40K: The Big Take Aways From 8th Announcement

8th Edition is on the way! But did you catch the Big News from the announcement?

In all the excitement of the 8th Edition Announcement people everywhere are still trying to digest the news. The great thing is that GW put out an FAQ about the announcement to help end speculation and restore some common sense to the situation. So let’s take a quick look at what they were really saying between the lines (and also in direct quotes):

The Current Codexes Are Getting Invalidated

What happens to my codexes?
The rules in our current range of Warhammer 40,000 codexes aren’t compatible with the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. These books will be going off sale very soon. If you do want to pick any up, now’s the time – as all of the great hobby content and background information will be as valid as ever.

This one is going to sting. Sorry, but all your codexes are not going to be used for 8th. Ouch. But, we all knew this was coming right? With the addition of the Movement stat and the changes to Armor Saves announced at Adepticon, the writing was on the wall. But don’t go burning all your books just yet – if you hang on to them in 20 years you can do Retro Videos!

Factions Are Consolidated…Sort of.

If you’ve been over to the new Warhammer 40000 website you may have noticed the factions are listed as: Chaos, Imperium, and Xenos. Within each parent faction there are of course sub-factions. The Imperium still has a list of all the different Marines, Astra Militarum, Ad Mech, etc. Chaos still has CSM, Chaos Daemons, (and curiously) both Thousand Sons & Death Guard… And the Xenos, which still has each of the different Alien races – Tau, Necrons, Eldar, Orks & Tyranids (and GSC) – along with their associated sub-sub-factions (Dark Eldar, Harlies, Ynnari).

What does this mean for the future? We don’t know for sure. BUT if we assume they are modeling this release off of AoS (which, c’mon it’s pretty obvious) then we can extrapolate a few things:

This is all conjecture – put on your tinfoil hats!

Expect some type of “Grand Alliance” books early on. These will probably be blanket books to cover the transition period until new “Codexes” drop. It happened with AoS (and is still an on going process). I would put money on a “General’s Handbook” to come early with all the core rules and points for units. And hot on it’s heels, these “Grand Alliance” type books. Now, that doesn’t mean that Tyranids are suddenly buddy-buddy with Eldar or that Orks are bro-fisting Necrons. That just means there will be a Generic “Xenos” book.

I would also wager that day 1 we will see GW dump a quick start PDF for all the current factions with bare-bones unit info and points just so we can all play. That should hopefully tide the community over until they can roll-out all the new books that they undoubtedly have planned. If it was me I’d do it in this order:

  • PDFs for all armies Day 1 (think more Ravening Hordes and less goofy Warhammer: AoS PDFs from Day 1)
  • General’s Handbook with Points and Core Rules
  • “Grand Alliance Books”
  • Individual “codexes” as they come

Will it happen like that? I have no idea! But that’s what I would do and I’m pretty sure GW has thought of that. Heck, they pretty much did that for AoS (except they were a little late on that General’s Handbook – but they learned their lesson).

General’s Handbook – Annual Release

Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)?
What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in.

This. Is. Huge. Why? Because for the first time in a LONG time Games Workshop has basically said “We’re going to support Match Play for Warhammer 40,000.” No longer will we have to wait for YEARS for armies to get FAQ’d or tweaked. With the points in the General’s Handbook they can tweak and update those annually. That means the books will also be tweaked when the new points come out. We’ve already seen them do that for the AoS side of things – and it’s a GOOD change. Games Workshop is taking feedback and will apply that to an ever evolving game. That’s great news!

All Your Miniatures Are Fine – No “Squat” Alerts

Wait, did you guys blow up the universe?
Nope. This is very much still the Warhammer 40,000 setting you know and love. Now, that’s not to say we won’t see the story advance – there’s some pretty epic stuff ahead! You can certainly expect to see the story arcs that began in the recent Gathering Storm campaign books continue to unfold with plenty of exciting developments to look forward to…
Is my army still valid?
Yes, it certainly is! You’ll still be able to use your army in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. All current armies will be supported with new rules.
Can I still use all my models?
Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000. What’s more, they’ll be supported with new rules, which will be available from the get go in handy, low-cost books.
Even Forge World models?
Yes, even all of your Warhammer 40,000 Forge World models.

Don’t go burning your army! Unless you just want to have a viral video or something. Or at least wait until the new edition actually drops. Just a suggestion.

Core Rules Are FREE

How can I get the rules?
We’re going to make it easier than ever to get your hands on the rules and start playing. The core rules for the game will be free, and you’ll have several options on how you get your hands on the full rulebook.
Let me just re-iterate:

“The core rules for the game will be free”

Yeah. That’s HUGE. Games Workshop giving away the core rules for what is arguably their cornerstone game? It’s a smart move for sure, but it’s also risky. It’s smart because it lowers the barrier for entry for new players and give your vets a chance to get the rules and play a few games to see if they like it. Vet’s are already invested so they will want to play and nothing attracts people to the tabletop like fully painted armies (which vet’s have). Keep the vet’s happy and make the barriers to entry low – New players will come.
It’s risky because those are pretty much guaranteed sales GW is going to lose outright – at least for the short term. Hey, I’ve had to purchase a new rule book for EVERY edition I’ve played in and I never regretted it. But now instead of having to drop that money on a book, I can maybe put that towards a new Starter Set, more models or something else hobby related. So maybe it’s not as risky as it looks!

 

Are you looking forward to the next edition of Warhammer 40,000? What were the BIG THINGS you noticed about the announcement?

  • acme2468

    I’m cautiously optimistic , this will almost certainly be as big a change in 40K as 3rd was from 2nd ( yes I’m that old) and much like that changeover 2nd had some big problems that 3rd did away with. Hopefully this will too.

    • 3rd came up with new issues though – especially blandness. 8th wil get rid of some issues and come up with new ones for sure.

      • El Boyo del Reko

        When 5th edition D&D was to be created the designers went back to the roots of D&D and based the new iteration off of the very early days of the game. This was an interesting choice. Through editions D&D had evolved far from what it was when the game first found it’s audience. The 5th edition is by some regarded as definitive and was well received by fans – both old and new.

        I have a feeling this new edition of W40k is a built on 2nd edition, and drawing experience from all they have learned through editions 3-7.

        • Karru

          I have my doubts. GW loves to attempt to recreate success. They saw how well AoS did after GHB was released, so the chances are that they will just copy/paste the core of AoS into 40k and add some “advanced” rules into the mix and call it a day.

          • El Boyo del Reko

            I kind of like AoS (not playing) but find static 3+/4+ stats bland and devoid of charm.

          • Karru

            One of the many reasons why I am extremely sceptical about 8th edition.

          • nordsturmking

            i really hope they keep WS, BS, S and T. i dont play AoS because of loss of those

          • L’Obasso

            I totally don’t get it. You have been using a static stat for shooting stuff so far (subtract your BS from 7, you always hit on that value) and the only thing that changes is that instead of comparing your weapon’s strength with the enemy’s toughness, while factoring in a static, all-or-nothing save system, you’ll have a static to wound, and a dynamic save system which makes way more sense to be honest. All in all, the system itself will use just as much comparing values as before, but the focus will shift a bit. Same for CC. The dynamic save system and the added fluffy special rules (no more “jump infantry” umbrella rules) for each model will more than make up for the loss of the WS chart.

        • TenDM

          I think building on 2nd is a good idea. I didn’t love 2nd edition at the time but as a starting point it’s good.
          It’ll be nice to play a game where the rules aren’t a mash of mistakes from previous versions. Making the current books obsolete is annoying but it means they’re not going to drag those mistakes over. They don’t have to nerf the Assault Phase because the new changes make my old Blood Angel’s book too powerful.
          It might not be perfect but I think it’ll beat the normal upgrades we’ve got over the years.

        • twincast

          Eh, not really. Sure, other than the amount of race/class options the quantity and complexity of the rules is deliberately retro/low (following the current trend), but when it comes to the actual D&D5e rules themselves, they are a combination of D&D3e and D&D4e (again deliberately so – to reunite the 3.5 playerbase that had split into D&D and PF) together with a couple of new elements and I am quite certain literally nothing taken from earlier editions that hadn’t survived into either of the prior two.

      • matty199

        That horrible 3rd ed blandness with its balance and tactics and even worse -fun games!

        • Charon

          Like leafblower and Rhino rush?
          Put down your pink glasses. 3rd was as badly balanced as any other edition and in addition it had bland and uninspired units.
          “Oh whats the difference between these uits?” “The name and the look”

          • Heinz Fiction

            I actually prefer this compared to having to read through 2 pages of special rules to find out the only difference is a rare (and fluffy!) result on the lost pilot chart which will likely never occur during your career as a gamer…

          • Charon

            Good for you. I actually enjoy having tons of special rules to make units different.
            So I guess that renders the overblown GW statement “This is what you asked for!” invalid as one of us will have less fun than before.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Yes they probably can’t make everyone happy. At least not to the same degree. It’s not like I didn’t have von with 2nd edition but I strongly prefer the smooth and fast gameplay and higher rate of abstraction of 3rd-5th.

          • Valeli

            I have to agree.

