40K: Chapter Approved 2017 Details

The first hard details are out on 40k, first set of rules expansions and they shake up Matched Play.

Match play is getting a big update in this year’s Chapter Approved 2017. Here’s the big three GW is showing off:

Boots On the Ground

Yet another nerf to flyers. The last FAQ made flyers not count for Sudden Death victory conditions, and now they can never claim objectives under any circumstances. I wholly approve of this rule and look forward to seeing flyers go back to an Close Air Support role for their ground-pounding armies. 8th ruleset is just nor fundamentally built to support all flyer armies and you get funky gameplay when you try it.

 

Objective Secured

We’ve already seen this in the Space Marines, CSM, and Grey Knight codex.  I see this more as a short-term fix for all the other armies that don’t have a codex out yet.  Now all armies will be on an level playing field in competitive events. In another year this wont be needed, but it’s great for right now.

 

First Turn

Now it’s concrete from GW in black and white. Instead of an ever escalating cold war of building minimum deployment drop armies to claim the automatic first turn, you just recieve a +1 on a roll-off.  This is much more fair and will encourage more armylist variety. I’m happy we all won’t be trying to make 1-2 drop armies by this time next year.

 

 

When?

GW had said earlier that Chapter Approved 2017 would be out before the Christmas, but many tournaments will already be using these three rules. GW is also now pushing their own Grand Tournament Event Pack which provides a basic rules structure for competitive play in 8th. It would seem that GW is taking up the tournament reins for themselves after a long absence, marked by the end of the ‘Ardboys circuit.

~What do you all think of these?

  • Drpx

    To think we had an entire expansion for flyers, now GW seems to all but admit they should have stayed skimmers.

    • Randy Randalman

      So? They’ve gotten it right. 40k 8th is already the best edition of any game they’ve ever made (including anything from FW), and it’s just getting started.

      • Mike G

        The best part is it seems they’re learning from their mistakes and actively trying to make the game better by correcting when they find an exploit

        • NNextremNN

          And by pushing it into a new mandatory book they can even make money with it.

          • AircoolUK

            We were informed about that book, and it’s purpose before the new edition was even released.

          • Jabberwokk

            Business is business.

          • Grand_Master_Raziel

            I’m perfectly happy to buy a new book every year if it means Games Workshop stays engaged and on top of fixing problems as they appear.

          • generalchaos34

            this. if its priced anywhere like the generals handbook or the indexes its going to be a measly $20-25 depending on your local store. In the grand scheme of how much money we waste on this game I’d say thats chump change and I would gladly pay this over having another insane 7th edition with no FAQs or adjustments

          • Richard Mitchell

            The fact that GW expects players to pay for tournament rules is very very strange to me. Most companies release those for free every year.

      • Crevab

        Do we need to have an intervention?

      • memitchell

        Psst…Space Hulk. Long after the Apocalypse, It will still be being played by cockroaches.

        • Tshiva keln

          Yeah, and blood bowl and necromunda. Those three are timeless classics. Perhaps if I can get some of those cockroaches started now, I might actually win a game!

      • vlad78

        In your dreams vrp boy. The terrains rules have been toned down too much to make of it the best 40k ruleset of all times.
        In the current state, 40k is barely a wargame.

        • Their terrain rules are still better than Warmachine’s, which have ALWAYS sucked.

          • Crevab

            Could you expound on that?

          • zeno666

            He can’t 😉

          • Richard Mitchell

            Wonder if guys like Straylight are hired trolls by either GW or BoLS. The needing to be completely within a terrain area in Warmachine to gain a benefit or that there are actually real benefits for being in terrain, plus the new terrain setup rules in SR 2017 demonstrates this guy’s ignorance. For 8th the TO in my area has been literally going back in forth on inventing terrain feature rules for the upcoming tournament. When you got to house rule terrain interactions, your terrain rules are an issue.

