Leth wrote:
Just thought I would share this.

Apparently vehicles only explode on a "7" on the chart.

So I am guessing that the ap modifiers are staying in, but now if you are not ap 2 or 1 you cant destroy a vehicle in one shot.

Pretty big IMO

I'm just irritated Armored Vehicles dont get Armor Saves. I know its mostly useless with low ap weapons being shot at them, but they should have some sort of inherent save.

 Leth wrote:
Just thought I would share this.

Apparently vehicles only explode on a "7" on the chart.

So I am guessing that the ap modifiers are staying in, but now if you are not ap 2 or 1 you cant destroy a vehicle in one shot.

Pretty big IMO

Source?

You could always ask. Most FLGS carry what folks are interest in but can special order nearly every game.

They like making money, so I'm sure they'd be happy to sell new stuff.

It's just really sad that people would preorder anything site unseen these days. Video games get demos, books are like $20, but an $85 rules set with no open play testing or chance to demo them?

That's nuts. Almost all the competition to GW open play tests in some fashion for free or cheap. Wish GW fans would realize this.

I wish they'd drop the Av system for just toughness and wounds since they totally said eff it with regards to what's a walker and what's an MC. More realistically they saw that MCs sold better, so Riptides and Wraithknights got a T and W stat line.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Just thought I would share this.

Apparently vehicles only explode on a "7" on the chart.

So I am guessing that the ap modifiers are staying in, but now if you are not ap 2 or 1 you cant destroy a vehicle in one shot.

Pretty big IMO

Source?

The "source" appears to be someone wishlisting on the exact same page...

 Lobukia wrote:
I would love to see "explodes" removed from the damage chart. if 5-6 immobilized, then suddenly vehicles matter again.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet. The explode result is on a 7 now. vehicles can not be one shotted without an Ap1 or 2 weapon. This is not wishlisting but from my GW Rep.

 TheKbob wrote:
You could always ask. Most FLGS carry what folks are interest in but can special order nearly every game.

They like making money, so I'm sure they'd be happy to sell new stuff.

It's just really sad that people would preorder anything site unseen these days. Video games get demos, books are like $20, but an $85 rules set with no open play testing or chance to demo them?

That's nuts. Almost all the competition to GW open play tests in some fashion for free or cheap. Wish GW fans would realize this.

I wish they'd drop the Av system for just toughness and wounds since they totally said eff it with regards to what's a walker and what's an MC. More realistically they saw that MCs sold better, so Riptides and Wraithknights got a T and W stat line.

Does seem harder to wound that T8 Wraitknight that gets built in armor saves than that AV 14 landraider than can be popped in one hit with no built in saves...

 Vaktathi wrote:
HP's are really what I don't like, tank's don't just stop working or die after X number of hits, if it doesn't hit something critical it keeps going.

But that was called 5th edition and everyone hated it, apparently.

I just heard it from my LGS who got off the phone with his rep. Rulebook was confirmed at 85, psychic cards are 15, and objective cards at 8

 Alex C wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Just thought I would share this.

Apparently vehicles only explode on a "7" on the chart.

So I am guessing that the ap modifiers are staying in, but now if you are not ap 2 or 1 you cant destroy a vehicle in one shot.

Pretty big IMO

Source?

The "source" appears to be someone wishlisting on the exact same page...

'tis what I was thinking. But, you know... hope and all that.

Given that it's compatible with existing codexes, it's not exactly buying something sight unseen. While small changes can make a big impact on game play, basically every version of the rules and every codex from 3rd through 7th edition is compatible. So it's not buying something new without seeing whether or not it's worth it in advance, it's buying something again without seeing whether or not it's worth it in advance.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm fine with tank kills being somewhat "random", that's really how they should be, it either penetrates the armor and does something critical, or it doesn't. HP's are really what I don't like, tank's don't just stop working or die after X number of hits, if it doesn't hit something critical it keeps going.

As long as the same is done for multiwound models then I'd support it. As it stands, somehow every wound but the last on non vehicles only apparently shoots pinkie toes and earlobes. If vehicles can be one shorted by a melts, so should a riptide.

So two people saying GW folks are saying it's a 7 on the chart. Interesting.

It's not the one-shotting that makes vehicles suck though, it's glances removing HP. If they made one penetrating hits remove HP then you could't spam low Str weapons to kill vehicles.

That would be awesome! Imagine a meta where transports are very durable and spammed due to cheap cost and relative efficiency...one can only dream!

...wait.

You can make vehicles effective without making the game revolve around them. GW just doesn't know how or deliberately keeps see-sawing with them because profits.

 Sigvatr wrote:
That would be awesome! Imagine a meta where transports are very durable and spammed due to cheap cost and relative efficiency...one can only dream!

...wait.

Yeah, HP were introduced to kill the parking lot, we don't need the parking lot to come back we just need to balance things a little bit more is all.

Such info. Much leaks. Wow.

Information is coming from so many different sources at a time it's getting more and more difficult for me to keep up to date. I wonder if the rumor-tracking folks (Pretre?) are following or have just given up...

 TheKbob wrote:
You could always ask. Most FLGS carry what folks are interest in but can special order nearly every game.

They like making money, so I'm sure they'd be happy to sell new stuff.

It's just really sad that people would preorder anything site unseen these days. Video games get demos, books are like $20, but an $85 rules set with no open play testing or chance to demo them?

That's nuts. Almost all the competition to GW open play tests in some fashion for free or cheap. Wish GW fans would realize this.

I wish they'd drop the Av system for just toughness and wounds since they totally said eff it with regards to what's a walker and what's an MC. More realistically they saw that MCs sold better, so Riptides and Wraithknights got a T and W stat line.

If thats true about them being able to order that stuff I just might, my FLGS is in dire straits right now being open only three days a week with minimal inventory.

 Sigvatr wrote:
That would be awesome! Imagine a meta where transports are very durable and spammed due to cheap cost and relative efficiency...one can only dream!

...wait.

As opposed to nobody taking them (serpents/ fliers excluded) because they die as soon as someone looks at them funny?

They need a better balance between too soft and too hard.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I to will be getting one for preorder, more to support (and be able to play at) my flgs than anything else.

You could, instead, buy the rules to three to four different games and buy models for each. This supports your FLGS more and it allows them to not to deal with the terrible GW business practices.

If $85 dollars is correct, this could get you the Malifaux rule book, starter box, and a pack of game cards. If everyone in your store did this and waited on the GW book, you'd all be card flipping and supporting a game company that actually listens to their customers.

Spend your money how you wish. I'll be keeping my 40k armies, but until I can get a copy of 7E at $35 or less, it'll be a pass.

I have yet to see a FLGS genuinely enthused about carrying GW products. It's more a necessary beast than a much loved product line.

My small group (those left after 6th decimated our local 40k community) have no interest in 7th edition. Though we will wait and see how the feedback is once the rules are out. Right now, our FLGS put up for interest in pre-orders and not a single person has expressed interest. Of late I have been playing Hell Dorado, Mordheim, Flames of War and, last week, got in a few games of Warmahordes. I will be trying Bolt Action this weekend as it has taken off like hotcakes here and captured the majority of the previous 40k player base that once existed here.

While Warmahordes definitely has a different play style, it was my first games with the MkII rules and I must say, after a few games with those rules you do quickly realize just how amazingly bad the GW rules are and yet, they charge an astronomical premium for them.

My personal opinion is, except for the missions, there is not a single thing I have heard that has impressed me or even sounds good for the game. Unbound, Lords of War standard, and Daemonology, in my opinion, are utter nonsense and ultimately, will be worse for the game than the allies chart was in 6th edition. To me, the game is jumping the shark with this edition and I have a funny feeling this is going to be as wonderful a success as 4th edition D&D was.

This is yet another blatant attempt by GW to simply get people buying bigger, more expensive models and heck be to the fluff, rules and gameplay. They didn't "massage" the rules, they completely are changing the meta of the game which, after 7 editions, should about be perfect.

But, to your point, playing very little 40k nowadays but can get in many other games at my local FLGS that, to me at this point, are much better games than 40k.

 Sigvatr wrote:
That would be awesome! Imagine a meta where transports are very durable and spammed due to cheap cost and relative efficiency...one can only dream!

...wait.

Bolters to the back can still kill many transports and walkers... a far cry from 5th

I am hoping walkers get a much needed buff. It will be interesting to see what happens

Walkers should have HoW and a stomp table to balance them vs MC.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
That would be awesome! Imagine a meta where transports are very durable and spammed due to cheap cost and relative efficiency...one can only dream!

...wait.

Bolters to the back can still kill many transports and walkers... a far cry from 5th

A bolter to the rear armor could only glance a vehicle. Under the proposed system that Sigvatr was responding to, glances wouldn't knock-off HP's. So bolters to the back would do nothing.

Haha I apologize for my confusion-causing wishlist, hopefully those sources are legit though!

TBF I shouldnt be able to send Ork Kommandos out flanking and kill a tank with Sluggas

I dont think I have ever heard of a military front line vehicle being knocked out by a hand gun. (scout bikes and things excluded)

My flgs has the may 17 wd... but won't sell it til friday. It has deathguard prince and PMs on cover

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
That would be awesome! Imagine a meta where transports are very durable and spammed due to cheap cost and relative efficiency...one can only dream!

...wait.

Bolters to the back can still kill many transports and walkers... a far cry from 5th

A bolter to the rear armor could only glance a vehicle. Under the proposed system that Sigvatr was responding to, glances wouldn't knock-off HP's. So bolters to the back would do nothing.

Your ignoring the fact that most armies have jumped up in damage output by exponential gains. Missle sides for example. One unit almost puts down more HP's then all 15 of my ML long fangs. I honestly don't think glances should remove HP's. Either that or tanks shouldn't be stunned/shaken anymore. It's basically auto pinning a unit that gains no benefit, unlike jinking. I think only fast skimmers should be able to jink as well. We'll see.

