40K: We Have Enough Codexes to See GW’s Plan

GW is cranking out the Codexes like a machine gun – but we’ve gotten enough to understand what 8th is.

Let’s start back at the beginning.

In the Beginning…

We got the initial five index books 3 months back to get us playing and reset the game:

The indexes were a grand reset and covered everything GW had minis of, from the basics like Rhinos, to true exotics like the Chaos Lord on a Palanquin and the unfortunately named Rhino Primaris.

Then the codexes started hitting the shelves fast:

Space Marines

Here we saw the first inklings of what GW was planning on putting into the individual codexes. We saw that some units were removed that were in the indexes. The codexes focused only on models available NOW from GW. Some new units appeared, some with unique models (Hellblasters) and some simply reused existing models in new roles (non-primaris Lieutenants). Sub-faction rules appeared. Finally GW re-costed and tweaked points for key units.

Overall the codex was quite strong, with notable potential within the chapter traits and of course Bobby G. The jury is still out on Primaris Marines as a whole.

Chaos Marines & Grey Knights

Chaos Marines and Grey Knights showed up on top of each other and gave us the first look at what the 8th Edition re-dos of “existing” armies with no new models would look like.  Again we saw rare Index units removed, points tweaks, the normal expansions to relics, psychic powers and stratagems. We also saw the Exalted Champion and Grand Master in a Dreadknight – the philosophy of adding a single unit to a codex that reuses an existing model.

While Grey Knights were a sleeper, the Chaos Codex was potent and it’s potential is still being mined.

Death Guard

BOOM, 8th’s first all new codex hit like influenza and it did not disappoint. The Death Guard codex includes 9 entirely new units on top of the 5 units introduced in the 8th Edition boxed set.  The codex lost a large number of units available to codex CSMs giving it a very different playstyle. Even more of a new codex than Codex Space Marines – GW crafted an entirely new army with incredible strengths, and weaknesses – and Morty.

I’m loving the challenge of playing it unsupported, but it looks to be an incredible fusion book when combined with codex CSMs.  SOOOO Many Combos!

Adeptus Mechanicus

Here we see another take on updating existing codexes from 7th. While we get no new models, this codex effectively combines Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus and Imperial Knights under the authority of Mars.

The Forge World dogmas, canticles and strategems pile upon an already complex army of specialists with non-standard wargear. This is not an army for beginners. The Ad-mech are pricy, have a small to medium model count and feel each casualty dearly. Luckily for Mars, they are tough to mow down and can really dish out the pain both in the shooting and fight phase.

What Have We Learned

We know that Astra Militarum, Tyranids and Craftworld Eldar are next.  I would expect more books along the lines of the Grey Knights, CSMs and Adeptus Mechanicus veins.

I fully expect to see subfaction rules for: Astra Militarum regiments (come on Praetorians!), Craftworlds (come on Alaitoc Pathfinders!) and maybe just maybe Hivefleets.  I would expect 1-2 new units for each codex that use existing models for new uses (like Eldar Pathfinders for example), and the removal of any units from the Index series that are not currently available. You know who they are…

Next year promises to continue the codex train, but I think at this point outside of entirely new armies we have a solid handle on what format each codex will follow.

What 8th Is

8th Edition is still very young, but it looks like GW is planning on sticking to the very simple core rules and keep adding more and more combos, auras, and dice modifiers to keep us busy for years.

In 7th the skill was army construction – trying to get as many free abilities and models out of the allies and formations available. In 8th, it is shaping up to be about constructing the perfect special rules, auras, strategems, relics, subfaction combos to all sit atop each other – IF – you can keep it all straight in your head. That looks like what defines victory in the new order.  I’m not going to say it’s better or worse – that’s your job – but it sure is easier on newcomers and is different from what came before.

~What do you think of the books so far and how do you think of 8th’s overall rules philosophy 3 months in?

  • It’s also clear that every so often we’ll get a codex w/ 6 weeks of models releases. The question is, who before the year is out will get that? Eldar probably needs the plastic kits the most… but my inner guardsmen is hoping for a whole new plastic regiment.

    Hell maybe we’ll get both!

    • Frostasche

      Did GW not say this year will be ten codexes? I am counting 8 in this list. The last two would be released shortly before christmas. My guts are telling me the last ones of this year will get new models, or one of them, best for the holiday sales.

      Ynnari vs Slaanesh would be a possibility, especially as AoS is also close to his return. There are only two mortal realms left to show more of, light has not much information yet, and in the shadow realm Slannesh followers are searching for their god.

      If the 10 codices is still correct, my guess is all already named codices will not get the deathguard treatment.

      • Fergie0044

        10 was stated as a target. I don’t think it was definite.

        • Frostasche

          I looked it up, the official wording was “You can expect around 10 codexes”. Most websites removed the word around, that was the problem. GW never gave an actual number, but other sites were quoting wrong. For example BellofLostsouls, first sentence:
          http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/07/40k-codex-info-inbound.html

          That is what i get for trusting news sites.^^

          • Crevab

            “news”

        • Gorsameth

          And unless GW’s PR department is utter garbage (not impossible) it means they plan to do 10.
          Every company knows that if you say ‘around 10’ people will expect 10.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          It will be 10. In more than several WH-Tv Twitch stream interview with the design team have all being saying GW will be releasing 10 by the end of the year.

          • Frostasche

            Then i stand to my comment above.
            I think they will release new models for the codex, codexes that will be released shortly before christmas.

            If they release 10 codexes, this means the ones already known as the next codexes, will not be this codex.

            October/November would be the codexes of IG, Tyrannids and Craftworld, and Necromunda.
            A nice coincident: Astra Militarum codex and new Necromunda models. Anyone for some conscripts directly drafted from the streets of the underhive? Maybe they will even add some special rules.

            If they want to still release two other codexes before christmas, i dont think they have the time to fit in the releases of many new units for the three codexes already mentioned.

      • Marco Marantz

        I personally wouldnt count the indexes as codices.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      I’d be more keen to see how they update Orks and Necrons, but I’ll bet that the most we’ll get out of Eldar is a new Guardian kit, possibly a new VWAB kit, maybe some plastic Aspect Warrior kits.

      • Crevab

        Maybe an update to the Gorkamorka buggies and wartrakks? Ha, who am I kidding

        • I_am_Alpharius

          To be blunt, I suspect, the Buggy and Wartrakks units will be quietly dropped from the Ork Codex whenever it gets done. Maybe replaced by something akin to it, but I doubt that too. Personally, I can’t say I really ever see any on the tabletop, not because the models outdated, but because they aren’t that great and there are better choice to pick.

      • Randy Randalman

        Just don’t expect kits alongside your codex. GW made it clear at every con so far that they want all the armies playing on the same field with Strategems, Relics, combos, etc. While Primaris and Death Guard got some kits, those were in the wings for almost two years. Seriously, just don’t expect kits until after every army has their codex. In other words: the same way every company with good/balanced rules does it.

