40K vs Age of Sigmar: the Stats

At last we can get a good look at the stats of some sample units in the grimdark to see exactly what GW has in mind:

Earlier we had compared some sample stat blocks from both games to get an idea of what GW was up to. today we have yet another datapoint to start to figure things out:

40K 8th Edition Stat blocks

We just got these from GW today.

 

The Other Systems

Now let’s go back and look at some sample stat blocks from the other GW systems:

Our Sample Bloodletter

The Bloodletter is an excellent unit to use as out test. It exists in all three systems and does pretty much the same thing in all games.  It’s the kind of baseline core/troops units that isn’t flashy so it doesn’t have anything too crazy to translate.  It’s very much the same kind of unit as say a Space Marine Tactical Squad, or a unit of Ork Boyz.

Warhammer Fantasy

Age of Sigmar

 

Warhammer 40,000

 

Compare & Contrast

It certainly looks like we are seeing some HUGE changes in the new edition just based on the stat blocks revealed.

Here is what the Stat block looked like in 40K Rogue Trader – 1st Edition, way back in 1987:

The transition from Rogue Trader to 2nd Edition and onto 3rd in 1998 removed Intelligence, Coolness and Willpower, leaving us with the current statblock we all know and love.

Right out of the gate 8th Edition sees yet another stat biting the dust – Initiative. It made it through 7 editions, but it’s day is done.  That is already a big shock and implies a total revamp to exactly how assaults will be working.

On the other hand, after 19 years, the Movement stat returns to 40K.  YAY. Look for the designers to take advantage of this to give units a lot more nuance and texture. I like the way Terminators are 1″ slower than tactical marines for example.  It’s those little things I really enjoy.  Just think about how fast things like Harlequins or how slow Nurglings might go.  Lots of room for cool design there.

Then we get to the REAL big ones, changing WS and BS to fixed values is entirely new for the 40K universe. Yes we’ve already seen it in Age of Sigmar, but it’s a big deal for the Grimdark.  I think while strange at first, it will speed up play and remove one set of charts that have been with us for 30 years.  Just think of the new generation of 40K players who will enter the game without ever knowing the old BS chart in their heads.  Madness!

Onto the Vehicles. I think the thing I like the most of the 4 profiles show is the Dreadnought. this instantly takes it from dusty shelf model to something that can see some serious action on the tabletop.  Even more importantly it gives me hope for things like Predators, Carnifexes, and all manner of other quality models who can get back in the fight. More tabletop model variety is ALWAYS a good thing.

 

 

Last but not least, when we see things like the 14 wounds on Skarbrand and GW saying that “10” is no longer the max stat, I have high hopes for all kinds of the big boys in the game like superheavies and monstrous creatures.

On balance, I am VERY optimistic. Yes it looks like some of the elements from Age of Sigmar Warscrolls have been incorporated into the Grimdark. But certainly not all, and there is still mostly classic 40K sitting in those statblocks.  It looks like GW is trying to thread the needle of keeping 40K’s heritage while cleaning it up with some modern design elements lifted from AoS.

I have no idea when it’s hitting the tabletop but I can hardly wait to try it out – my Predators especially!

~ I can’t wait to see what things like a Baneblade look like! What sidelined units’ return are you most anticipating?

  • wibbling

    It’s quite comical: all those people whining that they hated Age of Sigmar are now rejoicing that 40K went the same way.

    • Charon

      These are not the same people. In fact it is fact the same people that already play AoS that were crying for AoS in space.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Not true. I didn’t like AoS (and still don’t like it), but not because of the stat line. I appreciate if GW adapts the things that worked over to 40k without repeating the mistakes (like no point values).

        • ZeeLobby

          I’m just not sure AoS is a good indicator of what is actually good or not though. They took a system that was dead by their account (mostly at their own hand) and then completely flipped the table. AoS has sold better, but when your baseline is 0, it kind of has to.

          I’ll wait to see the full rules, and some of it looks very promising, but some of it really just wasn’t necessary. Internal/External balance was really the most important thing that needed to be fixed.

          • Shawn

            It is possible, mind you, that the task of internal balance of all the codices was such a monumental task (consider the number of factions and their mind numbing number of options) that the GW design team thought it would be easier to kind of reboot everything.

            Additionally, they can keep a closer look on the games progress and make changes as needed more readily in a simpler more streamlined system. And, as an added bonus, the customers and fans feel much better because their voice can now help develop the game going forward.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean I definitely think thats part of it. I think they got rid of most of the team that originally wrote these core rules and the faction books that went with it, so it was probably a lot easier for them to rebalance around simpler rules that they created.

            I mean don’t get me wrong, it’s all positives. Even some of the core stuff in the 40K rules needed some streamlining. I just think using AoS as a clear indicator that all the changes were positive might not be true. I mean it could be, I’m not saying I have all the answers. But it’ll be interesting to see if sales of 40K actually increase past the first initial rush year, or if these core changes push enough people away to see it continue to fall.

            At least locally, a lot of the numbers that are bolstering our AoS playerbase are coming from what they consider a broken 40K, so what does that mean when 40K is fixed? Will there be an exodus back. Gameplay wise they will be similar enough I’m not sure how many people will eagerly play both.

            It’s interesting to think about. But yeah, the community feedback was honestly a requirement at this point. They’re really one of the last companies to implement something like that.

          • Shawn

            Definitely; implementing feedback is indeed a needed requirement in today’s business world. At least, if you want to be successful. I understand your point about being cautiously optimistic.

            Having played a few games of AoS and enjoying them, coupled with what I’ve seen from the design team I am looking forward to this. Partially because GW has finally told the tournament players that their are different ways to play. Apparently, this needed to be said in a rule book to show that my way to play is just as valid as theirs. Also, that the rules will be updated and revised as needed, instead of waiting to be over bloated again. The video stream QA put to rest a lot of questions I had.

            Now, you mentioned bringing in new folks or folks who left for other games. I think the new starter set placed at a comparable price point to other games would be an awesome way to do it. Instead of $125 starter set, make a $50-75 starter set with two small units fighting a small skirmish over a simple objective. The price point for entry becomes much more accessible for a lot of people. I think that would go a long way to luring people in.

          • AircoolUK

            AoS has those mini starter kits with just one faction. You could easily imagine a few friends just picking up one each rather than splitting a box which isn’t always practical.

          • Shawn

            Agreed. I was thinking of those when I wrote that post.

          • Steven Hyche

            Didnt you just say in another post that no one in your group liked the changes? Yet now you are saying that people in your group will like them and drop AoS?

