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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s definitely a frustrating drip feed! Especially as I think we’re all seeing potential in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in other news? Apocalypse rules coming in Eye of Terror.

See this? See this, right?



See that? That should be a standard 40K rule.

A blinder of a first turn will still hammer an enemy. But it wouldn’t entirely cripple them.

Alternating activation would achieve much the same effect.

I'll take one turn of alternating activations over zero. Looking forward to 15th edition!

I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.

 Hellebore wrote:
I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.

Tanks or Monsters.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.

Tanks or Monsters.

The rule as written is pretty much only useful for those units.

For anything that's not a vehicle or monster, saying that half of the unit remains before being destroyed would make it more useful. Apocalypse games aren't going to be just vehicle bashes.

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.

Tanks or Monsters.

The rule as written is pretty much only useful for those units.

For anything that's not a vehicle or monster, saying that half of the unit remains before being destroyed would make it more useful. Apocalypse games aren't going to be just vehicle bashes.

Let's be honest: A good chunk of Apocalypse IS going to be large models, and those models are the most likely targets for the first round of shooting.

And while it's probably a good rule to have, it's really going to shift the target priority to combat units. Sure, you might kill a Knight Porphyrion, but it'll still kill you back. Shoot of a Rampager on turn 1 and it does nothing (unless deployment zones are closer together).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That feels like a bit of a leap to be honest.

Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.

Yeah, people can make terrain out of foamboard and cardboard that fits the same dimensions and layouts just like we used to instead of buying GW's terrain that tends to randomly go out of stock for long periods of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s definitely a frustrating drip feed! Especially as I think we’re all seeing potential in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in other news? Apocalypse rules coming in Eye of Terror.

See this? See this, right?



See that? That should be a standard 40K rule.

A blinder of a first turn will still hammer an enemy. But it wouldn’t entirely cripple them.

I liked last Apoc better for it. You accumulated damage over the turn, but got to act at full strength for that turn and take the saves at the end of the turn (alternating activation IIRC). It means alpha striking can become mutually assured destruction so people need to be more tactical about how they deal with enemy units to hit them but not open themselves up to being hit back and being forced to trade. It also meant you could drastically overkill or end up underkilling because they made saves you didn't expect them to but wouldn't know until later.

But this isn't bad. Not as good as the last ed's way of handling wounds but I don't hate it.

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.

Tanks or Monsters.

The rule as written is pretty much only useful for those units.

For anything that's not a vehicle or monster, saying that half of the unit remains before being destroyed would make it more useful. Apocalypse games aren't going to be just vehicle bashes.

Let's be honest: A good chunk of Apocalypse IS going to be large models, and those models are the most likely targets for the first round of shooting.

And while it's probably a good rule to have, it's really going to shift the target priority to combat units. Sure, you might kill a Knight Porphyrion, but it'll still kill you back. Shoot of a Rampager on turn 1 and it does nothing (unless deployment zones are closer together).

What it will do is make infantry MORE important to target because reducing them to one model has a much bigger effect than a vehicle.

Battlesuits, terminators, devestators et al will be priority to remove because it will now give you more bang for buck.

 Hellebore wrote:

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I'm not really seeing how one model remaining from a whole unit is going to be a useful rule. Is it supposed to be a VP consideration? Because they aren't doing anything else.

Tanks or Monsters.

The rule as written is pretty much only useful for those units.

For anything that's not a vehicle or monster, saying that half of the unit remains before being destroyed would make it more useful. Apocalypse games aren't going to be just vehicle bashes.

Let's be honest: A good chunk of Apocalypse IS going to be large models, and those models are the most likely targets for the first round of shooting.

And while it's probably a good rule to have, it's really going to shift the target priority to combat units. Sure, you might kill a Knight Porphyrion, but it'll still kill you back. Shoot of a Rampager on turn 1 and it does nothing (unless deployment zones are closer together).

What it will do is make infantry MORE important to target because reducing them to one model has a much bigger effect than a vehicle.

Battlesuits, terminators, devestators et al will be priority to remove because it will now give you more bang for buck.

Squads and melee big things. Doesn't matter how deadly your melee is if you die before you can make a charge.

Edit: It's why I think 40k should only really go up to three or four thousand points. Anything bigger, use a dedicated system that accounts for the big stuff in better ways.

Having played a LOT of Apoc, it's very rarely "lots of big things" as most people don't collect/build to playing Apoc. More often than not it's been lots of infantry and slightly more tanks because that's what people own due to mostly playing standard 40K and then the occasional assortment of big things from the people that did buy them.

 KidCthulhu wrote:

 GaroRobe wrote:



The fact WBs get a head fills me with lots of hope

I wonder legion/warband the spiky head towards the upper right is for.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That feels like a bit of a leap to be honest.

Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.

Yeah, people can make terrain out of foamboard and cardboard that fits the same dimensions and layouts just like we used to instead of buying GW's terrain that tends to randomly go out of stock for long periods of time.

