RedSarge wrote:Lurker here. So we get two years out of each Edition with modern GW? Then, buy the rulebook, codices and supplements all over again?
I'm seeing stacks of hardback books on the used market for like $5...
Vermis wrote:
Well, for once GW's planned obsolescence is working in my favour. The fluff in old codexes comes with considerably less plastic cement and acrylic paint clogging up all the details.
Dysartes wrote: On the one hand... good? You presumably signed an NDA to become a playtester or get other early access material, so stick to the NDA.
Nah, people should break GW's NDA as often as possible. As long as playtesters are permitted to continue participating in competitive play all of GW's playtest material needs to be public.
Encouraging people to violate a legally-binding document is NOT a good look.
Dysartes wrote: On the one hand... good? You presumably signed an NDA to become a playtester or get other early access material, so stick to the NDA.
Nah, people should break GW's NDA as often as possible. As long as playtesters are permitted to continue participating in competitive play all of GW's playtest material needs to be public.
Encouraging people to violate a legally-binding document is NOT a good look.
I think the club fisted, barely communicated point under that is that if the playtesters are comp players (they are), they shouldn't be in a position to withhold information that gives them and unfair advantage in the competitive realm.
JWBS wrote: I, a non-player, thought the inference there was clear.
Same, I think phrasing it as "rip up NDA's and leak stuff" comes across a little petulant and entitled, but there was a relevant message there other missed.
going with a draft to testers, waiting for them to test the rules, than adjust them and go to the printer is not taking more time than going directly with the draft to the printer?
going with a draft to testers, waiting for them to test the rules, than adjust them and go to the printer is not taking more time than going directly with the draft to the printer?
wow
By the time books hit us as players, that time has all be made up for. They would need to be behind weeks on every book due to play testers to even mess with the release schedule. As books are probably sitting ready and printing a month or two before release.
going with a draft to testers, waiting for them to test the rules, than adjust them and go to the printer is not taking more time than going directly with the draft to the printer?
wow
By the time books hit us as players, that time has all be made up for. They would need to be behind weeks on every book due to play testers to even mess with the release schedule. As books are probably sitting ready and printing a month or two before release.
Probably longer, depending on worldwide delivery times and stuff. A container to/from china took 60 days on average before the pandemic, and now it's more like 4 months - travel times to e.g. Oceania are similar. Also, publications have significant lead times due to photography, editing, translations and so on, so the point when any changes in content need to be locked down needs to be somewhat earlier, a couple of months before you even start printing, and that is at least a couple of weeks before you accept orders. If you print inhouse or at multiple locations, you can cut the travel time down, but content-lock probably still needs to be months before release.
going with a draft to testers, waiting for them to test the rules, than adjust them and go to the printer is not taking more time than going directly with the draft to the printer?
wow
By the time books hit us as players, that time has all be made up for. They would need to be behind weeks on every book due to play testers to even mess with the release schedule. As books are probably sitting ready and printing a month or two before release.
we are talking about playtesters, those people who get the rules before they want to the printer, not after
so if GW is actually doing playtesting, this should add at least a month or two from the point the rules are done, before they went to the printer
playtesting after they are printed is not playtesting, and if the testing period is shorter than a month, or the testers don't get the full rules, you can skip it anyway as this is not "testing"
printing and worldwide distribution takes ~6 months, so the books are finished half a year before release
but if proper playtesting is done, this needs to happen before, hence a book would need to be finished 8-10 months before release and those 2-4 months is time GW would save
and by what results we get from GW's testing, they can skip it anyway
PS: this also means of rumours tell that armies are being tested now, this means that they are 8 months minimum away from release which is September for the first Codex
Honestly having played a game yesterday without using secondaries and unintentionally ignoring most stratagems and army special rules like doctrines, I can safely say that I felt the game played a lot better and was still very enjoyable without all of that additional bloat. So while it's doubtful it's my hope that they gut All of that superfluous crap and dial the game back to how it was in a simpler time where you didn't have all of that nonsense but the games were still very enjoyable. You don't need a ton of extra rules and options spread around multiple books to make a game fun
On the subject of play testing I question whether or not they're actually doing it in any decent capacity given how the rules are It seems to be more just for show especially since most of their playtesters tend to be the competitive players who don't really care about having a balanced game as long as they can jump to whatever the cheese du jour is.
JWBS wrote: I, a non-player, thought the inference there was clear.
Same, I think phrasing it as "rip up NDA's and leak stuff" comes across a little petulant and entitled, but there was a relevant message there other missed.
There's a more relevant message that should be the one that was made:
GW should make the playtesters be known as playtesters, and encourage events to DQ them from winning or prizes.
JWBS wrote: I, a non-player, thought the inference there was clear.
Same, I think phrasing it as "rip up NDA's and leak stuff" comes across a little petulant and entitled, but there was a relevant message there other missed.
There's a more relevant message that should be the one that was made:
GW should make the playtesters be known as playtesters, and encourage events to DQ them from winning or prizes.
I disagree, naming them opens a multitude of cans of worms that's bad for everyone involved. We know full well there's some real immature donkey-caves in the community that send death threats etc, never mind the fact those people would forever be spammed for leaks or harassed about changes.
JWBS wrote: I, a non-player, thought the inference there was clear.
Same, I think phrasing it as "rip up NDA's and leak stuff" comes across a little petulant and entitled, but there was a relevant message there other missed.
There's a more relevant message that should be the one that was made:
GW should make the playtesters be known as playtesters, and encourage events to DQ them from winning or prizes.
I disagree, naming them opens a multitude of cans of worms that's bad for everyone involved. We know full well there's some real immature donkey-caves in the community that send death threats etc, never mind the fact those people would forever be spammed for leaks or harassed about changes.
Many of the people that were playtesters are already well-known in the community. Tabletop Tactics folks, Liam Dempsey admitted to playtesting Narrative stuff, basically any of the Youtubers that got free stuff to review from GW were likely also playtesters. Others were those big in the community, TOs and such. People with proven track records within the warhammer community.
Did they get things as extreme as death threads and such? I dunno, I feel like if they did we would have heard about it.
Should they be removed from competitive play for having access to rules early? Eh, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Remember that many competitive events don't even allow new material like codexes or tournament packs until the community has had more time to digest the changes and FAQs have had a chance to come out for immediate issues. There's also the fact that playtesters are often playtesting an incomplete copy of the rules, which change by the time of actual release. It's not like they're always playing the 100% straight-to-print rules all the time, so any advantage they'd have from 'knowing the rules ahead of time' is minor since the rules could change between their playtesting and the actual print.
So maybe let's put the pitchforks down. If this was a legitimate issue, it would have been brought up by the competitive circuit a LONG time ago.
How good do you think they can be playing one set of rules at the highest level while playtesting another set of rules? How quickly can they adjust to each new rules release, which adds even more complexity to the rules?
Remember, they are probably play testing 6+ months before release and don't know the final form of the rules until they are published. So they get a tiny leg up on where to look for advantages that may have made it into the final version that was published.
So I don't see the point in banning them from competition or winning prizes. Good players win because they are good and study all the rules, not because they know something in advance of other players.
And ultimately it's about non-competive beer&pretzel game. Whatever. Don't overthink about it and you will be happier.
It's not like what's good is hard to figure out. Elementary school kid sees op army by first reading. Gw would have poor marketing strategy if players wouldn't get the memo what to buy next.
How good do you think they can be playing one set of rules at the highest level while playtesting another set of rules? How quickly can they adjust to each new rules release, which adds even more complexity to the rules?
Remember, they are probably play testing 6+ months before release and don't know the final form of the rules until they are published. So they get a tiny leg up on where to look for advantages that may have made it into the final version that was published.
So I don't see the point in banning them from competition or winning prizes. Good players win because they are good and study all the rules, not because they know something in advance of other players.
You had competitive players leaking the AoO points changes as close as a couple of weeks out. Even 2 weeks in this hobby is a fair volume of time to get a heads up on purchase and painting leads.
The point is no matter how minor, they shouldn't have an unfair leg up at all.
That latest set of rumours seems the "worst" one yet. So the most likely. Sounds a lot closer to what GW would do. Completely separate profiles and junk for gt play? Over reliance on the app? Yeah, I could see that.
Hopefully not though, that kind 9f shakeup wouldn't be well received I think.
Wayniac wrote: That latest set of rumours seems the "worst" one yet. So the most likely. Sounds a lot closer to what GW would do. Completely separate profiles and junk for gt play? Over reliance on the app? Yeah, I could see that
While I get that GW's been "balancing" the game towards GT play, there's ZERO evidence to suggest that they would actually create a separate list of profiles and/or weapon options for it. And at the risk of looking extremely foolish later, I have to think that even GW can't do something that stupid.
Wayniac wrote: That latest set of rumours seems the "worst" one yet. So the most likely. Sounds a lot closer to what GW would do. Completely separate profiles and junk for gt play? Over reliance on the app? Yeah, I could see that
While I get that GW's been "balancing" the game towards GT play, there's ZERO evidence to suggest that they would actually create a separate list of profiles and/or weapon options for it. And at the risk of looking extremely foolish later, I have to think that even GW can't do something that stupid.
On one hand, the rules part of the 'Warhammer hobby' as GW perceives it has always been the aspect they'd care least about, and probably only to the extent that it produced marketable books and supplements or helped to sell miniatures, so maintaining two parallel, and in many aspects concurrent rulesets seems like something they would not do.
On the other, they're now having aspirations at a 'serious' tournament scene, with their 'Grand Narrative' tournaments and the upcoming 'World Championship of Warhammer' and whatnot, so who even knows anymore...
RazorEdge wrote: More focus on Tournament players would kill the game finally...
This personally *was* my fear.
But, giving the tournament players a separate set of rules that the rest of us don't have to buy to play matched play at our local club would be a GODSEND.
the mood these days is that most players, even casual ones, will use 'the most balanced' ruleset available to prevent unnecessary whinging. If that set is regular matched play, without all the overbearing crunch of a tournament ruleset, then I think that would be a big win.
Let the tournament players be forced to buy an extra 50 dollar book to play in their tournaments, on top of entry fees, their meta-chasing army, plane/bus tickets, etc. I find it hilarious.
Tournament rules don't seem to have killed most real world sports, magic the gathering nor chess. In fact many games thrive with a tight competitive rules system that's regularly updated and sticks to a single set of core rules which are steadily modified and polished.
If GW took a more sporting and tournament approach to their rules chances are it would have a net GAIN for everyone.
The only time you get issues are:
1) When the updates come so fast people can't properly keep up without huge paper overhead
2) When the rules aren't built around flat balance but about giving 1 force/focus/theme a bias for X period of time and then randomly shifting it every so often. Ergo the whole "buy a new army to compete" angle - which isn't tournament rules its BAD balance.
3) When the marketing, focus and community have a massive fall off outside of the competitive system - ergo that's basically what happened to Warmachine.
4) When alternative modes of play are not promoted enough, not supported. Again what happened basically with Warmachine
Correctly done and with GW promoting other modes of play and with sensible standards and presentation of the rules and release format it can work and everyone would benefit. Tighter rules that offer more even balance within codex and between codex is a net GAIN for all parties save those who feel they can only win with an overpowered army*.
Better competitive balance and a tighter rules system makes it easier to play matched play; to play open; to play narrative. If you've got tight systems to work with things like narrative and open get even EASIER because now you can mess with things and have more idea how they will unfold.
*which if the case is true is a false feeling because if it is true then everyone at the competitive end will field that same army/theme so you're back on a level playing field anyway
Focus on tournaments in non-competive game just means gw uses rules to direct purchases. Hardly gain. Unless you enjoy spending money fooled by gw's marketing department.
RazorEdge wrote: More focus on Tournament players would kill the game finally...
This personally *was* my fear.
But, giving the tournament players a separate set of rules that the rest of us don't have to buy to play matched play at our local club would be a GODSEND.
the mood these days is that most players, even casual ones, will use 'the most balanced' ruleset available to prevent unnecessary whinging. If that set is regular matched play, without all the overbearing crunch of a tournament ruleset, then I think that would be a big win.
Let the tournament players be forced to buy an extra 50 dollar book to play in their tournaments, on top of entry fees, their meta-chasing army, plane/bus tickets, etc. I find it hilarious.
Technically, there already ARE a separate set of Tournament rules(Nephilim, Arks of Omens) to "regular" rules. Having a further codified set of "tournament" and "not tournament" rules as two separate rule sets just means it's going to be even harder for "not tournament" players to get games. It's not going to change how communities think the game should be played, it's just going to be another set of product that will linger on store shelves until GW "fixes" the issue.
tneva82 wrote: Focus on tournaments in non-competive game just means gw uses rules to direct purchases. Hardly gain. Unless you enjoy spending money fooled by gw's marketing department.
That strategy won't work.
This isn't a card game where you open a pack and the card us useable right from that instant. This is a hobby where you have to build and paint (esp at tournament level) to get use out of the model. Yes coloured models and push fit let beginners get to the table in moments, but we all know that the reality is most armies are build and painted much slower.
The bulk of GW's customers are not going to play the fiddle to the competitive army of the month. Most collect one to a few armies at most over time and adding a new one is a long term investment not a short term one.
Time and time again when GW neglects armies they don't see those customers pick up others in vast speed, they tend to see customers shy away to other game systems. Similarly when they update an army it gets a big focus of attention and a lot of increased sales to a healthy standard and those armies that remain viable in the game retain that position of healthy sales.
Heck talk to any tournament player who regularly tries to follow the army meta and collect the BEST at any moment and many of them talk of getting secondhand models; premade armies and of paying others to build and paint for them. They aren't putting money into GW's hands. They aren't a customer GW needs to chance and its not a business pattern that can work for a slower to get into wargame
RazorEdge wrote: More focus on Tournament players would kill the game finally...
This personally *was* my fear.
But, giving the tournament players a separate set of rules that the rest of us don't have to buy to play matched play at our local club would be a GODSEND.
the mood these days is that most players, even casual ones, will use 'the most balanced' ruleset available to prevent unnecessary whinging. If that set is regular matched play, without all the overbearing crunch of a tournament ruleset, then I think that would be a big win.
Let the tournament players be forced to buy an extra 50 dollar book to play in their tournaments, on top of entry fees, their meta-chasing army, plane/bus tickets, etc. I find it hilarious.
That wouldn't happen though. What would happen in most cases is everyone would just use the tournament rules for "regular matched play" and non-tournament matched play would cease to exist entirely.
We already see that. Most places treat the GT pack like it IS regular matched play. There's no distinction between the two. Anything in the GT pack is viewed as an "update" to matched play not a specific set just for tournaments.
Having a completely different set of rules for tournaments would just make that the new matched play and "regular" matched play would be treated like open play is today
RazorEdge wrote: More focus on Tournament players would kill the game finally...
This personally *was* my fear.
But, giving the tournament players a separate set of rules that the rest of us don't have to buy to play matched play at our local club would be a GODSEND.
the mood these days is that most players, even casual ones, will use 'the most balanced' ruleset available to prevent unnecessary whinging. If that set is regular matched play, without all the overbearing crunch of a tournament ruleset, then I think that would be a big win.
Let the tournament players be forced to buy an extra 50 dollar book to play in their tournaments, on top of entry fees, their meta-chasing army, plane/bus tickets, etc. I find it hilarious.
That wouldn't happen though. What would happen in most cases is everyone would just use the tournament rules for "regular matched play" and non-tournament matched play would cease to exist entirely.
We already see that. Most places treat the GT pack like it IS regular matched play. There's no distinction between the two. Anything in the GT pack is viewed as an "update" to matched play not a specific set just for tournaments.
Having a completely different set of rules for tournaments would just make that the new matched play and "regular" matched play would be treated like open play is today
Hm. I - and apparently, most of us - appear to have forgotten that the Tempest of War cards exist. Both use the same core rules and the same Codexes, just a slight difference in primary and secondary scoring. Well, and a few other subtle things, like forcing people to use transports as transports, or forcing AIRCRAFT to start in Strategic Reserves.
It's not that anyone forgot, it's that most people don't want to use them. I use them at home with friends, but everyone at stores I go to is permanently in "Tourney Prep" mode.
