PDA

View Full Version : New direction 40k is taking



Anon
13-02-2017, 17:17
After reading both Gathering Storm books, it seems to me that they are changing the direction of 40k. At the moment I don't know if I like it, it seems that:

a) 40k changes from a relativly static setting to an episodic narrative (and not an good one)
b) 40k moves from an core number of factions (the armies with their codices) that get one big update every few years to big alliances with sub factions that get new subfactions added, like AOS.

The Eldar were divided. 3 factions existed (or 5). Now after the Gathering Storm they fragmented the Eldar even more but at the same time the merged them into one big fraction. Now they are known as Aeldari and these subfactions exist:

Ynnari
Vects New Commorragh
Haemonculi
Mandrakes
A potential new kind of Harlequins
The Craftworlds
Exodites and Corsairs

The same seems to happen to the Imperium. I believe there wont be Ultramarine or Guard players in the future, there will be only Imperium players. I believe the same will happen to Chaos and even the Xenos. The TS was the first subfaction of chaos, they released.
I really don't like this direction. I liked the clear unique factions, each with their own strenghts and weaknesses and an unique playsstyle and history and I fear they are losing this. From a businessperspective it makes sense, but from my perspective it violates the background. The changes in the background are so huge to support these new "Grand Alliances". If this continues as I fear I might completly lose interest in the game. Even more so if the "accidently" drop some of the old factions like the Dark Eldar.

What are your thoughts on the future of 40k based on the new Gathering Storm books.

The National Elf Service
13-02-2017, 18:53
Firstly, I kinda like 40K as it is at the minute and so I don't want it to change, but that might be because when I started 40K it was already on 7th.

Secondly, I love the diversity of armies in 40K and so am really against them merging the armies into 'the big three' also because Xenos armies especially do not always get on with each other so having them all together would be strange (Tyranids and Tau?)

Thirdly, I like the difference between both of GW's main games. AoS is completely different to 40K and that's a good thing. AoS if you want a quick, fun, easy to play game with any number of models and 40K if you want to play with a stronger rule set that makes each model exciting.

Anyway, that's my thoughts :D

Lord Damocles
13-02-2017, 18:56
I see nothing in the current subfactions to particularly distinguish them from previous subfactions.

I mean, you could go:

Eldar
Dark Eldar
Craftworld Eldar (5 further subdivisions)
Harlequins
Corsiars (background)
Exodites (background)

In 3rd edition.

You could further subdivide, say, Dark Eldar into Wytch Cults, Kabalites, Covens and Mandrakes if so inclined.


Chaos Marines have been pseudo-subdivided into different Legions previously, along the same lines of Loyalist Chapters or Ork Clans.
Imperial forces have always been under the same broad umbrella, and across multiple editions have had means of taking multiple Imperial subfactions within the same army.

Even the idea of 'Grand Alliances' in 40K isn't new. During the Eye of Terror campaign, the various factions were split between Order and Disorder (plus Tau) alignments.

Rogue Star
13-02-2017, 19:44
I don't really see that, as Lord Damocles said. Fall of Cadia's "Castellans of the Imperium" set, which allows you to mix Adeptus Mechanicus, Imperial Knights, Guard, Assassins, Space Marines and Sisters of Battle in a single list is pretty much as old as 40K (with only Rogue Trader, which was a narrative skirmish missing it), considered to represent the might of the Imperium when it gathers for a crusade to accomplish a specific task. Hell, that was what the Damocles Gulf Crusade was to annihilate the Tau upon discovery, all branches of the Imperium coming together.

The Eldar have always been a fractured faction. Originally you had Craftworlders, Corsairs (which where their own thing), Exodites (Feral World Eldar Dino-Riders) and Harlequins. Then they added the Dark Eldar, which are a gathering of three distinct groups again; Archons and the Kabals they gather around themselves, Haemonculi and their Covens, and Wych Cults. This is just really more a left over of the Imperium, Eldar and Orks being the first three races 40K had for the longest time before adding anything new, so they got dozens of variant lists each (Orks Example: Standard Warbands, with each Clan used to have their own rules, then Da Kult of Speed (Ork vehicle list), Freebootas (Ork Pirates with an electic mix of stuff, Feral Orks, etc).

I don't see this really showing 40K factions being shoved into a Grand Alliance like Age of Sigmar - it's not like the Eldar are teaming up with the Orks, or the Tau and the Necrons are merging together into Grand Alliance: Xenos... it seems more that GW have decided to increase the number of 40K factions, see the reintroduction of the Genestealer Cults, adding the Deathwatch to the Space Marines sub-factions, etc.

nagash66
14-02-2017, 12:29
Other then in miniature design ( the new Guiliman is NOT 40k style) i dont see much change. Other then plot progression which as ever will not be to everyone's taste. My major grip if anything is not enough change, gathering storm books should have taken a couple of old and tired characters out to pasture, instead it just added more.

Malagor
15-02-2017, 00:47
For me they are falling into the same trap that they did with End times, everything is moving too fast.
Feels like they aren't allowing the new story to breath instead just shoving more and more new characters in, not resolving things.
I'm guessing they are rushing so that they can get Age of Guilliman out by summer and simply won't have time/won't bother to fill out all the blanks that this move is creating.
By summer I think we will have ruleset that is better suited then it did for Fantasy but another setting completely scattered to pieces and expected to buy several expensive books just make any sense of it.
And not to mention the destruction of several factions ala Bretonnia and Tomb Kings.

Lost Egg
15-02-2017, 17:22
One of the things that allows progression in AoS is no one really knows much about the geography, its all random name dropping and a few maps. GW can then create and destroy as they see fit giving players little time to become attached to anywhere.

But, you can't do that so much in 40k without potentially alienating a lot of people. Sure Cadia & Biel Tan have fallen but none of the major players can be greatly affected...the Eye of Terror can't be closed, Fenris won't get destroyed, the Web Way won't be destroyed etc.

nagash66
15-02-2017, 18:36
And not to mention the destruction of several factions ala Bretonnia and Tomb Kings.

This i honestly dont get, which faction do you honestly think they will kill off? Unless you mean say specific marine chapters/ig regiments/craftworlds/etc, in which case that is not in any way a faction.

The way the lore currently stands it is all but impossible to kill off a entire faction, at a push Dark Eldar could have been wiped but they would have done that in the eldar book, otherwise Tau are the only ones that can go without some truly EPIC levels of background rewritting, and considering how popular and supported they are i just cant see it.



But, you can't do that so much in 40k without potentially alienating a lot of people. Sure Cadia & Biel Tan have fallen but none of the major players can be greatly affected...the Eye of Terror can't be closed, Fenris won't get destroyed, the Web Way won't be destroyed etc.

Even there, Biel tan shattered but was not destroyed, and i expect the founding of new cadia very very soon.

Lars Porsenna
15-02-2017, 19:45
I don't have the current Guard book, but IIRC Cadia was well respected by many worlds contributing to the Guard, to the point where they use Cadia pattern equipment & uniforms. Also Cadia was a major contributor to the Guard in general, so there are regiments scattered about the galaxy on different missions/garrisons, etc. So GW avoids faction death because a player can easily say that THIS Cadian regiment was on deployment when Cadia fell. OTOH GW can always do a "Great Recall" storyline where the respect for Cadia is so great that regiments are recalled from throughout the galaxy to refound a New Cadia somewhere important, as the above poster alludes to.

Damon.

Malagor
15-02-2017, 21:19
One of the things that allows progression in AoS is no one really knows much about the geography, its all random name dropping and a few maps. GW can then create and destroy as they see fit giving players little time to become attached to anywhere.
But that's is also a downside, a major one at that, there is no attachment, you don't care and one of the reason why there is next to no AoS players in my area and the recent influx of 40k players are actually newbie AoS players who left the game for 40k, because they found something that they could relate to.
People make armies based on locations and other parts of the fluff because they get attached to it.
If you ever wonder why people play armies that are grossly underpowered then this is your answer, because they are attached to them in some way.
Without it, there is no reason.



This i honestly dont get, which faction do you honestly think they will kill off? Unless you mean say specific marine chapters/ig regiments/craftworlds/etc, in which case that is not in any way a faction.

The way the lore currently stands it is all but impossible to kill off a entire faction, at a push Dark Eldar could have been wiped but they would have done that in the eldar book, otherwise Tau are the only ones that can go without some truly EPIC levels of background rewritting, and considering how popular and supported they are i just cant see it.

Right now, no idea but whomever is the worst seller.
Have to remember that Bretonnia and Tomb Kings were never written out of the fluff, they weren't merged or anything, GW just removed them outright without warning or any hints lore-wise that this was coming.
So the idea that they needed a reason to remove an army is well, GW never needed a reason before.
And to remind people, Bretonnia had new plastic models already done and a new armybook as well, Tomb Kings got new fancy plastic models with their book and had several more waiting to be released and GW scrapped all of it without blinking an eye.
So right of the top of my head I would say Sisters of Battle, All the various space marines chapter(SW,BA, GK, DA) and Necrons will either be merged(the space marine chapters) or outright removed(Sisters and Necrons).

Lord Damocles
15-02-2017, 21:25
Space Marines are now worst sellers? What sort of bizzaro land is this?

Malagor
15-02-2017, 22:15
Space Marines are now worst sellers? What sort of bizzaro land is this?
Where did I say that Space Marines would be killed off ?
I said merged when it comes to them and the more unique chapters and before someone points it out, yes DA/SW/GK/BA I do count as their own faction.
Like CSM they might be space marines and share pretty much the same type of gameplay, they do still have enough difference to them compared to the vanilla marine book to be their own faction.
Merging them would kill them off.
Of course chances are there won't be a Space Marine army in Age of Guilliman, there will only be Imperium with units that aren't selling removed.

Lord Damocles
15-02-2017, 22:22
Where did I say that Space Marines would be killed off ?
Where did I say that you said that they'd be killed off?

Although...

I said merged...
[snip]
Merging them would kill them off.
:shifty:

You implied that variant Marines are the worst selling factions.

