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.

**Thebiggesthat**

insaniak wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
Fantastic news, this is what will bring me back into 40k

I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?

Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...

It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.

**insaniak**

Thebiggesthat wrote:

It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.

Which is completely different to your initial statement.

Wanting a game with structured army design doesn't automatically mean that someone is only interested in winning at any cost.

**Thebiggesthat**

insaniak wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:

It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.

Which is completely different to your initial statement.

Wanting a game with structured army design doesn't automatically mean that someone is only interested in winning at any cost.

It really isn't. Please do not let your opinions on a game twist my words.

AoS dropped. The people that i disliked in the hobby, the WAAC mathhammered MFA guys, couldn't do their thing. Suddenly, a grown up conversation about the game had to happen. This made those people disappear.

This argument is largely pointless. This place is fairly poisonous to AoS, and all that will happen is snark, which i will reply to in kind and get posts deleted. Not from you, this isn't a personal attack. I like the changes, you do not. You have the choice to carry on playing the game as GW want, or go to what I'm almost certain will be a decent sized fan made edition which dumps all AoS mechanic that induces tears.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Well this is all quite exciting.

Chuffed to see a female Stormcast, and the Nurgle stuff is jaw droppingly brilliant.

**Weboflies**

The salt level around this place is just astonishing. People have the nerve to suggest that rewarding themed armies is a bad thing and make judgements about that, and other game mechanics, that they don't even know the details of yet...

I'm hopeful about every single bit of this. looks like the new morale system is going to make engagements a lot more decisive. This will speed games up, that's for sure. I think it's going to mean that to have a balanced game, you're going to need a lot of LOS blocking terrain. That sounds like fun to me, and it's a great opportunity for GW to make more themed terrain!

It makes combat AND shooting more effective, and I think is going to mean that rather than using assault troops to bog things down, and using the combat itself as a form of cover by drawing it out past your opponent's next shooting phase, the name of the game is going to be hit and run. Wipe out a unit and get out of sight before the enemy's guns can make you pay for it! I'm curious to see if they're going to give consolidation moves a bit of a buff.

If done right I think it could make the game more tactical, and bring maneuvre back into it. the whole Civil War dynamic of the current edition where the armies line up and wipe each other out from their deployment zones sure got stale for me in a hurry.

Saw one post on FB from today about a 40K "General's Handbook" being discussed, although I've been unable to find confirmation elsewhere. This would be a unique opportunity to address a lot of the gross imbalances in the game right now right off the bat.

Also seeing an uncorroborated report of June release! Getting super excited about this.

**yakface**

Well, the more they are willing to blow up the existing 40k rules to pieces and completely start over to make something much, much more simple, the more I'd personally be happy (its likely the only way I'd start playing again).

These rumors kind of sound like that's the direction they might be headed, except there are a few things that concern me:

Movement
We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models.

No more unit types? Every unit should have bespoke rules? That doesn't necessarily sound like simplicity, nor does it sound like much fun. Also, why do they think this would mean you only need to learn the rules for your models? Do they not think players like to easily understand what their opponent's units might be able to do?

My other concern is: they've put out so, so many rules books at a huge premium price over the last few years. Are they really going to be able to ditch them all without completely pissing off those players who bought them all? WHFB when it went the way of the dodo didn't have nearly the $ amount associated with owning the full rules set like 40K does. And if they aren't willing to scrap all those codexes and supplements, then the only thing these new rules are going to to do is add even more bloat into the game.

I'm hopeful, given the fact that everything GW does recently seems to be on the right track, but still worried...

**CrownAxe**

Thebiggesthat wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
Fantastic news, this is what will bring me back into 40k

I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?

Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...

It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.

Which isn't an excuse for it being ok that AoS was a bad game at release. A game should not REQUIRE that players have a meeting and make concessions on how a game should be played. Especially when it only works if everyone involved actually agrees with what should(n't) be allowed.

A good game wouldn't be so abusable in the first place.

