40K: 8th Edition Datasheet Preview

Games Workshop is back with another preview and this time it’s all about the Datasheets for 8th Edition!

Yesterday GW showed off some more weapons and special rules. Today, we are getting a good look at a typical Datasheet and how those will work moving forward. Get ready for some big change ahead – this preview is for the Rubric Marines!

via Warhammer Community

Read the full Breakdown from Games Workshop HERE

There are a bunch of pretty big changes but the first (and probably most obvious) is that Universal Special Rules are GONE.

“Universal special rules are out, so any time a unit acts differently to what its stats might indicate, the rules for how will be in here. The bulk of these rules will be written in full, but there might occasionally be an army-wide or very common rule for a given faction that isn’t (like the Death to the False Emperor rule you can see above). These will always be in that same publication, though, to make finding it easy.”

Starting from the top, we see the familiar Troop Icon on the top left. Also noted in the article is that the Rubric Marines can be taken as an Elite Choice in a more general CSM list.

Next to that we see a new “Power Level” score (which they will go over in more detail in a future update). This Power Level is used as a quick measure for balancing forces in a less competitive environment. And don’t worry – points are NOT going away so put the pitchforks down for now and don’t worry about that for now. All will be revealed in time.

Next up, we get a look at their unit profile – this is pretty much the stat line we’d expect for a unit that is similar to the typical Tactical Marine. Plus we get a look at the Aspiring Sorcerer which is equivalent to a Sgt. for the squad. Again, stat wise, not that different – it’s all in the special rules…

Below that we get a teaser about expanding the squad using the Power Level. No details on points however. And we get some basics about their wargear. Then it’s on to the weapons:

I wanted to take a moment and really look at some of these weapons. This is the first time we’ve gotten a propper look at some of the Melee Weapons as well. Note that all of the Rubric Marines Shots are at least AP -2. That’s BRUTAL!  The Soulreaper Cannon looks to be another favorite as well. 4 shots, str 5, AP -3. OUCH! And they won’t have to worry about that -1 to hit when moving and shooting – more on that below.

The Melee Weapons are bringing the pain. They certainly seem to have a good mix of stats to make each option unique and distinct. Axes appear to be the most general while swords are better for cutting through armor and staves will boost your strength more. Decisions, decisions…

Next up we take a look at the rest of the Wargear options. Naturally, the squad will have the ability to swap guns around. It doesn’t look like this will impact their “Power Level” – but GW mentioned during the Q&A at Adepticon that points were still in the game and you’ll most likely need to pay for these changes.

Now we get to the Abilities section. This is probably the area that folks should get the most excited about. As mentioned above, USRs are GONE. Everything you need to know will be on the unit’s data sheet or in the same publication. No need to carry tons of books around when you are going to game night. Personally, this is by far my favorite change:

Pskers are up next. Now, this is a tease because we don’t know what other powers are available. It’s a safe bet to assume there will be more options in their respective publications when those arrive. But for now we get a look at the “Generic” Smite power. It’s interesting that the Aspiring Sorcerer is basically a Mastery Level 1 psyker and their Smite power is toned down. I shall call him “Mini-Smite” and he will Smite minimally.

Last on the sheet we get to the Faction Keywords and the other Keywords. I’ll let GW explain:

“The first, faction keywords, are what you use when selecting your detachments for a Battle-forged army, and often trigger in-game effects regarding what units gain benefits from certain Characters or can travel in specific Transports.

Other keywords are not involved in selecting an army, and usually have more general battlefield effects – for example, perhaps only Infantry can gain the full benefit of certain types of cover.”

Well there you have it! Our first look at the new style Datasheets. The big take-aways from a high level view:

  • No more USRs!
  • All the rules specific to the unit will be on the sheet or in their publication for ease of use
  • Power Levels are on the sheet, but points are not (but points are located elsewhere)
  • Points are NOT going away
  • Invulnerable Saves are not going away
  • Faction Keywords and Other Keywords on each datasheet

 

There is a lot to stew over – what do you think of these new Datasheets? Are you excited about what’s in store for 8th Edition?

  • Xodis

    SQWEEEEEEE!!!!!

    • Xodis

      My only question is if weapons that roll a 1 on a d3/d6 for damage count as having a weapon characteristic of 1 for All is Dust?

      • Fergie0044

        It says “attack characteristic of 1”. Meanwhile a force sword has an attack characteristic of D3, regardless of what it rolls.
        So I’d guess no.

        • Andrew B

          It says ‘Damage characteristic of 1’, but yes, I think All for Dust is just for weapons that are always 1 instead of 1s rolled on D3/D6.

          • Fergie0044

            Ah yes, meant damage not attack.

          • Xodis

            Thats entirely possible, but a solid case can be made that any weapon with randomized damage that rolls a 1 counts as a Damage Characteristic 1 weapon for that attack.
            I entirely expect it to be clarified that random damage weapons are exempt from the ruling, but it could very well go the other way as it makes sense that if you roll a 1 (33% chance) on a 1d3 weapon, it was such a weak hit that All is Dust could qualify.

        • Xodis

          That is entirely possible, but a solid case can be made that any weapon with randomized damage that rolls a 1 counts as a Damage Characteristic 1 weapon for that attack.
          I entirely expect it to be clarified that random damage weapons are exempt from the ruling, but it could very well go the other way as it makes sense that if you roll a 1 (33% chance) on a 1d3 weapon, it was such a weak hit that All is Dust could qualify.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            I understand your interpretation, but rules as written, a Melta for example has a damage characteristic of D6. That fact doesn’t change depending on the roll, it always has that characteristic, which then tells you how much damage it does. So if you roll a 1, it doesn’t matter, sure it does 1 damage but the gun’s damage characteristic is D6, not 1.

            Whereas a Bolter just has Damage characteristic 1, and that’s what All is Dust is referring to.

            It’s because it specifically mentions the characteristic, the stat that is printed on paper. If it was phrased “if the attack only did 1 damage, etc.” then your interpretation would make more sense.

