In the US textbooks are a tax write-off, nerd toys aren't....big difference. That and textbooks hopefully will equate into higher earnings which GW books won't. Not a great comparison if you're trying to be serious about it.
That write off doesn't help during the year when your "job" is "full time student" though. The point was the cost for GW's books is lower than what I pay for my textbooks and I can use them longer (unless GW goes to a 4 month edition plan that is).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: I thought Zion was Canadian. I wonder why he put up American prices.
The flag next to my name changes when I'm at the college versus home. I'm an American (no, I'm not proud of that fact either).
And the cost for a rulebook of another game system is $30-$45 in full-color hardbound format and, they will probably stay around for four or five years. For example:
Warmachine Prime MkII - Printed Oct. 2009 and $45 for hardback. Cost of rules per year to date: $9
Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rulebook - $75. Cost of rules per year to date: $38.
Are GW rules really 322% better than Warmachine to justify paying that much more? No. They are actually worse than Warmachine rules (not saying preference for the game but the quality of the rules writing).
To be frank, GW writes some of the worst rules in the market now and yet, they charge like the write the best ones. Then they resort to outright lying now to sell product. We made changes based on feedback from thousands of games? Really, up until this point I never, not once, have heard or read anyone saying - "Ezekiel needs to be able to summon Daemons. Come on, it's in the fluff!!!" or "We need to do away with the FOC and let us field any models we want from any army we want!". No, thousands of gamers didn't give that feedback, only Kirby did.
I will be waiting a few months before picking up 7th Edition (if at all), until I see the actual feedback for how things play out in reality with Unbound and Daemonlogy. When 6th first came out everyone thought Allies were a great idea, until the abuses became known. Not to mention that 6th games were already too slow and from some of the changes that have leaked, it sounds like 7th edition is going to be even slower. I also want to wait and see what the new Ork codex looks like (physically). If the cover of the Ork codex mimics this new 7th edition, then you can bet every single codex is going to get the 7th treatment. Useful weapons will be nerfed and other made useful (Okay, no Laser Lock on Scatter Lasers anymore but let's put it on Shuriken Cannons - yeah, that's the ticket that will get everyone buying models again).
Personally, I believe GW is jumping the shark with this edition, so I will wait and see what gamers really think after they have a few games under their belt. For me, 40k has turned into a suckers train and GW is going to play their customers for all they are worth. Unfortunately, I will not be one of those customers.
In the US textbooks are a tax write-off, nerd toys aren't....big difference. That and textbooks hopefully will equate into higher earnings which GW books won't. Not a great comparison if you're trying to be serious about it.
That write off doesn't help during the year when your "job" is "full time student" though. The point was the cost for GW's books is lower than what I pay for my textbooks and I can use them longer (unless GW goes to a 4 month edition plan that is).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: I thought Zion was Canadian. I wonder why he put up American prices.
The flag next to my name changes when I'm at the college versus home. I'm an American (no, I'm not proud of that fact either).
And the cost for a rulebook of another game system is $30-$45 in full-color hardbound format and, they will probably stay around for four or five years. For example:
Warmachine Prime MkII - Printed Oct. 2009 and $45 for hardback. Cost of rules per year to date: $9
Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rulebook - $75. Cost of rules per year to date: $38.
Are GW rules really 322% better than Warmachine to justify paying that much more? No. They are actually worse than Warmachine rules (not saying preference for the game but the quality of the rules writing).
To be frank, GW writes some of the worst rules in the market now and yet, they charge like the write the best ones. Then they resort to outright lying now to sell product. We made changes based on feedback from thousands of games? Really, up until this point I never, not once, have heard or read anyone saying - "Ezekiel needs to be able to summon Daemons. Come on, it's in the fluff!!!" or "We need to do away with the FOC and let us field any models we want from any army we want!". No, thousands of gamers didn't give that feedback, only Kirby did.
I will be waiting a few months before picking up 7th Edition (if at all), until I see the actual feedback for how things play out in reality with Unbound and Daemonlogy. When 6th first came out everyone thought Allies were a great idea, until the abuses became known. Not to mention that 6th games were already too slow and from some of the changes that have leaked, it sounds like 7th edition is going to be even slower.
Personally, I believe GW is jumping the shark with this edition, so I will wait and see what gamers really think after they have a few games under their belt.
You missed the post where I pointed out that just because I find the cost for amount of time I use it to be better than some things that I still don't like the prices being as high as they are. Just because I can and have wasted my money on stuff I use less doesn't mean I like spending $50 on a codex or $85 on a rulebook.
Wayshuba wrote: To be frank, GW writes some of the worst rules in the market now and yet, they charge like the write the best ones. Then they resort to outright lying now to sell product. We made changes based on feedback from thousands of games? Really, up until this point I never, not once, have heard or read anyone saying - "Ezekiel needs to be able to summon Daemons. Come on, it's in the fluff!!!" or "We need to do away with the FOC and let us field any models we want from any army we want!". No, thousands of gamers didn't give that feedback, only Kirby did.
I think you're mixing "new features introduced to stimulate sales" up with "refinements and improvements of the rules" there.
Both can, and are, happening simultaneously.
While I don't believe the "thousands of games" of feedback for a second, I can believe "5 minutes in the Internet" of feedback, which distils down to the same thing, as long as they've swallowed their pride and admitted, if only privately, that things needed addressing.
In the US textbooks are a tax write-off, nerd toys aren't....big difference. That and textbooks hopefully will equate into higher earnings which GW books won't. Not a great comparison if you're trying to be serious about it.
That write off doesn't help during the year when your "job" is "full time student" though. The point was the cost for GW's books is lower than what I pay for my textbooks and I can use them longer (unless GW goes to a 4 month edition plan that is).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: I thought Zion was Canadian. I wonder why he put up American prices.
The flag next to my name changes when I'm at the college versus home. I'm an American (no, I'm not proud of that fact either).
And the cost for a rulebook of another game system is $30-$45 in full-color hardbound format and, they will probably stay around for four or five years. For example:
Warmachine Prime MkII - Printed Oct. 2009 and $45 for hardback. Cost of rules per year to date: $9
Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rulebook - $75. Cost of rules per year to date: $38.
Are GW rules really 322% better than Warmachine to justify paying that much more? No. They are actually worse than Warmachine rules (not saying preference for the game but the quality of the rules writing).
To be frank, GW writes some of the worst rules in the market now and yet, they charge like the write the best ones. Then they resort to outright lying now to sell product. We made changes based on feedback from thousands of games? Really, up until this point I never, not once, have heard or read anyone saying - "Ezekiel needs to be able to summon Daemons. Come on, it's in the fluff!!!" or "We need to do away with the FOC and let us field any models we want from any army we want!". No, thousands of gamers didn't give that feedback, only Kirby did.
I will be waiting a few months before picking up 7th Edition (if at all), until I see the actual feedback for how things play out in reality with Unbound and Daemonlogy. When 6th first came out everyone thought Allies were a great idea, until the abuses became known. Not to mention that 6th games were already too slow and from some of the changes that have leaked, it sounds like 7th edition is going to be even slower.
Personally, I believe GW is jumping the shark with this edition, so I will wait and see what gamers really think after they have a few games under their belt.
You missed the post where I pointed out that just because I find the cost for amount of time I use it to be better than some things that I still don't like the prices being as high as they are. Just because I can and have wasted my money on stuff I use less doesn't mean I like spending $50 on a codex or $85 on a rulebook.
No, I caught that. I was just adding to your comparison that it can be looked at another way against cheaper forms of the same books.
Wayshuba wrote: To be frank, GW writes some of the worst rules in the market now and yet, they charge like the write the best ones. Then they resort to outright lying now to sell product. We made changes based on feedback from thousands of games? Really, up until this point I never, not once, have heard or read anyone saying - "Ezekiel needs to be able to summon Daemons. Come on, it's in the fluff!!!" or "We need to do away with the FOC and let us field any models we want from any army we want!". No, thousands of gamers didn't give that feedback, only Kirby did.
I think you're mixing "new features introduced to stimulate sales" up with "refinements and improvements of the rules" there.
Both can, and are, happening simultaneously.
While I don't believe the "thousands of games" of feedback for a second, I can believe "5 minutes in the Internet" of feedback, which distils down to the same thing, as long as they've swallowed their pride and admitted, if only privately, that things needed addressing.
Yes, there are some changes - although, personally, I find it debatable that they are improvements. But that is just my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree.
However, I also personally don't believe for one second this is about improvements to the game or for their customers. I believe GW is now a one trick 40k pony. They were looking at Ork and Necrons coming down the pike, which from other sources accounts for a total of 4% of their sales. They needed something to get all gamers buying stuff. Lots of daemons, expensive psycher models, large expensive model kits, lords of war, and multitude of expensive elite models. They need to up the escalation of the game. I think, when people finally get playing this edition in ernst, that the 40k everyone has known will no longer be the 40k anyone remembers.
Hardly. If they are opening pre-orders this soon, it means that the books are already printed. The only way to respond to feedback now would be a Day One FAQ.
To be fair, it doesn't say feedback from GAMERS, just feedback from "thousands of games". You know, the test ones they do in-house that they write about in WD and pretty much ignore the rules anyway.
Anpu42 wrote: Looking at the just a -2 BS for Snap Fire my Space Wolves realy will not need Allied AAA Defences between Ven-Riflemen-Dreads and Bjorn with a Las-Cannon.
Mmmm, I have the Venerable option on my Dreadnought as space marine as well... those extra 25pts might be worth it and bring back my 2 nice RifleDread in action... if the rumor is true!
Wayshuba wrote: To be frank, GW writes some of the worst rules in the market now and yet, they charge like the write the best ones. Then they resort to outright lying now to sell product. We made changes based on feedback from thousands of games? Really, up until this point I never, not once, have heard or read anyone saying - "Ezekiel needs to be able to summon Daemons. Come on, it's in the fluff!!!" or "We need to do away with the FOC and let us field any models we want from any army we want!". No, thousands of gamers didn't give that feedback, only Kirby did.
I think you're mixing "new features introduced to stimulate sales" up with "refinements and improvements of the rules" there.
Both can, and are, happening simultaneously.
While I don't believe the "thousands of games" of feedback for a second, I can believe "5 minutes in the Internet" of feedback, which distils down to the same thing, as long as they've swallowed their pride and admitted, if only privately, that things needed addressing.
Yes, there are some changes - although, personally, I find it debatable that they are improvements. But that is just my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree.
However, I also personally don't believe for one second this is about improvements to the game or for their customers. I believe GW is now a one trick 40k pony. They were looking at Ork and Necrons coming down the pike, which from other sources accounts for a total of 4% of their sales. They needed something to get all gamers buying stuff. Lots of daemons, expensive psycher models, large expensive model kits, lords of war, and multitude of expensive elite models. They need to up the escalation of the game. I think, when people finally get playing this edition in ernst, that the 40k everyone has known will no longer be the 40k anyone remembers.
But again, this is all just my personal opinion.
The simplest thing they seem to miss is that the carrot is far more effective than the stick. Make a good, fun game and people will spend a lot on it because they're happy and they want to. Make those same people feel obligated to buy stuff just to avoid invalidating what they've already invested and you get the situation we're in.
My fervent hope is that 7th represents the first step in a new direction solicited by January's financials.
Wayshuba wrote: To be frank, GW writes some of the worst rules in the market now and yet, they charge like the write the best ones. Then they resort to outright lying now to sell product. We made changes based on feedback from thousands of games? Really, up until this point I never, not once, have heard or read anyone saying - "Ezekiel needs to be able to summon Daemons. Come on, it's in the fluff!!!" or "We need to do away with the FOC and let us field any models we want from any army we want!". No, thousands of gamers didn't give that feedback, only Kirby did.
I think you're mixing "new features introduced to stimulate sales" up with "refinements and improvements of the rules" there.
Both can, and are, happening simultaneously.
While I don't believe the "thousands of games" of feedback for a second, I can believe "5 minutes in the Internet" of feedback, which distils down to the same thing, as long as they've swallowed their pride and admitted, if only privately, that things needed addressing.
Yes, there are some changes - although, personally, I find it debatable that they are improvements. But that is just my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree.
However, I also personally don't believe for one second this is about improvements to the game or for their customers. I believe GW is now a one trick 40k pony. They were looking at Ork and Necrons coming down the pike, which from other sources accounts for a total of 4% of their sales. They needed something to get all gamers buying stuff. Lots of daemons, expensive psycher models, large expensive model kits, lords of war, and multitude of expensive elite models. They need to up the escalation of the game. I think, when people finally get playing this edition in ernst, that the 40k everyone has known will no longer be the 40k anyone remembers.
But again, this is all just my personal opinion.
The simplest thing they seem to miss is that the carrot is far more effective than the stick. Make a good, fun game and people will spend a lot on it because they're happy and they want to. Make those same people feel obligated to buy stuff just to avoid invalidating what they've already invested and you get the situation we're in.