          • ZeeLobby

            There’s a difference between my “group” (4/5 friends I’ve played with since childhood) and our local store and it’s meta (well technically 3 stores, probably around 40/50 GW gamers, maybe 100+ including other systems. Though most play other systems now, there’s simply still AoS events while 40K has ceased to exist for the most part besides the occasional PUG). I might occasionally accidentally reference them as group as well. I honestly don’t know one AoS player who moved there from Fantasy, almost all of them are 40K players who switched over. Most Fantasy players moved on to other systems (WMH, Frostgrave, WoK, KoW, etc.)

          • AircoolUK

            Yep, and balance changes can be put into the game by simply changing the individual data sheets. Whilst users of paper (those of us that refuse to buy into Apple or prefer the real thing) will have to download and print the new PDF, Apple drones can simply update their rules apps.

            Along with annual updates that will tackle wider issues with the ruleset, we’ve got the closest thing to a living rulebook as we’ll probably ever get, at least in the near future.

          • Munn

            You know the app works on every device but kindle right?

          • AircoolUK

            I have a kindle 😉 Does it work on PC?

          • Shawn

            Agreed. It’s a refreshing and much needed change.

      • ZeeLobby

        True for the most part. As with humanity, there’s people inbetween. But yes, most people I see praising these changes abandoned 40K for AoS back when it was launched.

        Personally, I’m not a fan of AoS’s rules, and that gives me pause when looking at this. I’ll just be happy if they rebalance it to the point where our group can occasionally put down the games we play with depth and play with our 40K action figures every once in a while, without feeling like our 10 year old faction choice hasn’t already decided the game.

      • Kinsman

        I’m hoping beyond hope the game is close to AoS.

        • AircoolUK

          Or close to AoS 2.0, which of course will just be the next Generals Handbook I expect 🙂

    • Nilok

      If Tyranids and Orks actually become balanced instead of the cycle of pain they have been in for the past two editions, it will be good, at least for people who like to play things other than Space Marines and Eldar.

      • ZeeLobby

        Haha. THIS is where my excitement for 8th comes from.

    • Andrew

      Its not altogether very similar. They made WS and BS fixed values, and everything else is the same. AoS has no real similarity to what came before.

    • ThorOdinson

      Except that we’re NOT getting AOS. Most certainly not the dumb garbage complained about.

      – People complained about the To Wound roll being based on the attacker, which resulted in situations where a Human Spearman rolled the same thing to wound a Grot or a Steam Tank. That doesn’t exist here.
      – People complained about random turns in AOS allowing players to get two turns in a row. From all reports, there won’t be any random turns in 40k.
      – People complained about shooting into and out of combat in AOS. That won’t exist in 40k.

      And of course, a lot of the REALLY dumb things which existed when AOS first came out, like no points, isn’t what we’re getting with 40k, as we’re getting competitive play right away, rather than a rushed-out-the-door add-on to save a game which was hemorrhaging players.

      There are some good things to the AOS rules, but they’re not carrying over the dumb rules, and that’s why people are rejoicing.

    • ThorOdinson

      And let’s not forget that AOS replaced a rank-and-file combat game, while 40k has always been a skirmish game, so the change isn’t as massive.

    • No-one Special

      Despite the similarities, you can’t compare what happened with AoS to 40k.

      40k is still the same game with it’s feel and identity and background all retained. It’s still ‘skirmish’ based, and most of the stats are being kept or just swapped out. The have put in place an amnesty for books bought within the last 2 months from the time of announcement to compensate for wasted expenditure on the old system.

      Now contrast this with what happened with AoS.
      Drastic changes to how the game worked and it’s background to the point where it’s not the same game anymore. Most stats gone or changed, all bases changed to circular and units switched from rank and file to skirmish type game, many charcters/models killed off, many many idiotic rules (who has the biggest moustache for crying out loud) for peoples existing models, no points values at first making a standard pick up game almost impossible, selling end times books right up to the point of change with no extended returns window etc. etc. etc.

      The Aos launch was an unmitigated disaster that had to very quickly be fixed, and GW learnt a lot of lessons of how not to do it. WFB was the poor guinea pig and now 40k is reaping the benefits – people had every right to complain about how they were treated with the AoS release, and it’s because of that complaining 40k players are now getting something they actually wanted and can benefit from.

      • foulestfeesh13 .

        “40k players are now getting something they actually wanted and can benefit from.” This isn’t entirely accurate many people didn’t want this, but every time they say as much others online jump on them and tell them they’re wrong and to stop whining.

        • No-one Special

          A bit loosely worded, yes, but the general consensus was 40k was bursting at the seams in it’s current state and needed a major overhaul to streamline the ruleset and speed up play.
          Granted some people may not be happy, particulary those with large collections of codexs, but in the long run I think it will benefit the game as whole and players can make the transition if and when they want to.

          • Loki Nahat

            I don’t think I’ve heard anyone in real life complain about 7th edition, online yes, real life, no

          • No-one Special

            You’ve never heard anyone complain about the number of books they had to buy/carry for their army? Or the time it takes to finish even a medium sized game? Then I consider you fortunate to have to found the perfect game for you and your opponents.
            Personally, I complain about the sheer abundance of special rules all the time – what’s the point of even having a Universal Special Rule list anymore?

          • Loki Nahat

            If you dont like special rules, boy are you gunna hate 8th.

            Every unit has its own special rules. Just like AoS.

          • Pyrrhus of Epirus

            every army in 40k right now has special rules, plus 200 universal special rules.

          • Loki Nahat

            in 8th, every single unit will have special rules and probably damage tables if they are vehicles and monsters, just like AoS

          • AircoolUK

            …and even the rules in each Codex are often in three different places.

          • Munn

            I used to be big into tournament play, went to a bunch of gts and had a lot of fun. But it started to drag as more and more stuff came out and I picked up sigmar, which is just infinitely better as a tournament game, culminating in me dropping out of the adepticon championship round two because ‘I could be playing sigmar right now’ was pretty much the only thing I was thinking both games.

