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.

Too many replies, just skimmed for pics What are the sharespire minis made from? are they pre built PVC? Or just regular colored plastic and you still build them and stuff?

 Necros wrote:
Too many replies, just skimmed for pics What are the sharespire minis made from? are they pre built PVC? Or just regular colored plastic and you still build them and stuff?

From warhammer-community:

Each of these sets will be composed of a small band of easy-to-assemble, push-fit miniatures in the style of our single-pose heroes to represent a specific band of warriors from that faction. These are provided in coloured plastic, and clip together, so you can quite literally be playing with them within minutes of opening the box with no glue or paint needed! (Though they do look great painted, and your dice will roll better – probably.)

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/shadespire-unveiled/

Edit: 3-NINJA COMBO!

 Necros wrote:
Too many replies, just skimmed for pics What are the sharespire minis made from? are they pre built PVC? Or just regular colored plastic and you still build them and stuff?

Snap-fit colored plastic seems to be the word on the street

Not PVC, snap fit.

Think Space Hulk.

They look like single piece models..

The whole AoS discussion is indeed not adding anything. It will never end, because it just comes down to this :

There are people who like AoS, and there are people who don't like AoS. And neither of those are wrong.

People worried about 8th edition are so because it might very well mean that there is no longer a tabletop wargame that they like to play in the near future. And to the pro-AoS crowd : do you really want those who don't like the same things you like to no longer enjoy playing a game with those fabuleous GW minatures ?
It would be in GW's best interest to have different game systems, where one appeals to one group and the other to the other group.

Now back to the rumours please.

 Loser_command wrote:
And to the pro-AoS crowd : do you really want those who don't like the same things you like to no longer enjoy playing a game

Honestly, yes. But only those people that are constantly trying to take a dump on a game I like. It's utterly pathetic, and unfortunately I've got to the point where I will respond in kind

People are all up in arms over something that hasn't been fully fleshed out or announced. We get it, people don't like change, period. It's too early to rant about it though.

They also said they're working with the big 3 tournament organizers (ITC, Adepticon, and Nova). If they're doing that, I find it hard to believe they are not going to be taking long hard looks at everything they do.

 Loser_command wrote:
The whole AoS discussion is indeed not adding anything. It will never end, because it just comes down to this :

There are people who like AoS, and there are people who don't like AoS. And neither of those are wrong.

People worried about 8th edition are so because it might very well mean that there is no longer a tabletop wargame that they like to play in the near future. And to the pro-AoS crowd : do you really want those who don't like the same things you like to no longer enjoy playing a game with those fabuleous GW minatures ?
It would be in GW's best interest to have different game systems, where one appeals to one group and the other to the other group.

Now back to the rumours please.

My two cents? Go play wannabe couple counsellor to another place and stop guilt-tripping people who are just saying: it's not as bad as you're making out to be.

AoS is superior in every way to 40K. Getting even 20% of it's methodology applied to 40K would do wonders.

There will always be those who don't like changes...but come on, 40K currently is super broken. Love the lore, the gameplay is...not all that fun anymore.

I'm interested to see how this all plays out -- more stuff to play with is always fun.

Ragnar69 wrote:
They look like single piece models..

I touched them. Snap fit, but only like 2-3 pieces each

Colour me semi-hopeful.

I've stated, several times, that there is little to nothing GW could do to make me generally consider playing "current" 40K again (I have a huge painted army, etc. but I currently play 2nd ed.).

At a glance (PROS)
+Movement Stat. Great, should never have been removed.
+Armour Save modifiers. Great, far better than all or nothing.

(CONS)
-"Bespoke rules"...eh. Bespoke stat lines are fine, but I don't think we should trade hundreds of special rules for special rules allocated to each unit. The vast majority of infantry units shouldn't have special rules - their abilities should be indicated by their equipment and a stat line. While 2nd had plenty of special rules, the vast majority of your infantry models did not (unless it was wargear related). Keep the genuine special rules to characters and monsters/creatures etc.
-The hinted at Morale stuff = meh.

All in all, two large steps in the right direction and I like the idea of thematic armies (actually don't care for the idea of bonuses though). Will continue to play 2nd until 8th is out --- but it may be the first time since 4th ed. that I take a swing at current 40K.

tneva82 wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.

You know what's the REAL core of white scars?

Tactical marines. In rhino's or drop pods. Not bikes.

You can have fast attack without all bikes you know. And fluffwise tactical marines would be the most common white scar you see.

But seen much tactical marines in white scar armies lately? Nope. Cause GW doesn't reward fluffy armies.

And problem with formations is same. They aren't there for fluff. They are there to sell you more models. Buy 3 riptides for big balance! Or take this formation and get lots of free stuff so you need to buy 10 30€ models!

