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.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I suspect they just changed all the '-' in the To Wound chart to "6". So yes, a bolter might be able to plink wounds off a land raider.. but you won't be able to easily chew through 14 wounds or whatever without heavy weapons.

Won't be a wound chart.

It will be like AoS weapons. A land raider might be something like a 2+ save and 20 wounds. A bolter might have -1 to saves, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound, which would take close to 200 shots to achieve.

Not sure that's true. They mentioned Strength and Toughness, didn't they?

rollawaythestone wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


I'm a little sad however because this is literally all stuff they had the ability to do just as easily a decade ago...

Absolutely. The comment that this was the "most playtested version of the rules... by a mile." was awesome, but also really jaw dropping because it really does confirm everyone's suspicions that for years and years they did little playtesting of the game.

yeah, all the playtesting, community feedback, etc was all stuff they could have done, but was painfully obvious they were not. They even had their own forums they could have used until 2006, and then shut them down.


Glad its turning around, but it shouldnt have taken this long to do it

Ratius wrote:

Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.

I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.

So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.

Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.

Aye, we'll see how it turns out, thats the one bit I feel most hesitant about, but could be worked out to be pretty functional and would solve MC/Tank issues.

Well, after watching that, i am pretty stoked about the new edition !

Looks like everyone else apart from the serial moaners are too !

It cant come soon enough !

sturguard wrote:
Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.

If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.

Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.

Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?

Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.

That didn't take long. Good old Dakka.

You ever hear of email confirmations for orders? Do you think their point of sale can't look you up? What year are you living in?

Well, almost everything seems good. I'm a bit bummed templates are gone (mainly as how they're resolved in AoS is so bass ackwards to compensate for the fact they're not there) but its not a dealbreaker.

I eagerly await more news.

 Ratius wrote:

Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.

I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.

So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.

Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.[/quote

It's worth noting that the Khadron Overlords Ironclad Battleship has 15 wounds and a 5+ save, however it barely loses any weapon or movement effectiveness until it hits about 5 wounds. Those charts mean they can fine tune how long a tank stays running - maybe 12 wounds down a Land Raider will still be running at 90% efficiency. Suddenly the small chance of bolters being able to damage it is heavily mitigated. And after a few las/melta shots, maybe a hail of bolter fire would be able to damage its internals.

Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt.

If purchased digitally you will have an e-receipt in your email account etc.
If a hardback via credit/debit card then it'll be on your bank statement.
Cash is trickier granted that.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


I'm a little sad however because this is literally all stuff they had the ability to do just as easily a decade ago...

Absolutely. The comment that this was the "most playtested version of the rules... by a mile." was awesome, but also really jaw dropping because it really does confirm everyone's suspicions that for years and years they did little playtesting of the game.

So why did we purchase their products at often ridiculous prices? We should get a voucher for their lack of playtesting products.

Ruin wrote:
Well, almost everything seems good. I'm a bit bummed templates are gone (mainly as how they're resolved in AoS is so bass ackwards to compensate for the fact they're not there) but its not a dealbreaker.

I eagerly await more news.

Same here, I loved the flamer template. Sigh...


At least 30k still has them.

My notes from new edition Q&A on Warhammer Facebook: No more templates. Vehicles have toughness like everything else, do degrade as they take wounds. Earn "Command Points" playing mission, spend one each phase even during opponent's turn (out-of-sequence) to re-roll dice, interrupt charges, and other abilities specific to faction and force org chart. 14 force org charts in base rules.

Forgeworld models supported too. Bigger detachments generate more Command Points, that's advantage of sticking to single faction. Keyword system should limit deathstar buff sharing. Chargers swing first. Monsters degrade like vehicles. Stats no longer capped at 10. Every weapon has a chance to hurt every unit. Characters affect nearby units but can't "join".

On fluff side: New narrative focus on Chaos versus Imperium sorry filthy Xenos scum. Storyline will develop rapidly but not radically. "New faction on launch" maybe Death Guard maybe not?

Matched play will still have granular points, while in Narrative format each unit has a general "power level" for rough matchup, not including wargear. Annual rule updates confirmed. Expansions like Planet Strike will get rewritten.

If you have receipt for purchase of any 40k book in past 8 weeks, you're eligible for voucher from GW customer service. Still no release date. I was thinking June but now I'm thinking May because nobody's buying while expecting such change.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
I suspect they just changed all the '-' in the To Wound chart to "6". So yes, a bolter might be able to plink wounds off a land raider.. but you won't be able to easily chew through 14 wounds or whatever without heavy weapons.