I don't like parking lots but HP's crossed a line for sure.

You're presenting your argument to the wrong guy.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
You're presenting your argument to the wrong guy.

It read to me like you were defending his stance. Sorry if you weren't.

 warboss wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm fine with tank kills being somewhat "random", that's really how they should be, it either penetrates the armor and does something critical, or it doesn't. HP's are really what I don't like, tank's don't just stop working or die after X number of hits, if it doesn't hit something critical it keeps going.

As long as the same is done for multiwound models then I'd support it. As it stands, somehow every wound but the last on non vehicles only apparently shoots pinkie toes and earlobes. If vehicles can be one shorted by a melts, so should a riptide.

Riptides should have been walkers.

Daston wrote:
TBF I shouldnt be able to send Ork Kommandos out flanking and kill a tank with Sluggas

I dont think I have ever heard of a military front line vehicle being knocked out by a hand gun. (scout bikes and things excluded)

Then again I don't think I've ever heard of a military front line vehicle being taken out by a dude with a sword either, so there's that.

 undertow wrote:

Riptides should have been walkers.

True. Would perfectly balance them.

 Sihdhartha wrote:

Daston wrote:
TBF I shouldnt be able to send Ork Kommandos out flanking and kill a tank with Sluggas

I dont think I have ever heard of a military front line vehicle being knocked out by a hand gun. (scout bikes and things excluded)

Then again I don't think I've ever heard of a military front line vehicle being taken out by a dude with a sword either, so there's that.

All they need to do is tone down the chart and then add that only pens remove HP's. Now suddenly we are using AT weapons again rather then VOF against things that are battle tanks. Sorry AC's, scatter lasers, missile pods and serpent shields have no business knocking out AV 12 and 13 so efficiently IMHO.

sucks to be Necrons if that is the case...

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sihdhartha wrote:

Daston wrote:
TBF I shouldnt be able to send Ork Kommandos out flanking and kill a tank with Sluggas

I dont think I have ever heard of a military front line vehicle being knocked out by a hand gun. (scout bikes and things excluded)

Then again I don't think I've ever heard of a military front line vehicle being taken out by a dude with a sword either, so there's that.

All they need to do is tone down the chart and then add that only pens remove HP's. Now suddenly we are using AT weapons again rather then VOF against things that are battle tanks. Sorry AC's, scatter lasers, missile pods and serpent shields have no business knocking out AV 12 and 13 so efficiently IMHO.

To be clear then, you suggest that they should eliminate glances from the rules entirely?

Another route would have been to simply give all vehicles a T value, AS and wounds.

I still can't seem to understand how a dreadnought is less a MC then a WK, DK, WL or riptide.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
You're presenting your argument to the wrong guy.

It read to me like you were defending his stance. Sorry if you weren't.

Aye. To the contrary, I think vehicles are too fragile, and need a durability boost.

What I would do is keep hull-points, but change it so that only penetrating hits may knock them off. Glances no longer remove hull-points, but rather cause a 1d3 roll on the damage table.

So glances could still do something, but you need high-strength weapons to really take a vehicle out of the fight.

So, what are we looking at gameplay wise?

To start, A player will either need a pack mule or an android device.
Why?

Because We are looking at the average game requiring:
A) The Core Rule book
B) Primary detatchment codex
C)Allied detatchment Codex
D)Psychic card deck
E) Mission Card Deck
F) possibly chaos codex for demon rules
And finally
G) Army, Dice, Measuring tool,, Templates, Markers and counters.

In book form that is a load. In electronic form you need an android so that you can have multiple pages open at same time to check rules interaction(iphone no multitask well )



Next, lets look at time investment per game. 5th ed was fairly well balanced (core rules not codices) and stream-lined(1850 point game took between 1&1/2 to 2 hours.
6th ed now takes 2&1/2 to 3&1/2 hours at 1850 points.

Now add in Psychic phase and ways of adding total number of troops to game(moar dice) and 7th is looking to be a solid 4 to 5&1/2 hour time pit per 1850 pt game.

I mean, I like the latest rumour about the pancake edition style of per turn objective scoring but, imo, it will become just another part of the crippling rules bloat that 40k has become.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sihdhartha wrote:

Daston wrote:
TBF I shouldnt be able to send Ork Kommandos out flanking and kill a tank with Sluggas

I dont think I have ever heard of a military front line vehicle being knocked out by a hand gun. (scout bikes and things excluded)

Then again I don't think I've ever heard of a military front line vehicle being taken out by a dude with a sword either, so there's that.

All they need to do is tone down the chart and then add that only pens remove HP's. Now suddenly we are using AT weapons again rather then VOF against things that are battle tanks. Sorry AC's, scatter lasers, missile pods and serpent shields have no business knocking out AV 12 and 13 so efficiently IMHO.

Brilliant.

 tomjoad wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sihdhartha wrote:

Daston wrote:
TBF I shouldnt be able to send Ork Kommandos out flanking and kill a tank with Sluggas

I dont think I have ever heard of a military front line vehicle being knocked out by a hand gun. (scout bikes and things excluded)

Then again I don't think I've ever heard of a military front line vehicle being taken out by a dude with a sword either, so there's that.

All they need to do is tone down the chart and then add that only pens remove HP's. Now suddenly we are using AT weapons again rather then VOF against things that are battle tanks. Sorry AC's, scatter lasers, missile pods and serpent shields have no business knocking out AV 12 and 13 so efficiently IMHO.

To be clear then, you suggest that they should eliminate glances from the rules entirely?

for TANKS, definitely, i fail to understand how winging stray shots and deflections are knocking tanks out. Currently there are amazing perks to things like open topped, skimmers etc. etc. Being classified a Tanks have no benefit really.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sihdhartha wrote:

Daston wrote:
TBF I shouldnt be able to send Ork Kommandos out flanking and kill a tank with Sluggas

I dont think I have ever heard of a military front line vehicle being knocked out by a hand gun. (scout bikes and things excluded)

Then again I don't think I've ever heard of a military front line vehicle being taken out by a dude with a sword either, so there's that.

All they need to do is tone down the chart and then add that only pens remove HP's. Now suddenly we are using AT weapons again rather then VOF against things that are battle tanks. Sorry AC's, scatter lasers, missile pods and serpent shields have no business knocking out AV 12 and 13 so efficiently IMHO.

To be clear then, you suggest that they should eliminate glances from the rules entirely?

for TANKS, definitely, i fail to understand how winging stray shots and deflections are knocking tanks out. Currently there are amazing perks to things like open topped, skimmers etc. etc. Being classified a Tanks have no benefit really.

Well, there goes the Necron's AT capability.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Because We are looking at the average game requiring:
A) The Core Rule book
B) Primary detatchment codex
C)Allied detatchment Codex
D)Psychic card deck
E) Mission Card Deck
F) possibly chaos codex for demon rules
G) Army, Dice, Measuring tool,, Templates, Markers and counters.

I'm not sure you understand what require means.

... You know, in 5th edition, glances didn't do anything but annoy tanks.

I don't recall Necrons being at the mercy of enemy armor in 5th edition, though.

Necrons have the tools to take out tanks, they just don't use them because today's meta doesn't necessitate taking them. Why take dedicated AV when a squad of warriors can reliably wreck a Land Raider?

Removing glances would just shake up the Necron meta by forcing them to take AV again. Not the end of the world.

There needs to just be one system or another. Either keep HP's and drop the damage chart, or dump the HP's and rework the damage chart.

Having to overlapping kill mechanics is both unnecessary and bad functionality. If each successful hit cripples or kills it, then it having a wound mechanic is both superfluous and punitive. If it's got wounds, it shouldn't risk being crippled or killed on any successful "to-wound" roll.

How about if glances didnt remove Hull Points but you could shake or stun a vehicle with a glance. Say 1-4 shaken, 5&6 stunned?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
... You know, in 5th edition, glances didn't do anything but annoy tanks.

I don't recall Necrons being at the mercy of enemy armor in 5th edition, though.

Necrons have the tools to take out tanks, they just don't use them because today's meta doesn't necessitate taking them. Why take dedicated AV when a squad of warriors can reliably wreck a Land Raider?

Removing glances would just shake up the Necron meta by forcing them to take AV again. Not the end of the world.

They really were.
Necrons were horrible in fifth ed. Well, 3rd ed crons were.
Then they got slightly better after the update, due to enthropic and more options, though gauss still wasn't great.

Everyone keeps toting the idea that gauss is super deadly and reliable against vehicles, that a squad of warriors can rip away hull points like no tomorrow.
They really don't; a 260 point squad of warriors in rapid fire range will remove on average nearly 2 hull points.
Land Raiders have 4.

Also, please tell me what anti-vehicle weapons are available to necrons that they can field on mass and reliably, like most other armies?
Eldritch lances need a special unit unlocked by an HQ choice
Heavy Gauss cannons aren't cannon and mounted on fragile platforms
Scarabs need to get in close
C'tans are terrible
Spyders need to get in close
Doomsday arks depend too much on LoS

That's interesting, because I recall Necrons being one of the top-tier armies in 5th when their codex came out. Top tier in an edition where vehicle spam was the fad.

Putting two wounds on a Land Raider is pretty good for an infantry squad, considering vehicles are not their primary target. How many HP's is a Tactical squad knocking off a Land Raider on average? What about Fire Warriors? Guardsmen? 'Gaunts? Guardians/Dire Avengers? Warriors?

I can't think of many troop choices that could reliably put even a single hull-point on a Land Raider, much less two.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That's interesting, because I recall Necrons being one of the top-tier armies in 5th when their codex came out.

Nope, you got it all wrong.

Wraith wing and the Flying Bakery were just bad dreams!

Necrons were excellent in 5th with their new book, and in fact did a lot to displace existing top armies. yes, the 3E book that was a decade old when it got replaced didn't play well, but their new book was a night and day difference even in 5th. They rocketed to the top pretty quickly.

