Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

 warboss wrote:

What happens to my codexes?
The rules in our current range of Warhammer 40,000 codexes aren’t compatible with the new
edition of Warhammer 40,000. These books will be going off sale very soo n.

About fething time and good riddance to 6th/7th style books. Hopefully the idea of formations that dole out free bonuses and models as long as you spend $$$ is gone for good.

Not even close, have you looked at AoS? There's bi-yearly codexs, yearly GHB, campaign books out the wazoo and all with formations with minimal point costs.

All current armies should be ok if you don't want to buy stuff as they will get rules at launch and then left to rot.

But at least unlike with whfb we will still have a game for older players in 30k.

Oh you mean that game with tri-yearly codexes, campaign books out the wazoo and rights of war that give wildly different power-levels of bonuses for free, all while costing between 2-5 time more per model than 40k? Models THAT MELT IN THE SUN btw.
30k is nice if you have infinite money and wear a fedora in the shower but it's not as good as sigmar for normal gamers.

Good to know you know absolutely nothing of what you are talking about. About the only thing you got right was the price cost and MAYBE the melting bit if you leave your models in a car in the sun at midday in the middle of summer while living in a tropical or sub-tropical region...

Or a reasonably warm English summers day. Finecast was a shoddy product foisted on the fanbase by a company aiming to extract money from the foolish. "Crisp" money.

8th edition has an air of the same thing, but people will dutifully queue up to buy, and then moan about, it.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Does this mean all supplements (without points listed) are invalid already too?

Waited years for Traitor Legions.... Two month lifespan.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
I was in their corner for years, supported them for year. Making all current codexs non-compatible just breaks it for me.


Cmon GW, i thought you learned your lesson by now...

I don't understand this, why is having the same codex in a new edition that's not entirely compatible until you have to buy the new one better than getting new rules for free that are 100% compatible with the new edition?

 Draccan wrote:
Oh and changing 40k scale is a dealbreaker in my book...
Sure you can play with your old miniatures, but what happens when you want new unit types and new models?

Changing the scale to invalidate 20+ years of space marine models is just............... [no words]

LightKing wrote:
So i assume the Nu-Marines are a result of the Imperium having access to Roboute's gene-seed again along with Cawl's new machinations?

Lord Kragan wrote:
Maybe it's just my imagination but...

Spoiler:

There's no templates on this image. Starter images always showed them (can attest at least for Dark vengeance.)

Cerebrate64 wrote:
And I just got my codexes. damn.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I've seen on FB they are recommending contacting customer services for recently bought codexes. Has anyone done so? Curious if they would honour a refund.

I've had traitor legions for like.. 4 months? After waiting years for good chaos rules. Invalid after 6 months is harsh. And there's not much background in it, mostly rules.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
I've seen on FB they are recommending contacting customer services for recently bought codexes. Has anyone done so? Curious if they would honour a refund.

I've had traitor legions for like.. 4 months? After waiting years for good chaos rules. Invalid after 6 months is harsh. And there's not much background in it, mostly rules.

They literally have to, if you purchased recently. And not even because of 8th edition.

They have to honour the refund, at least here in Australia. Just tell them you are contacting the ombudsman, and they will give you a refhnd, no questions asked. It's consumer laws.

Depends on the timeframe though, surely. 4 months is quite a while.

 biggie_reg wrote:
I think it is still too early for a fanbase freakout. We have been give some vital info, but everything is still up in the air for now. I think in a couple months we will have their exact plan and we can judge from there. Until then, keep playing 7th and prepare your final game before the change-over.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Someone noted Huron and Abby had been removed from their WW displays not too long ago. I would not be surprised of Abby, Huron and Mortarion being the next Tri.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
It was weird they never gave Chaos (the main antagonists in GS) a tri set, obviously they are saving the best till last.

Now these are 3 characters I would love to see in a new and shiny form.

 sinthes wrote:
Did anybody else catch that at 55:20 when the question is asked about the new map and it's lack of the madusa sector if that means it's beeing destroyed they say not to worry the "white scars " are fine. . . Isent that the home system of the iron hands ? It was last time I checked . They really need to learn there own lore before they go foward writing new lore.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
Does new vehicle rules mean that we can charge our vehicles in to things for assault? I imagine they will patch this potential oversight? Can someone with social media access ask them please

You mean like ramming/tank shock?

I would much rather a system where a vehicle can "attack" in combat than that cluster of a rule.

 Lorek wrote:
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread (and I may very well have missed it), but one of the key takeaways for me was this:

"The statline will do a lot of the heavy lifting."

