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.

RazorEdge wrote:
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.

How does this differ from the status quo?

We already have the Battle for Vedros ruleset with streamlined rules with simplified army lists and the more complex 7th edition.

2 rule sets could be a simple as including kill teams in the main book.

And the all rules on one page/warscroll is what GW’s been doing with dataslates for the most part.

I'm cautiously optimistic, with some major doubts in reserve.

*Rolls a 1 for reserves*

Still optimistic...

Yeah i am not in favour of 2 rulesets as well. But what is said here can mean something like the "3 ways to play AoS" .

"Open more simplified way the first aformentioned"

"Second matched play for tournament players"

But if it is essentially 2 different systems, i agree it would only divide the community and reduce the total number of players.

If they separate it into a simple "Unbound/Kill team" style game and a "Structure play" that was, ya know ACTUALLY structured, this could work.

But for now I think I'm on the "will further divide the community" side of it.

Rather than one super simple and one advanced I'd rather they just do one that is simple enough but with tons of depth. We got it with AoS and hopefully will with 40k. It doesn't need as much simplification but it could do with some major cutting down. Just leave 30k as the advanced rules.

alphaecho wrote:


Has anyone used the Battle for Vedros rules?


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

BfV rules---ironically just like the full 40k set----relies heavily on a set of forces to provide any level of balance.
For example, in BfV's set the orks really only have the deffcopta as an anti dreadnought weapon---to the point that IIRC deffcopta's stats say it can wound the dread for x damage or similar.

BfV would work great for fixed battle sets where players are expected to play only with what is in a set with only mild expansions (add a bike on this side/this elite infantry unit on that).

Back on topic, 40k players at the FGS insist the new 8th edition is at least 2 years away.
That doesn't jibe with what I've been reading on dakka, that 2017 is the year.
I'll continue to watch the skies

Dubious source, hard to believe imho

The exact same rumour appears before every edition all the way back to 4th in 2004 at least.

Having two independent sets of rules sounds really silly. I'm gonna guess this is something like matched play vs. open play in Age of Sigmar and something got lost in translation.

We already have WH40K - the game and WH40K - Kill Team, if all we are talking about is extending these two themes slightly, I'd be happy. I would prefer it if we went back to 5th, with minimal psychic powers, no flyers, no LOW, but I appreciate that those models are big money spinners, so there definitely needs to be a mechanism to keep sale high across the range, but allow for people who want a casual game that doesn't involve super heavy tanks and aeroplanes.

 Brother SRM wrote:
Having two independent sets of rules sounds really silly.

I guess FW will not make another edition change with the HH books so it is the best for them to keep 7th edi and fix it.
and we already have 2 indepentant games with HH and 40k

and for 40k it doesn't matter
no matter how the rules will look like, they will feth it up with first new faction book again.

Last one is maybe compatible with 7th Edition Codices and Suppliments too.

nothing special, like 7th edition books are compatible with 6th edi rules

 Bull0 wrote:

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.

they are always talking about the storyline and that they won't kill the universe
while most players talk about the rules

I doubt there will be meaningful differences.

I can see something like AoS - but at the danger of someone biting my head of but as I see it their three ways to play are:

1. Unbound.
2. Sort of unbound but with a plot and suggested armies.
3. The actual game.

Then again unlike a considerable number of people I don't find the 40k rules especially complicated.

I mean here is a slimmed down version of 40k.

1. One Codex Only. No Allies.
2. No Formations.
3. No FOC but the CAD.
4. No Lords of War
5. No Flyers
6. No Forgeworld (Sorry guys)

Net result we are back to how things were up to mid way through 5th edition or so (even later if you don't mind flyers). Is it simpler? A bit but I don't think its a dramatic change.

Don't care how many rule sets there is as long as they fix the utter crapfest that is current edition 40k.

As for end times 40k while they have denied its outright endtimes in an interview they had said the campaign books have been wrote with an end game in mind.

Frankly the sooner 7th goes the better

Peregrine wrote:

 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.

I agree 100%. There should be only a single set of rules, one way to play. A good comparison I think is... When is the last time anyone saw / heard or someone playing AoS any other style than 'matched play'?

Kid_Kyoto wrote: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.

Yes, 3rd and 4th edition were like this if I recall correctly. I compare it to the Planetary Onslaught book where you have specific Attacker / Defender roles with added rules and restrictions.

