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.

 GloomyFenix wrote:
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

yep

Has anyone confirmed or denied the rescaled ultramarines?

 streetsamurai wrote:
I like the fact that units can disengage from CC, but if the can do it automitacally and wth no disavantage,

They already stated the disadvantage.

 streetsamurai wrote:
it would be AOS bad.

Keep beating that drum...

Some speculation on release dates guys;

UK Games Expo runs the weekend 2nd - 4th June. This is GW's first time there and they have a 150 square foot stand. ( Im working there so going to try and get some time chatting to them)
This would seem the ideal time to announce 8th as UKGE gets around 25000 attendees so lots of new players as well as existing ones.

Furthermore Warhammer World is holding its final Throne of Skulls the weekend 17th - 18th June. If seems entirely appropriate to have a last hurrah of 7th with lots of players able to pick up all the new releases on that weekend.

So pre-order 3rd of June for a 17th June release?

These, of course are all rumours.

SL

 Marmatag wrote:
Has anyone confirmed or denied the rescaled ultramarines?

Nope.

 Marmatag wrote:
Has anyone confirmed or denied the rescaled ultramarines?

Next room on the left..

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724088.page

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

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.

I very much agree. Cheap to free, with hopefully cheap to free updates? That is a huge change for the better, and 8th would have to be close to unplayable to outweigh it.

 Azreal13 wrote:
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!!

It was a more gradual thing for me... I stopped playing towards the end of 4th edition because the rules at that point were just such a mess, and then came back with a vengeance when 5th edition cleaned a lot of the worst issues up. Then 6th edition happened, and by the time 7th edition popped out of the woodwork offering more of the same but amped up to 11 I had just lost any interest in playing.

I'm cautiously optimistic about 8th edition, as from what we've been shown so far the changes are really much less extreme than had been feared. They were certainly accurate with the claim that it would still be 'recognisably Warhammer 40000'. What concerns me is that there's been no real indication that any of these changes actually fix anything, as opposed to just once more changing stuff for the sake of change.

Flamers are still flamers. Bolters are still bolters, Space Marines are still Space Marines... they just have slightly different statlines to do pretty much exactly what they did before. Dreadnoughts, from all appearances, will die even more easily than they did in 6th edition, and that's disappointing.

I'd certainly like 8th edition to be good. But it's looking more and more like it's just going to be 7th edition with a few random rules changes and new statlines.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

Not to mention all the adjustments that didn't need to be play tested before being smacked with the nope hammer. People used to balancing the game for tournament play (or trying to) wouldn't need 70 games to conclude that a 7th Wraithknight was undercosted, they'd look at the stats, bung what they thought was an appropriate points increase on it before rolling a dice, and then refine it over a few games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'd certainly like 8th edition to be good. But it's looking more and more like it's just going to be 7th edition with a few random rules changes and new statlines.

Well, I guess there's a debate to be had at what point a game crosses the line between a new edition and simply a new game.

The main issue for me is that nearly all issues stem from the faction rules, not the core rules, and there's next to no information on those yet.

You know. Thinking over command points, and having another person comment the same I've been thinking, has made me realize they sound QUITE similar to LoTR's fate points in terms of functions.

 insaniak wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
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!!

It was a more gradual thing for me... I stopped playing towards the end of 4th edition because the rules at that point were just such a mess, and then came back with a vengeance when 5th edition cleaned a lot of the worst issues up. Then 6th edition happened, and by the time 7th edition popped out of the woodwork offering more of the same but amped up to 11 I had just lost any interest in playing.

I'm cautiously optimistic about 8th edition, as from what we've been shown so far the changes are really much less extreme than had been feared. They were certainly accurate with the claim that it would still be 'recognisably Warhammer 40000'. What concerns me is that there's been no real indication that any of these changes actually fix anything, as opposed to just once more changing stuff for the sake of change.

Flamers are still flamers. Bolters are still bolters, Space Marines are still Space Marines... they just have slightly different statlines to do pretty much exactly what they did before. Dreadnoughts, from all appearances, will die even more easily than they did in 6th edition, and that's disappointing.

I'd certainly like 8th edition to be good. But it's looking more and more like it's just going to be 7th edition with a few random rules changes and new statlines.

Couldn't you say that about pretty much any game though? 30k and AoS already ARE that, Warmahordes, Infinity, Bolt action, even malifaux all essentially boil down to 'move miniatures around and try to kill each other or get objectives. With randomization systems!.'

 streetsamurai wrote:

 GloomyFenix wrote:
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

yep

I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.

