Rules preview from Adepticon

Information has come from GW proper about the future of 40k and the next edition!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/23/warhammer-40000-news-from-adepticon/

• 3 Way To Play - Casual, Formal and Competitive similar to AoS.
  
• In-game rewards for thematic armies!
  
• Movement values are coming back!
  
• Armour Save Modifiers are coming back!
  
• Charging units fight first!
  
• Failing morale causes Wounds rather than fleeing!
  

SOme interesting uses of the phrase "we're thinking of" though, so none of this seems set in stone yet......

I cautiously welcome most of the above, especially movement values but until and unless they sort out the allies rules and the conferring of special rules to units then 40K will remain a mess.

Mmm I thought moving away from armor save modifiers was one of their better decisions from 2nd Edition, it made Power Armor actually feel... well.. powerful.
It felt more inline with fluff, put it that way at least.

Getting rid of save mods made the game simpler but I don't really feel it made it better. Given the prevalence of 3+ save armies, a binary system where you either get your full save or none at all means that any weapon that breaches that magical AP3 value becomes exponentially more valuable. I'm sure it's no coincidence that AP3 ranged weaponry is so rare.

Well of course then players would just stock up on as much AP 2/3 weapons as they could, to bypass the amor entirely which meant GW had to draw back the availability of such a bit to non imp armies in the last few editions its felt.

But yea, like if gretchin were shooting you with their autoguns and had -1 armor save, for a space marine you'd need to be rolling 4 up to pass your armor save from what felt like a very crappy gun/unit.
For me it just didn't match the fluff of these super warriors, of which a 1000 could conquer a world and wear these big hulking suits of blessed armor etc and then.... could find themselves failing armor saves 50% of the time , from such ruidementary guns just felt really wrong. (Note. I cant remember if autguns had -1 or not, its been 20 years, but for arguements sake..)

Personally, I like the fact a unit of guardsman or something would have to fire just... tons and tons of shots at Terminators/Marines whatever and they're just shrugging it off.
I'm not arguing in game terms its fairer or optimal as it stands now, but from a fluff POV it just felt right.

Ultimately I don't think either version works particularly well due to the constraints of the D6 itself. When you only have 5 options (assuming a 1 always fails) you don't have much room to move when designing weapons or armour. Sadly I don't think GW is prepared to move from the D6 but that would probably be the single best move they can make.

Cherrycoke wrote:

Well of course then players would just stock up on as much AP 2/3 weapons as they could, to bypass the amor entirely which meant GW had to draw back the availability of such a bit to non imp armies in the last few editions its felt.

But yea, like if gretchin were shooting you with their autoguns and had -1 armor save, for a space marine you'd need to be rolling 4 up to pass your armor save from what felt like a very crappy gun/unit.
For me it just didn't match the fluff of these super warriors, of which a 1000 could conquer a world and wear these big hulking suits of blessed armor etc and then.... could find themselves failing armor saves 50% of the time , from such ruidementary guns just felt really wrong. (Note. I cant remember if autguns had -1 or not, its been 20 years, but for arguements sake..)

Personally, I like the fact a unit of guardsman or something would have to fire just... tons and tons of shots at Terminators/Marines whatever and they're just shrugging it off.
I'm not arguing in game terms its fairer or optimal as it stands now, but from a fluff POV it just felt right.

I agree with that.
I think more important than the underlying concepts are how they are executed and as we know GW is very sloppy when it comes to actual gameplay.

Personally, I like that AP3 shooting like Medusae can roast MEQ but are bad against TEQ. If everything would be ruled via a "save modifier" the amount of soft-counters would drastically increase and I am no fan of that.

So, why not having both? Some weapons could have the AP as we know it, while others have a simple modifier that lowers their save by 1 or 2. In my fan-dex I did that to the Shatterfield Missiles which I believe should work against a big variety of targets without just outright killing everything.

So what do we think of the rules preview from GW at Adepticon last night?

1. Movement stat is coming back.

2. Those who charge strike first.

3. Armour/save modifiers are coming back.  Every weapon in your army will have its place.

4. Three ways to play like AOS.

5. Gain Command points and bonuses from playing the army how it is presented in the "Fluff".

6. Morale change to more like Demonic instability, or Battleshock if you will.  no more all or nothing sweeping advances or whole unit running from shooting losses.

I think that is it, please comment if i missed anything.

PS. new FAQ area coming where questions can be asked and the community can respond and suggest rule changes.

I'm excited. I think we could easily benefit from all the above.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Ultimately I don't think either version works particularly well due to the constraints of the D6 itself. When you only have 5 options (assuming a 1 always fails) you don't have much room to move when designing weapons or armour. Sadly I don't think GW is prepared to move from the D6 but that would probably be the single best move they can make.

