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.

 Nevelon wrote:

Yea, seems they already have the 30k stuff to scratch the “classic 40k” itch. While not a 100% match for people wanting retro/middlehammer games, it’s pretty close. And if they add another ruleset for 40k they risk fragmenting their playerbase.

I don't put much stock in this rumour, but I can TOTALLY see GW considering the prospect of '40K Old World' to flog more Tactical Squads.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

Yea, seems they already have the 30k stuff to scratch the “classic 40k” itch. While not a 100% match for people wanting retro/middlehammer games, it’s pretty close. And if they add another ruleset for 40k they risk fragmenting their playerbase.

I don't put much stock in this rumour, but I can TOTALLY see GW considering the prospect of '40K Old World' to flog more Tactical Squads.

If GW wanted to do something like this, I’d think the best place for it would be a post heresy supplement for HH. It’s basically the continuation of the 3-7th era 40k. So use it’s base to revisit the post scouring, pre primaris times.

 Nevelon wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:From 4chan:

Billicus wrote:Fakest rumour going.

Yea, seems they already have the 30k stuff to scratch the “classic 40k” itch. While not a 100% match for people wanting retro/middlehammer games, it’s pretty close. And if they add another ruleset for 40k they risk fragmenting their playerbase.

I would agree but if you could port in xenos to 30k (supported) that'd be worth a niche.

I want to believe that rumor, but yeah i'd rather believe "they're going to AOS AOS" before that.

Someone's just reading "Scouring Era HH rules confirmed" with the most immense load of salt imaginable.

I don't see "classic 40K" likely to happen now what post heresy HH is coming. Too much overlap, and they couldn't avoid people using HH kits in such classic 40K games, something they are vehementry opposed to in recent years.

Orks and Eldar already exist as Fan Libers, though I've not looked through them. Given how few units have truly unique special rules and how many USRs there are to leverage, it should not be a herculean task to approach other Libers for Tau and Votann. You have approximate values for stat lines of weapons, saves, wounds, etc.

Whether GW goes that way or not, the community can (and is at least in part) doing it.

GW will definitely not want to translate Xenos due to their distaste for range overlap.

A Scouring expansion makes perfect sense however, as a dumping ground for MK7, Castraferrum and so on once 40k has dusted off the last remaining firstborn units (since GW is aware there is money in them still, the Tactical Squad is the best-selling GW kit ever and it's not particularly close as far as I know).

Wayniac wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Did anyone watch any/all the games to glean info? I was half listening to the first, but was distracted. They did mention something a out fast rolling and wound allocation that sounded new.

Only thing I saw was they made the tournament rule of "ground floor ruins are always completely LOS blocking even if there's open windows" an official rule now.

That is just stupid.

Especially if infantry can still freely move through solid walls.

As for them getting rid of "standing in circles"?
Sure, now youre going to spend the next 3 years just standing in various other shapes - squares, rectangles, & triangles. That's COMPLETELY different, right?

ccs wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Did anyone watch any/all the games to glean info? I was half listening to the first, but was distracted. They did mention something a out fast rolling and wound allocation that sounded new.

Only thing I saw was they made the tournament rule of "ground floor ruins are always completely LOS blocking even if there's open windows" an official rule now.

That is just stupid.

Especially if infantry can still freely move through solid walls.

As for them getting rid of "standing in circles"?
Sure, now youre going to spend the next 3 years just standing in various other shapes - squares, rectangles, & triangles. That's COMPLETELY different, right?

Right here with you. I could write a dissertation about how, to me, these changes are just extreme cognitive dissonance to kill narrative play in the name of forcing GW standardised game formats and products down throats.

ccs wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Did anyone watch any/all the games to glean info? I was half listening to the first, but was distracted. They did mention something a out fast rolling and wound allocation that sounded new.

Only thing I saw was they made the tournament rule of "ground floor ruins are always completely LOS blocking even if there's open windows" an official rule now.

That is just stupid.

Especially if infantry can still freely move through solid walls.

As for them getting rid of "standing in circles"?
Sure, now youre going to spend the next 3 years just standing in various other shapes - squares, rectangles, & triangles. That's COMPLETELY different, right?

