Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/09/new-matched-play-rules-in-chapter-approved-aug-9gw-homepage-post-1/

Flyers can't contest.
Roll off for first turn.

So Christmas is 'soon'?

Only 137 shopping days until Christmas! I think they planned this announcement to come out later, but last minute decided to do it before the Nova Open.

Troops also get a bonus to holding objectives. This is a pretty solid bump to their power. Liking all of this so far, particularly GW's consistently pumping out fixes!

With only Troops having 'Objective Secured', we'll see the Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider Detachments less and less as the 'primary' detachment of an army.

I like rolling off for first turn a lot.

Granted, there are still problems (as there are in every edition) but I am liking how GW are actively trying to improve their game as opposed to taking your money for a rulebook and leaving you to make your own house rules.

Now if only they could make a rulebook that is (A) just a rulebook and (B) easy to navigate.

 Ghaz wrote:
With only Troops having 'Objective Secured', we'll see the Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider Detachments less and less as the 'primary' detachment of an army.

Got to try to force the troop tax, or sales go down. I'm not sure your conclusion is true, however- for some armies, the extra killing power from not taking troops is probably still worth it.
And even in those detachments you can still have a couple troops to do the ObjSec job if you really want.

Is this another book we have to buy? or is a downloadable errata thing we get for free?

J0kerr2017 wrote:
Is this another book we have to buy? or is a downloadable errata thing we get for free?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/06/02/let-your-soul-be-armoured-with-faith/

Last up, we got our first look at Chapter Approved 2017, a new book on its way later this year.

We’ve said right from the start that the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is one that we’d work to make even better over time. This is one of the ways that will happen. Each year, you’ll have a new Chapter Approved, expanding your gaming options and making what we think is already the best Warhammer 40,000 ever, even better.

Expect the first Chapter Approved book in time for Christmas.

It's the 40K version of the General's Handbook for AoS.

J0kerr2017 wrote:
Is this another book we have to buy? or is a downloadable errata thing we get for free?

buy of course...

Well, this isn't good at all for my Sisters of Silence or Deathwing armies.

Could saying "Infantry" instead of "Troops" be that hard?

 Asmodai wrote:
Well, this isn't good at all for my Sisters of Silence or Deathwing armies.

Could saying "Infantry" instead of "Troops" be that hard?

The whole point is that non-Troops infantry are relatively less useful if they don't have ObSec and Troops do, therefore encouraging people to take Troops. For armies like Deathwing you'll probably find that the DA Codex includes an option to make a Deathwing detachment and if all the models have the appropriate keyword then they get ObSec, or something like that.

What I find amusing is this is basically backtracking to cater to the competitive crowd that don't want to relearn a game. It's essentially making 8th a modified 7th edition.

With the timing, GW had to know this was coming out from the very beginning of 8th, don't you think? I feel like this was planned, not a reaction to the competitive crowd.

I think the changes are good, just not sure why they didn't come out with them in the core rules, rather than a separate book so soon after!

 RiTides wrote:
With the timing, GW had to know this was coming out from the very beginning of 8th, don't you think? I feel like this was planned, not a reaction to the competitive crowd.

I think the changes are good, just not sure why they didn't come out with them in the core rules, rather than a separate book so soon after!

Why make a complete ruleset when you can fix it in drips and drabs and charge gamers every step of the way?

*adjusts tinfoil hat*

Probably looking for feedback in all honesty. They've done the same for the Generals Handbook (I think).

Voss wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
With only Troops having 'Objective Secured', we'll see the Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider Detachments less and less as the 'primary' detachment of an army.

Got to try to force the troop tax, or sales go down.

Oh. My. Friggin. God.

Needing flyers isn't good for the game. It's only because they sold out of stormravens.

Making troops obsec isn't good for the game. It's just to sellING something else.

GW is apparently the most effective company at forcing people to buy every single model.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Probably looking for feedback in all honesty. They've done the same for the Generals Handbook (I think).

Yes, they had a post on Warhammer Community looking for feedback for the upcoming General's Handbook 2017.

I, for one, liked the ObjSec rule. They were already giving it to Troops units anyway (check SM, GK and CSM codexes).