I haven't forgotten, I personally love Tempest of War and it seems like the "best" way to currently play. But most people at game stores seem to think that the GT pack is a core rules update that needs to be used. Even my very casual store, which has no tournaments and doesn't play tournament-style lists, felt that way about it; they just assumed that you had to use them for games because it was the "newest" set of matched play rules. Most of them thought you had to use the Nephilim CP adjustments whether or not you were using nephilim missions! So while on paper it seems like having a hard delineation between Matched Play and Tournament Play, with more than just missions/secondaries and the like, would alleviate that, I suspect based on past experience that it would just mean that you ONLY see Tournament Play for pickup games and nothing else.
"Separate tournament game" is a misunderstanding. GW isn't making an entire separate game with different core rules, they aren't that stupid. This is just a minor shuffling of "three ways to play" into "four ways to play" to make it clear that tournament 40k is tournament40k, not something you should be worrying about keeping up with if you're just playing games at your local store.
Tournament 40k (unsure if they're continuing with Grand Tournament 202x or giving it a lore name) takes the current GT books and adds a bit more standardization. The only real changes are that non-codex content (AoRs, etc) is not included, and that suggested standard terrain layouts are included. Not sure if this is specifically standard bundle packs, that's a sales thing, but what I've seen fits the rumors of that we've seen elsewhere. 2000 points only from what I've seen, but it's not like any of the big events were doing anything other than 2000 points as it is.
Matched play becomes the default way to play. Not a lot of changes, mostly just that it won't be updated as frequently. Expect FAQs/errata for the book missions if necessary, additional mission packs will be different matched play modes (tempest of war) rather than an annual replacement. Focus is on balanced pickup games at your local store but with a bit more room for customization than tournament 40k. Missions for 500, 1000-2000, 3000+ point games are included, with 500 point games including a couple of additional restrictions (no more tank spam or 100 boyz) on top of what they have now. GW seems to be serious about supporting smaller games this time.
I think points/dataslates will be for all modes, not just tournaments, but don't quote me on that 100%. Probably a moot point since most people would use them that way anyway.
Narrative play is still there. I didn't get a look at the rules themselves but I've seen at least one reference to it existing. From what I've heard it was getting a bit of a rework so it wasn't in the stuff I saw.
Open play is technically there but stripped down. One mission, "kill the enemy" objectives, that's about it. Open play cards and such seem to have been moved to matched/narrative play. GW doesn't seem to want this to be anything more than a sales tool for GW stores to say "your kid can use this in open play", nobody seems to have any enthusiasm for it. From what I've heard feedback on it has been getting form letter non-responses.
Codex content will be day one FAQed, non-codex 9th edition content will not be continued into 10th. Legends is gone, "why are we supporting rules for stuff we don't sell" seems to be the attitude. I can't confirm it but supposedly someone was told that downloads for the rules are pretty much zero and it's not worth the effort to support so few users. Same thing with WD supplements and such, "why support something customers can't buy"? This is me extrapolating a bit here but if you see a WD supplement don't expect it to be valid for more than a month or two of casual games, GW seems to be treating them as disposable content. And, again, no tournament use for them.
GW corporate is mad about the leaks, but screw them. If they want to raise prices in this economy I'll keep leaking. Don't bother asking for pictures, we're pretty sure they're all watermarked. Expect incomplete or vague information, if anyone who has real access to inside information they aren't leaking anything unless they've confirmed with other people that GW sent the same thing out to multiple potential leakers. I'm 100% sure GW is sending out A/B copies to try to pin down leakers, which may be why you see some minor variation in details.
Edit: to clarify a bit on "non-codex". Forge World units that are currently for sale will be getting an update in some form. They will NOT be legal in the GT format but will be in other modes, at least for now. I haven't seen the rules personally but (mountain of salt here) what I've heard isn't good. If it's correct expect a phase-out similar to legends: one final bland and underwhelming update followed by neglect followed by officially ending rule support and discontinuing the product line once there's nobody left to care.
I would have thought power levels would be popular for casual games? I admit I've not actually got into 9th edition, despite best intentions, but I could certainly see myself always wanting to be using power levels for list building, instead of the old fashioned compiling and agonising over every 5pt option just for a friendly model smash.
I hope these EXTRA SUPER SATLY leaks above are right on the smaller game thing, I'd love to be able to play varied and viable 500pt games
Yep. Tournament players are easily fooled to buy constantly new models to replace previous OP units with new ones. Perfect whales for GW. Guilliple targets for GW marketing team
as soon as the tournament scene would switch to a different game, or would stay with an edition and not advancing to the next one, 40k won't be the game everyone plays any more
so keeping them happy to prevent them from wandering of is an important part
does not make a big difference
matched play has been the standard way to play since 2nd Edition, Narrative is nice but nothing that was really used without matched play (without rules for all armies it is nothing that you cannot do on your own or people have done in the past)
most people play tournament rules simply because the tournaments players are what keeps the game going the local communities/clubs
so tournament rules are always the standard for "public" play unless those are really bad, than even the TO ignore them and make their own
from all what we have had since 3rd Edition (or have seen during Warhammer Fantasy), the "different ways to play" are always just 1 way to play for pick-up games and public play in stores/clubs, and "closed" groups do their own thing anyway no matter what GW writes down
this just looks much like GW again copy other companies without understanding why they are doing it in the first place
RustyNumber wrote: I would have thought power levels would be popular for casual games? I admit I've not actually got into 9th edition, despite best intentions, but I could certainly see myself always wanting to be using power levels for list building, instead of the old fashioned compiling and agonising over every 5pt option just for a friendly model smash.
I hope these EXTRA SUPER SATLY leaks above are right on the smaller game thing, I'd love to be able to play varied and viable 500pt games
With how Kill Team supports pretty customized squads that don't necessarily translate into games of 40kGW would indeed do well to revisit Combat Patrol and offer a well thought out framework for small points games. It's better for people who like smaller games, it's better for beginners who don't have to worry about accumulating a larger collection to start out, and I dare say it's even good for GW's bottom line as small collections have a way of not staying small. GW should know this well enough, since that was the whole idea of getting people hooked with Start Collecting sets. If this is something 10th ed is actually going to provide, that's only a good thing.
On power level popularity, if AoS has proven anything it's that the pool of players who don't care much about a manufacturer-provided framework is a small minority among GW's potential customers. I should very much hope that having two mutually exclusive mechanics that aim to do the same thing while one is strictly inferior to the other should see players flock to the superior one. The only two reasons I can think of for GW to hold on to power levels are that the designers are in love with their creation no matter what anyone says*, or that my faith in people is grossly misplaced.
* The way things are going with wargear costs now they might just drop power levels and go with points, but take points far down the direction of power levels as a sort of compromise where they keep the functionality of their favored system but try to keep the better marketability of points.
kodos wrote: as soon as the tournament scene would switch to a different game, or would stay with an edition and not advancing to the next one, 40k won't be the game everyone plays any more
so keeping them happy to prevent them from wandering of is an important part
Maybe.
I think the problem is - and this applies to a lot of games - is that between "tournament players" and "casuals who maybe play once every 6 months to never" you've got a sector I'm going to call "Good old Boyz".
That is to say the people who show up in stores all over the world for games every weekend, every other weekend etc. Maybe they go to a tournament or two a year - but they are not really "tournament players".
These are people who fill out the lower ranks in League and Dota (or Starcraft, etc). They are the people doing mid-tier raiding content in MMOs etc.
If the LVO etc stopped happening but these people were still showing up in the stores every week 40k would carry on. The day they stop however the game is dead (sorry Warmachine). With that said, the reasons why no one was showing up for 40k tournaments would likely weigh on why people were not longer showing up in stores to play.
Legends is gone, "why are we supporting rules for stuff we don't sell" seems to be the attitude. I can't confirm it but supposedly someone was told that downloads for the rules are pretty much zero and it's not worth the effort to support so few users. Same thing with WD supplements and such, "why support something customers can't buy"? This is me extrapolating a bit here but if you see a WD supplement don't expect it to be valid for more than a month or two of casual games, GW seems to be treating them as disposable content. And, again, no tournament use for them.
Now this I'm curious about, does that mean that they just won't have rules for it AT ALL? So it's completely gone? I had felt they would be putting Firstborn into "Legends" but if Legends is going away, then that brings it into question.
. Forge World units that are currently for sale will be getting an update in some form. They will NOT be legal in the GT format but will be in other modes, at least for now.
Also this. They won't allow Forgeworld in GT games?? At all??
"Separate tournament game" is a misunderstanding. GW isn't making an entire separate game with different core rules, they aren't that stupid. This is just a minor shuffling of "three ways to play" into "four ways to play" to make it clear that tournament 40k is tournament 40k, not something you should be worrying about keeping up with if you're just playing games at your local store.
They technically already have that though with the GT packs, and people still treat the GT pack as being the same thing as Matched Play. I don't see how this would change that, you'd just see every pickup game default to using tournament play, so non-tournament matched play may as well be Open Play. Even my super casual local store, where we don't do competitive play at all, thought the GT packs were updates to the core rules and had to be used for games.
I don't believe for one minute that tournament play keeps anything alive. if anything it's just the loudest minority because it has people like FLG and big tournaments giving feedback, and a lot of content "creators" are also tournament players so have an audience. It just appears like it's the most prolific.
I'm all for improving the quality of 500pt Combat Patrol games. That's the original intended game scale for 40K after all, a couple of units and a few vehicles. Leave the larger scale games to Apoc, or better yet, upcoming Epic. Much more fun to collect a few Combat Patrols from various factions than just amassing a large single army IMO.
Not keen on seeing FW units get legended; Tarantula weapon batteries are a Space Marines staple unit. At least include them in 10th edition SM Codex FFS
Tournament play getting its own way to play feels right; In fact, shoulda been the case sooner. I'll still be into Open Play (even if that means that 80% of my Open Play games dtart with briefs such as "plays like a general Matched Play mission")
tauist wrote: I'm all for improving the quality of 500pt Combat Patrol games. That's the original intended game scale for 40K after all, a couple of units and a few vehicles. Leave the larger scale games to Apoc, or better yet, upcoming Epic.
Not keen on seeing FW units get legended; Tarantula weapon batteries are a Space Marines staple unit. At least include them in 10th edition SM Codex FFS
Dysartes wrote: Is the Tarantula a thing in the HHSM army list?
Legended, unfortunately. There's a feeling they will be phased out eventually, which makes me a sad panda. Always liked the bit of fluff about SM Scouts deploying in stealth, setting up concealed tarantulas in key positions just before a battle. Sounds to me exactly what a faction being heavily outnumbered would try to do. That half Drop Pod, half Bunker model is a redundant substitute, we already have Deathstorm Drop Pods, they dont fulfill the exact same role IMHO
Dysartes wrote: Is the Tarantula a thing in the HHSM army list?
Legended, unfortunately. There's a feeling they will be phased out eventually, which makes me a sad panda. Always liked the bit of fluff about SM Scouts deploying in stealth, setting up concealed tarantulas in key positions just before a battle. Sounds to me exactly what a faction being heavily outnumbered would try to do. That half Drop Pod, half Bunker model is a redundant substitute, we already have Deathstorm Drop Pods, they dont fulfill the exact same role IMHO
They are in the Solar Auxilia army list in the Liber Imperium, interestingly. I guess they figured SA do Tarantulas, and Astartes do Deathstorm drop pods?
Kanluwen wrote: It's a weird complaint to be honest, as when I think "static defenses"?
I don't think Marines.
Tarantulas are specifically automated to do the static defense part so the Marines don't have to. Besides, they are cool bits of kit that can also be used by pretty much every other Imperial faction. Could even put it in the Agents book.
Tarantula's machine spirits are about as good shots as Land Raider ones, right? So why would LR's be a venerated tech while tarantulas would be considered too A.I.?
IMHO a Tarantula is a neat tool in the Astartes' (feel free to replace with keyword <IMPERIUM> ) arsenal. You can temporarily fortify areas, which could be useful in many types of extraction/escort missions for example. Or for setting up crossfire points in advance in order to defend a particular position. You can't always rely on a drop to reach its target, or one to be able to be made.
"Give one Marine three Tarantulas, and he will control a position for days.."
I'm interested in the rumored end of Toughness, at least for infantry. I've actually always thought that Strength vs Toughness and AP vs Armor Save are redundant.
I think they could keep/combine one of those two systems so that most units only have two rolls, the hit and wound, and then only the big boys get their FNP roll.
Edit: Actually what I think makes most sense is bringing Initiative back for BS vs I, tossing SvT, and keeping the Saving throw modified by AP.
Edit 2: I got post# 666 below... does Tzeentch approve?
Kanluwen wrote: It's a weird complaint to be honest, as when I think "static defenses"?
I don't think Marines.
I think Sentry Guns spattering bugs while wiggling like nodding dogs like they are enjoying it (the guns, not the bugs, I think they enjoy it less but with bugs who knows?)
on the combining of toughness and armour..
works fine in LotR, Strength v "Defence" which is basically toughness, modified by armour, makes sense, armour make you tougher, just needs the "to wound chart" to see the "always wound on a 6+" vanish and be the same as LotR with 6, then 6/4+, then 6/5+, then 6/6 then "-"
kingpbjames wrote: I'm interested in the rumored end of Toughness, at least for infantry. I've actually always thought that Strength vs Toughness and AP vs Armor Save are redundant.
I think they could keep/combine one of those two systems so that most units only have two rolls, the hit and wound, and then only the big boys get their FNP roll.
Edit: Actually what I think makes most sense is bringing Initiative back for BS vs I, tossing SvT, and keeping the Saving throw modified by AP.
Personally I think the whole 'getting rid of toughness' is bunk, but they DID do it to Age of Sigmar and it works surprisingly well.
The major thing they did there is make it so that weapons wound on a flat roll, no strength vs toughness to worry about.
HOWEVER, one of the major reasons it works in AoS is because DAMAGE SPILLS OVER. A bunch of skeletons can threaten a gargant because they wound on 4's and can bring it down through many stabbings of spears. That gargant, however, is not limited to stomping on one skeleton at a time, the damage it does will sweep across many skeletons. Thematically, this makes sense, like a cannon ball rolling through multiple units, or a breath attack immolating several ranks of infantry.
In 40k, you have some weapons that are typically viewed as single-target, like lascannons and melta guns. One shot from a lascannon or rail gun can do massive damage to a tank, but when targetting infantry it's unlikely to line up several infantry models and murder them all. It's POSSIBLE, but unlikely.
There are solutions to this issue, such as making it so that single-shot weapons don't let their damage spill over, while other weapons like heavy bolters (damage 2 but bolter shots are known for exploding after impact) and plasma (so hot it can melt things nearby) could do spill-over damage and take out multiple models.
Depending on your perspective, this could add unneeded complexity, or could add a layer of strategy and choice in weapons, instead of defaulting for one weapon all the time, as has been the case in many editions in 40k.
Well, I thought 40k's system worked alright since its wounds that spill over in units. That way frag grenades could spread a lot of light damage with sniper rifles devastating a single model. Most of the time you're targeting a unit of 5+ infantry or a large single model.
In any case I'm hoping 10th ed does something similar to what leopard said about LOTR's strength vs defense roll. Toughness and Armor Save are redundant. Just need to combine Strength and AP.
Looking forward to 10th ed! Totally regret buying 9th ed rulebook but at least I stopped at two codexes.
Just make it so all damage spills over and a given attack can never inflict more damage than the target's Wounds characteristic. Easy, intuitive, best of both worlds.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Just make it so all damage spills over and a given attack can never inflict more damage than the target's Wounds characteristic. Easy, intuitive, best of both worlds.
Not sure if I understand what you mean by this.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 10 models with Wounds characteristic of 1: deals 1 damage total, killing 1 model.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 3 models with a Wounds characteristic of 4: deals 4 damage total, killing 1 model.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 3 models with a Wounds characteristic of 4, where 1 model has already taken 2 damage: deals 4 damage total, killing 1 model and damaging a second.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Just make it so all damage spills over and a given attack can never inflict more damage than the target's Wounds characteristic. Easy, intuitive, best of both worlds.