My fervent hope is that 7th represents the first step in a new direction solicited by January's financials.
I'm prepared to be disappointed.
I concur with both of you.
And to own individual who thought me toeing the line of "Rule One" by saying preorders on a product of unknown quality is irrational, all I can say is don't be so easily offended? I worked nerd retail for quite a long time. Nearly all preorders are irrationally based. You're putting down your hard earned money on a product with no validation of quality. Unless your profession is to perform reviews or there is a serious incentive for day one purchase, such as massive discounts or quantifiable bonus such as free models, then it's a pure consumer reactionary force. It's definitively irrational.
I am not saying I'm above irrational consumerism. I have preordered Painting Buddha Seasons 1.2 & 1.3, a dragon from creature caster, and the Witcher III. These could all be terrible products, but given the track record of each entity,I wish to support them in their endeavors. Each have offered a unique incentive to do so, as well. Each have also provided a quality product in the past with outstanding customer service and support for their products.
Games Workshop, in the other hand, is providing no incentive and a $10 price increase. Their track record on rules for the past six months has been terrible, at the very least in terms of business sense taking away any opinion on the qualitative. Preorders for 7E based on this would be irrational as I see it. You have $85 dollars to lose if it turns out to be a hot mess, but what do you really gain by buying the product day one? Being a part of the zeitgeist? I guess that could have some measurable bonus...?
Please also understand that having or observing irrational behaviors is very different from insulting someone. I can do something very stupid based on ignorance, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm stupid. We live and learn, so to speak.
For reference on such topics, I suggest "Influence" by Cialdini and "The Power of Persuasion: How Were Bought And Sold" by Levine.
Sir Arun wrote: Well Dreadnoughts were pretty much shelved during 6th ed (even if the psyfleman remained semi-competetive).
Now venerable riflemen are back in service!
What did I miss?! I love dreds but they suck to hard most games, why are they going to be good again?!
If not just snapshots during overwatch, but hard to hit flyer snapshots also get modified from BS1 to BS-2, then BS5 venerable dreads with "crappy" multishot weapons like the Assault Cannon or Autocannon will be viable again and you dont have to take an ADL with Quadgun or Hunter/Stalker to combat flyers as these babies will be shooting at BS3 (+ twin-link if they wield dual autocannons)
azreal13 wrote: IMO, a lot of the driving force behind pre-orders, with a definite emphasis in this hobby, is all down to worshipping at the church of "First"
Indeed, I used to do it for computer games but often felt foolish as if it was a drug I required with out even wanting, I just needed to know I had it. Ill be awaiting reviews as I have for some times for most gaming products. If they'd had sense they would have offered up the free sm cpt when you pre-ordered 7th ed. as of now I don't see them shifting a lot of copies straight off the bat.
Sir Arun wrote: Well Dreadnoughts were pretty much shelved during 6th ed (even if the psyfleman remained semi-competetive).
Now venerable riflemen are back in service!
What did I miss?! I love dreds but they suck to hard most games, why are they going to be good again?!
If not just snapshots during overwatch, but hard to hit flyer snapshots also get modified from BS1 to BS-2, then BS5 venerable dreads with "crappy" multishot weapons like the Assault Cannon or Autocannon will be viable again and you dont have to take an ADL with Quadgun or Hunter/Stalker to combat flyers as these babies will be shooting at BS3 (+ twin-link if they wield dual autocannons)
hmm thanks I didn't realise snap shots change was confirmed!! Sounds good if it is.
azreal13 wrote: IMO, a lot of the driving force behind pre-orders, with a definite emphasis in this hobby, is all down to worshipping at the church of "First"
Ye Olde Zeitgeist. I have many a video game because of it. I have now subscribed to the "CAG" way save for a few titles I know I will pop in day one to enjoy. I'm changing my ways and my habits to be less prone to them. Not perfect in the least, but understanding and seeing it, even while falling prey to it, is a start.
I doubt 7E will be a panacea for Dread fans, unless it's Dreadknights. He lowly walker hasn't been good... Ever? From my limited understanding of the span of previous editions, they've always fallen short of their fluff brethren.
New rulebook £50
Munitorum Edition £200
Visions of the Dark Millenium £45 (if i rememeber correctly)
Tactical objectives £5 (same as above)
Really looking forward to this and not a major price hike and with the quality of recent books cant wait to read through the background and stuff and ofcourse the new rules just sound interesting.
Just a note about the ezekial thing while it possible that he may be able to summon daemons he most likely wont as it seemed that WD team.where doing there usual random things for fun. cant blame them I let my friemd.use his pysker kroot shaman he convertef up after a reading a deathwatch short story its fun to have random stuff.
Liking the look of daemonolgy now that i know only lvl 3 psykers or above will to summon decent daemons it looks cool and yeh and there perils on any double when using "bad psyker" powers.
mercury14 wrote: Dark Eldar Reaver Jetbikes..... 4+ jink, 3+ with skilled rider, 2+ moving flat-out, just bladevaning and caltroping all game.
And Scars won't be too bad either (not at all)... or Black Knights (which also just became pretty good at anti-flyer work too if -2 BS snapshot is in).
katana100 wrote: Just in case peeps havent noticed. For brits....
New rulebook £50
Munitorum Edition £200
Visions of the Dark Millenium £45 (if i rememeber correctly)
Tactical objectives £5 (same as above)
Really looking forward to this and not a major price hike and with the quality of recent books cant wait to read through the background and stuff and ofcourse the new rules just sound interesting.
Just a note about the ezekial thing while it possible that he may be able to summon daemons he most likely wont as it seemed that WD team.where doing there usual random things for fun. cant blame them I let my friemd.use his pysker kroot shaman he convertef up after a reading a deathwatch short story its fun to have random stuff.
Liking the look of daemonolgy now that i know only lvl 3 psykers or above will to summon decent daemons it looks cool and yeh and there perils on any double when using "bad psyker" powers.
Only a week a bit left Viva La Revolution!!
yeah i'm kind of hoping they hurray up with up dating Dark Vengeance, is there any word on this?
Id like a mini rule book, that said ive bought all the other ed rules it would kinda be a shame to depart from that we will have to see how flush I feel at the time.
mercury14 wrote: Dark Eldar Reaver Jetbikes..... 4+ jink, 3+ with skilled rider, 2+ moving flat-out, just bladevaning and caltroping all game.
But my company commander can just order everyone to ignore the blazing speed of your jetbikes, and shoot you as if you were sitting still. That order just makes no sense from a fluff perspective when used in game hahaha.
mercury14 wrote: Dark Eldar Reaver Jetbikes..... 4+ jink, 3+ with skilled rider, 2+ moving flat-out, just bladevaning and caltroping all game.
But my company commander can just order everyone to ignore the blazing speed of your jetbikes, and shoot you as if you were sitting still. That order just makes no sense from a fluff perspective when used in game hahaha.
We did have a rumor that ignore cover might just being -2. If true, probably balances well.
mercury14 wrote: Dark Eldar Reaver Jetbikes..... 4+ jink, 3+ with skilled rider, 2+ moving flat-out, just bladevaning and caltroping all game.
But my company commander can just order everyone to ignore the blazing speed of your jetbikes, and shoot you as if you were sitting still. That order just makes no sense from a fluff perspective when used in game hahaha.
mercury14 wrote: Dark Eldar Reaver Jetbikes..... 4+ jink, 3+ with skilled rider, 2+ moving flat-out, just bladevaning and caltroping all game.
But my company commander can just order everyone to ignore the blazing speed of your jetbikes, and shoot you as if you were sitting still. That order just makes no sense from a fluff perspective when used in game hahaha.
We did have a rumor that ignore cover might just being -2. If true, probably balances well.
That would be ideal, ignores cover is ridiculous right now.
mercury14 wrote: Dark Eldar Reaver Jetbikes..... 4+ jink, 3+ with skilled rider, 2+ moving flat-out, just bladevaning and caltroping all game.
But my company commander can just order everyone to ignore the blazing speed of your jetbikes, and shoot you as if you were sitting still. That order just makes no sense from a fluff perspective when used in game hahaha.
Or your Wyvern Mortars.
I seriously love them so much, and no one believed in the mathhammer when the dex was released! The only complaint is that if you really play out the blasts with exact RAW you can end up needing a whole stack of blast markers if you keep rolling direct hits because you can place those over any blast marker previously used in the sequence. For the sake of not extending my already long 2 v 2 games I've been ignoring that.
azreal13 wrote: IMO, a lot of the driving force behind pre-orders, with a definite emphasis in this hobby, is all down to worshipping at the church of "First"
Ye Olde Zeitgeist. I have many a video game because of it. I have now subscribed to the "CAG" way save for a few titles I know I will pop in day one to enjoy. I'm changing my ways and my habits to be less prone to them. Not perfect in the least, but understanding and seeing it, even while falling prey to it, is a start.
I doubt 7E will be a panacea for Dread fans, unless it's Dreadknights. He lowly walker hasn't been good... Ever? From my limited understanding of the span of previous editions, they've always fallen short of their fluff brethren.
They worked quite well in fifth, I believe. Most vehicles did.
I'm mostly digging the changes, but there is still lots left unresolved that worries me.
-The leaked pages talk a lot about daemonology, but makes no mention of re-working the existing disciplines. So Divination combined with the (rumored) improved snapshots can make things...silly.
-So far, the magic phase tells us there is no distinction between a top-level pysker and a cheapo one except the nmber of charges they bring. Got Ahriman with Ld 10 and ML 4 but rolled a 1? Too bad, my Ld 8 Warlock rolled a 6, so i have two more warp charges tan you for 1/5th of the cost,and they cast spells the same!
-Wounds spilling from won challenges is a good thing, but I really wish we knew more about further CC changes, if any,
azreal13 wrote: IMO, a lot of the driving force behind pre-orders, with a definite emphasis in this hobby, is all down to worshipping at the church of "First"
Ye Olde Zeitgeist. I have many a video game because of it. I have now subscribed to the "CAG" way save for a few titles I know I will pop in day one to enjoy. I'm changing my ways and my habits to be less prone to them. Not perfect in the least, but understanding and seeing it, even while falling prey to it, is a start.
I doubt 7E will be a panacea for Dread fans, unless it's Dreadknights. He lowly walker hasn't been good... Ever? From my limited understanding of the span of previous editions, they've always fallen short of their fluff brethren.
They worked quite well in fifth, I believe. Most vehicles did.
The riflemen dreads did, but that's primarily in the GK realm when they were "shrouded" by the librarian and had the psychic power to shake stunned/shaken. Since you had to reroll the damage results on Venerables, stopping them was much harder. Furioso dreads were also good.
But the general idea that normal pattern were still tepid.
It's also the fact that ranged dreadnoughts are at least "servicable" compared to their CQC kin. Psyfleman dreads have strength 8 autocannons. You basically just sit them in one spot on the map like a gunline and blast away at the enemy. Double-autocannon dreads fulfill a similar niche. 120 points is cheap for an av 12 gun platform.
It's the "traditional" Dreadnought, the guy who stomps around the battlefield mashing squads to death with its CCW, that is universally considered nonviable.
I'm mostly digging the changes, but there is still lots left unresolved that worries me.
-The leaked pages talk a lot about daemonology, but makes no mention of re-working the existing disciplines. So Divination combined with the (rumored) improved snapshots can make things...silly.
Don't be surprised that WDW is talking about the new shiny, they repeatedly refer to large numbers of subtle changes too.
-So far, the magic phase tells us there is no distinction between a top-level pysker and a cheapo one except the nmber of charges they bring. Got Ahriman with Ld 10 and ML 4 but rolled a 1? Too bad, my Ld 8 Warlock rolled a 6, so i have two more warp charges tan you for 1/5th of the cost,and they cast spells the same!
Superior Psykers may well give buffs to DTW, there's a reasonable chance that they may be harder to Deny with lower level ones too, I'd speculate.
-Wounds spilling from won challenges is a good thing, but I really wish we knew more about further CC changes, if any,
I don't think it is wounds per sé, but more counting towards resolution, so of you inflict 4 wounds on a Sgt with your BThirster, then that counts as 4 for winning combat, even though only one is inflicted, as opposed to now, where you could inflict 100 and still have it count as one.
-So far, the magic phase tells us there is no distinction between a top-level pysker and a cheapo one except the nmber of charges they bring. Got Ahriman with Ld 10 and ML 4 but rolled a 1? Too bad, my Ld 8 Warlock rolled a 6, so i have two more warp charges tan you for 1/5th of the cost,and they cast spells the same!
Thats just an anecdote, thats like saying my tac marine saved a heavy bolter shot with power armor and lived but my termantor failed and died and the tac marine was much cheaper! You're paying for a better psyker that preforms better over all statistically.