This is obviously a rumor made up by someone with no chance of it being true. I can't believe that so many people people react to it.

 oni wrote:

I agree 100%. There should be only a single set of rules, one way to play. A good comparison I think is... When is the last time anyone saw / heard or someone playing AoS any other style than 'matched play'?

the last time I saw someone playing AoS (outside of demo games in the store), they played the campaign scenarios from the last book
and they said that this is fun and the only reason to play the game, as for "matched play" competitive rules, there are better fantasy skirmish games out there

 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.

+1.

It seems impractical for everyone (GW, gaming community divisions, anyone trying to play both sets).

Fully expect either another iteration of the same, or a radical overhaul, not some horrible combo approach. I mean, GW's made numerous small games that use 40k models and simplified rules, which I could completely buy as something they did more of, and might(!) even believe some sort of streamlined version of the game for large scale (which mostly consist of combining or ignoring rules/stats from a standard game, essentially a mod) but don't think 2 whole parallel rules sets makes any sense.

Optimistic.

GW has to attempt to make their game friendly to someone who pulls a box off the shelf and cracks open the rulebook for the first time. Right now, it's insane for someone to start this hobby and get up and running with a full scale army. That said, they can't alienate the veterans who value that complexity. They are walking a tightrope.

I have no idea how they'd manage 2 rulesets when they can barely manage 1.

If a 2nd set is for 30k then just go back to 5th edition as you won't need most of the rules for marines vs marines!

 Kirasu wrote:
I have no idea how they'd manage 2 rulesets when they can barely manage 1.

If a 2nd set is for 30k then just go back to 5th edition as you won't need most of the rules for marines vs marines!

This could just be a misunderstanding of beginner rules/advanced rules.

Could be right on the possibility that the rules for 7th ed rules are being legacied to Forge World so they can continue to support 30k without having to redo all the HH books.

The part of this that would excite me is a move to 30ks format. No formations. Simple CADs. Rites of war.

Even if the warscroll rules are better for actually playing. Using the 30k systems for army construction and any rites of war that may exist should be easy enough and a much better way to play the game.

 Lance845 wrote:
The part of this that would excite me is a move to 30ks format. No formations. Simple CADs. Rites of war.

Even if the warscroll rules are better for actually playing. Using the 30k systems for army construction and any rites of war that may exist should be easy enough and a much better way to play the game.

Then they need to make it possible for each army to take a cad. Besides that they pick some parts from the AoS army building, so that certain units change battlefield role if you held your restrictions. So for example when you take only dragon ogres(including the shagoth), dragon ogres are battleline(AoS version of the troop)

 silent25 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I have no idea how they'd manage 2 rulesets when they can barely manage 1.

If a 2nd set is for 30k then just go back to 5th edition as you won't need most of the rules for marines vs marines!

This could just be a misunderstanding of beginner rules/advanced rules.

Has anyone actually played with the simplified rules that come in the starter boxes like Dark Vengeance?

terry wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The part of this that would excite me is a move to 30ks format. No formations. Simple CADs. Rites of war.

Even if the warscroll rules are better for actually playing. Using the 30k systems for army construction and any rites of war that may exist should be easy enough and a much better way to play the game.

Then they need to make it possible for each army to take a cad. Besides that they pick some parts from the AoS army building, so that certain units change battlefield role if you held your restrictions. So for example when you take only dragon ogres(including the shagoth), dragon ogres are battleline(AoS version of the troop)

I prefer the rites of war. I don't want specific restrictions. I want leaders who are restricted to 1 for every 1k points in the army that also open up RoW. RoW allow specific units to be taken in new slots of the CAD (jump infantry CAN be taken as Troops in addition to their normal Fast Attack) potentially with new options (units that can purchase tanks as dedicated transports can purchase drop pods instead) but with restrictions (everything must be jump, flying, or be deployed in a drop pod) to simulate specific strategies of the various forces while not actually restricting you to build any particular way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 silent25 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I have no idea how they'd manage 2 rulesets when they can barely manage 1.

If a 2nd set is for 30k then just go back to 5th edition as you won't need most of the rules for marines vs marines!

This could just be a misunderstanding of beginner rules/advanced rules.

Has anyone actually played with the simplified rules that come in the starter boxes like Dark Vengeance?