Malagor
15-02-2017, 23:05
And I do think so.
Based on what people play where I play and on how things are selling, I would say that only Space Wolves would be considered the "best" seller since they got no available codexes and their models doesn't stay on the shelves for long before someone purchase them and even they aren't close to the normal marines.
The other 3 doesn't seem to sell since they got plently of models on the shelves and they haven't moved from their spot in months and no one plays them.
I did forget about Deathwatch but even for a new faction, their models are collecting dust. Their codex got some interest but they don't seem to have taken off.

Lost Egg
16-02-2017, 08:14
But that's is also a downside, a major one at that, there is no attachment, you don't care and one of the reason why there is next to no AoS players in my area and the recent influx of 40k players are actually newbie AoS players who left the game for 40k, because they found something that they could relate to.
People make armies based on locations and other parts of the fluff because they get attached to it.
If you ever wonder why people play armies that are grossly underpowered then this is your answer, because they are attached to them in some way.
Without it, there is no reason.

I agree, for me thats a big reason why I just can't get into AoS.

That is the problem with real progression in the 40k storyline; the various factions are constantly facing massive attacks that could wipe them out but if no one gets wiped out then nothing really progresses. But if you wipe something out then you upset fans.

This is where I think GW have dropped the ball. For me 40k was a game of small skirmishes in a hopeless setting where victory today just pushed back the tide of death one more day. Games are a tiny chapter in a much bigger battle that just goes on and on, very doom and gloom. There was a short story that really summed it up well with a group of IG struggling to escape the blast radius of some massive attack thats coming in and when they finally escape just in the neck of time...they discover that they need to clear out again in X hours because another huge blast is coming and once again they are in the blast radius.

But, with the change of focus to the big battles these little stories are lost and the games are meant to be the whole battle, though in terms of numbers they are barely a drop in the ocean. Instead of players games having little influence on the wider setting now they are expected to be playing full campaigns that could bring down whole worlds and systems. So if you play through the recent Fenris campaign (I've not read it by the way) and the bad guys win, why shouldn't some players want to see the space pups planet go boom.

As I said, if they go the AoS way then who really cares if the Bloodbound destroy the Uber-Fortress on Quicksilver Mountain in the Domain of Skulls McSkull, even if GW do provide a map and some filler. It's not like we are probably gunna hear about it again.

nagash66
16-02-2017, 09:55
Right now, no idea but whomever is the worst seller.
Have to remember that Bretonnia and Tomb Kings were never written out of the fluff, they weren't merged or anything, GW just removed them outright without warning or any hints lore-wise that this was coming.
So the idea that they needed a reason to remove an army is well, GW never needed a reason before.
And to remind people, Bretonnia had new plastic models already done and a new armybook as well, Tomb Kings got new fancy plastic models with their book and had several more waiting to be released and GW scrapped all of it without blinking an eye.
So right of the top of my head I would say Sisters of Battle, All the various space marines chapter(SW,BA, GK, DA) and Necrons will either be merged(the space marine chapters) or outright removed(Sisters and Necrons).

EVERY single warhammer faction got scrapped, in fact the entire game got scrapped. Right up until the last warhammer fantasy book the bretonnians and tomb kings were parts of the setting and active in the backround in major ways, with miniatures being sold. So i honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Malagor
16-02-2017, 10:51
EVERY single warhammer faction got scrapped, in fact the entire game got scrapped. Right up until the last warhammer fantasy book the bretonnians and tomb kings were parts of the setting and active in the backround in major ways, with miniatures being sold. So i honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
while true, lore-wise they are all gone but you can still play all the fantasy armies if you want to since the models are all mostly still there.
If you want to start an Empire army, you can do that. You can go to GW's store right now and order an army for it right now if you can find it all by navigating that horrible website. Their armybook is more of an issue since you can't get those but there are other ways for that.
Bretonnia and Tomb Kings are gone, completely. They have been erased. If you wanted a Bretonnia army you have to go through ebay and third-party, same with TK.
That's being killed off.

Gen.Steiner
16-02-2017, 11:02
On the one hand, it doesn't really affect me, as I mostly play 4/5th Edition 40K and occasionally 2nd Edition. I have complete sets of rules and codexes etc for 2nd and 4th Edition 40K, so really so long as they don't delete any ranges Tomb Kings or Bretonnia style before I manage to finish my collections for each army then I'm OK with whatever they choose to do. In terms of 'keeping up', I play Imperial Guard with a current Codex and that suits me fine. If I want to roll out my Spess Muhreens or my Sisters or my Iron Warriors or Tau or any of my other armies I play 4th Edition, 5th Edition, or 2nd, depending.

On the other hand, I really don't want them to 'Squat' any more armies!

Rogue Star
17-02-2017, 15:44
Right now, no idea but whomever is the worst seller.
Have to remember that Bretonnia and Tomb Kings were never written out of the fluff, they weren't merged or anything, GW just removed them outright without warning or any hints lore-wise that this was coming.
So the idea that they needed a reason to remove an army is well, GW never needed a reason before.
And to remind people, Bretonnia had new plastic models already done and a new armybook as well, Tomb Kings got new fancy plastic models with their book and had several more waiting to be released and GW scrapped all of it without blinking an eye.
So right of the top of my head I would say Sisters of Battle, All the various space marines chapter(SW,BA, GK, DA) and Necrons will either be merged(the space marine chapters) or outright removed(Sisters and Necrons).

GW removed Warhammer stuff because they were downsizing it. Looking at Age of Sigmar, at best we're going to get a force native to each of the Realms (Fyreslayers in the Realm of Fire, Sylvaneth from the Realm of Life, Undeath in the Realm of Death, etc) with the forces of Azyr (Stormcast Eternals) and Chaos (Archaon and friends) providing the good versus evil angle. Before that, WHFB had more factions than 40K even remotely mustered.

Since WHFB became AoS though, they've added Deathwatch Space Marines, Harlequins, Genestealer Cults and Thousand Sons. GW doesn't need to remove factions because 40K is being moved to prominence now.

Gen.Steiner
18-02-2017, 01:12
Before that, WHFB had more factions than 40K even remotely mustered.

Really?

High Elves, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Dwarves, Bretonnians, Empire, Ogre Kingdoms, Orcs and Goblins, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Chaos Warriors, Beastmen, Daemons (13)
against
Sisters of Battle, Inquisition, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Tau Empire, Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons (15)

40K has been the most prominent of GW's games for some time now - certainly long before the creation of AoS.

nagash66
18-02-2017, 10:31
while true, lore-wise they are all gone but you can still play all the fantasy armies if you want to since the models are all mostly still there.
If you want to start an Empire army, you can do that. You can go to GW's store right now and order an army for it right now if you can find it all by navigating that horrible website. Their armybook is more of an issue since you can't get those but there are other ways for that.
Bretonnia and Tomb Kings are gone, completely. They have been erased. If you wanted a Bretonnia army you have to go through ebay and third-party, same with TK.
That's being killed off.
Look fantasy is dead, all armies are dead, some of the minis cling to life because they need to have SOMETHING to sell untill they aos the entire range, now some armies fit the new themes to a extent and got a stay of execution ( Empire), some fit the new setting more or less ( undead) and some were just not even good enough for placeholders ( TK,brets).

This is all about AOS themes, nothing to do with Fantasy, fantasy is dead, no single army got scrapped, they all did in one fell swoop, the setting, the backround the fluff, shitcanned. GW doesnt care if some people can still buy things for 8th, 8th is dead to them, the rest comes down to if you are lucky enough to want some of the surviving placeholder models or not.

Nothing like this is happening to 40k, that is not my view, its what the company has said, heck they even went out of their way to showcase how cadians and the like can still be played, heck even squats were thrown a bone by fw with demiurg.







Since WHFB became AoS though, they've added Deathwatch Space Marines, Harlequins, Genestealer Cults and Thousand Sons. GW doesn't need to remove factions because 40K is being moved to prominence now.[/QUOTE]

40k has been prominent for many many years, if anything 30k is moving to prominence over 40k now.

Rogue Star
18-02-2017, 10:34
High Elves, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Dwarves, Bretonnians, Empire, Ogre Kingdoms, Orcs and Goblins, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Chaos Warriors, Beastmen, Daemons (13)
against
Sisters of Battle, Inquisition, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Tau Empire, Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons (15)

The Lizardmen and Skaven are missing from that line up.

Gen.Steiner
18-02-2017, 10:37
The Lizardmen and Skaven are missing from that line up.

Yep - my bad - but even so, that makes them dead equal with 15 army books or codexes each. Certainly not the case that WFB had more factions than 40K after 3rd Edition. The only point at which WFB out-factioned 40K was during Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition (1987-1998)

Bergioyn
18-02-2017, 10:38
Really?

High Elves, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Dwarves, Bretonnians, Empire, Ogre Kingdoms, Orcs and Goblins, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Chaos Warriors, Beastmen, Daemons (13)
against
Sisters of Battle, Inquisition, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Tau Empire, Necrons, Tyranids, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons (15)

40K has been the most prominent of GW's games for some time now - certainly long before the creation of AoS.

Since WHFB became AoS though, they've added Deathwatch Space Marines, Harlequins, Genestealer Cults and Thousand Sons. GW doesn't need to remove factions because 40K is being moved to prominence now.
Not really. In addition to Lizardmen and Skaven you also left out Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs. If we dig into it more WFB also had tons of minor factions and lists, for example Gnoblars and Amazons.

Rogue Star
18-02-2017, 10:43
Yep - my bad - but even so, that makes them dead equal with 15 army books or codexes each. Certainly not the case that WFB had more factions than 40K after 3rd Edition. The only point at which WFB out-factioned 40K was during Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition (1987-1998)

Fair enough, i don't want to get into the semantics of what factions never really got updated/count (Adepta Sororita/Bretonnians) or the array of sublists (Legion of the Damned/Albion Truthsayers/Dark Emissaries, etc).*

I just wanted to demonstrate how GW is clearly expanding 40K, so the idea of scaremongering "Beware, your faction could be the next Squats!" is just plain silly. Stuff might change, Armageddon might be destroyed, Cadia falls, Genestealer Cults on holy Terra, Biel-tan becoming a fleet, etc but no faction is being removed.