          • David

            No and I carried 5 books to my last etc, if I want a quick game I won’t play 40k, the abundance of rules and complexity is what makes 40k different don’t like it there’s many alternatives. Just as having no tactical depth is what makes aos different. Yes some streamlining was needed and I welcome vehicle changes but….

            take templates

            40k has them- great I do more damage to hoards I have to be carefully where I place my models deep strike is penalised as are cramming units into tiny ruins lots of tactics

            Removing templates would be a disaster using the Aos model the heavy flamer becomes one of the best tank killers

            Aos doesn’t have templates so hoards clump as close to the enemy as they can get
            No tactics

          • Munn

            So wait, since when was ‘spend two hours moving 60 orc boyz exactly 2″ away from each other tactics? And you’re defending needing 5 books to play one game with one army? Aos has MORE tactical depth than 40k, not less. In 40k you can just 2++ rerolable invis up a 1500 point unit to faceroll smash every game. In AoS you actually have to think about your movement, target selection, were you want to charge, when you want to charge, when to risk extending forward and when to hold back, screening your backline objective holders without comprimising your posistion. THe people who say sigmar has no depth are people who either haven’t played it or SUCK at it.

          • AircoolUK

            AoS had depth, a lot of depth. The sort of depth that comes from each unit having specific discrete rules and specific discrete interactions via Keywords.

            That system also has the advantage of being able to keep powerful abilities from being abused.

            By far the best way to ‘cheese it’ in AoS is to run with a Battalion (the most granular of Allegiances). They confer powerful abilities to your whole army, but are built around a fluffy concept. For Example, a Bonesplitterz Savage Warclan can re-roll their Ju-ju Warpaint rolls. A Drakkfoot Warclan’s Ju-ju Warpaint can also nullify any spells on a roll of a 6 (along with a few other abilities). And if the Drakkfoot Warclan totally fills it’s Organisation Chart, it get’s the re-roll ability for Ju-ju Warpaint as well.

            The point is, there are multiple layers of complexity built into the way armies are organised, yet you only need to take a handfull of Warscrolls to the party, not a rucksack full of books.

            There is a lot of depth to the game which just isn’t apparent in the core rules (obviously).

            Templates are just one example of rules being streamlined by abstraction, yet yielding the same results as something more complex and realistic.

          • David

            Really I play wanderers I take 90 archers = half my army which have little choice over I deploy forward ad I can I fireturn step back fire step back fire hit the back edge my opponent walks forward in a straight line and hopes for a doubLe turn or else he loses and who cares about the 1/12 games that goes to mission oh I’ve only played a game of aos every week for the last 12ish weeks lost 1 game the stormcast player portaled units infront of my archers and made the charge turn 1 50% of my army died before I got a go

          • No-one Special

            If you’re cool with buying and carrying 5 books around with you then i’m happy for you – but you can’t tell me everyone agrees with you. And you agree the rules needed work.

            I’m for keeping templates – for the reasons you’ve stated and also because I think they’re an important part of the 40k experience – and i’ll be sad if the tourney gamers won the argument and got them removed.

          • David

            I’ve never seen a tourney gamer complain about templates. Fluff gamers a few times.

            Not everyone does but then I will point to aos, dead zone, kings of war, malifaux (arranged in order of complexity) as alternatives if you want something simpler with fewer sources

          • No-one Special

            Why would a fluff gamer complain about a template and a tourney player not when the issue was how long it takes to resolve the outcome because of disputes over placement?

          • David

            Because it’s fluff players who routinely don’t understand rules about multiple levels and that blasts don’t have to be over the centre of a model.

            I’ve never encountered any others

          • AircoolUK

            Templates were the sort of thing which ‘that guy’ would spend far too long min/max’ing and argue the toss over 1mm of base possibly being over a model, or the template not actually covering the intended area because there was terrain in the way, or the template wasn’t flat because of that huge flagpole.

            And that was before the ‘discussion’ about which model was or wasn’t in cover.

            Even in recent additions of 40K templates were thrown out for overwatch. No big deal for me that they’ve gone. It’s another case where abstraction gives the same result as realism but without surplus time and effort.

          • arkhanist

            Because those of us who had just given up playing 40k because of its flaws (massive bloat, time to play, faction imbalance, cheese builds) wouldn’t be around other 40k players playing 40k to complain to in real life. It’s a form of survivorship bias.

            I’m a vet from rogue trader days, and I haven’t played hardly any 40k for maybe 5 years, just painting for fun. From what I’m hearing, the streamlining and rebalance in 8th may well get me to dust off an army or two and get back into it. Particularly if factions other than codex marines get new stuff that’s actually fun and playable.

          • ZeeLobby

            Don’t get too excited. I’m sure SMs and Imperials in general will still receive 5x as many releases as other factions.

          • vlad78

            Ubermarines will certainly get 5X as many releases, normal astartes will probably be left a bit in the cold.

          • AircoolUK

            I’m with you. I’m a Rogue Trader vet alongside Warhammer 2nd. The recent iterations of both 40K and WHFB had strayed too far from the basic premise of these games (miniature wargame), yet hadn’t evolved beyond growing old, fat and confused.

            AoS kicked off in the right direction and it’s success no doubt pushed the new 40K further up the timeline using the lessons learned over two years of AoS releases and feedback.

            If GW hadn’t blown up the Old World and reset the universe, AoS would have converted WHFB players on a larger scale and faster timescale. You’ll always get your stalwarts, but there’s no doubting that GW made some fundamental mistakes, mostly points values and fluff.

            The fluff did need to move on, but there’s nothing in AoS that prevents you from playing games set in the Old Word whilst using the AoS ruleset.

          • vlad78

            Yes there is one thing, the removal of ranks and files. WFB at its heart was a hybrid between historical wargaming and fantasy. Removing that and you have a game, not a wargame. BTW AOS is far inferior to what WFB was during its golden age = oldhammer and 5th, 6th editions or even 7th before the new army books.

            The atrocious fluff is just the final nail which makes AOS a total no go for me.

            Ironically AOS rules will probably work better for 40k which is a skirmish game at its core even if I find completely dumb not to use a full alternate activation system.

          • ZeeLobby

            Dunno about 7th, but where are these real world people who hate lookup tables or doing math? LoL. You always see them online, but I’ve never met one in person despite decades of gaming.

          • AircoolUK

            You’ve never played Warhammer Siege then 😉

          • Tothe

            You never heard me complain because I never bothered to go play games. 7th neutered my Orks and bloated the rules beyond my ability to cope.

          • Shawn

            You haven’t been on BoLS long have you, then?

          • Loki Nahat

            nah, only 3 years

          • Shatterclaw

            But hay, all those codecies are collector edtions out of print book!

          • AircoolUK

            The general consensus around here was that things needed fixing before AoS existed. GW and its games were dinosaurs.

            I would have thought that, most of the feedback generated in GW stores and independents came from those handing over the cash, whether they were players or buying for others. Those are the people who’s opinions count for GW.

