40K RUMORS: New Edition Cuts

40k-5th-horz

Here is the latest set of info on what may be in Warhammer 40,000’s next edition… and what won’t…

Bols-Rumors-avatar

 

Industry insiders tell BoLS:

  • As with Age of Sigmar, there is a desire to reduce the number of 40K factions in the game to a very small number (AoS has 4 for comparison).
  • There will be a new starter set for the new edition that will be VERY small and inexpensive, in addition to the rulebook-only and large starter box.
  • The move over to some type of new Age of Sigmar inspired Warscroll layout for 40K units may be incompatible with current edition codexes.

Our Thoughts

We have reported earlier that there would be some type of new format for the new 40K edition.  Taking a quick look at GW’s webpage led me to this guy:

Storm of Sigmar $33

60010299007_StormofSigmarENG01

That is an amazing pricepoint for an introductory product and certainly an easier path into Age of Sigmar than the full $125 Age of Sigmar boxed set.  I could easily see a new 40K edition going down this path. Retailers would certainly be happy to have a $33 intro to the grimdark to hook new players.

Moving onto the reduction of factions – we saw the pattern already with Age of Sigmar.  When WFB was END TIMESd the full collection of over a dozen factions was reduced to these guys:

aos-GrandAlliancebooks

Now exactly how you could distill the giant universe of Warhammer 40,000 into say 4 Grand Alliance books – I have no idea.  That is one for you to figure out.  I would do:

  • Imperium
  • Something
  • Something
  • Something

The most troubling bit of info in this set of rumors is the warning that codices might be invalidated. We haven’t seen GW do such a thing since 1998’s 3rd edition, almost 20 years back.  I honestly don’t know if GW would have the stomach for such a move with literally dozens of current codices out there. On the one hand the sheer inertia of the current collection is a huge impediment to change.  On the other hand if GW believes the current complexity of the game IS THE PROBLEM that is most holding it back from gaining new players – then the full range of books would be target number one.  END TIMES/Age of Sigmar is people’s exhibit#1 of how far Nottingham is willing to go if they see a real problem in front of them that need to be addressed.

In the end, it really comes down to what they have in mind for the new ruleset – and if they can shoehorn the existing books and unit rules into it.  If the changes are minor, they could keep things in place.  If they are envisioning serious unit and core rules changes – once again, the codexes themselves are standing in the way of change.

40k-codexes-20-horz

As a final note on all of this, with this level of change – it would seem unthinkable that GW would not be releasing a 40K version of the Age of Sigmar app with all the units in there. That would go a long way to smoothing over any unit/faction rules transition.

AOSapp-ppage

 

Previous Warhammer 40,000 Rumors 10-10-2016

  • A Warscroll such as the Stardrake is said to illustrate several new unit layout and big picture rules mechanics making their way to 40k.
  • The new release will follow the standard GW rollout with at least three different versions, boxed set, rulebook, and others.
  • There will be changes to some core mechanics such as S vs T which have been static for several editions.
  • Again, look for a Q2 2017 release window.
  • The new edition is shaping up as a larger shakeup to the game than we have seen in several editions, but is NOT aiming for an Age of Sigmar simplification of the rules.

 

Previous Warhammer 40,000 Rumors 8-15-2016

  • Look for the new edition of the Grimdark  to show up in Q2 2017.
  • The new edition is slated for arrival before summer of next year.
  • It will be a streamlined edition
  • Look for changes tailored to make the current game more accessable for new players.
  • Look for limited design elements to migrate from Age of Sigmar to the new edition.
  • This will NOT mean the Sigmarification of 40K, only a carefully selected set of rules organization decisions to make learning and playing much easier than things are now.

 

 

~I’ll let you discus.

  • “As with Age of Sigmar, there is a desire to reduce the number of 40K
    factions in the game to a very small number (AoS has 4 for comparison).”

    That’s utter nonsense. AoS has a massive amount of factions already, with over half of them not even touched yet. AoS simply groups them into 4 “Grand Alliances”, not factions. If anything, AoS is bound to have more factions than 40k right now, the way they’ve been cutting up old WHFB armies into pieces.
    Nothing was actually reduced apart from the number of units per Codex (just look at Everchosen….).

    The point with the Grand Alliance books would stand better and make more sense if they replaced the faction Battletomes. They don’t.

    • Karru

      It’s poor wording, but I get what he means. When he says “factions” he does mean the Grand Alliances, but these days it means just that. In AoS you pick one of the Grand Alliances and thus you have access to all their units completely “free”. You can choose between all of them and suffer no downsides outside the loss of “theme” specific Warlord Traits and Artefacts. This means that the “factions” are reduced down to 4 since I can now play Dwarfs with Elves like they are the same army, not just allies.

      If this happens to 40K, it’s going to be doomed. There is no way that GW has the know-how to balance all the armies and combos from their current state to what it is needed if a system like this is implemented.

      • mysterex

        To be honest they don’t seem to know how to balance their all the armies and their combos now. A complete overhaul may be the only way to reinstate some balance.

        • BT

          Sure… but that is what he is saying as well.

          To me, it simply comes down to they don’t know what a point is worth any more. You can’t balance a point based game properly when the cost for similar units are the same but in game play they are vastly different.

          Meganobs cost 40pts, Terminators cost 40pts, and Ogryn cost 40pts… but only one of them has a invuln save. Are they really worth the same points? Heck no.

          • dave long island

            Orks iz da best cuz Orks iz da best… Lojek…

          • Emprah

            Out of those, only terminators are just one wound units. I think nobs and ogryns are W2.

          • nurglitch

            Ogryns are T5 and W3.

          • BT

            Sure are. Ogryns have a increased stat line with a 5+ armor save and 3 Str 5 AP – melee attacks to back up the resistance to being insta-jibbed. In a fight between them and say Mega-Nobs, you hope the Mega-Nobs roll bad everything because they also get 3 attacks. The Ogryns should get swept in that fight with minimal damage against the Nobz (as they would get their FNP if they have access to it).

            Against Terminators, every 1 on a armor save kills a Terminator. The Ogryns are also Init 2, so go before the Fists so any wounds inflicted really hurt the Terminators. Weight of attacks and math hammer (they have to roll a 1 at some point) to go with that 3 wounds means the Ogryn /should/ win in a equal point vs equal point battle.

            In a Mega-Nob vs Terminator fight, the two Wounds a Meganob has doesn’t matter to the Terminator. The Terminator Invuln save doesn’t matter to the Ogryn, but it sure as heck matters to the Nobz. Still, with 3 attacks, the Nobs are going to get enough damage through. The Mega-Nobz and Terminators will wipe each other out in the first round of combat.

            Man… kind of balanced if it was a rock-paper-scissors situation, but if either of the 2+ saves roll well against the Ogryn, the Ogryn would never win. Now, if I threw Chaos Terminators in that mix… well, they are not 40pts. They are either way over or under.

          • nurglitch

            Ogryns have FNP.

          • BT

            No, they do not have FNP. Bullgryns also no not have FNP, so no idea where you are getting that. Only way for them to get FNP is a Super Friend with FNP to hand out to the squad or a Primus Psyker getting the right Biomancy pick who is riding shotgun.

          • BT

            Yup…and are insta-jibbed by a powerfist that they can’t save against or use FNP against.

          • jeff white

            points should reflect resource cost to field given army characteristics. eldar should pay less for skimmers and fast light armor. orks should pay less for speedy light armor with heavy weapons at the expense of reliability. marines should have pretty good but not exceptional everything. from this, tweaks can be made, and the armies play with different flavors. of course, dooshes will min max spam nonsense but i don’t talk to those people. what gw needed to do is reign stuff in a bit, sell some entry level kits and some care army boxes thereafter, and their various starter boxes also offering great collector savings, get people playing a strategy game again rather than a deckbuilding game, return psyckers to dudes with powers that they pay for up front and then use as described, get rid of summoning or restrict to pure demon armies and maybe chaos sorcerers, and there you go. changing S v T is idiocy imho. offering options for alternating unit turns is not. i expect them to screw with S v T and leave the turn structure alone, but maybe they will surprise me.

          • euansmith

            I think that Army Lists should reflect the resources available to the faction. The points really should be all about reflecting the tabletop capabilities of the unit. So that if both faction A and faction B have access to similar units C, the points cost should be the same; but faction A might have it as a troop choice, while faction B has it as an elite choice.

          • jeff white

            that is nice enough, limitations can go a long way, and we see this a bit but then, besides organization, armies will play mostly the same. “reflect the resources available to the faction” should also mean that, yes, wave serpents are great, but too many people misused those resources too heavily, lost too many, so they should both be limited and cost more because the eldar simply do not have unlimited wave serpent resources. other factions should not have access to serpent equivalent vehicles at all, and eldar should be limited and they should cost more because working serpent shields should add a premium to the base tank… something like that. rhino equivalents should be available to orks but with limitations, too, as looted and dropping some extra kit and adding some chance for failure, tyranids should pay less for super fast troops and marines should pay more, for jump packs to do similarly. why should a marine have access to the same resources as a tyranid or a space elf? and for the same points? hmmm…

          • euansmith

            I think it is because points should only reflect the table top abilities of any given unit; based on things like damage out put, survivabiltiy and maneuverability. That allows you to set up a balanced game.

            Limitations in resources should be reflected by the availability of units in the Force Organisation Chart or the Formation/Detachment.

            The main issue GW seems to have with assigning coherent points costs and instituting “realistic” limits stems from their need to push miniature sales. If they can get players to buy half a dozen Wave Serpents by giving them great rules at a low points cost, then they do it.

            This has certainly seemed to be the case under the rule of the Dark Lord Kirby. Maybe the new regime will realise that people will buy cool looking kits that have well balanced rules. Fingers crossed

          • jeff white

            i an with you 110%. though, i still think that different armies need different points assigned to similar unit types, because this is what they do best. mostly this is to be reflectected in units to which other factions have zero access. and it needs to stay this way. this is the calculus missing from their allied tables now i think. people say playtesting but i bet a couple dudes could get a good start at it with common sense and a very big whtiteboard.

          • Prudent_Paratrooper

            Terminators, depending on the faction, cost 30ish points.

          • BT

            Chaos is 31pts… with a power weapon standard and nothing else. No one takes naked Chaos Terminators. Vanilla is 35pts in 7th, 40pts in 6th. Thus my ‘confusion’ on the matter. Care to actually give points for these other fractions that drop the average down so low?

      • euansmith

        “There is no way that GW has the know-how to balance all the armies and combos from their current state to what it is needed if a system like this is implemented.”

        Unless they junk the existing rules and come up with some new ones. 😉

        Units in 40k could be grouped in to broad types (fast assault, heavy assault, support weapons, etc). GW could then just add a faction special rule to give the units some colour.

        I know that AoS has loads of special, fluffy rules, but these can be broken down in to broad groups of buffs and debuffs. So GW could come up with a bunch of actual USRs and then just give them fluffy names for each unit.