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          It’d be safe to assume that if the Faction in question is more than 50% Failcast/pewter, and they have someone in the Dev team that’s passionate about making the Faction viable, it’ll get made eventually. But so far, no one has shown any interest in Inquisition or Sororitas, so short of a miracle or new Dev staff, Inquisition/Sororitas are doomed to the back of the queue. That’s why my money’s on them rolling out majority-plastic Factions first, then replacing popular Failcast units within those factions, then making new all-plastic niche sub-factions, then redoing less popular factions.

    • Fergie0044

      Codex only is my bet. Marines and death guard are special, expect all others to follow the chaos/GK/Ad-mech style release.

    • Valeli

      Maybe sisters?
      ::resets the clock::

      Honestly though, I feel a (little) bit optimistic. GW is pushing out codexes fast enough that i have faith they actually could get around to us. And I still think it would be weird to redo St. Celestine in plastic without any further plans for the range whatsoever.

      GW’s let me down before though, both here and with my Brets in Fantasy, so I won’t count any chickens.

      Out of the “major” armies, I agree that the Eldar could probably use some nice new kits, and those guys have certainly been a seller historically….

    • FCBullsht

      GW already announced the next Codicies which they will release till the end of the year…Craftworlds, Tyranids and Astra Militarum

      • lemt

        Tyranids just needs the return of the Doom of Malan’Tai and the Parasite of Mortrex. Not that I think it’ll happen, but one can dream

        • BigGrim

          The Doom is now the Neurothrope.

    • Laszlo

      a Lord of War for Tyranids would be nice.

      • bobrunnicles

        Perhaps a (likely renamed) Dominatrix? That would be hellacool 🙂

    • ZeeLobby

      I think all we’ll see is new models/factions at this point. I think GW would rather split Eldar into 4/5 mini factions and sell new stuff rather than replace older lines. We’ll see some older units replaced, but I wouldn’t be shocked if most plastic releases aren’t replacements for older units. If primaris, DG, etc has made anything clear, it’s that they’d rather have us play with new models than use our own.

      • Vachones

        Sadly I agree with you. My goofy looking warp spiders need new models, but I don’t see them cranking out plastic aspects soon. My guess is new Ynnari models for the Ynnari codex next year. The push is for new, and if we are lucky a few characters here and there may get updated (Eldrad, Celestine, etc.).

    • I_am_Alpharius

      When you take into account all the other releases in the pipeline. I highly, highly, doubt any other codex will be getting new miniatures. Consider what is due, that we know, to be released through Sep, Oct and Nov; not forgetting whatever xmas focus releases are planned for end of Nov, start of Dec. So we’ve got:
      – At least one more week of DG (maybe two?)
      – Shadespire, with a minimum of four warbands to release.
      – Necromunda and whatever gubbinz that includes
      – Start of a new wave of BB kits (Elven team and supposedly more)
      – The five remaining codex (Craftworlds, Tyranids, Astra Militarum and two undisclosed ones)
      – Chapter Approved
      – Xmas focused Products (usually spread over 3/4 weeks)

      Thats a lot of products to be released in what is about 12 more weekends available for releases. I’m pretty much expecting all the remain armies to have, at most, the Grey Knight treatment of utilising existing kits to add “new” units to an army.

      • Muninwing

        i remember seeing someone say “expect DA before the end of the year”

        but i don’t remember the source. i thought it was the official GW facebook account, but it might have just been someone spouting off.

        that could be one of your two undisclosed books if it was right…

        • I_am_Alpharius

          I don’t know about that the DA. My moneys on two of these four: Thousand Sons, T’au, Orks or Knights.

          I can see DA being the next SM codex, as Lion El’Jonhson seems like a good bet for the next Primarch to return.

      • Mr.Gold

        if only they gave AdMech Rhinos/Chimeras… it would have been no additional cost for GW, but would have generated a ton of profit…

    • Muninwing

      i’m hoping it continues until everyone’s books are done… then it stops.

      i would love seeing the end to the sporadic nature of codex lists. rules updates could be in Chapter Approved books once a year instead, and everyone could get a boost.

  • MarcoT

    Is it easier for beginners though? Auras and strategems add a lot of power that isn’t WYSIWYG, like psychic powers always did.

    • It also looks like there will be the same bloat issues.

      • ZeeLobby

        Sadly there’s no going back here. GW has realized that releasing more and more mini factions, like GSC, DG, DW, etc, makes them more money. They see it as the way forward though I think it’ll make the game unmanageable.

      • Griffin

        I really dont think so most of the abilities are just cut and paste, i think all the codex will basicly be the same template with the names for abilities changed, and maybe an few fluffy ones peppered in

    • Martijn Hannenberg

      I found that starting playing is easier than previous edition, mastering it seems much harder this edition.

      • ZeeLobby

        Are you a beginner than? I’ve seen plenty of old players return to the game, but very few new ones locally. Everyone seems to claim it’s easier for beginners, but I’ve yet to meet actual beginners.

        • Martijn Hannenberg

          I am not a beginner, howelse could I make the comparison?
          I used to work for GW, explaining the game to new people was a large portion of the job. When its easier to explain the ruleset, for instance why you have to roll certain values. Then you can see how much simpler the basic rules of the game changed.

          But yeah, the bloat: codex upon codex, combined with constant faqs and erratas is what makes this game complex and hard to master.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right. Which is kind of my point. The only people who’ve said this edition is beginner friendly, aren’t really beginners. And I’ve yet to really meet beginners to even make a conclusion like that. Which is why I was curious. I’d argue that even now, at the start of 8th, there’s more bloat and confusion than there ever was in editions previous to 6th. Between aura bubbles, allies, command points, detachments, indexes and codexes. Even the sheer number of erratas. These may be required to master the game, but their off-putting for many beginners as well. They may have simplified the core rules, but theyve already quickly complicated the game.

          • zeno666

            Indeed, explaining how to build an army in this edition is complicated.
            And when you get to the modifiers-after-re-rolls-bit. People laugh and leave 😉

          • Purple-Stater

            I’m an ex-40K player, but interested in coming back. This article, and your comment, has made me very leery of buying back in though, as army building is sounding more and more like the reasons that I stopped playing WarmaHordes.

          • zeno666

            Please don’t let my comments stop you if you’re interested.
            Give it a go 🙂

            But if you moved on from 40k to Warmahordes due to beeing tired of rule arguments (thus badly written rules) you’re pretty much in my shoes and you’re in for a chock.
            Yes, the rules are actually that bad. Compressed to fit on four pages they left half of it out 😉

          • Purple-Stater

            Thanks for the response. My group played 40K with 5E, but it was a minor game amongst several (mostly WHFB), and a bit of WarmaHordes at about that time as well. We dropped WarmaHordes with their 2E due to it seeming like it was turning into nothing but a game of whoever gets their special combo off first. We dabbled in 40K 6E but the drastic changes from fifth did not enthuse us, and the quick delivery of 7E, along with some new codexes being replaced themselves within a year of the previous one made us drop 40K completely. Then AoS hit, and we’ve been GW-free since.

