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.

Backfire wrote:
Power Swords being to situational was one of the down sides of present AP system, true.
However I am afraid what Armour Save modifier system does to Terminators. There probably will be tons of Rend on the battlefield...

But terminators have sucked since... wait, no, they've never been good. In Rogue Trader they were too frail, in 2nd Edition they lacked any kind of real punch for the point cost (firing their storm bolters and producing a hail of jams was always fun!), 3rd Edition and beyond they were too damn frail to compete against the proliferation of AP2 weaponry that has continued for four straight editions.

ASM or no, Terminators have needed a ground up re-work since Rogue Trader and none of the previous reworks have made them worth taking beyond a short stint in 4th (a very short stint).

I'm not so much worried about Terminators as I am wondering if this will be an edition where they are finally worth taking (and I say this as a stalwart DW lover since Angels of Death dropped). If they still suck, then it is business as usual, if they're good, well that will be a sight to behold.

The fact I have...eight or nine Imperial factions makes the fact they are likely all in one book awesome for me. I suspect that duplicate units like SM tanks, Tactical Squads, etc. only having one spot will drastically cut down on the amount of wasted space as well (just how many times do we need the stats for LRs and Rhinos anyway?). Tanks and Monsters having uniform rules is great. I am on board so far.

Overall, I was pleased with most everything I heard in the Q&A. I am looking forward to more information. My group will almost always be using Matched play. 90 minutes for a 1500 pt game sounds reasonable. Maybe somewhere around an hour for 1000 pts and two hours for 2000 pts. Hopefully there is a cut down in the random bs that slows games down (scatter, templates, psychic powers, etc). I am hoping for the ability to pick a lot of the stuff you used to roll for such as Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers. Rolling for the sake of rolling is just stupid.

Been no word on psychic powers so i'v tweeted em again its a bit cheeky and they'll no doubt get a bit fed up with the questions but hopefully will get an answer

My personal idea of the factional breakdown is:

Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Xenos Empires (Necron and Tau), and Xenos Destroyers (Orks, Tyranid, Genestealers).

It might take some background work to fully justify (I think Necron + Tau could be interesting thematically if not aesthetically), but I do like the idea of there essentially being an alignment chart of Xenos (Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic) :p.

Edit: Orks could potentially fit in the Empires group as well. It's relatively arbitrary - I mostly didn't want to leave Nids out in the cold.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The fact I have...eight or nine Imperial factions makes the fact they are likely all in one book awesome for me. I suspect that duplicate units like SM tanks, Tactical Squads, etc. only having one spot will drastically cut down on the amount of wasted space as well (just how many times do we need the stats for LRs and Rhinos anyway?). Tanks and Monsters having uniform rules is great. I am on board so far

Going the Grand Alliance route means, like, say, the Grand Alliance Chaos book is over 300 pages and is $33. They can easily fit a page per unit of every existing Imperial thing in a book that size.

Forge world, too?

I would bet money that the future Terminators are going to have like 3-5 wounds each and a 5+ FNP style save on top of their regular save, and will probably inflict mortal wounds on the charge or something. And if is AoS style rending, they won't be that common and will be limited to -3 at absolute best. In sort, Terminators will become tanks.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Power Swords being to situational was one of the down sides of present AP system, true.
However I am afraid what Armour Save modifier system does to Terminators. There probably will be tons of Rend on the battlefield...

But terminators have sucked since... wait, no, they've never been good. In Rogue Trader they were too frail, in 2nd Edition they lacked any kind of real punch for the point cost (firing their storm bolters and producing a hail of jams was always fun!), 3rd Edition and beyond they were too damn frail to compete against the proliferation of AP2 weaponry that has continued for four straight editions.

ASM or no, Terminators have needed a ground up re-work since Rogue Trader and none of the previous reworks have made them worth taking beyond a short stint in 4th (a very short stint).

I'm not so much worried about Terminators as I am wondering if this will be an edition where they are finally worth taking (and I say this as a stalwart DW lover since Angels of Death dropped). If they still suck, then it is business as usual, if they're good, well that will be a sight to behold.

