"Warhammer 40K 8th Edition - new Statlines/profiles" Topic

link

Today is a big one guys – we're talking about how profiles are going to work in the new edition.

The profiles for the current version of the game have been a part of Warhammer 40,000 for over a decade now, and for the most part they worked pretty well, though there were always a few anomalies or things that didn't work quite as you'd expect.

In the new edition, the rules team were keen to have the profile work harder – to better distinguish between the different units so that, for example, Eldar will run faster than Guardsmen, and Hormagaunts run faster than both.

One big change is vehicles. These now use the same profile system as everyone else. As you'll see though, their stat lines are much above what you might expect from a standard infantry trooper. Wounds, for example, are not capped at 10, so don't be surprised if you see larger vehicles like Land Raiders and Imperial Knights with dozens of wounds.

This means that there is no differentiation between monsters and vehicles, so you now have a standard system to compare between, for example, a Carnifex vs a Dreadnought. Speaking of Carnifexes, large monsters like them also have a lot more wounds now. There are also no Super Heavy Vehicle rules, as such. With the stats going above 10, the system is now an increasing scale, which means models that previously fell just shy of super-heavy status, the Gorkanaut for example, can now punch at the appropriate weight, and become much more survivable.

So, without further ado – let's look at some stats!

(see link above)

Waiting to see vehicle stat lines …

Really don't want to see bolters able to damage Shadowswords. I'm hoping they get that right, but at least it looks as though vehicles won't auto-die from weak-ish weapons.

As a game designer, this feels a lot like watching a toddler add 2 and 2 and think he now understands math. Right direction, meaningless improvement.

I love the models, question some of the business practices, and begrudgingly admit its a good entry point for new players. That said, 40k will never be a "real" game in my estimation.

My 2 cents. No ill will to fans.

Oh neat, what game have you designed? What company do you work for as a games designer?

In the new edition, the rules team were keen to have the profile work harder – to better distinguish between the different units so that, for example, Eldar will run faster than Guardsmen, and Hormagaunts run faster than both.

I assumed that meant that there would be a divided Movement stat, with an "advance", and a "run/charge/assault/whatever".

Unless they meant JUST the movement *stat*, which is not all that novel! I still have no idea why that was ditched.

That said, 40k will never be a "real" game in my estimation.

Don't you think it's a bit to early to call that?

TheDesertBox, that's pretty arrogant, don't you think?

I'm with Judge. As part of my job I hire people all the time, and if someone comes to me with that attitude, they had better be able to prove it to me or they are out the door. You don't just casually dismiss one of the most popular and enduring franchises in the business as 'never be a real game." I don't say that as a fan- as I'm not really a huge fan, but I respect who they are and what they do. Maybe you are that great a designer, but if not, wow, that's a pretty unprofessional statement to make.

I mean, I'm actually wondering. I like it when Alessio Cavatore and Rick Priestley and whatnot post on Facebook and forums.

(But it is interesting that they are making 8th edition as a Streamlined Rogue Trader and kind of fulfilling every grognard's dreams a little bit)

(But it is interesting that they are making 8th edition as a Streamlined Rogue Trader and kind of fulfilling every grognard's dreams a little bit)

Does what I've been doing for twenty years count as "grubling"? Seems rose-tinted, but I'll go with that.

Wow, I did not expect such vitriol for expressing an opinion! (And couching it accordingly to not offend.)

My opinion is that 40k is a silly game. I forget that one must not express opinions contrary to the Games Workshop Orthodoxy (TM) and must purge impure thoughts! And they wonder why (some) people hate the company so much.

As far as being a game designer, I have never published a game. But being an amatuer does not make you less capable than a professional.

If it helps, I have probably spent more money (recently, too) on GW products than their average customer. I am no hater.

Fuzzy duck is a silly game too… but people still love to play it… and twister… buckaroo…

The thing with WH40k is that it has a massive following, with lots of people buying into it. With the push, over recent years towards 'getting down with the kids', it is not surprising that GW have decided to simplify things.

If it speeds things up, makes things less 'reference orientated' and cheaper as well (free rules/army lists), then why not?

GW get a lot of stick (and more than a bit of fan boy love) but I think that the direction they are travelling at the moment is a vast improvement over the last bunch of years.

