40k New Edition Summary - 14th June 17: Lord Duncan paints Primaris in Gravis/non-codex SM focus

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.

**docdoom77**

Unusual Suspect wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.

Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.

At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.

No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.

If we're lucky, they'll give a points break to bigger units. For instance, a mob of boyz might consist of 10 boyz for 60 points, but each additional boy is only 5 or even 4 points. That could make a difference.

**Daedalus81**

Unusual Suspect wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.

Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.

At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.

No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.

Certainly the math works in favor of MSU. I wonder though how many MSU armies will find themselves sans special weapons if they don't get the first turn. That is probably the moment I would not hesitate to fire lascannons at infantry.

**WartornCreative**

Here is a table showing 8th vs 7th Strength and Toughness table.

**Galef**

Rubenite wrote:
Galef wrote:
If anything, Split Fire makes MSU even better, especially for 3-5 man units that all have good weapons.

How so? You split fire by models, not by weapon type. So you can still fire half the bolters at one thing and half at another.

Surely in a ten man tac squad you'd have to lose eight marines before you lose your heavy/special weapons, whereas in a combat squad you'd only have to lose four marines before a heavy/special weapon is taken out? Yes battleshock is a risk, but with the -1 leadership nerf shown I'd be highly surprised if +1Ld for every 10 models in the unit isn't ported over from AoS.

If you have 10 marines and I kill 2-3, you no longer have 10 marines for that +1LD when the Morale check happens. and if I can kill 4-5 of them, I can now ignore the unit because you are likely to lose the rest to Morale.
If, however, you split them into 2x 5, I pretty much have to focus fire on 1 of them until they are dead, leaving the other 5-man unit unharmed and not having to take that -5 Morale check.

Split fire can allow me to decisively knock off the number of models I want from your units regardless of it is 10-man or 2x5. Split fire does not directly benefit MSU, but it certainly does not cripple it like Morale does for larger units. the 2 mechanics do not balance w=each other out. We'll have to see more before we can say "big units are back!'

-

**tneva82**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Certainly the math works in favor of MSU. I wonder though how many MSU armies will find themselves sans special weapons if they don't get the first turn. That is probably the moment I would not hesitate to fire lascannons at infantry.

Special weapons are last to go so not much.

In terms of durability MSU beats horde(assuming equal number of guys with equal T, save and wounds of course). There's no real go-around with that. Nor does there even really have to be as...

...Horde gets help likely from command points and h2h is where you meanwhile want to be in as few big units as possible. If possible you want your entire h2h consist of one mega unit against opponents multiple units.

**EnTyme**

Unusual Suspect wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.

Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.

At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.

No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.

That's true when considering large numbers of unsaved wounds (probably 5+), but I've yet to see it proven for small numbers of unsaved wounds (1 or 2). If you get below the overspill threshold for an MSU unit, the larger unit wins.

**Ronin_eX**

The return of splitfire is great, now we can have squads with a weapon mix again without wasting it. And squads with an overabundance of heavy weaponry is better because now they aren't forced to overkill things.

This has an odd effect on MSU as well, I wont say it makes it bad. It still has a lot of advantages for battle shock and putting a cap on wounds you can take. But good use of fire splitting with the right kinds of guns means there isn't as much of a point in having, say, two units of five or one unit of ten. If your opponent looks at their fire output and thinks a full squad at one of those is overkill, then they can split fire and hit both. So MSU is still better, but given that assault will favour larger units that can deliver their attacks in one go, this is probably less cut and dry than it has been in every other edition of the game. MSU still definitely has the straight mechanical benefit, but so long as squads have their own "start up" cost overhead (things like vet sergeants that make the first five units more expensive than the next five for example) then costs should be able to balance out a bit.

Meanwhile that wound chart has so many implications that it is hard to fathom. T3 stuff is tougher against its traditional small-arms foils. T4 stuff can now weather S6-7 far better than before (marines got a lot tougher against stuff that was their traditional foil since 3rd). Some small arms can harm vehicles more effectively (but giving vehicles armour saves counteracts a lot of that by making vehicles die to a three-step process instead of a two-step one as they tended to be under previous editions). And while bikes got a cool buff (well assuming +1T is still what they do...) against S7-10, that they aren't noticeably more resilient than T4 versus a lot of small arms and anti-infantry weaponry means it isn't such a massive leap to go from T4 to T5 (especially since it is no longer likely to be a breakpoint due to ID). As someone who has long since completely internalized the old table, this is a hell of a lot to take in and without seeing how everything has changed it will be hard to make assumptions. But holy

is this the biggest shakeup any edition has ever caused.

