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.

Wait, does this mean that there will be Grand Alliances, so Tyranids/Necrons/Eldar marching of to war together? I'm out.

 The Shadow wrote:
My comments in red.

Caederes wrote:

As to your second paragraph...what?
Why are you saying Deathwatch would be split up into different books when they are listed as their own faction on the new website?

I'm not saying Deathwatch specifically would have this treatment - in fact I'm pretty sure they wouldn't because they're a relatively small faction - but I'm rather pointing out AoS' tendancy to split the traditional armies into several battletomes, e.g. Flesh Eater Courts. So if I wanted to play a Vampire Counts army like I could back before AoS, I'd have to buy several battletomes.

Why are you saying you would need to now buy a book for "every single" Imperial army? Isn't that what the current situation is? You have to buy a book for Astra Militarum if you want to ally them to your Deathwatch (which you also have to buy a book for). That's CURRENT 40k. In what way would it be different now with the new system?

Because if this new 40k is anything like AoS - and it looks like it - then there will be a single book for "Imperium" which will contain all the traditional imperial armies, Deathwatch, Astra Militarium, Blood Angels etc etc. So even though I may only be interested in the Deathwatch stuff, I still have to buy this massive book with all the armies and info I don't want.

Why are you assuming the rules won't be free?
Why are you assuming there won't be an App that has all the rules for all the units on it, saving you the book-lugging that 40K GROSSLY suffers from which is NOT the case with Age of Sigmar?

You're right, there probably will be an app. But if I go on my AoS app now I have under "my units", or whatever it's called, the entry for every single unit I'm likely to use in an AoS game, so it's very time consuming to find the different ones I'm using in any particular game. And yes I know you can print the basic rules out because they're free etc, but you still have to buy the better formations from the battletomes. It may be a minor gripe but to me there was nothing wrong with the codex system, especially the ones that made it to paperback so why fix it?

Why would you need to buy several codices to use your Deathwatch army? The entire Khorne range is in one book. The entire Sylvaneth range is in one book. Hell, at the time of printing the entire Chaos range was in its own Grand Alliance book. What on earth are you going on about?

See above for my clarification on buying several codices to use a Deathwatch army. It's also perhaps a bad example being a relatively small army. Orks are a much better example. If this turns out to be similar to AoS, it's not unlikely that there'll be a Speed Freeks Battletome (containing only stuff on bikes or in transports), a Bad Moonz Battletome (containing only meganobz, 'eavy armoured boyz, flash gitz) etc etc. If I want to use my entire ork army, or even just cherry pick certain units, I will likely have to buy several battletomes. And before you say I can use the free rules, the free rules are not going to be as powerful. Not a huge deal for some, but I personally feel I'm getting shafted.

And that's exactly my point. The entire Sylvaneth range IS in one book. But Sylvaneth aren't the entire traditional range. The old Wood Elf army book had loads more units that aren't included in the Sylvaneth book. If I had a Wood Elf army from pre-AoS and wanted to use it all in a game, I now need separate books.

Why are you saying you'll need an over-expensive battletome just to get your faction wide rules, warlord traits, background, etc when YOU NEED TO BUY A CODEX IN 40K TO DO THE SAME THING!? Also, why are you saying the battletomes are over-expensive when they have oft been CHEAPER than the 40K codices?

Yes but my point, as I've stated multiple times now, is that I now have to buy a battletome containing all units in that FACTION rather than the army. So yes, in 40k I needed, for example, my Ork Codex, but at least that Codex doesn't contain the entry for every single other xenos unit that I'm never going to use. And at least that Ork codex contains Ork-specific rules rather than just Xenos-specific rules, making the army much more tasteful and enjoyable. I could be proved wrong on that last point, but I think the army-specific rules and warlord traits won't be making a re-appearance until the battletomes start coming out

You people honestly just confuse me and make me laugh.
Please, for the love of the Emperor, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE.

Please look at the Faction list on the Warhammer 40,000 website. Do you see any factions that didn't already exist in the game other than Death Guard? Are Deathwatch still there? They aren't completely resetting the lore, unlike Age of Sigmar. There's no reason to believe they will split any particular current faction up into more sub-factions.