            2nd was neat, but very unwieldy at times (of course, it’s also possible I feel that way because I was pretty young when trying to play it and learn all the rules…)

          • Charon

            See, thats opposite for me. I really loved 2nd and I am sure it could have been amazing when some of the more cumbersome rules would have been worked on instead of just scrapping everything.
            3rd was an abomination and completely sucked the fun out of the game for me.
            I was pretty happy that, over the editions, they went back to 2nd edition step by step.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Not sure. I think 2nd edition ruleset is good for skirmish-scale games (Necromunda!) but not for games with 30+ models on each side and no amount of adjustment would have changed that.

          • Charon

            To be fair 2nd was a skirmish game.
            3rd changed that… now we are basically back again to a skirmish game with big models.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean only if you play a handful of current factions. There are still several that run hordes, and a huge middle ground. The big stompy things are just OP at the moment.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right there with you

          • L’Obasso

            Just for the sake of correctness, AoS has way more special rules than 40k, since every unit has some fluffy special rules characteristic of that unit only. In 40k, we have loads of blanket rules (fearless, jet pack) and loads of models that only differ in WS/BS

          • ZeeLobby

            Which Id rather keep to be honest. I don’t understand the claim that dispersing 1000s of unique rules over hundreds of battle scrolls is somehow less complex than having a rulebook that’s larger than 4 pages.

    • JJ

      The changes to armor modification will drastically change the game. Unless the significantly lower the points of Marines, plan on seeing a lot less of those armies. Fire-warriors on the other hand will see a significant increase.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        You say that, but the humble bolter has secretly had an AP this entire time that guardsmen have been ignoring with hedgerows and crumbling buildings.

        No, the guys that seem like the real winners here to me are Orkz. Unless they take it away entirely, AP 6 might finally mean something. Similarly, 6+ armor has never mattered much anyways, so the ork player won’t feel the hit to armor that everyone used to a 4+ or better will.

        • TenDM

          Don’t forget that To Hit modifiers are in the mix too. It adds another easy to play dimension to the survivability chart. +/-1 on Hit rolls should balance out the blunter save throws.

        • Troy G

          In Age of Sigmar, I think all Orks are ‘Ard Boyz. I’d say that is likely to be the case in 8th ed too.

          Also Tyranids will get a similar benefit. And Demons (unless they change Demon saves)

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            You are mistaken, Troy. The Savage Orcs and regular Orcs are still there and still very playable. They just expanded the Black Orcs into their own big faction.

          • Troy G

            My Mistake. I’ve watched a bunch of games and have never seen any Orks without a 4+. I guess everyone I’ve happened to watch had black Orcs.

          • Witch Beatrice

            i’m excited – tyranids get a buff in movement, assaulting first and doubling their run movements without rolling dice, and their guns can potentially cause other issues again – living ammunition sounds horrifying and fluffy. Also get rid of the psychic phase please.

      • Majere613

        The simple ‘fix’ would be to make power armour saves 2+. Bolters, Shurikens etc would have -1 save so things would be much as they are now, lasguns with no modifier would need huge volume of fire and things like Heavy Bolters and Autocannons would become more useful. Stuff like Terminators would take saves on 2D6 like the old days.

        • Troy G

          Dear god, please no Save modifiers on base weaponry. Bolters, Lasguns, Shurikens, Fleshborers, Sluggas, Shootas, Shotguns, etc all need to have no armor modifier.

          Scatter Lasers too, if they are going to be accessible as a base weaponry on core units.

          • Foehammer7977

            I will bet money on bolters being -1 save, because they are -1 save in shadow war. I know shadow war is a different game, but having a different save mod on the same weapon on the entry level game (shadow war) and the main game (wh40k) would cause confusion for players, particularly new players, that GW would want to avoid.

            Also, a bolter is technically a hand held WW2 Anti Aircarft cannon, it should have some sort of save mod.

          • JJ

            They pretty much already confirmed armor save modifiers base on weaponry.

          • Troy G

            Armor modifiers aren’t a problem. They are great. The problem is if there is an armor modifier arms race, and that would start with some armies basic weapon gaining an armor modifier.

            If modifiers are plentiful then things like Termmies are going to likely be hard to justify.

        • L’Obasso

          We don’t need 2+ saves on simple power armor. Sigmar is better balanced exactly because having a 4+ save already counts as good, while 3+ is godly. 2+ can only be achieved by stacking buffs. It is exactly the “2+ reroll 3++” crap on everything that ruined the game. Special rules and stacked saves must be pushed back to a reasonable level. Power armor can simply be 4+ or 5+. Having 2+ on everything just makes the game last artificially longer while adding no real substance.

      • Heinz Fiction

        This totally depends on the numbers. I can imagine that standard weapons (bolters, shurikens…) don’t modify the armor save at all.

        • JJ

          It’s looking like they are going back to the older save modifiers. Aka for every point of strength above 3 you get a -1 to the save. So a scatter laser would be S6, -3 save.

      • euansmith

        I’m assuming that the rules won’t simply be applied to the stats from the old Codices; so Space Marines might not have a 3+ Armour Save, equally they might well be multi-wound models.

        • EnTyme

          Wounds are far more prevalent in AoS than 40k. I’d be surprised if Tactical Marines weren’t 2 or 3-wound models. Terminators will probably be +1 wounds from that.

  • I stopped playing in 6th so don’t have to worry about having an old codex. At the moment I’m happy with Shadow War but if GW turn 40k into a game I like again then thats great…will just have to wait and see.

    • Andrew

      Took the words right out of my mouth. Wait and see.

      • dante13

        Agreed wait and see is the deal of the day it seems.

    • Luca Lacchini

      Well, with free rules, and hopefully warscrolls-style updates for existing units, that would be super easy.
      But the three game modes and probable rule changes (mov, armor mod, useful Ld) look promising.

      Positive attitude instead of doubtful.
      I’ve learnt it the hard way from more than enough wargame/RPG edition turnovers.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah. Our group is definitely cautiously pessimistic. Lol. I really wish we stopped in 6th. We went far enough into 7th edition that we all stopped with a bad taste in our mouths.

  • Simon Chatterley

    Quite literally the best news I’ve had about 40k in a long time.

    As a fantasy player the death of the existing books hurts but I believe they’ve learnt so much from the AoS journey. The game now is still full of combos and power players can still min-max and spam but the game itself is simple yet very tactical. You don’t need strength, toughness p, initiative, armour values on vehicles or AV on weapons in 40k and the games will be faster for it.

    Only annoyance is now waiting for this.

    • Karru

      Yeah, you don’t need them except for, you know, having the game to stand out and have people asking “so why should I play this game instead of the one I am currently playing” and having some other answer outside the “well, the models look good”.

      • Simon Chatterley

        How strong or tough a model is can be easily demonstrated with a better save or do more damage. They don’t need to represented separately and have more and more tables. How fast/skilful it is can be demonstrated with a hit roll or a special rule where if it acts first it’s gets a benefit etc etc. Many many ways to make a model get a benefit you think it would have without 8+ stats.

        A game should stand out by how fun it is to play, not because it has more pointless stats than another one.

        For me right now I’d much rather play AoS or Malifaux than 40k and I’ve been playing 40k since 1994 so that really saddens me but it’s truth. 7th and 3rd are in my eyes equal in just how rubbish they were.

        Looking forward so much to starting again from scratch.

        • Karru

          But for me, if they change up 40k into what is basically just AoS in space, it will eliminate the interest to play AoS as it is essentially the same game. Only thing that will be different is the look of the models and that’s it.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. That’s what I’ve been telling my friends who’ve considered going into AoS. If 40K drops and it’s basically the same game experience as AoS, im only playing one of them, and it’s probably 40K.

          • JJ

            This is why my only new army this year is my Chaos Daemon army..lol

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. If only we could all just play daemons.

        • Thomas

          I disagree in terms of flat to-hit and to-wound rolls. Part of the joy of the toughness and strength system is that it produces unique interactions between two different models.

          Always rolling 4+ to hit or whatever removes that sense of interactions and the notion of counters and specialised weaponry, instead turning it into “spam enough 4+ rolls and you can kill a titan.”

          Thankfully, it sounds like GW are keeping notions like toughness and initiative from the info they’ve given before.

          • EnTyme

            You already always roll 4+ to hit on any model with BS 3. Fixed to-hit is already a thing.

        • Pat

          Actually I agree whole heartedly. I am still cautiously optimistic about 8th, but there are a bunch of rules and stats that we never use. My gaming groups three main players are Nids, SM, and Necrons. So Initiative is damn near useless, as my Nids usually go before or with SM, and the necrons go after the SM. And Leadership is pointless, as SM being SM, Nids having synapse, and crons being crons.
          Plus why do my gaunts and lictors, things designed for the whole purpose of moving fast and getting across the battlefield, move as fast as a literal human tank? And how does a guardsman keep up with howling banshees, or a assualt bike with two riders and a heavy weapon move as much as a eldar jetbike?

          • ZeeLobby

            Im confused. You say stats are never used. Then you mention initiative, which you clearly use. And movement, which is a stat that doesn’t exist. As reason to agree with a person who wants to remove stats?