        • Karru

          The problem here is the fact that AoS is melee focused and I’ve seen the devastating effects of range units like the Dracothians. Now, imagine that coming to 40k where Shooting is the dominant aspect. Those devastating combos that AoS has can be negated by avoiding combat most of the time. You can also try your luck with shooting the guy buffing, since the buff usually comes from the general or another singular model.

          In 40k, where the shooting dominates, this will not be possible and people will resort to alpha strikes, like we do now. Then we will see min units of Scouts or other cheap units and then rows upon rows of Grav Centurions, Guard Artillery, Knights and other broken units, since there is no downside to take them.

          I literally cannot see a way to make that system work in 40k without having to result to some major house rules.

          • euansmith

            They would, most likely, have to do a clean sweep, like when AoS came out and completely change the way the game plays. Personally, I would really like for them to bring out a set of AoS style Warscrolls for 40k units; but i realise that not everyone shares my tastes 😉

            If they, did, I would like to see them drop “shooting out of combat”. Whilst that seems okay for a superhero fantasy game, it would be a bit jarring in the Grim Darkness.

            They could produce Warscrolls for the current “legacy” codices; just imagine seeing, “Iron Warriors gain +1 to saving throws if the player covers one hand with aluminium foil”. 😀

          • Frank Krifka

            AoS is melee focused only because people play that way. There’s plenty of ranged options in AoS but because of the range reduction (now mostly 18″-20″) most players are wary to take advantage of them because they stand a strong chance of being wiped out the next turn (a lot of players don’t really understand how to bubblewrap yet it seems). In most places the AoS meta is still dominated by the tactical holdovers from 8the edition (which often leads to the “scrum in the middle” everyone goes on about).

            One of the things about AoS that would port well to 40k is the reduction of shooting ranges, as so many alpha strike builds in 40k could easily be neutered just by halving (or greatly reducing) the range of shooting weapons. No more 36″-48″ ranges on high-powered shooting attacks means melee threats all of a sudden become very real. Why do you think No DE players take blast pistols? the range is only 6″ and even if you do kill a model or two your pretty much guaranteed to get a face full of thunderhammer next turn.

          • Karru

            The only problem with your comment regarding “because players play that way” is the fact that most AoS units are melee only. All armies have around 2-4 actual range units and then a couple of minor range units that have things like throwing axes and such.

            Also the amount of shots these range units get are usually just 1 and they are not devastating compared to Melee. AoS also happens to support Melee units with nice rules and different abilities that help them get close and personal without the fear of getting blown off before they can even move.

            I don’t see the problem being ranges being too big, since we saw these ranges being a thing in 5th edition and Assaulting was a huge factor back then. Why was this the case? Because the rules were meant to help both tactics, shooting and assaulting. 6th and 7th edition wanted to shift it towards shooting armies for whatever reason. Disembarking and Assaulting on the same turn if the vehicle didn’t move, Disembark after 12″ move, fixed charge distance, Assaulting from Outflank. All these made Assaulting extremely effective, but also something you could counter easily. Now we have things like Overwatch, random charge distances and basically no mobility for these Assault units which makes you gravitate towards Ranged units.

            The reason why Assault units are non-existent is due to the following things:
            – Lack of mobility
            – Lack of Damage compared to Ranged Units
            – High Price/High Risk/Mediocre Reward

            The question these days when taking Assault units is “Why should I take these Melee units when my Ranged unit can do this exact same job a lot better for cheaper?”

          • Frank Krifka

            Regarding AoS, a lot of tactics seen right now in competitive organized play (and comepteive casual play) ARE because players “play that way”. There’s plenty of tactics that can be used to screen shooting units, or (and just as effective, maybe more so) using anvils to pin melee units in place so they can be shot at even if locked in combat (I see very little of this, which is surprising considering how effective it is.)

            Secondly, shooting in AoS terribly effective, but (IMHO) it is very rarely utilized well. Tell me 6 Kurnoth hunters with bows, 30″ range, stacking +2 to to hit, doing D3 damage apiece at -1 rend isn’t effective. Especially considering that unit can easily teleport across the board when approached by a melee unit. I’ve also seen some truly terrible things happen with Skaven warp-grinder teams tunneling across the board with warp-lighting cannons / stormfeinds; basically dropping ranged mortal wound generation with pin-point accuracy anywhere on the board. And that’s just what springs to mind off the top of my head.

            But again, right now most players seem content to stack melee buffs and building melee centric armies. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean its not possible or not there, it just means the larger player base isn’t aware of the tactical synergy available yet.

            Shooting was well a thing in 8th edition fantasy, and we had overwatch before 40k did. It was called “stand and shoot” and it wasn’t at BS 1 either. Likewise random charge distances (which is nearly the same mechanic as 40k) Nobody would have accused melee of being dead in 8th edition fantasy.

            And again, 2 of your 3 “reasons” for assault being dead have to do with a melee units ability to reach combat before getting shot off the board, likewise shooting units are capable of putting out more consecutive turns of damage before a melee unit reaches them. Both those points would be greatly improved just by halving all the current ranges for weapons. I’m not suggesting it would totally solve the problem, because your third point is totally accurate; melee units (in general) do suffer from a poor cost/benefit ratio. But porting some of the movement/shooting changes we saw from 8th ed. to AoS would make dramatic changes to melee effectiveness in 40k without even tweaking point costs (though I would suspect they would still need some tweaking).

          • Karru

            When it comes to a fantasy game like AoS, I’d usually like to go with Melee units. It feels a lot better than just shooting. I believe this is the case with most people that like to focus more on melee units than ranged. It’s not the case of not wanting to go ranged due to it being less effective than melee, it’s just the way they like to play. They are more comfortable with it or they just enjoy melee more overall.

            I’ve seen lists that focus heavily on melee, I’ve seen lists that balance the two and then those that focus on more gun line tactic. All of these lists are completely viable in AoS and I’ve even seen these lists being played on high level. It’s not the case that shooting is worse than melee, I believe it’s more the case of “it’s fantasy and I like to hit people with swords instead of arrows”.

            Also, regarding your comment about halving ranges of all ranged weapons that would make some armies completely unplayable. How is Guard Infantry armies supposed to survive hordes of Orks with their 12″ Lasguns? By the time those Orks are in charge range, those Trukks filled with Orks are already in CC with those Guardsmen. You seem to forget that in the grim darkness of the far future they have invented weapons that can actually reach farther than your average man can spit.

            I’m going to mention this part once again. I never saw long ranges being a problem in 5th edition. You could Outflank those that decided to just turtle on their side of the board with a nice assault unit. You could also take cover behind ruins and buildings since you were basically always guaranteed a 4+ Cover Save.

            The problem with the current weapons isn’t the fact that they have too long range, it’s their stupid damage output. There is so much Str 6-10 blasts that can, or already have, Ignore Cover Saves and low AP. Yes, they can hide on their side of the board safely due to the range, but this could easily be solved with Outflanking or Deep Striking Assault units, but this is not possible in the current edition. Those Outflanking units would have to eat an entire round of shooting before they can even consider the charge.

            Then we have things like Super Heavies and Gargantuans running around in regular games, which causes even more problems. Finally, the lovely fliers that the Assault units can’t even hurt. Making ranges half of what they currently are wouldn’t resolve anything, it would have the opposite effect. Bolters, Lasguns, basically everything that currently has a “short range” and is the common weapon of an army would be made obsolete. People would just abandon them and just focus on the long range fire power that they already do but it just gets worse.

            I’d like to point out that 40k doesn’t have nearly as many melee units as AoS has. Every army doesn’t have the tools to counter a full blown charge without mass shooting, like the Infantry Guard. They rely on their numbers and fire power to wither down the foe before they can charge. How are they supposed to achieve this, when the enemy is already in CC by the time these units can even fire?

            40k does not equal AoS. 40k is a game meant to focus on futuristic combat. I’m having hard time imagining that in the future we are using weapons that can barely reach farther than a person can throw a rock. All they have to do is remove the shooting focus that is 7th and give Assaulting units back everything that made them useful and good in 5th.

          • Agent OfBolas

            terrible idea.

            Future is about shooting. If units in AoS are dumb enough to fail to shoot further than 5 meters with their bow – it’s AoS problem.

            Reducing ranges would be simply dumb. “I can shoot my powerful boltgun up to 20 meters, seems stronk”.

          • Frank Krifka

            Ah, the ole’ realism argument. OK Einstein, here’s some math for you.

            A Space marine in the lore is around 7 feet tall.
            Space marine models are 1.25 inches tall.
            A super futuristic bolt-gun has an in game range of 24″

            if 1.25 inches represents 7 real feet, then a bolt guns real-life range would be (roughly) 135 feet.

            Yea. Seems pretty “stronk” dunit? (Especially considering a Beretta 9mm has an effective range of roughly 150 ft.)

            Ranges in game are aren’t supposed to represent true to life ranges. Because if that were true, a Titan should be able to shoot a target in the next city. Ranges are a balancing mechanism like anything else

          • Karru

            You seem to completely ignore the fact that it’s hard to get the “right feel” of the game when my guy can charge and run farther than a man can shoot. When the range of a Lasgun is 12″ and my Ork boy has a threat range of 18″, I feel like something is wrong.

          • Frank Krifka

            Thats not an invalid point. Reducing Glade Guard long bows to 20″ felt very very strange the first few games. Especially considering an English longbow in mid 1400’s had an effective range of nearly 400 yards.

            But again, tabletop physics and ranges just can’t conform to real world physics because we have to be able to play the game. Stormravens, Valkyries, and void raven bombers would likely be flying far above the field. does it bother you when they are basically all flying 28″ off the ground?

          • Karru

            It doesn’t bother me actually, neither does the fact that a Titan cannot shoot from one city to the next. What does bother me is when a man can run farther than my basic gun can shoot.

          • Frank Krifka

            Firstly, I’d suggest that it doesn’t bother you because your used to it, much like how I am used to the shooting range changes from 8th to AoS.

            Secondly, I might just point out that run distance is not the same as shooting distance. Shooting distance is really just a measure of effective range ( a projectile might be able to travel over’s effective range, but as the game implies, its no longer effective or accurate), while running distance is a measure of ground speed (speed of the thing moving vs the speed of the thing it’s moving over).

            The fact that an Orc could effectively run farther than gun can shoot wouldn’t bother me because one, we have no idea how fast an Orc is in real life, and second, the ranges presented in 40k aren’t reflective of reality anyway.

            In any case, I’d argue my first point above is probably the operative factor here. We make excuses for the physics/mechanics that don’t match reality; simply because they are familiar. We make justifications for TONS of nonsensical/impossible things in 40k that nobody complains about. (like how terminators can ride in a Chimera but not a Rhino when they quite clearly can’t fit in either.)

            But truthfully, these are sacrifices we make when we play a game in 28mm heroic scale.