          • Xodis

            You are correct, and as loose as GW usually is with rules, this one is much tighter than normal, however it still lacks some clarity. Yes I am being technical and quite picky, but when something stands out it should be addressed. Because a weapon (even a MeltaGun) rolling a 1 for damage has its damage characteristic as 1 for that shot. A D6 is not actually a characteristic but signifies a random characteristic that changes throughout the game because you never do d6 damage to a target you do 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 damage to the target.

            Remember the 40K fanbase is the same fanbase that had to get the Marks of Chaos FaQ’d in the Shadow War ruleset, because so many people thought they didn’t get marks.

          • Simon Bates

            I think the confusion is based on the assumption that you would roll for damage against rubric marines. Since they only have 1 wound, there is no reason to roll for damage. If they are hit by a weapon which has a characteristic of anything other than “1” they don’t get the bonus.

          • Xodis

            Fair enough, so we should wait until W2 Rubric Terminator stats show up with the same All is Dust rule?

            In this instance the damage effects the actual save, so you would need to roll the damage of the wound so you would know how it effects the Rubrics save. A Characteristic can’t be a D#, because thats not a characteristic, its a place holder for a randomly determined characteristic.

          • Simon Bates

            I’d still maintain that any characteristic other than “1” is not “1”. But I accept that this would be less clearcut for terminators and I see where you’re coming from regarding the question of whether rolling a 1 on the D6 is the same as having a characteristic of 1 (temporarily).

          • Xodis

            Yeah, normally you can tell when something seems too “cheesy” but with Rubrics,this could very well be part of their worth as a unit and it seems being resilient to weak shots is their shtick this edition.

      • Marco Marantz

        You must be a chore to play against…looking for exploits or rule misinterpretations. It clearly says damage characteristic of 1. Anything not equal to 1 on the datasheet is not 1. Get it?

        • Xodis

          Not really, I’m not a power gamer at all and mostly play narrative games, I also happened to have spent years proof reading military documents and instructions regarding aircraft maintenance and can spot a potential error or piece that may cause confusion….thanks for jumping to conclusions based on a simple question and trying your best to demonize me. When a weapon rolls a 1 on a d3 or d6 damage roll…is the damage characteristic for that weapon not 1 at that time? Yes it is. Hence why it could be worded better, or need a FaQ.
          You must be fun with your complete lack of social etiquette, and eagerness to judge those you dont know based on really nothing at all including context.

          • Goref1end

            So a weapon with a random damage value (d6) has no damage value until that dice is rolled. That dice isnt rolled until an armour save has been failed. The rule affects the armour save, therefore the damage value has to be seen as something other than 1 and therefore the rule wouldn’t apply…

      • Evil Otto

        The characteristic is d3 or d6… the result may only be 1, but that doesn’t change the characteristic, which is what’s written on the datasheet.

  • gordonshumway

    Wow. These are an absolute nightmare design-wise and I truly hope this is some sort of draft, but there is every indication in the article that this is the final product. After the simple and elegant AoS dataslates this is HUGELY disappointing. Maybe this is simply an example of a “basic/narrative” dataslate and there is a nice, neatly-organized and well-designed competitive one they haven’t shown us yet? Maybe you only get them if you pay for them? We can only hope…based on what I am seeing they’d have my money in hand, which seems like not a bad sales tactic and classically GW to boot 😉

    Their pure lack of design sense aside, I have to say the presence of this “power level” thing and lack of actual points costs for units (and even more horrifying, wargear) is what really has me worried. Up to this point I would say I was actively looking forward to 8th. Some of the rules changes seemed like poor choices, but overall everything was shaping up to be an improvement over 7th. The fact that you may have to use a separate table for competitive points (like current AoS) is mildly irritating and again, poor design, but the true mistake appears to be that units can possibly just arm themselves to the teeth with no change in “value.” If people thought stuff like scatbikes was bad in 7th, this simply opens a whole new door for auto-take, under-costed wargear abuse…

    • Fergie0044

      There’ll be a lot more to cram in to these compared to AoS IMO. Especially for marines. But yeah this is just the basic one – the competitive one will need to have costs for all the options as well!

      • gordonshumway

        I sure hope you are right.

        • Fergie0044

          mandatory comment about “something something hope … something something disappointment” 🙂

          • Ak318

            They already said in a Q&A narrative uses the power system where you pay for the unit. Points are kept elsewhere in a competative section, and you pay for weapons.

        • Randy Randalman

          GW absolutely confirmed there will be points costs for the units and all of it’s options in the section for list building in Matched Play. This is the data sheet for what a unit does. Nothing more. This is what the unit cards will look like.

          Your worries are based on nothing; especially given that GW has answered all of those questions.

          And there is no “…where they’re headed…” This is here. This is now.

      • kloosterboer

        I don’t know that you’ll see a pts cost for very piece of wargear.

        What you see instead is deliberate choices to be made about what you use – did you want more STR, or more AP….if you want the SR, you have to build 10, not 5..

        • gordonshumway

          While I was thinking the same thing at first, here is an example just for Rubric Marines:

          The average number of shots out of a 5-man Warpflamer squad (ignoring the champion) is going to be 14, and this is at 8” of course. Bolters (presuming rapid fire works the same which has been alluded to) get a set 8 shots at 12”. But remember, flamers AUTO-HIT in 8th, where bolters can only expect on average about 5 or 6 hits out of those 8 shots. So for simply having to park yourself 4” closer to your enemy (in power armor, with an invuln) you are rewarded with over double the hits and the same S/AP/D profile, so statistically WAY more wound conversions. Why would you ever take bolters in a 5-man squad? I can’t think of any reason, because at mid-range flamers are far superior… and at 13” and beyond 4 bolters become nearly useless anyway. And since you aren’t saving on “points” or even “power level”…there is no upside.

          • kloosterboer

            But bolt guns are way more flexible, so it’s an intentional choice that you have to make.

            Flamers are an assault unit, always moving towards the enemy to be within range.

            Bolt guns can move away, towards, or stand still and still be effective.

          • gordonshumway

            Yeah, define “effective” though…based on the math. Sure bolters may get lucky and plink off a wound or two at 24″…what I am saying is that when everything is the same cost I would rather field Rubrics as a mid-range unit that is going to guarantee me more wounds and field a different kind of unit for that flex/ranged role. And this leads to situations like in 7th where (for example) if you took Windriders you too scat lasers, no questions asked. Scat lasers even cost a significant number of points more and they were still an auto-take due to being able to give them to everyone. You don’t even (so far) have the points issue here. We will see what gets said tomorrow.