          • The rulebook is free if you want the fine details, but the broad-strokes version is that Warmachine is so hypersensitive to model positioning that it plays best on a flat, open field, and the terrain rules are underdeveloped and underused because of that. Terrain types are either so disruptive to gameplay that nobody uses them (rivers), or have so little impact that nobody remembers them (hills).

            Despite having a dozen or so distinct terrain types, some of which are at least conceptually interesting, the only three that ever get used are trenches, obstacles, and forests, and those are small and anemic compared to what you’ll find in nearly every other game: anything larger than about 6″x4″ is simply too big to play around because ranges and movements in the game are so short.

            On top of that, the tournament standard for Warmachine terrain is flat, 2D mousepad things. I grant they’re easy to store and play on… but by the gods they’re boring to look at.

          • zeno666

            Yeah, like monsterous creatures not beeing able to engage troopers on the second floor.
            Those terrain rules are awsome 😉

          • TLoS is my least favorite rule in any wargame ever… and I’ll still take it over the alternatingly boring/frustrating terrain rules Warmachine uses.

          • zeno666

            I agree, TLoS usually work out pretty bad.

            Please tell me what you find boring and frustrating about the Warmachine terrain rules.

        • zeno666

          This, so very much this.
          This edition (I didn’t go near 6 or 7th ed) doesn’t feel like a game.
          It feels a lot more like you’re using your miniatures as toys.
          Fitting with a lot of the newer designs I guess.

          • kloosterboer

            See, I don’t get this feeling when I play 8th. At all.

            Then again, I was one of the few that hated Alien: Covenant, so maybe I’m in the minority.

      • piglette

        Meh, it’s alright. Until they fix vehicle close combat and cover, 5th will have my heart.

      • zeno666

        Umm no.

    • Viper666.Qc

      It’s more a matter that they streamlined the game too much (no more clear unit type rules, no more Firing Arcs) so “Flyers” with their great movement and shooting values could easily break the game….especially because they made them work like skimmers, with a minimum movement value…..

    • ZeeLobby

      Ugh. Such a poop bucket, 6th and 7th.

  • SilentPony

    I will give GW credit. They learned from the calamity that was AoS and realized trusting tournament players for feedback was a terrible idea.

    • blackbloodshaman

      What? Aos had nothing to do with tournaments, it didn’t even have points

      • SilentPony

        Two separate learning points. Learned from the disastrous AoS release, AND learned that taking advice from tournament players was a bad idea too.

        • Munn

          Except 2/3rds of these changes are from tournament players so…

          • ZeeLobby

            These changes are from the derp results of tournaments. The original rules were from tournament organizers. I’d say them deciding to watch rather than listen is a much better choice.

    • lemt

      New GW: “We want players to be ably to build fluffy armies and still play against non-fluffy players!
      Hardcore Tournament Players: *break the game, so only their list building is actually viable*
      New GW: “…here are rule fixes so dumb stuff can’t be done.”
      Hardcore Tournament Players: *still break the game too much*
      New GW: “No. This is not what we want the game to be like. More rule fixes… and all troops are now scoring to reward playing troops choices in all armies.”

      I like New GW. You can break the mold and be wacky, but you have to know they’ll react to dumb stuff.

      • generalchaos34

        this! they are looking for what kind of insane stuff is going on and saying “thats not right” then actually fixing it. Unlike previous editions with 2++ rerollable deathstars, captive inquisitors, and scouting bastions it looks as though they are going to do something about it.

  • badmojo1966

    The fast and friendlier GW. I like it.

  • Matt C

    Good stuff here. I’m looking forward to some folks being unhappy from GW trying to proactively fix things.

    • Nyyppä

      I think that this is great. It’s not done “right” (meaning the “who goes first”) but it gives people options without taking other options away from them.

      Now, if they only fixed WB legion trait……

    • Crablezworth

      I think it’s more the cash grab, IE us paying for them to fix problems, especially so soon after the release of “the most tested edition ever”.