Not that sure on the Flyer one... removed the last reason to use Remoras. Piranhas do their job way better (except for speed and firing Seeker Missiles at BS4+ on the move)

The initiative one makes MSU even more attractive... dunno if this is will be good for the game.

Nova and ITC are claiming Daemons have no faction.

Chaos and Allegiance don't count, apparently.

Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.

 RiTides wrote:
With the timing, GW had to know this was coming out from the very beginning of 8th, don't you think? I feel like this was planned, not a reaction to the competitive crowd.

I think the changes are good, just not sure why they didn't come out with them in the core rules, rather than a separate book so soon after!

Not necessarily. This Chapter Approved scheduled for Christmas likely isn't printed yet. Stuff on the website, they could've literally decided on today.

So while actually printed books in stores within 2-3 months (?) of people playing their first games of 8th Edition (i.e. the first handful of codicies) was likely finished before the official 8th Edition release, this likely is (and was planned as) the first response to the game being out in the wild, I would think.

If it's being printed in China it's probably on a ship right now.

I bet it will be softback though.

 Asmodai wrote:
Well, this isn't good at all for my Sisters of Silence or Deathwing armies.

Could saying "Infantry" instead of "Troops" be that hard?

Yes, because "Infantry" also includes things like Terminators, Devastators, and such.

If Devastators can score, there's no reason Leman Russes or Carnifexes shouldn't.

Giving Objective Secured to any IMPERIUM detachment is kind of stupid and totally negates the point of making it apply to "Space Marines" detachments. It should require TWO keywords in common, much like how the space marine codex needs <CHAPTER> and ADPETUS ASTARTES. Let's hope they change that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Nova and ITC are claiming Daemons have no faction.

Chaos and Allegiance don't count, apparently.

Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.

Nova and ITC are downright wrong and idiotic. But then again, their house, their rules.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Nova and ITC are claiming Daemons have no faction.

Chaos and Allegiance don't count, apparently.

Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.

It sounds like Daemons need an exception to the rule. I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.

Arachnofiend wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Nova and ITC are claiming Daemons have no faction.

Chaos and Allegiance don't count, apparently.

Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.

It sounds like Daemons need an exception to the rule. I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.

No, no, don't be confused. Forgeworld FAQs literally call <Allegiance> faction keywords.

They're just stating they don't count.

Because reasons.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Nova and ITC are claiming Daemons have no faction.

Chaos and Allegiance don't count, apparently.

Somewhat poor news for any Daemon players out there, as you won't benefit from Objective Secured.

It sounds like Daemons need an exception to the rule. I would think their allegiance would count as their faction but in terms of RAW this would cause problems with being able to put together for example Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons and still get ObSec.

No, no, don't be confused. Forgeworld FAQs literally call <Allegiance> faction keywords.

They're just stating they don't count.

Because reasons.

It's different because if <Allegiance> counts then so does <Imperium>, which is obviously not the intention based on Despoilers of the Galaxy and... whatever the SM rule was called. GW did a pretty poor job at writing a pretty well-intended rule, unfortunately.

Agreed. As it stands, my faction may not hold objectives, and who knows how my codex will work. I am... miffed.

I think the angle brackets indicate it's referring to the mutable keywords, so Ultramarines, Catachan, Behemoth, whatever. Imperium isn't one of them so it doesn't count.

Wayniac wrote:
What I find amusing is this is basically backtracking to cater to the competitive crowd that don't want to relearn a game. It's essentially making 8th a modified 7th edition.

New != better. In pre-CA 8th, Troops are almost always objectively inferior to other choices, because they bring nothing you can't get elsewhere usually with some additional special rules on top, and because focusing on smaller elite armies to grab first turn was simply the superior way to build an army. Giving Troops ObSec again and having folk roll off for first turn albeit with a small bonus for elite armies solves both problems without having to radically change point values or rules for individual units.

And it's not just the "competitive crowd" that likes this change, I'll wager pickup gamers who prefer to build fluffy armies will love that their preferred way to play doesn't leave them fatally disadvantaged before the first dice is even rolled if they come up against an even moderately fluff-agnostic player who structure their army for effectiveness not background.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I think the angle brackets indicate it's referring to the mutable keywords, so Ultramarines, Catachan, Behemoth, whatever. Imperium isn't one of them so it doesn't count.

That might be a good point though. I hope they make that clear.