That may be a nice side effect of the bespoke rules thing; they can make it so that terminator armor can never be modified by rend? Or even just down the cost of the unit

 judgedoug wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The fact I have...eight or nine Imperial factions makes the fact they are likely all in one book awesome for me. I suspect that duplicate units like SM tanks, Tactical Squads, etc. only having one spot will drastically cut down on the amount of wasted space as well (just how many times do we need the stats for LRs and Rhinos anyway?). Tanks and Monsters having uniform rules is great. I am on board so far

Going the Grand Alliance route means, like, say, the Grand Alliance Chaos book is over 300 pages and is $33. They can easily fit a page per unit of every existing Imperial thing in a book that size.

If it takes $35 for me to be able to play 9 armies, I will be pretty thrilled. I hope they do a good job differentiating the different Space Marine Chapters (from the blurb on the website, Blood Angels might be getting Assault Marine troops back!). Perhaps Chapter Tactics Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Deathwatch, etc. might be a thing.

theocracity wrote:
My personal idea of the factional breakdown is:

Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Xenos Empires (Necron and Tau), and Xenos Destroyers (Orks, Tyranid, Genestealers).

It might take some background work to fully justify (I think Necron + Tau could be interesting thematically if not aesthetically), but I do like the idea of there essentially being an alignment chart of Xenos (Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic) :p.

My money is on:
Adeptus Astartes (there's a lot of existing marine units to cover)
Armies of the Imperium (IG, AM, SoB, Knights, Inq, etc)
Chaos
Xenos books x 2

Oh well, seems that, indeed, were gonna get Age of Emperor for the next edition. No templates, no difference between vehicles and organic beings, probably back to the sucky ld test psychic phase, no more unit types, no more running away (and no, the ''new'' Break test doesn't cut it), fixed to hit and to wound,...

As I despise AoS, it probably means it's the end of GW for me (especially frustrating as I've just invested heavily in DeathWatch and upgraded my orks army). Pretty much the only change I've liked so far are the new FoC giving Command points, but I doubt it's gonna be implemented in a way I find fun or even just satisfactory. I hope PP invest heavily in their plastic quality in the near future as I feel they could attract a lot of frustrated former 40K players who wants more complexity than can be offered in a 10 pages rulebook to fulfill their wargaming experiences.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The fact I have...eight or nine Imperial factions makes the fact they are likely all in one book awesome for me. I suspect that duplicate units like SM tanks, Tactical Squads, etc. only having one spot will drastically cut down on the amount of wasted space as well (just how many times do we need the stats for LRs and Rhinos anyway?). Tanks and Monsters having uniform rules is great. I am on board so far.

Overall, I was pleased with most everything I heard in the Q&A. I am looking forward to more information. My group will almost always be using Matched play. 90 minutes for a 1500 pt game sounds reasonable. Maybe somewhere around an hour for 1000 pts and two hours for 2000 pts. Hopefully there is a cut down in the random bs that slows games down (scatter, templates, psychic powers, etc). I am hoping for the ability to pick a lot of the stuff you used to roll for such as Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers. Rolling for the sake of rolling is just stupid.

Scatter and templates didn't really slow games down though until one party in a game decided they wanted to argue over what constituted being under the template or tried to slightly screw scatter direction or distance to benefit them and ignoring their ability to just not be TFG.

What slows games down at the moment is the shear number of rerolls on saves and jink and hits and wounds and rerolling and rerolling and rerolling ad infinitum. Hopefully that is the kind of stuff that is gone. Even if it does get removed though I'm under no illusion that in a couple years it will be forgotten and rerollable 2++ nonsense will find a way back in for GW to sell new models, because I'm sorry but I'm not fooled by the free core rules idea since GW will rake it in as EVERYONE has to buy a new book from day one and then starts the flood of supplements.

Alliance books:

Grand Codex: Adeptus Astartes
Grand Codex: Imperial Adepts and Orginizations
Grand Codex: Chaos and Friendz
Grand Codex: Friendly Xenos
Grand Codex: Naughty Xenos
Grand Codex: Funky Xenos (NEW!)

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Scatter and templates didn't really slow games down though until one party in a game decided they wanted to argue over what constituted being under the template or tried to slightly screw scatter direction or distance to benefit them and ignoring their ability to just not be TFG.

