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.

Nothing has been mentioned other then the two faction, which I believe also hasn't been officially announced.

 JimOnMars wrote:
The orks has a sad. Assaulting gunlines now got much harder, as the front bubblewrap units can fall back and leave the entire ork force open for annihilation. I guess the 8e honeymoon is now over.

It just means you need to be more tactical, not just rush one unit in to the middle of an army. This is better as much as it makes me sad for my Typhus and his spawn squad!

Any idea what the starter set will be? Just based on all the releases, I'm guessing it'll be Space Marines vs Death Guard, which I'm totally down for. Aside from that, what else do you think will be in there?

-Rulebook?
-Intro to play and a couple missions
-No more templates!! (Can't tell if I love this or hate this)
-Maybe some cardboard terrain?

 insaniak wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This is why I think Bolt Action has it right. Units in cc fight until one is wiped out. It's clean and makes cc very decisive. .

That only works if you don't have combats where neither side can actually hurt the other, as happens all too often in 40K.

But that's what we now right? Everything can hurt anything, even if it's unlikely.

Eh, I digress. I'm sure they've got a solution.

I am guessing sweeping advance will be out as well

 Chief wrote:
From mini wars:

Begin to hear rumors about the launch of 8th edition in the comments section Sergio gives specific dates:
" Warhammer 40k 8th enters preorder on June 3 goes on sale on June 17 , the box for two typical players of all editions will be Ultramarines (new rescaled ) vs death guard ."

http://www.miniwars.eu/2017/04/rumores-8-edicion-40k.html

I would guess this is the release of the starter yes, but I am banking on the digital release and new factions sooner actually. Again, I can't remember where but there was a schedule of a WW event maybe, but either way it was an event that had a GW painting seminar for death guard and it was scheduled for the last weekend in May. maybe someone else remembers better then me.

KTG17 wrote:
Anyone have any ideas on the contents of the starter set?

new upscaled ultramarines, not sure if it will have the iconography forced onto the models or if we can use them for any chapter. Death Guard are pretty much guaranteed now to be the other force. I can barely make out new flying marines, tacticals obviously. Also it looks like some flying nurgle stuff as well. Honestly I just want to see some better photos of this stuff, nothing more annoying that a blurry picture like that. I think GW should 'accidentally' leak some better photos for us!

If I go half and half on the starter box with my friend I'll be taking the imperial marines. I went chaos with AoS so I have to mix it up. Even though those death guard models are pretty sweet...I'm conflicted.

I think it was Warhammerfest May 27-28th that had a schedualed deathguard painting seminar. That said, that is only the weekend prior to June 3rd. Time flies too fast either way, so despite being excited I will refrain from wishing my life away for 8th to arrive sooner ha ha.

 Desubot wrote:

 kestral wrote:
Disengaging in exchange for pinning is a good, clean rule and a good development. A truly amazing rule would be one that gave the assaulting troops some kind of benny in the following turn as well - so once you broke into the enemy line it was harder to stop you with gun fire, but not impossible. GW assault phase movement has always had issues, and this is a solid development. If they also eliminated having to make pile in moves all the time that would be great. It amuses me to see GW patting themselves on the back for allowing you to make your run roll during the movement phase, something just about everyone who cared about game length thought of or house ruled. I think fall back works well with fast assaults, even turn one. Yes, you get hit, but it isn't the end of the world. The long slog to a win or die assault isn't as interesting as a series of assaults.

im 99% sure there will be a rule to allow you to attempt to catch and or wipe out the enemy as they run away.

Hopefully

I like the fact that units can disengage from CC, but if the can do it automitacally and wth no disavantage, it would be AOS bad.

Really eager to see what they'll do with the psychic phase. Hope it doesn't turn back into a single ld roll or something boring like that.

And is the rumour about vehicules potentially exploiding true? If it is, this could be interesting

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Allowing everyone to do this (especially extremely shooty armies) is simply a bad mechanic.

And that's simply a bad assumption; you haven't played yet. its like saying a cookie is bad because you saw the eighth ingredient used to make it.

So are the Death Guard in the new box re-scaled as well? Is everything getting rescaled, or just these marines? Are they a new unit?