          • Fergie0044

            Well they are a little bit slower now, making short range weapons less effective.

            But anyway – what we’ve seen here is the ‘non-competitive’ sheet. Have they not confirmed that competitive play will have fully granular points? i.e. points for individual models (note this sheets only comes in 5, 10 or 15 man units) and points for equipment.

          • gordonshumway

            Oh I didn’t think the fully granular thing was confirmed. I think they said points for units…but I didn’t see specific mention of wargear. If they did say that I retract everything haha.

          • Fergie0044

            I’m not 100% sure. But I do remember the term ‘granular’ being used somewhere. We’ll find out tomorrow.

          • Simon Bates

            They confirmed in the q+A that there would be two systems – power level (which we see here and which was compared to AoS) and full points, which they explicitly said would include wargear.

          • David ‘Epic’ Kaplan

            To look at it another way, think of a squad that can take some really outrageously expensive kit on all of their (or at least multiple) models. Veteran squads, Devastators, Death Company… If I’m taking a squad of Death Company, point costs are what keep me from Fielding a squad of nothing but power weapons and inferno/plasma pistols.

            Points are what keep me from load up a 35 pt Rhino with dual storm bolters, extra armour, an HK, a dozer blade, etc.
            If you want to do a quickie and dirty ad hoc rough estimate of army strength, that’s great. But something that completely ignores weapons and wargear? In a system where these things can more than double a model’s value?

          • Chaos_Unbound

            Point is that Mathhammer isnt everything. The range or other abilities of a weapon gives you tactical options. You know that thing that Wargames are supposed to be about?

          • Xodis

            You move 5 inches closer hoping to Flame me, I move 6 inches away and shoot you with 24 inch bolters. Seems like a fair trade to me.

          • gordonshumway

            Well I mean you’re not going to footslog them…they will be in a Rhino or what have you. So yes, while I get your point, I think you will be able to get flamers in range if you want to. But yes, a true tactician may be able to avoid them all game. But then that unit isn’t camping an objective, or shooting at something else. It’s all a trade-off.

          • Xodis

            Depends on how tough Rhinos can be this edition too. With everyone able to split fire, having a Lascannon with that 10 man squad is going to do everything it can to stop the Rhino Rush tactic.

          • kloosterboer

            All I’m saying is that, there’s an intentional design to make all choices valid – not a right or wrong one – and those choices will depend on your own preference and playstyle, not an arbitrary points/ effectiveness ratio.

            That intentional design exists in AOS, and I’m certain it’s carrying over into V8.

            After all, I think one of the biggest complaints about previous versions of WHFB and WH40K is that some choices were never worth taking/ playing. This correlates into both lost sales and hobby opportunities.

            Only time will tell if that’s an achievable goal.

          • gordonshumway

            Well you simply have more faith in GW’s rules-writing ability than I do 😉

          • Fergie0044

            FAITH IS MY SHIELD!!!

            Its only 6+ though…

          • gordonshumway

            Stay strong Sister. 🙂

          • Xodis

            My faith is getting stronger with each release.

          • MarcoT

            Maxing out like that will cost points in Matched Play, and might simply be very unfriendly in narrative play.

          • gordonshumway

            I guess that’s my point, I hadn’t seen them confirm anywhere that wargear would cost points. It seems obvious that it should in matched play, but troubling that it isn’t alluded to. Unless I totally missed it, or they will announce it tomorrow when they cover points. I’m not panicked, just troubled 🙂

          • Xodis

            Wargear doesn’t really need to cost points though. No weapon up there is inherently “better” than the others except the Soulreaper, and that comes with the extra cost of having to take 10 guys and only getting 1.

          • EmperorOfMankind

            I thought flamers always auto hit?

          • gordonshumway

            Right they do, but they have a random number of shots. So the average of 4d6 is about 14. But yes, all 14 hit automatically.

          • euansmith

            60% of the time, it works all the time 😉

        • Randy Randalman

          There will be points for all wargear options.

      • euansmith

        I’m wondering, actually, if there are going to be “costs”. It might be that GW think they have nailed the balance between the weapon options so you only need to pay the “Power Rating” for the unit as a whole.

        Edit: apparently not 😀

    • “I have to say the presence of this “power level” thing and lack of actual points costs for units” …did you even read the article?

      • gordonshumway

        Did you even read my whole comment? I mean the lack ON the datasheet. Having to look them up in another location like AoS is going to be annoying at best. I obviously know the points will exist.

        • First: no, you didn’t.

          Second: what’s this gak about it being “an absolute nightmare design-wise”? I can read it just fine, all the important things I need to know mid-game are listed clearly, cleanly, organized, and without clutter all in one place. Boohoo, the points aren’t there, too – a minor inconvenience at most, and one we’re already used to doing.

          Hell, we haven’t even seen what the army-building portion of the book (s) looks like yet.

          • AircoolUK

            As I’ve mentioned earlier. Putting all the extra data for points values onto the datasheets would just take up more space. Also, once you actually started playing, points values on the dataslate are redundant, they’re not needed and just take up extra space.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          How is it annoying? All the points costs will be on a single spreadsheet, all in the same place. That means you will be flipping through a book much less than before.

        • Bryan Ruhe

          The whole idea of Power Level is to make it quicker to play casual/narrative/pick-up games. There are those of us that highly dislike list-building and “mathing” it all out. So GW has made it quick to see the numbers (Power Level) that allow for easy army-building. Makes perfect sense to me. Why would you want all the added clutter of points on this reference? A quick-reference for a detailed list-building process? Makes far more sense to have the serious tourney/matched play guys spend three seconds to open a book.

    • orionburn

      We’re supposed to get an article tomorrow on the points/power so hopefully that clears up some of the guesswork.

      • gordonshumway

        Yep, fair. Like I said this just worries me. I am not claiming to know everything.

        • orionburn

          I haven’t played AoS so I’m not familiar on the open play system. I imagine I’ll only be doing battles with points. Or at least 95% of the time. It must work well enough to some extent in AoS.

