40K: More Rules For 8th Edition

Tons of rules from 8th edition are making the rounds from 8th edition. Everything is starting to come into focus…

It looks like someone has gotten their hands on a copy of the rules – or at least a good chunk of them. We already got a look at the shooting rules that broke earlier, now we’re getting a bettering picture of how a game turn is going to play out.

via Grot Orderly (Facebook)

That’s not all! We’ve also got a teaser of the Hellblaster Squad’s rules as well as some more info on various detachment rules:

Hellblasters

 

 

That is a LOT to go over! Enjoy folks!

  • Sweetcurse

    Looks amazing

    • GreyPanthers

      you look amazing.

    • Agent OfBolas

      best edition of 40k so far, and I’m playing since 1998 🙂

      • Moik

        Totally agree! This is what I’ve dreamed of! I guess this is where all the work they didn’t put into the fluff went. 😉

  • Sweetcurse

    Only thing i don’t like is that chargers who fail charge don’t move.

    • Daniel R Weber

      During the charge phase. Already moved once in move phase. Plus command points for reroll

      • Mr.Gold

        i think it was mentioned somwhere that in matched play can only use one strategem per phase.

        • Haighus

          I think it said you can only use the same stratagem once per phase- so you could use both the re-roll and the counter offensive in the same phase, but couldn’t use two re-rolls.

    • davepak

      I agree – this would have been huge – a BIG boost for assault armies.

    • EvilCheesypoof

      Yeah, melee armies should just save the reroll strategems for charges.

    • Rabid Wombat

      Do you really want to stall a charge within flamer distance in this edition?

      • If you’re within 12″ and fail your move, you end up being shot by the flamers the next turn anyway as the flamer-unit will just move close enough to fry you.
        Or they move away from you, so you potentially fail your next assault again.

      • Karru

        Yes. Because now the enemy can either move into flamer range OR can just move backwards to force you to make another charge roll that you might fail.

        In Fantasy, the fact that your unit moved after you failed a charge meant that even if you failed, you could have a better chance to do it next turn.

        • Yea. It also doesn’t make sense physically. I mean, the guys started running, but didn’t get close enough and *zoom*, your back where you previously were. It’s just a weird mechanic which punishes assault units.

          • Karru

            Indeed. You unit is already standing in the middle of a field like a donut, so it would only serve as a benefit if you could move them closer. If they didn’t want to Math it out, half the range like in Fantasy, they could just say “the unit moves the amount shown in the lowest die towards the intended target.”

          • Scatter 667

            yeah, charge is still an all or nothing. Not beeing able to move any distance iskind of bad, but i still get the idea, that the attacker is trying to get in, is fired apon in overwatch and falls back to the starting position. questionable, but i can live with that i think.
            A mandatory move might actually be worse than this solution. There is no mentioning of attacking through cover yet. So i could charge from cover. If successful, i get to fight. If not, i stay in cover and get +1 to the save. A mandatory movement could actually cause you to fail the charge but still have to move out of cover and be worse off next turn.

          • AEZ

            IT;s not really the starting position always: they did move in the movement phase but apart from the game mechanics this stuff just happens at the same time.

          • Scatter 667

            it is about the charge move, not movement at all. Actually it does not happen at the same time mechanic wise. its move, phychic, shoot, charge, fight moral. So a charging unit can move and shoot before they charge. what i was refering to is the position you charge from. and that might actually be in cover.

            For now one might be able to disembark from transport, move in cover, shoot from there and than charge. if you fail the charge you stay in cover. One question poping up here would be, if you still get the cover bonus for the save during the overwatch?

          • Karru

            Why wouldn’t you get the bonus? It only says you don’t get the benefit during the fight phase.

          • Scatter 667

            i know and you are right. But in 7th they argued that in fact the guys would run towards the enemy and than retreat back to the starting position. thats also why you could use a flamer in overwatch although the starting position was out of the flamer template.
            So if they shoot while in cover you get the save during overwatch. But if they shoot while your guys are running towards the enemy you might not get the cover. The later would punish assault quiet a bit…

          • Karru

            First rule of 40k. Never use logic.

            Your guys aren’t moving at all, because if they were, they wouldn’t run back to the exactly the same positions they were before. They would find the nearest cover next to their target and stick to that until they gather up the nerves to charge again.

            Only an absolute m0ron would run into machine gun fire, run 1″ away from the enemy unit and then run back because he realised his stove was left on.

          • Scatter 667

            I’m not argueing with logic, but the way GW invisions the charge phase. and in 7th they actually stated they would turn around and go back to the point they started from.

            I agree with you, that it would be best to run into nearest cover, but thats not how GW sees things. i hope we will hear it soon…

          • AircoolUK

            tl;dr – the charge roll isn’t a ‘run distance’ roll, it’s a roll to determine whether your unit thinks it can successfully complete a charge.

            Nah, I always figured it was more of a hesitation sort of thing, or they just weren’t correctly prepared to charge. The 2D6 isn’t a roll to move in the same way that advancing (running) is. It’s a test as to whether your unit thinks they can successfully complete a charge based on the distance.

            If you roll high enough, then your unit decides to charge and you can them move based on the roll result, if you don’t roll high enough, your unit decides it wouldn’t be able to complete the charge successfully.

            If you could fail a charge and move that distance, then people would just use it as a bonus move half the time.

  • Ghaniman

    Those Elite/Heavy/Fast Attack heavy detachments are just making my squeal with glee. Speed Freeks & Dread Mob live again!

    • Donald Wendt

      I’m finally going to find a way to use all 9 of my hammerheads in a non-apocalypse game. Don’t ask me why I’d have nine, I don’t even know anymore.

    • Greg MacLean

      And pure deathwing!

      • Ghaniman

        Blood Angel Dread army.

    • Chaos_Unbound

      The all Suit Tau army is now finally a thing WITHOUT having to play Enclave.

