on the battlefield. WHFB at the time was in the Herohammer phase but after that you could go for reasonably small units in 4x4 blocks and similar which were useful options in game.

Now the larger units are par for the course and there's little point a lot of the time with using basic infantry, or you need so many of them that things become non-viable financially. I also play Infinity, and the fact that anything can hurt anything else is a far cry from Guardsmen trying to use their Lasrifles to hurt a Wraithknight.

AoS actually made all units at least have some battlefield use, even if there is no overall army balancing mechanic. 40K currently has a balancing mechanism in terms of points, but multiple ways to get around this and no real effort to balance costs either internally within the same Codex or in consideration of the broader game. Compare a Tactical Marine to a Biker, the number of extras you can get with a bike should make them cost far more by comparison than they currently do, but do you raise their points cost or drop the cost of a Tactical Marine?

Alternatively, you junk points costs entirely, ensure that everything has rules and can hurt each other, then let your players figure out what to do when trying to have a reasonable game. Chances are that some players will do this, and others will run for the hills (or other games) which is essentially what we're seeing currently.

I'd argue that it makes perfect sense for GW to look at AoS-style rules for 40K. The people who are only wanting the rules would have been looking on Piratebay for them and wouldn't have really cared about the fluff, so you can get the rules out to as many people as possible, allow them to use everything in their collection, and still have a market for the fluff and setting books which collectors are perfectly prepared to pay for.

otakuzoku
28-07-2015, 12:12
Hastings is all most always accurate.

personally i don't see a huge rule change. but war scroll style rules on line and in the model kits make a lot of scene. as new models will no longer be tied to a codex relice, rules can be tweaked so models dont become obsolete. and new formations added. plus if forgeworld get in on this it will be fun times for all.

i dont think points will go though.

Griefbringer
28-07-2015, 13:34
I wonder how GW Will squeeze more space marines into 40k though.

They could adjust some of the existing ranges, so that there would be:

- Space Orc Marines
- Space Elf Marines
- Space Dwarf Marines
- Space Half-Marines
- Space Robot Marines
- Space Anime Marines
- Space Bug Marines
- Space Inquisition Marines
- Space Marines with Lasguns
- Female Space Marines

Or maybe the setting could focus more on some event that would make space marines turn against each other. Brother versus brother, chapter versus chapter... though it may sound like a heresy to many that Emperor's finest would start such a civil war between each other.

Beppo1234
28-07-2015, 13:47
“I will review our product range. We believe this is long overdue: it is time for a resetting of the ranges. Not tweaking here and there but a top down reassessment."

I wasn't terribly worried about the Aosification of 40k until I read this statement from GW.

I do however feel it is time for the return of the Marine Mini-Dex style books (for the divergent chapters), used in combination with a core marine book. The advent of the formation/detachment rule sets should allow for the mini-dex concept to work much better than in the past, as well as there being actual models for the specialized units of divergent chapters.

Commissar_42
28-07-2015, 14:23
Nonsense, Fantasy was still a profitable system. 10-20% of GW's profits infact and still had alot of people playing it.
Considering the lack of attention Fantasy got, the fact that not only that it was a profitable game but also stood for quite a decent part of GW's profits is quite amazing.
But it was shrinking just as 40k is doing and make no mistake, if GW see that AoS is turning a bigger profit then old fantasy then they will do the same to 40k in hopes that they will boost 40k's sales as well.
40k might be declining but it's no where near where Fantasy was. Fantasy was pretty much dead before AOS and it was clear that a new edition wouldn't cut it, hence the revamp.

I'm not saying 40k could *never* reach that state but it feels like there's a fair bit of life left in it yet.

Orwin
28-07-2015, 16:38
You 40K guys will suffer just as we did with Fantasy. GW won't spare anyone's feelings. Enjoy before they screw your game, too.

Bergen Beerbelly
28-07-2015, 17:20
No, it's in the Harely dex and also something was hinted at in the Mechanicum dex as well. The laughing god has plans for Slaanesh that boarder on the same bs that is going on in AoS and the Dark Eldar made a deal with the Imperium because of some warp portal under the golden thrown. Fact is the parallels with fantasy and 40k are clear as crystal. I'm sure the fluff writers in house are working hard on both systems without teams separated for both individually. And if they are individual teams you can sure bet they are talking to each other and taking their ideas from both systems. I'm not saying AoS is coming to 40k with certainty, but it would behoove us to prepare ourselves for the event.

Yup, I admit I forgot to check the Harlequin codex before posting this. Anyway, I agree with what you've said here.

The_Real_Chris
28-07-2015, 17:43
40k might be declining but it's no where near where Fantasy was. Fantasy was pretty much dead before AOS and it was clear that a new edition wouldn't cut it, hence the revamp.

Ah but they will act now to ensure it never reach that stage :)

Malagor
28-07-2015, 17:43
40k might be declining but it's no where near where Fantasy was. Fantasy was pretty much dead before AOS and it was clear that a new edition wouldn't cut it, hence the revamp.

I'm not saying 40k could *never* reach that state but it feels like there's a fair bit of life left in it yet.
And again, a game that stood for 10-20%(another poster said 16%) of the profits is hardly a dead game.
It might have been dead in your area but in other areas it was very much alive and bigger then 40k, still is even with AoS.
And what you feel like is not what GW feel like. Many fantasy players felt that there was much more to the fantasy game that they could have done but GW knows less then Jon Snow hence the radical and to be honest, braindead move of AoS.
They already removed one of their flagship games because of issues that they didn't understand why or how to fix them and they won't hesitate for a second to do the same to their other flagship game that is heading in the same direction for reasons that they can't understand.

Hengist
28-07-2015, 18:17
Nonsense, Fantasy was still a profitable system. 10-20% of GW's profits infact and still had alot of people playing it.
WFB, for the last five years of its existence, comprised around that proportion of GW's revenue; you do understand that's not the same thing as profits?

WFB's sales were something in the order of a quarter of a fifth of of 40k's, despite the game line requiring more-or-less the same amount of cash spent on sculpts, moulds, art, etc. To those who had been paying attention, the only surprise when WFB was shuttered was that it had not been done sooner.

Thorien
28-07-2015, 19:01
I guess that means we have another two years to enjoy 40k before it get buried by GW's stupidity, kind of like receiving a terminal diagnosis. Time to dig out the 40k bucket list :D

I guess my beloved sisters of battle will never get their playable codex, that is probably my only regret if I'm honest, that and the fact that they botched the last DE book really badly and that will likely be the last one, at least my Necrons will go out on a high.

Seriously, at least we have a little time to prepare for this now, it's not being foisted on us overnight like wfb was, still I don't see myself spending much if any money on 40k from here on in, I have plenty of stuff in my painting backlog to last a good couple of years. I will draw my current Horus Heresy project to completion and then draw the curtain on GW for good.

Why don't you write one? I am not being a wise ass

Thorien
28-07-2015, 19:05
You 40K guys will suffer just as we did with Fantasy. GW won't spare anyone's feelings. Enjoy before they screw your game, too.

Nah when GW gives up on rules others will step in. Nature cannot stand a vacuum. Yet nature tends to fill a vacuum with crap.

We can write our own rules, y'know. Some have even mastered that whole noun verb thingy.

Commissar_42
28-07-2015, 19:46
And again, a game that stood for 10-20%(another poster said 16%) of the profits is hardly a dead game.
It might have been dead in your area but in other areas it was very much alive and bigger then 40k, still is even with AoS.
And what you feel like is not what GW feel like. Many fantasy players felt that there was much more to the fantasy game that they could have done but GW knows less then Jon Snow hence the radical and to be honest, braindead move of AoS.
They already removed one of their flagship games because of issues that they didn't understand why or how to fix them and they won't hesitate for a second to do the same to their other flagship game that is heading in the same direction for reasons that they can't understand.
You're over-analyzing GW's behavior. WHF was flagging (okay I exaggerated when I said "dead" earlier), despite new edition launches, so they've done a total revamp of it. 40k is not flagging, so such a risky move would be very unlikely, since they have so much to lose.


We can write our own rules, y'know. Some have even mastered that whole noun verb thingy.
I don't prescribe to the idea that it's easy to write rules that a) cater to a broad player base and b) are easy to understand. 40k's rules may not be very good but at least they're a guarantee of universality - you can go to any gamer club in the world, from Stockholm to Johannesburg, and you'll still know what ruleset you're running. If gamers had to rely on fan rules/homebrews then pretty much every gaming club would be using its own rules tailered around their members' taste and opinions. Might be pretty cool for those individuals but it'd be a hassle playing with strangers or a new group.

R.D.
28-07-2015, 22:05
Okay, in all seriousness--I can see maybe GW experimenting with more rules coming with models than in codices, more emphasis on formations over points, yeah, I can see that. But to do a full reset like with WHF (which, btw, is not what Hastings seems to be implying)? I'll believe it when I see it. Not saying it's out of the realm of possibility by now, but I ain't feeling it.

Mawduce
28-07-2015, 22:48
Okay, in all seriousness--I can see maybe GW experimenting with more rules coming with models than in codices, more emphasis on formations over points, yeah, I can see that. But to do a full reset like with WHF (which, btw, is not what Hastings seems to be implying)? I'll believe it when I see it. Not saying it's out of the realm of possibility by now, but I ain't feeling it.

you should read the news letter the CEO put out yesterday. its got people sweating

popisdead
28-07-2015, 23:09
No surprise. I'm expecting the two systems to merge soon.

I heard in AoS Skaven can travel from realm to realm,... meaning I assume they picked up the keys to a webway portal in End Times: Thanquol along with the Eldar communicator they found and shot to smithereens. End Times had a few drops in each book that it was the same universe as 40k.

GW will be supporting "a system" in the future akin to Warmahordes, not two. It will brand Warhammer and you can play it with whatever models you want.

R.D.
28-07-2015, 23:12
you should read the news letter the CEO put out yesterday. its got people sweating

They talk about 'reassessment', which could mean anything from something like AoS to the shift in model management rules-wise like I mentioned. Again, I'll wait and see.

Okuto
29-07-2015, 01:58
AoS is kinda like 40k anyways so I'm not that worried...what worries me is that there won't be any structure......that terrifies me, I like playing 1500 pt games, I rather not just make it up as I go....

R.D.
29-07-2015, 02:14
AoS is kinda like 40k anyways so I'm not that worried...what worries me is that there won't be any structure......that terrifies me, I like playing 1500 pt games, I rather not just make it up as I go....

Well, at least with 40k it'll be considerably easier as you can just keeping using the previous points counts.

Okuto
29-07-2015, 04:01
Well, at least with 40k it'll be considerably easier as you can just keeping using the previous points counts.

Well...it should be easier to do a point system but I shudder to think what will happen to all those big models that belong in APOC but don't.....

I imagine a AoS type system in 40k would try to recapture that smaller feel in the RT-2nd edition days. I'm intrigued mainly cause I keep hearing 2nd edition was bonkers and so much fun because of it, I only started playing 40k in 4th so I missed out on that madness:D

Rogue Star
29-07-2015, 10:51
I would mostly miss the lore. AoS has very, very light background, frustratingly so. Might be different in the large scenario book published, but other than describing what the attacking Stormhosts did, and how the forces of Chaos did, in these fantastical realms... it's very little to go on.

It would be like describing the 3rd Armageddon War... while leaving out the Great Crusade, creation of a Space Marine, implantation of zygotes, leaving out the Ork Klanz, etc. Which I can't understand; rules-lite, yes, you're a miniature making company, not a competitive games creator (despite your company title) but surely background and lore inform the miniatures you sculpt, and should be paramount?

007Mopsy
29-07-2015, 11:02
I like that Age of Signar books are free. I hope that GW do that to 40k

Rogue Star
29-07-2015, 11:05
I like that Age of Signar books are free. I hope that GW do that to 40k

Well the core rules are free. Not everything, otherwise the Age of Sigmar book would be freely available online.

R.D.
29-07-2015, 12:26
Well...it should be easier to do a point system but I shudder to think what will happen to all those big models that belong in APOC but don't.....

I imagine a AoS type system in 40k would try to recapture that smaller feel in the RT-2nd edition days. I'm intrigued mainly cause I keep hearing 2nd edition was bonkers and so much fun because of it, I only started playing 40k in 4th so I missed out on that madness:D

I dunno, I think some nostalgia goggles factor in, others IRL have told me horror stories of how RT/2nd was bogged down with crap like dumb vehicle damage tables. ;) But I suppose that yes, one could once again conceivably do games like an Inquisitor vs a whole army.

Brother Dimetrius
29-07-2015, 12:37
From Lady Atia's blog.

http://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/42


I also got this whisper from a friendly raven today:

"I have been told that 40k codex books will be a thing of the past within the next two years. Additionally AoS is a test bed for not having a point based system. If the money made from AoS is good, expect to see it in 40k.

Next edition of 40k is getting dumbed down too. Not as much as AoS. As AoS is seen as a test bed, and can be improved upon as they go. They can always release a new edition of the rules as they are online and free. 40k is a touchier subject as it is the main cash generator at the moment. However they want to remove all obstacles to miniature purchases, and they see points as the main bad guy, not the bad rules they write."

i also want to add, GW will continue to make books - campaign books, with fluff and some additional rules, like the End Times books or FW's Imperial Armours. Also, again, this is something which wouldn't affect the next 40k release, but the future of 40k.

regards,
Lady Atia

Losing Command
29-07-2015, 12:53
Because points r any other balancing factor is totally unnecssary in a game where the power of a unit ranges from ripperswarms to warlord titans.