Althoughn it might make the game more interesting, I don't think a total move from d6 is something Games Workshop could do. They're so heavily invested in those almost-cubes, and the wargaming industry in general (indeed gaming in general) holds them as the norm, I don;t think its a move that would go over very well with most people.

My best thought so far is that there shouldn't be a modifier for each weapon, but instead a general rule. My best world would be "-1 if AP equals armour, -2 is AP is better than armour". That would make many units much tougher and make for more interesting games that aren't constantly hampered by sudden instant-killers.
It would also make things much simpler when using the dreaded deciding cubes of doom.


In other news/opinions, I'll admit to be cautiously optimistic about the return of movement values, and the idea that maybe the mobility of the Dark Eldar might be improved. I do find it interesting that the leaks for Shadowthingy - Armageddon did show units with movement values, so that set might be a good idea of their work in progress 9th edition rules.
Command Points for thematic armies giving in-game benefits seems a weird idea to me, considering that what different Detachments and Formations give anyway.
And the three tier system again just never stood right in my mind. Why bother? Isn't the game just the game regardless? Maybe I'm being horribly blinded, but I've never seen the difference between the different levels in AoS.


The morale idea I don't like, as it seems badly balanced. A Marine unit who take a couple of casualties can maybe get away with passing these kinds of checks, and maybe taking a casualty or two. But in a horde of weaker models such as Termagants, they'll lose more in a single turn, and will be far more likely to suffer more casualties as a result of morale. I don't like this.


I would say I've been pleased with GW these past six months, and their responsiveness to the community. The fact that these posts are saying "we're thinking about" leads me to think that they are announcing some of the wilder ideas and changers in order to get feedback, and that feedback might actually be taken into account. I could be wrong, but as I said - cautiously optimistic.

I, for one, support all of these decisions, I think it will allow the game to move faster, add more tactical depth, and provide options. Sometimes I don't really want to worry about making a 2000 point list and just want to show up at the store and throw some models on the table and roll some dice. I like having the option to do so on occasion, especially since I have to drive 30 minutes just to get to a place where I can play a game on a regular basis.

As for morale, they will likely make marines have equivalent of a bravery 10 from AoS, or have their bravery increase when run in higher units or with a sgt. Essentially the way they do it in AoS is that the smaller units of elite models tend to have higher bravery to make it less likely for the unit to break, thus representing their more elite training. For example Stormcast Eternals are often run as MSU and with Bravery 8, you have to lose half the unit or more in one turn for them to break (8-3 = 5, thus you can only lose 1 guy on a 6, 3 is the halfway point on a unit of 5). I think that things like morale will be good for Dark Eldar as we may see a more effective use of our leadership shenanigans.

P.S. you skipped an edition

Love it. Seems like these changes can make the game go faster. Counter charges are extremely important now. I can counter charge a low I unit into an active combat and get attacks off, potentially saving my other unit.

I like it a lot, emphasizes mobility, careful morale planning, and narrative focus. All things I try to focus on with my armies.

It will also be nice to see non-FMC 'nids become viable again.

@Srota I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am just curious how the Tyranids will benefit from these rules more so than any other army. Is it because they have lots of numbers and tend to focus on assault? If so then Orks would get a boost which I am sure Ork players will be very happy about.

Oh I agree, but I wasn't looking to try out Orks any time soon (I only have a token Gorkamorka force for them), but I was looking at that nid swarm box set...

This is a long post, probably gonna be used as a script for a video I wanna do, so if you don't feel like reading skip to the tl;dr

The specific rules they stated seem more or less appropriate for 40k. I do not however like the Sigmarizing of 40k which these changes seem to indicate both with the rules themselves and also citing the response to the General's Handbook as the main source of this positive feedback. This is a problem for several reasons and I'll get back to that, but I feel like I can't properly talk about this move in rules management until I talk about AoS a bit.

I never played Fantasy, I didn't get into wargaming until 7th edition 40k and by the time I knew Fantasy was a thing they killed it off. Age of Sigmar was Kirby's way of giving the consumer one big last middle finger before handing over the keys and it seemed like a "screw you" in every possible way. Even having not played Fantasy, the destruction of such a deep and intricate game to be replaced with a BS skirmish game was criminal to long time fans and even I saw no direct comparison between the two. Now since then we have had the General's Handbook, Compendiums, and other such things coming along to sort of put ice on the wounds, like an abusive husband promising his battered spouse that he'll never do anything like that again. Fantasy players think these gestures show GW really cares now. Which is probably the biggest point I wanna make.