            While we loathed AoS as a Fantasy game (we want armies!) we did think it would have been a suitable format for 40K. And that brings us to 8E, which we’ve been slightly interested in trying out, but nobody’s willing to invest in the indexes to actually try playing. Bits of this article have not brung any further inspiration.

          • Krev_Grazl

            “They may have simplified the core rules, but theyve already quickly complicated the game.”
            Yes, this is my problem with it. The rules looked great, but then as I read the index books, I realised that all the complexity has simply been moved to the datasheets, meaning that rather than having a complex game wherein new units are easy to understand, we have a simple game wherein new units have a mind-boggling set of rules. the index books gave me a headache as I tried to understand what did what. Not to mention things like renaming units so everything is unique, e.g. Chaos Lord with Mark of Nurgle is now Lord of Contagion. Sounds simple, but I imagine they’ll do the same with Khorne, Tzeentch lords etc. Imagine how many separate units this creates.
            The game is just as complex, but the complexity has been shifted from the rulebook to the army books, and from the army general rules to the unit entries. The Keyword system? What the hell? I have no idea what that’s all about.
            Luckily my friends are happy to stick with seventh.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well put. I mean we saw this craziness coming in AoS. Everyone was like “it’s so easy, 4 pages of rules”. In reality they just spread all the rules over hundreds of units, giving each one a unique name, even if they’re the same.

            It honestly feels like developers at software companies. You make a great application, that everyone loves. There are some missing features, so your next version will fix those. But you hired 100 developers who need something to do. So let’s add a bunch of new features and changes nobody asked for.

          • Muninwing

            it’s a split level.

            it’s one thing, meant to look like another via presentation.

            (if it were a house, it would look like a Colonial, but actually just be a lifted Ranch)

            if anything, it’s more complicated now. that’s what i’ve been saying for over a year now, and nobody listened.

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh, people listened. Half were just really hopeful the game would be good again, and the other half were just tone deaf to anything that wasn’t praise.

          • Muninwing

            i got attacked for not immediately liking the game. i don’t really like skirmish, i liked rank-and-flank, and i thought that the rules being simplified was way overdone.

            i really had an issue with the missing stuff, the bad quality writing, and the embarrassingly bad fluff.

            but any valid arguments were turned into personal insults by the instant fans.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right there with yah. Once it lost R&F I totally lost interest. And I agree, the fluff didn’t help at all…

          • Muninwing

            i’ve been saying since AoS dropped that the warscroll approach is not easier. it just hides the bloat in a different place.

            people complained about having to carry too many books. they still need to if they play certain kinds of armies.

            people complained about USRs. now, everything is decentralized by being in the individual warscrolls. but if anything, it takes up more room that way, since each rule is distinct and individual instead of being standardized.

            before, i could photocopy the USR pages, or i could bookmark them (and highlight the ones that i use all the time, or use those small sticky notes on the page to mark them off. eventually, i could play enough to have the rule memorized. i could use a program like ArmyBuilder that included the army-specific and unit-specific rules at the end or a roster. i might not even need my codexes.

            now, i need fifty pages of warscrolls and stratagems (i printed off over 50 pages from the SM book just to get everything i have in my IH army) to play, and i’m still not sure what variations go with what rules or are ghosts of editions past.

          • ZeeLobby

            The removal of USRs to avoid “looking in the rulebook” was the dumbest addition of this edition imo.

          • Muninwing

            yet people ate it up like crazy.

            people told me i was being unreasonable for pointing it out. someone told me i was just trying to be “one of the cool kids” by hating everything before i tried it.

          • Mr.Gold

            if they kept the USR but put them on the warscrolls it would have been much simpler: aka everything that can deep strike >9″ away call Deep Strike… etc.

          • ZeeLobby

            Oh, I totally agree. I’m fine with the rules being on the unit entries. I mean heck, that’s perfect, but why give them all funky names and not make them universal even when identical. just crazy imo.

          • Marco Marantz

            The irony is they did with some units.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. Yeah. When logic fails there’s little point continuing the discussion.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Errrrm why print them, buy the darn hardcopy? Presumable you’ve either: purchased the digital version, so printing them kind of defeats the purpose of the digital copy; or your printing of the internet from pirated scans (which make me sad for you).

          • Tyr

            I_am_Alpharius, because you *can* scan a book… and printing out sperate pages is *way* more convenient than having to look through the whole book all the time. Just take the pages you need for your current army and done.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Pick up a data card pack; use removable book tags from a stationers to mark pages; or, you know, make the effort to learn the rules of your army so you don’t need to reference too much. And, the craziest idea of all…and bare with me here because is a doozy…honestly, I think you’ll be shocked at this idea…it may very well blow you socks off…heck I’d recommend sitting down for this one, in case you pass out…maybe make sure you’ve a friend with you for moral support…or a pet for comfort…heck a stiff drink on hand to stead the nerves….how about using the Codex’s god damn…

            CONTENTS PAGE!

          • Tyr

            Its a free country. I can do as I want when it comes to my stuff, you can do what you want. If someone wants to scan their stuff rather than buy some flimsy, overpriced cards, then thats a pretty damn good idea. And for the record, I *do* use those tags. Its still annoying trying to find stuff.

            And quit the attitude.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            If turning to/referencing a page in a book is high on your list of problems to deal with and find annoying, then sir, you have issues.

            Have you considered labeling those tags with unit/thing it is book-marking? Then all you have to do is read the label, although I know reading can also be “annoying” from time to time.

          • zeno666

            Very few armies have data carda due to the new edition.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Way to nit pick – they all will eventually. The point still stands.

          • Muninwing

            i print them because i have the digital version, and don’t like to have to thumb through. this way, i can also highlight the important stuff.

            but this is irrelevant.

            photocopying the USRs meant having a couple pages i could use. i could highlight the rules i used the most often. i could underline anything i thought was tricky language. i could get right to the actionable rule instead of any fluff explanations.

            and i could print out a roster from a source like Armybuilder, and write or type the armywide rules at the bottom if they weren’t USRs.

            it was easy. now it’s needlessly complicated.

            it’ll be worse as the new codexes drop. go look at the mess that is how shields work in AoS — each unit has a different kind of shield and thus a different rule. even rules that work the same way may have different names. it used to be a rulebook rule — “a shield gives +1 armor, +2 if used with a sword” or something like that. now, writing down all the different shield rules takes half a page. but it’s somehow supposedly a less complicated rules-lite system because the rules are needlessly complicated but presented in a different method?

            sorry, but that’s either stupid or dishonest.

        • zeno666

          Many returned, few stayed though.

        • Drpx

          I’ve seen a few beginners. The game is easier to learn than before, if only because you’re not flipping through the rule book every two minutes to get the exact wording on an interaction.

          • Muninwing

            no. you’re flipping through your warscrolls looking to see which version of eight similar rules this unit has.

          • Drpx

            So learn your warscrolls.

          • Muninwing

            learning the USRs was easy, and more efficient, but everyone complained about them.

            now we have a less efficient system with a slightly better initial delivery, and somehow it’s amazing to some people.

          • zeno666

            Yeah I did find that odd as well.
            It would be easier if they had to tweak a rule as well. Then they would only have to change at one place.