          • Munn

            It’s mostly used as a time saver for closer knit groups. guys who have played each other for years don’t need point constraints to get a fair game.

    • Scatter 667

      Thats the data sheet final version. It contains all or most of the rules and fits one page! AOS does not have any options for troops, just additional stat lines, which wouldn’t make sense for 40k. Design is maybe not nice, but i prefere form follows function instead of nice but useless;-) The data sheets will maybe be free and in the faction book. The points will be in the generals handbook 40k along with all the 40k units points cost and most likely contain the cost of each and every piece of equitment u can take.

    • Anthony Keen

      As has been said several times – both by BOLS in this article and GW – points aren’t going away. The power levels are for the ‘battle-forged’ version of play for looser, more casual games, or historical battles.

      Just, like, chill dude.

      • gordonshumway

        And I will restate…they have said points for UNITS aren’t going away. Wargear was never mentioned to my knowledge and I never even worried about it until today. Perhaps my worry is for nothing. Hopefully tomorrow’s update will prove me very very wrong.

        • Scatter 667

          as far as i remember, the wrote explicitely that the matched play with points will remain as granular as it was with points costs asigned to everything. Since this is necessery for proper match tournament play i doubt that the playtesters would have let that point slip;-)

        • Ak318

          Actualy they did mention points for weapons in the Q&A

        • EvilCheesypoof

          They specifically mentioned points for weapons in one of their earlier articles.

    • COsteve

      The article specifically says points and power levels will be covered tomorrow.

    • AircoolUK

      Ok, here we go. Dataslates are going to have a lot of information on them, therefore space is at a premium and rules must be concise.

      Once you start adding the points values for each option etc… it takes up more space.

      However, whenever you actually use a dataslate in game (most people print out what they need so then can scribble on them during the game), points values are redundant information taking up space and adding unnecessary bloat to the wall of text.

      So, if you have a dedicated section in a book to points values, you can then build your army lists by just looking at a few pages with the points values for units and upgrades. If you need to look up rules on dataslates, just look at the ones you’ve printed out.

      Also, I earn £5 every time someone assumes that Power Level it the points system for competitive play.

    • Bryan Ruhe

      I’m not worried at all about “abuse.” Power Level = casual/narrative play. I already loooove this idea!

      Points will still exist, tournaments will use Matched Play, and I for one fully expect all the gear to have corresponding point values.

      If you’re worried about “abuse” in the Power Level mode of play, you are either forgetting that you and your friends can choose to play Matched instead, or you just have “That Guy” friends.

    • euansmith

      If the turn out to be overly confusing, I’m sue there will be some clearer Fan-based ones along soon.

    • Chaos_Unbound

      Take a look at what they did to weapons for your answer. Before Force Swords where not that great a item to take, now they are. You dont have to have points if you balance the items to where each has Pros and Cons. The Sword cuts through armor like crazy but is harder to wound with than say a Stave that will wound easily but still provides the opponent with a decent save.

      These rules are moving more towards a “Take what you like and what feels best to you” than the old “This upgrade is mathematically better in every way and you are an idiot for not taking it”.

    • Marco Marantz

      Speak for yourself. I think its good. The only thing im curious about is power levels and if this may become used as a cap for tournament games even though they say its for use in less competitive games – i can see restrictions such as ‘no unit with a power level above X is allowed’. How are power levels calculated?

  • I can see me taking 5 rhinos with 9 flamers in each one to do 9D6 auto hits. If we’re lucky maybe we’ll get drop pods with thousand sons so we can null deploy and just show up doing 9D6 auto hits.

    Time to git gud

    • gordonshumway

      Ha, yeah see my comment above…this is exactly where I see this going…

    • MarcoT

      You’d have to deepstrike within 9″, and some rumours suggest this’d trigger some sort of overwatch rule. So wait and see is what I’m saying.

      • Yeah we dont’ have complete info yet.

        Overwatching on drop pods isn’t that bad. As long as the guys inside can then get out and throw a billion dice.

        • Xodis

          They might still get shot out of the sky too….we havn’t seen anything on flyers/deepstriking yet.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            Other than them being separate from Fast Attack units in Detachment Force Organization charts. And how so far, we’re going back to everyone paying a Troop tax, regardless of Detachment choice. Be prepared to see lots more Cultists, Scouts, Gretchin, and, unless their role changed, Mucolid Spores.

          • Simon Bates

            “And how so far, we’re going back to everyone paying a Troop tax, regardless of Detachment choice. ” They’ve very heavily implied that this is not the case. There are a lot of FoCs we haven’t seen and I’d bet money they mostly allow for HS only, LoW only, FA only etc.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            I did say, “so far,” in that the Detachments they’ve spoiled all have minimum Troop choice requirements. I’m pretty sure that they’ll go one of two ways with Knights and other LoW units: either they’ll make a generic 1-3 LoW Detachment that may or may not be leveraged a bit in favour of the opponent, or, as with other LoW units, Knights will be folded into a larger faction, and will only be playable at specific point levels in certain Detachments.

          • Simon Bates

            You did, but my point is with everything else they’ve told us about FoCs, it would be extremely surprising if they all had a Troop tax. I would bet that those that don’t will have few or no command points, though. I guess to that extent you might be right, there might be lots of cultists and gretchin, purely in order to get command points. Hopefully, given what they’ve also said about heavy playtesting, this possibility will have been foreseen and dealt with.

          • Yep. If they are easily shot out of the sky then that will make it a risk and you won’t see it happen on a competitive table.

        • SprinkKnoT

          There’s also the possibility that they follow AoS and make most/all deepstrike 9″ or more away from a unit. That way they can allow charges and prevent close range guns from wreaking havoc as you described.

          • They could yeah. In which case the aforementioned idea would not ever be seen as it wouldn’t be viable.

      • Chaos_Unbound

        Might have to drop outside of 12. That is the distance in AoS if I remember correctly.

    • Jared McWilliams

      Sternguard with combi flamers in pods will get to do better for less points. Since they can fire the bolter with special ammo at -1 to hit and then the auto hit flamer every turn plus the pod to land I range.

      • Yeah they’ll be pretty busted so I would expect to see lots of them.