Tactical Marines are literally all you see because of Gladius. Did you even think before you posted?

I like Battleshock a lot from AoS. You don't have to worry about units retreating, etc, and it more accurately represents a unit crumbling as stragglers and cowards flee, reducing the overall effectiveness. It's infinitely better and often less-punishing than the all-or-nothing Leadership roll.

As my pal pointed out elsewhere, "GW is probably just aiming to move away from the Leadership system they purloined from Squad Leader/Johnny Reb." (for those who didn't know, Leadership stat and rules was lifted wholesale from Avalon Hill games such as Squad Leader, which Priestley played, and just incorporated that mechanic into Rogue Trader)

People said oh they will never AoSify 40k....... it's too profitable to do that. Sounds like the rules are changing... the setting is moving towards the age of Big blue.

While I'm less annoyed regarding AoS because of the Overlords (i like airships ). Turning 40k into age of Gulliman feels very, very silly.

Removing movement was stupid in 3rd... I still feel bringing it back feels well too late.

 kronk wrote:

Ragnar69 wrote:
They look like single piece models..

I touched them, but only like 2-3 times each

Dirty boy!

Me, I'm largely intrigued by the changes mentioned for 40k - but even more intrigued by what hasn't been mentioned.

Funnily enough in the run up to this I've started and participated in numerous threads about the future of 40k - what the general consensus is (rules diet), and which, if any, elements could/should be transferred/adapted from AoS.

A very common one is that people seem to like how AoS deals with big gribbles, in that the more you hurt them, the less killy they get. Another common one, which is somewhat linked to the former, is that MC have too many advantageous over vehicles - and the AoS big gribbly approach could again be the answer (though a straight port wouldn't necessarily work).

I know others will disagree, but AoS is quite the game. The core rules are straight forward, and having all a given unit's special rules on a single sheet means less book keeping. And even though some appear to share certain rules, but with different wording isn't an issue - you simply go with what's on your Warscroll until there's an FAQ or an updated Scroll (which typically happens at the same time if like me you use the App).

Biggest difference there of course is that all but formation scroll for AoS are free, and readily downloaded as and when needed. At present, 40k would require you to carry around every single Codex in order to be able to check your opponent isn't playing shenanigans.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


I know others will disagree, but AoS is quite the game. The core rules are straight forward, and having all a given unit's special rules on a single sheet means less book keeping. And even though some appear to share certain rules, but with different wording isn't an issue - you simply go with what's on your Warscroll until there's an FAQ or an updated Scroll (which typically happens at the same time if like me you use the App).

Biggest difference there of course is that all but formation scroll for AoS are free, and readily downloaded as and when needed. At present, 40k would require you to carry around every single Codex in order to be able to check your opponent isn't playing shenanigans.

I agree. So many boons..

* Want that cool formation of units? Pay for it. Love it.
* How far does this thing move? Check the sheet. Shocker...cavalry moves farther than foot troops
* Complicated saving throw calculations? feth that gak. Does it rend? Subtract and roll. Done done.
* Units get more badass for having hordes? Makes sense.
* Units bailing when they get knocked in the teeth? Yeppers. Some units immune -- but you take less of them (cost more) and subject to being swarmed to death. Balance baby!
* Unit hits weaker as it gets the gak kicked out of it? Also badass.
* Having to weigh in on what unit should attack at which point (*cough* tactics *cough*) AND risking over extending for the next phase? 40K what?


It just works. It's more tactical than 40K has ever been for me...and I squee to imagine all my 40K pew pew units getting some similar streamlined rules. Hell...we haven't even brought up how badass some of the scenarios are. Holding the gate (300 style) was soooo awesome, as was the "Kill the monster" one.

So didn't they say that new 40k rules might drop in time for Adepticon 2018? Which means that 8th may not be out this year. Also with the way its talked about by GW that they are only kicking around ideas at the moment. To me its possible that 8th edition playtest might be something we see this year. They directly mention the help that the community FAQ provided, so its possible that a free pdf of 8th might show up a little later on for a community effort again. Then if its successful we could see a complete 8th in time for Adepticon 2018.

But still the preview was less of a "this is what is happening" and more like "this is what we have been up to lately".

I'm 100% in agreement with the 2 above, that a simplified AoS style of 40k is better for the hobby. If nothing else, just having all of your rules in one book and being able to play with that one book is amazing.

You know, instead of having a book for your army that has your unit stats, 2 more books that supplement the first book, and a massive book that has the rules for the game itself, and then having to know the rules of your enemies army, and supplements, so you can work out what dice rolls you need to hit them in the first place.

Meanwhile in AOS *flick to unit page* 4+ 3+ done.