        • ZeeLobby

          “more and more tables”. I mean it’s been 2. Since forever. That are easy to understand. I really don’t get this hatred for to hit and to wound.

          • Simon Chatterley

            It’s meaningless. WS 9 still hits on 3’s against near enough everything. So why not just make that model hit on 3’s all the time? Easy

            Strength 10 mostly wounds on 2’s against everything. So why not just make it wound on 2’s?

            There’s no need for tables is there? Decent guys can hit on 4’s and your average on 5’s. Command abilities could improve it.

            So my hatred of the tables is they are near useless mostly now.

            Initiative is silly as well. The charger should get a priority of some kind. The choosing fighting order in AoS is basically the best bit of it.

            But laughably, none of us know for sure how this looks. I just really hope for a big change.

          • ZeeLobby

            Oh. I agree. The tables could definitely be made more relevant. Other than that though the system offers a lot of ways to differentiate units and their skills. If the alternative is to give every unit special rules I’d rather take to-hit and to-wound.

            Initiative makes perfect sense to me. I just think you should always go by initiative. The whole cover and who has grenades fiasco is ridiculous. Or every assault unit should have grenades. But a unit of guardsman charging howling banshees should always be hit by banshees first.

            It’s still fun to discuss :D.

  • DeCold

    Not optimistic about it at all, faction page just shows how GW dont care about anything but Imperium.

    • Karru

      I mean, have you looked at AoS side of things? Order is the faction with most Battletomes and new factions. It’s not like someone can actually come out and say “GW doesn’t do favourites” or “you are overreacting, GW will release just as much stuff for other factions, you’ll see”. Imperium has been and always will be the most supported faction. I wouldn’t be surprised if the first year of 8th edition will see 3 new Imperial factions, at least 2 updated Imperial factions and a total of 2-3 other factions (Chaos and Xenos combined).

      • ledha

        4 order battletome (3 “new gen”), 4 chaos battletome (2 “new gen”), 3 destruction battletome (2 “new gen”), 1 death battletome ( 0 “new gen”). Seems pretty balanced to me, except for death. Stormcast are favourite, not the order, at least, not by a wide margin

        • Karru

          Order:

          Stormcast Eternals (Updated once, technically 2)
          Stormcast Eternals Extremis
          Fyreslayers
          Sylvaneth
          Seraphon
          Kharadron Overlords
          Grand Alliance Order

          Chaos:
          Khorne Bloodboudn
          Everchosen
          Disciples of Tzeentch
          Skaven Pestilens
          Chaos Dreadhold(?)
          Grand Alliance Chaos

          Destruction:

          Ironjawz
          Bonesplitterz
          Beastclaw Raiders
          Grand Alliance Destructions

          Death:

          Flesh-Eater Courts
          Grand Alliance Death

          That makes (technically) 8 Order books, 6 Chaos books, 4 Destruction and 2 Death. I counted the Grand Alliance Books as well. Not that balanced. You have to take into consideration ALL Tome releases. Stormcasts have had three. The first book, the extremis chamber and an update to the first book.

          Chaos had 2 “new” armies, Bloodbound and Disciples of Tzeentch. Everchosen wasn’t exactly “new” as it was just Elite additions to Slaves to Darkness army. Death had none, as Ghouls are an old army, they just separated them from the Vampire Counts. Destruction got 1 new army with the Ironjawz.

          Order has had 3.5 factions. Sylvaneth are technically new but not really as they “mostly” use old Wood Elves and were done in a same manner as Ghouls were. Stormcast Eternals, Overlords and Fyreslayers are all new.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I really wish they’d go to other games models where each faction received several new units or updates throughout the year.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      The Imperium of Man has always been the focus of 40k, in the novels, in the game, even in the flavor text they used to put in the sidebars of the codecies. The universe is full of orkz. There are rules for playing the orkz. There are dark eldar. There are rules for playing the dark eldar. There are necrons. There are rules for playing the necrons.

      What, do you want them to have a faction page for each and every single one of them? They are distinct groups, but we see them through the lens of “not human” and we have the word “Xenos” for that. If you don’t want to face an army containing multiple types of Xenos, you’re two editions late. Do you want a separate codex for each tribe of orkz and each legion of chaos?

      It isn’t like GW could reduce the number of Imperial factions at this point. People went crazy for the Ad Mechs when they finally showed up. Lord knows the space marine players would riot if dark angels, space wolves, and blood angels followed the Black Templars into the basic book. Heck, I’d DARE you to suggest that Sisters of Battle be reduced to an elites option somewhere.

      People have built entire armies off of a basic unit and a couple of vehicles, even this edition. The Harlequins and Skiitari have fans who connect with them. The Necrons used to be that way. Basically, I’m not sure it matters how much love GW gives the faction, so long as they still play relatively well on the table (and pre-update dark eldar players would even argue that. Unrelated: I miss my fear grenades and gunhats on incubi).

      tl;dr: I don’t know what GW would do differently at this point. I don’t think answering bloat with bloat is the answer. As long as you can play the guys you want, does it matter?

      • Tothe

        If they want to do it right, Orks should have Freebooterz, Goff, Speed Freeks, etc. clearly differentiated in the rules.

        Space Marines get special rules for Space Wolves, Blood Angels, etc. after all and it isn’t considered “bloat.”

        • TenDM

          I think that was the point of Detachments. They could have made a Nidzilla and a swarm Detachment in the same book using basically the same rules, but with different play styles.
          It probably would have worked if they didn’t give free boosts for nothing and let you take Formations as Detachments.

        • Troy G

          This was a golden opportunity to recombine the needlessly separated Space Marine Factions.

          Blood Angels, Dark Angles, Space Wolves, etc should all be rolled into space marines, and separated by chapter tactics. They can still have faction specific units.

          • Karru

            Exactly. Black Templars have their Crusader Squads and named characters in the SM book that are only usable by them. Just place the remaining units in there as well and you have one nice bundle for all SM factions. No need to get yourself 4 books, 5 if you count Deathwatch as well.

        • ZeeLobby

          Well they’re also getting new space Marines now. The imbalance in releases for order vs others in AoS is one of the main reasons I’ve yet to buy in. I don’t like the good guys, but does that mean I’ll have to wait 7 years for something new?

          • Tothe

            I backed the Mantic Warpath kickstarter, so I have a backup plan in case 40K 8th ed. flops. I also have the Mantic Kings of War rules for fantasy.

            Besides, now I have Space Dorfs regardless of GW’s rules!

          • ZeeLobby

            I backed warpath too. I mean right now we’re playing WMH, Frostgrave and Runewars, so if we don’t end up returning it’s not like we won’t have fun elsewhere. It’s great that there’s options now.

          • Tothe

            I find it a bit hilarious that the companies that started out as hangers-on and bit players have managed to influence the industry to the point where GW must now follow their lead.

          • ZeeLobby

            It’s crazy the parallels to Apple and the birth of smartphones though. Just like Apple, GW wants to be the seller of premium models, believes that they know better than their customers, and until recently has stagnated their innovation. While they’ve done this other companies have begun to compete. Not saying Google was a small bit player, but Android was definitely an infant while Apple was riding high. Now Apple is losing sales and is attempting to change to adapt. Just like Apple, GW has a LONG way to go before failure, and definitely never will actually fail, but the parallels to what happened are very interesting.

            For us customers/gamers it’s an awesome time though. Now we have a ton of options. While I think currently the spread might be too large for everything to survive, we’ll end in a better place then we were in.

          • Tothe

            I sold cell phones when the G1 Android was still the only alternative to iPhones and Crackberries. Android as an open-source platform allowed experimentation and development along with a wide range of price options for consumers. And the company that stole Xerox’s computer design then tried to patent the rectangle to protect their market share.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah right? It’s crazy the similarities. Funnily GW looks to be changing it’s ways while Apple is still in it’s own little world.

      • Heinz Fiction

        “Do you want a separate codex for each tribe of orkz and each legion of chaos?”

        Yes please!

        • euansmith

          And I want them written in Ork Glyffz.

          • ZeeLobby

            Lol

          • Matthew Pomeroy

            Gork (or Mork) help us!

        • YetAnotherFacelessMan

          That sounds nice, Heinz, but then we would get people like

          “Snakebite codex gets updated when?!”
          “I hate that GW updates my Red Corsairs right before or after an edition change. The codex gets outdated super fast.”
          “Man, my Sept Bork’an is going to turn into a pdf sept at this rate. Why does Dal’yth get all the love?”

          Space marine players are miserable.

          No, best to do away with codecies entirely and just have modular special rules you can lay on top of generic dudes to justify your paint scheme. Why do my guys reroll ones with bolters? Because I painted their hands red.

    • TenDM

      It’s very unlikely they’ll go all Grand Alliance on 40k. That’s just a category title on a temporary website. I mean there’s no way Necrons, Eldar and Orks are in the same faction.
      Also if you go one line further on the page you see that Orks, Necrons, Tau, Craftworlds, Harlequins, Dark Eldar, Ynnari, Tyranids and Genestealer Cults are all split into their own groups. BoLS is reading way too far into nothing there.