GW does not nor will they ever care about their consumers. I don't care how much Duncan they post, I don't care how much content they release, I don't care how many box sets they make or how many social media accounts they run. GW is a business first, and all they're trying to do is all they ever tried to do, and that's SELL MORE MODELS. Sometimes books, yes, but always models. Age of Sigmar at release was like a pall being lifted. Gone were any presumptions of incompetence, gone was any possible blame to be laid on Matt Ward or whatever the evil rules writer du-jour is, the truth was laid bare for us all to see like a hobo stripped and passed out drunk in front of your parked car. Age of Sigmar was the thinnest veil of a game designed entirely to sell the most overpriced and needlessly complicated models ever to disgrace a store shelf. It was the pill you were expected to choke down before buying $40 dice rollers and $30 rattlecan primers. It was a kick in the nads to Fantasy players so hard even 40k players squinted in phantom pain.

But things got better! General's Handbook! Points values! A restructuring of the game! Rubbish. All of this is stop-gap after stop-gap to try and fix what was inherently the most bold sellout of a hobby I've ever witnessed short of World of Warcraft expansions and the industry standard of microtransactions. Entire armies were done away with. Tomb Kings, Brittonians, my High AELF army isn't even available anymore. Notice all these "improvements" involve spending money? Buy this book, now buy this other book, now buy these new models. You can play with your old armies, yes, but they're phenomenally worse than playing with the new models.

And what of these armies? Let's have a look at the GRIPPING DEPTH that is the structure of their gameplay!

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-dreadspears-en.pdf

Ahh the Dreadspears, Dark AELF line infantry. Wonder how they stack up to the High AELF Spearmen?

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Compendiums/warhammer-aos-high-elves-en.pdf

That particular model isn't available anymore but with a wee bit of digging we can find their rules. Hmm, they look pretty similar. Almost exactly the same in fact. Both get the same rolls, both get the same bonuses, both get rerolls, just one prefers getting hit in combat compared to being shot at. Mm, yes, that flavor and variety, I love it. Clearly the wielders of either of these units would have completely different play styles and they are in no way interchangeable. The fact that, aside from two circumstantial bonuses, they're identical says very little about the DYNAMIC STRATEGY involved in the gameplay of Age of Sigmar. Thank heavens for thematic armies where the actual gameplay reflects the stark contrasts between the AELVEN factions.

I'm not sure how much of these similarities is due to a lack of creativity and frankly give-a-damn on the part of GW and how much is the restrictively limited gameplay elements. Even after the updates you're left with scarce differences between the units. The only real strategy and difference involved comes from organizing battle forces to grant extra benefits that compound upon one another like we're playing Yu-Gi-Oh but with listbuilding miniatures. This is also reflected in the fact that, as I've said a couple times now, every game of Age of Sigmar I've ever seen has resembled a game of Electric Football. There's no interesting flanking and feint maneuvers, no positioning, no lining up of rank and file troops and archers and war machines. Just a mish-mash of combats and charges.

I like Age of Sigmar though. But I like it in its original form. 4 pages of rules, free warscrolls, just slapping plastic together and throwing dice. It's the perfect game to not care about. I got 100+ High AELF models during the post-release depression that swept across the hobby like a entrepreneur scooping up million dollar homes for pennies in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. I got my entire Sigmar force for the princely sum of zero U.S. Ameribucks. It was given to me as a gift, and from what I was told the entire thing was basically handed over carte-blanche to the previous owner. The army changed hands like 3 times or something. As such my entire Sigmar experience is from the point of view of someone with absolutely nothing invested in the hobby at all. I show up and paint minis, roll dice, and generally fluster people who cannot fathom why I'm not keen on playing with a points value. I like GW's gasoline fire. I embrace it for the flaming pile of garbage that it is and I refuse to be moved from this position until the game proves otherwise, and to do that it will have to achieve the same level of depth and complexity its forebear had, which it will never do. A points value and narrative play does not a wargame make. But that doesn't mean I can't have fun in the meantime, so I continue to play while investing the absolute minimum amount of effort. It's a popcorn game. But other people are financially/fluff-wise invested in this game the way I am in 40k, and this kind of attitude is not exactly the best to hold in their presence. I'm a reminder of how the company isn't afraid to screw the consumer on a whim. I'm also a bit of a hardass on insisting I bring my Juan Diaz Daemonettes with my High AELF forces because every army needs a mascot and the best mascots are bare naked demon AELVES.

This brings me back to the General's Handbook. OF COURSE THE RESPONSE WAS GOING TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE. Literally any changes to the raging tire fire that was the original ruleset would be welcome. GW could have written the entire GH with Brownian motion and it would have been an improvement. Using this as the gold standard by which you measure the success of a rules system is so steeped in fallacy it's ridiculous to even consider. And now we see them bringing this overly simplified stop-gap filled mish-mash of skirmish game and wargame into 40k. Oh dear lord help us. And for reference I am assuming the entire kit and caboodle is coming over because let's face it that's what it's shaping up to look like. And for all GW's bleating that no this is not End Times 40k and no this isn't Sigmar 40k, just remember, they already did this once.

