GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview-8th edition rumors (p31)

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.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Oh, FFS, those wheeled movement trays will just make it easier for WAACers to nudge their models forward when I'm not looking.

Don't worry. My gaming aids company, Arse Face Seven (AF7 for the hip kids) will be producing 28mm wheel chocks to prevent such shenanigans.

Get them before GW's lawyer sits on me!

**tneva82**

insaniak wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.

That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.

Bolters in 2nd Ed had a -1 modifier. The models that didn't get a save against them are largely the models that don't get a save against them now.

Problem is in 2nd ed pretty much everything had save modifier. Which resulted in...you guess it! Armour being useless unless it was terminator scale.

If space marines could have ran their tactical marines unarmoured saving points they would have taken them. Power armour was liability. Carapace? Forget it. Hell even 5+ and 6+ armours were even more useless than now!

Sure 6+ saves don't care does bolter have -1 modifier or AP5. 3+ does. I'm just pointing out that unless they beef armours a lot or reduce armour save modifiers a lot it will be like 2nd ed where anything short of terminator armour or invulnerable save(or unmodified as it was called) is useless liability.

**kodos**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

IMO in a game like 40k (specifically, the scale of 40k now with many different armies with many different units and games which consist of so many models on the table at once) having USR's makes more sense than bespoke rules, it's just they need to be massively simplified.

Of course it would be better, but GW had shown us that they cannot handle something like that.
Remember it was 4th or 5th (not sure, maybe both) with a list of USR in the rulebook and at the end of the edition there was nor army out there using it because they got all their shiny new USR's.

That is the problem with the whole design process.
they write all their ideas into a rulebook, start writing the factions rules, get new ideas which were not covered in the rules and just add them to the faction rules.
No planning ahead or sticking to the original design.
So with each factions book, USR will become more and more obsolete but with similar worded faction based special rules

**tneva82**

Don Savik wrote:
Old fantasy had movement characteristics and armor save modifiers. AoS bravery system works more like old fantasy than 40k's morale system. Do we hate old fantasy now all of a sudden or something?

Uuuh what FB edition you are comparing to? 4th ed to 8th ed at least had much more 40k style LD than AOS style. No guys dying just like that, units fleeing and regrouping.

Closest in FB to AOS style was undead special thingie. Which was...you know...generally hated on.

**Promethius**

Fafnir wrote:
Warhammer Community wrote:Shooting

Armour save modifiers. This topic comes up almost as often as Sisters of Battle… so we’re going to bring them back. Every weapon will have its place in your army and better represent how you imagine them working in your head.

I don't know whether this is supposed to be a hint at something a long time coming, or just a really deep twisting of the knife. Damn good troll, even if I wish it didn't hurt so damn much

I think it's yet another troll.

**tneva82**

Weboflies wrote:
The salt level around this place is just astonishing. People have the nerve to suggest that rewarding themed armies is a bad thing and make judgements about that, and other game mechanics, that they don't even know the details of yet...

Problem is GW doesn't know how to make good system to reward fluffy armies. Just see the chapter tactics of 40k. Those create horribly unfluffy armies like all bike white scars.

Formations? They aren't there for fluff but to sell models.

**angelofvengeance**

tneva82 wrote:
Weboflies wrote:
The salt level around this place is just astonishing. People have the nerve to suggest that rewarding themed armies is a bad thing and make judgements about that, and other game mechanics, that they don't even know the details of yet...

Problem is GW doesn't know how to make good system to reward fluffy armies. Just see the chapter tactics of 40k. Those create horribly unfluffy armies like all bike white scars.

Formations? They aren't there for fluff but to sell models.

How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.

I don't see anything wrong with formations. GW makes money and you get a pretty nice army out of it.

**tneva82**

angelofvengeance wrote:
How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.

You know what's the REAL core of white scars?

Tactical marines. In rhino's or drop pods. Not bikes.

You can have fast attack without all bikes you know. And fluffwise tactical marines would be the most common white scar you see.

But seen much tactical marines in white scar armies lately? Nope. Cause GW doesn't reward fluffy armies.

And problem with formations is same. They aren't there for fluff. They are there to sell you more models. Buy 3 riptides for big balance! Or take this formation and get lots of free stuff so you need to buy 10 30€ models!