Also between this and split fire, I don't think small arms harming vehicles will be put in to practice too often. If there are no other targets? Then taking a few potshots with a small arm will be fine (even if they are unlikely to do anything). But if there are any better targets around, you better believe that the small arms fire is going to those while the squad heavy weapon does its own job.

**Powerfisting**

Whirlwind wrote:
Hmm not sure I'm over keen on the new infantry shooting rules allowing individual models to pick their target. That could really bog the game down if someone decides to roll for each model individually to maximise damage especially if you wanted to draw out for a long winded draw.
I think I would have preferred that models with the same weapons all have to shoot at the same target

I imagine in practice, you would want to shoot the same target with the same weapons anyway. There is really no strategic incentive to split small arm fire up. You don't have to charge the same unit you shoot in this edition, so there would be no reason to fire one bolter shot at any random unit, for instance.

**Daedalus81**

EnTyme wrote:

That's true when considering large numbers of unsaved wounds (probably 5+), but I've yet to see it proven for small numbers of unsaved wounds (1 or 2). If you get below the overspill threshold for an MSU unit, the larger unit wins.

As I indicated a while ago...4 HBs even with rend of 1 doesn't take down a whole squad of 5. So, it would take quite a bit to shake a unit of 10, but 5 will certainly be crippled.

Orks, of course, would lose lots more. They are dirt cheap, however, and i'm sure we'll see an inspiring presence ability on top of that.

**Unusual Suspect**

EnTyme wrote:
Unusual Suspect wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
MSU will hate Battleshock (equiv) tests, as losing models from a small squad could wipe it out.

Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.

At absolute best, you MIGHt be able to absorb the extra losses on disposable bolterboys, but that's a big IF.

No, generally speaking, MSU fares FAR better under this form of Morale.

That's true when considering large numbers of unsaved wounds (probably 5+), but I've yet to see it proven for small numbers of unsaved wounds (1 or 2). If you get below the overspill threshold for an MSU unit, the larger unit wins.

For smaller numbers, neither side will suffer from Morale. I don't count that as a "win" for the larger unit, though.

**Galas**

I assume they will give horde units benefits for being bigger. For example. +1 to hit in meele to a unit of ork boyz that is 20 models or more, and +1 to hit more if they are 30 or more, etc...
At least thats how they balance hordes in AoS.

**Daedalus81**

Excellent musings right here.

Ronin_eX wrote:

This has an odd effect on MSU as well, I wont say it makes it bad. It still has a lot of advantages for battle shock and putting a cap on wounds you can take. But good use of fire splitting with the right kinds of guns means there isn't as much of a point in having, say, two units of five or one unit of ten. If your opponent looks at their fire output and thinks a full squad at one of those is overkill, then they can split fire and hit both. So MSU is still better, but given that assault will favour larger units that can deliver their attacks in one go, this is probably less cut and dry than it has been in every other edition of the game. MSU still definitely has the straight mechanical benefit, but so long as squads have their own "start up" cost overhead (things like vet sergeants that make the first five units more expensive than the next five for example) then costs should be able to balance out a bit.

People are forgetting about force multipliers as well.

Meanwhile that wound chart has so many implications that it is hard to fathom. T3 stuff is tougher against its traditional small-arms foils. T4 stuff can now weather S6-7 far better than before (marines got a lot tougher against stuff that was their traditional foil since 3rd). Some small arms can harm vehicles more effectively (but giving vehicles armour saves counteracts a lot of that by making vehicles die to a three-step process instead of a two-step one as they tended to be under previous editions). And while bikes got a cool buff (well assuming +1T is still what they do...) against S7-10, that they aren't noticeably more resilient than T4 versus a lot of small arms and anti-infantry weaponry means it isn't such a massive leap to go from T4 to T5 (especially since it is no longer likely to be a breakpoint due to ID). As someone who has long since completely internalized the old table, this is a hell of a lot to take in and without seeing how everything has changed it will be hard to make assumptions. But holy is this the biggest shakeup any edition has ever caused.