        • Katherine Condya

          I started playing right (like three weeks) before 8th edition dropped. We didn’t even understand the game enough to utilize a lot of the special rules or the psychic phase or anything because it just seemed to add to much that we needed to reference at the time. Some stuff felt almost impossible for our newbie group to understand.

          I played my first game of 8th on release day and it was MUCH more intuitive from my perspective. I am not sure if I would have been able to get into 7th edition the same way I have with 8th.

      • zeno666

        There is nothing to master. Get first turn and shoot more than your opponent.
        Done.
        You’re now a tactical genius when it comes to 40k.

        • vlad78

          Can’t agree more, and it pains me. At least it’s quick.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Haven’t the…energy…to debate…narrow…minded….errrrgh

          • ZeeLobby

            Lol. It’s definitely true though. There are.certain lists that a “master” would take where first turn almost guarantees a victory. I mean sure, you could “master” all the subtleties of DE wyches, but you’d hardly win much.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Devils advocate here. Does a “competitive (war)game with depth” really exist? Could it exist? Frankly, I don’t think so. I don’t truly believe any of the wargames (or CCG) played competitively have an entirely fair system; they all have their pitfalls and issues. Admittedly, has 40K arguably a less competitive system. Yet, when you look back, until recently, I don’t think GW considered competitively play a high priority; they’ve generally focused on writing “fun” (per sae) rules systems.

          • memitchell

            Does a “competitive (war)game with depth” really exist?

            Yes. It’s called Space Hulk.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Space Hulk? Not exactly a “wargame”, in the same sense 40K, AoS, Warmachine, X-Wing etc… are. Space Hulk is far more of a “board game” in the same vain Monopoly or Risk (et al) are.

          • ZeeLobby

            There are definitely competitive systems that exist. People seem to confuse “competitive” with “everything is balanced completely”. I would just be happy (and many other players I know) with every faction having an equal footing on the table. Even if it’s only one or two builds. X-Wing, WMH, etc. All of these I would consider competitive wargames with depth. You can pick up almost any faction and do well at events. Even the lesser factions can compete, and win, with a good general at the helm. This is definitely NOT the case with 40K. Nothing makes this more evident than giving up after not winning a first turn roll at major events. I mean that’s a massive step backwards imo.

            I mean I realize that GW has never focused on the competitive side of 40K, but I don’t think you can talk about “mastery” and “depth” without that aspect of the game. IMO, GW is foolish if it continues to ignore that set of players. I mean X-Wing was basically built upon that crew (MtG still being massively popular), etc. I mean fun-gaming is an option for them to focus on as well, but then no one who plays should make claims of “mastery” as a thing.

          • Drpx

            Friend of mine walked out of an X-Wing tournament because it was nothing but Jumpmasters. As for WMH, that game reminds me of Starcraft with loads of timing cheese meant to insta-win when you catch your opponent a centimeter out of place.

          • Apocryphus

            40k players did that in 7th all the time. Any competetive scene is going to have nitpickers.

          • ZeeLobby

            And FFG works to rebalance those issues, something GW has always struggled with. And I’m sorry WmH seems that way, but any player can attest that competitive WMH is not just cheese catching, lol. That’s something beginners say when they’re learning the curve, which is something competitive systems actually have.

          • Drpx

            Quacks like a duck.

          • ZeeLobby

            So I’m assuming you’re a beginner than?

          • I_am_Alpharius

            You can pick up almost any faction and do well at events. Even the lesser factions can compete, and win, with a good general at the helm.

            Think you could say that about 40K as well. X-Wing, WMH, MtG etc.. all have their spammy list varieties and generally speaking suffer from new model (or card) syndrome.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well based on event evidence. I’d strongly argue that you simply can’t. I mean it’s not like we dont have results to pour over. The gaps in 40K between factions and between units within a faction are massive.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Agree to disagree around this point. Although as you say, for 8th, at this point, there have not been much data to really tell.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well we can all agree that it clearly wasn’t the case in 7th, and we can all agree that it hasn’t been the case so far in 8th. So I’ll just be happy to be proved wrong then sometime in the future, haha.

          • Muninwing

            “Think you could say that about 40K as well”

            um… no.

            many times i’ve seen a bad player with a netlist trounce a good player with a TAC list.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            That happens in all wargame systems and is not exclusive to 40K.

          • Mira Bella

            I’m sorry but I have to disagree.
            There are wargames that require you to bring a TAC list if you want to have any chance at all. I know that for a fact since I play one of those.

          • zeno666

            Sounds interesting, what is it called?

          • Muninwing

            so then why did you say that it doesn’t?

            you said that you think factions are more or less balanced. i point out that there are wide gulfs, and you handwave it as happening everywhere?

            are you not understanding the topic, are you communicating poorly, or are you just trolling?

          • I_am_Alpharius

            At no point, in any of my post, have I used the words more or less balanced in regards to the level of competitiveness of 40K armies; so, please don’t put words in my mouth. Indeed it was Mr ZeeLobby commented/implied that “People seem to confuse “competitive” with “everything is balanced completely”.” – so get your facts straight before throwing criticism.

            All, all, I have said/pointed out is that 40K is not, extensively, any different to any other games that run tournaments, in regards to competitiveness of armies. @ZeeLobby:disqus said, in respect to X-Wing/WMH, that “You can pick up almost any faction and do well at events. Even the lesser factions can compete, and win, with a good general at the helm.“. I disagreed and think that applies as equally to 40K. Similarly, your comment about a bad net-list-players beating a good TAC-players; I disagree and believe that circumstance crops up in all game systems i.e. that not an exclusive phenomenon to 40K. Indeed, the use of dice and random in game means, inherently, circumstances arise which are not expected, and outside of the normal, the bell curve.

          • Muninwing

            him: “You can pick up almost any faction and do well at events. Even the lesser factions can compete, and win, with a good general at the helm.”

            you: “Think you could say that about 40K as well. X-Wing, WMH, MtG etc.. all have their spammy list varieties and generally speaking suffer from new model (or card) syndrome.”

            me: “um… no.

            many times i’ve seen a bad player with a netlist trounce a good player with a TAC list.”

            you: “That happens in all wargame systems and is not exclusive to 40K.”

            copy-pasted.

            he said that any faction can do well with other systems, and you claimed that 40k was no different. but when i disagreed, you claimed that all systems are like that.

            your statements conflict.

            in my experience, you cannot do well at all events with any army, a good general cannot often do well with a bad army against a bad general with a good army. i will stand by that. and it doesn’t need to be exclusive to 40k — nor did i claim it was. but that such an imbalance exists means that the initial statement, that “You can pick up almost any faction and do well at events” does not apply to 40k… or other systems where such an imbalance exists.

            i think you need to clarify. i don’t actually think you’re trying to ride the fence here. it’s just really unclear.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            At this point I don’t know anymore or care that much to carry on. Perhaps we’ve talking cross purposes? Maybe it got lost in translation.

