WARHAMMER 40.000 - 8th Edition with two seperate ruleset?

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.

**General Kroll**

Lockark wrote:
General Kroll wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
kodos wrote:
and an unequal point tax on formation would change what exactly?

It'd be like Apocalypse was originally, where to get formation special rules you had to pay the points.

Current formation rules are GW handing out more in-game power 'cause you bought more miniatures.

Until people can learn to accept that this is part of GWs business model, and reconcile this fact within their heart of hearts, then they will forever be disappointed with whatever rules or codices/ army books they release.

Most collectible miniatures games or card games have this kind of mechanic built into them to an extent. It's how companies like FFG, GW etc. Keep themselves afloat.

Anyone who thinks this kind of thing will be disappearing with 8th edition should make a head start of being disappointed.

Wrong. In age of sigmar match play you pay a point tax on warsroll armies, and the costs are reflective of how powerful the warscroll is.

If their is no point cost it's only for unbound and campaign play. GW added point costs to AOS terrain so you can buy and use it in match play.

These are changes GW made to that game in response to community feed back.

I'm expecting the current "free" formations to get dumped into unbound /campaign play, with 40k match play only allowing ones with attached point costs.

These sort of changes improved the health of the game for the better, and have been praised.

You can bet your bottom dollar that points cost or no points cost, that when new models are released, or they want to push some slow moving stock, that suddenly a super formation will be released encouraging people to spend money on models.

GW may be listening to their community, and I'm not saying they aren't, but get real, they are still a business, they still need to sell models, and they still need to push them.

**MLaw**

I would think they would just release a boardgame, expansion, supplement, etc... or special army list in WD like the days of old..

**Lance845**

I don't understand why anyone thinks formations are a good design element.

They force your army construction into very specific little (or large) boxes that reduce the options and viable play styles of every army they touch.

The game should be made to open up new ways to build an army with more options that create diverse interesting ways to build each army. Not kill off old ways to build because they no longer hold up.

**pizzaguardian**

Lance845 wrote:
I don't understand why anyone thinks formations are a good design element.

They force your army construction into very specific little (or large) boxes that reduce the options and viable play styles of every army they touch.

The game should be made to open up new ways to build an army with more options that create diverse interesting ways to build each army. Not kill off old ways to build because they no longer hold up.

So, Unbound than?

**Blackie**

Lance845 wrote:
I don't understand why anyone thinks formations are a good design element.

They force your army construction into very specific little (or large) boxes that reduce the options and viable play styles of every army they touch.

The game should be made to open up new ways to build an army with more options that create diverse interesting ways to build each army. Not kill off old ways to build because they no longer hold up.

Formations can be a good design element if they remain a choice, an alternative way to complete your list. Only decurions and formations would be terrible, but there's nothing worse than play unbound.

**oni**

Here we are at the alleged end of 7th editions life cycle and with Unbound armies having never become the monstrosities and ruination that everyone had feared.

**AllSeeingSkink**

oni wrote:
Here we are at the alleged end of 7th editions life cycle and with Unbound armies having never become the monstrosities and ruination that everyone had feared.

I always felt unbound was just a distraction to the breaking down of non-unbound army structure in 40k. People were talking about banning unbound while ignoring the fact even if you ban unbound the "structured" rules were still a complete mess.

**Davor**

oni wrote:Here we are at the alleged end of 7th editions life cycle and with Unbound armies having never become the monstrosities and ruination that everyone had feared.

And yet still despised. I can't get a game in if not bound. I guess Triple Riptide wing is not cheesy because it's bound.

So does this rumour mean that the two separate ruleset will be bought together or you have to buy them separately?

**Wayniac**

oni wrote:
Here we are at the alleged end of 7th editions life cycle and with Unbound armies having never become the monstrosities and ruination that everyone had feared.

People feared not having something to blame their Antics on that was the problem always. It was never what you could do with Unbound, it was the fact that when playing unbound you have no excuse other than I'm a jerk. With battle forged you can just say don't blame me I'm playing by the rules.

**Ferrum_Sanguinis**

oni wrote:
Here we are at the alleged end of 7th editions life cycle and with Unbound armies having never become the monstrosities and ruination that everyone had feared.

Only because they were replaced by the monstrosities and ruination that were formations.

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

Never had, nor do I have now, a problem with unbound armies.

**timd**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah I really don't know why people are having such a hard time getting their head around formation points costs. We're not suggesting a set 'tax' that applies equally and evenly to all formations. It would be points costs based upon relative effectiveness, just like points for units are done now (in theory, at least...)

tneva82 wrote:

It doesn't have to be complex. "Balanced point costs". There. Done. System is actually simple. Problem is balancing points.

This will never happen from GW. The problem is that GW game designers do not know their own game well enough to be able to balance point values within codexes OR between codexes. They have never tried to break their own rules and the results (for 25+ years) is unbalanced codexes, leading to mono builds and unbalanced armies leading to less-than-fun games.

Its far more likely that a consortium of 40K players could come up with balanced point values than GW ever would. Serious 40k players play far more games that the studio guys do, and they play to win which really shows the deficiencies (under pointed or over pointed) in each codex and between codexes.

T

**Lance845**

pizzaguardian wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
I don't understand why anyone thinks formations are a good design element.

