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.

 Wingeds wrote:
So when can we expect this to drop? May or June/ July?

Mostly want to know when Death Guard are going to be released, I figure they'll most likely be the poster army for the new edition.

They are doing painting demos about death guard at warhammer fest in May so it is highly likely that death guard will be next month. Hastings suggested August with a new starter set. Deathguard in May, thunderhawk in June, Ghb2 for AOS in July and 8th edition in August makes sense. That said in previous genarations they have come out with a new edition in summer and a starter set later so they may do the same this time.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Sounds like it'd cause problems for the Orks.. again.

Given the buckets of dice you need for AoS, I think the Orks themselves will be causing the problems.

"Ok now I'll roll the other 100 attacks from this unit of Orruk™ Slugga™ Bryz™!"

Bryz™?

AOS Orkses are all called Brian?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Bryz™?

AOS Orkses are all called Brian?

Is that kinda like naming all your cattle Angus.. even the female ones, so they are worth more on the meat market?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Bryz™?

AOS Orkses are all called Brian?

GWish corruption of "bros"?

T

All sounds good to me!

They say it isn't as simple as AoS so I imagine we get to keep our to-wound charts.

I am liking just about everything except I will miss the trusty flamer template.

 Colpicklejar wrote:
I'm fine with templates being gone, but I will miss the wonderful feeling of putting the template over a mass of guard, genestealers, or orks.

Well certainly not much reason to space out units anymore. Apart from special scenarios shooting yourself to foot. Expect ranks of boyz and grots in b2b contact

timd wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Bryz™?

AOS Orkses are all called Brian?

GWish corruption of "bros"?

T

Which doesn't make sense since they use the term boyz all the same in AoS. But you know, the horse isn't dead yet.

So did anyone think to ask about the Nu-Marine that popped up the other month?

Any news about that?

While I believe new sources may bring good info, this here doesnt sound like one which does.

I'm definitely for changing templates to random hits, I was sceptical at first during the change from WHFB to AoS but boy did it make my life easier. I also hate being forced to space models out in a unit just to minimise damage from blasts and I don't even play Orks or Tyranids!

 FrothingMuppet wrote:
So did anyone think to ask about the Nu-Marine that popped up the other month?

Any news about that?

I thought it turned out to be an April Fools hoax.

Anyway the actual rumors if you missed them.

If you have ever witnessed a battary of Wyverns launching 12 re-rollable blasts, you know that templates are an invention of the devil

Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.

Ragnar69 wrote:
If you have ever witnessed a battary of Wyverns launching 12 re-rollable blasts, you know that templates are an invention of the devil

Be thankful your inconsiderate foeman hasn't discovered IA:13.

You can have Batteries of 5 Wyverns in that.....

Yes. I know. Anyone fielding such a thing should be burned as a witch!

This sounds rubbish :(
I don't want to see any major changes to the game mechanics, they are fine. Just a little tidying up, and rebalancing, and some better allies/detachments restrictions.

D6 hits for blast is so much variance.... horrible.

 Verviedi wrote:
Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.

I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.

I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?

A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.

I was really hoping for the vehicles to have some combination of the wounds system from AoS, and armor. The rumour means there is no point in trying to maneuver to get a rear shot. I am all for speeding up play, I just really dislike when a lot of the tactical elements of a game are stripped out completely.

Yeah... hadn't thought of that. Rolling to find out how many dice you get to roll, then rolling those dice to see how many of them you get to roll again... and then again.

Stop adding steps GW. Scattering everything was bad enough.

 flakpanzer wrote:
I was really hoping for the vehicles to have some combination of the wounds system from AoS, and armor. The rumour means there is no point in trying to maneuver to get a rear shot. I am all for speeding up play, I just really dislike when a lot of the tactical elements of a game are stripped out completely.

We don't know that yet. I see a ton of people jumping to conclusions yet making assumptions about changes that have not been released or announced.

