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.

I guess no one remembers how GW killed Fantasy and gave us Age of Sigmar? GW said they were not killing fantasy, and technically, they didn't. They gave us AoS. GW is incredibly crafty when it comes to this kind of thing. Remember October 2016 and "Sisters of Battle?!?!". They even said a never before printed Sisters of Battle army list, and plastic Sisters of Battle. What did we get? A printed Sisters of Battle army list based off the digital codex, and three new plastic Sisters of Battle. New army list never printed before? Yup. New plastic models? Yup. It was the community that inferred and expected more.

Anyone that believes this isn't the end times for 40K is trying to bury their head in the sand and say "Nope!.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I guess no one remembers how GW killed Fantasy and gave us Age of Sigmar? GW said they were not killing fantasy, and technically, they didn't. They gave us AoS. GW is incredibly crafty when it comes to this kind of thing. Remember October 2016 and "Sisters of Battle?!?!". They even said a never before printed Sisters of Battle army list, and plastic Sisters of Battle. What did we get? A printed Sisters of Battle army list based off the digital codex, and three new plastic Sisters of Battle. New army list never printed before? Yup. New plastic models? Yup. It was the community that inferred and expected more.

Anyone that believes this isn't the end times for 40K is trying to bury their head in the sand and say "Nope!.

I am lost. I'm still stuck on 5th edition. What the hell is going on? Fantasy turned to AoS, now 40k is becoming a chimera. What's next? Damnit, I can't keep up!

 pretre wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone know if Mikhael is usually reliable?

Mikhael - Total rumors: (2 TRUE) / (0 FALSE) / (0 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE) - Updated 5/2/2016 - NO RUMORS OUTSTANDING

his rumor and yours look suspiciously similar.

Thats why I posted it. BolS mostly post BS.

RazorEdge wrote:

 pretre wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone know if Mikhael is usually reliable?

Mikhael - Total rumors: (2 TRUE) / (0 FALSE) / (0 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE) - Updated 5/2/2016 - NO RUMORS OUTSTANDING

his rumor and yours look suspiciously similar.

Thats why I posted it. BolS mostly post BS.

Wait, what? So the original post for this thread, was that from BOLS or you?

I'm with Peregrine on this. While a simplification can/maybe should be done, I feel like if they rolled back to 3rd edition. They'd have the right blend of easy to learn/hard to master without being to complicated.

Tamwulf wrote:I guess no one remembers how GW killed Fantasy and gave us Age of Sigmar? GW said they were not killing fantasy, and technically, they didn't. They gave us AoS. GW is incredibly crafty when it comes to this kind of thing. Remember October 2016 and "Sisters of Battle?!?!". They even said a never before printed Sisters of Battle army list, and plastic Sisters of Battle. What did we get? A printed Sisters of Battle army list based off the digital codex, and three new plastic Sisters of Battle. New army list never printed before? Yup. New plastic models? Yup. It was the community that inferred and expected more.

Anyone that believes this isn't the end times for 40K is trying to bury their head in the sand and say "Nope!.

Oh we haven't forgot. Maybe it's time to try and let all the hate go and be positive for once? How does the expression go? I may have forgiven, but not have forgotten? It's nice to let the negative energy go. Yes It's only been a day or so in this new thinking for me, but man do I feel better and not a bitter old man.

 pretre wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

 pretre wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone know if Mikhael is usually reliable?

Mikhael - Total rumors: (2 TRUE) / (0 FALSE) / (0 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE) - Updated 5/2/2016 - NO RUMORS OUTSTANDING

his rumor and yours look suspiciously similar.

Thats why I posted it. BolS mostly post BS.

Wait, what? So the original post for this thread, was that from BOLS or you?

I posted the BolS rumor because it is similar to my start post, which was first there.

It sounds to me like your store manager might have caught some sort of post or something from the same guy that gave BOLS their info. Maybe BOLS just found the same post or something.

Edit: Also..."longtime rumormonger: Mikhael"..? If Pretre's list there is correct (and it's really freakin thorough to not be), then BOLS still has little idea what they're talking about. Longtime rumourmonger with 2 recorded rumours...yeah right.

This is totally in line with what they did with AOS. Remember "three ways to play"? The Generals Handbook for AOS has Pointless play, Matched play, and Narrative play. Three types of rules, but very different from the type of rules you are talking about here.