*Also... Dogs of War. :p

Gen.Steiner
18-02-2017, 11:20
That we know of, yet, so far...! I'm inclined to agree that they're not likely to delete a whole faction from their best-selling product line, but... also...

Commissar von Toussaint
20-02-2017, 02:13
I just wanted to demonstrate how GW is clearly expanding 40K, so the idea of scaremongering "Beware, your faction could be the next Squats!" is just plain silly. Stuff might change, Armageddon might be destroyed, Cadia falls, Genestealer Cults on holy Terra, Biel-tan becoming a fleet, etc but no faction is being removed.

What I don't get is why anything has to change at all. Time was, the idea of making a gaming system was to try to sell it to as many players as possible. Now the new thing seems to be forcing a diminishing (yet wealthy) gaming population to keep shelling out the same money for new rules every three years.

When that fails, nuke the game and make another one for them to collect.

I admit it: I'm getting old and set in my ways, and I just don't see the point of buying the fifth version of the same army list (though it has a new sub-sub-subsection for optional rules: This spring the Sisters of Battle get a +1 armor save if their miniskirts are red rather than blue) over and over again.

I guess it works on the money side though. People want to pay the cash for it, so enjoy the ride, I guess.

I like the old fluff so that's what I play. GW could obliterate the entire 40k universe tomorrow and the only way it would affect me is by lowering the prices on ebay.

Gen.Steiner
20-02-2017, 08:16
Pretty much what the Commissar said. The main fear I have is that they'll stop making pretty models for 40K, the way they did with Necromunda, and Inquisitor, and Battlefleet Gothic, and Epic, and Mordheim, and the Bretonnians, and... so on. I'm not fussed by the background changes. Haven't been since 4th.

Lord Damocles
20-02-2017, 17:37
What I don't get is why anything has to change at all. Time was, the idea of making a gaming system was to try to sell it to as many players as possible. Now the new thing seems to be forcing a diminishing (yet wealthy) gaming population to keep shelling out the same money for new rules every three years..
This has been GW's business model since forever. It's a little late to be salty about it now ;)

Rogue Star
21-02-2017, 11:01
What I don't get is why anything has to change at all. Time was, the idea of making a gaming system was to try to sell it to as many players as possible. Now the new thing seems to be forcing a diminishing (yet wealthy) gaming population to keep shelling out the same money for new rules every three years.

But GW has always done that. Ever since 2nd edition Warhammer 40,000, it was released (1993) and had a shelf life of about five years, then came 3rd edition (1998) which got various rules in White Dwarf, errata, Codecii where published, then 4th Edition showed up (2004) and then 5th (2008) and then sixth (2012) and finally our current incarnation (2014). Seeing a pattern? Every five to six years tops, a new core boxed set is released, with a new rulebook to pick up, and the cycle of publishing the army books starting again, although they tend to blend into various editions... factor in some armies don't get their new Codex until well into the halfway point of the edition's lifespan (two years after the core game dropped) and you've got quite a bit of rules baggage...

Constantly needing to buy, updated rules has been part and parcel of 40K since the beginning.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-02-2017, 22:55
But GW has always done that.

Not really. If you look at the history of the company, much of its time was spent perfecting and improving its designs rather than starting over. There was a huge improvement in the quality of components from the 80s to the 90s, and that was when it went from being somewhat obscure to the mighty giant we all loathe today. :evilgrin:


Ever since 2nd edition Warhammer 40,000, it was released (1993) and had a shelf life of about five years, then came 3rd edition (1998) which got various rules in White Dwarf, errata, Codecii where published, then 4th Edition showed up (2004) and then 5th (2008) and then sixth (2012) and finally our current incarnation (2014). Seeing a pattern?

Indeed, but it only existed in retrospect. The line between Rogue Trader and 2nd ed. is quite blurry because there wasn't really a "grand relaunch" because 2nd was the first time 40k actually got a box! It was a coming-out party for a work-in-progress that made good.

The game designs were evolving through an iterative process that focused on better play, better components and better graphics. The 2nd ed. rules contained a lot of throwback items (like Thudd guns, Squats, etc.) and if you go through those issue of White Dwarf, you can see the system itself evolving.

The clear goal was to make it better and more inclusive, and enlarge the player base. GW succeeded on both of these counts.

Where things went off the rails was in 1998. The designers knew that the game had outgrown the 1993 rules and initial work was done based the idea of cleaning up and refining the rules - sort of like the Compendium had done years before. Instead, management told them to do something new and do it quick!

This begat the current churn 'n' burn concept. But it wasn't always the way things ran.


Every five to six years tops, a new core boxed set is released, with a new rulebook to pick up, and the cycle of publishing the army books starting again, although they tend to blend into various editions... factor in some armies don't get their new Codex until well into the halfway point of the edition's lifespan (two years after the core game dropped) and you've got quite a bit of rules baggage...

Right, but I think the record shows that was not the case prior to 1998. There were no books back in 1993, just a series of lists. In fact, it's funny to see how GW produced rules for models they didn't yet have! They were still working on fleshing out the core of the game and one of the fun things about the books back then is how they often use Rogue Trader-era photos because the new sculpts weren't finished yet.

The funny thing is that the rules baggage in 1998 was tiny compared to today. There weren't a lot of special rules, but there were very uneven areas, like rolling scatter for individual jump packs, setting models on fire, the very detailed close combat system with parries, etc. The game had gotten beyond squad-on-squad battles and needed to be resized.


Constantly needing to buy, updated rules has been part and parcel of 40K since the beginning.

Only if you began in 1998.

It's also worth pointing out that GW was also cranking out supporting products, appealing to different subsets of gamers. Necromunda was a natural companion to 40k, just the Warhammer Fantasy ranges and board games complimented each other. GW periodically revives these properties, but only as novelties to sell to the nostalgia crowd.

Back then, they were a key element in diversifying and growing the company, creating a product range to appeal to as many players as possible. Heck, they even got into paper-based wargaming!

I have to admit, I thought their cannibalism strategy would fail years ago. Obviously the true believers had more money (and numbers) than I thought.

Buddy Bear
01-03-2017, 08:27
I'm not comfortable with the direction the game is taking. Sure, they won't necessarily squat any armies, but they certainly can destroy the rules and the setting to such a degree that it's almost unrecognizable. I've been dreading the AOSification of 40k for a while, and it appears that it's finally taking place. I even called it a couple years ago and said they'd call it Age of the Emperor, and from the latest rumors, that's exactly what it'll be called...

Rogue Star
01-03-2017, 12:11
I've been dreading the AOSification of 40k for a while,

GW are going to turn 40K into a ranked mass battle game on square bases? :p

Rabbitden
01-03-2017, 12:27
I like the new direction 40K is taking. Sure, there are lots of new rules being piled higher and higher, but i don't feel it necessary to keep up to date with it all. If there is a new rule that you're not aware of then as long as the player can prove (show you in the codex/supplement) then you will know it for next time. I find it works both ways.

The fluff development is also a welcome change. I've been playing since 2nd edition and am pleased to see the background moving forward. I may not read everything that is published and hardly ever buy any supplements but I get the general gist of what's going on and look forward to seeing how it pans out.

I think it's important to remember that it's YOUR game/hobby. If you don't like the direction the rules/fluff are taking don't get bogged down in the detail and just enjoy playing the game how you want to play it.

herjan1987
01-03-2017, 21:40
Yep - my bad - but even so, that makes them dead equal with 15 army books or codexes each. Certainly not the case that WFB had more factions than 40K after 3rd Edition. The only point at which WFB out-factioned 40K was during Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition (1987-1998)

I only say one thing: Chaos Dwarfs!

herjan1987
01-03-2017, 21:46
Not really. In addition to Lizardmen and Skaven you also left out Dogs of War and Chaos Dwarfs. If we dig into it more WFB also had tons of minor factions and lists, for example Gnoblars and Amazons.

Not mention Gnomes, Pigmies, Zoats and Fimir.

Commissar von Toussaint
02-03-2017, 23:41
Not mention Gnomes, Pigmies, Zoats and Fimir.

I think if you wanted to demonstrate the single most telling difference between GW in its 'golden age' and what you have today, it would be that in the old days, the needs of the rules drove production of the figures while today the need to sell the miniatures drives the composition of the rules.

They're never going to be streamlined because they can't be. As soon as there is a definitive rules set and army collection, the company will fold. It is no longer about broadening the hobby and winning people over with a superior system, it is about selling a diminishing pool of players larger and larger armies and then selling them the same books multiple times.

Maybe I should start a poll to gauge the depth of the madness: How many GW rules and army books do you own? That will tell you all you need to know about their direction.

Rogue Star
03-03-2017, 01:29
I think if you wanted to demonstrate the single most telling difference between GW in its 'golden age' and what you have today, it would be that in the old days, the needs of the rules drove production of the figures while today the need to sell the miniatures drives the composition of the rules.

To play Devil's advocate and be fair to GW, third party sellers helped with that change in policy; GW provided the background and rough visual idea of the Tyrannic Mycetic Spores, and several versions were produced by third parties to cover a lack of model, fair enough. But during the whole Chapter House Lawsuit, it turned out (not particularly the spore, but the general idea) unless it had a model, GW couldn't actually protect the idea (something about there being a copyright for a model, and another for art, etc). This is why the Tyranid Tervigon looks nothing like the original artwork of it, and the Tyranid Mycetic Spore became the "Tyrannocyte". It's why now anything that doesn't have a model, doesn't show up.

Horace35
03-03-2017, 11:04
I don't think third party sellers had anything to do with it actually, it was when GW sold it's soul to the bean counters which led to a change in philosophy. This incidentally led to the gradual draining of the good creative people and the lack of love which is apparent in a lot of what has been produced in recent times.

Lord Damocles
03-03-2017, 18:22
This is why the Tyranid Tervigon looks nothing like the original artwork of it
...The Tervigon model looks just like the original artwork of it...

Rogue Star
03-03-2017, 19:22
...The Tervigon model looks just like the original artwork of it...

My bad, confused it with the other build: I meant the Tyrannofex.