            If I boil it down. I don’t feel 40K is any better or worse in terms of system competitiveness value, or internal competitiveness (i.e. armies) , when it is compared to other popular wargames on the market that attract a tournament scene. They all have roughly similar levels of spam-list, net-list players and rules that can exploited.

          • vlad78

            Can we ask for a good ruleset which helps the immersion with reasonable balance then? Because I feel we’ll have neither.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Tamato-Tomato. If you feel that way, then cool, thats yours and other opionion. Heck, I’d be the first to acknowledge 8th is not “perfect” (what system ever is?); however, plenty of hobbyist are enjoying 8th and are welcoming the freshness of it.

        • Martijn Hannenberg

          Sure there is. If you are not aware of the opposing army and all its special rules, the different units and what not…then you cannot possible know what targets to take out first.

          Not even started on setting up…. entire tactics go behind that, if you havent mastered that and you get all your important stuff blown off the table… you are not doing good

          • zeno666

            Yeah, aiming at the big expensive stuff is really hard…

          • ZeeLobby

            I love how target priority is considered the tactical depth of 40K. It really makes you realize how much more important faction and list building is to get the competitive edge. On the table it’s mostly point and click.

          • Mira Bella

            Indeed. You find target priority in ANY other wargame.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Yet tournament results show going first gives MASSIVE advantage. People are quitting games even on top tables when they don’t get 1st turn because there is no point in playing it out.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            I find gamers who, are quitting on the first turn, very funny. To do that is extremely churlish and, to some extent, pathetic. At the moment it seems like going first is evidently a bonus. However I suspect, given time, gamers will work out a way to placate that effect and the world can move on.

        • Drpx

          The return of the Leafblower.

          • zeno666

            Exactly this!
            Its very sad to see a game company not caring about their own games and fans.
            Its all about selling.

          • vlad78

            I disagree, they do care, but they asked the wrong people, mainly the north american tournament scene. ^^

    • I_am_Alpharius

      The core rules of the game is extremely easy to learn (I taught my 10 year old cousin to play in about 1hr). Certainly Auras, stratagems and combos etc.. add another layer to the game; which is great for longevity and making the game a more challenging experience. Yet they are not something that for a new/returning hobbyist needs to worry about until they have the basics down. Its like chess the rules are fundamentally simple, but the tactics, tricks and gambits take time to learn and “master” – you don’t expect someone new to chess to understand everything at once.

      • vlad78

        Chess has no special rules for every colours and kind of materials.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Way to miss the point…

          • Muninwing

            no, way to make his point. chess is actually a bad example when discussing this kind of game. it is 2-dimensional (literally as well as figuratively), it is nearly equal but vastly homogenized, it is about taking the same resources and the same setup and doing something new with it.

            in contrast, you have far more freedom with army creation. between faction, subfaction, and what style of army to build (troop focus or fast/heavy/elite focus, footslogger or vehicle/transports, speed or heavy hitters, etc), even before you get to the table there’s far more variables and considerations to be explored. then deployment can change all that too.

            but the core rules of both are pretty straightforward. “move, shoot, fight” (and this number is for move, these two are for shoot, and these two are for fight) is about as easy as “rook moves straight, Knight moves in an L”

            the second you get out of the super basics, both get harder. Chess gets into thinking ahead — which, honestly, some people just cannot do. it becomes psychological just as much as it becomes predictive. 40k, on the other hand, has to go into faction and subfaction and specific rules and a ton of extra stuff almost immediately after the basics are mastered, and well before anything strategic is encountered.

          • Apocryphus

            The impression I got was that the point is: basic rules are easy, all the subtlety and nuances of the game come with experience. You actually expounded on it above, “move, shoot, fight” compares to the movement restrictions of each chess piece. Anyone can easily learn these rules and start playing quickly; strategies, combos, list construction and posistioning all come with time. I learned 40k back in 3rd ed, and based on what I had to remember back then, compared to now, 8th is dramatically pared down from what it was. Anyone can play 40k 8th, not everyone is necessarily good at it.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Wooooohoooo someone understands!

          • Mira Bella

            But what nuances? The nuance that I should put a model that gives a buff close to my other units? The nuance that I should put a squishy character behind my units?
            The nuance that I should kill the most dangerous/unit on the objective first?
            All these things are pretty obvious are they not?

          • Apocryphus

            What units are best applied to those tasks and how and when to apply them comes down to nuance. 40k is a when and where type of game when it comes to micro management, and you have to have a certain skill to do it well. That skill has to be learned over time for most players. Nothing in a wargame is ever as basic as it seems, because you are always playing against an unpredictable human.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Both @301stFeinminsterArmoured and @Apocryphus make several very good examples. As 301st points out, firstly, there is a subtle difference between strategy and tactics, how ostensibly they are linked. Strategy and tactics are both how you will achieve your goals and objectives. Strategy is our path or bridge for getting to our goal. It’s our general resource allocation plan. The tactics then are how specifically or tangibly we will do that.

            In 40K the strategy has roots in, and stems from, a gamers army list construction and how they strategise (or theorise) how they intend each part of the army to work together.

            The tactics employed utterly depend on the scenario you are presented with and have to adapt to: How are you going to take the object?; How are you going to neutralise that enemy unit?; what are you going to do if the enemy does this or that?; what happen this particular unit is lossed?; How will I compensate for that loss?; Where do I need to set up this unit to make best use of it?; When/how could I use this stratagem; etc..etc… this list is endless.

            To name a few wider things(not exhaustive) to consider: Knowing your army inside out; knowing the enemy and how they work; understanding the various missions; understanding how to apply the core rules to you advantage; etc…

            40K has all these things (as do lots of wargame to one degree or another). I have said this before; 8th ed is not perfect, but no game system is. Is 40K devoid of strategy and tactics? No,very much no; not by a long shot.

          • Mira Bella

            What strategies are you talking about? Could you give us an example? 🙂

          • Apocryphus

            When a list is made, it is made with a particular strategy in mind. Whether it be shooting your opponent off the table top of turn 1 or filling the table with blobs of models that are immune to morale, every list is centered around a particular strategy. Tactics comes from the ability to execute that strategy in the face of the enemy’s strategy. 40k has a massive pool of models, so it allows nearly every strategy a player can conceive, and that’s where experience is key. So what strategies am I talking about? Whichever ones you come up with of course. Whether or not they are good is up to the players ability.

          • Muninwing

            move-shoot-fight is only usable with all infantry, with minimal special/heavy weapons, without special abilities of SCs, without special armywide rules, etc.

            even before advanced deployment strategies and combos, the “extra rules” are always bigger.

            sure, they got rid of some — like vehicles, cavalry/bikes/jump having their own specific rules, flyers, etc. but if we’re talking the simple version, to compare the two we aren’t even there yet.

            i learned in 3rd as well, and aside from the changes to vehicles and blasts, 8th feels the most like 3rd. but i liked 4th so much better, and the only two complaints i had about 5th were the wound allocation (which could have been FAQed into fairness with a single sentence), and the cheez/powerbuild codexes that took to dominance in the Ward era.

            what i worry about is that by cutting so much of the rules — some that needed to be cut, some that were there for a reason — some of that later depth and subtlety is lost. since that’s why i play this instead of M:tG, this game becoming all about autowin combos reminds me of why i stopped playing what i didn’t like instead of pioneering the field and making more of what i do like.