Not sure if I understand what you mean by this.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 10 models with Wounds characteristic of 1: deals 1 damage total, killing 1 model.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 3 models with a Wounds characteristic of 4: deals 4 damage total, killing 1 model.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 3 models with a Wounds characteristic of 4, where 1 model has already taken 2 damage: deals 4 damage total, killing 1 model and damaging a second.
Is that right?
I'm confused what this is meant to emulate, in-universe.
Man, all this talk when we already had a far more intuitive solution. Templates. Yes they were hard to perfectly balance and someone particularly pedantic can argue edge cases, but it was far, far more intuitive as far as 40k is concerned.
that's just it, the more exceptions you make, the more exclusions or other weirdness and you run into issues of rules bloat and also messiness with keeping as true as you can to whatever the lore happens to be.
But, we'll see what happens. I think we'll be sticking with toughness an strength for another edition regardless.
GW knows they need to make it more approachable for more people, but they dont' want to scare the fanbase they have built off completely. The reactions when they got rid of Initiative for 8th edition were bad enough, and now people are more plugged in than ever before since that time.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: Man, all this talk when we already had a far more intuitive solution. Templates. Yes they were hard to perfectly balance and someone particularly pedantic can argue edge cases, but it was far, far more intuitive as far as 40k is concerned.
What do templates have to do with damage spill-over?
A Proposed Rule I might've never posted for Damage Spill-Over is that, when you deal excess damage, any excess is divided by two (rounding down, minimum 0) then applied to the next model in a unit. Keep going until everyone is dead or damage runs out.
So, against a squad of W1 guys, D1 and D2 kills one. D3-6 kills two. D7+ would kill three. (Technically you can kill a fourth with a D15+, but nothing actually has that to my knowledge.)
Against W2 models, D2 and D3 kills one. D4-D5 kills one, wounds another. D6-D9 kills two. D10+ kills two, wounds a a third.
The calculations are more complicated than I'd like, but I think it hits a good sweet spot between "A Lascannon is USELESS against hordes" and "A Lascannon is better than a Frag Missile against hordes".
drbored wrote: ... The reactions when they got rid of Initiative for 8th edition were bad enough, and now people are more plugged in than ever before since that time.
Removal of Initative and WS vs WS checks in melee removed two massive defensive layers that allowed for more variety of unit representation.
Why should two equally matched warriors hit eachother on 3s instead of 4s?
Why shouldn't a nimble space elf have bad armor and toughness, but their high ws affords them evasion?
All the removal of I and ws vs ws check has lead to is more and more invul saves to represent everything.
Kanluwen wrote: It's a weird complaint to be honest, as when I think "static defenses"?
I don't think Marines.
Tarantulas are just scaled up versions of the sentry guns in Aliens. Portable automated guns, while Firestrikes are slightly larger with grav plates to haul around, and the bunker is an upscaled deathstorm drop pod
NinthMusketeer wrote: Just make it so all damage spills over and a given attack can never inflict more damage than the target's Wounds characteristic. Easy, intuitive, best of both worlds.
Not sure if I understand what you mean by this.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 10 models with Wounds characteristic of 1: deals 1 damage total, killing 1 model.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 3 models with a Wounds characteristic of 4: deals 4 damage total, killing 1 model.
Attack that deals 6 damage into a unit of 3 models with a Wounds characteristic of 4, where 1 model has already taken 2 damage: deals 4 damage total, killing 1 model and damaging a second.
Is that right?
Precisely. Though those examples aren't really where the benefit would be felt. See, right now we have...
*Marine fails save*
D3 damage rolls 1
*Marine fails save*
D3 damage rolls 3! but doesn't matter it just kills the wounded marine
*Marine fails save*
D3 damage rolls...
And so on. Personally I feel it is needlessly convoluted compared to...
*Marines roll 10 saves, fail 3 of them*
3D3 damage rolls get 1, 2, and 3
The 3 is reduced to 2 because that is the target unit's Wounds characteristic
Unit takes 5 damage
Removing initative and weapon skill was the best change they made into 8th. It quite frankly made it pointless to ever charge with certain units and armies. Giving the first strike to the charging unit actually made players make some additional decisions that had an impact on the game.
Leggy wrote: More rumours. Found these on a drukhari discord but they didn't originate there. I have no link to the original poster.
Nah, they're casually breaking a legal.contract and inviting litigation publicly and all they drop in "revenge" the loosest information of a few bullet points? Someone out for a little fake Internet attention I think.
Or want to have all external playtesting eliminated for good. Because if the playtesters really leak then that's where it will end up with.
Being loose btw would reduce odds of being tracked on who you were since odds of leaking leak trap part reduces. The more complete leak you put the more likely you leak what allows you to be traced.
tneva82 wrote: Or want to have all external playtesting eliminated for good. Because if the playtesters really leak then that's where it will end up with.
Being loose btw would reduce odds of being tracked on who you were since odds of leaking leak trap part reduces. The more complete leak you put the more likely you leak what allows you to be traced.
I know but if they're open screwing with GW as they word it, you'd need a burner account first of all and if you're that butthurt, you'd do worse than they did.
tneva82 wrote: Or want to have all external playtesting eliminated for good. Because if the playtesters really leak then that's where it will end up with.
Being loose btw would reduce odds of being tracked on who you were since odds of leaking leak trap part reduces. The more complete leak you put the more likely you leak what allows you to be traced.
I know but if they're open screwing with GW as they word it, you'd need a burner account first of all and if you're that butthurt, you'd do worse than they did.
It just screams made up attention seeking.
Who says it wasn't burner account? Note that the picture wasn't from original source and that's assuming Norbie is even recognizable person and not just random nickname...And of coourse Norbie isn't who leaked these if they are real leaks.
We don't know if the leaker is burner account because we haven't even see account that leaked
tneva82 wrote: Or want to have all external playtesting eliminated for good. Because if the playtesters really leak then that's where it will end up with.
Being loose btw would reduce odds of being tracked on who you were since odds of leaking leak trap part reduces. The more complete leak you put the more likely you leak what allows you to be traced.
I know but if they're open screwing with GW as they word it, you'd need a burner account first of all and if you're that butthurt, you'd do worse than they did.
It just screams made up attention seeking.
I have added these rumours to the OP.
IMHO it looks like someone is making the rounds on various platforms and spreading inventend rumours using the just-so story of a 'pissed-off playtester': nobody can easily prove them wrong, and due to the fact that someone with real material from playtesting would use burner accounts and obscure outlets as well there's not much you can say against that...
Keep in mind that trolls went as far as compiling fake multiple-dozen page rulesets with art and everything in the past just for their enjoyment
Tsagualsa wrote: Keep in mind that trolls went as far as compiling fake multiple-dozen page rulesets with art and everything in the past just for their enjoyment
Tsagualsa wrote: Keep in mind that trolls went as far as compiling fake multiple-dozen page rulesets with art and everything in the past just for their enjoyment
Pancake edition?
Iirc it was back in 6th edition or something like that, i distinctly remember Blood Angel Bat riders and stuff like that
Removal of Initative and WS vs WS checks in melee removed two massive defensive layers that allowed for more variety of unit representation.
Interminable dice rolling was one of the things that put me off 40K. It happened when I played games with simpler, cleaner rules that initially seemed to lack 'character' but turned out more streamlined and enjoyable. The bigger your game gets, the less need there should be to play out every stage of every individual duel.
I've even heard 40K's several layers of dice rolling before you can land a wound, described as a buffer to spare the feelings of kids who hadn't yet figured out how to play tactically. I don't think it's the full truth but the idea has an appeal.
I don't know if half of the rules slimming rumours are true, and if it'll discourage kids who just want to bash their heckin' grimdark space mariens together. I do know it's making me want to check out 40K rules after I dunno how long. It's a very odd feeling.
Dudeface wrote: I know but if they're open screwing with GW as they word it, you'd need a burner account first of all and if you're that butthurt, you'd do worse than they did.
It just screams made up attention seeking.
I don't know entirely about made up because it clearly could be true. But equally its all stuff I'd kind of assume would happen based on the other rumours.
You kind of think if they wanted to screw over GW they'd give us something a bit more material. Like Marine/Tyranid stat line. But maybe despite "breaking their NDA" they still want to try and hide and fear being caught out.
Tsagualsa wrote: Keep in mind that trolls went as far as compiling fake multiple-dozen page rulesets with art and everything in the past just for their enjoyment
Pancake edition?
Iirc it was back in 6th edition or something like that, i distinctly remember Blood Angel Bat riders and stuff like that
Pancake edition was a fake rulebook for 6th. Complete with layout, examples, copied art, the right typset, etc. The ruleset was also working. This had to be month's of work. So the argument "This is too much effort for a troll." sahll never be uttered again.
Tsagualsa wrote: Keep in mind that trolls went as far as compiling fake multiple-dozen page rulesets with art and everything in the past just for their enjoyment
Pancake edition?
Iirc it was back in 6th edition or something like that, i distinctly remember Blood Angel Bat riders and stuff like that
Pancake edition was a fake rulebook for 6th. Complete with layout, examples, copied art, the right typset, etc. The ruleset was also working. This had to be month's of work. So the argument "This is too much effort for a troll." sahll never be uttered again.
The bat rider stuff was seperate.
Yeah, that's probably what I'm remembering. IIRC it was eventually tracked back to some jokers on 4chan?
Tsagualsa wrote: Keep in mind that trolls went as far as compiling fake multiple-dozen page rulesets with art and everything in the past just for their enjoyment
Pancake edition?
Iirc it was back in 6th edition or something like that, i distinctly remember Blood Angel Bat riders and stuff like that
Pancake edition was a fake rulebook for 6th. Complete with layout, examples, copied art, the right typset, etc. The ruleset was also working. This had to be month's of work. So the argument "This is too much effort for a troll." sahll never be uttered again.
The bat rider stuff was seperate.
Yeah, that's probably what I'm remembering. IIRC it was eventually tracked back to some jokers on 4chan?
No. It was a homebrew ruleset, which one of the group members altered to make more official looking and then released it. The password for the cloud storage of the initial dump was "pancake", hence the name.
This is obviously not my main account. I wanted to post this last week in my main community, but this didn’t work out because secondary accounts can’t post there. I am not active here, but made an account nonetheless, because you are fellow children of Sanguinius. But then I u-turned, it didn’t seem to be worth it to share my excitement with strangers. But here is another U-Turn..... I can’t hold it any longer.
I got access to a pretty random collection of future releases.
... Arks of Omen 5 (which I won’t spoil, because the interesting bits are only background anyway, but it is NOT about the Lion and there is no new primarch model at this point) ...
But the kicker is that I got hold of a box called Strangleweb.
It is some kind of starter box and has a new 40k logo *excitement* and is full of Blood Angels stuff
The box has a booklet, two colors and some push fit miniatures in it. The miniatures are Tyranid gargoyles. They are called Pheragaunts in the assembly. They have two wings and four scything talons. The overall design is different. The ribs are covered with a membrane. Membrane has holes where the flesh and chitin is breaking through. Muscles are sculpted, where there is no chitin. They are 20% amphibious, 80% insectoid instead of 100% insectoid. Color scheme is the old Leviathan, but the cream is a lighter bone color. Second sprue is Intervenators, primaris jump troops, painted in Blood Angel colors. They have eviscerators, but no gravis armor. They have the old cross straps incorporated into their chest. The eviscerators have only a one-sided chainblade, but are two-handed. Finally there are a couple of barricades: toppled over ornamented columns, with crates and imperial aegis scraps welded together with metal girders in between and on top. The colors included are old ones: Agrellan Badland and Tyrant Skull.
I could glean more from the booklet. There are two missions, unit profiles, some background, assembly guide and basing guide. There are additional unit placements in the mission, but no pictures: Captain Lucael, Indomitus Elite Velani, Tyranid Shrikes, Termagants brood with fleshborers, Termagant brood with spike rifles, Scout squad Sempre. In the basing guide, you can see a termagant. It has the same less boney, more fleshy design as the pheragaunts. The head is longer and has larger plates. it uses its middle arms to run, the front arms are still connected to the fleshborer. There is no magazine, but two hoses go into its throat.
Didn’t read much, but the scenario is about the marines encircled in a wasteland encampment. first mission is to hold, second is to break free and bring a mcguffin for a ritual to safety
The unit profiles are more interesting: the stat block is now divided into two dials. The left one has Move, Initiative, Morale. The right one has Evade, Save and Wounds. The evade stat is empty, except for a single symbol for the pheragaunts. Underneath come some keywords (infantry,sturdy,fly for the marines and infantry,light, fly for the pheragaunts) and then the weapon profile and some special rules
know no fear (3): unit is disadvantaged to hit for the rest of the game. I don't know what that is.
Instinctive behaviour (5): unit is broken and runs away unless in synaptic range.
at the bottom of the datasheet is the usual keyword soup.
Intervenators have 3+ stats all around, pheragaunts 5+, except initiative also 3+.
10”,2 wounds vs 12”,1 wound
Weapons are:
Eviscerators are range 2, 2 attacks, 3+ hit, 3 damage, some symbols and a rule, that reduces the damage against infantry
Shock Assault: range 0, 1 attack, 4+ hit, 1 damage
Scything talons are range 1, 5 attacks, 4+ hit, 1 damage
Acid tongue: range 0, 1 attacks, 5+ hit, 1 damage, some symbols
And the nonsense argument the rules for Starship Troopers were Andy Chamber’s original rules for 4th Ed. Which neatly ignored that anything done on company time is company property. And it’s been actively denied,
This is obviously not my main account. I wanted to post this last week in my main community, but this didn’t work out because secondary accounts can’t post there. I am not active here, but made an account nonetheless, because you are fellow children of Sanguinius. But then I u-turned, it didn’t seem to be worth it to share my excitement with strangers. But here is another U-Turn..... I can’t hold it any longer.
I got access to a pretty random collection of future releases.
... Arks of Omen 5 (which I won’t spoil, because the interesting bits are only background anyway, but it is NOT about the Lion and there is no new primarch model at this point) ...
But the kicker is that I got hold of a box called Strangleweb.
It is some kind of starter box and has a new 40k logo *excitement* and is full of Blood Angels stuff
The box has a booklet, two colors and some push fit miniatures in it. The miniatures are Tyranid gargoyles. They are called Pheragaunts in the assembly. They have two wings and four scything talons. The overall design is different. The ribs are covered with a membrane. Membrane has holes where the flesh and chitin is breaking through. Muscles are sculpted, where there is no chitin. They are 20% amphibious, 80% insectoid instead of 100% insectoid. Color scheme is the old Leviathan, but the cream is a lighter bone color. Second sprue is Intervenators, primaris jump troops, painted in Blood Angel colors. They have eviscerators, but no gravis armor. They have the old cross straps incorporated into their chest. The eviscerators have only a one-sided chainblade, but are two-handed. Finally there are a couple of barricades: toppled over ornamented columns, with crates and imperial aegis scraps welded together with metal girders in between and on top. The colors included are old ones: Agrellan Badland and Tyrant Skull.
I could glean more from the booklet. There are two missions, unit profiles, some background, assembly guide and basing guide. There are additional unit placements in the mission, but no pictures: Captain Lucael, Indomitus Elite Velani, Tyranid Shrikes, Termagants brood with fleshborers, Termagant brood with spike rifles, Scout squad Sempre. In the basing guide, you can see a termagant. It has the same less boney, more fleshy design as the pheragaunts. The head is longer and has larger plates. it uses its middle arms to run, the front arms are still connected to the fleshborer. There is no magazine, but two hoses go into its throat.
Didn’t read much, but the scenario is about the marines encircled in a wasteland encampment. first mission is to hold, second is to break free and bring a mcguffin for a ritual to safety
The unit profiles are more interesting: the stat block is now divided into two dials. The left one has Move, Initiative, Morale. The right one has Evade, Save and Wounds. The evade stat is empty, except for a single symbol for the pheragaunts. Underneath come some keywords (infantry,sturdy,fly for the marines and infantry,light, fly for the pheragaunts) and then the weapon profile and some special rules
know no fear (3): unit is disadvantaged to hit for the rest of the game. I don't know what that is.
Instinctive behaviour (5): unit is broken and runs away unless in synaptic range.
at the bottom of the datasheet is the usual keyword soup.
