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.

(Yawn)
40k's been boring for me as a rule set for a while. I really hope they deliver on their promise for interesting new mechanics (movement value and reworked combat initiative won't do it though sorry...).

The Nu-cast marine-ternals equivalent () are what they are - a new SM model range for new players to get on the 40k boat (I guess really old ones could get the refreshment too). I doubt that most of the current players with a SM force will go even for the long process of replacement much less for a sudden whole sale replacement.

Coming to think about it, it may be possible that only several kits are released, you know in the manner of recent AoS releases where and army consists of 3 new kits with weapon options... in which case everyone wins as they'd be easy to integrate in existing armies.

The whole new GW business is dust in the eyes - don't expect matters to change for they cannot change fundamentally. You'll still be buying premium citadel figures at premium prices prices are still and will go up mind you), certain units will be undercosted and will dominate tournaments and thus the more casual net listers, once per year you'll be shedding 20 quid for the general's handbook and if you were buying your own codices you still will (5 quid cheaper perhaps). What has changed apparently is that a select few gamers in England will be easing up the design studio's work and will be moulding the rules through their communities and facebook's requests (all warped through their personal prisms ofcourse). I'm not saying it is bad or something - an expanded team of QAs and assistant designers is a good thing IMO. Advertisements have gone from release day site banners to early sneak peak video previews and painting videos. The company, its goals and for the most part price politics remain the same only this time the new edition's advertisement campaign is much, better.

What else can I say? New edition of the same old game, heroic music and trailers, all gamers are holding their breath, the old company you all loved is returning triumphant - GW's PR team has gotten us all by the balls

 Yodhrin wrote:

Will it not? I'm unconvinced. I think the lesson GW took from the End Times/AoS launch debacle was "boil the frog slowly and it won't notice until it's too late", not "don't boil the frog at all they don't like it" - GW will want to take 40K in a similar direction fluffwise as they have AoS, because it enables them to have a much more convenient(for them) release model: release small, self-contained new minifactions and let them sink or swim without affecting anything. They'll do it over a longer period than End Times, and they won't literally blow up reality itself at the end, but the result will be the same - a lighter, less grim, more fluid ongoing soap opera narrative with the focus on an ever-changing core cast of Big Damn Heroes(all of which will be available to buy as HUEG plastic kids, natch). The Eldar changes are just the beginning I think, they'll be going through each wider faction and making changes to remove the sense of impending doom that permeated 40K as a setting until all the factions are simultaneously resurgent in their own ways and a new status quo is established that they can change at-will without having to care about thirty years of material foreshadowing an apocalypse.

Agreed - very much my own speculation on how things will go on. It will probably drag on for years (meanwhile the PR team will be working its weight in gold) and when it's done the consumer base will be completely new and in compliance with the new tone. For me - sad, but natural

Hmm, did I understand correctly that the unit rules won't be free? In the newly released FAQ they only say that the core rules will be free and in the stream they said that they're releasing the Grand Alliance equivalence for 40k which you can buy for less than a codex. It won't be a true "freemium" then ala AoS (bar points, detachments, artifacts, allegiance rules and warlord traits ) ?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Rules free, initial multi-force Codex-compendiums 'cheap', full Codexes to buy later as moods and release schedules dictate.

As in '4 pages AoS core rules" free right? Which are useless without the aforementioned books. So we're looking at about 20 quid to get into the game per faction (or just to have a look at the others' rules). Eh, could be worse, but could be better aswell.

 xttz wrote:

So to sum up:

Getting a single unit's rules replaced for free after 6 months is "a kick in the teeth"

Getting your sub-faction's rules replaced for free after 7 months is "a kick in the teeth"

Getting a brand new sub-faction released near launch is "a kick in the teeth"

Getting free updated rules for your entire army that have been extensively playtested by TO's for months is "a kick in the teeth"

Right.

Not one of the GW feeds AFAIK has mentioned free unit rules. They have explicitly said that you'll be getting free core rules. They have also explicitly said that If you want your unit rules you'll have to buy the appropriate Grand Alliance equivalent book (probably costed at about 20-30 quid).

Edit:
If I have to speculate based on officially released info we're looking at the following numbers concerning rules expenses:
1. Grand Alliance book on release for your units' rules - Anywhere between 15 and 30 quid. My guess is 25.
2. Appropriate Codex as a future release containing unit rules fixes and new warscrolls for new units. Again probably costed at 25 quid.
3. Yearly General's Handbook for points rebalancing - 15 to 25 quid. My guess is 15.

Give up your hopes for free rules

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
Not one of the GW feeds AFAIK has mentioned free unit rules. They have explicitly said that you'll be getting free core rules.

You cannot play the game without unit rules, just like you cannot play a game without movement rules.

That is why you'll be given the privilege to buy at day one the 5 new Grand Alliance books containing all the unit rules for a price less than that of a codex. As I said in my edit on the previous post I'm guessing they'll probably go for 25 quid each.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Core rules implies a functional rules set and that implies the unit rules are included, so that you can actually play a game with said core rules.

Otherwise, what's the point?