      • Agreed – they’re reading *way* too much into that. It’s a very rough ordering, because otherwise their nice clean page would get mussed with a bunch of factions for the xenos types. *At most* I’d expect two factions – The Various Eldar and Nids/Necron/Orks/Tau as “Will Mess Up Your Plans But Are Mostly Out for Themselves”. And honestly, I’d expected even more granularity than that.

      • ZeeLobby

        That makes it even worse for those factions as I assume everything in the Imperial faction will be able to ally. It’s like alliances but with everyone else having 1/6 the tools if they don’t do that.

        • TenDM

          Why would everything Imperial be able to ally? They’re flushing everything and starting with a clean slate to stop things like that.

          Trust me, go to the Explore the Factions page the article is talking about. It makes it very clear that these are individual factions you can choose to play. Each faction has it’s own entry. It’s no different to the way they organise factions on the wall in a GW store.
          It doesn’t say anything about them being alliances or factions. None of the faction entries mention anything about any of the other factions.

          • ZeeLobby

            Lol. If you really think they won’t be able to all ally with each other you have way more faith in GW to pass up money than I do. So their statement that your current army will be viable in the new edition is accurate only if your current army isn’t an allied force of imperial factions? I mean imperials have been able to ally since allies were created.

          • TenDM

            They’ll probably be able to ally in a similar way to how they do it now, but it’s not Grand Alliance Imperial like the article is suggesting.
            Although I actually do think they’re going to cut back on it outside of Casual and Narrative play. It creates a lot of problems for them.

          • ZeeLobby

            Ah. I got you. I do hope match play reduces or removes it completely. It made a total mess of 6th and 7th. In just not sure GW will do that. To them it just looks like less sales. Now with generals handbook being out for AoS, match play is definitely the most popular form of play. My guess is it’ll be the same for 40K. Even if they restrict them at first, you’ll slowly see them sneak back in. All assumptions, but I’ve yet to see GW do anything rules wise that might reduce sales.

  • Karru

    A friendly reminder regarding the “squatting” part. Bretonnians and Tomb Kings are very much still valid in AoS. Different story when you ask about support for them though. So them saying your models will be valid doesn’t automatically mean they won’t discontinue models or model lines.

    Anyway, there is a chance that they will go with the “Grand Alliance” thing but I have my doubts. In AoS lumping the factions together makes sense in some ways. Since Keywords will definitely be a thing in the next edition and GW is big on copy/paste, making all Xenos have the “Xenos” keyword and as such have the possibility of playing together without any “downsides” will be an abomination. Tau gunline protected by Tervigons spawning Termagaunts? Yep, because that makes complete sense. Imperium being lumped into one makes complete sense, just like Chaos does. Xenos will be the odd child out in this. That’s why I am a bit sceptic about them doing “Grand Alliance” books in 40k. Also, the profits they could have selling tons of separate books seems too good to pass up.

    How is giving out the CORE RULES for free risky? It will most likely be just like the AoS rules, you do realise this? The big rulebook will have the actual rules for the game. Things like army building, explanation how formations work, flyers, super heavies, gargantuans and so on. It’s not risky, it’s called being sensible. You give the quick-start rules out for people to try it out, but you don’t give them the whole cake. They have to pay for that one.

    I never enjoy the words “listening to feedback” and “Games Workshop” in the same sentence. The problem is that GW has shown, time and time again, that they don’t want to listen to any negative feedback. There are countless people that have gotten banned for giving sensible feedback in a friendly manner. That’s why I am very worried. There is also the problem of numbers. I am pretty sure that most Tau, Space Marine, Eldar, Ad Mech and Necron players don’t have “major” problems regarding the current edition. Meanwhile the dying armies like Orks, Tyranids and so on know exactly what is wrong with the game. Since those top dog armies make the vast majority of the player base, I have no faith in GW when it comes to taking all of the feedback.

    I mean, if they actually listened to feedback and responded to it, we would be seeing more stuff for Death in AoS. If nothing else, at least some rule changes that would allow them to be more competitive or useful. Since they removed the summoning from them (which was fair as it was broken af on launch) and most of their sub-factions are based 100% around the summoning thing, they are basically worthless. Only Flesh Eater Court is going strong, thanks to having the Battletome.

    • Yriel_The_Angelic

      Yo, as someone whom regularly plays AoS the keyword mechanic isn’t exactly what you think it is. Granted all Xenos will prob have the Xenos keyword, most armies will most likely not focus on those generic keywords. For instance wanderers (wood elves) and stormcast externals are both Order, have the Order keyword, but their abilities and synergies are tied to their specific faction keywords I.e Wanderers and Stormcast respectively. Hell, Free people and stormcast both also have the Human keyword but nearly all of their synergies still tie with their faction specific keyword I.e. Free people or stormcast respectively. Very few models (yes models not units) have abilities that are more alliance keyword focused over the sub-factions. So I wouldn’t worry about the keyword thing. It’s actually quite neat.

      Edit: comment thingy acting weird

      • Karru

        I am aware of the keyword system and I am hopeful that they will implement it well in 40k. The synergy of the keyword system is actually one of the things I do like about AoS and hope it transfers over to 40k.

        My point was that if they lump everything together, it means one can take these units without “penalties” as AoS does. While the synergies are key in AoS, 40k relies more on just straight up firepower and survivability, at least currently. 40k would suffer greatly if they bring in that system completely. If they keep the Ally chart system where only certain factions can ally with each other, then they might have a thing going for it in that regard.

        Again, to make sure it is clear, I have nothing against the Keyword system. It is actually one of the greatest things GW has ever done as it eliminates many “problems” when it comes to their poor wording. Rule says it helps all models with X keyword, so it helps all models with the X keyword.

        • euansmith

          I’m hoping that Keywords actually serve to make bigger gaps between the factions.

          Overall Keywords like “Xenos” and “Chaos” would ideally just be there to factor in to other units’ abilities, like, “Re-roll 1s to hit vs targets with the Xenos Keyword”.

          While actual Faction Keyword will hopefully be used to limit the effects of units abilities, like, Commissar Ability: I’ll Shoot The First Man Who Takes Yields An Inch Of Ground!, “Units with the Astra Militarum Keyword can re-roll Battleshock if within 6” of a Commissar.

          • Karru

            That has always been its purpose I believe.

            They make the rules and effects clear through the use of Keywords. For example, one can choose to give SM unit the Keyword “White Scar”.

            “All models in the unit that have the White Scar Keyword gain the following special rules; Fight on the Move, Born in the Saddle”

            This would make sure that even if a White Scar character joins another unit, if they don’t have the White Scar Keyword, they cannot benefit from the special rules.

        • Yriel_The_Angelic

          Well, early on in AoS’s life the argument of “taking something without penalty” had loads of merit. This argument, I believe, was due to pre-Generals Handbook era of AoS and that sh1t was bonkers. Post-GH, and more importantly with the inclusion of Battletomes with their own alliegiance abilities, spells, warhosts, and prayers (for the Stormcast enthusiast) im namely speaking of the new Stormcast book and the Syvaneth book that argument is losing its steam. Those books are heralds of the direction AoS is heading, its slow I’ll grant you, but once it covers all factions you’ll lose a lot of tactical options for some ability bonuses. I believe 40k is going the AoS route with the faction battletomes that add a lot of utility in mind so the example that you provided of nids with Tau becomes unappealing because of all the gains you receive for going faction specific over alliegance.

          Though, to be fair, I’ve been playing 40k since beginning of 3rd, I still remember how I felt when the necrons went from “the terminator” to Tomb Kings in Space over the editions. Made worse when they bro-fisted the Blood Angels. So in many a ways I feel ya man. Here’s to hoping 40k gets all the benefits of AoS without any of the early drawbacks.

          • Karru

            That’s what I’m wishing for as well. They really have great benefits when it comes to taking “pure” armies. Currently it does create some “imbalance” as they are only available for those armies that have their own books. Everyone else go with the generic Grand Alliance traits.

            Seeing something similar in 40k would be good if they give everyone something right out of the gate. Then again, this could be the rumoured “encouragement to play fluffy armies”. Instead of formations and detachments, people just make their armies using certain keywords in order to make the army extremely powerful compared to having a mixed bag.

      • Simon Chatterley

        I regularly AoS now (relatively new as I was strongly against for some time….for reasons) and in some armies the keywords are strong…others not so much.

        The game itself does push you towards synergy and there’s always units which have no real narrative/fluffy reason to be in a force but are because of what they do (looking at your Celestial Hurricanum…)

        So the cheesy players will still like it as you can list build to an nth degree if you want. But it’s also an easy pick up game.

        40k may start to become a bit similar but that’s no bad thing…I’ll play both very happily if that’s the case

      • twincast

        FYI You misused “whom” there.

    • Arufel

      You seem highly negative about everything. Going onto every GW related comments section and whinging isn’t a healthy way to spend your time. Before the “I’m fed up of being criticised for being critical, you shill” crowd spit their dummies I’m speaking from a casual perspective- Noone enjoys constant whining. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but it’s the same 3 or 4 people every day and I’m tired of it!

      • Shawn Pero

        If they didn’t have the complaining, they wouldn’t have anything.

      • TenDM

        I disagree with Karru pretty often, but at least he’s backing up his negativity. GW will never read or listen to it but it’s better than just screaming Sigmar and running.