TheDesertBox can dismiss what he wants, you can dismiss what you want, we can all dismiss whatever we want.

This is a wide open forum, the opinions are going to run the gamut, whether rational or well reasoned in any one persons opinion or not.

It is the nature of the internet, deal and stop dogpiling, geez.

Thanks Mardaddy! I never wanted to start a war. My comment that it's not a real game might have been exaggerated, but I didn't think it warranted such hatred.

And I never said it wasn't commercially successful. Apparently not liking 40k means I'm not employable in any profession. Who knew!

I forget that one must not express opinions contrary to the Games Workshop Orthodoxy (TM) and must purge impure thoughts! And they wonder why (some) people hate the company so much.

The responses to your claims were far from fanboy rebukes; they seemed IMO pretty reasonable reactions to your rather heavy-handed statement. And the above quoted response doesn't help the matter.

Well Beast, next time I walk by my local GW, I'll pause, remember that expressing dissatisfaction with the rules gets me this much trouble, and keep walking to the FLGS down the street (a situation I decide on regularly).

No skin off my back. Honestly, this is my main concern with GW is the rabid backlash from fanboys.

And I think implying that I'm not a real game designer if I haven't published anything and that I am unemployable because of my hobby opinions is pretty unreasonable.

Like I said, I was genuinely curious. GW has actually headhunted from other companies recently, to astounding effect (for example: James Hewitt was hired from Mantic, and he wrote Warhammer Quest Silver Tower, Warhammer Quest Shadows Over Hammerhal, Gorechosen – which is one of the best games GW has ever made imho – and spearheaded the re-release of Blood Bowl).

And come on guys, GW has never been "getting down with the kids". GW gamers are all in their 20's to 50's, those with tons of disposable income to spend on paintball, cars, and GW toys. Needless expensive luxuries. GW explicitly partnered with Revell for the toy stuff – you can go to GAME in UK or Hobbytown or even some big box stores and buy Battle for Vedros sets and Build + Paint sets for the kids, but the Warhammer stores and the released product are not marketed at children, in the very very least bit.

They have, however, spent many years releasing crap rulesets – Warhammer 8th edition was awful and 40k 5th, 6th, and 7th editions were a nightmare.

So, I think the last few editions of 40k sucked. But with the new CEO's turnaround of GW, the fresh blood in the company, and the ongoing community engagement – I mean, they're _playtesting 8th edition with actual people outside of the company!_ …I am cautiously optimistic :)

Honestly it is interesting that you took my genuine question of

"Oh neat, what game have you designed? What company do you work for as a games designer?"

as an attack of some sort.

I had hoped that with a background in game design and theory and possibly peer-reviewed work, I was going to ask you what new dynamics these changes would produce; and if you thought those new dynamics would change the current game aesthetics.

Well put, Doug. Sorry if I read more into "what game have you published?" than you meant.

I only got defensive because I saw Mr TGerritsen's very, very personal and hostile post at the same time. What can I say? My fragile feelings were hurt.

DesertBox, I'd be very interested to find out what mechanics and rule-sets you find most problematic from 40K's long history as a rule set that would cause you to say "40k will never be a "real" game in my estimation." and equate their work with that of a "toddler" doing basic arithmetic.

I really don't care whether you like the game or not, feel free, but I do get really tired of people posting that 40K isn't a 'real game' without backing it up.

Also, you are correct that being an unpublished designer does not make your ability any less than another. But most game designers I know are also really good at analysis. So I second Judge Doug's request. I'd love to know more about how other people feel these changes are going to change the game – either for the better or worse – backed up by analysis or theory.

My contribution:

I am really interested in the numbers behind making Vehicles have a Toughness rating and armor save / being affected by armor-save-reduction vs an Armor Value / AP that it used to have.

My initial reaction was negative – after all a guardsman with a laspistol has a chance of killing a Land Raider now – but it's notthat cut and dry. I've heard that on twitter one of the designers felt it would take in the range of 500 guardsmen to kill a landraider, which leads me to believe statistically this is unlikely, but I haven't done the math yet.

What if it's 300 guardsmen and they yell, "This is Sparta!"?