So yeah, I'm looking forward to using Wyches again. They're gonna be useful, as useful as literally any combat-oriented troop, because they will all be exactly the same. Kabalite Warriors and Guardians and Guardsmen and Space Marines and Sisters of Battle will all be darn near the same freaking thing. The flavor will be entirely in your head and in no way represented on the battlefield, the units like window dressing. They're skins for your "combat unit". The game's strategy could be emulated by sticking all your plastic on a metal vibrating table and watching the action. Now I could be entirely wrong, I certainly hope I am. I have a lot invested in 40k and I would rather like to see the uniqueness of units still be a thing as well as having the armies be their own pronounced thing. Sigmar is my satire game, it's a joke of a game that people take seriously. 40k is my serious game (from a gameplay PoV at least, my army is based around a hair metal band) and I'd rather like to still lose myself in list building and unit analysis. But this is why I am off the cuff EXTREMELY concerned about this new edition coming out.

tl;dr: Sigmar is a joke of a game system still. GW saw the positive response to the General's Handbook and has decided to throw those changes at 40k. I'm worried 40k will become as bad as Sigmar is because of this.

Tounguekutter wrote:

@Srota I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am just curious how the Tyranids will benefit from these rules more so than any other army.  Is it because they have lots of numbers and tend to focus on assault?  If so then Orks would get a boost which I am sure Ork players will be very happy about.

I suspect that Tyranids will have a very high Movement stat, comparatively.

Im worried about the D6 -LD when you lose Combat, b.c we had this for Fearless in 5th ed, as a avid nids player back then it was the reason why i stopped playing nids and picked up DE (Other than they are Cool AF too!) XD

So if I will have to go through that again i'm going to cry

Expect the LD rules to get a full overhaul. You might find fearless is not d6+casualties vs LD but could just be d6 vs LD - essentially meaning no effect.

Who Knows right now!

Massaen wrote:

Expect the LD rules to get a full overhaul. You might find fearless is not d6+casualties vs LD but could just be d6 vs LD - essentially meaning no effect.

Who Knows right now!

Yeah we only seen a few rules out of 100 lol, no telling what will happen XD

And they said they are testing it, so they may change it still.

Quote :

We’re thinking of replacing break tests

Dalamar wrote:

So what do we think of the rules preview from GW at Adepticon last night?

I'm cautiously optimistic, but with some 'buts'. For example:

Quote :

2. Those who charge strike first.

Okay, but doesn't that make Initiative a kind of useless stat? It feels like they've never quite found a way to make a high agility as good as a high strength value.

Quote :

3. Armour/save modifiers are coming back.  Every weapon in your army will have its place.

That sounds good, as long as they don't hand out modifiers left and right. For models that never get to roll an armour save because every weapon is at least AP5, it doesn't make much difference if they still never get to roll an armour save because every weapon is at least -2. Space Meringues will howl, tho. Or maybe there could be a rule that a roll of 6 always succeeds, just like a 1 always fails?

Quote :

6. Morale change to more like Demonic instability, or Battleshock if you will.  no more all or nothing sweeping advances or whole unit running from shooting losses.

That's nice, but it's not as if Morale makes much of a difference now, what with everyone being fearless or knowing-no-fear or whatnot. That is, everyone except you.

So, they sound like good changes, but I'd need to see them in the context of the new system before I say 'yay!' or 'bah!'

Quote :

PS. new FAQ area coming where questions can be asked and the community can respond and suggest rule changes.

Where?

I have a problem with armour modifiers:



A D6 based system literally doesnt have enough room to succesfully implement modifiers IMO.

40k will still stay a much more complicated game, but the very basic (and I mean basic) core rules will be simple like AoS. We will still have advance rules set.

With the new CEO and how they been doing things, i feel safe that they wont over simplify the game.


To me it feels like they are trying for faster and maybe larger games. It will also be a game HUGELY more so on Rock, Paper, Scissors and "Smart" movements with high end "Counter Play"

With Counter Charging, AP modifiers etc.. you might be able to make guardsmen a good counter unit (Axes on them seems good now).

We still dont know 90% the rules, so i really dont want to say anything yet.

If there is not going to be unit "types" anymore, then what will happen to, MCs, Fliers, bikes etc...

There are so many things that HAS to change for EACH unit by removing unit types. This alone is a huge game changer. So big that all the units need a rewrite before 8th ed lands.