I'd be happy with a change to the previous reserve rules and not losing a game until nothing was on the table after turn 3. Bring blood angels and reserve manipulation armies back.

And their 5th book is one of the ones that held up best in 6th (soon to be 7th) thus far.

 azreal13 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That's interesting, because I recall Necrons being one of the top-tier armies in 5th when their codex came out.

Nope, you got it all wrong.

Wraith wing and the Flying Bakery were just bad dreams!

Were they effective against Av14?
Granted, I do not recall AV14 being commonplace in 5th ed.
Usually I remember AV11 being plentiful, which is what wraiths and destructors were good a dealing with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That's interesting, because I recall Necrons being one of the top-tier armies in 5th when their codex came out. Top tier in an edition where vehicle spam was the fad.

Putting two wounds on a Land Raider is pretty good for an infantry squad, considering vehicles are not their primary target. How many HP's is a Tactical squad knocking off a Land Raider on average? What about Fire Warriors? Guardsmen? 'Gaunts? Guardians/Dire Avengers? Warriors?

I can't think of many troop choices that could reliably put even a single hull-point on a Land Raider, much less two.

Those armies also have reliable anti-tank that they could field in abundance. I.E: Melta, Lascannons, Plasma Weapons, Lances, powerfists, etc etc.
Well, maybe except for nids. But they do have a lot of monsters, so that balances that out I guess.
Their basic guns do not need to hurt tanks because they already have plenty of access to AT weapons.
Necrons do not have not much access to heavy AT. Against light vehicles? Yeah, necrons will chew those up. Tesla Destructors are really deadly against AV11-12. Not so effective against AV13 and useless against AV14.

To be fair necrons do have some AT in "The Fall Orpheus", not sure how effective they are though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Everyone keeps toting the idea that gauss is super deadly and reliable against vehicles, that a squad of warriors can rip away hull points like no tomorrow.
They really don't; a 260 point squad of warriors in rapid fire range will remove on average nearly 2 hull points.
Land Raiders have 4.

Now, I'm no mathematician, but a 260 point squad of Warriors sounds like 20 Warriors, which in rapid fire range sounds like 40 shots, which sounds like about 27 hits, which sounds like just over 4 hull points.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
To be fair necrons do have some AT in "The Fall Orpheus", not sure how effective they are though.

Oh yeah, Fall of Orpheus AT is great. Unlike the ranged AT in the main book, one could field quite a bit of it.

Using your argument for why Necron AV is inefficient:

Melta and powerfists have to get in close, apparently that makes them useless for the same reason you think Spyders are apparently useless as AV.

Plasma and lascannons will not reliably take out AV13 and up, which is what you seem to think Necrons have the biggest issue with.

Monstrous Creatures, like spyders, have to get in close.

So that leaves just lance. How many armies can spam lance weapons? Not a whole lot.

I'm not seeing the Necron plight here. Most armies don't have AV that can be used "en masse" to take out AV13+

 Thud wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Everyone keeps toting the idea that gauss is super deadly and reliable against vehicles, that a squad of warriors can rip away hull points like no tomorrow.
They really don't; a 260 point squad of warriors in rapid fire range will remove on average nearly 2 hull points.
Land Raiders have 4.

Now, I'm no mathematician, but a 260 point squad of Warriors sounds like 20 Warriors, which in rapid fire range sounds like 40 shots, which sounds like about 27 hits, which sounds like just over 4 hull points.

The problem is that they will rarely be in that rapid fire range, because they have to either footslog it or get deep struck to get near it. That Landraider can easily do a lot of damage to the warriors along with whatever it is carrying inside. Just based on my personal experiences.

A full squad of Necron Warriors can reliably take a LR out

It ain't their primary job, though, you're better off using your Stormtek to destroy it. Or, in the very best case, your Sentry Pylons. Or, simply, you Transcendent C'tan.

Necrons do get some weird changes in 7th though. The good stuff gets worse, slightly, the bad stuff gets absolutely useless (If you can no longer destroy vehicles with a 6, Heavy Destroyers are rendered completely useless) and the mediocre stuff...stays mediocre. Sounds very good actually. On the other hand, Necrons get a massive nerf by not having access to Psykers.

 Thud wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Everyone keeps toting the idea that gauss is super deadly and reliable against vehicles, that a squad of warriors can rip away hull points like no tomorrow.
They really don't; a 260 point squad of warriors in rapid fire range will remove on average nearly 2 hull points.
Land Raiders have 4.

Now, I'm no mathematician, but a 260 point squad of Warriors sounds like 20 Warriors, which in rapid fire range sounds like 40 shots, which sounds like about 27 hits, which sounds like just over 4 hull points.

You are correct. I made an error
Of course, that is not factoring in cover, and 12" is still a risky range.
That raider, for example, will most likely have a bunch of very annoyed marines inside of it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Everyone keeps toting the idea that gauss is super deadly and reliable against vehicles, that a squad of warriors can rip away hull points like no tomorrow.
They really don't; a 260 point squad of warriors in rapid fire range will remove on average nearly 2 hull points.
Land Raiders have 4.

One of us can't do math... is it me?

A squad 20 Warriors in rapid fire range is 40 shots.

At BS4, 66% of those will hit. 40 multiplied by 0.66 score an average of 26.4 hits.

Next you need 16% to score a glance. 26.4 * 0.16 = 4.2 glances. That's one dead Land Raider, right?

(without factoring in any cover, of course).

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Using your argument for why Necron AV is inefficient:

Melta and powerfists have to get in close, apparently that makes them useless for the same reason you think Spyders are apparently useless as AV.

Plasma and lascannons will not reliably take out AV13 and up, which is what you seem to think Necrons have the biggest issue with.

Monstrous Creatures, like spyders, have to get in close.

So that leaves just lance. How many armies can spam lance weapons? Not a whole lot.

I'm not seeing the Necron plight here. Most armies don't have AV that can be used "en masse" to take out AV13+

They can field it more than necrons.
For example, every tac squad can take a melta, fist or plasma.
Nids can field more MC than necrons
Lascannons and lances can be taken more often than Heavy Gauss



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Everyone keeps toting the idea that gauss is super deadly and reliable against vehicles, that a squad of warriors can rip away hull points like no tomorrow.
They really don't; a 260 point squad of warriors in rapid fire range will remove on average nearly 2 hull points.
Land Raiders have 4.

One of us can't do math... is it me?

A squad 20 Warriors in rapid fire range is 40 shots.

At BS4, 66% of those will hit. 40 multiplied by 0.66 score an average of 26.4 hits.

Next you need 16% to score a glance. 26.4 * 0.16 = 4.2 glances. That's one dead Land Raider, right?

(without factoring in any cover, of course).

I already said I made a miscalculation. Still, 260 points for a squad that will most likely get charged is a tad risky.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Of course, that is not factoring in cover, and 12" is still a risky range.
That raider, for example, will most likely have a bunch of very annoyed marines inside of it.

In general, you don't want to assault a unit of Necron Warriors. A good Necron player will always have it backed up with a IC / GA and that combo can really ruin your day. Along with taking 40 Gauss shots in the face. Not to mention you can use the GA for blocking the assault

A full squad of Warriors with Tank Hunter is a beast and wrecks vehicles like there was no tomorrow. And those Necron Sentry Pylons are really, really scary.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Of course, that is not factoring in cover, and 12" is still a risky range.
That raider, for example, will most likely have a bunch of very annoyed marines inside of it.

In general, you don't want to assault a unit of Necron Warriors. A good Necron player will always have it backed up with a IC / GA and that combo can really ruin your day. Along with taking 40 Gauss shots in the face. Not to mention you can use the GA for blocking the assault

You can do that? I was not aware that one could use FoF tactics with the ark.

Well, yeah, tank hunters on Warriors is nasty. Pylons are still on my wishlist. I want to field 2 shot anti-air lascannons. Or melta blasts.

So has their been any official or "rumored official" word on if there is going to be a starter box and if so, said starter box will have the full mini rule book and not a "trial" rule book? I bought the BRB when it came out for 6th and then later got the small starter one and after using the smaller one, vowed to never get the big one again. I mean jesus that thing is cumbersome.

Actually the necrons can field quite a few powerfist equivalents, warscythes, of course the cheapest you can get that for is 45 points.

Edit - Deleted quote

 Captain Avatar wrote:
So, what are we looking at gameplay wise?

To start, A player will either need a pack mule or an android device.
Why?

Because We are looking at the average game requiring:
A) The Core Rule book
B) Primary detatchment codex
C)Allied detatchment Codex
D)Psychic card deck
E) Mission Card Deck
F) possibly chaos codex for demon rules
And finally
G) Army, Dice, Measuring tool,, Templates, Markers and counters.

None of what you've listed here (with the possible exception of the Daemons codex) is new. All of it would be required to play a game of 6th Ed using allies. And the card decks are far from required.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
Actually the necrons can field quite a few powerfist equivalents, warscythes, of course the cheapest you can get that for is 45 points.

Edit - Deleted quote

Still not as often as marines. Terminators have them, tacs can take them, HQs can take them, Assault Marines can take them, etc etc.
Scythes are better though.
Actually, the cheapest for a scythe is 40 (the Lychguard)

 Jaceevoke wrote:
Actually the necrons can field quite a few powerfist equivalents, warscythes, of course the cheapest you can get that for is 45 points.

Edit - Deleted quote

The problem is that Necrons can hardly deliver the Warscythes. LG are terrible and Necrons don't have an Assault vehicle to deliver them. The only WS unit is a Royal Court with 5 Lords riding a Ghost Ark.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

They can field it more than necrons.
For example, every tac squad can take a melta, fist or plasma.
Nids can field more MC than necrons
Lascannons and lances can be taken more often than Heavy Gauss

So what? None of this demonstrates that Necrons struggle against armor. History shows that they don't. They were a top-tier army in 5th edition. The edition of Leaf-Blower lists and IG tank spam. Necrons can handle armor just fine without glances. You might not have "as much" anti-armor as other factions, but so what? You still have Strength 10 guns on one of the best flyers in the game. You have scarabs, you have warscythes, you have spyders, you have Arks. There is not so much armor on the table that you're helpless against it.