  • Boondox

    Can someone help me understand the wording for dedicated transports? “May include one for each other choice.”

    • SprinkKnoT

      Seems to me like you can take a dedicated transport for each other unit you bring (regardless of if they can even use it).

      • Boondox

        So a dedicated transport for every unit in the detachment? It’s quite possible I’m reading into it too much so thanks for your response.

        • SprinkKnoT

          Correct, seems like there’s no cap on dedicated transports. You still gotta pay for them of course.

          • Boondox

            Awesome!! Almost like mechanized infantry which I can understand. Thanks again.

          • venomoushydra

            Key words is every OTHER. So for every 2 units you take, you have the option to purchase one dedicated transport. So only half of your army may purchase dedicated transports.

          • Nick Cathers

            Each other, as in non-dedicated transport. Not the phrase every other.

          • venomoushydra

            Ah, thank you, was misreading it then. Small text on a phone screen, my bad. So yah, the point then is to just keep dedicated transports from taking a dedicated transport.

          • Mr.Gold

            also look at the detachments, count up the no of non transport options, count up the number of transport options they are equal…

          • Boondox

            That’s how I read it initially and started asking my questions. I’m not the coldest beer in the fridge but it doesn’t make much sense to only be able to put half your infantry units in transports. Perhaps GW could have phrased it better so folks like me won’t get confusified…

          • highwind

            it is phrased as clear as it can be… it might be a little confusing if youre native language is not english but then again you will most likely get the rules in your language soon.

            also note:
            there is no word on “infantry”, it just says “unit”… technically your unit of a single Landspeeder could take a Razorback as dedicated transport.
            this might get useful for Dreadnoughts for example… a single unit of three Dreadnoughts currently could only take a single Drop Pod but if you also field a Landspeeder and a Predator both of them could take a Drop Pod aswell, allowing all of your three Dreadnoughts to be embarked in Drop Pods

      • Scatter 667

        i would expect that it is stated somewhere, which units can take what kind of transport and that you can only take dedicated transports if the units and transport are legit. So i guess no rhinos for dreadnaughts and such.

        • Koen Diepen Van

          I doubt it

          • Scatter 667

            it says “dedicated” transport, which implies that the transport has to be a legit choice for the unit. but we’ll see….

          • highwind

            doubtful as the already known dataslates of infantry units dont mention dedicated transports at all

            more likely “dedicated transport” will become its own category on the FOC and you will in fact be able to take one for each other unit, including units of tanks, MCs and so on…

    • Exactly what it says. For each other FOC slot you take, you may also include a DT.

      • Boondox

        Why not state “May include one for every choice.”? Not trying to start anything, just need to wrap my head around this. Borderline OCD and all that…

        • ForgottenLore

          Because the transports are also choices. Without the “other” in the sentence you could take a dedicated transport for every dedicated transport, effectively being allowed infinite transports off a single troop choice. Plus, “you may take a single dedicated transport choicefor each non-dedicated transport choice” is long and cumbersome.

          • Boondox

            Gotcha. Now it makes sense. Thank you.

        • Jason75

          To avoid someone taking a transport for another choice, and then taking a transport for that transport, as so on. You can already take a Predator, then take a Razorback as transport for that Predator, so there are some quirky combinations.

          That’s as I read it anyway.

          • Boondox

            Thanks for helping to clarify this for me.

          • spla5hmummy

            I wonder if the datasheets will declare what a units DT options are. You might find that you can take a transport for a predator but the only eligible one is a thunderhawk. It seems likeliest that you are correct though. Another thought that occurs is whether this will include land raiders or not. Could see a lot of them if it does.

        • Because a DT is itself a “choice” and if the “other” were not present, you could take a DT for taking a DT, which is not intended.

    • Frank O’Donnell

      If you pick a troop choice you can then pick a transport, if you then pick a heavy support choice you can then pick a transport which might mean you could pick a pred & pick a rhino for to go with i, but I would guess that somewhere it will say who or who may not take a transport.

    • Chaos_Unbound

      Basically you can take one Dedicated Transport for every other unit you have.

  • Future Watcher

    May include one “transport” with each other choice “of unit”

  • Aaditya Rangan

    Wait a minute.
    What are the unit coherency rules?
    If the unit coherency rules are lax, then it seems possible to interleave units so that you can’t charge one without coming within an inch of the other (e.g., at the end of an alleyway or in a narrow corridor).

    I’m not looking forward to people trying to game the system this way.

    • Ghaniman

      Core Rules page. Subsection Units. No more than 2″ apart horizontally.

      • Aaditya Rangan

        Thanks! So units with 50mm bases or smaller can interleave… I’m not sure what this means yet!?

      • AircoolUK

        Absolutely. It’s like running mixed units waaaay back in 80’s WHFB.

        It’s fun in AoS to have two units in two ranks with the rear rank having 2″ melee weapons. There’s lots of cunning tricks to play in AoS Combat Phase, and that’s where you realise the simple rules also allow for a lot of depth.

        In 42K (or 40K II) mixing in solid overwatch units with defensive melee units would be quite nasty, as long as you position the ranged units in a formation where one of the models is nearest to the enemy and the rest are as far back as possible (like a chevron), that way the enemy will end up mostly engaging the defensive melee unit (so your ranged unit can retreat next round), or end up in a position where your defensive unit can counter charge in your turn.

    • SprinkKnoT

      Even if the player weaves both, you can just declare the charge on both. Yeah they get to overwatch with both, but you get the charge on both units fairly easily.

      • Aaditya Rangan

        Thanks! I missed that too; I should read more carefully next time 🙂

    • Scatter 667

      i would expect a 1″ minimum distance between units outside of CC to keep it clean. Otherwise it might be possible, that models which units if not marked properly in battle and that would cause problems with the moral tests.