In this case 'core rules' implies nothing of the sort (atleast for now). AoS has officially stamped core rules and separate unit rules. Even GW's representatives have stated that the 'core rules' for the new 40k are about 12-14 pages long.

Edit:
The point would be that if you like the new core rules which you can see for free you'll be able to buy your new faction rules. Otherwise you could revert to playing an older version. I agree that without a dummy warscroll or stat explanation included in the new rules it would be impossible to make an opinion, but for now the choice of words in feeds and official statements speak nothing about free unit rules. On the contrary - they've explicitly said that you'll be able to buy them for relatively cheaper price on day one.

Also that keeps you rolling dice to see what happens and that is one of the design cornerstones of Warhammer. IMO keeping you engaged by constantly rolling dice is one of the major design paradigms of GW.

 xttz wrote:

The Q&A said that they'd charge for the printed books, but that there would be electronic versions released on launch day. While they haven't yet explicitly said that would be free, they did exactly this for AoS launch day.

First off, there was no official info for AoS pre-release on which to base our comparison. Second, they only mention in the FAQ that you can buy the unit rules and in a separate paragraph that the available free rules won't be the complete full rulebook which you can also buy. I've been posting exact statements from the stream and faq and these speak nothing of free unit rules-only of free core rules which are about 12-14 pages long and of Grand Alliance books available to buy on day one. (Sorry ,got you mixed with another person)

Look, as much as I want them to release free rules (and think that this is the right way as the relative financial success of AoS has mostly been based on the free aspect rather than on the quality of the rules themselves) the reality is that they've been asked twice until now about unit rules and in both cases the answer was a paraphrased "All unit rules will be available for purchase on day one for a relatively cheap price". If someone feels like it they can drop a question on the FB page (and probably receive the same answer IMO), but until then the possibility of free unit rules is still just a possibility and not a confirmed fact while purchased rules have been confirmed twice. I don't feel like repeating myself for a fourth time so I think I'll be dropping the subject here and now.

 Shuma-Gorath wrote:
Rather see H'rud, squats, or something completely alien like an army of floating brains that live in the vaccuum of space.

Yeah, me too. I'd rather see a new xenos race than 2 kinds of marines again... Space is big, it ain't all about humanity's inner struggle with chaos and gak.

Genestealer cults are the best thing that's been out in recent years IMO and there are mo unxeplored xeno species in the lore out there - 2 or 3 multi-part kits + a commander would be perfect for me.

It's a vain hope though ;( - we all know that nu-marines + death guard are coming.

 Torga_DW wrote:


In fairness, its more the 8th time they've released 40k. I'm not sure they've tried to get 40k right at any stage other than a brief window between 3rd and 4th.

Probably 5th was also an effort - I remember Allessio talking about going to different clubs to see how people were actually playing the game. He based some rules in 5th on these observations.

 Skerr wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
So, given a dreadnought is 8W, you're going to have to hit it with on average three wounding lascannons...

Wonder how many wounds the Land Raider has. Looks like no more one-shotted vehicles...

Expect points compensation.

I did read on the community page that Foley tweeted there are 3 chances for a lucky explosion as a vehicle degrades. I may not be 100 % accurate.

Hm, that would mean 3 standard tiers of power for vehicles dependent on their health. Much, much better than a new line in the damage table for every 2 wounds as is in AoS.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/27/new-warhammer-40000-movement/
Looks like AoS fall back is in... and no penalties other than those in AoS (no shooting and charging next turn) are mentioned. Not exactly the thing I was looking for though more details may surface...

Except for the S vs T roll and no random turn rolling the game is practically AoS for me judging by what have been released so far.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Maybe they'll be able to still shoot and whatnot, or maybe do it in the assault phase like they do now.

We'll see

They'll probably be able to retreat and charge as in AoS.
(sarcasm on)
It makes perfect sense to mitigate the fact that your opponent managed to assault you through the whole board while being shot at. It wasn't due to his efforts after all - he just got lucky on a 2d6 charge (yeah this will probably stay too )
(sarcasm off)

I'm not against the removal of combat locking - I would've just liked to see some sort of penalty for combat disengagement.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Another factor is that assault armies won't be moving just 6" anymore. We also have no idea how charge ranges work.

By this time, I'm pretty sure it will be just 2d6.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
I'm not against the removal of combat locking - I would've just liked to see some sort of penalty for combat disengagement.

You mean like not being able to assault OR shoot... I mean those seem like pretty big penalties to my armies.

Yeah, yeah I know it is still inconvenient, but from from experience in AoS I feel it should get a bit more severe. Receive d6 wounds or whatever for example.

 Red Corsair wrote:
That's because AoS isn't a game that revolves around shooting though.

You'd be surprised .

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If consolidate into combat comes back, that would actually mitigate that problem.

How?

"If you’re in combat at the start of your turn, you can Fall Back by moving away from the enemy."

My unit is in HTH combat with a super-combat enemy unit. I Fall Back by moving away. It's still my turn. I annihilate the combat unit with shooting before they can do anything. Unless you're saying that they get to consolidate immediately after I move my squad out of combat, effectively working as an out-of-phase movement during my movement phase?