          • Apocryphus

            The comparison to chess is simply being made as a frame of reference, but I underatand your stance. 4th ed was actually my favorite too and I still have my 4th ed rulebook and codexes and sometimes play that with my friends. The thing is, at the end of the day, every model follows the same basic rules for moving, shooting, and fighting. Every model that moves has a defined value in inches in which it can move. Sure there are exceptions, but that makes the game interesting, it’s why we play 40k. Same with shooting, regardless of what gun it is, you pick a target in range and roll to hit. Same again with melee, pick target, roll to hit. The framework of the game is extremely basic, the addition of special rules for units introduces new variables that makes it all feel less basic. As I said, anyone can play 40k 8th, but not everyone is good at it.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            *sigh* I give up…

          • vlad78

            I think you missed my point. ^^

            Everything else chess players have to learn are tactics and their likely outcomes in order to refine their strategies and play faster and more efficiently. There are no special rules added to the game whereas 40k 8th depth will solely rely on the amount of special rules added later on in each and every codicies.

            Chess rules are both simple and complex at the same time because of the combinations brought to each game by all the pieces at their disposal but each side has the same possibilities and what the pieces can do is some kind of abstraction of reality, pawns hold the line, knights are raid specialists, towers threaten whole lines and hold territories… No special dragon ball powers is needed.

            40k rules are not simple, they are simplistic.
            Wargaming does mimic chess in a way, infantry, vehicles, planes, chariots, cavalry, artillery have different features but you were to solely use them in a 40k 8th game, it would be terribly boring because of the abstraction and streamlining. Given that cover does not protect that much and almost does not hamper movements at all, 40k basic tactics are all about maximizing firepower, bubble wrapping your key units and/or reaching close combat asap by moving more often than not in a straight line and engage in combat as many units as possible.
            Complexity does not come from the core rules, there is no point flanking enemy units, there is no notion of suppressing fire, there is no point surrounding your enemy except when he is in a vehicle which you can blow up. The game is about trying to get the initiative by charging first or shooting as much as possible and delaying hth units with chaff units.

            This is where the second layer of complexity you’re talking about comes into play:
            Power combos, different in each codex, and it is those combos which will make you win games under 40k 8th rules. The CSM and deathguard codices are clearly showing the trend = use combos or die faster than your foe.

            I’m not denying your basic assumption, learning the ropes is needed to become a better player and 40k makes no difference .

            But in fact 40k is the direct opposite to chess and your analogy does not make sense because even a beginner at chess has all the tools in hand to craft any tactics he wants once the core rules are learnt. I’ve seen people being quite good at chess or historical gaming right from the beginning because they were simply logical and more or less knew what they could expect from their opponent, same with GO where mastering the game is even much harder.

            I’m not saying a rookie at chess will beat an experienced player, but he might and some did do so.

            40k 8th does not allow a rookie to win (unless making insane rolls) against an experienced player because he just can’t know all the special rules hidden in all the codicies from the start. It’s not a matter about knowing the tactics (this part is really limited, 2 or 3 games and you’ve learned all there is to know however illogical those game mechanics might be sometimes), it’s about knowing the special rules each army is using. And this will get worse with each codex released.

            And once again, 8th is already showing the same weaknesses as previous editions, games will be won while making lists before even playing.

            There is no hidden depth there, it’s just poor rules conception but it’s just my opinion.

            I have the feeling 40k has left the wargaming area to lean toward other games like magic or warmachine.

            You probably like it as it is and it is perfectly alright.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            *sigh* I give up….

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Excellent analysis.

        • Severius_Tolluck

          Actually it does… white goes first. but do go on.

          • Muninwing

            but Black doesn’t get an extra pawn to offset this…

            and you can’t instead choose to play Blue, who gets no pawns but double rooks and bishops… or Red, who get double pawns but no knights or rooks… or Purple, who get six knights but no bishops or rooks.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Still besides the point. That is not chess, that was the example. He made the false statement that color doesn’t bring additional rules, which it does. Black will always go second, and white will always go first, which dictates the flow of decision making, and sets the handicap. Regrdless of another game having additional elements, does not detract from the point from another.

          • Muninwing

            if we want to get that into it… then you are wrong.

            rules.

            colors do not bring additional rules.

            pedantically, i could call to attention that white is the absence of color, but that’s not arguing in good faith.

            but he said “rules”

            not “rule”

            one color has one additional rule. black gets nothing for being black. white gets one distinction. that is “rule” not “rules.”

            he also brings up materials. wooden pieces do not have different rules than glass, acrylic, carved marble, or bakelite.

            what he was arguing is that there is variance in 40k, and with that variance due to greater scope and range of options — which chess has none — there are greater considerations to keep in mind.

            while it’s funny to point out that white gets one additional rule, and therefore is 1% different from black — you are right that such a rule completely changes the opening phase of the game. so imagine what greater variance brings to complexity.

        • Drpx

          White always goes first.

          • vlad78

            But wooden pieces cannot shoot opponent’s pieces on sight when attacked, stone pieces cannot pull back when attacked, blue pieces (because chess games are not always black and white) cannot regenerate…

          • Severius_Tolluck

            So you are saying fine cast, white metal, and plastic have different rules?

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Give up. Its like hitting your head against the wall.

          • vlad78

            Well given that white metal are 3-4-5th edition, finecast 5-6-7th edition and plastic 7-8th edition, yes. ^^

      • Mira Bella

        What tactics though?
        Honest question mate. All I keep seeing is “Model X gives buff to anyone in X inches”. So of course I put a unit within that bubble. Does that make me a good tactician?

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          This is the difference between tactics and strategy. In 40k, strategy is relatively easy, which is why tournament lists tend to look the same, but tactical considerations are made game-by-game, based on who you’re facing and how the board is setup. The strongest Factions in the game have an abundance of Strategic options that make Tactical considerations all but unnecessary, while weaker Factions require more Tactical play. Case in point: Dark Eldar vs Necrons.
          DE’s only real strategic advantages in 7th were high-accuracy direct-fire shooting, consistent anti-toughness weapons, fast moving units and the ability to accurately Deep-Strike any unit you could field, whereas Necrons could nickel-and-dime any model they fire at, shrug off most attacks thrown at them, did not lack for quality shooting attacks with the optimum mix of strength, AP, Range, and shots per gun, and could ignore entire elements of the game if they wanted to. Consequently, DE required a firm grasp of tactical play, as well as board and mission setups that favored their playstyle (i.e.: hope for first-turn Night Fighting, having plenty of LoS-blocking Terrain, DT, and area cover, and missions that in involve assassination, moveable Objectives, or crossing the field), whereas Necrons could just march across the board, and as long as they weren’t facing a list full of hard-counters, they could reliably play objectives or slug it out every time. So, it’s not that the game lacks tactical nuance, but that we see less support for Factions that must be played tactically.

