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.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Apparently there's people already planning to do Future Battles: the Eighth Age. Wonder how hard will be their crash.

I wish them luck. Rejiggering the 3-7 framework to comfortably include stuff like flyers and Superheavies will be a tall order.

Probably start from 5th edition and work from there, it was the last time there was a semblance of balance, some broken outliers exempted and before a lot of the extra systems that bloated things were bolted on.

Daedalus81 wrote:
So? It's something for people to use in Narrative games.

40K is one of the broadest settings around, with not only a whole galaxy to work within, but thousands of years of history within that galaxy to draw from. You can zoom in on a single sector, sub-sector or even a world within that and tell innumerable stories.

And GW want to take this and boil it down to a few "sanctioned" conflicts?

"But you can still do your own-" Shut up, that's not the point. It's a simplification of the universe, and for something so broad and so rich as 40K that seems like a boneheaded decision.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:
Wow I have literally no idea whether you're being sarcastic or not.

It's generally easier to assume that I am.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
So? It's something for people to use in Narrative games.

40K is one of the broadest settings around, with not only a whole galaxy to work within, but thousands of years of history within that galaxy to draw from. You can zoom in on a single sector, sub-sector or even a world within that and tell innumerable stories.

And GW want to take this and boil it down to a few "sanctioned" conflicts?

"But you can still do your own-" Shut up, that's not the point. It's a simplification of the universe, and for something so broad and so rich as 40K that seems like a boneheaded decision.

Normally I find your complaints reasonable and your sarcasm funny, but I'll be honest. Here I think you are being overly negative and irrational. They can't make 300 differente zones with 3000 different rules. They take a few iconic ones, just like they give you chapter tactics to a few official chapters of Space Marines. Did that mean that they are simplificating the universe?
People still do their own Marine Chapters.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Did GW put out something new?
Is the poster HBMC?
It's definitely sarcasm/vitriol

Yeah, just it was sarcasm/vitriol when I said how much I love the new industrial terrain, or how it was sarcasm/vitriol when I said how much I like the new Skydorfs, or how it was sarcasm/vitriol when I though all the AoS Tzeentch stuff was awesome, or how it was... and so on and so forth.

I operate on a very simple credit where credit's due system. I don't just hate everything GW does, and my posts clearly reflect that. Maybe if you people fething read them from time to time, rather than assuming, then you'd get that.

changemod wrote:
Mortal wounds ignoring invulnerable is ugly, AoS has rare but present saves against mortal wounding that are effectively the AoS version of invulnerable saves.

And it gives us our first exception to an exception to a core rule.

Core Rule: Roll armour save, this save can be modified up or down based on [conditions].
Exception: Invulnerable Saves cannot be modified/ignored.
Exception to Exception: Mortal Wounds ignore Invulnerable Saves.

Triple exception comes with the models that can save mortal wounds - you know it will be in there, just like its in aos lol

Just like FnP(3) allows a 3+ feel no pain save
Maybe Eternal Warrior (or a new rule if instagib is still a thing?) will be changed to be the same so EW (6) will have you ignoring mortal wounds on a 6+

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Triple exception comes with the models that can save mortal wounds - you know it will be in there, just like its in aos lol

Actually, and being pedantic, there's no such exception generally. 99% the (mortal) wound happens but you ignore it, so like FNP.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Triple exception comes with the models that can save mortal wounds - you know it will be in there, just like its in aos lol

And then there'll be a weapon that causes mortal wounds that can't be negated, even if the model has a rule that would normally do so

Requizen wrote:
Bye

I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Requizen wrote:
Bye

I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.

Is totally reasonable to be annoyed.To be annoyed by like 20% of the rules of a complete new edition to the point to categorically said that it will be the worse thing ever and that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them, is a totally different matter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Requizen wrote:
Bye

I don't know what's worse, that a lot of you can't seem to understand why these changes would annoy people, or that you seem so fething gleeful at the idea of people being annoyed at this.

yeah who'd of thought it being not nice to crap on stuff people like/are invested in huh.