I wont be buying again the BRB as I never use it and even if I like to have the book on my collection, I don't want to give 60 euro for a book that changes once every two years. So mini rulebook for me.
If starter does not contain mini rulebook, pdf for me. But I m gonna buy the cards etc.
As for me as I haven't comment this new release yet, I would wait and see. Always playtesting gives better answers to whether this edition is better than 6th. So time will tell. I have to admit them though that the effort looks promising though.
Let's keep it up with the rumors,

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

They can field it more than necrons.
For example, every tac squad can take a melta, fist or plasma.
Nids can field more MC than necrons
Lascannons and lances can be taken more often than Heavy Gauss

So what? None of this demonstrates that Necrons struggle against armor. History shows that they don't. They were a top-tier army in 5th edition. The edition of Leaf-Blower lists and IG tank spam. Necrons can handle armor just fine without glances.

Actually, no. Without FW and Gauss, Necrons have no reliable way to destroy vehicles AV 13+. With FW, you got Sentry Turrets.

bs. They can deal with it as well as most of the other armies in the game. Very few factions can "spam" weapons that "reliably" kill AV13+. That's the point of AV13 and 14.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

They can field it more than necrons.
For example, every tac squad can take a melta, fist or plasma.
Nids can field more MC than necrons
Lascannons and lances can be taken more often than Heavy Gauss

So what? None of this demonstrates that Necrons struggle against armor. History shows that they don't. They were a top-tier army in 5th edition. The edition of Leaf-Blower lists and IG tank spam. Necrons can handle armor just fine without glances.

Actually, no. Without FW and Gauss, Necrons have no reliable way to destroy vehicles AV 13+. With FW, you got Sentry Turrets.

Wraiths, Spyders, Scarabs, Doomscythes, Triarch Stalkers, Destroyer Lords, Haywire Crypteks.

That about cover it?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:
Actually the necrons can field quite a few powerfist equivalents, warscythes, of course the cheapest you can get that for is 45 points.

Edit - Deleted quote

The problem is that Necrons can hardly deliver the Warscythes. LG are terrible and Necrons don't have an Assault vehicle to deliver them. The only WS unit is a Royal Court with 5 Lords riding a Ghost Ark.

True, I don't typically look at it that way. I rather have them in the warrior squads that way if they get charged at least there is some chance of them surviving.

 Thud wrote:
Haywire Crypteks.

That about cover it?

Forgot about Haywire and the DL, correct, thanks for adding. The rest isn't points-efficient.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
bs. They can deal with it as well as most of the other armies in the game. Very few factions can "spam" weapons that "reliably" kill AV13+. That's the point of AV13 and 14.

Most factions have access to lascannons, grav guns, plasma, power fists and special stuff likes lances and the likes. Necrons lack these options. Their lascannon option comes at 60 pts per model - which is just ridiculously expensive.

Necrons need Gauss. Not only for fluff reasons, but also gameplay-wise. Silver-tide players can confirm

So, we've had, what, three pages of discussion about how one army will theoretically cope with something that very likely doesn't exist?

Only one army has access to grav-cannons. Necrons have power fist equivelents, plasma does not reliably kill AV13+, Lascannons do not reliably kill AV13+

Very few armies can "reliably" kill AV13+. Necrons aren't unique in this, and no, as 5th edition showed us, they don't need the ability to glance vehicles to death with their troops choices in order to handle armor.

 azreal13 wrote:
So, we've had, what, three pages of discussion about how one army will theoretically cope with something that very likely doesn't exist?

Well, your entire argument with me hinged on the idea that Deathstars would be balanced or not played with. Not too different, really.

 azreal13 wrote:
So, we've had, what, three pages of discussion about how one army will theoretically cope with something that very likely doesn't exist?

Indeed. We need more rumors. Like if there are going to be more Battleforged FoCs.

*knock knock* sorry to interrupt the necron discussion... Can you direct me to the 7th edition rumor thread? Oh, wait....

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
So, we've had, what, three pages of discussion about how one army will theoretically cope with something that very likely doesn't exist?

Indeed. We need more rumors. Like if there are going to be more Battleforged FoCs.

Oh I'm sure we will, in the form of 50 dollar supplements of course. And then people will argue whether or not their legal in normal games

 Wuyley wrote:
So has their been any official or "rumored official" word on if there is going to be a starter box and if so, said starter box will have the full mini rule book and not a "trial" rule book? I bought the BRB when it came out for 6th and then later got the small starter one and after using the smaller one, vowed to never get the big one again. I mean jesus that thing is cumbersome.

It says in the new WD that Dark Vengeance will have an updated rulebook from some unspecified time in the future.

So along with 40K Radio saying "book only" that pretty much kills any ideas about a new starter box.

Has the latest natfka stuff been mentioned? That there's supposed to be an "organized play" supplement coming out this autumn?

Had a chance to talk to my FLGS and good friend regarding the edition. He has some similar info as to what's been posted but some stuff I haven't seen posted 9got tired of reading about xbox and MtG).

Sounds like the reps were only getting a day with the new book so I doubt we are gonna get clear and concise info but for what its worth. Here's what I can remember

1. When asked if vehicles were more durable the response was they now explode on a 7+. Conjecture on our part is 6 maybe has maybe d3 hull point strip like for super heavies in 6ed.
2. No assault from reserve. Friend knew I'd want to know this.
3. Its been said but to reiterate no sweep into new combats.
4. Charge range is same ole 2d6 but he did say it sounded like move through cover works for charging now.
5. Apparently denying powers doesn't require a psycher, so necrons and tau will get to as well.
6. There's some changes to USRs and specifically how they are conferred to units from ICs. Another one he knew I'd want to know about (I bitched about it this weekend )
7. So he mentioned there's an advantage to focusing on a set of psychic powers or something. Not really sure how it works or what. We are assuming if you roll all on one discipline you get a bonus but it seemed kinda vague.
8. Battle brothers can ride in each others transports now. I forsee much shenanigans here.
9. Everything scores. Did throw in a 'unless stated otherwise' so who knows what will have caveats (swarms I imagine but what else?)
10. Sounded like shooting psychic powers were resolved in the psychic phase, not shooting phase. Wonder how that will work for ICs and targeting.

Considering thecrazy things that have been discussed in this thread, it's honestly almost insulting that people took issue with this dicussion...

"Ermagawd Unbound =sky is falling worse 40K evur omgomgomgomg Games Workshop = satan rabblerabble!!!111!111oneone!!11!1"

is that better?

 winterman wrote:
Had a chance to talk to my FLGS and good friend regarding the edition. He has some similar info as to what's been posted but some stuff I haven't seen posted 9got tired of reading about xbox and MtG).

Sounds like the reps were only getting a day with the new book so I doubt we are gonna get clear and concise info but for what its worth. Here's what I can remember

1. When asked if vehicles were more durable the response was they now explode on a 7+. Conjecture on our part is 6 maybe has maybe d3 hull point strip like for super heavies in 6ed.
2. No assault from reserve. Friend knew I'd want to know this.
3. Its been said but to reiterate no sweep into new combats.
4. Charge range is same ole 2d6 but he did say it sounded like move through cover works for charging now.
5. Apparently denying powers doesn't require a psycher, so necrons and tau will get to as well.
6. There's some changes to USRs and specifically how they are conferred to units from ICs. Another one he knew I'd want to know about (I bitched about it this weekend )
7. So he mentioned there's an advantage to focusing on a set of psychic powers or something. Not really sure how it works or what. We are assuming if you roll all on one discipline you get a bonus but it seemed kinda vague.
8. Battle brothers can ride in each others transports now. I forsee much shenanigans here.
9. Everything scores. Did throw in a 'unless stated otherwise' so who knows what will have caveats (swarms I imagine but what else?)
10. Sounded like shooting psychic powers were resolved in the psychic phase, not shooting phase. Wonder how that will work for ICs and targeting.

Hmmm. 2d6 Charge range makes me sad. The others I'm ambivalent about.

"8. Battle brothers can ride in each others transports now. I forsee much shenanigans here. "

They made it worse?

Jesus.

Please, please, please let #8 be true.

I could then stick a load of Repentia in a Land Raider and beat some face in with them.

Yeah, BB's being able to use each other's transports is a MASSIVE buff to Imperial armies.

Kinda.

OH MY GAWD WAIT.

fething BLOOD-LETTERS IN A LAND RAIDER.

Not efficient? Who cares? It's blood-letters in a land raider.

 Thud wrote:
"8. Battle brothers can ride in each others transports now. I forsee much shenanigans here. "

They made it worse?

Jesus.

Eh... not that much worst.

Really depends on who are Battle Brothers though...

Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

I don't mind the idea of hull points and glancing damage. However, I'd prefer to see it as once the hull points have been removed, any further glancing hits now roll on the penetration table instead.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Only one army has access to grav-cannons. Necrons have power fist equivelents, plasma does not reliably kill AV13+, Lascannons do not reliably kill AV13+

Very few armies can "reliably" kill AV13+. Necrons aren't unique in this, and no, as 5th edition showed us, they don't need the ability to glance vehicles to death with their troops choices in order to handle armor.

 azreal13 wrote:
So, we've had, what, three pages of discussion about how one army will theoretically cope with something that very likely doesn't exist?

Well, your entire argument with me hinged on the idea that Deathstars would be balanced or not played with. Not too different, really.

Not quite, the discussion was over whether consolidation into a combat, at the time an apparently legitimate rumour, was something that could be implemented successfully. You threw deathstars into the mix, and I said they were something that also needed fixing, so was taking the position that they would be.