-So far, the magic phase tells us there is no distinction between a top-level pysker and a cheapo one except the nmber of charges they bring. Got Ahriman with Ld 10 and ML 4 but rolled a 1? Too bad, my Ld 8 Warlock rolled a 6, so i have two more warp charges tan you for 1/5th of the cost,and they cast spells the same!
Thats just an anecdote, thats like saying my tac marine saved a heavy bolter shot with power armor and lived but my termantor failed and died and the tac marine was much cheaper! You're paying for a better psyker that preforms better over all statistically.
Not at all. As it is, a Ld10 psyker is objectively better than a Ld 8 one, as it has a greater mathematical chance of casting powers.
Likewise, the Warp charge extra dice adds variation that waters down the Mastery levels you bring. You can spend both your HQ slots bringing ML 2 librarians, and yet spend the whole game with less warp charges than the guy who brought a single ML1 primaris, because of one dice roll at the start of the game.
I'm not saying this is terribly or that the sky is falling. Just that there's still big gaps in what we know and those can lead to some weird consequences if left as is.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
I posted this as a question because I think it's the final piece of understanding the puzzle:
"So what I'm curious about is how many deny the witch rolls are necessary to block a power - if I roll 2 successful warp charges on a WC1 power, does my opponent need 1 DTW or 2 to prevent it from succeeding?"
I can't remember if I read in one of the rumors or the leaked white dwarf, but I remember reading from somewhere that you generate your random warp charges every turn not just once at the start of the game.
Jaceevoke wrote: I can't remember if I read in one of the rumors or the leaked white dwarf, but I remember reading from somewhere that you generate your random warp charges every turn not just once at the start of the game.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
Ugh. Really not liking this.
Most psykers will be finding it very difficult to cast powers - you're going to want 3 or 4 warp charges to even cast a ML1 power. A ML3 power will want ~8 dice.
Armies that rely on psykers - especially Tzeentch Daemons & Eldar - may be hit quite hard, by what I'm seeing.
azreal13 wrote: IMO, a lot of the driving force behind pre-orders, with a definite emphasis in this hobby, is all down to worshipping at the church of "First"
Ye Olde Zeitgeist. I have many a video game because of it. I have now subscribed to the "CAG" way save for a few titles I know I will pop in day one to enjoy. I'm changing my ways and my habits to be less prone to them. Not perfect in the least, but understanding and seeing it, even while falling prey to it, is a start.
I doubt 7E will be a panacea for Dread fans, unless it's Dreadknights. He lowly walker hasn't been good... Ever? From my limited understanding of the span of previous editions, they've always fallen short of their fluff brethren.
I hate to say it, and know I am going to get some hate for saying it, but, my gaming group is pretty leery of the new rules and 40K in general has been loosing it's appeal.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
Ugh. Really not liking this.
Most psykers will be finding it very difficult to cast powers - you're going to want 3 or 4 warp charges to even cast a ML1 power. A ML3 power will want ~8 dice.
Armies that rely on psykers - especially Tzeentch Daemons & Eldar - may be hit quite hard, by what I'm seeing.
Yeah poor Eldar, who have the best transport in the game, and whose basic troops are capable of punching through terminator armor. Oh woe is them!
Seriously Eldar and all prescience spammers needed a nerf like this bad.
Same with Tzeentch cheeselists. Though I hope the DoT rule gets updated if only for Pink Horrors. I liked that people were actually using them this edition instead of lumping with Bloodletters in the "take only for fluff" section.
Speaking of which, I REALLY hope Bloodletters become viable again...
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
So, Space Marine psykers just get 4+ baseline? 3+ if they are higher level, and then 2+ with Adamantium will?
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
Ugh. Really not liking this.
Most psykers will be finding it very difficult to cast powers - you're going to want 3 or 4 warp charges to even cast a ML1 power. A ML3 power will want ~8 dice.
Armies that rely on psykers - especially Tzeentch Daemons & Eldar - may be hit quite hard, by what I'm seeing.
Yeah poor Eldar, who have the best transport in the game, and whose basic troops are capable of punching through terminator armor. Oh woe is them!
Seriously Eldar and all prescience spammers needed a nerf like this bad.
Same with Tzeentch cheeselists. Though I hope the DoT rule gets updated if only for Pink Horrors. I liked that people were actually using them this edition instead of lumping with Bloodletters in the "take only for fluff" section.
Speaking of which, I REALLY hope Bloodletters become viable again...
They're +1 I on the charge away from being at least worth considering IMO.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
Ugh. Really not liking this.
Most psykers will be finding it very difficult to cast powers - you're going to want 3 or 4 warp charges to even cast a ML1 power. A ML3 power will want ~8 dice.
Armies that rely on psykers - especially Tzeentch Daemons & Eldar - may be hit quite hard, by what I'm seeing.
Yeah poor Eldar, who have the best transport in the game, and whose basic troops are capable of punching through terminator armor. Oh woe is them!
Seriously Eldar and all prescience spammers needed a nerf like this bad.
Same with Tzeentch cheeselists. Though I hope the DoT rule gets updated if only for Pink Horrors. I liked that people were actually using them this edition instead of lumping with Bloodletters in the "take only for fluff" section.
Speaking of which, I REALLY hope Bloodletters become viable again...
They're +1 I on the charge away from being at least worth considering IMO.
T3, crap save, no grenades. We have that. It's called howling banshees.
well purely opinion on rumour from my perspective as an Eldar player, if jinx has changed to a 4+ reducing to snap fire and snap fire is only -2 to shooting then prepare to book more sessions with your therapist for your anti - wave serpent-ism. Also a lot of Eldar army's are going to completely shut down enemy psychic phases as there'll have more mastery level's than enemy psyker level + die roll combined lol .
Hettar wrote: well purely opinion on rumour from my perspective as an Eldar player, if jinx has changed to a 4+ reducing to snap fire and snap fire is only -2 to shooting then prepare to book more sessions with your therapist for your anti - wave serpent-ism. Also a lot of Eldar army's are going to completely shut down enemy psychic phases as there'll have more mastery level's than enemy psyker level + die roll combined lol .
Unless it's like the rumor says, and it's the amount of dice your opponent gets.
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
Ugh. Really not liking this.
Most psykers will be finding it very difficult to cast powers - you're going to want 3 or 4 warp charges to even cast a ML1 power. A ML3 power will want ~8 dice.
Armies that rely on psykers - especially Tzeentch Daemons & Eldar - may be hit quite hard, by what I'm seeing.
Yeah poor Eldar, who have the best transport in the game, and whose basic troops are capable of punching through terminator armor. Oh woe is them!
Seriously Eldar and all prescience spammers needed a nerf like this bad.
Same with Tzeentch cheeselists. Though I hope the DoT rule gets updated if only for Pink Horrors. I liked that people were actually using them this edition instead of lumping with Bloodletters in the "take only for fluff" section.
Speaking of which, I REALLY hope Bloodletters become viable again...
They're +1 I on the charge away from being at least worth considering IMO.
T3, crap save, no grenades. We have that. It's called howling banshees.
Meh.
Banshees are 50% more expensive, can't be taken in groups of 20, don't have a ++ save and aren't S5 on the charge.
Letters aren't great right now, but it would only take a few small changes to make them a solid choice, if not a spectacular one.
Shooting at BS2 for a 1/3 reduction in failing cover saves? It won't bring the serpent into balance, but omg can we not call that a buff?!? Some perspective, please.
Eldarain wrote: We don't know how the defensive dice are generated for sure yet do we?
Either is the rumor that you get as many as your opponent, or you generate as many as you would normal generate every psychic phase
Which wouldn't make any sense considering armies that don't have access to psyckers.
Why would a non-psychic army be able to defend against psychic attacks as easily as an army (like Daemons or Eldar) that are almost defined by their psychic ability?
Bharring wrote: Shooting at BS2 for a 1/3 reduction in failing cover saves? It won't bring the serpent into balance, but omg can we not call that a buff?!? Some perspective, please.
(All our other skimmers get nerfed hard by this)
Being able to move 12", sport a 3+ cover save in the open, and fire a 4 shots with a scatterlaser at BS2 with rerolls, which if there are any hits (and between 4 shots with rerolls there should be some) an additional potential D6+1 S7 shots and a Shuriken Cannon at BS2 with rerolls, that's even more fearsome than it is now. You're averaging 3.88 S6 hits and 2.5 S7 hits (a total of ~6.4 S6+ *hits* on average) while sporting a 3+ cover save in the open. That's damn impressive. If they keep Flat Out the same, that means unless you're ignoring cover saves, killing a Wave Serpent with a 2+ cover save and 2+ "downgrade pens to glances" roll is going to be exceedingly difficult. The Wave Serpent is getting a major buff to utility there. For other skimmers without the massive twin linking but with cover save enhancement gear, they gain a bit on durability and lose a bit on firepower, likely remaining *roughly* the same. The only ones that really come out worse are things like Land Speeders. Necrons continue right on not caring thanks to the Tesla weaponry effect.
Eldarain wrote: We don't know how the defensive dice are generated for sure yet do we?
Either is the rumor that you get as many as your opponent, or you generate as many as you would normal generate every psychic phase
Which wouldn't make any sense considering armies that don't have access to psyckers.
Why would a non-psychic army be able to defend against psychic attacks as easily as an army (like Daemons or Eldar) that are almost defined by their psychic ability?
Some semblance of game balance? Works for dwarfs in fantasy...
agnosto wrote: Some semblance of game balance? Works for dwarfs in fantasy...
Game balance doesn't mean that every aspect is exactly the same, I would happily have a faction that had limited/no psyker ability but instead had insane ranged firepower or something else to make up for the lack of it.
Heck I would even be happy with Tau only get 1d6 Warpcharge but can DTW any Witchfire attacks on a 3+ rather than a 6+ or something to represent their innate lack of warp visibility. Won't protect against a summoned Bloodthirster but also doesn't just mean they get as many dice to deny as a host of Warlocks.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah has anyone heard what the opposing side get's for Denial dice, I've seen that they get a number equal to yours, which doesn't make sense.
So I mean how many dice do you get.
WD is mum on that and no one's rep has said yet apparently.
Hollismason wrote: What about Lords of War? Are they no longer Escalation meaning their just part of hte Combined Arms or whatever army cause it seems that way.
So now Lords of War are standard?
According to the FoC chart (for those still using it), yes.
Hollismason wrote: What about Lords of War? Are they no longer Escalation meaning their just part of hte Combined Arms or whatever army cause it seems that way.
So now Lords of War are standard?
According to the FoC chart (for those still using it), yes.
And if you're not, feel free to take only Lords of War!
I hope to God the rumors about Ignore Cover only reducing 2 to the cover save is true (even if now the name makes no sense). Tau need the nerf hammer bad (and they'll still be on top with the all other toys they have/buffs to overwatch)
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
Ugh. Really not liking this.
Most psykers will be finding it very difficult to cast powers - you're going to want 3 or 4 warp charges to even cast a ML1 power. A ML3 power will want ~8 dice.
Armies that rely on psykers - especially Tzeentch Daemons & Eldar - may be hit quite hard, by what I'm seeing.
I'm not, more like Fantasy, take ssome forethought top get the powers through you want to, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
Psychic tests are no longer leadership tests. You generate your total pool, allocate dice to cast and then roll them. 4+ succeeds. X number of successes are needed to cast the power. 3 successes, for most.
Certain things can give you a 3+ on the dice, like having an affinity with the discipline. 2 or more 6s you peril. So you can still fail to cast and perils but typically if you got 2 6s you should have passed.
To stop a power, allocate your warp charge dice and roll deny the witch. 6+ to succeed. 5+ if you have a psyker. +1 if they have a hood. +1 if you're a higher mastery level and nearby the unit being affected. Even powers that do not effect you can be stopped, like blessings.
Ugh. Really not liking this.
Most psykers will be finding it very difficult to cast powers - you're going to want 3 or 4 warp charges to even cast a ML1 power. A ML3 power will want ~8 dice.
Armies that rely on psykers - especially Tzeentch Daemons & Eldar - may be hit quite hard, by what I'm seeing.
Yeah poor Eldar, who have the best transport in the game, and whose basic troops are capable of punching through terminator armor. Oh woe is them!
Seriously Eldar and all prescience spammers needed a nerf like this bad.
Same with Tzeentch cheeselists. Though I hope the DoT rule gets updated if only for Pink Horrors. I liked that people were actually using them this edition instead of lumping with Bloodletters in the "take only for fluff" section.
Speaking of which, I REALLY hope Bloodletters become viable again...
agree 100% I don't see any of this particularly nerfing Eldar into uselessness
Ok, I've been trying to keep up this last few days... but a 40K boxed set is not happening right? The last one is just getting updated rules, so I'm guessing the Blood Angel vs Ork set with loads of terrain is a rumor.
Kelly502 wrote: Ok, I've been trying to keep up this last few days... but a 40K boxed set is not happening right? The last one is just getting updated rules, so I'm guessing the Blood Angel vs Ork set with loads of terrain is a rumor.