**Thebiggesthat**

All the rules will be free

**Eldarain**

The way most of the last years supplements have been written has been rather future proof in terms of being mosly Formations/Detachments. Assuming those are mechanics making the transition they might be still be good to go.

**insaniak**

Thebiggesthat wrote:

AoS dropped. The people that i disliked in the hobby, the WAAC mathhammered MFA guys, couldn't do their thing. Suddenly, a grown up conversation about the game had to happen. This made those people disappear. .

I think the bit I'm having trouble with is the assumption that these people wouldn't play AoS because it required a 'grown up' conversation, rather than just because it was, you know, a completely different game.

**yakface**

Eldarain wrote:
The way most of the last years supplements have been written has been rather future proof in terms of being mosly Formations/Detachments. Assuming those are mechanics making the transition they might be still be good to go.

Except that formations, as least as far as I'm concerned are the #1 reason that 40K is a bloated mess right now. Any future version of the game that uses essentially the same type of formation mechanic is not something I'd be interested in playing.

Functionally, I don't think you can have two identical models on the table that have two different sets of special rules (because one is part of a formation) that isn't going to be incredibly frustrating for the opponent to keep track of.

That's what the genius of a good miniature game is (IMHO)...the representation of what the model is helps to tell both players what that gaming piece is able to do at a quick glance. As soon as you start adding a second (or third) layer of additional options for models to get through formations, the instant that whole concept implodes. All of a sudden, an ultramarine tactical marine isn't necessarily the same as another ultramarine tactical marine, and that's a problem.

**insaniak**

Weboflies wrote:
The salt level around this place is just astonishing. People have the nerve to suggest that rewarding themed armies is a bad thing and make judgements about that, and other game mechanics, that they don't even know the details of yet....

That shouldn't really be surprising. in the past few years, GW have taken their flagship game, blown up the setting and replaced it with a completely different game that has significantly split the player base, and took 5th edition 40k and, instead of fixing out, gave us the mess that was 6th edition and then a mere 2 years later doubled down on the stupid with 7th.

So yes, 8th is going top be met with a certain amount of scepticism.

**gungo**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shadespire: A tactical small-scale combat game with proprietary dice and cards.

Is GW trying to be FFG? All we need now is more tokens than there are cells in the human body and it might as well be.

Also, didn't GW just announce their own paid army maker for AoS?

Starfarer wrote:
Im not sure many people have disputed that 40k rules were likely heading the way of AOS. In fact, I think a lot of people have been actively hoping for it. Not sure why youre trying to conflate the fact they aren't blowing up the setting with rules changes.

Can we not just enjoy the fact GW are previewing new releases without having to invent something to be upset about?
Nah bruv, I'm pretty sure a lot of people said that GW wouldn't AoS 40K, which appears to be exactly what they're going. As for the setting, that's End Times. They're End Times-ing 40K and AoS'ing 40K. Two different things.

And yes, I'm very surprised that they're previewing tons of things. For year and years and years and YEARS I've been lambasting GW's insane secrecy, and whilst there were some legitimate reasons behind it (of which I am swan to secrecy due to who at GW told me about them), their inability or just general unwillingness to engage with the hobby at large whilst pretending that they were a HHHobby in and of themselves is one of their greatest failings.

It was made all the more galling when they kept everything hidden whilst BL and FW showed off tons of upcoming stuff. Their refusal to participate in trade shows and conventions was insane, but they have turned that corner and seem to have embraced it in a way that even puts the days prior to the Kirby Kurtain to shame.

Now they've just to to treat their IP licensing as an avenue to enhance their brand (and their sales) and not just a hands-off method of revenue generation. Time releases to go with major licensed products (DoWIII perhaps?) and be a little more discerning with who you throw the latest video game license at and they can really start to grow again. The fact that we never got miniature releases around the DoW games makes no sense to me, especially given how many people DoW brought to GW. They appear to be missing the boat once again with DoWIII and that's sad. They need to capitalise on these things - strike whilst the thunder hammer is hot, so to speak - then they truly will have grown as a company (or at least emerged from hibernation).