            There are a lot of players who buy the majority of their miniatures on Ebay and some who get remoulds from China etc… GW won’t be taking too much notice of their feedback as they’re not buying GW’s core product; miniatures.

        • Heinz Fiction

          Yeah, many people didn’t want this and were super happy with 7th edition. But I dare to say many more people DO want this. As we both don’t have numbers to back up our point, I trust my gut feeling on this

          • Shawn

            I find myself in between. I like seventh for the most part, and I feel it could have been fixed by reworking tau and eldar, and streamlining/simplifying how the USRs worked. However, with the changes coming to 40k I am suprisingly okay and lookign forward to it. Based on the dreadnought and space marine profiles it appears my Iron Hands will pretty much work the same way they did in 7th with minor differences. Also, having a simpler system for us non-math folks is a bonus. Also, that now that GW is going the hands on/community feedback approach with 40k this makes me optimistic that GW will change rules as they need, instead of coming out with a new edition every couple of years.

          • Munn

            See the fact that you say Tau tells me you actually never had to deal with the worst of what this edition had to offer. Tau were never very good without forgeworld stuff, even just after the stormsurge/riptide wing came out. The riptide wing was a solid option but nothing else the tau have was worth it so they became the universal allies. It was DAEMONS that wer super fu**ed up, especially post Cyclopian cabal. Even Eldar were struggling to compete post Magnus.

          • AircoolUK

            The online and real world perception of Tau were a real dichotomy. Internet lists comprised of Riptides and the bare minimum of FW units whereas most people’s armies used a lot more FW’s ‘cos they were cool to look at and cheaper to buy. The armies you’d see being fielded were often a mix of everything as the player had bought a box of each unit so you’d see Fire Warriors, Kroot, Crisis Suits, Stealth Suits, Broadsides and perhaps a tank or two transports.

            You’d often face opponents with armies constructed in a similar way (one or two boxes of everything). You’d get a good game, but as soon as someone ‘cheesed it’ with an internet list, those games wouldn’t be fun anymore. You had the choice between not playing ‘that guy’, not having much fun playing ‘that guy’ or ‘cheesing it’ yourself and becoming ‘that guy’.

            40K had become ‘that guy’. Fat, sweaty, lumbering, unsociable and causing people to leave due to the rank smell.

    • zeno666

      All those voices in your head again?

      • ZeeLobby

        It’s the daemons I tells yah!

        • Shawn

          wibbling must be an unsanctioned psyker.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. He’s definitely let his guard down.

    • vyrago

      and when many predicted 40k would indeed go that way, they said “that will never happen” or “they would never do that to 40k”.

    • Talos2

      The to hit stats are absurd, why would a normal space marine hit guilleman on a 3+ (more likely than not)? but I have vowed to give it a chance as the current game is so heavily broken. Hopefully the whole will be better than it is despite my dislike of specific nonsense. Any embarrassingly rubbish ideas like putting up hoods to get rerolls or making horse noises will 100% not be welcome however

      • Munn

        Why wouldn’t he hit guilliman, isn’t guilliman like 11 feet tall and weighs as much as a small country?

        • Talos2

          Because it’s a fast moving rampaging country that is better at fighting and trying to hit you. YOu can stand in front of a speeding bus and try to punch it, but it would be it that hit you.

      • AircoolUK

        You’re forgetting any special rules that Guilleman may have. It may be something as simple as enemies having a negative attack roll modifier, to something like the ability to parry attacks and counter attack for each attack parried.

        We just don’t know and it’s short sighted to infer how units will interact with just the stat line alone.

        I think it’s somewhat naive to think that a Space Marine will be able to trade blows with Guilleman on an equal basis.

        • Talos2

          Well, here’s hoping

  • Andrew Jones

    Will be interesting to see the new rules. I’ve only recently come back to the game but am a veteran of the 2nd and 3rd editions. From what I remember of 2nd edition, cover was very important. From what I remember soft cover gave a -1 to hit and hard cover was -2.
    3rd edition opened the game up in terms of introducing ap on weapons which meant it was no longer as important to hide your marines in cover each turn. Am not sure it will necessarily be a good thing to step backwards in this sense but open minded to see which way it will turn out.

  • vlad78

    Terminator will be 2 wounds models with a 2+ save in a system using save modifiers? Seems that they’ll become even more fragile if small arms have modifiers.

    • Andreas Noche

      Might have a rule to balance that

    • Kostas Kostis

      i play sylvaneth . They have large models with a 3+ save that becomes a 2+ with a trait . A 2+ save is very very good in age of sigmar even with all the modifiers . My spirit of durthu survived the attacks of an ironjaws lord and a squad of brutes ( nobs ) with 3 wounds received only . So to see a 2+ save on the termies is astonishing to me . Imagine that the retributors ( termies of sigmar ) have 3 wounds and a 4+ save and still fight with distinction , are generally a unit to avoid in close combat and high survivability . All in all i might just start 40k again. 4 armies that languished in boxes might see the light of day !!!!!!!!!!

      • Karru

        We won’t know for certain how well that 2+ save will help Terminators until we see how they do Rending exactly in 40k. You should remember that most weapons in AoS that do Rending only reduce it by -1. Those weapons are either rare, are harder to hit or have lower attacks than other weapon options. In 40k, if they made Bolter have -1 rending, it will be devastating, even against other Marines. Reducing the save from 3+ to a 4+ is quite big, especially when you are getting shot from 20+ of those things.

        Then you have other weapons that could be massed. Imperial Guard Autocannons for example. Currently they fire 2 shots and are AP4. That might translate to -2 or even -3 in the new system. That Terminator Save just went from 2+ to 5+, and that won’t be doing much good for long.

        Which is why people aren’t exactly jumping with joy when it comes to these rumoured changes. Terminators always had their price and low numbers as a weakness. Their only “saving grace” (hehe) was their Armour. That got pretty useless fast as you could just overwhelm it. Then came the Grav and laughed.

        • No-one Special

          I can’t imagine Bolters having -1. Pulse rifles and Gauss flayers, yeah, maybe.
          An Autocannon should only really be -1 too, you’d be looking at Plasma and high powered AT weaponry to get to -2, and only the biggest of weapons would be -3.

          • Karru

            Now that I thought about it a bit, maybe they’ll increase the strength of weapons, but give out less rending?

            My assumptions were based on translations. Many of the weapons in AoS that now cause -1 rending or even -2 were either Great Weapons, were originally wielded by dudes that had Strength 4 that caused -1 to Saves or they had Armour Piercing Special Rule.