Quite a lot different from discussing how one faction would deal with something that wasn't even a rumour!

 whembly wrote:

 Thud wrote:
"8. Battle brothers can ride in each others transports now. I forsee much shenanigans here. "

They made it worse?

Jesus.

Eh... not that much worst.

Really depends on who are Battle Brothers though...

I can't remember if it was in this thread or on Warseer but I've seen someone claim a rep told them that BB are now only Eldar/ Deldar, Chaos Marines/ Daemons and Imperials. So no Tau/ Eldar or Tau/Marines any more.

 whembly wrote:

 Thud wrote:
"8. Battle brothers can ride in each others transports now. I forsee much shenanigans here. "

They made it worse?

Jesus.

Eh... not that much worst.

Really depends on who are Battle Brothers though...

We did talk about this. Got nothing solid but it sounded like it was as stated earlier -- Imps are BB with each other. LIke even Grey Knights by the sounds of it. But a lot less alien on imperial lovins.

Now how about eldar assaulting out of de tanks? I wanna do it just cause I can now.

 Thud wrote:
Has the latest natfka stuff been mentioned? That there's supposed to be an "organized play" supplement coming out this autumn?

Natfka accuracy checklist:

Did Natfka break it from an anonymous source that has no corroboration from a known reliable source like 40k Radio?

If he broke it himself, is the rumored product more than two weeks away such that nobody would yet have the product in hand or a White Dwarf talking about it?


If the answer to both questions is yes, the odds are incredibly high that the rumor is total garbage.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Pictures?

 undertow wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm fine with tank kills being somewhat "random", that's really how they should be, it either penetrates the armor and does something critical, or it doesn't. HP's are really what I don't like, tank's don't just stop working or die after X number of hits, if it doesn't hit something critical it keeps going.

As long as the same is done for multiwound models then I'd support it. As it stands, somehow every wound but the last on non vehicles only apparently shoots pinkie toes and earlobes. If vehicles can be one shorted by a melts, so should a riptide.

Riptides should have been walkers.

Or a new Type of unit, Monstrous Walker, its acts like a classique MC but for each 2 Wounds lost by a MW, throw a dice on the MW damage chart and apply the result, results may vary from " can only snapshot this turn" to " get a random weapon unable to be used till the end of game" and" always counts as moving in difficult and dangerous terrain"...

Represents perfectly the lose of limbs, concussions to the head or simply the lose of the weapon(dropped in the heat of battle or destroyed).

As for vehicles, simply modify the line that says " a vehicle with 0HP is auto destroyed" with " a vehicle with 0HP isn't destroyed, but he must roll on the damage chart if he gets hit by Glancing , just the same way a Penetrating hit makes a roll on the chart".

There vehicle isn't auto gibbed by glancing anymore and can continue, but the fact that the armor as enough holes in it, increase the risks of ot to be damaged for good.

 Thud wrote:
Has the latest natfka stuff been mentioned? That there's supposed to be an "organized play" supplement coming out this autumn?

Yes, over in the "lets all make up random nonesense to justify that my earlier rumours were a load of tosh in order to get hits" thread.

GW and organized play is like kittens and napalm, they don't go together.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Pictures?

[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/h85dfaqrfrjqe9p/Photo%20May%2013%2C%204%2051%2053%20PM.jpg

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Wasn't that always the case? I've never heard of 24" range flamers.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Pictures?

Wait, I'm confused, what does this mean exactly? How was anyone applying the wounds of a flamer on anything outside of the template range before?

undertow wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
So, what are we looking at gameplay wise?

To start, A player will either need a pack mule or an android device.
Why?

Because We are looking at the average game requiring:
A) The Core Rule book
B) Primary detatchment codex
C)Allied detatchment Codex
D)Psychic card deck
E) Mission Card Deck
F) possibly chaos codex for demon rules
And finally
G) Army, Dice, Measuring tool,, Templates, Markers and counters.

None of what you've listed here (with the possible exception of the Daemons codex) is new. All of it would be required to play a game of 6th Ed using allies. And the card decks are far from required.

Point is that 6th had already driven away much of the playerbase and that 7th looks to be only making things worse. BTW, Love how you aspiring paladins edit out the part about how much longer each game is gonna take between psychic phase, objective phase and the add demons phase.

BlaxicanX wrote:Considering thecrazy things that have been discussed in this thread, it's honestly almost insulting that people took issue with this dicussion...

"Ermagawd Unbound =sky is falling worse 40K evur omgomgomgomg Games Workshop = satan rabblerabble!!!111!!!111oneone!!

Is that better?

Yes, admitting that there is a probllem is the first step to awareness.

That's just an example. Wound allocation is currently done using the longest range weapon in a unit. Now shooting is done on a weapon by weapon basis.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Pictures?

[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/h85dfaqrfrjqe9p/Photo%20May%2013%2C%204%2051%2053%20PM.jpg

I meant of the page, but that works too.

 Thud wrote:
Has the latest natfka stuff been mentioned? That there's supposed to be an "organized play" supplement coming out this autumn?

Faeit's starter set rumours just got debunked and you're asking if people believe the latest junk he just posted?

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

I like that change. Will certainly make shooting more tactical as you'd have to think about which weapons to fire first. Will depend if removing casualties changes or not though I gues.

 Accolade wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Pictures?

Wait, I'm confused, what does this mean exactly? How was anyone applying the wounds of a flamer on anything outside of the template range before?

Yes, because the rulebook faq said that if at least one weapon in the squad had the range to hit the back of the unit, then any wounds caused could be allocated to the entire unit, including wounds from flamers.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
That's just an example. Wound allocation is currently done using the longest range weapon in a unit. Now shooting is done on a weapon by weapon basis.

Ah right. Yeah that is silly.
I am more interested about wound allocation. Any news if they are streamlining it? The current version isn't great.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Wasn't that always the case? I've never heard of 24" range flamers.

He's talking about wound allocation. Yes you most certainly could end up allocating flamer wounds outside of the range of a flamer as long as something with a longer range in the same unit had also fired.

Now it sounds like you resolve each weapon type seperately as a group instead of wound pools and whatnot. Way more time consuming but removes oddities.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Pictures?

Wait, I'm confused, what does this mean exactly? How was anyone applying the wounds of a flamer on anything outside of the template range before?

Yes, because the rulebook faq said that if at least one weapon in the squad had the range to hit the back of the unit, then any wounds caused could be allocated to the entire unit, including wounds from flamers.

Wow, I didn't realize that. Well I'm glad it's getting fixed then!

 winterman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

Wasn't that always the case? I've never heard of 24" range flamers.

He's talking about wound allocation. Yes you most certainly could end up allocating flamer wounds outside of the range of a flamer as long as something with a longer range in the same unit had also fired.

Now it sounds like you resolve each weapon type seperately as a group instead of wound pools and whatnot. Way more time consuming but removes oddities.

I mean when it comes to saves. Like, now you can tank everything on 1 guy and roll each die separately to see if he dies first. Or fails LoS.

Winners don't use Dropbox.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
quote=Captain Avatar 592379 6824321 0b04422499fa034eed54ea2b172f1f17.jpg]So, what are we looking at gameplay wise?

Point is that 6th had already driven away much of the playerbase and that 7th looks to be only making things worse. BTW, Love how you aspiring paladins edit out the part about how much longer each game is gonna take between psychic phase, objective phase and the add demons phase.

This just means tournaments will have to either play smaller games (yes, please) or make games longer (god, no!).

But it's May 13...where did that copy of May 17 come from?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But it's May 13...where did that copy of May 17 come from?

Hes from the future obviously

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But it's May 13...where did that copy of May 17 come from?

Stores usually get copies early so they can be ready to go on sale on Saturday.

You know that's the second time Nurgle has been featured regarding the new edition. Kind of ironic for a god of stagnation being plastered on something "new".

Psychic phase is after movement.

2 or more 6's on a psychic test cause perils.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0121d55922zy1/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2002%2040%20PM.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzm6tre3v9hi8cc/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2002%2048%20PM.jpg

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But it's May 13...where did that copy of May 17 come from?

The only possible explanation is that he time travelled.

I'm on my phone and Dropbox is all I got.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
I'm on my phone and Dropbox is all I got.

S'ok, I'll rehost, gimme a sec.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Psychic phase is after movement.

2 or more 6's on a psychic test cause perils.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0121d55922zy1/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2002%2040%20PM.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzm6tre3v9hi8cc/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2002%2048%20PM.jpg

Heh, you guys wanna throw those 6 dice you would need to get a warp charge 3 power off now?

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Psychic phase is after movement.

2 or more 6's on a psychic test cause perils.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew0121d55922zy1/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2002%2040%20PM.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzm6tre3v9hi8cc/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2002%2048%20PM.jpg

So basically, it's the magic phase.
Maybe we will see To-hit modifiers from cover soon...

 azreal13 wrote:

Damned government firewall. Why must everything be blocked!?

 tetrisphreak wrote:
I'm on my phone and Dropbox is all I got.

That's more than enough. Thank you for the pictures.

Any more?

 tetrisphreak wrote:
2 or more 6's on a psychic test cause perils.

CALLED IT.

So races with no psykers still get the D6 charges?

Also Coteaz with daemons, HERESY!

Rolling any doubles on a daemonology power perils (hints that chaos are immune to this).

Psykers generating all their powers from one tree get the primaris for free as well. This includes ML1 psykers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/528x8z5oqkx4v9r/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2009%2055%20PM.jpg

so this means Tyranids will always get the primaris for free then? Shame Catalyst wasn't the primaris!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So races with no psykers still get the D6 charges?

Also Coteaz with daemons, HERESY!

Wren, you better get ready for heresy all over the place!

(that picture does look pretty odd there with Coteaz and his homies)

 azreal13 wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
I'm on my phone and Dropbox is all I got.

S'ok, I'll rehost, gimme a sec.

Ninja'd.

Rules changes from 6th:

Swooping FMCS only take grounding tests once per phase, at the end, and only if they take a wound.