I go to school for game design, all be it video games but principles are principles. Honestly I would say that it is really hard to give an depth analysis off of just the stat-line. There are too many questions unanswered such as what modifiers will there be that effect BS and WS fixed numbers. There's simply no way to know how these rules interact with all the other new rules we haven't seen yet. In my opinion there's just no way give a good analysis of the game. I will give some helpful definitions for those interested though.

Dynamics – These are the behaviors exhibited by players due to the rules. They aren't stated in the rules but the rules produce them. An example would be turtling with Imperial Guard and tank spamming peeps (is that still a thing?). Turtling is usually considered a negative dynamic fyi.

Game Aesthetics – These are the feelings (emotional output) produced by the aforementioned dynamics. It's fun it's really a useful one. You want something more like, this game made me really feel like I was a space marine commander and my terminators felt invincible as they crossed open ground!

Those two definitions should help most anyone make a good analysis of a game. Unless you are some kind of Euro freak who just wants to produce the 'perfect mechanics' because you want to recreate intricate clockwork through game design :)

Very well. I shall keep my answers brief in the interest of space. Apologies if I do not explain everything in depth.

Issues with 40k as it exists through 7th:
-The emphasis on melee armies over firepower in a sci-fi game (admittedly more background-based than design)
-The inclusion of artillery, massive tanks, and other large vehicles on the table in 28mm is ridiculous.
-Ranges as a multiple of movement speed is absurdly small and makes tactics of fire and maneuver useless.
-I personally find the IGOUGO very bland.
-Balance has always been lacking, as they attempt to sell the new, expensive models and get stat creep. They claim to fix this in 8th, but I remain skeptical it will last.
-The few games I have played have lasted only a few turns. Usually, I won. But the game was so unbalanced and focused on "cheese" tactics, it was a hollow win.
-The idea of 2+ invulnerable saves and other overpowered abilities destroys game balance.
-Special rules are often buried deep in the codex, making the game more complicated than necessary. Much of the game is metagaming and knowing your opponent's list in extreme detail.

As for changes:
-Initiative was irrelevant. No big deal losing it. If you were going to start a melee, you usually knew you were going to win. It hardly mattered who hit first.
-Move stats just clutter the stat line. I don't have a problem with it, but it seems like they are making a big deal of this addition.
-Vehicles working the same as infantry is problematic, as much even with ridiculous stat lines, vehicles and anti-vehicle strategies will be reduced. I feel as though everything will shift closer to "Mathhammer" as you can calculate how many las pistol shots to kill a landraider, on average (as you mentioned). Feels too… "dice contest" to me.

Hopefully that gives you a rough idea.

TheDesertBox, out of curiosity, have you seen the list of other changes for 8th edition?

I believe so, although not being a 40k fan means I don't check every day. Was there something specific you wanted to discuss?

And I forgot to mention WS/BS going to a standardized roll instead of a table. Best change I've seen, as it will speed up play, but again… this is marginal to the structural problems with the game.

We all know that swords and sabers have no place in sci-fi, but 40K isn't "sci-fi" any more than Star Wars is, so there goes that argument about silliness.

I believe the term in fashion currently for Star Wars and 40K is "science fantasy."

28mm Fanatik, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. It happens to not be the one I hold, but you are welcome to it.

me and this thread:

Thanks for the info DesertBox, those are all great (IMO) points regarding rules and the system. I disagree with some of them, but that's fine. I don't really see how you can make this jump from those points to "it's not a real game" but it's clear that most games that are more mainstream successes won't measure up to you, either.

DrNo: I don't think anyone wants (or would even read, LOL) any in-depth analysis of this. However, I think that more posters on any forum could do with a nice, succinct summary like DesertBox posted there of what bugs them instead of diminishing/demeaning the games/minds behind them. I've read far too much unsubstantiated dislike of "mainstream" systems before to put up with it if I don't have to.

Regarding the rules changes, more information is coming in from their designer(s) posting on Twitter (brave souls).