Won't be a wound chart.

It will be like AoS weapons. A land raider might be something like a 2+ save and 20 wounds. A bolter might have -1 to saves, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound, which would take close to 200 shots to achieve.

You could expect the Lord of Skulls to be something like 40 to 50 wounds or more if it maintains it's current power level.

They mentioned Strength and toughness so I imagine there's still a wound chart.

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:

Ruin wrote:
Well, almost everything seems good. I'm a bit bummed templates are gone (mainly as how they're resolved in AoS is so bass ackwards to compensate for the fact they're not there) but its not a dealbreaker.

I eagerly await more news.

Same here, I loved the flamer template. Sigh...


At least 30k still has them.

Just think of all the amazing coffee coasters we all just got access too!

Couldn't be more excited for everything they said...and that's just the beginning. Looking forward to 40K becoming enjoyable and very prominent in my gaming areas again.

 Ratius wrote:

Not sure I'm terribly thrilled about bolters hurting heavy battle tanks, but thats more of a game design preference, if it's handled properly I can see it working from a balance perspective.

I think its a direct move towards the AoS monster system, where as the monster is damaged it loses movement/number of attacks etc.

So a bolter wounds a land raider and reduces its movement by say an inch.
A scat laser shoots it and its loses 3 inches.
A lascannon shoots it and it loses 6 inches etc etc.

Movement could of course just as easily be how many shots it can fire etc.

That's not quite how it works...

They use "brackets" based on the number of Wounds suffered, not how many Wounds are left.

So let's say, theoretically, a Land Raider has 20 Wounds.
0-3 Wounds suffered--it's full power.
4-7 Wounds suffered--knock a point of Movement off, maybe knock a shot or two off of the Hurricane Bolters or add +1 to the required rolls for PoTMS to hit.
8-13 Wounds--knock a significant amount of Movement off, halve the number of shots it can fire yadda yadda yadda.

Each of the vehicles/monsters likely will have their own "table" on the datasheet with this information, with certain bits and bobs being marked by "*" instead of a set value and that is what would be affected by suffering Wounds.

Daedalus81 wrote:

sturguard wrote:
Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.

If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.

Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.

Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?

Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.

That didn't take long. Good old Dakka.

You ever hear of email confirmations for orders? Do you think their point of sale can't look you up? What year are you living in?

Yeah I'm older than most, so yeah when I purchase its generally in cash so I know I can afford it rather than carrying thousands of dollars of credit card debt like most. Email confirmations would require you to purchase online, some of us support local game stores. Again, I think you are carrying this a bit too far on how much work people are going to do to find that receipt from 6 weeks ago. Is it a nice gesture, but plenty of companies employ similar tactics- just mail in this receipt to get your free box of cereal or this or that, because they know the actual amount of people that will actually do it is small.

So far everything bar one thing sounds brilliant and a step in the right direction. The game is sounding more and more like it will be a more advanced version of AoS. Which if done correctly will be fine.

That being said, I am not a fan of the background focusing more towards Imperium vs Chaos. As someone who has zero interest in either of them I am disappointed that they are going increasingly down a Human centric story line. With the non Humans being made to be spectators.

 VeteranNoob wrote:
Couldn't be more excited for everything they said...and that's just the beginning.

I'm with this guy. I'll miss the flamer template, though.

 VeteranNoob wrote:
Couldn't be more excited for everything they said...and that's just the beginning. Looking forward to 40K becoming enjoyable and very prominent in my gaming areas again.

If it becomes as prominent in my area as it's father AoS I will never play again

sturguard wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

sturguard wrote:
Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.

If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.

Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.

Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?

Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.

That didn't take long. Good old Dakka.

You ever hear of email confirmations for orders? Do you think their point of sale can't look you up? What year are you living in?

Yeah I'm older than most, so yeah when I purchase its generally in cash so I know I can afford it rather than carrying thousands of dollars of credit card debt like most. Email confirmations would require you to purchase online, some of us support local game stores. Again, I think you are carrying this a bit too far on how much work people are going to do to find that receipt from 6 weeks ago. Is it a nice gesture, but plenty of companies employ similar tactics- just mail in this receipt to get your free box of cereal or this or that, because they know the actual amount of people that will actually do it is small.