7th would be easy to split into introductory rules and advanced.

For intro play you simply give list building structure that is simple. Say mono faction, and remove command benefits.

Remove things like Look out sir, challenges and 90% of the USR's and alter profiles. The advanced would just add the cut stuff back in.

For both versions the stat profiles could be simplified so easily by removing the to hit charts and simply putting the roll in place, especially for BS. For example rather then putting BS2 you put 5+ or BS4 you put 3+ I'd honestly welcome the same for WS and for once allow certain models to hit on a 2+ or 6+

I'd say do the same for S and T but that would get way more in depth and the change would be more radical.

Why does the BOLS rumor say that its going to be 30k for the more in depth rules? Are they making new 30k rules outside the forge world ones? Wouldn't that invalidate 70% of the armies? Is that just a misnomer or what...?

Smellingsalts wrote:
This is totally in line with what they did with AOS. Remember "three ways to play"? The Generals Handbook for AOS has Pointless play, Matched play, and Narrative play. Three types of rules, but very different from the type of rules you are talking about here.

Those are all the same rules though. The only thing matched play adds is the a force-org type restriction on certain units at certain points.

 Don Savik wrote:
Why does the BOLS rumor say that its going to be 30k for the more in depth rules? Are they making new 30k rules outside the forge world ones? Wouldn't that invalidate 70% of the armies? Is that just a misnomer or what...?

Smellingsalts wrote:
This is totally in line with what they did with AOS. Remember "three ways to play"? The Generals Handbook for AOS has Pointless play, Matched play, and Narrative play. Three types of rules, but very different from the type of rules you are talking about here.

Those are all the same rules though. The only thing matched play adds is the a force-org type restriction on certain units at certain points.

Well, it also modifies the victory conditions too. I could live with a "casual" form of play that allowed for tabling as a victory condition and a "competitive" way of play that forced you to play to the mission, wether you liked it or not.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Remove things like Look out sir, challenges and 90% of the USR's and alter profiles. The advanced would just add the cut stuff back in.

But that's not really good enough. There's far too much bloat in 40K's rules right now. It is unwieldy and there are just far too many special rules on top of special rules. Calling that the 'Advanced' version sounds like a copout way of not fixing anything.

 Don Savik wrote:
Why does the BOLS rumor say that its going to be 30k for the more in depth rules? Are they making new 30k rules outside the forge world ones? Wouldn't that invalidate 70% of the armies? Is that just a misnomer or what...?

Smellingsalts wrote:
This is totally in line with what they did with AOS. Remember "three ways to play"? The Generals Handbook for AOS has Pointless play, Matched play, and Narrative play. Three types of rules, but very different from the type of rules you are talking about here.

Those are all the same rules though. The only thing matched play adds is the a force-org type restriction on certain units at certain points.

I think BOLS are referencing that 30K uses 7th and that if 8th is aos'ed then either FW have to write there own rules which GW currently prohibits or they have to keep a variation of 7th.

SeanDrake wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
Why does the BOLS rumor say that its going to be 30k for the more in depth rules? Are they making new 30k rules outside the forge world ones? Wouldn't that invalidate 70% of the armies? Is that just a misnomer or what...?

Smellingsalts wrote:
This is totally in line with what they did with AOS. Remember "three ways to play"? The Generals Handbook for AOS has Pointless play, Matched play, and Narrative play. Three types of rules, but very different from the type of rules you are talking about here.

Those are all the same rules though. The only thing matched play adds is the a force-org type restriction on certain units at certain points.

I think BOLS are referencing that 30K uses 7th and that if 8th is aos'ed then either FW have to write there own rules which GW currently prohibits or they have to keep a variation of 7th.

Because it's BoLS, and they know nothing.

I don't care about rules but I'm quite sure no one who posts stuff in the internet will tell you the rules of an upcoming edition/game/codex 'till pre-order day. Just check all the "rule rumours" we had prior to the AoS launch. Or all the rumours from certain sites we had about the eldar triumvirate. It's actually quite funny to read through pretre's tracker ^.^

Where can I find the fracked? Can't see sigs on my iPad.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I guess no one remembers how GW killed Fantasy and gave us Age of Sigmar? GW said they were not killing fantasy, and technically, they didn't. They gave us AoS. GW is incredibly crafty when it comes to this kind of thing. Remember October 2016 and "Sisters of Battle?!?!". They even said a never before printed Sisters of Battle army list, and plastic Sisters of Battle. What did we get? A printed Sisters of Battle army list based off the digital codex, and three new plastic Sisters of Battle. New army list never printed before? Yup. New plastic models? Yup. It was the community that inferred and expected more.