Also, exciting stuff, it appears Guilliman will be reinstated as Lord Commander of the Imperium. :cool:

Gen.Steiner
03-03-2017, 22:11
I'm quite interested to see how they write him as confronting the Imperium-as-is compared to the Imperium-as-was. On the one hand, ZOMFG religion, but also, it was Guilliman who authorised the Cult Imperialis in the wake of the Heresy - after all, yes, sure, science and rational thought, but science and rational thought in a galaxy where faith is an actual measurable and quantifiable thing? In a world where literal gods walk, and where daemons and gribbly horrors from another dimension caper and laugh?

I think the Ecclesiarchy and the rigid strictures of the Imperium are completely necessary to survive.

But what Guilliman, the statesman, the king, the civilisation-builder will make of the universe he has come around in... I'm looking forwards to that.

Commissar von Toussaint
03-03-2017, 23:04
To play Devil's advocate and be fair to GW, third party sellers helped with that change in policy; GW provided the background and rough visual idea of the Tyrannic Mycetic Spores, and several versions were produced by third parties to cover a lack of model, fair enough. But during the whole Chapter House Lawsuit, it turned out (not particularly the spore, but the general idea) unless it had a model, GW couldn't actually protect the idea (something about there being a copyright for a model, and another for art, etc). This is why the Tyranid Tervigon looks nothing like the original artwork of it, and the Tyranid Mycetic Spore became the "Tyrannocyte". It's why now anything that doesn't have a model, doesn't show up.

The timeline doesn't hold up.

During the glory years of the 1990s, GW had a huge price advantage over its competitors. One of the reasons there were (and still are) so many threads about this is that they started out as the "affordable alternative" to some of the other manufacturers.

I started collecting their figures precisely because they were so cheap vs other mass combat games (like TSR's Battlesystem). They could only be undercut when they started to jack their prices up and THAT only happened after they embraced the four-year cycle of planned obsolescence.

Lord Damocles
03-03-2017, 23:19
My bad, confused it with the other build: I meant the Tyrannofex.
Of course, if GW had to alter the design of the Tyranofex between it's initial artwork and it's model release because [something something Chapterhouse], they'd have had to do the same with the Tervigon (which Chapterhouse actually made a conversion kit for!)

That GW didn't alter the design of the Tervigon illustrates that there was obviously no need to go altering designs/concepts due to the outcome of the Chapterhouse case.

Rogue Star
04-03-2017, 10:51
I'm quite interested to see how they write him as confronting the Imperium-as-is compared to the Imperium-as-was. On the one hand, ZOMFG religion, but also, it was Guilliman who authorised the Cult Imperialis in the wake of the Heresy - after all, yes, sure, science and rational thought, but science and rational thought in a galaxy where faith is an actual measurable and quantifiable thing? In a world where literal gods walk, and where daemons and gribbly horrors from another dimension caper and laugh?

I think the Ecclesiarchy and the rigid strictures of the Imperium are completely necessary to survive.

But what Guilliman, the statesman, the king, the civilisation-builder will make of the universe he has come around in... I'm looking forwards to that.

Did he authorise it? I can't remember if it was ever specified when he 'died' and when the Imperial Creed became the dominant religion, except both occurring sometime after the Scouring.

I doubt he's going to do too much shaking up, like removing the High Lords, banning the Adeptus Ministorum or such, since right now he'll have quite a bit of work just ensuring the Imperium will survive to see the 42nd millennium...

Cèsar de Quart
05-03-2017, 20:58
In this galaxy, free thinking is really dangerous. Guilliman must realise that. The Primarchs didn't know about Chaos and daemons before the Heresy, but Guilliman knows now.

Bloodknight
06-03-2017, 15:39
During the glory years of the 1990s, GW had a huge price advantage over its competitors.

That must have been very early in the 90s. When I got into the game in 1996, there were about half a dozen manufacturers making alternative (e. g. cheaper and of varying degrees of quality) models for WFB already. Harlequin comes to mind first and foremost. Not sure if Black Tree Design was the same stuff, it's been a while.

As to planned obsolescence: I think that's the smart business move (although the margin on books in the RPG business is actually quite terrible, they're not big money spinners. That's why most RPG publishers are very small businesses). I play several other systems and either they follow a similar pattern of regularly revamping and/or expanding their game or they're still the same garage project they were 30 years ago. Or they're OOP because the company folded. No company can subsist on people using the stuff they bought 15 years ago - that stuff paid 15 years ago's wages.

Folomo
06-03-2017, 23:11
There is a big difference between expanding your army with new releases vs making current armies effectively obsolete to force you to buy the new shiny release.

One of those will have a reliable player base with steady player influx, increasing in time. The other will give big revenue in a short time but slowly burn people out until the company is forced to destroy the game and make something new.

Rogue Star
07-03-2017, 03:31
There is a big difference between expanding your army with new releases vs making current armies effectively obsolete to force you to buy the new shiny release.

Which armies were made obsolete? :wtf:

Gen.Steiner
07-03-2017, 18:28
Which armies were made obsolete? :wtf:

Squats? Kroot Mercenaries. Dogs of War? Also possibly... err... well Bretonnians and Tomb Kings got Squatted but there are (I think) still rules for them kicking about, they just don't have Matched Play/tournament-legal rules AFAIK.

Rogue Star
07-03-2017, 19:49
Squats? Kroot Mercenaries. Dogs of War? Also possibly... err... well Bretonnians and Tomb Kings got Squatted but there are (I think) still rules for them kicking about, they just don't have Matched Play/tournament-legal rules AFAIK.

Squats were quietly dropped between 1993-1994. Kroot Mercenaries haven't been a thing since Chapter Approved articles were dropped (they shared the same White Dwarf they were published in with the 1st Index Astartes: Dark Angels which kicked off that series which led to the Sabertooth card game, Horus Heresy development, novels etc... this is literally years ago) and the Tomb Kings and Bretonnians are unique to WHFB being discontinued.

This made it sound like GW were constantly replacing forces with new ones in a slash and burn style to get purchases! Unless you're a Black Templars player I have zero sympathy, everyone knows you take a risk with WD lists (Where are all those Feral Orks, Cursed Founding, Tyranid Seeder Swarms, etc?) Literally the only army which had a Codex they've discontinued from 40K are the Black Templars (and maybe 13th Company)*, hell they've even brought back several pre-Codex factions like Thousand Sons, Genestealer Cults, Eldar Harlequins and Adeptus Mechanicus! The ratio to removed armies versus new ones added is vast!

*And let's' be perfectly honest, nice as the Black Templars (and 13th Company) are, do we really desperately need another Space Marine faction? We've got Imperial Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, Thousand Sons, The Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Blood Angels Chapters, and specialist Grey Knights and Deathwatch factions, with the latest hints suggesting the Fallen may become their own faction.

Really? We desperately need one more? :eyebrows:

Lars Porsenna
07-03-2017, 20:22
Technically you can still play Black Templars, as all that material has been rolled into the regular SM codex. Granted I was never super familiar with BT before they were rolled into the book, but it doesn't seem like BT players are now sitting on a mountain of obsolete figures they can never use again.

Damon.

Lord Damocles
07-03-2017, 21:06
You can still make approximations of most of the Kroot Merrcenary list* - Carnivore Kindreds, Krootox Herds, Hunter Kindreds, Kroot Hound Packs, Tracker Kindreds, sort of Stalker Kindreds, plus Great Knarlocs.


*Really just missing Shaper Councils and Master Shapers - which were used almost exclusively as Meltagun/Eviscerator delivery systems, which was hardly fluffy...

Charistoph
08-03-2017, 02:55
Technically you can still play Black Templars, as all that material has been rolled into the regular SM codex. Granted I was never super familiar with BT before they were rolled into the book, but it doesn't seem like BT players are now sitting on a mountain of obsolete figures they can never use again.

Damon.

Well, it's not like those of us who are getting out of 40K with Black Templars can easily get rid of them unless they are done full up BT OR they perfectly match what is expected for Blue or Red Space Marines.

Back when 6th Edition started, it would have been far easier to fold in both Angels in to Codex Marines than the Templars. The Templars were closer to Wolves than Codex Marines, and its not like we can take most of our characteristic units with any of the detachments that have come out for Codex Space Marines.

Rogue Star
08-03-2017, 11:11
Well, it's not like those of us who are getting out of 40K with Black Templars can easily get rid of them unless they are done full up BT OR they perfectly match what is expected for Blue or Red Space Marines.

Back when 6th Edition started, it would have been far easier to fold in both Angels in to Codex Marines than the Templars. The Templars were closer to Wolves than Codex Marines, and its not like we can take most of our characteristic units with any of the detachments that have come out for Codex Space Marines.

Can't they match the 'standard' Marines? The inclusion of Crusader Squads seemed to be throwing a bone, could very easily split it into a Tactical squad and a Scout squad, making the Emperor's Champion model either Captain/Company Champion, then just add Helbrecht/Grimaldus like normal Special characters. Most of what made the BT unique were stuff like Oaths and items of wargear which didn't have a dominating miniature presence. Frankly the more I've thought about it, the less enthused I've become over the years with Codexes which cover a particular Chapter/Clan/Warband/Swarm/Sept, etc. I preferred when a particularly noted faction in the background was a blurb of text and a few historic battles, and a provided paint scheme and iconography. The "Scythes of the Emperor" have never had a army list, and have always been fairly popular.

Charistoph
08-03-2017, 16:41
Can't they match the 'standard' Marines? The inclusion of Crusader Squads seemed to be throwing a bone, could very easily split it into a Tactical squad and a Scout squad, making the Emperor's Champion model either Captain/Company Champion, then just add Helbrecht/Grimaldus like normal Special characters. Most of what made the BT unique were stuff like Oaths and items of wargear which didn't have a dominating miniature presence. Frankly the more I've thought about it, the less enthused I've become over the years with Codexes which cover a particular Chapter/Clan/Warband/Swarm/Sept, etc. I preferred when a particularly noted faction in the background was a blurb of text and a few historic battles, and a provided paint scheme and iconography. The "Scythes of the Emperor" have never had a army list, and have always been fairly popular.