They force your army construction into very specific little (or large) boxes that reduce the options and viable play styles of every army they touch.

The game should be made to open up new ways to build an army with more options that create diverse interesting ways to build each army. Not kill off old ways to build because they no longer hold up.

So, Unbound than?

No. Regular old detachments. Rites of War to modify options for how you fill them out.

**Inquisitor Kallus**

Wayniac wrote:

People feared not having something to blame their Antics on that was the problem always. It was never what you could do with Unbound, it was the fact that when playing unbound you have no excuse other than I'm a jerk. With battle forged you can just say don't blame me I'm playing by the rules.

This is so true. Unbound isn't inherently bad, its what some people do with it. The players are the ones at fault in these cases, the unbound rules were there to give more freedom. Not everyone abused them

**Davor**

Inquisitor Kallus wrote:
Wayniac wrote:

People feared not having something to blame their Antics on that was the problem always. It was never what you could do with Unbound, it was the fact that when playing unbound you have no excuse other than I'm a jerk. With battle forged you can just say don't blame me I'm playing by the rules.

This is so true. Unbound isn't inherently bad, its what some people do with it. The players are the ones at fault in these cases, the unbound rules were there to give more freedom. Not everyone abused them

More people abuse Bound armies than they ever do unbound armies.

I love this quote. I had to sig it. It's so true.

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

**Warhams-77**

Natfka

Here is another great set of rumors that very much is following along with what I am hearing. The most important thing for me is the appearance of Vect.

Please remember that these are rumors. A good source, and remember that all rumors require a little salt.

via anonymous sources on Faeit 212
Guess all the images leaked forced the studios hand early.

Guilliman, Cypher, the new Grey Knight model (I don't play GK, can't remember the name) are in a second Imperium box.
The eldar box contains the three models we saw in this month's white dwarf (so he doesn't know where that Eldrad model is, since they stopped making the box set he was in) but the fine cast is also sold out.
There is a fourth box coming with: Mortarion, Abaddon, Vect. He said Mortarion is nice and beefy (probably those images were legit) but that he's nowhere near the size of Magnus.
8th edition will be very similar to the generals handbook from the get go with the "three ways to play" but codices aren't going anywhere, and nothing will be obsolete the way WHFB army books suddenly were. So, points based (what we already know and love), narrative, and AoS style. AoS style didn't even have WS/BS to hit. Managers have seen the new rules now, or at least a high level overview. Warhammer stores will be having a contest soon that involves all aspects of the hobby and winners get a sweet prize that involves a sneak peek at the rules.
Salt level reference: he's been saying guilliman and cypher for about 6 months, but he also said the contents of the eldar box would be eldrad, vect, and the visarch, which doesn't seem accurate now. He seems to get the models/books correct but the timing/packaging wrong. So I believe the models, but salty about the three packs. abandon and Mortarion and vect in one box? Eh...
Last thing, nobody knew anything about an edition just for 30k. More likely it's just "continue using 7th ed rules for now."

http://natfka.blogspot.de/2017/02/vect-mortarion-and-abaddon-models-whole.html

And

I found these rumors while I was looking for something else.

Please remember that these are rumors. I take them with a grain of salt.

via Commandаrt on vk
https://vk.com/wall-58878072
-Also for you 40k players, namely those interested in sisters. They are coming. After seeing how much the recent hero set sold they are working on them now. It may take about a year but it's in progress.
Hope I have peaked some interest and brought some hope to you all. Sadly I didn't get much info about Death and Destruction but I am hoping Death will get a long awaited release, and some goblins will soon be a thing.

-The rumored dwarves should be released at the end of March.

-Elves will be getting some releases in the summer

-Some elves will be joining slaneesh as a cult.

-For those of you who play 40k as well, expect it to get streamlined a bit. The rules bloat will be taken care of.

http://natfka.blogspot.de/2017/02/rumors-sisters-of-battle-dwarves-and.html

Yes, most likely nonsense, but it amuses me and I guess Pretre wants to track it

**warboss**

oni wrote:
Here we are at the alleged end of 7th editions life cycle and with Unbound armies having never become the monstrosities and ruination that everyone had feared.

So you want us to give GW brownie points for coming up with something so stupid that it makes the lack of balance inherent in "just ~~take~~ BUY!! ~~anything~~ EVERYTHING!! for use with anything else!" scheme they also came up with look relatively reasonable? No thanks.

**Yodhrin**

Yes, saying Unbound never became monstrous because most people wouldn't play against it and even those that wanted to saw GW's official Formations were even cheesier than anything you can make under Unbound is hardly a vindication for those who defended Unbound before.

**SnotlingPimpWagon**

Commandart is a crappy retailer in Moscow. No way they know gak. It's just what someone else said, they reposted, maybe tweaked a bit

**pretre**

Warhams-77 wrote:
Yes, most likely nonsense, but it amuses me and I guess Pretre wants to track it

I have Natfka and BOLS on my RSS feed so I can read their posts without giving them clicks.

**RazorEdge**

pretre wrote:
Warhams-77 wrote:
Yes, most likely nonsense, but it amuses me and I guess Pretre wants to track it

I have Natfka and BOLS on my RSS feed so I can read their posts without giving them clicks.

+40.000