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.

**Lockark**

-Loki- wrote:
As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/warhammer-40000-news-from-adepticon/

A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.

**Lord Kragan**

-Loki- wrote:
As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?

A few things from 2nd ed are comming back: save modifiers, movement stat.
A few things from AoS are being ported, namely battleshock.

**JohnnyHell**

All this has happened before. All this will happen again.

**AllSeeingSkink**

I just noticed they say...

Morale

Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone.

So that maybe means no more ATSKNF?

I really dislike the idea of morale = more casualties. 40k morale sucks so they're just moving to a different sucky system.

I reckon they need to consider morale as more than just "how many models do I remove from the table?", I'd like to see morale actually affect how a unit behaves, and I think forcing units to fall back is an important aspect of morale for the sake of shifting models out of cover or away from objectives without having to wipe them.

**-Loki-**

Lockark wrote:
-Loki- wrote:
As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/warhammer-40000-news-from-adepticon/

A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.

Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.

At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.

**JohnnyHell**

...or our Nids could end up moving faster, hitting first and causing extra casualties. And getting new fluffy rules to boot. Ya know, we just don't know...

**rollawaythestone**

Morale in AoS seems fine to me. Tough durable elite units will lose few models - and will thus rarely fail morale tests, just like they should. Shoddy troops will lose more models and thus be more susceptible to being thinned out. However, if an elite unit does fail, you have to pull pricey elite models from the table. No more shielding your deathstar with a billion dogs, etc. Its an interesting counter to deathstars - give that you have to pull full models off the table - as well as a way to thin down big units. I'm hopeful that it works nicely in 40K. Also keep in mind that in AoS, there are a billion ways to mitigate morale checks with leaders and so on. Expect similar powers in 40k.

**GodDamUser**

-Loki- wrote:
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.

At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.

Tbh.. I am thinking Tyranids are likely to benefit from the rules changes..

I am looking forward to when these rules drop and getting my old horde army back out there

**Future War Cultist**

Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.

**GodDamUser**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.

I am also thinking Synapse will make it an non issue as well

**AllSeeingSkink**

JohnnyHell wrote:
...or our Nids could end up moving faster, hitting first and causing extra casualties. And getting new fluffy rules to boot. Ya know, we just don't know...

Years and years of GW treating nids like crap makes me automatically assume any changes are going to screw with them even worse

I'm betting on nids having rules that give them terrible leadership or remove even more than the usual number of models due to morale because GW seems to think the fun aspect of Tyranids is taking models off the table and putting them back in my carrying case.

**rollawaythestone**

-Loki- wrote:
Lockark wrote:
-Loki- wrote:
As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/warhammer-40000-news-from-adepticon/

A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.

Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.

At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.

While the morale thing sucks for the little bugs, it's actually better than running off the board or eating yourself because you are out of Synapse. Instead, movement stats (which Tyranids are assuredly getting buffs - Hormagants, Raveners, a 10 inch move Trygon!... i'm salivating at being able to move my bugs up the table for once) and even the new morale mechanics could really benefit the tyranids.

**-Loki-**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.

Provided link does not mention Bravery is coming to 40k.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rollawaythestone wrote:
-Loki- wrote:
Lockark wrote:
-Loki- wrote:
As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/warhammer-40000-news-from-adepticon/

A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.

Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.

At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.

While the morale thing sucks for the little bugs, it's actually better than running off the board or eating yourself because you are out of Synapse. Instead, movement stats (which Tyranids are assuredly getting buffs - Hormagants, Raveners, a 10 inch move Trygon!... i'm salivating at being able to move my bugs up the table for once) and even the new morale mechanics could really benefit the tyranids.

The way I read the Morale rule sounds awful, unless they explain it more elsewhere. Taking additional casualties because to suffered some casualties sounds awful for a unit that's going to, by game design, take a lot of casualties.

**AllSeeingSkink**

GodDamUser wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.

I am also thinking Synapse will make it an non issue as well

Well they've said "morale... affects everyone", so I wouldn't count on Synapse negating it.

**-Loki-**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
GodDamUser wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
Assuming that bravery is increased by unit size just like it is in AoA, nids could be near enough unbreakable if you take enough.

I am also thinking Synapse will make it an non issue as well
Well they've said "morale... affects everyone", so I wouldn't count on Synapse negating it.

That's what I understood.

**rollawaythestone**

Right, but you have to roll really bad - and if your leadership is high enough it doesn't effect you much. You can lose a lot of models before you start taking casualties.