Yes, Dark Vengeance was my introduction to the game. The rules are not so much simplified. It's just only referencing the special rules of the few units that come in the box. Also the missions are incredibly unbalanced. The first DV mission has a couple groups of cultists getting massacred by Terminators. Great...

 Lance845 wrote:
The part of this that would excite me is a move to 30ks format. No formations. Simple CADs. Rites of war.

Even if the warscroll rules are better for actually playing. Using the 30k systems for army construction and any rites of war that may exist should be easy enough and a much better way to play the game.

That was called 3rd-5th edition of 40k.

 Lance845 wrote:

terry wrote:


I prefer the rites of war. I don't want specific restrictions. I want leaders who are restricted to 1 for every 1k points in the army that also open up RoW. RoW allow specific units to be taken in new slots of the CAD (jump infantry CAN be taken as Troops in addition to their normal Fast Attack) potentially with new options (units that can purchase tanks as dedicated transports can purchase drop pods instead) but with restrictions (everything must be jump, flying, or be deployed in a drop pod) to simulate specific strategies of the various forces while not actually restricting you to build any particular way.

I've never played 30k, but it sounds similiar, but with different restricitions. So that also sounds good

I see a few people acting like "what???" as if different rules was a new thing.
3rd Edition:
Main rulebook versions of basically everything (including optional bunker rules etc)
Chapter Approved (huge range of things that "might" be allowed)
Campaign rules (various books, events, white dwarf)
City Fight
Flyer Rules
Super Heavy rules
Imperial Armour/"Forgeworld" rules
Deathworld Rules
Assassin Rules
Chapter Approved Trial Combat rules
Last Chancer Rules

Then.. you get to a tournament and it's basically TO discretion.. plus tournament scenarios. (which a lot of the above is basically highly specialized scenarios). I remember going to a tournament with my Imperial Armour books only to be told my army wasn't playable since "forgeworld rules" weren't being used.. meaning anything that wasn't GW proper.

So to me, it's not a bad thing for there to be different "levels" of complexity for the rules... In fact, I wish having the different things as optional was the default. It means the core is super accessible and the rest is like going to a Tapas restaurant but with buckets of D6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 silent25 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I have no idea how they'd manage 2 rulesets when they can barely manage 1.

If a 2nd set is for 30k then just go back to 5th edition as you won't need most of the rules for marines vs marines!

This could just be a misunderstanding of beginner rules/advanced rules.

Has anyone actually played with the simplified rules that come in the starter boxes like Dark Vengeance?

The introductory pamphlet or the mini rulebook (which is the rulebook and not simplified afaik)?

The intro pamphlet for me was a lot of "do this now do that" type stuff.. and having played previous editions, the parts that overlapped became confusing.. There was a part about running and assaulting that was like "wait.. you can or you can't".. and shooting various weapons.. I dunno.. we got a few turns into it and were pretty sure that the assault that was determining the outcome of the game shouldn't have been legal in the first place. I think knowing previous versions of the rules has compounded into a serious problem for me personally as I really can't be bothered to read the entire rulebook again closely enough to ferret out the subtle differences. I honestly just don't have the time that I did when I got into 40k in the first place.

The back half of 3rd Ed was a bloated mess with all the rules add-ons and WD FAQs and supplements and so on. But it was simple compared to the mess than 7th Ed is currently in.

In any case we've been hearing about there being two rulesets since before 5th Ed came out, so what's this, fourth time's a charm?

 MLaw wrote:
I see a few people acting like "what???" as if different rules was a new thing.
3rd Edition:
Main rulebook versions of basically everything (including optional bunker rules etc)
Chapter Approved (huge range of things that "might" be allowed)
Campaign rules (various books, events, white dwarf)
City Fight
Flyer Rules
Super Heavy rules
Imperial Armour/"Forgeworld" rules
Deathworld Rules
Assassin Rules
Chapter Approved Trial Combat rules
Last Chancer Rules

a bit disingenuous? During 3rd ed you didn't need Flyer rules, super heavy rules, imperial armor (same thing as flyer/super heavy rules) because almost no one had the models nor the desire to play against them. City fight and deathworld are just alternate mission types which have existed in every ruleset.

The only mess you had in 3rd ed were chapter approved (minor psychics, random codexs like Feral Orks and the trial rules). Now, list the 7th edition additions :p I bet you one is way larger than the other!