Wounds spill over from challenges.

D weapons allow invulnerable saves unless you roll a "6".

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b3vkwu65ua93ny9/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2014%2012%20PM.jpg

 Accolade wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So races with no psykers still get the D6 charges?

Also Coteaz with daemons, HERESY!

Wren, you better get ready for heresy all over the place!

(that picture does look pretty odd those with Coteaz and his homies)

Me and my tons of warp dice from my GKs are ready.

 tetrisphreak wrote:


D weapons allow invulnerable saves unless you roll a "6".

Well there goes the counter for 2++ rerollable crap =/

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Rules changes from 6th:

Swooping FMCS only take grounding tests once per phase, at the end, and only if they take a wound.

Wounds spill over from challenges.

D weapons allow invulnerable saves unless you roll a "6".

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b3vkwu65ua93ny9/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2014%2012%20PM.jpg

Loving all of it so far!

Wow tyranids just got a major buff

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Rules changes from 6th:

Swooping FMCS only take grounding tests once per phase, at the end, and only if they take a wound.

Wounds spill over from challenges.

D weapons allow invulnerable saves unless you roll a "6".

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b3vkwu65ua93ny9/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2014%2012%20PM.jpg

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Liking the change to destroyer weapons. It's a fair compromise.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
quote=Captain Avatar 592379 6824321 0b04422499fa034eed54ea2b172f1f17.jpg]So, what are we looking at gameplay wise?

Point is that 6th had already driven away much of the playerbase and that 7th looks to be only making things worse. BTW, Love how you aspiring paladins edit out the part about how much longer each game is gonna take between psychic phase, objective phase and the add demons phase.

This just means tournaments will have to either play smaller games (yes, please) or make games longer (god, no!).

Who said a damn thing about tournaments?!!

I'm a busy person who owns and runs a business. Pick-up or scheduled games that are going to average 4+ hours just don't fit my and many others schedule.

On the bright side, those of you still playing won't be rushed by players waiting for games at your flgs.

Wow, so GW was serious about IoM willing to summon demons from the warp.

Like...wow. Really. That's just...wow. That's worse than the 5th Necron fluff. Holy crap. So, "forge your narrative" now means "feth everything, nobody wants that lore anyway!"? Well played GW.

The challenge buff is nice i guess. no more chumping sergeants

but did FMC and 2++ rerollables reallllly need more help?

FFS

Well played taking the only reliable 2++ counter out of the game. So much for balance.

 Desubot wrote:
The challenge buff is nice i guess. no more chumping sergeants

but did FMC and 2++ rerollables reallllly need more help?

FFS

No, but everything else did.
Do not think of the change to Destroyer Weapons as a buff to 2+ invuls, but as a buff to everything else with an invul.
Besides, invuls are still killed on a 6.

It looks like a 6 would still rip through an invulnerable though so they aren't completely toothless.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The challenge buff is nice i guess. no more chumping sergeants

but did FMC and 2++ rerollables reallllly need more help?

FFS

No, but everything else did.
Do not think of the change to Destroyer Weapons as a buff to 2+ invuls, but as a buff to everything else with an invul.

D was the most reliable counter to 2++ rerolls though, unless the psyker phase and power changes and other changes nerf 2++ rerolls

So the counter to 2++ rerollable saves got punked, which in theory was fine, but they don't seem to have really done anything about the ability to run something that just a few years ago was hyperbolic exaggeration.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The challenge buff is nice i guess. no more chumping sergeants

but did FMC and 2++ rerollables reallllly need more help?

FFS

No, but everything else did.
Do not think of the change to Destroyer Weapons as a buff to 2+ invuls, but as a buff to everything else with an invul.

D was the most reliable counter to 2++ rerolls though, unless the psyker phase and power changes and other changes nerf 2++ rerolls

Yes, and D weapons still counter 2+ rerolls. On a 6.
So 1-5 chance of not murdering everything, 1/6 chance of murdering everything, especially those pesky 2+ saves.
I consider that a fair compromise.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The challenge buff is nice i guess. no more chumping sergeants

but did FMC and 2++ rerollables reallllly need more help?

FFS

No, but everything else did.
Do not think of the change to Destroyer Weapons as a buff to 2+ invuls, but as a buff to everything else with an invul.

D was the most reliable counter to 2++ rerolls though, unless the psyker phase and power changes and other changes nerf 2++ rerolls

Was it? In theory, yes. But considering no one I know of actually plays with Superheavies or D weapons, it hardly counts as an actual reliable counter.

Many thanks for the pics, any chance of some of the new releases or the collectors edition?

Cheers

Coteaz summoning demons. They clearly don't give a damn about their own fluff anymore.

That new ruleset better be the most awesomest ever made, or I'll go forge my narrative somewhere else.

Everything (almost) is scoring - no word on if this extends to vehicles. Battle forged troops trump other scoring units, though, so they can steal objectives from non troop enemy units (or unbound troops).

Has anyone got the link to the third video yet?

 Erzanj wrote:
Coteaz summoning demons. They clearly don't give a damn about their own fluff anymore.

You do realize that the current fluff states that he's slowly slipping as he's getting older?

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Swooping FMCS only take grounding tests once per phase, at the end, and only if they take a wound.

No more grounding from Markerlights. I'm Ok with that.

(disclaimer: has been known to play a Flying Circus)

I read that as you still get to take your invulnerable save even if they roll a 6, it's just that you have to pass D6+6 of them for the model to survive.

Oh, and that last scan from WD (the page 21) confirms that Deamons will have access to Daemonology.

So, I guess we will be able to cast Possession with them. Instant mid-battle promotion from herald to Greater Demon could be funny.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Erzanj wrote:
Coteaz summoning demons. They clearly don't give a damn about their own fluff anymore.

You do realize that the current fluff states that he's slowly slipping as he's getting older?

I remembered him as strictly Puritan. I'll have to read it again, thanks for pointing that out.

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Many thanks for the pics, any chance of some of the new releases or the collectors edition?

Cheers

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yylmwrocry2fwjx/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2031%2040%20PM.jpg

 Vaktathi wrote:
So the counter to 2++ rerollable saves got punked, which in theory was fine, but they don't seem to have really done anything about the ability to run something that just a few years ago was hyperbolic exaggeration.

But there remains the possibility that invuls themselves could have been revised, don't panic yet (ie capped at 3++ or not rerollable or similar)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Removing invul on roll of a 6 is useless on a counter level. Counters need to be reliable. That's why you paid the super premium for D weapons - reliable strength. A 1/6th chance is highly unreliable and not worth the huge points investment.

So basically, we're back to Deathstars now? Along with them scoring? GW rocks.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Many thanks for the pics, any chance of some of the new releases or the collectors edition?

Cheers

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yylmwrocry2fwjx/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2031%2040%20PM.jpg

Top stuff! cheers for that! Looks impressive.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Wow, so GW was serious about IoM willing to summon demons from the warp.

Like...wow. Really. That's just...wow. That's worse than the 5th Necron fluff. Holy crap. So, "forge your narrative" now means "feth everything, nobody wants that lore anyway!"? Well played GW.

This is going to end up like the "x and Y would never ally" stuff of 6th isn't it?

Daemon hosts have been a thing for a long time. That is an inquisitor summoning a daemon. Disparate or arrogant people have always tried it, but now it can be represented in the game. No lore/fluff problem at all. It may not happen very often, but then nor dose the death of Bjorn the Fel Handed, but it dose all the time in game.

Oh boy the challenge wounds overflow!!!!!!!

yes kharn and my JuggerAxeLord will love this to no end..heck all my Khorne Champions will love this!!!!!

Difficult terrain is -2" to charge range.

7+ to explode a vehicle.

New wound allocation - weapon by weapon.

OMG!

I so have to get the Munitorium Edition.

Better cover art on the books? Check!
Objective tokens? Check!
Art book? Check!
Nice looking box? Check!

Going to be hitting F5 on Friday to make sure I bag one of those bad-boys.

Take my money! Take my money!

rollawaythestone wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The challenge buff is nice i guess. no more chumping sergeants

but did FMC and 2++ rerollables reallllly need more help?

FFS

No, but everything else did.
Do not think of the change to Destroyer Weapons as a buff to 2+ invuls, but as a buff to everything else with an invul.

D was the most reliable counter to 2++ rerolls though, unless the psyker phase and power changes and other changes nerf 2++ rerolls

Was it? In theory, yes. But considering no one I know of actually plays with Superheavies or D weapons, it hardly counts as an actual reliable counter.

You're allowed to take them, just everyone makes a hissy fit about them even though they're not that bad.

Especially considering the FOC for 7th includes Lords of War in the BRB, and knights are more prevalent now, D is a near reality.

Any word yet on whether Psychic powers are once a turn yet? Cause if it's not the game just broke.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Removing invul on roll of a 6 is useless on a counter level. Counters need to be reliable. That's why you paid the super premium for D weapons - reliable strength. A 1/6th chance is highly unreliable and not worth the huge points investment.

So basically, we're back to Deathstars now? Along with them scoring? GW rocks.

I think you'll find that fortune will be much harder to cast as a WC2 psychic power now instead of a ld10 check. Plus you can throw all your dispel dice to try and block it, with no chance of perils as a defending player.

Chill.

I think that I need this munitorum boxed set. Must resist

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Many thanks for the pics, any chance of some of the new releases or the collectors edition?

Cheers

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yylmwrocry2fwjx/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2031%2040%20PM.jpg

Any prices in that thing?

Yeah being able to actually stop psychic powers is cool as hell.

It still doesn't matter though if you can have 3 Psykers casting the same spell every turn though that bring in more psykers that can cast that same spell over and over again.

I can see it now, unbound army. Ahriman + as many sorcs as you can afford. Turn one: summon the army.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Oh boy the challenge wounds overflow!!!!!!!

yes kharn and my JuggerAxeLord will love this to no end..heck all my Khorne Champions will love this!!!!!