In the meantime though, they're AoS'ing 40K. If we see weapon profiles that have set To Wound values regardless of the target type, then I'm done...

No AoS 40k was originally a lot of crying about removing point values And blowing up the world and removing most factions. Not crying about a few rules that are similar which most people expected as gw tried out different things. Ffs most of the leaks aren't even AoS related and are direct copies of 2nd and 3rd edition rules (movement and ap values). The only thing vaguely AoS related is morale and even that would be almost completely useless with a direct port due to the fact nearly every army has a rule (fearless, atsknf, etc) that basically ignores morale. And 40k 8th ed rules was already rumoured to be streamlined for months to make the game play quicker so how do you determine from 4 rule hints 3 of which are literally just addding even more rules to remember in 40k (movement and ap value lowers saves and command points)that 40k is AoSfied in rules. You really just sound sore about fantasy especially when we already know nearly every major change right now involves heavy community involvement. Hence why the community page is talking about the changes they are testing and people they are working with for the new edition.

**Mymearan**

yakface wrote:

Well, the more they are willing to blow up the existing 40k rules to pieces and completely start over to make something much, much more simple, the more I'd personally be happy (its likely the only way I'd start playing again).

These rumors kind of sound like that's the direction they might be headed, except there are a few things that concern me:

Movement
We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models.

No more unit types? Every unit should have bespoke rules? That doesn't necessarily sound like simplicity, nor does it sound like much fun. Also, why do they think this would mean you only need to learn the rules for your models? Do they not think players like to easily understand what their opponent's units might be able to do?

My other concern is: they've put out so, so many rules books at a huge premium price over the last few years. Are they really going to be able to ditch them all without completely pissing off those players who bought them all? WHFB when it went the way of the dodo didn't have nearly the $ amount associated with owning the full rules set like 40K does. And if they aren't willing to scrap all those codexes and supplements, then the only thing these new rules are going to to do is add even more bloat into the game.

I'm hopeful, given the fact that everything GW does recently seems to be on the right track, but still worried...

AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.

**Souljet**

Well I'm thrilled. I've just recently got back into the hobby after taking a massive hiatus since 2nd edition and these rule changes (on the surface) are exactly what I I think the game needed imho.. I have my fingers crossed that they will help with the rules bloat and bring Tau/Eldar back to the pack a bit, while giving the bottom tier (Tyranids/Orks/BA etc) a boost.
This will get me playing again. If you're listening GW, well done guys

**NinthMusketeer**

yakface wrote:
We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but it’ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models.

No more unit types? Every unit should have bespoke rules? That doesn't necessarily sound like simplicity, nor does it sound like much fun. Also, why do they think this would mean you only need to learn the rules for your models? Do they not think players like to easily understand what their opponent's units might be able to do?

The warscroll system works really well in AoS and I suspect that is what they will be going for (each unit has a dataslate with all its rules on it).

**Ir0njack**

I can honestly say if they make the Codices and the basic ruleset into free e-books, make a BRB that maps out the expanded game rules and continue making campaign books with stuff like new formations for $$ I would be fine. I'd still probably buy a hard copy codex for my IG but having the option to buy would be nice instead of HAVING to for my IW, admech and skitarii (with the later two hopefully getting rolled together)

The big question is what about FW books and units, that's what I'm curious about. but so far 40k: Age of Roundtree looks promising.

**Bottle**

The 40k rules changes sound amazing. I can't wait, as a massive massive fan of the AoS ruleset the more they take from it the better in my opinion. The Warscroll system being the main boon. It makes the unit rules fully modular, allows the designers infinite space to develop new and unique rules for units and really promotes the story-driven, top-down rules design that I love.

**tneva82**

Vector Strike wrote:
Oh my, loved all the changes. Movement stat? AP affecting armour instead of just ignoring it? Rewarding thematic armies? Awesome!

Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.

That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.

