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.

**jamopower**

silent25 wrote:
jamopower wrote:
silent25 wrote:
If 40K is going full AoS for the rules, then we have the stats for Space Marines. Just look at the Stormcast. Most are 4+ armor and normally have either hit/wound of 3+/4+ or 4+/3+.

Still I don't think it will be a full conversion just based off the comment of chargers get to attack first in close combat. AoS works on alternating units between players in combat. I would prefer that to a chargers go first because it forces you to pick your combats and not just pile everything in.

To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

No it's not. The active player chooses to activate a unit to attack. The receiving unit does not strike back. It then goes to the other player and he chooses one of his unit to activate to attack. It doesn't need to be the unit that was attacked previously. So if the active player charges two units in to engage two units, there are 4 combat combat rounds. Active player chooses one of their units to attack, other player chooses one of theirs to attack, active player chooses their second unit, and other player chooses their other unit.

Also, AoS has it that any unit that is within 3" of an enemy unit can be chosen to activate. When a unit activates, you can pile your unit in 3" towards the closest enemy model, this can result in getting within 3" of another unit you didn't originally charge. It adds a nice element of area control where a player might end up charging one unit and inadvertently pull in another. It all adds a element of risk in engaging multiple combats and to be aware of area control.

I said charging player (as the person who is charging gets to pick the first striker), which is not the same as charging unit (although it was the word in the Warhammer community, so I might be wrong). I know how the AoS combat goes, and it's one of the reasons why it's so great game.

**Jadenim**

Now I may have this wrong, but wouldn't ASM automatically work for vehicles too? As in weapons with a small (or no) ASM simply won't be able to penetrate?

**kodos**

Jadenim wrote:
Now I may have this wrong, but wouldn't ASM automatically work for vehicles too? As in weapons with a small (or no) ASM simply won't be able to penetrate?

Not if the rules stay as they are.

Because S10 ASM 0 will auto pen armour 10 the same way as S10 ASM 6

**Mr_Rose**

What they need to do, have always needed to do, with vehicles, is give them a save based on Type. Like basic vehicles get a 4+, tanks 3+, and certain wargear or vehicles giving bonuses. Like a dozer blade giving +1 save vs attacks from the front or being a skimmer subtracting a save point.

It always felt wrong that vehicles skipped that part of the normal sequence (hit-wound-save-damage vs hit-pen-damage)…

Suddenly vehicles become much more resilient to small arms and bringing actual AT weapons starts making sense again. Oh, and Haywire becomes relatively more powerful because it bypasses two things but eh.

**Whirlwind**

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:
jamopower wrote:

To me it sounds that it might be the same. As in AoS the charging player is also the one who strikes first.

When AoS was originally announced I theorised that it was the first step in merging the core rules of 40K and Warhammer into one set that was fundamentally the same (so people could easily cross over between systems). The differences would then be the setting/rules around that setting and the units/factions themselves. None of what I have heard dissuades me from this argument, with effectively the same break rules and game set up rules, formations and so on.

I think this has been the gameplan for a long time (it makes sense financially as you don't have to keep two rulesets up to date).

To be brutally honest, it was you and about 2000 people that theorised that, so please don't be too put out if people
Ignore your post and theory

Regards

I don't get it? Why would I be bothered if people ignore the post or theory. It's just pointing out that the thinking that they are merging the rulesets still holds up to the theory given the available data. I'm not sure what you are aiming at?

**Samsonov**

davou wrote:
so if I suffered ten wounds on my terminators, would I just roll ten dice and reroll any 1's hoping for higher than 2?

sounds pretty easy to do.

if its roll all of them in pairs, Im out

In 2nd ed cover reduced the number of hits received rather than give a save. Since most players used a lot of cover, it would be extremely rare to get 10 wounds in one shooting phase on a unit of terminators in 2nd ed. I would be surprised if it ever happened to me.

**Red Corsair**

A few people have suggested that there isn't enough time for GW to be toying with new core rules while still producing the rulebook for later this year, to that I can only say think outside the box more. AoS had rules on 4 pages, now I am not saying 40k will get that simplified, but my point being that if they chose to strip the rules down to a simple 20 page booklet or something of the like, it would not take nearly the time or resources for the to produce in any reasonable amount of time. I mean, if they can put out white dwarfs weekly like they did, there is no reason why they couldn't produce something similar in a small window of time.