I like how the succes of the AoS rules will be based on sales, since there aren't actually any rules being sold for AoS it is a very good indication for how much people like the rules ofcourse :rolleyes:

HelloKitty
29-07-2015, 13:40
Because points r any other balancing factor is totally unnecssary in a game where the power of a unit ranges from ripperswarms to warlord titans.

I like how the succes of the AoS rules will be based on sales, since there aren't actually any rules being sold for AoS it is a very good indication for how much people like the rules ofcourse :rolleyes:

Fantasy model sales will dictate this. If the fantasy models and terrain don't move, they will see that as a failure.

Spiney Norman
29-07-2015, 15:24
Fantasy model sales will dictate this. If the fantasy models and terrain don't move, they will see that as a failure.

So if you want to save 40k, don't buy any AoS products and encourage as many people as possible to do the same. So sad it has come to this...

Who on earth came up with the idea that 'points are the bad guy' without realising that even wonky points are better than having no way of balancing the game.

HelloKitty
29-07-2015, 15:49
Well...it should be easier to do a point system but I shudder to think what will happen to all those big models that belong in APOC but don't.....

I imagine a AoS type system in 40k would try to recapture that smaller feel in the RT-2nd edition days. I'm intrigued mainly cause I keep hearing 2nd edition was bonkers and so much fun because of it, I only started playing 40k in 4th so I missed out on that madness:D

AoS already has a dozen comp systems out for it. I'm sure the community would create one for 40k just as fast. I know we'd have an Azyr-style system for 40k as well, which is based off of general point tiers as opposed to precision point systems (that rarely work anyway ie the current state of 40k and its "points").

HelloKitty
29-07-2015, 15:51
So if you want to save 40k, don't buy any AoS products and encourage as many people as possible to do the same. So sad it has come to this...

Who on earth came up with the idea that 'points are the bad guy' without realising that even wonky points are better than having no way of balancing the game.

Non gamers that are business minded and have no idea what the gaming community wants or what their competition will do to them sadly. Points being the bad guy do make sense from a business standpoint.

Why would a player buy two blood thirsters if the game only says he can ever use one? Why would a player buy a super heavy tank if the current game only let you use it in a specialized version of the game (apoc-only) that the standard tournament meta disallowed?

This is why we are where we are because GW is not run by gamers, it is run by business people.

Poncho160
29-07-2015, 15:53
I am not opposed to a 40k AoS style rule set (as long as points are still a thing). The AoS seem to have been written with 40k in mind as it is, and in a way the rules work a lot better than the current 40k core rules.

There are of course a lot of exceptions, vehicles being the first to spring too mind, but having played a game of 40k using the AoS rules (with an adapted Space Marine stat line), it wasn't half bad, played a lot quicker and smoother than normal.

Hengist
29-07-2015, 17:07
So if you want to save 40k, don't buy any AoS products and encourage as many people as possible to do the same. So sad it has come to this...

Who on earth came up with the idea that 'points are the bad guy' without realising that even wonky points are better than having no way of balancing the game.
I suspect rather strongly that it will require no work on our part to ensure that AoS sells poorly. The rules offer nothing to appeal to 'proper' wargamers, and I simply do not perceive in the game any qualities to make it more likely to attract little Timmy than its predecessor.

GW being GW, they will probably still find a way to ruin 40k, of course. I predict that come October (or whenever it is the new Heresy game is released) we will get a good indication of just how they intend to do so...

insectum7
29-07-2015, 17:24
I am not opposed to a 40k AoS style rule set (as long as points are still a thing). The AoS seem to have been written with 40k in mind as it is, and in a way the rules work a lot better than the current 40k core rules.

There are of course a lot of exceptions, vehicles being the first to spring too mind, but having played a game of 40k using the AoS rules (with an adapted Space Marine stat line), it wasn't half bad, played a lot quicker and smoother than normal.

40K works great when it's just similar models vs. similar models too. Many of the perceived issues arise in 40K because if it's huge diversity. Super Heavies vs. Grots. How do you get such a tremendous range of units to function cohesively on the tabletop? There are many ways, but I'm not convinced that AoS improves that, especially when it comes to army selection.

I think one of the reasons some people think Horus Heresy is more balanced than 40K is because it's primarily just Space Marines fighting Space Marines.

swordofglass
29-07-2015, 18:10
I would like to place my flag in the ground and state here and now that I am convinced that, within 3 years, 40k will undergo similar changes to AoS. Removal of points values and any sort of list-building in favour of being able to take whatever you want, simplified rules, and a reset or drastic change to the story or background. Wanted to stick this here so I can revisit this post when the change happens and marvel at my prescience.

Spiney Norman
29-07-2015, 19:47
I am not opposed to a 40k AoS style rule set (as long as points are still a thing). The AoS seem to have been written with 40k in mind as it is, and in a way the rules work a lot better than the current 40k core rules.

There are of course a lot of exceptions, vehicles being the first to spring too mind, but having played a game of 40k using the AoS rules (with an adapted Space Marine stat line), it wasn't half bad, played a lot quicker and smoother than normal.

Since the defining feature of AoS seems to be that it is pointless and unbalancable, it seems unlikely that they would simply copy everything about the AoS rules set except for the lack of unit points or balance when shifting it across to 40k.

Theocracity
29-07-2015, 20:04
Since the defining feature of AoS seems to be that it is pointless and unbalancable, it seems unlikely that they would simply copy everything about the AoS rules set except for the lack of unit points or balance when shifting it across to 40k.

Yeah - I think that if we're going off the assumption that GW will eventually follow the AoS model, that's the primary assumption that should be made over any others.

Poncho160
29-07-2015, 20:08
40k or warhammer for that point needs a point system. It's stops being a game without them in my eyes.

draccan
29-07-2015, 20:11
Is there a mod who could change the title of this (my) thread to: "40k army books to go away acc. to Hastings"

swordofglass
29-07-2015, 20:16
40k or warhammer for that point needs a point system. It's stops being a game without them in my eyes.

This is true, and you can see that has happened to fantasy. What's interesting is that a few people have started to pipe up in defence of AoS with some very misguided opinions, and most of them are fixated on the idea that wanting points, rules or structure is akin to powergaming and WAAC, and the great thing about AoS is that it doesn't matter who wins or loses, because it's just some kind of two-player narrative scenario game, which is apparently what some people wanted all along (but the scene was too throttled by the idea of balance and points before AoS for this to be accepted by others). I am amazed that there's more than one person in the world who thinks like that, but apparently there is. To me, it doesn't qualify as a game.

draccan
29-07-2015, 20:18
agreed!

.........

Wolf Lord Balrog
29-07-2015, 20:27
^^ What swordofglass said.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

Mawduce
29-07-2015, 20:31
This is true, and you can see that has happened to fantasy. What's interesting is that a few people have started to pipe up in defence of AoS with some very misguided opinions, and most of them are fixated on the idea that wanting points, rules or structure is akin to powergaming and WAAC, and the great thing about AoS is that it doesn't matter who wins or loses, because it's just some kind of two-player narrative scenario game, which is apparently what some people wanted all along (but the scene was too throttled by the idea of balance and points before AoS for this to be accepted by others). I am amazed that there's more than one person in the world who thinks like that, but apparently there is. To me, it doesn't qualify as a game.

That whole idea gets shot down when you can do exactly that by ignoring the points listed. Doesn't mean you have to get rid of them entirely

draccan
29-07-2015, 20:33
That whole idea gets shot down when you can do exactly that by ignoring the points listed. Doesn't mean you have to get rid of them entirely

Exactly! People who just wants to push random miniatures on a table has always been able to do that, but those of us who wants a wargame are left out in the cold...

Charistoph
29-07-2015, 20:41
This is true, and you can see that has happened to fantasy. What's interesting is that a few people have started to pipe up in defence of AoS with some very misguided opinions, and most of them are fixated on the idea that wanting points, rules or structure is akin to powergaming and WAAC, and the great thing about AoS is that it doesn't matter who wins or loses, because it's just some kind of two-player narrative scenario game, which is apparently what some people wanted all along (but the scene was too throttled by the idea of balance and points before AoS for this to be accepted by others). I am amazed that there's more than one person in the world who thinks like that, but apparently there is. To me, it doesn't qualify as a game.

I have played plenty of games that don't use points. They were quite fun. In some cases we put other limits in place, but that's part of the game. And, no, they weren't Warhammer.

Name a professional sport that organizes teams by a point system. Best you can find are salary caps, and just like any point system, certain members can be artificially devalued, making such limits pointless.

Poncho160
29-07-2015, 20:46
I have played plenty of games that don't use points. They were quite fun. In some cases we put other limits in place, but that's part of the game. And, no, they weren't Warhammer.

Name a professional sport that organizes teams by a point system. Best you can find are salary caps, and just like any point system, certain members can be artificially devalued, making such limits pointless.

And sports teams, when compared to one another are completley unbalanced! They are all pay to win! Take Barcelona, they are completely OP!! Lol :)

insectum7
29-07-2015, 20:47
Sports teams limit the number of players on the field, and none of them are tanks or a dinosaur.

draccan
29-07-2015, 20:51
Sports teams limit the number of players on the field, and none of them are tanks or a dinosaur.

You don't watch much NFL do you?

:evilgrin:

Theocracity
29-07-2015, 20:52
Sports teams limit the number of players on the field, and none of them are tanks or a dinosaur.

But some of them are LeBrons ;).

As I said in a different thread - on the one hand, I wouldn't be particularly happy with GW if they removed points from 40k. On the other hand, it would remove the last mental hurdle that's preventing me from fielding an Ork army that's set exactly how I want it to be. So if they do decide to do that regardless of what I think, I would find a way to be happy with a no-point world and would support a well done fan made points comp system for when I want more structure.

insectum7
29-07-2015, 20:59
NFL guys can be giants, for a human. You want to see what happens with an actual gorilla on the field?

"Yup, there goes Koko again, just carrying the ball into the end-zone after crippling the opposition. What a player!"


But some of them are LeBrons ;).


Yeah but you PAY for a guy like that. There's no such thing as a free lunch. It's not points, but there is a system in place by way of economic pressures. LOL, I'm sure somebody could make a phenomenally accurate three-point-shooting robot with telescopic arms too. But something tells me there would be a regulation prohibiting it.

For the Ork army you want to field, Unbound is a solution. I hate to say it, but it is already there.

Poncho160
29-07-2015, 21:03
Sports teams limit the number of players on the field, and none of them are tanks or a dinosaur.

Does Johna Lomu qualify as a tank? Haha :)

insectum7
29-07-2015, 21:24
Hypothetical: How do you handle different special weapons? 10 Man Tac squad with Flamer and Heavy Bolter, vs. 10 Man Tac Squad with Gravgun, Combi-Grav and Grav Cannon? Throw a Powerfist on the Grav Squad just to make it more asymmetrical.

You could give all those weapons more parity with each other I suppose. What about the Powerfist and Combi-Grav which are just straight bonus weapons? How much does it matter?

Theocracity
29-07-2015, 21:24
Yeah but you PAY for a guy like that. There's no such thing as a free lunch. It's not points, but there is a system in place by way of economic pressures. LOL, I'm sure somebody could make a phenomenally accurate three-point-shooting robot with telescopic arms too. But something tells me there would be a regulation prohibiting it.

Hehe, I know. Twas a joke ;)

Edit: And regarding the three point robot, let me co-opt the Air Bud doctrine - "there's no rule that says a robot can't play basketball!" ;)


For the Ork army you want to field, Unbound is a solution. I hate to say it, but it is already there.

Well, beyond the disadvantages and stigmas of Unbound, the points are still an issue. By the time I've spent the amount of points 'required' to be halfway competitive, it's hard to justify adding expensive but relatively useless elements that I like such as Gorkanauts and foot nob squads.

I'm not saying it's impossible for me to do right now, and I totally understand the concerns and problems of removing points. But if GW is gonna do that anyway regardless of what I prefer, at least I'll have the freedom to make my dream army - and the fallback of comp-based points systems.

Edit:


Hypothetical: How do you handle different special weapons? 10 Man Tac squad with Flamer and Heavy Bolter, vs. 10 Man Tac Squad with Gravgun, Combi-Grav and Grav Cannon? Throw a Powerfist on the Grav Squad just to make it more asymmetrical.

You could give all those weapons more parity with each other I suppose. What about the Powerfist and Combi-Grav which are just straight bonus weapons? How much does it matter?

I wondered about this as well. As near as I can tell, the way AoS is set up generally smoothes out the difference between various weapons, so that they're all generally useful at the same purpose (though some are more efficient in various circumstances).

Karhedron
29-07-2015, 21:31
Name a professional sport that organizes teams by a point system. Best you can find are salary caps, and just like any point system, certain members can be artificially devalued, making such limits pointless.

Paralympic sports use points to balance teams of more or less able bodied players.

Anyway, sport is equivalent to WAAC gaming and is highly competitive but not intended to be "fun".

Charistoph
29-07-2015, 22:12
Paralympic sports use points to balance teams of more or less able bodied players.

Anyway, sport is equivalent to WAAC gaming and is highly competitive but not intended to be "fun".

Not the point, really. They are games, and they are competitive, and people play versions of them at home all the time.

insectum7
29-07-2015, 22:40
Not the point, really. They are games, and they are competitive, and people play versions of them at home all the time.

Well you did say "professional sport" . . .

At home I suppose I could have a game with 5 8 year olds against 5 adults, and you'd want to comp that somehow.