Only nine days left...
I would imagine they wouldn't consider coming out with this until they start running out of DV sets
Kelly502 wrote: Ok, I've been trying to keep up this last few days... but a 40K boxed set is not happening right? The last one is just getting updated rules, so I'm guessing the Blood Angel vs Ork set with loads of terrain is a rumor.
Only nine days left...
I would say its happening, except the new box won't be here till September.
its what GW do and did with 6th ed.
new rule book came in may-june, then DV came in sept IIRC
agnosto wrote: Some semblance of game balance? Works for dwarfs in fantasy...
Game balance doesn't mean that every aspect is exactly the same, I would happily have a faction that had limited/no psyker ability but instead had insane ranged firepower or something else to make up for the lack of it.
Heck I would even be happy with Tau only get 1d6 Warpcharge but can DTW any Witchfire attacks on a 3+ rather than a 6+ or something to represent their innate lack of warp visibility. Won't protect against a summoned Bloodthirster but also doesn't just mean they get as many dice to deny as a host of Warlocks.
Except for the fact that Tau burn just as easily to witchfire as any other. Just because they lack warp visibility doesn't mean it's going to easily stop FIRE.
It's why it's mostly limited to mind altering techniques, not things that literally conjure lightning and fire.
Bharring wrote: Shooting at BS2 for a 1/3 reduction in failing cover saves? It won't bring the serpent into balance, but omg can we not call that a buff?!? Some perspective, please.
Until someone brings his unbound army of two Transcendent C'Tans to take out your one, but then... one day that guy will agree to a higher point value game where his opponent will bring 3!
But really, can they kill points value being played / 3 conscripts (so like 500+) in 5 turns?
Ok, thanks guys. Was getting my hopes up for a codex for my red guys soon, thought maybe them in a boxed set would help speed that up. Still looking forward to the new rules, I like the sound of what I ahve heard so far. But we'll see won't we?
I think its per game turn. If you get all your PP back every player turn, you can't use them except for psy-defense during your opponents turn, thus removing the need for a tactical descision between spell defense and your own magic dakka.
Some new info from the page glimpse. One of note is you can cast multiple witchfires at different targets and you can still shoot at a different target and declare assaults etc. No longer bummed to see a shooty power on my dakka tyrant.
Warp charges during _each psychic phase_. So warp charge decisions are: active player, what to do first, second player, what to counter and do I need to keep dice in reserve.
Could be actually quite fun, but will make the games with psychers clearly longer than ones without.
Looks like Tau and Necrons are up creek without a paddle then. No psykers whatsoever lol. Though I'll be interested to know how the Gloom Prism works on Tomb Spyders now.
Wow that is a big change and a good buff for Tzeentch. Though I'm hoping Ahirman gets new rules for the Black Staff as he can now by default manifest all his Witchfires.
Warp charge is generated per player psyker phase, with the player whose turn it is rolling a D6 and both players getting warp charge equal to that result plus their total psyker mastery levels.
Witchfire powers can be fired independently from other shooting attacks, and can be used even if the psyker runs / moves flat out / etc. Regular witchfires still roll to hit as before.
They can be fired as snapshots, but can't be used for Overwatch.
The Hard to Hit rule for swooping FMCs still resolves shots against them as snap shots, and FMCs still get to choose to have Skyfire or not for their weapons.
In the vid bits, warp charge is generated for both players with active player d6 roll each psych phase. So, psycherless armies still get that d6 worth of chager to DTW with.
No compulsory allying for witches, unless demonology turns out to be too strong.
Based on the Nova entry concerning Deny The Witch and that only one unit within the Witchfire's max range can DTW it seems there must be a range component involved to DTW. I wonder for Blessings what the range might be.
Voodoo_Chile wrote: Based on the Nova entry concerning Deny The Witch and that only one unit within the Witchfire's max range can DTW it seems there must be a range component involved to DTW. I wonder for Blessings what the range might be.
This is speculation, but I'd expect the generic 6+ DtW to work across the board, while bonuses from specific psykers, psychic hoods, adamantium will, etc will only work within a given range to the casting psyker.
Concerning the new psychic phase and DtW. Does anyone have any ideas on how the Talisman of Arthas Moloch will work from the farsight enclave codex? (4D6 DtW)
Well, that's a buff to witchfire. Maybe enough of one to make them competitive with other powers now.
Focussed Witchfire seems more useful now. Under the 6th edition rules, you had a 28% chance of hitting the guy you wanted. With three dice and a WC 1 power, you now have a 50% chance of hitting him and you can add more dice if you really want to take out a specific target. Yet another piece of bad news for the dude with a plasma gun.
I think he means having the cheapest power to point ratio costing lord of war in the transcendent ctan.
The T-C'tan has been massively nerfed with making D weapons borderline useless. No longer able to reliably take down invul saves, their cost-gain ratio is terrible now for most armies. You are much better of taking more Sentry Pylons now.
But yeah, Psychic Phase has the potential to uber-suck. Armies with no Psykers have a big disadvantage over all armies with Psykers which is a massive balance problem GW might just fail to adress. It all depends on the FAQs now.
Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?
Come on.
Hyperbole. The problem is that they now are slightly better regular weapons instead of special weapons. D-weapons need a price decrease now to match up.
The CTan is an absolute Beast even without D weapons! his 6D6 Str 8 AP3 shooting attack alone is amazing. He is so far from useless you should slap yourself for even writing that!
And as for non Phsycic armies..
1. We get the ability to dispel non witch fire powers, we never had that before.
2. The difference in warp charges is the mastery level of enemy psykers which is what 1-2-3-4 dice? hardly OP.
3. Perils is easier for enemy psykers to get as they are rolling more dice and from what we have heard the new perils table is more brutal now.
Sigvatr wrote: But yeah, Psychic Phase has the potential to uber-suck. Armies with no Psykers have a big disadvantage over all armies with Psykers which is a massive balance problem GW might just fail to adress. It all depends on the FAQs now.
I think psykers still took an overall drop in power. At the moment two level 2 psykers can reliably use four ML1 powers a turn and the enemy has no chance to stop most of the best ones. With the new rules they will be lucky to use three powers between them, the enemy can attempt to DtW on everything and the risk of perils seems to have increased. As you add more psykers, the difference gets even worse. A month ago, a competitive astra militarum player might have fielded three primaris psykers, a couple of inquisitors and an astropath, giving him up to nine powers a turn. Soon they will struggle to get five powers from the same group.
Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?
Come on.
So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.
And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.
It's been confirmed that D-weapons which roll a 6 ignore invuln saves, the part regarding cover saves is still unconfirmed. It MIGHT work like this:
1 = No wound
2-5 - X Wounds with invuln and possibly cover allowed
6 = X wounds with no save possible
Good to see they have cleared up the blessing stack arguement. Knew it would go that way and thats how I have always played it but its good to finally get a clear rule on it, I can still see people arguging the fact though!. The mulitple targets for PSA is crazy though!.
Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?
Come on.
So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.
And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.
It's been confirmed that D-weapons which roll a 6 ignore invuln saves, the part regarding cover saves is still unconfirmed. It MIGHT work like this:
1 = No wound
2-5 - X Wounds with invuln and possibly cover allowed
6 = X wounds with no save possible
Indeed you don't get cover in Close Combat so the Knight is not as worried as ranged D weapon users ...........................
I thought ranged D weapons were considered totally broken and unplayable until now?
Even if the rules stay roughly the same, a Knight gets 1+d3 Wounds in per punch, requiring the same number of invul saves from the target. Unless your opponent has good rerollable Invul saves, he still is going to punch straight through them.
Are you serious? Them no longer ignoring invulnerable saves makes them "borderline useless"?
Come on.
So D-Weapons allow cover saves now? Everything is going to GTG in cover an get a 3+ save from D death. That's a colossal nerf.
And what about Imperial Knights, they fail in CC to a whole lot of things now.
Invuls =/= Cover
D Weapons allow invuls now, except on a roll of a 6.
Unknown if they allow cover, though that is unlikely; D weapons never allowed cover, not even in 4th ed.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I hope to God the rumors about Ignore Cover only reducing 2 to the cover save is true (even if now the name makes no sense). Tau need the nerf hammer bad (and they'll still be on top with the all other toys they have/buffs to overwatch)
I do not understand why people want that so much. Are my flamethrowers so powerful that they need some more nerf on top of the huge range reduction that will very likely prevent me from one-shooting any unit, ever? Or you think the once-per-game, Ld-test required AoF of my melta dominion is too powerful? Or do you want to nerf my army because of a problem with Tau markerlight rather than an errata on Tau markerlight?
That stupid decision to allows a unit to be the target of multiple cumulative blessings opens for so much abuse it is not even funny.
I am sure flame weapons will get something like "No cover saves may be taken" instead of the ignore cover rule.
They are allowed to be targetted by multiple different blessings but may not stack the same blessing more than once. Not seeing where the issue is here.
Juicifer wrote: Interesting that the casualty removal seems to be the same. Probably not happy news for Orks.
Not for my Boyz nor my Dark Kin.
GW talks a lot about Cinematic and Narrative but neither of these terms really correlate to hiding my big bad behind waves of minions instead of clawing it's way to the front to get at it's prey...
Ah well, not the end of the world.
On another note, whoever said D Weapons were useless now just made my day... Something that had broken the game, effectively, received a reduction in capability, still leaving it highly lethal, and it's 'useless'...
I do not understand why people want that so much. Are my flamethrowers so powerful that they need some more nerf on top of the huge range reduction that will very likely prevent me from one-shooting any unit, ever? Or you think the once-per-game, Ld-test required AoF of my melta dominion is too powerful? Or do you want to nerf my army because of a problem with Tau markerlight rather than an errata on Tau markerlight?
That stupid decision to allows a unit to be the target of multiple cumulative blessings opens for so much abuse it is not even funny.
Could you please stop complaining about your army? I think every single post you've made in this thread refers to it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The chance to D weapons was entirely necessary. They were stupidly overpowered before.
I'm massively surprised they were changed so soon after the last Apoc book, especially considering the rules were reprinted in the Knight codex and some Forge World books. Makes me wonder if super-heavies and GCs will get any tweaks.
The original D weapon rules were created for Apocalypse, by the Forge World team.
I don't think they envisioned them being added to the standard game of 40k and when they were, I would suppose they were a bit startled and perhaps made some helpful suggestions about toning them down, ASAP...
xttz wrote: I'm massively surprised they were changed so soon after the last Apoc book, especially considering the rules were reprinted in the Knight codex and some Forge World books. Makes me wonder if super-heavies and GCs will get any tweaks.
I'm massively surprised we're getting a new edition so soon after the previous edition, especially considering Escalation/Stronghold Assault were printed just recently and this new edition will contain their rules.
So I guess anything is possible when you need to make a full-year sales report look good.
When my grandchildren get their toy soldiers out, they have no FOC, it's just pew pew, and "my bazooka just blew up your tank".
When GW takes away rules and restrictions, just to sell more models. We are not playing a game, games have rules. We are playing toy soldiers. If I want to play toy soldiers I can go to poundland, and buy them.
loki old fart wrote: When my grandchildren get their toy soldiers out, they have no FOC, it's just pew pew, and "my bazooka just blew up your tank".
When GW takes away rules and restrictions, just to sell more models. We are not playing a game, games have rules. We are playing toy soldiers. If I want to play toy soldiers I can go to poundland, and buy them.
So Apocalypse games are just playing toy soldiers and making "pew pew" noises?
Glad to know my 7,000 point game was just Cowboys and Indians the Board Game.
loki old fart wrote: When my grandchildren get their toy soldiers out, they have no FOC, it's just pew pew, and "my bazooka just blew up your tank".
When GW takes away rules and restrictions, just to sell more models. We are not playing a game, games have rules. We are playing toy soldiers. If I want to play toy soldiers I can go to poundland, and buy them.
So Apocalypse games are just playing toy soldiers and making "pew pew" noises?
Glad to know my 7,000 point game was just Cowboys and Indians the Board Game.
Depends. If you rolled dice to determine the amount of pew-pews, then it was a game.
loki old fart wrote: When my grandchildren get their toy soldiers out, they have no FOC, it's just pew pew, and "my bazooka just blew up your tank".
When GW takes away rules and restrictions, just to sell more models. We are not playing a game, games have rules. We are playing toy soldiers. If I want to play toy soldiers I can go to poundland, and buy them.
So Apocalypse games are just playing toy soldiers and making "pew pew" noises?
Glad to know my 7,000 point game was just Cowboys and Indians the Board Game.
Depends. If you rolled dice to determine the amount of pew-pews, then it was a game.
That would require rules, and apparently without the FOC it's just "pew pew" noises .
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The original D weapon rules were created for Apocalypse, by the Forge World team.
