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.

For GW waiting to update Horus Heresy to 8th for like a half a year sounds like a good business plan. With 8th launching everyone and their dog will jump onto 40k, test everything, buy things they wouldnt need in Horus Heresy games and when the first enthusiasm will be settled they will go back to Horus Heresy afresh in 8th edition rules.

 Chaos Legionnaire wrote:
I confess that I haven't read all 69 pages of this thread, so perhaps this has already been answered.
Are there still going to be invulnerable saves, and ,if not, what is the effect on units which tend to rely upon those?
*looks at thousand sons and Tzeentch daemons*

We don't know and we don't know.

 Chaos Legionnaire wrote:
I confess that I haven't read all 69 pages of this thread, so perhaps this has already been answered.
Are there still going to be invulnerable saves, and ,if not, what is the effect on units which tend to rely upon those?
*looks at thousand sons and Tzeentch daemons*

>MFW I have read all 70 pages

That is a first for me I think thanks for the entertaining news guys (except those land raider losers earlier)

The stats for the 12AV dreadnought that got released should be an indicator of what rhinos would be in 8th

 thenewgozoku wrote:
The stats for the 12AV dreadnought that got released should be an indicator of what rhinos would be in 8th

Based on what?

Probably 3+ with 6 wounds with 7 toughness


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

 thenewgozoku wrote:
The stats for the 12AV dreadnought that got released should be an indicator of what rhinos would be in 8th

Based on what?

Based on the current resilience of a dreadnaught and the current point cost

 thenewgozoku wrote:
Probably 3+ with 6 wounds with 7 toughness

Transports and Dreadnoughts might be treated completely different by the rules.

True but it's the first clue of AV to toughness that we have

 Tamereth wrote:
I think what we really need to see is a unit card / datasheet / warscroll.

The biggest complaint about current 40k is the bloat, and how every unit is a special snowflake with it's own special rules to learn. AoS is worse for this, and with only a 12 page rulebook I can see the bulk of the information will be split across the units.

After all can you really play a game of AoS with just the 4 pages of rules, or do you need pages of warscrolls for all the units both you and your opponent are using. In reality there are a LOT of rules for AoS they are just spread out.

This is why the free AoS app is a complete godsend for me - I simply add the warscrolls my opponent is using to 'My Battle', giving me quick (and free!) access to all the rules for the units involved in the game, unlike before when I'd have to borrow/buy/memorise whole army books to know what was what. It's like creating a mini codex tailored specifically to your game on the fly.

I really hope the upcoming 40K app is as good!

GW at their finest:
- Claim to make a game quicker
- Give elite infantry like Terminators (and probably lots of others too) multiple wounds

Haven't they learned that multiple-wound squads of more than 3-4 models slow the game to a grind (especially in melee)?

That's picking just one factor and ignoring all the speed-increasing factors we know of such as removing templates, and likely others we don't, and claiming it alone will bog the game down. Doesn't work as an argument. Multiwounds alone doesn't really mean anything re: game speed.

Well if the wound allocation is like in AoS, it doesn't make any difference timewise if you have 5x2 wound or 10x1 wound models.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That's picking just one factor and ignoring all the speed-increasing factors we know of such as removing templates, and likely others we don't, and claiming it alone will bog the game down. Doesn't work as an argument. Multiwounds alone doesn't really mean anything re: game speed.

Particularly if you always remove whole models when possible.

As suggested earlier, it may be that you can only have one wounded model in a unit (so you only need to track a wound on one of your five terminators). Wounds pile onto already wounded models until they are removed, and then pass onto the next model.

I'm very sad to see templates and scatter dice go, although I admit both had issues (who doesn't space their guys out 2" rendering the small blast useless, and scatter dice always cause arguments over which precise degree the arrow is pointing).

I'm a bit concerned at the 'everything can hurt everything' because that renders volume of fire as tier 1. But without seeing weapon profiles etc, all of that is moot.

VERY happy that maelstrom is in and I really hope we get to keep the cards!

 Mezmerro wrote:
GW at their finest:
- Claim to make a game quicker
- Give elite infantry like Terminators (and probably lots of others too) multiple wounds

Haven't they learned that multiple-wound squads of more than 3-4 models slow the game to a grind (especially in melee)?

You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you? Tons of armies have multi-wound models as a rule (StD, Ironjawz, SCE, BCR) and matches usually take half what a 40k game does.