As well as that it would give the armies a lot more sense to them. Marines with multiple wounds, guardsmen with one wound no armor save (blood reaver style). In the end it'd make 40k more fluffy, as well as easier to play.

 Loser_command wrote:
The whole AoS discussion is indeed not adding anything. It will never end, because it just comes down to this :

There are people who like AoS, and there are people who don't like AoS. And neither of those are wrong.

People worried about 8th edition are so because it might very well mean that there is no longer a tabletop wargame that they like to play in the near future. And to the pro-AoS crowd : do you really want those who don't like the same things you like to no longer enjoy playing a game with those fabuleous GW minatures ?
It would be in GW's best interest to have different game systems, where one appeals to one group and the other to the other group.

Now back to the rumours please.

I agree and I think it's sad that many of the immediate replies to this are from people who staunchly think that one system is better than the other. Honestly I think we should just let the two games be, more than anything else. I may not like Sigmar, but I'm not gonna force people to change the game so I can fit my play style and attitude into the game. I just don't want 40k to do the reverse and adhere to the style of Sigmar. Both games should be resolved individually. That's my final say.

Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? If inanely rolling lots and lots of dice hoping for above average rolls of 3 and 4 while putting bigger and bigger models on the table and increasing the random is the way GW is going with 40k, there's no way they'll tempt me back. If they put out a streamlined, solid ruleset that doesn't take hours to set up and is actually fun to play again, then they just might.

For many, AOS *was* an improvement to the fantasy ruleset. That is a subjective line. For some it was, for others its not.

What is and is not a strong game system will also be largely in the eye of the beholder and what one wants out of a game.

A competitive tournament player will want things that a narrative casual player would never want and vice versa.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.

Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...

Also, quick question: is there any more confirmation on the subject of square bases for 40k? My local GW manager posted through the GW Facebook page that he was excited for the base changes I am wondering if that is something that should have more attention payed to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? If inanely rolling lots and lots of dice hoping for above average rolls of 3 and 4 while putting bigger and bigger models on the table and increasing the random is the way GW is going with 40k, there's no way they'll tempt me back. If they put out a streamlined, solid ruleset that doesn't take hours to set up and is actually fun to play again, then they just might.

I once killed the Glottkin with beastmen gors in two rounds of combat.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.

Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...

Theoretically Blood Reavers could reach that.

60 points per 10 models, each model has 1 attack, champion has 2. Take 100 Blood Reavers for 600 points that's instantly 110 attacks if they make it to melee. All 100 can be in 1 unit too.
They have an ability that adds 1 to their attack count if in range of a Bloodsecrator (not cumulative) (120 points)
The Bloodsecrators have an ability that adds 1 attack to all nearby units (cumulative)

100 Blood Reavers - 600
3 Bloodsecrators - 360

1000 points army and giving you an amazing 550 attacks if all the reavers make it into combat and are in range.

Also, I'm really really really really hoping that we see the "monster stat degradation" you see in AOS move to 40k.

As much as people are kvetching about the morale system, MCs you can actually damage before they die...yes please.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.

Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...

Skeletons with Danse Macabre I believe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euoum_IOjAs

And they were all in melee range?

Because if they were, their opponent gone done made a major booboo.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And they were all in melee range?

Because if they were, their opponent gone done made a major booboo.

Yeah, I don't know how in the world 240 models could be in melee range of anything less than the size of the FW Emperor Dragon.

 RyanAvx wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Can we move away from the assumption that AoS was an improvement to the Fantasy ruleset? I watched a game of AoS where one unit had 240 attacks per round; can you really argue that this is indicative of a strong game system? It.

Which unit has 240 attacks? At 40 man strong, that would have to be 6 attacks per model...

Theoretically Blood Reavers could reach that.

60 points per 10 models, each model has 1 attack, champion has 2. Take 100 Blood Reavers for 600 points that's instantly 110 attacks if they make it to melee. All 100 can be in 1 unit too.
They have an ability that adds 1 to their attack count if in range of a Bloodsecrator (not cumulative) (120 points)
The Bloodsecrators have an ability that adds 1 attack to all nearby units (cumulative)

100 Blood Reavers - 600
3 Bloodsecrators - 360

1000 points army and giving you an amazing 550 attacks if all the reavers make it into combat and are in range.

They can't.

Each model has a weapon range. You can only pile in so many units onto the base/model contact of another and be within the 1/2" range of most models. Reavers are 1" -- so only as many as you can put into a line. You're looking at 10-15 attacks against a smaller unit of say...stormcast.

You can have tons of attacks that occur *over the course of a fight*, but never all at once. Each "wave" of reavers would get mowed down each cycle - and you would lose a ton to battleshock (double saruian banners are murder on hordes for this reason).