      • NNextremNN

        I wish this was a free2play game and the models would be the “micro” transactions XD

      • generalchaos34

        you forget they could never anticipate some of the stupid crap tournament players manage to accomplish, and there is a lag time of several months from printer to finished product of shelves, so no matter how much they playtested with professionals they could never really find out how much THAT GUY will try to push the meaning of the word “the”

        • Crablezworth

          “That guy” didn’t write the rules, GW did.

      • Marcet

        The most tested edition was only the most tested till it entered public domain, with their pool of play testers they could not hope to approach the amount of games played in a month after release. Time and quantity limited that. In essence we all play tested 8th for the first month or so after release.
        Simple example with made up numbers, say they had 3000 games over the course of a year, that’s roughly 8-9 games a day meaning 16-18 play testers (if all the games are played by different persons), I can guarantee that on the first day of release the amount of games played was a bit more than that. even if you double the amount of games they used for testing then you’d still be paling in comparison to the amount of games played in the wild on the first day. The amount of armies used is staggering and will, inevitably, lead to things that have been missed.

      • georgelabour

        By that logic any games company that’s held an open beta is performing a ‘cash grab’….

        Which means WOTC, PP, Corvus Belli, Catalyst, FFG, etc, etc, etc are all horrible people who can’t write right rules and instead scam their customers.

        Heck FFG even released a hardcover ‘beta’ for their star wars rules you had to pay for. Then they used that feedback to create the ‘real’ game. That you also had to pay for…

        And which they then broke up into four different hardcover rule books.

        Oh, and let’s not forget how Privateer’s ‘most tested edition ever’ went down. Compared to that response GW is a hummingbird with warp engines strapped to its butt.

  • Jeremy Larson

    Honestly, I think Flyers should never count as the closest unit regarding characters. The flyer nerf did nothing to actually stop the flyer centric lists that were smashing tournaments.

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      This ! You should suggest this on their facebook page, it really is a great idea !

    • Defenestratus

      Then … flyers would never be able to shoot characters????

      • Jeremy Larson

        No, a flyer can never be considered the closer than a character regarding target priority, but the character can still be the closest target of a flyer.

  • Johaad

    I have not liked 40k for years, since 6th. I never thought Id see the day when I was not only playing 40k again but seeing GW make good decisions. Hope they keep up the good work.

    • Defenestratus

      Good decisions like requiring you to carry a library’s worth of source books with you to every game just so you can play?

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        Or one tablet. Or a little booklet of just relevant notes. Or custom-printed cards with rules on them. Or literally any other way of conveying data from one place to another.

        I mean, you might already be bringing cases of miniatures or terrain to the game, but if books are too much, I guess you have to draw the line somewhere…

        • Defenestratus

          My point is that people complained in 7th about the amount of source materials and when 8th came along there was an expectation that the superfluous amount of reading material that you needed to purchase and consumer was going to decrease.

          All I can say to that is ,, ha!

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            It needs 4 books now to field my Renegades and Heretics army! And its the sh1ttest army I’ve ever played. Went from winning maybe 25 out of 30 games in 7th to losing 5 of 5 games of 8th. Dreadful balance in the FW stuff.

  • Zingbaby

    Pretty darn cool.

  • Crevab

    Isn’t that new way to choose first turn pretty much what they had at ITC?

  • Crevab

    Hopefully they’ll have updated, printable Points pages for the Indices and Codices soon too

    • NNextremNN

      They will be in that book.

  • Keith Wilson

    so now that massive unit of conscripts get obj secured …. yeah thats good balance

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      Conscripts will get their nerf in time. But tourney orgnisers should just simply and purely ban this unit until then. This coming from an imperial guard player (i.e me) who played tons of conscripts in 7th so… They are just TOO good ATM

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      Conscripts aren’t a problem. Conscripts are weak and cowardly. You’re really uspet about commissars. Why would it matter if conscripts have objective secured… when the hell would you outnumber them anyways?!