Yes, because standing on a neoprene "Front Line Gaming" logo in open ground is a completely abstract point scoring mechanic. Standing in a square/rectangle/triangle = standing in ruins or terrain, which could conceivably have some sort of valuable object/personnel/computer interface in it. One layer less of abstraction between the game and some level of coherent storytelling.

Daily reminder that most of these problems could very easily be solved by returning to abstracted LoS.

 Rihgu wrote:

Yes, because standing on a neoprene "Front Line Gaming" logo in open ground is a completely abstract point scoring mechanic. Standing in a square/rectangle/triangle = standing in ruins or terrain, which could conceivably have some sort of valuable object/personnel/computer interface in it. One layer less of abstraction between the game and some level of coherent storytelling.

The circles are largely just a convenience. You're actually supposed to be standing around cache's or relics or ritual sites or whatever that you measure the circle from. It's just easier to have that distance pre-marked. Not that I disagree with using terrain instead, just that making it less abstract has just required a bit of hobby work, which is always the case with the kind of scenes players want to play on. Even switching to terrain doesn't solve the problem until players are willing to put the hobby work into their tables.

The standing in circles thing never bothered me. GW has made objective markers over the years. It’s not just objective 1. It’s a crashed escape pod. Or a servo skull with important data. Or a wounded comrade. Terminal to be hacked. Ritual to be stopped. Data to upload. Supplies to collect

A little imagination will tell you why you need to hold a specific bit of ground for however long. At least as easy as needing to hold a building.

Since we are coming to the end, I'm going to go out on a limb in hating these 1 point detachments. (Hate is probably too far, but this is the internet.)

They are so insipid they don't seem to be interesting on any sort of basis. They don't seem exciting from either a fluff or crunch basis. If you're preferred detachment from the codex is a 2 pointer, then obviously you will add one. But I don't think you are going to be very excited about it.

I think it would have been far better time spent to try and balance/improve the Codex detachments based on lessons learned through the rollout of 10th.

Tyel wrote:
Since we are coming to the end, I'm going to go out on a limb in hating these 1 point detachments. (Hate is probably too far, but this is the internet.)

They are so insipid they don't seem to be interesting on any sort of basis. They don't seem exciting from either a fluff or crunch basis. If you're preferred detachment from the codex is a 2 pointer, then obviously you will add one. But I don't think you are going to be very excited about it.

I think it would have been far better time spent to try and balance/improve the Codex detachments based on lessons learned through the rollout of 10th.

From a more casual perspective I like them. They are good if you want to splash mixed themes from the same faction. One good example is the harlequin one. You want the murder clowns to have a few tricks, along side your normal craftword force, but don’t want to dedicate your entire rule set to taking their big detachment.

Or if you want some 10th company scout elements supporting your battle company.

One problem with 10th’s system is that unless the units you pick are on-theme to your detachment, they get basically nothing from it. 11th lets you have a little fun support for them.

Tyel wrote:
Since we are coming to the end, I'm going to go out on a limb in hating these 1 point detachments. (Hate is probably too far, but this is the internet.)

They are so insipid they don't seem to be interesting on any sort of basis. They don't seem exciting from either a fluff or crunch basis. If you're preferred detachment from the codex is a 2 pointer, then obviously you will add one. But I don't think you are going to be very excited about it.

I think it would have been far better time spent to try and balance/improve the Codex detachments based on lessons learned through the rollout of 10th.

It's the same issue they had since 8th in that 90% of them make no difference to how the army actually plays.

MOAR DAMAGE, whether it be from Sustained Hits or Lethal Hits or some manner of rerolls should not be a detachment mechanic.

If we're going to have detachments, have ones that actually make a meaningful difference to how the army plays. Tallarn's Swift as the Wind from the 8th edition IG codex is a great example of this - it let all Infantry units treat non-Heavy weapons as Assault (and also let them ignore the penalty for moving and firing Assault weapons). Vehicles disregarded the normal penalty for moving and firing Heavy weapons (this was back before the DE bonus was handed to every faction). This encouraged a much more mobile style of play (especially for an army best known for its stationary gunlines), at the cost of taking fewer or no Heavy weapons on Infantry.

This is the sort of thing that actually feels worth having a Detachment for, rather than 'You know those guns your units will be using? They can fire a bit harder.'

 Nevelon wrote:
One problem with 10th’s system is that unless the units you pick are on-theme to your detachment, they get basically nothing from it. 11th lets you have a little fun support for them.