  • Thatroubleshootah

    This is what I was afraid of. Retention of the IGo ugo mechanic. Looks like another hour watching my opponent play while I roll saves. Blech. I guess when we pla at our flgs we will be trying to shoehorn bolt action order dice In to this somehow so it will be actually fun to play.

    • davepak

      Just do alternate unit activation – works fine.

      For an even bigger change – activate a unit – do its move and shoot!

    • ZeeLobby

      I imagine it’ll come at some point. Would probably be too big of a change on top of everything else

      • Chaos_Unbound

        Actually thats the BEST time to put it in. Since people are having to relearn a lot of stuff anyway you might as well change the turn style at the same time.

    • Farseerer

      If you aren’t a fan of the turn mechanic, I have no idea what you’re doing playing 40k. It has always been that way and there was never any suggestion that it was going to change in 8th.

      You may as well be complaining about water being wet.

  • Drpx

    We get to see the return of Terminators dying in Land Raider crashes.

    • euansmith

      Honestly, I’m not sure that surviving the explosive destruction of a transport is really much of an option.

      • Chaos_Unbound

        Also its only a 15% chance for each model. Its to represent people getting caught by the explosion itself or the shrapnel that is produced by the explosion.

  • Rajak

    All of those Detachments require an HQ. I wonder what they did to give harlequins the ability to use these detachments given they have no HQ.

    • Sorien

      You can always do any number of aux detachments. Just won’t get any command points.

      • Scatter 667

        aux detachments actually subtract 1 command point for each choice…

        • Nilok

          What are they going to do, take away command points from your next game?

          • Mr.Gold

            if you go below 0 points then it could give you opponent bonuses?

          • Scatter 667

            every battle forged army gets 3 CP base and additional CP by adding stuff, eg detachments or chars. So you will have to calculate the total amount of command points at the end of list building. I would imagine that you can’t go below 0, but very well end up with zero CP for that battle.

    • Keith Wilson

      might have made the troupe master a HQ …. like the old days of the great harlequin commander

    • Louper

      I would be incredibly surprised if the new Harlequin rules are no troops or hq like they are now. (either that or harlies will have their “own” detachments)

    • Thierry Boxmeer

      They can use the Ynnari Triumvirate as HQ choices, right? And hopefully they’ll get unique HQ choices once their codex is released.

      • Mr.Gold

        or the roles might change around e.g. solitaire/shadowseer might be a HQ for example

        • Thierry Boxmeer

          Could be, although the Solitaire would be a poor choice what with not being able to gain a Warlord Trait (if they keep true to 7th fluff). The way I figure it, the five Indices are just there to tie people over until their faction’s codex arrives. GW has to do it that way, all datasheets from 7th have become invalid after all. But that means they won’t change things around too much, it’s mainly going to be a ‘straight port’ from 7th to 8th. After all, why fundamentally change stuff now only to change it again once the codex hits?

  • Tenpoletudor

    Under strength units is a nice add

  • Keith Wilson

    psychic phase is dead …..

    • Louper

      Its important to remember than even though double 1s and double 6s sounds scary it is actually quite rare since you will only be throwing 2 dice for each power. Each time you cast its about a 5.5% chance to suffer ~1.5 wounds. Overall I wouldn’t consider that all that bad.

      • Chaos_Unbound

        Yeah people werent that scared of Perils in 3rd or 4th when this is how Psychic worked. Yes it can happen but its not a every game or even every 10 game thing. Id agree with keith in psychic phase is dead in the sense of what happens in it wont COMPLETELY dictate how the game goes. 6th/7th Psychic phase was oppresively bad.

    • Ronin

      Psychic phase is balanced. 😛

      • ZeeLobby

        Really have to wait and see. Now that every individual psyker can have their own unique powers, the probability that a faction will have access to a powerful power while others don’t is higher.

        • Karru

          This is something I worry about as well. Considering that they said the Battle Cannon was “totally fine” makes me very worried about the Psychic Power Balance between armies.

    • AircoolUK

      As is every other phase and army type from what I gather reading these comment sections…

      • Karru

        I am sure that we can all 100% agree on that Assaulting is dead, right? I mean, it was confirmed the moment we saw that 8th edition was coming. /s

  • EvilCheesypoof

    Pile in, Consolidate, and heroic intervention are definitely flexible enough to tie up multiple unwilling units in combat. Obviously shooting armies are going to try and avoid being next to each other because of this though.

    • You think so? I think Pile in and consolidate actually do not allow you to get closer to another unit nearby as a model using consolidate or pile in needs to end it’s movement closer to it’s closest model. That means models in base-contact aren’t allowed to even move at all (as you can’t get closer anymore) and all others will just get closer to the unit they were assaulting. Unless you make a ‘flyby’ on unit A assaulting another unit B right next/behind A.

      • EvilCheesypoof

        Remember you can end the charge within 1″, doesn’t have to be base contact. Then you can use your pile in to scoot left or right as long as you end your move closer to the closest model. The consolidate would be harder, but all of this is easier if you have a large unit.

        • Hmm, indeed. You could always get a micro-metre closer and still twist around that single model (or by that get closer to another one which means next pile-in you can twists around another one) forever. Now that sounds… not as intended. But by raw, it’s possible. I gotta re-check if you need to get into base-contact during charge if you can do so. But indeed I don’t think you need to.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            It’s exactly as intended. GW was very excited about it in their fight phase reveal article.

          • Well, getting into 1″ was as intended. But doing “I got one micro-meter closer to actually move through your unit towards another one”-dances sound rather abusive.

      • Haighus

        In addition to what EvilCheesypoof said, if you have a large unit that charged, say 30 Ork boyz, then large sections of that unit could easily be closer to other enemy units than the one charged. Some members of the unit could be 6, 7, more inches away from the charged unit. This makes large units quite dangerous for dragging other units in.