This, coupled with the removal of an upper limit on stats (and they specifically said that this limit was lifted for ALL stats), is tacit confirmation that the stat line will be used to replace a number of currently existing rules. No more fearless, but LD15? Sure. Armor saves may now be a "lower is better" affair, where Marines have a save of 6; roll below that to save. Terminators could be a 7, or a 9!

There's all kinds of cool things that they can do with this.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
Breaking news:
Pete Foley confirmed that Destroyer weapons will be gone in 8th Edition: https://twitter.com/GeekJockPete/status/856833455568629761

 KiloFiX wrote:
Foley answered some more questions on twitter regarding 8th today:

No D weapons.

No shooting into or out of combat (unlike AoS).

Fixed to hit (like AoS, unlike SWA).

Has Strength vs Toughness to Wound (unlike AoS).

No random Initiative turn (unlike AoS).

Core rules are about 14 pages not including narrative, matched play, battle forged stuff.

 jreilly89 wrote:
How's everyone feeling so far?

Requizen wrote:
Pete Foley has been answering a lot of questions on Twitter.

-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activations after charges (I'm guessing like AoS, which is good)
-NO SCATTER DIE. Deep Strike will be quite different. In AoS there's no scatter for those abilities, but often they cannot come in within 9" of an enemy, which is a good tradeoff in my book (but I play DS Stormcast lol)
-Guard still has Platoons, SM/CSM still have Chapter Tactics
-Flyers will have the same statlines as everything else but will have on-unit rules to represent flying. Good, since Zooming/Hover/Swooping was too generic for the various different flyers out there imo.
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
-Maelstrom Missions will still be a thing (yay cards!)
-No shooting into and out of combat (wonder if this will change with AoS as well...)
-NO DESTROYER WEAPONS. YUSSS.
-Free core rules ~12 pages
-No random turn mechanic. Confirms it will stay in AoS though. Guess the systems will still have some differences

jullevi wrote:
I am excited about #new40k, although not quite as excited as yesterday. Stat line reveal was slightly disappointing. I expected a radical change similar to AoS, but I hope that new stats were result of playtesters' feedback instead of lack of guts to make big changes. I certainly wouln't have minded if the stats were just Move/Wounds/Leadership/Save. I still wonder why they didn't put Attack values into weapon stats. That would have been nice way to make melee weapons more unique (I assume shooting weapons still have number of attacks listed on them).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I know

That's the point I was making

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Has anyone heard about OOP models getting rules? Getting worried for my Plague Hulk now.

Their language seemed carefully chosen. "Everything we currently sell will get rules." It is quite likely that some select OOP stuff might not make the cut.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Do you think we'll get HQs unlocking units as troop choices again, or will the new FoCs make that unnecessary?

Also, does Objective Secured exist anymore? What units can score?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Fisher-Price: Baby's First Wargame wrote:...the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit...

I would hope that a game where shooting is more the focus would not have such simplistic rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Yes I hope this is left out of 40k, should only be models within LoS or range IMO. Otherwise if one model is sticking out, all of the unit can be wiped :(

That's been the case in at least one previous edition, and I liked it just fine. Helped remove LOS sniping, kept things moving, and helped to make micromanagement of individual model placement much less of a necessity. It's an abstraction that a lot of people don't like, however.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just think that "You can only kill what you can see/is in range" is a far simply thing to grasp, and leads to far fewer problems, then "As long as you can see something you can kill everything that's part of that unit".

I don't think that 'LOS Sniping' was as big a problem as people make it out to be, and really is it a problem? I don't see how thinking about the positioning of your units both in an offensive and defensive manner is a bad thing.

Plus the old rules for Independent Characters (cannot be targeted if within 2" of an enemy unit, unless closest target at 6" or 12", whichever it was) worked fine.

Positioning should matter. Terrain should matter. Vehicle facings should matter*. Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.

*That's less an LOS issue and more a general concern over the T/W style of vehicles.

Panzerkanzler wrote:
Hmm. I just bought a bunch of dkok some time ago. Haven't painted them yet but I was going to get back into 40k with those lads. Seeing that a new edition is coming that leaves me wondering if forgeworld will release a new book for my dkok or if they are relegated to being common imperial guard.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if the 5 books might actually be in a different format to what we expect.

e.g. It makes little sense for a space perspective to include the rules for a rhino in multiple books. Perhaps it might take more of a unit centred approach with a book for armies and rules then one for tanks etc etc

I'm expecting Astartes, Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Xenos. And the "New Faction" to be Death Guard.