**gungo**

tneva82 wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:
Oh my, loved all the changes. Movement stat? AP affecting armour instead of just ignoring it? Rewarding thematic armies? Awesome!

Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.

That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.

Maybe I read it wrong I just saw it as ap1 and ap2 being a negative modifier to invul saves not a return to 2nd ed.
Maybe that was me mentally hoping for a clean fix to rerollable invul saves and unkillable characters.

**yakface**

Mymearan wrote:
AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.

I definitely see the advantages in that method, for sure! With that said, I don't think unit type rules are the issue, really. The issue is keeping things simple. If the unit type rules are simple enough to put onto each unit's warscroll (or whatever the 40K equivalent will be called), then they should be simple enough for players to memorize them. But the reality is that GW used the unit type rules as a crutch (a way to keep those rules someplace else) so that they could pile more and more special rules onto each unit, both by the unit's own special rules, and then later on via formations, warlord bonuses, etc, etc, etc.

So to point the finger and blame the concept of unit type rules as what is the problem is a bit silly. If unit type rules are kept simple enough to fit onto a unit's warscroll, then the vast majority of players would have absolutely no problem memorizing them, IMHO. Getting rid of most of the other special rules that have been heaped on top is much more of what needs to be focused on.

**Matt.Kingsley**

It's interesting how the language they use to describe the changes isn't concrete. It seems they're either doing play testing/theory still or they want everyone to think they are.

Hopefully it's the former and they change their minds about Morale. It's not that AoS's system for it is the worst thing ever produced, but it's overly simplistic.

**Lockark**

Thebiggesthat wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
Fantastic news, this is what will bring me back into 40k

I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?

Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...

It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.

AoS in it's original form was for people who wanted to stand around a table Dancing, Making loud animal sounds, and acting like a Loon. When then scrubbed that silliness from the rules, it was still unplayable in any sort of competitive sense. This was bad for Store Owners and Organisers who wanted to try and have tournament play for AoS. What you might of put together as a list is "fair" agiest you and your friends with decades old mini collections, might not be the same idea of "fair" ageist little Timmy down the street.

Thus you had people trying to invinte their own "quick and dirty" comp to try and balance lists.

I don't like the idea that all Tournament players are "WAAC donkeys" just because they like to play challenging games.

**insaniak**

tneva82 wrote:

Of course AP affecting armour will have side effect of invalidating all armour to point of uselessness unless they start to give out 0+ or even better armour. 40k has seen that one before after all.

That or most guns lose all ability to affect armour. Bolter? No effect to armour. Heavy bolter? -1 at most.

Bolters in 2nd Ed had a -1 modifier. The models that didn't get a save against them are largely the models that don't get a save against them now.

**kodos**

Interesting, very interesting.

To I fear that GW will mess it up? I do, but for different reasons.
AoS is now an ok game but it took them 3 incarnations until and the question now is how long it will be stable (or do we see a Stormcast V3 next year instead of updating the other factions).

If 40k is doing the same way, I quit because I don't want to see a Nu-Marine book each year (because we get a new edition every year) while I can wait for my factions.

The changes in general are good if done good.
Movement values remove a massive bloated and messy section of the current rules.
Armour Save modification and Command points sounds good.

But if everyone now will affect armour saves, while Cover and FnP stay as they are now, it will get worse instead of better.

And for Command Points, if we see kind of Gladius Bonus VS Berserker, nothing will be changed

**AllSeeingSkink**

yakface wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
AoS has bespoke rules for every unit. It has one universal special rule: Flying. That's it. It has its advantages and disadvantages, but personally I think the positives outweigh the negatives. It means that everything you need to play a unit is contained on a single page. This is HUGE. No referencing the rule book, your codex, your campaign book, your dataslates, your White Dwarf... you get the point. Unit types in 40k complicate the game unnecessarily because there are so many rules associated with each unit type, and suddenly you have even more places you need to check to find the rules for a certain model. The one issue it has in AoS is that similar rules might have slightly different wording on different Warscrolls leading to some confusion on how it's supposed to work, but it hasn't been a huge problem so far.

