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.

Although, I'd rather not get involved in any rumour run around (correct me if there is any solid evidence for this) I don' think they're going to 'AoS' it. I'm just not sure what GW's motive would be behind it and, more than anything, I don't see why anyone would want it like that. Now don't get my wrong, I like AoS (ooh err, controversial) but I like have the two separate games with there different rules. It's nice

This Primarch, who went through almost exactly what Horus went through PLUS the Xenos Chaos Deity thing, then immediately went to earth and took over before firing a bunch of people in charge and putting his own people in. And nobody said 'Hey, wait a minute... Horus pt. II - Don't you think we should clarify that you aren't a corrupted Daemonspawn first?"

Well yeah... that was 10,000 years ago in a world where they think praying to a gun makes it shoot better. I'm going out on a limb and say that no one who wasn't there, knows how the Heresy actually happened. It's all tall tales and myths.

 Amanax wrote:
Well yeah... that was 10,000 years ago in a world where they think praying to a gun makes it shoot better.

Of course praying to your gun makes it shoot better! Next you'll be saying that making punching motions while firing a handgun doesn't make the bullets fly out faster.

 Loremaster Of Awesomeness wrote:
Although, I'd rather not get involved in any rumour run around (correct me if there is any solid evidence for this) I don' think they're going to 'AoS' it. I'm just not sure what GW's motive would be behind it and, more than anything, I don't see why anyone would want it like that. Now don't get my wrong, I like AoS (ooh err, controversial) but I like have the two separate games with there different rules. It's nice

The GW designers at Adepticon went over the new profile. Its very similar to AOS. If thats not solid enough, I'm not sure what would be.

 auticus wrote:

 Loremaster Of Awesomeness wrote:
Although, I'd rather not get involved in any rumour run around (correct me if there is any solid evidence for this) I don' think they're going to 'AoS' it. I'm just not sure what GW's motive would be behind it and, more than anything, I don't see why anyone would want it like that. Now don't get my wrong, I like AoS (ooh err, controversial) but I like have the two separate games with there different rules. It's nice

The GW designers at Adepticon went over the new profile. Its very similar to AOS. If thats not solid enough, I'm not sure what would be.

Are you sure you aren't thinking about Shadow War?

 auticus wrote:

The GW designers at Adepticon went over the new profile. Its very similar to AOS. If thats not solid enough, I'm not sure what would be.

Did they..

because all I knew off is that they talked about changing how Leadership values worked in the game to something more akin to AoS

In which case a lot of people jumped the gun saying the 40k will use the same rules as AoS

Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html



I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.

Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone. The way its described, small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles but they have multiple wounds? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having armor in the first place? To negate small arms fire?

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?

I'm sorry but all of this sounds pretty

Commissar Benny wrote:
Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html



I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.

I'd imagine you'd determine a number of hits then roll to hit for each "shot" using the units BS.

Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone. The way its described, small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles but they have multiple wounds? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having armor in the first place? To negate small arms fire?

There's plenty of other ways to represent that, armour saves, immunity to fire with a characteristic < or > than X, an ability to regenerate wounds etc etc

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?

There can be other restrictions (back in the day you could only charge if the vehicle hadn't moved) and assault vehicle can confer extra advantages to still offer something above a standard transport.

I'm sorry but all of this sounds pretty

Then you're not fully appreciating what it could mean.

But then, given the nature of the source, it all seems a little unlikely that this is true anyhow.

Commissar Benny wrote:
Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html

I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits?

Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone.

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles?

Have you looked at AoS warscrolls? Automatic Xd6 hits pretty much exactly how AoS handles "Blast" type effects.

I think it's sad that AVs are going away, if only because Dreads, etc. don't deserve to be on par with MCs.

GW will (and should) remove a number of unnecessary distinctions, so that's fine. The game never really needed them anyways, given that GW wants the game to be about who has the prettiest models, not who can remember the most detailed rules arcana.

Commissar Benny wrote:

I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.

Roll to hit. If it hits, roll D6 for number of hits - would be the obvious solution. Or alternatively, roll for number of hits and then roll to hit with each one.

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?

Hard to make any judgement on that without knowing what other rules go along with it. There may be different rules governing charge distance, or who strikes first, depending on which sort of transport vehicle you're exiting. Or they may have just removed 'open-topped' or 'assault vehicles' vehicles from the game, and just count all vehicles the same regardless of whether or not they have a roof, or an assault ramp or whatever.