I actually think that is the case, the rules will be massively simplified and the warscroll/data slates will come out later for every unit.

**JohnnyHell**

Red Corsair wrote:
I actually think that is the case, the rules will be massively simplified and the warscroll/data slates will come out later for every unit.

They'd kinda need them there for every unit from day 1 if the iconic statlines change, else every army becomes invalidated overnight and there will be much rage. Nah, they'll need 'warscrolls' for launch for all if that's their path.

**Colonel Cabbage**

Warhams-77 wrote:
So GW is still discussing the rules? 8th in 2018 confirmed!?

No, I think they are just doing a slow roll out of information, possibly to soften the impact.

My local GW manager says he knows everything about it (but obviously can't tell us anything), and he will get the demo sets very soon as he will need to paint it up and practice with the new rules.

**Nevelon**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
I actually think that is the case, the rules will be massively simplified and the warscroll/data slates will come out later for every unit.

They'd kinda need them there for every unit from day 1 if the iconic statlines change, else every army becomes invalidated overnight and there will be much rage. Nah, they'll need 'warscrolls' for launch for all if that's their path.

When they added hull points to vehicles, they managed to do it without an overnight reprint of every codex. If they are just adding a movement stat, something similar could be done. Or just add it to the FAQs.

**NivlacSupreme**

Is anybody here a GW manager?
Crams large bundle of cash in pocket

**Red Corsair**

Nevelon wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
I actually think that is the case, the rules will be massively simplified and the warscroll/data slates will come out later for every unit.

They'd kinda need them there for every unit from day 1 if the iconic statlines change, else every army becomes invalidated overnight and there will be much rage. Nah, they'll need 'warscrolls' for launch for all if that's their path.

When they added hull points to vehicles, they managed to do it without an overnight reprint of every codex. If they are just adding a movement stat, something similar could be done. Or just add it to the FAQs.

This was similar to where I was thinking. They simply need add movement. Aside from that I see no reason why the current profiles cannot remain until they released scrolls/whatever.

**JohnnyHell**

"If the iconic statlines change" is what I wrote, guys. Not adding a stat, I was referring to something changing the statline to something super new. Plus, "if". If they adopt fixed to hit or to wound, for example, they can ditch WS, BS, S, T, etc. If... so many ifs. :-)

**unmercifulconker**

NivlacSupreme wrote:
Is anybody here a GW manager?
Crams large bundle of cash in pocket

I don' think so, but hey why don't you give me that large bundle of cash? You get to give your money to GW and I get the sweet af models! It's a win win!

Guttered we didn't get to see some cthulu aleves but the DG are a fine substitution.

**Fafnir**

I wouldn't mind if they went the 3rd edition route and release limited statlines for each faction with the intent to fill them all out in their entirety over time. So long as they introduce a strong core system that makes the game itself actually good for once with the tools they do give us, I have no problem waiting for the flashy parts. This would be especially viable in an age of the internet, where unit entries can be updated piecemeal at a much more regular pace.

Furthermore along that route, I wouldn't mind if later additions were done less as an entire range at once, but with a spattering of releases spread across factions (once a certain sisterhood of metallic stragglers are taken care of). That way less factions would feel like they're completely left out.

**Marxist artist**

NivlacSupreme wrote:
Is anybody here a GW manager?
Crams large bundle of cash in pocket

Yes! Please send me the money, just don't ask for proof.

**NivlacSupreme**

So more Adepticon tonight?

And does anybody have the rulebook picture?

**NivlacSupreme**

Is it right now?

This is why we need androids people. We could just give one cameras for eyes and buy it a ticket.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The twitch stream is back in 27 minutes

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The twitch stream goes back up in 23 minutes

**Mike712**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.

Buts that what they already have right now and it sucks.

Souljet wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's why I propose layering saves, give Termies a 4+ or 5+ invulnerable save that they get in addition to their regular armour rather than instead of their regular armour like they have at the moment.