I can, however, tell you that the removal of templates from WHFB to AoS had next to 0 effect on the overall tactical feel of the game. It ended up being absolutely fine without them. In regards to 40k, is it 'cool' when your flamer template gets the perfect positioning and wipes an entire unit? sure... but the removal of templates and making the weapon roll random wounds does indeed even out some of the peaks and valleys of template weapons designs. I have had games where template weapons never really did crap... and others where they basically won the game due to wiping out a critical unit or two.

If this is true and templates are gone, the damage will be normalized a bit better and certain armies that are overly susceptible to mass flamer/templates will stand a better chance.

Moving vehicles from armor to higher wound counts is something I felt would have been better for awhile now. Certain vehicles are worthless right now.. with this change and the 'possible' rumored change of assaulting out of vehicles you will see a massive influx of certain vehicles that basically have been abandoned by the meta. Enter.. rhino.

 flakpanzer wrote:
The rumour means there is no point in trying to maneuver to get a rear shot.

because 3 toughness values for front/side/rare are impossible to add not only for tanks but also for monsters?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah... hadn't thought of that. Rolling to find out how many dice you get to roll, then rolling those dice to see how many of them you get to roll again... and then again.

Stop adding steps GW. Scattering everything was bad enough.

Randomness. Because tactics are hard, and everybody needs to feel like a winner because they rolled certain results.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 FrothingMuppet wrote:
So did anyone think to ask about the Nu-Marine that popped up the other month?

Any news about that?

I thought it turned out to be an April Fools hoax.

Anyway the actual rumors if you missed them.

Not sure how rumourish this is or somebody just making assumptions that the next edition of 40K will be a version of Age of Sigmar, as those rumours sound just like Age of Sigmar.

Having played AOS from the start and seen how it's grown and developed, I'm really excited and hoping 40K goes down a similar route. I can see how it's not everybody's cup of tea but it is a good game if you give it chance and the Three ways of playing really mean that there is something for everybody.

Voldrak wrote:
Some more tidbits about 8th edition:

https://pp.userapi.com/c638719/v638719363/314ca/mtw3XJERJ8U.jpg

Anyone knows this podcast and is aware if they have any merit?

They need to retake English and Grammar classes, jeez.

 kodos wrote:

 flakpanzer wrote:
The rumour means there is no point in trying to maneuver to get a rear shot.

because 3 toughness values for front/side/rare are impossible to add not only for tanks but also for monsters?

The rumor said Armor Values were gone, if they include variable Save values based on facing, that would be great. We will just have to wait and see.

Kinda like the idea of getting rid of templates and scattering. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to bust out a protractor to prove how the other player was getting the direction of the scatter wrong.

Gaz Taylor wrote:
Not sure how rumourish this is or somebody just making assumptions that the next edition of 40K will be a version of Age of Sigmar, as those rumours sound just like Age of Sigmar.

Given how 7th adopted things from WHFB, such assumptions probably aren't unreasonable.

 Verviedi wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.

I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?

A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.

Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Random rolling to know how many dice you need to roll is far more devilish. We're supposed to be getting rid of that, not encouraging it.

I'm not being contrarian here, genuinely asking: why is the random roll of a D6 worse than the random rolling of a scattering template?

A scatter template makes sense, representing a shell possibly missing and hitting something else, in true "This is a giant explosive" fashion. If a Basilisk shell misses, it doesn't just disappear. Random rolls remove the interesting element from this, as the giant shell apparently just vanishes into the aether if it misses, rather than potentially hitting something else.

Now this I understand. I can also appreciate the added flavour and immersion in having a shot scatter onto another unit, but it gets pretty weird with non-barrage blasts that make casualties from different units still be taken from who is closest to the firing unit. I guess it just comes down to personal preference as to which abstractions you're fine with.

I'm for increasing depth, and removing randomness. In my eyes, scattering blasts does a good job of this. Random shots don't. Random shots make me think "GW, are you really telling me that my Stormsurge, connected to dozens of high-tech sensors, doesn't know how many cluster rockets it's firing per turn?"