        On the other hand, charging units can only attack units they have declared a charge against. Any units dragged in will be able to attack, but not be attacked in that phase. This would still be really helpful against Tau or Guard (who would have to fall back and lose shooting, or stay in melee and risk being hit next round), but could backfire against Space Marines or other units decent in melee. I think weathering the Overwatch will be more useful in most cases, unless facing gunlines.

      • Haighus

        Oh, the other thing is that if you wipe out the enemy unit, then there is nothing stopping the assaulting unit consolidating into melee with other units if they are close enough. This will force gunlines to deploy further apart, which is nice, because it weakens the effect of things like the supporting fire rule- there will only be so many units that can safely get into range.

    • Viper666.Qc

      Pure shooty armies will have to send lures to block the CC units, like tons of cheap empty DT for instance (or any unit tough enough to resist the CC round they charged).

      CC armies vs other CC armies will have to attack in wave since the turn after their unit charge (and probably wipe-out the enemy unit), the opponent will do the same thing on his turn and wipe your unit (since CC will often be one-sided for the side that charge).

  • EvilCheesypoof

    Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    After reading the rules again, am I correct that you could kill a 10 man squad even if you can only see 1 guy? Line of sight and range is only a prerequisite for targeting them initially, in the Choose Target phase. However, for wound allocation, the chosen model does not need to be in line of sight or range. There doesn’t seem to be an out of range/out of sight rule to cancel wounds in the “wound pool”. Even if you make attacks one at a time, with the same weapons in the same unit targeting the same enemy unit, this is all happening in the resolve attacks phase.

    Doesn’t seem correct.

    • ZeeLobby

      Really wish they’d abstracted away true LoS.

      • EvilCheesypoof

        It sounds like they kind of did? If I’m interpreting things correctly. It only comes into play for the ability to target, but not for wound allocation.

        • harq obispal

          If you were on the receiving end, you’d remove the one guy as a casualty the enemy could see, no? Then the rest of the shooting unit can’t target that unit any more and would have to look elsewhere for a legal target.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            But you resolve all the attacks against that target from the same unit with the same weapons, in the same step, “resolve attacks” which says nothing about requiring line of sight, infact it says it does NOT require range or line of sight. Even if you do it one at a time, you don’t ever go back to the picking target phase until you shoot with a new unit. I don’t want it to be this way it it seems like it is. Look how picking targets works, it’s in a separate step before resolving attacks.

          • That simply plays further into “the game will be faster” paradigma. You can kill everything in a single turn if you see at least one model.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            Yeah I suppose that’ll help with the speed. Just seems really strange/hard to explain realistically.

          • I’m not a too big fan of that either.

          • harq obispal

            Ok, get that. Should steps 2 and 3 of the shooting sequence be round the other way? Step 2 refers to checking range/los with ‘the weapon being used’, then step 3 has you choosing a weapon?

          • I don’t think it makes a difference anyway as you are allowed to check LoS and range all the time anyway.

          • harq obispal

            There is just some relationship between the selecting of a weapon, and the targeting of a unit that I feel I am missing – probably come into focus after coffee.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            That doesn’t matter. The issue is that line of sight and range specifically doesn’t apply to wound allocation. So the only time you check range/line of sight again is when you’re done with all that unit’s attacks and want to shoot with another unit.

            I now actually think this is intended as a way for units to die quickly and speed up wound allocation.

          • harq obispal

            Totally agree – range and LoS don’t apply to wound allocation.
            But a unit can split fire. It can choose to shoot some of its weapons (of whatever type) against one unit, and some others against another unit, and so on. Each time it changes target, there has to be a viable target test. If Unit A has 3 different types of weapon, and nominates them ALL at Unit B, then fine – viability check made at Step 2. As soon as they nominate a different target unit, there has to be further range/los check. When is this done? Do you nominate the whole lot at Step 2, so ‘3 bolters at Unit A, 2 bolters at Unit B, las cannon at Unit C and melta gun at Unit D’? Because that seems like Step 3 to me…?

          • EvilCheesypoof

            A unit declares all of its targets, and picks all of its weapons. Then all the attacks are resolved. Still don’t have to check for valid target until you switch units. You don’t go back to step 1 until you resolve all your attacks with that unit.

          • harq obispal

            So it checks validity for all the nominated targets at the point of declaration (Step 2)? Ok, cool, thanks.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            Yep, at step 2 and 3 is when you get the greenlight to shoot at that unit, and once you get to step 4, nothing is preventing all those attacks from resolving.

          • AircoolUK

            It’s one of those rules where abstraction was chosen over simulation due to speed. In a lot of cases (ignoring outliers), abstraction rules are designed to give similar results to simulation, but without the time and complexity.

          • EvilCheesypoof

            Yeah it makes sense, and it’s growing on me, especially if you think of it like Dawn of War
            2, where the whole unit is sharing one health bar. Easier and makes
            enough sense to keep the game moving.

            I’ll be happy to see games take less than 3 hours lol.

          • Haighus

            I see it as the unit revealing it’s location to the enemy. The enemy then targets the area occupied by the unit. They don’t need to be able to see an opponent to spray heavy bolter rounds through the wall. The visible enemy is the confirmation that fire can be aimed in that direction. Cover modifiers rationalise the decreased effectiveness of targeting a unit in this manner.

    • Viper666.Qc

      And don’t forget that a unit is considered in cover if ALL models are in cover. One model without cover from true LOS and all the unit loses cover….this is BS….

      • EvilCheesypoof

        To be fair, that seems like you’d benefit from cover the moment the guy out of cover dies, since attacks are technically resolved one at a time so you get to make each save individually if you need to like in that instance, so that’s not really a problem.

        • Viper666.Qc

          That’s I was thinking too….but again, this would work if your remaining models are in cover but if they are being a solid wall without Line of Sight, this wouldn’t work….

          • EvilCheesypoof

            Not sure what you mean.