It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 GloomyFenix wrote:
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

yep

I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.

It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak

That's not true, AoS is a simple game, and he just stated that he is easily confused!

edit: Unless you were talking about Streetsamurai sorry.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
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.

6th was a chore, 7th tried to fix 6th by just adding more rules on top of rules. I tried to play both but spent over half the game just looking up rules all the time to the point it was beyond rediculous.

 insaniak wrote:

It was a more gradual thing for me... I stopped playing towards the end of 4th edition because the rules at that point were just such a mess, and then came back with a vengeance when 5th edition cleaned a lot of the worst issues up. Then 6th edition happened, and by the time 7th edition popped out of the woodwork offering more of the same but amped up to 11 I had just lost any interest in playing.

I'm cautiously optimistic about 8th edition, as from what we've been shown so far the changes are really much less extreme than had been feared. They were certainly accurate with the claim that it would still be 'recognisably Warhammer 40000'. What concerns me is that there's been no real indication that any of these changes actually fix anything, as opposed to just once more changing stuff for the sake of change.

Regarding balance and excesses, it is too early to get excited over basic ruleset, since it is often the armybooks and Codices which mess the things up. People always harp on how 7th Edition is bloated - and it is - but when you think about it, it is almost exactly same ruleset than 6th but most mistakes fixed over. So what changed to make people hate it? It was the Codices which brought all those Scatterbikes and free Razorbacks-formations, undercosted superdurable MC's, GMC's and superheavies etc.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 GloomyFenix wrote:
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

yep

I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.

It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak

Sorry. I promise I'll try harder

But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 GloomyFenix wrote:
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

yep

I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.

It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak

Sorry. I promise I'll try harder

But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case

LOL 40k 8th uses 75% of AoS changes.

Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 GloomyFenix wrote:
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

yep

I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.

It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak

Sorry. I promise I'll try harder

But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case

LOL 40k 8th uses 75% of AoS changes.

They use some of them, but the worst aspects of AOS were left out, and they brought in some new mechanisms (command points) that has the potential to really make the game interesting and tactical (unlike AOS) ( starting my streak back )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.

Being AOS'd has a different definition for everyone.

For me, it meant:
- fixed to wound
-shooting into and out of combat
-multi wounds weapons affecting numerous models
-options costing no point
-streamlined and boring magic (psychic) rules (we might still get this)

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 GloomyFenix wrote:
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

yep

I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.

It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak

Sorry. I promise I'll try harder

But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case

LOL 40k 8th uses 75% of AoS changes.

They use some of them, but the worst aspects of AOS were left out, and they brought in some new mechanisms (command points) that has the potential to really make the game interesting and tactical (unlike AOS)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.

Being AOS'd has a different definition for everyone

I'd loosely say 8th is shaping up to be AoS done right, which I'm definitely less interested in than a sincere attempt to fix up the 3-7 framework with a ground up rebuild.

Still, it could be a lot worse and has some upsides. In the end I'm mostly fine with it but left ticked off that I won't get the satisfying feeling of slapping down a flamer, Hellstorm or apocalpytic blast anymore.

I have a theory that the mistake they made with templates is they got tournament players to do the playtesting, which is the environment where people get crazy obsessive over 2 inch spacing and arguments over how many models are under a blast. Everyone else might get a little of that, but not enough to overcome the charm of the templates.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.

As far as I'm concerned, it seems they have not incorporated the worst aspects of AOS, namely the fixed wound rolls, samey weapons and shooting in (and from!) the melee. The only bad AOS bit thus far seems to be the morale. Good things adopted from AOS are of course the movement stat and the monster mechanics.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 GloomyFenix wrote:
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

yep

I'm really disappointed with your last two posts. Only because you've managed to sneak a jab at AoS into virtually every other post.

It was becoming a fun game to me... You spoiled your streak

Sorry. I promise I'll try harder

But sincerly, the constant mention of AOS is only done cause they were some indications that 40k might be AOSified, and I'm really glad that it turned out to not be the case

LOL 40k 8th uses 75% of AoS changes.

They use some of them, but the worst aspects of AOS were left out, and they brought in some new mechanisms (command points) that has the potential to really make the game interesting and tactical (unlike AOS) ( starting my streak back )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.

Being AOS'd has a different definition for everyone

Lol AoS was more tactical than 7th even when they still used the stupid 'my beard is longer than your beard' rules. Or do you just think 'Cast invis and endurance on a brick of models and roll them around the board' is what tactics mean?

 streetsamurai wrote:


Being AOS'd has a different definition for everyone.