They have stated "close combat will be viable again" stop crying let the orks have there Day.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
So are the Death Guard in the new box re-scaled as well? Is everything getting rescaled, or just these marines? Are they a new unit?

No one knows and anyone who tells you otherwise is just speculating. Warhammer Community will be where to go to find that information when it drops.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
So are the Death Guard in the new box re-scaled as well? Is everything getting rescaled, or just these marines? Are they a new unit?

The numarines are probably the new faction, along with the death guard, that makes the two new factions available at launch.

 davou wrote:

Liberal_Perturabo wrote:

Allowing everyone to do this (especially extremely shooty armies) is simply a bad mechanic.

And that's simply a bad assumption; you haven't played yet. its like saying a cookie is bad because you saw the eighth ingredient used to make it.

That is a godly analogy at this point

'Pfft eggs?! I wanted dessert not breakfast, this is gonna taste like gak, hope they AT LEAST do them over easy'

I've just been struck by a thought. 6-7th have been like 2nd Ed Lite in terms of the amount of rules, bookkeeping etc..

8th is a reset akin to how 3rd was, but when 3rd came around I was the one who lost my gak about all the changes, and completely failed to look at all the positives the changes brought and only focused on what I couldn't do any more.

I sold all my models and it took til mid 5th before I could actually look back and gain some perspective and appreciate the positives.

Now I'm seeing other people going through the same process (if it isn't for the first time, shame on you for not being more self aware) and I feel compelled to tell you that it'll be ok.

I am more positive about this than I've been about anything GW for a while (I even bought some GW models for the first time yesterday in over a year, discounted on eBay, I haven't lost my mind) and I'm one of the Four Horsemen of the GW Apocalypse!!

Youn wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:


How on earth did player 2's unit Y charge in player 1's turn?

Spent a command point for a counter charge?

Maybe it is spend a command point to disengage in the first place?

I just thought of something amusing. Someone earlier stated that this was GW's most playtested game to date, with over 1500 games played. That being said, there are what, 21 factions in the game? That means there would be 231 different combinations of army match-ups, not counting allies. That means every combo got played an average of 6 times. 6 times for the most playtested game ever?

 Megaknob wrote:
They have stated "close combat will be viable again" stop crying let the orks have there Day.

Ork CC hasn't really been viable (besides biker nobs) since... never. So I suppose 8th is just as likely to be their edition for the normal boyz!

Although I appreciate the value of positivity, the "7th was awful, but 8th is clearly gonna be great" thing is pretty amusing. It is a very low bar to be better than the past edition. In fact, it sometimes seems as if GW design deliberately makes something awful just so they can trumpet "X is viable again!" in next edition. What are the chances we hear "Vehicles are no longer just like monstrous creatures!" in 9th?

As for recipe analogies, I like eggs, but I don't like pepper. If something contains pepper it's not gonna be my dream food. Might still be good, would probably still eat it, especially if hungry, but it's not plus. And there are some pepper filled things I just can't enjoy. Others of course may love pepper, more power to 'em.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is with random run, weapons ranges are already (and look to continue to be) sufficiently long on even modest weapons that when played on a 6x4 the table feels small.

If you introduce a fixed run at Mx2, Marines would be able to deploy 12" on, run 12" turn 1 and then be able to reach out and touch anything opposite them all he way to the back of the table and have a huge bubble of the opposing deployment zone under threat, simply with Bolters.

They can already almost do this at every attempt. Random run does at least mean it isn't every attempt.

Now, I'm well aware Tac Marines aren't the most threatening yaddah yaddah, but please, anyone considering responding to this post, reply to the spirit of my point, rather than taking issue with my example.

At least it's all at once now, people with lots of footslogging infantry units might want to pick up something appropriate to represent a "Ran" marker for ease of bookkeeping in the shooting phase!

Only if "run" equaled "double." I would have proposed a flat +3 inches for running. Much simpler and more reliable.

The best system I've played (and I think Infinity is similar? Or might be another game I've had superficial contact with) is Guild Ball, where each unit's Move is two numbers, a jog and a sprint. Eliminates random and dice rolls, and allows for some extra granularity. Big thing that's slow off the mark but goes like a train once moving? Lower jog, higher sprint. Small light thing that gets up to full speed quick? High jog but sprint not much higher. Greased weasel? High both, etc..

