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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I really hope they show a matched play sheet. I understand others may care about narrative and "for fun" games, but I could not care less about them existing.

Just hoping for a bit more information.

They will. Info is just being drip-fed to fuel the hype train.

I like this summary sheet effect, but it still appears here's a USR on there without the rules text, unless they clipped it for mystery?

Next we have Abilities. Universal special rules are out, so any time a unit acts differently to what its stats might indicate, the rules for how will be in here. The bulk of these rules will be written in full, but there might occasionally be an army-wide or very common rule for a given faction that isn’t (like the Death to the False Emperor rule you can see above). These will always be in that same publication, though, to make finding it easy.

They also said something similar for units with many options, giving out the specific example of a Tactical Squad. The "most common" options would be on the datasheet.

If there is room - and tehre seems to be here - I dont see whay they would not put the faction abilities on as well - its annoying its not. Also why not have the Invuln saves on the profile line

I feel like it's a bit important to bold something in the Community posting.

So, that "Death to the False Emperor" rule looks like it will be something common to Chaos Space Marines units so it'll be in the Chaos compendium at launch, probably at the start of each section or something.

 Kriswall wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Rolled into Codex: Tau Empire?

Yes.

Go look at the Age of Sigmar books/warscolls page on the GW website.

Sigmarines got a whole new Battletome to cover Sigmarines who ride mounts. So... yeah, I did look and it sure looks like AoS supplemental materials are a thing. Also, I have Orruks who don't wear armor in one Battletome and Orruks who do in another. I don't have Battletome: Orruks. I don't know why you'd think that Codex: Tau Empire would include Tau groups who aren't part of the Tau Empire. Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Farsight Enclaves would more accurately represent what we see in AoS.

I guess we'll see then.

Anyone notice the warp flame pistol is d6 autohits but its is a 'pistol'

remember they said you can shoot pistols in close combat during your shooting phase XD

Couple questions that I didn't see answered...

The Rubric 'All is Dust' rule that increases your save roll by 1... is that for invulnerable saves too? So Rubrics are actually 4++ like they are currently?

I couldn't find a profile for smite, is it ranged? And it does mortal wounds instead of normal so no invulnerable save?

Of course 8th edition will have a ton of supplements and books. GW makes A LOT Of money off their players buying silly things like Limited Edition codexes for 100$, I seriously doubt they're going to cut off that gravy train.

It's interesting that the force sword is now the go-to option for defeating armor saves. If power weapons follow this same pattern, power swords may be back in play.

Nvs wrote:
Couple questions that I didn't see answered...

The Rubric 'All is Dust' rule that increases your save roll by 1... is that for invulnerable saves too? So Rubrics are actually 4++ like they are currently?

I couldn't find a profile for smite, is it ranged? And it does mortal wounds instead of normal so no invulnerable save?

Unless they differentiate between armor and invulnerable. Smite was shown earlier, it's the nearest unit/model within 12" or 18" or something like that. Does d3 Mortal Wounds or d6 if you roll above 10

MaxT wrote:

 nintura wrote:
Interesting that you dont seem to have to pay anything for upgrades. Even power level points. So Soul Reaper is free. you should always take it.

Repeat after me, Power levels aren't points

It constantly surprises me how often people only get 1/2 the facts

Nvs wrote:
Couple questions that I didn't see answered...

The Rubric 'All is Dust' rule that increases your save roll by 1... is that for invulnerable saves too? So Rubrics are actually 4++ like they are currently?

I couldn't find a profile for smite, is it ranged? And it does mortal wounds instead of normal so no invulnerable save?

Dunno, probably we won't find out till the core rules are actually released is whether a "Saving throw" covers both normal and invulnerable saves. If so, then yes (probably yes IMO). But you don't get the +1 to save vs multi wound weapons like Lascannons (or Battlecannons!!!!!)

Smite was covered in the psychic phase article: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/28/new-warhammer-40000-psychic-phase/

 kronk wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Rolled into Codex: Tau Empire?

Yes.

Go look at the Age of Sigmar books/warscolls page on the GW website.

Sigmarines got a whole new Battletome to cover Sigmarines who ride mounts. So... yeah, I did look and it sure looks like AoS supplemental materials are a thing. Also, I have Orruks who don't wear armor in one Battletome and Orruks who do in another. I don't have Battletome: Orruks. I don't know why you'd think that Codex: Tau Empire would include Tau groups who aren't part of the Tau Empire. Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Farsight Enclaves would more accurately represent what we see in AoS.

I guess we'll see then.

They also got a whole book released afterwards that combined that book & its predecessor along with new content.

Really AoS's battletomes are a mess in many ways. We just need to hope GW learnt from the mistakes they made pre-Sylvaneth and apply the lessons learnt to 40k.
i.e. don't go changing your design intentions after the first few books so that they need to be replaced within a year.

Interestingly enough, the article says there will be different cathegories of cover that will determinate who does and doesn't benefit from them. Good to know.

MaxT wrote:

Nvs wrote:
Couple questions that I didn't see answered...

The Rubric 'All is Dust' rule that increases your save roll by 1... is that for invulnerable saves too? So Rubrics are actually 4++ like they are currently?

I couldn't find a profile for smite, is it ranged? And it does mortal wounds instead of normal so no invulnerable save?