            Since something like a Plasma Gun outright ignored the save of a Terminator before, I assumed it might have -5 as a rending. More I started to think about it, dumber it felt. So maybe 40k will adopt the same 1 to 3 rending system, but increase the strength of some weapons to make them “differ” a bit from each other? That might be something.

        • Shatterclaw

          Bolters wont have rending.. Not pistols or boltguns.. Youll still see that on autocannons and Rippers guns..

          • Karru

            They do in SW:A, but that might not be transported to 8th edition.

        • Kostas Kostis

          in AOS judicators ( shooty sigmarines ) have a rend of 1. That is true , but they are 160 points for 5 models and have 1 shot each , aside from the leader that has a special rule that allows d6 wound shots . kurnoth hunters ( a very very good shooting unit) has 2 attacks with rend 1 and d3 damage and they are three models per unit for 180 points . Most models have a save of 5+ , 4+ is good , 3+ is very good and i don’t think that any unit has a 2+ save as base . I don’t know if the termies will be worth it in the new edition but were they any good now? I played with my dark angel 30+ terminator army and lost pathetically each time so i don’t think they were that good in this edition , Also if they are 200 points for five models ( like the sigmaran termies ) and as good in close combat as the retributors then you will enjoy them that i guarantee.

          • Karru

            I actually doubt that they’ll be reducing ranges, but instead they might give out modifiers to it. Over half range might give -1, cover might give -1 or even 2 and so on. They did say they are bringing back modifiers to effect the “fixed” to-hit stats, so that might be the way.

            Regarding rending in 40k, read my comment to No-one Special, I have a theory on how they might do rending in 40k.

          • ZeeLobby

            If ranges reduced I think I’d cry with joy 🙂

          • Kostas Kostis

            I fully agree. In aos few weapons have that much range . In 40k most weapons have a range that in aos a ranged army would kill for . For instance kurnoth hunters could as well be carrying a heavy bolter or autocannon , long range , rend and good damage . I hope that ranges are reduced so that close combat armies have a shot at getting close and hitting . Maybe the bolter will be like a bow with an 18 range and off course no rend .

          • ZeeLobby

            Sounds great to me. I do think that’s all CC armies would really need to have a fair chance again. I mean when an Eldar army’s average gun range is 36″, how will you ever get close?

          • Darkcat

            And Tau.

      • vlad78

        Given that small caliber weapons seem not to have any modifiers, I have to agree with you.

      • TenDM

        It’s worth noting that 8th is going to be a little different to Age of Sigmar. Less wounds per model and no mortal wounds. I think Terminators will be pretty solid. I’m sort of hoping that they’ve made Terminators solid and then brought the beefier Space Marine stuff down to the same level.

    • No-one Special

      You’re looking at it in isolation. A Marine has only one wound with a 3+ save in a system with save modifiers –
      everything is going to be a lot squishier. In comparsion, the Terminators extra wound and better save is pretty good.

      • AircoolUK

        Perhaps some of the heaviest of armoured units will use more than one D6 to make their save roll, or maybe they get to re-roll failed saves.

        All we’ve seen so far are the stat lines, not the rules. Terminators may have rules which make them tougher, like, as mentioned, using more than one D6, re-rolling failures, having a minimum save (the old invulnerable save) or something else.

        I’m sure a quick, cursory rummage through AoS Warscrolls could unearth something similar.

        • Shawn

          Addtionally, a stormshield might increase the save +1 and/or cancel out a -1 rend value. That would definitely be significant. Also, the terminator armor might have a built in rend mitigater of -1 or something to represent it’s force field. Since GW has already said that buying wargear for units like will do now will be in matched play, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is how it works.

          • AircoolUK

            Firstly the extra wound makes the Terminator them twice as survivable against a 1 wound weapon as any other model with a 2+ save. But that doesn’t seem to provide enough damage mitigation from say, a Bolter round (likely -1 Sv). However, they may have a re-roll of 1’s (giving them an extra 8% survivability against the fictional bolter round), which isn’t that much really.

            Of course, anything with a -3 or greater save modifier would be negated by the Invulnerable 5+ (presuming they have one), so that at least limits some of the nastier weapons.

            The two wounds thing will have a bigger effect if they have a morale system similar to AoS which relies on the number of models you lost in a round, not the number of wounds suffered. So even when taking a pasting, they’re going to stay in the fight longer.

          • Shawn

            Good news for me. I love terminators and would love to use them more.

          • AircoolUK

            Yeah, a 5 man squad of whatever equipped with Melta/Blaster etc… combined with the limited firepower of Termies kinda put people off using them.

            I think the most devastating attack I’ve made on Terminators (the Space Wolves ones that are rock hard… can’t remember their name) was an explosion from a Drop Pod which killed them all after the enemy player shot at the Drop Pod for First Blood 🙂

          • Shawn

            wow, my worst scenario, was having the deep strike and mishap into oblivion, along with their warlord terminator libby. The second worst was having an imperial guard tank squadron obliterate all of them except the captain soon as they landed from a deep strike.

      • TenDM

        I don’t think it’ll actually play out with them being squishier, we haven’t seen the full rules only the stat line. However you’re right to point out that EVERYTHING is going to be getting this treatment.
        It’s very important to remember we’re not playing 7th Edition with these statlines against 7th Edition Tau.

        • No-one Special

          You’re right, I should have said ‘seems’ squishier.
          I don’t think modifiers are going to be too common either – looking at AoS -1 is the most ‘common’ (and even this is only on selected equipment options that not everyone has access to) and -2 is relatively rare.
          We may well get -3’s but I can’t seem them being on anything other than the most powerful of guns designed to hit tanks for multiple wounds – you’d probably be thankful they were hitting a single terminator instead of something bigger.
          I’m not even sure Bolters would be a -1, less likely than Tau Pulse Rifles and Necron Gauss flayers I would have thought.

          • TenDM

            Yeah. I wouldn’t imagine much stuff giving more than -1. It makes things less precise but at the same time it keeps them from making such a huge difference between best AP and worst. In theory we could even see positive modifiers for exceptionally weak weapons.

          • No-one Special

            Interesting, it would make the Terminators immune to say lasgun fire if they removed the 1 is always a fail rule for armour saves?

          • TenDM

            Maybe make it like BS where if you fail your 2+ you get to use the remainder for a second roll? So a 2+ save +2 would be a 2+/5+.