But again, unlike sports in 40K you have competing entities with extremely differing abilities at the outset. 1 =/=1, not by a long shot. Nor do I think we want everything to be a 1/1 relationship anyhow. Diversity is a strength of the game and the background.

Skargit Crookfang
30-07-2015, 02:31
I have played plenty of games that don't use points. They were quite fun. In some cases we put other limits in place, but that's part of the game. And, no, they weren't Warhammer.

Name a professional sport that organizes teams by a point system. Best you can find are salary caps, and just like any point system, certain members can be artificially devalued, making such limits pointless.


If you think the NHL salary cap isn't a massive deal with balancing the league then you don't watch hockey.

AngryAngel
30-07-2015, 03:32
Hehe, I know. Twas a joke ;)

Edit: And regarding the three point robot, let me co-opt the Air Bud doctrine - "there's no rule that says a robot can't play basketball!" ;)



Well, beyond the disadvantages and stigmas of Unbound, the points are still an issue. By the time I've spent the amount of points 'required' to be halfway competitive, it's hard to justify adding expensive but relatively useless elements that I like such as Gorkanauts and foot nob squads.

I'm not saying it's impossible for me to do right now, and I totally understand the concerns and problems of removing points. But if GW is gonna do that anyway regardless of what I prefer, at least I'll have the freedom to make my dream army - and the fallback of comp-based points systems.

Edit:



I wondered about this as well. As near as I can tell, the way AoS is set up generally smoothes out the difference between various weapons, so that they're all generally useful at the same purpose (though some are more efficient in various circumstances).

I quoted the whole thing but am just finding out about the one middle part. Why can't you run your dream army now ? If I remember you have a pretty good group, why wouldn't they now and then let a points free approach happen just for the dream armies ?

Honestly, if 40k went to no points, it would well and truly kill the game around me. Most of the people still playing are the tournament lovers. So all points free would do is kill them off and make the game so hyper casual I'd get in a game with just my close core of friends. Which isn't bad, but speaks poorly for the success of the game as a whole. At least in as far as my anecdote of area saturation goes. The points aren't what keep people out of the game, nor the mindset, it is the cost and effort put in almost entirely.

Commissar_42
30-07-2015, 03:53
For me points represent an easy and convenient way of making sure that peoples' armies are generally balanced. Now obviously this has never been 40k's strong point, but at least if my friend and I agree upon a 1500 point battle, I'll be reasonably confident that I'll be facing a list that is *roughly* the same size and power as mine. With no points whatsoever this becomes impossible, there needs to be a shorthand way of measuring a unit's power and points do that just fine.

75hastings69
30-07-2015, 04:15
Exactly! People who just wants to push random miniatures on a table has always been able to do that, but those of us who wants a wargame are left out in the cold...

I agree totally. People are bashing WFB because it "restricted their miniatures buys" or "forced them" to build armies in a certain way, it didn't, they put the restrictions on themselves. We often made lists with whatever miniatures/units we liked and used a story and counts as (for points & stats) to build our armies how we wanted, we also played small points/model count skirmish games based on house rules/the warhammer skirmish booklet/warhammer generals compendium & various online sources, so claiming AoS is superior because it allows you to do this is nonsense! people restricted themselves with WFB believing they were somehow forced to make and play every game under almost tournament rules! Instead what fantasy players are left with now is a "game" that has so little restrictions/rules that it couldn't even be used for a competetive game let alone tournament. At least the OPTION was there in WFB to pick and chose what you wanted and to use your own imagination/rules, AoS seems to COUNT on people doing that but with the drawback of not being able to do anything else.

AoS IMO is not a "game" it's an "idea" of how to use your miniatures collection, but then going from GWs statement about actually being a seller of premium quality (and priced) models to collectors I guess everyone should have seen this coming.

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 06:52
I quoted the whole thing but am just finding out about the one middle part. Why can't you run your dream army now ? If I remember you have a pretty good group, why wouldn't they now and then let a points free approach happen just for the dream armies ?

Because none of us have really considered it. Even though we're a pretty flexible group, we still try to stick within the rules whenever we can. Any rules-bending usually comes during the game to make the outcome more fun, not in the army planning stages.

Prior to AoS I never even thought to try going points-free as a way to build my dream Ork force. Unbound was barely considered, as I mentally classified Battleforged bonuses as defining a 'real' army.

Could I have? Technically yes. Would I have? Almost certainly no.

75hastings69
30-07-2015, 07:20
So basically another case of self imposed limitations

Spiney Norman
30-07-2015, 08:49
I have played plenty of games that don't use points. They were quite fun. In some cases we put other limits in place, but that's part of the game. And, no, they weren't Warhammer.

Name a professional sport that organizes teams by a point system. Best you can find are salary caps, and just like any point system, certain members can be artificially devalued, making such limits pointless.

Umm virtually every sport limits the number of players in a team (the equivalent to a points system), can you imagine a professional sports league for any team game putting out a rule 'a team may consist of any number of players'? It's occurs to me that only an AoS warscroll could be that stupid.

Ok so individual team members aren't ranked by points, but given that (like all games) the purpose of the sport is a competitive contest between the abilities of the respective players obviously the team with the most able players should win. AoS should be the same, freak luck notwithstanding, the game ought to be won by the most able player, however if the game is decided by which army you bring, or however many models you bring (as it is currently) then the game just becomes about who can bring the most ogres to the game.

The critical failing of AoS is that there is no way currently to make massed low quality troops viable, let alone attractive because by the time you have half as many troops as you need to balance your opponents elite force, you have already given away an instant death condition.

Losing Command
30-07-2015, 09:49
There indeed seem to be quite some people who complain about the game's inbalance and how it 'prevents' them from fielding the army how they want. Even people who stick to using the best options according to the internet who get beaten by a full on fluff army (my pure Thousand Sons army for example) hardly seem to consider finally using their idea of a fluff army, and keep on complaining how fluff-armies cannot be used.

Xerkics
30-07-2015, 13:03
There indeed seem to be quite some people who complain about the game's inbalance and how it 'prevents' them from fielding the army how they want. Even people who stick to using the best options according to the internet who get beaten by a full on fluff army (my pure Thousand Sons army for example) hardly seem to consider finally using their idea of a fluff army, and keep on complaining how fluff-armies cannot be used.

It kinda depends based on what I read a lot of people who talk about having a fluff army actually bring a Waac army .

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 13:47
So basically another case of self imposed limitations

But those self-imposed limitations were supported by the social structures created by the game's rules. I knew that if I wanted a game outside my group, I had to have a legal list that was at least points-efficient enough not to embarrass myself. That in turn drove my purchasing decisions, because given the choice between spending money on a unit that's unfieldable per the rules but enjoyable and one that fits in a list but is boring I would usually lean towards the latter because that's where I knew I could get the most number of games out of. All of my gaming buddies in turn made the same sort of calculations, which lead to us only discussing and buying models for non-standard army lists when Kill Team or Apocalypse games were planned (and those happens even more rarely than our normal sporadic gaming schedule).

A limitation being self-imposed doesn't mean that it was completely ephemeral and without basis.

sephiroth87
30-07-2015, 14:48
The limitations would work if GW balanced the rules all at once every so often and took into account how things worked instead of waiting YEARS to even put out a one page FAQ to obvious issues.

People gravitated towards certain units not because of the competitive environment, but because if you're going to pay 60 bucks for a model (not even taking into account assembling and painting) why would you want it to suck every single game? Some fluff based armies work, but there are some army builds and books that are far beyond the others in terms of power level. It was a problem in their ruleset and their army books. I don't buy for a minute the idea of an artificial competitive social construct being the cause of 40k's issues. Build the game, balance it regularly, playtest the hell out of it, and update the rules regularly. The online format would be perfect for this...if they would do it. But so far with age of sigmar, they threw up the rules online, didn't address the giant holes, obviously didn't playtest well, and slowly backed out of the room.

GW rulesets are the Ford Pinto of the gaming world.

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 14:55
People gravitated towards certain units not because of the competitive environment, but because if you're going to pay 60 bucks for a model (not even taking into account assembling and painting) why would you want it to suck every single game? Some fluff based armies work, but there are some army builds and books that are far beyond the others in terms of power level. It was a problem in their ruleset and their army books. I don't buy for a minute the idea of an artificial competitive social construct being the cause of 40k's issues.

I didn't say they were. They were just the reason why I always had a hard time justifying the purchase of 'fun' units over competitive ones - as you said above.

I suppose GW could have fixed it by putting the work in to make all units viable and perfectly balanced.

*sitcom laugh track*

sephiroth87
30-07-2015, 14:59
Fair enough. It was more of a setup for my Ford Pinto joke. Which I'm still proud of, by the way.

And now I'm sad again. I'll go look at my gorkanaut again in its case and realize that it will never be an imperial knight, no matter how tall I can make it.

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 15:08
Fair enough. It was more of a setup for my Ford Pinto joke. Which I'm still proud of, by the way.

And now I'm sad again. I'll go look at my gorkanaut again in its case and realize that it will never be an imperial knight, no matter how tall I can make it.

Heh, fair. Tis a good joke :).

I'm just gonna suck it up and buy the Gorkanaut I've had my eyes on. I don't have the points or FoC slots for it in my lists (self-imposed choice or not), but hey - it looks cool, I want it, and whatever next iteration of rules it has might be worth it :).

Scribe of Khorne
30-07-2015, 16:15
Anyone arguing against a points system is really cutting off their nose to spite their face. It will murder any chance 40K has of continuing to be a game, and not a social exercise, like 7 year olds creating rules for their games of He-Man.

Charistoph
30-07-2015, 16:18
Umm virtually every sport limits the number of players in a team (the equivalent to a points system), can you imagine a professional sports league for any team game putting out a rule 'a team may consist of any number of players'? It's occurs to me that only an AoS warscroll could be that stupid.

Ok so individual team members aren't ranked by points, but given that (like all games) the purpose of the sport is a competitive contest between the abilities of the respective players obviously the team with the most able players should win. AoS should be the same, freak luck notwithstanding, the game ought to be won by the most able player, however if the game is decided by which army you bring, or however many models you bring (as it is currently) then the game just becomes about who can bring the most ogres to the game.

And tournaments will do the same. Tournaments are as close as we get to having a "professional" game, anyways. And like the different Leagues, have their own standards on playing the game.

Oddly enough, when kids or adults play these same sports in their own yard/park, they don't play by the same rules. Sometimes it is because they don't have enough, and sometimes too much.

Here in the States there is a tradition known as "turkey bowl" or "mud bowl" where the boys and men from the neighborhood get together and play American Football. They don't bother with making sure that there are 22 people on the field or most of the other league rules available, they just play Football with 15+ per team on the field.

When kids play basketball 1:1 or 2:2, do they care what their salary cap is? No, they play the game, sometimes making up new rules to fit the circumstances.

That's all this really is, anyway, so why is it such a big deal, especially when half the rules are already operating under a set of House or Tournament Rules and not RAW?

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 16:19
Anyone arguing against a points system is really cutting off their nose to spite their face. It will murder any chance 40K has of continuing to be a game, and not a social exercise, like 7 year olds creating rules for their games of He-Man.

I'm not arguing against a points system. I'm just saying that I'll find ways to keep playing and be happy if the points system disappears regardless of how I argue on an Internet forum.

I am going to argue against passive-aggressive remarks about my maturity, however.

Scribe of Khorne
30-07-2015, 16:53
I'm not arguing against a points system. I'm just saying that I'll find ways to keep playing and be happy if the points system disappears regardless of how I argue on an Internet forum.

I am going to argue against passive-aggressive remarks about my maturity, however.

It was actually from my Kill Team game last night. ;)

We chat a lot more during Kill Team, because it doesnt take as long as 40K so you dont have to be 'focused' to get a game in, and as we both (my opponent and I) are of the age where as kids we played He-Man, and we have kids of our own that are of the appropriate age, it was a simple comparison to make.

Watch a group of kids play, its exactly the issue with AoS, and by default, a point free (I wont call it pointless anymore, the jokes worn thin on me) system.

You will ALWAYS have kids who want to create new rules, bend rules, ignore rules, in any way they see fit to maximize their own enjoyment. Note, this does not = WAAC, but whatever the kid wants, they push for. If its to always be He-Man, or get to control the Tiger, or maybe Skellator has to escape, the point remains.

It devolves the competitive game (win/loss/draw is the end result) into simply playing with ones toys, like we did as kids, or as our kids do today.

So yes I apologize for not fleshing that first post out and offending you, but its exactly the scenario I discussed last night, and exactly the issue we will face.

A Points Free system will end 40K as a public (pickup/tournament style) game and GW doesnt seem to get that even now, its the GAME that keeps them even in the discussion. Take away the game (warts and all!) and they are overpriced model kits, that will NEVER sell enough to keep them going.

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 17:07
It was actually from my Kill Team game last night. ;)

We chat a lot more during Kill Team, because it doesnt take as long as 40K so you dont have to be 'focused' to get a game in, and as we both (my opponent and I) are of the age where as kids we played He-Man, and we have kids of our own that are of the appropriate age, it was a simple comparison to make.

Watch a group of kids play, its exactly the issue with AoS, and by default, a point free (I wont call it pointless anymore, the jokes worn thin on me) system.

You will ALWAYS have kids who want to create new rules, bend rules, ignore rules, in any way they see fit to maximize their own enjoyment. Note, this does not = WAAC, but whatever the kid wants, they push for. If its to always be He-Man, or get to control the Tiger, or maybe Skellator has to escape, the point remains.

It devolves the competitive game (win/loss/draw is the end result) into simply playing with ones toys, like we did as kids, or as our kids do today.