Intervenators have 3+ stats all around, pheragaunts 5+, except initiative also 3+.
10”,2 wounds vs 12”,1 wound
Weapons are:
Eviscerators are range 2, 2 attacks, 3+ hit, 3 damage, some symbols and a rule, that reduces the damage against infantry
Shock Assault: range 0, 1 attack, 4+ hit, 1 damage
Scything talons are range 1, 5 attacks, 4+ hit, 1 damage
Acid tongue: range 0, 1 attacks, 5+ hit, 1 damage, some symbols
I'll add that to the OP soon-ish, after i figured out how to boil it down
The 'two dials' pretty much say that this thing is similar to AoS unit profiles without calling it out directly - overall it seems like too much of a change for me, other 'playtesters' ought to have mentioned some of that if what pretty much looks like a total rewrite of basic concepts did indeed happen... but who knows - right now we can only conclude that some of the more recent rumours have to be fake, but we can't really say which ones!
Intervenators is a ridiculous name even by GW naming.
Some of these get stranger and stranger, as expected. Definitely pancake edition vibes, the irony of course being that pancake edition was actually better than the official one that we got
Are people in general comfortable how i structured the OP? Is it okay to have 2-4 rumours as 'current' and the rest under 'old rumours' to keep the OP semi-legible, or do you favour another solution or split? Thematic summaries are/will be updated on the weekends exclusively as mentioned before, to keep me relatively sane
The poster refused to post any pics from their burner account, they apparently are no longer in possession of the item, did not take pics and do not want any ire from GW.
Dudeface wrote: The poster refused to post any pics from their burner account, they apparently are no longer in possession of the item, did not take pics and do not want any ire from GW.
Ehh.. it's always a gamble, especially when most of the current models still look good.
Every refresh is more worrying than exciting at this point.
Nothing to worry about if you ask me.
If you like the designs that have been going on for 2 decades long, then stick to it and stock up. If you like the new designs better then just buy them.
Win win.
The arks of Omen comment has me dubious. There was a rumour from 4 months ago that correctly predicted the name of the first arks of Omen book, Azrael and Farsight. The same rumour said the Lion is coming in book 5. Saying they got book 5 but didn't even share the name of the book is a bit dodgy.
I'm more inclined to believe BA over DA simply because Infernal Brush is painting his Dante conversion this month. This is a guy that definitely knows almost all of what's coming short/mid term at all times. ofc there's a very good chance his Dante timing is a coincidence but it's a small nod in the direction of BAimo.
Are people in general comfortable how i structured the OP? Is it okay to have 2-4 rumours as 'current' and the rest under 'old rumours' to keep the OP semi-legible, or do you favour another solution or split? Thematic summaries are/will be updated on the weekends exclusively as mentioned before, to keep me relatively sane
The structure is absolutely fine. Spoiler-tagging the older rumours allows it to be way more digestible.
I do have a question.
While this thread was specifically created as a reaction to Valrak's videos on the subject, I recall these 10th edition rumours started back in july with two reddit posts.
I don't remember or can find if Valrak ever acknowledged these rumours and I am not aware of the opinion the forum has on these.
What do people feel about these ones? And do these qualify to perhaps be added to the older rumour list? Apologies if this is bringing back stuff that has already been discussed.
Well that second one was correct, just the timing was off. Kasrkin, space hulk, guard then World Eaters. Also correctly mentioned the Desolation squad ("Primaris Devastators w/missle launcher) and melee redemptor.
I guess if the next thing is Marines 2.0 it will lend more credence to that.
Are people in general comfortable how i structured the OP? Is it okay to have 2-4 rumours as 'current' and the rest under 'old rumours' to keep the OP semi-legible, or do you favour another solution or split? Thematic summaries are/will be updated on the weekends exclusively as mentioned before, to keep me relatively sane
The structure is absolutely fine. Spoiler-tagging the older rumours allows it to be way more digestible.
I do have a question.
While this thread was specifically created as a reaction to Valrak's videos on the subject, I recall these 10th edition rumours started back in july with two reddit posts.
I don't remember or can find if Valrak ever acknowledged these rumours and I am not aware of the opinion the forum has on these.
What do people feel about these ones? And do these qualify to perhaps be added to the older rumour list? Apologies if this is bringing back stuff that has already been discussed.
I was actually not aware of those, they seem to have been mostly right to almost spot-on. I think i'll add these to the OP as old rumours, in hindsight it's pretty clear that Valrak did incorporate some of that material in his videos. The thread has moved away from being solely Valrak-based anyway, and i'm not dead-set on focusing only on his videos.
tneva82 wrote: SM2.0 next would pretty much kill 10e being reset.
No it wouldn't, this is GW we're talking about. How many times have they put out a new book and then invalidated it shortly thereafter? Traitor Legions in 7th springs to mind.
I don't remember or can find if Valrak ever acknowledged these rumours and I am not aware of the opinion the forum has on these.
What do people feel about these ones? And do these qualify to perhaps be added to the older rumour list? Apologies if this is bringing back stuff that has already been discussed.
There's a couple of things that work both for and against this rumour. As I remember the Kasrkin and details on the new marine units were both posted elsewhere before this link, so it's possible that those rumours were incorporated into this schedule to make it seem more real.
On the other hand, schedules for 6+ months away are still subject to change and may well be very different to what GW originally intended. This is part of why they typically aren't usually keen on showing new models more than 3-4 months before release. We've seen other rumours state that plans for marine chapter supplements were dropped. It may well be the case that GW originally planned to do a WE vs Marines boxed set followed by chapter supplements to finish 9E. Then for whatever reason they changed their mind and decided to drop the supplements until 10E, and instead released the models as we see now.
Apple fox wrote: I would prefer the sanguinor, but I don’t expect it to be right at this point.
Me neither. It all seems a bit too convenient: random burner account one pops up and mentions some stuff about BA and Tyranids, then account two comes up and says something about 'modular' starter sets that you collect and that let you play a reasonably-sized game once you have a handful of them, and then the third account appears and claims to have had their hands on just such a box, but of course had no opportunity to get a picture or other forms of proof. It just fits too well, and reeks of a story someone constructed to 'sell' a fake.
I think the most unbelievable aspect of that argument is the claim that Mr. BurnerAccount has "great respect" for Valrak. I mean... Valrak! of all people. Why would you even?
tneva82 wrote: Marine codex AND supplements before summer? Release slots run out. By now there would be more concrete info including from GW.
To be even comparable codex and supplements would have to come out RIGHT NOW and it would still have shorter gap...
Space Marine 2.0 and Supplements where apparently planned but scrapped since due to all the delays they would be too close to 10th. All the Marine Battleforces where planned to release with that.
While this thread was specifically created as a reaction to Valrak's videos on the subject, I recall these 10th edition rumours started back in july with two reddit posts.
I don't remember or can find if Valrak ever acknowledged these rumours and I am not aware of the opinion the forum has on these.
What do people feel about these ones? And do these qualify to perhaps be added to the older rumour list? Apologies if this is bringing back stuff that has already been discussed.
I know Valrak talked about the first one back then but I don't remember what he said about it and no idea about the second one
I don't remember or can find if Valrak ever acknowledged these rumours and I am not aware of the opinion the forum has on these.
What do people feel about these ones? And do these qualify to perhaps be added to the older rumour list? Apologies if this is bringing back stuff that has already been discussed.
There's a couple of things that work both for and against this rumour. As I remember the Kasrkin and details on the new marine units were both posted elsewhere before this link, so it's possible that those rumours were incorporated into this schedule to make it seem more real.
On the other hand, schedules for 6+ months away are still subject to change and may well be very different to what GW originally intended. This is part of why they typically aren't usually keen on showing new models more than 3-4 months before release. We've seen other rumours state that plans for marine chapter supplements were dropped. It may well be the case that GW originally planned to do a WE vs Marines boxed set followed by chapter supplements to finish 9E. Then for whatever reason they changed their mind and decided to drop the supplements until 10E, and instead released the models as we see now.
Yeah, at this point multiple sources alleged to the Supplements originally having been planned for 9th, but now moved to 10th for unknown reasons. With their supply chain issues and their ongoing problems with cardboard and print products it does seem likely that that shift needed to happen due to some backlog in stocking and supply operations. And AFAIK, the missile launcher marines and melee dreadnought had not been mentioned before these rumours at all, and only appeared in the youtube rumour circuit months later, so there's that. On the other hand, Angron was leaked about a week later, and rumoured much earlier, so that would have been easy to guess.
tneva82 wrote: Marine codex AND supplements before summer? Release slots run out. By now there would be more concrete info including from GW.
To be even comparable codex and supplements would have to come out RIGHT NOW and it would still have shorter gap...
Space Marine 2.0 and Supplements where apparently planned but scrapped since due to all the delays they would be too close to 10th. All the Marine Battleforces where planned to release with that.
now THAT makes sense. Especially since those boxes looked a bit too fancy to be the usual sort of army box
Tsagualsa wrote: AFAIK, the missile launcher marines and melee dreadnought had not been mentioned before these rumours at all, and only appeared in the youtube rumour circuit months later, so there's that.
I can't find the original Reddit post but the first mention of that marine rumour was at least Feb 2022. It was repeated by Valrak and Spikey Bits around then.
Dudeface wrote: BurnerAccount claims they'll be vindicated when the bonereaper character gets shown on an upcoming Monday.
Or a lizardmen spawning pool.
To be fair on the list of stuff for them to show off that likely needs redesigning:
Skinks on foot
Razordon
Kroxigors
Cold ones
Maybe chameleon skinks?
If there's any other stuff on top it'll be possibly end of March before they preview anything not lizardmen.
tneva82 wrote: Marine codex AND supplements before summer? Release slots run out. By now there would be more concrete info including from GW.
To be even comparable codex and supplements would have to come out RIGHT NOW and it would still have shorter gap...
Space Marine 2.0 and Supplements where apparently planned but scrapped since due to all the delays they would be too close to 10th. All the Marine Battleforces where planned to release with that.
I do slightly believe that we technically are getting a "2.0" codex with the Agastus strike force booklet. If the rumour-mongers were referring to this thing, it might give them a better track record.
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
At this point I'm inclined to agree that some of this might be getting out on purpose, either to flush people out or more likely just keep people engaged during an intentional release lul.
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
At this point I'm inclined to agree that some of this might be getting out on purpose, either to flush people out or more likely just keep people engaged during an intentional release lul.
Semi-official marketing dudes like Valrak intervening might be some sort of damage control from higher up to curtail the worst of the made-up stuff, i.e. stuff that might actually drive people away, like unfounded rumours about total resets.
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
At this point I'm inclined to agree that some of this might be getting out on purpose, either to flush people out or more likely just keep people engaged during an intentional release lul.
I do think it’s a benefit for GW in the end, it’s a lot of Hype they can always deny if needed.
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
At this point I'm inclined to agree that some of this might be getting out on purpose, either to flush people out or more likely just keep people engaged during an intentional release lul.
Semi-official marketing dudes like Valrak intervening might be some sort of damage control from higher up to curtail the worst of the made-up stuff, i.e. stuff that might actually drive people away, like unfounded rumours about total resets.
At this point the total reset rumor is the most believable out of all of them...
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
At this point I'm inclined to agree that some of this might be getting out on purpose, either to flush people out or more likely just keep people engaged during an intentional release lul.
Semi-official marketing dudes like Valrak intervening might be some sort of damage control from higher up to curtail the worst of the made-up stuff, i.e. stuff that might actually drive people away, like unfounded rumours about total resets.
At this point the total reset rumor is the most believable out of all of them...
I think we need some sort of 'I am not a crazy person'-diagram about which rumour was probably copied by another and how their relations influence their credibility
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
At this point I'm inclined to agree that some of this might be getting out on purpose, either to flush people out or more likely just keep people engaged during an intentional release lul.
I think it's more likely that stuff is getting out now because this is the time when GW just can't keep it secret anymore. Physical product boxes are being produced and shipped around the world in preparation for June, more non-studio staff are starting to see details on the new rules & models to prepare marketing materials, and the usual community 'influencer' types are likely getting more involved too.
Then as genuine info starts to surface you have the usual telephone game with finer details getting muddied, or folks trying spread misinfo on purpose to amuse themselves.
Wayniac wrote: Intervenators is a ridiculous name even by GW naming.
Some of these get stranger and stranger, as expected. Definitely pancake edition vibes, the irony of course being that pancake edition was actually better than the official one that we got
The 'making tyranids less than 100% insectoid' doesn't help that, since I can't imagine anyone saying that if they've ever seen a tyranid model (or, alternately, insects). The models themselves seem less outlandish in weapons loadout, the stats are... a weird mix of Oldhammer, AoS and 40k, which makes them look perfectly wrong. Bringing back init and adding evade is certainly an interesting choice, the sort of blundering game design that seems more believable coming from GW.
The rumor batch before that started with the statement that it was done out of spite, so that doesn't help either.
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
At this point I'm inclined to agree that some of this might be getting out on purpose, either to flush people out or more likely just keep people engaged during an intentional release lul.
Yeah, its feeling like something. Either leak tracing or just people squabbling in a weird way over 'being right'
Dudeface wrote: BurnerAccount claims they'll be vindicated when the bonereaper character gets shown on an upcoming Monday.
Or a lizardmen spawning pool.
Bonereapers are just a guess. Everyone in the AoS community knows an OBR book plus character is on the way. A spawning pool sounds like nonsense. Why would Seraphon get a second peice of faction terrain? I'm pretty certain this individual is just a troll.
With all the "recent" 10th Edition rumormongers coming out of the woodwork, I wouldn't be surprised if GW themselves are putting out
some of this stuff in the hope that a "true" rumormonger overreaches and divulges something that allows tracing back to their source.
At this point I'm inclined to agree that some of this might be getting out on purpose, either to flush people out or more likely just keep people engaged during an intentional release lul.
I think it's more likely that stuff is getting out now because this is the time when GW just can't keep it secret anymore. Physical product boxes are being produced and shipped around the world in preparation for June, more non-studio staff are starting to see details on the new rules & models to prepare marketing materials, and the usual community 'influencer' types are likely getting more involved too.
Then as genuine info starts to surface you have the usual telephone game with finer details getting muddied, or folks trying spread misinfo on purpose to amuse themselves.
Yep, the thing about influencers can't be overstated: if we operate on the assumption that the release date at the end of june is accurate, and that they'd want to use the period from Warhammer Fest till release to have a hype phase of about 8 weeks, now would be about the time that influencers, artists and other content creators would have signed their pre-NDAs and actual NDAs and would be somewhere in the process of getting assigned their review materials, miniatures and stuff to paint and so on. By sheer necessity, that would mean that there is 'Blood in the water' and a lot of people would be aware that something is coming, even if they or their contracts are not allowed to talk specifics yet.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: Man, all this talk when we already had a far more intuitive solution. Templates. Yes they were hard to perfectly balance and someone particularly pedantic can argue edge cases, but it was far, far more intuitive as far as 40k is concerned.
What do templates have to do with damage spill-over?
A Proposed Rule I might've never posted for Damage Spill-Over is that, when you deal excess damage, any excess is divided by two (rounding down, minimum 0) then applied to the next model in a unit. Keep going until everyone is dead or damage runs out.
So, against a squad of W1 guys, D1 and D2 kills one. D3-6 kills two. D7+ would kill three. (Technically you can kill a fourth with a D15+, but nothing actually has that to my knowledge.)
Against W2 models, D2 and D3 kills one. D4-D5 kills one, wounds another. D6-D9 kills two. D10+ kills two, wounds a a third.
The calculations are more complicated than I'd like, but I think it hits a good sweet spot between "A Lascannon is USELESS against hordes" and "A Lascannon is better than a Frag Missile against hordes".
My point is you didn't need damage spill-over when you could damage multiple units at once with a template. You could definitely argue edge cases, but you don't have to worry about things like blast weapons or other large non-focused weapons feeling weird when you had a hand-dandy system for hitting and damaging multiple units at once with the same damage statline. Stat them with the appropriate damage numbers, and there you go.
Though I do agree damage spillover would be good for melee.
Obviously AoS can't use this system because the kind of weapons used don't apply to it, but 40k had a relatively solid system for it.