          • No-one Special

            A psuedo invulnerable save.

          • Munn

            Honestly there isn’t much need for this, coming from Sigmar, a 2+ save is HUGE and a giant PITA to get through. Offensive power is likely going to go down A LOT in 8th(it basically has to, there’s no up left to go) I think terminators are going to be a bit** to shift , especially in cover.

          • AircoolUK

            Yeah, the +1 cover save suddenly becomes massive compared to the current rules for something with a 2+ or even a 3+ save against weapons that have -1 rend value (I’m presuming a Bolter will have -1).

          • TenDM

            Yeah, having to deal with cover and armour at the same time is going to add an interesting dimension to target selection.

          • Ragnar_Blackmane

            AFAIR rolling a one has always been a failed roll/save, in 40k and both WHF and AoS (only exceptions being re-rolls with a second 1 still counting).

            In WHF quite a few units had a 1+ save, while you even could get some hero/lord models (AFAIR Dwarf lords) down to 0+ saves. All it did was counteract negative, armor save reducing modifiers.

            I would be EXTREMELY surprised if they deviated from that.

          • AircoolUK

            Indeed. A rolling a one has resulted in an instant fail, but there are lots of abilities that allow the re-rolling of one’s.

          • Munn

            NO, Sigmar had that for a while, trust me it doesn’t work. 1s ALWAYS have to fail. You start out thinking ‘oh it’s so fluffy they can’t be hurt by lasguns!’ and end up with, ‘huh, so you’re at -4 up save? … I’m just gonna go home.

          • AircoolUK

            Looks like you’re correct. Bolters have AP 0 and a Lascannon AP -3 so that puts a lot of the other stats into context.

            Unless Instant Death from Strengthx2 is still a thing, a Marine can still survive a shot from a Lascannon. Highly improbable, but not impossible.

      • vlad78

        But that’s the point, everything will be made squishier whereas SM and especially terminator should not be. Besides, how to balance their price if they die in drove to bolter fire. Better to have orks who will almost never benefit from saving throw.

        Ok I can’t read the full ruleset but 8th already seems to be the transport vehicle edition.

        • No-one Special

          But as long as the marines/teminators are more durable relative to other troops surely the balance is maintained?

          • AircoolUK

            Yep, it’s all relative and whilst the stat lines are a great teaser (many things can be inferred), the real meat behind each unit is their special rules. Who knows, ATSKNF might translate to a re-roll of any armour save.

            Who knows?

        • Munn

          You can’t just say ‘oh I haven’t read the rules yet’ and ‘but this is definitely gonna be x’ in the same sentence. It’s completely asinine.

          • vlad78

            Actually I can make educated guesses based on my experience of the game which goes as far as 1987 and on AOS.
            If they had wanted to make terminator saving throw 2D6, they probably would have said it already.
            Armageddon came back with all the 2nd ed° saves, I don’t need to be a fortune teller to understand things will be quite close.

            I can already tell they didn’t want to embrace alternate activation therefore they will go for a hybrid system with yougoIgo and alternate activation in the Hth sequence which does not really make sense. I can tell quite a lot of things already.

            What I can’t tell is how everything will interact in the end. Yet I can express my concerns, can’t I? That ‘s the purpose of using the word IF . ;p

    • Liam Lofty Loftus

      Maybe invulnerable saves will help with that

    • Zingbaby

      They might get the 2+ on 2D6 like 2nd Edition and Shadow War… I hope so anyway.

      • vlad78

        Me too.

      • Munn

        Stop saying this, every person who comes from shadow wars says this stupid crap, no one wants to roll out 40 2d6 saves a turn. And terminators couldn’t possibly be more fragile than they are now so knock it off.

        • AircoolUK

          Yeah, it works for Shadow Wars as you can’t really field more than a few Terminators, but it’s still a lot of dice rolling for 40K sized units.

    • AircoolUK

      Surely only Squats and Grots have small arms? Space Marines have big arms and Tyranids have four arms!

      • vlad78

        Don’t know, I’ve never seen a genestealer for real. ANd I’m sure squats arms are bigger than marines’.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Guess I can’t be right all the time, but atleast I called Initiative’s demise correctly. A little concerned about them keeping S/T comparisons, but ti still looks promising.
    Also: “Row-boat”? More like Speedboat.

    • No-one Special

      I was a bit disappointed they didn’t take the opportunity to reduce the average move distance (marines at 6″).
      The average board is already too small for what’s being used on it, and reducing movment would have had the effect of increasing it’s size. It would have also increased the usefullness of fast moving units and vehicles, and made weapon ranges matter again.

      • Fergie0044

        I dunno….all the most powerful units these days (various flavors of wolf/bike-stars etc) move 12″. Reducing the average move rate for foot sloggers would only heighten this.
        Plus unless they also lower the range of most guns then this would further increase the strength of shooting armies if its harder to get into charging range.

        • No-one Special

          But nothing says they have to anymore, and nothing is locked into multiples of 6.
          Those Deathstars no longer exist, and yes they could of adjusted all the weapon ranges. It would have brought back actual manouvering as a thing, instead of most things being in range most of the time.

          • ZeeLobby

            Thank you! Exactly. Why can’t a Space Marine move 4″ and a jetbike move 8″. I feel like we’re fast approaching the necessity of 6×8 tables.

          • No-one Special

            Yeah, I had thought about maybe they could shrink deployment zones a bit, but the number of models on the board already makes this not possible.
            But i’m of the firm opinion that 24″ is not a large enough distance for two armies to start apart NOW (ignoring assault rules etc.), let alone in 8th edition.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I mean maybe charging is back down to 6″? Who am I kidding, of-course it’ll be a random roll, haha. I just find it really interesting that as other games focus on 3×3 or 4×4 or 3×4 game sizes that can easily be playe don a dining room table, GW is going in the opposite direction. Now they’re streamlining everything to go faster, so we’re spending just as much time setting up, to play a faster game, more inconveniently then the alternatives.

            Argh, I really wish they had brought M back down. I mean maybe the new norm is 4″ and space marines are just speedy? I mean they are supposed to be right?

          • No-one Special

            The ironic thing is that dropping the move distance would have let them maintain the quantity of models they want you to buy on the board.

          • vlad78

            Given that 40k has become Epic 28 mm, maybe we should.

          • ZeeLobby

            Now with real-life action controls and voice recording. “Pew, Thunk, WAAAAGH!”

      • AircoolUK

        Perhaps Space Marines have had their mobility increased to compensate for losses in other areas (like the loss of their above average Initiative and WS) as Move distance is going to be one of the deciding factors in who strikes first in melee.