So yes I apologize for not fleshing that first post out and offending you, but its exactly the scenario I discussed last night, and exactly the issue we will face.

A Points Free system will end 40K as a public (pickup/tournament style) game and GW doesnt seem to get that even now, its the GAME that keeps them even in the discussion. Take away the game (warts and all!) and they are overpriced model kits, that will NEVER sell enough to keep them going.

Cool, thanks for clarifying. I figured you weren't attacking me personally, but the amount of passive swipes that people take around here is getting kind of suffocating.

Anyhow, I recognize all those arguments as valid. They just don't resonate with me, as the competitive game has never been where my true interest lies. Neither do arguments that I could have always lived in a points-free world, because I'm about as close to a free form gamer as you can get but for all my seven years in this hobby I've always felt the competitive game holds an outsized influence on my collecting and playing. I recognize the faults caused by removing that element entirely, but I think I'll manage somehow.

HelloKitty
30-07-2015, 17:16
I am also a hybrid competitive/narrative free form player. For me this style of play can work. However, the question will be is the market made up of a lot of people like us? Or is the market predominantly competitive minded people?

I cannot answer that question accurately, though I will say in my gut from having to fight and politic hard to just get in a game of city fight during 5th because it wasn't tournament standard, that the market seems to be overwhelmingly dominated by competitive minded people (that doesn't mean tournament because I know plenty of hard core competitive types that have never stepped foot in a tournament hall), at least here in the US.

If the narrative free form players are very much in the minority, then the business model doesn't seem like it would work.

Why that bothers me is that if it doesn't work, then GW goes away, and if GW goes away then the IP gets sold, and a company l ike FFG picking up 40k terrifies me because I don't want their version of competitive games being made the normal for 40k. Kind of like how I want to love X Wing but I can't because the standard way of playing it is to max out on a high level pilot and take a big ship. I wanted squadron battles, but the way the balance in that game is set - most of the people that play here bring 2 or 3 models total to a standard game and a big ship is generally always one of those models.

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 17:26
I am also a hybrid competitive/narrative free form player. For me this style of play can work. However, the question will be is the market made up of a lot of people like us? Or is the market predominantly competitive minded people?

I cannot answer that question accurately, though I will say in my gut from having to fight and politic hard to just get in a game of city fight during 5th because it wasn't tournament standard, that the market seems to be overwhelmingly dominated by competitive minded people (that doesn't mean tournament because I know plenty of hard core competitive types that have never stepped foot in a tournament hall), at least here in the US.

If the narrative free form players are very much in the minority, then the business model doesn't seem like it would work.

Why that bothers me is that if it doesn't work, then GW goes away, and if GW goes away then the IP gets sold, and a company l ike FFG picking up 40k terrifies me because I don't want their version of competitive games being made the normal for 40k.

Speaking personally, I've made the choice to just be copacetic about GW's business. My input isn't going to change their business model, my purchase decisions aren't going to either float or sink it, and my worrying about their future isn't going to determine whether they stay in business or lose their IP. So I'll just buy the models that I like and continue to interact with the rules and fluff that I enjoy - and if that changes hands to a different company or is overhauled in a radical move, I can either keep the course I was on, check out if some other company handles it better, or move on to other things in life (as will likely happen at some point as I get older).

insectum7
30-07-2015, 18:06
Speaking personally, I've made the choice to just be copacetic about GW's business. My input isn't going to change their business model, my purchase decisions aren't going to either float or sink it, and my worrying about their future isn't going to determine whether they stay in business or lose their IP. So I'll just buy the models that I like and continue to interact with the rules and fluff that I enjoy - and if that changes hands to a different company or is overhauled in a radical move, I can either keep the course I was on, check out if some other company handles it better, or move on to other things in life (as will likely happen at some point as I get older).

Also describes my feelings perfectly.

However, I am heartily amused that their current business model appears to be "more marines!!", looking at the Horus Heresy leaks.

AngryAngel
30-07-2015, 20:44
Because none of us have really considered it. Even though we're a pretty flexible group, we still try to stick within the rules whenever we can. Any rules-bending usually comes during the game to make the outcome more fun, not in the army planning stages.

Prior to AoS I never even thought to try going points-free as a way to build my dream Ork force. Unbound was barely considered, as I mentally classified Battleforged bonuses as defining a 'real' army.

Could I have? Technically yes. Would I have? Almost certainly no.

I have to keep commenting because I don't see how people could not have thought of or even tried this before the game rules allow you to. Wouldn't that make a point free system, in fact, not be a real army, no matter what the core rules of the time say ? I mean I agree totally, which is why I would hate a points free system. I want the structure and the army creation and a FoC of sorts. It makes the feel of the army real for me. Structure, discipline, purpose. The whole idea of unbound or points free kind of flys in the face of that.




So basically another case of self imposed limitations

It is odd to me so many do feel the need for self imposed limitations and only become free when the rules say then can be. Not saying to bash anyone or their view but it just feels strange to me. Like, I don't want to be free, I want the rules and limitations, but others seem to want to be free but won't allow themselves to be, unless the rules let say they can be.



There indeed seem to be quite some people who complain about the game's inbalance and how it 'prevents' them from fielding the army how they want. Even people who stick to using the best options according to the internet who get beaten by a full on fluff army (my pure Thousand Sons army for example) hardly seem to consider finally using their idea of a fluff army, and keep on complaining how fluff-armies cannot be used.

I agree here, I love a good fluff army and they can win, but they aren't usually the easy button.


But those self-imposed limitations were supported by the social structures created by the game's rules. I knew that if I wanted a game outside my group, I had to have a legal list that was at least points-efficient enough not to embarrass myself. That in turn drove my purchasing decisions, because given the choice between spending money on a unit that's unfieldable per the rules but enjoyable and one that fits in a list but is boring I would usually lean towards the latter because that's where I knew I could get the most number of games out of. All of my gaming buddies in turn made the same sort of calculations, which lead to us only discussing and buying models for non-standard army lists when Kill Team or Apocalypse games were planned (and those happens even more rarely than our normal sporadic gaming schedule).

A limitation being self-imposed doesn't mean that it was completely ephemeral and without basis.

I never felt the social contract was dictated by the game rules but more by the game players, personally speaking of course. Like you want to do things right, shooting, assaults, what you roll ect. However for army set up, we've played around with different ideas and set ups just to see what it would be like, but at the end of the day I like and want the FoC and all the restrictions that come with it, it gives the army an army feel to me. You should however try to be free before the rules say its ok to, and just see how it feels. I mean the way the games are going, no matter the social contract of the game will be just with the players and not with the core rules before long anyways.

As for not buying a unit or model because it isn't competitive, that also seems odd to me. If the games aren't competitive, shouldn't matter running some things that are less then ideal in the games or buying the models. I know I always have and I consider myself competitive, maybe I'm more casual competitive, like a pants suit.

Though Theo, take my disagreement as more just that and not judgement on you. I just wish people would push outside the box more on their own, and not have the company lead to them to it, because if they do, they will do so with the destruction of any semblance of competitive set up for the game and that will, I feel lead to the game and perhaps companies death which I don't want.


Anyone arguing against a points system is really cutting off their nose to spite their face. It will murder any chance 40K has of continuing to be a game, and not a social exercise, like 7 year olds creating rules for their games of He-Man.

I loved my games of He Man, they also had better fluff then AoS. #HeManFLuffTruth


I am also a hybrid competitive/narrative free form player. For me this style of play can work. However, the question will be is the market made up of a lot of people like us? Or is the market predominantly competitive minded people?

I cannot answer that question accurately, though I will say in my gut from having to fight and politic hard to just get in a game of city fight during 5th because it wasn't tournament standard, that the market seems to be overwhelmingly dominated by competitive minded people (that doesn't mean tournament because I know plenty of hard core competitive types that have never stepped foot in a tournament hall), at least here in the US.

If the narrative free form players are very much in the minority, then the business model doesn't seem like it would work.

Why that bothers me is that if it doesn't work, then GW goes away, and if GW goes away then the IP gets sold, and a company l ike FFG picking up 40k terrifies me because I don't want their version of competitive games being made the normal for 40k. Kind of like how I want to love X Wing but I can't because the standard way of playing it is to max out on a high level pilot and take a big ship. I wanted squadron battles, but the way the balance in that game is set - most of the people that play here bring 2 or 3 models total to a standard game and a big ship is generally always one of those models.

Then GW better get its stuff together as X wing and FFG themselves just keep growing, feeding to that competitive mindset, while GW seems to want to divorce itself from that aspect of gaming and I feel it is going to bite them in the butt.

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 21:18
I have to keep commenting because I don't see how people could not have thought of or even tried this before the game rules allow you to. Wouldn't that make a point free system, in fact, not be a real army, no matter what the core rules of the time say ? I mean I agree totally, which is why I would hate a points free system. I want the structure and the army creation and a FoC of sorts. It makes the feel of the army real for me. Structure, discipline, purpose. The whole idea of unbound or points free kind of flys in the face of that.

...

I never felt the social contract was dictated by the game rules but more by the game players, personally speaking of course. Like you want to do things right, shooting, assaults, what you roll ect. However for army set up, we've played around with different ideas and set ups just to see what it would be like, but at the end of the day I like and want the FoC and all the restrictions that come with it, it gives the army an army feel to me. You should however try to be free before the rules say its ok to, and just see how it feels. I mean the way the games are going, no matter the social contract of the game will be just with the players and not with the core rules before long anyways.

As for not buying a unit or model because it isn't competitive, that also seems odd to me. If the games aren't competitive, shouldn't matter running some things that are less then ideal in the games or buying the models. I know I always have and I consider myself competitive, maybe I'm more casual competitive, like a pants suit.

Though Theo, take my disagreement as more just that and not judgement on you. I just wish people would push outside the box more on their own, and not have the company lead to them to it, because if they do, they will do so with the destruction of any semblance of competitive set up for the game and that will, I feel lead to the game and perhaps companies death which I don't want.

I mean, I'm speaking from personal experience - I never thought about venturing too far outside the rules of army construction because that's not how anyone I played with did it. Usually any thought experiments about custom army lists and such were 'wouldn't it be cool if' thought experiments that maybe got written up in a Google doc and never put into practice, because on the times when my group got together we'd all want to play via the common rules systems we knew.

All of my analysis of social influences et al is pure hindsight, not something I consciously thought about at the time. Maybe if I had I would have felt more free to do so - but honestly I probably still would have just kept tweaking my 1500 point standard codex list. Even when chafing at the structures of the rules, the difficulty of being the outlier who wants to do things differently prevented me from doing so.

Honestly, I think it's less important that the rules provide army construction structure (via FOC, points, etc) than it is that everyone in group plays by the same rules of army construction - even if that is no rules. If everyone is abiding by FOC and points, then it's easier to stick with the majority and build armies using FOC and points. If everyone is building an army with whatever they want, it's easier to feel like you're making a 'real' army by that method. Obviously that makes it a bit more difficult to plan balanced games, but that's the part of the game where my group has always been more willing to mess with the rules so it doesn't seem like that big of a burden.

And no worries, I'm not reading any judgement into your remarks. I do, however, think it's easier to say "you could have played free form" now than it was to actually do it at the time (due to the difficulty of going against the grain of the game's culture).

Xeones
30-07-2015, 22:14
This portent fills me with trepidation. One the one hand reading it just at face value, it could be a really good thing, because it could mean the consolidation of GW's disparate rules release methods* into a more coherent system. On the other hand, it could mean that the historically most reliable and solid method of distributing rules (ie the codex) get's thrown out the window and we're stuck with more of a mess than we have now.



*I personally find GW's current "system" (if you could call it that) of releasing rules to be a complete mess and downright schizophrenic. You've got rules for certain wargear options listed in the main rulebook, then you've got codices, dataslates, Downloadable PDFs and formation rules, White Dwarf exclusive rules, mini dexs/supplements, rules in the product boxes...have a missed anything? This is ridiculous. No one should have to keep track of this many different sources to play one game.

If the end of codices heralds a new age where rules for most units are found online for free, I say BRING IT ON. This model would mean easy updates to rules which would allow for more organic and frequent updates. Model releases can continue to come with increase frequency in a steady trickle instead of in occasional huge floods without the disjointed rules implementation. You could add a new unit or tweak the rules on an existing one without having to role out a brand new codex with enough additional new content to warrant your customers dropping large amounts of money on a new book. That's certainly a win-win from a customer perspective. Everyone loves free and easy-to-use content.

The problem here is that on the face of it, books seem to be notable part of GW's revenue system --perhaps not nearly as much as the models themselves, but still significant. It's also a way for them to keep existing players consistently paying out a little money even if those players army is mostly complete and they are not actively looking to snatch up every new model that comes out. I know Hastings has a good track record, but it's hard for me to wrap my mind around imagining such a change coming from a GW that has been steadily increasing both the cost, number, and frequency of updates of all their rule books over the last few years.

Tokamak
30-07-2015, 22:47
If GW keeps the points and the armybuilding then 40k will translate much better into a streamlined ruleset than Fantasy. The round bases are already there, the rules are already less complicated, the armies are already smaller.

The true risk for 40k is the incredibly rich lore that could be wrecked.

Theocracity
30-07-2015, 22:57
The true risk for 40k is the incredibly rich lore that could be wrecked.

While I feel that would be the biggest disappointment if they gave 40k the full AoS treatment ('disappointment' being a huge understatement), I also think it's less likely to happen - especially with the Horus Heresy range in the works.

75hastings69
31-07-2015, 02:30
HH is a historical event, i.e. in the past in the current 40k timeline.