I am more than glad that the stupid template system is gone for good. This has no place in anything with a larger scale than Necromunda. It is just bloat..... but, that is just my, rather strong, opinion. I totally accept that there are other viewpoints.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: Man, all this talk when we already had a far more intuitive solution. Templates. Yes they were hard to perfectly balance and someone particularly pedantic can argue edge cases, but it was far, far more intuitive as far as 40k is concerned.
What do templates have to do with damage spill-over?
A Proposed Rule I might've never posted for Damage Spill-Over is that, when you deal excess damage, any excess is divided by two (rounding down, minimum 0) then applied to the next model in a unit. Keep going until everyone is dead or damage runs out.
So, against a squad of W1 guys, D1 and D2 kills one. D3-6 kills two. D7+ would kill three. (Technically you can kill a fourth with a D15+, but nothing actually has that to my knowledge.)
Against W2 models, D2 and D3 kills one. D4-D5 kills one, wounds another. D6-D9 kills two. D10+ kills two, wounds a a third.
The calculations are more complicated than I'd like, but I think it hits a good sweet spot between "A Lascannon is USELESS against hordes" and "A Lascannon is better than a Frag Missile against hordes".
My point is you didn't need damage spill-over when you could damage multiple units at once with a template. You could definitely argue edge cases, but you don't have to worry about things like blast weapons or other large non-focused weapons feeling weird when you had a hand-dandy system for hitting and damaging multiple units at once with the same damage statline. Stat them with the appropriate damage numbers, and there you go.
Obviously AoS can't use this system because the kind of weapons used don't apply to it, but 40k had a relatively solid system for it.
IMHO getting rid of templates was one of the smarter things they did, especially for 'serious' tournament play - for the sheer amount of miniatures that a typical game now has, rules that rely on the individual placement of miniatures and are min-maxable by players just have no place in the game anymore because they can slow down matches to a crawl and lead to endless arguments about full vs. partial covering, unit spacing and so on. Templates were fine and useful for smaller games with fewer models and less models with a non-standard footprint, but they start to fail in large games and where a lot of non-standard models are present. With a reasonable opponent it's not too difficult to work it out, but in a setting where winning is all that matters it's just not feasible.
"Damage control" is the wrong word here as there is no damage done
we have a discussion on all different platforms ignoring anything but the upcoming 40k game and what it will be
damage control would be needed if one of the "leakers" would come up with "not worth playing" or "the changes make all models you bought until now useless"
Just different rumours of how much 40k is going to change is not damage but marketing
we know that 10th will come, we know that the game will change, we know that previous books are outdated with release and we know that certain armies will need to wait years to be playable again
this is the GW standard for 40k, the difference in details does not really matter
Initiative coming back? Templates? Index to remove bloat?
the thing is, in 3 years people will ask for another reset because GW messed it up again, no matter what the changes are
and no matter what is in the initial rules, people well say that it is the best game ever made and all the rules changes make perfect sense and are a big improvident, no matter how "bad" those are said to be now (if GW will return to templates people will praise it, not matter what)
the question is simply just are they going to mess it up with the first books or to we get a year of usable rules until it happens
this is the GW standard for 40k, the difference in details does not really matter
Initiative coming back? Index to remove bloat?
the thing is, in 3 years people will ask for another reset because GW messed it up again, no matter what the changes are
the question is simply just are they going to mess it up with the first books or to we get a year of usable rules until it happens
Some variation of that eternal circle is unavoidable as long as their design strategy is 'Prune back to usability - add stuff until it breaks - repeat'. It's not even a totally bad strategy, it works out from a commercial point of view, is somewhat predictable for the players and it guarantees that you'll probably not stuck in unplayability with no new models forever, like e.g. 3rd edition Orks or Dark Eldar for the majority of their existence.
it would work if GW would do 2 things
split rules and background and in addition go back digital
as long as you needed a printed book that is mainly background to play that game instead of having the possibility to get stand alone rules in digital form, it would not be a big problem
kodos wrote: it would work if GW would do 2 things
split rules and background and in addition go back digital
as long as you needed a printed book that is mainly background to play that game instead of having the possibility to get stand alone rules in digital form, it would not be a big problem
IMHO the best solution would be something like Wizards of the Coast do with Magic: the Gathering - the actual game rules are free, regularly updated and available online, both in a 'quick to play' variant that is sufficient for 99% of players in 95% of situations, and in a technically written, comprehensive rule set that explains literally every single -numbered- rule in excruciating detail and is thus the ultimate fallback for every conceivable rules question. This document is somewhat intimidating, but the fact of its existence, coupled with well-updated FAQs, means that in practice even tournaments with hundreds of players and thousands of different cards as well as uncounted potential interactions usually just need a handful of judge rulings, and most of those only because players misunderstood a rule - actual rules ambiguities are practically unheard of.
I would concur with my erstwhile colleague here. The 3rd edition redesign, while clean and new and exciting at the time, is looking a little stale and hasn't been put to best use if your name doesn't start with 'Jes' and end with 'Goodwin'. The maleceptor alone should have had everyone querying 'nid revamp when?'
The vague descriptions we get here are interesting, hinting at the nids becoming more weird than the xenomorph expies they became. (I guess that since the 3rd Ed nids appeared, the Aliens franchise sliding down a slope from Alien3 to Resurrection to AVP to Covenant made everybody want to move on.)
You leave that masterpiece alone! It's one of the best worst movies of all time, only narrowly beaten by AVP 2 due to the added needless violence on the neonatal care unit in that one
Something most games makers fail to manage these days is to get a working app out at all, let alone on release day.
We all know how the 40k app is doing, with the activate codes in the hardback books.
Other apps like X-Wing died off, and new expansions were not added to the app for weeks (or at all) after release.
If the apps is semi-required, due to regular updates, they need to make sure it is up to date ASAP.
Especially if it is not free.
Vovin wrote: I am more than glad that the stupid template system is gone for good. This has no place in anything with a larger scale than Necromunda. It is just bloat..... but, that is just my, rather strong, opinion. I totally accept that there are other viewpoints.
Skinnereal wrote: Something most games makers fail to manage these days is to get a working app out at all, let alone on release day.
We all know how the 40k app is doing, with the activate codes in the hardback books.
Other apps like X-Wing died off, and new expansions were not added to the app for weeks (or at all) after release.
If the apps is semi-required, due to regular updates, they need to make sure it is up to date ASAP.
Especially if it is not free.
I've never had a day 1 codex not register correct or not had any faqs immediately updated in the app. Are there any examples you can provide? I'm well aware the army builder is a steaming heap of turd mostly, but rules references have been OK.
Getting sensible spill over from weapons would be as simple as giving a spill over stat saying how many extra models from the unit you could kill if you have spare damage from an attack
1 (you could kill the dude behind/beside your target like knives or stub guns)
10 (representing a massive explosion, your target turning into a spray of molten metal/acid/toxic gas etc)
Skinnereal wrote: Something most games makers fail to manage these days is to get a working app out at all, let alone on release day.
We all know how the 40k app is doing, with the activate codes in the hardback books.
Other apps like X-Wing died off, and new expansions were not added to the app for weeks (or at all) after release.
If the apps is semi-required, due to regular updates, they need to make sure it is up to date ASAP.
Especially if it is not free.
I've never had a day 1 codex not register correct or not had any faqs immediately updated in the app. Are there any examples you can provide? I'm well aware the army builder is a steaming heap of turd mostly, but rules references have been OK.
The main issue I'm aware of is that IOS app updates take longer to appear than Android ones, most likely due to the approval process.
I always see rules changes for Android within a few days of the book/FAQ release, mostly on the same day.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Getting sensible spill over from weapons would be as simple as giving a spill over stat saying how many extra models from the unit you could kill if you have spare damage from an attack
1 (you could kill the dude behind/beside your target like knives or stub guns)
10 (representing a massive explosion, your target turning into a spray of molten metal/acid/toxic gas etc)
but is it really worth the extra hassle?
IMHO it's not functionally different enough from the current system of representing that stuff by having multiple shots, the 'blast' type and additional special rules like e.g. 'Whenever you do x this weapon scores another y hits / does additional z damage / causes x mortal wounds'.
By the way, no idea if it helps anybody, but i checked several EU and UK trademark registries, and there's no evidence of any sort of new Warhammer 40k Logo - usually that kind of stuff gets registered long in advance of actually using it, mostly because there are periods during which it can be challenged, and you want to be out of these... Such listings are, by necessity and out of principle, public, so no listing practically means no new logo.
Tsagualsa wrote: By the way, no idea if it helps anybody, but i checked several EU and UK trademark registries, and there's no evidence of any sort of new Warhammer 40k Logo - usually that kind of stuff gets registered long in advance of actually using it, mostly because there are periods during which it can be challenged, and you want to be out of these... Such listings are, by necessity and out of principle, public, so no listing practically means no new logo.
They just did a 'big' logo redesign a few years back (2020 for 40k, 2019 for stores and the general 'winged hammer' logo to represent both systems).
Seems weird to do it again so soon.
Tsagualsa wrote: By the way, no idea if it helps anybody, but i checked several EU and UK trademark registries, and there's no evidence of any sort of new Warhammer 40k Logo - usually that kind of stuff gets registered long in advance of actually using it, mostly because there are periods during which it can be challenged, and you want to be out of these... Such listings are, by necessity and out of principle, public, so no listing practically means no new logo.
They just did a 'big' logo redesign a few years back (2020 for 40k, 2019 for stores and the general 'winged hammer' logo to represent both systems).
Seems weird to do it again so soon.
Not completely out of the ordinary. AoS has changed logo about every edition.
Tsagualsa wrote: By the way, no idea if it helps anybody, but i checked several EU and UK trademark registries, and there's no evidence of any sort of new Warhammer 40k Logo - usually that kind of stuff gets registered long in advance of actually using it, mostly because there are periods during which it can be challenged, and you want to be out of these... Such listings are, by necessity and out of principle, public, so no listing practically means no new logo.
They just did a 'big' logo redesign a few years back (2020 for 40k, 2019 for stores and the general 'winged hammer' logo to represent both systems).
Seems weird to do it again so soon.
Yeah, the last redesigned logo needs its next renewal in 2031 and is a protected design till then, and that's also the newest design from GW that can be found in the database. The only more recent database enty that contains the word 'Warhammer' is an unrelated trademark for an all-purpose laboratory disinfectant called 'WarHammer' that got registered in January
Tsagualsa wrote: IMHO getting rid of templates was one of the smarter things they did, especially for 'serious' tournament play - for the sheer amount of miniatures that a typical game now has ... they can slow down matches to a crawl and lead to endless arguments ... With a reasonable opponent it's not too difficult to work it out, but in a setting where winning is all that matters it's just not feasible.
That's why I'm looking forward to having certain rules split into Narrative and Competitive. I only play 40k with my friends that I've known since childhood. I would sooner compete in a Smash Bros tournament than a 40k one.
Some of my friends do prefer watertight / competitive rules and we can play that way with them. But my other friends would much rather play narrative games and enjoy my homebrew rules.
Also, disputes in 40k matches are supposed to be settled with boring old roll-offs before they bog down to a crawl of endless arguments. Alternatively you can settle disputes with a quick duel of champions.
kodos wrote: "
the question is simply just are they going to mess it up with the first books or to we get a year of usable rules until it happens
Just two weeks before the FAQ.
I don't understand how there is play testers. I mean always a FAQ in two weeks. Either GW doesn't listen to the play testers or the play testers are that bad.
One of the reasons why I stopped GW is because you spend so much money on a book it's invalidated two weeks or less. There is no quality when it comes to GW rules writing and play testing anymore. Hopefully this new edition will be a change to that and I will come back. Just hate spending money and book is already invalid in two weeks or less. Use to be we had a year or so before being invalid, now it's two weeks. GAH! Such a turn off.
*edit*
What I am afraid of is GW going the boring way for some armies, then when it's SM turn for a new codex they go all out back to the old way and everything is over powered again in like 3 release cycles of codices. The first two or three codices are "balanced" and no flavour then SM get flavour and OP compared to the codices released prior to it since it's GW "listening" to fans and making a better product but don't bother fixing the previous relased codices.
kodos wrote: "
the question is simply just are they going to mess it up with the first books or to we get a year of usable rules until it happens
Just two weeks before the FAQ.
I don't understand how there is play testers. I mean always a FAQ in two weeks. Either GW doesn't listen to the play testers or the play testers are that bad.
One of the reasons why I stopped GW is because you spend so much money on a book it's invalidated two weeks or less. There is no quality when it comes to GW rules writing and play testing anymore. Hopefully this new edition will be a change to that and I will come back. Just hate spending money and book is already invalid in two weeks or less. Use to be we had a year or so before being invalid, now it's two weeks. GAH! Such a turn off.
There is by necessity a period of multiple weeks to several months where book content is already 'locked in' but the book is not yet released. Playtesting can go on in that period, but will of course be too late to change anything in the printed books, so in that time they basically work towards a 'Day 0' FAQ. You can't really avoid that as long as you stick to classic printed books, at some point there will be a time period where your books are actually in the process of being printed and shipped - the length of that period of course depending on where you print them and which transport option you choose.
Davor wrote: I don't understand how there is play testers. I mean always a FAQ in two weeks. Either GW doesn't listen to the play testers or the play testers are that bad.
GW does not play-test their rules
GW let people test the concept and basic ideas to see if people like it or not
test players don't get the full rules and they don't get the final rules or in other words, players get an early Alpha version, can add their feedback and the next time the rules make contact with someone who plays the game is after release
If GW gave a damn about their reputation, they would print all their books near the END of an edition to set it in stone and wrap it up as a complete product, not an obsolete one.
Indexes and erratas throughout, then beautiful hardcovers at the end to say "Here is 10th Edition as history will remember it. Play it until the end of time if you wish, or follow us to a new world."
This is obviously not my main account. I wanted to post this last week in my main community, but this didn’t work out because secondary accounts can’t post there. I am not active here, but made an account nonetheless, because you are fellow children of Sanguinius. But then I u-turned, it didn’t seem to be worth it to share my excitement with strangers. But here is another U-Turn..... I can’t hold it any longer.
I got access to a pretty random collection of future releases.
... Arks of Omen 5 (which I won’t spoil, because the interesting bits are only background anyway, but it is NOT about the Lion and there is no new primarch model at this point) ...
But the kicker is that I got hold of a box called Strangleweb.
It is some kind of starter box and has a new 40k logo *excitement* and is full of Blood Angels stuff
The box has a booklet, two colors and some push fit miniatures in it. The miniatures are Tyranid gargoyles. They are called Pheragaunts in the assembly. They have two wings and four scything talons. The overall design is different. The ribs are covered with a membrane. Membrane has holes where the flesh and chitin is breaking through. Muscles are sculpted, where there is no chitin. They are 20% amphibious, 80% insectoid instead of 100% insectoid. Color scheme is the old Leviathan, but the cream is a lighter bone color. Second sprue is Intervenators, primaris jump troops, painted in Blood Angel colors. They have eviscerators, but no gravis armor. They have the old cross straps incorporated into their chest. The eviscerators have only a one-sided chainblade, but are two-handed. Finally there are a couple of barricades: toppled over ornamented columns, with crates and imperial aegis scraps welded together with metal girders in between and on top. The colors included are old ones: Agrellan Badland and Tyrant Skull.
I could glean more from the booklet. There are two missions, unit profiles, some background, assembly guide and basing guide. There are additional unit placements in the mission, but no pictures: Captain Lucael, Indomitus Elite Velani, Tyranid Shrikes, Termagants brood with fleshborers, Termagant brood with spike rifles, Scout squad Sempre. In the basing guide, you can see a termagant. It has the same less boney, more fleshy design as the pheragaunts. The head is longer and has larger plates. it uses its middle arms to run, the front arms are still connected to the fleshborer. There is no magazine, but two hoses go into its throat.
Didn’t read much, but the scenario is about the marines encircled in a wasteland encampment. first mission is to hold, second is to break free and bring a mcguffin for a ritual to safety
The unit profiles are more interesting: the stat block is now divided into two dials. The left one has Move, Initiative, Morale. The right one has Evade, Save and Wounds. The evade stat is empty, except for a single symbol for the pheragaunts. Underneath come some keywords (infantry,sturdy,fly for the marines and infantry,light, fly for the pheragaunts) and then the weapon profile and some special rules
know no fear (3): unit is disadvantaged to hit for the rest of the game. I don't know what that is.