          • Karru

            And once again it seems that you completely miss my point. I’m not arguing reality here. I’m arguing the fact that 40k works completely differently than AoS or Fantasy does. 40k is based around shooting. It should stay as the main focus, which can be seen when you spend more than 20 seconds reading any codex, since you will notice that pretty much all units have some form of shooting attack.

            When it comes to the gameplay itself, it makes no sense why my Guardsmen can’t shoot farther than they guy running at him can move. Also, you still haven’t answered my question, how are Guardsmen supposed to stop an Ork Charge, when the Orks can move and assault farther than the Guardsmen can shoot?

            Also, can you please stop referring to AoS like it is WHFB, they are not the same game.

          • Frank Krifka

            I’m not missing your point, but I think you might be missing the logic underpinning your own argument.

            When you say, “it makes no sense why my Guardsmen can’t shoot farther than they guy running at him can move.” That (to me) suggests that those two things are incongruous with reality. i.e. things don’t run farther than things can shoot. If I’m mistaken at the implications, then maybe you should reframe your argument. But what I was pointing out what there is a metric fkton to things in 40k that “don’t make sense.” Yet we play them as they do, because not everything in the game can conform to “common sense” when you’re playing a 28mm heroic scale game on a 4′ x 6′ table.

            Secondly, I haven’t answered your question, because you never asked that question. Your exact words were “When the range of a Lasgun is 12″ and my Ork boy has a threat range of 18″, I feel like something is wrong.” No question mark there I can see. And there are plenty of ways to stop an a shooting unit from getting charged by an assault unit. One example is called “put bodyguard in front of it.” you seem like smart guy, I’m sure you’d be able to figure out more if you tried…

            Thirdly I’m not referring to AoS like it’s WHFB. The article were commenting on is the new edition changes from 40k 7th to 40k 8th with some possibility of the rule changes from AoS working their way into the new edition. That in my mind makes a discussion of how the mechanics in WHFB changed when AoS dropped entirely appropriate.

            Finally, I’m not suggesting that 40k transition from a shooting game to a melee game. The issue was that if some of the changes to AoS were ported into 40K shooting would become even more dominant than it is now. I was pointing out that were that to happen, a simple fix that doesn’t require massive massive changes to the game would be a reduction of shooting ranges. Which also addressed your point regarding the (near) irrelevance of assault in 40k now.

            You really should pay more attention to the lines of arguments in different threads. You seem to be confused as to what we’re actually talking about, or are confusing me with another poster.

          • Karru

            Let’s start with something I find very interesting when you say that I don’t pay attention. Go ahead and read my comment that starts with “When it comes to a Fantasy game…”, you might notice a question being asked there.

            Regarding your answer to the said question, what do you consider a “Bodyguard” unit for a Guardsmen? We are talking about something that is supposed to be the meatshield that takes the charge for other units, but that is not their primary role. They are supposed to be able to damage the one they are meant to block, but they cannot do that when they never even get the chance to shoot. Finally, what does it matter if that they are protected from a charger by a bodyguard unit? By the time the charging unit has taken care of the bodyguard unit or vice versa, they have done nothing! That 12″ range can’t shoot anything, since it’s so easy to avoid. What are they supposed to do? Why would I take them, when I can just spam Leman Russes with 36″ range and a far better gun? At least they can fire at the charging unit BEFORE they get close enough to attempt a charge.

            Next up, you are referring to AoS like it’s WHFB. You are saying “how the mechanics in WHFB changed when AoS dropped”. Now, either you are choosing bad wording or you’re not admitting the fact that you are in fact thinking they are the same game. When AoS replaced WHFB, emphasis on replaced, you cannot compare the two systems. You cannot say that something that now works in AoS better than it did in WHFB because they are not the same game. They are two completely different games. That’s like saying that magic is far better in Warmachine that it is in Kings of War.

            Finally, the last part. Reducing ranges will not fix anything. It will make everything even worse. Especially if things like “Grand Alliances” make their way into 40k. It will make armies like Tau and Guard Artillery the dominant weapon in the game, since they will out range everyone in the game without the fear of retaliation, unless they are fighting against each other.

            Anyway, it’s almost 2:30am, I’ve been awake for over 15 hours, need sleep, argument over.

          • euansmith

            As long as he doesn’t zag when he should have zigged.

          • An_Enemy

            It’s effective range is 150′, but good luck hitting with accuracy beyond 30′.

            That’s realism for you.

          • An_Enemy

            Uh huh. Perhaps you should look up what the word “most” means.

            Because MOST AoS armies have one or two ranged options and a lot of others have none whatsoever without breaking theme and cherry picking their Alliance.

            I mean, feel free to point out which of the three units my Ironjawz can pick from have ranged attacks. Without adding Bonesplitterz.

            Unless the ranged attacks you were referring to were 1″ range?

          • Frank Krifka

            The only reason to pick an ironjaws only alliance is to meet your battling requirements from ardboys brutes or gruntas. Since that battle time was pre-Sylvaneth (which marks the start of the new battletomes that include unique items and command abilities) I can’t really see any reason to restrict your unit choices in that way. Especially if you’re missing out on some of the better shooting options destruction has to offer.

            AoS is designed to allow players to pick from the tend alliance for a reason. Sure you can build more focused armies that work thematically, but don’t pretend that’s the only “true” way to build a competitive army in matched play.

          • Frank Krifka

            The only reason to pick an Ironjaws only allegiance is to meet your battleline requirements from ardboys brutes or gruntas. Since that battletome was pre-Sylvaneth (which marks the start of the new battletomes that include unique items and command abilities) I can’t really see any reason to restrict your unit choices in that way. Especially if you’re missing out on some of the better shooting options destruction has to offer.

            AoS is designed to allow players to pick from the grand alliance for a reason. Sure you can build more focused armies that work thematically, but don’t pretend that’s the only “true” way to build a competitive army in matched play.

        • ZeeLobby

          They would literally have to do a full rewrite for all 22 factions. My guess is they won’t be playtested. I mean They would have already had to start, like years ago.

          • zeno666

            Don’t worry, this company doesn’t do playtesting 😉

          • kloosterboer

            …think they didn’t start, years ago? These things don’t happen overnight.

            And they do lots of playtesting, just not in the same meta list building competitive spirit that defines a portion of the playing population.

            By the way, did anyone notice the that latest battle report in the WD ( GSC vs DW) didn’t use points?

          • ZeeLobby

            LOL. You do realize that 7th edition was released 2 years ago right? So you’re telling me they finished 7th and then started playtesting 8th immediately… I call bull on that. If anything they may have started a year ago, after another year of falling sales. Regardless they’ve added about 3/4 new armies since then? I mean I know they existed back in 2nd edition, but for all intents and purposes they’re new. Think about how long it was between the releases of Tau and Necrons. Necrons arrived in 1998, and weren’t official until 2002, that’s 4 years, Tau were in 2001, and it took 2 more years til we saw the next new faction, demonhunters.

            I knew employees of GW back then, and they playtested each new single faction for at least 6 months prior to it’s release. Just to playtest Harlequins, Admech, GNC and Deathwatch should take them 2 years if they want a solid game. They also playtested competitively (GW used to sponsor the biggest competitive events).

            There is no point in playtesting if you only playtest for funsies games. That’s pointless. Might as well remove points and just put entire collections down, cause at that point who cares. If you told me they played 8 games of GSC before it’s release, it wouldn’t shock me. No one can look at their valuation of units and believe that balance was intended.

          • kloosterboer

            They did this, exactly …”Might as well remove points” …and then let the competitive community design their own balancing mechanism, which they co opted, and published.

            And yes, believe it or not, design isn’t necessarily done using waterfall methodologies. Some things overlap.

            While GW has supported the competitive scene, it’s well know that it’s not something they design for.

          • ZeeLobby

            I think you’re confusing “they did this” with “someone else did it and they borrowed it”. And GH didn’t balance AoS. It simply gave a starting point, but some mechanics are still very OP. Most competitive gamers have simply left fantasy at this point and moved on to other games. Which is fine if that’s their goal, but it’s not going to increase their sales numbers.

            I don’t know anyone who works internally now, though I do know some people who know people who work internally, and they have confirmed that the testing process is almost non-existant at this point, which is pretty obvious when you look at any of the rules they produce. Take that as you will, but it is the reality. They simply don’t playtest to a degree that would result in a solid game.

          • euansmith

            I do wish that GW would do more to support their own playing style, with concrete examples of how they make a “fun” game; alternatively, they would push varied styles of play, like with the General’s Handbook.

          • kloosterboer

            …like the most recent Battle Report in the WD, which is a narrative scenario, no points used, just formations chosen.

          • ZeeLobby

            A lot of the turmoil would be avoided if they just said they don’t care about competitive play. But that would alienate a significant portion of their market, as well as go against their desire to start life streaming competitive events. So instead they make the offhand remark occasionally, but then use power levels to help dictate sales. The issue is really the mixed signals in an attempt to get everyone to buy in.

          • euansmith

            Live Streaming some guys hunting through a bunch of codices so they can settle an argument over a special rule interaction 😀

          • ZeeLobby

            That should be the new Warhammer competitive seen. Each player is approached with an in game scenario, and whoever can most eloquently defend their interpretation of the ruling wins!

          • euansmith

            In the Grim Dark Universe of the Future there is only Debate Club!

          • Alpharius

            They have said this

          • danbond

            umm, it did have points. The openable section (between pages 82 and 83) has both army lists with points costs.

          • kloosterboer

            It lists both points costs, however Erik ( the GSC player) comments ” Before the game, we didn’t agree on a points value, but assembled armies we’d like to field…our army lists ended up pretty balanced, anyways….”

      • crcovar

        I run death and stormcast together. It’s quite fun to not use match play.

        • euansmith

          The Death and Stormcast could actually be the same guys; the physical bodies reanimated by Necromancy, and the immortal spirits forged in to be bodies of armour.

          “Hey, look, I can see my old body over there!”

          • dave long island

            Lol

          • Frank Krifka

            Lord Relictors are sort of death/stormcast hybrids aren’t they?

      • Alpharius

        Lol, balance. As if that was ever the goal. GW doesn’t make games for tournaments, turn to FFG for that.

        • Karru

          I’m not looking for tournament level balance. More balanced the game is, more fun you can have with it. Imagine a game where everything is useful. You can play assault armies or you can play horde armies. You can use cover and it actually matters! The list can go on.

          When you can play ANY type of list you want and have a “nail-biter” game, where neither side was steamrolled due to massive unbalance, then you have a good game.

    • Zingbaby

      They really do need to start from scratch with the codex though – as long as they communicate very clearly every step of the way I think they could make it work.

  • vlad78

    ‘This will NOT mean the Sigmarification of 40K, only a carefully selected
    set of rules organization decisions to make learning and playing much
    easier than things are now.’

    LOL
    Who believes that?