Here's a truth bomb. Grand Alliance: Chaos and Grand Alliance: Order cost $56 AUD. Codex: Space Marines costs $90 AUD. It's cheaper to get the book that covers ALL the armies than it is to get the one focused specifically on one faction. Besides, if you just want Deathwatch stuff, the eventual "Battletome" will likely cost the same or less as the current codex.

The App has numerous filters and a Search function to find exactly what you need. Additionally, once you've got your army list written up, there's a function that lets you add the units you will use to a separate section - mind you, this is part of the free App and doesn't require the subscription version. That function means you can open the app and the only units you will see are the ones you need for that particular army list you are using. Phone/tablet functionality permitting, I've found it to be less cumbersome than flicking through a book to find the right pages that could be spread apart; it just takes a minute or two of work pre-game to set-up and your golden once the game starts where time actually does become precious.

Again, you're failing to understand that this is not a transition from Warhammer Fantasy to Age of Sigmar. This is a transition from Warhammer 40,000 to Warhammer 40,000. It's a new edition, not a new game system. The chances of them splitting up a faction like Orks are much smaller than it would have been for the Warhammer Fantasy factions because they don't need to pull new narrative out of their backsides to justify why certain units are together. Mind you, I'm not saying it's impossible they will do this for Orks, I just don't see it as being very likely.

Sylvaneth is realistically the best example of what you're trying to say. They are an army that gets more out of their Battletome than the Generals Handbook which is surprisingly rare in AoS (all the Destruction armies tend to skip their Battletome in favour of the GHB for instance) and an army that is supposed to operate independent of others. However, most other armies? The Generals Handbook is all you need because their own Allegiance abilities/relics/etc - if any - generally aren't worth taking over the generic grand alliance ones.

Also, as Lord Kragan pointed out, you get literally *everything* for a Tzeentch or Khorne army in a single book with Disciples of Tzeentch and Blades of Khorne respectively. When I say everything I mean *everything*. Points, formations, artefacts, traits, allegiance abilities, key warscrolls, etc.

Can't tell what the next generation of marines' scale is, but... eh... I'm actually more aware of trouble with bits compatibility than looking weird next to each other. I've had a few years to rebuild my collection, and won't be buying several kits to have a nice variety.

As someone who doesn't play CSM, the new edition timing sucks a lot for those who just saw the first nice book for their army in a few editions, and I think it's rude to have dropped a substantial single army expansion that right before a new edition. Not as bad as their AOS giant set of books, but still poor form, and anyone who's been jeering at them is, IMHO at best a cynic drinking the corporate kool aid.

As an astral claws fan, slight optimism that FW might finally make a version of Tyrant's Legion that isn't flat out terrible. Probably not.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Wait, does this mean that there will be Grand Alliances, so Tyranids/Necrons/Eldar marching of to war together?.

No

Caederes wrote:


I'm going off your earlier posts and that one, so you can consider it an overall response to the points you were making in this thread.

Which were false anyway. It costs way more to cover everything in Warhammer 40,000 when you account for all the FW books.

Jeez, then you really should read the posts in more detail. I have *never* said that to buy everything 40k related is cheaper than AoS, that's plainly ridiculous because 40k has been around much longer than AoS. What I did was *compare* the approximate costs of AoS to 40k over a two year period since AoS was released (and to be fair that's generous on AoS because it has been less than two years). Forgeworld have what released one/two books maybe in this period. That still makes 40k cheaper overall when comparing on a timeline basis.

And yes, I know what you're talking about with background narrative stuff. Guess what? That's in the Battletome for the army you buy. You don't need an AoS campaign book any more than you need a 40K campaign book.