Instinctive behaviour (5): unit is broken and runs away unless in synaptic range.
at the bottom of the datasheet is the usual keyword soup.
Intervenators have 3+ stats all around, pheragaunts 5+, except initiative also 3+.
10”,2 wounds vs 12”,1 wound
Weapons are:
Eviscerators are range 2, 2 attacks, 3+ hit, 3 damage, some symbols and a rule, that reduces the damage against infantry
Shock Assault: range 0, 1 attack, 4+ hit, 1 damage
Scything talons are range 1, 5 attacks, 4+ hit, 1 damage
Acid tongue: range 0, 1 attacks, 5+ hit, 1 damage, some symbols
kingpbjames wrote: If GW gave a damn about their reputation, they would print all their books near the END of an edition to set it in stone and wrap it up as a complete product, not an obsolete one.
Indexes and erratas throughout, then beautiful hardcovers at the end to say "Here is 10th Edition as history will remember it. Play it until the end of time if you wish, or follow us to a new world."
Exalted! Great idea, shame it won't become reality..
Skinnereal wrote: Something most games makers fail to manage these days is to get a working app out at all, let alone on release day.
We all know how the 40k app is doing, with the activate codes in the hardback books.
Other apps like X-Wing died off, and new expansions were not added to the app for weeks (or at all) after release.
If the apps is semi-required, due to regular updates, they need to make sure it is up to date ASAP.
Especially if it is not free.
I've never had a day 1 codex not register correct or not had any faqs immediately updated in the app. Are there any examples you can provide? I'm well aware the army builder is a steaming heap of turd mostly, but rules references have been OK.
Happened with LE early release codexes in the Army Box. Could not f.ex. activate the Ork codex until GW fixed stuff on their side. Even then I could not access the references until the Ork codex had been released outside the armybox in question.
NAVARRO wrote:
Its a New edition starter army, think Necrons, Primaris etc... Besides its not 40 kits most are dual so half that if such.
Dudeface wrote:
Would you have said we weren't getting a redesign of the marine range as well 6-7 years ago?
Edit: I agree with you, it seems unlikely, but never say never.
tneva82 wrote:
It was already compared and rumoured kit count matched necrons...
So safe to say your presumption is flat wrong.
Necrons weren't a redesign. They were an update of some old kits and some new ones, but the new designs still followed established Necron themes.
Space Marines were closer to a redesign, but they are Space Marines and basically get 10 kits for every Xenos release.
A Necron style Tyranid release wouldn't be a redesign. It would be an expansion and update but would still follow established Tyranid themes.
Moreover the supposed leaked apparently never has seen either an insect or a Tyranid, because Tyranids and insects already are notably different. There is no insect that has leathery wings after all. Current Tyranids have reptilian and even mammalian characteristics in addition to their insect ones.
More lists of rumors, no potato cam pics to back any of it up.
Thing is, Ossiarch Bonereapers character is a safe bet. We know it's likely them and SBGL that will be getting their battletome over the next month or two.
The curious thing is mentioning 'the pool' in reference to lizardmen/seraphon. If they do reveal some sort of spawning pool terrain piece, spell, or otherwise, then that could give more credence to these rumors.
drbored wrote: More lists of rumors, no potato cam pics to back any of it up.
Thing is, Ossiarch Bonereapers character is a safe bet. We know it's likely them and SBGL that will be getting their battletome over the next month or two.
The curious thing is mentioning 'the pool' in reference to lizardmen/seraphon. If they do reveal some sort of spawning pool terrain piece, spell, or otherwise, then that could give more credence to these rumors.
Yeah, but a spawning pool as either terrain piece or endless spell or sth. like that is also a pretty safe bet, or it could be something that rumourmonger actually picked up from an unrelated source and is now using as a token of credibility. It's no proof either way, only weak-ish circumstancial evidence.
Anyway, with that claim about AoO 5 being about Sanguinor that rumour will be proven or disproven soon.
It's actually a weird thing to call out for Seraphon, as they already have a terrain piece.
There's also no other rumor out there that's called out seraphon getting any sort of terrain or spells (I know, I've been very keen on tracking all the seraphon rumors because I am very excite)
But whatever, we'll see soon enough.
Kinda wish we could see a sliver of a potato cam pic just to shut up a lot of these lists.
It's actually a weird thing to call out for Seraphon, as they already have a terrain piece.
There's also no other rumor out there that's called out seraphon getting any sort of terrain or spells (I know, I've been very keen on tracking all the seraphon rumors because I am very excite)
But whatever, we'll see soon enough.
Kinda wish we could see a sliver of a potato cam pic just to shut up a lot of these lists.
For now, i'm counting this specific rumour as fake mostly because it claims a new Warhammer 40k Logo and there's absolutely no sign of any of that in the trademark databases where such stuff usually turns up months or even years before you see it 'in the wild'. For example, keeping an eye on trademark listings is how the Magic: the Gathering community spots possible names for new card sets well in advance of any official promo material appearing.
Has someone the edited parts of the B&C post? A mod has cut the AoS bits from the original post. It would be interesting to see what the missing bits were to have some more flesh to nail him down.
Vovin wrote: Has someone the edited parts of the B&C post? A mod has cut the AoS bits from the original post. It would be interesting to see what the missing bits were to have some more flesh to nail him down.
Sadly i only have what is quoted in the OP behind the spoiler tag, it seems like it was already edited then.
Edit: also checked Google Cache, Archive.org and another archive, none have the un-edited version.
Skinnereal wrote: Something most games makers fail to manage these days is to get a working app out at all, let alone on release day.
We all know how the 40k app is doing, with the activate codes in the hardback books.
Other apps like X-Wing died off, and new expansions were not added to the app for weeks (or at all) after release.
If the apps is semi-required, due to regular updates, they need to make sure it is up to date ASAP.
Especially if it is not free.
I've never had a day 1 codex not register correct or not had any faqs immediately updated in the app. Are there any examples you can provide? I'm well aware the army builder is a steaming heap of turd mostly, but rules references have been OK.
Happened with LE early release codexes in the Army Box. Could not f.ex. activate the Ork codex until GW fixed stuff on their side. Even then I could not access the references until the Ork codex had been released outside the armybox in question.
That was not bug as such but feature. As everybody couldn't get hands gw tournaments out so gw app supported book their tournaments use.
They got unlocked when codex got publicly available.
NAVARRO wrote:
Its a New edition starter army, think Necrons, Primaris etc... Besides its not 40 kits most are dual so half that if such.
Dudeface wrote:
Would you have said we weren't getting a redesign of the marine range as well 6-7 years ago?
Edit: I agree with you, it seems unlikely, but never say never.
tneva82 wrote:
It was already compared and rumoured kit count matched necrons...
So safe to say your presumption is flat wrong.
Necrons weren't a redesign. They were an update of some old kits and some new ones, but the new designs still followed established Necron themes.
Space Marines were closer to a redesign, but they are Space Marines and basically get 10 kits for every Xenos release.
A Necron style Tyranid release wouldn't be a redesign. It would be an expansion and update but would still follow established Tyranid themes.
Moreover the supposed leaked apparently never has seen either an insect or a Tyranid, because Tyranids and insects already are notably different. There is no insect that has leathery wings after all. Current Tyranids have reptilian and even mammalian characteristics in addition to their insect ones.
Your definition of redesign might not be same as leaker. Leaker could easily just mean lots of existing kits get new verslon. Same way as necrons got,
Davor wrote: I don't understand how there is play testers. I mean always a FAQ in two weeks. Either GW doesn't listen to the play testers or the play testers are that bad.
GW does not play-test their rules
GW let people test the concept and basic ideas to see if people like it or not
test players don't get the full rules and they don't get the final rules or in other words, players get an early Alpha version, can add their feedback and the next time the rules make contact with someone who plays the game is after release
at least this is what we "know"
Thank you for that. I just remembered how some people said they got some tourney people with credentials to play test the rules so I thought they did that through all of 9th.
It appears like their idea of playtesting is here try out these specific rules with these predetermined armies and don't deviate from that and let us know how it feels. Which is why so many things seem to slip through the cracks, because they're not letting the playtesters actually build their own lists to find out what broken combos are there
Skinnereal wrote: Something most games makers fail to manage these days is to get a working app out at all, let alone on release day.
We all know how the 40k app is doing, with the activate codes in the hardback books.
Other apps like X-Wing died off, and new expansions were not added to the app for weeks (or at all) after release.
If the apps is semi-required, due to regular updates, they need to make sure it is up to date ASAP.
Especially if it is not free.
I've never had a day 1 codex not register correct or not had any faqs immediately updated in the app. Are there any examples you can provide? I'm well aware the army builder is a steaming heap of turd mostly, but rules references have been OK.
Happened with LE early release codexes in the Army Box. Could not f.ex. activate the Ork codex until GW fixed stuff on their side. Even then I could not access the references until the Ork codex had been released outside the armybox in question.
Hence Dudeface's statement of "day 1". Pre-release books via army boxes aren't considered released or "Day 1" by GW.
yeah I have to agree with the App sentiment, I bought the battletech app for my tablet and its crap, does not have any of the newer stuff, does not get updates, does not contain the legacy mechs that have been around for 30+ years
Wayniac wrote: It appears like their idea of playtesting is here try out these specific rules with these predetermined armies and don't deviate from that and let us know how it feels. Which is why so many things seem to slip through the cracks, because they're not letting the playtesters actually build their own lists to find out what broken combos are there
They get points but those locked and gw doesn't ask nor listen comments on those.
Add to that incomplete rules...playtesters thought dark lances were dam d6 for examplE
Dudeface wrote: I've never had a day 1 codex not register correct or not had any faqs immediately updated in the app. Are there any examples you can provide? I'm well aware the army builder is a steaming heap of turd mostly, but rules references have been OK.
Happened with LE early release codexes in the Army Box. Could not f.ex. activate the Ork codex until GW fixed stuff on their side. Even then I could not access the references until the Ork codex had been released outside the armybox in question.
That was not bug as such but feature. As everybody couldn't get hands gw tournaments out so gw app supported book their tournaments use.
They got unlocked when codex got publicly available.
Then they should have run the new codex as a hidden unlock, expiring after the event. I hate that they delete all old app content when a new codex is released. If they add codexes and say which version they apply to, they can test ahead of time at events like this, and for play testers. But, that means listing versions in codexes, even saying what year they were released, neither of which they do.
That OT though, and just more GW-isms I wish they'd move on from.
tneva82 wrote: Your definition of redesign might not be same as leaker. Leaker could easily just mean lots of existing kits get new verslon. Same way as necrons got,
I'd say it can be mixed.
So for example, its likely you'll get new termagants which are just replacement termagants. The kit is what, 20+ years old? They are going to look slightly different perhaps - but still recognisable as little guys with fleshborers etc. Bring back spike rifles and strangleweb guns for fun etc.
Then there may be oddities like "Primaris:Gargoyles" that clearly could be a replacement, but get a different weapon loadout and a different name so are something new.
I'd be surprised if they touched most of the stuff from 5th edition onwards. But that still gives you a reasonable pool of old models on top of new models.
tneva82 wrote: Your definition of redesign might not be same as leaker. Leaker could easily just mean lots of existing kits get new verslon. Same way as necrons got,
I'd say it can be mixed.
So for example, its likely you'll get new termagants which are just replacement termagants. The kit is what, 20+ years old? They are going to look slightly different perhaps - but still recognisable as little guys with fleshborers etc. Bring back spike rifles and strangleweb guns for fun etc.
Then there may be oddities like "Primaris:Gargoyles" that clearly could be a replacement, but get a different weapon loadout and a different name so are something new.
I'd be surprised if they touched most of the stuff from 5th edition onwards. But that still gives you a reasonable pool of old models on top of new models.
Yup. That's what I would more or less expect if the nids are main focus as sounds. Some older kits get refreshed, some might get updated look along it, others distinctly similar but improved look and maybe alternative weapon like necron warriors got new weapon option. Then some new units.
Dawnbringer wrote: The new gargoyle type creature in the rumour sounds like a smaller version of that one off flying beasty that came out with the last codex.
Edit: Parasite of Mortrex
They may be part of a dual kit = shooty and cc gargoyles.
Dawnbringer wrote: The new gargoyle type creature in the rumour sounds like a smaller version of that one off flying beasty that came out with the last codex.
Edit: Parasite of Mortrex
They may be part of a dual kit = shooty and cc gargoyles.
In 3rd edition you could build your own critters with the mutation rules and gargoyles with scything talons where a thing- made as an example in the codex broods you could make so it wouldn't be a surprise of they did add options to gargoyles - although its a cracking little kit- the sculpts are great.
Dawnbringer wrote: The new gargoyle type creature in the rumour sounds like a smaller version of that one off flying beasty that came out with the last codex.
Edit: Parasite of Mortrex
They may be part of a dual kit = shooty and cc gargoyles.
In 3rd edition you could build your own critters with the mutation rules and gargoyles with scything talons where a thing- made as an example in the codex broods you could make so it wouldn't be a surprise of they did add options to gargoyles - although its a cracking little kit- the sculpts are great.
Getting the gun arms lined up nice drove me crazy on the gargs. Loved the kit until I hit that point.
Aesthetically I think the nids are in a great place. A lot of the sprues are done with old tech and could be packed with a ton more bits. They need a brush up, not a reinvention. IMHO.
One thing we could see with a tyranid redesign is thinner models. Even Gaunts are really quite chunky thick in design - way way more so than a lot of other current GW models and more so than they are presented in lore/classic artwork or even the original models.
So that could be a neat change to see.
Personally I hope if there's a redesign its a polish/clean/improvement over the base of what we have now; rather then 2nd to 3rd edition or 3rd to 4th edition style of wholesale change of everything.
Overread wrote: One thing we could see with a tyranid redesign is thinner models. Even Gaunts are really quite chunky thick in design - way way more so than a lot of other current GW models and more so than they are presented in lore/classic artwork or even the original models.
So that could be a neat change to see.
Yeah the original plastic Dark Eldar warriors had a similar chunkiness contrary to the art. Those were from around the same time as the current tyranid guant kits.
CAD-designed plastic gave kabalites a really noticable change for those in 2010. After looking at the detail in recent kits like Parasite of Mortrex or Accursed Cultists, it'll be interesting to see what 20+ years of design improvements will do for the nids range.
It's really hard to tell which set of rumours is more believable. There's so many at this point it's just getting silly.
It's been rumoured for a while now that Blood Angels will be the main chapter for next edition, or at least the starter box, so Sanguinor as Arks of Omen 5 could make sense. And that guy has given something to add some slight credibility to his rumours if it happens, with that rumour engine thing being soon supposedly.
But the original set of rumours that mentioned the Lion has, so far, been sort of right. We've had 2.5 of the miniatures they mentioned - Azrael and Farsight are definite, and they were partially right about Vash'tor but their claim of him being a Daemon Prince implied that they didn't actually have that much knowledge of the models details beyond its apperance. And also, so far no indication of Primaris Dante from that set of rumours either.
I think bringing back the Lion would just be pretty absurd really. There's been no real hint of it with Arks of Omen so far in the Tarot Cards, despite book 3 involving the Dark Angels. It would be a massive change to the fundamentals of 40k yet again and it would mean they barely did much of substance with the new status quo before yet again changing the core aspects of the setting to something different. They're got nowhere near exhausting the potential of the current stuff to the point its time to change the settings foundations again.
I feel like it is worth everyone asking themselves; was getting Primarchs in 40kreally a surprise? I remember thinking back in the 2000s that GW would inevitably bring them into the game. There is far too much incentive both real-world, on the table, and for writing for some team to not give into that temptation at some point. It was always going to happen and it is going to keep happening.
I think bringing back the Lion would just be pretty absurd really. There's been no real hint of it with Arks of Omen so far in the Tarot Cards, despite book 3 involving the Dark Angels. It would be a massive change to the fundamentals of 40k yet again and it would mean they barely did much of substance with the new status quo before yet again changing the core aspects of the setting to something different. They're got nowhere near exhausting the potential of the current stuff to the point its time to change the settings foundations again.