          • Viper666.Qc

            well if you get 1 guy in the open and 9 guys in cover behind a ruin where the enemy unit can see them, when you get shot, you remove your model in the open first so next, your 9 remaining models are in “cover”. But if you have 1 model in the open and 9 models out of Line of Sight (because they are behind a Hill or because a Tank block the view), then even if you remove the model in the open first, the 9 remaining models won’t receive any cover bonus….

          • EvilCheesypoof

            Ah I see what you mean. But I still think there’s some info we haven’t seen, perhaps with keywords. The Frontline gaming guys who play tested this edition said something about infantry benefiting from toe in cover but vehicles/monsters having to be obscured by cover. So I can imagine infantry can also benefit from being obscured somewhere, we’ll see.

    • euansmith

      “They caught Dave in the open! He’s down! I’m going to go and rescue him! Dave, I’m coming for you, buddy! Aaagh!”

      “They caught Harry and Dave in the open! They’re down! I’m going to go and rescue them! Harry and Dave, I’m coming for you, buddies! Aaagh!”

      “They caught Greg, Harry and Dave in the open! They’re down! I’m going to go and rescue them! Greg, Harry and Dave, I’m coming for you, buddies! Aaagh!”

      … and so on. 😉

      • EvilCheesypoof

        Haha yeah pretty much. But it’s growing on me, especially if you think of it like Dawn of War 2, where the whole unit is sharing one health bar. Easier and makes enough sense to keep the game moving.

  • Crevab

    The base cover rules are +1 to your (armor) save? blech

    • EvilCheesypoof

      The reason for that is so AP can penetrate cover now. Which makes sense.

      • AircoolUK

        Yeah, I always thought it was strange that a Melta shot could be blocked by a few twigs or the fact that you might be a little hard to see.

        Covers always a tricky factor. Personally, I preferred the old soft/hard cover with -1/-2 to hit, but, as mentioned, it doesn’t take into consideration AP.

    • It looks odd from a real-world-perspective only on first sight. If you know there’s a guy behind the bush (which we assume is no technical problem in 40k – termal-scan, night-vision, xray, whatever), you still shoot at the target and your rounds need to penetrate the cover instead. Of course, for half-visible-guys, that’s an oddity, but it’s just a mechanic overall and I think it works better than modifying the to-hit-roll as it doesn’t punish bad shooters too much, it does improve good armoured guys though.

      Basically that means cover increases the target’s chance of surviving and that’s all and a perfect match to the new mechanic and real world behaviour.

      • AircoolUK

        I don’t know whether we’ve seen anything on the subject, but I hope things like Stealth Suits etc… give a negative modifier to hit rather than a bonus to save as cover.

        I think we saw Dark Eldar vehicles get a 5++ invulnerable, presumably because of their flickerfields (because no-one ever left the garage without their flickerfield).

  • Nyyppä

    Oh look, 6 pages of rules instead on 14. Oh look, the predictions were right. I wonder how all the “but you don’t know the rules yet” people can handle this.

    • Karru

      I take it you only count the rules for Movement, Psychic Phase, Shooting and Fighting and ignore the rules for Battle-forged and the Force Organisation slots?

      • Nyyppä

        The core rules were predicted to be short, roughly equal to AoS. AoS has 4 pages of core rules. Logically we do not count stuff outside of the core.

        • AircoolUK

          Actually get rid of setup etc… and the core of AoS is only about 2 pages.

          Even back in WHFB 3rd (probably the most complex of any Warhammer game), the CORE rules were squeezed onto the back inside cover (2 pages) of the BRB.

          • Nyyppä

            “Buh, buh 14 pages.” Not my words.

    • AircoolUK

      Um, since when was the size of the rulebook a reflection on a good game?

      If that was true, we’d all be using D&D/Rolemaster rules for our tabletop games and Poker would be a game for infants.

      Rules look fine to me. Best bits from 40K and AoS. Most of the skill on the battlefield will come from imaginative and creative generalship rather than cynical manipulation of the crunch.

      • Nyyppä

        Since never.

        I have no problem with the core as long as the factions are balanced.

  • So what I take from all these discussions is: The rules are too short/unclear and need an FAQ and/or some examples already. Especially cover/invisible models and how multi-wound-units work when it comes to multi-damage-weapons. Play-tested much, eh?

    • harq obispal

      Indeed. Do we know that we have all the rules though? I honestly don’t know if this is the entire booklet, no visible page numbers to check it that I can see.

      • euansmith

        Isn’t this the “fold-out”? Which looks to be a large cheat sheet? I’m assuming that the interior of the rule book will be in colour.

        • Haighus

          I agree- the detachments are in black and white, yet the description for them mentions red and grey. This clearly isn’t the fullest version of the rules.

    • Scatter 667

      you are right. I think they wanted to make a quick and easy rule set, which i think, for what we know now, does work for the most part. Some issues have not been adresse, like wounding out-of-sight models and such. For sure, since there are bazillions of rules combinations in 40k there will be issues poping up. GW already annouced, that there will be a kind of community page for question submission and community vote on clarifications for FAQs. That would be a great thing.
      I actually hope they will make some how to play videos addressing the major points of battle, which would set a golden standardand everyone could refer to those short clips.

    • EvilCheesypoof

      Multi wound units with multi damage weapons is easy. When a wound is unsaved, you apply damage to the model it was allocated to. Any extra damage doesn’t spill over. But if there are still wounds left in the “wound pool”, you allocate that to the next model. And continue.

      But I agree some other things could use clarification there.

      • Minyiki

        The issue is with random damage weapons as you then have to roll one at a time, not going to be that common I imagine but with the rules specifically saying that all shooting attacks should be resolved one at a time it could slow things down a little

        • EvilCheesypoof

          Yeah the damage step will always slow down a little since you have to do 1 at time.

    • Chaos_Unbound

      Ill bet thats all in the Main Book. This is just the “AoS” core rules for 8th. The new core book is 240 pages and Id bet at least 1/4 of that, 60 pages, is rules. So sit tight until we see the actual book.