      • MarcoT

        I think I agree with this, but I’m not sure. This invisible force multiplier feel like an area where GW will manage to ruin an otherwise great core, by overdoing it. 20+ strategems and similar numbers of ‘free’ relics… it’s a lot.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I think the whole combo style of game is so fashionable now that GW are being dragged into it, even though the background and fundamental game mechanics still really support an old manoeuvre+unit class style wargame.

      Personally as I get older I find combo style games harder work. I just don’t want to remember all that stuff and winning through rules shenanigans feels less satisfying than through tactics.

      I don’t even think this style game is intrinsically easier for beginners. Simple mechanics help, but I see people leave the game after a few months when they realise they still don’t really know why they lose every game because the other guy was using some weird combo.

      This style of game facilitates cheating or deliberate misunderstanding of rules because even ostensibly similar forces can have very different combos, stratagems etc.

      Its the fashion though.

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah. It sells tho. Release new unit with combo-y aura = sales. I agree more emphasis should be put on maneuvering and positioning, but they seem to be removing those considerations from the game. Everything sees everywhere, shoots everywhere and has no motivation to form up in any real particular way.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          May as well replace the minis with cards. 40k, the Gathering.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. Yeah. Sadly I think it all started slipping once TLoS was added and terrain abstractions we’re removed.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            I just hope FW don’t let us down. If their version of 7th is good it will be a refuge for people who don’t like 8th. Especially if it gives sane ways to use 7th ed 40k armies. If not, then I guess GW will lose a lot of veteran players.

            I’ve been talking to a friend about setting up a blog to post 7th ed rules for the various new units. If FWs 7th is good then there might be a demand for this.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. That sounds good to me. While not my favorite edition (was probably 5th), the core rules of 7th weren’t horrible.

      • Erich Schoenholtz

        So true. Well put.

      • Krev_Grazl

        “I don’t even think this style game is intrinsically easier for
        beginners. Simple mechanics help, but I see people leave the game after a
        few months when they realise they still don’t really know why they lose
        every game because the other guy was using some weird combo”

        Just look at Magic the gathering to see that in action! There was always a steep learning curve for that, and that’s why they now sell pre-made decks.

        I never liked list-building apart from when building a new army and deciding what models to get. Once I have built the army and worked out points, I never change it. I usually ignored complicated upgrades that granted things like shred or re-rolls, because I wasn’t interested in gaming from the codex. I just want to get my list WYSIWIG and maybe give my HQ some special wargear (because I can remember the upgrades for one model at least). So to have a game built around devising combos of units, auras and strategems just does my head in. If I were to play 8th, I’d literally ignore all of that and just field the units from the datasheets. I want to defeat my opponent by outmanouevring them and I want them to be able to see ‘my cards’ and not be surprised and annoyed when I tell them my Lord has a special ability that means my troops suddenly appear behind theirs and attack twice or some other nonsense.

        • Apocryphus

          I think people are starting to blend strategems and auras together here. Auras generally only hand out re-rolls, with a few exceptions for named characters, but never grant anything as dramatic as attacking twice. The strategems are what really makes the edition combo heavy and allows for some pretty outrageous lists and strategies. A list can be built to rely on its base strengths without having to game the system for max CP, and I often find these builds more enjoyable to play.

      • Drpx

        The combos are definitely my least favorite part of 8th. Feels like every list needs Guilliman in it just because he’s so good.

      • vlad78

        Quoted for truth.

    • zeno666

      Its really not. Because the rulebook is a real mess.
      Feels like it’s missing a whole lot of rules that are needed.
      But they wanted to go AoS-style and brag about the rules only beeing 4 pages or whatnot.

      • Drpx

        AoS isn’t that bad, actually. I dare say it might even be more strategic than 8th ed. 40k.

        • Muninwing

          i lost my car, but my skates might even be faster than your scooter!

        • vlad78

          Using my lawn mover is more strategic than 8th ed. 40k.

      • MarcoT

        I get that sentiment too. Centralized flyer and deepstrike rules and the base strategems would make sense to include.

        • zeno666

          Yepp and I would also like to know how to move my guys with jump packs if they want to move on top of a building.
          Do I measure diagonaly?
          Do they go forward to the building and then measure movement upward?
          Do they move the same way (ie through models and buildings) in the Charge phase as they do in the Movement phase (thats where the Fly keyword is mentioned)?

          Lots and lots of these things.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Obviously, Indexes were a hash-out and patch edition of the Faction rules, where the basic mechanics were adapted and test-fit to the new edition. As more Codices get released, they will be more designed to address poor rules interactions, and to give low-variety Factions more space for differentiation, than the inexorable tide of “Designer X likes Faction Y and is writing their Codex, so, depending on how much X values game-balance over faithfulness to Y’s fluff, we either get a fair-to-middling Codex that no casual player would mind facing or we get a swingy Codex that is either the strongest, most versatile faction in the game (Marines, Daemons, Eldar, GSC), or soggy milquetoast (CSM, Nids, Deldar).”

  • Antoine Henry

    I do bleieve that the stratagems, specific army rules, special rules with different names on each units (characters & others) will finally prove to have exactly the same flaws as formation, except that stratagems have no taxes, just pay the command point. Its also too easy to have CP with cheap unit/point armies. Stratagems are not expansive enough for the impact they can have. It will prove that this edition will be the worse to balance and is already proving to be a freaking mess. I think indexes have given more balance and they just blowed that up right now and that Codex should not have appeared again. Maybe fluff codexes only with a few additional rules for fluffy lists. I do think core rules are easier, but a new player that will arrive in a year will be as lost as the new ones that started 7th. The pace is even higher in 8th edition to add unneccessary unbalanced stuff.

    Also, those nice Codices are very bad quality, it seems they wrote it too fast and no testing has been done. They at least seems to focus more on fluff and that “boons” are not always great to play a certain type of “sub-faction” but are fluffs.

    The game is also starting to be too powerful and if you optimize a bit your lists, you know for sure that the game won’t last long and who will win after you read the other person list.

    Deathstars are also back when you see list with “only Brimstones” covered by 7 Flying Daemon Prince, and Magnus (who has a 3++ reroll 1’s with just a spell) etc etc…The deathstars are actually made not by “auras” but by Characters protecting each other and not permitting splitfire

    • Erich Schoenholtz

      Agreed. I’ll withhold judgement until my armies get their codex but the game has become rather boring the more I play it. The game is so tactically shallow that I’m really struggling to hold an interest in the game. After leaving the game in the beginning of 7th for the same reasons, I had really high hopes that this edition would get me back into it. So far, the game has not really delivered for me yet.

    • Muninwing

      stratagems that require certain criteria to have been met to be used. i like this.

      hm.

      SM stratagems that have statements like:
      – use this only if you have a librarian on the board.
      – use this only if you have a SM Captain on the board
      -use this only if you have units that have not yet entered play
      – use this only if you have one or more units with the Primaris keyword
      – use this only if you have at least one unit currently in your opponent’s deployment zone

  • Son_of_Corax_XIX

    Going off the article title can I have this weeks lottery numbers also? Your psychic powers must be be better than mine.