Point of bringing lion would be cash. Sales of models.
Fluff is decided on after model is completed.
They don't need to exhaust anything but boss impatience to press print money button,
I think bringing back the Lion would just be pretty absurd really. There's been no real hint of it with Arks of Omen so far in the Tarot Cards, despite book 3 involving the Dark Angels. It would be a massive change to the fundamentals of 40k yet again and it would mean they barely did much of substance with the new status quo before yet again changing the core aspects of the setting to something different. They're got nowhere near exhausting the potential of the current stuff to the point its time to change the settings foundations again.
Um, they were setting up the Lions return back in 2016 with the War Zone Fenris books. It was all there and then they acted like that part of the lore didn't exist and then suddenly it was all Primaris and Roboute leading the way. So your hints came almost seven years ago. He should have come back a long time ago.
I think bringing back the Lion would just be pretty absurd really. There's been no real hint of it with Arks of Omen so far in the Tarot Cards, despite book 3 involving the Dark Angels. It would be a massive change to the fundamentals of 40k yet again and it would mean they barely did much of substance with the new status quo before yet again changing the core aspects of the setting to something different. They're got nowhere near exhausting the potential of the current stuff to the point its time to change the settings foundations again.
Um, they were setting up the Lions return back in 2016 with the War Zone Fenris books. It was all there and then they acted like that part of the lore didn't exist and then suddenly it was all Primaris and Roboute leading the way. So your hints came almost seven years ago. He should have come back a long time ago.
The seed for the return of some loyalist Primarchs was sown much earlier, even in the time of the first 'Index Astartes' series, when it was explicitly stated and then repeated countless times that many of them are not dead, but 'spirited away' to places unknown in some way. Russ, The Lion, Dorn after the retcon about his skeleton, Vulkan, Guilliman, the Khan and Corax were 'alive/not confirmed dead' by comic book rules since then: no on-screen body, not dead. Guilliman of course being the special case of a body being present, but maybe healing in stasis.
I want Dorn to return in the form of a big ol' dreadnought, only instead of power fists or guns it has his severed hands attached, the only remaining bits of his body left, through which the Primarch can still direct his sons. The Imperial Fists master sign language in response.
generic WLT and relics that every army has access to (CP refund, +1 save, master crafted weapon)
more generic stratagems that mostly everyone has access to (character fight on death, auspex, combat revival with medic keyword)
10th will bring back indexes. All armies stratagems and WLT will be massively scaled back
subfactions are gone and replaced with custom traits. Subfaction flavor is relegated to special characters providing rules
turret rule is generic now. Nearly every vehicle has atleast one turret
obsec is gone. Objectives controlled based on the number of starting wounds with troops counting as 2x
spells and prayers cut. Max 3 per discipline but still meaningful
game feels much more streamlined but a bit more generic. Lots of flavor cut out in favor of simplicity
playtest material only included marines, tyranids, and index books
This is a regurgitation, probably from spikybits, which got it from discord screenshots etc. - we had these rumours in the OP since 02/21, filed under 'Disgruntled on Discord'
Aenar wrote: I checked the previous page of this discussion but not 5 pages ago, my bad
No problem, it's not easy to keep everything in sight & mind, last week the thread was moving very fast. I keep the 1st post mostly current though and edit it daily if new stuff comes up.
- Lion will have 4 head options, including a full helmet, a bare face, a 'cult' version with hood and one with an open visor/semi-covered face
- Equipped with a sword, possibly the Lion Sword, and a shield
- Restates again the theory about the Lion already being returned and active in secret, the chamber on the rock is empty
- Says new models, but not the Lion, will be revealed on Warhammer World Open Day, bigger things will be shown at Adepticon
- Among them: Snikrot, Dante, Farsight, probably main teaser for the Lion
It's mostly re-stating stuff we already know or suspect - i think we're in some sort of a lull before march will absolutely packed with official reveal events, and then shortly followed by Warhammer Fest.
I think bringing back the Lion would just be pretty absurd really. There's been no real hint of it with Arks of Omen so far in the Tarot Cards, despite book 3 involving the Dark Angels. It would be a massive change to the fundamentals of 40k yet again and it would mean they barely did much of substance with the new status quo before yet again changing the core aspects of the setting to something different. They're got nowhere near exhausting the potential of the current stuff to the point its time to change the settings foundations again.
Um, they were setting up the Lions return back in 2016 with the War Zone Fenris books. It was all there and then they acted like that part of the lore didn't exist and then suddenly it was all Primaris and Roboute leading the way. So your hints came almost seven years ago. He should have come back a long time ago.
The problem is you're taking small bits of lore that's there to add intrigue and mystery to the setting but were not intended to go anywhere further as "hints". The Lion has been "sleeping and ready to return" since 2007 at least, possibly even earlier. So was Guilliman with him "potentially healing in status" and all the other things about hoping Primarchs come back and quests to find them and that sort of thing. They were not "hints" at anything.
Regardless when has GW ever planted "hints" at anything long before it happened in a way where they clearly intended to be a hint of what was coming at the time it was written? The only example I can recall was there was a single encounter with the Squats in Psychic Awakening Pariah before they were properly announced less than 2 years after that was mentioned.
I think bringing back the Lion would just be pretty absurd really. There's been no real hint of it with Arks of Omen so far in the Tarot Cards, despite book 3 involving the Dark Angels. It would be a massive change to the fundamentals of 40k yet again and it would mean they barely did much of substance with the new status quo before yet again changing the core aspects of the setting to something different. They're got nowhere near exhausting the potential of the current stuff to the point its time to change the settings foundations again.
Um, they were setting up the Lions return back in 2016 with the War Zone Fenris books. It was all there and then they acted like that part of the lore didn't exist and then suddenly it was all Primaris and Roboute leading the way. So your hints came almost seven years ago. He should have come back a long time ago.
The problem is you're taking small bits of lore that's there to add intrigue and mystery to the setting but were not intended to go anywhere further as "hints". The Lion has been "sleeping and ready to return" since 2007 at least, possibly even earlier. So was Guilliman with him "potentially healing in status" and all the other things about hoping Primarchs come back and quests to find them and that sort of thing. They were not "hints" at anything.
Regardless when has GW ever planted "hints" at anything long before it happened in a way where they clearly intended to be a hint of what was coming at the time it was written? The only example I can recall was there was a single encounter with the Squats in Psychic Awakening Pariah before they were properly announced less than 2 years after that was mentioned.
There was an interview that i can't manage to find anymore where one of the 'big' 40k designers put it succinctly: they put all sorts of hints towards all manners of stuff in the fluff all the time, with no specific intention to do anything concrete about any of them. By doing that, they can choose from among hundreds of hints and connect them in the future, when they want to introduce new stuff or change in the setting. The designer called it 'showing the audience a lot of open doors, but mostly never going through them'.
The problem is you're taking small bits of lore that's there to add intrigue and mystery to the setting but were not intended to go anywhere further as "hints". The Lion has been "sleeping and ready to return" since 2007 at least, possibly even earlier. So was Guilliman with him "potentially healing in status" and all the other things about hoping Primarchs come back and quests to find them and that sort of thing. They were not "hints" at anything.
Regardless when has GW ever planted "hints" at anything long before it happened in a way where they clearly intended to be a hint of what was coming at the time it was written? The only example I can recall was there was a single encounter with the Squats in Psychic Awakening Pariah before they were properly announced less than 2 years after that was mentioned.
GW writers have stated previoulsy that things like this are written into the background for two reasons:
1) It gives players opportunity to be creative with their own background material for their army or campaign. The two missing space marine legions were explicitly (not) added for that reason.
2) It's also an opportunity for GW writers to pick up those plot points in future if they decide there's an interesting direction for them to go. Various units and even whole factions (like Necrons) have been developed from small lore elements written years earlier, once the studio came up with a concept they liked.
So basically things like "the Lion is sleeping" are left as seeds for possible future ideas, but not necessarily a definite project or plan.
Spoiler:
Except for Ynnari. That stuff is going nowhere lmao
I think bringing back the Lion would just be pretty absurd really. There's been no real hint of it with Arks of Omen so far in the Tarot Cards, despite book 3 involving the Dark Angels. It would be a massive change to the fundamentals of 40k yet again and it would mean they barely did much of substance with the new status quo before yet again changing the core aspects of the setting to something different. They're got nowhere near exhausting the potential of the current stuff to the point its time to change the settings foundations again.
Um, they were setting up the Lions return back in 2016 with the War Zone Fenris books. It was all there and then they acted like that part of the lore didn't exist and then suddenly it was all Primaris and Roboute leading the way. So your hints came almost seven years ago. He should have come back a long time ago.
The problem is you're taking small bits of lore that's there to add intrigue and mystery to the setting but were not intended to go anywhere further as "hints". The Lion has been "sleeping and ready to return" since 2007 at least, possibly even earlier. So was Guilliman with him "potentially healing in status" and all the other things about hoping Primarchs come back and quests to find them and that sort of thing. They were not "hints" at anything.
Regardless when has GW ever planted "hints" at anything long before it happened in a way where they clearly intended to be a hint of what was coming at the time it was written? The only example I can recall was there was a single encounter with the Squats in Psychic Awakening Pariah before they were properly announced less than 2 years after that was mentioned.
There was an interview that i can't manage to find anymore where one of the 'big' 40k designers put it succinctly: they put all sorts of hints towards all manners of stuff in the fluff all the time, with no specific intention to do anything concrete about any of them. By doing that, they can choose from among hundreds of hints and connect them in the future, when they want to introduce new stuff or change in the setting. The designer called it 'showing the audience a lot of open doors, but mostly never going through them'.
Yeah, this is it. They aren't there because they're hinting at what their plans are. They're there to add mystery and interest to the setting on their own while giving plenty of opportunities for things that they could elaborate on at some point if they wanted to. They might go back and do something with them much, much later and connect them to something but at the time they're added its not because they're all "hints" at anything they're actually planning on doing.
Maybe there are other examples but Like I said the only one I can recall that was clearly intended to be a hint (because it around the sort of timeframe when they were working on them or at least thinking of it) was the Squats encounter 2 years before they were announced, and even that was a single small vague paragraph in a campaign book.
Tsagualsa wrote:There was an interview that i can't manage to find anymore where one of the 'big' 40k designers put it succinctly: they put all sorts of hints towards all manners of stuff in the fluff all the time, with no specific intention to do anything concrete about any of them. By doing that, they can choose from among hundreds of hints and connect them in the future, when they want to introduce new stuff or change in the setting. The designer called it 'showing the audience a lot of open doors, but mostly never going through them'.
Oh! Just like the Bene Gesserit! And about as competently mishandled.
The 'big 40K designer' quote I remember (was it Rick Priestly or Andy Chambers? Rick I think.) was that if GW brought the primarchs back, they were out of ideas.
Aenar wrote: I checked the previous page of this discussion but not 5 pages ago, my bad
No problem, it's not easy to keep everything in sight & mind, last week the thread was moving very fast. I keep the 1st post mostly current though and edit it daily if new stuff comes up.
- Lion will have 4 head options, including a full helmet, a bare face, a 'cult' version with hood and one with an open visor/semi-covered face
- Equipped with a sword, possibly the Lion Sword, and a shield
- Restates again the theory about the Lion already being returned and active in secret, the chamber on the rock is empty
- Says new models, but not the Lion, will be revealed on Warhammer World Open Day, bigger things will be shown at Adepticon
- Among them: Snikrot, Dante, Farsight, probably main teaser for the Lion
It's mostly re-stating stuff we already know or suspect - i think we're in some sort of a lull before march will absolutely packed with official reveal events, and then shortly followed by Warhammer Fest.
4 different heads for a character? Usually they get a helmeted and non-helmeted option, sure, and having a quick look at the GW site there's the Avatar and Lord of Change with 3 different heads, but what named characters have had 4 different options?
Aenar wrote: I checked the previous page of this discussion but not 5 pages ago, my bad
No problem, it's not easy to keep everything in sight & mind, last week the thread was moving very fast. I keep the 1st post mostly current though and edit it daily if new stuff comes up.
- Lion will have 4 head options, including a full helmet, a bare face, a 'cult' version with hood and one with an open visor/semi-covered face
- Equipped with a sword, possibly the Lion Sword, and a shield
- Restates again the theory about the Lion already being returned and active in secret, the chamber on the rock is empty
- Says new models, but not the Lion, will be revealed on Warhammer World Open Day, bigger things will be shown at Adepticon
- Among them: Snikrot, Dante, Farsight, probably main teaser for the Lion
It's mostly re-stating stuff we already know or suspect - i think we're in some sort of a lull before march will absolutely packed with official reveal events, and then shortly followed by Warhammer Fest.
4 different heads for a character? Usually they get a helmeted and non-helmeted option, sure, and having a quick look at the GW site there's the Avatar and Lord of Change with 3 different heads, but what named characters have had 4 different options?
Abaddon has three (no helmet option) and two of them with just different mimic. Magnus too. I think it's not that unlikely.
Aenar wrote: I checked the previous page of this discussion but not 5 pages ago, my bad
No problem, it's not easy to keep everything in sight & mind, last week the thread was moving very fast. I keep the 1st post mostly current though and edit it daily if new stuff comes up.
- Lion will have 4 head options, including a full helmet, a bare face, a 'cult' version with hood and one with an open visor/semi-covered face
- Equipped with a sword, possibly the Lion Sword, and a shield
- Restates again the theory about the Lion already being returned and active in secret, the chamber on the rock is empty
- Says new models, but not the Lion, will be revealed on Warhammer World Open Day, bigger things will be shown at Adepticon
- Among them: Snikrot, Dante, Farsight, probably main teaser for the Lion
It's mostly re-stating stuff we already know or suspect - i think we're in some sort of a lull before march will absolutely packed with official reveal events, and then shortly followed by Warhammer Fest.
4 different heads for a character? Usually they get a helmeted and non-helmeted option, sure, and having a quick look at the GW site there's the Avatar and Lord of Change with 3 different heads, but what named characters have had 4 different options?
Abaddon has three (no helmet option) and two of them with just different mimic. Magnus too. I think it's not that unlikely.
I noticed some that have 3 options, like Shadowsun has no helmet/visor/helmet, but couldn't find any with 4.
Open day is 5th March, 10 days from now. Not too long to wait for a credibility test. He's specified DA models right? I assume so because "New models on open day" isn't any sort of leak.
JWBS wrote: Open day is 5th March, 10 days from now. Not too long to wait for a credibility test. He's specified DA models right? I assume so because "New models on open day" isn't any sort of leak.
He specified *no* DA models on the 5th, assumes (but clear from the video this is speculation) that the 5th will be Farsight & Snikrot, with maybe a little tease for the Lion at the end.
Aenar wrote: I checked the previous page of this discussion but not 5 pages ago, my bad
No problem, it's not easy to keep everything in sight & mind, last week the thread was moving very fast. I keep the 1st post mostly current though and edit it daily if new stuff comes up.
- Lion will have 4 head options, including a full helmet, a bare face, a 'cult' version with hood and one with an open visor/semi-covered face
- Equipped with a sword, possibly the Lion Sword, and a shield
- Restates again the theory about the Lion already being returned and active in secret, the chamber on the rock is empty
- Says new models, but not the Lion, will be revealed on Warhammer World Open Day, bigger things will be shown at Adepticon
- Among them: Snikrot, Dante, Farsight, probably main teaser for the Lion
It's mostly re-stating stuff we already know or suspect - i think we're in some sort of a lull before march will absolutely packed with official reveal events, and then shortly followed by Warhammer Fest.
4 different heads for a character? Usually they get a helmeted and non-helmeted option, sure, and having a quick look at the GW site there's the Avatar and Lord of Change with 3 different heads, but what named characters have had 4 different options?
Abaddon has three (no helmet option) and two of them with just different mimic. Magnus too. I think it's not that unlikely.
I noticed some that have 3 options, like Shadowsun has no helmet/visor/helmet, but couldn't find any with 4.
If you have a character with two bare heads with just a different facial expression and one with a half-face mask, than the step to one more head (bare, helmet, hood and mask) isn't exactly steep.