Also between this and split fire, I don't think small arms harming vehicles will be put in to practice too often. If there are no other targets? Then taking a few potshots with a small arm will be fine (even if they are unlikely to do anything). But if there are any better targets around, you better believe that the small arms fire is going to those while the squad heavy weapon does its own job.

I can see small guns having a go at a big model to get the model down to the next tier on it's damage table before it charges. There will be many more opportunities other than 'nothing to shoot at'.

**Ghaz**

Unusual Suspect wrote:
Equal number of wounds on 2 MSU and 1 larger squad, and you'll find the larger squad takes more casualties on average.

It won't be long after the release of 8th edition until someone figures out the best way to split the shots between two (or more) MSU. Instead of half of the shots on one unit and half on the other, it may be 75% of the shots on one unit and 25% on the other, etc.

**Eyjio**

It's true - MSU is strictly benefited by the new morale rules compared to hordes, for simple fact that they can lose more models without impact; for example, 2 units of 5 marines (Ld 7) which take 2 casualties each at most lose 1 more each with rolls of 6's - total dead=6; however, 1 unit of 10 losing 4 models can now lose 4 to morale on a roll of 6 - total dead = 8. That said, we have no idea how the morale works beyond the raw roll and it seems extremely likely that there will be benefits for larger horde units because it will 100% have been seen in playtesting otherwise - it's just too big of an oversight that I'm sure people like MVB and Reecius would spot nearly immediately. If we see certain force multipliers working on a single unit, that extra models are points-wise cheaper, or morale buffs for having large units, the situation will be reversed and people will wonder why you'd ever MSU. It's just too early to know for sure. But, technically, people are correct that MSU looks superior with the knowledge we have.

On a different note, I'm really excited to see the neglected Necron units have a chance to see play. Monoliths, Lychguard, Deathmarks, the freaking Tesseract Vault... so many cool models which have barely seen play. I mean, the last time someone was actually worried about a Monolith was what, 2006 maybe? The Vault, despite being one of my favourite models in 40k, has never really been worth taking. I mean, Lychguard never really had a hope - they were more expensive than Pariahs on release, which were already too expensive, and yet were in many ways worse: no S5 AP4 assault 2 gun, no reduce-enemies-to-Ld 7 bubble, no psyker morale check, not fearless, warscythe didn't ignore invuln saves, etc; they gained 1 attack, +2 S and reanimation protocols, which is probably a wash in the grand scheme of things and definitely not enough to make them usable. Not that Pariahs ever should have gone away in the first place (GW pls). Actually, just generally I'm excited that some of my favourite units in the game have half a hope - dreadnoughts, killa kans, flash gitz, basically any tyranid model that isn't a hive tyrant, Basilisks... so many amazing models with such horrible rules. A big reset button might be just what the doctor ordered; even if they aren't totally optimal, I'll readily take "actually usable at all" at this stage - currently these units are actually worthless.

I suspect that we might be seeing some morale buffing character effects tomorrow anyway. The next post should be informative no matter what, because we know almost nothing about how they'll function in 8th.

**Genestealer Jesse**

I am confused. Is there likely to be special rules for tank hunting specialist weapons like armor penetrating guns? Like a vanquisher?

**Future War Cultist**

Genestealer Jesse wrote:
I am confused. Is there likely to be special rules for tank hunting specialist weapons like armor penetrating guns? Like a vanquisher?

Double damage on big targets?

**Rubenite**

Armour penetrating weapons will likely have special rules granting bonus damage against certain keywords - e.g. 'VEHICLE'.

**Lockark**

A few people in my local area belive that you now charge in the movement phase/charge before you shoot. But I never saw anything that confirmed or sujested this.

Did I miss something?

**Zognob Gorgoff**

Lockark wrote:
A few people in my local area belive that you now charge in the movement phase/charge before you shoot. But I never saw anything that confirmed or sujested this.

Did I miss something?

I don't think so, they seem confused - you can now ''advance'' in the movement phase i.e. 'Run' which was previously in the shooting phase.
Charging is still done as normal.

**kestral**

"Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.