But you would do if you wanted to play a campaign would you not and know about the background. I'll point out again for the god knows how many number of times. This is about comparing *like for like* not picking and choosing the element and then pointing out you don't need the rest

The cost is not drip fed more. To play a Stormcast Eternals army in Matched Play, you need the Battletome and the Generals Handbook. You cannot buy anything else to add on to a pure Stormcast Eternal army, all you have access to for Matched Play is in those two books. To play a World Eaters army, you need the Chaos Space Marine Codex, the Traitor Legion codex and the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. You can get optional - and crucial - rules support from Imperial Armor 13 and other sources like Imperial Armor: Apocalypse.

Yet you are completely ignoring that over these two years if you had been playing Sigmaries then there would have been three books released + the GH each one with a handful of units, hence over that time you have been drip fed the rules for them. With the Chaos Space Marines you are also unreasonably trying to select a weak army and saying this is what you need to play a game when in reality all you need to play a World Eaters Army is the rulebook and the 40k book. Whether that is an effective army is an entirely different question. This is not about picking an army to make a comparison because that is biased by the army being selected. Therefore you have to look holistically over the same time interval to come to a cost per month/year etc that provides the equal and equivalent experience.

 Melissia wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Or Bell Cawl turns his attention to his other 10,000 year old side project (diversifying the marine genome to accept a wider range of humans) and SOB are folded into their own space marine chapters to make femstartes just like some fans have wanted for decades (and others have abhored for equally as long).

Oh that's what HBMC said to me. I had him on ignore.

I would be simultaneously furious and laughing my ass off if that femstartes event happened tho.

Caederes wrote:
Narrative play in Age of Sigmar is all player driven, it gives you a template to build up an army from a small warband (i.e. a single leader and two-three basic units) to a full on warhost based on your match results. I'm pretty sure it gives you character progression stuff but I might be wrong there. It gives you example battleplans but you're expected to make your own. It's pretty much tailor made for army builder challenges and is a nice simple system for those wanting to run campaigns.

If that's all it is, fine, but GW's "campaigns" and narrative battles so far have been very marine-centric (assault on black reach, battle for macragge, and shadow war: armageddon all come to mind here), and I don't see much of a reason why this would be much different...

The Narrative in Shield Of Baal had tons of Sisters stuff - where they absolutely kicked ass, had new artwork and lore - sadly the rules writters could not be bothered or were told not to translate this into actual rules.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Caederes wrote:


I'm going off your earlier posts and that one, so you can consider it an overall response to the points you were making in this thread.

Which were false anyway. It costs way more to cover everything in Warhammer 40,000 when you account for all the FW books.

Jeez, then you really should read the posts in more detail. I have *never* said that to buy everything 40k related is cheaper than AoS, that's plainly ridiculous because 40k has been around much longer than AoS. What I did was *compare* the approximate costs of AoS to 40k over a two year period since AoS was released (and to be fair that's generous on AoS because it has been less than two years). Forgeworld have what released one/two books maybe in this period. That still makes 40k cheaper overall when comparing on a timeline basis.

And yes, I know what you're talking about with background narrative stuff. Guess what? That's in the Battletome for the army you buy. You don't need an AoS campaign book any more than you need a 40K campaign book.

But you would do if you wanted to play a campaign would you not and know about the background. I'll point out again for the god knows how many number of times. This is about comparing *like for like* not picking and choosing the element and then pointing out you don't need the rest

The cost is not drip fed more. To play a Stormcast Eternals army in Matched Play, you need the Battletome and the Generals Handbook. You cannot buy anything else to add on to a pure Stormcast Eternal army, all you have access to for Matched Play is in those two books. To play a World Eaters army, you need the Chaos Space Marine Codex, the Traitor Legion codex and the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. You can get optional - and crucial - rules support from Imperial Armor 13 and other sources like Imperial Armor: Apocalypse.

Yet you are completely ignoring that over these two years if you had been playing Sigmaries then there would have been three books released + the GH each one with a handful of units, hence over that time you have been drip fed the rules for them. With the Chaos Space Marines you are also unreasonably trying to select a weak army and saying this is what you need to play a game when in reality all you need to play a World Eaters Army is the rulebook and the 40k book. Whether that is an effective army is an entirely different question. This is not about picking an army to make a comparison because that is biased by the army being selected. Therefore you have to look holistically over the same time interval to come to a cost per month/year etc that provides the equal and equivalent experience.