Anyone that believes this isn't the end times for 40K is trying to bury their head in the sand and say "Nope!.

Oh GW...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Where can I find the fracked? Can't see sigs on my iPad.

It's in general discussion.

 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.

Yeah, that was 4th Edition, and it was really, really cool.

At my store we always played Omega, and it killed off the reliance on trying to get the first turn and blow the opponent off the board. Battles tended to develop slower through the first two turns, with the real nitty-gritty going down in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th turns. It was great.

I could totally see this sort of thing happening again, and if done right it could be a good move. I'd also say that it doesn't take different rule sets to achieve, just look at the difference in games if you decide to play Maelstrom missions or not. It doesn't take much.

Some Units still have their 4th Edition rule text even that the Alpha/Beta/Omega System is long gone
(can Deep Strike even if the mission rules do not allow to use it)

Given that GW rolled out Battle for Vedros last year, it's not a stretch to think that they will pattern a "easy ruleset" off of that. It could be a good entry way for people new to the hobby. Two of my friends had their brains fried when I tried to explain how the shooting phase worked after the psychic phase (to be fair, they were playing with Eldar and Tau, who tend to have really complex phases). If done right the transition between the two would be seamless for anyone deeply familiar with the current game and newcomers can learn at a slower pace where the more complex elements aren't in play (think of it as a RTS game where you cap the tech levels).

For those people worried about 40k getting "AoS'd", there doesn't seem to be anything hinting that the plot is going to get nuked like that, just the rules getting a change.

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.

I think this one has a hefty element of truth to it, keeping in mind streamlining is (to me) removing all the layers of game with flyers, D weapons, apoc, superheavies, etc. and keeping a simpler rules system where you can then find synergies with datasheets and make the good combos and plays without having to take 16 steps through the rules to figure out how X works in this case. The synching with HH will be a thing to watch, indeed.

I am personally all for a shake up rules wise. I haven't really touched 40k in a while besides buying the models now and again or playing the board games like DWO or the heresy stuff.

Tbh all they need to do is put a tax on formations instead of just free rules and war gear. Because not all formations are created equal.

and an unequal point tax on formation would change what exactly?

 Lockark wrote:
Tbh all they need to do is put a tax on formations instead of just free rules and war gear. Because not all formations are created equal.

So I take it the Tyranid tax will cost as much as a Tau tax. So how is that going to change things?

I pray for stream lined rules, point system, modification of allies & formation shenanigans, all things LoW and 'apoc' be set for 2.5k or 3k of games

Won't happen.

 kodos wrote:
and an unequal point tax on formation would change what exactly?

It'd be like Apocalypse was originally, where to get formation special rules you had to pay the points.

Current formation rules are GW handing out more in-game power 'cause you bought more miniatures.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Remove things like Look out sir, challenges and 90% of the USR's and alter profiles. The advanced would just add the cut stuff back in.

But that's not really good enough. There's far too much bloat in 40K's rules right now. It is unwieldy and there are just far too many special rules on top of special rules. Calling that the 'Advanced' version sounds like a copout way of not fixing anything.

Well your looking at all the codex and supplements/data slates etc etc. The core rules can be made simple fairly easily, cleaning up all the army books will take time UNLESS they pull a 3rd Ed/Ravening hordes approach and through every army in a paired down format in the appendix. On the note of ravening hordes, the games from that book between my brother an I were always INSANELY close, I don't think we ever played tighter games from GW since that small format compendium.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and an unequal point tax on formation would change what exactly?

It'd be like Apocalypse was originally, where to get formation special rules you had to pay the points.

Current formation rules are GW handing out more in-game power 'cause you bought more miniatures.

Until people can learn to accept that this is part of GWs business model, and reconcile this fact within their heart of hearts, then they will forever be disappointed with whatever rules or codices/ army books they release.

Most collectible miniatures games or card games have this kind of mechanic built into them to an extent. It's how companies like FFG, GW etc. Keep themselves afloat.

Anyone who thinks this kind of thing will be disappearing with 8th edition should make a head start of being disappointed.