I don't think that's a problem though. That's a design choice.

It comes down to how you want list building to work.
Do you want people to select an army (maybe in a classic soft-highlander White Dwarf way - because that's what their collection looks like), and then select from multiple rules to buff different bits of it.
Or do you generate rules such that people have a rational/fluff/just being a special snowflake reason to build fundamentally different lists from the same roster of units.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm much keener on the second.

Obviously things can be deceptively powerful etc - but the Harlequin ones today seem like a case in point. Giving them either the ability to charge through enemy models or stealth seems pretty minor.
If you were running a bit of everything, and had 1-2 Harlequin units as a result, its hard to see these rules having much impact in the game. (Weirdly it might have more impact if you had more units, but if you were running mostly Harlequins shouldn't you get more benefit from the "bigger" detachments?)
In much the same way I'm not sure giving special rules to 2 units of Space Marine scouts is going to change how you play.

In some cases I can maybe see it being different. Giving Purestrains uppy downy feels quite impactful, especially if you can pair it with a powerful 2 pointer where purestrains previously wouldn't have been really considered.

Now sure, maybe there's someone out there who is "commited" to running 1300-1500~ points of Wraithguard (etc) in a Spirit Conclave detachment, but also wants to take 500-700~ points of Harlequins for whatever reason. Now they can splash a minor buff on the harlequin chunk of their list and it should be a bit better.
But I don't think this is a rational list building from the "rules". Rather its "I want to run this stuff, now I can very slightly make it better". The fluff can be bent in any direction you like, but its not to my mind a natural army of 40k.

I'd rather GW had spent the time making say the Spirit Conclave "better", so running mass Wraiths worked.

And as an edit - I agree with Vipoid.
I want detachment rules that fundamentally change how the army plays. It seems unlikely this is going to happen with 1 pointers.
I don't want a system of "these are your best datasheets, rotate through this collidescope of possible buffs until you find the best one, and that's it, the faction is solved and will remain solved until GW nerf it in 3 weeks and we go looking for the next combo".

 vipoid wrote:
Daily reminder that most of these problems could very easily be solved by returning to abstracted LoS.

Meh... the problem with this is that it does slow down game play.

In a singles tournament, I do see this as problematic.

Anecdotally, it's not much of an issue for teams tournament as those are usually running a day longer and that the allotted game play is more generous.

If abstracted LoS makes a return, I'd advocate bringing at least two laser pointers to speed up LoS debates.

 Nevelon wrote:


From a more casual perspective I like them. They are good if you want to splash mixed themes from the same faction. One good example is the harlequin one. You want the murder clowns to have a few tricks, along side your normal craftword force, but don’t want to dedicate your entire rule set to taking their big detachment.

Or if you want some 10th company scout elements supporting your battle company.

One problem with 10th’s system is that unless the units you pick are on-theme to your detachment, they get basically nothing from it. 11th lets you have a little fun support for them.

Yep, absolutely! The units get pointed as if they had detachment benefits, so if you want to include them, they sorta need to get something. And this allows you to mix and match more. Then again, it would be far easier if detachments would not exist and units just came with rules that are required to make them work.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:


I don't think that's a problem though. That's a design choice.

It comes down to how you want list building to work.
Do you want people to select an army (maybe in a classic soft-highlander White Dwarf way - because that's what their collection looks like), and then select from multiple rules to buff different bits of it.
Or do you generate rules such that people have a rational/fluff/just being a special snowflake reason to build fundamentally different lists from the same roster of units.

Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm much keener on the second.

Now sure, maybe there's someone out there who is "commited" to running 1300-1500~ points of Wraithguard (etc) in a Spirit Conclave detachment, but also wants to take 500-700~ points of Harlequins for whatever reason. Now they can splash a minor buff on the harlequin chunk of their list and it should be a bit better.
But I don't think this is a rational list building from the "rules". Rather its "I want to run this stuff, now I can very slightly make it better". The fluff can be bent in any direction you like, but its not to my mind a natural army of 40k.

I'd rather GW had spent the time making say the Spirit Conclave "better", so running mass Wraiths worked.

The "themed" lists previous kind of detachments and army rules encouraged were often weirdly flanderised forces, which were not particularly lore accurate. We end up with stuff like BA running only assault or jump units as their rules only benefit them, even though they actually are pretty normal chapter with all the usual shooty stuff too etc.