**Mymearan**

tneva82 wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:
Oh my, loved all the changes. Movement stat? AP affecting armour instead of just ignoring it? Rewarding thematic armies? Awesome!

Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.

That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.

Well keeping existing stats and just changing AP to do something else would be dumb. I would think they would completely change the characteristics for weapons.

**Loopstah**

angelofvengeance wrote:

How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.

I don't see anything wrong with formations. GW makes money and you get a pretty nice army out of it.

Because White Scars are a Codex chapter so should be mostly tactical squads with the correct ratip of assault/ dev squads, not all bikes.

**H.B.M.C.**

insaniak wrote:
I wouldn't worry about that... if GW's previous history with army builder software is any indication, it will be obsolete by the time it is released and never receive any updates anyway.

I was never worried about it. I knew it would be junk, but there are people here who defended it. "This time it'll be different!" "GW have changed so it'll be good!" "He only hits me because I make him so mad!". Y'know, the usual.

**Mymearan**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
yakface wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.

I definitely see the advantages in that method, for sure! With that said, I don't think unit type rules are the issue, really. The issue is keeping things simple. If the unit type rules are simple enough to put onto each unit's warscroll (or whatever the 40K equivalent will be called), then they should be simple enough for players to memorize them. But the reality is that GW used the unit type rules as a crutch (a way to keep those rules someplace else) so that they could pile more and more special rules onto each unit, both by the unit's own special rules, and then later on via formations, warlord bonuses, etc, etc, etc.

So to point the finger and blame the concept of unit type rules as what is the problem is a bit silly. If unit type rules are kept simple enough to fit onto a unit's warscroll, then the vast majority of players would have absolutely no problem memorizing them, IMHO. Getting rid of most of the other special rules that have been heaped on top is much more of what needs to be focused on.

The advantage of universal special rules (USR) rather than bespoke rules for every unit should be that it keeps the game consistent so you don't have to learn the rules for 100 different units, but rather learn a dozen or so USR's.

GW's problems is they've just made the whole thing too complicated. They could use bespoke rules or USR's it makes no difference because there's simply too many rules.

IMO in a game like 40k (specifically, the scale of 40k now with many different armies with many different units and games which consist of so many models on the table at once) having USR's makes more sense than bespoke rules, it's just they need to be massively simplified.

Overall I'm happy to see 40k get a complete overhaul. I wasn't happy to see WHFB get overhauled because I thought the core rules for WHFB were fine, but the core rules for 40k are a mess so hopefully an overhaul improves things. AoS morale rules and bespoke special rules definitely don't sound encouraging, but my fingers are still crossed for the best.

The morale rules actually work very well. It keeps the effects of morale to a single phase, removing the need for bookkeeping. It means that elite, low model count, high Leadership units will almost never lost models to morale, but it might happen if they're facing a very strong enemy and are unlucky with their rolls. Meanwhile, a high model count, low bravery chaff/horde unit will see half the unit turn tail and run away if you start wading through their friends. Works very well both thematically and practically.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
insaniak wrote:
I wouldn't worry about that... if GW's previous history with army builder software is any indication, it will be obsolete by the time it is released and never receive any updates anyway.

I was never worried about it. I knew it would be junk, but there are people here who defended it. "This time it'll be different!" "GW have changed so it'll be good!" "He only hits me because I make him so mad!". Y'know, the usual.

Don't know exactly what you're talking about here, but scrollbuilder.com, which they just announced has been made official, is excellent and receives constant updates. Their AoS app army builder also saw updates within a day of its release to fix some issues it had. Are you talking about the super old Windows software?

**Loopstah**

Hopefully low ld models will get a point drop to reflect their increased chance of evaporating due to moral.

**Mymearan**

yakface wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.

I definitely see the advantages in that method, for sure! With that said, I don't think unit type rules are the issue, really. The issue is keeping things simple. If the unit type rules are simple enough to put onto each unit's warscroll (or whatever the 40K equivalent will be called), then they should be simple enough for players to memorize them. But the reality is that GW used the unit type rules as a crutch (a way to keep those rules someplace else) so that they could pile more and more special rules onto each unit, both by the unit's own special rules, and then later on via formations, warlord bonuses, etc, etc, etc.