Dunno, probably we won't find out till the core rules are actually released is whether a "Saving throw" covers both normal and invulnerable saves. If so, then yes (probably yes IMO). But you don't get the +1 to save vs multi wound weapons like Lascannons (or Battlecannons!!!!!)

Smite was covered in the psychic phase article: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/28/new-warhammer-40000-psychic-phase/

I wonder if you get +1 to your save if a Lascannon rolls a 1 for damage?

 Kirasu wrote:
Of course 8th edition will have a ton of supplements and books. GW makes A LOT Of money off their players buying silly things like Limited Edition codexes for 100$, I seriously doubt they're going to cut off that gravy train.

I mean really, if they sell as well as they do, would you (If you were in their position?)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I wonder if you get +1 to your save if a Lascannon rolls a 1 for damage?

No, because the damage characteristic is not 1, and also that would involve a time machine as you roll saves BEFORE rolling for damage

Lord Kragan wrote:
Interestingly enough, the article says there will be different cathegories of cover that will determinate who does and doesn't benefit from them. Good to know.

That was mentioned in an earlier article, with the example of only infantry getting cover from craters.

So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.

That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?

Neronoxx wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Of course 8th edition will have a ton of supplements and books. GW makes A LOT Of money off their players buying silly things like Limited Edition codexes for 100$, I seriously doubt they're going to cut off that gravy train.

I mean really, if they sell as well as they do, would you (If you were in their position?)

The important thing is the GW are baselining the game with free core rules, and a cheap set of base books to cover every existing model. That doesn't mean every possible rules option (like Relics, and certainly formations) that was in every 7th book will be present, but every army can play and make an army with every unit that's out there. After that we'll get Codex equivalents with more rules and such. And that's fine IMO.

 kronk wrote:
So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.

That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?

We've seen mortal wounds in the psychic phase one. They're wounds with no saves (armour or invuln).

 kronk wrote:
So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.

That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?

Check the Psychic Phase leak. It explains Mortal Wounds.

Basically no saves of any kind - neither armor nor invulnerable.

 kronk wrote:
So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.

That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?

"Mortal Wounds are a new mechanic too – these cannot be saved by any means and punch straight through thick armour and even invulnerable saves! Ouch."

There's almost certainly no instant death as a general rule anymore.

Ah, thanks! Off to read the psychic phase one. I think I was traveling that day....

Ooooh: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/28/new-warhammer-40000-psychic-phase/

Not sure how I miss that one.

 kronk wrote:
So on the Smite rule, it says it does 1 Mortal wound instead of a D3, or D3 Mortal wounds instead of a D6 if blah blah 10 Blah blah.

That means 1 Mortal Wound instead of D3 regular wounds, right? Mortal Wounds is the new fancy term for Instant Death maybe? No armor saves instead of -3?

No. Smite normally does d3 mortal wounds. Aspiring Sorcerers only do 1 mortal wound because they are "lesser sorcerers".

When it comes to equipment I think it'll be whatever is in the box. ie no more plasma or las-cannon's for tactical marines as there not in their box.

Got it!

Going to morale: The mechanics are simple – any units that suffered casualties in a turn must take a Morale test at the end of it. You just roll a D6, add the number of models from the unit that have been slain, and if the number is bigger than the unit’s Leadership, the unit loses the difference in additional models.

So, if you only lose 2 dudes in a turn, you're fine. Assuming the Asp Sorcerer is still alive. If he eats it, you can only lose 1 guy and still auto-pass morale. If you lose 3, you only fail on a 6.

So Power is the new points...But no point cost for adding a heavy weapon or Icon?

Didn't they mention a grittier point system in the first Q&A?

I am liking what I am seeing. We can infer the regular Power Weapon profiles from what is listed, which makes me want to remove some of the weapons on my Honour Guard now that swords are better than Axes against T7 or above. Makes me wonder what Relic Blades will be like.

The Flamer profile stating that it hits automatically is good. I was worried how they were going to differentiate Flamers from Blasts. Looks like blasts are similar, but you still roll to hit.

It also looks like bigger units will be cheaper than larger units. Makes me less worried about my two 10-man Sternguard Squads.

 flakpanzer wrote:
So Power is the new points...But no point cost for adding a heavy weapon or Icon?

Didn't they mention a grittier point system in the first Q&A?

Power =/= Points.

Power seems to have been designed to be used as a rough comparison in open/Narrative games, not matched.

We don't know about points yet.

 flakpanzer wrote:
So Power is the new points...But no point cost for adding a heavy weapon or Icon?

Didn't they mention a grittier point system in the first Q&A?

Read the actual article, power is for narrative and open play. Points (Which are not listed here) are for Matched play.

 flakpanzer wrote:
So Power is the new points...But no point cost for adding a heavy weapon or Icon?

Didn't they mention a grittier point system in the first Q&A?

Later. There#s two point systems.this is less granular

1st of all, regarding points READ THE ARTICLE GUYS

Second of all, it looks like they meant it when they said they would try to make every weapon viable.

I'm looking at every one of those melee weapons, and I see how each of them would be great to take!

Obviously some will inevitably be mathematically better than others, but in general you're not being punished for taking fluffy choices!

Loving this data sheet overall, DEFINITELY can't wait to see more!