That's if these are even legit to begin with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html

I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits?

Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone.

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles?

Have you looked at AoS warscrolls? Automatic Xd6 hits pretty much exactly how AoS handles "Blast" type effects.

I think it's sad that AVs are going away, if only because Dreads, etc. don't deserve to be on par with MCs.

GW will (and should) remove a number of unnecessary distinctions, so that's fine. The game never really needed them anyways, given that GW wants the game to be about who has the prettiest models, not who can remember the most detailed rules arcana.

Look... most MC's are not so secretly walkers anyway. Dreadknights, Riptides and other large battle suits, wraiths. Etc.

So I honestly dont know what you are talking about when you say you don't want dreads on par with monsterous creatures.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html

I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits?

Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone.

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles?

Have you looked at AoS warscrolls? Automatic Xd6 hits pretty much exactly how AoS handles "Blast" type effects.

I think it's sad that AVs are going away, if only because Dreads, etc. don't deserve to be on par with MCs.

GW will (and should) remove a number of unnecessary distinctions, so that's fine. The game never really needed them anyways, given that GW wants the game to be about who has the prettiest models, not who can remember the most detailed rules arcana.

I'm just skeptical as to how they will be able to make it work. I can see if working great for some stuff, not so great for others. Like take hellhound torrent flamers for example. Even if my opponent spaces out his infantry conservatively I can usually make it hit 4-6 models. If its changed to a D6 roll, that is a net loss for that unit & will make it difficult to field.

On the other hand, grenade launchers on infantry will be king. 5pts for 24" D6 wound weapon. Yeah that sounds amazing.

I could see vehicles working like Azreal described "There's plenty of other ways to represent that, armour saves, immunity to fire with a characteristic < or > than X, an ability to regenerate wounds etc etc". I just think it would be ridiculous if all of sudden S3-6 weapons were all the sudden glancing/penetrating leman russes. Would entirely defeat the purpose of a tank to begin with.

Commissar Benny wrote:
I'm just skeptical as to how they will be able to make it work. I can see if working great for some stuff, not so great for others. Like take hellhound torrent flamers for example. Even if my opponent spaces out his infantry conservatively I can usually make it hit 4-6 models. If its changed to a D6 roll, that is a net loss for that unit & will make it difficult to field.

Well that is only look at one aspect.. if they did go down thing route. Who knows what they actually will do with the Heldrake's weapons

Commissar Benny wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html

I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits?

Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone.

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles?

Have you looked at AoS warscrolls? Automatic Xd6 hits pretty much exactly how AoS handles "Blast" type effects.

I think it's sad that AVs are going away, if only because Dreads, etc. don't deserve to be on par with MCs.

GW will (and should) remove a number of unnecessary distinctions, so that's fine. The game never really needed them anyways, given that GW wants the game to be about who has the prettiest models, not who can remember the most detailed rules arcana.

I'm just skeptical as to how they will be able to make it work. I can see if working great for some stuff, not so great for others. Like take hellhound torrent flamers for example. Even if my opponent spaces out his infantry conservatively I can usually make it hit 4-6 models. If its changed to a D6 roll, that is a net loss for that unit & will make it difficult to field.

On the other hand, grenade launchers on infantry will be king. 5pts for 24" D6 wound weapon. Yeah that sounds amazing.

I could see vehicles working like Azreal described "There's plenty of other ways to represent that, armour saves, immunity to fire with a characteristic < or > than X, an ability to regenerate wounds etc etc". I just think it would be ridiculous if all of sudden S3-6 weapons were all the sudden glancing/penetrating leman russes. Would entirely defeat the purpose of a tank to begin with.

Why would you assume Heldrakes or Grenade Launchers would be remotely the same? If we are believing this rumour then codices are gone and warscrolls are replacing them, so nothing has to be the same as now. Not to mention it could be things like 1d3 or 1d6+1 instead of straight up d6.

The thing is GW has already said the new rules will not be completely invalidating the current Codex's

Zatsuku wrote:
Why would you assume Heldrakes or Grenade Launchers would be remotely the same? If we are believing this rumour then codices are gone and warscrolls are replacing them, so nothing has to be the same as now. Not to mention it could be things like 1d3 or 1d6+1 instead of straight up d6.