I don't think they envisioned them being added to the standard game of 40k and when they were, I would suppose they were a bit startled and perhaps made some helpful suggestions about toning them down, ASAP...
That would be my guess.
Nope, there was no such things as D weapons on IA stuff before Apoc was released, which was written by the core design studio (both iterations of it).
D weapons were already overpowered and undercosted in the original Apoc book and then the studio just made them BETTER while not adjusting their points cost at all.
The horrible D weapon situation lays solely at the feet of the core design studio.
zammerak wrote: Can "pew pew" please be a USR, I would love to say this unit has assult 3 str 4 pew pew lasers
The higher pitched the PEW the lower the AP. Your basic "pew" being AP - ... whereas your PEEeeeewww!!1 grants AP3.
Only dogs can hear the AP1 pew pew lasers.
Vector Strike wrote: Well, as the army trying to DtW don't get the same number of dice of its enemy (only the d6), I'm better off getting psyker allies...
Shingen wrote: In an unbound list do allies follow the force org or could I take say 3 jetseers in my DE army?
You cannot take allies for an unbound army, nor fortifications or lords of war. Only formations
Yeah but seeing that you can take anything from any book you can ally with in an Unbound army, with no restrictions of the FoC...
Psy powers arn't allready annoying enough, they made it worse?...
Yup thats a good thing that Psykers needed, thanks to be thinking for my World Eaters, bunch of gakkers...
I really hope that they FaQMoK to give the "Pyskers brain go boom" rule..., a Psyker looks at your Khorne unit funny?, he gets 2D6 Perils of the Warp rolls on the chart and loses his pants...
I picked up the White Dwarf today, and just want to let you know through a cursory run through that most of the meat has already been picked clean from the mag for this week except for a couple minor details such as Unit Coherency is increased to 6" when measured vertically and Split Fire no longer requires a leadership check.
Something else is that they mention that charging through difficult terrain is -2" not moving through difficult terrain.
Vector Strike wrote: Well, as the army trying to DtW don't get the same number of dice of its enemy (only the d6), I'm better off getting psyker allies...
Shingen wrote: In an unbound list do allies follow the force org or could I take say 3 jetseers in my DE army?
You cannot take allies for an unbound army, nor fortifications or lords of war. Only formations
Yeah but seeing that you can take anything from any book you can ally with in an Unbound army, with no restrictions of the FoC...
Read the sidebox about Formations:
"Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of unbound Armies." Allies, Lords of War and Fortifications are Detachments, and this line tells us we cannot use them with an Unbound army.
Read the sidebox about Formations:
"Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of unbound Armies." Allies, Lords of War and Fortifications are Detachments, and this line tells us we cannot use them with an Unbound army.
Lords of War and Fortifications aren't detachments anymore, they're part of the regular 'Combined Arms' FOC.
Also there was a White Dwarf scan a few pages ago that specifically says you can mix & match units across different codexes in the same unbound army.
Unless you're working for the Ruinous Powers, you should have pretty clear orders as to the most important objectives for your force to achieve.
Rolling some d6 to see if you can roll d6 to determine the amount of d6 you can roll so you can roll some more d6 to add d3 rolls so you can finally roll more d6. Repeat if your first d6 roll is successful.
Basically, 40k these days, and you get one more d6 to roll every edition, so working as expected
I wonder how psychic movement powers (like Wings of Sanguinius) will work if the phase is after movement. Here's hoping for move 6", psychic phase move 12" (like jump pack). If that's the case I might have a reason to take Mephiston more.
Read the sidebox about Formations:
"Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of unbound Armies." Allies, Lords of War and Fortifications are Detachments, and this line tells us we cannot use them with an Unbound army.
Lords of War and Fortifications aren't detachments anymore, they're part of the regular 'Combined Arms' FOC.
Also there was a White Dwarf scan a few pages ago that specifically says you can mix & match units across different codexes in the same unbound army.
Uh, I was mistaken about the LoW/Fort then. And the script in WD #15 indeed does speak about more than 1 faction in an Unbound army. Sorry!
pretty sure I read that unbound still follows the allies matrix at least, cant remember which thing it was in though. beginning to think I may begrudgingly ally in Grey knights to my templars if it makes the Psychic phase too unpleasant without your own psyker . At least its the fluffiest option of a psyker to BT.
optometris wrote: pretty sure I read that unbound still follows the allies matrix at least, cant remember which thing it was in though. beginning to think I may begrudgingly ally in Grey knights to my templars if it makes the Psychic phase too unpleasant without your own psyker . At least its the fluffiest option of a psyker to BT.
It was in one of the first white dwarf leaks. Unbound lists still adhere to the allies matrix and are still restricted by codex imposed unit sizes.
optometris wrote: pretty sure I read that unbound still follows the allies matrix at least, cant remember which thing it was in though. beginning to think I may begrudgingly ally in Grey knights to my templars if it makes the Psychic phase too unpleasant without your own psyker . At least its the fluffiest option of a psyker to BT.
In WD #15.
UNBOUND ARMIES
If you’re a Warhammer 40,000 player you’ll be familiar with the Force Organisation chart. It’s still there in the new Warhammer 40,000, and if you follow it, our army is referred to as ‘Battle-forged’. A Battle-forged army is a very desirable thing as it gets certain in-game bonuses. But there’s another way to use our miniatures, and that comes in the form of taking an Unbound army. Basically, Unbound armies allow you to take whatever you want from your collection, and throw the Force Organisation chart out of the window (while still adhering to unit sizes and heeding the relationships described by the all-new Allies Matrix).
So what does this mean in practice? Well, let’s take my Black Legion army as an example. I love the thought of a force of rampaging Daemon Engines sent forth by a powerful Warpsmith, so I can now make an army composed entirely of Forgefiends, Heldrakes and Defilers. Similarly, Dan is so excited by the prospect of an Unbound army that he’s going to build an Astra Militarum strikeforce made up of Leman Russ battle tanks. Glenn, meanwhile, is salivating at the prospect of taking a Tau army that uses all his Riptides (last count: four) and lots of Broadsides. The possibilities are endless; the only limit to your games now are the models you have in your collection.
Thrilling stuff.
mercury14 wrote: If shooting at flyers is just -2 BS then the Crimson Hunter is unplayable.
Most flyers would take a huge nerf I imagine.
Huge. But a 185-point AV 10 flyer that has no defensive ability and gets hit on a 5+? Wow that's putrid. It's really unspeakably horrible. The Crimson Hunter is in the running for worst 40k unit now.
Huge. But a 185-point AV 10 flyer that has no defensive ability and gets hit on a 5+? Wow that's putrid. It's really unspeakably horrible. The Crimson Hunter is in the running for worst 40k unit now.
I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Everything in IA:11 needs an overhaul.|
That being said, Hornets can move flat-out for a 2+ cover save while still snap-firing to hit on a 5+ with pulse lasers. That's *(^#*&awesome.
While I'm not saying it's false, the -2 BS for snap fire rumor hasn't been confirmed by white dwarf or 40k radio, so it's validity could be questionable.
I'm hoping some early copies of the rulebook will be in players hands by the middle of next week.
Ah, everyone can use multiple Witchfires now... and then still shoot in the shooting phase. Pretty cool for Aspiring Sorcerers, I guess. Doombolt a Rhino, then let the squad dump AP3 bolters into the occupants if you pop it.. Or, Doombolt that Drop Pod for a 2d6" explosion while the squad shoots at some marines in the distance. Lots of options there..
But what does it mean for Ahriman's Black Staff? Being able to shoot 3 Witchfires was good before, now it won't mean anything unless they give us a faq/errata soon after 7th is released. I'm sure they will- they did it with 6th, right? What would be cool is if he can use the *same* one three times.. That would make it so you wouldn't be hunting Witchfires. Once you get one you like, the rest of your generation rolls can be for blessings/etc.
About Shadow in the Warp, what am I missing here? You still have to succeed a Ld test to cast a psychic power before you go on and try to 'manifest' the power by rolling dice from your warp pool. So SitW should still have its usual place.
Except unless I missed something, nothing we've seen suggests that Ld tests are still in place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: So I wonder if witchfire will have to snap fire after running?
This will largely depend on if Running has been moved to the movement phase. It looks like the Psychic phase is before shooting, so if you still Run in the shooting phase I'd go with "no, you don't have to snapfire witchfire powers after running".
N.I.B. wrote: About Shadow in the Warp, what am I missing here? You still have to succeed a Ld test to cast a psychic power before you go on and try to 'manifest' the power by rolling dice from your warp pool. So SitW should still have its usual place.
Where are you getting the leadership test from? I haven't heard anything about the new system using leadership tests.
Protoman2k wrote: I wonder how psychic movement powers (like Wings of Sanguinius) will work if the phase is after movement. Here's hoping for move 6", psychic phase move 12" (like jump pack). If that's the case I might have a reason to take Mephiston more.
Well it says that blessings last until your next PP. So you cast wings on your T1 then you use them in your T2 movement phase. Still works, just takes a round. It's definitely a nerf though. Same goes for scriers gaze. You will need to use it starting on T1 in preparation and heaven help if it's possible to cancel effects when you kill the bugger first.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?
Because I thought fliers had evade. I see your point though, seems like they are making the two rules one rather then idiotically having them different as they did in 6th.
Even if I don't like some of the rules, so far I do like that they are at least taking some time in the writing.
So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?
In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.
Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile.
New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile.
So paying for Agile with no benefit.
Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.
Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.
No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?
In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.
Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile.
New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile.
So paying for Agile with no benefit.
Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.
Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.
FMC got buffed. 1 Grounding test taken at the end.
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.
No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.
No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.
Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the APOCALYPSE book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?
In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.
Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile.
New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile.
So paying for Agile with no benefit.
Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.
Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.
FMC got buffed. 1 Grounding test taken at the end.
Yeah, that I saw. Which is a buff. But if the snap-shot rules are being 'loosened' I guess it would be somewhat of a nerf. But them being able to declare cover by having 1mm in terrain will be mental if they leave that as it is.
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.
No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.
Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.
I'm certain I've read in this thread that D weapons were changed to what I said.
Which is why people are saying they ignore invuls on a 6.
I'm not going to search through the thread to find it.
I am miffed that snap shots are now easier to hit, It really hurts average BS armies and assault armies whilst giving the units with decent stats (normally the ones able to hold their own in combat) an extra chance to kill off their assaulter.
On the flip side I wonder if AA will remove all jink saves now, other wise whats the point of spending points on a AA weapon when you can just take a bunch of Havocs with Autocannons and hit on 5+ or a load of dark reapers etc.
Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.
When you say you have the book on your knee, you mean Apocalypse, right? Because if you have the 7th edition book already you're about to suffer from a question avalanche
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.
No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.
Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?
In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.
Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile. New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile. So paying for Agile with no benefit.
Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.
Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.
Agile still gives benefits. Shrouded gives you a basic 5+ cover out in the open, improved by one by "agile" , so that's a 4+ cover save without requiring to "jink".
From what I understand, the way new V7 jink save works, appears similar to how it is in V6 for fliers. It's not a passive capacity, but a reaction you can opt to make or not, when shots are incoming. There is no need to declare a jink, if your opponent fails to hit your flier / skimmer / bike.
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.
No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.
Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.
I'm certain I've read in this thread that D weapons were changed to what I said.
Which is why people are saying they ignore invuls on a 6.
I'm not going to search through the thread to find it.
Yeah I keep seeing it repeated too I just couldn't see a source for it, guessing there were some crossed wires there.
Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.
When you say you have the book on your knee, you mean Apocalypse, right? Because if you have the 7th edition book already you're about to suffer from a question avalanche
Yeah I totally need to edit that before the barrage begins, though looking through too late eh .
Still knowing what my locals like it wouldn't surprise me if I got it early they always put white dwarfs out in the middle of the ruddy week.
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?
In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.
Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile.
New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile.
So paying for Agile with no benefit.
Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.
Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.
Agile still gives benefits. Shrouded gives you a basic 5+ cover out in the open, improved by one by "agile" , so that's a 4+ cover save without requiring to "jink".
From what I understand, the way new V7 jink save works, appears similar to how it is in V6 for fliers. It's not a passive capacity, but a reaction you can opt to make or not, when shots are incoming. There is no need to declare a jink, if your opponent fails to hit your flier / skimmer / bike.
I thought Agile only kicked in when you Jink? So it didn't stack with Shrouded normally? If so, I've been boning myself on my Nightwings. :-P
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I'm even wondering if my Nightwing Interceptors would be able to survive on a 7th Edition table. Before, their speciality was that their Jinking save was awesome...now their rules create a save that isn't even helpful. A 1+ Cover while Jinking? Sure, it may be armor value 11...but only 2 Hull Points.
Tau Barracuda is in the same situation. 11 11 10, 2 HP, +1 to cover if Jink...
If jink is a 4+ Then these flyers get a 3+...how is that worse?
In my example it isn't worse, simply redundant since the Nightwing comes with 'Shrouded'.