No, what you did was a poor comparison, you compared a timeframe where the bulk of AoS releases happened (around 20+) while 40k was more or less stagnant in releases (14 publications: 3 sets of 2 campaign books-Damocles, Fenris, Traitor's hate- 2 codexii, 3 supplements and a 3-book campaign).

Stormcasts got a third book to solve the issue. SCE MK II costs 25 euros and covers the other two books (and more). It wasn't meant to drip-feed rules, but to solve the drip-feeding.

 doghouse wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
The small amount of truscale fanatics are a god send to GW as there going to let them invalidate there best ever selling range while saying it is what people wanted.

That's utter nonsense!

These are not "truescale" marines, they are a new unit.

Source on that? Because they look like Tactical marines to me

 RiTides wrote:
Well, I'm intrigued. Here's hoping they got it right!

Yes...here's hoping that they finally got it right after twenty plus years and eight editions.

Hint: They did not get it right.

Maybe Shadow War Armageddon was the olive branch trying to be nice before kicking us in the gut.

It does sound a lot like AoS and it changed scale with the chaos right out of the gate.. now we have
huge models compared to old.. And you still can use the models from the abandoned armies..
Tomb Kings, Britonnia and Empire ..RIP

 ncshooter426 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

If you'd like to try and call me a "white knight" then come at me.

White Knight!



I make my charge

Sadly you died to my overwatch.

Good game!

 Mr Morden wrote:
The Narrative in Shield Of Baal had tons of Sisters stuff - where they absolutely kicked ass, had new artwork and lore - sadly the rules writters could not be bothered or were told not to translate this into actual rules.

ANd yet this is par for the course here. Which is why I'm being wary about it.

Rest of it the release thus far looks good though.

Having mostly skipped out on 40K for all of 6th and 7th, I'm cautiously optimistic here - and while I can sympathize with anyone who has bought a lot of army books for these editions, it really does feel as if 40K needs a hard reset.

I just hope it is as "succesfull" as AoS was straight away at launch.

Mind not sure GW could afford that

 Whirlwind wrote:
Jeez, then you really should read the posts in more detail. I have *never* said that to buy everything 40k related is cheaper than AoS, that's plainly ridiculous because 40k has been around much longer than AoS. What I did was *compare* the approximate costs of AoS to 40k over a two year period since AoS was released (and to be fair that's generous on AoS because it has been less than two years). Forgeworld have what released one/two books maybe in this period. That still makes 40k cheaper overall when comparing on a timeline basis.

But you would do if you wanted to play a campaign would you not and know about the background. I'll point out again for the god knows how many number of times. This is about comparing *like for like* not picking and choosing the element and then pointing out you don't need the rest

Yet you are completely ignoring that over these two years if you had been playing Sigmaries then there would have been three books released + the GH each one with a handful of units, hence over that time you have been drip fed the rules for them. With the Chaos Space Marines you are also unreasonably trying to select a weak army and saying this is what you need to play a game when in reality all you need to play a World Eaters Army is the rulebook and the 40k book. Whether that is an effective army is an entirely different question. This is not about picking an army to make a comparison because that is biased by the army being selected. Therefore you have to look holistically over the same time interval to come to a cost per month/year etc that provides the equal and equivalent experience.

Lord Kragan emphatically proves your first and second paragraphs wrong anyway so your point isn't even valid. Ergo, we shouldn't even be having this discussion anymore

Erm. Here's the thing. Rules-wise....you've got it wrong. The original Stormcast Eternals Battletome and the Stormcast Extremis Battletome had essentially nothing that would make them worthwhile for Matched Play. Rules-wise, they only come with warscrolls. No Command Traits/Artefacts/Allegiance Abilities/etc. Just formations and warscrolls. Pre-Matched Play, there was no real reason to buy them other than for narrative. Now, the *new* Stormcast Eternal Battletome? Command Traits. Artefacts. Allegiance Abilities. I could go on but...neither of the first two Stormcast Battletomes were seen as proper gaming accessories. That's why all Sylvaneth and post Sylvaneth battletomes include things like Allegiance Abilities and the like and numerous formations rather than a token few so that they are actually worth getting for those interested in gaming.