The two Bolt Pistol and Chainsword Squads that I have with 2 Power Swords and 1 Flamer each, and have tried to sell since 7th Edition started should answer that first question. I sold the Scout Squads I made to support them, but I couldn't sell the above, even to Space Wolf players.

Oaths were represented in the Emperor's Champion, which cannot be included as a unit in the new Detachments. Helbrecht cannot be taken in any of the codex's detachments. Crusader Squads cannot be taken in any of the codex's detachments, or any of the ones that have been released since. Their makeup and options are unique (how many power armor units can take a Land Raider as a DT?). The Bike Squads used to be the same way as well. It would be a good excuse to bring back the Durandel Dreadnought as well, as they were pictured in their previous codex.

Though, I do agree that if we can merge Black Templars in to one codex, we can do it with all the rest (Space Wolves being the biggest challenge). However, the cold shoulder that Black Templars have received from the devs in regards to these changes does not help. I think they are just trying to Bretonnian the Templars.

Rogue Star
09-03-2017, 18:23
So... between leaks of the upcoming 3rd part of the Gathering Storm trilogy and rumors by Hastings over on War-of-Sigmar... it seems after being reinstated as Lord-Commander of the Imperium, Roboute Guilliman will travel to Mars with Belisarius Cawl, who will extract genetic material to produce fresh gene-seed after nearly ten thousand to produce new, superior astartes (I imagine enhanced selection process, modified screen, etc) armed and armoured by the craft of the Archmagos Dominus. These Marines-point-two will spearhead the second Crusade promised at the end of Rise of a Primarch.

Cèsar de Quart
09-03-2017, 19:41
The two Bolt Pistol and Chainsword Squads that I have with 2 Power Swords and 1 Flamer each, and have tried to sell since 7th Edition started should answer that first question. I sold the Scout Squads I made to support them, but I couldn't sell the above, even to Space Wolf players.

Oaths were represented in the Emperor's Champion, which cannot be included as a unit in the new Detachments. Helbrecht cannot be taken in any of the codex's detachments. Crusader Squads cannot be taken in any of the codex's detachments, or any of the ones that have been released since. Their makeup and options are unique (how many power armor units can take a Land Raider as a DT?). The Bike Squads used to be the same way as well. It would be a good excuse to bring back the Durandel Dreadnought as well, as they were pictured in their previous codex.

Though, I do agree that if we can merge Black Templars in to one codex, we can do it with all the rest (Space Wolves being the biggest challenge). However, the cold shoulder that Black Templars have received from the devs in regards to these changes does not help. I think they are just trying to Bretonnian the Templars.

But the Templars have been very popular since before their release with a standalone codex. I find it puzzling. I think they still sell the conversion kits for them, even.

toonboy78
09-03-2017, 21:53
But the Templars have been very popular since before their release with a standalone codex. I find it puzzling. I think they still sell the conversion kits for them, even.

maybe they have plans for them in the next set of books.

Lars Porsenna
10-03-2017, 14:28
But the Templars have been very popular since before their release with a standalone codex. I find it puzzling. I think they still sell the conversion kits for them, even.

Just happen to be tooling around the GW site today, and yes they still sell the upgrade set. I used to play Salamanders, back when they had their own mini list from the Armageddon book. That list was "offically" obsoleted. But the codicies that came after did a passable job at least in representing my chosen force, even if I couldn't have mixed Terminator squads (IIRC).

Damon.

Gen.Steiner
10-03-2017, 17:54
I imagine the Black Templars will get a role in Guilliman's new Crusade. It's right up their street...!

Vazalaar
10-03-2017, 20:52
I imagine the Black Templars will get a role in Guilliman's new Crusade. It's right up their street...!

It seems that Guilliman will take new uber marines with him on his new crusade...

From Hastings: (The quotes come from here (https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/1777).)


I wouldn't be expecting too much in the way of releases for existing chapters from this point going forwards, not that there won't be 'some', expect the focus to shift onto GW pumping out RGs new armies and weapons of destruction for the upcoming storylines/advances/crusade mk2 ;) (who knows there might even be a new starter box on the not too far horizon ;) )
Without trying to sound like a dick I've known for almost 9 months where this story was going and who revived RG etc. if the rest of what I was told is true (new marines, Mortarion and his plague armies etc.) then there are truly some very exciting times coming for 40k players/hobbyists!


I'm not suggesting anything gets squatted. I said clearly focus will be on new marines rather than existing chapters, but existing chapters will still get releases.
I don't get it, people are happy they're moving the story/timeline on but don't want anything to change, they want just their chapter to get new toys yet complain SM have too much, 40k players should think themselves lucky that they didn't get the same treatment that WFB fans did with the destruction of the setting and large parts of models/armies. What's the point of the hobby for Bret or tomb kings players?
I see new marines as a chance to have the best of both worlds, SM originals don't get endless variants and units but are still in the fight, new marines are like a new army to build up from scratch pretty much, I'm sure they'd happily ally so don't really see what the problem is


The answer to that is simply I don't know. I was told they new marines are different to current marines, I imagine (at least fluff wise) they SHOULD be their own army, however that's not to say they wont also be added to existing chapters as a choice somehow, in fact from a sales point of view it would probably be better to offer them to existing marine players as something new they can buy. I really doubt the iconic space marine kit will be retired so I wouldn't worry too much about them becoming outdated. I guess fluffwise it would be no different than older armour classes still being around in 40k, sure the new marines would be out there, but a lot of existing marines are still out there too.
As the setting is still going strong I can only really liken it to this..... imagine the old world was NOT destrroyed, and that Sigmar disappeared did the whole AoS thing, then reappeared with his host of Sigmarines to save the day at the final hour, in the aftermath I would imagine any future wars the Sigmarines would feature in Empire armies. I imagine this should work out similar, with forces of the new crusade joining up with existing chapters.......... however as it seems like a large amount of comms have been lost now in 40k it would be interesting to see what existing marines would make of the arrival of these new forces of the Imperium...


Yep perfect sense. However I do think a lot of the balance issues are probably a result of just too many armies/codices that have previously taken too long to update in the cycle. For example a lot of SM chapters are their own distinct armies with access to unique units and war machines/weapons, I get from a fluff perspective that they are different but I think GW made a rod for their own backs with the old update codex cycle and adding a couple of more units every time. The studio resources are finite as is time and to expect every army to be updated in a timely manner under the old codex format was unrealistic.
I did post a while back on warseer that I was told codices would change from new ed going forward, change how I am not sure, but I imagine something similar to the way AoS deals with armies/army books where you can still buy printed media but you can also access up to date lists etc digitally, at least that's my best bet for the future of codex releases. Whether or not it would work for 40k with the sheer number of different armies is another thing entirely although you have to assume it would speed up the current rate at which armies get updates. I guess we will see. I should point out I do not play 40k so the current codex thing might have changed already from what I described :)


Imperial
*EDIT, there will of course be new Chaos Marines models, but I am referring to a totally new kind of Marine, those created on Mars by Cawl & RG along with the other new machineries of war.
See one of my original posts here....
https://disqus.com/home/dis... (https://disqus.com/home/discussion/warofsigmar/war_of_sigmar_rumors_and_rules_for_age_of_sigmar_0 226/#comment-2879882474)


New marines will make old marines seem like empire now seem to sigmarines ...... if that makes sense? :)


Not only the armour will change ;)

Gen.Steiner
11-03-2017, 12:42
Huh. Marines mk 2 eh? Well, mk 3 I suppose given the Thunder Warriors...

Commissar von Toussaint
11-03-2017, 17:14
Squats were quietly dropped between 1993-1994. Kroot Mercenaries haven't been a thing since Chapter Approved articles were dropped (they shared the same White Dwarf they were published in with the 1st Index Astartes: Dark Angels which kicked off that series which led to the Sabertooth card game, Horus Heresy development, novels etc... this is literally years ago) and the Tomb Kings and Bretonnians are unique to WHFB being discontinued.

You left out the changes to the rules mechanics that render certain units and models obsolete.

For example, in 3rd ed. 40k, sponson weapons on vehicles were of very limited value. If you fired the main gun you couldn't move or shoot using sponson weapons, but you still had to pay for them, so the new hotness was taking the things off. They also came out with variant versions of the various vehicles to try to compensate for the rules that limited shooting while moving.

Then the rules changed again, and now sponsons were cool again.

I admit I've lost track of which version they are on with these things, but I believe it was in 7th ed Fantasy that they decided that in order to get a rank bonus, units had to be five models wide rather than just four. Instant sales growth that had nothing to with improving game play.

I happen to have a quantity of skinks with bows. The destruction of Fantasy has made them even more useless, but GW's key innovation of dumping one of the most common unit types in 5th edition was no accident. They came in the old boxed set and were easy to come by on the resale circuit, so they had to be dropped from the main rules. I couldn't give them away on ebay.

I could go on, and I'm sure a bunch of players have their own pet examples of units that were cool in one edition that got junked and/or required new models for the next version.

At no point will GW ever produce a "definitive version" of the game. People used to think that was what they were trying to do, but now it's painfully obvious.

The upshot is that people who might be willing to stay with or return to the hobby have no reason to do so because no matter what the rules are now, they'll be changing in a couple of years anyway.

So if you like the new direction good for you! Just don't comfortable because within three to five years it will all go away.

Lord Damocles
11-03-2017, 19:14
I happen to have a quantity of skinks with bows. The destruction of Fantasy has made them even more useless, but GW's key innovation of dumping one of the most common unit types in 5th edition was no accident. They came in the old boxed set and were easy to come by on the resale circuit, so they had to be dropped from the main rules.
Yet they didn't drop Saurus Warriors, Bretonnian bowmen, or Knights of the Realm...

So clearly Skinks with bows weren't just dropped in favour of Skinks with blowpipes because they were commonly available.
Didn't the Lizardmen army book even include legacy rules for bow Skinks after the change to blowpipes? (EDIT: Yes. Warhammer: Lizardmen (6th ed.), pg.75).

Rogue Star
12-03-2017, 13:22
You left out the changes to the rules mechanics that render certain units and models obsolete.