Old Rules while Jinking: 5+ Jink, 3+ with Shrouded, 2+ with Agile.
New Rules while Jinking: 4+ Jink, 2+ Shrouded, 1+ with Agile.
So paying for Agile with no benefit.
Not a huge deal, but if flyers are getting hit hard to begin with....those little smaller nerfs will add up quick.
Khaine willing, they hit FMCs as hard as they hit flyers.
Agile still gives benefits. Shrouded gives you a basic 5+ cover out in the open, improved by one by "agile" , so that's a 4+ cover save without requiring to "jink".
From what I understand, the way new V7 jink save works, appears similar to how it is in V6 for fliers. It's not a passive capacity, but a reaction you can opt to make or not, when shots are incoming. There is no need to declare a jink, if your opponent fails to hit your flier / skimmer / bike.
Sadly it does not. Agile improves Jink saves, not cover saves in general.
Ignatius-Grulgor wrote: So it could just be me but where exactly is this confirmation that 6's ignore invulns, because if it's the line I'm thinking of it doesn't say that at all, reads more like 'good luck passing 7-12 saves on each model' to me.
If you're talking about D weapons, it's because a 6 destroys the model, not gives X wounds. You can't save vs destroy.
You're thinking of stomp attacks, D weapons do D6+6 wounds on a 6 (unless you're a vehicle in which case it's explodes, or D6+6 HP for SH's). Unless there's another change I've somehow missed too.
No, if you read through the thread D weapons are 1: Nothing, 2-5: wounds that ignore cover, 6: destroy.
Are you talking about a page of 7th edition I've missed because I've got the book on my knee right now and it says D6+6 wounds, the ignores all saves is contained within the destroyer rule. I was just trying to ascertain where the talk of 7th edition D weapons ignoring invulns on a 6 was coming from, mostly cause I tend to use my daemons in apoc.
That's what I was looking for thanks, that definitely reads to me more like a case of 'good luck saving D6+6 wounds than 6's ignoring invulns to me, especially as that's currently the only official source! I'll shush now and go eat something I'm blaming my apparent incoherence on a hypo episode for posterity
First where has it been PROVEN you can take cover saves against D-Weapons? I just thought it was Invulnerable saves allowed only.
Second, so what if Cover Saves can be take. After all a blade of grass gave a cover save to the old Terror of the Deep rule a cover save and NOBODY except Nid players had any trouble with this.
Davor wrote: First where has it been PROVEN you can take cover saves against D-Weapons? I just thought it was Invulnerable saves allowed only.
Second, so what if Cover Saves can be take. After all a blade of grass gave a cover save to the old Terror of the Deep rule a cover save and NOBODY except Nid players had any trouble with this.
If cover saves can be taken against D weapons then they're ridiculously weak now.
I was told by my GW sales rep who has seen the book that you will get cover saves against a D weapon unless a 6 is rolled.
That said.....they sort of let 10 guys look at a book for a couple of hours, and I take most info with a grain of salt. They are all off Thur/Fri for a long weekend of "training"/Teambuilding. Hopefully someone brings the new 40k book and they can all read it before I have to place orders on Monday. I have lots more questions.
mikhaila wrote: I was told by my GW sales rep who has seen the book that you will get cover saves against a D weapon unless a 6 is rolled.
That said.....they sort of let 10 guys look at a book for a couple of hours, and I take most info with a grain of salt. They are all off Thur/Fri for a long weekend of "training"/Teambuilding. Hopefully someone brings the new 40k book and they can all read it before I have to place orders on Monday. I have lots more questions.
So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.
So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.
Awesome.
Maybe people forgot D weapons ever existed in standard 40k games and the game can inch a little closer into the realm of sanity.
So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.
Awesome.
Maybe people forgot D weapons ever existed in standard 40k games and the game can inch a little closer into the realm of sanity.
If D weapons grant cover saves they'll be apocalyptically stupid.
If the -2 BS on snapfires are true, things like the Avatar of Khaine just became a nightmare if a flyer gets in range. Even if not in melta range, still hitting on 2's against flyers is pretty crazy.
DId anyone else notice that for Witchfire powers, or precise Witchfires (or whatever they are called), if you exceed the casting cost in Warp Charge, you get to choose your target?
So what the heck is the source for the rumor that overwatch/snap shots are now just a flat -2 to BS? Because there's a LOT of discussion about it in the tactics forum and I haven't seen any proof whatsoever that that is even a thing.
WrentheFaceless wrote: D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents
I keep seeing people say this.
How? Seriously - how exactly are they "pretty much worse" than a Str10 AP1 weapon? They pen on a 2-5 for any vehicle. They auto-kill on a 6. They throw tons of wounds on multi-wound models.
Str10AP1 blast against Carnifexes in cover? maybe 2 wounds, not even a dead Carnifex.
D blast against Carnifexes in cover? Likely at least one dead Carnifex.
Really, the best solution to D weapons was to keep ignoring invuln saves, but allow cover saves (except for hellstorms). That makes them the counter to rerollable deathstars, and you'd also have the option of using normal Ignores Cover weapons to counter cover-reliant units.
Of course it's possible that Ignores Cover itself will be nerfed to a -2 or something (and that's what D-weapons get). I'm not putting any money on it though.
cover is ridiculously stupid easy to get these days.
As is getting ignore cover.
Not everyone plays tau
xttz wrote: Really, the best solution to D weapons was to keep ignoring invuln saves, but allow cover saves (except for hellstorms). That makes them the counter to rerollable deathstars, and you'd also have the option of using normal Ignores Cover weapons to counter cover-reliant units.
Of course it's possible that Ignores Cover itself will be nerfed to a -2 or something (and that's what D-weapons get). I'm not putting any money on it though.
I'd be ok with one or the other, but not both being taken.
Honestly a giant titan killing weapon being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post...srsly
It also seems like they took away SD as being a reasonable counter to invulnerable saves. I think they took the need bat a bit too hard to SD. The best part of SD, imo, was that it counterbalanced invulnerables. Allowing cover is even more silly. Probably should have been 4+ ignore invuln, always ignore cover.
I feel like my DE will be even weaker this edition given improved overmatched and skimmer nerf :/.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Honestly a giant titan killing weapon being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post...srsly
Honestly a giant worm erupting from under ground being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post... srsly.
Honestly a giant floating brain sucking the soul out of everyone around him being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post... srsly.
MajorTom11 wrote: Deeply apologize for asking if already asked, but has there been any news about changes to assault? That to me, seemed to be in dire need of fixing...
From info that's been gathered only thing that has changed is charging through difficult terrain is only -2" as well wounds in challenges spill over to the rest of combat.
So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.
Awesome.
Maybe people forgot D weapons ever existed in standard 40k games and the game can inch a little closer into the realm of sanity.
Which may seem great except for us poor Eldar players that had their prices go up dramatically due to having access to D-weapons on our vehicles almost exclusively. Having ANY unit be effectively usless in a game is bad for the game, nobody should wish that unless they're simply dolts.
Davor wrote: First where has it been PROVEN you can take cover saves against D-Weapons? I just thought it was Invulnerable saves allowed only.
Second, so what if Cover Saves can be take. After all a blade of grass gave a cover save to the old Terror of the Deep rule a cover save and NOBODY except Nid players had any trouble with this.
If cover saves can be taken against D weapons then they're ridiculously weak now.
What game are you playing where a weapon which essentially hits at S14 AP2 (because it still wounds T10 on a 2+) with d3+1 wounds (which is usually instant death bypassing EW unless you're an MC) is weak? Good lord. Considering that titans still get 4 large blasts of the damn things, they're more than powerful enough with cover saves, as in there's actually a reason to take things which aren't titans. Not to mention the C'tan would continue to ignore cover as it's weapon is a hellstorm. I mean, really.
That said, D weapons have always ignored cover saves and other, weaker weapons do as well - I would be surprised to see that change. Getting inv saves is a great buff though - Wraiths and Daemons are fast enough to get into contact with Titans now, where assuming that they'll still be unable to leave combat (likely, the designers don't seem to realise how dumb it is that things larger than infantry can be locked in combat and probably won't start now) they'll be crippled. On the other hand, the T C'tan has gotten even better with its 4++ and super speed boots. Basically, I anticipate that this will help with the OPness of Str D but I still expect it to be wildly broken and almost unplayable, just with less "my army is a titan, inq with divination and meaningless garbage which won't matter" lists.
WrentheFaceless wrote: D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents
I keep seeing people say this.
How? Seriously - how exactly are they "pretty much worse" than a Str10 AP1 weapon? They pen on a 2-5 for any vehicle. They auto-kill on a 6. They throw tons of wounds on multi-wound models.
Str10AP1 blast against Carnifexes in cover? maybe 2 wounds, not even a dead Carnifex.
D blast against Carnifexes in cover? Likely at least one dead Carnifex.
Considering cover saves are more readily available than invuln saves, and are easier to manipulate to get a better save vs invuln saves which are generally static. Unless the calculation for coversaves are changed so that 2+ cover isnt as easy to get anymore.
I'm fine with toning down D for normal play, but this is a bit too much
Which may seem great except for us poor Eldar players that had their prices go up dramatically due to having access to D-weapons on our vehicles almost exclusively. Having ANY unit be effectively usless in a game is bad for the game, nobody should wish that unless they're simply dolts.
My point is exactly that S: D weapons (and their carriers) have no place in a normal battle of 40k. D weapons currently make a lot of things useless, as they're a counter to everything and their platforms are prohibitively difficult to kill.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Honestly a giant titan killing weapon being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post...srsly
Honestly a giant worm erupting from under ground being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post... srsly.
Honestly a giant floating brain sucking the soul out of everyone around him being ignored because a guy hid behind a fence post... srsly.
My point is exactly that S: D weapons (and their carriers) have no place in a normal battle of 40k. D weapons currently make a lot of things useless, as they're a counter to everything and their platforms are prohibitively difficult to kill.
Have you played against a superheavy? They're not that hard to kill
If D weapons grant cover saves they'll be apocalyptically stupid.
Again,
Awesome
The game doesn't need D weapons. Nerfing them into oblivion is a step in the direction towards sanity.
No, you should not be hoping for stupid, incoherent rules. D weapons needed to be toned down but if any guardsman in cover can GTG and get a 3+ save against them that's just horrible game design.
WrentheFaceless wrote: D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents
I keep seeing people say this.
How? Seriously - how exactly are they "pretty much worse" than a Str10 AP1 weapon? They pen on a 2-5 for any vehicle. They auto-kill on a 6. They throw tons of wounds on multi-wound models.
Str10AP1 blast against Carnifexes in cover? maybe 2 wounds, not even a dead Carnifex.
D blast against Carnifexes in cover? Likely at least one dead Carnifex.
Considering cover saves are more readily available than invuln saves, and are easier to manipulate to get a better save vs invuln saves which are generally static. Unless the calculation for coversaves are changed so that 2+ cover isnt as easy to get anymore.
I'm fine with toning down D for normal play, but this is a bit too much
The real thing is that they should not be in normal play. They belong in apoc and apoc only.
So when a D weapon large blast hits a squad of 5 tac marines in a bush, it kills on average two guys. Assuming it doesn't scatter then it kills one or zero.
Awesome.
Maybe people forgot D weapons ever existed in standard 40k games and the game can inch a little closer into the realm of sanity.
If D weapons grant cover saves they'll be apocalyptically stupid.
What was "apocalyptically stupid" was bringing them into normal 40k in the first place.
Then play apoc. Apoc is great fun, but it is not made for competition. D weapons were never designed for competitive play.
Considering GW keeps reapeating that 40k wasnt designed for competitive play either, I dont see the problem.
I dont see Knights getting this much crap
If it makes you feel any better, I think Knights were a poor idea too.
And its not just about competitive play; its awful for casual play too. Different ideas of what fun is only further divides players. If they never existed in standard 40k and were left entirely in Apoc, it'd be one less thing a casual player would need to worry about when looking for an opponent/game.
Broken rules hurt casual players as much as, if not more, than competitive players. Strength D is not good for standard 40k.
Farseer Faenyin wrote:Which may seem great except for us poor Eldar players that had their prices go up dramatically due to having access to D-weapons on our vehicles almost exclusively. Having ANY unit be effectively usless in a game is bad for the game, nobody should wish that unless they're simply dolts.
Wrong type of D-Weapons. Str D, as in destroyer weapons, not D-weapon, as in distortion weapon, types.
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Have you played against a superheavy? They're not that hard to kill
There are varying degrees of SH. On one end, you have Baneblades and so on which, whilst good, are generally agreed to be fine for standard play.
Then there's Warhound Titans on Skyshields with 2 div psykers granting rerolls to scatter and rerolling saves. This category is nearly impossible to reasonably kill. Take out ignoring inv saves and I can instead take a T C'tan which is 1000x worse than a Wraithwing doing more damage both in and out of combat. Evidently you played against the former and not the latter, or you would understand why Str D is ridiculous.