And I just do not like that for example with SoB, you need to have all the repentia or no repentia, or with the Eldar all the wraiths or no wraiths. I want to actually run combined arms lists with variety of units without it sucking. So whilst I don't really care for detachment type bonus rules existing at all, if they have to exist, this new mix and match style is a massive improvement.

New article on Warhammer Community showcasing the new Ork Boyz kit.

Thank the Ruinous Powers - the heads are separate pieces. Meaning I can replace them with better ones.

I do like that GW is acknowledging the previous push-fit kits' "Attack of the Clones" problems and designing the new Boyz to somewhat avoid it by making the heads and even some of the arms swappable.

 Rihgu wrote:

ccs wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Did anyone watch any/all the games to glean info? I was half listening to the first, but was distracted. They did mention something a out fast rolling and wound allocation that sounded new.

Only thing I saw was they made the tournament rule of "ground floor ruins are always completely LOS blocking even if there's open windows" an official rule now.

That is just stupid.

Especially if infantry can still freely move through solid walls.

As for them getting rid of "standing in circles"?
Sure, now youre going to spend the next 3 years just standing in various other shapes - squares, rectangles, & triangles. That's COMPLETELY different, right?

Yes, because standing on a neoprene "Front Line Gaming" logo in open ground is a completely abstract point scoring mechanic. Standing in a square/rectangle/triangle = standing in ruins or terrain, which could conceivably have some sort of valuable object/personnel/computer interface in it. One layer less of abstraction between the game and some level of coherent storytelling.

If you're putting your objectives in the wide open then that's a problem of how you & yours played....
We've never had an issue putting the 40mm objective token in terrain/interesting places. Or putting the mouse pads under terrain.

Ive been saying that GW will eventually do a Badab War standalone game for ages, maybe thats where the rumor is going.

Also, Im pretty sure the debate about whether 40k is a *wargame* is actually an argument of whether its a *war*game (simulation) or war*game* (abstraction), but its being argued by a bunch of folks who lack the vocabulary/context to understand what it is they are debating.

Regarding that "rumour", I'm not even sure if a game set in M38 could have Tyranids and Necrons, and definitely not Tau.

So either fake or GW is being very stupid.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I do like that GW is acknowledging the previous push-fit kits' "Attack of the Clones" problems and designing the new Boyz to somewhat avoid it by making the heads and even some of the arms swappable.

All the way back in 5th edition the heads (and slugga arms) of the push fit Boyz were interchangeable.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Pretty obvious they mean it's the TTWG equivalent of Magic i.e. Magic with Toy Soldiers.

Okay, so what does THAT mean?

It supposedly means that the game is incredibly complex with over 100 pages of dense rules and contradicting errata.

For those with legal backgrounds, go download all the mtg rules.

Also I think it means older units getting retired on a cycle. No need to worry about how Centurion rules interact with I dunno, Taurox rules when both get retired!

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding that "rumour", I'm not even sure if a game set in M38 could have Tyranids and Necrons, and definitely not Tau.

So either fake or GW is being very stupid.

M38 Oldhammer could well be either an expansion on HH (3rd-7th based), or (my preference) a standalone game that is Olderhammer (RT-2nd based). Some things from current model ranges would not be appropriate (Primaris, Tyranids, Necrons, Tau) - but the only missing models they would have to produce are MK7 marines and maybe a boxnaught.

It's probably just a fake rumour, but a new game system where you only have to develop a very small number of new models (cheap), which just so happen to be a new version of the best selling thing you've ever made (profit), which would also be playable in your biggest game system (even more profit) doesn't seem so stupid to me.

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding that "rumour", I'm not even sure if a game set in M38 could have Tyranids and Necrons, and definitely not Tau.

So either fake or GW is being very stupid.

For my personal aesthetic taste, excluding Tau would be a feature, not a bug.

Including Necrons but giving them their old 2nd ed more eldritch and more evil lore instead of the modern dynastic egyptian lore might be fun?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding that "rumour", I'm not even sure if a game set in M38 could have Tyranids and Necrons, and definitely not Tau.

So either fake or GW is being very stupid.

For my personal aesthetic taste, excluding Tau would be a feature, not a bug.

Silly you. Tyranids are bugs. Not Tau. Do you even background, bro?