        • Karru

          This might just be the best comment I have received regarding my negativity spree since 8th was officially confirmed.

          My comments are always backed with facts and opinions. I am also always willing to discuss my points with anyone who disagrees with them as long as they remain polite, as I have seen with you from time to time.

          • euansmith

            I’ll second TenDM’s comment.

          • ZeeLobby

            Welcome to the team. Just prepare to be labeled as a hater daily, haha.

      • SYSTem050

        I agree i would find it exahusting. Its a sort of negative fan boi phenomenon. Just fiesnt conoute for us filthy casuals

      • Karru

        Correction. I seem highly negative about everything that warrants it. If one actually looks into what GW has released since the “new GW”, as they said themselves, one can see that they aren’t anywhere near “perfect” when it comes to having a good track record.

        I am here to make sure that people don’t get overexcited like they did with AoS when it was first rumoured. AoS was a massive catastrophe at launch, no one can deny that. I am also here to make sure that people understand that this release isn’t just happiness, sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. There are some major downsides to it that one should be both aware of and prepared. Thus far many “positive” comments regarding this completely ignore this little “hiccups”, I just aim to correct them.

        I am a pessimist, but if GW does something right I am first to admit that they succeeded beyond my expectations. Also, as TenDM mentioned, I do back up my negativity. It is that which separates me from whiners.

        • Arufel

          The thing is that noone is expecting GW to be perfect as it is simply impossible to please the entire community. At the very least they’re making a conscious effort to change the perception of the community and make their ganes better experiences.

          Sadly you come across as a little bit self righteous with the whole representing the other side thing. I absolutely advocate having warranted criticism as it is healthy for the community in general. Rather, what I was pointing out is that you seem to want to see the nagative in every single announcement that is made. Generally this isn’t a great thing as a nobody like me reading the comments section will see your name and immediately think here we go with another rant. There’s nothing wrong with being pessimistic at times but to champion it as the cornerstone of your personality seems a bit strange.

          Thank you for a reasoned response but I must admit to me you do seem to be whining at times even if the points are valid. At the same time I realise that I must come across as a scrub who seems to be taking a dislike to you. This isn’t the case and I simply would like you to consider that there is a place for optimism at times tok. 🙂

          • Karru

            You weren’t around when the Chaos Legion book came? I defended that book to death when things started to trickle in while the negative folks wanted to hang GW for not making it the next Eldar/SM book.

            When GW does something right, I make sure that everyone hears of that as well. For example, I defend those that enjoy AoS from those that want them to basically die because it was somehow their fault for replacing Fantasy.

            Also, I always start with extremely negative attitude. From there it sloooowly grows towards positivity as I think about these things and start to see possibilities. Xodis might be able to vouch for that one. We had this long argument regarding Toughness/Wounds vs AV on vehicles. It started with nothing but pure negativity and despise towards the system and the next day I was on board as I had time to think about it.

            It is a very bad habit that I can’t get rid of, no matter how hard I try.

          • Thomas

            I think starting from a default position of scepticism, then allowing yourself to be won round, is the best way forward. I’ll never understand people who allow themselves to get hyped up at marketing material. It’s just so transparently manipulative to me.

            It’s like people who get hyped at a video game, preorder it, then find out the game was crap (Colonial Marines, anyone?). They’ll either be angry at the game, or get defensive and try to justify the money they sunk into it.

            Ooooor, they could maintain a healthy scepticism, point out possible problems and just wait and see.

          • Troy G

            GW is trying to change the perception of them, but I’m still pretty iffy if they are trying to change policies beyond PR ones that led to that perception.

            Look at Cawl as an example. If the rules for Cawl aren’t every bit as unclear / unbalanced / incompatible / fluff breaking as any other rules GW has released in 7th ed, they are at least close.

            A change in PR policy does not equate to better rules. We can hope that a Change of PR policy might indicate a change in rules writing policies, but so fave we’ve seen many, many signs of the new PR policy, and no signs of the new rules policy.

        • Big Red

          “AoS was a massive catastrophe at launch, no one can deny that.”

          I would argue that point. I can’t comment on your or anyone else experience, but age of sigmar was a huge hit at in several of the groups that I play in.

          The group of friends that play at each others houses took to age of sigmar far better than they had to fantasy. My main club (my local uni club) had a huge uptake in age of sigmar games, easily doubling the numbers of fantasy games. The worst reception was at my local game club, which makes sense. It is a much more competitive environment, something that age of sigmar was not trying to be at launch.

          On a wider front, on social media, I saw it tracking pretty well as people began to see what they were going for. Some people didn’t like it, wanting a more competitive environment, while others enjoyed the the way it was set up.

          All of our personal experiences are subjective experiences. Neither you nor I can truly make definitive statements. The only hard fact we can really use is the financial results, which according to the annual report, GW “finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years”, which is just about all the information we have to work on.

          I am not trying to harass you, but making the claim that age of sigmar was a “AoS was a massive catastrophe at launch, no one can deny that.” is blatantly false. You and your circles may not have liked it. It may have even been a failure in your total area, but the fact remains that during the financial year of 2015-2016, which ended before the generals handbook came out, saw age of sigmar see financial success that exceed it’s predecessor. This would make it appear that there are more than enough people that enjoyed it as it was originally published to make it unfair to call it a massive catastrophe.

          • Troy G

            In my region AoS tanked hard. Local Retailers saw Fantasy Sales plummet. We still haven’t manged to draw enough interest to run an AoS event. In my opinion it is mainly due to the lingering scars from the awful release.

          • Big Red

            As I said, our local experiences are subjective. The only hard fact we can really play with to try and get an idea of what is going on outside our own bubbles (including online ones like BLOS) for AOS is looking at the sales, and according to GW, they are not doing to bad, at from the launch period they were outselling what they were getting from fantasy. Hard to call that a failure.

            For what it is worth, I understand why people felt hurt by AOS at launch. AOS at launch had such a different mindset than fantasy had, they are not comparable games. The way I saw it, launch AOS is actually a coop game, where you are working together with your ‘opponent’ to tell a cool story. Compare this to fantasy, where you were more looking to defeat your opponent. Both styles are valid, but by providing rules for the fantasy armies, they (accidentally?) gave people the impression that this is a follow on from fantasy, rather than a different game.

          • Karru

            I worded it quite poorly and wasn’t as accurate as I needed to be.

            I meant it was a massive catastrophe from the PoV of rules. The 4-pages of rules were filled with loopholes that people could exploit to their hearts content. It required more “house rules” than official rules to work properly. Summoning for example, then there was the Sudden Death rule that made it so that horde armies were at a disadvantage every game because it was the model count that mattered, not wounds or quality, models.

            It wasn’t a surprise that AoS was a success financially. It is a easy game to get into and doesn’t require much skill (skill, as in how to properly play the game and how the rules work) or models. The biggest problem was the extremely lacking rules. As I said, it was filled with loopholes and exploits that needed to be fixed to have a proper game. It wasn’t even the lack of points that was the core of the issue at that point. Death players would win by default thanks to their ability to double their army each turn. Ogre players would almost always play with Sudden Death rules while Skaven and Goblin players had to suffer from giving their opponents the Sudden Death rule.

          • Big Red

            All good.

            I disagree about the rules still. It seems clear to me that the game was not intended as a competitive, rather collaborative experience. The rules don’t need to be super tight to prevent, for lack of a better term, dickish behaviour, because the point of the game was to have fun telling cool stories together. In the local experience of what we experienced, which from reading the White Dwarfs of the time seems to match up with the experience they were going for, you didn’t have those problems. Sure, you could spam insane amounts of undead units but you didn’t most of the time, because that was not a cool story to act out. (Except for when we did, and then it was cool anyway). It would appear that at least a decent number of people, as per the sales, seemed to be in the same boat.

            If you were trying to use the launch rules to play competitive games, you a right that they were terrible. But all the media around the game, and the design itself seemed to try to inform you that this is not that game.

            A comparison that I like to use is comparing a tractor to a f1 car. If you want to drive fast, a tractor really sucks while a f1 car is crazy good, but if you want to plough a field, the tractor will be awesome while a f1 car will suck.

            I fully appreciate that people got the impression that this was the follow on from fantasy, a traditional competitive game, and when AOS wasn’t that, felt betrayed. This doesn’t mean that AOS is a bad game, just it was wrong for you.

          • Karru

            Spot on.

            The big problem with AoS launch and the days leading up to it was this:

            GW didn’t communicate the transition very well. Meanwhile the more “competitive” crowd became furious when they saw that the game they were given was littered with all these exploits and loopholes.

            I hope that GW will make it absolutely clear in their communications and reveals in the following days as we get closer to the release date. They should give people a good picture of what is to come and not try to “hide it” as a surprise. Tell them what is different in this edition, why they did what they did and what did they attempt to achieve. This way it won’t be a massive shock to no one when the game drops and it isn’t exactly what they thought it would be.

            It is the uncertainty and the the experience from AoS launch that has made many sceptical, including me, about 8th edition. That’s why GW should make sure they communicate things better this time around.