I definitely see the advantages in that method, for sure! With that said, I don't think unit type rules are the issue, really. The issue is keeping things simple. If the unit type rules are simple enough to put onto each unit's warscroll (or whatever the 40K equivalent will be called), then they should be simple enough for players to memorize them. But the reality is that GW used the unit type rules as a crutch (a way to keep those rules someplace else) so that they could pile more and more special rules onto each unit, both by the unit's own special rules, and then later on via formations, warlord bonuses, etc, etc, etc.

So to point the finger and blame the concept of unit type rules as what is the problem is a bit silly. If unit type rules are kept simple enough to fit onto a unit's warscroll, then the vast majority of players would have absolutely no problem memorizing them, IMHO. Getting rid of most of the other special rules that have been heaped on top is much more of what needs to be focused on.

The advantage of universal special rules (USR) rather than bespoke rules for every unit should be that it keeps the game consistent so you don't have to learn the rules for 100 different units, but rather learn a dozen or so USR's.

GW's problems is they've just made the whole thing too complicated. They could use bespoke rules or USR's it makes no difference because there's simply too many rules.

IMO in a game like 40k (specifically, the scale of 40k now with many different armies with many different units and games which consist of so many models on the table at once) having USR's makes more sense than bespoke rules, it's just they need to be massively simplified.

Overall I'm happy to see 40k get a complete overhaul. I wasn't happy to see WHFB get overhauled because I thought the core rules for WHFB were fine, but the core rules for 40k are a mess so hopefully an overhaul improves things. AoS morale rules and bespoke special rules definitely don't sound encouraging, but my fingers are still crossed for the best.

**lord_blackfang**

Oh, FFS, those wheeled movement trays will just make it easier for WAACers to nudge their models forward when I'm not looking.

**Colpicklejar**

I think people are putting too much stock into this "rewarding thematic armies" thing. Age of Sigmar "rewards thematic armies" by way of the keyword system, but ALSO tossed together loads of factions in a "grand alliance" blender that turned off a lot of WHFB players. You might see lots of lists rewarded for fluffiness. Or you might see Tau and Necrons working seamlessly together. You'll probably see both.

It also broke down what used to be coherent factions into numerous micro-fractions so they could sell books. For example, Orcs and Goblins became Ironjawz, greenskins, bonebreakers, moonclan, forest goblins, and gitmob. Will the Imperial Guard player suddenly find out his army is now four factions big?

**tneva82**

Galas wrote:
streetsamurai wrote:
I must say that I'm bit surprised to see that just putting boob armour on a sigmarine is viewed with such enthusiasm

I must say that I'm bit surprised to see that just putting the battleshock rule on the W40k ruleset is viewed with such alarmism.

Problem with battleshock is that it kills more models when game kills models too fast already. Unrealistically so.

It's silly there's no troops running away to regroup later.

**BaronVonSnakPak**

CrownAxe wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Thebiggesthat wrote:
Fantastic news, this is what will bring me back into 40k

I wonder if it will have the same effect that AoS did, and make a load of WAAC donkeys storm off and do a separate ruleset like 9th age?

Given that AoS in its initial form was ludicrously open to abuse by WAAC-type players, I suspect that you may have misunderstood who 9th Age was for...

It was only open to abuse from those that are unable to have a grown up conversation about what is fair. And those that were only interested in min max and efficiently were forced to look elsewhere, which was a good thing in my opinion.

Which isn't an excuse for it being ok that AoS was a bad game at release. A game should not REQUIRE that players have a meeting and make concessions on how a game should be played. Especially when it only works if everyone involved actually agrees with what should(n't) be allowed.

A good game wouldn't be so abusable in the first place.

Except AoS wasn't a bad game at release, the General's Handbook only added points (as far as competitive play is concerned) it didn't change any rules. The balance wasn't there, but the core gameplay remains identical.