Now, I think it obviously sucks if you bought the original one/two Battletomes which were pretty much invalidated by the new one, but....they haven't done that for any other army, and the original two weren't designed for gamers, they were for those looking for fluff/painting inspiration. So, if we're still talking about gamers here - which this particular paragraph is - then no, it's not really a valid concern because people didn't buy those two books for rules.

When it comes to 40K, yeah, you could say I'm cherry picking World Eaters. What you're ignoring though is that, like I said, ALL the rules you could possibly need for Stormcasts are in their Battletome, and the Generals Handbook is essentially the core rulebook because it has the Matched Play scenarios in it. If you want ALL the rules for World Eaters, you NEED the Chaos Marine codex, the Traitor Legion supplement and the rulebook at absolute minimum, and the list becomes bigger if you add in the Forge World book. If you want to run Ynnari Craftworld Eldar - and no, I don't mean a combined Aeldari force, I mean Craftworld Eldar alone using Ynnari rules - you need Codex: Craftworld Eldar, Fracture of Biel Tan and the 40K rulebook. There's also a Forge World book called Doom of Mymaera that I should probably mention...

So no, it's not at all the same. I can walk into a store and buy one Battletome and the Generals Handbook for Stormcasts and that is literally all I need book-wise to play every single possible permutation of Stormcast Eternals in Matched Play. I don't need to worry about buying other books because I want to add in a specific unit for the Stormcast faction, it's all in the one book. It's the same thing for Sylvaneth. I'm spending less to get everything I could need than I would if I was playing 40K. Fact.

It good to see how this new edition has really brought the community together in joyous expectation.

Morghot wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Wait, does this mean that there will be Grand Alliances, so Tyranids/Necrons/Eldar marching of to war together?.

No

Care to explain? AFAIK the way it works in AoS is that an army is selected from all of the units available to a particular Grand Alliance.

 Genoside07 wrote:
Maybe Shadow War Armageddon was the olive branch trying to be nice before kicking us in the gut.

free rules, new models, updated books for all the armies at once, listening to the community... Yeah, they sure twisted the knife

MaxT wrote:

 doghouse wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
The small amount of truscale fanatics are a god send to GW as there going to let them invalidate there best ever selling range while saying it is what people wanted.

That's utter nonsense!

These are not "truescale" marines, they are a new unit.

Source on that? Because they look like Tactical marines to me

Hastings original rumour for them a couple months ago now.

I'm surprised at all the complaints about the "truescale marines", I thought it had already been made very clear that it's going to be a new unit/faction.

SeanDrake wrote:
I just hope it is as "succesfull" as AoS was straight away at launch.

Mind not sure GW could afford that

Well they seem to have all the things that have since made AoS much more successful built in at launch.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Morghot wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Wait, does this mean that there will be Grand Alliances, so Tyranids/Necrons/Eldar marching of to war together?.

No

Care to explain? AFAIK the way it works in AoS is that an army is selected from all of the units available to a particular Grand Alliance.

It's incredibly likely 40K won't follow that design. The races are grouped under Imperium/Chaos/Xenos then split into sub-factions basically just to reduce clutter. I'd assume there will be levels of alliance within the sub-factions, as I can't see them all of a sudden letting you run Tyranid units alongside Necron or Aeldari units with no penalty. Mind you, if they actually do that - and it *is* possible - I won't be happy.

Keep in mind that Warhammer Fantasy didn't really use proper ally rules for traditional games back in 8th Edition, the rules were there but they weren't really intended or even used for solo play. They released the combined factions in the End Times as a prelude to the Grand Alliances but that's about it. Of course, they've been doing the same thing with the Gathering Storm books, but 40K actually has a full allies system which I can't see them fully scrapping. The lore reset for Age of Sigmar lets them justify combining any of the various Destruction armies together, but they can't use that excuse in 40K with the established lore.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Morghot wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Wait, does this mean that there will be Grand Alliances, so Tyranids/Necrons/Eldar marching of to war together?.