WFB "the world that was is now a historical event in the (already broken) AoS timeline. AoS timeline was reached by the End Times progressing what was at that point the current WFB timeline.

So what I'm saying is they couldn't destroy the "lore" of HH as it is already an historical event. However they could advance 40k timeline with an End Times type scenario to drastically alter the lore to it, and forcing current 40k into a historical lore area, like WFB.

R.D.
31-07-2015, 02:36
I doubt there'll be such a massive overhaul to the lore as WFB--even if GW decides on a massive restructuring of the rules, they know that the lore at least is far more popular and entrenched than Fantasy was.

If worst comes to worst, I imagine that me and most people I know will just keep using the current rulebook or simply carry over points costs.

AngryAngel
31-07-2015, 03:33
I mean, I'm speaking from personal experience - I never thought about venturing too far outside the rules of army construction because that's not how anyone I played with did it. Usually any thought experiments about custom army lists and such were 'wouldn't it be cool if' thought experiments that maybe got written up in a Google doc and never put into practice, because on the times when my group got together we'd all want to play via the common rules systems we knew.

All of my analysis of social influences et al is pure hindsight, not something I consciously thought about at the time. Maybe if I had I would have felt more free to do so - but honestly I probably still would have just kept tweaking my 1500 point standard codex list. Even when chafing at the structures of the rules, the difficulty of being the outlier who wants to do things differently prevented me from doing so.

Honestly, I think it's less important that the rules provide army construction structure (via FOC, points, etc) than it is that everyone in group plays by the same rules of army construction - even if that is no rules. If everyone is abiding by FOC and points, then it's easier to stick with the majority and build armies using FOC and points. If everyone is building an army with whatever they want, it's easier to feel like you're making a 'real' army by that method. Obviously that makes it a bit more difficult to plan balanced games, but that's the part of the game where my group has always been more willing to mess with the rules so it doesn't seem like that big of a burden.

And no worries, I'm not reading any judgement into your remarks. I do, however, think it's easier to say "you could have played free form" now than it was to actually do it at the time (due to the difficulty of going against the grain of the game's culture).

I can understand that, I'm just a rebel with these things, at least enough to know I'd rather the structure. Thanks for answering my questions Theo, appreciate the one on one, as always.

Theocracity
31-07-2015, 04:37
HH is a historical event, i.e. in the past in the current 40k timeline.

WFB "the world that was is now a historical event in the (already broken) AoS timeline. AoS timeline was reached by the End Times progressing what was at that point the current WFB timeline.

So what I'm saying is they couldn't destroy the "lore" of HH as it is already an historical event. However they could advance 40k timeline with an End Times type scenario to drastically alter the lore to it, and forcing current 40k into a historical lore area, like WFB.

They could, technically. But even if they do, I doubt that its results would be quite as setting-shattering as it was for Fantasy. The very fact that they're building out the Heresy suggests that the current 40k universe would continue to exist historically, rather than having everything be blenderized into the galaxy-that-was. But beyond that - 40k's fiction is a bit more entrenched than Fantasy's (as I see every time I walk past the sci-fi and fantasy section at Barnes and Noble), they don't need to switch up the style to justify adding Space Marines or more varied faction alliances, and they can scratch their AoS style EPIC STORIES itch with the Heresy. I just don't see the impetus for it, and unless we start hearing rumors for an End Times 40k campaign I'm not gonna worry about it too much.


I can understand that, I'm just a rebel with these things, at least enough to know I'd rather the structure. Thanks for answering my questions Theo, appreciate the one on one, as always.

Cheers dude, I appreciated the chance to puzzle my thoughts out. :)

shin'keiro
31-07-2015, 17:04
All you have to do is continue to play the last version of 40k, that had rules you enjoyed.

3rd ed. has very convoluted rules, 4th ed. consolidated all those rules in to USR (Universal Special Rules) and 5th and 6th carried that on adding more to the Special Rules.

7th is probably the most clear set of rules we've had... If 40k becomes AoS, my group will stick to 7th.

Mawduce
31-07-2015, 22:51
What would be good if AoS came to 40k would be having everything right there on the data slate. Not having to navigate those stupid books would be nice. The bad would be not talking to my opponent to figure out what his toughness is against my attack skill per unit. Another would be lack of points. The rest of it I'm not so sure how it would go. 40k is a different game than fantasy ever was.

anselminus
01-08-2015, 11:43
Battle is a continent which is not that hard to make disappear, i see with difficulties a 14th black crusade to disappear an entire universe knowing that they are going in the eye of terror.

Ben
01-08-2015, 12:39
Without a balancing system you cannot really play pick up games. It makes balancing scenarios hard. It impacts on your ability to do things you want to do.

Unbound lets people just put down 5 Bloodthirsters now, and people generally don't do it.

I did see someone running a Pacific Rim Tau army, with 5 Riptides (including forgeworld ones) vs nids. It can happen to let people theme armies like that, but a lot of players want to have a logical structure.

The other thing is that ditching structure means players don't need a lot of the units out there. Why buy tactical marines when you can just buy honour guard and primarchs?

A lot of the formations GW have put out involve using some of the less popular units to gain in game advantages.

Mawduce
01-08-2015, 19:45
Without a balancing system you cannot really play pick up games. It makes balancing scenarios hard. It impacts on your ability to do things you want to do.

Unbound lets people just put down 5 Bloodthirsters now, and people generally don't do it.

I did see someone running a Pacific Rim Tau army, with 5 Riptides (including forgeworld ones) vs nids. It can happen to let people theme armies like that, but a lot of players want to have a logical structure.

The other thing is that ditching structure means players don't need a lot of the units out there. Why buy tactical marines when you can just buy honour guard and primarchs?

A lot of the formations GW have put out involve using some of the less popular units to gain in game advantages.

Another thing players can do to lower the model count is play lower point games or play Kill Team. Games without points doesn't mean the model count drops.

Spiney Norman
01-08-2015, 20:58
Another thing players can do to lower the model count is play lower point games or play Kill Team. Games without points doesn't mean the model count drops.

Yeah, my experience of AoS so far is that games usually end up being massive because people keep deploying until they think they have enough stuff to win or they run out of stuff to deploy.

The number of times I've seen people eyeing the unit their opponent just put down and then heading back to their case is just ridiculous.

insectum7
01-08-2015, 21:20
Yeah, my experience of AoS so far is that games usually end up being massive because people keep deploying until they think they have enough stuff to win or they run out of stuff to deploy.

The number of times I've seen people eyeing the unit their opponent just put down and then heading back to their case is just ridiculous.

It's funny you mention that. I've only seen one game of AoS and that's exactly what happened.

Charistoph
01-08-2015, 22:45
Most of the ones I've seen have been rather small, about a third to half of what I've seen from Fantasy Battles, mostly as people were trying the rules and different units.

Althenian Armourlost
02-08-2015, 13:25
Yeah, my experience of AoS so far is that games usually end up being massive because people keep deploying until they think they have enough stuff to win or they run out of stuff to deploy.

The number of times I've seen people eyeing the unit their opponent just put down and then heading back to their case is just ridiculous.

I think this is entirely the point. If your opponent beats you with rock, you go to the store and buy paper for next time. Then your opponent has to go and buy scissors sharpish.

It soon becomes

rock,rock,scissors,scissors,paper vs paper,paper,rock,rock,rock and player 2 looses because he has a slightly smaller amount of disposable income, or a slightly angrier wife.

HelloKitty
02-08-2015, 14:09
Or if people would stop building extreme power lists that over load one aspect of the game in an attempt to win before the game even starts by virtue of out listing the other, and had well rounded lists that wouldnt really be a problem in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gazak Blacktoof
02-08-2015, 16:44
Or if people would stop building extreme power lists that over load one aspect of the game in an attempt to win before the game even starts by virtue of out listing the other, and had well rounded lists that wouldnt really be a problem in the first place.

If only there were some way to regulate what people put in their lists...

ehlijen
02-08-2015, 17:15
Or if people would stop building extreme power lists that over load one aspect of the game in an attempt to win before the game even starts by virtue of out listing the other, and had well rounded lists that wouldnt really be a problem in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is that that doesn't work in the current edition. Because units are either rock, paper or scissor in defence but can be configured to attack like any of the three regardless of what they are, the best strategy is to stick to one target type and pick the weapons to match what you'll most likely face (because the opponent will do the same thing).

Varied armies will only succeed if you either have a composition system that enforces them or if the rules actually give weaknesses to all units that require different unit types to overcome.

If you can have tanks with AT, AP and AA guns and tanks fare better than infantry (due to immunity to STR < X), you need some other reason to still take infantry. 7th 40k has no such reason (short of a few formations that cram special rules down infantry's throats).

It's not simply a matter of 'just pick more varied armies'. It's a matter of the game rules not properly rewarding combined arms while making mono-type lists too easy to build and too flexible.

Scribe of Khorne
02-08-2015, 17:59
If only there were some way to regulate what people put in their lists...

Hah this!

I just endured another 50K point game of Apoc. I dont know why I do it to myself.

Points limits, FOC, these are all that keep a game sane.

AngryAngel
02-08-2015, 20:09
Or if people would stop building extreme power lists that over load one aspect of the game in an attempt to win before the game even starts by virtue of out listing the other, and had well rounded lists that wouldnt really be a problem in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only things existed to curb that desire in players semi effectively, or in fact the game rules themselves didn't lead to such a set up. Relying on people just to govern themselves in a competitive game is a poor idea. It is why games need rules, what seems fair to one is imbalanced to another, impossible to one is easy to another. Though honestly, bringing this up really just leads into the whole balance and who should handle that, which is a can of worms I don't think you want to get into again. I get you may believe its all our fault we can't live in paradise, but people will keep blaming those who made a false paradise that could be so easily destroyed.


If only there were some way to regulate what people put in their lists...

Indeed, if only.



Hah this!

I just endured another 50K point game of Apoc. I dont know why I do it to myself.

Points limits, FOC, these are all that keep a game sane.

We all do such, like we have a memory issue, we assume it will be different, and once we're done we're like, glad that is over. I'm right there with you on that one.

Scribe of Khorne
02-08-2015, 21:03
Yeah I have no idea, its like we block it from our consciousness as the game approaches, remember INSTANTLY as setup begins that we 'Mistakes have been made..' and want to die after turn 2.

I dont even know what I am thinking anymore, but I'm at the point where I'll just bring Knights/Titans, forget anything else that way I will either clean up, or get killed quick and go home. :p

insectum7
02-08-2015, 21:51
If only there were some way to regulate what people put in their lists...

I gotta say, I've seen more diversity in lists for armies with Formations in their book. It's more of a "carrot" approach than hard limits, but it also appears to be more effective at promoting unit diversity IMO.

Scribe of Khorne
02-08-2015, 22:00
Yeah, done well, Formations are good. Done like the Skyhammer I feel its less good.

insectum7
02-08-2015, 22:11
Yeah, done well, Formations are good. Done like the Skyhammer I feel its less good.

Yeah, that one is. . . unfortunate. As much as I love Devastators, Drop Pods, and think Assault Marines could hit a little harder, the Skyhammer is dumb.

AngryAngel
03-08-2015, 01:05
Yeah I have no idea, its like we block it from our consciousness as the game approaches, remember INSTANTLY as setup begins that we 'Mistakes have been made..' and want to die after turn 2.

I dont even know what I am thinking anymore, but I'm at the point where I'll just bring Knights/Titans, forget anything else that way I will either clean up, or get killed quick and go home. :p

I think we would get along well in some 40k games, I do the same thing. I always wanted baneblades, ( loving huge tanks over huge walker types ) I have 4 of them just for apoc, so I can deploy, get destroyed quickly ( and they do die so very quickly ) and then be done with caring. It feels good and I've since liked apoc so much more then hour long deployments and similar movement phases with tons of models. Even with that however, Apoc feels more like a practice in how much you can handle while staying patient before you find out who won, when by then you don't even really care anyways. I imagine that is how it felt towards the end of WW1, wishing for peace just so you can go home.


Yeah, that one is. . . unfortunate. As much as I love Devastators, Drop Pods, and think Assault Marines could hit a little harder, the Skyhammer is dumb.

That one formation I see pop up everywhere, and broken ones like that do more to ruin list diversity then I've seen in awhile. Which is an issue I have with cost free formations. Either make them all good, so none stand over the others, or make them all just rather average but with some minor tweaks for feel and to perhaps entice list diversity more. However when it comes down to full diversity at the high competitive end, that will tend to always use the same over the top choices, just the nature of the beast.

insectum7
03-08-2015, 01:33
That one formation I see pop up everywhere, and broken ones like that do more to ruin list diversity then I've seen in awhile. Which is an issue I have with cost free formations. Either make them all good, so none stand over the others, or make them all just rather average but with some minor tweaks for feel and to perhaps entice list diversity more. However when it comes down to full diversity at the high competitive end, that will tend to always use the same over the top choices, just the nature of the beast.

As usual, your experience is completely different than mine. I haven't seen the Skyhammer used yet.

But other "cost free" formations like the Gladius, Battle Company or Decurion I see quite a bit, and those bring a wide variety of units. That Mechanicus formation that takes one of everything, I've seen that too. It's all about diversity there. So overall, formations have seen diversity broaden in my area. As for "over the top choices", I'd be curious to see what's actually winning tournaments, Decurion-esqe or Skyhammer. I feel like a Battle Company would wind up being more competitive at the end.

Buddy Bear
03-08-2015, 06:02
The more I think about it the more I think 40k undergoing its own End Times is a foregone conclusion. Just look at all the events of the past few years, including Come the Apocalypse allies, because according to the last few 40k books, the apocalypse has arrived. That sounds like a precursor to the End Times series.