GW won't do this kind of turn interruption/ Never going to happen. If I' have to wager the rule will remain exactly the same as in proto-40k (AoS). It just bugs me to no end that they've been releasing the same proto-40k rules with the slogan "made for you". There's already Duncan's (hivefleetcharybdis) AoS scrolls for AoS. C'mon guys, you should've manned up and come up with something better :/

WarhammerCommunity wrote:In the new system, the Psychic phase has been re-worked from the ground up.

I lol-d hard. Yeah, it's been thoroughly reworked. Here's a fictional dialogue:

-"Guys, you want a new system in the design of which you can participate? It's for the fans after all!"
-"Yeah, we'd really love to! We have alot of suggestions, both on fixing the current one and on introducing completely new system and mechanics..."
-Nah, don't bother. Just choose 2 or three small things to tweak in AoS and we're done" (dusting off hands)

 JimOnMars wrote:
The worst part of overwatch imho was killing the front couple of models and vastly stretching the charge distance. Often this caused the charge to fail, and the unit just sits there and dies. Overwatch has killed more of my units this way than cc ever did. Hopefully 8e will fix this.

Overwatch will most surely be removed as an army wide rule and just added to a select few (or not so few) warscrolls - fire warriors for example.

Yeah, I also can't see how the new vehicle rules would make tanks morfragile Provided that the "To Wound" chart stays the same all vehicles benefit from the new system - try out the scrolls here http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.bg/ and see for yourself. Honestly, 40k plays well under AoS (proto 40k) rules. My main gripe with the new rules are that they're not a completely new and innovative system (I wanted 40k to be a special snowflake) instead being just a more or less predictable upgrade of AoS. Trust me (or don't, whatever ) it plays well enough now and will probably play even better with the new rules... it just won't be a truly great and outstanding gaming system and that's a shame.

Well, we know that pistols will be able to be shot in combat and that the CC engagement range is probably 1" (as opposed to AoS). Also, moving gives a -1 modifier to heavy weapons. Ok changes IMO - playable and simple.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.

It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try it yourself with the fanmade 40k aos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Also, "can't shoot within 1" is poorly explained. Does this mean you can't overwatch if the enemy moved up to 1" of you in the movement phase? Or you still can since you can't be closer than an inch to enemy models unless fighting in melee?

It's the shooting phase. If you have something within 1" you can't shoot at all unless you've got pistols in which case you can shoot at the the unit in question only. We ain't got to the assault phase yet where overwatch supposedly happens if it even is in the rules. Sounds pretty obvious and straightforward to me. Again, 1" is probably just the engagement range for units to be considered in CC

Spoletta wrote:

At this point i fully expect overwatch to be out.

It will most probably be in, but for specific units only (as a special rule on their scroll)

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:
Still waiting for news on assault phase, but for now it still seems like it's going to be unplayable garbage.

It plays ok. If you don't trust me on that you can try by yourself with the fanmade 40k aos scrolls which I'm not going to repost for the n-th time .

This had been said several times, but sure, I'll say again.
Having youe guys disengage at will so that you whole army can blast an assault unit to shreads with their shoting is an awful mechainc. It is literally one of the worst, most idiotic decisions GW could have made regarding melee which wasnt amazing in 7th to begin with. More than that, they seem to encourage this tactic in this new article.

Removing initiative is also really bad, bu that's a whole other story.

I agree with you on the disengagement mechanic and had hoped that it won't be the way it is in 40k, but ultimately it could be balanced with the scrolls themselves so while it doesn't feel right at all it might still work in the new rules.

Initiative removal shifts the focus on the game from being a commander trying to direct his troops and hope they can pull it (targeting mechanic in 4th, initiative etc) to taking the active role of frontline field commander who can directly influence the fight he's in and nearby brawls. Probably not the best explanation, but it looks like this to me. It is a quirk of the new game, not neccessary worse or better as it a fundamental shift in the design.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

It makes no sense thoug, neither from lore nor from gameplay perspective. Charges strike first is semi-ok, although I'd much prefer units just getting some sort of initiative bonus. But sure, whatever.

It is just my interpretation - a metaphor to ease the transition. I'm 100% that the decision was purely for the sake of gamey mechanics.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Alternating activations though is really bad.

( I'm sliding in before Lord Kragan or someone else smugly interjects to say "Have you ever play AoS?" )
The majority of people playing AoS on the forums and IRL that I know point that the alternating combat mechanic is their favourite one from the AoS rules. You still get to choose which unit to engage with which one, but now the choice is based on one less unit statistic and instead you get to play with some combos and light to mediocre dilemmas (both for you and your opponent). For me it works better.

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

40k doesn't need to become AoS to be good.

That's what I've been saying in this thread, but the changes are for real so there's nothing we can do...

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

There is also no need to fully demolish systems that only needed some sensible changes to work as intended.

IMO it needed a complete rewrite. I has become boring, repetitive and completely inadequate to play the size of battles it tried to advertise. A completely new system was needed, but we got copy pasted AoS (which was proto 40k anyway). It's something...

Whatever, no need to spin the "was it called for" wheel again".

They're speaking of the rebirth of wiped out chapters so the case may be that they're using old and stored geneseed from the chapters tithes and are enhancing it.