  • TenDM

    I was hoping that Objective Secured would be ‘when determining which player controls an objective, count each model in this unit as three models’. That would effectively do the same thing while forcing players to secure objectives properly instead of just throwing one Objective Secure model within 3″.

    • Viper666.Qc

      Yeah you’re right…..seems wrong when a single Conscript can steal an objective from 30 Assault Marines surrounding him in the last turn 😛

      • NNextremNN

        If he managed to survive that long against so many stronger foes he deserves that objective … and a promotion.

      • AircoolUK

        Heh, doesn’t matter because whilst he still stands, the objective isn’t secured by the Marines. It’s actually one of the rules that reflected in RL.

        • SharpDeadFace

          I don’t get your point. Any troop choice would have the same effect, what’s it got to do with conscripts specifically?

          • SharpDeadFace

            Aimed at OP not aircool

  • marlowc

    Can someone explain to me why it’s a good idea for the first person to finish setting up to have any advantage in the initiative roll-off?
    We just use a straight roll, with no seize the initiative, and no re-rolls from command points.

    • el_tigre

      I think the general idea is that the army with less drops has less of a say in the overall shape of the battle at the bottom of turn one, a swarm army for example is likely to place their chaff first, sometimes allowing them to choose the positions of their heavy hitters after the entire enemy army has been deployed.

      Will I get away with saying bottom or will this comment too be flagged and disappear?!?!?

      Bottom.

      • marlowc

        I can see that having more units can be an advantage in set-up, it certainly is in games like StarWars Armada.
        As you say, you can leave your good stuff until the opponent’s forces are all committed .
        But unless you house rule things a bit, I think the advantage of going first in 40K is so great, that it should always be a straight 50/50 roll?

      • orionburn

        lol…some of the “trigger” words on here are so stupid.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          G r a m m e r…

          • orionburn

            That one kills me. So does the words that sound like Rick and bate.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            and its gone!

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      Now that we’re using alternating deployment, there are jerks out there (like myself) that deploy a couple obvious units or units in reserve so that I can see where my opponent is putting his toys and react accordingly. If you set yourself up with your long-range anti-tank in clear view of an enemy tank, for instance, you might be able to take it out before your opponent even has a turn with it. (I did this to a friend’s venerable dreadnought last game. Set up, shot down.)

      So, if you’re a player with fewer drops, your opponent might be setting up reactively. Not always the case, but sometimes.

      Also, the army with fewer units has fewer units to lose. If your opponent only has 3 units and you can wipe one out with concentrated fire before he gets a turn, you’re in a much better position for the rest of the game.

  • Arthfael

    I think if two players have objective secured models within an objective, it should not be held by anyone. I mean, if there are enemies in close proximity, it makes sense you do not control it.

    • orionburn

      I’ve always felt that way as well. Doesn’t feel fluffy as the battle is raging. It makes more sense to determine it at the end of the game, but for objective points mid-game I don’t care for it.

  • ILikeToColourRed

    7th had too many rules all over the place after trying to patch up the rules with formations
    so, a couple of months into 8th, we already have 2 rule books.

    Thing haven’t changed, it would seem

    • CthulhuDawg

      They were really up front that we would be getting a GHB, if you didn’t know that it’s on you. I would bet a kidney that CA has all of the rules in the BRB. Thus you will only need CA and not the 5-6 rulebooks, campaign books, codices and supplements we needed in the past. You actually don’t need either, the rules are free via a pdf on their website. Things have in fact changed…it would seem.

      • NNextremNN

        lol … free rules … yeah sure those are totally useful and don’t miss out many important parts to play a game or build a list …

  • Graham Bartram

    9 chaos marines surround an objective marker, tightly packed together. Then 10 guardsmen form an arc only partly encircling the chaos marines at just a touch over an inch away. The guardsmen are in range to count as controlling the marker…. not sure that they should really. I mean, there are 9 warp twisted, genetic super soldiers in the way after all.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      And then the 10 guardsmen shoot into the 9 chaos marines and murder them all! The guardsmen then dance on the corpses of the hypothetical chaos marines, praising the emperor, as the owner of the chaos marines stares down in wonder at his traitorous dice.