    • zeno666

      I pitty those fools.
      This new Age of 40k will have the same board game statline as AoS for sure.
      No Toughness, no Strength. Hell they already removed Movement a long time ago. To hard for the fans to handle 😉

      • Da Masta Cheef

        That or the simplified rules from the battle of Vedros boxes…

        • OldHat

          I think it will be a happy medium between all three current rules (AoS, BoV, and 40k). I think a lot of stuff has been testing the waters and 40k is their flagship game – they need to get it right.

          • vlad78

            They need to produce good ruleset first. Almost all the competition offers better rulesets. GW has NEVER released one.

            I will not touch 8th if the ruleset is poor.
            I’m fed up with stupid rules.

          • OldHat

            5th was great. Not sure if you played it, but it was about as solid as GW has managed for a tight ruleset.

          • vlad78

            Actually it was my favorite 40k system with RT. It had flaws and codex creep totally ruined it but it was a great ruleset .

            Problem is, it still was the yougoIgo system which GW should get rid of in 40K.

    • kloosterboer

      I think what’s meant here, is the complete destruction of the background that happened between End of Times WHFB and the Age of Sigmar.

      While some movement in the timeline of WH40K is anticipated, even some drastic movement, such a splintering of the Imperium possible, we won’t see a complete departure.

      The rules and the way the army lists are presented, on the other hand, will likely see this format change.

  • jcdent

    You can already see an Age of Emperor game, it’s called One Page 40K.

    Culling rules and codexes won’t be too bad, as long as they don’t damage the fluff too much.

    • euansmith

      I like One Pages rule sets. They are not everyone’s cup of tea, but I like the way that they keep things simple and ficus on tabletop effects.

      • ZeeLobby

        As long as there are some points and list building rules within that 1 page, I’m fine with it. If it’s another year of “balance our game for us”, then they’ve really lost me as their target audience. I’m all for collaborative work, but if they won’t contribute significantly to the process, it’s not worth my time, as they won’t keep things updated as they go.

        • euansmith

          The One Page Rules have the basic rules on one side of an A4 sheet, and then the advanced rules on the other side. They then have the army lists on separate sheets. They have around 20 “USRs” which are used by different lists.

          • ZeeLobby

            Ah, OK. I got you. That makes sense. Don’t play any one page games currently, haha.

    • Emprah

      Yeah its the fluff ra pe that ruined AoS.

      • kloosterboer

        It certainly made it hard for lots of people to accept ( initially, or currently). The new fluff will get better, over time…but having grown up with the Old World, ” …it’s so hard, to say goodbye, to yesterday…”

        • jeff white

          fat frat boyz in masks who sleep in their armor and ride Trademarked beasties is what ruined AoS, that is the upper management

          • euansmith

            Frat Boys? I thought they were Hedge Fund Jerks? Or is that Sylvaneth?

          • jeff white

            those treehuggers wouldn’t hurt a fly. no, i m pretty sure that idiots ruined AoS because they hadn’t the patience to get their heads around a nobler way out of a situation of their own making. mostly, i blame the sorts of people who expect to run the world without any idea how to actually run a world, cuz the best answer they seem able to come up with is to destroy the world they were given to trade in on what, exactly, cuz i actually stopped paying attention when i saw the tapestry integrating mythos from around the world and of all times that was the old world become a four-colour card game with different names for everything. just got silly. i liked the idea that in the old warhammer world all mythos were integrated, sort of a hero with a thousand faces Moorcock type thing. that is all lost, really. also gone is the fantastical battle simulation. a lot less simulation going on. rules seem conceived to speed gameplay, not to paint a picture and direct hero tales. i don’t actually aim to merely push plastic prices over an expensive table. there is supposed to be more, there. i expect that it had long gone up some idiot’s nose.

        • vlad78

          Better does not mean good. They can’t make it good. The basis of the AOS fluff is just bad and dumb and rushed and they just don’t have the skill to fix it and they don’t want to fix it.

          • kloosterboer

            …with all due respect – and I appreciate your feelings about the Old World – It’s just getting started. I started when the Old World was young, and had no rich history, other than what was written on the boxes of the Regiments of Renown. Hardly Wikipedia.

            AOS is in it’s infancy. New heroes, villains and stories will arise, both in fiction and in your own heart & memories, should you be playing the game.

            I’m pretty sure GW has both the skill and the passion to make a whole new thing for a whole new generation of players.

          • When the Old World was young, everything didn’t boil down to “these factions exist solely for war and we never want to go into detail as to how they reproduce/replenish their armies or even just find food in a world full of corruption, lava and infertile ground”.

            The Old World never had that problem. It was always rooted in realism, in so far that everything besides daemons and Chaos in certain aspects had limitations and needs, and a basic infrastructure. In AoS, everything simply exists or is fueled by magic.
            In the fiction and campaign books, thousands upon thousands of thousands of Stormcast, Chaos followers, Orcs or others die, and yet there is never really a shortage of new ones. A few novellas tried to temporarily limit the Stormcasts to a handful of elite dudes up against all odds, but even then less than 50 of them take on whole armies and slaughter thousands.

            Barely any attention is being paid to Azyr, even though that is the big stronghold of Order. We know barely anything about it beyond abstract concepts of “its good because Sigmar”. Every civilization introduced in the fiction is a thing of the past and destroyed, or has their last survivor(s) die in the story. There is nothing to seed a new civilization with left, and even IF they used the refugees in Azyr for the task, it would take centuries if not millennia to get to a state of proper civilization that feels like it adapted to its surroundings. With how things are, I cannot see AoS making a big “1000 years later” skip anytime soon.

  • MarcoT

    Big factions are easy. Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, Destruction (nids, orks, necrons). Only the destruction faction would be odd to label as ‘friends’ so they’d have some special rule or something.

    • kevinharoun

      Yeah, I was thinking the same. Tau rolled into Grand Alliance: Eldar. Destruction is “Everything that can’t ally with anyone”.

    • Tau? Unless they get folded into Taudar, which is certainly a possibility, making for a singularity of cheese.

      • Ciaphas Cain

        Maybe he was hoping the little gray men would disappear?

        • MarcoT

          Haha yea, I forgot about them. Perhaps sub-consciously.

      • dave long island

        Mmmmm… singularity of cheese… (Homer drool)…

      • jeff white

        roll to cheese

      • Otter

        Fluff-wise it would make some sense as there have been hints that tge Eldar messed with the tau DNA elevating them i hopes of creating an anti chaos race. Some of the eldar see the Tau as the last best hope for the milky way

    • Eisai

      We can have 5-6 factions, not a problem
      Imperium, Chaos, Nids, Orks, Tau Empire (with Squats!), Eldarish (because Eldar End of Times)

    • Karru

      Imperium, Chaos and Eldar are the only factions that can be rolled into “Grand Alliances”, but no other faction makes sense at all. Not even in Matt Ward levels of fever dream infused lore. There is no believable reason why Necrons, Tyranids, Tau and Orks would work together. All of them need to have their own book. Then there is the problem if they roll Tau into the Eldar book. It completely destroys any logic behind that as well. Yes, Eldar might ally themselves with Tau when it is convenient for them, but long term allies of hugging, sunshine, rainbows and lollipops, is a no go.

      • Severius_Tolluck

        eh… old fluff had it hinted that Tau evolved only because the machinations of the Eldar.. not that exists anymore thanks to retcon… but still.

      • Alpharius

        Those 4 can be in the “miscellaneous xenos scum” book.

    • Old zogwort

      Worst fluff killing idea ever. Do you really want to face an army of Nids orks and crons ?

      • euansmith

        Come on, we know it would be Orkz riding looted ‘nids and ‘crons.

    • Old zogwort

      Also we need less super friends madness, not more.

    • Dan Wilson

      Imperium, Chaos, Xenos (subdivided into Eldar, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons, Tau)

  • Nikita Kuznetsov

    If GW decide to “Sigmarize” W40K then I will stop buying their products forever. I already have ~8000 pts of painted models in 3 different factions and I also have plans (and stuff) to make much more. Life is complicated and interesting at the same time. The same is true for any game or activity. Simplification is the wrong way to manage such a great game universe as W40K

    • kevinharoun

      At 8000 points, what do you need to buy?

      • Charon

        More factions. Most eople do it. Eldar lead me to Dark Eldar and Harlequnis (30k points combined) and CSM led me down to Daemons, KDK and Renegades.

        • Nikita Kuznetsov

          Exactly. All my factions are interconnected:
          – I start with Tyrants Legions (IA9);
          – next is Tau (opposite in game style);
          – and Red Corsairs CSM (Lufgt Huron etc.). Most numerous army at 4.5K points right now and growing (and Chaos have no limits altogether).

          I also have plans to build:
          – small Genestealer cults army (around 1000 pts) – a perfect enemy to any army (and very cool looking);
          – around 2000 pts Loyal Space Marines army in Marines Errant colours (various reasons here: I have a ton of SM models, my CSM and Tyrants legion need SM antagonist, I love Badab war background, etc.).

        • kevinharoun

          Yeah, I was like “ZOMG 8000 points!” then started tally the random Chaos I’d like to make into a 2k list, and those Tau sitting around, and the Death Watch, Sisters, and Dark Angels I’ve got all needing to be made into armies because I play IG. And I still need some stuff for them.

          • Charon

            Yeah cant wait for imperial soliders wounding grots on the same numbers as a greater daemon of nurgle.

          • kevinharoun

            And the daemon will have 1) the same save as before and 2) the same save as the grots?

            There are other ways to put in durability without a Toughness stat.

          • Charon

            While there are mutliple ways to put durability without T, there are just a few ways to put in SPECIFIC durabilites.
            You can have a high S weapon with a bad AP for example, so armor is of more use than T. On the other hand you can have a low S weapon with a good AP, so physcal resilience is a better defense mechanism than armor.

          • Aezeal

            But the deamon will likely have 25 wounds or something and a higher save AND possibly an 5 or 6+ ward save thing.

          • Charon

            Which means even more keeping track of stuff. Accounting is one of the more tedious parts. Also it kills variety for the sake of a few less rolls. S/T relation is one of the easiest things in 40k.

          • kloosterboer

            It works.

          • Charon

            Technically drinking piss also works but it is still disgusting.

          • kloosterboer

            Well, this is just a weird direction for the conversation, but sure.

            If you’re drinking piss for recreation and that works for you, good on ya. I hear that’s a thing.

            If you’re drinking it to survive, be careful. While okay ( if disgusting ) the first time or two ( if you’re that desperate), as the body continues to dehydrate, urine has a higher and higher concentration of waste. I.e, poison.

            Just an FYI.

      • Alpharius

        Everything else? 😛

        I got well over 20K between Legions, Mechanicum, Guard, and Knights.

    • Respectfully disagreeing about the complexity. 40K has gone a bit too far, to the point where people that play all the time (such as on Youtube channels and such) still forget rules. And don’t forget… up until a few months ago literally everyone was playing grenades wrong. That’s quite a big failure for a rule set.