          • euansmith

            Even if the latest Warmahordes release turned out to be a trifle problematic on the balance front, I really enjoyed reading the designers’ notes Privateer Press released about why they did what they did to each faction.

            Equally there are some cool articles on Warlord’s site about their Black Powder/Hail Caesar games and why they rules are written the way they are.

            Even the one-shot Osprey Games books often feature an informative designer’s notes section.

            Hopefully GW will do something similar.

          • Karru

            Exactly. I’ve been going through the Flames of War V4 releases and their Late War rulebooks. They are littered with Designer Commentary why they chose to do things and how things worked before. It is amazingly informative, because you know what the designers thought about the project and what they considered to be problematic with the game.

            This is actually something that I believe GW will be doing as well. They have already started to communicate a lot more about their future releases well in advance. With every new army release, there is usually loads of stuff they tell you about the army before it is released.

          • euansmith

            I’m such a fan of notes because, even if the rules don’t end up matching the designers’ stated aims, you can at least see what they were reaching for. 😉

          • ZeeLobby

            Me too. They’re so interesting. Maybe it’s because we’ve forever gotten nothing out of GW’s black box for so long, but it’s cool to see the real deep down rule reasoning between decisions.

          • Big Red

            I 100% agree that GW should be more open and communicative (and appear to be heading in that direction). I truly don’t understand why you get companies like GW why decided to function as a total black box.

            One saving grace for fantasy players is that they didn’t lose any money seeing that AOS wasn’t what they were looking for.

          • euansmith

            I felt that the original release of AoS was the design studio actually being honest about the way they expected their games to be played.

            It is no doubt a cool way to play if you can arrange games and work out the narrative and know enough about the game to balance your forces to produce a fun experience for all the players.

            However, for those of us who rely on quick pick up games or need the assistance of a points system to balance a narrative game (It is nice to have some idea just how overwhelming an overwhelming force will be 😉 ) then the General’s Handbook would have been a help from the get go.

            Having said that, I can see that launching straight in to a points system would have killed a push towards getting a wider appreciation of narrative play stone dead.

            It would also have meant that the Community wouldn’t have had the fun of rallying round and balancing the system themselves. Without that sense of ownership, things like Hinterland might not have gained the momentum they have.

          • Big Red

            At the uni club, especially at the start, we had a bit hard time guesstimating the sides, but the easiest solution was if one side was being trounced, a fresh wave of reinforcements (that looked suspiciously like the casualties that the losing side had taken) would appear. Luckily, AOS picked up quick so by the end of the first week there was always plenty of armies that you could pinch a small force from to help even out the game mid match 😉 TBH, those were some of the most fun games that I ever played.

            I played a couple of games a the local game club/store, and they were pretty terrible, so I can fully sympathise with people who had this as their only option.

          • Interesting enough the Hinterlands thing that Sam wrote is the only fan system out of about a dozen that caught any traction. The other fan projects were ignored / died for not being “official”.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yup. That was the biggest issue. It’s the reason why our stores fantasy groups evaporated. Pickup games with long leadup discussions to generate balance we’re just unrealistic.

          • That was its problem. Competitive players often don’t understand or want to understand the concept of a collaborative game because that is the polar opposite of competitive where you are trying to do your best to crush your opponent’s balls and they are trying to do the same on you.

            Competitive players we found out make up the vast bulk of voices on internet forums so it created a giant echo chamber of rage.

          • Big Red

            A lot of my circles (Australia btw) had a background in/still play DND and the like. While I have never been able to get into them, they seem to share the same ideas, the players, including the DM are telling a cool story. The game provides mechanics to help provide interesting stories to it.

            I have always seen most of my tabletop gaming as basically an RPG where instead of playing Hector the Well-endowed I am playing the 2nd company of the glorious 172 Cadian.

            I do think that game stores tend to attract more of a competitive scene for whatever reason. I think it might have to do with a competitive player would (using AOS as an example) get more out of a game where they demolish a cooperative player than the cooperative player would.

          • I think its kind of self fulfilling actually. People go to an FLGS to join a group that plays tournaments.

            Guys that play narratively tend to play in their homes and don’t care what the FLGS guys are doing and often dont’ post on forums for whatever reason (my guess is because forums and discussion areas on the internet tend to nearly always revolve around tournament and power gaming talk and that doesn’t interest narrative guys so they dont’ bother)

            The two sides are in essence oblivious to each other.

          • ZeeLobby

            Ditto.

          • Matthew Pomeroy

            where I am at it tanked so hard it took alot of other GW stuff with it. Here its a complete unmitigated disaster.

        • AOS wasn’t a disaster here. But thats also because the group I help organize is primarily a narrative group and not a tournament group.

          I do note that 99.99% of tournament gruops I know or read about on forums say it was a failure for them, so I believe for tournament groups it was indeed a failure.

    • TenDM

      I don’t think they’ll go with Grand Alliances, but it would be interesting if they released books with balanced Allied Detachments. Like say a Gathering Storm style book with Detachment rules that draws from both Eldar and Space Marines, to represent the alliance in the narrative.
      Sort of like how Gathering Storm II gave us the Ynnari Detachment drawing from the three Eldar factions. That way we get some Allied Detachment action without the risk of Tau-nids.

      • Karru

        I wouldn’t mind seeing something like that. The Gathering Storm had some very neat ideas when it came to custom detachments. I thought that they really should have just gone with that route instead of the “Formation Detachments” we got. Not only would they have been more fluffy, they would have been easier to balance.

        Campaign “specific” alliances sound fun. Like the Eldar/SM combo you mentioned could be done in a way that you can use the detachment but certain units are not available. This is to reflect the nature of the forces that were allied during the “event”. This could be a reasonable and interesting way to “encourage narrative armies”.

    • euansmith

      The Hive Mind, “Please, tell me more of this Greater Good of which you speak?”

      Tau Ethereal, with blood oozing from nostrils, ears, eyes and mouth, “Grrrrnnnnnnnnnnn…”

    • matty199

      You need to re look at your warscrolls again, death may not have the most range but they can make exceptionally powerful lists, things like zombie hordes in big numbers, Setra and tomb heralds and god damn necrosphinx that can fly, warsphinxes, mourngouls. Much better than flesh eater courts

      • Karru

        I’ve looked at them before a lot. They were based around “spamming” since they were first introduced into Fantasy. Even their elite units are a notch weaker than other elites. This is a remnant from VC days, where the army relied on healing elite units and summoning new forces with spells. This was also what separated them from something like Goblins and Skaven when it came to “cheap hordes”.

        Tomb Kings were partially different story. They wanted to be separated from VC in their own way and were made slightly different because of that. They relied more on their characters and spells buffing them while still doing some healing. Their elites were better than those of VC, but couldn’t heal as fast, or at all, than their VC counterparts.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah. I wouldn’t be shocked if sisters slowly disappeared. I really expected them to get an update at some point. And now it looks like the new Ultramarines will be the posterboys of 8th edition 40K

  • joetwocrows

    We’ll see.

    Trite, but …

  • Hazamelistan

    Of course it hurts that the codices are gone. But the thing that annoys me more is that the “new” so much community focused GW squeezes the last buck out of their “valued” community. It’s not long they introduced new rules and stats with Gathering Storm (Why not starting with free stats there?) and the copy&paste-Codices like Imperial Agents. If they knew this since one and a half year this is just ripping of your “valued” customers.
    So much for “Trust us: We’re Games Workshop”.

    Same with the Shadow War Rulebook: Because social media Team messed up the link on Facebook it seems like the article was already written on April 1st. So much for the “We worked so hard for the last three weeks”-Myth. No, GW. I don’t trust you.

    • Andrew

      I know what you’re saying but really, what’s the alternative for them? Tell everyone not to buy their books for the next six months because there’s a new edition coming? Sales would tank. The fact that they given any official heads up at all is a pretty big deal.

      • TenDM

        I’m not saying it’s right, but two years ago they wouldn’t have done this much. They would have released a bunch of books they knew they were going to replace within six months and told you to get stuffed if you complained.
        This time they did Gathering Storm, Genestealer Cults and Imperial Agents. It’s not great that those books will go out of date soon, although we’ll probably play 7th for a while after 8th drops, but at least they’re not major books. Genestealer Cults released a whole new model line which was great, Gathering Storm moved the story forward and came with some models, and Imperial Agents was pretty optional.

      • Karru

        The problem here is that they completely invalidated the books. They basically replicated the End Times thing. “Yeah, buy these pretty expensive books that will be completely useless to you once the next edition drops in a few months, ENJOY!”

        What they should now do one of two things. First, if you show that you have a copy of the current codex, you will be given a free digital download or a physical copy of the army in question. For example, I bring them my Space Marine codex and they give me the new Space Marine codex for 8th edition for free.

        Now this may sound harsh, but it would help make people less angry.

        The other alternative is to go full AoS on the rules. Give all the unit rules, without points, for free as a PDF through the website. Make the main rulebook cost the same as the General’s Handbook and you’ll be good to go.

        This would be the easiest solution as well as the smarter one, for both the customer and GW. AoS has shown that giving people all the unit rules for free does help a lot when making decisions. People can more easily try out different things before they make the purchase.