      Is a game. Things can happen. If the situation you’re describing is how the game pans out, that’s how the game pans out. If a guard player has the last turn of the game, moves 10 guardsmen within 3″ of an objective and shoots a unit of 10 chaos marines down to 9… that’s just him being a hero and winning the game.

      If you’re not satisfied with that, if the game isn’t over for you yet… keep playing. There are some people that keep playing until one player admits defeat, regardless of turn count. For such players, it’s never really in question who is controlling the objective.

      • Graham Bartram

        Maybe….

  • Defenestratus

    Soooo less than 2 months into this edition and already I need to carry a rules library with me.

    Rulebook
    Index
    Codex
    FW Index
    and now CA

    So much for consolidation eh.

    • NNextremNN

      I hope you don’t plan to bring a different faction as ally and don’t forget to print out the new FAQ we get a few weeks after the chapter approved 😉

  • Balor

    So am I getting this right this a book with some basic rules that could have been in the main rule book, FAQ/errata elements and a few missions?

    • Defenestratus

      Yep pretty much.

      The best part of watching the slow motion trainwreck of 8th edition is watching the community’s collective unrealistic expectations get shattered one by one.

      I’m taking immense pleasure in it.

      • Crablezworth

        Their narrative makes no sense. Most tested edition ever, and that’s why 8 pages of rules need 90 pages of faq, oh and look, a new book to fix the like month old edition, that could only be spun to be a positive and in no way continues to shatter the narrative of most playtested edition evar.

        • Nameless

          On monday I was told by the local games workshop manager that only index: imperial 1 and index: chaos where originally planed for release alongside the new system, and everyone else would have to wait for their codex to even have rules.

          I’m not sure if I believe him or not, but it seems to 100% go against the idea that this edition was play tested, so either GW marketing or a GW manager are lying to me.

    • NNextremNN

      Well they didn’t knew they needed those adjustments after all the “playtesting” with all the super experienced tournament “players”. So they couldn’t have put them into the rulebook. Also these changes affect the “advanced” $.$ rules. So they can’t just update the free basic rules. But hey at least you don’t have to print out all the FAQ/errata pages.

      I wonder if the Chapter approved 2018 edition will have all the content from the 2017 edition again or if we then need two chapter approved book to have all needed changes for the rulebook someday.

  • MightyOrang

    Looks like GW realized they needed a bit more robust rule set.

    Hopefully they’ll address terrain and morale in the next edition

  • Severius_Tolluck

    Gee, how strange… I was told I was an idiot for saying there would be a rules supplement by December that would be like a GH… Maybe under the old name of Chapter Approved… Darn, I guess I know nothing.

    • Defenestratus

      Where should I be putting my money? Stocks or bonds? Which ones specifically? People who want to bask in the aura of your nostradamus-like brilliance want to know!

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        If he’d said “Games Workshop” 3 months ago, you would have made a sound investment. Looking at it now, it’s still got a solid beta if you want it add it to a diversified portfolio. http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68c4d91dc076804b5b77f37f88b4896ac36a58a06743cafa4d55431baecab07b.png

      • Severius_Tolluck

        hah! In that regard I am like Jon Snow and know nothing. But seriously I was pretty sure that teaser video was about a new chapter approved in the likeness of a Generals Handbook. I was shouted down at on here saying that it was more likely to be a new faction or steel legion etc. But the date came out to be Nov 21, and the AP looked like the old Chapter approved logo..
        But yes, In vagueness either way the company was going to do something. Why any one thought otherwise is kinda delusional?

  • Fraser1191

    Sooooo I assume horde armies can’t get objective secured?

    • bobrunnicles

      Um…why not? I play Guard and Nids and I use the formations in the rulebook to make them (and get those juicy CPs too), that’s all ‘Battle-Forged’ means. If anything you probably have even more options for Objective Secured.