 Rippy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just think that "You can only kill what you can see/is in range" is a far simply thing to grasp, and leads to far fewer problems, then "As long as you can see something you can kill everything that's part of that unit".

I don't think that 'LOS Sniping' was as big a problem as people make it out to be, and really is it a problem? I don't see how thinking about the positioning of your units both in an offensive and defensive manner is a bad thing.

Plus the old rules for Independent Characters (cannot be targeted if within 2" of an enemy unit, unless closest target at 6" or 12", whichever it was) worked fine.

Positioning should matter. Terrain should matter. Vehicle facings should matter*. Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.

*That's less an LOS issue and more a general concern over the T/W style of vehicles.

I agree with all of this.

EDIT: On a side note, I have emailed Forge World asking if the Plague Hulk of Nurgle (and therefore other OOP models) will be getting 8th edition rules.

While I agree I guess buckets of dice being rolled and then buckets of models being removed is the name of the game. We are not going to be far off just multibasing and using wound markers is going to be the most practical thing to do.

I wouldn't worry too much about 12 pages of rules being 'inferior' to what you're normally used to.

The Osprey wargames series of books, which I would recommend to anybody, mostly contain 30 pages of rules, so quality rues can be squeezed into fewer pages.

None the less, concerns about 'dumbing down' are valid in my book. Streamlining is fine, but it's a fine line between simple and simplistic.

Lord Kragan wrote:
You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?

You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.

Various 40k Facebook responses which might be relevant:

Terminators having just 2 wounds and 2+ save

Just the 1 D6, but with 2 wounds and a few other special rules to help keep them alive too...

Are invulnerable saves gone?

Why would they be gone?

We don't know exactly what Forge World are cooking up, but every model they make for Warhammer 40,000 will get rules on day one of the new Edition.

 Mezmerro wrote:
GW at their finest:
- Claim to make a game quicker
- Give elite infantry like Terminators (and probably lots of others too) multiple wounds

Haven't they learned that multiple-wound squads of more than 3-4 models slow the game to a grind (especially in melee)?

They said in the stream they have done a TONNE of play testing and game time for 1500 points has pretty much halved.

 RoboDragon wrote:
They said...

And I'm supposed to trust anything they say after the bs they pulled time and time again last 5 years?

 privateer4hire wrote:
Guy in a 5 man unit (3 wounds/model) gets hit for 1 wound this turn as he's the only guy visible.
Player moves that guy behind wall and moves an unwounded guy to the previous guy's spot.
That unit takes 2 additional wounds from shooting.
A unit cannot have more than one wounded model at a time (assuming AoS's rules continue for this example).

Mezmerro wrote:GW at their finest:
- Claim to make a game quicker
- Give elite infantry like Terminators (and probably lots of others too) multiple wounds

Haven't they learned that multiple-wound squads of more than 3-4 models slow the game to a grind (especially in melee)?

This kind of thinking is really frustrating. it boils down to taking a rule and saying it's ridiculous because it would be in the context of the old edition, joking and making a "it would be" remark is one thing, but getting upset and judging a new edition (before release) like this is a failure of logic.
It's a new edition, why would all (or any) of the new rule have to work in the context of the old edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hiding a unit completely out of LOS and having it wiped out 'cause one guy is sticking out is daft.

Tamereth wrote:I think what we really need to see is a unit card / datasheet / warscroll.

The biggest complaint about current 40k is the bloat, and how every unit is a special snowflake with it's own special rules to learn. AoS is worse for this, and with only a 12 page rulebook I can see the bulk of the information will be split across the units.

After all can you really play a game of AoS with just the 4 pages of rules, or do you need pages of warscrolls for all the units both you and your opponent are using. In reality there are a LOT of rules for AoS they are just spread out.

AoS does probably have more rules total if you include the warscrolls. Those are significantly more manageable because of the warscroll system though. Lots of rules are terrible if you have to find them all over several sections of several books. If you put all the rules that apply to a unit on one page it's feasible to have each unit be unique.

Chaos Legionnaire wrote:I confess that I haven't read all 69 pages of this thread, so perhaps this has already been answered.
Are there still going to be invulnerable saves, and ,if not, what is the effect on units which tend to rely upon those?
*looks at thousand sons and Tzeentch daemons*

We don't know, it is probable that units will have rules that make them work in a similar way to how they work now (but compatible with the new mechanics).
My guess is that invul saves are somewhat obsolete without the AP system. Assuming a warscroll system; models that need such effects can have extra rolls to ignore damage (similar to FnP) or straight up have abilities that just let them ignore save modifiers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?