Guess that's American credit card culture at work then - over here everyone uses a debit card (not credit), no one uses cash and 90% of customers would have a bank statement even if they didn't keep the receipt.

As someone who has zero interest in either of them I am disappointed that they are going increasingly down a Human centric story line. With the non Humans being made to be spectators.

Thats a jump though, they have said Xenos will have a full book themselves, new factions will be released (assume some Xenos?) and suppliments and new codices for all.
I cant see the Xenos factions getting any less love - perhaps initially on launch since 40k was always built on IoM VS Chaos but once it ramps up later it'll be ok.

Most of these sound like they'll be good changes, but i don't really like the sound of removing vehicle armour values and templates. Were those two things really that bad? I've not actually played for about 10 years so i'm not sure, can someone explain what the problem with those two things were?

Daedalus81 wrote:

sturguard wrote:
Sorry, I'm not willing to jump in hook line and sinker yet, yeah GW might be saying the right things, but that doesn't mean they are actually changing their tune.

If you have Proof of purchase of buying a rulebook/codex in the last 8 weeks from the announcement, you will get a virtual voucher!- Let me ask seriously- how many folks do you think have their receipt from a codex purchased 7 weeks ago? Or even six weeks ago. Honestly if I purchased something a week ago, I wouldn't have the receipt. GW knows this, they know that saying this is going to get them in great favor with their audience but ultimately they won't have to refund much at all.

Most balanced rules set.- Well what do you think they are going to say, after all they are trying to sell a product.

Extensive Play testing- this is kind of a kick in the groin. So if they advertise extensive play testing, what does that mean for all the products we have purchased from them over the past few years- non extensive play testing? So now all of a sudden they are play testing their products where before they weren't?

Hey I have been playing GW games for close to 30 years, I'm not selling off my models anytime soon, however, I am taking everything they say with a grain of salt until I see actions, not words.

That didn't take long. Good old Dakka.

You ever hear of email confirmations for orders? Do you think their point of sale can't look you up? What year are you living in?

Yeah, who keeps receipts anymore when you can look up every purchase you've made in the last 20years on your phone lol?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Most of these sound like they'll be good changes, but i don't really like the sound of removing vehicle armour values and templates. Were those two things really that bad? I've not actually played for about 10 years so i'm not sure, can someone explain what the problem with those two things were?

Armor values are very binary and create a poor game design space, blast templates are more theatrical than functional and aren't really necessary.

I'm curious what this new FoC meta will mean for formations. We haven't heard anything much about them, have we?

A wide variety of FoCs with differing benefits, plus faction specific FoCs, sound an awful lot like a end-run around the concept of formations.

Personally I would love to see the confusing situation of "multiple FoCs, plus independent formations, PLUS giant meta-formation detachments" gone. AoS resolves that in its own way, but doesn't have FoCs either.

It's a shame we didn't get any word on how psychic powers will work in 8th.

I have a hunch that, like the treatment of vehicles and Monstrous Creatures, psychic powers will work like magic in AoS. That's just based on my gut, though.

How will flamers work?
How is it done in AOS?

Chargers strike first?

Holy balls... that's a yuuuuuuuuge boone for Orks!

The rules sound so much fun. The command point mechanic is a great way to turn standing around in your opponent's phase to a nail-biting ride waiting to spring something at the best chance.

I love the AoS system so I am happy for all the rules coming from that system too.

Two points system, one a ready reckoner for narrative and one more granular for matched? Sounds incredible.

vehicle armour values and templates

Templates were clunky snce they are a 2d object trying to interact in a 3d environment/battlefield. there wre some silly exploits with them over the years and not a small amount of confusion.

AV became problematic when put up against the stats of MCs and GMS and the fact that some vehicles were utterly immune to certain weapons/factions.
But then on the flipside you have weapons that can wreck your entire vehicle cohort by turn 2.
It was never balanced or workable really.
Damage charts as well were a bit clunky.

Well look at AoS now. It works the same way and it works well. The greater grand alliance armies tend to be stronger than faction specific formations/rules unless they are strong enough to make up for the lack of versatility.

Ultimately even AoS (or any game) will come down to math to determine what is and isn't the best. Also templates were becoming less effective as people took MSU in tournaments and spread their guys out to the very minimum. Kind of cheesing the system a little.

 whembly wrote:
Chargers strike first?

Holy balls... that's a yuuuuuuuuge boone for Orks!

aye, me boys is happy.