All very true but wait until GW rebalance the dimensions of the terrain every dataslate, or when this leads to yet more mdf/card ruins everywhere and then the people who dont own standardised terrain have constantly wonky games as a result. Never mind all the people who will also only ever want to play on the layouts included in the core rules.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Having played a LOT of Apoc, it's very rarely "lots of big things" as most people don't collect/build to playing Apoc. More often than not it's been lots of infantry and slightly more tanks because that's what people own due to mostly playing standard 40K and then the occasional assortment of big things from the people that did buy them.

Yeah most people don't buy multiple warhounds, reavers and a warlord titan (and lets face it from official models most armies don't even have that many big things and that was before GW started cutting out a lot of the FW models anyway). You're more likely just getting peoples whole collection of an army on the table or two armies added up to build up numbers; then that one super keen person who actually has a titan scale model or two and is willing to transport it to the game.

I'll repeat it would have been nice to just have a reprint of the 2019 rules in there + updated Indizes via warcom Downloads...
I don't see how "normal 40K rules, but with 5000 points and first turn lasts even longer because nothing really dies" is supposed to work outside of weekend filling Club Events (which ARE a peak hobbytime, but not that common for the average player).

GW should do the honourable thing and release Epic 40K instead!

But no...we shall, of course, have a plastic Warhound instead.

 Overread wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Having played a LOT of Apoc, it's very rarely "lots of big things" as most people don't collect/build to playing Apoc. More often than not it's been lots of infantry and slightly more tanks because that's what people own due to mostly playing standard 40K and then the occasional assortment of big things from the people that did buy them.

Yeah most people don't buy multiple warhounds, reavers and a warlord titan (and lets face it from official models most armies don't even have that many big things and that was before GW started cutting out a lot of the FW models anyway). You're more likely just getting peoples whole collection of an army on the table or two armies added up to build up numbers; then that one super keen person who actually has a titan scale model or two and is willing to transport it to the game.

The thing is, those who do bring a ‘big thing’ actually want to *use it* not have it shot of the board before it’s able to do anything - which is presumably the problem this rule is trying to solve, rather than just giving general survivability.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

 KidCthulhu wrote:

 GaroRobe wrote:



The fact WBs get a head fills me with lots of hope

I wonder legion/warband the spiky head towards the upper right is for.

The Conkerers.

Do I win £5?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That feels like a bit of a leap to be honest.

Just because a given battle map may define shape, height and placement doesn’t mean you must therefore use only official models.

Yeah, people can make terrain out of foamboard and cardboard that fits the same dimensions and layouts just like we used to instead of buying GW's terrain that tends to randomly go out of stock for long periods of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s definitely a frustrating drip feed! Especially as I think we’re all seeing potential in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in other news? Apocalypse rules coming in Eye of Terror.

See this? See this, right?



See that? That should be a standard 40K rule.

A blinder of a first turn will still hammer an enemy. But it wouldn’t entirely cripple them.

I liked last Apoc better for it. You accumulated damage over the turn, but got to act at full strength for that turn and take the saves at the end of the turn (alternating activation IIRC). It means alpha striking can become mutually assured destruction so people need to be more tactical about how they deal with enemy units to hit them but not open themselves up to being hit back and being forced to trade. It also meant you could drastically overkill or end up underkilling because they made saves you didn't expect them to but wouldn't know until later.

But this isn't bad. Not as good as the last ed's way of handling wounds but I don't hate it.

This was exactly my thought too.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Having played a LOT of Apoc, it's very rarely "lots of big things" as most people don't collect/build to playing Apoc. More often than not it's been lots of infantry and slightly more tanks because that's what people own due to mostly playing standard 40K and then the occasional assortment of big things from the people that did buy them.

Yeah most people don't buy multiple warhounds, reavers and a warlord titan (and lets face it from official models most armies don't even have that many big things and that was before GW started cutting out a lot of the FW models anyway). You're more likely just getting peoples whole collection of an army on the table or two armies added up to build up numbers; then that one super keen person who actually has a titan scale model or two and is willing to transport it to the game.

The thing is, those who do bring a ‘big thing’ actually want to *use it* not have it shot of the board before it’s able to do anything - which is presumably the problem this rule is trying to solve, rather than just giving general survivability.

Thing is you can't really do survivability in Apoc for big things very easily. What you fight against is more variable and less adaptable. Someone who brings a Reaver cannot expect their opponents to lose one game and then build their own Reaver or 3 baneblades or similar counters for the next game. So you hit a wall - if you make the big things super strong they dominate the game; if you make them too weak they are taken out before doing any of the cool stuff because they are a HUGE psychological target (and tactical target) on the battlefield.

So doing damage resolution at the end is a fantastic way to let people throw loads of damage dealing dice at each other and then resolve all the removals at the end. Honestly if it wasn't for the bookkeeping aspect I'd love to see it as a general rule in regular 40K. We've all that that turn where one player just wipes another half off the table with a round of combat and suddenly one player is willing and the other losing purely because of movement and the turn order more than anything else. Of course a more practical approach is alternative unit activations but we've been down that debate so many times and whilst GW could still make a mess of it; it would honestly work better for them. However it appears to be something that the design team/management team are just utterly unwilling to even experiment once with (The closest we get is alternating close combat in AoS

I have an unboxing of the new Chaos Space Marines Eye of Terror models: the Mutilators, Kravek Morne, and the reimagined Defilers.