 Galas wrote:
They can't make 300 differente zones with 3000 different rules.

I wasn't suggesting they do, and frankly I don't give a damn about the rules at this stage*. What I'm talking about is cordoning off 40K into specific 'conflict' areas, where the fluff just becomes about those conflicts because those are the sanctioned ones that GW sells specific products for. I don't want to see 40K become just about Baal, Macragge, Fenris, Cadia, Armageddon, Damocleas and whichever other one I'm missing.

I don't Tyranids to become synonymous with Baal because that's where GW put the 'Tyranid v Imperial' conflict. I don't want Macragge to become the "Deathguard vs Ultramarines" Warzone because that's what GW will fluff it as.

Anything that shrinks the universe is a bad idea. It's one of the biggest problems I have with Star Wars, both pre- and post-Disney; everything's got to be related to one another, with nothing able to stand on its own and no expansion possible unless it comes from the central tree.

After 30 (?) years of 40K being so broad, they want to introduce RPG-style campaign settings as the core of the game. If that's what's happening here, then that worries me.


*To clarify, we haven't seen enough of the rules yet to get a clear picture of them. So far movement seems to favour shooting armies, vehicle don't look as tough as they could or should be, a Marine can take a Lascannon hit, and whilst I have no problems with how psychics are shaping up, my main concern is that they're boring like AoS magic, or early 2nd/3rd ed Psychics.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
yeah who'd of thought it being not nice crap on stuff people like/are invested in huh.

But it's ok to ridicule and vilify those that don't like it?

Depends, theres certain posters that dont appear to have liked anything GW has done or will ever do.

But I agree we dont have enough of a full picture of the mechanics. Perhaps more clarity will come sunday when they go over shooting mechanics

Not sure about the Mortal Wounds, but I quite like the sound of the new psychic rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Galas wrote:
They can't make 300 differente zones with 3000 different rules.

I wasn't suggesting they do, and frankly I don't give a damn about the rules at this stage*. What I'm talking about is cordoning off 40K into specific 'conflict' areas, where the fluff just becomes about those conflicts because those are the sanctioned ones that GW sells specific products for. I don't want to see 40K become just about Baal, Macragge, Fenris, Cadia, Armageddon, Damocleas and whichever other one I'm missing.

I don't Tyranids to become synonymous with Baal because that's where GW put the 'Tyranid v Imperial' conflict. I don't want Macragge to become the "Deathguard vs Ultramarines" Warzone because that's what GW will fluff it as.

Anything that shrinks the universe is a bad idea. It's one of the biggest problems I have with Star Wars, both pre- and post-Disney; everything's got to be related to one another, with nothing able to stand on its own and no expansion possible unless it comes from the central tree.

After 30 (?) years of 40K being so broad, they want to introduce RPG-style campaign settings as the core of the game. If that's what's happening here, then that worries me.


*To clarify, we haven't seen enough of the rules yet to get a clear picture of them. So far movement seems to favour shooting armies, vehicle don't look as tough as they could or should be, a Marine can take a Lascannon hit, and whilst I have no problems with how psychics are shaping up, my main concern is that they're boring like AoS magic, or early 2nd/3rd ed Psychics.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
yeah who'd of thought it being not nice crap on stuff people like/are invested in huh.

But it's ok to ridicule and vilify those that don't like it?

Ok, with that I can agree! But just as I said to other poster before (Sorry I don't remember your name! It has many _ ) I personally don't invest emotional energies in things that I can't influence in any shape or form. So, I won't like if they reduce all of the gigantisc and beautiful warhammer universe to those 6 zones as you said, but I'm not gonna be worried or pissed neither.

It's worth noting with all this Warzone back and forth that despite their mention in the core AoS rules, very few supplements have ever bothered canonising specific Realms and their rules. The mortal realms are considered essentially infinite. Various tournaments have made tables based on the nine names realms, but they made their own rules.

 Galas wrote:
... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...

You know what they say about assumptions...

A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:
... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...

You know what they say about assumptions...

A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.