  • FCBullsht

    The one thing that stays constant is the severe imbalance between codices aswell as the codex-intern imbalances… SM and CSM are prime examples

  • Heinz Fiction

    So your groundbreaking conclusion is that we’ll get subfation rules for craftworlds and maybe hive fleets. You’re a real genius Larry…

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Well that and various WH-Com and WH-Tv twitch broadcast have made comment and confirmed that every army will be getting sub-faction rules, as their codex is released….

      • MarcoT

        Shhh, don’t break the magic

  • Randy Randalman

    Just a few short months ago, the (incorrect) internet chatter was how GW is phasing out Marines, “forcing” people to buy Primaris, how they will be the only competitive option…

    Reality? Primaris make up less than 10% of the roster, aren’t even in Grey Knights or any Chaos Legions, and are middle of the pack in terms of competitive power level in Codex: Space Marines. In fact, no Primaris Marines are showing up at the top tables, and there are literally zero plans to phase out regular sized Marines.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Phasing out of the SM range we know was never going to be a overnight switch. I’d give it at least 2 years before that happens. Over which time, we will see more new Primaris Marine kits and, little to no SM kits being released; coupled with more background clues of existing “marines” getting “enhanced” to Primarias status (so GW can keep all the iconic Marine characters). I also suspect that, at some point, in the future we will see Chaos SM background hinting/revealing that they’ve learned how to make enhancement to Primaris.

      • Brad Parks

        They already started that in the CSM codex by talking about Fabius Bile’s interest in the Primaris didn’t they?

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Unsure, I’ve not read it. I’m sure someone here can enlighten us 🙂

    • Drpx

      GW has never had a clue about their own game meta. Do you think they intended for Conscript spam to be king?

  • In 7th – it was about list building.
    In 8th – its still about list building.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Pretty sure thats been a fundamental skill to every edition of 40K, WFB, AoS. Indeed, and with pretty much most wargames in the market. When you provide gamers with options in army lists, that will inevitably create an element of skill to planning one.

      • Having started in the late 80s I will say up until right before 2000, army lists were a lot more viable, scenarios prevented you from always taking superfriends, and listbuilding as a whole was an ancillary concern to actually playing the game.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          Even in 5th take all comers lists were viable. Loss of the CAD was the first of many nails in 40k’s coffin as a fun relatively balanced game

          • eh. I’m not sure take all comers were really viable. I was breaking the game from 3rd on up with extreme builds that fit within the CAD that destroyed take all comers lists. Once grey knights dropped in 5th that was the end of the take all comers list completely though, at least here.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            What are you on about? CAD didn’t officially exist before 7th, and the thing that briefly became CAD is still in the game. Most of the broken lists in 8th run the equivalent of 2-3 CADs together, with or without some extra options.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            You couldn’t be more wrong. The standard force org chart, also known as Combined Arms Detachment (ie 1-2HQ, 2-6 troops, 0-3 FA, HS and Elites) first arrived in 4th.

            I have the 4th Ed rulebook on my lap, its page 77.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            I was saying that the CAD wasn’t called a CAD until 7th, and that it still exists and that it is used, quite successfully, in 8th.
            They introduced the standard Force Organization Chart in 3rd. Ironically, they also had alternate Force Organization Charts, supernumerary units and Force Organization/Battlefield Role manipulation in 3rd, although alternate Organization Charts were never considered legal for organized play, let alone GW Store play.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            No you didn’t, you said it didn’t exist till 7th and YOU WERE WRONG!!!!!!!

            I had a memory of it being done by percentages in 3rd but I don’t have a copy any more to check.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            I qualified my statement with the word “officially,” as the term “Combined Arms Detachment,” was not used until 7th.

            Pretty sure you’re thinking of 2nd, because I started playing with 3rd, and we had always used a Force Organization chart.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            You might be right there, I don’t have a copy of third but I also remember making lists that way in 2nd.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Hence why I used the phrasing “an element”. Obviously, the impact has ebbed and flowed throughout the year.

          • It seems to have been cranked to 11 the past decade or so.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Possibly, personally I don’t mind and quite like tinkering and thinking of new way to play an army or unit.

      • Muninwing

        except creating a TAC lists was actually rewarded at times, instead of a cheezed-up exploit list.

  • DoctorBored

    The real question on everyone’s mind is: What new models are coming? If Eldar, Tyranids, and Astra Militarum are just like AdMech, then we might not get any new models for those factions at all. With Necromunda in November, and December usually reserved for special releases, whatever Codices are wrapping up 2018 may not get any model releases and we’ll be down to whatever kicks off in January. We may have to wait through an AoS release before that happens too. After Death Guard, I’m predicting a lack of news for 40k players for a good while.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      *cough* plastic Biovore/Pyrovore *cough* plastic Aspect Warriors *cough* plastic Catachans/Vostroyans/Vallhalans.

  • BigGrim

    Good grief. The amount of vitriol and crying in this thread is embarrassing. 8th is the most fun I’ve had with 40k in bloody years.

    • Thomas

      And clearly other people feel differently. And that’s perfectly valid and okay. That’s right, it’s *okay* to not like 8th and to express that opinion (though personally I’m really liking it). Deep breaths.

      • I_am_Alpharius

        Shhh! Stop applying common sense and reasonable polite behaviour….Darn it man! This is the internet…

  • Muninwing

    ” fully expect to see subfaction rules for: Astra Militarum regiments (come on Praetorians!), Craftworlds (come on Alaitoc Pathfinders!) and maybe just maybe Hivefleets.”

    yes.

    one of the big imbalancers in 7th was Chapter Tactics. it was a free power, not accounted for in model points, that boosted the SM up dramatically.

    if this is the new structure, then everyone will have access to something comparable. i want to see the return of IG that is functionally not just Cadians. I want to see Goffs and Evil Sunz armies playing with slightly different styles. I want to know that a Leviathan and a Naga and a Behemoth Hive Fleet army is going to not be the same spammed units.

    it really just means adding one new rule for each. if they could do it for AdMech worlds, why not everyone?

    • Dan Wilson

      Genuinely interested in seeing sub faction rules for Steel Legion, Catachans and Valhallans.

  • SteelMaelstorm

    I believe dropping their “I go-you go” turn activation for Bolt Actions dice draw activation would solve the 8th edition leaf-blower mentality

    • Muninwing

      see, we need more data on this.

      i think if a number of groups played a series of games with different armylists, first playing them with 40k rules and then playing the same number of variable-turn games, and comparing the win ratios, maybe we could get some viable data on this one.

    • Bootneck

      Maybe but for the next few years we have 8th and theres no changing that.

    • GravesDisease

      Which works for skirmish but not for larger games. 40K is designed to be played across multiple point levels and whilst GW internally trialled IGOUGO they found it to crumble when they added too many points.

  • AbesolutZERO

    8th’s aura/synergy-based list building style reminds me of Warmachine. In a good way

  • Spacefrisian

    The only thing i hear is the sound of the apocalypse, even that sounds epic.