**v0iddrgn**

kestral wrote:
"Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.

Probably won't get many Command Points that way. Just sayin'

**John Prins**

This split fire rule makes bringing a Lascannon or Multi-Melta in a squad worthwhile. No more wasting bolter shots against a big nasty tank while the big gun shoots at it. No more shooting the lascannon against weedy chaos cultists.

And come to think of it, it may lead to a resurgence of the humble Missile Launcher, as its versatility is multiplied - it can support your anti-horde shooting or act as your anti-tank weapon.

**EnTyme**

Lockark wrote:
A few people in my local area belive that you now charge in the movement phase/charge before you shoot. But I never saw anything that confirmed or sujested this.

Did I miss something?

Charging is basically its own phase now. As far as I know, they haven't confirmed turn order yet, so it's possible charge occurs before shooting, but I doubt it.

**ERJAK**

kestral wrote:
"Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.

This balances itself out. Sure, go for that guard parking lot, but if you ever run into another army, for example Sisters of Battle; who are inherently geared toward killing parking lots you simply won't have enough models on the board to survive the ridiculous amount of melta that army can put out even in a relatively balanced list. On top of that, the 'everything can hurt everything' mechanic means that while bolter and flamers won't be very good against vehicles they won't be useless either.

In the end this whole system pushes you more towards balancing out your list so you have enough to deal with everything that comes up and if extreme parking lot lists come in vogue then people will just start running more melta until the parking lot dies faster than it kills. If infantry spam gets popular than flamers will come into vogue, etc, etc, etc.

**His Master's Voice**

Eyjio wrote:
It's true - MSU is strictly benefited by the new morale rules compared to hordes, for simple fact that they can lose more models without impact; for example, 2 units of 5 marines (Ld 7) which take 2 casualties each at most lose 1 more each with rolls of 6's - total dead=6; however, 1 unit of 10 losing 4 models can now lose 4 to morale on a roll of 6 - total dead = 8.

That seems like a strangely skewed scenario that disregards the strategic value of guaranteeing that a specific unit, at a specific location, is removed.

As for fire splitting, I'd argue it directly deals with one of the major benefits of MSU - forced loss of efficiency. An MSU you'd either overkill or never get off the table. With fire splitting, you can always dedicate the correct amount of firepower to eliminating a whittled MSU.

**silent25**

His Master's Voice wrote:
Eyjio wrote:
It's true - MSU is strictly benefited by the new morale rules compared to hordes, for simple fact that they can lose more models without impact; for example, 2 units of 5 marines (Ld 7) which take 2 casualties each at most lose 1 more each with rolls of 6's - total dead=6; however, 1 unit of 10 losing 4 models can now lose 4 to morale on a roll of 6 - total dead = 8.

That seems like a strangely skewed scenario that disregards the strategic value of guaranteeing that a specific unit, at a specific location, is removed.

As for fire splitting, I'd argue it directly deals with one of the major benefits of MSU - forced loss of efficiency. An MSU you'd either overkill or never get off the table. With fire splitting, you can always dedicate the correct amount of firepower to eliminating a whittled MSU.

Don't assume all options will be available for a 5 man squad. Certain weapons may only be available to 10 man or more size squads. Also in AoS, larger units get additional bonus for being above a certain size. The bonus varies from unit to unit and is another bespoken rule. Plus, I would say it is safe to assume there will be some characters that will have abilities to make units immune to battle shock. That will minimize the impact of high casualties on larger units.

**Eyjio**

His Master's Voice wrote:
That seems like a strangely skewed scenario that disregards the strategic value of guaranteeing that a specific unit, at a specific location, is removed.

As for fire splitting, I'd argue it directly deals with one of the major benefits of MSU - forced loss of efficiency. An MSU you'd either overkill or never get off the table. With fire splitting, you can always dedicate the correct amount of firepower to eliminating a whittled MSU.

I'm... not entirely sure what you mean? I mean, if I do a comparison where 1 of the two units of MSU infantry dies and the other is untouched, as compared to a 10 model unit where 5 die, the comparison is even less favourable - the MSU 5 man unit takes no morale check (because it's unharmed) and the 10 man is taking D6-2 casualties. Consequently, if two 5 man units are on an objective, they'll hold it considerably better than one 10 man unit on an objective using only the rules we know (which is unlikely to be the full picture). The MSU will always outperform a blob, because the morale is designed to make blobs take more wounds.