Its hard to make any assumptions at this point but if templates are going away it would make sense that all template weapons will be resolved via D6. Maybe you are right, maybe flame template weapons will be resolved on 2D6 and you take the highest roll of the two. Perhaps grenade launchers/missile launchers will be D3 who knows. While codices may be going away, I think most weapons will still function in a similar manner that they do now.

As I said before, go look at AoS to see how these things work. Empire in particular.

Bleh didn't read that well. But we could see things like grenades be variables depending on whats loaded.

Commissar Benny wrote:
Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html

I'd honestly prefer the av and str to remain as is. Otherwise we'll see grot blastas downing landraiders...eventually.

Don't think it'd happen. I think it's going to be more like in the new necromundula game. Str that still rolls vs toughness/av, damage (wounds) that the attack can deal - usually either 1, d3 or d6 or something like that, save modifiers instead of all-or-nothing ap values, short/long range of shooting with different to-hit bonuses or penalties for that. Oh, and sustained fire dice representing extra shots - but it can easilly be simplified back to assault2. Cover and size and other aspects give penalties to-hit. Basically, 2-d edition. Nothing wrong with it. If something, it's a better system than 5-6-7.

On the brightside you might actually see a Landraider on the table to get shot at.

 koooaei wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html

I'd honestly prefer the av and str to remain as is. Otherwise we'll see grot blastas downing landraiders...eventually.

If the clever grots in my army want to build an array of 900 grot blastas into a super weapon, you had better get out of the way, landraider or no

Grot mega blasta. It's kinda like a squadron of demolishers combining their shots into an apoc blast. I've always believed there's no problem that can't be fixed with adding more grots.

Commissar Benny wrote:
Latest rumor here: http://natfka.blogspot.com/2017/04/8th-edition-rumors.html



I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.

Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone. The way its described, small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles but they have multiple wounds? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having armor in the first place? To negate small arms fire?

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?

I'm sorry but all of this sounds pretty

Complete opposite reaction:

All sounds good to me.

Codexes replaced with free downloads, well given the cost and content of 7th ed codexes that's welcome. I would be looking to buy campaign books and Battletomes when they come out because I like hard copy. Also praying for card packs for warscrolls nice and early.

Templates - bit meh either way - interestingly that's the way Bolt Action did it and lots of people liked but they have reverted back to templates which has had a mixed reaction.

Vehicle AV gone - if they merge vehicles and monsters and it works like AOS - massive result, Looking forward to seeing how the new Dwarf airships work as that should give a good steer. Add in lots of wounds, good armour and some special rules and it should be fine. I think it will be huge improvement on AV/Damage Tables that we have now.

I guess the effect of small arms is to mission kill the vehicle - so like modern insurgents can damage Main Battle Tanks viewing systems, kill crew etc

Armour save mod - hmm ok - happy either way - need to see the numbers.

Charging for vehicles - might just be stationary ones - have to see how it works.

On the 'death' of Codecies.

We were told the same thing about AoS. Whoops, Battletomes (which now contain pretty much all you need).

I suspect the rumour from Naftka is someone's wishlist/made up tripe.

As ever, I am open to being wrong

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the 'death' of Codecies.

We were told the same thing about AoS. Whoops, Battletomes (which now contain pretty much all you need).

I suspect the rumour from Naftka is someone's wishlist/made up tripe.

As ever, I am open to being wrong

One positive element of the AOS reboot was that initially at least everything had rules (good or bad) for the current edition. The limping on through editions with rules, play style and other aspects designed for a previous edition (or earlier) is and always was a stupid idea.

I am not a fan of electronic format as I have to print it out but I can def see the major plus points in an overall update rather than bits and pieces here and there.

True that - most armies were on a level playing field from the outset, but whether that still holds true is up to the individual (Sylvaneth for instance are really sneaky, but don't take too much putting down once you get your hands on them).

I'm a big fan of AoS - but I'm not convinced 40k needs such a large overhaul. For my money, Warhammer's flaws were as follows.