Disagree. Even when there's no arguments about number of hits at all, there's still the old "I need all my units to be exactly 2" apart to avoid blasts" movement which is quite a time drain. Then you've got the whole templates hit everything in ruins situation, where to judge what you hit you need to be able to see through solid floors, or the scatter dice bounced away awkwardly so determining exact direction is a bit of a faff. I enjoy the idea of templates in 40k, but the end result is that they're largely ineffective at best, whilst being quite immersion breaking. That said, flamers were better, and I will definitely miss using that template for sure.

I'm wondering if chaos marines and marines will be together in the new starter set box since they are on the cover. Therefore there is a chance their 'get you by' rules are included there.

That'll free up space in the other 5 books.

 xttz wrote:

theocracity wrote:
My personal idea of the factional breakdown is:

Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Xenos Empires (Necron and Tau), and Xenos Destroyers (Orks, Tyranid, Genestealers).

It might take some background work to fully justify (I think Necron + Tau could be interesting thematically if not aesthetically), but I do like the idea of there essentially being an alignment chart of Xenos (Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic) :p.

My money is on:
Adeptus Astartes (there's a lot of existing marine units to cover)
Armies of the Imperium (IG, AM, SoB, Knights, Inq, etc)
Chaos
Xenos books x 2

I do rememer them saying 5 books and Space Marines and Imperials were seperate books, So this is my guess also. Though he said there would be 5 books at release not 5 codexes at release so it could be SM, IA, Chaos, Xenos and Physical Rules book (Remember AOS had a hardcover AOS book with setting, hobby and rules in the back when it started). But Hostile and NonHostile Xenos Books could be possible also, not just 1 xenos book

Oh wait, thats 6. Hopefully friendly Xenos wont exist.

 Latro_ wrote:
I'm wondering if chaos marines and marines will be together in the new starter set box since they are on the cover. Therefore there is a chance their 'get you by' rules are included there.

That'll free up space in the other 5 books.

Not a chance. CSM + Daemons.

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Scatter and templates didn't really slow games down though

Someone has never played against multiple Wyverns!

Easily spammed blast weapons needed to be taken out back and shot through the head a long time ago.

 sinthes wrote:
Did anybody else catch that at 55:20 when the question is asked about the new map and it's lack of the madusa sector if that means it's beeing destroyed they say not to worry the "white scars " are fine. . . Isent that the home system of the iron hands ? It was last time I checked . They really need to learn there own lore before they go foward writing new lore.

That wasn't connected, he didn't say that White Scars are from Medusa, he just used them as an example.
People love attacking GW haha, will pick at any little thing.

I wonder if the 12 page tome might contain like rules for terrain and how units interact with terrain... oh look, tanks are now really silly it would seem


This all sounds pretty terrible, one of the best aspects of the vehicle rules was attacking from different sides, you know, flanking, that thing that used to matter back in the day. That and like small arms not being able to do anything terribly effective to real armour. This has been making the rounds and it basically illustrates the collective worst fears for how 8th edition will handle vehicles. Their hate on for directional fire tells me we'll be out of luck on obstruction based cover and everything will be area terrain because jervis... sigh





This sounds a lot like aosing it, it really does. 14 foc choices doesn't sound like a focused approach but I guess we'll see. I feel like I'm being asked to trust someone who just put a flame to a large body of work rather than pay an editor. 7th ed needed a scalpel and liposuction and maybe for someone to give jervis the boot.

I've argued many times simply indexing stupid crap to higher point levels would have stopped the apoc suffocation on the competative/skirmish side of things.

They're coming for 30k next it would seem. Any takers on if there will even be faq's from fw for the latest book before they blow it all away and force it into 8th? The message from gw sounds positively malevolent. "you may live; for now"

 stonehorse wrote:


Still it going to be nice to field units of Genestealers and Hormagaunts again and not think I have wasted points. The new edition is sounding more like a rebalance to everyone in terms of game play.

Might even get to see Pyrovores used! Which will be a shock to everyone.

This is the thing that has made the difference with AoS for me, I've been using units that I almost never used in 8th Ed WHFB and they work! Which is really nice as it opens up your options really well.

With all this info coming out it does look to be the carrot that brings me back to 40k!

 xttz wrote:

 Pr3Mu5 wrote:
Scatter and templates didn't really slow games down though

Someone has never played against multiple Wyverns!

Easily spammed blast weapons needed to be taken out back and shot through the head a long time ago.