Sorry, I just can't imagine anyone playing Warhammer40k only for the game, having other much better wargames out there

If one don't play it for a combination of fluff-miniatures and then, game aspects and "feel", I don't know how can anyone endure all this years of rising prices and neglection from GW.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:
... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...

You know what they say about assumptions...

A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.

This is 8th edition though, It would be assumed that at some point durring the game's history being on its 8th edition that its not the same as it was previously.

Its like complaining every time a MMO has an expansion that your gear is invalidated, of course it its, its a new 'game' again and everyone starting from square one

 Galas wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:
... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...

You know what they say about assumptions...

A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.

Sorry, I just can't imagine anyone playing Warhammer40k only for the game, having other much better wargames out there

If one don't play it for a combination of fluff-miniatures and then, game aspects and "feel", I don't know how can anyone endure all this years of rising prices and neglection from GW.

I only started for the game, and am just now starting to enjoy painting. I do like building the models in custom ways as well, but I started for the game and stayed because it's the game my friends and I play. I also like the setting a lot, that's helped.

 insaniak wrote:
A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.

Exactly. And a lot of people are into it for the fluff, not the game. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if it changes it's fluff to make it not the universe they fell in love with any more.

*cough* Megamarines *cough*

 insaniak wrote:

 Galas wrote:
... that you are gonna sell those models that I assume everyone collect because we like them...

You know what they say about assumptions...

A lot of players pay 40k for the game, not for the miniatures. So it's not that surprising that they would be so ready to dump the game if changes to the rules make it not a game they want to play any more.

At this point given how little we've seen of the full rules, unless someone has a real problem with movement stats, armour modifiers and a considerably less brocken Psychic Phase then throwing your toys out of the pram, decalring 8th to be the worst edition ever and vowing to sell your entire colledction right this instant is pure stupidity.

I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of people who just flat out wont like the mechanics for 8th, and thats fine, but until you know the full picture of whats coming and then played a few games to understand how it works in practice these people throwing hissy fits over teasers just look like utter fools.

I am pre-emptively selling my entire collection of twenty years in anticipation of 9th edition being terrible

I have just noticed something. With combat now being alternate activations... will duels between characters be over? Ahhhw man! That was my favourite thing about the game!

If mortal wounds do nothing other than ignore invuls, I'm all for it. Orks have almost no invuls, and those we had were expensive and covered only a few models. We had to spread out boyz to avoid blasts, meaning the kff only covered a dozen models at most.

It's pretty sad watching people complain that they lose their invul from the point of view of someone who never had any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I have just noticed something. With combat now being alternate activations... will duels between characters be over? Ahhhw man! That was my favourite thing about the game!

I hope so. In the orks case they weren't duels, they were executions.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I have just noticed something. With combat now being alternate activations... will duels between characters be over? Ahhhw man! That was my favourite thing about the game!

I hope so. In the orks case they weren't duels, they were executions.

https://youtu.be/X2629tuXuEc?t=110

As a Tau player, killing Azrael with Aun'si in a duel was just epic! But well. Just a little thing I'm gonna miss.

Yup, challenges are one of those 6th ed additions that were cool in theory but ridiculously badly executed. Won't be at all sorry to set them go.

You can still duel with your characters, if you get them into combat with each other and agree to direct all their attacks on each other too. We do it all the time when playing AoS.

Pretty sure challenges predate 6ed? I agree that they are great fun, maining CSMs means they're quite dear to me

 lindsay40k wrote:
Pretty sure challenges predate 6ed?

Not in 40K

Challenges led to things like Power Fists on Characters being very rare. Especially in the case of Sergeants. Perhaps hitting first on the charge might bring them back though. Not that it is going to matter. My Assault Squad will be left like sitting ducks when a Squad of Fire Warriors backs out of combat and opens me up to shooting again. Bye bye Assault Squad. CC might have been subpar in 7E, but at least I could tie up shooty units for a couple turns.

I am curious if anything will be done to give armies with no psychic powers the ability to do anything in the Psychic Phase.