Then play apoc. Apoc is great fun, but it is not made for competition. D weapons were never designed for competitive play.
Considering GW keeps reapeating that 40k wasnt designed for competitive play either, I dont see the problem.
I dont see Knights getting this much crap
If it makes you feel any better, I think Knights were a poor idea too.
And its not just about competitive play; its awful for casual play too. Different ideas of what fun is only further divides players. If they never existed in standard 40k and were left entirely in Apoc, it'd be one less thing a casual player would need to worry about when looking for an opponent/game.
Broken rules hurt casual players as much as, if not more, than competitive players. Strength D is not good for standard 40k.
I disagree, and i dont buy superheavies with D are as prevalent as you make them out to be. Casuals are probably not going to meet many people that order Forgeworld superheavies. Or drop the money for the plastic ones, only one of which has a D ranged weapon, the Vault/ctan
The more I hear arguments against D, the more I'm convinced people havent actually played again against it, they're just afraid of the 'boogeyman' at this point
There are varying degrees of SH. On one end, you have Baneblades and so on which, whilst good, are generally agreed to be fine for standard play.
Then there's Warhound Titans on Skyshields with 2 div psykers granting rerolls to scatter and rerolling saves. This category is nearly impossible to reasonably kill. Take out ignoring inv saves and I can instead take a T C'tan which is 1000x worse than a Wraithwing doing more damage both in and out of combat. Evidently you played against the former and not the latter, or you would understand why Str D is ridiculous.
How often does the later actually happen compared to the former? I doubt you run across all that man TFGs running the later scenario. Heck I own a warhound and I wouldnt do the later, I'm not that big of an ass.
Colpicklejar wrote: So what the heck is the source for the rumor that overwatch/snap shots are now just a flat -2 to BS? Because there's a LOT of discussion about it in the tactics forum and I haven't seen any proof whatsoever that that is even a thing.
I think it came from 4chan. Somebody posted a litany of stuff that is confirmed, but threw in this tidbit:
"Oh, and apparently snap fire has been changed to a -2BS modifier instead of the flat BS1"
That doesn't sound like he actually saw it. Plus -2 BS doesn't sound plausible. You're telling me I can drive 12" in my Rhino and shoot a multi-melta at a flyer at BS2? Nah.
Then play apoc. Apoc is great fun, but it is not made for competition. D weapons were never designed for competitive play.
Considering GW keeps reapeating that 40k wasnt designed for competitive play either, I dont see the problem.
I dont see Knights getting this much crap
If it makes you feel any better, I think Knights were a poor idea too.
And its not just about competitive play; its awful for casual play too. Different ideas of what fun is only further divides players. If they never existed in standard 40k and were left entirely in Apoc, it'd be one less thing a casual player would need to worry about when looking for an opponent/game.
Broken rules hurt casual players as much as, if not more, than competitive players. Strength D is not good for standard 40k.
I disagree, and i dont buy superheavies with D are as prevalent as you make them out to be. Casuals are probably not going to meet many people that order Forgeworld superheavies. Or drop the money for the plastic ones, only one of which has a D ranged weapon, the Vault/ctan
The more I hear arguments against D, the more I'm convinced people havent actually played again against it, they're just afraid of the 'boogeyman' at this point
There are varying degrees of SH. On one end, you have Baneblades and so on which, whilst good, are generally agreed to be fine for standard play.
Then there's Warhound Titans on Skyshields with 2 div psykers granting rerolls to scatter and rerolling saves. This category is nearly impossible to reasonably kill. Take out ignoring inv saves and I can instead take a T C'tan which is 1000x worse than a Wraithwing doing more damage both in and out of combat. Evidently you played against the former and not the latter, or you would understand why Str D is ridiculous.
How often does the later actually happen compared to the former? I doubt you run across all that man TFGs running the later scenario. Heck I own a warhound and I wouldnt do the later, I'm not that big of an ass.
I agree. And while I think they should be toned down especially vs vehicles, allowing full cover saves makes them ridiculously weak.
WrentheFaceless wrote: D weapons giving cover are pretty much worse than normal str equivalents
I keep seeing people say this.
How? Seriously - how exactly are they "pretty much worse" than a Str10 AP1 weapon? They pen on a 2-5 for any vehicle. They auto-kill on a 6. They throw tons of wounds on multi-wound models.
Str10AP1 blast against Carnifexes in cover? maybe 2 wounds, not even a dead Carnifex.
D blast against Carnifexes in cover? Likely at least one dead Carnifex.
Considering cover saves are more readily available than invuln saves, and are easier to manipulate to get a better save vs invuln saves which are generally static. Unless the calculation for coversaves are changed so that 2+ cover isnt as easy to get anymore.
I'm fine with toning down D for normal play, but this is a bit too much
Did I stutter? StrD is still significantly better than S10AP1. Go ahead - keep screaming "But cover!!11eleven!" as if it matters. Even. With. Cover. It's. Better.
Actually, GW should release a new giant model called the...Destroyer Destroyer that absorbs the power of D-weapons by nullyfing their effects in a 12'' radius around them.
120$ per model.
Oh, I just got a call. I'm on the GW design team now \0/
Did I stutter? StrD is still significantly better than S10AP1. Go ahead - keep screaming "But cover!!11eleven!" as if it matters. Even. With. Cover. It's. Better.
You apparently did stutter, and its not that much better for the cost of a D weapon, anything but a 6 its almost the same against a vehicle, against single would models, its ID either way on a failed save; multi wound models yes its better against those, slightly.
Did I stutter? StrD is still significantly better than S10AP1. Go ahead - keep screaming "But cover!!11eleven!" as if it matters. Even. With. Cover. It's. Better.
It's not that much better because each grants a 5+ cover save or 3+ GTG against things in cover. The probability of killing most things is very similar now.
I disagree, and i dont buy superheavies with D are as prevalent as you make them out to be. Casuals are probably not going to meet many people that order Forgeworld superheavies. Or drop the money for the plastic ones, only one of which has a D ranged weapon, the Vault/ctan
The more I hear arguments against D, the more I'm convinced people havent actually played again against it, they're just afraid of the 'boogeyman' at this point
The prevalence of super heavies that are underpowered/balanced has no relevance to a discussion on the power of strength D weapons. No one is saying a Vulcan Macharius is terrifying.
My point is, and has always been, that Strength D is a poorly thought out, and implemented rule for standard games of 40k.
I've read enough bat reps to understand that tourneys that have run LoW/Escalation are exceedingly one sided when D weapons are used.
Did I stutter? StrD is still significantly better than S10AP1. Go ahead - keep screaming "But cover!!11eleven!" as if it matters. Even. With. Cover. It's. Better.
You apparently did stutter, and its not that much better for the cost of a D weapon, anything but a 6 its almost the same against a vehicle, against single would models, its ID either way on a failed save; multi wound models yes its better against those, slightly.
Okay, so you've moved from "pretty much worse" to "not much better for the cost". That's something.
Against a Land Raider it's a Pen +2 on the die as long as you don't roll a 1. vs S10 which does nothing 1/2 of the time, glances 1/6 of the time, and pens 1/3 of the time. So it's not almost the same at all - it's significantly better.
In fact, it's better in every scenario except single wound models. Oh damn. Titan killers aren't perfect at wiping out something that is nothing like a Titan? Darn. What a shame.
WrentheFaceless wrote:
How often does the later actually happen compared to the former? I doubt you run across all that man TFGs running the later scenario. Heck I own a warhound and I wouldnt do the later, I'm not that big of an ass.
Rarely, but so what? The fact it can and does happen at all is indicative enough. I, and many others, believe that the game would be better if it couldn't be cheesed at all, rather than relying on players (especially newbies who're already flooded with a huge amount of information) to self-moderate. One is unbreakable and great design, the other is down to laziness and apathy.
WrentheFaceless wrote:
A riptide already being able to do that to MEQ units in cover is any different than this how?
He did say they weren't fun to face though. Unless you're arguing that it IS fun to face a Riptide ignoring cover, it sounds to me like you're agreeing with him.
Did I stutter? StrD is still significantly better than S10AP1. Go ahead - keep screaming "But cover!!11eleven!" as if it matters. Even. With. Cover. It's. Better.
It's not that much better because each grants a 5+ cover save or 3+ GTG against things in cover. The probability of killing most things is very similar now.
Only because you're looking at single wound models. Since the weapon was designed to destroy Titans, the fact that it has a weakness against single wound models (and not really a weakness - it just isn't significantly more effective against them) isn't surprising. In fact, it *gasp* makes sense.
cover is ridiculously stupid easy to get these days.
As is getting ignore cover.
Not everyone plays tau
Just off the top of my head, besides tau there is wave serpent shields, Astra mitarum orders, heldrake from CSM , abyssal staff from necrons, every other template weapon, and a psychic power in divination which is already the most popular psychic discipline... You don't think ignores cover is easy to get?
Sigvatr wrote: Actually, GW should release a new giant model called the...Destroyer Destroyer that absorbs the power of D-weapons by nullyfing their effects in a 12'' radius around them.
120$ per model.
Oh, I just got a call. I'm on the GW design team now \0/
/e:...with lots of skulls.
Instant promotion.
You must be talking about this void shield generator, right ?
Considering few use escalation in normal play because of the craziness of the current str.D, it's hardly surprising GW toned it down in an attempt to make lords of war more popular. If you really want super str.D just play apoc and use those rules. The change is really aimed at the 90% of casual and tournament players who won't use the rules in their current form.
The main point, to me, isn't that it's a nerf to D-weapons as a whole - they definitely were too strong on an overall scale. The big problem is that they were the hard counter to fethed up stuff like high invul saves. The problem is not the nerf to D-weapons. It's the resulting big buff for certain invul saves.
More like a buff to cover saves, relatively speaking. A guardsman going to ground in cover against them has just as much D weapon defense as a Terminator with a storm shield. And that's dumb.
The main point, to me, isn't that it's a nerf to D-weapons as a whole - they definitely were too strong on an overall scale. The big problem is that they were the hard counter to fethed up stuff like high invul saves. The problem is not the nerf to D-weapons. It's the resulting big buff for certain invul saves.
Good, there should never be anything which entirely negates the distinction between elite units and weaker ones. It's bad enough that they ignore toughness and AVIMO. The problem with these stupid invul saves is that they exist at all. The solution to game designers making the once rare and valuable save which protected from everything instead be quite commonplace is not to make another, even stronger thing which ignores even that. All that leads to is getting layers upon layers of saves, slowing down the game and always ramping up the power indefinitely. They should errata out the 2++ rerollables (or realistically any save rerolls/2++s, I have no idea who thought either would ever be a good idea) rather than introduce a gun which has no counter.
I disagree, and i dont buy superheavies with D are as prevalent as you make them out to be. Casuals are probably not going to meet many people that order Forgeworld superheavies. Or drop the money for the plastic ones, only one of which has a D ranged weapon, the Vault/ctan
The more I hear arguments against D, the more I'm convinced people havent actually played again against it, they're just afraid of the 'boogeyman' at this point
The prevalence of super heavies that are underpowered/balanced has no relevance to a discussion on the power of strength D weapons. No one is saying a Vulcan Macharius is terrifying.
My point is, and has always been, that Strength D is a poorly thought out, and implemented rule for standard games of 40k.
I've read enough bat reps to understand that tourneys that have run LoW/Escalation are exceedingly one sided when D weapons are used.
The prevalance of them have complete relevance when you're trying to compare the fact that they ruin casual games due to their prevalance.
The main point, to me, isn't that it's a nerf to D-weapons as a whole - they definitely were too strong on an overall scale. The big problem is that they were the hard counter to fethed up stuff like high invul saves. The problem is not the nerf to D-weapons. It's the resulting big buff for certain invul saves.
More like a buff to cover saves, relatively speaking. A guardsman going to ground in cover against them has just as much D weapon defense as a Terminator with a storm shield. And that's dumb.
No, it's not. It just means D weapons aren't designed for clearing out lots of troops. Almost like they were designed to be titan killers...
The main point, to me, isn't that it's a nerf to D-weapons as a whole - they definitely were too strong on an overall scale. The big problem is that they were the hard counter to fethed up stuff like high invul saves. The problem is not the nerf to D-weapons. It's the resulting big buff for certain invul saves.
High invul saves aren't the problem. Rerollable 2+ saves in general are the problem. The two builds that use them should see a decline due to the Psychic changes.
The prevalance of them have complete relevance when you're trying to compare the fact that they ruin casual games due to their prevalance.
I'm talking about D-weapons.
I'm talking about how they are an awful rule that hurts everyone, including casual gamers.
I'm not talking about any and all super heavies. I'm talking about Strength D weapons, and by extension, the carriers on which they sit. Those are the only super heavies I care about in this exchange, and they only matter because of the Strength D weapon they tote, which is what I'm discussing.