No

Care to explain? AFAIK the way it works in AoS is that an army is selected from all of the units available to a particular Grand Alliance.

Actually you can pick models from any faction in the game, but the way abilities work means that you are far better off going mono faction so they all work together and getting the alliance benefit on top.

However, so far absolutely nobody has suggested this is what is going to happen for 40K beyond a few fear mongers on here who saw the new website navigation set up, put 2 and 2 together and got 4000.

I'm really excited for the new edition. I hope there's a really low barrier to entry rules-wise like there is in AoS. I've only spent £15 on AoS rules (I run a mixed Order army for matched play), so hopefully it won't be too much more for 40K.

Lord Kragan wrote:


Warhammer 7th edition was published on may of 2014 (3 years). Since then ALL its publications, counting all books and the BRB, have been 1750 euros which is an average of 583 euros per year at, generally, the lowest cost possible.
Age of sigmar was released on July of 2015 (1.75 years). Since then ALL its publications, counting all books GHB and the namesake book, have amounted to 688.5 (forgot one book). That's 393,43 euros per year.

Age of Sigmar is 33% cheaper.

Please try again with a REAL argument.

Tut, tut you are being naughty and comparing unequal things.. not a great method Firstly I compared approx. two years. The year before Kirby left was well known for the stinging price increases. You should only compare periods that are equivalent otherwise you are artificially biasing your selection to argue your case (I could simply include the last 25 years of 40k supplements and compare that to 1.75 years of AoS for example). AoS didn't have any sales pre -June 2015. To be more fair you'd have to include the costs for WFB in the same time period, but then even this is wonky because it is a completely different game/sales strategy then. Also I have a strong suspicion you are probably picking and choosing things to fit an argument. Simple maths shows me that you are that the average cost per book equates to about £50 per month on average (and lets assume 50% of these months were WFB/AoS focussed) then that's equivalent to each month £100 worth of rulebooks/campaign books/codexes every time GW releases a supplement which is way over what I would expect. My suspicion is that you are including non-comparable things here (especially if you are including FW), but as you've not listed the things that's difficult to ascertain.

So I very much doubt your argument.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Wait, does this mean that there will be Grand Alliances, so Tyranids/Necrons/Eldar marching of to war together? I'm out.

No. Conclusion: jumped to.

Indeed.

Plus, you can do that anyway with Allies rules. So nowt new even if you can.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Wait, does this mean that there will be Grand Alliances, so Tyranids/Necrons/Eldar marching of to war together? I'm out.

Thats was and is fine in the current ruleset. It's called unbound.

 Imateria wrote:

Actually you can pick models from any faction in the game, but the way abilities work means that you are far better off going mono faction so they all work together and getting the alliance benefit on top.

However, so far absolutely nobody has suggested this is what is going to happen for 40K beyond a few fear mongers on here who saw the new website navigation set up, put 2 and 2 together and got 4000.

Wait, you can pick models from any faction in the game in AoS? Bahahaha, it's worse than I thought! It may be jumping to conclusions but it certainly is a strange way to group the different armies that is very reminiscent of Grand Alliances.

No, it isn't. Loyalist human-y variants, Chaos human-y variants, aliens. As a basic grouping it's super logical and non-odd.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Actually you can pick models from any faction in the game, but the way abilities work means that you are far better off going mono faction so they all work together and getting the alliance benefit on top.

However, so far absolutely nobody has suggested this is what is going to happen for 40K beyond a few fear mongers on here who saw the new website navigation set up, put 2 and 2 together and got 4000.

Wait, you can pick models from any faction in the game in AoS? Bahahaha, it's worse than I thought! It may be jumping to conclusions but it certainly is a strange way to group the different armies that is very reminiscent of Grand Alliances.

No, in Matched Play all armies have to be from the same Grand alliance (GHB p.106)