      • kevinharoun

        Agreed. Really hope they can pull off a more elegant set of rules. Just eliminating Toughness would be great.

        • euansmith

          A more elegant set of rules for a more civilised age… oops, wrong fictional Universe.

      • Charon

        Their wonky rule descriptions dont get magicaly better because AOS (AOS just has as many questions rgarding rules). Also people forgetting about rules is not a big issue. Happens when you think you know them all by heart. Try the same thing with AOS and keep all the unit sheets in mind. Not gonna happen.

        • euansmith

          In AoS the basics are simple and the extra rules are written out on your Warscrolls; though it is still possible to forget things. 😉

          • Like showering?

          • euansmith

            I always lick behind my ears.

          • If you can do that, you must be a hit with the ladies…

          • Charon

            It is rare that basic rules are forgotten (as you need them every time), you most often forget about unit rules tbh (or some rarely utilized rules… i cant remember the heroic intervention rules tbf as i never used them a single time)
            A rule I always forget for example is Fear. Most of the time it has no effect anyways.

          • ZeeLobby

            So take the USR rules and print them on the dataslates. I still don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is that they don’t playtest their game. If they did someone would eventually say “this rule doesn’t make sense”. I’d rather have USRs over unit specific special rules as well. In AoS there are many special rules that are practically identical to another units special rule. Ones called “Blood Bloodingtons Super Shout”, +1 to dmg rolls, and the other is called “Super Shiny Space Knights Day Out”, +1 to dmg rolls. Right now it basically requires reading your opponents sheets before every game, and then still forgetting what those tags mean. It should really just be “Frenzy”, +1 to dmg rolls.

          • euansmith

            Indeed. I think that GW put too much effort in to making everything super special and different at the cost of clarity. The rules always tend to read like they are aimed at some notional 12 year old.

          • Aezeal

            It’s very easy to forget things. I’ve actually gone and made a small summary for my current army (Sylvaneth so dealing with the item and spell thingies too) to remind me what I can do with them in each phase (I kept for getting certain abilities in some games).

          • euansmith

            I created a little Army Rosta for my evil Chaos dudes; so all their stats and special rules are condensed on to one page.

          • Mr.Gold

            I tend to do the same when i make a list – the list on one side of A4, and the rules & stats etc. on the other

          • Aezeal

            Yeah but my sylvaneth have TONS of special rules (yoru probably too) and with the new book it also means they can have like 5-7 each, casting 2x turn (in my gnarlwood wargrove). Most have a lot of the same spells but then have a different picked spell and a different spell from the model… it’s messy.
            My opponent yesterday was not happy with the magic phase. And he wasn’t happy with my rerolls either.
            I must admit that when chaos get’s +1 to hit and I get rerolling (often only 1’s) it means that the effect isn’t that much different (well.. his +1 is better ofc) it certainly means I need to do more rolls.

      • J Mad

        Writing the rules and complexity are two completely different things, they rules IMO are the best they ever been in years. The grenades thing is b.c it was written poorly.

    • matty199

      Why would you do that. After the generals handbook we have a LOT more fun with age of sigma than 40k. ite so good playig a wargame that i dont need to consult the rules every few minutes. I understand the rage against age of sigma i was one thing f them- then i played the game now i cant stand 40k rules. The same thing happened when 3rd 40k dropped, it was so different i didnt think id play it- then i played it and never played 2ed again

      • Nikita Kuznetsov

        I’ve played AoS one time and get enough. Yes, It is quick, but rather stupid – two forces meet each other head to head, start uncontrolled melee and player who rolls better wins. At the end of 3rd turn all is resolved. I don’t ask (or need, or want) for this type of “streamlining” for W40K. W40K uniqueness roots in plethora of special rules. Someone can argue “what he can’t remember all the rules”, but may be he must buy a codex for his army, read and study it first? Players (especiall Internet addicted ones) tend to switch between armies quickly using their “Tournament Power level” nonsense as a reference. Not surprising they can’t remember the rules when switching their armies every month (or even week).

      • gordonshumway

        Your experience is not everyone’s experience. AoS is boring and completely devoid of any strategy or thought. Doing the same thing to 40k would be a disaster. I think it’s perfectly reasonable that GW would have a simple game for people who just like to mash dudes together and roll dice and a much more complicated one for people who don’t mind deeper strategy and diverse/complicated rules. Having two very different games is a positive and brings more people to the hobby. Having AoS and Space AoS would be a disaster and drive many people from the hobby. Not to mention just invalidating the codices and resources that were released less than a year before…talk about a slap in the face. The thing was no one played or bought fantasy. People actually play 40k and it is still their cash cow.

  • Andrew Thomas

    It may not come to a full system reboot, but I can name a few subsystems that need a rewrite, as they’ve become useless, clunky, and/or overpowered (Psychic phase, Morale/Leadership, Assault, Saves/cover, USRs in general need to be trimmed back, and ditch all the infinite recursive tables too).

  • MarcoT

    If all codexes become invalid it would hurt, but I’d accept it. For the greater good. Sticking to mistakes because of codex consistency is no good.

    Besides, shelf life seems to be around 3 years anyway. Despite never having done a full reset since 3rd, I’ve still bought 4 Eldar codexes or something. One for each edition. Would this be any different, aside from the big bang?

    • Charon

      Yes as they would have to release everything at once. Currently they do not even manage to update every book once in an edition.

      • Ciaphas Cain

        Ideally they shouldn’t have to.

        • Charon

          If they invalidate all old entries, there is no way past this.

          • Ciaphas Cain

            Agreed. But a good edition is one that clarifies and tidies up and collates new USRs.

            Sure a tweek here and there is good. I think Psychic is fine unlike some others (but many who kvetch want it ditched or made less random so they can powergame with it again) but wouldn’t mind some of the powers tidied up/tweeked.

            I would like to see a new take on Sweeping advance which would be less bent now we have overwatch.

            Now yes even the most conservative new edition with the smallest tweeks can make one or two units better or worse but GW now is willing to update stuff in Campaign Books ect so the need for a totally new ‘dex is reduced.

            I do agree that CSM Nids and Maybe IG could do with a new book though.

          • MarcoT

            A good new edition for GW is one that has easy rules to play, but has depth in it’s strategies. Like xwing. Currently 40k is almost the reverse.

          • Charon

            Psi for one thing is something I really do not like. Because it is the opposite of what you described. It is basically useless if you only take one psyker, so it is “go big or go home”. You need to spam them to make them somewhat useful. On the other hand if you are an army that has no access to psykers you get killed by buffed units without a chance of actual defense.

          • Karru

            Exactly. During 5th edition, Psychic Powers were a fun mechanic that you used when you wanted to mix things up, if you weren’t Eldar or CSM that is. They mostly gave you some minor shooting attacks or nice small buffs. The big thing still was the fact that you could take just one little Librarian and give him 2 Psychic Powers that saw use during the game.

            Now your only option is to spam to win with 3+ Psykers so you can get Invisibility or all the Divination Powers you want. You can’t just take one minor Psyker with Power Level 1 or 2, since it’s so inefficient. You’ll be better off with spending those points on a killy character or more shooting units. Then you have the problem if your opponent brings more Psykers than boys my milkshakes bring to my yard.

            It’s the same thing that Fantasy suffered from during 7th edition with Tzeentch Daemons against everyone else. If you played against Daemons, your Magic was forfeit. It’s the same thing here, if I don’t bring at least 8 Mastery Levels worth of Psykers to the table, I’ll be doomed against someone who did. The opponent will be so over buffed with Invisibility, Re-rolls to everything, Ignore Cover Saves etc.

            Also, I’d like to know, how exactly would people power game if the powers were reduced to the same strength they were in 5th?

          • Ciaphas Cain

            You think that 5th was a good edition?

            Well I don’t think we are on the same page.

            You dislike random stuff to I suspect.

          • Charon

            Random for the sake of random is a bad mechanic. This game has good random rolls and bad random rolls.
            “I roll one dice and if it is High I win, if not I lose before setup” is a bad mechanic.

          • Karru

            Random to the point of illogical, yes.

            I’m a collector first, gamer second. I want my armies to look good and feel good in the game. I want them to feel like the army they are in the lore. I like to make stories for my armies and character. I want them to have personality.

            This is nigh impossible from 6th edition onwards when basically everything was made so random. Why in the Emperor’s name would my Psyker suddenly know two completely different powers than he did last time he fought? Why would my Imperial Guard General decide that today he likes to challenge enemies instead of being a master strategist? I couldn’t care less if my army wins or loses, I just want my army to make sense.

            I’m not saying that 5th edition was without flaws, but it was 100x times better than this garbage we have now.

          • The randomness of generating psychic powers is absolutely asinine.

          • Ciaphas Cain

            If you are playing a Narrative campaign then sure let you Warlord keep his trait and your psyker his powers from game to game until they die. It’s YOU game, you play how you like

            But in random pick up or tourny games he’s not the same guy . You don’t order a Psyker with a set power, its not hat exact a science. You cn ask them to send you a Biomancy or a Telepathy guy but after that you are on your own.

            You won’t always have the right guy for the right job because thats not how the world works.

            Basically if I have this right because you don’t like randomness you would rather go back to a bad edition where the random things didn’t exist or were less powerful.

            Also are you really a fluffy player? because the folks I’ve found scream the most about random stuff are the WAAC guys. Sometimes they’ll use a lame badly thought out psuedo fluff argument. Like this one.

          • Karru

            You ask me if I am a fluffy player? Let me ask you something. How can you be “fluffy” if you cannot predict anything you make for your army? For example, in Chaos 3.5 edition, I could choose my mutations for all my characters as well as my Possessed. This gave me an amazing conversion possibilities. Not possible any more. I have two relatively strict rules when I play my armies. They have to be painted and they have to WYSIWYG. This is what gives them personality and this is where I base my armies lore around.

            For example, if I was playing Chaos 3.5 army, I’d maybe give my Chaos Lord Daemon Armour, Essence and Mutation. I would model him with very detailed and posh armour and a few mutated tentacles with spikes on them. That way, my opponent would see it and realise immediately that he has Armour and Mutation on him or if he doesn’t I just need to tell him what he has and most likely never need to remind him again during the game.

            Not possible any more. I cannot predict what my D66 roll is on my Gift of Mutation. I can’t model him with mutation since they don’t give him anything and the baseline Lord is completely pure according to the rules. Even if you give him equipment, he still remains as completely pure, outside of possibly Mark of Nurgle.

            Also, regarding Psychic Powers. So you are saying that Eldrad is completely different person each time you play? Same with Ahriman and Tigurius? When it is a generic character in the rules, I understand that they can have their RNG Psychic Powers and can be random. But when a Named Character comes into play that is supposed to be one of the “mightiest Psykers in the universe”, they suddenly can’t for the life of them remember some of the powers they use regularly?