        Space Marines weren’t dedicated melee units, but they weren’t a pushover.

        • No-one Special

          Maybe, but that could have been done in other areas (not to mention the ‘big’ marines on their way).
          But it now means say Eldar will have to be at least 7″ move or more to have a point of difference, making the table even smaller.

          • AircoolUK

            This was also my thinking. My Deldar would be suddenly be able to zip across the table. On the one hand, it sounds like 7″ would be way too much…

            …then again, how ‘fast’ would Eldar actually feel for a change? I’m thinking ‘really damned fast’. Their speed would actually be terrifying on the table and not just in the fluff.

            But who knows. Perhaps they’ve had to stick with Marines being 6″ move so that slower units (say, Tau, Necrons etc…) can be dropped down to 4″

            But yeah, thinking about it… (D)Eldar with a 7″ move would put them on par with their fluff. Quite scary if you have to face them. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes, although it’s just speculation at this point.

          • Charon

            Which doesnt matter a lot if you use the movement of the Venom/Raider anyways…

          • No-one Special

            As you say, this is just specualtion and we don’t know yet, this is just an excercise in pulling the thread to see where it could lead.

            The problem I see with it is where do you go from there for the faster stuff? How fast are bikes, jetbkes, cavalry, vehicles, fast vehicles going to be? They all have to have a role and a difference that’s worth the investment. Would you pay points for a transport if it only provided a few more inches movement than foot ‘slogging’?
            The terminator profile has already given us a glimpse of what a ‘slow’ unit’s movement will be, but I think the game would have been better served if the faster movement rate was 6″ instead of it being the base. The board is just getting smaller and smaller.

          • TenDM

            It appears that +/-1″ is the on foot variation, so I’d assume +/-2 is the vehicle one. That might actually play better with Eldar jetbikes only being a little faster.
            It’s also possible they’re keeping things average for now and mixing it up in the book releases. They have a lot of armies to balance all at once so making Tyranids and Eldar a little faster for a while is easier to write and prevents things from spinning out of control too early.

            That said Eldar will probably have some form of Battle Focus, so there’s every chance they’re already too fast.

          • No-one Special

            So take the current movement for those fast units/vehicles and add another few inches onto them, and we’re now into the realm of 1st turn charges being fairly likely with the extra dice/re-roll making a big difference.
            And then factor in chargers strike first in combat…

          • Munn

            Since we know literally nothing yet, doing this would be stupid. The other thing is, the vast majority of assault units move 12+ per turn now. It’s amazing how many people have forgotten how 7th works since 8th got announced.

          • No-one Special

            As mentioned in the conversation, this was simply pulling a thread to see where it leads. It’s not stupid, it’s simply following the logic of what they have already disclosed to predict how things will turn out. No-one is making declarations, or getting excited, it’s just a thought excercise, you can play if you want to. And no, no-one has forgotten how to play either, I was only using the 6″ and 12″ standard moves as a basis for the discussion – as you say why bother with specifics if we don’t know what they will be.
            They have stated they will use movement to differentiate races/units from each other, and as we now KNOW a terminator has 5″ movement and a marine had 6″, it stands to reason other races will almost certainly have 7″+.
            And if we apply the same logic to faster units that currently move 12″ in 7th edition, it also stands to reason that these units belonging to faster races would moving 14″ base. That’s a pretty big deal if 2D6 charge distances stay, regardless of what other rules get layered on top, because getting a 10 on 2D6 is 4 times more likely than getting 12 – even more so with any rules that give the unit re-rolls/extra dice etc.

          • AircoolUK

            …and if they use similar setup rules to AoS where you set up units at a minimum of 12″ AWAY from enemy territory vice 12″ or less from the table edge, then a first turn assault is going to need at least a 24″ combined move and charge.

            Of course, if your opponent (I’ll use Wyches in a Venom as an example again) is setting up their assault units close to your territory, you can at least keep your units out of range of a 1st turn assault. Of course, you now get into setup tactics where you have a venom killing unit set up to blow them out of the sky before they get into assault range, and thus, the game begins.

          • AircoolUK

            Terminators still have a higher than average Initiative (we’ll ignore Power Fists for now as they’ll probably have some kind of ‘hits last’ rule), so whilst they don’t appear to move quickly, they’re still large models with super-human reaction speeds (Initiative 4).

            As for indications of movement speeds, look at Grandpapa Smurf – 8″!

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah, reducing weapon ranges would have helped too, but I doubt we’ll ever see that happen. Bigger is better is here to stay I guess.

      • vlad78

        Maybe, but reducing movement makes the game also more static. Do we know if we still can run?

        • AircoolUK

          Remember when running was part of the Reserve Phase? It made a lot more sense that way.

          Perhaps that is something else they might be resurrecting from past editions.

  • CrisisSuitsOwn

    Leadership 7 tactical marines? I guess after 30 years you get tired of fighting…

    … in all seriousness though, that probably points to major changes in the morale system. Will everyone just suffer more wounds when they fail break tests?

    Also not looking forward to token 40k and having to keep track of 8 wounds on 10 different models. I get that it streamlines play to give everything wounds but one of the thing that hasn’t been broken about 40k since 3rd ed. is AV. It’s a system that works simply and cleanly while making vehicles feel like vehicles.

    Ironic that they’re adopting Warzone rules (every unit has wounds) as it was the first game to ever seriously challenge GW’s hegemony in the 1990’s

    • AircoolUK

      I think they’re using it in a similar way to Bravery in AoS, in which case, 7 is quite high.

      Also, the original 40K had wounds for every unit; a Land Raider had 30 whilst a Dreadnought had a mere 6.

      Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes…

      • TenDM

        Yeah. It’s a safe bet that these numbers are all the equivalent of their current stat lines. Marines don’t really change that much.

    • Munn

      It won’t be wounds, it’ll be models but keep in mind that in order for space marines to lose one guy to battleshock 2 models have to die in the same turn then you would have to roll a 6

    • Deathwing

      Just laminate your guilli-scrolls and bring a dry erase marker.
      Warmahords and half a dozen other tabletop games have been doing this for awhile now its nothing new to the tabletop gaming scene.

  • thereturnofsuppuppers

    Can we finally find out whether marines have dongs or not this edition?

    • TenDM

      What do you think a ‘geneseed’ is?

      • thereturnofsuppuppers

        I imagined it was just a paste scraped from between the Emperor’s toes.

        • TenDM

          It can be both.