Tsagualsa wrote:There was an interview that i can't manage to find anymore where one of the 'big' 40k designers put it succinctly: they put all sorts of hints towards all manners of stuff in the fluff all the time, with no specific intention to do anything concrete about any of them. By doing that, they can choose from among hundreds of hints and connect them in the future, when they want to introduce new stuff or change in the setting. The designer called it 'showing the audience a lot of open doors, but mostly never going through them'.
Oh! Just like the Bene Gesserit! And about as competently mishandled.
The 'big 40K designer' quote I remember (was it Rick Priestly or Andy Chambers? Rick I think.) was that if GW brought the primarchs back, they were out of ideas.
I mean there's only so many times you can add a faction to such a massive system and limited ways to add new units as time progresses. The real pickle is 10 years from now - how will GW keep the model churn going?
JWBS wrote: Open day is 5th March, 10 days from now. Not too long to wait for a credibility test. He's specified DA models right? I assume so because "New models on open day" isn't any sort of leak.
He specified *no* DA models on the 5th, assumes (but clear from the video this is speculation) that the 5th will be Farsight & Snikrot, with maybe a little tease for the Lion at the end.
People watch his videos to hear him say these things?
JWBS wrote: Open day is 5th March, 10 days from now. Not too long to wait for a credibility test. He's specified DA models right? I assume so because "New models on open day" isn't any sort of leak.
He specified *no* DA models on the 5th, assumes (but clear from the video this is speculation) that the 5th will be Farsight & Snikrot, with maybe a little tease for the Lion at the end.
People watch his videos to hear him say these things?
JWBS wrote: Open day is 5th March, 10 days from now. Not too long to wait for a credibility test. He's specified DA models right? I assume so because "New models on open day" isn't any sort of leak.
He specified *no* DA models on the 5th, assumes (but clear from the video this is speculation) that the 5th will be Farsight & Snikrot, with maybe a little tease for the Lion at the end.
People watch his videos to hear him say these things?
I watch them, so you don't have to
You are a god amongst man. Or stupid and having to much time. Thanks nonetheless.
JWBS wrote: Open day is 5th March, 10 days from now. Not too long to wait for a credibility test. He's specified DA models right? I assume so because "New models on open day" isn't any sort of leak.
He specified *no* DA models on the 5th, assumes (but clear from the video this is speculation) that the 5th will be Farsight & Snikrot, with maybe a little tease for the Lion at the end.
People watch his videos to hear him say these things?
I watch them, so you don't have to
You are a god amongst man. Or stupid and having to much time. Thanks nonetheless.
It's not so bad - the upside to 90% of any given video being senseless banter is that you can skip 90% of any given video Sped-up to 1.5, making much use of youtube's close caption feature and the chapter annotations they have had for some time 'watching' a 15 minute video takes about 3 mins, with another 5 maybe to update the thread. I mostly do it while brewing a cup of tea
Mortarion and Magnus only had 1 head option. Guilliman has 2. Abaddon has 3. Now Lion will have 4???
GW, the head balance is unreal! Please nerf heads, or go back and add heads to the earlier primarchs! What's next? Leman Russ gunna have 5 heads showing different stages of the wulfen curse or something?
Mortarion and Magnus only had 1 head option. Guilliman has 2. Abaddon has 3. Now Lion will have 4???
GW, the head balance is unreal! Please nerf heads, or go back and add heads to the earlier primarchs! What's next? Leman Russ gunna have 5 heads showing different stages of the wulfen curse or something?
Just imagine a very witty and naughty wordplay about Fulgrim getting the best head here...
GW definitely doesn't update models in order of age.
The Young Warrior Arks of Omen card showed the Tau symbol and the Dawnblade and the text said it was a warrior "far beyond the Imperium's sight" or something along those lines. Combined with the silhouette of a Tau model with a big sword from a previous preview show, there's reasons why a new model seems imminent.
Goose LeChance wrote: Are Primaris ever going to be 'complete' or do they plan on releasing new unit profiles with a slightly different weapon forever?
pretty sure that's exactly what they're going to do to keep the treadmill going
Purgator - 'And here, a fatherless son, alone in the endless night'
Like we speculated, the Card could match both the Lion and Sanguinor/Dante: both are in a sense 'fatherless' - it fits the Blood Angels slightly better, because they're actually, not only technically fatherless, and the Lion would not be 'alone' as long as Guilliman is around. On the other hand, the Lion was living as a literal lost child in the forests of Caliban for decades, during a time when Caliban had lost contact with the wider universe, literally called 'Old Night', and so far the Tarot Cards followed the pattern that the 1st card represented the Past of the character, so it would match the Lion.
Purgator - 'And here, a fatherless son, alone in the endless night'
Like we speculated, the Card could match both the Lion and Sanguinor/Dante: both are in a sense 'fatherless' - it fits the Blood Angels slightly better, because they're actually, not only technically fatherless, and the Lion would not be 'alone' as long as Guilliman is around. On the other hand, the Lion was living as a literal lost child in the forests of Caliban for decades, during a time when Caliban had lost contact with the wider universe, literally called 'Old Night', and so far the Tarot Cards followed the pattern that the 1st card represented the Past of the character, so it would match the Lion.
So it probably is the Lion still.
Well, he was purging Caliban of the Chaos taint growing up. He will probably be purging his legion when he returns for all the flaws that he sees and purging the Fallen as well.
Purgator - 'And here, a fatherless son, alone in the endless night'
Like we speculated, the Card could match both the Lion and Sanguinor/Dante: both are in a sense 'fatherless' - it fits the Blood Angels slightly better, because they're actually, not only technically fatherless, and the Lion would not be 'alone' as long as Guilliman is around. On the other hand, the Lion was living as a literal lost child in the forests of Caliban for decades, during a time when Caliban had lost contact with the wider universe, literally called 'Old Night', and so far the Tarot Cards followed the pattern that the 1st card represented the Past of the character, so it would match the Lion.
So it probably is the Lion still.
Well, he was purging Caliban of the Chaos taint growing up. He will probably be purging his legion when he returns for all the flaws that he sees and purging the Fallen as well.
JWBS wrote:Beat me to it. I'll add "Purgator" ('ator' suffix - doer of thing) and blonde locks on child. I'd say Lion, purgin' his wayward lads.
Both very convincing arguments - for now, there remains just enough doubt about it being the Lion that i'll not mark the rumour that AoO5 will be about the Sanguinor as 'proven fake' yet, but that point is not far away now.
I'm leaning towards Blood Angels because the baby's robes are red. I'm a simple guy like that.
To extrapolate further, I think the lost child is Dante, out in Imperium Nihilus
Leggy wrote: I'm leaning towards Blood Angels because the baby's robes are red. I'm a simple guy like that.
To extrapolate further, I think the lost child is Dante, out in Imperium Nihilus
The Lion is blonde. Heresy-era Dark Angels have a ton of red elements in their color scheme. And, as far as everyone but the Watchers in the Dark are concerned, the Lion is still lost.
"And so, after millennia spent in dark slumber, his mind wandering, lost amidst the horrors of the warp even as his broken body lay still in the cold depths of the Rock; his tortured psyche eternally reliving the pain and anguish of his final duel with Luther, so did The Lion awake. To return when he was needed most. To wrestle the fate of the Imperium back into the hands of humanity, from the clutches of ruinous gods and vile xenos. To purge his Father's empire clean. The Lion drew his first true breath in over ten thousand years. His emerald eyes slowly opened....
...he took one look at the Primaris vehicle designs. He sighed and closed his eyes once more. Another few millennia of napping couldn't hurt."
JimmyWolf87 wrote: "And so, after millennia spent in dark slumber, his mind wandering, lost amidst the horrors of the warp even as his broken body lay still in the cold depths of the Rock; his tortured psyche eternally reliving the pain and anguish of his final duel with Luther, so did The Lion awake. To return when he was needed most. To wrestle the fate of the Imperium back into the hands of humanity, from the clutches of ruinous gods and vile xenos. To purge his Father's empire clean. The Lion drew his first true breath in over ten thousand years. His emerald eyes slowly opened....
...he took one look at the Primaris vehicle designs. He sighed and closed his eyes once more. Another few millennia of napping couldn't hurt."
Eh, the initial Grav tanks were pretty bad along with the Predator equivalents, and the ATV is kinda silly. However, the Impulsor is fine and the Speeders are okay. The Dreads are also way better than the other Box Dreads available. I'm also a fan of the turret thing with the Techmarine but I understand that's not to everyone's taste.
Leggy wrote: I'm leaning towards Blood Angels because the baby's robes are red. I'm a simple guy like that.
To extrapolate further, I think the lost child is Dante, out in Imperium Nihilus
The Lion is blonde. Heresy-era Dark Angels have a ton of red elements in their color scheme. And, as far as everyone but the Watchers in the Dark are concerned, the Lion is still lost.
Also, someone data-mined the file and apparently this was the original version of the upload:
Leggy wrote: I'm leaning towards Blood Angels because the baby's robes are red. I'm a simple guy like that.
To extrapolate further, I think the lost child is Dante, out in Imperium Nihilus
The Lion is blonde. Heresy-era Dark Angels have a ton of red elements in their color scheme. And, as far as everyone but the Watchers in the Dark are concerned, the Lion is still lost.
Also, someone data-mined the file and apparently this was the original version of the upload:
Saying that this hints at the Lion is a perfect example of confirmation bias at work. Without knowing any rumours nobody would say anything other than Dante.
alone in the endless night -> alone in the Dark Imperium
blonde curly hair -> Dante
fatherless son -> Primarch dead
red fabric -> Blood Angels
Purgator(io) -> second act of Dante's divine comedy
And none of the other riddles hides its real meaning behind an obvious meaning.
It's probably the Lion, but the hints could also imply Sanguinor. Curled blonde hair is the mainstay for Blood Angels. And Lost in the night might be an allegory for the Warp. Fatherless implies a dead "genefather", which could be the emperor, but I think it's more likely Sanguinius (also implying heavily he's dead and gone)
I'm really hoping Sanguinor, for I prefer the story involving than another primarch.
The rumours however prove this might not be the case.
Vovin wrote: Saying that this hints at the Lion is a perfect example of confirmation bias at work. Without knowing any rumours nobody would say anything other than Dante.
alone in the endless night -> alone in the Dark Imperium
blonde curly hair -> Dante
fatherless son -> Primarch dead
red fabric -> Blood Angels
Purgator(io) -> second act of Dante's divine comedy
And none of the other riddles hides its real meaning behind an obvious meaning.
Yep, the other cards haven't all been literal. Just taking this at face value and meaning exactly what it says would be boring and unlike the other cards.
It would also mean, if it is the Lion, that they're giving facts that seemingly have little to no actual relevance to whats going on. The Lion was raised alone 10,000 years ago, yeah.....but how would that specific bit of information have any bearing on the potential Arks of Omen direction? Where's the relevance of that to any of whats going on specifically? It's a quite meaningless thing to have as a card and include in the context of these events.
Vovin wrote: Saying that this hints at the Lion is a perfect example of confirmation bias at work. Without knowing any rumours nobody would say anything other than Dante.
alone in the endless night -> alone in the Dark Imperium
blonde curly hair -> Dante
fatherless son -> Primarch dead
red fabric -> Blood Angels
Purgator(io) -> second act of Dante's divine comedy
And none of the other riddles hides its real meaning behind an obvious meaning.
Yeah the Inferno reference suggests a Dante curveball. The kid is looking left, like Jack of spades and clubs, which apparently represent Ogier the Dane and Lancelot, both knights.
edit - cartomancy is all over the place depending where you look, not useful.
Didn't baby Sanguinius also have, you know... wings?
That's taking the (presumably generic) tarot too literally. One of the T'au ones earlier was a woman with a horse, but still referring to T'au.
Yeah i know. There's some level of not-literalness in there, like taking 'the young warrior' for the Tau via 'the Tau are a young race', unlike the literal T'au Farsight, who is, quite contrary, exceptionally old for his race. Point being: the cards are quite literally up for interpretation and have some level of ambiguity in them, so for now people should keep in mind that different interpretations might be valid, depending on what they're smoking in GWHQ
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Can someone explain to me what the DA vs BA discussion is doing in this thread?
The title of the thread deals with 10th ed and its starter set.
At the moment there's a bit of a lull in 10th edition rumours, but a bunch of the newer rumours have staked their credibility on the question of the 5th book in the Arks of Omen series - one batch of rumours says that that book throws a curveball and is about the Sanguinor, while several other batches and rumourmongers say it's about the Lion. Solving that question would mean that we know that either batch is probably fake or at least false. So we're debating that right now because we at least get the drip-feed of a new tarot card each friday for sure.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Can someone explain to me what the DA vs BA discussion is doing in this thread?
The title of the thread deals with 10th ed and its starter set.
At the moment there's a bit of a lull in 10th edition rumours, but a bunch of the newer rumours have staked their credibility on the question of the 5th book in the Arks of Omen series - one batch of rumours says that that book throws a curveball and is about the Sanguinor, while several other batches and rumourmongers say it's about the Lion. Solving that question would mean that we know that either batch is probably fake or at least false. So we're debating that right now because we at least get the drip-feed of a new tarot card each friday for sure.
Which makes the semi-ambiguous tarot even more funny. GW is secretly playing all the sides.
And that the Lion wont be an 'Arks of Omen' book at all, but rather the focus of the new edition and whatever they call it.
In other words, the Arks of Omen is setting the scene for 10th edition, the opening act before the Lion takes the stage.
If the Lion was the focus of the new edition, then I'd expect the starter set would involve the Dark Angels, but rumours have said its Blood Angels.
The rumours are they're painted like BA. Focus will probably be the Lion's adventures in Imperium Nihilus. DA and BA leading the charge against chaos squatters.
For what it's worth, what I understand is that the early rumors were that it would be 'Space Marines vs Tyranids' and a lot of people just started assuming Blood Angels.
It wasn't until later that we started getting rumors about the Dark Angels, and by that point the rumor reverb about the Blood Angels had taken root so deeply that these arguments started happening.
From what I understand, the only reason people assumed Blood Angels was because they're apparently the only space marine chapter allowed to fight Tyranids.
Personally I'm putting my faith in the Dark Angels rumors, because it's all that make sense with the Lion returning. I'm sure Blood Angels will get new updates as well, but I think the DA will be the posterboys of 10th.
drbored wrote: From what I understand, the only reason people assumed Blood Angels was because they're apparently the only space marine chapter allowed to fight Tyranids.
Someone also started flinging around rumours that the fifth Arks of Omen book was going to be Sanguinor.
drbored wrote: From what I understand, the only reason people assumed Blood Angels was because they're apparently the only space marine chapter allowed to fight Tyranids.
Both the Ultramarines and the Scythes of the Emperor would like a word with you regarding that understanding, at a bare minimum.
Overread wrote: Didn't Tyranids nearly eat all the Ultramarines and their homeworld until someone did some warp trickery to bail out the marines
The flagship of the Segmentum Fleet, Dominus Astra, banzaied into the core of the fleet and deliberately detonated its warp engines, wiping out most of the swarm.
BA Terminators vs Tyranids yet again sounds really boring though.
They badly need to bring back Matt Ward for some juicy creativity with the Blood Angels.
Seriously though. They really need to find something interresting to do for BA. There is plenty interresting themes in the chapter to do more than just slaughtering tyranids.
Many people will know but some will be surprised about Matthew Ward's great success as a fantasy writer after leaving GW. I've not read his stuff because even as a non-gamer his legendary 4chan entry left a mark on my psyche.
- Apparently a combat/boarding patrol box for Imperial Agents is on the way, including an Eversor assassin, Rogue Trader + retinue and Navis breachers
- Codex: Imperial Agents probably coming in 10th
- Says a lot of 10th starter box rumours are fake according to sources he trusts, video on 10th starter box to come next week
- Primaris Chapter Command box is in the works, contents unclear according to sources he trusts - Kill Team: new box called 'Ashes of Faith' with chaos cultists Dark Commune against an unspecified enemy, possibly Exodites
- Beastmen are coming for Kill Team and getting 'lots of love'
- Warhammer World open day will reveal Farsight, the 4th AoO book, possibly some of the stuff above