-Combat will be Alternating Unit Activation after charges
-NO SCATTER DIE. Deep Strike will be quite different. In AoS there's no scatter for those abilities
-Guard still has Platoons, SM/CSM still have Chapter Tactics
-Flyers will have the same statlines as everything else but will have on-unit rules to represent flying.
-Cover adds to saving throw (not a separate save type, just like AoS).
-Maelstrom Missions will still be a thing
-No shooting into and out of combat
-NO DESTROYER WEAPONS.
-Free core rules ~12 pages
-No random turn mechanic. Confirms it will stay in AoS though.

First thing I noticed is that they should have removed the "normal" save and just upped the Space Marine's Wounds.

Always thought they should be 2 at least anyway… :)

Damn. I liked scatter dice. Made it interesting.

Very, very personal and hostile? Wow. If you truly believe that is the case, I'd shudder to see how you'd react to an actually personal and hostile response.

I said if you are a designer, that comment is not professional. It's not. I said it was an arrogant statement, and it is. That's neither hostile nor personal.

I don't hate or love GW and I don't care if you hate or love GW, but if you claim to be a designer and then diss a well known, and industry leading design as not being a real game, it's time to prove it by demonstrating your prowess, or admit that maybe that unpleasant taste in your mouth is your shoe.

TGerritsen, it's a game. I don't like it. Get over it please.

We'll all be much happier for it.

I am ambivalent regarding the "wound" idea for vehicles. It is a move that goes against all my wargaming instincts, regarding vehicles. On the other hand, it removes one die roll -penetration- which should speed the game. But wouldn't that advantage be compensated by the need to keep track of the wounds inflicted to the vehicle? Wouldn't clutter the table with too much rubbish?

I will reserve my judgement until I actually read the rules, though. Perhaps they surprise me and have implemented a rule that makes perfect sense.

Still, I appreciate what they are doing. 6th and 7th editions, particularly with all the codexes -and the exceptions to the exceptions- had become unmanageable for the casual gamer, and even dedicated gamers had troubles keeping track of all the rules, sub-rules, special rules, ecc.

Truth be told, I am excited. Not enough to stop working in my other gaming projects -Indian Mutiny and Crusades- but excited nonetheless.

Basileous, that's a good point regarding the tracking but that's already something you have to do in 4OK and other games (40K has Hull Points for vehicles already, and also had states like weapon destroyed to track).

Imho the core rules never were the problem. Silly or not, a good game does not need many rules. 40k was never a SF warfare simulator. Chess is a nice game, with a pretty small set of rules. Go even more so.

But… imho "unbalance" and an inability to address problems killed it.

Whenever a problem arose, it took GW more years then months or days to fix it – if at all. FAQs were rare and often beside the actual point. What they never addressed there were unbalanced units and armies.

Some kind of "living" point cost – where units shown to be overly effective just cost more – may have been a sufficient solution (just count the frequency of their appearance in tournament armies for this). Or better playtesting to start with. However, no set of new rules can fix that – the change must come from GWs handling of armies and units. Just resist that attempt to make a specific unit that superspecialeffective because its so "fantastic". Whenever I read "fantastic" in a GW statement I prepare for the worst, and rarely get disappointed.

That said – gaming for well over 25 years now – I will certainly give the new edition a try, or two. We game on a pretty high level around here, with one of my normal sparring partners in the top 20 – so I tend to see these maxed out lists (briefly – it never takes long before my army is tabled). There is hope, and I love the background. I prefer to game the background with Tomorrows War, for now.

I'm interested in seeing how this progresses, but I'm not likely to go back to playing WH40K in 28mm with a skirmish ruleset. It certainly looks like 8th edition will be streamlined and easier to play, but it is not a style of game I enjoy. Frankly, I enjoy the background but have always loathed the rules due to their excessive complication and unsatisfying, unrealistic results.

I've pulled a bit of a Legion 4 approach with WH40K gaming- I use 6mm miniatures with a suppression-based, platoon to company-scale ruleset of my own design that emphasizes realistic tactics over space fantasy. My favorite element of the background is the Gaunt's Ghosts novels, so I wrote house rules that have a similar "feel", with a variety of fleshed-out human infantry types with varying doctrine, traits, weapons, and equipment that all behave somewhat differently. It's not the normal approach to the setting, but I enjoy it, and a 3D-printed platoon with a completely new play style costs me all of $4 USD…

I've said twice now I don't care if you like the game or not. That had nothing to do with my point. You could have said the same about any game. I feel no hostility toward you, I was just calling out your comment as a bit over the top. Now you are speaking for the nebulous 'we' as if you are some authority. I'm honestly more bemused now than anything else. You seem to take offense when someone calls you out for an ill conceived statement. That's how discourse works- you have the right to say whatever you like, but everyone else has the right to have an opinion on your statements.