As a Black Templars player, I too approve of this change.

There are only 2000 copies of that Munitorum edition rulebook? Weren't there like 4-5000 last go around?

"Difficult terrain is -2" to charge range."

This makes me wonder if Move Through Cover negates that, and maybe assault grenades will mess with Overwatch instead.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Many thanks for the pics, any chance of some of the new releases or the collectors edition?

Cheers

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yylmwrocry2fwjx/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2031%2040%20PM.jpg

Any prices in that thing?

Rulebook - $85
Munitorum edition - $340, 2,000 copies, online only, limited
Psychic deck - $15
Tactical objectives - $8

No dice, objectives, or templates. Those will probably drop next week.

I'm OKwith the idea of Imperial players being able to summon Demons, as long as in team games/Doubles, a non-Heretical player can immediately declare an EXTERMINATUS and exterminate the Heretic.

And I'm not joking. If I'm playing a team game, and my Spess Mehreen / Imperial Guard Astra Wotsit / Adepta Sista partner uses his psyker to summon a Daemon I'm gonna say "feth that" and switch sides mid-game. My entire army will then turn on the spot and target the filthy Daemon-consorting-Heretics. Objective be damned.

Hows that for forging a narrative?

Raven Guard do not tolerate Heretics.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Difficult terrain is -2" to charge range.

7+ to explode a vehicle.

New wound allocation - weapon by weapon.

The terrain change sound very helpful for assault armies. Pics please?

Besides that though I'm hoping for maybe one more buff to assault deliver-ability. Best case scenario would be altering Overwatch so that it's actually a tactical choice rather than a free bonus, but I'll take what we can get.

Mavnas wrote:
I can see it now, unbound army. Ahriman + as many sorcs as you can afford. Turn one: summon the army.

I realize you're probably half joking, but I don't think it would be that bad...

I get to deny some of those at least, and you should get a few miscasts, and I'll kill a bunch of your stuff too. And then I'm super scoring, while you're not.

Could it be... balanced?

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 DiabolicAl wrote:
Many thanks for the pics, any chance of some of the new releases or the collectors edition?

Cheers

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yylmwrocry2fwjx/Photo%20May%2013%2C%205%2031%2040%20PM.jpg

Any prices in that thing?

Rulebook - $85
Munitorum edition - $340, 2,000 copies, online only, limited
Psychic deck - $15
Tactical objectives - $8

No dice, objectives, or templates. Those will probably drop next week.

Thanks!

As a fan of the Bloodthirster, and owner and regular fielder of a spectacular counts as mini who sports a paint job I'm particularly proud of, I also approve of these changes!

It's actually possible since Apparently Horrors can summon to bring in over 200 models on the 3rd turn.

6 Squads of ML2 Horrors
4 ML2 Heralds

Even given a 50% chance to get half that off and succeed in summoning 5 Squads , not counting being able to get Sacrifice for the ML2 Horrors...

Turn 2
6 Squads of ML2 , 5 Squads of ML1
4 ML2

Turn 3
6 Squads of ML2 , 12 Squads of ML1
4 Heralds


There has to be some rule that doesn't let you cast the same psychic power more than once a phase but that would feth over Tyranids pretty hard. So the answer is definitely yes.

 xttz wrote:
"Difficult terrain is -2" to charge range."

This makes me wonder if Move Through Cover negates that, and maybe assault grenades will mess with Overwatch instead.

Doesn't say one way or the other.

Mavnas wrote:
I can see it now, unbound army. Ahriman + as many sorcs as you can afford. Turn one: summon the army.

Laughed so hard I now have a headache.

We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Hollismason wrote:
It's actually possible since Apparently Horrors can summon to bring in over 200 models on the 3rd turn.

6 Squads of ML2 Horrors
4 ML2 Heralds

Even given a 50% chance to get half that off and succeed in summoning 5 Squads , not counting being able to get Sacrifice for the ML2 Horrors...

Turn 2
6 Squads of ML2 , 5 Squads of ML1
4 ML2

Turn 3
6 Squads of ML2 , 12 Squads of ML1
4 Heralds


There has to be some rule that doesn't let you cast the same psychic power more than once a phase but that would feth over Tyranids pretty hard. So the answer is definitely yes.

Somewhere in Nottingham, Kirby is gently weeping with happiness as he strolls around something resembling the warehouse at the end of Raiders, only with pallet after pallet of boxes of lesser daemon kits...

Im really digging those tokens.

weapon by weapon allocation sounds like it could get messy (when to check RF range)

Any ideas on what you would need to roll to DTW? (it could help stop deathstars depending on how easy)

So to cast powers you need to roll 4+ but on double 6s you take a peirls test? i hope it is some sort of LD check. Was that "if you peirls you cant cast ever again" thing confirmed or debunked?

I don't think there is some sort of age-driven destination that inquisitors necessarily become more radical as they get older.

I do think GW added these powers as a way to jazz up the game, and figured only those people hardcore into the fluff would care too much.

 Desubot wrote:
Im really digging those tokens.

weapon by weapon allocation sounds like it could get messy (when to check RF range)

Any ideas on what you would need to roll to DTW? (it could help stop deathstars depending on how easy)

So to cast powers you need to roll 4+ but on double 6s you take a peirls test? i hope it is some sort of LD check. Was that "if you peirls you cant cast ever again" thing confirmed or debunked?

You need a number of 4+s equal to the Warp Charge value of the power. Leadership doesn't appear to be involved.

Weapon by weapon is easy, you check for RF range, or whatever, when you choose to fire your RF weapons. If you choose to do it after your flamer, and it has wiped out all RF range models, well, that's your choice.

I get that you can summon an ass ton of Horrors, but all those Horrors are going to do is summon a bunch more Horrors, and it isn't very hard to come up on them and beat them in assault. You'd probably be better off summoning Daemonettes that can get things done.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Haven't seen this one yet, so:

Spoiler:

 xttz wrote:


Well at that price they're pretty much already forking you.

Right!?

Do we know how wound allocation works now? Removeing from the front has been my most hated change from 6th.

slaede wrote:
I get that you can summon an ass ton of Horrors, but all those Horrors are going to do is summon a bunch more Horrors, and it isn't very hard to come up on them and beat them in assault. You'd probably be better off summoning Daemonettes that can get things done.

Yo dawg, I heard you like Horrors...

The FMC change is exciting, but the missing piece is if there are changes to skyfire.

 Blacksails wrote:

 xttz wrote:


Well at that price they're pretty much already forking you.

Right!?

I would have liked to have seen it priced at $1000, and then waited for someone to come in and explain how they had more money than sense and bought it.

 Accolade wrote:

I would have liked to have seen it priced at $1000, and then waited for someone to come in and explain how they had more money than sense and bought it.

I'm thinking that at 340 it'd take more money than sense to buy it anyways.

I thought the same with limited edition codices too.

If it had a metal or wooden box instead of cardboard I would seriously consider it...I just had to hide it from my wife

I'd like to see that Perils table right now to see what happens. They're making it sound all doom and gloom

 azreal13 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Haven't seen this one yet, so:

Spoiler:

Ragnar69 wrote:
If it had a metal or wooden box instead of cardboard I would seriously consider it...I just had to hide it from my wife

She'd find out. Then there would really be no time for peace...

 Blacksails wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

I would have liked to have seen it priced at $1000, and then waited for someone to come in and explain how they had more money than sense and bought it.

I'm thinking that at 340 it'd take more money than sense to buy it anyways.

I thought the same with limited edition codices too.

To rich for my blood and I have a Sisters army!

 Blacksails wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

I would have liked to have seen it priced at $1000, and then waited for someone to come in and explain how they had more money than sense and bought it.

I'm thinking that at 340 it'd take more money than sense to buy it anyways.

I thought the same with limited edition codices too.

Oh I know, I think $340 is absolute insanity. It's at *least* $130 priced over any of the previous LE books, but look at all those hardcovers!!

At least if it was something like $1000 we could have the people who bought it institutionalized.

No new scans for a bit, guys I'm worried tetrisphreak has been caught by GW inquisition...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

To rich for my blood and I have a Sisters army!

(Ex) All metal Mordian collector.

Paying 4x the price for a fancy cover never struck as being remotely in the ballpark of a sensible way to spend my hobby money.

But hey, I guess some people dig that kind of stuff. Some people have a thing for feet. People are weird.

 Blacksails wrote:
People are weird.

And that's the universal truth right there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
People are weird.

And that's the universal truth right there.

A-fething-men.

 xttz wrote:
No new scans for a bit, guys I'm worried tetrisphreak has been caught by GW inquisition...

Or his phone died, or there isn't anything else to share, or a hundred other reasons.

 xttz wrote:
No new scans for a bit, guys I'm worried tetrisphreak has been caught by GW inquisition...

Don't panic, it was only a Weakly White Dwarf, far more likely he's just covered the whole thing!

 Lockark wrote:
Do we know how wound allocation works now? Removeing from the front has been my most hated change from 6th.

Still from the closest to the firing models.

The first LEs with just a dust jacket have really been stupid, but the later ones improved. If I would have been into Chaos then Crimson Slaughter would have tempted me. I mean, tormented faces appearing on the cover when you touch it? There can't be a cooler feature for a chaos book

On topic: we need more pics

That's about it. There's some stuff worth reading, like the 1200 point battle report of orks vs nids (gasp! They even posted lists!)

A good issue. Now the 11 day wait will seem even LONGER

Battleforged or Unbound the next time I meet a guy with screamerstar I am going to let him set his army up, declare him the winner, and go look for another opponent.

Also, I saw the guy that bought the 6th Ed. LE and still carries it around in the canvas book bag that came with it, I laughed.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Do we know how wound allocation works now? Removeing from the front has been my most hated change from 6th.

Still from the closest to the firing models.