For example, in 3rd ed. 40k, sponson weapons on vehicles were of very limited value. If you fired the main gun you couldn't move or shoot using sponson weapons, but you still had to pay for them, so the new hotness was taking the things off. They also came out with variant versions of the various vehicles to try to compensate for the rules that limited shooting while moving.

Then the rules changed again, and now sponsons were cool again.

Mostly left out because as per your example, unit options change in effectiveness and availability based on rules and miniatures. One moment you've got Chapter Tactics that let you give Tactical Squads Chainswords and Bolt Pistols, then next it's gone. I myself have a Hive Tyrant sitting on the shelf, without wings, which in the current Tyranid rules iteration, renders him pretty worthless tactically, but he can still be played.

This has always and will likely always tend to be a problem of GW rules-writing. Do you give miniatures rules and options that require them to steal bits from other kits (A Tactical with a Multi-Melta for example), or stick closely to what's available in the tactical Squad box/sprues, even if it limits their battlefield effectiveness and thus, sales?

I find provided you stick to what's in the set you've bought, it's very unlikely to be removed as an option during rules changes (even though effectiveness will vary).

TL;DR - you should assemble your models based on what you think looks 'cool' in their kit, because whatever you arm them with could be rendered 'unviable' with each core rules iteration, edition and codex. But something that visually appeals to you won't change (you just might not win as many games).

Lady Bastet
12-03-2017, 15:34
My preference would have been the Imperum finally breaking down into smaller empires.

It seems like every time a Chapter gets a Codex its even more divergent with more technology that it's refusing to share with the wider Imperium, which makes sense from a marketing point of view - it would unrealistic to expect Space Marine Chapters differentiated by colour and a few character models to keep making money.

So to me it seemed like the logical jump would have been to repackage the Chapters with their post-Imperium allies and vassals as new army lists, so for example the Iron Hands could get their own Codex by sharing it with elements of the former Adeptus Mechanicus. The Ultramarines could gain access to the Ultramar Auxilia and really play up the "defenders of humanity" angle. Not sure who the Blood Angels and Space Wolves could team up with besides having some tabletop representation of their homeworlds natives.

javgoro
13-03-2017, 10:36
Well, reading what Hastings has mentioned really convinced me to finally drop 40K for good (I had mostly done it anyway). Marines were already special enough. Ultra-super-duper-greater-marines is probably the worst thing that could happen to the setting, IMO (and for the record, I prefer to have a split AoS with its Sigmarines, instead of the possibility that they appeared in the Old World).

m1acca1551
13-03-2017, 13:46
In all seriousness this has given me great cause for concern, having only just started to dabble in 40k after a 3-4 hiatus from GW products this news will stop me from spending a cent until more has been revealed

The_Real_Chris
14-03-2017, 15:49
Maybe they will be a marine inside armour, inside armour, inside armour to go one up on the awful centurions?

javgoro
15-03-2017, 12:31
Maybe they will be a marine inside armour, inside armour, inside armour to go one up on the awful centurions?

That kind of idea (a new type of armor with a normal marine inside) is something I'd be ok with; sadly, that doesn't sound at all like what Hastings is saying.

Commissar von Toussaint
16-03-2017, 02:59
Yet they didn't drop Saurus Warriors, Bretonnian bowmen, or Knights of the Realm...

Actually, I think they did. They wiped out the whole fantasy world.


So clearly Skinks with bows weren't just dropped in favour of Skinks with blowpipes because they were commonly available.
Didn't the Lizardmen army book even include legacy rules for bow Skinks after the change to blowpipes? (EDIT: Yes. Warhammer: Lizardmen (6th ed.), pg.75).

On what basis do you make that assertion? Why do you think it's "clear" that they didn't do that? At what point has GW ever chosen player preference and existing armies over the opportunity to sell more models? :eyebrows:

The 6th ed. books were in many ways a "soft landing" from the excesses of Herohammer. Then came 7th. Did that also include "legacy rules?"

I don't know because that was when I exited the GW Hobby. I gave up on 40k during 3rd's transition into 4th (when the cool kids went from painting their marines red to painting them black and white) but I really did like 6th. The switch to 7th was just too much. Couldn't afford all the new books and the obligatory changes to various units.

I know the archives may still be a bit jumbled, but if I had more time, I'd love to go and pull out some of the "This unit is so totally nerfed!!!" threads that popped up with each edition. It's a hardy perennial around here, like dandelions.

Lord Damocles
16-03-2017, 09:46
Actually, I think they did. They wiped out the whole fantasy world.
12 years later!

That looks like an incredibly disingenuous claim.



On what basis do you make that assertion? Why do you think it's "clear" that they didn't do that?
For just the reason(s) I outlined in my last post - you claim that bow skinks were removed because they were commonly available models, but the saurus, bowmen, and knights from the 5th edition box set were just as commonly available, and not only were none of them removed alongside the skinks, but one of them is still valid today (with the Bretonnian units maintaining legacy rules).
Plus, the skinks had legacy rules for at least six years until the 7th ed. army book (and I think White Dwarf rules after that) which just doesn't make sense if GW are twirling their moustaches and deliberately aiming to make them obsolete.

Abaraxas
16-03-2017, 13:39
What I don't get is why anything has to change at all. Time was, the idea of making a gaming system was to try to sell it to as many players as possible. Now the new thing seems to be forcing a diminishing (yet wealthy) gaming population to keep shelling out the same money for new rules every three years.

When that fails, nuke the game and make another one for them to collect.

I admit it: I'm getting old and set in my ways, and I just don't see the point of buying the fifth version of the same army list (though it has a new sub-sub-subsection for optional rules: This spring the Sisters of Battle get a +1 armor save if their miniskirts are red rather than blue) over and over again.

I guess it works on the money side though. People want to pay the cash for it, so enjoy the ride, I guess.

I like the old fluff so that's what I play. GW could obliterate the entire 40k universe tomorrow and the only way it would affect me is by lowering the prices on ebay.

This right here.

Good luck to everyone that enjoys buying the latest updated book or mini though...to each his own.

herjan1987
16-03-2017, 17:28
Anyone that is telling himself, that 40k is not changing is lying to himself.

Do you people remember that Financial report when they said that they learned invaluabeable knowlegde, when they changed Fantasy to AoS? They are executing that knowlegde to 40k right now.

I wouldnt be suprised, if they nuke the Imperium into smaller factions with 8th edition. You can already see that they are buttload of new factions already. Even the Fallan Angels have a subfaction with no disctinct models at all and with a total model count of 6.

Rogue Star
16-03-2017, 21:07
Anyone that is telling himself, that 40k is not changing is lying to himself.

No one is saying it isn't changing... just that change isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Commissar von Toussaint
16-03-2017, 23:34
12 years later!

That looks like an incredibly disingenuous claim.

Hardly. They killed the whole game. All of it. Thanks for playing and buying vast armies!


For just the reason(s) I outlined in my last post - you claim that bow skinks were removed because they were commonly available models, but the saurus, bowmen, and knights from the 5th edition box set were just as commonly available, and not only were none of them removed alongside the skinks, but one of them is still valid today (with the Bretonnian units maintaining legacy rules).

Plus, the skinks had legacy rules for at least six years until the 7th ed. army book (and I think White Dwarf rules after that) which just doesn't make sense if GW are twirling their moustaches and deliberately aiming to make them obsolete.

The massive lag on books was also part of their plan, though. The Army of the Month always got the cool toys because that would drive sales.

I have to admit that I played neither Bretonnians nor Lizardmen back in the day. Empire was my army and in the transition from 5th to 6th, the Reiksguard foot went away, the greatswords went from no armor to full plate and so on. I think the Imperial ogres, dwarves and haflings went away as well.

This churn was always a feature of the new edition and people would get into blistering arguments on this very forum about who got scrooed more.

For a long time, people tried to explain it away by arguing that GW was just really, really bad at making rules. A quarter century of playing and development and they still couldn't sort out the core mechanics. :wtf:

Alternatively, they didn't care and used the rules to push model sales. Coming up with new units and models spurred sales and also undercut the growing threat of the resale market from people like me who got tired with buying hundreds of dollars of books every few years just to play a game that was still unbalanced but in a different way. :eyebrows:

Right now, the background is arguably the only thing supporting 40k. GW gets a lot of money from licensing. Why they would get rid of that, I don't know.

Then again, I haven't agreed with anything they did in almost 20 years, so I'm the wrong person to ask. :p

Lord Damocles
18-03-2017, 11:26
If you're looking for a deliberate/planned-obsolescence conspiracy theory, the Adeptus Custodes and Sisters of Silence appear to have been split into separate units based on their weapons in the upcoming codexes (like their Horus Heresy rules) - while the free rules released only a couple of months ago allowed for mixed weapons in units.
Presumably GW would have known that the codex profiles wouldn't allow mixed weapon loadouts when they released the rules accompanying Burning of Prospero...

Sureshot05
21-03-2017, 13:41
Clearly GW are going through a major evolution at the moment. They have had declining sales for years and now wish to reverse that trend. It cannot be by continuing with the old method, and rules balancing requires more resources than they are willing to devote.
AoS is a sign of the new GW and its thinking. It is trying to be innovative. Ignore the IP discussion for a second and look at the new AoS ranges. They are vastly different from the past, and a chance for GW to go back to the early days where they announced new armies every couple of months. 40k for the last two years has been the same, with "new" factions appearing left, right and center which I think is partially GW reacting to the success of the Mechanicus release. Do I think that GW might be about to make a bigger problem with regular abandonment (or relegation) of armies to the background, yes. But clearly this strategy appears to be more favourable than the continuous update methodology of the past. I'll be curious to see what happens. I think that it could lead to a lot of vets slowly disappearing, but given GW's churn and burn strategy, I suspect this new system will suit them a lot better. It may not be what 40k needs, but it could well be the saving thing for GW.