            Finally, bad edition?! You say that 5th edition was bad compared to 6th/7th?! Haven’t you been reading anything that people have commented since they got released!? This is the worst edition in 40k history. I don’t remember any hate or whining of this calibre during those days before Necrons and Grey Knights got released. We also saw a lot more variety with builds, even in tournament play since the more competitive you get, less RNG you want to involve. This leads to the boring mono lists we see now that include only 3-4 different units that don’t care about certain powers or abilities being rolled in order to work properly.

            Let’s try to put it this way, since it seems you missed my point. Like I said, I am a collector first, player second. I have also now said my rules regarding how I play with my models. 6th and 7th editions makes this part more and more difficult and boring with more RNG that they put out. This is something that AoS does so much better, since you have the option to roll or pick your relic/trait.

            I like to theme my armies. I enjoy making a set theme for them that I model and paint accordingly and then use them in the game. GW makes this more and more unreliable and thus removes the entire point of a theme during some games since the theme could focus around certain tactic or powers. It’s not a matter of WAAC, it’s the matter of choice. How can I experiment with insane themes when some would require me to roll a certain result? Before you go blabbering about something stupid like “you just hide you need to WAAC behind an excuse you call theme”, I’d like to point out a few little facts.

            First, the armies I currently play. My biggest, Ultramarines 5th Company Space Marines, pretty straight forward, Codex Astartes focus with balanced list of Tactical Marines, Devastators, Assault Marines with supporting elements from the armoury and 1st Company.

            Then comes the Il-Kaithe Eldar with focus on Guardians, Rangers and Warlocks. The usual list always involves at least 2 units of 20 Guardians and 10 Rangers, from there it’s free reign. No Jetbikes, since I don’t like the model that much.

            Third army is Imperial Guard Infantry Company with minor Armour Support. I field large sized Infantry Platoons with Armoured Sentinel Support and 2 Leman Russes thrown in for good measure. These two variants are Eradicator and Punisher.

            Fourth Army I just started is Orks. Goffs under the leadership of Warlord Gorgul ‘umiestompa that has ravaged the 4 Imperial Planets and has “persuaded” a few other clans to join him. The most recent ransacked world was the Home world of the Black Liberators Chapter (a very old chapter I made back when I was still starting but never got around to finishing them) and now they mock the Imperials with their Looted ‘umie Tanks and Trukks. Knowing that many Space Marines don’t like to look of desecrating the memory of their fellows, the fight they will draw to them will be nice and proper!

            This army consists of basic Mechanised Boys in Trukks with some minor presence of Evil Sunz Bikers and Meks as well as Kommandos from the Blood Axes. All the Bosses and their bodyguards ride into battle in Looted Space Marine vehicles that still bear the markings and colours of their original owners. Some also still bear their original operators as ornaments.

            If this still makes you feel like I am a WAAC player, then go ahead, I won’t stop you, but I won’t continue to argue with you either. The bottom line is, I like to play with fun units and create tactics based around said units. I want the entire army to be in complete synergy. This is why it is sad to not be able to field certain units due to them being so RNG that if you don’t roll the required ability or power, they no longer work with the theme or synergy. This is the reason why I don’t play CSM any more. I tried to do a KDK army, but it felt very boring since Khorne doesn’t really allow for much variety in tactics or play style. Then there is the lack of choice with CSM codex since you can’t really make different themes that don’t spin around the “fresh renegades that have gone mad but still haven’t mutated” idea.

          • Ciaphas Cain

            I find this is somewhat overblown but I’ll not waste my keystrokes on debating this as you’ve stated you dislike Psychics already.

            It feels like it did in 2nd ed and I like that.

            I will agree about the lack of access issues though. I was disappointed that the Necrons and Dark Eldar didn’t have funky anti Psy Tech like they have in the fluff.

          • Charon

            I really liked them in 2nd (and i liked the complexity mechanic that fantasy replaced it with). Your cards were limited, dispell was more effective than now and there was a lot of risk involved. So no, it feels nowhere like 2nd.

          • JJ

            2nd edition worked because it was a smaller game. The size of 6-7th is the issue. It’s why the h2h system works for necromunda but not 40k.

        • ZeeLobby

          Ideally they’d playtest. That’s the bigger issue. They could release new books and factions year round if they actually playtested them against every other faction available. Just looking at the current state, it’s pretty obvious they don’t do that right now.

          • Ciaphas Cain

            Oh Gwd, the ‘They don’t play test’ myth. Yep I’m done.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean I can point to 50 things over the past year that should have been ironed out with basic playtesting. Can you offer any evidence that they do playtest? I actually knew GW employees back when 4th/5th were released, and they hardly play tested then, and the game was in a much better state than it is now.

            Heck, even the Generals Handbook was derived from an externally developed comp. Don’t you think GW would have had an internal one ready to go if they’d playtested their factions?

      • carlisimo

        When 3rd edition wiped everything out, its rulebook came with very simple army lists for the major factions. Only the most basic universal special rules were in there, and Space Marines had to live with a generic list until their various codices came out. If you had special units, you had to use them as something not so special.

        It was annoying if your codex didn’t come out right away, but in the end it worked out well. 40k probably needs a similar reboot.

    • JJ

      As someone who has waited since 2nd edition for the GSK to be a legal army, I’m going to be very angry if that codex is invalidated so quickly.

      • MarcoT

        It wouldn’t be fully invalidated. The incredibly awesome fluff and art still stand, and I’m running on the assumption we get freely available rules like AoS, so you’d still have your rules too.

  • Randy Randalman

    It won’t be condensed into four big books.

    Besides, while that does get you all the rules to play in AoS, the sub-faction – or Allegiance – books are still a thing for those wanting fluff, themes, and battalions.

    40k needs trimming, but it also still needs to be it’s own game. It isn’t losing money like Fantasy was. It isn’t hemorrhaging players like Fantasy was.

    If condensing happened, it would have to be all Space Marines in one, and all CSM’s in one. Sorry snowflake Chapters and Legions: you’ll still have rules, but you’ll be in one tome.

    That would cut down on ten books right there and free up shelf space.

    • Fantasy wasn’t *losing* money either. It just had a lower profit margin than the bigwigs wanted from it, while putting in the least amount of effort possible. It made its money back and then some, but not enough to keep shareholders happy.

    • Old zogwort

      No you need some trimming.
      But seriously, the lets trim down the factions is just an other way of saying that I can’t play with my toys just because you don’t like them..

    • ZeeLobby

      Well. 40K might actually be losing players. If AoS generated more sales last year than fantasy did in the past several, but there was an overall drop in sales total, it had to be coming from somewhere.

      I like your condensing idea though. It’d also hopefully mean we don’t get the power gaps between say DA/SW and BA, as all chapters will share the same core rules.

      • euansmith

        It wouldn’t take much to give each Chapter its own flavour, without going over the top on special rules and relics.

        Black Templars: can take Assault Marines as Troops
        Blood Angels: can take Jump Pack Assault Marines as Troops
        Grey Knights: can upgrade Tactical Squad Sergeants to Librarians
        Iron Hands: can upgrade Tactical Squad Sergeants to Techmarines
        Space Wolves: can get access to monstrous cavalry
        Ultramarines: can take Grav Centurions Knight Titans Vanguard as Troops

  • Sleeplessknight

    Heck, just go back to 3rd ed. There’s simplification for ya.

    • Ciaphas Cain

      No please no.

      Do you actually remember 3rd?

      • Djbz

        Vehicles were virtually indestructable and psychic powers were pathetic.
        And Chaos Space Marines were considered “OP” even though they had to pay through the nose for their power leaving them with almost nothing on the table

        • Ciaphas Cain

          And the Fluff was non-existant, powergamers were everywhere and the game was dull as hell.

  • Ciaphas Cain

    If GW thinks ‘Faction Sprawl is a bad thing why are they still pumping out at least 1 or 2 new factions a year?

    That and the fact that none of the rumour monger have put their (fake internet) name to it makes this smell like bat guano.

  • miteyheroes

    A cheap 40k starter set that comes with the rule book and just a squad each?

    Already exists.

    https://www.games-workshop.com/en-WW/Warhammer-40000-Killteam

    • Ciaphas Cain

      If only I could find someone to take the filthy Tu off my hands.

      • miteyheroes

        Yeah, I have no idea what to do with them… Probably they’ll end up as hacked-up casualty on my bases.

  • E65

    All they have to do is release supplements of “warscrolls” with data for play for each faction with minor introductory fluff and referring to the appropriate codex for full fluff and unit details and army list. Then charge reasonable prices like the AoS version. Is it a LOT of work, yes. Is it rocket science, no.

    The dumb thing is, they virtually did it with the Codex range, but chose instead to put wasteful oversized photos on each unit page with no points, no special rules, no weapon/upgrade rules.

  • Roy McPherson

    I want to get into other armies. In Australia, it costs $83 for a codex. I have Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, Eldar and Inquisition. Every update = 4 x 83. WHY would I get into other armies when just for the army book I have such a large payout. In fact its the VERY reason I wont get into other armies. Id love to. Make it 4 books for $83 books each and ill get into heaps of new armies. Id rather spend my dollars on models and play the game. Go to any bookstore. How many books are $80 bucks… NOT MANY! Price of books stops me collectin.g Go back to 3th ed for me!

    • Ciaphas Cain

      If money is an issue for you this may not be the hobby for you.

      While I get the the ‘Sticker Shock’ of the $83 don’t think of it like a book you buy,read then never look at again. Its something that you should be using for up to 4 or 5 years.

      • E65

        Put a hat on it and take photo in the mirror

      • euansmith

        “… you should be using for up to 4 or 5 years.”

        Or until the next version is released. I guess this makes something like the Sister’s Codex really good value for money. 😉

        • ZeeLobby

          Or the Eldar or IK books bad value, haha.

      • ZeeLobby

        Should be, but sometimes are not. Variability is something they struggle with. Some factions lay stagnant for 13 years, others are updated every 2.

    • JJ

      AUS min wage $16.87… 83/16.87 = 4.91 hours
      US min wage $ 7.25 ….50/7.25 = 11.03 hours

      Some how i’m starting to feel less sorry for the AUS players who complain about GW prices.

  • Master Avoghai

    Please BOLS, stop with that “hobby insider” rumours…

    Hobby insiders could mean anything and make lose credit to your announcement… After all, the manager of the one man store beside your flat is an hobby insider…

    • Ciaphas Cain

      This! A thousand times this.

    • But you clicked on it and were exposed to the ads, so they made money out of it. Why on Earth would they stop?

      The only way to win is not to play. Stop coming to this site altogether, and get your news from a blogger who diligently filters out all the speculation (and works for free).

      Personally, I think the rest of the news and the comments make this site worthwhile, even if they have to go all National Enquirer now and again to make a buck. It’s the nature of media nowadays. Unless you have a massive EMP bomb that can take down the whole internet, you’d better learn to live with it. 🙂

      • ZeeLobby

        The problem is you never know from the title. It could have come from the CEO himself before you click on the page…

    • For the record the phrase is “industry insider”.