The most subtle but damning piece of evidence that 40k has its own Age of Sigmar in store is Codex: Harlequins. There's a bit of fluff in there about Cegorach's ultimate jest to get Slaanesh to expend most of her power to save the Eldar race. That is a very specific turn of events, one worth noting, because what's the most noticeable effect of Age of Sigmar on the Chaos side? Slaanesh is no longer a Chaos God. That's too big of a coincidence to me, that the End Times resulted in the elimination of Slaanesh while 40k has already laid the ground work for the elimination of Slaanesh.

At this point I think we can expect 40k to undergo its own End Times and have its own Age of Sigmar.

Mozzamanx
03-08-2015, 06:36
Copy-pasting a potential storyline from the folks at /tg/:

Book 1-
The 13th Black Crusade is launched and shatters Cadia. Chaos spills from the eye, led by the returned Daemon Primarchs, and comes to lay siege to Terra. The Imperium abandons major campaigns like Armageddon, Baal and Octarius to defend its throneworld. We also see the return of Corax and Russ as they stalk the traitors, leaving their exiles in the Eye. Cypher's storyline is also concluded and leads to the resurrection of Lion.
Ultimately, Abaddon deals the deathblow to the Emperor and frees his soul into the Warp. Cue a massive psychic detonation, obliterating Abaddon alongside half of the palace.

Book 2-
The Eldar and Dark Eldar unite to raise Ynnead, using the Emperor's death alongside Comorragh's Gate of Khaine as plot pieces to dodge the 'mandatory extinction' clause. Ynnead would then go to fight Slaanesh, but loses until the intervention of the Harlequins and the Ultimate Jest. Slaanesh ultimately consumes itself and leaves the Eldar free again, operating as a single united faction.
Jaghatai Khan does a wheelie out of the Webway at some point.

Book 3-
The Necron Dynasties makes their play and Mars defects, abandoning the Imperium. However the ascendance of Chaos leads to a deal being brokered; trading the Void Dragon for Vulkan and a ceasefire. Mars is now acting as the ambassador between humanity and the Necrons. The Necrons then move to contain the Eye by fighting to restore the Cadian Pylons, as well as holding off other Xenos forces.

Book 4-
Attracted by the Emperor's death blast, the main Tyranid fleet arrives. The Orks respond by throwing a TurboWAAAGH! to fight, and similarly the Tau go through a 4th Sphere Expansion and some manifest destiny hook to contain both sides of the conflict. The Octarius War has now expanded to a sector-wide conflict that is a total no-go zone for any other faction. Suddenly, a second psychic event draws the Tyranids towards Ultramar.

Book 5-
The Emperors soul reincarnates by possessing Guilliman and removing him from stasis, and Humanity retreats to Ultramar as the new capital seat. As the Imperium collapses, Imperia Secundus is officially launched. This consists of surviving humans in the utopian Ultramar, under the surviving Guilliman, Lion, Jaghatai, Russ, Vulkan and Corax. They are formally allied with the Tau for mutual protection and to replace the traitor Adeptus Mechanicus, leading to a higher technology level overall. They are loosely allied with the Necrons and Eldar. Against them the forces of Orks, Chaos and Tyranids descend to Ultramar.

Behold, the Age of Ultramar

Mawduce
03-08-2015, 19:39
Copy-pasting a potential storyline from the folks at /tg/:

Book 1-
The 13th Black Crusade is launched and shatters Cadia. Chaos spills from the eye, led by the returned Daemon Primarchs, and comes to lay siege to Terra. The Imperium abandons major campaigns like Armageddon, Baal and Octarius to defend its throneworld. We also see the return of Corax and Russ as they stalk the traitors, leaving their exiles in the Eye. Cypher's storyline is also concluded and leads to the resurrection of Lion.
Ultimately, Abaddon deals the deathblow to the Emperor and frees his soul into the Warp. Cue a massive psychic detonation, obliterating Abaddon alongside half of the palace.

Book 2-
The Eldar and Dark Eldar unite to raise Ynnead, using the Emperor's death alongside Comorragh's Gate of Khaine as plot pieces to dodge the 'mandatory extinction' clause. Ynnead would then go to fight Slaanesh, but loses until the intervention of the Harlequins and the Ultimate Jest. Slaanesh ultimately consumes itself and leaves the Eldar free again, operating as a single united faction.
Jaghatai Khan does a wheelie out of the Webway at some point.

Book 3-
The Necron Dynasties makes their play and Mars defects, abandoning the Imperium. However the ascendance of Chaos leads to a deal being brokered; trading the Void Dragon for Vulkan and a ceasefire. Mars is now acting as the ambassador between humanity and the Necrons. The Necrons then move to contain the Eye by fighting to restore the Cadian Pylons, as well as holding off other Xenos forces.

Book 4-
Attracted by the Emperor's death blast, the main Tyranid fleet arrives. The Orks respond by throwing a TurboWAAAGH! to fight, and similarly the Tau go through a 4th Sphere Expansion and some manifest destiny hook to contain both sides of the conflict. The Octarius War has now expanded to a sector-wide conflict that is a total no-go zone for any other faction. Suddenly, a second psychic event draws the Tyranids towards Ultramar.

Book 5-
The Emperors soul reincarnates by possessing Guilliman and removing him from stasis, and Humanity retreats to Ultramar as the new capital seat. As the Imperium collapses, Imperia Secundus is officially launched. This consists of surviving humans in the utopian Ultramar, under the surviving Guilliman, Lion, Jaghatai, Russ, Vulkan and Corax. They are formally allied with the Tau for mutual protection and to replace the traitor Adeptus Mechanicus, leading to a higher technology level overall. They are loosely allied with the Necrons and Eldar. Against them the forces of Orks, Chaos and Tyranids descend to Ultramar.

Behold, the Age of Ultramar

LOL I see what they did there. I can see GW doing something along these lines though. They have a hard on for Ultra Marines, and considering AoS fluff being so convoluted, this makes total sense from a GW perspective.

Scribe of Khorne
03-08-2015, 19:52
I think we would get along well in some 40k games, I do the same thing. I always wanted baneblades, ( loving huge tanks over huge walker types ) I have 4 of them just for apoc, so I can deploy, get destroyed quickly ( and they do die so very quickly ) and then be done with caring. It feels good and I've since liked apoc so much more then hour long deployments and similar movement phases with tons of models. Even with that however, Apoc feels more like a practice in how much you can handle while staying patient before you find out who won, when by then you don't even really care anyways. I imagine that is how it felt towards the end of WW1, wishing for peace just so you can go home.

All of this is truth. I eventually just go find food or some other room and tell people to yell (louder) when they need me. By turn 3 we are all just speed rolling everyone's saves to get the pain over with!

Ranzimus
04-08-2015, 19:58
The GW Rep to whom I spoke referred to players who insist on point costs, as competitive and doooschey. We were discussing Age of Sigmarines, but he did not limit his declaration to that game. Every edition has been "streamlined" (Dumbed down) and Age of Sigmarines is what it leads to. The only way to take it a step more is to make WFB into a cooperative board game. 40K is next.

Disposable Hero
04-08-2015, 20:16
That would be crappy.

I quit buying from GW a long time ago and I sure will not be investing in their stuff with this looming on the horizon.

Mawduce
04-08-2015, 21:00
The GW Rep to whom I spoke referred to players who insist on point costs, as competitive and doooschey. We were discussing Age of Sigmarines, but he did not limit his declaration to that game. Every edition has been "streamlined" (Dumbed down) and Age of Sigmarines is what it leads to. The only way to take it a step more is to make WFB into a cooperative board game. 40K is next.

So, I'm a douche because i want to have a fun pick up game where an arbitrator tells us what is equal strength so we both have an equal chance to win or lose in a GAME? I don't go to tournaments and I build fluff armies... but I'm a douche.

Ebon
05-08-2015, 01:17
There's still plenty of interest in 40k and people are playing it, why go for a huge revamp?

Be3cause they can. GW are 100% arrogant enough to assume AoS would bring them millions and absoutely pig-headed enough to refuse to change direction when/if it didn't. On any given decision, GW will, without fail, make the very worst possible decision it can make, every single time.

Buddy Bear
05-08-2015, 02:35
I wonder what would the stats be for an Age of Sigmar style Space Marine?

SPACE MARINE TACTICAL SQUAD

Move: 5" / Wounds: 2 / Save: 4+ / Bravery: 7

Missile Weapons

Bolter
Range: 20" / Attacks: 1 / To Hit: 3+ / To Wound: 4+ / Rend: -1 / Damage: 1

Flamer
Range: 12" / Attacks: 6 / To Hit: 2+ / To Wound: 5+ / Rend: - / Damage: 1

Plasma Gun
Range: 20" / Attacks: 1 / To Hit: 3+ / To Wound: 3+ / Rend: -2 / Damage: d3

Meltagun
Range: 8" / Attacks: 1 / To Hit: 3+ / To Wound: 2+ / Rend: -2 / Damage: d6

Melee Weapons

Bolt Pistol
Range: 3" / Attacks: 1 / To Hit: 3+ / To Wound: 4+ / Rend: -1 / Damage: 1

ABILITIES

Rapid Fire: If a Tactical Squad does not move in the movement phase, then you can add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of any Bolters the unit uses in the same turn.

Greavous
05-08-2015, 12:00
ive only recenetly (few months ago) started playing again, not played since 4th and even then only knew enough rules to move and shoot, im currently playing 40k 7th ed and have played some AoS so from 'new players' perspective (what AoS is aimed at) i think a few changes are needed for both.

AoS - streamlined rules or atleast tried to, yes movement, shooting, rolls, etc are easier but there is so much 'extra text' such as "if he rolls a 6 its an auto wound" or "one person is a standard bearer" but every unit has atleast 3 of these rules many have more so its not been steamlined at all, i spent 80% of the game turning pages to find that unit and reading through to see if he needed/got anything.
atleast in 40k i can know hes infantry he moves 6" in AoS you gotta find THAT guys stats.

40k - far too many rules that are either redundant or the same as another, all 40k needs is consolidating and removing a good chunk of the special rules which would be simple or even make a whole new rule and remove the 2 old ones. most units in the game use the same rules only special ones use other rules or a specific upgrade that grants them and even then its usually just the same as another rule. also id like to see the army building changed slightly to be 1hq, 2 troop min (as is) but then say only 1 heavy support unless you add another troop unit to get 2 so you dont end up with 1hq 2 troops hiding in transports then 3 big tanks plus LOW and fast attack planes, etc.

with regards to the future of 40k my local club does not play AoS atleast 12 people there are still using the 8th ed fantasy and say they will never use AoS unless it ramps up alot more rules, a new guy joined last week and they told him to go buy a codex off ebay or anywhere that still has them, so if they did do a AoS to 40k it would only make a difference ot the 'hard core' clubs and not the majority.
also with AoS no points is just stupid where is any balance at all its just who can buy the most models if that happens to 40k how about i buy 20 baneblades and just field them? the game will devolve into "im not playing that guy he just fields OP models" and he will never get a game so he will be 'forced' to limit himself to even play.

there has also been an explosion of Gorka morka and the other one (mormunda or whatever) so the old games dont die they just dont get updated.

Spiney Norman
05-08-2015, 17:47
Be3cause they can. GW are 100% arrogant enough to assume AoS would bring them millions and absoutely pig-headed enough to refuse to change direction when/if it didn't. On any given decision, GW will, without fail, make the very worst possible decision it can make, every single time.

I suspect what might happen with AoS is it won't succeed as well as GW are hoping and it won't tank as badly as the vets are hoping, with any luck it'll do well enough to warrant a new edition in a few years where they start introducing stuff like army construction limitations and/or points values when they finally tumble to the realisation that consistently unbalanced games can be tiresome.

For my part I already dislike the power-gaming culture that has developed throughout the course of 6th and 7th ed 40k as the rules got easier and easier to abuse. If AoS style rules are coming I'm not sure it's the worst thing that could happen, since from my perspective 40k is already in a pretty terrible place.

All it means is I'll have a few years out while they get the game to a playable state again.

AngryAngel
05-08-2015, 18:22
All of this is truth. I eventually just go find food or some other room and tell people to yell (louder) when they need me. By turn 3 we are all just speed rolling everyone's saves to get the pain over with!

I know that feeling, which is why turning 40k into apoc lite left such a sour taste in my mouth. I can't stress enough how important ample food is for an apoc game. You need to either set up a cook out or everyone bring something, so you can concentrate on that from time to time. Its alot easier to deal with all the over the top madness that is apoc when you are either enjoying some good food, or are already full of such food.

Though I do find it odd that we can have such similar feelings towards apoc, this game that is supposed to be massive fun. Though I know for me, when apoc first dropped, the first few games I played that were about 3000 pts, were really fun, the huge ones lately, not so much.



So, I'm a douche because i want to have a fun pick up game where an arbitrator tells us what is equal strength so we both have an equal chance to win or lose in a GAME? I don't go to tournaments and I build fluff armies... but I'm a douche.

There is a certain level of bias in warhammer in general, where competitive is considered a dirty word. Now, I don't like the inherent fight between casual and competitive, you see it alot in video games as well, we should all be able to co exist, but saying one is wrong fun and the other good fun, is just and simply, stupid. GW is living in the age of stupid however..though they call it Sigmar, and I think they made it their poster child release as this is what they wish all warhammer both AgeOfStupid and 40k to be. Where competitive might as well be WAAC and is a problem mindset. The issue then lays in that, within the game, there is a winner and loser, now if they made the core rules say, no matter what happens in game, both players win, or both players lose, ( as there is only war !!! ) then they can finally be free of any competitive drive.