For me, it meant:
- fixed to wound
-shooting into and out of combat
-multi wounds weapons affecting numerous models
-options costing no points

Exactly! These were all things I feared would happen and none of them did.

I for one hope the psychic rules become "boring" and streamlined.

 Crimson wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.

As far as I'm concerned, it seems they have not incorporated the worst aspects of AOS, namely the fixed wound rolls, samey weapons and shooting in (and from!) the melee. The only bad AOS bit thus far seems to be the morale. Good things adopted from AOS are of course the movement stat and the monster mechanics.

Everybody whose never played AoS(frequently/well) says this stuff and is always wrong. Fixed wounds rolls function in almost exactly the same way as the ST system when you keep in mind the larger wound totals, better saves being in general more meaningful and individual model rules. Both systems are meant to illustrate the relative bada**ness of units and both systems are successful in doing so. I think the ST system is a better abstraction in 40k sure, with the larger variation in durability relative to Sigmars setting, but flat to wounds work perfectly fine.

As for same weapons wtf are you talking about? Every basic soldier in 40k uses a bolter with(or without) some stank on it. There is actually significantly less difference between 40k weapons and AoS weapons. Or should I say there WERE because they're basically the same profiles now. Battleshock is ultimately not a huge deal for the most part, it's purpose is more to make games go faster than anything.

The shooting into and out of melee I have to concede. It's 50/50 in SIgmar but would be terrible in 40k.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 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 ?

Do you think new GW would blatantly lie?

ERJAK wrote:
Everybody whose never played AoS(frequently/well) says this stuff and is always wrong.

Let's not fall down the "Everyone who disagrees with me on this must be less informed about it" hole.

ERJAK wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Yeah, the influence of AoS on 8th Ed. is pretty undeniable. It's a straw man to claim that 8th Ed. was going to be 100% AoS, and because it's not 100% then 8th Ed. wasn't AoS'd.

As far as I'm concerned, it seems they have not incorporated the worst aspects of AOS, namely the fixed wound rolls, samey weapons and shooting in (and from!) the melee. The only bad AOS bit thus far seems to be the morale. Good things adopted from AOS are of course the movement stat and the monster mechanics.

Everybody whose never played AoS(frequently/well) says this stuff and is always wrong. Fixed wounds rolls function in almost exactly the same way as the ST system when you keep in mind the larger wound totals, better saves being in general more meaningful and individual model rules. Both systems are meant to illustrate the relative bada**ness of units and both systems are successful in doing so. I think the ST system is a better abstraction in 40k sure, with the larger variation in durability relative to Sigmars setting, but flat to wounds work perfectly fine.

As for same weapons wtf are you talking about? Every basic soldier in 40k uses a bolter with(or without) some stank on it. There is actually significantly less difference between 40k weapons and AoS weapons. Or should I say there WERE because they're basically the same profiles now. Battleshock is ultimately not a huge deal for the most part, it's purpose is more to make games go faster than anything.

The shooting into and out of melee I have to concede. It's 50/50 in SIgmar but would be terrible in 40k.

Oh the classic" everyone who doesnt like aos hasnt played it" line of defence . How original

ERJAK wrote:

Everybody whose never played AoS(frequently/well) says this stuff and is always wrong. Fixed wounds rolls function in almost exactly the same way as the ST system when you keep in mind the larger wound totals, better saves being in general more meaningful and individual model rules. Both systems are meant to illustrate the relative bada**ness of units and both systems are successful in doing so. I think the ST system is a better abstraction in 40k sure, with the larger variation in durability relative to Sigmars setting, but flat to wounds work perfectly fine.

As for same weapons wtf are you talking about? Every basic soldier in 40k uses a bolter with(or without) some stank on it. There is actually significantly less difference between 40k weapons and AoS weapons. Or should I say there WERE because they're basically the same profiles now.

We have been over this. Fixed-wound does not work remotely the same as S/T system. With fixed-wound it doesn't matter what you'r target is. It doesn't matter if you're attacking twelve goblins or a monster with twelve wounds. It is all the same. Same with multi-wound spilling. Twelve goblins or twelve-wound monster, doesn't matter, the weapon works just the same.

Furthermore, you can stop defending AOS. Could you just accept that these are mechanics some people do not like, and they're happy that they're not implemented in 40K?

Neronoxx wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 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 ?

Do you think new GW would blatantly lie?

GW Headquarters : Huehuehue! We have them now! We made everything great EXCEPT cc! This plan will work perfectly!



It's the perfect bait and switch. Only GW could be so evil and underhanded.