      • EvilCheesypoof

        How do you know they’ll be less points?

        • Jared McWilliams

          Right now a squad of 5 sternguard with combi meltas in pod, costs 195 pts. 4 rubrics with warpflamers and the aspiring sorc with warpflame pistol is 218.

          Points may change in 8th, but I would bet on the rubrics costing more than the sternguard. Even if they cost the same a drop pod insertion is much stronger than a rhino, and combi weapons with the bolters firing special ammo is more damage than the rubrics.

          • Simon Bates

            It’s unlikely (going by AoS), though not impossible, that you will be able to land a drop pod in flamer range. But otherwise, I agree that Sternguard with combi-flamers will probably be cheaper than Rubrics with warpflamers. That said, this will be mitigated by them being a whole lot less survivable than the rubrics – who really aren’t intended to be an alpha-strike shock unit. This is as it should be.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            Combi got buffed, I would assume they’ll go up in points, relatively. Everything is getting re-balanced and getting new point values at the same time, I wouldn’t really use 7th as a template for how things will be when they’re hitting a reset button.

            We just don’t know.

      • Simon Bates

        Except you don’t know how many points they cost. We’d reasonably have to assume that combi-weapons are going to be much more expensive in matched play than they are now. A combi-weapon is now strictly better than the regular version of that weapon (flamer/melta/plasma etc) as far as we can see, as they were back in 2nd edition.

  • Fergie0044

    Wow – a lot to unpack here. What jumps out to me:
    -Axes getting a bit of nerf from an AP point of view. I guess we’ll see this for a lot the previous ‘strike last’ stuff since combat order works differently now?
    -A nice special rule there. +1 to saves. can that be combined with cover so only AP weapons can hurt them? Or will saves be capped at 2+?
    -Is that confirmed that infantry will get better cover saves compared to everyone else at the bottom of that article? I think so!

    • BClement

      Infantry will have ACCESS to different types of cover saves. They said that yesterday or the day about Infantry. The example was that only infantry will be able to get cover saves from a crater.

      We still don’t know exactly how the cover rules will work yet but you might not want to go that far just yet.

      • Fergie0044

        Ack, ruining my fun with your cold hard facts! 🙂

        Hopefully we’ll get a dedicated ‘cover’ article soon.

    • Simon Bates

      Basically looks like they’re re-balancing the power/force weapons (I’d bet that force weapons are power weapons that do d3 damage) as you say in part because there is no “cumbersome” rule any more. The choice should be more interesting now that AP is more consistent and S less so. For example, making your sergeant S5 is enough to wound marines on a 3+, whereas there may be few targets in a Marine army with T3, T5 and T11. Against Eldar S5 might be useful against wraith constructs (if they’re still T8, or T9) but is no better than S4 against most of their infantry. S6 is great against their infantry, but largely redundant against their wraiths and vehicles (compared with S5). On top of that, each point of S costs you a point of AP, and most of these targets have decent saves.

      • Fergie0044

        Yea – agree with what you said on power/force weapons.
        Just got to see a power fist’s stats now to complete the picture. I’m betting it will be Sx2, AP-3 and -1 on your to hit roll. And a drop in points cost to match since the AP isn’t as good anymore.

  • Christie Bryden

    as a thousand sons player the BIG thing we should all talk about is, THAT CRAPPY FLAMER RULE IS GONE *party noises*

    no more do we get punished for using flamers, no more stupid give them feal no pain.

    • From what we’ve seen, it looks like Rubric Marines are going to be unholy terrors again.

      • Christie Bryden

        I feel they wanted them to be like this before but were stradled with the god awfull CSM codex that they couldnt divert to far from, NOW they are there own faction and what im seeing is good that heavy weapon is now really nasty and they are extra resistant to small weapons fire 2+ armour save against anything that dosnt have 2 damage, so were looking at +3 against bolters compare that to the 5+ space marines will be left with against the inferno rounds alone.

        yep I look forward to reading the full army list, and getting the eventual new codex (hopefully with even more new rules)

        • Fergie0044

          Shouldn’t that be 2+ against bolters?

  • SilentPony

    Oh yeah, that’s way more simpler than what its like now. I especially love the rules and ‘keywords’ that are listed, but what they do aren’t.
    It means you have to go to a separate location to find those rules, which, as we all know, is 100% different than it is now, where you have to go to a rulebook to look up a rule.

    Its just so much simpler!

    • kloosterboer

      It so is, isn’t it! Glad to see you’ve seen the light.

      😉

      • SilentPony

        I can’t believe it took my this long to see it! I mean I’ve been so frustrated with Veterans of the Long War. What is it? What mean? How Long War? Why Veterans?
        Its not written anywhere. Its just on the page, glaring, naked, mocking me. What are you I ask. And no one knows.
        I even asked my local GW manager. He told me 7th edition it literally broken, there are no rules written anywhere, no one knows a thing, there are too many rules written elsewhere that no one knows, and there are simply too many formations and no one knows what a formation is because there are no rules written anywhere.

        Thank God GW finally wised up and finally took to writing rules down in multiple locations so I can look them up and know what they do.
        Its both completely different, not different at all, and fixed and balanced.

        • Ghaniman

          VotLW. Current CSM codex, page 30. Just above the rules for Marks.

          • SilentPony

            Can’t be. Everything in 7th is literally wrong, and everyone is so confused by everything.
            There are no rules in 7th, which is why 8th is fixing everything.

          • Verikus

            I think that he is confused about the difference between USRs and Faction Rules.

            It’s ok, some people take longer to calm down and formulate reasonable, non-strawman conclusions.

    • Admiral Raptor

      Why are you looking for an explanation on Keywords? They aren’t special rules, they just tell you what factions the unit falls within.

      I love how butt blasted you are in every comment section though! Every enraged 7th edition fan just improves my experience on this site immensely. Let us know when you rage quit and sell your minis 😀

      • SilentPony

        Everyone thinks I’m selling my armies. Baffling.
        I’ll be doing the exact thing I did when Age of Sigmar crapped its pants.
        Make out like a bandit with great armies. Don’t forget, every fantasy player who was interesting in fun, enjoyment or a challenging game was told to leave when AoS happened.
        I expect the exact same thing to happen to poor 40k.
        And then I’ll be set with more armies to play in 7th.