      • 240 pages of which about half is probably fluff about the Imperium and how awesome Primaris are, 50 pages missions and then nice photos too.

  • Mr.Gold

    The Aux Suppport Detachment – you can just take a Transport on its own, so as to support a list without transports (at the moment) e.g. Cult Mechanicus/Skitarii

    • EvilCheesypoof

      Yeah but you lose command points.

      • CPs aren’t that impressive anyway, at least to me.

        • AircoolUK

          We haven’t seen mission or faction specific command abilities as of yet, that may change your mind. It’s certainly nice to have the choice

          • Karru

            Yeah, but even with the faction and missions specific abilities, they will have a hard time selling the CP as something that is truly worth-while. The problem is that in a normal game you are getting so few of them. 3 CP standard and then 3 CP from the detachment, at best you get additional 3 CP, meaning you are getting 9 at most in a standard game.

            That isn’t too many abilities to use. Also, thus far the ones we have seen don’t look that powerful, especially since they have pretty much confirmed it that many characters will be giving out similar buffs to units around them.

          • Scatter 667

            you get 3CP base and for a brigade you can get additional 9, making it 12 CP. I tried that for my World Eaters with current point cost and i end up at about 2000points for a Brigade. Depending on changes it might be possible. In addition one could get extra CP for chars. So you could have 12+ CP. Depending on the Stratagems we don’t know yet, this could be interesting. And my WE would like to have a lot of charge dice re-rolls;-)

          • You can only use one strategem per turn. So not that many re-roll as you may wish.

          • Karru

            Actually, you can use one Stratagem per Phase. A slight difference, as some of them are most likely tied to a certain phase, but the Re-roll for example can be used once per phase.

          • Thanks for correction. Still, he can’t re-roll charges more than once per turn then 😛

          • Scatter 667

            the article:
            https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/14/new-warhammer-40000-stratagems-may14gw-homepage-post-4/
            explictly states:
            “In matched play, these Stratagems have the additional restriction that
            the same Stratagem cannot be used by the same player more than once
            during any single phase. So, if you use that Command Re-roll to pass an
            armour save in the Fight phase, you can’t then use that same Stratagem to re-roll a hit later in the phase.”

            This actually means that you have no restrictions when playing open or narrative, so i could re-roll charges as often as i have CPs left in narrative play. But still it might have sense to have a good amount…

          • Who’s gonna play open or narrative? O.o I thought everyone loved having points values and thus matched play all the way.

          • Scatter 667

            you just went over the point that its once per phase, but doesn’t matter;-) And the re-roll for a charge dice is just an example. But hey, just go on.
            I also heard a lot of people beeing interested in narative. You could build your army by points, but still stick to narrative rules for the rest;-) anyway…

          • AircoolUK

            Absolutely true… Gives you flexibility. If you like command point abilities you have to have a more rigid structure, whereas if you’re not bothered about command points, you’ve got a lot more freedom.

            Everybody happy 😉

    • Scatter 667

      that actually might not be the case. it might still require that the unit and the transport share faction keywords and you will not be able to put what every you like into a drop pod.
      But i like the idea of taking single units, which, as long as we don’t know the allies rules, might be completely out of context of the rest of the army, eg a unit of gretchins in an otherwise sm army 😉
      Depending on the abilities of command points the -1 is nice to keep it fluffy.

      • Nothing is fluffy about all the other detachments. It’s basically free choice of army composition.

        • Scatter 667

          The more of your force is combined in one detachment the more CP you get. The patrol, batalion and brigade grant the most, but you have to bring mandatory units for each slot. This is how GW invisions a fully organized force.
          If you choose to bring specialized forces in a more fragmented organization you will get less CP.
          For example the spearhead is basically a HQ + heavy detachment and only gives you 1CP if you want to field a heavy detachment.
          Granted, this is relative generic, but I can still see the fluffy intend in this.

          • Haighus

            The patrol grants you no additional points. This means that the allied detachment to counter a weakness of your larger detachment gives you less benefit in command points. Which I think is an interesting mechanic.

  • BoeufCitron

    No more shooting from transport ? I hope it’s going to be a bespoken rule mentioned in the units dataslates.

    • gordonshumway

      One of the Faction Focus articles (Dark Eldar I believe) confirmed you can still shoot out of opened top transports for sure. Other transports may be on a by-datasheet basis…like rules for firing points, etc.

  • euansmith
  • Hussein Alobaidi

    I kinda wanna…..not look.

    Saves the mystery for the release date, reading through the book and the like

    • AircoolUK

      I know what you mean… I saw a page with some ‘fluff’ about Blood Angels. Even though I’m not a fan of Space Vampire Marines (soooo emooooo), I didn’t want any spoilers, although most of the comments were derogatory as you’d expect.

      • Slaanesh Devotee

        Yeah people complained because the way it was written made the chain of events seem too rapid, and random occurrences seemed so perfectly timed. But that illusion was created because it was only a summary of events.

      • Hussein Alobaidi

        Yeah I enjoy the “official” releases on the community page, that’s a controlled “primer” in a way for 8th. But i tend to avoid the leaked stuff for the actual release.

    • Chaos_Unbound

      This is likely just the 14 page “Core” rules. youll still get your full rules when we get the main book.

  • Maitre Lord Ironfist

    The one point we were curious anbout:

    2d6 Charge, if not within 1″ of the target/s it is failed and you do not move (meh)

    If you are within 1″ or base2base you can pile in 3 – Charging units go first. <- That charging units go first, before the active player chooses another Units is good for Orcs. Since normaly you do not loose like 75% of you Boyz before even hitting with a stick.

  • Marquo

    No bonus attack for charging by the look of it. Also no special flyer rules although we’ll see what their data sheets say.

    • euansmith

      Charging units get to strike first; plus, I’m sure, some units will get a special ability that is triggered by charging.