Spiney Norman
05-08-2015, 18:51
There is a certain level of bias in warhammer in general, where competitive is considered a dirty word. Now, I don't like the inherent fight between casual and competitive, you see it alot in video games as well, we should all be able to co exist, but saying one is wrong fun and the other good fun, is just and simply, stupid. GW is living in the age of stupid however..though they call it Sigmar, and I think they made it their poster child release as this is what they wish all warhammer both AgeOfStupid and 40k to be. Where competitive might as well be WAAC and is a problem mindset. The issue then lays in that, within the game, there is a winner and loser, now if they made the core rules say, no matter what happens in game, both players win, or both players lose, ( as there is only war !!! ) then they can finally be free of any competitive drive.

And this is why I'm pursuing a khornate chaos force for AoS, Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows.

EagleWarrior
05-08-2015, 19:41
If AoS does well, I can really see them considering this. At least they're unlikely to scrap the universe though, they have too much stake in the 40k setting. That said, that's what I thought of the WFB setting too.

AngryAngel
05-08-2015, 19:51
And this is why I'm pursuing a khornate chaos force for AoS, Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows.

Thats why I like Nurgle, doesn't matter who wins, someone is getting an awful disease. I care not who or why, so Khorne can come and get some of my blood, they won't like whats in it..and thats not my skull...hehehe

Scribe of Khorne
06-08-2015, 00:23
I know that feeling, which is why turning 40k into apoc lite left such a sour taste in my mouth. I can't stress enough how important ample food is for an apoc game. You need to either set up a cook out or everyone bring something, so you can concentrate on that from time to time. Its alot easier to deal with all the over the top madness that is apoc when you are either enjoying some good food, or are already full of such food.

Though I do find it odd that we can have such similar feelings towards apoc, this game that is supposed to be massive fun. Though I know for me, when apoc first dropped, the first few games I played that were about 3000 pts, were really fun, the huge ones lately, not so much.


There is a certain level of bias in warhammer in general, where competitive is considered a dirty word. Now, I don't like the inherent fight between casual and competitive, you see it alot in video games as well, we should all be able to co exist, but saying one is wrong fun and the other good fun, is just and simply, stupid. GW is living in the age of stupid however..though they call it Sigmar, and I think they made it their poster child release as this is what they wish all warhammer both AgeOfStupid and 40k to be. Where competitive might as well be WAAC and is a problem mindset. The issue then lays in that, within the game, there is a winner and loser, now if they made the core rules say, no matter what happens in game, both players win, or both players lose, ( as there is only war !!! ) then they can finally be free of any competitive drive.

I think we may have been separated at birth...

It made me think though, and I dug out old WD's. One has an Apoc battle. Its TINY, may as well be a 2500 point game these days. I think Apoc as a 'style' is just not needed anymore, so its gone from a way to use those huge models that dont fit, to...'lets have a massive as **** game! YEAH!!'

I dont know, I think we are about to enter some really dark days.

AngryAngel
06-08-2015, 02:59
I think we may have been separated at birth...

It made me think though, and I dug out old WD's. One has an Apoc battle. Its TINY, may as well be a 2500 point game these days. I think Apoc as a 'style' is just not needed anymore, so its gone from a way to use those huge models that dont fit, to...'lets have a massive as **** game! YEAH!!'

I dont know, I think we are about to enter some really dark days.

My brother !!..yeah I have that feeling as well, though only time will tell, I'm sure we'll voice our lament together, when that times arrives.

Scribe of Khorne
06-08-2015, 03:20
Loudly, with repetition. :D

Commissar Merces
06-08-2015, 03:35
Just popping into to this thread to say after 15 years of hobbying, I am down to my last few precious models after my massive fire sale. The truth of the matter is, I have a better job than I ever have had. I have more disposable income than I have ever had. I don't have kids holding me down or a wife. So why am I quitting this hobby? Sometimes in a relationship, you have to sever the ties because its not about you, its about the other person. GW has done nothing in the past six years to win over my business and I final woke up to it. When I bought models, I felt dirty. When I played a game at a local tournament and ran into the third farsight bomb in five games I felt dirty. When my army ran over the local play for fun boys, I felt dirty.

Then I realized... it isn't about me or how I feel, it's about how GW is running their business and how they are running their games into the ground. The first time I really noticed it were when formations came out. It became more about buying x amounts of units to get free rules benefits. That isn't strategy. That's a shopping cart list.

The next is when new detachments starting coming out. Then larger detachments with free upgrades for everything if you buy ex amount of units. Then came the absolutely devastating eldar codex. Then game the Skyhammer. Then AoS dropped and everything became clear. 40K is going to become like AoS and is no longer a game for adults.

I'm telling you now guys, it's over. Anyone who has any business background can take one look at their financial reports over the last three years and tell you GW has started the death spiral. I'm not going to tell you to quit or sell everything like I have done, but I will tell you that anything you aren't using or are unlikely to use, you should really consider moving while you can.

Commissar Merces, signing out.

Scribe of Khorne
06-08-2015, 04:01
I think you'll find a lot of folks are of the same mind Commissar. AoS was the wake up call for a lot of people, I havent bought anything since, and have frozen any further plans until the next set of rules comes for 40K to prove if I'll have a game to play after that point, or if I've already got it (7th, Kill Team, HH) and there will be nothing new.

I sold the Ad Mech I had planned to build out (and it saddens me as I love the whole range really), I've sold a ton of my Chaos (I've kept Daemonkin as I had a lot of it already or was able to trade for what I wanted) and then my HH Word Bearers sit and wait.

My current and last project is the Blood Angel reload that I had in boxes, waiting its turn to come back. Its a fitting end, as the Angels where my first army, along with Chaos, in '99. Daemonkin where just painted up for Bolter and Chainswords ETL event, and it comes now to the Angels, as I wait to see if GW really takes a torch to the setting that has kept them alive for the last 20 years.

Watching it all burn and offering commentary the whole while.

My body is ready.

Losing Command
06-08-2015, 08:52
AoS indeed seems to have been the final straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of people. One week after the AoS release, the number of 40k games played on the most bussy evening in the LGS dropped to zero. Before that there were always at least 2 games of 40k going on, more often between 3 and 6. And that is not because they all went to AoS. There were 2 games played on the release day, and after that it has never showed up again.

I started writing an alternative Main Rulebook compatible with the current codexes, and hope that will get people to use their 40k minatures again (if it is succesfull enough I'm also goin to adjust every codex) There didn't seem to be any alternative rulesystem useable for 40k, so why not write one yourself I guess.
I really like the fluff and a lot of the models of 40k, and so far haven't found another wargame of which the models/background interest me, so I hope this works, otherwise this will be the 2nd wargame hobby reduced to only painting models for me(R.I.P. warhammer Lotr)

daveNYC
06-08-2015, 15:27
While I hope that GW does not give 40k the AoS treatment, I find it all to easy to believe that GW really does believe that 'points' are somehow the only think stopping some vast horde of consumers from buying every model ever made by them. I can only hope that they actually do pay attention to how AoS performs and adjust their plans accordingly, as I do not think AoS is going to be a rousing success, I don't think it will tank utterly, but I don't see it triggering some miraculous resurgence in sales in the quasi-fantasy line.

My other hope is that they hold off on any changes until after the Forgeworld HH book for Prospero comes out. I don't want any of their weirdness tainting the 1k Sons.

If GW really is thinking of pulling an End Times rolling into an AoS 'resetting' of the fluff, then I'd almost say someone should throw out a shareholder lawsuit. The 40k IP is the most valuable thing that GW has, and mucking it up would be utterly horrible.

AngryAngel
07-08-2015, 09:10
Loudly, with repetition. :D

Of course, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm ready if right.

Grand Master Raziel
07-08-2015, 15:00
AoS indeed seems to have been the final straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of people. One week after the AoS release, the number of 40k games played on the most bussy evening in the LGS dropped to zero. Before that there were always at least 2 games of 40k going on, more often between 3 and 6. And that is not because they all went to AoS. There were 2 games played on the release day, and after that it has never showed up again.

Something I'd like to point out: If you live in the northern hemisphere, it's currently summertime. People do other stuff in the summer. This may have some bearing on the absence of games at your LGS.


That said, I've stopped expecting GW to change course, and I'm currently looking ahead to the point where they go under and have to sell their IP to another party. The IP has value, and gaming company clear on their role as a gaming company should be able to put together balanced versions of WHFB and 40K. Until that happens, we'll have whatever the most recent version of the rules are to tide us over. At this point, I actually wish it'd happen sooner rather than later.

InstantKarma
07-08-2015, 15:25
It made me think though, and I dug out old WD's. One has an Apoc battle. Its TINY, may as well be a 2500 point game these days. I think Apoc as a 'style' is just not needed anymore, so its gone from a way to use those huge models that dont fit, to...'lets have a massive as **** game! YEAH!!'

I dont know, I think we are about to enter some really dark days.

I was chatting with a friend about this last night. I am dreading the Tau update that is due in October, mostly because 'formations'. My first 7th ED codex was the DAs and while I was happy with the moderate improvement, it became clear to me after a few read throughs that I simply cannot afford to make the DA army I would want due to cost. Formations have ruined the game, more than allies ever did because they remove any diversity in army building, they are completely based around selling models, and they are pretty much the exclusively competitive option. The games seem scaled to be so big that a 6th Ed game of 1750 seems like the kiddy table.

I feel stupid after the last 3 years of trying to get in WHFB, buying armybooks only to discover again and again that in order to have a playable army I'd need to invest maybe close to $1000 to have a competitive and playable army. I feel dumber for buying the new DA codex, and getting horrified going over what felt like a cheap knock off of the 6th ED codex (all the computer generated art work looks so cheap), and finally a sense of relief when the LGS owner let me know they do trade ins. I'm just wondering now if I wait and see if the stuff is worth more a year from now as collectors items, or get out now while I can.

jet_palero
08-08-2015, 12:01
Something I'd like to point out: If you live in the northern hemisphere, it's currently summertime. People do other stuff in the summer. This may have some bearing on the absence of games at your LGS.


That said, I've stopped expecting GW to change course, and I'm currently looking ahead to the point where they go under and have to sell their IP to another party. The IP has value, and gaming company clear on their role as a gaming company should be able to put together balanced versions of WHFB and 40K. Until that happens, we'll have whatever the most recent version of the rules are to tide us over. At this point, I actually wish it'd happen sooner rather than later.

Yeah the LGS back where I used to live didn't have AC either. Summer was not a time to be in there.

Losing Command
08-08-2015, 13:45
Something I'd like to point out: If you live in the northern hemisphere, it's currently summertime. People do other stuff in the summer. This may have some bearing on the absence of games at your LGS.

That might have some influence. Most of the people still show up, they're just playing different games now. Might be because they require less models to carry around when it's warm. That's why my GK are on active duty once more : more easy to make a infantery-only armylist that fits in a single bag :D

megatrons2nd
09-08-2015, 13:42
I have only read the AoS rules, but the overall rules seem fine, yes there are holes, but overall they are fine. The problems are the unit rules, and the lack of model caps on some of them. Really, meet the eyes of your opponent, or get them to dance and you get a bonus on a dice roll? No terrain rules, unless you buy a terrain model from GW's limited, and ugly, supply. If every warscroll/dataslate thing was balanced, then just saying no more than 9 warscrolls would be a great force balancer, but they are not. A unified ruleset between fantasy and 40K would streamline their rules writing time, much like the Warmachine Hordes thing, but they would need to do it with some thought, not just slamming it out like it appears to be going right now. Maybe when 40K hits it's end times, they will have a better handle on the problems of the system, and tighten the rules for both at the same time.


I guess what I am saying is that AoS is a public Beta test of the upcoming Warhammer universal rules system.

Captain Idaho
09-08-2015, 14:12
Just popping into to this thread to say after 15 years of hobbying, I am down to my last few precious models after my massive fire sale. The truth of the matter is, I have a better job than I ever have had. I have more disposable income than I have ever had. I don't have kids holding me down or a wife. So why am I quitting this hobby? Sometimes in a relationship, you have to sever the ties because its not about you, its about the other person. GW has done nothing in the past six years to win over my business and I final woke up to it. When I bought models, I felt dirty. When I played a game at a local tournament and ran into the third farsight bomb in five games I felt dirty. When my army ran over the local play for fun boys, I felt dirty.

Then I realized... it isn't about me or how I feel, it's about how GW is running their business and how they are running their games into the ground. The first time I really noticed it were when formations came out. It became more about buying x amounts of units to get free rules benefits. That isn't strategy. That's a shopping cart list.

The next is when new detachments starting coming out. Then larger detachments with free upgrades for everything if you buy ex amount of units. Then came the absolutely devastating eldar codex. Then game the Skyhammer. Then AoS dropped and everything became clear. 40K is going to become like AoS and is no longer a game for adults.

I'm telling you now guys, it's over. Anyone who has any business background can take one look at their financial reports over the last three years and tell you GW has started the death spiral. I'm not going to tell you to quit or sell everything like I have done, but I will tell you that anything you aren't using or are unlikely to use, you should really consider moving while you can.

Commissar Merces, signing out.


Very well put. 40K has run out of steam for me. I don't trust GW and I am at a stage where I actually think they'd rather look down and charge forward with their agenda even if it fails, so perhaps we should hope for failure and they get bought out by a competent company.