I also think the new armor save modifiers will really benefit the Tyranids. Whereas we have very little Ap 2 or 3 (other than monsters), i'm sure we will have plenty of models with -1 or -2 to armor save (rending claws for instance).

**Future War Cultist**

Synapse creatures give other units their leadership, and they have a high leadership. Simple.

**Baron Klatz**

Wow, well over ten pages and only two posts actually on-topic. (My sincerest thanks to you both, Kronk & Sicksix.)

Should we put a warning on the front page saying "only stop for pictures, otherwise keep skimming!".

**-Loki-**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Synapse creatures give other units their leadership, and they have a high leadership. Simple.

Sure, it could work like that, and that makes sense.

I haven't seen a Tyranid release since 4th that gives me faith Tyranids won't be fethed over by such a rule, however.

**AllSeeingSkink**

-Loki- wrote:
I haven't seen a Tyranid release since 4th that gives me faith Tyranids won't be fethed over by such a rule, however.

That's basically the position I'm in at the moment

I just get this annoying feeling like GW will find a way to make us remove as many models as possible because they think that's what's fun

Something like "within synapse range remove normal number of models and outside of it remove twice as many models".

**JohnnyHell**

Or what if they just binned Synapse as a terribad execution of the concept and made the army, composed as it is Of creatures bred to throw themselves at the enemy and die, largely immune to standard psychology? We do not know anything about their plans. Honestly, doomsaying and overspeculating off these few tidbits is fairly pointless. Fun, but pointless.

**Digclaw**

Peregrine wrote:
davou wrote:
ONLY a problem if they let problem armies sit too long without a fix.

No, it's a problem, period. Updating all armies fast enough fixes the balance issues but it doesn't fix the complexity issues. 40k has major problems with the rules being a bloated mess of special rules, exceptions to the special rules, exceptions to the exceptions, etc. And now GW is promising to make sure that each model has its "cool bespoke rules" instead of simplifying things into core rules for classes of units.

if unit types go away, and say, eldar jetbikes end up broken as gak... you can just update their card. If space marine dreads are working fine, but massively over costed - Card update. Harlequins never make it into assault; boom their card now says they roll 3d6 for assault and keep the highest two. Terminators always die? For every five in the squad you get a re-roll on a failed save, or two.. Two was too much, go back to one next week.

This is terrible design. Frequent major changes like that means that the game designer is doing a job of developing the product before publication, and it imposes a huge burden on the players to keep track of all the weekly changes. And when you're making major changes like that (as opposed to minor point cost adjustments) you're almost guaranteeing that you will create things that don't work well and have to keep making major changes. The correct way to do it is to do proper design and playtesting so that the final product is finished, and needs minor adjustments at most once it is published.

Isn't that Just called Living Rulebook???

**Amishprn86**

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

5th Ed Fearless was the WORST, it literally was the worst rules in 40k, it made me HATE 40k until I stopped playing Hoard Nids.
Now everyone gets that rule :(

**VeteranNoob**

Holy God Emperor, guys!

healthy discussion is great and all but for some of you best not blow your top until you know more. At the very least wait until Adepticon is over.

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

Baron Klatz wrote:
Wow, well over ten pages and only two posts actually on-topic. (My sincerest thanks to you both, Kronk & Sicksix.)

Should we put a warning on the front page saying "only stop for pictures, otherwise keep skimming!".

Yeah 'cause Emperor forbid we have a conversation at a web forum.

**SickSix**

So we have had an entire day of this convention, and no news? WTF are people doing up there?

**VeteranNoob**

SickSix wrote:
So we have had an entire day of this convention, and no news? WTF are people doing up there?

We are enjoying ourselves at the best mini game event in the world and waiting for more exciting info throughout the weekend.

**kronk**

You have already seen the news, dude.

The rest is gaming and blowing gak up.

**Chikout**

I have news! ( not about 40k though).
From the official Facebook page. 'Warhammer Underworlds is the game. Shadespire is the setting for the first season.'
I wonder if shadow war will also follow this format.

**gainsay**

-Loki- wrote:
Lockark wrote:
-Loki- wrote:
As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/warhammer-40000-news-from-adepticon/

A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.

Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.

At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.

Actually it's quite good for swarm and horde armies. For the sake of the argument let's say GW decides bravery works just like AOS, units with larger numbers get bonuses and some ( clan rats ) have higher bravery due to taking more than 10-20 in a unit. Honestly you can't really judge this if you don't play much AOS because it's very different than anything WHFB and 40K have had in the past