Fire splitting does help hordes, yeah, but that's a net neutral compared to MSU, and still marginally worse if you have to declare a full unit's target's first as with MSU you'll see the impact of one squad before splitting up the other's targets. Again, the rules we know benefit MSU more than hordes, but I doubt it'll remain as such.

**Rippy**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Facebook Q&A dump:

Spoiler:

Little Guys update:
Q: Hmm, I've always run my guard squads with lasguns only and kept tthe heavy weapons in seperate heavy weapons squads to not waste shots firing lasguns at tanks and so forth, looks like I might be putting the heavy weapons behind some meatshields, I mean squadmates, again.
A:It's a short but merry* life in the Imperial Guard! Heroism guaranteed**!

*Merriness not confirmed.
** Your experiences may differ.

Q: Dose this mean that each weapon type effectively has split fire or is it for the entire squad? Ie, can I fire 4 Lasguns at one unit and another 4 at another.
A: You can indeed! It's done by models, not by weapon type.

Q: Are we getting anymore faction updates? Yesterday's chaos space marines left me hungry for more
A: We we will indeed see more, Astra Militarum next!

Q: I guess with most vehicles having armour saves which won't really be affected by small arms fire, they should survive.
But isn't there a chance that poisened weapons will ignore that table?
Or that someone tripe firing lasguns could easily roll enough 6's to take out a dreadnought in one volley?
A: I mean.... you have to fire a a lot of lasguns to do it! I just had a game at lunchtime today.. a Tactical Squad firing at a Rhinofor three turns barely scratched it....

Q: Woah, does that mean Strength 7 only wounds T4 on a 3+ instead of 2+?
A: That's right. Conversely, S: 4 now wounds anything up to T:7 on just a 5+...

Q: Will FW chapters be in the update?
A: Indeed, yes, FW have committed to getting rules out for all of their Warhammer 40,000 models on launch.

Q: Little guys? Squats confirmed?!?
A: Haha! Not *that* little, I'm afraid!

Q: So a plasmagun wounds a marine on a 3+? Do I get that right?
A: That's right... but now a bolt gun wounds Toughness 7 on a 5+...

Big Models:
Q: The Hivemind thanks you New Games Workshop! Best news yet!
A: Thanks, Hivemind!

Say, what's this bug on the back of my he...... WE LOVE THE HIVEMIND.

Q: Is there any plans for GW to release an easy to use countdown wound counter? It's now usable for AoS and 40k. They could be sold in different sizes for each model level. 0-10, 10-20, 20+
A: We do indeed! Check these out: https://www.games-workshop.com/Citadel-Wound-Trackers

Q: How will that work for Vehicles that had such differences in AV? E.g. a Leman Russ being 14 front 10 rear. Is the squishy rear no longer reflected?
A: Hey Thomas- Tanks have one Toughness value and wound count, just like other large models.

Q: The real question is will I be able to take an army of flayed ones?
A: Absolutely, yes! What a terrifying army that would be...!

Warzone Cadia:
Q: Will there be an article about what is the new situation of Fenris, after the whole war with Magnus, the great losses of Fenrisians lives (due to both Chaos and the Inquisition) and the fact that now they are almost in the middle of the Rift?
A: Hey Giacomo- There very well could be. Keep your eye on this page!

Q: Is there actually anything left of Cadia to reclaim? I thought the planet blew up.
A: Hey Kevin - it didn't blow up as such... there is still a planet left...not much of it, but it still stands!

Q: What will happen with the Apocalypse? Will it be playable in 8th, or will you release a new rulebook?
A: Hey Pablo; great to hear you enjoy Apocalypse! What we know right now is that current expansions and the like will not be compatible with the new edition of the game. We're very early days at the moment, so we haven't released any information about specific rules sets in the new edition. Watch this space on what's coming in the future!

Q: Didn't the planet explode?
A: Hey Richard - the smoking remains of Cadia still stand!