Indeed. And that doesn't take Scatter into account either. Area attack weapons hitting single units and doing multiple wounds should cut down on a lot of that. Want to space your dudes 2" apart and slow the game down? Fine, you still take 9 wounds on the unit.

you know, flanking, that thing that used to matter back in the day.

Once upon a time, infantry, as in each specific, individual member of the squad, had a facing and a fire arc. Now it doesn't. We survived.

Personally I will miss my 4 blasts Thudd Gun dearly.

If it suddenly starts doing 4D6 hits per shot will that make you feel better?

I think part of the reason for getting rid of tank armor facings is that it's hard to determine for anything other than a Rhino or Chimera. I don't think I've ever quite figured out where they are on a Falcon, and an Imperial Knight is even harder to visualize.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Personally I will miss my 4 blasts Thudd Gun dearly.

Your opponents will not. Your bag pockets too, if you did the thing with the 12 small blast templates.

 Azreal13 wrote:

you know, flanking, that thing that used to matter back in the day.

Once upon a time, infantry, as in each specific, individual member of the squad, had a facing and a fire arc. Now it doesn't. We survived.

I would argue the move towards everything being area terrain has made the game worse. Obscurement-based cover actually allows for flanking to be an effective means of countering enemy in cover.

Its the move towards dumbed down terrain rules that leads to silly stuff like no cover being sprinkled all over the place. And do we really trust GW here? FW at least tried to use gradients instead of flat no cover everywhere, you'd see like -1 or forced re-roll of save.

Actually having involved terrain rules is what makes a game work, what differentiates unit type and their role on the battlefield and the path those units invariable can or must take. People also play with almost no impassable terrain, another aspect that ruins the game.



In 5th there was a lot of rules for terrain, and for good reason. I have no faith in GW in that department moving into 8th ed. The latest rules for the shadow war terrain shows just how bad they really are at writing terrain rules. A rickety set of platforms with minimal actual cover somehow gives you a magical save from any angle. Just as stupid as most of the ruin rules because they just made them ruins. Ruins that can randomly kill models because the fluffz. Zero faith here. Zero.

I was excited during that entire Q&A this morning. I'm more than simply 'cautiously optimistic', I'm truthfully excited. I'm not terribly enamored with -all- the changes, but I'm not really disappointed with anything either. I think it's high time that vehicles received a T value and a flat save, and the damage table makes it that much better. The fact that most of the 'Monstrous Creatures' floating around recently (the ones everyone complains about, you know which ones) were basically a vehicle anyway, just serves to reinforce this.

If anything can hurt everything, that just (hopefully) means that there will be no more useless units. Or at least units that, against certain matchups, essentially means an auto-loose. Sure, a platoon of IG can blast their lasguns at my LR, in hopes of scraping away it's last remaining wounds, or in a vain attempt to destroy it, that just means that they're not dumping those 50 shots into my Dreadknight. I'll take that trade every day of the week.

It seems like the 14 different FOC's are a replacement for formations - another welcome change. Especially since it means that some of the more ridiculous formation benefits are gone, and you get the Command Points they were talking about, to be used at tactically sound points throughout the game. Sure, you may have to be playing bigger battles to get more CP's, but that's yet another trade I'm fine with. I'm interested to see what the faction/army specific FOC's look like, and what their specific CP's may look like.

I almost jumped out of my chair screaming when they mentioned 'Keywords'. Allies are fine (for the most part), but the ludicrous pairings and combo's it was capable of producing was nauseating. Let each faction stand on it's own merits, and let their allies fill holes in area's they're not strong in.

The rest of the Q&A just reinforced the fact that they know for the last several years, the company has essentially been failing in giving us a complete, balanced product. Sadly, as I think Vakathi noted, it means that they could have been doing this at any time within that time frame, but there's nothing we can do about that now. The amount of playtesting they've alluded to doing makes me think that this could, quite possibly, be one of the best editions of 40k many of us have ever experienced. And I greatly look forward to that being the case. And, if it's not - well, it'll still be better than the show that is 7th ed.

 Azreal13 wrote:
If it suddenly starts doing 4D6 hits per shot will that make you feel better?

Maybe 8D3, I feel like blasts would be fine being 2D3 for a small one and 4D3 for a big one.