I haven't touched my 40K models for over a year.

Mack
09-08-2015, 14:38
I kind of hope GW steps in it like they did with WFB and AoS. I am probably not the norm, but I only play with my small group and we have all decided that if 40k gets the AoS treatment, we will just stick with our most recent edition and retire from keeping up with GW and their erratic behavior. My wallet will appreciate it as I wont have to buy a new codex or rules edition every 18-24 months and I can actually just enjoy the armies I have.

I have been in this hobby for too long to care about trying to keep up with GW anymore. Maybe they are going the route they are going because they are trying to bring in new customers, but I suspect disenfranchising their base of current customers is hurting more than helping.

Whether this is internet panic or not, the fact a lengthy conversation is happening is not good for the hobby and clearly speaks to many on fears based on GW has handled the hobby in the last few years.

Asura Varuna
09-08-2015, 14:59
List building, math-hammering, thinking of combinations and counters etc is a massive part of the hobby for me. I don't always get the time to get down to the store/club and play some games, but it's a fun way to stay involved with the game in general. AoS seems simply to rip any and all of that sort of aspect from WHFB. I get that it might suit some players, but I like the statistics-based, analytical elements that the current game engenders. I would see their removal as an outright gutting of the game and the franchise as a whole.

That having been said, narrative driven scenarios are around and have been for some time through forgeworld publications, the big issue with them though is that you need a massive stock of models to be able to play multiple narrative scenarios. Having played a few from the original Taros Campaign (Tau vs SM, and Tau VS IG), they can definitely be enjoyable. What I don't understand is why published narrative scenarios have to be mutually exclusive with a well-kept, balanced and "competitively viable" ruleset.

R.D.
09-08-2015, 17:19
If GW goes completely mad or 40k falls or whatever, I'll probably still keep my models and keep buying ones from eBay since I like painting and modelling and making them all sexy for my display.

I do agree that the AoS rules work, if they are a bit simple--which is not a bad thing if you want a quick faster paced game--but the lack of restrictions are the big crippling factor.

Eldarsif
10-08-2015, 00:01
A lot of doom and gloom here.

However, after looking at some of the list at ETC 2015 I must admit that I am affected by the doom and gloom(someone played an Inquisitor army that consisted of 9 Servo skulls. Rest was Necron "allies"). So much weirdness with lists going and endless single unit MSU spams that I just can't imagine the game ever being universally fun. That is, being able to have fun with random strangers. Currently I enjoy the game with a select few friends and occasional random, but at the same time the cost and the aversion to balance that GW has is wearing me down slowly.

I will keep onto my armies, and I will keep painting, but at the same time I am putting 40k buying on a hold except for occasional codexes. Just going to work on my backlog, enjoy what I can with my friends, and hope there is a future in the hobby.

The_Real_Chris
10-08-2015, 02:24
If all the necrons had servo skulls hard wired into them floating along behind that would have been an entertaining theme...


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Karhedron
10-08-2015, 13:22
I have been in this hobby for too long to care about trying to keep up with GW anymore. Maybe they are going the route they are going because they are trying to bring in new customers, but I suspect disenfranchising their base of current customers is hurting more than helping.

Sadly I suspect not. GW has never valued veterans because we don't spend enough money. We buy the odd bit here and there to keep our armies up to date but that is it. So far this year I have bought the new Eldar codex and a Crimson Hunter (although technically that was a birthday present). GW want newbies who will buy whole new armies before they discover wine/women/song and need to start shaving.

EagleWarrior
10-08-2015, 13:45
If GW goes completely mad or 40k falls or whatever, I'll probably still keep my models and keep buying ones from eBay since I like painting and modelling and making them all sexy for my display.

Likewise, plus alternatives from other companies and re-casts. This is what I do with specialist games already.

sunborn
11-08-2015, 00:29
I am not a fluff bunny and actually like to math hammer. However, the allies other than battle-brothers just makes me upset.

Seriously I would love to buy into AoS, I love the Sylvanus look, fluff, and mechanics. However, there is no math hammer in AoS, which I like more than actually playing the game with someone. Math hammer and list building is like 70% of what I like about 40K.

Losing Command
11-08-2015, 07:00
Seriously I would love to buy into AoS, I love the Sylvanus look, fluff, and mechanics. However, there is no math hammer in AoS, which I like more than actually playing the game with someone. Math hammer and list building is like 70% of what I like about 40K.

But math hammer and listbuilding is wrongfun ! Those things are that ruin games and prevent sales ! You should be ashamed, and report to your local GW store for repentance and re-indoctination immediately ;)

gwarsh41
11-08-2015, 20:59
But math hammer and listbuilding is wrongfun ! Those things are that ruin games and prevent sales ! You should be ashamed, and report to your local GW store for repentance and re-indoctination immediately ;)

Where would we be without the rules lawyers who debate the meaning of "will" within the context of a specific rule?

Inquisitor Kallus
12-08-2015, 03:03
Sadly I suspect not. GW has never valued veterans because we don't spend enough money. We buy the odd bit here and there to keep our armies up to date but that is it. So far this year I have bought the new Eldar codex and a Crimson Hunter (although technically that was a birthday present). GW want newbies who will buy whole new armies before they discover wine/women/song and need to start shaving.

I find it ludicrous when people bring up the under appreciated veteran thing...

The Horus Heresy series
Forge World
Apocalypse
Updated kits replacing older poorer designs


New releases are intended to help retain older gamers, because, to a newcomer, every kit is new. There's also the new rules, theyre there to stop stagnation, to someone new it doesnt matter as much if the rules have just come out, or been out 2 years (unless of course theyre just about to go out of season as such..).

I understand that a lot feel under appreciated because of things like price, certain updates and so on. So, its not as if theyve never valued veterans, thats a load of crap. Theres quite a victim mentality in that case. GW wont let me use other companies models in stores. GW wont let me use the store paints for free anymore, GW wont let me sit around in the store all day, GW dont tell me everything theyre doing for the next few months in advance.

I agree though on bad decisions including some behaviours towards independents,.limited ed stuf, pricing, and other things. GW focus on trying to get new people, because they need to, they still do things for vets, it just seems that they dont to a lot of people, and they just keep wanting more, never happy and always complaining that 'their' army hasnt had an update or anything new for however long. GW have a large number of ranges and models, it takes time

Lath-rael
12-08-2015, 07:27
That's why they took the names off the AoS copyright. It only says GW on it now, no authors names. Sneaky

Nay, i think the author hid his name to keep his reputation, it looks like no one wants to be the father of that abortion called AoS.

Charistoph
12-08-2015, 07:48
I find it ludicrous when people bring up the under appreciated veteran thing...

Well, for a time, this was actually a directive to the brick stores. I know this from people who actually worked in them.


The Horus Heresy series
Forge World

Redundant. And these have always catered to the advanced, niche collector/player.


Apocalypse

Largely meaningless with 7th Edition, save for specific Formations and Forgeworld units.


Updated kits replacing older poorer designs

This is no guarantee for veteran collectors. Old kits, especially metal ones, are often preferred in many cases, for their rarity, if nothing else.

Updated kits are only guaranteed attractive to veterans when they include new options that were previously unavailable. Look at the Blood Angel Tactical Kit with Heavy Flamer, or the Devastator Kit with Grav Cannon as examples. If Assault Squads didn't have options for Eviserators, then they would be no reason for a veteran player to buy it. But this goes in to the next point than just a reduex of old models.


New releases are intended to help retain older gamers, because, to a newcomer, every kit is new. There's also the new rules, theyre there to stop stagnation, to someone new it doesnt matter as much if the rules have just come out, or been out 2 years (unless of course theyre just about to go out of season as such..).

Brand new kits will attract veteran players, especially when the kits are more powerful than any previous kit. But then this goes in to a "pay to win" concept which can do much to drive veterans away, too.

nonnopj
12-08-2015, 07:52
the whole age of sigmar is thought to drive us veterans off.
they clearly stated it to independent stores.

Inviato dal mio GT-I8200 utilizzando Tapatalk

Crimson Reaver
12-08-2015, 11:39
I find it ludicrous when people bring up the under appreciated veteran thing...

The Horus Heresy series
Forge World
Apocalypse
Updated kits replacing older poorer designs


New releases are intended to help retain older gamers, because, to a newcomer, every kit is new. There's also the new rules, theyre there to stop stagnation, to someone new it doesnt matter as much if the rules have just come out, or been out 2 years (unless of course theyre just about to go out of season as such..).

I understand that a lot feel under appreciated because of things like price, certain updates and so on. So, its not as if theyve never valued veterans, thats a load of crap. Theres quite a victim mentality in that case. GW wont let me use other companies models in stores. GW wont let me use the store paints for free anymore, GW wont let me sit around in the store all day, GW dont tell me everything theyre doing for the next few months in advance.

I agree though on bad decisions including some behaviours towards independents,.limited ed stuf, pricing, and other things. GW focus on trying to get new people, because they need to, they still do things for vets, it just seems that they dont to a lot of people, and they just keep wanting more, never happy and always complaining that 'their' army hasnt had an update or anything new for however long. GW have a large number of ranges and models, it takes time

I don't think much of that is actually stuff that veterans are complaining about. If I could give you a list of grumbles that I currently have as a 20+ year 40K player (your call as to whether that makes me a veteran player or not) then they'd probably go something like this:

1) A clear move from a semi-balanced, points-based system to more arbitrary and abusable methods of army construction/composition. AoS obviously having no points and 40K increasingly seeing free models or massive benefits conferred for taking certain army selections.

2) An inconsistent approach to releasing replacement models, armies, Codexes etc. We know Space Marines get a Codex every edition of the game, but Dark Eldar got 2 books in 15 years approx and GW would rather release brand new armies than update existing forces. Yes, the Sisters, I'm not going to shut up about it until we get something that actually demonstrates time and effort rather than reheated leftovers.

3) No information, at all. Every single other model/games company seems to be able to communicate with customers at least a little way in advance as to what they are doing. GW used to, now they don't. If it originally came in with the LotR contract, that is over, a done deal with no spoilers to reveal now, but I doubt we'll see a shift back to a more open approach. JJ Abrams does this with his "Mystery Box" approach to cinema, and it is annoying there as well. This is the internet age, you have to generate hype in advance.

4) Messy, clunky game design. 40K is a horrible hodge-podge of rules from nearly 30 years across 7 editions. If you look at how RPGs have evolved in the same time, or how other games have tried using different mechanics to improve immersion in play, 40K falls badly short. LotR seemed to be a promising step in the right direction which they've totally discounted. They've always had cases where Unit A can't do anything to Unit B, but now with Titans, flyers and the like the prospect of un-fun mismatches increases rapidly. I've been playing a lot of Infinity recently, and the TAGs (Dreadnought equivalent) should be the best unit in a Necromunda-style of game. However, any basic weapon can hurt a TAG, you can EMP them, hack them, slice them to bits with mono-filament blades etc. There's no (or very little) "instant win" or "pay to win" issues.

5) Price is an issue, but when GW do this through Finecast, or re-packs that almost double the cost of the models, it is particularly obnoxious. No-one else does this.

6) Lack of communication. When GW actually tried to contact fans (I remember Eddie from the Black Library a couple of years ago) they were actually pretty successful and it was cool. Now they don't communicate, they don't FAQ etc, this brings me onto;

7) Random changes that screw people over. The whole AoS fiasco shows that GW doesn't care about veterans, more than anything else I've ever seen them do. Yes, Fantasy was in trouble, but that happened on GW's watch because of their own failings. Instead of doing what Wizards of the Coast did and actually test the new edition of their flagship product, or how Paizo became the number 2 in the market by doing the same thing, GW operate in a bubble, un-befitting a supposed market leader. If you market and sell a well-regarded massed rank and file wargame, going to a skirmish ruleset with a complete change to the background and the eventual removal of models is essentially hitting your oldest customers the hardest due to sunk cost, with no tangible benefit going forward.

8) Why does GW no longer see the need to support any of their older games? I can't play 40K much currently, I don't have the time. I loved Necromunda because it allowed me to play a small-scale 40K-style game in a lot less time. However I've basically played out all the permutations of the officially released stuff they put out. I would happily pay GW money for more Necromunda, instead I'm now bored of it because they've done nothing new for 20 years and I'm playing Infinity instead, which is a similar game but is well supported with new models all the time and a steady flow of new content.

Now Forgeworld seem to have a bit more operational freedom and to do things a bit differently. However all of their stuff is horribly pricey and quite specialised. There's a difference between catering to collectors and fans of a particular part of the background, like with the Horus Heresy series, and catering to people who are simply long-time fans of GW and 40K/WHFB. I just want to have fun games of 40K in a reasonable timeframe where my opponent and I can pick an army from the Codex (and supplements if any) with a decent chance that we'll have a balanced matchup.

And that's the thing, most of these problems are issues cause by GW, or are things that GW stopped doing, or that other companies seem to manage just fine. Being an older gamer, now finding out how much choice there is out there, has made me realise that when I was a kid, GW were by no means perfect but were the only game in town. Now they aren't and they haven't upped their game when people's dissatisfaction with them has started to overcome the inertia of switching to something else.

Until recently, GW was the only company I brought from, they do awesome models and the games were fun. All my friends played the same stuff and we had a blast. I've sunk thousands into this part of the hobby. GW don't owe me anything, of course they don't, but they have pretty much lost me as an ongoing customer and they stand to lose me as a future customer down the line if they continue with AoSifying 40K. The more people they do this to, the worse their chances of long-term survival are, but I'm not going to waste my money trying to prop up a company that doesn't seem to want my business.