  • I can’t imagine any game company would expend so much effort to produce a series of rulebooks only to render them all pointless only weeks later….

    Oh right….!

    40k is a mess I’d rather they just did a quick release of new codexes for the existing factions

    Marines (all)
    Admech (all including knights)
    Guard
    Eldar
    Dark eldar
    Chaos (all)
    Orks
    Nids
    Tau

    Extra chapter rules could easily be dealt with by a small PDF for each chapter,
    That’s still 9 books but gw could (try to) “fix” 40k in a year

    And to be honest the sm, tau and eldar books don’t need changing.

    • Kevin Buesse

      Eldar need a whack with the nerf bat, and the SM Gladius needs tweaking to remove the free transport.

  • BeastOfShadow

    Personally I’d love for someone to do a second to third edition style job on the game. The game has been an absolute mess ever since a year or two into 5th edition and has just spiraled since then with the addition of Flyers, Super Heavies, the psychic phase, formations, ect…

  • I don’t buy them getting rid of codices. If they were to do that by 2017, even by Q2 2017, they wouldn’t release new ones as they’re doing. Deathwatch, Genestealer Cults…

    I do believe there will be less codices, with some faction getting mixed in one big codex, like a big astartes one, or one big Eldar one (Harlequins, Dark Eldars, Eldars in one book), and then a few factions getting a single codex (like Orks or Necrons). plus I foresee a big do-over for Chaos in 40K.

    • When did they release the last WHFB codex before End Times?

      I’ll just let that sink in.

  • David Leimbach

    Lets be honest. Nobody plays 40k because it’s the best ruleset. They can completely change the game and as long as we can still field our armies and make a challenge of it in the same universe, we’ll all be happy.

    • ZeeLobby

      Well. Less people play it every year because of it’s ruleset. In the end we play tabletop games because they’re fun. A game where your faction is the cause of you losing 9/10 games, isn’t fun anymore.

  • Arthfael

    The thing with broader factions is in 40k you cannot simplify beyond Imperium / Chaos / Eldar / Orks / Necrons / Tau / Tyranids, which is already good as simplifications go. You could try bunching Tau with Eldar *yeah, Eldrad reportedly likes Tau) but even that would be stretching the fluff quite a bit too much.

    • Kevin Buesse

      Really just cramming Imperials all in together removed like 12 of the 20 books so that’d be an excellent start

      • Arthfael

        That’d be a massive book though. They could one big for all Adeptus Astartes and another big one for all Guard, Sisters, Inquisition, Assassins, Mechanicum and if in a good mood throw in Arbites…

  • Painjunky

    Would GW be soo dumb as to invalidate well received codex’s (deathwatch and GSC) mere months after they are released???
    I would hope not!

    • They do work several months in advance, so it’s possible they wouldn’t factor in the response to any codex, because it would already be too late to change future plans.

  • Old zogwort

    I am a hobby insider. But you don’t see me preaching all doom gloom and your army will be invalidated soon.

    • Maybe you’re not deep enough inside. 🙂

      • Parthis

        That’s what… she… s… no, I won’t. I’m not that guy.

    • euansmith

      I’m a hobby outside. A bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks.

  • SupPupPup

    I am a hobby insider and what you say is complete rubbish.

  • Heinz Fiction

    They should get rid of the codices and put all army lists in the core book like everybody else does. Removes the new edition inertia and cuts the entry costs significantly.

    • Adrien Fowl

      That would be a great way to deal with that big problem.

  • ZeeLobby

    LoL. SEE. This is the ridiculous shizzle I’ve been talking about, them pumping out factions left and right.

  • Defenestratus

    I can think of nothing I like about these rumors.

    • Adrien Fowl

      After reading almost all comments on every post with rumours about the new edition changes, I think most players can use some streamlining on the rules.

      I understand that changes always bring some kind of fear or uncertainty but, you can always keep playing 7ed with its current codexes, right?

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah, It’s a pretty common thing. I also don’t think factions will “go away”, just be condensed.

      • Commissar Molotov

        “You can always find a place to go duckpin bowling, right?”

  • Adrien Fowl

    I think there are a lot of things to comment here, but first things first.

    Cutting down on factions looks logical. With 20 core factions it has to be pretty difficult to balance everything and keep them all updated. Some people are complaining that it would make no sense just to cut everything down into just four factions.

    Why do you assume that it would be only four factions? Even if GW wanted to give 40k the same treatment as they did with AoS, why would they decide to sum everything up in just four factions? Some readers have stated that it could be six or seven factions and that would be the most intelligente move to make.

    Releasing a small and unexpensive box set that can get new hobbyist into the game sounds like an intelligent move. They already did this with AoS and I guess the results were good enough to make this move also in 40k.

    When AoS was released, all units got their own warscrolls released for free on GW’s website. I suppose they could do exactly the same and everybody would be happy. If the fluff remains unchanged, why would players be upset?

  • ChubToad

    I hope that at least GW knows that with this new edition they won’t be able to make everyone happy, and that any changes done will produce a massive amount of tears, hatred and clogged forums with complaints.

    I mean just take a look at any comments section right now. Everyone has a different idea and opinion on what exactly is the best 40k possible. The fact that there’s no consensus on what’s to fix or what’s good about the actual rules set, is just proof that no one has a clue about this issue.

    • Adrien Fowl

      There are a lot of people who are not happy with the current edition, I am sure I am not the only one, so yeah, I agree it will be pretty hard to make everyone happy with a new edition.

      • euansmith

        But, as long as they make the majority of me happy, I’ll be okay with that. 😉

  • MightyOrang

    So having introduced new factions to universal acclaim they’re going to blow up the whole game?

    Yeah that sounds like GW.

    😛

    • karloss01

      Well it would be just like Fantasy around my area.
      – End Time books are released
      – Everyone starts playing again or begins collecting for the first time.
      – End the world and release Age of Sigmar.
      – No one wants this and the gaming club shuts down due to lack of players.

      I mean the new Warhammer shop is doing well because the manager is one of those awesome guys who tries really hard to keep the hobby going; and I greatly respect him to the point I’ll pay full price at his store instead of supporting local businesses like I should because boo the corporations.

  • zeno666

    Hahaha! LOL!
    *sound of Ju-87 Stuka dive bomber*

  • MightyOrang

    GW need to understand that it’s not the number of factions as much as it is the formations built to sell miniatures and the managers at the high price points

    So way cheaper starter box would be great – – but if that’s the case why isn’t kill team selling like hotcakes

    #BringbackBlackReach

    • euansmith

      Cue, The Doors, “This is the end” and the thwop-thrwop-thwop of approaching Deffkoptaz. Happy days.

  • Robert Meade

    Well, looks like I won’t be buying any rulebooks for the next half year…

    And I’m very salty about what they are going to do with this. Its will likely be the same badly thought out, poorly playtested rules, with the added benefit that hundreds of dollars go down the drain. Hope the community migrates to a better ruleset to be honest. As for the miniatures I’ll always be addicted…

  • GreekSauce

    Mark my words, battle brothers will be gone and the factions will be:
    Imperium of Man (All Astartes Chapters, Admech, Inquisition, Sisters, Assassins, Grey Knights, IG, Storm troopers, Imperial Knights, etc…)

    Forces of Chaos (All CSM warbands, dark mechanicus, renegade knights, demons, demonkin and supplements – Lost and the Damned)

    Forces of Death (Tyranids, Genestealers, Orks)

    Xenos Grand Alliance (Eldar, Harlequins, Tau)

    Forces of Destruction (Necrons, Dark Eldar, *NEW XENOS RACE*(rak’gol)

  • Emprah

    I can see the following factions:
    Imperium
    Chaos with demons.
    Eldar with Harlequins and Dark Eldar
    Orks
    Tau with auxiliaries
    Necrons
    Tyranids with genestealer cults

    Imperium can be split up to:
    Space marines (All of them, maybe GK and DW with =I=)
    Imperial guard
    Inquisition (Assassins, Inquisition, Sisters?)

    Adeptus Mechanicus with Skitarii.

    • Da Masta Cheef

      No Chaos huh?

      • Benderisgreat

        Nope, Chaos is gone, replaced by Lizardmen. 😛

  • krisbrowne42

    I love some of this idea… The rules need a cleanup, the units are a horrible mismash of stuff that’s been marred by mismatch of points and an inflation of USRs and snowflake options… As someone who tends towards fluffy, narrative-focused armies, I can see the benefits of doing the AoS style alliances and tag-focused detachments…

    Example army which is messy in the current version – Ordo Xenos made up of a Tempestus formation (Inquisition Stormtroopers), an Inquisitorial detachment, and a Deathwatch detachment. It works, but under AoS-style orgs would be a lot easier to organize with less taxes.

  • Bryan Ruhe

    Wish #1: Free, downloadable game rules!
    Wish #2: Free, downloadable unit rules!
    Wish #3: A 40K “General’s Handbook!”
    Wish #4: Physical books with unit rules (like the Warscroll Compendiums), for those that want them!
    Wish #5: “Coffee Table” style “fluff books” for each faction (like the Imperial Knights Companion)!

    Keep the rules separate from the fluff…
    Make the rules readily available in all formats, but free digitally…
    Compile the fluffy stuff into collector books that could be placed on display next to the models, so that “outsiders” aren’t faced with numbers, tables, and game rules…

    This is my personal wish list for 40K.

    • kloosterboer

      I like it. Bryan Ruhe for Emperor.

      Assuming the current one finally passes into the Void.

      • euansmith

        It all depends on whether Mrs Wimbleton remembers to plug the Golden Throne back in after using the plug socket to vacuum the Throne Room.

        • Bryan Ruhe

          I’ll ask Horus to have a word with Mrs. Wimbleton.

    • ZeeLobby

      I’d be fine with rules mixed with fluff, as long as rules were also provided for free (or reasonable pricing) digitally, like most other companies do. Personally I just think it’s insane right now that if I want a digital version of a book, and the physical version to read on the couch, I have to basically buy it twice at full price. If they just started including unique codes in the books that’d be a HUGE first step.

    • OldHat

      So, basically make it like AoS without the fluff reboot?

      • ZeeLobby

        I mean that’s just not enough for our group, but I’m sure it’ll satisfy some.

      • Admiral Raptor

        Let’s hope so!

  • SacTownBrian

    We have this discussion with the local GW store manager all the time. AoS is very simple to teach and easy for new players to get started. A starter box (and hobby supplies) and an app and they are good to go. 40k is mind boggling complex at the moment and difficult to teach resulting in a very steep learning curve. Be happy with all the latest codex releases. This is GWs way of sending 40k 7th out with a bang.

  • Deathwing

    If i had to condense them down I would do 5 nominal TOMES.