      • marlowc

        Problem is, if that’s the only melee the chargers would have struck first anyway. Better is simultaneous melee, with chargers re-roll to hit I think.

        • Karru

          Actually, they wouldn’t have. In the Fight Phase, units that charged that turn get to swing first and the player in control chooses the order.

          After that, you alternate with your opponent between units, meaning that you get to swing first if you had already been in locked in Close Combat from the previous turn.

          Simultaneous melee, while interesting, would hinder the effectiveness of already “weakened” melee units. Melee units only do damage in melee and the enemy has plenty of defences against that. Overwatch and the lovely Random Charge Distance. If the defender would basically get double the attacks each turn, there would be very little point in charging.

          • marlowc

            As I said, if the charge is the only melee that turn, they would have gone first anyway, because of course it must be their turn 🙂

  • marlowc

    Some nice changes there aren’t they, much better than AoS. I especially like the neat strength vs toughness formula, and having WS as a straight roll, no more looking up tables 🙂
    Losing initiative is long overdue, but would have liked to see simultaneous melee now. A whole unit striking first is a but much. Still, that’s easily house ruled isn’t it.

    • Karru

      It makes sense that the charging units get to go first. The ranged units are too busy firing their weapons at in a futile attempt to push the enemy back. By the time they are ready to actually swing something, the charging enemy is in their midst already, killing their dudes.

      • marlowc

        That makes sense, though I’m not a great fan of trying to see any parts of the game in “real” terms 🙂
        You could then revert to simultaneous melee for the subsequent rounds.

        • Sicxpence

          That is where the picking alternatives units after the initial charge phase comes in though. All chargers go first (sensible) unless CPs are used, then it alternates between players activating units. So you will have to think about in what order you pick to fight H2H combat.

  • Anasa

    Yikes, Perils of the Warp looks brutal. I hope expensive psykers (Exalted Sorcs and the like) get some kind of assurance against this or using them will be a more than risky proposition.

    • BoeufCitron

      Brutal indeed, but at least we’re safe from the “removed from play” aspect of the current perils chart. I still remember that day when my 7 wound/300pts Great unclean one just disapears turn 1 because entertainment.

    • Chaos_Unbound

      Damage yes, chances of it, not even slightly. These are the same odds as 3rd edition and there werent a whole lot of heads popping durring 3rd due to Perils.

      • Anasa

        I was referring mainly to the damage done by PotW. A single-wound psyker like the Aspiring Sorcerer rolling 1:s or 6:s will effectively result in each unit within 6″ taking D3 wounds – likely more damaging than anything the unfortunate psyker was trying to manifest.

  • Jennifer Burdoo

    I like all the attachments, and the ability to have multiples. The aux-support one is particularly useful for allied or fluffy armies that want to use each other’s units – in particular, I notice, transports. Now I can field a 30K/Rogue Trader era Imperial Army with Guard riding in Rhinos, Land Raiders, and Land Speeders. At the cost of not having any command points, of course…

    • Red Noak

      i dont like the new “allies system”
      u can basically bring the best shooting units (tau eldar or whatever) then bring the best support unit (daemon or eldar psykers) maybe throw in some really hardcore killy unit (death company, berzerkers or grey knights) and something blobby (30 ork boyz or cultists) oh and dont forget some wraithknight/stomsurge/imperial knight awesomeness… a real fluffy army… -.-

      • KingAceNumber1

        So you’ve seen the complete ally rules, chart and all, and everyone can ally with everyone?

        Your claim is just a little hyperbolic.

        • Red Noak

          its not hyperbolic. yes we did not see all rules, but u can still guess and extrapolate some trends… or any discussion is useless anyhow^^

          as far as 8th goes we see a trend off simplyfication (i dont mean dumbing down) and the removal of matrix-based charts.
          one thing though that has been confirmed ist that u can use different armies in one detachment if they share at least one faction keyword (i think it was posted on facebook by an FAQ GW-guy)

          but even if i’m wrong… i see two possibilities:
          1. something in the lines of current alliies
          (ie the matrix chart or faction keyword based system)
          which would heavily favour imperial armies
          or
          2. bring whatever u want as long as it can be represented with the detatchment or battlefroged army system

          (ie the current streamline approach of 8th edition so far)
          which is exactly what i posted before… a clusterfuck of “fluffy” armies, where grey knight fight alongside daemons with the downside of having less CP

          i generally like the idea of having cool fluff armies (some daemons with CSM, guard mixed with a bit of SM, tyranids and cult etc…) but either disallow it for competitive play or restrict it to one ally detachment (maybe a couple to choose from) per fielded force

      • Haighus

        Well, there are greater minimum requirements to take detachments now (the Allied detachment has gone), which means it is harder to include such units. In addition, they have less command points, and may have no command points with the auxiliary detachment.

        What I want to know is if the number of auxiliary detachments is limited by the number of command points. For example, would have 3 command points only allow 3 aux choices (-1 command point per choice), or would it cap at 0 command points, and let you keep taking aux choices. I think the number of aux detachments being limited by command points would be the best way.

        • Red Noak

          if the aux detatchment were the only way of getting “foreign” elements into your army i would totally agree.
          but as far as we know it isnt. the leaked battleforged segment only says if u want to use units in an detachment (patrol, brigade etc) they have to be the same faction (or according to GW FAQ share a single faction keyword). nothing (so far) stops u to bring a patrol detachment of grey knights alongside a brigade detatchment of chaos daemons.

          • Rob brown

            If I’m reading it right yes that is true, however unless your entire army is the same faction you won’t be allowed to use the faction stratagems.

            So for instance if your army is a mix of eldar and space wolves you can only use the three stratagems leaked above.

            If your army is space wolves and Imperial Guard you get to use the imperial stratagems as well.

            If your army is space wolves and blood angels you can also use the space marines strategems.