You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.

or because it uses that kind of system and it goes faster. We all know you're a walking salt mine prone to beating dead horses and you don't have mentioning it whenever I ruffle your feathers and tell you to give it a rest.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?

You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.

or because it uses that kind of system and it goes faster. We all know you're a walking salt mine prone to beating dead horses and you don't have mentioning it whenever I ruffle your feathers and tell you to give it a rest.

Do you really need a MOD to tell you guys?

If they're saying a 1500 point game takes on average, 90 minutes, then I wonder how complex or streamlined the game will actually be? If the scales tip to heavily to one side, there could be a problem of depth and playability.

For example, I was playing En Garde the other week, a skirmish game.

I had 5 models on my side and my opponent had 7 on his side. Total set up and playing time on a 3x3 board was around 40 minutes.

We managed to get two games in, so that's a total of 1 hour 20 minutes.

A 1500 hundred point of 40k would have what? 30-50 models per side depending on army. So that's a longer set up time and it has to be a long playing time.

If it takes us on average 40 minutes for a 5 Vs. 7 skirmish game, then it has to take long than 90 minutes for a game of 40k.

Yes, we're weren't doing speed runs to get through the games, and of course, if you play hundreds of games of 40k, and don't have to refer to the rules constantly, it will be quick.

But 90 minutes? I wonder at the depth of this new game...

 DarkBlack wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?

You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.

or because it uses that kind of system and it goes faster. We all know you're a walking salt mine prone to beating dead horses and you don't have mentioning it whenever I ruffle your feathers and tell you to give it a rest.

Do you really need a MOD to tell you guys?

Nope, I'm going to leave it at that and say that, should they go for AOS' wound allocation system, even having a ton of multiple wound models will mean the game will go faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?

You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.

or because it uses that kind of system and it goes faster. We all know you're a walking salt mine prone to beating dead horses and you don't have mentioning it whenever I ruffle your feathers and tell you to give it a rest.

Do you really need a MOD to tell you guys?

Nope, I'm going to leave it at that and say that, should they go for AOS' wound allocation system, even having a ton of multiple wound models will mean the game will go faster, which I think they will do so there's nothing to worry about termies having 2 wounds.

 Gamgee wrote:
Imperium with everything including marines.

Chaos

Xenos

The 40k version of the generals handbook.

5th book no idea. Perhaps an updated setting book that sets up the basics for new players?

No need for a GHB in 40k at launch remember it only exists in AoS to polish the turd it was at launch, I would kinda hope that even GW could get it right this time.(The fact the core rules are 3x longer than AoS show that)

I am working on the assumtion that thd new faction is Gulimarines or at really long odds space skaven. They way they split the galaxy backs this up as the majority of Mininmarine Chapters are in the lost zone while gulliman is on the other with his Custodes mk2, Custodes, SoS,GK but a much smaller number of minimarines.

Forces of Imperium (includes Minimarines)
Mortals of Chaos
Deamons of Chaos
Gullimarines and Talons of Teh Emmprhaa
Everything else

Is what I would guess at if all 5 books are codexs, if only 4 codexs then either combine chaos or drop xenos to pdf only.

If they really were not kidding about the focus being on Imp v Chaos then.

Forces of Imperium
Codex Khorne
Codex Nurgel
Codex Tzeentch
Codex Horned Rat

Xenos go into free pdf and army builder only for now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
You've never played age of sigmar, then, haven't you?

You respond to almost everyone like this. We get it. You're a giant AoS fanboy. Give it a rest Kragan.

Why should he? He was making a valid point to an argument...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmerro wrote:

 RoboDragon wrote:
They said...

And I'm supposed to trust anything they say after the bs they pulled time and time again last 5 years?

Then why even bring it up?

"I have X problem"

Well here's Y solution.

"Well, I dont believe in Y because Z"

Seems pointless and attention grabbing.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


But 90 minutes? I wonder at the depth of this new game...

Why not? In 5th my normal 1500pt game time was around that mark.

 nintura wrote:
Then why even bring it up?

To piont out that vague claims made by GW should not be trusted because they're clearly not trustworthy.
Tyranid players still remember how GW claimed they made an "extensive playdesting" of trainwreck of a Nid codex
All we can trust are some solid rules and mechanics they so far rvealed.