Why not simply say, "ok, that was a bit over the top of me, but I still don't like the rules?' I can respect that.

I stand by what I said: It isn't a real game.

I am not watering down my opinion because it might not jive with the way your express your opinions. I'm also certainly not apologizing for having an opinion you consider over the top.

And my early comments about my feelings were sarcasm. Apparently that was missed.

TheDeserBox, what defines a "real game" to you?

I'm genuinely interested.

What is an example of a game that is firmly not a real game?

What is a game that is right on the cusp of being a real game, but is not, and one that is just real enough?

And one that is the most real of all games?

(So I guess on a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 being not a real game, and 100 being the most real game, do you have an example of a 1, a 49, a 51, and a 100?)

40k IS a silly game, in a silly universe, and that's precisely the fun. Personally I'm looking forward to the new rules, we'll be downloading them for free and giving them a try – what's not to like?

@TheDesertBox

Haven't played 40k in a years, going on 15 at this point, but at the very least it is more of a game than anything you never got around to publishing. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it isn't a game….. feel free to criticize but perhaps you should stop being overly rude about it.

New stat lines for vehicles could be interesting. Much better than an armor value and possibility of instant death. Makes dreadnouhgts and other vehicles more resilient.

My initial reaction was negative – after all a guardsman with a laspistol has a chance of killing a Land Raider now

Yes but if a Guardsman did kill a Land Raider with his Las Gun than that would mean that it was nearly destroyed already and he only put the finishing touch to it.

The emphasis on melee armies over firepower in a sci-fi game

True but it is a game that is being played on a 6' by 4' tabletop.

You do not want it totally based on firepower since that would favor certain armies over others and Space Marines would be on the short end here.

What I found out over 20 years ago that you want a table that is filled with terrain, because you want movement/maneuver to be the main focus of the game.

Little terrain just means that the firepower heavy army who goes first will usually win the game on the first turn.

Guard still has Platoons,

They need them since that is the only way for Imperial Guard to field a decent army.

The thing here is that these platoons need to be more than just a Cmd and two squads.

My Imperial Guard Platoons have at least 4 squads minimum and the Heavy Weapons Platoon has up to 6-7 squads/sections.

I hoped that systems could be knocked out on tanks as well.
Looks like we will not see that.

Actually from the little that I have read about is that as the vehicle takes damage it will lose abilities, like;

Lose movement
Lose the ability to fire a weapon

I personally find the IGOUGO very bland.

Yes this is should be the biggest thing the address but likely won't since their rule writers/game designers abilities are likely not up to doing this.

But UGO – IGO needs to go away completely.

A random system, Cards would make for far more interesting games.

Plus GW would have something else that they could sell at a over price cost.

Build a combined deck where each side units have a card along with certain other special cards.

No rolling to go first since the cards will determine which unit could be able to act.

I would also have melee being done by a card as well, I.E. you can charge in but you do not fight until the melee card is drawn.

This allows either you or your opponent to throw in more troops or they were able to throw in another unit and the melee card turn up before you could.

Does tend to speed up the game a bit since you are not fighting those melees every turn.

It also means that certain units (I.E. Deathstars) are not charging into melee after melee and killing everything.

I have used this type of system in the past for and it did bring suspense to the games. Since you want to get other units in but they just reacted to slow and could not support that other unit.

The other thing that needs to go is using D6's but this is not changing.

But UGO – IGO needs to go away completely.

You can use Command Points to interrupt the enemy's turn, like heroes using Might in LOTR/Hobbit SBG.

Based on what they mentioned in the video, your army gets a pool of Command Points based on how "fluffy" it is – as in, if you fill a "historical" formation. Such as a Guard company or something. So the more accurate your list is to the doctrine of the army, you get those Command Points to do things like interrupt your opponent's turn.