I like that! Sounds kind of like Dust: Tactics. Good system.

 kestral wrote:
Although I appreciate the value of positivity, the "7th was awful, but 8th is clearly gonna be great" thing is pretty amusing. It is a very low bar to be better than the past edition. In fact, it sometimes seems as if GW design deliberately makes something awful just so they can trumpet "X is viable again!" in next edition. What are the chances we hear "Vehicles are no longer just like monstrous creatures!" in 9th?

As for recipe analogies, I like eggs, but I don't like pepper. If something contains pepper it's not gonna be my dream food. Might still be good, would probably still eat it, especially if hungry, but it's not plus. And there are some pepper filled things I just can't enjoy. Others of course may love pepper, more power to 'em.

It's kind of disingenuous to compare the biggest change to the 40k rules in 20 years to the previous edition changes. I do get it, you don't trust GW and there is good reason for it, I myself haven't played 40k in 6 or 7 years and didn't expect to feel optimistic for this new edition, but there is also evidence to show that things are different now.

 kestral wrote:
Although I appreciate the value of positivity, the "7th was awful, but 8th is clearly gonna be great" thing is pretty amusing. It is a very low bar to be better than the past edition..

Which is precisely why it is very easy to be positive. That and they've simply come out and said they're doing a bunch of new stuff in terms of process that seems to be addressing so many criticisms of best editions.

It's not going to be flawless, but eh, what you going to do?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I just thought of something amusing. Someone earlier stated that this was GW's most playtested game to date, with over 1500 games played. That being said, there are what, 21 factions in the game? That means there would be 231 different combinations of army match-ups, not counting allies. That means every combo got played an average of 6 times. 6 times for the most playtested game ever?

What number wouldn't seem low to you? 10? 50? 100? 1000000? Whatever the first number that would be totally impossible to actually do right? So that you could whine no matter what?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I just thought of something amusing. Someone earlier stated that this was GW's most playtested game to date, with over 1500 games played. That being said, there are what, 21 factions in the game? That means there would be 231 different combinations of army match-ups, not counting allies. That means every combo got played an average of 6 times. 6 times for the most playtested game ever?

It isn't necessary for every army to play every other army to a high degree. Each faction got over 70 games...that's 14 tournaments. If the numbers are to be believed.

I'm very excited about the new edition, personally. No so much due to any particular rule changes, though they mostly sound pretty good to me. Mostly because I might actually play the game.

I haven't played a game of 40k in a long time. I don't think I've played 7th at all. I don't get together that often with my gaming group, and we have a lot of different interests. So even a game I really like I don't play that often. So when I'm deciding what game to play, and to play 7th edition 40k I'd need to buy an $85 rule book, a $50 codex, and a codex supplement or campaign book on top of that, then read and learn all those rules and rearrange my armies due to the new rules and formations, before I can even start a game... I don't have the time or money to invest in that just to play the occasional game of 40k.

On top of that, from what I hear about 7th edition and my experience with 6th edition, it honestly sounds like a chore to play a game of 40k.

This new version will have free, concise rules. I can play a game without a huge time and money investment just to try it out. So 8th edition I will actually play. And I suspect there are plenty of other people in a similar situation, that haven't kept up with the pace of 40k bloat, who are looking forward to trying out 8th edition.

I think I could live with their current level of playtesting, especially since they outsourced to get a fresh perspective on things. My point was, if this is by far their most playtested rules set, what did they do for other editions (like the ones with obvious rules holes)? I'm willing to bet many armies never saw the playtesting table at all, let alone all possible combos.

I wasn't really whining about 8th. In many ways I am actually looking forward to it. This new direction GW is going is wonderful, and I hope they keep it up. It seems not too long ago they shunned having an internet presence, took YEARS for FAQ's, barely listened to customer feedback, and all but ignored game metas that were not their own.

 Megaknob wrote:
They have stated "close combat will be viable again" stop crying let the orks have there Day.

Again, do you really think that they would directly state that CC will not be viable ?

One thing, they said that templates were gone, but do blast templates go as well? So many comments each a day are just confusing to me, sorry for that