Rogue Star
21-03-2017, 15:07
I don't think GW really have a churn and burn strategy, at least concerning models. Most of the older stuff left out was from the shift from metal/finecast to plastic, which if you're going to need to resculpt something, might as well update it or look at how to improve it. If they do have something like "churn and burn" it's purely in the Codex department. GW seem to be quite happy to create dozens of sub-lists based on only a handful of models, which are unlikely to get updated and carried through into a newer edition, such as the Militarum Tempestus, splitting the Adeptus Mechanicus into "Cult Mechanicus" and "Skitarii", or the Deathwatch (or Grey Knights for that matter).

Most of the above could be quite neatly subsumed into other lists, like throwing Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus and Imperial Knights into an "Adeptus Mechanicus" codex. Likewise, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Talons of the Emperor (SoS and Custodes), Imperial Assassins could all be neatly placed in an "Imperial Agents" style Codex, intended to allow you to attach them to other Imperial lists.

Buddy Bear
21-03-2017, 20:39
AoS is a sign of the new GW and its thinking.

I'd say it's the ultimate example of Old GW and it's thinking. Old GW has no respect for the fans or the setting, happily flushing peoples armies away without a care, doesn't care about the game rules because they believe that people buy their models just to buy them and not because they want to play a game with them, and puts absurd prices on their models expecting people to pay them. That's AOS's release in a nutshell, and it represents everything that was worst about GW, whereas New GW is trying its best to save AOS from its own failings. New GW brought back Specialist Games and Blood Bowl (If Old GW had brought back Blood Bowl, I bet you it would've been Sigmarines and Bloodbound teams, rather than Old World teams), is bringing back Necromunda and Adeptus Titanicus, is communicating with the fans, is concerned with tournaments, etc. New GW would've NEVER flushed the Old World down the toilet, made a ruleset as awful as what AOS came out with, or seriously thought that charging $10 for a basic infantryman for a new army was a reasonable thing to do.

Bergioyn
22-03-2017, 15:18
Not mention Gnomes, Pigmies, Zoats and Fimir.

Indeed. Nippon too.

Rogue Star
23-03-2017, 08:16
229405

Breaking news... next edition of 40K will be played on square bases! I personally think it's genius from GW! Think about it, now squares can rank up, allowing Ork mobs to get bonuses for the depth of ranks, etc. :D

herjan1987
23-03-2017, 17:56
229405

Breaking news... next edition of 40K will be played on square bases! I personally think it's genius from GW! Think about it, now squares can rank up, allowing Ork mobs to get bonuses for the depth of ranks, etc. :D

Honestly those marines dont look bad on square bases. I might even buy some guard models and put them squares.

The Black Shield
23-03-2017, 19:20
All right I'm already ahead of the times. I've still got a couple of Marines on square bases that I keep forgetting to put on round bases when I have some.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

barrangas
30-03-2017, 15:22
How are the Thousand Sons a new faction? As a Chaos player I had fielded K Son army lists in the past. Is it because they have their own codex when they could have been represented in most previous Chaos codexes?

While I haven't played in a few years the new direction does bother me for the potential to go horribly wrong. For instance the numarines would be a mistake if the rumors are true. If it turns out that Guill is throwing out his book so regular marines can field new options and units with an out in fluff for it, that'd be okay as long as other armies get the same. I don't mind the new faction detachments in theory but a lot of it seems of the mark to me. I'd rather see Ad Mech as a full blown army and Custodes and SoS seem like they are SM and SoB 2.0. There is also the problem of imperial bloat, as most of what is being released has ties to the imperium. More should be done with the xenos IMO, and not just with the Eldar. I would like to see at least another full xenos army as well as species factions as mercenaries.

Geep
31-03-2017, 04:22
I'd say it's [AoS is] the ultimate example of Old GW and it's thinking.
Obviously it depends on how long you've been around as to what is 'old GW' vs 'new GW'.
Personally, I don't think the latest management group has been in long enough for us to really judge them. These upcoming 40k changes will probably be the major thing we can point to as being done by them- and from the looks of it it's a mix of AoSing 40k, combined with player feedback.

I don't think I'm going to be a fan- My thoughts on AoS are not to be shared among polite company, and player feedback has all sorts of issues (loud minorities and other problems). Maybe they can pull a good game out of it- they have the advantage of a pretty low bar to jump right now, as far as making an improvement.

At it's core though, GW is still mostly the same people who made AoS. The leadership may have changed, but the talent (or lack thereof) hasn't. Hopefully they've learnt a lot, and can drastically improve- clearly they understand 'don't fix what wasn't broken' as far as the Blood Bowl re-release went, which is a positive sign.

williamsond
31-03-2017, 09:43
I remember when marines came on hexagonal bases...

Sureshot05
03-04-2017, 11:43
How are the Thousand Sons a new faction? As a Chaos player I had fielded K Son army lists in the past. Is it because they have their own codex when they could have been represented in most previous Chaos codexes?

Exactly. They are now an entire faction, similar to blood angels etc with specialist units. They can be taken as part of "The Forces of Chaos" similar to the "Forces of the Imperium" for blood angels but they are complete faction rather than one specialist unit (I know termi's have long been hinted at, but we have had to wait for their release).


I'd say it's the ultimate example of Old GW and it's thinking. Old GW has no respect for the fans or the setting, happily flushing peoples armies away without a care, doesn't care about the game rules because they believe that people buy their models just to buy them and not because they want to play a game with them, and puts absurd prices on their models expecting people to pay them. That's AOS's release in a nutshell, and it represents everything that was worst about GW, whereas New GW is trying its best to save AOS from its own failings.

I am not sure I can agree. Whilst the initial AoS release was definitely old Gw in style (and crashed because of it) the recovery, multiple small releases and style of subsequent releases has mirrored the small subfaction approach taken to 40k as well. The rules are more of a reaction to the bloody nose they got on the issue. I don't believe as of yet that GW has truly turned the curve in turns of community interaction, I just believe they are better at making the community think they care about their interaction.


Obviously it depends on how long you've been around as to what is 'old GW' vs 'new GW'.
Personally, I don't think the latest management group has been in long enough for us to really judge them. These upcoming 40k changes will probably be the major thing we can point to as being done by them- and from the looks of it it's a mix of AoSing 40k, combined with player feedback.


This is my number one cause for concern with the new edition going forwards. GW have learned a lot about hype, advertising and appealing to the market in the last couple of years and its paid dividends. The FAQs were an excellent moment of outreach to the community.
However, how much community input into the new rules is GW really doing vs. saying they are taking input? I've not seen them really address the need to update codices (due to the new edition coming) nor have I seen them ask for opinions on what should be in the new rules. Similarly, the generals handbook in AoS is not a well balanced product. Its is a significant improvement compared to what came before, but it is still not a balanced affair. If General's handbook 2017 turns out to be much more balanced based on community feedback then I think GW have turned the corner, but if it stays as is... Similarly, GW rereleasing adeptus titanicus at a different scale and era from the original epic shows a lack of understanding of the community (as does the sell out of Shadowwar release). These are signs that the communication is not good.

I remain cautiously optimistic that GW are making massive improvements and is continuing to learn. I worry that it is a veneer that is misleading us all, and think the new rules for 40k and release schedule will show how much they have truly learned and adapted.

barrangas
03-04-2017, 15:42
Exactly. They are now an entire faction, similar to blood angels etc with specialist units. They can be taken as part of "The Forces of Chaos" similar to the "Forces of the Imperium" for blood angels but they are complete faction rather than one specialist unit (I know termi's have long been hinted at, but we have had to wait for their release).

No, you could make full K Sons armies before, with terms. Don't get me wrong, I like that they're expanding the model range for Chaos. Still, Blood Angels wouldn't stop being a faction if GW decided to make them part of the basic SM book as they did in the past and the White Scars wouldn't be new if given their own codex. Calling K Sons a new faction is giving GW way to much credit in my mind for something that is not anything new. As you were saying it's just an illusion GW is trying to sell to make GW seem like they care about their player base when all they're really doing is creating more fiddly rules to drum up sales. A new faction of Chaos to me would be adding Malal or even the horned rat to the mix.

Sureshot05
04-04-2017, 18:41
No, you could make full K Sons armies before, with terms. Don't get me wrong, I like that they're expanding the model range for Chaos. Still, Blood Angels wouldn't stop being a faction if GW decided to make them part of the basic SM book as they did in the past and the White Scars wouldn't be new if given their own codex. Calling K Sons a new faction is giving GW way to much credit in my mind for something that is not anything new. As you were saying it's just an illusion GW is trying to sell to make GW seem like they care about their player base when all they're really doing is creating more fiddly rules to drum up sales. A new faction of Chaos to me would be adding Malal or even the horned rat to the mix.

As a Thousand son player (and have been since 2nd Ed) I would say they are a new faction gameplaywise, modelwise and ruleswise. Only background have they remained a constant. But by that definition so have the Mechanicum. They've existed since 2nd Ed (tech priests) and have been in the background just as long, but are clearly a new faction on the tabletop with a distinct style and new miniatures and expanded range. But its all a matter of the eye of the beholder really. I suspect that 8th Ed will bring genuinely new factions by the sounds. My chief concern is what will happen with the old ranges. Will they get faded similar to AoS and Warhammer armies (Empire to Freeguild) or we will see some new units? Certainly promises to be an exciting year for 40k.

barrangas
04-04-2017, 21:00
As a Thousand son player (and have been since 2nd Ed) I would say they are a new faction gameplaywise, modelwise and ruleswise. Only background have they remained a constant. But by that definition so have the Mechanicum. They've existed since 2nd Ed (tech priests) and have been in the background just as long, but are clearly a new faction on the tabletop with a distinct style and new miniatures and expanded range. But its all a matter of the eye of the beholder really. I suspect that 8th Ed will bring genuinely new factions by the sounds. My chief concern is what will happen with the old ranges. Will they get faded similar to AoS and Warhammer armies (Empire to Freeguild) or we will see some new units? Certainly promises to be an exciting year for 40k.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Models wise I've seen some very nice conversations that turned regular CSM models into K Sons. The only thing you didn't have with the new models are Magnus and the bird daemons/Xenos. K Sons are still just as different from CSM as Blood Angels are from regular SM. They just have a new book. As for AdMech, iirc, they were in one of the secondary journals for an actual list and mainly had models that were part of the IG. It's kind of like me claiming Kroot Mercs as an actual full army (which I hope do come back as a faction no matter how much they might change from the original list). To me, you could apply this kind of logic to the DE when their updated codex was finally released with redesigned and new models and changes to rules.

melonmelon
12-04-2017, 06:19
Some info of 8th edition, ws & bs gone; s, t, i, stay; you can shoot pistol in combat.

