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.

My local store manager (and good friend with contacts to good ol' england) told me some nice informations/rumors.

He said the 8th Edition for 40k will have two seperate rulesets. The first one will have streamlined rules with simplified army lists, like AoS Warscrolls (one page with all needed profiles, options, special rules) but still with mostly familiar 40k rules. The second one will be a streamlined 7th Edition which will be compatible and used with Forgeworlds Horus Heresy rules. Last one is maybe compatible with 7th Edition Codices and Suppliments too.

This would make sense. This is what we have always claimed, a rule set for friendly and competitive play. This is welcome even more so since apoc elements entered game play.

Definitely a good way to go, if true. Most people will have something to keep them happy with that approach (if it's done well of course).

No, this isn't a good thing at all. It means splitting the community even more than it already is.

Totally in favour of this, if ever a game should have two rule sets it's this one.
And whatever approach GW took would continue to split the community, they have no hope of pleasing everyone.

Wait, the choice is streamlined or streamlined?

Aaaaaaand let's not all panic over an unsubstantiated rumour.


WHO AM I KIDDING knock yourselves out... :-D

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Aaaaaaand let's not all panic over an unsubstantiated rumour.


WHO AM I KIDDING knock yourselves out... :-D

Nah, we get this same rumour every edition, it's just never been presented as the simple version, or the slightly less simple version, that's just weird. It's supposed to be a simplified version and an advanced version, he's gone off script!

 Peregrine wrote:
No, this isn't a good thing at all. It means splitting the community even more than it already is.

No I honestly don't think it would split the community at all..

If the point values and upgrade costs are kept constant between the 'warscroll' and 'codex', you could simply play the same army list of models one of two ways, depending on what format you were in the mood for and time constraints. Prepping to play in a tournament? Use the full expanded 8th rules. Doing a casual game or playing in a narrative campaign? Use the war scroll option.

That's how I interpret it anyway.

I like the way it's sounding, personally. We'll see what comes in the mean time.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Could this be good? Yes. Do I expect this to happen? No not really.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
If the point values and upgrade costs are kept constant between the 'warscroll' and 'codex', you could simply play the same army list of models one of two ways, depending on what format you were in the mood for and time constraints. Prepping to play in a tournament? Use the full expanded 8th rules. Doing a casual game or playing in a narrative campaign? Use the war scroll option.

Three things:

1) "War scroll" vs. "normal" does not necessarily mean "casual" vs. "competitive". It could be the opposite, in that the AOS version is simplified for tournament play and the full game is the current bloated mess. Or it could have nothing to do with casual vs. competitive, and both systems could be competitive tournament games. Etc.

2) Even if you can use the same models in both games most people are going to favor one or the other, and that splits the community.

3) If point costs are the same then the game is going to suck. You can't have constant point costs because the effectiveness of a unit depends heavily on the core rules. A unit that is balance in one system is almost certainly not going to be the right cost for the other. This would, at best, create one system where things work and another that is clearly the second priority and is a broken mess that has to work with whatever the "main" game gives it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Aaaaaaand let's not all panic over an unsubstantiated rumour.


WHO AM I KIDDING knock yourselves out... :-D

IHERD IF U BY 8TH EDITION YOU HAVE TO LET MATTT WARD COME TO UR HOUSE AND RIP UP ALL UR OLD BOOKS!

ITS TURE!

Unfortunately GW manager rumors rarely become facts..

Personaly, I think this particular salty rumor doesn`t sound that bad. I hope the new rules will scale up and down well.
I preferd the 4th edition army sizes.. And super heavies is not my thing.

I hope it doesn`t turn into age of formations! But that`s just kidding myself.

GW said on their facebook page that this campaign isn't 40k end times and no age of sigmar style reorganisation was happening so coupled with the fact that this is obviously just store manager speculation I'd say unlikely

Yeah, store managers are notoriously unreliable, but occasionally they do drop hints a little early. I could definitely see a "multiple ways to play" 40K coming... I just hope they don't mess up the 30K / Horus Heresy rules, I was just diving into it!

It would make sense to keep 30k using the current ruleset, as it works quite well as it is.

Well, if the main 40K rules aren't changing much, it might not really effect 30K badly anyway - just as long as they don't break down the wall between the two.

Didn't 4th or 5th have Alpha, Beta and Omega rules?

Basically depending on the mission certain special rules may or may not be used. IE at the easiest rule level there's not infiltrate or deep strike.

We can quibble on specifics but something like that would be welcome. Keep all the little special rules for small games but once the Titans hit the field, who cares that Sgt Smith has a rending pocket knife.

Almost exactly the rumour about 9th ed WFB.

Has anyone used the Battle for Vedros rules?


Could they form the basis of a stripped down version or are they too simplistic?

 Bull0 wrote:
GW said on their facebook page that this campaign isn't 40k end times and no age of sigmar style reorganisation was happening so coupled with the fact that this is obviously just store manager speculation I'd say unlikely

Well that doesn't actually mean much. We are talking about company that denied vehemently space hulk is coming week before it was announced

Not to mention they likely learned from AOS that telling game is getting such a major change 6 months ahead hurts 6 months sales big time...

AoS like Warscrolls doesn't mean a AoS like ruleset for 40k.

They said only no "Endtimes" in 40k. They said nothing about a AoS like ruleset for 40k

RazorEdge wrote:
AoS like Warscrolls doesn't mean a AoS like ruleset for 40k.

They said only no "Endtimes" in 40k. They said nothing about a AoS like ruleset for 40k

They said it isnt the end times. I guess it's up for individual interpretation whether they actually meant that only in terms of the narrative it's not the end times, but actually the rules *are* getting End Timesed. That'd be pretty deceitful imo.

1 ruleset for 40k + 1 ruleset for 30K

Anything else is bs!
Played my last warhammer game before AoS was released and am selling my armies ever since.
If they do that stupid thing with 40K I'm out !

 miniholic wrote:
1 ruleset for 40k + 1 ruleset for 30K

Anything else is bs!
Played my last warhammer game before AoS was released and am selling my armies ever since.
If they do that stupid thing with 40K I'm out !

More cheap models on eBay

Then when the sky doesn't fall in and 40k is just as playable as AoS, I'll have all the armies

So GW is supposed to fix their current rules system AND make a new one? And then support them both for however many months?

Yeah, I find that a little dubious.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
So GW is supposed to fix their current rules system AND make a new one? And then support them both for however many months?

Yeah, I find that a little dubious.

It's speculation and wishlisting. Sort of a non-story.

Do AoS Warscrolls even have points costs? I haven't kept up with that game at all, but wasn't that one of the primary complaints about the game?

With luck they'll decide to move allies and detachments to one system and revert back to a standard force organization chart for the other. It doesn't have to be the same mind you, but allies and detachments ruined 40k. Just another thing to throw balance out the window with the GW didn't get right and make us wait years for.

AoS style 40k with detachments and Allies.
Competetive without and limits on FW would be great.

Rather than producing rulesets for casual and competitive play, they should be creating them for Skirmish (detailed) and mass battles (streamlined simplified). Using a single set of rules to cater for both scales of game is the main thing hampering 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, this isn't a good thing at all. It means splitting the community even more than it already is.

On the other hand, a common approach could drive players even further away from GW.