1. It was perceived to be an exclusively large scale game. This meant the perceived entry cost was high.

2. This wasn't really helped that the game just didn't pay off at low points (1,500 being the minimum for my tastes). Too few units, and there was no coming back from a single duff combat. So whilst I don't think point 1 is entirely accurate, it did require a decent investment to get things going.

3. It seemed having to buy models to fill out ranks didn't appeal. I can understand why - especially as you had to buy the same kit for the front rank.

4. The system was just old. 40k got a big old overhaul around 1998 when 3rd Ed gutted the rules, and sadly the background. But that did make the game a less laborious task. Warhammer? Well, barring how you cast spells, the core rules would be familiar to someone who hadn't played since Harry the Hammer first showed his face. Combat, shooting, movement - all virtually unchanged. Game design moved on, typically to swifter resolution.


40k?

Well, it mostly just needs a rules diet of some kind. I don't mind there being lots of rules, especially since Universal Special Rules are in the main rulebook. But with supplements containing various new units, new formations, new psychic powers, new weapons, new characters, new charts, new missions - it became too sprawling for most. Me, completest weirdo, so I have all the books (barring Blood Angels, Traitor Legions, Grey Knights and that new Imperial Traitor Legions equivalent).

The core of the game though is pretty much dandy for my needs. Scales up and down quite nicely. Yes I'd like to see some kind of restriction against the beardiest of army builds, but that's more a problem with the player than the game.

So absolutely needs work, just not the 'ground up' AoS was.

Regardless of outcome though, I'll still give it a whirl. Didn't think I'd enjoy AoS (first reaction to the new statline? 'WTF is this??'), but now I really, really love it. (YMMV. My enjoyment is mine alone. In a genuinely respectful way, IDGAF if you like it or not )

I'm having a hard time believing they are going to get rid of templates. How else are you going to measure scatter ordinance etc? Does it just auto-hit & roll D6 hits? That wouldn't work at all.

Nor do I believe vehicle armor is gone. The way its described, small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles but they have multiple wounds? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having armor in the first place? To negate small arms fire?

If infantry can charge from any transport, what is the point in open topped assault vehicles? So since normal transports will have double digit wounds and infantry can assault directly out of them, can we expect most of 8th will be mass transports rushing forward followed by assault in which they will get first attack since initiative won't come into play until the 2nd round of assault?

I'm sorry but all of this sounds pretty

Templates were removed from AOS. Its pretty easy actually. Weapon hits. Roll damage. Apply damage. Templates usually do D6 wounds. Very easy. No stopping to align the template. No stopping to argue that you went 25 degrees instead of 28 degrees. No arguing that Bob's shoe lace is under the template and should be hit.

Vehicle armor hurt by small arms fire. Yeah. I don't hate it. Why? Because I don't like paper/rock/scissors extreme game play. I like that everything will be able to hurt everything, so that TFG can't bring an an entire counter army and win the game before the first die is cast in the list building phase.

I'm excited.

Yep, I highly doubt that templates are getting removed, as GW has newer prettier templates in their SW:A boxes, and I don't think they would make new ones if they were going to be limited to one of 40k's spinoff games. (If you don't like my use of the word spinoff, deal with it )

All the others so-called rumors are either basically confirmed already (release date) or simple copy/pastes of AoS' rules. I'd safely wager that it's mostly phony baloney.

small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles

Well couldn't they just give heavily armoured vehicles a 0+ or 1+ armour save? Then you would need an armour piercing weapon with a rend value, i.e -1 or -2, to even hurt those vehicles making them immune to small arms.

My problem with the lack of armour values on vehicles is that is it reduces the value of positional play if there in no advance to getting behind or on the flank of heavily armoured vehicles the days of blazing away at the rear armour with your shoota boys hoping for a lucky six have gone :-(

Kroem wrote:

small arms can now damage heavily armored vehicles

Well couldn't they just give heavily armoured vehicles a 0+ or 1+ armour save? Then you would need an armour piercing weapon with a rend value, i.e -1 or -2, to even hurt those vehicles making them immune to small arms.

My problem with the lack of armour values on vehicles is that is it reduces the value of positional play if there in no advance to getting behind or on the flank of heavily armoured vehicles the days of blazing away at the rear armour with your shoota boys hoping for a lucky six have gone :-(

Nothing to say that a vehicle doesn't have different saves from different angles.

I love the idea of vehicles being high wound count, high save models.