        Also, they should announce if they are going to do it this way. The current announcement implies that there will be no free army rules available. Only the core rules will be free, everything else has to bought. This is what makes things at least sound very bad.

      • Hazamelistan

        Not telling to stop buying these books, because the fluff is really nice. But keeping it fluff books and be nice and give out stats and formations for free. I haven’t bought Gathering Storm because of the fluff. I bought it because it has the Calw inside and the AdMech-Formation. Why not put this just up as PDF back then?
        And also not long ago iBooks were promoted as THE way to stay up to date after the big FAQ.
        Don’t get me wrong, fluff is nice. But I don’t read that three or four times like I do with special rules and stats for my units.

      • Hazamelistan

        And I’ve no big hopes on ForgeWorld units. Remeber how long it took to get rules for Death from the Skies? And to be honest invalidating the IA books is much more expensive 😉

      • dante13

        Yes

  • TenDM

    That’s a pretty big leap on the faction consolidation. You’ve got to remember that most of this is built on the idea that Age of Sigmar was a disaster when it was released. The Grand Orders and removal of factions like Tomb Kings isn’t something they want to duplicate. Especially when most of the 40k factions are successful.

    • Bran D

      Agreed

  • Bran D

    What can we take away from it…nothing! Because even the things they’ve been testing out are just that,a test, we literally know nothing! But the sky is falling!

    • SYSTem050

      The big announcement was essentially we will be making a serious of smaller announcements spread over the next week.

      Its like they have addopted bols approach to article writing. Perhaps th knew that bols would split it out into multiple cl8ck bait articles so are saving them the hassel

  • Harkeal III Brennon

    Have you noticed on a helm from 8th edition announcement that half is normal space marine helm and the other is rotten, damaged with worms protruding. Maybe that combination is content of that surprise box…

    • SYSTem050

      This was pointed out to me. He thought it was death guard and dark angel. Agree with the death guard side that matches hp with the previous teased models and the fact that dg along with1ksons are listed as a seperate subfaction

      The inperiall side though doesnt look green enough to be da the icon ography does look da but wondered if it might be a left field choice and they have gone with raven guard

  • HibblersHeresy

    A better question ant tbh the only one that bothers me is what it means for the horus heresy.

    • SYSTem050

      Not much according to the faq. It will continue to use its existing rules. Eg modified 7th

  • Christie Bryden

    id really like to see thousandsons expanded to include veicles, but all in good time.

    • Brian Griffith

      Getting a model that’s a rubric and/or sorcerer equivalent of a Helbrute would be pretty neat.

  • Leviticus Stroud

    This is a better approach than was taken when 3rd came out. Back then GW kept selling codex books they knew were going to be invalidated up to just a couple of weeks before the new edition hit the shelves.

    However, I’m concerned that the reason we all knew this was coming is because the edition has become so bloated it is now impossible to fix any other way. The people who will be fixing this issue are (on the whole) the same ones who created it.
    Thus one can surmise they either did this deliberately as a ploy to manipulate the fans into being more accepting of a system reset, or they did it accidentally- in which case they are unlikely to be competent enough to get the new system to be as good as they claim it will be.

    • Troy G

      If all of the mistakes were made early in 7th, then we would have much more grounds for expectations for a higher level of competency for 8th ed, but The rules writing didn’t really improve over the course of 7th ed. If anything they got worse (Magnus, Pink Horror Split), so I’m pretty doubtful that the rules team will suddenly get good.

      • Andrew

        The rules for Magnus where increddible, and the pink horror rules where extremely fluffy and unless your playing against a douchbag it’s not that overpowered.

      • ZeeLobby

        I expect 8th to be a total imbalanced mess at the start. Clearly their comment of community driven updates means it’s purely up to us to balance and fix their game for them. What we might end up with is a yearly broken game, haha.

  • Sonic tooth

    Dont worry, ur armies won’t be squated, you can still “play” bretonnians and tomb kings too!

    • Troy G

      These factions didn’t make the list of 8th Ed factions:
      Skitarii
      Khorne Demonkin
      Assassins
      Inquisition
      Legion of the Damned
      Militarum Tempestus
      Astra Telepathica
      Aeronotica Imperilalis
      Renegade Knights

      Some of them are likely being subsumed into other factions (and with good reason). But they also decided not to merge the various Space Marines or Eldar Factions, and are keeping a Custodes faction, and a SoS Faction, so merging isn’t exactly being embraced fully.

      • Karru

        Inquisition, Legion of the Damned, Assassins, Astra Telepathica and Aeronotica Imperialis are all Imperial Agents, as per the Codex: Imperial Agents.

        Skitarii are part of the Ad Mech, always has been, and should have always been one big book instead of two separate ones.

        Tempestus Scions are rolled into Imperial Guard, where they belong. The Scions book was released as a way for GW to make some extra money before they dropped the Guard codex.

        KDK is the only one that makes me wonder why they removed it. It could be that they are planning on doing a World Eaters book at some point to replace it.

        • Brian Griffith

          To play KDK, all you really need is the Blood Tithe mechanic. Now, GW likes the Blood Tithe and in Age of Sigmar just gave it to all Khorne armies. I expect 40k to follow suit.

        • Troy G

          I agree Inquistion LotD, Assassins, AT, AI should have all had Imperial Agents faction. However as of a couple month ago in the new agents book, they decided each one needed to be its own factions because?
          Suck It people who want to use these rules in game?

          It’s just such a radical shift in design philosophy.

          As far as Militarum Tempestus. I’m pretty sure every MT player is hoping they’d get rolled into Imperial Agents as well. Deathwatch are to Space Marines as Militarum Tempestus are to IG. Of course if we get Key Words driving this sort of thing, no reason they couldn’t get both “Imperial Agents” and “IG” keywords.

          GW has spend so much time being really stupid with Factions, that it is hard to imagine them wising up. And seeing Custodes and SoS as their own faction it would seem to argue that they don’t really understand their past errors, or have a desire to fix them.

          • Karru

            Actually, I think they will be rolled into a book called “Imperial Agents” but they do not have the “Imperial Agents” keyword, if it even exists. The idea is that instead of having something like 9 books for one mini-faction each, they are instead collected into one handy book.

            I mean, would you rather pay 20€ per faction or 30€ for a bundle?

            Considering how AoS works with the Battleline units and making certain units Battleline if certain characters are present and so on, it wouldn’t surprise me if they made it so Scion could still be made their own army. Scion will most likely have the “Tempestus Scions” or similar Keyword.

            It will be like they do it in AoS. Let’s take those Scions for example.

            They will have the “Imperium” Keyword, this signifies that they are part of the Imperium and thus can be taken as part of any Imperial army without any issues or even be made their own army. “Imperial Guard” Keyword might be next, this signifies that the rules attached to Imperial Guard affects them as well, so rules like Orders if they still have those around would still affect them. Finally, they could have the “Militarum Tempestus” Keyword. This is the “unique” faction keyword that makes them their own thing.

            Then they can introduce something simple like “Tempestus Scions are considered a Battleline unit if the army only includes units with the ‘Militarum Tempestus’, ‘Aeronautica Imperialis’ and ‘Commissariat’ keywords.” This way those that want to make a pure army of Scions are still able to do so.

            The Keywords are actually one of the greatest things GW ever came up with. It allows for extreme flexibility while still keeping everything in clear.

  • Andrew

    I hope they get rid of all these wacky formations that give you models for free without paying points and whatever other wacky stuff going on; and that the game plays well at a reasonable level of models on the board. I’d love to have an Ork army that’s maybe 50 infantry and a handful of vehicles, or a space marine army that’s like 30 marines and a couple tanks and a dread; and still feel like I got in a good, playable game.

  • Admiral Raptor

    Invalidating all the codices is the best thing that could happen to 40k There’s no game more in need of a fresh start. 8th edition couldn’t fix a thing if it was weighed down by the worst written parts of the last edition. I suspect that most of the people upset about the change are those with the broken codices, who don’t want to lose the insane rules on their wraithknights, riptides, formations, and death stars.

    • ZeeLobby

      Agreed.

    • Crablezworth

      Why are you acting like different people are writing 8th?

  • Defenestratus

    I’m genuinely concerned for my enjoyment of the game. I have a feeling that the “matched play” is going to be the default mode that people are going to want to play because they see it as “more fair” and therefore “better”.

    I also worry that the focus on streamlining is going to gut the unique and individual character out of many of the factions/units. The move from 2nd to 3rd put my models in the closet for that entire edition – and I’m not looking forward to that happening again.

    • Well if AOS is any indicator, indeed matched play is the default and deviating from matched play will be very difficult if you live in a competitive area or your group is primarily competitive.

      • Defenestratus

        It’s not even a competitive environment that fosters this kind of mentality.

        “ok I’m bringing 1500 points of marines, what do you have?”

        “Oh I don’t know, i was thinking I’d play casual mode so I just brought my favorite models.”

        +Oh this guy just wants to use cheesey cheaty stuff+ “eh, I’d rather play matched mode”

        *sigh*

        • 😀 i consider that a competitive environment.

          I started wargaming in the 80s though when there werent points and you had to come up with your own scenarios and forces though so I have a point of comparison.