    • vlad78

      They have but psycho endoctrination made them forget what they are for.

      • thereturnofsuppuppers

        Do we have evidence that they still have their equipment?

  • zeno666

    What the heck!? Space Marines have M 6″ ?!?! And terminators M 5″

    So its still the Space Marine game…

    • Defenestratus

      And if Space Marines get the charge on a squad of genestealers, they’ll go first in combat. Totally makes sense right?

      • zeno666

        I’m ok with that if Space Marines had M4 like in the “good” old days, and genestealers had M6 or 7.
        Which ment genestealers usually got the alpha.

        • Munn

          Genestealers will probably be 8-9.

      • Munn

        No, what makes sense is that they would both be swinging at the same time, yunno, like how a fight works. The fact that you’re okay with people sitting and casually waiting their turn to punch but not with charging units getting to punch first is ridiculous. You’re just looking for things to be mad about. ‘NO MY MARINES MUST SIT PATIENTLY WITH THEIR HANDS IN THEIR POCKETS AND WAIT FOR THOSE ELDAR TO FINISH! IT’S POLITE!

        • AircoolUK

          Units that set themselves up to receive the charge often negated part of the impact. This was in the rules (WHFB or RT at some point?) that made the charging unit lose its extra attack.

          I think it is certainly possible that Marines could strike first if charging into Nids (it works in the fluff), but that’s not likely to happen if Nids have a higher Move stat. Unless you’ve screwed up your positioning or been out manoeuvred by the enemy, Nids should be able to charge first and strike first.

          However, as mentioned with poor positioning and being outmanoeuvred, it’s perfectly viable for them to be caught off guard by a charging unit of Marines.

          These things don’t happen in isolation, and is a reflection on the subtleties of a game system. If a Marine unit is charging your nids, you screwed up somewhere and deserve to be hit first.

          • Munn

            My comment was more to illustrate the hypocrisy of accepting one abstraction as ‘realistic’ and call one ridiculous when neither are how it actually works. I’m fine with the charging system.

          • AircoolUK

            Apologies, my comment was directed at Defenestratus.

        • Deathwing

          lol floyd mayweather is going to get in 4-5 punches with his high speed swings before tyson gives him the power fist. floyd is faster after all. If everyone swung simultaneously in combat all the time armies like guard and elder would definitely come out the looser every time game wise.

      • Shawn

        Think of it like this: The marines are down wind and their auspex finds genestealers first, instead of opening fire with bolters, they charge catching the filthy xenos off guard. The Genestealers then lose a few to chainsword attacks before they can react and retaliate.

      • Deathwing

        Yep. Cause Jump packs.
        Sometimes you have to play the game as designed despite the fluff that the game caused to be created as a way to draw people in so they keep playing the game.
        Game > fluff, especially when the game is involved.
        Look its a new edition and a radically new one at that. Games workshop is actually doing a lot of play testing on this go around and they seem to be implementing the lessons they learned with AOS in what people liked and what they did not. Point being its worth our time to check our preconceived notions at the door at least the first few times and play the new game before we judge it

    • vlad78

      We don’t know how much do genestealers have.

      • zeno666

        Very true

    • AircoolUK

      I’m confident that the new Move distances take Initiative into account as getting the first attack relies on getting the first charge.

      ‘Fleet of…’ was a pish rule that didn’t really reflect the fluff of fast, high initiative units. Sure, they could re-roll a dice on their charge distance, but they never moved across the table at the frightening speeds they should have done.

      Take Genestealers for example. They had the same move as Marines, Guard, Tau etc… and Fleet/Move Through Cover really didn’t do them justice.

      With their lightning fast speed (based on fluff) with their high basic Initiative, I could easily see that translating into an 8″ move stat. I don’t see many people (esp Nid players) disagreeing with that as it would make nids do exactly what it says on the tin.

      • zeno666

        Trust me, I’m all for the Movement stat making a return 🙂
        The Fleet/Hoof of bla bla was just a bad patch that stayed around for way too long.

    • Shawn

      You’re making assumptions. For all we know, as someone mentioned above, Eldar could move 7″, and their vehicles faster than that. Now who’s getting into combat first?

  • Hell-Nico

    Rip 40k.

    This is Age of Guilliman now.

    • zeno666

      There can be only space marines

  • AnomanderRake

    I’m less worried about changing WS/BS to fixed values (which isn’t that much of a change), and very happy that they’ve stayed attached to the model statline instead of getting shunted into the weapon statline. A ‘boltgun’ can remain a constant thing, they’re not going to write 50+ ‘boltgun’ statlines with different names for every unit that uses a boltgun the way they’ve done with weapons in AoS.

    • AircoolUK

      I dunno. I’d imagine every unit that can use a boltgun will have the weapons stat line on the datasheet/warscroll/whatever. After all, one of their design objectives is to do away with a centralised ‘rulebook’ and adopt the ‘take only what you need to the table’ approach; the basic rules, your datasheets and probably your Codex. You could even do without the codex if there’s a datasheet available for special army/faction wide rules.

  • Jim Collins

    I’m just happy to see two wound termies and it looks like walkers will be way more usable.

    I’m oddly optimistic about 8th. AoS was a big learning experience with GW and if they can take the things that work in AoS and port them over, I hope it works.

  • Stealthbadger

    Weapon stats are up, flamers do d6 hits, bolters do, 1 neither rend. Lascannon is one hit does d6 wound minus 3 rend.

    D weapons are gone, huzzah!

    Check the community site.

    • AircoolUK

      Hmm, can’t find what you mention, got a link 🙂

      • AircoolUK

        Ignore last. Got it from facebook page.

        • Stealthbadger
          • AircoolUK

            People who were worried about the loss of D-Weapons should now be at ease (although we all knew that they’d just be increased in Strength, Damage and AP (using the 8th meaning of AP).

            Tomorrows teaser on movement should be interesting considering that there’s been a lot of discussion about it today.

            Perhaps we’re being spied upon and GW are releasing information based on trending discussions.

            In which case, I think we should all start talking about new factions/races… ahem.

    • AircoolUK

      Hmm.. the no rend on the Bolter is interesting. Perhaps the Strength of the Weapon and the Toughness of the Target have a wider variance than the current rules.

      A Bolter still rips apart squishies, but a lasgun/autogun struggles a bit more against T4 compared to current rules?

      Or perhaps basic hand weapons have all been normalised to a certain degree.

      [edit] on further reading, it does look like weapons and armour saves have been normalised by their intended target/use.