        Always remember I’m just as excited for 8th as the rest of you, and for the same reason – all the people who will leave the hobby.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          The last edition of Fantasy was anything but challenging or fun. It was awful.

          • SilentPony

            More fun and challenging than Age of Sigmar if the uncomfortable cricket chirps that sound every time my local manager asks if anyone wants to play Sigmar are to go by.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            Just because your local store doesn’t like AoS doesn’t mean it’s bad…it’s been an incredible success for the company and certainly most mini gamers I know play it and love it. It’s gotten plenty of new players in, and I’m happy 40k is going in a similar direction, but still keeping strategic depth from what we can see.

        • Grimbuddha

          This guy’s dumpster fire never ceases to keep me warm 🙂

    • Simon Bates

      The Keywords don’t “do” anything. Other rules will effect, for example, units with the “Tzeentch” keyword or the “heretic astartes” keyword. Also, for army building, you will likely need to have at least one keyword shared between all units in a detachment.

  • Tyr

    Anyone else disappointed that USRs are gone? I always thought a USR system makes a lot more sense than “bespoke” rules… I mean, if two units do basically the same thing, why do they need to be different at all costs? Why not have some central USRs? USRs mean theres waaaay less to memorise if you have multiple armies, or like to remember an enemy units rules rather than trust your opponent to remember them for you… :/

    • Fergie0044

      Well for my DG army I used in my last game I had 9 different unit types, so with an overall army one let’s say that’s 10 datasheets in 8th. Not too hard for my opponent to scan over before the match.

      • ZeeLobby

        10 pages is a lot more than one army list.

        • Fergie0044

          Yeah but those 10 pages includes everything you’ll ever need to know about the army – in theory.
          EDIT – no wait, they’ll still need the main rulebook as well.

          Someone would still need at least 2 (main rules plus codex) books with that army list. Likely more. I consider myself a fairly smart guy but I need to double check rules all the time when I play. Kudos to you if you know every USR but I imagine most players don’t.

          • ZeeLobby

            Been to a bunch of events. Most people do. It’s usually the army special rules which were unknown. I mean you say things like furious charge and feel no pain. Everyone knows what those mean.

    • Scatter 667

      Universal special rules are not a problem by them selves, but when you start stacking usr on one unit the unit might turn out to be to powerful. Unit specific rules are much better in that sense, since u make a rule for that unit and than asign points to the unit. It makes it easier to balance.
      I do agree that it will be much harder to understand the specifics of every unit out there, even more so if the game will be balanced which allows for more variety resulting in much more different unit types in use for each army. But my hope is the unit balancing by adjusting points to unit profile, wear gear and abilities.

    • generalchaos34

      USRs were a cool idea and I championed them coming out in 6th….until they ran out of ideas and started tacking on USRs that didn’t belong onto things or needed a toned down version. After a while half the things in the game had fearless when they shouldnt have (things like priests should give rerolls, or something a bit more toned down) so in making them unit specific you can tweak the rule to be appropriate to the unit in question. For instance, you can have a special rule on assault marines that helps them charge, like reroll ones, then have a similar rule on vanguard that lets them reroll all dice. The rules are conceptually the same but are more appropriate for the point cost and role of the unit

    • ZeeLobby

      USRs we’re fine. People just like a 4 page ruleset, regardless of whether it’s spread over 2000 units.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        It is a tenant of good deign to hide complexity from new player’ eyes.

        • ZeeLobby

          That’s a good point. I think games do well when they differentiate between core and advanced rules as well.

    • Verikus

      The main issue with USR’s is that you can’t balance a game as large as 40k with them.

      A small change to FNP could make some squads/builds balanced, then ruin another set and make a whole other set OP beyond belief.

      The bespoke rules are a bit clunkier coming out the gate but they will contribute to balance a lot more, and allow for a lot more flavor.

  • SprinkKnoT

    I hope you still have to pay different points for different weapons… If all weapons cost the same there is almost definitely going to be an issue of “best loadouts”. Of course there are still best loadouts in 7th, but having the option to not taking something for less points was always nice.

    • AircoolUK

      Points for weapons and upgrades and wargear etc… will be in.

      The power level system is just for casual games. Everyone like to min/max their army list, but sometimes you just want to play.

      Also, using the Power Level means that you can bring along some of the units you wouldn’t normally use without worrying about them under/over costed (subject to opinion).

      So sure, in a Power Level game, someone could roll with all the Gucci gear and every upgrade imaginable, but you’d soon demand to play them using points instead.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Casual will be the “whatever you want to bring” model. The Power Level system is for campaigns/narrative games.

  • Ghaniman

    If Power Ratings are for narrative game play balance, why would you stick that on the datasheet ahead of the immensely more popular game play of ‘Point v Point’ games?
    Surely Power Ratings would make more sense to be found in some back of the book table.

    • SprinkKnoT

      I was wondering this as well; my guess is that they don’t plan to change power level ever, since it doesn’t really matter and is only for rough balance, while points they intend to update on some regular basis. That way, when they update the points, they don’t have to remake the datasheet as well.

      • Ghaniman

        Whilst that makes some sense, it does kinda defeat the ‘everything in one page’ idea they’re going for.

        • SprinkKnoT

          I think the goal is 1 page while playing, not 1 page for listbuilding.

        • EvilCheesypoof

          There’s gotta be a balance, like said elsewhere, it removes clutter and it allows all points to be centralized somewhere else that can easily be updated. And you don’t have to reference the points during a game, just the rules like on this datasheet.

    • EnTyme

      Matched play point will more than likely be updated regularly while power ratings will remain fairly constant. If you put points on the datasheet, you have to update that datasheet every time you update points. This way, you only have to update the points sheet.

      • generalchaos34

        sounds great to me! esp since weapon options will be on there too, so maybe they can take a look and see “gee no one takes that heavy weapon? maybe its because its points are way too high!”

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured
    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      “immensely more popular”.

      The thing that exists as a game type currently is currently more popular than the thing that does not yet exist… checks out.