If anyone wants orks or csm pm me. Because assault armies are still R.I.P. in peace

Gonna be spamming that F5 key to get a munitorium edition!

The reference section is pictured in the photo with the LE version. Sadly the text is too small to read but a few things can be discerned:

Melee to-hit chart is the same.

S vs T to-wound chart is the same.

BS6+ not listed in the shooting to hit table.

Vehicle damage table has effects for 1-3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. (Cannot read text)

Perils chart is a d6 table.

The rest is just too blurry/small to make out.

Yes! My screamerstar will be moaar powerful than it was!
Just kidding...

 avedominusnox wrote:
Yes! My screamerstar will be moaar powerful than it was!
Just kidding...

Are you?

if the collectors edition were 200, I might think about it. But $340?

Nope.

$340...holy hell that is two battleboxes and several addons...

Glad the box set will remain the same, been meaning to buy a couple more to make a small Cultist army. My nephew can have the Dark Angels.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 avedominusnox wrote:
Yes! My screamerstar will be moaar powerful than it was!
Just kidding...

Are you?

Ofc I'm kidding. Though I own one and I will use it partially if not whole in a competitive tournament.
But I did that before the new edition and I will use the models after it in various ways if I'm allowed to.
Still I never play these stuff in casual/non-tourney games.
I find some of the new rules very good and promising, some others seem still game breaking but we will have to figure out
through play test.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Removing invul on roll of a 6 is useless on a counter level. Counters need to be reliable. That's why you paid the super premium for D weapons - reliable strength. A 1/6th chance is highly unreliable and not worth the huge points investment.

So basically, we're back to Deathstars now? Along with them scoring? GW rocks.

I think you'll find that fortune will be much harder to cast as a WC2 psychic power now instead of a ld10 check. Plus you can throw all your dispel dice to try and block it, with no chance of perils as a defending player.

Chill.

Exactly... that's exciting as all hell.

No more instant 2++ rerollable Baronseer/Screamer star. At least you'd have a fighting chance now!

So basically starter remains the same with a possibility of a new mini rulebook included in it?
That's nice. Even if it takes time for that to happen.

slaede wrote:
I get that you can summon an ass ton of Horrors, but all those Horrors are going to do is summon a bunch more Horrors, and it isn't very hard to come up on them and beat them in assault. You'd probably be better off summoning Daemonettes that can get things done.

You can but you want the extra ML for more Warp Power. You can also summon Bloodcrushers. Supposedly.

 Lockark wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Do we know how wound allocation works now? Removeing from the front has been my most hated change from 6th.

Still from the closest to the firing models.

If anyone wants orks or csm pm me. Because assault armies are still R.I.P. in peace

Whoa there bucko...

Let's wait to see if you can assault out of transport easier (ie, in 5th).

Great... Making psyker based armies and FMC spam better. Surely my sisters of battle will get a great way to be anti-psyker based or some way to shoot down flyers.


I don't understand people getting excited about the current stuff that's no fun to play against getting better. Also, $340 for an LE?

Guys, that's a a full army in any other game. That's. Nuts.

Hoping the whole picture is better. Nerfing ignores cover is needed. Hit and run sucks, inflicheating sucks...

 TheKbob wrote:
Great... Making psyker based armies and FMC spam better. Surely my sisters of battle will get a great way to be anti-psyker based or some way to shoot down flyers.


I don't understand people getting excited about the current stuff that's no fun to play against getting better. Also, $340 for an LE?

Guys, that's a a full army in any other game. That's. Nuts.

Hoping the whole picture is better. Needing ignores cover is needed. Hit and run sucks, inflicheating sucks...

This is how i feel 100 fold.

Twin linked weapons automatically gain skyfire but cannot reroll to hit?

That'd be a way to make flyers good but make their counters expensive. Then just nerf Wave Serpents...

 Vaktathi wrote:
if the collectors edition were 200, I might think about it. But $340?

Nope.

Don't worry, you won't have to wait long for the next collector's edition rulebook.

I see that 7E includes a major buff to forum whining based on incomplete information

 xttz wrote:
I see that 7E includes a major buff to forum whining based on incomplete information

+1 is not enough...

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

This is great news, because my fluff 5-flamers suicide squad was too good and really needed a nerf. Hopefully, you will remove casualty from the first flamer before checking the number of hit that the second one inflict too…

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Swooping FMCS only take grounding tests once per phase, at the end, and only if they take a wound.

This is great news, because I have access to tons of anti-air units in my Sisters of Battle army.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
I think you'll find that fortune will be much harder to cast as a WC2 psychic power now instead of a ld10 check.

This is great news, because now nobody will need Fortune anymore. The first spell of malefic daemonology does the same, only better. And is WC1.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm OKwith the idea of Imperial players being able to summon Demons, as long as in team games/Doubles, a non-Heretical player can immediately declare an EXTERMINATUS and exterminate the Heretic.

And I'm not joking. If I'm playing a team game, and my Spess Mehreen / Imperial Guard Astra Wotsit / Adepta Sista partner uses his psyker to summon a Daemon I'm gonna say "feth that" and switch sides mid-game. My entire army will then turn on the spot and target the filthy Daemon-consorting-Heretics. Objective be damned.

Hows that for forging a narrative?

Raven Guard do not tolerate Heretics.

Sisters do not get access to daemonology because no psykers.

 Accolade wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

I would have liked to have seen it priced at $1000, and then waited for someone to come in and explain how they had more money than sense and bought it.

I'm thinking that at 340 it'd take more money than sense to buy it anyways.

I thought the same with limited edition codices too.

Oh I know, I think $340 is absolute insanity. It's at *least* $130 priced over any of the previous LE books, but look at all those hardcovers!!

At least if it was something like $1000 we could have the people who bought it institutionalized.

Carl Tuttle already pre-ordered 2!

 tetrisphreak wrote:
The reference section is pictured in the photo with the LE version. Sadly the text is too small to read but a few things can be discerned:

Melee to-hit chart is the same.

So weapon skill will remain useless...That is sad.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Looking at my copy of WDW and this is epic:

Units now shoot based on the weapon they're holding. E.g., the flamer shoots and resolves all wounds, then the bolters in the unit shoot and resolve all wounds. So on and so forth until all eligible weapons have been fired.

No more 'my bolter has 24" range so my flamer wounds can apply to models up to 24" away." This is huge.

This is great news, because my fluff 5-flamers suicide squad was too good and really needed a nerf. Hopefully, you will remove casualty from the first flamer before checking the number of hit that the second one inflict too…

Nah... they all happen at the same time since they're the same weapons. S'ok.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Swooping FMCS only take grounding tests once per phase, at the end, and only if they take a wound.

This is great news, because I have access to tons of anti-air units in my Sisters of Battle army.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
I think you'll find that fortune will be much harder to cast as a WC2 psychic power now instead of a ld10 check.

This is great news, because now nobody will need Fortune anymore. The first spell of malefic daemonology does the same, only better. And is WC1.

At least you'd have a chance to deny it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm OKwith the idea of Imperial players being able to summon Demons, as long as in team games/Doubles, a non-Heretical player can immediately declare an EXTERMINATUS and exterminate the Heretic.

And I'm not joking. If I'm playing a team game, and my Spess Mehreen / Imperial Guard Astra Wotsit / Adepta Sista partner uses his psyker to summon a Daemon I'm gonna say "feth that" and switch sides mid-game. My entire army will then turn on the spot and target the filthy Daemon-consorting-Heretics. Objective be damned.

Hows that for forging a narrative?

Raven Guard do not tolerate Heretics.

Sisters do not get access to daemonology because no psykers.

You're IoM... get some allied brotherhoods yo! (yes, I'm sure it's GW's master plan to get you to spend moar $$$!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AdeptSister wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
The reference section is pictured in the photo with the LE version. Sadly the text is too small to read but a few things can be discerned:

Melee to-hit chart is the same.

So weapon skill will remain useless...That is sad.

What he ^ said...

 Blacksails wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

I would have liked to have seen it priced at $1000, and then waited for someone to come in and explain how they had more money than sense and bought it.

I'm thinking that at 340 it'd take more money than sense to buy it anyways.

I thought the same with limited edition codices too.

I got the Iron Hands limited edition Marine codex. I thought I would reward GW for actually paying my favourite chapter some attention.

Yeah, that went well. Up there with tactically voting Liberal Democrat in the 2010 elections to keep out the Tories

As for the new rumours; somewhat intriguing. If the BBs using friendly transport vehicles is true that would really help thematically with my AdMech, since using Chimeras just feels appropriate, but until now that was impossible since I use Blood Claws rules for my Skitarii. It's not enough to dampen my resentment at not actually being able to model most of said Skitarii for several months because I have to fork out for the new bloody rulebook, but it might make it easier to forget my annoyance in the future.

EDIT: Jesus Christ whembly, that image. I have no idea why it's so funny. but I think I might have just collapsed a lung with laughter

I'm still waiting for the Harlequin codex lol

I'm psyched for the new rules, with unbound you only need 10 minis for an army (10x marneus calgar or whatever) which makes 40k great value for money.

What? Warmachine players use this argument all the time. :p

I like some of the new stuff

And the psychic phase seems like a cool addition except

I PLAY BT!!!!!!!!

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

 insaniak wrote:

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

I don't see wounds spilling over making any sense. Why even have the challenge sub rules?

 Lobukia wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Dr. Bizarre wrote:
We don't know if Coteaz has access to the 'malefic' deamonic powers. He might only have access to the 'santic' ones. Besides, don't inquisitors get more radical in their old age?

Eisenhorn certainly did...


Wound allocation still from the front makes sad panda.


Wounds spilling over from challenges isn't awesome (I would have rather seen challenges removed entirely as they just don't make any sense for most armies) but it's at least better than the current system.

I don't see wounds spilling over making any sense. Why even have the challenge sub rules?

Because the Bloodthirster lops off the Sergeant's head and keeps swinging. Makes plenty sense!