Chaos Marine Focus:
Q: I think we all want to know if the original Traitor Legions will have their specific personality, rules and play styles that were partially restored by the Traitor Legions supplement, or if we will be back to "Generic Chaos" at launch.
A: Hey guys - the Traitor Legions will indeed be getting rules to distinguish them from each other. More news on what that looks like in the future.

Q: It's like christmas in.. May? when is the next faction focus article? Will it be Tyranids? If not, why would you anger the great devourer so?
FUTHER Q IN RESPONSE TO OTHER POSTERS: All they have to say is "you can use something other than flying hive tyrant and have fun"
A: You can indeed use something other than the flying hive tyrant and have an absolute bawl!

EDIT: errr, of course, we mean "ball", of course! There will be no bawling, we promise!

Q: Warhammer 40,000 - its been suggested that I ask if my Imperial Knights will be viable and able to be used in "Matched Play" since implying that I want to be able to do so is not clear enough. Basically I'm not going to play "Open play" and I won't play "narrative play" very often, all I will play 99% of the time is "matched play" as I normally play at tournaments. So again the question is will I be able to use an entire army of imperial knights in matched play? Also since Deathwing was completely screwed in the last Dark Angel Codex, (which invalidated how I used to run them as a pure Deathwing army), can I please ask again, will I be able to dust them off from their 2 year imprisonment in boxes and run them in matched play as a pure Deathwing Army once again?
A: Hey Matt - pretty sure we've answered this elsewhere too... but yes! Knights and Deathwing will be a viable matched play army in the new edition.

Q: Thank goodness for that; I'm getting tired of playing the good guys! I can finally play my Ultramarines the way they were intended Fingers crossed for new CSM models too, or at least a conversion kit for use with Calth and Prospero squads.
A: Are you suggesting the Ultramarines are the bad guys?! I demand satisfaction, sir! *slaps face with glove*

Q: What about the forge world special minotaurs models? Like Asterion Moloc will he have rules?
A: Hey Murray - a good question, sir! Well, Forge World have said that every model we sell right now will be getting rules. Moloc is on sale right now... so look out for new rules for him incoming!

Q: I'd rather know if my full imperial knight army will be able to be used as an army in the new edition without being unbound or if my all Deathwing army will be useable also without being unbound (or without being whatever the new unbound is)...
A: Hey Matt - absolutely,- both Knights and Deathwing will 100% be able to be used in the new edition. No armies are being made obsolete.

Q: Will Chaos Marines finally gain access to drop pods?
A: Hey Lee - that's a great question. On release, we will be covering all of the models we currently see, which means, no, there will not be a Chaos Space Marine Drop Pod. But who knows what the future brings! Keep your eye on this page for all the latest news on releases.

Q: Or you could just release 8th edition already....
A: Hey Andrew - the release date is set, but we thought we would let you guys know what's going on in advance, so you can get prepared for the release. As such, when the new game drops, it's not a huge surprise, or a load of information is having to be taken in at once.

Q: So what about us legions?
A: Hey Nathan; The Traitor Legions will have rules that distinguish themselves from each other, so your identity as a Legion is not lost. More on that coming later!

Thanks, adding to OP

**insaniak**

kestral wrote:
"Splitfire means we won't have to deal with small arms used on vehicles..." Huh? Parking lot guard would like a word. When everything can do everything there is really even less incentive to take "balanced" lists and not go for target saturation to try to make some of your opponent's weapons less useful.

Split fire doesn't make the ability of small arms to hurt tanks any less ridiculous, but it does make it less likely that you'll want to bother shooting them at tanks. Without split fire, when your heavy weapon shoots at the tank there's no good reason to not shoot everything else at it as well, on the off-chance that you'll get a lucky shot or two through the armour. Add in split fire, and suddenly there are other targets for the regular guys that they have better odds of actually hurting... so the situations where you would shoot them all at the tank are at least reduced, if not eliminated completely.

It's not perfect, but it's better.

**Lockark**

Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Lockark wrote:
A few people in my local area belive that you now charge in the movement phase/charge before you shoot. But I never saw anything that confirmed or sujested this.

Did I miss something?
I don't think so, they seem confused - you can now ''advance'' in the movement phase i.e. 'Run' which was previously in the shooting phase.
Charging is still done as normal.

They are convinced it's going to be in the order of psychic, move, charge, shoot phases.

No idea were they got this from. Left me confused lol