    Tome Imperials: Skittari, cult mechanicus, Astra militarum, imperial knights, inquisition, sisters of battle
    Tome Astrates : Space marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, Deathwatch,Grey Knights
    Tome Ancients: Necrons, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Tau (makes more sense here than elsewhere)
    Tome Destruction: Orks, Tyranids, genestealer cults,
    Tome Chaos: Renegade Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Legions, Chaos Daemons, Renegade Knights, Cults, Renegade Mechanicum

    • Deathwing

      The tome destruction may be a bit light compared to the others, maybe put tau in there, but fluff wise they are a lot different than the orks or tyranids. The tome astrates would likely be the largest of the 5, followed by either chaos or imperialis, then ancients then destruction

  • Kk

    WARNING: SUPER DETAILED FACTION BREAKDOWN BELOW

    I can see this working for sure. I think they’ve been resurrecting so many old factions so each of these new Super-Factions will be fully fleshed out by the time the new edition comes out. Good chance to consolidate all the factions as well, with Tyranids for example it would eliminate the need for multiple books to make them playable.

    Faction Guesses:

    1 – IMPERIUM
    Space Marines, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Inquisition, Sororitas, Mechanicus, Skitarii, Militarum, Assassins, Arbites (Will be out soon), Knights. With the imminent return of the Primarchs, I think we see a shift in the Lore, hence the grouping of all the factions together.

    2 – CHAOS
    Daemons (Sub-Factions would include unified or one for each god), Deamonkin (As many as they decide to roll out), Legions (Anticipate with the Daemon Primarchs, these will become different to generic CSM’s. Could incorporate some 30K units, distinguish visually from CSM), Chaos Space Marines, Lost and the Damned. Fluff wise, with the the Daemon Primarchs taking centre stage, I think we will see a return to strength in the Legions, as Abbadon and co will lose control.

    3 – ELDAR
    Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Exodites, could see some new sub-factions depending on how the fluff works out, options could be Pirates and some God specific forces, such as forces dedicated Ynnead who have been rescued from Slannesh, maybe in spirit or ghostly form, or some dedicated to Khaine. Think the new fluff is gonna lead to a resurgence in the Eldar race.

    4 – TYRANIDS
    Tyranids, Genestealer Cults. Could possibly even diversify the Cults into Hybrid focused ramshackle cults and a more Militarum centred force, calling it Brood Brothers or something. Genestealer Cult Orks or Tau could be fun as well.

    5 – ORKS
    Orks, Waagh Ghazzy, Feral Orks maybe for diversification. Squig heavy lists are a possibility.

    6 – TAU EMPIRE
    Tau, Farsight Enclaves, Kroot (Even more fleshed out), Vespids (Fully fleshed out Sub-Faction), Gue’Vesa (interesting oppertunity here to make a human faction, complemented with Tau technology. Fusion of Tau and Militarum perhaps.) Tarellians (flesh them out as a faction, make them Lizardmen in space), Demiurge (Use this as a chance to bring back Squats for the new editions), Nicassar could also be added. Huge potential to make them have a massive catalog.

    7 – NECRONS
    Necrons (option to diversify here could be to spread out based on differing empires), C’Tan (somehow expand this into a more realised sub-faction?). An option would be to visually split them apart, with the old, Space Terminators visual on one side, and the newer Space Egyptians on the other.

    • Kk

      Also, Alpha Legion as their own Faction.

      • Admiral Raptor

        And as every other faction simultaneously.

    • Admiral Raptor

      Put all the Xenos in one book but don’t treat them all as one faction, they don’t all need their own faction book.

      Your Imperial, Chaos, and Eldar factions look perfect.

      • Kk

        Thanks! I’d love to the Tau expanded hugely, even though I don’t play them I feel like the multi-species aspect of their faction could be really played up.

        • Admiral Raptor

          GW is missing a huge opportunity by ignoring the Tau client races. To me they were always more interesting as an amalgamation of alien races fighting for the greater good, instead of the everything is mechs faction they’ve become.

  • Henry Faulkner

    the main difference between a 40k “reboot” and the wfb one, is that 40k has a large player base that they need to keep on board, as well as drawing in new members, it’s a much harder balance to strike imo

  • Commissar Molotov

    The current game is unwieldy, but playable. I just don’t trust Gee Dub not to turn any 40K reboot into a steaming pile of AoS.

    • Admiral Raptor

      Exactly! Why would you want to trade in the bloated 4+ hour slog that is 40k for a funner, faster game where the winner isn’t decided during list building?

      • Commissar Molotov

        If you think AoS is “funner,” I’ve got some rocks and shiny bits of foil that you’re absolutely gonna LOVE!

        • kloosterboer

          Let’s have em, then.

          Tinfoil makes a great hat.

          • Commissar Molotov

            I am wrapping said rocks in shiny bits of foil even as we speak!

        • Admiral Raptor

          Random debris from your garbage can > 40k

  • Edouard Decaen

    I will make my own 40k with blackjack and hookers

  • Iron Father Stronos

    Imperial
    Astartes
    Xenos
    Chaos

    This is how I would group the codexes. Make 4 big thick books and be done with it.

  • Mr.Gold

    1. Imperium
    2. Chaos
    3. Eldar
    4. Other Xenos

  • Alpharius

    I did this exercise a few days ago in the thread about 20 main factions.

    Imperial Forces: Inquisition, Mechanicus, Sisters of Battle, Imperial Knights, Imperial Guard

    Space Marines: all the chapters, deathwatch, grey knights

    Eldar: Craftworld, Dark, Harlequins

    Pests: Necrons, Tyranids, Genestealer Cults, Tau, Orks

  • Sam Nolton

    I imagine “Grand Alliance” Books would be Imperium, Astartes, Chaos, and Xenos.

    But…the point in Age of Sigmar is that they ARE grand alliances of these factions. 40k is different – while Imperium and Astartes would indeed be aligned, not all Xenos races would (although i guess it’s not inconceivable that the Xenos races, feeling threatened by the Imperium might decide to band together – except for Tyranids).

  • CthulhuDawg

    I’ve had a feeling that codices were going the way of the dodo for awhile now and have opted out of a bunch of books I would have otherwise bought.

  • Simon

    “We haven’t seen GW do such a thing since 1998’s 3rd edition, almost 20 years back. I honestly don’t know if GW would have the stomach for such a move with literally dozens of current codices out there.”

    …Except we just saw them do it when they destroyed WFB and created AoS as recently in 2015. I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t do it to 40K.

  • Alpharius

    I don’t much care about the rules, I just don’t want them to crap all over the setting and fluff like they did with AoS. They made a big mistake scrapping the old world.

    Bigger concern is what will happen to Age of Darkness HH. I hope they keep 7th as a legacy ruleset since except for a few needed tweaks (like if the FAQ applies), 30K is basically 40K when it worked.

  • Chris Cook

    I call BS on armies being cut altogether. Otherwise they wouldn’t have just invested in a he GS Cult injection moulded plastic line. Likewise for the upcoming plastic Sisters if they are going to kill of codices. If anything it will be grouping some together where they can. The main concentration will be main rules and lesser books like Death from the Skies which is likely to be scrapped

  • Mike Salamandrin

    At absolute minimum:
    The Imperium of Man (=I=, SoB, AdMech, Skitarii, IG, Sions, Assassins, Knights, Adeptus Astartes)
    The Lost and Damned (Daemons, Chaos Cultist, mutant hoards, traitor guard, Dark Mechanicus, Chaos Marines, Fallen Knights; plus God variants)
    The Alien Empires (All Ork Clans, All Eldar Factions, Tau, Kroot, Necron)
    The Great Devourer (GS Cult, Nids; could sub-divide and balance by invasion stages)

  • Carey_Mahoney

    Doesn’t sound very promising… No good feeling with these news.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Alliances:

    Imperium
    Chaos
    Eldar/Dark Eldar/Tau
    Orks/Nids/Crons

    • Nyyppä

      There’s your oomies, emoomies, the good xenos and the bad xenos.

  • DeadlyYellow

    I personally would like to see a system somewhere between Dawn of War 2 and Warmachine– Base squads consisting of a specialized weapon team leader and cronies, with additional tactical support; less emphasis on heavy vehicles; formations discarded in favor of theme lists.

    But I favor smaller games, so the general glut and grind of 40k is unappealing.

    Do not know how they could consolidate down well since the Imperium feels like it makes up about 50% – 60% of their 40k line.

  • Davor Mackovic

    Is this when the Genestealer Cult will get it’s Flyers? 😛

  • Col. Duke Lacrosse

    As a ‘Nid and Guard player who’s best friend plays Orks, I speak for both of us when I say this new edition can’t come fast enough.

    For bottom tier codexes, 40k is, at best, watching someone with a better (more powerful, more interesting, more flexible, more exciting, more varied) ruleset having more fun than you are.

    At worst its just a chore of deploying models you know will accomplish nothing, using special rules that are unreliable or even harmful to your army, spamming that 1 decent model game after game after game, and pretending like you’re enjoying yourself for your opponent’s sake.

    I’ll be honest. I want nothing more than clean-slate rewrite and I say this as someone with 13 years invested in this game.

    • Nyyppä

      This. I’m betting that CSM and Sisters players are right there with you.

  • Mikey_V

    All of this Age of Sigmarizing 40K conspiracy theory is really getting exhausting. I’m not going to say it’ll never happen, but it will likely NEVER happen. For one thing, development of WHFB was hemorrhaging money. 40K is GW’s cash cow. There’s no need for anything on that level. Second, in the couple of years leading up to end times, there was a notable absence of WHFB releases and updates. Whereas 40k is only getting more and more. New armies, campaign supplements, etc. To invalidate a codex quickly isn’t unheard of, like they did with Imperial Knights. But invalidating 20+ codicies while only just recently making TWO brand new ones? An overhaul of rules, sure. Slimming down and some streamlining, I sure hope so. But that’s all I expect.

    • WHFB was not “hemorrhaging money”. It just had lower than desired profit margins and they did not want to put in the effort required to revitalize it (which, ironically, they did by killing it off with the End Times. A brief surge before resignation), and instead figured they should try something drastically different.

    • Admiral Raptor

      You sound just like us old WHFB players before AoS dropped. Don’t worry, Age of the Emperor will turn out to be a better game anyways.

  • EnTyme

    Wasn’t sure where else to post this, but I was messing around on the GW store page earlier today and noticed that several of the 40k units (like the Stormraven and Tactical Marines) have been updated to include most of the rules for the unit on the web store along with a space for a how-to-paint video.

  • Prudent_Paratrooper

    I think this could work. Make Tau and all things non major Xeno in one, Space Marines in another, Orks and all things green in a third, and Eldar in a forth, and finally, Nids in the last. They could have those 5 as the “core codices” and have supplements for poeple to flesh out thier army to thier playstyle. so a CSM player would buy the Space Marine book, and then buy the CSM supplement, and then get some other kind of supplement to futher flesh out his army.