I'm talking about how they are an awful rule that hurts everyone, including casual gamers.
I'm not talking about any and all super heavies. I'm talking about Strength D weapons, and by extension, the carriers on which they sit. Those are the only super heavies I care about in this exchange, and they only matter because of the Strength D weapon they tote, which is what I'm discussing.
I hope I've made that clear to you.
Are you going to make a point?
My only superheavy is an Eldar Lynx. Now it's a complete turd.
The prevalance of them have complete relevance when you're trying to compare the fact that they ruin casual games due to their prevalance.
I'm talking about D-weapons.
I'm talking about how they are an awful rule that hurts everyone, including casual gamers.
I'm not talking about any and all super heavies. I'm talking about Strength D weapons, and by extension, the carriers on which they sit. Those are the only super heavies I care about in this exchange, and they only matter because of the Strength D weapon they tote, which is what I'm discussing.
I hope I've made that clear to you.
Are you going to make a point?
My point is there are many awful rules that make the game not fun and hurt everyone. I dont see why D 'crosses' the line where there is other more prevalent things ruining the game like deathstars, flyers, flying deathstars, psychic shenanigans.
Thats the point I'm making, why this gets whined about more than anything when there are more prevalent things ruining the game. how is this the straw that breaks the camel's back when tournaments are already pretty much deathstars vs deathstars, and superheavies are hardly used even without D.
All I'm seeing is complaints about a hypothetical boogeyman that could ruin the game if its used, rather complaining about the actual boogeyman that is 'ruining' the game thats used in every tournament.
SECURE OBJECTIVE 3:
Score 1 Victory Point is you control Objective Marker 3 at the end of your turn.
SUPREMACY:
Score D3 Victory Points if you control at least two Objective Markers and at least twice as many Objective Markers as your opponent controls at the end of your turn.
HUNGRY FOR GLORY:
Score 1 Victory Point if you issued a challenge during your turn. If you issued 3 or more challenges during your turn, score D3 Victory Points instead.
OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER:
Score 1 Victory Point if an enemy unit was completely destroyed during the Shooting Phase of your turn. If you completely destroyed 3 or more enemy units during the Shooting phase of your turn score D3 Victory Points instead.
Before I start, a brief review of 6th ed missions from my perspective.
The Relic - stupid, it gave a massive advantage to tau and eldar who got extra movement they likely did not intend on them getting. It often served to highlight the issue of tables without adequate terrain and the issues with first blood. I never enjoyed it and it made using a center los blocking piece of a terrain a nightmare to balance game wise.
Emperor's Will - stupid, it suffered for similar reasons to relic. First blood was huge like with relic and in all honesety the mission either ended in a tie most of the time or a very small margin victory (first blood). It encouraged gunline and sitting on your butt and did not make for a good scenario in my experience.
The Scouring - Stupid, I've played it twice and both times the division in objectives decided the game before it even started. The LVO managed to fix it by ensuring both sides had the same levels of objectives and dictated where certain objectives went. I think we all liked fast scoring in this, but it's the possibility for terrible unfair division in objective value that ruins it. If it was just like big guns except fast instead of heavy it'd be fine.
Big Guns Never Tire - Ok, it's basically crusade but heavy scores. I can dig it.
Purge the Alien - Terrible, likely the worst mission. Kill point missions are a drag, I've never enjoyed them. For starters, there's the obvious imbalance in rewarding armies with smaller unit counts. Flying circus's and fmc spam lists and knights (puke) don't need a reward for not playing the game. Even in matchups with fairly similar sized forces in terms of unit count, it's still not engaging, often both sides in my experience just play conservatively and never really take risks. Boring,
Crusade - Good, it's pretty much baseline 40k mission. If done right it with ample los blocking terrain it incentivizes armies to move and not just gunline and with higher objectives and decent spread it can really help spread both armies out across the whole board and make for smaller clashes that are more engaging. It still has issues, like all the missions. It's main problem has been the introduction of fortifications, which nessesitated both opponents knowing what side of the board will belong to them. Which leads to cynical objective placement (think both players just tossing their objectives 6 inches from their board edge). In 5th, neither side knew where they would start and that worked a lot better. Fortifications really messed things up.
The gist of how it works: "Apparently you draw a set of these pre-game, and trade them in for new ones once completed, or can discard one and re-draw once per turn, if you don't like your current hand." . Like all rumours, going with what we know, it seems we may have to number our objectives for the cards to work, no big deal there, grab a sharpie. So the first card gives you a vp for holding a specific objective at the end of your turn, that in and of itself isn't bad. However, if objective 3 isn't tied to a specific location on the board and is just the 3rd objective that was placed, what if it's one of the objectives in your zone, great you just got a free vp for picking up a card. Yeah.. to me this is a bit like why a lot of us have our issues with first blood, it often seems rewarded simply to whoever goes first.
Supremecy is also arbitrary. You possibly just rewarded the guy sitting on his butt while the other player is going on the attack. We already don't find gunline terribly fun and now the guy sitting in his deployment holding his 2 objectives to your none just got a vp lead that you may not be able to beat. Awesome. Or if you've got two and he's got one, you still have twice as many. 3 objective missions can but tough enough without rewarding the guy who was already rewarded with 2 objectives to your 1 from t he get go. At least its possible that scenario I described doesn’t occur and the only upside is at least it has some interaction with the mission/scenario at hand, which is more than I can say for the other cards we’ve been shown.
Hungry for glory seems more about adding legitimacy to terrible mechanic than anything else. Close combat is less common than shooting during the course of a game. You don't really need to incentivize cc oriented units to assault. At the same time there are plenty of situation where a challenge may be a no brainer (think guard sgt. vs daemon prince). Challenges are terrible and I really don't understand giving vp's for them, it's the same issue as kill points, you're not taking anything into account, killing 1 model can be the same as killing a 30 man unit which is apparently the same as a guard sgt, doing the most obvious thing when charged by an fmc character.
Overwhelming firepower, or basically kill points popping up randomly. Kill points are pretty terrible, and here you are thinking that now you've rolled crusade you won't have to deal with them other than secondary’s. At least with the secondary’s there's some context. I would think killing the enemy leader to be a valuable accomplishment. I don't know why first blood is important but we'll leave it there. I actually wished line breaker stacked, might reward aggressive play. This however is just more and it's random, it's not even tied to a type of unit so congrats for picking up this card.
The cards for me are a non-starter for organized play (tournaments). I've never felt particularly good having won a game because of first blood, I would have rather tied it. With that said, there have been some games where my opponent having gone first failed to get first blood,
In any case, I value being able to know where the score is turn by turn, I would rather win based on my decisions and actions, tactics, strategy. Random providence will always be a factor, we play with dice. Knowing the averages is still very important. Luck has won and lost me games, however it was always combined with some level of sound judgment, some involvement on the players part. If lucking out on getting cards just winds me the game, it doesn't seem enjoyable to me. Fun is subjective; this doesn't sound fun to me.
Crusade is my favorite mission and I would argue is the baseline 40k mission, the one that plays the best and makes the most sense. What I really like about it is both players know the score throughout the game, they can read each other’s actions and gauge what they’re doing or are about to do.
Some of the cards you might really have to work for it, you’ll likely discard those, others, you may literally have been given free vp’s because… narrative. The whole thing is the opposite of organic or player driven, it’s arbitrary as hell. The better you’re doing, the more cards you pickup which just pulls further and further away from the scenario you’re supposed to be playing.
Think of the stupidity even in a narrative game. Say there’s 3 bridges, each one with an objective marker but over the course of the game, more vps have been handed out for random stuff like declaring challenges. “we haven’t secured the bridges yet sir but our southern colonel’s honour remains solid”. Or kill points out the butt. Based on what we’ve been told, you’re not drawing 3 cards for the game, you’re drawing them every turn if you've made use of ones you held previously, that seems like way too much. There’s no guarantee you’ll be able to make use of a card the turn you draw it, but there is also a chance it’s auto rewarded the second you draw it (you’re on the objective in question, it’s your turn so you get to challenge ect).
There may be some potential for home brew scenarios that utilize the cards differently. As it stands now based on what we’ve been told, it doesn’t sound good.
From the sounds of it you can draw new cards every turn regardless of whether you used the cards you had. So from a 5-7 turn game you could both be whipping through like 15-21 cards each… scenario? What scenario? Yeah…
Couldn't agree more. Having super weapons wipe out entire squads in one shot in a 2000 pt game isn't fun.
A riptide already being able to do that to MEQ units in cover is any different than this how?
Umm...I don't recall mentioning riptides at all. Are you projecting a completely different argument onto what's being talked about? I thought the topic was D weapons and how they're entirely too strong for games of a certain scale.
If you must know, I do think Riptides are too powerful for what they cost, but not D level insane.
WrentheFaceless wrote: My point is there are many awful rules that make the game not fun and hurt everyone. I dont see why D 'crosses' the line where there is other more prevalent things ruining the game like deathstars, flyers, flying deathstars, psychic shenanigans.
Deathstars use psychic powers (currently) to be supremely effective. I'll address that under psychic shenanigans as normal deathstars aren't that bad.
Flyers? Not that bad, and being addressed by the rumored snap shot buff.
Flying Deathstars? Um... there aren't any?
Psychic Shenanigans are being addressed by a whole new psychic phase, with rumors like "Fail to cast a power, you can't cast it again" so if I really don't want you to cast Fortune, you aren't casting it.
Thats the point I'm making, why this gets whined about more than anything when there are more prevalent things ruining the game. how is this the straw that breaks the camel's back when tournaments are already pretty much deathstars vs deathstars, and superheavies are hardly used even without D.
Because tournaments currently aren't deathstar vs deathstar.
All I'm seeing is complaints about a hypothetical boogeyman that could ruin the game if its used, rather complaining about the actual boogeyman that is 'ruining' the game thats used in every tournament.
Then you're ignoring a gakload of complaints to make your argument look good. Even in this thread there's people talking about how annoying the psychic deathstars are and what the psychic phase is going to do to them.
My point is there are many awful rules that make the game not fun and hurt everyone. I dont see why D 'crosses' the line where there is other more prevalent things ruining the game like deathstars, flyers, flying deathstars, psychic shenanigans.
Thats the point I'm making, why this gets whined about more than anything when there are more prevalent things ruining the game. how is this the straw that breaks the camel's back when tournaments are already pretty much deathstars vs deathstars, and superheavies are hardly used even without D.
Well, I dislike all of those rules, and I wish they were fixed too.
However, with D weapons, they fundamentally ignore everything (currently) and are effective against everything bar flyers. The only effective counter to a strength D weapon is to bring another one, in which case the game turns into 'who brought the most efficient D platform', which isn't enjoyable for anyone. Flyers and psychic shenanigans have their counters, though some armies are typically worse off. Deathstars are a little more of an issue, as most can be split up to do some late game shenanigans.
I agree that those things are all bad aspects of the games rules.
D weapons however, were introduced to the standard game of 40k with no real thought as to their balance or inclusion. FW has a 25% cap on LoW, which rules out D weapons until 2k pts (and only a Shadowsword at that). While deathstars and their ilk are broken too, D weapons are the worst case of this. They kill everything, are incredibly resilient, especially when combined with easy and cheap force multipliers through psykers and fortifications, and are only afraid of someone doing the exact same setup in return.
Basically, D weapons and their associated LoW are the best example of the most lop-sided aspects of game balance in the rule set.
But yes, deathstars and such need fixing, and flyers don't belong in a 28mm game.
Don't know if this has been bought up at all (190 pages!!) but with the daemon summoning in the new edition, does anyone think that GW will finally release the plastic Greater Daemon kits soon??
Couldn't agree more. Having super weapons wipe out entire squads in one shot in a 2000 pt game isn't fun.
A riptide already being able to do that to MEQ units in cover is any different than this how?
Umm...I don't recall mentioning riptides at all. Are you projecting a completely different argument onto what's being talked about? I thought the topic was D weapons and how they're entirely too strong for games of a certain scale.
If you must know, I do think Riptides are too powerful for what they cost, but not D level insane.
Yes the talk is about D weapons, but there are already Units that exist that can essentially do the same thing to units. I'm still trying to see how D is worse than this, considering I see riptides every tournament, but narry a superheavy.
mercury14 wrote: Black, I agree with what you're saying. That's why D weapons should be fixed to work in the game.
No, they should be removed.
There fundamental nature is that of a titan killing weapon. If they're too weak, they won't be used; if they're too strong, everyone will spam them. They just don't simply belong within the realms of a standard battle in the sub 2k pts value. Anything above that, whatever, keep them as is.
There's no sensible reason why a 1500pts list can include a titan with S: D weapons.
Honestly, just make LoW choices a 25% cap of your points. That rules out all strength D until 2000pts where you can take a Shadowsword.
are sorta easy to scratch build Apocalypse titans for!
.
.