The Mutilators kit is super limited when it comes to options, there aren't even alternate heads. But the Defiler is amazing, probably my most favourite GW kit in recent times. As the Warcom article pointed out, so many options.

I have a list of all of them plus high-res sprue images and a 4K unboxing video in my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2026/04/review-chaos-space-marines-defiler-mutilators-kravek-morne/

Overread wrote: However it appears to be something that the design team/management team are just utterly unwilling to even experiment once with (The closest we get is alternating close combat in AoS

Well. And Legions Imperialis. And MESBG.

The rule in question here is a nice balance. A stonking first turn, rewarding clever setup and positioning/punishing a poor setup and positioning without entirely crippling the opponent, without offering too much insulation to the guys on the receiving end.

 stahly wrote:
I have an unboxing of the new Chaos Space Marines Eye of Terror models: the Mutilators, Kravek Morne, and the reimagined Defilers.

The Mutilators kit is super limited when it comes to options, there aren't even alternate heads. But the Defiler is amazing, probably my most favourite GW kit in recent times. As the Warcom article pointed out, so many options.

I have a list of all of them plus high-res sprue images and a 4K unboxing video in my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2026/04/review-chaos-space-marines-defiler-mutilators-kravek-morne/

I really hope that defiler kit sells like crazy. I'd love GW to reach a point, at least with larger than infantry models, where even if they aren't going for loads of weapon options; we might see more pose and build variety and choice. Esp in models that you can take more than one of in a game.

Don't get me wrong things like the Norn's look amazing, but they'd be even more so with a few alternative parts to just vary the builds and profiles even if it doesn't vary the actual weapon choices they have.

For that price, I'd expect it to come with a ouija board to summon my own Daemon.

 Overread wrote:

 stahly wrote:
I have an unboxing of the new Chaos Space Marines Eye of Terror models: the Mutilators, Kravek Morne, and the reimagined Defilers.

The Mutilators kit is super limited when it comes to options, there aren't even alternate heads. But the Defiler is amazing, probably my most favourite GW kit in recent times. As the Warcom article pointed out, so many options.

I have a list of all of them plus high-res sprue images and a 4K unboxing video in my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2026/04/review-chaos-space-marines-defiler-mutilators-kravek-morne/

I really hope that defiler kit sells like crazy. I'd love GW to reach a point, at least with larger than infantry models, where even if they aren't going for loads of weapon options; we might see more pose and build variety and choice. Esp in models that you can take more than one of in a game.

Don't get me wrong things like the Norn's look amazing, but they'd be even more so with a few alternative parts to just vary the builds and profiles even if it doesn't vary the actual weapon choices they have.

The website had a meltdown this morning, and it was out of stock within minutes, so I think you've got your wish.

On a related note, GW's website remains embarrassing for a company of their size.

 Overread wrote:

 stahly wrote:
I have an unboxing of the new Chaos Space Marines Eye of Terror models: the Mutilators, Kravek Morne, and the reimagined Defilers.

The Mutilators kit is super limited when it comes to options, there aren't even alternate heads. But the Defiler is amazing, probably my most favourite GW kit in recent times. As the Warcom article pointed out, so many options.

I have a list of all of them plus high-res sprue images and a 4K unboxing video in my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2026/04/review-chaos-space-marines-defiler-mutilators-kravek-morne/

I really hope that defiler kit sells like crazy. I'd love GW to reach a point, at least with larger than infantry models, where even if they aren't going for loads of weapon options; we might see more pose and build variety and choice. Esp in models that you can take more than one of in a game.

Don't get me wrong things like the Norn's look amazing, but they'd be even more so with a few alternative parts to just vary the builds and profiles even if it doesn't vary the actual weapon choices they have.

Apparently, it's already sold out on the UK Warhammer website.

I'd have said yes to a Defiler I were collecting Chaos Marines. Reasonable by GW's current standards.

The Defiler and Destrier seem to be the same box size and same amount of plastic, yet the Destrier is £17 more expensive. The last six years feels like GW has had it in for Imperial Knight customers, and right now I'm weighing up Chaos Knights instead - especially if Cultists or Traitor Guardsmen become part of their codex.

Well, I might have bought a Defiler for a conversion project, but apparently GW made about a dozen of them.

If only I didn't need to blink, I'd have gotten one.

It’s not a FOMO product, so presumably will return to print.

I’d guess that the 11th launch this summer is causing a bit of a stress on the production schedules. Products probably not getting as much times as we’d all like in the forges.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Well, I might have bought a Defiler for a conversion project, but apparently GW made about a dozen of them.

If only I didn't need to blink, I'd have gotten one.

Or it is just a high appeal product. I don't play chaos and even I plan to get one at some point.

I'm actually happy I didn't get to buy the Defiler. I still have a bunch of Marauder based Bloodreavers to finish, so it's nice that GW is helping me pace my addi... hobby.