        • ZeeLobby

          Sounds competitive to me, haha. That said I’d never play a game without points as I do enjoy close games. But I get your worry.

        • Big Red

          The only reason that someone would bring the “cheesey cheaty stuff” is if he is looking at the game as a competition where they want to beat you. Competitive gaming is where you have as your objective to win over your opponent.

          Cooperative or Collaborative is all players working together to have a cool story happen on the table. You don’t get people exploiting loopholes or taking “chessey cheaty stuff”, because that is not fun in coop gaming, and there is no quicker way to make sure that you can’t find a game.

          In my main group, there is a strong cooperative gaming mindset and we never really have a problem with people abusing systems.

          • Troy G

            So I’ve got a buddy. He claims that his favorite model is the riptide. So he wants to bring nothing but Riptides. 7 Riptides in 2 riptide wings are his “Casual” army. When he plays competitively he usually plays IG.

            By your definition he is looking at the game as a competition where he wants to beat you. I would counter, that he is looking at the game as a way to put his favorite models on the table.

            It’s a shame he can’t do that without coming across as a cheesy a-hole.

    • TenDM

      Matched Play as standard is good because it clearly separates it from the other play styles. Unlike 7th Edition where the rules tried to please everyone by mashing both groups into the same ruleset. Unbound players had all these complicated rules they didn’t care for, while Battleforged players had to house rule a bunch of basic rules.

      I think this way is going to make it easier for us to find appropriate matches. You say up front which style instead of sitting down and discovering that when I said ‘lets have a match’ meant ‘CADs only, no Lords of War, no non-Codex supplements, 1850 points exactly and no Eldar’.
      I’m so sick of having to negotiate rules.

      As for streamlining I’m not too concerned. You’re right that it might put specifics in dangers, but ultimately streamlining isn’t about getting rid of stuff it’s about making the stuff that’s there work better. I haven’t seen anything to say it’s dumber, just smoother. With any luck streamlining the core rules will allow the Codices to be more complex without over complicating the game.
      In any case the silver lining is that things should be fun in different ways. I have a feeling Genestealers and Eldar Rangers are going to become more viable, so hopefully I’ll be able to dust them off.

      • Defenestratus

        Your optimism regarding GW’s ability to streamline while not stripping the soul out of your favorite units isn’t tinted by the experience of the 2nd->3rd “great evisceration” as I call it – I’m guessing.

        Sigh. No Eldar. Am I the only one that plays Eldar and takes jetbikes with something other than scatter lasers?

        • TenDM

          Heh. My biggest wishlist item for 8th is repricing the Scatter Laser option. The second I pull a stock Windrider out I hear the groans. I’d actually prefer to have a bad Codex over this one.

          I know I’m being a bit naive, but I really do think GW are taking 8th Edition very seriously. I also know that at the end of the day Warhammer is Warhammer. I played in 2nd and I played in 3rd and for all it’s faults I enjoyed it.
          Also most of my favourite units were shelved thanks to 7th. I really like the concept of Detachments made up of Formations but it plays a big part in deciding what I take. Not to mention the fact a lot of cool stuff sucks.

          • Troy G

            It’s always an interesting argument. When it comes to rules is GW disinterested (lazy), incompetent, or Evil (Trying to tell stories through crappy rules).

            I’m sure there is a mix of all 3. It would be easy to see a radical improvement if they are mainly disinterested, but if they are incompetent it is unlikely they will improve.

            If they are mainly evil, and want Eldar and Demons to be broken as a way to tell a story then god help us all.

  • My soul is ready. I want to love 40k again.

    • ZeeLobby

      Amen. Everyone in our group is skeptical, but excitedly waiting. We still have all our armies and are ready to go. We just want some semblance of balance and thought in the rules. Please please please…

  • Commissar Molotov

    I’d say the biggest “takeaway” of all is the Toughness stat.

  • piglette

    At this point, more changes are better. I’m all for a complete rules and organization renovation.

  • bob82ca

    “OMG the rules will be free just like AOS! Fantastic news!”. Are you guys sniffing paint? The AOS rulebook was 2 f-ing pages. You can shoot with archers while fighting in h2h…at a different target! It’s probably the worst table top game ever designed. How is that a good sign? And free rules… you know AOS is not that balanced right? Just sit back and watch some AOS battle reports on youtube and you will see a dude on a dragon completely table the other guy. The rumors so far are actually troubling if anything. Watering down AP weapons so that everything can hurt everything. Doing away with armor system so that vehicles have wounds. No blast templates, just dice..etc. It’s like AOS 40k, no tactics just clusterf*** in the middle of the board and roll dice.

    • Adrien Fowl

      From your words it seems you haven’t played AoS much. I was of the same opinion as you before playing it; I am completely in love with it.

      You don’t have to agree with me tho.

  • Hrudian

    http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a53d8450709ae8551cd280addcce6ec7cad59f5ba8480f03c5e179b5ebec89ad.jpg

    This pic seems to confirm that the starter set will be Deathguard vs. Ultras.

    What is this (nurgle) character exactly in the middle of the pic? (under the three marines on the platform). Looks like some sort of Nurgle deamon prince. It’s on a bigger base.

    The models on the left side of the crater look like what could be new plaguebearers. :O

  • stinkoman

    “the factions are listed as: Chaos, Imperium, and Xenos” – not sure how you saw that.

    i saw “choose a side”: Chaos/Imperium/Xenos, then once you choose a side, you then choose a faction. factions are not Chaos, Imperium, an xenos. all the factions we have now are still there, with what looks like the addition of death guard and ynnari.

    • Troy G

      “Choose a Side” implies grand alliances.

  • Crablezworth

    The internet: “It’s a good thing the inept rules writers are starting fresh” This is the same company that tried to force an extra phase into the game while hoping the bloat would hide the rot.

  • Hell-Nico

    I’ll be honest, I’m really surprised to see the Craftworld/Dark Eldard/Harlequin still present as a race and not completely replaced by the Ynnari.

    I guess it’s because they are pulling a AOS again and will technically let every figs and faction be here, just for the start before completely removing them from the setting.

  • Andy Wise

    One thing that struck me is the repeated references to engagement with the community on this. Very much a volte face on the previous line of no engagement whatsoever…

  • CrisisSuitsOwn

    Going back to 2nd is a mistake. Many of the mechanics were broken and cumbersome. Thankfully it doesn’t seem like they’re doing that aside from save mods which will make powered arnor marines the weakest unit in the game for their points. 2nd edition marines were a joke.
    Getting rid of the codexes feels like a cheap cop out. Codexes did a lot more this edition with the introduction of formations and detachments. They could just release a PDF update at launch to convert codexes to the current rules. People will buy the new codexes when they eventually come out anyway, why make their very expensive rulebooks obsolete?
    It makes me think that what happened in 3rd will happen again. Everyone gets stuck with a bland “Ravening Hordes” army until their codex comes out. When an army’s codex dropped, that army owns the game.
    In 3rd we got the space marine rhino rush codex.
    Then every other codex was a marine killer cookbook.
    Orcs could ignore marine saves and were virtually unbreakable.
    Eldar had star cannons.
    Etc…
    It was the worst codex creep the game had ever seen and it was made worse by some players having codexes and other players not having them for half the life of the edition.
    Here’s to hoping they avoid that this time…

  • dante13

    What happens to my codexes?
    The rules in our current range of Warhammer 40,000 codexes aren’t compatible with the new
    edition of Warhammer 40,000.

    Thousands of dollars wasted… jesus.

    • CrisisSuitsOwn

      Yep. I have Kauyon and Mont’ka. $150 down the toilet. They all get replaced by crappy generic lists. Then the marines will get a codex which will stomp everyone into dust because they will have new toys no one else will have. Then whoever else is in the boxed set will get a face stomping codex. Then the next codex and so on. Just like 3rd ed. Started off great and ended with a hot mess. Hopefully 9th ed. won’t be the utter trainwreck that 4th ed. was.

      Wish they would just tweak 5th ed. and bring that back. Best edition of the game where the player base was at its highest.

      • dante13

        Whats worse is i just purchased all the latest codexs, the expansions, chaos latest for me and my brother, the three latest girlyman titles and now this..

        They knew this was coming and took my money with glee, pretty poor form imo..

  • Jay Shepherd

    Sucks for those who bought a ton of army books, but you guys should be used to this by now. I may try the new edition, if it’s been simplified.

  • marxlives

    So glad WMH abandoned the concept of using codices to build an army on day one. Cards or excuse me warscrolls are a way better route than dumping 500 dollars into books. And what stopped GW from releasing FAQs regularly before. So all the games played with points before not Matched play? Free core rules? Don’t know if this will bring in new players who are not AoS players who are also 40k players already. Free rules are pretty standard.

    Now games sizes being 1-2 medium monster or vehicle, 1 hq, and 1-2 units as the standard game size would really bring in more new players.

    Basically, Mantics view of a game, Deadzone, Firefight, and Warpath is a better organization of a game. Each with its own rule set to provide the game the depth that it needs. But also allowing all sizes of play rather than just box game one shots.

  • Nyyppä

    It’s funny to see that some people still think that 7th did not die the second necrons was released.