So to point the finger and blame the concept of unit type rules as what is the problem is a bit silly. If unit type rules are kept simple enough to fit onto a unit's warscroll, then the vast majority of players would have absolutely no problem memorizing them, IMHO. Getting rid of most of the other special rules that have been heaped on top is much more of what needs to be focused on.

Well, I agree with basically everything you said. Unit types can work, but they are way too complicated in 40k. I wouldn't have a problem with them keeping unit types but simpifying them greatly, but I also like the AoS approach.

**CrownAxe**

BaronVonSnakPak wrote:
CrownAxe wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
Fantastic news, this is what will bring me back into 40k

I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?

Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...

It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.

Which isn't an excuse for it being ok that AoS was a bad game at release. A game should not REQUIRE that players have a meeting and make concessions on how a game should be played. Especially when it only works if everyone involved actually agrees with what should(n't) be allowed.

A good game wouldn't be so abusable in the first place.

Except AoS wasn't a bad game at release, the General's Handbook only added points (as far as competitive play is concerned) it didn't change any rules. The balance wasn't there, but the core gameplay remains identical.

That's completely wrong. Not only did they add points, but army building now has structure to it (minimum on core choices, restrictions on monsters and war machines), they added the three rules of one, and and summoning comes from a points allotment spent on at list building. This is a lot more then just adding points

**H.B.M.C.**

No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules.

**Weboflies**

Well, Battle shock and Save Modifiers seem to point to an enormous nerf for the humble Tactical Marine, which happens to be my fav... Maybe some of these "bespoke rules" they're talking about will save them! The Emperor Protects!

**BaronVonSnakPak**

CrownAxe wrote:
BaronVonSnakPak wrote:
CrownAxe wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
Fantastic news, this is what will bring me back into 40k

I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?

Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...

It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.

Which isn't an excuse for it being ok that AoS was a bad game at release. A game should not REQUIRE that players have a meeting and make concessions on how a game should be played. Especially when it only works if everyone involved actually agrees with what should(n't) be allowed.

A good game wouldn't be so abusable in the first place.

Except AoS wasn't a bad game at release, the General's Handbook only added points (as far as competitive play is concerned) it didn't change any rules. The balance wasn't there, but the core gameplay remains identical.

That's completely wrong. Not only did they add points, but army building now has structure to it (minimum on core choices, restrictions on monsters and war machines), they added the three rules of one, and and summoning comes from a points allotment spent on at list building. This is a lot more then just adding points

The army building is still lumped in with army balancing, not the actual gameplay. I'll give you the rules of 1, but those merely limit what you can do, it doesnt add or remove any mechanics, it limits what was there to start. Summoning is again, points and army building, not the core gameplay based on the 4 page rules that AoS started with, and still uses.

The core gameplay, using movement speed, save, leadership,wounds, magic casting, melee/ranged and rending is EXACTLY the same. The Generals Handbook was a balance patch, not a gameplay overhaul, it changed what you bring to the game, but not how you play the game itself.

**Chikout**

I wish they had shown a couple more upcoming releases but the info out of this event all looks very promising. Old GW would have shut scroll builder down. Moving it to the community website, keeping it free and continuing to work with the original creator are all positive steps.
Calling out specific members of the community with whom they are working to improve 40k is great.
I always worried about GW being caught in its own bubble.
Giving info about possible rules some time before release with the option for feedback is a very good step.

The 3 main barriers to entry for GW games are money, time and space. Shadespire seems explicitly designed to combat these things. It is a game I can play on the coffee table in my tiny Japanese house which is great.

It is understandable to be anxious about the future, but there really does seem to be a fundamental change to the way GW is operating. This seminar is just one example of that.

**Lord Kragan**

Ghaz wrote:
MattW wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:

Why are you assuming that they will be suitable for both system ?

Because tzaangor were, and these look to have an identical release structure as tzeentch, albeit with 40k coming first rather than AoS?

The Tzaangors were released for 40k first, followed s few months later for AoS.