Someone else said it, but that's how it works now and Terminators still are weak compared to how most people think they should be.

No, that's NOT how Terminators work at the moment. At the moment Terminators get to take their armour save OR they get to take their invulnerable save, not BOTH.

I propose to let Terminators take BOTH saves, so if they fail their armour they still get their invulnerable. It works basically the same as a 2D6 save except you roll the dice in sequence instead of at the same time, which means you don't have to roll every single save separately which would massively increase the amount of time it takes to play a game if one side has a lot of Terminators.

What I propose would lower the number of Terminators you lose by 1/3 if you use a 5+ invulnerable or 1/2 if you use a 4+ invulnerable. I'm undecided which would be better, 4+ seems a little bit too powerful against anti tank weapons, but 5+ seems a bit too weak against massed fire, so I guess I lean on the side of using a 4+ invulnerable.

You could also give Terminators a 2+ followed by a 3+, but have the 2nd save isn't invulnerable and is subject to modifiers if there's any "overflow", so if you get struck with a -6 weapon you take the first 5 points of modifiers to get rid of the 2+ and then use the last point of modifier to reduce the 2nd save from 3+ to 4+.... but that's probably too complicated (and enough wargamers suck at math that they wouldn't like it ).

Or you could simply make Terminators +1 toughness, to help them shrug off massed small arms fire.

I've been saying this for probably 15 years...

**Rubenite**

guru wrote:

The 30th anniversary is this year, maybe tomorrow they will give more info.

Did anyone attend this? Did any further information come out of this seminar?

**Gamgee**

Here come the Cthulhu Aelf previews. Aelf trickery.

Edit
Oh it's over. Damn.

**FrothingMuppet**

Weren't they meant to show something that's a year out? From what I've seen everything they put up is coming in the next 3-6 months?

**Chikout**

FrothingMuppet wrote:
Weren't they meant to show something that's a year out? From what I've seen everything they put up is coming in the next 3-6 months?

Shadespire comes out in the winter. So at least 7 or 8 months from now.

**NivlacSupreme**

So nothing from the seminar last night?

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

Smoke and mirrors.

**Baron Klatz**

How so? They showed alot of stuff that got people excited/anxious about what's being worked on and released in the future.

Where's the deception?

Gamgee wrote:
Here come the Cthulhu Aelf previews. Aelf trickery.

Edit
Oh it's over. Damn.

Yeah, pity. I guess they want to wait until the Overlords hype is over before showing anything new.

**Necronmaniac05**

Well, it may be that the people who were in the seminars are still in bed and so haven't posted yet, I'd make it half 5 in the morning over at Adepticon. I mean, yes, i might have expected some posts as soon as people got out or even during the seminar if there were major reveals so it is likely that nothing of note came out of them. That is a shame because i was kinda of hoping for them to maybe expand a bit on some of the reveals they had done during the studio preview and the blurb on the promo thing posted in this thread suggested they might. I guess we will see what gets posted over the rest of Sunday. It has still been a pretty good last couple of weeks to be a warhammer 40k/AoS fan!

**Chikout**

There was one tweet from Kenny Lull saying the seminar was interesting but that is all I have seen. GW had a get together with some key members of the us community after that, so it is understandable why no one has done a write up. I wasn't expecting more news but I am interested in the process. Who decides what to do next? Who decided to make the rules for AOS 4 pages? It wasn't Jervis.
Hopefully Kenny will talk about it all on his podcast.

**ImAGeek**

FrothingMuppet wrote:
Weren't they meant to show something that's a year out? From what I've seen everything they put up is coming in the next 3-6 months?

They said almost a year out, and I think Shadespire is coming much later this year from what I've heard.

**guru**

Chikout wrote:
There was one tweet from Kenny Lull saying the seminar was interesting but that is all I have seen. GW had a get together with some key members of the us community after that, so it is understandable why no one has done a write up. I wasn't expecting more news but I am interested in the process. Who decides what to do next? Who decided to make the rules for AOS 4 pages? It wasn't Jervis.
Hopefully Kenny will talk about it all on his podcast.

seems to me very strange, but today they have another Ask the Studio seminar.