The_Real_Chris
12-04-2017, 09:34
So people instead get a 'to hit' with their WS and BS by any chance?

Bergioyn
13-04-2017, 05:31
Some info of 8th edition, ws & bs gone; s, t, i, stay; you can shoot pistol in combat.
How reliable is this info? Would suck enormously if this was the case.

Lars Porsenna
13-04-2017, 17:29
BS going away is not a big deal. I assume it would be a "3+ to hit" type mechanic now. Which is no change from how it works as it is now essentially, except you don't have to refer to a chart...

The change in WS will likely make HtH combat a bit more brutal I think, since your guardsmen with bayonets are no longer struggling to hit on a 5+ against Space marines, but those Space Marines are going to be a little more dangerous to special characters & the like if they're always hitting on a 3+ (depending on how they work these stats...we'll see). I think looking at AoS & how it handles it will be educational...

Damon.

Runesight
13-04-2017, 20:30
I think hth and base to base contact is so past thinking. Think about being armed with pistols in hth counts as a hth weapon. But unless you are in base to base you cannot fight (not sure if all the versions are limited by this) Yet you are able to use a pistol if you touch your opponent?????

I mean if you are within 1" 2" 4" or whatever you should be considered in hth and basing an opponent seems unnecessary game component.

In 2nd ed. If you charged an opponent but did not make it in base you got ZERO shots from 1" AWAY, OR You could shoot an opponent 1 time if you had a pistol 1" away but if you CHARGED and rolled well, you could get off half a dozen shots if you were touching your opponent. lame

wes

theJ
14-04-2017, 05:35
BS going away is not a big deal. I assume it would be a "3+ to hit" type mechanic now. Which is no change from how it works as it is now essentially, except you don't have to refer to a chart...


..
You look at a chart for BS?
..
wow

Lars Porsenna
14-04-2017, 16:06
..
You look at a chart for BS?
..
wow

Not really, but the point is that the chart is redundant.

Damon.

melonmelon
18-04-2017, 05:24
How reliable is this info?

By a ex-retailer, his info is accurate in the past.

Late
19-04-2017, 14:20
I remember when marines came on hexagonal bases...

Same ;D

Ten characters.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-04-2017, 01:48
Same ;D

Ten characters.

Is that supposed to be some sort of Soumi Zen? :)

melonmelon
22-04-2017, 14:35
8th edition starter box is Death Guard vs Space Marine, and the nurgle cultist in the preview clip is exclusive to starter set.

Lord Damocles
22-04-2017, 19:50
At the risk of being a Negative Nancy, from the New Edition FAQ (https://warhammer40000.gw-hub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/04/New-Edition-of-40K-FAQ.pdf):

'Why should I trust you?
Come on! This is New Games Workshop™'

I appreciate that they're joking (somewhat), but 'New Games Workshop' hasn't exactly proven themselves to be entirely trustworthy, on even incredibly basic points such as White Dwarf content...

At Adepticon (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/warhammer-40000-news-from-adepticon/), they were talking about 'rules concepts', but if 8th edition is releasing this year (presumably November at the latest, probably summer), with a lead time of several months, they're either cutting rules development pretty fine (which doesn't inspire confidence), or telling porkies somewhere (which doesn't inspire confidence).

blindingdark
25-04-2017, 20:25
I can never decide which wounds me more. When they change long established and properly working rules for no apparent reason, or when they discard or dramatically alter the fluff that makes those rules interesting to play with at all. AOS broke my heart. That they appear to be doing something similar with 40k is really sad. I hope more of what makes 40k great is preserved than what happened with Fantasy.

Spell_of_Destruction
26-04-2017, 07:06
I can never decide which wounds me more. When they change long established and properly working rules for no apparent reason, or when they discard or dramatically alter the fluff that makes those rules interesting to play with at all. AOS broke my heart. That they appear to be doing something similar with 40k is really sad. I hope more of what makes 40k great is preserved than what happened with Fantasy.

I was sad to see WHFB disappear as well and in many ways it was a superior ruleset to 40k (although I was more of a 6th/7th ed fan than an 8th ed fan) but ultimately it wasn't sufficiently popular to support the range of models and factions available.

40k is the goose that lays the golden eggs so I don't expect anything quite as drastic this time. Furthermore GW appear to have learned from some of the mistakes made during the roll out of AoS.

I think it's a stretch to call 7th's archaic and clunky ruleset (which is essentially still 3.5 ed...a system that is now almost 20 years old) 'properly working'. While I'm still anxious that certain elements might become overly simplified, I'm mostly encouraged by the changes that have been revealed so far.

insectum7
26-04-2017, 18:29
@CVToussant: They've released some info about weapons and their modifiers, I'm wondering what your reaction is to them, particularly seeing as how the Lascannon has only a -3? This reminds me of our extended debate over AP vs armor mods, and in particular your idea involving modifiers where the max was -4 (if I recall).

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/26/warhammer-40000-weapons/

I'm looking forward to seeing everything in proper context with rules and units, etc.

Commissar von Toussaint
26-04-2017, 22:23
@CVToussant: They've released some info about weapons and their modifiers, I'm wondering what your reaction is to them, particularly seeing as how the Lascannon has only a -3? This reminds me of our extended debate over AP vs armor mods, and in particular your idea involving modifiers where the max was -4 (if I recall).

Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of the page. :)

At first glance, I'm quite intrigued. Since they're also using AP for vehicles, capping it at -3 makes sense. That allows the profile to give effectively a 5+ or a 6+ "invulnerable" save to various tanks and critters.

I looked at their link for unit profiles and noted that the dreadnaught has a 3+ save, which leave design space for Demolishers and Land Raiders to go down to 2+.

I think this will make it easier to balance armies and monsters in terms of point values, so I approve. :D



I'm looking forward to seeing everything in proper context with rules and units, etc.

It appears to be "2nd ed. lite" which is not a bad thing. I'm still a huge fan of 2nd for what it does, but I would consider actually getting current if they build a decent, balanced system. So far, it looks like they are making the kinds of changes people have been agitating for. In fact, I surfed around the site and noticed they are making overt appeals to win back disaffected players (like me).

Now all they have to do is cut prices - but that's the topic for another thread. :p

raginggaijin
27-04-2017, 19:31
Is that supposed to be some sort of Soumi Zen? :)

Shaka, when the walls fell. :D

Late
28-04-2017, 10:20
Is that supposed to be some sort of Soumi Zen? :)

The forum soft claimed that the post must be at least ten characters long.

blindingdark
28-04-2017, 21:33
I think it's a stretch to call 7th's archaic and clunky ruleset (which is essentially still 3.5 ed...a system that is now almost 20 years old) 'properly working'. While I'm still anxious that certain elements might become overly simplified, I'm mostly encouraged by the changes that have been revealed so far.

I didn't mean to say any particular set of rules were properly working in all aspects. That has never happened. My comment was more in regards to singular rules that have worked well, and changed for poor or whimsical reasoning. I started playing both in the 90's, so the games have changed much in that time. The change from second to third edition is a good one to pick at, as so much of what was changed seemingly did not need to be at all, and perhaps we are to see some of those things find their way back into the game. Movement values obviously being a huge one. I was a child but even back then it made no sense to remove them. Why do all units of a certain type now move at the same speed, or need special rules to set them apart? There was a perfectly good statistic in place on profiles that already existed.

I could throw out some others but I just wanted to clarify my grumblings were more specific to individual rules than an edition of the game.

mv40k2
29-04-2017, 12:21
It appears to be "2nd ed. lite" which is not a bad thing. I'm still a huge fan of 2nd for what it does, but I would consider actually getting current if they build a decent, balanced system. So far, it looks like they are making the kinds of changes people have been agitating for. In fact, I surfed around the site and noticed they are making overt appeals to win back disaffected players (like me).
I love too 2.ed. Our gaming group used it for 22 year, but later on we were forced to move on the 7.ed train to get all the new kits working. "2nd ed. lite" does not sound bad do me, not at all!

-mv40k2

Commissar von Toussaint
29-04-2017, 13:42
The more items GW releases, the more intrigued I'm becoming.

One of the more madding features of GW's game design over the years was the poor structure. GW would come up with a nominally reasonable turn sequence, then stomp all over it with exceptions and special rules.

I am encouraged to see that the sneak previews openly admit these flaws. That doesn't mean they won't screw other things up, but the first step to solving a problem is admitting that it's there.

For many many years people on these boards (and elsewhere) have offered some common-sense fixes to the problems of the game. Many a thread devolved into debates over individual units, but there has been a lot of good discussion on systems and how GW can achieve a better product.

It looks like the New GWTM listened. Obviously there are a lot of former players who might be willing to come back if GW just throws them a bone. This may be that bone.

As a side note, while I may get involved in the current version, I'm still going to stick with 2nd ed. Their changes to the vehicle rules are probably necessary given the larger size of the game, but I still like the notion of getting flank shots on Demolisher tanks, getting out the Thudd Gun template and so on.

I think the 40k setting is big enough to support more than one system (hey, it did back in the day!) so it may do the new version for bigger, faster fights and keep to 2nd for traditional, 2,000 point narrative campaigns.

Of course, if GW fails to execute, all of that is moot, but I remain cautiously optimistic.

Spell_of_Destruction
04-05-2017, 02:43
It will be interesting to see if GW continues to support Shadow War as a parallel system. Expand the factions and introduce some rules for 'squads' and vehicles and you basically have the stripped down version of 2nd ed that many of us have been craving. I always thought that 2nd ed worked best when limited to around 20-25 models per army and a max. of two vehicles.

I really like the idea of integrating the two rulesets for a linked campaign i.e. fight a Shadow War battle for control of strategic objectives followed by a 40k battle on the same board - reflects the initial skirmishing between reconnaissance forces.