      Seriously though, if the power levels are for quick/basic play and the points are for in-depth/serious play, then it makes more sense to put the quick play values on the front and the detailed stuff in the back, since the people willing to put the extra effort in are the people who care about the old points system… not that it matters either way, because within a few months of my codex being out, I’ve got the cost of a meltabomb memorized, regardless of where the wargear page is.

      • Ghaniman

        “The thing that exists as a game type currently is currently more popular than the thing that does not yet exist… checks out.”

        Narrative play currently exists.

        • Simon Bates

          But power levels do not.

          • Ghaniman

            And? Re-read the OP. Wasn’t debating possible future popularity. Was discussing the current preference of points value balanced games over narratively chosen armies.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Like AoS, 40k will have a General’s Handbook. Every year a new Handook will come out with new Points costs. Not putting points on the datasheets means they avoid confusion down the line when/if some units get re-costed.

    • AircoolUK

      Space.

      Power Level just doesn’t take up much space whereas all the details for points values etc.. will just cram more text onto the page, and all that extra text won’t be used once the game actually starts.

      List building is different from playing the game. You don’t need the list building information when playing the game and you don’t need the units rules when building a list (except if you need to check up on something).

  • Jared McWilliams

    I have a feeling the only power the aspiring Sorcerer knows is smite.

    • EnTyme

      That’s really all he should know. He’s an “aspiring” sorcerer after all.

      • Xodis

        Agreed, his main role should be to ensure the Rubriks survive in CC lol

      • Jared McWilliams

        I agree.

        From this article it seems to imply there are other power options, which there may be but not likely for this model.

        In fact I doubt there will be power options at all, more like different models have different set psychic powers. Upgrading ML will likely be just paying to get a specific power like paying to upgrade a weapon.

      • David Leimbach

        He has the power to dream. Dreams and aspirations. Stare Longingly in the Distance is the actual name of the power. It’s as effective as it sounds.

    • Simon Bates

      I agree, I’m surprised I’ve seen so many people here and on FB assume otherwise. Considering he’s also quite nasty in CC, this doesn’t seem too unreasonable. Mortal wounds are pretty nasty, when you consider they apply to every model in the game now (albeit some of those models have a lot of wounds).

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Rubricae just became a solid anti mass-infantry unit overnight. 2+/4++ against any anti-infantry weapon, and massed save-denial make it a very attractive unit now. And they got rid of Warpflame.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      You aren’t wrong either way, but there’s a chance that it might end up 2+/5++, depending on how the rules for invulnerables end up shaking out. And they got rid of Warpflame. ^_^

  • Pyrrhus of Epirus

    so instead of carrying 2-3 books (for most armies at the max including the rulebook), we now get to carry the rulebook and X amount of loose data sheets?

    id rather the codexes still than loose sheets of paper.

    • Ravenwild

      I don’t think they had the carrying in mind when they decided this. I’d much rather have all the rules in front of me than have to look at 3 different pages in a codex and then a rule book for any USRs. They’re probably expecting everyone to have it all on tablets anyway, its the 41st millennium for Emperor’s sake who uses paper?

      • William Jameson

        Agreed, it’s the 41st Millennium. Give me parchment and autoquills or good old reliable human flesh to write on any time. Maybe dataslates at a stretch. Paper? Pffft. Where are you going to get the trees to make that stuff on your average Hive World?

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      All the rules will be in the App, so you only need the rulebook. Or you could use the rulebook and the Alliance book. Or the Rulebook and your codex (when it comes out).

    • generalchaos34

      If its like sigmar theres still a “codex” that will have the rules for the game plus all of the rules for all chaos units. You can use the app, the book, or if you are being extra efficient, you can print them out for only the units you are using and keep them in a folder. I think that laminating the sheets will be a nice option for when I play in a tournament and facilitate light travel

    • TenDM

      I’ve been doing it for years and I find it much easier. Just put a few staples in the side if it bothers you.

    • EvilCheesypoof

      These will be in a book.

    • davepak

      Think of this as your army list – you have one of these for each unit.

  • Kinsman

    Hopefully these are 1 per unit or Hero. Being able to pay for this could cause insanely OP lists, which I’m assuming GW wants to move away from.

    • TenDM

      The power levels and point costs are coming out tomorrow. That should give us an idea of how it’ll go.

  • Brian

    Not loving the graphic design here. Stuff is too scattered about. What do I mean? Let’s say someone’s shooting at your Rubric Marines and you need to roll your Save. Easy-peasy, right? It’s right there on the stat line: 3+

    Oh wait, no! Halfway down the sheet is All is Dust which says it’s actually 2+ “if the attack has a Damage characteristic of 1.” So that’s it?

    Nope again! Further down is that these guys have a 5+ invulnerable save!

    Just to make it worse, that All is Dust bit includes another rule about movement and shooting in the same paragraph.

    Now, this is all fine if I’m playing an army of these guys, but if they’re part of a Black Legion force that includes Plague Marines and Noise Marines, now I’m juggling multiple units all of whom will have different collections of special rules like this.

    A better design would have the special rules organized by topic (rather than by the now-defunct USRs as this one is). All the rules about saves in one place, all the rules about shooting in another, etc., all grouped together so I can quickly see that I’m not missing something important.

    Failing that, color-coding could be used, so I can quickly scan the page for all the rules about Saves (marked with a blue shield and blue text, for example). That would make it far easier to see that this rule here doesn’t apply but, oh yeah, this one further down totally applies to this situation. You could also cover that walking-and-shooting rule by including a green foot and red explosion icons, since that special rule applies to two different aspects.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      I do find it odd that they have two different rules lumped together under the same header. It would make more sense to break them up.

      • Brian

        Exactly. Clearly, it’s that way as a shout-out to the old USR, but if we’re not using those anymore, why hobble ourselves with the wonky organization? It would make more sense to put all the save rules together, and the walk-and-shoot rule with other similar rules.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          GW does this a lot. Two steps forward, one step backwards, lol

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        It could also be that way because both of the benefits are derrived from the marines not being flesh and bone. Granted, they could have split it into “Made of Dust” and “Muscles of Magic” or whatever, but I think it’s fine as is.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          It is not a huge problem but it would be more elegant to split them up.