Tzaangors were released first for "AoS" as a silver tower enemy. The kit for tzaangors is thought for AoS, since half of its options are unusable for 40k while in AoS barring the extra set of chainswords you can use everything. These cultitsts won't be used in AoS.

**H.B.M.C.**

You're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but no one thinks of the Silver Tower miniatures as the 'first release' of Tzaangors because you can't just buy them. They come in a giant box with tons of other stuff.

And I suspect you know this.

**tneva82**

BaronVonSnakPak wrote:

The core gameplay, using movement speed, save, leadership,wounds, magic casting, melee/ranged and rending is EXACTLY the same. The Generals Handbook was a balance patch, not a gameplay overhaul, it changed what you bring to the game, but not how you play the game itself.

Which is bad because it didn't fix the REAL problems with AOS. Points? That wasn't biggest problem with AOS by far. It was from the get go bad rules and total lack of tactical depth.

**ingtaer**

That new drop pod rule had me cracking up. Oh, how I have been tempted.

**H.B.M.C.**

You can tell just how satisfying it was to take a drop pod and throw it at a table like that.

Gives me a good idea how I'm going to make my crashed Thunderhawk terrain piece when the plastic one comes out.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

ingtaer wrote:
That new drop pod rule had me cracking up. Oh, how I have been tempted.

For members of the Sad Old Git Society (Soggy Soggy Soggy! OI OI OI!), that's not far from how you deployed Drop Pods in Olden Epic.

Get Blast Marker. Pile up the Drop Pod tokens on it. lift to a set distance off the table (30cm? Might've been more), then flip it. They lands where their token lands.

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

I am unsure if I should smile or frown with the 8th edition previewed rules.

While I do like the addition of different Movement values and hopefully the a return of the "new old" Armour Save modifier rules - please bring back 3+ 2d6 Saves on Termies so my Deathwing can actually see use - and I am now curious as to how this will affect Vehicle rules... the Battleshock application seems a bit odd. And I am unsure if bespoke rules will make 40k less of a mess or not - remains to be seen.

Also they do need to clarify on what "thematic" armies really stands for.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

For AoS vs Warhammer, I much prefer Battleshock - as has been said it prevents 'all or nothing' engagements, replacing it with attrition.

But, that's having come out of 8th Ed thoroughly fed up of Steadfast, Ld10 with a BSB re-roll Ld, which prevented proper hammerblow tactics (which I've always enjoyed), not to mention endless bickering over whether you having five blokes in a line with no-one behind them is actually a rank for the purposes of Steadfast.

How well that might translate to 40k, I'm unsure.

A straight port wouldn't quite do the trick - Orks for instance would just be on the receiving end without a further special rule. But I think it could be adapted to 40k.

**Thebiggesthat**

tneva82 wrote:
BaronVonSnakPak wrote:

The core gameplay, using movement speed, save, leadership,wounds, magic casting, melee/ranged and rending is EXACTLY the same. The Generals Handbook was a balance patch, not a gameplay overhaul, it changed what you bring to the game, but not how you play the game itself.

Which is bad because it didn't fix the REAL problems with AOS. Points? That wasn't biggest problem with AOS by far. It was from the get go bad rules and total lack of tactical depth.

Keep banging that 'lack of tactical depth' drum, despite plenty of posters giving you loads of examples of how wrong you are

Enjoy your new 40k

**H.B.M.C.**

Darth Bob wrote:

I like to think that the Death Guard are so mired in Nurgle's corruption that they now see everything as "7". So, despite being the 14th Legion, they think they're the 7th. When they bring their squads to the battlefield, they walk around in squads of 10, and when asked how many of them there are, they respond with "Seven!". After taking casualties someone might ask "How many of you are left?" and they will say "Seven!", even though there's like 3 and a half of them left after the Battlecannon hit them.

Everything is Seven!

**Thebiggesthat**

Weboflies wrote:
Well, Battle shock and Save Modifiers seem to point to an enormous nerf for the humble Tactical Marine, which happens to be my fav... Maybe some of these "bespoke rules" they're talking about will save them! The Emperor Protects!

As a stormcast player, battleshock never really effects me as i have loads of leaders that nullify the roll. If i lose these then it starts being an issue, but seeing your general pulped by a massive walking tree will shake you up