            Lastly if your entire army is Space Wolves you get to use the core three, the imperial, space marine and Space Wolves strategems. Depending on what these are, they could make a big difference, particularly as you are limited by the number you can use each phase.

          • Haighus

            I thought a patrol required two troops, it only needs one. So it is basically an allied detachment. I think the main balancing mechanic is the lack of command points for a patrol, so greater numbers of models need to be included to gain better army benefits.

            This doesn’t stop less fluffy combos, but it does limit crazy power gaming combos because having multiple small detachments is going to suffer in command points.

            What Rob Brown has said further adds to the command points being useful, and factions matching being useful.

            We also don’t know what rules factions will have. Grey Knights could have a rule preventing them from being in the same army as Daemons.

      • Jennifer Burdoo

        As long as it IS a fluffy army, I’d have no problem. You’re taking it outta context. I don’t care about crushing my opponent on the table, GW doesn’t care about crushing opponents on the table. Heck, that’s why they’ve refused to balance the game all these years. Deal with it.

        Now, getting crushed by a single-codex army repeatedly with my own single-codex army, as I did before giving up on 6th and 7th, THAT I have a problem with.

  • G Ullrich

    Did I read shooting right? First rule says under choosing under choosing unit to fire that MODELS fire with all ranged weapons they are equipped with. So a TAC marne at close range fires Bolters and bolt pistol? I get this for vehicles like walkers and such, but infantry?

    • Mr.Gold

      no, under the weapons rules GW put out yesterday, can only shoot pistols if only shooting pistols (in which case they can fire 2)

      • Haighus

        I think there will be a similar rule for grenades, because the idea of 10 frag grenades and 20 bolter shots is terrifying otherwise.

    • KingAceNumber1

      No. Under pistols, it says that you may fire either pistol weapons or non-pistol weapons.

  • Red Noak

    i dont like the new “allies system”
    u can basically bring the best shooting units (tau eldar or whatever) then bring the best support unit (daemon or eldar psykers) maybe throw in some really hardcore killy unit (death company, berzerkers or grey knights) and something blobby (30 ork boyz or cultists) oh and dont forget some
    wraithknight/stomsurge/imperial knight awesomeness…

    a real fluffy army… o.O

  • Rob brown

    What are peoples thoughts about cover? The rules seem to be clear that you get cover when ‘entirely on or within any terrain feature’. Am I right in thinking that means no cover for being on the other side of a tank, on the otherside of a forest or on the other side of a ruin if even one shooting model can see through one window and see at least one model in the target unit?

    • Haighus

      I think this is a simplified summary of the rules, based on the thing being black and white despite the description for the detachments mentioning red. Based on this, I think there will be more detailed rules to better describe things like cover. Otherwise Aegis lines, and some other products they sell, are completely useless now.

      • Rob brown

        Hm, no doubt some terrain types will have their own datasheets though.

        • Haighus

          That is true. I really hope that units can still gain cover based on being 25% obscured by intervening objects/terrain, and the being in cover is an additional thing for infantry.

  • Kevin Taylor

    I’ve spotted a mistake. In the Battlefield Role Slots section text, it says the Battalion Detatchment must take two Troops, yet the detachment diagram says it’s 3-6. Is it two or three Troops minimum? GW? What say you?

  • Rob brown

    The chance of successfully using a power and not being denied
    Level 5 power = 48% (83% without DTW)
    Level 6 power = 52% (72% without DTW)
    Level 7 power = 42% (58% without DTW)

    Some thoughts on this…

    1. The nature of a 2d6 roll mean it’s easier to get off power six spells than power 5

    2. If you don’t have an enemy Psyker denying the witch it becomes relatively easy to get low power spells off.

    3. Any modifiers to these dice rolls from Psyker special equipment could make a big difference to the odds of getting powers off.

    My maths…

    There is a 83% chance to beat the power level. The median successful roll for smite will be 7 which mean an 8 is needed to successfully deny the witch 42%. This means on average 48% chance of a smite being cast and not successfully denied.

    There is a 72% chance to beat the power level. The median successful roll for a strength 6 power will be 8. Meaning a 9 is needed to deny the witch 28%. This means on average 52%. chance of a strength 6 power being cast and not successfully denied.

    There is a 58% chance to beat the power level. Lastly the median successful roll for a strength 7 power will also be 8. Therefore the same deny the witch chance is there as for strength 6 powers 28%. The chance of a strength 7 power being cast and not successfully denied is 42%.

    This excludes any bonuses to casting or denying the witch from things like adamantime will, psychic hoods etc and assumes there is a psykers in range.

    • Gnarlf

      i feel your math is a little of here. Since 2d6 will come up as 7 with a much higher chance than as 6 or 8 and every result under 5 is a failiure the median successful result is not 7 but ~7,7. For power 6 -> 8,1 and for power 7 -> 8,6
      therefor you should get:
      level5 =60%(83%)
      level6 = 52%(72%)
      level7 = 48%(58%)

      • Rob brown

        I took that into consideration when working out the median successful results. Yes the average is 7.7 but this is still beaten by an 8+ which is 15/36 or 42%

  • D_Ork

    From the charge rules: “No models in the charging unit may move within 1″ of an enemy unit that was not the target of its charge. If this is impossible, the charge fails…”

    Couldn’t you game this by simply intermixing two or more units so that they essentially had the same position?

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Sure, if you can readily differentiate your units. I wouldn’t recommend trying it with Boyz or Guardsmen, though.

  • Dalinair

    I’m a bit sad they removed the remove closest model rule, picking things off from the back always seemed a bit odd to me and it reduced their chance to charge the unit which I liked, still lots of other good rules I like, less complicated etc Armour saves looks good and no more s6 being king of shooting and always hitting on 2s against marines.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    I just hope the ITC doesn’t go crazy with banning things. Even if we lose slot swaps, these new FOCs will make up for it.