    • Maitre Lord Ironfist

      OH noes! I have to read a whole sheet of paper! 😀
      [had to do that onesry x) ]

      but it sounds like that. ofc Rules need explaining, having these rules on the sheet is actually better then a book, where you have to look it up. I rather have a PDF on hand with the specifics of the suff i play then, atm 2 Book + BRB – Wich is not much.

      It is far more easier too look at a single sheet. But you are right on the design side. Sorting is importand. But here the rules covers 2 Things. But, well still better then multiple differend Books.

      I hope this is just a Beta und the optics part.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Totally. Better than what we have but could be even better!

      • Brian Murphy

        Oh, this is TONS better than looking through books, but not quite as good as the cheat-sheets I made for myself. The ergonomics of presenting data has come a long way in the past ten years, and while I’m not a pro, I saw an issue right away. Give a pro a month and I’ll bet they could make these sheets sing, improve fidelity to the rules at the table, and shave minutes off each turn of play.

    • Nyyppä

      Sooo….are you saying that now that you don’t have to remember 20+ USR just to use those same units like in 7th it’s hard because you have to read a rule every once in a while until you remember it?

      • Brian

        Nope, I’m saying it’ll be easy to forget or miss rules while you’re glancing at your sheets in the middle of a game. If, instead of scattering things across the sheet, they had the bespoke rules right next to the stat they modify or interact with, people would be much less likely to forget or miss them when they’re needed. Failing that, something like an icon or color could be used to make rules stand out as affecting this or that phase of the game.

        Or are you telling me you’ve never had a moment when you realized something like, “Crap! I was supposed to get a +1 on my to-wound rolls during my previous shooting phase!” 😉

        • Nyyppä

          Yeah, I don’t see the problem. I can read, you can read, others can read. If we forget something it’s on us, not on some sort of color coding. It’s one page. There’s not much there to remember.

          • Brian Murphy

            Eh, calling it a “problem” is too strong a word. It could be a lot better is all, and I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of jury-rigged or high-lighted datasheets to help those of us who are a bit longer in the tooth keep the details in mind.

            Mock not, ye of younger years! For, if you too are lucky, you shall find yourself standing in the kitchen, looking about, and asking yourself, “What the hell did I come in here for again?” 😉

          • Nyyppä

            I’m soon there. Nowadays it’s going in the kitchen with the mission of making some actual food, seeing a pack of cookies, eating the cookies, forgetting food and cursing it 2 hours after.

        • davepak

          true this happend before – just now, we don’t have to look in a book to remind us ITS ON THE CARD IN OUR HAND.

  • generalchaos34

    Wow these guys get a 2+ save! thats pretty crazy, and it fits them well being unkillable robots, you need to overkill them to avoid that bonus, since anti tank weapons will be your go to weapon for extra damage

    • Anasa

      Yup, I think their new rules depict their fluff description much better than the previous 4+ inv. Being practically empty pieces of armor, you would expect them to be really resistant to small arms fire and but less so to heavy weaponry.

  • Karru

    I like the layout of the sheet more than I do the one AoS uses. This one looks much more clean and organised.

    As for the rules, it will remain to be seen how good these are. The pricing will be key. While it seems that these guys are pretty survivable, their damage output still seems to be heavily limited. It will boil down to other options you have in your army. I do hope that the equipment will have a price attached to it in Matched Play. Getting everything for free will make certain weapons utterly pointless to take or it will jack up the prices too much for “weak” units. Imagine Guard Infantry Squads having to pay extra points just for having the option to take a Lascannon for example. That’s the thing that has me slightly worried right now.

  • Hunlow

    Wooo! What awesome upgrades! No more slow and purposeful, no more warp flame buffing your enemy, soulreaper cannon that clocks in at AP -3, Terminator armor vs small arms fire and no more stupid champion of chaos! Wooooooo! Wooooooo! Suck it Space Marines!

    • Nyyppä

      Trust me, SM will not be worse than CSM.

  • SiggisMarines

    Ooohh I hope that all power swords have to same AP value as the force sword… Then my stupidly power sword heavy DA army might suck a little less?.. Maybe not?

    • Simon Bates

      My guess is force weapons are just power weapons that do D3 damage.

  • Maitre Lord Ironfist

    Force Sword AP -3 : Ok if, thats a big if, GK keep their Swords and Hammerhand i giggle a lot.

  • Marquo

    Interesting stuff although I really wanted to see the Krak grenades profile, and this is one of the only marine-type units in the whole system not to have them 😛

  • Agent OfBolas

    Looks perfect for me. I can’t wait 8th edition.

  • Mr.Gold

    notice the entire unit is now a psyker (the keyword applies to all of the unit)…

  • Ravingbantha

    So far it looks like Rubrics are no longer fearless, or whatever passes for that in 8th edition

    • Simon Bates

      It sounds like very few things will be immune to morale tests, although there’ll be characters and command point rules that can give re-rolls, bonuses or even make a unit temporarily immune, as in AoS. Very few things in AoS are permanently immune to Battleshock (AoS morale tests).

      • Ravingbantha

        I agree that fearless became a bit overused, but for some units it makes sense. Rubrics are mindless constructs that get resurrected after each fight, I can’t imagine there being much that bothers them.

  • Laurence J Sinclair

    Hmm. Faction keywords: Heretic Astartes. No more ‘Chaos Space Marine’ term?

    • Well, might be better considering that there are renegade Chapters that aren’t actually aligned with Chaos.

  • Sleeplessknight

    No one’s asking the most important question.
    Will there be power levels over 9000???
    http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/900/001/6b3.png

  • Sleeplessknight

    No one is asking the most important question.
    Will there be power levels over 9000???
    http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/370/705/37c.gif

  • We’ve known invul saves weren’t going away since the psychic phase update, they explained that mortal wounds ignore invuls

  • highwind

    “As mentioned above, USRs are GONE. Everything you need to know will be on the unit’s data sheet or in the same publication. No need to carry tons of books around when you are going to game night. Personally, this is by far my favorite change:”

    uhm, yeah, because USRs were in the tons of ONE rule book…

    everything you need to know is on the datasheet? – no, the points are obviously NOT on that datasheet!